THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF
EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES FOR
OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FACILITIES
Final Report
Prepared for:
Economic and Statistical Analysis Branch
Office of Science Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mahesh Podar, Project Officer
Prepared by:
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
P.O. Drawer O
Boulder, CO 80306-1906
Contact:
Dr. Robert Raucher
(303) 449-5515
Prepared under contract:
68-C8-Q084
January 14, 1993
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1_1
1.1 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS BENEFITS ANALYSIS
REPORT 1-1
1.2 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT ................. l-l
2.0 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION OF GENERAL
METHODOLOGY 2-1
2.2 EXPOSURE SCENARIOS '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 2-5
2.2.1 Seafood Consumption Levels .., 2-5
2-2-2 Using the Exposure Scenarios in Calculating Risk Reduction
Benefits 2-7
2-2-3 The Number of Recreational Anglers Offshore in the Gulf ... 2-9
2.3 IMPACTED FISH HARVEST AND LEACH RATE SCENARIOS . 2-10
3.0 DRILLING FLUIDS AND CUTTINGS 3 !
3.1 NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 3-1
3.1.1 Risks Associated With Lead Intake / 3.1
3.1.2 Other Noncarcinogenic Risks 3_g
3.2 CARCINOGENIC RISKS 3 8
3.3 TOTAL BENEFITS '.'.'.'.'.'.'.''.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. .3-12
4.0 PRODUCED WATER — EXISTING PLATFORMS 41
4.1 NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS 4_1
4.2 CARCINOGENIC RISKS 4 1
4.3 TOTAL BENEFITS '.'.'.'.'.'. 4-1
5.0 PRODUCED WATER — NEW SOURCES (NSPS) 5 i
5.1 NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS 51
5.2 CARCINOGENIC RISKS " ' 5 1
5.3 TOTAL BENEFITS '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 5-4
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6_1
7.0 REFERENCES
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
APPENDIX F:
Shrimp Impacts from Drill Muds and Cuttings Pollutant
Concentrations
Finfish Impacts from Drill Muds and Cuttings Pollutant
Concentrations .
Finfish Impacts from Produced Water at Existing Platforms
Finfish Impacts from Produced Water — NSPS
A Probabilistic Assessment of Health Benefits from Reduced Lead
Levels , ,
Shrimp Consumption Rates (EPA memorandum from H. Jacobs to
' A Tarnay)
RCG/Hagler, Baffly, Inc.
-------
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an overview of the benefits analysis of the effluent limitation
guidelines for offshore oil and gas facilities. Regulatory options were evaluated for two
wastestreams: (1) drilling fluids (muds) and cuttings; and (2) produced water.
The analysis focuses on the human health-related benefits of the regulatory options
considered. These health risk reduction benefits are associated with reduced human
exposure to various carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic contaminants, including lead, by
way of consumption of shrimp and recreationally caught finfish from the Gulf of Mexico
Most of the health-risk reduction benefits analysis is based upon a previous report
(RCG/Hagler, Bailly, January 1991), developed in support of the proposed rulemaking.~
Recreational, commercial, and nonuse benefits have not been estimated for these
regulations, due to data limitations and the difficulty of estimating these values for
effluent controls in the open-water marine environment.
DRILLING FLUIDS AND CUTTINGS
Benefits were estimated for several regulatory options beyond baseline practices (BPJ or
dirty" bante muds). Estimates were prepared for Gulf of Mexico locations only These
options include: .
3 Mile Gulf/California. Zero discharge (i.e., the transport of muds and
cuttings to shore for appropriate land-based waste management and disposal)
for all platforms within three miles of shore. Under this option, Best
Available Technology (BAT), consisting of using "clean" barite drilling fluids,
applies to all platforms beyond three miles of shore. Alaska is exempt from
the zero discharge requirement.
* 8 Mile Gulf/3 Mile California. Zero discharge for platforms within eight miles
of shore, and BAT for platforms beyond. California and Alaska must meet
the same requirements .as in the 3 Mile Gulf/California option.
Zero Discharge Gulf/California Zero discharge for all platforms. Alaska is
exempt, but must meet the same requirements as in the 3 Mile Gulf/California
option.
The estimated benefits of these options are predominantly derived from reducing the
amount of lead in edible shrimp tissue harvested from platform-impacted waters of the
Gulf (over 15 million kilograms per year). Lead concentrations in edible fish tissue are
based on water column and sediment pore water concentrations (omitting uptake via
sediment or food chain). Additionally, benefits associated with decreased carcinogenic
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
ES-2
risks were estimated. For both risk categories, benefits were estimated using a saltwater
leach scenario and an alternative, pH-dependent leach scenario.
Benefits Estimation Methodology: Drilling Fluids and Cuttings
Lead-Related Benefits. All of the lead-related benefits analysis draws upon, and is
consistent with, the Agency's previous research on lead. These previous findings are
reflected in Agency analyses and documents prepared for the lead phasedown in
gasoline, the lead in drinking water rulemaking, and the sludge disposal program.
Major toxic effects of lead include inhibition of heme synthesis, kidney disfunction, and
damage to the central nervous system. Broad symptoms include increased blood pressure
and reduced learning ability. Based on previous agency research relating lead intake to
selected adverse health effects, reductions in the number of cases of these health
endpoints were quantified for the offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines options. These
lead-related benefits include (1) decreased infant mortality; (2) reduced I.Q. impairments
in children; and (3) reduced risks of heart disease, strokes, hypertension and death in
males between 40 and 59 years of age.
To estimate these benefits, lead concentrations in edible shrimp tissue and recreationally
caught finfish tissue, and estimates of the shrimp and finfish harvests impacted by
platform operations, were prepared for each drilling fluids and cuttings regulatory option
(Avanti Corporation, 1992).
The platform-impacted Gulf shrimp harvest was allocated across the estimated 50 million
Americans who consume shrimp. The impacted recreational finfish harvest was allocated
across the estimated 1.7 million individuals consuming recreationally-caught Gulf finfish.
Estimates of human exposure were made at four intake levels that reflect the distribution
of shrimp or finfish consumption levels across the population of shrimp or finfish eaters
(e.g., individuals who consume relatively low amounts of impacted shrimp, versus those
who eat relatively high levels of shrimp).
Seafood consumption levels, coupled with the option-specific lead concentrations in
edible shrimp or finfish tissue, provide estimates of the daily lead intake via shrimp and
finfish for each exposure group (for each regulatory option). Using age-specific
adsorption factors to distinguish lead uptake levels in children versus adults, lead intake
levels were transformed into estimates of lead uptake. Using prior Agency lead research,
lead uptake was used to estimate changes in the distribution of blood lead levels (PbB)
above the baseline distribution (of no shrimp-related or finfish-related lead exposure).
RCG/Hagler, Baflty, Inc.
-------
ES-3
Within each exposure group, the populations were distributed across age and sex
categories for which risk reduction analysis can be performed: children, adult males, and
pregnant women (whose blood lead level affects the risk of infant mortality):
* For the children within each exposure group, established Agency research
linking elevated blood lead levels to IQ impairments was used to estimate the
option-specific reductions in: 1) the total level of IQ point decrements, and 2)
the number of children with IQ levels below 70.
•> For the expected number of pregnant women within each exposure group
established Agency research linking elevated blood lead levels to reduced fetal
birth weight and, hence, increased infant mortality was used to estimate the
option-specific reductions of infant deaths.
- For the expected number of males between the ages of 40 and 59 within each
exposure group, established Agency research was used that links: 1) elevated
blood lead levels to hypertension and, subsequently, 2) the increased risk of
strokes, cardiovascular heart disease (CHD), and premature fatality due to
hypertension. These results were used to estimate the option-specific
reductions of strokes, CHD events, and death in the male population between
40 and 59 years of age.
The estimated number of reductions in health effects (cases avoided) at each regulatory
option » shown m Table ES-1. These results reflect the impact of lead exposure due to
impacted shrimp consumption (estimated lead-related exposures via finfish consumption
are so low that no estimable lead-related benefits can be attributed to the regulatory
options). " y
Cancer Risk Reduction Benefits In conformant with standard Agency risk assessment
procedures for carcinogens, excess cancer cases were estimated by multiplying the
ainn? forSe^S?KSUI! leVC1^ (3t 6ach °pti°n) by the establis«ed Agency carcinogenic
slope factor (CSF), by the total exposed population.
Results: Drilling Fluids and Cuttings
In Table ES-2, the monetized values of lead-related benefits are displayed for the
selected option (3 Mile Gulf/California). The dollar values assigned to each health effect
are consistent with EPA's other lead benefits analysis (e.g., the RIAs for the drinking
water and sludge rulemakings). As shown in Table ES-3, most of the benefits are
obtained at the three-mile barge option, with small incremental benefits realized at more
stringent options. All of the benefit levels shown in these tables are related to the use of
a saltwater leach scenario for calculating the bioavailability of lead in the marine
environment The alternative scenario evaluated (using a pH-dependent leach rate to
RCG/Hagler, Bailfy, Inc.
-------
ES-4
Table ES-1
Annual Incremental Lead-Related Health Effects Reductions
for Drilling Fluids and Cuttings
(Salt Water Leach Scenario, Gulf of Mexico)
(Shrimp only)
Benefit Category
Infant Mortality
Children
IQ<70
IQ points
Adult Males
Hypertension
Stroke
Heart Disease
Death
Cases Avoided •>• From Baseline to Regulatory Options . :
6l -v
1 , --. * &
3 MDe Gnir/Callfornia
0.31
0.65
14ZOO
243.50
1.29
6.97
9.11
8 Mile Geii/3 Mite
California "
0;31
0.70
144.00
247.00
1.29
7.10
9.16
Zero Discharge.
Gulf/California
0.33
0.70
151.00
259.00
1.42
7.48
9.68
Table ES-2
Annual Monetized Lead-Related
Benefits of 3 Mile Gulf/California Option (Shrimp only)
Benefit Category
Infant Mortality
Children
IQ<70
IQ points
Adult Males
Hypertension
Stroke
Heart Disease
Death
Total*
Baseline to Selected Option
Cases
Avoided
031
0.65
142.00
243.5
1.29
6.97
9.11
$ Benefit per"
Case Avoided,
$2-10 million
$6,040
$4,755
$656.0
$1 million
$1 million
$2-10 million
~
Incremental
Benefits ($ millions)
$0.7 - 3.1
$0.0004
$0.67
$0.16
$1.3
$7.0
$18.2 - 91.1
$28.0 - 103.3
* Total does not add due to rounding.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
ES-5
Table ES-3
Monetized Lead-Related Benefits of
Drilling Fluids and Cutting Options:
Gulf of Mexico
(Salt Water Leach Scenario)
(Shrimp Only)
Regulatory Option
Baseline - Current
3 Mile Gulf/California
8 Mile Gulf/3 Mile
California
Zero Discharge
Gulf/California
Annual Benefits"
(millions 1991 dollars)
—
$28.0-103.3
$28.4 - 104.4
$29.9 - 110.1
a Relative to baseline.
estimate fish tissue concentrations) would increase human intake of lead to a significant
degree, and the resulting benefit levels would increase by more than a factor of six times
greater than the values shown here.
The total monetized benefits of the options for drilling muds and cuttings are shown in
Table ES-4. In addition to the lead-related benefits described above, the values also
reflect modest reductions in cancer risk as associated with arsenic. .These "total" benefits
are understated due to the omission of several potentially significant benefits. Omitted
benefits include, but are not limited to: (1) Adverse health effects from lead in women
and in men below the age of 40 or over the age of 59; (2) Adverse lead-related health
effects other than the endpoints quantified; (3) Lead-related exposure associated with
shrimp or finfish uptake of lead through the sediments directly, or indirectly, through the
food chain; (4) Recreational and commercial fishery improvements; (5) ecologic benefits;
and (6) nonuse values.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
ES-6
Table ES-4
Total Monetized Benefits of
Drilling Muds and Cuttings Options:
Gulf of Mexico
(Salt Water Leach Scenario)
Regulatory Option
Baseline - Current
3 Mile Gulf/California
8 Mile Gulf/3 Mile California
Zero Discharge Gulf/California
Annual, Benefits *b
(millions 1991 dollars)
—
$28.1 - $103.6
$28.5 - $104.7
$30.0 - $110.5
a Health benefits primarily based on reduced lead exposure, plus
reduced arsenic-related carcinogenic risks.
b Relative to baseline.
PRODUCED WATER
The benefits associated with produced water at existing or new sources (NSPS) are
related to three_regulatory options:
>• Flotation All Improved gas flotation for all platforms (BAT).
> Zero 3 Miles Gulf and Alaska. Zero discharge (re-injection) at platforms
within three miles of shore, and BAT for platforms beyond three miles. BAT
required for California wells.
>. Zero Discharge Gulf and Alaska. Zero discharge for all platforms except
California. BAT required for California wells.
Benefit estimates were prepared for Gulf of Mexico locations only. The methodology for
estimation of benefits associated with the produced water options is the same as that
described above under Drilling Fluids and Cuttings (except that shrimp-related exposures
could not be estimated for produced water).
RCG/Hagler, Bailfy, Inc.
-------
ES-7
The quantified and monetized benefits are based on reduced human health risks by way
of exposure to selected carcinogens (arsenic, benzene and benzo(a)pyrene) and lead
through the consumption of recreationally harvested finfish (shrimp uptake of
contaminants from the produced water wastestream could not be estimated). The
estimated benefit levels are relatively modest, as shown in Tables ES-5 for existing
platforms (BAT) and NSPS. It is important to note, however, that these quantified and
monetized values omit several important benefits. These omitted benefits include (but
are not limited to): (1) Lead related risk reductions for women (all ages) and for men
other than those between the ages of 40 and 59; (2) Lead-related health effects other
than those evaluated; (3) Lead-related exposure associated with shrimp or finfish uptake
of lead through sediments directly, or indirectly through the food chain; (4) Recreational
and commercial fishery benefits; and (5) Nonuse values and ecologic benefits that may be
associated with the regulatory options.
CONCLUSIONS
The benefits of the offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines appear to be significant, with
the monetized human health benefits for the selected options for drilling fluids and
cuttings, and produced water, amounting to between $30 million and $111 million per
year. Virtually all of these benefits arise from estimated reductions in a limited range of
adverse health effects associated with lead exposure.
While the estimated human health benefits are significant in their own right, it is
important to consider that the estimated monetized benefits for both the muds and'
cuttings and produced water wastestreams are appreciably limited by the omission of
several potentially significant types of benefits that could not be monetized due to current
limitations of thp data and quantitative methods. Table ES-6 provides an overview of the
types of benefits that were monetized as well as those potential benefits that could not be
assessed reliably in quantitative and/or monetary terms. This indicates the extent to which
there are many potentially significant benefits that are not included in the monetary
benefits assessment.
RCG/Hagler, Baffly, Inc.
-------
ES-8
Table ES-5
Total Monetized Benefits for Produced Water
Gulf of Mexico"
(Thousands of 1991 Dollars)
Regulatory Option ,. " -i
Baseline
Flotation All
Zero 3 Miles Gulf and Alaska
Zero Discharge Gulf and Alaska
i Existing Soutrces ; •
$26.8 - $107.6
$28.7 - $117.5
$42,4 - $173.2
-:•:-;>, NSPS :-. •
$34.5 - $139.1
$48.7 - $164.3
$54.8 - $224.8
a These benefit estimates do not include risk reductions due to the incidental removal of
Radium.
RCG/Hagler, Bailty, Inc.
-------
ES-9
Table ES-6
Benefits of Offshore Oil and Gas Effluent Guidelines
Monetized Benefits
Human Health Risk Reductions;
Contaminants
»• carcinogens with Agency-established risk slope factors
> lead
Environmental Pathway
»• water column concentrations (finfish)
»• sediment pore water concentrations (shrimp)
Exposure Route
> commercialfy harvested shrimp in Gulf of Mexico (drilling fluids and cuttings only)
> offshore rig recreational angling catch in Gulf of Mexico
Populations
* carcinogens: all shrimp consumers and offshore Gulf recreational anglers
> lead-from among shrimp and recrpational finfish consumers: children (5 year
old-cohort), males (40 to 59 years old), pregnant women (infant mortality)
Non-Monetized Benefits
Human Health Risk Reductions Associated With:
»• carcinogens without Agency-established risk slope factors
•• systemics other than lead
»• lead health risk endpoints other than infant mortality, IQ detriment,
or selected hypertension-related illnesses
»• lead-related risks to women (all ages) and to men under 40 or over 59 years of age
» exposure from shrimp and finfish uptake of pollutants via sediment or the food
chain
> pH-dependent leach rates
*• platform-related contaminants in commercial finfish or shellfish other than shrimp
Ecologic Risk Reductions
all pollutants
all offshore species and ecosystems
Fishery Benefits
> commercial fisheries
» recreational fisheries
Intrinsic Benefits
existence value
bequest value
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
-------
• . ; 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS BENEFITS ANALYSIS REPORT
This report represents an economic benefits analysis for the effluent limitation guidelines
for offshore oil and gas facilities. The benefits analysis specifically addresses the health
risk reduction benefits attained from applying regulatory options for the drilling fluids
and produced water waste-streams.
This analysis of the reduced human health risks associated with the pollutant removals is
based on the consumption of (i) recreationally-caught finfish species by sport anglers in
the Gulf of Mexico (for both the muds and cuttings and produced water wastestreams);
and (ii) shrimp commercially harvested in impacted Gulf waters and consumed by the
general public (for drilling fluids and cuttings only). This report is based extensively on
the methodology and analysis conducted for regulatory options evaluated in previous
rulemaking efforts, as described in greater detail in RCG/Hagler, Bailly (January 1991).
The analysis described below applies this previously conducted research to the current set
of regulatory options. In addition, the analysis has been revised as described below to
reflect updated fish harvest data and health effects valuation insights.
1.2 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT
The outline of this report is as follows: Section 2.0 provides an overview of the
methodology. Section 3.0 provides a summary of the findings for the drilling fluids
(muds) and cuttings regulatory options. Section 4.0 provides a summary of findings for
the regulatory options associated with the produced water wastestream at existing
platforms, and Section 5.0 provides produced water results for new sources (NSPS).
Section 6.0 offers a summary and conclusions. Finally, appendices provide detailed
results for each wastestream and regulatory option.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
-------
2-1
2.0 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY
2.1
INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION OF GENERAL METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed for this analysis is identical to that employed in the benefits
analysis that originally accompanied the proposed rulemaking, as described in the report,
The Economic Benefits of Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Offshore Oil and
Gas F*a/^(RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc., Final Report, January 24, 1991). In the analysis
changes in effluent concentrations are translated into changes in fish tissue concentrations
for the applicable pollutants (this analytic step is performed by Avanti Corporation
(Avanti, 1992)). These changes in fish tissue contaminant concentrations are then
translated, via exposure assessments for shrimp eaters and recreational anglers to
changes in human intake of the contaminants. Reductions in health risks are then
characterized using Agency-established dose-response functions. The contaminants
addressed in this supplemental analysis, and the dose-response relationships which were
applied, are summarized in Tables 2-l(a) and 2-l(b).
The analysis focusses on the impact of the regulatory options in the Gulf of Mexico (the
5™ 9' f Y16 Gulf rePresents a significant majority of the regulated platforms and also the
bulk of the impacted fisheries.1 To the extent that the regulations will have an impact
beyond the Gulf, the benefits estimated in this report are understated.
The economic benefits assessment is organized by benefit category. Typically, the largest
benefits of regulations that reduce pollutant loadings to surface waters are related to
recreation values. In this case, however, because data do not exist to estimate such
benefits, reductions in human health risks appear to be the most significant monetizable
benefit category^ Therefore, much of the benefits analysis pertains to the risk
assessment issues of exposure assessment and dose-response relationships. Key steps in
the analysis include the following:
Gulf.
1 Over 98.7% (2,517 out of 2,549) of the total U.S. offshore producing structures are located in the
not avaaable"estimate **potential reCTeational and
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
2-2
Table 2-l(a)
Human Health Risk Factors
Inorganic Compounds
Compound
OralRfD1
(mg/kg-day)
Carcinogenic! ty
Oral Slope Factor1
(mgTkg-day)'1
Arsenic
3E-04
A.2E+00
Barium
5.0E-02
Boron
9.0E-02
D
Cadmium
5E-04 (water)
1E-03 (food)
Bl
inhalation only
Chromium III
1E+00
pending
Chromium VI
5E-03
A, inhalation only
Copper
3.7E-012
Lead
noRfD
B2
Manganese
2.0E-01
Mercury
3E-04
Nickel
2E-02
"A" via inhalation
ND via oral2
Silver —_.
5E-03
Zinc
2E-012
D
1 All data extracted from US EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), current
May 1992, unless noted.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables.
ND = No Data
EPA Carcinogen Classification Tables:
A: Human carcinogen
Bl: Probable human carcinogen - limited human data
B2: Probable human carcinogen - sufficient animal data, inadequate or no evidence in
humans
C Possible human carcinogen
D: Not classifiable
E: Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans '
RCG/Hagler, Baffly, Inc.
-------
2-3
Table 2-l(b)
Human Health Risk Factors
Organics
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
1 All data extracted from L
May 1992, unless noted.
2 U.S. Environmental Prote
Tables.
ND = No Data
EPA Carcinogen Classification '
A: Human carcinogen
Bl: Probable human carcinog
B2: Probable human carcinog
humans
C: Possible human carcinoge
D: Not classifiable
E: Evidence of noncarcinoge
OralRfD1
(mg/kg-day)
ND
ND
3.0E-022
2.0E-012
l.OE-032
l.OE-01
4E-012
6.0E-01
3.0E-012
2.0E+00
Carcinogenic! ty
Oral Slope Factor1
(mg/kg-day)4
2.9E-02
B2-5.79E+00
D
ND
ND
D
D
D
D
D
JS EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), current
Action Agency. 1989. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Fables:
en - limited human data
en - sufficient animal data, inadequate or no evidence in
n
nicity for humans
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
2-4
Concentrations of Contaminants in Edible Seafood Tissue
Lead concentrations in edible shrimp and finfish tissue, and estimates of
the shrimp and finfish harvest impacted by platform operations, were
prepared for each muds and cuttings regulatory option by Avanti
Corporation (1992). No credible pathway analysis could be developed to
link the produced water wastestream to lead levels in shrimp.
Exposure Assessments for Human Intake of Contaminants
Given the pollutant concentrations in edible fish tissues, for estimated
portions of the Gulf catch impacted, the analysis generates exposure
scenarios that reflect Most Exposed Individual (MEI) and "average" fish
consumption patterns,3 explained in greater detail below. The exposure
scenarios are based on EPA guidance on risk assessment for ingestion of
tainted fish ("Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish: A Guidance Manual," US EPA/OWRS,
1989a), food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
("Food Consumption, Prices and Expenditures," USDA/ERS, 1985), and
information obtained from other relevant sources.
Dose-Response Relationships
The "doses" of pollutants, as derived from the exposure assessment, are
then compared tp standard dose-response measures. For carcinogens, unit
slope measures are used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risks per
exposed individual, and the expected number of excess cancers over the
applicable population. For noncarcinogens. exposures are compared to
oral reference doses (oral RfDs) to indicate the percentage of dose from
this source relative to the "threshold" dose.4 Carcinogenic unit slope
factors and oral RfDs for noncarcinogens are derived from EPA's
Integrated Risk information System (IRIS) database, which represents the
Agency consensus view of the health end-points and potency for the
3 An intermediate exposure scenario, which is defined as a "quasi-MEI," is also developed and used to
illustrate the impact of several regulatory options. This scenario is explained in greater detail in subsequent
chapters of this report For the lead analysis, a distribution of four exposure levels is developed, as
described below.
4 Technically, the oral RfDs are not "thresholds" in a strict sense, because there is considerable
uncertainly as to whether any dose level is "safe." Rather, oral RfDs reflect the level of long-term daily
exposure at which there is concern regarding possible adverse chronic health effects.
RCG/Hagler, Baflly, Inc.
-------
. . 2-5
contaminants. For contaminants not present in IRIS, EPA's Health Effects
Assessment Documents are used.
For lead, a special procedure must be adopted, because there is no
Agency-recognized threshold (oral RfD) for its noncarcinogenic health
risks. For lead, the Agency-approved procedure is to calculate the
concentrations of lead in blood. Blood lead (PbB) distributions are
estimated based on EPA's Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (as
developed by the Office of Research and Development), and OAQPS' Staff
Report on exposure analysis methods for lead (USEPA (1989b), which was
reviewed and approved by the SAB's Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee, and used for the lead in drinking water regulations). The
results are used to indicate average (geometric mean) PbB levels, as well as
PbB levels at specified percentiles of the population (for both children and
adults). All of the lead-related benefits analysis draws upon, and is
consistent with, the Agency's previous research on lead (e.g., USEPA, 1985,
1986, 1989a, 1989b). These previous findings are reflected in Agency
analyses and documents prepared for the lead phasedown in gasoline, the
lead in drinking water rulemaking, and the sludge disposal program.
Derivation of Anticipated Health Impacts
Finally, the actual risk characterization is made by combining exposure
estimates with dose-response information described above to derive
anticipated health impacts to each target population stemming from the
discharge.
2.2 EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
2.2.1 Seafood Consumption Levels
As in the previous analysis (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, January 1991), three human exposure
scenarios have been developed and analyzed: (1) average, (2) Most Exposed Individual
(MEI), and (3) "quasi-MEI" levels of exposure.5
+ The average exposure scenario conforms to a mass balance between
landings of contaminated seafood and the estimated total number of people
exposed. This is derived by dividing impacted landings (recreational finfish
5 As detailed in Section 2.2.2 below, lead-related risks were based on a more refined distribution of
exposure levels.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
• ; . 2-6
and commercial shrimp) over the number of people that participate (i.e.,
the number of people who are Gulf recreational anglers, or American
shrimp consumers). In all of the average exposure scenarios developed, the
mass balance approach is important in that it maintains a physical
consistency between the amount of tainted seafood landed and the resulting
level of human intake and exposure.
For finfishT the average daily intake level of rig-impacted fish, under muds
and cuttings at baseline, is 0.98 grams per day. This is derived as 320,880
kg of rig-impacted fish landed per year (Avanti Corporation, 1992) divided
by 900,000 recreational anglers,6 divided by 365 days per year. For
produced water, the average daily intake of rig-impacted fish at baseline is
8.14 g/day per person (2.674 million kg edible fish tissue landed (Avanti,
1992), divided by 900,000 anglers, divided by 365 days per year).
i
For shrimp, the average baseline muds and cuttings intake amounts to 0.82
g/day per person. This is derived as 15.03 million kg rig-impacted shrimp
landed per year (Avanti Corporation, 1992), divided by 50 million
American shrimp consumers (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1991), divided by 365
days per year. As with the finfish consumption levels, the intake of rig-
impacted shrimp varies according to whether a given regulatory option
affects only a portion of the platforms and, hence, only a portion of the
baseline impacted shrimp harvest.
The Most Exposed Individual (MEI) exposure is based on an intake of rig-
impacted seafood of 284 g/day, as consistent with EPA's Risk Assessment
Gpjdance for Superfund (1989). This reflects the upper 95% confidence
limit on seafood consumption per meal. Thus, the MEI reflects those
individuals who, for every day of their lives, eat one large meal per day of
rig-impacted seafood.
The quasi MEI exposure is intended to reflect a high consumption scenario
that is more plausible than the MEI (which assumes that the main protein
source for the individual, for every day of his/her life, is a large portion of
rig-impacted seafood). A 45 g/day consumption value is used here as a
6 • As described later in the text, an estimate 900,000 is used to reflect the number of individuals
potentially exposed by way of recreationally harvested finfish from the offshore Gulf, within three miles of
Shore. This includes the anglers themselves plus other individuals with whom the catch may be shared.
These rig-impacted average fish consumption values change for regulatory options defining a different
number of miles from shore as the zero discharge/BAT cut-off point (because greater or fewer rigs and,
hence, greater or fewer fish and anglers are impacted).
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
2-7
quasi-MEI measure, which approximates the average for an avid
recreational angler. This is essentially a scenario for someone who eats one
large seafood-based meal every other day of his/her life, and assumes that
half of the seafood consumed is rig-impacted.
2-2-2 Using the Exposure Scenarios in Calculating Risk Reduction Benefits
Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Risks (Apart from Lead)
For carcinogenic risk levels, the mass balance-derived average exposure levels are used to
estimate both average exposure and the size of the exposed human population. As noted
above, the mass balance approach maintains a physical consistency between the amount
of tainted fish landed and the resulting level of human intake and exposure.
The quasi MEI and MEI scenarios are not appropriate for estimating numbers of excess
cancer cases. Instead, they are used for indicating the individual cancer risk levels faced
by those individuals who fit a given exposure pattern. They also are used in developing
"hazard indices" for noncarcinogens (comparisons of exposure levels to oral reference
doses).
Lead-Related Risks
As described in greater detail in a previous report (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1991, especially
pp. 6-6 through 6-12) and as described in more detail in Appendix E, lead-related health
risk reductions are highly nonlinear with respect to .lead intake levels. Among the
predominant interacting nonlinearities are the response relationships between blood leads
levels and various adverse health endpoints (such as strokes), and the importance of
baseline blood lead levels in determining where an individual is located along the
functions relating blood lead to a health effect.
