Document OE0vMQZqx2rwa60k1zqeOx1Rv

A Soeciai Twn-anH.Ono.UoU rs > Lead in Soil: Issues and Gi TRAVEL and ACCOMMODATIONS Chapel Hill. North Carolina, U.S.A., is accessible via the Raleigh/Durham Airport which connects to all major U.S. airports. The Symposium will be held at the Omni Europa in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Omni Europa provides complimentary transportation to and from Raleigh/Durham Airport for all note1 guests between the hours of 7 am and 11 pm. Arrangements can be made directly with the reservations office. This is not a shuttle so exact dates, times and flight numbers must be received in advance. The hotel is convenient to the state capital of Raleigh, Research Triangle Park, and the Raleigh Durham Airport. Hotel Europa Direct toll-free numbers: Europa Drive Continental United States 1-800-334-4280 Chapel Hill, NO 27514, U.S.A. North Carolina 1-800-672-4240 919/968-4900 Telex 57951 Cable EUROPOTEL Please make your reservations early. Overnight accommodations held for the symposium are subject to cutoff dates and cannot be guaranteed after Februarv 12. In orde- to . v ^ COSTS Registration for the Conference is S90 for the two and one-half days or $45 for a single day. The room rates for the Omni Europa are $55 single or $65 double. In order to guarantee a room, each individual reservation must be accompanied by a deposit in the amount of one night's stay. LOCAL ATTRACTIONS Chapel Hill is a beautiful city in its own right, but it is also the home of the University of North Carolina, one of the oldest universities in the United States. Close to Chapel Hill is Durham, home of Duke Univer sity. a prestigious private university, and Raleigh, the state capital, which is also home of North Carolina State University. These three cities form the Research Triangle which inciudes the Research Triangle Park, the largest research park in the world, with numerous research facilities of some of the major companies, associations, and governmental organizations. PUBLICATION The proceedings will be published in a special edition of Environmental Geochemistry and Health, the journal of the Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health (SEGH) and mailed to all paid registrants. College of Sciences OFFICE OF THE DEAN February 26, 1988 s*S^ * *- COTLfrEETrMscEStaOxT"N* MEMORANDUM To: Speakers and Session Leaders Lead in Soil: Issues and Guidelines From: Janie Dillon A continental breakfast has been planned on Monday, Tuesday and YaI c\ m f\ f* n it vvt 4 ^ -* -- ^ - -- -- 1 _ _ J _ -- -- -CL -- - - -* uiiax you can arrange your snaes ror your tanc later m tne day. Attached is a list of the session leaders with addresses. Would you please send a brief biography (preferable on an index card) to your session leader? Should you forget to do this, please bring it with you to the conference. CLEMSON. SOUTH CAROLINA 29631 TELEPHONE 803/656-3472 R59td 1 268 Session Leaders - Lead in Soil Lester D. Grant, Director V Environmental Criteria & Assessment Office, USEPA, MD 52 3200 Hwy. 54 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 919/541-4173 FAX 919/541-5078 Rosalind Volpe TV Manager, Environmental Health International Lead Zinc Research Organization, Inc. 2525 Meridian Parkway, P.O. Box 12036 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 919/361/4647 292 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 212/578-4750 Betsy T. Kagey, MSPH III Mentor, SUNY-Empire State College 44 Horicon Avenue Glens Falls, NY 12801 518/793-4404(0);798-5290(H) J. Charles Jennett I Dean, College of Engineering 109 Riggs Hall, Clemson University Clemson, SC 39634 803/656-3201 College of Sciences OFFICE OF THE DEAN February 10, 1988 MEMORANDUM To: Speakers for Conference on Lead in Soil