FINAL DRAFT REPORT
EVALUATION OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE USE OF WASTE OIL
A DUST SUPPRESSANT
ASSOCIA1 =S
-------
FINAL DRAFT REPORT
EVALUATION OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE USE OF WASTE OIL AS
A DUST SUPPRESSANT
by
Suzanne Chesnut Metzler Catherine Jarvis
William L. Bider George Schewe
Jacob E. Beachey and Les Ungers
Robert G. Hunt PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Prairie Village, Kansas 66206
Project Officer
Michael J. Petruska
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3173
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE (WH-565)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
February 1984
-------
CONTENTS
Paqe
Figures iii
Tables iv
Acknowledgment viii
Executive Summary ix
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Technological Characterization of the Use of Waste
Oil as a Dust Suppressant 2-1
Waste oil management system 2-1
Composition of waste oil applied to roads 2-3
Extent of road oiling with waste oil 2-9
Road oil application 2-15
Effectiveness of waste oil as a dust suppressant 2-19
3. Environmental Fate of Waste Oil Components 3-1
Mechanisms of waste oil movement .3-1
Worst-case scenarios for waste oil movement 3-12
Dispersion modeling of environmental contamina-
tion 3-15
Concentrations of contaminants in the environ-
ment—dispersion modeling results 3-45
4. Risk Assessment
Environmental impact and health risk associated
with evaporative emissions 4-1
Environmental impact and health risks associated
with rainfall runoff into streams 4-4
Environmental impact and health risks of reen-
trained dust emissions 4-11
Summary 4-16
Appendix A Sensitivity Analysis of Factors Affecting
Waste Oil Evaporation A-l
Appendix B Sensitivity Analysis of Factors Affecting
Waste Oil Concentration in Rainfall Runoff B-l
Appendix C Sensitivity Analysis of Factors Affecting
Contaminated Dust Emissions C-l
Appendix D Health Effects Assessment Method D-l
ii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Road Oiling Activity as a Part of the Overall
Waste Oil Management System, Which Includes
Generators, Collectors, Processors, and Users 2-4
2-2 The Status of Commercial Road Oiling Activity
in 1981/1982 by State 2-14
3-1 Hypothetical Plume From an Unpaved Oiled Road 3-21
3-2 Roadway Source/Receptor Grid Used in HIWAY-2 3-36
3-3 Wind Rose for June, El Paso, Texas 3-38
3-4 Roadway Source/Receptor Grid Used in ISC Model 3-39
3-5 Rainfall Runoff Patterns for a Watershed in Which
Roads Are Placed at One-Mile Intervals and All
Roads Have Been Oiled 3-44
111
-------
TABLES
Number Page
I Summary of Results of Analyses for Potentially
Hazardous Constituents Found in Waste Oil xi
II Results of Risk Assessment for Threshold Con-
taminants xv
III Results of Risk Assessment for Nonthreshold Con-
taminants xvi
2-1 Summary of Results of Analyses for Potentially
Hazardous Constituents Found in Waste Oil 2-8
2-2 Summary of Road Oiling Practices by State 2-12
2-3 Control of Particulate Emissions From an Unpaved
Road Treated With Waste Oil 2-24
3-1 Evaporation of Two Waste Oils 3-3
3-2 Penetration of Oil into Road Surface 3-5
3-3 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Road Samples
at Various Dsr^ths — Cow Creek Si*"0 3—6
3-4 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Road Samples
at Various Depths - North Canyon Site 3-7
3-5 Laboratory Runoff From Simulated Oiled Roads 3-10
3-6 Disposition or Fate of Oil One Month After Appli-
cation to Simulated Roadbed Surfaces 3-12
3-7 Seepage Factors for Oil and Water in Various
Soils 3-18
3-8 Time Seepage of Oil into Roads 3-18
3-9 Evaporation and Generation Rates for Selected
Waste Oil Contaminants 3-22
3-10 Downwind Distances and Related Plume Height 3-25
IV
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Paqe
3-11 Depth of Oil Penetration Into Various Road
Surfaces 3-28
3-12 Average June Temperatures and Mixing Heights
for El Paso, Texas 3-37
3-13 Maximum Rainfall Intensities for a Two-Year
Period 3-42
3-14 Dilution Model Results for Evaporative Emissions 3-46
3-15 Worst-Case Stream Concentrations at Various
Rainfall Durations With 100 Percent Oil Runoff 3-48
3-16 Worst-Case Stream Concentrations at Various
Rainfall Durations With 5 Percent Oil Runoff 3-48
3-17 Depths of Oil on Stream Surface 3-50
3-18 Range of Contaminant Concentrations in Road Sur-
face Runoff Based on 90th Percentile Oil Con-
taminant Levels 3-51
3-19 Range of Contaminant Concentrations in Road Sur-
face Runoff Based on 75th Percentile Oil Con-
taminant Levels 3-52
3-20 Range of Worst-Case Stream Concentrations Based
on 90th Percentile Oil Contaminant Levels 3-53
3-21 Range of Worst-Case Stream Concentrations Based
on 75th Percentile Oil Contaminant Levels 3-54
3-22 Sensitivity Analysis of a Stream Adjacent to an
Oiled Sand Road Based on 90th Percentile
Contaminant Levels 3-56
3-23 Ambient Air Impacts of Threshold Contaminants
Due to Reentrained Dust From Roads Treated
With Waste Oil Under Moderate Use Conditions
(at 10 meters from roadway) 3-58
3-24 Ambient Air Impacts of Threshold Contaminants
Due to Reentrained Dust From Roads Treated
With Waste Oil Under Moderate Use Conditions
(at 100 meters from roadway) 3-59
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
3-25 Ambient Air Impacts of Threshold Contaminants
Due to Reentrained Dust From Roads Treated
With Waste Oil Under Heavy Use Conditions
(at 10 meters from roadway) 3-60
3-26 Ambient Air Impacts of Threshold Contaminants
Due to Reentrained Dust From Roads Treated
With Waste Oil Under Heavy Use Conditions
(at 100 meters from roadway) 3-61
3-27 Ambient Air Impacts of Carcinogenic Contami-
nants Due to Reentrained Dust From Roads
Treated With Waste Oil Under Moderate Use
Conditions (at 10 meters from roadway) 3-62
3-28 Ambient Air Impacts of Carcinogenic Contami-
nants Due to Reentrained Dust From Roads
Treated With Waste Oil Under Moderate Use
Conditions (at 100 meters from roadway) 3-63
3-29 Ambient Air Impacts of Carcinogenic Contami-
nants Due to Reentrained Dust From Roads
Treated With Waste Oil Under Heavy Use
Conditions (at 10 meters from roadway) 3-64
3-30 Ambient Air Impacts of Carcinogenic Contami-
nants Due to Reentrained Dust From Roads
Treated With Waste Oil Under Heavy Use
Conditions (at 100 meters from roadway) 3-65
4-1 A Comparison of Estimated Airborne Evaporative
Emissions From Waste Oiled Roadbeds With Envi-
ronmental Exposure Limits 4-2
4-2 Lifetime Cancer Risk Associated With Evaporative
Emissions From Waste-Oiled Roadbeds 4-3
4-3 Comparison of EEL's and Road Oil Contaminants
in a Hypothetical Stream, Assuming 5 Percent
Oil Runoff From the Road 4-6
4-4 Estimates of Cancer Risks From Road Oil Contami-
nants in a Hypothetical Stream, Assuming 5
Percent Oil Runoff From the Road 4-8
VI
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
4-5 Waste Oil Contaminants Posing Given Cancer Risk
Levels From Runoff into a Stream, Assuming 5
Percent Oil Runoff From the Road 4-9
4-6 Comparison of Airborne Waste Oil Contaminants
Resulting From Reentrained Dust Emissions With
Environmental Exposure Limits 4-13
4-7 Comparison of Airborne Waste Oil Contaminants
Resulting From Reentrained Dust Emissions With
Reference Concentrations 4-15
4-8 Waste Oil Constituents in Concentrations that
Present a Potentially Unacceptable Cancer Risk 4-16
vn
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Office of Solid Waste under Contract No. 68-02-3173.
The EPA Project Officer was Michael J. Petruska. PEDCo Environ-
mental was the prime contractor, and Franklin Associates, Ltd.,
was the major subcontractor. The report was prepared jointly;
PEDCo Environmental, Inc., had primary responsibility for risk
assessment, and Franklin Associates, Ltd., had primary responsi-
bility for technological characterization and dispersion modeling.
We gratefully acknowledge the varied assistance rendered by
Michael J. Petruska, Project Officer, and by Penelope Hansen,
Branch Chief. We also gratefully acknowledge the assistance
given by Marty Phillips, technical editor at PEDCo Environmental,
Inc.
Vlll
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential
for harm to human health or to the environment presented by the
use of waste oil as a dust suppressant. This study is one of
three funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste, to assess the environmental impact of common
waste oil practices. The practices covered in the other two
studies are waste oil storage and use of waste oil as a fuel.
This study is divided into three main parts: 1) the char-
acterization of the use of oil as a dust suppressant, 2) the
environmental fate of waste oil contaminants, and 3) a risk
assessment. The results indicate that the use of waste oil as a
dust suppressant is potentially harmful to human health and the
environment. The results of each of these major efforts are
summarized.
TECHNOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE USE OF WASTE OIL AS A DUST
SUPPRESSANT
The waste oil management system consists of generators,
collectors, processors, and reusers. Most road oiling is done by
collectors, many of whom also participate in other segments of
the industry. For example, these collectors may also reprocess
or blend used oils into boiler fuels. Some road oiling is done
by local government agencies and private industries, which may
IX
-------
also be generators. Because of the large number of participants
and the undocumented nature of the collection/processing segments
of the industry, tracing the movement of waste oil is difficult
and it is often necessary to make estimates based on numerous
interviews.
A state-by-state survey was conducted to determine the
extent of road oiling in the United States. Based on results of
this survey and on other published data, an estimated 30 to 50
million gallons of waste oil per year is used in commercial road
oiling activity in the United States. If road oiling by self-
generators is included, an estimated 50 to 80 million gallons of
waste oil per year is used for this purpose. Road oiling is most
common in the northern Rocky Mountain states, the extreme South-
west, and the Southeast. A moderate amount is also practiced in
the Northwest and in northern New England.
The concentrations of potentially hazardous constituents in
waste oil used for road oiling vary greatly from sample to sam-
ple. Several descriptive statistical methods have been used to
summarize the concentrations of metals, chlorinated solvents, and
other organics found in waste oil. The data presented in Table I
clearly indicate that waste oil used as a road oil may contain
high levels of potentially hazardous materials.
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE OF WASTE OIL COMPONENTS
Dispersion models were applied to the movement of waste oil
from road surfaces in an effort to quantify the extent of possible
contamination of air and surface waters. Evaporation, seepage,
-------
TABLE I. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF ANALYSES FOR POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS FOUND IN WASTE OILa
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead6
Zinc
Chlorinated solvents
Dichl orodi f 1 uoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Total chlorine
Other organics
Benzene
Tol uene
Xylene
BenzUlanthracene
Benzotalpyrene
PCB's
Naphthalene
Total
analyzed
samples
17
159
189
273
227
232
78
44
146
143
100
62
56
69
53
17
19
264
15
Sampl es
detecting
contaminant
Number
17
130
87
221
21.3
227
53
25
124
108
89
62
39
57
42
14
11
86
15
Percent
100
79
46
81
93.8
98
68
57
85
76
89
100
70
83
79
82
58
33
100
Mean b
concentration,
ppm
12
187
2.9
18
398
561
361
241
253
591
408
3,719
115
843
219
88
59
54
389
Median
concentration,
ppm
11
50
1.1
10
220
469
20
<1
270
60
120
1,400
46
190
36
16
9
9
290
Concentration
at 75th
perc entile,
ppm
14
200 .
1.3
12
420
890
210
33
590
490
370
2,600
77
490
270
26
12
41
490
Concentration
at 90th .
percentile,
ppm
16
485
4.0
28
1,000
1,150
860
130
1,300
1,049
1,200
6,150
160
1,300
570
35
33
50
580
Concentration
range, ppm
Low
0.4
0
0
0.1
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
1
40
0
0
0
5
3.2
0.4
110
High
45
3,906
36
537
3,500
5,000
2,200
550,000
110,000
330,000
3,900
459,000
280
5,100
139,000
660
405
3,150
790
X
H-
The development of these statistical summaries is described in a 1983 report by Bider, et al.
Values reported as "0" were used to calculate average, but values reported as "less than" for any given concentration were omitted.
Seventy-five percent of the analyzed waste oil samples had contaminant concentrations below the given value.
Ninety percent of the analyzed waste oil samples had contaminant concentrations below the given value.
Lead represents data taken only from 1979 to 1983.
-------
and dust transport typically occur simultaneously, but at dif-
ferent rates, depending on environmental conditions. Rainfall
runoff, which is of a more intermittent nature, is restricted to
periods of heavy rainfall. A reasonable worst-case scenario
approach was chosen to describe the conditions that would result
in the worst levels of environmental contamination.
Evaporation
The worst-case scenario for evaporation assumes a hot, dry
environment under which the rate of evaporation of waste oil
components is very rapid. The calculated evaporation rate was
then used to predict the concentration of each of the major waste
oil components in the air above and downwind of the roadway.
Airborne concentrations depend on the contaminant concentration
in the waste oil and the rate of evaporation.
Rainfall Runoff
Calculations were made of concentrations of waste oil and
its components in streams or roadside ditches. The worst-case
scenario has been defined as a situation in which a heavy rain-
fall washes 100 percent of the oil applied to the road into an
adjacent stream or ditch, where it is diluted by rainwater that
has drained from an adjacent field. A more reasonable case in
which only 5 percent of the oil on the road is removed in the
runoff was used for the risk analysis.
Oil concentrations were calculated and used to predict oil
depths on the stream surface so that the potential for an oil
slick might be evaluated. The previously described worst-case
scenario predicted an oil slick for every case evaluated. For
xii
-------
determination of the real potential for an oil slick, a more
typical (possibly even a best-case) scenario was developed. In
this evaluation heavy rainfalls were still used, but only 5 per-
cent of the oil was assumed to be washed from the road, 10 per-
cent of which is soluble and 90 percent of which is adsorbed onto
soil particles (as reported in a 1983 GCA Corporation report).
The results predicted a visible oil slick in almost every situa-
tion evaluated. Oil slicks pose hazards to aquatic birds and
mammals by reducing buoyancy, insulation, and swimming ability.
Oil in water also affects the morbidity and mortality of fish,
shellfish, algae, and micro-organisms and is generally detrimen-
tal to the stream.
Contaminated Dust
Calculations of the maximum 30-day average ambient air
concentrations of toxic (threshold) and carcinogenic waste oil
contaminants were based on an assumed set of worst-case condi-
tions that include low evaporation and rainfall runoff of waste
oil components from the road surface. Conditions typical of the
arid southwest were used in all models.
IMPACT AND HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF WASTE OIL AS A
DUST SUPPRESSENT
Assessments made of the impact and health risk of airborne
and waterborne emissions from road-oiling operations consisted of
an evaluation of risk associated with exposure to both toxic and
carcinogenic waste oil contaminants. For toxic substances, Envi-
ronmental Exposure Limits (EEL's) were derived from modifications
Xlll
-------
of Threshold Limit Values for occupational exposure. For carcin-
ogens, reference concentrations were derived by calculating the
frequency of excess cancers due to exposure to contaminants in
road oil.
Tables II and III present the most significant results
obtained by modeling concentrations of threshold and nonthreshold
contaminants from evaporative emissions, rainfall runoff, and
reentrained dust.
Evaporation
The modeled worst-case concentrations of evaporative emis-
sions from oiled roads were compared with Environmental Exposure
Limits (EEL's) to quantify the risk from exposure to these emis-
sions. (See Appendix D.) As shown in Table II, several of the
threshold constituents likely to evaporate into the atmosphere,
particularly dichlorodifluoromethane and 1-1-1-trichloroethane,
can present a significant health hazard. Toluene presents a
lesser hazard. All other contaminants modeled pose relatively
small risks.
As shown in Table III, all of the carcinogenic constituents
modeled present a significant risk well in excess of one chance
in 10,000, which is usually considered the highest acceptable
risk level. The concentrations modeled, however, represent a
worst-case exposure scenario, and lesser risks would be predicted
in a typical situation.
Runoff
A risk analysis was performed for road oiling contaminants
in a stream adjacent to a sand-based road that had been oiled.
xiv
-------
TABLE II. RESULTS OF RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THRESHOLD CONTAMINANTS
Route of entry
into environment
Evaporative emissions
Rainfall runoff
Reentrained dust
Contaminant posing
a significant risk
Di chl orodi f 1 uoromethane
Toluene
1 ,1,1-Trichloroethane
Barium
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Benzo(a)anthracene
Naphthalene
Toluene
1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane
Xylene
Barium
Lead
Modeled
concentration
3,598 yg/m3
602 yg/m3
3,804 yg/m3
550 yg/liter
4.5 yg/liter
1,130 yg/liter
1,300 yg/liter
40 yg/liter
660 yg/liter
1,360 yg/liter
1,470 yg/liter
650 yg/liter
0.1209 yg/m3
0.2534 yg/m3
Percentage
of EEL5
85
19
232
211
95
2,260
26
5,155
19
10
8
19
28
17
Environmental Exposure Limit. See Appendix D.
Represents high-intensity rainfall after heavy oiling of a sand roadbed with
5 percent of the oil removed from the road as runoff.
xv
-------
TABLE III. RESULTS OF RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NONTHRESHOLD CONTAMINANTS
Route of entry
into environment
Contaminants posing given risk levels'
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
x
<
H-
Evaporative emissions
Rainfall runoff
Sand roadbed,
heavy oiling,
Nevada rainfall
Sand roadbed,
light oiling,
Florida rainfall
Reentrained dust
Benzene
Tetrachloroethyl erne
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
Tri chl oroethyl enej
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCB's
Tetrachloroethylone
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Arsenic
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCB's
Chromium
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCB's
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Arsenic
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCB's
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Arsenic
Chromium
PCB's
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Tri chloroethylene
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCB's
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCB's
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
Tri chloroethylene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
PCB's
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
10" is a risk level of 1 cancer in 10,000; 10 is a risk level of 1 cancer in 100,000; and 10 is a risk
level of 1 cancer in 1,000,000.
-------
The sand road was modeled on the basis of maximum rainfalls
recorded at Reno, Nevada, and Pensacola, Florida. These two
locations represent the extremes in local heavy rainfall inten-
sities that occur in the United States. The range of contaminant
concentrations that may occur under worst-case conditions
represented by these two locations is the worst that may be
expected for the country. For estimation of a reasonable risk
case, it was assumed that rainfall runoff removes 5 percent of
the oil applied to the road.
Table II presents a comparison of calculated concentrations
of threshold contaminants with estimated EEL's. A high-intensity,
Nevada-based, heavy rainfall following heavy applications of oil
on sand roadbeds is likely to result in waterborne concentrations
of lead and benz(a)anthracene, which could be hazardous to human
health. A high-intensity, Florida-based, heavy rainfall follow-
ing light applications of oil on silt or clay roadbeds would not
pose a significant risk to human health from waterborne contami-
nant concentrations.
Table III presents a summary of estimated cancer risks
resulting from stream contaminant levels due to runoff. The sum-
mary shows that for the first scenario (heavy oiling of a sand
roadbed followed by high-intensity Nevada-based rainfall), all
the contaminants modeled pose cancer risks greater than one
chance in 10,000. The second scenario (light oiling of a sand
roadbed followed by a high-intensity Florida rainfall) also
resulted in significant risks from arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene and
PCB's at the arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene and PCB's at the risk level
xvii
-------
of 1 cancer in 10,000. All seven contaminants posed a risk level
of 1 cancer per million persons exposed.
For the second scenario (light oiling followed by heavy
Florida rainfall) the cancer risk is much less. Only PCB's
present a cancer risk greater than one in 10,000; all the other
contaminants modeled present a cancer risk of less than one in a
million.
Contaminated Dust
The impact of reentrained dust emissions from road oiling
operations was estimated for a number of scenarios involving the
application of waste oil to different roadbeds. The health ef-
fects of waste oil contaminants in reentrained dust were assessed
based on the specific worst-case scenario for each contaminant.
As shown in Table II, two of the substances (barium and lead) are
present in sufficient quantities to cause concern. The remaining
substances are present at concentrations equal to or less than 1
percent of the EEL'S-
Table III presents the results of an assessment of the im-
pact on air quality and the risk to human health posed by carcin-
ogenic substances in reentrained dust emissions. These results
show that the risk of cancer from the chromium concentration is
about one chance in 10,000 and that from the arsenic concentra-
tion is one chance in 60,000. Cadmium, polychlorinated biphenols
(PCB's), and 1,1,2-trichloroethane pose cancer risks between one
in 100,000 and one in a million. The risk posed by benzene,
trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene concentrations is less
than one chance in a million.-
xviii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Each year an estimated 30 to 50 million gallons of waste oil
is used to oil roads in the United States. These waste oils
contain many contaminants, either as a result of their original
uses or as a result of their being mixed with other chemical
wastes. Among the contaminants found in waste oil are heavy
metals, particularly lead; organic solvents such as benzene,
xylene, and toluene; and chlorinated organics such as trichloro-
ethane, trichloroethylene, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's).
Many contaminants commonly found in this oil are toxic or carcin-
ogenic and therefore potentially hazardous.
The impacts of the use of waste oil as a dust suppressant
have not been fully assessed. Three studies have attempted to
determine the environmental fate of waste oil applied to roads
234
through laboratory and field investigations. ' ' Although the
results of all three of these studies are either study- or site-
specific, they indicate that elevated levels of contaminants may
enter the environment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid
Waste is currently funding a study to assess the environmental
impact of three waste oil practices—its use as a dust suppres-
sant, its use as a fuel, and its storage. Each of three separate
1-1
-------
reports completed as part of this study characterize one of these
practices and analyze the associated risks.
This report covers the practice of road oiling with waste
oil. It provides an estimate of its dispersion and fate in the
environment and assesses the resulting risks to human health.
The study is divided into three main parts: a technological
characterization, environmental dispersion modeling, and risk
assessment. The technological characterization (Section 2)
describes the use of waste oil as a dust suppressant. Discus-
sions cover road oil application procedures, including surface
preparation, spraying equipment, application rates, and the
effects of weather and seasonal factors on application proce-
dures. An evaluation of the composition of waste oil applied to
roads focuses special attention on concentrations of potentially
hazardous constituents.
An evaluation of the environmental fate of waste oil com-
ponents in the atmosphere and surface waters is presented in
Section 3. Dispersion models were developed for evaporation,
dust transport, and rainfall runoff and applied to both typical
and worst-case scenarios to determine potential levels of envi-
ronmental contamination.
Section 4 presents a risk analysis, which is a quantitative
assessment of the hazard that the use of waste oil as a dust
suppressant poses to human health. This analysis is divided into
two evaluations: those risks associated with exposure to toxic
1-2
-------
waste oil contaminants and those risks associated with carcino-
gens. For the toxic substances, Environmental Exposure Limits
(EEL's) were derived from modifications of Threshold Limit Values
for occupational exposure. For carcinogens, derived reference
concentrations, based on EPA's carcinogenic potency factors, were
used to calculate the frequency of excess cancers from exposure
to contaminants released into the environment as a result of the
application of waste oils to roadbeds.
1-3
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1
1. Bider, W. L., L. E. Seitter, and R. G. Hunt. Survey of the
Oil Industry and Waste Oil Composition. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-02-3173. April 1983.
2. Freestone, F. J. Runoff of Oils From Rural Roads Treated to
Suppress Dust. EPA-R2-72-054, 1972.
3. Stephens, R. D., et al. A Study of the Fate of Selected
Toxic Materials in Waste Oils Used for Dust Palliation on
Logging Roads in the Plumas National Forest. California
Department of Health Services, Hazardous Materials Labora-
tory Section. March 1981.
4. GCA Corporation. Fate of Hazardous and Nonhazardous Wastes
in Used Oil Recycling, Fifth Quarterly Report. Prepared
under DOE Contract No. DE-AC19-81BC1037. March 1983.
1-4
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE USE OF
WASTE OIL AS A DUST SUPPRESSANT
This section examines current road oiling practices in the
United States. Several issues are addressed, including the waste
oil management system, the methods of application, the current
extent of road oiling nationally and by state, the composition of
the oil, and an overview of the effectiveness of waste oil as a
dust suppressant.
2.1 WASTE OIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Understanding the waste oil management system (the genera-
tion, collection, processing, and reuse segments of the industry)
is not difficult; however, tracing the movement of oil through
the various industry segments is far more complex, partially be-
cause of the large number of generators and the undocumented na-
ture of the collection/processing segments, and partially because
the flow of materials through the system varies tremendously
among the different regions and seasonally within each region.
Currently (1982), the Federal Government does not require
participants in the waste oil industry to report their collection
or reuse activities. Some states have implemented programs for
monitoring waste oil transactions, but most of these programs are
still in the early stages of development. As a result, much of
2-1
-------
the collection, reprocessing, and reuse of waste oils in this
country is not documented. The ultimate disposition of the
collected oil in most geographic regions is dictated by existing
market conditions.
Road oiling constitutes only one part of the overall waste
oil management system; however, many of the companies involved in
road oiling also participate in other segments of the industry.
For example, a collector who oils roads in the summer may also
reprocess or blend used oils into boiler fuels during the winter
months when the road oiling market is slow.
The road oiling system begins with the generation of either
industrial or automotive waste oil. It has been estimated that
there are several hundred thousand waste oil generators in the
United States. Following a systematic routing procedure, a
collector regularly visits each generator and pumps accumulated
waste oil into a tank truck. Some collectors are careful to
segregate crankcase oils from industrial oils because of their
different compositions (discussed later in this section); how-
ever, others mix all of their oil in a single tank. Once col-
lected, the waste oil may undergo some reprocessing to remove
water or other contaminants, but any processing of oil for the
road oiling market is considered rare. Although undocumented, it
is believed that road oilers often rid themselves of undesirable
heavy tank bottoms from the waste oil storage tanks by thinning
them with lighter oils and using this mixture for road oiling.
Little information could be obtained regarding the extent of this
2-2
-------
practice; however, tank bottoms are believed to comprise up to 10
percent of the waste oil used to control dust.
Most road oiling is performed by waste oil collectors who
also maintain crews and equipment for this purpose. Small
amounts, however, are applied by local government agencies (e.g.,
county highway departments) that are responsible for the mainte-
nance of unpaved roads. Some roads on private property are oiled
by industrial customers who purchase the waste oil and apply it
to their own roads. The latter two classes of road oilers are
believed to be declining in importance, as most road oiling is
now performed by collectors.
In addition to the road-oiling activities just described,
several industries generate significant quantities of waste oil,
which they accumulate and use to suppress dust on their own pri-
vate roads. The mining, logging, construction, and agricultural
industries are the major groups that fall into this category.
The in-house consumption of waste oil by generators cannot be
quantified precisely, but this practice may be significant in
some regions of the country.
Figure 2-1 identifies the general participants in the waste
oil management system and illustrates the flow of oil through the
system.
2.2 COMPOSITION OF WASTE OIL APPLIED TO ROADS
The summary of waste oil composition presented in this sec-
tion is based on a comprehensive waste oil composition document
submitted separately to EPA under this same contract. Emphasis
2-3
-------
WASTE OIL
GENERATORS
T
INDUSTRIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS
M CONSUMER
"DIY"
OIL CHANGER*
SERVICE
STATIONS
RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENT
RECYCLING
CENTER
REPROCESSOR
(MINOR
ACTIVITY)
SALE TO
GOVERNMENT
OR INDUSTRY
COLLECTOR
DIRECT APPLICATION
BY
GENERATOR
ROAD
OILING
ACTIVITY
PROCESSING
OR
BLENDING
DIY = Do-it-yourselfer.
Figure 2-1. Road oiling activity as a part of the overall waste oil management system,
which includes generators, collectors, processors, and users.
-------
is given to the presence of potentially hazardous constituents,
and the data focus on the contaminant concentrations selected for
use in the dispersion modeling. These data represent statistical
summaries of hundreds of waste oil analyses.
2.2.1 Availability of Analytical Data
Prior to the late 1970's, few analytical data characterizing
the constituents of waste oils were available. Some limited data
quantifying contamination by heavy metals were published, but
virtually no data could be found that quantified the presence of
other hazardous constituents that are now known to be in waste
oils [e.g., chlorinated solvents, polynuclear aromatics (PNA's),
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's)].
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, several analytical
programs were implemented to characterize waste oil composition.
The increase in analytical activity was due largely to an in-
creased awareness of the potential contamination of waste oil
with hazardous materials. As of late 198?- t^0 atrai lai-i-i 1 it-v of
—••—•—•— •• r ^ * j
analytical data had increased tremendously compared with just a
few years earlier. Nevertheless, the data base still has some
limitations. The sources of analyzed waste oil samples are often
unidentified, and it is not always known whether an oil sample
was obtained from automotive or industrial generators or if it
represents a mixture of both types. Also, the planned end-use of
the oil is often unknown. Another limitation involves analytical
data. The contaminants that are measured usually vary from
sample to sample, as do the analytical techniques and the
precision of the techniques.
2-5
-------
For this study, the most desirable approach was believed to
be to summarize the contaminant concentrations in waste oil
samples specifically identified as road oils. This would permit
conclusions to be drawn regarding the relative probability of
significant contamination in automotive versus industrial road
oils. Although some data are available on which to base such
evaluations/ it was determined that a statistical summary of road
oils might distort the true probability of contamination because
the end-use of many samples was unidentified and because virtual-
ly any waste oil sample could be used to suppress dust under
certain local conditions. For example, an oil sample identified
as a fuel oil supplement may have been taken in the winter when
fuel oil demand was high. In the summer, this same oil might be
used to control dust. Therefore, the concentrations of the
potentially hazardous constituents in waste oil used in the road
oiling dispersion modeling are based on analytical data for all
of the available waste oil rather than just the data developed
specifically for road oils.
2.2.2 Concentrations of Potentially Hazardous Constituents
For purposes of the dispersion modeling (which is covered in
Section 3), specific concentration levels had to be selected for
each potentially hazardous constituent. There is no clearcut
method for selecting the most appropriate statistical parameter.
The use of mean or median concentrations can be eliminated be-
cause the risks associated with many oils are known to be much
higher. On the other hand, the use of the high concentration
values may be unreasonable because the concentrations of some
2-6
-------
contaminants appear to be extremely high. These high levels are
unusual and not representative of most waste oil. For these
reasons, the concentration of each potentially hazardous contami-
nant was determined at the 75th and 90th percentile for use in
the dispersion modeling analyses.
The concentrations of each contaminant were summarized by
use of several descriptive statistics (Table 2-1). Although the
mean, median, and range of concentrations are not used in the
dispersion modeling, these data are included to provide a more
thorough statistical summary. As shown in Table 2-1, waste oils
vary greatly with respect to concentrations of potentially haz-
ardous constituents. Some oils are virtually free of contamina-
tion, whereas others contain high levels of one or more constit-
uents of concern. Unfortunately, the presence of a contaminant
cannot be predicted easily on the basis of the reported source of
the oil. Although crankcase oils differ from industrial oils,
the waste oil management system does not assure that additional
contamination will not occur during transport and storage of this
oil. For example, pure crankcase oils should not contain any
PCB's; however, samples identified as crankcase oil have been
shown to contain significant PCB concentrations. Although the
methods of contamination are not clearly understood, it is be-
lieved that PCB's could enter the oil as a result of residues of
previously stored oil, negligent or careless mixing practices, or
misrepresented oil.
Overall, it is clear that waste oil used to oil roads may
contain high levels of potentially hazardous materials. How
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF ANALYSES FOR POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS FOUND IN WASTE OIL
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Leadd
Zinc
Chlorinated solvents
Die hi orod i f 1 uoromethane
Trichl orod i f 1 uoromethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichl oroethylene
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Total chlorine
Other organics
Benzene
Toluene
Xyl ene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzofalpyrene
PCB's
Naphthalene
Total
analyzed
samples
17
159
189
273
227
232
78
44
146
143
100
62
56
69
53
17
19
264
15
Samples detect-
ing contaminant
Number
17
130
87
221
21.3
227
53
25
124
108
89
62
39
57
42
14
11
86
15
Percent
100
79
46
81
93.8
98
68
57
85
76
89
100
70
83
79
82
58
33
100
Mean
concentration,
ppm
12
187
2.9
18
398
561
361
241
253
591
408
3719
115
843
219
88
59
54
389
Median
concentration,
ppm
11
50
1.1
10
220
469
20
<1
270
60
120
1400
46
190
36
16
9
9
290
Concentration
at 75th .
percentile,
ppm
14
200
1.3
12
420
890
210
33
590
490
370
2600
77
490
270
26
12
41
490
Concentration
at 90th
percentile,
ppm
16
485
4.0
28
1000
1150
860
130
1300
1049
1200
6150
160
1200
570
35
33
50
580
Concentration
range, ppm
Low
0.4
0
0
0.1
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
1
40
0
0
0
5
3.2
0.4
110
High
45
3,906
36
537
3,500
5,000
2,200
550.000
110,000
300,000
3,900
459,000
280
5,100
139,000
660
405
3,150
790
N)
00
Values reported as "0" were used to calculate average, but values reported as "less than" any given concentration were omitted.
75 percent of the analyzed waste oil samples had contaminant concentrations below the given value.
c 90 percent of the analyzed waste oil samples had contaminant concentrations below the given value.
Lead represents data taken only from 1979 to 1983.
Source: The development of these statistical summaries is described in Reference 1.
-------
often this occurs depends on the type of oil, its specific ori-
gin, and any additions of materials by the generator or collec-
tor. It is unlikely that any given road oil will contain signif-
icant levels of all of the materials of concern; however, the
probability of a significant concentration of a single hazardous
constituent (particularly lead) in road oil is much higher than
is the case for waste oil in general.
2.3 EXTENT OF ROAD OILING WITH WASTE OIL
Since the early 1970's, lawmakers, environmentalists, and
representatives of government agencies and industry have shown
considerable interest in how widespread the practice of road
oiling with waste oil is in the United States. Early estimates
released in the 1970's were largely theoretical and based upon
very limited data. Most of the national estimates made through
1980 were based on a 1969 study Arthur D. Little, Inc., performed
2
for the State of Massachusetts. Estimates of road oiling with
waste oil presented by several individuals at a hearing before
the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works in 1980
indicated the amount to be about 200 million gallons per year.
A recently released U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
study adjusted that value downward to 126 million gallons per
4
year. Despite the apparent accuracy of this number (presented
with three significant figures), the authors have expressed a
much lower degree of certainty in the data.
Because of the questionable nature of available data and the
lack of a regional breakdown in road oiling activity, the authors
2-9
-------
of this report carried out a state-by-state survey to reevaluate
current road oiling practices. Appropriate governmental and pri-
vate agencies and industry representatives were contacted in each
state to obtain any available information regarding waste oil
generation, recovery, and reuse. Several relevant reports (both
published and unpublised) that were identified also provided
useful data. -
The quality of the available data varied considerably. Some
states have programs that attempt to monitor the generation,
recovery, and reuse of oil. Although these states often maintain
reasonably good records on the amount of road oiling that occurs,
the existence of a used-oil recycling program does not assure the
availability of quantitative data on waste oil usage. Other
states have no programs, but information obtained from conversa-
tions with state environmental agency personnel and local waste
oil collectors provided a basis for estimating road oiling prac-
tices.
The results of this survey contributed to an understanding
of road oiling practices of both commercial (or large-scale)
firms and self-generators. Commercial road oiling could be
quantified for each state; however, self-generator road oiling
could only be assessed qualitatively. Basically, commercial road
oiling activity represents that road oiling activity for which
waste oil is collected by haulers who operate clearly identified
waste oil businesses. The following are examples of road oiling
2-10
-------
activity that may not show up in the quantified estimates for
each state:
0 Road oiling by individuals who are intermittently
involved in the waste oil business
0 Infrequent road oiling by waste oil collectors who
usually sell their material as a fuel oil
0 Small-scale private agreements between generators and
users of road oil
The state-by-state survey served as the basis for the esti-
mates presented in Table 2-2. The results of the survey indicate
that less than 24 million gallons of waste oil is used in large-
scale commercial road oiling per year. This estimate is much
lower than even the most recent estimates reported in other docu-
ments. The value of 126 million gallons reported in the 1982 EPA
report actually represents 95 million gallons of commercial road
oiling and 31 million gallons of self-generator road oiling.
This lowest previous estimate is nearly four times larger than
the estimate based on a state-by-state survey.
Although there are some known omissions in the survey data,
it seems unlikely that the magnitude of these omissions would be
larger than all of the reported activity (i.e., 24 million gal-
lons per year).
The results of the state survey indicate that road oiling
activity accounts for only a small percentage of waste oil usage
and disposal. The almost complete absence of road oiling in so
many regions may explain the large differences in estimates of
national activity. Earlier national estimates assumed an average
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY OF ROAD OILING PRACTICE BY STATE
a,b
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
6eorg1a
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Washington, D.C.
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Generated
waste oil.
10* gallons
23,200
2.270
14.500
16.900
119.100
15.400
11,100
3,230
30.000
29.700
2.540
4,500
82.900
40,800
20.200
25.000
24.700
46,600
4,800
17,000
20.800
77,100
27,600
15,400
38,900
6.100
14,500
2,700
2,200
55,100
7,800
50,200
28,900
4,700
87,100
32,800
18,400
93,900
3,200
12,500
4,500
29,600
125,100
6.900
1.700
22,600
17,200
1,700
15,000
24,400
4.900
l,388,010d
Legal status of road oiling
No specific regulations
Agency approval and guidelines
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
Regulated-manifest system
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
Prohibited on large scale
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
Permit required
Analysis required
No specific regulations
Prohibited
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
Analysis required
No specific regulations
Prohibited
Analysis required
Prohibited with exceptions
No specific regulations
Prohibited
Guidelines provided
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
Prohibited
No specific regulations
Prohibited
Permit required
Agency notification
No specific regulations
Permits/manifest
No specific regulations
Guidelines for permitting and
analysis
Prohibited
Unknown
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
Reprocessing required
Permits and analysis
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
No specific regulations
Estimated
large-scale
road oiling,
10s gallons
770
600
1,800
<10
5,000
1,000
<10
<10
340
1,000
150
600
<10
100
1,520
<10
750
<10
200
<10
<10
50
<10
510
<10
610
30
<10
100
<10
<10
<10
580
90
2,200
330
700
470
<10
<10
90
150
630
<10
60
<10
1,060
<10
380
1,100
550
23.520
Road oiling as a
Percent
of
recov-
ered
33
60
25
.
10r
NAC
-
-
10
33
19
44
-
5
75
.
20
-
8
-
.
5
-
33
.
36
2
-
10
.
-
_
NAC
25
25
NAC
10
NAC
-
.
25r
NAC
NAC
-
10
.
10
-
10
14
40
Percent
of
gener-
ated
3
26
12
.
4
6
-
-
1
3
6
13
.
<1
8
.
3
-
4
-
_
<1
-
3
-
10
<1
.
1
-
-
_
2
2
3
1
4
1
-
3
2
1
1
.
4
.
6
.
3
5
11
-2
Self-
generator
oiling
activity
Minor
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Moderate
Insignificant
Insignificant
Minor
Minor
Significant
Minor
Significant
Significant
Significant
Significant
Minor
Minor
Insignificant
Minor
Insignificant
Minor
Significant
Minor
Significant
Minor
Significant
Minor
Insignificant
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Moderate
Significant
Moderate
Significant
Minor
Moderate
Insignificant
Moderate
Significant
Moderate
Significant
Minor
Insignificant
Minor
Minor
Insignificant
Minor
Significant
Minor
Annual estimates for 1981/1982.
Source: Generated waste oil - Reference 5; other columns based on Franklin Associates phone survey.
HA - Not available; waste oil recovery rates for designated states were unavailable.
The waste oil generation data presented in this table do not agree with the estimate independently developed by
Franklin Associates (1,148 million gallons-) which can be found in Reference 1. The value used in Reference 1
was selected for use in the summary of the waste oil management system because its derivation is documented,
whereas the value In this table Is not; however, the state-by-state breakdown associated with this value is
necessary for the road oiling analysis.
2-12
-------
level of road oiling for the entire country, which could have
resulted in overstated values for many regions.
Some other factors also may have resulted in high estimates.
Probably the most important of these is the recent trend toward
burning waste oil as a fuel rather than using it as a dust sup-
pressant. Other factors include the increased marketing of
alternative dust control products and a growing awareness on the
local level that road oiling can cause some undesirable environ-
mental impacts.
Overall, road oiling with waste oil appears to be regional
in nature (Figure 2-2). The practice seems to be the most preva-
lent in the northern Rocky Mountain states, the extreme Southwest,
and the Southeast. Moderate amounts of road oiling activity also
occur in the Northwest and in northern New England.
Based upon all available information, an estimated 30 to 50
million gallons of oil is used in commercial road oiling activity
each year in the United States. Road oiling activity hy self-
generators is believed to involve considerably less than this
amount, although one source has estimated that self-generators
use 31 million gallons of waste oil annually. The latter figure
is only an estimated value because these activities are neither
monitored nor reported. Total road oiling of all types in the
United States almost certainly involves less than 100 million
gallons of waste oil per year, and most likely involves between
50 and 80 million gallons.
2-13
-------
KEY
Virtually no road oiling
Road oiling discouraged, little activity
Moderate road oiling
Road oiling Is common
Figure 2-2. The status of commercial road oiling activity in 1981/1982 by state.