To estimate how exposure to lead-impacted shrimp affect blood lead levels, four
exposure groups were constructed to reflect the distribution of the consumption of rig-
impacted shrimp (i.e., the majority of consumers who eat approximately the average
amount of shrimp, versus the small percentile of individuals who consume relatively large
quantities of shrimp). These four exposure groups reflect different levels of impacted
shrimp consumption, with the percentiles assigned to each group, and the amount of
shrimp consumed by individuals in each group based on EPA's Tolerance Assessment
System (TAS) data. This distribution is depicted in the top portion of Table 2-2. The
total quantities of rig-impacted shrimp implied by these quantities and percentile
allocations is consistent in a mass balance perspective with the estimates of impacted
shrimp harvested.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
2-8
Table 2-2
Comparison of Shrimp Consumption Scenarios
(Grams Per Day)
- .- Exposure Group
A: LOW
B: MODERATE
C: MODERATELY
HIGH
D: HIGH
Offshore Benefits Analysis1
Percentile
Consumption Rate
0-86
0-3
86-97
3-12
97-99.9
12-117
99.9-100
EPA Interpretation of
USDAb
Percentile
Consumption Rate
0-90
0-11
90-95
11-27
95-99
27-82
99-100
>82
Saltwater leach rate scenario. For the pH-dependent leach scenario, because lead concentrations
are much higher, the same level of health benefit derived below would be obtained at much
lower human consumption rates for shrimp (at 16.7% of rates shown above).
From final Memorandum, from H. Jacobs to A. Tarnay, August 21,1992 (included below as
Appendix F). ^ •
Subsequent to the completion of this exposure assessment and benefits analysis, EPA
undertook a review of the distribution of levels of shrimp consumption in the U.S. This
examination relied on USDA data from the National Food Consumption Survey, 1977-78
(Jacobs, 1992). The results, as presented in the bottom portion of Table 2-2 and in
Appendix F, are highly consistent with the exposure scenarios developed for the benefits
analysis.
For example, the lead-related benefits described in the subsequent chapter of this report
are derived from changes in lead intake for members of the highest two exposure groups
(reflecting the Q-MEI and MEI portions of the population).7 This TAS-based (and
mass balance consistent) benefits analysis assigns the 97th to 99.9th percentiles of the
7 Members of the lower exposure groups have shrimp-related lead intake that is too low to result in
discernable incremental risks. Therefore, no estimable benefits are associated with reducing their lead
exposure by way of rig-impacted shrimp.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
2-9
shrimp eating public to the Q-MEI category (Exposure Group C), with shrimp intake
estimated between 12 and 117 grams per day. In comparison, EPA's more recent
investigation of USDA data shows shrimp consumption at 27 to 82 grams per day for the
95th and 99th percentiles, respectively. While the percentiles do not match up in a
manner that permits direct comparisons of the shrimp consumption levels, it nonetheless
is evident that, the two distributions are roughly equivalent.8
Time and resource limitations precluded reanalyzing lead-related benefits based on the
revised EPA shrimp consumption distribution. However, given the equivalence of the
distributions, the benefit estimates derived below (on the basis of the mass balance TAS
interpretation) would not be expected to change significantly if the new EPA
consumption scenarios were used instead.
2.23 The Number of Recreational Anglers Offshore in the Gulf
As noted above, the average human exposure to rig-impacted finfish depends on how
many people are exposed to the estimated mass of catch. To derive this estimate,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) data were used to derive the number of Gulf
fishing participants, and then pro-rate according to the boat trips used to fish offshore as
opposed to from beaches and piers.
First, for the relevant states of AL, MS, LA, and TX, there are 5.78 million shore-based
fishing days, and 6.38 million boat-based offshore angling days (NMFS, 1991). Thus,
offshore angling represents 52.5% of Gulf-based recreational fishing.
Second, there are 984,000 total recreational Gulf anglers in LA, MS, and AL (three year
average for 1987 - 1989). There are no data for the number of Texas participants, so
these are assumed to be proportional to the number of fishing days originating in Texas
as opposed to the other relevant states (54.9% of the angling). Thus, assuming that
Texas angling effort (days per angler) is the same as for the other states, a total estimate
8 Under the pH-dependent leach scenario, the lead intake levels associated with the salt water leach
scenario benefits would be realized with shrimp consumption levels considerably less than (i.e., 16.7% of)
the levels noted in Table 2-2. For example, under the pH-dependent leach scenario, shrimp consumption
for the 97th and 99.9th percentiles would need to be only 2 to 20 grams per day, respectively, in order to
result in the lead exposures used to derive the lead-related health benefits developed in the analysis
described in Chapter 3. In contrast, the mean shrimp consumption level, based on 1977-78 USDA data, is
4.3 grams per day, and the 95th percentile is 26.7 grams per day. Thus, under the pH-dependent leach
scenario, shrimp consumption profiles would be well below the USDA data in order to derive the risk and
benefit levels developed below. Alternatively, using the shrimp consumption distribution as shown in Table
2-2 in combination with the pH-dependent lead concentrations yields benefit levels considerably higher than
under the saltwater leach scenario (e-.g., compare the results in Tables 3-5 and 3-6).
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
2-10
(i.e., including TX) of Gulf fishing participants of 2.18 million recreational angling
participants is derived.
Third, assuming that the number of participants in offshore angling is proportional to the
number of trips taken offshore (52.5%) results in an estimate of 1.15 million persons who
participate in boat-based offshore recreational fishing in the Gulf waters of TX, AL, MS,
and LA. Given that recreational anglers may share their catch with family members, an
estimate of roughly 1.7 million persons may be exposed to recreationally-caught finfish
from the Gulf (i.e., assuming half the anglers share their catch with a family member).
Finally, because the selected regulatory option for drilling fluids and cuttings is zero
discharge on platforms within! three miles from shore, it is relevant to determine the
number of people exposed by way of Gulf offshore recreational angling within three
miles of shore. There are no data to accurately gauge the number of participants who
fish exclusively or predominantly in this range. However, the level of exposure due to
fish caught within three miles ;is probably proportional to the weight-based share of fish
landings taken within three miles. NMFS data indicate that roughly half of the offshore
recreational catch by weight is drawn from three miles or less from shore (the weight-
adjusted harvest from 1987 - 1989 is 53% within three miles). Therefore, 53% of 1.7
million yields roughly 900,000 persons as a measure of those who are predominantly
exposed to offshore catch within three miles.9
23 IMPACTED FISH HARVEST AND LEACH RATE SCENARIOS
The human exposure levels are a function of: (1) the concentrations of pollutants in
edible fish tissuej and (2) the quantity of shrimp and recreationally harvested finfish that
are impacted by regulated platforms. Data for these two factors were provided by
Avanti (May 1992), and three scenarios are used to characterize each of these factors.
First, to calculate tissue concentrations of metals for muds and cuttings, alternative leach
rate scenarios were developed. The results depicted in Section 3.0 reflect both saltwater-
based and pH-dependent leach rate scenarios. The former implies highly-limited
bioavailabiliry of lead and other metals, and the latter implies partial (e.g., 20%)
bioavailability.
For impacted finfish and shrimp harvests, three catch rate scenarios were developed
(Avanti, 1992). In the results that are presented in Sections 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0, the
moderate scenario is depicted. Sensitivity analyses are discussed to reveal the impact of
9 The 900,000 estimate is applied to all regulatory scenarios, since this reflects the location of most of
the regulatory effort. And, given the mass balance approach used, the carcinogenic risk results are
unaffected by the number of people exposed, so the 900,000 figure is convenient for all options.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
2-11
ratc
IS
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
-------
• • 3-1
3.0 DRILLING FLUIDS AND CUTTINGS
3.1 NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
3.1.1 Risks Associated With Lead Intake
At proposal, a detailed analysis of lead intake by way of rig-impacted shrimp
(RCG/Hagler, Bailly, January 1991) indicted that appreciable benefits would be realized
due to control of drilling fluids and cuttings. Because an analysis of the benefits
associated with reduced exposure to lead is complex and highly nonlinear, time is not
available to conduct a detailed analysis of the lead-related benefits associated with the
revised regulatory package. However, the prior lead benefits analysis can be used as a
benchmark against which benefits levels can be approximated.
Updating Lead Risk Reduction Values
The first step in this rough benchmark approximation is to update the original lead
benefits analysis to reflect subsequent insights gained by the Agency regarding the benefit
values associated with the monetized value of avoiding lead-related health effects.
These recent updates are reflected and described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
developed for the drinking water standards for lead and copper (Wade Miller Associates
and Abt Associates, April 1991). ,
The principal changes, relative to the original offshore effluent guidelines benefits
analysis (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, January 1991), increase the value of avoided stroke, heart
attack (CDH), and hypertension cases in adult white males. The new values are $1
million per case,avoided for strokes and CDHs, and $628 for hypertension (whereas the
values previously applied were $52,200, $72,254, and $277, respectively). Updated values
also were developed for IQ decrements in children, with the total predicted decrement in
IQ points valued at $4588 per point (whereas they previously had been valued at $471
per point of IQ decrement).1
An additional change involves extrapolating the lead-related health benefits analysis that
pertain to white males aged 40 to 59 to include all males in this age group, not just
whites. Precedent for such an expansion is found in the final RIA prepared for the
recent rulemaking on lead in drinking water (WMA and Abt Associates, April 1991).
* The net result of these changes, as applied to the original analysis conducted in 1991 (with a
baseline average daily lead intake of 0.057 /xg/day), increases the benefits of moving from baseline
conditions to zero discharge to $20.7 million to $72.4 million per year (from the previous estimate of $13.4
to $65.2 million per year).
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
3-2
According to the 1990 U.S. Consensus of Population, white males 40 to 59 are 77.5
percent of the U.S. population of all males aged 40 to 59. Thus, if the benefits due to
reduced CDH, stroke and mortality risks are applied to all adult males in that age
bracket, then the relevant monetized benefits for adult males increase by 29 percent (100
percent divided by 77.5 percent).2
Benchmarking Benefit Estimates
The benefits of reduced lead exposure due to the revised regulatory options have been
updated to account for changes from the regulatory options previously analyzed. The
analyses also embody enhanced modeling of pollutant uptake into fish tissue, and apply
more detailed shrimp and finfish harvest scenarios to ascertain the size of platform-
impacted catch (these analysis are developed by Avanti Corp., May 1992). As a
consequence, the estimated levels of lead intake have been revised for both baseline
conditions and for-the set of regulatory options currently under consideration.
Although many aspects of the underlying exposure analysis has changed, both the number
of people exposed and the distribution of relative lead intake levels within the exposed
group are the same as previously analyzed (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, January 1991).
Therefore, although the benefits of changes in lead exposure are nonlinear (particularly
through critical ranges of exposure), the analysis performed previously provides a set of
points oh this nonlinear function. These points link average lead intake levels to
monetized benefit levels for the relevant exposed group, accounting for the distribution
of intragroup exposure levels. Accordingly, rough approximations of the benefits of the
present set of regulatory options can be ascertained through benchmarking along the
previously derived benefits function. This is accomplished by linearizing segments of the
function (interpolating between points according to average lead intake levels).
Table 3-1 indicates, for relevant average lead (pb) intake levels, the geometric mean
blood lead levels (GMPbB), and the percent of the exposed population with blood lead
above the 10 micrograms per deciliter benchmark for adults and children. These results
are extracted directly from RCG/Hagler, Bailly (1991).
2 As described in greater detail in Appendix E, hypertension and related risks due to elevated blood
lead levels in adult males are estimated using a univariate logistic function (Equation 1 in Appendix E)
derived by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). This is based on the Agency's
multiple logistic regression model as used to estimate elevated risks for the lead in gasoline and lead in
drinking water. Use of the OAQPS logistic function may introduce error into the estimation process
because it relies on means, drawn from the NHANES II sample, in its non-linear equation. Nonetheless,
use of the OAQPS approach is believed to provide a reasonable approximation of the effect of blood lead
on blood pressure (US EPA, 1992a).
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
3-3
Table 3-1
Blood Lead Distributions for Relevant Shrimp-Related Lead Intake Levels*
Adults
Children
Lead Intake***
(fig pb/day)
GMPbB
Percent with
PbB>
GMPbB
Percent with
PbB
0.057
(16.0)
4.0
4.5
0.2%
0.7%
5.0
5.8
3.0%
6.0%
0.035
(9.8)
4.0
43
0.2%
0.5%
5.0
5.5
3.0%
4.5%
0.0
4.0
0.2%
5.0
3.0%
Extracted from Table 6-4, RCG/Hagler, Bailfy (1991).
Average adult daily intake. Children's intake proportionally less due to lower shrimp
consumption.
Results in parentheses indicates values for the Q-MEI exposure group, for tissue
concentrations consistent with the average exposure scenarios.
Results — Saltwater Leach Scenario
Table 3-2 summarizes the average lead intake levels for the four relevant regulatory
options, under the saltwater leach scenario. These reflect lead exposure by way of
platform-impacted shrimp.3 At baseline, average lead intake amounts to 0.058 us/day
which coincides with one of the levels analyzed in RCG/Hagler, Bailly (1991), as shown
in Table 3-1. At the regulatory option of zero discharge (barge) within three'miles and
BAT (1:3) beyond, average lead intake drops to 0.021 fig/day, considerably less than the
0.035 level for which benefits were estimated in RCG/Hagler, Bailly (1991). Therefore
the benefits of moving from baseline (0.058 pg pb/day) to zero discharge within three '
miles and BAT beyond (0.021 ^ pb/day) are approximated here by (and, in reality are
somewhat greater than) the benefits previously estimated for moving from 0.057 to 0.035
fig pb/day. Likewise, the benefits of moving from baseline (0.058 jig/day) to zero
discharge are equivalent to the previously estimated benefits of moving from 0 057 we/day
to zero intake. & 3
Lead exposures by way of recreationalfy harvested finfish are too low to estimate changes in blood
lead distributions (e.g., 0.00064 ug/day for average exposed individual at baseline — see Appendix B —
which is roughly one percent of the comparable shrimp-related average exposure)
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
3-4
Table 3-2
Lead Intake Reduction Benefits for Shrimp Consumption
as Impacted by Drilling Fluids and Cuttings
(Salt Water Leach Scenario) (1)
Regulatory Option
Baseline
3 Mile Gulf/Calif. (2)
8 Mile Gulf/3 Mfle Cali£ (2)
Zero Discharge Gulf/Calif.
Average Lead Intake Levels (^/person/day)
Development
Wells
0.037
0.011
0.008
0
(1) Average intake levels, moderate harvest scenario
Exploratory
< Wells „
0.021
0.01
0.0074
0
(2) BAT for all
Pb Intake
Total Reduction
0.058 —
0.021 0.037
0.0154 0.0426
0 0.058
remaining platforms
Building upon RCG/Hagler, Bailly (1991) in this fashion, the lead intake levels for the
present set of regulatory options can be associated with estimates of the expected
reduction in selected adverse health effects.4 The incremental lead-related health risk
reductions for all three relevant regulatory options are shown in Table 3-3 (for the
saltwater leach scenario) and the monetized value of these benefits for the selected
option (3 Mile Gulf/CaUfornia) are shown in Table 3-4. The dollar values per case
4 The risk reduction benefits (number of cases avoided) are based on applying the appropriate dose-
response factors to the relevant subgroups of the exposed populations, with the population subgroup sizes
determined by national demographic data. For example, most of the monetized benefits arise from
reduced risks to adult males in the 40 to 59 age bracket According to the 1990 U.S. Census, this group of
individuals (males 40 to 59) comprises 11.6% of the total U.S. population. Therefore, they are estimated to
represent 11.6% of the 50 million individuals who are shrimp consumers; that is, the benefits estimates
pertaining to adult males are based on an exposed population of 5.8 million adult males in the relevant age
bracket (50 million times 11.6%). These exposed individuals are then allocated to each of the four shrimp
consumption exposure groups (e.g., 0.1% of 5.8 million, or 5,800 individual males between 40 and 59 years
of age, are in the highest exposure group; 2.7%, or roughly 160,000 such males, are allocated to the second
highest exposure group, etc.).
The estimated numbers of exposed pregnant women (newborn infants) and children (age 5 cohort)
are derived in comparable fashion. These calculations yield the following results: for the age 5 cohort,
645,000 individuals are in the low exposure group, 82,500 are in the moderate exposure group, 21,750 are
in the moderately high exposure group, and 750 are in the highest group. For pregnant women (newborn
infants), 722^17 are in the low exposure group, 92,415 are in the moderate exposure group, 24,364 are in
the moderately high exposure group, and 840 are in the highest group.
RCG/Hagler, Bailiy, Inc.
-------
3-5
shown in Table 3-4 are consistent with the values used in RCG/Hagler, Bailly (1991),
except as stated explicitly in Section 3.1.1 above, and all amounts have been updated to
1991 dollar values.
Table 3-3
Annual Incremental Lead-Related Health Effects Redactions
for Drilling Fluids and Cnttings
(Salt Water Leach Scenario, Golf of Mexico)
(Shrimp only)
Benefit Category
Infant Mortality
Children
IQ<70
IQ points
Adult Males
Hypertension
Stroke
Heart Disease
Death
Cases Avoided - from Baseline to Regulatory Options
3 Mile
GuliyCaltfomw
0.31
0.65
142.00
243.50
1.29
6.97
9.11
S Mile Golf/3 Mile
California
0.31
0.70
144.00
247.00
1.29
7.10
9.16
Zero Discharge
Golf California
0.33
0.70
151.00
259.00
1.42
7.48
9.68
Benefit Category
Infant Mortality
Children
IQ <70
IQ points
Adult Males
Hypertension
Stroke
Heart Disease
Death
Total*
Table 3-4
Annual Monetized Lead-Related
Benefits of 3 Mile Gulf/California Option
(Shrimp Consumption)
Cases
Avoided
0.31
0.65
142.00
243.5
1.29
6.97
9.11
Baseline to Selected Option
$ Benefit per
Case Avoided
$2-10 million
$6,040
$4,755
$656.0
$1 million
$1 million
$2-10 million
—
Incremental
Benefits ($ millions)
$0.7 - 3.1
$0.0004
$0.67
$0.16
$1.3
$7.0
$18.2 - 91.1
$28.0-103.3
* Tout does not add due to rounding.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
• 3-6
The dollar value of lead-related benefits for all regulatory options is shown in Table 3-5,
with most of the benefits accruing at the 3 Mile Gulf/California option ($28.0 to $103.3
million per year). Benefits at zero discharge amount to between $29.9 to $110.1 million
per year.
Results — pH-Dependent Leach Scenario
Under the "saltwater" leach scenario, which implies a low level of lead bioavailability, the
benefits of the selected option amount to up to $103 million per year, as depicted in
Table 3-5. Alternatively, if the lead is bioavailable to a greater, but still limited degree
(e.g., 20%), as implied by the pH-dependent leach scenario, then the resulting benefits
increase substantially — up to a $650 million per year, as depicted in Table 3-6. While
the benefit levels are appreciable under either leach rate scenario, the sensitivity of the
results to the leach factor indicates the importance of additional research in this area.5
Table 3-5
Monetized Lead-Related Benefits of
Drilling Fluids and Cutting Options
Gulf of Mexico
(Salt Water Leach Scenario)
(Shrimp Only)
,* , ,^-rJig <&r*
v* sJl^***'*
Regulatory Option
Baseline -; Current
3 Mile Gulf/Calif.
8 Mile Gulf/3 Mile Calif.
Zero Discharge
Gulf/Calif.
> •• j"- >«.>•* /,••
Annual Benefits*
-------
d
_£
f
!S3
*•« 73
a g
a 1 °
5 1 §
a? & eo
"3 "3 •§
« O O -a
^ jg « Q
8 S I 8
e« « « u
ffl to oo N
%/
T3
O
e
JS
1
£
3
.S
&
2
4
O
00
i
-------
3-8
3.1.2 Other Noncarcinogenic Risks
Aside from lead, other compounds pose noncarcinogenic risks via drilling fluids and
cuttings. As summarized in Table 3-7, shrimp-related intake of several toxic compounds
occur at levels of concern relative to established oral reference doses (RfDs).6 In
particular, under the saltwater leach scenario, mercury intake under baseline conditions
amounts to 0.3% of the oral RfD for an average individual, 40% of the RfD for the
quasi-MEI, and is more than two and a half times the RfD for an MEL Arsenic,
Cadmium and Chromium VI exposures also are at levels of concern for individuals with
higher than average exposure to impacted shrimp.7 All of the regulatory options beyond
baseline reduce average exposures to below 0.1% of the respective oral RfDs, and also
reduce exposures for Q-MEIs and MEIs.8
3.2 CARCINOGENIC RISKS
Carcinogenic risks posed by way of muds and cuttings are associated with exposure to
arsenic by way of shrimp consumption. Comparing Table 3-8 to Table 3-9, it is evident
that these risk reductions are highly dependent on the leach rate scenario applied. The
cancer risk reduction benefits of moving from baseline to zero discharge ranges from up
to $448,000 under the saltwater leach rate scenario, but are more than $3.1 million per
year under the pH-dependent leach scenario.9-10
6 Oral reference doses are threshold-like levels below which ingestion-related chromic exposures are
not believed to pose appreciable human health risks.
7 Under a pH-dependent leach scenario, the exposure levels are even greater. For example, baseline ,
mercury intake for the average exposed individual is 1.0% of the oral RfD (rather than the 0.3% shown in
Table 3-7). Also note that the reported values are for shrimp only - exposure levels by way of finfish
impacted by muds and cuttings are below 0.1% of the oral RfDs.
8 Note that the Q-MEI and MEI exposure levels are insensitive to regulatory scenarios beyond BAT
for all platforms (other than zero discharge for all platforms, under which exposures are zero) because
these exposures are defined by shrimp caught from those platforms with nonzero (Le., BAT-level)
discharge. In reality, those options that extend zero discharge to greater numbers of platforms will reduce
exposures for those individuals with above average exposure scenarios.
9 These benefits are for shrimp consumption only. Finfish-related risks posed by muds and cuttings
are considerably lower, with individual risk levels roughly one percent of those due to shrimp, and only two
percent as many individuals exposed (Le., benefits would amount to less than $100 per year under the
saltwater leach scenario).
10 The Agency is considering new evidence of the carcinogenic potency (and target organs) of arsenic,
and the estimated cancer risks associated with these exposure levels may increase appreciably if EPA
updates the carcinogenic slope factor for arsenic as anticipated (Dr. Charles Abernathy, U.S. EPA,
personal communication, October 1992).
RCG/Hagler, Baffly, Inc.
-------
3-9
Table 3-7
Principle Noncarcinogenic Risks Associated with Drilling Fluids and Cuttings
(% of oral RfD Attributable to Shrimp Consumption)*
, -'
Regulatory Scenario
Baseline
BAT All
3 Mile Gulf/Calif.
8 Mile Gulf/3 Mile Calif.
Zero Discharge Gulf/Calif.
Compound
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Mercury
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Mercury
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Mercury
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Mercury
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Mercury
; Exposure Scenario
Average
< 0.1%
<0.1%
< 0.1%
< 0.3%b
<0.1%
< 0.1%
< 0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
< 0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
< 0.1%
< 0.1%
< 0.1%
< 0.1%
<0%
<0%
< 0%
<0%
Q-MEI
03%
1.7%
5.6%
40.0%
0.2%
0.8%
2.4%
35.3%
0.2%
0.8%
- 2.4%
35.3%
02%
0.8%
2.4% '
35;3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
MEI
4.3%
10.9%
36.0%
260.0%
2.5%
5.1%
15,3%
228.8%
2.5%
5.1%
15.3%
228.8%
2.5%
5.1%
15,3%
228.8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
* Salt Water Leach and moderate harvest scenario reflect combined exposure for
developmental and exploratory wells.
b 1.0% under pH-dependent leach scenario.
RCG/Hagler, Baffly, Inc.
-------
I
to
-a
c«
M
o\
cd
00
«r>
VO »— 1
in
i*
0
O\
•ffl
5 53 P
fe
N
o
0>
t>
o
lars
99
9.96
C3
3
CQ
ob
i
DS
-------
e
o
•S
2
^ J
|l
I-S
^
so
_. a; s*<
^ s « 5
ff) -O W CO
£ J2B5 p~
a C o. g
"
2
(U MM
ea B S
B S«s
OS.
4> "o
W5 *S
u E
II
(A
1
W3
I
*
a
•a
5
3®
§g
11
•S
1
en
e?
|
I
~.
ON
A»N
OO
«r>
en
V*
oo
-------
3-12
33 TOTAL BENEFITS
The total combined benefits are shown in Table 3-10, for the more conservative saltwater
leach scenario. The lead-related benefits dominate the results (accounting for more than
99% of the benefits).
Table 3-10
Total Monetized Benefits and Costs
Drilling fluids and Cuttings
Gulf of Mexico
(Salt Water Leach Scenario)
*^V v.1 * *'W^'»t\ ' '''
Regulatory Option
Baseline - Current
3 Mile Gulf/Calif.
8 Mile Gulf/3 Mile Calif.
Zero Discharge Gulf/Calif.
Annual Benefits ^b
(millions 1991 dollars)
~
$28.1 - $103.6
$28.5 - $104.7
$30.0 - $110.5
a Health benefits primarily based on reduced lead exposure,
only partially on reduced arsenic-related carcinogenic risks.
b Relative to baseline.
RCG/Hagler, Baifly, Inc.
-------
. 4-1
4.0 PRODUCED WATER — EXISTING PLATFORMS
4.1 NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
Levels of human exposure for noncarcinogens were estimated for sixteen relevant
contaminants with Agency-derived oral exposure reference doses (oral RfD, as reported
previously, in Table 2-1). Exposure levels (human intake) were estimated for average,
quasi-MEI, and most exposed individual (MEI) scenarios for recreational finfish
consumption.1 These exposure levels were then compared to the oral RfDs (adjusted to
reflect the intake level, in jig/day for a 70 kg adult, that is equivalent to the oral RfD).
Human exposure to the noncarcinogens analyzed occurs at very low levels relative to the
oral RfDs with only 2.4 Dimethylphenol exposure occurring at or above 0.1% of the oral
RfD. As indicated in Table 4-1, the most significant exposure at baseline is an MEI
intake level for finfish that is 6.5% of the RfD.
Lead exposures also are reduced through the impact of the produced water regulatory
options on lead concentrations in recreationally harvested finfish impacted by offshore oil
and gas operations in the Gulf. As shown in Table 4-2, the associated benefits amount to
$114,000 per year at zero discharge.
4.2 CARCINOGENIC RISKS
Carcinogenic risks for finfish were estimated for arsenic, benzene, and benzo(a)pyrene.
As shown in Table 4-3, a reduction of 0.006 excess cancer cases per year is estimated at
zero discharge. This translates to an annual monetary value of $11.800 to $59.700 (1991
dollars). Additional benefits may be anticipated to the extent that the regulations induce
any incidental reductions in radium exposure.
43 TOTAL BENEFITS
Combining the cancer benefits with the lead-related benefits described above, the annual
monetized benefits of regulating produced water at existing platforms amount to as much
as $164,000 per year.
This total is not inclusive of incidental radium-related health benefits or other, non-
health, benefits which may result from these regulations.
1 Human exposure by way of shrimp and commercial finfish consumption could not be estimated for the
produced water wastestream.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
4-2
Table 4-1
Noncarcinogen Risks for Produced Water — Existing Platforms
(Finfish Only)
>K
Regulatory Scenarios
t-,1 - ' ' x
Baseline
Flotation All
Zero 3 Miles Gulf and Alaska
Zero Discharge ^ 4 Miles
Zero Discharge <; 10 Meters
Zero Discharge Gulf and Alaska
*; Intake as % of Oral RfD
2,4 Dimethylphenol y"^::-;'>??X"*
Average
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0
Q-MEI
1.0%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
0
:::;.MEt:W ;>::;;
6.5%
- 5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
6.1%
0
RCG/Hagler, Bailty, Inc.
-------
JS
W3
c
JS
r_.
tti
1*2?
pQ ^^ C
*? O "^ S
^Q jjj '•^ ^^
*2*f
ll*
IIs
I H
II «A
II
II
<9
-S "^
*i *^
pq *"*
ll
B *
•? s
0
g
09
1
^^ ^"*k
4) ^a
Uc «J
11
]|
i-J eft
i
o
a
1
4} O
*5- 53
l2 t3
s
£i
i
H
d
^*3
Q.
O
2
^
s
«
HH
t~~ . t*» "i
• r-^ i> **"
1 f- r- ^
ON Os . vo
' S °' ^
. T— 1 T-H T-l
! O O 0
G5 ' . C> C3
OS 00 00
^D ^5 c^ ^^
C3 C5 C5
CO ^
>^\ eO
w ^?
CB "^N
5 "O
^^ f5
T3 KJ
C »4-i
1 O
~3 u CO
S "5
fli C f^ .52
.S -2 c-, Q
"S .2 o o
1 E 1 S
1
•g
CO
8
V3
1
^ S
S o
•0 "S
2 ^9
S sx
Jf %
§ 1
1 1
ts ~^ 11
W i! II
So ,P
a *"
v r-
< CQ
8 S
i-T
u
si
-------
« 5 O
it!