From: Janie Dillon, Assistant to thp ii, 1303. uue conference to be held on We have made reservations for you at the Omni Europa in Chapel Hill, N.C. for the nights of 6,7,8 March. The hotel will furnish transportation from the Raleigh-Durham airport. However this is not regular limousine service so they will need to know exact dates, times and flight numbers. Their toll free number is 1-800-672-4280. If you have questions, please call me. I shall try to provide answers. em attachment CLEMSON. SOUTH CAROLINA 29631 TELEPHONE 803/836-3472 Lead in Soil: Issues and Guidelines March 7-9, 1988 DAY 1 Plenary Session I 8:00 a. m. 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:15 9:15 - 9:45 9:45 - 10:15 10:15 - 10:30 10:30 - 11:00 11:00 - 11:30 11:30 - 12:00 12:15 - 1:30 Introduction and Statement of Problem Chairman - Bobby Wixson Registration Overview/Ground Rules - Bobby Wixson U.S. Government Perspective - Sandra Lee Canadian Perspectives - Pamela Stokes Lead in Soil: A European Perspective - Dennis Simms Break Industry Perspective - Robert Putnam Landfill Superfund Sites - Ranking EPA - To be Announced Panel Discussion Lunch Plenary Session II 1:30 2:00 2:30 - ' 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:00 3:15 4:00 4:30 - 3:15 4:00 4:30 5:00 6:00 - 7:00 Sources and Pathways of Lead into Soil Chairman - John Yoder Overview of Sources and Pathways - Brian Davies, Nord Gale Point Sources and Deposition - Gale Hoffnagle Herculaneum, Mo. Study and Blood Lead Reduction Strategy Dan Vornberg Break .. --------- ui ueau nearing Particles by Automated Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispursive X-Ray Spectroscopy - Andrew Hunt, et.al. Reception (Hosted by the Sponsoring Organizations) DAY II Plenary Session III Assessment of Human Exposure Chairman B. Kagey 8:30 - 9:00 Overview of Human Exposure Pathways - Paul Hammond 9:00 - 9:30 Cincinnati Study - Pathways to Elevated Blood Lead and Role of Social Behavior Factors in Children - Robert Bornschien, et.al. 9:30 - 10:00 British Study - Donald Barltrop 10:00 - 10:30 Modeling the Soil/Lead-Blood/Lead Relationship - Alan Marcus et.al. 10:30 - 10:45 Break 10:45 - 11:15 To be Announced 11:15 - 11:45 Lead Exposure in Young Children from Dust and Soil in the U.K. - Iain Thornton et.al. 11:45 - 12:15 Baltimore Data - Lead Based Paint - Mark Farfel 12:15 - 1:30 Lunch Plenary Session IV 1:30 - 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:30 -- 3:00 3:00 3:15 3:45 4:15 4:45 6:00 - 3:15 3:45 4:15 4:45 5:15 7:00 Soil Lead Abatement Case Studies Chairman - Rosalind Volpe Bunker Hill - Kellogg, Idaho - Gene Baker Management of Soil Lead Contamination in Port Pirie, Australia - Tom Farrell Overview of Soil Lead Removal Program in Toronto: Guidelines and Practical Aspects - Goff Jenkins Break Minnesota Study - Howard Mielke et. al. Soil Lead in Minnesota - Dale Trippler et. al. Baltimore Study - Julian Chisolm Cincinnati Study - Scott Clark Social Hour - Cash Bar DAY III Plenary Session V 8:30 - 9:00 9:00 - 9:30 9:30 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:15 10:15 11:00 11:00 11:45 11:45 - 12:00 Abatement and Control Strategies Chairman - Lester Grant Soil Abatement Overview - Rob Elias Abatement Procedures and Costs - Allen Hathaway Economic Analysis - Ken Wise Break Discussion on Possible Approaches to Criteria and Guidelines - Panel Discussion General Audience Discussion Summary - Cln- ' College of Sciences office of the dean February 12, 1988 OLEMSON MEMORANDUM To: Lead in Soil Conference Speakers From: Janie Dillon, Assistant to the Dean Attached is a copy of the final (I hope) draft of the program for the conference. I really appreciate your patience and cooperation. Please note that the Omni Europa has cancelled their