FINAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
CHEROKEE COUNTY OPERABLE UNIT 8 RAILROADS SITE
CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
Architect and Engineering Services Contract EP-S7-Q5-05
Task Order: 0061
March 2016
vHGL
™ HydroGeoLogic, Inc
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
FINAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
CHEROKEE COUNTY OPERABLE UNIT 8 RAILROADS SITE
CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
Prepared by:
HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
6340 Glenwood, Suite 200
Building #7
Overland Park, KS 66202
March 2016
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 SCOPE OF WORK 1-1
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND REPORT ORGANIZATION 1-1
1.2.1 Objectives 1-1
1.2.2 Report Organization 1-2
1.3 SITE BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF PAST INVESTIGATIONS 1-3
1.3.1 Site Background 1-3
1.3.2 Previous Investigations 1-4
2.0 PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2-1
2.1 REGIONAL CLIMATE 2-1
2.2 REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY 2-1
2.3 SOILS 2-1
2.4 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 2-2
2.4.1 Geology 2-2
2.4.2 Hydrogeology 2-3
2.5 DEMOGRAPHY 2-4
2.6 LAND USE 2-5
3.0 STUDY AREA REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES 3-1
3.1 SITE VISIT 3-1
3.2 PROPERTY ACCESS 3-2
3.3 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL INVESTIGATION 3-2
3.3.1 Sample Collection and Preparation 3-2
3.3.2 Field Screening 3-3
3.3.3 Confirmation Samples and Data Correlation 3-3
3.4 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL 3-4
3.5 DEVIATIONS FROM THE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN 3-4
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM 4-1
4.1 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL 4-1
4.2 SAMPLE TRACKING PROTOCOL 4-1
4.2.1 Sample Identification 4-1
4.2.2 Documentation of Field Activities and Sample Collection 4-2
4.3 DATA MANAGEMENT 4-2
4.4 LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL 4-2
4.5 DATA QUALITY EVALUATION 4-3
4.5.1 EPA Region 7 Laboratory Data 4-3
4.5.1.1 Metals 4-3
4.5.1.2 Field Duplicates 4-3
4.6 QUALITY CONTROL ELEMENTS 4-4
4.6.1 Precision 4-4
4.6.2 Accuracy 4-4
4.6.3 Representativeness 4-5
4.6.4 Completeness 4-5
4.6.5 Comparability 4-5
U. S EPA Region 7
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
4.6.6 Sensitivity 4-6
5.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 5-1
5.1 COMPARISON CRITERIA 5-1
5.1.1 Background Soil Concentrations 5-1
5.1.2 Preliminary Remediation Goals 5-1
5.2 SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION 5-2
5.3 SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS 5-2
5.3.1 Surface Soil 5-2
5.3.1.1 Cadmium 5-2
5.3.1.2 Lead 5-3
5.3.1.3 Zinc 5-3
5.3.2 Subsurface Soil 5-3
5.3.2.1 Cadmium 5-3
5.3.2.2 Lead 5-4
5.3.2.3 Zinc 5-4
5.4 CONCLUSIONS 5-5
6.0 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT 6-1
6.1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS 6-1
6.1.1 Preliminary COPC Metals 6-2
6.1.1.1 Lead 6-3
6.1.1.2 Cadmium 6-4
6.1.1.3 Zinc 6-4
6.2 OVERVIEW OF FATE AND TRANSPORT PROCESSES 6-5
6.2.1 Contaminant Transport 6-5
6.2.2 Contaminant Fate 6-6
6.2.2.1 Degradation 6-6
6.2.2.2 Transformation 6-7
6.2.2.3 Bioaccumulation 6-7
6.3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 6-7
6.4 SUMMARY 6-8
7.0 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT 7-1
7.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 7-1
7.1.1 SUMMARY 01 III IRA APPROACH 7-1
7.1.1.1 Potentially Exposed Populations 7-1
7.1.1.2 Media of Concern and Exposure Pathways 7-1
7.1.1.3 Data Used in the HHRA 7-1
7.1.1.4 Chemicals of Potential Concern 7-2
7.1.1.5 Evaluation of Lead 7-2
7.1.1.6 Evaluation of Non-Lead Metals 7-3
7.1.2 SUMMARY 01 III IRA RESULTS 7-3
7.1.2.1 Lead 7-3
7.1.2.2 Non-Lead COPCs 7-4
7.1.2.2.1 Recreati onal Vi si tor 7-4
7.1.2.2.2 Construction Worker 7-4
U. S EPA Region 7
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
7.1.3 CONCLUSIONS 7-4
7.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 7-4
7.2.1 Problem Formulation 7-4
7.2.1.1 Potentially Exposed Populations 7-4
7.2.1.2 Media of Concern and Exposure Pathways 7-5
7.2.1.3 Chemicals of Potential Concern 7-5
7.2.1.4 Streamlined Risk Characterization 7-5
7.2.2 SUMMARY 01 ERA RESULTS 7-5
7.2.3 CONCLUSIONS 7-6
8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 8-1
8.1 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES 8-1
8.1.1 RI Scope of Work 8-1
8.1.2 Remedial Investigation Activities 8-1
8.2 ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION DATA 8-2
8.2.1 Screening and Confirmation Data Correlation 8-2
8.2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination 8-2
8.3 SUMMARY OF CONTAMINATE FATE AND TRANSPORT 8-2
8.4 SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS 8-2
8.4.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment 8-3
8.4.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment 8-3
8.5 CONCLUSIONS 8-3
9.0 REFERENCES 9-1
U. S EPA Region 7
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Confirmation Sample Summary
Table 5.1 Background Soil Concentrations
Table 5.2 Cadmium Screening Data - Surface and Subsurface Soil Range of Detections
Table 5.3 Lead Screening Data - Surface and Subsurface Soil Range of Detections
Table 5.4 Zinc Screening Data - Surface and Subsurface Soil Range of Detections
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 3.1 Former Rail Line Classifications and Sample Locations
Figure 3.2 Area 1 Sample Locations
Figure 3.3 Area 2 Sample Locations
Figure 3.4 Area 3 Sample Locations
Figure 3.5 Area 4 Sample Locations
Figure 3.6 Area 5 Sample Locations
Figure 3.7 Area 6 Sample Locations
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.4
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.6
Figure 5.7
Figure 5.8
Figure 5.9
Figure 5.10
Figure 5.11
Figure 5.12
Figure 5.13a
Figure 5.13b
Figure 5.14
Figure 5.15
Figure 5.16
Figure 5.17
Figure 5.18
Figure 5.19
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
Metals Concentrations
at Depth - Location 1
at Depth - Location 2
at Depth - Location 3
at Depth - Location 4
at Depth - Location 5
at Depth - Location 6
at Depth - Location 7
at Depth - Location 8
at Depth - Location 9
at Depth - Location 10
at Depth - Location 11
at Depth - Location 12
at Depth - Location 13-Lawton
at Depth - Location 13-Baxter
at Depth - Location 14
at Depth - Location 15
at Depth - Location 16
at Depth - Location 17
at Depth - Location 18
at Depth - Location 19
U. S EPA Region 7
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure
5.20
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
20
Figure
5.21
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
21
Figure
5.22
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
22
Figure
5.23
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
23
Figure
5.24
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
24
Figure
5.25
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
25
Figure
5.26
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
26
Figure
5.27
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
27
Figure
5.28
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
28
Figure
5.29
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
29
Figure
5.30
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
30
Figure
5.31
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
31
Figure
5.32
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
32
Figure
5.33
Metals
Concentrations
at
Depth - Location
33
Figure
6.1
Conceptual Site Model
LIST OF APPENDICIES
Appendix A Soil Survey Report
Appendix B Photographic Documentation
Appendix C XRF Instrument Calibration Checks
Appendix D EPA Sample Field Sheets and Chain of Custody Records
Appendix E Data Correlation Regression Analysis
Appendix F EPA Laboratory Analytical Data Package (Provided on CD)
Appendix G Field Duplicate Relative Percent Difference Calculations
Appendix H Dames and Moore 1993 Background Soil Sample Locations
Appendix I Field Screening Data Summary
Appendix J Human Health Risk Assessment
Appendix K Streamlined Ecological Risk Assessment
U. S EPA Region 7
v
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ALM
adult lead methodology
ASR
analytical services request
AT SDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
bgs
below ground surface
BLL
blood lead level
BNSF
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CCR
Cherokee County Site-Operable Unit 8 Railroads
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CEC
cation exchange capacity
CLP
Contract Laboratory Program
CoC
chain of custody
COPC
contaminant of potential concern
CSM
conceptual site model
CTE
central tendency exposure
DQE
data quality evaluation
DQO
data quality obj ective
EDD
electronic data deliverable
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPC
exposure point concentration
ERA
ecological risk assessment
FS
Feasibility Study
HGL
HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HI
hazard index
HQ
hazard quotient
ICP
inductively coupled plasma
ID
identification
IDW
investigation-derived waste
IEUBK
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
Koc
carbon/water partition coefficient
LCS
laboratory control sample
|ig/dL
micrograms per deciliter
mg/kg
milligrams per kilogram
MS
matrix spike
MSD
matrix spike duplicate
U. S EPA Region 7
vi
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OU operable unit
PARCCS precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, comparability, and sensitivity
ppb parts per billion
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC quality control
r2 correlation coefficient
redox reduction-oxidation
RI Remedial Investigation
RL reporting limit
RME reasonable maximum exposure
ROD Record of Decision
RPD relative percent difference
RSL regional screening level
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SOW Statement of Work
XRF x-ray fluorescence
U. S EPA Region 7
vii
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
FINAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
CHEROKEE COUNTY SITE-OPERABLE UNIT 8 RAILROADS
SITE
CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Remedial Investigation (RI) Report describes the site characterization and results of the RI
fieldwork completed for the Cherokee County Site - Operable Unit (OU)8 Railroads (CCR) site in
Cherokee County, Kansas. These activities were conducted by HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (HGL) to
support RI/Feasibility Study (FS) activities being completed under Region 7 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Architect and Engineering Services contract EP-S7-05-05, Task Order
0061.
1.1 SCOPE OF WORK
The RI component of the overall RI/FS was designed to collect data to characterize site conditions
to a sufficient level of certainty and to support the evaluation of remedial alternatives in the FS.
This RI Report presents and evaluates information and data from past investigations, details the
field efforts completed in support of the RI, and presents and evaluates the analytical results and
other data obtained during the RI field activities. EPA used the RI dataset to complete a Human
Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). The HHRA and
ERA evaluated whether current site conditions pose an unacceptable risk to human or ecological
receptors. EPA's HHRA and ERA are incorporated into the RI Report.
Data collected during the RI will be used in the FS to evaluate viable remedial options, and select
a remedy to eliminate, reduce, or control risks to human health and the environment. The FS report
will be submitted under separate cover. The ultimate goal of the RI/FS is to support development
of a Record of Decision (ROD) for the site.
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND REPORT ORGANIZATION
1.2.1 Objectives
The objective of the RI for the CCR site is to collect additional data necessary to support the FS
leading to a ROD. To accomplish this objective HGL conducted the following activities:
• Identified and mapped active and historical rail lines and their condition using a
pre-determined classification system;
• Determined the nature and extent of cadmium, lead, and zinc contamination in soil on and
adjacent to the rail beds (of the former rail lines) at the site that exceed established Federal
or State limits, or in the event such limits have not been promulgated, that pose human
health or ecological risks above acceptable limits.
U. S EPA Region 7
1-1
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County Ste-OU8 Railroads—Cherokee County, Kansas
• Updated and refined the conceptual site model (CSM) to ensure site characterization is
completed in sufficient detail to support decision making.
• Assessed actual and potential exposure pathways through affected media.
• Supplied the EPA risk assessors with the necessary data to prepare an HHRA and ERA.
• Prepared a comprehensive RI Report documenting the characterization work performed at
the site to support the identification and evaluation of potential remedial options in the FS,
with the ultimate goal of selecting an approach for site remediation in the ROD.
1.2.2 Report Organization
This RI report is organized as follows:
Section 1.0 - Introduction: Presents the purpose, scope, and objectives of the RI. The site
background, site history, and previous investigations are summarized.
Section 2.0 - Physical Site Characteristics: Provides a regional and site-specific overview of the
physical and environmental setting, including discussions of climate, topography, surface
drainage, soils, geology, and hydrogeology.
Section 3.0 - Study Area Remedial Investigation Activities: Discusses activities conducted for
the RI including property access, excavation of test pits for sampling, x-ray fluorescence (XRF)
field screening of surface and subsurface soils, and the collection of correlation samples for
laboratory analysis. In addition, sample data generated from the RI activities is presented.
Section 4.0 - Quality Assurance /Quality Control Program: Presents the quality assurance
(QA)/quality control (QC) procedures implemented at the field and laboratory level to assure that
data obtained were of sufficient quantity and quality to be used in decision making.
Section 5.0 - Nature and Extent of Contamination: Describes the extent of the cadmium, lead,
and zinc contamination in the surface and subsurface soils identified along the rail beds.
Section 6.0 - Contaminant Fate and Transport: Details the physical form of cadmium, lead, and
zinc and how they are expected to behave in the affected matrices. The chemical and biological
transformations that affect contaminant migration are presented.
Section 7.0 - Baseline Risk Assessment Summary: This section summarizes the HHRA and ERA
completed by EPA to support the RI. The HHRA and ERA were provided to HGL as standalone
reports and, for completeness, are provided in this RI Report as Appendices J and K, respectively.
Section 8.0 - Summary and Conclusions: This section summarizes historical and current site
data, the limitations of the data, and the conclusions that can be made from the total dataset.
Section 9.0 - References: Lists the references cited in the preparation of the RI Report.
U. S EPA Region 7
1-2
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County Ste-OU8 Railroads—Cherokee County, Kansas
1.3 SITE BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF PAST INVESTIGATIONS
1.3.1 Site Background
The Cherokee County Superfund Site spans 115 square miles and represents the Kansas portion
of the Tri-State mining district (Figure 1.1). The Tri-State Mining District covers approximately
2,500 square miles in northeast Oklahoma, southwest Missouri and southeast Kansas and was one
of the foremost lead-zinc mining areas of the world. The district provided nearly continuous
production from about 1850 until 1970 during which it produced an estimated 500 million tons of
ore, with about 115 million tons produced from the Kansas portion of the district.
The Tri-State Mining District is characterized by a variety of mine waste features that exhibit
sparse to no vegetation. Local stream systems also contain mining wastes and mining-impacted
sediments and surface water. Residential areas are adjacent to mine waste accumulations in some
areas or have suffered historic impacts as a result of smelting. Lead and zinc are found in mining
wastes and soils at maximum concentrations of several thousand milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg),
while cadmium is typically found at levels less than 500 mg/kg.
EPA has listed four mining-related Superfund Sites in the Tri-State Mining District: the Tar Creek
Site in Oklahoma; the Jasper County and Newton County sites in Missouri; and the Cherokee
County Site in Kansas.
The Cherokee County Site consists of mine tailings, soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater
contaminated with heavy metals (principally lead, zinc, and cadmium). The primary sources of
contamination are the residual metals in the abandoned mine workings, chat piles, and tailings
impoundments in addition to historical impacts from smelting operations. The Site was placed on
the National Priorities List in 1983. As listed, the Cherokee County Site encompasses 115 square
miles including the following seven subsites: Galena, Baxter Springs, Treece, Badger, Lawton,
Waco, and Crestline. These seven subsites encompass most of the area where mining occurred
within the Site and where physical surface disturbances were evident. These subsites have been
divided or grouped into the following OUs:
• OU1 - Galena Alternate Water Supply;
• OU2 - Spring River Basin;
• OU3 - Baxter Springs subsite;
• OU4 - Treece subsite;
• OU5 - Galena Groundwater/Surface Water;
• OU6 - Badger, Lawton, Waco, and Crestline subsites; and
• OU7 - Galena Residential Soils;
• OU8 - Railroads; and
• OU9 - Tar Creek Watershed.
OU8 comprises the portions of the rail lines within the Cherokee County Site that do not traverse
other OUs. During the years the mines operated, railroads were constructed in Cherokee County
to join conventional large-scale railroads to the individual mining operations. Figure 3.1 illustrates
the current and former rail line locations through the County. The ballast material used in the
railroad beds was composed of chat from surrounding mine waste piles. Traditionally, these
U. S EPA Region 7
1-3
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County Ste-OU8 Railroads—Cherokee County, Kansas
historical railroads were abandoned in place when mining operations ceased at that mine.
Currently, the historical rail lines that cross through private property vary in condition: some show
little deterioration from their original condition; others have degraded to the point they are
unidentifiable as former rail lines. Depending on the current use of the area, some former rail lines
exhibit extensive vegetative regrowth with a thick organic layer, while others have been
incorporated into the surrounding area. Some historical rail lines have been investigated and
remediated within other OUs. At some locations, some of the ballast may have been completely
removed in areas along the rail lines as a result of construction activities, such as highway cuts.
Recently, many rail lines were abandoned by railroad companies and reverted back to the property
owner through the Surface Transportation Board. Regional plans exist to convert some historic rail
beds to the national Rails to Trails program. This conversion program has begun in the Missouri
part of the region with potential expansion into Kansas. This potential change in land use affects
the exposure scenarios evaluated in the HHRA and ERA.
1.3.2 Previous Investigations
Numerous remedial and removal actions have taken place throughout the Site as noted in RODs
and Five Year Reviews for the various OUs. Only those segments of the rail beds that run through
other OUs or subsites at the Cherokee County Site have been investigated and remediated. This is
the first investigation of rail lines that are not associated with investigations at areas identified as
mining sites and characterized as part of another OU.
U. S EPA Region 7
1-4
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
2.0 PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This section presents descriptions of the regional climate and topography. Site-specific soils,
geology, and hydrogeology also are discussed along with a brief summary of land and groundwater
use in relation to the Site population.
2.1 REGIONAL CLIMATE
The climate is typical of the interior of large continents in the middle latitudes with large seasonal
variations in both temperature and precipitation. The temperature and precipitation data that
follows was provided by the Weather Data Library from the Department of Agronomy at Kansas
State University in Manhattan, Kansas (KSU, 2012).
The following averages are based on 1981 to 2010 hourly data from a weather station based in
Columbus, Kansas, which is just outside the Site area (Figure 1.1). The months listed below
represent the high and low temperature and precipitation months. The mean temperature for
January was 33.2 °F and, the mean temperature for July was 79.5 °F. The average daily minimum
temperatures ranged from 23.4 °F in January to 69.4 °F in July. Precipitation ranged from 1.63
inches in January to 6.28 inches in May, with an annual average of 45.34 inches. Snowfall
averaged 9.8 inches per year.
2.2 REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY
The topography in southeast Kansas is generally gently sloping, except in the river valleys and
areas of waste stockpiles and collapsed mine areas (Figure 1.1). Topographic relief in the stockpile
areas within the Cherokee County Site approaches over 50 feet. Topographic relief associated with
existing mine shafts and collapse features is on the order of 50 to 100 feet. Side slopes along the
collapse features are generally very steep. The site topography along the rail road lines follows the
regional topography.
The area generally east of the Spring River is in the Springfield Plateau section of the Ozark
Plateaus province and is typical of the hilly timbered land in the Missouri Ozarks. Local relief
between hilltops and stream valleys is as much as 200 feet in this area.
The county is drained by the Neosho and Spring rivers and their tributaries. Principal tributaries
of the Neosho River in Cherokee County are Lightning, Cherry, and Fly Creeks. Principal
tributaries of the Spring River are Cow Creek, Shawnee Creek, Shoal Creek, and Brush Creek.
2.3 SOILS
Appendix A provides a custom soil survey report with soil map for the site area from the Natural
Resources Conservation Service. There are five major soil groups in the project area are that
comprise approximately 80 percent of the soil cover in the site area:
• Hepler Group - Consists of deep, nearly level soils derived from alluvium of floodplain
and floodplain step areas, primarily in the Spring River System. This association covers
approximately 11 percent of the land and is considered prime farmland in areas where
flooding is controlled. The soil texture ranges from a silty loam to a silty clay loam.
U. S EPA Region 7
2-1
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
Permeability of these soils is moderately low to moderately high, and they are poorly
drained. Surface runoff is generally slow.
• Dennis Group - Composed of silt loam derived from silty and clayey residuum weathered
from shale. This group covers approximately 25 percent of the land and exists as interfluves
separating drainage areas. It is considered prime farmland. It is a well-drained soil with
low to high permeability.
• Taloka Group - Composed of silty loam to silty clayey loam derived from alluvium and
colluvium over sandstone and shale residuum. This group covers approximately 17 percent
of the land and exists as paleoterraces with 0 to 1 percent slopes. It is considered prime
farmland. The Taloka Group is somewhat poorly drained with very low to moderately low
permeability.
• Bates-Collinsville Group - Consists of loam to clayey loam derived from residuum
weathered from sandstone and shale. This group covers approximately 9.5 percent of the
land and exists as interfluves and hillslope soils on sandstone and shale residuum. It is
considered prime farmland. The Bates-Collinsville Group is well drained with low to high
permeability.
• Clarksville-Nixa-Tonti - Consists of gravelly silty loam derived from residuum weathered
from limestone. This group covers approximately 18 percent of the land and exists as
hillslopes and interfluves. It is not considered prime farmland. The Bates-Collinsville
Group is moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained with low to high
permeability.
Each soil association shows natural variability and is named for the maj or soil types within the unit.
2.4 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Cherokee County occupies parts of two physiographic provinces defined by Fenneman (1946).
Most of the county is in the Osage Plains section of the Central Lowland province, which
comprises the typical rolling prairie of eastern Kansas. Large parts of the county that are underlain
by easily erodible shale appear to be nearly flat. The southeastern corner of the county is in the
Springfield Plateau section of the Ozark Plateaus Province, which is an upland area dissected by
stream channels and karst features.
2.4.1 Geology
According to Description of the Surficial Rocks in Cherokee County, Southeastern Kansas
(Seevers, 1975), rocks exposed at the land surface in Cherokee County are mostly limestone and
shale of the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Systems, and silt, clay, sand, and gravel of
Quaternary age. The consolidated bedrock dip west/northwest at about 20 feet per mile, and
progressively older rocks, therefore, are exposed from west to east. Most of the study area is
underlain by the Krebs Formation; however, the formation is absent in the southeastern part of
Baxter Springs, where the Mississippian System carbonate rocks can be found at the surface.
Unconsolidated deposits of silt, clay, sand, and gravel of Quaternary age fill stream valleys incised
into the older rocks. The following is a generalized stratigraphic column of the geologic units
found in Cherokee County.
U. S EPA Region 7
2-2
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
S\ sicm/
Series
(>eoln:Je I nil
Description
A\eniiie
Thickness
(leeI)
Qualei'llal'y/
Pleistocene
Alluvium
Sill, and silly sand, gray lu gi'ayish-bi'uwii, hniumle slained ill
part; contains some sand and medium to coarse gravel at base.
3o
Terrace deposits
25
Pennsylvanian
Fort Scott
Limestone
Limestone, light-gray to brownish-gray, and black to light-
gray shale.
20
Cabaniss
Formation
Shale, light- to dark-gray; contains siltstone, limestone,
sandstone, and coal.
225
Krebs Formation
Shale, light- to dark-gray, and fine- to medium-grained
sandstone; contains coal, underclay, siltstone, and some
limestone locally.
225
Mississippian
Undifferentiated
rocks of the
Chesteran Series
Limestone, shaly, and calcareous shale; contains some oolitic
limestone and sandy shale.
120
Warsaw
Limestone
Limestone, crinoidal; contains much gray chert. Base marked
by glauconite-rich layer known locally as the "J-bed".
Contains deposits of lead and zinc of commercial value.
180
Burlington-
Keokuk
Limestone
Limestone, medium to coarsely crystalline, bluish-gray, and
gray chert; contains oolitic limestone near top. Cherty parts
weather to characteristic reddish-brown color. Contains
deposits of lead and zinc of commercial value.
130
Fern Glen
Limestone
Limestone. Reeds Spring Limestone Member (upper unit) is
cherty, finely crystalline, bluish- gray. Contains deposits of
lead and zinc of commercial value. St. Joe Limestone Member
(lower unit) is crinoidal, dolomitic in part, green.
170
Northview Shale
Calcareous gray-green shale.
55
Compton
Limestone
Greenish-gray shaly limestone; general chert free.
25
Devonian
Chattanooga
Shale
Fissile black shale; generally not present in study area.
10
Ordovician
Undifferentiated
Cotter and
Jefferson City
Dolomites
Cherty dolomite and sandstones.
380
Roubidoux
Formation
Sandy dolomite with chert.
175
Gasconade
Dolomite
Light-gray coarse crystalline dolomite; lower part composed
of sandy dolomite.
250
Cambrian
Eminence
Dolomite
Medium to massive bedded light gray coarse-grained
dolomite.
185
Bonterre
Dolomite
Medium to fine crystalline dark gray-brown dolomite.
185
Reagan Sandstone
Medium to coarse-grained sandstone grading upwards to
shale and dolomite.
135
2.4.2 Hydrogeology
The Site lies within the Ozark Plateau aquifer system (Imes and Emmett, 1994). Locally there are
two aquifer systems, a shallow system and a deep system. The Warsaw Limestone, the Keokuk
Limestone, and the Fern Glen Limestone comprise the shallow aquifer system known as the
Springfield Plateau aquifer. This shallow aquifer lies at a depth of approximately 250 feet below
ground surface (bgs) (Imes and Emmett, 1994). In addition, water from this shallow aquifer system
U. S EPA Region 7
2-3
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
is generally poor quality and the water is generally not used for domestic or stock supplies. Based
on water level data from 1981, regional flow in the shallow aquifer system is to the west/northwest
(Dames & Moore, 1993). The primary source of recharge to the shallow aquifer system is
precipitation and infiltration in the area of exposed Mississippian formations that comprise the
aquifer (Imes and Emmett, 1994).
The Northview Shale, Compton Limestone, and Chattanooga Shale underlying the shallow aquifer
system do not yield water. They form an aquitard approximately 20 feet thick that separates the
Springfield Plateau aquifer from the deep aquifer system known as the Ozark aquifer. The top of
the deep Ozark aquifer lies at a depth of approximately 500 feet bgs (Imes and Emmett, 1994).
The deep aquifer system is composed of Ordovician and Cambrian-aged dolomites:
Undifferentiated Cotter and Jefferson City dolomites, the Roubidoux Formation, and the
Gasconade and Eminence dolomites. Groundwater flow within this aquifer system in Cherokee
County is to the west. The aquifer recharges in the east in Missouri where the aquifer units outcrop.
The Ozark aquifer is the primary source of water for the public, industrial, domestic, and stock
supplies within the county. Deteriorating water quality in the deep aquifer system prompted the
plugging of 26 deep wells in the Baxter Springs and Treece areas as part of Tar Creek remediation
(Dames & Moore, 1993).
Both aquifer systems exhibit confined conditions except in the eastern portion of the county where
the host rocks (Mississippian-aged) for the Springfield aquifer are exposed at the surface.
2.5 DEMOGRAPHY
In 2014, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of Cherokee County to be
20,787 people. This is a 3.8 percent decrease in population from the 2010 Census. At the time of
the 2010 Census, Cherokee County had a population of 21,603 people and 7,936 households. Of
these, 30.5 percent of the households had an individual under 18 years of age (U.S. Census Bureau,
2014) as follows:
• 1,398 (6.5 percent) were under age 5,
• 1,512 (7.0 percent) were 5 to 9 years old,
• 1,586 (7.3 percent) were 10 to 14 years old, and
• 1,436 (6.6 percent) were 15 to 19 years old.
The effects of lead poisoning are most prominent in children under the age of 6, and this is the
demographic of most concern for this investigation.
The 2014 Census reported that Cherokee County encompassed 588 square miles with a population
density of 36.8 persons per square mile. The average household size was 2.65 persons. The median
age for women was 41.7 years and the median age for men was 39.3 years. The total population
median age was 40.5 years. The distribution of races that reside in Cherokee County are listed
below by percentage (highest to lowest).
• 90.7 percent - White
• 4.1 percent - American Indian and Alaska Native
• 2.1 percent - Hispanic or Latino of any race
U. S EPA Region 7
2-4
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
• 2.0 percent - Other Race
• 0.7 percent - Black or African American
• 0.4 percent - Asian
2.6 LAND USE
Land use throughout the Cherokee County Site OUs is approximately 60 to 70 percent agricultural
- both row crops and pasture land (Dames and Moore, 1993). Rural light industry and commercial
facilities are scattered throughout the Site, but clustered primarily around the largest community
of Baxter Springs. The 1993 RI Report provides additional details of sitewide land use (Dames &
Moore, 1993).
The rail lines include sections of active railroad traffic and lines that are no longer in service in
various stages of disrepair. Some inactive sections are privately owned and are situated in rural or
residential settings. Section 3 discusses the classification of the rail lines investigated as part of the
RI.
U. S EPA Region 7
2-5
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
3.0 STUDY AREA REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
This section describes the sampling conducted during the RI field activities to meet the RI
objectives defined in Section 1.2. Field activities were conducted in 2013 during three separate
events sequenced to accommodate access from property owners and the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe (BNSF) railroad company: May 8, 9, and 10; June 10, 11, and 12; and December 2, 3, and 4.
Field activities conducted during the RI included:
• Inspection and classification of condition of rail lines in the OU8 study area;
• Excavation of test pits across the rail line ballasts to determine the fill/native soil interface
and allow at-depth sampling;
• Collection of surface and subsurface soil samples for field screening using a field-portable
XRF spectrometer; and
• Collection of confirmation samples for analysis by the EPA Region 7 Laboratory.
Generally, field activities were conducted according to the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
(HGL, 2013b). Section 3.5 discusses deviations from the SAP. Appendix B provides photographic
documentation of the field activities.
It should be noted that the RI scope of work did not include collection of groundwater or surface
water and sediment samples. These media will not be discussed further in this report.
3.1 INSPECTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF RAIL LINES
On March 7 and 8, 2013, HGL and EPA inspected former rail lines within OU8, classified the
condition of the beds and the surrounding areas, identified locations for subsequent test pits and
sampling, and identified property owners for initial access activities (HGL, 2013a). Rail lines were
classified by the condition of the beds and the surrounding areas, as follows:
• Class 1 lines were beginning to deteriorate and there was no evidence of ties, or they were
broken down, and there was some weathering of the rail bed (but the topography of the rail
bed was visible).
• Class 2 lines were deteriorated with no ties, and the rail bed is discontinuous, or has been
weathered extensively.
The former rail lines also were classified on whether the surrounding area was rural, either
agricultural or wooded with little or no human exposure, or residential.
Based on the findings of the field reconnaissance, a map was assembled showing locations where
the classification was confirmed by on-site reconnaissance as well as assumed classifications of
rail line segments based on nearby confirmed classifications. An interim report of the site visit for
inspection and classification of rail lines was submitted to EPA to guide subsequent sampling
efforts (HGL, 2013a).
U. S EPA Region 7
3-1
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
3.2 PROPERTY ACCESS
Property access was obtained through access agreements signed by either the property owner (for
abandoned segments that reverted to private ownership, or from BNSF (for segments retained by
the company). HGL mailed EPA access agreements to the private property owners identified as
owning abandoned rail lines. Access for BNSF-owned rail lines was coordinated through their
contractor at Jones Lang LaSalle America, Inc., and was approved in October, 2013. Whenever
possible, existing access agreements in the other OUs for the Site were used.
3.3 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL INVESTIGATION
3.3.1 Sample Collection and Preparation
Test pits were excavated with a backhoe across the rail ballasts at 34 locations identified during
the reconnaissance (see Section 3.1). The 34 test pit sample locations were selected to represent
varying rail bed conditions, classification, and geographical locations across the site. A total of
102 test pits were excavated. At each test pit location, grab samples were collected at 6-inch
intervals from the surface to a depth of 4 feet (48 inches) (Figures 3.1 through 3.4). Depending on
the location, one to five test pits were excavated and sampled. The test pit number (e.g. Test Pit
2A) corresponds with the sample location on the figures. The alphabetic (e.g. A) designation
indicates a particular test pit at sample location 2 (in this example). There were 68 primary (parallel
to the rail bed) test pits and 34 lateral (perpendicular to the rail bed) test pits. It should be noted
that some sample locations did not have lateral test pits, while other locations had multiple lateral
test pits.
The first day of sampling, soil from each interval was collected from the backhoe bucket, placed
in a disposable aluminum pan, homogenized, and transported to the vehicle for XRF field
screening. This process was modified after the initial day of sampling: the samples were collected
from the bucket, placed into plastic bags and homogenized, then sealed. Using a plastic bag rather
than a pan allowed the samples to be more easily transported to the field vehicle for XRF screening,
and with less potential for cross contamination among other samples. Each bag was labeled with
the alphanumeric test pit location and sample depth interval. XRF screening of the 587 samples
collected from the test pits are discussed in Section 3.3.2.
Primary test pits were oriented parallel to the rail bed. The SAP proposed that at half the test
pit/sampling locations, lateral test pits be excavated perpendicular to the rail bed to visually assess
how far the ballast extended from the center of the rail bed and its thickness. At some test pit
locations, it was not possible to excavate laterally from the rail bed centerline due to the presence
of heavy overgrowth or water-filled drainage ditches. Where possible, the sample was collected at
a location lateral from the rail bed centerline where there was no visible chat. These samples were
collected using a shovel from the 0 to 6-inch and 6 to 12-inch interval to determine whether a clean
boundary was located. The distance from the centerline of the rail bed was recorded for each of
the lateral sample locations.
After the samples were collected, each test pit was backfilled with the excavated material and
tamped into place using the backhoe bucket.
U. S EPA Region 7
3-2
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
The backhoe bucket and shovel was decontaminated between Test pit locations, in accordance
with the procedures outlined in the SAP (HGL, 2013b). The sampling supplies were disposable
single-use materials.
It should be noted that the RI did not include a site-specific background study to determine
naturally occurring levels of the metals of concern in soil in Cherokee County. Previous
background soil sample data are discussed in Section 5
3.3.2 Field Screening
The 587 surface and subsurface soil samples were screened in the field using a portable Niton™
XRF instrument supplied by EPA. The analytical method employed was EPA Method 6200 Field
Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry for the Determination of Elemental Concentrations in
Soil and Sediment (EPA, 2007).
Three XRF readings and their respective uncertainty values were recorded, averaged, and
documented for the metals cadmium, lead, and zinc at each interval. Uncertainty values were
expressed as a +/- error value. In accordance with the SAP, all three readings had to be within 10
percent of each other; otherwise, the sample was remixed and XRF readings taken until the ± 10
percent criteria was achieved. If the concentration was below the instrument level of detection, the
"<" symbol was recorded along with the detection level.
The XRF calibration was confirmed with check standards at the beginning of each day, and when
the battery on the unit was changed. Appendix C provides a table of the standards and calibration
check results. Further description of daily QC checks are discussed in Section 4.5.2 of the EPA-
approved SAP (HGL, 2013b). The field screening results are discussed in Section 5.
3.3.3 Confirmation Samples and Data Correlation
The suitability of XRF data for use in decision-making was assessed by submitting confirmation
samples and evaluating the correlation of XRF data to fixed-lab data. Confirmation samples were
collected from the same homogenized material as the associated field screening sample, packed in
8-ounce jars, labeled, and submitted to the EPA Region 7 laboratory.
From the 587 samples screened on site, 76 samples (including field duplicates) were submitted for
confirmation analysis. This represents 12.9 percent confirmation of the samples screened in the
field, which exceeds the 10 percent prescribed in the EPA-approved SAP. Confirmation samples
were selected to represent a range of XRF readings from highest to the lowest lead concentrations.
Confirmation samples were analyzed by the EPA Region 7 laboratory using EPA SW846 Method
6010C for cadmium, lead, and zinc. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the confirmation samples,
which included duplicates. The field sheets and chain of custody (CoC) records for the
confirmation samples are provided in Appendix D.
Field QC consisted of the collection and analysis of duplicate samples for confirmation analysis.
Nine field duplicate samples were collected for laboratory analysis, which is 11.8 percent of the 76
total confirmation samples. This exceeds the 10 percent required by the SAP (HGL, 2013b). All
U. S EPA Region 7
3-3
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
duplicate samples were uniquely identified and documented in the field logbook and on field sheets.
The QA/QC program for the RI is discussed in detail in Section 4.0.
The relationship between the lead XRF and laboratory data was evaluated by calculating the
correlation coefficient (r2) between the XRF result and laboratory result. According to EPA Method
6200 employed for the XRF screening, an r2 of at least 0.7 is considered to be acceptable screening
level data. Appendix E Table E.l provides the laboratory and field screening data for comparison.
Appendix E Figure E.l shows the regression analysis of the XRF and confirmation datasets. As
shown on the figure, r2 was 0.821 for the correlation between the laboratory and field screening data.
It should be noted that the data was log-transformed to standardize the variance, as directed by EPA
Method 6200 because the data for the field XRF screening measurements and the laboratory data
each spanned more than an order of magnitude.
3.4 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL
Investigation-derived waste (IDW) generated during the field activities consisted of disposable or
expendable materials such as single-use sampling supplies and gloves. These items were placed in
garbage bags for disposal as household solid waste. No soil IDW was generated—soil collected
from the test pits was returned to the collection location, unless it was submitted to the laboratory
for analysis.
3.5 DEVIATIONS FROM THE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
Sample collection deviations from the EPA-approved SAP (HGL, 2013b) that occurred during the
RI/FS field activities are as follows:
• The SAP estimated sample collection from approximately 100 locations. Based on the
findings of the site reconnaissance and property access, 34 locations were selected with
EPA approval. Depending on the conditions at each location, 1 to 5 test pits were excavated
at each sampling location.
• Lateral test pits were planned at the projected 100 sampling locations. Because of heavy
vegetation, standing water, and the reduced number of sampling locations, 34 lateral test
pits were excavated (see Section 3.3.1).
• Fewer test pits were required than those initially planned because of the consistent nature
of the materials found within the rail beds at most locations.
U. S EPA Region 7
3-4
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
This section describes the QA/QC program utilized during the RI/FS. The data quality objectives
(DQOs) are described in the 2013 Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Region 7's
Superfund Lead Contaminated Sites (EPA, 2013), which is included in the SAP (HGL, 2013b).
Key components of the QA/QC program include sample tracking and management, field QC, data
management, and laboratory QC. The usability and applicability of the RI/FS data can be
determined through evaluation of RI/FS activities from sample collection to laboratory analyses
against the requirements of the various aspects of the QA/QC program. The overall quality of the
data collected is presented in the data quality evaluation (DQE) in Section 4.5. The following
sections discuss each aspect of the QA/QC program.
4.1 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL
During the RI, field QC samples were collected to evaluate sampling techniques as specified in
the SAP. Sample labels were preprinted to facilitate sample tracking from the field, through the
laboratory, to the final report. Documentation of sample collection was performed in the field to
ensure that sample labeling and request for analyses were in agreement and traceable back to the
correct field sample. In accordance with the SAP, the field QC samples consisted of field
duplicates of confirmation samples as described below.
A field duplicate is a second sample collected in the same location as a field ("parent") sample.
Duplicate samples are collected simultaneously, or in immediate succession, to the parent sample,
using identical recovery techniques. The parent and duplicate are treated in an identical manner
during transportation, storage, preparation, and analysis. Duplicate sample results are used to
assess the precision of the sample collection process and the representativeness of the sample
matrix. Field duplicate samples were labeled using the parent sample identification (ID) with an
"FD" suffix. For the soil samples, field duplicates were collected as a split fraction of the samples,
rather than co-located.
Matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples were assigned by EPA Region 7
Laboratory from the samples submitted to the laboratory by field personnel.
4.2 SAMPLE TRACKING PROTOCOL
4.2.1 Sample Identification
Since all samples were being analyzed by the EPA Region 7 laboratory, a unique identifier for
tracking and management purposes was pre-assigned and preprinted on sample labels. The sample
numbers consisted of the Analytical Services Request (ASR) number, and a sequential number for
each sample (1, 2, etc.). Field duplicates were identified with an "-FD" at the end of the ASR and
sample numbers.
The location of each sample, as well as time and date of sample collection and requested analyses
were recorded on a field sheet completed for each sample. An alphanumeric coding system was
used to identify each sample location as outlined in the SAP (HGL, 2013b) with minor adjustments
once in the field. An example sample designation follows:
U. S EPA Region 7
4-1
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
CCR - SO - 2A - 6-12
CCR = Cherokee County Railroads Site
SO = Surface soil sample or SS for subsurface sample
2A = test pit location
6-12 = the 6-inch interval from which the sample was collected.
Field duplicate associations for confirmation samples were recorded by the Field Team Leader in
the field logbook and on the appropriate field sheets.
4.2.2 Documentation of Field Activities and Sample Collection
All identification and tracking procedures for samples were conducted in accordance with Section
5 of the SAP. The alphanumeric coding system detailed in Section 4.2.1 above was employed to
uniquely identify each sample collected during the field investigation. For samples that were
shipped to the EPA Region 7 laboratory for analysis, sample numbers were pre-assigned by EPA
Region 7 laboratory personnel and preprinted on sample labels. The sample numbers consisted of
a number designating the ASR number, and a sequential number for each sample (1, 2, etc.).
The location of each sample, time and date of sample collection, and requested analyses, were
recorded on a field sheet completed for each sample. CoC forms were used to identify, track, and
monitor each individual sample from the point of collection through final data reporting. Appendix
D provides the field sheets and CoC records.
4.3 DATA MANAGEMENT
The data used to prepare the RI report were obtained from a combination of sources, including
XRF screening results and fixed laboratory analytical data. The process of data gathering was a
coordinated effort by project staff in conjunction with all data producers. The fixed laboratory data
generated during this sampling event was obtained from the EPA Region 7 laboratory in the form
of an electronic data deliverable (EDD) in addition to the required hard copy analytical data
package (Appendix F). The standard data management software is SCRIBE for all analytical data
to be submitted electronically by HGL.
The laboratory data was used in the preparation of the RI and baseline HHRA and ERA reports
prepared by EPA. As a part of the QC review procedures for preparation of this RI Report, the data
has been further checked by technical reviewers and a QC Coordinator to verify its accuracy in the
RI Report.
4.4 LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL
The laboratory QC program, including sample handling, laboratory QC elements, and data
reporting, was conducted in accordance with the EPA Region 7 Generic QAPP for Superfund
Lead-Contaminated Sites (EPA, 2013). In addition, HGL completed a QAPP Addendum to address
site-specific elements within the Generic QAPP. The addendum and EPA Generic QAPP were
provided as Appendix A of the SAP (HGL, 2013b)
U. S EPA Region 7
4-2
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
Sample handling includes documentation of sample receipt, placement in storage, controlled
sample access, and disposal. Laboratory QC elements consist of instrument calibration and
maintenance, laboratory control samples (LCSs), method blanks, MS/MSD samples, and method-
specific QC checks.
4.5 DATA QUALITY EVALUATION
This section describes the DQE of analytical results of samples collected during the RI. The
objective of the DQE is to provide a professional evaluation of the analytical data packages
submitted by the laboratory. The DQE includes a review of laboratory and field QC data, and an
overall evaluation of data labeled as usable, usable with qualification, and unusable. The following
qualifiers were used during the data validation process:
J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
U = The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit.
Analytical results of environmental and QC samples submitted for analysis to the EPA Region 7
laboratory were received by HGL as validated data. Field QC performance was assessed through
the evaluation of field duplicates, documentation, and sample handling.
The DQE for each analytical procedure is presented in the subsections below. Each subsection
identifies the number of results determined to be unusable and those results that were usable with
qualification. There were no rejected results.
4.5.1 EPA Region 7 Laboratory Data
Analytical data reports were received from the EPA Region 7 laboratory in both hard copy and
EDD format. EPA validates its own data prior to providing it to HGL. The HGL project chemist
performed a quality check of the EPA results by reviewing sample numbers versus CoC forms and
EPA field sheets for consistency and completeness. The qualifiers added by the EPA validator
were reviewed to determine usability of the results, as were the results of field QC samples.
4.5.1.1 Metals
Soil samples were analyzed (SW846 Methods 60IOC) for lead, zinc, and cadmium using the EPA
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) method. In total, 76 metals samples were generated. All the
samples submitted for analysis were analyzed within the hold times. The overall completeness of
the EPA laboratory metals analyses was 100 percent, which is acceptable for the soil samples.
4.5.1.2 Field Duplicates
Nine field duplicate pairs were submitted to the Region 7 EPA Laboratory for lead, zinc and
cadmium analysis. No data were rejected due to field duplicate outliers. A summary of all duplicate
pairs can be found in Appendix G Table G.l.
U. S EPA Region 7
4-3
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
4.6 QUALITY CONTROL ELEMENTS
Analytical data packages were received from the EPA Region 7 laboratory in both hard copy and
EDD format. Though EPA validated its own data prior to providing it to HGL, HGL reviewed the
validated data packages for consistency and completeness. The qualifiers added by the EPA
validator were reviewed by HGL to determine the usability of the results. HGL also evaluated the
results of field QC samples (field duplicates of confirmation samples) submitted to the EPA
Region 7 laboratory for analysis. Data were evaluated against the PARCCS parameters of
precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, comparability, and sensitivity. Laboratory
QC elements was conducted by EPA and was not evaluated by HGL.
4.6.1 Precision
Precision measures the reproducibility of a measurement. It is strictly defined as the degree of
mutual agreement among independent measurements, resulting from repeated application of the
same process under similar conditions. Analytical precision is the measurement of variability
associated with duplicate (two) or replicate (more than two) analyses. EPA uses laboratory control
samples (LCSs) to determine the precision of an analytical method. If analyte recoveries in an LCS
are within established control limits, then precision is within control limits. In this case, the
comparison is not between a sample and a duplicate sample analyzed in the sample batch, rather
the comparison is between the sample and samples analyzed in previous batches. Total precision
is the measurement of variability associated with the entire sampling and analysis process,
determined by analysis of duplicate or replicate field samples, and measures variability introduced
by both the laboratory and field operations. Field duplicate/replicate samples and MS/MSDs are
analyzed to assess field and laboratory precision. For duplicate samples, precision is calculated
using the relative percent difference (RPD) between the results, whereas for replicate analyses the
relative standard deviation is determined. The acceptable RPD limit for duplicates submitted to the
EPA Region 7 laboratory is 25 percent as specified in the Generic QAPP (EPA, 2013).
Nine duplicate sample pairs were submitted for this project, yielding 27 total duplicate analytical
sample results (data pairs). Of these 27 results, 10 exceeded the RPD limit of 25 percent. Appendix
G provides the duplicate sample pair RPD calculations. The overall completeness for the data is
63 percent, indicating that the DQO for precision established in the QAPP (90 percent) was not
achieved. This issue with precision between parent and duplicate sample results is likely to have
occurred because sample material was not pulverized and sieved before being split into the sample
duplicate pair. This sampling approach can have a significant effect on sample precision.
4.6.2 Accuracy
Accuracy is a statistical measurement of correctness and includes components of random error
(variability due to imprecision) and system error. Accuracy, therefore, reflects the total error
associated with a measurement. A measurement is considered accurate when the value reported
does not differ from the true value or known concentration of the associated spike or standard,
within prescribed control limits. Analytical accuracy is measured by comparing the percent
recovery of analyte spiked into an LCS to a control limit. No data were rejected for this project
due to LCS exclusions-the DQO for accuracy established in the QAPP for this project
was achieved.
U. S EPA Region 7
4-4
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
4.6.3 Representativeness
Objectives for representativeness are defined for each sampling and analysis task and are a function
of the investigation objectives. Representativeness is achieved through use of standard field
sampling and analytical procedures. Representativeness is also determined by appropriate program
design and consideration of project elements, such as proper sample and test pit locations, and
sampling procedures, and sample intervals. Therefore, the results from field and laboratory blanks
are evaluated to determine whether analytes detected in environmental samples are representative
of the sampled matrix and not artifacts of the sampling and/or analysis processes.
Additionally, nine field duplicate sample pairs were collected to assess the effect of sample
collection on results. For all analyses, 63 percent (17 out of 27) of the analytes in field duplicate
sample pairs met RPD evaluation criteria. The representativeness goal of 90 percent established in
the QAPP was not achieved for this project. The PARCCS parameters of representative and
precision (see section 4.6.1) are the parameters most affected by inhomogeneity of the sample
matrix. Because the samples were not pulverized and sieved to improve homogeneity before
analysis, 37 percent of the duplicate pair results did not meet RPD the representativeness goal, as
expressed by the RPD calculations. However, the data showed generally similar concentrations
within the sampled chat, and decreasing levels of contamination with depth across the test pits at
most locations. This indicates that the RI analytical data is generally representative of site
conditions.
4.6.4 Completeness
Completeness is calculated for all data associated with a particular analyte of interest measured
during an individual sampling event or a different defined set of samples. The number of valid
analyte results divided by the number of possible individual analyte results, expressed as a
percentage, determines the completeness of a dataset. In evaluating the completeness of a sampling
event, valid results are all results not qualified with an "R" qualifier. The project requirements for
completeness are 90 percent for all analytical data. For instances in which samples could not be
analyzed (for example, holding time violations where resampling and analysis were not possible,
samples spilled or broken), the numerator of this calculation becomes the number of valid results
minus the number of results not reported.
The formula for calculating completeness is as follows:
% completeness = number of valid (i.e., non-R qualified) results X 100
number of possible results
Soil samples delivered to the EPA Region 7 laboratory generated a total of 228 soil data points
(from environmental samples and field duplicates); all of these data points were considered usable.
Overall completeness was calculated to be 100 percent, which meets the DQO for soil samples.
4.6.5 Comparability
Comparability is the confidence with which one dataset can be compared to another dataset. The
objective for this QA/QC program is to produce data with the greatest possible degree of
U. S EPA Region 7
4-5
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
comparability. The number of matrices sampled and the range of field conditions encountered are
considered when determining comparability. Comparability is achieved by standardizing sampling
methods, analytical methods, reporting units, and the format of report submittals. Field
documentation using standardized data collection forms supports the assessment of comparability.
4.6.6 Sensitivity
Analytical sensitivity is important in providing comparisons of analytical reporting limits (RLs)
achieved by the laboratories with project DQOs. For this project the DQO for soil samples was
established as the November 2015 Regional Screening Level (RSL) for Residential Soil using the
lower of a hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.1 and cancer risk of 1E-06. Section 5.1.2 discusses these
preliminary remediation goals. RLs must be low enough to allow both detected and nondetected
results to be compared with the applicable DQOs. RLs achieved by the EPA Region 7 laboratory
were sufficient for the three metals analyzed. The metals of potential concern in soil and the
screening levels used to evaluate RI results are shown in the table below in comparison.
Soil Screening Values
Met sil
Residenti:il Soil RSI.1
l.sih Reporting Limit
Cadmium
"1
0.431 1.51
Lead
4002
NA
Zinc
2,300
NA
1 Residential Soil RSLs with HQ of 0.1 are from EPA Regional Screening Levels Summary Table, November 2015.
2 Lead is evaluated through blood lead modeling. The EPA residential soil screening level of 400 mg/kg is calculated
to be protective of the child resident receptor.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
NA = Not available. Metal was detected in every sample. Thus, the reporting limit was not listed.
RSL = EPA Regional Screening Level.
U = The analyte was not detected at or above the associated reporting limit.
RLs vary because it is the lowest level at which a laboratory can report an analyte detection with
quantitative significance. Each instrument used for analysis may have different RLs because the
method, analyte, and matrix are factored into determining the quantitative significance. The
laboratory RLs for cadmium are sufficient to identify chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) for
HHRA.
U. S EPA Region 7
4-6
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
5.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
This section addresses the nature and extent of contamination identified in the rail beds by
reviewing the sources of contamination and describing the vertical and horizontal extent of
contamination in soil at the sample locations situated in and along the rail beds comprising OU8.
Defining the nature and extent of contamination is dependent on obtaining sufficient quantitative
data to characterize contamination in affected media. Once the nature and extent of contamination
is defined, contaminant fate and transport mechanisms can be determined, leading to the
development of a site-specific risk assessment that evaluates potential exposure pathways. The
risk assessment and determination of the physical site conditions forms the basis for the evaluation
of appropriate remedial alternatives in the FS, and selection of a preferred remedy in the ROD.
Test pits were completed and samples collected at various locations in and adjacent to rail beds at
various locations throughout the site area. Analytical results and visual observations were used to
determine if there was consistency in the depth of the chat layer and if contamination had migrated
into the native soil. Rail lines traversed both rural and residential areas.
5.1 COMPARISON CRITERIA
5.1.1 Background Soil Concentrations
The RI used background data obtained as part of the RI conducted by Dames & Moore in 1993.
For this background study, background samples were collected to evaluate 17 metals, including
cadmium, lead, and zinc, from five locations near Baxter Springs and three locations near Treece.
The samples were collected from depths of 14 to 24 inches at locations that did not exhibit the
presence of visible chat from chat-covered roads or mill wastes from neighboring deposits. Table
5.1 provides the background soil results and average concentration for each of the three metals.
Appendix H provides the background sampling text and figures of the sample locations in each
area (Dames and Moore, 1993).
Because there were no surface soil background samples collected during the 1993 RI, the surface
soil analytical results from the current RI also were compared the background subsurface sample
dataset. The average background concentrations were compared against their respective EPA
RSLs for Residential Soil provided in Table 5.1. This comparison shows that the three metals
identified as COPCs at the site do not have background levels that exceed the RSLs. Therefore,
the analytical results for the soil samples collected from the test pits primarily will be compared to
the RSLs.
5.1.2 Preliminary Remediation Goals
The preliminary remediation goals for the Site are the EPA RSLs for Residential Soil equal to the
lower of an HQ of 0.1 and cancer risk of 1E-06. The HQ is adjusted to account for potential
additivity among site contaminants. The lead RSL is based on blood lead modeling to achieve a
blood concentration protective of children, who are the most sensitive receptor to this contaminant.
U. S EPA Region 7
5-1
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
5.2 SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION
The primary source of contamination for the CCR OU8 site is mining activities such as excavation
and transport of the material; ore refinement processes; and creation of chat, tailings, and other
wastes resulting from the refinement process. The contamination migrated to the rail beds in OU8
by using chat as rail bed ballast. The sources of the contamination have been documented during
previous investigations; therefore, no source samples were collected for the RI. The nature and
extent of contamination in the rail beds are discussed below in Section 5.2.
5.3 SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The analytical results and physical conditions at each test pit sample location are illustrated on
Figures 5.1 through 5.33. Each figure contains a graph illustrating the average metals
concentrations at each interval, the soil classification, and a table with the sample concentrations
for all intervals in each test pit associated with the location. The test pit number (e.g. Test Pit 2A)
corresponds with the sample location on Figures 3.1 through 3.4. The alphabetic (e.g. A)
designation indicates a particular test pit at sample location 2 (in this example). Appendix I
Table 1.1 provides a summary of the average XRF readings for the 587 samples that were screened
in the field.
The XRF readings for each sample were compared to the Residential Soil RSL (EPA, 2015) for
cadmium, lead, and zinc. Tables 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 compare soil sample concentrations to the RSLs
for cadmium, lead, and zinc, respectively.
5.3.1 Surface Soil
Surface soil data discussed in this section refers to the 101 samples collected from the 0- to 6-inch
interval and field screened with the XRF. The analytical results for each of the three metals
identified as COPCs are discussed below. The surface soil samples in all cases consisted primarily
of weathered chat material, not native soil.
5.3.1.1 Cadmium
Cadmium was detected in 67 of the 101 samples screened during the RI sampling event
(Table 5.2). All 67 detections exceeded the Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1) of 7.1 mg/kg. Field
screening concentrations in surface soils ranged from 14 mg/kg to 66 mg/kg. The highest
concentration was detected in Test Pit 5B-S (Figure 5.5). The analytical data (Table 1.1 in
Appendix I) does not indicate that there are cadmium hotspots in particular segments of the OU8
rail beds. Rather, the field screening results show that widespread cadmium contamination is
present in the rail bed material exposed at the ground surface. In general, samples with the highest
cadmium levels also contained the highest zinc concentrations. This trend was less noticeable in
comparison to the lead dataset.
It should be noted that the cadmium detection limit for the XRF exceeded the Residential Soil RSL
(HQ = 0.1) in all 34 samples reported as nondetect for the metal.
Cadmium was detected in all 10 of the samples submitted to the laboratory for confirmation
U. S EPA Region 7
5-2
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
sampling at levels ranging from 8.9 mg/kg to 48.2 mg/kg (Appendix F). All confirmation cadmium
concentrations exceeded the Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1).
5.3.1.2 Lead
Lead was detected in 99 of the 101 surface soil samples (Table 5.3). Field screening concentrations
ranged from 13 mg/kg to 2,271 mg/kg. The Residential Soil RSL for lead of 400 mg/kg was
exceeded in 44 of the samples (Table 5.3). The highest concentration was detected in Test Pit 9B
(Figure 5.9). The southwest corner of the site area where sample locations 1 to 8 are situated had
7 of the 11 samples with the highest lead levels (over 1,000 mg/kg) observed during the sampling
effort. In particular, higher surface soil lead contamination was observed in select test pits at
locations 3 and 5 (Figures 5.3 and 5.5). But, it should be noted that lead detections above the
Residential Soil RSL were widespread in the site area. The field screening dataset provided as
Table 1.1 in Appendix I shows limited correlation between the highest lead detections and the
highest cadmium and zinc concentrations.
Lead was detected in all 10 of the samples submitted to the laboratory for confirmation sampling
at levels ranging from 265 mg/kg to 884 mg/kg (Appendix E, Table E.l). Lead concentrations in
6 of the 10 samples exceeded the Residential Soil RSL.
5.3.1.3 Zinc
Zinc was detected in all 101 surface soil samples screened during the RI event, and concentrations
in 71 samples exceeded the Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1) of 2,300 mg/kg (Table 5.4). Field
screening concentrations ranged from 55 mg/kg to 20,467 mg/kg. The highest concentration was
detected in Test Pit 29A (Figure 5.29). The analytical data does not indicate that there are zinc
hotspots in particular segments of the OU8 rail beds. As with cadmium, the field screening results
show that widespread zinc contamination at levels exceeding the Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1)
is present in the rail beds in the material exposed on the ground surface.
Zinc was detected in all 10 of the samples submitted to the laboratory for confirmation sampling
at levels ranging from 1,600 mg/kg to 12,600 mg/kg (Appendix F). The concentrations in 9 of the
10 confirmation samples exceeded the Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1).
5.3.2 Subsurface Soil
Subsurface soil data discussed in this section refers to the 486 samples collected from the 6-inch
to 48-inch interval. As previously discussed, the samples were collected for screening in 6-inch
increments across the subsurface interval. The subsurface soil samples consisted of weathered chat
to a depth of about 30 inches where the material generally transitioned to native soil. Native soil
in the 102 test pits was encountered at depths ranging from 6 inches to below 48 inches bgs (target
depth). Figures 5.1 through 5.33 provide a bar graph for the primary test pits showing the depth at
which native soil was encountered.
5.3.2.1 Cadmium
Table 5.2 provides ranges of cadmium concentrations for each sample depth and a comparison to
the Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1). Cadmium was detected in 238 of the 486 subsurface field
U. S EPA Region 7
5-3
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
screening soil samples at concentrations ranging from 13 mg/kg to 79 mg/kg. All 238 detections
exceeded the Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1) of 7.1 mg/kg. The highest concentration was
observed in Test Pit 27B in the 24 to 30-inch interval (Figure 5.27).
In general, the highest cadmium concentrations were observed above a depth of 30 inches, where
the chat typically transitioned to native soil. In the 25 samples with the highest detections (those
greater than 50 mg/kg), only 2 samples were collected below 30 inches. One of these two samples
was collected from Test Pit 27B where the overall highest cadmium detection was observed. It is
expected that the chat material from mining activities, which was generally observed above 30
inches, would have higher metals concentrations than the native soil below. As with the surface
soils, cadmium contamination is widespread throughout the site area.
Cadmium was detected in 63 of the 66 subsurface soil samples submitted to the laboratory for
confirmation analysis at levels ranging from 0.63 J mg/kg to 113 mg/kg (Appendix F). The
cadmium detections in 57 of the confirmation samples exceeded the Residential Soil RSL (HQ =
0.1) for cadmium.
5.3.2.2 Lead
Table 5.3 provides ranges of lead concentrations for each sample depth and a comparison to the
Residential Soil RSL. Lead was detected in 419 of the 486 subsurface field screening soil samples
at concentrations ranging from 7 mg/kg to 16,533 mg/kg. Lead detections in 152 of the samples
exceeded the Residential Soil RSL of 400 mg/kg. The highest concentration was observed in Test
Pit 13C in the 24 to 30-inch interval (Figure 5.13B).
In the 31 subsurface samples with the highest lead concentrations (those greater than 1,500 mg/kg)
9 samples were collected below 30 inches. The highest lead level of 2,013 mg/kg observed in the
deepest sample interval (42 to 48 inches) was observed in Test Pit 29B where chat extended the
full depth of the pit (Figure 5.29). The highest lead detections were generally observed above a
depth of 30 inches, although the percentage of lead samples from below 30 inches above the 1,500
mg/kg threshold was higher than for either cadmium or zinc. Spatially, the lead contamination
Residential Soil RSL generally was widespread in the OU8 rail beds that were sampled, and no
localized hotspots were apparent.
Lead was detected in all 66 subsurface soil samples submitted to the laboratory for confirmation
analysis at levels ranging from 7.3 mg/kg to 4,260 mg/kg. In 35 of the 66 confirmation samples,
the lead concentration exceeded the Residential Soil RSL.
5.3.2.3 Zinc
Table 5.3 provides ranges of zinc concentrations for each sample depth and a comparison to the
Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1). Zinc was detected in all 486 field screening subsurface soil
samples at concentrations ranging from 18 mg/kg to 30,050 mg/kg. Zinc detections in 216 of the
field screening samples exceeded the Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1) of2,300 mg/kg. The highest
concentration was observed in Test Pit 17B in the 12 to 18-inch interval (Figure 5.17).
As with cadmium, the highest zinc detections were generally observed above a depth of 30 inches.
U. S EPA Region 7
5-4
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
In the 25 subsurface samples with the highest zinc concentrations (those greater than 15,000
mg/kg) only 1 sample was collected below 30 inches (Test Pit 13A). Zinc concentrations above
the Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1) are widespread, as with the other two metals. However,
several of the highest zinc concentrations were observed in test pits at Sample Locations 17 and
18 near Riverton in the central part of the site area; and Sample Location 13-B (Figure 5.13b) on
the north edge of Baxter Springs.
Zinc was detected in all 66 samples submitted to the laboratory for confirmation analysis at levels
ranging from 13.9 mg/kg to 22,000 mg/kg. The lead concentration in 50 of the 66 confirmation
samples exceeded the Residential Soil RSL (HQ = 0.1).
5.4 CONCLUSIONS
Analytical results indicate that the chat used as ballast material for the OU8 rail beds contained
cadmium, lead, and zinc contamination above the Residential Soil RSLs adjusted for additivity of
non-cancer effects. The chat is associated with mining activities in Cherokee County. Background
subsurface soil concentrations for these metals are below their respective RSLs. Because
subsurface soil background samples were not collected during the 1993 RI, the subsurface
background levels also are used in this RI for comparison to surface soil sample results. Metals
concentrations generally decreased in the samples of native soil collected beneath the chat if it was
encountered above the target depth of 48 inches. Seven samples collected from the deepest sample
interval (42 to 48 inches) contained one or more of the three metals above their respective
Residential Soil RSL. In six of these seven pits where the samples were collected, the depth of the
chat extended to the target depth of 48 inches.
U. S EPA Region 7
5-5
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
6.0 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT
This section provides a detailed discussion of the chemical and physical properties of the identified
COPCs, their potential migration pathways, and the mechanisms of transport in the environment.
The CCR OU8 Railroads Site includes former rail lines that are not subsumed within one of the
other OUs for the overall Cherokee County Site. The COPCs for the site are lead, cadmium, and
zinc, which are associated with mining activities in the area. Lead is typically the primary COPC.
The contamination primarily migrated to the former rail lines from the use of chat as ballast for
the rail beds. Airborne particulates (dust) and suspended sediment in surface water runoff from
mining waste piles that lie adjacent to the former rail lines in select areas may also have contributed
metals contamination to the rail beds. The rail beds themselves also can be considered a secondary
source area for possible contamination in areas surrounding the rail beds due to leaching into
underlying native soil, surface water runoff and airborne dust.
This metals contamination may also enter surface water and groundwater through runoff and
leaching into the subsurface. This RI and the subsequent FS are focused on the soils potentially
impacted by the three mine waste COPCs identified for the site.
The following subsections present a general description of sorption (partitioning), volatilization,
migration, degradation, and transformation processes to provide a basic understanding of the
processes that affect the subsurface fate and transport of the identified preliminary COPCs
associated with the site.
6.1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF METALS
The physical and chemical characteristics of constituents and the environmental media (air, water,
soil, and sediment) in which they are present affect the mobility and persistence of the metals.
Lead is naturally present in soil. Under most conditions lead reacts with clays, phosphates, sulfates,
carbonate hydroxides, and organic matter to reduce its solubility. However, the formation of
organic complexes may significantly increase the solubility of lead in soil. Above a pH of 6, most
lead is bound in lead carbonate or adsorbed on clay surfaces (ATSDR, 2007).
Lead may bioaccumulate in the environment. Plants and animals may bioconcentrate lead, but
biomagnification is not expected. The bioavailability of lead in soil to plants is limited because of
the strong adsorption of lead to soil organic matter, but the bioavailability increases as the pH and
the organic matter content of the soil are reduced. Plants grown in lead-contaminated soils were
shown to accumulate low levels of lead in the edible portions of the plant from adherence of dusts
and translocation into the tissues (Finster et al., 2004). Lead may be taken up in edible plants from
the soil via the root system, by direct foliar uptake and translocation within the plant, and by
surface deposition of particulate matter. The amount of lead in soil that is bioavailable to a
vegetable plant depends on factors such as cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH, amount of organic
matter present, soil moisture content, and type of amendments added to the soil. Organisms higher
up the food chain, such as avian species, may experience lead poisoning as a result of eating lead-
contaminated food. Two characteristics greatly affect the fate and transport of a metal in the
environment: solubility and partitioning.
U. S EPA Region 7
6-1
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
Water solubility is the maximum concentration of a compound that will dissolve in a unit volume
of pure water at a given temperature and pH. It is a fundamental parameter affecting the
environmental transport of a chemical. Those that are highly soluble in water tend to be mobile in
aqueous systems (for example, migrate readily with groundwater flow or be in the aqueous phase
of surface water systems) and tend to leach readily from soil. Metals generally, and lead
specifically, have low water solubility, resulting in limited ability to dissolve in surface water or
groundwater under ambient conditions. They tend to partition out of the aqueous phase onto
organic matter. Accordingly, they exhibit limited leaching potential, and tend to migrate or be
adsorbed to soil or sediment particles as described below.
Focusing on the primary COPC, the solubility of lead is 10 parts per billion (ppb) above pH 8,
while near pH 6.5 its solubility can approach or exceed 100 ppb (ATSDR, 2007). At slightly acidic
pH, lead can dissolve from already-bound particulate matter.
Partitioning is generally measured by the overall partition coefficient, which is the ratio of the
solid phase concentration (for example, soil or sediment concentration) to the aqueous
concentration. It indicates that, for a given compound, more mass will sorb to a solid with a high
organic content as compared to a solid with low organic carbon content. The affinity of a chemical
for sorption on natural organic matter is expressed by its carbon/water partition coefficient (Koc).
Chemicals with low Koc values (less than 10 milliliters per gram) are found mainly in the water
phase. Lead has a high Koc and is more likely to become fixed to organic matter within the soil
matrix. The amount of naturally occurring organic carbon present in a soil affects the adsorption
of organic compounds in that soil. The greater the organic carbon content in the soil, the more
likely it is that the organic compounds migrating through the soil will become adsorbed by the
organic component of the soil.
