Report to Congress October 2004: VII. Appendices
ShareCompartir
Table 1 - Major Lead Exposure Pathways at the Tar Creek Superfund Site
| Pathway Name | Environmental Media and Transport Mechanisms | Point Of Exposure | Route Of Exposure | Exposure Population | Time | Notes | Complete Exposure Pathway? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residential area soil | Lead present in soil as a result of use of tailings as fill or airborne transport of tailings from piles or ponds | Surface soil outside and house dust inside homes in Tar Creek area with soil leads above 500 mg/kg | Incidental ingestion, inhalation | Residents (particularly children 6 and younger) | Past, Present, Future | Elevated soil lead concentrations and BLLs identified in children in Tar Creek Area prior to the clean up of residential soil by EPA. Exposure continues to occur at any home yet to be remediated. | Yes |
| Mine tailings | Lead present in mine tailings deposited in tailings piles, ponds, or embankments | Walking or playing on the tailings piles, ponds, or embankments | Incidental ingestion, inhalation | Residents (particularly children 6 and younger) | Past, Present, Future | Many homes in the Picher and Cardin area are within 250 feet of tailings deposits. | Yes |
| Lead-based paint (LBP) Not site-related | Lead present in house dust, soil, and paint chips due to the use of LBP | House dust, soil, and paint chips in or around homes with deteriorating LBP | Incidental ingestion | Residents (particularly children 6 and younger) | Past, Present, Future | Available data indicate that 30% to 40% of the homes in the Tar Creek area are likely to have LBP. | Yes |
Table 2 - Other Lead Exposure Pathways at the Tar Creek Superfund Site
| Pathway Name | Environmental Media and Transport Mechanisms | Point Of Exposure | Route Of Exposure | Exposure Population | Time | Notes | Complete Exposure Pathway? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ingestion of homegrown produce | Uptake of lead from soil by fruits and vegetables grown in residential gardens | Produce consumption | Ingestion | Residents | Past, Present, Future | EPA sampling identified low levels of lead in homegrown produce. | Yes |
| Drinking water Not site-related | Movement of lead from lead pipes or solder into water | Municipal drinking water | Ingestion | Water supply users | Past, Present, Future | EPA sampling identified lead in the tap water of 13 of 100 homes. | Yes |
| Airborne dust | Airborne transport of mine tailings from piles, ponds, and embankments in the Tar Creek Site Area | Residential areas near tailings piles, ponds, and embankments | Inhalation | Individuals living near tailings piles, ponds, and embankments | Past, Present, Future | EPA sampling identified low levels of lead in the air. | Yes |
| Biota (wild animals & plants) | Uptake or ingestion of lead which had come from mine tailings in the environment | Consumption of animals and plants contaminated with lead from the site | Ingestion | Anyone who eats animals & plants from site area | Past, Present, Future | Members of the 9 tribes in Ottawa County may be at the greatest risk of exposure to contaminants in this pathway. | Unknown |
Table 3 - Demographics in Tar Creek Superfund Site Area*
| CHARACTERISTIC | PICHER/CARDIN AREA | TAR CREEK SITE AREA | UNITED STATES |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percent of People in Poverty | 26 | 19 | 12.4 |
| Percent of Homes Built Prior to 1950 | 39 | 32 | 22.3 |
Table 4 - Characteristics of Blood Lead Testing Data Among Children Aged 1-5 Years Living within the Tar Creek Superfund Site*
| All Tar Creek Superfund Site (also includes portion of North Miami that is outside the boundaries of Superfund site) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 (Jan, Feb only) | |
| Oklahoma Child Lead Poisoning Prevention Program | ||||||||||