toll free number and arrangements for transportation from the Raleigh-Durham Airport can be made by calling them at 919/968-4900. Those of you who have please Jo so by the first of next: week. , CLEMSON. SOUTH CAROLINA 29631 TELEPHONE 303/656-3472 Lead in Soil: Issues and Guidelines March 7-9, 1988 DAY 1 Plenary Session I 8:00 8:30 8:45 9:15 9:45 10:15 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:15 a. m. - 8:45 - 9:15 - 9:45 - 10:15 - 10:30 - 11:00 - 11:30 - 12:00 - 1:30 Introduction and Statement of Problem Chairman - J.C. Jennett Registration Overview/Ground Rules - Bobby Wixson U.S.E.P.A. Perspective - Sandra Lee Canadian Perspectives - Pamela Stokes Lead in Soil: A European's View - Dennis Simms Break Lead in Soil: The Unanswered Question- Robert D. Putnam Landfill Superfund Sites - Ranking - To be Announced Panel Discussion Lunch Plenary Session II 1:30 - 2:00 2:00 - 2:30 Sources and Pathways of Lead into Soil Chairman - John Yoder Overview of Sources and Pathways - Brian Davies, Po-,1 TJ----1 J %l- i ~ 1 -> " -- - - -. Nord - Gale 3:00 3:00 - 3:15 3:15 - 4:00 4:00 - 4:30 4:30 - 5:00 6:00 - 7:00 ijdui vornoerg Break Speciation, Soil Mobility, Bioavailability of Lead in Soils Rufus Chaney Stable Isotopes of Lead in Soil - Michael Rabinowitz The Classification of Lead Bearing Particles by Automated Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispursive X-Ray Spectroscopy - Andrew Hunt, et.al. Reception (Hosted by the Sponsoring Organizations) DAY II Plenary Session III Assessment of Human Exposure Chairman B.T. Kagey 8:30 - 9:00 Overview of Human Exposure Pathways - Paul Hammond 9:00 - 9:30 Soil/Lead-Blood/Lead Relationships in an Urban Community and in a Mining Community - Robert Bornschein, et ~al. 9:30 - 10:00 British Study - Donald Barltrop 10:00 - 10:30 Modeling the Soil/Lead-Blood/Lead Relationship - Alan Marcus, et.al. 10:30 - 10:45 Break 10:45 - 11:15 11:15 - 11:45 11:45 - 12:15 12:15 - 1:30 To be Announced Lead Exposure in Young Children from Dust and Soil in the U.K. - Iain Thornton, et.al. Baltimore Data - Lead Based Paint - Mark Farfel Lunch Plenary Session IV 1:30 - 2:00 2:00 - 2:30 2:30 - 3:00 3:00 - 3:15 3:15 - 3:45 3:45 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:45 Soil Lead Abatement Case Studies Chairman - Rosalind Volpe Bunker Hill Study - Kellogg, Idaho - Gerald L. Lamb and Brian Kiernan Management of Soil Lead Contamination in Port Pirie, Australia - Tom Farrell Establishment of Lead in Soil Guidelines in Ontario: Summary of Soil Removal Programs- Goff Jenkins Break Soil Dust Lead and Childhood Exposure as a Function of Size and Community Location: The Case for Abatement in Minnesota - Howard F. Mielke, et. al. Soil Lead in Minnesota - Dale Trippler, et.al. Interrelationships Among Paint, Dust and Soil in Childhood 5:15 6:00 - 7:00 Social Hour - Cash Bar DAY III Plenary Session V 8:30 - 9:00 9:00 - 9:30 9:30 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:15 10:15 - 11:00 . 11:00 - 11:45 11:45 - 12:00 Abatement and Control Strategies Chairman - Lester Grant Alternatives to the Removal of Lead-Contaminated Soil - Rob Elias Remedial Engineering for Lead-Contaminated Soil Sites - Allen Hathaway Economic Analysis - Ken Wise Break Discussion on Possible Approaches to Criteria and Guidelines - Panel Discussion General Audience Discussion Summary - Closing Remarks - Bobby Wixson ^ Lead in Soil:Issue and Guidelines March 7-9, 1988 Format: Guidelines for Authors The Proceedings of the Lead in Soils Issues and Guidelines will be published as a monograph by the Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health, who recommend the following guidelines. 1. Typescripts should be on good quality white paper, using a carbon ribbon. Allow 30 mm (1.1 inch) margins all round. Do not use a dot matrix printer. 