600 likes | 795 Views
Presentation Outline. Site DescriptionData Evaluation and AssessmentExposure AssessmentToxicity Assessment and Risk CharacterizationAssumptionsConclusion. Stages in Risk Assessment . . ExposureAssessment. HazardIdentificationAndAccounting. RiskCharacterization. Exposure-ResponseAssessment.
E N D
1. RISK ANALYSIS,EVALUATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF THE DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS INC.,FRIENDSWOOD,TEXAS
CVEN 610/PHEO 650
APRIL 22,2004
BY
OKE NWANESHIUDU
ABHIRAM KRISHNAN
ARVIND KUTTY
SIVASANKARI MUTHUSWAMY
2. Presentation Outline Site Description
Data Evaluation and Assessment
Exposure Assessment
Toxicity Assessment and Risk Characterization
Assumptions
Conclusion
3. Stages in Risk Assessment
4. Site Description
Site Location
Site Description
Site Ranking
Hydrology
5. Site Location Located on Dixie farm road, S. Harris County~ 20 miles SE of Houston,1.5 miles SW of interstate highway (Gulf Freeway).
The west of the site is bordered by a stream called the Mud Gully which discharges into Clear Creek.
Dixie Farm road divides the site into two segments North and South tract.
Population around 5,000 people in 1 mile radius.
Southbend subdivision is the nearest residential area.
10. Site Description Site occupies ~26.6 acres
Divided into two segments Northern and Southern tract
Northern tract
Occupies ~19 acres
Used for storage purposes in impoundments and pits
Southern tract
Covers ~7.6 acres
Used for processing activities
11. Site Description Open lands on NW and athletic field on the SW borders the site
Open lands surrounding the site were used for oil and gas production
Memorial Southeast hospital is located on the NW of the site
Southbend Municipal water well is ~ 2 mi Southwest of the site
12. Site Ranking NPL Listing History
HRS Score: 34.21
Proposed date: June 24 1988
Final Date: October 4 1989
NPL Update: 7
13. Site Hydrology West of the site bordered by a stream called Mud Gully
Surface drainage from the site is into the Mud Gully
Soils on the site consist of surface clay ~ 12-20 ft across the site
Below Surface clay there is a uniform zone of sand filled channels (Numerous sand channel zone)
Two water bearing zones identified:
Sand Channel Zone : Depth- 40-45ft
The 50ft sand aquifer: Depth 52-61.5ft
14. Site History 1969-1978
Intercoastal Chemical Company (ICC) operated copper catalyst recovery and hydrocarbon washing facilities on the DOP North Site
DOP South began operations
DOP began oil recovery at DOP South including cuprous chloride catalyst, hydrocarbon washing, oil washing and blending distilling residues from chemical plants
1984
Emergency removal of contaminated soils undertaken by DOP
1988
Remedy investigation and Feasibility studies (RI/FS) was completed
Record of decision (ROD) signed on March 31 1988
1993
Remedy constriction activities were concluded on the site
Completion of the project close out report
1998
Completion of the five yr review. The remedy remains protective of human health and environment
15. Data Evaluation and Assessment
16. Some facts from the investigation LUSTs where found
Samples where taken in 1988
Both sites where analyzed simultaneously and samples from 6 locations where taken
Analyses of the air and soil samples from the south bend subdivision did not reveal significant impact
19. Assumptions
21. DOP mud gully sediments (concentration)
22. NAPL fraction in GW Max values in well
23. DOP pit residual contaminants
24. Exposure Assessment
25. Exposure Assessment Potential Receptors:
Site Workers
Adults in neighboring residential Areas
Children in neighboring residential Areas
26. Exposure Assessment Contd.. Exposure Routes:
Dermal Contact of soil and dust
Ingestion of soil and fugitive dust
Inhalation of fugitive dust
27. Exposure Assessment Contd.. The exposure via inhalation route from the dust were not considered due to inadequate data.
28. Exposure Scenarios Three exposure scenarios were considered based on the location and sources of contamination
Pit Residuals
DOP soil and dust
Ground water contamination
29. Pit Residuals Exposure routes
Ingestion of soil and dust
Dermal contact of soil and dust
Target Population: Site Worker (Adult)
30. DOP Soil and Dust Exposure routes
Ingestion of soil and dust
Dermal contact of soil and dust
Target Population: Site Worker (Adult)
31. Ground Water Contamination Exposure routes
Ingestion of potable water
Target Populations
Industrial site workers
Adults in residential areas
Children in residential area
32. Toxicity assessment and Risk Characterization
33. Assumptions Fraction of contaminant for dermal exposure calculations were 0.001
For ingestion of potable water f = 0.00001
GI absorption factor = 0.63 (average value
34. Exposure Scenario 1 Pit residual – Brio/DOP
35. Conceptual Site model
36. Results Total Carcinogenic Risk - 5.74 e-05
Vinyl Chloride – most potent in terms of individual risk (2.77 e-05)
Total Non-carcinogenic Risk - 1.24 e-01
1,1,2 Trichloroethane - most potent in terms of individual hazard quotient (1.01e-01)
37. Carcinogenic Risk
39. Non-carcinogenic risk
41. Exposure scenario 2 DOP mud gully sediments
42. Results Total Carcinogenic Risk - 1.36 e-06
Indeno(1,2,3 cd) pyrene – most potent in terms of individual risk (7.58 e-07)
Total Non-carcinogenic Risk - 2.77 e-03
1,1,2 Trichloroethane - most potent in terms of individual hazard quotient (2.51 e-03)
43. Carcinogenic risk
45. Non-carcinogenic risk
47. Exposure scenario 3 Groundwater contamination by NAPLs
48. Conceptual site model
50. Results Industrial - Ingestion of water (adults)
Total Carcinogenic Risk - 5.28 e-04
Vinyl chloride – most potent in terms of individual risk (2.58 e-04)
Total Non-carcinogenic Risk - 2.75
Bis(2 ethylhexyl)Phthalate - most potent in terms of individual hazard quotient (1.18)
51. Carcinogenic
52. Non-carcinogenic
53. Results Residential – Ingestion of water (adults)
Total Carcinogenic Risk - 1.77 e-03
Vinyl chloride – most potent in terms of individual risk (8.69 e-04)
Total Non-carcinogenic Risk - 7.7
Bis(2 ethylhexyl)Phthalate - most potent in terms of individual hazard quotient (3.3)
54. Carcinogenic
55. Non-carcinogenic
56. Results Residential – Ingestion of water (children)
Total Carcinogenic Risk - 4.28 e-04
Vinyl chloride – most potent in terms of individual risk (2.09 e-04)
Total Non-carcinogenic Risk - 9.29
Bis(2 ethylhexyl)Phthalate - most potent in terms of individual hazard quotient (3.99)
57. Carcinogenic
58. Non-carcinogenic
61. Conclusions The relative concentrations of contaminants is not necessarily an indicator of their magnitudes of risk
Vinyl Chloride and DHEP are the contaminants that pose maximum risk
The target group of site workers were found to be the group exposed to the greatest risk