RISC4

User’s Manual

Developers:

Lynn R. Spence
Spence Engineering
Pleasanton, California

Terry Walden
BP Oil International
Sunbury, UK

October, 2001
 FORWARD

BACKGROUND

In 1993, BP made a business decision in the U.S. to develop a standardized approach

for conducting soil and groundwater risk assessments across all ‘downstream’
activities (service stations through refineries). The rationale was that the company
needed to ensure that the latest thinking on fate and transport, exposure, statistical
analyses and toxicological criteria were adopted and applied uniformly its businesses.
It would also help ensure that BP spoke with a consistent voice when approaching
regulators and the community on this vital issue.

Eventually it became clear that a software package containing embedded fate and
transport models with intuitive user inputs offered the most convenient and flexible
means of implementing this objective. This would enable the process to be readily
standardized, communicated and transferred, while still allowing a risk application to
be individually tailored to the regulatory regime of the particular business or country.
By developing the code in-house, BP would also be able to rapidly adopt new
algorithms or approaches (e.g. indoor air models), thus keeping the process evergreen.

Versions 1.0 and 2.0 of the code were released in January, 1994 and August, 1995,
respectively, with the former pre-dating the publication of the ASTM standard Risk-
Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites, commonly known as
RBCA. Version 3.0, released in September, 1997, was a major upgrade that allowed
back-calculations to be performed, i.e. soil and groundwater clean-up targets to be
calculated for an input value of acceptable risk.

While similar to the RBCA Toolkit marketed by Groundwater Services Inc., RISC is
more functional, flexible and user-friendly. The major differences are:

• RISC has a more intuitive graphical interface

i
RISC Manual Version 4.0

• RISC allows for pathway, compound and receptor additivity

• The fate and transport models in RISC can be used in the presence of phase-
separated product
• There is a vadose zone model in RISC
• The groundwater models are transient
• Probabilistic (Monte Carlo) exposure capabilities are provided in RISC
• RISC includes a critical pathway - indoor showering - missing in the Toolkit

VERSION 4.0 NEW FEATURES

Version 4.0 of RISC has new features that give it even greater flexibility in assessing
risk for the following scenarios:

• Irrigation pathways, i.e. water used for gardening but not for indoor usage
• Vegetables grown in contaminated soil
• Two new vapor models , where the vapors are allowed to biodegrade during
transport through the unsaturated zone
• Models for surface water and sediment contamination from impacted
groundwater and direct comparison with relevant national standards for these
media
• The use of groundwater MCLs (maximum concentration levels) and surface
water concentrations in addition to acceptable risk levels as the criteria for
back-calculating clean-up targets
• The ability to calculate a site-specific target level (SSTL) for a TPH mixture
using the site-specific measured concentrations of the TPH fractions detected
in the soil

It is felt that Version 4.0 provides the latest and most complete package for calculating
risk to human health and surface water. This version has been peer-reviewed by
Arcadis, Geraghty and Miller in Cambridge, UK. Their review is included in
Appendix R.

ii
 Forward

RISC DISTRIBUTION AND HELP DESK

BP is distributing the software and manual to all its U.S. and international affiliates
who, in turn, are free to transfer it without charge to their regulators and risk
consultants. The software is not proprietary however, and can be purchased and
downloaded by third parties over the Internet at the web site,
www.groundwatersoftware.com, for $450 (USD). Additional charges will apply if
the recipient wants the Internet provider to supply a hard copy of the manual.

All recipients of the software should periodically check the web site,
www.bprisc.com, to download upgrades related to bug fixes or minor improvements
to the code. The downloads on this web site are functional only to existing software
users.

