DRAFT FINAL Human Health Risk Assessment Tar Creek ... › work › 06 › 9223551.pdf · DRAFT...

DRAFT FINAL Human Health Risk Assessment

Tar Creek Superfund Site Operable Unit No. 4

Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Response Action Contract No. 68-W6-0025 Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW

DCN 06-8499

Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared by:

February 2006

008336

TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4

DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC FEBRUARY 2006

(This page intentionally left blank.)

008337

USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC i FEBRUARY 2006

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................................................v Executive Summary........................................................................................................ vii

Source Materials ................................................................................................... vii Chemicals of Potential Concern........................................................................... viii Exposure Evaluation ............................................................................................ viii Current Residential Exposures............................................................................. viii Future Residential .................................................................................................. ix Recreational Activities.............................................................................................x

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 General Objectives of the HHRA ............................................................ 1-2 1.2 Overview of the Superfund HHRA Process ............................................ 1-2 1.3 Geographic Area Considered in the HHRA............................................. 1-4 1.4 Demographics of the Population.............................................................. 1-4

2.0 Chemicals of Potential Concern ....................................................................... 2-1 2.1 General..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Source Materials ...................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Chat ..................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Chat Base ............................................................................................ 2-3 2.2.3 Fine Tailings ....................................................................................... 2-3

2.3 Soils.......................................................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Ground Water........................................................................................... 2-6 2.5 Edible Plants ............................................................................................ 2-6 2.6 Fish........................................................................................................... 2-7 2.7 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern .......................................... 2-7

3.0 Exposure Assessment......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Potential Exposure Pathways and Receptors ........................................... 3-1 3.2 Exposure Point Concentrations................................................................ 3-1

3.2.1 Chat and Tailings ................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.2 Soils..................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.3 Ground Water...................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.4 Edible Plants ....................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.5 Fish...................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.6 Ambient Air ........................................................................................ 3-5 3.2.7 Beef ..................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.8 Small Game......................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.9 Aquatic Life ........................................................................................ 3-6 3.2.10 Milk..................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3 Intake Estimates ....................................................................................... 3-7 4.0 Toxicity Assessment ........................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 For Non-carcinogens Other Than Lead ................................................... 4-1 4.2 For Lead ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 For Carcinogens (Cadmium).................................................................... 4-2

008338



USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC II FEBRUARY 2006

5.0 Risk Characterization........................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Approach for Carcinogens ....................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Approach for Non-carcinogens Other than Lead..................................... 5-1 5.3 Approach for Lead ................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Results...................................................................................................... 5-3

5.4.1 Current Child Resident (General Public) ............................................ 5-3 5.4.2 Current Adult Resident (General Public)............................................ 5-4 5.4.3 Current Child Resident (Native American)......................................... 5-5 5.4.4 Current Adult Resident (Native American, High-Fish and

High-Beef Diets)................................................................................ 5-5 5.4.5 Current Adult Resident (More Typical Native American) ................. 5-6 5.4.6 Current/Future Recreator .................................................................... 5-6 5.4.7 Future Child Resident (General Public and Native American)........... 5-6 5.4.8 Future Adult Resident (General Public).............................................. 5-7 5.4.9 Future Adult Resident (Native American) .......................................... 5-8

6.0 Blood Lead Studies in Tar Creek ..................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Datasets Reviewed................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Percentage of Elevated BLLs and Geometric Mean of BLLs ................. 6-2 6.3 Picher/Cardin in Comparison with the Tar Creek Superfund

Site as a Whole......................................................................................... 6-3 6.4 Characteristics of Children With Elevated BLLs .................................... 6-3 6.5 Data Limitations....................................................................................... 6-3 6.6 Interventions ............................................................................................ 6-4 6.7 Conclusions.............................................................................................. 6-4

7.0 Uncertainties....................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Data Evaluation........................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Exposure Assessment............................................................................... 7-1

7.2.1 Exposure Point Concentrations ........................................................... 7-2 7.2.2 Estimated Intakes ................................................................................ 7-4

7.3 Toxicity Assessment ................................................................................ 7-6 7.4 Risk Characterization............................................................................... 7-6

8.0 Preliminary Remediation Goals ....................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Groundwater ............................................................................................ 8-1 8.2 Rural Residential Soil .............................................................................. 8-2

8.2.1 General Public Rural Residential Use................................................. 8-2 8.2.2 Native American Rural Residential Land Use .................................... 8-5

8.3 Rural Non-Residential Soil/Source Material ........................................... 8-8 8.3.1 Recreational Use ................................................................................. 8-8 8.3.2 Pastureland ........................................................................................ 8-10

8.4 Food Items ............................................................................................. 8-12 8.4.1 Fish.................................................................................................... 8-12 8.4.2 Plants ................................................................................................. 8-12 8.4.3 Evaluation of Correlation Between Edible Plants and Soil .............. 8-13

8.5 Other Rural Areas .................................................................................. 8-16 8.6 Uncertainties in PRGs............................................................................ 8-17 8.7 Conclusions............................................................................................ 8-18

008339



USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC III FEBRUARY 2006

9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................. 9-1 10.0 References......................................................................................................... 10-1

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Ottawa County, Oklahoma Towns and Population, 2001 Table 5-1 Risk Summary - General Public Exposures Table 5-2 Risk Summary - Native American Exposures Table 5-3 Risk Summary - Recreator Exposures Table 8-1 Cadmium – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Consumption of Homegrown

Produce Table 8-2 Zinc – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Consumption of Homegrown

Produce Table 8-3 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Adult Consumption of

Homegrown Produce Table 8-4 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Adult Consumption of Beef from

Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property Table 8-5 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of 10% of

Beef and Milk from Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property Table 8-6 Cadmium – Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown

Produce Table 8-7 Zinc – Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown

Produce Table 8-8 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown

Produce Table 8-9 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Beef from Cattle

Grazing on Rural Residential Property Table 8-10 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Child Consumption of 50% of Beef and

Milk from Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property Table 8-11 Lead - Source Material PRGs Based on Recreational Adolescent Scenario Table 8-12 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of Milk from

Cattle Grazing on Pastureland Table 8-13 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of Beef from

Cattle Grazing on Pastureland Table 8-14 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of 10% of

Beef and Milk from Cattle Grazing on Pastureland Table 8-15 Cattail and Root Soil Correlation - Regression and Correlation Statistics for

Predictive Equations Table 8-16 Cattail and Root Soil Correlation - Excluded Plant-Soil Data Pairs Table 8-17 Mean Root Soil Concentrations at Edible Plant Sampling Locations

List of Figures

Figure 1 Tar Creek Vicinity Figure 2 Residential Yard Sampling Locations

008340



USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC IV FEBRUARY 2006

List of Appendices

Appendix A Split and Supplemental Sampling Summary Appendix B Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area Appendix C RAGS Part D Tables Appendix D Air Emissions Modeling Appendix E Air Modeling Appendix F Biota Modeling Appendix G IEUBK Modeling Appendix H Adult Lead Modeling Appendix I Future Blood Lead Level Modeling Appendix J Statistical Evaluation of Future Soil Concentrations Appendix K Typical Native American Risk Calculations Appendix L ProUCL Output Appendix M Report to Congress Appendix N Preliminary Remediation Goal Calculations

008341

USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC v FEBRUARY 2006

Acronyms and Abbreviations

µm micrometer ALM Adult Lead Methodology ANOVA Analysis of Variance AOC Administrative Order on Consent ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ATV All Terrain Vehicle BAF Bioaccumulation Factor BCF Bioconcentration Factor bgs below ground surface BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLL blood lead level CDC U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDI chronic daily intake CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHAMP Community Health Action and Monitoring Program CLPPSS Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Surveillance System COC Chemical of Concern COPC Chemical of Potential Concern ELCR excess lifetime cancer risk EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPC exposure point concentration ERA Ecological Risk Assessment HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment HI Hazard Index HQ Hazard Quotient IEUBK Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic IRIS Integrated Risk Information System LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MSSL Medium-Specific Screening Level NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level OCHD Ottawa County Health Department OCLPPP Ottawa County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program ODEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality OSDH Oklahoma State Department of Health OU4 Operable Unit No. 4

008342



USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC VI FEBRUARY 2006

ppm parts per million PPRTV Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal PSCS Preliminary Site Characterization Study QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study RME reasonable maximum exposure SF Slope Factor TAL Target Analyte List TEAL Tribal Efforts Against Lead UCL95 95% Upper Confidence Limit WIC Women, Infants, and Children WP Work Plan

008343

USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC vii FEBRUARY 2006

Executive Summary

On December 9, 2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the Respondents for Operable Unit 4 (OU4) at the Tar Creek Superfund Site (the Site) in Ottawa County, Oklahoma (EPA, 2003). The site is shown on Figure 1, which has been provided by the Respondents in their Data Gaps Analysis Report (AATA, 2004). As part of this agreement, EPA agreed to complete the Baseline Risk Assessment that included a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). Under the agreement, the Respondents were responsible for completing a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of OU4 that also included providing EPA with data necessary to complete the risk assessments.

The AOC defines OU4 as the:

“noncontiguous, asymmetrical parts of the Site (both urban and rural) that are not presently used for residential purposes or which are sparsely used for residential purposes, where mine and mill residues and smelter waste have been deposited, stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise come to be located as a result of mining, milling, smelting or related operations. OU4 includes residential yards located in Ottawa County outside of city or town limits except for those residential yards that have been addressed under Operable Unit 2 (OU2).”

CH2M HILL was contracted by EPA to complete the HHRA for OU4 under Contract No. 68-W6-0025. The ERA was to be performed by others at EPA�s direction. The HHRA work was completed through an approved project work plan (WP) and subsequent work plan revisions under Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW (CH2M HILL, 2004, 2005a, and 2005b). Under this work assignment, CH2M HILL was directed to perform additional activities associated with the Respondents� RI/FS, which are further discussed in Appendix A.

This HHRA considers potential hazards to current residents (both general public and Native American), and possible limitations on future residential or recreational activities within OU4.

Source Materials Several residual mining materials in the area have been shown to have elevated concentrations of metals � particularly lead, cadmium, and zinc. Levels of these chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) in source materials frequently exceed values that are considered protective for residential uses. These materials (mine tailings, chat) are distributed within the OU4 Area, and in some cases, these materials have been used as fill material on rural residential properties. The primary waste areas (chat piles, millponds, and chat bases) are located throughout OU4, covering approximately 10 percent of the land in this area.

008344



USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC VIII FEBRUARY 2006

Chemicals of Potential Concern Lead is the primary COPC. Cadmium and zinc have also been identified as COPCs in the AOC. Lead and/or cadmium exceeded residential screening values at only eight residential yards evaluated during the RI, and one residential yard (at the former smelter) was subsequently remediated. Zinc concentrations were less than residential screening values in residential yard samples.

In 10 percent of the samples, Target Analyte List (TAL) metals were analyzed. Although six metals were detected in soil above their Medium-Specific Screening Level (MSSL), they are either primarily associated with the smelter area, were only detected at a few locations above their MSSLs and background concentrations, or do not appear to be mining-related. These data support the focus on the COPCs, and specifically lead. Children are particularly sensitive to lead exposure and, historically, elevated blood lead levels in children have been measured in the Tar Creek area.

Exposure Evaluation The potential hazards for residents in the OU4 area are dependent on their proximity to source areas (where elevated concentrations of lead have been identified) and their activities in these areas. At rural residential properties, the public may be exposed directly through breathing airborne contaminants or contacting contaminated soil. Increased exposures are associated with Native American exposure scenarios due to their cultural practices of hunting, gathering, ceremonial practices, and use of natural resources for crafts, medicines, and foods.

While data have been collected to evaluate properties that are currently under residential land use, it is clear that elevated lead concentrations in waste source areas make them unsuitable as future rural residential areas in their current condition. Impacted areas of soil near these source areas generally decrease with distance; however, over time, redistribution of the waste to a larger area may occur with physical activities in the area.

Current Residential Exposures Each residential property sampled for the Tar Creek OU4 investigation was evaluated for contact with impacted soil, ground water (if a private well is present), and ambient air. The primary exposure occurs through contact with soil.

• Only seven homes were associated with one or more surface soil (0-1 inch or 0-6 inch) samples with concentrations above the lead remedial goal of 500 mg/kg for private properties. Four of these were clearly associated with likely sources:

o One was immediately adjacent to the former Ottawa smelter (and this residential yard was subsequently remediated in November 2005)

o Three others showed visible chat fragments. • The homes with the highest soil concentrations were not located near each other, and

in some cases, nearby homes did not show elevated concentrations.

008345



USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC IX FEBRUARY 2006

• At some locations, an elevated lead concentration was present in an isolated sample; further evaluation may be needed to clarify if the lead-impacted soil sample is attributable to mining sources.

For the general public scenarios evaluated, cadmium and zinc concentrations were within acceptable risk levels, but for the Native American residents, the concentrations exceeded acceptable risk levels due to estimated intakes from food items. Lead concentrations exceeded the target blood lead level (BLL) at four individual residences, but the neighborhood average BLL is within the target range. The residence with the highest exceedance (at the former smelter) was subsequently remediated in November 2005.

Concentrations of lead, cadmium, and zinc at many of the rural residential properties sampled were similar to background. In all cases, lead was the primary COPC. Cadmium concentrations were elevated above residential screening levels at only four properties, and one property (the same home at the former smelter, mentioned above) was subsequently remediated in November 2005. With the exception of one property, lead concentrations were also elevated at these properties and associated sources were identified. Zinc did not exceed soil screening values at any location.

Modeled air lead concentrations at the 46 residences were all below the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (1.5 µg/m3), and were a minor contributor to the overall estimate of hazard at these homes.

Ground water samples were collected at locations where shallow private wells were being used, not necessarily where homes were located near source areas. Of the 13 residential wells sampled, two slightly exceed tap water MSSLs for lead (i.e., the maximum detected concentration was 0.028 µg/L versus 0.015 µg/L). These properties were located near each other, but homes sampled in these areas did not show elevated concentrations of lead in soil. Cadmium and lead were detected above background in these wells, suggesting potential mining-related impacts. Exposures to groundwater were quantified in the HHRA by both general public and Native American residents. The HHRA does not address future uses of impacted shallow groundwater at locations other than those sampled as part of OU4, and restrictions on potable use of shallow groundwater may be warranted in other locations. There is the potential for future concentrations in the wells to increase. If concentrations remain low, no additional risks will be identified. However, because lead concentrations are currently above the MCL at two wells, the cause of the elevated levels and the need for an alternative water supply should be evaluated.

Native American lifestyle differences, including gathering plants grown on, or hunting animals that feed near, source areas will increase exposure to COPCs in soils. These activities may not be suitable in locations with elevated concentrations of lead that may otherwise be protective using assumptions appropriate for the general public.

Future Residential Many areas in OU4 are not suitable for future residential development without remedial actions to decrease surface concentrations of lead. The challenge for the Tar Creek OU4 area is that waste materials are distributed in many locations throughout this large area, and may

008346



USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC X FEBRUARY 2006

comprise up to 10 percent of the total land area based on current data showing the distribution of waste and associated contaminated soils nearby (i.e., transition zone soils). In addition, it is likely that some changes in soil impacts will occur over time. It is also possible that chat has been used in localized areas as fill material, and would not clearly be identified by the proximity of these areas to current locations of chat piles or mill ponds.

The following assumptions are made regarding possible future residential development within the OU4 area:

• Waste materials will continue to contain elevated levels of lead, cadmium, and zinc (unsuitable for residential use).

• Areas near waste sources will show elevated soil concentrations; modeling indicates that soil lead concentrations could be as high as 18,900 parts per million (ppm) and air concentrations could be as high as 0.18 µg/m3; air concentrations do not exceed the NAAQS and are not a concern.

• If the waste piles remain, over time, the impacted area of soils may increase if physical activities distribute source materials.

• The closer that homes are placed to source areas, the more the likelihood increases that these materials may be more accessible, particularly for adolescents who may play in these areas.

Current data suggest that typically within 300 feet of a source area, soil concentrations significantly decrease. The 56 soil samples collected from non-residential rural areas in December 2005 indicate that lead concentrations are near background at locations not immediately adjacent to source materials.

Recreational Activities Assuming daily recreational activities on chat piles, chat bases, and mill ponds when weather permits, BLLs exceed EPA�s target level. Potential hazards associated with waste materials are reduced if activities in these areas are less frequent. Therefore, areas that may not be suitable for residential use (350 days/year for 30 years) may be within acceptable risk levels for less frequent recreational activities.

008347

USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 1-1 FEBRUARY 2006

1.0 Introduction

On December 9, 2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the Respondents for Operable Unit 4 (OU4) at the Tar Creek Superfund Site (the Site) in Ottawa County, Oklahoma (EPA, 2003). The site is shown in Figure 1, which has been provided by the Respondents in their Data Gaps Analysis Report (AATA, 2004). As part of this agreement, EPA agreed to complete the Baseline Risk Assessment that included a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). Under the agreement, the Respondents were responsible for completing a Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of OU4 that also included providing EPA with data necessary to complete the risk assessments.

The AOC defines OU4 as the:

“noncontiguous, asymmetrical parts of the Site (both urban and rural) that are not presently used for residential purposes or which are sparsely used for residential purposes, where mine and mill residues and smelter waste have been deposited, stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise come to be located as a result of mining, milling, smelting or related operations. OU4 includes residential yards located in Ottawa County outside of city or town limits except for those residential yards that have been addressed under Operable Unit 2 (OU2).”

The remedial objectives of the 1984 ROD were to mitigate the potential threat to public health and the environment by preventing contamination of the Roubidoux Aquifer, and by minimizing damage to Tar Creek from acid mine drainage. The remedy selected in the 1984 ROD included diversion of surface flows at three mine collapse features, and also included the plugging of 66 Roubidoux wells (later increased to 83 during construction). The scope of the 1984 ROD did not address public health concerns related to direct exposure to the mining waste located on the ground surface as addressed in this risk assessment.

CH2M HILL was contracted by EPA to complete the HHRA for OU4 under Contract No. 68-W6-0025. The ERA was to be performed by others at EPA�s direction. The HHRA work was completed through an approved project work plan (WP) and subsequent work plan revisions under Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW (CH2M HILL, 2004, 2005a, and 2005b). Under this work assignment, CH2M HILL was directed to perform the following additional activities associated with the Respondents� RI/FS, which are further discussed in Appendix A:

• Perform limited oversight of the Respondents� sampling efforts.

• Collect split samples of the Respondents� samples.

• Collect supplemental samples in support of the HHRA and, to a limited extent, the ERA.

• Collect edible plant samples requested by the Quapaw Tribe.

008348




1.1 General Objectives of the HHRA The objectives of an HHRA are two-fold: first, to estimate the level of risk to human health associated with concentrations of environmental contaminants; and second, if that risk is found to be unacceptable, to calculate media-specific cleanup levels that will protect human health.

Risks are estimated for current uses of a site as well as foreseeable future uses. All contaminated media are considered (such as soil and water) if individuals are likely to be exposed to the media. All relevant routes of exposure are also considered, including direct contact (inhalation, ingestion, dermal exposure) and indirect contact (exposure to food items that have accumulated contaminants through the soil).

Cleanup levels are calculated based on the relationship between contaminants and risk as defined in the risk assessment and a policy decision (risk management) about the level of risk that is considered acceptable. As a result, cleanup levels for a single contaminant can vary from one site to another either because the relationship between environmental levels and risk differs or because different policy decisions have been made concerning the level of acceptable risk.

For this specific HHRA, the general public and Native American cultural practices (via a subsistence receptor scenario) are addressed in the risk estimates.

1.2 Overview of the Superfund HHRA Process An HHRA typically is described as including four steps: data collection and analysis, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. The first step includes collecting data on the characteristics of the site and the COPCs.

The second step in an HHRA involves exposure assessment, including identifying the populations of individuals exposed to hazards at the specific site and how those exposures may occur. At OU4, the HHRA identifies the general public and local Native Americans as primary populations of concern for lead, cadmium, and zinc exposure. Potential pathways of exposure are defined, such as children ingesting soil and house dust, and Native Americans eating locally-grown foods within their tribal jurisdictions. In addition to identifying the potential pathways of exposure, this step involves defining several parameters (for which there are insufficient measured data) that govern the estimated risk from each exposure pathway. These assumptions, or default values, are assumed to be representative of a population, although they often include a conservative safety factor. These parameters include things such as time spent indoors and outdoors.

The third step is toxicity assessment, or identifying and quantifying a chemical�s intrinsic toxic properties. Again, at this point in the development of risk assessment, based on numerous controlled animal and/or human experiments and on epidemiological studies, toxicity parameters have been established by EPA and other agencies for many chemicals. At times, when a great deal of information is known about a chemical�s toxicity, this step involves examining an EPA database for the chemical-specific cancer slope factor (SF) or reference dose.

008349




The fourth step, risk characterization, combines the results of the first three steps into an estimate of risk. The estimated risk is then compared with a level of risk deemed �acceptable� according to risk management decisions (see below) and the site is thereby identified as either having acceptable risk levels or in need of remedial measures.

All the risk assessment steps described above inherently incorporate uncertainty. Each of the steps generally involves extrapolation from observations in one set of circumstances (such as the effect of known, high doses of a chemical given to laboratory animals over a short period) to the circumstances of interest (such as the potential effects of unknown, small doses of a mixture including the tested chemical on humans over a lifetime). Each such extrapolation introduces qualitative and quantitative uncertainties; and an adequate HHRA describes qualitatively, and if possible quantitatively, the sizes and types of such uncertainties.

EPA�s preferred focus is on the individual with reasonable maximum exposure (RME). . EPA defines RME as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site. The RME risk is compared with the acceptable level of risk when determining whether remedial measures are needed.

If risks are found to be unacceptable, thus requiring remediation, then the models used in the risk assessment are also used to determine acceptable concentrations of contaminants, equated to �cleanup levels.� It is important to note that a cleanup level calculated in this way is applicable over the same geographic area as was assessed in the risk calculation and represents the same mathematical formulation used for the concentration term in the risk assessment. For example, if the chronic risk to a child exposed over several years to the average contaminant concentration in his/her yard is found to be unacceptable, then a cleanup level derived from the corresponding risk equation will represent the acceptable average concentration for soil in the yard. As a further example, if a risk calculation focused solely on a heavily-used play area finds unacceptable risk, the cleanup level calculated from that risk equation will represent the acceptable average concentration for the play area. However, the derivation of an actual cleanup level is typically controversial, partly due to the uncertainties associated with each piece of information that goes into the mathematical derivation of the cleanup number.

Finally, a distinction needs to be drawn between risk assessment and risk management. Simply put, risk assessment is scientific and involves identifying pathways of exposure and some mathematical calculations; risk management involves policy and societal values. Cleanup levels are calculated on the basis of a policy decision about the level of acceptable risk as well as on the basis of the mathematical risk assessment. Further, the assessment of uncertainty in a risk assessment may lead to the development of more than one possible cleanup level, or a range of cleanup levels. A risk manager will choose a cleanup level from the range, after considering other site characteristics such as technical feasibility of the remediation, public desires, and so forth. As a result, a cleanup level may not be directly linked to an actual risk calculation, but it is generally expected that the cleanup level chosen during the risk management process will fall within a range developed in the course of the risk assessment.

008350




1.3 Geographic Area Considered in the HHRA The Site is a former lead and zinc mining area located in the northern portion of Ottawa County, Oklahoma. This area is part of the Tri-State Mining District located at the junction of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. The Site has no clearly defined boundaries, but occupies approximately 40 square miles consisting of the Ottawa County, Oklahoma, portion of the Picher Field mining region and any area where a hazardous substance from mining or milling in Ottawa County has been stored or disposed. The Site is bound to the north by the State of Kansas. The principal communities include Cardin, Commerce, North Miami, Picher, and Quapaw. Approximately 19,556 people live onsite in the mining area and in communities in proximity to the mining area (EPA, 2004). Additional information regarding the Site history is presented in the AOC under Section VI - EPA�s Findings of Fact (EPA, 2003).

As a result of mining and milling operations, large quantities of tailings were deposited on the surface of the ground in piles, locally known as �chat piles� (some of which rise to a height of 200 feet) and in ponds, or �flotation ponds.� Most of the flotation ponds are now dry. Figure 1 presents the Site boundaries and topography (AATA, 2004).

AATA (2004) summarized residual mining materials remaining on soils (source materials) as follows:

Source Material Number Approximate

Area (Acres) Comment

Chat Piles 83 767

Chat is the larger particle sized tailings from the gravity separation milling process used in the Tri-State Mining District and consists of mainly fine gravel to coarse sand sized rock fragments plus minor amount smaller intermingled material such as medium to fine sands, silt, and clay. Chat was typically deposited in large piles, collectively referred to as “chat piles.”

Chat Base 243 2080

Area that was once occupied by a chat pile. Chat bases can be either vegetated or non-vegetated, and generally have little or no relief. Thickness of remaining chat range from inches to a few feet (average estimated at 2 feet)

Tailing Ponds 63 820

Flotation tailings were generated during the metal extraction process or milling; washed fines were generated later as a by-product during washing of chat for commercial aggregate sale. Almost all the flotation tailings at the Site are covered with washed fines, and portions contain only washed fines.

1.4 Demographics of the Population The Respondents have researched the demographics of the Site and presented them in the approved Data Gaps Analysis Report (AATA, 2004). Below are excerpts taken directly from the report:

The Tar Creek Task Force (2000), the State of Oklahoma Web site, and the US Census Bureau Web site were the primary sources of data consulted for the demography section.

008351




Ottawa County has a land area of 471 square miles. The Site is about 40.6 square miles (about 8.6 percent of the county) located in the northeast corner of the county. The Site is mostly used for agriculture and is sparsely populated.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the population of Ottawa County in 2001 was 33,046 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Table 1-1 provides a list of the primary towns in Ottawa County and their populations in 2001.

Table 1-1 Ottawa County, Oklahoma Towns and Population, 2001 Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Town Population

Afton 945

Cardin 175

Commerce 2,451

Fairland 904

Miami 12,760

N. Miami 448

Peoria 151

Picher 1,674

Quapaw 985

Wyandotte 361

Rural** 12,192

Total for Ottawa County 33,046

* Source: State of Oklahoma Web site: www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/cities.html ** Source: Result of subtracting urban population from total population.

The 2000 census results indicate that 72.9 percent of the population in Ottawa County were Caucasian, 16.5 percent were Native American, 3.2 percent were Hispanic / Latino, 0.6 percent were African American, and 0.3 percent were Asian (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Most people (nearly 75 percent) own their own home in Ottawa County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The median household income for Ottawa County in 1999 was $27,507 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).

Land use for the Site has been summarized by Luza (1986) and Brown and Root (1995). Land uses within the Site include agriculture, residential, light industry, commercial activities or businesses, and recreational uses, with agriculture being the dominant land use. Brown and Root (1995) classified the primary land uses at the Site to include the following:

008352

www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/cities.html

www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/cities.html




1. Agricultural, including crop farming and pasture grazing;

2. Residential, including homes, schools, nursing homes, government housing, churches, playgrounds, day care center, others;

3. Industrial, including chat mining, asphalt plants, sand and gravel plants, light industrial and fabrication plants;

4. Commercial, including small businesses such as grocery stores, florists, numerous retail shops;

5. Recreational, including ball fields, dirt bike riding, fishing, hunting, and golf.

In the mid-1980s, approximately 2,900 acres of the land surface of the Site (about 11.2 percent) was covered by mine and mill residue (Luza, 1986), as discussed in Section 2.4.

Recreational land use in Ottawa County include fishing, hunting, golf, softball, soccer, and dirt bike riding (some on areas with chat piles) (Brown and Root, 1995). Southeast of the Site is Grand Lake, or Lake o� the Cherokees, a swimming, boating, camping, and outdoor recreation area. Brown and Root (1995) summarized the land ownership of the Site as (1) private, (2) government, or (3) Native American-owned. Figure 18 of the Data Gaps Analysis Report presents a map of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) trust lands within the Site, provided by EPA. The land owned by Native Americans accounts for approximately 18.2 percent of the overall area of the Site. A much higher percentage of land (40 to 50 percent) upon which mining residues remain is Native American-owned (Brown and Root, 1995).

008353


2.0 Chemicals of Potential Concern

The Final Data Gaps Analysis Report approved by EPA (AATA, 2004) stated �The mining and milling of lead and zinc ores since the late 1800s has generated mining and milling residue that contain elevated concentrations of lead, cadmium, and zinc.� These three metals have remained a focus of subsequent investigations characterizing impacts from mining activities.

This section provides an overview of the data collected and used to evaluate potential risks associated with receptors in OU4. This includes a discussion of the overall approach and data collection / evaluation process, a summary of results by environmental medium, and documentation that lead, cadmium, and zinc remain the COPCs.

2.1 General Data used in support of the HHRA were obtained from the Respondents� Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary (PSCS) Report (AATA, 2005) and supplemental sampling and analysis performed by EPA. A description of the Respondent�s sampling program, as well as a comparison to EPA�s split and supplemental sampling program, is summarized in Appendix A.

In accordance with the project WP and the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), all analytical data obtained in support of this project were validated according to EPA�s National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (EPA, 2004). Sample results were assigned data qualifiers in the validation process to express the degree of usability based upon overall data quality. In cases where serious quality control failures were encountered, the data were rejected and were not used to support project decisions.

The database of environmental chemical analyses available for the HHRA process was extensive and included hundreds of analyses of metals in chat, tailings, soil, ground water, fish, and edible wild plants (asparagus, willow, and cattail) in the Tar Creek area. The following activities are consistent with the approved WPs:

• The geographic location for each sample was documented.

• Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc were typically measured.

• For 10 percent of the samples, a more extensive TAL of metals was analyzed.

For surficial samples to be used for risk estimates, samples were sieved to obtain soil particles less than 250 micrometer (µm) in diameter prior to chemical analysis. Pre-sieving is justified by the observation that fine particles preferentially adhere to hands (Duggan et al. 1985; Duggan and Inskip 1985; Sheppard and Evenden 1994; Kissel et al., 1996) and the assumption that they are, therefore, more likely to be ingested. This is a primary consideration in decisions regarding what data is to be used in the HHRA for characterizing potential current risk from incidental ingestion.

008354




The available data provide a substantial and representative environmental database for the risk assessment process. However, because of the large geographic area, additional studies of specific areas may be required as remediation proceeds or land use changes are considered.

Not all substances present at sites pose a human health risk. For example, some of the metals present in environmental samples from the Tar Creek OU4 are essential nutrients, including zinc. Yet even zinc, in excess, can pose health risks. Thus, EPA has developed guidelines for selecting a group of COPCs based on their toxicity, concentration, and other factors (EPA, 1989). Typically, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are used to compare the observed concentration of a substance in an environmental sample with some screening value, threshold, or legally-defined concentration in that environmental medium. For example, the ARARs for drinking water at this site are actually the EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)�concentrations of substances in drinking water above which unacceptable health risks to the public may occur. The only ARAR for substances in air that is relevant at this site is that for lead�the National Ambient Air Quality Criterion for lead. There are no ARARs at this site for substances in chat, tailings, soil, or biota.

The HHRA considers which COPCs might pose a human health risk for each medium of possible exposure: chat, tailings, soil, tap water, air, fish, edible aquatic organisms, beef, milk, small game, and three edible plants (asparagus, willow, and cattail). The process used was very typical of any HHRA at sites where chemical exposures might occur. It also considers possible risks due to the ingestion of wild asparagus, willow, and cattail, culturally-important food sources for Native Americans in the area. Because a �screening value� for chemicals in edible plants is not known, cadmium, lead, and zinc were evaluated as chemicals with possible risk, a decision consistent with the evaluation of other food substances.

In summary, the HHRA appropriately identified COPCs for each potential source of exposure. However, no effort was made to identify the particular chemical species of lead (or other metal) in any of these sources. The absence of chemical speciation is less than ideal because the bioavailability and toxicity of particular chemical species of the same metal can vary substantially. However, the bioavailability of lead in soil was evaluated at the Jasper County, Missouri Superfund Site, a similar site to Tar Creek OU4 in terms of waste sources and environmental conditions (Casteel et al., 1996). Results indicate bioavailability in the range of 29 to 40 percent. Therefore, the default bioavailability (30 percent) used in this HHRA is expected to be an appropriate estimate for the site.

The following sections summarize data used in the HHRA by medium.

2.2 Source Materials 2.2.1 Chat Samples that were representative of chat, or chat piles, were collected by the Respondents as part of their sampling program. A total of 20 chat piles were sampled. The Respondents defined chat material as bulk chat or surface chat, depending on the depth at which the samples were collected. Bulk chat (160 samples) were collected 1 foot below ground surface (bgs), while surface chat (14 samples) were collected from 0 to 1 inch. Bulk chat and surface

008355




chat samples were prepared or processed differently before analysis. Bulk chat samples were crushed and ground to pass through a #100 mesh sieve prior to analysis. These data were not used to characterize current risks associated with receptors contacting these materials; however, they were used in estimating emission factors for air quality modeling. Concentrations of lead in these 168 bulk samples ranged from 210-4,980 mg/kg; cadmium 41.3 to 199 mg/kg, and zinc from 10,200 to 40,300 mg/kg.

Surface chat samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve, and the material passing the sieve was analyzed. These 14 surface chat samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (for example, sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to analysis. Lead concentrations in these 14 samples ranged from 355 to 1,730 mg/kg; cadmium from 40 to 133 mg/kg; and zinc from 8,990 to 29,900 mg/kg.

Sixty-four supplemental samples of chat were collected by EPA and were collected from 0 to 6 inches. The samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was analyzed. These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to analysis. Lead, cadmium, and zinc were detected in each of these samples. Lead concentrations in these 64 samples ranged from 162 to 6,410 mg/kg; cadmium from 38.4 to 346 mg/kg; and zinc from 6,260 to 100,000 mg/kg.

2.2.2 Chat Base Samples that were representative of chat base, or the former remnants of larger chat piles, were collected by the Respondents as part of their sampling program. A total of six chat bases were sampled. 22 chat base samples were collected by the Respondents at 1 foot bgs and were crushed and ground to pass through a #100 mesh sieve prior to analysis. These samples were not used in the HHRA because of the depth at which they were collected and the methods by which they were processed.

Twenty-four supplemental samples of chat base were collected by EPA and were collected from 0 to 6 inches. These 24 samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was analyzed. These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to analysis. Concentrations of lead in these samples ranged from 552 to 9,600 mg/kg; cadmium from 36.8 to 172 mg/kg; and zinc from 5,690 to 54,300 mg/kg.

2.2.3 Fine Tailings Fine tailings, also commonly referred to as �tailing ponds� or �mill ponds,� were sampled by the Respondents as part of their sampling program. The fine tailings that were collected were categorized as washed fines, flotation tailings, or surface fine tailings, based upon the material collected and the depth of sample collection. Definitions of each are presented in the Respondents� Draft PSCS Report (AATA, 2005). A total of 169 fine tailings samples were collected by the Respondents, which included 96 washed fines samples, 53 flotation tailings samples, and 13 surface fine tailings samples.

008356




2.2.3.1 Washed Fines The Respondents collected depth-integrated composite samples of washed fines from 10 fine tailings ponds. These 96 samples were not used in the HHRA because they were collected as a composite over a depth interval (usually 1 foot or more) and were not sieved using a #60 mesh sieve prior to analysis. Concentrations of lead in the washed fines ranged from 220 to 26,600 mg/kg, cadmium ranged from 10 to 320 mg/kg, and zinc ranged from 1,730 to 70,000 mg/kg.

Supplemental samples of washed fines were collected by EPA from 0 to 6 inches. The samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was analyzed. These 38 samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to analysis. Concentrations of lead in these 38 samples ranged from 306 to 24,500 mg/kg; cadmium from 11.5 to 214 mg/kg; and zinc from 1,760 to 43,300 mg/kg.

2.2.3.2 Flotation Tailings The Respondents collected depth-integrated composite samples of flotation tailings from 10 fine tailings ponds. These 53 samples were not used to estimate risks from direct contact exposures in the HHRA because they were collected as a composite over a depth interval (usually 1 foot or more) and were not sieved using a #60 mesh sieve prior to analysis. These data were considered in the emissions estimates for air modeling. Lead concentrations in these 53 flotation tailing samples ranged from 1,130 to 17,800 mg/kg; cadmium from 26.3 to 450 mg/kg; and zinc from 4,690 to 103,000 mg/kg.

Supplemental samples of flotation tailings were collected by EPA from 0 to 6 inches. The samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was analyzed. These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to analysis.

2.2.3.3 Surface Fine Tailings The Respondents collected surface fine tailings as part of their sampling program. These samples were collected from 0 to 1 inch and were sieved using a #60 mesh prior to analysis; therefore, these 13 samples were used in support of the HHRA. In general, the surface fine tailing samples collected by the Respondents were of washed fines, which are typically found overlying flotation tailings at the Site. Concentrations of lead in these 38 samples ranged from 306 to 24,500 mg/kg; cadmium from 11.5 to 214 mg/kg; and zinc from 1,760 to 43,300 mg/kg.

Supplemental samples of surface fine tailings were collected by EPA from 0 to 6 inches. The 34 samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was analyzed. These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to analysis. Concentrations of lead in these 34 samples ranged from 360 to 24,600 mg/kg; cadmium from 27.9 to 301 mg/kg; and zinc from 3,800 to 59,500 mg/kg.

008357




2.3 Soils The Respondents collected background, transition zone, smelter-affected, and rural residential yard soil samples as part of their sampling program. Complete details regarding their soil sampling efforts are provided in their Draft PSCS Report (AATA, 2005). In addition, supplemental samples were collected by EPA in non-residential rural areas, away from source materials.

2.3.1.1 Background Soils The Respondents collected seven soil samples to evaluate background concentrations for metals. These samples were collected from 0 to 6 inches and were not sieved. The background values determined by the Respondents are considered in the HHRA. The average background concentrations were used for data comparisons in the screening process, and for use in bio-uptake modeling (Appendix F). These were 0.73 mg/kg for cadmium; 31.25 mg/kg for lead, and 83.25 mg/kg for zinc.

2.3.1.2 Transition Zone Soils The Respondents collected soil samples along transects that extended from the base of chat piles outward. Transects were generally located on the north and south sides of the pile and extended as far as 300 feet away from the pile. Transects were established at a total of five chat piles, with two transects per pile. The soil samples were collected at varying depths that included 0 to 1 inch, 6 inches, 12 inches, and 24 inches. Samples from the 0 to 1 inch interval were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the fraction passing the sieve was analyzed. The 0 to 1 inch samples were used in support of the HHRA.

Supplemental samples of transition zone soils were collected by EPA from 0 to 6 inches. The samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was analyzed. These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to analysis.

2.3.1.3 Smelter-Affected Soils The Respondents collected soil samples along transects that extended from the origin of the former Ottawa smelter area outward. Transects were located to the north and south sides of the smelter area, with the south transect extending 5,000 feet. Transects to the north were extended until physical obstructions or limitations prevented further extension. All samples were collected from 0 to 1 inch and were not sieved prior to analysis. Although the samples were not sieved, they were used in support of the HHRA due to the need for additional samples to characterize the area.

Supplemental samples of smelter-affected soils were collected by EPA from 0 to 6 inches. The samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was analyzed. These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to analysis.

008358




2.3.1.4 Rural Residential Yard Soil The Respondents collected soil samples at rural residential properties�44 on private land and two on BIA land (Figure 2). The samples were collected from 0 to 1 inch and 0 to 6 inches. The samples collected from 0 to 1 inch were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and therefore were utilized in support of the HHRA. The samples from 0 to 6 inch depths were not sieved and, therefore, were not used in the HHRA. It is noted that in some cases, higher concentrations of lead and zinc were identified in the 0-6 inch interval samples (Appendix A). Supplemental samples of rural residential yard soil were not collected by EPA.

The highest lead concentration in surface soil samples (8,200 mg/kg) was reported from 61220 East 20 Road, which is located immediately adjacent to the former Ottawa smelter. Smelter-affected surface soil at this location was remediated in November 2005 and no longer remains at this location. Therefore, the samples from this location were excluded from the data used in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C).

Furthermore, the Respondents collected soil samples at one additional residential yard (1301 S. 592 RD) in October 2005. The samples were collected from 0 to 1 inch and 0 to 6 inches. The samples collected from 0 to 1 inch were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and, therefore, were used in support of the HHRA. These additional samples were also included in the data used in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C).

2.3.1.5 Rural Area Soil EPA collected 56 soil samples from non-residential rural areas away from potential source materials in December 2005 to characterize area-wide soil concentrations across the site (Appendix A). Samples were collected from 0 to 1 inch. The samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve prior to analysis. The fraction passing the sieve was analyzed for lead only by an outside laboratory (EMAX). These samples were used in support of the HHRA in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C).

2.4 Ground Water Fourteen shallow private wells were identified in OU4. The Respondents collected ground water from 13 rural, shallow domestic wells from residences located within the Site boundaries, 12 on private land and one on BIA land. These samples were used in support of the HHRA. Twelve wells were originally sampled during the RI (and presented in the original risk calculations in Appendix C). The one additional well sampled in October 2005 was not incorporated into the updated risk calculations since concentrations were low (e.g., lead concentrations were 1.6 µg/L or less) and would not impact results of the HHRA. Supplemental samples of rural domestic wells were not collected by EPA.

2.5 Edible Plants Native Americans gather various culturally-significant edible plants in the Tar Creek Area, including berries and fruit, herbs, food, and nuts. Edible plant samples were not collected by the Respondents. However, samples of three edible plant species (asparagus, willow, and cattail) were collected from BIA land and private land in support of the HHRA. A total of 57

008359




plants were sampled. Four samples were collected from each plant�washed roots, unwashed roots, washed leaves, and unwashed leaves�for a total of 228 biota samples. In addition, a collocated soil sample was collected from each plant. It should be noted that �washed� root and leaf samples simply had deionized water poured over them, and visible dirt remained on the samples. Details of the plant sampling efforts are provided in Appendix A.

2.6 Fish Fish samples were not collected by the Respondents during the RI. However, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) collected fish samples from four ponds (chat pile ponds or mill ponds) and two rivers (Neosho River and Spring River) in 2002, as presented in Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area (Appendix B; ODEQ, 2003). A total of 80 composite fish samples representing eight species were collected and analyzed using three preparation methods: fillets, whole-uneviscerated fish, and whole-eviscerated fish. Collocated sediment and surface water samples were also available from these water bodies and used in the study. The edible fish tissue data, and conclusions of the study were used in the HHRA.

2.7 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern EPA�s Finding of Facts in the AOC identifies that mine and mill residues and smelter waste dumped and disposed on the surface soil at OU4 contain hazardous substances including, without limitation, cadmium, lead, and zinc. The AOC Scope of Work identifies that cadmium, lead, and zinc are the COPCs for OU4 (EPA, 2003). As part of the HHRA, a review of available analytical data for other metals detected in chat pile and mill pond surface materials, soil, and ground water was performed (Appendix C, Table 2). The results of this review indicate that six metals (arsenic, antimony, iron, manganese, nickel, and thallium) exceed the background average and applicable EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSLs) for residential soil. However, these metals were not selected as COPCs for the following reasons:

• Arsenic: detected at only one residence (unsieved, 0 to 6 inches at the former smelter) above the background range, at 34.1 ppm; this yard was subsequently remediated in November 2005; also detected above 20 ppm in only 2 transition zone samples, smelter-affected soil area, and chat pile/tailings pond material.

• Antimony: detected at only one residence (unsieved, 0 to 6 inches at the former smelter) above the MSSL; this yard was subsequently remediated in November 2005; also detected only in smelter-affected soil above the MSSL.

• Iron: detected at only one residence (unsieved, 0 to 6 inches), chat pile/tailing pond material, and in smelter-affected soil above the MSSL; it is an essential nutrient.

• Manganese: detected above its MSSL in one transition zone sample.

• Nickel: detected below its MSSL at all locations except 3 transition zone samples, a few chat pile/tailing pond material samples, and one smelter-affected soil sample.

008360




• Thallium: detected below its MSSL at all locations except one chat pile/tailing pond material sample.

008361


3.0 Exposure Assessment

After identifying which chemicals might pose hazards to human health, potential human exposures were characterized and are summarized in the Conceptual Site Model in Figure 3-1.

3.1 Potential Exposure Pathways and Receptors Five receptor categories (general public adult and child resident, recreator, and Native American adult and child resident) were identified for OU4 and the possible pathways of exposures to cadmium, lead, and zinc that might occur under several scenarios were identified (Appendix C, Table 1). This approach represents an acceptable first step in estimating potential intakes for current and future exposures. The current exposure pathways that were quantified in the HHRA are indicated in Appendix C, Table 1, and are summarized below.

• General public child resident � Surface soil, drinking water, and ambient air

• General public adult resident � Surface soil, drinking water, and ambient air

• Native American child resident � Surface soil, drinking water, ambient air, and dairy milk

• Native American adult resident � Surface soil, drinking water, ambient air, fish, beef, edible plants, aquatic life (such as mussels, crawfish), and small game animals

• Recreator � surface waste materials (such as in chat pile and mill pond material)

The future exposure pathways that were quantified are indicated in Appendix C, Table 1. For the general public child and adult, as well as the Native American child and adult, potential exposures to surface soil and ambient air were evaluated.

There may be Native American residents at Tar Creek with a high-game diet rather than a high-beef diet. Based on available literature (Nagy, 2001), the bioconcentration factors for large game (e.g., elk) are similar to beef cattle. Therefore, risks to Native Americans with a high-game diet can be estimated by the risks calculated for a Native American with a high-beef diet.

3.2 Exposure Point Concentrations To estimate possible risks of adverse health outcomes, it is necessary to estimate the cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in each environmental medium to which a receptor may be exposed. EPA guidelines (EPA 1991a; 1992a) state that this concentration term (exposure point concentration; EPC) should represent the average concentration to which one is exposed for the relevant portion of one�s lifetime. Because of the obvious uncertainty in estimating the true average concentration from measurements of samples, EPA recommends

008362




using the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL95) of the mean as a conservative estimate of the EPC, as this is associated with only a 5 percent probability of underestimating the true average (EPA 1991a, 1992b, 1993a). In addition to the concentrations in each environmental medium, it is necessary to estimate the pathway-specific intakes from that medium to ultimately estimate exposures. In this HHRA, intakes were estimated using RME assumptions, illustrating a high exposure scenario that may occur.

In the HHRA, EPCs were estimated (Appendix C, Table 3) and potential intakes were calculated for surface soil, tap water, ambient air, milk, biota (edible plants, aquatic food, fish, small game, and beef), and waste materials. The following data were used for evaluating potential current exposures by the indicated receptors:

• General Public Resident � Three data sets

o 2 Measured � Surface soil (44 yards on private land) and tap water (11 wells on private land); the dataset used in the original risk calculations is presented in Appendix C, Table 2, while the updated dataset is presented in Appendix C, Table 2. In the updated dataset, soil samples from one yard that was subsequently remediated in November 2005 were removed, and soil samples from one additional home sampled in October 2005 were added.

o 1 Modeled - Ambient air (Appendices D and E)

• Native American Resident � 11 data sets

o 6 Measured � Surface soil (two yards on BIA land), tap water (one well on private land), fish (Appendix B), asparagus, willow, and cattail

o 5 Modeled - Ambient air (Appendices D and E), three biota categories (small game, beef, and milk) using biotransfer factors, and aquatic organisms using a regression model (Appendix F)

• Recreator � Two data sets

o 2 Measured � Chat pile, tailings

o Modeled � None

In the HHRA, all future environmental media concentrations were assumed to remain the same as present, with the exception of surface soil for the general public and Native American residents. Future surface soil concentrations were modeled assuming a 30-year deposition period (Appendices D and E). Future exposures by general public and Native American residents to soil and air were quantified using the range of modeled future soil and air concentrations (see Section 3.3).

In some cases, fewer than 10 measurements were available for a data grouping of cadmium or zinc analyses (Appendix C, Table 3); in these cases, the maximum value was used in place of the UCL95. Because the formula used to calculate UCL95s appropriately depends on the distribution of the data, EPA�s ProUCL program was used to examine the shape of the distributions and then perform these calculations (Appendix L).

008363




The major assumptions associated with the EPCs for each environmental medium used in the HHRA are described below.

3.2.1 Chat and Tailings Analytical results from chat samples (piles or bases) and tailings ponds were used for quantifying potential exposures to recreators, and for input into the ambient air model and air deposition model. Sieved (250 µm) surface samples (0 to 1 inch or 0 to 6 inches) were available from a total of 20 chat piles, six chat bases, and 10 tailing ponds, and were assumed to represent surface concentrations that may be contacted during activities in the source areas in Tar Creek OU4. The EPCs for these samples were 93 mg/kg cadmium, 18,400 mg/kg zinc, and 3,461 mg/kg lead.

3.2.2 Soils Analytical results from residential yard soil were used for quantifying potential exposures to residents (both general public and Native American) were used as starting soil concentrations in the future air deposition model (Appendices D and E), and were used in the biota uptake modeling (for beef, small game animals, and dairy milk) (Appendix F). The dataset used in the original risk calculations is presented in Appendix C, Table 2, while the updated dataset is presented in Appendix C, Table 2. In the updated dataset, soil samples from one general public yard (at the former smelter) that was subsequently remediated in November 2005 were removed, and soil samples from one additional general public home sampled in October 2005 were added.

Of the 46 rural residential yards sampled, 44 were from residences on private land, while two were on BIA land. For each yard, the average sieved (250 µm) surface soil (0 to 1 inch) lead concentration detected at that yard was used as the EPC for the blood lead models (Appendices G and H). It should be noted that a few samples from the 0 to 6 inch interval at a few residences displayed higher lead concentrations, but were not used in the models since they were not sieved samples. The maximum detected concentrations of cadmium and zinc were used to evaluate exposures on private land and BIA land, separately. The EPCs for cadmium and zinc are presented below:

• cadmium - 48 mg/kg (general public) and 9.6 mg/kg (Native American)

• zinc - 7,700 mg/kg (general public) and 1,940 mg/kg (Native American).

For those residences where yard soil samples were not collected during the OU4 RI but where ground water samples were collected, if the residence was part of OU2, the soil lead concentration at these residences was not addressed in this HHRA. For those residences that were not part of OU2, the average lead concentration detected at the 46 residential yards (as a group) was used for input in the lead models for these residences (Appendices G and H).

In addition to the residential yard soil, analytical results from transition zone surface soil (0 to 1 inch or 0 to 6 inches and sieved [250 µm]) at five chat piles were used as starting soil concentrations in the future air deposition model (Appendices D and E) and were used in the biota uptake modeling for beef, small game animals, and dairy milk (Appendix F). In the original calculations, an incorrect soil concentration of 515 ppm cadmium was incorporated into the air modeling and biota uptake modeling in Appendices E and F. However, in the

008364




updates to these appendices, this cadmium concentration was replaced with the reanalyzed sample concentration (5 ppm).

Additionally, analytical results from smelter-affected surface soil (0 to 1 inch or 0 to 6 inches) were used as starting soil concentrations in the future air deposition model (Appendices D and E) and were used in the biota uptake modeling for beef, small game animals, and dairy milk (Appendix F).

* As mentioned previously, 56 samples were collected from non-residential rural areas in October 2005. Although not available for the original risk calculations, air deposition modeling, and biota uptake modeling (Appendices C, E, and F, respectively), these samples were used as starting soil concentrations in the updated future air deposition modeling and biota uptake modeling in Appendices E and F, and reflected in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C).

3.2.3 Ground Water Analytical results from shallow, private wells were used for quantifying potential exposures to residents (both general public and Native American). Of the 12 wells sampled, 11 were from residences on private land, while one was on BIA land. Multiple samples were available from some wells. For each residence, the average measured lead concentration in ground water at that residence was used as the EPC in the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model (Appendix G). Homes without wells are assumed to be supplied with municipal drinking water or withdraw water from the deeper aquifer, and the default lead concentration in ground water that was embedded in the IEUBK model was used. The maximum detected concentrations of cadmium and zinc were used to evaluate exposures on private land and BIA land separately. The EPCs for cadmium and zinc are presented below:

• cadmium - 0.003 mg/L (general public); cadmium was non-detect in the well on BIA land;

• zinc - 1.11 mg/L (general public) and 0.22 (Native American).

3.2.4 Edible Plants Analytical results from unwashed plants (both root and aboveground portions) were used for quantifying potential exposures by adult Native American residents. Three types of culturally significant foods were available (asparagus, willow, and cattail). For each plant, the concentrations in both the root and aboveground portion were used since it is assumed that a Native American would ingest both portions of the plant. Unwashed samples (rather than washed samples) were used since some Native Americans may not wash plants prior to ingestion. It should be noted that unwashed samples had visible dirt on the sample surface.

3.2.5 Fish Analytical results from fish samples collected by ODEQ in 2002 were used for quantifying potential exposures to adult Native American residents. Concentrations from eight fish species were available (ODEQ, 2003) and average concentrations were assumed to represent fish concentrations that may be contacted over an extended time period if eating fish from

008365




millponds or rivers in Tar Creek OU4. These concentrations are 0.17 mg/kg for cadmium, 21 mg/kg for zinc, and 0.427 mg/kg for lead.

3.2.6 Ambient Air Ambient air concentrations were modeled from potential source areas (chat and tailings ponds), and were used in quantifying potential exposures to current and future residents (general public and Native American; Appendices D and E). For evaluating potential current exposures, ambient air concentrations were modeled at each of the 46 rural residential yards sampled, and at the additional residences where shallow rural wells were sampled but soil was not collected (and they were not part of OU2). For use in the lead models, ambient air concentrations were evaluated for each home separately. For cadmium and zinc, the UCL95 of the individual ambient air concentrations modeled at the 46 homes was used.

For evaluating potential future exposures, ambient air concentrations across the Tar Creek area were modeled (Appendices D and E) and the range was used in quantifying potential exposures. The modeled concentrations were assumed to represent ambient air concentrations that may be contacted when inhaling ambient air in Tar Creek OU4.

3.2.7 Beef Beef concentrations were modeled from uptake of soil in potential grazing areas (transition zone soil, smelter-affected soil, and residential yard soil), and were used in quantifying potential exposures to adult Native American residents (Appendix F). The approach and chemical-specific biotransfer factors presented in EPA�s Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a) were used. The modeled concentrations were assumed to represent beef concentrations that Native Americans may encounter when eating beef from cattle grazing in Tar Creek OU4.

In the original calculations, an incorrect soil concentration of 515 ppm cadmium in a transition zone sample was incorporated into the biota uptake modeling in Appendix F. However, in the update to this appendix, this cadmium concentration was replaced with the reanalyzed sample concentration (5 ppm).

In addition, as mentioned previously, the rural area soil samples were not available for the original risk calculations and biota uptake modeling (Appendices C and F, respectively). However, these samples were used in the updated biota uptake modeling in Appendix F, and reflected in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C). The potential grazing area soil data were divided into two data groupings to evaluate the impact of smelter-affected soil on the overall risk estimates:

• transition zone soil, updated residential yard soil, rural area soil, and background soil; and

• smelter-affected soil.

3.2.8 Small Game Small game (e.g., squirrel, rabbit, deer, duck, geese, quail, and turkey) are commonly hunted in the area. Potential concentrations in small herbivore mammals (e.g., rabbit) were modeled

008366




from uptake of soil in potential foraging/grazing areas (transition zone soil, smelter-affected soil, and residential and yard soil), and were used in quantifying potential exposures to adult Native American residents (Appendix F). The chemical-specific bioconcentration factors (BCFs) presented in the Tar Creek OU4 ERA (EPA, 2005b) were used. The modeled concentrations were assumed to represent small game concentrations that may be contacted by Native American residents when eating small game caught in Tar Creek OU4.

In calculating the original EPCs and the associated risk estimates, an incorrect assumption regarding wet weight versus dry weight was used, resulting in overestimates of risk; this was corrected in the updated biouptake modeling in Appendix F. In addition, in the original calculations, an incorrect soil concentration of 515 ppm cadmium in a transition zone sample was incorporated into the biota uptake modeling in Appendix F. However, in the update to this appendix, this cadmium concentration was replaced with the reanalyzed sample concentration (5 ppm).

As mentioned previously, the rural area soil samples were not available for the original risk calculations and biota uptake modeling (Appendices C and F, respectively). However, these samples were used in the updated biota uptake modeling in Appendix F, and reflected in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C). The potential grazing area soil data were divided into two data groupings to determine the impact of smelter-affected soil on the overall risk estimates:



3.2.9 Aquatic Life Native Americans gather mussels, crawfish, and turtles from creeks and rivers in the area. Aquatic biota (such as mussels and crawfish) concentrations were modeled from uptake of sediment in mill ponds or rivers (as presented in ODEQ, 2003), and were used in quantifying potential exposures to adult Native American residents. A regression model was used with average sediment concentrations to estimate concentrations that may be ingested over a chronic exposure period by Native American residents when eating aquatic biota collected in Tar Creek OU4 (Appendix F). Cadmium and zinc EPCs were estimated at 2 mg/kg. In calculating the original EPCs and the associated risk estimates, an incorrect assumption regarding wet weight versus dry weight was used, and there was an error in the regression equation, resulting in overestimates of risk for cadmium and lead; this was corrected in the updated bio-uptake modeling in Appendix F.

3.2.10 Milk Dairy milk concentrations were modeled from uptake of soil in potential cattle grazing areas (transition zone soil, smelter-affected soil, and residential yard soil), and were used in quantifying potential exposures to child Native American residents (Appendix F). The approach and chemical-specific biotransfer factors presented in EPA�s Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a) were used. The modeled concentrations were assumed to represent milk

008367




concentrations that may be contacted by Native American residents when drinking milk from cows grazing in Tar Creek OU4.

In the original calculations, an incorrect soil concentration of 515 ppm cadmium in a transition zone sample was incorporated into the biota uptake modeling (and resulting milk concentrations) in Appendix F. However, in the update to this appendix, this cadmium concentration was replaced with the reanalyzed sample concentration (5 ppm).

In addition, as mentioned previously, the rural area soil samples were not available for the original risk calculations and biota uptake modeling (Appendices C and F, respectively). However, these samples were used in the updated biota uptake modeling (and resulting milk concentrations) in Appendix F, and reflected in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C). For dairy cattle, the potential grazing area soil data were divided into two data groupings to determine the impact of smelter-affected soil on the overall risk estimates:



3.3 Intake Estimates The exposure models used were straightforward and took into account a variety of behavioral and physiological factors, including exposure frequency and duration, contact rate, EPC, body weight, and averaging time for the general public, Native American residents, and recreators (Appendix C, Table 4). An example of one of these models, which estimated exposure via the consumption of ground water as a drinking source, is shown below:

Chemical intake (mg/kg/day) = Cw × SIFw × CF (1)

and

SIFw = IRw × EF × ED/(BW ×AT) (2)

Where

Cw = chemical concentration in tap water (µg/L)

SIFw = summary intake factor for ingestion of tap water (L/kg/day)

IRw = ingestion rate for tap water (L/day)

EF = exposure frequency (days/year)

ED = exposure duration (years)

CF = conversion factor (mg/µg)

BW = body weight (kg)

AT = averaging time (days).

008368




The intake parameters used to solve such equations (in this case, IRw, EF, ED, BW, and AT) for children and adults were obtained from previous EPA guidance for such calculations (EPA 1989, 1991a, 1993a). In the example presented, the intake parameters are known with a relatively high degree of certainty (for example, ingestion rate for tap water). In other equations, such as those related to exposure from asparagus, intake parameters are less certain (for example, vegetable ingestion rates, gastrointestinal and dermal absorption factors) but represent conservative estimates of current scientific evidence.

The exposure frequency for a recreator (on chat piles, chat bases, and mill ponds) was based on the average number of days without rain and above freezing in Tar Creek. This information was obtained from the Miami University of Oklahoma Mesonet station (www.mesonet.org). The most recent data that was available for a 5-year period was 1999 to 2003, and is presented below.

Year # of Days 1999 189

2000 184

2001 189

2002 177

2003 182

Average 184.2

Standard default exposure factors were used for evaluating potential exposures by the general public. However, for evaluating Native American residential exposures representative of the tribal way of life, exposure factors presented in �The Spokane Tribe�s Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME� (Harper et al., 2002) were used. Three sets of exposure factors were used: child, adult with a high-fish diet, and adult with a high-beef diet. Best professional judgment was used in identifying exposure factors for the adolescent recreator scenario.

Potential future exposures to soil and ambient air by residents (general public and Native American) were evaluated using the following combinations of modeled soil/air concentrations in the original risk estimates (Appendix C):

• Maximum soil and maximum air;

• Mean soil and maximum air;

• Mean soil and mean air; and

• 75th percentile soil and maximum air.

008369




Three combinations of modeled soil/air concentrations were used in the updated risk estimates (Appendix C):

• Maximum soil and maximum air;

• Median soil and maximum air; and

• Mean soil (same value as 75th percentile) and maximum air.

008370





008371


4.0 Toxicity Assessment

Much of the following general discussion was excerpted from Superfund and Mining Megasites – Lessons from the Coeur d’Alene River Basin (EPA, 2005c).

After identifying the chemical hazards, and estimating the human exposures to each, the next step in an HHRA involves evaluating the scientific evidence from animal and human epidemiologic studies that have examined dose-response relationships for cancer and non-cancer health outcomes. The fundamental tenet of toxicology is that the dose determines the effect.

The following hierarchy of sources was used to obtain toxicity data for COPCs:

• Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (EPA, 2005d)

• Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) (EPA, 2005e)

• Other Sources (e.g., EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables [HEAST; EPA, 1995] and the National Center for Environmental Assessment [NCEA]).

4.1 For Non-carcinogens Other Than Lead For noncancer outcomes, a chronic reference dose (RfD) is derived from the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) or lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) in animals or humans.

RfDs are derived by dividing the NOAEL or LOAEL by an uncertainty factor

that represents a combination of various sources of uncertainty associated with the database for that particular chemical. EPA�s IRIS database and NCEA served as the source of RfDs for the COPCs at Tar Creek, except for lead (discussed below), for which there is no IRIS RfD and for which other sources of toxicity data were used.

Dermal RfDs are not available in IRIS, PPRTVs, or HEAST. Equations presented in EPA guidance (EPA, 1989) were used to calculate dermal RfDs for cadmium and zinc. An inhalation reference concentration (RfC) was not available for zinc. Note that cadmium also has potential cancer effects and has its own IRIS SF via the inhalation pathway. Non-cancer toxicity values used in the HHRA are presented in Appendix C, Table 5.

4.2 For Lead Of the three COPCs, the adverse health effects of lead are best characterized in human populations. Risk assessments for lead therefore differ from those for other noncarcinogens in that they rely on observed or predicted blood lead levels (BLLs), as BLLs have been directly related to adverse outcomes in adults and children. In studies conducted around the world, population average BLL have been found to be associated with adverse effects on average measures of cognitive and behavioral development in young children. In short, dose-response relationships between BLL and adverse health outcomes in children are sufficiently well described that community BLL can be used to estimate risk. Community BLL can be

008372




determined precisely through appropriately designed surveys, or they can be estimated from environmental data through modeling techniques. The estimation of BLL through modeling, which involves environmental rather than biological measurements, is presented in Section 5, and detailed input and output calculations using the IEUBK and Adult Lead Model are presented in Appendices G and H, respectively. Historic BLL measurements collected in the Tar Creek area are presented in Section 6.

4.3 For Carcinogens (Cadmium) For cancer outcomes, the dose-response information is condensed into a SF, in units of (mg/kg-day)−1, which expresses excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) as a function of (lifetime average) daily dose. EPA maintains an online database, IRIS (EPA, 2005d), which contains SFs that are based on the current weight of toxicologic evidence. Of the three COPCs identified at Tar Creek, only cadmium was evaluated for carcinogenic risk since it was the only identified potential carcinogen. Cancer toxicity values are provided in Appendix C, Table 6.

The following information regarding the carcinogenicity of cadmium was excerpted from the IRIS database (EPA, 2005d).

The EPA has concluded that cadmium is a Class B1 carcinogen (probable human carcinogen) via the inhalation pathway. This is based on limited evidence from occupational epidemiologic studies of cadmium, which is consistent across investigators and study populations.

A two-fold excess risk of lung cancer was observed in cadmium smelter workers (602 white males employed in production work a minimum of 6 months during the years 1940-1969). Urine cadmium data available for 261 workers employed after 1960 suggested a highly exposed population. As the standardized mortality rates observed were low and there is a lack of clear-cut evidence of a causal relationship of the cadmium exposure only, this study is considered to supply limited evidence of human carcinogenicity.

Four studies of workers exposed to cadmium dust or fumes provided evidence of a statistically significant positive association with prostate cancer (Kipling and Waterhouse, 1967; Lemen et al., 1976; Holden, 1980; Sorahan and Waterhouse, 1983), but the total number of cases was small in each study. The Thun et al. (1985) study is an update of an earlier study (Lemen et al., 1976) and does not show excess prostate cancer risk in these workers. Studies of human ingestion of cadmium are inadequate to assess carcinogenicity.

The unit risk for cadmium should not be used if the air concentration exceeds 6 µg/m3, since above this concentration the unit risk may not be appropriate.

008373


5.0 Risk Characterization

Risk characterization, the last step in an HHRA, strives to combine the estimates of chemical exposure with the estimates of potential human hazard (based on known dose-response relationships) to estimate the actual or potential risks to human health at the site. At the Tar Creek OU4 site, EPA estimated cancer and non-cancer health risks for RME conditions (Appendix C, Tables 7 and 9, with updated calculations in Appendix C). The RME is a conservative estimate intended to be the highest exposure that can reasonably be expected to occur. Risks were estimated separately for different segments of the population, such as the general public (children and adults), adolescent recreators, and Native American residents (children and adults) representing the tribal way of life.

5.1 Approach for Carcinogens To characterize potential carcinogenic effects, statistical probabilities are estimated from calculated intakes and toxicity values that a hypothetical person will develop cancer over a lifetime as a result of assumed exposures. Using the SF for cadmium, estimated daily intakes averaged over a lifetime of exposure were converted to incremental risks of a hypothetical person developing cancer. The following formulae were used to estimate potential ELCR from inhalation exposures:

SFIntakeRisk ×=

EPA�s target range for carcinogenic risk associated with Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites and specified in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 300.430) is 1-in-10,000 (1 x 10-4) to 1-in-1,000,000 (1 x 10-6). That is, the risk associated with site-related exposures should not exceed this target range.

5.2 Approach for Non-carcinogens Other than Lead Estimates of potential non-carcinogenic health risks were developed by calculating a Hazard Quotient (HQ) for each COPC by exposure route. The HQ was calculated as the ratio of the estimated intake to the RfD as follows:

RfDIntakeHQ =

If the estimated daily intake for any COPC exceeded its RfD, the HQ exceeded 1. An HQ that exceeds 1 indicates that there is a potential for adverse health effects associated with exposure to that COPC, but it does not indicate the actual level of health effect.

A hazard index (HI) approach was used to evaluate non-carcinogenic health risks posed by one or more COPCs to which a receptor may be exposed by one or more exposure routes. The HI approach assumes that simultaneous sub-threshold exposures to several COPCs or

008374




exposure routes are additive. The HI is equal to the sum of the HQs, and is calculated as follows:

)/(...)/()/( 2211 ii RfDIRfDIRfDIHITotal +++=

Where:

I = Intake level [chronic daily intake [CDI] (mg/kg-day)

RfD = Chronic reference dose (mg/kg-day)

Ii = Intake level (intake) for the ith chemical

RfDi = Reference dose for the ith chemical

The HI approach was used to estimate potential non-cancer health effects associated with COPCs. When the sum of HQs for a receptor exceeds unity (one), there may be concern for potential non-cancer health effects, assuming that the cumulative effect of multiple sub-threshold exposures is additive, and may result in an adverse health effect to a particular target organ.

The Tar Creek OU4 HHRA estimated HQs separately for the following receptors:

• General public child

• General public adult

• Adolescent recreator

• Native American child

• Native American adult with high-fish diet

• Native American adult with high-game diet

Risk assessment of non-lead COPCs followed EPA guidelines. Residential soil EPCs (for cadmium and zinc) were the maximum detected concentrations for all 46 yards sampled. The fraction of ingested soil that a child typically obtains from areas other than his or her own yard is essentially unknown. The consequences of using maximum detected EPC values is to overestimate risk for all residents except for those living at the residence with the maximum detected concentration.

5.3 Approach for Lead As mentioned in Section 4.2, risk assessments for lead rely on observed or predicted BLLs in a community, as BLLs have been directly related to adverse outcomes in adults and children. In 1991, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) promulgated specific guidelines aimed at reducing BLLs in individual children (CDC, 1991). These are summarized in Table 5-1.

Because vast quantities of lead have been distributed throughout Tar Creek due to historical mining-related activities, the HHRA devoted substantial effort to characterizing the risks of

008375




lead toxicity. The IEUBK model was used to estimate risks to children from lead exposure from soil and other media. The EPA�s Adult Lead Model (ALM) was used to evaluate residential adult and adolescent recreator exposures to lead in soil.

At sites like Tar Creek, EPA policies seek to protect the health of the most vulnerable populations, namely children and women of childbearing age. EPA policy (EPA, 1994) strives to reduce soil lead levels so that no child would have more than a 5 percent chance of exceeding a BLL of 10 µg/dL.

5.4 Results Potential ELCRs, HIs, and BLLs were calculated using RME assumptions for the general public, Native American residents, and recreators for the exposure pathways identified in Section 3.1. The following potential risks were calculated. Current intakes and risks are presented in Appendix C, Table 7, and summarized in Table 9 (and updated in Appendix C), while current BLLs are calculated in Appendices G and H. Future intakes, risks, and BLLs are presented in Appendix I, and a statistical evaluation of the future modeled soil concentrations is presented in Appendix J. A summary of the risk estimates is also presented in Tables 5-1 through 5-3, and includes both the original risk estimates and the updated risk estimates provided in Appendix C.

5.4.1 Current Child Resident (General Public) Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil/dust from residential yards (44 homes with measured surface soil data), ground water ingestion, and inhalation of ambient air were quantified for a general public residential child.

Children were the most sensitive receptors when quantifying risks for COPCs. For cadmium and zinc, the maximum target organic-specific HI is 1 based on the maximum detected concentration of cadmium and zinc in the 0-1 inch surface soil samples and ground water, and the modeled UCL95 air concentrations. Approximately 60 percent of the estimated risks were associated with incidental ingestion of soils.

Of the 44 homes where surface soil samples (0-1 inch or 0-6 inches) were collected, six homes had one or more soil samples with lead concentrations above 500 mg/kg. Using the average surface soil sample concentration (from the 0-1 inch interval) and default ground water concentration of 4 µg/L (or measured concentration if available for that residence), potential BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl for children were estimated for four homes.

For the six homes with measured ground water concentrations but not soils, the percentage of the population with BLLs exceeding 10 µg/dl were within acceptable levels.

At the 50 (44 plus 6) private rural residential properties, the percentage of the child population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl ranged from 0.002 percent to 99.536 percent. Based on averaging the probabilities at all 52 residences (50 plus the two properties on BIA land), the average percentage of the �neighborhood� with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl is 2.98 percent. Four individual residences on private (non-BIA) land exceed the EPA�s target.

008376




No COPCs exceeded an individual HI of 1. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium and zinc are within acceptable levels and lead was identified as the only chemical of concern (COC) for this receptor.