£
«
2
8
\
ON
ON
00
ON
ON
ON
oo
«
CO
o
CO
I
"u
m
2
j
CO
kH
eo
•S
CA
5 q «
b N N
3
1
8
s
I
1
1
S
a
1
.3
8
C«
§
•o
Is
gj O
o '&
3 «
.a" §>
§ 2
^2
"E.
U4
1>
O ~
is 2
s £
VO C
^^ o
S» 3
^ Q.,
£^A fi
*^ ^G
«< K
•o o
I 1
g f>
•o «
4J 2
1
1
(3
'c8
CQ
8
-------
5-1
5.0 PRODUCED WATER —NEW SOURCES (NSPS)
5.1 NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
As noted for existing platforms, levels of human exposure for noncarcinogens as
compared to Agency-derived oral exposure reference doses (oral RfDs) were insignificant
except for 2,4-Dimethylphenol and lead.
Table 5-1 presents exposure results for the former, indicating a baseline average
exposure via recreationally caught finfish of 0.3% of the oral RfD. This average
exposure declines to 0.2% for application of improved gas flotation at all platforms, and
drops to roughly 0.1% of the RfD when zero discharge is applied to platforms within -
three or four miles of shore.
Lead exposure-related benefits are shown in Table 5-2. The lead-associated benefits
amount to $145,000 per year at zero discharge.
Table 5-1
Noncarcinogenic Risks for Produced Water — NSPS
(Finfish Only)
Regulatory Scenario
,
Baseline
Flotation All ~
Zero 3 Miles Gulf and Alaska
Zero Discharge s 4 Miles
Zero Discharge z 10 Meters
Zero Discharge Gulf and Alaska
Intake as % Of Oral RfD, by Exposure Scenario
(2,4 - Bimethyphenol)
Average
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0%
<2-MEI
1.4%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
0%
MEI
8.6%
7.2%
7.2%
7.2%
7.2%
0%
5.2 CARCINOGENIC RISKS
Carcinogenic risks for finfish were estimated for arsenic, benzene, and benzo(a)pyrene.
As shown in Table 5-3, a reduction of 0.008 excess cancer cases per year is estimated at
zero discharge. This translates to an annual monetary value of $16.000 to $80.000 (1991
dollars).
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
en
-<
4)
O
11
>°4 O
12
11
S S
ON T-I
OQ O\
O
o
VO CO
CO
«
. -
CO
0
.c .a co U
« E N t^
S -S
2
-
ed
-------
co
in
-------
5-4
S3 TOTAL BENEFITS
Combining the monetized lead-related and cancer risk reduction benefits, the total
monetized benefits of regulating produced water at new sources amount to as much as
$225,000 per year at zero discharge. This total is not inclusive of incidental radium-
related health benefits, or non-health benefits, which may result from these regulations.
RCG/Hagler, Bailty, Inc.
-------
'. .. . . 6-1
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The incremental monetized benefits estimated above are for quantified health risk
reductions attributable to regulating drilling fluids and cuttings, and produced water at
offshore oil and gas platforms. -
The principal monetized findings are:
*• F°r muds and cuttings, the incremental benefit of moving from baseline
controls to the selected option of zero discharge within three miles and
BAT beyond (3 Mile Gulf/California) amount to between $28 and $104
million per year; and between $30 to Sill million annually for zero
discharge for all platforms (1991 dollars; saltwater leach scenario). These
benefits may amount to as much as $696 million per year under an
alternative, pH-dependent leach rate scenario.
*• For produced water controls at existing sourcesT incremental benefits
amount to nearly $164.000 per year (1991 dollars) due to cancer risk
reductions and lead-related health benefits at zero discharge. Incidental
radium-related risk reduction benefits are not included in these estimates.
*• For produced water control at new sources, incremental benefits of up to
$225,000 per year (1991 dollars) accrue due to cancer risk reductions and
lead-related health benefits at zero discharge. Incidental radium-related
risk reduction benefits are not included in these estimates.
While these monetized benefits of the offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines appear to
significant, it is important to recognize that virtually all of these benefits arise from
estimated reductions in a limited range of adverse health effects associated with lead
exposure. The estimated monetized benefits for both the muds and cuttings and
produced water wastestreams are appreciably limited by the omission of several
potentially significant types of benefits that could not be monetized due to current
limitations of the data and quantitative methods. Table 6-1 provides an overview of the
types of benefits that were monetized as well as those potential benefits that could not be
assessed reliably in quantitative and/or monetary terms. This indicates the extent to which
many potentially significant benefits are excluded from the monetary benefits assessment.
RCG/Hagler, Baffly, Inc.
-------
6-2
Table 6-1
Benefits of Offshore Oil and Gas Effluent Guidelines
"fo^;:^
Human Health Risk Reductions!
Contaminants
>• carcinogens with Agency-established risk slope factors
> lead
Environmental Pathway
»• water column concentrations (finfish)
»• sediment pore water concentrations (shrimp)
Exposure Route
> commercially harvested shrimp in Gulf of Mexico (drilling fluids and cuttings only)
>• offshore rig recreational angling catch in Gulf of Mexico
Populations
> carcinogens: all shrimp consumers and offshore Gulf recreational anglers
> lead — from among shrimp and recreational finfish consumers: children (5 year
old-cohort), males (40 to 59 years old), pregnant women (infant mortality)
, Non-Monetized Benefits
Human Health Risk Reductions Associated With;
>• carcinogens without Agency-established risk slope factors
»• systemics other than lead
*• lead health risk endpoints other than infant mortality, IQ detriment,
or selected hypertension-related illnesses
> lead^related risks to women (all ages) and to men under 40 or pver 59 years of age
> exposure from shrimp and finfish uptake of pollutants via sediment or the food
chain
»• pH-dependent leach rates
>• platform-related contaminants in commercial finfish or shellfish other than shrimp
Ecologic Risk Reductions
»• all pollutants
»• all offshore species and ecosystems
Fishery Benefits
»• commercial fisheries
»• recreational fisheries
Intrinsic Benefits
*• existence value
>• bequest value '
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
7-1
7.0 REFERENCES
Abt Associates (with WMA, Inc.), 1991. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper, prepared for the Office of
Drinking Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C, April 1991.
Avanti Corporation, 1992. Environmental Analysis of the Final Effluent Guideline.
Offshore Subcategorv. Oil and Gas Industry. Volume 1 - Modeled Impacts. Volume II -
Case Study Impacts. Prepared for the Standards and Applied Science Division, Office of
Science and Technology, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
Jacobs, Helen, 1992. Shellfish and Shrimp Consumption Rates, memorandum, through ,
Henry Kahn to Alexandra Tarnay, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water,
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, August 21, 1992.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1991. The Economic Benefits of Proposed Effluent Limitation
Guidelines for Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities. Final Report, prepared "for the Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, January 24, 1991.
U.S. EPA, 1985. Costs and Benefits of Reducing Lead in Gasoline. Final Regulatory
Impact Analysis, Office of Policy Analysis.
U.S. EPA, 1986. Reducing Lead in Drinking Water: A Benefit Analysis. Draft Final
Report, Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation.
U.S. EPA, 1989. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. Washingtnn] D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1989a. Monetized Health Benefits of Regulating Sewage Sludge Use and
Disposal. Final report prepared by Abt Associates, Inc. for the Office of Policy Analysis
and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1989b. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead:
Exposure Analysis Methodology and Validation. QAQPS Staff Report.
U.S. EPA, 1992. Integrated Risk Information System riRISV current as of May 1992.
U.S. EPA, 1992a. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Use and Disposal of Sewage
Sludge: Benefits of Regulation. Report prepared by Abt Associates for Office of Water,
November.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SHRIMP IMPACTS FROM
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
-------
-------
if
OQ ~
s
s
8
06
ECS \o ft
O f.
I s
V) *
Z
O
E
s
POSUREASSU
f consumers:
osure frequency:
osure Duration:
x ° £•&
ea * da u5
*"" ? S S
ClJ O O
°°
0.
£
Ctt
S
y _o
y ^ I
- J^ s g
S 3g -
•?£ 8 3
1 |, ffS
to j2 a
< s a
f?7?
r~
o
„ +
a. m
SP
510
K
I
CO
Z
O
g
s
3
% ..
< S2
8R
**•.
>•< ••
§1
= «
PS
i
S
«o
i)
S jc
S S
o o
u
2
«l
2 S
I
CO
Sfll^-lot
^ ts !.. /-\ -n — rS ^
•r a«—U QOCW--
g S £ 2^ « E.S
P s § it!--
C. % C i_ w
*
SI
ri NO -J ts o\ ed rr
j|^f?|f?||f|f|
5|s
asǤ
f I s J3
<*i O tr. I «^
o S o o
o
I I I I
Sggg
Q- oo 03 Q co
a^lcssscsJiiLif
|lf
w c
•a
i
I
U
f
03
V*.
03
c3 -
8
-------
o
I
UJ
a Q
•a
_ o
3-3 If -8
-
g
Q
•B
a> >»
•2 S
s.*lf
g
*;r
«. tr.
g-oeeS~
2 £ .2 I I I I I
sss
TT1?
A LQ U3 Q3 B3 03 D3 CU U3 UJ EU
5 F* oo f* r^ d o 1*7 ^o r*4 oo
So^iT i?? i *f ? iT i
AfS | TTl fT^ fT^ fT^ fTT fT^ m fTl fTl flj tl^
~* 2 eo^l 't?<*5f*i*xJ0Q**5'^'>Jve?^
m « .8 I
SSS
i i i
«-i c<» es
— io»*-j •*: "i »> W» C4 -«t OS P>. C3 OQ
i— .^ *» f. CM m ««•.»-• oo oo f, »H •<«•
... «*t«'»lDM2S99
K.*a eo^oooo
& fe .1 I I I I I I
*• H'5tUWtiti]tUW
> 5 S «? c> "5 P •* t
<;EQCScniH-^csoo
I I I I
03 U3 U] CU
J
O
I
i
O
:#
SP^1—Jos«r>»J'-3t»jc4c«iedc>i-J
S S S S S o S § S
ll3s
«^.
_ 8
£ ^
It
a
oo
s
r*
•a §
e a Gas
111 111 I., g-s-s
u
co Q
-------
• I I I I I I I I I I
luauauuuuuauuuauauauaua
io1*: PtfSe>!tN»^'*rP**fS'^
JS2 888S
Ste .2 i i i l i i +111
— Ri^tlJtlJtlJtlJtlJtl] til frt til Tit
^5 CB w ^^ *5! ^7 ^E •«? ^? ^S !ZZ Z7 ^^
«Q ^S g ^^ OD Irj ^T IO J<»"<>:«n-;'1". ^poqcs
l^T i i i i 7 i i i i i
"• lUauuuuuuuuuuuuuauauuuu
gggSSgggggg'
i i i i i i i i i i i
fT^ fT^ tl^ p^ fT^ pq fT) fT^ ff] fT^ fT)
^55S
t~.-«(*i«
d
o
ca
I
CO
u.
tu
II
ii
s s s s g s s g g s
1 I I I + I I till
iJ
3 CO
i.i
M >
g | g
D
-!*
a1?'
W3
•O
i
i
8
uu
P
«N
4
-------
o
03
•a if
S
ca
ti3 ^ f^* fC
22 "O C ^3 ^3
2s.a i >
SSSS
i i i i
B] [I] (I) t£)
'
-i" •!'•!'
2~ « -O
•S I
Hi
O ,§
I I I I I I I I i I I
S S 3 S S S 3
.III +111
Cx3 CQ D3 CQ tt) ffl CO
c> ^j o «n t^ 05 r^
g g 2 g
.« I I I I I I I I I I
fl»
ill
^ I I I I I I I I I I I
\D
*?
U
?J o
o o
e.2 f
S « "eSti
I I I
C£
X
CO
I
%
O
E n
3 «
i i
03 Cl]
i i
[I] Ul
i
Ed
O\ •» -^
ifj
g ~
o
t£
CO
00
**« „ B' «• •• fc« u
' <; S2 3 a f — Si)
» I «Is3.25
gi-gSflsBa
tz H K H 3? o oo"5
J5o = =5tici«&
2^88^2^'g
S ° e-s-p >H i
rn % til t2 ca < S a
05 Q co tU
i
U
2:
C
2
i
^s s
5* I I
g s
I +
I
S
S
I
il
U
ii
U o
*•" *' •« ^ ^3
S J S ^ i
•R 5 a H 03
-
S *
o
« .. S S
I
u
Vl
-•08
&
- S
u i
g u
J3 <=?
8
§2 "«£ 7 P
to A „ I oi
Di
U
2 °
•8
-------
o
QQ
•o
s^c-a.
fB *•* 3
a ~
o
UJ
o
SSSS
i i i i
fjj rjl rrj rjj
<=?«o«s-«:
-
M*"^* 'w' f —i »^ fS o f. orcoo^
•OBOOOOOO O O O O
2 s -S fi -J- -'- -'- +- '- * i- i- >
2 J s:
tu a] ta a
i i i i i i i i
tu
-S I I ! I I I I I I I
-
cK -^ — :
IS
— e
gptu tu
J
O
I
IS
s
oi
Q.
^
cc
s
U
w
o
1
g ^ ^j
piI I I + I I
|7wwwwwffl
2 ^5. ' '
of .
E S
f-S.
eiisaa^iii
II
S §5 S a
11"!^ 2
§^ gO
0 I
w«„ §
ssss
1 I 1 1
(IJ W B] td
P p p p
£•__
3 "3 !-
3
CO
2
u
»-^
z
u
o
^^
S
r*
»— i
.- i
-1^
2t£7
o g. L
.2 aj
V3 C
^C^
•o
•B
i
8
+
tu
o
(N
'I
-------
~ -2
o
BJ
o
•a
o
S^c>
at 2 g 1?
2-2-S-3
ssss
I I I I
w a ta a
o\ •* c-7 c>
ci >r> oo «•*
01
SS88888S88-8
i t i i i
- - a
i i
Cfl
m a .2 I I I I • +
•*« S*H3H3fl3tl3tl3
I I I I I
ssss
Ul
UJ
I I I I I
-O bM ^"^ ^"^ ""^ 1"*' ^^ *•
S £111111
till
3 =
ta ta ta ta
oo o —
01 _
iS.
£
CM
tu
»>>>>.
^^^
S
2a
ta
ta
ta
OS
CO
18
111
tZ
m Q
_ rgrgtsJOO—<"-'—'fSOpf^
-g ooooSoooSSo
« -s ^. i l l + + I I I i l I
£ =
S* I
I + I I
Q
Di I O O O O O F.
•? ta ta 03 a ta
5 SSSS
i i i i
ta ta ta ta
o cs e> o
2-i
a> fli
> «M
•5 a
£
u I
00
s.
a]
ts
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMEAN%
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant
Oral RED Concentration Avenge Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
6.84E-04
339E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-03
1.51E-02
432E-Q3
1.13E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
(mg/kg— day)
5.0E-08
33E-09
1.6E-08
2.8E-07
2.8E-07
8.9E-09
7.3E-08
2.1E-08
5.4E-08
l^E-13
7.9E-08
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
13E-07
1.1E-05
1.6E-05
2.8E-07
5.5E-05
2.4E-08
6.9E-05
2.7E-06
3.0E-11
4.0E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
6.6E-09
4.7E-03
5.1E-03
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: QFF-SHORBOIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVESTLEVEL
DRELL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MEAN %
EXPLORATION WELLS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant
Oral ROD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg— day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg— day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 9.24E-03 5.7E-08
Arsenic 3.0E-04 4.92E-04 3.0E-09
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
l.OE-03
l.OE-t-00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
2.44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
133E-03
1.08E-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
223E-08
1.19E-02
l^E-08
2^E-07
2^E-07
8^E-09
6.7E-08
1.9E-08
S.OE-08
1.4E-13
73E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.4E-07
l.OE-05
l^E-05
2JE-07
5.1E-05
22E-08
6.4E-05
2JE-06
2.8E-11
3.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected •
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
6.1E-09
4.3E-03
4.7E-03
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMAX%
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Avenge Intake
Compound (mg/kg— day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg- day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 1.04E-02 5.0E-08
Arsenic 3.0E-04 1.11E-03 53E-09
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
7.40E-03
1.08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-03
236E-02
1.53E-02
232E-02
4.24E-08
23ZE-02
3.6E-08
5.2E-07
5.2E-07
2.1E-08
1.2E-07
7.4E-08
1.1E-07
2.0E-13
1.1E-07
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
1.3E-07
1.8E-05
3.6E-05
5.2E-07
l.OE-04
5.7E-08
2JE-04
5.6E-06
4.1E-11
5.6E-07
, Annually
Avenge Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—l .Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E-I-00
1.1E-08
7.6E-03
8.6E-03
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: PFF-SHOREOIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMAX%
EXPLORATION WELLS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OrmlRfD
(mg/kg—day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Avenge Intake
, (rag/kg) (mg/kg^day)
9.24E-03
7.96E-04
532E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
1.84E-02
1.10E-02
1.67E-02
3.05E-08
1.67E-02
5.7E-08
4.9E-09
3.3E-08
4.8E-07
4.8E-07
2.0E-08
1.1E-07
6.8E-08
l.OET-07
1.9E-13
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.4E-07
1.6E-05
33E-05
4.8E-07
9.6E-05
53E-08
23E-04
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected .
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
. (ug/day) (mg/kg—d)-..l, -Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
9.8E-09
7.0E-03
8.0E-03
3.8E-11
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARITE LEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT-
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant . ,
OialRfD Concentntion Average Intake "
Compound (mg/kg— day) , (mg/kg) (rag/kg— day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 1.04E-02 5.0E-08
Arsenic 3.0E-04 8.21E-03 3.9E-08
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
1.26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
2.64E-02
232E-02
833E-08
4.43E-02
6.1E-08
7.0E-06
7.0E-06
3.7E-07
8.0E-07
13E-07
l.IE^-07
4.0E-13
2.1E-07
.Average
• Hazard .
.Quotient
1.3E-07
13E-04
6.1E-05
7X)E-06
1.4E-03
l.OE-06
4^E-04
5.6E-06
8.0E-11
1.1E-06
Annually
Avenge . Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(tig/day) (ing/kg—d)—1 .Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
7.9E-08
5.6E-02
5.6E-02
-------
MAY 19.1952
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMPIMPACT
CASE 1 - MINIMUMHARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BAR1TELEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT
EXPLORATION WELLS
NONCARCJNOGENIC RISKS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Avenge Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arien ic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nkkel
Silver
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE-4-00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
SJOE-03
(mg/kg)
9.24E-03
5.90E-03
9.09E-03
1.04E-4-00
1.04E+00
531E-02
1.19E-01
1.90E-02
1.67E-02
5.99E-08
(mg/kg-day)
5.7E-08
3.6E-08
5.6E-08
6.4E-06
6.4E-06
3.4E-07
73E-07
liE-07
l^E-07
3.7E-13
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
1.4E-07
1.2E-04
5.6E-05
6.4E-06
13E-03
92E-07
3.9E-04
52E-06
7.4E-11
Annually
Avenge Onl Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
7.3E-08
5.2E-02
54E-02
Zinc
2.0E-01
3.19E-02
2XJE-07
9.9E-07
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT-
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MEAN %
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg—day)
4JOE-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02
6.84E-04
3.39E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-03
1.5IE-02
4.32E-03
1.13E-02
3.10E-08
1.6SE-02
8.7E-08
5.7E-09
2.8E-08
4.8E-07
4.8E-07
1.6E-08
1.3E-07
3.6E-08
9.5E-08
2.6E-I3
1.4E-07
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
2^E-07
1.9E-05
2.8E-05
4,8E-07
9.6E-05
Annually
Avenge Onl Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(Hg/day) (mgfl£g-d)-l .RiskLevel Cancer Cases
1.2E-04
4.7E-06
50E-11
6.9E-07
2.0E+00
1.1E-08
8.2E-03
8.9E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMEAN%
EXPLORATION WELLS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nkkcl
Silver
Zinc
Oral RID
(mg/kg-day)
4JOE-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE-t-00
5JOE-Q3
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant :
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
4.92E-04
2.44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
133E-03
l.OSE-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
233E-08
1.19E-02
l.OE-07
5.3E-09
2.6E-08
4.4E-07
4.4E-07
1.4E-08
1.2E-07
3.3E-08
8.8E-08
2.4E-13
13E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
-(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
1.8E-05
2.6E-05
4.4E-07
8.9E-OS
3.9E-08
1.1E-04
4.4E-06
4.8E-11
6.4E-07
2.0E+00
1.1E-08
7.6E-03
8.1E-03
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMAX%
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Contaminant
OnlRfD Concentration Avenge Intake
(mg/kg— day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
1.11E-03
7.40E-03
1.08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-03
2.S6E-02
1.53E-02
232E-02
4.24E-08
232E-02
(mg/kg-day)
8.7E-08
93E-09
6.2E— 08~
9.1E-07
9.1E-07
3.7E-08
2.1E-07
1.3E-07
1.9E-07
3.6E-13
1.9E-07
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
2.2E-07
3.1E-05
6.2E-05
9.1E-07
1.8E-04
l.OE-07
4JE-04
9.7E-06
7.1E-11
9.7E-07
Annually
Avenge Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.9E-08
1.3E-02
1.5E-02
-------
MAY 19, 1992 '
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMAX%
EXPLORATION WELLS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg— day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
'(mg/kg) (mg/kg—day)
9.24E-03
7.96E-04
5.32E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
1.84E-02
1.10E-02
a.67E-02
3.0SE-08
1.67E-02
l.OE-07
8.6E-09
5.7E-08
83E-07
83E-07
3.4E-08
2.0E-07
1.2E-07
1.8E-07
33E-13
1.8E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
2.5E-07
2.9E-05
5.7E-05
8.3E-07
1.7E-04
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (ing/kg—d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.7E-08
1.2E-02
1.4E-02
3.9E-04
9.0E-06
6.6E-11
9.0E-07
-------
MAY 19, 1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARTTE LEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT"
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration
(mg/kg— day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
8.21E-03
1.26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
2.64E-02
2.32E-02
833E-08
4.43E-02
Average Intake
(mg/kg-day)
8.7E-08
6.9E-08
1.1E-07
l^E-05
l^E-05
6.4E-07
1.4E-06
23E-07
1.9E-07
7.0E-13
3.7E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
2.2E-07
23E-04
1.1E-04
1.2E-05
2.4E-03
1.7E-06
7.4E-04
9.7E-06
1.4E-10
1.9E-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.4E-07
9.8E-02
9.7E-02
-------
MAY is, 1992
PROJECT: OEF-SHOREOE.
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARTTE LEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT"
EXPLORATION WELLS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg— day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg— day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 9.24E-03 l.OE-07
Arsenic 3.0E-04 5.90E-03 6.4E-08
Cadmium
Chromium in
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
9.09E-03
1.04E+00
1.04E+00
5^1E-02
1.19E-01
1.90E-02
1.67E-02
5.99E-08
3.19E-02
9.8E-08
1.1E-05
1.1E-05
5.9E-07
13E-06
ZOE-07
1.8E-07
6JE-13
3.4E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
2.5E-07
2.1E-04
9.8E-OS
1.1E-05
22E-03
1.6E-06
6.8E-04
9.0E-06
13E-IO
1.7E-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.3E-07
9.1E-02
9.0E-02
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASES - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MEAN %
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant Average
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake Hazard
Compound (mg/kg— day) (mg/kg) (rag/kg -day) Quotient
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 1.04E-02 9.2E-08 23E-07
Arsenic 3.0E-O4 6.84E-04 6.1E-09 2.0E-OS
f!arimiiiTn
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
339E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-03
131E-02
432E-03
1.13E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
3.0E-08
5.1E-07
5.1E-07
1.7E-08
13E-07
3.8E-08
l.OE-07
2.8E-13 "
1.5E-07
3.0E-05
5.1E-07
l.OE-04
45E-08
13E-04
5.0E-06
5^E-11
73E-07
Annually
Average ' Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.2E-08
8.7E-03
9.4E-03
-------
MAY 39,3992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASES - MAXJMUMHARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMEAN %
EXPLORATION WELLS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium in
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SUver
Zinc
OnlRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2JDE-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Avenge Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
4.92E-04
2.44E-03
4.1IE-02
4.11E-02
133E-03
1.08E-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
2-23E-08
1J9E-02
1JE-07
5.6E-09
2.8E-08
4.7E-07
4.7E-07
l^E-08
liE-07
9JE-08
2JE-13
1XE-07
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
2.6E-07
1.9E-05
2JE-05
4.7E-07
9.4E-OS
4.1E-08
l^E-04
4.6E-06
5.1E-11
6.8E-07
Annually
Avenge Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases '
2.0E+00
1.1E-08
8.0E-03
8.6E-03
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MAX %
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration , Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
f^arin^illTn
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
1.11E-03
7.40E-03
1.08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-03
2.56E-02
1.53E-02
232E-02
4.24E-08
232E-02
(mg/kg-day)
9.2E-08
9.8E-09
6.6E-08
9.6E-07
9.6E-07
3.9E-08
2JE-07
1.4E-07
2.1E-07
3.8E-13
2.1E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
23E-07
33E-05
6.6E-05
9.6E-07
1.9E-04
1.1E-07
4^E-04
l.OE-05
7.5E-11
l.OE-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
2.0E-08
1.4E-02
1.6E-02
-------
MAY 19, 1992 '
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT-
CASE 3 - MAXIMUMHARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MAX %
EXPLORATION WELLS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant ' Average
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake Hazard
Compound (mg/kg-day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01
Arsenic
yp^prftjiiTTi
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
JrJr
Le«d
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(nag/kg) (mg/kg— day) Quotient
9.24E-03 1.1E-07 2.6E-07
7.96E-04
53ZE-Q3
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
1.84E-02
1.10E-02
1.67E-02
3.05E-08
1.67E— 02
9.1E-09 '
6.1E-08
8.8E-07
8.8E-07
3.6E-08
2.1E-07
13E-07
IJSE-07
33E-13
1.9E-07
3.0E-05
6.1E-05
8.8E-07
1.8E-04
9.8E-08
42E-04
9.5E-06
6.9E-11
9JE-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.8E-08
1.3E-02
1.5E-02
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OE.
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARITE LEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT"
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(rag/kg- day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE-KX)
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
S.OE-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
8.21E-03
1.26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
2.64E-02
Z32E-02
833E-08
4.43E-02
Average Intake
(mg/kg— day)
9^E-08
73E-08
1.1E-07
13E-05
13E-05
6.8E-07
l^E-06
23E-07
2.1E-07
7.4E-13
3.9E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
23E-07
2.4E-04
1.1E-04
13E-05
2.6E-03
1.8E-06
7.8E-04
l.OE-05
1JE-10
2.0E-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.5E-07
l.OE-01
l.OE-01
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASES - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARITE LEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT"
EXPLORATION WELLS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant
Oral RID Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(rag/kg)
9.24E-03
5.90E-03
9.09E-03
1.04E+00
1.04E+00
5^1E-02
1.19E-01
1.90E-02
1.67E-02
5.99E-08
3.19E-02
(mg/kg-day)
1.1E-07
6.7E-08
l.OE-07
l^E-05
l^E-05
63E-07
1.4E-06
2^E-07
1.9E-07
6.8E-13
3.6E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
2.6E-07
2.2E-04
l.OE-04
l^E-05
2.4E-03
1.7E-06
t
7.2E-04
9^E-06
1.4E-10
1.8E-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.3E-07
9.6E-02
9.SE-02
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MEAN%
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
NONCARONOGENIC RISKS
B AT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES
Contaminant
OialRfD Concentration
(nig/kg—day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-Q3
3.7E-01
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-Q3
2.0E-01
(n>8*g)
1.04E-02
6.84E-04
3.39E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-03
1.51E-02
43ZE-03
1.13E-02
3.10E-OS
1.65E-02
age Intake
/kg-day)
2.7E-08
l^E-09
8.7E-09
1.5E-07
UE-07
4^E-09
35E-08
1.1E-08
2^E-08
8.0E-14
4JE-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6.7E-08
5.9E-06
8.7E-06
l.SE-07
2.9E-05
UE-08
3.7E-05
1JE-06
1.6E-11
Z1E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2JOE+00
3.5E-09
Z5E-03
2.7E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium m
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SBver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-.day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02
6.84E-04
339E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-03
1.51E-02
432E-03
1.13E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
Z6E-08
1.7E-09
8.6E-09
1.4E-07
1.4E-07
4.7E-09
3.8E-08
1.1E-08
2.9E-08
7.8E-14
4.2E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6.6E-08
5.8E-06
8.6E-Q6
1.4E-07
Z9E-05
13E-08
3.6E-05
1.4E-06
1.6E-11
Z1E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
3JE-09 2JE-03
2.7E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg— day)
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium in
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3i)E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02
6.84E-04
339E-05
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-03
1J1E-02
432E-03
1.13E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
Z6E-08
1.7E-09
8JE-09
1.4E-07
1.4E-07
4.7E-09
3.8E-08
1.1E-08
2£E-08
7^E-14
4.1E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6.SE-08
5.7E-06
8^E-06
1.4E-07
25E-05
13E-08
3^E-05
1.4E-06
ijGE-ll
2.1E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
3.4E-09 Z4E-03
2.6E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SDver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02
6.84E-04
3J9E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-Q3
1.51E-02
4J2E-03
1J3E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
2.4E-08
1.6E-09
7.7E-09
13E-07
1.3E-07
45E-09
3.4E-08
2L6E-08
7.1E-14
3.8E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
5.9E-08
5.2E-06
7.7E-06
13E-07
2.6E-05
1.1E-08
33E-05
13E-06
1.4E-11
1.9E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
3.1E-09
Z2E-03
2.4E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE1 -MINIMUMHARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMEAN%
EXPLORATION WELLS
NONCARCJNOGENICRISKS
B AT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES
Contaminant
Oral RID Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day)
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.QE-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
4.92E-04
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
1.33E-Q3
L08E-02
3.11E-03
8J6E-03
Z23E-08
1.19E-02
3.1E-08
LfiE-09
8JLE-09
1.4E-07
1.4E-07
4.4E-09
3.6E-OS
l.OE-08
Z7E-08
7.4E-14
3.9E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
7.6E-08
5.4E-06
8.1E-06
1.4E-07
Z7E-Q5
1.2E-08
3.4E-05
1.4E-06
1JE-11
2.0E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected .
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
3.3E-09
Z3E-03
Z5E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Saver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
>ncentration .
(mg/kg)
4.92E-04
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4J1E-02
1.33E-03
1.08E-02
3JL1E-03
8.16E-03
1J9E-02
age Intake
*g-day)
3.0E-08
L6E-09
7.9E-09
L3E-07
L3E-07
4.3E-09
LOE-08
Z7E-08
7.2E-14
3.9E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
7.5E-08
5^E-06
7^E— 06
L3E-07
Z7E-05
l^E-08
3.4E-05
13E-06
1.4E-11
1JJE-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mgAcg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
33E-09
Z3E-03
2JE-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5JQE-03
• 3.7E-01
3.0E-04
• ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03 3.0E-08
4.92E-04 1.6E-09
Z44E-03 7.SE-09
4J1E-02 13E-07
4J1E-02 1.3E-07
L33E-03 43E-09
1.08E-02 3.5E-08
3.11E-03 l.OE-08
8.16E-03 Z6E-08
Z23E-08 7.2E-14
L19E-02 3.8E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
7.4E-08
5.3E-06
7^E-06
1JE-07
Z6E-05
L2E-OS
3^E-OS
13E-06
1.4E-11
1.9E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
3.2E-09
Z3E-03
2.4E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium m
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg— day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg)
9.24E-03
4^2E-04
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4J1E-02
133E-03
1UBE-02
3.11E-03
8J6E-03
Z23E-08
1J9E-02
(mg/kg-day)
Z7E-08
1.4E-09
7JE-09
l^E-07
3L2E-07
3.9E-09
3^E-08
9.1E-09
Z4E-08
6^E-14
3.5E-OS
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6J5E-08
4.8E-06
7.1E-06
l^E-07
Z4E-05
1.1E-08
3.0E-05
L2E-06
13E-11
1.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
Z9E-09
Z1E-03
Z2E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MAX %
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES
; ,
Contaminant
Oral RID Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium in
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg- day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-Q3
2.0E-01
(mg/fcg)
1.04E-02
1.11E-Q3
7.40E-03
1.08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-03
Z56E-02
1.53E-02
Z32E-02
4.24E-08
Z32E-02
(mg/lcg-day)
2.7E-08
Z9E-09
1.9E-08
Z8E-07
Z8E-07
1.1E-08
6.6E-08
3.9E-08
6.0E-08
1.1E-13
6.0E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6.7E-08
9.5E-06
1.9E-05
Z8E-07
5.6E-05
3.1E-08
1.3E-04
3.0E-06
Z2E-11
3.6E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
5.7E-09
4.1E-03
4.6E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium m
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
1.11E-03
7.40E-03
1.08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-Q3
Z56E-02
1.S3E-02
Z32E-02
4.24E-08
Z32E-02
(mg/kg-day)
2.6E-0&
Z8E-09
1.9E-08
2.7E-07
Z7E-07
1.1E-08
6JE-08
3.9E-08
5.9E-08
1.1E-13
5^E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6.6E-08
9.4E-06
1.9E-Q5
2.7E-07
5JE-Q5
3JDE-0&
13E-04
Z9E-06
Z1E-11
Z9E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
5.6E-09
4.0E-03
4.5E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
1J1E-03
7.40E-03
1.08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-03
Z56E-02
1^53E-02
Z32E-02
4^4E-08
Z32E-02
(mg/kg— day)
Z6E-08
Z8E-09
1.9E-08
2.7E-07
Z7E-07
1.1E-08
6.4E-08
3.8E-08
5^E-08
1.1E-13
5^E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6.5E-08
93E-06
1.9E-05
2.7E-07
5.4E-05
3.0E-08
1JE-04
2.9E-06
2.1E-11
2.9E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
5.6E-09
4.0E-03
4JE-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium IH
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg—day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02
1.11E-03
7.40E-03
1.08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-03
Z56E-02
1J3E-02
Z32E-02
454E-08
Z32E-02
Z4E-Q8
1.7E-08
2JE-07
X5E-07
l.OE-08
S^E-08
9.7E-14
53E-08
Average
.Hazard
Quotient
5.9E-08
8.4E-06
1.7E-05
Z5E-07
4.9E-05
2.7E-08
1JE-04
Z6E-06
13E-11
Z6E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+OO
5.1E-09
3.6E-03
4.1E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE1-MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMAX%
EXPLORATION WELLS
NONCARONOGENICRISKS
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium in
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mgficg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
S.OE-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/Jcg)
9.24E-03
7.96E-04
5.32E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
L84E-02
UQE-02
1.67E-02
3.05E-08
1.67E-02
(mg/kg-day)
3.1E-08
Z6E-09
1.8E-08
2.6E-07
2L6E-07
1.1E-08
6.1E-OS
3.6E-08
S.5E-08
l.OE-13
5.5E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
7.6E-08
8.8E-06
1.8E-05
2.6E-07
5.1E-05
Z8E-08
L2E-04
Z8E-06
2.0E-11
2.8E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer 'Excess
(ug/day) (rag/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
5J5E-09
3.8E-03
4.3E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-(B
ZOE-01
(mg/kg) (mg/l:g-day)
9^4E-03 3.0E-08
7.96E-04
532E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
1.84E-02
1.10E-02
1JS7E-02
3.Q5E-08
1J57E-02
2J5E-09
1.7E-08
2^E-07
2^E-07
l.OE-08
6.0E-08
3.6E-08
5.4E-08
9^E-14
5.4E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
7.5E-08
8^E-06
1.7E-05
ZSE-ffJ
5.QE-05
2JE-08
l^E-04
2.7E-06
ZOE-11
2.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
3.7E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day).
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
mcentration 4
(mg/kg)
7.96E-04
532E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3J8E-03
1.10E-02
3J15E-08
age Intake
flcg-day)
3.0E-08
2J5E— 09
1.7E-08
Z5E-07
Z5E-07
l.OE-08
5.9E-08
3.5E-08
5.4E-08
9^E— 14
5.4E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
7.4E-08
8.5E-06
1.7E-05
2SE-07
5.0E-05
2-8E-08
l^E-04
2.7E-06
2.0E-11
2.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
5.1E-09
3.7E-03
4.1E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium d
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
1.0E-Q3
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Avenge Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
Average
Hazard
Quotient
9.24E-Q3
7.96E-04
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3J8E-03
1.84E-02
L10E-02
1£7E-OZ
3X5E-OS
2.7E-08
2JE-09
1.6E-08
Z3E-07
Z3E-07
9.3E-09
5.4E-08
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
7.8E-06
l^E-05
23E-07
2.0E+00
4.7E-09
33E-03
45E-08
2J5E-0&
1.1E-04
2.4E-06
3JBE-QZ
4.9E-08
2.4E-07
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARTIE LEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT-
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
NONCARC3NOGENIC RISKS
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD
Compound (mg/kg-day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01
Arsenic 3.0E-04
Cadmium l.OE-03
Chromium HI l.OE-f 00
Chromium VI 5.0E-03
Copper 3.7E-01
Lead 1.66E-01
Mercury 3.0E-04 Z64E-02
Nickel ZOE-02 Z32E-02
Silver 5.0E-03 8.33E-08
Zinc ZOE-01 4.43E-02
Concentration Average Intake
(rag/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02 Z7E-08
8.21E-03 Z1E-08
1.26E-02 3.2E-08
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
3.7E-06
3.7E-06
ZOE-07
4.3E-07
6.8E-08
6.0E-08
Z1E-13
1.1E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6.7E-08
7.1E-05
3.2E-05
3.7E-06
7.5E-04
53E-07
Z3E-04
3JSE-06
43E-11
5.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
4.2E-08
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg— day) (nag/kg) (mgflcg— day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 1.04E-02 Z6E-08
Arsenic 3.0E-04 8.21E-03 Z1E-08
Cadmium
Chromium m
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
1.26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
Z64E-02
Z32E-02
833E-08
4.43E-02
3.2E-08
3.7E-06
3.7E-06
1.9E-07
4^E-07
6.7E-08
5.9E-08
Z1E-13
1.1E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6J5E-08
65E-05
3^E-05
3.7E-06
7JE-04
5^E-07
Z2E-04
Z9E-06
4.2E-11
5J5E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lr.ad Intake • Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
4.2E-08
3.0E-02
Z9E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 1.04E-02 Z6E-08
Arsenic 3.0E-04 821E-03 Z1E-08
Cadmium
Chromium in
' Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
1.26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
Z64E-02
Z32E-02
8J3E-08
4.43E-02
3.2E-08
3^E-06
3.6E-06
1.9E-07
4.2E-07
6.6E-08
5^E-08
Z1E-13
1.1E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6.5E-OS
6.9E-05
3.2E-05
3.6E-06
7JE-04
5^E-07
Z2E-04
Z9E-06
4.2E-11
5JE-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
4.1E-08
2.9E-02
Z9E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium m
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg—day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02
8.21E-03
1.26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
Z64E-02
Z32E-02
833E-08
4.43E-02
Z4E-08
1.9E-08
Z9E-08
3.3E-06
3.3E-06
1.7E-07
3.8E-07
6.0E-08
5.3E-08
1.9E-13
l.OE-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
5.9E-08
62E-05
Z9E-05
3JE-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE-fOO
3.7E-08
Z7E-02
4.7E-07
ZOE-04
Z6E-06
Z6E-02
5.0E-07
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE1 -MINIMUMHARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARTTELEACH % MEAN "pHDEPENDENT
EXPLORATION WELLS
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium in
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
NONCARCINOGENICRISKS
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES
Contaminant
Oral RID
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
9.24E-03
5.90E-03
9.09E-03
1.04E+00
1.04E+00
5.51E-02
1.19E-01
L90E-02
3JE-08
ZOE-08
3.0E-08
3.4E-06
3.4E-06
1.8E-07
3.9E-07
63E-08
5.99E-08
3.19E-02
ZOE-13
1.1E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
7.6E-08
6.5E-05
3.0E-05
3.4E-06
6.9E-04
4.9E-07
Z1E-04
Z8E-06
4.0E-11
53E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (nag/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
3.9E-08
2.8E-02
Z8E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Sflver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5JOE-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg) -
9^4E-03
5.90E-03
9.09E-03
L04E+00
l^ME+00
551E-02
1.19E-01
. 1.90E-02
1^57E-02
559E-08
3.19E-02
(rag/kg-day)
3.0E-08
15E-08
3.0E-08
3.4E-06
3.4E-06
1.8E-07
3SE-07
6JE-08
5.4E-08
1.9E-13
l.OE-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
7JE-08
6.4E-05
3.0E-05
3.4E-06
6.8E-04
4^E-07
2.1E-04
2.7E-06
3.9E-11
5^E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (rug/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
3.8E-08
2.7E-02
2.7E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium m
Chromium VI
.Copper
Load
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-dayX,
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg)
9.24E-03
5.90E-Q3
9.09E-03
1.04E+00
1.04E+00
551E-02
L19E-01
150E-02
1^7E-02
5.99E-08
3J9E-02
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-08
1.9E-08
Z9E-08
3.3E-06
33E-06
l^E-07
3.8E-07
6.1E-08
5.4E-08
15E-13
ISSE-m
Average
Hazard
Quotient
7.4E-08
6.3E-05
Z9E-05
3.3E-06
6.7E-04
4^E-07
ZOE-04
Z7E-06
3.9E-11
5.1E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
3.8E-08
Z7E-02
Z7E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-Q3
5.90E-03
9.09E-03
1.04E+00
1.04E+00
1.19E-01
150E-02
W7E-02
5J99E-0&
3.19E-02
Z7E-08
1.7E-08
Z7E-08
3.0E-06
3.0E-06
1.6E-07
3.5E-07
5.6E-08
4.9E-08
l.SE-13
9JE-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
6.8E-08
5JE-05
Z7E-05
3.0E-06
6.1E-04
4.4E-07
1.9E-04
Z4E-06
3SE-11
4.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
3.5E-08
Z5E-02
Z4E-02
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MEAN %
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mgflcg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
6.84E-04
3.39E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
L86E-03
1.51E-Q2
432E-03
L13E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
(mg/lcg -day)
6.4E-08
4.2E-09
2.1E-08
3.5E-07
3.5E-07
1.1E-08
9.3E-08
2.7E-08
7.0E-08
L9E-13
l.OE-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L6E-07
L4E-05
2.1E-05
3.5E-07
7.0E-05
3.1E-08
8.9E-OS
3JE-06
3.8E-11
5.1E-07
Average Oral Lifetime
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(ug/day) (mg/lcg—d)—l Risk Level Cat
2.0E+00
8.4E-09
6.5E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/lcg) (mg/kg-day)
L04E-02
6.84E-04
3.39E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
L86E-03
1.51E-02
4.32E-03
L13E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
6.1E-08
4.0E-09
2.0E-08
3.4E-07
3.4E-07
1.1E-08
8.9E-08
2.5E-08
6.7E-08
L8E-13
9.7E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
UE-07
L3E-05
iOE-05
3.4E-07
6.7E-05
3.0E-08
8.5E-05
33E-06
3.7E-11
4.9E-07
Annually
Average Oral, Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Case
2.0E+00
8.1E-09
5.8E-03
&2E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E^01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
6.84E-04
3.39E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-03
1.51E-02
4.32E-03
1.13E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
(mg/kg-day)
6.0E-08
3.9E-09
L9E-08
3.3E-07
3.3E-07
1.1E-08
8.7E-08
2.5E-08
6.5E-08
1.8E-13
9.5E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L5E-07
L3E-05
L9E-05
3JE-07
6.6E-05
Z9E-08
8.3E-05
3.2E-06
3.6E-11
4.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
.2.0E+00
7.8E-09
5.6E-03
6.1E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(rag/kg) (mg/kg-day)
L04E-02
6.84E-04
3.39E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-03
1.51E-02
4.32E-03
1.13E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
4.6E-08
3.1E-09
L5E-08
2.6E-07
2.6E-07
8.3E-09
6.7E-08
1.9E-08
5.1E-08
1.4E-13
7.4E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L2E-07
l.OE-05
1.5E-05
2.6E-07
5.1E-05
2.2E-08
6.4E-05
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
6.1E-09
4.4E-03
4.7E-03
2.SE-11
3.7E-07
-------
MAY 19. 1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 2 - MID-SEED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW1EACHMEAN%
EXPLORATION WELLS
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Leid
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Oral RED
(mgAcg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
4.92E-04
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
L33E-03
1.08E-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
Z23E-08
L19E-02
7.3E-08
3.9E-09
1.9E-08
33E-07
33E-07
LIE-OS
&SE-08
Z5E-08
1.8E-13
9.4E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L8E-07
L3E-05
1.9E-05
3.2E-07
6.5E-05
Z8E-08
&2E-05
3JE-06
3JE-11
4.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
7.8E-09
5.6E-03
6.0E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg&g-day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Ff
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9i4E-03 7.0E-08
4.92E-04
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
L33E-03
1.08E-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
Z23E-08
L19E-02
3.7E-09
L8E-08
3.1E-07
3.1E-07
LOE-08
&2E-08
2.4E-08
6.2E-08
L7E-13
9.0E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.7E-07
L2E-05
L8E-05
3.1E-07
(L2E-05
2.7E-06
7.8E-05
3.1E-06
3.4E-11
4.5E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
7.4E-09
5.3E-03
5.7E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Sflver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-Or
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
. 3.7E-01
3.0E-04
.ZOE-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
4.92E-04
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
133E-03
L08E-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
Z23E-08
L19E-02
6.8E-08
3.6E-09
L8E-08
3.0E-07
3.0E-07
9.8E-09
&OE-08
Z3E-08
6.0E-08
LfiE-13
&8E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.7E-07
L2E-05
L8E-05
3.0E-07
6.1E-05
2.6E-08
7.6E-05
3.0E-06
3.3E-11
4.4E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
7.2E-09
5.2E-03
5.6E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
rf"WM+***.m«n» Aueracre 4
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium IH
Chromium VI
Copper
1*
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Saver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
LOE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg)
9.24E-03
4.92E-04
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
L33E-03
LOSE-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
Z23E-08
L19E-02
(mg/kg-day)
Z8E-09
1.4E-08
Z4E-07
Z4E-07
7.6E-09
&2E-08
L8E-08
4.7E-08
L3E-13
6.8E-08
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
5.6E-09 4.0E-03
4.3E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MAX %
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mgAcg-day)
1.04E-02
L11E-03
7.40E-03
1.08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-03
2.56E-02
1.53E-02
Z32E-02
4.24E-08
232E-02
6.4E-08
6.8E-09
4.6E-08
6.6E-07
6.6E-07
2.7E-08
1.6E-07
9.4E-08
1.4E-07
Z6E-13
1.4E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
LfiE-07
23E-05
4.6E-05
6.6E-07
L3E-04
7.4E-08
3.1E-04
7.1E-06
5.2E-11
7.1E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.4E-08
9.8E-03
1.1E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
L04E-02 6.1E-08
1.11E-03
7.40E-03
L08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-03
2.56E-02
L53E-02
Z32E-02
4.24E-08
Z32E-02
6.SE-09
4.4E-08
6.4E-07
6.4E-07
2.6E-08
1.5E-07
9.0E-08
1.4E-07
Z5E-13
1.4E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.5E-07
2.2E-05
4.4E-05
6.4E-07
1.3E-04
7.0E-08
3.0E-04
6.8E-06
5.0E-11
6.8E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (nag/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.3E-08
9.3E-03
1.1E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
'Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-D1
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
L11E-03
7.40E-03
L08E-01
L08E-01
4.42E-03
2^6E-02
L53E^02
2.32E-02
4.24E-08
232E-02
(mg/kg-day)
6.0E-08
6.4E-09
4.2E-08
6^E-07
6^E-07
Z5E-08
1.5E-07
8.8E-08
L3E-07
X4E-13
1.3E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.5E-07
2.1E-05
4JE-05
6.2E-07
L2E-04
6.9E-08
Z9E-04
6.7E-06
4.9E-11
6.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Ufetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (rag/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.3E-08
9.1E-03
l.OE-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SDver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02
1.11E-03
7.40E-03
1.08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-03
1.53E-02
2.32E-02
4.24E-08
Z32E-02
4.6E-08
5.0E-09
3.3E-08
4.8E-07
4.8E-07
2.0E-08
L1E-07
6.8E-08
l.OE-07
1.9E-13
LOE-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.2E-07
1.7E-05
3.3E-05
4.8E-07
9.7E-05
5.3E-08
Z3E-04
5.2E-06
3.8E-11
5.2E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
9.9E-09
7.1E-03
8.0E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE2 - MID-SIZED HARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMAX%
EXPLORATION WELLS
Contaminant
Oral RID Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
9.24E-03
7.96E-04
5.32E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
L84E-02
L10E-02
L67E-02
3.05E-08
L67E-02
(mg/kg-day)
7.3E-08
6.3E-09
4.2E-08
6.1E-07
6.1E-07
2.5E-08
L5E-07
8.7E-08
1.3E-07
2.4E-13
1.3E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L8E-07
2.1E-05
4.2E-05
6.1E-07
L2E-04
6.8E-08
i9E-04
6.6E-06
4.8E-11
6.6E-07
ES) Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.3E-08
9.0E-03
l.OE-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Sflver
Zinc
Oral RID
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
7.96E-04
5.32E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
1.84E-02
1.10E-02
L67E-02
3.05E-08
L67E-02
7.0E-Q8
6.0E-09
4.0E-08
5.9E-07
5.9E-07
2.4E-08
1.4E-07
&3E-O8
1.3E-07
2.3E-13
UE-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.7E-07
2.0E-05
4.0E-05
5.9E-07
L2E-04
6.5E-08
2.8E-04
6.3E-06
4.6E-11
6.3E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.2E-08
8.6E-03
9.7E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
1
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-OT
3.0E-04
LOE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
9.24E-03
7.96E-04
5.32E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
L84E-02
L10E-02
L67E— 02
3.05E-08
L67E-02
(mg/kg-day)
6.8E-08
5.9E-09
3.9E-08
5.7E-07
5i7E-07
Z3E-08
1.4E-07
8.1E-08
1.2E-07
i 2.2E-13
L2E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.7E-07
ZOE-05
3.9E-05
5.7E-07
1.1E-04
6.3E-08
2.7E-04
6.1E-06
4.5E-11
6.1E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.2E-08
8.4E-03
9.5E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Oral RID
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
7.96E-04
5.32E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
1.84E-02
1.10E-02
L67E-02
3.05E-08
L67E-02
5.3E-08
4.6E-09
3.1E-08
4.4E-07
4.4E-07
1.8E-08
L1E-07
6.3E-08
9.6E-08
1.8E-13
9.6E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.3E-07
1.5E-05
3.1E-05
4.4E-07
8.9E-05
4.9E-08
2.1E-04
4.8E-06
3.5E-11
4.8E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day), (mg/kg-d)-1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
9.1E-09
6.5E-03
7.4E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARITE LEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT"
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Contaminant
Oral RID Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
8.21E-03
1.26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
2.64E-02
232E-02
8^3E-08
4.43E-02
(mg/kg-day)
6.4E-08
5.1E-08
7.8E-08
8.9E-06
8.9E-06
4.7E-07
l.OE-06
L6E-07
L4E-07
5.1E-13
2.7E-07
• Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.6E-07
1.7E-04
7.8E-05
8.9E-06
1.8E-03
1.3E-06
5.4E-04
7.1E-06
LOE-10
L4E-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime ' Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
l.OE-07
7.2E-02
7.2E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
8.21E-03
L26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
L66E-01
2.64E-02
Z32E-02
8.33E-08
4.43E-02
(mg/kg-day)
6.1E-08
4.8E-08
7.4E-08
8.5E-06
8.5E-06
4.5E-07
9.8E-07
1.6E-07
1.4E-07
4.9E-13
2.6E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.5E-07
1.6E-04
7.4E-05
8JE-06
L7E-03
L2E-06
5.2E-04
6.8E-06
9.8E-11
L3E-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (rag/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
9.7E-08
6.9E-02
6.8E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO* DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
•Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
• 3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
8.21E-03
L26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
Z64E-02
2.32E-02
8.33E-08
4.43E-02
(mg/kg-day)
6.0E-08
4.7E-08
7.2E-08
8.3E-06
8.3E-06
4.4E-07
9.5E-07
1.5E-07
L3E-07
4.8E-13
Z5E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.5E-07
1.6E-04
7.2E-05
8.3E-06
1.7E-03
1.2E-06
5.0E-04
6.7E-06
9.6E-11
L3E-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00 9.4E-08 6.7E-02
6.7E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SDver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02
8J21E-03
1.26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
Z64E-02
8.33E-08
4.43E-02
4.6E-08
3.7E-08
5.6E-08
6.5E-06
6.5E-06
3.4E-07
7.4E-07
1.2E-07
l.OE-07
3.7E-13
2.0E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L2E-07
1.2E-04
5.6E-05
6.5E-06
13E-03
9.3E-07
3.9E-04
5.2E-06
7.4E-11
9.9E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
7.3E-08 5.2E-02
5.2E-02
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE2 - MID-SIZED HARVESTLEVEL
DRILLMUDS & CUITINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARITE LEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT
EXPLORATION WELLS
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
I.OE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
9.24E-03
5.90E-03
9.09E-03
1.O4E+00
1.04E+00
5.51E-02
L19E-01
1.90E-02
L67E-02
5.99E-08
3.19E-02
(mg/kg-day)
7.3E-08
4.7E-08
7^E-08
8^E-06
8.2E-06
4.4E-07
9.4E-07
L5E-07
L3E-07
4.7E-13
2.5E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L8E-07
L6E-04
7.2E-05
8.2E-06
1.6E-03
L2E-06
5.0E-04
6.6E-06
9^E-11
UE-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifeline Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (rag/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
9.3E-08
6.7E-02
6.6E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(rag/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
LOE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2JOE-OZ
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
5.90E-03
9.09E-03
L04E+00
L04E+00
5.5IE-02
L19E-01
L90E-02
1.67E-02
5.99E-08
3.19E-02
7.0E-08
4.5E-08
6.9E-08
7.9E-06
7.9E-06
4.2E-07
9.0E-07
L4E-07
UE-07
4.SE-13
2.4E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L7E-07
L5E-04
6.9E-05
7.9E-06
1.6E-03
1.1E-06
4.8E-04
6.3E-06
9.1E-11
L2E-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
8.9E-08
6.4E-02
6.3E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-OT
3.0E-04
LOE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg)
9^4E-03
5.90E-03
9.09E-03
L04E+00
L04E+00
5^1E-02
1.19E-01
1.90E-02
1.67E-02
5.99E-08
3.19E-02
(mg/kg-day)
6.8E-08
4JE-08
6.7E-08
7.7E-06
7.7E-06
4.1E-07
8.8E-07
L4E-07
l^E-07
4.4E-13
i3E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L7E-07
L4E-04
6.7E-05
7.7E-06
L5E-03
1.1E-06
4.7E-04
6.1E-06
8.8E-11
L2E-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg— d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
8.7E-08
6.2E-02
(J.1E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
5.90E-03
9.09E-03
L04E+00
L04E+00
L19E-01
L90E-02
1.67E-02
5.99E-08
3.19E-02
5.3E-08
3.4E-08
S:2E-08
6.0E-06
6.0E-06
3.2E-07
6.8E-07
L1E-07
9.6E-08
3.4E-13
1.8E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L3E-07
1.1E-04
5.2E-05
6.0E-06
L2E-03
8.5E-07
3.6E-04
4.8E-06
6.9E-11
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
6.8E-08
4.8E-02
4,8E-02
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OEF-SHOREOIL
SHRIMP IMPACT ?• 7
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMEAN%
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(rag&g)
1.04E-02
6.84E-04
3.39E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-03
1.51E-02
4.32E-03
L13E-02
3.10E-08
L65E-02
(mg/kg-day)
6.9E-08
4.5E-09
23E-08
3.8E-07
3.8E-07
L2E-08
l.OE-07
2.9E-08
7.5E-OS
2.1E-13
L1E-07
Average
Hazssd
Quotient
1.7E-07
LSE-05
2.3E-05
3.8E-07
7.6E-05
3.3E-08
9.6E-05
3.8E-06
4.1E-11
5.5E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mgAcg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
9.1E-09
6.5E-03
7.0E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Oral RID
(rag/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
L04E-02
6.84E-04
3.39E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.86E-03
1.51E-02
4.32E-03
1.13E-02
3.10E-08
L65E-02
6.5E-08
4.2E-09
2.1E-08
3.6E-07
3.6E-07
L2E-08
9.4E-08
2.7E-OS
7.0E-08
1.9E-13
LOE-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.6E-07
L4E-05
2.1E-05
3.6E-07
7.1E-05
3.1E-08
8.9E-05
3.5E-06
3.9E-11
5.1E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)— 1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+CO
8.5E-09
6.1E-03
6.6E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)^
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg&g)
1.04E-02
6.84E-04
3J9E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
1.S6E-03
1.51E-02
4^2E-03
L13E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
(mg/kg-day)
6^E-08
4.1E-09
iOE-08
3.4E-07
3.4E-07
1.1E-08
9.0E-08
2.6E-08
6.7E-08
1.8E-13
9.8E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.6E-07
L4E-05
2.0E-05
3.4E-07
6.8E-05
3.0E-08
8.6E-05
3.4E-06
3.7E-11
4.9E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
8.2E-09
5.8E-03
6.3E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic .
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
•3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (rag/kg^-day)
L04E-02
6.84E-04
3.39E-03
5.72E-02
5.72E-02
L86E-03
1.51E-02
4.32E-03
L13E-02
3.10E-08
1.65E-02
4.1E-08
2.7E-09
1.3E-08
Z2E-07
2.2E-07
7.3E-09
S.9E-08
1.7E-08
4.4E-08
L2E-13
6.5E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
LOE-07
9.0E-06
1.3E-05
2.2E-07
4.5E-05
2.0E-08
5.7E-05
2.2E-06
2.4E-U
3.2E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)—1 RiskLevel CancerCases
2.0E+00
5.4E-09
3.8E-03
4.1E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMEAN%
EXPLORATION WELLS
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 9.24E-03 7.9E-08
Arsenic 3.0E-04 4.92E-04 4.2E-09
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
1.33E-03
1.08E-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
Z23E-08
1.19E-02
Z1E-08
3.5E-07
3.5E-07
1.1E-08
9.2E-08
Z7E-08
7.0E-08
1.9E-13
LOE-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
ZOE-07
1.4E-05
Z1E-05
3JE-07
7.0E-05
3.1E-08
8.8E-05
3.5E-06
3.8E-11
5.1E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg— d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
8.4E-09
6.0E-03
6.4E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SDvcr
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
aOE-04
LOE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
4.92E-04
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
L33E-03
L08E-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
Z23E-08
L19E-02
7.4E-08
3.9E-09
1.9E-OS
3.3E-07
3.3E-07
LIE-OS
8.6E-08
Z5E-08
6.5E-08
1.8E-13
9.5E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L8E-07
L3E-05
1.9E-05
3.3E-07
6.6E-05
Z9E-08
8.3E-05
33E-06
3.6E-11
4.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead-Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
7.8E-09
5.6E-03
6.0E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Avenge Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
LOE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg)
9.24E-03
4.92E-04
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
L33E-03
1.08E-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
Z23E-08
L19E-02
(mg/kg-day)
7.1E-08
3.8E-09
1.9E-08
3.1E-07
3.1E-07
l.OE-08
8JE-08
Z4E-08
&2E-08
L7E-13
9.1E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.8E-07
L3E-05
1.9E-05
3.1E-07
6^E-05
Z8E-08
7.9E-05
3.1E-06
3.4E-11
4.6E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg— d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
7.5E-09
5.4E-03
5.8E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
LOE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
4.92E-04
Z44E-03
4.11E-02
4.11E-02
L33E-03
L08E-02
3.11E-03
8.16E-03
Z23E-08
L19E-02
4.7E-08
Z5E-09
L2E-08
Z1E-07
Z1E-07
6.7E-09
5.4E-08
1.6E-08
4.1E-08
L1E-13
6.0E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L2E-07
8JE-06
1.2E-05
Z1E-07
4.1E-05
1.8E-08
5.2E-05
Z1E-06
Z2E-11
3.0E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
5.0E-09
3.5E-03
3.8E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT '-' »
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MAX %
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercuiy
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(rag/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
L04E-02
1.11E-03
7.40E-03
1.08E-01
1.08E-01
4.42E-03
Z56E-02
1.53E-02
Z32E-02
4.24E-08
Z32E-02
6.9E-08
7.4E-09
4.9E-08
7.2E-07
7.2E-07
Z9E-08
1.7E-07
l.OE-07
1.5E-07
Z8E-13
1.5E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L7E-07
Z5E-05
4.9E-05
7.2E-07
1.4E-04
7.9E-08
3.4E-04
7.7E-06
5.6E-11
7.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
l.SE-08 1.1E-02
3L2E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
3.0E-04
LOE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(rag/kg) (mg/kg-day)
L04E-02 6.5E-08
L11E-03
7.40E-03
L08E-01
L08E-01
4.42E-03
2.56E-02
L53E-02
Z32E-02
4.24E-08
232E-02
6.9E-09
4.6E-08
6.7E-07
6.7E-07
Z7E-08
1.6E-07
9.5E-08
L4E-07
2.6E-13
L4E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.6E-07
Z3E-05
4.6E-05
6.7E-07
L3E-04
7.4E-08
3.2E-04
7.2E-06
5.3E-11
7JE-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
1.4E-08
9.9E-03
L1E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercuiy
Nickel
SDver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02
L11E-03
7.40E-03
L08E-01
LOSE-01
4.42E-03
Z56E-02
L33E-02
Z32E-02
4.24E-08
Z32E-02
6.2E-08
6.6E-09
4.4E-08
6.4E-07
6.4E-07
Z6E-08
1.5E-07
9.1E-08
1.4E-07
ZSE-13
1.4E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.6E-07
Z2E-05
4.4E-05
6.4E-07
L3E-04
7.1E-08
3.0E-04
6.9E-06
5.1E-11
6.9E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)— 1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.3E-08
9.5E-03
1.1E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Contaminant
Oral RED Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg)
1.04E-02
1.11E-03
7.40E-03
L08E-01
L08E-01
4.42E-03
Z56E-02
L53E-02
Z32E-02
4.24E-08
Z32E-02
(mgAcg-day)
4.1E-08
4.4E-09
Z9E-08
4.2E-07
4.2E-07
1.7E-08
l.OE-07
6.0E-08
9.1E-08
1.7E-13
9.1E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
l.OE-07
L5E-05
Z9E-05
' 4.2E-07
8.5E-05
4.7E-08
ZOE-04
4.6E-06
3JE-11
4.6E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
8.7E-09
7.0E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFJF-SHOREOIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASES-MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMAX%
EXPLORATION WELLS
SHRIMP IMPACT - B AT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg— day) (nig/kg) (mg/kg— day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 9.24E-03 7.9E-08
Arsenic 3.0E-04 7.96E-04 6.8E-09
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
532E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
L84E-02
L10E-02
L67E-02
3.05E-08
L67E-02
4.5E-08
6.6E-07
6.6E-07
Z7E-08
1.6E-07
9.4E-08
1.4E-07
2.6E-13
1.4E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
2.0E-07
13E-05
4^E-05
6.6E-07
1.3E-04
7^E-08
3.1E-04
7.1E-06
5.2E-11
7.1E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.4E-08
9.7E-03
L1E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
LOE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(ing/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
7.96E-04
5.32E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
L84E-02
L10E-02
L67E-02
3.05E-OS
1.67E-Q2
7.4E-08
6.3E-09
4.2E-08
6.2E-07
6.2E-07
Z3E-08
l.SE-07
8.8E-08
1.3E-07
2.4E-I3
1.3E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L8E-07
2.1E-05
4.2E-05
62E-07
L2E-04
6.9E-08
2.9E-04
6.7E-06
4.9E-11
6.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.3E-08
9.1E-03
LOE-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE <: 6 MILES)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-OT
3.0E-04
LOE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
9.24E-03
7.96E-04
5.32E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
1.84E-02
L10E-02
L67E-02
3.05E-08
L67E-02
(mg/kg-day)
7.1E-08
6.1E-09
4.1E-08
5.9E-07
5.9E-07
Z4E-OS
1.4E-07
8.4E-08
3L3E-07
Z3E-13
1.3E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.8E-07
2.0E-05
4.1E-05
5.9E-07
L2E-04
6.6E-08
2.8E-04
6.4E-06
4.7E-11
6.4E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.2E-08
8.7E-03
9.9E-03
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
7.96E-04
5.32E-03
7.74E-02
7.74E-02
3.18E-03
1.84E-02
L10E-02
L67E-02
3.05E-08
1.67E-02
4.7E-08
4.0E-09
Z7E-08
3.9E-07
3.9E-07
L6E-08
9.3E-08
5.5E-08
8.4E-08
L5E-13
8.4E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L2E-07
1.3E-05
2.7E-05
3.9E-07
7.8E-05
4.3E-08
1.8E-04
4.2E-06
3.1E-11
4.2E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg— d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
8.0E-09
5.7E-03
6.5E-03
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARITE LEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT
DEVELOPMENT PLATFORMS
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg— day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02 6.9E-08
8.21E-03
L26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
2.64E-02
2.32E-02
8.33E-08
4.43E-02
5.5E-08
8.4E-08
9.6E-06
9.6E-06
5.1E-07
1.1E-06
:.8E-07
L5E-07
SJE-13
2.9E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.7E-07
1.8E-04
8.4E-05
9.6E-06
1.9E-03
1.4E-06
5.8E-04
7.7E-06
1.1E-10
1.5E-06
ES) . Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00 1.1E-07 7.8E-02
7.7E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SUver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02
8.21E-03
1.26E-02
L45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
2.64E-02
2.32E-02
8.33E-08
4.43E-02
6.5E-08
5.1E-08
7.8E-08
9.0E-06
9.0E-06
4.8E-07
LOE-06
1.6E-07
1.4E-07
5.2E-13
2.8E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
L6E-07
1.7E-04
7.8E-05
9.0E-06
1.8E-03
L3E-06
5.5E-04
7.2E-06
l.OE-10
1.4E-06
Average Oral Lifetime
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(ug/day) (rng/kg-d)-l Risk Level
2.0E+00
l.OE-07
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
7.3E-02
7.2E-02
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04E-02 6.2E-08
8.21E-03
L26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
Z64E-02
2J2E-02
833E-08
4.43E-02
4.9E-08
7.SE-08
8.6E-06
8.6E-06
4.6E-07
9.9E-07
1.6E-07
1.4E-07
5.0E-13
2.6E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.6E-07
1.6E-04
7JE-05
8.6E-06
1.7E-03
1.2E-06
5.2E-04
6.9E-06
9.9E-11
1.3E-06
Es) Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00 9.8E-08 7.0E-02
6.9E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(rug/kg) (mg/kg-day)
1.04EMJ2
8.21E-03
1.26E-02
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
7.66E-02
1.66E-01
2.64E-02
2.32E-02
8.33E-08
4.43E-02
4.1E-08
3.2E-08
4.9E-08
5.7E-06
5.7E-06
3.0E-07
6.5E-07
l.OE-07
9.1E-08
3.3E-13
L7E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
l.OE-07
1.1E-04
4.9E-05
5.7E-06
1.1E-03
8.1E-07
3.5E-04
4.6E-06
6.5E-11
8.7E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
6.4E-08
4.6E-02
4.6E-02
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
SHRIMP IMPACT
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARrrELEACH % MEAN 'pH DEPENDENT-
EXPLORATION WELLS
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILES)
/•*M«*n*«?ni«t AVCKlPft t
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mcreuiy
Nickel
SUver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03
5.90E-03
9.09E-03
1.04E+00
1.04E+00
5.S1E-02
1.19E-01
1.90E-02
L67E-02
5.99E-08
3.19E-02
7.9E-08
5.0E-08
7.8E-08
8.9E-06
8.9E-06
4.7E-07
l.OE-06
1.6E-07
1.4E-07
5.1E-13
Z7E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
ZOE-07
1.7E-04
7.8E-05
8.9E-06
1.8E-03
1.3E-06
5.4E-04
7.1E-06
LOE-10
1.4E-06
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
l.OE-07
7.2E-02
7.1E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILES)
/•>«...*««***;« *>n t Average /
Contaminant Average
Concentration Average Intake Hazard
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day) Quotient
9.24E-03 7.4E-08 L8E-07
5.90E-03 4.7E-08 L6E-04
9.09E-03 7.3E-08 7.3E-05
1.04E+00 8JE-06 8.3E-06
1.04E+00 8JE-06 L7E-03
5.51E-02 4.4E-07 1.2E-06
1.19E-01 9.5E-07
L90E-02 l.SE-07 5.1E-04
' 1.67E-02 L3E-07 6.7E-06
5.99E-08 4.8E-13 9.6E-11
3.19E-02 Z5E-07 L3E-06
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 6 MILES)
rv»tim;nanf< ' Average Average
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
LOE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Average Oral Lifetime
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level
2.0E+00
9.4E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
6.7E-02
6.6E-02
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day)^
Naphthalene 4.0E-01
Arsenic 3.0E-04
Cadmium
Chromium HI
Chromium VI
Copper
.**»*$•£""•
T*ad
J.JOU
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
LOE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg) (mgflcg-day)
9.24E-03 7.1E-08
5.90E-03 4.5E-08
9.09E-03
1.04E+00
L04E+00
5.51E-02
1.19E-01
1.90E-02
1.67E-02
5.99E-08
3.19E-02
7.0E-08
8.0E-06
8.0E-06
4^ZE— 07
9.1E-07
L5E-07
L3E-07
4.6E-13
Z4E-07
Hazard
Quotient
1.8E-07
L5E-04
7.0E-05
8.0E-06
1.6E-03
1.1E-06
4.8E-04
6.4E-06
9.2E— 11
L2E-06
Oral Lifetime
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
2.0E+00 9.0E-08 6.5E-02
6.4E-02
SHRIMP IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILES)
^*n***a*v«*n«int . , AVCr&ffC /
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01
Arsenic 3.0E-04
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
9.24E-03 4.7E-08
5.90E-03 3.0E-08
9.09E-03
1.04E+00
1.04E+00
5.51E-02
LlOE-^Ol
1.90E-02
1.67E-02
5.99E-08
3.19E-02
4.6E-08
5.2E-06
5.2E-06
ZSE-^O?
6.0E-07
9.6E-08
8.4E-08
3.0E-13
1.6E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient -
L2E-07
9.9E-05
4.6E-05
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mgAcg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00
5.9E-08 4.2E-02
l.OE-03
7.5E-07
3.2E-04
4.2E-02
6.0E-11
8.0E-07
-------
23
r~-vou-. «/->\p\pv5vg—«in
I I I I I I I I T I
tOtOWtOUJtUtOUJUJtU
"or tsj i> r^ CM r^ op f*j o "^
•_SS
_ i i i i i i
.2 CO Ul GO til Cx) tz]
2 —« o\ ••< IN ^ ri
o o o o
I I I I
M M fTl TT?
oq rn «rt t*i
Vi CN W f«*,
<^W^ ^5 ITi ^f ^ \O U"l l/% l/*l O V%
^*> Cl>' ^5 *^? ^^ ^5 ^5 *T^ C^3 ^3 ^^ ^5
•Si II I I I I I || i
wcutotoaujtoto to a
oo ^f-t*** r'i »'Jr>>P>>KN«9«'v"^»o
t
S
CO
S°
gSggggggggg
I I I I I I I I I I I
totoutotoutotouto
SO^ ^" ~" "" " ~" ~
<*!
vo «*; wS \n
I g ^ p? S3 2 S
o S o S o o
I I + I I
u to to u] tu
p es p p r-
s^^^-^1^^
of
ooSo
I I I I
U3 tO £13 113
0 p p O
«<•. «>> «ri ts
d2 3
es ^ >
. « o
n I °
g.-
-------
tU ^ x-v
8
03
•» v» r»% n-. \n r~. *o
c o o o o o o
.2 I I II I I
8S88
I I I I
ta u tu u
t*; \q o\ oo
vo c* c< «
U)
Srf.
- , ?
•O C I I
SH3S
I I I I I I I I I I I
PD
S "°
SS8
i i i
ta tu w
i i i i i i
e>«sg2
a
i i
earn (DID
e* t-joej-w
e o *•-* *^ s<-' *—' '—' ^^ *—' ''--' *•-* ^^ ^
«~ ^ i i i i i i i i i i i
.E 5 eocfj UUCUUCz](I]tUQ}U]tI]
— o
2
o
Ct)
c;
i
CO
i *™<
^P
oTO
w^lo
9l^P
3 s r? <
ScC^S
u
z
o
-H—
-------
S "2
OQ
•o
ec
8
i
8
+
tu
2
iiii
u ca tutu
«
§ £ "fi
a E
t- >» \6
- os — ci -s
_j CP C& CD CP C5 CS O C^ O O
•O E I I I I I I I I I I
SS-2Wtawtaajc3 tautuca
o ~- "l «?
3 ""* ""* «*"•
OO CO
06
c i tuuj
"-" eoc^":
«— ^"* •«•
S t
S3
o
tu
c:
g
CO
Li.
So
II
II
*8S5S8SSSSS
i i i i i i i i i i
5 a
> J ~z.
co co
^S S S 8 S S
If
sggs
IIII
ta in CD a
oop
es
°I?
So E
-------
W 5 _ d t«". -« f» c4 ««?
O
x-svs vcw:'<«f<^>tou^mv%OVK«
>>o SooooooO'-o
5 I I I I I I I I I I I
s
"
S g g
ggggggggg
I I I I I I I I I
wi r-
2
CO _
^ e
5 5
1 Sf
C5 •£•
I
~* ^* f; o **ii *~(
-O O C3 O O O
'I I I + I I
ta ta ta ta ta ta
^^ p^ ^^ p p t^
:. «-5 -4 «n «<^
sggs
I I I I
ta ta ta ta
Q o p p
o
a a
•i i
i.i-1-li i
j3 >•
E E
.= .= . >.
~ M •• ••
3-3 *
iMJirs 8-8*8
S^QSSS^izSFS
-------
S
OQ
s
1 1 1 1 1 1
—i cd O\ -* — •
SS8S
iii i
ta ta la la
3 esooooSoooS — o
S J8 7 ' ' ' i' ' ' J ' J J J
"** i: A?1"- *** ^ t*J-c*S °i t *^ "s ^ °3
M S3 88-83 3S8:S
-o c I I I I + I I I I I
fe .s tti.ta- ta la ta ca ia ta ta ta
sSSSSSSSS S'8 2 S
5 •§ I I II I J I I J J I
IF1""^"""^"
^g sssssssssss
«-s ^ I I I + + I I II II
_c a eoHj u) ta ta ta (a ta ta ta ta ta
E"" •- ^? ^ *^ xo vi v^ NO >o ^" rM «*; «*%
_ C g&O CM CM ^9'^->B'5\O*^. fits-
S *? C ^-< CO " j . ' r' 1 ra rj PD -u*
f» O , C _ ^~ * ^** ~**
sr
o o o o o r-
O O O O
l
t
|t||llh|li.i
02-5OOUO^22wN
* w^ta
!'li5s
•^^ tS "S
-1 (2
S B. I <=>
O '
-------
OQ
_ g
li
CS
Q.
±
pa w ta
-^ •*.
w
§
§
C/3
• t
2Jp
«"M
*-, w
SI
§1
EJ
IMP
ITE
LOR
S
BAR
EXP
to
sSSSSSSSSBSSS
•e -B I I I I II I I.I I I
ll
c a
I I I
SB
59
g
g
SSii
in *
IC RISKS
Oral
Slope Fac
(mg/kg-
2.
1
ll
l
-
CIN
Compound
Arsenic
-------
APPENDIX B
. FINFTSH IMPACTS FROM
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
-------
-------
E "^
•s «5 ° ^
liii
OQ
take
/day
w
BJ Jj
5 ><
=5-5:
ill!
< --S,
fM
C
1
a
O
s
ta
s 1 .| +??i?i
? **^ ^^ C) f^ VS ^"^ ^J Ov
S Jt
_ 4) -O
•e •" i
•« a 4o
l-l
§
ME
mg/
Average
ard
tient
Quo
eg
Bi
O
CINOG
NON
"£ jo
i C 66
1 8 E
i i + i
CQCdBlCS]
^-«o«*i
oo «n ci t->
+ i i i i i i i i + i
+ I 1 1 1 1
C3QUU)UU)B}
O — < Ov f. IO CO
SggS
I I + I
vj e>» c>«o
+ i i i i i i i
g(StQ(tiB](I}tI}U}
f. O» «"". f . C>< VO «
«« O CM
+ 1 1 1
1
tiJ
O
I 1
uiu
%-g 82SSS
e •§ + I I I I
|j|»a»
S8
i i
BJ ti]
88
i i
BI 113
+ i
U1U]
gg
+ i
§8-
i i i i
^or.coao
1 1
I I
-; «?
I I I + I I 2 | | , ,
O O O O O f; OOOO
C JJ
S ~
>
E
I 1
- - w
lllllilis
&»•§
Hi
< ~ >
e o
« — x^
.5 S ^
1 S f
S
I
w
i. -11
-------
1|||
§•5 - £,
DO
•o
«
' n *~ g.
(M
C
I
O\
CM
0
1
ID
o\
S
ta
S-g «
^G £• «H
•5 IP
S.S7
a s*
SS38S
i i + i
tata tata
~ -H p p
«»-.-< O -*
sssss
+ I I I I I I I I + I
(ataiatataiatatatatata
OVOC^CMCM—;CM«»5—! P p
e> «-• -J CM
8S
iata
P
CM CO
sssg
I I I I
ta ta ta ta
CM
gggg
I I + I
ta ta ta ta
\ t>; p
•iod-^cM~5 --vdeSvo
gssgg^sssgg
+ I I I I I I I I + I
tatatatatatatatatatata
pp'V'^'T'^vrJOOcr, Of.
O-*OO-^—CMirs — O—«
g vp vp g vo g
+ I I I I I
D] ta ta ta ta ta
p CM o\ r^ >J
VO CM O CM
g^3 O\ OO OO Qi P\ OO O\ CS Ov
vH g^ ^^ ^3 ^1*^ ^™* ^^ ^^ ^y ^3
+ t I I I I I t I + I
ratatatataiatatatatata
p«rjojr^r;oq'^;pvqpt«j.
OfiCM^^^ONCM^O^
C
is
o
ta
o
a:
03
£
S o
ll
Si
oSSSSSSS o
I I I I I I I I I
tatatatatatatata ta
tn-H'STT^crjir-jTrin —j
SSSSoo
I I 1 + 1 I
Sta ta ta ta ta
P p p p i~-
•^ tr.»- -^ 10 t»j
^ e S S
Ta ^ .5 .S
^E -g -5 E "i «
•§.gi e s §
£lc3S6S
ssss
i i i i
ta ta ta ta
P P P p
»»5 CM «rt CM
" J* O O
£ .a -i .s
2 2 55 N
gj
.S 2
i s
i|
aa
S -a |*
| 6 g.io
U«S ob
^^ C/3 g
*7 ^^
ta
O
o
u
S. -1§
I II
-------
1*11
Da""-2-
•o
I
03
8
03
w-ol- 8SS8S8
S jjj .a + i i i i i
lf?l 5 oS; See "
888S
i i + i
MB1Q3 Q]
i i
03 03
W
I I I I I I I I
I
a
"OC3 O O O O O O • OO O O
53 S .2 + i i \ i i i i + i
O cs <-< >H
VO O —<
i i
0303
J¥
IT
S "a.
•f I I I I I I I I + i
OF--»-"«-««-ic6»^«-5^*OO
S
It
I I I 1 I
o oo
— - oo '-"
ggggggggggg
+ I I I I I I I I + I
(S vi \O \O ro
IT ci oo
&»•§
2 ^ I
lit
<"" S>
t I
tO 03
O
03
C*
S
CO
&
o\
o\
£g
II
s
«
S
u
§
o
i
0
NON
|J SSSSSSSS
c 75 *^A rrj m fii rri fri tv) r?i rri
at
OS I
o o o o
ta m ta 03
Q O O O
M
S
u
•O
a
g.
1
g
j>
*«
j=
t
£
.£>
1
i
(3
s >
E E
3 3
11
b>
O
!«
c3^
^.
C*
II
V U
S2
S
55
S
N
LU
0
o
z
U
11
.S S 'SJ
II*
si
fc* •*« i
o §j_ M
K f
•g
s
I
S
03
Ov
-------
MAY 19,1992 "
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
.FIN FISH IMPACT
B AT/NSPS OPTIONS - 2ERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MEAN %
NONCARCINOGENICRISKS
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OnlRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE-fOO
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
7.7E-11
3.8E-10
6.4E-09
6.4E-09
2.1E-10
1.7E-09
4.9E-10
1.3E-09
O.OE+00
1.9E-09
8.6E-06
43E-05
7.2E-04
7.2E-04
23E-05
1.9E-04
5.4E-05
1-5E-04
2.1E-04
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
2.6E-07
3.8E-07
6.4E-09
13E-06
5.6E-10
1.6E-06
6.7E-08
O.OE+00
9.5E-09
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Case:
2.0E+00
1.5E-10
2.0E-CK
1.2E-04
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (2ERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg— day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01 .
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
8.6E-05
43E-05
7.2E-04
7.2E-04
23E-05
JL9E-04
5.4E-05
L5E-04
2.1E-04
(mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
6.8E-11
3.4E-10
5.7E-09
5.7E-09
1.9E-10
1.5E-09
43E-10
15E-09
O.OE+00
1.7E-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
23E-07
3.4E-07
5.7E-09
1.1E-06
5.0E-10
1.4E-06
6.0E-08
O.OE+00
8^E-09
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
1.1E-04
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.4E-10
1.8E-06
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant Average Average
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake Hazard Lead Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day) Quotient (ug/day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Arsenic 3.0E-04 8.6E-06 2JE-11 7.6E-08
Cadmium l.OE-03 4.3E-05 1.1E-10 1.1E-07
Chromium m l.OE+00 7JE-04 1.9E-09 1.9E-09
Chromium VI S.OE-03 7.2E-04 1.9E-09 3.8E-07
Copper . 3.7E-01 i3E-05 6.2E-11 1.7E-10
Lead NA 1.9E-04 5.0E-10 3.5E-05
Mercury 3.0E-04 5.4E-05 1.4E-10 4.8E-07
Nickel 2.0E-02 l^E-04 4.0E-10 2.0E-08
Silver 5.0E-03 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Zinc 2.0E-01 2.1E-04 5.6E-10 2.8E-09
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
4JE-11
5.8E-07
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF—SHORE OH,
.FIN FISH IMPACT
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMAX%
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
Annuallv
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic'
Qi^nwTn
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration
(mg/fci)
1.4E-05
93E-05
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
5.5E-05
3.2E-04
1.9E-04
3.1E-04
2.9E-04
Average Intake
(mg/kg— day)
O.OE+00
1.2E-10
83E-10
l^E-08
1.2E-08
5.0E-10
2.9E-09
1.7E-09
2.7E-09
O.OE+00
2.6E-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
4.2E-07
83E-07
1.2E-08
2.4E-06
1.3E-09
5.8E-06
1.4E-07
O.OE+00
13E-08
, Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
2.0E-04
Oral Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-d)-l RiskLevel
2.0E+00 2.5E-10
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
3.2E-06
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
O^dnntMm
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Oral RED
(rag/kg— day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.4E-05
9.3E-05
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
5.5E-05
3.2E-04
1.9E-04
3.1E-04
2.9E-04
Average Intake
(mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
I.IE-IO
7.4E-10
1.1E-08
1.1E-08
4.4E-10
2.6E-09
l^E-09
2.4E-09
O.OE+00
Z3E-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
3.7E-07
7.4E-07
1.1E-08
2^E-06
l^E-09
5.1E-06
1.2E-07
O.OE+00
1.2E-08
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
1.8E-04
Oral Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-d)-l RiskLevel
2.0E+00 2.2E-10
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
2.8E-06
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILE OPTION)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
.
OraiRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.4E-05
9.3E-05
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
5.5E-05
3.2E-04
1.9E-04
3.1E-04
2.9E-04
Average Intake
(mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
3.7E-11
2^E-10
3.6E-09
3.6E-09
1.5E-10
8.5E-10
5.1E-10
8.1E-10
O.OE+00
7.7E-10
Average
Hazard
. Quotient
O.OE+00
1.2E-07
2^E-07
3.6E-09
7.2E-07
4.0E-10
1.7E-06
4.1E-08
O.OE+00
3.8E-09
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
6.0E-05
Oral Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg— d)— 1 RiskLevel
2.0E+00 7.4E-11
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
9.5E-07
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: 9FF-SHOREOIL
.FIN FISH IMPACT
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARTTELEACH % "pH DEPENDENT"
NONCARCINOGENICRISKS
Annually
Contaminant Average Avenge Oral Lifetime
OnlRfD Concentration Average Intake Hazard Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
Expected
Excess
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day) Quotient (ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Arsenic 3.0E-04 l.OE-04 9.2E-10 3.1E-06 2.0E+00 1.8E-09
Cadmium l.OE-03 1.6E-04 1.4E-09 1.4E-06
Chromium HI l.OE+00 1.8E-02 1.6E-07 1.6E-07
Chromium VI 5.0E-03 1.8E-02 1.6E-07 3.2E-05
Copper 3.7E-01 9.6E-04 8.6E-09 23E-08
Lead NA 2.1E-03 1.9E-08 1.3E-03
Mercury 3.0E-04 33E-04 3.0E-09 1.0E-OS
Nickel 2.0E-02 3.1E-04 2.7E-09 1.4E-07
Silver 5.0E-03 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Zinc ZOE-01 5.7E-04 5.1E-09 Z5E-08
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant Average Average Oral Lifetime
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake Hazard Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day) Quotient (ug/day) (ms/kg-d)-l RiskLevel
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 O.OE+00 O.OE-fOO
Ar«n3c 3-OE-04 l.OE-04 8.2E-10 2.7E-06 2.0E*00 1.6E^09
Cadmium l.OE-03 1.6E-04 1JE-09 13E-06
Chromium HI l.OE+00 l^E-02 1.4E-07 1.4E-07
Chromium VI S.OE-03 1.8E-02 1.4E-07 Z9E-05
Copper 3.7E-01 9.6E-04 7.7E-09 2.1E-08
Le,d NA 2.1E-03 1.7E-08 1.2E-03
Mercury 3.0E-04 33E-04 2.7E-09 8^E-06
Nickel 2.0E-02 3.1E-04 2.4E-09 1.2E-07
SUver 5.0E-03 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Zinc ZOE-01 5.7E-04 4.5E-09 Z3E-08
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant Average Average Oral Lifetime
OnlRfD Concentntion Avenge Intake Hazard Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
Compound (mg/kg-day) (rag/kg) (mg/kg-day) Quotient (ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l RiskLevel
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Arsenic 3.0E-04 l.OE-04 2.7E-10 9.1E-07 2.0E+00 5.5E-10
Cadmium l.OE-03 1.6E-04 4^E-10 4.2E-07
Chromium HI l.OE+00 1J8E-OZ 4.8E-08 4.8E-08
Chromium VI • 5.0E-03 1.8E-02 4.8E-08 9.6E-06
Copper 3.7E-01 9.6E-04 ZSE-09 6.9E-09
Lead NA 2.1E-03 5.SE-09 3.8E-04
Mercury 3.0E-04 33E-04 8.8E-10 2.9E-06
Nickel ZOE-02 3.1E-04 8.1E-10 4.1E-08
Saver 5.0E-03 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Zinc 2.0E-01 5.7E-04 1JE-09 7.5E-09
2.4E-05
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
2.1E-05
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
7.0E-06
-------
MAY IS, 1992
-. OFF -SHORE OH.