Finally, any problems with the manual or software, including questionable output or
data interpretation issues, should be directed to the software developer, Lynn Spence.
Her details are as follows:

Phone: 925-462-3124
Fax: 925-846-3152
E-mail: [email protected]

Address: Lynn Spence

239 Main Street, Suite E
Pleasanton, CA 94566
USA

iii
 Table of Contents

FORWARD

BACKGROUND
VERSION 4.0 NEW FEATURES
RISC DISTRIBUTION AND HELP DESK

1.0 OVERVIEW AND GETTING STARTED

1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 Background
1.1.2 Uses of this Software
1.1.3 Overview of Features
1.1.4 Organization and Scope of this Report

1.2 GETTING STARTED

1.2.1 Hardware and Software Requirements
1.2.2 Installation Instructions
1.2.3 General Instructions (How to Use RISC)

2.0 DATA AND ANALYSIS TOOLS

2.1 RBCA TIER 1 SPREADSHEET

2.1.1 Tier 1 Applications
2.1.2 Tier 2 Applications
2.1.3 How to Use

2.2 SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

3.0 CHOOSE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN

3.1 CHOOSE CHEMICALS

3.2 VIEW CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
3.3 ADD NEW CHEMICAL TO DATABASE
3.4 REMOVE CHEMICAL FROM DATABASE
3.5 RESTORING THE ORIGINAL CHEMICAL DATABASE

v
RISC Manual Version 4.0

4.0 CHOOSE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

4.1 HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

4.1.1 Select Contaminated Media and Fate and Transport Models
4.1.2 Select Exposure Pathways

4.2 ECOLOGICAL/WATER QUALITY

5.0 DETERMINE RECEPTOR POINT CONCENTRATIONS

5.1 USER-SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS

5.1.1 Single Value
5.1.2 Monte Carlo Distributions
5.1.3 Sample Data Base

5.2 FATE AND TRANSPORT MODELS

6.0 DESCRIBE THE RECEPTORS

6.1 HUMAN HEALTH

6.1.1 Step 4a: Choose Receptor and Analysis Type
6.1.2 Step4b: Enter Exposure Data

6.2 ECOLOGICAL/WATER QUALITY

7.0 CALCULATE RISK

7.1 DESCRIPTION OF EACH INTAKE ROUTE

7.1.1 Ingestion of Soil
7.1.2 Dermal Contact with Soil
7.1.3 Ingestion of Groundwater
7.1.4 Dermal Intake in the Shower
7.1.5 Inhalation in the Shower
7.1.6 Inhalation of Outdoor Air
7.1.7 Inhalation of Indoor Air
7.1.8 Ingestion of Surface Water
7.1.9 Dermal Contact With Surface Water
7.1.10 Ingestion of Home-Grown Vegetables Grown in Contaminated Soil
7.1.11 Ingestion of Home-Grown Vegetables Irrigated With Groundwater
7.1.12 Ingestion of Irrigation Water
7.1.13 Dermal Intake with Irrigation Water
7.1.14 Inhalation of Irrigation Water Spray

7.2 CALCULATION OF CARCINOGENIC RISK

vi
 Table of Contents

7.3 CALCULATION OF HAZARD INDEX

8.0 CALCULATE CLEAN-UP LEVELS

8.1 SET-UP THE SIMULATION

8.2 "RULES" USED IN THE BACK-CALCULATION
8.3 DESCRIPTION OF METHOD USED TO CALCULATE CLEAN-UP LEVELS
8.3.1 Direct Pathways
8.3.2 Pathways Using Fate and Transport Models
8.3.3 Equations Used to Calculate Target Receptor Point Concentrations

8.4 RESULTS OF THE CLEAN-UP LEVEL CALCULATION

9.0 RESULTS

9.1 DETERMINISTIC OUTPUT

9.2 MONTE CARLO OUTPUT
9.2.1 Monte Carlo Tables
9.2.2 Monte Carlo Charts

9.3 TRANSFERRING TABLES AND CHARTS TO OTHER APPLICATIONS

10.0 EXAMPLE RISK ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS

10.1 EXAMPLE 1: FORMER GAS STATION REDEVELOPED WITH SINGLE

FAMILY HOUSING
10.2 EXAMPLE 2: IRRIGATION AND VOLITILIZATION FROM
GROUNDWATER
10.3 EXAMPLE 3: SURFACE WATER ECOLOGICAL RISK