Overall risk estimates for the current child resident on non-BIA land did not change when calculations were performed based on the updated soil dataset. The COPC concentrations in soil at the newly sampled (October 2005) residential property were below their respective screening levels. The risk estimates based on maximum detected concentrations of cadmium and zinc remained the same. After eliminating soil samples from the home at the former smelter, the maximum percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl decreased to 21.6 percent and the number of homes exceeding the EPA�s target concentration decreased to five.

Based on the updated soil dataset, the average percentage of the �neighborhood� with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl is less than 5 percent. Three individual residences on non-BIA land exceed the EPA�s target.

5.4.2 Current Adult Resident (General Public) Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil from residential yards, ground water ingestion, and inhalation of ambient air were quantified for a general public residential adult. An ELCR of 8x10-8 and maximum target organ-specific HI of 0.2 were calculated.

At the 44 public rural residential properties, the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl ranged from 1.3 percent to 73.8 percent. Two individual residences exceed the EPA�s target.

No COPCs exceeded an individual ELCR of 1x10-6 or HI of 1. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium and zinc are within acceptable levels and lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor.

The ODEQ fish study concluded that fillets of fish caught in ponds within the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the Spring and Neosho Rivers are safe to eat at rates up to six 8-ounce meals per month. Whole-uneviscerated and whole-eviscerated portions of all fish from the Oklahoma sections of the Spring and Neosho Rivers downstream to Grand Lake and ponds in the Tri-State Mining Area should not be consumed due to lead concentrations. The higher fish tissue lead concentrations are positively correlated to lead concentrations in the sediments of the area waters (ODEQ, 2003; Appendix B).

Overall risk estimates for current adult residents on non-BIA land did not change when calculations were performed on the updated soil dataset. The COPC concentrations in soil at the newly sampled (October 2005) residential property were within their respective screening levels. The risk estimates based on the maximum detected concentrations of cadmium and zinc remained the same. After eliminating soil samples from the home at the former smelter, the maximum percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl decreased to 6.7 percent and only one home exceeded EPA�s target concentration.

008377




5.4.3 Current Child Resident (Native American) Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil/dust from the two residential yards sampled on BIA land, ground water ingestion, inhalation of ambient air, and ingestion of dairy milk were quantified for a Native American child. For cadmium and zinc, the maximum calculated target organ-specific HI is 0.33 based on the maximum detected concentration of cadmium and zinc in the 0-1 inch surface soil samples and ground water, and the modeled UCL95 air concentrations. Approximately 75 percent of the estimated risks were associated with incidental ingestion of soils.

Using the average surface soil sample concentration (from the 0-1 inch interval) detected at these two residences and default ground water concentration of 4 µg/L (or measured concentration if available for that residence), potential BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl for children were estimated for the two homes. The percentage of the child population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl ranged from 0.011 percent to 0.036 percent. Based on averaging the probabilities at all 52 residences (two on BIA land plus the 50 on non-BIA land), the average percentage of the �neighborhood� with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl is 2.98 percent. Neither home on BIA land had soil samples above 500 mg/kg.

No COPCs exceeded an individual HI of 1. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium and zinc are within acceptable levels and lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor.

Risk estimates for the current Native American child resident did not change when calculations were performed based on the updated soil dataset, except for the slight decrease in risks associated with ingestion of milk.

5.4.4 Current Adult Resident (Native American, High-Fish and High-Beef Diets) Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil from residential yards on BIA land, ground water ingestion, inhalation of ambient air, and ingestion of biota (fish, small game, beef, aquatic food, asparagus, willow, and cattail) were quantified. An ELCR of 2x10-7 (both high-fish diet and high-beef diet) and maximum target organ-specific HIs of 700 and 600 were calculated for the high-fish diet and high-beef diet, respectively.

At the two rural residential properties on BIA land (Res_3 and Res_5), the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl was 100 percent at both homes (Appendix H).

Cadmium and zinc exceeded an individual HI of 1 due to the asparagus, willow, and cattail ingestion pathways. In addition, cadmium exceeded an individual HI of 1 from the aquatic food ingestion and fish ingestion pathways. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium and zinc exceed acceptable levels, and lead, cadmium, and zinc were identified as COCs for this receptor.

Additional evaluation was conducted using the updated soil dataset including transition zone soil, updated residential yard soil, rural area soil, and background soil, for the BUM. Overall risk estimates for Native American adult resident did not change based on the updated soil dataset. An ELCR of 2x10-7 and maximum target organ-specific HI of 600 were calculated for both high-fish diet and high-beef diet. The percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl (100 percent) did not change at the two rural residential properties. Overall risk estimates did not change for cadmium and zinc based on the updated soil dataset.

008378




5.4.5 Current Adult Resident (More Typical Native American) Using more typical exposure factors for Native American subsistence residents as presented in EPA�s Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA, 1997), ingestion of biota (beef, small game, fish, aquatic food, asparagus, willow, and cattail) were quantified. The maximum target organ-specific HI was 300, driven by the edible plant exposures. However, aquatic food exposures also posed an unacceptable HI.

At the two rural residential properties on BIA land, the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl was 100 percent (Appendix K)

Cadmium and zinc exceeded an individual HI of 1. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium and zinc exceed acceptable levels, and cadmium, lead, and zinc were identified as COCs for this receptor.

An additional evaluation was conducted using the updated soil dataset including transition zone soil, updated residential yard soil, rural area soil, and background soil for the BUM. Overall risk estimates did not change for cadmium and zinc based on the updated soil dataset. The percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl (100 percent) did not change at the two rural residential properties.

5.4.6 Current/Future Recreator Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface materials on chat piles, chat bases, and tailings ponds were quantified. The maximum target organ-specific HI was 0.1. The percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl is 22.3 percent (Appendix H).

No COPCs exceeded an individual HI of 1. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium and zinc are within acceptable levels and lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor.

5.4.7 Future Child Resident (General Public and Native American) Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil/dust and inhalation of ambient air at any future location within the Tar Creek area (except on chat piles, chat bases, or mill ponds) were evaluated based on the range of potential future soil concentrations modeled assuming airborne deposition with depletion and the modeled air concentrations (Appendices D, E, and J). Since the same exposure factors were used for evaluating soil and air exposures for child residents, the general public child and Native American resident child are addressed together here. Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentration for the Tar Creek area, the maximum HI is 0.08 (Appendix C, Table 9). Therefore, cadmium and zinc were not identified as COCs for these receptors.

Based on the combination of the maximum modeled soil and maximum modeled ambient air concentration for the Tar Creek area, the percentage of the child population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl was 100 percent (Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, three other soil and air concentration combinations were evaluated, and the percent of the population with a BLL above 10 µg/dL is indicated:

• Mean soil (370 mg/kg) and maximum air (0.18 µg/m3) � 6.5 percent;

• Mean soil (370 mg/kg) and mean air (0.011 µg/m3) � 5.9 percent;

008379




• 75th percentile soil (291 mg/kg) and maximum air (0.18 µg/m3) � 3.5 percent.

Therefore, lead was identified as the only COC for these receptors.

An additional evaluation was conducted for a future child resident based on the updated future soil dataset. Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentrations for the Tar Creek area, the maximum HI is 0.2 (Appendix C, Table 9). Therefore, cadmium and zinc were not identified as COCs for these receptors.

Based on the combination of the maximum modeled soil and maximum modeled ambient air concentration for the Tar Creek area, the percentage of the child population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl was 100 percent (Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, another evaluation was conducted using mean soil (131 mg/kg) and maximum air (0.18 µg/m3) concentrations, and the percent of the population with a BLL above 10 µg/dL was 0.094 percent. It should be noted that the mean and 75th percentile soil concentrations were the same. Therefore, lead was identified as the only COC for these receptors.

5.4.8 Future Adult Resident (General Public) Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil and inhalation of ambient air at any future location within the Tar Creek area (except on chat piles, chat bases, or mill ponds) were evaluated based on the range of potential future soil concentrations modeled assuming airborne deposition with depletion and the modeled air concentrations (Appendices D, E, and J). Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentration for the Tar Creek area, the maximum ELCR is 4x10-6 and maximum HI is 0.02 (Appendix C, Table 9). Since cadmium poses an individual ELCR exceeding 1x10-6, cadmium was identified as a COC for this receptor.

Based on the maximum modeled future soil lead concentration (33,066 mg/kg) for the Tar Creek area, the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl was 99 percent (Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, the mean soil concentration (370.6 mg/kg) was evaluated; the percentage of the population with a BLL above 10 µg/dL is 3.9 percent, which is an acceptable level. Therefore, the 75th percentile and median soil concentrations, which are lower than the mean concentration, will also be within acceptable levels. Lead was also identified as a COC for this receptor.

An additional evaluation was conducted for future adult residents based on the updated future soil dataset. Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentrations for the Tar Creek area, the maximum ELCR is 4x10-6 and maximum HI is 0.03 (Appendix C, Table 9). Since cadmium poses an individual ELCR exceeding 1x10-6, cadmium remained as a COC for this receptor. Based on the maximum modeled future soil lead concentration (18,900 mg/kg) for the Tar Creek area, the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl was 95.4 percent (Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, the mean soil concentration (131 mg/kg) was evaluated with the maximum modeled ambient air concentration; the percentage of the population with a BLL above 10 µg/dL is 2.0 percent, which is an acceptable level. Lead also remained as a COC for this receptor.

008380




5.4.9 Future Adult Resident (Native American) Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil and inhalation of ambient air at any future location within the Tar Creek area (except on chat piles, chat bases, or mill ponds) were evaluated based on the range of potential future soil concentrations modeled assuming airborne deposition with depletion and the modeled air concentrations (Appendices D, E, and J). Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentration for the Tar Creek area, the maximum ELCR is 1x10-5 and maximum HI is 0.04 (Appendix C, Table 9). Since cadmium poses an individual ELCR exceeding 1x10-6, cadmium was identified as a COC for this receptor.

Based on the maximum modeled future soil lead concentration (33,066 mg/kg) for the Tar Creek area, the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl was 100 percent (Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, the mean and median soil concentrations (370.6 and 110.6 mg/kg, respectively) were evaluated; the percentages of the population with a BLL above 10 µg/dL are 37.5 and 9.5 percent, respectively. These percentages exceed the target level. Lead was also identified as a COC for this receptor.

An additional evaluation was conducted for a future adult resident based on the updated future soil dataset. Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentrations for the Tar Creek area, the maximum ELCR is 1x10-5 and maximum HI is 0.03 (Appendix C, Table 9). Since cadmium poses an individual ELCR exceeding 1x10-6, cadmium remained as a COC for this receptor.

Based on the maximum modeled future soil lead concentration (18,900 mg/kg) for the Tar Creek area, the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl was 100 percent (Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, the mean and median soil concentrations (131 and 45.6 mg/kg, respectively) were evaluated with the maximum modeled ambient air concentration; the percentages of the population with a BLL above 10 µg/dL are 11.6 and 3.8 percent, respectively. The percentage based on the mean exceeds the target level. Therefore, lead also remained as a COC for this receptor.

008381

Table 5-1Risk Summary - General Public ExposuresTar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Scenario Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Chemical of Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) Hazard Excess Lifetime

Timeframe Point Population Age Route Potential Concern Value Units Basis Rationale Index (HI) Cancer Risk

(ELCR)

Current Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult Ingestion CADMIUM 4.8E+01 mg/kg Max (1) 7.E-02 --

ZINC 7.7E+03 mg/kg Max (1) 4.E-02 --

Dermal CADMIUM 4.8E+01 mg/kg Max (1) 1.E-02 --

ZINC 7.7E+03 mg/kg Max (1) 1.E-04 --

Child Ingestion CADMIUM 4.8E+01 mg/kg Max (1) 6.E-01 --

ZINC 7.7E+03 mg/kg Max (1) 3.E-01 --

Resident Dermal CADMIUM 4.8E+01 mg/kg Max (1) 7.E-02 --

(General Public) ZINC 7.7E+03 mg/kg Max (1) 9.E-04 --

Ambient Air Adult Inhalation CADMIUM 8.08E-05 ug/m3 95% UCL (2) 4E-04 --

Child 8.08E-05 ug/m3 95% UCL (2) 9E-04 --

Adult/Child 8.08E-05 ug/m3 95% UCL (2) -- 7.6E-08

Current/Future Private wells Adult Ingestion CADMIUM 3.0E-03 mg/L Max (1) 2.E-01 --

ZINC 1.1E+00 mg/L Max (1) 1.E-01 --

Child CADMIUM 3.0E-03 mg/L Max (1) 4.E-01 --

ZINC 1.1E+00 mg/L Max (1) 2.E-01 --

Future Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult Ingestion CADMIUM 2.2E+00 (4.6E+00) mg/kg Max (3) 3E-03

(6E-03) --

ZINC 4.0E+02 (8.5E+02) mg/kg Max (3) 2E-03

(4E-03) --

Dermal CADMIUM 2.2E+00 (4.6E+00) mg/kg Max (3) 5E-04

(1E-03) --

ZINC 4.0E+02 (8.5E+02) mg/kg Max (3) 7E-06

(2E-05) --

Child Ingestion CADMIUM 2.2E+00 (4.6E+00) mg/kg Max (3) 3E-02

(6E-02) --

ZINC 4.0E+02 (8.5E+02) mg/kg Max (3) 2E-02

(4E-02) --


(7E-03) --

ZINC 4.0E+02 (8.5E+02) mg/kg Max (3) 5E-05

(1E-04) --

Ambient Air Adult Inhalation CADMIUM 4.3E-06 mg/m3 Max (4) 2E-02 --

Child 4.3E-06 mg/m3 Max (4) 5E-02 --

Adult/Child 4.3E-06 mg/m3 Max (4) -- 4.0E-06

No. of Homes

Scenario Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Chemical of Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) with BLL Percent Above

Timeframe Point Population Age Route Potential Concern Value or Range Units Basis Rationale Exceeding Target BLL

Criterion of 10 ug/dl

Current Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult Ingestion 12.6 - 7470(12.6 - 643) mg/kg Mean (5) 4/44

(3/44) --

Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Child Ingestion 12.6 - 7470(12.6 - 643) mg/kg Mean (5)

Private wells Resident Lead 0.65 - 26.2 ug/L Mean (6)

Indoor Dust (General Public)

Ambient Air Inhalation 1.6e-7 - 8.1e-6 mg/m3 Point (7)

Future Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult Ingestion 3.31E+04 (1.89E+04)a mg/kg Max (8) -- 99.0

(95.4)3.71E+02

(1.31E+02)a mg/kg Mean (8) -- 3.9 (2.0)

Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Child Ingestion 3.31E+04 (1.89E+04)a mg/kg Max (9) -- 99.9

(99.9)

Ambient Air Inhalation 1.80E-01 ug/m3 Max (9)

Private wells Ingestion Default Groundwater Concentration of 4 ug/L is used.

Indoor Dust

Surface Soil (0-1 inch) 3.71E+02 (1.31E+02)a mg/kg Mean (9) -- 6.535

(0.094)



Indoor Dust

Surface Soil (0-1 inch) 2.92E+02 (1.31E+02)a mg/kg 75th Percentile (9) -- 3.468

(0.094)



Indoor Dust

Surface Soil (0-1 inch) 3.71E+02 mg/kg Mean (9) -- 5.87

Ambient Air Inhalation 1.10E-02 ug/m3 Mean (9)


Indoor Dust

EPC Rationale:

(1) Highest average detected concentration at the 44 individual residences on non-BIA land; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of measured residential concentrations.

(2) Calculated using EPA's ProUCL software based on the modeled concentrations at the 44 individual residences.

(3) Maximum modeled concentration after 30 years in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of modeled concentrations.

(4) Maximum modeled concentration in ambient air in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of modeled concentrations.

(5) Mean (average) measured concentration at 44 individual residences; evaluation was conducted for each individual residence.

(6) Mean (average) measured concentration at individual residential wells; evaluation was conducted for each individual residence.

(7) Modeled concentration at each home.

(8) Two sets of statistical values based on modeled future concentrations in soil (0-1") after 30 years in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas.

(9) Four sets of statistical values based on modeled future concentrations in soil (0-1") after 30 years in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas and in ambient air.

Note:

EPCs and risk estimates presented in parentheses are those revised in the Addendum.

a - EPCs and risk estimates are based on the modeled future soil data.

Determined using IEUBK's Multiple Source Analysis


4/52 (3/44) --




1 of 1008382





008383

Table 5-2Risk Summary - Native American ExposuresTar Creek OU4 Superfund Site



(ELCR)

Current Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult Ingestion CADMIUM 9.6E+00 mg/kg Measured (1) 5.E-02 --

ZINC 1.9E+03 mg/kg Measured (1) 4.E-02 --

Dermal CADMIUM 9.6E+00 mg/kg Measured (1) 2.E-03 --


Child Ingestion CADMIUM 9.6E+00 mg/kg Measured (1) 3.E-01 --


Native American Dermal CADMIUM 9.6E+00 mg/kg Measured (1) 1.E-02 --

(Subsistence) ZINC 1.9E+03 mg/kg Measured (1) 2.E-04 --

Small Game Adult Ingestion CADMIUM

3.58E+01(2.74E+01)a(6.22E+01)b

mg/kg 95% UCL (2) 2E-03 (4E-04)a --

(e.g., Rabbit)ZINC

5.31E+03 (5.39E+03)a(2.95E+03)b

mg/kg 95% UCL (2) 2E-04 (7E-05)a --

Beef (Cattle)CADMIUM

3.58E+01(2.74E+01)a(6.22E+01)b

mg/kg 95% UCL (2) 2E-08 (2E-08)a --

* high fish dietZINC

5.31E+03 (5.39E+03)a(2.95E+03)b

mg/kg 95% UCL (2) 6E-09 (7E-09)a --

Beef (Cattle)CADMIUM

3.58E+01(2.74E+01)a(6.22E+01)b

mg/kg 95% UCL (2) 2E-07 (2E-07)a --

* high beef dietZINC

5.31E+03 (5.39E+03)a(2.95E+03)b

mg/kg 95% UCL (2) 6E-08 (6E-08)a --

Milk (Dairy) Child Ingestion CADMIUM3.58E+01

(2.74E+01)a(6.22E+01)b

ug/L 95% UCL (2) 6E-02 (5E-02)a --

ZINC5.31E+03

(5.39E+03)a(2.95E+03)b

ug/L 95% UCL (2) 5E-02 (6E-02)a --

Asparagus Adult Ingestion CADMIUM 5.5E+00 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 2E+01 --(above ground) ZINC 1.4E+02 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 2E+00 --

Asparagus CADMIUM 1.2E+01 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 5E+01 --(root) ZINC 1.4E+03 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 2E+01 --

Willow CADMIUM 1.8E+01 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 7E+01 --(above ground) ZINC 4.7E+02 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 6E+00 --

Willow CADMIUM 5.0E+01 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 2E+02 --(root) ZINC 4.6E+03 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 6E+01 --

Cattail CADMIUM 2.0E+01 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 8E+01 --(above ground) ZINC 2.6E+03 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 3E+01 --

Cattail CADMIUM 6.1E+01 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 2E+02 --(root) ZINC 4.4E+03 mg/kg 95% UCL (3) 6E+01 --

Ambient Air Adult Inhalation CADMIUM 8.08E-05 ug/m3 95% UCL (4) 6E-04 2E-07

Child CADMIUM 8.08E-05 ug/m3 95% UCL (4) 1E-03 3E-08

Current/Future Private wells Adult Ingestion ZINC 2.2E-01 mg/L Max (1) 4.E-02 --

Child ZINC 2.2E-01 mg/L Max (1) 5.E-02 --

Aquatic Foods Adult Ingestion CADMIUM 4.0E+00 mg/kg Mean (5) 7E+00 (4E+00) --

(e.g., Mussels)ZINC 3.6E+02 mg/kg Mean (5) 2E-01

(7E-01) --

Fish CADMIUM 1.7E-01 mg/kg Mean (6) 2E+00 --* high fish diet ZINC 2.1E+01 mg/kg Mean (6) 9E-01 --

Fish CADMIUM 1.7E-01 mg/kg Mean (6) 2E-01 --* high beef diet ZINC 2.1E+01 mg/kg Mean (6) 8E-02 --

Future Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult Ingestion CADMIUM 2.2E+00 (4.6E+00) mg/kg Max (7) 1E-02

(3E-02) --

ZINC 4.0E+02 (8.5E+02) mg/kg Max (7) 7E-03

(2E-02) --


(1E-03) --

ZINC 4.0E+02 (8.5E+02) mg/kg Max (7) 7E-06

(2E-05) --

Child Ingestion CADMIUM 2.2E+00 (4.6E+00) mg/kg Max (7) 6E-02

(1E-01) --

ZINC 4.0E+02 (8.5E+02) mg/kg Max (7) 3E-02

(7E-02) --


(6E-03) --

ZINC 4.0E+02 (8.5E+02) mg/kg Max (7) 5E-05

(1E-04) --

Ambient Air Adult Inhalation CADMIUM 4.3E-06 mg/m3 Max (8) 3E-02 --

Child 4.3E-06 mg/m3 Max (8) 5E-02 --

Adult/Child 4.3E-06 mg/m3 Max (8) -- 1E-05

1 of 2008384

Table 5-2Risk Summary - Native American ExposuresTar Creek OU4 Superfund Site



(ELCR)

No. of Homes

Scenario Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Chemical of Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) with BLL Percent Above

Timeframe Point Population Age Route Potential Concern Value or Range Units Basis Rationale Exceeding Target BLL

Criterion of 10 ug/dl

Current Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult Ingestion 29.1 - 88.4 mg/kg Mean (9)

Small Game Native American3.10E+03

(4.41E+02)a (2.01E+04)b

mg/kg 95% UCL (2)

Beef (Subsistence)3.10E+03

(4.41E+02)a (2.01E+04)b

mg/kg 95% UCL (2)

Aquatic Foods 2.90E+01 mg/kg Mean (5)

Fish 4.27E-01 mg/kg Mean (6) 2/2 100

Asparagus (above ground) 1.88E+01 mg/kg Mean (10) (2/2) (100)

Asparagus (root) 5.58E+02 mg/kg Mean (10)

Willow (above ground) 1.09E+01 mg/kg Mean (10)

Willow (root) 1.02E+03 mg/kg Mean (10)

Cattail (above ground) 2.87E+02 mg/kg Mean (10)

Cattail (root) 1.08E+03 mg/kg Mean (10)

Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Child Ingestion 29.1 - 88.4 mg/kg Mean (9)

Private wells Lead 0.42 - 4 ug/L Mean (11)

Milk (1.01E-01)a mg/kg 95% UCL (2)

Indoor Dust

Ambient Air Inhalation 3.7e-7 - 4.2e-7 mg/m3 Point (12)

Future Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult Ingestion 3.31E+04 (1.89E+04)c mg/kg Max (13) -- 100

(100)3.71E+02

(1.31E+02)c mg/kg Mean (13) -- 37.5 (11.6)

1.10E+02(4.56E+01)c mg/kg Median (13) -- 9.5

(3.8)

EPC Rationale:

(1) Highest average detected concentration at the 2 individual residences currently on BIA land; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of measured residential concentrations.

(2) Calculated using EPA's ProUCL software and measured concentrations in surface soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) - used to model concentrations in biota; soil concentrations presented.

(3) Calculated using EPA's ProUCL software based on the measured concentrations in these plants.

(4) Calculated using EPA's ProUCL software and modeled concentrations at 46 rural residential properties.

(5) Mean detected sediment concentrations used to model concentrations in aquatic biota - obtained from ODEQ's fish tissue study (ODEQ, 2003); sediment concentration presented.

(6) Mean detected concentrations in fish tissue obtained from ODEQ's fish tissue study (ODEQ, 2003).

(7) Maximum modeled concentration after 30 years in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of modeled concentrations.

(8) Maximum modeled concentration in ambient air in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of modeled concentrations.

(9) Mean (average) measured concentration at 2 individual residences on BIA land; evaluation was conducted for each individual residence.

(10) Mean (average) measured concentrations.

(11) Mean (average) measured concentration at 2 individual residential wells; for the 1 home without a well, the default concentration of 4 ug/L was used.

(12) Modeled concentration at each home.

(13) Three sets of statistical values based on modeled future concentrations in soil after 30 years in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas.

Note:

EPCs and risk estimates presented in parentheses are those revised in the Addendum.

a - EPCs and risk estimates are based on the soil data collected from residential properties, rural areas, and transition zone.

b - EPCs are based on the soil data collected from smelter-affected areas.

c - EPCs and risk estimates are based on the modeled future soil data.

0/2 (0/2) --


2 of 2008385

Table 5-3Risk Summary - Recreator ExposuresTar Creek OU4 Superfund Site



(ELCR)

Current/Future Chat and Tailings Recreator Adolescent Ingestion CADMIUM 9.3E+01 mg/kg 95% UCL (1) 1.E-01 --

Material ZINC 1.8E+04 mg/kg 95% UCL (1) 6.E-02 --

Dermal CADMIUM 9.3E+01 mg/kg 95% UCL (1) 1.E-02 --

ZINC 1.8E+04 mg/kg 95% UCL (1) 2.E-04 --

Scenario Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Chemical of Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) Percent Above

Timeframe Point Population Age Route Potential Concern Value Units Basis Rationale Target BLL

of 10 ug/dl

Current/Future Chat and Tailings Material Recreator Adolescent Ingestion Lead 3.46E+03 mg/kg Mean (2) 22.3%

EPC Rationale:

(1) Calculated using EPA's ProUCL software and measured concentrations in sieved (250 um) samples collected from 0-1 inch or 0-6 inches.

(2) Mean (average) measured concentration in chat and tailings samples collected from 0-1 inch or 0-6 inches and sieved.

1 of 1008386





008387


6.0 Blood Lead Studies in Tar Creek

The following text was excerpted from Report to Congress – Tar Creek Superfund Site (ATSDR, 2004; Appendix I).

6.1 Datasets Reviewed The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reviewed and analyzed data on the BLLs of children living at the site from January 1995 through February 2004 (Appendix M, Figure 3). The Ottawa County Sunshine Clinic, the Ottawa County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (OCLPPP) managed by the Ottawa County Health Department (OCHD), Tribal Efforts Against Lead (TEAL) and Community Health Action and Monitoring Program (CHAMP) surveys, Tribal Health Clinics, private physicians, and other private and public clinics collect blood from children and test for lead. These programs send data to the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Surveillance System (CLPPSS), which then transmits aggregate data to the CDC and Prevention�s Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance Program.

The most useful data sources for assessing BLLs of children living at the site were the 1995� 2002 OSDH CLPPSS, the 1997 and 2000 TEAL survey, and the 1999�2004 OCLPPP screening data (Appendix M, Tables 4 and 5). Children were considered to live at the site if their medical records indicated that they lived at addresses in the northeast Oklahoma towns of Cardin, Commerce, North Miami, Picher, or Quapaw. For this analysis, all children with addresses from North Miami were included as living at the site�even though a portion of North Miami is outside the site boundaries (Appendix M, Figure 1). ATSDR included this portion of North Miami in the estimates for the population or number of children living at the site.

OCLPPP provides blood lead testing free of charge to children living at the site and to all other children, including tribal children, living in Ottawa County. Families with young children who may be at risk for lead poisoning are highly encouraged to participate in the voluntary program. OCLPPP personnel offer testing on site at the OCHD and conduct regular screening efforts at schools, preschools, daycare centers, Head Start programs, and local shopping areas. OCLPPP also conducts identification and screening efforts in coordination with the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program and with other public health programs. In addition, OCLPPP provides on-location testing services to potential high-risk areas, as warranted (13).

ATSDR used the OCLPPP data as the source for 2003 BLLs for tested children living at the site because those data incorporate:

• The most recent and current data available at the time of this analysis;

008388




• A substantial number of children tested (40% of the estimated population of children, aged 1 to 5 years, living at the site�based on 2000 census block data analysis for population estimate);

• Numerous BLL tests throughout the year (total of 308 for children, aged 1 to 5 years, living at the site in 2003);

• A high level of test result recording accuracy (a check of existing BLL entries with actual patient paper records showed only four errant electronic entries in 390 follow-up patient records that contain up to 14 entries each);

• BLLs reported to the 10th µg/dL (OSDH CLPPSS data were rounded to the nearest whole number) with consistent application of non-detect values (statistical values assigned to test results when lead in a blood sample is too low to be detected);

• Data based on results obtained from consistent testing protocols and analysis criteria; and

• Targeted testing for potentially higher risk children (Head Start programs, siblings of children with elevated BLLs, WIC).

The OCLPPP data system is the largest contributor of data to the OSDH CLPPSS system. Both OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets are comprised primarily of capillary blood lead testing data (under OCLPPP, a confirmatory venous test is provided after an elevated capillary test result). Both the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets consist of convenience samples rather than representative samples. All TEAL survey blood lead tests were venous, and TEAL used a door-to-door sampling method. In calculating geometric means for the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP data for each year, ATSDR used the highest test of each child tested in the respective year.

The simple arithmetic mean is not suitable for representing �average� conditions when a large proportion of the observations are clustered at one end of the data range. This is often the situation with blood lead levels. The occurrence of a few high numbers would result in a perceived �average� far higher than a number that would be reflective of actual conditions. In such situations, the geometric mean is a more appropriate measure of central tendency than the arithmetic mean. The result represents a more accurate estimate of common or typical conditions.

6.2 Percentage of Elevated BLLs and Geometric Mean of BLLs Among tested children aged 1-5 years living in the Tar Creek Superfund site, the percentage of BLL elevations and the geometric BLL mean declined from 1995�2003 (Appendix M, Figures 4 and 6). In 1996, OSDH CLPPSS data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living at the site, 31.2 percent (67/215) had BLL at or above 10 µg/dL and the geometric mean was 6.65 µg/dL. In 2003, OCLPPP data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living at the site, 2.8 percent (7/250) had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean was 3.04 µg/dL. These 2003 statistics are slightly higher than the findings of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for children living in the

008389




United States as a whole. NHANES data indicate that among U.S. children aged 1-5 years during 1999�2000, 2.2 percent had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean was 2.2 µg/dL.

6.3 Picher/Cardin in Comparison with the Tar Creek Superfund Site as a Whole

Of the children in Picher and Cardin who were tested for blood lead, the percentage with elevated BLLs and the geometric mean declined from 1995�2003 (Appendix M, Figures 5 and 7). In 1996, OKCLPPSS data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living in Picher and Cardin, 44.6 percent (41/92) had elevated BLLs and the geometric mean was 9.17 µg/dL. In 2003, the OCLPPP data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living in Picher and Cardin, 3.4 percent (3/88) had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean was 3.82 µg/dL.

In 1996, the percentage of children identified with elevated BLLs and the geometric BLL mean for all children tested were higher in the combined areas of Picher and Cardin than at the site as a whole. However, these differences have diminished in recent years.

6.4 Characteristics of Children With Elevated BLLs From January 2000 to March 2004, 37 children under 6 years of age living at the site were identified with elevated BLLs (at or above 10 µg/dL) by the OCHD. Of these children 41 percent (15/37) were from five households. This could suggest that high-risk behaviors were shared by these family members or that common exposure sources were present.

In 2003, OCLPPP identified seven children aged 1 to 5 years living at the site as having elevated BLLs. The OCLPPP program conducted or received data from environmental assessments of the residences of six of these children at various points in time (some prior to 2003). The potential sources of lead exposure found to be present at the respective residences are described in Appendix M, Table 7 in the appendix and include lead-based paint, lead-containing floor dust (at or above10 µg/ft2), and soil with elevated lead levels (above 500 mg/kg).

6.5 Data Limitations Any comparisons of the OCLPPP data with NHANES U.S. data should be viewed with caution because the NHANES data are based on a representative sample of the United States (1, 14), and the OCLPPP data comprises a convenience sample rather than representative samples of the site area. As shown in Appendix M, Tables 4 and 5, the OKCLPPSS, TEAL, and OCLPPP data samples include a substantial proportion but not all of the estimated population of children, aged 1 to 5 years, living at the site.

NHANES data are generalized to the U.S. population and were not intended to provide estimates for smaller areas or for specific populations where the risk for elevated BLLs is high (14). Furthermore, all NHANES blood lead tests are collected by venous sampling (14), whereas the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP programs primarily collect blood through capillary sampling.

008390




Because sample contamination of a capillary test can over-estimate BLLs (15, 16) and because ATSDR used each tested child�s highest BLL to calculate geometric means, geometric means of the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets probably overestimate actual geometric means.

The 1997 and 2000 TEAL surveys measured lead from venous blood. Given the relatively high availability of free screening in the area, it is not known if the use of venous testing and the presence of incentives to participant families could have resulted in higher relative TEAL participation in areas of lower median income and among children with higher risk factors for lead poisoning.

Many other relative factors could be explored, including the prevalence of pre-1950 housing units and poverty at the site area as compared to that of the United States (Appendix M, Table 3). An updated NHANES blood lead survey might show a further decline in national BLLs since 1999�2000. BLLs in U.S. children have been declining (14).

6.6 Interventions Many activities may have been instrumental in reducing elevated BLLs at the site. In 1995, after the confirmation of elevated BLLs, ATSDR funded the OSDH to conduct extensive blood lead testing throughout Ottawa County. OSDH determined that 28.3% of children tested had BLLs at or above 10 µg/dL. Several projects implemented over the past several years have increased community knowledge of exposure and the harmful effects of lead. Some of those include CHAMP and TEAL. Beginning in 1995, EPA began testing and remediating residential soils and areas where children play (such as school and city parks and playgrounds, ball fields, and daycare centers). Since 1998, the OCHD has conducted extensive blood lead screening, and community and health provider education. OCHD has distributed HEPA vacuums to area households who have children with elevated BLLs. The area also received U.S. Housing and Urban Development funds for lead abatement in homes.

These activities, combined, may have helped to reduce BLLs in Ottawa County. BLLs of children living at or near the site might increase without these interventions.

6.7 Conclusions Two potential sources were found for lead in children in the Tar Creek site area: mine tailings and lead-based paint. Both could contribute lead to house dust and soil, which most likely are the points of exposure for children. The relative contributions of exposure to mine tailings and exposure to lead-based paint on the BLLs of people living at the site cannot be determined from existing information.

The evidence available to ATSDR indicates that mine tailings in the residential area soil exposure pathway may have been a primary source of the lead in children�s blood before EPA remediated the Tar Creek residential areas. Exposure to mine tailings still could occur because Tar Creek area residents, especially those in Picher and Cardin, remain near tailings piles, ponds, and embankments and can readily access these tailings deposits. Additionally, the close proximity of these tailings to residences increases the risk for recontamination of residential soil because of blowing dust or residential or commercial use of the tailings.

008391




A decline in the average BLLs among tested children aged 1 to 5 years living at the site from 1995�2003 has been observed, as was a decrease in the percentage of tested children with elevated BLLs from 1995 to 2003. The average BLLs and the percentage of elevated BLLs among tested children living at the site in 2003 were slightly higher than for children living in the United States as a whole in 1999�2000 (1). However, this comparison should be viewed with caution because the U.S. data are based on a representative sample of the United States (1), the Tar Creek data is from a convenience sample and not a representative sample, and U.S. child BLLs also may have declined since 2000.

Declining BLLs among tested children living at the site should not be interpreted to mean that existing interventions in the Tar Creek area are no longer needed. Potential lead sources, including unremediated yards, chat piles, tailings ponds, and residential lead-based paint, remain at the site.

Existing programs should be evaluated to determine how they may have contributed to this decline. The OCHD should continue existing blood lead screening and public health education efforts. Ongoing screening efforts are needed to confirm and monitor trends. Ongoing public health education reinforces the need for adult, parental, and child behaviors that may reduce exposure to lead and subsequent health effects.

008392





008393


7.0 Uncertainties

This section presents a discussion of the assumptions and procedures that introduce the greatest amount of uncertainty in the HHRA, as well as their effect on the estimates of potential risk. The discussion of their effect is qualitative because in many instances not enough information exists to quantify the magnitude of these uncertainties.

Calculated RME ELCRs presented in Section 5.4 are estimates of potential upper-bound risks that are useful in regulatory decision-making. It is improper to consider these assumed risks as representative of the actual risk to potentially exposed individuals because they were estimated by making numerous conservative assumptions (i.e., assumptions that overestimate potential exposure and potential risk). Thus, they have uncertainty associated with them. Some of the assumptions have a firm scientific basis while others do not.

Some level of uncertainty is introduced into the risk assessment process every time an assumption is made. In regulatory risk assessment, the methodology dictates that assumptions err on the side of overestimating potential exposure and risk. The effect of using numerous assumptions, each of which overestimates potential risk, is to exaggerate estimates of potential risk. Such estimates do not provide a realistic estimate of the potential health impacts associated with a site.

This uncertainty analysis is divided into subsections that correspond to the four steps in the HHRA process described by EPA.

7.1 Data Evaluation The purpose of data evaluation is to determine which chemicals are present at the site at concentrations requiring evaluation in the risk assessment. Uncertainty with respect to data evaluation can arise from many sources, such as the quality of the data used to characterize the site and the process used to select data included in the risk assessment. Analytical parameters were selected based upon knowledge of historical site activities (mining).

There is some uncertainty associated with the size of the Tar Creek study area and the limited number of samples that were collected from the various media. However, the data are expected to represent the range of concentrations that may be contacted in the various media within the Tar Creek area. Use of this data is not expected to affect the conclusions of the HHRA significantly, but adds uncertainty to the locations that may warrant risk management.

7.2 Exposure Assessment An exposure assessment consists of two basic elements: estimation of potential EPCs and estimation of potential intakes. The following sections discuss important sources of uncertainty associated with these two elements.

008394




7.2.1 Exposure Point Concentrations The following concentrations were used as EPCs for cadmium and zinc in the intake calculations:

• current residential yard soil - maximum detected concentrations;

• current/future ground water � maximum detected concentrations;

• current ambient air - UCL95 of modeled concentrations at 46 yards where soil samples were collected;

• future soil �maximum modeled concentrations for the Tar Creek Area;

• future ambient air � maximum modeled concentrations for the Tar Creek Area;

• current/future chat pile material/tailings - UCL95 of detected concentrations;

• current/future edible plants � UCL95 of detected concentrations for each plant species;

• current/future small game � modeled using UCL95 of detected concentrations from soils in residential yards, smelter area, transition zone, and rural areas, and bioaccumulation factor (BAF) from soil to small game;

• current/future beef � modeled using UCL95 of detected concentrations from soils in residential yards, smelter area, transition zone, and rural areas, and biotransfer from soil/plants to beef;

• current/future dairy milk � UCL95 of detected concentrations from soils in residential yards, smelter area, transition zone, and rural areas, and biotransfer from soil/plants to milk;

• current/future fish � mean detected concentrations from the ODEQ (ODEQ, 2003) study; and

• current/future aquatic food - modeled using mean detected concentrations in sediments from the ODEQ (2003) study.

In addition, the following concentrations were used as EPCs for lead in the intake calculations:

• current residential yard soil � average detected concentration at each yard; if a soil sample was not collected but a ground water sample was collected and the residence was addressed under OU2, 500 ppm (the OU2 cleanup level) was assumed; if a ground water sample was collected and the residence was not addressed under OU2, the average detected concentration at all residential yards on public land was used (since the ground water samples [without accompanying soil samples] were collected on public land).

• Current residential indoor dust - the default dust-to-soil ratio provided in the IEUBK model was used; although four indoor dust samples were collected in October 2005

008395




from four properties where residential yard concentrations exceeded 500 ppm, the dust sample size was small (lead was detected in only two of the four samples) and the outdoor soil-to-indoor dust correlation was not strong; the observed correlation was therefore not applied to the rural residential properties in Tar Creek.

• current/future ground water � average detected concentration at each home where measured; if a well was not present, the default ground water concentration in the IEUBK model was used;

• current ambient air � modeled concentration at each residence;

• future soil � (original calculations: maximum, mean, median, and 75th percentile modeled concentrations for the Tar Creek Area); updated calculations included the maximum and mean (same as 75th percentile) modeled concentrations for the Tar Creek Area;

• future ambient air � maximum and mean modeled concentrations for the Tar Creek Area;

• current/future chat pile material/tailings - UCL95 of detected concentrations;

• current/future edible plants � average detected concentrations for each plant species;

• current/future small game � modeled using UCL95 of detected concentrations from soils in residential yards, smelter area, and transition zone, and BAF from soil to small game; the updated EPC incorporated a lower cadmium concentration in transition zone soil and additional samples from rural areas.

• current/future beef � modeled using UCL95 of detected concentrations from soils in residential yards, smelter area, and transition zone, and biotransfer from soil/plants to beef; the updated EPC incorporated a lower cadmium concentration in transition zone soil and additional samples from rural areas.

• current/future dairy milk � UCL95 of detected concentrations from soils in residential yards, smelter area, and transition zone, and biotransfer from soil/plants to milk; the updated EPC incorporated a lower cadmium concentration in transition zone soil and additional samples from rural areas.

• current/future fish � mean detected concentrations from the ODEQ (ODEQ, 2003) study; and

• current/future aquatic food - modeled using mean detected concentrations in sediments from the ODEQ (2003) study.

This will likely lead to an overestimation of actual exposure because receptors are assumed to be exposed to the maximum or UCL95 concentration for the entire exposure duration. As the data indicate, COPCs were detected in environmental media within a large range of concentrations. In addition, cadmium and lead were not detected in most fish samples collected by ODEQ (2003). Thus, the assumption that all potential exposures are to the maximum or UCL95 concentrations will likely result in an overestimation of actual exposures and estimates of potential risk.

008396




For all media except soil, the future concentrations were assumed to be unchanged. However, materials currently situated within chat piles may be removed from the Tar Creek area in the future, lowering potential soil and ambient air concentrations. Therefore, this is expected to be a conservative approach to evaluating future exposures. Since the chat piles and tailings ponds have been located in this area for many years, it is expected that ground water concentrations detected in private wells will not increase significantly over those concentrations detected during the RI.

The concentrations in plants consumed by beef cattle during grazing were modeled using soil uptake information presented in EPA guidance (EPA, 2005a) and the UCL95 concentration in soil from yards, smelter-affected soil, transition zones, and rural areas. Use of the model may overestimate or underestimate potential plant concentrations for some cattle depending on the specific chemical, resulting in under- or overestimation of risks from beef and milk ingestion. Maximum detected concentrations in composite plant samples (on which cattle graze: Blue Stem, Bermuda, Red Clover, Yellow Hop, White Clover, Crab Grass, Fescue, Lespidiza, and Switch Grass) collected from the smelter area and the modeled plant concentrations are indicated below:

• lead - 28.6 ppm (detected) versus 0.045 ppm (modeled);

• cadmium - 3 ppm (detected) versus 13 ppm (modeled); and

• zinc - 193 ppm (detected) versus 1300 ppm (modeled).

Homegrown vegetable samples were not collected during the RI for OU4, although they were collected for OU2. The HHRA prepared for OU2 included an evaluation of soil and homegrown produce at various homes in Picher, and analytical results from the homegrown produce were used to evaluate potential risks in the OU2 HHRA. Soil and dust ingestion accounted, on average, for 82% of the estimated total lead uptake within the study group. The contribution of diet to total lead uptake was substantially lower (16%). Most of the estimated dietary lead uptake was derived from default dietary lead intake and a smaller portion from homegrown produce. Therefore, although homegrown produce intakes were not quantified in the OU4 HHRA, it is not expected to affect the results of the HHRA significantly.

7.2.2 Estimated Intakes Significant uncertainty exists in assumptions used to calculate chemical intakes from exposure to various media (e.g., rate of ingestion, frequency and duration of exposure, absorption efficiency). Conservative exposure factors (i.e., health-protective) are used when available information is limited. This may result in an overestimation of risk.

This HHRA follows EPA guidance and estimates ELCRs and HIs for a theoretical RME individual. For example, the Native American resident is assumed to contact soil dermally 350 days per year for 70 years. An individual Native American resident is unlikely to contact soil at this frequency and duration, but 350 days per year is expected to be a conservative estimate. Actual risks are likely to be less than the potential risks presented in this HHRA.

Significant uncertainty exists in assumptions used to calculate chemical intake from exposure to various media (e.g., rate of ingestion, frequency and duration of exposure, absorption

008397




efficiency). Conservative (i.e., health-protective) exposure factors were used since site-specific values were not available. This is expected to result in an overestimation of potential risk for the COPCs and exposure pathways quantified in the HHRA.

There are uncertainties in the modeling used to estimate lead exposures by adolescent recreators. The more significant uncertainties include the use of the ALM for an adolescent population, the potential for a lead higher absorption factor (i.e., up to 30%), the potential for a higher soil ingestion rate (e.g., 200 mg/day), the potential for a lower exposure frequency (e.g., 78 days/year), and a potential lower baseline BLL than that assumed in the risk calculations. However, a potentially higher absorption factor and lower baseline BLL are likely to cancel each other out in the lead exposure calculations.

The food intakes assumed for a high-beef diet and high-fish diet Native American resident were obtained from the Spokane Tribe study, which may not be applicable for the Native American residents at the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The ingestion rates that were assumed include approximately 2.6 pounds of meat/fish and approximately 3.5 pounds of vegetables per day, all grown on impacted soil. It was also assumed that cattail, willow, and asparagus comprise 100 percent of their diet, which is unrealistic. The EPA Exposure Factors Handbook presents intake rates for the Native American scenario that are much lower than the Spokane Tribe rates assumed in this HHRA. Therefore, the risks presented in this HHRA for the Native American resident are expected to be overestimated and are likely better represented by the assumptions for more typical Native Americans (in the Exposure Factors Handbook).

There is uncertainty associated with the inputs used in the ambient air modeling and deposition modeling based on limited data from chat piles and mill ponds. Thirty years of deposition are assumed to be extrapolated to the entire Tar Creek Area, including those areas where samples have not been collected. Kreiging was used to estimate concentrations at locations where no soil data were available.

Exposure to COPCs via the breastmilk pathway were not evaluated due to the lack of available bioaccumulation data. Therefore, the risks associated with this pathway were not addressed and are underestimated.

The bioavailability of lead in soil at the Tar Creek site was not measured. However, the bioavailability of lead in soil was evaluated at the Jasper County, Missouri Superfund Site, a similar site to Tar Creek OU4 in terms of waste sources and environmental conditions (Casteel et al., 1996). Three soil samples from the site (composites from different areas of the site) were used in a study to measure the gastrointestinal absorption of lead from soil. Concentrations in the three soil samples ranged from 4,050 to 10,800 ppm lead. The amount of lead absorbed by each animal was evaluated by measuring the amount of lead in the blood, liver, kidney, and bone. Results indicate bioavailability in the range of 29 to 40 percent. Therefore, the default bioavailability factor of 30% used in the IEUBK model seems to fall within the ballpark of the actual bioavailability for the site soil and, as such, the assumed bioavailability does not over- or underestimate site risk.

008398




7.3 Toxicity Assessment Dermal toxicity values are not available in the standard toxicity references. Therefore, dermal toxicity values were calculated using oral toxicity values and available oral absorption efficiencies for the study animals for which oral RfDs were derived. Depending on the quality of the data available for absorption efficiencies, and depending on whether or not dermal exposures result in the same type of target effect (as observed in the oral study), this may result in underestimation or overestimation of risk.

7.4 Risk Characterization Generally, the goal of a baseline HHRA is to estimate an upper-bound, but reasonable, potential risk. Such an upper-bound estimate can be derived in several ways, depending on how conservative one wants the final estimate. In the baseline HHRA, several upper-bound assumptions and numerous exposure pathways were combined to estimate potential risks.

Most of the assumptions about exposure and toxicity used in the HHRAs are representative of statistical upper-bounds or even maximums for each parameter. The result of combining several such upper-bound assumptions is that the final estimate of potential exposure or potential risk is conservative.

008399


8.0 Preliminary Remediation Goals

The risk calculations presented in Section 7 indicate unacceptable risks from the COPCs for the receptors and exposure routes indicated below:

• General Public Child and Adult Resident � lead (soil and groundwater) for both child and adult; cadmium (soil) for adult;

• General Public Adolescent Recreator � lead (source materials); and

• Native American Adult Resident � cadmium and zinc (vegetables and edible plants) and lead (the specific media driving the risk were not identified).

This section further evaluates key pathways to estimate target concentrations (Preliminary Remediation Goals or PRGs) that are protective for persons residing in OU4 based on various possible exposure scenarios. Lead has been shown to be the primary COC such that PRGs focused on protective concentrations of lead will also be protective for cadmium and zinc exposures. The target % of the population with BLL >10 µg/dl is 5. Both the ALM and IEUBK model were used for calculating RGs for lead. PRGs for cadmium and zinc were estimated based on a target Hazard Index (HI) of 1 (unity). Since they have different target organs, the PRGs for these chemicals were developed independently.

The PRGs, which are presented in Appendix N, address the following media:

• Groundwater

• Rural residential soil

• Source materials (chat piles, chat bases, tailing ponds)

o Recreational use

• Rural non-residential soil

o Pastureland (for game animals or beef cattle)

• Food Items

8.1 Groundwater The lead concentration in two shallow rural residential wells exceeds the Federal Action Level of 15 µg/L for protection of drinking water. In the future, if additional shallow wells are installed in other areas of Tar Creek for rural residential purposes, groundwater concentrations may pose unacceptable risks. The remedial goal for lead in groundwater is 15 µg/L.

008400


DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT


8.2 Rural Residential Soil Residential properties are assumed to be less than 0.5 acres, with more frequent contact of soils occurring near the home. Of the potential routes of exposure, incidental ingestion of soil by children is commonly the primary exposure pathway. Exposure may also occur via indoor dust. An attempt was made to correlate indoor dust concentrations with outdoor soil concentrations. However, an insufficient quantity of data was available and the statistical evaluation indicated that the correlations between indoor dust and outdoor soil concentrations were not strong (Appendix N, Figures 1-6). Therefore, the default ratio embedded in the IEUBK model was used. If there is additional dietary intake of COPCs (e.g., eating beef and drinking milk from cows grazing on impacted pastureland), soil PRGs that are more conservative may be needed. The PRGs are discussed below for rural residential soils for General Public and Native American populations.

8.2.1 General Public Rural Residential Use Unacceptable concentrations of lead (defined as one or more samples at concentrations above 500 ppm) were identified at six of 46 current rural residential properties. One of these residences (a home at the former smelter) was subsequently remediated in November 2005. In addition, if additional properties were used for rural residential purposes in the future, soil concentrations of cadmium and lead on some properties would pose unacceptable risks. The PRG for lead in residential soil that was developed for OU2 (500 mg/kg) was identified as the PRG for rural residential soil in OU4. The EPA Region 6 MSSL for cadmium of 39 mg/kg on residential properties was identified as the PRG for cadmium.

Potential modification of these PRGs was considered for rural residential properties where homegrown produce may be ingested. The PRGs protective for ingestion of homegrown produce (including incidental ingestion of soil) were estimated based on four assumptions regarding dietary intake percentages of homegrown produce (i.e., 10, 25, 50, and 100%) using the biotransfer factors presented in EPA�s Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a) and are presented in Tables 8-1 through 8-3.

The HHRA prepared for OU2 included an evaluation of soil and homegrown produce at various homes in Picher, and analytical results from the homegrown produce were used to evaluate potential risks. Soil and dust ingestion accounted, on average, for 82% of the estimated total lead uptake within the study group. The contribution of diet to total lead uptake was substantially lower (16%). Most of the estimated dietary lead uptake was derived from default dietary lead intake and a smaller portion from homegrown produce. Therefore, the remedial goal for lead in soil at OU2 (500 mg/kg) was based on exposures to soil/dust. Consequently, soil lead concentrations at 500 mg/kg are considered protective of homegrown vegetable exposures.

This type of produce data was not specifically collected for OU4, and the conclusion for OU2 is recommended. This is considered protective at OU4 for several reasons:

• Lead, the primary COC, does not significantly accumulate in common homegrown produce.

008401




• Child exposures are not significantly increased because they do not typically perform gardening and have limited intake of these homegrown produce.

• Food ingestion from small residential gardens reflects only a relatively small percentage of a person�s total diet.

Table 8-1 Cadmium - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Consumption of Homegrown Produce Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Adult Child

Soil PRG (mg/kg)

Plant Conc. (mg/kg)

% of Plants Eaten

Soil PRG (mg/kg)

Plant Conc. (mg/kg)

% of Plants Eaten

9.4 1.18 10 4.86 0.608 10

3.8 0.474 25 2.02 0.253 25

1.9 0.237 50 1.02 0.128 50

0.95 0.119 100 0.515 0.0644 100

Table 8-2 Zinc - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Consumption of Homegrown Produce Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Adult Child

Soil PRG (mg/kg)

Plant Conc. (mg/kg)

% of Plants Eaten

Soil PRG (mg/kg)

Plant Conc. (mg/kg)

% of Plants Eaten

3580 351 10 1830 179 10

1450 142 25 767 75.2 25

726 71.2 50 390 38.2 50

364 35.7 100 197 19.3 100

008402




Table 8-3 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Adult Consumption of Homegrown Produce Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Soil PRG (mg/kg) Plant Conc. (mg/kg) % of Plants Eaten

112 1.52 10

52 0.71 25

28 0.38 50

14 0.19 100

(Note: A highly conservative biotransfer factor from soil to plants was used in the calculations; it is overly conservative based on results of produce sampling in OU-2).

Additionally, the PRGs protective for ingestion of beef from cattle grazing on the residential property (and incidental ingestion of residential soil) were estimated based on four assumptions regarding dietary intake percentages of beef from cattle raised on their yards for general public adults (Table 8-4).

Assuming children on a rural residential property consume 10% of their milk and beef from cows raised on their land, a range of soil PRGs (31 to 350 mg/kg) was evaluated in terms of the associated lead concentrations in milk and beef calculated using the biotranser factors presented in EPA�s Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a). The IEUBK model results indicate that a soil PRG of approximately 300 mg/kg is protective of these additional dietary sources (Table 8-5).

Table 8-4 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Adult Consumption of Beef from Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Soil PRG (mg/kg) Beef Conc. (mg/kg) % of Meat Eaten

455 0.13 10

448 0.12 25

436 0.12 50

414 0.11 100

008403



USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_SECTION08.DOC 8-5 FEBRUARY 2006

Table 8-5 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of 10% of Beef and Milk from Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Soil. PRG (mg/kg)

Grazing Plant Conc. (mg/kg)

Beef Conc.(mg/kg)

Milk Conc.(mg/kg)

% of Population with a BLL above 10 µg/dL

31 1.4 0.0083 0.0077 0.026

50 2.3 0.013 0.012 0.055

100 4.5 0.027 0.025 0.26

150 6.8 0.040 0.037 0.78

200 9 0.054 0.050 1.8

250 11 0.067 0.062 3.3

300 13 0.081 0.075 5.4

350 16 0.094 0.087 8.0

(Note: 5% is the target % of the population with a BLL above 10 µg/dL.)

8.2.2 Native American Rural Residential Land Use Unacceptable concentrations of COPCs were not identified in soil or groundwater at the two current rural residential properties on BIA land. However, if additional BIA land is used for rural residential purposes in the future, soil concentrations on some properties could pose unacceptable risks.

For the general public, the lead soil PRG of 500 mg/kg is based on protection of children and/or the fetus of adult pregnant women using default assumptions for incidental ingestion of soil. Native American residents may have higher exposures based on higher intake estimates for ingestion of soil as well as additional exposure pathways.

Assuming modification of the soil ingestion rates only with no additional sources of COPCs:

• The most sensitive receptor of soil ingestion for cadmium and zinc is a child. If the soil ingestion rates were assumed to increase from 200 to 400 mg/day (a highly conservative soil ingestion rate from Harper, et al.), the soil PRGs would be 38 mg/kg and 11,250 mg/kg for cadmium and zinc, respectively.

• For lead, if the average soil ingestion rate (100 mg/day) in the IEUBK Model is hypothetically changed for Native American children to 400 mg/day (i.e., 4 times higher), the PRG for a child would decrease to approximately 102 mg/kg. It should be noted that the ingestion rates embedded in the IEUBK model are not supposed to be changed.

008404




The ALM is not intended for residential use. However, using a soil ingestion rate of 400 mg/day results in an estimated PRG of 110 mg/kg. The ALM is based on protection of the fetus of a pregnant woman, and it is likely overly conservative to estimate this soil intake for 365 days per year at this higher level. The ALM recommends a soil ingestion rate of 50 mg/day, with 100 mg/day considered a reasonable upper-bound intake for an adult in an industrial scenario. Using 100 mg/day, a PRG of 441 mg/kg is estimated (assuming a homogeneous population of receptors with this type of exposure).

The impact of additional dietary intakes on the estimating additional PRGs for rural residential soil is complex. Similar to the general public, the PRGs protective for ingestion of soil and homegrown produce were estimated based on four assumptions regarding dietary intake percentages of homegrown produce (i.e., 10, 25, 50, and 100%) using the biotransfer factors presented in EPA�s Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a) and are presented in Tables 8-6 through 8-8. It is important to note that the default biotransfer factors in the EPA Combustion Guidance appear to overestimate plant concentrations (especially homegrown vegetables) by several orders of magnitude based on the soil/plant correlation observed during sampling at OU-2.

Table 8-6 Cadmium – Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown Produce Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Soil PRG (mg/kg) Plant Conc. (mg/kg) % of Plant Eaten

7.84 0.980 10

3.22 0.403 25

1.63 0.203 50

0.817 0.102 100

Table 8-7 Zinc – Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown Produce Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site


2960 290 10

1230 120 25

621 60.8 50

312 30.6 100

008405




Table 8-8 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown Produce Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site


33 0.45 10

16 0.22 25

9 0.12 50

5 0.062 100

Additionally, the PRGs protective for ingestion of beef from cattle grazing on the rural residential property (and incidental ingestion of residential soil) were estimated based on four assumptions regarding dietary intake percentages of beef from cattle raised on their yards for Native American adults (Table 8-9). If beef grazing on the rural residential property are consumed, it is estimated that the PRG for an adult consuming 400 mg soil/day is decreased to 107 mg/kg. This is based on a daily intake of approximately 0.4 lbs of beef, with 25 percent from the property. For the assumption of soil ingestion at 100 mg/day, the PRG of 441 mg/day would be reduced to 395 mg/kg for the same assumptions for beef ingestion.

Table 8-9 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Beef from Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Soil PRG (mg/kg) Beef Conc. (mg/kg) % of Meat Eaten

109 0.030 10

107 0.030 25

104 0.029 50

99 0.027 100

008406




Table 8-10 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Child Consumption of 50% of Beef and Milk from Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Soil PRG (mg/kg)


Beef Conc. (mg/kg)

Milk Conc. (mg/kg)


31 1.395 0.0083 0.0077 0.078

50 2.25 0.0134 0.0124 0.237

100 4.5 0.02688 0.02485 1.686

150 6.75 0.0403 0.0373 5.269

200 9 0.05376 0.0497 10.958

250 11.25 0.0672 0.0621 18.09

300 13.5 0.0806 0.0746 25.878

350 15.75 0.094 0.0869 33.714


Assuming children on a rural residential property consume 50% of their milk and beef from cows raised on their land, a range of soil PRGs (31 to 350 mg/kg) was evaluated in terms of the associated lead concentrations in milk and beef calculated using the biotranser factors presented in EPA�s Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a). The IEUBK model results indicate that a soil PRG of approximately 150 mg/kg is protective of these additional dietary sources (Table 8-10).

Additional considerations of dietary intake of edible plants grown regionally are presented in Section 8.4.2.

8.3 Rural Non-Residential Soil/Source Material 8.3.1 Recreational Use Outside of the rural residential properties, the public may be exposed to COPCs in source areas during recreational activities such as driving all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on chat piles and millponds. Unacceptable BLLs were identified for this scenario in the HHRA.

To estimate the PRG protective for an adolescent recreator, the ALM was adopted as recommended by the Technical Review Workgroup for metals and asbestos (TRW) in their Frequently Asked Questions document (EPA, 2005f). The target receptor for this PRG is an adolescent; however, the ALM is targeted for protection of the most sensitive receptor (a fetus). Therefore, use of the ALM assumes that the receptor is a pregnant woman. In addition, the assumption that the receptor plays in the source areas each day that weather

008407




permits is highly unrealistic. Therefore, the PRGs for lead in rural non-residential soils or source materials were also calculated assuming an exposure frequency of three days per week for 26 weeks. The PRGs were evaluated based on various possible exposure assumptions (model parameters) presented below. The estimated PRGs range from 350 to 1,047 mg/kg.

Table 8-11 Lead - Source Material PRGs Based on Recreational Adolescent Scenario Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

GSD Baseline PbB (µg/dL) Ingestion Rate (mg/day)

Absorption fraction

Exposure frequency (days/yr)

PRG (mg/kg)

2.3 (default) 1.7 (default) 200 0.12 (default)

78c 547

2.3 (default) 1.7 (default) 100 0.12 (default)

78 1,095

2.1 (NHANES III)

1.16 (NHANES III) 100 0.30a 184b 350

2.1 (NHANES III)

1.16 (NHANES III) 100 0.30 78 826

2.1 (NHANES III)

1.16 (NHANES III) 200 0.30 78 413

2.1 (NHANES III)

1.16 (NHANES III) 200 0.20 78 620

a High-end absorption value. b 184 sunny days above freezing temperature based on a yearly average of weather meteorological monitoring data collected between 1999 and 2004. c 78 days (3 days per week for 26 weeks) or approximately 2.6 summer months.

GSD = Geometric standard deviation of baseline blood lead level.

Some chat piles are close to rural residential areas and there is a potential for younger children to desire to play on them. In addition, adolescents playing on the chat will likely come in contact with unvegetated fine source materials at a higher rate than on sodded soil materials and are therefore expected to have a higher-end ingestion rate. The proposed lead PRG of 500 mg/kg is between two PRGs (413 and 547 mg/kg) based on the high-end ingestion rate (200 mg/kg), realistic exposure frequency (78 days/yr), and two different absorption factions (the upper and lower estimates).

008408




8.3.2 Pastureland If beef or game that graze on rural non-residential property (pastureland) are consumed, a soil PRG may be estimated based on models that correlate soil concentration with concentrations in beef. The correlations used to develop PRGs are based on the values presented in the EPA Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a) and are assumed to be the same for beef and game.

Assuming approximately 50 percent of a person�s dietary intake of meat (170 g/day or approximately 0.4 lbs/day) is from animals grazing on pastureland, an average soil concentration in the pastureland of approximately 1,600 mg/kg is estimated that would be protective for an adult using reasonably conservative intake estimates.

The PRGs for lead in pastureland soil combined with PRGs for rural residential soil were developed. Identifying a PRG for one soil area (e.g., rural residential soil) allows calculation of the PRG for pastureland soil. For example, if a PRG of 335 mg/kg lead is used for rural residential soils, then the PRG for pastureland soil is 31 mg/kg (background concentration). Because of this relationship between the rural residential yard soils and the pastureland soils, the PRG is presented as a paired set of PRGs for a variety of lead concentrations.

Beef and milk samples were collected for the Jasper Superfund Site in Missouri, a site with mining wastes similar to Tar Creek. These data were reviewed for their usefulness in developing PRGs for Tar Creek OU4. Based on the available information, the following issues were identified:

• The concentration ranges in the grazing areas (pastureland) for the cattle were not provided.

• The sample size was very small (only two individual samples for beef, liver, and milk were collected, one from each of two grazing areas).

• Appropriate QA/QC documentation was lacking (local residents collected the beef, liver, and milk samples, stored the food products in their freezer, and then provided the samples to a third party for submittal to the laboratory; it appeared that chain-of-custody backup was lacking.)

Therefore, the data were not concluded to be useful for developing soil PRGs for pastureland at Tar Creek OU4.

008409




Table 8-12 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of Milk from Cattle Grazing on Pastureland Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Rural Residential Yard PRG (mg/kg)

Pastureland PRG (mg/kg)


Milk Conc. (mg/kg)

% of Milk Consumed

50 3430 154 0.78 10

325 741 33.3 0.17 10

50 1360 61.2 0.312 25

325 297 13.4 0.068 25

Table 8-13 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of Beef from Cattle Grazing on Pastureland Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Rural Residential Yard PRG (mg/kg)

Pastureland PRG (mg/kg)


Beef Conc. (mg/kg)

% of Meat Eaten

50 6910 311 1.9 10

300 836 37.6 0.23 10

50 2730 123 0.75 25

300 363 13.5 0.10 25

008410




Table 8-14 Lead – Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of 10% of Beef and Milk from Cattle Grazing on Pastureland Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Rural Residential Yard PRG mg/kg)

Pasture-land PRG (mg/kg)


Beef Conc. (mg/kg)

Milk Conc. (mg/kg)


31 2000 90 0.5376 0.497 5.047

335 31 1.395 0.0083 0.0077 5.111

200 900 40.5 0.2419 0.2236 5.055


8.4 Food Items Remedial actions are focused on abiotic media (e.g., soil or groundwater) that may protect public health based on direct ingestion/contact or secondary exposures based on transfer of COPCs from soil to food. The above discussions considered the relationship between soil and beef, milk, and homegrown produce. This section considers other dietary intakes.

8.4.1 Fish Previous studies have indicated elevated risk levels associated with fish and aquatic biota ingestion exposures by residents in the Tar Creek area. However, ecological PRGs for protection of fish populations will generally be more conservative for these COPCs. The ODEQ has identified safe consumption levels for fish from rivers and ponds in the Tar Creek Area (ODEQ, 2003). PRGs for surface water and sediment are not evaluated as part of OU4.

8.4.2 Plants Native American diet may include a variety of plants (e.g., asparagus, cattail, willow) that grow in the region. Some of these plants, like cattails, have higher uptake of metals than many other plants. The baseline HHRA assumed that any of these individual plant types might be a substantial portion of the entire diet. However, it should be noted that most of the plants that were collected were growing in source material areas, not growing within typical soils of the Tar Creek area.

A soil PRG that would reduce plant tissue concentrations to levels where these may be the primary diet for adults were not estimated. In part, this is because a simple correlation between plants and soils was not identified (see Section 8.4.3). Even concentrations near background suggested that plant intake might be unacceptable if these plants constitute the entire diet, which is not a realistic assumption.

008411




Root concentrations were much higher than aboveground plant concentrations by a factor of nearly 4 for cadmium and nearly 70 for lead. Based on the open literature (e.g., Hansel, 2001; Newville, 2004), many of the metals in roots of plants like cattails may be highest on the outer surface, such that peeling these roots would significantly reduce intake of metals like lead.

However, in general, consumption of roots should be restricted, particularly if these are eaten without removing the outer surface.

8.4.3 Evaluation of Correlation Between Edible Plants and Soil During preparation of the HHRA, an evaluation of the correlation between the sampled edible plants and their associated root soil was performed. Plant concentrations were obtained from 19 samples from each of three plant types (asparagus, cattail, and willow). For each plant type, both root and aboveground tissue were submitted for analysis in both washed and unwashed states. It should be noted that the �washed� state was not washed clean, but was lightly rinsed with deionized water in the field. These samples were analyzed for cadmium, lead, and zinc. A discrete sample (rather than composite) was obtained from soil in contact with each root sample. An evaluation was performed to determine an appropriate set of paired plant-soil data to develop an equation predicting soil concentrations from plant concentrations.

For each COPC, there were 12 different scenarios (3 plant types, unwashed and washed, roots, and aboveground tissue) for evaluating the correlation between plant and soil concentrations. This evaluation included calculations of the Pearson correlation coefficient (the most widely used measure of paired correlation) and a nonparametric version (based on ranks), the Spearman correlation coefficient. Both of these values range from -1 to 1 where 1 represents perfect correlation, -1 represents perfect inverse correlation, and 0 represents no correlation. Another well-known measure of correlation, R2, was also calculated. This value is merely the square of the Pearson correlation coefficient and thus ranges from 0 to 1 where increasing correlation or inverse correlation is indicated by higher R2 values.

Thus, concentration data from unwashed plants (aboveground), unwashed roots, washed plants (aboveground), and washed roots were evaluated with regard to correlation with the corresponding root soil concentration data. This evaluation was performed for each of the three plant types (asparagus, cattail, and willow).

Review of all cases (and some additional scenarios including combined plant types, etc.) revealed that the data sets for cattail roots offered the most promising correlation between plant and soil concentrations. The chosen plant type for cadmium and zinc was washed roots, while the chosen plant type for lead was unwashed roots. The calculated measures of correlation are presented in Table 8-15 with the estimates for the regression coefficient and intercept; plots are presented in Appendix N, Figures 1-6. If the correlation is deemed to be adequately strong, the soil concentration is calculated using the following equation:

Soil Concentration = (Plant Concentration * Regression Coefficient) + Intercept

008412




Table 8-15 Cattail and Root Soil Correlation - Regression and Correlation Statistics for Predictive Equations Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Plant Type

Plant Media COPC

Regression Coefficient Intercept

Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Spearman Correlation Coefficient R2

Cattail Washed

Root Cadmium 4.031 19.42 0.651 0.547 0.424

Cattail Unwashed

Root Lead 3.836 190.9 0.836 0.576 0.698

Cattail Washed

Root Zinc 8.19 3070 0.710 0.493 0.504

One issue in calculating measures of correlation is that some individual data pairs (plant-soil concentration pairs) might be highly influential on the calculated correlation (although the nonparametric Spearman correlation coefficient is more robust toward influence by individual data pairs). Indeed, the cases presented in Table 8-15 were first evaluated for such influential pairs, some of which were excluded prior to calculating these regression and correlation statistics.

In data plots, such influential pairs can be visually identified, but it is also prudent to perform a mathematical test to ensure that this identification is consistent for all scenarios. The mathematical parameter termed �Cook�s distance� was calculated for each scenario (Draper, 1998). A large value for Cook�s distance indicates that the estimates of a regression equation will change substantially if the data pair is removed.

For each case in Table 8-15, the chosen data for calculating the regression equation involved the exclusion of two data pairs. The excluded data are presented in Table 8-16. The exact Cook�s distance required for data exclusion is not a firm value, although some practitioners suggest an F distribution value for probability of 0.50 (Graybill and Iyer, 1994). With the 19 sample pairs initially available, this value is 0.47. As seen in Table 8-16, the Cook�s distance for each of these values exceeds 0.47.

008413




Table 8-16 Cattail and Root Soil Correlation - Excluded Plant-Soil Data Pairs Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

Station ID COPC Plant Type Plant Media

Plant Concentration,

mg/kg

Soil Concentration,

mg/kg Cook's

distance

TC4-BIO-21D Cadmium Cattail Washed Root 32.27 1520 0.76

TC4-BIO-44D Cadmium Cattail Washed Root 110.22 764 17

TC4-BIO-09C Lead Cattail

Unwashed Root 2759.77 3980 0.86

TC4-BIO-54C Lead Cattail

Unwashed Root 1.95 8680 0.52

TC4-BIO-21D Zinc Cattail Washed Root 1514.27 117000 0.58

TC4-BIO-34D Zinc Cattail Washed Root 3604.6 5410 0.89

More important than an exact threshold, the calculation of Cook�s distances allows a consistent measure of the influence of any given data pair on the regression equation. The excluded pairs can be visualized in Appendix N, Figures 1, 3, and 5 for cadmium, lead, and zinc, respectively. In these figures, the excluded data pairs are marked with an X symbol. The remaining data are better viewed in Appendix N, Figures 2, 4, and 6 for cadmium, lead, and zinc, respectively. These figures also provide a visual presentation of the regression line drawn as a best fit through the data (the same regression line described by the regression coefficients and intercept in Table 8-15).