Metals, however, do not partition in the same manner as organic compounds. Metals may associate
with soil or sediment particles through a number of processes, such as chelation with organic
matter, adsorption onto a mineral surface, and precipitation. The occurrence of these processes
depends on the valence state of the metal, which in turn is affected by pH and oxidation-reduction
potential. In general, metals tend to be less mobile under oxidizing conditions than reducing
conditions. This is specifically true for lead, the primary COPC.
The general insolubility in water and tendency to adsorb to soil and organic particles suggest that
metals are not influenced by functions such as advection, dispersion, hydrolysis, and others that
typically play a major role in the fate and transport of organic compounds. Metals, therefore, tend
to be immobile and persistent in the environment.
The COPC metals associated with the CCR OU8 Site are discussed below. The conceptual site
model (CSM) is provided as Figure 6.1
6.1.1 Preliminary COPC Metals
All soils contain trace amounts of metals that are naturally occurring in the Earth's crust. The three
preliminary COPC metals for the CCR OU8 Site and the matrices in which they occur are listed
in the table below.
U. S EPA Region 7
6-2
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
Preliminary Chemicals of Potential Concern
IVdimiiiiii Y COPC
M.ilrix
Surface Soil
Subsurface
Soil
Cadmium*
X
X
Lead*
X
X
Zinc*
X
X
The preliminary COPC metals listed above have been detected above the Residential Soil RSLs
and have formerly been associated with mining-related activities in Cherokee County. However,
all of the preliminary COPC metals are elements that are present in the earth's crust and, therefore,
are naturally present in air, soil, and groundwater. Discussion of metals concentrations relative to
typical background concentrations and screening values are presented in Section 5.1. The physical
and chemical characteristics of these metals, along with typical industrial uses and general
pathways into the environment, are discussed in detail in the following subsections.
6.1.1.1 Lead
Lead is a soft, dense, bluish-gray metal commonly found in the earth's crust. It typically does not
occur alone in its elemental form, but combined with two or more other elements to form lead
compounds such as the mineral galena. It has a low melting point and is very resistant to corrosion.
The primary use for lead is in the manufacture of batteries. Other uses include piping, ammunition,
radiation shielding, and historically as paint and gasoline additives. It is obtained primarily through
mining and the recycling of batteries.
Lead is dispersed throughout the environment primarily as the result of anthropogenic activities,
which include the mining and smelting of ore, manufacture of lead-containing products,
combustion of coal and oil, and waste incineration. Many anthropogenic sources of lead, most
notably leaded gasoline, lead-based paint, lead solder in food cans, lead-arsenate pesticides, and
shot and sinkers, have been eliminated or strictly regulated due to lead's persistence and toxicity.
Because lead does not degrade, these former uses leave their legacy as higher concentrations of
lead in the environment.
Lead may enter the atmosphere as dust from mining/refining processes, and historically as
particulates during the burning of leaded gasoline (banned in 1995). It may be present in soil
resulting from the settlement of contaminated dust or from the disposal of mine tailings. The
solubility of lead compounds in water is a function of pH, hardness, salinity, and the presence of
organic material. Lead will absorb to clay particles or form lead carbonate in environments with a
pH above 6 (EPA, 1992a). It will be retained in the upper 2 to 5 centimeters of soil, especially soils
with at least 5 percent organic matter or a pH of 5 or above (Alloway, 1990). Lead is highly
resistant to degradation and is extremely persistent in water and soil. It is not common to
bioaccumulate in plants or animals.
Leaching is not likely under normal conditions as lead binds tightly to soil particles; however,
acidic conditions may increase the likelihood of it leaching to water. It is expected to slowly
undergo speciation to the more insoluble sulfate, sulfide, oxide, and phosphate salts. The most
stable form of lead in natural water is a function of the ions present, the pH, and the reduction-
U. S EPA Region 7
6-3
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
oxidation (redox) potential. In oxidizing systems, the least soluble common forms are probably
the carbonate, hydroxide, and hydroxycarbonate. Because it is strongly adsorbed to soil, it
generally is retained in the upper layers of soil and does not tend to leach appreciably into the
subsoil and groundwater (ATSDR, 2007). Lead is effectively removed from the water column to
sediment by adsorption to organic matter and clay minerals, precipitation as insoluble salt, and
reaction with hydrous iron and manganese oxide (ATSDR, 2007). Under most circumstances,
adsorption predominates.
6.1.1.2 Cadmium
Cadmium is a soft, bluish-white metal common in the Earth's crust. It is not often present in its
elemental form, but is extracted as a byproduct during the mining and processing of other ores and
metals such as copper, lead, and zinc. It is primarily used in the production of rechargeable nickel-
cadmium batteries, and to a lesser extent in the manufacture of solar panels, paint pigments, and
in electroplating processes.
Cadmium is present in the environment in both its elemental and combined (oxide) forms. The
main anthropogenic sources of cadmium to the environment include nonferrous metal mining and
refining, manufacture and application of phosphate fertilizers (containing up to 300 mg/kg), fossil
fuel combustion, and waste incineration and disposal. Natural emissions of cadmium to the
environment can result from volcanic eruptions, forest fires, generation of sea salt aerosols, or
other natural phenomena.
Cadmium can travel long distances in the atmosphere resulting in elevated cadmium levels even
in remote locations. It is known to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and agricultural crops
(ATSDR, 2008).
The chemistry of cadmium in soil and water is primarily controlled by pH, so that under acidic
conditions solubility increases and adsorption decreases, and vice versa under alkaline soil
conditions. Clay minerals, carbonates, or oxides of iron and manganese may facilitate the
absorption of cadmium, or may lead to its precipitation as cadmium carbonate, hydroxide, or
phosphate (EPA, 1992a). Generally, cadmium will bind strongly to organic matter making it
immobile (ATSDR, 2008). It is likely to occur as a hydrated ion when present in its dissolved state.
It may form cadmium sulfide under reducing conditions, which is poorly soluble and immobile.
Sorption and precipitation to soil particles, metal oxides, and organic matter are the primary means
of entrainment (ATSDR, 2008).
6.1.1.3 Zinc
Zinc is the 24th most abundant element found in the Earth's crust and is found in the air, soil, and
water. In its pure elemental form, zinc is a bluish-white shiny metal. Metallic zinc has many uses
in industry, the most common being as a corrosion resistant coating for iron and other metals in a
process called galvanization. Metallic zinc also is mixed with other metals to form alloys such as
brass and bronze. Zinc compounds are widely used in industry for preserving wood and in
manufacturing and dyeing fabrics. They are also used by the drug industry as ingredients in some
common products such as sunblock, deodorants, acne and poison ivy preparations, and
antidandruff shampoos.
U. S EPA Region 7
6-4
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
Zinc enters the air, water, and soil as a result of both natural processes and human activities. The
primary sources of zinc in the environment are related to mining and metallurgic operations
involving zinc and use of commercial products containing zinc. The most important sources of
zinc in soil come from discharges of smelter slags and wastes, mine tailings, coal and bottom fly
ash, and the use of commercial products such as fertilizers and wood preservatives that contain
zinc (ATSDR, 2005). Most of the zinc in soil or sediment is bound to the soil particle and does not
dissolve in water. However, some zinc may leach to groundwater when present in acidic
conditions. The level of zinc in soil increases mainly from disposal of zinc wastes from metal
manufacturing industries and coal ash from electric utilities. Zinc can be discharged into
waterways through waste streams from metal manufacturing, chemical industries, domestic
wastewater, and run-off from soil containing zinc.
Zinc is readily absorbed by clay minerals, hydrous oxides, and carbonates (EPA, 1992a). Most of
the zinc in bodies of water binds to sediment and settles on the bottom. However, a small amount
may remain either dissolved in water or as fine suspended particles. The level of dissolved zinc in
water may increase as the acidity of water increases. Some fish can collect zinc in their bodies if
they live in water containing zinc, and it may be taken up by animals eating soil or drinking water
containing zinc. It has a moderate bioaccumulation rate in aquatic organisms, but does not
accumulate in plants and does not magnify in the food chain (ATSDR, 2005).
6.2 OVERVIEW OF FATE AND TRANSPORT PROCESSES
The focus of this RI, and primary migration and exposure pathway, is soil exposure because of the
known widespread lead contamination in chat-dominated surface soils and subsurface soils of the
rail beds.
Discussion of the sediment and surface water exposure pathways is limited to Section 7.2 as part
of the ERA. The sediment and surface water data was obtained from sampling conducted for a
separate site. The groundwater exposure pathway was not included in the Statement of Work
(SOW) for this RI.
6.2.1 Contaminant Transport
This section discusses the physical and chemical processes affecting the transport of the COPC
metals in the environment. The primary transport mechanism for metals contamination in OU8
was the use of mining chat as ballast on the rail beds. Secondary transportation of contamination
to and from the rail beds would be from leaching into native soil underlying the chat, airborne dust,
and surface water runoff. The dust and runoff could originate from the now contaminated rail beds
onto the surrounding area, or to the area of the rail beds from mine wastes situated nearby the
former rail lines.
The mobility of most metals is inversely related to how tightly bound they are to soil or organic
particles. The inherent nature of most metals is to bind to soil particles, particularly very fine-
grained soils or those with high organic contents, either electrostatically (cation exchange) or
chemically (specific adsorption) (EPA, 1992a). Important factors which influence the extent to
U. S EPA Region 7
6-5
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
which a metal will adsorb include: the presence of soluble metal complexes, the competition
between a metal ion of interest and other species for the same adsorption sites, redox potential,
and pH. This greatly reduces their mobility in the environment. Volatilization from the soil is a
minor pathway, even for potentially volatile metals such as arsenic, mercury, and selenium (EPA,
1992a). This process is not expected to play a major role in metals fate and transport at this site.
Although metals are inclined to become immobile in the environment by binding to soil particles,
they still have the potential to move through the environment if the soil or organic particles to
which they are bound are moved through erosion. Weathering of the chat, or its transportation to
the rail bed, can create fine particulate material with the potential for airborne deposition
(wind-blown and settlement by gravity) or wet deposition (settled out of the atmosphere via
precipitation). Nearby mine waste piles of tailings and processed ore leave materials exposed to
wind and precipitation, which again allows transport of contaminants in dust particles and in
suspension in surface water drainage from these areas.
6.2.2 Contaminant Fate
As a general rule, their elemental nature means that metals cannot be destroyed or degraded in the
environment, but they can change forms or become attached to or separated from particles. This
occurs through precipitation or ligand exchange reactions. The typical fate of anthropogenic metals
in the environment is to be bound to near-surface soil particles.
6.2.2.1 Degradation
Contaminants in the environment can be degraded by abiotic (physical) and biotic (biological)
processes. Hydrolysis and photolysis are typical abiotic processes. Biotic processes rely on
microorganisms to degrade contaminants. These processes have a greater effect on organic
compounds compared to inorganic compounds such as metals. Due to their elemental nature, most
metals are highly resistant to degradation.
Hydrolysis is the chemical reaction between water (or hydroxide ion) and a contaminant molecule.
The rate of hydrolysis is strongly influenced by the temperature and pH of the system. Metals
typically do not hydrolyze because they are generally insoluble and, therefore, this process is not
expected to play a major role in degradation of contaminants at this site.
The degradation of chemicals due to interactions from light energy is referred to as photolysis.
Direct photolysis is a key process in systems with little particulate matter, whereas indirect
photolysis predominates in more turbid systems (Chapra, 1997). These transformation processes
can occur in surface soil, surface water, and the atmosphere. Photolysis is not expected to play a
major role in degradation of metals at this site because these metals are known for their natural
corrosion resistant properties.
Bacteria can degrade a wide range of organic contaminants under aerobic conditions and anaerobic
conditions. Direct degradation occurs when the microbes receive metabolic benefit from the
degradation process through use of the contaminant as an electron donor or an electron acceptor.
Indirect degradation occurs when the enzymes produced by the microbe to metabolize one
compound are also effective on a second compound, but the microbe derives no metabolic benefit
U. S EPA Region 7
6-6
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
from the reaction. For biodegradation to occur, the contaminant must be dissolved in water;
however, the majority of metals are insoluble in water. In addition, contaminants that are sorbed
to soil or sediment are not available for biodegradation. Thus, contaminants with high organic
partitioning values, such as metals, can be resistant to microbial activity. While some
biodegradation of metals does occur, the rates in the environment are generally low, allowing these
elements to persist.
6.2.2.2 Transformation
Transformation refers to a change in valence state for metals. Some microbes can transform metals.
For example, iron-reducing bacteria use ferric iron as an electron acceptor, and thereby reduce
ferric iron to the ferrous form. The valence state of a metal can also be affected by abiotic reactions.
Because of the effect of valence state on metal sorption and dissolution, transformation processes
can be important in systems with metals contamination.
6.2.2.3 Bioaccumulation
Site contaminants can accumulate in the tissues of plants and animals. This process is water-based
in that the contaminant must be in the aqueous phase in order to be available for uptake within the
organism's tissue. Metals bioavailability in soils is influenced by soil pH and organic matter
content. The bioavailability of organic compounds and metals is affected by their tendency to sorb
to soil particles and its organic matter content. Bioaccumulation is not identified as a complete
pathway for contaminants on this project because the metals are insoluble in water and because
the level of metals uptake is comparatively low to the concentration of the same metals in the soil.
6.3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
Development of the CSM is a key step in assessing the potential remedies that may be suitable for
a site contaminated with organic or inorganic (metals) compounds. Characterization of the nature
of the release and migration mechanisms, the extent of contamination, as well as an exposure
pathway analysis, are required to determine the level of risk posed by the contaminant release and
to select and to design an appropriate remedy. The physical and chemical characteristics of the
COPCs are also taken into account when developing the CSM.
Based on historical background information and analytical results from previous field efforts,
initial data considered in developing the CSM includes:
• Chat from mining activities conducted in Cherokee County from 1850 to 1970 was used
as ballast on rail road beds in the county;
• Selected metals contamination was detected in the surface and subsurface soil fill material
(chat) used as ballast for the rail beds;
• Native soil also was contaminated with metals to a depth of 48-inches bgs, likely due to
leaching of metals from the overlying weathered chat ballast;
• Surface soils on and near the rail beds also may have been impacted by surface water runoff
and airborne dust from mine wastes lying adjacent to the abandoned rail lines in some area,
or from the same migration mechanisms acting on the rail beds themselves; and
U. S EPA Region 7
6-7
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
• The three COPCs (cadmium, lead, and zinc) were detected above their respective
Residential Soil RSLs.
Figure 6.1 presents the CSM developed for the site, and includes a visual depiction of the pathway
for mining-related wastes to enter the environment. The conceptual exposure models for human
health and ecological risk developed to identify potentially exposed populations by tracking
contaminant movement in the environment from the source to receptor are discussed in Section 7.
6.4 SUMMARY
Analytical data from the RI and previous investigations indicate that COPC metals are present in
the chat supplied as rail road ballast that is associated with historical mining activities in Cherokee
County. These metals have been detected above their Residential Soil RSLs in the surface and
subsurface soils of the rail beds that are predominantly weathered chat, and also in the underlying
native soils. It is evident that the elevated concentrations of metals are derived from the chat and
other mining wastes. This is supported by analytical data indicating that elevated metals
concentrations generally decreased significantly in samples of native soils versus the overlying
weathered chat.
The near-surface soils present in Cherokee County (Section 2.3) include many silts and clays,
which also underlie the weathered chat. Organic materials in the silts and the fine-grained nature
of the clays make it likely that metals weathering and leaching from the chat would bind tightly to
the soil particles and become immobile in the environment. As discussed above, the preliminary
COPC metals have a tendency to adsorb to soils and their mobility is highly limited, especially in
the case of fine-grained soils and/or soils with high content of organic matter. Soils and sediments
can become sinks for heavy metals. Metals generally have low water solubility, resulting in limited
ability to dissolve in surface water or groundwater under ambient conditions. They also tend to
partition out of the aqueous phase onto organic matter or fine-grained soil particles. These
properties combined with their natural corrosion resistance lead to their being immobile and
persistent in the environment. Sorption and precipitation to soil particles, metal oxides, and organic
matter are the primary means of entrainment of metals contamination in the environment.
U. S EPA Region 7
6-8
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
7.0 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
This section summarizes the approach and results of the HHRA and ERA prepared by EPA and
presents the conclusions supported by the results. In addition to the surface and subsurface soil
samples collected by HGL, EPA collected surface water and sediment samples at the site to support
the ERA. The analytical results of these additional matrices were included in the dataset used by
EPA risk assessors and are discussed in relation to the ERA.
7.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
This section summarizes the approach and results of the risk assessment completed for the CCR
OU8 site and presents the conclusions supported by these results. The complete HHRA is provided
in Appendix J. Figure 3.1 of the HHRA (Appendix J) illustrates the conceptual site model for human
exposure.
7.1.1 SUMMARY OF HHRA APPROACH
An HHRA was conducted for the site consistent with current EPA guidelines for HHRA at
Superfund sites (USEPA 1989; 1991a; 1991b; 1992b; 2002a; 2002b; 2004; 2009a). Site
characterization data collected during the RI was used in the HHRA to evaluate possible health
risks for recreational visitors and hypothetical future construction/excavation workers within the
study area. Assumptions, methods, and results are summarized below.
7.1.1.1 Potentially Exposed Populations
High- and low-frequency recreational visitors and hypothetical future workers were identified as
potentially exposed receptors for the CCR site. Recreational visitors (child, adolescent, and adult)
are those who may walk, hike, play, and/or trespass along the historic rail lines in the area and be
exposed via direct contact to surface soils along the rail beds. The hypothetical future worker
represents construction/excavation workers who may be exposed via direct contact to surface and
subsurface soils along the rail beds.
7.1.1.2 Media of Concern and Exposure Pathways
The objective of the HHRA is to assess potential exposures to cadmium, lead, and zinc for
identified site receptors that could result from direct contact with mine-related contaminants in
surface soil along the rail lines. Cadmium, lead, and zinc were the only contaminants evaluated
within the HHRA based on previous investigations at the Cherokee County Superfund Site in
which these metals were identified as the primary COCs (Dames & Moore, 1993; Newfields 2002).
The exposure pathways evaluated in the HHRA include: incidental ingestion of surface soil,
dermal contact with surface soil, and inhalation of airborne soil particles.
7.1.1.3 Data Used within the HHRA
Soil data used in the HHRA was generated from soil samples taken in May, June, and December
of 2013, and September 2014. The September 2014 samples were collected by EPA in support of
the HHRA. The collection and analysis of these samples are discussed further in Section 3.3. Soil
U. S EPA Region 7
7-1
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
samples were analyzed using XRF and a subset of these samples were also submitted to the
laboratory for confirmatory analysis using inductively coupled plasma (ICP) methodology.
As discussed in Section 2.7 of Appendix J, lateral soil samples were collected at the site to evaluate
the nature and extent of contamination. Average concentrations of lead and zinc were roughly 1-
to 3-fold higher along the main rail line than at lateral sampling locations that radiate outward from
the main lines. Accordingly, lateral samples were excluded from the HHRA in order to best
represent potential contamination and to avoid potentially diluting the dataset used to calculate
exposure point concentrations (EPCs).
The following criteria were used to determine which soil sample results were used in the HHRA
dataset.
• If both XRF and ICP data were available for a sample, then only the ICP data were used.
• If only XRF data were available at a location, then the XRF results for lead and zinc were
used (after they were adjusted to ICP-equivalent concentrations).
• For those samples that had both a parent sample and a duplicate result, the higher of the
two values was used.
• Data for samples collected from lateral locations were not used to quantify risks in
the HHRA.
7.1.1.4 Chemicals of Potential Concern
As discussed, the site COPCs of cadmium, lead, and zinc were identified in previous investigations
for other OUs (Dames & Moore, 1993; Newfields, 2002).
7.1.1.5 Evaluation of Lead
Risks from lead are evaluated using a somewhat different approach than for most other chemicals.
EPA recommends the use of toxicokinetic models to correlate blood lead concentrations with
exposure and adverse health effects. Specifically, EPA recommends the use of the Integrated
Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model for children and the Adult Lead Methodology (ALM)
for adults. The IEUBK Model for Lead in Children, Windows® version (EPA, 2010) was used to
evaluate the potential for unacceptable health effects from lead exposures in soil to a future
hypothetical child receptor. The IEUBK model is capable of evaluating lead exposures to young
children up to age 7 years and considers children's exposure to lead in soil and other media,
including water, air, and diet. Young children (less than 7 years old) are more susceptible to the
toxic effects of lead, and generally receive the highest exposures to lead in soil and dust as a result
of hand-to-mouth or object-to-mouth behaviors. Thus, protection of young children will also
protect adult receptors in the same environment.
Blood lead levels for adolescent and adult recreational visitors and the hypothetical future
construction worker are calculated using the ALM. The ALM (version date June 21, 2009) (EPA,
2009) is based on the premise that maternal blood lead levels are predictive of the potential for
adverse health effects. The most sensitive target currently identified is the nervous system in a
fetus or young child. The ALM predicts the blood lead levels (BLLs) in the fetuses of pregnant
women from nonresidential exposure to lead-contaminated soil and dust (for example, a
hypothetical future construction/excavation worker scenario). The ALM incorporates population-
U. S EPA Region 7
7-2
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
based background BLLs as a starting concentration and predicts BLLs that will likely result after
additional exposure to lead-contaminated soil occurs. The ALM employs nonresidential exposure
scenario to evaluate the potential for adverse health effects to a fetus carried by a female worker
(EPA, 2009).
7.1.1.6 Evaluation of Non-Lead Metals
Cancer and non-cancer risks to recreational visitors and hypothetical future workers were assessed
for non-lead metals under both the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) and central tendency
exposure (CTE) scenarios. EPA guidance generally defines RME as the maximum exposure that
could reasonably be expected to occur for a given exposure pathway at the site. The RME includes
a combination of conservative average and upper-bound estimates of exposure parameters to
estimate potential risks and hazards. The CTE uses typical or average parameter values to derive
exposure estimates. The exposure parameters and assumptions used within the RME and CTE are
presented in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of Appendix J. The Human Intake Factor and Time-Weighting
Factor values are summarized in Table 4.4 of Appendix J.
7.1.2 SUMMARY OF HHRA RESULTS
Quantitative risk and hazard estimates were developed for recreational visitors and hypothetical
future workers for the Site. The HHRA results are detailed in Appendix J and summarized below.
7.1.2.1 Lead
The IEUBK model was used to assess lead exposures for high-frequency and low-frequency child
recreational visitors to the CCR site. The probabilities of a high- and low-frequency recreational
child exposed to lead in soil having a BBL that exceeds micrograms per deciliter (10 |ig/dL) are
below the EPA's health-based goal of 5 percent. The probability of the BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dL
is referred to as the P10 value. The P10 values for the high-frequency and low-frequency child
recreational visitors were 0.29 and 0.01 percent, respectively.
As detailed in Section 5.5 of Appendix J, estimated P10 values (using the ALM) were below the
EPA health-based guideline (P10 < 5 percent) for high-frequency and low-frequency recreational
visitors and the hypothetical future worker. No risk is indicated for these receptors exposed to lead
in site soil.
Since the establishment of the EPA's health protection goal, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) has identified 5 (j,g/dL as a "reference value" for blood lead in children (CDC,
2012). This concentration corresponds to the 97.5th percentile of BBLs in children in the United
States. EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) is in the
process of evaluating the CDC recommendations and implications for Superfund risk assessments,
in close coordination and consultation with the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR). Until that reassessment is complete, EPA is continuing to use a P10
value of 5 percent as the health-based goal to assess risk from exposure to lead at Superfund sites.
U. S EPA Region 7
7-3
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
7.1.2.2 Non-Lead COPCs
Cancer and non-cancer risk values calculated for identified receptors exposed to site COPCs are
summarized below. A full description of the non-lead COPC evaluation is presented in Section 4.4
of Appendix J.
7.1.2.2.1 Recreational Visitor
As detailed in Section 4.4 of Appendix J, non-cancer hazard indexes (His) and cancer risks
quantified for the RME and CTE child, adolescent, and adult recreational visitors did not exceed
target levels (HI <1 and cancer risk
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
7.2.1.2 Media of Concern and Exposure Pathways
In terms of ecological receptors, the media of concern consist of potentially contaminated surface
soil, surface water, and sediment. Exposure can occur through direct contact with these media. For
birds and mammals, exposure pathways also include ingestion of surface water, incidental
ingestion of soil and sediment, and consumption of food (e.g., plants, invertebrates, fish,
mammals) with contaminants accumulated in the tissue. Although animals can inhale soil
contaminants in dust, the inhalation pathway contributes negligibly as compared to the ingestion
exposure route and thus is not typically evaluated. Fur and feathers minimize the potential for
dermal absorption of contaminants.
7.2.1.3 Chemicals of Potential Concern
Based on results of other studies and assessments for sites within the study area, cadmium, lead,
and zinc have been identified as the primary ecological COPCs and risk drivers.
7.2.1.4 Streamlined Risk Characterization
Because cleanup levels have already been developed for Cherokee County, a streamlined approach
was used to characterize ecological risk in which EPCs were compared directly to cleanup levels.
The ecological cleanup levels for soil were established in the ROD for Cherokee County (OU3
and OU4) (EPA, 2006). The cleanup levels for sediment are based on the values established for
the Tri-State Mining District (MacDonald et al., 2010). Finally, surface water cleanup levels are
based on chronic National Ambient Water Quality Criteria, and are adjusted based on site-specific
hardness. The cleanup levels for each media are presented in Appendix K. The cleanup levels are
meant to represent concentrations above which animals may exhibit impaired health from exposure
to metals.
Based on the assessment endpoints selected for the development of the Cherokee County cleanup
levels, each of the 34 rail bed locations and nine stream locations were considered separate
exposure areas within the ERA.
7.2.2 SUMMARY OF ERA RESULTS
This section provides a more detailed discussion of the results from the comparison of detected
concentrations to cleanup levels established for the Site. The ERA results are discussed below.
Sur face Soil
For ecological risk assessment purposes, soil is generally collected at the 0 to 12 inch depth
interval. Therefore, at all locations, results from the 0 to 6 inch and 6 to 12 inch depth intervals
were combined and used to estimate potential risk to terrestrial receptors.
Zinc and cadmium contamination at concentrations exceeding cleanup levels is widespread on the
rail lines. Cadmium concentrations are elevated above cleanup levels at every location evaluated.
Zinc concentrations are elevated at every location, except for Location 20. Lead contamination on
the rail lines is slightly less widespread, with eight locations not exceeding the soil cleanup level.
U. S EPA Region 7
7-5
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
Surface Water
Lead concentrations were less than surface water cleanup levels at all 9 sample locations. Lead in
surface water does not pose a threat to ecological receptors.
Zinc concentrations in surface water exceeded the cleanup levels (the National Ambient Water
Quality Criteria) at two locations, SW02 and SW03. SW02 is within the city of Baxter Springs,
just downstream from rail line locations 32 and 33. Extremely high concentrations of zinc were
found at these rail line locations, suggesting the contamination in Willow Creek may be due to the
rail line. However, the closest sample location to SW03 is Location 20, which was the only rail
line location that did not exceed terrestrial cleanup levels for both zinc and lead (cadmium was not
evaluated at this location), suggesting that the surface water contamination at SW03 does not
appear to be attributable to the rail line.
Cadmium exceeded the cleanup level at SW04. SW04 is located in the headwaters of Tar Creek,
where the stream is ephemeral. The hardness at SW04 is quite low compared to the rest of the
locations. This low hardness value reduced the criteria value for cadmium, resulting in SW04
exceeding cleanup levels even though the cadmium concentration is only slightly above detection
limits.
Sediment
Sediment concentrations of cadmium and zinc exceeded cleanup levels at one location, SD03. This
particular location is adjacent to the Spring River within the city of Baxter Springs. The closest
rail line sample is Location 20. As stated, Location 20 was the only rail line location that did not
exceed terrestrial cleanup levels for both zinc and lead (cadmium was not evaluated at this
location), suggesting that the sediment contamination at SD03 does not appear to be attributable
to the rail line.
7.2.3 CONCLUSIONS
The ERA results indicate that site-related contaminants in surface soil, surface water, and sediment
may pose a threat to ecological receptors:
• Surface soil concentrations exceeded cleanup values for cadmium at all sample locations,
zinc at all locations but one, and lead at all but eight locations evaluated.
• Surface water contamination was identified at sample locations SW02 (zinc) and SW03
(zinc), and SW04 (cadmium). Based on nearby soil sample results, contamination at SW02
appears to be attributable to the rail line. Zinc contamination at SW03 and cadmium
contamination at SW04 does not appear to be attributable to the rail line.
• Sediment concentrations of cadmium and zinc exceed cleanup levels at one location, SD03.
Based on nearby soil sample results, sediment contamination at SD03 does not appear to
be attributable to the rail line.
The ERA produced by EPA is provided in Appendix K.
U. S EPA Region 7
7-6
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
RI activities at the CCR Site were conducted to help meet the overall objectives for the site, which
are to determine the physical characteristics of the site; define the nature and extent of
contamination; update and refine the CSM; assess actual and potential exposure pathways through
affected media; supply EPA risk assessors with data to support the HHRA and ERA; and evaluate
potential remedial alternatives. As directed by EPA, this RI included only surface and subsurface
soil sampling; the risk assessments were prepared by EPA. The HHRA evaluated surface soil
exposure, and the ERA evaluated ecological risk associated with exposure to surface soil,
sediment, and surface water. Other pathways are not discussed.
8.1 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
The RI data collection efforts were designed to fill gaps in the assessment of the rail lines in areas
not previously investigated as part of other OUs to provide a comprehensive understanding of
contaminant distribution along abandoned sections. RI activities are summarized in the following
sections.
8.1.1 RI Scope of Work
HGL's scope of work for the RI for the Cherokee County OU8 Site included the following data
collection and evaluation activities:
• Identify and map active and historical rail lines and their condition using a pre-determined
classification system;
• Determine the nature and extent of cadmium, lead, and zinc contamination in soil on and
adjacent to the rail beds (of the former rail lines) at the site that exceed established Federal
or State limits, or in the event such limits have not been promulgated, that pose human
health or ecological risks above acceptable limits.
• Update and refine the CSM to ensure site characterization is completed in sufficient detail
to support decision making.
• Assess actual and potential exposure pathways through affected media.
• Supply the EPA risk assessors with the necessary data to prepare an HHRA and ERA.
• Prepare a comprehensive RI Report documenting the characterization work performed at
the site to support the identification and evaluation of potential remedial options in the FS,
with the ultimate goal of selecting an approach for site remediation in the ROD.
8.1.2 Remedial Investigation Activities
The RI activities evaluated the potential impact of the abandoned rail beds at the site. All samples
were analyzed for lead, cadmium and zinc and submitted to the EPA Region 7 laboratory. Field
activities for the CCR RI were conducted in three field events in 2013: May 8, 9, and 10; June 10,
11, and 12; and December 2, 3, and 4 and included:
• Obtained access from multiple property owners and BNSF Railroad across the site.
• Collected surface and subsurface soil samples at 34 locations from 102 test pits along
abandoned rail lines within the site area.
U. S EPA Region 7
8-1
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
• Excavated 102 test pits (parallel to and perpendicular to the rail lines) to a maximum depth
of 48 inches and used an XRF unit to field screen soil samples collected from each 6-inch
interval. Field screened a total of 101 surface and 486 subsurface soil samples for lead,
cadmium and zinc.
• Collected and submitted 66 confirmation soil samples to the EPA Region 7 laboratory for
fixed-lab analysis.
8.2 ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION DATA
8.2.1 Screening and Confirmation Data Correlation
Three XRF readings and their respective uncertainty values were recorded, averaged, and
documented for the metals cadmium, lead, and zinc at each interval. Uncertainty values were
expressed as a +/- error value. The XRF calibration was confirmed with check standards at the
beginning of each day, and when the battery on the unit was changed.
Comparison of the lead screening data to the laboratory confirmation sample lead concentrations
shows a correlation of 0.821. The correlation value was obtained by performing a regression
analysis on the datasets. According to EPA Method 6200 employed for the XRF analysis, a
correlation of at least 0.7 is considered to be acceptable screening level data.
8.2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
The metals contamination of the rail lines resulted from the use of chat for rail bed ballast. Based
on the soil samples collected from the 102 test pits divided among the 34 sample locations,
cadmium, lead, and zinc contamination is widespread within the rail beds both at the surface and
in subsurface materials at levels exceeding Residential Soil RSLs. As expected, COPC
concentrations were highest in the chat, which in some test pits extended to at least 48 inches.
Metals concentrations in native soil below the chat were lower, but contaminant levels above
Residential Soil RSLs were detected in several samples.
8.3 SUMMARY OF CONTAMINATE FATE AND TRANSPORT
Although most metals are expected to be chemically or physically bound to soil particles, these
particulates have the potential to migrate through the environment through erosion or leaching
from the weathered chat rail bed ballast into native soil. The CSM developed for the site depicts
leaching from the chat into underlying native soil; airborne particulate deposition; and surface
water runoff of suspended particulates. These transport mechanisms allow metals contamination
to impact surface soil and subsurface soil.
8.4 SUMMARY OF RISK ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
The three COPCs identified for the site were evaluated in the risk assessments. Site
characterization data collected during the RI and during additional field investigations conducted
by EPA as part of the risk assessments, across the site were used in the HHRA to evaluate possible
health risks for recreational visitors or hypothetical future construction/excavation worker in the
areas surrounding the site. The HHRA report is provided in Appendix J and the ERA report in
U. S EPA Region 7
8-2
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
Appendix K.
8.4.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment
Based on the results of the HHRA, human health risks for the recreational visitor (child, adolescent,
and adult) and hypothetical future worker were below non-cancer His of 1, and cancer risks were
within the EPA's target risk range of 1E-06 to 1E-04 for non-lead metals.
For lead, using the IEUBK model and ALM, P10 values were below the EPA's health-based
guideline (P10 < 5 percent) for all receptors.
8.4.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment
The ERA results indicate that cadmium, lead, and zinc in surface soil at the majority of sample
locations poses a threat to ecological receptors. Zinc in surface water at one location (SW02) was
determined to both pose a threat to ecological receptors and be attributable to the rail line. No
potential risks to ecological receptors attributable to site-related contamination was identified for
sediment.
8.5 CONCLUSIONS
The RI activities have gathered an adequate amount of usable data from samples collected
historically and during this RI to determine the potential impact of metals contamination in the rail
beds comprising the OU8 site to human and ecological receptors. During this RI, select surface
and subsurface soil samples (both from weathered chat and native soil) were field screened for
cadmium, lead, and zinc. Based on evaluation of the RI data gathered during the field activities,
the following conclusions were drawn:
• Background levels in Cherokee County of the COPCs cadmium, lead, and zinc were below
their Residential Soil RSLs.
• The COPCs were detected in surface and subsurface samples of the weathered chat used
as ballast for the rail beds of the former rail lines.
o Widespread cadmium, lead, and zinc contamination at concentrations above their
respective Residential Soil RSLs is present in the OU8 rail beds,
o Samples collected from native soil below the weathered chat in the rail beds also was
contaminated with cadmium, lead, and zinc,
o COPC concentrations in the native soil were significantly lower than those observed in
the weathered chat.
o It is evident that the metals contamination related to mining activities in Cherokee
County has "migrated" to the OU8 rail beds and underlying native soil is some areas
through the use of chat as railroad ballast.
• Based on the results of the HHRA, no significant human health risks are identified for
either the recreational visitor (child, adolescent, and adult) or hypothetical future worker,
as all calculated non-cancer His and cancer risks were below target levels.
• The ERA results indicate that site-related contaminants in surface soil, surface water, and
sediment may pose a threat to ecological receptors:
o Surface soil concentrations exceeded cleanup values for cadmium at all sample
locations, zinc at all locations but one, and lead at all but eight locations evaluated.
U. S EPA Region 7
8-3
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cherokee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste—Cherokee County, Kansas
o Surface water contamination was identified at sample locations SW02 (zinc) and SW03
(zinc), and SW04 (cadmium). Based on nearby soil sample results, contamination at
SW02 appears to be attributable to the rail line. Zinc contamination at SW03 and
cadmium contamination at SW04 does not appear to be attributable to the rail line,
o Sediment concentrations of cadmium and zinc exceed cleanup levels at one location,
SD03. Based on nearby soil sample results, sediment contamination at SD03 does not
appear to be attributable to the rail line.
The FS will be prepared in accordance with EPA guidance and will evaluate viable remedial
alternatives and recommend an appropriate action to assure that potential risks to human health
and the environment are appropriately managed. The FS will outline and recommend a remedial
alternative for the site based on the data presented.
U. S EPA Region 7
8-4
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cher okee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste— Cherokee County, Kansas
9.0 REFERENCES
Alloway, 1990. Alloway, B.J., Heavy Metals in Soil, Halstead Press, John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2005. Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Zinc. August.
ATSDR, 2007. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Lead.
August.
ATSDR, 2008. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for
Cadmium. September.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2012. Low level lead exposure harms children:
a renewed call for primary prevention. US Department of Health and Human Services,
Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. January.
Chapra, Steven C., 1997. Surface Water Quality Modeling. McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07- 011364-5.
Dames & Moore, 1993. Final Remedial Investigation for Cherokee County, Kansas,
CERCLA Site. Baxter Springs/Treece Subsites. January 27.
Fenneman, N.M., and Johnson, D.W., 1946. Physical divisions of the United States,
U.S. Geological Survey map, scale 1:7,000,000.
Finster, M.E., Gray K.A., Binns H.J., 2004. Lead levels of edibles grown in contaminated
residential soils: a field survey. Sci Total Environ. 230:245-257.
Kansas State University (KSU), 2012. Kansas Climate Atlas. Accessed February 2014 at:
http://www.k-state.edu/ksclimate/.
HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (HGL), 2013a. Trip Report for Site Visit to Cherokee County Site - OU8
Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas. April.
HGL, 2013b. Final Sampling and Analysis Plan, Remedial Investigation, Cherokee County Site -
OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas. June.
Imes, J.L. and L.F. Emmett, 1994. Geohydrology of the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer System in Parts
of Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1414-D.
MacDonald, D., D. Smorong, C. Ingersoll, J. Besser, W. Brumbaugh, N. Kemble, T. May, C. Ivey,
S. Irving, and M. O'Hare, 2010. Development and Evaluation of Sediment and Pore-Water
Toxicity Thresholds to Support Sediment Quality Assessments in the Tri-State Mining
U. S EPA Region 7
9-1
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cher okee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste— Cherokee County, Kansas
District (TSMD), Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Draft Final Technical Report. Volume
I: Text.
Newfields, 2002. Focused Remedial Investigation for Badger, Lawton, Waco and Crestline
Subsites. Cherokee County, Kansas. January 31.
Seevers, W.J., 1975. Description of Surficial Rocks in Cherokee County, Southeastern Kansas.
Kansas Geological Survey, Geology Series No. 1, 7 pp.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010, 2010
Demographic Profile Data. US Census Database at URL
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/isf/pages/index.xhtml.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). EPA/540/1-89/002. December.
EPA, 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default
Exposure Factors." Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9285.6-
03.
EPA, 1991b. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions.
OSWER Directive 9355.0-30.
.EPA, 1992a. Ground Water Issue: Behavior of Metals in Soils, EPA/540/S-92/018. October.
EPA, 1992b. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. Publication
9285.7-081.
EPA, 1992c. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/63-R-92/001.
EPA, 2002a. Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at
Hazardous Waste Sites. OSWER Directive 9285.6-10. December.
EPA, 2002b. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites.
OSWER 9355.4-24. December.
EPA, 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. EPA/540/R/99/005.
July.
EPA, 2006. EPA Superfund Record of Decision Amendment: Cherokee County Superfund Site,
Baxter Springs and Treece Subsites, Operable Units #03 and #04, Cherokee County,
Kansas. September.
U. S EPA Region 7
9-2
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation Report, Cher okee County OU 8 Ra I roads Ste— Cherokee County, Kansas
EPA, 2007. Method 6200: Field Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry for the Determination
of Elemental Concentrations in Soil and Sediment. February.
EPA, 2009a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment.
EPA/540/R/070/002. January.
EPA, 2009b. Memorandum: Transmittal of Uptake of the Adult Lead Methodology's Default
Baseline Blood Lead Concentration and Geometric Standard Deviation Parameters. From
James E. Woolford. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. OSWER #9200.2-82. June.
EPA, 2010. Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children, Windows®
version (IEUBKwin vl.l build 11). February.
EPA, 2013. Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan for Region 7's Superfund Lead-
Contaminated Sites. Superfund Division. June.
EPA, 2015. Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. June
(current update).
U. S EPA Region 7
9-3
-------
Table(s)
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Table 3.1
Confirmation Sample Summary Table
Remedial Investigation Report
Cherokee CountySite - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County KS
Siimple Lociilion
i:i\\
l.;il) II)
Siimplc
Col loci ion
Diile
Siimplc
Depth
(in b»s)
Qt Siimples
Held
Dii pliciile
Results
Cd
Pb
Zn
CCR-SS-1A
6105-36
12/2/2013
0-6
42.6
490
9,870
CCR-SS-1B
6105-37
12/2/2013
18-24
43.4
266
9,920
CCR-SS-1C
6105-38
12/2/2013
24-30
52.8
475
13,300
CCR-SS-2A
6105-39
12/2/2013
6-12
84.6
1,940
16,200
CCR-SS-3A
6105-11
5/9/2013
6-12
29.2
417
4,500
CCR-SS-3B
6105-14
5/9/2013
30-36
1.7
61.5
393
CCR-SS-4A
6105-12
5/9/2013
18-24
27.0
193
5,780
6105-12-FD
X
37.0
257
7,200
CCR-SS-5A
6105-10
5/9/2013
12-18
113
837
22,000
CCR-SS-5B
6105-9
5/9/2013
6-12
24.1
3,260
7,170
CCR-SS-6A
6105-40
12/2/2013
6-12
24.3
322
6,080
CCR-SS-6B
6105-41
12/2/2013
18-24
17.0
76.6
2,430
CCR-SS-7A
6105-16
5/9/2013
12-18
35.3
510
7,520
6105-16-FD
X
30.1
361
6,430
CCR-SS-7B
6105-15
5/9/2013
6-12
40.3
270
9,610
CCR-SS-8A
6105-8
5/8/2013
12-18
67.2
266
15,200
CCR-SS-8B
6105-7
5/8/2013
6-12
79.3
906
16,800
CCR-SO-9A
6105-3
5/8/2013
0-6
48.2
369
11,900
CCR-SS-9B
6105-2
5/8/2013
42-48
0.63 J
24.6
97.1 J
CCR-SS-9C
6105-1
5/8/2013
24-30
37.0
225
8,910
CCR-SO-lOA
6105-6
5/8/2013
0-6
38.6
395
8,190
CCR-SS-10B
6105-5
5/8/2013
6-12
41.5
338
9,860
CCR-SS-10C
6105-4
5/8/2013
6-12
37.7
152
8,680
CCR-SS-11A
6105-73
12/5/2013
0-6
38.8 J
827
12,600
CCR-SS-12A
6105-71
12/5/2013
12-18
9.7
300
3,600
CCR-SS-12B
6105-72
12/5/2013
0-6
45.1
457
12,000
CCR-SS-13A
6105-74
12/5/2013
6-12
46.5
820
9,420
CCR-SS-13A
6105-20
5/10/2013
6-12
7.4
149
1,210
CCR-SS-13B
6105-69
12/5/2013
18-24
45.9
1,640
8,470
CCR-SS-13C
6105-68
12/4/2013
12-18
59.1
1,390
11,400
CCR-SS-13D
6105-70
12/5/2013
6-12
41.7
3,750
4,100
CCR-SS-13E
6105-66
12/4/2013
18-24
4.4
329
722
6105-66-FD
X
3.1
178
545
CCR-SO-15A
6105-19
5/10/2013
0-6
16.4
461
2,330
CCR-SS-15B
6105-18
5/10/2013
6-12
11.2
556
1,820
CCR-SO-16A
6105-22
5/10/2013
0-6
16.8
528
2,530
CCR-SO-16B
6105-21
5/10/2013
0-6
8.9 J
265
1,600
CCR-SS-17A
6105-29
6/11/2013
12-18
50.9
1,050
10,300
CCR-SS-17B
6105-26
6/11/2013
18-24
39.2
78.0
6,730
CCR-SS-17C
6105-25
6/11/2013
12-18
86.3
288
19,300
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table 3.1 (Continued)
Confirmation Sample Summary Table
Remedial Investigation Report
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County KS
Siimple Lociilion
i:i\\
l.;il) II)
Siimplc
Col loci ion
Diile
Siimplc
Depth
(in b»s)
QC Siimples
Held
Dii pliciile
Results
Cd
Pb
Zn
CCR-SS-18A
6105-24
6/11/2013
24-30
4.3
53.8
946
CCR-SS-19A
6105-28
6/11/2013
36-42
1.5 U
74.8
123
CCR-SS-20A
6105-23
6/11/2013
36-42
15.6
240
1290 J
6105-23-FD
X
12.4
198
1,140
CCR-SS-20B
6105-27
6/11/2013
12-18
15.6
58.1
1,370
CCR-SS-21A
6105-33
6/12/2013
24-30
24.5
364
4,830
CCR-SS-21B
6105-31
6/12/2013
12-18
11.5
468
2,260
CCR-SS-21C
6105-30
6/12/2013
6-12
12.9
916
3,470
6105-30-FD
X
13.7
981
3,770
CCR-SS-22A
6105-32
6/12/2013
30-36
0.43 U
7.3
13.9
CCR-SS-22A
6105-35
6/12/2013
36-42
0.53 U
22.7
67.5
CCR-SS-23B
6105-34
6/12/2013
18-24
43.9
123
7,680
CCR-SS-24A
6105-43
12/3/2013
24-30
2.1
86.0
383
CCR-SS-24B
6105-42
12/3/2013
6-12
36.5
609
6,640
CCR-SS-25A
6105-45
12/3/2013
6-12
49.2
1,960
14,100
CCR-SS-25B
6105-44
12/3/2013
0-6
37.9
386
8,090
CCR-SS-26A
6105-47
12/3/2013
0-6
37.2 J
884
8,100
CCR-SS-26B
6105-46
12/3/2013
18-24
33.4
472
8,450
CCR-SS-27A
6105-49
12/3/2013
6-12
54.5
4,260
12,100
CCR-SS-27B
6105-48
12/3/2013
12-18
55.2
429
10,500
CCR-SS-28A
6105-51
12/3/2013
6-12
69.8
466
12,500
CCR-SS-28B
6105-50
12/3/2013
6-12
29.5
392
5,770
CCR-SS-29A
6105-55
12/4/2013
18-24
62.6
380
11,400
CCR-SS-29B
6105-52
12/3/2013
18-24
48.6
403
10,700
CCR-SS-30A
6105-53
12/4/2013
18-24
100
2,310
17,700
CCR-SS-30B
6105-54
12/4/2013
12-18
10.2
1,500
2,040
CCR-SS-31A
6105-57
12/4/2013
18-24
55.4
3,600
13,700
6105-57-FD
X
33.8
3,340
10,500
CCR-SS-31B
6105-56
12/4/2013
12-18
33.9
476
6,100
CCR-SS-32A
6105-63
12/4/2013
18-24
105
1,150
18,400
6105-63-FD
X
55.5
1,320
12,300
CCR-SS-32B
6105-65
12/4/2013
12-18
107
1,260
21,700
CCR-SS-33A
6105-59
12/4/2013
6-12
60.0
727
11,600
6105-59-FD
X
54.9
880
10,100
CCR-SS-33B
6105-61
12/4/2013
6-12
38.4
887
7,940
6105-61-FD
X
42.6
737
7,280
Notes:
Cd = cadmium Pb = lead
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency QC = quality control
in bgs = inches below ground surface X = QC sample collected
ID = identification Zn = zinc
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table 5.1
Background Soil Concentrations From 1993 RI
Remedial Investigation Report
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Sample
Siiniple
II)
Lot'iilion
Pb
Cd
Zn
BBS-1
4063-SS-C3
8.9
0.6
9
BBS-2
4061-SS-LS
21
1.2
15
BBS-3
3611-SS-E2
14
0.7
170
BBS-4
1515 cell #1
14
0.7
48
BBS-5
1340 cell #1
23
0.7
41
TBS-1
1512 cell #1
29
1.2
21
TBS-2
1573 cell #1
16
0.6
16
TBS-3
1574 cell #1
13
1.2
31
Average
19
0.9
48.9
Residential Soil RSL
400
7.1
2,300
Notes:
The analytical results and RSLs are in milligrams per kilogram.
Cd = cadmium
ID = identification
Pb = lead
RSL = Regional Screening Level
Zn = zinc
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 5.2
Cadmium Screening Data - Surface and Subsurface Soil Range of Detections
Remedial Investigation Report
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Depth
Interval
Residential
Soil RSL
Detection Range
Number of
Detections
RSL
Kxceedances
Minimum
Maximum
0-6 inches
7.1
14
66
67
67
6-12 inches
14
74
62
62
12-18 inches
14
72
54
54
18-24 inches
14
74
47
47
24-30 inches
14
79
28
28
30-36 inches
18
36
25
25
36-42 inches
15
49
12
12
42-48 inches
13
37
10
10
Notes:
The analytical results and RSLs are in milligrams per kilogram.
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RSL = EPA Regional Screening Level for Residential Soil (June 2015)
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 5.3
Lead Screening Data - Surface and Subsurface Soil Range of Detections
Remedial Investigation Report
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Depth
Interval
Residential
Soil RSL
Detection Range
Number of
Detections
RSL
Kxceedances
Minimum
Maximum
0-6 inches
400
13
2,271
99
44
6-12 inches
14
2,255
80
43
12-18 inches
22
2,218
70
37
18-24 inches
17
3,490
65
32
24-30 inches
10
16,533
59
16
30-36 inches
11
7,739
55
15
36-42 inches
12
2,720
49
6
42-48 inches
7
2,013
41
3
Notes:
The analytical results and RSLs are in milligrams per kilogram.
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RSL = EPA Regional Screening Level for Residential Soil (June 2015)
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 5.4
Zinc Screening Data - Surface and Subsurface Soil Range of Detections
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Depth
Interval
Residential
Soil RSL
Detection Range
Number of
Detections
RSL
Kxceedances
Minimum
Maximum
0-6 inches
2,300
55
20,467
101
71
6-12 inches
71
23,967
81
62
12-18 inches
81
30,050
71
53
18-24 inches
29
19,433
68
45
24-30 inches
18
22,603
68
23
30-36 inches
27
19,100
68
20
36-42 inches
20
7,429
65
8
42-48 inches
18
7,720
61
5
Notes:
The analytical results and RSLs are in milligrams per kilogram.
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
nsv = no screening value
RSL = EPA Regional Screening Level for Residential Soil (June 2015)
Page 1 of 1
-------
Figure(s)
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
IK II.—Remedial Investigation for Cherokee County Site-OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
-------
US-160
KANSAS
290 m
284 m
280 m
-US-160
Columbus
Waco
Crestline
Carl
Junction
JASPER
NEW-TON
346 m
OKLAHOMA
304 m Pichei
Cardin
Eagle
Creek
Golf Club
5,1® 10,500
Feet
HGL—Remedial Investigation for Chemkee County Site-OU8
Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Figure 3.1
Former Rail Line Classifications and
Sample Locations
Legend
Ho! Sample Location
Site Boundary
Rail Classification
-! i~ Active Line
Confirmed Class 1. Residential
Confirmed Class 1. Rural
Suspected Class 1. Rural
Suspected Class 2, Rural
Suspected Class 2, Residential
Notes:
Class l=Rail line is beginning to deteriorate; no evidence of ties or
they are broken down, some weathering of rail bed (visible rail bed
topography exists at the site)
Class 2=Rail line is deteriorated; rail bed is discontinuous or has been
weathered extensively
Confirmed=Visually inspected
Rural =1 and is agricultural or wooded with little or no exposure potential
Residential=land is in residential areas
Suspected=Based on surrounding visually inspected locations
\ \Gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Cherokee_County\_MSIWm\
(3-01 )RR_Class_Sample_Locs. mxd
8/31/2015 JG
Source: HGL, ArcGIS Online USA TopoMap
v HGL
~ HydroGeoLogic, Inc
-------
Area Inset
Col umbos 160
/
P 9
/
~PMh Waco
.~-j
Area 1
-166 US-166
/
/
|Barter •
Springs ,
Cail
Juncijoii
Jepfcn
Regional
Ahrporl
Airpcft
bflve
Joplin
r*%1
Miles
/
/
Sample Location 1
Rail Bed
Dimensions
\
-------
W Sth St
Baxt
W 5th S!
w ethsi -
-WTthlst—
wathst;
I wnitrs*
1- Us 1 be—
Sample Location 12
Rail Bed
Dimensions
W H
12A 36' 0'
12A I
12B 14' 0'
12B 12B-S
Chat appeared
to have been
0 75, 15:0
spread out at
12A.
Fees
E 16 Rd —
/
HGL—Remedial Investigation for Chemkee County Site-OU8
Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Figure 3.3
Area 2
Sample Locations
Legend
• Soil Sample
Site Boundary
Rail Classification
Active Line
Confirmed Class 1. Residential
Confirmed Class 1. Rural
Suspected Class 1, Rural
Suspected Class 2, Rural
Suspected Class 2, Residential
Notes:
Class 1 =Rail line is beginning to deteriorate; no evidence of ties or
they are broken down, some weathering of rail bed (visible rail bed
topography exists at the site)
Class 2=Rail line is deteriorated; rail bed is discontinuous or has been
weathered extensively
Confirmed=Visually inspected
H=height
Rural=land is agricultural or wooded with little or no exposure potential
Residential=land is in residential areas
Suspected=Based on surrounding visually inspected locations
W=width
\ \Gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Cherokee_County\_MSIWXRI\
(3-03)A rea_2_Locs. mxd
8/31/2015 JG
Source: HGL, ArcGIS Online USA TopoMap
v HGL
"ZZ HydroGeoLogic, Inc
-------
Area Inset
ApUh
-------
Sample Location 21
Notes
Area Inset
Waco
Additional dimensions
were not recorded.
. c I umbo:
Jophn
Reqiona
Airperl
SEMesser Rd
|6axJer
Springs
I ' CT- I
Sample Location 23
Notes
Not to scale, dimensions
were not recorded.
Sample Location 22
Notes
Messet Rd ~ //
22 A—M
_ /
Feet m
Not to scale,
dimensions
were not recorded.
Rail bed crosses
an unnamed creek
and bridge is out.
/
/
Mm
11
1,000 2,000
Feet
/
4,f!O0'
HGL—Remedial Investigation for Chemkee County Site-OU8
Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Figure 3.5
Area 4
Sample Locations
Legend
• Soil Sample
Site Boundary
Rail Classification
~! ! ~ Active Line
-1 ~ Suspected Class I. Rural
' Suspected Class 2, Rural
Notes:
Class 1 =Rail line is beginning to deteriorate; no evidence of ties or
they are broken down, some weathering of rail bed (visible rail bed
topography exists at the site)
Class 2=Rail line is deteriorated; rail bed is discontinuous or has been
weathered extensively
Confirmed=Visually inspected
H=height
Rural=land is agricultural or wooded with little or no exposure potential
Residential=land is in residential areas
Suspected=Based on surrounding visually inspected locations
W=width
\ \Gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Cherokee_County\_MSIWXRI\
(3-05)A rea_4_Locs. mxd
8/31/2015 JG
Source: HGL, ArcGIS Online USA TopoMap
~ HGL
"ZZ HydroGeoLogic, Inc
-------
Area Inset
Area 5
Columbus 16°"
Joplin
Miles
275 m
Nfr Center Star Rd
Sample Location 26
26B-S
Rail Bed
Dimensions
W H
26A 22' 4'
26 B 22' 4'
26B-N not collected because
of drainage and heavy
vegetation growth.
Sample Location 27
Rail Bed
Dimensions
W H
_
27 A 23' 4'
27 B 23' 4'
27 B
Lateral locations not
27A
collected due to drainage
IT 75 150
and heavy vegetation
growth.
Feet
Sample Location 24
Rail Bed
Dimensions
24 B
1 .
24A
L.
W H
24A 12' 0'
24 B 12' 0'
Approximately 50 feet
past 24B rail line no
longer visible. Area had
been graded and
incorporated into farm
field.
0 75 150
(4CoJ
Feet
Dove Ln
2jf
§ Burl ington Northern Santa F e
\
1
Sample Location 31
Road
Dimensions
31A-N
\ia-s
0 75 tile
Feet
W H
31A 16' 3'
31B 18' 3'
/
JT*
JT LU
/
Cf)
2711
/
Sample Location 25
Rail Bed
Dimensions
25A-N
W H
25A 18' 2'
25 B 20' 4'
Drainage on both sides of 25B.
—^ /
T ^25A 25 B
25A-S 2bA
0 75 150
Feet
/
(/>
sz
«0m °
Ui
U)
SE Messer Rd
Sample Location 28
Rail Bed Dimensions
28 B
if 75 150'
Feet
28A-N
28 A T h
28A-S
o
u
W H
28A 21' 3'
28 B 24' 3'
Lateral samples collected between rail bed
and drainage on north and south sides.
Approximately halfway between SE 80th St
and SE 90th St rail bed has been converted
to a farm road with a layer of gravel applied.
1,500
3,000
Feet
6,000
SE Clem Rd
7
278
Sample Location 29
Rail Bed
Dimensions
29 B
W H
29A 16' 3'
29 B 18' 3'
29A
LU
t/>
0 75 150
Feet
Farm road continues
to this side of SE 90th St
with gravel applied.
HGL—Remedial Investigation for Chemkee County Site-OU8
Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Figure 3.6
Area 5
Sample Locations
Legend
• Soil Sample
Site Boundary
Rail Classification
Confirmed Class 1, Residential
Confirmed Class 1, Rural
Suspected Class 1, Rural
Suspected Class 2, Rural
Notes:
Class l=Rail line is beginning to deteriorate; no evidence of ties or
they are broken down, some weathering of rail bed (visible rail bed
topography exists at the site)
Class 2=Rail line is deteriorated; rail bed is discontinuous or has been
weathered extensively
Confirmed=Visually inspected
H=height
Rural =1 and is agricultural or wooded with little or no exposure potential
Residential=land is in residential areas
Suspected=Based on surrounding visually inspected locations
W=width
\ \Gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Cherokee_County\_MSIWXRI\
(3-06)A rea_5_Locs. mxd
8/31/2015 JG
Source: HGL, ArcGIS Online USA TopoMap
HGL
HydroGeoLogic, line
-------
Area Inset
Area 6
Columbia 160
-166 US-166
Miles
S
Sample Location 15
Rail Bed
Dimensions
//
W H
15A 9' 2'
Jr
15B 9' 2'
15A //"
Drainage on both sides
of rail bed and heavy
Jjr ® 150 s<»
vegetation growth.
Feet
/
/
/
Sample Location 14
Rail Bed
Dimensions
M . H !//
14A-W/V'
jfc— 14A
.Jfr 14A-E 0 IS ISO
// Feet
W H
14A 25' 0'
WMer encountered at 2 feet,
unable to collect after 3 feet.
Rail bed a short segment
between NE Lawton Rd and
NE 107th Terrace.
/
HBiSethlehern Rcf
/
Sample Location 13L
Rail Bed
Dimensions
&
W H
//
13A-L 9' 3'
Nt jusujP"
Drainage on both sides,
//
unable to collect lateral samples.
13A-L //
\// 0 150 300
// Feet
NF BelhJefiem Rd
NE'bghining Rd
NE Salisbury Rd
Feet
HGL—Remedial Investigation for Chemkee County Site-OU8
Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Figure 3.7
Area 6
Sample Locations
Legend
Soil Sample
4»—t
Site Boundary
Rail Classification
Confirmed Class 1, Residential
~! Confirmed Class 1, Rural
r~ Suspected Class 1. Rural
™ Suspected Class 2, Rural
Notes:
Class 1 =Rail line is beginning to deteriorate; no evidence of ties or
they are broken down, some weathering of rail bed (visible rail bed
topography exists at the site)
Class 2=Rail line is deteriorated; rail bed is discontinuous or has been
weathered extensively
Confirmed=Visually inspected
H=height
Rural=land is agricultural or wooded with little or no exposure potential
Residential=land is in residential areas
Suspected=Based on surrounding visually inspected locations
W=width
\ \Gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Cherokee_County\_MSIWXRI\
(3-07)A rea_6_Locs. mxd
8/31/2015 JG
Source: HGL, ArcGIS Online USA TopoMap
v HGL
"ZZ HydroGeoLogic, Inc
-------
Test Pit 1A
Test Pit IB
Metals Concentrations at Depth
25,000
20,000
OH
15,000
a
u
e
o
O
5,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Metals Concentrations at Depth
12,000
10,000
/©j3 8,000
"oil
B
G
O
cs
u
c
6,000
c
U 4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
—\ r
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
i Chat
Native Soil
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
577
7,750
29
6-12
637
9,477
36
12-18
535
22,067
51
18-24
187
14,733
50
24-30
134
1,700
14
30-36
14
2,093
20
36-42
27
346
<12.4
42-48
35
182
<12.6
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
327
7,453
18
6-12
681
8,138
28
12-18
532
10,057
32
18-24
403
9,936
29
24-30
102
6,426
22
30-36
<11.1
565
<13.1
36-42
<9.2
133
<12.2
42-48
19
316
<13.0
Figure 5.1
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 1
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 1C Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead M Zinc Cadmium
Test Pit 1B-E
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
125
3,433
16
6-12
69
888
<11.8
Test Pit 1B-W
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
76
772
<12.8
6-12
90
1,080
<13.0
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for
lateral test pits at which lead
concentrations were below the Regional
Screening Levels for lead.
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium -7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
108
3,583
17
6-12
373
12,300
38
12-18
203
16,600
29
18-24
126
19,433
36
24-30
242
13,111
36
30-36
<11.8
511
<13.7
36-42
19
315
<14.5
42-48
14
1,773
17
- Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were
used because results could be up to or equal to the
method detection limit without being detected and zero
was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.2
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 2
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Field Screening Data
Test Pit 2A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
(inches bgs)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
1,339
9,788
47
6-12
2,077
11,833
74
12-18
727
12,179
37
18-24
690
18,433
62
24-30
<9.8
461
<15.7
30-36
31
563
<13.1
36-42
208
1,799
<15.1
42-48
<13.2
60
<15.2
| | - Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits
were used because results could be up to
or equal to the method detection limit without being
detected and zero was not considered a correct
representation.
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
-------
Test Pit 3A
Test Pit 3B
cs
Metals Concentrations at Depth
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
/3b
"!> 3,000
e
o
2,500
§ 2,000
e
o
O
1,500
1,000
500
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
OJj
"oil
B
G
O
o
e
o
U
Metals Concentrations at Depth
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
i Chat
Native Soil
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
665
3,084
25
6-12
292
4,646
25
12-18
343
4,295
17
18-24
89
2,518
<14.1
24-30
29
661
<14.6
30-36
21
1,133
<13.9
36-42
32
280
<13.8
42-48
59
216
<13.4
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
1,724
9,616
47
6-12
656
7,684
27
12-18
27
231
<13.5
18-24
19
2,321
74
24-30
19
62
<14.1
30-36
71
453
<13.9
36-42
12
20
<12.8
42-48
15
32
<14.5
Figure 5.3
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 3
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 3B-N Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead M Zinc Cadmium
Test Pit 3B-2
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
2,014
7,148
51
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for lateral
test pits at which only one interval was
collected.
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
1,354
3,630
35
6-12
649
2,257
<15.1
12-18
2,161
5,157
27
- Above Residential Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
being detected and zero was not considered a correct
representation.
-------
Figure 5.4
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 4
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Field Screening Data
Test Pit 4A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
I I I I I 1 1
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
i Chat
Native Soil
Depth
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
(inches bgs)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
700
6,412
21
6-12
432
7,402
21
12-18
497
8,510
26
18-24
226
6,997
22
24-30
284
7,883
34
30-36
164
8,239
30
| | - Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits
were used because results could be up to
or equal to the method detection limit without being
detected and zero was not considered a correct
representation.
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
-------
Test Pit 5A
Test Pit 5B
-a
"oil
B
G
O
e
a>
CJ
e
o
U
Metals Concentrations at Depth
12,000
10,000
,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
e
o
O
Metals Concentrations at Depth
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
-a
1> 12,000
e
B 10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
-I 1
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
i Chat
Native Soil
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
1,149
8,038
38
6-12
786
7,700
30
12-18
838
10,133
56
18-24
525
6,041
30
24-30
474
5,660
34
30-36
170
1,576
19
36-42
457
3,246
<14.9
42-48
7
180
<12.9
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
1,360
4,891
28
6-12
1,044
7,875
15
12-18
800
14,214
46
18-24
568
18,433
33
24-30
981
9,054
21
30-36
871
6,070
30
36-42
42-48
Test Pit 5B-N
Figure 5.5
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 5
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
6,000
5,000
-a 4,ooo
"oil
B
G
•B 3,000
e
3 2,000
1,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Test Pit 5B-S
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
572
7,946
66
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for lateral
test pits at which only one interval was
collected.
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
409
5,107
<11.8
6-12
2,009
4,748
<15
12-18
311
3,210
14
18-24
24-30
30-36
- Above Residential Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
not detected. Method detection limits were used because
results could be up to or equal to the method detection limit
without being detected and zero was not considered a correct
representation.
-------
Figure 5.6
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 6
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 6A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
7,000
6,000
3
s
§
5,000
4,000
3,000
s
o
U
2,000
1,000
6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native Soil
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
134
1,573
17
6-12
495
5,821
29
12-18
453
6,504
32
18-24
39
592
<13.7
24-30
19
295
<13.8
30-36
74
1,236
<13.0
36-42
94
2,855
49
42-48
50
507
<14.1
Test Pit 6B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
12,000
10,000
,000
I
s
•2 6,000
s
o
U
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-4242-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦ Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
112
1,241
<12.6
6-12
632
11,168
71
12-18
409
9,805
41
18-24
657
8,898
32
24-30
13
463
<14.7
30-36
59
1,249
<12.8
36-42
21
181
<14.2
42-48
12
90
<12.0
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels HQ=0.1: Cadmium -7.1 mg/kg Lead - 400 mg/kg Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
- Above Residential RSL Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
bgs - below ground surface not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
Bold - Detection being detected and zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.7
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 7
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 7A
Test Pit 7B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
14,000
12,000
3
s
§
s
o
U
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-4242-48
Depth (inches bgs)
• Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native Soil
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
367
12,300
38
6-12
366
11,583
28
12-18
365
5,207
18
18-24
238
6,646
18
24-30
325
4,547
33
30-36
320
4,581
23
36-42
178
2,492
18
42-48
43
454
<13.9
Metals Concentrations at Depth
16,000
14,000
12,000
'oI
m 10,000
e
s
•2 8,000
s
o
U
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-4242-48
Depth (inches bgs)
•Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
310
7,055
23
6-12
235
7,585
28
12-18
547
13,375
58
18-24
258
6,004
55
24-30
317
7,837
22
30-36
252
8,838
26
36-42
252
5,948
23
42-48
445
7,720
33
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels: Cadmium - 7.1
- Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
mg/kg Lead - 400 mg/kg Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
being detected and zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.8
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 8
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 8A Test Pit 8B Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Metals Concentrations at Depth
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
OJj
"oil
B
G
O
cz
*3 8,000
a>
CJ
e
o
° 6,000
4,000
2,000
0-6
12-18
¦Lead
18-24 24-30
Depth (inches bgs)
25,000
20,000
on
m 15,000
E,
e
_o
*-5
u
c
fj 10,000
s
o
O
5,000
36-42
42-48
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
12 18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
i Chat
Native Soil
36
42
48
12-18
¦Lead
18-24 24-30
Depth (inches bgs)
30-36
36-42
42-48
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
Test Pit 8A-W
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
60
655
<12.4
6-12
<9.1
132
<12.8
Test Pit 8A-E
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
39
356
<15.9
6-12
51
420
<12.7
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for
lateral test pits at which lead
concentrations were below the Regional
Screening Levels for lead.