| Total Elevated (=10 µg/dL) (%) | 20 (19.4) | 67 (31.2) | 50 (22.5) | 14 (19.2) | 9 (9.09) | 25 (6.9) | 16 (6.4) | 11 (4.5) | ||
| Geometric BLL Mean | 4.80 | 6.65 | 6.00 | 5.36 | 4.93 | 3.81 | 3.32 | 3.05 | ||
| % Child Tested/Pop (actual number tested) | 16 (103) | 34 (215) | 36 (222) | 12 (73) | 16 (99) | 58 (361) | 40 (249) | 39 (242) | ||
| Sampling Design | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | ||
| TEAL Surveys (Personal Conversation, Malcoe 2004) | ||||||||||
| Total Elevated (=10 µg/dL) (%) | 26 (18.2) | 14 (8.6) | ||||||||
| Geometric BLL Mean | 5.77 | 4.25 | ||||||||
| % Child Tested/Pop (actual number tested) | 23 (143) | 26 (162) | ||||||||
| Sampling Design | Door-to-door | Door-to-door | ||||||||
Table 5 - Characteristics of Blood Lead Testing Data Among Children Aged 1-5 Years Living within the Tar Creek Superfund Site*
| Picher and Cardin only | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 (Jan, Feb only) | |
| Oklahoma Child Lead Poisoning Prevention Program | ||||||||||
| Total Elevated (=10 µg/dL) (%) | 17 (31.5) | 41 (44.6) | 34 (33.7) | 5 (29.4) | 3 (9.1) | 17 (13.2) | 7 (12.1) | 3 (7.0) | ||
| Geometric BLL Mean | 6.13 | 9.17 | 7.66 | 6.63 | 5.24 | 4.30 | 4.42 | 4.24 | ||
| % Child Tested/Pop (actual number tested) | 36 (54) | 61 (92) | 67 (101) | 11 (17) | 22 (33) | 86 (129) | 39 (58) | 29 (43) | ||
| Sampling Design | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | ||
| TEAL Surveys (Personal Conversation, Malcoe 2004) | ||||||||||
| Total Elevated (=10 µg/dL) (%) | 16 (25.0) | 10 (13.3) | ||||||||
| Geometric BLL Mean | 6.63 | 4.76 | ||||||||
| % Child Tested/Pop (actual number tested) | 43 (64) | 50 (75) | ||||||||
| Sampling Design | Door-to-door | Door-to-door | ||||||||
| Ottawa Lead Poisoning Prevention Program | ||||||||||
| Total Elevated (=10 µg/dL) (%) | N/A | 6 (8.2) | 5 (12.2) | 2 (6.67) | 3 (3.4) | N/A | ||||
| Geometric BLL Mean | 4.99 | 3.86 | 4.76 | 4.64 | 3.82 | 2.43 | ||||
| % Child Tested/Pop (actual number tested) | 9 (13) | 49 (73) | 27 (41) | 20 (30) | 59 (88) | 11 (17) | ||||
| Sampling Design | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | Con- venience | ||||
Table 6 - Existing Health Study Information
| Factors Associated with Elevated BLLs* | Teal Study (Lynch et al. 2000) OR (95% CI) | Teal Study (Malcoe et al. 2002) OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Floor lead dust ≥ 10 µg/ft2 | 8.1 (1.8, 37.8) | 11.4 (3.5, 37.3) |
| Yard soil lead | ||
| >500 mg/kg | 6.4 (1.4, 30.7) | |
| >165.3 mg/kg (front yard) | 4.1 (1.3, 12.4) | |
| Any interior lead paint | 3.0 (1.2, 7.8) | |
| Superfund location | 3.4 (1.3, 8.8) | 5.6 (1.8, 17.8) |
| Hand-to-mouth behaviors | ||
| index 2 | 7.0 (3.0, 16.5) | |
| index 3 | 48.9 (8.7, 272.7) | |
Table 7 - Children Aged 1-5 Years Living in the Tar Creek Superfund Site with Known Elevated BLLs in 2003, Residential Assessment Lead Exposure Status
| Child | Known Exposure Status* | Environmental Testing (Y/N) | Environmental Testing Date | Age in Years | Race | Sex | Residence | Blood Lead Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unknown; frequent mover | N | 3 | W | M | Commerce | 13.0 | |
| 2 | Lead-based paint | Y | 12/16/2003 | 2 | W | M | Quapaw | 11.8 |
| 3 | Lead-based paint | Y | 11/15/2003 | 3 | W | F | Picher | 12.1 |
| 4 | Floor dust, soil, no electricity or running water | Y | 2/9/2001 | 2 | W | F | Picher | 17.6 |
| 5 | Floor dust, soil, no electricity or running water | Y | 2/9/2001 | 5 | W | M | Picher | 15.8 |
| 6 | Lead-based paint, floor dust, soil | Y | 9/12/2002 | 3 | W | M | Quapaw | 23.7 |
| 7 | Lead-based paint, floor dust, soil | Y | 9/12/2002 | 1 | W | F | Quapaw | 17.0 |
[Source: Ottawa County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Data, 2003]
- Page last reviewed: September 21, 2015
- Page last updated: November 12, 2010
- Content source: