AN INVESTIGATION INTO RISKBASED SITE
RESTORATION OF ABANDONED CRUDE
OIL PITS IN OKLAHOMA
By
DUSTIN JAY CRUIKSHANK
Bachelor of Science
University of NebraskaLincoln
1994
Submitted to the Faculty of the
Graduate College of the
Oklahoma State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
July, 1998
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
AN INVESTIGATION INTO RISKBASED SITE
RESTORATION OF ABANDONED CRlJDE
OIL PITS IN OKLAHOMA
Thesis Approved:
Thesis Advisor
 _~1.~
11}CLyItl 72 .Po1<1&
Dean of the Graduate College
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my thesis advisor, Dr. Will
Focht for his guidance, encouragement, understanding, and most importantly,
his friendship. To my committee members, Dr. Hounslow and Dr. Stewart, thank
you for all your assistance and suggestions. Dr. Stewart, I wish I would have
had the opportunity to take a course taught by you; and Dr. Hounslow, I will now
have time to go rock hunting, thank you.
I would like to thank Phil Spurlin and all the employees of BEACON
Environmental Assistance Corporation for your assistance, guidance, and
patience as I completed this I.ong endeavor. A special thank you goes to Connie
Nowell and Greg Cook for spending those long field hours with me during the
inception of the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board program. May you both
avoid the B.A. Frogs.
I would also like to thank the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board and the
Department of Energy for making this research possible.
Finally, my most sincere thank you to my fami,ly for your love and
affection. Words can never describe my appreciation for all you have given.
iii
Chapter
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose 2
Importance of Study 3
II. LITERATURE REViEW 4
Riskbased Studies on Crude Oil Releases 4
Risk Assessment Methodology 5
Exposure Assessment 5
Toxicity Assessment 6
Risk Characterization 8
Health Implications of Soils Impacted with Petroleum 9
Action Level Replacement 11
TPH Criteria Working Group Methodology 12
III. METHODOLOGy 21
Crude Oil Pit Selection 22
Crude Oil Pit Sampling 24
Chemical Analysis of Samples 25
Baseline Risk Assessment: Exposure Assessment 26
Exposure Setting 26
Exposure Pathways and Routes 26
Exposure Concentrations 27
Chemical Intake 29
Exposure Assumptions 30
Intake Assumptions 30
Identification of Exposure Assessment Uncertainties 34
Baseline Risk Assessment: Toxicity Assessment.. 34
Carcinogenic Effects 34
Systemic Effects 36
Identification of Toxicity Assessment Uncertainties 37
Baseline Risk Assessment: Risk Characterization 37
Carcinogenic Risk 37
iv
Systemic Risk 38
Identification of Risk Characterization Uncertainties 39
Statistical Analysis of Data 39
IV. RESULTS 40
Risk Calculations 40
Soil TPH Concentration and Leve~s of Risk 44
Comparison of TPH Methods ,44
V. CONCLUSIO,:NS 51
VI. IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 54
ENDNOTES , 57
BIBLIOGRAPHy 58
APPENDiXES 61
APPENDIX ACrude Oil Pit Summaries 62
APPENDIX BRisk Characterization Calculations 84
Adult Carcinogenic RiskIngestion 85
Child Carcinogenic RiskIngestion 101
Adult Carcinogenic RiskDermal 117
Child Carcinogenic RiskDermal 134
Adult Systemic Risk ngestion 151
Child Systemic RiskIngestion 182
Adult Systemic RiskDermal 213
Child Systemic RiskDermal 244
v
Table
LIST OF TABLES
Page
I. Summary of Equivalent Carbon Number Fraction Specific Ranges 18
II. Summary of Equivalent Carbon Number Fraction Specific Ranges and
Selected Surrogates 20
III. Exposure Setting 26
IV. Summary of Exposure Pathways 28
V. Summary of Carcinogenic Compounds Selected from IRIS 29
VI. Residential Exposure: Ingestion of Chemicals in Soil 32
VII. Residential Exposure: Dermal Contact with Chemicals in Soil 33
VIII. Summary of Carcinogenic Slope Factors 35
IX. Summary of Fraction Specific RIDs (mg/kg/day) 36
X. Summary of Carcinogenic and Systemic Risk  Adult .42
XI. Summary of Carcinogenic and Systemic Risk  Child 43
XII. Comparison of Cancer Risk Levels to Exposure Duration (days) 52
vi
Figure
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Relative Carbon Number Index Boiling Point Normalized
to nAlkanes (From TPH CWG Volume 3,1996) 14
2. Leaching and VolatilizaUon Factors by Homologous Series
(From TPH CWG Volume 3, 1996) 15
3. Vapor Pressure and Solubility Correlations Relative Carbon
Number Index (From TPH CWG Volume 3, 1996) 16
4. Sorption and Henry's Law Constant Correlations Relative
Carbon Number Index (From TPH CWG Volume 3,1996) 17
5. Locations of Sampled Pits, by County 23
6. Comparison of Carcinogenic Risk and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Soil Concentrations for an Adult Receptor 45
7. Comparison of Carcinogenic Risk and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Soil Concentrations for a Child Receptor. 46
8. Comparison of Systemic Risk and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Soil Concentrations for an Adult Receptor 47
9. Comparison of Systemic Risk and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Soil Concentrations for a Child Receptor 48
10. Correlation of TPH Methods 49
11. Correlation of TPH Methods  2 50
vii
}
..
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In the oil producing states, a legacy of abandoned and improperly closed
crude oil pits has attracted the attention of policy makers and the public. At
many localities, wastes produced from exploration and production (E&P)
activities were placed into pits near producing wells. In Oklahoma, abandoned
pits can be as old as 80 to 85 years and contain various stages of weathered
crude oil that may produce longterm, slow releases of contaminants. These
releases of contaminants may pose environmental risks.
To reduce the impact of abandoned and orphaned well sites, the
Oklahoma Energy Resources Board (OERB) was created by state legislation in
1992. The purpose of the board is to restore (bring back to native conditions)
historical E&P sites. Sites targeted for restoration are those that have been
abandoned and therefore have no responsible owner and/or operator; these
sites are under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC).
Funding for the program comes from a onetenth of one peroent voluntary
assessment on oil and natural gas producers and royalty owners. By statute, all
projects are selected by the OCC. Corporation Commission field inspectors
select projects, based on potential harm to the environment, complaints by
landowners, status as a public nuisance, and adverse visibility. Once a project
is selected, the OCC performs a record check to assess the availability of a
responsible party. If it is determined that no responsible owners and/or
1
operators are available to meet applicable restoration standards, the projects are
then forwarded to the OERB for restoration. The first sites nominated to the
OERB for restoration were recorded late in 1994 (BEACON, 1998).
Traditionally, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) was used as an indicator
of contamination. Given the recent interest in replacing TPH action levels with
riskbased levels, the search for sitespecific risk standards is intensifying.
This study, funded by a Department of Energy grant (OEAF22
96BC14932) awarded the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, explored the
possibility of using an initialscreeningIevel riskbased site restoration approach
for abandoned crude oil pits. This study reports only on the risks associated
with crude oil pits.
Purpose
The purpose of this research was to investigate the potential for riskbased
site restoration of abandoned crude oil pits in Oklahoma. This was
accomplished by answering the following questions:
(1) Based on standard, EPA assessment assumptions, can abandoned
crude oil pits be safely left in place without landuse restrictions?
(2) Based on standard, EPA assessment assumptions, is land application
of soil from crude oil pits an acceptable restoration protocol?
(3) Are TPH concentrations in soil positively correlated with risk
estimates? If so, what risk do current TPH soil cleanup levels pose?
(4) Can the traditional TPH Method 8015 Modified function as a valid
indicator of unacceptable risk?
2
Importance of Study
A study of this nature is important because there are many sites with
abandoned crude oil pits. A review of project records of BEACON (the OERB
program's environmental consultant) shows that 1,488 sites have been identified
for review. Of these sites approximately eight percent (120) contain abandoned
crude oil pits. The pits range from 60 feet x 60 feet x 2 feet of impacted material
to 90 feet x 60 feet x 2 feet. This corresponds to a range of about 250 to 400
cubic yards of impacted material to be handled per pit. Typically, construction
restoration costs range from $5 to $8 dollars per cubic yard of material removed.
Estimated restoration costs of the 120 pits range from $160,000 to $380,000.
This estimate does not include consultant assessment fees, drilling and
sampling, and costs of analysis.
Despite the fact that nearly 1,500 sites have been identified so far,
estimates of the total number of sites range from 10 thousand to 20 thousand. If
only two percent of these sites contain crude oil pits, the estimated construction
restoration costs could be several million dollars, not including investigation and
consulting costs that may total an additional several hundred thousand dollars.
This estimate includes neither consultant assessment fees, nor costs of drilling,
sampling, and analysis which may approach another several hundred thousand
dollars.
Finally, this study is important in determining whether current cleanup
standards are adequate, considering unrestricted future land use scenarios. If
not, the OERB may incur additional costs in restoration expenses.
3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE. REVIEW
RiskBased Studies on Crude Oil Releases
Research on riskbased decision making for petroleum hydrocarbons has
focused principally on refined products, nonweathered products, and marine
spills (Hartley and Ohanian, 1990; Calabrese and Kostecki, 1988; Hostettler and
Kvenvolden, 1994). Research has also focused on implementation of methods
to replace action levels with riskbased standards (MADEP, 1994; TPH CWG,
1996. VoI.6).
Riskbased decision making related to crude oil is limited further by the
fact that previous investigations have not evaluated releases of weathered crude
oil. A large portion of the research involves the identification of individual
constituents and chemical classes in crude oil (Domask, 1984). This research
produces a better understanding of the complex chemical makeup, toxicity, and
physical and chemical properties of various crude oil types (Heath et ai, l' 993).
Research has also been conducted on the fate of petroleum
hydrocarbons in marine and terrestrial environments. This research has
examined transport through water and soil, the mechanisms of their
transformation in these environments, and the distribution of released
hydrocarbons (Chen, 1992; Eastcott, 1989). Unfortunately, this research i's
generally limited to a time frame of several days to a few years.
4
This review of the literature demonstrates there are no risk data on
weathered crude oil in pits, particularly in pits that are 80 to 85 years old and pits
aging under natural environmental conditions.
Risk Assessment Methodology
To formulate a riskbased restoration policy for abandoned crude oil pits,
it is necessary to understand the steps involved in performing a risk assessment.
Risk is defined as the probability of adverse human health effects from
exposure to toxic substances or materials released in the environment
(Cohrssen and Covello, 1989). Risk assessment is the process of scientific
quantification of risk. There are three phases of risk assessment: (1) exposure
assessment, (2) toxicity assessment, and (3) risk characterization.
Exposure Assessment
Exposure assessment is the phase of risk assessment in which targeted
receptors are identifi·ed and the environmental concentration to which these
receptors are being exposed are calculated (Focht, 1995). Information to gather
in the exposure assessment includes identifying and characteri.zing sources of
releases to the environment (spills, leaks, emissions, discharges, etc.), pathways
of migration that can serve as routes of exposure (air, ground and surface water,
soil and sediment, and food), and potential receptors (human and ecological).
From this information, estimates of receptor delivered, absorbed, or effective
dose can be estimated from the generic intake equation:
Dose (mg/kg/day) = CC x I x A x EO x EF x EP
BW x AT x 24 hours/day
5
Dose is calculated as milligrams of chemical per kilogram of
receptor body weight per day of exposure. The independent variables are:
CC =chemical concentration (mg/unit)
I =intake assumption (mg/unit)
A = absorption coefficient (unitless)
ED =exposure duration (hours/day)
EF =exposure frequency (days/year)
EP = exposure period (years)
BW = receptor body weight (kg)
AT = averaging time (days)
The default values for the independent variables are described in Chapter
3  Methodology.
Toxicity Assessment
Toxicity assessment encompasses the toxicological studies that
determine the inherent toxicities (potencies) of the chemicals (Focht, 1995).
Principally, two types of toxicants are considered: nonthreshold and threshold.
Nonthreshold toxicants, or carcinogens, have no zerorisk levels. It is
assumed that any exposure to a carcinogenic compound creates a risk of
cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumes doseresponse
relationships for carcinogens to be linear and has adopted a linearized multistage
model for carcinogen doseresponse (Focht, 1995). The slope of the
doseresponse curve is referred to as the carcinogenic slope factor.
EPA has also established a weightafevidence classification system for
carcinogenicity (Focht, 1995):
Class A:
Glass B:
B1 :
B2:
(Known) Human Carcinogen
Probable Human Carcinogen
Limited Human Data
Animal Bioassay Data Only
6
Class C:
Class D:
Class E:
Possible Human Carcinogen
Not Classifiable as a Human Carcinogen
Not a Human Carcinogen
From the weightofevidence classification system, carcinogenic toxicants
can be researched through EPA's chemical profile database, called the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), to identify which chemicals are
possible, probable, or known human carcinogens for inclusion into the risk
assessment.
Since carcinogens have no threshold dose that produces no response,
the level of risk that is considered acceptable has been set at 1 x 106 (one
person in one million). This level of risk is referred to as de minimus risk and is
used as the point of departure (POD) in developing cleanup levels for
carcinogens. If the risk exceeds 1 x 106 the risk is assumed to be unacceptable.
Threshold toxicants, or systemics, have threshold values  a nonzero
dose exists that caused no response. This threshold, determined from animal
bioassays, is referred to as the "no observed adverse effects level" (NOAEL).
The reference levels determined to be protective against systemic effects in
humans are called reference doses (RfDs). Reference doses are estimates of
the lifetime daily dose that is likely to pose no risk to the human receptors. The
RfDs are based on the NOAEL, but are adjusted by uncertainty factors (UF) and
modifying factors (MF) (Focht, 1995).
RfO = NOAEL
UFxMF
7
The UFs generally consist of multiples of 10, with each factor
representing a specific area of uncertainty inherent in the extrapolation from the
available data (EPA, 1989). The UFs bases are:
(1) UF of 10 is used to account for variations in human populations
(2) UF of 10 is used when extrapolating from animals to humans
(3) UF of 10 is used when a NOAEL is derived from subchronic instead of
chronic studies
(4) UF of 10 is used when a "lowest observed adverse effect Ilevel"
(LOAEL) is used instead of a NOAEL
The MFs generally range from >0 to 10. Modifying factors reflect a
qualitative, professional assessment of additional uncertainties found in the
studies, not expressed by the uncertainty factors.
The numerical individual lifetime risk estimate for systemic toxicants is
referred to as the hazard quotient (HQ). If the HQ is greater than one, the risk is
assumed to be unacceptable.
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the phase of risk assessment in which the risk to
the receptor is quantified and reported. This phase combines the toxicity
information from the toxicity assessment with the dose information from the
exposure assessment to produce the estimated response in the receptor (Focht,
1995). The risk characterization is usually completed at the maximum exposed
individual (MEl) under a reasonable maximum exposure (RME). For purposes of
this study, these will be defined in Chapter 3  Methodology.
8
For carcinogens, the risk estimates are calculated by multiplying the slope
factor with the dose.
Cancer Risk = Dose (mg/kg/day) x Slope Factor (mg/kg/dai t
)
For systemics, the risk estimates are calculated by dividing the dose by
the reference dose.
Systemic Risk =HQ =Dose (mg/kglday) / RfD (mg/kg/day)
If the toxicological response (separately for carcinogenic and systemic
toxicants) is predicted to be similar across exposure pathways, and is
accumulative over the exposure period, then it is assumed that the responses
are cumulative and can be summed across the exposures. For carcinogens:
Cumulative cancer risk = I(Dose x Slope Factor)
For systemics the hazard index (HI) is used:
Cumulative systemic risk =HI =L'(HQ)
Health Implications of Soils Impacted with Petroleum
Crude oil is composed of numerous compounds (Domask, 1984). Studies
of the composition of petroleum have identified more than 350 compounds
(Chen, 1992). The understanding of the composition, physical and chemical
properties, and toxicity of each component is necessary for the assessment of
their fate and transport in the environment and their risks to those receptors
exposed to them.
Crude oils contain compounds that are known to be environmentaHy toxic.
This is especially true of aromatic compounds, particularly benzene and several
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
9
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,l)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and ideno(1,2,3cd)pyren. Nestler (1974) reported that
petroleum mixtures such as crude oil tank bottoms may contain up to 90 percent
PAHs. Where sites contain significantly weathered hydrocarbons, PAHs may
account for much of the risk (Michelson and Boyce, 1993). Because these
compounds are not highly mobile or easily leached into groundwater, they are
typically found only in soil (Michelson and Boyce, 1993).
Exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons as a result of soil contamination
may occur by the following routes: pulmonary inhalation, dermal absorption, and
oral ingestion of compounds (Calabrese and Kostecki, 1988).
Factors that affect the rate of volatilization of compounds are the
compound's vapor pressure, Henry's Law Constant, Rault's Law, and extant
environmental conditions. Soilincorporated chemicals volatilize at a rate that
depends not only on the equilibrium distribution between air, water, and soil
types as related to vapor pressure, solubility, and adsorption coefficients, but
also on the rate of movement through soill (Spencer, 1973). Chara:cteristics of
soil, such as organic matter and clay content, moisture, and bulk density also
affect the distribution of compounds within the air, water, and soil phases and its
potential for loss by diffusion (Karimi, 1983).
Working directly with impacted soil may cause dermal exposure.
Because many of the compounds in crude oil are highly lipophilic (they have a
high octanollwater coefficient and thus a strong affinity for bioaccumulating in
fats), they may have the capacity to be dermally absorbed. This is especially
10
true for carcinogenic PAHs. Most have high octanollwater coefficients and low
solubilities and vapor pressures.
Exposure to compounds through ihgestion may take place in several
ways. It may occur as a result of direct ingestion of contaminated soil or drinking
water, of ingestion of plants that have taken up the toxic compounds and
distributed them to edible portions of the plant, and ingestion of exposed animals
or contaminated animal products (Calabrese and Kostecki, 1988).
Action Levels
Prior efforts to replace action levels with riskbased standards have
included whole product testing (unleaded gasoline, diesel, JP4, etc.), indicator
approach (benzene and carcinogenic PAHs), qualitative toxicity indicators
(TPH), indivi,dual chemical constituents (American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA) approach), insitu
biotoxicity (daphnia toxicity), and surrogate compounds representing carbon
ranges (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and British
Columbia Environment). More recently, the TPH Criteria Working Group has
developed a methodology that separately assigns compositionweighted toxicity
values to 13 boiling pointadjusted fractions.
Debate about the utility of these various approaches hinges on definitions
of relative risk, cost and ease of assessment, validity of assessment findings,
and reliable concentration data and risk data for weathered petroleum
hydrocarbons. This is especially true for weathered crude oil on exploration and
production sites on land.
11
TPH Criteria Working Group Methodology
The TPH Criteria Working Group (TPH CWG) is an ad hoc consortium of
federal and state regulatory agencies, academic institutions, private consulting
firms, and petroleum, power, and transportation industries. The goal of the TPH
CWG is to develop scientifically defensible information for establishing soil
cleanup levels for TPH that are protective of human health at hydrocarbon
contaminated sites (TPH CWG, 1996).
The TPH CWG realized that many sites are contaminated by petroleum
hydrocarbons and that several exposure pathways potentially adversely affect
human health and the environment adversely. The TPH CWG assumes that
compounds of similar nature (aliphatic or aromatic), with similar physical and
chemical properties, behave similarly in the environment (TPH CWG, 1996,
Vol.3). By grouping hydrocarbons into small numbers of fractions, modeling and
estimating risk associated with petroleum releases are simplified.
The TPH CWG identified representative fractions based on simple
screeninglevel partitioninQl models from the ASTM's (1995) RBCA standard.
The model was applied to approximately 250 individual compounds in petroleum
to quantify the abi Iity of each compound to leach to Qlroundwater and volatilize
from soil. The group specified the delineation of specific fractions based on an
orderofmagnitude difference in the partitioning properties. Once the fractions
(both aliphatic and aromatic) were defined, physical and chemical properties
were assigned to each fraction, based on an empirical relationship of the
specific parameters, within each fraction, to boiling points normalized to n
12
alkanes (TPH CWG, 1996, VoI.3). From this empirical relationship, a relative
carbon number index (RCNI) or equivalent carbon (EC) number boiling point
was defined for each individual compound. Figure 1 depicts the relationship of
the RCNI to boiling points and the empirical formula used to derive the RCNI.
From this, the RCNI (EC) was plotted against the RBCA partiboning equations
(leaching, volatilization, vapor pressure, solubility, sorption, etc.) to develop
specific physical and chemical properties for each individual fraction that coul'd
be used in modeling fractions to receptors. Figures 2 through 4 depict the TPH
CWG's estimation of leaching and volatilization, vapor pressure and solUbility
correlations, and sorption and Henry's Law Constant correlations for aliphatic
and aromatic compounds. From the figures, it appears that under different
modeling parameters, chemical classes behave differently in the environment;
these differences affect exposures.1
Once the EC fractions were defined from fate and transport
characteristics, fractionspecific toxicity values were assigned. Table I Summary
of Equivalent Carbon Number FractionSpecific Ranges  lists these
values.
The development of the fractionspecific toxicity values was determined by an
indicator/surrogate approach (TPH CWG, 1996, Vol. 6). Indicators are single
compounds that are known to be carcinogens and are eva.luated
13
Relative Carbon Number Index
Boiling Point Normalized to nAlkanes
40
35
)(
CD
1j
c 30 RCNI • •. 12 + 0.02 (ap) + 8.5..5 (aPr ... (2.99
CD .c 25 E~
z
c: 20
0 e
tU C,.) 15
Q.)
> :;::
tU 10 • Aliphatics Qj
0:: 0 Aromatics
5
0
100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Boiling Point (OC)
Figure 1 Relative Carbon Number Index Boiling Point Normalized to nAlkanes.
(From TPH CWG. 1996. Volume 3. Selection of Representative TPH
Fractions Based on Fate and Transport Considerations.
14
Leaching Factor by Homologous Series
10 15 2
Relative Carbon Number Index
o 5
.~
'" 0
•••~diJo
~ ~to0.6ct4tl>6
V
0 0
'<76
"'" 0
.V.,V A§ • 8A,
•• •
• ~Q\IiIt~l • • !ItMl:hed CMin AlUM. ... C~ ... SlrIIlgItl 0wIn AIl_. • • IlrarIcMd C/IlIln Aile. •.~SlrIi9N Q\IiIt AIlynea
0 /ll/¥e.
• 0 Alkyl NIphlhIienel
.t.o, N........ 1Ienzene. ~_MtMlIc:a
0 25 30 ,)'l 'IU
10.1
Cl
10~
~
Cl 1Q'"J S~
10"
... 0 10.5
13
ell u..
Cl 10"
c~
ell 107
Q)
...J
10~
10"
Volatilization Factor by Homologous Series
10'\
to • s~ChIirI AIranu 1lT2
~O • IItWtdled CheIn AMne. Q 1Q3 ...,. CydoIIk. SlnligIII Cheit AIUnII
~ .~ ~1o' ~. ••~Ilrandlecl ChIirI AIk. ;; SlnligIII ChIirI AIoyne.
~ 1oe '" 0 AIlyta
Cl) ., 0 0 ~~ §.1oe • .c. NIpI1tIleftD IIenz8MI
t'5 Q
Q ~MlnwIica
tS 107 to •
as
u.. 10' V c .Q •., ... ii 10'
°0
N;=2 10'0
..!1!
~ 1lT" y
• 10" 0
10.13
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Relative Carbon Number Index
Figure 2 Selection of Representative TPH Fractions Based on Fate and Transport
Considerations. (From TPH CWG. 1996. Volume 3).
15
Vapor Pressure Correlation
Relative Carbon Number Index
10 15 20 2S
Relative Carbon Number Index
3S
o
o 0
o
o
30
o
00
RCHls12:
1Dg..VP • .o.JIIROI1 +:u "·.ft
RCHI ~ 1211ld c 2S
Iog",VP ~.3llRCN"'.72 r ...
5
10'
10"
10"
1C"
10'"
I 10"'
 104
~ 10" I 10"
1104
> 10"
10'''
10'''
10'''
10'13
10'"
0
Solubility Correlation
Relative Carbon Number Index
o
1Dg,.5 • 4.21RCHI+ 3.7 ,.....
• AIiphalb
o Arcmatics
10'
1()3
102
10'
100
 10'
~ 102
E
,~
~
~ 1~
.2 10~
o
CI) 1rte
107
10"
1rte
10"0
10" ~.,r"""""",.,rj
o 5 10 1S 20 25 30
Relative Carbon Number Index
35
Figure 3 Selection of Representative Fractions Based on Fate and Transport
Considerations. (From TPH CWG. 1996. Volume 3).
16
Sorption Correlation
Relative Carbon Number Index
10.,,
9 ~I 1oQ,,K.  Q.45ROI ...43 •
".!104 •
•
AromIliclI:
IDQ,J<••Q.l0ROI .. :U
r' •.1'
 A1iphatics
o Aromatics
10 15 20 25 30 35
Relative Carbon Number Index
5
O+.,,.r......;j
o
Henry's Law Constant Correlation
Relative Carbon Number Index
• A1iphatics
o Aromatics
40
o
35
o
AnIrNtics:
Ioa,.H  o.23RCNI .. ,.
r' .104
10 15 20 25 30
Relative Carbon Number Index
5
AlipMb; "d:!!4....!!!=__.~.O.cnRCNI"ue

10"
10'
§ 10'
10'
;; 10" .[ 10'
E 1()4
III u; 1()4 c:
0 10"' U
~ lOllS
...J 10
lI)
oj?;' 10'
c: 10 ll)
J: 10
10""
10""
0
Figure 4 Selection of Representative Fractions Based on Fate and Transport
Considerations. (From TPH CWG. 1996. Volume 3).
17
Table I
Summary of Equivalent Carbon Number
FractionSpecific Ranges
Equivalent Carbon
Number (ECl
>EC5  s EC6
>EC6  s EC8
>EC8  s EC10
>EC10  s EC12
>EC12  5 EC16
>EC16  5 EC21
>EC21  5 EC35
>EC6  5 EC7
>EC7  s EC8
>EC8  5 EC10
>EC10  s EC12
>EC12 5 EC16
>EC16  5 EC21
>EC21  5 EC35
Classification
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Modified from: TPH CWG, 1996. Selection of Representative TPH Fractions
Based on Fate and Transport Considerations. Volume 3: TPHCWG.
18
individually. Surrogates are compounds (single or mixtures) that are used to
represent the toxicity of a group of compounds in fractions. The indicator
compounds used to represent fraction toxicity are benzene and the carcinogenic
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Surrogates were selected from referenced
material and refinery mi1xtures, where appropriate. Afl aromatic fractions were
determined from surrogates whereas the aliphatic fractions were determined
from surrogates and mixtures. Table II  Summary of Equivalent Carbon Number
Fraction Specific Ranges and Selected Surrogates  refers to the TPH CWG's
EC range for both aromatic and aliphatic fractions and the selected surrogate or
mixture applied to that fraction. 2
19
Table II
Summary of Equivalent Carbon Number
FractionSpecific Ranges and Selected Surrogates
Equivalent Carbon
Number (EC)
>EC5  ~ EC6
>EC6  ~ EC8
>EC8  ~ EC10
>EC10  ~ EC12
>EC12  ~ EC16
>EC16  ~ EC21
>EC21  ~ EC35
>EC6  ~ EC7
>EC7  ~ EC8
>EC8  ~ EC10
>EC10  ~ EC12
>EC12  ~ EC16
>EC16  ~ EC21
>EC21  ~ EC35
Classification
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aliphatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Aromatic
Surrogate
*
*
Petroleum Streams and JP8
Petroleum Streams and JP8
Petroleum Streams and JP8
White Mineral Oil
White Mineral Oil
Toluene
**
**
**
Pyrene
Pyrene
* Fraction contains two potential surrogates. If the ooncentration of nhexane is
<53% then nheptane is used as the surrogate. If the concentration of nhexane
is >53% then nhexane is used as the surrogate.
** Fraction contains nine surrogates with reported RfDs. Surrogates include:
isopropylbenzene, naphthalene, acenaphthene, biphenyl, fluorene, anthracene,
fluoranthene, pyrene, and methylnaphthalene.
Modified from: TPH CWG. 1996. Selection of Representative TPH Fractions
Based on Fate and Transport Considerations. Volume 3: TPHCWG.
20
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
To explore the possibility of using riskbased restoration of abandoned
crude oil pits, the risk from exposure to weathered crude oilimpacted soil was
estimated. Standard risk assessment assumptions and methodologies were
used in completing the risk estimates. In the interest of producing risk estimates
that were conservative, the receptor was placed hypothetically at the edge of the
crude oil pit and an unrestricted residential land use scenario was adopted.
Selected crude oil pits were sampled and analyzed by TPH Method
8015M, TPH CWG direct method, and Method 8020 (for benzene only). Since
TPH is so variable in composition, the systemic risk assessment involved only
the use of the TPH CWG direct method fractions and their respective compositeweighted
toxicity values. The carcinogenic risk assessment j'nvolved the use of
compounds referenced from IRIS and crude oil product surveys. Toxicity values
were obtained from IRIS and ATSDR (1995) toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs).
The working hypothesis was that there existed a predictab'e relationship
between TPH analytical methods (Method 8015M and the TPH CWG direct
method), and TPH. In addition, the linear relationship between total risk and
total soil TPH was used to develop risk curves with respect to soil TPH. The risk
curves were used to generate healthbased cleanup levels and to compare
these levels to current soil TPH action levels for crude oil.
21
The following is a discussion of the parameters used in selecting the
crude oil pits, risk assessment assumptions, and the correlations between
analytical methods that were completed.
Crude Oil Pit Selection
Abandoned crude oil pits were researched during the Summer and early
Fall 1997 from OERB project records obtained from the ace. Figure 5 depicts
the location of pits selected for this research by county. Pits varying in age from
approximately 30 to 80 years were screened by period of operation and physical
characteristics. The approximate age of each pit was documented through acc
1002A well completion records and plugging reports. Specific ages of pits were
then recorded from aerial photos, county soil maps, interviews with landowners,
and from acc complaint records.
The period of operation for each pit was limited to an active life of two
years or less prior to abandonment, and was estimated through the ageresearch
of each pit. This choice of active life was made to control for the
effects of (1) mixing fresh and weathered crude oil on TPH concentrations in the
pits, (2) potential changes in crude oil composition through the introduction of
nutrients, oxygen, and bacteria, and (3) induced evaporation or dissolution of
organic compounds from the pits.
The physical characteristics of each pit used in screening included the
geographic location, the geometry of each pit with crosssections documenting
the pit depth and thickness of the crude layer contained within the pit. The
physical characteristics also included special considerations or features of each
22
«
~
c:
~
0U
>.
..c
II)
~a..
"'C
~
a.
E
CO
C/') 0
II)
c:
0
:.;;
CO
(J
0
J
L()
1
~
,1
~
C)
~
u:
23
pit such as proximity to surface water or shallow groundwater, whether the pit
was in vegetated land or in a brineimpacted area, the soil type, the current land
use, and proximity to residences.
Twentyone crude oil pits were identified that fit the criteria described
above. See Appendix A  Crude Oil Pit Summaries  for a description of the
characteristics of each pit.
Crude Oil Pit Sampling
Samples were collected using a stainless steel handauger or were
collected during restoration activities. A test boring was completed at each pit to
determine the depth to soil and thickness of the weathered crude. A minimum of
two borings was made in each pit for sample collection. Soil samples were
collected from two to four inches below the soiloil contact zone. This sample
collection was selected because it represents the highest chemical
concentration for the soil media. Soil samples collected just below the soiloil
contact zone are assumed to have the highest concentration TPH. This
assumption is predicated on the overlying crude oil's having acted as a buffer to
volatilization and dissolution of the compounds from each matrix.
Samples were composited, placed into fourounce glass sample jars and
sealed with Tefloncoated lids. Each jar was labeled and placed in ice.
Laboratorysupplied chainofcustody forms were completed, and accompanied
the sample shipment to the analytical laboratories.
24
Chemical Analysis of Samples
A duplicate sample was sent to two analytical laboratories for analysis by
methods commonly used to report concentrations of total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH). Samples utilizing the direct method, developed by the
TPH CWG, were sent to Lancaster Laboratories in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. A
total of 16 crude oil samples and 15 soil samples were analyzed at Lancaster
Laboratories.
The direct method was modified for this study. The last EC range of the
aliphatics and aromatics (>EC21  s EC35) was extended to include up to EC40.
This range was extended to capture heavier hydrocarbons contained in
weathered to highly weathered oils. The last range for this study is
consequently reported as >EC21  s EC40. All references to the TPH CWG's
last equivalent carbon range shall be based on this study's new range and all
risk calculations shall utilize the working groups reference dose for the last
range.
Samples utilizing TPH Method 8015M were sent to Southwell Laboratory
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Atotal of 21 crude oil samples and 20 soil
samples was analyzed at Southwell Laboratory. This method was modified to
include a total carbon range of C5  C40. Concentrations of TPH (in mg/kg)
were reported for the ranges C5  C28 (common diesel range) and C5  C40
(common crude oil range). The two 8015M concentrations were reported to
examine their relationship to TPH CWG direct method concentrations of the
same sample.
25
Baseline Risk Assessment: Exposure Assessment
The following is an explanation of the information that was gathered, or
calculated, to complete the exposure assessment phase of the risk assessment.
Exposure Setting
In an attempt to develop a riskbased site restoration methodology for the
OERB program, a reliance on a conservative definition of the exposure setting is
required. With the continual progression of residential uses into areas that were
once oil producing lands, a residential exposure setting was used. Table III 
Exposure Setting  describes the potentially exposed populations and the land
use scenario used in this study.
Table III
Exposure Setting
Population
Adult and
Child
Receptors
Land use
Residential
Setting
Reasoning
Dynamic nature of OERB program
with newly identified sites
Encroachment of residential areas
into oil producing lands and future
land use considerations
Unrestricted land use near crude oil pits
Exposure Pathways and Routes
The source of potential adverse health effects was determined to be
contaminated soil below the crude oil contained within the pits. According to
OERB poHcy it is assumed that the contents of the pits would be removed as
26
part of the restoration process of the abandoned sites; however, impacted
underlying soil could remain.
Exposure routes considered for risk assessment were soil ingestion of soil
and dermal contact; other possible routes of exposure were eliminated. Table IV
 Summary of Exposure Pathways  outlines all potential exposure paths and the
reasoning for their inclusion or exclusion from risk assessment
Exposure Concentrations
The chemical concentrations for completing systemic risk assessment
calculations were determined by the TPH CWG method. Concentration of
hydrocarbons in soil (mg/kg) are reported for each aliphatic and aromatic
fraction and for total TPH for each sample.
The chemical concentrations for compounds other than benzene were
determined from crude oil product survey reports. A search of EPA's Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) for Class A, 81, and 82 compounds that appear
in crude oil were used to complete carcinogenic risk calculations. The crude oil
product surveys were researched to determine the relative weight percentage
composition of each of the carcinogenic compounds. The relative weight
percentages for the compounds were multiplied by the total reported TPH
concentration from the CWG's direct method for each individual pit.
27
Table IV
Summary of Exposure Pathways
Exposed Exposure Pathway
Population Pathway Selected Reasoning
Residents Ingestion  soil Yes Potential for significant
exposure due to contents of
pit having been removed.
Residents Ingestion  No No groundwater data.
Groundwater Variation of geology
across the state.
Shallow groundwater
not potable.
Residents Ingestion  No Pits contain water only
Surface water after rain events.
Residents Inhalation  No Relatively quick volatility
Vapor Phase of compounds.
and Particulate No air monitoring data.
Residents Direct Contact  Yes Potential for significant
Soil exposure due to contents
of pit being removed.
Residents Direct Contact  No Pits contain water only
Surface Water after rain events.
Residents Food Intakes No No data.
28
q
Table V  Summary of Carcinogenic Compounds Selected from IRIS  outlines
the compounds used in the carcinogenic risk calculations and their EPA
classification, equivalent carbon number, and weight percentage.
Table V
Summary of Carcinogenic Compounds Selected from IRIS
Compound1 EPA Classification1
Benzene A
Benz(a)anthracene 82
8enzo(a)pyrene 82
8enzo(b)fluoranthene 82
8enzo(g,h,i)perylene 82
8enzo(k)fluoranthene 82
Chrysene B2
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 82
Ideno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 82
EC Numbe~
6.5
26.37
31.34
30.14
34.01
30.14
27.41
33.92
35.01
Weight
Percene
NA
0.00067
0.00084
0.0024
0.00004
0.000195
0.00039
0.00067
0.0012
1 From IRIS OnLine at EPA
2 From TPH CWG, (1996) Volume 3: Selection of Representative TPH Fractions
3 From API (1993) and BP (1996)
Concentrations for benzene were taken from records of soil samples
analyzed by EPA Method 8020.
Chemical Intake
The estimates of receptor intake are outlined in Table VI  Residential
Exposure: Ingestion of Chemicals in Soil  and Table VII  Residential Exposure:
Dermal Contact with Chemicals in Soil. All exposure and intake assumptions are
29
standard EPA intake assumptions for residential settings, for adult and child
populations (EPA, 1989).
Exposure Assumptions
For adult exposure, these assumptions were 70 year life span, exposure
frequency to impacted soil of 365 days per ye,ar, exposure duration equal to 24
hours per day, exposure period equal to the life span, and averaging time equal
to the exposure period (25,550 days). For child exposure, the assumptions were
based on a five year exposure period, exposure frequency of 365 days per year,
exposure duration equal to 24 hours per day, and averaging time equal to the
exposure period (1,825 days). Under the residential exposure scenario;
however, the lifespan, exposure frequency, and averaging time reduce to a
factor of one, and consequently, cancel in the chemical intake equations. This
leaves the concentration of the compounds or fractions in soil, ingestion rate,
receptor body weight, skin surface area, adherence factors, and absorption
factors as the only variables used in estimating the chemical intakes.
Intake Assumptions
The concentrations of compounds or fractions in soil were taken from or
developed as described in the Exposure Concentrations section. An ingestion
rate of 0.0001 kg/day and 0.0002 kg/day was utilized for adult and child
receptors, respectively, and was based on the 90lhpercentile default value
(EPA, 1989). The receptor body weights were 60 kg for adults and 16 kg for
children. The adult body weight was taken as an average of adult male (70 kg)
and adult female (50 kg) body weights (based on the 90lhpercentile default).
30
The child body weight was based on the 50thpercentile default as recommended
by EPA (1989). The adult skin surface area was estimated from the 50th
_
percentile body partspecific surface area for arms, hands, and leg exposure for
males (8620 cm\ Utilization of arm, hand, and leg exposure, for males, was
assumed to be conservative estimate for yearround exposure estimates for both
male and female adult receptors. The child skin surface area was estimated
from the 50thpercentile body partspecific surface area for arms, hands, and leg
exposure for 6 yearold male receptors (3910 cm2
). Utilization of arm, hand, and
leg exposure for males are conservative estimates for yearround exposure
estimates for both male and female child receptors. Adherence factors (AFs) for
clay (2.77E06 kg/cm\ potting soil (1.45E06 kg/cm2
), and sand (1.03E06
kg/cm2
) were used to compute a weighted composite AF (EPA, 1989). From soil
texture analyses at the test sites, it was determined that 70 percent of the soils
were clay, 15 percent silt, and 15 percent sand. These percentages were used
in estimating the composite adherence factor by multiplying the reported clay
adherence factor by 0.7, the potting soil and sand adherence factors by 0.15,
respectively, and by summing the results. An adherence factor of 2.31 E06
kg/cm2 was estimated. The absorption factors were all conservatively assumed
to be 1.
31
Table VI
Residential Exposure1
:
Ingestion of Chemicals in Soil
Dose (mg/kg/day) = CS x IR x A x ED x EF x EP
BW x AT x 24 hrs/day
CS = Compound/Fraction Concentration in Soil (mg/kg)
IR = Ingestion Rate (kg soil/day)
Adult =0.0001
Child =0.0002
ED =Exposure Duration (hours/day)
Adult = 24
Child =24
EF =Exposure Frequency (days/year)
Adult =365
Child = 365
EP =Exposure Period (years)
Adult = 70
Child =5
BW = Body Weight (kg)
Adult = 60
Child = 16
AT = Averaging Time = Exposure Period =EP (days)
Adult = ED x 365 = 25550
Child =ED x 365 =1825
1 Intake assumptions from EPA (1989).
32
Table VII
Residential Exposure1
:
Dermal Contact with Chemicals in Soil
Absorbed Dose (mg/kg/day) = CS x SA x AF x A x ED x EF x EP
BW x AT x 24 hrs/day
CS =Compound/Fraction Concentration in Soil (mg/Kg)
SA = Skin Surface Area (cm2/day)
Adult = 8620
Child = 3910
AF =Adherence Factor (kg/cm2
)
Adult = 2.31 E06
Child = 2.31 E06
A =Absorption Factor (unitless)
Adult = 1
Child = 1
ED = Exposure Duration (hours/day)
Adult = 24
Child = 24
EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)
Adult = 365
Child =365
EP =Exposure Period (years)
Adult =70
Child = 5
BW = Body Weight (kg)
Adult = 60
Child = 16
AT = Averaging Time (days)
Adult =ED x 365 =25550
Child =ED x 365 =1825
11ntake assumptions from EPA (1989).
33
Identification of Exposure Assessment Uncertainties
The information below is a list of the various sources of uncertainty that
accompany exposure assessment assumptions.
(1) Interindividual sensitivities and variabilities to intake assumptions
(e.g., age, weight, gender, occupation, existing health, activity
patterns, genetic makeup)
(2) Exposure and intake assumptions and measurements (e.g. exposure
frequency and duration, routes of exposure, intake, adherence factors)
(3) Residential land use scenarios
(4) Selection of compounds to estimate risks
(5) Release mechanisms and magnitudes of compounds to receptors
(6) Identification of the maximum exposed individuals (MEIs)
Baseline Risk Assessment: Toxicity Assessment
The following is an explanation of the information that was gathered, or
calculated, to complete the toxicity assessment phase of the risk assessment.