12 18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
36
42
48
i Chat Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Native Soil Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 71 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
322
8,220
32
6-12
302
16,833
47
12-18
236
14,900
29
18-24
187
10,202
23
24-30
61
6,204
28
30-36
17
1,297
19
36-42
<10.3
117
<13
42-48
67
5,347
37
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
269
4,313
25
6-12
330
20,967
63
12-18
294
9,958
42
18-24
193
18,767
45
24-30
14
466
<14.2
30-36
19
2,010
37
36-42
28
1,081
<14.5
42-48
18
577
<13.9
Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Test Pit 9A
Test Pit 9B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
16,000
14,000
12,000
OH
10,000
OH
,000
g 6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
•Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Metals Concentrations at Depth
16,000
14,000
12,000
OS)
=5 10,000
OJD
G
•2 8,000
e
01
g 6,000
O
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
•Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native Soil
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
364
8,751
25
6-12
212
15,018
43
12-18
125
7,536
29
18-24
44
2,292
32
24-30
31
376
<18.9
30-36
44
623
<17.3
36-42
15
29
<13.4
42-48
<11.1
25
<13.2
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
2,271
5,884
14
6-12
676
11,762
21
12-18
305
13,709
23
18-24
149
6,984
17
24-30
368
8,760
22
30-36
192
6,267
<15.5
36-42
58
1,104
40
42-48
100
36
<14.6
Test Pit 9C
Figure 5.9
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 9
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Cherokee County, Kansas
OJj
Metals Concentrations at Depth
25,000
20,000
a 15,000
E
S 10,000
5,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
•Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Test Pit 9B-E
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
272
753
<13.7
Test Pit 9B-W
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
93
2,579
18
6-12
159
1,816
20
12-18
272
753
<13.7
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for
lateral test pits at which lead
concentrations were below the Regional
Screening Levels for lead.
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 71 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
483
16,433
41
6-12
374
13,833
37
12-18
363
20,297
40
18-24
195
6,787
26
24-30
252
8,356
34
30-36
150
5,466
25
36-42
45
1,674
<13.3
42-48
24
220
<14.6
- Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Test Pit 10A
Test Pit 10B
OJj
"oil
B
G
O
0)
Metals Concentrations at Depth
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
CJ
c
o
u 6,000
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
OJj
"oil
B
G
O
Metals Concentrations at Depth
14,000
12,000
10,000
,000
£ 6,000
U
B
o
O
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
i Chat
Native Soil
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
640
10,786
43
6-12
606
16,933
54
12-18
38
1,441
<14.9
18-24
55
1,738
<14.8
24-30
<11.0
62
<14.8
30-36
15
123
<13.3
36-42
19
58
<15
42-48
20
225
<13.9
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
473
12,367
63
6-12
364
6,051
31
12-18
<10.2
286
<14.2
18-24
22
663
<13.2
24-30
17
102
<13.4
30-36
21
88
<13.2
36-42
14
27
<13.4
42-48
<10.9
59
<14.1
Test Pit 10C
Figure 5.10
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 10
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
8,000
7,000
6,000
©JD
sg 5,000
©JD
B
G
•§ 4,000
•-
B
01
g 3,000
O
2,000
1,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Test Pit 10A-N
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
131
1,148
<13.7
6-12
261
890
<13.6
Test Pit 10B-N
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
13
94
<13.0
6-12
16
71
<16.7
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for
lateral testpits at which lead concentrations
were below the Regional Screening Levels
for lead.
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
- Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
85
6,176
27
6-12
119
6,718
32
12-18
22
273
<13.1
18-24
19
1,431
<15
24-30
26
318
<12.8
30-36
14
220
<13.5
36-42
27
114
<14.9
42-48
16
20
<15.2
-------
Figure 5.11
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 11
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 11A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
'Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
573
15,967
25
6-12
441
15,067
41
12-18
739
12,167
39
18-24
566
16,767
38
24-30
<9.5
173
<12.6
30-36
<10.2
29
<13.0
36-42
63
289
<13.8
42-48
<10.8
35
<13.5
Test Pit 11A-N
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
37
244
<12.0
Test Pit 11A-S
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
74
871
<13.0
Metals concentration graphs and soil classification
profiles are not shown for lateral test pits at which
lead concentrations were below the Regional
Screening Levels for lead.
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
- Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Test Pit 12A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead M Zinc Cadmium
Figure 5.12
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 12
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 12B Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead U Zinc Cadmium
Test Pit 12B-S
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
52
577
<10.9
Test Pit 12B-N
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
65
545
<12.4
Metals concentration graphs and boring log
profiles are not shown for lateral testpits at
which lead concentrations were below the
Regional Screening Levels for lead.
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 01 (June 2015)
0
5 12
18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
1
36
1
42
48
0
5 12
18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
1
36
1
42
48
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
185
3,420
<13.4
6-12
379
5,193
<14.3
12-18
596
8,331
24
18-24
219
2,198
20
24-30
14
396
<13.2
30-36
<11.6
170
<13.3
36-42
<9.5
51
<12.8
42-48
<11.0
70
<13.0
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
478
11,610
37
6-12
204
11,063
30
12-18
200
7,840
27
18-24
166
13,215
27
24-30
12
23
<13.2
30-36
<10.3
46
<13.4
36-42
<11.8
64
<13.6
42-48
16
32
<16.0
- Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.13a
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 13-Lawton
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 13A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
¦
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
(inches bgs)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
238
4,504
19
6-12
145
1,530
<12.9
12-18
41
532
<13.2
18-24
<11.2
163
<13.8
24-30
<10
37
<12.8
30-36
17
39
<13.4
36-42
12
52
<12.2
42-48
<9.4
57
<13.2
| | - Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits
were used because results could be up to
or equal to the method detection limit without being
detected and zero was not considered a correct
representation.
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
-------
Test Pit 13A
Test Pit 13B
25,000
20,000
-a
15,000
&
c
.2
u
-g
H 10,000
e
o
O
5,000
Metals Concentrations at Depth
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Metals Concentrations at Depth
9,000
8,000
7,000
¦Si 6,000
~Sb
a
5,000
4,000
e
6 3,000
2,000
1,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦ Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Native Soil
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
672
12,900
43
6-12
823
10,357
38
12-18
619
10,433
41
18-24
1,012
13,733
33
24-30
1,123
15,700
35
30-36
1,654
19,100
33
36-42
1,029
7,429
22
42-48
523
6,391
26
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
856
3,834
21
6-12
1,750
7,648
31
12-18
1,488
2,912
23
18-24
1,641
3,226
20
24-30
651
2,525
27
30-36
700
2,608
60
36-42
244
1,315
20
42-48
24
1,700
<13.3
Figure 5.13b
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 13-Baxter
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 13C Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead M Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Cadmium -7.1 mg/kg
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
| | - Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were
used because results could be up to or equal to the
method detection limit without being detected and
zero was not considered a correct representation.
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
1,820
8,686
32
6-12
1,282
5,743
33
12-18
1,531
8,619
30
18-24
1,518
7,398
41
24-30
16,533
6,724
26
30-36
1,492
10,169
38
36-42
<9.3
452
<13.7
42-48
96
2,831
30
-------
Test Pit 13D
Test Pit 13E
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead M Zinc Cadmium
Metals Concentrations at Depth
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
183
10,745
22
6-12
2,255
5,275
36
12-18
820
1,505
<13.4
18-24
782
447
<14.5
24-30
59
428
<14.4
30-36
150
579
<12.9
36-42
42
249
<13.0
42-48
43
235
<13.7
Depth
(inches
bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
865
5,860
32
6-12
902
6,183
28
12-18
203
377
<13.7
18-24
426
531
<13.3
24-30
<10.0
133
<12.3
30-36
25
135
<13.3
36-42
62
226
<12.0
42-48
<9.9
197
<13.0
Figure 5.13b (Continued)
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 13-Baxter
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 13E-N Test Pit 13B-N
Depth
(inches
bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
1,255
4,540
<13.4
Depth
(inches
bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
1,168
1,537
<11.6
Test Pit 13E-S
Test Pit 13B-S
Depth
(inches
bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
652
4,153
<13.5
Depth
(inches
bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
301
3,469
<10.7
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown
for lateral test pits at which only
one interval was collected.
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium -7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
| | - Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were
used because results could be up to or equal to the
method detection limit without being detected and
zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.14
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 14
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 14A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
I I 1 1 1 1 1
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
i Chat
Native Soil
Depth
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
(inches bgs)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
104
5,763
24
6-12
136
3,765
25
12-18
169
2,760
<13.7
18-24
222
38
<13.2
24-30
<9.8
64
<11.9
30-36
15
75
<12.2
36-42
42-48
| | - Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits
were used because results could be up to
or equal to the method detection limit without being
detected and zero was not considered a correct
representation.
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
-------
Figure 5.15
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 15
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 15A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
¦ Native Soil
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
328
1,972
<13.6
6-12
244
1,249
<11.2
12-18
95
828
<11.6
18-24
62
536
<11.8
24-30
10
122
<12.7
30-36
16
255
<14.9
36-42
<10.1
29
<12.8
42-48
<8.8
18
<12.6
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels HQ=0.1: Cadmium - 7.1
- Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Test Pit 15B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
579
4,418
<12.3
6-12
443
2,597
<13.6
12-18
222
295
<12.9
18-24
247
310
<13.8
24-30
27
61
<12.0
30-36
11
45
<13.9
36-42
47
78
<14.8
42-48
14
45
<13.0
Lead - 400 mg/kg Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
being detected and zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.16
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 16
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 16A Test Pit 16B Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
1,800
1,600
12-18
•Lead
18-24 24-30 30-36
Depth (inches bgs)
36-42
42-48
•Zinc
Cadmium
Metals Concentrations at Depth
600
500
a 400
"5b
a.
CS
•-
£5
01
u
e
3 200
100
12-18
•Lead
18-24 24-30
Depth (inches bgs)
30-36
•Zinc
Cadmium
Test Pit 16A-E
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
70
383
<12.5
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for
test pits at which lead concentrations were
below the Regional Screening Levels for
lead.
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0
5 12
18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
1
36
1
42
48
Native Soil
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0
5 12
18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
36
42
48
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
412
1,572
<12.3
6-12
194
757
<11.7
12-18
217
1,183
<13.1
18-24
19
162
<12.1
24-30
26
65
<15.2
30-36
<11.3
27
<12.7
36-42
20
25
<12.7
42-48
<10.2
18
<12.6
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
158
530
<12.3
6-12
25
81
<12.7
12-18
30
81
<12.8
18-24
17
29
<11.9
24-30
13
18
<12
30-36
14
33
<13.6
36-42
<16.5
38
<12.4
42-48
<10.2
32
<12.9
Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Test Pit 17 A
Test Pit 17B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead M Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Native Soil
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
570
6,795
44
6-12
463
20,000
59
12-18
987
15,200
60
18-24
800
3,248
29
24-30
127
1,640
17
30-36
<12.4
427
<12.5
36-42
18
218
<14.8
42-48
<14.0
325
<13.9
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead U Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
281
2,829
<12.8
6-12
506
14,700
54
12-18
422
30,050
72
18-24
115
7,499
29
24-30
56
329
<12.8
30-36
<11.1
198
<11.7
36-42
<14.8
32
<14.2
42-48
<13.1
26
<12.5
Figure 5.17
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 17
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 17C
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead U Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
- Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
515
6,781
34
6-12
516
9,644
39
12-18
371
13,900
56
18-24
329
13,867
57
24-30
18
66
<12.8
30-36
15
158
<11.6
36-42
<15.9
83
<12.9
42-48
22
126
<13.8
-------
Test Pit 17B-S
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead M Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
^ 1 1 1 1 1 1
¦ Native Soil
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
676
6,267
28
6-12
264
2,132
14
Figure 5.17 (Continued)
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 17
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 17B-N
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
<14.1
55
16
Test Pit 17B-S2
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
C admium
0-6
89
718
<12.3
Metals concentration graphs and boring log
profiles are not shown for test pits at which
lead concentrations were below the
Regional Screening Levels for lead.
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
- Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.18
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 18
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 18A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0
5 12
18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
36
42
48
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
421
13,075
52
6-12
281
23,967
37
12-18
63
425
16
18-24
<13.5
63
<13.5
24-30
18
647
<12.0
30-36
<11.4
35
<11.9
36-42
<11.8
59
<13.2
42-48
<12.7
117
<13.3
| | - Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits
were used because results could be up to
or equal to the method detection limit without being
detected and zero was not considered a correct
representation.
-------
Figure 5.19
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 19
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 19A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
1,600
1,400
1,200
"SI
"oi) 1,000
g
•2 800
sa
-
S3
ci
o
S
o
U
600
400
200
12-18
18-24 24-30
Depth (inches bgs)
30-36
36-42
42-48
•Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
(inches bgs)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
1,079
960
15
6-12
246
1,120
20
12-18
204
1,444
19
18-24
860
994
17
24-30
40
474
<14
30-36
413
886
<12.5
36-42
49
182
<13.6
42-48
25
104
<13.7
| | - Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits
were used because results could be up to
or equal to the method detection limit without being
detected and zero was not considered a correct
representation.
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
-------
Figure 5.20
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 20
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 20A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
1,200
1,000
800
| 600
sa
-
S3
S
o
u
400
200
o I A I 1 I A l-A I Irr A A
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
• Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native Soil
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
<14.1
260
<13.1
6-12
14
267
<12.1
12-18
25
329
<13.8
18-24
<13.1
240
<12.7
24-30
<12.2
200
<11.8
30-36
44
286
<13.8
36-42
114
960
<12.5
42-48
19
515
15
Test Pit 20B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
4,000
3,500
3,000
'oI
m 2,500
e
•S 2,000
| 1,500
o
U
1,000
500
£
**
0-6 6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
•Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
395
3,706
27
6-12
138
1,939
24
12-18
131
1,464
22
18-24
94
813
14
24-30
75
809
<12.1
30-36
24
682
<11.9
36-42
223
623
18
42-48
<13.4
781
13
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels HQ=0.1: Cadmium -7.1 mg/kg Lead - 400 mg/kg Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
- Above Residential RSL Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
bgs - below ground surface not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
Bold - Detection being detected and zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Test Pit 21A
Test Pit 2IB
Metals Concentrations at Depth
12,000
10,000
-a 8,ooo
I
g
•2 6,000
sa
-
S3
ci
o
s
U 4,000
2,000
6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0
5 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Native Soil
Metals Concentrations at Depth
12,000
10,000
-a 8,ooo
I
g
•2 6,000
sa
-
S3
ci
o
s
U 4,000
2,000
6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
i Chat
Native Soil
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
461
2,690
21
6-12
1,785
5,078
29
12-18
889
9,934
41
18-24
471
9,678
27
24-30
262
3,367
39
30-36
190
1,210
40
36-42
16
86
15
42-48
27
104
19
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
534
5,298
24
6-12
930
5,687
28
12-18
600
7,905
25
18-24
501
11,069
47
24-30
76
852
<12.9
30-36
86
439
18
36-42
43
282
<12.4
42-48
46
181
<13.9
Figure 5.21
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 21
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 21C Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead M Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Cadmium -7.1 mg/kg
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
- Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
829
4,368
36
6-12
1,151
3,367
22
12-18
1,031
3,248
28
18-24
390
7,836
34
24-30
212
686
18
30-36
583
3,510
21
36-42
16
41
19
42-48
18
59
<11.5
-------
Figure 5.22
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 22
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 22A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
(inches bgs)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
716
4,007
27
6-12
707
3,666
27
12-18
655
6,454
32
18-24
608
2,131
24
24-30
173
1,095
26
30-36
21
53
<14.7
36-42
25
147
<19.2
42-48
26
33
17
| | - Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits
were used because results could be up to
or equal to the method detection limit without being
detected and zero was not considered a correct
representation.
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
-------
Figure 5.23
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 23
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 23A Test Pit 23B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
9,000
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
309
8,039
23
6-12
261
6,797
30
12-18
76
2,669
16
18-24
84
2,550
18
24-30
21
368
<11.7
30-36
<11.4
130
<11.2
36-42
16
98
<12.3
42-48
<11.7
208
<11.6
Metals Concentrations at Depth
16,000
14,000
12,000
-a
M 10,000
e
01
u
e
o
O
;,ooo
6,000
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-4242-48
Depth (inches bgs)
¦Lead
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
317
6,314
25
6-12
177
7,310
29
12-18
295
13,392
39
18-24
136
4,471
30
24-30
<11.7
191
<11.2
30-36
<11.7
86
<11.5
36-42
95
397
<11.3
42-48
<13.0
53
<15.7
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels HQ = 0.1: Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg Lead - 400 mg/kg Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
- Above Residential RSL Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
bgs - below ground surface not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
Bold - Detection being detected and zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.24
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 24
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 24A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
6,000
5,000
^ 4,000
I
g
•2 3,000
C3
O
§ 2,000
1,000
6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
• Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native Soil
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
388
5,711
26
6-12
226
3,429
<14.9
12-18
270
3,443
<11.0
18-24
537
1,600
<13.6
24-30
98
143
<13.9
30-36
17
142
<13.4
36-42
26
155
<12.5
42-48
19
222
<13.6
Test Pit 24B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
14,000
12,000
3
I
s
o
o
S
o
u
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-4242-48
Depth (inches bgs)
•Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
310
3,286
17
6-12
1,199
5,406
38
12-18
558
4,977
18
18-24
1,170
3,332
<13.0
24-30
530
11,707
<10.4
30-36
115
938
18
36-42
51
1,821
<12.6
42-48
26
457
<11.9
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels HQ=0.1: Cadmium - 7.1
- Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
mg/kg Lead - 400 mg/kg Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
being detected and zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.25
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 25
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 25A Test Pit 25B Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
12,000
10,000
OJj
"oil
S
,000
e
•§ 6,000
CJ
g
w 4,000
2,000
0-6
6-12
12-18
¦Lead
18-24 24-30 30-36
Depth (inches bgs)
36-42
42-48
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Metals Concentrations at Depth
18,000
16,000
14,000
OH
~Sb
E,
e
o
12,000
10,000
8,000
g
^ 6,000
4,000
2,000
0-6
6-12
12-18
¦Lead
18-24 24-30 30-36
Depth (inches bgs)
36-42
42-48
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Test Pit 25A-N
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
239
2,085
<12.9
6-12
164
1,335
<13.1
Test Pit 25A-S
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
129
1,080
<12.5
6-12
61
342
<12.8
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for
lateral test pits at which lead
concentrations were below the Regional
Screening Levels for lead.
Soil Classification
12 18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
36
i Chat
Native Soil
42
48
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native Soil
12 18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
36
42
48
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
420
5,463
21
6-12
1,657
11,251
52
12-18
785
7,921
25
18-24
2,057
5,101
29
24-30
832
8,416
33
30-36
115
836
<12.9
36-42
22
110
<12.3
42-48
12
50
<13.3
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
397
5,988
32
6-12
714
14,067
44
12-18
729
14,267
38
18-24
2,285
14,000
50
24-30
2,957
16,340
31
30-36
7,117
9,810
31
36-42
1,902
3,385
35
42-48
25
916
<13.2
Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.26
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 26
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 26A Test Pit 26B Cherokee County, Kansas
16,000
14,000
2,000
Metals Concentrations at Depth
12-18
•Lead
18-24 24-30 30-36
Depth (inches bgs)
36-42
42-48
•Zinc
Cadmium
Metals Concentrations at Depth
14,000
12,000
10,000
3
s
I
-
S3
ci
o
s
o
U
,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
12-18
•Lead
18-24 24-30 30-36
Depth (inches bgs)
36-42
42-48
•Zinc
Cadmium
Test Pit 26B-S
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
85
480
<13.1
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for
test pits at which lead concentrations were
below the Regional Screening Level.
Soil Classification
12 18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
36
i Chat
Native Soil
42
48
Soil Classification
12 18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
36
i Chat
Native Soil
42
48
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium -7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
701
6,876
48
6-12
424
13,891
28
12-18
364
5,315
20
18-24
333
3,703
<13.9
24-30
7,855
7,010
31
30-36
7,739
6,993
29
36-42
192
393
<12.9
42-48
42
184
<12.8
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
313
6,238
20
6-12
327
12,599
44
12-18
238
10,995
20
18-24
448
8,851
19
24-30
708
1,868
<12.7
30-36
185
1,217
28
36-42
110
744
<13.1
42-48
<10.4
47
<13.2
Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.27
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 27
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 27A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
,000
7,000
g 3,000
o
U
2,000
1,000
6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
• Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native Soil
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
244
7,010
29
6-12
1,428
4,993
46
12-18
74
780
<13.4
18-24
439
1,244
<12.9
24-30
75
248
<13.0
30-36
<9.2
237
<12.9
36-42
<9.3
340
<12.7
42-48
<9.0
258
<12.9
Test Pit 27B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
25,000
20,000
jf 15,000
S3
O
10,000
5,000
0-6 6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-4242-48
Depth (inches bgs)
•Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
276
5,983
21
6-12
549
3,120
20
12-18
485
9,610
41
18-24
239
10,847
42
24-30
291
21,567
79
30-36
555
11,867
69
36-42
<9.5
769
<12.3
42-48
<11.2
192
<13.3
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels HQ=0.1: Cadmium - 7.1
- Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
mg/kg Lead - 400 mg/kg Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
being detected and zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.28
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 28
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 28A Test Pit 28B Cherokee County, Kansas
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
'OJD
M
O* 12,000
B
G
¦B 10,000
c*
u
fi
a 8,ooo
s
o
O
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0-6
Metals Concentrations at Depth
6-12
12-18
¦Lead
18-24 24-30
Depth (inches bgs)
30-36
36-42
42-48
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Metals Concentrations at Depth
12-18
•Lead
18-24 24-30
Depth (inches bgs)
30-36
36-42
42-48
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Test Pit 28A-S
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
97
1,357
<13.5
Test Pit 28B-N
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
48
703
<12.4
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for
lateral test pits at which lead
concentrations were below the Regional
Screening Levels for lead.
Soil Classification
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native Soil
I Chat
Native Soil
12 18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
36
42
48
12 18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
36
42
48
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
170
9,061
33
6-12
611
17,433
52
12-18
570
9,903
29
18-24
784
5,214
24
24-30
541
1,957
<14.5
30-36
699
3,336
<14.0
36-42
<11.6
343
<13.4
42-48
<9.1
170
<13.1
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
391
6,136
31
6-12
441
8,932
33
12-18
600
7,870
44
18-24
1,319
8,951
37
24-30
859
3,073
24
30-36
162
2,315
<14.1
36-42
<10.5
35
<14.0
42-48
31
136
<13.3
- Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.29
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 29
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 29A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
¦ Native Soil
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
190
20,467
35
6-12
197
17,100
37
12-18
2,218
13,519
37
18-24
422
9,494
40
24-30
584
8,048
34
30-36
86
1,940
18
36-42
27
1,046
<13.0
42-48
<8.4
199
<13.4
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels HQ=0.1: Cadmium - 7.1
- Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Test Pit 29B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Depth (inches bgs)
Lead ^^^Zinc Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
343
4,361
27
6-12
321
7,693
27
12-18
457
7,309
37
18-24
324
7,448
32
24-30
3,205
22,603
67
30-36
2,289
8,755
48
36-42
2,720
3,214
23
42-48
2,013
3,040
24
Lead - 400 mg/kg Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
being detected and zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.30
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 30
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 30A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
14,000
12,000
3
s
I
-
S3
ci
o
s
o
U
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-4242-48
Depth (inches bgs)
• Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native Soil
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
386
5,514
23
6-12
653
11,509
23
12-18
1,759
3,903
20
18-24
1,706
7,926
29
24-30
54
417
<13.4
30-36
887
3,928
30
36-42
51
126
<14.8
42-48
237
1,636
<13.9
Test Pit 30B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
,000
7,000
6,000
'oi 5,000
e
•S 4,000
| 3,000
o
U
2,000
1,000
0-6 6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
•Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
727
7,211
37
6-12
1,054
5,191
23
12-18
1,582
3,707
23
18-24
3,490
1,821
<14.3
24-30
32
204
<12.9
30-36
425
2,688
<13.4
36-42
68
30
<13.5
42-48
18
55
<13.6
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels HQ=0.1: Cadmium - 7.1
- Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
mg/kg Lead - 400 mg/kg Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
being detected and zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.31
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 31
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Test Pit 31A Test Pit 31B Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
Metals Concentrations at Depth
12-18
•Lead
18-24 24-30
Depth (inches bgs)
30-36
36-42
42-48
,000
7,000
6,000
OJD
sg 5,000
OJD
B
e
•B 4,000
c
a>
g 3,000
O
2,000
1,000
0-6
6-12
•Zinc
Cadmium
12-18
¦Lead
18-24 24-30
Depth (inches bgs)
30-36
36-42
42-48
Test Pit 31A-S
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
81
342
<12.8
Test Pit 31A-N
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
44
376
<13.1
•Zinc
Cadmium
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for
lateral test pits at which lead
concentrations were below the Regional
Screening Levels for lead.
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 0.1 (June 2015)
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
446
6,454
27
6-12
463
6,775
30
12-18
507
7,740
33
18-24
1,355
5,157
43
24-30
905
4,972
39
30-36
1,598
2,386
38
36-42
1,266
4,682
17
42-48
<10.9
41
<13.8
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
437
7,201
31
6-12
625
6,446
22
12-18
492
6,445
32
18-24
555
6,835
29
24-30
1,713
1,898
23
30-36
2,411
741
<14.9
36-42
666
1,383
<13.8
42-48
33
185
<12.7
- Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Test Pit 32A
Test Pit 32B
Figure 5.32
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 32
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads
Cherokee County, Kansas
Metals Concentrations at Depth
16,000
14,000
12,000
OJj
=? 10,000
on
,000
I 6,000
4,000
2,000
0-6
12-18
¦Lead
18-24 24-30
Depth (inches bgs)
36-42
42-48
¦Zinc
Cadmium
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
'OJD
M
12,000
B
c
•§ 10,000
e
01
u
e
o
O
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Metals Concentrations at Depth
0-6
6-12
12-18
¦Lead
18-24 24-30 30-36
Depth (inches bgs)
36-42
42-48
¦Zinc
Cadmium
Test Pit 32B-E
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
75
1,452
<12.0
Metals concentration graphs and soil
classification profiles are not shown for
lateral test pits at which lead
concentrations were below the Regional
Screening Levels for lead.
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels
Total Hazard Quotient = 01 (June 2015)
0
5 12
18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
I
36
I
42
48
0
5 12
18 24 30
Depth (inches bgs)
1
36
1
42
48
Cadmium - 7.1 mg/kg
Lead - 400 mg/kg
Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
691
14,800
46
6-12
658
7,767
51
12-18
880
8,611
29
18-24
932
12,902
35
24-30
99
1,079
26
30-36
16
537
<10.8
36-42
<10.8
98
<13.1
42-48
<11.3
76
<13.1
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
882
8,779
37
6-12
760
9,297
35
12-18
1,060
10,933
55
18-24
1,200
18,833
35
24-30
332
2,202
<13.5
30-36
280
2,408
45
36-42
13
117
<13.6
42-48
<12.1
157
<14.1
Above Regional Screening Level
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for
samples not detected. Method detection limits were used
because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without being detected and zero was not
considered a correct representation.
-------
Figure 5.33
Metals Concentrations at Depth - Location 33
Field Screening Data
Cherokee County Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
Test Pit 33A
Metals Concentrations at Depth
16,000
14,000
12,000
"SI
la 10,000
e
g
•2 8,000
C3
U
C
| 6,000
o
U
4,000
2,000
0-6 6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-4242-48
Depth (inches bgs)
• Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
i Chat
Native Soil
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
750
11,533
49
6-12
686
8,748
37
12-18
1,040
14,700
49
18-24
612
10,790
58
24-30
<13.0
159
<14.5
30-36
<10.3
182
<13.2
36-42
12
1,935
<13.2
42-48
29
651
<13.2
Test Pit 33B
Metals Concentrations at Depth
7,000
6,000
3
I
S3
O
5,000
4,000
3,000
o
S
o
O
2,000
1,000
0-6 6-12 12-1818-2424-3030-3636-42 42-48
Depth (inches bgs)
•Lead
•Zinc
Cadmium
Soil Classification
¦ Chat
Native Soil
0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Depth (inches bgs)
Depth
(inches bgs)
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
0-6
682
5,566
23
6-12
747
6,307
23
12-18
28
117
<14.4
18-24
185
734
<14.1
24-30
164
433
<13.1
30-36
52
127
<13.8
36-42
<10.6
502
<12.7
42-48
19
547
<13.0
Residential Soil Regional Screening Levels HQ=0.1: Cadmium - 7.1
- Above Residential RSL
bgs - below ground surface
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Bold - Detection
mg/kg Lead - 400 mg/kg Zinc - 2,300 mg/kg
Non Bold - represents the method detection limit for samples
not detected. Method detection limits were used because results
could be up to or equal to the method detection limit without
being detected and zero was not considered a correct representation.
-------
HGL—Remedial Investigation for Cherokee County Site-0U8, Railroads, Cherokee County, Kansas
: ^
Lki* ^
Leaching
Native Soil
Not to Scale
\ \ Gst-srv-01 \hglgis\Cherokee_County\_MSIWXRI\
(6-01) Site_Conceptual_Model. cdr
8/20/2015 JG
Source: HGL
V HGL
~ HydroGeoLogic, Inc
Figure 6.1
Conceptual Site Model
-------
-------
Appendix A
Soil Survey Report
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
USDA United States
Department of
Agriculture
NRCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Cherokee County, Kansas,
Jasper County, Missouri,
Newton County, Missouri,
and Ottawa County,
Oklahoma
Cherokee County OU8
August 17, 2015
-------
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For
more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://
offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
2
-------
for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272
(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
3
-------
Contents
Preface 2
How Soil Surveys Are Made 6
Soil Map 8
Soil Map 9
Legend 10
Map Unit Legend 11
Map Unit Descriptions 14
Cherokee County, Kansas 16
8100—Heplersilt loam, frequently flooded 16
8101—Hepler silt loam, occasionally flooded 17
8150—Lanton silt loam, occasionally flooded 18
8302—Verdigris silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 19
8460—Cherokee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 20
8621—Bates loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 21
8623—Bates loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 22
8627—Bates-Collinsville complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes 23
8679—Dennis silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 25
8863—Parsons silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 26
8927—Taloka silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 27
9050—Secesh silt loam, channeled 28
9150—Secesh silt loam, rarely flooded 29
9211—Bolivar-Hector complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes 30
9250—Clarksville very cherty silt loam, 10 to 30 percent slopes 32
9260—Gerald silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 33
9270—Nixa very gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 34
9280—Tonti silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 35
9290—Waben cherty silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 36
9975—Dumps, mine 37
9986—Miscellaneous water 37
9999—Water 37
Jasper County, Missouri 39
40000—Barden silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 39
40016—Eldorado very gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very
stony 40
40017—Maplegrove silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 41
40022—Opolis silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 42
40023—Opolis silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 43
40029—Sylvania loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 44
40121—Hepler silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently flooded 45
44000—Cherokee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 46
46002—Hepler silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 48
46005—Verdigris silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 49
70006—Creldon silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 51
4
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
70057—Crackerneck extremely gravelly silt loam, 15 to 35 percent
slopes 52
70058—Crackerneck very gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 53
70059—Goss extremely gravelly silt loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes,
rocky 54
70063—Rueter extremely gravelly silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very
stony 55
70065—Rueter very gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 56
70066—Winnipeg silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 57
71751—Bearthicket silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally
flooded 58
75376—Cedargap gravelly silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently
flooded 60
76008—Cedargap gravelly silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes, frequently
flooded 61
99010—Pits-Dumps complex 62
Newton County, Missouri 63
70022—Tonti silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 63
70065—Rueter very gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 64
73031—Gerald silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 65
73059—Pomme silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 66
73325—Clarksville extremely gravelly silt loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes...67
73480—Nixa very gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 68
75380—Dapue silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 70
Ottawa County, Oklahoma 72
BdB—Clarksville gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 72
BnD—Clarksville very gravelly silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes 73
BoE—Clarksville stony silt loam, 12 to 50 percent slopes 74
ChA—Choteau silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 75
ChB—Choteau silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 77
CrB—Craig silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 78
DnA—Dennis silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 80
DnB—Dennis silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 81
EhD—Waben gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 83
La—Captina silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 84
Mp—Kanima gravelly clay loam, 1 to 30 percent slopes 86
PaB2—Parsons silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes, eroded 87
RvC—Riverton gravelly loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 88
TaA—Taloka silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 90
Vd—Verdigris silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 91
W—Water 93
References 94
Glossary 96
5
-------
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform orwith a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
6
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
7
-------
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Mao
37° 17' 17" N
Map Scale: 1:177,000 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
A
2500
5000
10000
n Fed;
n Meters
15000
0 5000 10000 20000 30000
Map projection: V\feb Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84
9
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
|s| Spoil Area
~
Area of Interest (AOI)
Q Stony Spot
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
~ Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
^ Blowout
|g| Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
^ Other
+ m Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
0
Closed Depression
0^0 Interstate Highways
&
Gravel Pit
US Routes
«
¦«
Gravelly Spot
Major Roads
0
Landfill
Local Roads
k
Lava Flow
Background
Marsh or swamp
Aerial Photography
*
Mine or Quarry
@
Miscellaneous Water
o
Perennial Water
V
Rock Outcrop
+
Saline Spot
t 4
•
* t
Sandy Spot
<&
Severely Eroded Spot
0
Sinkhole
3>
Slide or Slip
10
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Cherokee County, Kansas
Survey Area Data: Version 14, Aug 28, 2014
Soil Survey Area: Jasper County, Missouri
Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 9, 2014
Soil Survey Area: Newton County, Missouri
Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 9, 2014
Soil Survey Area: Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 16, 2014
Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey area.
These survey areas may have been mapped at different scales, with
a different land use in mind, at different times, or at different levels
of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil properties, and
interpretations that do not completely agree across soil survey area
boundaries.
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
ui Idiyei.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 1, 1999—Dec 31,
2003
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Cherokee County. Kansas (KS021)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
8100
Heplersilt loam, frequently
flooded
2,520.5
2.7%
8101
Heplersilt loam, occasionally
flooded
7,438.2
8.0%
8150
Lanton silt loam, occasionally
flooded
1,147.6
1.2%
8302
Verdigris silt loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes, occasionally flooded
2,528.5
2.7%
8460
Cherokee silt loam, 0 to 1
percent slopes
1,262.4
1.3%
8621
Bates loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
6,010.4
6.4%
8623
Bates loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes
1,002.0
1.1%
8627
Bates-Collinsville complex, 3 to
15 percent slopes
1,778.5
1.9%
8679
Dennis silt loam, 1 to 3 percent
slopes
23,459.6
25.1%
8863
Parsons silt loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes
1,907.6
2.0%
8927
Taloka silt loam, Oto 1 percent
slopes
15,557.9
16.6%
9050
Secesh silt loam, channeled
525.8
0.6%
9150
Secesh silt loam, rarely flooded
924.9
1.0%
9211
Bolivar-Hector complex, 5 to 15
percent slopes
3,182.7
3.4%
9250
Clarksville very cherty silt loam,
10 to 30 percent slopes
7,556.4
8.1%
9260
Gerald silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
862.0
0.9%
9270
Nixa very gravelly silt loam, 3 to
8 percent slopes
6,568.5
7.0%
9280
Tonti silt loam, 2 to 5 percent
slopes
2,751.1
2.9%
9290
Waben cherty silt loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes
1,680.2
1.8%
9975
Dumps, mine
3,193.3
3.4%
9986
Miscellaneous water
256.2
0.3%
9999
Water
1,313.9
1.4%
Subtotals for Soil Survey Area
93,428.1
99.9%
Totals for Area of Interest
93,534.1
100.0%
11
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Ottawa County. Oklahoma (OK115)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Vd
Verdigris silt loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes, occasionally flooded
0.3
0.0%
W
Water
0.3
0.0%
Subtotals for Soil Survey Area
40.6
0.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
93,534.1
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits forthe properties of the soils. On the landscape,
however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, ordissimilar, components. They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complexthat it was impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but ratherto separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information forthe development of resource plans. If
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
14
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, Oto 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
15
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Cherokee County, Kansas
8100—Hepler silt loam, frequently flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwsf
Elevation: 740 to 980 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 42 to 48 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 55 to 59 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Hepler and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Hepler
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Silty alluvium
Typical profile
Ap - Oto 8 inches: silt loam
E - 8 to 18 inches: silt loam
Btg -18 to 48 inches: silt loam
2Btg - 48 to 80 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 12 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 12.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Ecological site: Loamy Lowland (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY013KS)
Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation)
Minor Components
Osage, occasionally flooded
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
16
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation)
8101—Hepler silt loam, occasionally flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwsg
Elevation: 1,400 to 1,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained
Map Unit Composition
Hepler and similar soils: 95 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Hepler
Setting
Landform: Flood-plain steps
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Silty alluvium
Typical profile
A - Oto 7 inches: silt loam
E - 7 to 23 inches: silt loam
Bt - 23 to 60 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 12 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 12.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Ecological site: Loamy Lowland (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY013KS)
17
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Osage, hydric
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Clay Lowland (PE 35-42) (R112XY004KS)
8150—Lanton silt loam, occasionally flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwsh
Elevation: 350 to 700 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 31 to 47 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained
Map Unit Composition
Lanton and similar soils: 95 percent
Minor components: 0 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Lanton
Setting
Landform: Flood-plain steps
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Silty and clayey alluvium
Typical profile
A1 - 0 to 7 inches: silt loam
A2-7 to 21 inches: silt loam
Bw- 21 to 39 inches: silty clay loam
BC - 39 to 60 inches: silty clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 12 to 24 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.0 inches)
18
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Ecological site: Loamy Lowland (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY013KS)
Minor Components
Osage, hydric
Percent of map unit: 0 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Clay Lowland (PE 35-42) (R112XY004KS)
8302—Verdigris silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tgsl
Elevation: 460 to 1,560 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 45 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 55 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 190 to 231 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Verdigris and similar soils: 82 percent
Minor components: 8 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Verdigris
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Silty alluvium
Typical profile
Ap - Oto 7 inches: silt loam
A - 7 to 28 inches: silt loam
AC - 28 to 46 inches: silt loam
C -46 to 79 inches: silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
19
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 12.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Loamy Lowland (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY013KS)
Minor Components
Osage, hydric
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Clay Lowland (PE 35-42) (R112XY004KS)
8460—Cherokee silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwsl
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Cherokee and similar soils: 100 percent
Minor components: 0 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Cherokee
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loess over ancient clayey alluvium
Typical profile
A - Oto 7 inches: silt loam
E - 7 to 14 inches: silt loam
20
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Bt -14 to 36 inches: silty clay
Btg - 36 to 47 inches: silty clay
BC - 47 to 60 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Ecological site: Clay Upland (PE 35-42) (R112XY007KS)
Minor Components
Aquolls
Percent of map unit: 0 percent
Landform: Depressions, drainageways
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
8621—Bates loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2r2nb
Elevation: 710 to 1,360 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 39 to 45 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 55 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 188 to 223 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Bates and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Bates
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Convex
21
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
A-Oto 9 inches: loam
BA- 9 to 16 inches: loam
Bt-16 to 23 inches: clay loam
BC - 23 to 33 inches: clay loam
Cr - 33 to 43 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Sandstone/Shale Upland Prairie (R112XY016MO)
8623—Bates loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tgsh
Elevation: 480 to 1,310 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 39 to 45 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 55 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 188 to 223 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Bates and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Bates
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone and shale
22
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile
A - Oto 11 inches: loam
BA-11 to 16 inches: loam
Bt-16 to 23 inches: clay loam
BC - 23 to 30 inches: clay loam
Cr - 30 to 40 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 7 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 38 inches to paralithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Sandstone/Shale Upland Prairie (R112XY016MO)
8627—Bates-Collinsville complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwsp
Elevation: 700 to 1,360 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Bates and similar soils: 45 percent
Collinsville and similar soils: 40 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Bates
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy and silty residuum weathered from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
A - Oto 8 inches: loam
23
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Bt- 8 to 12 inches: loam
BC - 12 to 27 inches: clay loam
Cr - 27 to 28 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 39 inches to paralithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Loamy Upland (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY015KS)
Description of Collinsville
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone
Typical profile
A-Oto 14 inches: fine sandy loam
R -14 to 18 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 4 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Shallow Sandstone (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY030KS)
24
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
8679—Dennis silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2tgsq
Elevation: 460 to 1,260 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 45 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 55 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 150 to 255 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Dennis and similar soils: 82 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Dennis
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, interfluve
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Silty and clayey residuum weathered from shale
Typical profile
A - Oto 11 inches: silt loam
BA -11 to 17 inches: silty clay loam
Bt1 - 17 to 22 inches: silty clay
Bt2 - 22 to 68 inches: silty clay
C - 68 to 79 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 12 to 30 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Loamy Upland (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY015KS)
25
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
8863—Parsons silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2thdx
Elevation: 510 to 1,340 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 45 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 55 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 175 to 230 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Parsons and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 0 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Parsons
Setting
Landform: Divides
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Loess over clayey alluvium and/or clayey residuum weathered from
clayey shale
Typical profile
Ap - Oto 8 inches: silt loam
E - 8 to 14 inches: silt loam
2Btg1 - 14 to 24 inches: silty clay
2Btg2 - 24 to 39 inches: silty clay
2BC - 39 to 59 inches: silty clay loam
2C - 59 to 79 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 9 to 17 inches to abrupt textural change
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 6 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
26
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Ecological site: Claypan Summit Prairie (R112XY011 MO)
Minor Components
Aquolls
Percent of map unit: 0 percent
Landform: Divides
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Ecological site: Clay Upland (PE 35-42) (R112XY007KS)
8927—Taloka silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2thf3
Elevation: 500 to 1,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 45 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Taloka and similar soils: 92 percent
Minor components: 0 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Taloka
Setting
Landform: Paleoterraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy and clayey alluvium and/or loamy and clayey colluvium over
residuum weathered from sandstone and shale
Typical profile
Ap - Oto 8 inches: silt loam
£ - 8 to 20 inches: silt loam
2Btg1 - 20 to 24 inches: silty clay
2Btg2 - 24 to 39 inches: silty clay
2BC - 39 to 59 inches: silty clay loam
2C - 59 to 79 inches: silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 9 to 24 inches to abrupt textural change
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
27
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 6 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Loamy prairie (Northeast) PE 62-80 (R112XY059OK)
Minor Components
Aquolls
Percent of map unit: 0 percent
Landform: Divides
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Ecological site: Clay Upland (PE 35-42) (R112XY007KS)
9050—Secesh silt loam, channeled
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwt1
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Secesh and similar soils: 91 percent
Minor components: 0 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Secesh
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from limestone and sandstone
Typical profile
A-Oto 10 inches: silt loam
BA - 10 to 25 inches: silty clay loam
28
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Bt1 - 25 to 43 inches: very gravelly silty clay loam
2Bt2 - 43 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Loamy Lowland (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY013KS)
Minor Components
Osage, hydric
Percent of map unit: 0 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Clay Lowland (PE 35-42) (R112XY004KS)
9150—Secesh silt loam, rarely flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwt2
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Secesh and similar soils: 95 percent
Minor components: 0 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Secesh
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
29
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Parent material: Alluvium derived from limestone and sandstone
Typical profile
A-Oto 10 inches: silt loam
BA - 10 to 25 inches: silty clay loam
Bt1 - 25 to 43 inches: very gravelly silty clay loam
2Bt2 - 43 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Ra re
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Loamy Lowland (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY013KS)
Minor Components
Osage, hydric
Percent of map unit: 0 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Ecological site: Clay Lowland (PE 35-42) (R112XY004KS)
9211—Bolivar-Hector complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwt3
Elevation: 500 to 2,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Bolivar and similar soils: 55 percent
Hector and similar soils: 40 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
30
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Bolivar
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone
Typical profile
A-Oto 5 inches: fine sandy loam
£ - 5 to 12 inches: fine sandy loam
Bt1 -12 to 17 inches: clay loam
Bt2 - 17 to 36 inches: clay loam
Cr - 36 to 46 inches: weathered bedrock
R -46 to 50 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 4 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 39 inches to paralithic bedrock; 37 to 79 inches to
lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 percent
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Savannah (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY025KS)
Description of Hector
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone
Typical profile
A-Oto 3 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw1 -3 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw2 -7 to 15 inches: fine sandy loam
R -15 to 19 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 4 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock
31
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Shallow Savannah (Draft) (PE 35-42) (R112XY031KS)
9250—Clarksville very cherty silt loam, 10 to 30 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwt4
Elevation: 700 to 1,300 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Clarksville and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Clarksville
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from cherty limestone
Typical profile
A-Oto 4 inches: very gravelly silt loam
E - 4 to 23 inches: very gravelly silt loam
Bt1 - 23 to 32 inches: very gravelly silty clay loam
Bt2 - 32 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 10 to 30 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Medium
32
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Savannah (PE 37-45) (R116AY025KS)
9260—Gerald silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwt5
Elevation: 800 to 1,300 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Gerald and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Gerald
Setting
Landform: Divides
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loess over residuum weathered from cherty limestone
Typical profile
A-Oto 8 inches: silt loam
E - 8 to 13 inches: silt loam
Bt -13 to 22 inches: silty clay
Btx - 22 to 42 inches: very gravelly silty clay loam
2Bt - 42 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly silty clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately low
(0.01 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 6 to 12 inches
33
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Clay Upland (PE 35-42) (R112XY007KS)
9270—Nixa very gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2rk3t
Elevation: 920 to 1,530 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 39 to 49 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F
Frost-free period: 172 to 232 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Nixa and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Nixa
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Slope alluvium over pedisediment over residuum weathered from
limestone
Typical profile
Oi - Oto 1 inches: slightly decomposed plant material
A -1 to 3 inches: very gravelly silt loam
E - 3 to 10 inches: very gravelly silt loam
BE -10 to 20 inches: very gravelly silt loam
2Btx - 20 to 43 inches: very gravelly silt loam
3Bt - 43 to 80 inches: very gravelly clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 11 to 30 inches to fragipan
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 9 to 28 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
34
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Quercus stellata-Quercus coccinea/Amelanchier arborea-
Vaccinium pallidum/Helianthus hirsutus-Schizachyrium scoparium
(F116BY004MO)
Other vegetative classification: Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation)
9280—Tonti silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwt7
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Tonti and similar soils: 95 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Tonti
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from cherty limestone
Typical profile
A-Oto 9 inches: silt loam
BA- 9 to 13 inches: gravelly silt loam
Bt -13 to 19 inches: gravelly silty clay loam
Bx -19 to 28 inches: very gravelly silty clay loam
B't - 28 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately low
(0.01 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
35
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.3 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Savannah (PE 37-45) (R116AY025KS)
9290—Waben cherty silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwt8
Elevation: 1,000 to 1,400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Waben and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Waben
Setting
Landform: Interfluves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from cherty limestone and/or colluvium derived
from cherty limestone
Typical profile
A-Oto 10 inches: gravelly silt loam
Bt -10 to 18 inches: gravelly silt loam
BC -18 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
36
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Loamy Upland (PE 37-45) (R116AY015KS)
9975—Dumps, mine
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1jwt9
Mean annual precipitation: 19 to 67 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 185 to 255 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Dumps: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
9986—Miscellaneous water
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 hk9s
Mean annual precipitation: 31 to 47 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 175 to 215 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Water, sewage lagoons: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
9999—Water
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 hk9t
Elevation: 600 to 1,300 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 24 to 31 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F
Frost-free period: 190 to 210 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Water: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
37
-------
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0,2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook436. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
94
-------
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
95
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix B
Photographic Documentation
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Photograph No.: 1
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 03-07-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: West
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 10 facing west from SE 40th Street.
Photograph No.: 2
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 03-07-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: Northeast
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 9 from just north of E 10th Road.
1
-------
Photograph No.: 3
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 03-07-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: South
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 8 facing south from SW Star Rd.
^||
KT
117 -1
1111
Photograph No.: 4
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 03-07-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: North
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 33 facing north from W North 10th Street.
2
-------
Photograph No.: 5
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 03-07-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: Southeast
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 32 facing south from W North 10th Street.
Photograph No.: 6
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 03-07-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: Soutli
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Continuation of rail line from Location 32 where it crossed Willow Creek.
3
-------
Photograph No.: 7
Photographer: A Fletcher
Direction: Southeast
Date: 12-04-13
Time: NA
Contract: EPA AES
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Excavation at Location 32A south from W North 10th Street.
Photograph No.: 8
Photographer: A Fletcher
Direction: Down
Date: 03-08-13
Time: NA
Contract: EPA AES
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Gravel found on the surface of Location 25.
4
-------
Photograph No.: 9
Photographer: A Fletcher
Direction: West
Date: 03-07-13
Time: NA
Contract: EPA AES
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 24 facing west from Highway Alt 69
Photograph No.: 10
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 12-3-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: Northwest
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 24B excavation with chat visible in first lift.
5
-------
ffi
Photograph No.: 11
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 12-3-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: Down
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Excavation at Location 24A with chat visible at depth.
Photograph No.: 12
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 03-07-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: West
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Description: Location 28 which is currently used as an access road.
6
-------
Photograph No.: 13
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 5-8-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: Down
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 9A where chat is visible in first 24 inches with native soil below.
7
-------
Photograph No.: 14
Photographer: A Fletcher
Direction: West
Date: 03-07-13
Time: NA
Contract: EPA AES
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 14 between NE 107th Terrace and NE Lawton Road.
Photograph No.: 15
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 03-08-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: Northeast
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 15 from NE Lawton Road.
8
-------
3S>- '
Photograph No.: 16
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 05-10-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: Down
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Location 14 witli water encountered at 24 inches.
9
-------
Photograph No.: 17
Photographer: A Fletcher
Date: 03-07-13
Contract: EPA AES
Direction: West
Time: NA
Project No.: EP9061
Description: Excavation at Location 1A north of SW Greenlawn Road.
10
-------
Appendix C
XRF Instrument Calibration Checks
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
DAILY INSTRUMENT CHECK LOG
CHEROKEE COUNTY SITE - OU8 RAILROADS, CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS
Manufacturer:
Number:
Number:
Thermo Scientific
XL3t-600
100718
Date/Time Precision Measurement Check
Readings:
2591
2503
2596
2575
2574
2562
2586
5/8/2013
Std Cone.:
2700
0850
Std Deviation:
32
Mean Cone.:
2570
RSD:
1.23
Readings:
2449
2713 2616 2086 2493 2592 2541
Std Cone.:
2700
Std Deviation:
201
Mean Cone.:
2499
RSD:
8.05
Readings:
2536
2512
2143
2566
1954
2602
2491
5/9/2013
Std Cone.:
2700
0822
Std Deviation:
249
Mean Cone.:
2401
RSD:
10.38
Readings:
2567
2513
2558
2475
2540
2614
2480
5/9/2013
Std Cone.:
2700
1800
Std Deviation:
50
Mean Cone.:
2535
RSD:
1.97
5/10/2013
0730
Readings:
2566
2581 2533 2621 2589 2488 2550
Std Cone.:
2700
Std Deviation:
43
Mean Cone.:
2561
RSD:
1.68
5/10/2013
1300
Readings:
2553
2516 2620 2507 2511 2556 2550
Std Cone.:
2700
Std Deviation:
39
Mean Cone.:
2545
RSD:
1.55
Calibration Check
Standard:
Till 4
Blank
Std.
Cone.:
50
Std.
Cone.:
-------
DAILY INSTRUMENT CHECK LOG (CONTINUED)
CHEROKEE COUNTY SITE - OU8 RAILROADS, CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS
Readings:
2722
2602 2605 2662 2555 2606 2556
Std Cone.:
2700
Std Deviation:
59
Mean Cone.:
2615
RSD:
2.27
Readings:
2633
2643 2702 2598 2610 2598 2555
Std Cone.:
2700
Std Deviation:
46
Mean Cone.:
2620
RSD:
1.76
Readings:
2663
2605 2649 2727 2631 2482 2651
Std Cone.:
2700
Std Deviation:
75
Mean Cone.:
2630
RSD:
2.86
Readings:
485
468
477
462
514
485
468
12/2/2013
Std Cone.:
500
1221
Std Deviation:
17
Mean Cone.:
480
RSD:
3.64
Readings:
481
479
484
467
472
482
460
12/3/2013
Std Cone.:
500
1221
Std Deviation:
9
Mean Cone.:
475
RSD:
1.88
Readings:
480
470 429 476 457 490 463
Std Cone.:
500
Std Deviation:
20
Mean Cone.:
466
RSD:
4.24
Readings:
487
512
476
509
463
475
433
12/4/2013
Std Cone.:
500
1221
Std Deviation:
27
Mean Cone.:
479
RSD:
5.68
Standard:
Till 4 |
Blank
Std.
1 Std.
Cone.:
50
Cone.:
-------
Appendix D
EPA Sample Field Sheets and Chain of Custody Records
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 1
QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-1-.
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: CGC. ~ ^ C- - 3 £>
External Sample Number: S S - ^ ^
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
(or Circle One: Low (MediumjIHigh) Date
Sample Collection: Start: OS/0% \g>
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
0^: og
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass '4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
• US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number; 6105 Sample Number: 2
QC Code-
Matrix; Solid Tag ID: 6105-2-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Ma _ ; Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
CO? -SS~ 42-18
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: (U)vv^ Vledium High)
C.OZ- SS-
Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection; Start:
End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 3
QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-3-..
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: CCC ~SP "* ^
External Sample Number: - ISO O" ^
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
(or Circle One: Low (Medium /High) Date
Sample Collection: Start: P^p%'/ IS
End:
Time(24 hr)
Oi -SO
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 4 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-4-
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
C.C\2. - SS- lOC- lo -| 2.
External Sample Number: IOC
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low^Medium) High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: 0
Longitude: _ __ End: / / —J—
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 5 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-5-
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
cc£-ss- ioe - u-I'i-
External Sample Number: - SS H O0> U " I 2.
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low ^edium ;High)
Latitude: _ Sample Collection: Start:
Longitude: _ End:
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Date Time(24 hr)
iSjiS
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 6 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-6-—
Project ID;
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
CxjGL, ~ SD " IO
External SaronleJlMMbefi^
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low ^Neclnijmj High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: _ , Sample Collection: Start: \S;CO
Longitude: , ., End: —/—/— —:—
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
' US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 7
QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-7-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
CCV2. - S S - *86-10-12-
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Lov/^Medium-'High)
M-SS - m- (or iZ
Date
Sample Collection: Start: *3
End: / J
Time(24 hr)
(9- . IG
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 8 , QC Code: _ Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-8-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
0jue_- 55--TO - 1<8*
CC.C - '-,f.
(or Circle One: Low (Medium.-High) Date
Sample Collection: Start:
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
| T- CO
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 9 QC Code: _ Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-9-_.
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
External Sample Number: C-CXL - - D 6 H - ^ ^
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium(^Highj) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: 13 :
Longitude: End: / /— —:.
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICF
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number; 10 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-10-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: CUfL'
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: LowCM ed i u nj> H ig h)
Date
Sample Collection: Start: Pr> P°V( 3
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
^ ; 30
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals In Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 11 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-11-
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
ece-ss- - g?-12-
Ext" pie Numf
(or Circle One: Low^faediumjHigh)
C( c:
Time(24 hr)
c£ate
Sample Collection: Start:<5 ILjIP
End: I / . :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 12 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-12-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: SS J '-f A - - 'Z'-f
External Sample Number: - SS-4A "W- 2>f
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low(JMedium) High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: 13 )J :SO
Longitude: __ End: / / _ :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 13 QC Code: F£) Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105>^r-_,
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: C SS - ^ ^ ^ ^
ExternalSample.Number: C- £-•<£- < 1^- 2
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Locdi11 mHigh) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: DSjPl/!3
Longitude: , End: / / :—
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals In Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 14 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-14-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Cc-£-SS- 3o'3b
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Lov\^Mediunri\JHigh)
. cce-
Date
Sample Collection: Start: 05/C^V
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 15 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-15-__
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number: 5 b (2-
(or Circle One: Low (Nediurn) High) Date
Sample Collection: Start: PS \ /1°^>
End: II
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 16 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-16-.
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Location Desc: ( '^S - 12_ !
ccn-ss- m-tz-i*
External Sample Number:
Expected Cone: (or Circle One; LowC Med'um^High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: _ Sample Collection: Start: 13 \.kJ-3o
Longitude: _ End: —/—/— —: —
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
QC Code: O? Matrix: Solid Tag ID; 6105
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 17
________— 7Tf
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
. Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc
: C C £. - SS • i\Ui'U(clL
Lxternal Sample >"berr GC fc - "7"A 'I¦? ~ 1^" ^ 11
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low (Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: , _ Sample Collection: Start: 10 Ik : 3O
Longitude: End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments
(N/A)
p I f
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 18 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-18-
Project ID: EG073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
f£(g,-SS- 1*56 - b ~/'2-
External Sample Number: Ct-€- -10& L ~( 2-
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Lov/'Medium^ High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: _ Sample Collection: Start: (9^3/ icy 13 0^: \°f
Longitude: End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 19 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-19-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
tct-- So- J5A-- u
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low (ftedium High)
i^A C>-t"
Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start: 0^/0/ 13 10: 2Q
End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 20 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-20-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Cce - 55- \'b(\ -V'C>
External Sample Number: C£ -
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 21 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-21-.
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
CC -<6o - I ifB -1'
External Sample Number: CCtZ. - Sp -I (o " o -
(or Circle One: L oMedium)nigh) Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start: OC/\Of 13
End: / I
N:HO
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 22 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-22-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: &L - tO "" 1 if pi - 0 " I#
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number: J
(or Circle One: Lowedium/H i g h)
___ Sample Collection: Start:
End:
C~>" j A— O" if
Date
0j?/l2/[3
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 23 QC Code: _ Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-23-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County Stale: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: ~ ^
External Sample Number: 1. - - ~~~1 ...
Expected Cone: (or Circle One; Medium High) Dale Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: /i I /IS ZZT-OO
Longitude: , End: / /
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
tocgvYion 2oA , I03 S
Pi/
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 23 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-23-,
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: "cSVo-'^/Z.
External Sample Number: CCfV-SS-T-OA-
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: _ Sample Collection: Start: ^ / ) I /<2> 1ZT-QO
Longitude: End: / / ,
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals In Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments: —-
(N/A)
Loc^vVion "2,oA i s
Pu\p\ * Co I l-ec4ed
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 24 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-24-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Stale: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
_ - .
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
Date
Sample Collection: Start: (p/I 1/13
End: / /
-Z&iiiSg
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time Analysis
180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
ZM — «3(|» r>
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 25 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-25-—
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
X , •
Location Desc: " I 4
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
- ----- ^internal-Samp - u,K,n! - ( C V, *> > • ¦'
(or Circle One: Low Mediumt High) Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start: U>H I 7/3
End:
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
IT-c
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 26 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-26-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location
¦ ' . le Nurr i If. - > wm . _ -
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Mediurry High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: &/ 11/ 13 // :CQ
Longitude: End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
n &
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 27 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-27-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Destf^ u ^ '
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
r -J al Sample Number
(or Circle One: Low Qediujr^ High)
i <
L,
Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start: Co! 11/13 ip :3p
End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
LoccA'xyrx 12 )8 m
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 28 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-28-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc
\0i A i"?
External Sample Number:
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: ^Lo^) Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: (o/II /I3
Longitude: , End: / / J,
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Locch OTfi I&I #V\
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 29 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-29-
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: Sj-t l\ 1 2.-\%
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
- -Externa l-Sa m pie -N u m be
(or Circle One: Low Medium/ffigB)
Date
Sample Collection: Start: Cp/l l /13
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
JI -JO
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Il-F\ 12--IS
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 30 QC Code: , Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-30-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: CCfc-U»2.1 C~ 6s>-\"Z.
External Sample Number; C l.\<\ ^ \( b > \
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low MediunQ ' HjgJj-jf Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: (o/\2-/\H> QH'-CO
Longitude: End: / f
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
LoopcYioa *2_\ C Lp-VL IV*
t>VA^V GGvte. Co i leered
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 30 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-30-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County Slate: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc
Mr-
^ExternatSample--Num. " < c ¦ w
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low MediuqVHjgb^ Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: . Sample Collection: Start: Lot t2./i2> O?:co
Longitude: __ _ End: / /
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Loc^-Yxqts ~2_\ c Lp-Vl. rr\
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 31 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-31-_
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
'¦> \ l-nr>-T>>
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
0 r
_z.y
< l-X%
.—--External-Samp ^ '
(or Circle One: Low Medium h^igh) Date
, Sample Collection: Start: (d l\~Ll\b
End: / /
' U V \l - \ %
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 32 QC Code: , Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-32-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
i f* i "I - " ' - .
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Ext * i nal-Sample-Number
(or Circle One: Low "Medium High)
Date
>A _ '' 1, " -
Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start: (j>! W 13> /I :3o
End: I I :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 33 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag IP: 6105-33-_
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Super-fund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Date
it i pie -II ii m be
, r'"~\
(or Circle One: Low' Medium High)
Sample Collection: Start: (o/)UI3
End: / /
¦30
Time(24 hr)
12 :3o
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 34 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-34-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
CCK- SS-Thv?
-fc-Kternal-f^mple-Number _ ¦ u
(or Circle One: Low Itfediurrp High) Date
_ Sample Collection: Start: U>
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
/3;3o
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 35 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-35-
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
CC R - Sf
"Z—
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: ( Low Medium High)
('
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 36 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-36-
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
-55. 1A - D~(*
External Sample Number: , ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^ ^
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: i 2/P2j 1 3
Longitude: __ _ End: / /
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 37 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-37-.
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: CSS- | fi
CC€, - SS ' IB-i
xterna Sample umber:
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: I 2/P^/i 3
Longitude: , . End: —/—/— —-—.
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 38 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-38-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
External Sample Number: CJ *6-¦ - 3 5 • IC- J^o
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: _ Sample Collection: Start: f2-/P^ 13 [% [2-
Longitude: _ End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 39 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-39-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: G0\$-~ * t/"I'Z
External Sample Number:
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High)
Latitude:
Longitude:
Ct-C^SS -
Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start: (b:l2-
End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by 1CP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 40 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-40-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County StdtG: Ksnsss
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: - SS - ~
Extermal Sample Number: k-- c 6 A t- " <
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: l>/P"^/t3
Longitude: End: // :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 41 QC Code: __ Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-41-.
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
External Sample Number:
-L-ft -W' >t
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: )7-/l>2 Ah b :6l
Longitude: , , End: / /
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 42 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-42-—
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Location Desc
. cce-ss-
External Sample Number:
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: _ Sample Collection: Start:
Longitude: End: —/—/— —•—
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 43 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-43-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: C.C&-5S 'IH(\ -lA'ZO
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
Cc£ - SS-2^A -7-i -3
Date
Sample Collection: Start: I _[3
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 44 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-44-..
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: 55 - TJvfo D
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:.
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
Cc\£. - P- 0*
Date
Sample Collection: Start: t'2-/0 i 3
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 45 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-45-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: ~ S - Uo ft" ~* 12-—
External Sample Number; C.tfcL ~ - (r ( Z-
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: _ Sample Collection: Start: H _:C3
Longitude: _ End: / / .—:—
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Da I Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 46 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-46-_
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
C r ¦
'.W3-I55
Date
Sample Collection: Start: 12/ 0^ f3
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
JL:^
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 47 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-47-..
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
External Sample Number; ~ ~
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) ' Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: . Sample Collection: Start: JjiT
Longitude: End: / /— ,—J—
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 48 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-48-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
tOL-17-1?
External Sample Number: 2-31&-fS-'IIT
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: i 2 1 3 H : P^-
Longitude: , End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg. C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 49 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-49-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One; Low Medium High)
Date
Sample Collection: Start: 1 /&'] l3
End: / /
J/l_ ' I?.
Time(24 hr)
iM -.SO
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 50 QC Code: „ Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-50-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
c us- ^>5 ^ 2Is
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
Date
Sample Collection: Start: 12^/o^/l3>
End: / /
~lz
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
i - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 51 QC Code: _ Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-51-.
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
CjUL -6S~
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
C.C&
> •>
2 - u. ¦ I
Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start: ^/°^fl3 fh :Lip
End: I / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number; 52 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-52-_
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County . State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc
External Sample Number:
Expected Cone: (or Circle One; Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: „ Sample Collection: Start:
Longitude: „ End: —/—/—: —:_
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 53 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-53-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
C.CJt- 5S- ^0A- 1^-2-4
External Sample Number: -(-iL-S*-' ~ - 1'S - ^
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: ^ /c'^/ 13
Longitude: End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 54 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-54-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
CjCJL-*>SIZH
'External ~Sampl~e~NiiTiTber: CCJt*
<¦
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
Sample Collection: Start:
End:
Time(24 hr)
OS: c4
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 55 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-55-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: CXML- - S S - A 1 2-^f
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number: . ' ,r" ^ ^
(or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date
Sample Collection: Start: /2.-/PM/ \3
End: J _J
Time(24 hr)
0$
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 56 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-56-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Slate: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Cc-ft-SS- 316-te-lC
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
CC&-SS- Z\B-lZ-\%
Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start:
End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 57 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-57-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: CL& - S>S" A ~
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number: ££
(or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date
Sample Collection: Start: Ij2y o^_[3
End: / /
¦ I A- I ? -
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 58 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 610^81
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737
Site OU: 08
Location Desc: ClAt ft" \
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 59 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-59-
Project ID:
EC07370B
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: '^"('2^-
External Sample Number: CC £¦¦ 'l> oA
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: __ Sample Collection: Start: IX-/ ^'3 CP*
Longitude: End: / /
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 60 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105 *>()
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: QXJC* ~ 12 - D
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number: .
(or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date
Sample Collection: Start: 12-/cH/13>
D
Time(24 hr)
End:
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass ' 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 61 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-61-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: CCJCj - ib 15> - 2-
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
CC.C- ¦ 9>'PB 12-
Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start:.t &I2/0*Y/ I ?? 10 -J l
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 62 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105 (ȣ-_
.Uf i Lfr. /j,,;
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: C.C ^- S S - ^3(3 " 12 ~ &
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number: Ct-iiL ''-S'-J ~ 1 ^
(or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start: 1It?: 11
End:
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 63 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-63-_
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: CC^,-S5 ' ^2/3 2-^4
External Sample Number:
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High)
Latitude:
Longitude:
C f l; 0' -?7
Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start; (3 fO
End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
£ , le Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
, i r>.
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 64 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-64'-
, , ———— — I J.
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: P C S3 ~ 3 2-A - l9f" D
l
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 65 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-65-
Project ID:
EC073708
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc:
Cherokee County - Railroads
City:
Cherokee County
State: Kansas
Program:
Superfund
Site Name:
CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
cat - ss- 52*3-i2~i
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
Sample Collection: Start:
C C ft.,'
Date
Time(24 hr)
i
End:
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Me olids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 66 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-66-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: CC^C- " ^>5 ~ - I4
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
"Exter it aFSamplerN a mber:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
rc.K
Date Time(24 hr)
Sample Collection: Start: IZ/CT-fr (?s> 14 : £>*&
End: I / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
u-
~r~\
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 67 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID:
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: <2 C Vf.- SS - 1 "S>fc-- 1ST- 2J-{ - Q
External Sample Number:
CX..&S5 i 3 tr -D
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: ,, Sample Collection: Start: 12-/fc»H/\2, 1H~:
Longitude: End: / / :
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
— t - ' f
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 68 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-68-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: QC. ^-"33 - \ *)C, ' ^~l
External Sample Number: <£- >~> I j>C W-
Expected Cone: (or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date Time(24 hr)
Latitude: Sample Collection: Start: 12-/ ct-y 1^
Longitude: End: / /
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative Holding Time Analysis
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C 180 Days 1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 69 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-69-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
C.ct-ss ¦ i^- 2-S
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
Sample Collection: Start:
End:
CC C
Date
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 70 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-70-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: C-CjC* 5 S - I bO ~ L? i 2-
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
"External Sample Number:
(or Circle One; Low Medium High)
CC S5 - OP 'k I-'-
Date
Sample Collection: Start: 12V C6/1 g
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 71 QC Code:
Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-71-_
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: C S S -IZA - I 2-~ j %
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
~^^"Exteriral SamplerNumber:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
Sample Collection: Start:
t'ClL. S5
f?"
Dale
IMS/13
Time(24 hr)
10.: <2?
End:
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 72 QC Code: Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-72-
Project ID: EC073708 Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County State: Kansas
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
cci£- ss~ ize-ob
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One; Low Medium High)
Cc
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, ICS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 73 QC Code: _ Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-73-..
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc: dCJ^- " i / A • O Go
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
External Sample Number:
(or Circle One: Low Medium High)
CC\& -SS-llA-o-fo-
Date
Sample Collection: Start: I 13
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
\i
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected-By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
Sample Collection Field Sheet
US EPA Region 7
Kansas City, KS
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Number: 74 QC Code: , Matrix: Solid Tag ID: 6105-74-
Project ID: EC073708
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
City: Cherokee County
Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey
State: Kansas
Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Location Desc:
Expected Cone:
Latitude:
Longitude:
C VLr SS. - '5A-U-IZ
o c if -< <
External Sample Number: L - s_^l -
(or Circle One: Low Medium High) Date
Sample Collection: Start: 11-/05/ j ^
End: / /
Time(24 hr)
I 2-; Of
Laboratory Analyses:
Container Preservative
1 - 8 oz glass 4 Deg C
Holding Time
180 Days
Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Sample Comments:
(N/A)
Sample Collected By: HGL
1 of 1
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII
ACTIVITY LEADER(Print)
NAME OF SURVEY OR ACTIVITY
Ch\05'2°^
(o\05-3Ci
(p\Q5-?ry-FO
(o\Q5-3 I
jp 105-32-
k|o5-33
•i
(o\Q5-3M
(01OS-,^5
,A5Ei Xnc o/y\
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII f\S*£ < ' ( U rC-
SHEET
ACTIVITY LEADER(Print)
£ If^nkrlh (x ik^A
NAME OF SURVEY OR ACTIVITY
f,hr,K \c.u (' < M
DATE OF COLLECTION
' day ~ month year
of
CONTENTS OF SHIPMENT
TYPE OF CONTAINERS
SAMPLED media
RECEIVING LABORATORY
REMARKS/OTHER INFORMATION
(condition ol samples upon receipt,
other sample numbers, etc )
SAMPLE
NUMBER
CUBITAINER
^ C"t.
BOTTLE
BOTTLE
BOTTLE
VOA SET
(2 VIALS EA)
I
s
sediment
irt
*3
other
NUMBERS OF CONTAINERS PER SAMPLE NUMBER
Ur&" "Vo
1
y
Lies-
1
V
1*10*5-3%
i
V
UoS ^
1
*
1
%
blC5- 41
1
>
V
L-Al - ¦ 12-
U ICS - H2,
1
1
>
{jpICS
\
y
WcS- 45
(
>
1
I
1
\
>
LrI OS-
1
y.
{j,\{ o
\
X
b\ OS--5)
t
>
fa 1 CS-^2-
\
>
icc? -
[
>
u\
\
>
!s-,\ c f, -
(
>
L\ cS -Sia_
\
>
L?l oS» S^h
\
>
t -tto
\
>
f"l iA / A r \ \ C &¦
la r>5 - 6i
1
A
V
DESCRIPTION OF SHIPMENT
. PIECE(S) CONSISTING OF.
.ICE CHEST(S); OTHER
. BOX(ES)
MODE OF SHIPMENT
.COMMERCIAL CARRIER
-COURIER
.SAMPLER CONVEYED
(SHIPPING DOCUMENT NUMBER)
PERSONNEL CUSTODY RECORD
RELINQUISHED by (SAMPLER)
—) SfcALb D UNSEALED |
RELINQUISHED BY
ZL SEALED
UNSEALED |
RELINQUISHED BY
I SEALED
UNSEALED)
DATE
I J I
DATE
DATE
TIME
/SWv,
—I SEALED UNSEALED f
TIME
TIME
RECEIVED BY
RECEIVED BY
HSEALED
unsealed r
RECEIVED BY
[SEALED
unsealed!
reason for change of custody
H-JJL <^t
reason for change of custody
reason for change of CUSTODY
7-EPA-9262(Revised 5/85)
•us GPO: 2002-756-917/40053
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII
ACTIVITY LEADER!Print)
C\\l n \J 'Vl-'i C( 1-^ r
NAME OF SURVEY OR ACTIVITY
Che. C ou
OF COLLECTION
( C i 2 I -
DAY MONTH" YEAR
¦ Sh«T
2-
of
2
CONTENTS OF SHIPMENT
TYPE OF CONTAINERS
sampled Meoia
RECEIVING LABORATORY
REMARKS/OTHER INFORMATION
(condition ol samples upon receipt,
other sample numbers, etc )
SAMPLE
NUMBER
' / (
BOTTLE
VOA SET
(2 VIALS F.A)
a
<4
s
S
C
E
T3
TS
X)
other
CUBITAINER
BOTTLE
BOTTLE
NUMBERS OF CONTAINERS PER SAMPLE NUMBER
klC5-5^-Fb
1
V
^lu. jfj (K
L> [ D5-M
1
uit-G-u rj9
I
V
H l/1 rt.i-' . \ w- r
Uc*5-fc«S
1
>c
//ids
1
*
h' IA
i-e icfj - &S>
i
X
\
\
latDS'bb-FD
1
>
Vtk U A,u ,
un: ^ -let
1
>
Uio€ -to\
1
X
u> i r s - to
1
*
1
K.
Id 1P S ^ 2_-
1
>
I
>
Ulr^- 1LI
1
.
fa*
it.
" —
X
DESCRIPTION OF SHIPMENT
. PIECE(S) CONSISTING OF.
.ICE CHEST(S): OTHER
. BOX(ES)
MODE OF SHIPMENT
.COMMERCIAL CARRIER:.
.COURIER
-SAMPLER CONVEYED
(SHIPPING DOCUMENT NUMBER)
PERSONNEL CUSTODY RECORD
RELINQUISHED BY (SAMPLER)
I
UNSEALED [~
riji
-ll5EALE>
RELINQUISHED BY
~| SEALED
UNSEALED f~
RELINQUISHED BY
~l SEALED UNSEALEU|
DATE
3K//5
DATE
DATE
TIME
R ¥
—I SEALED
TIME
TIME
RECEIVED BY
UNSEAlEO f
RECEIVED BY
1 SEALED UNSEALED [~
RECEIVED BY
"| SEALED UNSEALED [
REASON FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY
A-6
REASON FOR CHANGE OF CUSTODY
REASON FOR CHANGE Of- CUSTODY
7-EPA-9262(Revised 5/85)
•US GPO: 2002-756-917/40053
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix E
Data Correlation Regression Analysis
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix E
Laboratory vs XRF Sample Result Correlation
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
Sample Number
Lab Lead Result
XRF Lead Average
Location Desc
6105-1
225
252.3
CCR-SS-9C (24-30)
6105-2
24.6
99.7
CCR-SS-9B (42-48)
6105-3
369
364
CCR-SO-9A (0-6)
6105-4
152
119
CCR-SS-10C (6-12)
6105-5
338
364
CCR-SS-10B (6-12)
6105-6
398
640.3
CCR-SO-10A (0-6)
6105-7
906
329.7
CCR-SS-8B (6-12)
6105-8
266
236
CCR-SS-8A (12-18)
6105-9
3260
2008.7
CCR-SS-5BN (6-12)
6105-10
837
838
CCR-SS-5A (12-18)
6105-11
417
292
CCR-SS-3A (6-12)
6105-12-FD
257
225.7
CCR-SS-4A (18-24)
6105-12
193
225.7
CCR-SS-4A (18-24)
6105-14
61.5
71.0
CCR-SS-3B (30-36)
6105-15
270
235.3
CCR-SS-7B (6-12)
6105-16-FD
361
365.3
CCR-SS-7A (12-18)
6105-16
510
365.3
CCR-SS-7A (12-18)
6105-18
556
443.3
CCR-SS-15B (6-12)
6105-19
461
327.7
CCR-SO-15A (0-6)
6105-20
149
145
CCR-SS-13A-L (6-12)
6105-21
265
157.7
CCR-SO-16B (0-6)
6105-22
528
412
CCR-SO-16A (0-6)
6105-23-FD
198
113.7
CCR-SS-20A (36-42)
6105-23
240
113.7
CCR-SS-20A (36-42)
6105-24
53.8
18.3
CCR-SS-18A (24-30)
6105-25
288
371.3
CCR-SS-17C (12-18)
6105-26
78
115.3
CCR-SS-17B (18-24)
6105-27
58.1
131
CCR-SS-20B (12-18)
6105-28
74.8
49.3
CCR-SS-19A (36-42)
6105-29
1050
986.7
CCR-SS-17A (12-18)
6105-30-FD
981
1150.7
CCR-SS-21C (6-12)
6105-30
916
1150.7
CCR-SS-21C (6-12)
6105-31
468
599.7
CCR-SS-21B (12-18)
6105-32
7.3
18.5
CCR-SS-22A (30-36)
6105-33
364
262.3
CCR-SS-21A (24-30)
6105-34
123
135.7
CCR-SS-23B (18-24)
6105-35
22.7
25.0
CCR-SS-22A (36-42)
6105-36
490
576.7
CCR-SS-1A (0-6)
6105-37
266
403
CCR-SS-1B (18-24)
6105-38
475
242.3
CCR-SS-1C (24-30)
6105-39
1940
2076.7
CCR-SS-2A (6-12)
Page 1 of 2
-------
Appendix E (Continued)
Laboratory vs XRF Sample Result Correlation
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
Sample Number
Lab Lead Result
XRF Lead Average
Location Desc
6105-40
322
495.3
CCR-SS-6A (6-12)
6105-41
76.6
656.7
CCR-SS-6B (18-24)
6105-42
609
1198.7
CCR-SS-24B (6-12)
6105-43
86.0
98.0
CCR-SS-24A (24-30)
6105-44
386
397
CCR-SS-25B (0-6)
6105-45
1960
1657.3
CCR-SS-25A (6-12)
6105-46
472
448.3
CCR-SS-26B (18-24)
6105-47
884
701
CCR-SS-26A (0-6)
6105-48
429
484.7
CCR-SS-27B (12-18)
6105-49
4260
1427.7
CCR-SS-27A (6-12)
6105-50
392
441.3
CCR-SS-28B (6-12)
6105-51
466
611
CCR-SS-28A (6-12)
6105-52
403
324.3
CCR-SS-29B (18-24)
6105-53
2310
1706.3
CCR-SS-30A (18-24)
6105-54
1500
1582
CCR-SS-30B (12-18)
6105-55
380
422.3
CCR-SS-29A (18-24)
6105-56
476
491.7
CCR-SS-31B (12-18)
6105-57-FD
3340
1355.3
CCR-SS-31A (18-24)
6105-57
3600
1355.3
CCR-SS-31A (18-24)
6105-59-FD
880
686
CCR-SS-33A (6-12)
6105-59
727
686
CCR-SS-33A (6-12)
6105-61-FD
737
746.7
CCR-SS-33B (6-12)
6105-61
887
746.7
CCR-SS-33B (6-12)
6105-63-FD
1320
931.7
CCR-SS-32A (18-24)
6105-63
1150
931.7
CCR-SS-32A (18-24)
6105-65
1260
1060
CCR-SS-32B (12-18)
6105-66-FD
178
425.7
CCR-SS-13E (18-24)
6105-66
329
425.7
CCR-SS-13E (18-24)
6105-68
1390
1530.7
CCR-SS-13C (12-18)
6105-69
1640
1641
CCR-SS-13B (18-24)
6105-70
3750
2254.7
CCR-SS-13D (6-12)
6105-71
300
596.3
CCR-SS-12A (12-18)
6105-72
457
478
CCR-SS-12B (0-6)
6105-73
827
572.7
CCR-SS-11A (0-6)
6105-74
820
822.7
CCR-SS-13A-B (6-12)
Page 2 of 2
-------
Figure E.l Laboratory vs. Field Logged Lead Data Correlation
A
3 R
1 di
j.j
o
y = 1.0048X
R2 = 0.8206 _
j
9 R
*#r-
+->
9
"S
E
1 ^
¦ "
i
n ^
¦
U. J
n
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Laboratory Data
-------
-------
Appendix F
EPA Laboratory Analytical Data Package
(Provided on CD)
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
300 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Date: 01/09/2014
Subject: Transmittal of Sample Analysis Results for ASR #: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Project Description: Cherokee County - Railroads
From: Michael F. Davis, Chief
Chemical Analysis and Response Branch, Environmental Services Division
To: Elizabeth Coffey
SUPR/SPEB
Enclosed are the analytical data for the above-referenced Analytical Services Request (ASR) and
Project. The Regional Laboratory has reviewed and verified the results in accordance with procedures
described in our Quality Manual (QM). In addition to all of the analytical results, this transmittal
contains pertinent information that may have influenced the reported results and documents any
deviations from the established requirements of the QM.
Please contact us within 14 days of receipt of this package if you determine there is a need for any
changes. Please complete the enclosed Customer Satisfaction Survey and Data Disposition/Sample
Release memo for this ASR as soon as possible. The process of disposing of the samples for this ASR
will be initiated 30 days from the date of this transmittal unless an alternate release date is specified
on the Data Disposition/Sample Release memo.
If you have any questions or concerns relating to this data package, contact our customer service line
at 913-551-5295.
Enclosures
cc: Analytical Data File.
Page 1 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105 Summary of Project Information 01/09/2014
Project Manager: Elizabeth Coffey Org: SUPR/SPEB Phone: 913-551-7939
Project ID: EC073708 QAPP Number: 2007197
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Location: Cherokee County State: Kansas Program: Superfund
Site Name: CHEROKEE COUNTY - RAILROADS Site ID: 0737 Site OU: 08
Purpose: Site Characterization GPRA PRC: 303DD2
Explanation of Codes, Units and Qualifiers used on this report
Sample QC Codes: QC Codes identify the type of Units: Specific units in which results are
sample for quality control purpose. reported.
= Field Sample mg/kg = Milligrams per Kilogram
FD = Field Duplicate
Data Qualifiers: Specific codes used in conjunction with data values to provide additional information
on the quality of reported results, or used to explain the absence of a specific value.
(Blank)= Values have been reviewed and found acceptable for use.
U = The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit.
J = The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an
estimate.
Page 2 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Sample Information Summary
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
01/09/2014
Sample
No
QC
Code Matrix Location Description
External
Sample No
Start
Date
Start
Time
End
Date
End
Time
Receipt
Date
1 -
Sol
d
CCR-SS-9C (24-30)
05/08/2013
08:05
05/14/2013
2 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-9B (42-48)
05/08/2013
09:10
05/14/2013
3 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SO-9A (0-6)
05/08/2013
09:50
05/14/2013
4 -
Sol
d
CCR-SS-10C (6-12)
05/08/2013
13:45
05/14/2013
5 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-10B (6-12)
05/08/2013
14:15
05/14/2013
6 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SO-10A (0-6)
05/08/2013
15:00
05/14/2013
7 -
Sol
d
CCR-SS-8B (6-12)
05/08/2013
17:15
05/14/2013
8 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-8A (12-18)
05/08/2013
18:00
05/14/2013
9 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-5BN (6-12)
05/09/2013
09:00
05/14/2013
10 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-5A (12-18)
05/09/2013
09:30
05/14/2013
11 -
Sol
d
CCR-SS-3A (6-12)
05/09/2013
10:10
05/14/2013
12 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-4A (18-24)
05/09/2013
11:50
05/14/2013
12 - FD
Sol
d
CCR-SS-4A (18-24)
05/09/2013
11:50
05/14/2013
14 -
Sol
d
CCR-SS-3B (30-36)
05/09/2013
14:15
05/14/2013
15 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-7B (6-12)
05/09/2013
15:30
05/14/2013
16 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-7A (12-18)
05/09/2013
16:30
05/14/2013
16 - FD
Sol
d
CCR-SS-7A (12-18)
05/09/2013
16:30
05/14/2013
18 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-15B (6-12)
05/10/2013
09:19
05/14/2013
19 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SO-15A (0-6)
05/10/2013
10:20
05/14/2013
20 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-13A (6-12)
05/10/2013
11:30
05/14/2013
21 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SO-16B (0-6)
05/10/2013
14:40
05/14/2013
22 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SO-16A (0-6)
05/10/2013
14:45
05/14/2013
23 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-20A (36-42)
06/11/2013
15:00
06/13/2013
23 - FD
Sol
d
CCR-SS-20A (36-42)
06/11/2013
15:00
06/13/2013
24 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-18A (24-30)
06/11/2013
13:00
06/13/2013
25 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-17C (12-18)
06/11/2013
09:25
06/13/2013
26 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-17B (18-24)
06/11/2013
11:00
06/13/2013
27 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-20B (12-18)
06/11/2013
15:30
06/13/2013
28 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-19A (36-42)
06/11/2013
14:20
06/13/2013
29 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-17A (12-18)
06/11/2013
11:10
06/13/2013
30 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-21C (6-12)
06/12/2013
09:00
06/13/2013
30 - FD
Sol
d
CCR-SS-21C (6-12)
06/12/2013
09:00
06/13/2013
31 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-21B (12-18)
06/12/2013
11:00
06/13/2013
32 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-22A (30-36)
06/12/2013
11:30
06/13/2013
33 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-21A (24-30)
06/12/2013
12:30
06/13/2013
34 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-23B (18-24)
06/12/2013
13:30
06/13/2013
35 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-22A (36-42)
06/12/2013
13:40
06/13/2013
36 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-1A (0-6)
12/02/2013
14:55
12/05/2013
37 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-1B (18-24)
12/02/2013
14:35
12/05/2013
38 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-1C (24-30)
12/02/2013
14:12
12/05/2013
39 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-2A (6-12)
12/02/2013
16:12
12/05/2013
40 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-6A (6-12)
12/02/2013
17:15
12/05/2013
41 -
Sol
d
CCR-SS-6B (18-24)
12/02/2013
16:51
12/05/2013
42 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-24B (6-12)
12/03/2013
08:57
12/05/2013
Page 3 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105 Sample Information Summary
Project ID: EC073708 Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
01/09/2014
riple QC
External
Start
Start
End
End Receipt
Code
Matrix
Location Description
Sample No
Date
Time
Date
Time Date
43 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-24A (24-30)
12/03/2013
09:36
12/05/2013
44 -
Sol
d
CCR-SS-25B (0-6)
12/03/2013
09:49
12/05/2013
45 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-25A (6-12)
12/03/2013
11:08
12/05/2013
46 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-26B (18-24)
12/03/2013
11:52
12/05/2013
47 -
Sol
d
CCR-SS-26A (0-6)
12/03/2013
12:18
12/05/2013
48 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-27B (12-18)
12/03/2013
14:07
12/05/2013
49 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-27A (6-12)
12/03/2013
14:50
12/05/2013
50 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-28B (6-12)
12/03/2013
15:28
12/05/2013
51 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-28A (6-12)
12/03/2013
16:26
12/05/2013
52 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-29B (18-24)
12/03/2013
17:16
12/05/2013
53 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-30A (18-24)
12/04/2013
07:55
12/05/2013
54 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-30B (12-18)
12/04/2013
08:04
12/05/2013
55 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-29A (18-24)
12/04/2013
08:06
12/05/2013
56 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-31B (12-18)
12/04/2013
08:17
12/05/2013
57 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-31A (18-24)
12/04/2013
08:55
12/05/2013
57 - FD
Sol
d
CCR-SS-31A (18-24)
12/04/2013
08:55
12/05/2013
59 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-33A (6-12)
12/04/2013
09:44
12/05/2013
59 - FD
Sol
d
CCR-SS-33A (6-12)
12/04/2013
09:44
12/05/2013
61 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-33B (6-12)
12/04/2013
10:11
12/05/2013
61 - FD
Sol
d
CCR-SS-33B (6-12)
12/04/2013
10:11
12/05/2013
63 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-32A (18-24)
12/04/2013
10:58
12/05/2013
63 - FD
Sol
d
CCR-SS-32A (18-24)
12/04/2013
10:58
12/05/2013
65 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-32B (12-18)
12/04/2013
12:34
12/05/2013
66 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-13E (18-24)
12/04/2013
14:08
12/05/2013
66 - FD
Sol
d
CCR-SS-13E (18-24)
12/04/2013
14:08
12/05/2013
68 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-13C (12-18)
12/04/2013
13:25
12/05/2013
69 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-13B (18-24)
12/05/2013
09:02
12/05/2013
70 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-13D (6-12)
12/05/2013
09:29
12/05/2013
71 -
Sol
d
CCR-SS-12A (12-18)
12/05/2013
10:09
12/05/2013
72 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-12B (0-6)
12/05/2013
11:00
12/05/2013
73 - _
Sol
d
CCR-SS-11A (0-6)
12/05/2013
11:27
12/05/2013
74 -
Sol
d
CCR-SS-13A (6-12)
12/05/2013
12:01
12/05/2013
Page 4 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105 RLAB Approved Analysis Comments
Project ID: EC073708 Project Desc Cherokee County - Railroads
01/09/2014
Analysis Comments About Results For This Analysis
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Lab: Contract Lab Program (Out-Source)
Method: CLP Statement of Work
Basis: Dry
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
ll-_
12-
12-FD
14-_
15-
16-
16-FD
18-
19-
20-
21-_
22-
23-
23-FD
24-
25-
26-
27-_
28-
29-
30-
30-FD
31-
32-
33-_
34-
35-
36-
37-
38-
39-
40-_
41-
42-
43-
44-
45-
46-
47-_
48-
49-
50-
51-
52-
53-
54-_
55-
56-
57-
57-FD
59-
59-FD
61-_
61-FD
63-
63-FD
65-
66-
66-FD
68-_
69-
70-
71-
72-
73-
74-
Comments:
Slight cadmium contamination was found in the calibration blanks. Only samples containing
this analyte at a level greater than ten times the contamination level of the blank are
reported without being qualified. All samples that contained this analyte but at a level less
than ten times the contamination in the blank have the result U-coded indicating that the
reporting limit has been raised to the level found in the sample. Samples affected were:
cadmium in -28 and -35.
Zinc in sample -2 and cadmium in samples -21, -47, and -73 were J-coded. Although the
analytes in question have been positively identified in the samples, the quantitations are an
estimate (J-coded) due to recoveries of these analytes (zinc: 151% and cadmium: 67-
333%) in the laboratory matrix spikes outside control limits (75-125%). The actual
concentrations for cadmium and zinc may be lower and for cadmium may be higher than
the reported values.
Cadmium in sample -2 and zinc in sample -23 were J-coded. Although the analytes in
question have been positively identified in these samples, the quantitations are an estimate
(J-coded) due to the serial dilution percent differences (Cd: 15.9% and Zn: 20%) being
above the control limits(15%). The actual concentrations for cadmium may be lower and
for zinc may be higher than the reported values.
Lead and zinc were above the control limits by (3% and 1.8%, respectively) in the
performance evaluation (PE) sample -353PE associated with samples -23 through -35. No
data were qualified based on the PE results.
Page 5 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
1-
37.0
225
8910
2-
0.63 J
24.6
97.1 J
01/09/2014
3- 4-
48.2
369
11900
37.7
152
8680
Page 6 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
5-
41.5
338
9860
6-
38.6
398
8190
01/09/2014
7- 8-
79.3
906
16800
67.2
266
15200
Page 7 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
9-
24.1
3260
7170
10-
113
837
22000
01/09/2014
11- 12-
29.2
417
4500
27.0
193
5780
Page 8 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
12-FD
37.0
257
7200
14-
1.7
61.5
393
01/09/2014
15- 16-
40.3
270
9610
35.3
510
7520
Page 9 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105 RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project ID: EC073708 Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
01/09/2014
20-_
7.4
149
1210
Page 10 of 24
Analysis/ Analyte
Units
16-FD
18-
19-
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
30.1
361
6430
11.2
556
1820
16.4
461
2330
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
21-
8.9 J
265
1600
22-
16.8
528
2530
01/09/2014
23- 23-FD
15.6
240
1290 J
12.4
198
1140
Page 11 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
24-
4.3
53.8
946
25-
86.3
288
19300
01/09/2014
26- 27-
39.2
78.0
6730
15.6
58.1
1370
Page 12 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
28-
1.5 U
74.8
123
29-
50.9
1050
10300
01/09/2014
30- 30-FD
12.9
916
3470
13.7
981
3770
Page 13 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
31-
11.5
468
2260
32-
0.43 U
7.3
13.9
01/09/2014
33- 34-
24.5
364
4830
43.9
123
7680
Page 14 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
35-
0.53 U
22.7
67.5
36-
42.6
490
9870
01/09/2014
37- 38-
43.4
266
9920
52.8
475
13300
Page 15 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
39-
84.6
1940
16200
40-
24.3
322
6080
01/09/2014
41- 42-
17.0
76.6
2430
36.5
609
6640
Page 16 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
43-
2.1
86.0
383
44-
37.9
386
8090
01/09/2014
45- 46-
49.2
1960
14100
33.4
472
8450
Page 17 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
47-
37.2 J
884
8100
48-
55.2
429
10500
01/09/2014
49- 50-
54.5
4260
12100
29.5
392
5770
Page 18 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
51-
69.8
466
12500
52-
48.6
403
10700
01/09/2014
53- 54-
100
2310
17700
10.2
1500
2040
Page 19 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
55-
62.6
380
11400
56-
33.9
476
6100
01/09/2014
57- 57-FD
55.4
3600
13700
33.8
3340
10500
Page 20 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
59-
60.0
727
11600
59-FD
54.9
880
10100
01/09/2014
61- 61-FD
38.4
887
7940
42.6
737
7280
Page 21 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105 RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project ID: EC073708 Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
01/09/2014
66-_
4.4
329
722
Page 22 of 24
Analysis/ Analyte
Units
63-
63-FD
65-
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
105
1150
18400
55.5
1320
12300
107
1260
21700
-------
ASR Number: 6105 RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project ID: EC073708 Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
01/09/2014
Analysis/ Analyte Units 66-FD 68- 69- 70-
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
mg/kg
3.1
59.1
45.9
41.7
Lead
mg/kg
178
1390
1640
3750
Zinc
mg/kg
545
11400
8470
4100
Page 23 of 24
-------
ASR Number: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Analysis/ Analyte
1 Metals in Solids by ICP-AES
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
RLAB Approved Sample Analysis Results
Project Desc: Cherokee County - Railroads
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
71-
9.7
300
3600
72-
45.1
457
12000
01/09/2014
73- 74-
38.8 J
827
12600
46.5
820
9420
Page 24 of 24
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
300 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Date:
Subject: Data Disposition/Sample Release for ASR #: 6105
Project ID: EC073708
Project Description: Cherokee County - Railroads
From: Elizabeth Coffey
SUPR/SPEB
To: Alisha Claycamp
ENSV/CARB
I have received and reviewed the Transmittal of Sample Analysis Results for the above-referenced
Analytical Services Request(ASR) and have indicated my findings below by checking one of the
boxes for Data Disposition.
I understand all samples will be disposed upon receipt of this form, unless samples are requested
to be held. If I do not return this form all samples will be disposed of on .
~ "RELEASED" - Read-only to all Region 7 employees and contractors that have R7LIMS
"Customer" account. All Samples may be disposed of upon receipt of this form if not requested to
be held.
~ "Project Manager Accessible" - Available on the LAN in R7LIMS for my use only. All Samples may
be disposed of upon receipt of this form if not requested to be held.
~ "Archived" - THIS DATA IS OF A SENSITIVE NATURE. Any future reports must be requested
through the laboratory. All samples may be disposed of upon receipt of the form if not requested
to be held.
~ Hold Samples - I have determined that the samples need to be held until , after
which time they will be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.
The reason for the hold is:
~ Samples are associated with a legal proceeding.
~ Question/Concern with data - possible reanalysis requested.
~ other:
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-1
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-1. This sample was collected on
05/08/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-9C (24-30). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-1 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 37.0 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 225 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 8910 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-2
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-2. This sample was collected on
05/08/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-9B (42-48). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-2 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium Approximately 0.63 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 24.6 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc Approximately 97.1 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-3
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-3. This sample was collected on
05/08/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SO-9A (0-6). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-3 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 48.2 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 369 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 11900 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-4
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-4. This sample was collected on
05/08/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-10C (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-4 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 37.7 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 152 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 8680 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-5
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-5. This sample was collected on
05/08/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-10B (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-5 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 41.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 338 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 9860 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-6
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-6. This sample was collected on
05/08/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SO-10A (0-6). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-6 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 38.6 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 398 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 8190 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-7
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-7. This sample was collected on
05/08/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-8B (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-7 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 79.3 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 906 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 16800 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-8
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-8. This sample was collected on
05/08/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-8A (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-8 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 67.2 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 266 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 15200 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-9
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-9. This sample was collected on
05/09/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-5BN (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-9 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 24.1 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 3260 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 7170 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-10
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-10. This sample was collected on
05/09/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-5A (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-10 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 113 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 837 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 22000 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-11
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-11. This sample was collected on
05/09/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-3A (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-11 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 29.2 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 417 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 4500 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-12
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-12. This sample was collected on
05/09/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-4A (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-12 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 27.0 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 193 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 5780 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-12-FD
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-12-FD. This sample was collected
on 05/09/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-4A (18-24). If you have any questions about
these results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939.
Correspondence should refer to sample number 6105-12-FD for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County
- Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 37.0 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 257 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 7200 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-14
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-14. This sample was collected on
05/09/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-3B (30-36). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-14 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 1.7 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 61.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 393 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-15
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-15. This sample was collected on
05/09/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-7B (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-15 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 40.3 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 270 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 9610 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-16
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-16. This sample was collected on
05/09/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-7A (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-16 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 35.3 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 510 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 7520 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-16-FD
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-16-FD. This sample was collected
on 05/09/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-7A (12-18). If you have any questions about
these results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939.
Correspondence should refer to sample number 6105-16-FD for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County
- Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 30.1 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 361 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 6430 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-18
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-18. This sample was collected on
05/10/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-15B (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-18 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 11.2 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 556 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 1820 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-19
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-19. This sample was collected on
05/10/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SO-15A (0-6). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-19 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 16.4 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 461 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 2330 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-20
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-20. This sample was collected on
05/10/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-13A (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-20 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 7.4 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 149 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 1210 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-21
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-21. This sample was collected on
05/10/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SO-16B (0-6). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-21 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium Approximately 8.9 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 265 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 1600 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-22
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-22. This sample was collected on
05/10/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SO-16A (0-6). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-22 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 16.8 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 528 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 2530 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-23
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-23. This sample was collected on
06/11/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-20A (36-42). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-23 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 15.6 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 240 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc Approximately 1290 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-23-FD
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-23-FD. This sample was collected
on 06/11/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-20A (36-42). If you have any questions about
these results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939.
Correspondence should refer to sample number 6105-23-FD for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County
- Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 12.4 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 198 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 1140 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-24
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-24. This sample was collected on
06/11/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-18A (24-30). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-24 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 4.3 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 53.8 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 946 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-25
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-25. This sample was collected on
06/11/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-17C (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-25 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 86.3 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 288 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 19300 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-26
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-26. This sample was collected on
06/11/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-17B (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-26 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 39.2 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 78.0 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 6730 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-27
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-27. This sample was collected on
06/11/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-20B (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-27 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 15.6 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 58.1 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 1370 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-28
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-28. This sample was collected on
06/11/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-19A (36-42). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-28 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium Less Than 1.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 74.8 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 123 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-29
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-29. This sample was collected on
06/11/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-17A (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-29 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 50.9 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 1050 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 10300 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-30
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-30. This sample was collected on
06/12/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-21C (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-30 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 12.9 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 916 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 3470 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-30-FD
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-30-FD. This sample was collected
on 06/12/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-21C (6-12). If you have any questions about
these results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939.
Correspondence should refer to sample number 6105-30-FD for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County
- Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 13.7 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 981 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 3770 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-31
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-31. This sample was collected on
06/12/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-21B (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-31 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 11.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 468 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 2260 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-32
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-32. This sample was collected on
06/12/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-22A (30-36). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-32 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium Less Than 0.43 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 7.3 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 13.9 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-33
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-33. This sample was collected on
06/12/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-21A (24-30). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-33 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 24.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 364 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 4830 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-34
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-34. This sample was collected on
06/12/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-23B (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-34 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 43.9 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 123 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 7680 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-35
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-35. This sample was collected on
06/12/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-22A (36-42). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-35 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium Less Than 0.53 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 22.7 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 67.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-36
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-36. This sample was collected on
12/02/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-1A (0-6). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-36 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 42.6 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 490 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 9870 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-37
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-37. This sample was collected on
12/02/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-1B (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-37 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 43.4 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 266 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 9920 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-38
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-38. This sample was collected on
12/02/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-1C (24-30). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-38 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 52.8 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 475 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 13300 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-39
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-39. This sample was collected on
12/02/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-2A (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-39 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 84.6 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 1940 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 16200 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-40
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-40. This sample was collected on
12/02/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-6A (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-40 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 24.3 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 322 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 6080 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-41
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-41. This sample was collected on
12/02/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-6B (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-41 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 17.0 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 76.6 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 2430 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-42
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-42. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-24B (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-42 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 36.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 609 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 6640 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-43
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-43. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-24A (24-30). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-43 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 2.1 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 86.0 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 383 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-44
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-44. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-25B (0-6). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-44 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 37.9 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 386 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 8090 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-45
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-45. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-25A (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-45 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 49.2 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 1960 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 14100 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-46
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-46. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-26B (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-46 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 33.4 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 472 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 8450 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-47
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-47. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-26A (0-6). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-47 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium Approximately 37.2 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 884 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 8100 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-48
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-48. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-27B (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-48 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 55.2 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 429 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 10500 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-49
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-49. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-27A (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-49 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 54.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 4260 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 12100 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-50
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-50. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-28B (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-50 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 29.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 392 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 5770 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-51
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-51. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-28A (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-51 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 69.8 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 466 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 12500 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-52
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-52. This sample was collected on
12/03/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-29B (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-52 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 48.6 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 403 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 10700 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-53
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-53. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-30A (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-53 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 100 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 2310 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 17700 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-54
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-54. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-30B (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-54 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 10.2 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 1500 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 2040 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-55
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-55. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-29A (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-55 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 62.6 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 380 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 11400 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-56
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-56. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-31B (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-56 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 33.9 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 476 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 6100 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-57
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-57. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-31A (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-57 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 55.4 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 3600 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 13700 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-57-FD
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-57-FD. This sample was collected
on 12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-31A (18-24). If you have any questions about
these results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939.
Correspondence should refer to sample number 6105-57-FD for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County
- Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 33.8 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 3340 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 10500 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-59
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-59. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-33A (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-59 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 60.0 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 727 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 11600 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-59-FD
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-59-FD. This sample was collected
on 12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-33A (6-12). If you have any questions about
these results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939.
Correspondence should refer to sample number 6105-59-FD for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County
- Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 54.9 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 880 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 10100 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-61
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-61. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-33B (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-61 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 38.4 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 887 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 7940 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-61-FD
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-61-FD. This sample was collected
on 12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-33B (6-12). If you have any questions about
these results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939.
Correspondence should refer to sample number 6105-61-FD for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County
- Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 42.6 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 737 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 7280 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-63
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-63. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-32A (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-63 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 105 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 1150 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 18400 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-63-FD
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-63-FD. This sample was collected
on 12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-32A (18-24). If you have any questions about
these results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939.
Correspondence should refer to sample number 6105-63-FD for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County
- Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 55.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 1320 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 12300 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-65
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-65. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-32B (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-65 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 107 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 1260 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 21700 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-66
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-66. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-13E (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-66 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 4.4 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 329 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 722 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-66-FD
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-66-FD. This sample was collected
on 12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-13E (18-24). If you have any questions about
these results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939.
Correspondence should refer to sample number 6105-66-FD for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County
- Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 3.1 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 178 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 545 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-68
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-68. This sample was collected on
12/04/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-13C (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-68 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 59.1 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 1390 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 11400 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-69
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-69. This sample was collected on
12/05/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-13B (18-24). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-69 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 45.9 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 1640 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 8470 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-70
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-70. This sample was collected on
12/05/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-13D (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-70 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 41.7 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 3750 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 4100 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-71
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-71. This sample was collected on
12/05/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-12A (12-18). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-71 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 9.7 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 300 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 3600 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-72
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-72. This sample was collected on
12/05/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-12B (0-6). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-72 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 45.1 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 457 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 12000 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-73
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-73. This sample was collected on
12/05/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-11A (0-6). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-73 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium Approximately 38.8 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 827 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 12600 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd
Lenexa, KS 66219
01/09/2014
Results of Sample Analysis
Sample: 6105-74
Project ID: EC073708
These are the results from the analysis of solid sample number 6105-74. This sample was collected on
12/05/2013 at the location described as: CCR-SS-13A (6-12). If you have any questions about these
results, contact Elizabeth Coffey at the above address or by calling 913-551-7939. Correspondence
should refer to sample number 6105-74 for project: EC073708 - Cherokee County - Railroads.
Analysis/Analyte Amount Found Units
Metals in Soil by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
Cadmium 46.5 Milligrams per Kilogram
Lead 820 Milligrams per Kilogram
Zinc 9420 Milligrams per Kilogram
1 of 1
-------
Appendix G
Field Duplicate Relative Percent Difference Calculations
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix G
Relative Percent Difference Calculations
Laboratory Data
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
( iiiiiiiiniiiiiiii
C < K-SS-4A (IS-24)
( C K-SS--A (12-IS)
( < K-SS-20A (3fi-42)
C < K-SS-2K (f-12)
C < K-SS-3I A (IS-24)
r. 105-12
r. 105-12-l"l)
KIM)
M05-U.
r.io?-u.-ri)
KIM)
r. 105-23
r. 105-23- II)
KIM)
fi 105-30
r. 105-30-ll)
KIM)
fi 105-5"
r. 105-5"-l"l)
KIM)
Cadmium
27.0
37.0
31.3
35.3
30.1
-15.9
15.6
12.4
-22.9
12.9
13.7
6.0
55.4
33.8
-48.4
Lead
193
257
28.4
510
361
-34.2
240
198
-19.2
916
981
6.9
3600
3340
-7.5
Zinc
5780
7200
21.9
7520
6430
-15.6
1290
J
1140
-12.3
3470
3770
8.3
13700
10500
-26.4
( iiiiiiiiniiiiiiii
C < K-SS-33A (fi-l2)
C C K-SS-33IS (f-12)
< < K-SS-32A (IS-24)
C < K-SS-131! (IS-24)
fi 105-5'J
M(l5-5,)-||)
KIM)
f. 105-f. 1
r.l05-r.l-H)
KIM)
fil05-fi3
Q
u,
i
ro
i
'O
KIM)
fil05-fifi
fil05-r.r.-N)
KIM)
Cadmium
60.0
54.9
-8.9
38.4
42.6
10.4
105
55.5
-61.7
4.4
3.1
-34.7
Lead
727
880
19.0
887
737
-18.5
1150
1320
13.8
329
178
-59.6
Zinc
11600
10100
-13.8
7940
7280
-8.7
18400
12300
-39.7
722
545
-27.9
Notes:
FD = field duplicate
J = estimated value
RPD = relative percent difference
U = not detected
Page 1 of 1
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix H
Dames and Moore 1993 Background Soil Sample Locations
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Perched water samples collected from wells were labeled and
transported following provisions in SOP-9 and were analyzed for
the same constituents as ground-water samples. For QA/QC sample
frequency, the perched ground-water samples count toward the
overall ground-water sample totals. Overall, ground-water
samples are collected at a frequency of five percent (one per 20)
as specified in the SAP.
3.2 SOILS INVESTIGATION
Because subsite mill waste piles are believed to be fugitive
dust sources, a soil sampling program was implemented to compare
soil metal concentrations in areas away from mill wastes
(baseline soils) to concentrations found in soils near the mill
waste accumulations. Samples were also collected to characterize
other major soil types of the subsites including 1) soils near
mill waste piles and mill sites and 2) fallow, tilled, or planted
agricultural soils and tame grass pasture soils. All soil
samples were tested for metals (SAP, Table 9); results from the
soil characterization efforts will be used in general site
characterization and in the risk assessment.
3.2.1 Baseline Soil Sampling
The identification of soils exhibiting elevated metals
concentrations required comparison to background or baseline soil
metal values. Because the potential impacts from anthropogenic
sources (mill waste dust, auto emissions, dust and fertilizer
from fields, etc.) on near-surface soils was unknown, it was
determined that samples from a deeper soil horizon would provide
the best available baseline data base. The data base was
developed by collecting eight samples from the B soil Horizon.
The B Horizon typically occurs some 14 to 24 inches below the
ground surface.
3-28
-------
3.2.1.1 Baseline Sample Locations
Five locations in the Baxter Springs and three locations in
the Treece subsite were chosen for baseline soil sampling.
Sampling sites chosen were those which, upon excavation, did not
exhibit visible inclusion of chat from chat-covered roads or mill
wastes from neighboring deposits. Although croplands cover much
of the project area, they were not considered for baseline
sampling due to potential anthropogenic effects.
The Baxter Springs subsite sampling locations are shown on
Figure 3.2-1 and are designated as a Baxter Baseline Soil, BBS-#.
Sample sites BBS-1 and BBS-2 are located within the Helper silt
loam soil series. The BBS-1 sampling location is adjacent to
Willow Creek in an oak-maple-elm mixed forest. BBS-2 is located
in a grassland vegetation community, on a floodplain
approximately 200 feet north of the Willow Creek channel.
BBS-3, BBS-4 and BBS-5 all occur within the Taloka silt loam
soil series. The BBS-3 sample was taken from a pasture west of
the Ballard quarry. Both the BBS-4 and BBS-5 samples were taken
in forested areas (oak-maple-elm mixed community) near mill waste
accumulations.
The three Treece baseline soil sampling locations are shown
on Figure 3.2-2 and are designated as a Treece Baseline Soil,
TBS-#. The TBS—1 location is in a Taloka silt loam soil series
in a grass pasture west of Treece. Both TBS-3 and TBS-5 are
located in the Heple'r silt loam soil series in forested areas
(oak-maple-elm) . Two other stations, TBS-2 and TBS-4 (not shown
on Figure 3.2-2) were originally included in the baseline soil
sampling program. Because of their proximity to mill waste
accumulations however, they have been categorized as "near-pile"
sampling locations, and will be discussed later.
3-29
-------
[BBS-Si Baseline Soil Sampling Location
• A-Horizon and B—Horizon Samples Taken
O A—Horizon Sample Only
1000
2000
SBM£ N FEET
CONTOUR MtSWL - 10*
R 24 E
SOURCE: WESTERN AIR MAPS, INC. PHOTOGRAPHED APRIL 3. 1990
Dhm A Moon
CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS CERCLA 8m
Baxter Springs / Traces Subsltes
hit HQ.
BAX-QI
OATt
7/93.
Starter Springs SubtHo
ORAWINC NO.
3.2-1
1^T »
BASELftE SOL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
-------
1
I
\vf?s
EE Baseline Soil Sampling Location
• A-Horizon and B-Horizon Samples Taken
FIL£ HQ.
1H0-0B
7/B2
DKAWK& NO.
3.2-2
T 34 S
T 35 S
CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS CERCLA SSTE
Baxter Springs / Tr>w> Substtas
Troeco Subette
BASELME SOL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SOURCE: WESTERN AIR MAPS. INC., PHOTOGRAPHED APRIL 3. 1990
-------
Appendix I
Field Screening Data Summary
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Table 1.1
Field Screening Average XRF Results for Soil Samples
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
Pit ID
Depth
(inches
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Residential Soil RSL
400
2,300
7.1
1A
0-6
577
7,750
29
6-12
637
9,477
36
12-18
535
22,067
51
18-24
187
14,733
50
24-30
134
1,700
14
30-36
14
2,093
20
36-42
27
346
<12.4
42-48
35
182
<12.6
IB
0-6
ill
7,453
18
6-12
681
8,138
28
12-18
532
10,057
32
18-24
403
9,936
29
24-30
102
6,426
22
30-36
<11.1
565
<13.1
36-42
<9.2
133
<12.2
42-48
19
316
<13.0
1B-E
0-6
125
3,433
16
6-12
69
888
<11.8
1B-W
0-6
76
772
<12.8
6-12
90
1080
<13.0
1C
0-6
108
3,583
17
6-12
373
12,300
38
12-18
203
16,600
29
18-24
126
19,433
36
24-30
242
13,111
36
30-36
<11.8
511
<13.7
36-42
19
315
<14.5
42-48
14
1,773
17
2A
0-6
1,339
9,788
47
6-12
2,077
11,833
74
12-18
727
12,179
37
18-24
690
18,433
62
24-30
<9.8
461
<15.7
30-36
31
563
<13.1
36-42
208
1,799
<15.1
42-48
<13.2
60
<15.2
3A
0-6
665
3,084
25
6-12
292
4,646
25
12-18
343
4,295
17
18-24
89
2,518
<14.1
24-30
29
661
<14.6
30-36
21
1,133
<13.9
36-42
32
280
<13.8
42-48
59
216
<13.4
3B
0-6
1,724
9,616
47
6-12
656
7,684
27
12-18
27
231
<13.5
18-24
19
2,321
74
24-30
19
62
<14.1
30-36
71
453
<13.9
36-42
12
20
<12.8
42-48
15
32
<14.5
3B-N
0-6
1,354
3,630
35
6-12
649
2,257
<15.1
12-18
2,161
5,157
27
3B-N2
0-6
2,014
7,148
51
4A
0-6
700
6,412
21
6-12
432
7,402
21
12-18
497
8,510
26
18-24
226
6,997
22
24-30
284
7,883
34
30-36
164
8,239
30
5A
0-6
1,149
8,038
38
6-12
786
7,700
30
12-18
838
10,133
56
18-24
525
6,041
30
24-30
474
5,660
34
30-36
170
1,576
19
36-42 457
3,246
<14.9
42-48 7
180
<12.9
5B
0-6
1,360
4,891
28
6-12
1,044
7,875
15
12-18
800
14,214
46
18-24
568
18,433
33
24-30
981
9,054
21
30-36
871
6,070
30
5B-N
0-6
409
5,107
<11.8
6-12
2,009
4,748
<15
12-18
311
3,210
14
5B-S
0-6
572
7,946
66
Page 1 of 8
-------
Table 1.1
Field Screening Average XRF Results for Soil Samples
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
Pit ID
Depth
(inches
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Residential Soil RSL
400
2,300
7.1
6A
0-6
134
1,573
17
6-12
495
5,821
29
12-18
453
6,504
32
18-24
39
592
<13.7
24-30
19
295
<13.8
30-36
74
1,236
<13.0
36-42
94
2,855
49
42-48
50
507
<14.1
6B
0-6
112
1,241
<12.6
6-12
632
11,168
71
12-18
409
9,805
41
18-24
657
8,898
32
24-30
13
463
<14.7
30-36
59
1,249
<12.8
36-42 21
181
<14.2
42-48 12
90
<12.0
7A
0-6
367
12,300
38
6-12
366
11,583
28
12-18
365
5,207
18
18-24
238
6,646
18
24-30
325
4,547
33
30-36
320
4,581
23
36-42
178
2,492
18
42-48
43
454
<13.9
7B
0-6
310
7,055
23
6-12
235
7,585
28
12-18
547
13,375
58
18-24
258
6,004
55
24-30
317
7,837
22
30-36
252
8,838
26
36-42
252
5,948
23
42-48
445
7,720
33
8A
0-6
322
8,220
32
6-12
302
16,833
47
12-18
236
14,900
29
18-24
187
10,202
23
24-30
61
6,204
28
30-36
17
1,297
19
36-42
<10.3
117
<13
42-48
67
5,347
37
8A-E
0-6
39
356
<15.9
6-12
51
420
<12.7
8A-W
0-6
60
655
<12.4
6-12
<9.1
132
<12.8
8B
0-6
269
4,313
25
6-12
330
20,967
63
12-18
294
9,958
42
18-24
193
18,767
45
24-30
14
466
<14.2
30-36
19
2,010
37
36-42
28
1,081
<14.5
42-48
18
577
<13.9
9A
0-6
364
8,751
25
6-12
212
15,018
43
12-18
125
7,536
29
18-24
44
2,292
32
24-30
31
376
<18.9
30-36
44
623
<17.3
36-42
15
29
<13.4
42-48
<11.1
25
<13.2
9B
0-6
2,271
5,884
14
6-12
676
11,762
21
12-18
305
13,709
23
18-24
149
6,984
17
24-30
368
8,760
22
30-36
192
6,267
<15.5
36-42
58
1,104
40
42-48
100
36
<14.6
9B-W
0-6
93
2,579
18
6-12
159
1,816
20
9B-E
12-18
272
753
<13.7
9C
0-6
483
16,433
41
6-12
374
13,833
37
12-18
363
20,297
40
18-24
195
6,787
26
24-30
252
8,356
34
30-36
150
5,466
25
36-42
45
1,674
<13.3
42-48
24
220
<14.6
Page 2 of 8
-------
Table 1.1
Field Screening Average XRF Results for Soil Samples
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
Pit ID
Depth
(inches
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Residential Soil RSL
400
2,300
7.1
10A
0-6
640
10,786
43
6-12
606
16,933
54
12-18
38
1,441
<14.9
18-24
55
1,738
<14.8
24-30
<11.0
62
<14.8
30-36
15
123
<13.3
36-42
19
58
<15
42-48
20
225
<13.9
10A-N
0-6
131
1,148
<13.7
6-12
261
890
<13.6
10B
0-6
473
12,367
63
6-12
364
6,051
31
12-18
<10.2
286
<14.2
18-24
22
663
<13.2
24-30
17
102
<13.4
30-36
21
88
<13.2
36-42
14
27
<13.4
42-48
<10.9
59
<14.1
10B-N
0-6
13
94
<13.0
6-12
16
71
<16.7
IOC
0-6
85
6,176
27
6-12
119
6,718
32
12-18
22
273
<13.1
18-24
19
1,431
<15
24-30
26
318
<12.8
30-36
14
220
<13.5
36-42
27
114
<14.9
42-48
16
20
<15.2
11A
0-6
573
15,967
25
6-12
441
15,067
41
12-18
739
12,167
39
18-24
566
16,767
38
24-30
<9.5
173
<12.6
30-36
<10.2
29
<13.0
36-42
63
289
<13.8
42-48
<10.8
35
<13.5
11A-N
0-6
37
244
<12.0
11A-S
0-6
74
871
<13.0
12A
0-6
185
3,420
<13.4
6-12
379
5,193
<14.3
12-18
596
8,331
24
18-24
219
2,198
20
24-30
14
396
<13.2
30-36
<11.6
170
<13.3
36-42
<9.5
51
<12.8
42-48
<11.0
70
<13.0
12B
0-6
478
11,610
37
6-12
204
11,063
30
12-18
200
7,840
27
18-24
166
13,215
27
24-30
12
23
<13.2
30-36
<10.3
46
<13.4
36-42
<11.8
64
<13.6
42-48
16
32
<16.0
12B-N
0-6
65
545
<12.4
12B-S
0-6
52
577
<10.9
13A
0-6
672
12,900
43
6-12
823
10,357
38
12-18
619
10,433
41
18-24
1,012
13,733
33
24-30
1,123
15,700
35
30-36
1,654
19,100
33
36-42
1,029
7,429
22
42-48
523
6,391
26
13B
0-6
856
3,834
21
6-12
1,750
7,648
31
12-18
1,488
2,912
23
18-24
1,641
3,226
20
24-30
651
2,525
27
30-36
700
2,608
60
36-42
244
1,315
20
42-48
24
1,700
<13.3
13B-N
0-6
1,168
1,537
<11.6
13B-S
0-6
301
3,469
<10.7
13C
0-6
1,820
8,686
32
6-12
1,282
5,743
33
12-18
1,531
8,619
30
18-24
1,518
7,398
41
24-30
16,533
6,724
26
30-36
1,492
10,169
38
36-42
<9.3
452
<13.7
42-48
96
2,831
30
Page 3 of 8
-------
Table 1.1
Field Screening Average XRF Results for Soil Samples
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
Pit ID
Depth
(inches
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Residential Soil RSL
400
2,300
7.1
13D
0-6
183
10,745
22
6-12
2,255
5,275
36
12-18
820
1,505
<13.4
18-24
782
447
<14.5
24-30
59
428
<14.4
30-36
150
579
<12.9
36-42
42
249
<13.0
42-48
43
235
<13.7
13E
0-6
865
5,860
32
6-12
902
6,183
28
12-18
203
ill
<13.7
18-24
426
531
<13.3
24-30
<10.0
133
<12.3
30-36
25
135
<13.3
36-42
62
226
<12.0
42-48
<9.9
197
<13.0
13E-S
0-6
652
4,153
<13.5
13E-N
0-6
1,255
4,540
<13.4
13-L
0-6
238
4,504
19
6-12
145
1,530
<12.9
12-18
41
532
<13.2
18-24
<11.2
163
<13.8
24-30
<10
37
<12.8
30-36
17
39
<13.4
36-42
12
52
<12.2
42-48
<9.4
57
<13.2
14A
0-6
104
5,763
24
6-12
136
3,765
25
12-18
169
2,760
<13.7
18-24
222
38
<13.2
24-30
<9.8
64
<11.9
30-36
15
75
<12.2
14A-E
0-6
80
539
<11.4
6-12
80
355
<11.0
14A-W
0-6
96
940
<11.9
15A
0-6
328
1,972
<13.6
6-12
244
1,249
<11.2
12-18
95
828
<11.6
18-24
62
536
<11.8
24-30
10
122
<12.7
30-36
16
255
<14.9
36-42
<10.1
29
<12.8
42-48
<8.8
18
<12.6
15B
0-6
579
4,418
<12.3
6-12
443
2,597
<13.6
12-18
222
295
<12.9
18-24
247
310
<13.8
24-30
27
61
<12.0
30-36
11
45
<13.9
36-42
47
78
<14.8
42-48
14
45
<13.0
16A
0-6
412
1,572
<12.3
6-12
194
757
<11.7
12-18
217
1,183
<13.1
18-24
19
162
<12.1
24-30
26
65
<15.2
30-36
<11.3
27
<12.7
36-42
20
25
<12.7
42-48
<10.2
18
<12.6
16A-E
0-6
70
383
<12.5
16B
0-6
158
530
<12.3
6-12
25
81
<12.7
12-18
30
81
<12.8
18-24
17
29
<11.9
24-30
13
18
<12
30-36
14
33
<13.6
36-42
<16.5
38
<12.4
42-48
<10.2
32
<12.9
17A
0-6
570
6,795
44
6-12
463
20,000
59
12-18
987
15,200
60
18-24
800
3,248
29
24-30
127
1,640
17
30-36
<12.4
427
<12.5
36-42
18
218
<14.8
42-48
<14.0
325
<13.9
17B
0-6
281
2,829
<12.8
6-12
506
14,700
54
12-18
422
30,050
72
18-24
115
7,499
29
24-30
56
329
<12.8
30-36
<11.1
198
<11.7
36-42
<14.8
32
<14.2
42-48
<13.1
26
<12.5
Page 4 of 8
-------
Table 1.1
Field Screening Average XRF Results for Soil Samples
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
Pit ID
Depth
(inches
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Residential Soil RSL
400
2,300
7.1
17B-N
0-6
<14.1
55
16
17B-S
0-6
676
6,267
28
6-12
264
2,132
14
17B-S2
0-6
89
718
<12.3
17C
0-6
515
6,781
34
6-12
516
9,644
39
12-18
371
13,900
56
18-24
329
13,867
57
24-30
18
66
<12.8
30-36
15
158
<11.6
36-42
<15.9
83
<12.9
42-48
22
126
<13.8
18A
0-6
421
13,075
52
6-12
281
23,967
37
12-18
63
425
16
18-24
<13.5
63
<13.5
24-30
18
647
<12.0
30-36
<11.4
35
<11.9
36-42
<11.8
59
<13.2
42-48
<12.7
117
<13.3
19A
0-6
1,079
960
15
6-12
246
1,120
20
12-18
204
1,444
19
18-24
860
994
17
24-30
40
474
<14
30-36
413
886
<12.5
36-42
49
182
<13.6
42-48
25
104
<13.7
20A
0-6
<14.1
260
<13.1
6-12
14
267
<12.1
12-18
25
329
<13.8
18-24
<13.1
240
<12.7
24-30
<12.2
200
<11.8
30-36
44
286
<13.8
36-42
114
960
<12.5
42-48
19
515
15
20B
0-6
395
3,706
27
6-12
138
1,939
24
12-18
131
1,464
22
18-24
94
813
14
24-30
75
809
<12.1
30-36
24
682
<11.9
36-42
223
623
18
42-48
<13.4
781
13
21A
0-6
461
2,690
21
6-12
1,785
5,078
29
12-18
889
9,934
41
18-24
471
9,678
27
24-30
262
3,367
39
30-36
190
1,210
40
36-42
16
86
15
42-48
27
104
19
21B
0-6
534
5,298
24
6-12
930
5,687
28
12-18
600
7,905
25
18-24
501
11,069
47
24-30
76
852
<12.9
30-36
86
439
18
36-42
43
282
<12.4
42-48
46
181
<13.9
21C
0-6
829
4,368
36
6-12
1,151
3,367
22
12-18
1,031
3,248
28
18-24
390
7,836
34
24-30
212
686
18
30-36
583
3,510
21
36-42
16
41
19
42-48
18
59
<11.5
22A
0-6
716
4,007
27
6-12
707
3,666
27
12-18
655
6,454
32
18-24
608
2,131
24
24-30
173
1,095
26
30-36
21
53
<14.7
36-42
25
147
<19.2
42-48
26
33
17
23A
0-6
309
8,039
23
6-12
261
6,797
30
12-18
76
2,669
16
18-24
84
2,550
18
24-30
21
368
<11.7
30-36
<11.4
130
<11.2
36-42
16
98
<12.3
42-48
<11.7
208
<11.6
Page 5 of 8
-------
Table 1.1
Field Screening Average XRF Results for Soil Samples
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
Pit ID
Depth
(inches
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Residential Soil RSL
400
2,300
7.1
23B
0-6
317
6,314
25
6-12
111
7,310
29
12-18
295
13,392
39
18-24
136
4,471
30
24-30
<11.7
191
<11.2
30-36
<11.7
86
<11.5
36-42
95
397
<11.3
42-48
<13.0
53
<15.7
24A
0-6
388
5,711
26
6-12
226
3,429
<14.9
12-18
270
3,443
<11.0
18-24
537
1,600
<13.6
24-30
98
143
<13.9
30-36
17
142
<13.4
36-42
26
155
<12.5
42-48
19
222
<13.6
24B
0-6
310
3,286
17
6-12
1,199
5,406
38
12-18
558
4,977
18
18-24
1,170
3,332
<13.0
24-30
530
11,707
<10.4
30-36
115
938
18
36-42
51
1,821
<12.6
42-48
26
457
<11.9
25A
0-6
420
5,463
21
6-12
1,657
11,251
52
12-18
785
7,921
25
18-24
2,057
5,101
29
24-30
832
8,416
33
30-36
115
836
<12.9
36-42
22
110
<12.3
42-48
12
50
<13.3
25A-S
0-6
129
1,080
<12.5
6-12
61
342
<12.8
25A-N
0-6
239
2,085
<12.9
6-12
164
1,335
<13.1
25B
0-6
397
5,988
32
6-12
714
14,067
44
12-18
729
14,267
38
18-24
2,285
14,000
50
24-30
2,957
16,340
31
30-36
7,117
9,810
31
36-42
1,902
3,385
35
42-48
25
916
<13.2
26A
0-6
701
6,876
48
6-12
424
13,891
28
12-18
364
5,315
20
18-24
333
3,703
<13.9
24-30
7,855
7,010
31
30-36
7,739
6,993
29
36-42
192
393
<12.9
42-48
42
184
<12.8
26B
0-6
313
6,238
20
6-12
327
12,599
44
12-18
238
10,995
20
18-24
448
8,851
19
24-30
708
1,868
<12.7
30-36
185
1,217
28
36-42
110
744
<13.1
42-48
<10.4
47
<13.2
26B-S
0-6
85
480
<13.1
27A
0-6
244
7,010
29
6-12
1,428
4,993
46
12-18
74
780
<13.4
18-24
439
1,244
<12.9
24-30
75
248
<13.0
30-36
<9.2
237
<12.9
36-42
<9.3
340
<12.7
42-48
<9.0
258
<12.9
27B
0-6
276
5,983
21
6-12
549
3,120
20
12-18
485
9,610
41
18-24
239
10,847
42
24-30
291
21,567
79
30-36
555
11,867
69
36-42
<9.5
769
<12.3
42-48
<11.2
192
<13.3
28A
0-6
170
9,061
33
6-12
611
17,433
52
12-18
570
9,903
29
18-24
784
5,214
24
24-30
541
1,957
<14.5
30-36
699
3,336
<14.0
36-42 <11.6
343
<13.4
42-48 <9.1
170
<13.1
28A-S
0-6 | 97
1,357
<13.5
Page 6 of 8
-------
Table 1.1
Field Screening Average XRF Results for Soil Samples
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
Pit ID
Depth
(inches
Metal Concentrations (mg/kg)
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Residential Soil RSL
400
2,300
7.1
28B
0-6
391
6,136
31
6-12
441
8,932
33
12-18
600
7,870
44
18-24
1,319
8,951
37
24-30
859
3,073
24
30-36
162
2,315
<14.1
36-42
<10.5
35
<14.0
42-48
31
136
<13.3
28B-N
0-6
48
703
<12.4
29A
0-6
190
20,467
35
6-12
197
17,100
37
12-18
2,218
13,519
37
18-24
422
9,494
40
24-30
584
8,048
34
30-36
86
1,940
18
36-42 27
1,046
<13.0
42-48 <8.4
199
<13.4
29B
0-6
343
4,361
27
6-12
321
7,693
27
12-18
457
7,309
37
18-24
324
7,448
32
24-30
3,205
22,603
67
30-36
2,289
8,755
48
36-42
2,720
3,214
23
42-48
2,013
3,040
24
30A
0-6
386
5,514
23
6-12
653
11,509
23
12-18
1,759
3,903
20
18-24
1,706
7,926
29
24-30
54
417
<13.4
30-36
887
3,928
30
36-42
51
126
<14.8
42-48
237
1,636
<13.9
30B
0-6
727
7,211
37
6-12
1,054
5,191
23
12-18
1,582
3,707
23
18-24
3,490
1,821
<14.3
24-30
32
204
<12.9
30-36
425
2,688
<13.4
36-42 68
30
<13.5
42-48
18
55
<13.6
31A
0-6
446
6,454
27
6-12
463
6,775
30
12-18
507
7,740
33
18-24
1,355
5,157
43
24-30
905
4,972
39
30-36
1,598
2,386
38
36-42 1,266
3,770
3,264
42-48 < 10.9
41
<13.8
31A-N
0-6
44
376
<13.1
31A-S
0-6
81
342
<12.8
31B
0-6
437
7,201
31
6-12
625
6,446
22
12-18
492
6,445
32
18-24
555
6,835
29
24-30
1,713
1,898
23
30-36
2,411
741
<14.9
36-42
666
1,383
<13.8
42-48
33
185
<12.7
32A
0-6
691
14,800
46
6-12
658
7,767
51
12-18
880
8,611
29
18-24
932
12,902
35
24-30
99
1,079
26
30-36
16
537
<10.8
36-42
<10.8
98
<13.1
42-48
<11.3
76
<13.1
32A
0-6
882
8,779
37
6-12
760
9,297
35
12-18
1,060
10,933
55
18-24
1,200
18,833
35
24-30
332
2,202
<13.5
30-36
280
2,408
45
36-42 13
117
<13.6
42-48 <12.1
157
<14.1
32B-E
0-6
75
1,452
<12.0
33A
0-6
750
11,533
49
6-12
686
8,748
37
12-18
1,040
14,700
49
18-24
612
10,790
58
24-30
<13.0
159
<14.5
30-36
<10.3
182
<13.2
36-42
12
1,935
<13.2
42-48
29
651
<13.2
Page 7 of 8
-------
Table 1.1
Field Screening Average XRF Results for Soil Samples
Cherokee County Superfund Site OU8
Pit II)
Depth
(inches
Melal C'oiiceiilmlions dim km
Lcitd
Zinc
('iidniiiini
Residential Soil RSI.
400
2. MX)
7.1
33B
0-0
682
5.566
23
6-12
747
6.307
23
12-18
28
117
<14.4
18-24
185
734
<14.1
24-30
164
433
<13.1
30-36
52
127
<13.8
36-42 < 10.6
502
<12.7
42-48 19
547
<13.0
Notes:
The values listed are the average of 3 XRF readings for each sample location
< = less than
Bold = indicates detection
ID = identification
Non Bold = represents the method detection limit for samples not detected. Method
detection limits were used because results could be up to or equal to the method
detection limit without beina detected and zero was not considered a correct
Page 8 of 8
-------
Appendix J
Human Health Risk Assessment
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
BASELINE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE
CHEROKEE COUNTY RAILROADS SITE OPERABLE UNIT 8-
LOCATED IN CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS
FINAL
05/14/2015
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
With technical assistance from:
SRC, Inc.