.FIN FISH IMPACT
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMEAN%
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercuiy
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OnlRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
O.OE-KX)
8.6E-06
43E-05
7.2E-04
7.2E-04
23E-05
1.9E-04
5.4E-05
1.5E-04
2.1E-04
7.7E-11
3.8E-10
6.4E-09
6.4E-09
2.1E-10
1.7E-09
4.9E-10
1.3E-09
O.OE+00
1.9E-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
2.6E-07
3.8E-07
6.4E-09
1.3E-06
5.6E-10
1.6E-06
6.7E-08
O.OE+00
9JSE-09
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l RiskLevel Cancer Cases
2.0E+Oa
1.5E-10
2.0E-06
1.2E-04
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
(-artmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg— day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
8.6E-06
4.3E-05
7.2E-04
7.2E— 04
23E-05
1.9E-04
5.4E-05
1.5E-04
2.1E-04
(mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
7.2E-11
3.6E-10
6.0E-09
6.0E-09
2.0E-10
1.6E-09
4.6E-10
1.3E-09
O.OE+00
1.8E-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
Z4E-07
3.6E-07
6.0E-09
1.2E-06
53E-10
1.5E-06
63E-08
O.OE+00
8.9E-09
Avenge
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
1.1E-04
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg—d)—1 RiskLevel Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.4E-10
1.8E-06
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILE OPTION)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant Average Avenge
Concentration Average Intake Hazard Lead Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg—day) Quotient (ug/day)
O.OE+00 O.OE+00
8.6E-06 4.5E-11 1.5E-07
4JE-05 2.2E-10 2.2E-07
3.8E-09 3.8E-09
3.8E-09 7.6E-07
1.2E-10 33E-10
l.OE-09 7.0E-05
2.9E-10 9.6E-07
7.9E-10 4.0E-08
O.OE+00 O.OE+00
1.1E-09 5.6E-09
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg—d)—1 RiskLevel Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
9.1E-11
1.2E-06
23E-05
1.9E-04
5.4E-05
1.5E-04
2.1E-04
-------
MAY 18, 3992 '
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE DE-
FIN FISH IMPACT
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
CASE2 - MID-SIZEDHARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SWLEACHMAX%
NONCARCINOGENICRISKS
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Oral RID
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
ZOE-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant Average Average
Concentration Average Intake Hazard Lead Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day) Quotient (ug/day)
O.OE+00 O.OE+00
1.4E-05 l^E-10 4.2E-07
9.3E-05 83E-10 83E-07
1.4E-03 1.2E-08 1.2E-08
1.4E-03 1.2E-08 2.4E-06
5.5E-05 5.0E-10 13E-09
3.2E-04 2.9E-09 2.0E-04
L9E-04 1.7E-09 5.8E-06
3.1E-04 Z7E-09 1.4E-07
O.OE+00 O.OE+00
2.9E-04 2.6E-09 13E-08
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
2.5E-10
3.2E-06
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
OontHTTTtlHTlt'
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium '
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg— day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
S.OE-03
ZOE-01
(mg/kg)
1.4E-05
93E-05
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
5.5E-05
3.2E-04
1.9E-04
3.1E-04
Z9E-04
(mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
l^E-10
7.8E-10
1.1E-08
1.1E-08
4.6E-10
Z7E-09
1.6E-09
Z6E-09
O.OE+00
2.4E-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
3.9E-07
7.8E-07
1.1E-08
Z3E-06
13E-09
5.4E-06
13E-07
O.OE+00
1.2E-08
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
1.9E-04
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
23E-10
3.0E-06
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILE OPTION)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg—day)
O.OE+00
1.4E-05
9.3E-05
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
5.5E-05
3JE-04
l^E-04
3.1E-04
Z9E-04
7.4E-11
4.9E-10
7-1E-09
7.1E-09
2.9E-10
1.7E-09
l.OE-09
1.6E-09
O.OE+00
1JE-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
Z5E-07
4.9E-07
7.1E-09
1.4E-06
7.9E-10
3.4E-06
8.1E-08
O.OE+00
7.6E-09
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg—d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.5E-10
1.9E-06
1.2E-04
-------
MAY 18,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OH.
.FIN FISH IMPACT
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
CASE2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARITE LEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT"
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Oral RID
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
ZOE-01
Contaminant
Concentration .
(mg/kg)
l.OE-04
1.6E-04
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
9.6E-04
2.1E-03
3.3E-04
3.1E-04
5.7E-04
age Intake
/leg-day)
O.OE-t-00
9.2E-10
1.4E-09
1.6E-07
1.6E-07
8.6E-09
1.9E-08
3.0E-09
2.7E-09
O.OE+00
5.1E-09
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE-f-00
3.1E-06
1.4E-06
1.6E-07
3.2E-05
23E-OS
l.OE-05
1.4E-07
O.OE+00
23E-Q&
Avenge
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
13E-03
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.8E-09
2.4E-05
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Avenge Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel .
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
l.OE-04
1.6E-04
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
9.6E-04
2.1E-03
33E-04
3.1E-04
5.7E-04
(mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
8.6E-10
13E-09
1.5E-07
l^E-07
8.1E-09
1.7E-08
Z8E-09
2.6E-09
O.OE-i-00
4.8E-09
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE-t-00
2.9E-06
1JE-06
L5E-07
3.0E-05
Z2E-08
9JE-06
l^E-07
O.OE-t-00
2.4E-08
Avenge
Lead Intake
(US/day)
1.2E-03
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.7E-09
2.2E-OS
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILE OPTION)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
l.OE-04
1.6E-04
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
9.6E-04
2.1E-03
3.3E-04
3.1E-04
5.7E-04
5.4E-10
8.4E-10
9.6E-08
9.6E-08
5.1E-09
1.1E-08
1.8E-09
1.6E-09
O.OE-t-00
3.0E-09
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
1.8E-06
8.4E-07
9.6E-08
1.9E-05
1.4E-08
5.9E-06
8.1E-08
O.OE+00
l^E-08
Avenge
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
Annually '
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.1E-09
1.4E-05
7.7E-04
-------
MAY 18.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
.F1NFISHIMPACT
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
CASES - MAXIMUMHARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MEAN%
NONCARCINOGENICRISKS
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Oral RID
(mg/leg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-Q3
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mj/kg-day)
O.OE+00
8.6E-06
43E-05
7.2E-04
7.2E-04
23E-05
1.9E-04
5.4E-05
LSE-04
2.1E-04
7.7E-11
3.8E-10
6.4E-09
6.4E-09
2.1E-10
1.7E-09
4.9E-10
1.3E-09
O.OE+00
1.9E-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
2.6E-07
3.8E-07
6.4E-09
13E-06
5.6E-10
1.6E-06
6.7E-08
O.OE+00
9.5E-09
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(ug/day) (ing/kg—d)—l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.5E-10
2.0E-06
1.2E-04
F1NFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (2ERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OnlRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration ,
(mg/kg)
8.6E-06
43E-OS
7.2E-04
7.2E-04
Z3E-05
1.9E-04
5.4E-05
1.5E-04
2.1E-04
age Intake
/kg-day)
O.OE+00
7.5E-11
3.7E-10
63E-09
63E-09
Z1E-10
1.7E-09
4.8E-10
1.3E-09
O.OE+00
l^E-09
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
2JE-07
3.7E-07
63E-09
13E-06
5JE-10
1.6E-06
6.6E-08
O.OE+00
93E-09
Avenge
Lead Intake
(tig/day)
l^E-04
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.9E-06
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MBLE OPTION)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OnlRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
8.6E-06
43E-05
7.2E-04
7.2E-04
23E-05
1.9E-04
5.4E-05
L5E-04
2.1E-04
6.8E-11
3.4E-10
5.7E-09
5.7E-09
1.8E-10
15E-09
43E-10
l^E-09
O.OE+00
1.7E-09
Avenge
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
23E-07
3.4E-07
5.7E-09
1.1E-06
5.0E-10
1.4E-06
5.9E-08
O.OE+00
8.4E-09
Avenge
Lead Intake
(us/day)
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
1.4E-10
1.7E-06
l.OE-04
-------
MAY 18.1092
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OH.
FIN FISH IMPACT .
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
CASES - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
SW LEACH MAX %
NONCARCINOGENICRISKS
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
O^riyyiiinn
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.4E-05
9.3E-05
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
5.5E-05
3.2E-04
1.9E-04
3.1E-04
2.9E-04
(mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
L2E-10
8.3E-10
1.2E-08
1.2E-08
5.0E-10
2.9E-09
1.7E-09
2.7E-09
O.OE+00
2.6E-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
4.2E-07
8.3E-07
1.2E-08
2.4E-06
1.3E-09
5.8E-06
1.4E-07
O.OE+00
L3E-08
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
2.0E-04
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l RislcLevel Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
2-5E-10
3.2E-06
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
fariminm
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
S.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
1.4E-05
9.3E-05
1.4E-OS
1.4E-03
5.SE-05
3.2E-04
1.9E-04
3.1E-04
2.9E-04
(mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
l^E-10
8.2E-10
1.2E-08
l^E-08
4.9E-10
2.8E-09
1.7E-09
2.7E-09
O.OE+00
2^E-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
4.1E-07
8.2E-07
1.2E-08
2.4E-06
L3E-09
5.7E-06
13E-07
O.OE+00
13E-08 .
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
2.0E-04
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
2.4E-10
3.1E-06
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MTLE OPTION)
Compound
Naphthalene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
OralRfD
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-01
3.0E-04
l.OE-03
l.OE+00
5.0E-03
3.7E-01
NA
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
1.4E-05
9.3E-05
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
5.5E-05
3.2E-04
1.9E-04
3.1E-04
1.1E-10
7.4E-10
LIE-OS
1.1E-08
4.4E-10
2-5E-09
2.9E-04
Z4E-09
O.OE+00
23E-09
Average
Hazard
Quotient
O.OE+00
3.7E-07
7.4E-07
1.1E-08
2.1E-06
l^E-09
5.1E-06
1.2E-07
O.OE+00
LIE-OS
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00
2.2E-10 2.8E-06
1.8E-04
-------
MAY 18.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OH.
: FIN FISH IMPACT
BAT/NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
CASES - MAXIMUMHARVESTLEVEL
DRILL MUDS & CUTTINGS POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
BARITELEACH % MEAN "pH DEPENDENT"
NONCARCINOGENICRISKS
Annually
Contaminant Average Average
Oral RED Concentration Avenge Intake Hazard Lead Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day) Quotient (ug/day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Arsenic 3.0E-04 l.OE-04 9.2E-10 3.1E-06
Cadmium l.OE-03 1.6E-04 1.4E-09 1.4E-06
Chromium III l.OE+00 1.8E-02 1.6E-07 1.6E-07
Chromium VI 5.0E-03 1.8E-02 1.6E-07 3.2E-05
Copper 3.7E-01 9.6E-04 8.6E-09 23E-08
Lead NA Z1E-03 1.9E-08 1.3E-03
Mercury 3.0E-04 3.3E-04 3£E-09 LOE-05
Nickel ZOE-02 3.1E-04 2.7E-09 1.4E-07
SUver 5.0E-03 O.OE-«-00 O.OE+00
2inc 2.0E-01 5.7E-04 5.1E-09 2J5E-08
F1NFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant Average Avenge
OralRfD Concentration Avenge Intake Hazard Lead Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (nag/kg) (mg/kg-day) Quotient (ug/day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Arsenic 3.0E-04 LOE-04 9.1E-10 3.0E-06
Cadmium l.OE-03 1.6E-04 1.4E-09 1.4E-06
Chromium III l.OE+00 1.8E-02 1.6E-07 1.6E-07
Chromium VI S.OE-03 1.8E-02 1.6E-07 3.2E-05
Copper 3.7E-01 9.6E-04 8.SE-09 Z3E-08
Lead NA 2.1E-03 1.8E-08 13E-03
Mercury 3.0E-04 3.3E-04 2.9E-09 9.8E-06
Nickel 2.0E-02 3.1E-04 2.7E-09 13E-07
SUver 5.0E-03 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Zinc 2.0E-01 5.7E-04 5.0E-09 2^E-08
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT/NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 8 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant Average Average
OralRfD Concentration Avenge Intake Hazard Lead Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day) Quotient . (ug/day)
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Arsenic 3.0E-04 l.OE-04 8.2E-10 2.7E-06
Cadmium l.OE-03 1.6E-04 13E-09 l^E-06
Chromium III l.OE+00 1.8E-02 1.4E-07 1.4E-07
Chromium VI • 5.0E-03 1.8E-02 1.4E-07 2.9E-05
Copper 3.7E-01 9.6E-04 7.6E-09 2.1E-08
Lead NA 2.1E-03 1.6E-08 1.1E-03
Mercury 3.0E-04 33E-04 2.6E-09 8.8E-05
Nickel 2.0E-02 3.1E-04 2.4E-09 1.2E-07
Silver 5.0E-03 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Zinc 2.0E-01 5.7E-04 4.5E-09 23E-0&
Onl Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg— d)— 1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
ZOE+00 1.8E-09 2.4E-05
Annually
Onl Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg— d)— 1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00 1.8E-09 2.3E-05
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg— d)— 1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.0E+00 1.6E-09 2.1E-05
-------
S 1 „
-------
g
0.5
i
8
o
•^ *^^ \^t Irt ^^ ^f Op
o o o o o p o
.« + I I I I I
o g g g;« P> a?
SS8S
UJtil U U
r» \q -^ oq p c<;
s o.
•al
3&'
a
cu
'
CQ tu M ca ta tu
; s s
g -f i
"•S o O\ oo «n — '
SS8S
-g
S
I
k. t
Si
J
O
a
o
r CO
^ssssgp|sgSo rs
.1. '- -L -'- — Q.
mm til m 50 §• g'o'u]
p o p cs ig K 2 i p
v» c4 52 — S aocs
Sdfct
I
SI
ES
5 L< « >
U.CQQCO
Jl
-------
i
s,H!>
3 '5 »_> 3
OQ ~
s
s
a
o
a
OS
vi
o
CQ
a
S
C/3
I
51
II
1-oSSSSSSS
•5 S .2 + I I I l I
I I 4- I
B3B3H3 U3
— eo o eo
t) G3 f^J r^ t*^ ^^ GO O CO
•) *•* v^ ^J *rt ^^ gj\ ^5 7^
SSSSSSSS58S
J+ I I I 1 I I I I + I
tz]
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
. FINFISH IMPACTS FROM
PRODUCED WATERS AT EXISTING PLATFORMS
-------
-------
o
ca
•a
O
I
ee
Q
oq
\d
W CB
to
Ov
na
^s-2i i f T i i T ° ? + + i i +i?
•sSoWeaeaeaffltaeaeaeacaeacaca ca u ca
— ^t; vo
re fe •- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
•=
aa ca
+ ' ' +11
ta ca ca uo m ta
c •§
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
v~. V. CM »«-. rr. O
o o *» »-' o •»-« oo
Sggo-o-SSS
+ + I I I + I !
fT) fT^ fTl fY) pi fT^ pi fT^
•riOpcMt^coocivo
-^c5c5^TrcMe3cM«
S
ll"?
I I I I
ca ca ca ca
fft OO ^D Ov
ca ca ca
vo <••% oq
O O O O
I I I I
caca ca ca
^ oo •o- \o
—5 o\ ^ *-*
VO «/1 t~-
000
II I
ca ca co
*•» oo r~ i~
o o o o
1 1 1 1
w ta ta oa
Ox OO «*5 «-»
CM C* -^ •*
III
W W BJ
wi r~ «M
-J ov c4
S
i
00
o
i
CM
1
tu
SSSSSSSS
SS
-1
O
ca
tz
O
s
oo
cz,
SO
2F
-i
o\
:o
I CH
; cu
ooooocsooor
<-. c
c o
u
a
u
g
re
C
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION ALL
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
BAT OPTIONS - BP.
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobcnzcnc
2,4— Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro— n>— crcsol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (toul)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
1:0 -80 MILES
Oral RfD
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration
(mg/kg)
3.4E-03
7.5E-05
43E-05
13E-02
13E-03
2.1E-02
4.3E-04
4.0E-04
4.7E-03
3.1E-02
8.0E-04
23E-04
2.6E-03
l.SE-03
1.3E-02
1.6E-03
Average Intake
(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-07
8.7E-09
5.0E-09
l.SE-06
1.5E-07
2.4E-06
5.0E-08
4.7E-08
5.5E-07
3.6E-06
93E-08
2.7E-08
3.0E-07
1.8E-07
O.OE-hOO
.1.5E-06
1.8E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.7E-07
1.5E-03
1JE-06
6.1E-06
2.5E-07
7.8E-08
1.8E-06
1.8E-06
3.1E-04
2.7E-05
8.0E-07
O.OE+00
7.4E-05
9.1E-07
Average Oral Lifetime
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(ug/day) (mg/kg -d)-l Risk Level
2.9E-02 1-2E-OS
5.8E+00 5.0E-08
2.0E+00 1.9E-07
8.0E-03
2.5E-07
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
1.5E-04
6.5E-04
2.4E-03
3.2E-03
-------
MAY 19. 1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 3 MILES
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
BAT OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro— m— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(rag/kg)
3.6E-03
7.8E-05
4JE-05
13E-02
1.3E-03
2.1E-02
4.4E-04
4.2E-04
4.9E-03
3.2E-02
8.4E-04
2.4E-04
2.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.3E-02
1.6E-03
(mg/kg-day)
2.7E-07
5.8E-09
3.3E-09
9.8E-07
9.7E-08
1.6E-06
33E-08
3.1E-08
3.7E-07
2.4E-06
6.2E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.8E-08
2.0E-07
1.2E-07
O.OE+00
9.9E-07
1.2E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.1E-07
9.8E-04
9.7E-07
3.9E-06
1.7E-07
S.2E-08
1.2E-06
L2E-06
2.1E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.8E-05
5.4E-07
O.OE+00
5.0E-05
6.1E-07
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
83E-03
Oral Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-d)-1 Risk Level
2.9E-02 7.7E-09
5.8E+00 3.4E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
9.9E-OJ
4.3E-04
2.0E+00
1.2E-07
1.6E-03
1.7E-07
2.1E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 4 MILES
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
F1NFISH IMPACT- BAT OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(«)pyrene
Cfalorobenzene
2.4— Dimetbylphenol
Elhylbcnzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro— m— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylcnci (tout)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2XJE-01
6XJE-01
3.0E-01
ZJOB+QO
3.0E-04
5J)E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
3.7E-03
8.1E-05
4.6E-05
1.4E-02
1.4E-03
23E-02
4.6E-04
43E-04
6.1E-03
33E-02
8.7E-04
2.5E-04
2.8E-03
1.6E-03
1.4E-02
1.7E-03
(mg/kg-day)
1.2E-07
2^E-09
l^E-09
43E-07
43E-08
7.1E-07
l^E-08
1.4E-08
1.9E-07
1.1E-06
2.7E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.9E-09
8.7E-08
52E-OS
O.OE+00
4.4E-07
5.4E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
4.9E-08
4.3E-04
43E-07
1.8E-06
73E-08
2JE-08
6.4E-07
53E-07
9.1E-05
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.9E-06
2.4E-07
O.OE+00
2.2E-OS
2.7E-07
Average Oral Lifetime
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level
2.9E-02 3.4E-09
S.8E+00 1.5E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
4.3E-05
1.9E-04
2.0E+00
S.3E-08
7.0E-04
3.6E-03
7.3E-08
9.4E-04
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 10 METERS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
FlNFISH IMPACT - BAT OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 10 M DEPTH)
Compound
Benzene
Bcnzo(a)pyrcnc
Chlorobenzene
2,4 - Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p—Chloro— m —crcsol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
Orel RfD
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
Contaminant
Concentration
(mg/kg)
4.0E-03
8.6E-05
5.0E-05
l.SE-02
1.4E-03
2.4E-02
4.9E-04
4.6E-04
5.SE-03
3.6E-02
93E-04
2.7E-04
3.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.5E-02
1.8E-03
Average Intake
(mg/kg-day)
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
Average
Hazard
Quotient
Average Oral Lifetime
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level
2.9E-02 O.OE+00
5.8E+00' O.OE+00
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
ERR
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.0E+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE2 - MID-SIZED HARVESTLEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION ALL
NONCARC1NOGENIC RISKS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
Benzene 3.4E-03 4.0E-07
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
2,4 — Dimethylphenot
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-Chloro-m— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
7.5E-05
4JE-05
1.3E-02
13E-03
2.1E-02
43E-04
4.0E-04
4.7E-03
3.1E-02
8.0E-04
, 23E-04
2.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.3E-02
1.6E-03
8.7E-09
5.0E-09
1.5E-06
l.SE-07
2.4E-06
5.0E-08
4.7E-08
5.5E-07
3.6E-06
93E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+OD
2.7E-08
3.0E-07
1.8E-07
O.OE+00
1.5E-06
1.8E-07
Average Average
Hazard Lead Intake
Quotient (ug/day)
1.7E-07
1JE-03
1JSE-06
6.1E-06
2JE-07
7.8E-08
1.8E-06
1.8E-06
3.1E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.7E-05
8.0E-07
ERR 8.0E-03
O.OE+00
7.4E-05
9.1E-07
Oral Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level
2.9E-02 1.2E-08
5.8E+00 5.0E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
1.5E-04
6.5E-04
2.0E+00
1.9E-07
2.4E-03
2.5E-07
3.2E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 3 MILES
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
BAT OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
Contaminant , Average Average
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake Hazard Lead Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (rag/kg) (mg/kg-day) Quotient (ug/day)
Benzene 3.6E-03 2.7E-07
Benzo(a)pyrene 7.8E-05 5.8E-09
Chlorobenzene 3.0E-02 4.5E-05 3.3E-09 1.1E-07
2,4-Dimethylpheno! l.OE-03 1.3E-02 9.8E-07 9.8E-04
Ethylbenzene l.OE-01 1.3E-03 9.7E-08 9.7E-07
Naphthalene 4.0E-01 2.1E-02 1.6E-06 3.9E-06
p-Chioro-m-creso! 2.0E-01 4.4E-04 33E-08 1.7E-07
Phenol 6.0E-01 4.2E-04 3.1E-08 5.2E-08
Toluene 3.0E-01 4.9E-03 3.7E-07 1.2E-06
Xylenes (total) 2.0E+00 3.2E-02 2.4E-06 1.2E-06
Arsenic 3.0E-04 8.4E-04 6.2E-08 2.1E-04
Barium 5.0E-02 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Boron 9.0E-02 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Cadmium l.OE-03 2.4E-04 1.8E-08 1.8E-05
Copper 3.7E-01 2.7E-03 2.0E-07 5.4E-07
Lead NA 1.6E-03 1.2E-07 83E-03
Manganese 2.0E-01 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
Nickel 2.0E-02 1.3E-02 9.9E-07 5.0E-05
Zinc 2.0E-01 1.6E-03 1.2E-07 6.1E-07
Total Cancer Risk:
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(rag/kg—d)-1 Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.9E-02 7.7E-09 9.9E-05
5.8E+00 3.4E-08 4.3E-04
2.0E+00
1.2E-07
1.6E-03
1.7E-07
2.1E-03
-------
MAY, 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE2 - MID-SIZED HARVESTLEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 4 MILES
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
F1NFISH IMPACT - BAT OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrcne
Chlorobcnzene
2,4-Dimclhylphenol
Etbylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro-m— creiol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (toul)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(rns/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2JOE+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(rag/kg)
3.7E-03
8.1E-05
4.6E-05
1.4E-02
1.4E-03
2.3E-02
4.6E-04
4.3E-04
6.1E-03
33E-02
8.7E-04
2JE-04
2.8E-03
1.6E-03
1.4E-02
1.7E-03
(mg/kg-day)
1.8E-07
4.0E-09
2.3E-09
6.8E-07
6.7E-08
1.1E-06
2JE-08
2.2E-08
3.0E-07
1.7E-06
43E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
liE-08
1.4E-07
82E-08
O.OE+00
6.9E-07
8.5E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
7.7E-08
6.8E-04
6.7E-07
2.8E-06
1.1E-07
3.6E-08
l.OE-06
83E-07
1.4E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
l^E-05
3.7E-07
O.OE+00
3.4E-05
4.2E-07
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
5.7E-03
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.9E-02 5.3E-09 6.8E-05
S.8E+00 2.3E-08 3.0E-04
2.0E+00
8.6E-08
1.1E-03
1.1E-07
1.5E-03
-------
MAY 19.
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE2 - MID-SIZED HARVESTLEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 10 METERS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 10 M DEPTH)
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
2,4- Dime thylphcnol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro— m— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration
(ing/kg -day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(rag/kg)
4.0E-03
8.6E-05
5.0E-05
1.5E-02
1.4E-03
2.4E-02
4.9E-04
4.6E-04
S.SE-03
3.6E-02
9.3E-04
2.7E-04
3.0E-03
1.8E-03
l.SE-02
1.8E-03
Average Intake
(mg/kg-day)
1.1E-07
2.4E-09
1.4E-09
4.1E-07
4.1E-08
6.9E-07
1.4E-08
1.3E-08
1.6E-07
l.OE-06
2.6E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.6E-09
8.4E-08
5.0E-08
O.OE+00
4.2E-07
5.2E-08
Average
Hazard
Quotient
4.7E-08
4.1E-04
4.1E-07
1.7E-06
7.0E-08
2.2E-08
5JE-07
5.1E-07
8.8E-05
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.6E-06
23E-07
O.OE+00
2.1E-05
2.6E-07
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
3.5E-03
Oral Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg -d) -1 Risk Level
2.9E-02 . 3.3E-09
5.8E+00 1.4E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
4.2E-05
1.8E-04
2.0E+00
5.3E-08
6.8E-04
7.0E-08
9.0E-04
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
HN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASES - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION ALL
NONCARC1NOGENIC RISKS
BPJ: 0-80 MILES
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrcne
Chlorobcnzcne
2,4-DimethylphenoJ
Ethyibenzene
Naphthalene
p-Chloro-ra— cresot
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
rr
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(rogflcg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
. NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
3.4E-03
7.5E-05
43E-05
1JE-02
13E-03
2.1E-02
43E-04
4.0E-04
4.7E-03
3.1E-02
8.0E-04
2.3E-04
2.6E-03
1.5E-03
1JE-02
1.6E-03
(mg/kg -day)
4.0E-07
8.7E-09
5.0E-09
1.5E-06
l.SE-07
2.4E-06
5.0E-08
4.7E-08
5.5E-07
3.6E-06
9.3E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.7E-08
3.0E-07
1.8E-07
O.OE+00
1.5E-06
1.8E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.7E-07
1.5E-03
l^E-06
6.1E-06
2JE-07
7.8E-08
1.8E-06
1.8E-06
3.1E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.7E-05
8.0E-07
O.OE+00
7.4E-05
9.1E-07
Annually
Average Oral Lifetime Expected
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
fug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.9E-02 1.2E-08 1.5E-04
S.8E+00 5.0E-08 6.5E-04
2.0E+00
1.9E-07
2.4E-03
8.0E-03
2.5E-07
3.2E-03
-------
19, 1992
PROJECT: OFF- SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASES - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 3 MILES
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
BAT OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
Benzene 3.6E-03 2.7E-07
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
2,4 - Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p — Chloro— m — cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
7.8E-05
4.5E-05
1.3E-02
1.3E-03
2.1E-02
4.4E-04
4.2E-04
4.9E-03
3.2E-02
8.4E-04
2.4E-04
2.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.3E-02
1.6E-03
5.8E-09
3.3E-09
9.8E-07
9.7E-08
1.6E-06
3.3E-08
3.1E-08
3.7E-07
2.4E-06
6.2E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.8E-08
2.0E-07
1.2E-07
O.OE+00
9.9E-07
1.2E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.1E-07
9.8E-04
9.7E-07
3.9E-06
1.7E-07
S.2E-08
1.2E-06
1.2E-06
2.1E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.8E-05
5.4E-07
O.OE+00
5.0E-05
6.1E-07
Average Oral Lifetime
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(ug/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level
2.9E-02 7.7E-09
3.8E+00 3.4E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
9.9E-OJ
4.3E-04
2.0E+00 - l^E-07
1.6E-03
83E-03
1.7E-07
2.1E-03
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 4 MILES
NONCARC1NOGENIC RISKS
F1NHSH IMPACT- BAT OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant
Oral RID Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(«)pyrene
Chlorobcnzenc
2,4-Dimetbylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro— m— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylencs (tout)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
3.7E-03
8.1E-05
4.6E-05
1.4E-02
1.4E-03
23E-02
4.6E-04
4.3E-04
6.1E-03
33E-02
8.7E-04
2.5E-04
2.8E-03
1.6E-03
1.4E-02
1.7E-03
(mg/kg -day)
2.5E-07
S.SE-09
3.1E-09
9.2E-07
9^E-08
1JE-06
3.1E-08
2.9E-08
4.2E-07
23E-06
5.9E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.7E-08
1.9E-07
1.1E-07
O.OE+00
9.4E-07
1.2E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
l.OE-07
9.2E-04
9iE-07
3.8E-06
1.6E-07
4.9E-08
1.4E-06
1.1E-06
2.0E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.7E-05
5.1E-07
O.OE+00
4.7E-05
5.8E-07
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
7.9E-03
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.9E-02 7.3E-09 9.4E-05
S.8E+00 3.2E-08 4.1E-04
2.0E+00
1.2E-07
1.5E-03
1.6E-07
2.0E-03
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
BAT OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 10 METERS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
FINFISH IMPACT - BAT OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 10 M DEPTH)
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
2,4 - Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p — Chloro— m — cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
Contaminant
Oral RfD -Concentration Average Intake
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E^01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
4.0E-03
8.6E-05
5.0E-05
1.5E-02
1.4E-03
2.4E-02
4.9E-04
4.6E-04
S.SE-03
3.6E-02
93E-04
2.7E-04
3.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.5E-02
1.8E-03
(mg/kg-day)
2.5E-07
5.4E-09
3.1E-09
9.0E-07
9.0E-08
1.5E-06
3.1E-08
2.9E-08
3.4E-07
2.2E-06
5.8E-08
O.OE+00
Q.OE+00
1.7E-08
1.8E-07
1.1E-07
O.OE+00
9.2E-07
1.1E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
l.OE-07
9.0E-04
9.0E-07
3.8E-06
1JE-07
4.8E-08
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.9E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.7E-05
5.0E-07
O.OE+00
4.6E-05
5.7E-07
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
7.7E-03
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.9E-02 7.1E-09 9.2E-0?