11.0 CHEMICAL DATABASE

11.1 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

11.1.1 Density
11.1.2 Vapor Pressure (saturated)
11.1.3 Solubility
11.1.4 Henry’s Law Coefficient
11.1.5 Log Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient (log Kow)
11.1.6 Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (Koc)
11.1.7 Inorganic Partition Coefficient (Kd)
11.1.8 Diffusion Coefficients in Air and Water

vii
RISC Manual Version 4.0

11.1.9 Degradation Rates

11.1.10 Vegetable Uptake Factor

11.2 TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES

11.2.1 USEPA Carcinogenic Classification
11.2.2 Toxicity Parameters
11.2.3 Inhalation Conversion Factors
11.2.4 Absorption Adjustment Factors (AAFs)
11.2.5 Skin Permeability Coefficient

11.3 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE CHEMICAL DATABASE

11.3.1 Chemical Database Format
11.3.2 Restoring the Original Chemical Database

12.0 REFERENCES

viii
 Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Summary of the Sheets in the Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table 4-1. Exposure Pathways Associated With Receptor Media

Table 5-1. Soil Properties Database

Table 5-2. List of Fate and Transport Models and Source Terms Required for Each Model

Table 6-1. Default Receptor Types and Exposure Routes

Table 6-2. Intake Parameters for Adult Residents (page 1 of 2)
Table 6-2. Intake Parameters for Adult Residents (page 2 of 2)
Table 6-3. Intake Parameters for Child Residents (page 1 of 2)
Table 6-3. Intake Parameters for Child Residents (page 2 of 2)
Table 6-4. Intake Parameters for Workers
Table 6-5. Intake Parameters for Trespassers
Table 6-6. Monte Carlo Default Distributions

Table 9-1. Summary of Carcinogenic Risk

Table 9-2. Input/Output Summary (Page 1 of 3)
Table 9-2. Input/Output Summary (Page 2 of 3)
Table 9-2. Input/Output Summary (Page 3 of 3)
Table 9-3. Summary Statistics of Carcinogenic Risk for a Monte Carlo Analysis
Table 9-4. Input/Output Summary for a Monte Carlo Analysis (Page 1 of 2)

Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

Table 11-2. USEPA's Carcinogenic Classification

ix
RISC Manual Version 4.0

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. The Main Screen of RISC

Figure 1-2. Exiting RISC

Figure 2-1. Part of the "Inputs" Sheet in the Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Figure 3-1. Chemical Selection Screen

Figure 3-2. Chemical Selection Screen with Four Chemicals Selected
Figure 3-3: Chemical Properties Screen
Figure 3-4. Adding a New Chemical
Figure 3-5. Default Chemical Properties for New Chemical
Figure 3-6. The Warning Window When Removing Chemicals

Figure 4-1. Choose Exposure Pathways Screen

Figure 4-2a.Source and Receptor Media
Figure 4-2b.Source and Receptor Media
Figure 4-3. Options Associated With Subsurface Soil, Groundwater, or Surface Water
Sources
Figure 4-4. Options for Indoor and Outdoor Air
Figure 4-5. Ecological/Water Quality Screen in Step 2

Figure 5-1. Main Screen for Step 3

Figure 5-2. The Three Choices for Specifying Concentrations Directly
Figure 5-3. Entering Single Values for Receptor Point Concentrations
Figure 5-4. Entering Monte Carlo Distributions
Figure 5-5. Entering Concentrations in the Sample Data Base
Figure 5-6. The Sample Data Base with Four Samples
Figure 5-7. Using the Weight Factors
Figure 5-8. The Four Steps of the Fate and Transport Screen
Figure 5-9. Describing the Site for the Dissolved Concentrations Model
Figure 5-10. Input Parameter Screen for Aquifer
Figure 5-11. Input Parameter Screen Showing Soil Property Database Selection

Figure 6-1. The Two Steps Required to Describe the Receptor(s)