Carcinogenic Effects
The slope factors used in the carcinogenic risk cal'culations were taken
from IRIS. For the carcinogenic PAHs listed in Table V, toxicity equivalency
factors (TEFs) were used to derive the oral and dermal slope factors. Since
reported toxicity values are based on administered doses, an adjustment for
absorption efficiency was used to derive the dermal slope factors. An
administered to absorbed dose slope factor was estimated by using an EPA
assumption of 20% absorption efficien~y for the compounds (EPA, 1989). Table
34
VIII  Summary of Carcinogenic Slope Factors lists the carcinogenic compounds
with the oral slope factors and derived dermal slope factors.
Table VIII
Summary of Carcinogenic Slope Factors1
Slope Slope
Factor Factor EC
Compound EPA1 TEF2 Oral3 Dermal4 Number5
Benzene A NA 2.9E02 5.8E03 6.5
8enz(a)anthracene 82 0.1 7.3E01 1,46E01 26.37
8enzo(a)pyrene B2 1.0 7.3E+OO 1.46E+00 31.34
8enzo(b)fluoranthene 82 0.1 7.3E01 1.46E01 30.14
8enzo(g,h,i)perylene 82 0.01 7.3E02 1.40E02 34.01
8enzo(k)fluoranthene B2 0.1 7.3E01 1.46E01 30.14
Chrysene 82 0.01 7.3E02 1.40E02 27.41
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 82 5 3.65E+01 7.3E+OO 33.92
Ideno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 82 0.1 7.3E01 1.46E01 35.01
1 From IRIS OnLine at EPA Website
2 Toxicity Equivalency Factor from ATSDR 199'5 Relative to Benzo(a)pyrene
3 From TPH CWG (1996) Volume 6: TPHCWG Methodology
4 Derived from ATSDR (1995) TEFs and Adjusted to Absorbed Utilizing EPA (1989) and 20%
Absorption Efficiency
5 From TPH CWG (1996) Volume 3: Selection of Representative TPH Fractions
35
Systemic Effects
The reference doses used in the systemic risk calculations were taken
from the TPH CWG risk assessment methodology (TPH CWG. 1996, VoI.6). As
explained above, an administered to absorbed reference dose was estimated by
using an assumed 20% absorption efficiency for the compounds (EPA, 1989).
Table IX  Summary of Fraction Specific RfDs lists the TPH CWG fractions with
oral reference doses and derived dermal reference doses.
Table IX
Summary of Fraction Specific RfDs (mg/kgJday)
Aliphatic1 Aliphatic2 Aromatic1 Aromatic2
EC Range Oral RfD Dermal RfD Oral RfD Dermal RfD
>EC5  .:; EC6 5.0 25.0
>EC6  .:; ECa 5.0 25.0
>EC6  .:; EC7 0.20 1.0
>EC7 .:; ECa 0.20 1.0
>EC8 .:; EC10 0.1 0.5 0.04 0.2
>EC10 .:; EC12 0.1 0.5 0.04 0.2
>EC12 .:; EC16 0.1 0.5 0.04 0.2
>EC16  .:; EC21 2.0 10.0 0.03 0.15
>EC21  .:; EC40 2.0 10.0 0.03 0.15
1 From TPHCWG (1996) Volume 6: TPHCWG Methodology.
2 From TPHCWG and Adjusted to Absorbed Utilizing EPA (1989) and 20% Absorption
Efficiency.
36
Identification of Toxicity Assessment Uncertainties
Listed below the various sources of uncertainty associated with the
toxicity assessment.
(1) Interindividual sensitivities and variabilities
(2) Doseresponse information
a. using observed effects produced at high doses to predict
effects at low doses
b. using short term exposure studies to predict effects of long term
exposure
c. extrapolations from studies based on animal to predictions
about humans
d. adjustment of administered dose to absorbed dose
(3) Difficulty proving causation of compounds in receptors
(4) Toxicological model uncertainties (e.g. linearity between dose and
response, existence of a "no observed adverse effects level")
Baseline Risk Assessment: Risk Characterization
The following is an explanation of the information that was gathered or
calculated to complete the risk characterization phase of the ri'sk assessment.
Carcinogenic Risk
Carcinogenic risk was calculated by using the estimated exposure
concentrations of each compound identified in Table V. The concentrations
were incorporated into the standard intake equations (Tables VI and VII), to
derive a dose for ingestion of soil and for dermal contact. For carcinogens,
37
chemicalspecific risk is calculated as the product of the dose and the slope
factor.
Risk =Dose (mg/kg/day) x Slope Factor (mg/kg/dayr1
Total risk was calculated by summing the chemical specific risk for each
pathway and summing across all intake pathways.
RiskTotal = L: Risklndivldual Compounds Across Pathway
Systemic Risk
Systemic risk was calculated by using the exposure concentration of each
reported TPH CWG fraction. The fraction concentrations were incorporated into
standard intake equations (Tables 6 and 7) to derive a dose for both ingestion of
soil and for dermal contact. For systemics, fraction specific hazard quotients
(HQs) were calculated by dividing the dose by the fraction specific reference
dose (RfD).
Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Dose (mg/kg/day) I RfD (mg/kg/day)
Total cumulative risk (Hazard Index (HI)) was calculated by summing the
fraction specific HQs for each fraction across each pathway, and summing
across all intake pathways.
Hazard Index (HI) =L: HQAcross Pathways
38
See Appendix B  Risk Characterization Calculations  for a description of
the crude oil pitspecific risk assessment calculations for carcinogenic and
systemic compounds/fractions for each individual pathway and MEl receptor.
Identification of Risk Characterization Uncertainties
Listed below are sources of uncertainty associated with the risk
characterization phase of the risk assessment. Since risk characterization takes
information from the exposure assessment and toxicity assessment, the
uncertainties with these phases also affects the risk characterization phase.
(1) no incorporation of biodegradation and effects on lifetime excess risk
levels
(2) cumulative risk and mixture interactions
Statistical Analysis of Data
Data were analyzed statistically using SPSS Release 7.5.2 for Windows
licensed to Oklahoma State University.
Correlations between soil TPH concentrations and carcinogeni,c and
systemic risk for both adult and child receptors were conducted to develop soil
risk curves and riskbased cleanup levels as related to total TPH.
Correlations were made between the two analytical methods (TPH CWG
direct method and TPH Method 8015M). Comparisons were made with respect
to the TPH CWG total TPH and TPH Method 8015M total TPH for the ranges C5
 C28 and C5  C40. The data were correlated to test the working hypothesis of
a relationship between the two methods, in an attempt to validate the TPH
Method 8015M as an indicator of unacceptable risk.
39
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the potential for riskbased
restoration of abandoned crude oil pits. This investigation was accomplished by
answering the following questions, first presented in chapter one:
(1) Based on standard, EPA assessment assumptions, can abandoned
crude oil pits be safely left in place without land use restrictions?
(2) Based on standard, EPA assessment assumptions, is land application
of crude oil pit soil an acceptable restoration protocol?
(3) Are TPH concentrations in soil positively correlated with risk
estimates. If so, what risk do current TPH soil cleanup levels pose?
(4) Can the traditional TPH Method 8015 Modified function as a valid
indicator of unacceptable risk?
The following are the results to the questions enumerated above. Note
that the results of the first two questions are discussed in Chapter 5 Conclusions.
Risk Calculations
Carcinogenic risk calculations for ingestion of soil by adult receptors show
unacceptable risk in four of the 15 samples (risk exceeds de minimus levels (1 E06)).
Calculations of cancer risk owing to ingestion range from 5E09 to 5E06.
Carcinogenic risk calculations for dermal contact with soil by adult receptors
were greater than de minimus in 14 of the 15 samples. Calculations of cancer
40
risk owing to dermal exposure range from 2E07 to 2EQ4. Cumulative risk for
both pathways was greater than de minimus in 14 of the 15 samples.
Cumulative cancer risk calculations range from 3E07 to 3E04.
Systemic risk calculations for ingestion of soil by adult receptors show
acceptable risk in all samples (hazard index (HI) is less than one). The
ingestion systemic hazard indices range from 3.04E03 to 2.49E01. Systemic
risk calculations for dermal contact with soil by adult receptors show a HI >1 in
13 of the 15 samples. The dermal systemic hazard indices range from 1.21 E01
to 9.91 E+OO. Cumulative systemic risk across the two pathways show hazard
indices >1 in 13 of the 1,5 samples. The cumulative systemic hazard indices
range from 1.24E01 to 1.02E+01. See Table X  Summary of Carcinogenic and
Systemic Risk (Adult)  for a summary of the calculated risks for carcinogens and
systemically toxic compounds in weathered crude.
Carcinogenic child risk calculations for ingestion of soil, dermal contact,
and for cumulative carcinogenic risk across pathways are above de minimus in
14 of the 15 samples. Cancer risk estimates range from 4E08 to 4E05 for soil
ingestion, 3E07 to 3E04 for dermal contact, and 4E07 to 4E04 for total
cumulative risk.
Systemic risk calculations for ingestion of soil by child receptors, show a
HI <1 in 14 of the 15 samples. The ingestion systemic hazard indices range
from 2.28E02 to 1.87E+OO. Systemic risk calculations for dermal contact with
soil show a HI >1 in 13 of the 15 samples. The dermal systemic hazard indices
range from 2.06E01 to 1.69E+01.
41
Table X
Summary of Carcinogenic and Systemic Risk (Adult)
Carcinogenic Risk1 (POD 106) Systemic Risk2 (HI=1.0)
Pit Name Ingestion Dermal Total Ingestion Dermal Total
Barrick 8E07 3E051o 4E051o 5.00E02 1.99E+OO· 2.04E+OO
*
Caughlin 2E061o 6E051o 7E051o 7.15E02 2.85E+OO1o 2.92E+OO
•
Choquette 2E061o 9E051o 1E041o 1.27E01 5.04E+OO· 5.17E+OO
*
Dewitt 5EOS1o 2E041o 3E04* 2.49E01 9.91E+OO· 1.02E+01
*
Hyde 1EOS* 4EOS* 5EOS" 5.57E02 2.22E+OO" 2.28E+OO
*
Lair SE07 2E051o 3E051o 3.23E02 1.29E+OO· 1.32E+OO
*
LandrumNorth 5E09 2E07 3E07 3.04E03 1.21 E01 1.24E01
LandrumSouth 1E061o 5E051o 6E05" 6.15E02 2.45E+OO· 2.51E+OO
•
MandrellNorth 2EOS" 7E051o 8EOS* 9.25E02 3.69E+OO" 3.78E+OO
•
MandrellSouth 3E07 1E051o 2EOS1o 1.44E02 5.72E01 5.86E01!
Martin 8E07 3E05" 4E05" 4.99E02 1.99E+OO" 2.04E+OO
"
PollardEast 1EOS1o 5EOS* 6E05" 6.56E02 2.61E+OO· 2.68E+OO
"
PollardWest 1EOS1o 4EOS1o 5E051o 5.82E02 2.32E+OO1o 2.38E+OO
*
WaltersEast 4E07 2E051o 3E051o 2.64E02 1.05E+OO· 1.08E+OO
*
WaltersWest 1EOS1o 5E051o 6E051o 9.43E02 3.75E+OO· 3.84E+OO
*
1 Carcinogenic Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
2 Systemic Risk =Dose / RFD
* Indicates Unacceptable Risk
42
Cumulative systemic risk across the pathways show hazard indices >1 in 14 of
the 15 samples. These hazard indices range from 2.29E01 to 1.88E+01. See
Table XI  Summary of Carcinogenic and Systemic Risk (Child) for an outline of
the calculated risks for carcinogens and systemically toxic compounds.
Table XI
Summary of Carcinogenic and Systemic Risk (Child)
Carcinogenic Risk1 (POD 10.e) Systemic Risk2(HI>1,O)
Pit Name Ingestion Dermal Total Ingestion Dermal Total
Barrick 6E06* 6EOS* 7E05* 3.7SE01 3.39E+OO· 3,77E+OO·
Caughlin 1EOS* 1E04* 2E04* 5.36E01 4.84E+OO* S.38E+OO*
Choquette 2EOS* 2E04* 3E04* 9.49E01 8.57E+OO* 9.S2E+OO*
Dewitt 4E05* 3E04* 4E04* 1.87E+OO 1.69E+01* 1.88E+01*
*
Hyde 8E06* 8EOS* 9EOS* 4.18E01 3,77E+OO* 4.19E+OO*
Lair 4E06* 3EOS* 4E05* 2.43E01 2.19E+OO* 2.43E+OO*
LandrumNorth 4E08 3E07 4E07 2,28E02 2,06E01 2,29E01
LandrumSouth 1E05* 9E05* 1E04* 4.62E01 4.17E+OO* 4.63E+OO*
MandrellNorth 1EOS* 1E04* 2E04* 6.94E01 6,27E+OO· 6.96E+OO"*
MandrellSouth 2E06* 2EOS* 3EOS* 1.08E01 9.73E01 1,08E+OO*
Martin 6E06* 5EOS* 6EOS"* 3.74E01 3.38E+OO* 3,7SE+OO*
PollardEast 9E06* 8E05* 9E05* 4.92E01 4.44E+OO* 4.93E+OO*
PollardWest BE06* 7EOS* 8EOS* 4.36E01 3.94E+OO* 4.38E+OO*
WaltersEast 3E06"* 3E05* 4E05* 1.98E01 1.79E+OO* 1.99E+OO*
WaltersWest 9E06* BEOS* 9EOS* 7.07E01 6.38E+OO* 7.09E+OO*
1 Carcinogenic Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
2 Systemic Risk =Dose I RID
* Indicates Unacceptable Risk
43
Soil TPH Concentration and Levels of Risk
Risk curves and riskbased cleanup levels were developed by correlating
total cumulative risk (both carcinogenic and systemic for adult and child
receptors) with total soil TPH. Figures 6 through 9 depict these relationships.
Soil TPH concentrations of 772 mg/kg and 76 mg/kg, at the 50thpercentile
confidence limit, correlates to acceptable carcinogenic risk levels (at 106) for
adult and child receptors, respectively. Soil TPH concentrations of 867 mg/kg
and 321 mg/kg, at the 50thpercentile confidence limit, correlates to acceptable
systemic risk levels for adult and child receptors, respectively. Further
discussion on the implications of the risk curves are discussed in Chapter 5 Conclusions.
Comparison of TPH Methods
There is no correlation (at .05 level of significance) between TPH
methods. The correlations were examined between the TPH CWG total TPH
and TPH Method 8015M for the ranges C5  C28 and C5  C40. Figure 10
depicts the correlation between the direct method and TPH Method 8015
Modified (C5  C40 range). Figure 11 depicts the correlation between the direct
method and TPH Method 8015 Modified (C5  C28 range).