7502 Round Pond Road
North Syracuse, NY 13212-2558
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Organization 1
2.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION 3
2.1 Site Location and Description 3
2.2 Soils and Topography 3
2.3 Site History 3
2.4 Land Use 4
2.5 Basis for Potential Human Health Concern 4
2.6 Site Investigations 4
2.7 Data Usability Assessment 5
3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 8
3.1 Site Conceptual Model 8
3.2 Exposure Pathways 8
3.2.1 Exposures to Solid Media 9
3.2.2 Summary of Exposure Pathways for Quantitative Assessment 9
3.3 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) 10
4.0 EVALUATING EXPOSURE AND RISK FROM NON-LEAD COPCs 11
4.1 Quantification of Human Exposure 11
4.1.1 Non-Lead COPCs 11
4.1.2 Exposure Units 15
4.1.3 Human Exposure Parameters 16
4.1.4 Exposure Point Concentrations 16
4.1.5 Relative Bioavailability (RBA) of Non-Lead Metals in Soil 17
4.2 Toxicity Assessment 18
4.2.1 Overview 18
4.2.2 Human Toxicity Values 20
4.3 Risk Characterization Approach 21
4.3.1 Non-Cancer Effects 21
4.3.2 Cancer Effects 23
4.4 Results 25
4.5 Uncertainty Assessment 25
4.5.1 Uncertainties in Exposure Assessment 26
4.5.2 Uncertainties in Toxicity Values 27
4.5.3 Uncertainties in Risk Estimates 28
5.0 EVALUATING EXPOSURE AND RISK FROM LEAD 29
5.1 Overview 29
5.2 Exposure Unit 30
5.3 Exposure Point Concentrations 30
5.4 Lead Models and Parameters 30
5.4.1 Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model 30
5.4.2 Adult Lead Methodology (ALM) 31
i
-------
5.4.3 Evaluation of Intermittent Exposures 32
5.4.4 IEUBK Model Inputs 34
5.4.5 ALM Inputs 36
5.5 Results 38
5.5.1 Risks to Children 38
5.5.2 Risks to Adults 38
5.6 Uncertainty Assessment for Lead 38
6.0 REFERENCES 41
APPENDICES
Appendix A Analytical Data
Appendix B Analysis of XRF Soil Data Quality
Appendix C ProUCL Results
Appendix D PEF Derivation
Appendix E Detailed Non-Lead Risk Calculations
Appendix F Detailed Lead Risk Calculations
Appendix G RAGS D Series Tables
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary Statistics for Main Line Surface Soil Samples
Table 2-2 Summary Statistics for Main Line Subsurface Soil Samples
Table 2-3 Summary Statistics for Lateral Line Soil Samples
Table 4-1 Exposure Parameters for High-Frequency Recreational Visitors
Table 4-2 Exposure Parameters for Low-Frequency Recreational Visitors
Table 4-3 Exposure Parameters for Hypothetical Future Construction Workers
Table 4-4 Summary of HIF and TWF Values
Table 4-5 Oral and Dermal Human Health Toxicity Values for Non-Lead COPCs
Table 4-6 Inhalation Human Health Toxicity Values for Non-Lead COPCs
Table 4-7 Summary of Estimated Hazards and Risks from Non-Lead COPCs
Table 4-8 Bulk vs. Fine Concentration Data for Non-Lead COPCs
Table 5-1 IEUBK Model Inputs
Table 5-2 Lead IVBA and Estimated RBA
Table 5-3 Adult Lead Model Inputs
Table 5-4 Lead Risk to the Child Recreational Visitors
Table 5-5 Lead Risk to the Adult Recreational Visitors and Construction Workers
Table 5-6 Bulk vs. Fine Concentration Data for Lead
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Rail Line Sampling Locations
Figure 3-1 Conceptual Site Model
iv
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
95UCL
95% Upper Confidence Limit
ABA
Absolute Bioavailability
ABSd
Dermal absorption fraction
ABSgi
Bioavailability/gastrointestinal Absorption Factor
ACCLPP
Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
AF
Absorption Fraction
ALM
Adult Lead Methodology
AT
Averaging Time
AT SDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
bgs
below ground surface
BKSF
Biokinetic Slope Factor
BMDL
Lower Confidence Limit on the Estimate of the Threshold Dose
BW
Body Weight
Cair
Concentration of chemical in air
Csoil
Concentration of chemical in soil
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CF
Conversion Factor
COPC
Chemical of Potential Concern
CSM
Conceptual Site Model
CTE
Central Tendency Exposure
DA
Absorbed Dose
DAD
Dermal Absorbed Dose
DAF
Dermal Adherence Factor
DI
Daily Intake
DQA
Data Quality Assessment
EC
Exposure Concentration
ED
Exposure Duration
EF
Exposure Frequency
EPC
Exposure Point Concentration
ET
Exposure Time
EV
Event Frequency
GM
Geometric Mean
GSD
Geometric Standard Deviation
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HI
Hazard Index
HIF
Human Intake Factor
v
-------
HQ
Hazard Quotient
ICP-AES
Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy
IEUBK
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model
IR
Intake Rate
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System
IVBA
In Vitro Bioaccessibility
LOAEL
Lowest-observed-adverse-effect level
Msd
Soil to Dust Transfer Factor
NCEA
National Center for Environmental Assessment
NHANES
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey
NOAEL
No-observed-adverse-effect level
NPL
National Priority List
OSRTI
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU
Operable Unit
P10
Probability of having a blood lead level that exceeds 10 |ig/dL
PbB
Geometric Mean Blood Lead Concentration
PbB0
Background Geometric Mean Blood Lead Concentration
PbC
Lead Concentration
Pbs
Soil lead concentration
PEF
Particulate Emission Factor
Rfetal/maternal
Ratio of the blood lead level in a fetus to that of the mother
RAGS
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RBA
Relative Bioavailability
RfD
Reference Dose
RfC
Reference Concentration
RME
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
ROD
Record of Decision
RSL
Regional Screening Level
SA
Surface Area
SAP
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SF
Slope Factor
TWF
Time Weighting Factor
UCL
Upper Confidence Limit
UFA
Interspecies Uncertainty
UFH
Intraspecies Variability
UFL
LOAEL to NOAEL
UFS
Subchronic to Chronic Extrapolation
vi
-------
UR Unit Risk
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
WOE Weight of Evidence
XRF X-ray Fluorescence
vii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
This document is a human health risk assessment (HHRA) for the Cherokee County, Operable
Unit 8 (OU8) Railroads site (hereafter referred to as "the site") located in Cherokee County,
Kansas. The purpose of this document is to assess the potential risks to humans, both now and in
the future, from site-related contaminants present in environmental media, specifically the soils
along the historic rail lines.
The results of this assessment are intended to help inform risk managers and the public about
potential human risks attributable to site-related contaminants and to help determine if there is a
need for action at the site. The methods used to evaluate risks in this assessment are consistent
with current United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidelines for human
health risk assessment at Superfund sites (USEPA 1989, 1991a,b, 1992a, 2002a,b, 2004, 2009a).
This HHRA is documented in accordance with the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual Part D (RAGS Part D) (USEPA 2001) in
Appendix G.
1.2 Organization
In addition to this introduction, this report is organized into the following sections:
Section 2 This section provides a description of the site and a review of data that have been
collected to characterize the nature and extent of environmental contamination at
the site.
Section 3 This section identifies human exposure scenarios of potential concern at the site
and identifies chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) for each exposure medium.
Section 4 This section summarizes exposure and risk to humans from non-lead COPCs.
This includes a description of the basic methods and data used to evaluate
exposure and risk from non-lead chemicals, the estimated cancer and non-cancer
risk levels at the site, and a discussion of the uncertainties in the evaluation.
Section 5 This section summarizes human exposure and risk to humans from lead. This
includes a description of the basic methods and data used to evaluate exposure
and risk, the estimated levels of risk at the site, and a discussion of the
uncertainties in the evaluation.
1
-------
Section 6 This section provides full citations for USEPA guidance documents, site-related
documents, and scientific publications referenced in this report.
All tables, figures, and appendices cited in the text are provided at the end of the report.
2
-------
2.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Site Location and Description
The Cherokee County Superfund site spans 115 square miles in the southeast corner of Kansas
and encompasses the Kansas portion of the Tri-State Mining District. The Tri-State Mining
District covers approximately 2,500 square miles in northeast Oklahoma, southwest Missouri,
and southeast Kansas. The site is divided into seven sub-sites (Galena, Baxter Springs, Treece,
Badger, Lawton, Waco, and Crestline) that are characterized by EPA into eight operable units
(OUs). This HHRA focuses on OU8, the rail beds (Figure 2-1). The rail beds in Cherokee
County consist of several discontinuous, abandoned lines running throughout the site.
2.2 Soils and Topography
The topography in southeast Kansas is generally gently sloping, except in the river valleys and
areas of waste stockpiles and collapsed mine areas where topographic relief is on the order of 50 to
100 feet.
Historically, the ballast used in the railroad beds was composed of chat from surrounding mine
waste piles. Currently, the historic railroads that cross through private property exhibit extensive
regrowth. The organic layer covering the chat ballast in forested areas is well developed, owing
to the almost constant supply of litter from the surrounding vegetation (USEPA 2013a).
2.3 Site History
The Tri-State Mining District was one of the foremost lead-zinc mining areas of the world and
provided nearly continuous production from about 1850 until 1970. During this period, the
district produced an estimated 500 million tons of ore, with about 115 million tons produced
from the Kansas portion of the district. USEPA has listed four mining-related Superfund Sites in
the Tri-State Mining District: the Tar Creek, Oklahoma site, the Jasper County, Missouri site,
the Newton County, Missouri site, and the Cherokee County, Kansas site (USEPA 2013a).
During the mining years, railroads were constructed in Cherokee County to join conventional
large-scale railroads to the individual mining operations. As of 2000, approximately 142 miles
of large-scale rail lines exist in Cherokee County. Traditionally, these historic railroads were
abandoned when mining operations ceased in that mine.
3
-------
Several historic rail lines have been addressed during previous remedial actions on properties
where they were encountered. Some ballasts may have been completely removed as a result of
post-rail line construction activities, such as highway cuts.
2.4 Land Use
Land use within the Cherokee County site has previously been characterized as primarily cropland
and pasture with some forest and residential use. Some open land is in use as mine waste
repositories associated with remediation efforts in the area. There is a coal-fired power plant on
the Spring River near Empire Lake and various light industries in and around Baxter Springs. Chat
is processed at both the Baxter Springs and Treece sub-sites and hauled via trucks to various parts
of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri (USEPA 2013a).
Land use along the rail beds is primarily considered recreational. Recently, many rail lines were
abandoned by railroad companies and reverted back to the property owner through the Surface
Transportation Board. Although individual property owners have possession of some of the lines
within the site, many are still owned by the railroad companies.
2.5 Basis for Potential Human Health Concern
Mining operations typically generate mine wastes that contain elevated levels of a number of
different metals. The primary sources of contamination at the site are: (1) the chat from
surrounding mine waste piles used to construct rail beds and (2) deposition from smelting
operations. The primary contaminants of interest are lead, cadmium, and zinc. Excess exposures
to these metals may cause a range of non-cancer and cancer effects in humans.
2.6 Site Investigations
The Cherokee County Superfund site was placed on the National Priority List (NPL) in 1983.
Since that time, numerous site investigations have taken place throughout the site that have
resulted in a number of remedial and removal actions as noted in Records of Decision (RODs)
and Five Year Review for the site1. However, specific investigation of the large-scale rail lines
has not occurred previously.
Recently, the USEPA conducted soil sampling along the rail lines within OU8 to support risk
assessment activities. Those data are briefly described below.
1A summary of activities completed previously at the Cherokee County Superfund site is available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/eparecoverv/cherokee.html.
4
-------
Soil samples were collected from 34 locations along the historic rail lines (Figure 2-1) in 2013
and 2014 in accordance with the project-specific Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) (USEPA
2013a). Samples could not be collected along all areas of the historic rail lines because access
was not granted. In brief, test pits were excavated in incremental lifts at 6-inch intervals
beginning at the surface to a depth of 4 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil from each interval
was collected in a disposable pan and homogenized for screening using X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) spectroscopy. In total, 68 surface (0-6 inches) and 470 subsurface (6-48 inches) soil
samples were collected in May, June, and December of 2013 and screened for cadmium, lead,
and zinc using XRF spectroscopy. Ten surface soil samples and 56 subsurface soil samples
screened using ex situ XRF were sent for confirmatory laboratory analysis by inductively
coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES). XRF readings were also made on 33
surface soil samples and 16 subsurface soil samples collected from horizontal locations outward
from the center of the rail lines to evaluate the lateral extent of the rail line ballast (herein
referred to as "lateral samples"). In addition, 5 surface soil samples and 12 subsurface soil
samples were collected from 14 locations for in vitro bioaccessibility (IVBA) testing for lead
(USEPA 2013 a).
USEPA returned to the site in September 2014 to collect an additional 26 surface soil samples
along the main rail lines at locations 1, 8, 13-Baxter, 13-Lawton, 14, 15, 17, 24, 25, 26, and 32.
All 2014 samples were analyzed by both XRF and ICP analysis for cadmium, lead, and zinc.
Two additional surface soil samples were each collected from locations 13-Baxter and 14. One
sample from each location was analyzed for concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the
bulk sample. The other sample from each location was sieved using a 60 mesh (250 |im) sieve
and analyzed for concentrations of the same metals in the fine fraction. In addition, 26 surface
soil samples were collected from 11 locations for IVBA testing for lead.
The analytical data from these sampling events are provided in Appendix A, and summary
statistics are provided in Tables 2-1 (main rail line surface soil samples), 2-2 (main rail line
subsurface soil samples), and 2-3 (lateral rail lines).
2.7 Data Usability Assessment
XRF versus ICP
As described above, metals in soil were analyzed by two different methods: XRF and ICP. XRF
analyses can be performed in the field, whereas ICP analyses are typically done in an analytical
laboratory setting. Field-implementable methods like XRF offer the advantages of more rapid
turnaround time and lower per-sample cost for analyses, but they also typically require some
5
-------
level of laboratory analytical confirmation to ensure that the results are accurate and compatible
with lab analytical data (USEPA 1992b), as was done in this case (see section 2.6). In general,
ICP data are considered more reliable for risk assessment purposes than XRF data. Thus,
whenever ICP data were available at a sampling location, these data were preferred over XRF
data from the same location, and only the ICP data were included in the risk assessment. If only
XRF data were available for a sampling location, then the XRF results were included if they
were determined to be adequate for use in risk assessment as described below.
The adequacy of XRF data for this site was determined by conducting a Data Quality
Assessment (DQA) of XRF data sets (Appendix B). In brief, if the XRF detection frequency was
low (<80%), then the XRF detection limit was compared to the level needed for risk assessment
purposes to determine whether the XRF analysis had sufficient sensitivity. In addition, the
strength of the correlation between paired XRF and ICP results was also evaluated. In order for
XRF data for an analyte to be considered for inclusion in the risk assessment, both the detection
limit and the correlation with ICP had to be adequate. Based on the DQA in Appendix B, the
XRF data for lead and zinc were determined to be adequate for use in this risk assessment. XRF
data for cadmium were not adequately correlated with ICP results, and the detection limit for
XRF analysis of cadmium was not sufficiently sensitive; thus, XRF analyses for cadmium were
not used in this risk assessment.
To make the XRF and ICP data more comparable for use in this HHRA, the XRF data for lead
and zinc were adjusted to calculate ICP-equivalent concentrations, using the chemical-specific
parameters from the ICP/XRF regressions (see Appendix B for details):
[ICP-equivalent concentration] = a + b ¦ [XRF concentration]
where:
a = Intercept from the ICP/XRF regression line
b = Slope from the ICP/XRF regression line
Main versus Lateral Soil Data
Lateral soil samples were collected at the site to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination.
As shown in Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3, average concentrations of lead and zinc are roughly 1- to
3-fold higher along the main rail line than at lateral sampling locations that radiate outward from
the main lines. Thus, inclusion of lateral location data in the exposure point concentration (EPC)
6
-------
calculations may "dilute" concentration data for the main line samples. To avoid introducing a
low bias into the EPC calculations, data for lateral samples were not used in the HHRA.
Summary of Usable Data
Based on the criteria described above, all data described in Section 2.6 were used in the risk
assessment, except as follows:
• If both XRF and ICP data were available for a sample, then only the ICP data were used.
• If only XRF data were available at a location, then the XRF results for lead and zinc were
used (after they were adjusted to ICP-equivalent concentrations using the equations
presented in Appendix B).
• Data for samples collected from lateral locations were not used to quantify risks in the
HHRA.
7
-------
3.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Exposure is the process by which humans come into contact with chemicals in the environment.
In general, humans can be exposed to chemicals in a variety of environmental media (e.g., soil,
sediment, water, air, food), and these exposures can occur through several pathways (e.g.,
ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation).
3.1 Site Conceptual Model
Figure 3-1 presents a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) that summarizes the current understanding
of how chemical contaminants that have been released to the environment might result in
exposure of human receptors at the site.
The primary populations of concern at the site consist of people who may engage in recreational
activities at, or in the vicinity of, the historic rail lines. The recreational visitor population
represents individuals (adults, adolescents aged 6-16 years, and children aged 0-6 years) who
may walk, hike, play, and/or trespass along the historic rail lines in the area and be exposed via
direct contact to surface soils along the rail beds. It is expected that this recreational visitor
population is mostly area residents. Risks to area residents from exposure at their homes have
been evaluated previously and will not be considered as part of this risk assessment for OU8.
It is also possible that there may be some future construction activities along the rail lines,
involving "rails to trails" modifications to facilitate recreational use. These activities might
involve some shallow soil excavation and light construction. The hypothetical future worker
population represents construction/excavation workers who may be exposed via direct contact to
surface and subsurface soils along the rail beds.
3.2 Exposure Pathways
Humans may be exposed to site-related contaminants in soils along the rail lines by several
different exposure routes (oral, inhalation, dermal). For the risk assessment, each of these
pathways is considered "complete". A pathway is considered complete if there is contact
between a human receptor and a contaminated environmental medium. However, not all of the
potential exposure pathways are likely to be of equal concern. The relative importance depends
on the amount of chemical taken into the body by each pathway.
8
-------
3.2.1 Exposures to Solid Media
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil
Even though few people intentionally ingest soil or soil-like materials, recreational visitors and
workers who have direct contact with the rail lines at the site might ingest small amounts that
adhere to their hands during outdoor activities. In addition, children, especially those under
6 years of age, may ingest soil as a result of frequent hand-to-mouth or object-to mouth
behaviors. Incidental ingestion of soil is often one of the most important routes of human
exposure at mining sites, so this exposure pathway is evaluated quantitatively in the risk
assessment for all receptors.
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil
Recreational visitors and workers who come into contact with contaminated soils may get some
of the soil on their skin. Although most metals do not readily cross the skin into the body,
dermal exposure to soil is a complete exposure pathway and is evaluated quantitatively in the
risk assessment for all receptors. However, quantifying uptake from dermal exposure to soil-
borne inorganic lead is not recommended due to the uncertainty in assigning a dermal absorption
fraction that would apply to the numerous inorganic forms of lead that are typically found in the
environment. Thus, exposure to inorganic lead through dermal contact with soil is not evaluated
quantitatively in the risk assessment.
Inhalation of Airborne Soil Particulates
Whenever contaminated soils are exposed at the surface, fine-grained particles of contaminated
surface soil may become suspended in air by wind or human disturbance, and humans in the area
could inhale those particles. In cases where the soil is disturbed only by wind or walking, the
amount of particulate material inhaled from air is generally quite small compared to the amount
that is typically assumed for incidental ingestion. Inhalation of particulates suspended by
mechanical disturbances (such as excavators) might sometimes be of potential significance
relative to oral exposure. In either case, inhalation of particulate matter suspended from soil is a
complete pathway and is evaluated quantitatively in the risk assessment for all receptors.
3.2.2 Summary of Exposure Pathways for Quantitative Assessment
Based on the evaluation of potential exposure pathways presented above, the following exposure
pathways will be quantitatively evaluated in this risk assessment.
9
-------
Population
Exposure Pathways
Adult Recreational
Visitor
Ingestion of and dermal contact with surface soils
Inhalation of soil particulates
Adolescent Recreational
Visitor (6-16 years)
Ingestion of and dermal contact with surface soils
Inhalation of soil particulates
Child Recreational
Visitor (0-6 years)
Ingestion of and dermal contact with surface soils
Inhalation of soil particulates
Hypothetical Future
Construction Worker
Ingestion of and dermal contact with surface and subsurface soils
Inhalation of soil particulates
3.3 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs)
COPCs are chemicals that exist in the environment at concentrations that might be of potential
health concern to humans and that are associated with site-related sources. Based on previous
site investigations for other OUs (Dames and Moore 1993, Newfields 2002), the COPCs for this
site are cadmium, lead, and zinc.
10
-------
4.0 EVALUATING EXPOSURE AND RISK FROM NON-LEAD COPCs
4.1 Quantification of Human Exposure
4.1.1 Non-Lead COPCs
Ingestion Exposure
The amount of chemical that is ingested by receptors exposed to site media may be quantified
using the following general equation:
DI = CSoii (IR / BW) (EF ED / AT) RB A
where:
DI = Daily intake of chemical (mg per kg of body weight per day).
Csoii = Concentration of the chemical in the contaminated soil to which the
person is exposed (mg/kg).
IR = Intake rate of the contaminated environmental medium (kg/day).
BW = Body weight of the exposed person (kg).
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year). This describes how often a
person is likely to be exposed to the contaminated medium over
the course of a typical year.
ED = Exposure duration (years). This describes how long a person is
likely to be exposed to the contaminated medium during their
lifetime.
AT = Averaging time (days). This term specifies the length of time over
which the average dose is calculated. For a chemical which causes non-
cancer effects, the averaging time is equal to the exposure duration. For a
chemical that causes cancer effects, the averaging time is 70 years as per
USEPA (1989) policy.
11
-------
RBA =
Relative bioavailability (see also Section 4.1.5).
Note that the factors EF, ED, and AT combine to yield a factor between zero and one. Values
near 1.0 indicate that exposure is nearly continuous over the specified averaging period, while
values near zero indicate that exposure occurs only rarely.
For mathematical convenience, the general equation for calculating daily intake can be written
as:
DI = CSoii HIF RBA
where:
HIF = Human Intake Factor. This term describes the average amount of soil
environmental medium contacted by the exposed person each day. The
value of HIF is typically given by:
HIF = (IR / B W) (EF ED / AT)
The units of HIF are kg/kg-day for soil.
Dermal Exposure
The amount of a chemical that is absorbed across the skin is referred to as the dermally absorbed
dose (DAD). Procedures for estimation of the DAD as outlined in USEPA (2004) are used in
this assessment and are described below. For chemicals other than lead, exposure is quantified
using an equation of the following general form:
DAD = DAevent EF ED EV S A / (BW AT)
where:
DAD = Dermally absorbed dose (mg of chemical per kg of body weight per
day).
DAevent = Absorbed dose per event (mg of chemical per square centimeter of
skin surface area per event). This is medium-specific and is further
described below.
12
-------
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year). This describes how often a
person is likely to be exposed to the contaminated medium over the course
of a typical year.
ED = Exposure duration (years). This describes how long a person is
likely to be exposed to the contaminated medium during their
lifetime.
EV = Event frequency (events/day). This describes the number of times
per day a person comes in contact with a contaminant in soil.
SA = Surface area (cm2). This describes the amount of skin exposed to
the contaminated media.
BW = Body weight of the exposed person (kg).
AT = Averaging time (days). This term specifies the length of time over
which the average dose is calculated.
For contaminants in soil, DAevent is estimated as follows:
DAevent = Csoil ' CFS • DAF ' ABSd
where:
CSoii = Chemical concentration in soil (mg of chemical per kg of soil).
CFS = Conversion factor for soil (10"6 kg/mg).
DAF = Dermal adherence factor (mg of soil per square centimeter of skin surface
area per event). This describes the amount of soil that adheres to
the skin per unit of surface area.
ABSd = Dermal absorption fraction (unitless). This value is chemical-
specific and represents the contribution of absorption of a chemical
across a person's skin from soil to the systemic dose.
13
-------
Combining these equations yields the following:
DAD = CSoii CF DAF ABSd EF ED EV SA / (BW AT)
For mathematical convenience, the general equation for calculating DAD can be written as:
DAD = Csoii ABSd HIFsoii
where:
HIFsoii = CF AF EF ED EV SA) / (BW AT)
The units of HIF are kg/kg-day for soil.
Inhalation Exposure
Inhalation exposures are evaluated in accordance with the inhalation dosimetry methodology
presented in USEPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Part F: Inhalation Risk
Assessment (USEPA 2009a).
In accordance with USEPA (2009a), the human intake equation does not include an inhalation
rate (m3/day) or body weight because the amount of the chemical that reaches the target site is
not a simple function of these factors. Instead, the interaction of the inhaled contaminant with
the respiratory tract is affected by factors such as species-specific relationships between exposure
concentrations or deposited/delivered doses and physiochemical characteristics of the inhaled
contaminant (USEPA 2009a). Therefore, the inhaled exposure concentration (EC) for chronic
exposures is calculated as:
EC = Cair (ET EF ED / AT)
where:
EC = Exposure concentration ([j,g/m3). This is the time-weighted concentration based on
the characteristics of the exposure scenario being evaluated.
Cair = Concentration of the chemical in air ([j,g/m3) to which the person is exposed.
14
-------
ET = Exposure time (hours/day). This describes how long a person is likely to be
exposed to the contaminated medium over the course of a typical day.
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year). This describes how often a person is likely to be
exposed to the contaminated medium over the course of a typical year.
ED = Exposure duration (years). This describes how long a person is likely to be
exposed to the contaminated medium during their lifetime.
AT = Averaging time (days). This term specifies the length of time over which the time-
weighted average concentration is calculated.
For mathematical convenience, the general equation for exposure concentration can be written
as:
EC = Cair TWF
where:
TWF = Time-weighting factor (unitless)
The value of TWF is given by:
TWF =ET EF ED/AT
4.1.2 Exposure Units
An exposure unit or exposure area is a location where a receptor (e.g., recreational visitor,
worker) may be exposed to environmental media. Defining an exposure unit depends on a
consideration of the likely activity patterns of the exposed receptors.
For the recreational visitor population, exposure units are defined based on assumed recreational
use patterns that are influenced by accessibility and proximity to residential areas or play areas.
On this basis, two exposure units were evaluated for recreational visitors:
• High-frequency recreational use areas: these locations include areas where the historic
rail lines run close to residential properties and/or play areas (sample locations 17/18,
24/25, 13-Baxter, and 14/15 as shown in Figure 2-1).
15
-------
• Low-frequency recreational use areas: these locations include agricultural and wooded
areas with limited human exposure potential (all other locations not identified as high-
frequency recreational use in Figure 2-1).
For the worker population, it is assumed that future construction/excavation activities could
occur along any of the rail lines at any location. Thus, the entire site is considered as a single
exposure unit for evaluation of potential future exposures of construction/excavation workers.
4.1.3 Human Exposure Parameters
There are differences among individuals in intake rates, body weights, exposure frequencies, and
exposure durations that determine the actual extent of chemical exposure. Typically, the HHRA
provides estimates of intakes that are "average" or are otherwise near the central portion of the
range, and on intakes that are near the upper end of the range (e.g., the 95th percentile). These
two exposure estimates are referred to as Central Tendency Exposure (CTE) and Reasonable
Maximum Exposure (RME), respectively.
Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 list the CTE and RME exposure parameters and resultant HIF values
used in this assessment for high-frequency recreational visitor populations, low-frequency
recreational visitor populations, and a construction worker population. Some of the values are
informed by site information, some are based on USEPA default guidelines, and others are based
on professional judgment or are estimated by extrapolation from other sites. The HIF values are
summarized in Table 4-4.
4.1.4 Exposure Point Concentrations
Exposure to a chemical within an exposure area is assumed to be related to the arithmetic mean
concentration within that exposure area. Since the true arithmetic mean concentration cannot be
calculated with certainty from a limited number of measurements, the USEPA recommends that
the 95% upper confidence limit (95UCL) of the arithmetic mean at each exposure point be used
as the EPC when calculating exposure and risk at that location (USEPA 1992a).
The mathematical approach that is most appropriate for computing the 95UCL of a data set
depends on a number of factors, including the number of data points available, the shape of the
distribution of the values, and the degree of censoring (USEPA 2002a). Because of the
complexity of this process, the USEPA Technical Support Center has developed a software
application called ProUCL (USEPA 2013b) to assist in the estimation of 95UCL values.
16
-------
ProUCL calculates 95UCLs for a data set using several different strategies and recommends the
95UCL that is considered preferable based on the properties of the data set. A minimum of five
samples and two distinct detected values is required to calculate 95UCLs in ProUCL. If the
minimum data requirements for ProUCL are not met, then the EPC is set equal to the maximum
detected value. If ProUCL provides more than one "recommended" 95UCL to use (e.g.,
Chebyshev or Bootstrap), the higher recommended value is used as the EPC. Detailed results
from ProUCL can be found in Appendix C.
Approach for Non-lead COPCs in Air
No site-specific data are available on particulate levels in air at the site. In the absence of
measured values, the concentration of contaminants in air that would occur due to soil-to-air
transfer due to wind or human disturbance was estimated using the following equation:
Cair = Csoil / PEF
where:
Cair = Concentration of contaminant in air (mg/m3)
CSoii = Concentration of contaminant in soil (mg/kg)
PEF = Particulate emission factor (m3 of air per kg of soil)
In the absence of additional data, the default PEF of 1.36 x 109 m3/kg presented in USEPA
(2002b) was used in this risk assessment for evaluation of inhalation exposures by recreational
visitors. This PEF value addresses only windborne dust emissions and does not consider
emissions from traffic or other forms of mechanical disturbance, which could lead to a greater
level of exposure. A calculated site-specific PEF of 3.2 x 106 m3/kg was used to evaluate
exposures of construction workers. This value is intended to address windborne dust emissions
and emissions from truck traffic on unpaved site soils, which typically contribute the majority of
dust emissions during construction activities (USEPA 2002b). Appendix D presents the
derivation of the construction worker PEF value.
4.1.5 Relative Bioavailability (RBA) of Non-Lead Metals in Soil
RBA is the ratio of the gastrointestinal absorption of a chemical from a site medium (e.g., soil)
compared to the absorption of that chemical that occurred in the toxicity study used to derive the
toxicity factors for the chemical. In general, metals in soil or sediment exist in the form of
mineral particles that are not rapidly solubilized in gastrointestinal fluids when ingested, while
17
-------
toxicity studies often utilize readily soluble forms of the test chemical. Thus, oral RBA values
for metals in soil are often less than 1.0. However, lacking adequate RBA data for cadmium and
zinc, the RBA values for these chemicals are conservatively assumed to be 1.0.
4.2 Toxicity Assessment
4.2.1 Overview
The toxicity assessment identifies what adverse health effects are associated with exposure to a
given chemical, and how the appearance of these adverse effects depends on exposure level
(dose-response). In addition, the toxic effects of a chemical frequently depend on the route of
exposure (oral, inhalation, dermal) and the duration of exposure (subchronic, chronic, or
lifetime). Thus, a full description of the toxic effects of a chemical includes a listing of what
adverse health effects the chemical may cause, and how the occurrence of these effects depends
upon dose, route, and duration of exposure.
The toxicity assessment process is usually divided into two parts: the first characterizes and
quantifies the non-cancer effects of the chemical, while the second addresses the cancer effects
of the chemical. This two-part approach is employed because there may be major differences in
the time-course of action and the shape of the dose-response curve for cancer and non-cancer
effects.
Non-Cancer Effects
Essentially all chemicals can cause adverse health effects if given at a high enough dose.
However, when the dose is sufficiently low, typically no adverse effect is observed. Thus, in
characterizing the non-cancer effects of a chemical, the key parameter is the threshold dose at
which an adverse effect first becomes evident. Doses below the threshold are considered to be
safe, while doses above the threshold may cause an effect.
The threshold dose is typically estimated from toxicological data (derived from studies of
humans and/or animals) by finding the highest dose that does not produce an observable adverse
effect, and the lowest dose which does produce an effect. These are referred to as the "no-
observed-adverse-effect level" (NOAEL) and the "lowest-observed-adverse-effect level"
(LOAEL), respectively. The threshold is presumed to lie in the interval between the NOAEL
and the LOAEL. Alternatively, dose-response data for the critical effect may be modeled using
USEPA's Benchmark Dose Modeling Software to obtain the lower confidence limit on the
estimate of the threshold dose (BMDL). In order to be conservative (health protective), non-
18
-------
cancer risk evaluations are not based directly on the threshold exposure level, but on a value
referred to as the Reference Dose (RfD) for oral exposures or Reference Concentration (RfC) for
inhalation exposures. The RfD and RfC are estimates (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an
order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups)
that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime (USEPA
1989).
The RfD and RfC values are derived from a BMDL or NOAEL (or a LOAEL if a reliable
NOAEL is not available) by dividing by an "uncertainty factor". Factors accounting for several
sources of uncertainty (e.g., interspecies uncertainty [UFA], intraspecies variability [UFH],
subchronic to chronic extrapolation [UFS], LOAEL to NOAEL [UFL], etc.) are combined into a
single uncertainty factor that is applied to the RfD or RfC value. If the data are from studies in
humans and the observations are considered to be very reliable, then the uncertainty factor may
be as small as 1.0. However, the uncertainty factor is normally at least 10, and can be much
higher if the data are limited. The effect of dividing the BMDL, NOAEL, or LOAEL by an
uncertainty factor is to ensure that the RfD or RfC is not higher than the threshold level for
adverse effects. Thus, there is always a "margin of safety" built into RfD and RfC values.
Exposures higher than the RfD or RfC may carry some risk, but because of the margin of safety,
an exposure above the RfD or RfC does not mean that an effect will necessarily occur (USEPA
1989).
Cancer Effects
For cancer effects, the toxicity assessment process has two components. The first is a qualitative
evaluation of the weight of evidence (WOE) that the chemical does or does not cause cancer in
humans. Previously, this evaluation was performed by the USEPA using the system summarized
below:
WOE
Meaning
Description
A
Known human carcinogen
Sufficient evidence of cancer in humans.
B1
Probable human carcinogen
Suggestive evidence of cancer incidence in humans.
B2
Probable human carcinogen
Sufficient evidence of cancer in animals, but lack of
data or insufficient data in humans.
C
Possible human carcinogen
Suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity in animals
D
Cannot be evaluated
No evidence or inadequate evidence of cancer in
animals or humans
E
Not carcinogenic to humans
Strong evidence that it does not cause cancer in
humans
19
-------
More recently, USEPA developed a revised classification system for characterizing the weight of
evidence for carcinogens (USEPA 2005). However, this system has not yet been implemented
for a number of chemicals, so the older classification scheme is retained for use in this
assessment.
For chemicals that are classified in Group A, Bl, B2, or C, the second part of the toxicity
assessment is to describe the carcinogenic potency of the chemical. This is done by quantifying
how the number of cancers observed in exposed animals or humans increases as the dose
increases. Typically, it is assumed that the dose-response curve for cancer has no threshold (i.e.,
that any dose above zero presents an increase cancer risk). Thus, the most convenient descriptor
of cancer potency is the slope of the dose-response curve at low doses (where the slope is
assumed to be linear). This is referred to as the Slope Factor (SF), which has dimensions of risk
of cancer per unit dose.
Estimating the cancer SF is often complicated by the fact that observable increases in cancer
incidence usually occur only at relatively high doses, frequently in the part of the dose-response
curve that is no longer linear. Thus, it is necessary to use mathematical models to extrapolate
from the observed high-dose data to the desired (but un-measurable) slope at low dose. In order
to account for the uncertainty in this extrapolation process, USEPA typically chooses to employ
the upper 95UCL of the slope as the SF. That is, there is a 95 percent probability that the true
cancer potency is lower than the value chosen for the SF. This approach ensures that there is a
margin of safety in cancer risk estimates.
For inhalation exposures, cancer risk is characterized by an inhalation Unit Risk (UR) value.
This value represents the upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from
continuous lifetime exposure to a chemical at a concentration of 1 |ig/m3 in air.
4.2.2 Human Toxicity Values
Toxicity values (RfD, RfC, SF, and UR values) that have been established by the USEPA are
listed in an on-line database referred to as "IRIS" (Integrated Risk Information System) (USEPA
2015a). Other toxicity values are available as interim recommendations from the USEPA's
Superfund Technical Assistance Center operated by the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA). Selection of toxicity values (RfD, RfC, SF, and UR values) for use in this
risk assessment follows the hierarchy for use in human health risk assessment at Superfund sites
as described in USEPA (2003a). A table of toxicity values derived following this hierarchy is
maintained by USEPA and is periodically updated by Oak Ridge National Laboratories (USEPA
2015b). This is generally referred to as the Regional Screening Level (RSL) table.
20
-------
All toxicity values used in this assessment were taken from the most recent version (January
2015) of the RSL tables. Tables 4-5 and 4-6 shows the toxicity values used for evaluation of
human health risks from COPCs at this site. Points to note regarding the data in this table are
listed below (see also the User's Guide to the RSL table):
• Two oral RfD values are available for cadmium, depending on exposure medium (diet,
water). The value for "diet" is assumed to apply to soil.
• The construction worker scenario is limited to an exposure duration of 1 year, and is thus,
subchronic. In the absence of subchronic RfD/RfC values for cadmium and zinc, the
chronic toxicity values for these metals were used.
• Health effects associated with exposure to inorganic lead and compounds include, but are
not limited to, neurotoxicity, developmental delays, hypertension, impaired hearing
acuity, impaired hemoglobin synthesis, and male reproductive impairment. Lead is
known to bioaccumulate in the body, primarily in the skeleton. Lead body burdens vary
significantly. Thus, based on current knowledge of lead pharmacokinetics, and an
apparent lack of a threshold effect, no risk values have been derived for lead. Risks from
exposure to lead will be evaluated using toxicokinetic models as described in Section 5.0.
4.3 Risk Characterization Approach
4.3.1 Non- Cancer Effects
The potential for non-cancer effects is evaluated by comparing the estimated exposure
concentration for a receptor over a specified time period to a reference value that represents the
exposure below which it is unlikely for even sensitive populations to experience adverse health
effects (USEPA 1989). This ratio of exposure to toxicity is called a Hazard Quotient (HQ).
When a receptor is exposed to a COPC by more than one route, or is exposed to more than one
COPC, these values may be summed to yield a Hazard Index (HI). If the HQ or HI value is
equal to or less than one, then it is believed that there is no appreciable risk that non-cancer
health effects will occur. If an HQ or HI exceeds one, then there is some possibility that non-
cancer effects may occur, although an HQ or HI above one does not indicate that an effect will
definitely occur. This is because of the margin of safety inherent in the derivation of all toxicity
values (see Section 4.2.1).
21
-------
Ingestion Exposures
For most chemicals, the potential for non-cancer effects following ingestion exposure is
evaluated by comparing the estimated daily intake of the chemical over a specific time period
with the RfD for that chemical derived for a similar exposure period, as follows (USEPA 1989):
HQ = DI / RfD
where:
DI = Daily intake (mg/kg-day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
Dermal Exposures
For most chemicals, the potential for non-cancer effects following dermal exposure is evaluated
by comparing the estimated absorbed dose of the chemical over a specific time period with the
RfD for that chemical derived for a similar exposure period, as follows (USEPA 1989):
HQ = DAD / RfDABs
where:
DAD = Dermal absorbed dose (mg/kg-day)
RfDABs = Absorbed Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
RfDABs=RfD-ABSGi
The ABSgi term is unitless, is chemical-specific, and is applied to the available oral toxicity
values to account for the absorption efficiency of an administered dose across the gastrointestinal
tract and into the bloodstream.
Inhalation Exposures
For inhalation exposures, the potential for non-cancer effects is evaluated by comparing the time-
weighted exposure concentration (EC) over a specific time period to the appropriate inhalation
RfC for that chemical, as follows (USEPA 2009a):
HQ = EC / RfC
22
-------
where:
EC = Exposure concentration (mg/m3)
RfC = Reference Concentration (mg/m3)
Evaluating Risks Across Pathways
If an individual is exposed to more than one chemical, then a screening-level estimate of the total
non-cancer risk is derived simply by summing the HQ values for that individual. This total is
referred to as the HI. If the HI value is less than one, then non-cancer risks are not expected
from any chemical, alone or in combination with others.
4.3.2 Cancer Effects
The excess risk of cancer from exposure to a chemical is described in terms of the probability
that an exposed individual will develop cancer because of that exposure. Excess cancer risks are
summed across all carcinogenic chemicals and all exposure pathways that contribute to exposure
of an individual in a given population. The level of total cancer risk that is of concern is a matter
of personal, community, and regulatory judgment. In general, the USEPA considers excess
cancer risks that are below 1E-06 to be so small as to be negligible, and risks above 1E-04 to be
sufficiently large that some sort of remediation is desirable2. Excess cancer risks that range
between 1E-04 and 1E-06 may be acceptable (USEPA 1991b), although this is evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. USEPA may determine that risks lower than 1E-04 are not sufficiently
protective and warrant remedial action. Cancer risks for each chemical are calculated as
described below.
Ingestion Exposures
The excess risk of cancer from ingestion exposure to a chemical is calculated as follows (USEPA
1989):
Excess Cancer Risk = 1 - exp(-DIL • SF)
2Note that excess cancer risk can be expressed in several formats. A cancer risk expressed in a scientific notation
format as 1E-06 is equivalent to 1 in 1,000,000 or 10"6. Similarly, a cancer risk of 1E-04 is equivalent to 1 in
10,000or 10"4. For the purposes of this document, all cancer risks are presented in a scientific notation format (i.e.,
1E-06).
23
-------
where:
DIl = Daily intake, averaged over a lifetime (mg/kg-day)
SF = Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)"1
In most cases (except when the product of DIL- SF is larger than about 0.01), this equation may
be approximated by the following:
Excess Cancer Risk = DIL SF
Dermal Exposures
The excess risk of cancer from dermal exposure to a chemical is calculated as follows (USEPA
2004):
Excess Cancer Risk = DADL SFabs
where:
DADl = Dermal absorbed dose, averaged over a lifetime (mg/kg-day)
SFabs = Absorbed Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)"1
SFabs =SF/ABSGi
Inhalation Exposures
The excess risk of cancer from inhalation exposure is calculated based on inhalation UR values,
as follows (USEPA 2009a):
Excess Cancer Risk = EC CF UR
where:
EC = Exposure concentration (mg/m3)
CF = Conversion factor ([j,g/mg)
UR = Unit Risk ([j.g/m3)"1
24
-------
4.4 Results
Detailed calculations of exposure and risk from cadmium and zinc for each exposure scenario are
presented in Appendix E. Findings are summarized in Table 4-7. Inspection of this table,
supplemented with the detailed calculations presented in Appendix E, reveal the following main
conclusions.
Recreational Visitors
High-Frequency Use Areas
As shown in Table 4-7, risks to a child, adolescent, or adult person trespassing or hiking along
the rail lines within areas characterized as high-frequency use areas appear to be within USEPA
guidelines (i.e., HI <1 and cancer risk
-------
4.5.1 Uncertainties in Exposure Assessment
Uncertainties from Chemicals Not Evaluated
Previous investigations at the Cherokee County Superfund site have identified cadmium, lead,
and zinc as the three chemicals of primary concern at the site. Data on other analytes in rail line
soils are not available in the 2013/2014 data sets used in this HHRA, and thus, no conclusions
are drawn regarding the potential risks from other analytes.
Uncertainties in EPCs
All soil sampling locations that were identified as being located near residential or play areas
were considered as a single high-frequency use exposure unit. Likewise, all other sampling
locations were considered as a single low-frequency use exposure unit. If a person were to
choose to regularly visit only one certain area along the rail lines over the course of his or her
entire exposure duration, then the corresponding exposure may be higher or lower than
estimated. Similarly, a construction worker was assumed to be exposed across the site over the
course of his or her exposure duration. If a worker were to predominantly spend time at a single
location, then the corresponding exposure may be higher or lower than estimated.
USEPA (1989, 1992a) recommends that the EPC be based on the 95UCL. When data are
plentiful and inter-sample variability is not large, the UCL may be only slightly greater than the
arithmetic mean. However, when data are sparse or are highly variable, the 95UCL may be
substantially greater than the mean. Such cases reflect the substantial uncertainty that exists
when data are sparse or highly variable, and the approaches used in the HHRA are intended to
ensure that risk is not underestimated.
In the case of inhalation risks, measured air data were not available so airborne concentrations
were estimated using a screening level soil-to-air transfer model. In general, such predicted
values have high uncertainty compared to measured values, so the actual concentrations of
metals in airborne dust are uncertain, and true values might be either higher or lower than
calculated.
Soil samples used in this assessment were not sieved. It is generally expected that small soil
particles (<250 |im, "fine fraction") are more likely to adhere to the hands (or other objects that
may be mouthed) than coarse particles (2 mm) and be subsequently ingested (USEPA 2000,
2007). Studies of other sites have suggested enrichment of metal concentrations in the fine
fraction (Kim et al. 2011; Luo et al. 2011; Madrid et al. 2008; Pye et al. 2007; Ljung et al. 2006,
26
-------
2007). Cadmium and zinc concentrations in the bulk and fine fractions of two 2014 surface soil
samples are summarized in Table 4-8. As shown in the table, concentrations are higher in the
fine fractions compared to the bulk samples. Thus, EPCs calculated using data from bulk
samples (rather than the <250 |im fraction) may underestimate actual exposure.
Uncertainties in Human Exposure Parameters
Many of the exposure parameters used in the HHRA are not known with certainty and must be
estimated from limited data or knowledge. In general, when exposure data were limited or
absent, the exposure parameters were chosen to be conservative (health-protective) and unlikely
to underestimate actual exposure and risk.
Uncertainties in Chemical Absorption (RBA)
The risk from an ingested chemical depends on how much of the ingested chemical is absorbed
from the gastrointestinal tract into the body. This issue is especially important for metals in soil
at mining sites, because some of the metals may exist in poorly absorbable forms, and failure to
account for this may result in a substantial overestimation of exposure and risk. In the absence
of data, the default approach is to assume that the RBA is 100% for most metals. Use of this
default assumption is likely to overestimate the true risk with the magnitude of the error
depending on the true RBA value.
4.5.2 Uncertainties in Toxicity Values
Toxicity information for many chemicals is often limited. Consequently, there are varying
degrees of uncertainty associated with toxicity values (i.e., oral SF, RfD, RfC, inhalation UR).
For example, uncertainties can arise from the following sources:
• Extrapolation from animal studies to humans
• Extrapolation from high dose to low dose
• Extrapolation from continuous exposure to intermittent exposure
• Limited or inconsistent toxicity studies
Because of the conservative methods that USEPA uses in dealing with the uncertainty in toxicity
factors, it is much more likely that the uncertainty will result in an overestimation rather than an
underestimation of risk.
27
-------
4.5.3 Uncertainties in Risk Estimates
Because risk estimates for a chemical are derived by combining uncertain estimates of exposure
and toxicity (see above), the risk estimates for each chemical are also uncertain. Additional
uncertainty arises from the issue of how to combine risk estimates across different chemicals. In
some cases, the effects caused by one chemical do not influence the effects caused by other
chemicals. In other cases, the effects of one chemical may interact with effects of other
chemicals, causing responses that are approximately additive, greater than additive (synergistic),
or less than additive (antagonistic). In most cases, available toxicity data are not sufficient to
define what type of interaction is expected; therefore, USEPA generally assumes that effects are
additive for non-carcinogens that act on the same target tissue and for carcinogens (all target
tissues). Because documented cases of synergistic interactions between chemicals are relatively
uncommon, this approach is likely to be reasonable for most chemicals.
For non-carcinogens, summing HQ values across different chemicals is properly applied only to
compounds that induce the same effect by the same mechanism of action. Consequently,
summation of HQ values for compounds that are not expected to include the same type of effects
or that do not act by the same mechanisms could overestimate the potential for effects. Thus, the
HI values in this report, which sum HQ values across multiple metals without regard to target
organ or mechanism of action, may overestimate the true level of non-cancer hazard.
28
-------
5.0
EVALUATING EXPOSURE AND RISK FROM LEAD
5.1 Overview
Risks from lead are evaluated using a somewhat different approach than for most other
chemicals. First, because lead is widespread in the environment, exposure can occur from many
different sources. Thus, lead risks are usually based on consideration of total exposure (all
sources) rather than just site-related sources. Second, because epidemiological studies of lead
exposures and resultant health effects in humans have not established a blood lead level below
which adverse effects are not observed, lead exposures and risks are typically assessed by
calculating the levels of lead that may occur in the blood of exposed populations and comparing
these to blood lead levels of potential health concern (USEPA 1994a, 1998a). For convenience,
the concentration of lead in blood is usually abbreviated "PbB", and is expressed in units of
Hg/dL,
Blood Lead Level of Concern
Health effects from elevated blood lead levels are greatest for the developing nervous systems of
young children or the fetus of pregnant women. There are several reasons for this, including the
following: (1) young children typically have higher exposures (per unit body weight) to lead-
contaminated media than adults, (2) young children typically have higher lead absorption rates
than adults, and (3) young children and fetuses are generally more susceptible to effects of lead
than are adults (NTP 2012). By protecting the most sensitive receptor, it is assumed that all
other receptors will be protected. After a thorough review of all the data, USEPA has established
a goal that there should be no more than a 5% chance that a child will have a blood lead value
above 10 |ig/dL (USEPA 1994a, 1998a). For convenience, the probability of a blood lead value
exceeding 10 |ig/dL is referred to as PI0.
Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified 5 |ig/dL as a
"reference value" for blood lead in children3 (CDC 2012). This concentration corresponds to the
97.5th percentile of blood lead levels in children in the United States. USEPA's Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) is in the process of evaluating the
CDC recommendations and implications for Superfund risk assessments, in close coordination
and consultation with the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). Until that reassessment is complete, USEPA is continuing to use a P10 value of 5%
as the health based goal to assess risk from exposure to lead at Superfund sites. Although the
3http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/blood lead levels.htm
29
-------
value of 10 |ig/dL is based on studies in young children, it is generally assumed that the same
value is applicable to a fetus in utero (USEPA 2003b).
5.2 Exposure Unit
As described above, an exposure unit is an area within which a receptor is likely to spend time
and be exposed to COPCs. As discussed in Section 4, three exposure units were evaluated in this
risk assessment: high-frequency recreational use areas, low-frequency recreational use areas, and
the entire site for workers.
5.3 Exposure Point Concentrations
The EPCs for lead were quantified differently than the EPCs for non-lead metals described
above. Instead, the mean concentration of lead in soil for each exposure point was used as the
EPC, in accordance with USEPA (1994a, 2003a) guidance. For the high- and low-frequency
recreational use areas, these were the mean lead concentrations based on surface soil samples
collected from respective locations within each category. For evaluation of lead exposures for
hypothetical future construction workers, the mean lead concentration across all sampling depths
and sampling locations was used as the EPC, based on the assumption that subsurface soils could
potentially be excavated and be available for exposure.
5.4 Lead Models and Parameters
The USEPA recommends the use of toxicokinetic models to correlate blood lead concentrations
with exposure and adverse health effects. Specifically, the USEPA recommends the use of the
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model to evaluate exposures from lead-
contaminated media in children in a residential setting (USEPA 1994a,b, 1998a), and the Adult
Lead Methodology (ALM) to evaluate potential risks from lead exposure in non-residential areas
(USEPA 2003b). Both the IEUBK model and the ALM can be used to predict blood lead
concentrations in exposed individuals and to estimate the probability of a blood lead
concentration exceeding USEPA's level of concern (10 |ig/dL), as described below.
5.4.1 Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model
Lead risks for the child recreational visitors were calculated using the IEUBK model. The
IEUBK model developed by USEPA (1994a) predicts the likely range of blood lead levels in a
population of young children (aged 0-84 months) exposed to a user-specified set of
environmental lead levels (USEPA 1994a). This model allows users to input data on the levels
of lead in soil, dust, water, air, and diet at a particular location as well as data on the amounts of
30
-------
these media ingested or inhaled by a child living at that location. All of these inputs to the
IEUBK model are central tendency point estimates. These point estimates are used to calculate
an estimate of the central tendency (the geometric mean) of the distribution of blood lead values
that might occur in a population of children exposed to the specified conditions. Assuming that
the distribution is lognormal, and given (as input) an estimate of the variability between different
children (this is specified by the geometric standard deviation or GSD), the model calculates the
expected distribution of blood lead values, and estimates the probability that any random child
exposed to the site conditions might have a blood lead value over 10 (j,g/dL under the user-
specified exposure conditions.
5.4.2 Adult Lead Methodology (ALM)
Lead risks for adult recreational visitors and adolescent and adult trespassers are calculated using
the ALM. The ALM (USEPA 2003b), based on the work of Bowers et al. (1994), predicts the
blood lead level in a person with a site-related lead exposure by summing the "baseline" blood
lead level (PbB0) (that which would occur in the absence of any site-related exposures) with the
increment in blood lead that is expected as a result of increased exposure due to contact with
lead-contaminated site media. The latter is estimated by multiplying the average daily absorbed
dose of lead from site-related exposure by a "biokinetic slope factor" (BKSF). Thus, the basic
equation for exposure to lead in soil is:
PbB = PbB0 + Pbs- BKSF • IRS ¦ AFS ¦ EFS / AT
where:
PbB
Geometric mean blood lead concentration (|ig/dL) in women of
child-bearing age) that are exposed at the site
PbB0
"Background" geometric mean blood lead concentration (|ig/dL) in
women of child-bearing age in the absence of exposures to the site (default
value from USEPA 2009b)
Pbs
Soil lead concentration ((J,g/g) (appropriate average concentration for
individual)
BKSF
Biokinetic slope factor (|ig/dL blood lead increase per |ig/day lead
absorbed)
31
-------
IRs =
Intake rate of soil, including both outdoor soil and indoor soil-derived dust
(g/day)
AFS
Absolute gastrointestinal absorption fraction for ingested lead in soil and
lead in dust derived from soil (dimensionless)
EFS
Exposure frequency for contact with assessed soils and/or dust derived in
part from these soils (days of exposure during the averaging period); may
be taken as days per year for continuing, long term exposure
AT
Averaging time; the total period during which soil contact may occur;
365 days/year for continuing long-term exposures
Evaluation of risk for adult visitors to the site focuses on estimating the risk that fetal blood lead
values may exceed 10 |ig/dL among pregnant women who visit the site for recreational purposes.
The ALM accomplishes this by estimating the blood lead concentration of a pregnant woman
using that value to estimate the 95th percentile of the distribution of possible fetal blood values.
Specifically, the geometric mean (GM) blood lead concentration in an adult woman is then
combined with the ratio of fetal blood lead to maternal blood lead to derive the GM blood lead
value for the fetus. Available data suggest that the ratio of the blood lead level in a fetus to that
of the mother (Rfetai/matemai) is approximately 0.9 (Goyer 1990). In summary, the 95th percentile
of the predicted distribution of fetal blood lead levels is calculated by the following equation
(Aitchison and Brown 1957):
95th percentile PbBfetal = GMmaternarPbB- GSDiU'45-Rlotal maternal
The ALM then calculates the full distribution of likely fetal blood lead values in the population
of exposed individuals by assuming the distribution is lognormal with a specified individual
geometric standard deviation (GSDi). This allows the ALM to derive the 95th percentile blood
lead for the fetus.
5.4.3 Evaluation of Intermittent Exposures
Both the IEUBK model and the ALM are designed to evaluate exposures that are approximately
continuous (e.g., 365 days/year). However, the non-residential exposure scenarios of concern at
the site (trespasser and recreational visitor) are intermittent, occurring less than continuously (see
Tables 4-1,4-2, and 4-3).
32
-------
When exposure is intermittent rather than continuous, the IEUBK and ALM models can still be
used by adjusting the site-related exposure concentration that occurs during the exposure interval
to an equivalent continuous exposure concentration that yields the same total yearly exposure.
However, this adjustment is reasonable only in cases where exposure occurs with a relatively
constant frequency over a time interval long enough to establish an approximately steady-state
response (USEPA 2003c). Short-term exposures are not suitable for approximations as
continuous exposures. In order to prevent applications of the lead models to exposure scenarios
where an adjustment from intermittent to continuous exposure is not appropriate, USEPA
(2003c) recommends that these models only be applied to exposures that satisfy two criteria:
• The exposure frequency during the exposure interval is at least 1 day per week
• The duration of the exposure interval is at least three consecutive months
All of the proposed intermittent exposure scenarios evaluated at the site meet both of these
requirements. Consequently, exposure to recreational visitors and trespassers may be evaluated
by extrapolating from estimated intermittent to equivalent continuous exposure concentration, as
described below.
IEUBKModel
For the IEUBK model, the frequency-adjusted exposure concentration was calculated as follows:
PbCWeighted PbCsite (EFpb/EDpb) + PbCresidence' ([EDpb"EFpb]/EDpb)
where:
PbCWeighted = Time-weighted average media lead concentration for recreational
lead exposures ((J-g/g)
PbCsite = Average lead concentration in site soil ((J-g/g)
EFpb = Exposure frequency for recreational lead exposures (days/year),
1 day/ week • 24 weeks = 24 days for low frequency scenario and
4 days/week • 24 weeks = 96 days for high frequency scenario)
EDpb = Exposure duration for continuous lead exposures (days/year),
7 days/week • 24 weeks =168 days
33
-------
PbCresidence = Background soil lead concentration (e.g., average background soil
lead concentration) (jag/g)
Since the people working or recreating at the site are most likely those who reside nearby, it is
assumed that site soil will be tracked back to the residence. The time-weighted soil
concentration was used with the default MSd to derive an indoor dust lead exposure
concentration that reflects track-in of contaminated media from the site to the residence.
Background soil data were not collected at this site. The USGS Pluto database4 for Cherokee
County only includes a single soil sample with a lead concentration of 38 mg/kg. The mean lead
concentration in soil samples collected from Cherokee County and the six surrounding counties
is 30 mg/kg (Crawford, Kansas; Labette, Kansas; Jasper, Missouri; Newton, Missouri; Craig,
Oklahoma; and Ottawa, Oklahoma). These data are used to define background lead
concentrations for soil in the HHRA.
5.4.4 IEUBK Model Inputs
Lead risks for children trespassing or recreating along the rail lines were calculated using the
IEUBK model. Table 5-1 presents the IEUBK input parameters used in this assessment. All of
these parameters are USEPA defaults (USEPA 1994a,b, 2007, 2009a) except as described below.
Soil to Dust Transfer Factor (Msd)
Soil can be a dominant source of lead in indoor dust at residences. The IEUBK model
incorporates a soil-to-dust transfer factor that can be used, in the absence of indoor dust lead
concentration data, to describe the potential for lead in soil to be transported indoors and
contribute to the concentration of lead in dust. This transfer factor is called the MSd and it is
defined as the mass fraction of soil-derived particles in indoor dust (gram soil/gram dust)
(USEPA 1998b):
Pbdust = Msd- Pbsoii+ (0.1- Pbair)
where:
Pbdust = Concentration of lead in indoor dust (|ig Pb/g dust)
MSd = Mass fraction of soil in dust (g soil/g dust)
4Available online at http://mrdata.usgs.gov/pluto/soil/.
34
-------
Pbsoii = Outdoor soil lead concentration ([j,g Pb/g soil)
Pbair = Concentration of lead in outdoor air ([j,g Pb/m3 air)
The IEUBK model generally assumes that the concentration of lead in indoor dust is 0.70 (70%)
of the concentration in outdoor soil plus a small contribution from outdoor air when soil is the
predominant source of lead in indoor dust (i.e., there is no indoor lead-based paint). In the
absence of site-specific paired soil-dust measurements, the default MSd value of 0.70 was used in
the risk assessment.
For the child recreational visitor, it is assumed that people who recreate at the site generally
reside nearby, whereby site soil will be tracked back to the residence. The mean frequency-
adjusted soil concentration was used with the default MSd to derive an indoor dust lead exposure
concentration that reflects track-in of contaminated media from the site to the residence. For the
child recreational visitor, this may be a conservative assumption because MSd is intended to
represent indoor dust derived from residential yard soil. This may also be a conservative
assumption for visitors who live distant to the site for the same reason and because they are
distant they are less likely to track site-related contamination back to their residences.
RBA
The default value of RBA for lead in soil and dust assumed by the IEUBK model is 60%.
Studies of lead RBA at a variety of mine sites suggest that this is a typical value, but values at
some sites may be higher or lower (USEPA 2007). USEPA has developed a method for
measuring the IVB A of lead in soil under conditions in which the IVBA and RBA are well
correlated. The resultant IVB A results can then be used to estimate RBA values using the
following equation (USEPA 2007):
RBA = 0.878 IVB A (fraction) - 0.028
As described in Section 2.6, USEPA conducted lead IVBA testing on 43 soil samples (31 surface
soil samples and 12 subsurface soil samples) collected from the rail lines in 2013 and 2014.
Table 5-2 presents the lead IVBA and estimated RBA values for these samples. As shown,
IVBA values in surface soils varied from 23% to 96%, corresponding to RBA values of 18-82%).
For locations identified as high-frequency use areas, IVBA values in surface soils varied from
23%) to 86%), corresponding to RBA values of 18-73%). For locations identified as low-
frequency use areas, IVBA values in surface soils varied from 39% to 96%>, corresponding to
RBA values of 32-82%.
35
-------
Although it is known that the ballast used in the railroad beds was originally composed of chat
from surrounding mine waste piles, it is unknown as to whether or not all of the rail lines are
expected to have been constructed using the same lead material. Based on such uncertainty in
the source material history, and high variability in RBA values (18-82%), separate RBA values
were used in the lead risk calculations based on exposure areas as follows:
Exposure Point
Population
Soil
Average IVBA
(Fraction)
Estimated RBA
(%)
High-frequency use
Child
Recreational
Visitor
Surface soil
0.535
44%
Low-frequency use
0.721
61%
Based on a default absolute absorption fraction of 50% for lead in water and diet, the exposure
point specific RBA values of 44% and 61% correspond to absolute bioavailability (ABA) values
of 22% and 30% for evaluating lead exposures to high-frequency use child recreational visitors
and low-frequency use child recreational visitors, respectively. These ABA values (22 and 30)
were used as alternative inputs for both soil and dust absorption fraction percent in the IEUBK
model.
5.4.5 ALM Inputs
Because the exposure frequency and duration for the site visitors and for the hypothetical future
construction workers meet the minimum exposure criteria for use of the ALM, the site-specific
exposure and media concentration information may be used in the ALM. Intake rates and
exposure frequencies are the same as assumed for CTE non-lead exposures (see Tables 4-1, 4-2,
and 4-3). Table 5-3 summarizes the ALM-specific input values selected for each scenario. All
values are USEPA-recommended defaults (USEPA 2003b, 2009c) except as noted below.
Baseline Blood Lead (PbBo) and Geometric Standard Deviation (GSDi) Value
PbB0 and GSD, are derived from data reported by the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation
Survey (NHANES). USEPA (2009c ALM update) recommends using the data from 1999-2004
NHANES to assess non-residential exposures5. For the purposes of this assessment, uncertainty
in this approach is described in further detail below.
5http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/almfaa.htm#nhanesupdate
36
-------
RBA
As described above for the IEUBK model, site-specific surface soil data indicate average soil
RBA values of 44% and 61% for the high-frequency recreational use areas and the low-
frequency recreational use areas, respectively.
It is assumed that hypothetical future construction workers will be exposed to lead in both
surface and subsurface soils during excavation-type activities. As shown in Table 5-2, IVBA
values in subsurface soils varied from 26% to 76%, corresponding to RBA values of 20-64%).
As described above for the IEUBK model, it is unknown as to whether or not all of the rail lines
are expected to have been constructed using the same lead material. Based on such uncertainty
in the source material history, and high variability in RBA values (18-82%), separate RBA
values were used in the lead risk calculations based on exposure areas as follows:
Exposure Point
Population
Soil
Average IVBA
(fraction)
Estimated RBA
(%)
High-frequency use
Adolescent/Adult
Recreational
Visitor
Surface soil
0.535
44%
Low-frequency use
0.721
61%
Site
Future Worker
Surface +
subsurface soil
0.608
51%
Absorption Fraction (AF) Values
The ALM model identifies a default AF for lead in soil of 12%.
Adjusted ALM AF values for soil are calculated as:
AF(soil) = AF(water) • RBA
In order to estimate an AF value for lead in water, it is assumed that the ratio of absorption from
water compared to soil is the same as is assumed in the IEUBK model:
AF(water) = AF(soil) ¦ IEUBK ratio (water/soil) = 0.12 • (50/30) = 0.20(20%)
This can be used with the site-specific RBA information to derive site-specific adjusted ALM AF
values for site exposures to soil as follows:
37
-------
Exposure Point
Site RBA
Adjusted AF (soil)
High-frequency use
44%
9%
Low-frequency use
61%
12%
Site
51%
10%
An AF for lead in air of 12% will be used based on the assumption that air exposures at the site
are predominantly entrained soil-dust particles (relatively large particles) that would be deposited
in the upper airway and eventually move to the gastrointestinal tract and follow ingested intake
(USEPA 2003b).
5.5 Results
Appendix E presents the detailed risk calculations for lead. Results are summarized below.
5.5.1 Risks to Children
Table 5-4 summarizes the probabilities of a recreational child exposed to lead in soil having a
blood lead level that exceeds 10 |ig/dL for each exposure point. Both P10 values are below
EPA's health-based goal of 5%.
5.5.2 Risks to A dults
Table 5-5 summarizes the risk of blood lead values exceeding 10 |ig/dL in the fetuses of
pregnant women who may trespass or recreate along the rail lines in high-frequency use and low-
frequency use areas, or who may be involved in future excavation activities. P10 values are
shown for each site-related exposure pathway for each exposure scenario, and for all pathways
combined for each exposure scenario. Note that the P10 values are not additive, but instead are a
non-linear function of the sum of the absorbed doses from each pathway.
As indicated in the table, P10 values are below USEPA's health based guideline (P10 <5%) for
all receptors.
5.6 Uncertainty Assessment for Lead
Quantification of risks to humans from exposures to lead is subject to a number of data
limitations and uncertainties. The most important factors at the site are summarized below.
38
-------
Because of these uncertainties, the P10 values reported above should be understood to be
estimates. However, despite the uncertainties in the exact quantification of risk, there is little
uncertainty in the main conclusions.
Uncertainty in Lead Exposure
Exposure to lead at the site occurs mainly through the ingestion pathway, with only a small
additional dose being contributed by the inhalation pathway. Thus, the main source of
uncertainty in lead exposure is the amount of soil ingested by recreational visitors and workers.
No data are available for soil intake rates for populations of this type, and the values assumed in
the calculations are based on professional judgment, using data for residential exposures as a
frame of reference. However, values used in these calculations are thought to be conservative,
such that this source of uncertainty is not likely to result in a significant underestimation of
exposure and risk.
There is uncertainty in the assumption that inhalation exposure during future excavation work is
a minor contributor relative to the ingestion pathway. In cases where the future construction
activity on contaminated soil generates dust clouds, exposed workers who inhale the dust would
not necessarily be protected. Additionally, there is uncertainty in the actual exposure frequency
and duration for on-site recreational visitors and future construction workers. The best available
information was used in the risk assessment calculations, but the results are only applicable to
the exposures shown. More frequent users would not necessarily be protected.
Uncertainty in Average Lead Concentrations
The mean lead concentration in soil is used in the exposure and risk calculations. However,
there is uncertainty in the true average concentration of lead in soil.
Soil samples used in this assessment were not sieved. As noted above, it is generally expected
that metal enrichment occurs in the fine fraction (<250 jam) of soil particles that are more likely
than coarse particles (2 mm) to adhere to the hands (or other objects that may be mouthed) and
be subsequently ingested (USEPA 2000, 2007). Studies of other sites have suggested
enrichment of lead concentrations in the fine fraction (Kim et al. 2011; Luo et al. 2011; Juhasz et
al. 2011; Madrid et al. 2008; Pye et al. 2007; Ljung et al. 2006, 2007; Weiss et al. 2006; Momani
2006; Tawinteung et al. 2005). Lead concentrations in the bulk and fine fractions of two 2014
surface soil samples are summarized in Table 5-6. As shown in the table, lead concentrations are
higher in the fine fraction than the bulk samples. Thus, EPCs calculated using data from bulk
samples rather than the < 250 |im fraction) may underestimate actual exposure.
39
-------
Uncertainty in Model Inputs
As discussed previously, the Federal Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention (ACCLPP) to the CDC recommends intervention for individual children and
communities with blood lead levels at and above 5 |ig/dL (CDC 2012). This recommendation is
consistent with USEPA's position that there is no safe blood lead level in children. The CDC
reference level will be re-evaluated every 4 years and is expected to drop as the national blood
lead distribution trend has been to decrease over time. In light of the new CDC recommendation,
the USEPA is re-evaluating the soil lead policy. However, as described above, current USEPA
policy is to limit exposure to soil lead levels such that a typical (or hypothetical) child or group
of similarly exposed children would have no more than 5% probability of exceeding a blood lead
level of 10 |ig/dL. Because all sources of lead may not be addressed under USEPA Superfund
authority, USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) recommends
coordination with other federal agencies, as well as state and local programs, to facilitate
communication and outreach to establish comprehensive programs to reduce lead exposure.
For older children (6-16 years) recreational visitors, the ALM defaults were used. There are
insufficient data to derive age-specific values for soil absorption fraction and BKSF, which may
differ for these children as compared to adults.
Uncertainty in Model Predictions
Even if the amount of lead ingested at the site were known with confidence, the effect on blood
lead would still be uncertain. This is because the rate and extent of blood lead absorption is a
highly complex physiological process, and can only be approximated by a mathematical model.
Thus, the blood lead values predicted both in children (by the IEUBK model) and in adults (by
the ALM model) should be understood to be uncertain, and because of a general preference to
use realistic or slightly conservative values, are more likely to be high than low.
40
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
Aitchison, J., Brown, J.A.C. 1957. The Lognormal Distribution - University of Cambridge
Department of Applied Economics Monograph. Cambridge University Press.
Bowers, T.S., Beck, B.D., Karam, H.S. 1994. Assessing the relationship between environmental
lead concentrations and adult blood lead levels. Risk Analysis 14:183-189.
CDC. 2012. Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: a Renewed Call for Primary
Prevention. Report by the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. January 2012.
Dames and Moore. 1993. Final Remedial Investigation for Cherokee County, Kansas,
CERCLA Site. Baxter Springs/Treece Subsites. January 27, 1993.