2. Use double spacing for the main text and single spacing for references and for the abstract which should come at the start of the paper. 3. Figures, graphs, structural formula and tables should be on separate sheets of paper. Indicate with a pencil where they should fall in the text. For line drawings use indian ink. If photographs are used, ensure they have good . contrast. 4. Captions should be on separate sheets of paper. lidelines > IMPORTANCE At the present time there are no recognized U.S. guidelines for lead in soil. This conference will focus on the issues of lead in soil with the intent of bringing together the most current scientific knowledge and data, to evaluate case studies of soil lead abatement programs presently used in the United States and in other countries and suggest possible approaches to be used for the development of enter a and guidelines. ' OBJECTIVES The objectives of this special U.S. conference on "Lead in Soil: Issues and Guidelines" are to: Summarize present government and industry perspectives of the problem Identify major sources and pathways of lead into soil Assess human exposure pathways and indices Evaluate soil lead abatement case studies Discuss cost-effective abatement and control strategies wnu 5HUULD PARTICIPATE? The focused presentations, discussions and audience participation will be of great applied value to people In federal, state and municipal governments, industries concerned with lead, public health agencies, the medical community, special waste control groups, and anyone concerned with the ques tion of lead in soil. HOW THIS CONFERENCE IS ORGANIZED Internationally recognized scientists concerned with the issues of lead in soil and the development of realistic guidelines, have been invited to present a summary of current knowledge on their subject. Each presentation will be followed by a discussion session with audience participation. ! To receive the program circular, please complete and return ! 1988: Lead in Soil: Issues and Guidelines | March 7, 8, 9, 1988 * Chapel Hill, NC 27514, U.S.A. Name _ Address Telephone elex SPONSORS The United States Environmental Protection Agency The International Lead Zinc Research Organization, Inc. Lead Industries Association The Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health The College of Sciences and the College of Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN Dr. Bobby G. Wixson, Dean, College of Sciences, Clemson University, S.C. CONFERENCE SESSIONS AM Plenary Session I Monday, March 7, 1988 Introduction and Statement of Problem PM Plenary Session III PM Plenary Session IV AM Plenary Session V Adjourn at Noon Assessment of Human Exposure Soil Lead Abatement Studies Wednesday, March 9, 1988 Abatement and Control Strategies To receive program circular, mail to PLACE STAMP HERE Ms. Janie Dillon or Ms. Melody Cox College of Sciences 119 Kinard Laboratory Clemson University Clemson, SC 29634-1901, U.S.A. 803/656-3676 Telex: 981694 I residential wells located onsite and all estimated 1,000 people who live within a three-mile radius west of the Site are dependent upon private domestic wells. The Schuylkill River is utilized as a drinking water source for the Philadelphia area as well as Pottstown, Spring City, Norristown, and Phoenixville. Mill Creek is stocked with trout by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and is ranked by PADER as a recreation water course. N. The primary contaminants of concern at the Site are lead and lead compounds. Lead is a toxic metal that tends to accumulate in the tissues of man and other animals. It enters the body through two routes: ingestion and inhalation. Under normal conditions, 5 to 10 percent of