The cattail data was initially deemed promising due to superior correlations relative to the other plant types. The higher soil concentrations associated with the cattail concentrations reinforced this decision. In Table 8-17, the mean concentrations for each COPC and each plant type is provided for 1) all soil data, 2) the soil data associated with unwashed roots after data exclusions (based on the Cook�s distance calculations), and 3) the soil data associated with washed roots after data exclusions. These means show that cattail data are either associated with the highest typical soil concentration or, at least, a soil concentration almost as high as the other plant types (e.g., cadmium concentration associated with roots). Use of these higher soil concentrations associated with cattail are expected to bring an increased level of conservatism since they lead to higher soil concentrations being predicted by the regression equations. However, the correlations are not adequately strong for use in predicting plant concentrations and therefore were not used in PRG calculations.

008414




Table 8-17 Mean Root Soil Concentrations at Edible Plant Sampling Locations Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site

All Soil Data

Asparagus Cattail Willow

Cadmium 34 161 56

Lead 884 1550 1256

Zinc 5889 14748 8412

Soil Data Associated with Unwashed Roots

After Data Exclusions Cadmium 32 47 52

Lead 668 987 828

Zinc 5096 7565 7006

Soil Data Associated with Washed Roots

After Data Exclusions Cadmium 32 46 49

Lead 737 1154 828

Zinc 5366 9283 6973

8.5 Other Rural Areas The soil samples collected from rural areas (i.e., not currently used for residential land use and not in the vicinity of source materials) indicate low concentrations near background levels. Therefore, PRGs do not need to be developed for the rural areas that comprise most of the land in OU4.

For purposes of evaluation here, rural residential yard soil samples were combined with rural area surface soil, transition zone soil, and background soil samples. Collectively, these soil samples were considered to be representative of the lead contamination in rural surface soil for Tar Creek OU4. These surface soils were sampled as part of the effort for characterizing the OU4 site and for developing the HHRA for the site.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run on the soil lead data from four separate areas (background, rural residential, rural, and transition zone) to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the soil data collected from the four areas. Due to the large number of samples available, the results using untransformed data were used even though the residuals from the ANOVA were found to be not normally distributed. This

008415




analysis showed that there was not a statistical significant difference between the soil data collected from different areas except for the transition zone soil ( The F-ratio for this analysis had p-value of 0.6266). Therefore, the surface soil data without the transition zone data were combined in one group to represent the general rural soil and the transition zone soil data was separated to represent surface soil in the areas adjacent to chat piles or chat bases. The surface soil other than the transition zone soil data were found to range between 0.0125 and 1,160 mg/kg. The data were found to be not normally or lognormal distributed. The ProUCL program was used to calculate the UCL95 on the arithmetic mean of the data. A Chebyshev 95% non-parametric UCL was calculated to be 141 mg/kg. This is a substantial reduction over the UCL95 of 422 mg/kg prior to remediation of the home at the former smelter.

About 2.5 percent of the data (after remediation of the home at the former smelter) were above 500 mg/kg lead. If these data points above 500 mg/kg were replaced with clean fill containing 31 mg/kg lead (assuming areas above 500 mg/kg lead were excavated and replaced with clean fill), the UCL95 on the arithmetic mean for the surface soil would decrease from 141 mg/kg to 101 mg/kg (about 3 times the background concentration of 31 mg/kg) and the average median value would be 35 mg/kg, which is very close to the average background level of 31 mg/kg.

For transition zone soil, the soil lead data ranged between 16.9 and 4,450 mg/kg. The data were found to be not normally or lognormally distributed. The Chebyshev 95% non-parametric UCL was calculated to be 1,573 mg/kg using the ProUCL program. About 37 percent of the data were above 500 mg/kg. If we replace data points above 500 mg/kg lead with clean fill containing 31 mg/kg lead, the UCL95 on the arithmetic mean for the data decreases from 1,573 mg/kg to 123 mg/kg. However, recall that the percentage of soil samples above 500 mg/kg in our dataset was high, about 37 percent.

These evaluations indicate that if the current sampling locations above 500 mg/kg lead are remediated and replaced with soil at background concentrations of lead, the average lead concentration in the Tar Creek area will be near background concentrations.

8.6 Uncertainties in PRGs There are various uncertainties in the derivation of the PRGs. By presenting a range of PRGs, some of those uncertainties are mitigated. The soil, beef, milk, and vegetable ingestion rates vary by person. Additionally, the amount of food eaten from an impacted area varies by person. Further, the chemical concentration in the food item will vary based on the type of food item, the source of the food item, the part of the food item eaten (e.g., above-ground or below-ground portion of the plant, body part of the animal) and the food preparation method. In addition, it was assumed that the chemical uptakes into beef, milk, and vegetables were adequately represented by the biotransfer factors presented in EPA�s Combustion Guidance. Additionally, in most cases, upperbound estimates of ingestion rates (e.g., 95th percentile values) were used to calculate PRGs.

It is important to note that the default biotransfer factors in the EPA Combustion Guidance that were used to calculate PRGs appear to overestimate plant concentrations (especially homegrown vegetables) by several orders of magnitude based on the soil/plant correlation observed during sampling at OU-2.

008416




8.7 Conclusions PRGs were identified for rural residential and recreational scenarios. The lowest PRGs were identified for soil used for growing vegetables. The PRGs are provided for EPA Risk Managers for their use in selecting the final remedial goals for the site.

Based on results of the HHRA, the most significant risks are associated with ingestion of edible plants in the Tar Creek area. If locally-grown edible plants are a significant portion of a person�s diet, unacceptable risks may result. Therefore, it is recommended that edible plant intakes be limited.

The locations with elevated cadmium and zinc concentrations occur at areas where elevated lead concentrations are also present. Therefore, remediating specific locations for lead will also address the areas where cadmium and zinc risks are unacceptable.

The elevated risk levels calculated for OU4 are driven by exposure to the source materials (i.e., chat piles, chat bases, tailings ponds, and smelter area) and the transition zones around the piles/bases. Most of the lead concentrations on rural land in OU4 (represented by the rural area samples collected in December 2005) are at concentrations near background. Therefore, if source areas are remediated to PRGs, the area-wide residual risks in the OU4 area are expected to be at acceptable levels.

008417


9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

An HHRA was conducted for OU4 of the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The site is approximately 40 square miles in size and is an area of former mining activities, with waste materials (chat piles, chat bases, tailings ponds) present on approximately 10% of the land within the 40 square mile area. Residences are present throughout this area, on both public land and land owned by the BIA. On BIA land, 10 Native American tribes are represented, and it is reasonable to assume that Native Americans are enjoying cultural practices currently, and will in the future in at least some of these areas. Soil samples collected from non-residential rural areas indicate concentrations near background levels.

It is assumed that in the future, the waste materials will remain in the Tar Creek area and residential use will continue on both private and Indian lands. Based on the AOC, the COPCs at the site are cadmium, lead, and zinc; analytical data for additional metals supports the selection of these three COPCs as those of primary concern at the site from mining activities. Two sets of residential receptors were evaluated: general public and Native American (representing the tribal way of life). Both adult and child receptors were evaluated within these scenarios. Additionally, a recreator scenario was evaluated for adolescents who may play on chat piles and tailings ponds when the weather permits.

It is assumed that a general public resident would be exposed to surface soil, ground water, and ambient air using exposure assumptions considered conservative for a typical residential setting (e.g., exposures at 350 days/year for 30 years). For the Native American resident, exposures to surface soil, ground water, ambient air, milk, beef, fish, aquatic food, small game, asparagus, willow, and cattail were quantified using conservative exposure assumptions presented in the Spokane Tribe Study (Harper et al., 2002), with much higher intakes than those for the general public. In addition, food ingestion rates presented in the EPA Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA, 1997) for Native Americans were used for comparison. Sieved (250 µm) soil samples collected from a depth of 0-1 inch were used to evaluate exposures to residential yard soil. It was assumed that an adolescent recreator may contact surface materials (0-6 inches) on chat piles and tailings ponds during outdoor activities.

Previous studies have indicated that while areas of the shallow aquifer have been impacted, the deeper aquifer has not. Of the 14 shallow, private wells that were identified in the study area, 13 were sampled during the RI. Maximum detected concentrations of lead were only slightly higher than the EPA Action Level for drinking water (28 µg/L versus 15 µg/L) in two wells located near each other on the eastern portion of OU4. Cadmium and lead were detected above background in these wells, suggesting potential mining-related impacts. Exposures to ground water were quantified in the HHRA by both general public and Native American residents. The HHRA does not address future uses of impacted shallow ground water at locations other than those sampled as part of OU4, and restrictions on potable use of shallow ground water may be warranted in other locations.

008418




There is the potential for future concentrations in the wells to increase. If concentrations remain low, no additional risks will be identified. However, because lead concentrations are currently above the MCL at two wells, the cause of the elevated levels and the need for an alternative water supply should be evaluated.

The following estimated risks were identified, as summarized in Tables 5-1 through 5-3:

• Current Child Resident (General Public) - maximum HI of 1; six homes with lead concentrations above 500 mg/kg; potential BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl for children at four homes; 2.98 percent of the �neighborhood� with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl; lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor. Based on the updated soil dataset, risks remained the same for cadmium and zinc; five homes had lead concentrations above 500 mg/kg; less than 5 percent of the �neighborhood� had a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl; lead remained as the COC for this receptor.

• Current Adult Resident (General Public) - maximum HI of 0.2; potential BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl at two homes; lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor. Based on the updated soil dataset, risks remained the same for cadmium and zinc; potential BLLs exceeded 10 µg/dl at one home; lead remained as the COC for this receptor.

• Current Child Resident (Native American) - maximum HI of 0.3; neither of two homes with lead concentrations above 500 mg/kg; potential BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl for neither home; lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor. Based on the updated soil dataset, risks remained the same for cadmium and zinc, and lead risks were lower .

• Current Adult Resident (Native American, High-Fish and High-Beef Diets) - ELCR of 2x10-7, maximum HIs of 700 and 600 (for high-fish diet and high-beef diet, respectively); 100 percent of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl; cadmium and zinc exceeded HI of 1 due to the asparagus, willow, and cattail ingestion pathways. Cadmium exceeded an individual HI of 1 from the aquatic food ingestion and fish ingestion pathways. Lead, cadmium, and zinc were identified as COCs for this receptor. Based on the updated soil dataset, ELCR of 2x10-7, maximum HIs of 600 for both high-fish diet and high-beef diet; 100 percent of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl; cadmium and zinc exceeded HI of 1 due to the asparagus, willow, and cattail ingestion pathways. Cadmium exceeded an individual HI of 1 from the aquatic food ingestion and fish ingestion pathways. Lead, cadmium, and zinc remained as COCs for this receptor.

• Current Adult Resident (More Typical Native American) � estimated risks are lower for a Native American resident with more typical Native American exposures than those estimated using the Spokane Tribe exposure factors; however, estimated risks still exceed acceptable levels, driven by the edible plant exposures. Based on the updated soil dataset, the original risk estimates were unchanged.

• Current/Future Recreator - maximum HI of 0.1; 22.3 percent of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 µg/dl; lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor.

008419




• Future Child Resident (General Public and Native American) - maximum HI is 0.08; maximum and mean modeled future soil concentrations exceed acceptable BLLs, although 75th percentile soil concentrations yield acceptable BLLs. Maximum modeled air concentrations are below NAAQS. Lead was identified as the only COC for these receptors. Based on the updated future soil dataset, maximum HI is 0.1; maximum modeled future soil concentration exceeds acceptable BLLs, although mean and 75th percentile soil concentrations yield acceptable BLLs. Maximum modeled air concentrations are below NAAQS. Lead remained as the only COC for these receptors.

• Future Adult Resident (General Public) - maximum ELCR is 4x10-6 and maximum HI is 0.02; maximum modeled future soil concentration exceeds the target, although the mean soil concentrations yield acceptable BLLs. Maximum modeled air concentrations are below NAAQS. Lead and cadmium were identified as COCs for this receptor. Based on the updated future soil dataset, maximum ELCR is 4x10-6 and maximum HI is 0.03; maximum modeled future soil concentration exceeds the target, although the mean and 75th percentile soil concentrations yield acceptable BLLs. Maximum modeled air concentrations are below NAAQS. Lead and cadmium remained as COCs for this receptor.

• Future Adult Resident (Native American) - maximum ELCR is 1x10-5 and maximum HI is 0.04. Maximum, mean, and median modeled future soil lead concentrations exceed the target population with a BLL above 10 µg/dL. Lead and cadmium were identified as COCs for this receptor. Based on the updated future soil dataset, maximum ELCR is 1x10-5 and maximum HI is 0.02; maximum, mean and 75th percentile modeled future soil concentrations exceed acceptable BLLs, although median soil concentration yields acceptable BLLs. Lead and cadmium were identified as COCs for this receptor.

Historically, BLL measurements have been collected for children living in the Tar Creek area. BLLs have been decreasing since 1996, and are now within the target level on a neighborhood-scale. However, individual children and locations remain at concentrations of concern. Exposures should be limited in areas with elevated lead concentrations. Additionally, remaining sources in the Tar Creek area should be considered during future remedial activities in Tar Creek.

008420





008421


10.0 References

AATA International, Inc. (AATA), 2004. Final Data Gap Analysis Report, Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program. September 2004.

AATA International, Inc. (AATA), 2005. Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary, Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program. September 2005.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2004. Report to Congress. Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. October 2004.

Casteel, Stan W., Weis, Christopher, Brattin, William, and Hammon, Tracy. Bioavailability of Lead in Soil Samples From the Jasper County, Missouri Superfund Site. May.

CH2M HILL, 2004. Work Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. July 2004.

CH2M HILL, 2005a. Work Plan Revision Request 01, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. February 2005.

CH2M HILL, 2005b. Work Plan Revision Request 02, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. August 2005.

Draper, N.R. and H. Smith.. Applied Regression Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998.

Duggan, et al., 1985. Lead in playground dust and on the hands of schoolchildren. Sci. Total Environ. 44(1):65-79.

Duggan, M.J., and M.J. Inskip, 1985. Childhood exposure to lead in surface dust and soil: A community health problem. Public Health Rev. 13(1-2):1-54.

Graybill, F.A. and H.K. Iyer, Regression Analysis: Concepts and Applications, Duxbury Press, 1994.

Hansel, C.M., Fendorf, S., Sutton, S., Newville, M. 2001. Characterization of Fe plaque and associated metals on the roots of mine-waste impacted aquatic plants. Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, California 94305, USA. October 2001.

Harper, Barbara L., Brian Flett, Stuart Harris, Corn Abeyta, and Fred Kirschner, 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis, Vol. 22, No. 3.

Holden, H, 1980. Further mortality studies on workers exposed to cadmium fumes. Presented at Seminar on Occupational Exposure to Cadmium. March 20, 1980, London, England.

Kipling, M.D. and J.A.H. Waterhouse. 1967. Cadmium and prostatic carcinoma. Lancet. 1: 730.

008422




Kissel, J.C., K.Y. Richter, and R.A. Fenske, 1996. Factors affecting soil adherence to skin in hand-press trials. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 56(5):722-728.

Lemen, R.A., J.S. Lee, J.K. Wagoner and H.P. Blejer, 1976. Cancer mortality among cadmium production workers. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 271: 273.

Nagy, 2001. Food requirements of wild animals: Predictive equations for free living-mammals, reptiles, and birds. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 71: 21R-32R.

Newville, Matthew, Peter Eng, Steve Sutton, Mark Rivers. 2004. GSECARS X-ray Microprobe for Earth and Environmental Science. Presentation to the Consortium for Advanced Radiation Sources (CARS). University of Chicago, Chicago, IL January 2004.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2003. Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area. FY03 Section 106 Water Quality Management Program, I-006400-01. July 2003.

Oklahoma Mesonet. www.mesonet.org.

Parker, G.H. and J. Hamr, 2001. Metal Levels in body tissues, forage and fecal pellets of elk (Cervus elaphus) living near the ore smelters at Sudbury, Ontario. Environmental Pollution. 113:347-355.

Sheppard, S.C., and W.G. Evenden, 1994. Contaminant enrichment and properties of soil adhering to skin. J. Environ. Qual. 23(3):604-613.

Sorahan, T. and J.A.H. Waterhouse, 1983. Mortality study of nickel-cadmium battery workers by the method of regression models in life tables. Br. J. Ind. Med. 40: 293-300.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2004. http://factfinder.census.gov. 2004.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (Part A, Baseline Risk Assessment). EPA540-189-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals). EPA540-R92-003. OSWER Directive 9285.7-01B.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),1992a. Data Quality Objectives Process for Superfund, Interim Final Guidance. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA540-R93-071. OSWER Directive 9355.9-01.

008423

www.mesonet.org

www.mesonet.org




U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992b. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. Publication. No. 9285.7-081. PB92-963373.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993a. Preliminary review draft: Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure. 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. Memorandum: OSWER Directive 9355.4-12. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead/products/oswerdir.pdf .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995a. EPA Risk Characterization Program. Memorandum from Administrator Carol Browner. Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC. March 21, 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook Volume II. Food Ingestion Factors. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/P-95/002Fb. August 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000. Short Sheet: TRW Recommendations for Sampling and Analysis of Soil at Lead Sites. OSWER Directive 9285.7-38. Prepared for EPA by Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. April 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003. Administrative Order on Consent for RI/FS for OU4. December 2003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005a. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. EPA530-R-05-006. September 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005b. Draft Ecological Risk Assessment for Tar Creek OU4, Ottawa County, Oklahoma.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005c. Superfund and Mining Megasites, Lessons Learned from the Coeur d’ Alene River Basin. July 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005d. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available online.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005e. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values. Available online.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005f. Frequently Asked Questions From Risk Assessors on the Adult Lead Methodology (ALM). Updated November 4. Available online.

008424





008425

Figures

008426



USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02 FEBRUARY 2006


008427

810810

830830

78

07

80

840

840

8 408 40

830830

780780

790

790

850850830830

840840

8 5 08 5 0

780780

82 0

82 0

840840

830830

820820

840840

860

860

860860

830830

840840

850850

8 308 30

860860

8 508 50

8585

8 708 70

790790

840840

850850

820

820

850850

800800

790790

8 108 10

820820

830

830

830830

850850

8 108 10

760760

840840

820820

810

810

820820

850

850

800800

850850

840840

77

820820

85 085 0

850850

830830

88

840840

810810

8 0 08 0 0

830

830

860860

840

840

830830

830830

8 508 50

8 608 60

860860

840840

870870

850850

800800

830

830

780

780

85 085 0

830830

8 608 60

810810

870870

810810

85 0

85 0

830

830

820820

810810

84 084 0

850

850

800800

790790

850850

8 208 20

790790

860

860

820820

8 2 08 2 0

870

870

860860

800800

820820

880880

810810

830830

850850

770770

830830

870870

810810

790790

800800

850850

810810

830830

8 508 50

850850

820820

830830

820820

830

830

850

850

8 1 08 1 0

850850

800800

790790

800800

820820

85 0

85 0

860860

8 508 50

830

830

850850850850

860860

840840

850850

820820

870870

810810

810810

830830

840840

8 5 08 5 0

90 090 0

830830

800

800

850850

840840

840840

7 9 07 9 0

850850

8 4 08 4 0

840840

850850

780

780

820820

830

830

810810

85

08

50

810810

83

0

83

0

840840

820

820

850850

820

820

830830

830830

820

820

790790

830830

8 308 30820820

860860

840840

840

840

9 0 09 0 0

850850

810810

850850

830830

8 7 08 7 0

800800

830830

830830

860860

810810

810810

83 0

83 0

850

850

840

840

810810

810810

860860

810810

820820

820820

820820

850850

810810

8 9 08 9 0

860860

810810

870870

820820

870870

8 4 08 4 0

860860

85085 0

770770

850850

820820

810810

840840

830

830

860

860

860860

870870

840840

8 108 10

8 608 60

860860

850850

750750

810810

830830

830830

850850

820820

840840

800

800

800800

840840

840840

8 408 40

870870

830830

800800

830830

790

790

7 6 07 6 0

850850

840840

820820

840840

830830

8 808 80

830

830

830830

800

800

810810

820820

81 081 0

870870820820

790790

860860

830830

820820

780780

840840

830830

800800

8 208 20

810810

830830

830830

810810

8 5 085 0

850850

820820

860

860

810810

830

830

860860

84 084 0

810

810

850850

85 085 0

850850

840840

850850

8888850850

840840

840840

I-44

E 40 Rd

S55

0R

d

E 66 Rd

E 20 Rd

S63

0R

d

E 50 Rd

S56

0R

d

S62

0R

d

S59

0R

d

S61

0R

d

E 30 Rd

S58

0R

d

S60

0R

d

PS

tSE Treece Rd

S59

2R

d

E 57 Rd

SW Treece Rd

S56

5R

d

C StE 60 Rd D St

Oak

St

Uni

ted

Stat

esH

ighw

ay69

(Alt)

E 69 Rd

E A St

E 70 Rd

E 060 Rd

Riv

erS

t

E 45 Rd

W A St

Sta

teH

ighw

ay13

7

S64

2R

d

S60

5R

d

Mai

nS

t

Newman Rd

E 4th St

NN

etta

St

United States Highway 66

NC

onne

llS

t

Whi

tebi

rdS

t

NM

ain

St

E 12th St

SU

nite

dS

tate

sH

ighw

ay69

E United States Highway 69

W State Line Rd

SC

onne

llA

ve

Max

umD

r

S61

4R

d

S60

4R

d

NS

t

SM

ain

St

SS

70R

d

MS

t

ES

t

S638

Rd

E28

Rd

E D St

E B St

E C St

S559

Rd

W 8th St

GS

t

S Mickey Mantle

Blvd

NM

able

St

State Line St

W 12th St

OS

t

E 30th Rd

S63

7R

d

NP

earl

St

Cardin Ln

S63

2R

d

B St

SE

llaS

t

S60

7R

d

E 15 Rd

S57

2R

d

NT

rails

End

Rd

38th N

E0070 Rd

S60

6R

d

S628

Rd

Melba StS

Maple

St

S62

9R

dN

Park Cir

S625

Rd

E State Line Rd

E 32 Rd

SC

lym

aS

t

560

Rd

S60

0R

d

S62

0R

d

E 40 Rd

D StE St

S63

0R

d

S59

0R

d

S55

0R

d

S60

7R

d

S59

2R

d

E 30 Rd

W State Line Rd

E 60 Rd

SM

ain

St

S60

0R

d

E 57 Rd

E 50 Rd

E 30 Rd

NM

ain

St

S63

0R

d

S630

Rd

E 20 Rd

E 69 Rd

E 40 Rd

S56

0R

d

PicherPicher

CommerceCommerce

QuapawQuapaw

North MiamiNorth Miami

CardinCardin

Cherokee County, KS

Ottawa County, OK

Tar Creek

Gar

rett

Creek

Lytle

Creek

Beaver Creek

Ontario Creek

Ta

rC

reek

Beaver Creek

Tar C

reek

Spring River

Hockerville Creek

Qua

paw

Creek

Lytle

Creek

Topographic Map of the Site RegionContour Interval = 10 Feet

0 0.5 10.25 MileSite Boundary

Figure 1

AATA INTERNATIONAL, INC.Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

*Contour data derived from USGS digital elevation models.

008428

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#* #*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

RS2236-9

RS2324-1

RS2226-5

RS2226-8

RS2223-3

RS2223-2

RS2235-7

RS2223-6

RS2226-4

RS2336-24

RS2336-23

RS2308-13RS2308-12

RS2419-45

RS2318-16RS2319-15

RS2322-14

RS2430-42

RS2331-11

RS2331-10

RS2406-39

RS2406-38

RS2301-34RS2301-33

RS2417-30

RS2417-29

RS2431-22

RS2420-35

RS2406-21

RS2334-46

RS2322-28

RS2429-25

RS2429-43

RS2429-37

RS2417-32

RS2417-31

RS2417-41

RS2431-44

RS2406-40

RS2406-20

RS2301-18

RS2301-17

RS2301-19

RS2432-36

RS2429-27RS2429-26

GW 2429-9(A,B)

GW 2406-7(A,B)

GW 2420-6(A,B)

GW 2417-5(A,B)

GW 2429-3(A,B)

GW 2301-1(A,B,D)

GW 2431-12(A,B)

GW 2307-11(A,B)GW 2307-10(A,B)

GW 2429-8(A,B)

GW 2429-4(A,B)

GW 2420-2(A,B)

FIGURE 2

\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Rural_Residence_Sampling.mxd 10\23\05 S Daigle

*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:AATA INTERNATIONAL INC.Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

0 1 20.5Miles

± Tar Creek OU4Rural Residential Sampling Summary

Legend#* Rural Residential Property Samples

#* Native American Owned Property Samples

#* Surface Soil Samples (0-1") > 500 ppm Lead

Shallow Aquifer Well Samples

Shallow Aquifer Well Samples Exceeding MCL for Lead (0.015 mg/L)

Site Boundary

Tribal Lands (2005)

008429

Appendix A Split and Supplemental Sampling Summary

008430





008431

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ 1 OCTOBER 2005 APPENDIX ATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC

Appendix A Technical Memorandum Split and Supplemental Sampling Summary Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 4 Ottawa County, Oklahoma PREPARED FOR: Ursula Lennox/USEPA Region 6 RPM

PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL, Inc. PREPARED UNDER: EPA Region 5 Response Action Contract No. 68-W6-0025,

Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW DATE: October 21, 2005 DCN NUMBER:: 05-8225

1.0 Background This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the sampling and analytical activities completed by CH2M HILL. These activities were completed in support of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) efforts under Operable Unit 4 (OU4) at the Tar Creek Superfund Site located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. This work was completed under Contract No. 68-W6-0025, and the approved project work plan (WP) and subsequent work plan revisions under Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW (CH2M HILL 2004, 2005a, and 2005b).

The Respondents are responsible for completing a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of OU4 under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) that was executed on December 9, 2003 (EPA, 2003a). As part of this agreement, EPA is responsible for completing the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA).

Under this work assignment, CH2M HILL was directed by EPA to complete the HHRA and perform the following activities associated with the RI/FS:

• Perform limited oversight of the Respondents’ sampling efforts.

• Collect split samples of Respondents’ samples.

• Collect supplemental samples in support of the HHRA and to a limited extent, for the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) being completed by EPA.

• Collect plant samples that were requested by Quapaw Tribe.

008432

TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4 DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM


Sampling activities were completed in accordance with the approved Field Sampling Plan

(FSP), the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), and the Health and Safety Plan (HSP)

(CH2M HILL, 2005c, 2005d, and 2005e). Field oversight and split and supplemental

sampling activities were completed during the following timeframes:

• May 16 to May 26, 2005: Collection of chat and chat base samples.

• June 13 to June 30, 2005: Collection of tailings, transition zone soils, and plant samples.

• July 11 to July 22, 2005: Collection of smelter area samples and residential samples.

2.0 Sampling Summary

2.1 Split Samples

In accordance with the project WP, FSP, and QAPP, split samples were collected from up

to 20-percent of the Respondents’ RI samples for solid media and up to 10-percent of the

Respondents’ RI samples for liquid media. All split samples were analyzed through

EPA’s Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) or through EPA’s Regional Laboratory in

Houston, Texas. At a minimum, all samples were analyzed for the three Contaminants of

Concern (COCs); cadmium, lead, and zinc. In most cases, the samples were analyzed for

the full Target Analyte List (TAL) of metals, including mercury. Split samples were

collected for all media that the Respondents collected and analyzed samples with the

exception of surface water and aquatic macrophyte vegetation.

2.2 Supplemental Samples

In accordance with the project WP, FSP, and QAPP, supplemental samples were

collected from site media to support the risk assessments. All samples were analyzed

through EPA’s CLP or through EPA’s Regional Laboratory in Houston, Texas. At a

minimum, all samples were analyzed for the three COCs; cadmium, lead, and zinc. In

most cases, the samples were analyzed for the full TAL of metals, including mercury.

Select samples of chat, chat base, and fine tailings were submitted for off-site

geotechnical testing and analysis. This included determination of particle size

008433




distribution by American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D-422 and

analysis of material passing through select sieve sizes. Specifically, samples were sieved

and analyzed in the following fashion:

• Passing #60/retained on the #140

• Passing #140/retained on the #200

• Passing #200/retained in the pan

These samples were analyzed for cadmium, lead, and zinc, with 10% of the samples

being analyzed for the TAL of metals, including mercury.

Tables A-1 through A-8 present a summary of the Respondents’ sampling efforts and

associated split and supplemental samples that were collected.

2.2.1 Plant Sampling

At the request of EPA and the Quapaw Tribe, plant samples were collected as part of the

supplemental sampling activities. Five samples were associated with each individual

plant that consisted of washed roots, unwashed roots, washed leaves, unwashed leaves,

and co-located soil samples. A total of 57 plants were sampled this way, for a total of

285 individual samples. The Quapaw Tribe assigned a representative to our sampling

team to determine which areas would be sampled, locate each individual plant sampling

location, and identify the plants in the field.

As directed by EPA, only three plant species were to be selected by the Quapaw Tribe for

sampling and analysis. The plants selected included willow, cattail, and asparagus. In

general, at each sampling area, the three plant species were usually found growing very

close together and were sampled as a group. Coordinates for each sampling location

were determined using Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment and were used to

plot the locations on Figure A-1. Each plant sampling location was photographed.

Additionally, a soil pH reading was taken from the soil growing around each plant’s

roots. Sampling procedures and methodologies were completed in accordance with the

approved FSP and QAPP.

The plant samples were submitted to CLP for analysis of TAL metals, including mercury.

008434




3.0 Data Usability Evaluation

3.1 Data Validation

In accordance with the project WP and the QAPP, all analytical data obtained in support

of this project were validated according to EPA’s National Functional Guidelines for

Inorganic Data Review (EPA 2004).

Analytical data provided by CLP laboratories were validated by the EPA Region 6

Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT). The CH2M HILL project chemist

then reviewed the findings of the ESAT validation. All non-CLP analytical data were

validated by the CH2M HILL project chemist.

Sample results were assigned data qualifiers in the validation process to express the

degree of usability based upon overall data quality. In cases where serious quality control

failures were encountered the data were rejected and were not used to support project

decisions.

3.2 Field Duplicate Analysis

In our evaluation with the CH2M HILL data, field duplicate sample results were

excluded, whereas the associated “normal” samples were retained for all analyses. Only

one sample from each duplicate pair can be included to ensure that the data set consists of

independent results. The duplicate result pairs are presented in Table A-9 to document

that this straightforward choice did not accidentally bias the data used in the HHRA.

The HHRA focuses on the average concentration, so it would take a consistent bias of

results to impart a significant bias on calculated values. By the nature of field duplicates,

which are treated as other samples by the analyzing laboratory, such a consistent bias

would seem very unlikely. Inspection of the paired values and the relative percent

difference (RPD) values in Table A-10 indicate that this data set, as expected, is not

biased by simple exclusion of the field duplicate member of the duplicate pairs. (An

RPD is a percentage of the actual difference between two values relative to the average of

the two values.)

008435




The information from the field duplicate pairs was used, however, in the quality control

process. Concentrations associated with a precision (measured as the RPD) outside

stated criteria, were qualified as estimated.

3.3 Split Sample Analysis

A split sampling program was pursued between the Respondents and CH2M HILL data

sets. As discussed previously, the split samples from the Respondents and CH2M HILL

data sets are not pure splits since there were some intentional differences in the sample

make-up, primarily due to different sieving protocol. Regardless of these differences, it

is obviously still expected that samples from a split pair carry greater similarity than a

random Respondent and CH2M HILL sample. For this reason, it is beneficial to maintain

this paired relationship through the evaluation.

EPA’s Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites Handbook (EPA, 2003b)

considers split analyses with varying make-up (such as depth) and suggests a paired t test

for comparison. A paired t test does not pool all results from the two populations (i.e.

CH2M HILL and Respondent populations) into two groups, but rather considers the

population of differences between the paired results. It answers the question of whether

or not the observed differences indicate a significant deviation from zero. If there is a

significant deviation, then the conclusion that the two populations are not equivalent is

drawn. The results of this testing are presented in Table A-10.

This test carries an assumption of normality which was either rejected (when a healthy

number of differences, say 20, was available and the p-value for normality was less than

0.05) or not well defended (when a fewer number of differences was available). Thus,

the nonparametric version of the paired t test, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, was used

to compare the two populations. The p-values from this testing were compared to a

significance level of 0.05 (which ensured that cases where the two populations were

actually equivalent would only be determined to be different 5% of the time, or less).

When the p-value was not less than 0.05, the conclusion is drawn that the two

populations are statistically equivalent. If the p-value is below 0.05, the conclusion is

drawn that the two populations are statistically different.

008436




The analysis via the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicates that splits for Chat Base, Chat

Pile, and Washed Fines data are not significantly different (between CH2M HILL and

Respondent data). Split data for Fine Tailings, Residential Yard Soil, and Transition

Zone Soil are, however, significantly different.

For those cases where there appears to be a statistical difference between the splits (via

the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test), the actual differences still appear rather small. The

RPDs of the mean concentrations for these cases are presented in Table A-11. They are

seen to range from 16% to 30%. These low RPDs suggest that these differences,

although statistically significant due to relatively low variability in the data, have limited

practical significance in accessing environmental risks, etc.

4.0 References CH2M HILL, 2004. Work Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4, Ottawa County,

Oklahoma. July 2004.

CH2M HILL, 2005a. Work Plan Revision Request 01, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4,

Ottawa County, Oklahoma. February 2005.

CH2M HILL, 2005b. Work Plan Revision Request 02, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4,

Ottawa County, Oklahoma. August 2005.

CH2M HILL, 2005c. Field Sampling Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4, Ottawa

County, Oklahoma. May 2005.

CH2M HILL, 2005d. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4,

Ottawa County, Oklahoma. May 2005.

CH2M HILL, 2005e. Revised Health and Safety Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4,

Ottawa County, Oklahoma. September 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003a. Administrative Order on Consent for

Tar Creek RI/FS for OU4. December 2003.

008437




U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003b. Superfund Lead-Contaminated

Residential Sites Handbook. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.

2003.

U. S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2004. USEPA Contract Laboratory

Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review.

EPA/540/R-04/004. October, 2004

008438





008439

Tables

008440



P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ OCTOBER 2005 APPENDIX ATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC


008441

Table A-1Chat SummaryTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

0-6 inchesNote 1 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2

Pile Quantity Location Local Pile Name

Respondents RI Samples RI Split

HHRA Supplemental (3)


HHRA Supplemental

1 T29N-R22E-13-1 Bird Dog 8 1 5 0 0 02 T29N-R22E-23-1 Adams-Mudd (Barret) 8 2 0 0 0 03 T29N-R22E-25-9 Pioneer 8 1 5 0 0 04 T29N-R23E-13-2 Semple 8 2 0 0 0 05 T29N-R23E-16-1 Sooner 8 2 0 2 0 06 T29N-R23E-17-12 Howe 8 2 0 0 0 07 T29N-R23E-17-9 Ottawa 8 2 0 2 0 08 T29N-R23E-18-5 Gordon 8 1 5 0 0 09 T29N-R23E-19-7 Western (Anna Beaver) 8 2 0 0 0 0

10 T29N-R23E-19-8 Western (John Beaver) 8 2 0 2 0 011 T29N-R23E-20-11 OKO 8 2 0 2 0 012 T29N-R23E-20-16 Kenoyer 8 2 0 2 0 013 T29N-R23E-20-8 St. Joe 8 2 0 0 0 014 T29N-R23E-21-1 Fisher (Mahutska) 8 2 4 0 0 015 T29N-R23E-21-11 Royal (Thompson) 8 0 0 2 0 016 T29N-R23E-28-12 Lawyers 8 1 5 0 0 017 T29N-R23E-29-14 Admiralty 8 2 0 0 0 018 T29N-R23E-29-8 Skelton 8 2 0 0 0 019 T29N-R23E-30-13 Blue Goose 8 1 0 2 0 020 T29N-R23E-30-1 Pearl (Bill Baily) 8 2 5 0 0 021 T29N-R23E-22-7 Atlas (Tulsa) 0 0 5 0 0 0

160 33 34 14 0 0

NOTES:1 = Samples crushed and ground so that all material passes through #100 mesh sieve.2 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.3 = Sample quantities include samples collected for grain size distribution and subsequent analysis.

Primary MediaRespondents Sub Media Definition

Sample Depth

Totals

Sample Preparation Method

Surface ChatChat (Chat Piles)

1 foot below surface 0-1 inchBulk Chat

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA1_Chat

PAGE 1 OF 1 OCTOBER 2005

008442

Tar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma


P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TABLESOCTOBER 2005

008443

Table A-2Chat Base SummaryTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

0-6 inchesNote 1 Note 2 Note 2




1 T29N-R22E-25-9 Pioneer 4 1 52 T29N-R23E-18-5 Gordon 4 1 53 T29N-R23E-20-16 Kenoyer 4 2 04 T29N-R23E-20-8 St. Joe 2 0 05 T29N-R23E-28-12 Lawyers 4 1 56 T29N-R23E-30-13 Blue Goose 4 1 5

22 6 20

NOTES:1 = Samples crushed and ground so that all material passes through #100 mesh sieve.2 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.3 = Sample quantities include samples collected for grain size distribution and subsequent analysis.

Totals

Chat Base

1 foot below surfaceNone


Sample DepthSample Preparation Method

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA2_ChatBase


008444




008445

Table A-3Tailings SummaryTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

Surface Fine Tailings0-6 inches 0-6 inches 0-1 inch

None None Note 1 None None Note 1 None


Respondents RI Samples** RI Split


Respondents RI Samples ** RI Split


Respondents RI Samples **

1 T29N-R22E-13-1 Bird Dog 10 2 4 6 2 5 32 T29N-R22E-25-9 Pioneer 10 2 4 5 2 1 13 T29N-R23E-13-2 Semple 11 2 0 4 1 0 14 T29N-R23E-17-9 Ottawa 11 2 2 5 2 0 25 T29N-R23E-19-8 Western (John Beaver) 10 0 0 7 4 2 16 T29N-R23E-28-12 Lawyers 10 2 4 4 2 1 17 T29N-R23E-31-1 Central Mill Pond 11 2 5 5 2 0 18 T29N-R23E-29-8 Skelton 11 3 1 6 2 0 19 T29N-R23E-30-13 Blue Goose 10 2 2 8 2 0 110 T29N-R23E-22-7 Atlas (Tulsa) 7 2 2 5 2 2 1

101 19 24 55 21 11 13

NOTES:** = Quantity includes duplicate samples.1 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.2 = Sample quantities include samples collected for grain size distribution and subsequent analysis.

Fine TailingsFlotation Tailings

Depth Integrated CompositeWashed Fines

Depth Integrated Composite


Sample Depth

Totals


P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA3_FineTailings


008446




008447

Table A-4Smelter Waste SummaryTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

None None None None

Respondents Sample ID Waste Type Location

Respondents RI Samples** RI Split

HHRA Supplemental


HHRA Supplemental

SM2324-1 Clinker (85%) + Slag (15%) T29N-R2E-24 0 0 0 1 1 0SM2324-2 Slag (massive) T29N-R2E-24 1 1 0 0 0 0SM2324-3 Slag (pellets) T29N-R2E-24 2 0 0 0 0 0SM2324-4 Clinker (50%) + Slag (50%) T29N-R2E-24 0 0 0 1 0 0SM2324-5 Slag (massive) T29N-R2E-24 1 0 0 0 0 0

4 1 0 2 1 0

NOTES:** = Quantity includes duplicate samples.


Sample Depth

Totals


ClinkerSurface

Smelter WasteSlag

Surface

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA4_SmelterWaste


008448




008449

Table A-5Soils - Background SummaryTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

None None

Respondents Sample ID Site No.Respondents RI

Samples ** RI SplitHHRA

SupplementalBS2318-1 1 1 0 0BS224-2/BS224-8 2 2 1 0BS2236-3 3 1 0 0BS2325-4 4 1 1 0BS2327-5 5 1 0 0BS2332-6 6 1 0 0BS2419-7 7 1 0 0

8 2 0

NOTES:** = Quantity includes duplicate samples.


Totals

SoilsBackground0-6 inches


Sample Depth

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA5_Soils-Background


008450




008451

Table A-6Soils - Transition ZoneTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

0-1 Inch 6-inch 12-inch 24-inchNone None None


Respondents RI Samples




1 T29N-R22E-23-1 Adams-Mudd (Barrett)2 T29N-R22E-25-9 Pioneer3 T29N-R23E-21-11 Royal (Thompson)4 T29N-R23E-22-7 Atlas (Tulsa)5 T29N-R24E-30-1 Pearl (Bill Baily)

65 58 55 46

0-1 Inch 6-inch 12-inch 24-inchNote 2 Note 2 None None

Pile Quantity Location Local Pile Name RI Split RI Split RI Split RI Split

1 T29N-R22E-23-1 Adams-Mudd (Barrett) 3 3 6 62 T29N-R22E-25-9 Pioneer 3 3 6 73 T29N-R23E-21-11 Royal (Thompson) 0 0 0 04 T29N-R23E-22-7 Atlas (Tulsa) 5 5 5 25 T29N-R24E-30-1 Pearl (Bill Baily) 4 3 5 6

15 14 22 21


1 T29N-R22E-23-1 Adams-Mudd (Barrett)2 T29N-R22E-25-9 Pioneer3 T29N-R23E-21-11 Royal (Thompson)4 T29N-R23E-22-7 Atlas (Tulsa)5 T29N-R24E-30-1 Pearl (Bill Baily)

NOTES:(1) = Samples collected at determined distances away from the pile along north and south transects.2 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.

Sample Depth

Totals

SoilsTransition Zone (1)

Primary MediaSub Media

Sample Preparation

Primary Media SoilsSub Media Transition Zone (1)

Sub MediaSample Depth

Sample DepthSample Preparation

Totals

Primary Media SoilsTransition Zone (1)

0-6 inchesNote 2

228

Sample Preparation

Totals

HHRA Supplemental220

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA6_Soils-TZ


008452




008453

Table A-7Soils - Rural Residential Yard SummaryTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

0-1 inch 0-1 inch 0-6 inch 0-6 inchNote 1 Note 1 None Note 1



179 8 179 24

NOTES:** = Quantity includes duplicate samples.1 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.


Totals

SoilsRural Residential Yard


Sample Depth

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA7_Soils-Yard


008454




008455

Table A-8Soils - Smelter AffectedTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

0-1 inch 0-1 inch 0-6 inchNone Note 1 Note 1


HHRA Supplemental

35 8 20 0 4

NOTES:1 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.

Smelter Pasture Land


Transect Totals

SoilsSmelter-Affected


Sample Depth

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA8_Soils-Smelter


008456




008457

Table A-9Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 DataTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

Parameter Media Grouping Location F2L Station ID Normal Result

FD Result

RPD, %

Arsenic Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 3 3.1 3Arsenic Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 3.8 3.7 3Arsenic Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 53.3 55.3 4Arsenic Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 2.5 3.7 39Arsenic Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 4.5 5.8 25Arsenic Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 1.9 1.7 11Arsenic Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 6.8 7 3Arsenic Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 2.9 3.4 16Arsenic Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 2.1 2.4 13Arsenic Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 5.6 6.1 9Arsenic Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 2.4 3.5 37Arsenic Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 7.7 7.5 3Arsenic Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 5.7 5.5 4Arsenic Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 3.3 3.2 3Arsenic Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 10.9 10.6 3Arsenic Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 13.2 15.1 13Arsenic Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 10.5 10.8 3Arsenic Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 3.5 3.6 3Arsenic Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 0.2 0.3 40Arsenic Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 1.1 1.1 0Arsenic Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 0.67 0.53 23Arsenic Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 0.27 0.2 30Arsenic Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 0.31 0.29 7Arsenic Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 2.6 2.3 12Arsenic Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 2 2.7 30Arsenic Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 0.39 0.26 40Arsenic Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 0.43 0.34 23Arsenic Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 0.57 1 55Arsenic Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 0.48 0.55 14Arsenic Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 0.53 1 61Arsenic Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 0.43 0.88 69Arsenic Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 3.7 4.1 10Arsenic Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 0.85 1.4 49Arsenic Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 1.7 1.1 43Arsenic Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 0.63 0.82 26Arsenic Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 5.7 0.21 186Arsenic Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 0.19 0.38 67Arsenic Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 0.34 0.66 64Arsenic Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 0.61 0.38 46

Aluminum Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 4630 4890 5Aluminum Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 3740 4130 10Aluminum Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 4710 3980 17Aluminum Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 790 546 37Aluminum Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 4630 4070 13Aluminum Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 303 253 18Aluminum Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 2820 2840 1Aluminum Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 342 626 59Aluminum Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 1080 1340 21Aluminum Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 564 663 16

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate


008458



FD Result

RPD, %

Aluminum Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 556 508 9Aluminum Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 441 436 1Aluminum Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 613 602 2Aluminum Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 327 364 11Aluminum Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 1200 1010 17Aluminum Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 3900 3420 13Aluminum Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 943 994 5Aluminum Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 4910 5200 6Aluminum Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 24.5 41.5 52Aluminum Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 25 32.2 25Aluminum Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 226 265 16Aluminum Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 125 112 11Aluminum Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 31.1 29.4 6Aluminum Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 48.8 27.7 55Aluminum Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 2310 1820 24Aluminum Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 2140 2040 5Aluminum Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 32.2 37.1 14Aluminum Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 48.5 43.2 12Aluminum Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 70.1 115 49Aluminum Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 52.1 65.5 23Aluminum Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 303 415 31Aluminum Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 291 278 5Aluminum Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 1660 1800 8Aluminum Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 419 531 24Aluminum Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 25.9 22.1 16Aluminum Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 31.6 22.4 34Aluminum Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 784 507 43Aluminum Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 200 181 10Aluminum Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 3300 137 184Aluminum Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 114 146 25Aluminum Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 177 254 36Aluminum Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 203 147 32Antimony Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 0.39 0.35 NDAntimony Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 0.5 0.5 NDAntimony Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 304 366 19Antimony Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 0.24 0.35 NDAntimony Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 1.4 1.4 0Antimony Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 0.75 0.87 15Antimony Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 0.435 3 NDAntimony Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 3 3 NDAntimony Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 0.8 0.89 11Antimony Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 3 3 NDAntimony Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 1.8 1.5 18Antimony Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 0.64 1.2 61Antimony Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 1 1.2 18Antimony Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 0.325 0.355 NDAntimony Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 0.165 0.305 NDAntimony Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 0.14 0.255 NDAntimony Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 0.305 0.475 ND



008459



FD Result

RPD, %

Antimony Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 0.375 0.445 NDAntimony Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 0.215 0.265 NDAntimony Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 0.415 0.2 NDAntimony Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 0.365 0.28 NDAntimony Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 0.225 0.305 NDAntimony Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 0.28 0.21 NDAntimony Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 0.415 0.3 NDAntimony Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 0.405 0.22 NDAntimony Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 0.295 0.335 NDAntimony Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 0.335 0.375 NDAntimony Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 0.26 3 NDAntimony Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 0.31 0.29 NDAntimony Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 0.165 0.145 NDAntimony Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 0.12 0.185 NDAntimony Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 0.22 0.13 NDAntimony Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 0.13 3 NDAntimony Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 3 3 NDBarium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 102 102 0Barium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 92.2 93 1Barium Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 77.7 80.3 3Barium Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 12 10.2 16Barium Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 91.5 77.4 17Barium Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 1.9 1.3 NDBarium Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 77.3 76.2 1Barium Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 4.4 7 46Barium Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 10.7 15.1 34Barium Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 4.3 4.8 11Barium Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 15.6 5.1 101Barium Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 58.9 52.4 12Barium Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 10 10.05 NDBarium Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 5.2 5.1 2Barium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 43.6 41 6Barium Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 20.2 18.6 8Barium Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 72.4 74.4 3Barium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 4.3 4.1 5Barium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 4.5 4 12Barium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 3.7 7 62Barium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 5.1 3.8 29Barium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 2.95 3.2 NDBarium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 6.55 3.65 NDBarium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 49.7 32.9 41Barium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 55.7 42.7 26Barium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 2.4 2.7 12Barium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 3.3 2.7 20Barium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 1.3 1.6 21Barium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 0.83 1.9 78Barium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 26.6 32.2 19Barium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 27 25.8 5Barium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 41 32.1 24



008460



FD Result

RPD, %

Barium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 2.65 2.4 NDBarium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 2.65 1.9 NDBarium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 49.8 41.7 18Barium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 47.2 32.7 36Barium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 9 4.5 NDBarium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 4 4.45 NDBarium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 1.4 1.6 NDBarium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 1.55 1.05 ND

Beryllium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 0.42 0.42 0Beryllium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 0.46 0.48 4Beryllium Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 0.53 0.55 4Beryllium Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 0.13 0.12 8Beryllium Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 0.59 0.6 2Beryllium Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 0.1 0.09 11Beryllium Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 0.44 0.46 4Beryllium Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 0.0465 0.065 NDBeryllium Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 0.06 0.07 NDBeryllium Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 0.24 0.27 12Beryllium Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 0.083 0.086 4Beryllium Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 0.2 0.2 0Beryllium Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 0.25 0.25 NDBeryllium Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 0.096 0.1 4Beryllium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 0.165 0.155 NDBeryllium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 0.91 0.76 18Beryllium Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 0.44 0.43 2Beryllium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 0.125 0.25 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 0.125 0.25 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 0.0115 0.023 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 0.0135 0.25 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 0.25 0.25 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 0.25 0.25 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 0.16 0.125 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 0.14 0.155 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 0.25 0.25 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 0.25 0.25 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 0.01 0.0165 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 0.25 0.25 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 0.24 0.25 4Beryllium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 0.05 0.071 35Beryllium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 0.25 0.25 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 0.25 0.25 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 0.096 0.057 51Beryllium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 0.027 0.014 63Beryllium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 0.0065 0.00445 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 0.0075 0.009 NDBeryllium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 0.009 0.006 NDCadmium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 3.1 3.5 12Cadmium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 0.38 0.4 5Cadmium Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 101 95 6



008461



FD Result

RPD, %

Cadmium Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 31.5 32.3 3Cadmium Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 26.3 48.7 60Cadmium Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 29.2 29.9 2Cadmium Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 87.4 98 11Cadmium Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 88.6 82 8Cadmium Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 27.3 25.4 7Cadmium Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 79.1 92.5 16Cadmium Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 54.3 61.2 12Cadmium Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 78.9 76.8 3Cadmium Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 77 83.2 8Cadmium Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 85.6 84.7 1Cadmium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 100 104 4Cadmium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 88.8 102 14Cadmium Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 114 108 5Cadmium Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 3.9 3.9 0Cadmium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 5 4.6 8Cadmium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 5.9 6.4 8Cadmium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 24.4 28.7 16Cadmium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 22.6 17.9 23Cadmium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 6.6 8.7 27Cadmium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 15 8 61Cadmium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 39.4 46 15Cadmium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 39.7 38.2 4Cadmium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 18 11.6 43Cadmium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 13.9 19.9 36Cadmium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 41.4 34.8 17Cadmium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 57.3 36.5 44Cadmium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 6.2 6.3 2Cadmium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 5.6 4.8 15Cadmium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 73 69.9 4Cadmium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 40.9 48.3 17Cadmium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 37.2 35 6Cadmium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 40 30.5 27Cadmium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 118 113 4Cadmium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 139 97 36Cadmium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 54.7 14.1 118Cadmium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 6.4 6.1 5Cadmium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 15.1 17.5 15Cadmium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 17.8 11.5 43Calcium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 2190 2220 1Calcium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 2150 2180 1Calcium Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 19300 22400 15Calcium Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 5230 7270 33Calcium Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 3380 6410 62Calcium Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 22300 16400 30Calcium Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 8680 8750 1Calcium Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 5930 8970 41Calcium Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 5220 9480 58Calcium Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 34100 33700 1



008462



FD Result

RPD, %

Calcium Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 19600 25200 25Calcium Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 51300 51000 1Calcium Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 36000 34900 3Calcium Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 29000 30300 4Calcium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 27300 25700 6Calcium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 28100 36900 27Calcium Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 30900 32400 5Calcium Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 3680 3530 4Calcium Tailing Ponds Gordon TC4-SO-16K 84.1 . . Calcium Tailing Ponds Gordon TC4-SO-16K 90 . . Calcium Tailing Ponds Lawyers TC4-SO-33S 214 . . Calcium Tailing Ponds Lawyers TC4-SO-33S 217 . . Calcium Tailing Ponds Woodchuck TC4-SO-41A 103 . . Calcium Tailing Ponds Woodchuck TC4-SO-41A 103 . . Calcium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 16500 17200 4Calcium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 11900 10400 13Calcium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 4120 5510 29Calcium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 5570 4690 17Calcium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 5930 4890 19Calcium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 10600 5620 61Calcium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 3830 4420 14Calcium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 4160 3560 16Calcium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 10700 11700 9Calcium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 12500 9420 28Calcium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 4990 7550 41Calcium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 4150 5030 19Calcium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 16600 21000 23Calcium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 16400 15900 3Calcium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 5450 5000 9Calcium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 2950 4010 30Calcium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 6910 6530 6Calcium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 7300 5960 20Calcium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 21900 24600 12Calcium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 29500 32500 10Calcium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 4200 11000 89Calcium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 10300 9990 3Calcium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 1550 1760 13Calcium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 1840 1270 37

CHROMIUM, TOTAL Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 9.9 10.1 2CHROMIUM, TOTAL Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 5.9 6.2 5CHROMIUM, TOTAL Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 9 6.9 26CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 2.2 2.4 9CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 7.9 9.5 18CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 2.5 2 22CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 8.1 8 1CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 2 2.5 22CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 5.6 4.5 22CHROMIUM, TOTAL Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 5.9 8.4 35CHROMIUM, TOTAL Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 3 4.6 42



008463



FD Result

RPD, %

CHROMIUM, TOTAL Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 7.3 7.9 8CHROMIUM, TOTAL Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 6.7 8.1 19CHROMIUM, TOTAL Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 4.4 4.8 9CHROMIUM, TOTAL Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 7.1 6.2 14CHROMIUM, TOTAL Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 17.2 17.4 1CHROMIUM, TOTAL Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 7.2 7.5 4CHROMIUM, TOTAL Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 6.4 6.8 6CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 1.8 2.1 15CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 0.185 0.175 NDCHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 0.205 0.145 NDCHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 4 4.2 5CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 3.7 5 30CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 0.15 0.205 NDCHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 1.1 2.1 63CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 1.2 1.5 22CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 1.1 1.1 0CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 5.8 5.8 0CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 1.7 2.2 26CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 0.19 0.17 NDCHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 0.065 0.05 NDCHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 3.6 2.2 48CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 0.36 0.49 NDCHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 0.28 0.26 NDCHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 1.3 2.3 56CHROMIUM, TOTAL Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 1.5 1.3 14

Cobalt Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 6 6.2 3Cobalt Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 5.9 6 2Cobalt Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 11.6 10.3 12Cobalt Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 1.4 1.5 7Cobalt Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 7.2 8.7 19Cobalt Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 1.1 0.9 20Cobalt Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 5 4.8 4Cobalt Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 0.65 1.1 51Cobalt Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 1.3 1.7 27Cobalt Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 2.5 2.8 11Cobalt Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 1.6 1.4 13Cobalt Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 2.5 2.3 8Cobalt Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 3.3 3.1 6Cobalt Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 2.2 2 10Cobalt Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 3.5 3.5 0Cobalt Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 4.9 5.4 10Cobalt Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 4.7 5.1 8Cobalt Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 4.9 4.8 2Cobalt Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 0.074 0.15 68Cobalt Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 0.56 1 56Cobalt Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 0.55 0.43 24Cobalt Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 2.5 2.5 NDCobalt Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 3.2 2.3 33Cobalt Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 2.8 3 7



008464



FD Result

RPD, %

Cobalt Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 2.5 2.5 NDCobalt Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 0.097 0.13 29Cobalt Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 0.37 0.55 39Cobalt Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 0.39 0.38 3Cobalt Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 0.66 0.88 29Cobalt Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 0.62 0.52 18Cobalt Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 2.7 3.1 14Cobalt Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 0.91 1.3 35Cobalt Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 0.62 0.66 6Cobalt Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 0.52 0.44 17Cobalt Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 1.3 0.91 35Cobalt Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 0.61 0.44 32Cobalt Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 5.4 0.27 181Cobalt Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 0.28 0.2 33Cobalt Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 0.27 0.32 17Cobalt Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 0.29 0.23 23Copper Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 13 12.3 6Copper Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 5.6 5.7 2Copper Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 89.7 108 19Copper Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 21.1 19.2 9Copper Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 19.1 30.2 45Copper Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 31.7 28.7 10Copper Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 52 52.7 1Copper Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 40.1 39.1 3Copper Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 11.9 11.9 0Copper Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 54.6 62.8 14Copper Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 35.7 69.3 64Copper Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 71.6 70.1 2Copper Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 104 107 3Copper Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 48.6 48.3 1Copper Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 286 291 2Copper Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 824 712 15Copper Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 233 219 6Copper Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 19.3 17.9 8Copper Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 6.3 6.3 0Copper Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 7.6 8.7 13Copper Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 13.4 18.7 33Copper Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 12.8 11.4 12Copper Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 20.6 23.6 14Copper Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 16.2 18 11Copper Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 6.6 5.7 15Copper Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 6.9 7.4 7Copper Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 17.4 22.3 25Copper Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 20.5 18.4 11Copper Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 7 7.4 6Copper Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 6.9 6.7 3Copper Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 37 37.7 2Copper Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 17.1 21.4 22Copper Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 4 4 0



008465



FD Result

RPD, %

Copper Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 4.1 3.5 16Copper Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 50 35.2 35Copper Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 23.5 13.5 54Copper Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 9 6.7 29Copper Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 6.2 6.5 5Copper Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 4.6 5 8Copper Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 5.4 3.8 35

Iron Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 7600 7800 3Iron Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 7550 7830 4Iron Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 19300 20800 7Iron Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 3330 4260 25Iron Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 9200 13400 37Iron Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 2740 2620 4Iron Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 10000 10100 1Iron Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 2520 3360 29Iron Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 4720 5040 7Iron Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 5490 5990 9Iron Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 3910 5100 26Iron Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 6930 6610 5Iron Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 7060 7120 1Iron Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 4500 4450 1Iron Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 11000 10900 1Iron Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 17700 17200 3Iron Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 13800 14300 4Iron Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 9310 9340 0Iron Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 61.6 67 8Iron Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 60.8 55.6 9Iron Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 3990 1350 99Iron Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 622 492 23Iron Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 62.2 53.4 15Iron Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 117 71.8 48Iron Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 4560 3810 18Iron Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 3650 5020 32Iron Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 75.6 67.1 12Iron Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 89.9 82.6 8Iron Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 496 1030 70Iron Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 329 445 30Iron Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 811 1060 27Iron Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 768 719 7Iron Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 5700 5970 5Iron Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 1480 1700 14Iron Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 45.3 44 3Iron Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 45.7 33 32Iron Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 2170 1270 52Iron Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 421 397 6Iron Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 10500 381 186Iron Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 315 365 15Iron Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 598 860 36Iron Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 656 455 36



008466



FD Result

RPD, %

Lead Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 73.8 75.6 2Lead Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 16 16.9 5Lead Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 70800 42200 51Lead Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 1070 1380 25Lead Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 537 1180 75Lead Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 898 737 20Lead Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 1090 1100 1Lead Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 296 486 49Lead Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 468 558 18Lead Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 1680 1940 14Lead Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 754 1660 75Lead Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 769 727 6Lead Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 6070 6410 5Lead Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 3220 3140 3Lead Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 37700 38600 2Lead Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 7040 9380 29Lead Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 4490 4350 3Lead Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 79.7 79.5 0Lead Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 9.1 9.4 3Lead Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 14.6 11.1 27Lead Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 448 599 29Lead Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 307 244 23Lead Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 2.3 2.2 4Lead Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 9.8 2.7 114Lead Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 566 661 15Lead Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 322 547 52Lead Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 10.9 11.8 8Lead Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 9.9 6.5 41Lead Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 211 453 73Lead Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 205 242 17Lead Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 42.1 53.5 24Lead Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 39.6 37.8 5Lead Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 596 690 15Lead Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 203 254 22Lead Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 550 352 44Lead Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 211 122 53Lead Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 159 29.2 138Lead Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 26.8 27.3 2Lead Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 113 162 36Lead Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 158 92.1 53

Magnesium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 532 566 6Magnesium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 395 419 6Magnesium Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 915 731 22Magnesium Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 810 848 5Magnesium Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 1140 2640 79Magnesium Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 2630 2080 23Magnesium Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 2150 3280 42Magnesium Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 2010 3120 43Magnesium Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 1320 1220 8



008467



FD Result

RPD, %

Magnesium Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 10100 9910 2Magnesium Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 3470 3760 8Magnesium Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 11700 11700 0Magnesium Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 5080 5070 0Magnesium Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 8030 8370 4Magnesium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 5150 4920 5Magnesium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 4330 5340 21Magnesium Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 2470 2290 8Magnesium Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 584 617 5Magnesium Tailing Ponds Gordon TC4-SO-16K 8.24 . . Magnesium Tailing Ponds Gordon TC4-SO-16K 8.4 . . Magnesium Tailing Ponds Lawyers TC4-SO-33S 15.8 . . Magnesium Tailing Ponds Lawyers TC4-SO-33S 16.4 . . Magnesium Tailing Ponds Woodchuck TC4-SO-41A 10.3 . . Magnesium Tailing Ponds Woodchuck TC4-SO-41A 10.4 . . Magnesium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 1970 2130 8Magnesium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 1380 1260 9Magnesium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 709 902 24Magnesium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 584 534 9Magnesium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 1510 1380 9Magnesium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 3020 1410 73Magnesium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 1060 1260 17Magnesium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 1120 1200 7Magnesium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 1690 1530 10Magnesium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 1950 1940 1Magnesium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 667 1240 60Magnesium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 332 746 77Magnesium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 1490 1630 9Magnesium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 1650 1520 8Magnesium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 2090 1770 17Magnesium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 1010 1220 19Magnesium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 1970 1910 3Magnesium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 1960 1810 8Magnesium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 1700 1300 27Magnesium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 1080 1140 5Magnesium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 1510 1550 3Magnesium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 1400 1230 13Magnesium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 216 234.5 NDMagnesium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 202.5 183.5 NDManganese Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 445 450 1Manganese Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 387 387 0Manganese Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 470 447 5Manganese Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 53.6 38.5 33Manganese Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 303 417 32Manganese Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 135 93.6 36Manganese Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 275 295 7Manganese Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 28.1 50.7 57Manganese Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 115 128 11Manganese Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 148 151 2



008468



FD Result

RPD, %

Manganese Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 128 84.3 41Manganese Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 167 165 1Manganese Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 152 151 1Manganese Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 107 108 1Manganese Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 149 143 4Manganese Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 150 158 5Manganese Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 99.6 114 13Manganese Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 368 366 1Manganese Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 41.8 43.7 4Manganese Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 26.4 20.8 24Manganese Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 23.9 96.4 121Manganese Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 35.7 32.8 8Manganese Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 28.9 24.6 16Manganese Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 72 27.7 89Manganese Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 147 106 32Manganese Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 125 123 2Manganese Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 75.8 72.7 4Manganese Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 105 73.1 36Manganese Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 33.2 69.2 70Manganese Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 14.9 61.1 122Manganese Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 85.1 104 20Manganese Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 79.8 74.7 7Manganese Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 180 157 14Manganese Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 67.3 92.1 31Manganese Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 246 260 6Manganese Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 326 271 18Manganese Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 159 166 4Manganese Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 162 153 6Manganese Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 319 107 100Manganese Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 124 116 7Manganese Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 16.4 19.8 19Manganese Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 16.8 12.2 32

Mercury Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 0.05 0.05 NDMercury Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 0.17 0.27 45Mercury Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 0.26 0.21 21Mercury Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 0.065 0.15 79Mercury Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 0.016 0.047 98Mercury Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 0.44 0.47 7Mercury Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 0.012 0.06 NDMercury Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 0.044 0.05 NDMercury Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 0.18 0.19 5Mercury Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 0.4 0.2 67Mercury Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 0.16 0.2 22Mercury Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 0.16 0.18 12Mercury Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 0.4 0.33 19Mercury Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 0.47 0.51 8Mercury Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 0.19 0.27 35Mercury Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 0.73 0.58 23Mercury Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 0.005 0.005 ND



008469



FD Result

RPD, %

Mercury Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 0.05 0.05 NDMercury Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 0.05 0.05 NDMercury Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 0.015 0.05 108Mercury Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 0.05 0.05 NDMercury Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 0.05 0.05 NDMercury Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 0.05 0.05 NDMercury Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 0.0225 0.045 NDMercury Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 0.01 0.0275 NDMercury Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 0.05 0.05 NDMercury Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 0.05 0.05 NDMercury Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 0.05 0.05 NDMercury Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 0.05 0.05 NDMercury Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 0.05 0.06 18Mercury Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 0.0075 0.01 NDMercury Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 0.0075 0.0075 NDMercury Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 0.03 0.0175 NDMercury Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 0.0125 0.015 NDMercury Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 0.0375 0.0125 NDMercury Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 0.0125 0.0125 NDMercury Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 0.015 0.0125 NDMercury Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 0.0075 0.0175 NDNickel Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 5.6 5.7 2Nickel Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 6.1 6.3 3Nickel Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 13.5 14.7 9Nickel Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 5.1 6.4 23Nickel Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 8.3 14.1 52Nickel Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 5.1 4.8 6Nickel Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 11.4 11.6 2Nickel Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 2.9 4.3 39Nickel Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 4.2 4.4 5Nickel Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 12.1 14.5 18Nickel Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 6 9.3 43Nickel Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 13.9 13.3 4Nickel Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 15.2 15.3 1Nickel Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 11.6 11.3 3Nickel Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 19.1 18.9 1Nickel Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 36.6 33.6 9Nickel Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 22.4 22.9 2Nickel Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 7 6.8 3Nickel Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 0.12 0.125 NDNickel Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 0.15 0.21 NDNickel Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 1.3 1.5 NDNickel Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 1 0.75 NDNickel Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 0.11 0.175 NDNickel Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 0.225 0.12 NDNickel Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 4.8 4.9 2Nickel Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 0.225 0.22 NDNickel Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 0.255 0.245 NDNickel Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 0.75 1.35 ND



008470



FD Result

RPD, %

Nickel Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 0.95 0.85 NDNickel Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 0.4 0.465 NDNickel Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 0.365 0.37 NDNickel Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 6.7 7.5 11Nickel Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 1.05 1.3 NDNickel Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 0.96 1 4Nickel Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 0.89 0.8 11Nickel Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 5 3.5 35Nickel Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 2.4 1.7 34Nickel Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 9.4 0.58 177Nickel Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 0.51 0.54 6Nickel Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 0.86 1.4 48Nickel Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 0.99 0.79 22

Potassium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 655 673 3Potassium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 321 344 7Potassium Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 251 248.5 NDPotassium Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 79.5 82.5 NDPotassium Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 206.5 176 NDPotassium Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 135 101 NDPotassium Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 175 186 NDPotassium Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 65 100 NDPotassium Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 98.5 114.5 NDPotassium Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 250.5 250.5 NDPotassium Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 250.5 250.5 NDPotassium Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 250 250.5 NDPotassium Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 250 251 NDPotassium Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 251.5 251 NDPotassium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 239.5 237 NDPotassium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 1560 1370 13Potassium Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 704 699 1Potassium Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 219 227.5 NDPotassium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 4990 6090 20Potassium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 6670 9960 40Potassium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 6410 7300 13Potassium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 7830 8060 3Potassium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 14000 14000 0Potassium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 13000 14000 7Potassium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 4030 4370 8Potassium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 5940 5230 13Potassium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 19900 20300 2Potassium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 22200 22500 1Potassium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 11200 8640 26Potassium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 10800 10800 0Potassium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 19300 19800 3Potassium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 20900 20400 2Potassium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 6980 7420 6Potassium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 8670 10200 16Potassium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 8250 8490 3Potassium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 8910 8390 6



008471



FD Result

RPD, %

Potassium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 2360 3250 32Potassium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 3420 3480 2Potassium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 1560 16500 165Potassium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 17700 17400 2Potassium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 10600 8700 20Potassium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 9780 9370 4Selenium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 0.37 0.57 43Selenium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 0.58 0.52 11Selenium Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 7 7.6 8Selenium Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 0.95 0.68 33Selenium Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 0.14 0.14 NDSelenium Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 0.75 0.56 29Selenium Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 0.16 0.14 NDSelenium Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 1.75 1.75 NDSelenium Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 1.75 1.75 NDSelenium Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 1.6 1.6 0Selenium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 2.6 2.3 12Selenium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 2.3 2.3 NDSelenium Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 1.5 1.7 13Selenium Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 0.71 0.97 31Selenium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 1.1 1.2 9Selenium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 1 0.98 2Selenium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 1.2 0.67 57Selenium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 0.82 0.64 25Selenium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 0.7 0.7 NDSelenium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 0.7 0.65 NDSelenium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 0.45 0.445 NDSelenium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 0.48 0.47 NDSelenium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 0.96 1.6 50Selenium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 1 1.2 18Selenium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 1 0.67 40Selenium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 1.1 0.86 24Selenium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 1 1.3 26Selenium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 1.3 1.3 0Selenium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 0.6 0.82 31Selenium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 0.85 0.91 7Selenium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 0.75 0.65 NDSelenium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 0.7 0.48 NDSelenium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 0.75 0.65 NDSelenium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 0.75 0.65 NDSelenium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 0.81 1.3 46Selenium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 1.4 1.5 7Selenium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 1.1 1.1 0Selenium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 1.2 0.95 23Sodium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 1380 1520 10Sodium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 309 334 8Sodium Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 11400 11300 1Sodium Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 15300 14600 5Sodium Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 8910 18600 70



008472



FD Result

RPD, %

Sodium Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 15800 18500 16Sodium Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 33800 36400 7Sodium Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 37200 27800 29Sodium Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 12200 9670 23Sodium Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 43000 51100 17Sodium Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 250.5 250.5 NDSodium Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 34000 33200 2Sodium Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 250 251 NDSodium Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 251.5 251 NDSodium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 68900 67700 2Sodium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 330.5 326.5 NDSodium Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 43900 42100 4Sodium Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 1480 1500 1Sodium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 706 713 1Sodium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 698 686 2Sodium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 5520 7900 35Sodium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 4160 3710 11Sodium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 174 172.5 NDSodium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 9070 10800 17Sodium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 5240 8220 44Sodium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 762 744 2Sodium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 825 682 19Sodium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 3320 6280 62Sodium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 3720 3440 8Sodium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 1320 1620 20Sodium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 1230 1210 2Sodium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 23500 24600 5Sodium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 7910 10100 24Sodium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 47.9 42.6 NDSodium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 17.15 17.45 NDSodium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 250 250 NDSodium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 250 250 NDSodium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 49.65 42.75 NDSodium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 87.5 42.75 NDSodium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 61 65 NDSilver Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 0.3 0.305 NDSilver Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 0.305 0.305 NDSilver Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 0.41 0.41 0Silver Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 0.1 0.11 NDSilver Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 0.09 0.09 NDSilver Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 0.28 0.27 4Silver Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 0.1 0.085 NDSilver Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 0.09 0.085 NDSilver Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 0.5 0.5 NDSilver Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 0.5 0.5 NDSilver Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 1.4 1.4 0Silver Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 0.085 0.085 NDSilver Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 3.3 3.2 3Silver Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 0.085 0.085 ND



008473



FD Result

RPD, %

Silver Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 0.085 0.085 NDSilver Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 0.25 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 0.25 0.095 NDSilver Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 0.5 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 0.11 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 0.11 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 0.5 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 0.5 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 0.5 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 0.24 0.18 29Silver Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 0.19 0.21 10Silver Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 0.5 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 0.11 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 0.5 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 0.3 0.27 11Silver Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 0.5 0.5 NDSilver Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 0.39 0.23 52Silver Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 0.043 0.066 42Silver Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 0.105 0.08 NDSilver Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 0.085 0.1 NDSilver Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 0.085 0.075 ND

Thallium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 0.77 0.77 0Thallium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 0.53 0.45 16Thallium Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 0.19 0.19 NDThallium Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 0.215 0.235 NDThallium Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 0.185 0.19 NDThallium Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 0.195 0.195 NDThallium Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 0.215 0.185 NDThallium Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 0.185 0.185 NDThallium Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 0.18 0.18 NDThallium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 1.65 1.65 NDThallium Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 0.18 0.18 NDThallium Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 0.185 0.185 NDThallium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 0.65 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 0.65 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 1.25 1.25 ND



008474



FD Result

RPD, %

Thallium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 1.25 1.25 NDThallium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 1.25 1.25 ND

Vanadium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 14.1 14.5 3Vanadium Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 14.6 14.9 2Vanadium Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 17.2 13.4 25Vanadium Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 3.3 3 10Vanadium Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 16.2 20.4 23Vanadium Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 2.2 1.9 15Vanadium Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 10.1 10.2 1Vanadium Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 2 2.9 37Vanadium Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 6.6 6.2 6Vanadium Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 4.9 5.3 8Vanadium Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 4.7 3.5 29Vanadium Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 6 6.1 2Vanadium Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 2.5 2.5 NDVanadium Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 4.3 4.5 5Vanadium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 6.7 5.7 16Vanadium Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 14.7 13.8 6Vanadium Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 5.3 5.3 0Vanadium Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 14.6 15.1 3Vanadium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 0.455 0.55 NDVanadium Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 0.275 0.225 NDVanadium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 0.12 0.17 34Vanadium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 7.8 6 26Vanadium Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 6.6 8 19Vanadium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 0.12 0.099 19Vanadium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 0.15 0.14 7Vanadium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 0.47 0.86 59Vanadium Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 0.27 0.47 54Vanadium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 1.3 1.7 27Vanadium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 1.2 1.1 9Vanadium Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 5.9 6.2 5Vanadium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 0.3 0.25 18Vanadium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 2.5 2.5 NDVanadium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 2.9 1.8 47Vanadium Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 0.66 0.58 13Vanadium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 15.9 0.59 186Vanadium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 0.53 0.54 2



008475



FD Result

RPD, %

Vanadium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 0.78 1.1 34Vanadium Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 0.87 0.59 38

Zinc Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #14 TC4-RS-14A 525 585 11Zinc Residential Yard Soil Residential Location #8 TC4-RS-08B 87.2 91.2 4Zinc Smelter- Affected Soil South Smelter Transect TC4-SO-46K 4230 4160 2Zinc Biota Associated Soil Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10E 6460 6090 6Zinc Biota Associated Soil Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20E 3950 7740 65Zinc Biota Associated Soil Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30E 6180 7110 14Zinc Biota Associated Soil Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40E 15300 16600 8Zinc Biota Associated Soil Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50E 16500 9830 51Zinc Biota Associated Soil Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56E 4970 4010 21Zinc Chat Base Gordon TC4-SO-16G 20400 23400 14Zinc Chat Base Pioneer TC4-SO-04H 13400 16100 18Zinc Chat Pile Atlas (Tulsa) TC4-SO-31D 16500 16300 1Zinc Chat Pile Bird Dog TC4-SO-01B 20900 21500 3Zinc Chat Pile Pioneer TC4-SO-04C 27700 27100 2Zinc Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01H 35100 31400 11Zinc Fine Tailings Bird Dog TC4-SO-01N 11000 14000 24Zinc Fine Tailings Pioneer TC4-SO-04M 21200 24100 13Zinc Transition Zone Soil Adams-Mudd (Barret) TC4-SO-02U 639 645 1Zinc Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10A 304 321 5Zinc Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10B 271 257 5Zinc Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10C 2370 3530 39Zinc Biota Plant #10 TC4-BIO-10D 1670 1360 20Zinc Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20A 131 147 12Zinc Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20B 255 171 39Zinc Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20C 3920 4610 16Zinc Biota Plant #20 TC4-BIO-20D 2320 3600 43Zinc Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30A 326 325 0Zinc Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30B 355 281 23Zinc Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30C 1480 2800 62Zinc Biota Plant #30 TC4-BIO-30D 1640 1560 5Zinc Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40A 576 699 19Zinc Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40B 520 511 2Zinc Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40C 8830 9270 5Zinc Biota Plant #40 TC4-BIO-40D 3360 4250 23Zinc Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50A 863 845 2Zinc Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50B 975 780 22Zinc Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50C 3790 2930 26Zinc Biota Plant #50 TC4-BIO-50D 2230 1610 32Zinc Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56A 1050 328 105Zinc Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56B 253 302 18Zinc Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56C 799 983 21Zinc Biota Plant #56 TC4-BIO-56D 847 586 36

ND = No RPD was calculated since the normal or field duplicate result (or both) was non-detect.