44
Carcinogenic Risk and Soil TPti Concentration (Adult)
Correlations
I Carcinogenic Risk SOIL TPHCWG
Pearson Carcinogenic Risk 1.000 .986'
Correlation SOIL TPHCWG .98SH 1.000
Sig. Carcinogenic Risk .000
(2tailed) SOIL TPH CWG .000
N Carcinogenic Risk 15 15
SOIL TPH CWG 15 15
. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed).
Carcinogenic Risk
.0004,,
.0003
.0002
.0001
0.0000
o Observed
o Linear
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
.0001 +r~_,._~_,._r___.____i
2000 0
Figure 6
Soil Concentration (mg/kg)
Carcinogenic Risk =2.2E08 x (Soil TPH Concentration mg/kg)  7E06
For Risk =10E06 (acceptable risk)
TPH =((10E06 + 7E06)/2.2E08) =772 ma/kg ± 1,389 mglkg
(at 95thpercentile confidence limit)
Comparison of Carcinogenic Risk and Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Soil Concentrations for an Adult Receptor
45
2
Carcinogenic Risk and Soil TPH Concentration (Child)
Correlations
SOil TPH CWG Carcinogenic Risk
Pearson SOil TPHCWG 1.000 .945*'
Correlation Carcinogenic Risk .945 1.000
Sig. SOIL TPH CWG .000
(2tailed) Carcinogenic Risk .000
N SOIL TPH CWG 15 15
Carcinogenic Risk 15 15
••. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed).
Carcinogenic Risk
.0005,,
.0004
.0003 ,.
I
I
I
I
.0002 rI
I
I
.0001
0.0000
o Observed
o Linear .
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
.0001 +,.,,.,',r,i
2000 0
Soil Concentration (mg/kg)
Carcinogenic Risk =3.4E08 x (Soil TPH Concentration mglkg) + 7.4E06
For Risk = 10E06 (acceptable risk)
TPH = ((10E06  7.4E06)/3.4E08) = 76 mglkg ± 1,389 mglkg
(at 95thpercentile confidence limit)
Figure 7 Comparison of Carcinogenic Risk and Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Soil Concentrations for a Child Receptor
46
Systemic Risk and Soil TPH Concentration (Adult)
Correlations
SOIL TPH CWG Systemic Risk
Pearson SOIL TPH CWG 1.000 .988*
Correlation Systemic Risk .988" 1.000
Sig. SOIL TPHCWG .000
(2tailed) Systemic Risk .000
N SOIL.TPH CWG 15 15
Systemic Risk 15 . 15
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2talled).
o Observed
o Linear
o 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
2
4
8
6
o+,::......r,,.r,,.,
2000
10
Systemic Risk
12..,.,
Soil Concentration (mg/kg)
Figure 8
Systemic Risk = 0.0008 x (Soil TPH Concentration mg/kg) + 0.3059
For Risk = 1 (acceptable risk)
TPH =((1.0  0.3059)/0.0008) =867 mglkg ± 1,389 mglkg
(at 95thpercentile confidence limit)
Comparison of Systemic Risk and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Soil Concentrations for an Adult Receptor
47
Systemic Risk and Soil TPH Concentration (Child)
Correlations
SOiL TPH CWG Systemic Risk
Pearson SOIL TPH CWG 1.000 .988""
Correlation Systemic Risk .988 1.000
Sig. SOIL TPHCWG .000
(2tailed) Systemic Risk .000
N SOIL TPHCWG 15 15
Systemic Risk 15 15
. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed).
Systemic Risk
20r.,
10
o
C Observed
o Linear
o 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
10 +..~_r_.___~'~~__I
2000
Soil Concentration (mg/kg)
Systemic Risk = 0.0014 x (Soil TPH Concentration mglkg) + 0.5497
For Risk = 1 (acceptable risk)
TPH =((1.0  0.5497)/0.0014) =321 mglkg ± 1,389 mglkg
(at 95thpercentile confidence limit)
Figure 9 Comparison of Systemic Risk and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Soil Concentrations for a Child Reoeptor
48
Correlation of TPH Methods
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
TPH CWG 327220 3039.82 15
TPH 8015 Mod. 3125.93 3573.44 15
Correlations
TPH CWG TPH 8015 Mod.
Pearson TPHCWG 1.000 .165
Correlation TPH 8015 Mod. .165 1.000
Sig. TPHCWG .557
(2tailed) TPH 8015 Mod. .557
N TPHCWG 15 15
TPH 8015 Mod. 15 15
Comparison of TPH Method Results
14000 ..,
TPH 8015 Mod.
TPHCWG
.
~
II
1\
I \
I \
I \
,I \\
,J 1\
I \
I \
,I 1\ ,
J ,
,~ ,
.... ....... / ',
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
o+___._.____.~L__r____.__.____,__r_____._._____r_____.__i
1
2000
4000
10000
8000j
6000~
12000
Case Number
Figure 10 Correlation of TPH Methods
49
Correlation of TPH Methods· 2
Correlations
SOIL TPH CWG TPH 8015M (C5C28)
Pearson SOIL TPH CWG . 1.000 .164
Correlation TPH 8015M (C5C28) .164 1.000
Sig. SOIL TPH CWG .559
(2tailed) TPH 8015M (C5C28) .559
N SOil TPH CWG 15 15
TPH 8015M (C5C28) 15_ . 15
TPH CWG
TPH 8015M (C5C28)
Comparison of TPH Method Results
14000.,
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
Ol 2000
~OJ
E 0
1 3 7 9 11 13 15
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Case Number
Figure 11 Correlation of TPH Methods  2
50
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
From the results of this study, important conclusions can be drawn on the
questions posed about riskbased site restoration of crude oit pits. First, under
the risk assumptions used to calculate total risk, abandoned crude oil pits pose
unacceptable risk and cannot be closed inplace. The dermal contact pathway
is the major cause of unacceptable risks.
Using an average calculated adult cancer risk level of 1E04 found in this
study, the risk levels are approximately 100 times greater than EPA's 1E06 de
minimus levels that are used as points of departure in risk management decision
making. Using a residential setting based on lifetime exposures, a human
receptor could expect to develop cancer from only 250 days of continuous
exposure to impacted pit soil, (based on a residential exposure averaging time of
25,550 days for carcinogens (70 years x 365 days/year)). Table XII Comparison
of Cancer Risk Levels to Exposure Duration (days)  describes a
breakdown of the cancer risk levels and expected site exposure duration (in
days) to developing cancer.
51
Table XII
Comparison of Cancer Risk Levels to Exposure Duration (days)
Cancer Risk
l' E04
1E05
1E06
1E07
Exposure Duration (days)
25,000
2,500
250
25
The second conclusion drawn from this research is that land application
of impacted soil is not an acceptable restoration protocol unless administrative
controls are enforced to restrict access to the sites. With risk levels that are
approximately 100 times greater than de minimus, land applied contaminated
soil would have to be diluted at a 100:1 ratio of nonimpacted soil to impacted
soil to lower the risk estimates to de minimus risk. By bringing impacted soil to
the surface, the likelihood of exposure to chemicals and magnitude of risk is
increased. This study suggests not to excavate the impacted soil, but to
establish restricted land use conditions as the acceptable protocol.
The third conclusion drawn from this study compares the relationship
between soil TPH and risk levels. Though Oklahoma currently has not
promulgated TPH cleanup levels for crude oil, at least 30 states have set
specific cleanup levels or guidelines based on the TPH measurement (Oliver
and Kostecki, 1992). The most commonly used soil cleanup standard for TPH is
100 mg/kg, although the standards and guidelines range from background
concentrations to 10,000 mg/kg TPH in soil (Michelson and Boyce, 1993).
52
These promulgated cleanup levels; however, are not based on the TPH CWG
direct method, but are determined from different analytical methods for
measuring TPH concentrations and are based on different carbon ranges. Only
if the states adopt the TPH CWG's method can a comparison of riskbased
cleanup levels calculated from this research be compared to those of other
states.
Under the assumptions outlined in this research, riskbased mean soi~
TPH concentrations are 772 mg/kg and 76 mg/kg, ± 1389 mg/kg at the 95th
_
percentile confidence limit, correlates to acceptable carcinogenic risk levels (at
106
) for adult and child receptors, respectively. Mean soil TPH concentrations
are 867 mg/kg and 321 mg/kg, ± 1389 mg/kg at the 95thpercentile confidence
limit, correlates to acceptable systemic risk levels for adult and child receptors,
respectively. These riskbased cleanup levels are based on protection (at de
minimus levels) of adult human receptors via soil ingestion and dermal contact
pathways.
Finally, the data suggest that there is no correlation between the TPH
CWG's direct method and TPH Method 8015 Modified (either C5C28 or C5C40
ranges). This implies that the simple, relatively inexpensive, TPH Method
8015M is not a valid indicator of unacceptable risk. This can potentially be
explained by the variation of distributed TPH in soil; Method 8015M does not
selectively remove all hydrocarbons (i.e., the method may be influenced by
"background organic noise") and the relatively few number of observations used
to calculate correlations.
53
CHAPTER 6
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Implications of this research include:
(1) Under a residential exposure setting, abandoned crude oil pits cannot
be closed in place without administrative land use restrictions;
(2) Land application of crude oil waste requires administrative land use
restrictions;
(3) TPH Method 8015 Modified cannot be used as a risk indicator;
(4) A soil TPH concentration of 50 mg/kg should be employed as a r'iskbased
cleanup level for crude oilimpacted soil to protect human
receptors against ingestion of and dermal contact with impacted soH,
An important variable not considered in this research is the rate of
biodegradation for the petroleum fractions and for carcinogenic compounds.
Because biodegradation is a function of site specific characteristics and the
specific chemical, rates can vary by orders of magnitude from site to site. It was
determined for this study to assume a biodegradation rate of zero in this initial
screening level study of riskbased decision making for abandoned pits.
Research to define better the use of riskbased site closures of
abandoned crude oil pits should include:
(1) Collection of composite soil samples in areas where crude oil waste
has been land applied, followed by analysis of the samples for
carcinogenic PAHs outlined herein and for the TPH CWG direct
54
method. A risk assessment utilizing the same intake assumptions from
this research should be performed using these analytic data.
(2) Examination of the potential for generating insitu hydrocarbon
degradation curves. Variables such as age, depth of sample, and soil
type are predicted to be significant estimators of hydrocarbon
degradation in crude oil pits.
(3) Examination of the potential for generating exsitu degradation rate
curves from the expanded data set outlined in suggestion one above.
The same variables outlined in suggestion two for determining the
significance of the variables should be used in calculating risks.
(4) Examination of the relationship between TPH concentration of crude
oil contained in the pits and TPH concentration in soil should be
examined. Variables such as TPH oil concentration, age, depth of
sample, and soil type are predicted to be significant estimators of soil
TPH.
(5) Expansion of this data set by finding additional crude oil pits that
satisfy the screening criteria should be analyzed to increase the
number of observations such that the validity of the statistical analysis
is increased.
(6) Expansion of a potential groundwater exposure pathway should be
considered. Simple fate and transport equations using soil
concentrations to model the movement of chemical compounds and/or
55
fractions to hypothetical groundwater wells near the crude oil pits
should be used.
(7) Applying different land use assumptions to generate risk estimates for
scenarios other than residential exposure should be considered if land
use restrictions are planned as institutional risk management
strategies.
(8) Applying uncertainty analysis models to the intake variables to
produce confidence limits and probability distributions to increase the
validity of risk estimates.
In conclusion, the reader is cautioned to keep in mind that these results are
preliminary. Due to the small sample size, it is impossible to state with
confidence that current remediation schemes present unacceptable risk. Rather,
this study suggests that further study, including more extensive sampling,
investigation of groundwater, and rates of biodegradation, to name a few, should
be conducted to add to the risk database. The findings of these additional
studies can then be properly used to formulate policy regarding crude oil pit
remediation.
56
Endnotes
1 It should be noted that the TPH CWG methodology does not incorporate
biodegradation rates into the risk assessment frameworks. It is not within the
current scope of the TPH CWG's tasks to develop fractionspecific degradation
rates, but it is an area they have acknowledged requires research (TPH CWG,
1996, Vol. 3).
2 It should be noted the TPH CWG was not the first group to utilize
fractions to evaluate risk from TPH. They acknowledge the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection as the first group to apply a fractional
approach (MADEP, 1994). Also, British Columbia Environment later modified
the MADEP approach to include fate and transport of fractions specific to
ecological receptors (BCE, 1995).
3 Ecological exposure settings were considered for this study but were
beyond the scope of this research.
57

BIBLIOGRAPHY
API. 1993. Petroleum Product Surveys. American Petroleum Institute.
Washington D.C.
ATSDR. 1995. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. August.
BCE. 1995. Recommendations to B.C. Environment for Development of
Remediation Criteria for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and
Groundwater. British Columbia Environment. Volumes I and II. Victoria,
B.C. June.
BEACON. 1998. BEACON Environmental Assistance Corporation Project
Records of the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board Program.
BP. 1996. (British Petroleum). Summary Tables of Laboratory Analysis for
Diesel and Fueil Oil #2. in: TPH CWG. 1996. Volume 3: TPHCWG
(Draft). Selection of Representative TPH Fractions Based on Fate and
Transport Considerations.
Calabrese, Edward J. and Kostecki, Paul 1. 1988. Public Health Implications of
Soils Contaminated with Petroleum Products. In: Soils Contaminated by
Petroleum. Environmental and Public Health Effects. Eds. Cal,abrese and
Kostecki. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Chen, Chien 1. 1992. Understanding the Fate of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in
the Subsurface Environment. Journal of Chemical Education. May. Pp.
357361.
Cohrssen, John J. and Covello, Vincent 1. 1989. Risk Analysis: A Guide to
Principles and Methods for Analyzing Health and Environmental Risks.
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Technical Information Service.
Springfield, VA.
Domask, W.G. 1984. Introduction to Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Chemistry and
Composition in Relation to Petroleum Derived Fuels and Solvent.
Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology. Volume 8. Pp. 126.
Eastcott, L., Shiu, Wan Ying., and Mackay, D. 1989. Modeling Petroleum
Products in Soils. In: Petroleum Contaminated Soils: Remediation
Techniques, Environmental Fate, and Risk Assessment. Eds. Kostecki,
Paul and Calabrese, Edward. Volume 1. Lewis Publishers.