Goyer, R.A. 1990. Transplacental Transport of Lead. Environmental Health Perspectives,
89:101-105.
Juhasz, A.L., Weber, J., Smith , E. 2011. Impact of soil particle size and bioaccessibility on
children and adult lead exposure in peri-urban contaminated soils. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 186(2-3), 1870-1879.
Kim, C.S., Wilson, K.M., Rytuba, J.J. 2011. Particle-size dependence on metal(loid)
distributions in mine wastes: implications for water contamination and human exposure.
Applied Geochemistry, 26(4), 484-495.
Ljung, K., Selinus, O., Otabbong, E., Berglund, M. 2006. Metal and arsenic distribution in soil
particle sizes relevant to soil ingestion by children. Applied Geochemistry, 21(9), 1613-1624.
Ljung, K., Oomen, A., Duits, M., Selinus, O., Berglund, M. 2007. Bioaccessibility of metals in
urban playground soils. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A, Toxic/Hazardous
Substances & Environmental Engineering, 42(9), 1241-1250.
Luo, X.S., Yu, S., Li, X.D. 2011. Distribution, availability, and sources of trace metals in
different particle size fractions of urban soils in Hong Kong: implications for assessing the risk
to human health. Environmental Pollution, 159(5), 1317-1326.
41
-------
Madrid, F., Biasioli, M., Ajmone-Marsan, F. 2008. Availability and bioaccessibility of metals
in fine particles of some urban soils. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,
55(1), 21-32.
Momani, K.A. 2006. Partitioning of lead in urban street dust based on the particle size
distribution and chemical environments. Soil and Sediment Contamination, 15(2), 131-146.
Newfields. 2002. Focused Remedial Investigation for Badger, Lawton, Waco and Crestline
Subsites. Cherokee County, Kansas. January 31, 2002.
NTP. 2012. NTP Monograph on Health Effects of Low-Level Lead. National Toxicology
Program. United States Department of Health and Human Services. June.
Pye, K., Blott, S.J., Croft, D.J., Witton, S.J. 2007. Discrimination between sediment and soil
samples for forensic purposes using elemental data: an investigation of particle size effects.
Forensic Science International, 167(1), 30-42.
Tawinteung, N., Parkpian, P., DeLaune, R.D., Jugsujinda, A. 2005. Evaluation of extraction
procedures for removing lead from contaminated soil. Journal of Environmental Science and
Health, Part A 40(2), 385-407.
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default
Exposure Factors." United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER
Directive 9285.6-03.
USEPA. 1991b. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection
Decisions. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER
Directive 9355.0-30.
USEPA. 1992a. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Publication 9285.7-081.
42
-------
USEPA. 1992b. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part A). Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. Publication 9285.7-09A. April 1992.
USEPA. 1994a. Guidance Manual for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for
Lead in Children. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Publication Number 9285.7-15-1. EPA/540/R-93/081.
USEPA. 1994b. Technical Support Document: Parameters and Equations Used in the Integrated
Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (v0.99d). United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540/R-94/040.
OSWER #9285.7-22. December.
USEPA. 1998a. Clarification to the 1994 Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA
Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
OSWER Directive 9200.4-27. EPA/540-F98/030. August.
USEPA. 1998b. IEUBK Model Mass Fraction of Soil in Indoor Dust (MSd) Variable. United
States Environmental Protection Agency. OSWER Directive 9285.7-34, EPA/540/F-00/008.
June.
USEPA. 2000. Short Sheet: TRW Recommendations for Sampling and Analysis of Soil at Lead
(Pb) Sites. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response: Washington, DC. EPA-540-F-00-010. OSWER 9285.7-38. April.
USEPA. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk
Assessments). Final. Publication 9285.7-47.
USEPA. 2002a. Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at
Hazardous Waste Sites. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response. OSWER 9285.6-10. December.
USEPA. 2002b. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund
Sites. OSWER 9355.4-24. December.
USEPA. 2003a. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation. OSWER Directive 9285.7-53. December 2003.
43
-------
USEPA. 2003b. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim
Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-540-R-03-001. January.
USEPA. 2003c. Assessing Intermittent or Variable Exposures at Lead Sites. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA-540-
R-03-008. OSWER #9285.7-76.
USEPA. 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA/540/R/99/005. July.
USEPA. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. Office of Research and
Development. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/630/P-03/001F. March.
USEPA. 2007. Estimation of Relative Bioavailability of Lead in Soil and Soil-Like Material
Using In Vivo and In Vitro Methods. United States Environmental Protection Agency. OSWER
9285.7-77. June.
USEPA. 2009a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment). Final. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA-540-R-
070-002. OSWER 9285.7-82. January.
USEPA. 2009b. Memorandum: Transmittal of Uptake of the Adult Lead Methodology's
Default Baseline Blood Lead Concentration and Geometric Standard Deviation Parameters.
From James E. Woolford. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER #9200.2-82. June.
USEPA. 2009c. Update of the Adult Lead Methodology's Default Baseline Blood Lead
Concentration and Geometric Standard Deviation Parameters. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. OSWER 9200.2-82. June.
USEPA. 2013a. Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Remedial Investigation Cherokee County
Site - OU8 Railroads, Cherokee County, KS. Prepared for United States Environmental
Protection Agency Region 7 by HydroGeologic Inc. June 2013.
44
-------
USEPA. 2013b. ProUCL Version 5.0.00 User Guide. Statistical Software for Environmental
Applications for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-07/041.
September.
USEPA. 2015a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/.
USEPA. 2015b. Regional Screening Levels. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Last updated January 2015. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/.
Weiss, A.L., Caravanos, J., Blaise, M.J., Jaeger, R.J. 2006. Distribution of lead in urban
roadway grit and its association with elevated steel structures. Chemosphere, 65(10), 1762-1771.
45
-------
TABLES
-------
Table 2-1. Summary Statistics for Main Line Surface Soil Samples
Panel A: ICP Main Line Surface Soil
Analyte
N Samples
N Detected
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Average
Concentration3
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
Detection
Limit
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
36
36
100
39
19
8.9
100
-
Lead
36
36
100
513
322
100
1,700
-
Zinc
36
36
100
5,968
2,734
1,600
12,600
-
Panel B: XRFb Main Line Surface Soil
Analyte
N Samples
N Detected
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Average
Concentration3
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
Detection
Limit
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
94
83
88
26
13
6.9
63
13
Lead
94
93
99
540
407
75
2,271
14
Zinc
94
94
100
6,973
3,677
260
20,467
-
aNon-detects evaluated at 1/2 the detection limit.
b For each XRF sample, an average of replicates was calculated (2-3 replicates per sample). For samples where all replicates were not detected, the
average of replicates was calculated using the reported result (assumed to be the detection limit) and the sample was considered a non-detect. For XRF
samples where some replicates were detected and some were not detected, H the reported value for non-detect replicates was used to calculate the average
of replicates and the sample was considered a detect.
CCR_2013-2014_Summary_Statistics_v2.xlsx Table 2-1
-------
Table 2-2. Summary Statistics for Main Line Subsurface Soil Samples
Panel A: ICP Main Line Subsurface Soil
Analyte
N Samples
N Detected
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Average
Concentration3
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
Detection
Limit
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
56
53
95
39.55
29.27
0.63
113
0.82
Lead
56
56
100
737.94
922.52
7.3
4260
-
Zinc
56
56
100
8002.24
5961.02
13.9
22000
-
Panel B: XRFb Main Line Subsurface Soil
Analyte
N Samples
N Detected
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Average
Concentration3
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
Detection
Limit
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
470
234
50
22.69
100.80
8.72
2178.38
13.49
Lead
470
405
86
437
1079.04
5.72
16533.33
11.34
Zinc
470
470
100
4308.94
5388.18
12.45
30050
-
aNondetects evaluated at 1/2 the detection limit
b For each XRF sample, an average of replicates was calculated (2-3 replicates per sample). For samples where all replicates were not detected, the
average of replicates was calculated using the reported result (assumed to be the detection limit) and the sample was considered a non-detect. For XRF
samples where some replicates were detected and some were not detected, H the reported value for non-detect replicates was used to calculate the
average of replicates and the sample was considered a detect.
CCR_2013-2014_Summary_Statistics_v2.xlsx Table 2-2
-------
Table 2-3. Summary Statistics for Lateral Line Soil Samples
Panel A: ICP Lateral Soil (Surface and Subsurface Combined)
Analyte
N Samples
N Detected
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
1
1
100
24
Lead
1
1
100
3,260
Zinc
1
1
100
7,170
Panel B: XRFb Lateral Soil (Surface and Subsurface Combined)
Analyte
N Samples
N Detected
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Average
Concentration3
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
Detection
Limit (mg/kg)
Cadmium
49
11
22
9.3
9.5
8.7
66
13
Lead
49
47
96
345
543
10
2,161
11
Zinc
49
49
100
1,861
1,979
55
7,946
-
aNondetects evaluated at 1/2 the detection limit
b For each XRF sample, an average of replicates was calculated (2-3 replicates per sample). For samples where all replicates were not detected, the average of
replicates was calculated using the reported result (assumed to be the detection limit) and the sample was considered a non-detect. For XRF samples where
some replicates were detected and some were not detected, Vi the reported value for non-detect replicates was used to calculate the average of replicates and the
sample was considered a detect.
CCR_2013-2014_Summary_Statistics_v2.xlsx Table 2-3
-------
Table 4-1. Exposure Parameters for High-Frequency Recreational Visitors to the Cherokee County Rail Lines for Adults, Adolescents (6-16 years), and Children (0-6 years)
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Input Parameter
Units
CTE
RME
Adult
Source
Adolescent (6
16 vrs)
Source
Child
(0-6 vrs)
Source
Adult
Source
Adolescent (6-
16 vrs)
Source
Child
Source
General
Body Weight
kg
80
[1]
44.3
[5,j]
15
[1]
80
[i]
44.3
[5,j]
15
[i]
Exposure frequency
days/yr
72
[3, a]
72
[3, a]
72
[3, a]
120
[3, a]
120
[3, a]
120
[3, a]
Exposure duration
yr
9
[3, 5, b]
3
[3,1]
2
[3,1]
26
[1,3, 5, c]
10
[3]
6
[1]
Averaging Time, Cancer
days
25,550
[2, d]
25,550
[2, d]
25,550
[2, d]
25,550
P, d]
25,550
[2, d]
25,550
[2, d]
Averaging Time, Noncancer
days
3,285
[2,dl
1,095
[2, dl
730
[2, dl
9,490
[2,dl
3,650
[2, dl
2,190
[2,dl
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion rate
mg/day
50
[3, e]
50
[6, e]
100
[3, e]
100
[l,3,f]
100
[6]
200
[l,3,f]
Conversion factor
kg/mg
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
Inhalation of Particulates
Exposure time
hr/day
4
[3]
4
[3]
4
[3]
4
[3]
4
[3]
4
[3]
Dermal Exposure to Soil
Exposed Surface Area (SA)
cm2/event
6,032
[l,3,g]
4,520
[3, 5, k]
2,690
P,3,g]
6,032
[l,3,g]
4,520
[3, 5, k]
2,690
[l,3,g]
Adherence Factor (AF)
mg/cm2
0.01
[3, 4,h]
0.04
[3, 4, i]
0.04
[3, 4, m]
0.07
[1, 3, h]
0.4
[3, 4, i]
0.2
[1, 3, h]
Dermal Absorption Fraction (ABSd)
unitless
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
Event Frequency (EV)
events/day
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
Conversion factor
kg/mg
1E-06
--
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
1E-06
--
1E-06
-
1E-06
--
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure; RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Sources:
[1] USEPA 2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February.
[2] USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002. December.
[3] Professional judgment.
[4] USEPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. July.
[5] USEPA 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-090/052F.
[6] USEPA 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
Notes:
[a] Assumes exposure occurs over the course of 24 weeks when the ground is not covered with snow (May to September) at a frequency of 3 visits/week for a CTE visitor and 5 visits/week for an RME visitor.
[b] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 9 years is based on mean residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH (2011).
[c] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 26 years is based on the 90th percentile residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH (2011).
[d] Averaging time expressed as days. Noncancer averaging time calculated by multiplying the exposure duration by 365 days/year. Cancer averaging time calculated by multiplying a 70 year lifetime for cancer effects by 365 days/year.
[e] Assumes CTE value is half of the RME value.
[f] Assumes that the RME soil ingestion rate by a recreational visitor is equal to the USEPA default soil ingestion rate for a resident.
[g] Assumes that the exposed surface area is equal to the USEPA default surface area for a resident which includes head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet.
[h] Assumes adherence factor equal to the soil adherence factor for a resident (USEPA 2004, Exhibit 3-3).
[i] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the 95th percentile for children age 8-12 years playing with dry soil for the RME value and equal to the geometric mean for the CTE value.
[j] Table 8-1. Time-weighted average for children aged 6 to <11 years and 11 to < 16 years.
[k] Tables 7-2 and 7-8. Time weighted average for older children/adolescents aged 6-16 years based on head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet consistent with other receptors.
[lJAssumes same ratio of RME:CTE exposure duration as adult (9:26 years)
[m] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the geometric mean for daycare children age 1-6.5 years playing indoors and outdoors.
CCR_Risk Calcs_v3.xlsx
Table 4-1
-------
Table 4-2. Exposure Parameters for Low-Frequency Recreational Visitors to the Cherokee County Rail Lines for Adults, Adolescents (6-16 years), and Children (0-6 years)
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Input Parameter
Units
CTE
RME
Adult
Source
Adolescent
(6-16 vrs)
Source
Child
(0-6 vrs)
Source
Adult
Source
Adolescent (6
16 vrs)
Source
Child
Source
General
Body Weight
kg
80
[1]
44.3
[5,j]
15
[1]
80
[i]
44.3
[5,j]
15
[i]
Exposure frequency
days/yr
24
[3, a]
24
[3, a]
24
[3, a]
72
[3, a]
72
[3, a]
72
[3, a]
Exposure duration
yr
9
[3,5,b]
3
[3,1]
2
[3,1]
26
[1,3, 5, c]
10
[3]
6
[1]
Averaging Time, Cancer
days
25,550
[2, d]
25,550
[2, d]
25,550
[2, d]
25,550
P,d]
25,550
[2, d]
25,550
P,d]
Averaging Time, Noncancer
days
3,285
[2,dl
1,095
[2, dl
730
[2, dl
9,490
[2,dl
3,650
[2, dl
2,190
[2,dl
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion rate
mg/day
50
[3, e]
50
[6, e]
100
[3, e]
100
[l,3,f]
100
[6]
200
[l,3,f]
Conversion factor
kg/mg
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
Inhalation of Particulates
Exposure time
hr/day
4
[3]
4
[3]
4
[3]
4
[3]
4
[3]
4
[3]
Dermal Exposure to Soil
Exposed Surface Area (SA)
cm2/event
6,032
[l,3,g]
4,520
[3, 5, k]
2,690
P,3,g]
6,032
[l,3,g]
4,520
[3, 5, k]
2,690
[l,3,g]
Adherence Factor (AF)
mg/cm2
0.01
[3, 4,h]
0.04
[3, 4, i]
0.04
[3, 4, m]
0.07
[1, 3, h]
0.4
[3, 4, i]
0.2
[1, 3, h]
Dermal Absorption Fraction (ABSd)
unitless
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
Event Frequency (EV)
events/day
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
Conversion factor
kg/mg
1E-06
--
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
1E-06
--
1E-06
-
1E-06
--
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure; RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Sources:
[1] USEPA 2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February.
[2] USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002. December.
[3] Professional judgment.
[4] USEPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. July.
[5] USEPA 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-090/052F.
[6] USEPA 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
Notes:
[a] Assumes exposure occurs over the course of 24 weeks when the ground is not covered with snow (May to September) at a frequency of 1 visit/week for a CTE visitor and 3 visits/week for an RME visitor.
[b] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 9 years is based on mean residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH (2011).
[c] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 26 years is based on the 90th percentile residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH (2011).
[d] Averaging time expressed as days. Noncancer averaging time calculated by multiplying the exposure duration by 365 days/year. Cancer averaging time calculated by multiplying a 70 year lifetime for cancer effects by 365 days/year.
[e] Assumes CTE value is half of the RME value.
[f] Assumes that the RME soil ingestion rate by a recreational visitor is equal to the USEPA default soil ingestion rate for a resident.
[g] Assumes that the exposed surface area is equal to the USEPA default surface area for a resident which includes head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet.
[h] Assumes adherence factor equal to the soil adherence factor for a resident (USEPA 2004, Exhibit 3-3).
[i] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the 95th percentile for children age 8-12 years playing with dry soil for the RME value and equal to the geometric mean for the CTE value.
[j] Table 8-1. Time-weighted average for children aged 6 to <11 years and 11 to < 16 years.
[k] Tables 7-2 and 7-8. Time weighted average for older children/adolescents aged 6-16 years based on head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet consistent with other receptors.
[lJAssumes same ratio of RME:CTE exposure duration as adult (9:26 years)
[m] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the geometric mean for daycare children age 1-6.5 years playing indoors and outdoors.
CCR_Risk Calcs_v3.xlsx
Table 4-2
-------
Table 4-3. Exposure Parameters for Construction Workers at the Cherokee County Rail Lines Site
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Input Parameter
Units
CTE
RME
Value
Source
Value
Source
General
Body Weight
kg
80
[1]
80
[1]
Exposure frequency
days/yr
219
[6]
250
[3, a]
Exposure duration
yr
0.5
[3,b]
1
[3,b]
Averaging Time, Cancer
days
25,550
P,d]
25,550
[2,d]
Averaging Time, Noncancer
days
183
P,d]
365
[2, d]
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion rate
mg/day
100
[6]
330
[8, c]
Conversion factor
kg/mg
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
Inhalation of Particulates
Exposure time
hr/day
8
[3,e]
8
[3,e]
Dermal Exposure to Soil
Exposed Surface Area (SA)
cm2/event
3,470
[l,f]
3,470
[l,f]
Adherence Factor (AF)
mg/cm2
0.1
[4, g]
0.3
[4, g]
Dermal Absorption Fraction (ABSd)
unitless
CS
[4]
CS
[4]
Event Frequency (EV)
events/day
1
[4]
1
[4]
Conversion factor
kg/mg
1E-06
-
1E-06
-
CTE = Central Tendency Exposure; RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Sources:
[1] USEPA2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER
[2] USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and
[3] Professional judgment.
[4] USEPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E). Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. July.
[5] USEPA 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-090/052F.
[6] USEPA 2003. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult
Exposure to Lead. Final. EPA-540-R-03-001. January.
[7] USEPA 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
[8] USEPA 2002. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites.
Notes:
[a] Assumes exposure frequency of 5 days/week for a RME receptor.
[b] Assumes construction/excavation project of 6 month (CTE) or 1 year (RME) duration.
[c] Exhibit 5-1. Default value for construction scenario (330 mg/day) is based on the 95th percentile value for adult soil intake rates reported in a
soil ingestion mass-balance study.
[d] Averaging time expressed as days. Noncancer averaging time calculated by multiplying the exposure duration by 365 days/year. Cancer
averaging time calculated by multiplying a 70 year lifetime for cancer effects by 365 days/year.
[e] Assumes the entire workday is outdoors.
[f] Assumes that the exposed surface area is equal to the USEPA default for a worker.
[g] Exhibit 3-3. 95th percentile value (0.3) assumed for the RME receptor and the geometric mean value (0.1) assumed for the CTE receptor.
CCR RiskCalcs v3.xlsx Table 4-3
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of HIF and TWF Values
Panel A: Human Intake Factors (HIFs)
Exposure Unit
Receptor
Exposure
Medium
Exposure Route
Units
HIF
Non-Cancer
Cancer
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
High-Frequency
Recreational Use
Areas
Child Visitor
(0-6 years)
Surface Soil
Ingestion
kg/kg-day
1.32E-06
4.38E-06
3.76E-08
3.76E-07
Dermal
kg/kg-day
1.42E-06
1.18E-05
4.04E-08
1.01E-06
Adolescent Visitor
(6-16 years)
Surface Soil
Ingestion
kg/kg-day
2.23E-07
7.42E-07
9.54E-09
1.06E-07
Dermal
kg/kg-day
8.05E-07
1.34E-05
3.45E-08
1.92E-06
Adult Visitor
Surface Soil
Ingestion
kg/kg-day
1.23E-07
4.11E-07
1.59E-08
1.53E-07
Dermal
kg/kg-day
1.49E-07
1.74E-06
1.91E-08
6.45E-07
Low-Frequency
Recreational Use
Areas
Child Visitor
(0-6 years)
Surface Soil
Ingestion
kg/kg-day
4.38E-07
2.63E-06
1.25E-08
2.25E-07
Dermal
kg/kg-day
4.72E-07
7.08E-06
1.35E-08
6.06E-07
Adolescent Visitor
(6-16 years)
Surface Soil
Ingestion
kg/kg-day
7.42E-08
4.45E-07
3.18E-09
6.36E-08
Dermal
kg/kg-day
2.68E-07
8.05E-06
1.15E-08
1.15E-06
Adult Visitor
Surface Soil
Ingestion
kg/kg-day
4.11E-08
2.47E-07
5.28E-09
9.16E-08
Dermal
kg/kg-day
1.49E-07
1.04E-06
6.37E-09
3.87E-07
Site
Construction Worker
Surface +
Subsurface Soil
Ingestion
kg/kg-day
7.50E-07
2.83E-06
5.36E-09
4.04E-08
Dermal
kg/kg-day
2.60E-06
8.91E-06
1.86E-08
1.27E-07
Panel B: Time-Weighting Factors (TWFs)
Exposure Unit
Receptor
Exposure
Medium
Exposure Route
Units
TWF
Non-Cancer
Cancer
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
High-Frequency
Recreational Use
Areas
Child Visitor
(0-6 years)
Surface Soil
Inhalation of
Particulates
Unitless
3.29E-02
5.48E-02
9.39E-04
4.70E-03
Adolescent Visitor
(6-16 years)
Surface Soil
Inhalation of
Particulates
Unitless
3.29E-02
5.48E-02
1.41E-03
7.83E-03
Adult Visitor
Surface Soil
Inhalation of
Particulates
Unitless
3.29E-02
5.48E-02
4.23E-03
2.04E-02
Low-Frequency
Recreational Use
Areas
Child Visitor
(0-6 years)
Surface Soil
Inhalation of
Particulates
Unitless
1.10E-02
3.29E-02
3.13E-04
2.82E-03
Adolescent Visitor
(6-16 years)
Surface Soil
Inhalation of
Particulates
Unitless
1.10E-02
3.29E-02
4.70E-04
4.70E-03
Adult Visitor
Surface Soil
Inhalation of
Particulates
Unitless
1.10E-02
3.29E-02
1.41E-03
1.22E-02
Site
Construction Worker
Surface +
Subsurface Soil
Inhalation of
Particulates
Unitless
2.00E-01
2.28E-01
1.43E-03
3.26E-03
CCR_Risk Calcs_v3.xlsx
Table 4-4
-------
Table 4-5. Oral and Dermal Human Health Toxicity Values for Non-Lead COPCs
Analyte
CAS No.
Oral
Note
Dermal
Primary T arget
Organ
(noncancer effects)
Weight of
Evidence
(Cancer)
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
Source
CSF
(mg/kg-day)"1
Source
Absorption
Fraction
Adjust?
WUabs
(mg/kg-day)
[2]
csfabs
(mg/kg-day)"1
Cadmium
7440-43-9
1.0E-03
I
[1]
0.025
Yes
2.5E-05
kidney
Zinc
7440-66-6
3.0E-01
I
1
No
3.0E-01
blood
Source: USEPA (January 2015)
Key: I = IRIS
Notes:
[ 1 ] IRIS presents an oral "water" RfD for use in assessment of risks to water and an oral "food" RfD for use in assessment of risks to soil and biota.
[ 2 ] Absorbed Reference Doses for Dermal were derived using the Oral Reference Dose as follows: RFDABS = RfD0 * ABSG| (Equation 4.3 from USEPA 2004)
CCR Risk Calcs v4.xlsx
Table 4-5
-------
Table 4-6. Inhalation Human Health Toxicity Values for Non-Lead COPCs
Analyte
CAS No.
Inhalation
Primary Target
Organ
(noncancer effects)
Weight of Evidence
(Cancer)
RfC
(mg/m3)
Source
UR
(ug/m3)1
Source
Cadmium
7440-43-9
1.0E-05
A
1.8E-03
I
kidney/lung
Likely to be
carcinogenic to
humans
Zinc
7440-66-6
blood
Source: USEPA (January 2015)
Key: I = IRIS; A = ATSDR
CCR Risk Calcs v4.xlsx
Table 4-6
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Estimated Hazards and Risks to Non-Lead COPCs
Exposed
Receptor
Exposure Medium
Exposure Route
Non-cancer HI
Excess cancer Risk
Population
CTE
RME
Risk Drivers
CTE
RME
Risk Drivers
High-frequency
Recreational
Visitor
Surface Soil
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
9E-02
3E-03
3E-01
2E-02
Inhalation of Particulates
1E-04
2E-04
6E-11
3E-10
Child
Medium Total
9E-02
3E-01
6E-11
3E-10
Low-frequency
Recreational
Visitor
Surface Soil
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Particulates
3E-02
9E-04
4E-05
2E-01
1E-02
1E-04
2E-11
2E-10
Medium Total
3E-02
2E-01
2E-11
2E-10
High-frequency
Recreational
Visitor
Surface Soil
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Particulates
1E-02
1E-03
1E-04
5E-02
2E-02
2E-04
9E-11
5E-10
Adolescent
Medium Total
2E-02
8E-02
9E-11
5E-10
Low-frequency
Recreational
Visitor
Surface Soil
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Particulates
5E-03
5E-04
4E-05
3E-02
1E-02
1E-04
3E-11
3E-10
Medium Total
6E-03
5E-02
3E-11
3E-10
High-frequency
Recreational
Visitor
Surface Soil
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Particulates
8E-03
3E-04
1E-04
3E-02
3E-03
2E-04
3E-10
1E-09
Medium Total
9E-03
3E-02
3E-10
1E-09
Adult
Low-frequency
Recreational
Visitor
Surface Soil
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Particulates
3E-03
9E-05
4E-05
2E-02
2E-03
1E-04
9E-11
8E-10
Medium Total
3E-03
2E-02
9E-11
8E-10
Surface and Subsurface Soil
Incidental Ingestion
5E-02
2E-01
Construction
Dermal Contact
5E-03
2E-02
Worker
Inhalation of Particulates
3E-01
3E-01
4E-08
8E-08
Medium Total
3E-01
5E-01
4E-08
8E-08
CCR RiskCalcs v4.xlsx Table 4-7
-------
Table 4-8. Bulk vs. Fine Concentration Data for Non-Lead COPCs
Location
Analyte
Bulk Result
(mg/kg)
Fine Result
(mg/kg)
Ratio
Fine:Bulk
14
Cadmium
23.9
50
2.1
14
Zinc
4,230
8,630
2.0
13-B
Cadmium
43.3
74.4
1.7
13-B
Zinc
7,500
12,800
1.7
-------
Table 5-1IEUBK Model Inputs
CONSTANT MODEL INPUTS
PARAMETER
VALUE
BASIS
Soil concentration (mg/kg)
Decision Unit-
specific weighted
soil concentration
Time weighted soil lead concentration for
each DU
Dust concentration (mg/kg)*
Cdust = 0.7 •
Csoil(weighted)
0.1 (air cone)
Derived from residential soil lead
concentration IEUBK Default (EPA
1994)
Air concentration (|jg/m3)
0.10
IEUBK Default (EPA 1994)
Indoor air concentration (|jg/m3)
30% of outdoors
IEUBK Default (EPA 1994)
Drinking water concentration (jJg/L)
4.0
IEUBK Default (EPA 1994)
Absorption Fractions:
Air
Diet
Water
Soil/Dust
High-Frequency Recreational Use
Low-Frequency Recreational Use
32%
50%
50%
22%
30%
IEUBK Default (EPA 1994)
IEUBK Default (EPA 1994)
IEUBK Default (EPA 1994)
Site-specific
Site-specific
RBA (soil)
Site-specific: See Table 5-2
High-Frequency Recreational Use
44%
Low-Frequency Recreational Use
61%
Fraction soil
45%
IEUBK Default (EPA 1994)
GSD
1.6
IEUBK Default (EPA 1994)
* Assuming that site soil will be tracked back to the residence by recreational visitors.
AGE DEPENDENT MODEL INP1
UTS
Age
AIR
DIET
WATER
SOIL
Time
Outdoors
(hrs)
Ventilation
Rate
(m3/day)
Dietary
Intake [1]
(|Jg/day)
Intake
(L/day)
Intake
(mg/day)
0-1
1.0
2.0
2.26
0.20
85
1-2
2.0
3.0
1.96
0.50
135
2-3
3.0
5.0
2.13
0.52
135
3-4
4.0
5.0
2.04
0.53
135
4-5
4.0
5.0
1.95
0.55
100
5-6
4.0
7.0
2.05
0.58
90
6-7
4.0
7.0
2.22
0.59
85
[1] Revised USEPA (2009) recommended dietary intake parameters, based on updated dietary lead intake estimates from
the Food and Drug Administration Total Diet Study (FDA 2006) and food consumption data from NHANES III (CDC 1997).
-------
Table 5-2. In vitro Bioaccessibility and Estimated Relative Bioavailability of Lead
in Rail Line Soil Samples Collected in 2013 & 2014
Sample
Year
Location
Exposure Area
Depth
Total
Lead
(mg/kg)
In Vitro
Bioaccessible
Fraction
Estimated
Relative
Bioavailability
Estimated
Absolute
Bioavailability
2013
CCR-SS-25B
HFR
0-6
1860
0.564
47%
23%
CCR-SS-11A
LFR
0-6
2330
0.700
59%
29%
CCR-SS-12B
LFR
0-6
1690
0.551
46%
23%
CCR-SS-1A
LFR
0-6
1640
0.639
53%
27%
CCR-SS-26A
LFR
0-6
3240
0.643
54%
27%
CCR-SS-13A
HFR
6-12
1990
0.460
38%
19%
CCR-SS-24B
HFR
6-12
1860
0.450
37%
18%
CCR-SS-28A
LFR
6-12
1800
0.483
40%
20%
CCR-SS-33A
LFR
6-12
2280
0.521
43%
21%
CCR-SS-6A
LFR
6-12
964
0.752
63%
32%
CCR-SS-27B
LFR
12-18
2070
0.549
45%
23%
CCR-SS-31B
LFR
12-18
1970
0.470
38%
19%
CCR-SS-13E
HFR
18-24
518
0.263
20%
10%
CCR-SS-26B
LFR
18-24
1680
0.498
41%
20%
CCR-SS-29B
LFR
18-24
1150
0.516
43%
21%
CCR-SS-32A
LFR
18-24
2690
0.663
55%
28%
CCR-SS-1C
LFR
24-30
637
0.764
64%
32%
2014
17A
HFR
0-6
856
0.518
43%
21%
17B
HFR
0-6
1025
0.768
65%
32%
17C
HFR
0-6
1833
0.863
73%
36%
13-Baxter Springs A
HFR
0-6
2631
0.559
46%
23%
13-Baxter Springs B
HFR
0-6
2552
0.695
58%
29%
13-Baxter Springs C
HFR
0-6
2187
0.604
50%
25%
25A
HFR
0-6
1028
0.597
50%
25%
25B
HFR
0-6
1035
0.407
33%
16%
24A
HFR
0-6
1280
0.397
32%
16%
24B
HFR
0-6
1994
0.486
40%
20%
15A
HFR
0-6
184
0.233
18%
9%
15B
HFR
0-6
372
0.267
21%
10%
14A
HFR
0-6
246
0.537
44%
22%
32A
LFR
0-6
1553
0.690
58%
29%
32B
LFR
0-6
1876
0.913
77%
39%
32C
LFR
0-6
1917
0.745
63%
31%
8C
LFR
0-6
844
0.921
78%
39%
8B
LFR
0-6
917
0.961
82%
41%
8A
LFR
0-6
788
0.944
80%
40%
1A
LFR
0-6
1256
0.729
61%
31%
IB
LFR
0-6
841
0.609
51%
25%
1C
LFR
0-6
707
0.588
49%
24%
26A
LFR
0-6
1515
0.759
64%
32%
26B
LFR
0-6
1460
0.814
69%
34%
13-Lawton A
LFR
0-6
223
0.391
32%
16%
13-Lawton B
LFR
0-6
167
0.665
56%
28%
HFR = high-frequency recreational; LFR = low frequency recreational.
SURFACE ONLY (0-6")
Average
Pb
(mg/kg)
Average IVBA
(fraction)
Average RBA
Average
ABA
High-Frequency Use
1,363
0.535
44%
22%
Low-Frequency Use
1,351
0.721
61%
30%
Site
1,356
0.637
53%
27%
ACROSS ALL DEPTHS
Average
Pb
(mg/kg)
Average IVBA
(fraction)
Average RBA
Average
ABA
High-Frequency Use
1,379
0.510
42%
21%
Low-Frequency Use
1,469
0.672
56%
28%
Site
1,434
0.608
51%
25%
Table 5-2.xlsx
-------
Table 5-3. Adult Lead Model Inputs
Exposure Point
Parameter
Value
Units
Source
Notes
General
EF(HFR)
72
days/year
Prof, judgement
Assumes 3 site visits per week for 24 consecutive weeks
EF(LFR)
24
days/year
Prof, judgement
Assumes 1 site visit per week for 24 consecutive weeks
EF (Worker)
219
days/year
EPA (2003)
ALM default parameter
Averaging Time
168
days/year
Prof, judgement
7 days/week for 24 weeks
Breathing Rate
0.63
m3/hr
EFH (2011)
Average recommended breathing rate of 15 m3/day for an adult
age 6-36 years
PbBO
1.0
ug/dL
EPA (2009)
EPA recommended default
GSD
1.8
-
EPA (2009)
EPA recommended default
BKSF
0.4
ug/dL per ug/day
EPA (2003)
ALM default parameter
AF(soil)
12%
-
EPA (2003)
ALM default parameter
AF(water)
20%
-
Prof, judgement
Assumes same ratio of AF(water) to AF(soil) as IEUBK
AF(air)
12%
-
EPA (2003)
EPA recommended default for entrained soil-dust particles
High-Frequency Use
Recreational
RBA
44%
-
Site data
See Table 5-2
AF(soil) Adj
9%
-
Calculated
AF(soil) Adj = AF(water) * RBA
Low-Frequency Use
Recreational
RBA
61%
-
Site data
See Table 5-2
AF(soil) Adj
12%
-
Calculated
AF(soil) Adj = AF(water) * RBA
Site
RBA
51%
-
Site data
See Table 5-2
AF(soil) Adj
10%
-
Calculated
AF(soil) Adj = AF(water) * RBA
Table 5-3 v2.xlsx
Table 5-3_ALM Inputs
-------
Table 5-4. IEUBK Results
Exposure Area
Average Lead
C oncentration"
(msr/Usr)
EFPb
(days)
EDPb
(days)
Phr
x "^--residence
(mg/kg)
PbCWTD
(mg/kg)
ABA
(%)
P10 (%)
High Frequency - Surface Soil
603
72
168
30
276
22
0.291
Low Frequency - Surface Soil
520
24
168
30
100
30
0.013
aNondetects analyzed at 1/2 the detection limit
Table 5-4 v2.xlsx
-------
Table 5-5. Lead Risk to the Adult Receptors
GSDi and
PbBo Source
Population
Age
Exposure
Scenarios
P10 (%)
Soil
Air
All
NHANES
1999-2004
High Frequency
Rec Visitor
Adolescent/
Adult
[1]
<0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
Low Frequency
Rec Visitor
Adolescent/
Adult
[1]
<0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
Construction Worker
Adult
[1]
0.4%
<0.1%
0.4%
[1] Exposed via incidental ingestion of soil and inhalation of soil particulates.
-------
Table 5-6. Bulk vs. Fine Concentration Data for Lead
Location
Analyte
Bulk Result
(mg/kg)
Fine Result
(mg/kg)
Ratio
Fine:Bulk
14
Lead
101
290
2.9
13-B
Lead
1,080
3,880
3.6
-------
FIGURES
-------
-------
Figure 3-1. Conceptual Site Model for Human Exposure at the Cherokee County Railines (OU8) Site
Primary Source
Potentially Impacted Media
Recreational
Excavation
and Release Mechanisms
Visitor
Worker
wind/human disturbance _
Dust in Air
Inhalation
•
•
Cherokee County Railline Chat
~
Soil
Incidental Ingestion
•
•
Dermal Contact
•
•
LEGEND
Pathway is complete and might be significant; sufficient data are available for quantitative evaluation.
Pathway is not complete; no evaluation required.
CCR OU8 HHRA CSM v2.xls
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
RAW DATA
[Electronic File - Appendix A.xlsx]
-------
THIS SLIPSHEET IS FOR SDMS PURPOSES ONLY
The Excel files for this document cannot be uploaded into
SDMS. The document on CD is available in the site file.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF XRF SOIL DATA QUALITY
-------
APPENDIX B
1.0 Overview
Main line soil sampling was conducted at the Cherokee County Rail Lines Operable Unit 8
(OU8) site in 2013 and 2014. All soil samples were analyzed for cadmium, lead and zinc by X-
ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF). Approximately 12% of the soil samples collected in
2013 and all of the soil samples collected in 2014 were also analyzed by Inductively Coupled
Plasma Spectroscopy (ICP). In order to determine if XRF soil data are reliable for use in the risk
assessment, a data quality assessment of the data was conducted as described in this Appendix.
2.0 Methods for Evaluating Data Quality
Two methods were used to evaluate the quality of the XRF data: (1) evaluation of XRF detection
limits, and (2) analysis of correlation between XRF concentrations and the corresponding
(paired) ICP concentrations.
Detection Limit Evaluation
The detection limit was evaluated by examining the XRF detection frequency and also by
comparing the estimated XRF detection limits to screening levels for risk assessment. In order
for a detection limit to be deemed adequate, either (1) the detection frequency had to be high
(>80%) such that concentrations in soil were adequately characterized or (2) if the detection
frequency was not high (<80%), then the estimated XRF detection limit had to be less than the
lowest soil risk-based screening level (SL).
XRF results reported as "<" a number were considered non-detects. For such qualified values,
the reported XRF screening concentration was assumed to represent the detection limit for that
sample.
Correlation with ICP Concentrations
The XRF data were also evaluated by comparing detected XRF concentrations to their
corresponding (paired) ICP values, if also detected. This was done by plotting XRF
concentrations (x-axis) versus ICP concentrations (y-axis) and fitting a straight regression line
through the data. Only pairs where both the XRF and ICP results were above the detection limit
were used in the regression analyses (data that were qualified as non-detects were excluded). A
minimum of 10 pairs of ICP/XRF data were required to perform a regression analysis. The R2
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B
value was used to determine if the XRF correlation with ICP concentration was adequate. If the
R2 value was less than 0.7, it was concluded that the accuracy of the XRF method for analysis of
that chemical was unacceptably low compared to ICP. The value of 0.7 is based on professional
judgment and is in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) EPA SW-846,
Method 6200 Field Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry for the Determination of
Elemental Concentrations in Soil and Sediment. The value of 0.7 is thought to be a reasonable
level of accuracy for two analytical methods, each of which has measurement error of 20-25%.
As indicated in the SOP Method 6200, if the measured concentrations span more than one order
of magnitude, the data were log-transformed to standardize variance, which is proportional to the
magnitude of measurement.
Overall Data Adequacy for Risk Assessment
The results from each of the evaluations described above were used to draw a conclusion on the
overall adequacy of XRF data for use in risk assessment. In order for an XRF data set to be
judged reliable for use in the risk assessment, both the detection limit and the correlation with
ICP results must be adequate.
Data Usability for Risk Assessment
In some cases, XRF data may be less accurate than ICP data. Thus, whenever ICP data are
available at a sampling location, these data are preferred over XRF data from the same location.
If only XRF data are available for a sampling location, then the XRF results will be used if the
data are determined adequate for use in a risk assessment. XRF data are used by adjusting the
concentration data to estimate ICP-equivalent concentrations, using the chemical-specific
parameters from the ICP/XRFlinear regressions as:
[ICP-equivalent concentration] = a + b • [XRF concentration]
where:
a = intercept from the ICP/XRF regression line for chemical "i'
b = slope from the ICP/XRF regression line for chemical "i"
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B
In some cases where the intercept "a" is negative, the above equation can result in negative
estimates of ICP-equivalent concentrations at the low end of the XRF concentration range. In
these cases, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate the following alternative strategies:
1. Force the intercept to be zero.
2. Assign a surrogate value in cases where the estimated ICP-equivalent concentration is
negative.
3. Fit the data after exclusion of values well above the level of concern.
3.0 Results
A total of 94 surface soil samples and 470 subsurface soil samples were screened for cadmium,
lead and zinc by XRF. Of these, 36 surface soil samples and 56 subsurface soil samples were
also analyzed for cadmium, lead, and zinc by ICP. Results for these analyses are shown in
Tables B-l to B-4.
Detection Limit Evaluation
Detection frequencies for XRF data are summarized in Table B-5. As shown, detection
frequencies for lead and zinc are adequate (>80%) based on both surface soil and surface +
subsurface soil data. The detection frequency for cadmium in surface soil is also considered
adequate. However, the detection frequency for cadmium in surface+subsurface soil is less than
80%.
The average XRF detection limit for cadmium in surface+subsurface soils was 13 mg/kg; the
maximum detection limit was 44 mg/kg. These detection limits exceed a conservative screening
level for cadmium of 12 mg/kg that is calculated assuming a recreational visitor exposure for 214
days (April-October) at a target hazard quotient (THQ) of 0.1. On this basis, the XRF detection
limit for cadmium based on surface + subsurface soil is not adequate for use in risk assessment.
Correlation with ICP Concentrations
For surface soil, 36 paired XRF/ICP results are available each for cadmium, lead and zinc. For
surface + subsurface soil, 92 paired XRF/ICP results are available for each analyte. Figures B-l
to B-6 plot the correlations based on the paired XRF/ICP data. As shown in Table B-6,
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B
minimum criterion for considering XRF data adequate for use in the risk assessment of R2 at
least 0.7 based on log-transformation of the data was met for lead and zinc, but not cadmium.
Data Adequacy and Usability
Table B-7 summarizes the general findings of the data adequacy evaluation. As seen in the table,
XRF data for lead and zinc are considered adequate for use in the risk assessment based on
meeting both data quality evaluations as outlined above. The XRF results for cadmium did not
meet the criteria and are not considered reliable for risk assessment.
With regard to data usability, the XRF data for lead in surface soil and zinc in surface soil and
surface+subsurface soil can be used to calculated ICP-equivalent concentrations using the
regression equations presented in Table B-8. However, the ICP/XRF linear regression line for
lead in surface+subsurface soils has a slope of 1.275 and an intercept of -90.37. Thus, any XRF
results less than around 70 ppm will result in a negative ICP-equivalent concentration. This
occurs for 202 lead XRF results for which there is no paired lab sample. Table B-9 provides the
results of a sensitivity analysis performed as described above. As shown, the strategy of forcing
the intercept through zero results in the most conservative assumption of a mean lead
concentration for the surface+subsurface dataset. This approach of assuming that the true
intercept is zero is considered to be statistically acceptable because the 95% confidence interval
around the intercept term includes zero.
3.1 Summary
In conclusion, XRF data for lead and zinc are considered adequate for use in the risk assessment;
XRF data for cadmium are not considered adequate for use in the risk assessment (see Table B-
7).
B-4
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLES
B-5
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-l. XRF Summary Statistics for the Main Rail Line Surface Soil Data
Analyte
N
Samples
N
Detects
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Average
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
Detection
Limit
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
94
83
88
26
63
13
Lead
94
93
99
540
2,271
14
Zinc
94
94
100
6,973
20,467
—
B-6
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-2. ICP Summary Statistics for the Main Rail Line Surface Soil Data
Analyte
N
Samples
N
Detects
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Average
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
Detection
Limit
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
36
36
100
39
100
—
Lead
36
36
100
513
1,700
—
Zinc
36
36
100
5,968
12,600
—
B-7
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-3. XRF Summary Statistics for the Main Rail Line Subsurface Soil Data
Analyte
N
Samples
N
Detects3
Detection
Frequency
(%)a
Average
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
Detection
Limit
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
470
234
50
23
2,178
13
Lead
470
405
86
437
16,533
11
Zinc
470
470
100
4,309
30,050
—
B-8
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-4. ICP Summary Statistics for the Main Rail Line Subsurface Soil Data
Analyte
N
Samples
N
Detects
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Average
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average
Detection
Limit
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
56
53
95
40
113
0.82
Lead
56
56
100
738
4,260
—
Zinc
56
56
100
8,002
22,000
—
B-9
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-5. XRF Data Quality Summary for 2013 Residential Soil Data
Analyte
Surface
Soil
Surface + Subsurface
Soil
N
Samples
Detection
Frequency
(%)
N
Samples
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Cadmium
94
88
564
56
Lead
94
99
564
88
Zinc
94
100
564
100
B-10
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-6. ICP/XRF Correlations
Surface Soil
(N=36 ICP/XRF Pairs)
Surface + Subsurface Soil
(N=92 ICP/XRF Pairs)
Analyte
Untransformed
R2
Log-
Transformed
R2
Correlation
Adequate?13
Untransformed
R2
Log-
Transformed
R2
Correlation
Adequate?13
Cadmium
0.316
0.423
No
0.410
0.380
No
Lead
0.806
0.863
Yes
0.689
0.827
Yes
Zinc
0.555
0.732
Yes
0.541
0.853
Yes
aNumber o
? paired detected
CP/XRF concentrations.
bCorrelation is adequate if R2>0.7.
B-ll
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-7. XRF Data Quality Summary
Analyte
Surface Soil
Surface + Subsurface Soil
Detection
Limit
Adequate?
Correlation
Adequate?
Data Set
Reliable?
Detection
Limit
Adequate?
Correlation
Adequate?
Data Set
Reliable?
Cadmium
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Lead
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Zinc
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
B-12
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-8. Estimation of ICP-Equivalent Concentrations from XRF Data
Equation:
[ICP-equivalent concentration] = a + b • [XRF concentration]
Parameters:
Dataset
Analyte
Intercept (a)
Slope (b)
Surface Soil
Lead
75.37
0.847
Zinc
1,654
0.595
Surface +
Subsurface Soil
Lead
-90.38
1.275
Zinc
1,079
0.87
B-13
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-8. Sensitivity Analysis for Lead in Surface + Subsurface Soil
Approach
Regression
Mean Lead Concentration
(mg/kg)
Set the intercept equal to zero
y = 1.184x
537
Use a surrogate value equal to
the average reporting limit
y = 1.2753x- 90.383
525
Fit a separate regression line
excluding high concentrations
(>1,200 mg/kg)
Pb 1,200 mg/kg:
y = 1.2753x- 90.383
530
B-14
-------
APPENDIX B
FIGURES
B-15
-------
APPENDIX B
Figure B-l. ICP/XRF Correlation Based on Cadmium in Surface Soils
Panel A: Linear
120
100
80
£
"So
Q-
U
y = 0.861x+ 18.002
R2 =0.3156
10
20
30 40
XRF (mg/kg)
50
60
70
Panel B: Log-Transformed
2.5
& 1.5
"So
£_
CL
U -L
0.5
y = 0.5907X + 0.7573
R2 =0.4229
0.5
1.5
XRF (mg/kg)
B-16
-------
APPENDIX B
Figure B-2. ICP/XRF Correlation Based on Lead in Surface Soil
Panel A: Linear
1800
1600
1400
1200
M
1000
E
800
u
600
400
200
0
y = 0.8471x +75.371
R2 =0.8059
~ *
500
1000
XRF (mg/kg)
1500
2000
Panel B: Log-Transformed
y = 0.8096x + 0.5123
R2 =0.8626
"SS '
£.
o. 1.5
u
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5 2 2.5
XRF (mg/kg)
3.5
B-17
-------
APPENDIX B
Figure B-3. ICP/XRF Correlation Based on Zinc in Surface Soil
Panel A: Linear
XRF (mg/kg)
Panel B: Log-Transformed
0.6192X+ 1.3824
R2 =0.7323
« *
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
2 3
XRF (mg/kg)
B-18
-------
APPENDIX B
Figure B-4. ICP/XRF Correlation Based on Cadmium in Surface+Subsurface Soil
Panel A: Linear
XRF (mg/kg)
Panel B: Log-Trans formed
XRF (mg/kg)
B-19
-------
APPENDIX B
Figure B-5. ICP/XRF Correlation Based on Lead in Surface + Subsurface Soil
Panel A: Linear
4500
4000
3500
_ 3000
euo
1b 2500
2000
1500
1000
500
y = 1.2753X-90.383
R2 =0.6888
500 1000 1500
XRF (mg/kg)
2000
2500
Panel B: Log-Trans formed
4
3.5
3
m 2.5
1 2
Q-
y 1.5
0.5
y = 0.9765x + 0.0644
R2 =0.8269
1-4 ± +
] -j?
^ ~
12 3
XRF (mg/kg)
B-20
-------
APPENDIX B
Figure B-6. ICP/XRF Correlation Based on Zinc in Surface + Subsurface Soil
Panel A: Linear
25000
20000
y = 0.87x+ 1078.8
R2 =0.5412
~~
10000 15000
XRF (mg/kg)
20000
25000
Panel B: Log-Tranformed
5
4.5
4
3.5
M
3
CU)
2.5
£.
Q-
2
y
1.5
1
0.5
0
y = 0.9482x + 0.1859
R2 =0.8531
2 3
XRF (mg/kg)
B-21
-------
APPENDIX C
ProUCL OUTPUT
-------
UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
Number of Bootstrap Operations
4/7/2015 16:33
CCR_UCLinput_v2.xls
OFF
95%
2000
CdSSHigh
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Coefficient of Variation
15 Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Missing Observations
11.4 Mean
88.7 Median
20.64 Std. Error of Mean
0.557 Skewness
15
0
37.07
37.1
5.33
1.113
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.92 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.881 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.164 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.229 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL
95% Student's-t UCL
95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
46.46 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)
47.48
46.72
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.188 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
0.742 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.105 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
0.223 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Adjusted Level of Significance
3.538 k star (bias corrected MLE)
10.48 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
106.1 nu star (bias corrected)
37.07 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)
0.0324 Adjusted Chi Square Value
2.875
12.9
86.25
21.86
65.84
63.65
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50))
48.56 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50)
50.24
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.966 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
0.881 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.134 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
0.229 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data
Maximum of Logged Data
2.434 Mean of logged Data
4.485 SD of logged Data
3.465
0.581
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
52.95 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
62.79 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
95.38
54.87
73.79
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
-------
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
45.84
45.58
52.79
46.97
53.06
70.36
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
46.46
48.92
46.13
60.31
90.11
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL
46.46
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and laci (2002)
and Singh and Singh (2003). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets.
For additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
CdSSLow
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Coefficient of Variation
21 Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Missing Observations
8.9 Mean
100 Median
19.07 Std. Error of Mean
0.481 Skewness
21
0
39.69
37.2
4.162
1.564
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.88 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.908 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.15 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.193 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL
95% Student's-t UCL
95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
46.86 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)
48.05
47.1
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.416 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
0.746 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.155 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
0.19 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Adjusted Level of Significance
4.828 k star (bias corrected MLE)
8.22 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
202.8 nu star (bias corrected)
39.69 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)
0.0383 Adjusted Chi Square Value
4.17
9.517
175.1
19.43
145.5
143.5
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50))
47.76 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50)
48.45
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.934 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
0.908 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.179 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
0.193 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data
Maximum of Logged Data
2.186 Mean of logged Data
4.605 SD of logged Data
3.574
0.494
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
-------
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
50.17
59.55
84.59
90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
53.47
68
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
46.53
46.51
55.04
47.77
52.17
65.68
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
46.86
48.76
46.75
57.83
81.1
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL
46.86
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and laci (2002)
and Singh and Singh (2003). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets.
For additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
CdSSSB
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 92 Number of Distinct Observations 88
Number of Detects 89 Number of Non-Detects 3
Number of Distinct Detects 85 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 3
Minimum Detect 0.63 Minimum Non-Detect 0.215
Maximum Detect 113 Maximum Non-Detect 0.75
Variance Detects 633.9 Percent Non-Detects 3.26%
Mean Detects 40.49 SD Detects 25.18
Median Detects 37.9 CV Detects 0.622
Skewness Detects 0.888 Kurtosis Detects 0.783
Mean of Logged Detects 3.428 SD of Logged Detects 0.905
Normal GOF Test on Detects Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.926 Normal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
3.64E-05 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.102 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.0939 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other
Mean
SD
95% KM (t) UCL
95% KM (z) UCL
90% KM Chebyshev UCL
97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL
nparametric UCLs
39.18 Standard Error of Mean 2.688
25.64 95% KM (BCA) UCL 43.67
43.64 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 43.79
43.6 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 43.9
47.24 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 50.89
55.96 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 65.92
Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations Only
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
1.334 Anderson-Darling GOF Test
0.765 Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.119 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF
0.096 Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Only
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
1.981 k star (bias corrected MLE)
20.44 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
352.6 nu star (bias corrected)
40.49 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
1.921
21.07
342
29.21
-------
Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics
k hat (KM) 2.335 nu hat (KM) 429.6
Approximate Chi Square Value (429.58, a) 382.5 Adjusted Chi Square Value (429.58, p) 381.8
95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 43.99 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 44.07
Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-Detects
GROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs
GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1
For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs
For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates
Minimum
0.63 Mean
39.36
Maximum
113 Median
37.45
SD
25.52 CV
0.648
k hat (MLE)
1.82 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1.768
Theta hat (MLE)
21.63 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
22.26
nu hat (MLE)
334.8 nu star (bias corrected)
325.2
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
39.36 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
29.6
Adjusted Level of Significance ((3)
0.0474
Approximate Chi Square Value (325.25, a)
284.5 Adjusted Chi Square Value (325.25, p)
283.9
95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50)
45 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50)
45.09
Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.175 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.0939 Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-Detects
Mean in Original Scale
SD in Original Scale
95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data)
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
95% H-UCL (Log ROS)
39.31 Mean in Log Scale
25.59 SD in Log Scale
43.74 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
43.73 95% Bootstrap t UCL
57.01
3.363
0.958
43.7
43.88
DL/2 Statistics
DL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed
Mean in Original Scale 39.17 Mean in Log Scale 3.259
SD in Original Scale 25.78 SD in Log Scale 1.286
95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 43.64 95% H-Stat UCL 83.86
DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Suggested UCL to Use
95% KM (BCA) UCL 43.67
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
ZnSSHigh
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 18 Number of Distinct Observations 18
Number of Missing Observations 0
Minimum 1660 Mean 5334
Maximum 9435 Median 5221
SD 2250 Std. Error of Mean 530.3
Coefficient of Variation 0.422 Skewness 0.0388
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.965 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.897 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.106 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.209 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
-------
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL
95% Student's-t UCL
95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
6257 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)
6212
6258
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.396 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
0.743 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.139 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
0.204 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Adjusted Level of Significance
4.953 k star (bias corrected MLE)
1077 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
178.3 nu star (bias corrected)
5334 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)
0.0357 Adjusted Chi Square Value
4.164
1281
149.9
2614
122.6
120.2
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50))
6522 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50)
6650
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.915 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
0.897 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.164 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
0.209 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data
Maximum of Logged Data
7.415 Mean of logged Data
9.152 SD of logged Data
8.478
0.503
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
6984 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
8310 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
12025
7406
9563
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
6207
6183
6238
6214
6925
8646
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
6257
6244
6187
7646
10611
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL
6257
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and laci (2002)
and Singh and Singh (2003). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets.
For additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
ZnSSLow
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
57 Number of Distinct Observations
57
Number of Missing Observations
0
Minimum
1600 Mean
6036
Maximum
13834 Median
5495
SD
2686 Std. Error of Mean
355.8
Coefficient of Variation
0.445 Skewness
0.983
-------
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.923 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0.00129 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.163 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.117 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL
95% Student's-t UCL
95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
6631 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)
6671
6639
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.536 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
0.753 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.105 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
0.118 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
khat(MLE) 5.263 k star (bias corrected MLE) 4.997
Theta hat (MLE) 1147 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1208
nu hat (MLE) 599.9 nu star (bias corrected) 569.7
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 6036 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 2700
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 515.3
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0458 Adjusted Chi Square Value 514
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)
6673 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50)
6690
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.964 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
0.177 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.107 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
0.117 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data 7.378 Mean of logged Data 8.608
Maximum of Logged Data 9.535 SD of logged Data 0.46
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 6822 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7228
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7753 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 8481
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 9911
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
6622
6625
6718
6676
7104
8258
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
6631
6742
6624
7587
9576
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
6673
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and laci (2002)
and Singh and Singh (2003). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets.
For additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
-------
ZnSSSB
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Coefficient of Variation
545 Number of Distinct Observations
Number of Missing Observations
13.9 Mean
27222 Median
4804 Std. Error of Mean
0.931 Skewness
531
0
5159
3154
205.8
1.368
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.817 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
0 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
0.184 Lilliefors GOF Test
0.038 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL
95% Student's-t UCL
95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
5499 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)
5511
5501
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
16.18 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
0.778 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.141 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test
0.0403 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Adjusted Level of Significance
1.263 k star (bias corrected MLE)
4086 Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
1376 nu star (bias corrected)
5159 MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)
0.0496 Adjusted Chi Square Value
1.257
4105
1370
4602
1285
1285
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50))
5501 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50)
5501
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.916 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
0 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.118 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
0.038 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data
Maximum of Logged Data
2.632 Mean of logged Data
10.21 SD of logged Data
8.103
0.997
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
5946 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
6656 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
8236
6273
7189
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
5498
5506
5507
5521
5777
6445
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
5499
5508
5500
6056
7207
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
6056
-------
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and laci (2002)
and Singh and Singh (2003). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets.
For additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
-------
APPENDIX D
DERIVATION OF PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS (PEF)
-------
APPENDIX D
1.0 INTRODUCTION
People may be exposed to contaminants in soil is by inhalation of soil particles that become re-
suspended in air. At most sites, however, there are no reliable site-specific measurements of
airborne particulates and associated contaminant levels in air. In such cases, the concentration
of contaminants may be estimated as follows (USEPA 2002):
The PEF represents an estimate of the relationship between chemical concentrations in soil and
the chemical concentrations in air as a consequence of particulate suspension. Estimating a PEF
for construction workers depends on a number of site-specific factors, as well as the nature of the
force (wind, mechanical disturbance) that leads to soil particle re-suspension in air. For
construction workers, fugitive dusts may be generated by wind erosion, vehicle traffic, and other
construction/excavation activities. Under a recreational visitor scenario, it is expected that
fugitive dusts may be generated from surface soils by wind erosion and people disturbing the
surface soil while hiking along the rail lines. The following sections present the derivation of the
PEF values used to estimate contaminant concentrations in air from the re-suspension of soil
attributable to wind erosion (PEFwe) and construction-related activities (PEFcw).
2.0 DERIVATION OF I II I PEF FOR WIND EROSION (PEFwe)
The basic equation used to calculate the PEF for particulates suspended in air from wind erosion
is (USEPA 2002):
Cair - Csoil / PEF
where:
C(air) = concentration of contaminant in air (mg/m3)
C(soil) = concentration of contaminant in soil (mg/kg)
PEF = particulate emission factor (m3 of air per kg of soil)
PEFwe = -
c
3,600s/h
0.036 ¦(!-Fix)
where:
PEFwe
Q/C
Particulate Emission Factor for wind erosion (m3/kg)
Inverse of the ratio of the geometric mean air concentration to the
emission flux at the center of a square source (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
D-l
-------
APPENDIX D
V = Fraction of vegetative cover (unitless); default assumes 50%
Um = Mean annual windspeed (m/s); default assumes 4.69 m/s
Ut = Equivalent threshold value of windspeed at 7 m (m/s); default
assumes 11.32 m/s
F(x) = Function dependent on Um/Ut derived using Cowherd et al. (1985)
(unitless); default assumes 0.194
The default PEF presented in USEPA (2002) that accounts for windborne dust emissions is
1.36xl09 m3/kg. This value is used to evaluate inhalation exposures of recreational visitors.
3.0 DERIVATION OF I II I PEF FOR EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES (PEFcw)
For a construction worker scenario, traffic on unpaved roads typically accounts for the majority
of dust emissions, with wind erosion, excavation, soil dumping, dozing, grading, and tilling
operations contributing lesser emissions (USEPA 2002). The basic equation used to calculate
the PEF for particulates suspended in air as a result of truck traffic on exposed soils is (USEPA
2002, 2014):
PEFcw = Q ¦ 1 ¦ nsyAR(m*)
Csr FD 2.6.(_L)0.8.(V^))0.4 365 (l).p(|)
3 ; )yjj_yyj_
Mdry0 3 36Z-
0.2 y
where:
¦281.9 ¦ Yj VKT (km)
PEFcw = Particulate Emission Factor for road traffic (m3/kg)
Q/Csr = Inverse of the ratio of the 1-h geometric mean air concentration to
the emission flux along a straight road segment bisecting a square
site (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
Fd = Dispersion correction factor (unitless)
T = Total time over which construction occurs (s)
Ar = Surface area of contaminated road segment (m2),
AR = LR x WR x 0.92903 m2/ft2
Lr = Length of road segment (ft); square root of site surface
contamination configured as a square
WR = Width of road segment (ft), default = 20 ft
D-2
-------
APPENDIX D
w
Mdry
p
XVKT
s
Road surface silt content (%), default = 8.5%
Mean vehicle weight (tons)
Road surface material moisture content under dry, uncontrolled
conditions (%), default = 0.2%
Number of days per year with at least 0.01 inches of precipitation
Sum of fleet vehicle kilometers traveled during the exposure
duration (km)
This equation requires estimates of parameters such as the number of days with at least 0.01
inches of rainfall (p) and mean vehicle weight (W). For this assessment, the number of days with
at least 0.01 inches of rainfall was estimated at 100 days based on USEPA (2002, Exhibit 5-2).
Mean vehicle weight estimated assuming 5 cars weighing an average of 2 tons each and 5 trucks
weighing an average of 20 tons, where the mean vehicle weight is:
W = [(5 cars ¦ 2 tons/car) + (5 trucks ¦ 20 tons/truck)]/10 vehicles =11 tons
The numbers of cars and trucks is based on professional judgment and the weights of cars and
trucks is based on the example presented in USEPA (2002, 2014).
The USEPA Regional Screening Level Calculator1 was used to calculate the PEFcw value using
the above assumptions to calculate a site-specific PEFcw of 3.2E+06 m3/kg.
3.0 REFERENCES
Cowherd, C.G., Muleski, G., Engelhart, P., and Gillette, D. 1985. Rapid Assessment of Exposure
to Particulate Emissions from Surface Contamination Sites. U.S. EPA, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/8-85/002.
U.S. EPA 2002. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund
Sites. OSWER 9355.4-24. December 2002.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/index.htm
U.S. EPA. 2014. Regional Screening Level Tables User's Guide (November 2014).