5.8E+00 - 3.1E-08 4.0E-04
2.0E+00
1.2E-07
1.5E-03
1.5E-07
2.0E-03
-------
a
a
0 — 5
*> e S
.g .•» »*
•=: vJ —1
£ •» j£
•*< «> *2
"I-
I
BJ
•s
S U. 1
A 5
o, =o
<0
O
I
m
«~.
S
O
I
ca
I?
ffl
S"S
4§
oo
1 1
1 1
\e i~ vs-o
oooo
1 1 1 1
OT«»
ooo
+ I 1
— •>?— 10 — OO —
+ I I
a ta 01
O — O
Q •V "I
O £.
— "S o
s i'f
2 = §
ooooooooooooo ooo
I I I I I I I I I ++ I I +11
[l]Il3|Ijtl3tUffltl3Efln3B3E3BJta CJ Q ffl
v-SviwicJcdcivsvo — OCJoIiN cipjr?
„ .
g >>o oooooooooo
oooo
«-.«— !rn —
BJ'S)
,_ ttiuaacamcacacan]
i;j<«s-iwc9OcaOVM-— — ,O
X
-------
- g u u ca
11 gS5
c 3
ca
f;
od
o
I
U
tvl
O v «ri
SB-
.* i
OOOOOOOOO
IIIIIIII.I
\e «
o o
QJ OS •—
«|s
= 0
«^v~. ^xovov. «-. rooe^^in
ooooooooooooo
I I I I I I I I I ++ I I
f« v»
o o
ca ca ua
*5 *"; **3
o ««i n
-SI
-
ooooooooooSSoooSoo
IIIIIIIIII-J-+IIIH-II
o ooooooooooo
-------
5SS
*. «o «
8 *> pi
g
i
Bl
Bl
» C > I I
£ .«. ««BI M
•S3 O -J t»> 0.
o
l
al
q
o
01
Bl
o
3«*
Bl Bl
o» co
pi «ri
8
U
q
pi
55 E
S
Bl
0-5
_ s >.
m =•§
O
Bl
_ «— »»i \o v. \er~v. w> «•> o o *r vo o^r«e
Ql OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O
£ -o c I I I I I I I I I ++ I I +11
«fi w t> Q3t2]tL}QJD3n3tl3[2]l23U3tlJQ3tt3 CUUJCu
o
5
.
oooooooooooooo
||IIII4-+III + II
cbB]B]CUB]B]B)B]B]B]B}B}B]B]
V5q —
— t^cjric^v^cio — — — ooo —
o s
•o S
o o
11
»>
S >>o
ooooooooo
o^o«r>iowo\oo«-. ^-«r. ooq — t^q.«e»
i
tn
ai
-g 88SS
o o o <
sss
a -S *.. I I I ' " I I I I ' I
e g ooCU B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B]
v t*> PI
o o o
111 I
Bl Bl Bl Bl
V". 00 ^ ^f*
ss
<
=5
Q
Bl
o
Bl
<£
O
CO
i
SO
o» ...
|1
S c.
03
§
-------
s.
s*S5
I
a
o
I
CO
8-cSo
« = > i i
•I u
S
l
CO
v.
£
s
K
U
sTSS
«3 £T I +
53 S
S
g
•
ta.5 -S
S-o "§>
i
o
CO
S"2 g
i a*
5 a 2
|I§
U
^*e eo «o
-g ? ? ?
I Dl & U3
I* v, v% c)
t^.*r»r^t*-*v*P-ooi
ooooooooo*
I I I I I I 1 4- +
CQDStl3Cd£tiD3Ctin3tti1
f*%«r4ow%.tr>4r4(*>**^*a*r4»-*
OOOOOOOOOOOO^OOO
I \ I I I I I + I I 1 1 I z I I I
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOB} CO CO CO CO
ppppppppppppr-; ppq
O e
18
O U
U ca
1 S
4. U
&s
•— o
II
as u
1
V
J=
D-
Is
« s
.5 g
?t
^r 5
N CO
o
o
u
I
8?
£ o
5 o
te
«,
n
o
I s -
•s
s
I
•- =
-------
-------
SI
22
.S I?
a^lf
o5~~
•B
es —
„ S o
S J--*
s-j'-ct-s
s^li>
es "- =>
Dai
i
S,c5j>^
g-2,3:1
.2 I I I I I I I I I ++ I I
•seacacacacacaeacacaeaeacaca
o
SSS
+ i i
ea ca ea
f^i \^ ^j«
o eo vi
ea «
S.|
«n 13
§ 15
a-1
= g
ya)T3IIIIIIIIITTIIIt-|
z. £ i eacacaeacaeaeacaeacaeacacacacaca
••• ^ ^n ''^ ^^ ^O OO ^4 ^^ c^ t^ ^^ ^^ ^^ v^ ^^ ^H ^S {^
eC G *"ifi ^^ ^^ ^O ^^ G\ ^^ ^f\ ^} ^^ ^3 CS CO CO ^^ C9 '•H •
a~t
— 2
cs c
•a
1
o
CO
—" a C5
I I I I
ea ea ca ca
oq TT ca o\
»-« OJ OJ r*i
o\ o . L .L A + + L i.
8»*5 ^I
O O
+ I I
g.-scacacacacacacacacacacacaca eaeaea
,£ 3 ^O Ov V"j Vi O\ o O *"•* C** O O O Os O ^ Tf
j> >>o
C3 "O I
= i g
if*3
ooo
oo
\O *O »T5 O '^ «O
O O O O O O
gj-o e cs
1 3 '-s ca ca ea
£ S S ^ £ S S S S S Sg
l l I l I l l l + + l l
ca ta ca ca ca a a ca ca
r»-. ovoowioovot—
§ 10 \0 O
O ^J- VO
C3 O O
+ I I
ca ca ca
^ \O t^-
C^ ^^ Os
gvp
i
o
1
•—' i cacacacauicacacacatiicacaeacacatiica
^^c co «-3'-5o6»J'-<'-5»-Jc«ioc5v%\d<*icsr^«-!
SSSSSSSSS
1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 I
c « aSca cacaeaoacacaeaci}
I S s>^2o6r?2!Q!QSr3
II
SSS
III
cacaca
gg
ca ca
« I I I I I I I + I I I I I
^cocacacacacacacacacacacaca
OOOOOOC3OOOOOC—
-------
M AY=19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
HN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVESTLEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION ALL
NONCARC1NOGENIC RISKS
NSPS OPTIONS - TOTAL PLATFORMS
Contaminant
OratRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(*)pyrcne
Chlorobenzene
2,4— Dimetbylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro-m— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
XylentJ (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/kg— day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
S.OE-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
4.6E-03
l.OE-04
5.8E-05
1.7E-02
1.7E-03
2.8E-02
5.7E-04
5.4E-04
63E-03
4.1E-02
1.1E-03
3.1E-04
3.4E-03
2.1E-03
1.7E-02
2.1E-03
(mg/kg -day)
53E-07
1.2E-08
6.7E-09
2.0E-06
1.9E-07
3.3E-06
6.6E-08
6.2E-08
7.4E-07
4.8E-06
13E-07
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.6E-08
4.0E-07
2.4E-07
O.OE+00
2.0E-06
2.5E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
2.2E-07
2.0E-03
1.9E-06
8.2E-06
33E-07
l.OE-07
2.SE-06
2.4E-06
4.2E— 04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.6E-05
1.1E-06
O.OE+00
l.OE-04
1.2E-06
Average Oral Lifetime
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(tig/day) (mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level
2.9E-02 1.5E-08
5.8E+00 6.7E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
2.0E-04
8.6E-0-!
2.0E+00
2.5E-07
3.2E-03
1.1E-02
3.3E-07
4.3E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 3 MILES
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorpbenzene
2,4 — Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro— m— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
S.OE-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
4.8E-03
1.1E-04
6.1E-05
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
2.9E-02
6.0E-04
5.6E-04
6.7E-03
4.4E-02
1.1E-03
3.3E-04
3.6E-03
2.2E-03
. 1.8E-02
2.2E-03
(mg/kg-day)
3.6E-07
7.8E-09
4.SE-09
1.3E-06
13E-07
Z2E-06
4.5E-08
4.2E-08
5.0E-07
3JE-06
8.4E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.4E-08
2.7E-07
1.6E-07
O.OE+00
1.4E-06
1.7E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
l.SE-07
13E-03
13E-06
S^E-06
2^E-07
7.0E-08
1.7E-06
1.6E-06
2.8E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.4E-05
7JE-07
O.OE+00
6.8E-05
83E-07
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
1.1E-02
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.9E-02 l.OE-08 1.3E-04
5.8E+00 4.5E-08 5.8E-04
2.0E+00
1.7E-07
2.2E-03
2.2E-07
2.9E-03
-------
MAY 19.1952
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 4 MILES
NONCARC1NOGENIC RISKS
F1NFISHIMPACT- NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benio(a)pyrcne
Chlorobenzene
2,4— DSmethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro— m— crcsol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylcnci (toul)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(rag/kg)
4.9E-03
1.1E-04
6.2E-05
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
3.0E-02
6.2E-04
5.8E-04
6.8E-03
4.5E-02
1.2E-03
3.3E-04
3.7E-03
23E-03
1.8E-02
23E-03
(mg/kg-day)
2.9E-07
6.4E-09
3.7E-09
1.1E-06
1.1E-07
1.8E-06
3.7E-08
3.4E-08
4.0E-07
2.6E-06
6.9E-08
O.OE-t-00
O.OE+00
2.0E-08
2.2E-07
13E-07
O.OE-t-00
1.1E-06
13E-07
Average Average
Hazard Lead Intake
Quotient (ug/day)
l^E-07
1.1E-03
1.1E-06
4JE-06
1.8E-07
5.7E-08
1JE-06
13E-06
2.3E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.0E-05
5.9E-07
9.2E-0:
O.OE+00
5^E-05
6.7E-07
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.9E-02 8.5E-09 1.1E-04
5.8E+00 3.7E-08 4.8E-04
2.0E+00
1.4 E-07
1.8E-03
1.8E-07
2.4E-03
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
•FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 1 - MINIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 10 METERS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
FINFISH IMPACT - NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 10 M DEPTH)
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
Benzene 4.9E-03 4.1E-07
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
2,4 — Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
1.1E-04
6.2E-05
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
3.0E-02
6.2E-04
5.8E-04
6.8E-03
4.5E-02
1.2E-03
33E-04
3.7E-03
2.2E-03
1.8E-02
23E-03
8.9E-09
5.1E-09
1.5E-06
1.5E-07
2.5E-06
5.1E-08
4.8E-08
5.6E-07
3.7E-06
9.6E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.8E-08
3.0E-07
1.8E-07
O.OE+00
1.5E-06
1.9E-07
Average Average
Hazard Lead Intake
Quotient (ug/day)
1.7E-07
1JE-03
1.5E-06
6^E-06
2^E-07
8.0E-08
1.9E^06
l^E-06
3^E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.8E-05
8.2E-07
13E-02
O.OE+00
7.6E-05 .
9.4E-07
Oral Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-d)-1 Risk Level
2.9E-02 1.2E-08
5.8E+00 ' 5.2E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
1.5E-04
6.6E-04
2.0E+00
1.9E-07
2.5E-03
2.5E-07
3.3E-03
-------
MAY 19,1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
•FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE2 - MID-SIZED HARVESTLEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION ALL
NONCARdNOGENIC RISKS
NSPS OPTIONS - ALL PLATFORMS
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Bcnzo(a)pyrcne
Chlorobenzene
2,4— Dimeihylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p- Chloro- m— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
4.6E-03
l.OE-04
5.8E-05
1.7E-02
1.7E-03
2.8E-02
5.7E-04
5.4E-04
63E-03
4.1E-02
1.1E-03
3.1E-04
3.4E-03
2.1E-03
1.7E-02
2.1E-03
(mg/kg-day)
5JE-07
1.2E-08
6.7E-09
2.0E-06
1.9E-07
3.3E-06
6.6E-OS
6.2E-08
7.4E-07
4.8E-06
13E-07
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.6E-08
4.0E-07
2.4E-07
O.OE+00
. 2.0E-06
2.5E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
2.2E-07
2JOE-03
1.9E-06
8.2E-06
33E-07
l.OE-07
2JE-06
2.4E-06
4.2E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.6E-05
1.1E-06
ERR
O.OE+00
l.OE-04
liE-06
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
1.1E-02
Oral Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg -d)-1 Risk Level
2.9E-02 1.5E-08
5.8E+00 6.7E-OS
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Case
2.0E-0
8.6E-0
2.0E+00
2.5E-07
3.2E-0:
3.3E-07
4.3E-0:
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE2- MID-SIZED HARVESTLEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 3 MILES
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration
Compound
Benzene
Bcnzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobcnzcnc
2,4 - Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro- m — cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/kg— day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
4.8E-03
1.1E-04
6.1E-05
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
2.9E-02
6.0E-04
5.6E-04
6.7E-03
4.4E-02
1.1E-03
33E-04
3.6E-03
2.2E-03
1.8E-02
2.2E-03
Average Intake
(mg/kg -day)
3.6E-07
7.8E-09
4.5E-09
1.3E-06
1.3E-07
2.2E-06
4.5E-08
4.2E-08
5.0E-07
33E-06
8.4E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.4E-08
2.7E-07
1.6E-07
O.OE+00
1.4E-06
1.7E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.3E-07
1.3E-03
1JE-06
5.5E-06
2.2E-07
7.0E-08
1.7E-06
1.6E-06
2.8E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.4E-05
7.3E-07
O.OE+00
6.8E-05
83E-07
Average Oral Lifetime
Lead Intake Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(ug/day) (mg/kg—d)—1 Risk Level
2.9E-02 l.OE-08
5.8E+00 4.5E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
1.3E-04
5.8E-04
2.0E+00
l.TE-07
2.2E-03
1.1E-02
2.2E-07
2.9E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE2 - MID-SIZED HARVESTLEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 4 MILES
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
F1NFISH IMPACT- NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
Benzene
Bcnio(*)pyrcnc
Chlorobenzene
2,4-Dimclhylphcnol
Elhylbcnzenc
Naphthalene
p-Chloro-ra-cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylencs (icul)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Cooper
**^rr
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
S.OE-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
4.9E-03
1.1E-04
6.2E-05
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
3.0E-02
6.2E-04
5.8E-04
6.8E-03
4JE-02
15E-03
33E-04
3.7E-03
2.2E-03
1.8E-02
23E-03
3^E-07
7.0E-09
4.0E-09
l^E-06
l^E-07
2.0E-06
4.0E-08
3.8E-08
4.4E-07
2.9E-06
7^E-08
O.OE400
O.OE+00
25E-08
2.4E-07
1.4E-07
O.OE+00
1.2E-06
1JE-07
Average Average
Hazard Lead Intake
Quotient (ug/day)
13E-07
liE-03
l^E-06
4.9E-06
2.0E-07
63E-08
1JE-06
1.4E-06
2JE-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2^E-05
6JE-07
ERR l.OE-02
O.OE+00
6.0E-05
7.4E-07
Oral Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-d)-1 Risk Level
2.9E-02 9.3E-09
5.8E+00 4.1E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
1.2E-04
5.2E-04
2.0E+00
1.5E-07
1.9E-03
2.0E-07
2.6E-03
-------
MAY 19. 1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 2 - MID-SIZED HARVEST LEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 10 METERS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
FINFISH IMPACT - NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 10 M DEPTH)
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound , (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
2,4— Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro-m— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
4.9E-03
1.1E-04
6.2E-05
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
3.0E-02
6.2E-04
5.8E-04
6.8E-03
4.5E-02
1.2E-03
33E-04
3.7E-03
2.2E-03
1.8E-02
2.3E-03
4.1E-07
8.9E-09
5.1E-09
1.5E-06
1.5E-07
2.5E-06
5.1E-08
4.8E-08
5.6E-07
3.7E-06
9.6E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.8E-08
3.0E-07
1.8E-07
O.OE+00
1.5E-06
1.9E-07
Average Average
Hazard Lead Intake
Quotient (ug/day)
1.7E-07
1.5E-03
1.5E-06
6.2E-06
ZSE-07
8.0E-08
1.9E-06
1.8E-06
3_2£_04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.8E-05
8.2E-0?
13E-02
O.OE+00
7.6E-05
9.4E-07
Oral Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level
2.9E-02 1.2E-08
5.8E+00 ' 5.2E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
1.5E-04
6.6E-04
2.0E+00
1.9E-07
2.SE-03
2.5E-07
3.3E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT- PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVESTLEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION ALL
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
NSPS OPTIONS - ALL PLATFORMS
Contaminant
OralRfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound (rag/kg -day)
Benzene
Benzo(*)pyrene
Chlflfobcnzcne
2,4— Dtmeihylphenol
Ethyibenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro— m— crcsot
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenet (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9JQE-02.
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
4.6E-03 53E-07
l.OE-01
5.8E-05
1.7E-02
1.7E-03
2.8E-02
S.7E-04
5.4E-04
63E-03
4.1E-02
1.1E-03
3.1E-04
3.4E-03
2.1E-03
1.7E-02
2.1E-03
1.2E-05
6.7E-09
2.0E-06
1.9E-07
3JE-06
6.6E-08
6.2E-08
7.4E-07
4.8E-06
1.3E-07
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.6E-08
4.0E-07
2.4E-07
O.OE+00
2.0E-06
2.5E-07
Average Average
Hazard Lead Intake
Quotient (ug/day)
2.2E-07
2.0E-03
1.9E-06
8.2E-06
33E-07
1J)E-07
2.SE-06
2.4E-06
4^E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.6E-05
1.1E-06
1.1E-02
O.OE+00
l.OE-04
l^E-06
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg—d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.9E-02 1.5E-08 2.0E-04
5.8E+00 6.7E-05 8.6E-01
2.0E+00 2.5E-07 3.2E-03
6.8E-05 8.7E-01
-------
MAY 19, 1992
OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 3 MILES
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
NSPS OPTIONS - ZERO DISCHARGE < 3 MILE OPTION
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
2,4— Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p- Chloro-m-cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(n»g/kg)
4.8E-03
i:iE-04
6.1E-05
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
2.9E-02
6.0E-04
5.6E-04
6.7E-03
4.4E-02
1.1E-03
33E-04
3.6E-03
2.2E-03
1.8E-02
2.2E-03
(mg/kg-day)
3.6E-07
7.8E-09
4.5E-09
1.3E-06
1.3E-07
2.2E-06
4.SE-08
4.2E-08
5.0E-07
33E-06
8.4E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.4E-08
2.7E-07
1.6E-07
O.OE+00
1.4E-06
1.7E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
l.SE-07
13E-03
13E-06
5.5E-06
23.E-Q1
7.0E-08
1.7E-06
1.6E-06
2.8E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.4E-05
7.3E-07
ERR
O.OE+00
6.8E-05
83E-07
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
1.1E-02
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.9E-02 l.OE-08 1.3E-04
5.8E+00 .4.5E-08 5.8E-04
2.0E+00
1.7E-07
2.2E-03
2.2E-07
2.9E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVEST LEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 4 MILES
NONCARC1NOGENIC RISKS
F1NFISH IMPACT - NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 4 MILE OPTION)
Contaminant
OralRCD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobcnzcnc
2,4-DimethyIphcnol
Ethyibenzene
Naphthalene
p-Chloro-ra— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylcnci (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/lcg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
4.9E-03
1.1E-04
6.2E-05
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
3.0E-02
6.2E-04
5.8E-04
6.8E-03
4.5E-02
1.2E-03
3.3E-04
3.7E-03
2.2E-03
1.8E-02
23E-03
(mg/kg-day)
3.5E-07
7.6E-09
4.4E-09
13E-06
1JE-07
2.1E-06
4.3E-08
4.1E-08
4^E-07
3.1E-06
82E-OB
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
, 2.4E-08
2.6E-07
1.6E-07
O.OE+00
13E-06
1.6E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.5E-07
13E-03
13E-06
53E-06
2J1E-07
6.8E-08
" 1.6E-06
1.6E-06
2.7E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.4E-05
7.0E-07
O.OE+00
6.5E-05
8.0E-07
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
1.1E-02
Annually
Oral Lifetime Expected
Slope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
(mg/kg-d)-l Risk Level Cancer Cases
2.9E-02 l.OE-08 1.3E-04
5.8E+00 4.4E-08 5.7E-04
2.0E+00
1.6E-07
2.1E-05
2.2E-07
2.8E-03
-------
MAY 19.1992
PROJECT: OFF-SHORE OIL
FIN FISH IMPACT - PRODUCED WATERS
CASE 3 - MAXIMUM HARVESTLEVEL
NSPS OPTIONS - IMPROVED GAS FLOTATION > 10 METERS
NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
FINFISH IMPACT - NSPS OPTIONS (ZERO DISCHARGE < 10 M DEPTH)
Contaminant
Oral RfD Concentration Average Intake
Compound
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chtorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
p— Chloro— m— cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Total Cancer Risk:
(mg/kg-day)
3.0E-02
l.OE-03
l.OE-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.0E+00
3.0E-04
5.0E-02
9.0E-02
l.OE-03
3.7E-01
NA
2.0E-01
2.0E-02
2.0E-01
(mg/kg)
4.9E-03
1.1E-04
6.2E-05
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
3.0E-02
6.2E-04
5.8E-04
6.8E-03
4.SE-02
1.2E-03
3JE-04
3.7E-03
2.2E-03
1.8E-02
2JE-03
(mgykg-day)
4.1E-07
8.9E-09
5.1E-09
1JE-06
1.5E-07
2.SE-06
5.1E-08
4.8E-08
5.6E-07
3.7E-06
9.6E-08
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.8E-08
3.0E-07
1.8E-07
O.OE+00
1JE-06
1.9E-07
Average
Hazard
Quotient
1.7E-07
UE-03
1JE-06
6^E-06
2^E-07
8.0E-OS
1.9E-06
1.8E-06
3.2E-04
O.OE+00
OJJE+00
2^E-05
8JE-07
ERR
O.OE+00
7.6E-05
9.4E-07
Average
Lead Intake
(ug/day)
1.3E-02
Oral , Lifetime
Slope Factor Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-d)-1 Risk Level
2.9E-02 1.2E-08
S.8E+00 • 5.2E-08
Annually
Expected
Excess
Cancer Cases
1.5E-04
6.6E-04
2.0E+00
1.9E-07
2.5E-03
2.5E-07
3.3E-03
-------
•o •> i i
5 SStata
u u »- OJ O
hM g.
O
— 3.5!
ta ta
« - „ "* "2
— " •£ "* *••
: S
I
c:
a
CO
o
C3
o
a
ca ta
0 8.
o
ta
o
J*
*3f
1
g
ta
«•«
o»
l'
'
SSl^
• 3
J3^
5 _.
03
oo
oooooooo'o
I I I I I I I I I
««.«<i«.p.vc>nr-oar<-«o>o oooooo
I I I
\o v-. ^- >e o
o o o o o
§\e «i
-------
-
U M *• ' '
S 3 o 01 ta
v 3 i- «•» r*
o
I
ca
I
01
§
OJ
o
ta
oa
sTS
o S" I
g
if
i
u
™ *•
U
S
m '
«•• •*
BJ.S:
I I I I I I I I I ++
fit rn fti TTI tri nf PT rfj m cj n?
If?
m co a
« 5*
2S?
I I + + 1
O E.
s «
§'VV»wv> otnvt
oooooooooSoo o o o
IIIIIIIIIH-+II +11
&} D] D} &3 B] 03 CX} ffl tfl tfl OJ C} Q3 B) QI Q3
«Mp4 — OM«op«ov-i opmo or-tn
i i i i i i
v ..
5§
2 2
83
f o
III
S§§
111
«>
«2
o
ta
o
§
o
<
i
if
of
Q] CQ Q3 Q3 U Q3n}tSCQm&)tz3
ppppcspcjppppp
f
« E
03 P3 IU
o o p
ci r-i ri
a
o
-------
Oral Lifetime Expected
ope Factor Excess Cancer Excess
g/kg-d)-i Risk Level Cancer Case
2.9E-02 5.8E-07 7.5B-0
5.8E+00 2.5E-06 3.3B-0
.2E-O
.0E+00 9.4B-06
.6E-
E-
Sl
(m
Qutsl-ME
Lead Intak
(ug/day)
9.9B
MBI
ad Inta
ug/day
B-0
S
1
S '
J>
o
= o
OOO
OOOO
mrnrflnJUBJfflUUGJ
mMpjovortviTrwo
S^ 4 MILE
'g 5 SJ S^.S S S S
.— iee< «/j
g S2S 2
o o. m eu u
a ' «S z
w (- ..i B3
i GBJ i o
£
-------
sss
•5 „ s°?
•Z S u HI ca
a-H £ 2 S
c
(3
O
I
U!
ta
o 8"
IS 3
,» « M
•^ o w
•J O j^
o
ca
o
n)
I
S§
o 5^ I •+•
sfilas
0|%"""
w&
P
c4
ca .5 _.
•s TJ a
0
^<
a
o
I
U
0]
S-o c
w o
I *s **^
•s S i
*««c^
s — a
o s
*" *~^
•o c
•— W U
M g-S
s«i
•*• o
oooooo
oo
— oo — T or^'r
PJ
ca
£ ?o oooooooooooooooooo
•g^!llllllllll+-*-lll-»-ll
•* i C3 rrt CO MrTjnJfUfilrjlfTlru trl fj) frl tl3 til D3 Q2 Q3
CQ G&
22
— — ox o r» 01
A
Z
O
^ o ooooooooooo o o o oo
S •§ i i I I I i I i I I I ill ||
e «e eSca cQcacocacacacacQcaoo cacaca caca
*CM^4 fnr*-r4 aom
5: B.
9 co
Q <
B} O
j ^ O 9
O Q 5 >
BJ O < O
OS C6Z &
O BU CO a,
S c/i
*? H — 7
I OB]'
u. < 2 ^
50 |JL1
> .. S to t—
sfi 111
•3 fc=*g>
tf
O
Z
01
o
o
Z
u
os
Si"
OS I
ooooooooooooo^o
I I I I I I I + I I I I I z I
ca ca ca ca ca ca w BJ ca ca ca ca ca
oooooooooooot-
p p p
ci t»» M
1
o
O O -Q.
i§£s
its s s
1 U •—
i -5 S
I
G 5 J s 2 R
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
A PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH BENEFITS
FROM REDUCED LEAD LEVELS
-------
-------
E-l
E.1 INTRODUCTION
The benefits analysis estimates health benefits to adult males based on dose-response
functions for four health endpoints: death, hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), and
stroke. For each of these endpoints, changes in mean blood lead levels (PbB) were
associated with an incidence of occurrence.
One approach to estimating changes in blood lead levels is to assume the baseline levels are
equal across all individuals. This approach, however, can both understate and overstate
health benefits because all individuals within a population do not exhibit mean PbB
concentrations. Rather, population-wide responses can be represented better by using a
statistical distribution of PbB as the baseline, and then shifting this distribution according to
the estimated pattern and levels of exposure.