Figure 6-2. Input Screen for Step 4a
Figure 6-3. Input Screen for Step 4b for a Deterministic Analysis
Figure 6-4. Input Screen for Step 4b for a Monte Carlo Analysis
Figure 6-5. Step 4 Screen for Selecting Water Quality and Sediment Criteria
Figure 6-6. Example of the Surface Water Criteria Table

Figure 8-1. Target Risk Input Screen

x
 Table of Contents

Figure 8-2. Target Risk Input Screen for a Scenario With Groundwater Pathways

Figure 9-1. Menu for Viewing Results of a Deterministic Risk Assessment

Figure 9-2. Example of Carcinogenic Risk Table
Figure 9-3. Chart of Carcinogenic Risk by Route
Figure 9-4. Chart of Carcinogenic Risk for Two Receptors
Figure 9-5. "Stacked" Chart for Additive Receptors
Figure 9-6. Menu for Viewing Results of a Monte Carlo Risk Assessment
Figure 9-7. Frequency Distribution of Total Risk on a Logarithmic Scale
Figure 9-8. Cumulative Risk on a Logarithmic Scale

xi
Chapter Overview and
1.0 Getting Started

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 Background

BP’s Risk-Integrated Software for Cleanups (RISC) has been developed to assist in
the evaluation of potential human health risks from contaminated sites. RISC is a
Windows based software program that can be used to estimate the potential for
adverse human health impacts (both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic) from
fourteen exposure pathways. New additions to this version allow the user to evaluate
ecological risk by using surface water models and water quality and sediment criteria
databases. The software contains vadose zone, saturated zone, and air fate and
transport models for estimating receptor point concentrations.

The reader should note that throughout this document the term “risk” will be used to
refer to the estimated potential for adverse human health impacts, for both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds. For some, this is a departure from a
more narrow use of the term “risk”, where it sometimes only refers to the probability
of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a chemical or group of chemicals.

1.1.2 Uses of this Software

There are at least four broad applications for the RISC software. RISC can be used to
(1) estimate human health risk from exposure to contaminated media, (2) estimate
risk-based clean-up levels in various media, (3) perform simple fate and transport
modeling, and (4) evaluate potential ecological impacts to surface water and
sediment. These four different applications are discussed in the following sections.

1-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

1.1.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment

Human health risk assessment can be defined as the characterization of the potential
adverse effects on human life or health. Calculating risk is sometimes called the
“forward calculation” whereas calculating clean-up levels is called the “back
calculation”.

US EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, or the “RAGS” manual (US
EPA, 1989), characterize the risk assessment process by dividing it into four basic
steps:

1) Data Collection and Evaluation

• Gather and analyze relevant site data
• Identify potential chemicals of concern (CoC’s)
2) Exposure Assessment
• Analyze contaminant releases
• Identify exposed populations
• Identify potential exposure pathways
• Estimate exposure concentrations for pathways
• Estimate contaminant intakes for pathways
3) Toxicity Assessment
• Collect qualitative and quantitative toxicity information
• Determine appropriate toxicity values
4) Risk Characterization
• Characterize potential for adverse health effects to occur
• Estimate cancer risks
• Estimate non-cancer hazard quotients
• Evaluate uncertainty
• Summarize risk information

The RISC software can be used for steps 2 through 4 of the risk assessment process.
It is assumed that Step 1 has already been completed, i.e. the site has been

1-2
 Overview and Getting Started

characterized as to the chemicals present, type of contaminated media, etc. Usually

the user will want to pare down the total list of chemicals found by evaluating the list
using a concentration-toxicity screen. This process (described in detail in RAGS)
identifies the chemicals that currently pose the greatest share of the risk.

The RAGS manual states that specific objectives of the risk assessment process are to:

• provide an analysis of baseline risks and help determine the need for action at
sites;
• provide a basis for determining levels of chemicals that can remain onsite and
still be adequately protective of public health (section 1.1.2.4);
• provide a basis for comparing potential health impacts of various remedial
alternatives; and
• provide a consistent process for evaluating and documenting public health
threats at sites.

