Document Yr8RgnXZx5pzaRLzqbqmmwoK8

pt 425Wana See,SuCei1c8e00rCincColaotw,laOnH/4C52o02b-o39s57/D1ion513n3o8n1s2o8t3s8 FNaox.rt1h3.e3n8TK10se20a5nIiwdafollla/s8w0o4L0mP3 sE oseaArE puor sna FEDERAL EXPRESS ALI26-3%17 July 16, 2009 8=E oa 8 pg a=o oa2 EU.PSA. DEnovcikreotnmCeennttearl,PMroCte2ct8i2o2nTAgency " EPA West, Room 3334 W1a3s0h1inCgontsotni,tuDt.ioCn. Avenue, 20004 NW. Re: S'uObRmDi-s2s0i0o3n-0t0o1I6RIS and AR-226 Database For PFOA/PFOS: EPA-HQ- To IRIS Database for PFOA/PFOS: USEPA'InsreefsfpoornttsoesctoontshiedNeortpiecrefliusosruoeodctbaynoUicSEaPciAd o(n"PFFeObAr"u)araynd23p,e2rf0l0u6o,roroecgtaarndeing `9s3u3l3fo-n9a3te36("(PFFeObS."2)3w,it2h0i0n6t)h,eweInatergersautbemdiRttiisnkgtIhnfeofromlaltoiwoinnSgyasdtdietmio(n"aIlRIiS"n)f,or7m1atFieodn.tRoeg. USEPA for inclusion in that review, and for inclusion in the AR-226 database: 2 1. FPirnoacleRssefopr oaofSritthteeEPneveirroCnomnesnutlatlatAisosnePsasnemle:ntScPireontgirfiacmPaesep rCoanosfrutlt htaetion Dupont -- EPA Memorandum of Understanding and Phase Il Workplan (July 15, 2009); and 2. L(aivnakiltaobAleTSatDR "Draft Toovx/itcooxlporgoifciallesP/rtopfi2l0e0.fhotrmPie#rtfblouookrmoarlk0y4l)s." (May 2008) hitp://www.atsdr.cdc.g RAB:mdm Enclosure "Robert A v CONTAINS NO CBI 204g p.2 July 16, 2009 Page 2 cc: GloriaPost (NJDEP)w/ encl.) (via U.S. Mail) Helen Goeden (MDH)(wi. mct. a alt, - Lora Werner (ATSDR)(w/"enicl) (viaU6. y wiaosecn 1) yOu SATAY p.3 Final Report ofthe Peer Cousaltation Panel `conducting thereviewforthe Sclentiflc Peer Consultation Process or aSiteEnviromental AssessmentProgram aspartohef `DuPont - EPA Memorandum of Understanding snd Phase Il Workplan Editedby Mitchel J. Small Civil & Environmental Enginecringand Enginecri&ng Public Policy Carnegie Melon Univesity Pitsburgh, PA 15213 Independent ThirdParty (ITP) Administrator July 15,2009 pd MembersofPeer Consultation Panel MInidtecphenedle.ntSTmhailrld, PPahr.tyD,Administrator `Camegie Mellon University JUoneilveBrasikteyro,fPWhaDs.hington Tacoma. `KWaadnsnwaonrtKhuCreunnttehr,acNheslwaYmo,rPkhS.tDa.te Departmentof Health State UniversityofNew York at Albany. Linda. Lee, PhD. Purdue University PUaMuDl NJ.JLi-oRyo,bPeLrtD.Wood Johnson Medical School UScnoitvterAs.itMyoafbrToyr,ontPoh..D. SMtiocchkaheollMmcULnaicvehrlsaint,y PhD. RInotseaglrailndCoAn.suSlethionogf,ncP.h.D,, DABT `BTrhooomkahsavBe.nWNaattsioonna,lPLhabDo.ratory "Technical and administrative asistncefo the peer consultation was provided by Kan Shao and Gloria DadowskiofCamegie Mellon University. ' pS `Toaf Cbonltenets 1 RCO UCHOR 410 OVEIVEN creed 2. SummaryofKeyFindings25dCOBHHORScovers] 2.1 Forthe Air MonitoringandDispersion ModelingASSCSSTICN..evervvvsrrres 22Forthe Surface WaterandSodiintASSSSSTCN...ccvrercrersronsrr 23FOrtheSoil and GrOUnAWBler ASSESSED... neon) 24FOrtheASSESSOIfPEFNO!A 1 BIO.) 25 AssessmentofMultimedia Fate, Transport,andEXpOSUre PORYEYS...cvcvven 10 26 ASSESOSFHMUEMANN EXPOSE... 27 SummaryofPricrity NefeorFdutusre MonitaonrdMiondegl Development .............13 3. DEBE FINES meses 1S 3.1AitMonitoringandDispersion MOGEIINg........cvsvevessesrensscnsrr 1S 3.1.1 IdenifcationandCharactofeTrransipozrtaPAtAWRiYSo.n ccc 1S 3.1.3Alf MOONPROGTAM....cocs essen BA AIMOEHNG.osssssssesnesessnnn19 3.2 SUrfOCEWALEra0 SEEN cv crcnsssssssessemsonsmenmmn2) 321ONORNS esses 32.2 Washingion Works OUIallDAB cece 3 25 3:23LandiSurface andLeachateAralyssforLocal,DryRu, 0dLea... 26 3.2.5 Washinglon WorksSitPotential forAdditonalPFOA Transport tOhioRiver.....27 33..21.87 SARBPYTECAD!CBCEHONOMISE.Dc....esssssonrenmenr8n28 3.3S011 800 GIOUMIWBIE...c.c. 331BOBO ssn 29 snes 29 33.2 WASHWIOROKGSSHIEON BIB UHWA SHC vcs mses 30 3) 2 ps 3.3.4Local,DeyRut,300LEBLan cern 31 3.3.5 CommoneRannkitng ofExposure Pathways Related to GroundfwoarStLeEAr.....37 3.3.6 SPECHicDBANCCAS ress worth 3.4.1 Farm ProduceandLocalPOPUSIONFATITS cn 39 32Fish G00AGES css Al 3.43BICRS MKa0 INS crs 43 3.0.4 GeARIDAIS 800 HUTS ceed 3.4.5 Summaryof KeyConcernsRegarding Biota Megsuremens.... with 3.5 Multimedia Fate, Transportand Exposure PatWAYS......r nh 3.5.1PathwaysofEXPOSUIE 0m th Sie 0EXPOSE Mit... cers 3.52 Understanding oftheProcesses GOening PFOAMIGEAtON ccd 3.5.3 Quanifcatonof PFOA MassFlowsAlongtheMajor PathwaysofMigration... 48 3h.E5.M4 SOitTe-PspecAifiIc EmOMpFiMrEicIaYl EGSviEdeAncIoe SOupNpo.r t.he S.emir-qruanrtiastivne Unedersetandeing of 48 3.6.1Conceptual EXPOSUTE Mel wv. 3.62 GeneralEXPOSEASSCSSTENMEBOMOIORY verse S0 3.6.3 InteropfSrigneifticaantEtxpiosournes inLight ofPotential HeahthRisk....c...53 3.6.4ExposurePoint COnTMION CUBIONS. verses 55 3.6.5 SPECIicEAPOSUIEPATREIES....cvoesnssssssssr $5 3.6.6 URGEraioy ABMYSIS vrs sens 3.67Conclusionsand IdentificationofDataNeeds... I 3.7 SummaryofPriorityDataNeedsforFurs StudyPHASES veer $8 37.1 COMPIEAlEfM TSIVO E BO... 32.2 Spatially Extensive Surface Water MOOG... erconS) 3.1.3 IntensiveRiverSedimentSPIT. ......vcseronsrrnneneS) 3.7.4 GrouPnumdp awndTaratceser TES... nnn 3.7.5 Aitional BIOIOgical MORKOTNG......cessesmersernensesnesnesn 0 E3.7.6OImpElementatriornorfMulimedia MotdoEvealulacte MosssBalmancme inmNeamrby-- REFSTENCES rrr ADEE A rms) ATSummary ofMarch23-24,2009Public MEE...) AZPUBIC COMES. ssn T8 5 7 1. Introduction and Overview Thisreportsummarizes the nding ofthPerConsuiationPanel (PCP) conv10erenvieew tdhe (sDiutPeonnvti)ruonnmdeenrtaalMaesmsoesrsamnedntumproofgUrnadmercsotnadnudcitnegd(bMyOEUI.)wDiutPohntthedeUnNietmedouSrtasteasndEnCvoimropnamneyntal Protection Agency (EPA), OfficofPollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). DuPont and EPA aeisnignfatoroioensr1p0emtfhleuaMorOotUocaiinnwchoicicanhciDduaPnointshsaaslcto(mPmFiOtAe)dtthorporugohviadPeEOPAASwiitehRcelrataeddataand fEantveiorfonPmFenOtAaaltAsasnedsesamernthtePrDougProanmt.WeInsphaitnigclloanr,WtohreksstmudiaescnonuducfteadplbcyaDttulPocuoantertdasidlroennsgtghehe Ohio Rive,just west ofParkersburg, West Virginia "Thepeerreviewisevaluating thesie quality andcompletenessofongoing stdies conducted byDuPontand is slentiic conslans tocharacterizepastandcurrentrelesses associated ith the sit, as well a quaniies of PFOA in nary environmental medi, including. hheosiemmpeldemieantthaatticoannofepadhatoshducmiavniecxsp,osukrneo.wnTahsiPshdeata gaatnhdePrihnagsheaIs,baeenscotnnductPehdatsreo1ugh iWnofrokrmPaltaino.n 0UnpdreerpatrheeMthOeUf,olDluoPwionngteupsaerdtt:hePhas | ndPhas 1 dtalongwithotherrelevant A. Data Assessment: DuPont Washingion Works(OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Siie-Related NEnov:ir5o0n7m5e3n2t1a5l0A7s5s33es1s8m9e8n43P5r6o0g5r0a1m3),, ODucPtoonbterC2o,rp2o0ra0te Remediation Group, Project B. SPcarrkeeernsibnugrgL,evWeelsEtxVpiorsguirneiaA(ssOePsPsTm-e2n0t04f-or01D1u3PoPnFtOWAasShiitneg-RleolnatWeodrEknsviFracoinlmietny,tal Assessment Program), Environ, October 2, 2008. C. FutureDataNeodsAssesment: DuPons Wshingion Works OPPT-2004-0P1F1O3A GSirtoeuRpe,lsPreodjecEtnvNio.ronSmOenTtSa3l5A0s7s5e3ss3me1n8t98P4r3o5g6r.a0m5)0,1D3,uPOocnttobCeorrp2,or2a0t0e8.Remedistion . ps "The specific goal ofthe PCP ist evaluat these reports (end elated supporting information provided by DuPont anditsconsultants) to determine whether an affirmative answor can be provided 10 th charge question posed nthe DuPont-EPA MOU: Are current PFOA environmentalreleases nd sourcesofthoseenvironmental eases from theSicandthepresenceof PFOA inenvirmeodianonmanedarnountdtaheSilte sufficiently understoodso hat pathwaysofmigration snd expastrteo PFOA associated WiththatSitareadquaielycharacterizedandassessed onascrcninglevelbasis? 11 Review Process "The membersofthe Per Consultation Panel (PCP)wereselcted byITPAdinisrsor Mitchell Small folloawpiubnligc nomination procedureannounced on th Carmegie Mellon PFOA Peer (Consultation website: hp:/p-ofosce cnuedulThenomination procedure, described at b candidates wecp eencomuineadtueldpabp ygetshiepUeSctEunPlAw(a6)s, DcluoPsoendton(3A)u,gMiutscthe2l2l,2S0m0a8l.l 3)A,tRoobtoeafr1Ltl.3Griffin 13 elfnn ominatd ion 1). Memwbereechrossen basonethdeneed toaddressparticular ares ofexperts in the study andthe strengthofcach individuals scentifc qualifications. The final commits includes four members nominated by the US EPA, two members nominated by DuPont, two members nominated by Michell Small, and anemembernominated by Robert. Griffin (a memberalsonominated by th US EPA). "ThecommicesreceivedcopiesoftheteeDuPontreportsonNovember3,2008,andhel first. organizational teleconfoneNroveenmbceer 18, 2008. The frstformalmeeofttheiPCPnogok place with a publicly announced tleconfercnce on Decemb2e3r, 2008. Inputto the panel on the charge and related information was provided byth representativesofthe US EPA and DuPont. "There i was decided ha the panel woud subdivide thereviewand preliminary writin tasks with major aad minor ssigament as follows: s ese r- e|]ER] 22] [Csoelboker|| groundwater `Exposure 1 mmo | [aor| | m [=| l I= ee Lee Le [peutitoy [miner|1] [ScottnMabury | Minor| Major| Wimor | | | CE E LI m =E=2mlT ciwm teT |pe eTm rrTIi=E e 1t1e| `meetingofthe PCPthatwasheldonMarch23-24,2009,inParkerWsesbtuVirrgigni,a. The Preliminary Report by the PCP, and public input. A summaryofthe Parkersburg meeting is p:-- pB er eens ree or tee laAf hup:/fitp-pfos.cs.cmucdu/pages/announcements.bum p.10 2 SummaryofKey Fiadings aad Conclusions "The PCP finds tht th thee reports reviewed provide agood ist conceptuaization and analysis ofpotential pathwaysof PFOA exposuraet and near the Washinglon WorksSite. Furthermore, muchofthedatathathasbeencollected andanalyzedwil beuseful nestimating thelikely magnitude ofthese exposure pathways and ther relative importance ona scrcninglevel basis. However,the panelhasalso foundsignificant limitationsandomissionsinthe datasetssnd associated modeling forestimatingthe relative andabsoluteimportance ofdifferent exposure pattways, and recommenthdas ignificany expandedsetofdaa collection nd analyses should beconducted to fll ical gaps. shouldbenotedthat membersofthe panel diddifeinthieunderstanding andexpectationsof whatwas meant i thecharge by,"adequately characterized and assessedon ascrecing level basis." Somemembers ntrpreed his 0mean thtthmigrationandexposure assessment Should beat the currentstae-ofthe-art i the scientific literature and practicfo such ashseestsemmen"tss,cwrietehnfiunltglo"ovimeprlaygetohtfpaostoemnteiwahlmaitgmroatrieoniaindsexapsosseusrsmeepnatthwwaasyisn.tOentdheedr,swhinitcehrpreted `would then encompass a moreimitd sampling and valuation of8 more-imite set ofpathways. "This diffrence in inerpretation i reflected in difeences between some ofthe comments made: by diferent panel members and presened in our findings below. Key findings include: 21 FortheAirMonitoringandDispersion Modeling Assessment: 21.1 Theconclusionthaai evisson, transport, anddeposition sth primarypathway contaminationofdinkingwate isplausible butisnotadequately substantiated bythe data and analyses that ae presented in the reports. 2.1.2 The selection ofatwo-mileradius around the plant seems insufficient 10 hchearSaictte.eriTzheethse sepatlialeoefctxhtistoidfoeiommanpniancttmuasntdbpeotJeunsttiiaflieedoxprotshueredstomoaPiFnOsAhouelldesbes:ed from expandedandamoredetailedcharacterizationoftheentiredomain i needed. 7 p11 2.13The temporal resolutionof the airmonitoringwas insufficient t characterize the ransport anddispersionof PFOAinthe areaslikely tobeaffectedbyemissions. 2.1.4Thedatasetused10evaluatethedispersion modeling is inadequate. 2.1.5 There wasno atemptto evaluatethe sicmaritoringandmodeling by sccounting forthereleased materia. There shouldbeanatemptmade toperform amassbance. calculation for airborne material. 2.1.6There isevidencethatallairbornesources of PFOAhave notbeen dented. Air moritoringshouldbeperformedat the landfill sites to eliminatethema possiblesources ofsitbore PFOA `Cente,especially aisiwecl iasnatheoeccrfulrtsiattiniooswksninteo.wn as the Lite HokingService 22FortheSurface WaterandSedimentAssessment: 22.1 OhioRiverwatersamplwaisvnergy inteaendlmackiintgineinfnormtati,on rientgearrpdrientgwhlaimteothfedraeypoortrewdereikv,erplwaantteopceorantcioenn,tirveartfmiloeowanensc.. As such, tis difficultot 22.2 Adequateexplanationisnotprovidedfor theabsenceofdetectable PFOAinriver samplesalongvansects earth ic, given thepresenceofPFOAinOhioRiverand drinking wate intakesamples manymilesdownstream. 223 Water samat tpheWlasheingston Worksoutfall nd lanl leschateand sufoce WarotuetesoafmPpFleOsAsturgagnessptotrhtattotgherseloocuatniondsacwnoauthdteOheahvireoprRoivviedr.eMdpootreenteixatlelynsiimvpeosratmapnlitng associated withthe landfillsisnde. 224 No atersamples were collectedat other surfacewater bodies,neitherinthe stay abrieoataoarndisnanuystbreasmoftehrriovquegrsheutdhie mheeunmtnas.n tPfoFoOdlAchiaynitnh.ese mediacouldleadtoexposure to : p.12 23 For the Soil and Groundwater Assessment: 23.1 Substanial soil and groundwatdaetra have been collected and the general routes of exposure have been defined. However, the groundwater flow model has not been `adequately validated for use in the assessment o2f.3i2nkPiFnOgAwaaitreermviisstihonasicrlseoairlly-gwreoruendawnadtielrloauree easpaercgieaclolnytrwiibtuhtionra0fecwonmtilaemirnaadtiiuosnof th ste. However, significant contributions to drinkingwater contamination from `additional PFOA transport mades cannot be ruled ou, 233 Collection ofadditionalsamplesasociaied with potential contamination of `groundwater and migation 1 offsite streams from the ponds and contaminated lyers in ornearthe wate-bearing zones under th former (closed and capped) landfills are warranted as well a5 some post monikorofitnhge Riverbank Landfill and Anaerobic Digestion ponds that will havea engineered cap system. 234Additional assessment as towhetherornot pumpingat LHWA inducesany unexpected hydraulic connection between the groundwater associated with the Anaerobic Digestion ponds is suggested as well, given the high PFOA concentrations observed in the wells immediately northofthe ADPeven after pond material was removed. 23.5 Clarificationregardingthe potentialoff-site transport scenarios that may occur if pumping at the Ranney Well the DuPon-Lubeck Well Field,orth East Well Field were toceaseforsomeperiodofime i needed. 24Forthe AssessomfPeFnOAt in Biot: 24.1 Biota can be an important pathwayof PFOA exposure to the local populations. "There is a need to determine concentrations ofPFOA in several biological matrixes to `accurately assess exposure. There are data gaps in characterizing PFOA in biological media, which can play an important role in the assessmentofthe migrationof PFOA on and around the Ste and subsequenthuman exposure. 5 p13 242 Homegrown produceand domesticallyproducedmilkhavebeen idenifiedinthe FutureDataNeedsAsscssmeatreportasprioritiesforfuturedatacollection. Inaddition, itisrecommendedthatPFOAdataforfarm produce,locallyproducedmeatfishfrom surfacewaters,breastmilksamplesandgareanimals(gamehr)becollectedto account forpotentialbiologicalmatrixesthatcould contributetoexposures. 24.3 Several aspectsofthe SLEA,asdescribed inthreports,requirefurther,more. adequatejustifications.For example,exposureassessmentof PFOAfromtheingestion oflocal fishbyanglers involvedseveralnon-coansssumpetironvsonafitshispevciees, ingestionrates,exposuredurationandconcentrationsin ish.These estimateshave introduceduncertaintiesthatcouldpotentially lead toanunderestimateofsctual `exposuresby 1to2-ordersofmagnitude. Therei a needto refinetheexposuremodels forfish consumption. 244Other iologicalmediasuchasbreastmilkandgameanimalsshouldbeidentified aspotential exposure pathwaytso PFOA for certain subpopuletions. Justfcatonsare requ0ierxpeladinwhythes patahsenwotcaonsyidesredinthecurrentreportandlor thesepathwaysshouldbe identifiedinthe `FutureDataNeedsReport"forfrestudy. 25 Assessmentof MultimediaFate,TransapndoExprostur,e Pathways: 2.5.1Thesiteconceptualmodeladequatelydescribesmanyofth transportpathwaysto peoplelivingclosetothesource. However,neithertheexposure to PFOAnorthe pathofwmiagraytisonforpeoplelivingmoredistancefrom th plantar characterized. "Thisdeficitisjudgedtobeparticularlyseriousfo thepopulationexposedvi iver water downsotfrteheaitme. 25:2Thesit conceptual modelapptoebeaactrualsly incorrecint is placemoeftnhte `SWMUand is correctlocaton,ontherimofthe iver. Theconcmeodpeltalusooamilts 2potenialtransportpathwayfromthe SWMU intotheOhioRiverand apathway into roundwatrthatmayalsoflowawayfromthe it. 2:53 Migration within me(dsiiaand watheasbree)n addressed elsewhere inthispect `consultation. There appears t be abasic understandingofsome intermedia transport. 0 p14 processes (eg. river water to ground water). However, several intermediapathwaysof migration ofPFOAarenot yet understood at a basic level.Deficitsexist parculaty regarding he transportofPFOA from surface sol(0groundwater, and from arsnd water t0food. 25.4 A semi-quansative description ofthe mass lows along some partial pathways of migration s presented (e.g rom ai osurface soi). However, no assessmentslongthe entire major pathways (e.si -surface soil -- groundwater--drinking water) is provided. 2.5.5Datawere colected and asessed to evaluate he atmospheric transport and deposition to sailfollowingemissions (0 air at the Washingion Works site. Data were also collected in surfuce wate, but 1 effort was made 0 asess the relationship between emissionst0 surfacewaterand transportviasurfacewater Measurementswere `conducted that supporte the understanodfitnhg relationship between atmospheric: emissionsanddepositionto terest)surfaces,butnoeffortwas identthaitefvailueatded quantitative understanodfitnheg lnk between amaspheric emissions and the levels in grounidnthweunasattureatredorsaturatedzones. Measurements oastsheteranssfersof PFOA from sir and wate 0 food are fully sbsen. 2.6 Assessmentof Human Exposure: 2.61 The SLEAdoesnot makesufficientefforttoobtainanduse localexposure `concentrations, and exposurefactorsandbehaviors for the local population, or 10 provide sufficient justification forthevaluesusedwhenlocaldaaorexposure parametareerpost available. The authors used information from EPA guidance documentsduringthe completion oftheir analyses, ad applied general exposure factors to replace missing or unavailable information and data without adequate discussionofthe reasoniog for relying on thse values. 262Whileestimatesfor drinking waterexposurearebasedupon siteda,litleorno ata are available for the otherexposure pathways (eg, air, ol ingestion, food tc). All calculations are based upon hypothetical individuals representing a reasonable maximum `exposure (RME) or mean typicalexposure(MTE) to represen high end and central n p.15 tendency levelsofexposure, respectively. While this approachisreasonable, manyof the aicntdiivviitdieusalasnwdertehespferceuqluaetnicvye.ofaActtitpvhitrieseusesdim1e0e,esntthiemtraeteisenxpooisnufroerm1attihoneperhoyvpiotdheedtiincatlhe documentthatasists inproviding avalidation fo thebaselineassumption usedforcach "receptor" personofpopulation. 263The SLEAdoes notexplainhow theresuhing intakeestimates willbeused in `assessing risks. The ackof information regarding how the exposure ctimaies will be `applied may lead 10 incorrect conclsionsinthe SLEA.Forexample, theconclusion that inhalation exposures are low compared withotherexposure routes i ilevant if the lung. ia targetorganand inhalation riskwill be assessedseparatelyfromingestionand decmal exposure. 2.64 The levels and typesofdat coea dthe Washington Works Facility and Local eLandvfilal thbleeDtrwuyeeRnausnitlteasnadrfiielnlooatnpdontsshiesbLleet.arAtsLaacndfioll,anre sottcehompaqacrkauoblfed.eatTahnuasc,rcosstehe ites lads to major gaps in the ability 10 do site-specific screening exposure Charcterzations, 26:5Thefive-yearexposureduration usediathe SLEA is adeparture from standard risk. assessment approachesandalso requiresanearlyexplanationinthe document. 2.66 There isa lackofobjective analysisofte relative degreeofuncertainty forthe different exposure pathways. 267Thereliance oncomparisonwithdrinkingwaterexposures as basis for discountitnhge importanceofotherexposure pathways i paticlary problematic and `sctoautludsbientmhieslneeaxdtintg. aWeuontfdtehriisstdaonocdutmheannttt,hebiunttehnitsisdotocuamsesenst tshhoucludrrneonttsdrpipnekiantrogwater discountthe relative importanceof othe exposure pathways based on comparison with drinking uneated groundwater becausethatcomparisdooens not reflect current `conditions with widespread wat treatment in place, .., pathways that seemed minor `compared to drinkingwaterexposures prior towatertreatment, may now contribute 3 `much greater faction of total exposures n p16 268 Thesrseningexposure assessment shouldbe forward looking in perspective, and wiz the extensive biomonitoring dat in the population that now receives the drinking wate through th Line Hocking Water Associotahteropunbl,ic systems and from private els The biomonitoringdatsshouldoff insights regardingthecurent variability in exposures. The conceptual modelfo exposure necds 1 consider addtional sampling bad upon th recenlyestablishedemissions from th sacks, and the `additionaldatacollection effort described inSesion 21. These nchude sir and biota moritoringprogramsthatcanachievethegoalsof arevampedprogramandth goalsof an exposure assesment. 