-------
2.4 ROAD OIL APPLICATION
The road oiling segment of the waste oil industry is largely
unstructured and consists of many independent companies and indi-
viduals. Nevertheless, information obtained from state agencies
and waste oil firms indicates that road oil application proce-
dures are quite similar everywhere and involve a technology that
is many years old. Also, although guidelines have been developed
for achieving maximum efficiency, actual applications are some-
times haphazard and usually less precise than those recommended
in the guidelines.
Early road oiling activity (in the late 1920's and early
1930's) was considered a form of highway construction. Proper
surface preparation, oil application, curing/penetration, and
surface coating with coarse sand or gravel were common practices.
Although these techniques are still relevant in 1983, they are
rarely practiced to the same extent. Road oiling is now primari-
ly surface application^ sometimes preceded by routine gradina.
The following four subsections discuss recommended applica-
tion practices for optimal results and common practices in 1982.
Several reports and conversations with road oilers provided the
basis for the recommended road oiling practices summarized here-
in.
2.4.1 Surface Preparation
Currently, surface preparation often involves simple grading
or sometimes nothing at all.* A road surface that is to be oiled
*
Personal communications from various road oilers, county main-
tenance crews, and state highway departments.
2-15
-------
should be relatively free of dust, and the dirt pores should be
open to allow adequate penetration of the oil. The shaped
surface should be smooth and well-crowned to facilitate drainage.
This is important because, if the surface is properly oiled,
water will accumulate in any depressions and ultimately contrib-
ute to rapid deterioration unless proper drainage occurs. If
the road surface is clay, it should be loosened before the oil is
Q
applied; this will facilitate penetration.
2.4.2 Weather and Seasonal Factors
Q
Road oil should be applied during warm weather. This is
recommended primarily because the viscosity of some oils increas-
es in cold weather. For most waste oils, viscosity should not be
a problem at temperatures above 50°F, and it should not be neces-
sary to heat them for road oiling unless the oil is to be used to
cut (thin) asphalt for use as a road oil. Under these conditions
(which are not common), a heating device may be necessary to pre-
vent the plugging of sprayer orifices and to ensure even applica-
tion rates.
The surface of the road should be slightly damp to facili-
9
tate the binding properties of the oil and dirt. Conditions
that are too dusty or too damp produce unsatisfactory results.
Depending on local conditions and the types of oil used,
road oil should be applied one to three times per year. Under
moderate tratfic conditions (about 100 vehicles per day) and
fairly dry climatic (summer) conditions, a heavy application is
usually required in the spring, followed by another (usually
2-16
-------
lighter) application in July or August. Under less-traveled
conditions, once-a-year application may be adequate. Heavily
traveled roads could require three applications per year, but
this requirement would be limited primarily to industrial (e.g.,
mining or logging) or urban roads.
These frequency guidelines are sometimes followed, but road
oiling often does not take place until the need is obvious or
until citizens' complaints regarding dust become significant.
Quite often, a road will not be oiled until it becomes very
dusty; at this point, good oil penetration and bonding to the
dirt particles are difficult to achieve. Also, if raintall
should follow the application, the probability of surface runoff
of oil and contaminants is greater. Such conditions also de-
crease the length of time that the oil will effectively control
dust. These frequency guidelines do not differentiate between
waste oil and virgin oil, but the lower viscosity of waste oil
i^^r^^v-4-*a/3Ttr Tntalricic! -i4- 1 £3 0 c afffzr^j-'i ir^ •! T-» GiiT-*rM~o coinrr /~ln e 4- Mo\ro T" —
0-V_^^i. _^,-^J_J, *>IV~.I**~^ J. — --— _.^ _*. .^..^ ...^ . _ .*.»« „_£.£,_ _uu_..? ____. _._ .
theless, reported application data for waste oil are within the
guidelines, as reported in a later subsection.
2.4.3 Spraying Equipment
Road oiling is based on relatively old technology. The
capacities of most distribution vehicles range from 800 to 3000
gallons. These vehicles may or may not have oil heating capabil-
ities. Oil is forced from orifices in the horizontal distribu-
g
tion pipe by means ot an engine-driven pump. The distribution
pipe is generally situated 8 to 12 inches from the road surface.
2-17
-------
Although specific road oiling equipment can be purchased
from manufacturers, improvisation is common, particularly among
self-generator road oilers such as industries and farmers. With
the aid of some basic mechanical skills, trucks, tanks, pipe, and
fittings can be assembled into equipment for oiling roads. Many
homemade systems use only gravity to spread the oil. For small
areas (such as parking lots or short strips of road), hand oiling
with a modified watering can is not unusual.
2.4.4 Application Rates
The quantity of oil applied to unpaved roads to suppress
2
dust is reported in gallons per square yard (gal/yd ). The
application rate depends on such factors as soil type, previous
road oiling, average vehicle travel, and traffic detour time
period.
A distinction is made between application rates for differ-
ent soil types. The typical recommended rate for sand is 0.75 to
2 8
1.0 gal/yd . Clay and sand/clay mixtures require lesser amounts,
2 8 11 12 13
ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 gal/yd . ' ' ' ' One source of infor-
2 g
mation reported that gravel roads required 0.25 gal/yd , whereas
another source reported an application rate for gravel of 0.33 to
2 7
0.50 gal/yd . The type of oil used is not always stated in
these references, but these rates are consistent with reported
rates of waste oil usage.*
If the road to be oiled has never been treated or it has
been several years since the last treatment, the application rate
*
Personal communications from road oilers, county maintenance
crews, and state highway departments.
2-18
-------
would predictably be higher than for a recently oiled surface.
It can be assumed that the upper end of the ranges given for each
soil type would apply to new road oiling, whereas the lower end
of the ranges would often be satisfactory for reapplication. One
source recommends that the yearly application in the spring
2
should be fairly heavy (0.5 to 0.7 gal/yd ), whereas any neces-
sary reapplications in the summer can be reduced to about 0.3
gal/yd2.10
Vehicle travel and available traffic detour time are less
critical factors in the determination of application rates, pri-
marily because there is an optimal rate in terms of oil penetra-
tion in a given soil type. If a road is more heavily traveled,
however, a slightly heavier application would seem appropriate.
On the other hand, if traffic can only be delayed for a very
short period, a lighter coat would have to be applied.
Some road oiling guidelines specify post-application proce-
dures; these include the sprinkling of coarse gravel or soil on
*
top of the oiled surface to allow traffic to return earlier and
to prevent oil "pickup" by vehicles. This practice is unusual
when waste oil is used because the relatively low adhesion quali-
ty of this oil results in less pickup than that with heavier
asphaltic oils.
2.5 EFFECTIVENESS OF WASTE OIL AS A DUST SUPPRESSANT
The overall performance of any dust-control product depends
on several local factors, including soil type and composition,
2-19
-------
weather, traffic patterns, surface characteristics of the road,
and the grade of the road surface.
The surface characteristics of the road are very important.
A crusty or dusty surface will inhibit oil penetration and bind-
ing, will contribute to pooling of oil on the surface, and could
increase the potential for runoff. Under these road surface
conditions, oil is also more likely to be picked up by passing
vehicles and deposited elsewhere. These mechanisms that move oil
off the road surface quickly decrease the stabilization charac-
teristics contributed by the oil.
It is obvious that the weather conditions that follow the
application of oil are important in determining performance. A
period of heavy rain will wash much of the oil from the surface
via flotation, even if some penetration has occurred. In some
cases, particularly with sandy soils, oil-coated soil particles
will actually float and wash off the road surface.
The crown and slope of the road are also important factors
with respect to potential runoff and performance of the oil as a
dust suppressant. Waste oils that are fairly thin can run off or
down a road without the addition of water to the road, particu-
larly if the road surface is crusted and excessively crowned.
Recently, numerous technical reports and articles have been
written that assess the effectiveness of various dust-control
products. Very few of these documents include waste oil as an
alternative, but virtually all evaluate one or more virgin oil
products. These include emulsified oil in water or asphaltic-
2-20
-------
based material cut back (or thinned) by a light hydrocarbon
solvent. It is unlikely that the performance of waste oil would
be equivalent to the measured performance of virgin-oil-based
products for controlling dust because used lube oils are much
lower in asphaltics than virgin products. This low asphaltic
content of used oils minimizes the adhesive characteristics of
the oil as a road bed stabilizer and the potential for runoff is
greater. The waste oil is more likely to be removed from the
road surface as a result of washing and oil flotation, which is
ultimately followed by runoff from the typically crowned road
surface. This process and other transport mechanisms are dis-
cussed in more detail in Section 3.
A few reports have attempted to document waste oil perform-
ance as a dust suppressant. Midwest Research Institute (MRI)
14
reported a dust control efficiency of 75 percent. This assumed
level of control was based on visual observation rather than ac-
tual particulate sampling. It is interesting to note that MRI
also reported that monthly oiling was required to maintain the
dust control level at 75 percent. Monthly road oiling is undocu-
mented as a common practice; applications once or twice a year
are considered the norm in most situations.
The performance of virgin-oil-based dust-control products is
reported to be considerably better than used oil. The Arizona
Transportation and Traffic Institute carried out a major test
program to measure the effectiveness of virgin oil dust suppres-
sants; performance levels were reported to be consistently over
90 percent control and as high as 96 percent. These levels
2-21
-------
represented immediate and temporary control; however, the expect-
ed decreases in performance are not large. More than 1 year from
the time of initial application of a virgin-oil cutback product,
the treated surface of a control road was still emitting 75
percent fewer dust particles than the untreated portion of the
road. These data on the performance of the virgin-oil products
are based on actual particulate sampling with high-volume sam-
plers.
2.5.1 Dust Suppression as a Function of Time
Performance of the dispersion modeling covered in Section 3
necessitated an evaluation of the data on the effectiveness of
waste oil as a dust suppressant over time. The following assump-
tions and basic information requirements were used to develop a
worst-case estimate of the decrease in the effectiveness of waste
oil as a dust suppressant as a function of time.
0 Immediately after a road has been,oiled, total particu-
late control is about 75 percent. '
0 The decrease in control effectiveness depends on the
following factors:
1) Previous oiling that has taken place
2) Type of road surface
3) Oil composition
4) Traffic patterns, including vehicle types and
speeds
5) Weather conditions
6) Application rate
0 A worst-case scenario with respect to the factors
listed above would assume the following:
1) No oiling had previously taken place.
2) The road surface was crusted, dusty, or hard-
packed, and the oil could not penetrate the soil.
3) The oil contained a large light-hydrocarbon frac-
tion that quickly evaporated.
2-22
-------
4) Many large and fast-moving vehicles traveled the
road on a daily basis.
5) Dry and windy conditions were prevalent.
Road oiling, which is performed primarily from May to
October, is largely dependent on the immediate need to
control dust. Therefore, actual road oiling frequency
reasonably can be used to estimate the change in effec-
tiveness of the oil in the control of dust over time.
Road oilers report frequencies ranging from once a
month to once a year.
No one has attempted to measure the decrease in the
effectiveness of road oil as a dust suppressant as a
function of time. Some other dust suppressants lose
effectiveness in a nonlinear way, following what can be
described as a "backwards S-curve." It is not known if
waste oil also follows this pattern. Whether this is
the case probably depends on local conditions as well
as the oil composition. Because of these uncertainties,
it was assumed that dust emissions from an oiled road
will increase linearly with time.
For the worst-case analysis, it was assumed that dust
would be controlled at 75 percent efficiency at time
zero and decrease linearly to no control at the end of
30 days. It is reasonable to conclude that as long as
some oil remained on the road, some dust control would
continue; however, for the purposes of this analysis,
it was assumed that the adverse local conditions would
decrease control to approximately zero after one month.
The percent of dust control expected under worst-case
conditions over a 30-dav oeriod was then estimated
(Table 2-3).
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-3. CONTROL OF PARTICULATE EMISSION!
ROAD TREATED WITH WASTE OILC
FROM AN UNPAVED
Day
number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percent.
• control
75.0
72.5
70.0
67.5
65.0
62.5
50.0
37.5
25.0
12.5.
0
Based on a 75 percent control efficiency reported by Midwest
Research Institute at time zero.11*
Percent control assumes linear decreases from 75 percent at
Day 1 to zero control at Day 30. This rate of decrease in
effectiveness assumes worst-case local conditions.
2-24
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. Bider, W. L., L. E. Seitter, and R. G. Hunt. Survey of the
Oil Industry and Waste Oil Composition. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-02-3173. April 1983.
2. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Study of Waste Oil Disposal Practic-
es in Massachusetts. Prepared for the Massachusetts Divi-
sion of Water Pollution. January 1969.
3. Recycling of Used Oil. Hearing before the Committee on
Environmental and Public Works, United States Senate, 96th
Congress, 2nd Session on S.241Z, a bill to amend the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act to further encourage
the use of recycled oil. May 5, 1980.
4. Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. Risk/
Cost Analysis of Regulatory Options for the Waste Oil Man-
agement System. Volume II. Prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. January 1982.
5. Manning, T. J. Used Oil Generation Rates. Unpublished data
developed by Resource Technology, Inc., Shawnee Mission,
Kansas. September 1981.
6. Reagel, F. V. Application of Road Oil to Earth Surfaces and
Subgrades. Roads and Streets, February 1932. p. 75.
7. Radford, T. The Construction of Roads and Pavements.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. 1940.
8. Padgett, F. W. Points to Consider in the Successful Appli-
cation of Road Oil. National Petroleum News, March 1934.
pp. 87-88.
9. Winterkor, H. F. Oiling Earth Roads. Industrial and Engi-
neering Chemistry, August 1934. p. 815.
10. Lindsey, R. Oiled and Gravel Roads in Oklahoma. Roads and
Streets, January 1931.
11. Freestone, F. J. Runoff of Oils From Rural Roads Treated to
Suppress Dust. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972.
2-25
-------
12. Milbum, H. M., and J. T. Pauls. Types of Road Oils and
Their Use in Road Building. National Petroleum News. Date
unknown.
13. Ontario Roadoilers Association. An Overview on the Use of
Oil on Ontario Roads. June 1979.
14. Bohn, R., T. Cuscino, and C. Cowherd. Fugitive Emissions
From Integrated Iron and Steel Plants. Prepared by Midwest
Research Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. March 1978.
15. Sultan, H. A. Soil Erosion and Dust Control on Arizona
Highways. Final report - field testing program. Arizona
Transportation and Traffic Institute. 1976.
16. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Reasonably Available Control
Measures for Fugitive Dust Sources. Prepared for the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency. September 1980.
2-26
-------
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE OF WASTE OIL COMPONENTS
This section addresses the movement of waste oil components
that have been applied to road surfaces and their fate within the
environment. Numerous components of waste oil and contaminants
that are frequently mixed with waste oil may be of environmental
concern. Among them are heavy metals (including arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, and zinc); the freons (including dichlo-
rodifluoromethane and trichlorotrifluoroethane); degreasing sol-
vents (including trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and tetra-
chloroethylene); ignitable solvents (such as benzene, toluene,
and xylene); polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (including benz(a)-
anthracene, benzo (a)pyrene, and naphthalene); and PCB's. As
discussed in Section 2, concentrations of these substances within
waste oil vary widely.
3.1 MECHANISMS OF WASTE OIL MOVEMENT
Waste oil typically leaves the road surface by four major
mechanisms: evaporation, seepage, dust transport, and rainfall
runoff. Oil that is applied to the road will gradually begin to
seep into the road surface. Evaporation of some of the waste oil
components also will begin to occur. If the wind is sufficient,
the transport of dust particles from the road surface will also
3-1
-------
begin at this time. Rainfall runoff is of a more intermittent
nature, restricted to those periods in which rainfall levels are
sufficient to carry water and oil from the road surface. The
processes of evaporation, seepage, and dust transport will typi-
cally occur simultaneously, although the rates of the different
processes will vary according to environmental conditions.'
3.1.1 Evaporation
The rate of evaporation of waste oil and its components is
influenced by a number of factors. The concentration of various
waste oil components and their physical characteristics will
determine the rate of vaporization of each individual component
of the waste oil. The vapor pressure of waste oil components is
the most important physical parameter that affects evaporation.
Influenced by temperature, it increases as the temperature in-
creases. Carbon chain length is often used to estimate evapora-
tion rates, because shorter chain hydrocarbons commonly have
higher rates of evaporation than longer hydrocarbon chains. Oil
surface area and depth of penetration of oil into the soil are
two additional factors that affect the evaporation of oil from
road surfaces.
The evaporation of waste oil from rural roads has been esti-
2
mated in laboratory weathering experiments. The waste oil was
placed in a shallow pan or applied to clay, and then placed under
infrared lamps in the draft of a fan; surface temperature was
adjusted to 100°F. Used crankcase oil underwent a weight loss of
5.97 to 9.05 percent over a 72- to 360-hour evaporation period
3-2
-------
(Table 3-1). Oils to which 20 percent No. 6 sludge had been
added had significantly higher weight losses. The composition of
No. 6 sludge was not given in the reference, but it is apparent
that the weight loss of waste oil is greatly affected by its
overall composition. The most important result of this study is
the significant weight loss that occurs from evaporation.
TABLE 3-1. EVAPORATION OF TWO WASTE OILS6
Oil type
b
b
b
c
c
c,d
c,d
Temperature, °F
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
Time, h
72
360
360
288
288
354
354
Weight loss, %
5.97
9.05
7.29
18.15
16.43
16.13
17.07
Source: Reference 2.
Used crankcase oil.
c Eighty percent used crankcase oil, 20 percent No. 6 sludge.
Applied to clay.
3.1.2 Seepage
Oil will gradually seep through the road surface into under-
lying soil. The seepage rate depends primarily on soil permea-
bility and the degree of compaction of the road surface. As oil
passes through the soil, it coats the soil particles, and some
oil contaminants adsorb onto soil surfaces. The depth of oil
3-3
-------
penetration into the road surface depends on the soil type and
the amount of oil applied to the road surface. Because the
amount of oil applied to the road surface at a given time is
generally fairly small, oil will not penetrate deeply into the
road surface. Some leaching of oil components will occur from
water passing through the oil, but such leaching is detectable
only at shallow depths.
Two studies have investigated depth of penetration of oil
2 3
and organic oil components into road surfaces after road oiling. '
2
Freestone measured hydrocarbon concentrations with depth on two
New Jersey roads (Table 3-2). Significant but variable penetra-
tion of oil into the road surface was observed at both 4 and 6
inches. Concentrations at the 6-inch depth ranged from 7.65 to
67.63 mg/kg on one road and from 198.35 to 354.40 mg/kg on the
other road. A study of two oiled logging roads in California
measured the change in concentration of anthracene, pyrene,
benz(a)anthracene, and benzo(a)pyrene with depth and time (Tables
3-3 and 3-4) . The Cow Creek site was oiled on Day 1 with waste
oil and after Day 21, with MC-70 dust palliative. Very little
movement below the 3-inch depth was observed. The North Canyon
site was oiled 2 to 3 weeks prior to Day 0. Results were incon-
sistent with time and depth, and no conclusions were drawn. Even
with the sampling difficulties encountered in both road oiling
studies, however, it appears that downward migration of organic
oil components through road surfaces is minimal.
3-4
-------
TABLE 3-2. PENETRATION OF OIL INTO ROAD SURFACE'
Station
1
2
Control
3
4
Control
Hole
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
1
2
1
Depth, in.
Surface
4
6
Surface
4
Surface
4
6
Surface
4
6
Surface
4
6
Surface
4
8
10
Surface
4
6
Surface
4
Surface
4
Surface
6
Surface
4
6
Surface
4
Surface
6
Hydrocarbons, mg/kg
6,313.17
18.04
18.53
12,572.70
26.42
52.62
8,254.50
88.72
7.67
5,880.24
70.71
7.65
13,441.25
39.95
67.63
2,555.91
59.87
9.35
12.15
347.76
0
0
131.04
0
211.83
0
1,586.22
354.40
9,437.94
805.74
198.35
6,222.52
276.21
142.72 '
10.04
Source: Reference 2.
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-3. POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN ROAD SAMPLES
AT VARIOUS DEPTHS - COW CREEK SITE3
(ppm)
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Background
0.0152
0.2095
0.381
0.2952
Day 1
Surface
7.84
113.60
114.92
186.85
0-3 inches
0.72
15.0
13.05
19.70
3-6 inches
0.0672
0.6095
0.7168
1.28
Day 21
5.37
97.76
68.64
99.69
0.9039
20.56
18.04
27.43
0.315
5.53
5.04
6.42
Day 41
22.70
157.3
147.2
72.59
6.5
52.8
57.2
29.92
0.196
3.13
3.33
4.64
Day 71
7.86
69.11
65.0
40.42
5.6
11.95
9.21
8.10
0.92
4.59
5.59
5.6
Day 133
2.10
33.46
32.21
39.38
0.396
10.42
4.74
6.82
0.153
1.696
2.90
5.25
Source: Reference 3.
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-4. POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN ROAD SAMPLES
AT VARIOUS DEPTHS - NORTH CANYON SITE3
(ppm)
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Anthracene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Background
0.006
0.003
0.0025
0.008
Day 1
Surface
1.95
13.0
10.5
6.5
5.5
0-3 inches
3-6 inches
2.35
15.6
12.26
6.69
5.13
Day 21
9.10
76.92
69.23
48.35
38.46
1.97
34.48
37.21
49.15
32.1
0.80
4.0
3.7
2.0
1.6
Day 41
0.028
0.614
0.692
0.435
0.384
0.022
0.394
0.347
0.465
Day 71
1.69
35.60
32.08
55.98
1.54
20.97
16.4
23.81
0.135
2.89
2.81
5.07
Day 133
1.67
35.28
40.00
87.50
2.65
39.77
39.8
65.6
2.46
37.8
39.5
62.5
Source: Reference 3.
3-7
-------
Metals are also expected to remain in the upper levels of
the road surface. On two logging roads, lead and zinc concentra-
tions due to road oiling were analyzed for variations with depth
and over time. Lead penetration was observed only once (on the
15th day) at the 0 to 3-inch horizon. Zinc penetration was
negligible on one road, but variable penetration up to 6 inches
was observed on the other road. No concentrations of lead and
zinc above 20 parts per million were observed below the road
surface.
Because seepage has a minimal impact on the movement of
waste oil from an oiled road, it has not been pursued further in
this report.
3.1.3 Dust Transport
Dust transport may be an important factor in the removal of
adsorbed oil components from the road surface. With an average
daily traffic flow of 100 vehicles, it has been estimated that
100 tons of dust per mile per year will be deposited along a
4
1000-foot-wide corridor with the road at the center. After
application of waste oil, dust transport is temporarily reduced
to about 25 percent of uncontrolled emissions.
The adsorption of oil components onto airborne dust par-
ticles may be an important mechanism of oil component transport
from the road surface. The period of time during which dust is
suppressed and the amount of oil component removal by runoff,
vaporization, and seepage that occurs during this period deter-
mine the importance of dust transport as a mechanism of waste
3-8
-------
oil component removal from the road surface. No data on concen-
trations of oil components on airborne road dust were found in
the literature. One study was attempted, but vandalism of air
sampling equipment invalidated the data.
3.1.4 Rainfall Runoff
Components of oil and waste oil that have been applied to
road surfaces may contaminate surface waters. Rainfall and
subsequent surface runoff may contain colloidal oil, dissolved
oil components, and oil adsorbed onto soil particles. The form
of oil (i.e., colloidal, soluble, or adsorbed) depends on the
amount of time that has elapsed since road oil application and
the characteristics of the road surface. Oil may be washed from
the road surface and carried with the water as a surface film or
colloids. After oil has seeped into the road, rainfall cannot
wash it off as easily or rapidly. If rain seeps into the road,
it can displace the oil and cause it to float to the surface,
where it can be washed away. Another rainfall removal mechanism
involves erosion. Oil components that have adsorbed onto road
soil can be carried to surface waters as a result of the soil
being washed from road surfaces. After this occurs, the oil
components can be desorbed while the soil is in suspension or
after formation of sediments.
Two laboratory investigations have been made of runoff from
oiled roads. ' One was designed to simulate the application of
0.05 gallon of oil per square foot to two road surfaces, one sand
and one clay. Typical New Jersey rainfalls for June and July
were simulated with spray nozzles. Oil was then reapplied and
3-9
-------
August and September rainfalls were simulated. Runoff was col-
lected and analyzed for oil content (Table 3-5). Oil penetration
on the clay road was about one millimeter, and puddles formed as
a result of runoff of the oil to the lowest level of the oiled
road surface. The "rain" washed the oil from the puddled areas
and leached oil from the clay surface, but it did not penetrate
the entire clay column. Oil penetrated the sand road to a depth
of only a few grain diameters. It was evenly distributed and
there was no puddling. The "rain" caused the flotation of oily
sand particles, and approximately 24 percent of these sand par-
ticles were removed by the application of two simulated monthly
rains.
TABLE 3-5. LABORATORY RUNOFF FROM SIMULATED OILED ROADS3
Time,
days
0
3
4
5
6
7
Oil
applied,
ml
600
-
-
600
-
-
"Rain"
simulated,
inches
-
3.80
4.52
-
5.02
3.59
"Rain".
appl ied
-
28.3
33.7
-
37.4
26.7
Sand
Waterb
-
20.5
20.9
-
31.5
19.5
Oil,
ml
-
80.2
101.2
-
77.1
29.5
Total
oil
loss,
%
-
13.4
30.2
-
21.5
24.0
Clay
Waterb
-
26.0
32.5
-
37.0
23.4
Oil
-
37.5
15.8
-
89.7
5.3
Total
oil
loss
(%)
-
6.3
8.9
-
11.9
12.4
Source: Reference 2.
Total water penetration through the sand column was 10.0 liters of water con-
taining 12.1 ml of hydrocarbons. No penetration was observed through the clay
column. Units for "rain" and water were not given.
3-10
-------
The total rainfall for 4 months was simulated over a 7-day
period, with the equivalent of 1 month of rainfall occurring on a
single day. It is our opinion that Days 0 through 4 more closely
simulate the effect of the occurrence of two consecutive heavy
rains of 3.8 and 4.5 inches of rain on the third and fourth days
after road oiling. The results of this study actually may approxi-
mate an extreme worst-case situation in which more than 8 inches
of rain falls within a 2-day period, only 3 days after road oil
application. Measurements indicate that 30 percent of the oil
was removed from the sand road and 9 percent from the clay road
over the 2-day period. The researchers noted high levels of soil
particles in the sand road runoff; thus, it may be inferred that
erosion processes are primarily responsible for the differences
in the oil content of the runoff from sand and clay roads.
In a more recent rainfall runoff study, two simulated road
surfaces were oiled with waste oil and then allowed to undergo
natural weathering for a period of one month. Rainfall amounted
to approximately 2-1/2 inches during the study period. As shown
in Table 3-6, tests of runoff from the road surfaces contained
only 4 to 6 mg of oil per liter, which was less than 5 percent of
the total oil applied to the road surface. It is likely that the
lower oil concentrations found in this study (compared with the
2
Freestone study ) are due to the lower rainfall amounts and
longer period of study. It is believed that a concentration of 4
to 6 mg of oil per liter of rainfall runoff from oiled roads is
more typical.
3-11
-------
TABLE 3-6. DISPOSITION OR FATE OF OIL ONE MONTH AFTER APPLICATION
TO SIMULATED ROADBED SURFACES3
Fate of used oil
Evaporation
Rainfall runoff
Insoluble
Soluble
Rainfall penetration
Insoluble
Sol ubl e
Remaining in soil
Percent of total oil applied
Roadbed
soil
>12
2.7
0.3
Neg.
0.06
~85
Roadbed soil
with 5% bentonite
>12
3.5
0.4
Neg.
0.01
~84
Source: Reference 6.
3.2 WORST-CASE SCENARIOS FOR WASTE OIL MOVEMENT
The choice of a worst-case scenario depends on the environ-
mental sector for which the impact is being considered. In other
words, a worst-case scenario for air quality would differ from
the worst-case scenario for surface water quality. High levels
of evaporation of organic waste oil components and transport of
dust contaminated by waste oil will result in worst-case condi-
tions for air quality. Surface water quality would be affected
most severely by rainfall runoff carrying large quantities of
waste oil from the road surface to the surface water system. The
processes of evaporation, dust transport, and rainfall runoff are
competing mechanisms for removal of waste oil from road surfaces.
In general, those conditions that would result in worst-case
scenarios for evaporation will differ significantly from those
3-12
-------
conditions that would result in worst-case scenarios for dust
transport or rainfall runoff.
3.2.1 Evaporation
Evaporation rates increase when road surface temperatures
are elevated because high road surface temperatures increase the
vapor pressure of oil components. Evaporation proceeds most
rapidly immediately following oil application because concentra-
tions of oil components are then at their highest and because the
oil has not yet begun to penetrate into the surface of the road.
Evaporation also increases with windspeed. It should be noted,
however, that even though evaporation is greater at higher wind-
speeds, the wind carries vaporized contaminants away from the
road area; thus, ambient air concentrations drop with high wind-
speed. Road surface type affects evaporation rates because more
permeable surfaces allow fairly rapid penetration of the oil,
whereas on less permeable surfaces the oil tends to remain on top
of the road and thus be more subject to evaporation. In summary,
high rates of evaporation result from high road surface tempera-
tures, high vapor pressures of oil components, high windspeeds,
and low permeability of road surfaces.
The worst-case scenario for analysis of ambient air concen-
trations assumes that a one-mile-per-hour (1609 m/h) wind is
blowing perpendicular to a freshly oiled road with a surface
temperature of 100°F. For simplification of the analysis, the
scenario further assumes that the initial evaporation rate re-
mains constant until the entire component in the oil has evapo-
rated. This represents a worst case for evaporation because
3-13
-------
actual evaporation rates decrease as the oil penetrates into the
road surface. Also, as evaporation proceeds, oil component
concentrations drop and, consequently, so do evaporation rates.
3.2.2 Contaminated Dust Emissions
Little is known about the effectiveness of waste oil as a
dust suppressant or how rapidly its effectiveness decreases with
time. Dust emissions, with or without oiling, are affected by
the dryness of the road surface, the silt content, and the amount
of traffic. Usually, emissions increase proportionally with the
increase of all of these factors.
In general, high levels of contaminants are adsorbed onto
dust particles under opposite conditions of those necessary for
either high levels of evaporation or high levels of oil concen-
tration in rainfall runoff. For contaminated dust to leave the
road surface, oil must remain attached to the dust particles.
This means that in a worst-case scenario, rainfall levels must be
low or nonexistent so that the oil is not washed from the road
surface. Thus, dry conditions result in high levels of waste oil
on emitted dust particles.
The worst-case scenario for the modeling of contaminated
dust emissions assumes conditions characteristic of the U.S.
Southwest. This area was selected because the climatological
conditions (low rainfall and dry days) are conducive to high
emissions of reentrained dust. June was chosen for the 30-day
average used in the modeling because maximum road oiling is
expected to occur in this dry month (e.g., average precipitation
is less than 0.5 inch in El Paso, Texas).
3-14
-------
3.2.3 Rainfall Runoff
High concentrations of waste oil in runoff from oiled road
surfaces occur when rainfall closely follows oil application. As
more time elapses between oil application and rainfall, greater
amounts of the oil penetrate into the road. Oil evaporation also
occurs during the time between oil application and rainfall.
Both evaporation and seepage decrease the amount of oil available
to be washed from the road surface with the rainwater. Although
the amount of oil that leaves the road with rainfall has not been
investigated, it is obvious that greater intensities of rainfall
tend to loosen more oil from the road surface and thereby increase
the amount of oil in the surface water runoff. As rainfall
intensities increase, however, the oil on the road surface becomes
more diluted. The tradeoff point between increased washoff of
oil and dilution of oil due to rainwater is not precisely known.
In summary, short periods of time between waste oil application
and rainfall events that are sufficient to remove oil from the
road surface produce the highest levels of surface water runoff
contamination.
3.3 DISPERSION MODELING OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION
Dispersion models have been applied to the movement of waste
oil from road surfaces in an effort to quantify the extent of
possible environmental contamination of air and surface waters.
Organic vapors and contaminated dust particles can cause deteri-
oration of air quality. Ambient air concentrations of organic
vapors are modeled in two phases. The first phase determines the
3-15
-------
rate of evaporation of organic waste oil components from the road
surface. The second phase determines the distribution of these
organic components above the road surface and their resultant
ambient air concentration.
The determination of the level of contaminated dust parti-
cles in the ambient air is also a two-phase process. The first
phase involves determination of the concentration of waste oil
components on dust particles emitted from the road surface. The
second phase involves determination of the distribution of these
contaminated dust emissions in the ambient air by the use of air
transport models. Before the effects of rainfall runoff can be
modeled, the concentration of oil and oil components in runoff
waters must be determined and the potential for formation of an
oil slick must be assessed.
The following subsections present the models used to esti-
mate the extent of air and water contamination due to road oiling
with waste oil. In the model presentations, particular attention
is given to the model variables, the sources of these variables,
and typical and worst-case ranges of values of the variables.
Also presented are the model assumptions and the problems that
were encountered in use of the model.
3.3.1 Evaporation
Evaporation of organic components can be a major mechanism
of waste oil movement. Oil applied to the road begins to evapo-
rate from the surface immediately. Low-molecular-weight, high-
vapor-pressure components evaporate most rapidly. As the oil
3-16
-------
seeps into the road surface, evaporation continues in subsurface
pore spaces, but evaporation rates decrease substantially as a
result of a slow rate of diffusion through pore spaces to the
soil surface. Because surface evaporation proceeds most rapidly,
it has been chosen as a worst-case situation for modeling organ-
ics evaporation from roads.
Actual evaporation from an oiled road includes both surface
evaporation, which is the major component of the total, plus a
minor additional amount of subsurface evaporation. How closely
surface evaporation models can approximate actual evaporation
rates depends on the rate of seepage of waste oil into the road
surface. Seepage calculations are based on variations in the
hydraulic conductivity of the oil for different soil types and
typical application rates of oil to those road surface types
(Tables 3-7 and 3-8). Seepage times for penetration of all ap-
plied oil vary from 0.1 second for gravel roads (at a low end of
the range) to 4167.6 years for clay road surfaces (at a high end
of the range). Because gravel is normally applied to the road
surface in thin layers only and is commonly underlain by silt or
clay, seepage rates of oil into gravel may not be entirely rele-
vant. Thus, typical seepage rates are expected to vary from the
order of magnitude of centimeters per hour to centimeters per
year.
Surface evaporation rates were calculated by using the model
o
developed by Mackay (Equations 1 through 3). The ideal vapor
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-7. SEEPAGE FACTORS FOR OIL AND WATER IN VARIOUS SOILS
Soil type
Clay
Silt
Sand
Gravel
Hydraulic conductivity (K)a
Oil , cm/s
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
x 10"12 to 1.4 x 10"9
x 10"9 to 1.4 x 10"5
x 10"5 to 1.4 x 10"2
x 10"3 to 1.4
Water, cm/s
ID'10 to ID'7
10"7 to 10"3
10"3 to 1
10"1 to 10+2
Intrinsic
permeability (k),
cm2
10"15 to 10"12
ID"12 to 10'8
10"8 to 10"5
10"6 to 10"3
K = 100 kg/y, where K = hydraulic conductivity (cm/s), k = intrinsic
permeability (sq cm), g = acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s2), and y =
kinematic viscosity (0.71 cm2/s for oil and 0.01 cm2/s for water).
Reference 7.
TABLE 3-8. TIME SEEPAGE OF OIL INTO ROADS
Clay
Siltb
Sand
Gravel
Appl ication rate,
1 iters/m3
0.74 - 1.84
(0.74) - (1.84)
2.76 - 3.68
0.92 - 1.84
Timea
High
4167.6 yr
(4.2 yr)
7.3 h
2.2 min
Low
1.68 yr
(1.47 h)
19.6 s
0.1 s
Time for seepage = application rate * hydraulic con-
ductivity for oil.
Estimated values based on application rate for clay.
3-18
-------
pressure of each oil component and their Schmidt numbers are
given in Appendix A. Road width is a constant equal to 18 feet
(5.5 meters). Soil surface temperature in the calculations was
9
set at worst-case conditions, i.e., 100°F. Wind velocities
ranging from 1 through 40 m/h were considered in the sensitivity
analysis (Appendix A). The mole fraction of each oil component
was determined, based on both the 75th percentile and 90th per-
centile concentrations. These concentration levels were chosen
because they represent reasonably high levels of oil components
that may be expected to occur in waste oil applied to roads.
The calculated evaporation rates are only valid for a short
time. As evaporation proceeds, oil component concentrations
drop, and consequently, so do evaporation rates.
q = KP./RT (1)
1 S
where K = mass transfer coefficient, m/h
P. = partial vapor pressure, atm
R = ideal gas constant, m atm/mol K
T = soil surface temperature, K
O
2
q = evaporation rate, mol/m - h
K = 0.0292 V0'78 W~°'11Sc"0'67 (2)
where 0.0292 = units of conversion factor
V = wind velocity measured at height of 10 m, m/h
W = road width, m
Sc = Schmidt number (unitless)
P. = -X..P±° (3)
3-19
-------
w ere . = mole fraction of oil component i (unitless)
P.° = ideal vapor pressure of oil component i, atm
Description of Dilution Model Used to Calculate Concentrations of
Waste Oil Contaminants Evaporated From an Oiled Road--
A simple dilution model was used to estimate the concentra-
tion of waste oil contaminants that would be found in a volume
(or "box") of air over an oiled road (Figure 3-1). The road is
assumed to be 5.5 meters wide and the box is 1 meter deep. In
applying this dilution model, two parameters are of primary
importance: generation rate (rate of release of waste oil con-
taminants from the road surface), and air volume (volume of
ambient air likely to contain the waste oil contaminants).
The generation rate is primarily a function of the evapora-
tion rate of a specific contaminant. As shown in Table 3-9,
evaporation rates (expressed as m3/m2 per hour) were determined
for each of the waste oil contaminants. In the construction of
the model, it was assumed that the ambient air would blow across
the oiled surface in a direction prependicular to the roadway.
Based on this assumption, one can estimate a generation rate per
unit length of roadway (m3/min) by multiplying the evaporation
rate of a given contaminant by a unit surface area of a roadway
5.5 meters wide and 1 meter in length. The generation rate from
this unit area is assumed to be representative of the entire
length of roadway. Although the total amount of contaminant
released into the atmosphere will increase with larger and larger
3-20
-------
CO
I
NJ
MEAN CROSS-SECTIONAL
AREA OF THE PLUME
—""""""'" """/^ —-^**^^- , ,^. A/
^- ^^-—
WIND
Figure 3-1. Hypothetical plume from an unpaved oiled road.
-------
TABLE 3-9. EVAPORATION AND GENERATION RATES
FOR SELECTED WASTE OIL CONTAMINANTS
Waste oil contaminant
Aroclar 1248 (PCB)
Benzene
Di chl orodi f 1 uoromethane
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Toluene
Trichloroethane
Tri chl oroethyl ene
Tri chl orotri f 1 uoroethane
Xylene
Evaporation
rate,
m3/m2 per hour
--
0.0015
0.0096
0.0011
0.0033
0.0092
0.0047
0.0266
0.0008
Generation
rate,
m3/min
--
1.4 x 10"4
8.8 x 10"4
1.0 x 10"4
3.0 x 10"4
8.4 x 10~4
4.3 x 10"4
2.44 x 10"3
7 x 10"5
Estimated time
for complete.
evaporation,
min
5 x 108
255
23
161
96
24
47
5
343
See Appendix A.
Assumes evaporation rate remains constant during the evaporation period.
3-22
-------
surface areas (i.e., longer lengths of roadway), the generation
rate remains unchanged as long as the wind continues to blow
roughly perpendicular to the roadway. The calculated generation
rates based on this scenario are presented in Table 3-9.
Air volume is defined as that quantity of air overhead and
downwind of the roadway that will be available to mix with the
waste oil emissions emanating from the road surface. This volume
was interpreted to be a wedge-shaped plume originating at the
upwind side of the roadbed and extending across the surface of
the roadway to a distance downwind of the road (Figure 3-1).
Determining the volume of the plume is critical to estimating the
ambient concentration of various evaporative emissions. In an
attempt to provide a worst-case yet realistic estimate of the
plume volume, consideration was given to the fact that emissions
leaving the surface of the roadbed would be transported downwind
of the roadway as a result of mixing conditions of the atmosphere,
The distance this plume travels and its maximum length depend on
the windspeed of the air and the time involved in complete evapo-
ration of the volatile substances from the roadbed. For purposes
of a worst-case situation, a windspeed of 1 mi/h was chosen.
This windspeed allows a given parcel of air to remain over the
roadbed for a reasonably long period of time to acquire what can
be considered a worst-case concentration of volatile substances.
Waste oil contaminants with slow evaporation rates will be car-
ried great distances downwind before evaporation of the road oil
contaminants is complete; thus, the available amount of each
3-23
-------
contaminant will be diluted into a large air volume. These
emissions will be diluted into a volume of air larger than those
contaminants with faster evaporation rates; i.e., fast evapora-
tion results in short downwind distances and smaller plume vol-
umes. The downwind length (a) of the plume (calculated as that
length required for complete evaporation of a contaminant) is
determined by using Equation 4.
Given a windspeed of 1 mi/h (1609 m/h), the length of plume
can be estimated as the product of the windspeed multiplied by
the time required for complete evaporation of a given substance.
Table 3-12 also provides estimates for the time to compile evapo-
ration of specific waste oil constituents.
£ = [T (W/60)] (4)
where a = downwind length of plume, meters
T = time for complete evaporation, minutes
W = wind speed, 1609 meters per hour (1 mph)
In addition to the downwind length (£) of the plume, a value
of 5.5 m (the width of the roadway) is added to provide an esti-
mate of the entire plume, as portrayed in Figure 3-1. The total
plume length (L) is the value used to calculate plume volume.
Mixing height depends greatly on atmospheric stability;
i.e., the greater the stability, the lower the mixing height.
Typically, the more sophisticated dispersion models use catego-
ries of atmospheric stability ranging from the most unstable
(Class A) to the most stable (Class F). A Class D stability was
chosen for this analysis because this stability class represents
more than 50 percent of all meteorological conditions.
3-24
-------
The potential height of the mixing air volume or plume
height (X) is dependent on the downwind distance. Table 3-10
presents the estimated plume height for various downwind plume
distances resulting from calculations based on meteorological
mixing heights for a D stability class.
TABLE 3-10. DOWNWIND DISTANCES AND RELATED PLUME HEIGHT
(meters)
Downwind distance («,)
0-10
10-100
100-1,000
1,000-10,000
10,000-100,000
Plume height (X)
5
20
90
140
330
The road oiling scenario used in this study was set up with
the wind blowing perpendicular to the roadway. The rationale
behind this orientation is based on the premise that the greatest
impact on human health will occur from exposures alongside the
oiled roadway. Workers on the trucks applying the waste oil will
travel at speeds many times the worst-case windspeed of 1 mi/h;
thus, they will stay ahead of the most concentrated plume running
parallel to the roadway. Because freshly oiled roads are seldom
used immediately, the evaporation rate is nearly complete for
most volatile contaminants before automobile traffic reaches a
significant level. Individuals working or living adjacent (rough-
ly perpendicular) to the road oiling operations are at greatest
risk to prolonged elevated exposures.
3-25
-------
The mathematical model used to estimate airborne concentra-
tions resulting from this road oiling scenario is a single-com-
partment dilution model. The average concentration of each
contaminant in the plume is calculated by the following equation:
C = | (1 - e'nt) (5)
where: C = average concentration in plume
G = generation rate, m3/min
_ (5.5m) (E, mVm - h)
60 min/h
where E = evaporation rate
Q = flow rate, m3/min
= (W, m/min)(0.5 X, m)(1 m)
n = number of air changes per minute
_ Q, mVmin
V, m3
t = duration of exposure, min
= 480 min (8 h)
V = volume of plume, m3
= 0.5 (L) (X m) (1 m)
The flow rate (Q) is determined by multiplying the mean cross-
sectional area of the plume (0.5 X • 1m) by the windspeed (W).
The number of air changes per minute (n) is determined by divid-
ing the flow rate (Q) by the volume of the plume [(0.5)(X-L«lm)J.
3.3.2 Contaminated Dust Emissions
Contaminated dust emissions from roads that have been oiled
with waste oil depend on the amount of dust suppression that
resulted from the application and the concentration of contami-
nants on the dust particles. The effectiveness of waste oil as a
dust suppressant (Section 2.5) has not been well documented.
3-26
-------
Initial dust suppression has been observed to be 75 percent
effective. ' For the purposes of this study, dust suppression
is assumed to be 75 percent effective on Day 1 and to decrease in
a straight line to zero percent control 30 days later (Table
2-3). Contaminant concentration is highest immediately after the
waste oil is applied. This concentration decreases over time as
a result of evaporation and removal by rainfall. Worst-case
conditions for contaminant concentrations on dust particles are
zero rainfall and low temperatures (during which evaporation is
minimal).
Metals Concentration on Soil Particles—
Any metals in the waste oil applied to the road are assumed
to remain adsorbed to dust particles. The potential metal con-
centration on dust emissions is determined primarily by the orig-
inal concentration of metal in the waste oil applied to the road
and the type of road surface. Most metals will adsorb (either
reversibly or irreversibly) to the surface of soil particles.
Worst-case conditions assume irreversible adsorption; however, in
the worst-case situation modeled in this report, zero rainfall is
assumed, which eliminates the possibility of' desorption of metals
into rainfall. The concentration of metal on soil particles is
determined by multiplying the original metal concentration in the
waste oil times the waste oil application rate and then dividing
by the depth of penetration of oil into the road surface and the
average soil density (Equation 6). Depth of penetration of oil
3-27
-------
into the road surface (Equation 7) depends on the road surface
type and varies from 0.65 to 7.36 centimeters (Table 3-11).
Cs =
C.A
(6)
10,000 d p
where 10,000
Cs
Ci
A
d
conversion factor
contaminant concentration in soil, g/g
initial contaminant concentration in oil, g/liter
application rate, liters/m2
depth of oil penetration, cm
average soil density, 2.65 g/cm3
d =
0.1A
nS
where 0.1
d
A
n
S
conversion factor
depth of oil penetration, cm
application rate, liters/m2
porosity
soil retention factor (0.2 for lube oil)
(7)
TABLE 3-11. DEPTH OF OIL PENETRATION INTO VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
Sand
Clay
Gravel
Application rate,
liters/m2
2.76-3.68
0.74-1.84
0.92-1.84
Porosity9
0.25-0.50
0.40-0.70
0.25-0.40
Depth, b
cm
3.45-7.36
0.74-3.68
0.65-2.30
Reference 7.
Calculated by use of Equation 7 with soil retention factor (S = 0.2)
from Reference 12.
3-28
-------
Organic Chemical Concentration on Soil Particles—
Concentration of organic chemicals on soil particles at any
given moment in time depends on the amount of evaporation of that
chemical that has occurred during the unit of time under consid-
eration. Evaporation is affected by numerous variables, but it
depends most strongly on the temperature of the road surface, the
vapor pressure of the organic chemical component, and whether or
not the oil is still on the surface of the road or has penetrated
into the road subsurface. Evaporation from the road surface, as
discussed previously, will proceed as described in Equations 1
through 3 until the waste oil penetrates the road surface. The
time required for seepage of oil into the road surface (Table
3-8) varies from a tenth of a second for gravel to 4000 years for
some clays. Even though seepage rates are known to vary from
minutes to hours or even years, a very rapid seepage rate must be
assumed for worst-case conditions to minimize the decrease in
concentration that would result from surface evaporation.
The concentration of organic chemical contaminants on soils
was calculated by using subsurface evaporation rates and assuming
that all of the waste oil has penetrated the road within 5 min-
utes after its application to the road surface. Calculations
assume that evaporation occurs on the surface during the first 5
minutes. Subsequent evaporation rates are based on subsurface
evaporation models. The subsurface evaporation model was devel-
13 14
oped by Thiobodeaux (Equations 8 through 10). '
3-29
-------
D C C A \ 1/2
c sCaC5A \ (8)
5 x iorooo tdj
where 10,000 = units conversion factor
q = evaporation rate, g/cm2-s
D = soil diffusion rate, m2/s
o
C = vapor concentration in soil pore spaces, g/cm3
a
C_ = concentration in oil after 5 min. of surface
evaporation, g/liter
A = application rate, liters/in2
t = time since oil application, s
d = depth of oil penetration, cm
D = D n3/4 (9)
o cl
where D = air diffusion constant, cm2/s
a
n = soil porosity
Ca = MwPi/RT
where C = vapor concentration in soil pore spaces, g/cm3
a
P. = partial vapor pressure of oil component i, atm
R = ideal gas constant, cm3 - atm/mol - K
T = soil subsurface temperature, K
M = molecular weight of oil component
W
The constants used in these equations are presented in Appendices
A and C.
In the calculation of subsurface evaporation rates, a sub-
surface soil temperature of 25°C is assumed, primarily because of
the availability of air diffusion constants at this temperature.
3-30
-------
Actually, typical soil subsurface temperatures are known to range
between 20° and 35°C during the months of April through
14
October. In the calculations of evaporation rates, the initial
concentration entering the subsurface environment is used, and
the time since application varies from zero to 30 days. This
results in an evaporation rate that gradually decreases through-
out the evaporation period.
Once the subsurface evaporation rate for a particular oil
component has been calculated, the concentration of components
remaining on the soil can be calculated by simply subtracting the
amount that has evaporated from the initial concentration (Equa-
tion 11). Concentrations of organic chemicals for various road
surface types were calculated for a 30-day period following road
oil application (Appendix C, Tables C-8 to C-20).
Cs = C *
where C = concentration of soil particle, g/g
o
C = initial concentration on soil particle, g/g
q = evaporation rate, g/cm2-s
t = time since oil application, s
d = depth of oil penetration, cm
p = average soil density, 2.65 g/cm3
Emission Calculations—
The emissions of contaminated dust particles can be calcu-
lated by multiplying the contaminant concentration on the soil
times the emission rate (Equation 12). Results are expressed as
3-31
-------
grams of contaminant emitted per square meter per hour. Particu-
late emissions rates based on the assumption of a linear decrease
in control derived from the application of waste oil are presented
in Appendix C. The accuracy of this contaminant emission rate is
limited by the accuracy of both the soil contaminant concentra-
tion and the emission rate. Emission rate calculations are
described in Appendix C.
(12)
where Cn = concentration of contaminant emitted from the road
surface, g/m2-h
C = concentration on soil particle, g/g
5
E = dust emissions, g/m2-h
Ambient Dust Concentrations--
The objective of this analysis was to quantify the ambient
air impacts of hazardous emissions (both metal and organic con-
taminants) from unpaved roadways that have been treated with
waste oil to suppress dust. Standard dispersion modeling tech-
niques for roadways were applied, and emission factors derived in
previous sections of this report were used. Two dispersion
models were selected for use in this analysis to ensure that
representative consideration was given to roadway oiling emis-
sions. The first model was the HIWAY-2 Model. This model
gives 1-hour concentrations of contaminant emissions due to a
finite length of roadway. These 1-hour HIWAY-2 concentrations
were converted (via statistical techniques ) to a maximum 30-day
3-32
-------
average. Because the HIWAY-2 Model neither provides a technique
for modeling on a monthly basis nor includes a factor for deposi-
tion of larger particles downwind of the road, a second model,
the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Model, was used in its
long-term (30-day) mode. The ISC Model, however, does not allow
receptors closer than 100 m to the roadway.
The two models were used in a complementary fashion to
ensure consistency in the ambient concentration estimates. The
concentrations estimated by the two models at a receptor located
100 m downwind of a roadway were compared. The results showed
that the HIWAY-2 Model generated somewhat higher 30-day esti-
mates. These higher estimates were expected because the ISC
model allowed for deposition at this distance. Thus, the models
were deemed to give a good assessment of relative ambient concen-
trations.
For estimation of the maximum 30-day concentrations near the
roadways, the HIWAY-2 Model was used with a receptor located 10 m
downwind of a 1.0-km length of roadway. Because concentrations
at this distance are believed to be roadside concentrations and
not necessarily concentrations to which the general public is
exposed, estimates were also made with the ISC model at 100 m
downwind.
All modeling reflected climatological and meteorological
conditions characteristic of the Southwest. This area was se-
lected for analysis because of its numerous unpaved roads, the
probable use of waste oil for road oiling, and climatological
3-33
-------
conditions conducive to high emissions of reentrained dust (low
rainfall and hot and dry days). Meteorological data selected for
this analysis were obtained from National Weather Service Station
No. 23044 at the airport in El Paso, Texas. The data covered the
years 1976-1979. For a worst-case 30-day average, the meteorol-
ogy for the month of June was chosen because maximum road oiling
is expected in this hot, dry month (average precipitation less
than 0.5 inch). All observations were processed into a format
compatible with the long-term ISC model. Mixing heights and
18 19
monthly temperature were estimated from standard climatology. '
Because the HIWAY-2 Model only allows one hour of meteoro-
logical data to be processed per model application, worst-case
conditions (windspeed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and
mixing height) were selected by a screening analysis. The multi-
ple screening applications of HIWAY-2 indicated that Stability
Class F (very stable atmosphere) with a road/wind angle of 01
degrees gave the highest 1-hour concentrations at a receptor 10 m
from the downwind edge of the roadway. A windspeed of 1.7 m/s
was assumed, which equals the average windspeed under F-stability
conditions in El Paso for all months of June in the 1976-1979
period. A mixing height of 1000 m was assumed (the mixing height
has negligible influence on receptors near the source). Although
the HIWAY-2 Model does not consider the deposition of particu-
lates, little effect on a receptor 10 m downwind is expected
because most reentrained dust particles (those with diameters
20
less than 100 ym) will not settle out at this distance.
3-34
-------
Figure 3-2 shows the source /receptor configuration used in
the HIWAY-2 analysis. A north-south 1000-m roadway was modeled,
with receptors located to the east of the road midpoint. The
coordinate system, source coordinates, receptor coordinates, and
wind directions that were modeled are shown in the figure.
Adjustments were made to the 1-hour HIWAY-2 concentration
estimates, based on the assumption of a lognormal distribution of
concentrations and the transformation equation suggested by
Larsen. The equation, which allows the transformation of one
averaging time to another, takes the form:
c = c t-^ n i)
Snax, 30-day max, h r UJ'
where C _n , = the expected maximum monthly concentration,
max, 30-day 3
C , = the expected 1-hour maximum concentration in
max , n / ,
a year, yg/m3
t = the averaging time, h (30 days = 720 hours)
g = the slope of the maximum line on logarithmic
scales and a function of the standard geo-
metric deviation (SGD) (q = -0.235 in this
application)
where SGD = 1.75 (based on TSP monitor data)
These values result in:
Cmax, 30-day = Cmax/h <°-213)
which was used in all subsequent concentration estimates to
produce 30-day averages.
The ISC model was used to estimate the ambient air quality
impacts from dust emissions from the 1000-m unpaved road at a
3-35
-------
1000-
tP2
800-
600-
240°
200- 230
o-
EAST (m)
,R2
I
100
ROADWAY
PI (X.Y) - Q.,0.
P2 (X,Y) = 0..1000.
RECEPTORS
Rl (X,Y) «= 10.,500.
R2 (X,Y) - 100.,500.
200
Figure 3-2. Roadway source/receptor grid used in HIWAY-2.
3-36
-------
distance of 100 m or greater from the roadway. These estimates
were made in conjunction with the worst-case concentrations at
10 m (with HIWAY-2) to show the decrease in concentrations that
occurs as a result of particle deposition and dilution at 100 m.
The meteorological data from El Paso, Texas, were discussed
earlier. Figure 3-3 presents a wind rose for June (1976-1979
average) for all atmospheric stabilities combined and shows the
predominance of winds from the southwest to southeast (along the
hypothetical roadway). Table 3-12 presents the average June
temperatures and mixing heights assumed in the analysis.
TABLE 3-12. AVERAGE JUNE TEMPERATURES AND MIXING HEIGHTS
FOR EL PASO, TEXAS
Parameter
Average June temperature, K
Average June mixing heights, m
Atmospheric stability class
A
306
5,700
B
306
3,800
C
306
3,800
D
300
3,800
E
291
10,000
F
291
10,000
Because most unpaved roads are in rural or outlying areas,
the rural atmospheric effects option, which allows consideration
of all stability classes, was assumed in the ISC modeling, i.e.,
no urban effects on the atmosphere were considered.
Receptors were located at 10, 30, 50, 70, 90, 100, and 120 m
east of the roadway midpoint, and an additional grid of receptors
was spaced every 100 m, as shown in Figure 3-4. The roadway was
comprised of 34 volume sources with dimensions of 5.5 m x 5.5mx
1 m high, spaced 30 m apart. If receptors are closer than 100 m
3-37
-------
WIND SPEED CLASSES (m/s)
OX 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% f>%
PERCENT FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
Figure 3-3.
Wind rose for June, El Paso, Texas
(1976-1979).
3-38
-------
1100-x x x x x x x
1000- xxx xxx
34 •
33*
32»
900- XX X 31. X X X
30.
29*
800 -x x x28* x x x
27*
26*
25*
700 _ X X X 24. X X X
23*
22.
600- x x x21. x x x
20»
19*
,0 1234 567
500 _ x x x 18*xx xx xxx x x
17,
E 16 •.
«, 15*
£ 400— xx x u. x x x
I 13-
12*
300_ x x x n. x x x
10*
9*
200 _ x x x x xx
7»
6»
5*
100— x x x 4. x x x
3»
2»
x XL x x x
tit i i I
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
East, m
* Roadway sources x Receptor
Figure 3-4. Roadway source/receptor grid used in ISC model
3-39
-------
to a given source, the model does not calculate a concentration
estimate for that source/receptor combination. Hence, only
receptors at or beyond 100 m from any individual roadway element
were considered.
Deposition of particulates was included in the ISC model
analysis by use of the appropriate model options. The average
particle size characteristics for gravel roads described in
20
AP-42 were assumed in the modeling analysis:
Particle size, ym Weight percent
<5 23
5-30 39
>30-100 38
3.3.3 Rainfall Runoff
The modeling approach for contamination of rainfall runoff
and surface waters should describe the removal of oil from the
road surface and the amount of dilution that will occur as a
result of rainfall and surface water runoff. The worst-case
scenario described previously indicates that a maximum amount of
oil will be available to be washed from the road surface immedi-
ately following waste oil application. Once oil has been applied
to the road surface, oil components will begin to evaporate, seep
into the road, and adsorb onto soil particles.
The amount of oil removed from the road surface would be
something less than the total quantity applied as a result of
other environmental factors acting upon the oil. For all of the
3-40
-------
oil to be removed during a rainfall incident, a thin layer of the
road surface would have to be eroded so that oil adsorbed onto
soil particles would be carried away in the rainfall runoff.
Preliminary calculations (Appendix B) indicate that the rainfall
intensities required for removal of a thin road surface layer are
greater than those of the heavy rainfalls that occur in this area
on an average of once every two years.
When rainfall intensities are less than that required to
remove part of the road surface, how much of the oil applied to
the road is actually removed during a rainfall incident cannot be
determined. For this reason, a sensitivity analysis was conduct-
ed to predict the oil concentration in runoff for various rain
intensities. Percent oil removal in a single intense rainfall
varied from as much as 100 percent (or total oil removal) down to
5 percent.
The rainfall intensities used in the model represent the
maximum rainfall intensities that have been recorded over an
average 2-year period. Rainfall durations of 5, 10, 30, and 120
minutes are used in the model. In the United States, the great-
est rainfall intensities over a 2-year period occurred in Pensa-
cola, Florida, and Port Arthur, Texas, and the lowest maximum
rainfall intensities occurred in Reno, Nevada, and Fairbanks,
Alaska (Table 3-13). These locations were used as boundaries
for the range of worst-case rainfall runoff conditions.
3-41
-------
TABLE 3-13. MAXIMUM RAINFALL INTENSITIES FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD9
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Rainfall
intensity,
in./h
1.5
1.2
0.6
0.22
Location
Reno, Nevada
Reno, Nevada
Fairbanks, Alaska
Reno, Nevada
Rainfall
intensity,
in./h
6.5
5.1
3.4
1.6
Location
Pensacola, Florida
Pensacola, Florida
Port Arthur, Texas
Pensacola, Florida
Source: Reference 21.
The model for determination of the concentration of waste
oil components in road surface runoff is a simple one in which
the initial oil component concentration is multiplied by the
application rate and then divided by the volume of rain that
falls on the road surface (Equation 14).
where 2.36
Cr
C.
A
I
t
= 2.36 Ci A/It
units conversion factor
concentration in runoff, mg/liter
initial concentration in oil, mg/liter
application rate, liters/m2
rainfall intensity, in./h
rainfall duration, min
(14)
Calculations of worst-case stream concentrations are based
on the assumption that roads are placed at one-mile intervals and
that all of the roads in a watershed are oiled. This means that
each one mile of road has an individual watershed of 0.5 square
mile or 320 acres. Runoff from the road surface is diluted by
3-42
-------
runoff from 0.5 square mile of watershed (Figure 3-5). Field
runoff, however, is less than the volume of rain that falls on
the field surface because of infiltration. Runoff coefficients
22
for fields are reported to vary from 0.05 to 0.35, which means
that only 5 to 35 percent of the rain that falls on a field
leaves as runoff. Because the concern was high rainfall intensi-
ties that result in high runoff, 35 percent rainfall runoff was
used in the modeling. Once runoff volume from the field was
known, worst-case stream concentrations were calculated.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine stream
concentrations when less than 100 percent of the oil is washed
from the road surface. A typical-case situation was also evalu-
ated in which 5 percent and 0.5 percent of the oil is washed from
the road. The conditions closely approximate those observed by
GCA in runoff experiments (Table 3-6). Soluble and adsorbed
contaminants are included in the 5 percent runoff, whereas the
0.5 percent value represents only those contaminants that are
soluble when they reach the stream.
The potential for an oil slick may be determined once the
concentration of oil in the stream has been calculated (Equation
15). n
H = 10 C D (15)
s
where 10 = units conversion factor
H = thickness of oil slick, nm
C = concentration of oil in the stream, mg/liter
o
D = depth of the stream or ditch, cm
3-43
-------
/ „---/
Figure 3-5. Rainfall runoff patterns for a watershed in which
roads are placed at one-mile intervals and all roads have been oiled.
-------
Oil slick potential was calculated for a typical-case situation,
in which only 5 percent of the oil is washed from the road. It
was further assumed that 4.5 percent of the oil was adsorbed onto
oil particles and only 0.5 percent was soluble and available for
oil slick formation. These conditions closely approximate those
observed in runoff experiments conducted by GCA (Table 3-6).
3.4 CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT—DISPER-
SION MODELING RESULTS
Where possible, environmental contamination levels were
calculated for the following waste oil components: arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc, dichlorodifluoromethane,
trichlorotrifluoroethane, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, benzene, toluene, xylene, benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, and PCB's. Calculations were made
for two areas of the environment: the atmosphere (ambient air)
and surface waters. Both evaporation and dust transport have an
impact on ambient air, whereas contaminated rainfall runoff from
road surfaces has an impact on surface waters.
3.4.1 Evaporation
The one-compartment dilution model described in Section
3.3.1 estimates the airborne concentration of each contaminant.
The model was used to estimate airborne concentrations 8 hours
following application of the waste oil. These concentrations are
presented in Table 3-14. This represents a worst case in that
the model assumes that the amount of contaminants available for
evaporation is unlimited and that the evaporation rate remains
constant. If the evaporation rate were to remain constant, the
3-45
-------
concentrations of all of the modeled contaminants applied to the
road would be completely evaporated in less than 8 hours.
TABLE 3-14. DILUTION MODEL RESULTS FOR EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
Substance1
Di chl orodi f 1uoromethane
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Tri chl oroethylene
Tri chl orotri f1uoroethane
Xylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Eight-hour
airborne concentration,
ug/m3
3,598
602
3,804
1,231
15,450
127
198
345
3,804
Concentrations of PCB's and Naphthalene are not included
because their extremely long evaporation times resulted
in very low concentrations.
3.4.2 Rainfall Runoff
The effect of road oiling on surface waters was evaluated
from the standpoint of both oil and individual oil component
concentrations that could result from rainfall runoff from the
roads. Information on the potential for oil slicks was also
determined.
Because the quantity of oil that may be removed from the
road surface during a given rainfall event is not clearly under-
stood, a sensitivity analysis of various percent oil removals was
3-46
-------
conducted. A maximum oil removal of 100 percent and a low or
probable minimum oil removal of 5 percent were assumed. Worst-
case stream concentrations were then calculated, based on the
assumption that roads are located at one-mile intervals and that
every road in a watershed has been oiled (Tables 3-15 and 3-16).
Stream concentrations are affected by road surface type, 'oil
application rates, rainfall intensity, percent oil removal, and
percent of field runoff. Worst-case oil concentrations range
from 8 mg/liter to 20,300 mg/liter. These concentrations are
most important in determining the potential for an oil slick.
The high values listed for each oil type in Tables 3-15 and
3-16 are based on the highest oil application rate in the range
of rates in Table 3-11, and the lowest of the maximum rainfall
intensities in Table 3-13. The low values, on the other hand,
are based on the lowest application rate in Table 3-11, and .the
highest of the maximum rainfall intensities in Table 3-13. Both '
high and low values assume that the streambed was dry before the
rain started. Also, in both cases it was assumed that the only
water for dilution came from the rain period being modeled and
that 35 percent of the rain that fell on adjacent fields entered
the stream. For example, in the 5-minute case, 100 percent
(Table 3-15) or 5 percent (Table 3-16) of the oil on the road is
diluted with rainfall that falls on the road during the 5-minute
period and 35 percent of the rainfall that falls on 320 acres
during the same 5-minute period.
Oil slick calculations were based on reasonable stream
concentrations with the assumption that only 5 percent of the oil
3-47
-------
TABLE 3-15. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS AT VARIOUS RAINFALL
DURATIONS WITH 100 PERCENT OIL RUNOFF3>D
(mg of oil per liter of water)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
20,300
12,700
8,470
5,770
Low
3,520
2,240
1,120
595
Silt
High
10,200
6,350
4,230
2,890
Low
943
601
300
160
Clay
High
10,200
6,350
4,230
2,890
Low
943
601
300
160
Gravel
High
10,200
6,350
4,230
2,890
Low
1,170
747
374
198
Assumes roads placed at one-mile intervals and watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on an oil density of 0.9.
TABLE 3-16. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS AT VARIOUS RAINFALL
DURATIONS WITH 5 PERCENT OIL RUNOFF '
(mg of oil per liter of water)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1,020
635
423
289
Low
176
112
56.0
29.8
Silt
High
508
318
212
144
Low
47.2
30.1
15.0
7.98
Clay
High
508
318
212
144
Low
47.2
30.1
15.0
7.98
Gravel
High
508
318
212
144
Low
58.6
37.3
18.7
9.92
Assumes roads placed at one-mile intervals and watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on an oil density of 0.9.
3-48
-------
was washed from the road surface and that 35 percent of the field
rain entered the stream. It was also assumed that 0.5 percent of
the oil was soluble and that the other 4.5 percent that was
washed off was absorbed onto soil particles. These assumptions
approximate the results obtained by GCA in their road oiling
weathering experiments.
The purpose of this analysis is to determine how thick an
oil film could be formed by the soluble fraction of the oil. It
was assumed that the stream (or roadside ditch) holds a high-
intensity rainfall of one-minute duration, after which time the
flow out of the ditch equals the flow in. The stream depth used
in the calculation of the film thickness (Equation 15) is calcu-
lated by assuming there are two one-meter-wide rectangular
ditches parallel with the roadway.
Results indicate that film thickness on the stream surface
ranges from 77.6 to 9,200 nm (Table 3-17). An oil slick becomes
visible at 150 nm, and only two of the potential film thick-
nesses calculated for the minimum runoff scenario are thinner
than the visible range.
Worst-case concentrations of selected waste oil contaminants
on the road surfaces and in nearby streams were determined for
various road surfaces (Appendix B). Ranges of concentrations
based on an assumed 100 percent oil runoff are summarized (Tables
3-18 through 3-21). The 100 percent assumption represents a
worst-case situation, which may be modified for a particular
location by simply multiplying by the fraction of oil component
runoff expected. It is likely that different fractions would
3-49
-------
TABLE 3-17.
DEPTHS OF OIL ON STREAM SURFACE
(nm, except as noted)
a,b
Rainfall
Hi i >"P f1 "i nn
minutes
5
10
30
120
Total rainfall ,
inches
Low
0.13
0.20
0.30
0.44
Highc
0.54
0.85
1.70
3.20
Road surface type
Sand
High
9,250
4,630
1,530
388
Low
6,940
3,470
1,160
289
Clay
High
4,620
2,310
766
194
Low
1,860
931
311
77.6
Gravel
High
4,623
2,310
766
194
Low
2,310
1,160
386
96.2
Assumes 5 percent of the oil runs off the road, 10 percent of the oil is
soluble, and the remaining 90 percent is adsorbed on soil particles.
Based on stream concentrations reported in Table 3-16 and Equation 15.
High rainfall intensity results in low film thickness.
5-50
-------
TABLE 3-18. RANGE OF CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
BASED ON 90TH PERCENTILE OIL CONTAMINANT LEVELS3
(mg of contaminant per liter of water)
Metal s
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Chlorinated organics
Dichl orodifl uoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Other organics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
PCB's
Sand
Highb
18.5
562
4.64
32.5
1,160
1,330
997
151
1,510
1,220
1,390
185
1,390
661
40.6
38.2
672
57.9
Lowc
0.54
16.5
0.14
0.95
34.0
39.1
29.2
4.41
44.1
35.6
40.8
5.43
40.7
19.4
1.19
1.12
19.7
1.70
Silt
Highb'
9.27
281
2.32
16.2
579
666
498
75.3
753
608
695
92.7
695
330
20.3
19.1
336
29.0
Lowc
0.15
4.42
0.04
0.25
9.10
10.5
7.83
1.18
11.8
9.55
10.9
1.46
10.9
5.19
0.32
0.30
5.28
0.46
Clay
Highb
9.27
281
2.32
16.2
579
666
498
75.3
753
608
695
92.7
695
330
20.3
19.1
336
29.0
Lowc
0.15
4.42
0.04
0.25
9.10
10.5
7.83
1.18
11.8
9.55
10.9
1.46
10.9
5.19
0.32
0.30
5.28
0.46
Gravel
Highb
9.27
281
2.32
16.2
579
66.6
498
75.3
753
608
695
92.7
695
330
20.3
19.1
336
29.0
Lowc
0.18
5.49
0.05
0.32
11.3
13.0
9.73
1.47
14.7
11.9
13.6
1.81
13.6
6.45
0.40
0.37
6.56
0.57
(.0
I
Ul
Summary of Tables B-5 through B-22. Assumes 100 percent oil removal from road surface. Water for
dilution is from the rain that strikes the road and does not include rainfall adjacent to the road.
Based on a heavily oiled road and a heavy Nevada rainfall.
c Based on a lightly oiled road and a heavy Florida rainfall.
-------
TABLE 3-19. RANGE OF CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
BASED ON 75TH PERCENTILE OIL CONTAMINANT LEVELS3
(mg of contaminant per liter of water)
Metal s
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Chlorinated organics
Dichlorodifl uoromethane
Trichl orotri f 1 uoroethane
Trichloroethane
Trichl oroethylene
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Other organics
Benzene
Toluene
Xyl ene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
PCB's
Sand
Highb
16.2
232
1.51
13.9
487
1,030
243
38.2
684
568
429
89.2
568
313
30.1
13.9
568
47.5
Low0
0.48
6.79
0.04
0.41
14.3
30.2
7.13
1.12
20.0
16.6
12.6
2.61
16.6
9.17
0.88
0.41
16.6
1.39
Silt
Highb
8.11
116
0.75
6.95
243
516
122
19.1
342
284
214
44.6
284
156
15.1
6.95
284
23.8
Lowe
0.13
1.82 „
1.18x10"^
0.11
3.82
8.10
1.91
0.30
5.37
4.46
3.37
0.70
4.46
2.46
0.24
0.11
4.46
0.37
Clay
Highb
8.11
116
0.75
6.95
243
516
122
19.1
342
284
214
44.6
284
156
15.1
6.95
284
23.8
Lowe
0.13
1.82 9
1.18x10"^
0.11
3.82
8.10
1.91
0.30
5.37
4.46
3.37
0.70
4.46
2.46
0.24
0.11
4.46
0.37
Gravel
Highb
8.11
116
0.75
6.95
243
516
122
19.1
342
284
214
44.6
284
156
15.1
6.95
284
23.8
Lowe
0.16
2.26 ?
1.47x10""
0.14
4.75
10.1
2.38
0.37
6.68
5.55
4.19
0.87
5.55
3.06
0.29
0.14
5.55
0.46
to
I
en
to
Summary of Tables B-23 through .B-40. Assumes 100 percent oil removal from road surface. Water for
dilution is from the rain that strikes the road and does not include rainfall adjacent to the road.
Based on a heavily oiled road and a heavy Nevada rainfall.
Based on a lightly oiled road and a heavy Florida rainfall.
-------
TABLE 3-20.
RANGE OF WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON
90TH PERCENTILE OIL CONTAMINANT LEVELS3
(mg of contaminant per liter of water)
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Chlorinated organics
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Trichl orotrifl uoroethane
Trichloroethane
Trichl oroethylene
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Other organics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
PCB's
Sand
Highb
0.36
10.95
0.09
0.63
22.6
26.0
19.4
2.93
29.4
23.7
27.1
3.61
27.1
12.9
0.79
0.75
13.1
1.13
Lowc
0.01
0.32 ,
2.65xlO~;J
1.85x10"^
0.66
0.76
0.57
0.09
0.86
0.69
0.79
0.11
0.79
0.38 ~
2. 31x10"^
0.02
0.38
0.03
Silt
Highb
0.18
5.48
0.05
0.32
11.3
13.0
9.71
1.47
14.7
11.8
13.6
1.81
13.6
6.44
0.39
0.37
6.55
0.56
Lowe
2.84xlO"3
0.09 _4
7.09x10 ,
4.97x10"°
0.18
0.20
0.15 y
2.31x10"^
0.23
0.19
0.21
2.84xlO"2
0.21
0.10 ,
6.20x10",
5.90x10"°
0.10 ,
8.90x10"°
Clay
Highb
0.18
5.48
0.05
0.32
11.3
13.0
9.71
1.47
14.7
11.8
13.6
1.81
13.6
6.44
0.39
0.37
6.55
0.56
Lowc
2.84xlO"3
0.09 .
7.09x10 ,
4.97x10"-*
0.18
0.20
0.15 ,,
2.31x10"^
0.23
0.19
0.21
2.84xlO"2
0.21
0.10 .
6.20x10",
5.90x10"°
0.10 ,
8.90x10"°
Gravel
Highb
0.18
5.48
0.05
0.32
11.3
13.0
9.71
1.47
14.7
11.8
13.6
1.81
13.6
6.44
0.39
0.37
6.55
0.56
Lowc
3.53xlO"3
°-n .4
8.82x10 ,
6.19x10"°
0.22
0.25
0.19 y
2.87x10"^
0.29
0.23
0.26
3.53xlO"2
0.26
0.13 ,
7.70x10"°
7.30x10"°
0.13 y
l.lOxlO"'1
to
I
Ul
OJ
Summary of Tables B-41 through B-58. Assumes 100 percent oil removal from road surface. Assumes roads placed
at one-mile intervals and watershed for each mile of oiled roads is therefore 0.5 square miles or 320 acres.
Based on a heavily oiled road and a heavy Nevada rainfaTl.
Based on a lightly oiled road and a heavy Florida rainfall.
-------
TABLE 3-21. RANGE OF WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON
75TH PERCENTILE OIL CONTAMINANT LEVELS3
(mg of contaminant per liter of water)
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Chlorinated organics
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Other organics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
PCB's
Sand
Highb
0.32
4.52 ,
2.93x10"*
0.27
9.48
20.1
4.74
0.75
13.3
11.1
8.35
1.74
11.1
6.10
0.59
0.27
11.1
0.93
Lowc
9.26xlO"3
0.13 .
8.60x10",
7.94x10 J
0.28
0.59
0.14
0.02
0.39
0.32
0.24
0.05
0.32
0.18
0.02 ,
7.94xlO"J
0.32
0.03
Silt
Highb
0.16
2.26 ,,
1.47x10"*
0.14
4.74
10.1
2.37
0.37
6.66
5.53
4.18
0.87
5.53
3.05
0.29
0.14
5.53
0.46
Lowc
2.48xlO"3
0.04 A
2.31x10,
2.13xlO'J
0.07
0.16
0.04 ,
5.85xlO"J
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.01
0.09
0.05 „
4.61x10 ,
2.13xlO"J
0.09 ,
7. 27x10" J
Clay
High0
0.16
2.26 ,
1.47x10"*
0.14
4.74
10.1
2.37
0.37
6.66
5.53
4.18
0.87
5.53
3.05
0.29
0.14
5.53
0.46
LowC
2.48xlO"3
0.04 .
2.31x10 ,
2.13xlO"J
0.07
0.16
0.04 ,
5.85xlO"J
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.01
0.09
0.05 ,
4.61x10",
2.13xlO"J
0.09 ,
7.27xlO"J
Gravel
Highb
0.16
2.26 ,
1.47x10"*
0.14
4.74
10.1
2.37
0.37
6.66
5.53
4.18
0.87
5.53
3.05
0.29
0.14
5.53
0.46
LowC
3.09xlO"3
0.04 .
2.87x10",
2.65xlO"J
0.09
0.20
0.05 ,
7.28xlO"J
0.13
0.11
0.08
0.02
0.11
0.06 ,
5.73x10",
2.65xlO"J
0.11 ,
9.04xlO"J
10
I
en
Summary of Tables B-59 through B-76. Assumes 100 percent oil removal from road surface. Assumes roads placed at one-mile
intervals and watershed for each mile of oiled roads is therefore 0.5 square miles or 320 acres.
Based on a heavily oiled road and a heavy Nevada rainfall.
Based on a lightly oiled road and a heavy Florida rainfall.
-------
have to be used for each oil component at a given location and
time because of the varying influence of evaporation. The high
concentrations in Tables 3-20 and 3-21 represent the worst-case
stream for a 5-minute rainfall period in Florida, and the low
concentrations represent the worst-case stream for a 120-minute
rainfall period in Nevada based on a 2-year maximum rainfall
intensity. Both cases are based on an assumed 100 percent road
runoff followed by 35 percent field runoff (65 percent infiltra-
tion into field).
In real-world conditions, less than 100 percent of the oil
on a road would be removed by rainfall. The actual amount re-
moved would vary with soil type and rainfall intensity; however,
the data are too limited for accurate quantification of the
percentage of oil removed. The GCA data available suggest that
about 5 percent of the oil may be removed. Table 3-22 presents
a sensitivity analysis in which the percentage of oil removed
from the road varies from 100 percent to 0.5 percent. Based only
on the GCA data, the 5 percent oil runoff is evaluated in the
risk assessment (Section 4) as being most representative of
real-world conditions.
3.4.3 Contaminated Dust Emissions
The effect of road oiling on ambient concentrations of
threshold (noncarcinogenic) and nonthreshold (carcinogenic)
contaminants was evaluated. (See Section 3.3.2 for description
of modeling approach.)
3-55
-------
TABLE 3-22. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF A STREAM ADJACENT TO AN OILED SAND ROAD
BASED ON 90TH PERCENTILE CONTAMINANT LEVELS
(mg contaminant/liter water)
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Chlorinated organics
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Trichlorotrlfluoroe thane
Trichloroethane
Trlchloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Other organics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
PCB's
lOOt oil runoff
High6
0.36
10.95
0.09
0.63
22.6
26.0
19.4
2.93
29.4
23.7
27.1
3.61
27.1
12.9
0.79
0.75
13.1
1.13
L«.c
0.01
0.32
2.65xlO"3
l.SSxlO"2
0.66
0.76
0.57
0.09
0.86
0.69
0.79
0.11
0.79
0.38
2.31xlO"2
0.02
0.38
0.03
90S oil runoff
High6
0.32
9.86
S.lxlO"2
5.70xlO"2
20.3
23.4
17.5
2.64
26.5
21.3
24.4
3.25
24.4
11.6
0.71
0.68
11.8
1.02
Lowc
g.ooxio"3
0.29
2.39xlO"3
1.67xlO"2
0.59
0.68
0.51
a.lOxlO"2
0.77
0.62
0.71
9.90xlO"2
0.71
0.34
2.08xlO"2
l.SOxlO"2
0.34
2.70xlO"2
75* oil runoff
High6
0.27
8.21
6.8xlO"2
4.7xlO"2
17.0
19.5
14.6
2.20
22.1
17.8
20.3
2.71
20.3
9.68
0.59
0.56
9.83
0.85
Lowc
7.50xlO"3
0.24
1.99xlO"3
1.39xlO"2
0.50
0.57
0.43
6.75xlO"2
i 0.65
0.52
0.59
8.25xlO"2
0.59
0.29
1.73xlO"2
l.SOxlO"2
0.29
2.25xlO"2
50S oil runoff
H1ghb
0.18
5.48
4.5xlO"2
3.1xlO"2
11.3
13.0
9.70
1.47
14.7
11.8
13.6
1.81
13.6
6.45
0.40
0.38
6.55
0.57
Lowc
S.OOxlO"3
0.16
1.33X10"3
9.25xlO"3
0.33
0.38
0.28
4.5xlO"2
0.43
0.35
0.40
5.5xlO"2
0.40
0.19
1.16xlO"2
l.OOxlO"2
0.19
l.SOxlO"2
25S oil runoff
H1ghb
9.00xlO"2
2.75
2.3xlO"2
1.6xlO"2
5.75
6.50
4.85
0.73
7.35
5.93
6.78
0.90
6.78
3.23
0.20
0.19
3.28
0.28
Low0
2.50xlO"3
S.OxlO"2
6.63xlO"3
4.63xlO"3
0.17
0.19
0.14
2.25xlO"2
0.22
0.17
0.20
2.75xlO"2
0.20
9.50xlO"2
5.78xlO"3
S.OOxlO"3
9.50xlO"2
7.50xlO"3
5* oil runoff
H1ghb
1.80"2
0.55
4.5xlO"3
3.20xlO"3
1.13
1.30
0.97
0.15
1.47
1.18
1.36
0.18
1.36
0.65
4.00xlO"2
3.80xlO"2
0.66
5.70xlO"Z
Lowc
S.OOxlO"4
i.eoxio'2
1.33xlO"4
9.25xlO"4
3.30xlO"2
3.80xlO"2
2.85xlO"2
4.50xlO"3
4.30xlO"2
3.45xlO"2
3.95xlO'2
S.SOxlO"3
3.95xlO"2
.90xlO"2
.16xlO"3
.OOxlO"3
.90xlO"2
.SOxlO"3
O.SX oil runoff
H1ghb
l.SxlO"3
5.48xlO"2
4.50xlO"4
3.20xlO"4
0.11
0.13
9.70xlO"2
1.47xlO"2
0.15
0.12
0.14
l.SlxlO"2
0.14
6.45xlO"2
4.00xlO~3
3.80xlO"3
6.55xlO"2
5.70xlO"3
Lo«c
S.OOxlO"5
i.eoxio"3
1.33xlO"5
9.25xlO"5
3.30xlO"3
3.80xlO"3
2.85xlO"3
4.50xlO*4
4.30xlO"3
3.45xlO"3
3.95xlO"3
S.SOxlO"4
3.95xlO"3
1.90xlO"3
1.16xlO"4
l.OOxlO"4
1.90xlO"3
l.SOxlO"4
U)
I
Ul
CTi
Assumes roads placed at one-mile intervals and watershed for each mile of oiled road Is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on a heavily oiled road and a heavy Nevada rainfall.
Based on a lightly oiled road and a heavy Florida rainfall.
-------
Ambient Concentrations of Threshold Contaminants—
The maximum 30-day average ambient air concentrations of
toxic waste oil contaminants (i.e., those eliciting a threshold
response) associated with the use of waste oil for road oiling
are presented in Tables 3-23 through 3-26 for moderate and heavy
road-use patterns. Concentrations are much higher at the recep-
tors 10 m downwind than at those 100 m downwind. Contaminant
concentrations in the ambient air were generally well below the
applicable Environmental Exposure Limits (EEL's) in both moderate
and heavy use patterns and for each roadway type (i.e., sand,
clay/sand, and gravel). Under these worst-case conditions,
barium and lead levels at 10 m from the roadway were 28 and 17
percent of their respective EEL's, but these values fell to 2
percent or less at 100 m downwind. All other metals and organic
contaminants were less than 1 percent of their respective EEL's.
Ambient Concentrations of Carcinogens—
Tables 3-27 through 3-30 present the maximum 30-day average
ambient air concentrations of carcinogenic contaminants on dust
particles associated with road oiling for moderate and heavy
road-use patterns. Concentrations of all the contaminants were
generally less than 0.2 ug/m3 at a receptor 10 m from the road-
way. At 100 m from the roadway, downwind concentrations fell to
7 percent of their value at 10 m; therefore, concentrations were
generally less than 0.01 yg/m3 at 100 m.
3-57
-------
TABLE 3- 23 AMBIENT AIR IMPACTS OF THRESHOLD CONTAMINANTS
DUE TO REENTRAINED DUST FROM ROADS TREATED WITH WASTE OIL
UNDER MODERATE USE CONDITIONS
(at 10 meters from roadway)
Pollutant
Barium
Chromium
(II and III)
Lead
Zinc
Toluene
Xylene
Naphthalene
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroethane
Maximum 30-Day Concentrations (x = 10 m), yg/m3
Sand
High
0.0118
0.0007
0.0242
0.0271
0.1518
0.0044
0.0129
0.0180
Low
0.0042
0.0002
0.0085
0.0111
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0036
<0.0001
Clay/sand
High
0.0274
0.0016
0.0567
0.0652
0.0062
0.0020
0.0274
0.1514
Low
0.0022
0.0001
0.0046
0.0049
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
Gravel
High
0.0312
0.0018
0.0646
0.0738
0.0025
0.0019
0.0312
0.0958
Low
0.0044
0.0002
0.0091
0.0111
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0003
0.0024
EEL,9
fjg/m3
0.43
4.32
1.50
43.2
3,240.0
3,758.0
432.0
16,416
Maximum
percentage
of EEL
7
<1
4
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
I
U1
CO
Environmental Exposure Limit. See Appendix D.
-------
TABLE 3-24 AMBIENT AIR IMPACTS OF THRESHOLD CONTAMINANTS
DUE TO REENTRAINED DUST FROM ROADS TREATED WITH WASTE OIL
UNDER MODERATE USE CONDITIONS
(at 100 meters from roadway)
Pollutant
Barium
Chromium
(II and III)
Lead
Zinc
Toluene
Xylene
Naphthalene
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroethane
Maximum 30-Day Concentrations (x = 100 m), yg/m3
Sand
High
0.0009
<0.0001
0.0018
0.0020
0.0110
0.0003
0.0010
0.0003
Low
0.0003
<0.0001
0.0006
0.0008
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0003
<0.0001
Clay/sand
High
0.0020
0.0001
0.0041
0.0047
0.0005
0.0001
0.0020
0.0027
Low
0.0002
<0.0001
0.0003
0.0004
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Gravel
High
0.0023
0.0001
0.0047
0.0053
0.0002
0.0001
0.0023
0.0018
Low
0.0003
0.0001
0.0007
0.0008
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
EEL,a
ug/m3
0.43
1.50
1.50
43.2
3,240.0
3,758.0
432.0
16,416
Maximum
percentage
of EEL
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
I
Ul
Environmental Exposure Limit. See Appendix D.
-------
TABLE 3-25. AMBIENT AIR IMPACTS OF THRESHOLD CONTAMINANTS
DUE TO REENTRAINED DUST FROM ROADS TREATED WITH WASTE OIL
UNDER HEAVY USE CONDITIONS
(at 10 meters from roadway)
Pollutant
Ban' urn
Chromium
(II and III)
Lead
Zinc
Toluene
Xylene
Naphthalene
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroethane
Maximum 30-Day Concentrations (x = 10 m), yg/m3
Sand
High
0.0455
0.0026
0.0947
0.1070
0.0066
0.0175
0.0507
0.0180
Low
0.0160
0.0009
0.0332
0.0381
0.0003
0.0003
0.0140
<0.0001
Clay/sand
High
0.1061
0.0061
0.2214
0.2522
0.0247
0.0081
0.1057
0.1514
Low
0.0086
0.0005
0.0185
0.0209
<0.0001
0.0010
0.0003
0.0001
Gravel
High
0.1209
0.0070
0.2534
0.2866
0.0099
0.0160
0.1224
0.0958
Low
0.0171
0.0010
0.0357
0.0406
0.0002
0.0002
0.0012
0.0024
EEL,3
ug/m3
0.43
4.32
1.5
43.2
3,240.0
3,758.0
432.0
16,416
Maximum
percentage
of EEL
28
<1
17
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
00
I
See Appendix D, Environmental Exposure Limit.
-------
TABLE 3-26. AMBIENT AIR IMPACTS OF THRESHOLD CONTAMINANTS
DUE TO REENTRAINED DUST FROM ROADS TREATED WITH WASTE OIL
UNDER HEAVY USE CONDITIONS
(at 100 meters from roadway)
Pollutant
Barium
Chromium
(II and III)
Lead
Zinc
Toluene
Xylene
Naphthalene
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroethane
Maximum 30-Day Concentrations (x = 100 m), yg/m3
Sand
High
0.0033
0.0002
0.0069
0.0077
0.0005
0.0013
0.0037
0.0013
Low
0.0012
<0.0001
0.0024
0.0028
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0010
<0.0001
Clay/sand
High
0.0077
0.0004
0.016(1
0.0182
0.0017
0.0006
0.0077
0.0110
Low
0.0006
<0.0001
0.0013
0.0015
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Gravel
High
0.0087
0.0005
0.0183
0.0207
0.0007
0.0011
0.0088
0.0069
Low
0.0012
<0.0001
0.0026
0.0029
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
EEL,a
ug/m3
0.43
4.32
1.5
43.2
3,240.0
3,758.0
432.0
16,416
Maximum
percentage
of EEL
2
<1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
CO
I
CTi
See Appendix D, Environmental Exposure Limit.
-------
TABLE 3-27. AMBIENT AIR IMPACTS OF CARCINOGENIC CONTAMINANTS DUE TO REENTRAINED
DUST FROM ROADS TREATED WITH WASTE OIL UNDER MODERATE USE CONDITIONS
(at 10 meters from roadway)
Waste oil
contaminants
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Benzene
PCB's
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Trichloroethylene
Maximum 30-day concentrations (x = 10 m), ug/m3
Sand
High
0.0004
0.0001
0.0007
<0.0001
0.0012
0.0046
0.0035
0.0008
Low
0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
<0.0001
0.0004
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Clay/sand
High
0.0009
0.0002
0.0016
0.0001
0.0028
0.0383
0.0031
0.0348
Low
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
0
<0.0001
0
Gravel
High
0.0010
0.0003
0.0018
0.0001
0.0032
0.0242
0.0028
0.0305
Low
0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
<0.0001
0.0005
0
0.0001
0
Cancer
risk
4.4xlO"6
5. 7x10" 7
2.3xlO"6
1.5xlO"9
4.0xlO"6
1.4xlO"7
3.4xlO"8
5.6xlO"7
Individual
risk
1:230,000
1:1,800,000
1:430,000
1:670,000,000
1:250,000
1:7,100,000
1:2,900,000
1:180,000
U)
I
CTi
-------
TABLE 3-28. AMBIENT AIR IMPACTS OF CARCINOGENIC CONTAMINANTS DUE TO REENTRAINED
DUST FROM ROADS TREATED WITH WASTE OIL UNDER MODERATE USE CONDITIONS
(at 100 meters from roadway)
Waste oil
contaminants
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Benzene
PCB's
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Trichloroethylene
Maximum 30-day concentrations (x = 10 m), jjg/m3
Sand
High
<0.0001
< 0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
0.0003
0.0002
<0.0001
Low
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Clay/sand
High
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
0.0027
0.0002
0.0025
Low
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Gravel
High
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
0.0018
0.0002
0.0022
Low
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Cancer
risk
<4.0xlO~7
<1.9xlO"7
1.3xlO"6
l.SxlO"9
2.5xlO"7
l.OxlO"8
2.3xlO"9
8.3xlO"8
Individual
risk
(Risk
per population)
<1:2,500,000
<1:5,300,000
1:800,000
1:670,000,000
1:4,000,000
1:100,000,000
1:430,000,000
1:12,000,000
U)
I
UJ
-------
TABLE 3-29. AMBIENT AIR IMPACTS OF CARCINOGENIC CONTAMINANTS DUE TO REENTRAINED
DUST FROM ROADS TREATED WITH WASTE OIL UNDER HEAVY USE CONDITIONS
(at 10 meters from roadway)
Waste oil
contaminants
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Benzene
PCB's
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Tri chl oroethyl ene
Maximum 30-day concentrations (x = 10 m), ug/m3
Sand
High
0.0015
0.0004
0.0026
0.0005
0.0047
0.0180
0.0219
0.0031
Low
0.0005
0.0001
0.0009
<0.0001
0.0017
<0.0001
0.0008
0.0002
Clay/sand
High
0.0035
0.0009
0.0061
0.0005
0.0110
0.1514
0.0198
0.1313
Low
0.0003
<0.0001
0.0005
<0.0001
0.0009
0.0001
0.0023
<0.0001
Gravel
High
0.0040
0.0010
0.0070
0.0005
0.0125
0.0958
0.0177
0.1203
Low
0.0006
0.0001
0.0010
<0.0001
0.0018
0.0024
0.0005
0.0001
Cancer
risk
1.6xlO~ 5
1.9xlO"6
8.8xlO"5
7. 4x10" 9
1.5x!0"5
2.5xlO"6
3.0x10" 7
4. 7x10" 7
Individual
risk
(Risk
per population)
1:63,000
1:530,000
1:11,000
1:2,400,000
1:67,000
1:400,000
1:3,300,000
1:2,100,000
-------
TABLE 3-30. AMBIENT AIR IMPACTS OF CARCINOGENIC CONTAMINANTS DUE TO REENTRAINED
DUST FROM ROADS TREATED WITH WASTE OIL UNDER HEAVY USE CONDITIONS
(at 100 meters from roadway)
Waste oil
contaminants
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Benzene
PCB's
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Maximum 30-day concentrations (x = 10 m), pg/m3
Sand
High
0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
<0.0001
0.0003
0.0013
0.0016
0.0002
Low
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Clay/sand
High
0.0003
<0.0001
0.0004
<0.0001
0.0008
0.0110
0.0014
0.0095
Low
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
0
Gravel
High
0.0003
<0.0001
0.0005
<0.0001
0.0009
0.0069
0.0013
0.0087
Low
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
0
Cancer
risk
1.2xlO"6
<1.9xlO"7
6.3xlO"6
1.5xlO"10
l.lxlO"6
4.0xlO"8
1.8xlO~ 8
1.6x10 7
Individual
risk
(Risk
per population)
1:830,000
<1:5,300,000
1:160,000
1:6,700,000,000
1:910,000
1:25,000,000
1:56,000,000
1:6,300,000
CO
I
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3
1. Bider, W. L., L. E. Seitter, and R. G. Hunt. Survey of the
Oil Industry and Waste Oil Composition. Prepared by
Franklin Associates under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3173.
April 1983.
2. Freestone, F. J. Runoff of Oils From Rural Roads Treated
to Suppress Dust. EPA-R2-72-054, 1972.
3. Stephens, R. D., et al. A Study of the Fate of Selected
Materials in Waste Oils Used for Dust Palliation on Logging
Roads in the Plumas National Forest. California Department
of Health Services, Hazardous Materials Laboratory Section.
March 1981.
4. Hoover, J. M. Surface Improvement and Dust Palliation of
Unpaved Secondary Roads and Streets. Prepared by Engineer-
ing Research Institute, Iowa State University, for the Iowa
State Highway Commission. July 1973.
5. Bohn, R., T. Cuscino, and C. Cowherd. Fugitive Emissions
From Integrated Iron and Steel Plants. Prepared by Midwest
Research Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. March 1978.
6. GCA Corporation. Fate of Hazardous and Nonhazardous Wastes
in Used Oil Recycling. Fifth quarterly report. Prepared
under DOE Contract No. DE-AC19-81BC10375. March 1983.
10,
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. Groundwater.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1979.
New Jersey,
Mackay, D., and M. Mohatadi. The Area Affected by Oil
Spills on Land. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering,
51:434, 1973.
Personal communication between L. E. Seitter, Franklin
Associates Limited, and Professor B. Dempsey, University of
Illinois, November 8, 1982.
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Reasonably Available Control
Measures for Fugitive Dust Sources. Prepared for the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency. September 1980.
3-66
-------
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Listing Waste Oil as
a Hazardous Waste. Report to Congress. SW-909, 1981.
12. Stearns, R.P., D. E. Ross and R. Morrison. Oil Spill:
Decisions for Debris Disposal, Volume II. EPA-600/2-77-1536.
1977.
13. Thibodeaux, L. J. , and S. T. Hwang. Landfarming of Petroleum
Wastes - Modeling the Air Emission Problem. Environmental
Progress, 1(1):42, 1982.
14. Thibodeaux, L. J. Chemodynamics. Wiley - Interscience,
New York. 1979.
15. Peterson, W. B. User's Guide for HIWAY-2. A Highway Air
Pollution Model. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA 600/8-80-018,
May 1980.
16. Larsen, R. I. A Mathematical Model for Relating Air
Quality Measurements to Air Quality Standards. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. AP-89, November 1971.
17. Bowers, J. F., J. R. Bjorkland, and C. S. Cheney. Indus-
trial Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model User's Guide.
Volumes 1 and 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/4-79-030
and EPA-450/4-79-031, December 1979.
18. Holzworth, G. C. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Poten-
tial for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous
United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. AP-101, 1972.
19. U.S. Department of Commerce. Climatic Atlas of the United
States. National Climatic Center, Asheville, North
Carolina. Reprinted by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration in 1974.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. December 1977 Supplement.
21. U.S. Department of Commerce. Rainfall Intensity-Duration-
Frequency Curves. Technical Paper No. 25. December 1955.
22. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. ASCE
MREP-No. 37, WPCF MOP No. 9, 1970.
3-67
-------
SECTION 4
RISK ASSESSMENT
Road oiling with waste oil can result in contamination of
both the air and water. Levels of contamination that may occur
under worst-case conditions are estimated in Section 3. In this
section, these contaminant concentrations have been used to
assess the worst possible health effects that may be associated
with the use of waste oil in road oiling operations. Separate
assessments are made for airborne evaporative emissions and
waterborne and airborne dust emissions. Normally, exposure
resulting from airborne emissions occurs via inhalation of re-
entrained dust or evaporative emissions; whereas exposure from
runoff results from ingestion of contaminated surface water.
Appendix D describes the methodology for the assessment of health
effects, which involves the analysis of both threshold (noncar-
cinogenic) and nonthreshold (carcinogenic) effects.
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND HEALTH RISK ASSOCIATED WITH
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
4.1.1 Threshold Contaminants
The impact on air quality and the risk to human health posed
by evaporative emissions of threshold (noncarcinogenic) contami-
nants from waste oil are assessed by comparing modeled concentra-
tions with environmental exposure limits (EEL's). The exposure
4-1
-------
scenario used to assess the health risk is based on the highest
generation rate for emissions (a heavily oiled road bed composed
of gravel) in the smallest likely air volume (a volume resulting
from windspeeds not exceeding 1 mi/h) for a prolonged exposure
time (8 hours). The results reflect a worst-case output from the
dilution model described in Section 3. A review of the results
presented in Table 4-1 indicates that several waste oil threshold
contaminants that are likely to evaporate into the atmosphere
present a potentially significant health hazard, particularly
dichlorodifluoromethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and trichloro-
ethylene. Toluene presents a lesser hazard; trichlorotrifluoro-
ethane and xylene pose relatively small risks.
TABLE 4-1. A COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED AIRBORNE EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
FROM WASTE OILED ROADBEDS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE LIMITS
Contaminant
Dichlorodif luoromethane
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Xylene
Concentration,
yg/m3
3,598
/rno
UUC
3,804
15,450
127
Percent of
EELa
85
1 n
L3
232
4
3
The value of individual EEL's and the method used to derive the values are
presented in Appendix D.
4.1.2 Nonthreshold Contaminants
The impact on air quality and the risk to human health posed
by evaporative emissions of nonthreshold contaminants (carcino-
gens) from waste oil are assessed by comparing modeled airborne
concentrations with reference concentrations determined from
4-2
-------
cancer potency factors. The results of this assessment are
presented in Table 4-2.
TABLE 4-2. LIFETIME CANCER RISK ASSOCIATED WITH
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM WASTE-OILED ROADBEDS
Contaminant
Benzene
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichl oroethy 1 ene
Airborne
concen-
tration,
yg/m3
198
345
3,804
1,231
Cancer risk
3 x 10"3
4 x 10"3
6 x 10"2
4 x 10"3
Approximate
risk to an
individual
1:330
1:250
1:17
1:250
Based on the estimated airborne concentrations and the
reference concentrations, the cancer risk was estimated for each
waste oil constituent likely to evaporate from waste-oiled road-
beds. Cancer risk is calculated as a ratio of the modeled air-
borne concentration over the reference concentration. The re-
sulting value is expressed in scientific notation and represents
the frequency of cancers per a given population; e.g., the cancer
risk from exposure to benzene is 3.0 x 10 or 3 incidences of
cancer per 1,000,000 population.
Another means of expressing cancer risk is to present the
value in terms of risk to a single individual; e.g., the cancer
risk from benzene (3.0 x 10 ) can be expressed as the risk to a
single individual in terms of 1 chance in 330,000 (1:330,000).
As shown in Table 4-2, all of the waste oil constituents
-4
modeled present a significant risk well in excess of 10 , which
is usually considered the highest acceptable risk level. The
4-3
-------
obvious conclusion is that evaporative emissions from road oiling
pose a significant risk. The concentrations modeled, however,
represent a worst-case exposure, that which occurs immediately
after a road has been newly oiled. Such exposures are most
likely to occur for individuals working or living adjacent to the
road oiling operation. Laborers involved in oiling the road will
suffer high levels of exposure only if the wind is blowing from
the oiled area in the same direction as they are driving.
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
RAINFALL RUNOFF INTO STREAMS
The impact of road oiling on water quality was estimated for
worst-case scenarios involving different roadbed materials and
heavy rainfalls in Nevada and Florida. (These two states experi-
ence the extremes in high-intensity rainfalls.) Estimates were
made of waterborne concentrations in the immediate runoff from
oiled roads and also in nearby surface water following dilution.
The results of the modeling of different roadbed materials indi-
cate that the highest runoff concentrations are likely to occur
following the heavy oiling of predominantly sandy roadbeds (see
Table 3-18). This worst-case scenario is also likely to produce
the highest concentrations in nearby surface stream water (see
Table 3-20). As expected, light oiling has a lesser impact on
both runoff and surface stream waters. A risk analysis was
performed for road oil contaminants in a stream adjacent to an
oiled sand road, assuming 5 percent removal of oil from the
roads. (See Table 3-22.)
4-4
-------
4.2.1 Threshold Contaminants
The impact on water quality and the risk to human health
posed by waterborne concentrations of threshold contaminants from
waste oil were assessed by comparing the calculated stream con-
centrations with estimated environmental exposure limits, as
shown in Table 4-3. A comparison of the modeling results with
the EEL's indicates that several oil constituents in the runoff
from oiled roads may have a substantial impact on water quality.
Based on a heavily oiled road and a heavy Nevada rainfall, the
modeling and risk assessment indicate that barium, lead, and
benzo(a)anthracene exceed their respective EEL's and therefore
present the greatest risks. Cadmium concentrations are nearly
equal to the EEL; therefore, they also pose a potentially signif-
icant risk. Zinc, naphthalene, and xylene concentrations in the
modeled scenario are between 19 and 26 percent of their EEL's;
dichlorodifluoromethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and toluene are
between 3 and 10 percent of their EEL's. Only chromium is esti-
mated by the modeling to be less than 1 percent of its EEL.
Risks resulting from a lightly oiled road are substantially
less; however, some contaminants are still potentially signifi-
cant. Benzene concentrations in the hypothetical stream exceed
the EEL, lead is present at 66 percent of its EEL, and barium is
present at 6 percent. All the other threshold contaminants
modeled are at concentrations less than 1 percent of their EEL's.
4.2.2 Nonthreshold Contaminants
Potential cancer risks associated with road oiling were
calculated by comparing the estimated waterborne concentrations
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-3. COMPARISON OF EEL'S AND ROAD OIL CONTAMINANTS IN A HYPOTHETICAL
STREAM, ASSUMING 5 PERCENT OIL RUNOFF FROM THE ROAD
Substance
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (II and III)
Lead
Zinc
Benzo(a)anthracene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Naphthalene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Xylene
EEL,a
yg/1 iter
260
10
5,900
50
5,000
0.776
28,000
3,400
14,300
18,400
3,487
Concentration in
stream, yg/1 iter
Highb
550
4.5
3.2
1,130
1,300
40
970
660
1,360
1,470
650
LowC
16
0.133
0.925
33
38
1.16
28.5
19
39.5
43
19
Percent of EEL
Highb
211
95
<1
2,260
26
5,155
3
19
10
8
19
Lowc
6
1
<1
66
<1
149
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Environmental Exposure Limit for substances in water. See Appendix D,
Table D-5.
Based on a heavily oiled road and a heavy Nevada rainfall. Values from
Table 3-22.
0 Based on a lightly oiled road and a heavy Florida rainfall. Values from
Table 3-22.
4-6
-------
of waste oil contaminants in a hypothetical stream with reference
concentrations for each carcinogen. This comparison is presented
in Table 4-4. The cancer risk is calculated as a ratio of the
modeled waterborne concentration to the reference concentration.
In Table 4-5 the results of the comparison are presented
according to risk level. For the first road oiling scenario
(heavy road oiling followed by a heavy Nevada rainfall), PCB's in
road oil present a potentially significant risk at a level of
-4
10 (1 cancer in 10,000). When the acceptable risk level is
reduced to 10 (1 cancer in 100,000), PCB's and benzo(a)pyrene
pose potentially significant risks to human health. At a risk
level of 10 (1 cancer in a million), arsenic, benzene, tetra-
chloroethylene and 1,1,2-trichloroethane (in addition to PCB's
and benzo(a)pyrene) present significant risks.
For the second road oiling scenario (light oil application
followed by a heavy Florida rainfall), only PCB's present a
-4
significant risk at a level of 10 . All other contaminants
modeled pose cancer risks of less than one in a million.
4.2.3 Other Adverse Environmental Effects of Waterborne Oil
In addition to the dispersion modeling and assessment of
risk to human health performed for waste oil contaminants, an
evaluation was made of other adverse environmental impacts from
oil runoff (rather than oil contaminants) into surface waters.
In addition to the more immediate interest in the protection of
human health, protection of other species is also vital. A brief
review of the literature addressing effects of waste or fuel oil
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-4. ESTIMATES OF CANCER RISKS FROM ROAD OIL CONTAMINANTS IN A
HYPOTHETICAL STREAM, ASSUMING 5 PERCENT OIL RUNOFF FROM THE ROAD
Substance
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCB's
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
1 ,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichl oroethy 1 ene
Reference
concentration
wg/liter
0.22
6.6
0.028
0.00079
8.0
6.0
27
Concentration in
stream, yg/liter
High3
18
180
38
57
1,360
1,470
1,180
Lowb
0.5
5.5
1.0
1.5
39.5
43
34.5
Cancer risk to
a population
High3
8.18 x 10"3
2.72 x 10"4
1.36 x 10~2
7.22 x 10"1
1.70 x 10"3
2.45 x 10"3
4.37 x 10"4
Low5
2.27 x 10*4
8.33 x 10"6
3.57 x 10~4
1.90 x 10"2
4.94 x 10"5
7.17 x 10"5
1.28 x 10"5
Cancer risk to
an individual
High3
1:122
1:3700
1:73
1:1.4
1:588
1:408
1:2290
Lowb
1:4,400
1:120,000
1:2,800
1:53
1:20,300
1:14,000
1:78,300
I
00
Based on a heavily oiled road and a heavy Nevada rainfall. Values taken from Table 3-22.
Based on a lightly oiled road and a heavy Florida rainfall. Values taken from Table 3-22.
-------
TABLE 4-5. WASTE OIL CONTAMINANTS POSING GIVEN CANCER RISK LEVELS
FROM RUNOFF INTO A STREAM, ASSUMING 5 PERCENT OIL RUNOFF FROM THE ROAD
Road oiling scenario
Heavily oiled road and
a heavy Nevada rainfall
Lightly oiled road and
a heavy Florida rain-
fall
Contaminants posing given risk levels
10-"
(1 cancer
per 10,000)
All contami-
nants modeled
Arsenic
Benzo(a)
pyrene
PCB's
lO'5
(1 cancer
per 100,000)
All contami-
nants modeled
All contami-
nants modeled
except benzene
10'6
(1 cancer
per 1,000,000)
All contami-
nants modeled
All contami-
nants modeled
4-9
-------
on fresh water (potential drinking water sources) revealed the
following:
0 One study estimated the maximum acceptable toxicant
concentration for the water-soluble fraction of used
crankcase oil to be between 325 and 930 yl/liter, based
on short-term lethality tests on the American Flagfish,
Jordanella floridae.l The authors speculate that zinc,
lead, and cadmium contribute significantly to the
toxicity of the waste oil tested.
0 Semicontinuous additions of an oil-water dispersion of
No. 2 fuel oil to marine ecosystems for 25 weeks re-
sulted in a highly significant decline in the number of
species.2 The water column hydrocarbon levels were
maintained at 190 ppb to simulate chronic oil pollu-
tion.
0 A 7000-gallon diesel fuel oil spill into a freshwater
creek near Salem, South Carolina, caused a 90 percent
fish kill. Six months later, downstream locations
contained reduced numbers and types of organisms.
Thirteen months later, sediment samples still revealed
the presence of hydrocarbons in the creek and the
downstream lake.3
0 Short-term laboratory mortality tests with the fresh-
water soluble fraction of waste oil indicated that 0.2
to 1.1 percent by volume (1,000 to 11,000 yl/liter) was
lethal to freshwater fish.4 The chronic, "no-effect"
level was between 80 and 330 yl/liter total oil. Tis-
sue residue analysis indicated that significant accumu-
lation of normal hydrocarbons, zinc, lead, and cadmium
occurs. The report stated that the potential for dam-
age from lead exists when the soluble oil concentration
exceeds 8 yl/liter total oil. The 96-hour LC 50 for
fathead minnows exposed to floating oil was 11,000
yl/liter of oil. This is higher than 96-hour LC 50's
of 370 yl/liter reported for flagfish exposed to emulsi-
fied oil.
0 An Illinois oil company was practicing land-spreading
of oily sludges on clay soil experienced a fish kill in
the refinery lake after a rainstorm washed the sludge
into the lake.4 The sludge had been applied, but not
yet cultivated into the soil.
0 Large oil applications used in land farming may be
toxic to plants in the short term because of mechanical
4-10
-------
obstruction to plant surfaces and the resulting inabil-
ity of the plants to obtain moisture. In the longer
term, however, plant life may increase because of
increased soil productivity.*
0 Floating oil can cause damage to waterfowl and aquatic
mammals (e.g., muskrats) because of loss of buoyancy
and swimming capacity resulting from oil emersion and
the potential toxic effects of oil ingestion.
The runoff modeling indicates that waste oil concentrations
in streams from oil-contaminated runoff range from 8 mg/liter to
20,300 mg/liter. Results also indicate that oil film thicknesses
on a stream could vary from 77.6 to 9200 nm (see Table 3-18);
results of all but two of the modeling scenarios indicate film
thicknesses are within the visible range.
Experimental data on aquatic toxicity due to oil contamina-
tion of water indicate increased mortality above 370 yl/liter and
4
a no-effect level at 80 to 330 yl/liter. Oil concentrations in
the stream calculated from the models (8 to 20,300 mg/liter)
obviously can be great enough to have adverse effects on aquatic
organisms in addition to causing aesthetic deterioration of the
stream from visible oil films and possible harm to plant life.
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND HEALTH RISKS OF REENTRAINED DUST
EMISSIONS
The impact of reentrained dust emissions was estimated for
several scenarios involving the use of waste oil on different
roadbeds.
Reentrained dust emissions containing inorganic contaminants
occur in the greatest quantities following heavy traffic on oiled
4-11
-------
gravel roadbeds (see Table 3-24). In contrast, organic contam-
inants occur in greatest quantities following heavy traffic on
several different kinds of roadbeds. Depending on the contami-
nant of concern, the worst-case scenario may involve sand, clay/
sand, or gravel roadbeds (see Table 3-24). An assessment was
made of the health implications of waste-oil-contaminated reen-
trained dust based on the specific worst-case scenario for each
contaminant.
4.3.1 Threshold Contaminants
The impact on air quality and the risk to human health posed
by reentrained dust containing threshold waste oil contaminants
was assessed by comparing the modeling results with estimated
environmental exposure limits. The results of this comparison,
presented in Table 4-6, indicate that only barium and lead are
present in sufficient quantities to be of significant concern.
The remaining substances are present at concentrations equal to
or less than 1 percent of their EEL's. It should be kept in mind
that the concentrations shown are based on one application only;
repeated applications could result in increased concentrations
over time.
Barium—
The results of modeling for barium compounds in reentrained
dust showed levels equal to 0.12 yg/m3 or 28 percent of the ap-
plicable EEL. Because these modeling results represent a worst-
case scenario, concentrations under actual conditions would
probably be less.
4-12
-------
TABLE 4-6. COMPARISON OF AIRBORNE WASTE OIL CONTAMINANTS
RESULTING FROM REENTRAINED DUST EMISSIONS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE LIMITS1
Contaminant
Barium
Chromium (II and III)C
Lead
Zinc
Naphthalene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Xylene
Concentration,
pg/m3
0.1209b
0.00705
0.2534b
0.28665
0.12245
0.0247d
0.0958b
0.01756
Percent
of EEL
28
<1
17
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
a See Table 3-24.
Based on high concentration on gravel roadbed.
c EEL for chromium is based on chromium II and III; modeled
concentration is total chromium because the relative quan-
tities of II and III are not known.
Based on high concentration on clay/sand roadbed.
e Based on high concentration on sand roadbed.
4-13
-------
Lead—
The results of modeling for lead compounds showed levels of
0.25 yg/m3 or 17 percent of the applicable EEL. Although this
concentration is not of significant concern in itself, the lead
content of reentrained dust from waste oil applications could
contribute to the already elevated ambient lead levels in certain
areas of the country.
4.3.2 Nonthreshold Contaminants
The impact on air quality and the risk to human health posed
by nonthreshold substances in reentrained dust emissions was as-
sessed against reference concentrations developed from the EPA's
cancer potency factors. (See Appendix D for derivation and
discussion of reference concentrations.) The results of this
assessment are presented in Table 4-7. The quantification of
cancer risk is achieved by comparing the highest modeled airborne
concentration of each contaminant (worst-case traffic and road
oiling scenario) against its respective reference concentration.
The significance of the results in Table 4-7 depend on the
level of risk selected as acceptable. If a risk level of 1
-4
cancer in 10,000 (10 ) is considered acceptable, only chromium
presents a significant health problem. On the other hand, if a
lower risk level of 1 cancer in 1,000,000 (10 ) is chosen as the
highest acceptable level, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, PCB's, and
1,1,2-trichloroethane are all present in unacceptable concentra-
tions. Table 4-8 identifies the waste oil constituents found in
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-7. COMPARISON OF AIRBORNE WASTE OIL CONTAMINANTS
RESULTING FROM REENTRAINED DUST EMISSIONS WITH REFERENCE CONCENTRATIONS1
Contaminant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Benzene
Polychlorinated biphenols
1,1, 2-tr ichl oroethane
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Trichl oroethyl ene
Concentration,
yg/m3
0.0040b
0.0010b
0.0070b
0.0005b
0.0125b
0.1514C
0.0198C
0.1203C
Cancer risk
1.6 x 10"5
1.9 x 10"6
8.8 x 10"5
7.4 x 10"9
1.5 x 10"5
2.5 x 10"6
3.0 x 10"7
4.3 x 10"7
Lifetime cancer
risk to an
individual
1:60,000
1:526,000
1:10,000
1:135,000,000
1:67,000
1:400,000
1:3,300,000
1:2,310,000
a See Table 3-28.
Based on high concentration on gravel roadbed.
c Based on high concentration on clay/sand roadbed.
4-15
-------
reentrained dust that are of concern for three levels of risk
1(T4, 10~5, and 10~6.
TABLE 4-8. WASTE OIL CONSTITUENTS IN
CONCENTRATIONS THAT PRESENT A POTENTIALLY UNACCEPTABLE CANCER RISK3
Acceptable risk level
10
10
-4
-5
10
-6
Waste oil constituent presenting
a significant health problem
Chromium
Arsenic, chromium, and PCB's
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, PCB's,
and 1,1,2-trichloroethane
a Assessment is based on results given in Table 4-7.
4.4 SUMMARY
Road oiling can present significant risks to human health
and the environment from evaporative emissions, rainfall runoff,
and reentrained dust emissions.
4.4.1 Evaporative Emissions
Several threshold contaminants that are likely to evaporate
into the atmosphere from an oiled road present a significant risk
to human health, particularly dichlorodifluoromethane, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and trichloroethylene. Toluene presents a
lesser hazard. All of the nonthreshold contaminants modeled
present a significant risk well in excess of 1 cancer in 10,000.
The obvious conclusion from the modeling results is that evapora-
tive emissions from road oiling present significant risks to
persons exposed to freshly oiled roads. The models, however,
4-16
-------
allow for very little dilution and transport, which would rapidly
decrease the concentrations of contaminants in the air.
4.4.2 Rainfall Runoff
The analyses have indicated that road oiling of sand road-
beds followed by high-intensity rainfall is likely to result in
waterborne concentration of lead and benzanthracene that could be
hazardous to human health if the runoff were to enter nearby
drinking water sources. Conversely, the models indicate that
concentrations of waste oil contaminants in a stream adjacent to
silt and clay roadbeds (assuming a light oil application followed
by a high-intensity rainfall) do not pose significant risks to
human health.
Runoff from waste-oiled roads can also have an adverse
impact on plant life, fish, and other aquatic life. In addition,
it can cause oil slicks that decrease the aesthetics of a stream
and can be harmful to birds and aquatic animals.
4.4.3 Reentrained Dust Emissions
The threshold contaminants (barium and lead) present low
levels of risk to human health. Nonthreshold contaminants also
present some risks. At a risk level of 1 cancer in 100,000
people, chromium, arsenic, and PCB's present significant risks.
At a risk level of 1 in 10,000, only chromium is significant. At
a risk level of 1 in 1,000,000, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
PCB's, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane present significant risks.
4-17
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. Hedtke, S. F., and F. A. Puglisi. Effects of Waste Oil on
the Survival and Reproduction of the American Flagfish,
Jordanella Floridae. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, 37:757-764, 1980.
2. Grassle, J. F., R. Elmgren, and J. P. Grassle. Response of
Benthic Communities in Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory
(MERL) Experimental Ecosystems to Low Level, Chronic Addi-
tions of No. 2 Fuel Oil. EPA-600/J-80-389, March 1982.
3. Schultz, D. A. Boone Creek Oil Spill. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV, Athens, Georgia. December
1983.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Oil Study.
Report to Congress. April 1974.
4-18
-------
APPENDIX A
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF FACTORS
AFFECTING WASTE OIL EVAPORATION
Evaporation of waste oil has been estimated with a model
developed by Mackay, Equations A-l through A- 3.
q = KP. /RT (A-l)
1 D
where K = mass transfer coefficient, m/h
P. = partial vapor pressure, atm
R = ideal gas constant, m3 atm/mol K
T = soil surface temperature, K
s
q = evaporation rate, mol/m2-h
K = 0.0292 V0*78 IT0'11 Sc-°'67 (A-2)
0.0292 = units conversion factor
V = wind velocity measured at height of
10 m, m/h
W = road width, m
Sc = Schmidt number (unitless)
(A-3)
X. = mole fraction of oil component 1 (unitless)
P? = ideal vapor pressure of oil component i, atm
A-l
-------
Variables
Ideal vapor pressures (Table A-l) and mole fractions are
used to calculate the partial vapor pressures for a particular
waste oil component at a specific concentration and temperature.
Data were not available for ideal vapor pressures of all the oil
components of concern. No data were found for benzo(a)anthracene
and benzo(a)pyrene. Data for PCB's, dichlorodifluoromethane, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane were limited to only one temperature.
Calculations of mole fractions were based on an average density
of waste oil of 0.91 g/ml and an average molecular weight for
2
waste oil of 449 g/mole.
Schmidt number data were also limited to waste oil compo-
nents. Values for other components were calculated (Table A-2).
Results
A sensitivity analysis of the effects of variations in wind-
speed and surface temperature on evaporation rates was conducted
for seven organic waste oil components: 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene> tetrachloroethylene, benzene, toluene, xylene,
and naphthalene. For those contaminants on which vapor pressure
data were available at only one surface temperature (dichlorodi-
fluoromethane, trichlorotrifluoroethane, and PCB's), the sensi-
tivity analysis was restricted to only windspeed. The sensitivi-
ty analysis did not include benzo (a)anthracene and benzo(a)-
pyrene because no data on vapor pressures at any surface tempera-
ture were found. Concentration effects were also evaluated. All
A-2
-------
compounds for which physical data were available were analyzed at
both the 75th and 90th percentile concentrations (Tables A-3
through A-15).
Assumptions and Limitations
Several assumptions were necessary in the calculation of
evaporation rates of waste oil components. As a result, appli-
cation of these results has some limitations, which are listed
below.
1. The calculated evaporation rates are based on initial
concentration levels. As evaporation proceeds, both concentra-
tions and evaporation rates will decrease.
2. The Schmidt number and vapor pressures were calcu-
lated for most components. Because actual values will probably
vary somewhat from these calculated values, slight changes may
occur in the evaporation rates determined.
3. Worst-case temperature was assumed to be 100F . Actual
road surface temperatures will vary; they will be higher in the
afternoon and cooler in the morning.
4. Windspeed will vary throughout the day and from day to
day, which will cause evaporation rates to vary.
5. All of the applied oil will not be subject to surface
evaporation. Some will seep into the road surface, some will be
carried away with windblown dust, and some may be washed away by
rainfall.
A-3
-------
" TABLE A-l
VAPOR PRESSURES (ATM) OF SELECTED WASTE OIL COMPONENTS
AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES*
PCB's
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
0°C
25 °C
50 °C
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.3x10 7§
6.5xlO~7§
1.0xlO~7§
5.3xlO~B§
NA
NA
NA
NA
214 °C
Chlorinated Solvents
Dichlorodif luorome thane
Trichlorotrif luoroethane
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Other Drganics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene
0.57
NA
-t
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
NAf
NA
0.16
9.5xlO~2
2 . 3xlO~2
9.54xlO~2
3. 3x10" 2
-
NA
NA
1.32x10""
NA
NA
0.45
0.28
7.8xlO~2
0.27
0.11
-
NA
NA
1.32xlO~3
NA
33.7
-
-
-
—
-
-
NA
' -NA
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
* All values calculated based on constants in Reference 3.
t NA = not available.
j "-" = not calculated.
§ From Reference 4.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-2
SCHMIDT NUMBERS FOR SELECTED WASTE OIL COMPONENTS*
Chlorinated solvents
Dichlorodifluoromethane (2.34)
Trichlorotrifluoroethane (2.90)
Trichloroethane (2.44)
Trichloroethylene (2.42)
Tetrachloroethylene (2.72)
Other organics
Benzene 1.76
Toluene (2.03)
Xylene 2.18
Benzo(a)anthracene -f
Benzo(a)pyrene -
Naphthalene - (2.39)
PCB's
Aroclor 1242 (3.39)
Aroclor 1248 (3.61)
Aroclor 1254 (3.82)
Aroclor 126'0 (4.02)*
All values in parentheses are calculated. Other values, Reference 5.
'"-" means values not calculated.
Value used for PCB evaporation calculation (Table A-14).
A-5
-------
TABLE A-3
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE*
Wind speed
(mi/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Wind speed
(m/hr)
1,609
3,218
4,827
6,436
8,045
9,654
11,263
12,872
14,481
16,090
17,699
19,308
20,917
22,526
24,135
25,744
27,353
28,962
30,571
32,180
33,789
35,398
37,007
38,616
40,225
41,834
43,443
45,052
46,661
48,270
49,879
51,488
53,097
54,706
56,315
57,924
59,533
61,142
62,751
64,360
Mass transfer
coefficient (K)
(m/hr)
4.34
7.46
10.23
12.81
15.24
17.57
19.81
21.99
24.11
26.17
28.19
30.17
32.11
34.02
35.90
37.76
39.59
41.39
43.17
44.94
46.68
48.40
50.11
51.80
53.48
55.14
56.79
58.42
60.04
61.65
63.25
64.84
66.41
67.98
69.53
71.07
72.61
74.14
75.65
77.16
75th Percentilef
Evaporation
rate @ 0 C
(aol/sq. o-hr.)
0.10
0.16
0.23
0.28
0.34
0.39
0.44
0.48
0.53
0.58
0.62
0.66
0.71
0.75
0.79
0.83
0.87
0.91
0.95
0.99
1.03
1.07
1.10
1.14
1.18
1.21
1.25
1.29
1.32
1.36
1.39
1.43
1.46
1.50
1.53
1.56
1.60
1.63
1.67
1.70
90th Percentilet
Evaporation
rate @ 0 C
(aol/sq. m-hr.)
0.39
0.67
0.92
1.15
1.37
1.58
1.79
1.98
2.17
2.36
2.54 •
2.72
2.90
3.07
3.24
3.40
3.57
3.73
3.89
4.05
4.21
4.36
4.52
4.67
4.82
4.97
5.12
5.27
5.41
5.56
5.70
5.85
5.99
6.13
6.27
6.41
6.55
6.68
6.82
6.96
* Molecular weight = 120.914 g/mol. Schmidt number = 2.34.
t Concentration = 210 mg/1. Partial pressure = 4.935x10"^ atm. at 0 C.
$ Concentration = 860 mg/1. Partial pressure = 2.021xlO~3 atm. at 0 C.
A-6
-------
TABLE A-4
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE*
Wind speed
(mi/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
f\ C
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Wind speed
(m/hr)
1,609
3,218
4,827
6,436
8,045
9,654
11,263
12,872
14,481
16,090
17,699
19,308
20,917
22,526
24,135
25,744
27,353
28,962
30,571
32,180
33,789
35,398
37,007
38,616
40,225
41,834
43,443
45,052
46,661
48,270
49,879
51,488
53,097
54,706
56,315
57,924
59,533
61,142
62,751
64,360
Mass transfer
coefficient (K)
(m/hr)
3.76
6.46
8.86
11.09
13.20
15.22
17.16
19.04
20.88
22.67
24.41
26.13
27.81
29.47
31.10
32.70
34.29
35.85
37.39
38.92
40.43
41.92
43.40
44.87
46.32
47.76
49.18
50.60
52.00
53.40
54.78
56.15
57.52
58.87
60.22
61.56
62.89
64.21
65.52
66.83
75th Percentilet
Evaporation
rate @ 214 C
(mol/sq . m-hr . )
0.28
0.47
0.65
0.81
0.97
1.11
1.26
1.40
1.53
1.66
1.79
1.91
2.04
2.16
2.28
2.40
2.51
2.63
2.74
2.85
2.96
3.07
3.18
3.29
3.35
3.50
3.60
3.71
3.81
3.91
4.01
4.11
4.21
4.31
4.41
4.51
4.61
4.70
4.80
4.90
90th Percentilet
Evaporation
rate @ 214 C
(mol/sq. m-hr.)
1.08
1.86
2.56
3.20
3.81
4.39
4.95
5.49
6.02
6.54
7.04 ''
7.54
8.02
8.50
8.97
9.43
9.89
10.34
10.78
11.22
11.66
12.09
12.52
12.94
13. 36
13.77
14.18
14.59
15.00
15.40
15.80
16.19
16.59
16.98
17.37
17.75
18.14
18.52
18.90
19.27
* Molecular weight = 187.38 g/mol. Schmidt number = 2.90.
t Concentration = 33 mg/1. Partial pressure = 2.929xlO~3 atm. at 214 C.
% Concentration = 130 mg/1. Partial pressure = 1.153xlO~2 atm. at 214 C,
A-7
-------
TABLE A-5
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - TRICHLOROETHANE*
75th Percentllet
Mass transfer Evaporation
Hind speed Hind speed
(•i/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(»/hr)
1,609
3.218
4.827
6.436
8.045
9.654
11.263
12.872
14.481
16 .090
17.699
19.308
20,917
22,526
24.135
25,744
27.353
28,962
30.571
32,180
33,789
35.398
37.007
38.616
40,225
41.834
43,443
45,052
46,661
48,270
49.879
51,488
53.097
54.706
56.315
57.924
59.533
61.142
62,751
64,360
coefficient
(m/hr)
4.22
7.25
9.95
12.45
14.82
17.08
19.27
21.38
23.44
25.45
27.41
29.33
31.22
33.08
34.91
36.71
38.49
40.25
41.98
43.69
45.39
47.07
48.73
50.37
52.00
53.62
55.22
56.81
58.38
S9.95
61.50
63.04
64.58
66.10
67.61
69.11
70.60
72.09
73.56
75.03
(K) rate 6 50 C
(•ol/sq. M-hr) (i
0.16
0.27
0.37
0.46
0.55
0.63
0.72
0.79
0.87
0.95
1.02
1.09
1.16
1.23
1.30
1.36
1.43
1.50
1.56
1.62
1.69
1.75
1.81
1.87
1.93
1.99
2.05
2.11
2.17
2.23
2.29
2.34
2.40
2.46
2.51
2.57
2.62
2.68
2.73
2.79
Evaporation
rate § 25 C
lol/aq. sj-hr)
0.06
0.10
0.14
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.27
0.30
0.33
0.36
0.39
0.41
0.44
0.47
0.49
0.52
0.54
0.57
0.59
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.69
0.71
0.73
0.76
0.78
0.80
0.82
0.85
0.87
0.89
0.91
0.93
0.96
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
« Molecular weight - 133.405 g/mol. Schmidt nuaber - 2-**-
t Concentration - 590 mg/1. Partial pressure - 9.853x10-* at«. at 50 C
i Concentration - 1300 ag/1. Partial pressure - 2.171xlO"J at». at 50
90th Percentllet
Evaporation
rate « 50 C
(•ol/sq. *-hr)
0.35
0.59
0.81
1.02
1.21
1.40
1.58
1.75
1.92
2.08
2.24
2.40
2.56
2.71
2.86
3.01
3.15
3.29
3.44
3.58
3.72
3.85
3.99
4.12
4.26
4.39
4.52
4.65
4.78
4.91
5.04
5.16
5.29
5.41
5.53
5.66
5.78
5.90
6.02
6.14
and 3.456x10-*
C and 7.615x10-4
Evaporation
rate @ 25
(aol/eq. m-
0.13
0.23
0.31
0.39
0.46
0.53
0.60
0.67
0.73
0.79
0.85
0.91
0.97
1.03
1.09
1.14
•1.20
1.25
1.31
1.36
1.41
1.46
1.52
1.57
1.62,
1.67/
1.72
1.7-
1.8
l.f
1.'
1.'
2/
/
/
/
/
/
/
atm at 25 C.
atm at 25 C.
C
hr)
i
I
i
1
:
i
A-8
-------
TABLE A-6
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - TRICHLOROETHYLENE*
75th Percentilet
Mass transfer
Wind speed Wind speed coefficient (K)
(mi/hr) («/hr) (m/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1,609
3,218
4.827
6.436
8.045
9.654
11.263
12.872
14.481
16.090
17,699
19.308
20.917
22.526
24.135
25.744
27.353
28.962
30.571
32.180
33,789
35.398
31 ,UU/
38.616
40,225
41.834
43.443
45.052
46,661
48,270
49,879
51,488
53,097
54.706
56.315
57,924
59.533
61.142
62,751
64.360
4.25
7.29
10.00
12.52
14.90
17.18
19.37
21.50
23.57
25.59
27.56
29.50
31.40
33.27
35.11
36.92
38.71
40.47
42.21
43.94
45.64
47.33
49.00
50.65
52.29
53.91
55.52
57.12
58.71
60.28
61.84
63.39
64.93
66.46
67.98
69.49
70.99
72.49
73.97
75.44
Evaporation
rate g 50 C
(mol/sq. *-hr)
0.08
0.14
0.20
0.25
0.29
0.34
0.38
0.42
0.46
0.50
0.54
0.58
0.62
0.65
0.69
0.72
0.76
0.79
0.83
0.86
0.90
0.93
0.96
0.99
1.03
1.06
1.09
1.12
1.15
1.18
1.21
1.24
1.27
1.30
1.33
1.36
1.39
1.42
1.45
1.48
Evaporation
rate 8 25 C
(nol/eq. B-hr)
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.15
0.17
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.28
0.29
0.30
0.31
0.33
0.34
0.35
0.36
0.37
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.54
90th Percentilet
Evaporation
rate 6 50 C
(mol/sq. a-hr)
0.18
0.31
0.42
0.53
0.63
0.72
0.81
0.90
0.99
1.07
1.16
1.24
1.32
1.40
1.47
1.55
1.62
1.70
1.77
1.84
1.92
1.99
2.06
2.13
2.19
2.26
2.33
2.40
2.46
2.53
2.60
2.66
2.73
2.79
2.85
2.92
2.98
3.04
3.10
3.17
Evaporation
rate § 25 C
(mol/eq. m-hr)
0.07
0.11
0.15
0.19
0.23
0.26
0.30
0.33
0.36
0.39
0.42
0.45
0.48
0.51
0.54
0.57
0.59
0.62
0.65
0.67
0.70
0.72
0.75
0.78
0.80
0.83
0.85
0.88
0.90
0.92
0.95
0.97
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.07
1.09
1.11
1.13
1.16
* Molecular weight • 131.389 g /mol. Schmidt number • 2.42.
t Concentration - 490 ag/1. Partial pressure • 5.201x10"* atm. at SO C and 1.753x10"* at 25 C.
| Concentration • 1.049 »g/l. Partial pressure - 1.113xlO~3 atm. at 50 C and 3.752x10"* at 25 C.
A-9
-------
TABLE A-7
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - TETRACHLOROETHYLENE*
75th Percentilet
90th Percentilej
Wind speed
(mi/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Wind speed c
(«/hr)
1.609
3.218
4.827
6.436
8.045
9.654
11.263
12,872
14.481
16.090
17.699
19,308
20.917
22.526
24,135
25.744
27.353
28.962
30,571
32,180
33.789
35.398
37.007
38,616
40,225
41.834
43.443
45.052
46.661
48.270
49.879
51.488
53,097
54,706
56.315
57,924
59.533
61.142
62,751
64,360
Mass transfer
oefflclent (K)
(m/hr)
3.93
6.74
9.25
11.58
13.78
15.88
17.91
19.88
21.80
23.66
25.49
27.28
29.03
30.76
32.46
34.14
35.79
37.42
39.03
40.63
42.20
43.76
45.31
46.84
48.35
49.85
51.34
52.82
54.29
55.74
57.18
58.62
60.04
61.46
62.86
64.26
65.65
67.03
68.40
69.76
Evaporation
race 9 50 C
(mol/sq. m-hr)
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
Evaporation
rate « 25 C
(mol/sq. n-hr) (n
4.14 E-3
7.10 E-3
9.75 E-3
1.22 E-2
1.45 E-2
1.67 E-2
1.89 E-2
2.09 E-2
2.30 E-2
2.49 E-2
2.69 E-2
2.87 E-2
3.06 E-2
3.24 E-2
3.42 E-2
3.60 E-2
3.77 E-2
3.94 E-2
4.11 E-2
4.28 E-2
4.45 E-2
4.61 E-2
4.77 E-2
4.94 E-2
5.09 E-2
5.25 E-2
5.41 E-2
5.57 E-2
5.72 E-2
5.87 E-2
.03 E-2
.18 E-2
.33 E-2
.48 E-2
.62 E-2
.77 E-2
.92 E-2
7.06 E-2
J.21 E-2
7.35 E-2
Evaporation
rate 9 50 C
ol/sq. B-hr)
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.12
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.40
0.41
0.43
0.45
0.46
0.48
0.49
0.51
0.53
0.54
0.56
0.57
0.59
0.60
0.62
0.63
6.65
0.66
0.68
0.69
0.71
0.72
0.74
Evaporation
rate 3 25 C
(mol/sq. B-hr)
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
6.15
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.24
* Molecular weight - 165.834 g/mol. Schmidt number • 2.72.
t Concentration - 370 Bg/1. Partial pressure • 8.632x10^? at*, at
| Concentration - 1,200 »g/l. Partial pressure • 2.8x10 at«. at
50 C and 2.578xlO~* atn. at 25 C.
50 C and 8.361x10 atn. at 25 C.
A-10
-------
TABLE A-8
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - BENZENE*
75th Percentllet
Wind speed Wind speed
(ml/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
36
39
40
-------
TABLE A-9
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - TOLUENE*
75th Percent lie t
Wind speed
(•1/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
MM* transfer
Wind speed coefficient (K)
(»/hr) (m/hr)
1.609
3.218
4.827
6.436
8.045
9.654
11,263
12.872
14.481
16.090
17,699
19.306
20.917
22,526
24.135
25.744
27.353
28.962
30.571
32,180
33.789
35.396
37.007
38.616
40.225
41,834
43,443
45,052
46.661
48.270
49.879
51.488
53.097
54.706
56.315
57.924
59.533
61.142
62.751
64.360
4.78
8.20
11.25
14.09
16.76
19.32
21.79
24.19
26.51
28.78
31.01
33.18
35.32
37.42
39.49
41.53
43.54
45.53
47.49
49.43
51.34
53.24
55.12
56.98
58.82
60.65
62.46
64.26
66.04
67.81
69.57
71.31
73.05
74.77
76.48
78.18
79.86
81.54
83.21
84.87
Evaporation
rate 0 50 C
(nol/sq. m-hr)
0.05
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.23
0.26
0.28
0.31
0.33
0.36
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.44
0.47
0.49
0.51
0.53
0.55
0.57
0.59
0.61
0.63
0.65
0.67
0.69
0.71
0.73
0.74
0.76
0.78
0.80
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.87
0.89
0.91
Evaporation
rate 8 25 C
(mol/sq. B-hr) (n
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.26
0.29
0.30
90th Percentllet
Evaporation
rate 9 50 C
lol/sq. «-hr)
0.13
0.22
0.30
0.37
0.44
0.51
0.57
0.63
0.70
0.75
0.81
0.87
0.93
0.98
1.04
1.09
1.14
1.19
1.24
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.44
1.49
1.54
1.59
1.64
1.68
1.73
1.78
1.82
1.87
1.91
1.96
2.00
2.05
2.09
2.14
2.18
2.22
Evaporation
rate 0 25 C
(mol/sq. »-hr)
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.25
0.27
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.37
0.39
0.41
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.47
0.49
0.50
0.52
0.53
0.55
0.57
0.58
0.60
0.61
0.63
0.64
0.65
O.t>/
0.68
0.70
0.71
0.73
25 C.
* Molecular weight - 490 g/mol. Schmidt number • 2.03. , .
t Concentration • 490 mg/1. Partial pressure - 2.839xlO~ atm. at 50 C and 8.55xlO~ atm. at 25 C.
t Concentration - 1.200 mg/1. Partial pressure • 6.952x10"* atm. at 50 C and 2.095xlO~* atm. at
A-12
-------
TABLE A-10
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - XYLENE*
75th Percertilet
Hind speed Wind speed
-------
TABLE A-11
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - PCB'S (AROCLOR 1242)*
Wind speed
(mi/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Wind speed
(m/hr)
1.609
3,218
4,827
6,436
8,045
9,654
11,263
12,872
14,481
16,090
17,699
19,308
20,917
22,526
24,135
25,744
27,353
28,962
30,571
32,180
33,789
35,398
37,007
38,616
40,225
41,834
43,443
45,052
46,661
48,270
49,879
51,488
53,097
54,706
56,315
57,924
59,533
61,142
62,751
64,360
Mass transfer
coefficient (K)
(o/hr)
3.39
5.82
7.98
9.99
11.89
13.71
15.46
17.15
18.80
20.41
21.99
23.53
25.05
26.54
28.01
29.45
30.88
32.29
33.68
35.05
36.41
37.76
39.09
40.41
41.72
43.02
44.30
45.57
46.84
48.09
49.34
50.58
51.81
53.03
54.24
55.44
56.64
57.83
59.02
60.19
75th Percentilef
Evaporation
rate g 25 C
(tnol/sq. m-hr.)
5.72 E-9
9.83 E-9
1.35 E-8
1.69 E-8
2.01 E-8
2.32 E-8
2.61 E-8
2.90 E-8
3.18 E-8
3.45 E-8
3.71 E-8
3.98 E-8
4.23 E-8
4.48 E-8
4.73 E-8
4.98 E-8
5.22 E-8
5.45 E-8
5.69 E-8
5.92 E-8
6.15 E-8
6.38 E-8
6.60 E-8
6.83 E-8
7.05 E-8
7.27 E-8
7.48 E-8
7.70 E-8
7.91 E-8
8.12 E-8
8.33 E-8
8.54 E-8
8.75 E-8
8.96 E-8
9.16 E-8
9.36 E-8
9.57 E-8
9.77 E-8
9.97 E-8
1.02 E-7
90th PercentileJ
Evaporation
rate @ 25 C
(mol/sq. m-hr.)
6.98 E-9
1.20 E-8
1.64 E-8
2.06 E-8
2.45 E-8
2.82 E-8
3.18 E-8
3.53 E-8
3.87 E-8
4.21 E-8
4.53 E-8
4.85 E^8
5.16 E-8
5.47 E-8
5.77 E-8
6.07 E-8
6.36 E-8
6.65 E-8
6.94 E-8
7.22 E-8
7.50 E-8
7.78 E-8
8.05 E-8
8.32 E-8
8.59 E-8
8.86 E-8
9.12 E-8
9.39 E-8
9.65 E-8
9.91 E-8
1.02 E-7
1.04 E-7
1.07 E-7
1.09 E-7
1.12 E-7
1.14 E-7
1.17 E-7
1.19 E-7
1.22 E-7
1.24 E-7
* Molecular weight = 257.479 g/mol. Schmidt number = 3.39.
t Concentration = 41 mg/1. Partial pressure = 4.13x10"^ atin. at 25 C.
i Concentration = 50 mg/1. Partial pressure = S.OAxlO"1* atm. at 25 C.
A-14
-------
TABLE A-12
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - PCB'S (AROCLOR 1248)*
Wind speed
(mi/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Wind speed
(n/hr)
1.609
3,218
4,827
6,436
8,045
9,654
11,263
12,872
14,481
16,090
17,699
19,308
20,917
22,526
24,135
25,744
27,353
28,962
30,571
32,180
33,789
35,398
37,007
38,616
40,225
41,834
43,443
45,052
46,661
48,270
49,879
51,488
53,097
54,706
56,315
57,924
59,533
61,142
62,751
64,360
Mass transfer
coefficient (K)
(m/hr)
3.25
5.58
7.65
9.58
11.40
13.14
14.82
16.45
18.03
19.57
21.08
22.56
24.02
25.45
26.85
28.24
29.61
30.96
32.29
33.61
34.91
36.20
37.48
38.74
40.00
41.24
42.47
43.69
44.91
46.11
47.31
48.49
49.67
50.84
52.00
53.16
54.31
55.45
56.58
57.71
75th Percentilef
Evaporation
rate @ 25 C
(mol/sq. n-hr.)
5.98 E-9
1.03 E-8
1.41 E-8
1.76 E-8
2.10 E-8
2.42 E-8
2.73 E-8
3.03 E-8
3.32 E-8
3.60 E-8
3.88 E-8
4.15 E-8
4.42 E-8
4.69 E-8
4.94 E-8
5.20 E-8
5.45 E-8
5.70 E-8
5.94 E-8
6.19 E-8
6.43 E-8
6.67 E-8
6.90 E-8
7.13 E-8
7.36 E-8
7.59 E-8
7.82 E-8
8.04 E-8
8.27 E-8
8.49 E-8
8.71 E-8
8.93 E-8
9.14 E-8
9.36 E-8
9.57 E-8
9.79 E-8
1.00 2-7
1.02 E-7
1.04 E-7
1.06 E-7
90th PercentileJ
Evaporation
rate @ 25 C
(mol/sq. m-hr.)
7.29 E-9
1.25 E-8
1.72 E-8
2.15 E-8
2.56 E-8
2.95 E-8
3.33 E-8
3.69 E-8
4.05 E-8
4.39 E-8
4.73 E-8
5.07 E^8
5.39 E-8
5.71 E-8
6.03 E-8
6.34 E-8
6.65 E-8
6.95 E-8
7.25 E-8
7.55 E-8
7.84 E-8
8.13 E-8
8.42 E-8
8.70 E-8
8.98 E-8
9.26 E-8
9.54 E-8
9.81 E-8
1.01 E-7 .
1.04 E-7
1.06 E-7
1.09 E-7
1.12 E-7
1.14 E-7
1.17 E-7
1.19 E-7
1.22 E-7
1.25 E-7
1.27 E-7
1.30 E-7
* Molecular weight = 291.932 g/mol. Schmidt number = 3.61.
t Concentration = 41 mg/1. Partial pressure = 4.50xlO~ll atm. at 25 C.
± Concentration = 50 mg/1. Partial pressure = 5.49X10"11 atm. at 25 C.
A-15
-------
TABLE A-13
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - PCB'S (AROCLOR 1254)*
Wind speed
(mi/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Wind speed
(m/hr)
1.609
3,218
4,827
6,436
8,045
9,654
11,263
12,872
14,481
16,090
17,699
19,308
20,917
22,526
24,135
25,744
27,353
28,962
30,571
32,180
33,789
35,398
37,007
38,616
40,225
41,834
43,443
45,052
46,661
48,270
49,879
51,488
53,097
54,706
56,315
57,924
59,533
61,142
62,751
64,360
Mass transfer
coefficient (K)
(m/hr)
3.13
5.37
7.37
9.22
10.97
12.65
14.27
15.83
17.36
18.84
20.30
21.72
23.12
24.50
25.85
27.19
28.51
29.81
31.09
32.36
33.61
34.86
36.09
37.30
38.51
39.71
40.89
42.07
43.24
44.40
45.55
46.69
47.82
48.95
50.07
51.18
52.29
53.39
54.48
55.56
75th Percentilef
Evaporation
rate f 25 Cf
(mol/sq. m-hr.)
8.00 E-10
1.37 E-9
1.89 E-9
2.36 E-9
2.81 E-9
3.24 E-9
3.65 E-9
4.05 E-9
4.44 E-9
4.82 E-9
5.19 E-9
5.56 E-9
5.92 E-9
6.27 E-9
6.61 E-9
6.96 E-9
7.29 E-9
7.63 E-9
7.95 E-9
8.28 E-9
8.60 E-9
8.92 E-9
9.23 E-9
9.54 E-9
9.85 E-9
1.02 E-8
1.05 E-8
1.08 E-8
1.11 E-8
1.14 E-8
1.17 E-8
1.19 E-8
1.22 E-8
1.25 E-8
1.28 E-8
1.31 E-8
1.34 E-8
1.37 E-8
1.39 E-8
1.42 E-8
90th Percentilet
Evaporation
rate (? 25 Cj
(mol/sq. m-hr.)
9.76 E-10
1.68 E-9
2.30 E-9
2.88 E-9
3.42 E-9
3.95 E-9
4.45 E-9
4.94 E-9
5.42 E-9
5.88 E-9
6.33 E-9
6.78 E-9
7.21 E-9
7.64 E-9
8.07 E-9
8.48 E-9
8.89 E-9
9.30 E-9
9.70 E-9
1.01 E-8
1.05 E-8
1.09 E-8
1.13 E-8
1.16 E-8
1.20 E-8
1.24 E-8
1.28 E-8
1.31 E-8
1.35 E-8
1.39 E-8
1.42 E-8
1.46 E-8
1.49 E-8
1.53 E-8
1.56 E-8
1.60 E-8
1.63 E-8
1.67 E-8
1.70 E-8
1.73 E-8
* Molecular weight = 326.385 g/mol. Schmidt number = 3.82.
t Concentration
Concentration
41 mg/1. Partial pressure = 6.26x10"^ atra. at 25 C.
50 mg/1. Partial pressure = 7.63xlO~12 atm. at 25 C.
A-16
-------
TABLE A-14
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - PCB'S (AROCLOR 1260)*
Wind speed
(mi/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°A
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Wind speed
(m/hr)
1,609
3,218
4,827
6,436
8,045
9,654
11,263
12,872
14,481
16,090
17,699
19,308
20,917
22,526
24,135
25,744
27,353
28,962
30,571
32,180
33,789
35,398
37,007
oo e.i c.
40,225
41,834
43,443
45,052
46,661
48,270
49,879
51,488
53,097
54,706
56,315
57,924
59,533
61,142
62,751
64,360
Mass transfer
coefficient (K)
(m/hr)
3.02
5.19
7.12
8.91
10.61
12.23
13.79
15.30
16.77
18.21
19.62
20.99
22.35
23.68
24.99
26.28
27.55
28.80
30.04
31.27
32.48
33.68
34.87
tf. ne;
^F\* • W ^
37.22
38.37
39.52
40.66
41.78
42.90
44.02
45.12
46.22
47.30
48.39
49.46
50.53
51.59
52.65
53.70
75th Percentilet
Evaporation
rate
-------
TABLE A-15
ROAD SURFACE EVAPORATION - NAPHTHALENE*
75th Percent! let
Wind speed
(mi/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Mass transfer
Wind speed coefficient (K)
(n/hr)
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A
1. Mackay, D., and R. S. Matsugu. Evaporation Rates of Liquid
Hydrocarbon Spills on Land and Water. Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 51:434, 1973.
2. Bider, W. L., L. E. Seitter, and R. G. Hunt. Waste Oil
Management and Composition. Prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
February 1983.
3. Weast, R. C. (ed.) Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 53rd
Edition. CRC Press. 1972. p. D-151.
4. Mackay, D., and A. W. Wolkoff. Rate of Evaporation of
Low-Solubility Contaminants From Water Bodies to Atmosphere.
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 7, July 1973.
5. Thibodeaux, L. J. Chemodynamics. Wiley Inter-
science, New York. 1979. 501 pp.
6. Personal communication from Professor B. Dempsey, University
of Illinois, to L. E. Seitter, Franklin Associates, Ltd.,
November 1982.
A-19
-------
APPENDIX B
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING
WASTE OIL CONCENTRATION IN RAINFALL RUNOFF
The concentration of road oil components is primarily depen-
dent on four factors: (1) the oil component concentration in the
waste oil, (2) the amount of oil applied to the road, (3) the
volume of rainfall, and (4) the amount of oil that is removed
from the road surface during a rainfall event. It is possible to
quantify the first three factors, but no information is available
for determination of how much oil can be carried away from a road
during rainfall.
ROAD SURFACE EROSION
The first analysis estimates the intensity of rainfall that
would be necessary for all of the oil to be removed from an oiled
road during a single rainfall event. This analysis assumes that
road surface erosion would remove all of the oil by carrying away
the surface layer of soil to which oil had adsorbed. The results
showed that typical heavy rainfall intensities (Table 3-11) never
reach the calculated levels necessary to produce sheet erosion of
the road surface. Some erosion will occur, of course, but it
will not be rapid enough to remove all of the adsorbed oil during
a single rainfall event.
B-l
-------
Road surface erosion is dependent on critical shear velocity
(Table B-l) , and the velocity is dependent on rainfall intensity,
the slope of the road surface, and the resultant runoff depth
1 2
(Equations B-l and B-2). ' The rainfall intensities necessary
to produce road surface erosion were calculated by the use of
Equations 1 and 2 and are shown in Table B-2.
.1/M
(B-l)
where Y = depth of surface runoff
L = one half the distance between the road crown and the
road side
M =
rainfall intensity
2 for natural surfaces
a =
_ (1.49) (S)
1/2
(B-2)
where
c = roughness coefficient
S = slope
V = aY
where
V = critical shear velocity
2/3
TABLE B-l. CRITICAL VELOCITY FOR ROAD SURFACE EROSION'
(ft/s)
Sand
Silt
Clay
Gravel
Velocity
Low
1.50
0.20
3.75
2.50
High
1.75
3.75
3.75
4.00
Reference 3.
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2. RAINFALL INTENSITY FOR ROAD SURFACE EROSION
(inches per hour)
SI nnp
of
road
0.50
0.33
0.25
0.20
0.10
0.01
Sand
Low
5.84
8.76
11.68
14.59
29.19
291.88
High
41.71
62.57
83.43
104.29
208.57
2,085.72
Silt
Low
13.84
20.76
27.67
34.59
69.19
691.86
High
410.45
615.68
820.91
1,026.14
2,052.27
20,522.72
Clay
Low
91.21
136.82
182.42
228.03
456.06
4,560.61
High
410.45
615.68
820.91
1,026.14
2,052.27
20,522.72
Gravel
Low
27.03
40.54
54.05
67.56
135.13
1,351.29
High
498.14
747.21
998.28
1,245.35
2,490.70
24,909.99
RUNOFF CONCENTRATIONS
Concentrations of waste oil and waste oil components in
rainfall runoff were calculated as described in Section 3. The
effect of rainfall intensity was evaluated by calculating concen-
trations resulting from a maximum two-year rainfall of various
durations. Because the quantity of oil that may be removed from
the road surface during a given rainfall event is not clearly un-
derstood, concentrations were calculated at two levels of remov-
al: 1) maximum oil removal of 100 percent, and 2) ..low or proba-
ble minimum oil removal of 5 percent. The results are presented
in Tables B-3 and B-4. The high values for each soil type listed
in these tables are based on the highest application rate in the
range of rates (Table 3-9) and the lowest of the heavy rainfall
intensities (Table 3-11). The low values are based on the lowest
application rate and the highest of the heavy rainfall intensi-
ties. The concentration on the road surface was obtained by
dividing the quantity of oil (100 percent or 5 percent of the oil
applied) by the quantity of rain that strikes the oiled surface.
B-3
-------
TABLE B-3. OIL CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF AT VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS
WITH 100 PERCENT OIL RUNOFF3
(mg of oil per liter of water)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1,040,000
652,000
435,000
296,000
Low
181,000
115,000
57,500
30,600
Silt
High
522,000
326,000
217,000
143,000
Low
48,000
30,800
15,400
8,190
Clay
High
522,000
326,000
217,000
148,000
Low
48,400
30,800
15,400
8,190
Gravel
High
522,000
326,000
217,000
148,000
Low
60,200
38,400
19,200
10,200
w
I
Based on an oil density of 0.9.
TABLE B-4. OIL CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF AT VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS
WITH 5 PERCENT OIL RUNOFF3
(mg of oil per liter of water)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
52,200
32,600
21,700
14,800
Low
9,030
5,750
2,880
1,530
Silt
High
26,100
16,300
10,900
7,410
Low
2,420
1,540
771
410
Clay
High
26,100
16,300
10,900
7,410
Low
2,420
1,540
771
410
Gravel
High
26,100
61,300
10,900
7,410
Low
3,010
1,920
959
509
Based on an oil density of 0.9.
-------
It should be pointed out that the surface runoff concentration
applies only to the roadway. As the oil leaves the oiled sur-
face, it is immediately diluted with the rain that falls near the
road. The results of the concentrations in Tables B-3 and B-4
and in the calculations for specific components that follow are
used later to calculate worst-case concentrations in streams.
Road surface runoff concentrations for potentially hazardous
waste oil components are shown in Tables B-5 through B-40.
Tables B-5 through B-22 use the 90th percentile value for waste
oil component concentration, and Tables B-23 through B-40 are
based on the 75th percentile value (Table I). All calculations
for Tables B-5 through B-40 assume that 100 percent of the oil is
washed from the road. The values may be adjusted by multiplying
by the fraction of oil removal expected at a particular site.
The high and low values are based on the same assumptions as
those described for Tables B-3 and B-4.
STREAM CONCENTRATIONS
Potential worst-case concentrations of waste oil components
in streams were calculated as described in Section 3. The worst-
case scenario assumes that every road in the watershed has been
oiled, that roads occur at one-mile intervals, and that 35 per-
cent of the rain that falls on adjacent fields enters the stream
and dilutes runoff from the oiled roads. It is further assumed
that 100 percent of the oil applied to the road is removed during
the rainfall event. Concentrations resulting from lesser removal
B-5
-------
TABLE B-5. ARSENIC CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(nig/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
18.54
11.59
7.73
5.27
Low
3.21
2.04
1.02
0.54
Silt
High
9.27
5.80
3.86
2.63
Low
0.86
0.55
0.27
0.15
Clay
High
9.27
5.80
3.86
2.63
Low
0.86
0.55
0.27
0.15
Gravel
High
9.27
5.80
3.86
2.63
Low
1.07
0.68
0.34
0.18
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for arsenic of 16 nig/liter.
B-6
-------
TABLE B-6. BARIUM CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS9
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
562.14
351.34
234.22
159.70
Low
97.29
62.00
31.00
16.47
Silt
High
281.07
175.67
117.11
79.85
Low
26.09
16.62
8.31
4.42
Clay
High
281.07
175.67
117.11
79.85
Low
26.09
16.62
8.31
4.42
Gravel
High
281.07
175.67
117.11
79.85
Low
32.43
20.67
10.33
5.49
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for barium of 485 mg/liter.
TABLE B-7. CADMIUM CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
4.64
2.90
1.93
1.32
Low
0.80
0.51
0.26
0.14
Silt
High
2.32
1.45
0.97
0.66
Low
0.22
0.14
0.07
0.04
Clay
High
2.32
1.45
0.97
0.66
Low
0.22
0.14
0.07
0.04
Gravel
High
2.32
1.45
0.97
0.66
Low
0.27
0.17
0.09
0.05
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for cadmium of 4 mg/liter.
B-7
-------
TABLE B-8. CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
32.45
20.28
13.52
9.22
Low
5.62
3.58
1.79
0.95
Silt
High
16.23
10.14
6.76
4.61
Low
1.51
0.96
0.48
0.25
Clay
High
16.23
10.14
6.76
4.61
Low
1.51
0.96
0.48
0.25
Gravel
High
16.23
10.14
6.76
4.61
Low
1.87
1.19
0.60
0.32
Based on the 90th percent!le value concentration for chromium of 28 tug/liter.
TABLE B-9. LEAD CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS0
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5 .
10
30
120
Sand
High
1,159.06
724.41
482.94
329.28
Low
200.61
127.84
63.92
33.96
Silt
High
579.53
362.20
241.47
164.64
Low
53.79
34.28
17.14
9.10
Clay
High
579.53
362.20
241.47
164.64
Low
53.79
34.28
17.14
9.10
Gravel
High
579.53
362.20
241.47
164.64
Low
66.87
42.61
21.31
11.32
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for lead of 1,000 mg/liter.
B-8
-------
TABLE B-10. ZINC CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS9
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1,332.91
833.07
555.38
378.67
Low
230.97
147.01
73.51
39.05
Silt
High
666.46
416.54
277.69
189.33
Low
61.85
39.42
19.71
10.47
Clay
High
666.46
416.54
277.69
189.33
Low
61.85
39.42
19.71
10.47
Gravel
High
666.46
416.54
277.69
189.33
Low
79.60
49.00
24.50
13.02
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for zinc of 1,150 mg/1iter.
TABLE B-ll. DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
996.79
622.99
415.33
283.18
Low
172.52
109.94
54.97
29.20
Silt
High
498.39
311.50
207.66
141.59
Low
46.26
29.48
14.74
7.83
Clay
High
498.39
311.50
207.66
141.59
Low
46.26
29.48
14.74
7.83
Gravel
High
498.39
311.50
207.66
141.59
Low
57.51
36.65
18.32
9.73
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for dichlorodifluoromethane
of 860 mg/1iter.
B-9
-------
TABLE B-12.
TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
150.68
94.17
62.78
42.81
Low
26.08
16.62
8.31
4.41
Silt
High
75.34
47.09
31.39
21.40
Low
6.99
4.46
2.23
1.18
Clay
High
75.34
47.09
31.39
21.40
Low
6.99
4.46
2.23
1.18
Gravel
High
75.34
47.09
31.39
21.40
Low
8.69
5.54
2.77
1.47
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for trichlorotrifluoroethane
of 130 mg/liter.
TABLE B-13.
TRICHLOROETHANE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1,506.77
941.73
627.82
428.06
Low
260.79
166.19
83.09
44.14
Silt
High
753.39
470.87
313.91
214.03
Low
69.92
44.56
22.28
11.84
Clay
High
753.39
470.87
313.91
214.03
Low
69.92
44.56
22.28
11.84
Gravel
High
753.39
470.87
313.91
214.03
Low
86.93
55.40
27.70
14.71
a Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for trichloroethane of
1,300 mg/liter.
B-10
-------
TABLE B-14.
TRICHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(mg/1 Her)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1,215.85
759.91
506.60
345.41
Low
210.44
134.10
67.05
35.62
Silt
High
607.92
379.95
253.30
172.71
Low
56.42
35.95
17.98
9.55
Clay
High
607.92
379.95
253.30
172.71
Low
56.42
35.95
17.98
9.55
Gravel
High
607.92
379.95
253.30
172.71
Low
70.15
44.70
22.35
11.87
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for trichloroethylene of
1,049 mg/liter.
TABLE B-15.
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1,390.86
869.29
579.53
395.13
Low
240.73
153.40
76.70
40.75
Silt
High
695.43
434.65
289.76
197.57
Low
64.54
41.13
20.57
10.93
Clay
High
695.43
435.65
289.76
197.57
Low
64.54
41.13
20.57
10.93
Gravel
High
695.43
434.65
289.76
197.57
Low
80.24
51.13
25.57
13.58
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for tetrachloroethylene of
1,200 mg/liter.
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-16. BENZENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
185.45
115.91
77.27
52.68
Low
32.10
20.45
10.23
5.43
Silt
High
97.72
57.95
38.64
26.34
Low
8.61
5.48
2.74
1.46
Clay
High
92.72
57.95
38.64
26.34
Low
8.61
5.48
2.74
1.46
Gravel
High
92.72
57.95
38.64
26.34
Low
10.70
6.82
3.41
1.81
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for Benzene of 160 mg/liter.
TABLE B-17. TOLUENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1,390.87
869.29
579.53
395.13
Low
240.73
153.40
76.70
40.75
Silt
High
695.43
434.65
289.76
197.57
Low
65.54
41.13
20.57
10.93
Clay
High
695.43
434.65
289.76
197.57
Low
64.54
41.13
20.57
10.93
Gravel
High
695.43
434.65
289.76
197.57
Low
80.24
51.13
25.57-
13.58
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for Toluene of 1,200 mg/liter.
B-12
-------
TABLE B-18. XYLENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(rag/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
660.66
412.91
275.28
187.69
Low
114.35
72.87
36.43
19.36
Silt
High
330.33
206.46
137.64
93.84
Low
30.66
19.54
9.77
5.19
Clay
High
330.33
206.46
137.64
93.84
Low
30.66
19.54
9.77
5.19
Gravel
High
330.33
206.46
137.64
93.84
Low
38.12
24.29
12.14
6.45
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for xylene of 570 mg/liter.
TABLE B-19.
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONSa
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
40.57
25.35
16.90
11.52
Low
7.02
4.47
2.24
1.19
Silt
High
20.28
12.68
8.45
5.76
Low
1.88
1.20
0.60
0.32
Clay
High
20.28
12.68
8.45
5.76
Low
1.88
1.20
0.60
0.32
Gravel
High
20.28
12.68
8.45
5.76
Low
2.34
1.49
0.75
0.40
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for benzo(a) anthracene of
35 mg/1iter.
B-13
-------
TABLE B-20.
BENZO(A)PYRENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(rag/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
38.25
23.91
15.94
10.87
Low
6.62
4.22
2.11
1.12
Silt
High
19.12
11.95
7.97
5.43
Low
1.77
1.13
0.57
0.30
Clay
High
19.12
11.95
7.97
5.43
Low
1.77
1.13
0.57
0.30
Gravel
High
19.12
11.95
7.97
5.43
Low
1.77
1.41
0.70
0.37
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for benzo(a)pyrene of
35 mg/1iter.
TABLE B-21.
NAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
672.25
520.16
280.11
190.98
Low
116.35
74.15
37.07
19.69
Silt
High
336.13
210.08
140.05
95.49
Low
31.20
19.88
9.94
52.8
Clay
High
336.13
210.08
140.05
95.49
Low
31.20
19.88
9.94
5.28
Gravel
High
336.13
210.08
140.05
95.49
Low
38.78
24.72
12.36
6.56
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for naphthalene of 580
mg/1iter.
B-14
-------
TABLE B-22. PCB'S CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS3
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
57.95
36.22
24.15
16.46
Low
10.03
6.39
3.20
1.70
Silt
High
29.98
18.11
12.07
8.23
Low
2.69
1.71
0.86
0.46
Clay
High
29.98
18.11
12.07
8.23
Low
2.69
1.71
0.86
0.46
Gravel
High
29.98
18.11
12.07
8.23
Low
3.34
2.13
1.07
0.57
Based on the 90th percentile value concentration for PCB's of 50 mg/liter.
B-15
-------
TABLE B-23. ARSENIC CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELSa
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
16.23
10.14
6.76
4.61
Low
2.81
1.79
0.89
0.48
Silt
High
8.11
5.07
3.38
2.30
Low
0.75
0.48
0.24
0.13
Clay
High
8.11
5.07
3.38
2.30
Low
0.75
0.48
0.24
0.13
Gravel
High
8.11
5.07
3.38
2.30
Low
0.94
0.60
0.30
0.16
The 75th percentile level for arsenic in waste oil is 14 mg/liter.
TABLE B-24. BARIUM CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS'
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
231.81
144.88
96.59
65.86
Low
40.12
25.57
12.78
6.79
Silt
High
115.91
72.44
48.29
32.93
Low
10.76
6.86
3.43
1.82
Clay
High
115.91
72.44
48.29
32.93
Low
10.76
6.86
3.43
1.82
Gravel
High
115.91
72.44
48.29
32.93
Low
13.37
8.52
4.26
2.26
The 75th percentile level for barium in waste oil is 200 mg/liter.
B-16
-------
TABLE B-25. CADMIUM CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(mg/1 Her)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1.51
0.94
0.63
0.43
Low
0.26
0.17
0.08
0.04
Silt
High
0.75
0.47
0.31
0.21
Low
6.99 E-2
4.46 E-2
2.22 E-2
1.18 E-2
Clay
High
0.75
0.47
0.31
0.21
Low
6.99 E-2
4.46 E-2
2.22 E-2
1.18 E-2
Gravel
High
0.75
0.47
0.31
0.21
Low
8.69 E-2
5.54 E-2
2.77 E-2
1.47 E-2
The 75th percentile level for cadmium in wast eoil is 1.3 mg/liter.
TABLE B-26. CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
13.91
8.69
5.80
3.95
Low
2.41
1.53
0.77
0.41
Silt
High
6.95
4.35
2.90
1.98
Low
0.65
0.41
0.21
0.11
Clay
High
6.95
4.35
2.90
1.98
Low
0.65
0.41
0.21
0.11
Gravel
High
6.95
4.35
2.90
1.98
Low
0.80
0.51
0.26
0.14
The 75th percentile level for chromium in waste oil is 12 mg/liter.
B-17
-------
TABLE B-27. LEAD CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS'
(mg/1 Her)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
486.80
304.25
202.83
138.30
Low
84.25
53.69
26.85
14.26
Silt
High
243.40
152.13
101.42
69.15
Low
22.59
14.40
7.20
3.82
Clay
High
243.40
152.13
101.42
69.15
Low
22.59
14.40
7.20
3.82
Gravel
High
243.40
152.13
101.42
69.15
Low
28.08
17.90
8.95
4.75
The 75th percentile level for lead in waste oil is 420 nig/liter.
TABLE B-28. ZINC CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS'
(rug/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1,031.56
644.72
429.82
293.06
Low
178.54
113.77
56.89
30.22
Silt
High
515.78
322.36
214.91
146.53
Low
47.87
30.50
15.25
8.10
Clay
High
515.78
322.36
214.91
146.53
Low
47.87
30.50
15.25
8.10
Gravel
High
515.78
322.36
214.91
146.53
Low
59.51
37.92
18.96
10.07
The 75th percentile level for zinc in waste oil is 890 mg/liter.
B-18
-------
TABLE B-29. DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
243.40
152.13
101.42
69.15
Low
42.13
26.85
13.42
7.13
Silt
High
121.70
76.06
50.71
34.57
Low
11.29
7.20
3.60
1.91
Clay
High
121.70
76.06
50.71
34.57
Low
11.29
7.20
3.60
1.91
Gravel
High
121.70
76.06
50.71
34.57
Low
14.04
8.95
4.47
2.38
The 75th percentile level for dichlorodifluoromethane in waste oil is 210
mg/liter.
TABLE B-30. TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
38.25
23.91
15.94
10.87
Low
6.62
4.22
2.11
1.12
Silt
High
19.12
11.95
7.97
5.43
Low
1.77
1.13
0.57
0.30
Clay
High
19.12
11.95
7.97
5.43
Low
1.77
1.13
0.57
0.30
Gravel
High
19.12
11.95
7.97
5.43
Low
2.21
1.41
0.70
0.37
The 75th percentile level for trichlorotrifluoroethane in waste is 33
mg/liter.
B-19
-------
TABLE B-31. TRICHLOROETHANE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
683.84
427.40
284.93
194.27
Low
118.36
75.42
37.71
20.03
Silt
High
341.92
213.70
142.47
97.14
Low
31.73
20.22
10.11
5.37
Clay
High
341.92
213.70
142.47
97.14
Low
31.73
20.22
10.11
5.37
Gravel
High
341.92
213.70
142.47
91.14
Low
39.45
25.14
12.57
6.68
The 75th percentile level for trichloroethane in waste oil is 590 mg/liter.
TABLE B-32. TRICHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
567.94
354.96
236.64
161.35
Low
98.30
62.64
31.32
16.64
Silt
High
283.97
177.48
118.32
80.67
Low
26.35
16.79
8.40
4.46
Clay
High
283.97
177.48
118.32
80.67
Low
26.35
16.79
8.40
4.46
Gravel
High
283.97
177.48
118.32
80.67
Low.
32.77
20.88
10.44
5.55
The 75th percentile level for trichloroethylene in waste oil is 490 mg/liter.
B-20
-------
TABLE B-33. TETRACHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
428.85
268.03
178.69
121.83
Low
74.22
47.30
23.65
12.56
Silt
High
214.43
134.02
89.34
60.92
Low
19.90
12.68
6.34
3.37
Clay
High
214.43
134.02
89.34
60.92
Low
19.90
12.68
6.34
3.37
Gravel
High
214.43
124.02
89.34
60.92
Low
24.74
15.77
7.88
4.19
a The 75th percentile level for tetrachloroethylene in waste oil is 370
mg/1iter.
TABLE B-34. BENZENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
89.25
55.78
37.19
25.35
Low
15.45
9.84
4.92
2.61
Silt
High
44.62
27.89
18.59
12.68
Low
4.14
2.64
1.32
0.70
Clay
High
44.62
27.89
18.49
12.68
Low
4.14
2.64
1.32
0.70
Gravel
High
44.62
27.89
18.59
12.68
Low
5.15
3.28
1.64
0.87
The 75th percentile level for benzene in waste oil is 77 mg/1iter.
B-21
-------
TABLE B-35. TOLUENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(rag/liter)
Rainfall
durati on
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
567.94
354.96
236.64
161.35
Low
98.30
62.64
31.32
16.64
Silt
High
283.97
177.48
118.32
80.67
Low
26.35
16.79
8.40
4.46
Clay
High
283.97
117.48
118.32
80.67
Low
26.35
16.79
8.40
4.46
Gravel
High
283.97
177.48
118.32
80.67
Low
32.77
20.88
10.44
5.55
The 75th percentile level for toluene in waste oil is 490 mg/liter.
TABLE B-36. XYLENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF.
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS0
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
312.94
195.59
130.39
88.90
Low
54.16
34.52
17.26
9.17
Silt
High
156.47
97.80
66.20
44.45
Low
14.52
9.25
4.63
2.46
Clay
High
156.47
97.80
65.20
44.45
Low
14.52
9.25
4.63
2.46
Gravel
High
156.47
97.80
65.20
44.45
Low
18.08
11.51
5.75
3.06
The 75th percentile level for xylene in waste oil is 270 mg/liter.
B-22
-------
TABLE B-37. BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(mg/1 Her)
Rainfall
durati on
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
30.14
18.83
12.56
8.56
Low
5.22
3.32
1.66
0.88
Silt
High
15.07
9.42
6.28
4.28
Low
1.40
0.89
0.45
0.24
Clay
High
15.07
9.42
6.28
4.28
Low
1.40
0.89
0.45
0.24
Gravel
High
15.07
9.42
6.28
4.28
Low
1.74
1.11
0.55
0.29
The 75th percentile level for benzo(a)anthracene in waste oil is 26 mg/liter.
TABLE B-38. BENZO(A)PYRENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS3
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
13.91
8.69
5.80
3.95
Low
2.41
1.53
0.77
0.41
Silt
High
6.95
4.35
2.90
1.98
Low
0.65
0.41
0.21
0.11
Clay
High
6.95
4.35
2.90
1.98
Low
0.65
0.41
0.21
0.11
Gravel
High
6.95
4.35
2.90
1.98
Low
0.80
0.51
0.26
0.14
The 75th percentile level for benzo(a)pyrene in waste oil is 12 mg/liter.
B-23
-------
TABLE B-39. NAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
567.94
354.96
236.64
161.35
Low
98.30
62.64
31.32
16.64
Silt
High
283.97
177.48
118.32
80.67
Low
26.35
16.79
8.40
4.46
Clay
High
283.97
177.48
118.32
80.67
Low
26.35
16.79
8.40
4.46
Gravel
High
283.97
177.48
118.32
80.67
Low
32.77
20.88
10.44
5.55
The 75th percentile level for naphthalene in waste oil is 490 mg/liter.
TABLE B-40. PCB'S CONCENTRATION IN ROAD SURFACE RUNOFF
DUE TO VARIOUS RAINFALL DURATIONS—75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS0
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
47.52
29.70
19.80
13.50
Low
8.22
5.24
2.62
1.39
Silt
High
23.76
14.85
9.90
6.75
Low
2.21
1.41
0.70
0.37
Clay
High
23.76
14.85
9.90
6.75
Low
2.21
1.41
0.70
0.37
Gravel
High
23.76
14.85
9.90
6.75
Low
2.21
1.75
0.87
0.46
The 75th percentile level for PCB's in waste oil is 41 mg/liter.
B-24
-------
may be calculated by multiplying by the fraction of oil removal
expected at a particular site. Concentrations that occur as a
result of 90th and 75th percentile level contaminations are
presented in Tables B-41 through B-76. The 90th percentile data
are shown in Tables B-41 through B-58 and the 75th percentile
data are shown in Tables B-59 through B-76.
Calculations of the high and low values in Tables B-41
through B-76 were based on the high and low road surface concen-
trations in Tables B-5 through B-40. Thus the high stream con-
centrations assume the highest application rate in the range of
rates (Table 3-9), and the lowest of the heavy rainfall intensi-
ties (Table 3-11). The low stream concentrations assume the
lowest application rate in the range of rates (Table 3-9) and the
highest of the heavy rainfall intensities (Table 3-11) . Both
cases assume the stream was dry at the time the rain washed off
the road. In both cases it was also assumed that the rain lasted
for only the period shown. For example, in the 5-minute case,
100 percent of the oil applied to the road is diluted by the
rainfall that strikes the roadway during the 5-minute period and
35 percent of the rain that falls on 320 acres during the same
5-minute period.
B-25
-------
TABLE B-41. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF ARSENIC
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES*' --90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.36
0.23
0.15
0.10
Low
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.10
Silt
High
0.18
0.11
0.08
0.05
Low
1.68 E-2
1.07 E-2
5.34 E-3
2.84 E-3
Clay
High
0.18
0.11
0.08
0.05
Low
1.68 E-2
1.07 E-2
5.43 E-3
2.84 E-3
Gravel
High
0.18
0.11
0.08
0.05
Low
2.08 E-2
1.33 E-2
6.64 E-3
3.53 E-3
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; waterhsed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-5).
TABLE B-42. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF BARIUM
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
10.95
6.84
4.56
3.11
Low
1.90
1.21
0.60
0.32
Silt
High
5.48
3.42
2.28
1.56
Low
0.51
0.32
0.16
0.89
Clay
High
5.48
3.42
2.28
1.56
Low
0.51
0.32
0.16
0.89
Gravel
High
5.48
3.42
2.28
1.56
Low
0.63
0.40
0.20
0.11
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-6).
B-26
-------
TABLE B-43. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF CADMIUM
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.03
Low
1.56 E-2
9.96 E-3
4.98 E-3
2.65 E-3
Silt
High
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
Low
4.19 E-3
2.67 E-3
1.34 E-3
7.09 E-4
Clay
High
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
Low
4.19 E-3
2.67 E-3
1.34 E-3
7.09 E-4
Gravel
High
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.03
Low
5.12 E-3
3.32 E-3
1.66 E-3
8.82 E-4
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; waterhsed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-7).
TABLE B-44. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF CHROMIUM
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIESa'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
{mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.63
0.39
0.26
0.18
Low
1.09 E-l
6.97 E-2
3.49 E-2
1.85 E-2
Silt
High
0.32
0.20
0.13
0.09
Low
2.93 E-2
1.87 E-2
9.35 E-3
4.97 E-3
Clay
High
0.32
0.20
0.13
0.09
Low
2.93 E-2
1.87 E-2
9.35 E-3
4.97 E-3
Gravel
High
0.32
0.20
0.13
0.09
Low
3.65 E-2
2.32 E-2
1.16 E-2
6.17 E-3
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; waterhsed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-8).
B-27
-------
TABLE B-45. WORST-CASE STREAM. CONCENTRATIONS OF LEAD
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES'1'-- 90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(rag/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
22.58
14.11
9.41
6.41
Low
3.91
2.49
1.25
0.66
Silt
High
11.29
7.06
4.70
3.21
Low
1.05
0.67
0.33
0.18
Clay
High
11.29
7.06
4.70
3.21
Low
1.05
0.67
0.33
0.18
Gravel
High
11.29
7.06
4.70
3.21
Low
1.30
0.83
0.42
0.22
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-9).
TABLE B-46. WORST-CASE STREAM, CONCENTRATIONS OF ZINC
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
25.97
16.23
10.82
7.38
Low
4.49
2.86
1.43
0.76
Silt
High
12.98
8.11
5.41
3.69
Low
1.20
0.77
0.38
0.20
Clay
High
" 12.98
8.11
5.41
3.69
Low
1.20
0.77
0.38
0.20
Gravel
High
12.98
8.11
5.41
3.69
Low
1.20
0.95
0.48
0.25
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-10).
B-28
-------
TABLE B-47. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
19.42
12.14
8.09
5.52
Low
3.36
2.14
1.07
0.57
Silt
High
9.71
6.07
4.05
2.76
Low
0.90
0.57
0.29
0.15
Clay
High
9.71
6.07
4.05
2.76
Low
0.90
0.57
0.29
0.15
Gravel
High
9.71
6.07
4.05
2.76
Low
1.12
0.71
0.36
0.19
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-ll).
TABLE B-48. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES9'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
2.93
1.83
1.22
0.83
Low
0.51
0.32
0.16
0.09
Silt
. High
1.47
0.92
0.61
0.42
Low
1.36 E-l
8.68 E-2
4.34 E-2
2.31 E-2
Clay
High
1.47
0.92
0.61
0.42
Low
1.36 E-l
8.68 E-2
4.34 E-2
2.31 E-2
Gravel
High
1.47
0.92
0.61
0.42
Low
1.69 E-l
1.08 E-l
5.40 E-2
2.87 E-2
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; waterhsed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-12).
B-29
-------
TABLE B-49. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF TRICHLOROETHANE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES9'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
29.35
18.35
12.23
8.34
Low
5.08
3.24
1.62
0.86
Silt
High
14.68
9.17
6.12
4.17
Low
1.36
0.87
0.43
0.23
Clay
High
14.68
9.17
6.12
4.17
Low
1.36
0.87
0.43
0.23
Gravel
High
14.68
9.17
6.12
4.17
Low
1.69
1.08
0.54
0.29
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-13).
TABLE B-50. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIESa'D—90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
23.69
14.80
9.87
6.73
Low
4.10
2.61
1.31
0.69
Silt
High
11.84
7.40
4.93
3.36
Low
1.10
0.70
0.35
0.19
Clay
High
11.84
7.40
4.93
3.36
Low
1.10
0.70
0.35
0.19
Gravel
High
11.84
7.40
4.93
3.36
Low
1.37
0.87
0.44
0.23
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-14).
B-30
-------
TABLE B-51. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIESd'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1 Her)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
27.09
16.93
11.29
7.70
Low
4.69
2.99
1.49
0.79
Silt
High
13.55
8.47
5.64
3.85
Low
1.26
0.80
0.40
0.21
Clay
High
13.55
8.47
5.64
3.85
Low
1.26
0.80
0.40
0.21
Gravel
High
13.55
8.47
5.64
3.85
Low
1.56
1.00
0.50
0.26
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-15).
TABLE B-52. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
3.61
2.26
1.51
1.03
Low
0.63
0.40
0.20
0.11
Silt
High
1.81
1.13
0.75
0.51
Low
1.67 E-l
1.07 E-l
5.34 E-2
2.84 E-2
Clay
High
1.81
1.13
0.75
0.51
Low
1.67 E-l
1.07 E-l
5.34 E-2
2.84 E-2
Gravel
High
1.81
1.13
0.75
0.51
Low
2.08 E-l
1.33 E-l
6.64 E-2
3.53 E-2
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-16).
B-31
-------
TABLE B-53. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF TOLUENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES9' --90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1 Her)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
27.09
16.93
11.29
7.70
Low
4.69
2.99
1.49
0.79
Silt
High
13.55
8.47
5.64
3.85
Low
1.26
0.80
0.40
0.21
Clay
High
13.55
8.47
5.64
3.85
Low
1.26
0.80
0.40
0.21
Gravel
High
13.55
8.47
5.64
3.85
Low
1.56
1.00
0.50
0.26
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-17).
TABLE B-54. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF XYLENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(tug/liter)
Rainfall
duration
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
12.87
8.04
5.36
3.66
Low
2.23
1.42
0.71
0.38
Silt
High
6.44
4.02
2.68
1.83
Low
0.60
0.38
0.19
0.10
Clay
High
6.44
4.02
2.68
1.83
Low
0.60
0.38
0.19
0.10
Gravel
High
6.44
4.02
2.68
1.83
Low
0.74
0.47
0.24
0.13
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-18).
B-32
-------
TABLE B-55. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(nig/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.79
0.49
0.33
0.22
Low
1.37 E-l
8.71 E-2
4.36 E-2
2.31 E-2
Silt
High
0.39
0.25
0.16
0.11
Low
3.67 E-2
2.33 E-2
1.12 E-2
0.62 E-2
Clay
High
0.39
0.25
0.16
0.11
Low
3.67 E-7
2.33 E-2
1.12 E-2
0.62 E-2
Gravel
High
0.39
0.25
0.16
0.11
Low
4.56 E-2
2.90 E-2
1.45 E-2
0.77 E-2
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-19).
TABLE B-56. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZO(A)PYRENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES9'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.75
0.47
0.31
0.21
Low
0.13
0.08
0.04
0.02
Silt
High
0.37
0.23
0.16
0.11
Low
3.46 E-2
2.20 E-2
1.10 E-2
5.85 E-3
Clay
High
0.37
0.23
0.16
0.11
Low
3.46 E-2
2.20 E-2
1.10 E-2
5.85 E-3
Gravel
High
0.37
0.23
0.16
0.11
Low
4.30 E-2
2.74 E-2
1.37 E-2
0.73 E-2
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-20).
B-33
-------
TABLE B-57. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF NAPHTHALENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES9>D—90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(nig/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
13.10
8.18
5.46
3.72
Low
2.27
1.44
0.72
0.38
Silt
High
6.55
4.09
2.73
1.86
Low
0.61
0.39
0.19
0.10
Clay Gravel
High
6.55
4.09
2.73
1.86
Low
0.61
0.39
0.19
0.10
High
6.55
4.09
2.73
1.86
Low
0.76
0.48
0.24
0.13
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-21).
TABLE B-58. WORST-CASE CONCENTRATIONS OF PCB'S
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--90TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1.13
0.71
0.47
0.32
Low
0.20
0.12
0.06
0.03
Silt
High
0.56
0.35
0.24
0.16
Low
5.24 E-2
3.34 E-2
1.67 E-2
0.89 E-2
Clay Gravel
High
0.56
0.35
0.24
0.16
Low
5.24 E-2
3.34 E-2
1.67 E-2
0.89 E-2
High
0.56
0.35
0.24
0.16
Low
6.51 E-2
4.15 E-2
2.08 E-2
1.10 E-2
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-22).
B-34
-------
TABLE B-59. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF ARSENIC
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES61'-- 75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.32
0.20
0.13
0.09
Low
5.47 E-2
3.49 E-2
1.74 E-2
9.26 E-2
Silt
High
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.04
Low
1.47 E-2
9.35 E-3
4.67 E-3
2.48 E-3
Clay
High
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.04
Low
1.47 E-2
9.35 E-3
4.67 E-3
2.48 E-3
Gravel
High
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.04
Low
1.82 E-2
1.16 E-2
5.81 E-3
3.09 E-3
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-23).
TABLE B-60. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF BARIUM
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
4.52
2.82
1.88
1.28
Low
0.78
0.50
0.25
0.13
Silt
High
2.26
1.41
0.94
0.64
Low
0.21
0.13
0.07
0.04
Clay
High
2.26
1.41
0.94
0.64
Low
0.21
0.13
0.07
0.04
Gravel
High
2.26
1.41
0.94
0.64
Low
0.26
0.17
0.08
0.04
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-24).
B-35
-------
TABLE B-61. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF CADMIUM
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES9'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
2.93 E-2
1.83 E-2
1.22 E-2
8.34 E-3
Low
5.08 E-2
3.24 E-3
1.62 E-3
8.60 E-4
Silt
High
1.47 E-2
9.17 E-3
6.11 E-3
4.17 E-3
Low
1.36 E-2
8.68 E-4
4.34 E-4
2.31 E-4
Clay
High
1.47 E-2
9.17 E-3
6.11 E-3
4.17 E-3
Low
1.36 E-2
8.68 E-4
4.34 E-4
2.31 E-4
Gravel
High
1.47 E-2
9.17 E-3
6.11 E-3
4.17 E-3
Low
1.69 E-3
1.08 E-3
5.40 E-4
2.87 E-4
U)
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of oiled road is
therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-25).
TABLE B-62. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF CHROMIUM
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES9'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(rug/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.27
0.17
0.11
0.08
Low
4.69 E-2
2.99 E-2
1.49 E-2
7.94 E-3
Silt
High
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.04
Low
1.26 E-2
8.01 E-3
4.01 E-3
2.13 E-3
Clay
High
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.04
Low
1.26 E-2
8.01 E-3
4.01 E-3
2.13 E-3
Gravel
High
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.04
Low
1.56 E-2
9.96 E-3
4.98 E-3
2.64 E-3
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-26).
-------
TABLE B-63. WORST-CASE STREAM. CONCENTRATIONS OF LEAD
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES9'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
9.48
5.93
3.95
2.69
Low
1.64
1.05
0.52
0.28
Silt
High
4.74
2.96
1.98
1.35
Low
0.44
0.28
0.14
0.07
Clay
High
4.74
2.96
1.98
1.35
Low
0.44
0.28
0.14
0.07
Gravel
High
4.74
2.96
1.98
1.35
Low
0.55
0.35
0.17
0.09
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-27).
TABLE B-64. WORST-CASE STREAM.CONCENTRATIONS OF ZINC
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
20.10
12.56
8.37
5.71
Low
3.48
2.22
1.11
0.59
Silt
High
10.05
6.28
4.19
2.85
Low
0.93
0.59
0.30
0.16
Clay
High
10.05
6.28
4.19
2.85
Low
0.93
0.59
0.30
0.16
Gravel
High
10.05
6.28
4.19
2.85
Low
1.16
0.74
0.37
0.20
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-28).
B-37
-------
TABLE B-65. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1 Her)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
4.74
2.96
1.98
1.35
Low
0.82
0.52
0.26
0.14
Silt
High
2.37
1.48
0.99
0.67
Low
0.22
0.14
0.07
0.04
Clay
High
2.37
1.48
0.99
0.67
Low
0.22
0.14
0.07
0.04
Gravel
High
2.37
1.48
0.99
0.67
Low
0.27
0.17
0.09
0.05
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-29).
TABLE B-66. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF TRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3' --75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1 Her)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.75
0.47
0.31
0.21
Low
0.13
0.08
0.04
0.02
Silt
High
0.37
0.23
0.16
0.11
Low
3.46 E-2
2.20 E-2
1.10 E-2
5.85 E-3
Clay
High
0.37
0.23
0.16
0.11
Low
3.46 E-2
2.20 E-2
1.10 E-2
5.85 E-3
Gravel
High
0.37
0.23
0.16
0.11
Low
4.20 E-2
2.74 E-2
1.37 E-2
7.28 E-3
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-30).
B-38
-------
TABLE B-67. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF TRICHLOROETHANE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES9'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
13.32
8.33
5.55
3.78
Low
2.31
1.47
0.73
0.39
Silt
High
6.66
4.16
2.78
1.89
Low
0.62
0.39
0.20
0.10
Clay
High
6.66
4.16
2.78
1.89
Low
0.62
0.39
0.20
0.10
Gravel
High
6.66
4.16
2.78
1.89
Low
0.77
0.49
0.24
0.13
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-31).
TABLE B-68. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIESa'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
11.06
6.91
4.61
3.14
Low
1.91
1.22
0.61
0.32
Silt
High
5.53
3.46
2.30
1.57
Low
0.51
0.33
0.16
0.09
Clay
High
5.53
3.46
2.30
1.57
Low
0.51
0.33
0.16
0.89
Gravel
High
5.53
3.46
2.30
1.57
Low
0.64
0.41
0.20
0.11
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-32).
B-39
-------
TABLE B-69. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF TETRACHLOROETHLYENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3' --75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
8.35
5.22
3.48
2.37
Low
1.45
0.92
0.46
0.24
Silt
High
4.18
2.61
1.74
1.19
Low
0.39
0.25
0.12
0.07
Clay
High
4.18
2.61
1.74
1.19
Low
0.39
0.25
0.12
0.07
Gravel
High
4.18
2.61
1.74
1.19
Low
0.48
0.31
0.15
0.08
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on raod surface concentrations (Table B-33).
TABLE B-70. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES*'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
durati on
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
1.74
1.09
0.72
0.49
Low
0.39
0.19
0.10
0.05
Silt
High
0.87
0.54
0.36
0.25
Low
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.01
Clay
High
0.87
0.54
0.36
0.25
Low
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.01
Gravel
High
0.87
0.54
0.36
0.25
Low
0.10
0.06
0.03
0.02
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-34).
B-40
-------
TABLE B-71. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF TOLUENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
durati on
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
11.06
6.91
4.61
3.14
Low
1.91
1.22
0.61
0.32
Silt
High
5.53
3.46
2.30
1.57
Low
0.51
0.33
0.16
0.09
Clay
High
5.53
3.46
2.30
1.57
Low
0.51
0.33
0.16
0.09
Gravel
High
5.53
3.46
2.30
1.57
Low
0.64
0.41
0.20
0.11
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-35).
TABLE B-72. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF XYLENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
6.10
3.81
2.54
1.73
Low
1.06
0.67
0.34
0.18
Silt
High
3.05
1.91
1.27
0.87
Low
0.28
0.18
0.09
0.05
Clay
High
3.05
1.91
1.27
0.87
Low
0.28
0.18
0.09
0.05
Gravel
High
3.05
1.91
1.27
0.87
Low
0.35
0.22
0.11
0.06
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-36).
B-41
-------
TABLE B-73. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.59
0.37
0.24
0.17
Low
0.10
0.06
0.03
0.02
Silt
High
0.29
0.18
0.12
0.08
Low
2.72 E-2
1.74 E-2
8.68 E-3
4.61 E-3
Clay
High
0.29
0.18
0.12
0.08
Low
2.72 E-2
1.74 E-2
8.68 E-3
4.61 E-3
Gravel
High
0.29
0.18
0.12
0.08
Low
3.39 E-2
2.16 E-2
1.08 E-2
5.73 E-3
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-37).
TABLE B-74: WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZO(A)PYRENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES5'--75TH PERCNETILE LEVELS
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.27
0.17
0.11
0.08
Low
4.69 E-2
2.99 E-2
1.49 E-2
7.94 E-3
Silt
High
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.04
Low
1.26 E-2
8.01 E-3
4.01 E-3
2.13 E-3
Clay
High
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.04
Low
1.26 E-2
8.01 E-3
4.01 E-3
2.13 E-3
Gravel
High
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.04
Low
1.56 E-2
9.96 E-3
4.98 E-3
2.65 E-3
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for ech mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-38).
B-42
-------
TABLE B-75. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF PCB'S
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIESa'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/liter)
Rainfall
duration,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
0.93
0.58
0.39
0.26
Low
0.16
0.10
0.05
0.03
Silt
High
0.46
0.29
0.19
0.13
Low
4.30 E-2
2.74 E-2
1.37 E-2
7.27 E-3
Clay
High
0.46
0.29
0.19
0.13
Low
4.30 E-2
2.74 E-2
1.37 E-2
7.27 E-2
Gravel
High
0.46
0.29
0.19
0.13
Low
5.34 E-2
3.40 E-2
1.70 E-2
9.04 E-3
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table 13-40).
TABLE B-76. WORST-CASE STREAM CONCENTRATIONS OF NAPHTHALENE
AT VARIOUS RAINFALL INTENSITIES3'--75TH PERCENTILE LEVELS
(mg/1iter)
Rainfall
duration ,
minutes
5
10
30
120
Sand
High
11.06
6.91
4.61
3.14
Low
1.91
1.22
0.61
0.32
Silt
High
5.53
3.46
2.30
1.57
Low
0.51
0.33
0.16
0.09
Clay
High
5.53
3.46
2.30
1.57
Low
0.51
0.33
0.16
0.09
Gravel
High
5.53
3.46
2.30
1.57
Low
0.64
0.41
0.20
0.11
Assumes roads are placed at one-mile intervals; watershed for each mile of
oiled road is therefore 0.5 square mile or 320 acres.
Based on road surface concentrations (Table B-39).
B-43
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B
1. Eagleson, P. S. Dynamic Hydrology. 1970. pp. 331-345.
2. Lensley, R. K., M. A. Kohler, and J. L. H. Paulhus. Hydrol-
ogy for Engineers. Third edition. McGraw Hill Book Co.
1982.
3. Clubreath, M. Handbook of Steel Drainage and Highway Con-
struction Products. 1967.
B-44
-------
APPENDIX C
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF FACTORS
AFFECTING CONTAMINATED DUST EMISSIONS
This appendix presents some of the basic equations used to
develop predictions of contaminated dust emissions from roads
treated with waste oil. The basic data for uncontrolled dust
emissions, concentrations of contaminants in road surfaces, and
contaminated dust emissions are also presented.
Subsurface Evaporation
The rate of subsurface evaporation of organics controls the
concentration of contaminant remaining in the road surface. The
equations used to predict subsurface evaporation rates are pre-
sented in Section 3 (Equations 8 through 10) as developed by
Thibodeaux. Much of the physical data necessary to solve these
equations are available in the literature; in the case of air
diffusion constants, however, actual values are available for
only benzene, toluene, and xylene. Air diffusion constants for
other organics are predicted (Equation C-l). These values are
shown in Table C-l.
DA = DB
c-i
-------
where
D =
DB =
"B =
air diffusion constant for component A, cm2/s
air diffusion constant for component B, cm2/s
molecular weight of component A
molecular weight of component B
TABLE C-l
AIR DIFFUSION CONSTANTS*
(cmz/s)
1
Chlorinated solvents
Di chlorodif1uoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Trichloroethane
Tri chloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Other organics
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Naphthalene
PCB's
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
(0.067)
(0.053)
(0.063)
(0.064)
(0.057)
0.088
0.076
0.071
(0.065)
(0.046)
(0.043)
(0.040)
(0.039)
All values in parentheses were calculated based on Equation C-l.
Dust Emissions
The rate at which an unpaved road surface that has not been
treated with a dust suppressant emits dust depends on environmen-
tal factors and road traffic (Equation C-2). The environmental
factors that affect dust emissions are the number of dry days per
year and road silt content. To approximate the worst likely
environmental conditions, 325 dry days per year and a 12 percent
4
road silt content are used in the model.
C-2
-------
0-7
0-5
0.0118
(C-2)
E 5*9 12 30 (3} V4' 365 R
E = dust emissions, g/m2-h
s = percent silt in road surface
S = average vehicle speed, mi/h
W = average vehicle weight, tons
w = average number of wheels per vehicle
A = dry days per year (<0.01 in.)
V = average number of vehicles per day
R = road width, m
Two traffic levels are considered: heavy and moderate. The
values chosen to represent heavy traffic conditions are those
that might be found on a rural public road leading to a sanitary
landfill. Moderate traffic levels are also considered because
they will occur more frequently than heavy traffic conditions.
TABLE C-2
FACTORS AFFECTING DUST EMISSIONS4
Factor
Percent silt (s)
Average vehicle speed (S)
Average vehicle weight (W)
Average number of wheels (w)
Average number of dry days per year (A)
Average number of vehicles per day (V)
Road width (R)
Traffic conditions
Heavy
12%
40 mph
22 tons
10
325
300
5.5 m
Moderate
12%
30 mph
12 tons
6
325
200
5.5 m
Emission rates have been calculated for roads treated with
waste oil, based on the uncontrolled emission rates just
C-3
-------
described. Emissions are assumed to be reduced 75 percent fol-
o
lowing waste oil application and to increase linearly for 30
days (Tables C-3 and C-4), after which dust suppression is no
longer effective (see Section 2).
TABLE C-3
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM AN UNPAVED ROAD
TREATED WITH WASTE OIL
HEAVY TRAFFIC - WORST ENVIRONMENT*
Emission
rate,
g/m2-h
7.2
7.9
8.6
9.4
10.1
10.8
14.4
18.0
21.6
25.2
28.8
Percent
control
75.0
72.5
70.0
67.5
65.0
62.5
50.0
37.5
25.0
12.5
0
Day
number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Based on Equation C-2.
As a means of ensuring that the emission rates chosen do not
exceed the quantity of soil contaminated by application of waste
oil to road surfaces, a simple material balance has been prepared
for the quantity of soil contaminated versus cumulative soil
emissions for a 30-day period (Tables C-5 and C-6). Emissions do
not exceed the quantity of contaminated soil during the 30-day
modeling period. The most rapid loss of contaminated soil occurs
on gravel roads and takes 37 days (Table C-7). Variations in
days required for total emissions of contaminated soil are due to
C-4
-------
TABLE C-4
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM AN UNPAVED ROAD
TREATED WITH WASTE OIL
MODERATE TRAFFIC - WORST ENVIRONMENT*
Emission
Tr-ate ,
g/m2-h
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.7
3.6
4.6
5.5
6.4
7.3
Percent
Control
75.0
72.5
70.0
67.5
65.0
62.5
50.0
37.5
25.0
12.5
0
Day
number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
* Based on equation C-2.
TABLE C-5
QUANTITY OF SOIL ON ROAD SURFACES
CONTAMINATED BY WASTE OIL APPLIED AS
A DUST SUPPRESSANT*
(g/m2)
Soil type
Low
High
Sand
Clay /Sand
Gravel
91,400
19,600
17,200
195,000
97,500
61,000
* Calculated based upon depth of oil penetration (see Table 3-11) and
soil density.
C-5
-------
TABLE C-6
TOTAL SOIL EMITTED AS DUST PARTICLES
FROM UNPAVED ROADS TREATED WITH WASTE OIL
O
I
Heavy traffic/worst environment
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Emission
rate,
g/m2-h
7.2
7.9
8.6
9.4
10.1
10.8
11.5
12.2
13.0
13.7
14.4
15.1
15.8
16.6
17.3
18.0
18.7
19.4
20.2
20.9
21.6
22.3
23.0
23.8
24.5
25.2
25.9
26.6
27.4
28.1
Daily
emissions,
g/m2
172.8
190.1
207.4
224.6
241.9
259.2
276.5
293.8
311.0
328.3
345.6
362.9
380.2
397.4
414.7
432.0
449.3
466.6
483.8
501.1
518.4
535.7
553.0
570.2
587.5
604.8
622.1
. 639.4
656.6
673.9
Cumulative
emissions,
g/m2
172.8
362.9
570.3
794.9
1,036.8
1,296.0
1,572.5
1.866.3
2,177.3
2,505.6
2,851.2
3,214.1
3,594.3
3,991.7
4,406.4
4,838.4
5,287.7
5,754.3
6,238.1
6,739.2
7,257.6
7,793.3
8,346.3
8,916.5
9,504.0
10,108.8
10,730.9
11,370.3
12,026.9
12,700.9
Moderate traffic/worst environment
Emission
rate,
g/m2-h
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.7
4.9
5.1
5.3
5.5
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.7
6.9
7.1
Daily
emissions,
g/m2
43.2
47.6
52.0
56.4
60.7
65.2
69.6
73.9
78.3
82.7
87.1
91.5
95.9
100.3
104.7
109.1
113.5
117.9
122.3
126.6
131.0
135.4
139.8
144.2
148.6
153.0
157.4
161.8
166.2
170.6
Cumulative
emissions,
g/m2
43.2
90.8
142.8
199.2
259.9
325.1
394.7
468.6
546.9
629.6
716.7
808.2
904.1
1,004.4
1,109.1
1,218.2
1,331.7
1,449.6
1,571.9
1,698.5
1,829.5
1,964.9
2,104.7
2,248.9
2,397.5
2,550.5
2,707.9
2,869.7
3,035.9
3,206.5
-------
the different rates of waste oil application to the different
road surface types, not different emission rates.
TABLE C-7
DAYS REQUIRED FOR TOTAL EMISSIONS OF SOIL
CONTAMINATED BY WASTE OIL AS DUST PARTICLES*
Soil type
Sand
Clay/sand
Gravel
Heavy traffic/
worst environment
Low
147
40
37
High
301
156
102
Moderate traffic/
worst environment
Low
547
126
112
High
1,154
583
369
Calculated assuming no particulate control following day 30 and
that only contaminated soil is being emitted to the given day of
depletion.
Contaminant Concentration in Road Surfaces
Levels of contamination are calculated based on concentra-
tion in oil, application rate, and depth of oil penetration into
the road surface. Metals concentrations remain constant over
time (Table C-8) but organics concentrations drop due to evapora-
tion (Tables C-9 through C-20).
Contaminated Dust Emissions
Emission levels of contaminated dust have been calculated
based on contaminant concentration in road surfaces and dust
emission rates (Tables C-21 through C-58) . The predicted emis-
sions may be adjusted for a particular location by adjusting the
dust emission rates (Equation C-2 and Tables C-2 through C-4) and
multiplying by the contamination levels (Tables C-8 through C-20) ,
C-7
-------
TABLE C-8
CONCENTRATION OF METALS IN ROAD SOIL AS A RESULT OF CONTAMINATION
BY WASTE OIL USED TO SUPPRESS DUST*t
(10~6 g metal/g soil)
Sand
0
00
Metal
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Low
0.23
6.87
0.06
0.39
14.15
16.28
High
0.65
19.53
0.16
1.13
40.25
46.30
Clay /Sand
Low
0.12
3.68
0.03
0.22
7.59
8.73
High
1.48
45.51
0.38
2.65
93.88
107 . 96
Gravel
Low
0.25
7.31
0.06
0.43
15.08
17.34
Hign
1.69
51.86
0.43
3.02
106.98
123.02
* Calculated based upon metals concentration in oil, application rate, and depth of oil penetration
into soil.
t Based on 90th percentile contamination values (Table •§ ).
-------
TABLE C-9 .
TRICHLOROETHANE CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sand
High
5.03 E-5
1.97 E-5
1.27 E-5
1.21 E-5
1.16 E-5
1.11 E-5
9.36 E-6
8.00 E-6
6.86 E-6
5.85 E-6
4.93 E-6
Clay /Sand
Low
1.09 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High
1.12 E-4
6.36 E-5
6.36 E-5
6.36 E-5
6.36 E-5
6.36 E-5
6.36 E-5
6.36 E-5
6.36 E-5
6.36 E-5
6.36 E-5
Low
3.03 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel
High
1.28 E-4
6.48 E-5
6.17 E-5
5.93 E-5
5.72 E-5
5.55 E-5
4.84 E-5
4.30 E-5
3.85 E-5
3.45 E-5
3.09 E-5
Low
1.65 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Calculations based on an original trichloroethane concen-
tration in waste oil of 1,300 mg/1. This represents the 90th per-
centile level (Table I ).
C-9
-------
TABLE C-10
TRICHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sand
High
4.14 E-5
2.16 E-5
1.34 E-5
8.64 E-6
5.69 E-6
3.10 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
Clay /Sand
Low
9.40 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High
9.46 E-5
5.87 E-5
5.86 E-5
5.85 E-5
5.84 E-5
5.83 E-5
5.81 E-5
5.78 E-5
5.77 E-5
5.75 E-5
5.74 E-5
Low
2.43 E-8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel
High
1.08 E-4
5.04 E-5
5.04 E-5
5.04 E-5
5.04 E-5
5.04 E-5
5.04 E-5
5.04 E-5
5.04 E-5
5.04 E-5
5.04 E-5
Low
8.44 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Calculations based on an original trichlorothylene concen-
tration in waste oil of 1,049 mg/1. This represents the 90th
percentile level (Table I ).
C-10
-------
TABLE Oil
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sand
High
4.81 E-5
3.73 E-5
3.28 E-5
2.93 E-5
2.64 E-5
2.39 E-5
1.39 E-5
6.87 E-6
1.12 E-6
0
0
Clay /Sand
Low
1.50 E-5
2.52 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High
1.11 E-4
6.42 E-5
5.26 E-5
4.36 E-5
3.61 E-5
2.94 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
Low
5.05 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel
High
1.27 E-4
6.85 E-5
5.11 E-5
3.89 E-5
2.87 E-5
1.96 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
Low
1.16 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Calculations based on an original tetrachloroethylene
concentration in waste oil of 1,200 mg/1. This represents the
90th percentile level (Table I ).
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-12
BENZENE CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sand
High
6.42 E-6
2.80 E-6
1.32 E-6
2.66 E-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Clay /Sand
Low
2.07 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High
1.49 E-5
1.57 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low
8.21 E-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel
High
1.70 E-5
1.15 E-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low
1.79 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Calculations based on an original benzene concentration in waste oil
of 160 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level (Table I ) .
C-12
-------
TABLE C-13
TOLUENE CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sand
High
4.79 E-5
3.32 E-5
2.72 E-5
2.25 E-5
1.86 E-5
1.51 E-5
3.58 E-6
0
0
0
0
Clay/Sand
Low
1.36 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High
1.11 E-4
6.14 E-5
5.44 E-5
4.90 E-5
4.44 E-5
4.04 E-5
2.46 E-5
1.25 E-5
2.31 E-6
0
0
Low
2.24 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel
High
1.26 E-4
5.73 E-5
4.41 E-5
3.39 E-5
2.54 E-5
1.78 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
Low
7.13 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Calculations based on an original toluene concentration
in waste oil of 1,200 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
C-13
-------
TABLE C-14
XYLENE CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sand
High
2.29 E-5
1.93 E-5
1.78 E-5
1.67 E-5
1.57 E-5
1.48 E-5
1.15 E-5
8.92 E-6
6.76 E-6
4.86 E-6
3.14 E-6
Clay /Sand
Low
7.64 E-6
3.28 E-6
1.48 E-6
8.93 E-8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High
5.32 E-5
3.65 E-5
3.01 E-5
2.57 E-5
2.21 E-5
1.89 E-5
6.29 E-6
0
0
0
0
Low
3.48 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel
High
6.06 E-5
4.10 E-5
3.28 E-5
2.71 E-5
2.27 E-5
1.87 E-5
3.25 E-6
0
0
0
0
Low
7.25 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Calculations based on an original xylene concentration
in waste oil of 570 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Tahl#a 1^ _ c
level (Table
C-14
-------
TABLE C-15
NAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
High
2.33
2.29
2.28
2.26
2.25
2.24
2.20
2.17
2.15
2.12
2.10
Sand
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
Clay/Sand
Low
8.21
7.68
7.46
7.29
7.15
7.02
6.53
6.16
5.84
5.56
5.31
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
High
5.44
5.25
5.16
5.10
5.05
5.00
4.82
4.68
4.56
4.46
4.36
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
Low
4.40 E-6
2.38 E-6
1.54 E-6
9.00 E-7
3.59 E-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel
High
6.20
5.97
5.87
5.80
5.73
5.70
5.47
5.30
5.16
5.04
4.93
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
Low
8.75
6.37
5.39
4.64
4.00
3.44
1.24
0
0
0
0
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
* Calculations based on an original naphthalene concentration
in waste oil of 580 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
C-15
-------
TABLE C-16
AROCLOR 1242 CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
High
2.01
. 2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.00
2.00
2.00
Sand
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
Clay/Sand
Low
7.08 E-7
7.05 E-7
7.04 E-7
7.03 E-7
7.03 E-7
7.02 E-7
7.00 E-7
6.98 E-7
6.97 E-7
6.95 E-7
6.94 E-7
High
4.69
4.68
4.68
4.68
4.67
4.67
4.66
4.66
4.65
4.65
4.64
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
Low
3.79
3.70
3.66
3.63
3.61
3.59
3.50
3.44
3.38
3.33
3.29
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
Gravel
High
5.34
5.33
5.33
5.32
5.32
5.32
5.31
5.30
5.29
5.29
5.28
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
Low
7.55
7.44
7.39
7.36
7.33
7.30
7.20
7.12
7.06
7.00
6.95
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1242 concentration
in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
C-16
-------
TABLE C-17
AROCLOR 1248 CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sand
High
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.00 E-6
2.00 E-6
2.00 E-6
Clay /Sand
Low
7.08 E-7
7.05 E-7
7.04 E-7
7.03 E-7
7.02 E-7
7.02 E-7
7.00 E-7
6.98 E-7
6.96 E-7
6.95 E-7
6.93 E-7
High
4.69 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.67 E-6
4.67 E-6
4.66 E-6
4.65 E-6
4.65 E-6
4.64 E-6
4.64 E-6
Low
3.79 E-7
3.69 E-7
3.65 E-7
3.62 E-7
3.60 E-7
3.57 E-7
3.48 E-7
3.41 E-7
3.35 E-7
3.30 E-7
3.25 E-7
Gravel
High
5.34 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.32 E-6
5.32 E-6
5.32 E-6
5.31 E-6
5.30 E-6
5.29 E-6
5.29 E-6
5.28 E-6
Low
7.55 E-7
7.43 E-7
7.38 E-7
7.35 E-7
7.31 E-7
7.29 E-7
7.18 E-7
7.09 E-7
7.02 E-7
6.96 E-7
6.91 E-7
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1248 concentration
in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I ).
C-17
-------
TABLE C-18
AROCLOR 1254 CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sand
High
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
Clay /Sand
Low
7.07 E-7
7.07 E-7
7.06 E-7
7.06 E-7
7.06 E-7
7.05 E-7
7.04 E-7
7.04 E-7
7.03 E-7
7.03 E-7
7.02 E-7
High
4.69 E-6
4.69 E-6
4.69 E-6
4.69 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.67 E-6
4.67 E-6
Low
3.79 E-7
3.76 E-7
3.74 E-7
3.73 E-7
3.72 E-7
3.71 E-7
3.67 E-7
3.65 E-7
3.63 E-7
3.61 E-7
3.59 E-7
Gravel
High
5.34 E-6
5.34 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.32 E-6
5.32 E-6
5.32 E-6
5.32 E-6
Low
7.55 E-7
7.50 E-7
7.48 E-7
7.47 E-7
7.46 E-7
7.45 E-7
7.41 E-7
7.38 E-7
7.35 E-7
7.33 E-7
7.30 E-7
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1254 concentration
in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
C-18
-------
TABLE C-19
AROCLOR 1260 CONCENTRATION
ON VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sand
High
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.01 E-6
Clay /Sand
Low
7.08 E-7
7.07 E-7
7.07 E-7
7.06 E-7
7.06 E-7
7.06 E-7
7.05 E-7
7.05 E-7
7.04 E-7
7.04 E-7
7.04 E-7
High
4.69 E-6
4.69 E-6
4.69 E-6
4.69 E-6
4.69 E-6
4.69 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.68 E-6
4.68 E-6
Low
3.79 E-7
3.77 E-7
3.76 E-7
3.75 E-7
3.74 E-7
3.73 E-7
3.71 E-7
3.69 E-7
3.67 E-7
3.66 E-7
3.65 E-7
Gravel
High
5.34 E-6
5.34 E-6
5.34 E-6
5.34 E-6
5.34 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.33 E-6
5.33 E-6
Low
7.56 E-7
7.52 E-7
7.50 E-7
7.49 E-7
7.48 E-7
7.48 E-7
7.45 E-7
7.42 E-7
7.41 E-7
7.39 E-7
7.37 E-7
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1260 concentration in waste
oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level (Table I).
C-19
-------
TABLE C-20
RANGE OF CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS ON ROAD SURFACES*
(g contaminant/g soil)
o
1
NO
O
Day Number
Chlorinated Organic!
Trlchloroethane
High
Low
Trlchloroethylene
High
Lew
Tetrachloroethyl«ne
High
Lou
Other Otganlcs
Benzene
High
Low
Toluene
High
Low
Xylene
High
Low
Naphthalene
High
Low
PCB'a
Aroclor 1242
High
Low
Aroclor 1248
High
Low
Aroclor 1254
High
Low
Aroclor 1260
High
Low
0
1.28 E-4
1.09 E-6
1.08 E-4
2.43 E-8
1.27 E-4
5.05 E-6
1.70 E-5
8.21 E-7
1.26 E-4
2.24 E-6
6.06 E-5
3.4B E-6
6.20 E-5
4.40 E-6
5.34 E-6
3.79 E-7
5.34 E-6
3.79 E-7
5.34 E-6
3.79 E-7
5.34 E-6
3.79 E-7
1
6.48 E-5
0
5.87 E-5
0
6.85 E-5
0
2.80 E-6
0
6.14 E-5
0
4.10 E-5
0
5.97 E-5
2.38 E-6
5.33 E-6
3.70 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.69 E-7
5.34 E-6
3.76 E-7
5.34 E-6
3.77 E-7
2
6.36 E-5
0
5.86 E-5
0
5.26 E-5
0
1.32 E-6
0
5.44 E-5
0
3.28 E-5
0
5.87 E-5
1.54 E-6
5.33 E-6
3.66 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.65 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.74 E-7
5.34 E-6
3.76 E-7
3
6.36 E-5
0
5.85 E-5
0
4.36 E-5
0
2.66 E-7
0
4.90 E-5
0
2.71 E-5
0
5.80 E-5
9.00 E-7
5.32 E-6
3.63 E-7
5.32 E-6
3.62 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.73 E-7
5.34 E-6
3.75 E-7
4
6.36 E-5
0
5.84 E-5
0
3.61 E-5
0
0
0
4.44 E-5
0
2.27 E-5
0
5.73 E-5
3.59 E-7
5.32 E-6
3.61 E-7
5.32 E-6
3.60 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.72 E-7
5.34 E-6
3.74 E-7
5
6.36 E-5
0
5.83 E-5
0
2.94 E-5
0
0
0
4.04 E-5
0
1.89 E-5
0
5.70 E-5
0
5.32 E-6
3.59 E-7
5.32 E-6
3.57 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.71 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.73 E-7
10
6.36 E-5
0
5.81 E-5
0
1.39 E-5
0
0
0
2.46 E-5
0
1.15 E-5
0
5.47 E-5
0
5.31 E-6
3.50 E-7
5.31 E-6
3.48 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.67 E-7
3.33 E-6
3.71 E-7
15
6.36 E-5
0
5.78 E-5
0
6.87 E-5
0
0
0
1.25 E-5
0
8.92 E-6
0
5.30 E-5
0
5.30 E-6
3.44 E-7
5.30 E-6
3.41 E-7
5.32 E-6
3.65 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.69 E-7
20
6.36 E-5
0
5.77 E-5
0
1.12 E-6
0
0
0
2.31 E-6
0
6.76 E-6
0
5.16 E-5
0
5.29 E-6
3.38 E-7
5.29 E-6
3.35 E-7
5.32 E-6
3.63 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.67 E-7
25
6.36 E-5
0
5.75 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.86 E-6
0
5.04 E-5
0
5.29 E-6
3.33 E-7
5.29 E-6
3.30 E-7
5.32 E-6
3.61 E-7
S.33 E-6
3.66 E-7
30
6.36 E-5
0
5.7* B-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.14 E-6
0
4.93 E-3
0
5.28 E-«
3.29 E-7
5.28 E-6
3.25 E-7
5.32 E-«
3.59 E-7
5.33 E-6
3.65 E-7
* Suaaury of Tables C-9 through C-19.
-------
TABLE C-21
ARSENIC EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(10~6 g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.2
4.7
3.2
Low
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.1
Clay /Sand
High
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
5.5
6.9
8.3
9.7
11.1
7.4
Low
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.6
Gravel
High
3.2
3.5
3.8
4.1
4.4
4.7
6.3
7.9
9.5
11.0
12.6
8.4
Low
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.2
* Calculations based on an original arsenic concentration in waste
oil of 16 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-21
-------
TABLE C-22
BARIUM EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS'^
(10~5 g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
- 15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
3.6
4.0
4.3
4.7
5.0
5.4
7.2
9.0
10.8
12.6
14.4
9.6
Low
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.5
3.2
3.8
4.4
5.1
3.4
Clay /Sand
High
8.4
9.2
10.1
10.9
11.7
12.6
16.8
20.9
25.2
29.3
33.5
22.3
Low
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.4
2.7
1.8
Gravel
High
9.6
10.5
11.4
12.4
13.4
14.3
19.1
23.8
28.6
33.4
38.2
25.4
Low
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.7
3.4
4.1
4.7
5.4-
3.6
* Calculations based on an original barium concentration in
waste oil of 485 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-22
-------
TABLE C-23
CADMIUM EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*t
(10~6 g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.1
Low
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
Clay /Sand
High
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.7
2.1
2.4
2.8
1.8
Low
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
Gravel
High
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.2
2.1
Low
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
* Calculations based on an original cadmium concentration in
waste oil of 4 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
Source : Franklin Associates, Ltd.
C-23
-------
TABLE C-24
CHROMIUM EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS'^
-S g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
4.2
5.2
6.2
7.3
8.3
5.5
Low
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.8
2.2
2.6
2.9
1.9
Clay /Sand
High
4.8
5.3
5.8
6.3
6.8
7.3
9.7
12.1
14.5
16.9
19.4
12.9
Low
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.1
Gravel
High
5.5
6.1
6.6
7.2
7.7
8.3
11.0
13.8
16.5
19.3
22.0
14.7
Low
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.9
2.3
2.7
3.1
2.0
* Calculations based on an original chromium concentration in
waste oil of 28 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-24
-------
TABLE C-25
LEAD EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS^
(10~5 g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Ayg.
High
7.2
8.1
8.9
9.7
10.5
10.9
14.5
18.5
22.1
25.8
29,4
19.7
Sand
Low
2.5
2.8
3.1
3.4
3.7
3.8
5.1
6.5
7.8
9.1
10,3
6.9
Clay
High
16.9
18.8
20.7
22.5
24.4
25.3
33.8
43.2
51.6
60.1
68.5
46.1
/Sand
Low
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.7
3.5
4.2
4.9
5,5
3.7
Gravel
High
19.3
21.4
23.5
25.7
27.8
28.9
38.5
49.2
58.8
68.5
78.1
52.5
Low
2.7
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.1
5.4
6.9
8.3
9.7
11.0
7.4
Calculations based on an original lead concentration in
waste oil of 1,000 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I ).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-25
-------
TABLE C-26
ZINC EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*t
(10~4 g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.7
2.1
2.6
3.0
3.4
2.2
Low
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
0.9
Clay /Sand
High
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
5.3
Low
0.2
0.2
0.2
,0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
Gravel
High
2.3
2.5
2-7
2.9
3.2
3.4
4.5
5.6
6.8
7.9
9.1
6.0
Low
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.3
0.9
* Calculations based on an original zinc concentration in
waste oil of 1,150 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-26
-------
TABLE C-27
SUMMARY OF METAL EMISSIONS FROM ROADS DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*
(g/m2-h)
t
Day
Arsenic
Low
High
Barium
Low
High
Cadmium
Low
1 High
to
~J Chromium
Low
High
Lead
Low
High
Zinc
Low
High
0
2.2 E-7
31.5 E-7
6.8 E-6
95.5 E-6
6.0 E-8
79.0 E-8
3.9 E-7
55.1 E-7
1.4 E-5
19.3 E-5
•
1.6 E-5
22.7 E-5
1
2.5 E-7
34.6 E-7
7.4 E-6
105.0 E-6
6.0 E-8
87.0 E-8
4.3 E-7
60.6 E-7
1.5 E-5
21.4 E-5
1.8 E-5
24.9 E-5
2
2.7 E-7
34.6 E-7
8.1 E-6
114.4 E-6
7.0 E-8
94.0 E-8
4.7 E-7
66.1 E-7
1.7 E-5
23.5 E-5
1.9 E-5
27.1 E-5
3
2.9 E-7
40.9 E-7
8.8 E-6
124.0 E-6
7.0 E-8
102.0 E-8
5.1 E-7
71.6 E-7
1.8 E-5
25.7 E-5
2.1 E-5
29.4 E-5
4
3.1 E-7
44.1 E-7
9.5 E-6
133.6 E-6
8.0 E-8
110.0 E-8
5.5 E-7
77.1 E-7
2.0 E-5
27.8 E-5
2.2 E-5
31.7 E-5
5
3.3 E-7
47.2 E-7
10.2 E-6
143.2 E-6
8.0 E-8
118.0 E-8
5.9 E-7
82.7 E-7
2.1 E-5
28.9 E-5
2.4 E-5
34.0 E-5
10
4.5 E-7
63.0 E-7
13.6 E-6
190.8 E-6
11.0 E-8
158.0 E-8
7.8 E-7
110.1 E-7
2.7 E-5
38.5 E-5
3.2 E-5
45.2 E-5
15
5.6 E-7
78.8 E-6
16.9 E-6
238.4 E-6
14.0 E-8
197.0 E-8
9.8 E-7
137.6 E-7
3.5 E-5
49.2 E-5
4.0 E-5
56.5 E-5
20
6.7 E-7
94.5 E-7
20.3 E-6
286.3 E-6
17.0 E-8
236.0 E-8
11.7 E-7
165.3 E-7
4.2 E-5
58.8 E-5
4.8 E-5
67.9 E-5
25
7.8 E-7
110.2 E-7
23.7 E-6
334.0 E-6
19.0 E-8
275.0 E-8
13.7 E-7
192.8 E-7
4.9 E-5
68.5 E-5
5.6 E-5
79.2 E-5
30
8.9 E-7
125.9 E-7
27.1 E-6
381.6 E-6
22.0 E-8
315.0 E-8
15.7 E-7
220.3 E-7
5.5 E-5
78.1 E-5
6.4 E-5
90.5 E-5
* Calculations based on 90th percentile contaminant levels in waste oil (Table I).
t Summary of tables C-21 through C-26.
-------
TABLE C-28
ARSENIC EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*t
(10~6 g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
4.6
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.4
6.9
9.2
11.5
13.8
16.0
18.3
12.3
Low
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.4
3.2
4.0
4.8
5.6
6.4
4.3
Clay /Sand
High
10.7
11.8
12.8
13.9
15.0
16.0
21.4
26.7
32.1
37.4
42.7
28.5
Low
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
3.7
2.2
2.6
3.0
3.5
2.3
Gravel
High
12.2
13.4
14.6
15.8
17.0
18.2
24.3
30.4
36.5
42.6
48.6
32.4
Low
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.6 , -
3.4
4.3
5.2
6.0
6.9
4.6
* Calculations based on an original arsenic concentration in
waste oil of 16 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-28
-------
TABLE C-29
BARIUM EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS'^
-5 g/m2_h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
13.9
15.3
16.7
18.1
19.5
20.8
27.8
34.7
41.7
48.6
55.6
37.0
Low
4.9
5.4
5.9
6.3
6.8
7.3
9.8
12.2
14.6
17.1
19.5
13.0
Clay/Sand
High
32.4
35.6
38.8
42.1
45.3
48.6
64.7
80.9
97.2
113.3
129.5
86.3
Low
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.7
3.9
5.2
6.6
7.9
9.2
10.5
7.0
Gravel
High
36.9
40.6
44.2
47.9
51.6
55.3
73.7
92.1
110.6
129.0
147.4
98.3
Low
5.2
5.7
6.3
6.8
7.3
7.8
10.4
13.0
15.6
18.2
20.8
13.9
* Calculations based on an original" ^barium concentration in
waste oil of 485 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-29
-------
TABLE C-30
CADMIUM EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(10~6 g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
A
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.3
2.9
3.4
4.0
4.6
3.1
Low
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.1
Clay /Sand
High
2.7
2.9
3.2
3.5
3.7
4.0
5.3
6.7
8.0
9.4
10.7
7.1
Low
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.5
Gravel
High
3.0
3.4
3.6
3.9
4.3
4.6
6.1
7.6
9.1
10.6
12.2
8.1
Low
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.2
* Calculations based on an original cadmium concentration in
waste oil of 4 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-30
-------
TABLE C-31
CHROMIUM EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(10~6 g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
8.0
8.8
9.6
10.4
11.2
12.0
16.0
20.0
24.1
28.1
32.1
21.3
Low
2.8
3.1
3.4
3.7
3.9
4.2
5.6
7.0
8.5
9.9
11.3
7.5
Clay /Sand
High
18.7
20.5
22.4
24.3
26.2
28.0
37.4
46.7
56.1
65.4
74.8
49.8
Low
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.3
3.0
3.8
4.5
5.3
6.1
4.1
Gravel
High
21.3
23.4
25.5
27.7
29.8
31.9
42.6
53-2
63.9
74.5
85.1
56.8
Low
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.5
6.0
7 = 5
9.0
10.5
12.0
8.0
* Calculations based on an original chromium concentration in
waste oil of 28 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I) .
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-31
-------
TABLE C-32
LEAD EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(10~4 g/m2-h)
Day Sand
Number High
0 2.9
1 3.2
2 3.5
3 3.8
4 4.1
5 4.3
10 5.8
15 7.2
20 8.7
25 10.1
30 11.6
Avg . 7.7
Low
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.1
3.6
4.1
2.7
Clay /Sand
High
6.8
7.4
8.1
8.8
9.5
10.1
13.5
16.9
20.3
24.7
27.0
18.0
Low
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.9
2.2
1.5
Gravel
High
7.7
8.5
9.2
10.1
10.8
11.6
15.4
19.3
23.1
27.0
30.8
20.6
Low
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6 . .
2.2
2.7
3.3
3.8
4.3
2.9
* Calculations based on an original lead concentration in
waste oil of 1,000 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-32
-------
TABLE C-33
ZINC EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*t
(1(T4 g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.3
4.6
5.0
6.6
8.2
9.9
11.5
13.2
8.7,
Low
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.3
2.9
3.5
4.1
4.6
3.1
Clay /Sand
High
7.7
8.5
9.2
10.0
10.7
11.5
15.4
19.2
23.0
26.9
30.7
20.5
Low
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.5
1.7
Gravel
High
8.8
9.6
10.5
11.4
12.2
13.1
17.5
21.8
26.2
30.6
34.9
23.3
Low
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
2.5
3.1
3.7
4.3
5.0
3.3
* Calculations based on an original zinc concentration in
waste oil of 1,150 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile level
(Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-33
-------
TABLE C-34
SUMMARY OF METAL EMISSIONS FROM ROADS DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*t
(g/m2-h)
o
i
Day
Arsenic
Low
High
Barium
Low
High
Cadmium
Low
High
Chromium
Low
High
Lead
Low
High
Zinc
Low
High
0
8.7 E-7
121.7 E-7
2.6 E-5
36.9 E-5
2.2 E-7
30.4 E-7
1.5 E-6
21.3 E-6
0.5 E-4
7.7 E-4
6.3 E-5
87.6 E-5
1
9.5 E-7
133.8 E-7
2.9 E-5
40.6 E-5
2.4 E-7
33.5 E-7
1.7 E-6
23.4 E-6
0.6 E-4
8.5 E-4
7.0 E-5
96.2 E-5
2
1.0 E-6
13.4 E-6
3.2 E-5
44.2 E-5
2.6 E-7
36.4 E-7
1.8 E-6
25.5 E-6
0.7 E-4
9.2 E-4
7.5 E-5
104.5 E-5
3
1.1 E-6
15.8 E-6
3.4 E-5
47.9 E-5
2.9 E-7
39.4 E-7
2.0 E-6
27.7 E-6
0.7 E-4
10.1 E-4
8.2 E-5
113.6 E-5
4
1.2 E-6
17.0 E-6
3.7 E-5
51.6 E-5
3.1 E-7
42.5 E-7
2.1 E-6
29.8 E-6
0.8 E-4
10.8 E-4
8.7 E-5
122.2 E-5
5
1.3 E-6
18.2 E-6
3.9 E-5
55.3 E-5
3.2 E-7
45.6 E-7
2.3 E-6
31.9 E-6
0.8 E-4
11.6 E-4
9.4 E-5
131.2 E-5
10
1.7 E-6
24.3 E-6
5.2 E-5
73.7 E-5
4.3 E-7
60.9 E-7
3.0 E-6
42.6 E-6
1.1 E-4
15.4 E-4
1.2 E-4
17.5 E-4
15
2.2 E-6
30.4 E-6
6.6 E-5
92.1 E-5
5.4 E-7
76.0 E-7
3.8 E-6
53.2 E-6
1.4 E-4
19.3 E-4
1.6 E-4
21.9 E-4
20
2.6 E-6
36.5 E-6
7.7 E-5
110.6 E-5
6.5 E-7
91.3 E-7
4.5 E-6
63.9 E-6
1.6 E-4
23.1 E-4
1.9 E-4
26.2 E-4
25
3.0 E-6
42.6 E-6
9.2 E-5
129.0 E-5
7.5 E-7
106.4 E-7
5.3 E-6
74.5 E-6
1.9 E-4
27.0 E-4
2.2 E-4
30.6 E-4
30
3.5 E-6
48.6 E-6
1.0 E-4
14.7 E-4
8.7 E-7
121.6 E-7
6.0 E-6
85.1 E-6
2.2 E-4
30.8 E-4
2.5 B-4
35.0 E-4
* Calculations baaed on 90th percentile contaminant levels In waste oil (Table I).
t Summary of tables C-28 through C-33.
-------
TABLE C-35
TRICHLOROETHANE EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(f/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
3.62 E-4
1.52 E-4
1.09 E-4
1.14 E-4
1.17 E-4
1.20 E-4
1.35 E-4
1.44 E-4
1.48 E-4
1.47 E-4
1.42 E-4
1.47 E-4
Clay /Sand
Low
7.86 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.54 E-7
High
8.09 E-4
4.90 E-4
5.47 E-4
5.98 E-4
6.42 E-4
6.87 E-4
9.16 E-4
1.15 E-3
1.37 E-3
1.60 E-3
1.83 E-3
1.23 E-3
Low
2.18 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.03 E-7
Gravel
High
9.20 E-4
4.99 E-4
5.31 E-4
5.57 E-4
5.78 E-4
5.99 E-4
6.97 E-4
7.75 E-4
8.31 E-4
8.69 E-4
8.89 E-4
7.75 E-4
Low
6.07 E-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.96 E-5
* Calculations based on an original trichloroethane concentra-
tion in waste oil of 1,300 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-35
-------
TABLE C-36
TRICHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
2.98 E-4
1.66 E-4
1.15 E-4
8.12 E-5
5.75 E-5
3.35 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
2.43 E-5
Clay /Sand
Low
5.78 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.86 E-6
High
6.81 E-4
4.52 E-4
5.04 E-4
5.50 E-4
5.90 E-4
6.30 E-4
8.36 E-4
1.04 E-3
1.25 E-3
1.45 E-3
1.65 E-3
1.07 E-3
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel
High
7.76 E-4
3.88 E-4
4.34 E-4
4.74 E-4
5.09 E-4
5.45 E-4
7.26 E-4
9.08 E-4
1.09 E-3
1.27 E-3
1.45 E-3
9.80 E-4
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Calculations based on an original trichloroethylene
concentration in waste oil of 1,049 mg/1. This represents
the 90th percentile level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-36
-------
TABLE C-37
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
A
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
3.46 E-A
2.87 E-A
2.82 E-A
2.76 E-A
2.67 E-A
2.58 E-A
2.00 E-A
1.12 E-A
2. A3 E-5
0
0
1.10 E-4
Clay/Sand
Low
1.08 E-A
1.9A E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.11 E-6
High
8.03 E-A
A. 95 E-A
A. 52 E-A
A. 10 E-A
3.6A E-A
3.17 E-A
A. 72 E-5
0
0
0
0
9.93 E-5
Low
3.6A E-A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.17 E-5
Gravel
High
9.1A E-A
5.27 E-A
A. 39 E-A
3.66 E-A
2.89 E-A
2.12 E-A
0
0
0
0
0
8.86 E-5
Low
8.37 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.7 E-6
* Calculations based on an original tetrachloroethylene
concentration in waste oil of 1,200 mg/1. This represents
the 90th percentile level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-37
-------
TABLE C-38
BENZENE EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
4.62 E-5
2.15 E-5
1.14 E-5
2.50 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.36 E-6
Clay /Sand
Low
1.49 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.81 E-7
High
1.07 E-4
1.21 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.84 E-6
Low
5.91 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.91 E-7
Gravel
High
1.22 E-4
8.87 E-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.96 E-6
Low
1.71 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.52 E-7
* Calculations based on an original benzene concentration
in waste oil of 160 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-38
-------
TABLE C-39
TOLUENE EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
3.45 E-4
2.56 E-4
2.34 E-4
2.12 E-4
1.88 E-4
1.63 E-4
5.15 E-5
0
0
0
0
5.- 3 4 E-5
Clay/Sand
Low
9.75 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.15 E-6
High
7.97 E-4
4.73 E-4
4.68 E-4
4.60 E-4
4.48 E-4
4.36 E-4
3.54 E-4
2.25 E-4
4.99 E-5
0
0
2.01 E-4
Low
1.61 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.19 E-7
Gravel
High
9.07 E-4
4.42 E-4
3.79 E-4
3.19 E-4
2.56 E-4
1.92 E-4
0
0
0
0
0
8.05 E-5
Low
5.13 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.65 E-6 '
* Calculations based on an original toluene concentration
in waste oil of 1,200 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-39
-------
TABLE C-AO
XYLENE EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*t
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
A
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
1.65 E-A
1.A9 E-A
1.53 E-A
1.57 E-A
1.58 E-A
1.60 E-A
1.65 E-A
1.61 E-A
1.A6 E-A
1.23 E-A
9.A1 E-5
1.42 E-4
Clay /Sand
Low
5.50 E-5
2.53 E-5
1.27 E-5
8.AO E-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.03 E-6
High
3.83 E-A
2.81 E-A
2.59 E-A
2.A2 E-A
2.23 E-A
2.0A E-A
9.06 E-5
0
0
0
0
6.60 E-5
Low
2.51 E-A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.10 E-6
Gravel
High
A. 37 E-A
3.15 E-A
2.82 E-A
2.55 E-A
2.29 E-A
2.02 E-A
A. 68 E-A
0
0
0
0
1.31 E-4
Low
5.22 E-5
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.68 E-6
* Calculations based on an original xylene concentration
in waste oil of 570 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-40
-------
TABLE C-41
NAPHTHALENE EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS'^
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
High
1.68
1.76
1.96
2.13
2.27
2.42
3.17
3.91
4.64
5.35
6.06
4.12
Sand
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
Clay /Sand
Low
5.91
5.91
6.41
6.85
7.22
7.59
9.41
1.11
1.26
1.40
1.53
1.14
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
High
3.92
4.04
4.44
4.80
5.10
5.40
6.94
8.43
9.86
1.12
1.13
8.59
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-3
E-3
E-4
Low
3.17 E-5
1.83 E-5
1.33 E-5
8.46 E-6
3.63 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.43 E-6
Gravel
High
4.46
4.59
5.05
5.49
5.79
6.13
7.87
9.54
1.11
1.27
1.42
9.95
Low
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-3
E-3
E-3
E-4
6.
4.
4.
4.
4.
3.
1.
0
0
0
0
9.
30 E-5
91 E-5
64 E-5
36 E-5
04 E-5
72 E-5
79 E-5
60 E-6
* Calculations based on an original naphthalene concentration
in waste oil of 580 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-41
-------
TABLE C-42
AROCLOR 1242 EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day Sand Clay/Sand Gravel
Number High Low High Low High Low
0 1.45 E-5 5.09 E-6 3.34 E-5 2.73 E-6 3.85 E-5 5.43 E-6
1 1.59 E-5 5.43 E-6 3.61 E-5 2.85 E-6 4.10 E-5 5.73 E-6
2 1.73 E-5 6.06 E-6 4.02 E-5 3.15 E-6 4.58 E-5 6.36 E-6
3 1.89 E-5 6.61 E-6 4.40 E-5 3.42 E-6 5.00 E-5 6.92 E-6
4 2.03 E-5 7.10 E-6 4.72 E-5 3.65 E-6 5.37 E-5 7.40 E-6
5 2.17 E-5 7.59 E-6 5.05 E-5 3.87 E-6 5.74 E-5 7.89 E-6
10 2.89 E-5 1.01 E-5 6.72 E-5 5.04 E-6 7.64 E-5 1.04 E-5
15 3.61 E-5 1.26 E-5 8.38 E-5 6.18 E-6 9.54 E-5 1.28 E-5
20 4.33 E-5 1.51 E-5 1.01 E-4 7.30 E-6 1.14 E-4 1.53 E-5
25 5.05 E-5 1.75 E-5 1.17 E-4 8.40 E-6 1.33 E-4 1.77 E-5
30 5.77 E-5 2.00 E-5 1.34 E-4 9.47 E-6 1.52 E-4 2.00 E-5
Avg. 3.84 E-5 1.34 E-5 8.92 E-5 6.50 E-6 1.01 E-4 1.36 E-5
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1242 concentration
in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-42
-------
TABLE C-43
AROCLOR 1248 EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/tn2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
1.45 E-5
1.59 E-5
1.73 E-5
1.89 E-5
2.03 E-5
2.17 E-5
2.89 E-5
3.61 E-5
4.33 E-5
5.05 E-5
5.76 E-5
3.84 E-5
Clay/Sand
Low
5.09 E-6
5.43 E-6
6.05 E-6
6.61 E-6
7.09 E-6
7.58 E-6
1.01 E-5
1.26 E-5
1.50 E-5
1.75 E-5
2.00 E-5
1.34 E-5
High
3.38 E-5
3.61 E-5
4.02 E-5
4.39 E-5
4.72 E-5
5.04 E-5
6.71 E-5
8.38 E-5
1.00 E-4
1.17 E-4
1.34 E-4
8.91 E-5
Low
2.73 E-6
2.85 E-6
3.14 E-6
3.40 E-6
3.63 E-6
3.86 E-6
5.01 E-6
6.14 E-6
7.23 E-6
8.31 E-6
9.36 E-6
6.45 E-6
Gravel
High
3.85 E-5
4.10 E-5
4.58 E-5
5.00 E-5
5.37 E-5
5.74 E-5
7.64 E-5
9.54 E-5
1.14 E-4
1.33 E-4
1.52 E-4
1.01 E-4
Low
5.43 E-6
5.72 E-6
6.35 E-6
6.90 E-6
7.39 E-6
7.87 E-6
1.03 E-5
1.28 E-5
1.52 E-5
1.76 E-5
1.99 E-5
1.35 E-5
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1248 concentration
in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
C-43
-------
TABLE C-44
AROCLOR 1254 EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS'^
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
High
1.45
1.55
1.73
1.89
2.03
2.17
2.90
3.62
4.34
5.06
5.78
3.85
Sand
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
Clay /Sand
Low
5.09
5.44
6.07
6.64
7.13
7.62
1.01
1.27
1.52
1.77
2.02
1.35
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
High
3.38
3.61
4.03
4.40
4.73
5.06
6.74
8.42
1.01
1.18
1.35
8.97
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-5
Low
2.73
2.89
3.22
3.51
3.76
4.01
5.29
6.57
7.83
9.08
1.03
6.95
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-5
E-6
Gravel
High
3.85 E-5
4.12 E-5
4.59 E-5
5.01 E-5
5.39 E-5
5.76 E-5
7.67 E-5
9.58 E-5
1.15 E-4
1.34 E-4
1.53 E-4
1.48 E-4
Low
5.43
5.78
6.44
7.02
7.53
8.04
1.07
1.33
1.59
1.85
2.10
1.41
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1254 concentra-
tion in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-44
-------
TABLE C-45
AROCLOR 1260 EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES
FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*t
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
1.45 E-5
1.55 E-5
1.73 E-5
1.89 E-5
2.03 E-5
2.17 E-5
2.90 E-5
3.62 E-5
4.34 E-5
5.07 E-5
5.79 E-5
3.85 E-5
Clay /Sand
Low
5.09 E-6
5.44 E-6
6.08 E-6
6.64 E-6
7.13 E-6
7.62 E-6
1.02 E-5
1.27 E-5
1.52 E-5
1.77 E-5
2.03 E-5
1.35 E-5
High
3.39 E-5
3.61 E-5
4.03 E-5
4.41 E-5
4.73 E-5
5.06 E-5
6.74 E-5
8.43 E-5
1.01 E-4
1.18 E-4
1.35 E-4
8.96 E-5
Low
2.73 E-6
2.90 E-6
3.23 E-6
3.52 E-6
3.78 E-6
4.03 E-6
5.34 E-6
6.64 E-6
7.93 E-6
9.22 E-6
1.05 E-5
7.06 E-6
Gravel
High
3.85 E-5
4.11 E-5
4.59 E-5
5.02 E-5
5.39 E-5
5.76 E-5
7.68 E-5
9.59 E-5
1.15 E-4
1.34 E-4
1.53 E-4
1.02 E-4
Low
5.43 E-6
5.79 E-6
6.45 E-6
7.04 E-6
7.56 E-6
8.07 E-6
1.07 E-5
1.35 E-5
1.60 E-5
1.86 E-5
2.12 E-5
1.44 E-5
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1260 concentra-
tion in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I ).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-3.
C-45
-------
TABLE C-46
RANGE OF ORGANIC CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES UNDER HEAVY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*
(g/ra2-h)
n
Chlorinated Organlca
Trlchloroethane
High
Low
Tr Ich lore* thy lene
High
Low
fetrachloroethylene
High
Low
Other Organic*
Bentene
High
Low
Toluene
High
Low
Xytene
High
Low
Naphthalene
High
Low
PCB'a
Aroelor 1242
High
Low
Aroelor 1248
HUh
Low
Aroelor 1254
High
Low
Aroelor 1260
High
Low
0
9.20 E-4
0
7.76 E-4
0
9.14 E-4
8.37 E-5
1.22 E-4
0
9.07 E-4
1.61 E-5
4.37 E-4
5.22 E-5
4.46 E-4
3.17 E-5
3.65 E-5
2.73 E-6
3.85 E-5
2.73 E-6
3.85 E-5
2.73 E-6
3.85 E-5
2.73 E-6
1
4.99 E-4
0
4.52 E-4
0
5.27 E-4
0 .
2.15 E-5
0
4.73 E-4
0
3.15 E-4
0
4.59 E-4
1.83 E-5
4.10 E-5
2.85 E-6
4.10 E-5
2.85 E-6
4.12 E-5
2.89 E-6
4.11 E-5
2.90 E-6
2
5.47 E-4
0
5.04 E-4
0
4.52 E-4
0
1.14 E-5
0
4.68 E-4
0
2.82 E-4
0
5.05 E-4
1.33 E-5
4.58 E-5
3.15 E-6
4.58 E-5
3.14 E-6
4.59 E-5
3.22 E-6
4.59 E-5
3.23 E-6
3
5.98 E-4
0
5.50 E-4
0
4.10 E-4
0
2.50 E-5
0
4.60 E-4
0
2.55 E-4
0
5.49 E-4
8.46 E-6
5.00 E-5
3.42 E-6
5.00 E-5
3.40 E-6
5.01 E-5
3.51 E-6
5.02 E-5
3.52 E-6
4
6.42 E-4
0
5.90 E-4
0
3.64 E-4
0
0
0
4.48 E-4
0
2.29 E-4
0
5.79 E-4
3.63 E-6
5.37 E-5
3.65 E-6
5.37 E-5
3.63 E-6
5.39 E-5
3.76 E-6
5.39 E-5
3.78 E-6
5
6.87 E-4
0
6.30 E-4
0
3.17 E-4
0
0
0
4.36 E-4
0
2.04 E-4
0
6.13 E-4
0
5.74 E-5
3.87 E-6
5.74 E-5
3.86 E-6
5.76 E-5
4.01 E-6
5.76 E-5
4.03 E-6
10
9.16 E-4
0
8.36 E-4
0
2.00 E-4
0
0
0
3.54 E-4
0
4.68 E-4
0
7.87 E-4
0
7.64 E-5
5.04 E-6
7.64 E-5
5.01 E-6
7.67 E-5
5.29 E-6
7.68 E-5
5.34 E-6
1
1
1
2
1
9
9
6
9
6
9
6
9
6
15
.15 E-3
0
.04 E-3
0
.12 E-4
0
0
0
.25 E-4
0
.61 E-4
0
.54 E-4
0
.54 E-5
.18 E-6
.54 E-5
.14 E-6
.58 E-5
.57 E-6
.59 E-5
.64 E-6
20
1.37 E-3
0
1.25 E-3
0
2.43 E-5
0
0
0
4.99 E-5
0
1.46 E-4
0
1.11 E-3
0
1.14 E-4
7.30 E-6
1.14 E-4
7.23 E-6
1.15 E-4
7.83 E-6
1.15 E-4
7.93 E-6
25 30
1.60 E-3 1.83 E-3
0 0
1.45 E-3 1.65 E-3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.23 E-4 9.41 E-5
0 0
1.27 E-3 1.42 E-3
0 0
1.33 E-4 1.52 E-4
8.40 E-6 9.47 E-6
1.33 E-4 1.52 E-4
8.31 E-6 9.36 E-4
1.34 E-4 1.53 E-4
9.08 E-6 1.03 E-5
1.34 E-4 1.53 E-4
9.22 E-6 1.05 E-5
* Ealaslon rangea baaed on Tablea C-35 through C-45.
-------
TABLE C-47
TRICHLOROETHANE EMISSIONS
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
9.05 E-5
3.95 E-5
2.80 E-5
2.90 E-5
3.01 E-5
3.01 E-5
3.37 E-5
3.68 E-5
3.77 E-5
3.74 E-5
3.60 E-5
3.75 E-5
Clay /Sand
Low
1.97 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
6.38 E-8
High .