The RISC software is a powerful, flexible tool that can be used for any of the above
objectives. The reader is referred to the RAGS manual (US EPA, 1989) for more
detailed information on each step of the risk assessment process.

1.1.2.2 Risk-Based Clean-up Levels

Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) is a decision-making process for assessment

and response to subsurface contamination, and is based on protection of human health
and environmental resources. One of the steps in RBCA is to calculate clean-up
levels, or concentrations of contaminants that pose an acceptable risk left in place (the
back-calculation). The guidelines for RBCA are published in ASTM E1739-95,
Standard Guide for Risk-based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites.

The RBCA process was developed as a way to allocate limited resources (time,
money, regulatory oversight, etc.) to multiple release sites in a way that allows
innovative and cost-effective decision making while ensuring that human health and
environmental resources are protected. In order to meet that goal, the process
emphasizes the following:

1-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

• it integrates site assessment, remedial action selection and site monitoring so

the approach is streamlined, targeted and consistent;
• site assessment activities are focused on collecting information needed to
make risk-based corrective action decisions; and
• these corrective action decisions are based on site-specific factors and
compliance points directed toward cost-effective alternatives that have a high
probability of achieving an appropriate reduction in risk.

The RBCA process involves a tiered approach to data collection and evaluation. In
general, Tier 1 of the RBCA process involves an initial site assessment and
classification of the site based on conservative risk-based screening levels (RBSLs)
that are not site-specific. Tiers 2 and 3 involve evaluating the site using more site-
specific information (e.g., depth to groundwater, infiltration rate, etc.) and/or
evaluating alternate compliance points (locations of exposure). Tier 3 is likely to
involve more complex analysis such as detailed site assessment, probabilistic
evaluations, and sophisticated chemical fate and transport models.

The RISC software has an Excel spreadsheet (TIER1.XLS) that can be used as a
screening tool. The spreadsheet can be used "as is" for a Tier 1 look-up table or the
user may enter site-specific data and for a simple Tier 2 analysis. The spreadsheet
contains all of the chemicals in the RISC software and is based on the equations
presented in the ASTM E1739-95 appendix. It also contains a few additional models
that are not presented in the RBCA example in ASTM E1739 but which are needed
for many common risk scenarios. The additional models are: Johnson and Ettinger
(1991) indoor air model, Domenico (1987) model for groundwater, and Green-Ampt
(1911) model for considering biodegradation of dissolved chemicals in the vadose
zone. The input values in the spreadsheet are customizable so that multiple RBSL
tables can be generated (e.g., different soil types) and saved under different filenames.
Note that the RISC spreadsheet may not conform with the user's specific regulatory
guidance but it is useful as a screen and in some cases may be updated to conform
with many US state policies. The spreadsheet is not directly linked with the RISC
software.

The RISC software contains fate and transport models that may be used to develop
more site-specific clean-up levels. These models are normally applicable to a Tier 2
analysis under RBCA. Probabilistic exposure evaluations are possible using RISC

1-4
 Overview and Getting Started

with the Monte Carlo analysis option. This would nominally fall into a Tier 3
analysis, although a user can readily implement the Monte Carlo approach using a
provided default set of distributions for the exposure parameters.

The RBCA process is not limited to a particular class of compounds, even though the
ASTM E1739-95 emphasizes application of the RBCA process to sites with
petroleum releases. US EPA’s Soil Screening guidance (US EPA, 1996) has been
developed using a risk-based approach similar to RBCA. Many U.S. states are
adopting RBCA-type approaches for a wide variety of programs, not just the
underground storage tank (UST) programs.

1.1.2.3 Fate and Transport Modeling

The fate and transport models in RISC are designed to be used for estimating receptor
point concentrations as part of a risk assessment. The models use average annual data
and are one-dimensional as far as flow regimes. The groundwater models simulate
three-dimensional dispersion. These type of models are not applicable for
engineering design problems, such as designing extraction wells, or for complex
hydrogeological flow regimes. They can, however, be useful for evaluating several
scenarios besides estimating receptor point concentrations as part of a risk assessment.
Some of the questions that can be evaluated are:

• What is the maximum future concentration expected at a receptor location?