27 Summary ofPriority Needs for Future Monitoriinngd Model Development As pat ofourreview otfh current Data Assessment,SrocningLevel Expasure Assessmenatn,d FutureDataNeedsAssessmentdocuments, thePCP identifiedhigh priorityareas forfutherdatacollectionandmodeldevelopment.Thesearssummarized elowandmayprovuisedfuelinputinthedesoifPghanse Istudiesfo theSte The recommended measurements include data needtdo providebeterresolvedestimatesof exposure, a well aforperforming massbalancecalculation fohistoricand current PFOA emissions and environmental inventories. 27.1 A coordinated, ongoing sic monitoring program is needed, includingtime coincident measuroefmemiessniotnss, ambient concentrations,anddeposiion. Monitoringshould include direct tack,ambient,and deposition monitoriangtimescales sulfcent to characterize long-termseasonal,ind diurnal vaiatioinns PFOA emissions, `concentrations, depositioand, resuspension. Spatial resolution should be sufficientot `addressvertical variationsinconcentrationthatinform flux-deposiionprocesses,and horizontal vasatonsacrosskey recepor locations, includitnhg Ohio River, the LHWA Wel field, and more distant locations needed to determine the spatial extoefntte Site influence. 22.2 A spatially comprehensive synopuc surveyof PFOA concentration i the Ohio Riverisneededto characterizethespatial extent andsource-receporrelationships of wate quality impacts from the Sie. Ifpossible,samplesshouldbecollected ona single 5 p17 day,extendingfrom th Sit 1downsireamarcasknown fohavedrinking water contamination (caeas sfarasCrabCreek,~50milesdownstream). Samples shouldbeobtainedintheimmediateviciityofeachofth majoroutfalltotheOhio Riveranddownstream (inlinewithth rivercument)andfromselected butarycreeks `andshallowwaterbodies (c.g, BrinkerRunfo Leta LandfillandLeeCroekforDey Run Lanthatdflowfthrlough)the landils. PFOA concensthoruladbtemieaosunresd forcorlocated water, sedimentandfish samples. 22.3 Animensivesediment survey isneeded frtheOhioRive inareasimmediately adjac(e0tnhte WashingtonWorksoutfall,upstreamanddowsream oftheoutfall,and downstroeftahme andlsts.Transectsshouldbedesignedtocapturetheextentof PFOAcontaminationrelated to aspecificoutfallandshouldincludedifferentiadepth analysis. AsedimenttransectruningfromtheSteacrossthe river 0the LHWAshould alsobesurveyedtocheck ortheexistenceofposibleseepage2omcs canating rom the RiverbankLandfl (RBL)thatcould eadto PFOAtransport toOhioRiverwaterdrawn. bythe LHWA wel field. 2.1.4Pumpandtracertestsareneededtofuther explorepossiblehydraulicconnections between theOhioRiverwatersnea theSiteandgroundwater onbothsidesoftheriver. "Thetessshouldincludecoincidentmonitoring ofwate levelsinwellsonbothsidesof theiverinresponsetoplannedorimposedchangesinpumpingratesattheRanney Well, theDuPontLubeck Well FiteheElasdtWe,llField, andtheLWA well fied. Tracer testsshouldbe implemented testforposiblegroundwaterpathwaysino underthe fiverbedbetweentheformer ADPareaandthe LWHAwell field. Inaddition, PFOA monitoringshouldbeconductedin theseareasatexistingandnewwells slongthebanks ofthe river. 21.5 PFOA sampoflbioilongicgalmatrixesrepreseningpotential sourcesofexposure 10ocalpopulations i neededtoscreenand characterizethesepathways,includingbome`grownproduceand domesticallyproducedmilk already denifidintheFutureData Needs report), fam produce, locally producedmeat,breasgatmemainimlalsk, a,nd `possibly additional fish species. Thesestudies shboecoundulcteddinconjunction with ongoing biomonitoring surveysof the focalpopulation(0bettercoordinate exposure and biomarker estimates, " p18 27.6 A multimedia mass balance modelshouldbedeveilsoynptheesizde th avaiable information onPFOAmassflowsandenvironmental inventories.Themodelshouldbe able to rack and predict changes in emissions, ransport, inventoriesandexposureover ime. 11 should also beused10testwhethertheavailble information provides consistent and sufficiently certain understanding ofPFOAtranspoarndt exposure pathways from the facility, and to help guide furdatta cholleectiron needs. 3.Detailed Findings 3.1 Ale Monitoring and Dispersion Modeling 3.1. Wentifiction and CharacterizationofTransport Pathways "The Screening Level Exposure Assessment (SLEA) report sats that "The realsofthisassessment indicate tha ingestionofdrinking wate sth primary exposurepathwayforpotentially exposedpopulationsinthe viirity ofthe Weshingion Works facility and Local Landfill, Dry Run Land and Letar Landi" 5. ES-5) "The possible transport pathways fromthe Sitare identified inthe conceptual model (Figure 12). Depositionofaitboene PFOA sthe primary pathway o contaminationofdrinking water inthe conceptual model. Characterization ofthis pathway is essential foarn accurate SLEA. 3.12 Source Characierization Aremissionsfrom theSiewere 29,900 1s. in2000andwere reduced1 300 bs.in2006. An sir emissions inventory was developed for 11 permited sources atte Ste usingcalculations basedonaquantityofPFOAemitedperunit ofproduction, 10sfactor,and scrubber efficiency factor. There was nodirectmonitoringofatmosphericemission ducingthe air monitoringstudies. There was no monitoofermiissinongs at landfill ses, is p.19 3.1.3 Air Monitoring Program `Domain Al air monitoring was conducted within two-mileradiusof theSiteeventhough Figure 5.7 shows PFOAin residentialwatersupplies atlevels above 5.0pg/L.outsideofthe 2-mileradius (Data Assessment, Figures 57 and 5.2). Sampling Air sampling wasaccomplished bycollecting 24-hour integrated samples using two sampling methods. The first method used OSHA Versatile Sampling Tubes (OVS) and collected samples. at approximstely oneL min". The second method used high volumesamplers(HVS) collecting 12rate greaterthan 10L 0mis0". Limitsofdetection (LOD)and quantitation (LOQ)foboth methodswere determinedusingthesignaltonoise ratio ofthe analyticalmethod (Data Assessment, Appendix 2.2). In Phase | monitoringther wasan LOD=40 ngr" andanLOQT0 gm"forOVSsamplingand LOD=0.4nm"andLOQ=0.7ngnfor the HVS(Data Assessment, Appendix 52). Phase 2confidence limits had 0be calculated rom the footnotes in "Table 5.2 ofthe reportandar given here inTabi 1.High volumesamplers were used with cascade impactor o produce particlesize distributions. The above ground elevationofthe intake tubingwas 3.6 feet Table1:Limitsofdetection andquantitationforPhase 2OVSand HVS sampling (data from Data Assessment, Table 52) Sampler Ratt Volume Vomme matical Sampling sampling (ma) @ (=) LOD) LOD (gm?) LOQ (mgm) ovs 10 0 le 06 042 208 HVS 1000 14B6 140 06 ABO 208803 Phase | monitoring wesconducted from November2003foMarch2004 andconsistedof 6 eventsmeasuredat location.Duplicatesampleswerecollectedatonelocation. Airemissions duringthe samploifnthigs phase were approximately S000 lbs. per year (DataAssessment, Figure 4.1). 3 p.20 Phase 2monitoringwasconductedfromAugusttoOctober2005 andconsistedof9eventswith samplescollectedst 9 locations.Duplicatesampleswere collctedat nelocation.Because of improvementsintheanalytical method resulting ilowerdetection limits between Phase 1 and Phase 2 monitoring,andbecause thehigh-volumesamplerswereoperatedat1000timeshigher flow ratesthantheOVSsamplers tedaa romth Phase 2 HVSsampleswereconsidered tobe "morerepresentativeofactualairconcentrations"andwere sedi themodelcomparisonandthe SLEA.Airemissions duringthisphasewer essthan500 bs.pe year (DataAssessment,Figure an. Resulis "There was 10vaporphasematerialdetected 0the OVStubesXAD fein neitherPhase 1or Ph2amonistorieng. "Theconcentration angereportedinPhas 1datafromtheOVSsamplersrangedfromnon-deect, TessthantheLODof40ng,10900 ag. Medianparticle diameter i lessthan |micron, With ~60%ofthepaticteslessthan0.3microns(DataAssessment,Appendix5.1). "ThePhase 2dataweresubstantially iffsent fromthosereportedforPhase1.Thi slikely a `consienqtheusiegnnificcaentreduction inemissionsfrom200310.2005,butisnotdiscussed in thereport. ConcentratsieconnisnHVSsamplesrangedfiom 0.011075.9nga". Approximately 60%ofthe PFOA particles collected dingthe 9 events werelessthan 1.3 umin diameter(Data Assessment Table 5.5) TherearesignificantdiscrepanciesinthePhase 2monitoringdata. "Themaximumconcentrationseen inPhase 2wasinthesamplescollectedonOctober 11 nd12. during event at location 10/11. The HVS sample designated 10/11wascolleactthteestde fence line (DataAssessFmigeurne5t.2,). Two OVSsampleswere als collectedatthislocation. Acomparisonofthese OVS and HVS samples reveals significant unexplained differences in rheepor4t0edOrVesSulstsa.mpTlheeshHaVdSnsoamPpFlOeAsahbaodcvoentcheentLrOatDioonfs0o.f47n3g.5anwdh7i5l.e9tnhgotheorf OPVFSOsAa.mOpnlee:of had aconcentorf3a6.t8nigo"n.TheHVSvalueof 0ngm is 35timestheLOQofthe OVS " p21 samplers.Thereasonsforthedifferencesbetweenth twosamplingmethodsandthe two OVS samplers are no explained. "Thewinds duringPhase 2Event were from the northeastat 1.5410 3.09 masmeasuredat. bothonsite andoffsite meteorologicalstations(Dat Assessment,Appendix 5.2,FiguB-r8eansd B17). Thesampatlloecartiosn 10/11wereupwindofthemanufactursiintg.Thereasonthat themaximumconcentrationwasseenwhenthewindswer comingfrom adirectionwherethere was no known PFOA source is no explained Anothersignificant discrepancy i presented in the report "Airconcentrationstendto decreasewithdistance romthe Sie nal directionsexceptin thenortheastquadrantwherethere i slight increase a he2-milemonitoringsation. "Thisincrease cannotbe explained definitively, but may be a resultoftern sues since hispoint i levated and closer to the plume centerline * (DataAssessment,p 2). Tris implies that thee is a sgaificant quantityofPFOA shove the surface and tha there is: transport and deposiion outside the miteredare. Limiting monitoring to 3.6 fet above the surface and within a2 mille radius from the knownsi emissions sources is unlikely to account for al the material released from the sc. "TheresfruomlPhtass1 and 2siemonitoringshow sigifcantlyhigherPFOAconcentrations thanmeasurement reportedbytheEuropean FoodSafety Auihorty fromtwostudiesexamining PFOA background levels (EFSA, 2008). Measuremmeandetisn the United Kingdom found sitborme exposuresof0226 100.828ng in Marchand 0.006 100.222 ng" in November of 2005. Thesamereportpresentresls fastudyconductedin ural Norway where measured PFOAlevels ranged rom 1.4 1010 1.7 x10ng.These PFOAlevels reanorderof magnitude lower than the owes values seen using the HVSsamplingmethod. uw p22 3.1.4 Air Modeling "Its important o ensure traditionalmodeling approaches are spplicabletopefiorinated compounds, which are known (0 have unusual properties" (Dara Assessment, Appendix $3p 1) "The performoafntcweo different models, ISCST3-PRIME and ARMOD,wereevalusied by comparingcachmodel's predictions with the resultsofthe Phase 2 HVS measurements. PFOA Sourcedatainput10 themodels wasgeneratedfromanemissionsinvenorycalculated rom production correlation factors. Thedependenceofmodel performance on meteorological input ws estedusingdat from twoweatherstations.Onese ofdatawer fromanobservingsystem the Washington Works Sitewithinthe Ohio Rives Valley.Theotherwere fromanoffic meteorological tower located outsideofthe valle in Lite Hocking OH,approximately one mile fromth facility anda ahigher elevation than the on-site sation, AERMOD predictions were the cose 0, oraver predictionsofmeasured PFOA concentrations. Only 15%ofthe AERMOD predictions were les than the observed values. The performanceofAERMOD easessentially thesamewhenon-siteo offsitemeteorological input daa were used. ISCST3-PRIME predictions were les than measured PFOA concentrations approximately half the time with either on-siteoroffsite meteorological input,bu exhibited less precision that the AERMOD predictions. There was better peformanc using the off-site meteorological input data the numberofclose approximations was increased. The under prediction was attributtedo errorsinthe modelresultswhe heplumecenterlineisabovethemixing height. "The conclusionofthe mode evaluation was thatAERMOD performed beter than ISCST3PRIMEbecause itmadepredictionsthatwer closettomeasuredvalsanderedonthesideof `over prediction. The superior performanceofAERMOD is atirbuted 0 8 beter representation in the model of turbulent conditions and interactions with complex eran, The report tates that "AERMOD provides conservative ambient predictions ofPFOA near a manufacturing, facility that is useful for permiting o assessment purposes." (Data Assessment, p. 44) 1 p23 "Therewesno effectonpredictedPFOAconcentrationswhendepositionwasincluded i the AERMOD calculations. Evaluation ofAirMonitoringand Dispersion Modeling inthe Environmental Assessment Program Examinationof th airmonitoringandmodelingprogramsandth datathyproducedraisesa number ofquestionsaboutthesources, transport,and faoftPFeOAintheareaarotuhensitde. "Theatmospherictransport pathway is not well understood. The Sit-Released Environmental `AssessmentProgram (SLEAi)snotbasedonanadequateundersotftahensodurciesnangd transport mechanismsof PFOA in the environment. `Specific deficiencies intheanalysisae: 1. TheairbornePFOA sources are insufficiently characterized. Thesite emission factors were developed fromproductioncorrelation actors that apply `empirically derived formulastodetermine emissions from production isory. There was no `attempt made 0 verify the production factors fromdirectemissionsmeasurement duringeitherof the air monitoring phases. At minimum, there should be further explanationofthe measurements that were used to detenmine these formulas and daton the validationofthese. calculations with actual stack monitoring. Actual stackmonitoring duringaismonitoringwould be even beter. "There was no airmonitoringatthelandf ites.Theassumptionmadeintheassesswmsetnhatt thesiteshadengineeredcoversthatpreventedemissions. Thefat tha thehighleevelssotf PFOAseenduringPhase 2occurred whenthewind wascomingfromthenortheast,upwindof thesitesuggestthatthere sastronglocalsourceother thanth industrialplant,Tissource should be identified. Airmonitoring should be performed a the landfill ites to eliminate them as possible sources or airborne PFOA. 2.Thespatialresolutionofthesi monitoringwasinsufficient tocharacthtteranrspiortzaned dispersion ofPFOA in the areas likely obeeffected by emissions. p24 "Thesamplingdomainwaslimitedto 2 miles aroundthe it.Figure 5.7showsthatthereiswell contaabovme$iup.n"ouatsitdetihatoradnius.Figure 5.2showsaveragesiconcentrations overthenine Phas2e eventsforallsamplinglocations. Theseranfrogm0.e05to25nga", "These value arc wel above thos reporid from urban and rural monitoring in Europe (EFSA 2008). However, the exint ofthearea impacted by PFOA emissions fromth st is not `established by he air monitoringprogram. Atmospheric transportanddeposition cannot be `accurately assessed,o th effectsofthesitedelineated, without extendithneg study domain until themeasuredPFOAconcentrationsareatornearatmosphericbackgroundlevels. "Therewasno arsamplecollectedat aheightgreaterthan3.6metersabovethesurface. Measurements inth vertical dimension re necessary o fll characterize the PFOA transport regimeand provide data for model verification. 3. The temporal resolution ofthe ir monitoring was insufficient to characterize th transport and dispersion ofPFOA in the areas likelytobeeffected by emissions. `There is no discussionofthe seasonalityofatmospheric concentration level. The behavior of PFOA intheenvironment islikelytobetempdeeperndeantatndutherrefoerebothdismaland seasonal. Isalsoposiblethttheremaybedalyoseacyscleosofnsurfsacedeposition and remission 10 the aimospofhPeFOrAe, particulary in summer. Air monitwoitrhdiiunmagl time resolution is necessary to capture temperature dependent deposition and e-suspension cycles. Monitoring shouldbeconducted inwinterandsummersothedependenceofaimospheric concentration o seasonaltemperature extremes canbecharacterized. 4. Thedatasetusedtoevaluateth dispersionmodeling isinadequate. Model performance was evaluated agaist a dat st that was inadequate for the reasons listed above. Theresultthataddingdeposition tothe atmospherictransportmodels idnotaffect the predictedatmospheric concentrationscamobecorroboratedwiththe limiteddatasetusdfo `evaluate the model. Sinceatmosphericdeposition s assumed to bteh primary environmental pathwayfor PFOA leading 10 transport to affected aquifers, wet and dry deposiion should be measured directly. 2 p.25 5. There was no aempt 0 perform a mass balance. The monitoring and modeling camnot be: assessedif there isnotsomeattempt 1se if althereleasedmaterialcanbeaccountedfor in the environment. One way to accomplish tis would be t perform inverse modeling. Another `Wouldbe10extendthe airmonitoringinboththe horizontalandverticaldimensionsandstempt `anempimrasisbcalaancle. Bothmodeledandempiricalmassbalancesshouldbeperformed. 3.1.5 Dota Needs `Stack samplingi necessary to verify the emissions nveniory. Vertical sampling is necessarytoestablish tree dimensional concentration profile and provide ata for mas balance calculations. Extendedhorizontalsampling 0distanceswheretheinfluenceoflocalsourcesdisappearssnd PFOAlevelsrepresentativeofatmosphericbackgroundlevelsaeseen. Airmonitoriangtlandfl sits is necessary oeliminate them ss additional local sources of airborne PFOA. Airmoritoringwith diumal ime resolution is necessary odeterminedaily emperature dependent deposition and detectdepositionand resuspension cycles. PFwetOandAdrydepositionmeasurementsshouldbepartofthe irmonitoprroignragm. `Winter and summeair sampling is necessary to determinethe temperaturedependence of `deposition and transport processes. "Modeled and meesured mass balance calculations are necessarytoaccountfao ll emissions and validatethe moritoring,modeling,andexposureassessments. Longtem periodic measurementsare essential 0 stabsh baseline for levelsof PFOA in the environment and quantifytheeffectivenessofemissions reductions. 2 p.26 3.2 Surface Water and Sediment `Overview: Theonlyactual surfacewatersamplesobtainedandanalyzedfor PFOAwerefiom theOhio River, durinthedates in 2002. For purposes ofthis review the more extensive outlet emissions from the Site (Washingion Works) andth companion landfills (Local, Dry Creek, and Lear) were included; some putative surface wate samples appear thave been taken/anslyzed from these landfills as wel. These "outler" sampleswereobtained t various time points, depending on location, fromth early 19905 p to 2008. "Thereportdoesnotlistanyothersurfacewatersmonitored. Furthrtearhe neoserdim,ent saminpthlereeporst. TheSLEAusedmeanOhioRiverwater PFOAconcentrationsaveraged from60total samples, over haofwlhifch were below the analytical LOQ. tdoesnotappear thatwesufficiently understandthecurrentemissionsand pathowfaPFyOsA migorutaofttheiSiotanndthustheanswert th question inthechargeappearstobenegative. Inadditon, thre is insufficient informaotidoatna 0 underhoswthiastonricdal emissions lead 10 the current contamination ofgroundwatheart results in the primary routefor human exposure. It could be that the historical contaminoaftofif:oSine groundwater couldhaveoccurred through muliple mechanisms in contrat to what is occurinag present. 3.2.1 Oi River Inadditin t ar emissions indirectly impacting surface war,directdischargesof PFOA to the Ohio River through the site outils, erosionof soilsand leaching andrunoff from solid waste management units (anserobie digestion ponds and river banklandfill)andrunofYfrom the three landfill sites could contribute 10 PFOA contaminationofthe surface waters, especially the Ohio. River. The Ohio Riveris a potential pahwayof transportofPFOA from the site and the landfills. "PFOA in the Ohio River has migrated downstream to publicwatersupply wel fields located `adjacent10theOhioRiverthat ar rechargedbyriverwater(asevidencedbyhighlevelsof PFOA indownstream publicwatersupplis). A quick calculationofpotential Ohio River PFOA concenirations for 2002, when ~5,000 Ibs of PFOA were released vi aqueous discharges (Fig 4.1), yields a well-mixed average value of approximately 0.025 ppb PFOA. This assumes an average flow rate of 100,000 cfs [datona Ohio River flow 1 Parkersburg: National Weather Service, Advanced Hydrologic Prediction p27 Service: 100,000 cs is the 75.90 percentile low rae, however, the river would be expected fo have somewhat higher low downstream.) The value of0.025 ppb is helpful 0 keep in mind `when comparing actual Ohio River data. OhioRiverMonitoring (PhaseI) wascarriedoutin the summerand ul of2002withspecific datesofsampling June27 (Thursday). July 10(Wednesday), and October 17 (Thursday). No. informationwasprovidedthtoutlinedtherationaleforselectionofsampleday, location, or why thesamplingwasspreadout overfive months. According oFigure5.12 (withmin/mavalues andsample number;total 0samples), thee were12OhioRivertransectstakenduringthis period with 3 transects above th Site, S transects within the two-mile radius, andfouraddons] transectsdownstreamasfrasRacineLock andDam (50miles fromSite). "ThereportsaysFig5.12dataare tabulated nTable512butthetabionlyhasvaluesfor transects ear the Site and Letar, PFOA valies were ND above th Sic, ND to NQ adjacent and immediately downstream ofthe site, below which PFOAwasdetected and quantifiable 50milesdownstreamtoTransect 122. samples: ~0.100 ppb) with the highestvalue a Transect where PFOA was~1 ppb. PFOA dissipation appears moderate since Transect 9 and 10, sampled thesameday, had PFOAat0.28 PP a1theupstreamlocationand ~5milesdownstreamitwas0.2 ppb,Attransect 12, the furthestdownstream sampled, PFOA valueswere~0.100ppb. It is unknown why frther ocationsdownstreamwerenotreportedsincegroundwaterhaddetectablePFOAatPomeroy (60 mils)andapparenly eventoCrabCreek(-90Miles)where aGACsystemwsbeinginstalled 0becomplSeeptt20e08d).Thesummarysection in thereportincorrectlyreports thatPFOA wasonlydetected "18milesdownstream". isclearthat PFOAwastransportedat least50miles wfraotmetshaemWpalsehsianrgetroenpoWrotredksfuSrtthee,radnodwlniskterlyefaumrtthhearngRiavceinnPe.WTShceonltaacmkionfataisosens,stmheonutgohfntohesuexftiecnet.. OfPFOA migration and exposure to downsiream locations is amajoromission inthisreport. uspuzzlingthat PFOA was NDor NQatalocationsnear th Sit thoughiinotedthatthese: `saOmpultes0w0e5r(eSiatle tdaiksecnhaorngeJfuanreth2e7st%dwohwinskttrheeademt)echtasd dPoFwOnsAtrceoanm cweenrettraakoetnfii7on6nJ.u2sl,y3o6r.O3,ctaonbder1.7 PJublyo1n1,J2u0n0e22,7,thJeudlya1y0a,faenrdthOecrtiv1e7r,sa2m0p0l2irnegs,pewcatisve2l3y0. pIptbi.s DnoetsepdittehatthitshcelPoFsOpArodxiismcihtayrgteo on u p.28 wellknownsource,lackofdetectioninsurfacewaterscollewicthtine20d0feetoftheoutfall is surprising. 