58
EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1. Human
Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final (EPAl540/189/002)
December.
Focht, Will. 1995. Regulatory Risk Analysis. Course #GEO 5710. Oklahoma
State University. Custom Academic Publishing Company.
Hartley, William R. and Ohanian, Edward V. 1990. A Toxicological Assessment
of Unleaded Gasoline Contamination of Drinking Water. In: Petroleum
Contaminated Soils. Volume 3. Eds. Kostecki, Paul and Calabrese,
Edward. Lewis Publishers.
Heath, Jenifer., Koblis, Kristin., and Sager, Shawn. 1993. Review of Chemical,
Physical, and Toxicololgic Properties of Compounds of Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons. Journal of Soil Contamination. Vol. 2(1). Pp. 125.
Hostettler, Frances D. and Kvenvolden, Keith A. 1994. Geochemical Changes
in Crude Oil Spilled from the Exxon Valdez Supertanker into Prince
William Sound, Alaska. Organic Geochemistry. Vol. 21. Number 8/9.
Pp. 927936.
IRIS. 1998. Integrated Risk Information System Online Version. EPA Web
Site. (www.epa.gov/iris)
Karimi, A.A. 1983. Studies of Emission and Control of Volatile Organics in
Hazardous Waste Landfills. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Southern
California.
MADEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). 1994.
Interim Final Petroleum Policy: Development of HealthBased Alternative
to the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) Parameter. Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection. Boston, MA. June.
Michelson, Teresa C. and Boyce, Catherine. 1993. Cleanup Standards for
Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Part 1. Review of Methods and Recent
Developments. Journal of Soil Contamination. Volume 2(2). Pp. 109124.
Nestler, F.H.M. 1974. The Characterization of Woodpreserving Creosote by
Physical and Chemical Methods of Analysis. Research Paper FPL 195.
U.S. Government Printing Office 1974754556/82. United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Forest Products Laboratory.
Madison, Wisconsin.
59
Oliver,1. and Kostecki, P. 1992. StatebyState Summary of Cleanup
Standards. Soils. December. Pp. 1424.
Spencer, W.F., Farmer, W.J., and Claith, M.M. 1973. Pesticide Volatilization.
Residue Review. Volume 49. Pp. 147.
SPSS. Release 7.5.2 for Windows. Licensed to Oklahoma State University.
TPH CWG (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group). 1996.
Volume 3: TPHCWG (Draft). Selection of Representative TPH Fractions
Based on Fate and Transport Considerations.
TPH CWG (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group). 1996.
Volume 6: TPHCWG Methodology. Development of FractionSpecific
Reference Doses (RIDs) and Reference Concentrations (RfCs) for Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH).
60
APPENDIXES
61
r
APPENDIX ACRUDE OIL PIT SUMMARIES
62
1<: <:: C NI2 NW/4 ~cl;. :llH 1~KBW
Age: 77
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED
Thickness of Water Body: 3" (NO YIELD)
BARRICK PIT SUMMARY
County: ~ I ..., ........,
Depth to 5011: 16"
Thickness of Crude: 16"
BARRICK
GPS: N34' 26' 51.1
W9a" 03' 54.1"
5011 Type: CLAY
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
l II! oil (Xl I] Pit
___~~_~~....,o<:../~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::===~~/_"""?T"~: ~__ 
Comingled Soil a: Oil "
9· tY~
Leachate (No Yield) /
12·t.:W"'"eo"t;hered:::<:Oi,....,+'"
10' .Ll:,,::,4.::~_Oj_1_so_m_p_'e__"/r  ~::_ 
16· 11"
~ Soil Sample
22" ~
SCAlE: I·  30' 00 HAND AUGER SAMPLE LOCATION
Pit Namtlves: The Barric;t( pit appea~ to have been trenched and backfilled prior to closing. At the lime of sampling crude oil
had migrated to the surface through the trench. There was a thin veneer of leachate within the profile of the pit trench that did
not yield enough fluid for sample collection. The etUde oil that was sampled was a black, slightly weathered, heavy aude.
There was not an appreciable commingling of soil in the oil sample from the trenching and backfilling of the pit during closure.
The pit Is located in pasture and only the crude seep is non
UMMARY
W96° 27' 54.5"
Age: 72
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED
Thickness of Water Body: NA
Depth to So": 28"
Thickness of Crude: 28"
Soli Type: NO SAMPLE TAKEN
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
Pit
Pond
CALVIN
  ~~~:'r",,/ 7:::...      
8 Comingled Soli ~ Oil ;;     
Weothered Oil
20'
211 ~ Oil Sample
    28.1...1.:::... _
SANDSTONE
SCAlE: , .. 50' ~ HAND AUGER SAUPLE LOCATION
PIT SUMMARY
Age: 36
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED
Thickness of Water Body: NA
Depth to $011: 22"
Thickness of Crude: 22"
CAUGHLIN
W97° 117' 50"
Soli Type: Silty Clay
Thickness of Covering: 6"
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
® Pit Oenuded
Area
 .=.=_~: / Cominqled Soil 6: Oil;; .=.= Weathered
Oil
IS·
20. ~ Oil Sample / ______  
    22·~2~4·::.1r
~ Soil Sample 30·~
SILTY CLAY
SCAlE: 1·  JO' ® HAllO AUCER SAWPLE LOCATlON
cHOQUETTE PIT SUMMARY ..,. .. ' .'
J~J.'L~: ~t=l4 ~W/4 NW/4 SEC. 9T18NRllE County: GPS: N36' 03' 19.5"
WOO" 09' 08.1"
~
Age: 82 Depth to 5011: 40" 5011 Type: CLAY LOAM
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED Thickness of Crude: 28" Thickness of Covering: 12" (SILT)
Thickness of Water Body: NA Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
CHOQUETTE
00
00 ~~~:? z ~
00 f  Silt Covering '2 ./
Pit
J2'
Denuded ck
311 ~ Oil Sample
Eroded $0;\ 40· 42" ~
~SOil Sample
4ll'
CLAY LOAM
SCALE: ,  40' 00 HANO AUCER SAMPlE LOCATION
Pit Narratives: The ChOQuette pit is located within a denuded area from historical brine spills. The outline of the pit is at a higher
elevation than the existing terrain: as the weathered oil has held the soil in this area and has been resistent to erosion. Only
sparsely vegetated scrub Qrasses grow in this area and the surrounding area is used as pasture. The oil samples did contain
some commingling of soil and were weathered, heavy black aude oil samples.
D. BURNS PIT SUMMARY
...'St:JLS: Nt:J4 ~W/4 NI:I4 ~t:{;. 3111NHBW county: ::> I ~, ,~"~ (jP~: N34' jl U:>.l
W9BG 04' 36.4"
Age: 69 Depth to Soli: 9" Soil Type: CLAY LOAM
Open/Closed Pit: OPEN Thickness of Crude: 9" Thickness of Covering: NA
Thickness of Water Body: NA Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
D. BURNS
If   ~~~: /" ../
 
00 
Weathered Oil
Denuded IIIPit
M&O 3"
7"
~Oil Sample
~~~~~
00  g"
II'
\.\
~SaiJ Sample
17"
ClAY LOAN
SCAlE: ,"  50' 00 HAND AUGER SAUPLE LOCATION
Pit Namltlves: The D. Bums pit is located adiacent to 8 denuded area, There is grass established between the pit and the
denuded area. The quarter sec:tion is used as pasture. The pit is a shallow pit; consequently, the oil samples were very weathered.
DEWI PIT SUMMARY
W96° 27' 57.6"
Age: 74
Open/Closed PIt: OPEN
Thickness of Water Body: NA
Depth to 5011: 9"
Thickness of Cn:de: 9"
5011 Type: FINE SAND/LOAMY FINE SAND
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
DEWITT
7 / ___
     0"'1"',,.
Weathered Oil
J"
7" ~ Oil Sample
_____ g" l...,_,:, ", _
rn Sail Sample
'7" ~
fiNE SANDILOAMY fiNE SAND
SCALE: ,.  50' 00 HAND AUCER SAMPLE LOCATION
weathered.
DOWERS PIT SUMMARY
!51~!..5: NW/4 N'='4 ~W/4 ~ectlOn 21 15NRllE county: ~KP.JII :~~ GPS: N30' 4tj' 1!H),
W96" 6' 56.6"
Age: 58 Depth to Soli: 24" Soli Type: Olive Clay
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED Thickness of Crude: 24" Thickness of Covering: NA
Thickness of Water Body: NA Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
DOWERS
~~~ ~~~~/ :.:. ~
Weathered Oil
Pit
Ill"
" ~Oil Sample 22 
24" 
~ 211"
JO" ~ Soil Semple
SILlY CLAY LOAM/SILlY CLAY
SCALE: 1"  20' ~ HAND AUGER SAMPLE LOCATlON
Pit Narratives: J ne DOWerS pIt IS a dosed pit locate<lln pa.sture. he crude oil nas mIgrated to the surface and has redefined
the outline of the former pit. lhe surroundina areas are veQetated with thick bermuda grass. The crude oil samples were
a very DlaCk, sliah1IV weathered oil.
IJ5PL5: C 5/2 NW/4 NW/4 ::st:l;. 1:.!114NR6E
Age: 54
Open/Closed Pit: OPEN
Thickness of Water Body: 2" (NO YIELD)
HYDE PIT SUMMARY
County: 1p.Jr.( p.J
Depth to 5011: 16"
Thickness of Crude: 16"
., ..
GP5: N35u 42' 26.9"
W96" 37' 28.6"
Soil Type: SILTY CLA.Y LOAM/LOAM
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
r
~
Pit
_ ••• ••• _""Cr""'"""k' ••• 
HYDE
  ~~~::'t'/:~='''Z       f__
W._O_lh•..,..rCl_d_O_il:"_.y/
\.......::.Lll:..;:O=..Ch.:..:O=..t.:.....'.CN.:..:o_Yi_'e=ld:.:.)_.yV
W.oth.r.d Oil
10"
• ~ Oil Sompl.
_____16·<1_4 ...... _
Ill"
~Sail Sample
22" m
511 IT ClAY I QAI,l/LOAM
SCAlE: 1·  60' @ HANO AUCER SAMPLE LOCATION
Pit NamlUves: The Hyde pit is located adjacent to an intermittent stream. The south berm of the pit serves as the bank of the
creek. The pit is also located in an are~ that is deeply incised by erosion from brine spills from historical practices. The pit Is
Ipredominantly surrounded by eroded channels and denuded soils. Only sparse v8Qetation exisls outside the denuded areas in
this pastured quarter section. Within the soil profile was a thin veneer of leachate that did not yield enough for sampling. The oil
that was samDted was a black, weathered. heavy aude oil.
LA y
W9S0 41' 37.5"
Age: 72
Open/Closed PIt: CLOSED
Thickness of Water Body: NA
Depth to Soli: 36"
Thickness of Crude: 36"
LAIR
Soli Type: CLAY
Thickness of Covering: 6" SILT
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
___~~_~:,/c..r______________,r/~       
Comillqled Soil at Oil "
9" t"r./
Weothered Oil
211"
" ~ Oil Somple
,14 ~
    J6·~J8:=.="'     
~ Soil Somple
44· ~
SCAlE: ,"  20' 00 HAND AUCER SAMPLE LOCATION
ace.
LANDRUMNORT
WOOD 29' 20.6"
Age: 73
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED
Thickness of Water Body: NA
Depth to 5011: 32"
Thickness of Crude: 24"
Soil Type: CLAY
Thickness of Covering: 8" SILT
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
SCAlE: l' • 30'
Denuded
Area
lXl HAND AUGER SAMPLE LOCATION
LANDRUM NORTH
      ..r".,..     
      O··t/"',o/I'
Cominoled Oil &: Soil '"
8" tIr'"~
Weothered oa
24"
30" ~ Oil Somple
    32'~J:'74:" M'_     
~ Soil Sample
40· ~
ClAY LOAlA
LANDR MARY
'/1196°29' 4.7"
Age: 73
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED
Thickness of Water Body: NA
Depth to Soli: 16"
Thickness of Crude: 16"
5011 Type: LOAM
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
Pit
LANDRUtoA SOUTH
     .,.",..
    O".r/,...::.z  ~~~ 
Weothered Oil
10"
" ~Oif Sample _
    '6",,1~.:.v     __
III"
~ Soil Sample
2." ~
SCAlE: ,"  JO' lX> HAND AUGER SAMPLE LOCATION
IT SUMMARY
WOO" 11' 22.7"
Age: 78
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED
Thickness of Water Body: 2" (NO YIELD)
Depth to 5011: 30"
Thickness of Cf'lJde: 30"
5011 Type: SILTY CLAY
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
MANDRELL NORTH
J2 ~
Soil Somple
JII"
"/' ~
Weathered Oil
· ./
· Leachate (Na Yield) /'
24"
• ~ Oil Sample · 211. 
18
20
30
0·
SILTY CLAY
SCAlE: 1· • 30' 00 HAND AUCER SAUPlE LOCATION
MANDREL
W9611' 23.3"
Age: 79
Open/Closed Pit: OPEN
Thickness of Water Body: 2" (NO YIELD)
Depth to 5011: 32"
Thickness of Crude: 32"
5011 Type: CLAY
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
MANDRELL SOUTH
34 ~
Soil Sample
40"
/' ~
Weathered Oil .. ./' Leachate (No Yield) ./
24"
"
JO" ~ Oil Sample . 
16
18
32
    0·
Pit
SCAlE: ,.  10' ~ HANO AUGER SAMPLE LOCATlON
Age: 46
Open/Closed PIt: CLOSED
Thickness of Water Body: NA
MART N P SUMMARY
Depth to Soli: 18"
Thickness of Crude: 18"
W96. 51' 51.3"
5011 Type: SILTY CLAY/SILTY CLAY LOAM
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
SCAlE: 10  50'
Denuded
Nee
/Xl HAND AlJG(R SAMPlE LOCATION
...ARTIN
..r,.,
     0·...,..../,1"::'.    