the lead ingested is absorbed and approximately 37 percent of the lead inhaled is retained. Acute (short term) lead overexposure can produce severe neurological damage (encephalopathy and convulsions) and death. Chronic (long term) overexposure to lead may result in severe damage to the circulatory, nervous, renal and reproductive systems. Common symptoms of chronic overexposure include loss of appetite, anemia, intestinal cramps, fatigue, paralysis of nerves and colic. Children are more susceptible than adults to lead intoxication because they absorb higher lead levels through the gastrointestinal system (approximately 50%), retain lead in the body longer and have a greater proportional food intake. Studies have suggested that lead exposure over a long term can produce sub-clinical or difficult to detect effects on the central nervous system of children, particularly relating to intelligence and behavioral activity. Severe lead intoxication in children can result in irreversible brain damage. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW bLIDE I MAJOR COMMUNITY REGULATORY & LITIGATION EMITTING POINT SOURCES CONCERNS FOR LEAD 1. 0.5 UG/M3 Air Lead Standard 2. An sources independent soil lead standard for soil around point 3. CERCLA Clean up/The Dioxin Strategy Concept 4. Civil Liability Suits 5. TOSCA product ban SLIDE II INDUSTRY RESPONSE OPTIONS 1. Wait and See 2. De+'end aqainst each action as a separate e-ftort 3. Attempt to resolve regulatroy concerns with positive constructive response which may di-ffuse adversarial requlations 4. Some mix o-f the above R5901284 Table III Predictive Model for Blood Lead Sector-miles from plant stack N-NW .1 Outdoor air lead (ug/m3) 2.8 2 . Indoor air lead (ug/m3) 0.84 3 . Time spent outdoor (hours/day) 2 4 . Time weighted average (ug/m3) 1.00 .5. Volume of air respired (m3/day) 6 Lead intake from air (ug/day) 4 4.01 7 . % deposition/absorption in lungs 45 8. Ttl. lead uptake from lungs (ug/day)1.8 .9 Dietary lead Consumption (ug/day) a) natural lead,indirect atmosphere 2.4 b) from solder or other metals 20.4 c) atomospheric lead 7 d) undetermined sources 1.2 10. % absorption in gut 42 11. Dietary lead uptake (ug/day) 13 0 o1 o 5 N-NW 0.5-1.0 N-NW 2.8 0.84 4 1.17 5 5.83 75 4.4 1.1 0.33 2 0.39 4 1.58 45 0.7 1.1 0.33 4 0.46 5 2.29 75 1.7 0.8 0.24 2 0.29 4 1.15 45 0.5 2.4 20.4 7 1.2 53 16 2.4 20.4 7 1.2 42 13 2.4 20.4 7 1.2 53 16 2.4 20.4 7 1.2 42 13 1.0-1.5 0.8 0.24 4 0.33 5 1.67 75 1.3 2.4 20.4 7 1.2 53 16 12 . Street dust/soil lead (ug/g) 13 . Indoor dust lead (ug/g) 14 . Time weighted average (ug/g) 15. Amount of dirt ingested (g/day) 16. Lead intake from dirt (ug/day) 17. % dirt lead absorption in gut 18. Lead uptake from dirt (ug/day) 500 500 275 500 500 275 500 500 275 0.2 0.2 0.2 100 100 55 30 30 30 30 30 17 275 275 275 0.2 55 30 17 150 150 150 0.2 30 30 9 150 150 150 0.2 30 30 9 19. Total lead uptake from lung and gut (ug/day) 45 51 30 35 23 27 20. Predicted Blood Lead 18 20 12 14 9 11 21. Observed Blood Lead 19.2 22 . Ratio Predicted:Observed Blood Lead 0.9 23 . Number of children tested 13 19.2 1.1 12.6 1.0 15 12.6 1.1 9.9 0.9 33 9.9 1.1 DR590128G TABLE IV PREDICTED AND ACTUAL BLOOD LEAD VALUES Miles from Stack 1975 1984 Predict Actual Predict Actual 1990 Predict N-NW 0.0-0.5 27.5 30.0 19.0 19.2 14.0 0.5-1.0 22.0 19.3 13.0 12.6 8.0 1.0-1.5 18.0 16.9 10.0 9.9 5.0 NW-W 0.0-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 25.5 19.5 - 24.3 32.3 - 17.0 17.4 11.5 - 11.3 ~ 12.5 7.0 - W-SW 0.0-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 SW-S 0.0-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 30.0 - 16.0 17.3 - 11.1 22.0 22.3 10.5 10.4 7.5 7.4 25.0 - -- 21.3 - -- 17.0 16.8 8.5 8.4 17.0 5.5 3.0 12.5 - 4.0 SLIDE III CONCLUSIONS FROM ERA SOIL LEAD MODEL EFFORT AT HERCULANEUM 1. Their model may be generally applicable when calibrated 2. Air lead reductions -from 1.5 to 0.5 will have very impact on children's blood lead levels little 3. Additional drops in blood lead 1 evels(5 uq/dl) can be expected (based on ERA predicted food lead reductions) in children throughout the United States includinq around point sources. 4. Soil lead/house dust levels account for a substantial portion of the remaining children uptake around point sources. 5. In order to reduce children's blood lead levels impact on their uptake from soil or house dust levels. you must DR5901 SLIDE IV PROPOSAL Adopt a progressive stand on commonitv children's blood lead levels as the ultimate goal of all of the requlatorv activity and deal directly with problem through education and intervention. QUESTIONS AND CRITICISM OF APPROACH 1. Could possibly speed up advent of regulatory intervention 2. Could it be potentially more expensive than air lead standard 3. Would EPA accept such an approach 4. Under what authority could the approach be legitimised IN DEFENSE 1. The Dallas Story 2. The Bunker Hill Story 3. Industry could have five separate standards or actions to deal with OR5901289 SLIDE V WAYS TO REDUCE CHILDREN'S UPTAKE 1. Remove the impacted child -from the neighborhood 2. Remove the house -from the marketplace 3. Better housekeeping 4. Reduce dust potential in the yard through soil replacement, sodding or reseeding 5. Remove or cover leaded paint in house i -f present 6. Educate parents about the above 7. Screen necessary children and intervene on a case by case basis as cu h (a!._ (J&0& ... \aJ([1) I*? %f Li A <=l-^i4^ ' <--v Cs/sA ' CPjL ">j~i** 2^ Z3 ^osu T7- ]/ 00 CsH/Qftb ... A/f /,$ L//o<t atZ~ /^A-*^/V4 /(-/ ^A3 0/ -/J-/-//7J' Airy. ^/A* eg & x./'z-f, - vv _^s-^JT_yv Vi UM kur<CO 3rVrn _ ^ 3' *=f^.#?T*L_.l._.-.. Me Ve R. l~\Ar xix - nr* 4-mo -3'"0.t-//J , fv, PF Pfru L (ze> -. 'Xe.M tt.be.A`jCioi*J _---- LtJ__ :..-P.O^-LLvJ>Q _____ ^J^AJJgATZb/....... __ "Q X fe AJ ttj po 66 'a* HpjrL.e7\ JA&zts :~<2>ee ffllKer KnARAJ^y J/ie 2/7- ?J/- /3^ bSottfJs>diJ CotJTkolS. w-iW'D'isr ... iU XT- MrVf 1-1 ^L3 ST.JO& bf'* 'Jo c_ . Ao~455-<f3/7 ... 7zi ........... /j,m?co................ G'^3*'**** S>7reyi-/ %Oi~ 2 Z - z yj -21ST-S10 -0166 <aJ^&Sr&9v*z JZ- /zsr) fidM^-STQ kj" i-H -AID .................... MrX^I g / S"0 .-*^<2XtAjS^.(2j(b UEL...-... .... ............... ^/X-~5.3X."X373 ... i--i )A -Z 3^3 August 2 0 , 1986 STATIONARY LEAD SOURCE PROGRAM STATUS/PROBLEM EPA is reviewing the current air qu ality standard for lead of 1.5 ug/m3, and the review should be comp leted in early 1987. Any rev is ion would then be formally proposed by EPA. To date, all signs point to a significant lowering of the standard, conceivably as low as 0.5 ug/m3, based on the apparent conclusion of EPA's staf f that the present blood-lead threshold for adverse effects is p robably too high. EPA acknowledges that the lead in gaso1ine phasedo wn will largely re solve the lead exposure problem in the general p opulation, and the brunt of a revised standard, therefore, wil 1 fall on stationary lead sources. Comp 1iance with a lower air quality standard would be extremely costly (the Bureau of Mines estimate s combined capital costs of $250 million for the four primary lea d plants), and there is no reason to believe that a lower standard wo uld cure.the blood-lead problem. The purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative to revision of the air lead standard which would be both feasible for the lead industry and mo re responsive to the blood-lead problem. PROPOSAL A Maintain and re quire comp 1iance with the current 1.5 ug/m3 air lead standa r d . B Establish a stationary lead source program de signed to keep expo se d children * s blood leads at acceptable levels. C. Implement both the air standard and stationary source program through the SIP process. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL A. Maintain the current air lead standard EPA would reaffirm the current standard based on its findings that the remaining lead problem involves blood leads of children 1iving near stationary sources of lead and that there is an absence of convincing data that a lower air lead standard will resolve that problem. Stationary lead sources would be required to comply with the current standard. mini iiiii iiiii mu iiiiimiim1 R5901292 I B. Establish a stationary lead source program Legal Authority. There is authority under at least three statutes for EPA to establish a stationary lead source program (see attached legal analysis). Objective. Maintain blood leads of children aged 1-6 1iving near stationary lead sources below the accep table maximum. Key Elements --Programs would be implemented through the SIP process. --States would- h'a've the flexibility to address sitespecific cond itions in determining the type of program needed in each community. --Programs would be developed in consultation with representatives of the affected facility and appropr iate state and local authorities. --Programs would have to contain adequate measures to (1) identify the target population, nature of the problem, necessary remedial actions and the results of those remedial actions; and (2) demonstrate that children aged 1-6 living in the impact area will have blood-lead levels below the acceptable maximum. --Such measures could include, but would not be limited to, blood-lead testing, local educational programs, land acquisition, relocation assistance, personal hygiene counseling, residential maintenance and indoor air quality improvement programs, street dust control, physician training and local teachers' education. If necessary and cost-effective, such measures could also include additional work at the facility as negotiated with the state. --Absent informat ion to precisely identify areas of concern around each s tat ionary source, the initial program would focus on all children aged 1-6 1 iv ing within 2 kilometers of primary plants, 1 kilometer of secondary plants and 0.5 kilometers of battery plants. The measures the state adopts to identify problem children and measure the results of the program would be used to more accurate 1y determine the are a s of concern. --The program would have to be structured so as to be enforceable and provide for suitable penalties for noncompliance. --Facility owners would be required to cost-share on an equitable basis the additional expenses incurred by state and local authorities to implement and enforce the stationary lead source program. DR5901293 -3RELATED ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION m Should the program specifically provide for mandatory or voluntary blood-lead testing of children aged 1-6 ? Are there other ways to identify problem children, determine the results of remedial act ions and ensure ultimate compliance with the program's objective? e What studies/analyses/data are available or needed to support the stationary lead source program and the claim that further lowering of the air lead standard will not resolve the bloodlead problem? Under which statute should the stationary lead source program be "housed"? DR5901294 TABLE IV PREDICTED AND ACTUAL BLOOD LEAD VALUES Miles from Stack 1975 1984 Predict Actual Predict Actual 1990 Predict N-NW 0.0-0.5 27.5 30.0 19.0 19.2 14.0 0.5-1.0 22.0 19.3 13.0 12.6 8.0 1.0-1.5 18.0 16.9 10.0 9.9 5.0 NW-W 0.0-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 25.5 19.5 - 24.3 32.3 - 17.0 17.4 11.5 11.3 -- 12.5 