15thisdue 10. one-timesamplingevent (eg.when th plantwasshutdownorafer heavyrainsor aweekend)?Someexplanationneeds obe put orthas towhytherewasno PFOA insurfacewate inthesethre transectsnextto th Site. Ifthedatawerenotcollectetdo present annual average, o atleastrepresentativevalues (aking nto sccount seasonal, annual and ail variation), estimatesof average exposure from such measurements ae subject 0 high wncerinies `Additional sampling was caried out at two dates in each of2004 and 2005, intheObio River at andneartheOutall005;fo reasonsunknown th outfall sfwasnotapparenlysampledon thosedays. Neartheoutfall, ie. 5 10.20ffromthebank,PFOAconcentrationswer generally betwee1nand 6ppbwithconcednisstipartinagoutt1i0"3o00nft frtheobanmk". Iiunknown, `halthespecific ranset, relative fotheoutfall, was sampled in th river. Overall, therewe68srampeles includedinthe SLEA(Transects | t0 12from20an0d042/05 samples near outfall 005), ofwhich 39 were ND or NQ for PFOA. I summary, river water samplingwas so intermitent, and lacking in informationregarding timeofdayorweek, plant operation, river flow etc tha ts difficulttohave sense ofwhat theriverwaterconcentrations 3.2.2 WashingtonWorksOutfall Data Extensive sampling is reporied for four active (001,002, 05, 105) and two historical (003, 007) aqueousdischargeoulfallsduringtheyears2001snd20da0taar8e fo;undinTable5.17and Appendix 5.9. Current ofallrangealongthe Sie from the most downstream part ofthe it 0 hemastupstream. Outfal 00Sreportedlyhasthemost"Volume"butnodataisprovided to Suppor this. Sit 001, apparently the mostupstreamoutfall, which places it upstreamofthe Lite Hocking WaterAssociation supply field, had a mean PFOA concentrationof 21ppb(high 179.2 ppb) while 00S itselfhad an average of56 pp (high of879 pb). Thereportsuggests thes outfallare the olysignificantsourceofPFOA totheOhioRiver 2 p29 0 PROA 150] mem (orb) = 5 0 BE ern mes et -- abil 0 yw a ww 20 20s 20s 20 2 mr = 2m 20 Year Figure1. SummaryofPFOAconcentrationmeasurementsatOull 05. Thefigure above itheannua dat orOwl005showing theman value inpa (red tne),the 109ofthebo isthe 75*percentileandthebottom the 25 perce forPEO;the maximum. observedvalueand herumberof sample re dicated.Thedatasuggestsignificantvariably in PFOAdischargeconcentrations and noceayertoyearreduction, eastbetween 2002 and 2004. Th outfalldat regenerally consistentwithhePFOAwateremissonsreporiedinFigure 4.1whereemission declinedmodestlybetween2002and2006 The2001vate isontshe rst yerreportedinth figure above,were whichwere reporied 0be 48.000 Is, muchower st.-11000 i thanthe 2000 missions, Not: Figure3.6 indicate sddidonal Washing Works Sitesefcewateroutallsthatwere samonpawleekelyor monlybass.Theseincludeoul 102,105, and 05.However,we wereunable finddatapresentedfo anyofthese uta. 323LandflSurface1ndLeachateAnalysisorLoca,DryRum,and Letat Omuetslseuts,blereqauma,nliaehsaotf PpOipAes,, aindcleudiengdocscaamspiloens)avpepreyahriingghvinalTuabelsessuc.h18s14025.020p0apbliinntdihceate u p.30 UpperPondatLetar. Bothactiveandhistorical locationsareindicatedthough iisunclearwhy `somemonilotcatioonsrweriedenletged.For instancetheUpperPonda Letart had11samples takenbetween 1991 and 1996 (480104200ppb)butvaluesafer 1996sve otprovided. Similarly,LowerPond, asoatLeta,wassampledbetwen 1991and2000 (meanvalue 1200 PP. with nothing ater repored. BothDryRunandLocalLandfillshadmeanPFOAconcentrationsinthe 1081000or.s0p8pb. While Leta was the most contaminatedwitheanPFOA valuesforoutlets LCH spprosching. 800 ppb. Allofthese sites woud havepresumably contributed 10 offsite transport ofPFOA, dircilyo indirectly0, the Ohio River. At Dry Run Landfil, oneunnamed"stream" had 24 ppb "PFOA measurien 1996withtheonyothersample akenproducing avalueof6.28ppb(2005). 3.2.4OtherSurface Waters There are several surfacewate bodies within the 2 mile radi ofthe sitewhichwerenot sampled and analyzed. These include lakes 3nd pons .&, Washingion Lake (foundon the map. located near the ste) located within the 2 mile radoifuthse ie. Thee also appeaorbse several ponds located in the farmlands within the 2 mile radius. Farm animals can drink water rom suchpondsandthis wouldbe apotentialsource 0farm animalsandfood hain contamination. 1thusappearsthat PFOAhasnokbeenmonitorednayofthesurrounding surface watersothe tha the Ohio River. 3.2.5 Washington Works Site Potential or Addons] PFOA TransporttoOhi River "The Site Conceptual Model (Figure 1.2) i inaccurateinatlastone aspect since tshowsthe Salid Waste Management Units or SWMUs othe souoftthhe Fluoroppalalnyt (maewary from th ver), which i incorect. The anaerobic digestionponds (ADP)and te Rivecbank Landfill (RBL) ae acuuallyperchedjust above the ive northofthe plant self, The igure biases the discaruounsdtshepioteontinalfor the SWMUStobe sourceof PFOAtoneabysurfacewters (Ge. OhioRiver)thoughleachateorstormwaterramof.NotethttheChemospphapeerrbey `Davis ta 2007; 67:2011-2019) letahevSeWMsU outof theirFigure 3 hogether. 3.26 Sediments Sediment samples were not caleted from anyofthe water bodies in or around the Site although there isa potential that ranofTfrom several contaminated sites including hesold waste management units (SWMU) can result i the migrationofPFOA. There is a ned for monioring n p31 ofsedimentsfrom theOhioRivernear theofallupstream anddownstream ofthe Ste, andthe atrheraeelsloaundsfidllairneeaxspfoonsuarsdessesessstshmekmeingtera,tfieoornosppfeciPefFiOcAsrctehn/raroiuomgshsiaenvdoilimveinnntgctorntatnsapceotrwt.intSehdsaeidminemnetnctdast,ae 3. grou workers tthest( SWMU)andinlandfillareasorofsie: raescsreeastsimoennatlobfoaptaetrhsw,aaynsdtorfemsipgarsasteirosn.oFufrtPhFeOrmAarfer,osmetdhiemseintteaannadlytshieslaindfiimlplosr.taSntefodrtihemeaenatlsso importantpathwaysofexposuretofish andbenthicorganisms.Humanexptoossediumenrtcean occur as resultof incidental ingestionanddermal absorption. BecausenosediPmFOeAndatta areavailable, suchexposureshavenotbeen assessed. 327 AnalyticalComment LC/MS/MSrequiresonetoknow theions ofwhateveranalyteisofinteres. Forperfluocinated carborylic acids (PFCAS)analysisonehas tospecifically put inboth aparentand afragmeniotn Torcach anaolfiyntetreset.Itsunfortunatethattheseanalyses weredonesuch thatonly the ons. associatedwith PFOAweremonitoredbythe massspectrometer(MS)detectorandapparentlyno other anaolfiyntetreset. Itis suprisingsincemanyother relevant fluorinated chemicals, suchas thceshuiterofoPFCmArSuaCns6ittmhprlooyubghygaCd1dr5iansgawaellplthaeshaPsRsiOocSi,accteadnbfoencsot-oatnhaelmyuzlstdiipnlethreeaecxtiaocntmsoanimteoring, (MRM)table inthe MSanalysssetup. Therefore, theonlyadditional costswouldbefor standardsand interpretation time. Notethalthesimultaneous monitoringoftheknownsuite of perflvorinatedchemicals snowthe normandnot theexception.Therefore, althoughourcharge isfocused on PFOA,wewouldberemiss ifwe didnotrecommendthat LC/MS/MS analyses conducted inthe futureshouldincludesimultaneousmonitoring ofthe relevant suiteof perflorinatedchemicals toobtainthe additionsinformationthat willlikelybeuseful in the ongoing assessmentof PFOA. 3.2.8 SpecificData Necds. 1) All figuresables shouldidentifylocationsand dates whensampleswere taken (8. PWSs in Table 5.11 &Fig1.9). 2) Afew creeksand shallowwaterbodies(e.g, Brinker RunforLetartLandfill andLec (CreekforDry RunLandi tha flowthroughthe landfill andsedimeatsinthesecreeks shouldbeanalyzed, asthes creeks reconduitsfor PFOA totheOhioRiver. High concentrationsofPFOAareexpectedinthese creeksediments an inwaterand several p.32 `cerxepeokssurfeosrcPenFaOrAioasanarleyspiossainblde.exFpiosshu,reseadsisemsesnmteanntd.watershouldbe.collectedfom thse. 3). FurtherOhioRiverwatersampling/neaedns1a0lbeydosniesto meathseeuxterntoef everwatermigrationof PFOA emanating rom the Sie. Historical emissions, likely of highconcenraion, sppeas o have resulied in the contaminationofth public water system i Crab Creek which is ~90 miles downstream. This suggests tha iver transport is significant and likely ha reached very far downstream. Theriverwater samples taken todate avebeen few innumberandapparentlynotcoordinatedwithplantoperations. Suliient samples need to be obtained in ordertocapturean accurate assessment of `annual emissions, howthesevaryby imeofday,season,ec. The cudrateasetn,wtth respect 0izeandbreadih,doesnotappeas10beconsistentwithtesignificant historical emissions inventory from the Sit. 4) TheRBL andthe ADP SWMUneed tobecomectyrepresentedonte SiteConceptual Model. tsimptooobrtainttheanencestsaysamples10demortshartPaFOeA isnot `currentlymovingfromtheSWMUintotheOhio Riovrteotrhe Riviavsubesurfrace migration northward. From a simplisic examinationofthe maps/serial photos supplicd it isdificult 0 imaginehowPFOAcouldbereleasedfromtheSteandbetransportedaver 90milesdownsiverwhilenotimpactingtheLiteHocking WaterAssociastuippolny Wellficid iosated 700 feeacrossthe River. 5) Adetailed explanationisneededofhow historicaland currentemissions inventories are obtained or both wate andai emissions. 3.3 Soll 20d Groundwater 33.1 Background `Groundwaterisaprimerydrinking watersourceinthestudyarea,thus majo targetofoncem withregardsto PFOAexposure. Therefore,assessingPFOAsourcesto th groundwatersnd ensuringthattheesourcesandtheirmagnitudesar properlyidentified i criticalinassessing currentandfutureexposure.Groundwatercontamination a thsSitecanoccurthroufgohur primary pathways: (1) Wet depositofiaoinremitted PFOA and PFOA-aden particles onto surface sail followed by aching through the sil profile nto subsurfaceaquifers, with subsequent migration i the direcionofgroundwater flow; (2) leaching though the land ino the aquifer; (3)runofffiom the landfillontonearby surface sol followed by percolation through p.33 the30 totheaquifer an () rechargeofPFOA.laden iver wate, which couldinclude PFOA. releasedfrom the upper silty and clayalluvial zone during pumping, Eaofcthehse pathwaysarediscussedbelowwithregards 0whetheror notthesourcesandthepathwaysatthe Washington WorksSit and subsequent impacted sitesar sufficiently characterized or the purposeofassessingexposure,andwhatadditionaldatsareneeded o ill hedatagaps. "Thegeneralroutesofexposurehavebocndefinedandsubstantial soil adgroundwaterdaa have. beencollected. Overall PFaireOmissA ions clearly conttrocointbamuinattieonofdrinking. water vi thesir-oil-groundwaterrout,althoughth report leads 0conesthattheremaybe additional PFOAtransport modes odrinkingwater. Forexample,thewindcharacterization shownfo theDuPont Washington WorksSite(Figure3-3)showsthatwindtransportoccurs inal directions,winds10the SWarepresentedasmostprevalent.Thereportthensatsthat "residencesthatare locateddownwindoftheSithave higherconcentrationsof PFOAthando residences upwindoftheSite." page47 inDataReport1).However, igure 57showsPFOA in groundwaterservingas aresidentialwatersupply a22.5ppb(orangeandrdcircles) 1 8sits Southandwestofthesitewhi thereare9sitestothenothand eat. Althoughpresentationand interpretationofresults in th reportaeinconsistent,dat presendedltrinthereportspecifically withregardtotheLite Hocking Water Assocision (LHWA) clearly exempltih frioleeosf PFOAtransport viawindfromtheDuPontWashinglonWorksites,even fnot in thespparatly mor prevalent SW wind dirction shown a the Rose Wind (Figure 3-3). The latter ill be discussedinmoredetail insection 3.3.3 below. 33.2 Washington WorksSite 33.2.1 Landfill Areas.Thissiteofabout 450acresincludesthe flvorapolymermanufacturing plantand aRiverbankLandfill (RBL)arathatwithinit consisthreformer anaerobicdigestion `ponds,whichbothsitonthe riverbanknoth oftheplant.Thepondsmanagedliquidandsolid wastes fromtheflucropolymer manufacturingprocessesuntil 1988whenthepondcontenatnsd `upper fewfect of claylinerandpondbem material were removed,backfilled,capped with 10pansdvoegeltat,ed. Although inSection4.2oftheDAReport 1 tstatesthasolidwastes `weretakenoffsiteandincinerated, ater iiclea thatthereweresolidwastesplacedinsomeof theonsite SWMUS. TheRBL selfwasutilizedfrom1948unithelate 19an6dha0ndlsed wastetha "couldconta PFOA". 0 =] "TlhoedRpilvaeirnbaadnikaLcaendtfoiltlhaenObtih AnaerobicDigsionPondsare (vere)locatedwithinthe Riverand alongthe dgeoftheupp terace,TheRivecbarc Landiwasclos andiscovered with opsoilsanvege.TheRiverbank Lanian he pproenvdesntacfeutshueprpionsfeldatiboengaentdinlgeaancheinnggionefewreadecareplyiesd matehriaalwsi,llDelpeinmdiitngeoenxphoosuwrethnisdrea sis his on he riverbank, capaeoutsidethe cap foroly scop oftis smeissgmeinntfirreapotrotn.muayiotsbesofftirhianqb,uibfteeruthndeddeerst,ihgens for WastingionWorks se woud dischheaOhrioRgiveer.TheAnaeDigerstioonPbodiswecre: closedndmaterialremoved (1988)however,according otheweldataas ate352003 as deslbelow,ther aresill esisin heunderlying oihatarelsc PFOA. ROAconcentrationsmeasured insol,surfacewale sees)andgroundwater earthe RiverbankLandfillandthe AnaerobicDigestionPondsindicat that PFOAfrom theland-filed maerils idmigrate oon-sitscilad roumwases.The reportclaimsno rounderhs fmoveodooftfshheeESxiasetoufeehe0AdpDroPd.ucAtisocnhewmealtpicumofpiinsosf hgirgohulnidgwhatteedr,instehcefSiCcaMl(yFtghe1R.2a:n5neysWoell Fig 3.8) houghas noted above,the location fheSWMUisncaect ine factuallyperched Justabothevrivee. neresingy, he epssae htte oni oftheADPpondsand he upperfewfectofclaylinerandpondbeemlerialwereremoved n198.Groundwater monitoringwellsrearrayed sound heRBLan he ADP in wich twowelinpriculr(P04 MWO2and ROWMWO2)arelocated immediatelynorthofthe ADP in henarrow reabetween hanedO2b0i03aRinvder1a9n99dathde 2A0D0P3,esseplfe.cTivheolsye.twThoemosneittowroiwneglwleslwlesrewearcceeisnsoipnegragtrioonbuentdwweeanftre1o9rm98 he "primaryaquifer"32d "perchedvateiclay"andrange inPFOAconcentrationbetween 5e0s0pe0tpipvbely(.19T8h)aemnods~t4r.c0e0n0tpmponbi(t2o0r0i3ngwaenldlfoamta5p,r0o0v0i(d1d99f9o)rt0he302w9e.l9l0s02(0200032)-p2e00.3) (PO4- coMncWeOnt2raatnidoRnsOH(-10M1W0O2102p00L2)-.200A3ldsathnenr Asprpehnidgihcxo9n-cTeabnlterBa)st(hi1oo0wnsve1r0yhig gh PnFL OaAwell. hat appears 0resid withinthe former ADP(Fire3-6; QUI-MWO2), InaifoomFi, gure 3:8showingth drawdownde1 he pumpingoftheRaaneywl,itsntcle ithewiter associated pumping. wTihtehrehfeor2, witei lclshnoartlh lofethnetogAsiDiPmnpagry rauclteuoaultybthee ipnoctapetnurfeod byRanneywell sigalficnt ransport of PFOA from he former ADP ntheObl Riverandlor nogroundwatermovin 1 the rth Fl p.35 andpotenialyteLiteHoeking Wate Associatonwel. Atargetedgroundwaterracer st may prove worthfowrchlairiflyineg tis ucertiny. 33.22Onsite Wells According tth reportand the supportingsppendics, pumpingofthree onsite wellfedsnasan par1athlerliveer(tle RanncyWell,theDuPontLubeck Well Field, andthe astWelFik)lowers hegroundwaterlevel tbelow iversagecausingth iver to rechargeth aquiferzone rahethanwhatwouldnormally oscr,tht,rechargeof he iverby `roundvater, AUnitedStesGeological Survey (USGS)report(12004-5088) summarizingthe Survey'sgeokydrologyassessmentand simulation of roundwte lowintheOtoRiver llvial aquifers, including heParkersburgar, indicesthetth ininse pumping (- 478 million alonsofwaterpe day) intheParkersburgwelfieldhas esdin 3cane ofdepression nthe aes able thts approximatel2y miles fogparallel the OhioRiverand 1mike wide, Their simulations estthiatamppraoxitmateely 75% ofthewatepumped nthePckersucgwel fied oydesigns dived rom ivrwarandonly 25% actullycaptureswate ro the luvin, Given hatthemajorityofwateintheParkersburgwell fied i daw fomthe riverbed,the simuldonsestimatetypicallyshort -yertim.ofrave distances.USCSestimatyeasr ime ofavehof aapprroxiematsely1.18mi,whicisgenealyconsibdeceonrfineedd0 herivesbedandthe areasbeethecones ofdepression thewell ed. Forthe Packers upper ity-clay confining layer, hydraulic conducwetelitvveley smal (1 103 UE), this small chang inthe hydraulic conductivity ofhis confining nit avepronounced effectons simulaed heads. "The larg conesofeprssion hatresultdue oth ners pumpingofthelocalizedcsrof industrialwelson heriverbadandtheNeal landcomplicategroundwaterflowanladto questionsregardinghowgodthecapture sbytheseweil andwhateve ofpumpingmustbe maintained, ct. As good capts ureincon nuncionwithclosurendpropercappingofthe RiverBankare,thisshouldminimize rechargeofthe iverwithPFOA<ontaminaied roundatr. Groundwatermodeling simulations calibrated frthesithav beenmade 0vy 0 assss heeffec ofpumping antheOhio Rivefrlow-patahs,qpuresfenteed in Appendix 3.2. Withthepumpingthere sa groundwatedividein he cera patofthesite(s sso implied in theUSGSreport)such thatgroundwater lows 0the stowedthEastWelFidonthe ate sieofthedivideand10thewestonthe westom sideofthe divide, whichuimaiely lows htehenrorntohrwtehsttowacrdomtRhearomf eheysWieclg,roorunsdowuatthewresltotweoswasorudtthheeaDsutoporntdLtuhbeecDuPWoenltl-LFuebde.ckFrWoemll 2 p.36 Field. Overal, groundwater modeling reals, which assume confinuous pumping ofthe on-site production wells, showthathepumpingofproduction well tthe iedoesnot allowfor fst migrationof water with te sieaquifer, with the excepiionofsomeoffsite migration potentiallyoccuringinthenorthwestcomer ofth it due to Blennerhass Islandwherethe iver inotcutasdeepyetandonlyconnects totheupperalluvialzon.Alsopumpingby two GE. wel (ID3 and 4) can induce offsie migration ofgroundwaterat the NW coronfethre st. Githvecomeplexnityofthe st, the mulple wells being pumped,thechanging dynamoifcthse Ohio River including serieoflocks anddamsthatar operated pool the ivera needed, i mrayobeuannovdaetvshiemWwpalisafhiicnattgitoeonn0aWosrkssusitme.aetSothmereetiasrg0etoefdfgsitre woransuporntroadfcPerFwOtAesa-tlsathdoeuenld bre doneto test his assumptionand removeth presentuncersiny. 