008476




008477

Table A-10Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired) Test Results for Comparing CH2M HILL / Respondents Split DataTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

Media Grouping Parameter CH2M HILL

Mean PRP Mean CH2M HILL

Median PRP Median

Mean of Differences

(CH2M HILL - PRP)

Median of Differences

(CH2M HILL - PRP)

Number of Data Pairs

Normality p-value (of difference

s)Chat Base Cadmium 92.6 95 86.6 94 -2.4 -12.7 6 0.563 0.272Chat Base Lead 2280 1860 2115 1955 420 -50 6 0.844 0.066Chat Base Zinc 25300 22500 21100 23150 2820 -1850 6 0.844 0.040Chat Pile Aluminum 431 840 396.5 810 -409 -413.5 4 0.125 0.936Chat Pile Antimony 1.05 0.225 0.86 0.25 0.828 0.71 4 0.125 0.537Chat Pile Arsenic 5.83 13.4 6 11.3 -7.55 -6.7 4 0.375 0.496Chat Pile Barium 5.59 13.5 4.7 6 -7.91 -2.3 4 0.625 0.158Chat Pile Beryllium 0.161 0.75 0.16 0.75 -0.589 -0.588 4 0.125 0.488Chat Pile Cadmium 98.4 92.6 71.65 87 5.84 -11.95 32 0.355 0.000Chat Pile Calcium 41800 48300 39900 46300 -6450 -6400 4 0.375 0.096Chat Pile Chromium 6.48 7.13 5.45 8 -0.65 -0.35 4 0.875 0.899Chat Pile Cobalt 2.78 3.75 2 3.75 -0.975 -0.5 4 0.250 0.207Chat Pile Copper 135 82.5 131.5 82.5 52.6 34 4 0.250 0.428Chat Pile Iron 7000 5440 6790 5440 1560 840 4 0.250 0.137Chat Pile Lead 1390 1380 1445 1465 10.3 -36.5 32 0.634 0.071Chat Pile Magnesium 13200 11700 12600 11700 1470 2190 4 0.375 0.330Chat Pile Manganese 229 163 232 140 66.3 40.5 4 0.250 0.289Chat Pile Mercury 0.508 0.158 0.325 0.165 0.35 0.19 4 0.125 0.099Chat Pile Nickel 9.55 7.63 8.45 7.5 1.93 3.55 4 0.375 0.065Chat Pile Potassium 251 475 251.25 500 -224 -248.75 4 0.250 0.799Chat Pile Selenium 1.32 20.8 1.32 20.55 -19.5 -19.235 4 0.125 0.034Chat Pile Silver 0.475 2 0.3 2 -1.53 -1.7 4 0.125 0.266Chat Pile Sodium 47600 125 50850 125 47500 50725 4 0.125 0.649Chat Pile Thallium 1.25 0.62 1.25 0.28 0.63 0.97 4 0.250 0.029Chat Pile Vanadium 4.9 6.75 5.15 6.5 -1.85 -1.6 4 0.125 0.551Chat Pile Zinc 28400 23300 23650 23000 5120 650 32 0.322 0.000

Fine Tailings Cadmium 122 146 109 145 -23.8 -9 21 0.004 * 0.000Fine Tailings Lead 4930 6280 3870 4720 -1350 -850 21 0.000 * 0.000Fine Tailings Zinc 24500 33100 25200 29100 -8580 -7000 21 0.000 * 0.000

Residential Yard Soil Cadmium 3.62 4.25 0.59 1.45 -0.634 -0.495 28 0.000 * 0.000Residential Yard Soil Lead 858 1090 25.2 35 -231 -7.4 29 0.000 * 0.000Residential Yard Soil Zinc 501 639 133 244 -138 -72 29 0.000 * 0.000Transition Zone Soil Aluminum 3320 5620 3323.5 5615 -2290 -2291.5 2

Wilcoxon Signed Rank p-value

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA10_WSRT


008478

Table A-10Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired) Test Results for Comparing CH2M HILL / Respondents Split DataTar Creek Superfund SiteOttawa County, Oklahoma

Media Grouping Parameter CH2M HILL

Mean PRP Mean CH2M HILL

Median PRP Median

Mean of Differences

(CH2M HILL - PRP)

Median of Differences

(CH2M HILL - PRP)

Number of Data Pairs

Normality p-value (of difference

s)Wilcoxon Signed

Rank p-valueTransition Zone Soil Antimony 0.233 0.15 0.2325 0.15 0.0825 0.0825 2Transition Zone Soil Arsenic 4 5.2 4 5.2 -1.2 -1.2 2Transition Zone Soil Barium 56 65 56 64.95 -8.95 -8.95 2Transition Zone Soil Beryllium 0.275 0.4 0.275 0.4 -0.125 -0.125 2Transition Zone Soil Cadmium 13.1 16.9 0.89 2.1 -3.79 -1.2 65 0.000 * 0.000Transition Zone Soil Calcium 14700 16800 14665 16840 -2180 -2175 2Transition Zone Soil Chromium 7.5 11 7.5 11 -3.5 -3.5 2Transition Zone Soil Cobalt 3 2.75 3 2.75 0.25 0.25 2Transition Zone Soil Copper 26 25.5 26 25.5 0.5 0.5 2Transition Zone Soil Iron 7580 9130 7580 9130 -1550 -1550 2Transition Zone Soil Lead 175 229 20.95 26 -53.9 -6.2 66 0.000 * 0.000Transition Zone Soil Magnesium 4320 5380 4321.5 5380 -1060 -1058.5 2Transition Zone Soil Manganese 253 280 253 279.5 -26.5 -26.5 2Transition Zone Soil Mercury 0.0455 0.085 0.0455 0.085 -0.0395 -0.0395 2Transition Zone Soil Nickel 6.7 7.5 6.7 7.5 -0.8 -0.8 2Transition Zone Soil Potassium 174 600 173.5 600 -427 -426.5 2Transition Zone Soil Selenium 0.563 0.525 0.5625 0.525 0.0375 0.0375 2Transition Zone Soil Silver 0.085 0.5 0.085 0.5 -0.415 -0.415 2Transition Zone Soil Sodium 11100 37.5 11110 37.5 11100 11072.5 2Transition Zone Soil Thallium 0.183 0.11 0.1825 0.11 0.0725 0.0725 2Transition Zone Soil Vanadium 10.9 13.9 10.85 13.9 -3.05 -3.05 2Transition Zone Soil Zinc 2350 3040 144 227 -691 -40.9 66 0.000 * 0.000

Washed Fines Cadmium 90.2 95.4 80.6 78.1 -5.14 -0.4 19 0.860 0.000Washed Fines Lead 3460 4050 2590 2370 -597 -121 19 0.196 0.000Washed Fines Zinc 17600 20500 11000 15200 -2830 -1200 19 0.066 0.001

NOTES:BOLD = COPCs* = Wilcoxon Signed Rank p-value is significant at the 0.05 significance level.

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA10_WSRT


008479

Table A-11


Media Grouping Parameter

CH2M HILL Mean

Respondents Mean

RPD Between Means

Fine Tailings Cadmium 122 146 18%Fine Tailings Lead 4930 6280 24%Fine Tailings Zinc 24500 33100 30%

Residential Yard Soil Cadmium 3.62 4.25 16%Residential Yard Soil Lead 858 1090 24%Residential Yard Soil Zinc 501 639 24%Transition Zone Soil Cadmium 13.1 16.9 25%Transition Zone Soil Lead 175 229 27%Transition Zone Soil Zinc 2350 3040 26%

Comparison of Means for Cases Where CH2M HILL / Respondents Splits are Significantly Different (per the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test)

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA11_WSRT_significant


008480




008481

Figures

008482





008483

Plant #9

Plant #8Plant #7

Plant #6

Plant #5

Plant #4

Plant #3Plant #2

Plant #1

Plant #57Plant #56

Plant #55

Plant #54

Plant #52

Plant #51

Plant #50

Plant #49

Plant #48 Plant #47Plant #46

Plant #45

Plant #44Plant #43

Plant #42Plant #41

Plant #40

Plant #39

Plant #38

Plant #37

Plant #36

Plant #35

Plant #34

Plant #33

Plant #32

Plant #31

Plant #30

Plant #29

Plant #28 Plant #27

Plant #26

Plant #25

Plant #24

Plant #23

Plant #22

Plant #21

Plant #20Plant #19

Plant #18

Plant #17

Plant #16Plant #15

Plant #12

Plant #11

Plant #10

Plant #53

Plant #14

Plant #13

LEGENDPlant Locations!(

FIGURE A-1

\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Bird_Dog.mxd 10\6\05 S Daigle


0 0.75 1.50.375Miles

± Tar Creek OU4Plant Sampling Locations

Site Boundary

008484





008485

Appendix B Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State

Mining Area

008486





008487

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ)

CUSTOMER SERVICES DIVISION

FY03 Section 106 Water Quality Management Program I-006400-01

FY03/04 Carryover Project #8 (Task 600)

Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area

FY 2003

Final Report

Submitted by:

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Customer Services Division

707 North Robinson P. O. Box 1677

Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677 Telephone: (405) 702-1000

Effective: July 1, 2003

008488

Acknowledgements

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality wishes to thank the US Fish and Wildlife Service for their help in the collection of fish as well as advice and counsel on development of sample preparation and analysis methods for this study.

008489

Executive Summary

The Customer Services Division (CSD) of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) performed a study to determine the safety of consuming fish caught in Oklahoma waters affected by runoff from the Tri-State Mining Area and the Tar Creek Superfund Site. Responding to concerns by local residents and tribes, this study was designed to determine levels of metals in fish tissue that would be harmful to human health if consumed in excess amounts.Local tribes from the Tar Creek area indicated traditional customs involve eating whole fish, including bones, which have been canned by means of pressure-cooking. Since metals are known to accumulate in the bones and organs of fish, there was a concern that these traditional methods of preparation would be unsafe. Local tribes advised ODEQ they believed fish consumption rates were higher among tribal members than among the general public.

CSD field personnel worked cooperatively with the US Fish and Wildlife Serviceto collect fish from the Neosho and Spring Rivers and local ponds receiving mine waste runoff. The State Environmental Laboratory developed sample preparation and analysis methods specifically for this study. CSD risk assessment personnel used EPA guidance to develop safe levels for cadmium and zinc in fish, and utilized the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model for evaluating lead concentrations in fish that would be safe for the public to consume.

Results of this study conclude that fillets of fish caught in ponds within the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the Spring and Neosho Rivers are safe to eat at rates up to 6 8-ounce meals per month based on laboratory reporting limits. Whole-uneviscerated and whole-eviscerated portions of all fish from the Oklahoma sections of the Spring and Neosho Rivers downstream to Grand Lake and ponds in the Tri-State Mining Area should not be consumed. Fish from these waters have higher concentrations of lead than fish collected in a national study. The higher fish tissue lead concentrations are positively correlated (R2 = 86%) to lead concentrations in the sediments of the area waters.

A follow-up study is recommended to verify these results and to determine the downstream extent of problems. Future studies should incorporate lower analytical reporting limits.

008490

Table of Contents

Background and Statement of Issues 1

Monitoring MethodsSample Collection 2 Laboratory Analysis 2 Quality Assurance 4

Results 5

Data Analysis Determination of Safe Consumption Levels 5 Cadmium and Zinc 5 Lead 7

Comparison of Fish Concentrations to Allowable Levels 11

Comparison of Preparation Methods 14

Relationship of Tissue Concentrations to Sediment andWater Concentrations 17

Comparison to Historic Data 19

Comparison to National Data 19

Conclusions and Recommendations 21

References 23

Appendix A: Data Summary 25

Figures and Tables Figure 1. Sampling Locations 3 Figure 2. Boxplot Construction Legend 14

Figure 3. Boxplot of Cadmium by Preparation 15 Figure 4. Boxplot of Lead by Preparation 15Figure 5. Boxplot of Zinc By Preparation 15

Figure 6. Regression Plots 18 Figure 7. Boxplot Comparing Cadmium Results for 20

NCBP and Tri-State Studies Figure 8. Boxplot Comparing Lead Results for 20

NCBP and Tri-State StudiesFigure 9. Boxplot Comparing Zinc Results for 21

NCBP and Tri-State Studies

008491

Table 1. Site Locations 2 Table 2. IEUBK Inputs 8 Table 3. Percentage of Samples Exceeding Allowable 10

Contaminant Concentration Levels at StandardConsumption Rates (1 meal per week)

Table 4. Percentage of Samples Exceeding Allowable 12 Contaminant Concentration Levels at ElevatedConsumption Rates (2 meal per week)

Table 5. Regression Results 18

008492

Background and Statement of Issues

The Tri-State Mining District located in northeast Oklahoma, southeast Kansas, and southwest Missouri was once a major provider of lead and zinc ores in the early to mid 20th century. Since the cessation of mining in the area, the mines remain closed and abandoned. Metals located both in the mines and in waste ore on the surface can become mobilized under low pH conditions and be transported by ground and surface waters. Water has been discharging from the closed mines since the 1970’s and is a major source of contamination to Tar Creek, a tributary of the Neosho River.

The Spring and Neosho Rivers and their tributaries (particularly Tar Creek) have been impacted by runoff from these abandoned lead and zinc mines.Additionally, the percolation of rainwater through chat piles mobilizes metals into solution, which flows into local ponds, many of which are millponds at abandoned ore processing sites. Fish caught locally in these rivers and ponds constitute a significant portion of the diets of the citizens of the area. Furthermore, area tribal members report that fish are prepared and consumed using a pressure cooker to can and preserve whole fish including bones. These methods would potentially increase the ingestion of metals that might accumulate in fish. Additionally, local tribes advised that they believed fish consumption rates were higher among tribal members than the general public. Questions have been raised about the safety of eating fish from these waters.

The consumption of fish containing elevated levels of metals is a concern because chronic exposure to heavy metals can cause health problems. Chronic lead exposure has been linked to anemia, neurological dysfunction and renal impairment. Chronic cadmium exposure has been linked to renal damage, hypertension, and cardiovascular effects. Although zinc is an essential nutrient required for proper growth and development, the presence of zinc can affect the body’s metabolism of other metals.

This study evaluates the potential human health effects associated with the ingestion of fish from the Tri-State Mining Area in Oklahoma. In addition, an evaluation of possible relationships between metals concentrations in fish tissue and metals concentrations in water and sediment was done. Fish tissue concentrations were also compared to values from the National ContaminantBiomonitoring Program conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

1

008493

Monitoring Methods

Sample Collection

Fish were collected from 4 ponds and 6 river sites in 2002 (Figure 1, Table1).The river sites were evenly split with 3 sites on Spring River and 3 sites on the Neosho River. Two of the pond sites were millponds at former ore processinglocations and 2 pond sites were adjacent to and received runoff from chat piles.The pond sites are located in the Tar Creek Superfund area while the stream sites are outside the Superfund area proper but within the larger Tri-state Mining District.

Table 1. Site Locations

Site ID Site Name Latitude LongitudeTC-MPACP Atlas Chat Pile Pond 36 58.867’ 94 48.332’TC-MPBG Blue Goose Mill Pond 36 58.102’ 94 51.784’TC-MPNWWC Northwest Western Chat Pile Pond 36 59.081’ 94 51.349’TC-MPWCP Western Chat Pile Mill Pond 36 58.920’ 94 51.436’TC-NRCB Neosho River at Conners Bridge 36 47.949’ 94 49.165’TC-NRECC Neosho River at Elm Creek Confluence 36 53.470’ 94 55.677’TC-NRRP Neosho River at Riverview Park 36 51.944’ 94 52.728’TC-SRBH Spring River at Blue Hole 36 56.096’ 94 44.765’TC-SRMB Spring River at Mocassin Bend 36 52.311’ 94 45.933’TC-SRTB Spring River at Twin Bridges State Park 36 48.174’ 94 45.213’

A total of 80 composite fish samples representing 8 species were collected usingvarious combinations of electrofishing, gill nets, and rod and reel. Species targeted for collection and analysis were carp, channel catfish and white crappie.At sites where those species were not available in sufficient numbers, other commonly consumed species were collected. These include white bass, spotted bass, largemouth bass, bluegill sunfish and smallmouth buffalo. Becausecomparisons were to be made between different preparation methods, an attempt was made to collect consistent size ranges within species at all sites.

Laboratory Analysis

Fish collections were delivered to ODEQ’s State Environmental Laboratory where they were sorted by site, species, and size. Fish were then sorted into composites consisting of 3 to 8 individuals with the smallest fish in the composite at least 75 percent of the length of the largest fish in the composite. Composite samples of similar mean length were assembled for different preparation methods: fillets, whole-uneviscerated fish, and whole-eviscerated fish. Sufficient numbers of fish were available to perform analyses using the 3 preparation methods for carp and channel catfish at the 6 river sites, white crappie at 5 of the river sites, and largemouth bass at the 4 pond sites. In addition, 25 composite samples consisting of other commonly consumed species were assembled.

2

008494

Figure1. Sampling Locations

A sample preparation technique1 was developed to prevent cross-contamination between samples as metals are found in both the mucous and scales of fish.Only stainless steel cutting utensils were used and the preparation surfaces were

3

008495

sheeted in polyethylene. All utensils and equipment were thoroughly cleaned and polyethylene sheeting replaced between the preparation of each sample.

Fish were skinned and filleted, simply eviscerated, or kept whole as appropriate.A commercial grade food grinder with stainless steel cutting blades was used to mascerate samples. The ground tissue was then homogeneously mixed before being sent through the food grinder a second time. A subsample of the ground tissue was then collected for analysis.

A microwave digestion technique2 was developed to prepare the subsamples for analysis. One gram subsamples were digested in 10 milliliters of concentrated nitric acid (HNO3) brought to 200o C under pressure in a four-step temperature ramping process. Samples were held at 200o C for 10 minutes and then allowed to cool for 15 minutes. All tissue, including bones if present, was at that point dissolved into the HNO3. Digested sample aliquots were then diluted with ultra-pure water to a volume of 50 mls and allowed to rest.

EPA Method 200.73 for the analysis of metals was used to analyze the fish tissue samples. Digested samples were diluted again by 50 percent to create a 10% HNO3 solution just before analysis on an inter-coupled plasma (ICP) Trace®

Analyzer. A 10 mil. aliquot of the digested sample was injected into the ICP and 3 readings of each element were recorded. The mean of the 3 readings as well as the standard deviation was calculated. If the percent of the standard deviationrelative to the mean of the 3 readings exceeded 20 percent, the sample results were rejected. The mean of the readings was used to calculate the amount of each element in the 1-gram aliquot of digested fish flesh. This value was then converted to mg/kg units and entered into the AQUARIUS laboratory information system.

Quality Assurance

A total of 4 field replicate samples were submitted for fish. These consisted of duplicate composite samples of the same species, similar in size, collected at the same site. Each of the sample preparation methods was represented by a fieldreplicate. Precision values were all 0 percent for cadmium (all values below the laboratory reporting limit), 7 to 14 percent for zinc, and 0 to 4 percent for lead. All precision values fall within acceptable limits for field replicate samples as outlined the Quality Assurance Project Plan4 for this study.

A total of 8 laboratory duplicate samples of fish tissue were prepared. These consisted of duplicate subsamples of the ground composited tissue. These were digested and analyzed alongside the rest of the samples. Precision values were all 0 percent for cadmium (all values below the reporting limit), 1 to 25 percent for zinc, and 0 to 18 percent for lead. All precision values fall within acceptablelimits for laboratory duplicates as outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan for this study.

4

008496

Results

Results for all analyses are included in Appendix A.

Data Analysis

Determination of Safe Consumption Levels

The determination of safe fish consumption levels for lead, zinc, and cadmium was performed using 2 different methods. Zinc and cadmium levels were determined by using methods described in the U.S. EPA document Guidance For Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data For Use in Fish Advisories5. This methodutilizes Reference Dose values (RfDs) to calculate contaminant exposure levels that would likely not result in an appreciable risk of adverse heath effects over a lifetime. The level for lead was determined using EPA’s Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model for Lead6. This model considers total environmental lead exposure and predicts the blood lead levels for children up to 84 months of age. A method similar to one utilized by the Washington State Department of Health7 was used to establish the allowable levels of lead in fish tissue. Since children are more sensitive to the deleterious effects of lead, the consumption recommendations for lead are based on the protection of children.It is assumed that levels that are protective of children are also protective of adults.

To address the issue of elevated consumption rates among tribal members, safe consumption levels were calculated using two different consumption rates: 1 meal per week as the Standard Consumption Rate and 2 meals per week as the Elevated Consumption Rate.

Cadmium and Zinc For cadmium and zinc safe consumption levels were calculated using the following equations:

Cm= (RfD x BW)/CRlim

WhereCm = measured concentration of chemical contaminant m in a given

species of fish (mg/kg) RfD = reference dose (mg/kg-day) BW = consumer body weight (kg) CRlim = maximum allowable fish consumption rate (kg/d)

5

008497

and:CRlim = (CRmw x MS)/Tap

Where

CRmw = maximum allowable fish consumption rate (meals/week) MS = meal size (kg fish/meal) Tap = time averaging period (days/week)

Combining equations yields:Cm = (RfD x BW x Tap)/(CRmw x MS)

Reference dose values were obtained from the EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database8,9. Default values obtained from EPA’s Guidance For Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data For Use in Fish Advisories5 were used for body weight and meal size. Equation inputs are as follows:

Reference Dose Cadmium = 0.001mg/kg-day Zinc = 0.3 mg/kg-dayBody weight Children = 14.5 kg (32lb)

Adults = 70 kg (154 lb) Meal Size 0.227 kg (8 oz) Consumption Rate Standard Rate = 1 meal/week

Elevated Rate = 2 meals/week Time averaging Period 7 days/week

From this, the following allowable fish contaminant concentrations were calculated:

Standard Rate: Children Adults

Cadmium 0.45 mg/kg 2.2 mg/kg Zinc 135 mg/kg 650 mg/kg

Elevated Rate: Children Adults

Cadmium 0.22 mg/kg 1.1 mg/kg Zinc 67 mg/kg 325 mg/kg

The State Environmental Laboratory’s reporting limit for cadmium (0.30 mg/kg) is above the safe concentration calculated using the elevated consumption rate for children. Because of this, either the meal size or the consumption rate could be adjusted to determine safe levels of consumption of fish based on results at the

6

008498

reporting limit. Calculations of safe consumption levels based on a fish concentration of 0.30 mg/kg are as follows:

For a meal size of 0.227 kg (8 oz):

CRmw = (RfD x BW x Tap)/(Cm x MS)

= (0.001 x 14.5 x 7)/(0.30 x 0.227)

= 1.5 meals/week

For a consumption rate of 2 meals per week: MS = (RfD x BW x Tap)/(Cm x CRmw)

= (0.001 x 14.5 x 7)/(0.30 x 2)

= 0.169 kg (6 oz) fish meal

LeadSafe fish concentration levels for lead were calculated using the IEUBK model which predicts the distribution of blood lead levels for children age 84 monthsand younger. The model generates a protective level at which no more than 5 percent of modeled blood lead levels exceed the EPA Intervention Level10 of 10 ug/dl (micrograms/deciliter). Blood lead concentrations above the InterventionLevel indicate action should be taken to determine the cause of the elevated concentration. This risk assessment methodology is more conservative than that used for cadmium and zinc in that total lead exposure is accounted for through estimates of exposure through soil, house dust, air, water, and diet. EPA defaultvalues were used for all inputs into the IEUBK except for soil and house dust lead concentrations, and factors related to fish consumption and concentration.

Soil lead concentrations were determined by computing the 95% upper confidence level(UCL) of the mean of yard soil concentrations11and high accessarea concentrations12. Residential yards and high access areas(HAAs) such as parks, schools and playgrounds have been sampled for lead concentration as part of the cleanup activities in the Tar Creek area. If yard or HAA soil concentrations were found to have soil lead levels greater than 500 mg/kg, the soil was removed and replaced with low lead concentration borrow fill soil from outside the area. Yard and HAA replacement activities are nearing completion at the time this report is being written.

Yard lead data indicate that 3257 of 7977 samples (41%) exceed 500 mg/kg.These areas were replaced with borrow fill having a mean lead concentration of 18.1 mg/kg13. The mean value of the yards after remediation was calculated

7

008499

after replacing those values greater than 500 mg/kg in the dataset with values of 18.1 mg/kg. The resulting mean of the post-remediation yards is 140.9 mg/kg.The 95% UCL for the mean is 144.2 mg/kg.

A total of 28 high access areas were sampled in the towns of Picher, Cardin, Quapaw, Commerce, and North Miami. Ten of the 28 eight sites (36%) averaged greater than 500 mg/kg soil lead level. The soil at these sites was removed and replaced with borrow fill having a mean lead value of 18.1 mg/kg. The mean value of the HAAs after remediation was calculated after replacing the values of sites that were greater than 500 mg/kg with 18.1 mg/kg. The resulting mean of the post-remediated HAAs was 134.7 mg/kg. The 95% UCL for the mean was 163.8 mg/kg

Based on this information it was decided to use a soil concentration input of 165 mg/kg. The IEUBK default for soil concentration to house dust concentration is 0.7. Using this, the house dust concentration was calculated to be 115 mg/kg.Inputs into the IEUBK model are given in Table 2.

Table 2. IEUBK InputsInput Value

Drinking Water 4.00 ug/L (EPA default value) Soil 165 mg/kg (based on the 95% UCL of the mean

of yard soil levels and high access area soil levels)

House Dust 115 ug/g (based on soil level) Paint 0 per day (EPA default)Maternal Blood Contribution 2.5 ug/dl (default in the infant model) Outdoor Air Concentration 0.100 ug/m3 (EPA default) Indoor Air 30% of outdoor air concentration (EPA default) Time Outdoors 1 to 4 hours per day (EPA defaults based on

age)Ventilation Rates 2 to 7 m3/day (EPA defaults based on age

range)Lung Absorption 32 percent (EPA default) Diet Uptake 50% (EPA default varies slightly with age) Water Uptake 0.36 to 1.13 ug/day (EPA default, varies with

age)Soil and Dust Uptake 5.1 to 5.67 ug/day (EPA default varies with age) Percentage of Meat Intake Consisting of Locally Caught Fish

Standard Consumption Rate: 32 percentElevated Consumption Rate: 64 percent(based on one or two 8-ounce meals per week as a percentage of median EPA default daily meat consumption of 101.57 g/day based on age)

8

008500

The allowable lead concentration in fish was determined by setting the model inputs to those described in Table 2 and manipulating the Lead in Fishconcentration to a level that results in just less than 5 percent of the target population with a blood lead level of 10 ug/dl.

For example, in the case of the Standard Consumption Rate of one 8-ounce meal per week, the model was initially run with the Percentage of Meat Intake Consisting of Locally Caught Fish input at 32 percent and the Lead in Fishconcentration set to 0 mg/kg resulting in 0.44 percent of the target population with a blood lead level greater than 10 ug/dl. The Lead in Fish concentration was incrementally increased until just below 5 percent of the target population had a blood lead level of more than 10 mg/dl. That final Lead in Fish concentration was 0.36 mg/kg.

This process was repeated for an Elevated Consumption Rate of two 8-ounce meals per week of locally caught fish. The resulting allowable lead level was0.18 mg/kg.

Allowable fish contaminant concentrations based on either one or two 8-ouncemeals per week are as follows:

Contaminant ChildrenStandard

ConsumptionRate

ChildrenElevated

ConsumptionRate

AdultsStandard

ConsumptionRate

AdultsElevated

ConsumptionRate

Lead 0.36 mg/kg 0.18 mg/kg 0.36 mg/kg 0.18 mg/kg Cadmium 0.45 mg/kg 0.22 mg/kg 2.2 mg/kg 1.1 mg/kg Zinc 135 mg/kg 67 mg/kg 650 mg/kg 325 mg/kg

As in the case of cadmium, the allowable lead in fish concentration at the Elevated Consumption Rate of two 8-ounce meals per week was less than the State Environmental Laboratory’s reporting limit of 0.25 mg/kg. To determine a safe consumption level based on the SEL’s reporting limit, the Lead in Fishconcentration was set to 0.25 mg/kg and the Percentage of Meat Intake Consisting of Locally Caught Fish input was initially set at 64 percent (two 8-ounce meals per week.) This resulted in 7.8 percent of the target population with a blood level exceeding 10 ug/dl. The Percentage of Meat Intake Consisting of Locally Caught Fish input was then incrementally reduced until just under 5 percent of the target population had an acceptable blood lead level. That final level was 47%.

Allowable fish consumption based on the SEL’s reporting limit of 0.25 mg/kg was calculated as follows:

9

008501

CRLim = (MDI X PF X TAP X 0.0353 ounces/gram)/8 ounces/meal where

CRLim = Consumption rate in meals/month MDI = median daily consumption of meat by children younger than 8PF = Proportion of meat intake consisting of locally caught fish

CRLim= (101.57 g/day X 0.51 X 7 days/week X 0.0353 oz/g)/8 oz/meal = 1.5 meals/week

or for a consumption rate of 2 meals per week:

MS = (CRLIM X PF X TAP X 0.0353 oz/g)/2 meals/week= (101.57g/day X 0.51 X 7 days/week X 0.0353 oz/g) / 2 meals/week = 5.9 oz. fish meal

Comparison of Collected Fish Concentrations to Allowable Levels

Fish were collected at 3 sites on Spring River, 3 sites on the Neosho River, 2 ponds near chat piles and 2 millponds at former ore processing sites. Sample analysis was performed on whole-uneviscerated fish, whole-eviscerated fish and fillets of carp and channel catfish at the 6 river sites, white crappie at 5 of the river sites, and largemouth bass at the 4 pond sites. In addition, 25 samples of various other commonly consumed species were performed using the various preparation methods.

Table 3 lists the percentage of samples (by preparation method and species) exceeding the allowable fish contaminant concentrations at the Standard Consumption Rate. Table 4 lists the percentage of samples exceeding the allowable fish contaminant concentrations at the Elevated Consumption Rates.

Table 3. Percentage of Samples Exceeding Allowable Contaminant Concentration Levels at Standard Consumption Rates (1 meal per week). Preparation Number

ofSamples

CadmiumChildren

(percentexceeding

0.45 mg/kg)

CadmiumAdults(percent

exceeding2.2 mg/kg)

LeadChildren

and Adults(percent

exceeding0.36 mg/kg)

ZincChildren

(percentexceeding135 mg/kg)

ZincAdults(percent

exceeding650 mg/kg)

All Species All 80 3 0 27 0 0FL 25 0 0 0 0 0

WE 25 0 0 24 0 0WU 30 7 0 50 0 0

SmallmouthBuffalo

All 4 0 0 100 0 0FL 0 0 0 0 0 0

WE 0 0 0 0 0 0WU 4 0 0 100 0 0

10

008502

Preparation Numberof

Samples

CadmiumChildren

(percentexceeding

0.45 mg/kg)


exceeding2.2 mg/kg)

LeadChildren

and Adults(percent


ZincChildren


ZincAdults(percent

exceeding650 mg/kg)

CarpAll 18 11 0 56 0 0FL 6 0 0 0 0 0

WE 6 0 0 67 0 0WU 6 33 0 100 0 0

ChannelCatfish

All 18 0 0 17 0 0FL 6 0 0 0 0 0

WE 6 0 0 0 0 0WU 6 0 0 33 0 0

BluegillSunfish

All 5 0 0 40 0 0FL 1 0 0 0 0 0

WE 1 0 0 0 0 0WU 3 0 0 66 0 0

LargemouthBass

All 13 0 0 15 0 0FL 4 0 0 0 0 0

WE 4 0 0 25 0 0WU 5 0 0 20 0 0

SpottedBass

All 3 0 0 0 0 0FL 1 0 0 0 0 0

WE 1 0 0 0 0 0WU 1 0 0 0 0 0

White BassAll 2 0 0 0 0 0FL 0 0 0 0 0 0

WE 0 0 0 0 0 0WU 2 0 0 0 0 0

WhiteCrappie

All 15 0 0 0 0 0FL 5 0 0 0 0 0

WE 5 0 0 0 0 0WU 5 0 0 0 0 0

Preparation Codes:ALL – All Sample PreparationsFL – Fillet WE – Whole-evisceratedWU – Whole-uneviscerated

11

008503

Table 4. Percentage of Samples Exceeding Allowable Contaminant Concentration Levels at Elevated Consumption Rates (2 meal per week).


Samples

CadmiumChildren

(percentexceeding

0.22 mg/kg)


exceeding1.1 mg/kg)

LeadChildren

and Adults(percent


ZincChildren


ZincAdults(percent

exceeding325 mg/kg)

All Species All 80 6 0 36 1 0FL 25 0 0 4 0 0

WE 25 0 0 36 0 0WU 30 20 0 60 3 0

SmallmouthBuffalo

All 4 0 0 100 0 0FL 0 0 0 0 0 0

WE 0 0 0 0 0 0WU 4 0 0 100 0 0

CarpAll 18 28 0 66 6 0FL 6 0 0 17 0 0

WE 6 0 0 83 0 0WU 6 83 0 100 17 0

BluegillSunfish

All 5 0 0 40 0 0FL 1 0 0 0 0 0

WE 1 0 0 0 0 0WU 3 0 0 66 0 0

ChannelCatfish

All 18 0 0 28 0 0FL 6 0 0 0 0 0

WE 6 0 0 33 0 0WU 6 0 0 50 0 0

LargemouthBass

All 13 0 0 23 0 0FL 4 0 0 0 0 0

WE 4 0 0 50 0 0WU 5 0 0 20 0 0

SpottedBass

All 3 0 0 0 0 0FL 1 0 0 0 0 0

WE 1 0 0 0 0 0WU 1 0 0 0 0 0

White BassAll 2 0 0 0 0 0FL 0 0 0 0 0 0

WE 0 0 0 0 0 0WU 2 0 0 0 0 0

12

008504


Samples

CadmiumChildren

(percentexceeding

0.22 mg/kg)


exceeding1.1 mg/kg)

LeadChildren

and Adults(percent


ZincChildren


ZincAdults(percent

exceeding325 mg/kg)

WhiteCrappie

All 15 0 0 13 0 0FL 5 0 0 0 0 0

WE 5 0 0 0 0 0WU 5 0 0 40 0 0

Preparation Codes:ALL – All Sample PreparationsFL – Fillet WE – Whole-evisceratedWU – Whole-uneviscerated

From the two tables the following can be discerned: A single fillet sample of carp exceeded allowable levels for lead and the Elevated Consumption Rate. No other fillet portions of any fish exceeded laboratory reporting limits. No fillet portions exceed allowable levels for any metal tested at the Standard Consumption Rate.

Allowable levels for cadmium at the Elevated Consumption Rate for children were exceeded only in samples of whole-uneviscerated carp.

The allowable level for Zinc at the Elevated Consumption Rate for Children was exceeded by a single whole fish sample.

Allowable levels for lead at the elevated consumption rate were exceeded in 36 percent of all whole-eviscerated samples and 60 percent of all whole fish samples.

Allowable levels of lead at the Standard Consumption Rate of 1 meal per week were exceeded in 5 species:

33 percent of whole-uneviscerated channel catfish17 percent of whole-eviscerated channel catfish 100 percent of whole-uneviscerated smallmouth buffalo100 percent of whole-uneviscerated carp 67 percent of whole-eviscerated carp.66 percent of whole-uneviscerated bluegill20 percent of whole-uneviscerated largemouth bass 25 percent of whole-eviscerated largemouth bass

Allowable levels of lead at the Elevated Consumption Rate of 2 meals per week were exceeded in 5 species:

50 percent of whole-uneviscerated channel catfish33 percent of whole-eviscerated channel catfish

13

008505

20 percent of whole-uneviscerated largemouth bass 50 percent of whole-eviscerated largemouth bass 66 percent of whole-uneviscerated bluegill sunfish40 percent of whole-eviscerated white crappie 17 percent of carp fillets 83 percent of whole-eviscerated carp 100 percent of whole-uneviscerated carp 100 percent of whole-uneviscerated smallmouth buffalo

Based on this information ODEQ recommends children living in the Tar Creek area consume no more than six 8-ounce fillet meals per month of fish caught in ponds within the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the Spring and Neosho Riversabove Grand Lake. All adults and children should avoid eating all species of whole-eviscerated or whole-uneviscerated fish caught in these waters.

Comparison of Preparation Methods

Fish samples were analyzed using 3 different preparation methods: fillets, whole-eviscerated, and whole-uneviscerated. There are 23 instances in the data set where analyses were performed using the three preparation methods on the same species from the same site. These data were pooled and statistical tools were applied to determine if significant differences exist between the preparation methods in relation to tissue metals concentration. Figures 3-5 illustrate boxplots of results from the 3 preparation methods vs. metals concentration. Figure 2 is a legend defining boxplot construction as used in this report.

Figure 2. Boxplot construction legend.

14

008506

Figure 3. Boxplots of cadmium concentration by sample preparation (all speciespooled.)

Figure 4. Boxplots of lead concentration by sample preparation (all species pooled.)

Figure 5. Boxplots of zinc concentration by sample preparation (all species pooled.)

15

008507

These plots indicate some differences between the whole-eviscerated and the whole-uneviscerated preparations while illustrating generally lower concentrations in fillet samples. To confirm these observations, a Kruskal-Wallis test14 was applied to the data. The Kruskal-Wallis test uses median values andaverage ranks to determine if the observed differences in 2 or more populations are statistically significant, that is, of a greater magnitude than would be expectedto occur by chance. The Kruskal-Wallis test is an extension of the WilcoxonRank Sum test and does not require the distribution of the data to be normal or symmetric. For this test all values below the laboratory reporting limit were set to one-half the reporting limit. The results are as follows:

H0: The medians of the preparation methods are all equal. HA: At least one of the medians is larger or smaller than at least one of the other

medians. = 0.05

For Cadmium:Preparation Number of

SamplesMedian Average

RankZ Statistic

Fillet 23 0.15 32.5 -0.73WholeEviscerated

23 0.15 32.5 -0.73

WholeUneviscerated

23 0.15 40.0 1.46

Overall 69 35.0

H Statistic = 10.61 Degrees of Freedom = 2 p = 0.005 (adjusted for ties)

For Lead: Preparation Number of


RankZ Statistic

Fillet 21 0.125 22.6 -2.87WholeEviscerated

21 0.125 35.0 0.93

WholeUneviscerated

21 0.250 38.6 1.93

Overall 63 32.0

H Statistic = 12.14 Degrees of Freedom = 2 p = 0.002 (adjusted for ties)

16

008508

For Zinc: Preparation Number of


RankZ Statistic

Fillet 23 6.54 13.0 -6.45Whole-Eviscerated

23 21.2 45.9 3.18

Whole-Uneviscerated

23 19.9 46.5 3.27

Overall 69 35.0

H Statistic = 41.65 Degrees of Freedom = 2 p = < 0.001

These results indicate that in each case the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis: at least one of the preparation methods differs from at least one of the other preparation methods. The Z statistic indicates how the mean rank for the group differs from the mean rank for all the observations.

From this information and the boxplots one can conclude that in the case of cadmium, the whole-uneviscerated portion is significantly higher than both filletsand whole-eviscerated preparations. For lead, fillet concentrations are significantly less than concentrations in whole-uneviscerated and whole-eviscerated portions. For zinc, fillet concentrations are also significantly lowerthan both whole-eviscerated and whole-uneviscerated portions.

Relationship of Tissue Concentrations to Sediment and Water Concentrations.

The relationship of tissue metals concentrations to water and sediment levels was explored through linear regression analysis. To be consistent and to provide the most unbiased data, metals concentrations from whole-uneviscerated carp samples (the response variable) were plotted versus water and sediment concentrations (predictor variables). The regression equation was computed along with values for R2 and S. R2 is the percentage of variation in the response variable due to the predictor variable and S is an estimator of the standard deviation around the regression line.

Regression analysis was not run for total and dissolved fractions of lead and cadmium in water because all results were less than the reporting limit. For all other fractions, values less than the reporting limit were set to one-half of the reporting limit.

Of the various combinations of tissue concentration vs. media concentration, only lead in fish vs. lead in sediment yielded a result indicating a solid relationship between the two. The results are given in Table 3 and shown in Figure 5.

17

008509

Table 5. Regression Results

Test Regression Equation S R2Cadmium in Fish vs. Cadmium in Sediment

Cd(fish) = 0.253 + 0.069 Cd(Sed) 0.231 31.0 %

Lead in Fish vs. Lead in Sediment

Pb(fish) = 0.132 + 0.063 Pb(Sed) 0.497 86.3 %

Zinc in Fish vs. Dissolved Zinc in Water

Zn(fish) = 50.3 + 0.133 Zn(Diss) 9.175 20.1 %

Zinc in Fish vs. Total Zinc in Water

Zn(fish) = 52.1 + 0.056 Zn(Tot) 9.170 20.2 %

Zinc in Fish vs. Zinc in Sediment

Zn(fish) = 53.2 + 0.010 Zn(Sed) 9.594 12.6 %

Figure 6. Regression Plots

18

008510

Comparison to Historic Data

ODEQ intended to compare data collected for this study to data collected from the region in 1982 by the Oklahoma State Department of Health15 to determine if tissue values were changing over time. However, an examination of the 1982 data revealed that all samples were fillets analyzed only for lead and all results were below the reporting limit at the time of 1.0 mg/kg compared to a reporting limit of 0.25 mg/kg for this study. This makes a comparison of the 2 time periods unsuitable due to the differing reporting limits and the censoring of all 1982 data.

Comparison to National Data

Whole-uneviscerated fish data from this study was compared to data collectedfor the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program16 (NCBP) to determine if tissue metals concentrations in fish collected from the Tri-State Mining District differed from values of fish collected nationwide.The NCBP data was queried to select concentration values representing the same species and size ranges within those species as was collected for the Tri-State Mining District study. Data were labeled as to study and were pooled intoa single database.

One of the difficulties in comparing the 2 data groups was the difference in reporting limits for lead and cadmium. The NCBP study used varying reporting limits of 0.001 to 0.05 mg/kg for cadmium and 0.008 to 0.1 mg/kg for lead. The Tri-State Mining District study used reporting limits of 0.3 mg/kg for cadmium and 0.25 mg/kg for lead. For this comparison, all cadmium values below 0.3 mg/kg were set to 0.29 mg/kg and all lead values below 0.25 mg/kg were set to 0.24 mg/kg. The Kruskal-Wallis test was run on the pooled data to determine if there were statistical differences between the 2 study populations.

The results are as follows and boxplots illustrating the data are as follows:

H0: The medians of the 2 study populations are equal. HA: One of the medians is larger or smaller than the other median.

= 0.05

For Cadmium:Preparation Number of


RankZ Statistic

NCBP 409 <0.30 217.2 -1.41Tri-State 29 <0.30 251.6Overall 438 219.5

H Statistic = 1.99 Degrees of Freedom = 1 p = 0.158H Statistic(adjusted for ties) = 27.13

Degrees of Freedom = 1 p = <0.001

19

008511

Figure 7. Boxplot comparing cadmium results for NCBP and Tri-State studies.

For Lead:

Preparation Number ofSamples

Median AverageRank

Z Statistic

NCBP 409 <0.25 211.2 -5.17Tri-State 29 0.36 336.9Overall 438 219.5

H Statistic = 26.73 Degrees of Freedom = 1 p = <0.001H Statistic(adjusted for ties) = 72.75

Degrees of Freedom = 1 p = <0.001

Figure 8. Boxplot comparing lead results for NCBP and Tri-State studies.

20

008512

For Zinc:

Preparation Number ofSamples

Median AverageRank

Z Statistic

NCBP 148 15.96 86.4 -1.52Tri-State 29 20.00 102.2Overall 177 219.5

H Statistic = 2.30 Degrees of Freedom = 1 p = 0.129

Figure 9. Boxplot comparing Zinc results for NCBP and Tri-State studies.

These results indicate the median level for lead in fish tissue collected from waters in the Tri-State Mining District is significantly higher than what would one would expect to find in fish from other waters. The results for cadmium are inconclusive due to the high proportion of censored data. While the calculated median value for zinc is higher in the Tri-State Study, it is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

21

008513

Conclusions and Recommendations

In comparison to fish collected in the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program, the fish from Oklahoma waters in the Tri-State Mining Area have leadconcentrations higher than one would expect to find in fish from waters elsewhere in the United States. The elevated levels of lead in the fish positively correlate to the concentration of lead in the sediments of these waters. The consumption of whole-eviscerated or whole-uneviscerated fish from these waters is discouraged. However, the consumption of fillets from fish in this area is safe at rates at least as high as six 8-ounce meals per month based on the laboratory reporting limit.

Further study is needed to validate these findings and to determine the downstream extent of the metals uptake in fish species. Specifically, fish fromGrand Lake need to be tested for tissue lead concentrations. Additionally, due to local fish harvesting practices, other bottom dwelling fish such as various species of suckers should be included in a follow-up study. Laboratory analytical techniques should be modified to lower reporting limits to levels in the 0.15 mg/kg range for lead and cadmium.

22

008514

References

1. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. Standard OperatingProcedure for the Tri-State Mining Area Fish Collection and Preparation.Customer Service Division, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Oklahoma City, OK.

2. CEM Corporation. 1999. Mars Microwave Accelerated Reaction System Operation Manual, Microwave Sample Preparation Note: 5BI-8. CEM Corporation, Mathews, NC.

3. U.S. EPA. 1991. EPA Method 200.7 Revision 3.3, Determination of Metals and Trace Elements By Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.

4. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. Fish TissueAnalysis in the Tri-State Mining Area Quality Assurance Project Plan.Customer Service Division, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Oklahoma City, OK.

5. U.S. EPA. 2000. Guidance For Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data For Use in Fish Advisories, Volume II: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.

6. U.S. EPA. 1994. Guidance Manual For The Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.

7. Washington State Department of Health. 2001. Evaluation of Cadmium, Lead, and Zinc Contamination of Spokane River Fish. Spokane, Washington.

8. U.S. EPA. 1994. IRIS: Cadmium, CASRN 7440-43-9. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.

9. U.S. EPA. 1992. IRIS: Zinc and Compounds, CASRN 7440-66-6. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.

10. U.S. CDC(Centers for Disease Control). 1985. Preventing lead poisoning in young children: a statement by the Centers for Disease Control. CDC report no. 99-2230, Atlanta, GA.

11. Morrison Knudson Corporation. 1999. Data from residential yard samples in the Tar Creek Superfund area. Boise, ID.

12. Ecology & Environment, Inc. 1995. Tar Creek High Access Areas. Summary of Response Activities. Dallas, TX.

23

008515

13. Cates, David, 2003. Background concentrations of soils in Ottawa County,Memo to Tar Creek File. ODEQ, Oklahoma City, OK.

14. Kruskal, W.H. 1952. A non-parametric test for the several sample problem.The Annuls of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 525-540(5.2).

15. Oklahoma State Department of Health. 1982. An Environmental HealthEvaluation of the Tar Creek Area. OSDH. Oklahoma City, OK.

16. Schmitt, C.J. and Brumbaugh, W.G. 1990. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program: concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc in fresh water fishes of the United States, 1976-1984. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 19: 731-747. (Data online at http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/data/ncbp/fish.htm

24

008516

Appendix A: Data Tables

25008517

26

008518

27

008519

28

008520

29008521

30

008522

31

008523

32008524

33008525

Appendix C RAGS Part D Tables

008526





008527

TABLE 1SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Tar Creek - Miami, OK

Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Current Surface Soil Surface Soil Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult/Child Ingestion Quant (1) Resident may contact COPCs in soil.

(Yards) Resident Dermal Quant Resident may contact COPCs in soil.

Dust Indoor Dust (General Public) Child Ingestion Quant (2) Child resident may contact lead in indoor dust.

Current/Future Groundwater Groundwater Private wells Adult/Child Ingestion Quant (4) Resident may drink water from shallow well impacted by COPCs.

Current/Future Fish Tissue Fish Tissue Fish Adult/Child Ingestion Qual (5) This pathway previously evaluated (ODEQ, 2003); will be discussed in the Risk Characterization Section.

Current/Future Chat Pile Material and Tailings Ambient Air Ambient Air Adult/Child Inhalation Quant Residents may contact COPCs in ambient air

FutureChat pile, tailings,

residential soil, smelter soil, transition zone soil

Surface Soil (Yards) Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult/Child Ingestion Quant (8) Future residents may contact COPCs in soil as a results of 30 years of airborne deposition.

Dermal Quant (8)Current Surface Soil Surface Soil Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult/Child Ingestion Quant

(Yard) Dermal Quant

Dust Indoor Dust Resident Child Ingestion Quant (2) Child resident may contact lead in indoor dust.

Current Surface Soil Animal Tissue Small Game (Bird, Rabbit) (Subsistence) Adult Ingestion Quant (6, 10)

(residential, smelter, transition zone)

Large Game (Deer, Elk) Qual (9, 12)

Beef (cattle) Quant (6, 11)

Milk (dairy) Milk (dairy) Child Ingestion Quant (11)

Current/Future Chat Pile Material and Tailings Ambient Air Ambient Air Adult/Child Inhalation Quant Residents may contact COPCs in ambient air

Current/Future Groundwater Groundwater Private wells Adult/Child Ingestion Quant (4) Residents may drink water from shallow well impacted by COPCs; includes potential impact from sweat lodge.

Current/Future Aquatic Biota Fish Tissue Fish Adult Ingestion Quant (6,7,10)

Aquatic Food (Mussels etc.) Aquatic Tissue

Unwashed

Asparagus (above ground plant & root)

Current Transition Zone Soil Plant Willow (above ground plant & root)

(Leaf & Root)Cattail

(above ground plant & root)

Washed

Asparagus (above ground plant & root)

Current Transition Zone Soil Plant Willow (above ground plant & root) Adult Ingestion Qual

(Leaf & Root)Cattail

(above ground plant & root)

Future Chat Pile and Tailings

Surface Soil (Yards, Smelter-Affected Soil, Transition

Zone Soil)

Surface Soil (0-1 inch) Adult/Child Ingestion Quant (8)

Dermal Quant (8)

Current/Future Chat and Tailings Surface Material Chat & Tailings Ponds surface (0-6 inch) Recreator Adolescent Ingestion Quant

Material Dermal Quant

* Noncarcinogenic hazard evaluated separately for adult and child receptors, combined lifetime carcinogenic risk evaluated on an age-adjusted basis for residential scenario.

(1) Surface soil is evaluated for each individual home for lead; the maximum concentrations of all yards in Tar Creek are used for evaluation of cadmium and zinc.

(2) Risk associated with dust is evaluated for lead using the default soil/dust ratio in the IEUBK model.

(3) Risk associated with inhalation of ambient air (particulate emission) is evaluated for lead using the IEUBK model.

(4) Groundwater is evaluated for each shallow well at an individual home for lead; the maximum concentrations of groundwater for all shallow wells sampled are used for evaluation of cadmium and zinc.

(5) Risk associated with ingestion of fish by general public have been evaluated by ODEQ (2003) and is not re-evaluated.

(6) Two adult subsistence scenarios (1-high fish diet and 2-high beef diet) are evaluated based on the exposure assumptions presented in the Spokane Tribe study (Harper et. al., 2002).

(7) Fish concentrations presented in the ODEQ study are used (ODEQ, 2003).

(8) The range of future soil concentrations are evaluated via air deposition modeling.

(9) The difference in bioconcentration between beef and large game animals, and the affect on risk estimates, are presented in the Risk Characterization section.

(10) Bioconcentration factors for aquatic food were obtained from the Tar Creek Ecological Risk Assessment.

(11) Bioconcentration factors were obtained from EPA Combustion Guidance.

(12) Bioconcentration factors were obtained from the open literature.

Subsistence resident may ingest plants grown on, and meat from animals grazing on, soil in the area.

Resident may contact COPCs in soil.

Recreators may drive recreational vehicles atop chat piles, chat bases, and mill ponds

Residents may ingest fish & aquatic organisms caught in the Tar Creek area, as well as plants grown in the vicinity of chat piles.

Future residents may contact COPCs in soil as a results of 30 years of airborne deposition.

Exposures to unwashed plants are addressed in the HHRA; washed plants will be addressed in the uncertainty section of the HHRA.

1 of 1

008528

Table 2.1

OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

Tar Creek, Miami, OK

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future

Medium: Chat and Tailings Material Exposure Medium: Surface Material

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Toxicity Value ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

Qualifier Qualifier Concentration Limits Screening (N/C) Value Source Deletion(1) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Chat Pile & Tailings Ponds 7429-90-5 ALUMINUM 102 11500 J,B mg/kg FT2331-1-7S 94 / 94 1.1 - 27.5 11500 9183 7.62E+04 N NA -- No BSL

Surface (0-6 inch) 7440-36-0 ANTIMONY 0.2 J,- 3.1 L,J mg/kg TC4-SO-01E 60 / 94 0.2 - 8.3 3.1 0.25 3.13E+01 N NA -- No BSL

7440-38-2 ARSENIC 2.4 26.4 J,B mg/kg FT2322-13-7S 90 / 94 0.17 - 5 26.4 6.3 3.90E-01 C NA -- No BKG

7440-39-3 BARIUM 2.6 L,J 58.9 mg/kg TC4-SO-31D01 79 / 94 0.021 - 27.5 58.9 97.6 5.47E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7440-41-7 BERYLLIUM 0.0065 L,J 1 J mg/kg FT2331-1-7S 67 / 94 0.017 - 4 1 0.54 1.54E+02 N NA -- No BSL

7440-43-9 CADMIUM 10.4 197 mg/kg TC4-SO-01P 97 / 97 0.029 - 0.69 197 0.73 3.90E+01 N NA -- Yes ASL

7440-70-2 CALCIUM 7400 99900 mg/kg FT2322-7-7S 94 / 94 2 - 689 99900 1715 NA NA -- No NUT

7440-47-3 CHROMIUM, TOTAL 2.5 J,v 50 J,+ mg/kg FT2322-13-7S 86 / 94 0.099 - 10 50 18 2.11E+02 C NA -- No BSL

7440-48-4 COBALT 0.68 L,J 23.3 mg/kg TC4-SO-16I 76 / 94 0.092 - 20 23.3 6.5 9.03E+02 C NA -- No BSL

7440-50-8 COPPER 28.5 J,v 824 J,v mg/kg TC4-SO-01N01 94 / 94 0.1 - 3.4 824 4.88 2.91E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7439-89-6 IRON 2690 22700 J,B mg/kg FT2322-13-7S 94 / 94 1.4 - 13.8 22700 14011 2.25E+04 N NA -- No NUT

7439-92-1 LEAD 175 39600 mg/kg FT2322-13-7S 97 / 97 0.14 - 2.7 39600 31.25 4.00E+02 AL NA -- Yes ASL

7439-95-4 MAGNESIUM 1980 24800 mg/kg TC4-SO-45F 94 / 94 1.3 - 689 24800 688 NA NA -- No NUT

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 53.1 413 mg/kg TC4-SO-16I 94 / 94 0.02 - 2.1 413 515 3.24E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7487-94-7 MERCURY 0.01 L,J,v 1.4 mg/kg TC4-SO-14H 90 / 94 0.01 - 0.14 1.4 0.045 2.35E+01 N NA -- No BSL

7487-94-7 NICKEL 5.1 J,v 50 J mg/kg FT2322-13-7S 90 / 94 0.051 - 10 50 0.045 2.35E+01 N NA -- No NS

7440-09-7 POTASSIUM 174 L,J,v 3340 J,+ mg/kg FT2322-13-7S 34 / 94 0.6 - 689 3340 625 NA NA -- No NUT

7782-49-2 SELENIUM 0.34 L,J 19 mg/kg FT2322-13-7S 50 / 94 0.27 - 10 19 0.34 3.91E+02 N NA -- No BSL

7440-22-4 SILVER 0.18 L,J 3.4 mg/kg TC4-SO-01P 20 / 94 0.17 - 20 3.4 1 3.91E+02 N NA -- No BSL

7440-23-5 SODIUM 50 J 90900 J,v mg/kg TC4-SO-14H 59 / 94 33.7 - 689 90900 21.88 NA NA -- No NUT

7440-28-0 THALLIUM 0.05 J 30.7 J mg/kg FT2322-13-7S 25 / 94 0.36 - 3.4 30.7 0.15 6.26E+00 N NA -- No SD

7440-62-2 VANADIUM 2.3 L,J,v 40 J,+ mg/kg FT2322-13-7S 81 / 94 0.096 - 6.9 40 32.45 7.82E+01 N NA -- No BSL

7440-66-6 ZINC 2200 J,v 42200 J,v mg/kg TC4-SO-14H 97 / 97 0.044 - 30.2 42200 83.25 2.35E+04 N NA -- Yes ASL

(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.

(2) Maximum concentration is used for screening. COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern

(3) Mean background values obtained from the Preliminary Site Characterization Summary prepared by AATA International Inc. (2005). ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/

(4) EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSL) 2004-2005 for Residential Soil (December, 2004). To Be Considered

(5) Rationale Codes

Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL) C = Carcinogenic

Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL) N = Noncarcinogenic

Essential Nutrient (NUT) NA = Not available

Not Significantly Above Typical Background (BKG)

Not Significantly Above Screening Level and Not Widespread (NS)

Single Detection Above Screening Level (SD)

Page 1 of 1

008529

Table 2.2


(Supplemental Table for residential and transition zone soil only)



Medium: Surface Soil (residential, rural areas, and transition zone) Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue




Small Game (Bird, Rabbit), 7440-99-9 ALUMINUM 723 18500 J mg/kg TZ2321-11N-4A 40 / 40 1.1 - 1.2 18500 9183 7.62E+04 N NA -- No BSL

Beef (Cattle), and Milk (Dairy) 7440-99-9 ANTIMONY 0.2 0.9 mg/kg RS2332-14FS 18 / 40 0.38 - 0.4 0.9 0.25 3.13E+01 N NA -- No BSL

7440-99-9 ARSENIC 2.6 37.9 mg/kg TZ2223-1S-4A 40 / 40 0.17 - 0.18 37.9 6.3 3.90E-01 C NA -- No SW

744-03- 9 BARIUM 8.9 878 mg/kg TZ2223-1S-4A 40 / 40 0.021 - 0.022 878 97.6 5.47E+03 N NA -- No BSL

744-04- 1 BERYLLIUM 0.15 L,J 2.4 mg/kg TZ2321-11S-3A* 39 / 40 0.017 - 0.018 2.4 0.54 1.54E+02 N NA -- No BSL

744-04- 3 CADMIUM 0.5 J 248 mg/kg TZ2223-1S-3A 249 / 261 0.029 - 0.031 248 0.73 3.90E+01 N NA -- Yes ASL

744-07- 0 CALCIUM 570 33800 mg/kg TZ2321-11S-3A* 40 / 40 2 - 2.1 33800 1715 NA NA -- No NUT

7440-47-3 CHROMIUM, TOTAL 4.4 J,v 40 mg/kg TZ2321-11S-3A* 40 / 40 0.099 - 0.11 40 18 2.11E+02 C NA -- No BSL

744-04- 8 COBALT 1.2 L,J 370 mg/kg TZ2223-1S-4A 39 / 40 0.092 - 0.1 370 6.5 9.03E+02 C NA -- No BSL

744-05- 0 COPPER 4 J 202 mg/kg TZ2321-11S-3A* 40 / 40 0.1 - 0.11 202 4.88 2.91E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7439-89-6 IRON 5760 104000 mg/kg TZ2223-1S-4A 40 / 40 1.4 - 1.5 104000 14011 2.25E+04 N NA -- No NUT

743-99- 2 LEAD 10.5 4450 mg/kg TZ2321-11N-7A 316 / 317 0.14 - 0.20 4450 31.25 4.00E+02 AL NA -- Yes ASL

743-99- 5 MAGNESIUM 478 L,J 16600 mg/kg TZ2321-11S-3A* 40 / 40 1.3 - 4.5 16600 688 NA NA -- No NUT

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 110 69000 mg/kg TZ2223-1S-4A 40 / 40 0.02 - 0.021 69000 515 3.24E+03 N NA -- No SD

7440-99-9 MERCURY 0.015 L,J 1.75 J mg/kg TZ2321-11S-3A* 14 / 40 0.01 - 0.011 1.75 0.045 2.35E+01 N NA -- No BSL

744-00- 2 NICKEL 3 J 1430 mg/kg TZ2223-1S-4A 40 / 40 0.051 - 0.054 1430 0.045 2.35E+01 N NA -- No TD

744-00- 9 POTASSIUM 370 3000 mg/kg TZ2321-11S-3A* 33 / 40 0.6 - 0.64 3000 625 NA NA -- No NUT

778-24- 9 SELENIUM 0.44 L,J 6.2 J,B,+ mg/kg TZ2321-11S-3A* 19 / 40 0.27 - 0.29 6.2 0.34 3.91E+02 N NA -- No BSL

7440-99-9 SILVER 20 J 20 J mg/kg TZ2223-1S-4A 1 / 40 0.17 - 0.18 20 1 3.91E+02 N NA -- No BSL

744-02- 3 SODIUM 30 J 25300 mg/kg TC4-SO-45Y 20 / 40 33.7 - 35.9 25300 21.88 NA NA -- No NUT

744-02- 8 THALLIUM 0.06 J 0.7 mg/kg TZ2321-11S-3A* 32 / 40 0.36 - 0.38 0.7 0.15 6.26E+00 N NA -- No BSL

744-06- 2 VANADIUM 4.1 L,J 40.9 mg/kg BS2318-1 40 / 40 0.096 - 0.1 40.9 32.45 7.82E+01 N NA -- No BSL

744-06- 6 ZINC 38 J,B 39200 mg/kg TZ2321-11S-4A, TZ2430-1N-1A 260 / 261 0.044 - 0.047 39200 83.25 2.35E+04 N NA -- Yes ASL





(5) Rationale Codes

Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL) AL = Action Level

Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL) C = Carcinogenic

Smelter Waste (SW) N = Noncarcinogenic


Single Detection Above Screening Level (SD)

Two Detections Above Screening Level (TD)

Revised 02/09/2006 Page 1 of 1

008530

Table 2.2A


(Supplemental Table for smelter affected soil only)



Medium: Surface Soil (smelter affected soil) Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue




Small Game (Bird, Rabbit), 7440-99-9 ALUMINUM 3670 10200 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 6 / 6 - 10200 9183 7.62E+04 N NA -- No BSL

Beef (Cattle), and Milk (Dairy) 7440-99-9 ANTIMONY 1.4 J,- 4600 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 20 / 21 - 4600 0.25 3.13E+01 N NA -- No SW

7440-99-9 ARSENIC 2.3 285 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 6 / 6 - 285 6.3 3.90E-01 C NA -- No SW

744-03- 9 BARIUM 47.5 1040 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 6 / 6 - 1040 97.6 5.47E+03 N NA -- No BSL

744-04- 1 BERYLLIUM 0.53 1.7 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 4 / 6 - 1.7 0.54 1.54E+02 N NA -- No BSL

744-04- 3 CADMIUM 0.35 L,J 139 mg/kg SS2324-1N-1 21 / 21 - 139 0.73 3.90E+01 N NA -- Yes ASL

744-07- 0 CALCIUM 549 25400 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 6 / 6 - 25400 1715 NA NA -- No NUT

7440-47-3 CHROMIUM, TOTAL 4.9 20.5 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 6 / 6 - 20.5 18 2.11E+02 C NA -- No BSL

744-04- 8 COBALT 2.2 L,J 11.6 mg/kg TC4-SO-46K01 6 / 6 - 11.6 6.5 9.03E+02 C NA -- No BSL

744-05- 0 COPPER 4.5 J,v 307 J,v mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 6 / 6 - 307 4.88 2.91E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7439-89-6 IRON 4460 44800 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 6 / 6 - 44800 14011 2.25E+04 N NA -- No NUT

743-99- 2 LEAD 31.4 70800 mg/kg TC4-SO-46K01 21 / 21 - 70800 31.25 4.00E+02 AL NA -- Yes ASL

743-99- 5 MAGNESIUM 261 L,J,v 3100 J,v mg/kg TC4-SO-46L 6 / 6 - 3100 688 NA NA -- No NUT

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 119 470 mg/kg TC4-SO-46K01 6 / 6 - 470 515 3.24E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7440-99-9 MERCURY 0.02 L,J 0.23 mg/kg TC4-SO-46L 4 / 6 - 0.23 0.045 2.35E+01 N NA -- No BSL

744-00- 2 NICKEL 7.7 41.2 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 5 / 6 - 41.2 0.045 2.35E+01 N NA -- No TD

744-00- 9 POTASSIUM 595 1250 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 3 / 6 - 1250 625 NA NA -- No NUT

778-24- 9 SELENIUM 0.3 L,J 7 mg/kg TC4-SO-46K01 6 / 6 - 7 0.34 3.91E+02 N NA -- No BSL

7440-99-9 SILVER 0.41 L,J 1.2 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 3 / 6 - 1.2 1 3.91E+02 N NA -- No BSL

744-02- 3 SODIUM 183 L,J 24700 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 6 / 6 - 24700 21.88 NA NA -- No NUT

744-02- 8 THALLIUM 0.46 L,J 1.4 L,J mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 3 / 6 - 1.4 0.15 6.26E+00 N NA -- No BSL

744-06- 2 VANADIUM 12.2 30.3 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 6 / 6 - 30.3 32.45 7.82E+01 N NA -- No BSL

744-06- 6 ZINC 46.1 7980 mg/kg TC4-SO-46M 21 / 21 - 7980 83.25 2.35E+04 N NA -- Yes AOC





(5) Rationale Codes


Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) C = Carcinogenic



Within Background Range (BKG)


008531

Table 2.3



Scenario Timeframe: Current

Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)




Surface Soil 7440-99-9 ALUMINUM 6800 J 12600 J mg/kg RS2417-30BS 16 / 16 - 12600 9183 7.62E+04 N NA -- No BSL

(General Public) 7440-99-9 ANTIMONY 0.2 0.9 mg/kg RS2332-14FS 5 / 16 - 0.9 0.25 3.13E+01 N NA -- No BSL

(0-1 inch) 7440-99-9 ARSENIC 2.6 9.1 mg/kg RS2332-14FS 16 / 16 - 9.1 6.3 3.90E-01 C NA -- No BKG

744-03- 9 BARIUM 52.9 177 mg/kg RS2429-27SS 16 / 16 - 177 97.6 5.47E+03 N NA -- No BSL

744-04- 1 BERYLLIUM 0.4 J 0.9 J mg/kg RS2406-40NS, RS2417-30BS 16 / 16 - 0.9 0.54 1.54E+02 N NA -- No BSL

744-04- 3 CADMIUM 0.5 J 47.5 mg/kg RS2332-14FS 164 / 172 - 47.5 0.73 3.90E+01 N NA -- Yes ASL

744-07- 0 CALCIUM 1850 11800 mg/kg RS2419-45NS 16 / 16 - 11800 1715 NA NA -- No NUT

7440-47-3 CHROMIUM, TOTAL 8 21 mg/kg RS2406-40NS, RS2417-30BS 16 / 16 - 21 18 2.11E+02 C NA -- No BSL

744-04- 8 COBALT 3 J 8 mg/kg RS2420-35NS 16 / 16 - 8 6.5 9.03E+02 C NA -- No BSL

744-05- 0 COPPER 4 J 61 mg/kg RS2332-14FS 16 / 16 - 61 4.88 2.91E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7439-89-6 IRON 6580 17800 mg/kg RS2431-22SS 16 / 16 - 17800 14011 2.25E+04 N NA -- No BSL

743-99- 2 LEAD 10.9 J 822 mg/kg RS2318-16BS 171 / 172 - 822 31.25 4.00E+02 AL NA -- Yes ASL

743-99- 5 MAGNESIUM 610 2840 mg/kg RS2419-45NS 16 / 16 - 2840 688 NA NA -- No NUT

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 184 706 mg/kg RS2420-35NS 16 / 16 - 706 515 3.24E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7440-99-9 MERCURY 0.08 0.38 mg/kg RS2236-9BS 4 / 16 - 0.38 0.045 2.35E+01 N NA -- No BSL

744-00- 2 NICKEL 3 J 15 mg/kg RS2431-22SS 16 / 16 - 15 0.045 2.35E+01 N NA -- No BSL

744-00- 9 POTASSIUM 530 1710 mg/kg RS2301-17NS 16 / 16 - 1710 625 NA NA -- No NUT

778-24- 9 SELENIUM 0.6 J 1.3 mg/kg RS2332-14FS 3 / 16 - 1.3 0.34 3.91E+02 N NA -- No BSL

744-02- 3 SODIUM 30 130 mg/kg RS2226-5NS 6 / 16 - 130 21.88 NA NA -- No NUT

744-02- 8 THALLIUM 0.06 J 0.21 J mg/kg RS2417-30BS 16 / 16 - 0.21 0.15 6.26E+00 N NA -- No BSL

744-06- 2 VANADIUM 15.7 24 mg/kg RS2417-30BS 16 / 16 - 24 32.45 7.82E+01 N NA -- No BSL

744-06- 6 ZINC 38 J,B 7700 mg/kg RS2332-14FS 171 / 172 - 7700 83.25 2.35E+04 N NA -- Yes AOC





(5) Rationale Codes


Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) C = Carcinogenic





008532

Table 2.4




Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)




Surface Soil 7429-90-5 ALUMINUM 14600 J 14600 J mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 14600 9183 7.62E+04 N NA -- No BSL

(Subsistence) 7440-36-0 ANTIMONY 0.3 0.3 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 0.3 0.25 3.13E+01 N NA -- No BSL

(0-1 inch) 7440-38-2 ARSENIC 8.1 8.1 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 8.1 6.3 3.90E-01 C NA -- No BKG

7440-39-3 BARIUM 142 142 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 142 97.6 5.47E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7440-41-7 BERYLLIUM 0.8 J 0.8 J mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 0.8 0.54 1.54E+02 N NA -- No BSL

7440-43-9 CADMIUM 0.6 J 9.6 mg/kg RS2431-44FS 6 / 9 0.5 - 0.5 9.6 0.73 3.90E+01 N NA -- Yes AOC

7440-70-2 CALCIUM 1520 1520 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 1520 1715 NA NA -- No NUT

7440-47-3 CHROMIUM, TOTAL 27 27 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 27 18 2.11E+02 C NA -- No BSL

7440-48-4 COBALT 11 11 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 11 6.5 9.03E+02 C NA -- No BSL

7440-50-8 COPPER 7 7 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 7 4.88 2.91E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7439-89-6 IRON 16900 16900 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 16900 14011 2.25E+04 N NA -- No BSL

7439-92-1 LEAD 26.6 J 135 mg/kg RS2431-44FS 9 / 9 - 135 31.25 4.00E+02 AL NA -- Yes AOC

7439-95-4 MAGNESIUM 1080 1080 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 1080 688 NA NA -- No NUT

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 621 621 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 621 515 3.24E+03 N NA -- No BSL

7487-94-7 NICKEL 11 11 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 11 0.045 2.35E+01 N NA -- No BSL

7440-09-7 POTASSIUM 1460 1460 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 1460 625 NA NA -- No NUT

7782-49-2 SELENIUM 0.5 0.5 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 0.5 0.34 3.91E+02 N NA -- No BSL

7440-28-0 THALLIUM 0.17 J 0.17 J mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 0.17 0.15 6.26E+00 N NA -- No BSL

7440-62-2 VANADIUM 34.3 34.3 mg/kg RS2406-20BS 1 / 1 - 34.3 32.45 7.82E+01 N NA -- No BSL

7440-66-6 ZINC 47 J,B 1940 mg/kg RS2431-44FS 9 / 9 - 1940 83.25 2.35E+04 N NA -- Yes AOC





(5) Rationale Codes

Selection Reason: Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) C = Carcinogenic




Page 1 of 1

008533

Table 2.5




Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater




Private Wells 7440-43-9 CADMIUM 0.0001 J 0.003 mg/L GW 2429-4A 16 / 25 0.0001 - 0.0006 0.003 NA 5.00E-03 MCL 5.00E-03 MCL Yes AOC

(General Public) 7440-70-2 CALCIUM 9.2 87 mg/L GW 2406-7B 21 / 25 0.2 - 0.2 87 NA NA NA -- No NUT

7439-89-6 IRON 0.3 J,B 0.85 mg/L GW 2420-2A 3 / 25 0.02 - 0.2 0.85 NA 1.10E+01 N NA -- No BSL

7439-92-1 LEAD 0.0002 J 0.028 mg/L GW 2429-4A 20 / 25 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.028 NA 1.50E-02 MCL 1.50E-02 MCL Yes ASL

7439-95-4 MAGNESIUM 1.5 11.5 mg/L GW 2307-10B 20 / 25 0.2 - 0.2 11.5 NA NA NA -- No NUT

7440-66-6 ZINC 0.02 J,+ 1.11 mg/L GW 2429-4B 22 / 25 0.01 - 0.01 1.11 NA 1.10E+01 N NA -- Yes AOC



(3) Background values not available. ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/

(4) Federal Maximum Contaminants Level (MCL). When MCL is not available, EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSL) To Be Considered

2004-2005 for Tap Water (December, 2004) are used.

(5) Rationale Codes C = Carcinogenic

N = Noncarcinogenic

Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL) NA = Not available

Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level

Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)

NUT (Essential Nutrient)

Page 1 of 1

008534

Table 2.6




Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater




Private Wells 7440-70-2 CALCIUM 134 140 mg/L GW 2431-12A 2 / 3 0.2 - 0.2 140 NA NA NA -- No NUT

(Subsistence) 7439-89-6 IRON 1.22 1.25 mg/L GW 2431-12A 2 / 3 0.02 - 0.02 1.25 NA 1.10E+01 N NA -- No BSL

7439-92-1 LEAD 0.0004 J 0.0008 J mg/L GW 2431-12A 2 / 3 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0008 NA 1.50E-02 MCL 1.50E-02 MCL Yes AOC

7439-95-4 MAGNESIUM 7.6 7.9 mg/L GW 2431-12A 2 / 3 0.2 - 0.2 7.9 NA NA NA -- No NUT

7440-66-6 ZINC 0.19 0.22 mg/L GW 2431-12A 2 / 3 0.01 - 0.01 0.22 NA 1.10E+01 N NA -- Yes AOC




(4) Federal Maximum Contaminants Level (MCL). When MCL is not available, EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSL) To Be Considered

2004-2005 for Tap Water (December, 2004) are used.

(5) Rationale Codes C = Carcinogenic

N = Noncarcinogenic

Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL) NA = Not available

Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level

Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)

NUT (Essential Nutrient)

Page 1 of 1

008535

Table 2.7




Medium: Transition Zone Soil Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Leaf)




Asparagus 7440-99-9 Aluminum 7.2712 J,v 1287 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 19 / 19 3.09 - 8.7 NA NA NA NA -- No --

(Above Ground) 7440-99-9 Antimony 0.14473 L,J 0.24779 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-25A 5 / 19 0.927 - 2.61 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 ARSENIC 0.05488 L,J 2.223 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 14 / 19 0.1545 - 0.435 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-03- 9 BARIUM 0.30711 L,J 8.8046 MG/KG TC4-BIO-40A 14 / 19 3.09 - 8.7 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-04- 1 BERYLLIUM 0.0030282 L,J 0.2769 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 3 / 19 0.07725 - 0.2175 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-04- 3 CADMIUM 0.6707 J 21.333 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 19 / 19 0.07725 - 0.2175 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

744-07- 0 CALCIUM 1638 6468 MG/KG TC4-BIO-10A 19 / 19 77.25 - 217.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-47-3 CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.06258 L,J 2.262 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 10 / 19 0.1545 - 0.435 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-04- 8 COBALT 0.025338 L,J 2.106 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 6 / 19 0.7725 - 2.175 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-05- 0 COPPER 1.6752 J 3.741 MG/KG TC4-BIO-04A 19 / 19 0.4017 - 1.0875 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-89-6 IRON 19.966 4095 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 19 / 19 1.545 - 4.35 NA NA NA NA -- No --

743-99- 2 LEAD 0.447 J 62.01 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 19 / 19 0.1545 - 0.435 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

743-99- 5 MAGNESIUM 289.107 987.45 MG/KG TC4-BIO-04A 19 / 19 77.25 - 217.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 1.5885 J 124.41 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 19 / 19 0.23175 - 0.6525 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 2 NICKEL 0.11649 L,J 3.666 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 4 / 19 0.618 - 1.74 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 9 POTASSIUM 608.4 J,v 7024.7 J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-03A 19 / 19 98 - 309 NA NA NA NA -- No --

778-24- 9 SELENIUM 0.26885 L,J 0.5364 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-37A 16 / 19 0.5562 - 1.5225 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 Silver 0.05355 L,J 0.663 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 5 / 19 0.1545 - 0.435 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-02- 3 SODIUM 73.071 L,J,v 1283.1 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 15 / 19 77.25 - 217.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 2 VANADIUM 0.02548 L,J 6.201 MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 12 / 19 0.7725 - 2.175 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 6 ZINC 23.3758 J 409.5 J,^ MG/KG TC4-BIO-56A 19 / 19 0.927 - 2.61 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC


(2) No Screening is performed for plant samples COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern


(4) Rationale Codes To Be Considered

Selection Reason: Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) NA = Not available

Deletion Reason:

Page 1 of 1

008536

Table 2.8




Medium: Transition Zone Soil Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Root)




Asparagus 7440-99-9 Aluminum 15.9828 1222.47 J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 19 / 19 3.41 - 8.6 NA NA NA NA -- No --

(Root) 7440-99-9 Antimony 0.16027 L,J 0.3905 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-40C 2 / 19 1.023 - 2.58 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 ARSENIC 0.09962 L,J 1.6497 MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 19 / 19 0.1705 - 0.43 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-03- 9 BARIUM 0.2964 L,J 23.9418 MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 15 / 19 3.41 - 8.6 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-04- 1 BERYLLIUM 0.007514 L,J 0.16497 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 11 / 19 0.08525 - 0.215 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-04- 3 CADMIUM 4.4243 25.915 MG/KG TC4-BIO-40C 19 / 19 0.08525 - 0.215 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

744-07- 0 CALCIUM 454.15 6354.3 MG/KG TC4-BIO-32C 19 / 19 85.25 - 215 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-47-3 CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.2508 2.2419 MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 19 / 19 0.1705 - 0.43 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-04- 8 COBALT 0.07911 L,J 2.1573 MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 16 / 19 0.8525 - 2.15 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-05- 0 COPPER 1.3478 38.8737 MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 19 / 19 0.4433 - 1.075 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-89-6 IRON 113.088 3028.68 MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 19 / 19 1.705 - 4.3 NA NA NA NA -- No --

743-99- 2 LEAD 19.5048 J 1387.44 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 19 / 19 0.1705 - 0.43 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

743-99- 5 MAGNESIUM 152.076 1357.02 MG/KG TC4-BIO-32C 16 / 19 85.25 - 215 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 4.7538 83.331 MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 19 / 19 0.25575 - 0.645 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 Mercury 0.0028 L,J,v 0.040185 L,J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 6 / 17 0.0228 - 0.043 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 2 NICKEL 0.25198 L,J 6.9795 MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 11 / 19 0.682 - 1.72 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 9 POTASSIUM 1340.91 J,v 3475 J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-48C 19 / 19 85.25 - 215 NA NA NA NA -- No --

778-24- 9 SELENIUM 0.20002 L,J 0.4816 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-37C 16 / 19 0.6138 - 1.505 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 Silver 0.04332 L,J 0.30789 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-53C 4 / 19 0.1705 - 0.43 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-02- 3 SODIUM 647.36 9432.9 MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 15 / 19 85.25 - 215 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 2 VANADIUM 0.10716 L,J 3.9339 MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 17 / 19 0.8525 - 2.15 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 6 ZINC 234.107 J,^ 3578.58 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-43C 19 / 19 1.023 - 2.58 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC






Deletion Reason:

Page 1 of 1

008537

Table 2.9




Medium: Transition Zone Soil Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Leaf)




Willow 7440-99-9 Aluminum 0.884 L,J 179.52 J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-42A 18 / 19 5.74 - 10.86 NA NA NA NA -- No --

(Above Ground) 7440-99-9 Antimony 0.27789 L,J 0.27789 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-27A 1 / 19 1.722 - 3.258 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 ARSENIC 0.0987 L,J 0.2688 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-42A 9 / 19 0.287 - 0.543 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-03- 9 BARIUM 0.29202 L,J 3.6292 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-17A 9 / 19 5.74 - 10.86 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-04- 1 BERYLLIUM 0.00574 L,J 0.01104 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-42A 2 / 19 0.1435 - 0.2715 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-04- 3 CADMIUM 1.1515 32.2588 MG/KG TC4-BIO-08A 19 / 19 0.1435 - 0.2715 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

744-07- 0 CALCIUM 2041.68 9408 MG/KG TC4-BIO-42A 19 / 19 143.5 - 271.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --


744-04- 8 COBALT 0.08949 L,J 1.0005 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-49A 12 / 19 1.435 - 2.715 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-05- 0 COPPER 1.608 5.616 MG/KG TC4-BIO-15A 17 / 19 0.7462 - 1.3575 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-89-6 IRON 17.964 J 556.8 MG/KG TC4-BIO-42A 19 / 19 2.87 - 5.43 NA NA NA NA -- No --

743-99- 2 LEAD 0.5226 J,^ 20.213 MG/KG TC4-BIO-45A 17 / 19 0.287 - 0.543 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

743-99- 5 MAGNESIUM 280.308 1200.6 MG/KG TC4-BIO-49A 19 / 19 143.5 - 271.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 2.556 287.79 MG/KG TC4-BIO-05A 19 / 19 0.4305 - 0.8145 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 2 NICKEL 0.28187 L,J 1.0815 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-51A 5 / 19 1.148 - 2.172 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 9 POTASSIUM 1953.86 J,v 5253 J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-51A 19 / 19 143.5 - 271.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --


7440-99-9 Silver 0.072 L,J 0.15965 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-51A 6 / 19 0.287 - 0.543 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-02- 3 SODIUM 174.041 1506.54 MG/KG TC4-BIO-17A 12 / 19 143.5 - 271.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 2 VANADIUM 0.05004 L,J 0.1545 L,J,^ MG/KG TC4-BIO-51A 5 / 19 1.435 - 2.715 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 6 ZINC 67.445 705.55 MG/KG TC4-BIO-51A 19 / 19 1.722 - 3.258 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC






Deletion Reason:

Page 1 of 1

008538

Table 2.10








Willow 7440-99-9 Aluminum 17.7804 571.29 J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-42C 19 / 19 4.45 - 10.86 NA NA NA NA -- No --


7440-99-9 ARSENIC 0.1624 L,J 2.8461 MG/KG TC4-BIO-45C 19 / 19 0.2225 - 0.543 NA NA NA NA -- No --



744-04- 3 CADMIUM 4.8909 132.818 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-27C 19 / 19 0.11125 - 0.2715 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

744-07- 0 CALCIUM 1223.75 17935.8 MG/KG TC4-BIO-45C 19 / 19 111.25 - 271.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-47-3 CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.39668 L,J 3.222 MG/KG TC4-BIO-45C 16 / 19 0.2225 - 0.543 NA NA NA NA -- No --


744-05- 0 COPPER 3.8582 58.032 MG/KG TC4-BIO-19C 19 / 19 0.5785 - 1.3575 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-89-6 IRON 127.588 4510 MG/KG TC4-BIO-23C 19 / 19 2.225 - 5.43 NA NA NA NA -- No --

743-99- 2 LEAD 15.8912 1922.46 MG/KG TC4-BIO-45C 19 / 19 0.2225 - 0.543 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

743-99- 5 MAGNESIUM 228.73 3307.92 MG/KG TC4-BIO-45C 19 / 19 111.25 - 271.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 6.076 181.251 MG/KG TC4-BIO-42C 19 / 19 0.33375 - 0.8145 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 Mercury 0.00515 L,J,v 0.24128 MG/KG TC4-BIO-02C 10 / 16 0.0382 - 0.0543 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 2 NICKEL 2.5296 16.422 MG/KG TC4-BIO-29C 19 / 19 0.89 - 2.172 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 9 POTASSIUM 228.578 J,v 2491.16 J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-15C 18 / 19 111.25 - 271.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

778-24- 9 SELENIUM 0.12172 L,J 1.827 MG/KG TC4-BIO-46C 16 / 19 0.801 - 1.9005 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 Silver 0.20904 L,J 0.7518 MG/KG TC4-BIO-45C 5 / 19 0.2225 - 0.543 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-02- 3 SODIUM 1152.55 J,v 29578 MG/KG TC4-BIO-29C 13 / 19 111.25 - 271.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 2 VANADIUM 0.17052 L,J 3.374 J,^ MG/KG TC4-BIO-51C 14 / 19 1.1125 - 2.715 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 6 ZINC 466.04 13202 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-29C 19 / 19 1.335 - 13.8 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC






Deletion Reason:

Page 1 of 1

008539

Table 2.11




Medium: Transition Zone Soil Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Stalk)




Cattail 7440-99-9 Aluminum 3.3912 L,J 83.385 MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 19 / 19 3.11 - 6.74 NA NA NA NA -- No --

(Above Ground) 7440-99-9 Antimony 0.14079 L,J 1.887 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 5 / 19 0.933 - 2.022 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 ARSENIC 0.03421 L,J 0.714 MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 12 / 19 0.1555 - 0.337 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-03- 9 BARIUM 0.11362 L,J 2.1905 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-12A 9 / 19 3.11 - 6.74 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-04- 1 BERYLLIUM 0.00969 L,J 0.00969 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 1 / 19 0.07775 - 0.1685 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-04- 3 CADMIUM 0.02755 L,J 34.17 MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 14 / 19 0.07775 - 0.1685 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

744-07- 0 CALCIUM 1154.16 3575 MG/KG TC4-BIO-41A 19 / 19 77.75 - 168.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --


744-04- 8 COBALT 0.023014 L,J 1.9635 MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 8 / 19 0.7775 - 1.685 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-05- 0 COPPER 0.6402 L,J 10.3785 MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 17 / 19 0.4043 - 0.8425 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-89-6 IRON 6.0696 J,^ 1932.9 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 19 / 19 1.555 - 3.37 NA NA NA NA -- No --

743-99- 2 LEAD 0.29 L,J 1366.8 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 17 / 19 0.1555 - 0.337 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

743-99- 5 MAGNESIUM 117.135 L,J 374.88 MG/KG TC4-BIO-44A 19 / 19 77.75 - 168.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 4.3924 357.5 MG/KG TC4-BIO-41A 19 / 19 0.23325 - 0.5055 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 2 NICKEL 0.1746 L,J 2.601 MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 7 / 19 0.622 - 1.348 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 9 POTASSIUM 571.2 J,v 4799.6 J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-44A 19 / 19 77.75 - 168.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --


7440-99-9 Silver 0.03421 L,J 0.3825 MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 4 / 19 0.1555 - 0.337 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-02- 3 SODIUM 183.179 J,v 2184.84 MG/KG TC4-BIO-57A 18 / 19 77.75 - 168.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 2 VANADIUM 0.035 L,J 0.408 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 6 / 19 0.7775 - 1.685 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 6 ZINC 13.9518 4411.5 J,^ MG/KG TC4-BIO-55A 19 / 19 0.933 - 6.12 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC






Deletion Reason:

Page 1 of 1

008540

Table 2.12








Cattail 7440-99-9 Aluminum 7.7409 1570.8 J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-41C 18 / 19 2.4 - 9.24 NA NA NA NA -- No --


7440-99-9 ARSENIC 0.11882 L,J 2.9853 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-21C 17 / 19 0.12 - 0.462 NA NA NA NA -- No --



744-04- 3 CADMIUM 0.04185 L,J 249.426 MG/KG TC4-BIO-21C 19 / 19 0.06 - 0.231 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

744-07- 0 CALCIUM 709.9 7295.7 MG/KG TC4-BIO-39C 19 / 19 60 - 231 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-47-3 CHROMIUM, TOTAL 0.264 8.2236 MG/KG TC4-BIO-41C 17 / 19 0.12 - 0.462 NA NA NA NA -- No --


744-05- 0 COPPER 0.341 L,J 65.182 MG/KG TC4-BIO-09C 19 / 19 0.3 - 1.155 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-89-6 IRON 10.292 J 6447.6 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-18C 19 / 19 1.2 - 4.62 NA NA NA NA -- No --

743-99- 2 LEAD 0.8601 J 2759.77 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-09C 19 / 19 0.12 - 0.598 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC

743-99- 5 MAGNESIUM 165.85 2091.37 MG/KG TC4-BIO-47C 19 / 19 60 - 231 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7439-96-5 MANGANESE 7.8752 J 225.811 MG/KG TC4-BIO-14C 19 / 19 0.18 - 0.693 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 Mercury 0.00395 L,J 0.3289 MG/KG TC4-BIO-09C 11 / 15 0.0155 - 0.0457 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 2 NICKEL 0.06045 L,J 18.603 MG/KG TC4-BIO-34C 15 / 19 0.48 - 1.848 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-00- 9 POTASSIUM 382.23 J,v 3309.9 J,v MG/KG TC4-BIO-24C 19 / 19 60 - 231 NA NA NA NA -- No --

778-24- 9 SELENIUM 0.132 L,J 0.7392 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-41C 15 / 19 0.42 - 1.617 NA NA NA NA -- No --

7440-99-9 Silver 0.027807 L,J 0.7488 MG/KG TC4-BIO-34C 6 / 19 0.12 - 0.462 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-02- 3 SODIUM 410.75 48267 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-21C 19 / 19 60 - 697.5 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-02- 8 THALLIUM 0.21528 L,J 0.21528 L,J MG/KG TC4-BIO-34C 1 / 19 0.3 - 1.155 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 2 VANADIUM 0.17366 L,J 9.8868 MG/KG TC4-BIO-41C 13 / 19 0.6 - 2.31 NA NA NA NA -- No --

744-06- 6 ZINC 17.825 J,^ 18414 J MG/KG TC4-BIO-21C 19 / 19 0.93 - 16.74 NA NA NA NA -- Yes AOC






Deletion Reason:

Page 1 of 1

008541

Table 2 SupplementOCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN


Qualifier Code Qualifer Definition

= Analyte detected at the reported concentration. No QC problems were encountered.

B Result is between the MDL and the PQL.

J Result is estimated because of outlying quality control parameters.

J- Result is estimated with a low bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration may be higher than the concentration reported.

J^ Result is estimated with a high bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration may be lower than the concentration reported.

J+ Result is estimated with a high bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration may be lower than the concentration reported.

JB Result is between the MDL and the PQL and is estimated because of outlying quality control parameters

JB+ Result is between the MDL and the PQL and is estimated with a high bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration may be lower than the concentration reported.

Jv Result is estimated with a low bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration may be higher than the concentration reported.

JvW

Result is estimated with a low bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration may be higher than the concentration reported. The result was reported on a dry-weight basis although the sample did not conform to the EPA office of Water definition of a soil sample because of its high water content (>70% moisture).

LJ Result is between the MDL and the CRQL and is estimated because of outlying quality control parameters

LJ^ Result is between the MDL and the CRQL and is estimated with a high bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration may be lower than the concentration reported.

LJv Result is between the MDL and the CRQL and is estimated with a low bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration may be higher than the concentration reported.

LJvW

Result is between the MDL and the CRQL and is estimated with a low bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration may be higher than the concentration reported. The result was reported on a dry-weight basis although the sample did not conform to the EPA office of Water definition of a soil sample because of its high water content (>70% moisture).

LJWResult is between the MDL and the CRQL and is estimated because of outlying quality control parameters. The result was reported on a dry-weight basis although the sample did not conform to the EPA office of Water definition of a soil sample because of its high water content (>70% moisture).

008542

Table 3.1.RMEMEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Chat and Tailings Material Exposure Medium: Surface Material

Exposure Point Chemical Units Arithmeticof Mean

PotentialConcern Value Units Statistic Rationale

Chat Pile & Tailings Ponds CADMIUM mg/kg 7.62E+01 9.35E+01 NP 1.97E+02 = 9.35E+01 mg/kg 95% Cheb-m (5)Surface (0-6 inch) ZINC mg/kg 1.64E+04 1.79E+04 N 4.22E+04 Jv 1.79E+04 mg/kg 95% Stud-t (2)

For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk W Test. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendationsbased on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb); 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m); 99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted for skewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t); 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma); Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)

(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed.(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.

(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.

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

(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"

G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.

N = Normal distribution.

T = Log-normal distribution.

NP = Non-Parametric distribution.

(Qualifier)

Exposure Point ConcentrationMaximum95% UCL(N/T/NP/G) Concentration

Page 1 of 13.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls

Recr_All008543



Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Surface Soil (residential, rural areas, and transition zone) Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue



Small Game (Bird, Rabbit), CADMIUM mg/kg 1.36E+01 2.74E+01 NP 2.48E+02 = 2.74E+01 mg/kg 97.5% Cheb-m (5)Beef (Cattle), and Milk (Dairy) ZINC mg/kg 2.67E+03 5.39E+03 NP 3.92E+04 = 5.39E+03 mg/kg 97.5% Cheb-m (5)











(Qualifier)


Revised 02/09/2006 Page 1 of 1TC_HHRA_DraftFinalRA_AppendixO_3-2.3-2a.3-3_RAGS-D.xls

BUM_All

008544

Table 3.2A.RMEMEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY


Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Surface Soil (smelter affected soil) Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue



Small Game (Bird, Rabbit), CADMIUM mg/kg 3.66E+01 6.22E+01 G 1.39E+02 = 6.22E+01 mg/kg Appo. Gamma (4)Beef (Cattle), and Milk (Dairy) ZINC mg/kg 1.75E+03 2.95E+03 G 7.98E+03 = 2.95E+03 mg/kg Appo. Gamma (4)











(Qualifier)



SASO

008545



Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)



Surface Soil CADMIUM mg/kg 4.05E+00 7.52E+00 NP 4.75E+01 = 4.75E+01 mg/kg Max (7)(General Public) (0-1 inch) ZINC mg/kg 6.46E+02 8.26E+02 T 7.70E+03 = 7.70E+03 mg/kg Max (7)






(7) Maximum detected concentration was used as EPC (see text).






(Qualifier)



Res_SO_GP008546

Table 3.3.RME Supplement AMEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Summary of Modeled Ambient Air ConcentrationsTar Creek, Miami, OK

Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Chat Pile Material and Tailings Exposure Medium: Ambient Air

Exposure Point Chemical Units Arithmetic Maximumof Mean Concentration


Ambient Air CADMIUM ug/m3 2.64E-05 8.08E-05 NP 2.00E-04 8.08E-05 ug/m3 99% Cheb-m (5)ZINC ug/m3 5.70E-03 1.75E-02 NP 4.33E-02 1.75E-02 ug/m3 99% Cheb-m (5)

ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk W Test. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendationsbased on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb); 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m); 99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted for skewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t); 95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma); Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)

(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed.(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.(7) Mean value to be used for lead modeling. NP = Non-Parametric distribution.

95% UCL Exposure Point Concentration(N/T/NP/G)

008547



Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)



Surface Soil CADMIUM mg/kg 2.85E+00 6.89E+00 G 9.60E+00 = 9.60E+00 mg/kg Max (7)(Subsistence)(0-1 inch) ZINC mg/kg 5.28E+02 1.34E+03 G 1.94E+03 = 1.94E+03 mg/kg Max (7)












(Qualifier)



Res_SO_NA

008548



Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater



Private Wells CADMIUM mg/L 8.08E-04 2.83E-03 NP 3.00E-03 = 3.00E-03 mg/L Max (7)(General Public) ZINC mg/L 2.07E-01 6.11E-01 T 1.11E+00 = 1.11E+00 mg/L Max (7)












(Qualifier)



Res_GW_GP

008549



Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater



Private Wells ZINC mg/L 1.38E-01 NA 2.20E-01 = 2.20E-01 mg/L Max (7)

(Subsistence)












(Qualifier)



Res_GW_NA

008550



Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Transition Zone Soil Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Leaf)



Asparagus CADMIUM mg/kg 3.65E+00 5.48E+00 T 2.13E+01 = 5.48E+00 mg/kg App. Gamma (1)(Above Ground) ZINC mg/kg 1.06E+02 1.42E+02 G 4.10E+02 J^ 1.42E+02 mg/kg App. Gamma (3,4)











(Qualifier)



ASP_AG

008551



Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Transition Zone Soil Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Root)



Asparagus CADMIUM mg/kg 1.02E+01 1.25E+01 G 2.59E+01 = 1.25E+01 mg/kg App. Gamma (3,4)(Root) ZINC mg/kg 1.02E+03 1.40E+03 G 3.58E+03 J 1.40E+03 mg/kg App. Gamma (3,4)











(Qualifier)



ASP_RT

008552



Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Transition Zone Soil Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Leaf)



Willow CADMIUM mg/kg 1.20E+01 1.78E+01 G 3.23E+01 = 1.78E+01 mg/kg App. Gamma (3,4)(Above Ground) ZINC mg/kg 4.01E+02 4.67E+02 N 7.06E+02 = 4.67E+02 mg/kg 95% Stud-t (2)











(Qualifier)



WLW_AG

008553






Willow CADMIUM mg/kg 3.45E+01 4.97E+01 G 1.33E+02 J 4.97E+01 mg/kg App. Gamma (3,4)(Root) ZINC mg/kg 3.02E+03 4.62E+03 G 1.32E+04 J 4.62E+03 mg/kg App. Gamma (3,4)











(Qualifier)



WLW_RT

008554



Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Transition Zone Soil Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Stalk)



Cattail CADMIUM mg/kg 1.93E+00 1.98E+01 NP 3.42E+01 = 1.98E+01 mg/kg 99% Cheb-m (5)(Above Ground) ZINC mg/kg 2.70E+02 2.56E+03 NP 4.41E+03 J^ 2.56E+03 mg/kg 99% Cheb-m (5)











(Qualifier)



CT_AG

008555






Cattail CADMIUM mg/kg 2.79E+01 6.11E+01 T 2.49E+02 = 6.11E+01 mg/kg Adj. Gamma (3,4)(Root) ZINC mg/kg 2.45E+03 4.36E+03 G 1.84E+04 J 4.36E+03 mg/kg App. Gamma (3,4)











(Qualifier)



CT_RT

008556

TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE



Medium: Surface Soil

Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion Resident Adult Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3.RME mg/kg See Table 3.3.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =(General Public) (0-1 inch) IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1 0.000001 kg/mg - -

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991

AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) 8,760 days EPA, 1989

Child Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3.RME mg/kg See Table 3.3.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =(0-1 inch) IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 200 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT






AT-C Averaging Time (Cancer) 25,550 days EPA, 1989

Child/Adult Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3.RME mg/kg See Table 3.3.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =(0-1 inch) IR-S-A Ingestion Rate of Soil, Adult 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR-S-Adj x EF x CF1 x 1/AT

IR-S-C Ingestion Rate of Soil, Child 200 mg/day EPA, 1991

IR-S-Adj Ingestion Rate of Soil, Age-adjusted 114.29 mg-year/kg-day Calculated IR-S-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) =

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991 (ED-C x IR-S-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IR-S-A / BW-A)

ED-A Exposure Duration, Adult 24 years EPA, 1991

ED-C Exposure Duration, Child 6 years EPA, 1991


BW-A Body Weight , Adult 70 kg EPA, 1991

BW-C Body Weight, Child 15 kg EPA, 1991


Page 1 of 2

008557

TABLE 4.1.RME








Dermal Resident Adult Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3.RME mg/kg See Table 3.3.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

(General Public) (0-1 inch) SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,700 cm2 EPA, 2004 CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT

SSAF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.07 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2004

DABS Dermal Absorption Factor Solids Chemical specific -- EPA, 2000



ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991


Child Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3.RME mg/kg See Table 3.3.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =(0-1 inch) SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 2,800 cm2 EPA, 2004 CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT



CF1 Conversion Factor 1 0.000001 kg/mg - -EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991





Child/Adult Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3.RME mg/kg See Table 3.3.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =(0-1 inch) SA-A Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Adult 5,700 cm2 EPA, 2004 CS x DA-Adj x DABS x CF1 x EF x 1/AT

SA-C Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Child 2,800 cm2 EPA, 2004

SSAF-A Soil to Skin Adherence Factor, Adult 0.07 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2004 DA-Adj (mg-year/kg-day) =

SSAF-C Soil to Skin Adherence Factor, Child 0.2 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2004 (ED-C x SA-C x SSAF-C / BW-C) +

DA-Adj Dermal Absorption, Age-adjusted 361 mg-year/kg-day Calculated (ED-A x SA-A x SSAF-A / BW-A)



EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991ED-A Exposure Duration, Adult 24 years EPA, 1991





Sources:

EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.

EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.

EPA, 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). Final. EPA/540/R/99/005.

EPA Region 4, 2000: Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins -- Supplement to RAGS, Interim.

Page 2 of 2

008558

TABLE 4.2.RME





Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: Groundwater


Ingestion Resident Adult Private Wells CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.5.RME µg/l See Table 3.5.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

(General Public) IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water 2 liters/day EPA, 1997 CW x IR-W x EF x ED x CF2 x 1/BW x 1/AT



CF2 Conversion Factor 2 0.001 mg/µg - -



Child Private Wells CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.5.RME µg/l See Table 3.5.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water 1 liters/day EPA, 1997 CW x IR-W x EF x ED x CF2 x 1/BW x 1/AT






Child/Adult Private Wells CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.5.RME µg/l See Table 3.5.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IR-W-A Ingestion Rate of Water, Adult 2 liters/day EPA, 1997 CW x IR-W-Adj x EF x CF2 x 1/AT

IR-W-C Ingestion Rate of Water, Child 1 liters/day EPA, 1997

IR-W-Adj Ingestion Rate of Water, Age-adjusted 1.1 liter-year/kg-day calculated IR-W-Adj (liter-year/kd-day) = EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991 (ED-C x IR-W-C / BW-C) +

ED-A Exposure Duration, Adult 24 years EPA, 1991 (ED-A x IR-W-A / BW-A)






Sources:



EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.

Page 1 of 1

008559

TABLE 4.3.RME





Medium: Chat Pile Material and Tailings

Exposure Medium: Ambient Air


Inhalation Resident Adult Ambient Air CA Chemical Concentration in Air See Table 3.3.RME mg/m3 See Table 3.3.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

(General Public) IN Inhalation Rate 20 m3/day EPA, 1991 CA x IN x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT





Child Ambient Air CA Chemical Concentration in Air See Table 3.3.RME mg/m3 See Table 3.3.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IN Inhalation Rate 10 m3/day EPA R6 (1) CA x IN x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT





Child/Adult Ambient Air CA Chemical Concentration in Air See Table 3.3.RME mg/m3 See Table 3.3.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IN-A Inhalation Rate, Adult 20 m3/day EPA, 1991 CA x IN-Adj x EF x 1/AT

IN-C Inhalation Rate, Child 10 m3/day EPA R6 (1)

IN-Adj Inhalation Rate, Age-adjusted 10.9 m3/hour calculated IN-Adj (m3-year/kg-day) =

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991 (ED-C x IN-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IN-A / BW-A)

ED-A Exposure Duration, Adult 24 years EPA, 1991





Sources:



(1) EPA Region 6, Undated: Memorandum, Central Tendency and RME Exposure Parameters.

Page 1 of 1

008560

TABLE 4.4.RME








Ingestion Resident Adult Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.4.RME mg/kg See Table 3.4.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =(Subsistence) (0-1 inch) IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 400 mg/day Harper et al., 2002 CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002

ED Exposure Duration 70 years Harper et al., 2002



AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) 25,550 days Harper et al., 2002

Child Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.4.RME mg/kg See Table 3.4.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =(0-1 inch) IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 400 mg/day Harper et al., 2002 CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT






Child/Adult Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.4.RME mg/kg See Table 3.4.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =(0-1 inch) IR-S-A Ingestion Rate of Soil, Adult 400 mg/day Harper et al., 2002 CS x IR-S-Adj x EF x CF1 x 1/AT

IR-S-C Ingestion Rate of Soil, Child 400 mg/day Harper et al., 2002

IR-S-Adj Ingestion Rate of Soil, Age-adjusted 526 mg-year/kg-day Calculated IR-S-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) =

EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002 (ED-C x IR-S-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IR-S-A / BW-A)

ED-A Exposure Duration, Adult 64 years Harper et al., 2002






Page 1 of 2

008561

TABLE 4.4.RME








Dermal Resident Adult Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.4.RME mg/kg See Table 3.4.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

(Subsistence) (0-1 inch) SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,700 cm2 EPA, 2004 CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x

SSAF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.07 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2004 ED x 1/BW x 1/AT







Child Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.4.RME mg/kg See Table 3.4.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =(0-1 inch) SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 2,800 cm2 EPA, 2004 CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT



CF1 Conversion Factor 1 0.000001 kg/mg - -EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002




Child/Adult Surface Soil CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.4.RME mg/kg See Table 3.4.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =(0-1 inch) SA-A Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Adult 5,700 cm2 EPA, 2004 CS x DA-Adj x DABS x CF1 x EF x 1/AT

SA-C Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Child 2,800 cm2 EPA, 2004

SSAF-A Soil to Skin Adherence Factor, Adult 0.07 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2004 DA-Adj (mg-year/kg-day) =

SSAF-C Soil to Skin Adherence Factor, Child 0.2 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2004 (ED-C x SA-C x SSAF-C / BW-C) +

DA-Adj Dermal Absorption, Age-adjusted 589 mg-year/kg-day Calculated (ED-A x SA-A x SSAF-A / BW-A)









Sources:





Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOl. 22. No. 3.

Page 2 of 2

008562

TABLE 4.5.RME





Medium: Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone)

Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue


Ingestion Resident Adult Small Game (Bird, Rabbit) CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.2.RME mg/kg See Table 3.2.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

(Subsistence) BAF-SMG Bio-accumulation Factor -Small Game chemical specific kg/kg (1) (Cs-game x IR-SMG + Cbeef x IR-BEEF) x ED x EF x 1/BW x 1/AT

* high fish diet IR-SMG Ingestion Rate -Small Game 0.05 kg/day Harper et al., 2002 Small Game Tissue Concentration (Cs-game) (mg/kg) =

EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002 Cs x BAF-SMG (metals)


BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991 Beef Tissue Concentration (Cbeef) (mg/kg) will be estimated

AT-C Averaging Time (Cancer) 25,550 days EPA, 1989 based on concentration in soil in accordance with EPA, 2005.


Beef Cbeef Chemical Concentration in Beef (2) mg/kg (2)

(Cattle) IR-BEEF Ingestion Rate - Beef 0.10 kg/day Harper et al., 2002






Ingestion Resident Adult Small Game (Bird, Rabbit) CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.2.RME mg/kg See Table 3.2.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

(Subsistence) BAF-SMG Bio-accumulation Factor -Small Game chemical specific kg/kg (1) (Cs-game x IR-SMG + Cbeef x IR-BEEF) x ED x EF x 1/BW x 1/AT

* high beef diet IR-SMG Ingestion Rate -Small Game 0.05 kg/day Harper et al., 2002

EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002 Small Game Tissue Concentration (Cs-game) (mg/kg) =

ED Exposure Duration 70 years Harper et al., 2002 Cs x BAF-SMG (metals)


AT-C Averaging Time (Cancer) 25,550 days EPA, 1989 Beef Tissue Concentration (Cbeef) (mg/kg) will be estimated

AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) 25,550 days Harper et al., 2002 based on concentration in soil in accordance with EPA, 2005.

Beef Cbeef Chemical Concentration in Beef (2) mg/kg (2)

(Cattle) IR-BEEF Ingestion Rate - Beef 0.885 kg/day Harper et al., 2002






Sources:



EPA, 2005: Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.


(1) Methodology used to estimate chemical concentrations in Small Game is presented in Table 7.4 Supplement A

(2) Methodology used to estimate chemical concentrations in Beef is presented in Table 7.4 Supplement B

Page 1 of 1008563

TABLE 4.6.RME





Medium: Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone)

Exposure Medium: Milk (Dairy)


Ingestion Resident Child Milk (Dairy) C-DM Chemical Concentration in Milk (Dairy) (1) µg/l (1) CDI (mg/kg-day) =

(Subsistence) IR-DM Ingestion Rate of Milk (Dairy) 0.5 liters/day Harper et al., 2002 C-DM x IR-DM x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year --

ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 1991 Concentration in milk (Cmilk) (mg/kg) will be estimated

CF1 Conversion Factor 1 0.001 mg/µg - - based on concentration in soil in accordance with EPA, 2005.




Sources:




EPA, 2005: Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.


(1) Methodology used to estimate chemical concentrations in Beef is presented in Table 7.4 Supplement B

Page 1 of 1

008564

TABLE 4.7.RME





Medium: Chat Pile material and Tailings

Exposure Medium: Ambient Air


Inhalation Resident Adult Ambient Air CA Chemical Concentration in Air See Table 3.7.RME mg/m3 See Table 3.7.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

(Subsistence) IN Inhalation Rate 30 m3/day Harper et al., 2002 CA x IN x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT





Child Ambient Air CA Chemical Concentration in Air See Table 3.7.RME mg/m3 See Table 3.7.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IN Inhalation Rate 10 m3/day EPA R6 (1) CA x IN x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT





Child/Adult Ambient Air CA Chemical Concentration in Air See Table 3.7.RME mg/m3 See Table 3.7.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IN-A Inhalation Rate, Adult 30 m3/day Harper et al., 2002 CA x IN-Adj x EF x 1/AT

IN-C Inhalation Rate, Child 10 m3/day EPA R6 (1)

IN-Adj Inhalation Rate, Age-adjusted 31.4 m3/hour calculated IN-Adj (m3-year/kg-day) =

EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002 (ED-C x IN-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IN-A / BW-A)






Sources:




(1) EPA Region 6, Undated: Memorandum, Central Tendency and RME Exposure Parameters.

Page 1 of 1

008565

TABLE 4.8.RME





Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: Groundwater


Ingestion Resident Adult Private Wells CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.6.RME µg/l See Table 3.6.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

(Subsistence) IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water 4 liters/day Harper et al., 2002 CW x IR-W x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT







Child Private Wells CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.6.RME µg/l See Table 3.6.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water 1 liters/day EPA, 1997 CW x IR-W x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT







Child/Adult Private Wells CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.6.RME µg/l See Table 3.6.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IR-W-A Ingestion Rate of Water, Adult 4 µg/l Harper et al., 2002 CW x IR-W-Adj x EF x CF1 x 1/AT

IR-W-C Ingestion Rate of Water, Child 1 liters/day EPA, 1997

IR-W-Adj Ingestion Rate of Water, Age-adjusted 4.1 liter-year/kg-day calculated IR-W-Adj (liter-year/kd-day) = EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002 (ED-C x IR-W-C / BW-C) +

ED-A Exposure Duration, Adult 64 years Harper et al., 2002 (ED-A x IR-W-A / BW-A)






Sources:





Page 1 of 1

008566

TABLE 4.9.RME





Medium: Aquatic Biota

Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue/Aquatic Food


Ingestion Resident Adult Fish Tissue Cfish Chemical Concentration in Fish Tissue (1) mg/kg-fish ODEQ, 2003 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

(Subsistence) IR-F Fish Ingestion Rate 0.885 kg-fish/day Harper et al., 2002 Cfish x IR-F x ED x EF x 1/BW x 1/AT

* high fish diet EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002





Aquatic Food Tissue Csed Chemical Concentration in Sediment (2) mg/kg-sed ODEQ, 2003 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

(Mussels etc.) BAF-AI Bio-accumulation Factor (Aquatic Invertebrates) chemical specific kg/kg-tissue (2) Caquatic food x IR-F x ED x EF x 1/BW x 1/AT

IR-AF Aquatic Food (Mussels, Crayfish) Ingestion Rate 0.175 kg-food/day Harper et al., 2002 Aquatic Food Concentration (Caquatic food) (mg/kg) =

EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002 Csed x BCF-AI (metals)





Ingestion Resident Adult Fish Tissue Cfish Chemical Concentration in Fish Tissue (1) mg/kg-fish ODEQ, 2003 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

(Subsistence) IR-F Fish Ingestion Rate 0.075 kg-fish/day Harper et al., 2002 Cfish x IR-F x ED x EF x 1/BW x 1/AT

* high beef diet EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002





Aquatic Food Tissue Csed Chemical Concentration in Sediment (2) mg/kg-sed ODEQ, 2003 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

(Mussels etc.) BAF-AI Bio-accumulation Factor (Aquatic Invertebrates) chemical specific kg/kg-tissue (2) Caquatic food x IR-F x ED x EF x 1/BW x 1/AT

IR-AF Aquatic Food (Mussels, Crayfish) Ingestion Rate 0.175 kg-food/day Harper et al., 2002 Aquatic Food Concentration (Caquatic food) (mg/kg) =

EF Exposure Frequency 365 days/year Harper et al., 2002 Csed x BCF-AI (metals)





Sources:




ODEQ. 2003. Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area. FY 2003. Final Report.

(1) Concentrations used for intake calculation are presented in Table 7.4 Supplement E.

(2) Methodology used to estimate chemical concentrations in Aquatic Invertebrates is presented in Table 7.4 Supplement D

Page 1 of 1008567

TABLE 4.10.RME





Medium: Transition Zone Soil

Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Leaf & Root)


Ingestion Resident Adult Asparagus Cplant1 Chemical Concentration in Asparagus (above ground) See Table 3.7.RME mg/kg Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

(Subsistence) Cplant1-root Chemical Concentration in Asparagus (root). See Table 3.8.RME mg/kg See Table 3.8.RME

IR-P1 Ingestion Rate -Asparagus (above ground) 0.27 kg/day Harper et al., 2002 (1) Σ (Cplant x IR-P) x ED x EF x 1/BW x 1/AT

IR-P1root Ingestion Rate -Asparagus (root) 0.27 kg/day Harper et al., 2002 (1)






Willow Cplant2 Chemical Concentration in Willow (above ground) See Table 3.9.RME mg/kg See Table 3.9.RME

Cplant2-root Chemical Concentration in Willow (root). See Table 3.10.RME mg/kg See Table 3.10.RME

IR-P2 Ingestion Rate -Willow (above ground) 0.27 kg/day Harper et al., 2002 (1)

IR-P2root Ingestion Rate -Willow (root) 0.27 kg/day Harper et al., 2002 (1)






Cattail Cplant3 Chemical Concentration in Cattail (above ground) See Table 3.11.RME mg/kg See Table 3.11.RME

Cplant3-root Chemical Concentration in Cattail (root). See Table 3.12.RME mg/kg See Table 3.12.RME

IR-P3 Ingestion Rate -Cattail (above ground) 0.27 kg/day Harper et al., 2002 (1)

IR-P3root Ingestion Rate -Cattail (root) 0.27 kg/day Harper et al., 2002 (1)






Sources:




(1) Composition of Total Plant Intake of 1,600 g/day was equally divided as follows:

Asparagus (above ground) - 16.7%, (root) - 16.7%

Willow (above ground) - 16.7%, (root) - 16.7%

Cattail (above ground) - 16.7%, (root) - 16.7%

Page 1 of 1008568

TABLE 4.11.RME





Medium: Chat and Tailings Material

Exposure Medium: Surface Material


Ingestion Recreator Adolescent Chat Pile & Tailings Ponds CM Chemical Concentration in Material See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =Surface (0-6 inch) IR-S Ingestion Rate of Material 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CM x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

EF Exposure Frequency 184 days/year (1)

ED Exposure Duration 11 years (2)


BW Body Weight 47 kg (3)



Dermal Recreator Adolescent Chat Pile & Tailings Ponds CM Chemical Concentration in Material See Table 3.1.RME mg/kg See Table 3.1.RME CDI (mg/kg-day) =Surface (0-6 inch) SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,300 cm2 EPA, 2004 (4) CM x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT

SSAF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.07 mg/cm2-day EPA, 2004 (5)



EF Exposure Frequency 184 days/year (1)

ED Exposure Duration 11 years (2)

BW Body Weight 47 kg (3)



Sources:





(1) Professional Judgment: the average total number of days without rain and above freezing for the years between 1999 and 2003.

(2) Professional Judgment assuming adolescents from 7 to 18 years of age.

(3) Body weight is average value for the 7 year old and 18 year old male and female body weight.

(4) SA includes head, hands, forearms, lower legs, and feet.

(5) SSAF for children (1-6 year old).

Page 1 of 1

008569

TABLE 5.1NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL


Chemical Chronic/ Oral RfD Oral Absorption Absorbed RfD for Dermal (2) Primary Combined RfD:Target Organ(s)of Potential Subchronic Efficiency for Dermal Target Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Value Units Value Units Organ(s) Factors Source(s) Date(s)

(1) (MM/DD/YYYY)

Cadmium (water) Chronic 5.0E-04 mg/kg-day 0.05 2.5E-05 mg/kg-day Kidney 10/1 IRIS 10/10/2005

Cadmium (food) Chronic 1.0E-03 mg/kg-day 0.025 2.5E-05 mg/kg-day Kidney 10/1 IRIS 10/10/2005

Zinc Chronic 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day highly variable 3.0E-01 mg/kg-day Circulatory 3/1 IRIS 10/10/2005

Footnote Instructions:

(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Definitions: NA = Not Available

Evalution Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment (Final). IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1. USEPA recommends that the oral RfD should not be adjusted to

estimate the absorbed dose for compounds when the absorption efficiency is greater than 50%.

Constituents that do not have oral absorption efficiencies reported on this table

were assumed to have an oral absorption efficiency of 100%.

(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed RfD for Dermal"

Page 1 of 1008570

TABLE 5.2NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION


Chemical Chronic/ Inhalation RfC Extrapolated RfD (1) Primary Combined RfC : Target Organ(s)of Potential Subchronic Target Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Value Units Value Units Organ(s) Factors Source(s) Date(s)(MM/DD/YYYY)

Cadmium Chronic 2.0E-04 mg/m3 5.7E-05 mg/kg-day Kidney 10 NCEA 06/14/1998

Zinc Chronic NA NA NA NA NA NA IRIS 10/10/2005

(1) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Extrapolated RfD". Definitions: NA = Not Available

IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment

Page 1 of 1008571

TABLE 6.1CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL


Chemical Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral Absorption Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Evidence/ Oral CSFof Potential Efficiency for Dermal for Dermal Cancer Guideline

Concern Value Units (1) Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)(MM/DD/YYYY)

Cadmium NA NA NA NA NA B1 IRIS 10/10/2005

Zinc NA NA NA NA NA D IRIS 10/10/2005

(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Definitions: NA = Not Available

Evalution Manual (Part E, Supplemetnal Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment( Final). IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1. USEPA recommends that the oral RfD should not be adjusted to

estimate the absorbed dose for compounds when the absorption efficiency is greater than 50%.

Constituents that do not have oral absorption efficiencies reported on this table

were assumed to have an oral absorption efficiency of 100%.

(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed RfD for Dermal"

Weight of Evidence definitions:

Group A chemicals (known human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence to support the causal association between exposure to the agents in humans and cancer.

Group B1 chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is limited evidence of possible carcinogenicity in humans.

Group B2 chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals but inadequate or a lack of evidence in humans.

Group C chemicals (possible human carcinogens) are agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or a lack of human data.

Group D chemicals (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) are agents with inadequate human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity or for which no data are available.

Group E chemicals (evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans) are agents for which there is no evidence of carcinogenicity from human or animal studies, or both.

Page 1 of 1008572

TABLE 6.2CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION


Chemical Unit Risk Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Evidence/ Unit Risk : Inhalation CSFof Potential Cancer Guideline

Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)(MM/DD/YYYY)

Cadmium 1.8E-03 (µg/m3)-1 6.3E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 B1 IRIS 10/10/2005

Zinc NA NA NA NA D IRIS 10/10/2005

Definitions: NA = Not Available

IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

Weight of Evidence definitions:

Group A chemicals (known human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence to support the causal association between exposure to the agents in humans and cancer.

Group B1 chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is limited evidence of possible carcinogenicity in humans.

Group B2 chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals but inadequate or a lack of evidence in humans.

Group C chemicals (possible human carcinogens) are agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or a lack of human data.

Group D chemicals (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) are agents with inadequate human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity or for which no data are available.

Group E chemicals (evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans) are agents for which there is no evidence of carcinogenicity from human or animal studies, or both.

Page 1 of 1008573

TABLE 7.1.RME

CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS




Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)

Receptor Age: Adult

Medium 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

Surface Soil Surface Soil (Yards) Surface Soil Ingestion Cadmium 4.8E+01 MG/KG NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 6.5E-05 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 6.5E-02

(0-1 inch) Zinc 7.7E+03 MG/KG NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.1E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 3.5E-02

Exp. Route Total 0.0E+00 1.0E-01

Dermal Cadmium 4.8E+01 MG/KG NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.6E-07 mg/kg/day 2.5E-05 mg/kg/day 1.0E-02

Zinc 7.7E+03 MG/KG NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 4.2E-05 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1.4E-04


Exposure Point Total 0.0E+00 1.1E-01

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 1.1E-01

Surface Soil Total 0.0E+00 1.1E-01

Chat Ambient Air Ambient Air Inhalation Cadmium 8.1E-08 MG/M3 NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.2E-08 mg/kg/day 5.7E-05 mg/kg/day 3.9E-04

and Tailings Zinc 1.7E-05 MG/M4 NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 4.8E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA

Material




Chat and Tailings Total 0.0E+00 3.9E-04

Groundwater Groundwater Private Wells Ingestion Cadmium 3.00E+00 UG/L NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 8.2E-05 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 1.6E-01

Zinc 1.11E+03 UG/L NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 3.0E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1.0E-01




Groundwater Total 0.0E+00 2.7E-01

Receptor Total 0.0E+00 3.8E-01

NA = Not applicable.

Page 1 of 1

008574

TABLE 7.2.RME






Receptor Age: Child










Exposure Point Total 0.0E+00 1.0E+00

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 1.0E+00

Surface Soil Total 0.0E+00 1.0E+00

Chat Ambient Air Ambient Air Inhalation Cadmium 8.1E-08 MG/M3 NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 5.2E-08 mg/kg/day 5.7E-05 mg/kg/day 9.1E-04


Material




Chat and Tailings Total 0.0E+00 9.1E-04

Groundwater Groundwater Private Wells Ingestion Cadmium 3.00E+00 UG/L NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.9E-04 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01

Zinc 1.11E+03 UG/L NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 7.1E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 2.4E-01





Receptor Total 0.0E+00 1.6E+00


Page 1 of 1

008575

TABLE 7.3.RME






Receptor Age: Adult/Child




Surface Soil Surface Soil (Yards) Surface Soil Ingestion Cadmium 4.8E+01 MG/KG 7.4E-05 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA NA mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA

(0-1 inch) Zinc 7.7E+03 MG/KG 1.2E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA NA mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA

Exp. Route Total 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Dermal Cadmium 4.8E+01 MG/KG 5.6E-06 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA NA mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA

Zinc 7.7E+03 MG/KG 9.1E-04 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA NA mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA





Chat Ambient Air Ambient Air Inhalation Cadmium 8.1E-08 MG/M3 1.2E-08 mg/kg/day 6.3E+00 1/(mg/kg-day) 7.6E-08 NA mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA

and Tailings Zinc 1.7E-05 MG/M4 2.6E-06 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA NA mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA

Material

Exp. Route Total 7.6E-08 0.0E+00

Exposure Point Total 7.6E-08 0.0E+00

Exposure Medium Total 7.6E-08 0.0E+00

Chat and Tailings Total 7.6E-08 0.0E+00

Groundwater Groundwater Private Wells Ingestion Cadmium 3.00E+00 UG/L 4.5E-05 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA NA mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA

Zinc 1.11E+03 UG/L 1.7E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA NA mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA




Groundwater Total 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Receptor Total 7.6E-08 0.0E+00

Page 1 of 1

008576

TABLE 7.4.RME





Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)

Receptor Age: Adult


Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfCHazard Quotient


Surface Soil Surface Soil (Yards) Surface Soil Ingestion Cadmium 9.6E+00 MG/KG 7.2E-05 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 5.5E-05 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 5.5E-02

(0-1 inch) Zinc 1.9E+03 MG/KG 1.5E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.1E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 3.7E-02


Dermal Cadmium 9.6E+00 MG/KG 5.2E-06 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 5.5E-08 mg/kg/day 2.5E-05 mg/kg/day 2.2E-03

Zinc 1.9E+03 MG/KG 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.1E-05 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 3.7E-05





Chat Pile material Ambient Air Ambient Air Inhalation Cadmium 8.1E-08 MG/M3 3.6E-08 mg/kg/day 6.3E+00 1/(mg/kg-day) 2.3E-07 3.5E-08 mg/kg/day 5.7E-05 mg/kg/day 6.1E-04

and Tailings Zinc 1.7E-05 MG/M3 7.9E-06 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 7.5E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA

Exp. Route Total 2.3E-07 6.1E-04

Exposure Point Total 2.3E-07 6.1E-04

Exposure Medium Total 2.3E-07 6.1E-04

Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total 2.3E-07 6.1E-04

Surface Soil (residential, Animal Tissue Small Game Ingestion Cadmium 6.1E+02 MG/KG 4.0E-01 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 4.4E-07 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 4.4E-04

smelter, transition zone) (Bird, Rabbit) Zinc 2.8E+04 MG/KG 1.8E+01 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.0E-05 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 6.7E-05



Beef (Cattle) Ingestion Cadmium 1.3E-02 MG/KG 1.7E-05 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.8E-11 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 1.8E-08

* high fish diet Zinc 1.4E+00 MG/KG 1.8E-03 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.0E-09 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 6.5E-09




* high beef diet Zinc 1.4E+00 MG/KG 1.6E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.7E-08 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 5.8E-08



Exposure Medium Total (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 5.0E-04

Exposure Medium Total (High Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 5.0E-04

Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 5.0E-04

Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total (HIgh Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 5.0E-04


008577

TABLE 7.4.RME






Receptor Age: Adult




Plant Tissue Asparagus (above ground) Ingestion Cadmium 5.5E+00 MG/KG 1.9E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.1E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 2.1E+01

Transition Zone Zinc 1.4E+02 MG/KG 5.0E-01 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 5.5E-01 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1.8E+00

Asparagus (root) Ingestion Cadmium 1.2E+01 MG/KG 4.4E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 4.8E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 4.8E+01

Zinc 1.4E+03 MG/KG 4.9E+00 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 5.4E+00 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1.8E+01



Willow (above ground) Ingestion Cadmium 1.8E+01 MG/KG 6.3E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 6.9E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 6.9E+01


Willow (root) Ingestion Cadmium 5.0E+01 MG/KG 1.8E-01 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.9E-01 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 1.9E+02




Cattail (above ground) Ingestion Cadmium 2.0E+01 MG/KG 7.0E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 7.6E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 7.6E+01


Cattail (root) Ingestion Cadmium 6.1E+01 MG/KG 2.2E-01 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.4E-01 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 2.4E+02





Transition Zone Total 0.0E+00 8.2E+02

Aquatic Biota Fish Tissue/Aquatic Food Aquatic Food Tissue Ingestion Cadmium 1.6E+00 MG/KG 3.7E-03 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 4.0E-03 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 4.0E+00

(Mussels etc.) Zinc 7.8E+01 MG/KG 1.8E-01 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.0E-01 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 6.5E-01



Fish Tissue Ingestion Cadmium 1.7E-01 MG/KG 2.0E-03 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.2E-03 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 2.2E+00

* high fish diet Zinc 2.1E+01 MG/KG 2.5E-01 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.7E-01 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 9.0E-01



Fish Tissue Ingestion Cadmium 1.7E-01 MG/KG 1.7E-04 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.8E-04 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 1.8E-01

* high beef diet Zinc 2.1E+01 MG/KG 2.1E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.3E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 7.6E-02



Exposure Medium Total (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 7.7E+00

Exposure Medium Total (High Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 5.0E+00

Aquatic Biota (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 7.7E+00

Aquatic Biota (HIgh Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 5.0E+00

Groundwater Groundwater Private Wells Ingestion Zinc 2.20E-01 UG/L 1.6E+00 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.3E-05 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 4.2E-05





Receptor Total (High Fish Diet) 2.3E-07 8.2E+02

REceptor Total (High Beef Diet) 2.3E-07 8.2E+02


008578

TABLE 7.4.RME






Receptor Age: Adult






008579

Table 7.4.RME Supplement AEstimation of Chemical Concentrations in Small Game (Bird and Rabbit)Tar Creek, Miami, OK

Small Mammal

ChemicalSoil Concentration

(mg/kg) 1

Soil-Small Mammal Accumulation Factor

(BAF)

Measure Measure/ReferenceConcentration in Small Mammal

(mg/kg)

Cadmium 3.6E+01 7.0E+01 Insectivorous & generalist mammal Sample et al. 1998b 2.49E+03Lead 3.1E+03 2.7E+00 Insectivorous & generalist mammal Sample et al. 1998b 8.23E+03Zinc 5.3E+03 1.6E+01 Herbivorous & generalist mammal Sample et al. 1998b 8.68E+04

Notes:1 Soil Exposure Point Concentrations are based on 95% UCL of the mean (see Table 3.2).mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.

Equation: Concentration in Small Mammal = Soil Concentration x BAF

References:Sample, B. E., J. J. Beauchamp, R. A. Efroymson and G. W. Suter. 1998b. Development and validation of bioaccumulation models for small mammals. Oak Ridge, TN: Lockheed Martin Corp.

DRAFT - Discussion Purposes Only 1 of 17.4 Supplements_Intake_Suppl draft final.xls (SmallGame)

10/31/2005 10:17 AM

008580

Table 7.4.RME Supplement BEstimation of Chemical Concentrations in Beef and Milk (dairy)Tar Creek, Miami, OK

Beef and Milk

Chemical

Soil Exposure Point

Concentration (Cs) 1

BTF for Forage (Brforage)

Concentration in Forage

(Pr)BTF for Beef

(Babeef)BTF for Milk

(Bamilk)

Concentration in Beef (Abeef)

Concentration in Milk

(Amilk)Cadmium 3.6E+01 3.64E-01 1.3E+01 1.2E-04 6.5E-06 1.7E-02 9.0E-04Lead 3.1E+03 4.50E-02 1.4E+02 3.0E-04 2.5E-04 8.5E-01 7.1E-01Zinc 5.3E+03 2.50E-01 1.3E+03 9.0E-05 3.3E-05 1.3E+00 4.9E-01Notes:1 Soil Exposure Point Concentrations are based on 95% UCL of the mean (see Table 3.2).

Equations:Abeef = [Σ (Fi x Qpi x Pr) + Qs x Cs x Bs ] x Babeef x MFAmilk = [Σ (Fi x Qpi x Pr) + Qs x Cs x Bs ] x Bamilk x MFPr = Cs x Br

where:Abeef Concentration in beef (mg/kg FW tissue) CalculatedAmilk Concentration in milk (mg/kg milk) Calculated

Pr Concentration in forage due to root uptake (mg/kg) CalculatedFi Fraction of forage grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (cattle) (unitless) 1

Qpi Quantity of forage eaten by the animal (cattle) per day (kg DW plant/day) 9.27Pi Concentration in each plant type I eaten by the animal (cattle) (mg/kg DW) Calculated

Qs Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (cattle) each day (kg/day) 0.5Cs Average soil concentration over exposure duration (mg/kg) EPC (Table 3.2)Bs Soil bioavailability factor (unitless) 1

Babeef Biotransfer factor for beef (day/kg FW tissue) (see above)Bamilk Biotransfer factor for milk (day/kg WW tissue) (see above)

MF Metabolism factor (unitless) 1Brforage Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for forage (unitless) (see above)

Equations and input parameters are obtained from EPA, 2005.

References: EPA, 2005: Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.

DRAFT - Discussion Purposes Only 1 of 17.4 Supplements_Intake_Suppl draft final.xls (Beef-Milk)

10/31/2005 10:17 AM

008581

Table 7.4.RME Supplement CConcentrations Used to Estimate Chemical Intake Through Ingestion of Locally Caught FishTar Creek, Miami, OK

Fish (All sample preparations) 1

Chemical

Data Set Used for the

AnalysisNumber of Detection

Number of Analysis

Minimum Detected

Concentration (mg/kg)

Maximum Detected


Mean Concentration

(mg/kg) 2

Cadmium All 5 77 0.30 0.84 0.17Lead All 28 75 0.25 3.50 0.43Zinc All 77 77 3.50 70.0 21.3

Notes:1 All Sample Preparations (Fillet, Whole-eviscerated, Whole-uneviscerated)2 The Average Concentrations were used as exposure point concentrations.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.

Reference: Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area FY 2003 Final Report (Oklahoma DEQ, 2003).

008582

Table 7.4.RME Supplement DEstimation of Chemical Concentrations in Aquatic Food using Log-linear Regression Models for Bioaccumulation FactorsTar Creek, Miami, OK

Aquatic Biota (Invertebrate)

ChemicalData Set Used for

the Analysis

Sediment Concentration

(mg/kg) 1, 2 B0 B1

Concentration in Aquatic biota

(mg/kg)Cadmium All 4.0E+00 0.0395 0.692 2.72E+00Lead All 2.9E+01 -0.776 0.801 6.83E+00Zinc All 3.6E+02 1.80 0.208 2.06E+01

Notes:1 Sediment Concentrations were obtained from ODEQ, 2003.2 The Average Detected Concentrations were used.All values are reported as dry weight.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.

Equation: Log (Concentration in aquatic biota) = B1*(ln[Site Specific Sediment Concentration]) + B0 where: B0 = Slope. B1 = Intercept.

References: Bechtel Jacobs, 1998b. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and Recommendations for the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. BJC/OR-112. August, 1998.

Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area FY 2003 Final Report (Oklahoma DEQ, 2003).

DRAFT - Discussion Purposes Only 1 of 17.4 Supplements_Intake_Suppl draft final.xls (AquaInvert.)