Weathered Oil
12"" rn oa Sample
1& ~
    1S·l
20
 0
"'      
rn Soil Sample
240 ~
SILD' CLAY/SILlY ClAY LOAM
MMARY
Age: 72
Open/Closed Pit: OPEN
Thickness of Water Body: NA
Depth to Soli: 48"
Thickness of Crude: 48"
t.fATTHEWS
Soli Type: SILTY CLAY
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
     .,r".,      
    o··f"'/r"/
Weathered Oil
42'
• ~ Oil Sample
41 ~
    4B·J.....,~~. M~_     
,.' ~ Soil Somple
SILTY CLAY LOY!
SCAlE: l' • 100' 00 HAND AUGER SAMPLE LOCATION
M PIT SUMMARY·
" ,. .'~
,JSPLS: SW/4 SW/4 NE/4 SEC. 81 1::lNt<l:S1= County: INI ~{ll N liPS: N3~' 47' 38.3'
W960 29' 3.7"
Age: 74 Depth to Soli: 36" Soil Type: VERY FINE SANDY LOAM
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED Thickness of Crude: 24" Thickness of Covering: 12"
Thickness of Water Body: NA Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
0,__ MOUNCE
0 o />Trees
0 ~~~~/ .....: 
0 Comingled Sand <lr: Oil
12" ../' ,~[ ;, ] til Weolhered Oil
/ 24"
/ " ~Oil Sample  ... Surfacll / 211
Spill 0 30"
J2" 
0 ~ Soil Somple 0 JlI"
VERY fiNE SANDY LOAM
SCAlE: 1"  40' QP HAND AlJC£R SAYPLE LOCATION
Pit NarraUves: The Mounce pit IS a closed Pit located In a heavilY area. Crude oil has migrated to the surface
Where it IS now expOsed. Crude Oil has flowed outside the containment banns on at least two occasslons In the past.
The crude all IS a black. SIi(1htty weathered all.
POLLARD EAST PIT SUMMARY
'USPLS: SW/4 NI::J4 NW/4 ~I:.(;. 31 J19NH4W county: ~r.:AN GPS: N36' 04' 57.9'
W9?" 40' 13.0"
Age: 48 Depth to Soli: 14" Soli Type: SILTY CLAY LOAM
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED Thickness of Crude: 14" Thickness of Covering: NA
Thickness of Water Body: NA Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
POLLARD EAST
00 00
Pit ~  ~~~:/ /.
00 Weathered Oil
S'
12" ~ Oil Sample 
1."  ...
 Ill" ~ Soil Sample
Intllrmi~tl!n! Stream 20· ..    511 IY CLAY lOAM
SCALE: t"  60' 00 HAND AUGER SAWPLE LOCATION
Pit NarraUves: The Pollard East pit is located in an area used for pasture and is lOcated near an intermittent stream. The pit
appears to have been backfilled; however, most of the oil has migrated to the surface and has been weathered to create an
lasphaltlc covering. There is no established vegetation over any part of the pit within the berms. Outside the berms thick bermuda
grass is established. The oil and soil samples went heavily laden with oil, probably due to the asphaltic covering and clay sub soil.
POLLARDWE MMARY
. .
W97° 40' 14.8"
Age: 69
Open/Closed Pit: OPEN
Thickness of Water Body: NA
Depth to Soli: 16"
Thickness of Crude: 16"
Soli Type: CLAY
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
Denuded
Arf/1O
~_ • .Intermillent ~t~4t9m:.:..__
POLLARD WEST
~~~~
      0"+,('
Weathered Oil
'0· 14" ~ Oil Sample
    16" .1.'11":....:      
22" ~ Soil Sample
CLAY LOAM
SCAlE: 1"  50' ~ HAND AUGER SAI.lPLE LOCATION
o an IntermIttent
MMARY
Age: 76
Open/Closed Pit: OPEN
Thickness of Water Body: 6"
Depth to Soli: 36"
Thickness of Crude: 36"
5011 Type: LOAM
Thickness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
WALTERS EAST PIT
_=::::~
I
I
J
J
J
Tren~
\
\
\
\
____ ••• ~reek
~~~
    O"'~:",,__/:,
Fibrous Weathered
Oil
22"
~Oil Somple
30. 211" ~
~ Leachate Sample
     J6".L...JlI::::. 1.:::.      
~ Soil Sample .." ~
SCAlE: ," • 50' ~ HAND AUCER SAUPLE LOCATION
WA ,
" ,", ..."
Age: 76
Open/Closed PIt: OPEN
ThIckness of Water Body: 12"
Depth to Soli: 48"
Thickness of Crude: 48"
Soli Type: LOAM
ThIckness of Covering: NA
Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
..
".
Tren<,,o
_ ••• _"C,,,ree.,.....k__ 
WALTERS WEST PIT
Fibrous Weathered
Oil
28"
" ~Oil Somple
36" 34
~ Leachate Sample
48·L....,~::::. "r _
~ Soil Sample ~8· £Z:I
VERY fiNE SANDY LOAM
SCAlE: ,.  SO' I'X> HAND AUGER SAMPLE LOCATION
WILLIAMSON F. PIT SUMMARY
IJSDLS: C ~W/4 SW/4 SW/4 SEC. 29T7NR8E county: 'iUUHES GPS: N35' 2' 36.8"
VV96" 29' 40.5"
Age: 64 Depth to Soli: 24" Soli Type: SANDY CLAY
Open/Closed Pit: CLOSED Thickness of Crude: 18" Thickness of Covering: 6"
Thickness of Water Body: NA Sampling Method: HAND AUGER
WllLlAIiASON F",
___'::_~:7 7 
<X) t Silt Covering ./ 6"
Pit W~athered Oil
Ill'
24"
22" ~ Oil Sample 1./ 
@ 28" 
~ Soil Sample JO"
SILTY ClM LOA'"
SCALE: ,"  JO' @ HAND AUGER SALlPLE LOCATION
IPlt Narratives: The Willtamson F. pit IS a dosed pit located In a heavily ana pastured area. Crude oil has
miarated to the surface where it IS now eXpOsed.
APPENDIX BRISK CHARACTERIZATION CALCULATIONS
84
APPENDIX BRISK CHARACTERIZATION CALCULATIONS
CARCINOGENIC RISKINGESTION
ADULT RECEPTORS
85
'i
Barrick Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
E.
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h, i}perylene
Benzo(k}fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Risk Calculations:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.014 mg/kg
0.018 mg/kg
0.051 mg/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.004 mg/kg
0.014 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.026 mg/kg
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
2.33E08 mg/kg/day
3.00E08 mg/kg/day
8.50E08 mg/kg/day
1.67E09 mg/kg/day
6.67E09 mg/kg/day
2.33E08 mg/kg/day
1.33E08 mg/kg/day
4.33E08 mg/kg/day
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E09
Benz(a}anthracene 2.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E08
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+00 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E07
Benzo(b}fluoranthene 8.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 6E08
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.67E09 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.67E09 mg/kg/day 7.30ED1 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E09
Chrysene 2.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E09
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.33E08 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E07
Indeno(1,2,3ed)pyrene 4.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 3E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
8E07
Caughlin Adult Risk Calculations· Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.026 mg/kg
0.032 mg/kg
0.093 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.026 mg/kg
0.015 mg/kg
0.046 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
4.33E08 mg/kg/day
5.33E08 mg/kg/day
1.55E07 mg/kg/day
3.33E09 mg/kg/day
1.33E08 mg/kg/day
4.33E08 mg/kg/day
2.50E08 mg/kg/day
7.67E08 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 5ED9
'Benz(a)anthracene 4.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 3EOB
Benzo(a)pyrene 5.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr1 4E07
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 1.55E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E07
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.33E09 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E10
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 1.33EOB mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E08
Chrysene 4.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 3E09
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2.50E08 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr1 9ED7
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 7.67E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 6E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
2E06
Choquette Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benz.o(b)fluoranthene
Ben~o(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.056 mg/kg
0.038 mg/kg
0.048 mg/kg
0.138 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.011 mg/kg
0.038 mg/kg
0.022 mg/kg
0.069 mg/kg
9.33E08 mglkg/day
6.33E08 mg/kg/day
8.00E08 mg/kg/day
2.30E07 mg/kg/day
3.33E09 mg/kgJday
1.83EOe mg/kg/day
6.33E08 mg/kg/day
3.67EOe mg/kg/day
1.15E07 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 9.33EOa mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 3E09
Benz(a)anthracene 6.33EOa mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E08
Benzo(a)pyrene a.OOEOa mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr' 6E07
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.30E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E07
Benzo(g,h, i)perylene 3.33E09 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.83E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E08
Chrysene 6.33E08 rng/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 4E09
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3.67E08 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E06
Indeno( 1,2,3cd)pyrene 1.15E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' BEDB
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
2E06
Dewitt Adult Risk Calculations  Soill,ngestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
SO BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h, i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1.2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0,086 mg/kg
0,108 mg/kg
0.308 mg/kg
0.005 mg/kg
0.025 mg/kg
0.086 mg/kg
0.050 mg/kg
0.154 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
1.43E07 mg/kg/day
1.80E07 mg/kg/day
5.13E07 mg/kg/day
8.33E09 mg/kg/day
4.17E08 mg/kg/day
1.43E07 mg/kg/day
8.33E08 mg/kg/day
2.57E07 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.S7E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 1.43E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E07
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.80E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr1 1EOS
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5.13E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 4E07
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 8.33E09 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 SE10
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 4.17E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 3E08
Chrysene 1.43E07 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E08
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 8.33E08 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr1 3EDS
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 2.57E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E07
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
5E06
Hyde Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.019 mg/kg
0.024 mg/kg
0.069 mg/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.019 mg/kg
0.011 mg/kg
0.035 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
3.17E08 mg/kg/da.y
4.00E08 mg/kg/day
1.15E07 mg/kg/day
1.67E09 mg/kg/day
1.00E08 mg/kg/day
3.17E08 mg/kg/day
1.83E08 mg/kg/day
5.83E08 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 3.17E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E08
Benzo(a)pyrene 4.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+00 (mg/kg/dayr1 3E07
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 1.15E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 8E08
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.67E09 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E10
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 1.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 7E09
Chrysene 3.17E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E09
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.83E08 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 7EC7
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 5.83E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 4E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
1E06
Lair Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.010 mg/kg
0.028 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.005 mg/kg
0.014 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
1.33E08 mg/kg/day
1.67E08 mg/kg/day
4.67E08 mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
3.33E09 mg/kg/day
1.33E08 mg/kg/day
8.33E09 mg/kg/day
2.33E08 mg/kg/day
[Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 1.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E08
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.67E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr1 1E07
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 4.67E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 3E08
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 OE+OO
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 3.33E09 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E09
Chrysene 1.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 9E10
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 8.33E09 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr1 3E07
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 2.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
5E07
LandrumNorth Adult Risk Calculations· Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW(kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beni~(Q)f1uoranthene
Benzp(g,h, i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mglkg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kglday
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr'
Benz(a)anthracene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kgldayr'
Benzo(a)pyrene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.30E+00 (mg/kg/dayr'
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr'
Chrysene O.OOE+OO mglkg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr'
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr'
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
5E09
OE+OO
OE+OO
OE+OO
DE+OO
DE+OO
OE+OO
OE+OO
DE+OO
5E09
LandrumSouth Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.}
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days»
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a}anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(gI h,i)perylene
Benzo(k}f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.022 mg/kg
0.027 mg/kg
0.077 rng/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.022 mg/kg
0.013 mg/kg
0.039 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
3.67EDB mg/kg/day
4.5DEDB mg/kg/day
1.28ED7 mglkg/day
1.67ED9' mg/kg/day
1.00E08 mg/kg/day
3.67E08 mg/kg/day
2.17E08 mg/kg/day
6.50E08 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 3.67EOB mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 3EOB
Benzo(a)pyrene 4.50E08 mg/kg/day 7, 30E+DO (mg/kg/dayr' 3E07
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 1.28EQ7 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 9E08
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.67E09 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E10
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 1.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 7E09
Chrysene 3.67E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 3EDS
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2.17E08 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 8ED7
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 6.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
1ED6
MandrellNorth Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.032 mglkg
0.040 mg/kg
0.114 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.009 mg/kg
0.032 mg/kg
0.018 mg/kg
0.057 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
5.33E08 mg/kg/day
6.67E08 mg/kg/day
1.90E07 mg/kg/day
3.33E09 mg/kg/day
1.50E08 mg/kg/day
5.33E08 mg/kglday
3.00E08 mg/kg/day
9.50E08 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 5.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 4EOe
Benzo(a)pyrene 6.67E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr' 5E07
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 1.90E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E07
Benza(g,h,i)perylene 3.33E09 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.50EOB mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 1EOe
Chrysene 5.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 4E09
Dibenz(a ,h)anthracene 3.00E08 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E06
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 9.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 7E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
2E06
MandrellSouth Adult Risk Calculatilons  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.007 mg/kg
0.021 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.003 mg/kg
0.011 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
1.00E08 mg/kg/day
1.17EOa mg/kg/day
3.50EOa mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
3.33E09 mg/kg/day
1.00E08 mg/kg/day
5.00E09 mg/kg/day
1.83EOa mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 1.00E08 mgfkg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 7E09
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.17'E08 mgfkg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr' 9EOB
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 3.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 3EOB
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' OE+OO
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 3.33E09 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E09
Chrysene 1.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 7E10
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 5.00E09 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E07
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 1.83E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
3EQ7
Martin Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitiess)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B~o(b)fIuoranthene
Ben~o(g,h,i:fperylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.013 mg/kg
0.017 mg/kg
0.048 mg/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.004 mg/kg
0.013 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.024 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
2.17E08 mg/kg/day
2.83E08 mg/kg/day
8.00E08 mg/kg/day
1.67E09 mg/kg/day
6.67E09 mg/kg/day
2.17E08 mg/kg/day
1.33E08 mg/kg/day
4.00E08 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr 1 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 2.17E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E08
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.83E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr' 2E07
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene a.OOEOa mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 6E08
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.67E09 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E10
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 6.67E09 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E09
Chrysene 2.17EQa mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E09
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.33E08 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' SE07
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 4.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 3E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
8E07
PollardEast Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo{b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a, h}anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.020 mg/kg
0.025 mg/kg
0.071 mg/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.020 mg/kg
0.011 mg/kg
0.035 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
3.33EOB mg/kg/day
4.17EOB mg/kg/day
1.18E07 mg/kg/day
1.67E09 mg/kg/day
1.00E08 mg/kg/day
3.33E08 mg/kg/day
1.83E08 mg/kg/day
5.83E08 mglkg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 3.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E08
Benzo(a}pyrene 4.17E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+00 (mg/kg/dayr' 3E07
Benzo(b}f1uoranthene 1.18E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 9E08
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.67E09 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E10
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 1.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 7E09
Chrysene 3.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E09
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.83EOB mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr1 7ED7
Indeno(1,2,3ed)pyrene 5.83EOB mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 4ED8
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
1E06