E.2 METHODS
Benefits to adult males were estimated based on the expected number of cases for each
regulatory scenario for each of the four health endpoints, assuming the population sizes used
in the current benefits analysis.
For each health endpoint, probabilistic responses were estimated using the following
approach, and as depicted in Figure E-l:
(1) Generate samples from lognonnal distributions of blood lead before and after
regulatory control using Latin-Hypercube analysis.
(2) Generate frequency distribution of health response before and after regulatory
control based on dose-response functions.
(3) Calculate expected number of responses (i.e., cases of lead-related effects)
before and after control.
(4) Calculate incremental number of cases (i.e., benefits) as difference in expected
number of cases before and after regulation.
RCG/Hagler, Bailty, Inc.
-------
E-2
Figure E-1
Probabilistic Method for Estimating
Lead-Related Benefits
(see text for explanation)
• Step 1: Calculate expected # of cases before control (E1)
Probability
Probability
Expected
# of Cases (ED
PbB Concentration
# of Cases
• Step 2: Calculate expected # of cases after control (E2)
Probability
Probability
Expected
of Cases (E2)
PbB Concentration
# of Cases
• Step 3: Calculate benefits of control = E1 - E2
RCG/Hagler, Bailfy, Inc.
-------
^ . E-3
The following dose-response relationships were used for the four health endpoints (EPA,
1989d):
Hypertension:
Ap = [1 + e -Q-7*30n PbBl) - 2.7441-1 _ M + g -0.793(ln PbB2) - 2.7441-1 (j-v
where Ap is the change in probability of hypertension in moving from blood levels 1 and 2.
Dose-response relationships for coronary heart disease (CHD), strokes, and death are all
based on changes in blood pressure (BP) over a ten-year period:
ABP = 4.609 (hi PbBx - In PbB2)
(2)
The annual number of cases of each health effect is then calculated by multiplying the
incremental probability (Ap) by the exposed population and dividing by ten. Ap is defined as:
Coronary Heart Disease:
= [1 + e -0-030365(DBP1) + 4.9961-1 . M + e -0-<>30365(DBP2) + 4.9961-1
(3)
where DBP1 and DBP2 are the mean diastolic blood pressure before and after regulatory
control.
Death:
= [1 4- e -0-03516(DBP1) + 5.31581-1 _ M + & -0.03516(DBP2) + 5.31581-1
(4)
Stroke:
= [1 + e -0-04066(DBP1) + 8,588891-1 . M + g -0.04066(DBP2) + 8.588891-1
(5)-
For each of three endpoints, above, the baseline diastolic blood pressure before regulatory
control (DBPj) was assumed to be 84.75 mm Hg (EPA, 1989d).
RCG/Hagler, Bailfy, Inc.
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
SHRIMP CONSUMPTION RATES
(EPA MEMORANDUM FROM H. JACOBS TO A. TARNAY)
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE Of
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
THRU:
TO:
Shellfish and Shrimp Consumption Rates
4 \
Helen L. Jacobs, Statistician U-*- v)
Statistical Analysis Section
Economics and Statistical Analysis Branch
Engineering and Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
AUG.2I 1992
Henry D. Kahn
Chief, Statistical Analysis Section
Alexandra Tarnay, Environmental Engineer
Exposure Assessment Branch
Standards and Applied Science Division
At your request the Statistical Analysis Section has estimated shellfish and shrimp
consumption rates from the USDA National Food Consumption Survey, 1977-78.
Background on the USDA Survey is provided in Attachment A. The estimated rates are
provided in the following tables:
Shellfish Consumption
USDA 77-78 Data
Mean
50th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
All Respondents
(g/day)
2.30
0.00
0.00
6.67
68.08
Shellfish Consumers
(g/day)
7.18
0.00
23.33
48.33
111.38
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Shrimp Consumption
USDA 77-78 Data
Mean
50th Percentile
90th Percentile
95th Percentile
99th Percentile
All Respondents
(g/clay)
0.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.00
Shrimp Consumers
(g/day)
4.30
0.00
10.67
26.67
81.67
The USDA Fish Species Code List (Attachment B) was used to identify shellfish foods
and shrimp foods for this analysis. Shellfish are identified by an "S" in the type variable and
shrimp are identified by the word "shrimp" anywhere in the food variable. For foods
containing both fish and other foods (i.e., food codes with fish but with the first 2 digits not
equal to 26) the amount of fish consumed was calculated as 1/2 the total weight.
The tables of shellfish and shrimp consumption rates contain survey-weighted means and
percentiles of three-day consumption. The first column gives estimates for the total
population. The second column contains estimates for the population who consume shellfish
or shrimp, respectively. These estimates were prepared by taking means and percentiles over
the upper x% of the total population, where x% of the total population consume the food
type in the long term. The Marine Fisheries Service/National Purchase Diaries Research
Inc. (NPD) survey of 1973-74 which is based on 30 days of consumption is a better estimate
of the percent of the population who consumes shellfish or shrimp than the USDA survey
which is based on only 3 days of consumption. On the basis of the data from the NPD
survey 32% of the population consumed shellfish sometime during the 30-day monitoring
period of the study and 22% consumed shrimp during the 30-day period. Accordingly, the
values in the second column are based on the upper 32% and 22% of the corresponding
three-day consumption values in the USDA data set. This subset contains all of the
respondents who consumed shellfish or shrimp during the three-day survey plus an
appropriate number who did not consume fish but who would be assumed to consume fish
over a longer period. See Attachment C for more details on the statistical procedures.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know.
Attachments
cc: N. Patel
T. O'Farrell
S. Houseknecht
R. Healy
M. Podar
-------
ATTACHMENT A
-------
USDA1977-78 NATIONAL FOOD CONSUMPTION SURVEY
Description
The USDA conducts me National Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) approxima»ely
every 10 years. The most recent MFCS survey for which data are currently available is the
NFCS 1977-1978 survey suite. This suite is comprised of the Basic survey, which was a
multi-stage, stratified probability sample of all households in the continental United
States, which is itself comprised of 4 quarterly surveys, plus several supplemental
surveys covering Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, households containing one or more
elderly persons (Elderly), and households eligible for die Food Stamp Program (Low-
Income). Survey data were collected both for households and individuals, the individual
consumption surveys were found to be the most appropriate for this analysis, as they
reflect food consumption both at home and away from home, and reflect direct
consumption by the individual.
Sampling
The Basic survey was conducted from April 1977 - March 197.8, and consists of
information on 30.770 individuals over the four quarterly surveys. The Alaska and
Hawaii surveys were conducted in January, February, and March 1978, and consist of
information on 3.086 and 2,393 individuals, respectively. According to USDA, the
response rates on these surveys were approximately 70%. The individual surveys consist
of 1-day recall and 2-day record keeping reports of all food consumed, for a total of 3
days of food monitoring. Foods are cte««fM** according to an extensive food code list
and amounts consumed are calculated from the mimber of servings and tabulated serving
sizes.
Data processing
From the USDA food code list, food codes representing all foods either whole or
partially fish were extracted. Fish food codes were assigned as freshwater (F).
estuarine (E). marine (M), or unknown/nnclassiriable (U). as shown in the attached list.
Some fish codes were assigned more than one type (BF.MF) because they are found in .
several environments. Food codes containing shellfish are marked with an *.
In order to assign the food codes of type U appropriately, the average amounts of
food consumed person per day for each of the F, E, and M types were computed. No
foods of type U contain shellfish, so only non-shellfish foods were included in these
calculations. The non-U non-shellfish consumptions were round to be in the ratio of 14%
F, 21% E, and 65% M. This ratio was applied to the food codes of type U to divide the
amount consumed in each meal into the estimated contribution to freshwater, estuarine,
and marine consumption. In all calculations, for foods containing both fish and other
foods (Le. food codes with fish but with a first 2 digits not equal to 26) dse amount of fish
consumed was calculated as 1/2 the total food weight. For food codes with multiple
types , the amount of fish consumed was divided equally between die two types. 3-day
average consumption rates of fresh-water, estuarine, marine, and total fish consumption
-------
with and without shellfish were computed for each person as the totil fish consumption
of the coRSSpoading type divided by 3 days.
Individual survey weights as related on the survey tapes were used in oar analysis.
These were calculated by USDA to improve the correspondence of the survey wish the
reference population on demographic factors, and their use is appropriate in our
application. The total weights of for the spring survey were found to be approximately
2/10 that of the other 3 seasons. This was checked with USDA and confirmed to be doe
to an error in formatting the spring tape, so the sample weights for spang were multiplied
by 10 to make them comparable with the other 3 seasonal surveys. Tfee totti survey
weights for the Alaska and Hawaii surveys were computed and compared wim the total
weights in the Basic survey. Adjustment factors were applied to the Alaska and Hawaii
weights so that the total adjusted sample weight for each state was propomosaie to the
ratio of she state population to the total population of the continental United States
represented by the Basic sample.
Weighted univariate statistics were calculated on the total and feesh-water/esmasine
fish consumptions as described in the next section.
Shortcomings
These data were collected in 1977-1978, and fish consumption patterns may well
have changed since mat time.
The very short monitoring period is of concern. Thfee-day avenges are likely to
contain a substantial effect of day-to-day variability in fish consumption. Though the
mean of 3-day averages over the population will be the same as for long-term averages,
the upper percentiles of the distribution of 3-day averages will be higher, possibly
substantially higher, man those of long-term eftn^mpriftfi rates.
The Alaska and Hawaii samples were obtained only during one quarter of the year,
and may be somewhat non-representative of me distribution of fish consumption over the
entire year for those states, particularly for Alaska. However, these states represent such a
small fraction of the U.S. population that any such effect can be assumed to be small, but
it should be noted.
Advantages
This is a large and well-designed sample, and results from it appear to be generally
applicable to ifac question at
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT B
-------
-------
USDA FISH CODES
FoodCod
251-1110
261-1000
261-1001
261-1002
261-1003
261-1004
261-1005
261-1006
261-1008
261-1010
261-1011
261-1012
261-1020
261-1021
261-1022
261-1030
261-1031
261-1032
261-1040
261-1041
261-104S
261-1046
261-1050
261-1051
261-1060
261-1061
261-1062
261-1063
261-1064
261-1070
261-1071
261-1080
261-1081
261-1090
261.1091
261-1092
261-1093
261-1094
261-1095
261-10%
Fish liver, raw
Fuh. NFS
Fish, battered, fried
Fuh, fried, NFS
Fuh. baked. NFS
Fuh, smoked. NFS
Fish, fresh water. NFS
Fish, dried, oriental style
Fish, raw, NFS
Barracuda, cooked, NFS
Boraenti*, fillet, b^ked
Barracuda, fillet, floured
Bats, cooked. NFS
Bass, striped, fillet, fried
Bass, fillet, broiled
Bltekfith, cooked. NFS
Blackfish, fiflet, broiled
BlstWinK fflta, fried
Btasfish, cooked. NFS
WvtfiBhj fill** tftVnH
Bluefish, *jn*>, fried
Bisefish, with bone, fried
Rfleeocio fwkwi. NF5
Bocaccio; filles. broiled
Bonilo, cooked, NFS
Bonifo, filtet. broikd
Baniio, fillet, fried
Bomta,raw
Baaito, dried
Burbot, cooked, NFS
Bigfrm. tHtet farafliid
Csaa^C9e&sd.NF3
Cam;; fiStt. broiled
Cod,«nte4NFS
Ccd,fi3is,b!wled
Cod.driad.sa&ad
Cod, fiOet, fried
Cod, salted it dried, fried
Cod. salted & dried in water
Cod, smoked
U
F
U
u
M
M
M
EF
E
EF
E
E
g
E
g
E
E
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
261-1100
261-1101
261-1110
261-1111
261-1120
261-1121
261-1130
261-1131
261-1132
261-1133
261-1140
261-1141
261-1150
261-1151
261-1152
261-1153
261-1154
261-1155
261-1160
261-1161
261-1162
261-1170
261-1171
261-1181
261-1190
26M191
261-1192
261-1193
261-1194
261-1195
261-11%
261-1197
261-1200
261-1201
261-1202
261-1203
261-1211
261-1212
261-1220
Cuik (torakX eaokad, NFS
Dogfish (grayfiah). cooked
Dogfish (grsy&h), baked
Flatfish, cooked, NFS
Flttfish. broiled
FboBder. cooked, NFS
FioaiKisjx. fina, broiled
Fknnder. fiHes. fried
FkMsider, fillet, stuffed
Flake, cooked, NFS
Fluke, Site, bredlad
Haddock, cooked. NFS
Hsddoek. SBot, bnited
Haddock. SSst, bread, fried
Haddock, fiHsa. bre^
Haddock, SHat. fried
Ha!u,coakad.NFS
Hate, Site, teoilad
Lingeod. fillet, broOed
LOX.NFS
Msckael, cooke4 NFS
Mackerel, ceased, dmi&sd
MackasBl, talMsd
Mackaal, SKJiffii
Malmaahi, filtet, tessited
Malasffialsi, bsae
OBJ, fried
M
M
M
M
M
M
E
E
E
E
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
E
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
1 F « Fresh Water. E » Estuarine. M >
Unassigned. S« Shellfish
• Marine,
C-l
-------
Food
Type1
Food Code
Food
Type1
261-1221 Pickerel, fillet fried
261-1230 Pike.cookad.KFS
261-1231 Pit, fiBet. fried
261-1240 Pollock, cooked. NFS
261-1241 Pollock, fiflet fried
261-1250 Raiphead. cooked. NFS
261-1251 Racphead, fillet, broiled
261-1260 Redftsh. cooked. NFS
261-1261 Redfish, fillet, broiled
261-1262 Redfish. fillet, fried
261-1270 P.virfl«h cooked, NFS
261-1271 Rockfiih. fillet, broiled
261-1280 Saoddabc, cooked, NFS
261-1281 Sanddtbs, ffflet, broiled
261-1290 Scrod. cooked. NFS
261-1291 Scrod, fillet, broiled
261-1292 Scrod, fillet, traded
261-1293 Sood. fillet baked in milk
261-1295 Shade, fillet, cooked
261-1300 Sxuppw.coolud.NFS
261-1301 Snipper, fillet, broiled
261-1302 Snapper, fillet, fined
261-1310 Sol*, cooked. NFS
261-1311 Sole, fillet, fried
261-1312 Sole, fillet, broiled
261-1320 Sturgeon, cooked. NFS
261-1321 Sturgeon, steamed
261-1322 Sturg •on. gnokfd
261-1330 Ttutof.oookod.NFS
261-1331 T«J»|. fillet, broiled
261-1333 Tflefish. cooked
261-1334 TiMbot cooked, NFS
261-1335 Turbot. fillet, broiled
261-1336 Turbot. fillet, fried
261-1340 TIM, NFS
261-1341 Tuna, earned ofl. drained
261-1342 Tuna, canoed water, drained
261-1343 Tom. fiUrt. broiled
261-1344 TUB* i
261-1345 TOM.I
261-1346 TOM. fife*
261-1350 WbJliiff.coofcKi.NFS
261-1351 Wfakfef.fill«,bekad
261-1352 Whiting, fillet, fried
261-1360 Wreckfiih. cooked, NFS
261-1361 Wreckfish, fillet, baked
261-1371 Weke, cooked wfc fat
261-1372 Weke, fried
261-1382 Ufoa. fried
261-2000 Fish sticks, NFS
261-2050 Fuh sticks, perched, cooked
F
F
F
M
M
U
U
M
M
M
E
E
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
U
U
M
U
U
261-2100
261-5001
261-5002
261-5010
261-5011
261-5020
261-5021
261-5023
261-5025
261-5030
261-5031
261-5040
261-5041
261-5050
261-5051
261-5052
261-5060
261-5061
261-5062
261-5063
261-5070
261-5071
261-5080
261-5081
261-5090
261-5091
261-5100
261-5101
261-5102
261-5110
261-5111
261-5112
261-5120
261-5121
261-5130
261-5131
261-5140
261-5141
261-5145
261-5146
261-5150
261-5151
261-5152
261-5155
261-5160
261-5161
261-5162
261-5163
261-5164
261-5170
261-5171
Pollock, bauered, baked
Akule. fried. NFS
Akule. cooked w/o fat
Atewife. cooked, NFS
Alewife, baked and broiled
Anchovy, NFS
Anchovy, canned
Anielfish. broiled
Bluegill. fried
Buffalofuh. cooked, NFS
Buffatofish. breaded & fried
Bullhead, breaded, fried
Buaerfish. cooked. NFS
BuaerfisH. tmad«L fried
fiuttBTrlfhi tiJtpd bfm&flffff
Carp, cooked, NFS
Carp, breaded, fried
Carp, smoked
Carp, smoked, fried
Catfish, breaded and fried
Chub, cooked, NFS
Chub, breaded, fried
Cisco, breaded, fried
Crappie, cooked, NFS
Crappy breaded, fried
Cranrirt. Yrvtfad amkitd
Croaker, cooked. NFS
Croaker, breaded, fried
Croaker, fillet, fried
Dolly Varden. cooked, NFS
Dolly Varden. fried
Drumfish, cooked. NFS
Dramfish. breaded, fried
Eulachon, breaded, fried
Garfish, cooked
Garfish, fried
Grouper, cooked. NFS
Grouper, steak, broited
/5__-^_^ f,,* , j
unuper, mea
Halibut, steak, broiled
Halibut, smoked
Halibut, fiDet, cooked
Halibut, fines, fried
Herring, NFS
Herring, pickled
M
M
M
E
E
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
EF
EF
F
F
F
F
F
E
E
E
MF
MF
E
E
M
M
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
E
E
C-2
-------
Food
Food Code FOOJ
Type1
261-5172
261-5173
261-5174
261-5175
261-5176
261-5177
261-5178
261-5180
261-5181
261-5185
261-5186
261-5190
261-5191
261-5192
261-5193
261-5200
261-5201
261-5202
261-5203
261-5204
261-5210
261-5211
261-5212
261-5220
261-5221
261-5230
261-5231
261-5240
261-5241
261-5250
261-5251
261-5260
261-5261
261-5262
261-5270
261-5271
261-5272
261-5273
261-5274
261-5280
261-5281
261-5282
261-5283
261-5290
261-5291
261-5300
261-5301
261-5310
261-5311
261-5312
261-5320
Herring, earned in oil
Herring, smoked
Herring, to tomato sauce
Herring, baked A. broiled
Herring, pickled w/ sauce
Herring. Mod
Herring, salted-fried
Kingfish : cooked. NFS
Kingfiah : breaded, fried
Mfnp*risi "ooktd w/o fit
Menparhii fried
Mullet, cooked. NFS
Mullet, breaded, fried
Mullet, fillet, fried
Mullet, raw
Perch, cooked, NFS
Pfrch lnHUJJ^L fn«fi
Perch, fillet, broiled
Perch, fillet, fried
Perch, filta ft floured
Pompano, cooked. NFS
PnHipapo. broiled
Pompano, fried
Party, cooked. NFS
rOHV» DTOftdOG* EROQ
Rth*(rmjaX cooked, NFS
Raha (raja), baked
Ray. cooked, NFS
Ray. baked
Redhone. cooked. NFS
Redhone, breaded, fried
Sabfefish, cooked. NFS
Sabiefish. "ffhtil
Salmon. NFS
Salmon, poached
Salmon, fried
SafanoB, earned
Salmon, srackad
Safl&M.NR
Sardbsa, caBsjsd in oil
Sardnax. fa tomato sauce
Sardotaa, n mmml sauce
Sanger. cootod. NFS
Saugor. bmded, fried
Scup, cooked, NFS
Sam. IvsadeL frirA
Shad, cooked, NFS
Ktprf bnkf>4
Shad, fried
Sheephead. cooked, NFS
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
M
M
M
E
E
E
E
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
M
E
E
E
E
E
M
M
M
M
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
M
, 261-5321
• 261-5330
261-5331
261-5340
261-5341
261-5350
261-5351
261-5352
261-5360
261-5361
261-5370
261-5371
261-5380
261-5381
261-5390
261-5391
261-5392
261-5400
261.5401
261-5402
261-5403
261.5404
261.5405
261.5406
261-5410
261-5411
261-5420
261-5421
261-5430
261-5431
261-5432
261-5433
261.5440
261-5441
261-5442
2624101
262-0301
262-0302
262-0401
262-0402
2624501
2624600
2624601
2624605
2624610
2624701
2634101
2634102
2634200
2634201
Sheephead. breaded, fried
Siscowet. cooked. NFS
Siscowet. breaded, fried
Skate, cooked. NFS
Skate, breaded, fried
Smeltt, cooked. NFS
.CmalM t».».l^.l fc:»-l
Smelts, broiled
Spot, cooked. NFS
Spot, breaded, fried
Squeteague. cooked. NFS
Squeteigue, breaded, fried
Sucker, cooked. NFS
Sucker, breaded and fried
Swordfish. cooked. NFS
Swordfish. steak, broiled
SwfJfiih. Tli". fried
Trout, cooked. NFS
Trout, fillet, broiled
Trout, twadad. fried
Trout fried
Trout, fillat, baked
Trout, fillet, fried
Trom. smoked
WaDaye, cooked, NFS
WaBeye. breaded, fried
Waakfisb, cooked, NFS
Whdtefish. cooked, NFS
Wtlitffitil ttnfr timilMt
WMtefish. smoked
White&h, fillet, fried
Yellowtail cooked, NFS
YeDowtaiL broiled
YellowtaiLraw
Eat. smoked
Octopus, cooked
Octopus, smoked
Roe, herring
Rot, cod ft shad, smoked
Roa, earner, canned
Squid, boiled. NMF
Squirt fried csJamari
Squid, dried
Cuakfish.r«w
Terripin(nmkX baked
Abalona. cooked
Abalone, floured, fried
Clams, NFS
Clams, raw
M
F
F
M
M
EF
EF
EF
E
E
M
M
F
F
M
M
M
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
EF
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
E
MS
MS
M
M
M
MS
MS
MS
MS
ES
MS
MS
ES
ES
C-3
-------
Food Code Food
EesdCodfi
Essd.
263-0202
263-0203
263-0204
263-0500
263-0501
263-0502
263-0503
263-0600
263-0601
263-0700
263-0701
263-0702
263-0703
263-0704
263-0901
263-0902
263-1000
263-1001
263-1002
263-1003
263-1004
263-1010
263-1011
263-1200
263-1201
263-1202
263-1203
263-1301
263-1400
263-1401
263-1402
263-1403
263-1404
263-1405
263-1406
263-3000
271-5001
271-5002
*vy« 1* i L! V^_iJHrkj»aV\
rMJMii ariBTiiKw {cpga nmrntnCK)
p%% jts«Lfcala» ^imsM^b***
Lobeevssnrbaf (imam.)
LobugNbrfaOc
Oyssnt, fcauopad
PoUock, craasad
Shrimp, carried
r*t - •liiinf
AIWWWH 4'm'U lull
mrtmmvj^fl w^w^M*
tuna, t^^ay^fff^
Seafood newbursj
Clam sauce, white
Scallops, creamed
ES
ES
ES
ES
.ES
ES
ES
FS
FS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
MS
MS
ES
ES
ES
ES
MS
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
ES
FS
M
ES
M
U
MS
MS
MS
M
MS
MS
M
M
ES
MS
271-5016
271-5017
271-5018
271-5019
271-5020
271-5021
271-5102
271-5103
271-5104
271-5105
271-5106
271-5107
272-5001
272-5002
272-5003
272-5004
272-5005
272-5006
272-5007
272-5003
272-5009
272-5010
272-5011
272-5013
272-5015
272-5016
272-5021
272-5022
272-5030
272-5031
272-5040
272-5050
272-5051
272-510!
273-5001
273-5002
273-5003
273-5004
•W^ wx>9
Fish cake, pasy, NFS
Gefflte fish (fish cake)
Satesncaka
Sabnoa load cooked
Tuna main dish, dry mix
Scallop caaooto
Sardksceka, potty
Tons kef
Tana cake, ptay
Devikd dam cake
Oyst«? fries?
Macfcod ctfcc, piiry canned
Hsddock cake, patry
Shrimp caka, par/
Ksmaboto (Japanese fish cake)
Fish cafee (kamboko) terpura .
Stsw^id sifaiRMfc
Fiih stew One. b4»isae)
Pa>Hs
Scatedsssw
Sfesd Creak (with rice)
Shrimp Creols (wim rice)
Ttaapotpis
Tans, pasta and cream sauce
Lc&stsr sjimbo
Madc£a3l,piS!a
Oystafm
Codfish wiefa TeggiM
rnrififth siliMi fHRrrmehntl
Stewed ecd&s
Bkcayne codfish
Codfish saM(E&salada)
Crab salad
MS
MS
M
MS
MS
M
M
M
ES
MS
ES
M
ES
ES
M
cc
I&W
U
U
E
E
MS
M
MS
M
M
M
ES
MS
M
M
MS
M
M
E
M
M
M
M
aVJC
Md
MS
M
M
MS
M
MS
M
M
M
M
M
ES
C-4
-------
Food Code £QQ(i
Food Code
Food
Type1
274-5002
274-5003
274-5004
274-5005
274-5006
274-5007
274-5008
274-5009
274-5015
274-5020
274-5021
274-5031
274-5041
274-5101
274-5102
274-5103
274-5104
274-5106
274-5107
274-6010
275-5000
275-5011
275-5031
275-5051
275-5071
276-7011
281-5000
281-5005
281-5011
281-5012
281-5020
281-5021
291.5022
AOl-i/WAAr
281-5023
281-5024
281-5031
281-5032
281-5033
281-5034
281-5041
281-5051
281-5061
281.5081
*o**«rtJOE
281-5091
281-5101
281-5201
283-5022
283-5031
283-5111
283-5116
283-5117
Lobster salad
Sulnwfi v*)*^
Shrimp chow mem
Tuna casserole
Tuna salad
Shrimp salad
Seafood salad
Salad, fish. NFS
Tofu tempura (fish cake)
Lobster Csntonese
FUh with tomatoes
Lomi salmon
Shrimp and broccoli
Fish a la Creole
Crabs in the shell
Lobster Creole
Spanish shellfish
Octopus salad
rv^fif h f.i«4
Lm lau (pork/fish, ppr roll)
Fish sandwich
Crab cake sandwich
Fishburgcr on bun
Ssrduss sandwich
Tuna salad sandwich
Tuna and egg finger sandwich .
Fish darner. NFS (6z. meal)
Fish permeaan (frozen meal)
Fssh & chips ie§. (&z. meal)
Fish & chips xL (&z. meal)
Ffehdmftfr. NFS (diet fix.)
Haddock* choppsd sandwich
Turin!* pen essdcanott
Sote, chopped ciutiftoww
HSodOGS* p6SS 4jUdOllIOIlS
FiOQDQiWt chopped otoccoh
** «- 4*lwMWMtf4 Wul_IIJ«jJt
rcTCa» 4JiU|i|iTH uimxuo
Tuiteij* zuccfasQ
FlSAffsWwBpB»CQni
Hill laiinii UIMIII ••> ii
F^ba»d-dipp«d
Shrimp* potatoes (frz. meal)
Shrimp chow men \&z* meal)
Seafood platter w/ fish cake
Clam chowder, Manhattan
Turtle soup (i. snapper soup)
Fish soup
Codfish soup. P. R. style
Codfish soup with noodles
M5
E
MS
M
M
MS
M
U
U
MS
U
£
MS
U
ES
MS
MS
MS
M
M
U
ES
U
M
M
M
U
U
U
U
U
M
M
M
M
E
£
M
U
U
U
MS
MS
MS
M
MS
ES
U
M
M
283,5511
283-5512
283-5513
283-5521
283-5525
283-5531
283-5535
283-5541
283-5542
283-5543
283-5544
321-0502
321-0523
Gam chpwder. Hew England
Ckm chowder, N. E. w/ milk
Clam chowder. N. E. w/ water
Crab soup with milk
Lobster bisque
Oyster stew
Salmon soup
Shrimp soup (inc. s. chowder)
Shrimp soup with milk
Shrimp soup with water
KuZuDO
Ejj omelet with fish
Shrimp Egg Foo Yung
ES
ES
ES
ES
MS
MS
E
MS
MS
MS
MS
U
MS
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT C
-------
Attachment C
STATISTICAL PROCEDURES FOR
ESTIMATING MEANS AND PERCENTILES
We estimated the mean and upper percentiles of the
freshwater, estuarine and marine fish consumption rates using
USDA survey weights. The mean consumption rates are calculated
as follows: if the consumption rates (freshwater, estuarine and
marine) for each of the n respondents are c,, c,, ..., cn and the
corresponding survey weights are w1f w2, .. .wn, then the weighted
mean consumption is computed as
If all the weights
unweighted mean.
w{ are equal this reduces to the usual
n
Upper percentiles (90th, 95th, and 99th) of the distribution
of three 3 -day average consumption rates were estimated in the
following way: let the ordered consumption values be
< c
w
,,.
(n).
<. v.< c
Then
o ** c(J) where j satisfies
_. and the corresponding weights be w(1), w(?),
e estimate of the p-th quanjtile was computed as
-
£ w
1=1
and
-1 -1
for p - .90, .95
.99.
This estimate corresponds to that obtained from the weighted
cumulative sample distribution.
------- |