10/31/2005 10:20 AM

008583

TABLE 7.5.RME






Receptor Age: Child




Surface Soil Surface Soil (Yards) Surface Soil Ingestion Cadmium 9.6E+00 MG/KG 2.2E-05 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.6E-04 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 2.6E-01

(0-1 inch) Zinc 1.9E+03 MG/KG 4.4E-03 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 5.2E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1.7E-01








Chat Pile material Ambient Air Ambient Air Inhalation Cadmium 8.1E-08 MG/M3 4.7E-09 mg/kg/day 6.3E+00 1/(mg/kg-day) 2.9E-08 5.4E-08 mg/kg/day 5.7E-05 mg/kg/day 9.5E-04

and Tailings Zinc 1.7E-05 MG/M3 1.0E-06 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.2E-05 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA

Exp. Route Total 2.9E-08 9.5E-04

Exposure Point Total 2.9E-08 9.5E-04

Exposure Medium Total 2.9E-08 9.5E-04

Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total 2.9E-08 9.5E-04

Surface Soil (residential, Milk (Dairy) Milk (Dairy) Ingestion Cadmium 6.90E-04 UG/L 2.0E-06 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.3E-05 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 4.6E-02

smelter, transition zone) Zinc 4.94E-01 UG/L 1.4E-03 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.6E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 5.5E-02




Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total 0.0E+00 1.0E-01

Groundwater Groundwater Private Wells Ingestion Zinc 2.20E-01 UG/L 1.3E-06 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.5E-05 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 4.9E-05





Receptor Total 2.9E-08 5.4E-01



008584

TABLE 7.6.RME





Receptor Population: Recreator

Receptor Age: Adolescent




Chat and Tailings Surface Material Chat & Tailings Ponds Ingestion Cadmium 9.3E+01 MG/KG 1.6E-05 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.0E-04 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 1.0E-01

Material Surface (0-6 inch) Zinc 1.8E+04 MG/KG 3.0E-03 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.9E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 6.4E-02







Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total 0.0E+00 1.8E-01



Page 1 of 1

008585

TABLE 7.7.RME




Scenario Timeframe: Future


Receptor Age: Adult













Chat Pile Material Ambient Air Ambient Air Inhalation Cadmium 4.3E-06 MG/M3 NA mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.2E-06 mg/kg/day 5.7E-05 mg/kg/day 2.1E-02









008586

TABLE 7.8.RME






Receptor Age: Child






















008587

TABLE 7.9.RME



















Chat Pile Material Ambient Air Ambient Air Inhalation Cadmium 4.3E-06 MG/M3 6.4E-07 mg/kg/day 6.3E+00 1/(mg/kg-day) 4.0E-06 NA mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA





Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total 4.0E-06 0.0E+00



008588

TABLE 7.10.RME






Receptor Age: Adult






















008589

TABLE 7.11.RME






Receptor Age: Child






















008590

TABLE 7.12.RME



















Chat Pile Material Ambient Air Ambient Air Inhalation Cadmium 4.3E-06 MG/M3 1.9E-06 mg/kg/day 6.3E+00 1/(mg/kg-day) 1.2E-05 NA mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA





Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total 1.2E-05 0.0E+00



008591

TABLE 9.1.RME

SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs





Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Surface Soil Surface Soil (Yards) Surface Soil Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 6.5E-02 NA 1.0E-02 7.5E-02

(0-1 inch) Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 3.5E-02 NA 1.4E-04 3.5E-02

Exposure Point Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E-01 NA 1.1E-02 1.1E-01

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E-01 NA 1.1E-02 1.1E-01

Surface Soil Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E-01 NA 1.1E-02 1.1E-01

Target Organ(s)

Chat Ambient Air Ambient Air Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney NA 3.9E-04 NA 3.9E-04

and Tailings Zinc NA NA NA NA N/A NA NA NA NA

Material

Chemical Total NA 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 NA 3.9E-04 NA 3.9E-04

Exposure Medium Total NA 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 NA 3.9E-04 NA 3.9E-04

Chat and Tailings Total NA 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 NA 3.9E-04 NA 3.9E-04

Groundwater Groundwater Private Wells Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 1.6E-01 NA NA 1.6E-01

Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 1.0E-01 NA NA 1.0E-01

Exposure Point Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.7E-01 NA 0.0E+00 2.7E-01

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.7E-01 NA 0.0E+00 2.7E-01

Groundwater Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.7E-01 NA 0.0E+00 2.7E-01

Receptor Total 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.7E-01 3.9E-04 1.1E-02 3.8E-01

Total Circulatory HI Across Media = 1E-01

Total Kidney HI Across Media = 2E-01

Page 1 of 1

008592

TABLE 9.2.RME






Receptor Age: Child







Exposure Point Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 9.4E-01 NA 6.9E-02 1.0E+00

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 9.4E-01 NA 6.9E-02 1.0E+00

Surface Soil Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 9.4E-01 NA 6.9E-02 1.0E+00

Target Organ(s)

Chat Ambient Air Ambient Air Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney NA 9.1E-04 NA 9.1E-04


Material



Chat and Tailings Total NA 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 NA 9.1E-04 NA 9.1E-04

Groundwater Groundwater Private Wells Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 3.8E-01 NA NA 3.8E-01





Receptor Total 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.6E+00 9.1E-04 6.9E-02 1.6E+00


Total Kidney HI Across Media = 1E+00

Page 1 of 1

008593

TABLE 9.3.RME











Routes Total

Surface Soil Surface Soil (Yards) Surface Soil Cadmium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

(0-1 inch) Zinc NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exposure Point Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Surface Soil Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Target Organ(s)

Chat Ambient Air Ambient Air Cadmium NA 7.6E-08 NA 7.6E-08 NA NA NA NA NA

and Tailings Zinc NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Material

Chemical Total NA 7.6E-08 NA 7.6E-08 NA 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00

Exposure Medium Total NA 7.6E-08 NA 7.6E-08 NA 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00

Chat and Tailings Total NA 7.6E-08 NA 7.6E-08 NA 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00

Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Private Wells Cadmium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Zinc NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exposure Point Total NA NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Exposure Medium Total NA NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Groundwater Total NA NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Receptor Total 0.0E+00 7.6E-08 0.0E+00 7.6E-08 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

Page 1 of 1

008594

TABLE 9.4.RME




Scenario Timeframe: Current/FutureReceptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)

Receptor Age: Adult










Target Organ(s)

Chat Pile material Ambient Air Ambient Air Cadmium NA 2.3E-07 NA 2.3E-07 Kidney NA 6.1E-04 NA 6.1E-04


Chemical Total NA 2.3E-07 NA 2.3E-07 NA 6.1E-04 NA 6.1E-04

Exposure Medium Total NA 2.3E-07 NA 2.3E-07 NA 6.1E-04 NA 6.1E-04

Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total NA 2.3E-07 NA 2.3E-07 NA 6.1E-04 NA 6.1E-04

Target Organ(s)

Surface Soil (residential, Animal Tissue Small Game Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 4.4E-04 NA NA 4.4E-04

smelter, transition zone) (Bird, Rabbit) Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 6.7E-05 NA NA 6.7E-05

Chemical Total 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 5.0E-04 NA NA 5.0E-04

Target Organ(s)

Beef (Cattle) Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 1.8E-08 NA NA 1.8E-08

* high fish diet Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 6.5E-09 NA NA 6.5E-09


Target Organ(s)


* high Beef diet Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 5.8E-08 NA NA 5.8E-08


Exposure Medium Total (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 5.0E-04 NA NA 5.0E-04

Exposure Medium Total (High Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 5.0E-04 NA NA 5.0E-04

Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 5.0E-04 NA NA 5.0E-04

Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total (HIgh Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 5.0E-04 NA NA 5.0E-04


008595

TABLE 9.4.RME





Receptor Age: Adult





Target Organ(s)

Plant Tissue Asparagus (above ground) Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 2.1E+01 NA NA 2.1E+01

Transition Zone Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 1.8E+00 NA NA 1.8E+00

Asparagus (root) Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 4.8E+01 NA NA 4.8E+01

Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 1.8E+01 NA NA 1.8E+01

Chemical Total 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 8.9E+01 NA NA 8.9E+01

Target Organ(s)

Willow (above ground) Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 6.9E+01 NA NA 6.9E+01


Willow (root) Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 1.9E+02 NA NA 1.9E+02



Target Organ(s)

Cattail (above ground) Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 7.6E+01 NA NA 7.6E+01


Cattail (root) Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 2.4E+02 NA NA 2.4E+02


Chemical Total 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.0E+02 NA NA 4.0E+02

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 8.2E+02 NA NA 8.2E+02

Transition Zone Total 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 8.2E+02 NA NA 8.2E+02

Target Organ(s)

Aquatic Biota Fish Tissue/ Aquatic Food Tissue Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 4.0E+00 NA NA 4.0E+00

Aquatic Food (Mussels etc.) Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 6.5E-01 NA NA 6.5E-01


Target Organ(s)

Fish Tissue Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 2.2E+00 NA NA 2.2E+00



Target Organ(s)

Fish Tissue Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 1.8E-01 NA NA 1.8E-01



Exposure Medium Total (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 7.7E+00 NA NA 7.7E+00

Exposure Medium Total (High Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 5.0E+00 NA NA 5.0E+00


008596

TABLE 9.4.RME





Receptor Age: Adult





Aquatic Biota (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 7.7E+00 NA NA 7.7E+00

Aquatic Biota (HIgh Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 5.0E+00 NA NA 5.0E+00

Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 4.2E-05 NA NA 4.2E-05

Exposure Point Total 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 4.2E-05 NA NA 4.2E-05

Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 4.2E-05 NA NA 4.2E-05

Medium Total 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 4.2E-05 NA NA 4.2E-05

Receptor Total (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 2.3E-07 0.0E+00 2.3E-07 8.2E+02 6.1E-04 2.2E-03 8.2E+02

Receptor Total (High Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 2.3E-07 0.0E+00 2.3E-07 8.2E+02 6.1E-04 2.2E-03 8.2E+02

Total Circulatory HI Across Media (High Fish Diet) = 2E+02

Total Kidney HI Across Media (High Fish Diet) = 6E+02

Total Circulatory HI Across Media (High Beef Diet) = 2E+02

Total Kidney HI Across Media (High Beef Diet) = 6E+02


008597

TABLE 9.5.RME






Receptor Age: Child










Target Organ(s)

Chat Pile material Ambient Air Ambient Air Cadmium NA 2.9E-08 NA 2.9E-08 Kidney NA 9.5E-04 NA 9.5E-04


Chemical Total NA 2.9E-08 NA 2.9E-08 NA 9.5E-04 NA 9.5E-04

Exposure Medium Total NA 2.9E-08 NA 2.9E-08 NA 9.5E-04 NA 9.5E-04

Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total NA 2.9E-08 NA 2.9E-08 NA 9.5E-04 NA 9.5E-04

Surface Soil (residential, Milk (Dairy) Milk (Dairy) Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 4.6E-02 NA NA 4.6E-02

smelter, transition zone) Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 5.5E-02 NA NA 5.5E-02



Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E-01 NA 0.0E+00 1.0E-01

Groundwater Groundwater Private Wells Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 4.9E-05 NA NA 4.9E-05




Receptor Total 0.0E+00 2.9E-08 0.0E+00 2.9E-08 5.3E-01 9.5E-04 1.5E-02 5.4E-01

Total Circulatory HI Across Media = 2.3E-01

Total Kidney HI Across Media = 3.2E-01


008598

TABLE 9.6.RME





Receptor Population: Recreator

Receptor Age: Adolescent





Chat and Tailings Surface Material Chat & Tailings Ponds Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 1.0E-01 NA 1.5E-02 1.2E-01

Material Surface (0-6 inch) Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 6.4E-02 NA 2.4E-04 6.4E-02



Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.6E-01 NA 1.5E-02 1.8E-01

Receptor Total 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.6E-01 NA 1.5E-02 1.8E-01



Page 1 of 1

008599

TABLE 9.7.RME






Receptor Age: Adult










Target Organ(s)

Chat Pile Material Ambient Air Ambient Air Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney NA 2.1E-02 NA 2.1E-02




Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total NA 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00 NA 2.1E-02 NA 2.1E-02





008600

TABLE 9.8.RME






Receptor Age: Child










Target Organ(s)










008601

TABLE 9.9.RME











Routes Total






Target Organ(s)

Chat Pile Material Ambient Air Ambient Air Cadmium NA 4.0E-06 NA 4.0E-06 NA NA NA NA NA




Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total NA 4.0E-06 NA 4.0E-06 NA 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00



008602

TABLE 9.10.RME






Receptor Age: Adult










Target Organ(s)










008603

TABLE 9.11.RME






Receptor Age: Child










Target Organ(s)










008604

TABLE 9.12.RME











Routes Total






Target Organ(s)

Chat Pile Material Ambient Air Ambient Air Cadmium NA 1.2E-05 NA 1.2E-05 NA NA NA NA NA




Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total NA 1.2E-05 NA 1.2E-05 NA 0.0E+00 NA 0.0E+00



008605

TABLE 10.1.RME

RISK SUMMARY



Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)

Receptor Age: Adult





Target Organ(s)


Transition Zones Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 1.8E+00 NA NA 1.8E+00




Target Organ(s)






Target Organ(s)







Transition Zone Total 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 8.2E+02 NA NA 8.2E+02


008606

TABLE 10.1.RME

RISK SUMMARY



Scenario Timeframe: FutureReceptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)

Receptor Age: Adult





Target Organ(s)

Aquatic Biota Fish Tissue/ Aquatic Food Tissue Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 4.0E+00 NA NA 4.0E+00



Target Organ(s)

Fish Tissue Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 2.2E+00 NA NA 2.2E+00



Target Organ(s)




Exposure Medium Total (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 7.7E+00 NA NA 7.7E+00

Exposure Medium Total (High Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 5.0E+00 NA NA 5.0E+00

Aquatic Biota (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 7.7E+00 NA NA 7.7E+00

Aquatic Biota (HIgh Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 5.0E+00 NA NA 5.0E+00

Receptor Total (High Fish Diet) 0.0E+00 2.3E-07 0.0E+00 2.3E-07 8.2E+02 6.1E-04 2.2E-03 8.2E+02

Receptor Total (High Beef Diet) 0.0E+00 2.3E-07 0.0E+00 2.3E-07 8.2E+02 6.1E-04 2.2E-03 8.2E+02



Total Circulatory HI Across Media (High Beef Diet) = 2E+02

Total Kidney HI Across Media (High Beef Diet) = 6E+02


008607

Appendix D Air Emissions

008608





008609

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ 1 OCTOBER 2005 APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC

Appendix D Technical Memorandum Air Emissions Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 4 Ottawa County, Oklahoma PREPARED FOR: Ursula Lennox/USEPA Region 6 RPM PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL, Inc. PREPARED UNDER: EPA Region 5 Response Action Contract No. 68-W6-0025,

Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW DATE: October 19, 2005 DCN NUMBER:: 05-8225

1.0 Background This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the emissions estimates completed by CH2M HILL as part of the activities being completed by EPA under Operable Unit 4 (OU4) at the Tar Creek Superfund Site located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. This work was completed under Contract No. 68-W6-0025, and the approved project work plan and subsequent work plan revisions under Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW.

The Respondents are responsible for completing a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of OU4 under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) that was executed on December 9, 2003 (EPA, 2003). As part of this agreement, EPA is responsible for completing the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). CH2M HILL is working for EPA and is responsible for the HHRA. Air modeling is an important component of the HHRA for this site because of potential air concentrations and deposition into soils. Emissions from sources at the Tar Creek site were used as inputs to the air dispersion modeling analysis for input to the HHRA.

The HHRA examines impacts from lead, cadmium, and zinc. Emissions of particulate matter were estimated and site specific data was used to determine the emissions of the individual compounds.

2.0 Emissions Summary Table D-1 provides a summary of the emissions estimates by individual source, source category, and pollutant. Figure D-1 shows the source locations.

008610


APPENDIX D: AIR EMISSIONS TM


3.0 Methodology Air emissions were determined for a total of 21 major chat piles, five of which are actively used, and 10 flotation tailings ponds (ponds). These sources were selected for estimating air emissions because they were sampled in the summer of 2005.

Particulate emissions were first estimated for each of the source categories. Emissions of individual compounds were estimated as a percentage of the total particulate emissions based on concentrations of these compounds found in the sources.

In the summer of 2005, the respondents, in cooperation with EPA, collected information on soils in the area as reported in Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005). Samples were collected of the bulk chat and surface chat of the existing chat piles. The fine tailings ponds contain two types of fines – flotation tailings and washed fines. Typically the flotation tailings are covered by several feet of washed fines. Samples were collected of both flotation tailings and washed fines. If a fine tailings pond was found to contain mixed fine tailings (i.e. multiple layers of washed fines and flotation tailings) at a sampling site, the material near the surface was sampled and called surface fine tailings. Table D-2 provides a list of source categories and the sampling information used to estimate emissions.

4.0 Emission Calculations by Source Category A description of the emissions calculation methodology and example emission calculations are provided in this section for the following source categories considered:

1. Loading and handling of chat

2. Wind erosion from chat piles and flotation ponds

3. Unpaved and paved roads

4.1 Loading and Handling of Chat Dust emissions from chat piles result from unloading of material onto piles, equipment and recreational traffic in the area, and loading material from the piles for reprocessing were considered. Emissions were estimated using emission factors from AP-42 Section 13.2.4 Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles. These emissions were assumed to only apply to active piles. The five active piles are Admiralty, Atlas, Fisher, Ottawa, and Sooner.

The emission factors in AP-42 Section 13.2.4 include emissions from loading and unloading material at the piles and equipment traffic in the area. Loading/unloading includes truck dumping or conveyor dumping. The emission factor is for total particulate matter (PM), given in units of lb/ton of material in the pile, and has an emission factor rating of “A”. The emission factor is based on aerodynamic particle size, mean wind speed, and material moisture content. Aerodynamic particle size is assumed to be <30 micrometers (µm), the largest particle size range specified. The mean wind speed was estimated using the same meteorological data used for the air dispersion modeling.

008611




Material moisture content was estimated to be 4 percent, based on information in the Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005). This report indicated moisture content of bulk chat in the piles to be 4-11 percent. Since the emissions occur from the surface of the piles and the surface of the piles is drier than the interior, the lower end of the range was chosen. Cadmium, lead, and zinc emissions were estimated assuming that the emissions contained the same amount of cadmium, lead, and zinc as the bulk chat piles. Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the piles were based on individual average bulk chat chemistry information obtained from the Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005).

For material handling of chat piles, the following equations were used:

EF = k x 0.0032 x ((U/5)1.3/(M/2)1.4)

E = EF x Usage x EFF x CC x (1x10-6)

Variable Name Units Description

E lb/year Air emissions of speciated pollutant Usage tons/year Annual quantity of chat handled EF lb/ton Emission factor, pound of pollutant per tons of

material handled k Particle size multiplier U mph Wind speed, miles per hour (mph) EFF % Percent recovery efficiency of cadmium, lead or zinc M % Material moisture content CC mg/kg Chemical concentration of pollutant in chat material Reference: AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA, 5th Edition, Chapter 13 (Jan 1995)

Shown below is a sample calculation for material handling of chat located at the Sooner pile for lead:

Input Data:

k = 0.74 (<30 µm, AP-42, Chapter 13.2.4-3)

U = 7.77 mph (Based on average of five years of meteorological data)

M = 4%

Usage = 80,000 tons/year

CC = 1,610 mg/kg (The Sooner Pile Bulk Chat Average Lead Concentration)

EFF = 88 %/100% = 0.88 (Based on Exponent report, page 4A-4)

EF = k x 0.0032 x ((U/5)1.3/(M/2)1.4)

= 0.74 x 0.0032 x ((7.77/5)1.3/(4/2)1.4)

EF = 0.00159 lb. PM/tons of material

008612




E = EF x Usage x EFF x CC x (1x10-6)

= 0.00159 lb/ton x 80,000 tons/ year x 0.88 x 1,610 mg/kg x 1x10-6 kg/mg

= 0.180 lbs. lead/year

4.2 Wind Erosion Wind erosion of the chat piles and tailings ponds were considered for air emissions. Emissions were estimated using the equation from Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources (EPA, 1988). The maximum pile heights were provided by the Respondent’s. The volume and area (assumed to be the chat pile base area) from the Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005), was used to determine the base radius which was used to calculate the exposed surface area of the pile assuming the pile mimics a cone shape.

Cadmium, lead and zinc emissions were estimated assuming that the emissions contained the same amount of cadmium, lead and zinc as the chat pile surface and tailings pond surface. Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the piles and ponds were based on surface chemistry information obtained from the Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005). Specific surface chemistry for each tailings pond was available and used; however, only seven of the 21 chat piles had surface chemistry data available. Therefore, the average surface chemistry for the combined seven chat pile surfaces was used for the 21 chat piles.

For wind erosion of chat piles and tailings ponds, the following equations were used:

EF = 1.7 x (s/1.5) x (365-p/235) x (f/15)

E = EF x SA x CC x (365) x (1x10-6)


E lb/year Air emissions of speciated pollutant EF lb/acre-day Emission factor, pound of pollutant per acre-day s % Silt content f % Percent of time that the unobstructed wind speed

exceeds 12 mph at the mean pile height(1) p days Number of days with > 0.01 inches of precipitation

per year SA acres Total exposed surface area of piles or tailings ponds

CC mg/kg Chemical concentration of pollutant in surface material

Reference: Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA, 1988. (1) The unobstructed wind speed is correlated to the mean pile height using available meteorological data. The mean pile height is half of the maximum pile height where the maximum pile height is provided by the Respondent’s.

008613




Shown below is a sample calculation for wind erosion of the Sooner chat pile for lead:

Input Data:

s = 10 (Table 13.2.2-1 of AP-42 Section 13.2.2)

p = 100 (Figure 13.2.2-1 of AP-42 Section 13.2.2)

f = 24.5%/100% = 0.245

SA = 90.92 acres

CC = 829 mg/kg

EF = 1.7 x (s/1.5) x (365-p/235) x (f/15)

= 1.7 x (10/1.5) x (365-100/235) x (0.245/15)

EF = 0.2087 lb/acre-day

E = EF x SA x CC x (365) x (1x10-6)

= 0.2087 lb/acre day x 90.92 acres x 829 mg/kg x 365 days/yr x 1x10-6 kg/mg

= 5.74 lb of lead/year

4.3 Unpaved and Paved Roads This source category includes emissions caused by vehicles on unpaved and paved roads transporting raw material from chat piles to some off-site area for processing. Emission factors from AP-42 Section 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads were used to estimate dust emissions from unpaved roads while emission factors from AP-42 Section 13.2.1 Paved Roads were used to estimate dust emissions from paved roads. The emissions are dependent upon volume of traffic, silt and moisture content of road material, and vehicle weight. Emission factors for PM-30 (Total Suspended Particulate [TSP] Matter) are given. These emission factors were adjusted to account for annual precipitation as discussed below.

Different equations were used for vehicles traveling on unpaved and paved surfaces. The equation for unpaved roads was used to estimate emissions from when the vehicle loaded the chat from the chat pile to when a paved road was encountered while the equation for paved roads estimated emissions from when the paved road was encountered to when the vehicle passed the site boundary. It was assumed that vehicles traveling these roads are hauling chat (i.e. the vehicle weight is based upon a hauling vehicle weight) and that the road is a public road. Assuming the road is a public road used more conservative and higher factors, thereby calculating higher emissions.

The emission factors for publicly accessible roads are dependent on silt content, mean vehicle weight, and mean vehicle speed. Table 13.2.2-1 in AP-42 identifies typical silt content values of surface material on unpaved sites. Since lead mining and processing is not among the industries listed in the table, the silt content value given for stone quarrying and processing plant road was used. Mean vehicle weight and speed were estimated. Mean vehicle weight was estimated at 11 tons, typical for a hauling vehicle, and mean vehicle speed was estimated at 45 mph for unpaved and paved roads.

008614




The emission factors were adjusted to account for rainfall and other precipitation based on Figure 13.2.2-1 of AP-42 Section 13.2.2 (100 days per year with 0.01 inches or more of precipitation).

The resulting emission factors are in units of lbs/vehicle mile traveled (VMT). Average VMT on unpaved roads was estimated based on the distance from the chat pile to the paved road while the average VMT on paved roads was estimated based on the distance from the paved road to the nearest site boundary. Distances were obtained through review of aerial photographs.

Cadmium, lead, and zinc emissions were estimated by assuming that PM emissions had the same cadmium, lead, and zinc content as the road material. All unpaved roads were assumed to be made of chat and the surface of the paved roads was covered by chat. The lead, zinc, and cadmium content of the chat was estimated based on average concentrations of bulk chat, surface chat, washed fines, flotation tailings, and surface tailings chemistry data as shown in Table D-3, and was obtained from the Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005).

The following equations were used for unpaved public roads:

EF = k(s/12)a(S/30))d - C

(M/0.5)c

VMT = (Chat processed/10 tons per load) * miles/trip * 2 trips/load

EFext = EF [(365 – p)/365]

E = EFext * VMT *wt%


E lb/year Air emissions of speciated pollutant EF lb/VMT Emission factor EFext lb/VMT Emission factor corrected for natural mitigation VMT miles Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) k 6.0 lb/VMT Particle Size Multiplier, pounds per vehicle mile

travel (VMT)(1) s % Surface material silt content S mph Mean vehicle speed in miles per hour (mph) p days Number of days with > 0.01 inches of precipitation

per year wt% % Weight % of pollutant in soil a 1.0 Unitless Empirical Constant(1) c 0.3 Unitless Empirical Constant(1)

008615





d 0.3 Unitless Empirical Constant(1) C lb/VMT Emission factor for 1980s vehicle fleet exhaust,

brake wear and tire wear Reference: AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA, 5th Edition, Chapter 13.2.2 (Dec 2003). (1) Uses the highest provided values from the reference (Table 13.2.2-2) for conservatively estimating emissions of Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP) which assumes vehicles are traveling on publicly accessible roads.

The following equations were used for paved roads:

EF = k(sL/2)0.65(W/3)1.5 - C

VMT = (Ore Processed/10 tons per load)* miles/trip * 2 trips/load

EFext = EF [(N – p)/ (N)]

E = EFext * VMT *wt%


E lb/year Air emissions of speciated pollutant EF lb/VMT Emission factor EFext lb/VMT Emission factor corrected for natural mitigation VMT miles Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) k 0.082 lb/VMT Particle Size Multiplier, pounds per vehicle mile

travel (VMT)(1) sL g/m2 Road surface silt loading W tons Mean vehicle weight p days Number of days with > 0.01 inches of precipitation

per year N days Number of days in the averaging period (e.g., 365

for annual) wt% % Weight % of pollutant in soil C lb/VMT Emission factor for 1980s vehicle fleet exhaust,

brake wear and tire wear Reference: AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA, 5th Edition, Chapter 13.2.1 (Dec 2003). (1) Uses value provided by reference (Table 13.2.1-1) for Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP).

Shown below is a sample calculation for an unpaved public road from the Sooner chat pile:

Input Data:

k = 6.0 (based on constant for PM-30 assuming vehicles are traveling on publicly accessible roads, Table 13.2.2-2)

008616




s = 10% (based on plant roads for stone quarrying and processing, Table 13.2.2.-1)

W = 11 tons

a = 1 (based on constant for PM-30 assuming vehicles are traveling on publicly accessible roads, Table 13.2.2-2)

c = 0.3 (based on constant for PM-30 assuming vehicles are traveling on publicly accessible roads, Table 13.2.2-2)

d = 0.3 (based on constant for PM-30 assuming vehicles are traveling on publicly accessible roads, Table 13.2.2-2)

S= 45 mph

M = 4%

C = 0.00047 lb/VMT (based on constant for PM-30, Table 13.2.2-4)

wt% = 0.0038 lead

EF = k(s/12)a(S/30))d-C

(M/0.5)c

= 6.0 (10/12)1(45/30)0.3 - 0.00047 lbs/VMT

(4/0.5)0.3

EF = 3.026 lbs/VMT

VMT = (80,000 tons/10)*0.5 miles/trip*2 trips

= 8,000 miles

E = EF x [(365 – p)/365] x VMT x wt%

= 3.026 lbs/VMT * [(365-100)/365] x 8,000 miles * 0.0038

E = 66.58 lbs. of lead/year

Shown below is a sample calculation for a paved public road from the Sooner chat pile:

Input Data:

k = 0.082 (based on constant for PM-30, Table 13.2.1-1)

W = 11 tons

sL= 0.015 g/m2 (based on constant for limited access roadways, Table 13.2.1-3)

C = 0.00047 lb/VMT (based on constant for PM-30, Table 13.2.1-2)

wt% = 0.0038 lead

008617




EF = k(sL/2)0.65(W/3)1.5 - C

= 0.082 (0.015/2)0.65(11/3)1.5-0.00047

= 0.023 lb/VMT

VMT = (80,000 tons/10)*0.375 miles/trip*2 trips

= 6,000 miles

E = EF x [1 – p/ (4N)] x VMT x wt%

= 0.023lb/VMT*(1-(100/(4*365)))*6,000 miles*0.0038

= 0.497 lbs. of lead/year

5.0 References AATA International, Inc. (AATA), 2005. Draft Preliminary Site Characterization

Summary, Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program. September 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1988. Control Of Open Fugitive Dust Sources. EPA-450/3-88-008,C. Prepared by Cowherd, et al. September 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003. Administrative Order on Consent for RI/FS for OU4. December 2003.

008618





008619

Tables

008620



P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ OCTOBER 2005 APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC


008621

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ 1 OCTOBER 2005 APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD_TABLED-1.DOC

Table D-1 Summary of Emissions Estimates Tar Creek Superfund Site Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Emissions Estimates

Source Category Cadmium

(lb/yr) Lead (lb/yr)

Zinc (lb/yr)

Loading and Handling of Chat 0.05 0.91 12.51

Wind Erosion from Chat Piles 2.61 29.00 612.76

Wind Erosion from Flotation Tailings Ponds 2.10 310.28 380.01

Unpaved Roads 7.97 332.90 1,752.19

Paved Roads 0.23 9.61 50.56

Estimated Emissions, Loading and Handling of Chat

Estimated Emissions, Wind Erosion Estimated Emissions, Roads

Source Name Cadmium


Zinc (lb/yr)

Cadmium (lb/yr)

Lead (lb/yr)

Zinc (lb/yr)

Cadmium(lb/yr)

Lead (lb/yr)

Zinc (lb/yr)

Flotation Tailing Ponds

Ottawa -- -- -- 0.10 8.72 19.48 -- -- --

Bird Dog -- -- -- 1.10 255.58 205.88 -- -- --

Pioneer -- -- -- 0.08 4.06 13.21 -- -- --

Lawyers -- -- -- 0.02 8.08 6.09 -- -- --

Semple -- -- -- 0.19 0.86 11.83 -- -- --

John Beaver -- -- -- 0.04 1.25 7.08 -- -- --

Skelton -- -- -- 0.03 1.39 5.82 -- -- --

Atlas -- -- -- 0.05 2.90 10.14 -- -- --

Blue Goose -- -- -- 0.07 5.08 18.95 -- -- --

Central Mill -- -- -- 0.42 22.35 81.53 -- -- --

Chat Piles

Atlas 0.008 0.08 1.70 0.07 0.83 17.57 -- -- --

Bird Dog -- -- -- 0.01 0.13 2.78 -- -- --

Adams-Mudd (Barret) -- -- -- 0.04 0.42 8.85 -- -- --

Pioneer -- -- -- 0.16 1.80 38.09 -- -- --

008622



Emissions Estimates



Zinc (lb/yr)




Unpaved Roads 7.97 332.90 1,752.19

Paved Roads 0.23 9.61 50.56



Source Name Cadmium


Zinc (lb/yr)

Cadmium (lb/yr)

Lead (lb/yr)

Zinc (lb/yr)

Cadmium(lb/yr)

Lead (lb/yr)

Zinc (lb/yr)

Semple -- -- -- 0.06 0.64 13.55 -- -- --

Sooner 0.01 0.18 2.38 0.52 5.74 121.32 -- -- --

Howe -- -- -- 0.05 0.53 11.13 -- -- --

Ottawa 0.01 0.16 2.87 0.10 1.16 24.51 -- -- --

Gordon -- -- -- 0.03 0.34 7.09 -- -- --

Western (Anna Beaver) -- -- -- 0.27 2.96 62.64 -- -- --

Western (John Beaver) -- -- -- 0.03 0.31 6.65 -- -- --

OKO -- -- -- 0.03 0.36 7.68 -- -- --

Kenoyer -- -- -- 0.12 1.31 27.67 -- -- --

St. Joe -- -- -- 0.14 1.56 33.03 -- -- --

Fisher (Mahutska) 0.01 0.40 3.61 0.17 1.93 40.74 -- -- --

Royal (Thompson) -- -- -- 0.02 0.18 3.80 -- -- --

Lawyers -- -- -- 0.19 2.09 44.21 -- -- --

Admiralty 0.01 0.10 1.95 0.27 3.00 63.45 -- -- --

Skelton -- -- -- 0.17 1.85 39.01 -- -- --

Blue Goose -- -- -- 0.14 1.57 33.06 -- -- --

008623



Emissions Estimates



Zinc (lb/yr)




Unpaved Roads 7.97 332.90 1,752.19

Paved Roads 0.23 9.61 50.56



Source Name Cadmium


Zinc (lb/yr)

Cadmium (lb/yr)

Lead (lb/yr)

Zinc (lb/yr)

Cadmium(lb/yr)

Lead (lb/yr)

Zinc (lb/yr)

Pearl (Bill Baily) -- -- -- 0.03 0.28 5.93 -- -- --

Unpaved Road From Chat Pile

Atlas -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.19 133.16 700.87

Sooner -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.59 66.58 350.44

Ottawa -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.20 49.94 262.83

Fisher (Mahutska) -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.20 49.94 262.83

Admiralty -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.80 33.29 175.22

Paved Road From Chat Pile

Atlas -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.06 2.48 13.08

Sooner -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.01 0.50 2.62

Ottawa -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fisher (Mahutska) -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.03 1.32 6.97

Admiralty -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.13 5.30 27.90

008624





008625


Table D-2 Sampling Information Used to Estimate Lead, Cadmium, and Zinc Emissions Tar Creek Superfund Site Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Source Category Sampling Data Used to Estimate Emissions

Loading and Handling of Chat Average Bulk Chat Concentrations for Each Individual Chat Pile

Wind Erosion from Chat Piles Combined Average Surface Chat Concentrations for the Seven Chat Piles Sampled

Wind Erosion from Flotation Ponds Average Surface Fine Tailings Concentrations for Each Individual Flotation Pond

Unpaved Roads Combined Average Concentrations of Bulk Chat, Surface Chat, Washed Fines, Flotation Tailings, and Surface Tailings

Paved Roads Combined Average Concentrations of Bulk Chat, Surface Chat, Washed Fines, Flotation Tailings, and Surface Tailings

Reference: Draft: Preliminary Site Characterization Summary, Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program, Sept 2005.

008626



P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ 2 OCTOBER 2005 APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD_TABLED-2.DOC


008627


Table D-3 Pollutant Content (weight fraction, wt%) of Unpaved Roads and Surface of Paved Roads Tar Creek Superfund Site Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Cadmium Lead Zinc 0.0001 0.0038 0.0199

Reference: Draft: Preliminary Site Characterization Summary, Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program, Sept 2005.

008628


APPENDIX D: AIR EMSSIONS TM



008629

Figures

008630





008631

Central Mill

Bird Dog156.9

Atlas78.3, A

Sooner118.2, A

Admiralty113.0, A

Skelton102.5

Pioneer98.8

Semple35.5

Lawyers157.1

St. Joe115

Howe55

Blue Goose14.5

Kenoyer83.6

Fisher (Mahutska)102.5, A

Western(Anna Beaver)

127.6

Oko63.6

Gordon118.6

Bird Dog0

Ottawa46.9, A

Adam's mudd63.6

Pearl (Billy Baily)39.7

Bird Dog0

Royal (Thompson)43.9

Western(John Beaver)

45.1

LEGENDFIGURE D-1



0 0.8 1.60.4Miles

± Tar Creek OU4Modeled Emission Sources

Site Boundary

Chat Pile

Tailings Pond

Chat Pile Name: LawyersPile Height, Ft: 157.1, A(Active Chat PIle)

008632





008633

Appendix E Air Modeling

008634





008635

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 1 FEBRUARY 2006 APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED.DOC

Appendix E Technical Memorandum Air Modeling Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 4 Ottawa County, Oklahoma PREPARED FOR: Ursula Lennox/USEPA Region 6 RPM PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL, Inc. PREPARED UNDER: EPA Region 5 Response Action Contract No. 68-W6-0025,

Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW DATE: February 3, 2005 DCN NUMBER:: 05-8225

1.0 Background This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the air modeling activities completed by CH2M HILL as part of the activities being completed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Operable Unit 4 (OU4) at the Tar Creek Superfund Site located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. This work was completed under Contract No. 68-W6-0025, and the approved project work plan and subsequent work plan revisions under Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW.

The Respondents are responsible for completing a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of OU4 under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) that was executed on December 9, 2003 (EPA, 2003). As part of this agreement, EPA is responsible for completing the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). CH2M HILL is working for EPA and is responsible for the HHRA. Air modeling is an important component of the HHRA for this site because of potential air concentrations and deposition to soils.

In Risk Assessment Work Plan Revision Request No. 1 (WPRR01), CH2M HILL defined the approach and scope for the air modeling to support the HHRA. Task 6.3 of WPRR01 defined the steps in completing the air modeling. This approach included the following activities:

• Estimation of emissions

• Identification of receptor information

• Development of source treatment method

• Development of soil depletion method

008636

TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4 DRAFT FINALHUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM


• Execution of dispersion model

• Result evaluation

The approach used in the air modeling analysis was defined in an October 10, 2005 memorandum from Don Caniparoli (CH2M HILL) to Dr. Ghassan Khoury (EPA). This memorandum is included as Attachment A of this TM.

The dispersion modeling analysis generated information to be used in the HHRA. Air concentrations from current sources were determined at the receptors of interest. Deposition was estimated throughout the receptor grid 30 years from the present. This 30-year deposition rate was estimated by determining the deposition rate through modeling, adding a background concentration, and depleting this concentration over the 30-year period by using the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (EPA, 2005) as described below.

Three source categories were included in the modeling: (1) loading and handling of chat, (2) wind erosion from chat piles and flotation ponds, and (3) unpaved and paved roads. Emissions of lead, cadmium, and zinc were included in the air quality analysis.

2.0 Estimation of Emissions Emissions were estimated as described in the Air Emissions Estimates Technical Memorandum, Appendix D. Based on information in the Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005), emissions from 21 chat piles and 10 flotation ponds were modeled. Five of these chat piles were also modeled as active chat piles. These sources were considered to be representative of current and future emissions.

3.0 Identification of Receptors For the air concentration analysis, a discrete receptor grid of the 46 houses analyzed in the draft HHRA was established with 12 receptors corresponding to ground water monitoring locations. Note that three of the ground water monitoring location receptors are coincident with the house locations, so a total of 55 receptors were modeled in the concentration analysis. Locations for these receptors are shown in Figure E-1.

For the deposition analysis, a 500-meter spaced grid was established for the entire OU4 area. In addition, a fine grid of receptors was placed around each source. Some of the fine receptor grids overlapped due to the proximity of multiple sources. A total of 1,585 receptors were established for the deposition analysis.

The terrain in the Tar Creek area is relatively flat. Because of the low-level sources used in the analysis and the relatively flat terrain, the model was run in the flat terrain mode with all receptor elevations set to zero.

4.0 Development of Source Treatment Method The emissions for the sources included in the modeling were estimated by utilizing a variety of emission factors as defined in the Air Emissions TM. Each of the chat pile and tailings pond sources was treated as an individual area source in the model. The height of the piles was set at the average pile height provided by the Respondents. The tailings

008637




ponds and unpaved and paved roads were modeled as a series of ground level area sources. Because the emissions were estimated to be representative of emissions over a one year time period and were not based on episodic wind conditions, emissions were modeled as if occurring every hour of the year.

5.0 Soil Depletion Soil depletion was included in the deposition analysis. Depletion of lead, cadmium, and zinc over time in the deposited chemicals was calculated using EPA methods as defined below.

5.1 Soil Depletion Method Chemicals deposited on the soil become depleted through various physical processes such as runoff and erosion. Equations in Chapter 5 of the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (EPA, 2005) were used to develop a method for soil depletion. Equation 5-1E of the protocol calculates soil concentration over exposure duration.

kstDksDs ]exp(1[CstD •−−•

=

where:

CstD = Soil concentration at time tD (mg/kg)

Ds = Deposition term (mg COPC/kg soil/yr)

ks = COPC soil loss constant due to all processes (yr-1)

tD = Time period over which deposition occurs (yr)

5.2 Deposition Term Results from the deposition modeling, deposition term (mg COPC/kg soil/yr), were used as the starting point from which to calculate the depletion term.

008638




5.3 Chemical of Potential Concern Soil Loss Constant To calculate the Chemical of Potential Concern (COPC) soil loss constant, ks, the COPC-specific loss resulting from leaching, runoff, erosion, biotic and abiotic degradation, and volatilization were estimated as shown in Equation 5-2A of the protocol, and presented below.

ks = ksg + kse + ksr + ksl + ksv

where:

Ks = COPC soil loss constant due to all processes (yr-1)

Ksg = COPC loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation (yr-1)

Kse = COPC loss constant due to soil erosion (yr-1)

Ksr = COPC loss constant due to surface runoff (yr-1)

Ksl = COPC loss constant due to leaching (yr-1)

Ksv = COPC loss constant due to volatilization (yr-1)

Equations for each COPC loss constant are provided in Appendix B of the EPA document. Ksg and Ksv are 0 since the chemicals are metals. Values used for each parameter are described in Table E-1.

The soil loss constant (ks) is then used to calculate the final deposition with other physical factors.

6.0 Dispersion Modeling Analysis Concentration and deposition were analyzed using the same model and similar methods, as described below.

6.1 Model Selection The air modeling analysis was conducted using the EPA Industrial Source Complex Short Term Model (ISC3). The latest version of ISC3 (02035, available from EPA) was used in the analysis. The ISC3 model is listed as a Preferred/Recommended model in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality Models. ISC3 is a steady-state Gaussian plume model which is used to assess pollutant concentrations from a wide variety of sources associated with an industrial complex. It is the standard model used to assess air quality impacts from a number of industrial sources including the area sources present at the Tar Creek site. The model was run to calculate current air concentrations at the 46 homes of interest plus the ground water well locations, and 30-year dry and wet deposition. Standard regulatory default modeling options were used, consistent with EPA policy. A full description of the ISC3 model can be found in the User’s Guide.

The model was run to calculate deposition and concentration. The ISC3 model calculates deposition and concentration and has a depletion option which subtracts the amount

008639




deposited from the concentration. However, this option is a very computer-intensive option. Therefore, because of the size of the runs and the resources required to make such runs, the model was run without use of this depletion option. This approach will slightly over estimate the modeling results.

6.2 Terrain The terrain in the Tar Creek area is relatively flat. Because of the low-level sources used in the analysis and the relatively flat terrain, the model was run in the flat terrain with all receptor elevations set at zero.

6.3 Land Use The land use in the Tar Creek Superfund Site OU4 area is mostly rural. Consequently the model was run using rural dispersion coefficients.

6.4 Meteorology The modeling analysis was performed using a standard five years of meteorological data for each time period. The surface meteorological data was obtained from the University of Oklahoma MESONET network for the Miami, Oklahoma site (www.mesonet.org). Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and precipitation values were obtained from this station. Miami is located approximately 10 kilometers to the southwest of the site. Cloud cover data were derived from surface observations data obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for the National Weather Service site in Joplin, Missouri. These data were used to calculate stability. Joplin is located approximately 15 km to the northeast of the site. Mixing Height data was obtained from NCDC for the Norman, Oklahoma, station. Missing data, where possible, were interpolated; otherwise Holzworth average seasonal mixing heights for Oklahoma City were used as a substitute. Five years of data from 1999 through 2003 were used in the analysis. Each time-period analysis used the same five-year set of meteorological data. Regulatory modeling requires the use of five years of data as it is considered statistically representative of longer-term meteorological periods. Therefore, it was employed as representative of time periods throughout the next 30 years in Tar Creek. Wind roses for each of the years and a composite wind rose are shown in Attachment B to this TM.

6.5 Particle Size Distribution Deposition modeling is dependent upon the particle size distribution (PSD). Data collected as part of and reported in Draft: Preliminary Site Characterization Summary, Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program, September 2005, was used to determine the PSD. Data from sources with particle size data was averaged to determine a representative PSD for all sources at the site.

There were six samples for chat piles and two samples for fine tailings. The particles in these samples were partitioned into particle size categories ranging from 75,000 microns (µm) or less to 1.4 µm or less and were represented as percent by dry weight. For the purposes of this analysis, only those particles which could reasonably become airborne as a result of wind erosion or disturbance of soils were needed. A particle size of 75 µm was chosen as the maximum that would become airborne to remain consistent with previous

008640

www.mesonet.org

www.mesonet.org




studies (Shields, December, 2002). This report maintained that only particles less than 106 µm would become airborne. The sample data was averaged for the chat piles and for the fine tailings and then was re-weighted to partition the fraction of particles 75 µm and less to equal 100 percent of the total particulate emissions. The particle size distribution used in the modeling is shown in Table E-2.

6.6 Existing Soil Concentrations For the deposition analysis, existing soil concentrations were obtained from data collected for the RI from residential areas, transition zones, the smelter-affected area, rural areas, and background. Data were collected from both 0 to 1-inch and 0 to 6-inch layers. In some cases, multiple samples were taken at a location. These results were averaged together, regardless of depth, to produce one unique value for each location. Table 1 presents the number of each type of sample and the number of averaged sample points used in the analysis.

TABLE 1

Description of Sampling Data Used to Determine Existing Soil Concentrations

Description Depth of Samples Number of individual sample points

Number of sampling locations

Residential 0-1” and 0-6” 389 46

Transition Zone 0-6” 22 8

Smelter-Affected 0-6” 5 5

Rural Area 0-1” 56 56

Background 0-6” 8 7

Concentrations were interpolated to estimate the existing soil concentrations at locations spanning the entire modeling domain. A grid with 100-meter resolution was produced to coincide with results from the deposition model. All points that were interpolated to a value less than the lowest detected concentration were replaced by the lowest detected concentration.

The resulting soil concentrations at 100-meter spacing were added to modeled deposition results to calculate the soil concentration of each COPC. For the model results that considered depletion, the existing soil concentrations were depleted as well to represent the soil concentration remaining after 30 years.

6.7 Particle Density Particle density is a variable required for the deposition analysis. A particle density of 1.35 g/cm3 was used in the analysis for all three COPCs. This is the lower range of

008641




particle densities for soil. Although the metals would have a higher density, they are only a fraction of the material which could be emitted into the air along with other background soils. A higher density would tend to fall out more quickly in the vicinity of the source, while a lower density would travel a greater distance before becoming deposited to the soils. The value of 1.35 g/cm3 is considered appropriate for this analysis.

7.0 Presentation of Results The deposition results (future soil concentrations) are presented in Figures E-2 and E-3 for lead with and without deposition respectively, E-4 and E-5 for zinc with and without depletion respectively, and E-6 and E-7 for cadmium with and without depletion, respectively. The ambient air concentrations are presented in Figures E-8, E-9, and E-10, for lead, zinc, and cadmium, respectively.

8.0 References AATA International, Inc. (AATA), 2005. Draft Preliminary Site Characterization

Summary, Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program. September 2005.

Oklahoma Mesonet. www.mesonet.org

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003. Administrative Order on Consent for Tar Creek RI/FS for OU4. December 2003.

U. S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. EPA530-R-05-006. September 2005.

008642





008643

Tables

008644



P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ FEBRUARY 2006 APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED.DOC


008645

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 1 FEBRUARY 2006 APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED_TABLEE-1.DOC

Table E-1 Soil Loss Constant Variables as Calculated by EPA and CH2M HILL Tar Creek Superfund Site OU4 Ottawa County, Oklahoma

COPC Loss

Constant Variable Value Used Basis for CH2M HILL Value

Ksg - 0 Because the COPCs are metals, no biodegradation was assumed.

Kse - 0 EPA guidance recommends a default value of 0.

Ksr, Ksl RO, Average annual surface runoff, cm/yr

12.5 EPA guidance recommends using the map value from Geraghty et al, 1973.

Ksr, Ksl Theta, Soil volumetric water content (ml water/cm3 soil)

0.2 EPA guidance recommends a default value of 0.2.

Ksr, Ksl Zs, Soil mixing zone, cm 2.5 EPA guidance recommends a default value of 2.

Ksr, Ksl Kds, Soil-water partition coefficient (ml water/gram soil)

Metal specific Appendix A of the protocol gives recommended values.

Ksr, Ksl BD, Soil bulk density, gram soil/cm3 soil

1.7 EPA guidance recommends a default value of 1.5.

Ksl P, Annual annual precipitation, cm/yr

100 EPA guidance recommends using site-specific data. Plate 2 of Geraghty et al, 1973 lists 40 inches per year in the northeastern corner of Oklahoma.

Ksl I, Average annual irrigation, cm/yr

0 or 33 EPA guidance recommends using site-specific data. CH2M HILL is not aware of any on-site irrigation.

Ksl Ev, Average annual evapotranspiration, cm/yr

78 EPA guidance recommends using site-specific data. Plate 13 of Geraghty et al, 1973 lists 33 inches per year in the northeastern corner of Oklahoma.

Kse RF, USLE rainfall factor yr-1 250 Protocol recommends a value in the range of 50 – 300. Site specific value selected based on Wischmeier and Smith (1978)

Kse K, USLE erodibility factor, ton/acre

0.39 Protocol recommends a default value of 0.39.

Kse LS, USLE length-slope factor

1.5 Protocol recommends a default value of 1.5.

Kse C, USLE cover management factor (unitless)

0.3 This factor is site-specific. Protocol recommends values up to 0.1 for dense vegetation, values between 0.1 to 0.7 for agricultural row crops and values up to 1 for bare soil.

Kse PF, USLE supporting practice factor (unitless)

1 Protocol recommends a default value of 1 for sites that have no runoff or erosion control.

Kse a, empirical intercept coefficient (unitless)

1.2 The final version of the protocol recommends using 1.2 for total watershed areas between 10 and 100 square miles.

Kse AL, Total watershed area receiving deposition, m2

1.036 E8 This variable is site specific. The value used is equivalent to 40 square miles, the area of the site.

008646

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 2 FEBRUARY 2006 APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED_TABLEE-1.DOC

Table E-1 Soil Loss Constant Variables as Calculated by EPA and CH2M HILL Tar Creek Superfund Site OU4 Ottawa County, Oklahoma

COPC Loss

Constant Variable Value Used Basis for CH2M HILL Value Kse b, Empirical slope

coefficient (unitless) 0.125 Protocol recommends a default value of 0.125.

Kse ER, Soil enrichment ratio (unitless)

1 Protocol recommends a default value of 1 for inorganics in the absence of site-specific data.

Notes:

Ksg COPC loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation (yr-1) Kse COPC loss constant due to soil erosion (yr-1) Ksr COPC loss constant due to surface runoff (yr-1) Ksl COPC loss constant due to leaching (yr-1)

008647

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ 1 OCTOBER 2005 APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_TABLEE-2.DOC

Table E-2 Particle Size Distribution Tar Creek Superfund Site OU4 Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Particle Size (µm) Chat Piles Fine Tailings

75 0.39 0.21

35 0.17 0.17

22 0.13 0.16

13.1 0.10 0.14

9.5 0.08 0.11

6.5 0.06 0.09

3.3 0.04 0.06

1.4 0.02 0.04

008648



P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ 2 OCTOBER 2005 APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_TABLEE-2.DOC


008649

Figures

008650



P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ OCTOBER 2005 APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE.DOC


008651

FIGURE E-1

\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Rural_Residence_Sampling.mxd 10\23\05 S Daigle


0 1 20.5Miles

± Tar Creek OU4Air Concentration Modeling Receptors

LegendSite Boundary

Air Modeling Recepter Sites

008652

400

100

30

300

300

200

100

200

300400

100

200

100

100

200

Figure E-2

\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\leadwith_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\06 S Daigle*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:

AATA INTERNATIONAL INC.Fort Collins, Colorado, USA0 1 20.5

Miles

Tar Creek OU4Modeled Lead Soil Concentrations After 30 Years

Includes Depletion (in ppm)

LEGEND

Site BoundaryContour (100 ppm Intervals)

RI Background SamplesRural Sampling Sites

RI Residential Samples

Modeled Chat Pile Emission SourceModeled Tailings Pond Emission Source

008653

200

100

800

500

700

400

100

300

200

300

200

600

400

200

600700

200

100

400

100

500

100

700

100

100

500

100

Figure E-3

\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\leadwithout_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\06 S Daigle*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:

AATA INTERNATIONAL INC.Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

0 1 20.5Miles

Tar Creek OU4Modeled Lead Soil Concentrations After 30 Years

Without Depletion (in ppm)

LEGEND





008654

50

50250100

50100

150

250

200

100150 50

15050

200

Figure E-4

\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Zincwith_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\05 S Daigle*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:


0 1 20.5Miles

Tar Creek OU4Modeled Zinc Soil Concentrations After 30 Years


LEGEND





008655

500

2500

4500

500

500

3500

5500

500

500

0

2500

500

1500

1500

1500

1500

Figure E-5

\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Zincwithout_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\05 S Daigle*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:


0 1 20.5Miles

Tar Creek OU4Modeled Zinc Soil Concentrations After 30 Years


LEGEND





008656

0.5

1.00.5

1.0

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

Figure E-6

\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Cadwith_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\05 S Daigle*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:


0 1 20.5Miles

Tar Creek OU4Modeled Cadmium Soil Concentrations After 30 Years


LEGEND

Site BoundaryContour (0.5 ppm Intervals)




008657

5

15

20

15

10

5

2530

5

5

25

10

10

5

15

40

30

20

20

1010

10

Figure E-7

\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Zincwith_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\05 S Daigle*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:


0 1 20.5Miles

Tar Creek OU4Cadmium Soil Concentrations After 30 Years


LEGEND

Site BoundaryContour (5.0 ppm Intervals)


RI Residential SamplesRI Background SamplesRural Sampling Sites

008658

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.08

0.02

0.02

0.04

0.1

0.06

0.020.04

0.04

0.02

0.08

0.1

0.06

0.06

0.04

0.1

0.04

0.08

0.06

0.06 0.02

0.08

0.12

FIGURE E-8



0 0.8 1.60.4Miles

± Tar Creek OU4Modeled Ambient Air Concentrations for Lead

LEGEND

Site BoundaryContour

Chat Pile

Tailings Pond008659

0.1 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.50.5

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.10.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.2 0.1

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.4

FIGURE E-9



0 0.8 1.60.4Miles

± Tar Creek OU4Modeled Ambient Air Concentrations for Zinc

LEGEND


Chat Pile

Tailings Pond008660

0.0005

0.001 0.002

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.0015

0.0015

0.0005

0.0005

0.0005

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.0025

0.0025

0.0025

0.004

0.0035

0.001

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.001

0.0015

0.0005

0.0015

0.002

FIGURE E-10



0 0.8 1.60.4Miles

± Tar Creek OU4Modeled Ambient Air Concentrations for Cadmium

LEGEND


Chat Pile

Tailings Pond008661

Attachment A Air Modeling Approach

008662





008663

TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTA.DOC 1 COPYRIGHT 2005 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

M E M O R A N D U M

Air Modeling Approach for Tar Creek Human Health Risk Assessment TO: Ghassan Khoury

COPIES: Scott Irving Barrie Selcoe

FROM: Don Caniparoli

DATE: October 13, 2005

The following summarizes the approach and key assumptions for the Air Modeling analysis for the Tar Creek Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA).

General Approach

Air modeling will rely as much as possible on the approach used for the litigation modeling. Major differences with the modeling include the time period to be modeled, the receptor area, and the type of modeling. The litigation modeling looked at past emissions while the HHRA looks at the present (i.e. 1999 – 2003) and future (i.e. 30-year). The litigation modeling focused on receptors in the populated area corresponding to OU2 while the HHRA modeling will focus on the rural areas corresponding to OU4. The litigation modeling included deposition only while the HHRA modeling will include deposition and concentration. Information from the Draft preliminary Site Characterization Summary Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program, September 2005, will be used as the basis for much of the data used in this analysis.

• Air concentration will be modeled for lead, cadmium, and zinc for the current conditions which will be assumed to remain at that concentration for 30 years.

• Deposition will be modeled (for soil concentration) for the future scenario for lead, cadmium, and zinc for the 30 year period.

• Presentation information from the litigation modeling, such as the background maps, will be used to display modeling results for use in the HHRA.

Emissions Sources

• Modeling will include the 20 chat piles and 10 tailings ponds that were the focus of the Operable Unit 4 Remedial Investigation conducted by the Respondents. In addition the Atlas pile will be modeled which is an active area with chat and tailings. Only these piles and tailings ponds will be modeled and shall be considered representative of OU4. All other sources will be considered insignificant in comparison to these.

• Currently active chat piles will be included in the modeling. We believe this to be the Sooner, Admiralty No. 4 and Atlas piles.

• Emission from chat piles will include wind erosion sources and active pile sources. Emissions from the tailings ponds will include only wind erosion sources. Other sources will include hauling on unpaved roads associated with active pile sources.

008664

AIR MODELING APPROACH FOR TAR CREEK HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTA.DOC 2 COPYRIGHT 2005 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

• Data from all five years of meteorological data will be used to support the emissions estimates as needed. Wind speed above 12 mph at mean pile height will be averaged over the 5 year period. Number of days with rainfall greater than 0.01 inches will be averaged over the 5 year period.

• Pile heights will be estimated as current mean pile height and will remain constant over the 30 year evaluation period. Mean pile height will be estimated by taking the base area and the volume of material from the site characterization report, and assuming a cone shape.

• Volume of material processed from active piles on an annual basis will be estimated from current volumes being removed on a daily basis.

• The mean sample concentration from samples collected at a source will be used to estimate emissions.

• Emissions sources and source configurations will remain constant over the 30 year period.

• Emissions will be estimated using the methods developed in the litigation modeling. It will not be possible to develop a factor based on wind speeds greater than 12 mph. Instead, emissions will be assumed to occur all hours of the year.

• Particle density of the soil for emissions estimation purposes will be assumed to be 1.35 mg/l

• For each of the active chat piles, the distance to the nearest paved road will be calculated and only the unpaved road portion will be modeled. It is assumed these conditions will remain constant over the 30 year period.

Modeling Approach

• As with the litigation modeling, all modeling will use the ISC3 model with the same five year meteorological data set

• Physical characteristics of sources will not change over time (e.g. pile heights and source dimensions) and active piles will be assumed to be constant over the time period.

• Particle density will be assumed to be 1.35 milligrams per liter (mg/l) unless information from the current sampling will lead to a more refined understanding specific to this area.

• Particle size will be derived from soil samples presented in the site characterization report. Information on a particular type of source (i.e. chat base, chat pile), will be averaged and assumed to be representative of all similar source types

• Unless a more detailed understanding of loading and unloading activities can be obtained, CH2M HILL will assume emissions from the hauling activities will occur from the active chat pile to the closest off-site boundary. CH2M HILL assumes that the activity of each active chat pile is the same.

• Receptors will be established on a 500 meter grid throughout the site with a 100 meter grid placed around the sources. No receptors will be placed on the sources.

• Deposition will be based on constant emissions over the time period but a depletion factor will be developed based on the EPA hazardous waste combustion facilities guidance.

008665

Attachment B Wind Roses

008666





008667


APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ OCTOBER 2005 APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_1999WINDROSE.DOC

WIND ROSE PLOT

1999 Wind Rose using Miami, OK Hourly Mesonet Data

NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

Wind Speed (m/s)

> 11.06

8.49 - 11.06

5.40 - 8.49

3.34 - 5.40

1.80 - 3.34

0.51 - 1.80

COMPANY NAMEMODELER

PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME

1999 Jan 1 - Dec 31Midnight - 11 PM

DATE

11/13/2004

DISPLAY

Wind SpeedUNIT

m/s

CALM WINDS

7.46%AVG. WIND SPEED

3.64 m/s

COMMENTS

PROJECT/PLOT NO.ORIENTATION

Direction(blowing from)

WRPLOT View 3.5 by Lakes Environmental Software - www.lakes-environmental.com

008668





008669




WIND ROSE PLOT

2000 Wind Rose Using Miami, OK Hourly Mesonet Data

NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

Wind Speed (m/s)

> 11.06

8.49 - 11.06

5.40 - 8.49

3.34 - 5.40

1.80 - 3.34

0.51 - 1.80

COMPANY NAMEMODELER

PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME


DATE

11/13/2004

DISPLAY

Wind SpeedUNIT

m/s

CALM WINDS


3.67 m/s

COMMENTS




008670





008671




WIND ROSE PLOT


NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

Wind Speed (m/s)

> 11.06

8.49 - 11.06

5.40 - 8.49

3.34 - 5.40

1.80 - 3.34

0.51 - 1.80

COMPANY NAMEMODELER

PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME


DATE

11/13/2004

DISPLAY

Wind SpeedUNIT

m/s

CALM WINDS


3.53 m/s

COMMENTS




008672





008673




WIND ROSE PLOT


NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Wind Speed (m/s)

> 11.06

8.49 - 11.06

5.40 - 8.49

3.34 - 5.40

1.80 - 3.34

0.51 - 1.80

COMPANY NAMEMODELER

PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME


DATE

11/13/2004

DISPLAY

Wind SpeedUNIT

m/s

CALM WINDS


3.57 m/s

COMMENTS




008674





008675




WIND ROSE PLOT


NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

Wind Speed (m/s)

> 11.06

8.49 - 11.06

5.40 - 8.49

3.34 - 5.40

1.80 - 3.34

0.51 - 1.80

COMPANY NAMEMODELER

PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME


DATE

11/13/2004

DISPLAY

Wind SpeedUNIT

m/s

CALM WINDS


3.68 m/s

COMMENTS




008676





008677

Appendix F Modeled Biota Concentrations Using BCFs

008678





008679

Table 7.4.RME Supplement AEstimation of Chemical Concentrations in Small Game (Bird and Rabbit)Tar Creek, Miami, OK

Small Mammal

ChemicalSoil Concentration

(mg/kg) 1

Soil-Small Mammal Accumulation Factor

(BAF) 2

MeasureConcentration in Small Mammal dry

(mg/kg)

Concentration in Small Mammal wet

(mg/kg) 3

Cadmium 2.74E+01 6.96E+01 Insectivorous & generalist mammal 1.91E+03 6.10E+02Lead 4.41E+02 2.66E+00 Insectivorous & generalist mammal 1.17E+03 3.75E+02Zinc 5.39E+03 1.64E+01 Herbivorous & generalist mammal 8.82E+04 2.82E+04

Notes:1 Soil Exposure Point Concentrations are based on 95% UCL of the mean (see Table 3.2).2 BAFs are obtained from Sample et al. 1998.3 Wet Weight based concentrations are estimated assuming a 68% water content (EPA, 1993).mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.

Equation: Concentration in Small Mammal = Soil Concentration x BAF

Reference:Sample, B. E., J. J. Beauchamp, R. A. Efroymson and G. W. Suter. 1998b. Development and validation of bioaccumulation models for small mammals. Oak Ridge, TN: Lockheed Martin Corp.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I,EPA/600/R-93/187a, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

Revised 02/09/2006 1 of 1TC_HHRA_DraftFinalRA_AppendixF_Revised_RAGS-D_Table7.4.xls (SmallGame-Rev)

02/09/2006 12:34 PM

008680

Table 7.4.RME Supplement BEstimation of Chemical Concentrations in Beef and Milk (dairy)Tar Creek, Miami, OK

Beef and Milk

Chemical

Soil Exposure Point

Concentration (Cs) 1

BTF for Forage (Brforage)

Concentration in Forage

(Pr)BTF for Beef

(Babeef)BTF for Milk

(Bamilk)

Concentration in Beef (Abeef)

Concentration in Milk

(Amilk)Cadmium 2.74E+01 3.64E-01 1.0E+01 1.2E-04 6.5E-06 1.27E-02 6.90E-04Lead 4.41E+02 4.50E-02 2.0E+01 3.0E-04 2.5E-04 1.21E-01 1.01E-01Zinc 5.39E+03 2.50E-01 1.3E+03 9.0E-05 3.3E-05 1.37E+00 4.94E-01Notes:1 Soil Exposure Point Concentrations are based on 95% UCL of the mean (see Table 3.2).

Equations:Abeef = [Σ (Fi x Qpi x Pr) + Qs x Cs x Bs ] x Babeef x MFAmilk = [Σ (Fi x Qpi x Pr) + Qs x Cs x Bs ] x Bamilk x MFPr = Cs x Br

where:Abeef Concentration in beef (mg/kg FW tissue) CalculatedAmilk Concentration in milk (mg/kg milk) Calculated

Pr Concentration in forage due to root uptake (mg/kg) CalculatedFi Fraction of forage grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (cattle) (unitless) 1

Qpi Quantity of forage eaten by the animal (cattle) per day (kg DW plant/day) 9.27Pi Concentration in each plant type I eaten by the animal (cattle) (mg/kg DW) Calculated

Qs Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (cattle) each day (kg/day) 0.5Cs Average soil concentration over exposure duration (mg/kg) EPC (Table 3.2)Bs Soil bioavailability factor (unitless) 1

Babeef Biotransfer factor for beef (day/kg FW tissue) (see above)Bamilk Biotransfer factor for milk (day/kg WW tissue) (see above)

MF Metabolism factor (unitless) 1Brforage Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for forage (unitless) (see above)

Equations and input parameters are obtained from EPA, 2005.

References: EPA, 2005: Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.

Revised 02/09/2006 1 of 1TC_HHRA_DraftFinalRA_AppendixF_Revised_RAGS-D_Table7.4.xls (BeefMilk-Rev)

02/09/2006 12:35 PM

008681

Table 7.4.RME Supplement CConcentrations Used to Estimate Chemical Intake Through Ingestion of Locally Caught FishTar Creek, Miami, OK

Fish (All sample preparations) 1

Chemical

Data Set Used for the

AnalysisNumber of Detection

Number of Analysis

Minimum Detected


Maximum Detected


Mean Concentration

(mg/kg) 2

Cadmium All 5 77 0.30 0.84 0.17Lead All 28 75 0.25 3.50 0.43Zinc All 77 77 3.50 70.0 21.3

Notes:1 All Sample Preparations (Fillet, Whole-eviscerated, Whole-uneviscerated)2 The Average Concentrations were used as exposure point concentrations.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.

Reference: Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area FY 2003 Final Report (Oklahoma DEQ, 2003).

008682

Table 7.4.RME Supplement DEstimation of Chemical Concentrations in Aquatic Food using Log-linear Regression Models for Bioaccumulation FactorsTar Creek, Miami, OK

Aquatic Biota (Invertebrate)

ChemicalData Set Used for

the Analysis

Sediment Concentrationwet

(mg/kg) 1, 2

Sediment Concentrationdry

(mg/kg) 3 B0 B1

Concentration in Aquatic Biota dry

(mg/kg)

Concentration in Aquatic Biota wet

(mg/kg) 4

Cadmium All 4.0E+00 1.0E+01 0.0395 0.692 5.39E+00 1.62E+00Lead All 2.9E+01 7.3E+01 -0.776 0.801 5.18E+00 1.55E+00Zinc All 3.6E+02 9.1E+02 1.80 0.208 2.60E+02 7.81E+01

Notes:1 Sediment Concentrations were obtained from ODEQ, 2003.2 The Average Detected Concentrations were used.3 Wet Weight based concentrations are estimated assuming a 40% water content.4 Wet Weight based concentrations are estimated assuming a 70% water content.mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.

Equation: Log(Concentration in aquatic biota - dry weight) = B1*(log[Site Specific Sediment Concentration - dry weight]) + B0 where: B0 = Intercept. B1 = Slope.

References: Bechtel Jacobs, 1998b. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and Recommendations for the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. BJC/OR-112. August, 1998.

Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area FY 2003 Final Report (Oklahoma DEQ, 2003).

Revised 02/09/2006 1 of 1TC_HHRA_DraftFinalRA_AppendixF_Revised_RAGS-D_Table7.4.xls (AquaInvert-Rev)

02/09/2006 12:35 PM

008683

Appendix G IEUBK Modeling

008684





008685

Table G Neighborhood-Level Blood Lead Level Estimate (from IEUBK Model)

008686





008687

Table GNeighborhood-Level Blood Lead Level Estimate (from IEUBK Model)Tar Creek, Miami, OK

Exposure Point Concentrations IEUBK Model Results

ResidentModeled Air

Concentration (ug/m3)

Average Measured Soil Concentration

(mg/kg)

Average Measured Groundwater Concentration

(ug/L)

Statistical Weight Geo Mean %Above

1 0.000524 29.6 4 (1) 1 1.770 0.0112 0.000514 31.6 4 (1) 1 1.789 0.013

3 ** 0.000374 29.1 4 (1) 1 1.765 0.0114 0.00044 54.3 4 (1) 1 2.003 0.031

5 ** 0.00042 88.4 0.417 1 2.043 0.0366 0.003132 34.6 4 (1) 1 1.819 0.0147 0.004144 109 4 (1) 1 2.515 0.1668 0.00163 45.4 4 (1) 1 1.921 0.0229 0.000184 53.3 4 (1) 1 1.995 0.030

10 0.00024 44.3 4 (1) 1 1.909 0.02111 0.000242 71 4 (1) 1 2.160 0.05612 0.000158 24.5 4 (1) 1 1.721 0.00913 0.00016 56 4 (1) 1 2.020 0.03314 0.000242 194 4 (1) 1 3.280 0.88515 0.000246 28.8 26.2 1 3.455 1.18716 0.000268 24 0.85 1 1.464 0.00217 0.004718 202 4 (1) 1 3.352 1.00218 0.005252 86.3 4 (1) 1 2.307 0.09019 0.001864 17.3 4 (1) 1 1.654 0.00620 0.000278 61.3 4 (1) 1 2.069 0.04021 0.008134 53.8 4 (1) 1 2.005 0.03122 0.001678 54.1 4 (1) 1 2.003 0.03123 0.000444 45.2 4 (1) 1 1.918 0.02224 0.000172 25.3 4 (1) 1 1.728 0.00925 0.000522 18.4 4 (1) 1 1.663 0.00726 0.000424 404.8 4 (1) 1 5.061 7.36527 0.000176 46.8 4 (1) 1 1.932 0.02328 0.000176 72.3 4 (1) 1 2.172 0.05829 0.000506 32.5 4 (1) 1 1.798 0.01330 0.000498 20.2 4 (1) 1 1.680 0.00731 0.000396 86.8 4 (1) 1 2.307 0.09032 0.000396 64 4 (1) 1 2.095 0.04433 0.00328 19.8 4 (1) 1 1.679 0.00734 0.002492 106.9 4 (1) 1 2.494 0.15735 0.003062 63.4 4 (1) 1 2.092 0.04436 0.000334 24.5 4 (1) 1 1.721 0.00938 0.001428 235.8 4 (1) 1 3.645 1.58839 0.002348 491 4 (1) 1 5.749 11.94340 0.004342 348 4 (1) 1 4.599 4.91941 0.004562 643.3 4 (1) 1 6.910 21.57842 0.000312 39 4 (1) 1 1.859 0.01743 0.000864 12.6 4 (1) 1 1.608 0.00544 0.000882 41.9 4 (1) 1 1.887 0.01945 0.000442 90.8 4 (1) 1 2.345 0.10146 0.000446 32.3 4 (1) 1 1.795 0.013

GW1 0.000462 171 (2) 1.77 1 2.903 0.425GW2 0.00019 171 (2) 2.85 1 2.984 0.505GW3 0.000176 171 (2) 1.35 1 2.871 0.397GW5 0.00018 171 (2) 0.125 1 2.779 0.322GW8 0.000258 171 (2) 12.7 1 3.711 1.748

GW11 0.000998 171 (2) 0.65 1 2.819 0.353

Total 51 1.09Note:** Resident on BIA land

Exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER.Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead. (1) Default concentration of 4 ug/L was used for those residents without groundwater samples.(2) Average lead concentration of 46 residential yards (171 mg/kg; including the former smelter home) used for those homes without soil samples.

008688





008689

RAGS D IEUBK Lead Worksheet

008690





008691

TABLE G-1 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_1, 61500 E. 57 Rd.)

Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described

1. Lead Screening Questions

Lead Concentration Used in Model RunValue Units Value Units

Soil 29.625 mg/kg 400 mg/kg Recommended Soil Screening Level

Water 4 (default) ug/L 15 ug/L Recommended Drinking Water Action Level

Ambient Air 0.000524 ug/m3 NA

2. Lead Model Questions

3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 29.6 mg/kg in soil and 0.000524 ug/m3 in ambient air results in 0.011% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 1.770 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this receptor.

Was the default soil ingestion rate used? Yes.

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

Appendix G.

Was the model run using default values only? No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.

Was the default soil bioavailability used? Yes.

What was the point of exposure/location? Residential yard at 61500 E. 57 Rd.

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

Appendix G.

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

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

Yes, 250 microns.

What range of media concentrations were used for the model? Refer to RAGS D Table 2.

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

Arithmetic mean value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix G.

What lead model (version and date) was used? IEUBKwin v1.0 build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version

Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report? Appendix G <IEUBKwin OUTPUT>

Avg Measured at Yard

Default

Modeled from Sources

Question Response for Residential Lead Model

Medium

Basis for Lead Concentration Used For Model Run

Lead Screening Concentration Basis for Lead Screening

Level

Res1

008692









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default


Question Response for Residential Lead ModelWhat lead model (version and date) was used? IEUBKwin v1.0 build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version







Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 31.64 mg/kg in soil and 0.000514 ug/m3 in ambient air results in 0.013% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level =1.789 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.


008693

TABLE G-3 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_3, 5671 S. 630 Rd.)







Milk 1.01 ug/kg NA


3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Result Comment/PRG 1Input values of 29.07 mg/kg in soil, 0.000374 ug/m3 in ambient air, and 1.01 mg/kg in milk result in 0.006% of subsistence children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 1.638 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.




Appendix G.

Was the model run using default values only? No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used. The updated dietary lead intake estimates from FDA dietary data were used.


What was the point of exposure/location? Residential yard at 5671 S. 630 Rd.

Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report? Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.




What lead model (version and date) was used? IEUBKwin v1.0 build 263 (December, 2005) 32-bit version



Default




Medium



Level

008694









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 54.25 mg/kg in soil and 0.00044 ug/m3 in ambient air results in .031% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 2.003 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.


008695

TABLE G-5/GW12 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_5, 4200 S. 620 Rd.)





Water 0.417 ug/L 15 ug/L Recommended Drinking Water Action Level


Milk 1.01 ug/kg NA


3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Result Comment/PRG 1Input values of 88.4 mg/kg in soil, 0.4167 ug/L in groundwater, 0.00042 ug/m3 in ambient air, and 1.01 mg/kg in milk result in 0.022% of subsistence children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 1.918 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.




Appendix G.

Was the model run using default values only? No; measured soil and groundwater and modeled ambient air and milk concentrations were used. The updated dietary lead intake estimates from FDA dietary data were used.



Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report? Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.




What lead model (version and date) was used? IEUBKwin v1.0 build 263 (December, 2005) 32-bit version



Avg Measured at Well




Medium



Level

008696

TABLE G-6 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_6, 54801 E. 30 Rd. )








3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008697

TABLE G-7 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_7, 2811 S. 550 Rd. )




Soil 109 mg/kg 400 mg/kg Recommended Soil Screening Level




3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 109 mg/kg in soil and 0.004144 ug/m3 in ambient air results in 0.166% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 2.515 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.




Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008698









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008699









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008700









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008701









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008702









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008703









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008704









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008705









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 28.75 mg/kg in soil, 26.15 ug/L of groundwater concentration, and 0.000246 ug/m3 in ambient air results in 1.187% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 3.455 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.




Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.










Medium



Level

008706









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level











Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 24 mg/kg in soil, 0.85 ug/L of groundwater concentration, and 0.000268 ug/m3 in ambient air results in 0.002% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 1.464 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.


008707









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 202 mg/kg in soil and 0.004718 in ambient air results in 1.002% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 3.352 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.




Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008708

TABLE G-18 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_18, 2601 S. 550 Rd. )








3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008709









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008710









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008711









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008712









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008713









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008714









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008715









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008716









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 404.75 mg/kg in soil and 0.000424 ug/m3 in ambient air results in 7.365% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 5.061 ug/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

Based on site conditions, a PRG of 500 ppm is indicated for soil for this receptor.

008717









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008718









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008719









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008720

TABLE G-30 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_30, 5401 S. 620 Rd. (trailer))








3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.

What was the point of exposure/location? Residential yard at 5401 S. 620 Rd. (trailer)


Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008721









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008722









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008723









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008724

TABLE G-34 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_34, 56600 E. HWY 69 )








3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.