333 LHWA Site AULHWA,allwels ar drawingfrom the loweralluvium,which isdescribeda sand10gravel fo silty sand and as hydraulic conductivity of 10010 300 day (USGSreport 200-5088). Several additional sil borings and monitoring wels wee nsaled in the LHWA are to beter cshyamriabcetseirziezde iPnFthOeArecpoornt.taSmyniinhaestiis3onondftphaetwhawtaeyrs;mhoowneviert, todhaitrsai(inTfanobrmlgaeti.1oinn wApspneontdwielxl 5.8), depthofthe well installed (review ofth in-field recordingsofthe soil borings in Appendix 5.8), and thesoil concentration data withdepth(Tables 4.6 ad 4.7 in Appendix5.8)supports the findingthatmuch ofthe PFOApresent likelyfromwetdeposition (orwetdepositionand runoff felowed by percolation ino the soilprofi and subsequently grounder `Some ofthe key daa sets compiled fiom mulple sections ofthe report and associated appendicesar prescated in Figur2e. Several observationsareapparent. First, contamination is much geste in the shallow wells hat redrawingwater primarily from the upperalluvium civoemrpawraetde.toStehceonddelcyp,ePrFwOelAlcdraowinng wcateerafrenommuttchehrlhiogwaheerrltilnavitihuemou,ppwnehric0sh1i0s 1beingterrveapllaced by fo`lsloowmeedwbyhientrdheeecre17a-s2ei5ninctoenrcveanltrdaetpieonnwdiintghodnetphtehcwoiet.h Issmacllleiasrbeyitnceonhciegnhterartcioonnceangtariantions bservedinthe oponefootofthesoil borings in2006thatsubstaialPFOAairemissionswere till occuring at that im (sthough 1 8 muchlesser extent), Seeing smal rises further dow in the sol profi reflects the variable natureofweather dependent wet and dry deposition coupled 5 p37 gi 32e03 gin Cae cede isan CRCU yT. FE aTedeTR[ ER EBEaEiinn ELL {& \I A5 EreE -beE8-4- LgEeEd PR eee aE nb _ 4 a Ai it 3 i Biod: : w ao =F 2i 2 rnazawzezranzears]) M|annssanake 1 eee sill h aE FH iigl n B = ET E 28.8 333 Ee teeensaieid = i: : i1] var 23s sary tg ol 2 M 5.38 with evapetranspiration and potntial variationi actoal PFAOai emissions for whicnho detailed data were providsd. PFOA is only weakly sorbed f sil, with partition coefficofioerndetrofmagitude comparable to that ofbenazne (PFOA organic-<asbon normalized partition coefficient, K. of~ 10 reportedby Higginsand Luthy 2006andDuPo2n00t3).ThusitisexpectedthatPFOAwill moveeasily fromthesurfacetothesubsurfacewith ainevents. "Third, clearly there was stil a considerable amooufrencetnt PFOA deposition from the arascan beseenfrom the2005 grassandsurfacesoil datasummarized inFigure 2,even though atwoorder magnitude decrease in PFOA si emissions occurred, from 29,900 Ios ia 2000 0 300 bs in 2i0m0m6e.dIinatdeiptriooxni,mritiynofsathmeplLinHgiWnAAhugaustth2e0h0i5ghaetstarsaitn(cSotnacteonntrianFtii(go~un5rs3e p5.p3)oTanbolrein5.4). (Changes (which hopefully consistently reflot improvements) onanannual basi from 2000 to 2006werenot detailedinthereportthus iti difficult extractwhatthecurrent airenvission contributions are to present PFOAsdieposition to sil. Forexample, how different were emissions in 2005 that parallel 2005 grasisil data collection versus in 2006 which my parallel orcontributetosurface concentrations noted ithe 2006 soi borings? Such information would helptoticipate the expected impacts on surface sol, sueface water, and subsequently grradoiuunsdwkantoewrnftroombedeipmopsaicttieodnobfyatihre-sbeosrmpeatPhwFaOysA.afIetn rhe20c0a6saeofthteheLLWHHWAAsistitea,stwheellowsseilnetvhaetion ofthe LHWA site means it is alo subject to surface runofoPfFOfA ar emissions that are: deposited on he higher elevation and north and northwestofthe LWA sit. `Whilesiremissions by 2006 have dropped two ordersofmagnitude compared 102000, the 2006. `samplingand analysisofplants nearth facilityshowsubstantial PFOAconcentrationsonplant surfices. Muchof his mass was leary from surface deposiion and fre 10 mobilize to the soil Surface and percolate 0 theaquifer (basedo the difference between analysisofwashed end unwashed plant material). Substantial concentrations were also measured inthesurface oils in 2006 (Table 5.16 for the boringastLHWA), which indicate that regular depositionofPFOAbearing particles s sil occuring within thecurrentdomainof allowable' air emission nd leases. Therefore, given th high mobility of PFOA,the curren levelof`permissible' emissions wil continue to contribute to loadings inthe subsurface and groundwater. This loadingcould be occuring for larg distances ava from the ite in multiple directions. This adds support forthe ned for further data collection of PFOA and PFOA-laden particleai emissions within and beyond the current 2-mile radius outlined in the curent analysis including measuring current deposiion atthe LWHA sie. 3s p.39 addition t the Washington Works sit emissions that were a topic ofthe DuPontreport, uring. ous site vist we leamedofanother waste disposal facility (Lite Hocking Service Center) focated just west (< | mi) ofthe LHWA st. This additional wast facility rceives (ordid receive) wastes that may contain PFOA for incineration from another DuPont fcily. I i rot clearif incineration isstill occuringonthissiteorwhtothractiviteshaveoccurredorarestil occuratrthiissntge.Curent iremissions,whereappropriate, shouldbeasessedfromthis facility as theycouldcontribute10thelevelof PFOA observed ithe LHWAsitethrough atmosphericdeposition. Atthesametimethefocalmeteorologyneedstobebetercharacterized 10helpdevelopbeter modesforpredictingthecurrent levelsin thelocal stmosphere. In addition,the DuPontreportshould include a lear summaryofthepast nd current activitiesat the ste awell a details onanythingstoredaboveorbelowgrounda thesie. Iftis inot Known. a comprehensive survey should be performed and reportedonaccordingly. Ahoughit doessppearthatPFOAaieemissionshavebeenasubstantialcontributor (0 PFOA roundwaercontamination, a oughmassbalanceestimationwoukdhelptovalidatewhether this foutecouldindeedyieldsuchextensiveand ighPFOAconcentrations ingroundwater.Als is shouldbenote tha thepresenceof PFOAinrinwateraloneisnotsufficientproofofthe sisoil-groundwater transport pathway given the essentially universal observation ofPFOA in rain across North America (sceScotet al,2006). Theabsence ofmassbalancecalculatfoirothniss ranspon pthway makes it very difficult to interpret theobserved data and make inferences regarding likely past, present, and future trends in PFOA concentrations and potetial exposures. Some ofthe data e5., high PFOA concentrations in a deep soil boring in 2002 between LHWA and the riverbank (LHWAS?inAppendix4.1)suggest thatothersourcesmaycontribu, includingthepotentialthatpumpingmayhave inducedth flow ofwaterfromthe iverslong specific low paths, pling with t contaminated water leaching from the Anaerobic Digestion Ponds. (Thesameprocess ofpumpingthatcausesthe iver t rechargeadjacentgroundwater, and has been proposed to minimize offsite transport of leachate rom the Washington Works Site), may occura the LHWA sit as well In laces where th river water intersects groundwater naturally or where iti induced (cg. by well pumping), sediment can serve as a PFOA source to `groundwater. Ii also lausibe thet this is ahighly sorpive andlor impermeable lens a this `depth but itwashardtodeciphertheborinlogfrom2002,whichsatsthatproblemswere encountered with the temporary bring, | 3 p.40 3.4 Lol,DryRun, andLetartLandfills In some cass the panel difered with some ofthe conclusions about soils underlying the landils beingsufficient to minimize leaching from the landfills; however, since th lands havebeenor will 00mbecapped,details ofourconcernsinthisareawith regards to `current' PFOA sources `and emissions maynotbewarranted. rior 0capping,runofforpercolationofprecipitation through the PFOA-containing materialsreleasedand leached PFOA 1o the bottofothme landfill and then followed the directionofwaterflow,includingalong th clay boroof th landfill and ito underlying clays an fractured bedrockbelowthe landfill. Coveroifnthge landfills should substantially reduce leaching from the landfill as some ofthe imiteddatashow. "The Local Landfill tree landfill ols) was covered in 1980 with low-permesbliy soil that reduced inflationofprecipitation. Surface water and leachate fromthesecels flow t leachate collectionponds, thentostormsewers on-site anddischarge ttheOhioRiver, At Dry Run Land, apermanent engineered capwasconstructedin2007, which should eliminate precipitation nfilrating through the landfill. A GAC treatmentsystem vs installed in 2006 that removes PFOA from surface wate discharging from the landfil's permited outlet. Leachate at the Dry Run Landfill is sump pumped and tested at the Washington Worksite. The Letart Landfill, which contributed the highest levelsofPFOA, was permancaily closed and an engineeredcap installed in 2001, whichaga should eliminate initionofprecipitation through the landfill. Concentrations from the andfill in 2002 (post cap) ae tll substantial in `Some cases (Table 520). 1n 2006, 2 GAC treatment system was installed to remove PFOA from surfacewater and leachate discharging from th sites permited outlet ntotheOhio River. Itis otclea ifrecentdata havebeencolecidfo theareaundertheLetartlandfill pondswhere historically high concentrations were noted, andifPFOA in these zones is available for transport 10groundwater and offsite. Therefore,althoughcoveringandcappingofthe Landfills has reduced leaching and much of the surfacewater and leachate isbeing capturaend tested, some. additonal daa are needed on the PFOA concentrations curently in the water-bearing aquifer Zones that can migrate offsite o small sceams. 3.3.5 Comment on RankingofExposure Pathways Relaed to GroundwaterforSLEA There have been three separate residential water supply surveyingandsampling programs pre`and within Phase 1 and 1 to dat, which incadd public works and private well. For water supplies with: 0.05 g/L. Gnitialsamplingprogram)or > 0.5 ug/L PFOA (later sampling programs) levels, eatment systems were st up for the most partoF altemate water sources were 3 p41 provided.Therangeinconcentration ofPFOA measuredinresidential drinking-water supplisis from`not detected" 0.8maximofu22m.1 ugL. However,inassessing,exposurefrom thiswater source, 8conservativeapproachwastaken (concentration atafrompre-GAC treatedwaderwere used),whichtypicallymaybeconsidereda saferapproach,except nthisrepo,the relative importanceofall othermodesofexposurearebeingdecidedbasedo thisconservativeapproach used fordrinkingeter.Asdiscussed furitnShecteiorn 3.6, thisbiascouldresulitn inappropristelydiscountingotherexposurepathways.Exposureestimatesshouldbemadefor `GACreated oralternatewatersupplyversusuntreated waterbeforecomparingdrinking water expwoitshotuherpratehwasys. 33.6SpecDiatfaNieecds Additionaldataassociatedwithpotential contaminationofgroundwaterand migrationto offsitesrcamsfromthepondsandcontaminatedlyers inornea the aterbearingzonesunderth formes (closedandcapped)landfillsarewarranted includingsomepostmonitoringofthe wate-bearingzonesassociatedwiththe RiverbankLandill andAnserobicDigestionpondsthatwillhaveanengineeredcap system, + Additional assessment as towhethero notpumping at LWAInduces any unexpectedhydraulicconnectionbetweenthegroundwaterassociatedwith the AnaerobicDigestionpondsissuggestedaswel, giventhehighPFOAconcentrations Observedinthewels immediatelynorthofthe ADPevenaferpond meri]was removed. Modelling inconjunctionwithpreviouslyreporteddaafrom USGSforthe Parkersburgregionwasusedtohow industrial pumpingonbothsidesoftheOhio Riveraffected PFOAtransportonandfrom the WashingtonWorksste. Validation ofthismodelingeffortwiththecollection ofadditionaldat isneededtoremovethe currentuncertainty tha exists.Option includemonitoringforPFOAofexistingor newwellonthebankofth iver,monitoringofwate evelmeasurementsonboth sidesofth rivertodeterminedrawdowninconjunctionwithrecordedpumping conditions. Further, race tessshouldbeusedtodelineatepotentialpathways betweenthe LWHAandformer ADP areainfundesthe iverbod,whichwill significantlyreduc thesourceofuncertaintyassociatedwithonly 8modellingeffort. Clarifcton regardingthepotentialoffsitetransportscenariostha mayoccuirf pumpingatthe Ranney Wel theDuPontLubeck Wel FioethelEasdtWe,ll Field were 0cease forsomeperiodof ime isneeded. 3 p.42 During the site meeting, questions aroseregarding underground injection wells a the WWPsit, which were ater confimed in publi records.Althoughtis practice has. `eased,it shouldbementionedinthereportaswell a detailsonthecharacteristicsof theinjections (what,when,howmuch,underwhatpressure)andwhetthepotential `was formigration(horizontally and vertically) 34 Biota "The review is focused onthe accuracy, scientific quality, and adequacyofthe data for PFOA in biota for evaluating biota as pathway ofPFOA migrationandexpasre by humans. In particular, the completeness ofthe biota PFOA dat for screening level expasure assessment (SLEA) is evaluate. `Threetypesofbiologicalsarpleshavebeenanalyzedforthedeterminationof PFOAlevels in hisstody.Thesearefishsamples (n=20fortheSite lus n=20fo thebackground),meadow voles from Little Hocking Waler Associaton, 1=10), and grass samples (fom off:Site and onSitelocations). ThePFOAdataforfishfilet havebeen used in humanexposureassessmentwith angleras receptor. The PFOA data for grass have been used in the extrapolation of concentration tha could be found on home-grown produce. Based onthisextrapolation, hormegrownproducehasbeenidentified asanimportantpotential sourceofexposure inthelocal population. However, this extrapolation has introduced some uncertainties and the screening. level exposureassssment(SLEA)hasidentifiedthisdat gapforfuturestdyandrefinement. `While homegrown produce and domestically produced milk have been identified as important datagaps{i. in the futuredaaneedsreport),oberbiologicalmatrixeswhich aopotential pathofwmiagraytisonofPFOA to humans i the vicinityofthe Ste have not been discussed. "The following scctions describe these pathways andresulting datagaps and uncerainies in SLEA for PFOA exposure from biological medi. 34.1 Farmproduceandlocalpopulaion/famers "The overall conclusion ofthe SLEA is that ingestionofdrinking water (both public service. district andprivatesources)hasbeenthegreatestroute ofPFOAexposurebythelocalpopulation (within 2-mile radius from th Sit). However, grounderandsurfacewater(from the Ohio Riverorotherstreamsorponds) maybeuseda a sourceof inkingwater orlivestock and for iigaing crops by loca farms. Thus, locally produced meat, milk, fam and home-grown 3 p.43 prcoduocens t(hsfesieuspraomndduvceetgse.taAblltehso)u,gchantbheerpeoptoernttihalavreouatresgouefdetxhpaotssuirebionrpeodpeuploastiitoinosnwhhaiscbheen the onlysourceof PFOA tocrops andcropproducts, studieshavedocumentedthtPFOA is (Setffaihclieenttlayl.tra2n0s0f9e;rAedfrromccoonhftEanmiviinravotnemdeenotsial 0Ccroops,nintcluadianmngdcTioorxnsitcaolalkosg,tyb,yiisnypsorteensm)ic.uFpeteadkien:g ocfhlaiivnetsrtaoncskfweriotfhfPoFdOdAeriannadnodtaherroucnrdotphsegrSotwenanodnPthFOlAacnodnitlaameiansa.teCdsuilrsrcaennnroedtsaullttaiyna,rfeoodav(baeieltaabnedfporolocualllymigtlrkorwnnydfae)rgmg,sp.roTdhuece"FauntduhroemDea-tgarNoewandpsrAodsucse e(frsuitsRseampnodervte"gnehtatasbles),meat acknowledged theexistenceofthisdatag2p sndsuggested th needforfuturestudiestoaddress i Accordingtothe USEPA,approximately 37%of households ntheSouthhavehome gardens. `Modeledexposureanslysshas indicatedthatconsumptionoflocally growncrops, meatproducts, aindmnilgkcoeofudslrdictnoknitinrgiowbauttneere.xpoAscuormemusnimiitlylrexinpmoasgunriestutduedtyocoinntdaukcetsoedfinPtFhOeAvoibctnaiiyneodfvtihea `Washingion WorksSit (LiteHocking Water Association)foundanassociationbetweenserum PFOAandservingsofhome-grown vitandvegelabls(Emmet ta, 2006). Therearc two potenti)daianeedsthat havebocn identified inthe SLEA report; (1) locally grownproducefrom ome gardenaendr(2s)locallyproducedmilk oassessexposuresin farmersandhome gardeners. However, localyproducedmeat includingbef, and locally producedcrops (from the farms),havenotbeen identified15potential routesof PFOAexposure 10thloca population. Farmproduceand home grownproduce inthevicinity ofDryRunLandfill andLetartLandfill werenot studied for PFOA contamination. Overall, thereareuncertainties inthe estimation ofexposure to PFOAbyfarmers and the local `population whaconsumelocally grownfarm producesandhome-grown produces, Thereisa. fearemdptoroddetuecrem(iinneccloinncienngtfroadtdieorn)s,omiflPk,FOanAdimnehaotm(eb-eegfraonwdnpvoeuglettrayb)l.eTshainssfruihts,blooecdaloulvyegnrlootwondnly fOohitoheRhivoemre.sDloactaatefodrwbiitohtain(fa2ammprodrudcie,ushoofmeth-egSriotwn,bpurtoadluscoe,fmoirltkh,eafnadrmmeslaotc)aftreodmstlhoengDrthye RunLandfill andLetartLandfil areneededto accuratelyassess theexposuresintheselocations. pTohpuuslatthieornsecxiosntdsautmaignagplsoanadluncleryta-inptirfeosoionddepxruopdcousceutrsde.assessmentforfarmersandlocal p44 A specific concen i raised in the specificationofth root uptake model presented in Appendi3x ofthe SLEA. There uptake is modeled based onthe Kow, which s really no direcly applicable for fonizables withoutconsideringseveral other parameters (pH,ionicmati, typeof fon), and is particularly inappropriatefor a compound ike PFOA. 3.42 Fish and Anglers "The relative importanceofconsumptionofocally caught fish i the vicinoiftthye Siteandthe andl) a a route ofexpasure 0PFOAbyanglersandotherswhoconsumelocally-caugfihsth as notbeenadequatelyassessed i theSLEA.FortheSLEdAat,afrom twospecwiithacfosal 020 samples (v=10/speces; Largemouth bas and channel catfish),caughtnear Washington `Works outfall in October 2005 have been used. No fishsampleswere colected from other surfacewaietlocationsalongtheOhio Riverofnea landfills, althoughseveral ofthesesurface. `Watersareaccessible 0anglersandloca populations. Fitdatawereusedinthecalculatioofn exposurepointconcentrations(EPCS). Themaretypicalexposure (MTE)andreasonable maximum exposure (RME values for PFOA in isfiletcollected fromtheSite were 1.4 and 2.7 ng/g. wet w, respectively. This value appears to have been derived by averaging PFOA concentrations found in ish from abackground location (1=20) in addition to Washington Works facility samples Table 5.7 ofata assessmentand Table 3-2 ofSLEA). Although no `considerabledifference was found for PFOA levels inlargemouthbas filet collocednear the it's outfall and the background locaton, the representationofPFOA data from two fish species `with alimitednumberofsamplescollectedatonepointinimeintroducesuncertaintiesinthe `exposureassessment.Inotherwords,PFOAlevelsdetermined ithetwospeciesoffish (largemouth bass and channel catfish) may nokrepreseatconseorrhveaathtproitecvtivee. concentrations for fish consumed by anglers inthestdyarea. PFOA levels in fish can varydepending on the species, feding habits, gender, and timeof s`waemrpelciongle(cpird-sinpaOcwtionbgerv,ewrshuiscphosrtepsrpaewsnsinagp).osLtasrpgaewmnoiuntghsebaassosna.ndTchehraeneisl ccaotfnissuhmspatmipolnes advisoryfo largemouthbassandchannelcatfishcollectedslongtheOhioRiver(OhioEPA, 2008), including Washingon County, which suggests tht these fish may not represent what anglerswouldcatch orconseme.Inarecent surveyofOhioRiver ailwateranglers, 1%of angers interviewed were fishing for multi-species, 19 were fishing for blackbess (includes. JATEEMOuI bass), 3% for catfish, 15% for hybrid siriped bass, and 27% for sauger and walleye a p.4s (US Fish andWildifeService,2004). Inordertoobsin arepresentativeEPCvalueforfish, PFOAdatafrom twospecies(n=20)collectedstonepointintime ar notadequateuness it has `been demonstratedthatPFOAconcentrationsaroexpectedtobenohigherinothrfrequently `consumedspecie. ThecurrentestimateofPFOAexpasureforanglers snotdemonstratedtobe `conservativeandmaybeanunderestimationofthescual exposure. No daiafor PFOA infishfrom waternberothdelianedfisll reas(Dry RunandLetart Landfill) areavailable. PFOAdat fo ihfromLeeCreek,inthegeneralvicnyoftheDry Run. Lanardnotfavaiilalbe. Fish tissuePFOAdatafiom theOhioRiverintheimmediatevicinity ofLetart Landsil arenotavailable.Theassumptionthat ishmynotcontributetosignificant PFOAexposure(eltive todrinkingwater) nealndiil isnotadequatelyjustified,especially in theabseonfdcatae. Forcxample, thecurrentmodelsuggeststhtPFOAexposure from fish consumip2 tfoi4-ofonldlowerthanthatbydrinkingwaterinthevicinityof LetartLandfill (Page 6-6, Sec 6 SLEAreport). However, two-foldincreaseinEPCconcentrationforfish (fom1.4ng/g 10 28ng)or a two-fold increas in ingstionrate woukdmaketheshove. assumption insccurate FurtherthmSoLrEAeisexpectedtoprovide 8conservativeassessment ofexposureswitha du consideration ofallpotentialpathwaysofexposure,Several surface. raterswithinthe2-mileradius oftheSiehavenotbeensampledforfish (c.5.,Lake `Washinglon)andthesewaterbodies areaccessibletothelocalpublicandanglers. For theexposureassessmentofPFOAbyanglers(Table B-25 SLEA report,fishingestionrates 0F0.095g/kg:day(forMTE)and0.56 /kg-ay (forRME) havebeenused(foradults). These Valuesare basedonthegeneralpopulation ih ingestionrates(6.65g.0r39 foranadult `Vwaeliugehsipnogt7en0tikagl/ldyuhsnoivdp/w.eatcrpefai.rseshicnsgiesettinocnireat/emsffioarsahntgfleleres.sI/cnongsruraetmeesppostfofirrtoetsn.hiwaTthoeersfenish by subsistence angleres providedinTable10-84ofthe USEPA(1997)'sExposureFactor Handbook. The 95percentilevalue forsubsistence anglersis 170g/day(95* percent)andthe meanfish inakerate is59g/day(Table10-85of EPA'sExposFuacrtoer Handbook).Thevalues EuPsAedfionrtahnegalerss*tyspicaealriengsaepsptrsioonximmaattseel.yT4nh-e1r0te.i9s aolcdldowteoretvahlautatheedviaflfueersesnucegsgeisnetxepdosbuytrheesUS. between `subsistencaen'd`recreational anglersand fish consumers. aconservativeexposurescreening docsnotscroutetheefinshconsumption pathwasauryve,y (oFloca anglers) would provide more reliable Information regtaypreanddfireqnuengcyoffish a p46 species caught andtheconsumptionamount. Ifthe ish consumption pathy icaredthrough 101he netsagaof sk assessment,collectionofseveral species ofspor.fishandsubssenc fish fiomseveral ocronsakong he iver (0 akento count hemigratorypairsof sh)at. iffrent seasons is recommended fo the calculationofEPC. S3e.v4e3ralBproepasutlaMtiilkonagnrdouIpnsfa(ntseepihoavrebsee)n denforitheeSLEdA.Theexposure assessment considered aul, adolescent and child populations rect diferent behaviors and Physiological parameters. One popltion group thats not identified 1 ecto or the SLEA is infants'.There sapoe forclevtedexposure oPROAbyinfers viathenston of pborpeualsattmiiolnlforftomhLeifoecalHmooctkheirnsg.WTahre sAesuomclieav-otfe4oP2nlE3OnsAgi.n hien local population (5. 2004;Emmet a,2006) re: 10 ighe0ha h0 eUS.general popu(l4 nag/tmLiovens.TheSLEA has deniesdt hereexists relationshipbetweendrinkingwai concentrationsandbreastmilk concentrations OfPFOA andthat infantexposures fromthe ington ofbessmilk ightbe similarin msagtniaturgdeeevteosryhseeensismeate0ddexrpionskuirnegwa0teorneixapnotssurnesdfior cmhildpren(oPa0grepr3o.v2t6i)d.aiTnhfoenrcmaarttiyonlifoen exposure pathways nd exposure levels in infants nthe vicinityof the Site. Theres a need to conduct a consrvaive screning analysis for fad cxposresvibreast milkbased pon caret conditionsofemissions and treatmenttodetermineif hee is. ned 1 collec rest milk seafmeprleensceilnbtaheckagrreoaun(dinlhoceatviioinas)i.ty oftheSieandthelandil area aswell asome 344 Game Animals and Hunters unin and gain hasbeen idenifiod s recreational aciviy fn the region. Amongseveral receptor populations and sources denied for the SLEA, ingtonofgame animals ws not identified a5 a pathwayofexposure. Ingestionofharvested game can be sure ofexposure. However, no game animals ave beencollectedand analyzed for PFOA. A fewgrasssamples collected within 2 miles fom theSiteconned severalens 0 ew hundredsoflg cconcoentnratisonosufogfrmPaFsOpaAn.dttHehirebriovloarnonuts.aTnihmearl is(daene,edrab0bciosn)dcoacntbeceoxnpsoesrevdattiovePsFeOeAitnhrgough Wtaunrraiklteyyes,ihsqofumoire,ghriasonwdpdnaupcrtkoafdurc1ethdheatsaesbrsemeeisnnsemdiefenntoiifseendxecpeossasuaprrayetthiownaahnyuaonltfyizenegPaxFndOgApamiihnonodgmrpseo,pruaaulibastieird,ognpsae.emaes,aarn, a p47 notcons8 ipatdhwaeyofrexeposde. Homeasegameanimalsincding chickencanbea sourceofhumanexpotosPeFOsA. 