• How far downgradient will a groundwater plume stabilize (reach equilibrium
in terms of its length) if degradation is at rate x? (The model must be run in an
iterative fashion..)
• Is a more sophisticated model needed? These models can serve as a “first cut”
to see whether it is necessary to go to more complex codes.
• How long will it take for the contaminants to reach groundwater? What is the
estimated loading rate to groundwater?
• How long until the soil source depletes?

RISC includes the following embedded chemical fate and transport models:

• Leaching from vadose zone soil source to groundwater;

1-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

• Dispersion, advection, retardation and degradation of groundwater as it moves

in an aquifer;
• Saturated soil source at the water table impacting groundwater;
• Emissions from soil to outdoor and indoor air (including models considering
biodegradation);
• Emissions from groundwater to indoor air; and
• Sediment partitioning and surface water mixing models that can be linked with
the groundwater model.

The models listed above may be linked together as well. For example, the saturated
soil source model (at the water table) can be linked with the groundwater model and
then used to estimate volatile emissions to indoor air.

1.1.2.4 Surface Water and Sediment Quality Criteria

Version 4.0 of RISC has a large surface water and sediment criteria database
containing criteria several different countries. The database contains fresh water and
marine surface water criteria from the following sources:

• United States Environment Protection Agency Ambient Water Quality Criteria

• United Kingdom Environmental Quality Standards (statutory and proposed)
• Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
(ANZECC) Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems
• European Commission Water Quality Objective
• Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment Freshwater Aquatic Life
Guideline

The sediment criteria in the database is from the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The criteria listed above were chosen because
they are considered “gold standards” in their respective countries. In RISC, potential
surface water concentrations can be estimated using the models and then the
concentrations can be compared with the criteria listed above.

In addition to the “gold standards” used within RISC, there is an Excel spreadsheet
available through the “Water Quality” button in the “Supplemental Spreadsheet

1-6
 Overview and Getting Started

Tools” area on the main screen that contains surface water and sediment criteria from
many additional sources. It is anticipated that these will need to be updated
periodically as the standards are revised.

1.1.3 Overview of Features

The RISC software includes many features to assist in performing and presenting risk
assessments or the results of fate and transport models. Version 4.0 of RISC allows
the user to:

• Follow the ASTM tiered approach by utilizing a spreadsheet based on the

ASTM algorithms for Tier 1, the embedded fate and transport models in RISC
for Tier 2, and the Monte Carlo option in RISC for Tier 3;
• Choose chemicals of concern from a standard library of 86 chemicals; users
may also add or delete chemicals from the library and alter the physical,
chemical, and toxicological properties of each;
• Perform calculations for two different exposure scenarios (with up to fourteen
exposure pathways each) simultaneously (e.g. calculations for both residential
and industrial scenarios can be performed at the same time);
• Determine cumulative risks from two different exposure scenarios, as might
be the case when the user wants to sum the risks for the scenario where a
resident is exposed during both childhood and adulthood;
• Estimate exposure point water and air (both indoor and outdoor)
concentrations using predictive chemical fate and transport models;
• Allow for additivity of pathways and compounds for either a forward
calculation of risk or back calculation of cleanup levels;
• Use an embedded tool to estimate average, 95th UCL, and weight-averaged
concentrations for a set of parameter values; and
• Print or save tables, charts, and figures.

New features in Version 4.0 of RISC allow the user to:

• Estimate human health risk from “irrigation pathways” for groundwater used
outdoors but not supplying indoor uses;
• Estimate human health risk from ingestion of vegetables grown in
contaminated soil or irrigated with contaminated groundwater;
• Use surface water mixing models to estimate potential impacts to surface
water and sediments from contaminated groundwater;

1-7
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

• Compare modeled surface water and sediment criteria with regulatory

standards from around the world;
• Consider degradation in two new vapor models; and
• Calculate clean-up levels in soil and groundwater using MCLs (maximum
concentration levels) or user-supplied concentrations in groundwater or
surface water as targets (as opposed to risk-based calculations).