7.0 - W-SW 0.0-0.5 .'5-1.0 1.0-1.5 SW-S 0.0-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 30.0 - 16.0 17.3 - 11.1 22.0 22.3 10.5 10.4 7.5 7.4 25.0 - -- 21.3 - -- 17.0 16.8 -8.5 8.4 17.0 5.5 3.0 12.5 - 4.0 rPT'[ SLIDE V WAYS TO REDUCE CHILDREN'S UPTAKE 1. Remove the impacted child -from the neighborhood 2. Remove the house -from the marketplace 3. Better housekeeping 4. Reduce dust potential in the yard through soil replacement, sodding or reseeding 5. Remove or cover leaded paint in house i-f present 6. Educate parents about the above 7. Screen necessary children and intervene on a case by case basis as Table III Predictive Model for Blood Lead Sector-miles from plant stack N-NW 0.0-0. 1. Outdoor air lead (ug/m3) 2. Indoor air lead (ug/m3) 3. Time spent outdoor (hours/day) 4. Time weighted average (ug/m3) 2.8 0.84 2 1.00 5. Volume of air respired (m3/day) 4 6. Lead intake from air (ug/day) 4.01 7. % deposition/absorption in lungs 45 8. Ttl. lead uptake from lungs (ug/day)1.8 2.8 0.84 4 1. 17 5 5.83 75 4.4 9. Dietary lead Consumption (ug/day) a) natural lead,indirect atmospherei 2.4 b) from solder or other metals 20.4 c) atomospheric lead 7 d) undetermined sources 1.2 10. % absorption in gut 42 11. Dietary lead uptake (ug/day) 13 2.4 20.4 7 1.2 53 16 12. Street dust/soil lead (ug/g) 13. Indoor dust lead (ug/g) 14. Time weighted average (ug/g) 15. Amount of dirt ingested (g/day) 16. Lead intake from dirt (ug/day) 17. % dirt lead absorption in gut 18. Lead uptake from dirt (ug/day) 500 500 500 0.2 100 30 30 500 500 500 0.2 100 30 30 19. Total lead uptake from lung and gut (ug/day) 45 51 20. Predicted Blood Lead 18 20 21. Observed Blood Lead 19.2 19.2 22. Ratio Predicted;Observed Blood Lead 0.9 1.1 23. Number of children tested 13 R5.g0l2.ga SLIDE II INDUSTRY RESPONSE OPTIONS 1. Wait and See 2. Defend aqainst each action as a separate effort 3. Attempt to resolve regulatrov concerns with positive constructive response which may diffuse adversarial regulations 4. Some mix of the above DR590 1 29.9 SLIDE III CONCLUSIONS FROM ERA SOIL LEAD MODEL EFFORT AT HERCULANEUM 1. Their model may be generally applicable when calibrated 2. Air 1 ead reductions -from 1.5 to 0.5 will have impact on children's blood lead levels very little 3. Additional drops in blood lead 1evels(5 ug/dl) can be expected (based on EPA predicted -food lead reductions) in chi1dren throughout the Uni ted States including around point sources. 4. Soil lead/house dust levels account for a substantial portion of the remaining chi 1dren uptake around paint sources. 5* In order to reduce children's blood lead levels you must impact on their uptake from soil or house dust levels. DR5901S00 SLIDE IV PROPOSAL Adapt a progressive stand an community children's blood lead levels as the ultimate qoal of all of the regulatory activity and deal directly with problem through education and intervention. QUESTIONS AND CRITICISM OF APPROACH 1. Could possibly speed up advent of regulatory intervention 2. Could it be potentially more expensive than air lead standard 3. Would ERA accept such an approach 4. Under what authority could the approach be legitimized IN DEFENSE 1. The Dallas Story 2. The Bunker Hi11 Story .. Vj t .. . ...... . 3. Industry could have five separate standards or actions to deal wi th QR5901301 SLIDE I MAJOR COMMUNITY REGULATORY & LITIGATION EMITTING POINT SOURCES CONCERNS FOR LEAD 1. 0.5 UG/M3 Air Lead Standard o, 2. An sources independent soil lead standard -for soil around point 3. CERCLA Clean up/The Dio;-: in Strategy Concept 4. Civil Liability Suits 5. TOSCA product ban DR590 DR59S1303 DR590i304 OR590190 II III m _ n -n OR5901007 zsfrs-dfc'SCtHC) lynossiw lai3ijH3is3Ho "QAia sinoi -IS 30 naids oss xs .IIIH'"'"...... . ri OR5901303