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration table/usersguide.htm
1 Available online at http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/chemicals/csl search.
D-3
-------
APPENDIX E
DETAILED NON-LEAD RISK CALCULATIONS
-------
APPENDIX E. NON-LEAD RISK CALCULATIONS
Population Adult High Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Incidental Ingestion
HIFs CTE RME
Noncancer 1.23E-07 4.11E-07
Cancer 1.59E-08 1.53E-07
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
RBA
DI (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DI (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.6E+01
1.00
5.7E-06 1.9E-05
1.0E-03
6E-03 2E-02
Zinc
6.3E+03
1.00
7.7E-04 2.6E-03
3.0E-01
3E-03 9E-03
Total
8E-03 3E-02
Population Adult High Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Dermal Contact
HIFs
CTE
RME
Noncancer
1.49E-07
1.74E-06
Cancer
1.91E-08
6.45E-07
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
ABSd
DAD (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DAD (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.6E+01
0.001
6.9E-09 8.1E-08
2.5E-05
3E-04
3E-03
Zinc
6.3E+03
NV
Total
3E-04
3E-03
Population
Adult High Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium
Surface Soil
Exposure Route
Inhalation of Particulates
TWFs
CTE
RME
Noncancer
3.29E-02
5.48E-02
Cancer
4.23 E-03
2.04E-02
Csoil
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
PEF
EC (mg/m3)
RfC
HQ
EC (ug/m3)
iUR
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
m3/kg
CTE RME
mg/m3
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(ug/m3)"1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.6E+01
1.36E+09
1.1E-09 1.9E-09
1.0E-05
1E-04
2E-04
1.4E-07 7.0E-07
1.8E-03
3E-10 1E-09
Zinc
6.3E+03
Total
1E-04
2E-04
3E-10 1E-09
-------
APPENDIX E. NON-LEAD RISK CALCULATIONS
Population Adolescent High Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Incidental Ingestion
HIFs CTE RME
Noncancer 2.23E-07 7.42E-07
Cancer 9.54E-09 1.06E-07
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
RBA
DI (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DI (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-l
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.6E+01
1.00
1.0E-05 3.4E-05
1.0E-03
1E-02 3E-02
Zinc
6.3E+03
1.00
1.4E-03 4.6E-03
3.0E-01
5E-03 2E-02
Total
1E-02 5E-02
Population Adolescent High Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Dermal Contact
HIFs CTE RME
Noncancer 8.05E-07 1.34E-05
Cancer 3.45E-08 1.92E-06
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
ABSd
DAD (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DAD (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-l
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.6E+01
0.001
3.7E-08 6.2E-07
2.5E-05
1E-03 2E-02
Zinc
6.3E+03
NV
Total
1E-03 2E-02
Population Adolescent High Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Inhalation of Particulates
TWFs CTE RME
Noncancer 3.29E-02 5.48E-02
Cancer 1.41E-03 7.83E-03
Csoil
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
PEF
EC (mg/m3)
RfC
HQ
EC (ug/m3)
iUR
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
m3/kg
CTE RME
/ 3
mg/m
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(ug/rn3)"1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.6E+01
1.36E+09
1.1E-09 1.9E-09
1.0E-05
1E-04
2E-04
4.8E-08 2.7E-07
1.8E-03
9E-11 5E-10
Zinc
6.3E+03
Total
1E-04
2E-04
9E-11 5E-10
-------
APPENDIX E. NON-LEAD RISK CALCULATIONS
Population Child High Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Incidental Ingestion
HIFs
CTE
RME
Noncancer
1.32E-06
4.38E-06
Cancer
3.76E-08
3.76E-07
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
RBA
DI (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DI (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.6E+01
1.00
6.1E-05 2.0E-04
1.0E-03
6E-02
2E-01
Zinc
6.3E+03
1.00
8.2E-03 2.7E-02
3.0E-01
3E-02
9E-02
Total
9E-02
3E-01
Population
Child High Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium
Surface Soil
Exposure Route
Dermal Contact
HIFs
CTE
RME
Noncancer
1.42E-06
1.18E-05
Cancer
4.04E-08
1.01E-06
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
ABSd
DAD (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DAD (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.6E+01
0.001
6.6E-08 5.5E-07
2.5E-05
3E-03
2E-02
Zinc
6.3E+03
NV
Total
3E-03
2E-02
Population
Child High Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium
Surface Soil
Exposure Route
Inhalation of Particulates
TWFs
CTE
RME
Noncancer
3.29E-02
5.48E-02
Cancer
9.39E-04
4.70E-03
Csoil
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
PEF
EC (mg/m3)
RfC
HQ
EC (ug/m3)
iUR
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
m3/kg
CTE RME
mg/m3
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(ug/m3)"1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.6E+01
1.36E+09
1.1E-09 1.9E-09
1.0E-05
1E-04
2E-04
3.2E-08 1.6E-07
1.8E-03
6E-11 3E-10
Zinc
6.3E+03
Total
1E-04
2E-04
6E-11 3E-10
-------
APPENDIX E. NON-LEAD RISK CALCULATIONS
Population Adult Low Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Incidental Ingestion
HIFs CTE RME
Noncancer 4.11E-08 2.47E-07
Cancer 5.28E-09 9.16E-08
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
RBA
DI (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DI (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.7E+01
1.00
1.9E-06 1.2E-05
1.0E-03
2E-03 1E-02
Zinc
6.7E+03
1.00
2.7E-04 1.6E-03
3.0E-01
9E-04 5E-03
Total
3E-03 2E-02
Population Adult Low Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Dermal Contact
HIFs
CTE
RME
Noncancer
4.96E-08
1.04E-06
Cancer
6.37E-09
3.87E-07
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
ABSd
DAD (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DAD (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.7E+01
0.001
2.3E-09 4.9E-08
2.5E-05
9E-05
2E-03
Zinc
6.7E+03
NV
Total
9E-05
2E-03
Population
Adult Low Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium
Surface Soil
Exposure Route
Inhalation of Particulates
TWFs
CTE
RME
Noncancer
1.10E-02
3.29E-02
Cancer
1.41E-03
1.22E-02
Csoil
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
PEF
EC (mg/m3)
RfC
HQ
EC (ug/m3)
iUR
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
m3/kg
CTE RME
mg/m3
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(ug/m3)"1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.7E+01
1.36E+09
3.8E-10 1.1E-09
1.0E-05
4E-05
1E-04
4.9E-08 4.2E-07
1.8E-03
9E-11 8E-10
Zinc
6.7E+03
Total
4E-05
1E-04
9E-11 8E-10
-------
APPENDIX E. NON-LEAD RISK CALCULATIONS
Population Adolescent Low Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Incidental Ingestion
HIFs CTE RME
Noncancer 7.42E-08 4.45E-07
Cancer 3.18E-09 6.36E-08
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
RBA
DI (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DI (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.7E+01
1.00
3.5E-06 2.1E-05
1.0E-03
3E-03 2E-02
Zinc
6.7E+03
1.00
5.0E-04 3.0E-03
3.0E-01
2E-03 1E-02
Total
5E-03 3E-02
Population Adolescent Low Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Dermal Contact
HIFs CTE RME
Noncancer 2.68E-07 8.05E-06
Cancer 1.15E-08 1.15E-06
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
ABSd
DAD (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DAD (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.7E+01
0.001
1.3E-08 3.8E-07
2.5E-05
5E-04 2E-02
Zinc
6.7E+03
NV
Total
5E-04 2E-02
Population Adolescent Low Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Inhalation of Particulates
TWFs CTE RME
Noncancer 1.10E-02 3.29E-02
Cancer 4.70E-04 4.70E-03
Csoil
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
PEF
EC (mg/m3)
RfC
HQ
EC (ug/m3)
iUR
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
m3/kg
CTE RME
mg/m3
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(ug/m3)"1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.7E+01
1.36E+09
3.8E-10 1.1E-09
1.0E-05
4E-05
1E-04
1.6E-08 1.6E-07
1.8E-03
3E-11 3E-10
Zinc
6.7E+03
Total
4E-05
1E-04
3E-11 3E-10
-------
APPENDIX E. NON-LEAD RISK CALCULATIONS
Population Child Low Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Incidental Ingestion
HIFs CTE RME
Noncancer 4.38E-07 2.63E-06
Cancer 1.25E-08 2.25E-07
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
RBA
DI (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DI (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.7E+01
1.00
2.1E-05 1.2E-04
1.0E-03
2E-02
1E-01
Zinc
6.7E+03
1.00
2.9E-03 1.8E-02
3.0E-01
1E-02
6E-02
Total
3E-02
2E-01
Population Child Low Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Dermal Contact
HIFs CTE RME
Noncancer 4.72E-07 7.08E-06
Cancer 1.35E-08 6.06E-07
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
ABSd
DAD (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DAD (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.7E+01
0.001
2.2E-08 3.3E-07
2.5E-05
9E-04 1E-02
Zinc
6.7E+03
NV
Total
9E-04 1E-02
Population Child Low Frequency Recreational Visitor
Medium Surface Soil
Exposure Route Inhalation of Particulates
TWFs CTE RME
Noncancer 1.10E-02 3.29E-02
Cancer 3.13E-04 2.82E-03
Csoil
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
PEF
EC (mg/m3)
RfC
HQ
EC (ug/m3)
iUR
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
m3/kg
CTE RME
mg/m3
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(ug/m3)"1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.7E+01
1.36E+09
3.8E-10 1.1E-09
1.0E-05
4E-05
1E-04
1.1E-08 9.7E-08
1.8E-03
2E-11 2E-10
Zinc
6.7E+03
Total
4E-05
1E-04
2E-11 2E-10
-------
APPENDIX E. NON-LEAD RISK CALCULATIONS
Population Adult Construction Worker
Medium Surface Soil and Subsurface Soil
Exposure Route Incidental Ingestion
HIFs CTE RME
Noncancer 7.50E-07 2.83E-06
Cancer 5.36E-09 4.04E-08
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
RBA
DI (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DI (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.4E+01
1.00
3.3E-05 1.2E-04
1.0E-03
3E-02
1E-01
Zinc
6.1E+03
1.00
4.6E-03 1.7E-02
3.0E-01
2E-02
6E-02
Total
5E-02
2E-01
Population Adult Construction Worker
Medium Surface Soil and Subsurface Soil
Exposure Route Dermal Contact
HIFs CTE RME
Noncancer 2.60E-06 8.91E-06
Cancer 1.86E-08 1.27E-07
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
ABSd
DAD (mg/kg-d)
RfD
HQ
DAD (mg/kg-d)
oSF
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
CTE RME
mg/kg-d
CTE RME
CTE RME
(mg/kg-d)-1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.4E+01
0.001
1.1E-07 3.9E-07
2.5E-05
5E-03 2E-02
Zinc
6.1E+03
NV
Total
5E-03 2E-02
Population Adult Construction Worker
Medium Surface Soil and Subsurface Soil
Exposure Route Inhalation of Particulates
TWFs CTE RME
Noncancer 2.00E-01 2.28E-01
Cancer 1.43E-03 3.26E-03
Csoil
Non-Cancer
Cancer
EPC
PEF
EC (mg/m3)
RfC
HQ
EC (ug/m3)
iUR
Risk
COPC
mg/kg
m3/kg
CTE RME
mg/m3
CTE
RME
CTE RME
(ug/m3)"1
CTE RME
Cadmium
4.4E+01
3.20E+06
2.7E-06 3.1E-06
1.0E-05
3E-01
3E-01
1.9E-05 4.5E-05
1.8E-03
4E-08 8E-08
Zinc
6.1E+03
Total
3E-01
3E-01
4E-08 8E-08
-------
APPENDIX F
DETAILED LEAD RISK CALCULATIONS
-------
APPENDIX F
IEUBK OUTPUT
Recreational Child Lead Risk Calculations
High-Frequency Use Areas
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1
Model Version: 1.1 BuilcH 1
User Name:
Date:
Site Name:
Operable Unit:
Run Mode: Research
****** ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption Pb C
(hours)
(m3/day)
(%)
(|jg Pb/m3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.100
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.100
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
****** ******
Age
Diet lntake(|jg/day)
.5-1
2.260
1-2
1.960
2-3
2.130
3-4
2.040
4-5
1.950
5-6
2.050
6-7
2.220
****** 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 |jg Pb/L
****** 0Qj| ^ Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 203.200 |jg/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 (|jg Pb/g) House Dust (|jg Pb/g)
.5-1 276.000 203.200
1-2 276.000 203.200
2-3 276.000 203.200
3-4 276.000 203.200
4-5 276.000 203.200
5-6 276.000 203.200
6-7 276.000 203.200
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (|jg Pb/day)
.5-1 0.000
1-2 0.000
2-3 0.000
3-4 0.000
4-5 0.000
5-6 0.000
6-7 0.000
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 |jg Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(Mg/day) (MQ/day) (MQ/day) (MQ/day)
.5-1 0.021 1.060 0.000 0.375
1-2 0.034 0.911 0.000 0.929
2-3 0.062 0.999 0.000 0.976
3-4 0.067 0.966 0.000 1.004
4-5 0.067 0.938 0.000 1.059
5-6 0.093 0.993 0.000 1.123
6-7 0.093 1.078 0.000 1.146
Year Soil+Dust Total
(Mg/day) (MQ/day)
Blood
(MQ/dL)
-------
.5-1 4.141
1-2 6.512
2-3 6.575
3-4 6.635
4-5 4.996
5-6 4.524
6-7 4.287
5.598 3.0
8.387 3.5
8.612 3.2
8.671 3.0
7.060 2.5
6.733 2.1
6.605 1.9
-------
IEUBK Distribution Probability Percent
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 2.735
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 0.291
-------
APPENDIX F
IEUBK OUTPUT
Recreational Child Lead Risk Calculations
Low-Frequency Use Areas
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1
Model Version: 1.1 BuilcH 1
User Name:
Date:
Site Name:
Operable Unit:
Run Mode: Research
****** ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption Pb C
(hours)
(m3/day)
(%)
(|jg Pb/m3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.100
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.100
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
****** ******
Age
Diet lntake(|jg/day)
.5-1
2.260
1-2
1.960
2-3
2.130
3-4
2.040
4-5
1.950
5-6
2.050
6-7
2.220
****** 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 |jg Pb/L
****** 0Qj| ^ Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 80.000 |jg/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 (|jg Pb/g) House Dust (|jg Pb/g)
.5-1 100.000 80.000
1-2 100.000 80.000
2-3 100.000 80.000
3-4 100.000 80.000
4-5 100.000 80.000
5-6 100.000 80.000
6-7 100.000 80.000
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (|jg Pb/day)
.5-1 0.000
1-2 0.000
2-3 0.000
3-4 0.000
4-5 0.000
5-6 0.000
6-7 0.000
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 |jg Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(Mg/day) (MQ/day) (MQ/day) (MQ/day)
.5-1 0.021
1-2 0.034
2-3 0.062
3-4 0.067
4-5 0.067
5-6 0.093
6-7 0.093
1.084
0.935
1.023
0.985
0.951
1.003
1.088
0.000 0.384
0.000 0.955
0.000 0.999
0.000 1.024
0.000 1.073
0.000 1.135
0.000 1.157
Year Soil+Dust Total
(Mg/day) (MQ/day)
Blood
(MQ/dL)
-------
.5-1 2.178
1-2 3.441
2-3 3.461
3-4 3.481
4-5 2.604
5-6 2.351
6-7 2.225
3.667 2.0
5.365 2.2
5.544 2.1
5.557 2.0
4.693 1.7
4.583 1.4
4.563 1.3
-------
IEUBK Distribution Probability Percent
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)
Cutoff =10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 1.802
GSD = 1.600
% Above = 0.013
9 10 11 12
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Run Mode = Research
-------
APPENDIX F
ALM OUTPUT
-------
APPENDIX F. RISKS FROM LEAD
Exposed Pop.
High Frequency Recreational Visitor
Exposure Model
ALM
Source
NHANES 1999-2004
Parameters
Value
Units
PbBO
1.0
ug/dL
BKSF
0.4
ug/dL per ug/day
GSD
1.8
-
PEF
1.36E+09
m3/kg
Scenario
Parameters
Units
Value
Lead Cone
ug/g
603
Intake rate
g/day
0.05
Incidental ingestion
Exp Freq
days/yr
72
Abs Fraction
8.8%
of floodplain soil
ug/day
Abs Dose
0.52
GM PbB (ug/dL)
ug/dL
1.2
P10 (%)
0.0%
Lead Cone (soil)
mg/kg
603
Lead cone (air)
ug/m3
0.000
Breathing rate
m3/hr
0.6
Inhalation of
Exp Time
hr/day
1.0
particulates while
Exp Freq
days/yr
72
recreating
Abs Fraction
-
12%
Abs Dose
ug/day
6.6E-06
GM PbB (ug/dL)
ug/dL
1.0
P10 (%)
0.0%
Abs. Dose
ug/day
0.52
All
GM PbB (ug/dL)
ug/dL
1.21
P10 (%)
0.01%
CCR ALM Calcs_highfreq_v2.xlsx
NHANES 99-04
-------
APPENDIX F. RISKS FROM LEAD
Exposed Pop.
Low Frequency Recreational Visitor
Exposure Model
ALM
Source
NHANES 1999-2004
Parameters
Value
Units
PbBO
1.0
ug/dL
BKSF
0.4
ug/dL per ug/day
GSD
1.8
-
PEF
1.36E+09
m3/kg
Scenario
Parameters
Units
Value
Lead Cone
ug/g
520
Intake rate
g/day
0.05
Incidental ingestion
Exp Freq
days/yr
24
Abs Fraction
12.2%
of floodplain soil
ug/day
Abs Dose
0.21
GM PbB (ug/dL)
ug/dL
1.1
P10 (%)
0.0%
Lead Cone (soil)
mg/kg
520
Lead cone (air)
ug/m3
0.0004
Breathing rate
m3/hr
0.6
Inhalation of
Exp Time
hr/day
1.0
particulates while
Exp Freq
days/yr
24
recreating
Abs Fraction
-
12%
Abs Dose
ug/day
1.9E-06
GM PbB (ug/dL)
ug/dL
1.0
P10 (%)
0.0%
Abs. Dose
ug/day
0.21
All
GM PbB (ug/dL)
ug/dL
1.08
P10 (%)
0.00%
CCR ALM Calcs_lowfreq_v2.xlsx
NHANES 99-04
-------
APPENDIX F. RISKS FROM LEAD
Exposed Pop.
Construction Worker
Exposure Model
ALM
Source
NHANES 1999-2004
Parameters
Value
Units
PbBO
1.0
ug/dL
BKSF
0.4
ug/dL per ug/day
GSD
1.8
-
PEF
1.36E+09
m3/kg
Scenario
Parameters
Units
Value
Lead Cone
ug/g
529
Intake rate
g/day
0.10
Incidental ingestion
Exp Freq
days/yr
219
Abs Fraction
10.2%
of floodplain soil
ug/day
Abs Dose
3.24
GM PbB (ug/dL)
ug/dL
2.3
P10 (%)
0.4%
Lead Cone (soil)
mg/kg
529
Lead cone (air)
ug/m3
0.0004
Breathing rate
m3/hr
0.6
Inhalation of
Exp Time
hr/day
1.0
particulates while
Exp Freq
days/yr
219
recreating
Abs Fraction
-
12%
Abs Dose
ug/day
1.8E-05
GM PbB (ug/dL)
ug/dL
1.0
P10 (%)
0.0%
Abs. Dose
ug/day
3.24
All
GM PbB (ug/dL)
ug/dL
2.30
P10 (%)
0.37%
CCRALMCalcs site v2.xlsx
NHANES 99-04
-------
APPENDIX G
RAGS D TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario
Timeframe
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
On-Site/
Off-Site
Type of
Analysis
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Current/Future
Soil
Soils collected up to a
depth of 4 feeta
Main Rail
Line
High-
frequency
Re creator
Adult/
Adolescent/
Child
Ingestion
Dermal
On-Site
Quantitative
Incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with contaminated soil by future high
frequency recreator populations will be evaluated quantitatively.
Inhalation
Incidental inhalation of contaminated particulates by future high-frequency
recreator populations will be evaluated quantitatively.
Low-frequency
Re creator
Adult/
Adolescent/
Child
Ingestion
Dermal
On-Site
Quantitative
Incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with contaminated soil by future low-
frequency recreator populations will be evaluated quantitatively.
Inhalation
Incidental inhalation of contaminated particulates by future low-frequency
recreator populations will be evaluated quantitatively.
Construction
Worker
Adult
Ingestion
Dermal
On-Site
Quantitative
Incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with contaminated soil during work
activities is possible. Therefore, this pathway will be evaluated quantitatively.
Inhalation
Incidental inhalation of contaminated particulates during work activities is
possible. Therefore, this pathway will be evaluated quantitatively.
:i Exposure to the soils at the Cherokee County Rail Lines site will differ for individual receptors based on sample depth. High and low-frequency recreators are assumed to be exposed to surface soils (soil samples collected
from the top 6 inches). Current or potential future construction workers are assumed to be exposed to subsurface soils (samples collected from the top 4 feet of soil).
COPC = Contaminant of Potential Concern; HHRA = Human Health Risk Assessment
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.1
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY
HIGH-FREQUENCY RECREATOR SOIL EPCs
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Soils
Exposure Medium: High Frequency Recreational Soil
Exposure Point
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
[1]
Maximum
Concentration
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Main Rail Lines
Cadmium
mg/kg
37
46 (N)
89
46
mg/kg
95% Student's-t UCL
ProUCL
Lead
mg/kg
603
-
1700
Zinc
mg/kg
5334
6257 (N)
9435
6257
mg/kg
95% Student's-t UCL
ProUCL
Abbreviations:
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
N = Normal
ProUCL = UCL statistic recommended by USbPA's ProUCL software (version D.U), based on the distribution ot the data
Notes:
[1] Risks to lead are evaluated based on a mean concentration; a 95th UCL was not calculated.
CCR RAGS D Series 3 4 5 6 7 Tables APPENDIX G.xlsx Table 3.1
-------
TABLE 3.2
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY
LOW-FREQUENCY RECREATOR SOIL EPCs
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Soils
Exposure Medium: Low Frequency Recreational Soil
Exposure Point
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
[1]
Maximum
Concentration
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Main Rail Lines
Cadmium
mg/kg
40
46.86 (N)
100
46.86
mg/kg
95% Student's-t UCL
ProUCL
Lead
mg/kg
520
--
1999
Zinc
mg/kg
6036
6673 (G)
13834
6673
mg/kg
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
ProUCL
Abbreviations:
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
G = Gamma
N = Normal
ProUCL = UCL statistic recommended by USEPA's ProUCL sottware (version 3.UJ, based on the distribution ot the data
Notes:
[1] Risks to lead are evaluated based on a mean concentration; a 95th UCL was not calculated.
CCR RAGS D Series 3 4 5 6 7 Tables APPENDIX G.xlsx Table 3.2
-------
TABLE 3.3
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY
CONSTRUCTION WORKER SOIL EPCs
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface and Subsurface Soils
Exposure Medium: Construction Worker Soil
Exposure Point
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
[1]
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Main Rail Lines
Cadmium
mg/kg
39
44 (NP)
113
44
mg/kg
95% KM (BCA) UCL
ProUCL
Lead
mg/kg
529
--
19575
Zinc
mg/kg
5159
6087 (NP)
27222
6087
mg/kg
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
ProUCL
Abbreviations:
EPC = Exposure Point Concentration
NP = Non-parametric
wouul = uul statistic recommended by UitFA's FroUUL sortware (version 3.U), based on tne distribution ot tne data
Notes:
[1] Risks to lead are evaluated based on a mean concentration; a 95th UCL was not calculated.
CCR RAGS D Series 3 4 5 6 7 Tables APPENDIX G.xlsx
Table 3.3
-------
Table 4.1
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Time Frame: Current/Future
Medium: Rail line soils
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Points: Main Rail Line
Receptor Population: High-frequency Recreational Visit
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Units
RME
Value
RME
Rationale/
Reference
CT
Value
CT
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Ingestion
BW
EF
ED
AT
AT
CF
IR
CS
Body weight
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Conversion factor
Ingestion rate
Chemical concentration in soil
kg
days/year
years
days
days
kg/mg
mg soil/day
mg/kg
80
120
26
25,550
9,490
0.000001
100
EPC
[1]
[3, a]
[l,3,5,c]
[2,d]
[2,d]
unit conversion
[l,3,f]
See table 3.1
80
72
9
25,550
3,285
0.000001
50
EPC
[1]
[3, a]
[3,5,b]
[2,d]
[2,d]
unit conversion
[3,e]
See table 3.1
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x IR x EF x ED / (BW x AT)
Dermal
BW
EF
ED
AT
AT
SA
AF
ABS
CF
Body weight
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Skin surface area available for contact
Sediment/soil-to-skin adherence factor
Dermal absorption factor - all COPCs
Conversion factor
kg
days/year
years
days
days
cm2
mg/cm2
unitless
kg/mg
80
120
26
25,550
9,490
6,032
0.07
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
1E-06
[1]
[3, a]
[l,3,5,c]
[2,d]
[2,d]
[1.3,g]
[1.3,h]
[4]
unit conversion
80
72
9
25,550
3,285
6,032
0.01
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
1E-06
[1]
[3, a]
[3,5,b]
[2,d]
[2,d]
[l>3,g]
[3,4,h]
[4]
unit conversion
Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x SA x AF x EF x ED x ABS / (BW x AT)
CS
Chemical concentration in soil
mg/kg
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
Inhalation
EF
ED
AT
AT
ET
CA
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Exposure time
Chemical concentration in air
days/year
years
hours
hours
hours/day
Hg/m3
120
26
613,200
227,760
4
EPC
[3, a]
[l,3,5,c]
[2]
[2]
[3]
See table 3.1
72
9
613,200
78,840
4
EPC
[3, a]
[3,5,b]
[2]
[2]
[3]
See table 3.1
Exposure Concentration ("ug/nij =
CA x ET x EF x ED / AT
NA = not applicable; EPC = exposure point concentration
Sources:
[1] USEPA2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February.
[2] USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002. Dec
[3] Professional judgment.
[4] USEPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. July.
[5] USEPA2011. Exposure Factors Handbook.
[6] USEPA 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
Notes:
[a] Assumes exposure occurs over the course of 24 weeks when the ground is not covered with snow (May to September) at a frequency of 3 visits/week for a CTE visitor and 5 visits/week for an RME visitor.
[b] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 9 years is based on mean residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH (2011).
(2011).
[d] Averaging time expressed as days. Noncancer averaging time calculated by multiplying the exposure duration by 365 days/year. Cancer averaging time calculated by multiplying a 70 year lifetime for
cancer effects by 365 days/year.
[e] Assumes CTE value is half of the RME value.
[f] Assumes that the RME soil ingestion rate by a recreational visitor is equal to the USEPA default soil ingestion rate for a resident.
[g] Assumes that the exposed surface area is equal to the U SEPA default surface area for a resident which includes head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet.
[h] Assumes adherence factor equal to the soil adherence factor for a resident (USEPA 2004, Exhibit 3-3).
[i] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the 95th percentile for children age 8-12 years playing with dry soil for the RME value and equal to the geometric mean for the CTE value.
[j]Table 8-1. Time-weighted average for children aged 6 to <11 years andll to < 16years.
[k] Tables 7-2 and 7-8. Time weighted average for older children/adolescents aged 6-16 years based on head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet consistent with other receptors.
[l]Assumes same ratio of RME:CTE exposure duration as adult (9:26 years)
[m] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the geometric mean for daycare children age 1-6.5 years playing indoors and outdoors.
CCR_RAGS D Series 3_4_5_6_7 Tables_APPENDIX G.xlsx Table 4.1
-------
Table 4.2
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Time Frame: Current/Future
Medium: Rail line soils
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Points: Main Rail Line
Receptor Population: High-frequency Recreational Visit
Receptor Age: Adolescent (6-16 years)
Exposure
Route
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Units
RME
Value
RME
Rationale/
Reference
CT
Value
CT
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Ingestion
BW
EF
ED
AT
AT
CF
IR
CS
Body weight
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Conversion factor
Ingestion rate
Chemical concentration in soil
kg
days/year
years
days
days
kg/mg
mg soil/day
mg/kg
44.3
120
10
25,550
3,650
0.000001
100
EPC
[5j]
[3, a]
[3]
[2,d]
[2,d]
unit conversion
[6]
See table 3.1
44.3
72
3
25,550
1,095
0.000001
50
EPC
[5j]
[3, a]
[3,1]
[2,d]
[2,d]
unit conversion
[6,e]
See table 3.1
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x IR x EF x ED / (BW x AT)
Dermal
BW
EF
ED
AT
AT
SA
AF
ABS
CF
Body weight
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Skin surface area available for contact
Sediment/soil-to-skin adherence factor
Dermal absorption factor - all COPCs
Conversion factor
kg
days/year
years
days
days
cm2
mg/cm2
unitless
kg/mg
44.3
120
10
25,550
3,650
4,520
0.4
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
1E-06
[5j]
[3, a]
[3]
[2,d]
[2,d]
[3,5,k]
[3,4,i]
[4]
unit conversion
44.3
72
3
25,550
1,095
4,520
0.04
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
1E-06
[5j]
[3, a]
[3,1]
[2,d]
[2,d]
[3,5,k]
[3,4,i]
[4]
unit conversion
Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x SA x AF x EF x ED x ABS / (BW x AT)
CS
Chemical concentration in soil
mg/kg
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
Inhalation
EF
ED
AT
AT
ET
CA
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Exposure time
Chemical concentration in air
days/year
years
hours
hours
hours/day
Hg/m3
120
10
613,200
87,600
4
EPC
[3, a]
[3]
[2]
[2]
[3]
See table 3.1
72
3
613,200
26,280
4
EPC
[3, a]
[3,1]
[2]
[2]
[3]
See table 3.1
Exposure Concentration ("ug/nij =
CA x ET x EF x ED / AT
NA = not applicable; EPC = exposure point concentration
Sources:
[1] USEPA2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February.
[2] USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002. Dec
[3] Professional judgment.
[4] USEPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. July.
[5] USEPA2011. Exposure Factors Handbook.
[6] USEPA 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
Notes:
[a] Assumes exposure occurs over the course of 24 weeks when the ground is not covered with snow (May to September) at a frequency of 3 visits/week for a CTE visitor and 5 visits/week for an RME visitor.
[b] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 9 years is based on mean residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH (2011).
(2011).
[d] Averaging time expressed as days. Noncancer averaging time calculated by multiplying the exposure duration by 365 days/year. Cancer averaging time calculated by multiplying a 70 year lifetime for
cancer effects by 365 days/year.
[e] Assumes CTE value is half of the RME value.
[f] Assumes that the RME soil ingestion rate by a recreational visitor is equal to the USEPA default soil ingestion rate for a resident.
[g] Assumes that the exposed surface area is equal to the U SEPA default surface area for a resident which includes head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet.
[h] Assumes adherence factor equal to the soil adherence factor for a resident (USEPA 2004, Exhibit 3-3).
[i] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the 95th percentile for children age 8-12 years playing with dry soil for the RME value and equal to the geometric mean for the CTE value.
[j]Table 8-1. Time-weighted average for children aged 6 to <11 years andll to < 16years.
[k] Tables 7-2 and 7-8. Time weighted average for older children/adolescents aged 6-16 years based on head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet consistent with other receptors.
[l]Assumes same ratio of RME:CTE exposure duration as adult (9:26 years)
[m] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the geometric mean for daycare children age 1-6.5 years playing indoors and outdoors.
CCR_RAGS D Series 3_4_5_6_7 Tables_APPENDIX G.xlsx Table 4.2
-------
Table 4.3
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Time Frame: Current/Future
Medium: Rail line soils
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Points: Main Rail Line
Receptor Population: High-frequency Recreational Visit
Receptor Age: Child (0-6 years)
Exposure
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Units
RME
RME
CT
CT
Intake Equation/
Route
Code
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Model Name
BW
Body weight
kg
15
[1]
15
[1]
EF
Exposure frequency
days/year
120
[3, a]
72
[3, a]
ED
Exposure duration
years
6
[1]
2
[3,1]
Ingestion
AT
AT
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
days
days
25,550
2,190
[2,d]
[2,d]
25,550
730
[2,d]
[2,d]
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x IR x EF x ED / (BW x AT)
CF
Conversion factor
kg/mg
0.000001
unit conversion
0.000001
unit conversion
IR
Ingestion rate
mg soil/day
200
[1-3,f]
100
[3,e]
CS
Chemical concentration in soil
mg/kg
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
BW
Body weight
kg
15
[1]
15
[1]
EF
Exposure frequency
days/year
120
[3, a]
72
[3, a]
ED
Exposure duration
years
6
[1]
2
[3,1]
AT
Averaging time - carcinogens
days
25,550
[2,d]
25,550
[2,d]
Dermal
AT
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
days
2,190
[2,d]
730
[2,d]
Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day)=
SA
Skin surface area available for contact
cm2
2,690
[1.3,g]
2,690
[1,3,g]
CS x CF x SA x AF x EF x ED x ABS / (BW x AT)
AF
ABS
Sediment/soil-to-skin adherence factor
Dermal absorption factor - all COPCs
mg/cm2
unitless
0.2
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
[1,3,h]
[4]
0.04
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
[3,4,m]
[4]
CF
Conversion factor
kg/mg
1E-06
unit conversion
1E-06
unit conversion
CS
Chemical concentration in soil
mg/kg
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
EF
Exposure frequency
days/year
120
[3, a]
72
[3, a]
ED
Exposure duration
years
6
[1]
2
[3,1]
Inhalation
AT
AT
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
hours
hours
613,200
52,560
[2,d]
[2,d]
613,200
17,520
[2,d]
[2,d]
Exposure Concentration ("ug/nij =
CA x ET x EF x ED / AT
ET
Exposure time
hours/day
4
[3]
4
[3]
CA
Chemical concentration in air
Hg/m3
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
NA = not applicable; EPC = exposure point concentration
Sources:
[1] USEPA2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February.
[2] USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002. Dec
[3] Professional judgment.
[4] USEPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. July.
[5] USEPA2011. Exposure Factors Handbook.
[6] USEPA 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
Notes:
[a] Assumes exposure occurs over the course of 24 weeks when the ground is not covered with snow (May to September) at a frequency of 3 visits/week for a CTE visitor and 5 visits/week for an RME visitor.
[b] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 9 years is based on mean residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH (2011).
(2011).
[d] Averaging time expressed as days. Noncancer averaging time calculated by multiplying the exposure duration by 365 days/year. Cancer averaging time calculated by multiplying a 70 year lifetime for
cancer effects by 365 days/year.
[e] Assumes CTE value is half of the RME value.
[f] Assumes that the RME soil ingestion rate by a recreational visitor is equal to the USEPA default soil ingestion rate for a resident.
[g] Assumes that the exposed surface area is equal to the U SEPA default surface area for a resident which includes head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet.
[h] Assumes adherence factor equal to the soil adherence factor for a resident (USEPA 2004, Exhibit 3-3).
[i] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the 95th percentile for children age 8-12 years playing with dry soil for the RME value and equal to the geometric mean for the CTE value.
[j]Table 8-1. Time-weighted average for children aged 6 to <11 years andll to < 16years.
[k] Tables 7-2 and 7-8. Time weighted average for older children/adolescents aged 6-16 years based on head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet consistent with other receptors.
[l]Assumes same ratio of RME:CTE exposure duration as adult (9:26 years)
[m] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the geometric mean for daycare children age 1-6.5 years playing indoors and outdoors.
CCR_RAGS D Series 3_4_5_6_7 Tables_APPENDIX G.xlsx Table 4.3
-------
Table 4.4
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Time Frame: Current/Future
Medium: Rail line soils
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Points: Main Rail Line
Receptor Population: Low-frequency Recreational Visitc
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Route
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Units
RME
Value
RME
Rationale/
Reference
CT
Value
CT
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Ingestion
BW
EF
ED
AT
AT
CF
IR
CS
Body weight
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Conversion factor
Ingestion rate
Chemical concentration in soil
kg
days/year
years
days
days
kg/mg
mg soil/day
mg/kg
80
72
26
25,550
9,490
0.000001
100
EPC
[1]
[3, a]
[l,3,5,c]
[2,d]
[2,d]
unit conversion
[l,3,f]
See table 3.1
80
24
9
25,550
3,285
0.000001
50
EPC
[1]
[3, a]
[3,5,b]
[2,d]
[2,d]
unit conversion
[3,e]
See table 3.1
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x IR x EF x ED / (BW x AT)
Dermal
BW
EF
ED
AT
AT
SA
AF
ABS
CF
Body weight
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Skin surface area available for contact
Sediment/soil-to-skin adherence factor
Dermal absorption factor - all COPCs
Conversion factor
kg
days/year
years
days
days
cm2
mg/cm2
unitless
kg/mg
80
72
26
25,550
9,490
6,032
0.07
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
1E-06
[1]
[3, a]
[l,3,5,c]
[2,d]
[2,d]
[1.3,g]
[1.3,h]
[4]
unit conversion
80
24
9
25,550
3,285
6,032
0.01
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
1E-06
[1]
[3, a]
[3,5,b]
[2,d]
[2,d]
[l>3,g]
[3,4,h]
[4]
unit conversion
Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x SA x AF x EF x ED x ABS / (BW x AT)
CS
Chemical concentration in soil
mg/kg
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
Inhalation
EF
ED
AT
AT
ET
CA
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Exposure time
Chemical concentration in air
days/year
years
hours
hours
hours/day
Hg/m3
72
26
613,200
227,760
4
EPC
[3, a]
[l,3,5,c]
[2]
[2]
[3]
See table 3.1
24
9
613,200
78,840
4
EPC
[3, a]
[3,5,b]
[2]
[2]
[3]
See table 3.1
Exposure Concentration ("ug/nij =
CA x ET x EF x ED / AT
NA = not applicable; EPC = exposure point concentration
Sources:
[1] USEPA2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February.
[2] USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002. Dec
[3] Professional judgment.
[4] USEPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. July.
[5] USEPA2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-090/052F.
[6] USEPA 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
Notes:
[a] Assumes exposure occurs over the course of 24 weeks when the ground is not covered with snow (May to September) at a frequency of 1 visit/week for a CTE visitor and 3 visits/week for an RME visitor.
[b] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 9 years is based on mean residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH (2011).
[c] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 26 years is based on the 90th percentile residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH
[d] Averaging time expressed as days. Noncancer averaging time calculated by multiplying the exposure duration by 365 days/year. Cancer averaging time calculated by multiplying a 70 year lifetime for
cancer effects by 365 days/year.
[e] Assumes CTE value is half of the RME value.
[f] Assumes that the RME soil ingestion rate by a recreational visitor is equal to the USEPA default soil ingestion rate for a resident.
[g] Assumes that the exposed surface area is equal to the U SEPA default surface area for a resident which includes head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet.
[h] Assumes adherence factor equal to the soil adherence factor for a resident (USEPA 2004, Exhibit 3-3).
[i] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the 95th percentile for children age 8-12 years playing with dry soil for the RME value and equal to the geometric mean for the CTE value.
[j]Table 8-1. Time-weighted average for children aged 6 to <11 years andll to < 16years.
[k] Tables 7-2 and 7-8. Time weighted average for older children/adolescents aged 6-16 years based on head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet consistent with other receptors.
[l]Assumes same ratio of RME:CTE exposure duration as adult (9:26 years)
[m] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the geometric mean for daycare children age 1-6.5 years playing indoors and outdoors.
[1] Assumes the soil ingestion rate for an adolescent is twice that of an adult.
CCR RAGS D Series 3 4 5 6 7 Tables APPENDIX G.xlsx Table 4.4
-------
Table 4.5
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Time Frame: Current/Future
Medium: Rail line soils
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Points: Main Rail Line
Receptor Population: Low-frequency Recreational Visitc
Receptor Age: Adolescent (6-16 years)
Exposure
Route
Parameter
Code
Parameter Definition
Units
RME
Value
RME
Rationale/
Reference
CT
Value
CT
Rationale/
Reference
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Ingestion
BW
EF
ED
AT
AT
CF
IR
CS
Body weight
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Conversion factor
Ingestion rate
Chemical concentration in soil
kg
days/year
years
days
days
kg/mg
mg soil/day
mg/kg
44.3
72
10
25,550
3,650
0.000001
100
EPC
[5j]
[3, a]
[3]
[2,d]
[2,d]
unit conversion
[6]
See table 3.1
44.3
24
3
25,550
1,095
0.000001
50
EPC
[5j]
[3, a]
[3,1]
[2,d]
[2,d]
unit conversion
[6,e]
See table 3.1
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x IR x EF x ED / (BW x AT)
Dermal
BW
EF
ED
AT
AT
SA
AF
ABS
CF
Body weight
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Skin surface area available for contact
Sediment/soil-to-skin adherence factor
Dermal absorption factor - all COPCs
Conversion factor
kg
days/year
years
days
days
cm2
mg/cm2
unitless
kg/mg
44.3
72
10
25,550
3,650
4,520
0.4
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
1E-06
[5j]
[3, a]
[3]
[2,d]
[2,d]
[3,5,k]
[3,4,i]
[4]
unit conversion
44.3
24
3
25,550
1,095
4,520
0.04
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
1E-06
[5j]
[3, a]
[3,1]
[2,d]
[2,d]
[3,5,k]
[3,4,i]
[4]
unit conversion
Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x SA x AF x EF x ED x ABS / (BW x AT)
CS
Chemical concentration in soil
mg/kg
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
Inhalation
EF
ED
AT
AT
ET
CA
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
Exposure time
Chemical concentration in air
days/year
years
hours
hours
hours/day
Hg/m3
72
10
613,200
87,600
4
EPC
[3, a]
[3]
[2]
[2]
[3]
See table 3.1
24
3
613,200
26,280
4
EPC
[3, a]
[3,1]
[2]
[2]
[3]
See table 3.1
Exposure Concentration ("ug/nij =
CA x ET x EF x ED / AT
NA = not applicable; EPC = exposure point concentration
Sources:
[1] USEPA2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February.
[2] USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002. Dec
[3] Professional judgment.
[4] USEPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. July.
[5] USEPA2011. Exposure Factors Handbook.
[6] USEPA 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
Notes:
[a] Assumes exposure occurs over the course of 24 weeks when the ground is not covered with snow (May to September) at a frequency of 4 visits/week for a CTE visitor and 7 visits/week for an RME visitor.
[b] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 9 years is based on mean residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH (2011).
(2011).
[d] Averaging time expressed as days. Noncancer averaging time calculated by multiplying the exposure duration by 365 days/year. Cancer averaging time calculated by multiplying a 70 year lifetime for
cancer effects by 365 days/year.
[e] Assumes CTE value is half of the RME value.
[f] Assumes that the RME soil ingestion rate by a recreational visitor is equal to the USEPA default soil ingestion rate for a resident.
[g] Assumes that the exposed surface area is equal to the U SEPA default surface area for a resident which includes head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet.
[h] Assumes adherence factor equal to the soil adherence factor for a resident (USEPA 2004, Exhibit 3-3).
[i] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the 95th percentile for children age 8-12 years playing with dry soil for the RME value and equal to the geometric mean for the CTE value.
[j]Table 8-1. Time-weighted average for children aged 6 to <11 years andll to < 16years.
[k] Tables 7-2 and 7-8. Time weighted average for older children/adolescents aged 6-16 years based on head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet consistent with other receptors.
[l]Assumes same ratio of RME:CTE exposure duration as adult (9:26 years)
[m] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the geometric mean for daycare children age 1-6.5 years playing indoors and outdoors.
CCR_RAGS D Series 3_4_5_6_7 Tables_APPENDIX G.xlsx Table 4.5
-------
Table 4.6
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Time Frame: Current/Future
Medium: Rail line soils
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Points: Main Rail Line
Receptor Population: Low-frequency Recreational Visitc
Receptor Age: Child (0-6 years)
Exposure
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Units
RME
RME
CT
CT
Intake Equation/
Route
Code
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Model Name
BW
Body weight
kg
15
[1]
15
[1]
EF
Exposure frequency
days/year
72
[3, a]
24
[3, a]
ED
Exposure duration
years
6
[1]
2
[3,1]
Ingestion
AT
AT
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
days
days
25,550
2,190
[2,d]
[2,d]
25,550
730
[2,d]
[2,d]
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x IR x EF x ED / (BW x AT)
CF
Conversion factor
kg/mg
0.000001
unit conversion
0.000001
unit conversion
IR
Ingestion rate
mg soil/day
200
[1-3,f]
100
[3,e]
CS
Chemical concentration in soil
mg/kg
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
BW
Body weight
kg
15
[1]
15
[1]
EF
Exposure frequency
days/year
72
[3, a]
24
[3, a]
ED
Exposure duration
years
6
[1]
2
[3,1]
AT
Averaging time - carcinogens
days
25,550
[2,d]
25,550
[2,d]
Dermal
AT
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
days
2,190
[2,d]
730
[2,d]
Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day)=
SA
Skin surface area available for contact
cm2
2,690
[1.3,g]
2,690
[1,3,g]
CS x CF x SA x AF x EF x ED x ABS / (BW x AT)
AF
ABS
Sediment/soil-to-skin adherence factor
Dermal absorption factor - all COPCs
mg/cm2
unitless
0.2
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
[1,3,h]
[4]
0.04
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
[3,4,m]
[4]
CF
Conversion factor
kg/mg
1E-06
unit conversion
1E-06
unit conversion
CS
Chemical concentration in soil
mg/kg
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
EF
Exposure frequency
days/year
72
[3, a]
24
[3, a]
ED
Exposure duration
years
6
[1]
2
[3,1]
Inhalation
AT
AT
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
hours
hours
613,200
52,560
[2]
[2]
613,200
17,520
[2]
[2]
Exposure Concentration ("ug/nij =
CA x ET x EF x ED / AT
ET
Exposure time
hours/day
4
[3]
4
[3]
CA
Chemical concentration in air
Hg/m3
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
NA = not applicable; EPC = exposure point concentration
Sources:
[1] USEPA2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February.
[2] USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002. Dec
[3] Professional judgment.
[4] USEPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. July.
[5] USEPA2011. Exposure Factors Handbook.
[6] USEPA 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
Notes:
[a] Assumes exposure occurs over the course of 24 weeks when the ground is not covered with snow (May to September) at a frequency of 4 visits/week for a CTE visitor and 7 visits/week for an RME visitor.
[b] Assumes that area residents make up the majority of the recreational visitor population. Value of 9 years is based on mean residential occupancy period presented in Table 16-108 of EFH (2011).
(2011).
[d] Averaging time expressed as days. Noncancer averaging time calculated by multiplying the exposure duration by 365 days/year. Cancer averaging time calculated by multiplying a 70 year lifetime for
cancer effects by 365 days/year.
[e] Assumes CTE value is half of the RME value.
[f] Assumes that the RME soil ingestion rate by a recreational visitor is equal to the USEPA default soil ingestion rate for a resident.
[g] Assumes that the exposed surface area is equal to the U SEPA default surface area for a resident which includes head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet.
[h] Assumes adherence factor equal to the soil adherence factor for a resident (USEPA 2004, Exhibit 3-3).
[i] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the 95th percentile for children age 8-12 years playing with dry soil for the RME value and equal to the geometric mean for the CTE value.
[j]Table 8-1. Time-weighted average for children aged 6 to <11 years andll to < 16years.
[k] Tables 7-2 and 7-8. Time weighted average for older children/adolescents aged 6-16 years based on head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet consistent with other receptors.
[l]Assumes same ratio of RME:CTE exposure duration as adult (9:26 years)
[m] Exhibit 3-3. Assumes adherence factor equal to the geometric mean for daycare children age 1-6.5 years playing indoors and outdoors.
CCR_RAGS D Series 3_4_5_6_7 Tables_APPENDIX G.xlsx Table 4.6
-------
Table 4.7
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Time Frame: Current/Future
Medium: Rail line soils
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil and Subsurface Soil
Exposure Points: Main Rail Line
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Units
RME
RME
CT
CT
Intake Equation/
Route
Code
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Value
Rationale/
Reference
Model Name
BW
Body weight
kg
80
[1]
80
[1]
EF
Exposure frequency
days/year
250
[3, a]
219
[6]
ED
Exposure duration
years
1
[3,b]
0.5
[3,b]
Ingestion
AT
AT
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
days
days
25,550
365
[2,d]
[2,d]
25,550
183
[2,d]
[2,d]
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day)=
CS x CF x IR x EF x ED / (BW x AT)
CF
Conversion factor
kg/mg
0.000001
unit conversion
0.000001
unit conversion
IR
Ingestion rate
mg soil/day
330
[8,c]
100
[6]
CS
Chemical concentration in soil
mg/kg
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
BW
Body weight
kg
80
[1]
80
[1]
EF
Exposure frequency
days/year
250
[3, a]
219
[6]
ED
Exposure duration
years
1
[3,b]
0.5
[3,b]
AT
Averaging time - carcinogens
days
25,550
[2,d]
25,550
[2,d]
Dermal
AT
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
days
365
[2,d]
183
[2,d]
Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day)=
SA
Skin surface area available for contact
cm2
3,470
[l,g]
3,470
[l,g]
CS x CF x SA x AF x EF x ED x ABS / (BW x AT)
AF
ABS
Sediment/soil-to-skin adherence factor
Dermal absorption factor - all COPCs
mg/cm2
unitless
0.3
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
[4,h]
[4]
0.1
Chemical-specific, see
Table 5.1
[4,h]
[4]
CF
Conversion factor
kg/mg
1E-06
unit conversion
1E-06
unit conversion
CS
Chemical concentration in soil
mg/kg
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
EF
Exposure frequency
days/year
250
[3, a]
219
[6]
ED
Exposure duration
years
1
[3,b]
0.5
[3,b]
Inhalation
AT
AT
Averaging time - carcinogens
Averaging time - non-carcinogens
hours
hours
613,200
8,760
[2]
[2]
613,200
4,392
[2]
[2]
Exposure Concentration ("ug/nij =
CA x ET x EF x ED / AT
ET
Exposure time
hours/day
8
[3,f]
8
[3,f]
CA
Chemical concentration in air
Hg/m3
EPC
See table 3.1
EPC
See table 3.1
NA = not applicable; EPC = exposure point concentration
Sources:
[1] USEPA2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors.
OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February.
[2] USEPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002. December.
[3] Professional judgment.
[4] USEPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E). Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. July.
[5] USEPA2011. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-090/052F.
[6] USEPA 2003. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated
with Adult Exposure to Lead. Final. EPA-540-R-03-001. January.
[7] USEPA 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure.
[8] USEPA 2002. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites.
Notes:
[a] Assumes exposure frequency of 5 days/week for a RME receptor.
[b] Assumes construction/excavation project of 6 month (CTE) or 1 year (RME) duration.
[c] Exhibit 5-1. Default value for construction scenario (330 mg/day) is based on the 95th percentile value for adult soil intake rates reported in a soil ingestion mass-balance study.
[d] Averaging time expressed as days. Noncancer averaging time calculated by multiplying the exposure duration by 365 days/year. Cancer averaging time calculated by multiplying a 70 year lifetime for
cancer effects by 365 days/year.
[e] Assumes CTE value is half of the RME value.
[f] Assumes the entire workday is outdoors.
[g] Assumes that the exposed surface area is equal to the USEPA default for a worker.
[h] Exhibit 3-3. 95th percentile value (0.3) assumed for the RME receptor and the geometric mean value (0.1) assumed for the CTE receptor.
CCR_RAGS D Series 3_4_5_6_7 Tables_APPENDIX G.xlsx Table 4.7
-------
TABLE 5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Chemical of
Potential
Concern
CAS
Chronic/
Subchronic
Oral RfD
Oral Absorption
Efficiency for
Dermal
Absorbed RfD for Dermal1
Primary Target
Organ(s)
Combined
Uncertainty/Mo
difying Factors
RfD : Target Organ(s)
Value
Units
Value
Units
Source
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY
Cadmium
Zinc
7440-43-9
7440-66-6
Chronic
Chronic
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
0.025
1.00
2.5E-05
3.0E-01
mg/kg-day
mg/kg-day
kidney
blood
10/1
3/1
I
I
2/1/1994
8/3/2005
Source: EPA Regional Screening Level Table January 2015 (http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/).
'Absorbed Reference Doses for Dermal were derived using the Oral Reference Dose as follows: RFE^g = RfD0 * ABSGI (Equation 4.3 from USEPA 2004)
RfD Sources: I = IRIS
CCR RAGS D Series 3 4 5 6 7 Tables APPENDIX G.xlsx
5.1 - Oral-Dermal NC
-------
TABLE 5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
CAS RN
Chronic/
Subchronic
Inhalation RfC
Primary
Target
Organ(s)
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
Data Source
Value
Units
Source
Date
(MM/DD/YYYY)
Cadmium
Zinc
7440-43-9
7440-66-6
Chronic
1.00E-05
NV
(mg/m3)
Respiratory
3/3
A
09/2012
Source: EPA Regional Screening Level Table January 2015 (http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfiind/prg/).
RfD Source: A = ATSDR
NV = no value
Table 5.2 Inhalation NC
-------
TABLE 6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Chemical of Potential Concern
CAS
Oral Cancer Slope Factor
Oral Absorption
Efficiency for
Dermal
Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor
Weight of
Evidence/Cancer
Guideline Description
Data Source
Value
Units
Value
Units
Source(s)
Dates(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
Cadmium
Zinc
7440-43-9
7440-66-6
NV
NV
Source: EPA Regional Screening Level Table January 2015 (http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/).
NV = no value
CCR RAGS D Series 3 4 5 6 7 Tables APPENDIX G.xlsx Table 6.1 Oral Dermal C
-------
TABLE 6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Inhalation Unit Risk
Weight of Evidence/
Data Source
Chemical
CAS RN
Unit Risk
Units
Cancer Guideline
Source(s)
Date(s)
Description
(MM/DD/YYYY)
Cadmium
7440-43-9
1.80E-03
(Hg/m3)"1
B1
I
6/1/1992
Zinc
7440-66-6
NV
Weight of Evidence/Cancer Guideline Description
Sources: A = Human carcinogen. Sufficient evidence of cancer in humans.
NV = no value B1 - Probable human carcinogen indicates that limited human data are available.
I = IRIS B2 = Probably human carcinogen. Sufficieint evidence of cancer in animals, but lack of data or insufficient data from humans.
C = Possible human carcinogen
D = Cannot be evaluated. No evidence or inadequate evidence of cancer in animals or humans.
E = Not classified
Table 6.2 Inhalation C
-------
TABLE 7.1.CT
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Receptor Population:
Adult
Receptor Age:
>16 years
Medium
Receptor
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Exposure Route
Chemical of
EPC
Cancer Risk Calculations
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern
Value
Units
Intake/Exposure
Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Cancer Risk
Intake/Exposure
Concentration
RfD/RfC
Hazard
Quotient
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
5.7E-06
7.7E-04
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
6E-03
3E-03
Exp. Route Total ||
8E-03
Soil
High-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
6.9E-09
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
3E-04
Exp. Route Total ||
3E-04
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.4E-07
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
3E-10
1.1E-09
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
1E-04
Exp. Route Total ||
3E-10
1E-04
Receptor Total
3E-10
9E-03
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.9E-06
2.7E-04
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
2E-03
9E-04
Exp. Route Total
3E-03
Soil
Low-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
2.3E-09
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
9E-05
Exp. Route Total
9E-05
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
4.9E-08
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
9E-11
3.8E-10
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
4E-05
Exp. Route Total
9E-11
4E-05
Receptor Total
9E-11
3E-03
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
4E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
3.3E-05
4.6E-03
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
3E-02
2E-02
Exp. Route Total
5E-02
Soil
Construction
Worker
Surface Soil and
Subsurface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
4E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.1E-07
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
5E-03
Exp. Route Total
5E-03
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
4E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.9E-05
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
4E-08
2.7E-06
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
3E-01
Exp. Route Total
4E-08
3E-01
Receptor Total
4E-08
3E-01
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
4E-08
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Receptors
3E-01
Table 7.1.CT-adult
-------
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Receptor Population:
Adult
Receptor Age:
>16 years
Medium
Receptor
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point 1 Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
EPC
Cancer Risk Calculations
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Value
Units
Intake/Exposure
Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Cancer Risk
Intake/Exposure
Concentration
RfD/RfC
Hazard
Quotient
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
High-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
1 Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.9E-05
2.6E-03
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
2E-02
9E-03
| Exp. Route Total
3E-02
1 Dermal
Main Rail Lines 1
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
8.1E-08
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
3E-03
| Exp. Route Total
3E-03
1 Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
7.0E-07
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
1E-09
1.9E-09
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
2E-04
|| Exp. Route Total
1E-09
2E-04
Receptor Total
1E-09
3E-02
Soil
Low-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
1 Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.2E-05
1.6E-03
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1E-02
5E-03
| Exp. Route Total ||
2E-02
1 Dermal
Main Rail Lines |
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
4.9E-08
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
2E-03
II Exp. Route Total ||
2E-03
1 Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
4.2E-07
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
8E-10
1.1E-09
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1E-04
|| Exp. Route Total ||
8E-10
1E-04
Receptor Total
8E-10
2E-02
Soil
Construction
Worker
Surface Soil and
Subsurface Soil
1 Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
4E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.2E-04
1.7E-02
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1E-01
6E-02
| Exp. Route Total ||
2E-01
1 Dermal
Main Rail Lines 1
Cadmium
Zinc
4E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
3.9E-07
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
2E-02
l| Exp. Route Total ||
2E-02
1 Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
4E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
4.5E-05
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
8E-08
3.1E-06
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
3E-01
|| Exp. Route Total ||
8E-08
3E-01
Receptor Total
8E-08
5E-01
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
8E-08
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Receptors
6E-01
Table 7.1.RME-adult
-------
TABLE 7.2.CT
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/F uture
Receptor Population:
Adolescent
Receptor Age:
6-16 yrs
Medium
Receptor
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Exposure Route
Chemical of
EPC
Cancer Risk Calculations
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern
Value
Units
Intake/Exposure
Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Cancer Risk
Intake/Exposure
Concentration
RfD/RfC
Hazard
Quotient
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.0E-05
1.4E-03
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1E-02
5E-03
Exp. Route T otal
1E-02
Soil
High-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
3.7E-08
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
1E-03
Exp. Route T otal
1E-03
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
4.8E-08
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
9E-11
1.1E-09
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
1E-04
Exp. Route T otal
9E-11
1E-04
Receptor Total
9E-11
2E-02
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
3.5E-06
5.0E-04
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
3E-03
2E-03
Exp. Route T otal
5E-03
Soil
Low-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.3E-08
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
5E-04
Exp. Route T otal
5E-04
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.6E-08
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
3E-11
3.8E-10
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
4E-05
Exp. Route T otal
3E-11
4E-05
Receptor Total
3E-11
6E-03
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
1E-10
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Receptors
2E-02
Table 7.2.CT-adolescent
-------
TABLE 7.2.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Receptor Population:
Adolescent
Receptor Age:
6-16 yrs
Medium
Receptor
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Exposure Route
Chemical of
EPC
Cancer Risk Calculations
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern
Value
Units
Intake/Exposure
Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Cancer Risk
Intake/Expo sure
Concentration
RfD/RfC
Hazard
Quotient
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
3.4E-05
4.6E-03
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
3E-02
2E-02
Exp. Route Total
5E-02
Soil
High-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
6.2E-07
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
2E-02
Exp. Route Total
2E-02
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
2.7E-07
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
5E-10
1.9E-09
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
2E-04
Exp. Route Total
5E-10
2E-04
Receptor Total
5E-10
8E-02
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
2.1E-05
3.0E-03
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
2E-02
1E-02
Exp. Route Total
3E-02
Soil
Low-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
3.8E-07
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
2E-02
Exp. Route Total
2E-02
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.6E-07
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
3E-10
1.1E-09
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1E-04
Exp. Route Total
3E-10
1E-04
Receptor Total
3E-10
5E-02
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
8E-10
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Receptors
1E-01
Table 7.2.RME-adolescent
-------
TABLE 7.3.CT
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/F uture
Receptor Population:
Child
Receptor Age:
0-6 years
Medium
Receptor
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Exposure Route
Chemical of
EPC
Cancer Risk Calculations
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern
Value
Units
Intake/Exposure
Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Cancer Risk
Intake/Exposure
Concentration
RfD/RfC
Hazard
Quotient
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
6.1E-05
8.2E-03
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
6E-02
3E-02
Exp. Route T otal
9E-02
Soil
High-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
6.6E-08
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
3E-03
Exp. Route T otal
3E-03
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
3.2E-08
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
6E-11
1.1E-09
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
1E-04
Exp. Route T otal
6E-11
1E-04
Receptor Total
6E-11
9E-02
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
2.1E-05
2.9E-03
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
2E-02
1E-02
Exp. Route T otal
3E-02
Soil
Low-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
2.2E-08
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
9E-04
Exp. Route T otal
9E-04
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.1E-08
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
2E-11
3.8E-10
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
4E-05
Exp. Route T otal
2E-11
4E-05
Receptor Total
2E-11
3E-02
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
8E-11
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Receptors
1E-01
Table 7.3.CT-child
-------
TABLE 7.3.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Cherokee County OU8 - Rail Lines
Scenario Timeframe:
Current/Future
Receptor Population:
Child
Receptor Age:
0-6 years
Medium
Receptor
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Exposure Route
Chemical of
EPC
Cancer Risk Calculations
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern
Value
Units
Intake/Exposure
Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Cancer Risk
Intake/Expo sure
Concentration
RfD/RfC
Hazard
Quotient
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Value
Units
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
2.0E-04
2.7E-02
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
2E-01
9E-02
Exp. Route Total
3E-01
Soil
High-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
5.5E-07
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
2E-02
Exp. Route Total
2E-02
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
6E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.6E-07
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
3E-10
1.9E-09
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
2E-04
Exp. Route Total
3E-10
2E-04
Receptor Total
3E-10
3E-01
Ingestion
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
1.2E-04
1.8E-02
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1E-01
6E-02
Exp. Route Total
2E-01
Soil
Low-frequency
recreational visitor
Surface Soil
Main Rail Lines
Dermal
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
3.3E-07
mg/kg-d
2.5E-05
mg/kg-d
1E-02
Exp. Route Total
1E-02
Inhalation
Cadmium
Zinc
5E+01
7E+03
mg/kg
mg/kg
9.7E-08
mg/kg-d
1.8E-03
(Hg/m3)4
2E-10
1.1E-09
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1.0E-05
mg/kg-d
mg/kg-d
1E-04
Exp. Route Total
2E-10
1E-04
Receptor Total
2E-10
2E-01
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
5E-10
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Receptors
5E-01
Table 7.3.RME-child
-------
Appendix K
Streamlined Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Streamlined Ecological Risk
Assessment
Cherokee County Railroads Site
Operable Unit Eight
6/24/2015
Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Branch
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 7
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
June 2014
Streamlined Ecological Risk
Assessment
Cherokee County Railroads Site
Operable Unit Eight
6/24/2015
Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Branch
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 7
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
June 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0. INTRODUCTION 1
2.0. PREVIOUS ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 1
2.1. TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT 2
2.2. AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT 4
3 .0. PROBLEM FORMULATION 5
3.1. CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN 5
3.2. MIGRATION PATHWAYS 5
3.2.1. Chat on Ballast to Surface Soil Migration 5
3.2.2. Surface Soil to Sediment/Surface Water 6
3.2.3. Soil to Air Migration 7
3.2.4. Biological/Food Chain 7
3.3. ASSESSMENTENDPOINTS 7
3.3.1. Vermivore Communities 8
3.3.2. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities 8
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION AND DATA ANALYSIS 8
4.1. DATA ANALYSIS 10
5.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 10
6.0. RISK SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 14
7.0 UNCERTAINTIES 15
7.1. ANALYTICAL DATA 15
7.2. UNCERTAINTY OF SCREENING CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN 16
7.3. UNCERTAINTY OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL 16
7.4 UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH TOXICOLOGICAL STUDIES 17
7.4.1. Variable Toxicity in the Aquatic Environment 17
7.4.2. Extrapolation of Laboratory Toxicity Tests to Natural Conditions 17
7.4.3. Differences between Responses of Test Species and Receptor Species 17
7.4.4. Differences in Chemical Forms of Contaminants 17
7.4.5. Variability in Toxicity Reference Values 17
7.4.6. Extrapolation of Individual-Level Effects to Population-Level Effects 18
7.5. UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 18
8.0. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22
9.0. REFERENCES 24
APPENDIX A: TOXICITY PROFILES 28
APPENDIX B: ECOLOGICAL CLEAN-UP LEVELS (SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS) 37
APPENDIX C: DATA REVIEW 38
APPENDIX D: FIGURES 39
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
June 2014
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1.0 Wildlife Soil Criteria 4
2.0 Measured Migration of Lead from the Base of the Rail Ballast 6
3.0 Measurement Endpoints 8
4.0 Concentrations of Cadmium, Lead and Zinc in Surface Soil Compared to Clean-Up
Levels 11
5.0 Concentrations of Cadmium, Lead and Zinc in Sediment Compared to Clean-Up
Levels 14
6.0 Concentrations of Cadmium, Lead and Zinc in Surface Water Compared to Clean-Up
Levels 14
7.0 Calculation of Rail Line Specific Clean-Up Levels for Lead 20
8.0 Calculation of Rail Line Specific Clean-Up Levels for Zinc 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Figure 5 Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Locations
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
1.0. SITE BACKGROUND
The Cherokee County Superfund Site is part of the Tri-State Mining District, which covers
approximately 2,500 square miles in northeast Oklahoma, southeast Kansas and southwest
Missouri. The Cherokee County site includes 115 square miles in the Kansas portion of the
TSMD (Figure 1).
Between 1850 and 1970, the TSMD produced 500 million tons of lead-zinc ore. The Cherokee
County Superfund Site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1983. As listed, the site
includes the following seven sub-sites: Galena, Baxter Springs, Treece, Badger, Lawton, Waco,
and Crestline. These seven sub-sites encompass most of the area where mining occurred within
the site and where physical surface disturbances were evident.
The site consists of mine tailings, soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater contaminated
with heavy metals (principally lead, zinc, and cadmium). The primary sources of contamination
are residual metals in the abandoned mine workings, chat piles, and tailing impoundments in
addition to historical impacts from smelting operations. During the years the mines operated,
railroads were constructed in Cherokee County to join conventional large-scale railroads to the
individual mining operations (Figure 2). Historically, the ballast used in the railroad beds was
composed of chat from surrounding mine waste piles. Traditionally, these historical railroads
were abandoned in place when mining operations ceased at a mine. Currently, the historical rail
lines that cross through private property vary in condition from showing little degradation to
being unidentifiable as former rail lines. Depending on the current use of the area, some former
rail lines exhibit extensive vegetative re-growth with a thick organic layer, having been almost
entirely incorporated into the surrounding area.
Numerous remedial and removal actions have taken place in several operable units, as noted in
the Record of Decision and ROD amendments for the site. Several historical rail lines have been
addressed during previous remedial actions on properties where they were encountered. Also,
some lines may have been completely removed as a result of subsequent construction activities,
such as highway cuts. However, Operable Unit Eight includes rail lines that are potentially
contaminated, but have not been addressed under previous remedial activities. Because clean-up
levels have been developed for Cherokee County (EPA, 2006) and the TSMD (MacDonald et al.,
2010), this risk assessment employs a streamlined approach in which the terrestrial and aquatic
exposure point concentrations are compared directly to existing clean-up levels. This is similar to
the approach used in a screening level ecological risk assessment; however, the clean-up levels
are based on site-specific data and exposure assumptions.
2.0. PREVIOUS ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
1
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Several studies have been published demonstrating the deleterious effects of mine waste on a
number of ecological endpoints. This section provides a brief summary of ecological studies that
have been completed to date.
2.1. TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
Bird toxicity from exposure to mine waste or mining-impacted media (water, sediment, etc.) has
been confirmed in the TSMD. As early as 1923, deaths of mallards, pintails, and teal on the
Spring River (near Riverton, KS), were reported (Phillips and Lincoln, 1930). The deaths were
attributed to lead poisoning from sediments contaminated with mine waste. Sileo etal. (2003)
diagnosed zinc poisoning in three Canada geese and one mallard collected in the TSMD. These
four waterfowl had mild to severe degenerative abnormalities of the exocrine pancreas with zinc
concentrations in the liver and pancreas consistent with tissue concentrations detected in
waterfowl experimentally poisoned with zinc. The pancreatitis described has been widely used to
diagnose zinc poisoning in pet or captive birds that have swallowed hardware or other items
containing zinc (Droual etal., 1991; Zdziarski et al., 1994). Based on pancreatic lesions and
increased tissue concentrations, Carpenter et al. (2004) diagnosed zinc poisoning in a trumpeter
swan that had been observed on a TSMD mill pond for four weeks. This swan was weak,
stumbled, and was taken to the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University. The
bird was not rehabilitated and died within a day.
Beyer et al. (2005) evaluated the effects of metal contamination in wild birds from the TSMD.
Waterfowl were the only birds from the TSMD that had significantly increased zinc
concentrations in both livers and kidneys. Overall, the study found that the habitat in the TSMD
is contaminated to the extent that zinc toxicosis in waterfowl may occur, but the route of
exposure is uncertain Tissue concentrations of zinc were not elevated significantly in non-
waterfowl species. However, tissue concentrations have been shown to be imperfect indicators of
exposure in birds. For example, songbirds from a site severely contaminated with zinc from
smelting had whole-body zinc concentrations that were increased only 20% compared with
concentrations in songbirds from a reference site, although there was a > 10-fold difference in
soil zinc concentrations (Beyer et al., 1985). This is likely due to the fact that birds regulate zinc
effectively within a wide range of exposure. Several of the non-waterfowl species from the study
did however exhibit tissue concentrations of lead associated with impaired biological functions
and external signs of poisoning.
In addition to documented cases of zinc poisoning in birds, zinc is known to be toxic to horses at
high concentrations. Zinc toxicosis in horses from the TSMD has been reported for decades, with
foals being particularly sensitive to the effects of elevated zinc in soil. The signs of zinc
poisoning in foals are swelling at the epiphyseal region of long bones, joint cartilage lesions
(osteochondrosis), lameness, walking on the tips of the hooves, and unthriftiness (Willoughby et
al., 1972; Gunson etal., 1982; Eamens et al., 1984; Kowalczyk etal., 1984). Although cadmium
may have a role in causing injury (Gunson et al., 1982), the induction of the toxic signs through
2
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
the experimental feeding of zinc oxide to foals (Willoughby et al., 1972) strongly suggests that
zinc is the main cause of the toxicity. Signs of zinc poisoning in foals are distinct from those of
lead poisoning, which is characterized by pharangeal and laryngeal paralysis (Willoughby et al.,
1972). Toxic concentrations of zinc in foals induce copper deficiency (Eamens et al., 1984), and
copper is required by the enzyme lysyl oxidase, which catalyzes the cross linking of cartilage and
elastin. Weakened or thinner cartilage may become eroded in joints, leading to osteochondrosis.
The critical time for a foal is when it is a few months old, has been weaned, is rapidly growing
and is let out into pasture. Also, wildlife such as deer from the vicinity of zinc smelters have
been found to exhibit similar joint lesions (Sileo and Beyer, 1985).
As part of the ecological risk assessment for the Cherokee County Site, EPA calculated high and
low potential effects of zinc toxicity for foals in pastures (EPA, 2006). These potential effects
were calculated based on two assumptions. First, the risks were modeled specifically for
juveniles, which are more sensitive to zinc toxicity. Second, it was assumed that as vegetation
becomes more stunted due to increasing soil zinc concentrations, horses would ingest increasing
amounts of soil while attempting to forage for food. A soil concentration of 8,500 mg/kg was
determined to be the zinc concentration at which a high potential for zinc toxicosis in horses
exists. Whereas, a soil concentration of 1,000 mg/kg was determined to be the zinc concentration
below which horses are unlikely to be affected by zinc.
In addition to calculating soil concentrations protective of horses, EPA ecologists developed
preliminary remediation goals for metals-impacted soil for select terrestrial receptors at the site
based on site-specific data. It was determined that ecological PRGs for soil ranged from 1.0 to
10.0 mg/kg for cadmium; 377 to 1,175 mg/kg for lead; and 156 to 1,076 mg/kg for zinc.
The RODs and ROD amendments for the Cherokee County sub-sites have outlined the remedial
action objectives and associated clean-up levels for soil, sediment and surface water that are
considered protective of the environment. Based on the PRGs proposed for the site, the following
ecological clean-up levels were selected for soil (EPA, 2006):
• 10 mg/kg cadmium
• 400 mg/kg lead
• 1,100 mg/kg zinc
The clean-up levels for Cherokee County generally fall within the ranges of recently developed
wildlife screening concentrations (Ford and Beyer, 2014). WSCs were developed to determine
the need for risk assessment, remediation or changes in management practices on public lands
impacted by mining. WSCs are meant to represent concentrations above which animals may
exhibit impaired health from exposure to metals.
3
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Table 1. Wildlife Soil Criteria (Ford and Beyer, 2014).