3.4.5 Summary ofKeyConcernsRegardingBiotaMessurements Ovheersaelrl, wehapindtocosmcrpkinlsoinwgedalgltehdetahavtaciolnbsliedderaaablferofm rthehiseb,eethnepruatrfeodravtargdiapns,deevsepleocipailnlgy.in characeizingPFOA inbiologicalmediawhichcanplayanimpartan rolein themigrationof PeFOAxonptaontdohealrooscuanldtupohpuSrlatt.ieonFsu.rtThheermrorse,anbieoetd1c0adebteearnmiimnpcorotannct epaniftwaryaoofftPPiFFOoOAnAisn sovra iologicalmarines 0accuraseasstexeposlureys. Ahbough home-grownproduceand domesticallyproduced ilk havebeen identifiedinthe FutureDataNocdsAssesment, ts commended hatPFOAdaaforfamproduce,home-grownproduce,localyproducedmest, il, sh fromsurfacewaters, rest ilksamplesndgameanimals(gamehen) areneeded 0 ahcceoSuntLfoarpsEodteseAcnrdil,beidolnotghicealrempaorstis,xestquhitvwrouhked,cmoorneu-asdeq1uaetxepojsuurseisc.Steovnersa,lFoasrpexcatsmopfle, exposurs assessmentofPROA fomthe ingesotfioocnafishbyanglers involvedseveral on `conservative assumptionsonishsecs,ingestion esandconcentrationsinfis.These eestximapteosshbauyvuerpientsr1odoucedruonfcdmeargeiinuidrset,hTthceoruelidsp.otoroadl1l0yeliadntothaeneuxnpdoesruersetmimoadteeosffoacrtfuiaslh ac5opnostuemnptriiaolne.xpOotshuererpbaiotliowgaiyes tmoedPiFaOsAucfoh acsebrrteaainstsumbilpkopaunlddgoanmse. aJniumaslstshiofulaidebceraiedqteuniitrifeoidend bexepdleiinfwiheydtihnstehpa`thwFaytsDaaruteanNroeteedcosnsRideerepdoifnotcrfhetucu"erensttudrye.port andlorthesepathwaysshoud 3.5 Muldmedia Fate,Tras0dEsxpopsuroeParthw,ays "The forgoingchapers of hispeerconsultationhav addressedthe assessment ofPFOAlevelsin specific media.Hereweconsider multimediaissues nthereports,ad npriculawhetherthe reeploearstehtaosaeddxrespseoadmruslaiduemqeurdaitaeelyracnshpoartrofaPcEtOoAnesrcsihcrzhcanetndtghelpvaethbweasyssof migrationfrom Fscorretehneinpgailehvwealybsaosfsm,igwreaetxipoenctftrhoem fefoealsteolteoo bxwe sipaisnoiocbgdesaduequrateelycharsctrizedon. " p.48 1 The major pathwaysofmigration fromthesourcoe the exposure media should be identified. 2. A basic understanding ofthe processes governing this migration andth major factors influencing these processes should be demonsiraed. 3. A semi-quantiative descriptionofthe massflowsalong themajorpathwaysofmigration from thesource 1 theexpasuremediashouldbepresented. 4. Sufffiielcddaitaeshnoutldbepresented10demonstratetha thebsic understandingof themajo processes andth semiquantitative mass low calculatioanrs roughly consistent with th reality in th study res. Our conclusions can be summarized as follows: 1. Thesiteconceptualmodeladequatelydescribesmanyofthe transportpathwaystopeople Hiving closetothesource. However, nether theexpostouPFrOeAnorthepathwayosf migration forpeopleliving moredistancefromth plantarecharacterized,Thisdeficitis: Judged tobe particulary seriousfor the population exposed via riverwaterdownsircam ofthe sie. 2. Thesit conceptualmodelappearstobe actually incomectin tsplacement ofthe `SWMU and is correct location, on the rmofthe river. The conceptual modelalsoomits apotentialtransportpathway romthe SWMU intotheOhioRiverandapathway into `groundwaterthatmayaiso flow away fromthSit. 3. Migrationwithin medi(airand watec) has beenaddressedelsewhere inthispect `consultation. There appears 0 be a basic understandingofsome infemedia transport Processes (e.g. river waler to ground water). However, several intermediapathwaysof migration ofPFOAareno ye understood ata basic evel.Deficits exist particularly regthaetrransdporitofnPFOgAfrom surfacesiltgrounandd fwromasitaend rwat,er to food. 4. A semi-quaniiaive descriptionofthe massflowsalong some partial pathways of migration is presented (e., fromai 0 surface soil). However, noassessment long the entire major pathways (e.g air - surface soil - groundwater--drinking wate) is provided. 5. Datawerecollectedandasessed 0evaluatethe atmospherictransportand deposiionto soil following emissionos ir a the Washinglon Works sit. Data were alo collected in surface wate, but no effort was mad1e0 asessth relationship between emissions to surfice water and transportvisurface water, Measurementswereconducted that . p.49 supportedtheunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenatmosphericemissionsand depositiontotevesral surfaces, butnoeforwasidentifiedthat evaluated quantitative `understandingofthe inkbetweenatmosphericemissions andthelevelsingroundwater fromtheunsaturatedorsaturated zones Measurements to assessthe transferof PFOA fromairandwater 0food re fullyabsent. 3.5.1PathwaysofExposure fromtheSit 0Exposure Media "Thesitconceptualmode adequatelydescribesth fikelydominanttransportpathsto exposuremediaclose 0theSte.Theseinclud emisions osir- stmospherictransport depositiontosoil- transport10 groundveter --contamination ofdrinkingwater food,emissions tosurfacewater transport togroundwater ~contaminationofdrinking waterfood,andleakage fromwastesits 0groundwater ~contaminationofdrinkingwate /food. However, th transportpathwaystoexposuremediamore distantfrom th stearcnotaddressed in thereports.Oneof thee i atmospheric transport beyond thestudyarea deposition tsoil-- anspor groundwater contaminationofdrinkingwate food. Amassbalanceapproach was notreported inasessin theatmospheric dispersionof PFOAemitiedafthesites,andhence ts otposibletoevaluatethedegreeofattenuation of PFOAdepasitonwithdistancefromthe plant. Asecondtransport pathwayt exposuremediadistantfromthesitisriverwater--groundwater drinkingwater.Thispathveayshouldbegivenparticular tenon,sinceatenuationofthe PFOAconcentrationin iverwaterwithdistancefromthe sitesi expectedtobeverylow ducfo thepersistenceand hydrophilicityofthe chemical.Sincebankfiltration is acommon method for `biainingdrinking wate, this pathway could result high exposures for populations distant from the site 3.52UnderstandingoftheProcessesGoverningPFOA Migration Migrationwithinmedia sirandwater)hasbeen addressedelsewhere inthispe consullation. "Thekey transportprocessesbetweenmedia rc: Wa-gtrounedwarter - Aumos-psuhrfeacersoeil - Susroilf-graouncdwaeter * p.50 - Groundwater -- drinking water - Groundwater food - Atmosphere - vegetation food Water ~ groundwater exchange of PFOA s postulated bethe conseqofusdevenctcioen of Water between thtwo medi, presumably with lite retenoftiPFoOnA isold material. The similar concentrations measured n groundwataenrdaquifermaterial (cg. Appendix 4.1) makes. this aplausibleassumpion.ThepresenceofunexhpiglhlaeveilsonfePFOdAin oflwithhigh organicmater(seebelow)suggests,ontheothrhand,thatretentioninsedimentcouldbe a relfacetorivnthaispnrocetss.Nevertheless his isan appropriateworstcas approachfor a screening level evaluation. Atmosphere-surface sol transport was assessed using the modelAERMODand good results wereobtained,suggestingthtther isuficientunderstanding ofthisprocess. "The information on surfacesoil groundveatertransportprovided itereport inconsistent. InAppendix 5.3itisarguedthatthesurfacesil samplesreprescatlongtermaccumulation,while elsewhereinthereport (e.g.Part1,sections 4.3and 5.2.4)itisarguedthatPFOAishighlymobile in sai ndwilllbe washed out ofsurface sili inglerainevents. This indicthaattteerse is not a basic understanding of PFOA transport from surface soil into the sub-surface unsaturated zone. "Transtr rom groundwater to drinking wate s not a controversial isso fo these chemicals. Information ontheefficiency ofpurification techniques is available. Thereisverypoorunderstandingofth transfer romgroundwatertofood.Thisisacknowledged inthe repors "The transfer ofPFOA (rom the atmosphere (0grass i not suficiently understood. Observations Suggesttha atlast 75 %oftheresiduesingrassarfromatmosphericdeposition(Part1,section 5.4.9while modeling suggests hat tsust 1-5 % (Part2,TableC-3),Consequentlhye transport fromtheatmosphereintofood i lsonotunderstood.This i acknowledigethde reports. " p51 3.5.3 Quantification ofPFOA Mass Flows AlotheMnajgor Pathways ofMigration AquanifcationofPFOA mas flowfromthe atmosphere 0surfacesoi is preset in Appendix 5.3.However,noasessmentalongtheenicemajorpathways (e.g,ar-sufacesil groun--ddriwnkaingtwaeterr) ispresented.Hereitwouldbeimportant odifferenbteitwaeteen the coiribusion of current and past emission0s current exposure, andto asesshow both the `exposure and the elaive contributionof current and past emissions can be expected to change in the future as a resultofcontrol activities, 3.5.4 Site-Specific Empirical Evidencteo Support the Sem-Quanttative Understandingofthe Major Pathwaysof Migration Wate-r groundwater "The tranosfPfFeOArfollowingai emissionstosurfacesolwasstudiedand reporotneidn Appendix 5.3. Goodagreewmasefonuntd betweenpredictedandobservedconcentrations in surface soils. This work iconsidered sufficient or ascreening level sessment. Although information on PFOA emissiontso the Ohio River as well 1s PFOA concentrations in theOhioRiisvavielabrle,no effortwasmade toassesswhether thisinformationwasinternally `consistent. Ifthe levelsintheriveraehigherthanpredictedfrom theemissions,thiswouldgive `evidenceoffuthersources, and vie versa. Noempirical evidencewasidenified 1supporttheunderstandingon PFOAtransportfrom surface soil 0 groundwateor rather, to resolve the contradictions outlined in 3.5.2). Appendix 4.1 presents evidence on the vertical distributionofPFOA in soil and groundwateratseveral locations. However, no evidence is presented on vertical fluxes andhowthese relafto chemical `oncentations in sufuce soil and environmental conditions. Nomeasurementshavebeendoneonpathwaysleading ofood.Thisisspproprisiely deatified 5: 2futuredata needinthe reports. 3.6 Human Exporure Earlier sections of this peer consultation have addressed the adequacy of characterization of PFOA concentrations in exposure media. This section addresses broad issues relatefod utilizing those daa in estimating human intakes in the screening level exposure assessment (SLEA). We p.52 begin by revisiting the conceptual exposure model and commentingo is completeness, and then address the general exposure assessment methodology, exposure point concentration calculations, specific exposure parameters, and the uncertainty analysis. We conclude our sessment by discussing how limiations in the exposure assessment may affect the reliability of tho conclusions and identificationofdata needs. 36.1 Conceptual Exposure Model Updatedconceptualcxposure modelsare describedin SLEASection3.2andpresen in SLEA Fig3-u3raned3s-4. Withtheexceptionsnotedbelow,theexposurepathwaysand routesof `exposure includedinthe model appearappropri thoughin manycasestheyae mot yetwell developedforthe local conditions. This isanessential compoofnreevnisted planforexposure `assessment and the collction of samples to appropriately support that assessment. The selected Fecepiors also represent an appropriate range of actviies by which people might comtact the affected exposure media; however, no ffort was made to sample time-activity patemsofthe local population, or to validste the appropeiatensss of the selected. receptors to behaviors `hibited by thos potentially exposed to releases from the Site. Generally, Figure 3:3 provides a. clearpictorialdescription of PFOA releaseandtransportprocesses (although, anoted above, the. locationof the ADPandRBLisincomoct andmisleading). Conswiithssttandearndritsk `assessment methodology, Figure3-4doctuheemxpoesurenmedtiasandexposureroutesrelevant for the various receptors.Foreach eceptoriexposure medium combination, symbols indicate the `ompletencss of the exposure pathway and data availabily. Several comments are provided on his figure: + According to the figure domestic use of groundwater is anticipated to result in both ingandsdertmaliexpoosunres. Inhalation expoarsnuotirnceludsed.Werecogaize. that PFOA.iswatersolubleandtypically presentasanion,andconsequently not `expected to volatilize from hot water; however, inhalation should sll be included inthe `conceptual model with a note regarding the limited potentialforexposure viathis route. + For sediment, foral receptors both ingestion and dermal expoasreurerpoertsedasbeing. either incomplete (i... *--*) or potentially complete but with expected exposures ess than othr receptors (ic. 0"). This is no logical A shaded cirorcbllacek circle must 8PPlY (0 a leat one receptor for this medium. We recommend that shaded circles be wapiptlhiseeddoimrenb,oth the offsite swimmer and offi angler for ingestionanddermal contact wo p.53 As descibodabove,tsrecommendedthatconsumptionofgameandexposureofinfants viabreastmilkbeadded a exposurepathways. 3.62 GeneralExposureAssessmentMethodology "Thegeneralapproachusedinthe SLEAisconsistentwithEPAguidanceforcalculatingintake estimatesforus inriskassessment. Themainlimiationisn thegeneral methodoalreotghyat ) theSLEAdoesnotmake sufficienteffort10obiainand uselocalexposureconcentrations,and. exposurefactors andbehaviorsforthe localpopulation;and i)theSLEAdoesnotexplainhow theresiuntalkeeistinmatgesvillbeusedinassessrisnksg. Theseissuesareeachaddressed. AScreeninglevelexposureassessmentforperflucrooctanoleacid(POFA) wascompletedby Emiron toprovidea first-orderanalysisofpotentiallycompletedexposurepathways(medis)and `exposuretoutes (entry inothebody)amongthethreesitsthatwerethesubjectsforstdy.The sitesusedintheanalyseswerethe Washingion WorksFacility andLocalLandfil theDry Run Landfill, and the Letat Landfill In each case the screeningexposurecharacterizationsuggested drinking water (0 be a major routeofexposure to PFOA. The estimatesfordrinking water are baseduponsitedat,andtheauthorsusedvariousassumptions (someofwhichnot explained) `about whomandhowtheywouldbeexposedtoPFOA.Littleornodataareavailableforthe otherexposure pathways (cg air solingestion,foodetc) "Theauthors usedinformationfromEPA.guidancedocumentsduringthecompletion oftheir analyses,andappliedgeneralexposurefactors(0replacemissingorunavailableinformation and data.Fiveorsixtypesofindividualswereselecteda thetargetreceptorsat achlocaton.These included: offsite residenthome gardener, offsite resident farmer, ofsite commercial worker, offsite creck visitor or recreational visitor, offsite angler, and offsite recreational swimmer. For thedrinkingwater routeof exposurethseare reasonable population, However, manyofthe activites and the frequency of activities used to estimate exposure to these hypothetical individuals were speculative. Al calculations are based upon a reasonable maximum exposure (RME)ormean typicalexposure(TE)torepresent highendandcentraltendencylevelsof exposure, respectively. In principle this analysis lan was a logical undertaking, At the present time, ther isn information provided nthedocumentthatassist in providinag validation for the baselineassumptionused for each "receptor" prson/population. Inmostcases, theanaulseynatsiontaldataonpercentagesorfrequencyofactivitestobasetheir exposure 5 p54 estimationsforcach location, but fai 0describe theuncertaintiesassociated withspplyingthese `assumptions 10 the population being evaluated. Demography and land use pattems in the study areaacnotgiven. Thereis aneedtodescribedemographyandlandusepater to evaluateif the SLEA isapparndcooveprsalrlofitheapoptulateionintheregion.Thedemographic characterization should describe the population distribution, industries and occupations, agriculurallanduse, livestock production,anglesandtype offish,gameanimalsandhunters. Futher,asdescribedincalicrsections, thers islimited PFOA concendattaravaaitlabileofonr `exposureroutesothrthandrinkingwate in twoofthe threelocations (theDryRunlandfilland. the Letart Landfl. The available PFOA data wer collected primarily around ornea (withi2n miles of) the Washington Works Facility, and some data were available for multiple exposure. pathways. However, the numberofdata pois is limited for some pathways even for the `Washinglon Works Facility sie, e.g. fish. No PFOAairconcentration or fishconcentrationdata were available for the other two locations. Further, data were not collected for PFOA in homegrowncropsandothrfoodproducta anyoftheselocation.As result,extantdatawere. usedintheanalyses,butnotfromlocationsofsimilarcharacter.Forthe homegrown food consumptionestimates,thereisnojustification providedfortheassumthaptttheinatoionnal Values usedwouldbe reliableforestimatingexposurein alocationnoeramajorsouorf cPFeOA orasit of PFOA disposal. Theauthors rely onmodeledestimatesofPFOA concentrations in home grown food, meat and animal products (milk, and edible fish). For produce the model includes direct deposition and root uptake based on soil adgroundwaterEPCs. Since it is clear tha drinking wate can be a major pathway for exposure, considerationofthe useoflocal tp. `water contamiwintahPtFeOdAinthepreparationoffoodshouldbeaddressed, inaddition tothe `pakewhilefood isbeingraised.The ack ofdat fo site-specificexposurecharacterizatiions also identified s alimitation ofthe current study in out reviewofothermediaconcentrations, includingbiota, presiedabo. `Exceptfordrinking wate, whhaisacreliahble database for estimatinglocal exposuraetalthree. ocations, mostofth dataandesimaaers presentedas part ofanuncertainty analysis, While an uncertainty analysis is cersinly appropri, it must first be preceded by a thorough documentation ofwhatwasdone10obtainas much localdataaspossiblaen,dhowthesedota wereusedtoobtainbeststimatesfor thetargetedexposures. Unforttuhenreaistlleelofyn,o Tocaldatathatwascollectedorusedtoserveas abasis ormanyoftheexposureroutecstimates `comfporclacehltocaetiodn. Localdiawere eitherusedtoestimatePFOAexposuresformost st p.55 routesconsidered,nortovalidate andcompareagainstthe ationalestimatesthiweregenerated. "This raises question regathresdigniifincangceofothr (von-drinkingwater)exposurepathways. andthelevelscontributedbydifferentpathwaystooneormoreof theroutesofexposure. The informationbasefortheexposureassessmentisnotsi specific,whichis amajorweaknessthat permeatesthe screeningexposure characterzations,Whatactualyisrequiredaresampling programstocollectdatafortheobservedroutesof exposure.Suchdatacouldbeused10 support orcontradictthe conclusionofan uncerantyorsensitivity analysis. The SLEAisalsogenerallylackinginanydiscussionofbackgroundexposures 1PFOAinthe `general USS. populationas aseparatesectionthatisdivorcedfromthesilspecificexposure assessment. Thisinformationisneededtopropertyassessincrementalexposuresassociatedwith thesite.InformationonPFOA.inpackagingandPFOAreleasedbyvariouscookingutensils nd practiceswouldbe avaluable addition anyrevisedanalysisplantodeslwithconfoundersin theanalysisofcontributionsassociatedwithfoodconsumption.A istofconfoundersourcesthat will have PFOA also needs to be identified to determine the significance of the local `contributionsversusthegeneralcontributionsto PFOAformanydifferentexposurepathwaysand The different activities selected fo. represent the receptor populations need additional documentation.Thiscouldbeaccomplishedby asurveyofthepopulationtoseeif,forexample, peopledoswimintheOhioRiver,fishintheOhioRiverandcatthecaughtfish atthe frequenciesdefinedbytheanalysis. Further, itwouldbeInteresting1osewhatpercentageofthe Populationcathomegrownorraisedfoodandanimalproductsthat iscontaminatedbyPFOA. Localsurveysareneededfo theseand elatedexposurefactors. "Thecalculationsofintakedoseafterexposurdeonottakeintocountvariation in relative bioavailabilityofchemicals in different exposuremediaand,a a minimum, known physiological factorsaboutabsorptionfordifferentroutesofcontact. In al case the authors assume adefault relative bioavailabilityvalueof 100%. This may be anincome assumption, and can lead to overestimationofthepotentialdose.Ontheothe hand,anactivity,showeringdoes notinclude inhalation ofPFOA,andswimmingdoes notincludedermal absorption(Se tableB.1in the report). Dermaleffectshavenotbeen observedforsomeworkplacepopulationssothedermal contact maybedeminimus for imitation,buthow wel i itabsorbed?Thiscaninfluentche 2 p56 siugninficcanceeosrfhboauttdhbienagadodirressnhsoewdteriniinthgeoeSnLsEtAhe. itera)dose. Thepoleatial impacts ofthese "Thepane alsonotesconcen regarding th estimationoftedermalexposurepermeability c8oKef,f(ipcieernmte.abFiolrietxypcooseuffrieciaesnts)esvsamleunetobfyd1e5rxm1a0lcontahcrhtahsrboeugehnsuursfdac.eTwhaitsvr(whaiwlealsswoibumtmaiiennge)d, from an inviostudy(which doesnotrepresentdynamic invivocondidionsofbodytemperature, bloodcirculation,pH,ectha swimmerwouldexperience) based 0thereference Fasano 1a. th2e00r5e.arTehdeisftfeurdeynbceysFianstahneobeethaavl,ioursoedfAthPeFsOe,wnoofttohremPsoFfOAPaFnOoAn.. FAustrhthreeporrtthmheaosAriPnFedOi,c.ated, l`ecvoneclewnartaetriocnonucesntdriatntiohns.i vFiatsoasntoeuday.wahsa2v0ec%ustaot,nenodteintvhireornamerntcalltyhare"lienvvainvtoppprbedoifcptipotns