2.02 E-4
1.27 E-4
1.40 E-4
1.53 E-4
1.65 E-4
1.72 E-4
2.29 E-4
2.93 E-4
3.50 E-4
4.07 E-4
4.64 E-4
3.12 E-4
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel
High
2.30 E-4
1.30 E-4
1.36 E-4
1.42 E-4
1.49 E-4
1.50 E-4
1.74 E-4
1.98 E-4
2.12 E-4
2.21 E-4
2.25 E-4
1.96 E-4
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Calculations based on an original trichloroethane concen-
tration in waste oil of 1,300 mg/1. This represents the 90th
percentile level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-47
-------
TABLE C-48
TRICHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS'^
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
7.45 E-5
4.32 E-5
2.95 E-5
2.07 E-5
1.48 E-5
8.36 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
6.16 E-6
Clay /Sand
Low
1.45 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.68 E-8
High
1.70 E-4
1.17 E-4
1.29 E-4
1.40 E-4
1.52 E-4
1.58 E-4
2.09 E-4
2.66 E-4
3.17 E-4
3.68 E-4
4.19 E-4
2.83 E-4
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravel
High
1.94 E-4
1.01 E-4
1.11 E-4
1.21 E-4
1.31 E-4
1.36 E-4
1.82 E-4
2.32 E-4
2.77 E-4
3.23 E-4
3.68 E-4
2.49 E-4
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Calculations based on an original trichloroethylene concen-
tration in waste oil of 1,049 mg/1. This represents the 90th
percentile level (Table I ).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-'4.
C-48
-------
TABLE C-49
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE CONCENTRATION
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
t r
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
8.65 E-5
7.45 E-5
7.21 E-5
7.04 E-5
6.88 E-5
6.45 E-5
5.00 E-5
i i £ r1 - c
J • J.U J-.— _/
6.18 E-6
0
0
2.82 E-5
Clay /Sand
Low
2.69 E-5
5.04 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
1.03 E-6
High
2.01 E-4
1.29 E-4
1.16 E-4
1.05 E-4
9.37 E-X
7.94 E-5
1.18 E-5
n
0
0
0
2.53 E-5
Low
9.09 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.93 E-7
Gravel
High
2.28 E-4
1.37 E-4
1.12 E-4
9.34 E-5
7.45 E-5
5.30 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
2.25 E-5
Low
2.09 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.74 E-7
* Calculations based on an original tetrachloroethylene
concentration in waste oil of 1,200 mg/1. This represents the
90th percentile level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-49
-------
TABLE C-50
BENZENE CONCENTRATION
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
1.16 E-5
5.59 E-6
2.91 E-6
6.39 E-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.69 E07
Clay /Sand
Low
3.72 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.20 E-7
High
2.68 E-5
3.13 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.65 E-7
Low
1.48 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.77 E-8
Gravel
High
3.05 E-5
2.30 E-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.91 E-7
Low
3.22 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.04 E-7
* Calculations based on an original benzene concentration
in waste oil of 160 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I ).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-50
-------
TABLE C-51
TOLUENE CONCENTRATION
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day Sand Clay/Sand Gravel
Number High Low High Low High Low
0 8.62 E-5 2.44 E-5 1.99 E-4 4.03 E-6 2.27 E-4 1.28 E-5
1 6.45 E-5 0 1.23 E-4 0 1.15 E-4 0
2 5.98 E-5 0 1.20 E-4 0 9.70 E-5 0
3 5.40 E-5 0 1.18 E-4 0 8.14 E-5 0
4 4.83 E-5 0 1.15 E-4 0 6.60 E-5 0
5 4.08 E-5 0 1.09 E-4 0 4.81 E-5 0
10 5.56 E-6 0 8.86 E-5 0 0 0
15 0 0 5.76 E-5 0 0 0
20 0 0 1.27 E-5 0 0 0
25 0 000 0 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avg. 1.23 E-5 7.87 E-7 5.09 E-5 1.3 E-7 2.05 E-5 4.13 E-7
* Calculations based on an original toluene concentration
in waste oil of 1,200 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-51
-------
TABLE C-52
XYLENE CONCENTRATION
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
4.12 E-5
3.56 E-5
3.91 E-5
4.00 E-5
4.08 E-5
4.01 E-5
4.14 E-5
4.11 E-5
3.72 E-5
3.14 E-5
2.29 E-5
3.57 E-5
Clay/Sand
Low
1.38 E-5
6.56 E-6
3.25 E-6
2.14 E-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.68 E-7
High
9.58 E-5
7.31 E-5
6.52 E-5
6.18 E-5
5.74 E-5
5.10 E-5
2.27 E-5
0
0
0
0
1.67 E-5
Low
6.27 E-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.02 E-7
Gravel
High
1.09 E-4
8.19 E-5
7.22 E-5
6.52 E-5
5.90 E-5
5.06 E-5
1.17 E-5
0
0
0
0
1.60 E-5
Low
1.31 E-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.23 E-7
* Calculations based on an original xylene concentration
in waste oil of 570 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table II) .
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-52
-------
TABLE C-53
NAPHTHALENE CONCENTRATION
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS'*^
(g/tn2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
Sand
High
4.20 E-5
4.59 E-5
5.01 E-5
5.43 E-5
5.85 E-5
6.05 E-5
7.93 E-5
9.99 E-5
1.18 E-4
1.36 E-4
1.54 E-4
1.05 E-4
Clay /Sand
Low
1.48 E-5
1.54 E-5
1.64 E-5
1.75 E-5
1.86 E-5
1.90 E-5
2.35 E-5
2.83 E-5
3.21 E-5
3.56 E-5
3.88 E-5
2.88 E-5
High
9.80 E-5
1.05 E-4
1.14 E-4
1.22 E-4
1.31 E-4
1.35 E-4
1.74 E-4
2.15 E-4
2.51 E-4
2.85 E-4
3.19 E-4
2.23 E-4
Low
7.91 E-6
4.76 E-6
3.40 E-6
2.16 E-6
9.34 E-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.18 E-7
Gravel
High
1.11 E-4
1.19 E-4
1.29 E-4
1.39 E-4
1.49 E-4
1.53 E-4
1.97 E-4
2.44 E-4
2.84 E-4
3.23 E-4
3.60 E-4
2.53 E-4
Low
1.57 E-5
1.28 E-5
1.19 E-5
1.11 E-5
1.04 E-5
9.29 E-6
4.48 E-6
0
0
0
0
3.02 E-6
* Calculations based on an original naphthalene concentration
in waste oil of 580 mg/1. This represents the 90th percentile
level (Table I ).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-53
-------
TABLE C-54
AROCLOR 1242 CONCENTRATION
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day Sand Clay/Sand Gravel
Number High Low High Low High Low
0 3.62 E-6 1.27 E-6 8.45 E-?6 6.83 E-7 9.61 E-6 1.36 E-6
1 4.02 E-6 1.41 E-6 9.37 E-:6 7.40 E-7 1.07 E-5 1.49 E-6
2 4.42 E-6 1.55 E-6 1.03 E-5 8.06 E-7 1.17 E-5 1.63 E-6
3 4.82 E-6 1.69 E-6 1.12 E-5 8.72 E-7 1.28 E-5 1.77 E-6
4 5.22 E-6 1.83 E-6 1.22 E-5 9.38 E-7 1.38 E-5 1.91 E-6
5 5.42 E-6 1.90 E-6 1.26 E-5 9.69 E-7 1.44 E-5 1.97 E-6
10 7.22 E-6 2.52 E-6 1.68 E-5 1.26 E-6 1.91 E-5 2.59 E-6
15 9.22 E-6 3.21 E-6 2.14 E-5 1.58 E-6 2.44 E-5 3.28 E-6
20 1.10 E-5 3.83 E-6 2.59 E-5 1.86 E-6 2.91 E-5 3.88 E-6
25 - 1.28 E-5 4.45 E-6 2.97 E-5 2.13 E-6 3.38 E-5 4.48 E-6
30 1.46 E-5 5.07 E-6 3.39 E-5 2.40 E-6 3.56 E-5 5.07 E-6
Avg. 9.73 E-6 3.38 E-6. 2.78 E-5 1.63 E-7 2.53 E-5 3.44 E-6
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1242 concen-
tration in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th
percentile level (Table I ).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-54
-------
TABLE C-55
AROCLOR 1248 CONCENTRATION
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
High
3.62
4.02
4.42
4.82
5.22
5.42
7.22
9.22
1.10
1.28
1.46
9.73
Sand
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-6
Clay/Sand
Low
1.27
1.41
1.55
1:69
1.83
1.90
2.52
3.21
3.83
4.45
5.06
3.39
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
High
8.45
9.36
1.03
1.12
1.22
1.26
1.68
2.14
2.56
2.97
3.39
2.26
E-6
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
Low
6.83
7.39
8.04
8.69
9.35
9.64
1.25
1.57
1.84
2.11
2.37
1.64
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
Gravel
High
9.61
1.07
1.17
1.28
1.38
1.44
1.91
2.44
2.91
3.38
3.85
3.75
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
Low
1.36 E-6
1.49 E-6
1.62 E-6
1.76 E-6
1.90 E-6
1.97 .E-6
2.58 E-6
3.26 E-6
3.86 E-6
4.46 E-6
5.04 E-6
3.42 E-6
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1248 concen-
tration in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th
percentile level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-55
-------
TABLE C-56
AROCLOR 1254 CONCENTRATION
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
High
3.62
4.02
4.42
4.83
5.23
5.43
7.24
9.24
1.11
1.29
1.47
9,79
Sand
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-6
Clay /Sand
Low
1.27
1.41
1.55
1.69
1.83
1.90
2.54
3.24
3.87
4.50
5.13
3.42
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
High
8.45
9.38
1.03
1.12
1.23
1.26
1.69
2.15
2.57
2.99
3.41
2.27
E-6
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
Low
6.83
7.51
8.23
8.95
9.67
1.00
1.32
1.68
1.99
2.31
2.62
1.77
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
Gravel
High
9.61
1.07
1.17
1.28
1.39
1.44
1.92
2.45
2.93
3.40
3.88
2.59
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
Low
1.36 E-6
1.50 E-6
1.65 E-6
1.79 E-6
1.94 E-6
2.01 E-6
2.67 E-6
3.39 E-6
4.04 E-6
4.69 E-6
5.33 E-6
3.53 E-6
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1254 concen-
tration in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th
percentile level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-56
-------
TABLE C-57
AROCLOR 1260 CONCENTRATION
ON DUST PARTICLES FROM VARIOUS ROAD SURFACES
DUE TO MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*!
(g/m2-h)
Day
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
Avg.
High
3.62
4.02
4.23
4.83
5.23
5.43
7.24
9.29
1.11
1.29
1.47
9.67
Sand
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-6
Clay /Sand
Low
1.27
1.41
1.55
1.70
1.84
1.91
2.54
3.24
3.87
4.51
5.14
3.43
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
High
8.45
9.38
1.03
1.13
1.23
1.27
1.69
2.15
2.57
2.99
3.41
2.27
E-6
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
Low
6.83
7.53
8.26
8.99
9.72
1.01
1.33
1.70
2.02
2.34
2.66
1.78
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-7
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
E-6
Gravel
High
9.61
1.07
1.17
1.28
1.39
1.44
1.92
2.45
2.93
3.41
3.89
2.59
E-6
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
E-5
Low
1.36 E-6
1.50 E-6
1.65 E-6
1.80 E-6
1.95 E-6
2.02 E-6
2.68 E-6
3.42 E-6
4.07 E-6
4.73 E-6
5.38 E-6
3.60 E-6
* Calculations based on an original Aroclor 1260 concen-
tration in waste oil of 50 mg/1. This represents the 90th
percentile level (Table I).
t Based on dust emission factors from Table C-4.
C-57
-------
TABLE C-58
RANGE OF ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS EMISSIONS ON DUST PARTICLES UNDER MODERATE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS*
(g/m2-h)
o
1
Ul
00
Day Number
Chlorinated Organlcs
Trlchloroethane
High
Low
Trlchloroethylene
High
Low
Tetrachloroethylene
High
Low
Other Organlcs
Benzene
High
Low
Toluene
High
Low
Xyjene
High
Low
Naphthalene
High
1 rtU
LOW
PCB'a
Aroclor 1242
High
Low
Aroclor 1248
High
Low
Aroclor 1254
High
Low
Aroclor 1260
High
Low
0
2.30 E-4
0
1QA P A
• 7 •» C-*»
0
2.28 E-4
9.09 E-6
3.05 E-5
1.48 E-6
2.27 E-4
4.03 E-6
1.09 E-4
6.27 E-6
1.11 E-4
701 P ft
• y i &~o
8.45 E-5
6.83 E-7
9.61 E-6
6.83 E-7
9.61 E-6
6.83 E-7
9.61 E-6
6.83 E-7
1
1.30 E-4
0
11 7 F— A
. 1 / f **
0
1.37 E-4
0
5.59 E-6
0
1.23 E-4
0
8.19 E-5
0
1.19 E-4
9.37 E-5
7.40 E-7
1.07 E-5
7.39 E-7
1.07 E-5
7.51 E-7
1.07 E-5
7.53 E-7
2
1.40 E-4
0
17O P A
• t.7 C— *»
0
1.16 E-4
0
2.91 E-6
0
1.20 E-4
0
7.22 E-5
0
1.29 E-4
1.17 E-5
8.06 E-7
1.17 E-5
8.04 E-7
1.17 E-5
8.23 E-7
1.17 E-5
8.26 E-7
3
1.53 E-4
0
1AO P— A
• *»U ti **
0
1.05 E-4
0
6.39 E-7
0
1.18 E-4
0
6.52 E-5
0
1.39 E-4
1.28 E-5
8.72 E-7
1.28 E-5
8.69 E-7
1.28 E-5
8.95 E-7
1.28 E-5
8.99 E-7
4
1.65 E-4
0
• 1.52 E-4
0
9.37 E-4
0
0
0
1.15 E-4
0
5.90 E-5
0
1.49 E-4
9"\L F-7
• J*» ti I
1.38 E-5
9.38 E-7
1.38 E-5
9.35 E-7
1.39 E-5
9.67 E-7
1.39 E-5
9.72 E-7
5
1.72 E-4
0
1 *ift P A
1 . Jo t~t
0
7.94 E-5
0
0
0
1.09 E-4
0
5.10 E-5
0
1.53 E-4
1.44 E-5
9.69 E-7
1.44 E-5
9.64 E-7
1.44 E-5
1.00 E-6
1.44 E-5
1.01 E-7
10
2.29 E-4
0
0
5.00 E-5
0
0
0
8.86 E-5
0
4.14 E-5
0
1.97 E-4
Q
1.91 E-5
1.26 E-6
1.91 E-5
1.25 E-6
1.92 E-5
1.32 E-6
1.92 E-5
1.33 E-6
15
2.93 E-4
0
2ft& P A
• vv fc **
0
3.16 E-5
0
0
0
5.76 E-5
0
4.11 E-5
0
2.44 E-4
Q
2.44 E-5
1.58 E-6
2.44 E-5
1.57 E-6
2.45 E-5
1.68 E-6
2.45 E-5
1.70 E-6
20
3.50 E-4
0
0
6.18 E-6
0
0
0
1.27 E-5
0
3.72 E-5
0
2.84 E-4
0
2.91 E-5
1.86 E-6
2.91 E-5
1.84 E-6
2.93 E-5
1.99 E-6
2.93 E-5
2.02 E-6
25
4.07 E-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.14 E-5
0
3.23 E-4
Q
3.38 E-5
2.13 E-6
3.38 E-5
2.11 E-6
3.40 E-5
2.31 E-6
3.41 E-5
2.34 E-6
30
4.64 E-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.29 E-5
0
3.60 E-4
Q
3.56 E-5
2.40 E-6
3.85 E-5
2.37 E-6
3.88 E-5
2.62 E-6
3.89 E-5
2.66 E-6
* SuMury of Table* C-47 through C-57.
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
Thibodeaux, L. J. Chemodynamics. Wiley-Interscience, New
York. 1979.
Bohn, R., T. Cuscino, and C. Cowherd. Fugitive Emissions
From Integrated Iron and Steel Plants. Prepared by Midwest
Research Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. March 1978.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Climatic Atlas of the United
States. 1968.
Personal communication from Bob Zimmer, PEDCo, Kansas City,
to S. C. Metzler, Franklin Associates, Ltd. April 7, 1983.
C-59
-------
APPENDIX D
HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT METHOD
INTRODUCTION
Assessing the human health effects of using waste oil to
suppress dust requires an individual analysis of the impact of
each waste oil contaminant. Analysis of waste oil emissions as a
single airborne or waterborne waste stream is not practical
because of the wide range of health effects produced by the
various individual emission components. When the impact on human
health is examined, two general classes of effects can be distin-
guished: threshold and nonthreshold.
The traditional approach to the establishment of safe expo-
sure levels to chemical substances is to identify concentrations
1 _-3
that will have no adverse effects in target populations."1" " This
approach assumes the existence of a threshold dose below which no
deleterious effects will occur. Indeed, many chemical substances
have been characterized as eliciting a threshold-type response,
4
e.g., irritants and simple poisons. In this report, concentra-
tion limits likely to protect public health from acute adverse
reactions resulting from chronic exposure to toxic emissions
eliciting a threshold effect are referred to as Environmental
Exposure Limits (EEL's).
D-l
-------
Safe exposure levels are not easily identified for some
chemical substances. These chemicals elicit a response for any
exposure, no matter how small the concentration. Such substances
are said to produce nonthreshold responses in their target popu-
lations. Several substances that appear to elicit a nonthreshold
response have been identified. A pathological end-point of great
public concern that results from a nonthreshold response is
cancer. In the case of carcinogens, evidence indicates that
these substances have the potential to produce deleterious ef-
fects regardless of the quantity of the chemical present in the
body; i.e., one molecule can initiate the process of carcinogene-
sis (one-hit theory). Although a debate still goes on within the
regulatory community on how best to regulate cancer-producing
chemicals, it is generally accepted that the weight of scientific
data clearly supports the existence of the nonthreshold phenom-
enon.
Because threshold doses have not been established for car-
cinogens, the practice of "risk estimation" has gained wide
acceptance. ' Estimates of cancer risk involve the use of
animal toxicological data, human epidemiological data, and math-
ematical models to estimate the cancer incidence rates associated
with exposures to suspected carcinogens. This risk estimation
method entails the use of a carcinogen's exposure-response rela-
tionship to estimate the health impact of the substances. These
estimates are generally expressed as the number of excess cancers
D-2
-------
per unit of population or the lifetime risk to the highest ex-
posed individual. For the purposes of this report it was conven-
ient to express the exposure-response relationship as specific
risk reference concentrations (i.e., at what concentration could
-4 -5 -6
a risk of cancer of 10 , 10 , 10 , etc., be expected). This
appendix describes the data and assumptions used to determine
both the EEL's and the reference concentrations.
MODEL FOR ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE LEVELS
Environmental exposure levels were needed for both airborne
and waterborne emissions of waste oil because normal exposure is
likely to occur via inhalation of reentrained dust or evaporative
emissions, or through the consumption of contaminated water. The
approach to determining both air and water exposure levels is
presented in the following subsections.
Air Exposure Levels
The structure of the model chosen to estimate airborne EEL's for
use in the waste oil risk assessment study is similar to that of
several models currently used in the health risk assessment
7-11
community. The major premise behind all of these models (a
premise that is not universally accepted) is that workplace
threshold limit values (TLV's) published by the American Confer-
ence of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) can be ad-
justed mathematically for use in assessing nontraditional work-
4
place or environmental exposures. These mathematical adjustments
9
have ranged from simple time adjustments to a few sophisticated
7 8
models that incorporate uptake and excretion coefficients. '
D-3
-------
The success of each attempt depends on how well the authors have
accounted for the limitations inherently associated with the use
of TLV's. The preface to the ACGIH publication clearly states
the limitations associated with the TLV's as identified by the
committee:
"Threshold limit values refer to airborne concentrations of
substances and represent conditions under which it is be-
lieved that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed day
after day without adverse effect. Because of wide variation
in individual susceptibility, however, a small percentage of
workers may experience discomfort from some substances at
concentrations at or below the threshold limit; a smaller
percentage may be affected more seriously by aggravation of
a pre-existing condition or by development of an occupa-
tional illness.
"Threshold limits are based on the best available informa-
tion from industrial experience, from experimental human and
animal studies, and when possible, from a combination of the
three. The basis on which the values are established may
differ from substance to substance; protection against
impairment of health may be a guiding factor for some,
whereas reasonable freedom from irritation, narcosis, nuis-
ance, or other forms of stress may form the basis for others.
"The amount and nature of the information available for
establishing a TLV varies from substance to substance;
consequently, the precision of the estimated TLV is also
subject to variation, and the latest documentation should be
consulted in order to assess the extent of the data avail-
able for a given substance."
This preface identifies five important caveats that should
be addressed when TLV's are adjusted to account for environmental
exposures: 1) the exposure duration, 2) the population at great-
est risk (susceptibility), 3) pre-existing conditions or ill-
nesses in the exposed population, 4) the basis for determining
the original TLV, and 5) the type of protection intended.
All models developed to date (including the model presented
herein) are only partially successful in addressing each of these
D-4
-------
caveats or limitations. Mathematical models are usually devel-
oped for specific purposes (e.g., to establish exposure limits
for 10- or 12-hour workdays, overtime, the additive effects of a
second job, avocational exposures to toxic agents, or chronic
environmental exposures). These needs have limited the past
application to the most applicable or important caveats (e.g.,
accounting for the duration of exposure when the 8-hour TLV is
used to derive a 12-hour workplace exposure limit). Also, models
usually were designed to address only those limitations for which
corrective information was readily available. Despite these
deficiencies, outputs from these modified models are of greater
utility than the original TLVs simply because the adjusted value
accounts for one or more of the limitations. The greater the
number of limitations addressed, the more confidence one can
place in the model.
The model used to calculate TLV-derived EEL's for use during
this waste oil risk assessment is presented in Equation D-l.
TLV (D ) (M -)
EEL = |± 5i_ x 103 (D-l)
Sf
where EEL = environmental exposure limit, yg/m3
TLV = 8-hour time-weighted average threshold limit value,
mg/m3
D f = duration of exposure adjustment factor (0.12),
nondimensional
M _ = magnitude of exposure adjustment factor (0.72),
a nondimensional
S_ = safety factor (10-1000) , nondimensional
D-5
-------
This model adjusts for differences in duration and magnitude
of exposure. Also, through the selection of a safety factor, it
accounts for differences in the documentation used to develop
each TLV and the type of protection the TLV is intended to pro-
vide.
Duration of Exposure Adjustment Factor (D f)
ar~
The ACGIH TLV's were developed to provide protection "...for
a normal 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek, to which nearly
all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, without
adverse effect." This excerpt defines the length of a "normal"
weekly work schedule and also implies a normal working lifetime.
Because environmental exposures are not limited to an 8-hour
day, a 40-hour workweek, or a working lifetime, an adjustment in
exposure was made by estimating the ratio of a "normal" work
exposure duration to a public lifetime exposure. The normal
working lifetime of an adult male worker* was calculated to be
4
8.0 x 10 hours.** This value represents the likely duration of
an occupational exposure.
Environmental exposures have the potential of occurring over
an entire lifetime. The value used to define the duration of a
*
The term "adult male workers" is sometimes used when referring
to TLV's. This distinction is made because the vast majority
of industrial experience and human exposure data cited in the
ACGIH documentation is based on adult male subjects.
* *
Value is based on 8 hours/day, 5 days/week, 50 weeks/year,
and a working lifetime of 40 years. The selection of 40
years assumes a starting age of 25 years and a retirement age
of 65. This work period provides some allowance for job
changes, college, and early retirement, which are not con-
sidered in a 47-year working lifetime (18 to 65 years old).
D-6
-------
biological lifetime must account for variations in longevity
within the general population. Consideration of this variation
is important because a person with a long life span will experi-
ence a greater total exposure and ultimately more stress than a
person with a shorter life span. In the United States a signif-
icant gender difference exists regarding average life expectancy.
An American female born in 1979 has a longer average life expect-
ancy than an American male born at the same time (77.8 years for
12
females versus 69.9 years for males). This difference will
result in a longer lifetime exposure duration for females (6.8 x
5 5 *
10 hours versus 6.1 x 10 hours). Taking the gender difference
into account, the resulting adjustment factor for the change in
4 5
the duration of exposure is 8.0 x 10 hours/6.8 x 10 hours, or
approximately 0.12. This adjustment factor addresses, in part,
the first caveat and accounts for the cohort in the general .
population with the longest life expectancy.
Magnitude of Exposure Adjustment Factor (M_j.)
M 4.
Identifying population groups at greatest risk is difficult.
The ACGIH noted this difficulty in describing the limitation of
the TLV's: "...Because of wide variation in individual suscepti-
bility... a small percentage of workers may experience discomfort
from some substances at concentrations at or below the threshold
limit..." The reasons for this discomfort may be differences in
*
Female value is based on 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, and 50
weeks/year over a lifetime of 77.8 years. Male value is
based on the same hours/day, days/week, and weeks per year
but over a lifetime of 69.9 years.
D-7
-------
morphology, physiology, behavior, or genetics among certain
members of an exposed population. It is not possible to lower
threshold limits to levels that presumably would protect all
workers at all times; nor is it possible to reduce EEL's to
levels that presumably would protect every portion of the popu-
lation, regardless of size. The data needed to make such de-
cisions are not available.
Nevertheless, because environmental exposures, unlike work-
place exposures, affect a larger and more heterogenous popula-
tion, EEL's derived from workplace TLV's must strive to account
for and protect those portions of the population that are at
risk.
Based on a comparison of daily volumes of air breathed with
the body weights of the four cohorts of the general population
(i.e., adult males, adult females, children, and infants), air-
borne contaminants present the greatest risk to a 10-year-old
child (Table D-l). A magnitude-of-exposure adjustment factor was
developed to account for this increased risk to a 10-year-old
child. Workplace TLV's are determined from data on adult males
4
(70-kg reference/man) with a daily air volume of 2.3 x 10 liters,
2
which results in a ratio of 3.28 x 10 liters of air/kg of body
weight. The daily volume of air breathed by a child (33-kg
4
reference/10-year-old) is 1.5 x 10 liters, which results in a
2
ratio of 4.54 x 10 liters of air/kg body weight.
D-8
-------
TABLE-D-.l. DAILY AIR VOLUMES, REFERENCE BODY WEIGHTS,
AND ESTIMATED ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR VARIATIONS IN THE
LEVEL OF EXPOSURE EXPERIENCED BY VARIOUS POPULATION COHORTS
Reference
individual
(cohort)
Adult male
Adult female
Child (10 years)
Infant (1 year)
Daily air
volume
breathed,
liters
2.3 x 104
2.1 x 104
1.5 x 104
0.38 x 104
Reference
body .
weight,
kg
70
58
~33C
~10C
Exposure per
unit body
weight,
liters/kg
328
362
454
380
Ratio of adult male
value to value for
reference individual
(nondimensional)
1.00
0.91
0.72
0.86
Reference 13, p. 346. Daily air volumes breathed by adult men and women and
the 10-year-old child are based on 8 hours of working ("light activity"),
8 hours of nonoccupational activity, and 8 hours of resting. The value for
an infant is based on 8 hours of "light activity" and 16 hours of resting.
Reference 13, p. 13.
Reference 13, p. 11. Reference body weights for a 10-year-old child and a
one-year-old infant were taken as an average of both sexes for each age
group. In both age groups the actual sex-specific mean body weights vary
less than 0.5 kg from the values given above.
D-9
-------
2 2
An adjustment factor of 0.72 (3.28 x 10/4.54 x 10 ) ac-
counts for the greater ventilation rate per unit body weight of a
10-year-old child compared with that of an adult male.
Safety Factor (Sf)
Despite attempts to adjust for differences in exposure
duration and to account for large population cohorts known to be
at the greatest risk, much uncertainty is still associated with
the estimated EEL's. The uncertainty associated with each EEL is
directly related to the paucity and quality of information used
in the definition of the original TLV's. In an attempt to ac-
count for this source of uncertainty, safety factors have been
included in the estimation procedure. Table D-2 presents the
safety factors used to define the uncertainty associated with
specific conditions of information or experimental data. These
factors, which were developed for the determination of water
14
quality criteria, are also applicable to the estimating of
environmental exposure limits.
These safety factors are used because the amount and nature
of the information available for establishing a TLV vary from
substance to substance. Within these limitations, the infor-
mation that forms the basis of the ACGIH documentation and the
nature of the illness or disease the TLV is designed to provide
protection against are presented in Table D-3. The safety fac-
tors that best describe the uncertainty associated with each TLV
are also presented in this table.
D-10
-------
TABLE D.-2. UNCERTAINTY FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Nature and conditions of experimental data*
Uncertainty .
(safety) factor
Valid experimental results of chronic exposure
studies on man
Valid results of chronic exposure studies on experi-
mental animals; human exposure data limited to acute
studies
Acute exposure studies on experimental animals; no human
data available
10
100
1000
Data that present no indication of carcinogenicity.
Reference 14. Uncertainty factors developed by the National Academy of
Sciences during a study of Drinking Water and Health.
D-ll
-------
TABLE D-3. SUMMARY OF ACGIH DOCUMENTATION FOR SPECIFIC TLV's AND SELECTED UNCERTAINTY (SAFETY) FACTORS14'15
Substance
Barium
Cadmium
compounds
Chromium
(II and III)
Hydrogen chloride
Lead
Naphthalene
Xylene
Zinc
(as zinc oxide)
ACGIH TLV
8-h TWA,
mg/m3
0.5
0.05
0.5
-7.0
(5 ppm)
0.15
50.0
-435
(100 ppm)
5.0
Type of information forming
basis of ACGIH documentation
Industrial experience related to
barium nitrate exposures
Epidemiological and occupational
exposure studies
Clinical studies of exposed
workers
Occupational exposure studies
and animal studies
Occupational exposure studies,
clinical studies of exposed
workers, and animal studies
Industrial experience, occupa-
tional exposure studies, and
animal studies
Industrial experience, occupa-
tional exposure studies, clinical
studies of exposed workers, and
animal studies
Occupational exposure studies
and animal studies
Targeted
prevention
Excitability
Proteinuria, pulmonary
edema, and emphysema
Pulmonary edema and
irritation
Irritation
Encephalopathy and renal
damage
Irritation
Narcosis, chronic
Reduced incidence of
metal fume fever
Selected
uncertainty
(safety) factor
100
10
10
10
10
10a
10
10
to
(continued)
-------
TABLE P-3 (continued)
Substance
ACGIH TLV
8-h TWA,
mg/m3
Type of information forming
basis of ACGIH documentation
Targeted
prevention
Selected
uncertainty
(safety) factor
o
i
H
OJ
Toluene
Trichloroethane
(1,1,1-)
Dichlorodifluoro-
methane
Trichlorotri-
fluoroethane
~375
(10 ppm)
~1900
(350 ppm)
-4950
(1000 ppm)
-7600
(1000 ppm)
Occupational exposure studies,
clincial studies of exposed
workers, and animal studies
Occupational exposure studies,
clincial studies of exposed
workers, and animal studies
Clinical studies of exposed
humans and animal studies
Clinical studies of exposed
humans and animal studies
Loss of muscle coordina-
tion and cardiomuscular
changes
Anesthetic effects and
objectionable odor
Cardiac sensitization and
systemic injury
Cardiac sensitization and
systemic injury
10
10
10
10
There is some support within the scientific health effects community for applying a safety factor of
1 to those substances identified as irritants. This practice appears to be reasonable for those sub-
stances for which no other health effects have been observed. The ACGIH TLV for naphthalene was estab-
lished to protect against ocular irritation."* Although this end-point is still a major concern, acute
exposures to airborne naphthalene are recognized to produce direct hemolytic effects in vivo, and oral
exposure may result in the development of cataracts.6 Because naphthalene exposures may result in toxic
end-points other than irritation, an uncertainty factor of 10 has been selected for use in determining a
TLV-derived EEL.
-------
Results
Table D-4 presents the estimated airborne EEL's (based on
Equation D-l) for 11 substances found in waste oil. Specific
adjustments were made for expected duration differences between
workplace and environmental exposures and exposures of a popula-
tion cohort at great risk. A safety factor was used to account
for the condition and quality of information used to develop the
workplace TLV's and for the type of protection they are intended
to provide.
Water Exposure Levels
Obtaining waterborne exposure levels for use in the waste
oil study does not require extensive estimating. Most of the
chemical contaminants have established water quality criteria
levels that have direct application in the waste oil study.
Table D-5 presents the water quality criteria levels for sub-
stances of concern.
Environmental exposure limits were estimated for three
substances for which no water quality criteria have been estab-
lished: barium, benzanthracene, and naphthalene. These esti-
mates were made by using the U.S. EPA's equation for determining
acceptable levels in water, shown as Equation D-2.
<:._, = ADI - (DT + IH) x ID'3 (D-2)
l£l£jlj' 2 liters + (0.0065 kg) (R)
where C(EEL,\ = estimate<3 environmental exposure limit in
water, yg/liter
ADI = acceptable daily intake, mg
DT = nonfish dietary intake, mg
IN = inhalation intake, mg
2 liters = assumed daily water consumption
0.0065 kg = assumed daily fish consumption
R = bioconcentration factor, liters/kg
D-14
-------
TABLE D-4 . ESTIMATED AIRBORNE ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE LIMITS IN AIR
Substance
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (II and III)
Lead
Zinc
Di chl orodi f1uoromethane
Naphthalene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Xylene
Environmental
exposure level,
yg/m3
0.43
0.34
4.32
1.30e
43.2
42,768
432
3,240
16,416
65,664
3,758
The ambient air quality standard of 1.5 yg/m3
was used instead of the estimated environmental
exposure limit of 1.3 yg/m3.
D-15
-------
TABLE D-5. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND ESTIMATED
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE LIMITS
Substance
Environmental exposure
limits in water ,
ug/liter
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (II and III)
Lead
Zinc
Benzanthracene
(1,2-Benzanthracene)
Di chlorodi f1uoromethane
Naphthalene
Toluene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Xylene
(Dimethylbenzene)
260U
10
5,900
50
5,000
0.7761
28,000C
3,400b
14,300
18,400
3,487
Values taken from the U.S. EPA's Water Quality Criteria (Ref. 14)
unless specified otherwise. A value for trichlorotrifluoroethane
is not available.
Estimated values using U.S. EPA's equation for determining accept-
able levels in water (see Equation 2).
Proposed revised (draft) value, obtained from Josephine Brecher,
U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards, August 29, 1983.
D-16
-------
The waterborne EEL for barium was estimated by using an
average daily intake (ADI) of 0.684 mg. This ADI was based on
the airborne EEL for barium (see Table D-4) and an inhalation
rate of 20 m /day. The nonfish dietary intake for barium was
assumed to be zero. A bioconcentration factor of 3100 was used
14
in the calculation.
The waterborne EEL for benzanthracene was estimated by using
an airborne EEL-derived ADI of 0.1728 mg. The nonfish dietary
intake for benzanthracene was assumed to be zero. A bioconcen-
14
tration factor of 150 was used in the calculation.
The waterborne EEL for naphthalene was also estimated by
using an airborne EEL-derived ADI of 86.4 mg. The nonfish die-
tary intake for naphthalene was assumed to be zero. A bioconcen-
14
tration factor of 77 was used in the calculation.
APPROACH USED TO DETERMINE REFERENCE CONCENTRATIONS FROM CARCINO-
GENIC POTENCY FACTORS
The reference concentrations provide reference points against
which to assess the relative impact of air or water quality on
health and to calculate the cancer risks attributable to that
exposure; they are not estimates of safety, nor are they state-
ments of acceptable levels of risk. The EPA procedures used to
evaluate the toxicological data were consistent with the Agency's
2
objective of estimating a maximum likely risk. The carcinogenic
risk factors were developed from data sets that gave the highest
estimate of a lifetime cancer risk. This maximum likely risk
probably errs on the side of safety. The reference concentrations
D-17
-------
were determined from the carcinogenic potency factors developed
for the EPA Water Quality Criteria Documents and updated in the
Health Effects Assessment Summary for 300 Hazardous Organic
Constituents.
Chemicals eliciting a carcinogenic response are assessed by
use of a linear nonthreshold dose-response model. Use of this
model is based on the following assumptions: 1) a nonthreshold
dose-response relationship exists for carcinogens, 2) the dose-
response relationship developed from animal and human studies at
relatively high exposure levels can be extrapolated to low expo-
sure levels likely to be experienced by the general public over
an entire lifetime, and 3) the dose-response relationship is
linear. These linear nonthreshold models are used by the Inter-
agency Regulating Liaison Group (IRLG) and the EPA Carcinogen
1 fi— 1 R
Assessment Group (CAG) to evaluate risks posed by potential-
ly carcinogenic substances.
In this study, reference concentrations have been developed
by the use of the carcinogenic potency factor q * and equivalent
dosage estimates.
The EPA developed the q1* factors from lifetime animal
1 fi 1 R
experiments or human epidemiological studies. ' Because of
the variety of studies accessed for data, EPA had to correct for
differences in metabolism between species and for variable ab-
sorption rates via different routes of administration. The
resulting q,* factors are therefore based on exposures likely to
produce a given cancer incidence rate. Table D-6 presents
potency factors for carcinogenic substances found in waste oil.
D-18
-------
TABLE D-6. CARCINOGENIC POTENCY FACTORS
Substance
Risk, (mg/kg/day)
-1
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Carbon tetrachloride
Polychlorinated biphenols (PCB's)
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
Trichloroethylene
14.Oa
0.52b
11.533
6.65b
41.Ob
0.13b
4.34a
0.05311
0.0573*
0.0126*
Reference 10, p. 3.
Reference 18.
D-19
-------
Airborne Reference Concentrations
Equation D-3 presents the method used to derive airborne
reference concentrations from the established carcinogenic
potency factors.
C = K (7° *9> x 103 (D-3)
a qx* (20 in )
where C = reference concentration in air for a lifetime
a -53
risk to cancer of 10 , ug/m
K = risk level (10~5)
q * = carcinogenic potency factor, risk per mg/kg per day
1 (Table B-6)
Again, the value of 70 kg represents the weight of a refer-
ence adult male. The value of 20 m is an estimate of the
total daily volume of air ventilated by an adult male. The
derived values for the airborne reference concentrations are
presented in Table D-7.
Waterborne Reference Concentration
It was not necessary to estimate reference concentrations
for any of the waste oil contaminants in water because these
concentrations are available from the Water Quality Criteria
documentation. The waterborne reference concentrations are
presented in Table D-8.
D-20
-------
TABLE D-7. REFERENCE CONCENTRATIONS FOR A 10
RISK LEVEL
-5
Substance
Air,d
yg/m3
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium
Chromium
Carbon tetrachloride
Polychlorinated biphenols (PCB's)
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
0.0025°
0.6731
0.0030
0.0053
0.0008
0.2692
0.0081
0.6591
0.6100
2.7800
Airborne reference concentration was determined by using
published carcinogenic potency factors (Table D-6) and
a rnm/orcinn mothniHnl r>m/ f Fnnat-inn "%\
™" —»...—.—•« »-w..w~v.w yj ^b.^%A«AW!VII **/*
D-21
-------
TABLE D-8. WATERBORNE REFERENCE CONCENTRATIONS
Substance
Reference concentration
in water for 10"5
risk level, yg/liter
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Polychlorinated biphenols
Trichloroethylene
Ref. 14.
0.022
6.6
0.028
8.0
6.0
0.00079
27.0
D-22
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D
1. Stokinger, H. E., and R. L. Woodward. Toxicologic Methods
for Establishing Drinking Water Standards. J. American
Water Works Association, 50:515-529, 1958.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Criteria
Documents: Availability. Federal Register, 45(231):79318-
79379.
3. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
TLV's Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Work Environment With Intended Changes
for 1982. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1982.
4. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values. 4th Ed.
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1982.
5. Report of the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group, Work
Group for Risk Assessment. Federal Register, 44(131), July
6, 1979.
6. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. The Basic Science of
Poisons, 2d Ed. MacMillian Publishing Co., Inc., New York,
New York. 1980. pp. 26-27.
7. Hickey, J. L. S., and P. C. Reist. Application of Occupa-
tional Exposure Limits to Unusual Work Schedules. American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 38:613-621, November
1977.
8. Hickey, J. L. S., and P. C. Reist. Adjusting Occupational
Exposure Limits for Moonlighting, Overtime, and Environmental
Exposures. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal,
40:727-733, August 1979.
9. luliucci, R. L. 12-Hour TLV's. Pollution Engineering,
November 1982. pp. 25-27.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects Assess-
ment Summary for 300 Hazardous Organic Constituents. Envi-
ronmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio.
August 18, 1982.
D-23
-------
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research
and Development. Multimedia Environmental Goals for Envi-
ronmental Assessment. Vol. 1. EPA-600/7-77-136a, November
1977.
12. U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 1981. 102d Ed. Bureau of Census, Washing-
ton, D.C. 1981. p. 69.
13. International Commission on Radiological Protection No. 23.
Report of the Task Group on Reference Man. Pergamon Press,
New York. 1975. pp. 11, 13, 346.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Crite-
ria Documents: Federal Register, 45 (231):79353-79355.
15. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values. 4th Ed.
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1982.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Interim Procedures
and Guidelines for Health Risk and Economic Impact Assess-
ments of Suspected Carcinogens. Federal Register, Vol. 41.
May 25, 1976.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chromium: Health and
Environmental Effects. Publication SJ-45-01, No. 51, October
30, 1980.
18. Personal communication between Les Ungers, PEDCo Environmen-
tal, and Marie Pfaff, Assistant Administrator for Research
and Development. Carcinogen Assessment Group, Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July 7, 1983.
D-24
------- |