Wildlife Receptor
Cadmium (mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Zinc (mg/kg)
Deer Mouse
18
191
1437
Cottontail
25
262
1973
Bighorn
24
1224
1066
White-tailed Deer
15
1627
1238
Mule Deer
15
1650
1256
Elk
21
2339
1780
Mourning Dove
9
133
634
Mallard
25
637
1896
Canadian Goose
32
536
2393
Cattle
20
1127
1600
Sheep
23
1146
992
Horse
21
142
1674
Range WSC
9-32
133-2339
634-2393
Cherokee County
Clean-up Level
10
400
1,100
2.2. AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
The effects of metal contamination in the TSMD on aquatic life have also been documented. The
Spring River and its tributaries represent the principal watershed in Cherokee County. An
advanced screening level ecological risk assessment of the aquatic habitats within the TSMD
(MacDonald et al., 2010) found moderate to high risks to the benthic community at several
locations within the middle and lower Spring River, as well as on tributaries such as Cow Creek,
Shawnee Creek, Willow Creek and Tar Creek.
Moreover, field studies on freshwater mussels native to Kansas (Angelo et al., 2007) indicate
significant impacts to local mussel populations as a result of surficial mine waste washing into
stream systems and impacting the surface water and sediments. Metals associated with the
mining process have caused toxic effects in fish (Schmitt et al., 1993), and limited the population
of the Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus), which is a federally listed fish species (Wildhaber et
al., 2000).
Site-specific sediment clean-up levels were developed by MacDonald etal. (2010). The TSMD
sediment clean-up levels are based on a 20% increase in toxicity to amphipods, midges and/or
freshwater mussels relative to the mean for a reference sample. These response rates are referred
to as T20 values. The T20 values are the basis for the following sediment clean-up levels:
• Cadmium - 17.3 mg/kg
• Lead-219 mg/kg
• Zinc - 2,949 mg/kg
4
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
3.0 PROBLEM FORMULATION
The problem formulation phase establishes the goals, breadth, and focus of the ecological risk
assessment (EPA, 1997). This critical component of the process establishes the assessment
endpoints, based on a well-defined site conceptual model (Figure 3). Defining the ecological
problems to be addressed involves identifying toxic mechanisms of the contaminants of concern,
characterizing potential receptors, estimating exposure and potential risks, as well as identifying
the data quality objectives for the ecological risk assessment.
3.1. CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Based on sampling events conducted during previous investigations, the primary contaminants of
concern are cadmium, lead, and zinc. These contaminants are typically associated with mine
wastes in the TSMD. Various other metals are often found at these mining sites; however,
cadmium, lead, and zinc are considered the primary risk drivers. Toxicity assessments for the
primary COCs can be found in Appendix A.
3.2. MIGRATION PATHWAYS
The sources of contamination for OU8 are the rail beds, which likely contain high metal
concentrations in the chat material used to construct the ballasts. Based on the nature of the
contamination in Cherokee County, and the physical characteristics of the site, potential routes of
contaminant migration include the following:
¦ Chat on Ballast-to-Soil
¦ Soil-to-Surface Water/Sediment Migration
¦ Air-to-Soil Migration
¦ Biological/Food Chain Transfer
The following subsections present a discussion of each potential route of contaminant migration
for the site.
3.2.1. Chat on Ballast-to-Soil Migration. Contamination on rail lines may be transported by
the wind or surface water runoff and deposited in adjacent soil. The extent of contaminant
migration from the Cherokee County rail lines to surrounding soil was evaluated by EPA (EPA,
2013). Ten rail bed locations were identified to study this potential migration pathway. Using an
XRF instrument, lead concentrations in surface soil were measured along transects from the base
(one or both sides) of each rail bed (Table 2). XRF measurements were taken at five meter
intervals. The study found that lead concentrations declined to either background levels or below
5
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
clean-up levels within 5 to 10 meters of the base. At many locations, the lead concentration at the
base of the ballast did not exceed background or site-specific clean-up levels.
However, at one location (Location 2), lead concentrations remained significantly elevated at 40
meters from the base. At this particular location, the property owner had removed the material
from the rail line and distributed over the property. The full extent of contamination on this
property has not been fully assessed, as no further measurements were taken beyond 40 meters.
However, based on the overall patterns documented in the field survey, EPA concluded that
unless the ballast material has been manipulated, the extent of contamination off the rail bed due
to wind and surface run-off is primarily confined to within 5 to 10 meters of the base. Although
data for other metals is not available, it is assumed that other metals follow a similar pattern of
dispersion.
Table 2. Measured Migration of Lead from the Base of the Rail Ballast
Location #1
Base 1
5 m
7m
Base 2
1.5 m
Concentration (mg/kg)
95
65
47
111
43
Location #2
Base 1
5 m
40 m
Concentration (mg/kg)
678
516
721
Location #3
Base 1
5 m
15 m
Concentration (mg/kg)
165
99
98
Location #4
Base 1
5 m
Concentration (mg/kg)
160
17
Location #5
Base 1
5 m
Base 2
5 m
Concentration (mg/kg)
49
NA
83
60
Location #6
Base 1
5 m
Concentration (mg/kg)
214
29
Location #7
Base 1
5 m
Concentration (mg/kg)
30
16
Location #8
Base 1
5 m
Concentration (mg/kg)
28
32
Location #9
Base 1
5 m
Base 2
5 m
Concentration (mg/kg)
92
44
79
49
Location #10
Base 1
5 m
Base 2
5 m
Concentration (mg/kg)
155
18
113
32
In addition to the potential migration of contaminated material from rail beds to surrounding soil,
the rail lines themselves deteriorate as vegetation begins to take hold. This successional process
builds up the soil on the lines such that the metals are mixed with an organic soil layer.
3.2.2. Soil to Surface Water/Sediment Migration. Contaminants from rail beds may be
transported by the wind or surface water runoff to the soil surrounding the rail lines, and
6
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
deposited in down gradient floodplains, surface waters and/or settle in surface water bodies as
sediment. This migration pathway is particularly relevant at rail bridge locations.
3.2.3. Soil to Air Migration. Fine-grained materials from source areas (particularly rail beds
and rail cars) may be transported by the wind and released to the atmosphere. Constituents bound
to surface soils may be transported as suspended particulates or dust to downwind locations.
Factors influencing the potential for dust entrainment into the atmosphere include surface
roughness, surface soil moisture, soil particle sizes, type and amount of vegetative cover, amount
of soil surface exposed to the eroding wind force, physical and chemical properties of the soil,
wind velocity, and other meteorological conditions.
3.2.4. Biological/Food Chain Migration. Biological migration may occur through uptake,
bioaccumulation, and food-chain transfer.
3.3. ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS
An assessment endpoint is "an explicit expression of the environmental value that is to be
protected" (EPA, 1992). A measurement endpoint is defined as "a measurable ecological
characteristic that is related to the valued characteristic chosen as the assessment endpoint" and
is a measure of biological effects (e.g., mortality, reproduction, growth) (EPA, 1992).
Measurement endpoints are frequently numerical expressions of observations (e.g., toxicity test
results, community diversity measures) that can be compared statistically to a control or
reference site to detect adverse responses to a site contaminant.
The conceptual model establishes the complete exposure pathways that will be evaluated in the
ERA and the relationship of the measurement endpoints to the assessment endpoints (Figure 3).
The relationship of the selected measurement endpoint to the assessment endpoints are presented
in Table 3. The site-specific assessment endpoints for OU8 are based on the assessment and
measurement endpoints used to derive the clean-up levels already established in the ROD for
Cherokee County. The assessment endpoint used to address terrestrial risk in the Cherokee
County ROD includes protection of the growth, reproduction and survival of ground-feeding
vermivores (the American woodcock and the short-tailed shrew). The assessment endpoint used
to address aquatic risk includes protection of the growth and survival of benthic
macroinvertebrate communities.
7
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Table 3. Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Exposure and Effects.
Assessment Endpoint
Measures of Exposure/Effects
Survival, growth and reproduction of
vermivore birds and mammals
Modeled exposure point concentrations were
compared to toxicity reference values for survival,
growth and reproduction of the short-tailed shrew
and American woodcock (Appendix B).
Survival, growth and reproduction of
benthic invertebrates
Survival and growth of the amphipod, Hyalella
azteca, in 28-day sediment exposures. Survival and
growth of the midge, Chironomus dilutus, in 10-day
sediment exposures. Survival and growth of the
freshwater mussel, Lampsilis siliquoidea, in 28-day
sediment exposures (Appendix B).
3.3.1. Vermivore Communities. Food chain transfer of contaminants from terrestrial soil
invertebrates to higher trophic level organisms is an important exposure pathway. Therefore,
survival, growth and reproduction of terrestrial vermivore communities exposed to metals
present in terrestrial invertebrate tissue is included as an assessment endpoint. The ecological
clean-up levels established in the ROD are based on potential risk to the short-tailed shrew and
American woodcock (Appendix B).
3.3.2. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities. Benthic invertebrate communities are
directly exposed to sediment, surface water, and sediment pore water. They have been shown to
be sensitive to metal contamination at the site. Therefore, survival, growth and reproduction of
benthic macroinvertebrate communities exposed to metals in sediment and surface water is
included as an assessment endpoint. The aquatic clean-up levels for sediment established in
MacDonald et al. (2010) are based on potential risk to the benthic macroinvertebrate community
(Appendix B).
4.0. SITE INVESTIGATION AND DATA ANALYSIS
The site investigation included the collection of data necessary to evaluate the exposure and
effects of contaminants of concern on ecological assessment endpoints. Specific information
pertaining to field sampling, including standard operating procedures and quality assurance and
quality control can be found in the field sampling and quality assurance and quality control plans
for this site (HGL, 2013; EPA, 2013). The following data has been collected and evaluated:
• Soil - The remedial investigation included surface and subsurface soil samples from 33
former rail line locations distributed throughout roughly 100 miles of Cherokee County
(Figure 4). Soil samples were collected from the surface to a depth of 4 feet (in 6-inch
intervals). Metal concentrations were analyzed using a combination of a portable XRF
instrument and fixed-laboratory confirmation analyses (inductively coupled plasma
8
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
atomic emission spectroscopy [ICP-AES]). ICP analysis is available for surface soil from
nine of the 33 locations. For ecological risk assessment purposes, soil is generally
collected at the 0-12 inch depth interval. Therefore, at all locations, results from the 0-6
inch and 6-12 inch depth intervals were used to estimate potential risk to terrestrial
receptors.
To determine the best use of the mixed XRF and ICP data, a data adequacy review was
conducted by SRC (2014) (Appendix C). The review found that the 2013 ICP soil data
for cadmium, lead and zinc is adequate for use in the human health risk assessment.
Additionally, the 2013 XRF soil data for lead and zinc were considered adequate for use
in human health risk assessment. Further, SRC proposed that whenever ICP data are
available at a sampling location, these data are preferred over XRF data from the same
station, and only the ICP data would be included in the calculation of an exposure point
concentration for that location. If only XRF data for lead or zinc are available for a
sampling location, then the ICP-equivalent concentration estimated from XRF results are
included in the calculation of EPCs. XRF data for cadmium were not recommended for
use in risk assessment because XRF results for cadmium did not meet data adequacy
criterion.
This ERA utilizes the approach recommended by SRC (2014) for the human health risk
assessment. ICP data was used where available, and ICP-equivalent data was used to
estimate concentrations for lead and zinc at the remaining locations. The ICP-equivalent
concentration is based on the following formulas for the log-transformed XRF vs. ICP
data (SRC, 2014):
o Lead: ICP-equivalent = 1.05 (XRF) - 0.131 (R2 = 0.82)
o Zinc: ICP-equivalent = 0.986 (XRF) - 0.876 (R2 = 0.88)
Soil samples were collected and analyzed at the center (sample identification letter A) of
each rail line at all locations. Additionally, at several locations, the lateral extent of
contamination was evaluated using XRF (or in some cases ICP) at locations radiating out
from the center. The data adequacy review found statistically significant differences for
center versus lateral samples. However, in an effort to use the ICP data that is available
for the site, lateral locations in which ICP data is available were used to estimate an EPC,
even if ICP data for the center was not available. At some locations, ICP data is available
for the center location as well as a lateral location. In those cases, the EPC is based on the
center location. For locations with only XRF data (ICP-equivalent), the center location
was used to calculate the EPC.
Finally, the data adequacy review evaluated trends in contaminant concentrations in
surface (0-6 inches) versus subsurface (>6 inches) soils. Based on the results of a
9
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between surface
and subsurface soils was found. On that basis, there are no discernable vertical/depth
trends, indicating that soil data can be combined across depth intervals. Therefore, the
ICP data from either a 0-6 inch interval or 6-12 inch interval was used to estimate the
EPC, based on the assumption that either depth range would be a relatively good estimate
of the concentration for the 0-12 inch depth interval. Because ICP-equivalent
concentrations can be calculated for both depth intervals, EPCs are based on the mean of
the 0-6 inch and 6-12 inch concentrations.
• Surface Water and Sediment - Nine surface water and sediment samples have been
collected at locations adjacent to abandoned rail line bridges (Figure 5). Surface water
samples were analyzed for dissolved metals and hardness. Bulk sediment was analyzed
for total metals.
4.1. DATA ANALYSIS
This ERA utilizes a streamlined approach to evaluate soil, sediment and surface water data. The
ecological clean-up levels for soil have already been established in the Record of Decision for
Cherokee County (OU3 and OU4) (EPA, 2006). The clean-up levels for sediment are based on
the values established for the Tri-State Mining District (MacDonald et al., 2010). Finally, surface
water clean-up levels are based on chronic National Ambient Water Quality Criteria, and are
adjusted based on site specific hardness. Based on the assessment endpoints selected for the
development of the Cherokee County clean-up levels, each of the 33 rail bed locations and nine
stream location are considered separate exposure areas.
5.0. STREAMLINED RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Because clean-up levels have already been developed for Cherokee County, a streamlined
approach was used to characterize ecological risk in which exposure point concentrations are
compared directly to clean-up levels. This is similar to the approach used in a SLERA; however,
clean-up levels are based on site-specific data and exposure assumptions. Risk characterization
results can be found in Tables 4-7.
10
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
11
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Table 4. Concentrations of Cadmium, Lead and Zinc in Surface Soi
Location
EPC Method
Depth
Cadmium
Cadmium
Lead
Lead
Zinc
Zinc
Interval
(mg/kg)
Exceeds
(mg/kg)
Exceeds
(mg/kg)
Exceeds
(inches)
Clean-up
Level
Clean-up
Level
Clean-up
Level
CCR-SS-1A
ICP
0-6
42.6
Yes
490
Yes
9870
Yes
CCR-SS-2A
ICP
6-12
84.6
Yes
1940
Yes
16200
Yes
CCR-SS-3A
ICP
6-12
29.2
Yes
417
Yes
4500
Yes
CCR-SS-4A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
852.0
Yes
8718.2
Yes
CCR-SS-4A
ICP-
equivalent
6-12
NA
NA
512.9
Yes
10137.3
Yes
CCR-SS-4 (mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
682.5
Yes
9427.8
Yes
CCR-SS-5BN
ICP
6-12
24.1
Yes
3260
Yes
7170
Yes
CCR-SS-6A
ICP
6-12
24.3
Yes
322
No
6080
Yes
CCR-SS-7B
ICP
6-12
40.3
Yes
270
No
9610
Yes
CCR-SS-8B
ICP
6-12
79.3
Yes
906
Yes
16800
Yes
CCR-SS-9A
ICP
0-6
48.2
Yes
369
No
11900
Yes
CCR-SS-10A
ICP
0-6
38.6
Yes
398
No
8190
Yes
CCR-SS-11A
ICP
0-6
38.8
Yes
827
Yes
12600
Yes
CCR-SS-12B
ICP
0-6
45.1
Yes
457
Yes
12000
Yes
CCR-SS-13A
ICP
6-12
46.5
Yes
820
Yes
9420
Yes
CCR-SS-14A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
114.7
No
7794.5
Yes
CCR-SS-14A
ICP-
6-12
NA
NA
152.9
No
4984.5
Yes
Compared to Clean-Up Levels.
12
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
equivalent
CCR-SS-14(mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
133.8
No
6389.5
Yes
CCR-SS-15A
ICP
0-6
16.4
Yes
461
Yes
2330
Yes
CCR-SS-16A
ICP
0-6
16.8
Yes
528
Yes
2530
Yes
CCR-SS-17A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
686.3
Yes
9265.8
Yes
CCR-SS-17A
ICP-
equivalent
6-12
NA
NA
552.5
Yes
28786.5
Yes
CCR-SS-17(mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
619.4
Yes
19026.2
Yes
CCR-SS-18A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
499.6
Yes
18424.0
Yes
CCR-SS-18A
ICP-
equivalent
6-12
NA
NA
326.8
No
34809.3
Yes
CCR-SS-18(mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
413.2
Yes
26616.7
Yes
CCR-SS-19A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
1342.5
Yes
1187.5
Yes
CCR-SS-19A
ICP-
equivalent
6-12
NA
NA
284.2
No
1395.2
Yes
CCR-SS-19(mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
813.4
Yes
1291.4
Yes
CCR-SS-20A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
14.0
No
300.8
No
CCR-SS-20A
ICP-
6-12
NA
NA
14.0
No
310.1
No
13
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
equivalent
CCR-SS-20(mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
14.0
No
305.5
No
CCR-SS-21C
ICP
6-12
12.9
Yes
916
Yes
3470
Yes
CCR-SS-22A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
872.1
Yes
5322.4
Yes
CCR-SS-22A
ICP-
equivalent
6-12
NA
NA
860.6
Yes
4847.9
Yes
CCR-SS-22(mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
866.4
Yes
5085.2
Yes
CCR-SS-23A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
361.0
No
11055.3
Yes
CCR-SS-23A
ICP-
equivalent
6-12
NA
NA
302.4
No
9269.6
Yes
CCR-SS-23(mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
331.7
No
10162.5
Yes
CCR-SS-24A
ICP
6-12
36.5
Yes
609
Yes
6640
Yes
CCR-SS-25A
ICP
6-12
49.2
Yes
1960
Yes
14100
Yes
CCR-SS-26A
ICP
0-6
37.2
Yes
884
Yes
8100
Yes
CCR-SS-27A
ICP
6-12
54.5
Yes
4200
Yes
12100
Yes
CCR-SS-28A
ICP
6-12
69.8
Yes
466
Yes
12500
Yes
CCR-SS-29A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
216.3
No
29492.2
Yes
CCR-SS-29A
ICP-
equivalent
6-12
NA
NA
224.7
No
24420.4
Yes
CCR-SS-29(mean)
ICP-
0-12
NA
NA
220.5
No
26956.3
Yes
14
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
equivalent
CCR-SS-30A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
456.1
Yes
7441.8
Yes
CCR-SS-30A
ICP-
equivalent
6-12
NA
NA
792.5
Yes
16113.8
Yes
CCR-SS-30(mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
624.3
Yes
11777.8
Yes
CCR-SS-31A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
531.2
Yes
8778.7
Yes
CCR-SS-31A
ICP-
equivalent
6-12
NA
NA
552.0
Yes
9237.2
Yes
CCR-SS-
31A(mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
541.6
Yes
9008
Yes
CCR-SS-32A
ICP-
equivalent
0-6
NA
NA
840.1
Yes
20983.7
Yes
CCR-SS-32A
ICP-
equivalent
6-12
NA
NA
798.4
Yes
10662.4
Yes
CCR-SS-32(mean)
ICP-
equivalent
0-12
NA
NA
819.3
Yes
15823.01
Yes
CCR-SS-33A
ICP
6-12
60
Yes
727
Yes
11600
Yes
Soil clean-up levels for Cherokee County are 10 mg/kg for cadmium, 400 mg/kg
or lead, and
,100 mg/kg for zinc.
15
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
16
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Table 5. Concentrations of Cadmium, Lead and Zinc in Sediment Compared to Clean-up Levels.
Location
Cadmium
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
Exceeds
Clean-up
Level
Lead
(mg/kg)
Lead
Exceeds
Clean-up
Level
Zinc
(mg/kg)
Zinc
Exceeds
Clean-up
Level
CCR-SD01
6.9
No
46.6
No
205
No
CCR-SD02
6.4
No
78.5
No
1940
No
CCR-SD03
20.9
Yes
152
No
4010
Yes
CCR-SD04
3.5
No
39.3
No
299
No
CCR-SD05
5.4
No
74.8
No
761
No
CCR-SD07
CCR-SD08
CCR-SD09
j. j | 1NO
7.9 ! No
1.5 i No
56.4
49.1
22,9
No
__
__
258 ! No
1 17 : No
95.9 ! No
Sediment clean-up levels are 17.3 mg/kg for cadmium; 219 mg/kg for lead, and 2,949 mg/kg for
zinc (MacDonald et al., 2010).
Table 6. Concentrations of Cadmium, Lead and Zinc in Surface Water compared to Clean-Up
Levels.
Location
Hardness
Cadmium
(HS/L)
WQC
(Mg/L)
Cadmium
Exceeds
Criteria
Lead
(Mg/L)
WQC
(HS/L)
Lead
Exceeds
Criteria
Zinc
(HS/L)
WQC
(HS/L)
Zinc Exceeds
Criteria
CCR-
SW01
150
0.12U
0.3
No
1.0U
3.9
No
20.4
111.1
No
CCR-
SW02
500
0.12U
0.8
No
1.0U
13.7
No
1130
308
Yes
CCR-
SW03
249
0.12U
0.5
No
LOU
6.7
No
402
170.7
Yes
CCR-
SW04
88.4
0.231
0.2
Yes
LOU
2.2
No
55
71
No
CCR-
SW05
114
0.12U
0.3
No
LOU
2.9
No
39.6
88.1
No
CCR-
SW06
415
0.12U
0.7
No
LOU
11.4
No
26.1
263.1
No
CCR-
SW07
136
0.12U
0.3
No
LOU
3.5
No
24.6
102.3
No
CCR-
SW08
207
0.137
0.4
No
LOU
5.5
No
37
146
No
CCR-
SW09
226
0.13
0.4
No
LOU
6.04
No
26.2
157.2
No
Surface water clean-up levels are based on chronic NAWQC, and are adjusted based on site-
specific hardness measurements.
17
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
6.0. RISK SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This section provides a more detailed discussion of the results from the comparison of detected
concentrations to clean-up levels and NAWQC. Zinc and cadmium contamination is widespread
on the rail lines. Cadmium concentrations are elevated above clean-up levels at every location
evaluated, based on ICP data. Zinc concentrations are elevated at every location, except for
Location 20. Lead contamination on the rail lines is slightly less widespread, with eight locations
not exceeding the soil clean-up level.
The aquatic data indicate relatively low levels of surface water and sediment contamination
where rail lines cross water bodies. Sediment concentrations of cadmium and zinc exceed clean-
up levels at one location, SD03. Likewise, zinc concentrations in surface water are above
NAWQC at SW03. This particular location is adjacent to the Spring River within the city of
Baxter Springs. The closest rail line sample is Location 20, which was the only rail line location
that did not exceed terrestrial clean-up levels for any contaminant. Therefore, the
sediment/surface water contamination at SD03/SW03 may not be attributable to the rail line. The
SLERA for aquatic habitats in the TSMD (MacDonald et al., 2010) found high risks to the
benthic community in the Spring River above the tributary; however, only moderate risks to the
benthic community in the Spring River were found adjacent to the tributary. Therefore, the
Spring River may be influencing metal concentrations to some degree. There may also be
groundwater-to-surface water interactions at this location, which may cause elevated zinc
concentrations. Finally, there may be impacts from other unkown sources.
Zinc also exceeds NAWQC at SW02, which is within the city of Baxter Springs, just
downstream from rail line locations 32 and 33. Extremely high concentrations of zinc were
found at these rail line locations. Therefore, the contamination in Willow Creek (SW02) may be
due to the rail line. Also, the TSMD SLERA found high risk to the benthic community at the
confluence of the Spring River and Willow Creek, which is directly downstream of SW02.
Finally, cadmium exceeds NAWQC at Location 4. Location 4 is located in the headwaters of Tar
Creek, where the stream is ephemeral. The hardness at Location 4 is quite low compared to the
rest of the locations. This low hardness value reduced the criteria value for cadmium, resulting in
Location 4 exceeding clean-up levels even though the cadmium concentration is only slightly
above detection limits.
7.0 UNCERTAINTIES
There are inherent uncertainties in the risk assessment process; however, knowledge of the cause
and potential effects of these uncertainties permits the risk assessor and risk manager to interpret
and use the risk assessment in making site management decisions. Sources of uncertainty fall
18
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
into several categories including analytical and sampling design, assumptions, natural variability,
error, and insufficient knowledge. Risk assessment is essentially the integration of the exposure
and hazard assessments. Sources of uncertainty associated with either of these elements may
contribute to overall uncertainty. In addition, the risk assessment procedure itself can contribute
to overall uncertainty. Each of these sources of uncertainty can be addressed differently;
therefore, understanding how each of these sources of uncertainty is handled within the risk
assessment is integral to the overall interpretation.
7.1. ANALYTICAL DATA
The analytical database has inherent uncertainties. For example, the contribution of the chemical
of potential concern across the site was assumed to coincide with receptor contact with
environmental media. The degree to which this assumption is met is not quantifiable and
direction of bias cannot be measured. Also, there are relatively long stretches of rail line (15-20
miles) that are characterized by only one sample (or two samples close together). The
assumption that contamination is uniform between sample locations is an uncertainty, with the
uncertainty increasing relative to the distances between sampling locations.
7.2. UNCERTAINTY OF SCREENING CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Although not primary risk drivers, other metals would likely be detected in the rail line soil
samples. The extent of contamination due to other metals is unknown, as they were not evaluated
by XRF or ICP. These metals were screened from the risk assessment based on management
decisions related to the site history and not quantitative analyses. As a result, actual site risks
were likely underestimated in some locations. Several of the additional metals have different
mechanisms of toxicity that could change risk conclusions.
Also, there known synergistic and antagonistic relationships between metals which could affect
fate, transport, and ecotoxicity. There is currently no way to quantify those relationships or how
they impact the overall toxicity of metals to receptors at the site.
7.3. UNCERTAINTY OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL.
Organisms use their environment unevenly, and differential habitat use based on habitat quality
is a source of uncertainty. Natural variability is an inherent characteristic of ecological systems,
and there is a limit to our understanding of the population dynamics of most species, and the
community interactions that exist between species. The complexity of ecological systems must
be considered when interpreting the results of measurement endpoints as they relate to the
assessment endpoint being evaluated.
19
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
At this site in particular, there is a great deal of variability in the condition of the former rail
lines. Lines with an established plant community, which have become incorporated into the
surrounding environment, provide better habitat than lines that remain elevated above the
surrounding environment and have little established vegetation.
Also, the exposure model is based on the "average" behavior of a species. As such, extremes of
behavior are not incorporated into the overall exposure assessment. While these assumptions
may not apply to all individuals, they are generally applicable at the population level. While not
all of the biological variability is captured in the assessment, no directional bias is introduced.
Finally, an additional source of uncertainty is the exclusion of the air pathway due not only to
lack of data, but also due to the lack of physiological and toxicological data necessary to evaluate
this exposure pathway. While this may not generate significant amounts of additional COC
exposure, it may be a contributor to overall risks.
7.4. UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH TOXICOLOGICAL STUDIES
7.4.1. Variable Toxicity in the Aquatic Environment. There are specific uncertainties
related to toxicity of contaminants in the aquatic environment. Temporal variations and
variations related to climatic conditions can significantly increase or decrease the toxicity of
metals. These variations may affect the concentration of individual metals, other essential
nutrients, and hardness, which in turn affects metal toxicity and bioavailability.
7.4.2. Extrapolation of Laboratory Toxicity Tests to Natural Conditions. The
toxicological data that were used to evaluate the implications of estimated doses of metals to
receptors of concern constitute a source of uncertainty in the assessment. For example,
organisms used in toxicity tests conducted in laboratories are not necessarily subjected to the
same degree of non-toxicant related stress as receptors under natural conditions. In general,
laboratory toxicity tests use single toxicants while receptors in the field are exposed to multiple
toxicants. Multiple toxicants can behave indpendently (such as when modes of action are very
different), they may act additively (or synergistically), such that expression of effects is driven
by several toxicants simultaneously, or they may interact antagonistically. Cumulative effects of
multiple stressors are not necessarily the same. It is difficult to predict the direction of bias in this
case as laboratory conditions and natural conditions each may stress organisms but the relative
magnitude and physiological implications of these stresses are not actually comparable. Also,
due to the differences in the health of laboratory and field populations, differences in genetic
diversity (and hence resistance to stressors), and possible impacts of non-toxicant stressors, some
unavoidable uncertainty exists when extrapolating laboratory derived data to field situations.
Given these factors, the difference between conducting laboratory tests with single stressors as
compared to natural conditions with multiple stressors adds to the uncertainty regarding the
conclusions of this risk assessment. In addition, although it is believed that the important
20
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
potential sources of toxicity have been addressed, it is possible that there are unmeasured or
unconsidered stressors at the site.
7.4.3. Differences between Responses of Test Species and Receptor Species. Toxicological
studies also use species that, while they may be related to the taxa being evaluated at the site, are
rarely identical. In general, the greater the taxonomic difference, the greater the uncertainty
associated with the application of study data to the receptors of potential concern.
7.4.4. Differences in Chemical Forms of Contaminants. Many toxicological studies use
chemical formulations and/or administration methods that do not relate well to field exposures.
For example, many of the lead toxicology studies cited use lead acetate for exposures because it
is known that this is one of the most bioavailable forms of lead. Lead in the environment at the
site may not have similar bioavailability. The Cherokee County ecological clean-up levels
account for some of this uncertainty, as they are calculated based on an estimated relative
bioavailability of 40% (Beyer et al., unpublished).
7.4.5. Variability in Toxicity Reference Values. In some cases there may be a significant
difference between the no effect and lowest effect level toxicity reference values used to estimate
risk to a receptor. The actual point at which effects are seen could be anywhere in the range
between these two values. The greater the range between the two values, the greater the
uncertainty associated with the conclusions.
7.4.6. Extrapolation of Individual-Level Effects to Population-Level Effects. Laboratory
based bioassays or toxicity tests measure the response of a laboratory "population" of organisms
to the stressor under consideration. These populations generally represent a low diversity genetic
stock and, as such, probably do not represent the range of sensitivities and tolerances
characteristic of natural populations. As such, there is uncertainty associated with extrapolation
of laboratory population responses to populations in natural systems. This uncertainty is
probably not directionally biased as both sensitive and tolerant individuals may be missing from
the laboratory populations.
7.5. UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Exposure calculations used in deriving clean-up levels were based on feeding rates assumed to
not vary with season, breeding condition, or with other local factors. Reported feeding rates
undoubtedly vary with all of these factors because metabolic needs change as does food
availability. The feeding rates were derived from studies that reported for multiple seasons.
Overall, conservative upper-end estimates of feeding rates were used, potentially over-estimating
risk.
Further, dietary compositions were assumed to not vary with season or local conditions. As with
feeding rates, this assumption is unlikely to be met. Also, in some cases, dietary compositions
21
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
were simplified due to lack of data. The assumption that the woodcock diet is composed of 100%
earthworms may also slightly over-estimate potential risk.
Finally, there is significant uncertainty associated with applying an area use factor of 100% to
OU8. The clean-up levels in the ROD for Cherokee County are based on this assumption;
however, rail line contamination is not homogenous throughout a receptor's home range.
Assuming 100% area use over-estimates potential risk due to the rail lines, as any one rail line
would only constitute a small fraction of the receptor's home range. Therefore, it may be useful
to estimate rail line specific clean-up levels based on slightly different exposure assumptions.
Prior to adjusting clean-up levels for the rail lines, it was determined that a simplified approach
could be taken by focusing on zinc and lead. Although cadmium concentrations were elevated at
every rail line location, zinc appears to diminish the toxicity of cadmium. The mechanisms of
zinc protection against cadmium toxicity have been variously attributed to metallothionein
induction, enhanced detoxification rates of cadmium, and competition with cadmium for the
same metalloenzyme sites. Thus, high concentrations of zinc may interfere with the absorption of
cadmium, and the high zinc-to-cadmium ratio (approximately 150 to 1) along with the close
correlation between these two elements probably protects terrestrial food chains somewhat from
cadmium toxicity (Chaney et al., 2001). Regardless of the mechanism, this phenomenon has
been noted by several researchers (Eisler, 1993; Fox et al., 1983; Kowalczyk et al., 1984).
More importantly, zinc toxicosis, (resulting in reduced survival) has been documented in both
birds and mammals in the TSMD. Lead poisoning has also been documented in waterfowl, and
elevated tissue concentrations of lead have been confirmed in wild birds (Beyer et al., 2004).
There are two ways to adjust the zinc and lead clean-up levels based on a rail line specific
exposure scenario. The dose could be adjusted by reducing the area use factor (as a percentage of
home range). However, given the small percentage of home range comprised of rail line, this
adjustment results in extremely high concentrations that may be above acutely toxic levels. An
alternative approach is to select toxicity reference values that would represent a short-term acute
exposure. Although the TRV is based on acute effects, the limited area represented by rail lines
is assumed to result in exposures that are even shorter in duration than the exposures used to
estimate the acute TRVs. This should be protective of sensitive species foraging on the rail line
for a short period of time. Moreover, for zinc in particular, organisms should be able to recover
from limited high exposure levels due to the physiological ability to regulate zinc.
For mammals, an acute TRV for zinc is based on a study by Domingo et al. (1988) in which
LD50 values in male Sprague Dawley rats and male Swiss mice after oral administration of zinc
sulphate were calculated. After a preliminary screening with small groups of 3 animals of each
species, ten animals in each group were used and observed for 14 days. Death occurred within
the first 48 hours. Toxicity signs included conjunctivitis, decreased food and water consumption
and hemorrhages and hematomas in the tail. Oral LD50 values for mice and rats were 926 mg/kg
22
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
bw and 1,710 mg/kg bw, respectively. Applying the LD50 value for mice from this study to the
model used to calculate the Cherokee County clean-up levels for the shrew (assuming an "acute"
exposure to soil via earthworms and incidental soil ingestion), a rail line clean-up level of 6,200
mg/kg zinc was calculated (Table 7). The lead TRV for mammals is based on a shrew specific
study (Pankakoski et al., 1994) in which effects on survival were noted after 31 days at a dose of
61.5 mg/kg bw. Based on this TRV, the resulting clean-up level for mammals is 1,770 mg/kg
(Table 7). All of the assumptions for the shrew that were used to calculate the Cherokee County
clean-up levels were retained, only the TRV was changed.
Similarly, an acute avian TRV for zinc is based on a study in ducks (Anas sp.) in which reduced
survival was found following a one-time dose of zinc metal shot equivalent to 742 mg/kg bw
(Eisler, 2000). The TRV for lead is based on a study by Kahn et al. (1993) in which effects on
survival were noted in juvenile chickens after exposure for 7 days at a dose of 400 mg/kg
bw/day. By applying these TRVs to the avian receptor (the American woodcock), and assuming
an exposure scenario in which a woodcock consumes a single dose of zinc or lead via
earthworms foraged from a rail line (with incidental soil), a rail line specific clean-up level of
4,000 mg/kg zinc and 7,800 mg/kg lead were calculated for birds (Table 8).
Between the values for birds and mammals, the lower (more protective) value should be used.
Based on this approach, the zinc clean-up level for birds should be applied (4,000 mg/kg) and the
lead clean-up level for mammals should be applied (1,770 mg/kg).
Table 7. Calculation of Rail Line Specific Clean-Up Levels for Lead.
Receptor
FIR
(mg/kg
bw/day)
Soil Ingestion
as Proportion
of diet
Cplants
(mg/kg/dw)
Cworm
(mg/kg/dw)
Csmall mammal
(mg/kg/dw)
TRV (mg/kg
bw/day)
Clean-up
Level
Shrew
0.209
0.03
17.6
778.8
29.4
61.5
1,770
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
NA
3432
NA
400
7,800
Cplants was estimated using the equation ln(plants) = 0.561 *ln(soil) - 1.328 (EPA, 2005)
Cworm was estimated using a site-specific soil-to-worm bioconcentration factor of 0.44
(Fitzpatrick et al., 1998)
Csmall mammal was estimated using the equation In(small mammal) = 0.4422*ln(soil) + 0.0761
(EPA, 2005)
Dose adjusted based on a relative bioavailability of 0.40 (Beyer et al., unpublished).
The shrew's diet is assumed to be 3% small mammal, 10% vegetation and 87% earthworm.
The woodcock's diet is assumed to be 100% earthworm.
Table 8. Calculation o:
Rail Line Specific Clean-Up Levels for Zinc.
Receptor
FIR
(mg/kg
bw/day)
Soil Ingestion
as Proportion
of diet
Cplants
(mg/kg/dw)
Cworm
(mg/kg/dw)
Csmall mammal
(mg/kg/dw)
TRV (mg/kg
bw/day)
Clean-up
Level
Shrew
0.209
0.03
620.4
10,478
145.8
926
6,200
Woodcock
0.214
0.164
NA
6,760
NA
742
4,000
23
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Cplants was estimated using the equation ln(plants) = 0.554*ln(soil) + 1.575 (EPA, 2007)
Cworm was estimated using site-specific soil-to-worm bioconcentration factor of 1.69 (Fitzpatrick
etal., 1998)
Csmall mammal was estimated using the equation ln(small mammal) = 0.0706*ln(soil) + 4.3632
(EPA, 2007)
Dose adjusted based on a relative bioavailability of 0.47 (Roussel, 2009).
The shrew's diet is assumed to be 3% small mammal, 10% vegetation and 87% earthworm.
The woodcock's diet is assumed to be 100% earthworm.
Other wildlife receptors are exposed to zinc on rail lines, including mourning doves, white-tailed
deer, turkey, prairie voles and deer mice. However, as the dose to vermivores includes higher
incidental soil ingestion rates compared to herbivores/carnivores, the clean-up levels for the
vermivores are generally protective of other wildlife species.
It should be noted that higher lead and zinc clean-up levels for the rail lines may not be
protective of receptors that are directly exposed to contamination, such as the plant and soil
invertebrate community. Stroh et al. (2009) calculated the concentrations of lead and zinc at
which decreases in floristic quality could be identified. The proposed rail line clean-up level of
4,000 mg/kg for zinc is well above the zinc concentration in which a 20% decline in floristic
quality was identified (2,515 mg/kg). At high levels of zinc in soil, a plant community may
become established; however, it will be less diverse as sensitive species are eliminated. The soil
invertebrate community would be similarly affected. Although earthworms from Jasper County
have been found in areas with lead and zinc concentrations far exceeding sub-lethal and lethal
TRVs for soil invertebrates (Fitzpatrick et al., 1998), the overall abundance is low. Further,
many of the worms collected from affected areas in Jasper County had total zinc concentrations
over 5,000 mg/kg, which establishes the fact that the earthworm exposure pathway can be
significant.
Based on the rail line specific exposure assumptions, the following locations would not exceed a
revised clean-up levels:
• 15
• 16
• 19
• 20
• 21
8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
24
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Zinc and cadmium contamination is widespread on the rail lines. Cadmium concentrations are
elevated above clean-up levels at every location evaluated using ICP data. Zinc concentrations
are elevated at every location, except for Location 20. Lead contamination on the rail lines is
slightly less widespread, with eight locations not exceeding the clean-up level. Potential effects
on the aquatic community were identified at three locations, with one location (SD02/SW02)
where zinc from the rail line may be the primary cause of contamination. The other locations do
not appear to be contaminated directly by the rail lines.
Clean-up levels for lead and zinc were also developed to account for the limited wildlife
exposure due to rail line contamination. These clean-up levels are based on the same terrestrial
assessment endpoint and corresponding exposure assumptions for vermivore receptors used to
calculate the Cherokee County ecological clean-up levels. However, the TRV accounts for a
short-term (acute) exposure scenario. These rail line specific clean-up levels include 1,770 mg/kg
for lead and 4,000 mg/kg for zinc. The higher clean-up levels for rail lines result in an additional
4 locations that do not exceed clean-up levels. Therefore, the higher levels do not have a
significant effect on any potential remediation at OU8. Further, these clean-up levels would only
be applicable to rail lines that have not been disturbed by land owners and are not surrounded by
other mining related impacts. Only in these cases would the limited exposure assumptions apply.
25
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
9.0 REFERENCES
Angelo, R., M. Cringan, D. Chamberlain, S. Haslouer, A. Stahl, and C. Goodrich. 2007. Residual
effects of lead and zinc mining on freshwater mussels in the Spring River Basin (Kansas,
Missouri, and Oklahoma, USA). Science of the Total Environment 384(l-3):467-496.
Beyer, W.N., J. Dalgarn, S. Dudding, J. French, R. Mateo, J. Sileo, and L. Spann. 2005._Zinc and
lead poisoning in wild birds in the tri-state mining district (Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri).
Arch Environ Contam. Toxicol. 2005 Jan. 48(1): 108-17.
Beyer, W.N, O.H. Pattee, L. Sileo, D.J. Hoffman, and B.M. Mulhern. 1985. Metal contamination
in wildlife living near two zinc smelters.Environ Pollut 38:63-86
Carpenter, J.W., G. A. Andrews, and W.N. Beyer. 2004. Zinc toxicosis in a free-flying trumpeter
swan (Cygnus buccinator). J. Wild. Dis. 40(4)769-774.
Chaney, R.L., J. A. Ryan, and P.G. Reeves. 2001. Strategies in soil protection - missions and
visions. Proc. Symposium on Soil Protection in the United States: Congress of the German and
Austrian Soil Science Societies (Sept. 5, 2001, Vienna Austria). Trans. Austrian Soil Sci. Soc.
74:53-66.
Domingo, J. L., J.M. Llobet, J.L. Paternain, and J. Corbella. 1988. Acute Zinc Intoxication:
Comparison of the antidotal efficacy of several chelating agents. Veterinary and Human
Toxicology 30(3): 224-8.
Droual, R.C., U. Meteyer, and F.D. Galey. 1991. Zinc toxicosis due to ingestion of a penny in a
gray-headed chachalaca (Ortalis cinereiceps). Avian Dis 35:1007-1011.
Eamens, G.J., J.F. Macadam, and E.A. Laing. 1984. Skeletal Abnormalities in Young Horses
associated with Zinc Toxicity and Hypocuprosis. Aust. Vet. J. 61:205-207.
Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook of Chemical Risk Assessment: Health Hazards to Humans, Plants,
and Animals. Volume 1: Metals.
EPA. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/63-R-92/001.
26
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. U.S. EPA. EPA 540/R97/006.
EPA. 2003. Guidance for developing ecological soil screening levels (Eco-SSLs). OSWER
Directive 92857-55.
EPA. 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Lead. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70.
EPA. 2006. Record of Decision Amendment. Cherokee County Superfund Site. Baxter Springs
and Treece Subsites. Operable Units #03 and #04. Cherokee County, Kansas.
EPA. 2007. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Zinc. OSWER Directive 9285.7-73.
EPA. 2013. Ecological Risk Assessment Field Sampling Plan. Cherokee County OU8 Railroads
Site. Cherokee County, Kansas
Fitzpatrick, L.C., B.J. Venables, and A. Mota. 1998. Study of Indigenous Earthworms at the
Jasper County, Missouri Superfund Site: Relationships of Earthworm Distribution, Abundance
and Body-Burden Concentrations of Cd, Pb, and Zn to Metal Concentrations and Physico-
Chemical Properties of Soil, and Potential Toxicity Associated with Exposure to Soil Metals.
Final Report to Environmental Management Services Company.
Ford, K.L. and W.N. Beyer. 2014. Soil Criteria to Protect Terrestrial Wildlife and Open-Range
Livestock from Metal Toxicity on Mining Sites. Environ. Monit. Assess. (2014) 186:1899-1905.
Fox, M.R.S. 1988. Nutritional Factors that may Influence Bioavailability of Cadmium. J.
Environ. Qual. 17:175-180.
Gunson, D.E., D.F. Kowalzcyk, C.R. Shoop, and C.F. Ramberg. 1982. Environmental Zinc and
Cadmium Pollution Associated with Generalized Osteochondrosis, Osteoperosis, and
Nephrocalcinosis in Horses. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 180:295-299.
HGL. 2013. Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan. Remedial Investigation for Cherokee County
OU8 Railroads Site. Cherokee County, Kansas.
Khan, M. Z., J. Szarek, A. Krasnodebska-Depta, and A. Koncicki. 1993. Effects of concurrent
administration of lead and selenium on some haematological and biochemical parameters of
broiler chickens. Acta Vet Hung. 41(1-2): 123-37.
27
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Kowalzcyk, D.F., D.E. Gunson, C.R. Shoop, and D.F. Ramberg. 1986. The Effects of Natural
Exposure to High Levels of Zinc and Cadmium in the Immature Pony as a Function of Age.
Environ. Res. 40:285-300.
MacDonald, D., D. Smorong, C. Ingersoll, J. Besser, W. Brumbaugh, N. Kemble, T. May, C.
Ivey, S. Irving , and M. O'Hare. 2010. Development and Evaluation of Sediment and Pore-Water
Toxicity Thresholds to Support Sediment Quality Assessments in the Tri-State Mining District
(TSMD), Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Draft Final Technical Report. Volume I: Text.
Pankakoski, E.A., I. Koivisto, H. Hyvarinen, and J. Terhivuo. 1994. Shrews as
indicators of heavy metal pollution. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication
(18): 137-149.
Phillips, J.C. and Lincoln F.C. 1930. American waterfowl: their present situation and the
outlook for their future. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Roussel, H., C. Waterlot, A. Pelfrene, C. Pruvot, M. Mazzuca, and F. Douay. 2010. Cd, Pb and
Zn Oral Bioaccessibility of Urban Soils Contaminated in the Past by Atmospheric Emissions
from Two Lead and ZincSmelters. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol (2010) 58:945-954.
Schmitt, C.J., M.L. Wildhaber, J.B. Hunn, T. Nash, M.M. Tieger, and B.L. Steadman. 1993.
Biomonitoring of lead-contaminated Missouri streams with an assay for erythrocyte-
aminolevulinic acid Dehydratase activity in fish blood. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 25:464-
475.
Sileo, L., and W.N. Beyer. 1985. Heavy Metals in White-Tailed Deer Living near a Zinc Smelter
in Pennsylvania. J. Wild. Dis. 21:289-296.
Sileo, L., W.N. Beyer, and R. Mateo. 2003. Pancreatitis in wild zinc-poisoned waterfowl. Avian
Pathol. 2003 Dec. 32(6):655-60.
SRC. 2014. Data Review for the HHRA at Cherokee County Operable Unit 8.
Stroh, E. D., M.A., Struckhoff, and K.W., Grabner. 2008. Effects of Mining-Derived Metals
Contamination on Native Floristic Quality. USGS Administrative Report.
Van der Merwe, D., J. Carpenter, J. Nietfeld, and J. Miesner. 2011. Adverse health effects in
Canada geese (Branta canadensis) associated with waste from zinc and lead mines in the Tri-
State Mining District (Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri, USA). J Wild. Dis. 2011 Jul: 47(3):650-
60.
28
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Wildhaber, M.L., A.L. Allert, C.J. Schmitt, V.M. Tabor, D. Mulhern, K.L. Powell, and S.P.
Sowa. 2000. Natural and anthropogenic influences on the distribution of the threatened Neosho
madtom in a Midwestern warmwater stream. Trans Am Fish Soc. 129:243-261
Willoughby, R. A., E. MacDonald, B. J. McSherry and G. Brown. Lead and Zinc Poisoning and
the Interaction Between Pb and Zn Poisoning in the Foal. Can. J. comp. Med. 36:348-359.
Zdziarski, J.M., M. Mattix., R.M. Bush, and R.J. Montali. 1994. Zinc Toxicosis in Diving Ducks.
J. Zoo Wildt Med 25:438-445
29
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
APPENDIX A
TOXICITY PROFILES
30
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
CADMIUM
Cadmium is a naturally occurring element in the earth's crust. It is usually found as a mineral combined
with other elements such as oxygen (cadmium oxide), chlorine (cadmium chloride), or sulfur
(cadmium sulfate, cadmium sulfide). It does not have a definite taste or odor. All soils and rocks,
including coal and mineral fertilizers, have some cadmium in them. Cadmium is often extracted during
the production of other metals such as zinc, lead, and copper.
Orally ingested cadmium and its salts are poorly absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract in wildlife. In
general, less than three percent of ingested cadmium is absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract of
animals. Once in the blood, cadmium is distributed to all internal organs with the highest
concentrations found in the liver and kidneys. Cadmium is not known to undergo metabolic
conversion; however, it does bind with, and adversely affect the function of proteins such as
metallothionein. Most cadmium ingested is rapidly cleared from the body, primarily through feces
because its absorption efficiency is so low (ATSDR, 1993).
There is strong evidence for food chain bioaccumulation; however, the potential for biomagnification
is presently unknown (ATSDR, 1993). EPA (2000) considers cadmium to be an important
bioaccumulative compound in sediment.
• A soil-to-invertebrate Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) of 0.96 has been developed for
cadmium based on the geometric mean of 22 laboratory studies using acute and chronic
exposure (EPA, 1999).
• A soil-to-plant BCF of 0.364 has been developed for cadmium based on empirical data
from the EPA (EPA, 1999).
• A water-to-invertebrate BCF of 3,461 has been developed for cadmium based on the
geometric mean of data from eight field studies (EPA, 1999).
• A water-to-fish BCF of 907 has been developed for cadmium based on the geometric
mean of data from four field studies (EPA, 1999).
• A sediment-to-invertebrate BCF of 3.4 has been developed for cadmium based on the
geometric mean of data from eight field studies (EPA, 1999).
1.0. AQUATIC PLANTS
31
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Cadmium is not essential for plant growth. Exposure to cadmium can result in adverse growth effects.
The lowest chronic value of 2.0 |ig/L was established for aquatic plants by Conway (1977). A
relatively low cadmium concentration reduced the population growth rate of Asterionella formosa by
an order of magnitude.
2.0. AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
A lowest chronic value of 0.15 |ig/L was established for daphnids as a result of life-cycle tests
performed by Chapman et al. (no date). A test EC20 value of 0.75 |ig/L was established for daphnids
by Elnabarawy et al. (1986).
A substantial toxicological database for effects on freshwater biota exposed to cadmium demonstrates
that ambient cadmium concentrations in water exceeding 10 ppb are associated with high mortality,
reduced growth, inhibited reproduction, and other adverse effects. Several species of freshwater
aquatic insects, crustaceans, and teleosts exhibited significant mortality at cadmium concentrations of
0.8 to 9.9 ppb during exposures of 4 to 33 days; mortality generally increased as exposure time
increased, water hardness decreased, and organism age decreased. A Threshold Effect Concentration
(TEC) for sediment of 0.99 mg/kg has been developed by MacDonald et al. (2000); whereas a
Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) has been established at 4.98 mg/kg.
3.0. FISH
A lowest chronic value of 1.7 |ig/L was established for fish by Sauter et al. (1976) and was based on
early life stage tests performed on brook trout. A test EC20 value of 1.8 |ig/L was established by
Carlson et al. (1982) based on freshwater fish studies.
4.0. TERRESTRIAL PLANTS
Exposure to cadmium at relatively low levels can result in adverse growth effects. If present in a
bioavailable form, cadmium can be taken up by roots, translocated within the plant, and accumulated
(Efroymson el aL, 1997a). Cadmium is chemically similar to zinc, an essential element. Competition
between the two for organic ligands and enzyme binding sites may explain some of the toxic effects of
cadmium and the ameliorative effects of zinc on cadmium toxicity. Cadmium depresses uptake of Fe,
Mn, and probably Ca, Mg, and N. Cadmium is toxic at low concentrations. Symptoms resemble Fe
chlorosis and include necrosis, wilting, reduced zinc levels, and reduction in growth. The mechanisms
of toxicity include reduced photosynthetic rate, poor root system development, reduced conductivity of
stems, and ion interactions in the plant. A benchmark value of 4 ppm was established for cadmium
based on 74 studies. Approximately 40% of the concentrations responsible for greater than 20%
reductions in plant growth parameters fall between 1 and 10 ppm cadmium added to soil. This range
includes wild and cultivated plants such as legumes, trees, grasses, leafy vegetables and other
dicotyledonous plants in soils with a relatively wide range of physical and chemical characteristics
(Effroymson el aL, 1997a). EPA's Interim Ecological Soil Screening Guidance for cadmium indicates
a soil screening level for plants of 32 mg/kg based on a review of 62 studies deemed acceptable (EPA,
2003).
32
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
5.0. SOIL INVERTEBRATES
Cadmium in surface soil has been shown to affect earthworm growth and survival, as well as reduce
the number of earthworm cocoons produced. An Ecological Soil Screening Level (Eco-SSL) has been
developed for cadmium based on ten suitable studies of toxicity of cadmium in soil to soil
invertebrates. These studies identified the maximum acceptable toxicant concentrations and the EC20
for springtails and the earthworms. These values ranged from 6 to 600 mg/kg. The Eco-SSL of 142
mg/kg was based on the geometric mean of these values (EPA, 2003).
6.0. BIRDS
Cadmium has been shown to adversely effect reproduction in birds (Sample et al., 1996). A study of
oral dietary ingestion of cadmium (as cadmium chloride) by mallard ducks over a 90-day exposure
period indicated that a dose of 1.45 (mg cd/kg bw/day) produced no adverse reproductive effects. This
value is considered the No Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). However, a dose of 20 mg cd/kg bw/day
resulted in a decrease in egg production (White and Finley, 1978). An Ecological Soil Screening Level
(Eco-SSL) for cadmium (EPA, 2003) has been set at 0.77 mg/kg. This soil screening value is based on
a geometric mean of NOAEL data for reproduction and growth calculated at 1.47 mg cd/kg bw/day.
7.0. MAMMALS
A study of oral exposure in rats indicated that a dose of 1 mg cd/kg bw/day produced no adverse
effects on reproduction (NOAEL). In this same study, a dose of 10 mg cd/kg bw/day produced reduced
fetal implantations, fetal survivorship, and fetal resorptions and was identified as the Lowest Observed
Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) (Sutou et al., 1980). EPA's Eco-SSL for cadmium has compiled a
number of studies, many of which identify thresholds for reproductive effects. The Eco-SSL indicates
a range of NOAELs for rodent species from 0.0069 to 50 mg cd/kg bw/day. The range of LOAELs is
from 0.661 to 75 mg/kgBW/day. The Eco-SSL of 0.36 mg/kg is based on the lowest bounded LOAEL
for reproduction and growth of 0.77 mg cd/kg bw/day.
33
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
LEAD
Lead is a naturally occurring bluish-gray metal found in small amounts in the earth's crust. It has no
taste or smell. Lead is the product of many activities such as mining, manufacturing, and burning of
fossil fuels. In general, lead does not biomagnify in food chains. EPA (2000) considers lead to be an
important bioaccumulative compound in sediment. Older organisms usually contain the greatest body
burdens, and lead accumulations are highest in bony tissues (USGS, 1988).
• A Soil-to-invertebrate BCF of 0.03 has been developed for lead based on the geometric mean
of 6 laboratory values (EPA, 1999).
• A Soil-to-plant BCF of 0.045 has been developed for lead based on empirical data from Baes,
Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (EPA, 1999).
• A water-to-invertebrate BCF of 5,059 has been developed for lead based on the geometric
mean of 6 field values (EPA, 1999).
• A water-to-fish BCF of 0.09 has been developed for lead based on the geometric mean of 3
laboratory values (EPA, 1999).
• A sediment-to-invertebrate BCF of 0.63 has been developed for lead based on the 14-day
exposure Chironomus tentans Study conducted by Harrahy and Clements (EPA, 1999).
1.0. AQUATIC PLANTS
The lowest chronic value of 500 |ig/L was based on studies of growth inhibition in Chlorella vulgaris
(EPA, 1985). Among aquatic biota lead concentrations are usually highest in algae although no
significant biomagnification occurs in aquatic food chains (Demayo et al., 1982). According to the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), growth inhibition of marine algae was reported at 5.1 |ig, while in
freshwater algae at 5.0 |ig. The effects of lead contamination on sensitive species were most
pronounced at elevated water temperatures, reduced pH, in comparatively soft waters, in younger life
stages, and after long exposures.
2.0. AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
The lowest chronic value of 2.6 |ig/L was established for daphnids based on studies by Nebeker et al.
(1983). The test EC20 value of <0.56 |ig/L for daphnids was established by Elnabarawy et al. (1986).
A TEC for sediment of 35.8 mg/kg has been developed by MacDonald et al. (2000); whereas a PEC
has been established at 128 mg/kg.
3.0. FISH
34
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
The lowest chronic value of 1,888 |ig/L was established for fish by Davies et al. (1976) based on an
early life stage tests on rainbow trout. The effect concentrations (EC) value for fish is from Sauter et
al. (1976). Lethal solutions of lead cause increased mucus formation in fishes. The excess coagulates
over the entire body and is particularly prominent over the gills, interfering with respiratory function
and resulting in death by anoxia (Aronson, 1971). Increasing waterborne concentrations of lead over
10 |ig/L are expected to provide increasingly severe long-term effects on fish and fisheries (DeMayo et
al., 1982)
4.0. TERRESTRIAL PLANTS
Uptake of lead by terrestrial plants is limited by the low bioavailability of lead from soils. A
benchmark of 50 ppm was established for lead based on 17 studies conducted with a range of different
plant species used for its derivation. (Efroymson el al., 1997a). The most conservative of the available
studies indicates that adverse effects are noted to tree growth at concentrations of 50 mg/kg; however,
no adverse effects were noted at 20 mg/kg (Dixon, 1988). Lead is taken up passively by roots and
translocation to shoots is limited. The phytotoxicity of lead is relatively low compared with other trace
elements. It effects mitochondrial respiration and photosynthesis by disturbing electron transfer
reactions. (Miles et al., 1972). An Eco-SSL has been developed for lead based on five suitable studies
of toxicity of lead in soil to plants. These studies identified the maximum acceptable toxicant
concentrations, which ranged from 22 to 316 mg/kg. The Eco-SSL of 110 mg/kg was based on the
geometric mean of these values (EPA, 2003).
5.0. SOIL INVERTEBRATES
An Eco-SSL has been developed for lead based on four suitable studies of toxicity of lead in soil to
Collembola, a soil invertebrate. These studies identified the maximum acceptable toxicant
concentrations and the EC20 for springtails and the earthworms. These values ranged from 894 to
3,162 mg/kg. The Eco-SSL of 1,682 mg/kg was based on the geometric mean of these values (EPA,
2003).
6.0. BIRDS
Lead has been shown to adversely effect reproduction in birds. A study of oral dietary ingestion of lead
(as acetate) over 12 weeks in Japanese Quails indicated a dose of 1.13 mg/kgBW/day produced no
adverse reproductive effects (NOAEL); however, a dose of 11.3 mg/kgBW/day resulted in a decrease
in egg hatching success (LOAEL) (Edens et al., 1976). The avian Eco-SSL for lead of 11 mg/kg is
based on the highest bounded NOAEL that is lower than the lowest bounded LOAEL for reproduction
and growth, which is 1.63 mg pb/kg bw/day. The geometric mean of the NOAEL data for reproduction
and growth was 10.8 mg pb/kg bw/day.
7.0. MAMMALS
Orally ingested lead is not well absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract in adult animals; however,
the rate of gastrointestinal absorption increases significantly in younger animals. Once absorbed, lead
35
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
is widely distributed to soft tissues then redistributes and accumulates in bones. Lead is not
metabolized or biotransformed in the body and therefore is either incorporated into tissue then bones or
is excreted once ingestion. Older organisms tend to have the highest body burden concentrations of
lead. Excretion is primarily through fecal excretion and through bile. Studies of lead ingestion in
animals have indicated that lead can produce adverse reproductive effects; however, the mechanics of
these effects are unknown. These reproductive effects include an increase incidence of spontaneous
abortion, miscarriage, and stillbirths and effects to sperm and testicular tissue in males (ATSDR,
1993). Oral exposure studies of lead (in the form of lead acetate) in rats over three generations
indicated a NOAEL of 8 mg/kgBW/d, while 80 mg/kgBW/d reduced offspring weights, and produced
kidney damage in the young (LOAEL) (Azar et al., 1973). The mammalian Eco-SSL of 56 mg/kg is
based on the highest bounded NOAEL that is lower than the lowest bounded LOAEL for reproduction
and growth, which is 4.7 mg pb/kg bw/day. The geometric mean of the NOAEL data is 40.7 mg pb/kg
bw/day.
36
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
ZINC
Zinc is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust. It is found in air, soil, and water, and is
present in all foods. Pure zinc is a bluish white shiny metal and combines with other elements to form
zinc compounds. Common zinc compounds found at hazardous waste sites include zinc chloride, zinc
oxide, zinc sulfate, and zinc sulfide. Zinc compounds are widely used in industry to make paint,
rubber, dye, wood preservatives, and ointments.
Zinc is essential for normal metabolism in animals. Under normal conditions, 20 to 30 percent
of ingested zinc is absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract. Once absorbed, zinc is widely distributed
throughout the body with highest content in the muscle, bone, gastrointestinal tissue, kidney, and the
brain. Zinc is excreted both in feces and urine (ATSDR, 1994).
Zinc accumulates in aquatic organisms, however, microcosm studies indicate that it does not
biomagnify through aquatic food chains. Bioconcentration of zinc from soil by terrestrial wildlife and
plants is insignificant. This indicates that zinc does not biomagnify through terrestrial food chains
(ATSDR, 1994). EPA (2000) considers zinc to be an important bioaccumulative compound in
sediment.
• A soil-to-invertebrate BCF of 0.56 has been developed for zinc based on the geometric mean
of 5 laboratory values (EPA, 1999).
• A soil-to-plant BCF of 0.0000000000012 has been developed for zinc based empirical data
reported to EPA (EPA, 1999).
• A water-to-invertebrate BCF of 4,578 has been developed for zinc based on the geometric
mean of 9 field values (EPA, 1999).
• A water-to-fish BCF of 2,059 has been developed for zinc based on the geometric mean of 4
field-derived values (EPA, 1999).
• A sediment-to-invertebrate BCF of 0.57 has been developed for zinc based on the geometric
mean of 8 field-derived values (EPA, 1999).
1.0. AQUATIC PLANTS
37
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Bartlett et al. (1974) ran 7-day tests on Selenastrum capricornutum. These aquatic plants showed
incipient inhibition of growth.
2.0. AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES
The lowest chronic value of 46.73 |ig/L was established for daphnids by Chapman et al. (no date) based
on life-cycle tests on Jordanella floridae and Daphnia magna. Zinc is important in pH regulation of
sperm of marine invertebrates. Zinc reduction in semen to < 6.5 g/L adversely affected sperm pH and
motility in sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, Lytechnicus pic/us), horseshoe crab (Limulus
polyphemus), and starfish (Clapper et al., 1985a, 1985b). A TEC for sediment of 121 mg/kg has been
developed by MacDonald et al. (2000); whereas a PEC has been established at 459 mg/kg.
3.0. FISH
A chronic value of 36.41 |ig/L and test EC20 value of 47 |ig/L for fish has been identified by Spehar
(1976). Rainbow trout fry fed diets containing 1-4 mg/kg ration had poor growth, increased morality,
cataracts, and fin erosion; supplementing the diet to 15-30 mg/kg alleviating these signs. Spry et al.
(1988) also fed rainbow trout fry diets containing a 1, 90, or 590 mg/kg ration and simultaneously
exposed them to a range of waterborne zinc concentrations of 7, 39, 148, or 529 |ig/L. After 16 weeks,
the 7 |ig/L plus 1 mg/kg diet group showed clear signs of deficiency including a significantly reduced
plasma zinc concentration (which was evident as early as the first week of exposure), reduced growth
(with no growth after week 12), decreased hematocrit, and reduced plasma protein and whole body
zinc concentration.
4.0. TERRESTRIAL PLANTS
Zinc is an essential element for plant growth. It is actively absorbed by the roots and then widely
distributed throughout the roots and shoots. Information concerning the ecological effects of zinc to
plants is extensive. Excessive zinc in the soil may result in chlorosis and depressed plant growth by
inhibiting CO2 fixation, carbohydrate transport, and membrane permeability (Efroymson el aL, 1997a).
A review of EPA's Ecotox database indicated no-effect thresholds for phytotoxicity ranging from 2.92
to 189 mg/kg; low-effect thresholds ranged from 58.8 to 1087 mg/kg. An Eco-SSL of 160 mg/kg based
on the geometric mean of the MATC for three different species under varying conditions.
5.0. SOIL INVERTEBRATES
An Eco-SSL has been developed for zinc based on six suitable studies of toxicity of zinc in soil, to soil
invertebrates. These studies identified the maximum acceptable toxicant concentrations and the EC 10
for a nematode and F. Candida. These values ranged from 35 to 305 mg/kg. The Eco-SSL of 120
mg/kg was based on the geometric mean of these values (EPA, 2003).
6.0. BIRDS
A study of dietary ingestion of zinc (as zinc sulfate) over 44 weeks in white leghorn hens indicated that
a dose of 14.5 mg/kgBW/d produced no adverse reproductive effects (NOAEL); however, a dose of
38
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
131 mg/kgBW/d decreased egg hatchability (LOAEL) (Stahl et al., 1990). An Eco-SSL of 46 mg/kg is
based on the geometric mean of NOAEL values for reproduction of growth, which is 66.1 mg zn/kg
bw/day.
7.0. MAMMALS
Ingested zinc has been shown to adversely effect reproduction in animals. A major effect is decreased
embryonic implantations in mammals (Sample et al., 1996). A study of dietary ingestion of zinc (as
zinc oxide) during gestation of rats indicated that a dose of 160 mg/kgBW/d produced no adverse
reproductive effects (NOAEL); however a dose of 320 mg/kgBW/d increased rates of fetal absorption
and reduced fetal growth rates (LOAEL) (Schlicker and Cox, 1968). The mammalian Eco-SSL of 79
mg/kg is based on the NOAEL values for reproduction and growth of 75.4 mg zn/kg bw/day.
APPENDIX B
CHEROKEE COUNTY CLEAN-UP LEVELS (SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS)
39
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
APPENDIX C
DATA REVIEW FOR CHEROKEE COUNTY OU8
40
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
APPENDIX D
FIGURES
41
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
42
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Figure 1. Site Location.
£ R Alw t nun
iKftJi
J- -
*roi co
newton" w
Figure 2. Confirmed Rail Line Locations
43
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Conceptual Site Model
1
i
Source
Release Mechanism
Potentially Impacted Environmental.Media
Exposure Route
Aquatic Receptors
Telrcstrial RcEcptoiH
(Plants, Invertebrates)
WadMfe Receptors
(Birds, Mammals)
m
Benthic
Onanisms
Plaits
Soil
Organisms
Dust in Ai
Inhalation
X
y
Direct Contact
X
/
/
Emissions from Rail Cars
Surface Sol
Ingestion
X
•
>
Direct Contact
•
•
X
\
\
Historic Ral
Imes
\
Terrestrial Food Itema
(Plants, Mammals,
Invertebrates)
uptake into tim$
^
Ingestic®
•
Surface Water
fiigestioi
•
Direct Contact
•
•
X
Chat on Ballasts
>
' \
\
\
Aquatic Fcod Items
(fislvAquatic
Invertebrates, P Iants)
uptake into times
>
Ingestion
0
0
•
y
> y
Sediment
Ingestion
X
X
•
DhetCertaet
X
•
X
Pathway is not complete, no evaluation required
X
Pathway is complete but probably cannot k evaluated quantitatively
•
Pathway is complete and significant, quantitative evaluation
0
Pathway is complete, Wed quantitative evaluation maybe possible
Figure 3. Conceptual Site Model.
44
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
Of
i
SS
i
«r i
I
55
£
i
Figure 4. Rail Line Sampling Locations.
45
-------
Cherokee County
Ecological Risk Assessment
Operable Unit Eight
June, 2014
NW l_.
Figure 5. Sediment and Surface Water Sampling Locations.
46
------- |