1.1.4 Organization and Scope of this Report

This User's Manual gives instructions on how to use RISC and discusses the technical
details including the equations used to estimate risk, the fate and transport models
included in the software, and the chemical database.

The organization of this User’s Manual mimics the organization and flow of the RISC
software; specifically:

• Section 1.2 guides the user through software installation, system requirements,
and general operating instructions;
• Chapter 2 describes the RBCA Tier 1 Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet;
• Chapters 3 through 8 discuss how the software can be used to perform risk
assessment calculations and determine cleanup levels;
• Chapter 9 describes various output and summary options;
• Chapter 10 provides three detailed examples demonstrating how the models
are used;
• Chapter 11 contains the chemical database and the surface water and sediment
criteria databases; and
• The appendices provide brief descriptions of each predictive model, the
accompanying RBCA Tier 1 spreadsheet, and some input considerations for
Monte Carlo analyses.

1.2 GETTING STARTED

This section is divided into three sections: hardware and software requirements,
installation instructions, and general instructions on using the software.

1-8
 Overview and Getting Started

1.2.1 Hardware and Software Requirements

The computer hardware requirements for this software are:

• IBM 486 or compatible (or a PowerMac)

• 8 MB RAM
• 12 MB hard disk space

The software requirement is:

• Microsoft Windows® 95, 98, 2000, or NT

The following software is needed for accessing the optional RBCA Tier 1 spreadsheet
and the complete Water Quality Database:

• Microsoft Excel® 5.0 or 7.0 (for optional spreadsheets only)

RISC can be run without Excel, however this will prevent the user from displaying
the RBCA Tier 1 table or accessing the full surface water and sediment criteria
databases.

1.2.2 Installation Instructions

1.2.2.1 From a Single File (from internet)

The user must save the file in a directory on their hard drive. The software can then
be installed by double-clicking on the file in the Windows Explorer. At that point the
user will be prompted for a directory to contain the RISC files.

1.2.2.2 From the Installation CD

To install the software from the CD to a Windows computer the user must perform
the following steps:

1-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Step 1 Insert the CD into the CD-ROM drive. If the installation package does not
run automatically at this point proceed with steps 2 through 4.

Step 2 Select Run from the Start menu. The Run dialog will appear.

Step 3 In the Open text field, type D:\Install (substitute the correct letter of your
CD-ROM drive if it is not D).

Step 4 Click on OK.

1.2.3 General Instructions (How to Use RISC)

To start RISC, either double-click on the “BP RISC” icon on the Windows desktop or
use the “Start” button and then choose “BP RISC” and “BP RISC 4.0”. There is an
option to un-install the program from this menu. The user is encouraged to start the
software and use it while reading the instructions in this chapter.

1.2.3.1 Main Screen Layout

The main screen of RISC is shown in Figure 1-1. In the main part of the screen are
six steps for performing a risk assessment. Chapters 3 through 8 presents detailed
instructions for completing these steps. Currently only Step 1 should be available. As
each step is completed, the next step will become available. The Data and Analysis
Tools (at the bottom of the screen in the white box) are not required to complete a risk
assessment but can be used to for supplemental information and features. These
options are described in Chapter 2.

1-10
 Overview and Getting Started

FIGURE 1-1. The Main Screen of RISC

At the top of the main window is a series of buttons (New, Save, Open, Exit and on
the far right, Help). The functions of these buttons are discussed in the next sections.

1.2.3.2 New

Selecting the "New" button will clear all user-specified data (e.g. chosen exposure
routes, site-specific concentrations, etc.). Suggested default inputs and chemical
database entries will be retained. This should only be used when wanting to start
over. The user will be warned and given a chance to cancel before "New" clears all
current information.

1.2.3.3 Saving Projects

The "Save" button on the main button bar is used to save all the information contained
in the project. The user will be prompted to enter a project file name with an

1-11
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

extension of ".prj". It is not necessary to use this extension, but it will help identify
the saved project files from other files in the directory.