PollardWest Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k}fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd}pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.017 mg/kg
0.021 mg/kg
0.061 mg/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.005 mg/kg
0.017 mg/kg
0.010 mg/kg
0.030 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
2.B3EOB mg/kg/day
3.50E08 mg/kg/day
1.02E07 mg/kg/day
1.67E09 mg/kg/day
B.33E09 mgfkg/day
2.83E08 mg/kgfday
1.67EOB mgfkgfday
5.00E08 mgfkg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 2.83E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E08
Benzo(a}pyrene 3.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr1 3E07
Benzo(b}f1uoranthene 1.02E07 mg/kglday 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 7EQa
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.67E09 mg/kgfday 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E10
Benzo(k}f1uoranthene 8.33E09 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 6E09
Chrysene 2.83E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E09
Dibenz(a,h}anthracene 1.67E08 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr1 6E07
Indeno(1,2,3cd}pyrene 5.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 4E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
1ED6
WaltersEast Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3ed)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.022 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.004 mg/kg
0.011 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
1.00E08 mg/kg/day
1.33E08 mg/kg/day
3.67E08 mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
3.33E09 mg/kg/day
1.00E06 mg/kg/day
6.67E09 mg/kg/day
1.83E08 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 1.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 7E09
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+00 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E07
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 3.67E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 3EDa
Benzo(g, h, i)perylene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' OE+OO
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 3.33E09 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E09
Chrysene 1.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 {mg/kg/dayr' 7E10
Dibenz(a, h)anthracene 6.67E09 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E07
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 1.83E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
4E07
WaltersWest Adult Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
60 BW (kg)
0.0001 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
70 ED (years)
25550 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Belizo(b)f1uoranthene
Be~o(g, h, r)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.021 mg/kg
0.027 mg/kg
0.076 mg/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.021 mg/kg
0.012 mg/kg
0.038 mg/kg
1.67E07 mg/kg/day
3.50E08 mg/kg/day
4.50E08 mg/kg/day
1.27E07 mg/kg/day
1.67E09 mg/kg/day
1.00E08 mg/kg/day
3.50E08 mg/kg/day
2.00E08 mg/kg/day
6.33E08 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.67E07 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E09
Benz(a)anthracene 3.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 3E08
Benzo(a)pyrene 4.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+00 (mg/kg/dayr' 3E07
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 1.27E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 9EDe
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.67E09 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E10
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 1.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 7E09
Chrysene 3.50EOB mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E09
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2.00EOB mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 7E07
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 6.33E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E08
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
1EDS
APPENDIX BRISK CHARACTERIZATION CALCULATIONS
CARCINOGENIC RISKINGESTION
CHILD RECEPTORS
101
Barrick Child Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
16 BW (kg)
0.0002 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
5 ED (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.014 mglkg
0.018 mg/kg
0.051 mg/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.004 mg/kg
0.014 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.026 mglkg
1.25E06 mg/kg/day
1.75E07 mg/kg/day
2.25E07 mglkg/day
6.38E07 mg/kg/day
1.25E08 mg/kg/day
5.00E08 mg/kg/day
1.75E07 mg/kg/da,y
1.00E07 mg/kg/day
3.25E07 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 4E08
Benz(a)anthracene 1.75E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E07
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.25E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr1 2E06
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 6.38E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E07
Benzo(g,hI i)perylene 1.25EOa mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 9E10
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 5.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 4EOa
Chrysene 1.75E07 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (rng/kg/dayr' 1EQa
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.00E07 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 4E06
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 3.25E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E07
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
6EQ6
Caughlin Child Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
16 BW (kg)
0.0002 IR (kg/daY)1
365 EF (days/year)
5 ED (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g, h, i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1.2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.026 mg/kg
0.032 mg/kg
0.093 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.026 mg/kg
0.015 mg/kg
0.046 mg/kg
1.25E06 mg/kg/day
3.25E07 mg/kg/day
4.00E07 mg/kg/day
1.16E06 mg/kg/day
2.50E08 mg/kg/day
1.00E07 mg/kg/day
3.25E07 mg/kg/day
1.88E07 mglkg/day
5.75E07 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kg/day 2.90.E02 (mg/kg/day)"' 4E08
Benz(a)anthracene 3.25E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/day)"' 2E07
Benzo(a}pyrene 4.00E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (rng/kg/day)"' 3E06
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.16E06 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/day)" BE07
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/day)" 2E09
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 1.00E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/day)" 7E08
Chrysene 3.25E07 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayy' 2E08
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.88E07 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/day)" 7EC6
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 5.75E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/day)" 4E07
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
1ECS
Choquette Child Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
16 BW (kg)
0.0002 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
5 EO (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benz.o(b}fluoranthene
Ben~o(g.h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Oibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.038 mg/kg
0.048 mg/kg
0.138 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.038 mg/kg
0.022 mg/kg
0.069 mg/kg
1.25E06 mg/kg/day
4.75E07 mg/kg/day
6.00E07 mg/kg/day
1.73E06 mg/kg/day
2.50E08 mg/kg/day
1.25E08 mglkg/day
4.75E07 mg/kg/day
2.75E07 mg/kg/day
8.63E07 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 4E08
Benz(a)anthracene 4.75E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 3E07
Benzo(a)pyrene 6.00E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr1 4E06
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.73E06 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E06
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2.50EOB mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E09
Benzo(k}fluoranthene 1.25EOB mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 9E09
Chrysene 4.75E07 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 3E08
Oibenz(a,h)anthracene 2.75E07 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E05
Indeno(1,2,3cd}pyrene 8.63E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 6EO?
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
2E05
Dewitt Child Risk Calculations· Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
16 BW (kg)
0.0002 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
5 ED (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g, h, i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.086 mg/kg
0.108 mg/kg
0.308 mg/kg
0.005 mg/kg
0.025 mg/kg
0.086 mg/kg
0.050 mg/kg
0.154 mg/kg
1.25E06 mg/kg/day
1.08E06 mg/kg/day
1.35E06 mg/kg/day
3.85E06 mg/kg/day
6.25E08 mg/kg/day
3.13E07 mg/kg/day
1.08E06 mg/kg/day
6.25E07 mg/kg/day
1.93E06 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk = Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 4E08
Benz(a)anthracene 1.08E06 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 8E07
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.35E06 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr' 1E05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.85E06 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 3E06
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6.25E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 4E09
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3.13E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E07
Chrysene 1.08E06 mg/kglday 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 8EOB
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6.25E07 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kgldayr' 2E05
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 1.93E06 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E06
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
4E05
Hyde Child Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
16 BW (kg)
0.0002 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
5 ED (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno( 1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.019 mg/kg
0.024 mg/kg
0.069 mg/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.019 mg/kg
0.011 mg/kg
0.035 mg/kg
1.25E06 mg/kg/day
2.3BE07 mg/kg/day
3.00E07 mg/kg/day
8.63E07 mg/kg/day
1.25E08 mg/kg/day
7.50EOB mg/kg/day
2.3BE07 mg/kg/day
1.38E07 mg/kg/day
4.38E07 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kgJday 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 4E08
Benz(a)anthracene 2.38E07 mg/kgJday 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E07
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.00E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr' 2E06
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 8.63E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 6E07
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.25E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 9E10
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 7.50E08 mg/kgJday 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E08
Chrysene 2.38E07 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E08
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.38E07 mg/kgJday 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 5EDS
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 4.38E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 3E07
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
8E06
Lair Child Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
16 BW (kg)
0.0002 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
5 ED (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3<;d)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.010 mg/kg
0.028 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.005 mg/kg
0.014 mg/kg
Dose
1.25E06 mg/kglday
1.00E07 mglkg/day
1.25E07 mg/kg/day
3.50E07 mglkg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
2.50EQ8 mg/kg/day
1.00E07 mg/kg/day
6.25EQ8 mg/kg/day
1.75EQ7 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 4E08
Benz(a)anthracene 1.00E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 7E08
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.25E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr1 9E07
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 3.50E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 {mg/kg/dayr1 3E07
Benzo(g,h, i)perylene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 OE+OO
Benzo(k)t1uoranthene 2.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 2EDa
Chrysene 1.00E07 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 7ED9
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 6.25E08 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E06
Indeno(1,2,3<;d)pyrene 1.75E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E07
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
4E06
LandrumNorth Child Risk Calculations· Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
16 BW (kg)
0.0002 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
5 ED (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ben~o(b)fluoranthene
Ben~o(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
1.25E06 mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 4E08
Benz(a)anthracene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' OE+OO
Benzo(a)pyrene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.30E+00 (mg/kg/dayr' OE+OO
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' OE+OO
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' OE+OO
Benzo(k)fluoranthene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' OE+OO
Chrysene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/day)"' OE+OO
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/day)"' OE+OO
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/day)"' OE+OO
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk: .
4E08
LandrumSouth Child Risk Calculations· Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
16 BW (kg)
0.0002 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
5 ED (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h, i}perylene
Benzo(k}fluoranthene
Dibenz(a, h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd}pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.022 mg/kg
0.027 mg/kg
0.077 mg/kg
0.001 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.022 mg/kg
0.01i3 mglkg
0.039 mg/kg
1.25E06 mg/kg/day
2.75E07 mglkg/day
3.38E07 mglkg/day
9.63E07 mg/kg/day
1.25EOB mglkg/day
7.50EOB mg/kg/day
2.75E07 mg/kg/day
1.63E07 mg/kg/day
4.88E07 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 4EOB
Benz(a}anthracene 2.75E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E07
Benzo(a}pyrene 3.38E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr' 2E06
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 9.63E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/day)"' 7E07
Benzo(g,h,i}perylene 1.25E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 9E10
Benzo(k}fluoranthene 7.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 5E08
Chrysene 2.75E07 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E08
Dibenz(a,h}anthracene 1.63E07 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/day)"' 6E06
Indeno(1,2,3cd}pyrene 4.88E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 4E07
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
1EQ5
MandrellNorth Child Risk Calculations· Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
16 BW (kg)
0.0002 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
5 ED (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b}f1uoranthene
Benzo(g I h,i}perylene
Benzo(k}f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1.2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.032 mg/kg
0.040 mg/kg
0.114 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.009 mg/kg
0.032 mg/kg
0.018 mg/kg
0.057 mg/kg
1.25E06 mg/kg/day
4.00E07 mg/kg/day
5.00E07 mglkg/day
1.43E06 mg/kg/day
2.50E08 mg/kg/day
1.13E07 mg/kg/day
4.00E07 mg/kg/day
2.25E07 mg/kg/day
7.13E07 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Oral SF
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 4E08
Benz(a}anthracene 4.00EQ7 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 3E07
Benzo(a)pyrene 5.00E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr' 4E06
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 1.43E06 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E06
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2.50E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/day)"' 2E09
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.13E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 8EOB
Chrysene 4.00E07 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 3EOB
Dibenz(a,h}anthracene 2.25E07 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 8E06
Indeno( 1,2,3cd)pyrene 7.13E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 5E07
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
1E05
MandrellSouth Child Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless)
16 BW (kg)
0.0002 IR (kg/day)
365 EF (days/year)
5 ED (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.007 mg/kg
0.021 mg/kg
0.000 mg/kg
0.002 mg/kg
0.006 mg/kg
0.003 mg/kg
0.011 mg/kg
1.25E06 mg/kg/day
7.S0E08 mg/kg/day
8.75E08 mg/kg/day
2.63E07 mg/kg/day
O.OOE+OO mg/kg/day
2.50E08 mg/kg/day
7.50E08 mg/kg/day
3.7SE08 mg/kgJday
1.38E07 mglkgJday
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 4EOB
Benz(a)anthracene 7.S0EOB mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 5E08
Benzo(a)pyrene 8.75E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E+00 (mg/kg/dayr1 6E07
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.63E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E07
Benzo(g,h, i)perylene O.OOE+OO mgJkg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 OE+OO
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene 2.S0E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 2E08
Chrysene 7.S0E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 SE09
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3.75ED8 mg/kg/day 3.6SE+01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1EQ6
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 1.3BE07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 1E07
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
2E06
\
Martin Child Risk Calculations· Soil Ingestion (Care.)
Assumptions:
1 FI (unitless}
16 BW(kg}
0.0002 IR (kg/day}
365 EF (days/year)
5 ED (years)
1825 AT (days)
Compound
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ben~o(b)fluoranthene
Be~o(g,h,t)perylene
Benzo(k}fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h}anthracene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3cd}pyrene
Concentration
0.100 mg/kg
0.013 mg/kg
0.017 mg/kg
0.048 mg/kg
0.001 mglkg
0.004 mg/kg
0.013 mg/kg
0.008 mg/kg
0.024 mg/kg
1.25E06 mg/kg/day
1.63E07 mg/kg/day
2.13E07 mg/kg/day
6.00E07 mg/kg/day
1.25E08 mg/kg/day
5.00E08 mg/kglday
1.63E07 mg/kglday
1.00E07 mg/kg/day
3.00E07 mg/kg/day
Risk Calculations:
Risk =Dose x Slope Factor
Compound Dose Oral SF Risk
Benzene 1.25E06 mg/kg/day 2.90E02 (mg/kg/dayr1 4E08
Benz(a)anthracene 1.63E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 1E07
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.13E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E+OO (mg/kg/dayr' 2E06
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene 6.00E07 mg/kg/day 7.30ED1 (mg/kg/dayr' 4E07
Benzo(g, h, i)perytene 1.25E08 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr' 9E10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.00E08 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr1 4EOa
Chrysene 1.63E07 mg/kg/day 7.00E02 (mg/kg/dayr 1 1EOa
Dibenz(a,h )anthracene 1.00E07 mg/kg/day 3.65E+01 (mg/kg/dayr' 4E06
Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene 3.00E07 mg/kg/day 7.30E01 (mg/kg/dayr' 2E07
Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk:
6E06
PollardEast Child Risk Calculations  Soil Ingestion (Care.)