usinganin virderivedvalueshoudbeusedwithcaution ntl anappropriate nvivovalidation S10dy (cg. ann vivodermalexposure with measuredblood evel of APFO) iscondusted". f`rOowminsgus10ftahcieswuantceerr,ttahienvtaylasuseoschioautleddwbietdhetehemuesdenoonf-tcionssKer,vvaatilvue oixtahneuenxdpeorseusrteimaastseesosftmheent arcetquuailreexiposnure.cAoflnunacusesretssasinmiteyntfoaocftnoerxsposureusingsuchlaboratory-basedinvitovalueswould 3.63 Interprction ofSignificant Exposures inLightofPoteHneatldiRaiskls. For mest chemicals intake estimates are combined with inbalaion and ora toxicity vals 10 esimate cancer and noncancer risks for inhalation and for ingestion and dermal cont combined. Therearenogeneralyacceptedtity valuesforPFOA,soreliance onthestandard `acpopmrboianechthwouinltdakreeleystoinmattehsewdietvhelaoPpmBePnKtmoofsdueclh pvarleuedsi.csAelrtuemmaPiFveOlAy,litecouvTldheebseelpuosmsslieblve,els: `couldthenbecompared withbothbackground levelsand levels suspectedofcausingadverse emfafeycltesaidnthoumianncs.omTehecloacknofcinlfourimnasttihioenSorLengEaArsd.inFgobroewxatmhpleex,potshuerceoensctliumsiaotne twhillabeianhpapllatiieond aenxpdoisnuhraelastaironloriwskcwoimlplbaereasdsweistshedotsehpearraetxeploysufrreomroiuens gIseiaeslnetdvdiaenromifantlheexplonsugrei. atargetorgan Other cancerswehavewiththe analysis nce: the lack ofdetail provided to documentspecific exposureparameters, 5 p57 the lackofobjective analysisofthe relative degree ofuncerainty for th different exposurepathways, and conclusionsabout therelativeimportanceofdifferentexposurepathwaysthatfil to acknowledgepresent reductionindrinkingwalerexposures.duetotreatment of groundprwioar t0eusre. "Therelianceoncomparisonwithdrinking water exposures 3s basisfordiscountingthe importanceofother exposurepathwaysisparticularly problematic andmisleading. We understandthetth inentis t assessthe currentdrinkingwater satus inthenex! teationofthis document,butthisdocumentshouldnotappeartodiscounttherelative importanceofother exposurepathwaysbasedon acomparisonwithdrinkinguntreatedgroundwaterbecausethat `comparisondoesnotreflectcurrentconditionswithwidespreadwatertreatmentinplace, ie. pathwaysthatseemedminorcomparedto drinking waerexposuresprior owettreatment,may nowcontribute a muchgreaterfracionof otalexposures. Toaddressthis issue,werecommendthattheexecutive summaryand introductionspecifytha in thisdocument"current"expasuresaredefined as thoseoccuringduringthefive-yearperiod from2002throu20g06h. 1 shouldaisobenotedinthese twoplacesthat asubsequentanalysis will addressexposuresfollowingtheinstallationofwartreatmentsystems. Werecommendthat the nextanalysisalsoconsiderth variation indrinkingwater exposuresbasedonvariationsin theeffectivenessand variabilityof wate treatment overtimeforbothpublicwatersystemsand private wellusers. "Thefiveyearexposuredurationusedin the SLEAis adeparturefromstandardrisassessment approachesandsis requiresanearlyexplanation nthedocument.Mostrisk assessmeunsteas omgerexposureperiodtoassesschronicexposures. Again,becausetheisk assessmentapproach asnotbeen describedtheimplicationsoftheuseofasubchronic exposureperiodare otclear. `Assuming only noncancer endpointswill beevalanduusaingtanaeverdagi,ng imematchetdo the five year exposure durathteeistoimnate,d intakes should still provide an accurate indication ofexposure. However,thisne10beeexdplaisned. Theonlywaythepanelcouddetermitnhaet thecorrect approachhadbeenuscdwas10comblaboriouslythroughAppendix B tofindthe averaging timesuse. 5 bss 3.64 Exposure PoinConceniaionCauaions PrAOsdUeCscLritboeodlsi,nexhceeSp LtEhaAtthAepipsbiuntiBo(nSseotfotnheda1t)a,seEtPsCwsewreroetcleestletde.dInstienadgnsoasnpdaarradmEePtAic methodswer ued,specificallyteias-comecedscelesed(BCA)methodusing heKapa sMaemipelrianpgplroocaacthi.onAslswoitinhsommareecatsheasnmoenaensvaalumespwlerieenusgeld. Oviernapllu,rtevPireowUoCfLtfhreeinxdpiovisduurale concenttions presentedin Tabi B4suggeststht themethodused 0calculate BPC has a Jimi impactonthe values usedon he SLEA. 10coniras, anedinScton3.62, themodeledEPC forproduce,crops,mea,milk, poly andeggs have a highdegreof certaintyanddonotconsiderthepotentialaddedexposures frompreparation of foodusing contaminated apwater. A3s6h5aSspbeeceinfdiceEsxpcosrurieabbPoeaverd,ameintmerasnycases inadequatedocumentation iprovided 0determine heconservatism of specificexposure parameters,Thesigificoaftnciinationis that 5 ootreadilypsi sesthereliably ofcomparisonsamongexposurepathways. Appendix B (Section B.2andassocioedales) includes summaries of xpos parametersa nes egavingsourcesfo he values selected;however,ther is no discussiontosupportor Jusitythe oVatlhueerss.aWehkinloewsnomeovoafrtyhgerveaaltuleysfsoelmescitteedatorsidt.efFiorveaxluaemsplyep,ctlhelyressideedntbiyaElsPiAl iantgmesotisonsrees,s sseesslede.rcIentcheoosndeusy,pctlhelryearue obswyiEdePdlAy,aapnlchaeleedcegroe onfcsonutsesmeforpcivastn,abbtoeimdieigovsicomlnwny prratoidouncaleeafnodr ttehiesr beocalfoeofdoscrtahttspceiacibfoesanipep.liTedhatrelaldserioefwthiehoSLuEAdicsacunsitonreoaddiilsycdreitbeertmeine iGfetfhiecesneclyectdeidevtallyueslaiesadheeqaubaitleiltyy ocfontsheerPvCatPivteodteotcaeprtmoirntihfehrearngeaovefclirkeilytedxipaocasguaraeplss. This sonewith hessexposepathways. 3T.Sh6he6oSuLUnEicAnecirlasuidc netdy eAs luseysdn saiwi asyscrl oerurcaicnl shgpaanstahy lwyiasyisa.onFdonrehlatsteedsosvoinsthoefuencexrpothsaatludyessrcirsiebe vhiednandceedloirnugncuenrcteainnainaniaelyinstehse, athevdisacusidsiootlnasahanodueblxdpslopseuecriefypatdrhameetercs. iComsnsaidisteetnotawndidtrhseEsPsA 5s p59 theseuncertainties,andthe impactonth degree 10whichtheresulting exposureestimates may. over orunder-estimateexposures. Weunderstandthatssummary ofthissort isprovided in "Table6-1(0support thedatanedsassessment) however, thattabledoesnotaddressuncertain intheexposureparameters,andalodoesnotclearlyaddressthe ovenlldegreeofconservatism intheexposureestimates. For example,soilingeissnottmeintoionncdinthe unceserctitonasanidTnablte6y-1 indicates onlythattheeislowcontibution t intake,that alimiteddownwinddatasetwasconservatively applied toareas lackingsoil dat andthatthereismediumlevel ofuncertaintyin th datas.The uncertaintysectionsshouldnoethedataset imitationsssdescribedin Table6-1, butshouldaso describethekeyassumptionsfor exposuresparameters.Thesewouldincludenotingthatthe default EPA soil ingestionratsaelikely 0overchevoniscditlsiolmingeastiotnraetes, particulrlyattheupperpercentiles usedfortheRME,andalsothtitwasassumedthat ll ingestedPFOAwouldbesystemically absorbed,comparableto sbsoptionofdissolvedPFOAin drinkingwate,anassumptionthatmay overestimateexposuresubstantially. "The uncerisinty anashoulldbyetshepirimasry tool availableto the PCP 10understwhainchd `exposurepathwaysscreenou,and therefore,do notneedadditionaldatacollectionoranalysesto morefullycharacterizemigrationandexposure to PFOA (asdirectedinthecharge).The absence ofacomprehensive uncertainty analysis limthiabtilistyofthePCPtoexecutethecharge 3.67ConcandlIdenutificsatioin ofoDeanNeseds Major findingsregaringthe SLEA include the following: 1- Exceptforpossiblydrinkingwater, thescreeningexposureanalysisdoesno appearto represent thelocalcommunity"sinatons"sincemostofthedatathatar usedaefromother osationsandwouldnotberepresentative ofanyofthethreesites. 2a.ctTuhaleleoxcpalosbureeanahlyosaifstrhevecpeopiptuolrsoactieonrnartihsoastsesleuctipotnphpreosoceelserschttaedsnaotcpriovivdTehdiianpftpolrimciaatbiiclointsoy na.ntdhe degreeofconservatismofth assumptionsused mustbeaiculatd. 3. TheEPCsforPFOAfound infoodisbasedondeposition anduptakemodes.Localdataon PFOA in homegrown andraisedfoodsarenecessary,andtheconsumption foodsneed detaled evaluation for use intheexposureassessment. practices orlocal 56 p.60 4.TheRMEand MTEestimationsuscmanyassumptionsthatarenotvalidorjustifiedfor the Toca situation. Further, vo eforhasbeen made10 tethescreeningresus 10 aknown acuteor chvonichealthoutcome.Whdaotthe valuesfortheRMEor MTEmeaninteorfpomtentsial healtheffcis?There i nohealthslopefactoro referenceddoseprovided,orcomparisonwith daa availabe fiomother focations where health effects have be demonstratedaferexposures to PFOA have been identified. 5.Thereare PFOAdataand questionnaireinformation availablefromtheC-8studyfotelocal ara. Furtherotherstudies extemaltothelocalareathat canhelptodefinetheexposure issues anddotanedsmore clearlyareneeded10conductascreeninganalysis.A foofcattuentsion shouldclearlybeon provingthat amajorsourceoflocalexposureisdrinkingwater, 6. The Washinglon Works Facility and Local Landfill should be the focofuansy immediate revision for screening characterization sinethereae actualdataavailable. Concurrently, the dataneeds mustbethoroughlydiscussedandweaknessesremovedwithabetterPFOA data collection plan. 7. Any revisiootnhse Dry Run Landfainldtlh,e LetartLandfillsreeningexposure characterization must include a logical plan fo dat collection and re-analysis is finalized forthe `Washinglon Workfacility thatcanbeusd inechoftheselocations 8. The screening exposureassessmentshould be forward looking n perspective, and uilize the `extensivebiomodatnainithtepopoulartiointhantngow receivesthedrinkingwatertvoughthe Lite Hocking Water Association, other public systems and from private well. The biomonitoring daa should offer insights regardingth variability in exposures. The conceptusl model for exposure needs to consider additional sampling based upon the recently established emissions from the stacks, and developairand biotamonitoring programsthat can schicve the `oul ofa revamped program. `Section 6ofthe SLEA presents theevaluationofpotential future daa needs. Ifthe suggested changesaremadetotheuncertainty sctions,thconclusionsandidentification ofdatanedscan draw on the uncertainty assessment t make the bass for conclusions clearer. Ou particular `concer withthedataneds discussiaonndTable6-1 istherelianceoncomparoif snioaknes from other exposure pathways with drinkingwater intakes 0determine the relative contribution teoeidntbaekcea.uFsoertehexasmcprleee,niTnagblmeo6d-e1lsiungdgiecsatcestdhianttbaekeefsf,rpoomultthrey saenfdoeogdgss id3ontoo t1r0e-pfroelsdelnotweadratthaan drinking water intake. This logic inroelevant du tothe present itation in which drinking ater exposure for most residents has apparently been markedly reduced. Consequently, these 5 p.61 pathways could currently be contributinag substantial relative proportion topresentday `exposures. Sec6atndTiabole6n1mustberevisedtoscreenpathwayswithoutrelyingon `comparisonwithdrinkingwaterintakesfrom 2002through 2006. 3.7SummaryofPriorityData NeedsforFutureStudyPhases In anticipationoffuturedatacollection for PFOA characterization at andnearthe Site, we. temps ere todescrib:whatwebelevetobethehighestpriorityareasforfuthermonitoring `andmodeling.Theseaereviewedbelowandmayprovideusefulinputin th designofPhas Il stufodrtiheeStse. Therecommendedmeasurementsincludedatanoeded 0providebothbeter resolved estimatesofexposurefo thelocalpopulations,aswel sforperfoarmamssbialnangce calculationofhistoric and current PFOA emissons and environmental inventories. 32.1 Comprehensive Air Monitoring PFOA airemisswieroeannsd spptesalrl remainalrgecontributor tocontaminatiofn drinking water via the si-s0il-groundwate route, especially within afew mle radiusofthe sits `and possibly beyond. AlthoughDuPontreports substantial (wo-order-of-magaiade) decrease i iremissionsby2006,the amountof PFOAactually beingemittednow orinthepast inot reported. Withoutthisinformation, iisnotpossibletoperformmassbalancecalculation for transport through thesumoundingenvironment. A coordinated, ongoing ai monitoringprogram is needed, including timecoincidentmeasurementsofemissions,ambientconcentrations,and `deposition. Monitoring shouldincludedirctstack, ambien, and deposition monitoriantg time. scales sufficient to characterize longterm, seasonal, and diumal variations in PFOA emissions, `vecrotnicceanltrvaatriioantsi,odnesiponsciotnicone,ntarnadtiroensutshpaetnisniofno.rmSfplautxi-adlerpeossoiltuitoinonprsohcoeussledsb,easnudffhiocriieznotntoaladress variations across ky receptor locations, including the Ohio River, the LHWA wel iid, and more distant locations needed fo determine the spatial extenofthe Sit influnce. Air sampling PshFoOulAd lbeeveexltreenpdreedsetnotadtiisvteaoncfeastm(hoosrpihzeonrtiacllbya)cwkhgerroeuntdhlievnefllsueanrceeosefeln.ocTahlissosutrrcaetsegdiicaslslpypehaolrisstsicn:d datasetwill notonly quanifycurrentemissionsandexposure,butwhencoupledwith amass b`aelnavinrcoenmmoednetallinlogadaipnpgrsoeacnhd(esxopeSoesucrteisonas3so.c7i6sbteeldowwi)t,hwhiislteonraicbleemitshseieosntsi.mation of 5 p.62 37.2 Spaially Extensive Surface Water Monitoring A spatially comprehensive synoptic surveyofPFOA concentrations in the Ohio River is needed 10 characterize the spatial extent andsource receptor relationshipsof waterquality impacts from. the Site. Given the small numberofrandomly calected Ohio River water samples that contain detectable levels ofPFOA, a more-targeted sampling campaign should be pursuedtoaddress the extent to which fugitive emissionsofPFOA travel downstreamoftherentry point The. sampling shouldbe done,if possibi,during one day 0 providae snaposfhOhoito River `contamination. Thesamplingday wouldnecessarilybeplannedforatimeperiodwhenactus] releasesaeoccurring atheWashingtonWorksSit.Specificsamplesshouldbeobtained inthe immedite vicinity ofeach ofthe majoroufallsanddowmsream, in linewith the current (as `Opposed0:3transectrunningperpendicular 0thebark),andshouldextenddownstream asfara5 possible, but in any case should include areas known (0 hav drinking water contamination (c & atleast as far downstreamasCrab Creek or ~90 miles). Watesamplesandstendantsample concentrations should be constrcted10yieldquanifsble PFOA concentrations in all surface: watersamples. Afewcreeksandshallowwaterbodies (2,BrinkerRunforLetartLandfill and LeeCreekforDry RunLandflthat flowthroughthe landfilsandsediments in thesecreeks shouldalsobeanalyzed, as thesecreeksarcconduits for PFOAtotheOhioRiver. High concentrationsofPFOA are possible intheecreck waters and sediment. Coincident fish, sedimentand watersamplesaspar ofthesynopticwerqualitysurvey. 37.3 Intensive River Sediment Sampling BottomsedimentsamplesneedtobeobtainedfromtheOhioRiverin areasimmediatlyadjacent to Washingion Works outfls, upstream, and downstream, ss wellssdownstreamofthe andfil sites. Transectsshouldbedesignedto capturetheextentof PFOAcontaminationrelated 0 a specific outfal} end should include differential depth anlysi. A related cedito sample a. sediment rans runnin fromtheSteacrossthe rivertothe LHWA.Thistransectwould be designed to detect the existenceofany scpage zones emanating fromth Riverbank Landfill (RBL) that could potentially have released PFOA that subsequently migratetso the LHWA. (Careful studyanddesign willbe needed 0 determithnee spproprisie depths)ofsediment retrieval along with monitoringofthe water-bearing zones associated with the Riverbank Landiil and Anaerobic Digestion ponds pre andlor post instalmentofanengineered cap system, to thoroughly examin this potenial PFOA transport pay. F 5.63 37.4. GrouPnumdpawndaTratcereTesrts Pumpandracertests areneeded to furtherexplorepossible hydealicconnections between the OhioRiverwatersneartheSiteand groundvwaers onboth ses ofth ive These reneeded 0 support asessments of th pote fo offsite transportscenariosthat may occur withchanges inpumpingoftheRanneyWell, the DuPors-Lubeck WelField, or theEastWellFeld, and Whetherornotpumpingat LHWA inducesany unexpeciedhydraulicconnection betweenthe rounwater asocistedwihtheAnaerobicDigestion pondsandwatersthat eventually enerthe 'LHWA wellfield. Modelinginagreementwithpreviouslyreporteddatafrom the USGSfor the. Parkersburgregion indicates agroundwater divide undertheOhioRiver, whichinferredminimal PFOA transport ofthe WashingtonWorks Site. However,this modeling effort i in eed of furthervalidation,given thevey highPFOA concentrationsobserved nthewells immediatly orthoftheADP (evenafer pondmaterialwas removed)andwhat appears tobeincreasesin PoFnlOyAcoconnctenrtriatbifournsotmi iwtoheenwaystedrebpeoisnigtipounmapneddrounutobffydtohwenLtHheWwAe.sTthselolpaetoefrmdaepyobsietdeduePFtoOA; however, suffcentuncertaintywarnsfutherdatacollection.Optionsinclude monitoring for "PFOA inexistingor new wells on thebankofthe iverandmonioringofwate level `measurementsonbothsidesofthe river todeterminedrawdown iconjunctionwithrecorded ptuhmepLiWnHgAcoandnidtitohnesf.oFrumrehre-rA,DraPcwerre esitnsusnhdoeurltdhbeeruisveerdbteodd.eTfhiensaetpepotuentimalanppdattriahceyrnsbteudtgiweesen shouldsignificantly reducethe uncertainty ssociated with hese poteial groundveter river aterpats. 3.5 Additonal BiologicalMoritorng. a`Tshseersesiesxponseuerdestodvieatebrmiinoe0lctoonccaaelntpropautliaotnisoonfs.PFAlOtAhionugshevheormale-bgiroloowgnicpal mrationaensdd(d0osmueecstucirceaelllyy producedmilk avebeen identified inthe FutureDataNecds Assesmentis recommended that PbFrOeaAstdmailtkasaasmopbleesconldlegctaemdefoanfiamramlpsr(ogdaumce,elno)ca.lTlyhpersoedsutucdeidemsesahto,ulidsbhfecoomnsudrufcatceeiwdnaters, ``conjeunctxiaonnwpdibtihooomansrgkoelruoegstbriimoamtoeensi.toTrhiengsseusrtvdeiyess cofotuhledplootcealntpioaplullyaptoiolnato1boettheerrceonovridrionnamteental medi androutesofexposure quiringsampling andcharacterization,such ashouseholddustof waterdisrbution systems downsireamofcentralizedwaterreatment. " p64 37.6 ImplementationofMultimedia Model to Evaluate PFOA Mass Balance in Nearby Environment A malimedia mass balance modelling approach should be usedtosynthesizeth availble information on PFOA mass flow and PFOA mass inventory. This modelling should incorparate available mechanistic understanodfitnhge transport and behavoifoPFuOrA in all relevant media, and address changes in emissions, anspor, inventoriesandexposure over time. It should be used to test whethtehr available information gives a consistent and sufficiently resolved pictureofPFOA exposure pathays related 0 the facility, andto identify and definefuturedata collection needs. a pes References DuPont. AdsorptionDesorptionof AmmoniumPerfiorooScoii(aOnECcDa10i6)i;Eo..dy Pontde NemoursandCompacy:Wilingion,DE,2003,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency Docket OPPT-2003-0012040. EFSA, 2008. "Opinion oftheScientificPanel onContaminants nthe Foodchainon Perfosoocatane sulfonate (PFS), pecfuoooctonsic acid(PFOA)andthei sls",Th EFSA Joumal 2008)653, p., European FoodSafety Autor, bitpJIu/BwESAeasanlosfal- IiTEG.20TSc381u2 12r1190o201p241e0}. Emmer,EA.etal 2006 Comexpmosureutopnerfsiorocttanoyste: Relationshipsbetween serumconcenatndrexapotsuriesoounrcess. J. Occup.Exp. Med.48,759-770. `Ohio EPA (2008)pa hssdor wTshadvisor 2c 008 shadvisorya _pamhict240 HigginCs:, LubyR,. 2007. SorinofPefuorinaed SurfconStedaimeintss, Envirocni. Technol, 40: 7251-7256, `Scot B.F; SpencerMabury,S.A ; Mui,D.C.G.2006. Polyand erflurinaedCarboxylaes in `North American Precipitation. iron. Sci Technol,40: TI6T-T1T4. Sia, . etal 2009. Canyoverofperflorooctanci acid (PFOA)andperforooctanesuforaic (PFOS)fromsiltoplant. Arch.Environ,Contam.Trico. res,availabeonline). USEPA 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Wasinglon, DC, OfficeofResearchsnd Developmen, EPA/SOUP-IS102 Fab. USFishand WildeService,2004. ites edo fising/POFFish,RiverManagementPla Revised a p.66 Appendix A A Summary ofMarch 23-24, 2009 Public Mecting Parkersburg, West Virginia R1egiAsdtiernesdeAtstoerndees: Michetsmal Peer Joel BCaoknesri;tKaatinoannPKaunreuln(t7hCaPc)hmaelmabmesrLsi:nda Lae; Paul iy; ScottMabury; Michael Mitachian Rosalind `School;Thomas Watson; O`uaPiodnBtoaontdh;CoCnastuhltiaentBsa:rton:AndrewHaren;KathyDavs(URS): Tim Bingham; Steve Washout (Environ) Coaxthy Fetvenbache, Laurence Ubelo, Deborah sherer TRhoebeprutbGlri:ffin, ite HockingWaterAssocation;UndaAller, BenandnWileiamts;Totny Fletcher, London SchofoHyogelne andTropica Medine (C8Science Pane) mp assistants: Gioia Dadowski; Kan hao `Mecaelletd iornderg31:00PM Ma23r,200c9, EhDT. Welcome and Introduction oy Dr Michel Small coDnuaPnodnattnadnEdPinAfaovrematsiiognnaotonrpieesrfolutchreoMocOtaUniicnawchiidcahDdufPsosnlthsas(PcFoOmAm)ittheodugphraovPiFdOeAESPtAewRietlahted Eni"rToisampeeenrtcloAnssaslensisomnenits vPraolgurianmgfotrhtehseiWeaisfhcioqguoalnitWyoarnkdscmoampnlueftaecnuersisnofplsatnutdainedscsonudraocutneddibny aes. DuoPfoPnFOtAanidninseacrobnysuelntvaintrsomfoecnhtaarlacmeerdiiz,epiancsludnidngtcuhrorseentmeeadisaetshatascasniaeaeddwitbhuthae setx,paoosdequanies This data gathering hsbeenconducted trough phasedactivities, known 35 Phase | ad Phase 1, 1 prepo1.re tDeataallAoswseisnsgmreenpto:rtD:uPont Washingon Works, DuPont Corporate Remedision Group, Octobe2r, 08, @ p.67 2. SVcirrgeienniian,gELnevvierloEnxOpcotsoubreerA2s,se2s00s8m.entforDuPontWashingionWorksFacil,Parkersburg,West 3. FutureData Ness Assessment:DuPontWashiagioo Works, DuPontCorporate Remediion "ThespeGcriofuipc,cOhacrogbeequre2s,t2i0o0n8p.osed intheDuPontEPAMOU is: nd"tAhreepcrueseenntcePoFfOPAFOenAviinreoanmveinotnamlernetlaatlemsosddiasoonuarcnedsorfouhndotehceasiisteosnumfeftiacilctelyluendserfsrtoomodthseo tihat paustseedsoonfmigsrartioenscnledvneelxibpaonssuirgse"to PFOA associted wit hatSieaeadequately characierzed and "TahSeeplreoccteasbyorITtPheAPCdPvmiemsboerrsMeilcehcetilolnSwmaasl:lflowing poli nomination procedure sasouncedon `webb.s13itce:abnpdipdfsoonmciencramtebeyddUS(cEloPsAed(o6n),DAuuPguosntt225,),20M0i8c)hell Sm3a),Rlobelrt L. Griffin (1), and sar.aM)emberschosenbasedontheneed10 addresspailstopics nsdand strengthofscenic pr-- 4 Commies cludesmembers noiaiedbyUSEPA (4),DuPont 2) MichellSmall 2),aodRober L Griffin). 1onder todothe valuation, we denied six majo topic reas, raciallybymediaanddiscipline. Foreacharea: i,surfacewatersndsediments,soil sndgrowndvater, bos, mulimedi,aad human `xwpoirnuret;haotnsecoiromnorof tphaenseolmretm.bMeirnsowre(srecaosnsdiagrnye)dsssmiagjaomrnFtesvwieerweaslwshomoahdveefporriecaicphesercetsipoonn.siPbiClPty memberassignsare shownonthe followingpage. Foreachsection,oneoftheead (major) panelistswil eportonthePanel's ndingsinthePreliminary Report. O+v1:e00orf1av:g1e0inWdeaelocdwoym:eandoverviewofpee consultationprocess 120-3 I1210n-12v0 WeolomdebyturoemepcmrbeertsseonfootthfaeUPntSCiEPvPeA 1:30-2:10PresentationbyDuPontonscenicsudies andreports = 2:40-5:22:R1e0-p2o:r4t0sQbuyePstCiPonMsembersonPreliminaryReport ndingsforcachofsix picareas 15 10 mmiinouuteesprqueessrtcionnosns 5225 5:40 Summaryofdiscussionsand lan orseconddayofmeeting. o opmn ove [we[Jw[1] ema -- 1 T=] [Eieoeel {= 11=1] LT [em] -- ans-- B e T p T TT e e-- T bee te asSe Er ttc eb -- e i s eeesrA ---- -- oSnea eemeeoyemeeesrimc sesatgrmsasen Sm . p.69 PEaaulvLiiory,oPaAnnDd.mOeccaupiaiaonla H'eUaMtDhNS)ci--eRnocbeesrtnWaootdJ(oEhOnHsSoI)nMedica School `EExxppeorstuisree:SceiencxeDiavpidsiiono,kEsasvscixrsommeemnetn.taland OcopatonalHestSciences Ist RosA. Sachoolf, PiAD,nDAdBT InEtxepgerratlsC:oenxuploisnugrCesosrepsrssmieonnt, Iar.cululybosvaabiltysaddiarynake ofmeals. Kannan KuunthachalPaLnD,. ReWsaedasrwcohrStchiCeonnttirst,New YorkSte Deparment ofHealth& PSrtofeesUorn,iDvepearromsfeiNntetwyofYEnvoirtoArnlbnaeknaylHeskth and Toxicology Expense:understanding the evircomertal disrbuion ndftoforga polltants StMockihoclMmeUhLnisvcaehsiinet,yPlD. `DDEexppeeurtptyiHsaee:aradotmof,fAepDbpenlpiaietrdtomEevnsitrocnmneednptueSrciimsentcnaece(otTfMoa)rgatn cihemoicnals JoPIreonfeBesasksoerrd,iPhsD.cArispanld iScnieaneys EUxnpievnessietsy otfeWaansdhtirgainsopnorTtafcoomraa polhaansfo viconment PLuirndduae.UnLievce,sPiAtDy, DeEpxpaecrtiimsec:attoefaAngdrornaosmpyor ofcontaminants intheenvironment, primal focusingo oil sndwate, Welcome and introdfuocmtDuiPoonnt ByMrD.avBiodoBtohoetihse:t cxpresedsppreciadon10Dr.Smal,iePCP,aad EPA. (M"oTwhietDouiPngonPrtotgeraam iLcelaed)s,:DcahvyiDdeBvssh(eD(uTteAanmaLleyasdi)s,&CaRtehpioreBiaogr)i,oTni(mAsBPirnoggmraan)(,ExApnodsruerewHate Assesment Lead) odSeve Washburn (ExposureAsesscatConsuls, Environ) p.70 Mr BoothebrieflyprovidedanoverviewoftheMOUprocessthe istry ofthispecjct odrelated foramndsaitefoir hostny. CommoniincluydethseC3aSciedn Pianelc(sphierssoanejl eorg):cenBtnmser Studies--LiteHockingCommunity and .8HealtProjet(seeWVUSchooofMedicine Website). "The missionsofPFOA(romthe WashinglonWorksSthavebensignificantly redeodoverthe period 1999102006. Somelanguagenodstobecai fomtheMOU,tistdyfocus onthe "cure apnredseqncueaoflPeFdOaAtisn0enbveiruosndmennttahlesmeldyi"f.o FtheudesrctrhieptMtiOonhUofaelesxoprsolsuo,rwe.sEuPaAntGiautivie,dsewlne-riqeuunasneiedaifsvoer exposuresessment ndtheSeeingLevlExposeAssssment (SLEA)i sep 1 inphased approach 0focusfueworkonpoteclysgsificantpany. AndonHarmen: Me.Hartingave abieupdatesoot he ics died, quickoverviewofthesamplingprogram, the analyticalprogram, ndbow hedatawerewrasaedaodinrpretdfor ie atheSLEA. Fou sitescoveredbytheDataAssessmentReportincludeth DuPontWashingionWorksSitand ree andl theLeta Landi,DryRaoLand ndtheLocalLandiTheesiswerebrieflyreviewed. Th scope ofthe mulimedisemplin ogra ocades:ambicotisadrofl, waa dsbsee cace oil esd watersupplies;publicwatersupplies;OiRiverwater,sbsufice oiladgroveat heLHWASsite nd andisucacevote andgroundwater), racesoilandgrass:sllmammals nd ih Thousandsofsampleswrecolcedandanalyzedfomthesemeds. Anumberofsiemists analyzedthcollecteddataaodne medhodsdevelopmentwas plementedfo someofthemedi,inchingair sil, grassand biotaa profthe MOUweek.All mesure results (r10e05)vwebiryeaerethviwirdewpeeadydby.pusticpaioglaborunie nd teal byDuPont,while 10%oftedatawere Th sourcesof ROAeaseswerdenied: i sionsandpermite culeisios;ot `SWMUslandfilledmateria singepoint elsesTopeesnce ofPFOAinenvironmen mediva evaluated:mutmdi mpl;i gee,i, inal,scl,and grousnhodwdewreasintgPeFOrA. withdistance fomthe Sic. Thepatbeaysofigraon surnderstood: wiremissionso-ite 0onand of. ieenvironmentalmedi:permed ull isonsose otheObio Riverand tooffic environmental mediaandfilsvi grounodwwaaad tacehart,Suflent wnecstanodddiantog conduct heSUEAadrelevantspielandtemporaldatssays werecaredforwardfo eeinthe Suen Tim Biogman: Me. Bing neoducedhegeneral backgroundod formation bout heScreeningLevelExposure Asessmen. "ThepurposeoftheSLEAis ocharacterizecureshumanexposesand thepotentialforfe expion hsevusnirtyeoftshe Washingion Works Sicand associatedIndl,basedo avaiabledata. "ThegeneralscopeoftheassentwasdefinedbyteMemorandmof Understaoding: qsntive sessof manyeexpnosutrepansy forwhichda ar valle: qulotrsmtiqiuanviteve scant for pathways wheedaa re nokavailable open quantaive cvlunon.The USEPA vidtinesfor exposuressesmen, 1992, specifiedintheMOUandvariotuhesr relevant guidelinoens @ ES -- p71 tehxepoSsLuErAe.sscasndruisk mchareacenrzatton rom USEPA, 1989-2006,providedthe relevantguidance for `There were five man step intheSLEA process 1)Conceptual ExpMoosesDeuvelropmeen denify the:Chemicalsources; exposureoes Transport routes:Exorarepois; ndthe Human (2)ExpAoreasdenutifrictieon: dinntkiinegdwpautbelriscosuervciecse;viasltaitcesdfooredrrindkiangfwoatmertheevramuesdeidadatfom priv: (3)UEsxepodsduarteProoimntCh DoatnaAscsese(smEenPnCt)aRCelpiolrtotieonnnco:mpasseddatafrom the relevant tiemexperpiodof;ocaalsclullruaetleervdaEnPtemCSe,d)iRaMEs (reasonable maximum expoandsMTuES(rmoere stypi)cal (6)Poenial ExposureEstimateCallan: canliceugrlaatteedd REPMCEsawnitdhMhTuEmaenxapcotsiuvrietyepsatismiatoensafodbpohtyhsaidoluolgtiscaalncdhacrhaicltderreinstics; (5) UncersanyEvasion: mDeosnciroirbiendgpodtaetnst;imaolduenlceedrteaxipnoseinceoxpnoistuireoenssifmaoiepsaFtohxwpayhs yacsinwgidtahis, denied pocatiadu gpsfofurtherconsideration Generafindingsofthe SLEA re: ~Calclaionsbasedon onioringdtindicatetht gestion ofunrest dkingwarwas the primaryexposure pathway `colncaenkterastiornosmredsurlitniknignfgromtmeitiinggaetsitoinosnnrdsreexmpeedcitaetdiotnmdeeacsrueraessess resultofdecreases i deinwater. expolsnusrpeecfirfoimc lciomnistuedmpstiounofbcpaooflfuprymcerruso-apnsdlagngadraldroencteaorls.,ipsrwrodsounicenndgmeisvlek cmodoelbieunsgmililnedsdiicntthat magtoinntakiesfotm dueikidng waeter Question session: Or Kurunthachaem: foArmotihleOsbiaoRmivfperoslmcoeloucsdalcfonmtasmianvaatietahbelfeunhaenRedpsoorit?s?Didthe reposconsidertht ignwaters. Andrew Harmen: t`hSeomseudmpaltimngilgohctabieoninfotrhesmoiull,tihcerdeiaa1dotta orfpoarr.eTshtehadraarejfuastrmssh,obwontithtehecDeeafAosrscesssemenntt Reprpoopretrtiise's niemeigdassio1nb.enegoisied.Thesilconcentration nthe SLEAwasadded10anaddons concentrationfrom Or Baker: cWoancsethpeuraollmeoodfefll?oodingandtransportoffinsientto thesurounding arataken nk account he a p.72 AndrewHaren tisnolargelyconsidered.What consideredi thattheduecollected ntheinvestigation idinclude areasthatwereistricalysubject flooding, In edidon, theewere somefodstationsrepresentedin thedatasets,sch152004snd2005.Conclusionscanbedraw bythePCPbasedon heseavailabledata. Or Baker: In Figur4e.1 whichsummarizesaboutvat ds eisionsbetween 1999and2006,what daahave beenshown? Whichlocaions csinched summed dat pointsorctimaes are sedfo achyear? 0 cba the emissionsin cachyear?Howmany DavidBoot: Obviously, wedon't havecontinuousonlinemoss atoutalsorPFOA.So,we didsomecombination ofsamplingfombothwaerscamssndaiesess,longwith usintheoperations systemsdeaforthe work st.Therefore, hisi resultfromsamplingdtsand reported operatingconditionsfomtieto ime. Theseemissionsaefromoumanafctopreriatniogns. Dr. Lee: Were anyof hewastesfrom thework stadspied? DavidBoothe: Sludgematerialfrom thewater eatmentprocesswerelandappliedin landfilsprior 0the905. Oc Mabury. Wastheran otherdisposalactivesast,schas 3deep jectionwel? DavidBoothe: `Specifically, ithrespec10deep injectionwll,therwas0 nection of ayfthsetypesofwastes. Dr McLachlan: The idofTeima's presentation i 0presen informnadtgiatohenr infoonrcurmentaadtpeinonfor tureexposures.However,whatwaspresentedis orth past. Would yousay tht hepote pchvays forthe futureare ls welladdressed? 1thisundersaadingcome? Tin Bingman: "Theword"curent"iapplied th intialphaseoftisassentwhe theconactoftheMOUwas activiant20e04d. TheMOUgoes0 0say tha ferthePhase daacolectn,threwillbea. subscqcateditionof hisdocumentthatwili oc defotheuur stateincontrastotesaetthe time ofMOUsignature, Or Smatt nthe ongoingdetailed exposurehealsues tha werementioned nthecommunity issayoneworking nthe indoorcnvironment,inpaicladust sourceofPFOAot elatedcompounds? Alieoany,of them aeaking samplesof breast milk? p73 DavidBoot: Wedon't knowdeal nformaton bouttes independentsatis a hi oie. Theyhave ll he information shout hisstudy,and theydelve ndingsthroughpublications. Or. Sat: 1sanyoneconsideringanisolopicstudya partof the hydrogeologicalevaontion fofindowtdifferent sourcesofwater nthesqifes? David Boothe: No. Noanc tryin1oconductaniscopicsud. Reportsby PCPMeaubersonPreliiaaryReportfindings Airmonisetd diosperrsioinmodneligng byDr. ThomasWatson "There weresome importantfindings intwomajorapcares: 1. AirMorton: "Thescore PFOAsourcesarinsole characterized.Therewa nosimptmade0verifythe productionfactorsfrom directemissionsmeasurementsdaring iteroftheairmonitoringphases.There Shouldbefurtherexphation ofthemeasurements thawereused 1determinethesefouls4ddataon hevaliofdtheasectluisioonnswith ctlstackmaritorig. an"dThdeistpeermspioonroefanPdFsOpaAtiinatlhreesorluetaisonlolfythe biemaoffnetcitreidbaygewmaissisnisounfsfi.Tcihernte1 ichnoaadceirsizceusheosfitohsenport seasonalityof atmosphericconcetraian ves.Thebehuvioof PFOA ithecnvioamentis Hkely tobe steeamspoenraaltcuyrceldeespoefndsuerofanceddtehpeorsietfioornebaonthrdemnislsinonds0etahseoinmalospheralesoo fpoPsFiObAl,etpahrattitchuelraermyainytbheedailyor sammer.Monitoringshould beconducted nthewieadsummer thedependenceofsmospbeic r`ecsooncleunttiroantiisonal0s socessosnsaatyetomcpaeprtuarteeteexmtpreermesscadebpeencdheanrtadceeprozsdi.onAenmd osutspeownsiitrohndciyiclenls.tigme AWittmhoosuptheericxantspteohresn1tdddyddeopiomssinitionucsasthte bmeescscuurretdelPyFOasAecsedo,onthecefefaercentastoorftnhueesatieamdooeslipnnheesserdc, backgroundlevels 2MassBalance: Mas blanc calculationsned bedoe amany evel. "AThmearsswbaasla0nciesheomupdlbeccohlelcckteddatthheei2g-hmtigkreartdeirvsthdonm3a.6imneteevresl sbovethesurface,Messuementisn tmhoedveelivcaalldadiiomne,nsionaenecessaryfo ulycharacterizethePROA trasportregimeandprovidedat or 3 p.74 depeAnidmenotdnepoisittiowoin.rthMionunimtoagritnigmealrssooslhtoioundbiseceocnedsuacrtyedfoircwaipnuterrianntdshpmateeo5tfhtetmspeearsaotnrse]emperaurs exceanbemchaneteriszed. SuwratefranadSecdimeent by Dr.Seon Mabury mileBscfdroomntthheeWabasshiinignifoonrmWaotiroknspSriotveidsenddilnitkhlyrfephoret,giicvelnePsWShcaotnPtaFmOiAnswtaisont,rhnosupgohrtnodasturefsatc5e0 wmiagtreartsiaomnpalnedsaexrperseuproertteoddfouwrnthsetrredoawmnsoicassciaomnshianRaacoinre,mTihssiloacnkionftahissseepsm.ntofthe entofPFOA J(Oub2i7on,RJiaveeyr1M0o,niantdoOricntgwoabs1ec7r.iNdoionuftormattihosnuwmamseprovixddeudllhoaf 2o0u0t2liwnietdhhsepercatiifoinadlueefssooeflseamcptliinoognf. sOavmepraldlayt,hercawtieorne,6o8wsahmyptlhessianpclluingivatshespSrLeEadAo(tTraavnescftisv1em1o0nt12hsrom2002 aad0405samples nieamrotutealrl0m0an5i),liaocfckwinhngic,ihn 3i9owremraetNioDnoerNGgforuiPFedOoAf.idnaysnoufmawceyek.,rpliavonerwpateersraamivpetlrwfiialosnwosegotn,t,hat itis`Seddififmiecnulttsa0mpalveeswseenesaeoonfcwohllaetcttheedrriovmerawnayteorfctohencsttretboondsimeseanonrsround he Sieakhoughthere (pSWoMUt) ctaehnatrrneunsttftiohemmsaiegvrealrtailoncoonftPamOiAna.tTedhesirteissinncedlfutordhmoisninotlgoriwnagstoefmsaendaigmeemntesntrwomishe Ohio Riverneartheoutfall,upstream nddownstream migration ofPFOA throughsedimentraspor of the Sie, ndth thre andlareas to sss the Sail andGroundwater byDr LindaLee ydiBoalsoegdicoanlthceoninnefcotrimoantsiuonndperronveiadtehdihnetrhievUerSoGtSherLepiotrtesHoamvecionngcseirtnsasrehmoatcwhhdeitmhienritshheerde.aTrhseome. ydrAoLloLgHicWaAl,anoaliysciosntcehntthraatdibonescsnudpopoerisheeisnsfoenrebnlceestnhdaatcmcuepcthaobflet.h PFOApresetslikelyfomwet. e0p8omsuiicohnlfelssleorweextdebnty)panedthrevasrioalbolteanhaetgturroeuiondfwowaetaentrh,eGridveepnentdhaetntcwiesionndsderyedsoipolsicioonr,inhgav(insghough VhaircahbeicocnicesnitroantsioonfsPnOthAecsoonltaanmidnsautbisounrhfaacveepcroonftirlieibutreedl1l0ytnhoetgsruopurnidswiantge.rHconotawmineatthvioneexftsernct,0x clas. Nomassbalewesdo concentinrgraotunidoern, 0se whether isou coldyield suchexteasiveandigh PFOA saWmhpillinegiadcaisnioanlobyfysp2l0ia0ts6 nhaevrtdhreopfpaecditwsoohrodwesrusbosftantaiga aPFtOeAcocmopnacernecdat1io2n0s0o0,tphlea2nt0s06ce of p`Whiceh mutscohthfecathqisuamea.sswasclearly romsrfcedepositionandfeefo miliz othe oisurfaceand. n 5.75 ConFcuertrhirohnesaobfsPerFvOatAiotnhatnhdao"rreessiiddeenncceess uaptwinrde ofteedSdiownwwoinudsouftpheeritchehparvoedHoimgihneanrceof he ai soslelssgrmoeunntdrueaptorrptaaaoyot;ohonwseveenr,witphreivsisoleymnesne., heelshow inFirs SofteData bByiDro. KaKo unmdhchale Fi TheArnegaleers:vAeiWapiosrsiSbolielpaatrhmwayPsrofdourcepCoonsseme1rsP:ELoOc,alnpcrlodicoc;eAl-ecPorondusceumCeonniifsweenisW;eer GraFssigaomfletvielmnahylfusrr,gemouts asad haeas)werecolepeaul Oc2005, owh-isliecwnehnet2refmeirleenrcaedisih.Ssammapllemsawmemraclol(lncaieddoupvsoel)apmafsomcaoimvpaerrissomn,Gcrawsesrseacmopllleescwteedfrocomllheects LFiielHlorfkrionmtghWeetweenAsocaasioolnlesciiedainndOaclolebesrt2s0w0e5wreeNrDem. tdnd moretypical expose(MTE) dceornicveendafiroenxopfo1s4eaapfssndsreesfoonnnaetstem.ara exposure(RME)concern f2.7mg avben ThbaMtIioTnEtaned cRouMlEd berromsteotfnhhspeescieews,a. Mfoorrceacshp,ecrieosmraonmi uitoilkerleopcaeisoanstikvonogfteexipveorsneds b"eTrhesruepctmenetrisonasehnotdesh feory oprkecsosnitveeexpsoignifcicoanePnFrOiAoenxsponsfuirseh.(liveto drinking 2-t 4 0neows aeltsh .thTherocmudreinkcixngpwonrtsmo(drehenLgea 4dit)ee.xTphoerotrr,efoprmoblsehmcsoncsuipdtei:on s Fipc,rmosfis.hwerTheicobeasdedfoomnabniol craewcmerubsolii.aheSeicoenord,rni,1d0-t10sdhnetrhePmFOdAelvalrsntohkan w`wahatmowdeerleemde.sFoirsednigsnioonpieessverdeftyopriacnagl.eTrhsirswoou ls,ti 1p0o-rfitdanitghserpeaxproesusruebsstihsainnwcehe fbi anderations!fins,EPA'exposurefc handbook sugessfishingston vahes of0p 0 17o0uHgguhent.nhebcsosnbsenuemcigpfaimeeidcotanhproosufteheoxopdoscuhariephruas:tbPuot0 iamPeFOiAlesxhpvoebcsenuccrure annaelydzed.iAsnalpysibsaofpsroebucvh asdeer,fokerys,igncifki,caancbe.,pas, quisodbome-ised polyis: FoMpeulainosnemruemaPnvFaOlAulee(v4e0l0ivneasa4en/dnp)o.puBlloioodnasnrdbepsitalmil1k0P0FOdAcigohnerceharnnhsewUeSpgeinnerey cmiolokmlncioeindst.uimoTphtrneieoircnet.nsedfga)paoseexposfuorre ecead eabensfesetdob(ehxspde1iignhluevbelpsoopfuPlFnO;Abtruotugihlrk.est " p.76 bMyDurki.mMeidciahaPlatei,TcLracahaiasnpsoodraDtnr,dJEoxepBoasakreerPathways baTsihc urndeerrsanfdoirngsocfrteehnignogveervneilnsgspreoscemsesenss;hseomudciunaclnuidt:veidesecripntimoanojtformpaiastshwylaoywssiosfoinoggrhageon: maIrndpenaihfwianygsp:aainwdaaybassbiacsebvelaodfofniedrevaasiondatbolnyaofthaepalabuosvieb.le sie compan model pest. One psat"hTuhweayfsrirlshlafptarnwodacaevssengeclitscatouienmosnoi.sdTeprhbeeedrriecssddueoltpwwinesorrneca,ornwshsisietceshnwtaa,nssdugcmgooedsentliesndgebwaiotshfiOcAuhEnidRoeRrMsiOtvaDenrdaivnnagd.rmeasuredin d"Tohecsecuo.nmd,prseoeccetnsiotni6s.su1r4fv,acse.s10cgornowsa4d.w33atd.Th52e.r4e, 5ar0ebassoimceucnodnevrasdtiacntdoirnygsisasepmepnatrseyohean. meFaOosurrtehvmeepntttehshewsbeinyrdoKinfocawsluerefdialgceei.wsPasrlliosnprge:rmfemosudsl,uichmmeoredenwitmsesseesablnoslodasenodc.micsonnereddiecdt;ioinsssbheotuwedecnonmsoiddeelrssanldable Iunenfdoemrxsattaipnodsnionoougnscsshhleoomuuickcadaratldornaeevssss.fctlhiomawen.gaFenusdricthhneerem,ipctaahltoaaunsdsipnircnolvsuepdneetcotsrhyef:oswrihohoeuftdionrwcnoesripzonerdatsehaoiuvvleldrampbrooenvpiordoerciegss40d `Washingion works emissions motoo air ms tih connibugton ofthe sources 1th iver3d seFsusridboerwdscsaearme neexepdoesdur0ev.erythconceptualmodel: (1Resample alvegetation andsoils wit ssaumcpileinng aernosundltaonvdefrlst1rebdeuscesdasnudmeorsspahenrdixpdoespuro:spiatlhoawdaiynsgsnfdomedmoicsusmieonnt cefofnitcoaclysof2c)oEnnthoaln;ced (meeTdrialanscfeaPelFrufOvlrAaoimiaonnggr(roteuosnpudeencwiadatleedlrry.afooid, eespe-cialsygnraooeunidivweartb-earn)kvdsodwonewsntsrtgeraemaemoifnlcflatcialil(4r)ocExstwenindtah bHyuDmranPEaxspLoisuyrsed Dr. RosalindSof int"oTchoenspirdeelriamtiinoanr,ywahsasteswsimelnbtesthhoumadjboerrpaetahswayseomfspoosfisbolmeeebxepnochmaraknsdwmhaedreeafnetthhisempeeotpiungi,oanksisntg sr d"eThmeCiharigehereeqpuoinrte.dWthiesPCthPe0PdCePteirmiynienwghe0tGhoeral0ahnesdwetrsgthaefohllotwineg qu0ebsteiFonl:ads tahevSeLbEeAeIns: Huavmebneenpdresnenite,?sA1tahdevqeursyeboergitnhienPgCPofttoheacrteupolrlty,mahekreethse ditermi0teoxnplwahet0hetrhelrleatdeedruhsesappse andAnicmtahteisomnoorfctohemSmLeEnAsi:odcesrntdairnepoarnt.alysis shouldbedone fox cachphy,andthtwil cite ehxeporsuerevo1afilhheeePCewPh.caEixocnesp, fmoosdtrifnktihnegdewetearn,dwheisctihmhataesaelpiraebsleenotteadbs5spearorofsnmautnicngelrociayl n p77 dSotcyasimsc,rWhaiolneoafwmhctwrasdoan isii ncnnchacplrdoants,pasts,rstnbdehporwotcheeesdbyeinwheorreoutohd1 cboilblisdcemdssfeorrvehe ebyeeidfoxrpmaorysf.hUesnpoulseeorcesrmilsenco5mwplcealldfocrytachh,wcasin. DayOneMetogadjouarSnHePMd. DayTooMeeiogearedat 5:45AM,March24,2009 Dr.Salbrieyihne grenot dforoiscceindg. ExplaonfMaectnorianodunmof UnderstandingMOU) byCay Fersbacher Sometersneds oblife. he"pEoxtpeons f1o0rfPFrOeAAexspooscuireesd rWoimthTehperSesiac"eofePdFOiAnhineEChnavrigec,meeeisl1Micaao8psourosf nd Cuca etManofcawiogActivist hei, dost nclde nse ofexposes ht mayhavecared eps. pre~seAnscieiisnlEendvwiictnhmTehnailce"iaseofedPFnOAheonC1hdgo,ffinhclodetsesreyscionnftocnvCiucorrtnoalPaltst o MaanctascuithntgmaAyctaivveeeshe dit.i"CcuoeenprPesaetnceioouffPaFcOuAiningAenvcirtonime"ntaalmheditebrhlronsald.off hesit withoutrege 0diacefromsete, nelding up med 0waidisposeactivesdt occurredoft,such 5 andi hatrecivedmtr fo thesie ndsplctionmatrils oermiisigoinsntFhaotmyesaivedoefpsosiedroefstehnetsic,lexeceepetihvai"nCwuartteomrePraitManrfoamcthreiingcA0cteis"does roencompasscommercialpdsimutcred ssi nddedincom. otEa,viasntowetr,wmaostdsae1a5sw,edaiotle,Chaarye,se,rwattoedicshrathrcseswsadt,ofprdoigno eo,fsled.is, Mordened xpanionof re 5canbefound he MOU. Suomf Repoos inonbaySecytion bHuymaSnaEbxopotsBuxre iy Or.ASichsoots:tage,me nc aly, otolctiog rede,intheSLEAmightmaketereport mOrreiseuf:fcintforthe PCP oui ioe tsas av sn le. u p.78 Maredata.especiallysite posficduaarncded 0improvetheScreeningLevel ExposureAssessment (SLEA). `example, Cofmothme nexetrounnditthat:analysisshoudbedon moredaa boutbi-aceumshuouldbsectolliecotend. fromth backend goingforward oc QuestriomoDrn. Smal: `Shouldwediscusshowthe on-goingheathexposurestudiesin hecommunity intweitrhofurastcudey? Oc tioy: es.More dat wre awaysbeer. Blots byDr. Kurunthachalam, bi"oTlhogeirceaal cdesnpsiutfeihceenftocdthtafoirtohse cbainolboegiacnailmmpeodritsanatvpaaitlahbwea;yofloyr <h2u%moafnetxhpeotsuoraesfao mPpFlOeAs.rMeo.redata needtobecollefcortbieodta.Someofthesub-populationsa otaddressedpreety,such a fasts. Breast milkmonitoring nthelocalpopulation ceded10ssessPFOAexposes i nfs Question fomDr.Smal tems ofpriorwihataeithezthareetmositoimponrta,nt biogil media? Dr. Kurhachaln: btiitssbeenlciovmepdashastasowimdeebviaortiaemtayoyfsoatmpplreosvid(eplaamnsi,mfporrtapnrtopduactds,aanfiomraPlFsOfiAs,emxiploskureeci)nbtuwmilalnbse. eSilncle 1e0naanballeylziemaifnswtosnaompflheossfeobrtiohtoassepbeicioeassaa5mp3lpeasdthhweetyorfeebxeplosiuvreed.soFtoreprexsenat gmmaamjepoarpnliamatelhsay,etiswil `assumed1 beainsignificantou ofPROAexpos PFOA). However, tinotposible ruleout his a considering thelesserbioaccumulationpotentialof possibleou ofexposarswithoutsome pornltihmeiKonaoywdlaetdag.eOovfePrFOAibtwoiulodbaeecfeccinvued1mp0roudxeilmnitayypttaotshiowuaroycsesn)h,ptroarvidoffssoemtedsiagnaiffoircatnhcoe(sbemaseeddi 1masdupefpoorrtihfeeheypnotshpeecsiiessaonfdeilsihmi1nasteesthsatex5pospuartehswianyangrloemrs.STLhEeApcroonsciedsersahtoiuon.bEeffiomrptlsesmoenutkedbsecp by sepfo effectiveand een seof sures. Maldmedia byDr.McLachalndaDrn. Baker surTfhaicsessoiul wmasmitasiaerlldiyeadnwdirtehptoyhretesdesrddyth'isswodirskcusisscioonn.siTdheertedrsuaffincoisfenPftFfeoOrArasfeeonllsleeovcelmwisiionnsgto