What was the point of exposure/location? Residential yard at 56600 E. HWY 69


Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008725

TABLE G-35 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_35, 56600 E. HWY 69 )








3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.



What was the point of exposure/location? Residential yard at 56600 E. HWY 69


Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008726









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008727









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 7470 mg/kg in soil and 0.000486 ug/m3 in ambient air results in 99.536% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 33.962 ug/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

Based on site conditions, a PRG of 500 ppm is indicated for soil for this receptor. The model has not been validated at these levels of environmental exposures.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008728









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008729









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 491 mg/kg in soil and 0.002348 ug/m3 in ambient air results in 11.943% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 5.749 ug/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.




Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008730









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008731









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 643.33 mg/kg in soil and 0.004562 ug/m3 in ambient air results in 21.578% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 6.910 ug/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.




Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008732









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008733









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.










Medium



Level

008734









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008735









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.







Default



Medium



Level

008736









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level


Default









Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008737

TABLE G-47 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (GW1, 5709 S. 620 Rd.)








3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level

Avg Measured at 46 Yards










Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008738

TABLE G-48 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (GW2, 22099 E. 30 Rd.)








3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level











Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008739









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Result Comment/PRG 1Input value of 170.69 mg/kg in soil, .1.350 ug/L of groundwater concentration, and 0.000176 ug/m3 in ambient air results in 0.397% of general public children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 2.871 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.




Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.










Medium



Level

008740









3. Final Result

MediumSoil

Medium



Level











Yes, 250 microns.



Appendix G.





Appendix G.



008741









3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.





Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.










Medium



Level

008742

TABLE G-52 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (GW11, 201 S. Canary Ln.)








3. Final Result

MediumSoil





Appendix G.



What was the point of exposure/location? Residential yard at 201 S. Canary Ln.


Appendix G.



Yes, 250 microns.










Medium



Level

008743

Lead Models

008744





008745

LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0

================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 262 User Name: Shana Alan/CVO Date: 10/25/2005 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 01 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******

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

Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air Outdoors Rate Absorption Pb Conc (hours) (m^3/day) (%) (ug Pb/m^3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 1.000 2.000 32.000 0.001 1-2 2.000 3.000 32.000 0.001 2-3 3.000 5.000 32.000 0.001 3-4 4.000 5.000 32.000 0.001 4-5 4.000 5.000 32.000 0.001 5-6 4.000 7.000 32.000 0.001 6-7 4.000 7.000 32.000 0.001

****** Diet ******

Age Diet Intake(ug/day) ----------------------------------- .5-1 5.530 1-2 5.780 2-3 6.490 3-4 6.240 4-5 6.010 5-6 6.340 6-7 7.000

****** Drinking Water ******

Water Consumption: Age Water (L/day) ----------------------------------- .5-1 0.200 1-2 0.500 2-3 0.520 3-4 0.530 4-5 0.550 5-6 0.580 6-7 0.590

Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ug Pb/L

****** Soil & Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used

Res01 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008746

Average multiple source concentration: 20.790 ug/g

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

Age Soil (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g) -------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 29.625 20.790 1-2 29.625 20.790 2-3 29.625 20.790 3-4 29.625 20.790 4-5 29.625 20.790 5-6 29.625 20.790 6-7 29.625 20.790

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

Age Alternate (ug Pb/day) ----------------------------------- .5-1 0.000 1-2 0.000 2-3 0.000 3-4 0.000 4-5 0.000 5-6 0.000 6-7 0.000

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

Maternal Blood Concentration: 2.500 ug Pb/dL

***************************************** CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES: *****************************************

Year Air Diet Alternate Water (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 0.000 2.653 0.000 0.384 1-2 0.000 2.774 0.000 0.960 2-3 0.000 3.125 0.000 1.001 3-4 0.000 3.023 0.000 1.027 4-5 0.000 2.929 0.000 1.072 5-6 0.000 3.096 0.000 1.133 6-7 0.000 3.420 0.000 1.153

Year Soil+Dust Total Blood (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/dL) --------------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 0.606 3.643 2.0 1-2 0.963 4.697 2.0 2-3 0.966 5.093 1.9 3-4 0.972 5.021 1.8 4-5 0.724 4.725 1.6 5-6 0.653 4.883 1.5 6-7 0.617 5.191 1.4

Res01 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008747



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res02 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008748











Res02 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008749


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 263 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 02/01/2006 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 03 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used Average multiple source concentration: 20.390 ug/g

Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700

008750


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 263 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 02/01/2006 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 03 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000 Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No








Year Soil+Dust Total Blood (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/dL) --------------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 0.594 3.729 2.0 1-2 0.947 4.384 1.9 2-3 0.951 4.563 1.7 3-4 0.956 4.528 1.6 4-5 0.712 4.264 1.5

008751


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 263 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 02/01/2006 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 03 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== 5-6 0.643 4.311 1.3 6-7 0.608 4.413 1.3

008752



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res04 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008753











Res04 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008754


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 263 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 02/01/2006 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 05 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******



008755


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 263 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 02/01/2006 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 05 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000 Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No








Year Soil+Dust Total Blood (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/dL) --------------------------------------------------------------- .5-1 1.788 4.553 2.5 1-2 2.853 5.404 2.3 2-3 2.870 5.561 2.1 3-4 2.888 5.521 2.0 4-5 2.159 4.742 1.7

008756


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 263 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 02/01/2006 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 05 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== 5-6 1.950 4.597 1.5 6-7 1.845 4.612 1.3

008757



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res06 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008758











Res06 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008759



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res07 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008760











Res07 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008761



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res08 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008762











Res08 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008763



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res09 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008764











Res09 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008765



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res10 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008766











Res10 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008767



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res11 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008768











Res11 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008769



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res12 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008770











Res12 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008771



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res13 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008772











Res13 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008773



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res14 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008774











Res14 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008775


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 262 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 10/28/2005 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 15/GW4 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res15 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008776











Res15 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008777


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 262 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 10/28/2005 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 16/GW9 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res16 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008778











Res16 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008779



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res17 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008780











Res17 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008781



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res18 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008782











Res18 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008783



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res19 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008784











Res19 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008785



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res20 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008786











Res20 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008787



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res21 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008788











Res21 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008789



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res22 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008790











Res22 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008791



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


Res23 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008792











Res23 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008793


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 262 User Name: W. Trevathan Date: 10/25/2005 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 24 Run Mode: Research ================================================================================== The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES24 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008794











RES24 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008795



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES25 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008796











RES25 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008797



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES26 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008798











RES26 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008799



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES27 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008800











RES27 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008801



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES28 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008802











RES28 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008803



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES29 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008804











RES29 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008805



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES30 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008806











RES30 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008807



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES31 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008808











RES31 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008809



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES32 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008810











RES32 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008811



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES33 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008812











RES33 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008813



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES34 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008814











RES34 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008815



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES35 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008816











RES35 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008817



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES36 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008818











RES36 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008819



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES37 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008820











Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 µg/dl are above

RES37 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008821

the range of values that have been used in the calibration and empirical validation of this model. (Zaragoza, L. and Hogan, K. 1998. The Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead In Children: Independent Validation and Verification. Environmental Health Perspectives 106 (supplement 6). p. 1555)

RES37 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008822



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES38 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008823











RES38 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008824



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES39 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008825











RES39 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008826



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES40 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008827











RES40 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008828



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES41 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008829











RES41 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008830



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES42 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008831











RES42 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008832



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES43 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008833











RES43 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008834



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES44 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008835











RES44 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008836



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES45 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008837











RES45 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008838



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


RES46 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008839











RES46 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008840


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 262 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 10/28/2005 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, GW1 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


GW1 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008841











GW1 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008842



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


GW2 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008843











GW2 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008844



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


GW3 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008845











GW3 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008846



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


GW5 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008847











GW5 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008848



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


GW8 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008849











GW8 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008850



****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******


GW11 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008851











GW11 10/31/2005 2:14 PM

008852


DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028 OCTOBER 2005


008853

Probability Plots

008854





008855

0

25

50

75

100Prob. Distribution (%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Blood Pb Conc (ug/dL)

Age Range = 0 to 84 monthsTime Step = Every 4 HoursRun Mode = ResearchComment = Resident 01

Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dlGeo Mean = 1.770GSD = 1.600% Above = 0.011

008856

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008857

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Age Range = 0 to 84 monthsTime Step = Every 4 HoursRun Mode = ResearchComment = Res. 03


008858

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008859

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Age Range = 0 to 84 monthsTime Step = Every 4 HoursRun Mode = ResearchComment = Res05


008860

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008861

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24




008862

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008863

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008864

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008865

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24




008866

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008867

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008868

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24




008869

008870

�

��

��

��

��

� � � � � � � � � � ��

�� !�

"�#�$%��#�&��'��(�) '#�*�#+�&�,-#�.��/��$��0��#�&�* �#�$ �1�"��#��'#��''#��&�$#� �#�� 23�

��44�&�� 2#��0#%��&��2*��&��"�-#�&��

008871

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24




008872

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24




008873

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008874

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008875

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008876

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008877

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008878

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Age Range = 0 to 84 monthsTime Step = Every 4 HoursRun Mode = Research


008879

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008880

0

25

50

75


0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36




008881

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008882

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24




008883

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008884

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008885

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24




008886

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008887

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008888

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24




008889

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008890

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008891

0

25

50

75


0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180 198 216




Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 µg/dl are abovethe range of values that have been used in the calibration and empirical validation of

this model. (Zaragoza, L. and Hogan, K. 1998. The Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead In Children: Independent Validation and Verification.

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

008892

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24




008893

0

25

50

75


0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36




008894

0

25

50

75


0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36




008895

0

25

50

75


0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48




008896

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008897

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008898

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008899

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24




008900

0

25

50

75


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12




008901

008902

008903

008904

008905

008906

008907

Appendix H Adult Lead Modeling

008908





008909

Summary of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) Risk Estimations

008910





008911

Table HSummary of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) Risk EstimationsTar Creek, Miami, OK

Resident Geo Mean %Above1 1.768 1.4%2 1.773 1.4%

3 ** 58400 100%4 1.825 1.5%

5 ** 58400 100%6 1.780 1.4%7 1.951 1.8%8 1.805 1.5%9 1.823 1.5%

10 1.802 1.4%11 1.863 1.6%12 1.756 1.3%13 1.829 1.5%14 2.147 2.4%15 1.766 1.4%16 1.755 1.3%17 2.165 2.5%18 1.899 1.7%19 1.740 1.3%20 1.841 1.5%21 1.824 1.5%22 1.824 1.5%23 1.804 1.5%24 1.758 1.3%25 1.742 1.3%26 2.631 4.2%27 1.808 1.5%28 1.866 1.6%29 1.775 1.4%30 1.746 1.3%31 1.900 1.7%32 1.847 1.6%33 1.746 1.3%34 1.946 1.8%35 1.846 1.6%36 1.756 1.3%38 2.243 2.7%39 2.830 5.0%40 2.501 3.7%41 3.181 6.7%42 1.790 1.4%43 1.729 1.3%44 1.796 1.4%45 1.909 1.7%46 1.774 1.4%

Note:** Resident on BIA land

Exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

008912





008913

Table H-1 (Rags D Adult Lead Worksheet)

008914





008915

TABLE H-1 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_1, 61500 E. 57 Rd.)

Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described


Lead Concentration used in Model RunValue Units Value Units

Soil 29.625 mg/kg NA mg/kg NA


MediumSoil

Reference(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).(2) EPA. 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.

Comment/PRG 1Not needed

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

Appendix H.

ResultInput value of 29.6 mg/kg in soil results in 1.4% of general public residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

Medium


Basis for Lead Screening Level



Lead Screening Concentration

What lead model was used? Provide reference and version EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03

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

--

Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report? Appendix H.


Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in Appendix H.

What was the point of exposure and location? 61500 E. 57 Rd.

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

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

Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous population, respectively (EPA, 2002).

What baseline blood lead concentration (PbB0) value was used? If this is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix <Y>

Default PbB0 of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).

Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used? No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year (central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6 Memorandum) was used.

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

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

Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used? No; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).

Res1

008916







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res2

008917

TABLE H-3 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_3, 5671 S. 630 Rd.)






MediumSoil

Reference(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).(2) EPA. 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft. (3) Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOl. 22. No. 3.

Comment/PRG 1


Appendix H.

ResultInput value of 29.075 mg/kg in soil and ingestion of locally gathered food items result in 100% of subsistence residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 58,400 ug/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

Medium








--




What was the point of exposure and location? 5671 S. 630 Rd.






Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used? No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year (value obtained from undated EPA Region 6 Memorandum) was used.



Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used? No; the ingestion rate of 400 mg/day was based on Harper et al. (2002).

Res3

008918







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res4

008919







MediumSoil

Reference(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).(2) EPA. 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft. (3) Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOl. 22. No. 3.

Comment/PRG 1


Appendix H.

ResultInput value of 88.4 mg/kg in soil and ingestion of locally gathered food items result in 100% of subsistence residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 58,400 ug/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

Medium








--










Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used? No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year (value obtained from undated EPA Region 6 Memorandum) was used.



Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used? No; the ingestion rate of 400 mg/day was based on Harper et al. (2002).

Res5

008920

TABLE H-6 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_6, 54801 E. 30 Rd. )






MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res6

008921

TABLE H-7 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_7, 2811 S. 550 Rd. )




Soil 109 mg/kg NA mg/kg NA


MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res7

008922







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res8

008923







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res9

008924







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res10

008925







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res11

008926







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res12

008927







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res13

008928







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res14

008929







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res15

008930







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res16

008931







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res17

008932

TABLE H-18 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_18, 2601 S. 550 Rd. )






MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res18

008933







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res19

008934







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res20

008935







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res21

008936







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res22

008937







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res23

008938







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res24

008939







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res25

008940







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res26

008941







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res27

008942







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res28

008943







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res29

008944

TABLE H-30 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_30, 5401 S. 620 Rd. (trailer))






MediumSoil










What was the point of exposure and location? 5401 S. 620 Rd. (trailer)







--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res30

008945







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res31

008946







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res32

008947







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res33

008948

TABLE H-34 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_34, 56600 E. HWY 69 )






MediumSoil










What was the point of exposure and location? 56600 E. HWY 69







--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res34

008949

TABLE H-35 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_35, 56600 E. HWY 69 )






MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--




What was the point of exposure and location? 56600 E. HWY 69










Res35

008950







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res36

008951







MediumSoil


Comment/PRG 1500 ppm in accordance with OU 2.


Appendix H.

ResultInput value of 7470.0 mg/kg in soil results in 73.8% of general public residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 18.9 ug/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

Medium








--














Res37

008952







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res38

008953







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res39

008954







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res40

008955







MediumSoil


Comment/PRG 1500 ppm in accordance with OU 2.


Appendix H.

ResultInput value of 643.3 mg/kg in soil results in 6.7% of general public residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 3.2 ug/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

Medium








--














Res41

008956







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res42

008957







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res43

008958







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res44

008959







MediumSoil




Appendix H.


Medium








--














Res45

008960







MediumSoil

















--

Medium








Appendix H.


Res46

008961

TABLE H-47 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4

Receptor: Adolescent Recreator, Exposure to Media as Described





MediumSoil




Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used? No; 184 days/year, the average total number of days without rain and above freezing for the years between 1999 and 2003, was used.






What was the point of exposure and location? Chat Pile Material and Tailings







--

Medium




Avg Measured


Comment/PRG 1


Appendix H.

ResultInput value of 3461 mg/kg in soil results in 22.3% of adolescent recreators above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 5.9 ug/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

Recreator

008962





008963

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations(PbBs)

008964





008965

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_1

U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee

Version date 05/19/03

PbB Values for Non-Residential Exposure ScenarioExposure Equation1 Using Equation 1 Using Equation 2Variable 1* 2** Description of Exposure Variable Units GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het

PbS X X Soil lead concentration ug/g or ppm 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6Rfetal/maternal X X Fetal/maternal PbB ratio -- 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

BKSF X X Biokinetic Slope Factor ug/dL per ug/day

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

GSDi X X Geometric standard deviation PbB -- 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3PbB0 X X Baseline PbB ug/dL 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7IRS X Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) g/day 0.050 0.050 -- --

IRS+D X Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust g/day -- -- 0.050 0.050WS X Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil -- -- -- 1.0 1.0KSD X Mass fraction of soil in dust -- -- -- 0.7 0.7

AFS, D X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12EFS, D X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) 2 days/yr 350 350 350 350ATS, D X X Averaging time (same for soil and dust) days/yr 365 365 365 365

PbBadult PbB of adult worker, geometric mean ug/dL 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8PbBfetal, 0.95 95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers ug/dL 4.8 6.3 4.8 6.3

PbBt Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL) ug/dL 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0P(PbBfetal > PbBt) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution % 0.4% 1.4% 0.4% 1.4%

1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes WS, KSD). When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1.0, the equations yield the same PbBfetal,0.95.2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)

*Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).

PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRS+D*AFS,D*EFS/ATS.D) + PbB0

PbB fetal, 0.95 = PbBadult * (GSDi1.645 * R)

**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).

PbB adult = PbS*BKSF*([(IRS+D)*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D)*(1-WS)*AFD*EFD])/365+PbB0


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

Res_1Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008966







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_2Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008967

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) -Res_3 Revised 02/09/2006

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee


PbB Values for Non-Residential Exposure ScenarioUsing Equation 1

Exposure Equation1

Harper et al., 2002 (high beef diet)

Harper et al., 2002 (high fish diet) EFH (EPA, 1996)

Variable 1* 2** Description of Exposure Variable Units GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = HetPbS X X Soil lead concentration ug/g or ppm 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.1

Σ PbF*IRF = X X Sum of Food lead concentration times ingestion rate ug/day 822332.2 822332.2 822583.2 822583.2 344102.5 344102.5BKSF X X Biokinetic Slope Factor ug/dL per ug/day 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

GSDi X X Geometric standard deviation PbB -- 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3PbB0 X X Baseline PbB ug/dL 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7IRS X Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) g/day 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400

AFS, D X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12EFS, D X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) days/yr 350 350 350 350 350 350EFF X X Exposure frequency (food ingestion) days/yr 365 365 365 365 365 365

ATS, D X X Averaging time (same for soil, dust, food ingestion) days/yr 365 365 365 365 365 365PbBadult PbB of adult worker, geometric mean ug/dL 39,474.0 39,474.2 39,486.0 39,486.2 16,519.0 16,519.2

PbBt Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL) ug/dL 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0P(PbBfetal > PbBt) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes WS, KSD). When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1.0, the equations yield the same PbBfetal,0.95.


PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRS+D*AFS,D*EFS/ATS.D) + (PbF*BKSF*IRF*AFF**EFF/ATF) + PbB0

Σ PbF*IRF = PbF1*IRF1 + PbF2*IRF2 +PbF3*IRF3 +PbF4*IRF4

EPC BasisPbF1 Food lead concentration (Food Item 1 - Small Mammals) ug/g or ppm 3.8E+02 ModeledPbF2 Food lead concentration (Food Item 2 - Beef) ug/g or ppm 1.2E-01 ModeledPbF3 Food lead concentration (Food Item 3 - Aquatic Biota) ug/g or ppm 1.6E+00 ModeledPbF4 Food lead concentration (Food Item 4 - Fish) ug/g or ppm 4.3E-01 Mean MeasuredPbF5 Food lead concentration (Food Item 5 - Asparagus [above ground]) ug/g or ppm 1.9E+01 Avg MeasuredPbF6 Food lead concentration (Food Item 6 - Asparagus [root]) ug/g or ppm 5.6E+02 Avg MeasuredPbF7 Food lead concentration (Food Item 7 - Willow [above ground]) ug/g or ppm 1.1E+01 Avg MeasuredPbF8 Food lead concentration (Food Item 8 - Willow [root]) ug/g or ppm 1.0E+03 Avg MeasuredPbF9 Food lead concentration (Food Item 9 - Cattail [above ground]) ug/g or ppm 2.9E+02 Avg Measured

PbF10 Food lead concentration (Food Item 10 - Cattail [root]) ug/g or ppm 1.1E+03 Avg Measured

Harper et al., 2002 EFHHigh Beef Diet High Fish Diet (EPA, 1996)

IRF1 Food Item1 ingestion rate - Small Mammals g/day 50 50 15.3IRF2 Food Item2 ingestion rate - Beef g/day 885 100 169.5IRF3 Food Item3 ingestion rate - Aquatic Biota g/day 175 175 42.5IRF4 Food Item4 ingestion rate - Fish g/day 75 885 127.5IRF5 Food Item5 ingestion rate - Asparagus [above ground] g/day 270 270 113.7IRF6 Food Item6 ingestion rate - Asparagus [root] g/day 270 270 113.7IRF7 Food Item7 ingestion rate - Willow [above ground] g/day 270 270 113.7IRF8 Food Item8 ingestion rate - Willow [root] g/day 270 270 113.7IRF9 Food Item9 ingestion rate - Cattail [above ground] g/day 270 270 113.7IRF10 Food Item10 ingestion rate - Cattail [root] g/day 270 270 113.7

References:Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOl. 22. No. 3.EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.

Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil Printed 02/09/2006 12:47 PM

008968







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_4Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008969

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) -Res_5 Revised 02/09/2006



PbB Values for Non-Residential Exposure ScenarioUsing Equation 1

Exposure Equation1

Harper et al., 2002 (high beef diet)

Harper et al., 2002 (high fish diet) EFH (EPA, 1996)

Variable 1* 2** Description of Exposure Variable Units GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = HetPbS X X Soil lead concentration ug/g or ppm 88.4 88.4 88.4 88.4 88.4 88.4

Σ PbF*IRF = X X Sum of Food lead concentration times ingestion rate ug/day 822332.2 822332.2 822583.2 822583.2 344102.5 344102.5BKSF X X Biokinetic Slope Factor ug/dL per ug/day 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

GSDi X X Geometric standard deviation PbB -- 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3PbB0 X X Baseline PbB ug/dL 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7IRS X Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) g/day 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400

AFS, D X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12EFS, D X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) days/yr 350 350 350 350 350 350EFF X X Exposure frequency (food ingestion) days/yr 365 365 365 365 365 365

ATS, D X X Averaging time (same for soil, dust, food ingestion) days/yr 365 365 365 365 365 365PbBadult PbB of adult worker, geometric mean ug/dL 39,475.1 39,475.3 39,487.1 39,487.3 16,520.0 16,520.2

PbBt Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL) ug/dL 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0P(PbBfetal > PbBt) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRS+D*AFS,D*EFS/ATS.D) + (PbF*BKSF*IRF*AFF**EFF/ATF) + PbB0

Σ PbF*IRF = PbF1*IRF1 + PbF2*IRF2 +PbF3*IRF3 +PbF4*IRF4

EPC BasisPbF1 Food lead concentration (Food Item 1 - Small Mammals) ug/g or ppm 3.8E+02 ModeledPbF2 Food lead concentration (Food Item 2 - Beef) ug/g or ppm 1.2E-01 ModeledPbF3 Food lead concentration (Food Item 3 - Aquatic Biota) ug/g or ppm 1.6E+00 ModeledPbF4 Food lead concentration (Food Item 4 - Fish) ug/g or ppm 4.3E-01 Mean MeasuredPbF5 Food lead concentration (Food Item 5 - Asparagus [above ground]) ug/g or ppm 1.9E+01 Avg MeasuredPbF6 Food lead concentration (Food Item 6 - Asparagus [root]) ug/g or ppm 5.6E+02 Avg MeasuredPbF7 Food lead concentration (Food Item 7 - Willow [above ground]) ug/g or ppm 1.1E+01 Avg MeasuredPbF8 Food lead concentration (Food Item 8 - Willow [root]) ug/g or ppm 1.0E+03 Avg MeasuredPbF9 Food lead concentration (Food Item 9 - Cattail [above ground]) ug/g or ppm 2.9E+02 Avg Measured

PbF10 Food lead concentration (Food Item 10 - Cattail [root]) ug/g or ppm 1.1E+03 Avg Measured

Harper et al., 2002 EFHHigh Beef Diet High Fish Diet (EPA, 1996)

IRF1 Food Item1 ingestion rate - Small Mammals g/day 50 50 15.3IRF2 Food Item2 ingestion rate - Beef g/day 885 100 169.5IRF3 Food Item3 ingestion rate - Aquatic Biota g/day 175 175 42.5IRF4 Food Item4 ingestion rate - Fish g/day 75 885 127.5IRF5 Food Item5 ingestion rate - Asparagus [above ground] g/day 270 270 113.7IRF6 Food Item6 ingestion rate - Asparagus [root] g/day 270 270 113.7IRF7 Food Item7 ingestion rate - Willow [above ground] g/day 270 270 113.7IRF8 Food Item8 ingestion rate - Willow [root] g/day 270 270 113.7IRF9 Food Item9 ingestion rate - Cattail [above ground] g/day 270 270 113.7IRF10 Food Item10 ingestion rate - Cattail [root] g/day 270 270 113.7

References:Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOl. 22. No. 3.EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.


008970







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_6Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008971







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_7Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008972







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_8Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008973







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_9Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008974







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_10Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008975







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_11Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008976







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_12Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008977







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_13Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008978







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_14Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008979







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_15Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008980







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_16Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008981







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_17Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008982







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_18Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008983







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_19Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008984







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_20Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008985







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_21Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008986







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_22Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008987







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_23Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008988







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_24Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008989







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_25Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008990







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_26Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008991







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_27Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008992







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_28Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008993







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_29Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008994







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_30Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008995







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_31Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008996







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_32Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008997







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_33Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008998







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_34Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

008999







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_35Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009000







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_36Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009001







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_37Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009002







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_38Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009003







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_39Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009004







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_40Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009005







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_41Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009006







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_42Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009007







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_43Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009008







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_44Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009009







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_45Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009010







0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














Res_46Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM

009011

009012

009013

Appendix I Future Blood Lead Levels

009014





009015

Table I-1Summary of Health Risks associated with Future Lead Exposure to Residential ChildTar Creek, Miami, OK

Soil (mg/kg) Ambient Air (ug/m3) Geo Mean BLL % Above Target Level

Maximum 18900 Maximum 0.18 57.42 99.999Mean

(75th Percentile) 131 Maximum 0.18 2.319 0.094

009016

Table I-2Summary of Health Risks associated with Future Lead Exposure to Residential AdultTar Creek, Miami, OK

Resident (General Public) Resident (Subsistence)

Soil (mg/kg) Geo Mean BLL % Above Target Level Geo Mean BLL % Above Target LevelMaximum 18900 45.2 95.4 349.7 100Mean 131 2.0 1.98 4.11 11.6Median 45.6 -- -- 2.54 3.82

009017

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Future General Public (Max) Revised 02/09/2006




PbS X X Soil lead concentration ug/g or ppm 18900 18900 18900 33066Rfetal/maternal X X Fetal/maternal PbB ratio -- 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9


0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4



AFS, D X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12EFS, D X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) days/yr 350 350 350 350ATS, D X X Averaging time (same for soil and dust) days/yr 365 365 365 365











009018

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Future General Public (Mean/75%) Revised 02/09/2006






0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














009019

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Future Subsistence Resident (Max) Revised 02/09/2006






0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4




PbBadult PbB of adult worker, geometric mean ug/dL 349.5 349.7 349.5 349.7PbBfetal, 0.95 95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers ug/dL 1,065.9 1,238.6 1,065.9 1,238.6










009020

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Future Subsistence Resident (Mean) Revised 02/09/2006






0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














009021

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Future Subsistence Resident (Median) Revised 02/09/2006






0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4














009022





009023


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 263 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 01/31/2006 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******



Max(s)-Max(a) Revised 02/09/2006

009024

Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000 Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No









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

Max(s)-Max(a) Revised 02/09/2006

009025


================================================================================== Model Version: 1.0 Build 263 User Name: Hiroshi Awata Date: 01/31/2006 Site Name: Tar Creek Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4 Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment ================================================================================== The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).

****** Air ******



****** Diet ******





****** Soil & Dust ******



Mean,75%(s)-Max(a) Revised 02/09/2006

009026

Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000 Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No









Mean,75%(s)-Max(a) Revised 02/09/2006

009027

0

25

50

75


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24


Age Range = 0 to 84 monthsTime Step = Every 4 HoursRun Mode = ResearchComment = Mean, 75%(Soil) - Max(Air)


009028

0

25

50

75


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360


Age Range = 0 to 84 monthsTime Step = Every 4 HoursRun Mode = ResearchComment = Max(Soil) - Max(Air)


Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 µg/dl are abovethe range of values that have been used in the calibration and empirical validation of

this model. (Zaragoza, L. and Hogan, K. 1998. The Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead In Children: Independent Validation and Verification.

Environmental Health Perspectives 106 (supplement 6). p. 1555)009029

Appendix J Statistical Elevation of Future Soil

Concentrations

009030




(This page intentionally left blank.

009031

P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 1 FEBRUARY 2006 APPENDIX ATC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXJ_REVISED.DOC

Appendix J Technical Memorandum Updated Statistical Evaluation of Future Soil Concentrations Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 4 Ottawa County, Oklahoma PREPARED FOR: Ursula Lennox/USEPA Region 6 RPM PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL, Inc. PREPARED UNDER: EPA Region 5 Response Action Contract No. 68-W6-0025,

Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW DATE: February 3, 2006 DCN NUMBER:: 06-8499

The estimated future soil concentrations (with depletion) for cadmium, lead, and zinc were evaluated for distributional fit and representative values for use in estimating future potential exposures in the HHRA. Over 14,000 estimated concentrations were available (populating a 100-foot grid pattern over the OU4 area). These data were evaluated using three different goodness-of-fit tests: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Cramer-von Mises test, and the Anderson-Darling test. These were applied to five different distributions: the Normal, the Lognormal, the Weibull distribution, the Gamma distribution, and the Exponential distribution (note: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was not possible with the Weibull distribution). The results are presented in Table 1. In each case, the parameters of the distributions were optimized to fit the data as closely as possible.

Table 1: Goodness-of-Fit Tests for Formal Distributions

Kolmogorov-Smirnov

Cramer-von Mises

Anderson-Darling

Cadmium

Exponential < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Gamma < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Lognormal < 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005

Normal < 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005

Weibull - < 0.01 < 0.01

009032

TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4 DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX J: STATISTICAL ELEVATION FOR FUTURE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS


Table 1: Goodness-of-Fit Tests for Formal Distributions

Kolmogorov-Smirnov

Cramer-von Mises

Anderson-Darling

Lead

Exponential < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Gamma - - -

Lognormal < 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005

Normal < 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005

Weibull - < 0.01 < 0.01

Zinc

Exponential < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Gamma < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Lognormal < 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005

Normal < 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005

Weibull - < 0.01 < 0.01

The goodness-of-fit probabilities for the Gamma distribution are not provided for lead, since that distribution was sufficiently unsuitable for the data that it was impossible to estimate the specifics of the distribution, much less calculate goodness of fit. (Actually, this was the case with all three constituents for the beta distribution, so beta was not included in the table at all). Although the statistics appear near identical for each metal, they were calculated individually. Note that all these probabilities are low, certainly all well below a significance level such as 0.05 which might be used to determine whether the distribution was a good fit. This lack of fit is at least partly due to the very large sample size which makes these tests very powerful against accepting a distributional assumption. Even given that, however, the distribution that appears to fit the data best is the Weibull distribution which is described with the following probability distribution function:

γλ

βββγ

=

−xxpdf exp

1

Where ? (gamma) is a shape parameter, and ß (beta) is a scale parameter. The optimized values for these two parameters for each metal are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Parameters for Optimized Weibull Distributions

Cadmium Lead Zinc gamma 1.03 0.690 1.07

beta 0.549 88.7 77.8

This fit can be visualized in the histograms presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3 for cadmium, lead, and zinc, respectively. The superior fit of the Weibull distribution (bold overlayed curve)

009033




relative to the normal and lognormal curves can be seen, even though there is some obvious lack of fit to the data.

In addition to the large sample size, however, there appears to be other factors contributing to the low goodness-of-fit probabilities, namely multimodal distributions within the data. These can be viewed in histograms of log-transformed data as presented in Figures 4, 5, and 6 for cadmium, lead, and zinc, respectively. These histograms suggest at least three distributions combining together to form the overall data set. Gaining approximate concentrations of each of these three modes help to portray the distributions. The approximations of these modes, and other overall statistics of the data for each metal, are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary Statistics (ppm) for Each Data Set

Cadmium Lead Zinc

Minimum 0.0206 0.870 3.81

25th Percentile 0.157 19.3 21.0

Median 0.307 45.6 45.4

75th Percentile 0.800 131 110

Maximum 4.61 18900 846

Mean 0.540 131 75.7

First Mode 0.0302 4.06 13.9

Second Mode 0.174 30.0 37.7

Third Mode 1.65 221 217

Given these statistics, and the observed indication of multimodal distributions, the most trustworthy best estimates of these distributions may simply be the mean and perhaps the median of these data. These values were used in the HHRA for evaluation of future soils to estimate risks associated with this overall area.

009034





009035

Figures

009036





009037

Figure 1: Histogram and Distribution Curves for Cadmium

Solid Line = Normal Curve; Dashed Line = Lognormal Curve; Bold Line = Weibull Curve

0.06 0.42 0.78 1.14 1.5 1.86 2.22 2.58 2.94 3.3 3.66 4.02 4.380

5

10

15

20

25

Per

cent

Concentration

009038

Figure 2: Histogram and Distribution Curves for Lead


300 2100 3900 5700 7500 9300 11100 12900 14700 16500 183000

200

400

600

800

1000

Perc

ent

Concentration

009039

Figure 3: Histogram and Distribution Curves for Zinc


12.5 87.5 162.5 237.5 312.5 387.5 462.5 537.5 612.5 687.5 762.5 837.50

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Perc

ent

Concentration

009040

Figure 4: Histogram of Log Transformed Values for Cadmium

Per

cent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Log (Concentration, ppm)

-4.00 -3.75 -3.50 -3.25 -3.00 -2.75 -2.50 -2.25 -2.00 -1.75 -1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

009041

Figure 5: Histogram of Log Transformed Values for Lead

Per

cent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


-0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.2 6.6 7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.6 9.0 9.4 9.8

009042

Figure 6: Histogram of Log Transformed Values for Zinc

Per

cent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


1.38 1.63 1.88 2.13 2.38 2.63 2.88 3.13 3.38 3.63 3.88 4.13 4.38 4.63 4.88 5.13 5.38 5.63 5.88 6.13 6.38 6.63

009043

Appendix K Native American Risk Calculations

009044





009045

TABLE K-1Comparison of Exposure Factors Used For Subsistence Resident Daily Intake Calculations


Exposure Factors Exposure Obtained from Harper et al. Factors

Food Item Units High High Obtained from Fish Beef EPA's ExposureDiet Diet Note Factors Handbook Note

Fish kg/day 0.885 0.075 0.128 (2)Aquatic Food (Mussels, Crayfish) kg/day 0.175 0.175 0.043 (2)Small Game kg/day 0.05 0.05 0.015 (3)Beef kg/day 0.10 0.885 0.170 (4)Asparagus (above ground) kg/day 0.27 0.27 (1) 0.114 (5)Asparagus (root) kg/day 0.27 0.27 (1) 0.114 (5)Willow (above ground) kg/day 0.27 0.27 (1) 0.114 (5)Willow (root) kg/day 0.27 0.27 (1) 0.114 (5)Cattail (above ground) kg/day 0.27 0.27 (1) 0.114 (5)Cattail (root) kg/day 0.27 0.27 (1) 0.114 (5)Units are presented each food item (kg)/day.

References:Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOl. 22. No. EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.

Notes:(1) Composition of Total Plant Intake of 1,600 g/day was equally divided as follows: Asparagus (above ground) - 16.7%, (root) - 16.7%Willow (above ground) - 16.7%, (root) - 16.7%Cattail (above ground) - 16.7%, (root) - 16.7%

(2) Fish /aquatic organisms intake from Section 10.10.4 of EPA, 1997.170 g/day total - 95th percentileAssumed 75% fish, 25% aquatic organisms.Fish: x 0.75 = 127.5 g/day. Aquatic Organisms: x 0.25 = 42.5 g/day.

(3) small game intake from Table 11-6 of EPA, 1997.0.255 g/kg-day - 100th percentilex 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 15.3 g/day

(4) Beef intake from Table 11-3 of EPA, 1997.2.825 g/kg-day - 95th percentilex 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 169.5 g/day

(5) Vegetable intake from Table 9-4 of EPA, 1997.11.37 g/kg-day - 95th percentileDivide total by 6 for each of the 6 edible plant categories in the Tar Creek HHRA (see below).x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 682.2 g/day; divided by 6 = 113.7 g/day for each of 6 edible plant categories

Page 1 of 1009046





009047

TABLE K-2

CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS USING EPA, 1997 ASSUMPTIONS FOR NATIVE AMERICANS





Receptor Age: Adult




Surface Soil (residential, Animal Tissue Small Game Ingestion Cadmium 6.1E+02 MG/KG 1.2E-01 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.3E-07 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 1.3E-04

smelter, transition zone) (Bird, Rabbit) Zinc 2.8E+04 MG/KG 5.5E+00 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 6.0E-06 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 2.0E-05








Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total 0.0E+00 1.5E-04


009048

TABLE K-2

CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS USING EPA, 1997 ASSUMPTIONS FOR NATIVE AMERICANS





Receptor Age: Adult




Transition Zones Plant Tissue Asparagus (above ground) Ingestion Cadmium 5.5E+00 MG/KG 8.2E-03 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 8.9E-03 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 8.9E+00


Asparagus (root) Ingestion Cadmium 1.2E+01 MG/KG 1.9E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 2.0E+01




Willow (above ground) Ingestion Cadmium 1.8E+01 MG/KG 2.7E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 2.9E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 2.9E+01

Zinc 4.7E+02 MG/KG 7.0E-01 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 7.6E-01 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 2.5E+00

Willow (root) Ingestion Cadmium 5.0E+01 MG/KG 7.4E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 8.1E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 8.1E+01




Cattail (above ground) Ingestion Cadmium 2.0E+01 MG/KG 2.9E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 3.2E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 3.2E+01


Cattail (root) Ingestion Cadmium 6.1E+01 MG/KG 9.1E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 1.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 1.0E+02





Transition Zones Total 0.0E+00 3.4E+02

Aquatic Biota Fish Tissue/Aquatic Food Aquatic Food Tissue Ingestion Cadmium 1.6E+00 MG/KG 9.1E-04 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 9.9E-04 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 9.9E-01

(Mussels etc.) Zinc 7.8E+01 MG/KG 4.4E-02 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 4.8E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1.6E-01



Fish Tissue Ingestion Cadmium 1.7E-01 MG/KG 2.8E-04 mg/kg/day NA 1/(mg/kg-day) NA 3.1E-04 mg/kg/day 1.0E-03 mg/kg/day 3.1E-01





Aquatic Biota Total 0.0E+00 1.6E+00

Receptor Total 0.0E+00 3.5E+02



009049

TABLE K-3

SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs USING EPA, 1997 ASSUMPTIONS FOR NATIVE AMERICANS




Receptor Age: Adult





Target Organ(s)

Surface Soil (residential, Animal Tissue Small Game Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 1.3E-04 NA NA 1.3E-04

smelter, transition zone) (Bird, Rabbit) Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 2.0E-05 NA NA 2.0E-05


Target Organ(s)




Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 1.5E-04 NA NA 1.5E-04

Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 1.5E-04 NA NA 1.5E-04

Target Organ(s)


Transition Zones Zinc NA NA NA NA Circulatory 7.7E-01 NA NA 7.7E-01




Target Organ(s)






Target Organ(s)







Transition Zones Total 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.4E+02 NA NA 3.4E+02


009050

TABLE K-3

SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs USING EPA, 1997 ASSUMPTIONS FOR NATIVE AMERICANS




Receptor Age: Adult





Target Organ(s)

Aquatic Biota Fish Tissue/ Aquatic Food Tissue Cadmium NA NA NA NA Kidney 9.9E-01 NA NA 9.9E-01



Target Organ(s)




Exposure Medium Total 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 1.6E+00 NA NA 1.6E+00

Aquatic Biota Total 0.0E+00 NA NA 0.0E+00 1.6E+00 NA NA 1.6E+00

Receptor Total 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.5E+02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.5E+02




009051

Appendix L ProUCL Output

009052





009053

Data FileVariable: CADMIUMRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 21Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 21Number of Distinct Observations 20Minimum 0.35Maximum 139Mean 36.55Standard Deviation 38.51864Variance 1483.686Coefficient of Variation 1.053862Skewness 1.188588Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.860225Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9085% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 51.04704Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.668714k star (bias corrected) 0.604929Theta hat 54.65717Theta star 60.42029nu hat 28.08598nu star 25.407035% Approximate Chi Square Value 14.92176Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0383Adjusted Chi Square Value 14.305Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.317309Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.790126Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.13484Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.198038Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 62.2330595% Adjusted Gamma UCL 64.91626Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -1.04982Maximum of log data 4.934474Mean of log data 2.689102Standard Deviation of log data 1.73354Variance of log data 3.005161Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.919793Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9085% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 66.13399MLE Standard Deviation 289.7051MLE Coefficient of Variation 4.380578MLE Skewness 97.20268MLE Median 14.71846MLE 80% Quantile 63.68466MLE 90% Quantile 136.5514

C:\Documents and Settings\hawata\My Documents\Projects\Tar Creek_MSSL\RAGS-D\Rev Table2\Copy of Select AOC ProUCL and Rags D Table 2 051230 (2).xls

SASO-Cd Revised 02/10/2006

009054

MLE 95% Quantile 254.8756MLE 99% Quantile 829.9093MVU Estimate of Median 13.69891MVU Estimate of Mean 56.78836MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 151.4415MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 26.4289695% H-UCL 276.616695% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 171.989597.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 221.837299% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 319.7532Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 50.3757495% Adjusted-CLT UCL 52.7052595% Modified-t UCL 51.410495% Jackknife UCL 51.0470495% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 73.1885397.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 89.0420699% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 120.1832Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 49.875495% Bootstrap-t UCL 54.527995% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 54.5719595% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 50.5761995% BCA Bootstrap UCL 50.90476RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution GAMMA1st Recommended UCL 62.23305 95% Approximate Gamma UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

SASO-Cd Revised 02/10/2006

009055

Data FileVariable: LEADRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 21Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 21Number of Distinct Observations 21Minimum 31.4Maximum 70800Mean 10002.92Standard Deviation 16938.54Variance 2.87E+08Coefficient of Variation 1.693359Skewness 2.79791Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.611415Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9085% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 16377.98Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.467323k star (bias corrected) 0.432309Theta hat 21404.74Theta star 23138.39nu hat 19.62756nu star 18.156965% Approximate Chi Square Value 9.503008Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0383Adjusted Chi Square Value 9.023417Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.296865Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.811902Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.132303Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.201183Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 19112.1395% Adjusted Gamma UCL 20127.93Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 3.446808Maximum of log data 11.16761Mean of log data 7.837012Standard Deviation of log data 2.086843Variance of log data 4.354915Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.946283Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9085% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 22347.5MLE Standard Deviation 195920.4MLE Coefficient of Variation 8.766996MLE Skewness 700.1342MLE Median 2532.626MLE 80% Quantile 14770.61MLE 90% Quantile 36997.51


SASO-Pb Revised 02/10/2006

009056

MLE 95% Quantile 78422.75MLE 99% Quantile 324814.6MVU Estimate of Median 2282.049MVU Estimate of Mean 17156.07MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 64905.59MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 9769.24795% H-UCL 165415.895% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 59739.2397.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 78164.9999% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 114358.8Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 16082.7895% Adjusted-CLT UCL 18494.1995% Modified-t UCL 16754.1295% Jackknife UCL 16377.9895% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 26114.6997.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 33086.2699% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 46780.56Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 15963.4395% Bootstrap-t UCL 25781.1295% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 40668.4895% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 16278.6295% BCA Bootstrap UCL 18935.1RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution GAMMA1st Recommended UCL 20127.93 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

SASO-Pb Revised 02/10/2006

009057

Data FileVariable: ZINCRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 21Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 21Number of Distinct Observations 21Minimum 46.1Maximum 7980Mean 1751.719Standard Deviation 2206.223Variance 4867421Coefficient of Variation 1.259462Skewness 1.74508Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.75994Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9085% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 2582.063Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.695616k star (bias corrected) 0.627988Theta hat 2518.227Theta star 2789.413nu hat 29.21587nu star 26.375515% Approximate Chi Square Value 15.66698Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0383Adjusted Chi Square Value 15.03342Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.321814Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.787708Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.124356Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.197668Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 2949.03595% Adjusted Gamma UCL 3073.318Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 3.830813Maximum of log data 8.984694Mean of log data 6.5988Standard Deviation of log data 1.504166Variance of log data 2.262515Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.966428Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9085% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 2275.734MLE Standard Deviation 6676.562MLE Coefficient of Variation 2.933807MLE Skewness 34.05334MLE Median 734.2137MLE 80% Quantile 2617.095MLE 90% Quantile 5072.826


SASO-Zn Revised 02/10/2006

009058

MLE 95% Quantile 8718.069MLE 99% Quantile 24281.99MVU Estimate of Median 695.6162MVU Estimate of Mean 2056.774MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 4318.224MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 813.343895% H-UCL 6945.96995% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 5602.05897.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7136.10599% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10149.44Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 2543.61395% Adjusted-CLT UCL 2739.50995% Modified-t UCL 2612.61995% Jackknife UCL 2582.06395% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 3850.25697.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 4758.29599% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 6541.961Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 2489.91195% Bootstrap-t UCL 2969.13995% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 3042.78195% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2549.47695% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2676.238RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution GAMMA1st Recommended UCL 2949.035 95% Approximate Gamma UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

SASO-Zn Revised 02/10/2006

009059

Data FileVariable: CADMIUMRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 261Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 261Number of Distinct Observations 110Minimum 0.125Maximum 248Mean 13.57155Standard Deviation 35.77084Variance 1279.553Coefficient of Variation 2.635722Skewness 4.546143Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic 0.353493Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.054842Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 17.22654Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.43473k star (bias corrected) 0.432287Theta hat 31.21837Theta star 31.39477nu hat 226.9289nu star 225.65395% Approximate Chi Square Value 191.8772Adjusted Level of Significance 0.04908Adjusted Chi Square Value 191.706Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 23.80135Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.837279Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.250532Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.060387Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 15.9605995% Adjusted Gamma UCL 15.97484Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -2.07944Maximum of log data 5.513429Mean of log data 1.114368Standard Deviation of log data 1.531564Variance of log data 2.345688Lilliefors Test Statisitic 0.115702Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.054842Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 9.847446MLE Standard Deviation 30.25658MLE Coefficient of Variation 3.072531MLE Skewness 38.22367MLE Median 3.047643MLE 80% Quantile 11.11771MLE 90% Quantile 21.81129

BUM-Cd Revised 02/10/2006

009060

MLE 95% Quantile 37.85605MLE 99% Quantile 107.4242MVU Estimate of Median 3.033978MVU Estimate of Mean 9.752941MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 28.72127MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 1.33441395% H-UCL 12.6201995% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 15.5695197.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 18.0863599% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 23.03019Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 17.2135295% Adjusted-CLT UCL 17.8792795% Modified-t UCL 17.3303995% Jackknife UCL 17.2265495% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 23.2228597.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 27.3989799% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 35.60216Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 17.249795% Bootstrap-t UCL 18.0972995% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 17.8896695% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 17.5029795% BCA Bootstrap UCL 17.56073RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution NON-PARAMETRIC1st Recommended UCL 27.39897 97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

BUM-Cd Revised 02/10/2006

009061

Data FileVariable: ZINCRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 261Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 261Number of Distinct Observations 235Minimum 0.25Maximum 39200Mean 2668.832Standard Deviation 7040.595Variance 49569974Coefficient of Variation 2.638081Skewness 3.781873Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic 0.368811Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.054842Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 3388.226Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.380161k star (bias corrected) 0.378346Theta hat 7020.266Theta star 7053.951nu hat 198.4441nu star 197.49655% Approximate Chi Square Value 165.9755Adjusted Level of Significance 0.04908Adjusted Chi Square Value 165.8166Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 23.91561Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.850569Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.244047Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.060827Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 3175.6895% Adjusted Gamma UCL 3178.723Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -1.38629Maximum of log data 10.57643Mean of log data 6.144169Standard Deviation of log data 1.721383Variance of log data 2.963159Lilliefors Test Statisitic 0.110915Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.054842Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 2050.316MLE Standard Deviation 8785.079MLE Coefficient of Variation 4.284745MLE Skewness 91.51801MLE Median 465.9924MLE 80% Quantile 1995.676MLE 90% Quantile 4256.262

C:\Documents and Settings\hawata\My Documents\Projects\Tar Creek_MSSL\RAGS-D\Rev Table2\Select AOC ProUCL and Rags D Table 2 051230 rev1.xls

BUM-Zn Revised 02/10/2006

009062


BUM-Zn Revised 02/10/2006

009063

Data FileVariable: CADMIUMRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 172Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 172Number of Distinct Observations 66Minimum 0.25Maximum 47.5Mean 4.048837Standard Deviation 7.285125Variance 53.07304Coefficient of Variation 1.799313Skewness 4.023453Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic 0.301026Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.067557Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 4.967506Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.831983k star (bias corrected) 0.821347Theta hat 4.866491Theta star 4.929506nu hat 286.2021nu star 282.54355% Approximate Chi Square Value 244.6047Adjusted Level of Significance 0.048605Adjusted Chi Square Value 244.3094Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 9.192734Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.791873Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.178967Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.07345Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 4.67682395% Adjusted Gamma UCL 4.682476Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -1.38629Maximum of log data 3.86073Mean of log data 0.688723Standard Deviation of log data 1.07537Variance of log data 1.156422Lilliefors Test Statisitic 0.093323Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.067557Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 3.549952MLE Standard Deviation 5.239684MLE Coefficient of Variation 1.475987MLE Skewness 7.643457MLE Median 1.991172MLE 80% Quantile 4.940227MLE 90% Quantile 7.929375


ResSOGP-Cd Revised 02/10/2006

009064


ResSOGP-Cd Revised 02/10/2006

009065

Data FileVariable: LEADRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 172Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 172Number of Distinct Observations 129Minimum 0.0125Maximum 822Mean 89.19019Standard Deviation 128.5803Variance 16532.88Coefficient of Variation 1.441641Skewness 3.155662Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic 0.305207Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.067557Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 105.4044Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.968962k star (bias corrected) 0.955937Theta hat 92.04715Theta star 93.30128nu hat 333.3229nu star 328.84255% Approximate Chi Square Value 287.8185Adjusted Level of Significance 0.048605Adjusted Chi Square Value 287.4975Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 9.303523Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.78518Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.186206Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.07304Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 101.902995% Adjusted Gamma UCL 102.0166Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -4.38203Maximum of log data 6.71174Mean of log data 3.892838Standard Deviation of log data 1.139761Variance of log data 1.299056Lilliefors Test Statisitic 0.114401Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.067557Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 93.91275MLE Standard Deviation 153.3349MLE Coefficient of Variation 1.632738MLE Skewness 9.250819MLE Median 49.04991MLE 80% Quantile 128.501MLE 90% Quantile 212.1793


ResSOGP-Pb Revised 02/10/2006

009066


ResSOGP-Pb Revised 02/10/2006

009067

Data FileVariable: ZINCRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 172Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 172Number of Distinct Observations 160Minimum 0.25Maximum 7700Mean 645.5363Standard Deviation 1133.534Variance 1284899Coefficient of Variation 1.755957Skewness 3.813788Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic 0.290177Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.067557Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 788.4773Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.743899k star (bias corrected) 0.7348Theta hat 867.7746Theta star 878.5202nu hat 255.9011nu star 252.77115% Approximate Chi Square Value 216.9519Adjusted Level of Significance 0.048605Adjusted Chi Square Value 216.6742Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 6.194203Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.796474Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.132567Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.073725Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 752.115695% Adjusted Gamma UCL 753.0795Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -1.38629Maximum of log data 8.948976Mean of log data 5.664463Standard Deviation of log data 1.27813Variance of log data 1.633616Lilliefors Test Statisitic 0.050577Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.067557Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 652.8001MLE Standard Deviation 1325.42MLE Coefficient of Variation 2.030361MLE Skewness 14.46097MLE Median 288.433MLE 80% Quantile 849.3595MLE 90% Quantile 1490.489


ResSOGP-Zn Revised 02/10/2006

009068

MLE 95% Quantile 2361.345MLE 99% Quantile 5638.612MVU Estimate of Median 287.0664MVU Estimate of Mean 647.2655MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 1268.372MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 83.2420795% H-UCL 825.988995% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1010.10997.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1167.11299% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1475.514Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 787.702995% Adjusted-CLT UCL 814.55995% Modified-t UCL 792.666395% Jackknife UCL 788.477395% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 1022.28197.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 1185.29999% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 1505.515Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 786.804395% Bootstrap-t UCL 832.101495% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 816.820695% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 790.600395% BCA Bootstrap UCL 811.1163RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution LOGNORMAL1st Recommended UCL 825.9889 95% H-UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

ResSOGP-Zn Revised 02/10/2006

009069

Data FileVariable: CADMIUMRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 9Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 9Number of Distinct Observations 7Minimum 0.25Maximum 9.6Mean 2.85Standard Deviation 3.084133Variance 9.511875Coefficient of Variation 1.082152Skewness 1.389807Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.827359Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.8295% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 4.761698Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.796516k star (bias corrected) 0.605085Theta hat 3.578084Theta star 4.710086nu hat 14.33728nu star 10.891525% Approximate Chi Square Value 4.505437Adjusted Level of Significance 0.02308Adjusted Chi Square Value 3.679105Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.567083Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.749973Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.219404Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.288837Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 6.88963995% Adjusted Gamma UCL 8.437063Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -1.386294Maximum of log data 2.261763Mean of log data 0.30178Standard Deviation of log data 1.459533Variance of log data 2.130236Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.847233Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.8295% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 3.923161MLE Standard Deviation 10.6843MLE Coefficient of Variation 2.72339MLE Skewness 28.36914

P:\US Environmental Protection Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\ProUCL input.xls

SO_NA-Cd

009070

MLE Median 1.352263MLE 80% Quantile 4.64172MLE 90% Quantile 8.822271MLE 95% Quantile 14.92013MLE 99% Quantile 40.31215MVU Estimate of Median 1.199608MVU Estimate of Mean 3.234613MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 5.242462MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 1.62764695% H-UCL 38.5526995% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10.3293697.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 13.3992699% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 19.42949Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 4.54098295% Adjusted-CLT UCL 5.04987495% Modified-t UCL 4.84107495% Jackknife UCL 4.76169895% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 7.33114197.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 9.27013499% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 13.07891Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 4.43233295% Bootstrap-t UCL 5.92851195% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 8.50604395% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 4.50555695% BCA Bootstrap UCL 4.95RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution GAMMA1st Recommended UCL 6.889639 95% Approximate Gamma UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

SO_NA-Cd

009071

Data FileVariable: ZINCRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 9Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 9Number of Distinct Observations 8Minimum 47Maximum 1940Mean 527.8889Standard Deviation 635.7323Variance 404155.6Coefficient of Variation 1.204292Skewness 1.607372Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.783211Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.8295% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 921.9472Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.725462k star (bias corrected) 0.557716Theta hat 727.6586Theta star 946.5198nu hat 13.05832nu star 10.038885% Approximate Chi Square Value 3.965233Adjusted Level of Significance 0.02308Adjusted Chi Square Value 3.201154Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.637796Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.753347Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.277486Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.289751Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 1336.4795% Adjusted Gamma UCL 1655.47Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 3.850148Maximum of log data 7.570443Mean of log data 5.439953Standard Deviation of log data 1.496399Variance of log data 2.239211Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.835441Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.8295% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 705.9598MLE Standard Deviation 2044.351MLE Coefficient of Variation 2.895846MLE Skewness 32.97188


SO_NA-Zn

009072

MLE Median 230.4313MLE 80% Quantile 815.9966MLE 90% Quantile 1576.285MLE 95% Quantile 2701.411MLE 99% Quantile 7484.411MVU Estimate of Median 203.1532MVU Estimate of Mean 574.4162MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 958.3916MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 295.944895% H-UCL 7728.49595% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1864.4197.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 2422.59199% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3519.029Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 876.451195% Adjusted-CLT UCL 997.7795% Modified-t UCL 940.870595% Jackknife UCL 921.947295% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 1451.58797.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 1851.27199% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 2636.375Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 851.301795% Bootstrap-t UCL 1279.97295% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 2725.51795% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 89695% BCA Bootstrap UCL 960.3333RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution GAMMA1st Recommended UCL 1336.47 95% Approximate Gamma UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

SO_NA-Zn

009073

Data FileVariable: CADMIUMRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 25Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 25Number of Distinct Observations 12Minimum 5.00E-05Maximum 0.003Mean 0.000808Standard Deviation 0.001014Variance 1.03E-06Coefficient of Variation 1.255375Skewness 1.421234Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.70931Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9185% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 0.001155Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.744188k star (bias corrected) 0.681552Theta hat 0.001086Theta star 0.001186nu hat 37.20939nu star 34.07765% Approximate Chi Square Value 21.72424Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0395Adjusted Chi Square Value 21.05139Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 1.214488Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.784005Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.182338Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.181374Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 0.00126795% Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.001308Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -9.903488Maximum of log data -5.809143Mean of log data -7.926212Standard Deviation of log data 1.343115Variance of log data 1.803959Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.90596Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9185% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 0.00089MLE Standard Deviation 0.002005MLE Coefficient of Variation 2.252475MLE Skewness 18.18569


GW_GP-Cd

009074

MLE Median 0.000361MLE 80% Quantile 0.001124MLE 90% Quantile 0.002029MLE 95% Quantile 0.00329MLE 99% Quantile 0.008212MVU Estimate of Median 0.000348MVU Estimate of Mean 0.000836MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 0.001516MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 0.00027195% H-UCL 0.00201695% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.00201697.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.00252799% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.00353Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 0.00114295% Adjusted-CLT UCL 0.00120395% Modified-t UCL 0.00116595% Jackknife UCL 0.00115595% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.00169297.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.00207599% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.002827Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.00114195% Bootstrap-t UCL 0.00128495% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 0.00114595% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.00115295% BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.00119RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution NON-PARAMETRIC1st Recommended UCL 0.002827 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

GW_GP-Cd

009075

Data FileVariable: ZINCRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 25Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 25Number of Distinct Observations 17Minimum 0.005Maximum 1.11Mean 0.2074Standard Deviation 0.30396Variance 0.092392Coefficient of Variation 1.465576Skewness 2.027789Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.667525Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9185% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 0.311408Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.608542k star (bias corrected) 0.562183Theta hat 0.340815Theta star 0.368919nu hat 30.42708nu star 28.109165% Approximate Chi Square Value 17.01113Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0395Adjusted Chi Square Value 16.42232Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 1.102471Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.796734Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.204483Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.183094Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 0.34270795% Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.354995Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -5.298317Maximum of log data 0.10436Mean of log data -2.586335Standard Deviation of log data 1.55063Variance of log data 2.404453Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.938492Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9185% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 0.250547MLE Standard Deviation 0.795162MLE Coefficient of Variation 3.1737MLE Skewness 41.48779


GW_GP-Zn

009076

MLE Median 0.075296MLE 80% Quantile 0.279137MLE 90% Quantile 0.552238MLE 95% Quantile 0.965076MLE 99% Quantile 2.774389MVU Estimate of Median 0.071754MVU Estimate of Mean 0.227978MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 0.523839MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 0.08780995% H-UCL 0.7108395% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.6107397.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.77634799% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.101669Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 0.30739495% Adjusted-CLT UCL 0.33373895% Modified-t UCL 0.31551795% Jackknife UCL 0.31140895% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.47238797.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.58704699% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.812274Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.30493395% Bootstrap-t UCL 0.37032395% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 0.38609795% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.308695% BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.3284RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution LOGNORMAL1st Recommended UCL 0.61073 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

GW_GP-Zn

009077

Data FileVariable: CADMIUMRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 97Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 97Number of Distinct Observations 91Minimum 10.4Maximum 197Mean 76.23196Standard Deviation 38.93794Variance 1516.163Coefficient of Variation 0.510782Skewness 1.193111Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic 0.134377Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.08996Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 82.79833Gamma Statisticsk hat 3.923543k star (bias corrected) 3.809069Theta hat 19.42937Theta star 20.01328nu hat 761.1673nu star 738.95945% Approximate Chi Square Value 676.8694Adjusted Level of Significance 0.047526Adjusted Chi Square Value 675.9821Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.917759Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.756289Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.091539Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.091214Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 83.224895% Adjusted Gamma UCL 83.33405Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 2.341806Maximum of log data 5.283204Mean of log data 4.200966Standard Deviation of log data 0.547492Variance of log data 0.299747Lilliefors Test Statisitic 0.122505Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.08996Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 77.54354MLE Standard Deviation 45.84377MLE Coefficient of Variation 0.5912MLE Skewness 1.980237


Recr_All-Cd

009078

MLE Median 66.75077MLE 80% Quantile 106.0167MLE 90% Quantile 134.8945MLE 95% Quantile 164.2829MLE 99% Quantile 238.515MVU Estimate of Median 66.64771MVU Estimate of Mean 77.4065MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 45.44717MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 4.5855595% H-UCL 86.0396595% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 97.3944597.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 106.043399% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 123.0322Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 82.7349795% Adjusted-CLT UCL 83.2467295% Modified-t UCL 82.8781695% Jackknife UCL 82.7983395% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 93.4650897.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 100.921999% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 115.5693Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 82.7586895% Bootstrap-t UCL 83.4892495% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 83.3798995% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 82.8288795% BCA Bootstrap UCL 83.45464RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution NON-PARAMETRIC1st Recommended UCL 93.46508 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

Recr_All-Cd

009079

Data FileVariable: ZINCRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 97Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 97Number of Distinct Observations 86Minimum 2200Maximum 42200Mean 16388.97Standard Deviation 8901.49Variance 79236526Coefficient of Variation 0.543139Skewness 0.671467Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic 0.078351Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.08996Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Normality Test Result NORMAL Data are normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 17890.09Gamma Statisticsk hat 3.032734k star (bias corrected) 2.945811Theta hat 5404.025Theta star 5563.483nu hat 588.3504nu star 571.48735% Approximate Chi Square Value 517.027Adjusted Level of Significance 0.047526Adjusted Chi Square Value 516.2531Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.355082Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.758649Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.0558Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.091502Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 18115.2895% Adjusted Gamma UCL 18142.43Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 7.696213Maximum of log data 10.65018Mean of log data 9.530529Standard Deviation of log data 0.643228Variance of log data 0.413742Lilliefors Test Statisitic 0.090656Lilliefors 5% Critical Value 0.08996Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic N/AShapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value N/A5% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 16939.45MLE Standard Deviation 12126.41MLE Coefficient of Variation 0.715868MLE Skewness 2.514463


Recr_All-Zn

009080

MLE Median 13773.88MLE 80% Quantile 23719.6MLE 90% Quantile 31479.04MLE 95% Quantile 39681.46MLE 99% Quantile 61492.94MVU Estimate of Median 13744.54MVU Estimate of Mean 16896.17MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 11974.94MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 1201.80995% H-UCL 19218.8595% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 22134.7497.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 24401.4799% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 28854.02Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 17875.695% Adjusted-CLT UCL 17941.4495% Modified-t UCL 17900.3695% Jackknife UCL 17890.0995% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 20328.5897.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 22033.2699% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 25381.76Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 17836.2395% Bootstrap-t UCL 18050.3295% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 17942.5195% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 17893.8195% BCA Bootstrap UCL 17879.38RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution NORMAL1st Recommended UCL 17890.09 95% Student's-t UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

Recr_All-Zn

009081

Data FileVariable: CADMIUM, Wet Weight BasisRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 19Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 19Number of Distinct Observations 19Minimum 0.6707Maximum 21.333Mean 3.645237Standard Deviation 4.612722Variance 21.2772Coefficient of Variation 1.265411Skewness 3.450191Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.566188Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 5.480276Gamma Statisticsk hat 1.415181k star (bias corrected) 1.226819Theta hat 2.57581Theta star 2.971292nu hat 53.77686nu star 46.619115% Approximate Chi Square Value 31.94917Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03687Adjusted Chi Square Value 30.8882Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.85842Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.759025Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.215702Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.202443Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 5.31900395% Adjusted Gamma UCL 5.501703Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -0.399433Maximum of log data 3.060255Mean of log data 0.900232Standard Deviation of log data 0.823448Variance of log data 0.678067Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.954524Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 3.453076MLE Standard Deviation 3.401MLE Coefficient of Variation 0.984919

P:\US Environmental Protection Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls

ASP_AG-Cd

009082

MLE Skewness 3.910192MLE Median 2.460174MLE 80% Quantile 4.933486MLE 90% Quantile 7.087714MLE 95% Quantile 9.533426MLE 99% Quantile 16.70273MVU Estimate of Median 2.416626MVU Estimate of Mean 3.3752MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 3.072981MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 0.69182495% H-UCL 5.48313595% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 6.39079397.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7.69564299% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10.25877Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 5.38587295% Adjusted-CLT UCL 6.2808895% Modified-t UCL 5.6198895% Jackknife UCL 5.48027695% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 8.25795997.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 10.2538999% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 14.1745Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 5.34588895% Bootstrap-t UCL 8.193295% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 11.9971495% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 5.44521695% BCA Bootstrap UCL 6.676116RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution LOGNORMAL1st Recommended UCL 5.483135 95% H-UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

ASP_AG-Cd

009083

Data FileVariable: ZINC, Wet Weight BasisRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 19Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 19Number of Distinct Observations 19Minimum 23.3758Maximum 409.5Mean 105.6423Standard Deviation 85.47525Variance 7306.018Coefficient of Variation 0.809101Skewness 2.641651Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.718194Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 139.6461Gamma Statisticsk hat 2.233108k star (bias corrected) 1.915599Theta hat 47.30728Theta star 55.14841nu hat 84.85809nu star 72.792785% Approximate Chi Square Value 54.14289Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03687Adjusted Chi Square Value 52.73746Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.602674Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.750962Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.184297Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.200637Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 142.031595% Adjusted Gamma UCL 145.8165Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 3.151701Maximum of log data 6.014937Mean of log data 4.419752Standard Deviation of log data 0.715774Variance of log data 0.512332Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.937265Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 107.3311MLE Standard Deviation 87.80044MLE Coefficient of Variation 0.818034


ASP_AG-Zn

009084

MLE Skewness 3.001512MLE Median 83.07572MLE 80% Quantile 152.1065MLE 90% Quantile 208.413MLE 95% Quantile 269.6703MLE 99% Quantile 439.0625MVU Estimate of Median 81.96243MVU Estimate of Mean 105.5912MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 81.59491MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 18.5078695% H-UCL 156.83395% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 186.26597.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 221.172799% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 289.742Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 137.896895% Adjusted-CLT UCL 150.59595% Modified-t UCL 141.626895% Jackknife UCL 139.646195% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 191.117597.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 228.102799% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 300.753Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 137.380195% Bootstrap-t UCL 162.454195% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 301.403195% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 140.026995% BCA Bootstrap UCL 154.2966RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution GAMMA1st Recommended UCL 142.0315 95% Approximate Gamma UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

ASP_AG-Zn

009085

Data FileVariable: CADMIUM, Wet Weight BasisRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 19Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 19Number of Distinct Observations 19Minimum 4.4243Maximum 25.915Mean 10.16578Standard Deviation 5.64115Variance 31.82257Coefficient of Variation 0.554916Skewness 1.772553Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.797381Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 12.40995Gamma Statisticsk hat 4.535564k star (bias corrected) 3.85451Theta hat 2.241348Theta star 2.637372nu hat 172.3514nu star 146.47145% Approximate Chi Square Value 119.4954Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03687Adjusted Chi Square Value 117.367Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.692881Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.743651Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.164039Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.199085Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 12.4606995% Adjusted Gamma UCL 12.68666Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 1.487112Maximum of log data 3.254822Mean of log data 2.204756Standard Deviation of log data 0.468776Variance of log data 0.219751Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.943686Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 10.12119MLE Standard Deviation 5.017559MLE Coefficient of Variation 0.495748


ASP_RT-Cd

009086


ASP_RT-Cd

009087

Data FileVariable: ZINC, Wet Weight BasisRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 19Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 19Number of Distinct Observations 19Minimum 234.107Maximum 3578.58Mean 1021.17Standard Deviation 901.7106Variance 813082Coefficient of Variation 0.883017Skewness 2.079078Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.728782Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 1379.89Gamma Statisticsk hat 1.992271k star (bias corrected) 1.71279Theta hat 512.5659Theta star 596.2029nu hat 75.7063nu star 65.0865% Approximate Chi Square Value 47.51986Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03687Adjusted Chi Square Value 46.20834Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.637977Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.751899Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.172274Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.200849Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 1398.65595% Adjusted Gamma UCL 1438.352Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 5.455778Maximum of log data 8.182721Mean of log data 6.657217Standard Deviation of log data 0.724864Variance of log data 0.525428Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.963172Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 1012.25MLE Standard Deviation 841.5587MLE Coefficient of Variation 0.831374


ASP_RT-Zn

009088


ASP_RT-Zn

009089



WLW_AG-Cd

009090


WLW_AG-Cd

009091

Data FileVariable: ZINC, Wet Weight BasisRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 19Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 19Number of Distinct Observations 19Minimum 67.445Maximum 705.55Mean 400.7297Standard Deviation 167.0303Variance 27899.12Coefficient of Variation 0.416815Skewness 0.252928Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.959289Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Normality Test Result NORMAL Data are normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 467.1779Gamma Statisticsk hat 4.843729k star (bias corrected) 4.114017Theta hat 82.73165Theta star 97.40593nu hat 184.0617nu star 156.33275% Approximate Chi Square Value 128.4228Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03687Adjusted Chi Square Value 126.2132Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.407739Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.742794Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.144998Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.199002Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 487.819395% Adjusted Gamma UCL 496.3596Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 4.211312Maximum of log data 6.558978Mean of log data 5.886524Standard Deviation of log data 0.530245Variance of log data 0.28116Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.859201Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 414.5127MLE Standard Deviation 236.1869MLE Coefficient of Variation 0.569794


WLW_AG-Zn

009092

MLE Skewness 1.894374MLE Median 360.1511MLE 80% Quantile 563.7331MLE 90% Quantile 711.8653MLE 95% Quantile 861.5877MLE 99% Quantile 1236.294MVU Estimate of Median 357.4953MVU Estimate of Mean 411.0981MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 227.4641MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 51.9910895% H-UCL 535.210695% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 637.72297.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 735.782399% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 928.4028Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 463.759595% Adjusted-CLT UCL 466.135395% Modified-t UCL 467.548595% Jackknife UCL 467.177995% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 567.7697.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 640.034199% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 782.0027Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 463.260295% Bootstrap-t UCL 466.493395% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 467.001395% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 462.085295% BCA Bootstrap UCL 466.2501RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution NORMAL1st Recommended UCL 467.1779 95% Student's-t UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

WLW_AG-Zn

009093



WLW_RT-Cd

009094


WLW_RT-Cd

009095

Data FileVariable: ZINC, Wet Weight BasisRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 19Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 19Number of Distinct Observations 19Minimum 466.04Maximum 13202Mean 3017.537Standard Deviation 3357.135Variance 11270354Coefficient of Variation 1.112541Skewness 1.921427Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.753607Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 4353.078Gamma Statisticsk hat 1.136297k star (bias corrected) 0.99197Theta hat 2655.588Theta star 3041.965nu hat 43.1793nu star 37.694855% Approximate Chi Square Value 24.63453Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03687Adjusted Chi Square Value 23.71244Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.673637Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.76588Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.193424Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.203704Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 4617.32495% Adjusted Gamma UCL 4796.875Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 6.144271Maximum of log data 9.488124Mean of log data 7.5115Standard Deviation of log data 1.013264Variance of log data 1.026704Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.944045Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 3055.97MLE Standard Deviation 4090.721MLE Coefficient of Variation 1.3386


WLW_RT-Zn

009096


WLW_RT-Zn

009097

Data FileVariable: CADMIUM, Wet Weight BasisRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 19Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 19Number of Distinct Observations 19Minimum 0.018535Maximum 34.17Mean 1.929388Standard Deviation 7.809385Variance 60.98649Coefficient of Variation 4.047596Skewness 4.355261Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.257606Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 5.036129Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.253795k star (bias corrected) 0.24881Theta hat 7.602157Theta star 7.754474nu hat 9.644205nu star 9.4547695% Approximate Chi Square Value 3.603142Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03687Adjusted Chi Square Value 3.293088Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 4.341475Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.863551Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.433269Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.217306Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 5.06278295% Adjusted Gamma UCL 5.539458Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -3.988094Maximum of log data 3.531348Mean of log data -2.134677Standard Deviation of log data 1.64886Variance of log data 2.71874Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.770123Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 0.460562MLE Standard Deviation 1.733159MLE Coefficient of Variation 3.763138


CT_AG-Cd

009098

MLE Skewness 64.57999MLE Median 0.118283MLE 80% Quantile 0.476451MLE 90% Quantile 0.984234MLE 95% Quantile 1.781931MLE 99% Quantile 5.477077MVU Estimate of Median 0.110087MVU Estimate of Mean 0.39892MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 0.947943MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 0.18120795% H-UCL 1.91297495% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.18878397.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.53055799% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 2.201906Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 4.87630195% Adjusted-CLT UCL 6.7890595% Modified-t UCL 5.33447995% Jackknife UCL 5.03612995% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 9.73877397.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 13.117999% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 19.75554Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 4.78186795% Bootstrap-t UCL 212.484995% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 75.7044795% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 5.50016895% BCA Bootstrap UCL 7.374327RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution NON-PARAMETRIC1st Recommended UCL 19.75554 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

CT_AG-Cd

009099

Data FileVariable: ZINC, Wet Weight BasisRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 19Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 19Number of Distinct Observations 19Minimum 13.9518Maximum 4411.5Mean 269.7441Standard Deviation 1003.163Variance 1006337Coefficient of Variation 3.718944Skewness 4.356125Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.259171Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 668.824Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.374906k star (bias corrected) 0.350798Theta hat 719.4987Theta star 768.9449nu hat 14.24642nu star 13.330325% Approximate Chi Square Value 6.114415Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03687Adjusted Chi Square Value 5.691057Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 5.051205Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.827825Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance levelKolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.45319Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.213205Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level5% Gamma Test Result NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 588.081595% Adjusted Gamma UCL 631.8289Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 2.635609Maximum of log data 8.39197Mean of log data 3.823786Standard Deviation of log data 1.202141Variance of log data 1.445143Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.6211Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 94.2883MLE Standard Deviation 169.7833MLE Coefficient of Variation 1.800683


CT_AG-Zn

009100

MLE Skewness 11.24069MLE Median 45.77718MLE 80% Quantile 126.4181MLE 90% Quantile 214.5487MLE 95% Quantile 330.7317MLE 99% Quantile 749.9193MVU Estimate of Median 44.06575MVU Estimate of Mean 88.8236MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 131.1865MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 28.0932695% H-UCL 216.103395% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 211.279397.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 264.26699% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 368.348Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 648.293195% Adjusted-CLT UCL 894.046195% Modified-t UCL 707.156595% Jackknife UCL 668.82495% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 1272.90797.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 1706.97799% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 2559.622Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 634.192495% Bootstrap-t UCL 18462.0695% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 7059.11295% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 728.764295% BCA Bootstrap UCL 964.6947RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution NON-PARAMETRIC1st Recommended UCL 2559.622 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

CT_AG-Zn

009101

Data FileVariable: CADMIUM, Wet Weight BasisRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 19Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 19Number of Distinct Observations 19Minimum 0.04185Maximum 249.426Mean 27.9128Standard Deviation 58.66365Variance 3441.424Coefficient of Variation 2.101676Skewness 3.416635Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.49694Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 51.25046Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.435663k star (bias corrected) 0.401962Theta hat 64.06967Theta star 69.44138nu hat 16.5552nu star 15.274565% Approximate Chi Square Value 7.45171Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03687Adjusted Chi Square Value 6.977314Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.615849Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.815671Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.179181Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.211643Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 57.2158295% Adjusted Gamma UCL 61.10598Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data -3.173663Maximum of log data 5.519162Mean of log data 1.839188Standard Deviation of log data 2.100436Variance of log data 4.41183Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.936759Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Lognormality Test Result LOGNORMAL Data are lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 57.11706MLE Standard Deviation 515.3852MLE Coefficient of Variation 9.023314


CT_RT-Cd

009102

MLE Skewness 761.7499MLE Median 6.291425MLE 80% Quantile 37.11629MLE 90% Quantile 93.52676MLE 95% Quantile 199.2189MLE 99% Quantile 832.8064MVU Estimate of Median 5.597965MVU Estimate of Mean 42.62768MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation 155.798MVU Estimate of SE of Mean 25.066195% H-UCL 520.238695% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 151.888397.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 199.165499% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 292.0323Non-parametric Statisitics95% CLT UCL 50.0498495% Adjusted-CLT UCL 61.3216795% Modified-t UCL 53.0086395% Jackknife UCL 51.2504695% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 86.5764597.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 111.960399% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 161.8218Bootstrap StatisticsNumber of Bootstrap Runs 200095% Standard Bootstrap UCL 49.6843195% Bootstrap-t UCL 122.527595% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 132.330795% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 52.2681695% BCA Bootstrap UCL 64.9869RecommendationsHuman Inspection Recommended? NOAppropriate Distribution GAMMA1st Recommended UCL 61.10598 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL2nd Recommended UCL3rd Recommended UCLRecommended UCL > Max Data ValueRecommendation Warning! NONEAlternative UCL NONE

CT_RT-Cd

009103

Data FileVariable: ZINC, Wet Weight BasisRaw StatisticsNumber of Observations 19Number of Missing Data 0Number of Valid Observations 19Number of Distinct Observations 19Minimum 17.825Maximum 18414Mean 2448.916Standard Deviation 4099.711Variance 16807631Coefficient of Variation 1.674092Skewness 3.617535Too Few Distinct Observations? NONormal StatisticsLilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.532021Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Normality Test Result NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level95% Student's-t UCL 4079.869Gamma Statisticsk hat 0.650501k star (bias corrected) 0.582878Theta hat 3764.661Theta star 4201.421nu hat 24.71904nu star 22.149375% Approximate Chi Square Value 12.44871Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03687Adjusted Chi Square Value 11.81492Anderson-Darling Test Statistic 0.503688Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value 0.78834Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result AD GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic 0.129583Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.207642Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result KS GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level5% Gamma Test Result GAMMA Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level95% Approximate Gamma UCL 4357.23595% Adjusted Gamma UCL 4590.972Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of log data 2.880602Maximum of log data 9.820867Mean of log data 6.864662Standard Deviation of log data 1.697119Variance of log data 2.880213Lilliefors Test Statisitic N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultLilliefors 5% Critical Value N/R Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate resultShapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.881736Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9015% Lognormality Test Result NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance levelMLE Mean 4043.105MLE Standard Deviation 16580.7MLE Coefficient of Variation 4.100983


CT_RT-Zn

009104


CT_RT-Zn

009105

Appendix M Report to Congress

009106





009107

REPORT TO CONGRESS

Tar Creek Superfund Site

Ottawa County, Oklahoma

Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.

Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

October 2004

009108

Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress

2

Table of Contents I. REPORT SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................4

PURPOSE...................................................................................................................................................................4 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................................4 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................................5

II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................................6 HISTORY OF ATSDR ACTIVITIES ...........................................................................................................................6 CURRENT ATSDR ACTIVITIES................................................................................................................................7

III. EXPOSURE PATHWAY EVALUATION .........................................................................................................7 IDENTIFICATION OF PATHWAYS OF EXPOSURE ......................................................................................................7 SOURCES AND EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AT TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE ..............................................................8 MAJOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS..........................................................................................................8

Residential Area Soil ...........................................................................................................................................8 Mine Tailings .......................................................................................................................................................9 Lead-Based Paint .................................................................................................................................................9

OTHER EXPOSURE PATHWAYS................................................................................................................................9 Ingestion of Homegrown Produce........................................................................................................................9 Ingestion of Tap Water.......................................................................................................................................10 Airborne Dust.....................................................................................................................................................10 Use of Biota by Tar Creek Site Area Tribal Populations ...................................................................................10

PHYSICAL HAZARDS ..............................................................................................................................................11 IV. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................................11

BLOOD LEAD EVALUATION ...................................................................................................................................12 Datasets Reviewed .............................................................................................................................................12

PERCENTAGE OF ELEVATED BLLS AND GEOMETRIC MEAN OF BLLS ...............................................................13 PICHER/CARDIN IN COMPARISON WITH THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE AS A WHOLE ................................13 CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN WITH ELEVATED BLLS .................................................................................14 DATA LIMITATIONS ...............................................................................................................................................14 INTERVENTIONS .....................................................................................................................................................14

V. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................15 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................................15 VII. APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................................17 TABLE 1 — MAJOR LEAD EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AT THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE ..........18 TABLE 2 — OTHER LEAD EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AT THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE ..........19 TABLE 3 — DEMOGRAPHICS IN TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE AREA* ..............................................20

009109


3

TABLE 4 — CHARACTERISTICS OF BLOOD LEAD TESTING DATA AMONG CHILDREN AGED 1–5 YEARS LIVING WITHIN THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE—ENTIRE SITE*..................................................21 TABLE 5 — CHARACTERISTICS OF BLOOD LEAD TESTING DATA AMONG CHILDREN AGED 1–5 YEARS LIVING WITHIN THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE—PICHER AND CARDIN ONLY*.....................23 TABLE 6 – EXISTING HEALTH STUDY INFORMATION ..............................................................................25 TABLE 7 — CHILDREN AGED 1–5 YEARS LIVING IN THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE WITH KNOWN ELEVATED BLLS IN 2003, RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT LEAD EXPOSURE STATUS..........................26 VIII. FIGURES..........................................................................................................................................................27 IX. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................................35

009110


4

I. Report Summary

Purpose The Senate Appropriations Committee directed the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) “to help assess the level of lead poisoning of families, especially children, at the Tar Creek Superfund Site in Oklahoma. A report to Congress on this assessment is due no later than July 31, 2004” (Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, Appropriations Bill, 2004, Senate Report 108–143, September 5, 2003, page 86).

Senator James Inhofe, as a senator from Oklahoma and as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, expressed his expectations about the directive: “I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this endeavor to more fully understand the elevated lead levels we’re seeing in this community, particularly in children. As the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over both Superfund and ATSDR, I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate on my expectations of ATSDR in connection with this directive: I am urging ATSDR, in collaboration with the Oklahoma State Health Department, to work to identify significant sources and pathways of exposure to lead that may be contributing to elevated blood lead levels in children at the Tar Creek Superfund site in Oklahoma” (Congressional Record, Senate, January 22, 2004, page S140).

Findings Mine tailings and lead-based paint are two potential sources contributing to lead exposures in children residing in the Tar Creek Site area. Children can be exposed to these sources of lead primarily through contact with household dust and soil.

From 1995 to 2003, a decrease was observed both in the average blood lead levels (BLLs) and the percentage of elevated BLLs (at or above 10 micrograms per deciliter [µg/dL]) among children aged 1 to 5 years who were living at the Tar Creek Superfund site and who were tested for lead. In 2003, the average BLL and the percentage of elevated BLLs among children who were tested for lead and who lived at the site were slightly higher than those of children living in the United States as a whole during 1999 and 2000 (1). This comparison should be viewed with caution, however, because the U.S. data are based on a representative sample of the United States (1), and the data collected for tested children at the site are not representative of all children living at the Tar Creek Superfund site area. Risk behaviors and/or exposure sources in a limited number of households may have been important factors contributing to the number of children with elevated BLLs living at the site from January 2000 to February 2004. Declining BLLs among tested children living at the site should not be interpreted to mean that existing interventions in the Tar Creek area are no longer needed. Indeed, such ongoing efforts as soil remediation and an active lead screening and health education program should be evaluated to determine their contribution to this decline. Meanwhile, these efforts should be continued. Elimination of the sources of lead contamination will achieve long-term protection of children. Screening efforts will confirm and monitor blood lead trends, while ongoing public health education reinforces the need for behaviors that may reduce exposure to lead and its subsequent health effects among adults and children.

009111


5

Recommendations On the basis of the review of environmental and blood lead screening data, ATSDR is taking a number of steps to address expressed concerns and has recommended additional actions to protect the health of Tar Creek area residents:

• Continue to provide blood lead screening to children living around the site. Currently, ATSDR provides funds from EPA to the Ottawa County Health Department to conduct screening activities. EPA is continuing to fund these activities through FY 2005.

• Continue to provide lead exposure prevention education to people potentially impacted by the site. Currently, ATSDR provides funds from EPA to the Ottawa County Health Department to engage in prevention education activities. EPA is continuing to fund these activities through FY 2005.

• Recommend that the Oklahoma State Department of Health or the Ottawa County Health Department support periodic reports of Tar Creek and Ottawa County child blood lead statistics to the Ottawa County communities. These reports could include trends and comparisons to state and national levels.

• Complete remediation of residential properties. EPA funds this activity. According to EPA, residential remediation is ongoing.

• Complete the investigation of chat piles, mill and mine residues, and flotation ponds. According to EPA, these activities are planned for completion next year.

• Assess the risk for lead exposure from using mine tailings (chat) for commercial and residential purposes, including processing and transporting the material. ATSDR has included in its FY 2004 and in the FY 2005 President’s Budget request funding for an ongoing public health assessment regarding public health hazards associated with the Tar Creek site. The public health assessment will include identification of gaps in existing data and recommendations regarding further monitoring and other activities to evaluate risks of lead exposure. ATSDR recommends that any person proposing to use chat for commercial purposes arrange for an independent assessment of risks from exposure potentially associated with that use.

• To address concerns regarding the sources of lead exposure for children who currently have elevated BLLs, correlate lead isotopes in the environment and in children’s blood. This approach would seek to identify specific environmental sources contributing to elevated BLLs in children. The measured ratio of lead isotopes 206Pb and 207Pb in the blood of children and adults would be compared with the ratio of 206Pb and 207Pb in environmental sources and biota (2, 3). ATSDR may conduct a small project to assess the feasibility of this approach.

• Evaluate the health risks of other site-related contaminants and of physical hazards. Funding to support this ongoing activity is included in ATSDR’s FY 2004 and the FY 2005 President’s Budget.

ATSDR is considering whether to evaluate the effectiveness of activities at the Site, including soil remediation and tribal and non-tribal health education/blood lead screening programs. Such an evaluation might result in identification and then strengthening of those activities that have the most impact on reducing or eliminating lead exposure.

009112


6

II. Background The Tar Creek Superfund site (the site) is located in far northeastern Oklahoma (Ottawa County) near the Oklahoma/Kansas border. The site itself comprises a 40-square mile area but is part of the larger Tri-State Mining District that includes areas of Kansas and Missouri and 10 Tribal Nations. The site encompasses portions of several communities, including Quapaw Nation, Picher, Cardin, Quapaw, North Miami, and Commerce. Approximately 6,400 residents live within the site boundaries.

From the early 1900s through the late 1970s, the site was mined extensively for lead and zinc ore. The milling process for the lead and zinc ore resulted in a concentrated form of the original mined material. It also resulted in mine tailings (chat) that were originally considered a waste product. The chat was disposed of in piles or in flotation or tailing ponds. Some piles are as high as 200 feet and contain elevated levels of lead and other heavy metals. The chat in flotation ponds has not been quantified. The U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimate that the site contains 75 million tons of chat. The chat has been sold as a construction product, similar to limestone gravel, for many years.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed the site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983. Initially, EPA addressed surface water contamination, which included the mine water discharge in Tar Creek and the threat of contamination from open abandoned wells to the Roubidoux Aquifer. In 1995, EPA began sampling area soils. On the basis of elevated lead levels in soils, EPA began yard remediation activities that continue today. EPA has entered into an Administrative Order of Consent with several entities to investigate the site and provide the information needed to begin cleanup of chat piles, flotation ponds, and mill ponds.

History of ATSDR Activities In September 1993, ATSDR reviewed the limited environmental data for the site. On the basis of the review, ATSDR made the following recommendations:

• Restrict access to any known open mine shafts and cave-ins at the site.

• Continue sampling of the Roubidoux Aquifer to determine whether acid mine water is significantly impacting it.

• Continue monitoring area drinking water wells, especially public water supply wells, for site-related contaminants.

• Continue periodic sampling of water and sediments in Tar Creek and other area surface waters.

• Consider sampling fish from area surface waters impacted by acid mine drainage.

• Sample area chat piles and soils near piles (including residential yards and other areas that children frequent) to determine whether metals are detected at levels of health concern.

• Review results of any sampling activities conducted in accordance with these recommendations to determine whether further actions by ATSDR are needed.

009113


7

From 1993 to the present time, ATSDR has participated in numerous activities at the Tar Creek Site. Beginning in spring 1993, ATSDR became aware of blood lead sampling data collected by the Indian Health Service (IHS). ATSDR and IHS evaluated these data and determined that 35% of the children tested at the IHS clinic in Ottawa County had elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) (at or above10 µg/dL). ATSDR initiated a limited investigation to evaluate the lead levels in soil, paint, dust, and water at nine houses identified by IHS as homes to children with BLLs at or above10 µg/dL. The results indicated elevated levels of lead in paint and dust/soil in two homes. In 1995, in a second effort to address exposure, ATSDR provided technical assistance and resources to the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) to conduct BLL screening in all children who lived in Ottawa County.

On the basis of the finding of elevated BLLs, EPA investigated the contamination of residential yards and play areas. An extensive residential yard cleanup was conducted, and over 2,012 properties were remediated. ATSDR provided health recommendations to EPA on the remediation plans for residential soils.

In 1997, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the residential areas. As part of this ROD, EPA recommended ongoing blood lead screening and health professional/community health education. EPA agreed to fund the OSDH/Ottawa County Health Department (OCHD) to implement a lead screening and education program for the Tar Creek area. EPA originally committed to funding $1 million, but it continues to fund the project, even though the $1 million has been expended. Continued funding is determined on an annual basis. EPA has provided $175,000 of FY2004 monies for work in FY2005.

Current ATSDR Activities ATSDR has identified data that address the multiple pathways of exposure for the Tar Creek Site. On the basis of availability of this data, ATSDR is currently preparing a public health assessment. ATSDR is working collaboratively with OSDH and EPA to evaluate the public health issues associated with the site. Additionally, OSDH requested that ATSDR assist OSDH in evaluating the potential health threat posed by the chat piles. ATSDR, with the assistance of OSDH and EPA, has obtained blood lead and environmental data for completion of this report.

Lead isotopes and isotopic ratios have been used to identify the source of lead poisoning when multiple sources of lead are present (2). ATSDR is developing a protocol to test this technique in the Ottawa County Health Department investigations of children with elevated blood lead levels. This protocol would measure lead isotopes and compare the isotopic ratio of lead in children with elevated blood lead levels to isotopic ratios of lead present in the child’s environment.

ATSDR will continue to work with OSDH and EPA to complete the public health assessment. A description of the current evaluation of the sources and pathways of exposure and blood lead exposure status follows.

III. Exposure Pathway Evaluation

Identification of Pathways of Exposure ATSDR identifies human exposure pathways by examining environmental and human

009114


8

components that might lead to contact with contaminants (4). A pathway analysis considers five principal elements:

• Source of contamination

• Transport through an environmental medium

• A point of exposure

• A route of human exposure

• An exposed population

Completed exposure pathways are those for which the five elements are evident and exposure to a contaminant has occurred, is occurring, or will occur. ATSDR regards people who come in contact with contamination as exposed. That exposure can occur through breathing airborne contaminants, drinking contaminated water, eating contaminated plants or animals, or playing or digging in contaminated soil. Identification of a completed exposure pathway does not necessarily mean that health effects will occur. Exposures may or may not be significant. Thus, even after exposure, human health effects may not necessarily result.

Sources and Exposure Pathways at Tar Creek Superfund Site ATSDR reviewed site history, site activities, and sampling data for the site. From this review, ATSDR identified sources and pathways of exposure that warranted consideration (Tables 1 and 2). These pathways are subdivided into the major pathways of exposure and pathways for which additional data are needed to assess their contribution to exposure.

Major Completed Exposure Pathways

Residential Area Soil Residential area soil (i.e., residential yards, daycare centers, playgrounds, and parks) is considered a completed exposure pathway for areas identified (Figure 1) as having soil lead levels at or above 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The main source of lead contamination in the residential area of the site is mine tailings (5). The tailings were transported to the residential properties as a result of deposition of airborne dust from tailings piles and ponds and use of chat as fill and for surfacing driveways. People can ingest soils as an incidental consequence of typical outdoor activities, such as working in the yard, gardening, and playing. The soil exposure pathway is especially important for children, who exhibit hand-to-mouth behavior and consequently have higher soil ingestion rates.

The extent of lead contamination of residential soil has decreased since 1995. Over 2,000 residential yards have been cleaned up by EPA, and EPA continues to address residential contamination. As of April 2004, over 500 residential properties still need to be sampled. EPA’s system for remediating yards gives top priority to homes with children under 7 years of age. Because all yards have yet to be remediated, young children may continue to be exposed to lead from residential soil.

009115


9

The tailings also contribute to lead exposures in homes. House dust sampling described in EPA’s 1996 Tar Creek Risk Assessment indicate that tailings are present in house dust. Confirming this finding, the 1997 Tribal Efforts Against Lead (TEAL) investigation also identified house dust as a point of exposure to lead (6). Household dust is another point of exposure to site-related lead for children and adults through hand-to-mouth behaviors.

Mine Tailings Mine tailings are a completed exposure pathway for tailings piles, ponds, and embankments identified (Figure 2). The locations where mine tailings are found in the Tar Creek site area were provided to ATSDR by EPA. Adults and children swallow lead-contaminated mine tailings as an incidental consequence of walking or playing on the tailings piles, ponds, or embankments. The exposure pathway for mine tailings is especially important for children who live near the tailings piles, ponds, or embankments. Hand-to-mouth behaviors of children, especially those 6 years of age or younger, can result in higher soil ingestion rates. At the site, exposure to mine tailings is especially likely in Picher and Cardin, where many homes are within 250 feet of tailings (Figure 2).

Lead-Based Paint Some lead found in soil and house dust may have come from lead-based paint (LBP) or other sources not related to the site. Exposure to LBP occurs in or around homes painted with LBP that is peeling, chipping, or deteriorating. LBP is an important source of exposure to lead for many children aged at or under 6 years in the site area. Children are exposed to LBP through ingestion of dust, soil contaminated with small particles of LBP, or through direct ingestion of paint chips.

Homes most likely to have LBP were those built before 1950, but lead paint also was used in some homes built during 1950–1978 (7). Use of paint containing lead in homes was banned in 1978, so homes built after 1978 are unlikely to contain LBP. Data from the 2000 Census indicate that 22% of housing units in the United States were built before 1950. In comparison, ATSDR found that 32% of the housing in the general Tar Creek Superfund site area and 39% of housing in the Picher-Cardin area were built before 1950. These statistics for Tar Creek areas are 44% and 75% higher, respectively, than for the United States as a whole (Table 3) [2000 U.S. Census]. As part of the Tar Creek Risk Assessment, EPA sampled a variety of environmental media from randomly selected homes in the site area (5). Paint was tested at all of these homes where chipped or damaged paint was noted outdoors or indoors. Outdoor paint from 28 (65%) of 43 homes contained lead, while indoor paint from four (40%) of 10 homes had lead (8). Therefore, some of the children living in the Tar Creek site area could be exposed to lead from LBP.

Other Exposure Pathways

Ingestion of Homegrown Produce Plants can absorb lead from the soil (9). Lead-contaminated soil can adhere to plant surfaces, and especially potatoes, carrots, and similar “root” vegetables. Thus, because some Tar Creek residents grow fruits and vegetables in their home gardens, consumption of plants grown in lead-contaminated soil could be another source of exposure. In addition, tribal members regularly use these foods for medicinal and ceremonial purposes, thus increasing their consumption rates.

009116


10

Recent research indicates that this pathway would be a concern only for children who eat large amounts (about a pound a day) of homegrown produce (10).

Ingestion of Tap Water Drinking water contaminated with lead is another exposure pathway for people at the site. The drinking water in most homes comes from municipal water supplies. EPA included tap water in the environmental samples from 100 randomly selected homes at the site as part of its risk assessment (5). EPA found a mean of 1.8 parts per billion (ppb) lead in the tap water tested with a maximum level of 8.3 ppb. EPA’s action level for lead in drinking water is 15 ppb. The source of the lead in drinking water is most likely lead pipes or lead solder.

Airborne Dust Inhalation of dust contaminated with lead is an additional exposure pathway for people at the site (Figures 1 and 2). Mine tailings contaminated with lead are found throughout the site. Residents of Picher and Cardin live near tailings piles, ponds, and embankments. EPA monitored the air for lead and other contaminants at four locations in the Picher/Cardin area and one control location in Afton for 3 months (5). The low levels found did not represent a health risk on the basis of EPA input of the data into the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead (IEUBK) model. However, this conclusion has some limitations. First, it is based on monitoring during mid-April through mid-July 1995 and may not represent exposures during the rest of the year (8). Second, the IEUBK model evaluated only the health risk for inhalation, not whether airborne transport of the tailings might eventually recontaminate residential areas. To confirm air sampling results from 1995, EPA again collected soil samples in August 2003 from properties in both Picher and Cardin that were remediated during 1997 to early 2000. While this sampling was limited, it may provide useful information in evaluating the recomtamination of residential yards.

The Quapaw Tribe is conducting long-term monitoring of the Picher/Cardin area. Also, the EPA is planning to model air emissions from chat piles and tailing ponds which would include real time wind speed and directions for five consecutive years. A risk assessment will also be completed to evaluate the impact of emitted contaminants from chat piles and tailing ponds on the surrounding communities. These data should provide some valuable information in addressing whether airborne transport of tailings is recontaminating the residential area soils and to what extent residents are being exposed to airborne particulates. ATSDR will evaluate this information to determine whether it addresses these concerns and whether additional sampling is needed.

Use of Biota by Tar Creek Site Area Tribal Populations The tribal populations may use biota (i.e., plants and animals) for food and for cultural, ceremonial, and religious practices. The tribes would use biota as food probably in amounts much greater than amounts used by other area residents. Native populations can use plant materials for medicine regularly, further increasing consumption rates for lead. Tribal members who practice crafts such as basket weaving may spend most of their day sifting the plant through their teeth, a practice that means they can easily inhale contaminated dust and small soil particulates bound to plant materials. The biota used and the cultural, ceremonial, and religious practices may differ among the 10 tribes in the Tar Creek site area. Therefore, this pathway must

009117


11

be evaluated by or in close cooperation with the 10 tribes. One issue to be discussed with the tribes is the recent Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality fish tissue sampling data and whether those data address tribal concerns.

Physical Hazards Although not directly related to BLLs, physical hazards, in particular subsidence issues, play a significant role in the safety of the site. Approximately 2,540 surface acres of land are undermined at Tar Creek, including under the communities of Picher and Cardin (9). The largest form of subsidence occurs when an undermined area collapses. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as part of the comprehensive watershed management plan, will attempt to identify the areas most prone to major subsidence and determine when collapses might occur.

IV. Discussion Residential area soil, lead-based paint, and mine tailings are the primary exposure pathways for potential lead exposure in the Tar Creek Site area. The points of exposure for the residential soil and lead-based paint pathways are house dust and yard soil (Table 1). In 1997, TEAL conducted blood lead testing of children and environmental sampling and administered a questionnaire (12, 6). Lead-based paint, lead-containing floor dust in residences, and lead in yard soil were identified as sources of elevated BLLs among children living at the site (Table 6).

EPA’s Tar Creek Risk Assessment strongly linked house dust and yard soil to elevated BLLs in children (5). EPA tested a variety of environmental media from a random sample of 100 homes in the site area. Fifteen homes were sampled in Afton, Oklahoma, a location well away from the Tar Creek site area and mining activities. House dust, tap water, and soil were obtained from each house. Soil was obtained from the front and back yards, drip line, play areas, and gardens if the home had one. Three floor dust samples were obtained from each home sampled: 1) the entry area, 2) a bedroom (a child’s was preferred), and 3) the living room or kitchen. As described earlier, samples of interior or exterior paint were taken at homes in the sample set where the paint was damaged or chipped. Samples of home-grown produce were obtained at the 29 homes in the sample group with gardens. Air was sampled at four locations in the site area and one in Afton for 3 months. These data were entered into EPA’s IEUBK Model.

The results of the IEUBK model predicted that 82% of the total uptake of lead came from house dust and soil, 16% from diet, and 2% from water (5). The lead uptake from diet was based mostly on default values from national data, but the lead levels in produce from gardens was factored into the model.

The IEUBK model predicted that about 22% of children exposed to the lead levels in these homes in the site area would have BLLs at or above10 µg/dL. This prediction is based on environmental levels in the Tar Creek site area before remediation of the residential areas. The 22% of children with elevated BLLs predicted by the IEUBK model is similar to the 19% of children with elevated BLLs in the 1997 TEAL survey (12) and elevated BLLs reported to the OSDH during 1995–1997.

Evidence suggests the plausibility that both mine tailings and lead-based paint could be contributing to the BLLs of people living in the Tar Creek Superfund site. However, the relative contributions of exposure to mine tailings and exposure to lead-based paint on the BLLs of people living at the site cannot be determined with existing information.

009118


12

Blood Lead Evaluation

Datasets Reviewed ATSDR reviewed and analyzed data on the BLLs of children living at the site from January 1995 through February 2004 (Figure 3). The Ottawa County Sunshine Clinic, the Ottawa County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (OCLPPP) managed by the OCHD, TEAL and Community Health Action and Monitoring Program (CHAMP) surveys, Tribal Health Clinics, private physicians, and other private and public clinics collect blood from children and test for lead. These programs send data to the OSDH Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Surveillance System (CLPPSS), which then transmits aggregate data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance Program.

The most useful data sources for assessing BLLs of children living at the site were the 1995–2002 OSDH Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPSS), the 1997 and 2000 TEAL survey, and the 1999–2004 OCLPPP screening data (Tables 4 and 5). Children were considered to live at the site if their medical records indicated that they lived at addresses in the northeast Oklahoma towns of Cardin, Commerce, North Miami, Picher, or Quapaw. For this analysis, all children with addresses from North Miami were included as living at the site—even though a portion of North Miami is outside the site boundaries (Figure 1). ATSDR included this portion of North Miami in the estimates for the population or number of children living at the site.

OCLPPP provides blood lead testing free of charge to children living at the site and to all other children, including tribal children, living in Ottawa County. Families with young children who may be at risk for lead poisoning are highly encouraged to participate in the voluntary program. OCLPPP personnel offer testing on site at the OCHD and conduct regular screening efforts at schools, preschools, daycare centers, Head Start programs, and local shopping areas. OCLPPP also conducts identification and screening efforts in coordination with the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program and with other public health programs. In addition, OCLPPP provides on-location testing services to potential high-risk areas, as warranted (13).

ATSDR used the OCLPPP data as the source for 2003 BLLs for tested children living at the site because those data incorporate

• The most recent and current data available at the time of this analysis;

• A substantial number of children tested (40% of the estimated population of children, aged 1 to 5 years, living at the site—based on 2000 census block data analysis for population estimate);

• Numerous BLL tests throughout the year (total of 308 for children, aged 1 to 5 years, living at the site in 2003);

• A high level of test result recording accuracy (a check of existing BLL entries with actual patient paper records showed only four errant electronic entries in 390 follow-up patient records that contain up to 14 entries each);

• BLLs reported to the 10th µg/dL (OSDH CLPPSS data were rounded to the nearest whole number) with consistent application of non-detect values (statistical values assigned to test results when lead in a blood sample is too low to be detected);

009119


13

• Data based on results obtained from consistent testing protocols and analysis criteria; and

• Targeted testing for potentially higher risk children (Head Start programs, siblings of children with elevated BLLs, WIC).

The OCLPPP data system is the largest contributor of data to the OSDH CLPPSS system. Both OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets are comprised primarily of capillary blood lead testing data (under OCLPPP, a confirmatory venous test is provided after an elevated capillary test result). Both the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets consist of convenience samples rather than representative samples. All TEAL survey blood lead tests were venous, and TEAL used a door-to-door sampling method. In calculating geometric means for the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP data for each year, ATSDR used the highest test of each child tested in the respective year.

The simple arithmetic mean is not suitable for representing “average” conditions when a large proportion of the observations are clustered at one end of the data range. This is often the situation with blood lead levels. The occurrence of a few high numbers would result in a perceived “average” far higher than a number that would be reflective of actual conditions. In such situations, the geometric mean is a more appropriate measure of central tendency than the arithmetic mean. The result represents a more accurate estimate of common or typical conditions.

Percentage of Elevated BLLs and Geometric Mean of BLLs Among tested children aged 1-5 years living in the Tar Creek Superfund site, the percentage of BLL elevations and the geometric BLL mean declined from 1995–2003 (Figures 4 and 6). In 1996, OSDH CLPPSS data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living at the site, 31.2% (67/215) had BLL at or above 10 µg/dL and the geometric mean was 6.65 µg/dL. In 2003, OCLPPP data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living at the site, 2.8% (7/250) had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean was 3.04 µg/dL. These 2003 statistics are slightly higher than the findings of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for children living in the United States as a whole. NHANES data indicate that among U.S. children aged 1-5 years during 1999–2000, 2.2% had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean was 2.2 µg/dL.

Picher/Cardin in Comparison with the Tar Creek Superfund Site as a Whole Of the children in Picher and Cardin who were tested for blood lead, the percentage with elevated BLLs and the geometric mean declined from 1995–2003 (Figures 5 and 7). In 1996, OKCLPPSS data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living in Picher and Cardin, 44.6% (41/92) had elevated BLLs and the geometric mean was 9.17 µg/dL. In 2003, the OCLPPP data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living in Picher and Cardin, 3.4% (3/88) had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean was 3.82 µg/dL.

In 1996, the percentage of children identified with elevated BLLs and the geometric BLL mean for all children tested were higher in the combined areas of Picher and Cardin than at the site as a whole. However, these differences have diminished in recent years.

009120


14

Characteristics of Children With Elevated BLLs From January 2000 to March 2004, 37 children under 6 years of age living at the site were identified with elevated BLLs (at or above 10 µg/dL) by the Ottawa County Health Department. Of these children 41% (15/37) were from five households. This could suggest that high-risk behaviors were shared by these family members or that common exposure sources were present.

In 2003, OCLPPP identified seven children aged 1 to 5 years living at the site as having elevated BLLs. The OCLPPP program conducted or received data from environmental assessments of the residences of six of these children at various points in time (some prior to 2003). The potential sources of lead exposure found to be present at the respective residences are described in Table 7 in the appendix and include lead-based paint, lead-containing floor dust (at or above10 µg/ft2), and soil with elevated lead levels (above 500 mg/kg).

Data Limitations Any comparisons of the OCLPPP data with NHANES U.S. data should be viewed with caution because the NHANES data are based on a representative sample of the United States (1, 14), and the OCLPPP data comprises a convenience sample rather than representative samples of the site area. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the OKCLPPSS, TEAL, and OCLPPP data samples include a substantial proportion but not all of the estimated population of children, aged 1 to 5 years, living at the site.

NHANES data are generalized to the U.S. population and were not intended to provide estimates for smaller areas or for specific populations where the risk for elevated BLLs is high (14). Furthermore, all NHANES blood lead tests are collected by venous sampling (14), whereas the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP programs primarily collect blood through capillary sampling. Because sample contamination of a capillary test can over-estimate BLLs (15, 16) and because ATSDR used each tested child’s highest BLL to calculate geometric means, geometric means of the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets probably overestimate actual geometric means.

The 1997 and 2000 TEAL surveys measured lead from venous blood. Given the relatively high availability of free screening in the area, it is not known if the use of venous testing and the presence of incentives to participant families could have resulted in higher relative TEAL participation in areas of lower median income and among children with higher risk factors for lead poisoning.

Many other relative factors could be explored, including the prevalence of pre-1950 housing units and poverty at the site area as compared to that of the United States (Table 3). An updated NHANES blood lead survey might show a further decline in national BLLs since 1999–2000. BLLs in U.S. children have been declining (14).

Interventions Many activities may have been instrumental in reducing elevated BLLs at the site. In 1995, after the confirmation of elevated BLLs, ATSDR funded the OSDH to conduct extensive blood lead testing throughout Ottawa County. OSDH determined that 28.3% of children tested had BLLs at or above 10 µg/dL. Several projects implemented over the past several years have increased community knowledge of exposure and the harmful effects of lead. Some of those include CHAMP and TEAL. Beginning in 1995, EPA began testing and remediating residential soils and areas where children play (e.g., school and city parks and playgrounds, ball fields, daycare

009121


15

centers). Since 1998, the OCHD has conducted extensive blood lead screening, and community and health provider education. OCHD has distributed HEPA vacuums to area households who have children with elevated BLLs. The area also received U.S. Housing and Urban Development funds for lead abatement in homes.

These activities, combined, may have helped to reduce BLLs in Ottawa County. BLLs of children living at or near the site might increase without these interventions.

V. Conclusions Two potential sources were found for lead in children in the Tar Creek site area: mine tailings and lead-based paint. Both could contribute lead to house dust and soil, which most likely are the points of exposure for children. The relative contributions of exposure to mine tailings and exposure to lead-based paint on the BLLs of people living at the site cannot be determined from existing information.

The evidence available to ATSDR indicates that mine tailings in the residential area soil exposure pathway may have been a primary source of the lead in children’s blood before EPA remediated the Tar Creek residential areas. Exposure to mine tailings still could occur because Tar Creek area residents, especially those in Picher and Cardin, remain near tailings piles, ponds, and embankments and can readily access these tailings deposits. In addition, the close proximity of these tailings to residences increases the risk for recontamination of residential soil because of blowing dust or residential or commercial use of the tailings.

A decline in the average BLLs among tested children aged 1 to 5 years living at the site from 1995–2003 has been observed, as was a decrease in the percentage of tested children with elevated BLLs from 1995 to 2003. The average BLLs and the percentage of elevated BLLs among tested children living at the site in 2003 were slightly higher than for children living in the United States as a whole in 1999–2000 (1). However, this comparison should be viewed with caution because the U.S. data are based on a representative sample of the United States (1), the Tar Creek data is from a convenience sample and not a representative sample, and U.S. child BLLs also may have declined since 2000.

Declining BLLs among tested children living at the site should not be interpreted to mean that existing interventions in the Tar Creek area are no longer needed. Potential lead sources, including unremediated yards, chat piles, tailings ponds, and residential lead-based paint, remain at the site.

Existing programs should be evaluated to determine how they may have contributed to this decline. The Ottawa County Health Department should continue existing blood lead screening and public health education efforts. Ongoing screening efforts are needed to confirm and monitor trends. Ongoing public health education reinforces the need for adult, parental, and child behaviors that may reduce exposure to lead and subsequent health effects.

VI. Recommendations ATSDR recommends the following:

• Continue to provide blood lead screening to children living around the site. Currently, ATSDR provides funds from the EPA to the Ottawa County Health Department to

009122


16

conduct screening activities. EPA is continuing to fund these activities through FY 2005.

• Continue to provide lead exposure prevention education to people potentially impacted by the site. Currently, ATSDR provides funds from EPA to the Ottawa County Health Department to engage in prevention education activities. EPA is continuing to fund these activities through FY 2005.

• Recommend that the Oklahoma State Department of Health or the Ottawa County Health Department support periodic reports of Tar Creek and Ottawa County child blood lead statistics to the Tar Creek Superfund Site and Ottawa County communities. These reports could include trends and comparisons to state and national levels.

• Complete remediation of residential properties. EPA funds this activity. According to EPA, residential remediation is ongoing.

• Complete the investigation of chat piles, mill and mine residues, and flotation ponds. According to EPA, these activities are planned for completion next year.

• Assess the risk for lead exposure from using mine tailings (chat) for commercial and residential purposes, including processing and transporting the material. ATSDR has included in its FY 2004 and in the FY 2005 President’s Budget request funding for an ongoing public health assessment regarding public health hazards associated with the Tar Creek site. The public health assessment will include identification of gaps in existing data and recommendations regarding further monitoring and other activities to evaluate risks of lead exposure. ATSDR recommends that any person proposing to use chat for commercial purposes arrange for an independent assessment of risks from exposure potentially associated with that use.

• To address concerns regarding the sources of lead exposure for children who currently have elevated BLLs, correlate lead isotopes in the environment and in children’s blood. This approach would seek to identify specific environmental sources contributing to elevated BLLs in children. The measured ratio of lead isotopes 206Pb and 207Pb in the blood of children and adults would be compared with the ratio of 206Pb and 207Pb in environmental sources and biota (2, 3). ATSDR may conduct a small project to assess the feasibility of this approach.

• Evaluate the health risks of other site-related contaminants and of physical hazards. Funding to support this ongoing activity is included in ATSDR’s FY 2004 and FY 2005 President’s Budget.

ATSDR is considering whether to evaluate the effectiveness of activities at the Site, including soil remediation and tribal and non-tribal health education/blood lead screening programs. Such an evaluation might result in identification and then strengthening of those activities that have the most impact on reducing or eliminating lead exposure.

009123


17

VII. Appendices

009124


18

Table 1 — Major Lead Exposure Pathways at the Tar Creek Superfund Site

Pathway Name Environmental Media and Transport Mechanisms

Point Of Exposure Route Of Exposure

Exposure Population Time Notes

Complete Exposure Pathway?

Residential area soil

Lead present in soil as a result of use of tailings as fill or airborne transport of tailings from piles or ponds

Surface soil outside and house dust inside homes in Tar Creek area with soil leads above 500 mg/kg

Incidental ingestion, inhalation

Residents (particularly children 6 and younger)

Past, Present, Future

Elevated soil lead concentrations and BLLs identified in children in Tar Creek Area prior to the clean up of residential soil by EPA. Exposure continues to occur at any home yet to be remediated.

Yes

Mine tailings Lead present in mine tailings deposited in tailings piles, ponds, or embankments

Walking or playing on the tailings piles, ponds, or embankments

Incidental ingestion, inhalation



Many homes in the Picher and Cardin area are within 250 feet of tailings deposits.

Yes

Lead-based paint (LBP) Not site-related

Lead present in house dust, soil, and paint chips due to the use of LBP

House dust, soil, and paint chips in or around homes with deteriorating LBP

Incidental ingestion



Available data indicate that 30% to 40% of the homes in the Tar Creek area are likely to have LBP.

Yes

009125


19

Table 2 — Other Lead Exposure Pathways at the Tar Creek Superfund Site

Pathway Name Environmental Media and Transport Mechanisms

Point Of Exposure

Route Of Exposure

Exposure Population Time Notes

Complete Exposure Pathway?

Ingestion of homegrown produce

Uptake of lead from soil by fruits and vegetables grown in residential gardens

Produce consumption

Ingestion Residents Past, Present, Future

EPA sampling identified low levels of lead in homegrown produce.

Yes

Drinking water

Not site-related

Movement of lead from lead pipes or solder into water

Municipal drinking water

Ingestion Water supply users Past, Present, Future

EPA sampling identified lead in the tap water of 13 of 100 homes.

Yes

Airborne dust Airborne transport of mine tailings from piles, ponds, and embankments in the Tar Creek Site Area

Residential areas near tailings piles, ponds, and embankments

Inhalation Individuals living near tailings piles, ponds, and embankments


EPA sampling identified low levels of lead in the air.

Yes

Biota (wild animals & plants)

Uptake or ingestion of lead which had come from mine tailings in the environment

Consumption of animals and plants contaminated with lead from the site

Ingestion Anyone who eats animals & plants from site area


Members of the 9 tribes in Ottawa County may be at the greatest risk of exposure to contaminants in this pathway.

Unknown

009126


20

Table 3 — Demographics in Tar Creek Superfund Site Area*

CHARACTERISTIC PICHER/CARDIN AREA TAR CREEK SITE AREA UNITED STATES

Percent of People in Poverty 26 19 12.4

Percent of Homes Built Prior to 1950

39 32 22.3

*2000 Census Data

009127


21

Table 4 — Characteristics of Blood Lead Testing Data Among Children Aged 1–5 Years Living within the Tar Creek Superfund Site*

All Tar Creek Superfund Site (also includes portion of North Miami that is outside the boundaries of Superfund site)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(Jan, Feb only)

Oklahoma Child Lead Poisoning Prevention Program

Total Elevated (≥10 µg/dL) (%)

20 (19.4) 67 (31.2) 50 (22.5) 14 (19.2) 9 (9.09) 25 (6.9) 16 (6.4) 11 (4.5)

Geometric BLL Mean 4.80 6.65 6.00 5.36 4.93 3.81 3.32 3.05

% Child Tested/Pop (actual number tested)

16 (103) 34 (215) 36 (222) 12 (73) 16 (99) 58 (361) 40 (249) 39 (242)

Sampling Design Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience

TEAL Surveys (Personal Conversation, Malcoe 2004)


26 (18.2) 14 (8.6)

Geometric BLL Mean 5.77 4.25


23 (143) 26 (162)

Sampling Design Door-to-door Door-to-door

009128


22

Table 4 (Continued) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(Jan, Feb only)

Ottawa Lead Poisoning Prevention Program


N/A 13 (5.4) 14 (8.2) 9 (5.7) 7 (2.8) N/A

Geometric BLL Mean 5.13 3.62 3.15 2.65 3.04 2.21


5 (33) 38 (240) 27 (171) 25 (158) 40 (250) 9 (55)

Sampling Design Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience

* n=625 (estimate based on 2000 Census)

009129


23

Table 5 — Characteristics of Blood Lead Testing Data Among Children Aged 1–5 Years Living within the Tar Creek Superfund Site* Picher and Cardin only

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(Jan, Feb only)

Oklahoma Child Lead Poisoning Prevention Program


17 (31.5) 41 (44.6) 34 (33.7) 5 (29.4) 3 (9.1) 17 (13.2) 7 (12.1) 3 (7.0)

Geometric BLL Mean 6.13 9.17 7.66 6.63 5.24 4.30 4.42 4.24


36 (54) 61 (92) 67 (101) 11 (17) 22 (33) 86 (129) 39 (58) 29 (43)

Sampling Design Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience

TEAL Surveys (Personal Conversation, Malcoe 2004)


16 (25.0) 10 (13.3)

Geometric BLL Mean 6.63 4.76


43 (64) 50 (75)

Sampling Design Door-to-door Door-to-door

Ottawa Lead Poisoning Prevention Program


N/A 6 (8.2) 5 (12.2) 2 (6.67) 3 (3.4) N/A

009130


24

Table 5 (Continued) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

(Jan, Feb only)

Geometric BLL Mean 4.99 3.86 4.76 4.64 3.82 2.43


9 (13) 49 (73) 27 (41) 20 (30) 59 (88) 11 (17)

Sampling Design Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience

* n=150 (estimate based on 2000 Census)

009131


25

Table 6 – Existing Health Study Information Factors Associated with Elevated BLLs*

Teal Study (Lynch et al. 2000) OR (95% CI)

Teal Study (Malcoe et al. 2002) OR (95% CI)

Floor lead dust ≥ 10 :g/ft2 8.1 (1.8, 37.8) 11.4 (3.5, 37.3)

Yard soil lead

>500 mg/kg 6.4 (1.4, 30.7)

>165.3 mg/kg (front yard) 4.1 (1.3, 12.4)

Any interior lead paint 3.0 (1.2, 7.8)

Superfund location 3.4 (1.3, 8.8) 5.6 (1.8, 17.8)

Hand-to-mouth behaviors

index 2 7.0 (3.0, 16.5)

index 3 48.9 (8.7, 272.7)

* Blood lead levels

009132


26

Table 7 — Children Aged 1–5 Years Living in the Tar Creek Superfund Site with Known Elevated BLLs in 2003, Residential Assessment Lead Exposure Status Child Known Exposure Status* Environmental

Testing (Y/N) Environmental Testing Date

Age in Years Race Sex Residence Blood Lead Level

1 Unknown; frequent mover N 3 W M Commerce 13.0

2 Lead-based paint Y 12/16/2003 2 W M Quapaw 11.8

3 Lead-based paint Y 11/15/2003 3 W F Picher 12.1

4 Floor dust, soil, no electricity or running water

Y 2/9/2001 2 W F Picher 17.6

5 Floor dust, soil, no electricity or running water

Y 2/9/2001 5 W M Picher 15.8

6 Lead-based paint, floor dust, soil

Y 9/12/2002 3 W M Quapaw 23.7

7 Lead-based paint, floor dust, soil

Y 9/12/2002 1 W F Quapaw 17.0

* Child may have moved and potential exposure source may have been remediated since testing date.

[Source: Ottawa County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Data, 2003]

009133


27

VIII. Figures

009134


28

.-,Burling

ton Nort

hern

Railroa

d

Tar C

reek

ami

#Cardin

#

Picher

#

Quapaw

Elm

Cr e

ek

TAR CREEK SITESTUDY AREA

(/

Kansas

Tar Creek

#

Commerce

#

North MiamiSoil lead levels by block_all data.shp

No SamplesLess 500 mg/kg500 - 1,200 mg/kgGreater than 1,200 mg/kg

Boundaries of Tar Creek Site AreaRoadsRailroads

LEGEND

0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 Miles

N

Figure 1 - Soil Lead Levels in Tar Creek Residential Area SoilPrepared by John R. Crel lin, Ph.D - ATSDR: 0420200

#

Baxter Springs, Kansas

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

009135


29

#Cardin

#

Picher

Tar Creek

#

Quapaw

#

Treece, Kansas

250 Foot Buffer around TailingsEmbankmentsTailings PondsTailings PilesBoundaries of Tar Creek Site AreaRoadsRailroads

0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 Miles

LEGEND

Figure 2 - Tailings in the Picher, Cardin, and Quapaw AreaAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Prepared by John R. Crel lin, PhD - 04202004

N

009136

30

Figure 3

TAR CREEK CREEK SUPERFUND SITE - DATA FLOW FOR CHILD BLOOD LEAD DATA1995-2004

(Aggregate State Data)

SUNSHINECLINIC

(Medicaid and NoInsurance)

PROGRAMSURVEYS

BLOOD LEADSURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

CDC CHILDHOOD

TRIBAL

CLINICS (IHS)

OTTAWA COUNTYLEAD POISONING

PREVENTION

SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

(Blood Lead Screening)

PRIVATE

& CLINICS

OKLAHOMA CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAM

TEAL &HEALTH PHYSICIANSCHAMP

009137

31

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Figure 4 Children Age 1-5 Years Old With Elevated BLLs (≥ 10 µg/dL)

Perc

ent E

leva

ted

Blo

od L

ead

Leve

ls

Oklahoma State Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Surveillance Data

TEAL Survey

Ottawa County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Data

Year

All Tar Creek Superfund Site

009138

32

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Children Age 1-5 Years Old With Elevated BLLs (≥ 10 µg/dL)

Perc

ent E

leva

ted

Blo

od L

ead

Leve

ls


TEAL Survey Data


Year

Picher and Cardin Only

Figure 5

009139

33

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Figure 6 Geometric Blood Lead Means of Children Age 1-5 Years Old

Geo

met

ric M

ean

of B

lood

Lea

d Le

vels

(µg/

dL)


TEAL Survey Data


Year

All Tar Creek Superfund Site

009140

34

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Figure 7 Geometric Blood Lead Means of Children Age 1-5 Years Old

Geo

met

ric M

ean

of B

lood

Lea

d Le

vels

(µg/

dL)


TEAL Survey Data


Year

Picher and Cardin Only

009141

35

IX. References 1. National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Hyattsville, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/research/kidsBLL.htm#National%20surveys.

2. Jaeger RJ, Weiss AL, Manton WI. Isotope ratio analysis in residential lead-based paint and associated surficial dust. Journal of Toxicology - Clinical Toxicology, 36(7): 691–703, 1998.

3. Manton W, Angle C, Stanek L, Reese Y, Kuehnemann A. Acquisition and retention of lead by young children. Environ Res, 2000; 82:60–80.

4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public health assessment guidance manual. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1992. Available at http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/HAC/HAGM.

5. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Baseline human health risk assessment of residential exposures Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Lancaster, New York: Ecology and Environment, Inc. Prepared for EPA Region 6. 1996.

6. Malcoe L, Lynch R, Kegler M, Skaggs V. Lead sources, behaviors, and socioeconomic factors in relation to blood lead of native American and white children: a community-based assessment of former mining area. Environmental Health Perspectives; 2002; 110:221–31.

7. Jacobs DE, Clickner RP, Zhou JY, Viet SM, Marker DA, Rogers JW, et al. The prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in U.S. housing. Environmental Health Perspect, 2002, 110: 599–606.

8. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Data evaluation summary report Tar Creek site. Site assessment/risk assessment. Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Dallas, Texas: Ecology and Environment, Inc. Prepared for EPA Region 6, December 1995.

9. Luza, K.V. 1986. A Study of Stability Problems and Hazard Evaluation of the Oklahoma Portion of the Tri-State Mining Area (3 maps). Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 88, 6/8/05.

10. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for lead. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001.

11. Hough RL, Breward N, Young SD, Crout NMJ, Tye AM, Moir AM, et al. Assessing potential risk of heavy metal exposure from consumption of home produced vegetables by urban populations. Environ Health Perspect 2004;112:215–21. Available at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2003/5589/5589.html.

12. Lynch R, Malcoe L, Skaggs V, Kegler M. The relationship between residential lead exposures and elevated blood-lead levels in a rural mining community. Journal of Environmental Health; 2000; 63:9-15.

13. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Ottawa County Blood Lead Testing Project: Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, ATSDR, 1997.

14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for elevated blood lead levels among children-United States, 1997-2001. MMWR 2003;52:SS-10.

15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing lead poisoning in young children. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 1991.

16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screening young children for lead poisoning: guidance for state and public health officials. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1997.

009142

http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/HAC/HAGM.

http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/HAC/HAGM.





009143

Appendix N Preliminary Remediation Goal Calculations

009144





009145

Figure 1: Comparison of All Concentrations for Cadmium in Washed Root

Soi

l Con

cent

ratio

n, m

g/kg

0200

400600800

10001200

14001600

Plant Concentration, mg/kg0 20 40 60 80 100 120

!!!!! !!!!!!!!

!!

!!

X

X

X represents data pairs excluded via Cook’s distance evaluation.

009146

Figure 2: Regression Analysis of Non-excluded Concentrations

for Cadmium in Washed Root

Soi

l Con

cent

ratio

n, m

g/kg

0

100

200

300

Plant Concentration, mg/kg0 10 20 30

!

!

!!

! !!

!!! ! !!

!

!

!!


009147

Figure 3: Comparison of All Concentrations

for Lead in Washed Root S

oil C

once

ntra

tion,

mg/

kg

0100020003000400050006000700080009000


!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

! !!!

!

!

! !

X

X


009148


for Lead in Washed Root

Soi

l Con

cent

ratio

n, m

g/kg

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Plant Concentration, mg/kg0 200 400 600 800 1000

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

! !


009149

Figure 5: Comparison of All Concentrations

for Zinc in Washed Root S

oil C

once

ntra

tion,

mg/

kg

0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000

100000110000120000

Plant Concentration, mg/kg0 1000 2000 3000 4000

!

!

!

!!!!! !! !!

!

!

!

!!

X

X


009150


for Zinc in Washed Root

Soi

l Con

cent

ratio

n, m

g/kg

0

10000

20000

30000

40000


!

!

!

!!

! !! !! !!

!

!

!

!

!


009151

Figure 1: Box and Whisker Plot Comparison of Lead Concentrations

Con

cent

ratio

n, m

g/kg

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Background Residential Rural Transition

009152

Figure 2: Box and Whisker Plot Comparison of Lead Concentrations

Con

cent

ratio

n, m

g/kg

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

Background Residential Rural

009153

Figure 3: Box and Whisker Plot Comparison of Lead Concentration Ranks

Ran

k

0

100

200

300

400

Background Residential Rural Transition

009154

Figure 4: Box and Whisker Plot Comparison of Lead Concentration Ranks

Ran

k

0

100

200

300

Background Residential Rural

009155

Table N-1Soil PRGs for General Public Agriculture On-PropertyTar Creek OU4, Miami, OK

Cd ZnAdult Child Adult Child

FI - Veg Soil PRG Plant Soil PRG Plant Soil PRG Plant Soil PRG Plant(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

10% 9.40E+00 1.18E+00 4.86E+00 6.08E-01 3.58E+03 3.51E+02 1.83E+03 1.79E+0225% 3.79E+00 4.74E-01 2.02E+00 2.53E-01 1.45E+03 1.42E+02 7.67E+02 7.52E+0150% 1.90E+00 2.37E-01 1.02E+00 1.28E-01 7.26E+02 7.12E+01 3.90E+02 3.82E+01

100% 9.51E-01 1.19E-01 5.15E-01 6.44E-02 3.64E+02 3.57E+01 1.97E+02 1.93E+01

FI = fraction ingested from impacted source

009156

Table N-2Soil PRGs for General Public Agriculture On-PropertyTar Creek OU4, Miami, OK

Adult (General Public) Child (General Public)Cadmium Zinc Reference Cadmium Zinc Reference

CSon Concentration in Soil (on property) mg/kg 1.0 364 EPC 0.5 197 EPC

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil mg/day 100 100 EPA, 1991 200 200 EPA, 1991Cveg Chemical Concentration in Veg mg/kg 0.1 35.7 Calculated 0.1 19.3 Calculated

slope (a) 8.0 10.2 1/Br (EPA, 1998) 8.0 10.2 1/Br (EPA, 1998)

IR-VEG Ingestion Rate - Vegetable kg/day 0.59 0.59 EPA, 1997 (Table 9-4) 0.23 0.23 EPA, 1997 (Table 9-4)

FI-VEG Fraction Ingested - Veg % 100% 100% 100% 100%

EF Exposure Frequency (soil) days/year 350 350 EPA, 1991 350 350 EPA, 1991

EF Exposure Frequency (ingestion) days/year 365 365 EPA, 1997 365 365 EPA, 1997

ED Exposure Duration years 24 24 EPA, 1991 6 6 EPA, 1991

BW Body Weight kg 70 70 EPA, 1991 15 15 EPA, 1991

AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days 8,760 8,760 EPA, 1991 2,190 2,190 EPA, 1991

Contribution: Soil 1.3E-06 5.0E-04 6.6E-06 2.5E-03

Soil Intake Factor 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 1.3E-05 1.3E-05

Contribution: Vegetable 1.0E-03 3.0E-01 9.9E-04 3.0E-01

Veg Intake Factor 8.4E-03 8.4E-03 1.5E-02 1.5E-02

Cumulative Intake 1.0E-03 3.0E-01 1.0E-03 3.0E-01

RfD (ing) Ingestion Reference Dose mg/kg-day 0.001 0.3 IRIS 0.001 0.3 IRIS

HQ: Soil 1.3E-03 1.7E-03 6.6E-03 8.4E-03

HQ: Vegetable 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 9.9E-01 9.9E-01

Total HI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Soil PRG (based on Soil) 7.3E+02 2.2E+05 mg/kg (soil only) 7.8E+01 2.3E+04 mg/kg (soil only)

9.5E-01 3.6E+02 mg/kg (plant + soil) 5.2E-01 2.0E+02 mg/kg (plant + soil)

HI = 1

009157

Table N-3Soil PRGs for General Public Agriculture and Native American On-PropertyTar Creek OU4, Miami, OK

SoilGeneral Public Agriculture Native American

Pb Soil PRG Pb Soil PRG IRAdult 460.3 (mg/kg) Adult 110.4 (mg/kg) 400 (mg/day)

441.4 (mg/kg) 100 (mg/day)Beef

General Public Agriculture Native American (IRsoil = 400 mg/day) Native American (IRsoil = 100 mg/day) General Public AgriculturePb Pb Pb Beef intake from Table 11-3 of EPA, 1997.

Adult Adult Adult 0.648 g/kg-day - 50th percentile (Region-South)FI - Beef Soil PRG Beef FI - Beef Soil PRG Beef FI - Beef Soil PRG Beef x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 38.88 g/day

(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)10% 455.2 0.13 10% 109.1 0.030 10% 421.7 0.116 Native American25% 447.8 0.12 25% 107.2 0.030 25% 395.3 0.109 Beef intake from Table 11-3 of EPA, 1997.50% 436.0 0.12 50% 104.3 0.029 50% 357.9 0.098 2.825 g/kg-day - 95th percentile

100% 414.1 0.11 100% 98.8 0.027 100% 301.0 0.083 x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 169.5 g/day

PlantGeneral Public Agriculture Native American (IRsoil = 400 mg/day) General Public Agriculture

Pb Pb Vegetable intake from Table 9-4 of EPA, 1997.Adult Adult 3.66 g/kg-day - 50th percentile (Region-South)

FI - Plant Soil PRG Plant FI - Plant Soil PRG Plant x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 219.6 g/day.(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

10% 111.9 1.52 10% 33.2 0.4525% 52.4 0.71 25% 16.2 0.22 Native American50% 27.8 0.38 50% 8.8 0.12 Vegetable intake from Table 9-4 of EPA, 1997.

100% 14.3 0.19 100% 4.6 0.062 11.37 g/kg-day - 95th percentilex 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 682.2 g/day.

FI = fraction ingested from an impacted source.PRGs were calculated based on the new NHANES GSD of 2.1 and baseline blood lead level of 1.16.

009158





009159

Calculations of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)

Table N-4Calculations of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) - General PublicU.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee


PRGValues for Non-Residential

Exposure ScenarioExposure Equation1 Using Equation 1Variable 1* 2** Description of Exposure Variable Units GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het

PbBfetal, 0.95 X X 95th percentile PbB in fetus ug/dL 10 10Rfetal/maternal X X Fetal/maternal PbB ratio -- 0.9 0.9


0.4 0.4

GSDi X X Geometric standard deviation PbB -- 2.1 2.1PbB0 X X Baseline PbB ug/dL 1.16 1.16IRS X Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) g/day 0.100 0.100

AFS, D X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12EFS, D X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) days/yr 350 350PbBeef Chemical Concentration in Beef mg/kg 1.3.E-01 1.3.E-01BAFB Bio-accumulation Factor - Beef -- 2.8E-04 2.8E-04IRB X Beef ingestion rate g/day 39 39FIB Fraction Ingested - Beef % 0% 0%AFB X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12EFB X X Exposure frequency (ingestion) days/yr 365 365

PbPlant Chemical Concentration in Plant mg/kg 6.3 6.31/BAF slope (a) -1/Br -- 73.5 73.5

IRP X Plant ingestion rate g/day 220 220FIP Fraction Ingested - Plant % 0% 0%AFP X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12EFP X X Exposure frequency (ingestion) days/yr 365 365AT X X Averaging time (same for soil and dust) days/yr 365 365

1.7E+00 1.7E+000.0E+00 0.0E+000.0E+00 0.0E+000.0E+00 0.0E+00

PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal ppm 460 4601 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes WS, KSD). When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1.0, the equations yield the same PRG.

*Equation 1, based on Eq. 4 in USEPA (1996).

PRG = ([PbB95fetal/(R*(GSDi1.645)])-PbB0)*AT

BKSF*AF*[(IRS+D*EFS,D)+(BAFB*IRB*FIB*EFB)+((IRP*FIP*EFP)/a)]


009160

Calculations of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)

Table N-5Calculations of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) - Native AmericanU.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee


PRGValues for Non-Residential

Exposure ScenarioExposure Equation1 Using Equation 1Variable 1* 2** Description of Exposure Variable Units GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het

PbBfetal, 0.95 X X 95th percentile PbB in fetus ug/dL 10 10Rfetal/maternal X X Fetal/maternal PbB ratio -- 0.9 0.9


0.4 0.4

GSDi X X Geometric standard deviation PbB -- 2.1 2.1PbB0 X X Baseline PbB ug/dL 1.16 1.16IRS X Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) g/day 0.100 0.100

AFS, D X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12EFS, D X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) days/yr 365 365PbBeef Chemical Concentration in Beef mg/kg 8.3.E-02 8.3.E-02BAFB Bio-accumulation Factor - Beef -- 2.8E-04 2.8E-04IRB X Beef ingestion rate g/day 170 170FIB Fraction Ingested - Beef % 100% 100%AFB X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12EFB X X Exposure frequency (ingestion) days/yr 365 365

PbPlant Chemical Concentration in Plant mg/kg 4.1 4.11/BAF slope (a) -1/Br -- 73.5 73.5

IRP X Plant ingestion rate g/day 682 682FIP Fraction Ingested - Plant % 0% 0%AFP X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -- 0.12 0.12EFP X X Exposure frequency (ingestion) days/yr 365 365AT X X Averaging time (same for soil and dust) days/yr 365 365

1.8E+00 1.8E+008.2E-01 8.2E-010.0E+00 0.0E+000.0E+00 0.0E+00

PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal ppm 301.0 301.01 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes WS, KSD). When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1.0, the equations yield the same PRG.

*Equation 1, based on Eq. 4 in USEPA (1996).

PRG = ([PbB95fetal/(R*(GSDi1.645)])-PbB0)*AT

BKSF*AF*[(IRS+D*EFS,D)+(BAFB*IRB*FIB*EFB)+((IRP*FIP*EFP)/a)]


009161

Table N-6Soil PRGs for Native American Adult - Vegetables Grown On-PropertyTar Creek OU4, Miami, OK

AdultCd Zn

FI - Veg Soil PRG Plant Soil PRG Plant(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

10% 7.84E+00 9.80E-01 2.96E+03 2.90E+0225% 3.22E+00 4.03E-01 1.23E+03 1.20E+0250% 1.63E+00 2.03E-01 6.21E+02 6.08E+01

100% 8.17E-01 1.02E-01 3.12E+02 3.06E+01

FI = fraction ingested from an impacted source.

009162

Table N-7Soil PRGs for Native American Adult - Vegetables Grown On-PropertyTar Creek OU4, Miami, OK

Adult (Tribal)Cadmium Zinc Reference

CSon Concentration in Soil (on property) mg/kg 0.8170411 312.1175 EPC

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil mg/day 400 400 Harper et al., 2002Cveg Chemical Concentration in Veg mg/kg 0.1 30.6 Calculated

slope (a) 8.00 10.2 1/Br (EPA, 1998)

IR-VEG Ingestion Rate - Vegetable kg/day 0.68 0.68 EPA, 1997 (Table 9-4)

FI-VEG Fraction Ingested - Veg % 100% 100%

EF Exposure Frequency (soil) days/year 365 365 Harper et al., 2002

EF Exposure Frequency (ingestion) days/year 365 365 Harper et al., 2002

ED Exposure Duration years 64 64 Harper et al., 2002

BW Body Weight kg 70 70 EPA, 1991

AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days 23,360 23,360 EPA, 1991

Contribution: Soil 4.7E-06 1.8E-03

Soil Intake Factor 5.7E-06 5.7E-06

Contribution: Vegetable 1.0E-03 3.0E-01

Veg Intake Factor 9.7E-03 9.7E-03

Cumulative Intake 1.0E-03 3.0E-01

RfD (ing) Ingestion Reference Dose mg/kg-day 0.001 0.3 IRIS

HQ: Soil 4.7E-03 5.9E-03

HQ: Vegetable 1.0E+00 9.9E-01

Total HI 1.00 1.00

Soil PRG (based on Soil) 1.8E+02 5.3E+04 mg/kg (soil only)

8.2E-01 3.1E+02 mg/kg (plant + soil)

HI = 1

009163

Table N-8PRGs for Lead in Soil (General Public Agricultural Child) - Milk from Cows on the Receptor's YardAcceptable Concentration in Soil

Soil Conc. (on

property)

Soil Conc. (off

property)Conc. In

Milk% of milk

consumption Soil concentration 50 mg/kg associated with P10<5 %50 3.40E+03 0.78 10 slope Conc. Milk % Milk100 2.92E+03 0.67 10 4361150 2.44E+03 0.56 10 0.78 10200 1.96E+03 0.45 10 0.312 25250 1.44E+03 0.33 10300 9.59E+02 0.22 10325 7.41E+02 0.17 10350 (not calculated - too low)

Soil concentration 100 mg/kg50 1.36E+03 0.312 25100 1.17E+03 0.268 25 0.67 10150 9.77E+02 0.224 25 0.268 25200 7.85E+02 0.18 25250 5.76E+02 0.132 25300 3.84E+02 0.088 25325 2.97E+02 0.068 25350 (not calculated - too low) Soil concentration 150 mg/kg

0.56 100.224 25

Soil concentration 200 mg/kg

0.45 100.18 25


0.33 100.132 25


0.22 100.088 25


0.17 100.068 25

009164

Soil Conc (property) VS Milk Conc. Associated with P10<5%

0.0E+00

1.0E+03

2.0E+03

3.0E+03

4.0E+03

50 150

250

325

Soil Concentration (on-property) (mg/kg)

Soil

Con

cent

ratio

n (o

ff-pr

oper

ty) (

mg/

kg)

MilkConsumptionis 10% oftotal milkconsumed

Soil Conc. (property) VS Milk Conc. Associated with P10<5%

0.0E+00

5.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.5E+03

50 150

250

325


Soil

Con

cent

ratio

n (o

ff-pr

oper

ty) (

mg/

kg)

MilkConsumptionis 25% oftotal milkconsumed

009165

Table N-9PRGs for Lead in Soil (General Public Agricultural Child) - Beef from Cows on the Receptor's Yard

Soil Conc. (on

property)Conc. In Pasture

Conc. In Beef

% of meat consumption

% above (10 ug/dl) slope Soil concentration 50 mg/kg associated with P10<5 %

50 6.91E+03 1.9 10 5.32 3634 conc. Beef % meat100 5.56E+03 1.53 10 5.04 1.9 10150 4.36E+03 1.2 10 4.99 0.75 25200 3.27E+03 0.9 10 5.13250 2.00E+03 0.55 10 4.96300 8.36E+02 0.23 10 4.96325 2.91E+02 0.08 10 5.02350 3.63E+00 0.001 10 5.53

Soil concentration 100 mg/kg50 2.73E+03 0.75 25 5.09

100 2.25E+03 0.62 25 5.08 1.53 10150 1.78E+03 0.49 25 5.07 0.62 25200 1.27E+03 0.35 25 4.9250 8.36E+02 0.23 25 5.03300 3.63E+02 0.1 25 5325350 Soil concentration 150 mg/kg

1.2 100.49 25


0.9 100.35 25


0.55 100.23 25


0.23 100.1 25

Soil concentration 325

0.08 100 25

009166

Soil Conc. VS Beef Conc. Associated with P10<5%

0.0E+00

2.5E+03

5.0E+03

7.5E+03

50 150

250

325


Soil

Con

cent

ratio

n (o

ff-pr

oper

ty) (

mg/

kg)

BeefConsumptionis 10% oftotal meatconsumed

Soil Conc. VS Beef Conc. Associated with P10<5%

0.0E+00

1.0E+03

2.0E+03

3.0E+03

50 150

250

325


Soil

Con

cent

ratio

n (o

ff-pr

oper

ty) (

mg/

kg)

BeefConsumptionis 25% oftotal meatconsumed

009167

DRAFT FINAL Human Health Risk Assessment Tar Creek ... › work › 06 › 9223551.pdf · DRAFT...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT FINAL Human Health Risk Assessment Tar Creek ... › work › 06 › 9223551.pdf · DRAFT...