isnesthsemOehnito.RAilvtehrosuagvhaiilnblfeo,nromeofafnotrPtiFwOoaAns. meadmeioassse0sitheowOhnehtishoeRrihvies i3n3fwoerlmaltaisoPnvFsOsAinceornaclelnyrtions `consistent. Noempirical evidencewas tified 1supportthunderstadingon PFOA transport rom s p.79 sauprpfraocpeesnoeillyto rdeoifniedd a8afnutdurpodmoetsaanreemdennttshehraevpeobrotsc.adoneonpathwaysleading fo fod.Thisis QuestionfromDr.Small: P1F5O:A3?muWlhiamtedi itahmobdeesltwiangyf1r0amdoetwhormkaasvsabiaalbalnetceatinc8anmhualntdilmeedcihaommoidcells?withproperiessimila 0 Or. MeLachian: efoArmodseinlgttihasnmdoledteilbsepcraoubsleesnoimseacvoimlpboine.nBtustsiotmheedmaotdaecollaleectrieoanlsydbarpireerpsar.Aatnidonthnieseidss8tomblekidomneed.ia model, otaackin anemedium 1 ime Solland grouadmater byDr.Lee fomAdtdhieoponnlddsatanasdcsosnctaimnienwaittedhlpaoyteresatianlocronnteasmtihneatvitoen-obfegarroiunngdownteessuonddmeigtrhaetifoonrmfeorolnsdfeilss rre s wiallaarveagawieln2sesoemcearppsoyestsmtdoenmi.tAodrdiintgioofntshseReisvsemrebanntkL1an0dwfhielthaenrdAonaneortobuirceDpiigoegstaioLnpWoAndsfsh. a cpaounsdisnigsssoumgeeusineedxpuescwteeld.hyFudrtrhiercdceonanelctrieonpbreovtiwdeeednbtehleowweforrtuhnedWeatsyihoigntghteoAnWnoorckrsotiSciD,igtehsetiLoWn HA sic, andtheLocal,DryRun, andLeta Landis. QuestionfromDr.Small 15 thereanying isotopic thatcanbedone (0 lumina whtwateiscomingfrom where? Dr.Lee anFaliyssisgweotuilndgsboemneeesdeeddiamnendtbsenaemfpilceiaslcocualnbdoedfeftreramkitnoefdi.nsights.Fromthee,whether scopic. Sewratefr anadsecdimeent Dr.Mabary thAedOduittfilolna0l5s;amoprlirnegaswoanssucnarkrioedwonutthsetotwuodlatesselifweacshootfa2p0p0a4re1nntldy2s0a0m5,pledheonOhthioosReidvayesra.Ntesanrptehear 1ouc0ttfhaeollo,uitna.llc,1wai0esssi2ap0nmatpilfntergodmotnurhtt1eheb9aa3isv0kte,r0PFifOoAmocotnhcneebnatnsrka"t.iotnsswuekrnegoewnerwalhlaytbtehtewsepeencif1aicrdan&speptb,wrietlhaive suOmvmaerry,,tihveerrewwaetre s6amspalmipnlgewssinc0ludtedeinitnhse,SLaEnAd,Joafckwihnigch 3i9nwfoerrmeatNioDnorergNarQdifnogrtPiFmOeAo.fdienyor week.plantoperation,riverflowec,tht i ict10have asecofwhat he verwrote 7% p.80 Funhermor, sedimentalysisisiporantfor hessessoes ofpathwaysof grationofPFOAfrom hesieandtheandl.Sediments we aso importantpabwaysofexpose shandbicrgaiss. Humanexposure 0sedimentca cca a rescoincidentalingestionsndermalsborpin. Questionfrom Dr. Saal: "Threaea amberofmeasurementshacouldbemadeforcompoundstatwerelated10PFOA. Can {hesemesurmentsbesed to ake nferencssho calPFOA v. global PFOA,sadshortPFeOrA ---- Or Mabon: ismoredifficultin is itv;ove cannotsimplymakesuchan nfcence. Nonetheless,methods developmentsunderwey for hisype of evaluation, andforelated compoundstat anreadily be antyze,suchanalyssshouldbe mde. nr Or. Wason: "Themassbalancecalla sexvremely pons.Themondoringodmodelingcana besessod thre snotsomeamp 10 ee he eleasedmeri canbeaccountedfoin he environment. Modeled12dmesuremass banc caution re eos 10acountfor lemissionsadvaldte he monioring, mod1deexlposuiresnessgmen,t. Ae mrioringwthdismal ie eslton isnecssry toerminedallyemperor dependent cpostionand detectdostionsnd roispension yc.Wier ndsumersiesampling necessary10 tine the mpersturedependenceofdepositionsnd angpontproseses. Wrapup byDr.Soa Folloingfurtherdiscussionsndplc puttis octin, he porwillbe dif,evenly Teading10 Fea RorofthePCP (asiipiedposing onwbsitefor ine publiccomme byMay 15, 2009,withfieep sub0dUS EPAbyJoy 10,2009), Tha yofospau sicipalting! Meeting Adjourn11eAdM, n p81 A2 Public Comments "The following public comments were received during the courseofthe Peer Consultation Panel review: 1. Comments ofRobert L. Griffin, General Manager, Lice Hocking Water Association, nc, submitted March 30, 2009. 2. CommentsofRobert L. Griffin, General Manager, ite Hocking Water Association, Trc., submited June 30,200. n p.82 1. CommoefRnobtertsL.Griffin,General Manager,Lite Hocking WaterAssociation, Ine, submitted March 30, 2009. = LITTLE HOCKING WATER = ASSOCIATION, INC. --wil ne ncn, aicanockiogaoney sas `March30,2000 DluoPDorn.MiPcAhelPlFSOmAaPle,eIrCnondsuelapteioTnnhiPdanePealnrtty Adminiaraioe DPeopanrmTeanlto1f19C,iFvrilew&SiErnveisronmental Engineering CFiasmbeagrigeh,MePlAon1U5n2i1v3ersity Re: CommentsonMarch 16, 2009PreliminaryReportofth PearConaihationPact PeaOrr Smal OConmrbeeahanplsfooofnthteheLPieneerCHoocmkuilnagiWoantePraAnseslosc(atPiCoPn(3LMHarWcAh")1,0, 20am09wrPirteilniginasrybRepiort iPhWCeegarrpeaaultnylesyieatppsprrdeeiscsecimoavteeedr.tehWdesePiOgsnPhicsfieecfafhoerBstrsiaeandrinionnsisiagomhnftdt.eoDhmueinrPeisTsni.gotnhsWeiecutahlreoSesoahfactrehoelheoecrOeepdviitieaowdn OCFotnhceuPsiCoTns"0) tahttedsiignntifhiecRaenptloyretxsp"anSdudmayaocfoWKeecyiPoenismnidnaarnyrFyisnsdpirnoggsraanmdis Seed With (hi inmind,thesecomements 1) p"roevlirdeoftcl(y1r"eleaviantthi1s0mtohmeeRnetp"o)rtthsecdoancmhiucsiaotn tchxipsodsriirenkpiantghwwaatye.Isnot 2) sceptpotnoacnodppernodvdiedenaucserdeuevacsotlltooctthioenReefpoernt'byrehcoamimsnenodracuiboentrfhotcDruiPnoinetd Cheminiaddcitiaontlo PsFO,A. 3)supporsthesamplingrecommendationsofferedbythePCP thatwilh Gaiagaps: 4 provicewiggestonswahrespecttoDuPont'sgroundwaisflowmodel and. 5) prhoivcihdmeafyofrmoateionnsaibgohustispteoctihfeicsoduisrpcoessso)sfittehsenoPsFaOdAdcroenstsaemdiinnatthieonR.eper. HeWndAedtcoobmmoenctsocomveprthremearjopirdeiessnouefsatnheoitReevdpioneoruttreviewofthe Repor:seda5aot p83 Drinkingwaterasthe dominantexposure peskrosy dWeespberleitehveectuhraenrtigkriangmwsataectrirveamtaeidcnastrbhonpoftlekinteilolny(dGomAinCe)nsoefxpLoEsWuAr'epsawiawteeryprio 1Rt5peopauorsrteticWuthaltaeernsytpdhriaostcbu{lsebsmiaentgiotcnhaecnrhdeiacoiouvnledtihbmeetpmdoiirsntlieaacndogiownfga.itbfeecfiasruteshne tedxhaptioasiutcrneutpraerxnpyyonso.teptthRheeAVEY chaase Thisopinion.whilecurrentlyaccurateforLHWA.sppears 0bo oversimplified in 4 tuhLnedrearesaecsaiesaniLhgl.nevim.fe.in1cta.angDtdruerPnoamntetntdtheartNeDaucPheeodoimtnwtaiholnedrWCuyoetmsropaVdiinsseycg,oimitaicnluuestheacGtiAoCnfiwrnatti,on aBPreRcsOacAuisIenentotiff,ticheanhdimgehdPicFaOAulnecveelrsaionitesebcloonodnoefdmwainthydLriWnkAinmgvemebserwsi,thhaerrey GotAheCrpGeiflirautoiroinndaotcesdncohtemriecamlosv,esaullchpeascfPuoFrBiAmt(eCd4c),hepmuisctahlrso,uWgehuGnACdesyrsstieatmnha,dt and, d. DdeestpeicttfeotersPtFsOshAo.wdeitnegcttahbaltteheevGelACofplPaFntOiAspwreordeucoiungnfdiinisvhareidowues iparntihaoifs onwnLoaHtdWrAs'eyssttdeimsisrennitbehucetdsieottnossbyyesesectmhdesem.cfkeidr10GvAeCroiptoytrhasaitoPnFsOboAgaannd.rLesHtWedAcahenmdioctahlesarre Testingforotherpefluoricnhesmticealds omtehmebrepresrI.fnlauTodhrdiencoahtneemdi1cchPaelFmsOiAdcea.tlesscatimnepdLlieHnsWcalAku'deseNwbgeyhlLefriWcehdAaiahnncadhveienmctiohcnabfllisor(omadegod.ftChL9e.pWCre1As0e,nc1eondf ``oCcx1oe)mdm.iwathbmioecvnhet.wtdoeemsupanidkteeerLssuHtrWanAod't1h0sebepepervifehounom1roirnreacetedendatcnyhgeeeamrrsoi,ucsDaul0sPaohveutbmheaisnnhgneroaekmmhoatvdheeedsbPyFtOhAe.GAAsC anpeallalenvytasnetLsbcHheWemeAixscpraalonsndcgeolduyltosduipnapcvolerubtdseetethheneRceoap-noatrmtya'ilseyszre.edcWoaetmmnfeondcdaottthieoorRnieadpndoisrte'icsoincoaonlmom2fe.fne7trh"he(a0btoetbuerer aaccccuurraatteelaynidsininshgaumhcobnettrwaesetntopDeurPloonrirn'astheidstcohreimcsitcaatlesmentstat testscould not 2 pos Datagaps Tao8tdheessgreuattaegsategxetaennddpeofsisciibelnec,iweesrfeoquunedswtihthsthteh PrCePvifeowremdudloactuesmpeencitfsi1cadcti1onbteems 10 tihnhcoeloMuiOdaeUgd rnthetephoneriPthesaudsndeeTrlcscowoporereaskanadebdmraesmap.dlTtihhfiiosefswtithlheleeadciiesscttuasbsroiydohdntsahietstaUh.neSd.raeEncaPelnAytsPaemCs.dFDmAureebevtoiirenwgof ture dotanedsrelatingtoPFOAmigrationtotheLHWAweliicldinclode: b`#oyW)fatssahhaePimfnCpogPlrtimmoneengmrWoAbofnerarske,drsiaofmbutericaafcntiDstiieygc_net(fsbAioesomwOnhatPihsooemnRLdivseHe(Wrn,AADiFntw)cedolhiulisrfnitogenh,gednDstush0ePetsohPuenCdggtPfeosctaetdon cdeolnitbaeiranthiiognhse,rcthoenccoeanrtrsaetrioancstoiofn oPfFOsAeddiomsenotthsencohtaraancitcepraotfetdhteo rcoonmtaominnlayntt.eThineerre-kgcreai,ntehdepsoatmipolneosfwtohuelsdedbiemcoelnltesc.tedprimarily diec)pckoose(i3c0otdnoitpohnaeorfypdp;rroapordisweeltodceaptoisointiso)n sboeleersdeifibnee tLheWairAanwdl s` c)iesnatilflu iacoatollidyonndl toefhfeOenhvsiiil cboilRneiitvmyeoerfwptehereirLoadHsrWnpAddawe.esbilognteheddlodtowcncosvltlercuetsaetdmewoiftmhaijno4r cocoeontrntobteyslroacdkosmailngrdadetaimodsni).n1ciomopulredreiverr ssetttingathnhettdtisihe nPCgP `dwiraenctteido1n0,anadke"ipooleacfcfoeucntt"tohnerfifvoectrsfloofwsbargemaf.flooding. wind it4nh)atchoolnLseisPtiCeoPnHmoocefkmsibmnepgriWpeaostsetfrarsoAimsestdohwseiaseskiyothn201s0nu6dbstuhretfhWaeacsesaskpoiuogfritchoeenoWfsaPouriOkfiAst Plan, oorf)dceoPlrFolOteoAcc)tvivpeolnrusosupsfeshrAieiscasteonnrtsfagucnrcodstnacuceremuneprt)lrr.eeatsnifoornarsnP(sFprOoorAraintsodoDdnueepPtooisnnitgtiemornoe(opifonesictntug3riMen S ofPO mami o " mJeoomgniiisctsloilroynisnirgse.oducotmricdohenursdetfosradoemmfpilnitehnegaWnadrsockmivnlgguraoaouenndWhwoearetfekfrsepcl0tvastoi,nwsPhiFecOhlAewsohuilndg 41dconcomitantreducionsofPFOAinmonitoringwells nthe quite 5 p85 8n)dpperrefsoernmcaenicneeonfvmaisrsobanlmagecmnsetdtioaaml.ore closelyalignemissions. mfbio)evlepdtemroefqnoutramnoatfnicFfeyFmoOofAvxetsmhureofnutcgoehtfihnwfeaitkoerlrasstihworniosuhtguhtdhsyuirnfnaftclhelersLoaisHlosWn,aAowde(l0l further quantify the timefor PFOA to be flushed from the fuuntsahteurraetfeodzeotnheeetshtriomuaghtetphreeasqcuoitfeedra.t(TthhiescPoCuPlmdebeteiunsgeodftoeven `monthsto remove one-halfthePFOA concentration fromthe first 2.5 omofsurfacesoil -toseeifthePFOAlevels sooninthe groundwaterare supportedby the depositionrate -andtoestimate PFOAremoval rates fromthewellfield), wfre)olpmoG srufrofraie mcsaenlrocucd enaootffefd1s_a0TtshhwiessasalulmuevsniatloasfqutihsefeheorouimksnrdwihrbseiacciohogmnntihzoeefeLtPhHaEnWtOuAAntofl fi rommthepbseo odurroccrekohit flclosa asturrin rbouutnt idoninogftPheFaOtAfutvoiabloatqhutihfeeramquaiyfbereaannd. A EiverbaokLandi Seale. sof sols innidentisfeeipaagebzol0ees ofjustabovethe OhioRiverlevelwouldbecollectedandanalyzed `1o0tashseeOstsipootReintviearl migrationofPFOAfromthe RiverbankLandfill SoAusrncoetesd)ionftthheePrPeFlOimAininatrhyeReLpIorWtAanwdedliscueslsdeadrdeunroitnfgultlhyeuPnCdePrdsetloiobde.raTtihoensL,tWheA m`siupgpaorttostnhoefobPjFeOctAivaeasdorfetsheiPdCcPhtemoigcaatlh.erfurtherdata 10understandpathwaysof Gronibeater modeling eIvnailtusadtiisncguscsoinotnasmtihneaPnCtfPartescaongdnitzreandstphorattimnodtehleeinngviirsoomneenmte.thHodoolowgyuestehvfeuPleCiPnral,so recognizedthatmodelingmustbevalidsted andresultsverifiedinorder10be scientificallydefensible. Forexample.thePCPrecognizedtheneedtocollect for thegroundvaodce spmeocdieflicaSlilmyildaersliyg,newdearnedcdoimstmreinbudttehdastatmhpelePsCtPoepmrpolvoiydecnoemcperseshaernyvsailviedavtailoindaotfiotnhceraitierria i e. tt `Suchvalidationwillrequirethecollection ofadditions!data. fi infiltration ` p86 fuomrbtheercoalfiwberaltelotghntrheobaunknodftwhfelaiowvtmeoed(earclh.udSiog ua2nsetcuwpdyuwhmiplilnrgweelq)sunsuidffirsciielenlting woefltlheOthhieoORhiivoeRritvo deerteTrhmeisneddryawwoduolwdnr.eqPuuimrepwiantgecrolnedvietlimonesa(sbuortehmseindtessoofnbhoetOh soides Rtihveearq)uisfheoruulnddbeertvehreifOiehdiaoRnidvaesrctoonesvtaalnutat3epotsrsiigbrlae.pTbeisctvahroiaetsisonhsouor lbceiknthsetreaofl)ilonefdo sthuedideespsohsiotusladnbde(u0seevdatloupaterwhfeotrhvearlihdeartieoinsdoenwtahteeprrinegseunncdeeasnhdepoisviteiobneodf.tThheegsreo:und wmaotdeerlflowdivideunder theOhioRiverthat waspostultedintegrousdwaterflow Hpoawtehvweayrs,amnoddesloiunrgcecsaonfncootnrteapmliancaetiomno.recomplete understandingofsubsurfice DuPont'sundergroundinjection wellsandoffi disposalsites thneaPnCePfforretqu0ebstetchoamstphreehfeonlsliovweiingnpoitdeennttiifailcastoiuonrcoefsosofurPcFeOsAabndepeavialwuaaytsed. swnod eaistkthheart liminedoraddreseedinthereports subenciedunde theMOU: m2akUnedeirclgeraorutnhdtitnweostiinocnwteiolnwaetltlhsewWearsehuisnegdtboynWDourPkosnPtlfaot, Pquuibdlwiacrsetceords. idnijsepcotsiaolnacnodultdhptosthees8pwoteelntiaarlernooulnodn-gweasiicnssecrovnictea.mCinoatnainosdnimidtgrhaettsirbosniurnfagce ppoatetnhtwiaaylnsootuarcded,retsyspeesdainndhveorleupomretsso,fwa8smteidnisiposstehde,irmeepotritosnhopurledsdsuirsecsu,dsestphteh oofverwperlesasudriczatoionmandporlweelltieoignfntocro/mnactoieornnptsafteormsarhaylhulaovwiemirgoersaaltneisoaninand. ubn_ dWearssttaendditshpaotsaalfsactielitoy nnboowtkhnsoidwensoafsthheeLOihtoeRHiocvk.iFngoSrerevxicaemCpolnwetee,r faacccielpittyeadtexCtriuderdicesOlh(icoeofntovaiininincgilnPerFlaOtiAeo)n fTrhoimsthaecDuyPoinrtmeaspufoarct4tureDiuodPgloayt oapmeriantiiomnuamn,diicscbioscitoendsasphproouxlidmbaiecelvyoanieusmtidlferwoemst(hoifsftahceilLiHtyWAAwellfield At `comprehensivesurveyofsuch aciliesnodsIobecompleted. Wcoellhecatveedb,aesewneloloaksi.ntgefoirnwdaerpdetnodth colloction,submission,andanalysisof hodata review thatths PCPisnowundertaking. iAnttJhuneeoisft2E0n0f3o,rLceHaWblAeCsounbsmietntteAdgcroemsmmeenntts(aEoCdAa"s)kpeudbtlhiecUm.eSe.tEiPngAi,n"WPalesshsicnggigvoenuDs.C dataandinformationthtwecan haveconfidence =. TheLHWAacivelyparticipsicd DiumPthoensEaCnAdptrhoecUe.sSs.unEiiPlAtihneMNeomovreanmdb2u0em0or5f.USnidnecrsottahantdimnge(w"MoOhUa"ve)cwlaossesliygfnoeldlboywed theMOUprocess."We spprecisicthePCPsindependentevalustonofthedatacontained pT h inthera ePpoCrtPst sghenyeh rnaetsed.in the MOUandarchappytoprovideany additionalinformation SLIcTaTtL.EHOCKING WATERASSOCIATION.INC ea = GeRnoebrearlLtMaGnriafgfienr,PE . ne t2e.Cbornoferoiebs0e,r2d0.0f, iredWimp, Hocking WotAsin, 3 : ;=1 ERA a a LITTLE HOCKING WATER ASSOCIATION, INC. S cn A a-- TA ie rT trannmap PorterHall 119. FrewStrees Fagin bPoe Com508mokeprncCon er CE Eobr ro R ALRtes t E Ei T ae rrt ti botEs M SCE FEt bEt t RteTe R t A deers eiests NIH R mo Stes S mmC-- 5 SR ekt tthk eOnn - p89 4 pTl1Hac-eMdoD4psp-opsastle8 tqPhEuoOouAgd"hdvtaheesvhaelvfersohmwee ionrchTeWs 10152D)fsosdt wrheo nce ie, ri osthemc, fAollpowsp3$15e,.38Tn,l25ie,493n), 18, 11,59,14.11, 16.04 6.5 cheer RwIenhpseotirhtner(oSe.ctoLitoWn hAe1go2fof1enrhnsaiefmcewcnmoamcmmeandteecnhrcibnetd ibhehtsoecp.otOnbnpssageeei3n2xoolffahec DSIotebsbaGiyeeoogcarx sSsioodmeovsnwt(aiUrdSsGpSwiptdaorn(o3fo0gg0r4ro3we0sr8) tehiotmoemmtaerOnes iSvCacolyeeda! RoSohaowuttshresv.UecSnGnSislgasd.rcaPonemdrfciiroeaedutarhterhLeeaiH.WcApavpaotflPka)rckvleas,dWes DuePonVtec 'sgB1oolml HobcVawtaAeedr ThCoelmoLpclSacSlacceodgnuodatiooincsonnfteohueinHifnWcg lAcywomesoaidcellhi.1tThtethecoumprbiiunigowcoecnocndreoessrotythceia of 0oOiieRirveor m4asimsoofdocksanddr. Com osaear ryScs ns LHWAspon theReport's recoramendaian thtpup nd cerss hedbe chareriWeidsokuoltgoiofanrWtoherrkesxpSliorsehoyddrrauoluicncdonenresctoimobnsobtehtcweeenotfhehOehOihoiRivReirvwea:lersnear om OrCnceeaocgicnmwnesempfnorrtedeheeuhhmiaeePoCiolPnwsoisrrnkdpepiIeannftdedePnottCsnPoetaimbeeasnyoafshntoeomdna,cshoodtothre SUIiTTcLaE HOCWATKERAISSOCNIATIGON, INC. REoLLbGrLieff.L nPE t Gone inte " : wes 200 ITEEorsaoLteoseorsron,s a Fe EEERi, en e Cmeoeey ooEvEerss Eoci rio bcley ---- RE:_EPA-DuPootMemorandumof Understanding RuRiseiig oRMnmaechm1,yi2c0aogottmoetv$e noDaApernishdte EhPASBoiDsureopsiM PeeocStJstee ritootfpfUUdrrn b eisyisonet m4(0d40B0)e) ip ns oes tmf ceomnpn et oitwcetya 7tt me, gDpoAienndtdop,rsteBba seApproep omosgffpapuse gifog2 S i E amoT ao metrebs rh273 pbcrng improveaccuracy,andthat DuPontbelievescanbeaddressedprior totheMarch23%-24%`publicmeeting, S 270eS ae 1 m10 setfoelyskootistMeCE,f.tmeDetTitLeuwpisllegtorwteereieA eioSrepnms mdecosrmn0: ot ---- . coenin lf Sesthaci) oiis o [-- pot DuPPorenitmCilarsirycaPtainotnRseopnorStcdiaotnesd 3M.a1.r2c1h 416,,30(0A9l) 1. P"aTgheer1e2.wSaesc0tdii3r.oe1cn.t2SmoounrictoerCihaagraofctaetrmiozsapthieornic emissions duringmonitoragstudies" wmWoahnsiitnoortlehedpterrreofvuoiegrwmheerdiniddsiutrreeiccnhtgnmieccsaalhclohydoscf.omTtehheterbitanhsetissdi{amoyrusliaolnfuaclioaurtliynmgoaneomcciisntiegos,ntisnfegmooifsiihornJess3wsearcsespcboansinnueioeudsosye Scraaecmrhosvwperidobchcytshsietfsnar.muobuLbnoitnsogfsyAtPosFtOe.ursTeadheefSocailpiobrrdaaatccektdsitosrneoauongfhdAaiPcecFoOsubntmyserfaeucrroredomiesnngets.1twVyaatplredoadtunocdnttihoofendsaemnmbbfueor Yamllolunieictsionarciryncguifsospvdreerissfssituehdreewb,iathseimpprfeororatcsusaraecbkalsnthedisntlignowgpIenrrtsseicoc1noscr)otnardanunecgetwseidtahGneudppnlgaettiaerySnrateq.ueSitevvmae.rrseaPafnrcadmiehntercisyc Sdeumorpuiennrdgaatnnuodrrmiaamldataepfleloaywt,itonenirigosacucgkoesns.ianruTfoaiunn.sypyolfadcteehm1s0oer4hpsiattreatmdheetvepirresoapdruyocvsteosoneteoafdnsopwncr. ucDatmuiosen,twnah:imtopcetaoenrsn,sg vientssru.chenoutrdloynpersohdoutwcetidoosncdreutbabweersrwecroellaepcetreadi1ngewviatlhuiantpeheiafcmatoonoufanAndPtFthOt ausfeideincn8ywveesSnobnosivseenn 2. Page 13. Section 3.1.3, Table 1 Cheoarbleebemliows: oBfedcatucsieoLnOD(LaOnDd).an0Qlviamliutseosfweqrueaen-idttieonnm(iLnOedG)orforecPhhassaem2plsianmgplbaitncgh.aersehouoixn aOSsiVimSnpgialcneidyL,VOnDSeanambdeltLehoObdesQl.ofworsehaocwhs mheethloowde,sbtuLtOaDr3an7g6eLofOQvsaleubeesvoveedruthre entihreesseampplingppoesreioddf.o For iC Sampler|| NNooe wrnntael,|| vAoplpurmees,imate | vAoplpumeeo.amt'e|| LApeOrrDl,uobn!eg|| ApLrOraQ,lyueneag||| sCLaOamDepl,uiinge.d||| CsLa0moGp,leindg or Feo fraction | fraction | ng/m' ng/m' CCvNs Ti m Jiees TS ier Joos r Toz toE pos res_e--r] 3. "PCaognege14n,teSuetctiioonns3s.1e.i3n, pinarHaVgrSapahm3ples ranged from momdetet es tha the LOD of 4x10" gm", t0 75.9ngm >." C7onc0ennaoinoenisstevnailnuesHrVeSpsaarimcp.lesNoanre-rdeptoerttedweinrTlabyler5e.p3oroftetdhefDorutOVASssiebsssme(nTturneepo3r.t3.) wThherae sOanmlpylHedVSscubostnancteianlliyrletssiwoiaienr waenedd tthoersefsorse ehxadpoans.associated LOQ of `approximately 0.3 ng/m'. x razors 4 "TP1T3aShgdCeeur1mr4aeaSsenevmteonhatnatc3a.och1ne3a,emmpiaarrtnmaoegn0racp1ch4on1snnadtPapotasireoasngrwwaaapsths1 che mpi whe th collected o October 11 30d wadswrecomin fro 3 iretion where erwes 2 ows FROAsource nt panes. T1hol0becuoimrgplheetw,haenhdnwoidnwdtsbweoenendochmteeilevressd:ricotenotcnf,sshomwneylmeoeew.otseSehrslyusabltfei7ld0o.n Ceoncenrtratiooifnms maeaegsareeda(ttHherbfyeneceolianc ra1n0g5e0d. from9 to 76 ng/m?. Thesevaluesarewithin the << :: . eh e npe atss tn 1 ins . : FBE itt eoSnaabet Tr omboet" p pb mHECoHo FF E e. E MomEe Spe e e r e m A amos --7 tencelne. 5. "PiaLrgieemImiSn,iSgmsaessuec3rr.1et.s3,fi paora.okgfrlansph1bs2ecnouhte fsraAc adweitihinl2eidlers roaifho the Know eehleePdwhassere2eeWstoikde.PlaAonmveanssoront srchonfgdehhd 1onfe3.le6Fittpewis xsttfcrofiPF0OA.Piaal3meWdoriksPneonn:d p.93 Page3ers 6."PTahgeese15,S[epucbtliiosnh3e.d1].P3,FpOaAraLgervealps3hareanorderofmagaitudeabovetheLOQfor theHVS s`awmeprelbienlgomwetthheodde.tectitiosnsluirmpirtiwshienng tthheaLtOthDersehwoeulrdebseamspuflfeicsiweinttthosPeFeObAaclkevgerlosurnedpolrevteeldst"hat N0o1nHiVmS'cownecreentrreaptoirotnesdw.eNroen-rdepeotrcttesdwbeerleowontlhyerdeeptoercttieodnlfoirmOiV.SSteubeeTsa(bTlaebl5e.3. 5.L2)ewvhelischassalmopwlaesd csuobnstcaentnitalrlaytliweoessrnesauirseadn(d0aasrseestsheerxefporo.less reliable for quandfication of PFOA. Only HVS 7. "PTahgees1i7t,eSeecmtiisosni3o.n1.f4a,cptaorraswgrearpehdeveloped from productioncorrefalctoar tthaitaoppnly a`tetmpeimripctalmlay ddeertivoevdefroirfmyatlhaesptroodduectteiromnifnaecetmoirssfiornosmfrdiormepcrtoedmuicstsiioonnshimsetaosryu.rTehmeernetdwuarsi5n0g eitherofthe air monitoring phases." Sec comment 1. 8. P"aMgeea1s7u,rSeemcetnitosn 3i.n4,thfeavleprtaircaalgrdaipmhension are necessary to .. provide data for model validation." APlamno.deTlhvaelaigdraetieodnuwpaosnnWootrcoknPdlucatneidnbcyluDduePdo3nctoamnpdarwiassonnosttruedqyutioreudnudnedresratnhdehPohwasmeod2elWionrgk. prreedceipcttoir.onsAsresltaatteeddtio nmteshseuCreodami cponaceSnrtturidatyisroenposoornft:PF"OTAheaAtitrhMpoodteenltiinalgpMooinnittoorfiinnghaCloatmipoanrfioson8 Sitnuvdolyvewdasstundoyt rienqtueinrdiendg assubasavnatliadlaltyiomnoroef cdiattah.er RIaStCheorr. AthEisRsMtOudDy,wawshi2chleswsouflordmablecaomfpaarrmiosrocn. benween measured and modeled dats." Note hat modeled concentrations were notused1 asses exposure i the SLEA. 9. "tPhaTeghreeef1o8br,eSehebacovtitiohordni3ou.fr1n4Pa,FlpaOanAradgisrneaaptshohen2ale.nviIrionsmaesnotpiosssliikbelleythtaotbteherteemmpaeryabteurdealdleypoeardseenatsoannadl cycles of surface deposition and reemission to the atmosphere of PFOA, partcalsely a t1"TuhbneeotbdepuhrairvnigoertasowsfoePvpFahnpOaosAtre.sinTohsfiirsimssontoittaodrtirniegv.emnsibbenaynsatdeteddmioptenirotanhteutroea.blssebPnocFresoOoAfrvyiastpfeostrospuchoaansnsddeucattperadirattlhcaeitnlasanhcyorwoOsaVtonhSled aVenamvpmioorronnpimrueesnmstu.sraeltoisfinPdFiOcaAtuivseeodfata mtaheteSriiteahtahstavisapproerspentrien sparostfiucu0lr.a0t0ee3aPnadm(oJEt-v0a8poarm)p,hasTehiisnltohwe. berPtahnwagseieengnIfscraoomnpcmelni4tn6rgabttoeigo8an7snadienngdrlaetteeesmApaenrduatruearglenat,diauvceonndhstutimhniuetderidetywtafrshonmot2rhv5eaetpoonord1od0ue0ft%Oe.ccgttoeTbdhhe,err,oevweiisntahntotecm&op7mederelagatturireoeens `tweomupledrautunrdeesr.go Thpuhsa,setchhearingsenacintdheernftiedheeavitdemncoersopr4ph8roeapgerartesy.dat thatshowdepositedroaerial