1.2.3.4 Loading Saved Projects

The "Save As" button is similar to the "Save As" function of most of the Windows
programs (Excel, Word, etc.). If the project file has been saved in the current session,
choosing "Save As" will update the file with any new choices without prompting the
user to "OK" any overwriting of project files. If a project file has not been saved,
choosing this button will prompt the user to enter a project file name (identical to the
"Save" button).

1.2.3.5 Opening Saved Projects

The "Open" button in the main button bar allows saved project files to be loaded into
the system. The user will be prompted to choose the name of the saved file to be
loaded. At this point, the user will be warned that "Open" will clear any data already
entered in the system and that by continuing, this information will be lost. The user
has the opportunity to "Cancel" and save current work if necessary.

1.2.3.6 Exit

The "Exit" button in the main screen closes the RISC system. The user will be
prompted to save any existing work. The user may also close the RISC software
using the standard Windows options: chose Exit from the File pull-down menu,
choose Close from the control menu, or click on the close window button (looks like a
"X") in the top right-hand corner of the window. These options are identical to
choosing the Exit button, however, these methods are available from every screen.
(This means a user doesn’t have to return to the main screen in order to exit RISC.)

1-12
 Overview and Getting Started

FIGURE 1-2. Exiting RISC

1.2.3.7 Help System

The RISC software has on-line help that is available from every screen. This feature
can be activated by choosing the HELP button. This displays the Help Window that
has topic-specific information and a menu bar.

Note, some of the text displayed in the HELP window is highlighted in green. This is
called HYPERTEXT and can be selected (by clicking) to view additional information
on the topic.

1.2.3.8 Copying Text to the Windows Clipboard

Several windows (tables and charts) have a "Copy" button on their button bar
allowing the text or graph in the window to be copied to the Windows Clipboard. The
clipboard is a type of buffer that holds selected text or graphics. Once the text is in
the clipboard, it can be copied to any other Windows application (such as Word or
Excel). This may be useful for reformatting text or saving model output separately
(from the project file).

Performing a Screen Dump

A screen dump takes a "snapshot" of what is currently on the screen and copies it to
the Clipboard. To copy the current screen, push the "Print Screen" key from the

1-13
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

keyboard. (If the keyboard does not have a "Print Screen" key, refer to the Windows
manual to learn how to perform a screen dump.)

Once in the clipboard, the screen dump may be copied to other applications. With a
screen dump the buffer contains a graphical image rather than text (note that "Copy"
fills the buffer with a text file). This means that the image cannot be edited as a text
file in a word processing program. The image may however be modified in a drawing
program such as Windows Paintbrush.

This procedure will make a screen dump from any Windows application. The figures
in this user's manual were generated using this procedure and then copying the image
into Microsoft Excel or Word where the figure titles were added.

1.2.3.9 Printing

A "Print" button appears on several screens (specifically, tables and charts). This
sends the text or the figure directly to the printer. In order to use this feature, your
printer must be configured in Windows and should work from other applications. The
printer is configured by selecting the Windows "Control Panel" icon (usually loaded
in the "Main" program group). After displaying the Control Panel, select "Printers"
from the icons. The print orientation and scaling can be modified in the printer setup.

1-14
Chapter Data And
2.0 Analysis Tools

At the bottom of the Main RISC Screen, Figure 1-1, the user will find buttons leading
to additional “Data and Analysis Tools”. These buttons open two different
spreadsheets; one is a risk-based corrective action (RBCA) Tier 1 Excel worksheet
and the other presents a large surface water and sediment quality criteria table. Use of
these spreadsheets are discussed in the following sections. It should be noted that
using the Tier 1 spreadsheet is not required to perform calculations using the RISC
software. Neither of these Excel spreadsheets are linked to the RISC software, they
are additional tools for risk assessment.

2.1 RBCA TIER 1 SPREADSHEET

This button calls upon Excel to open a spreadsheet that calculates RBCA Tier 1 Look-
Up Table values for all of the chemicals initially contained in the RISC chemical
database. The values in the “RBSLs” table in this particular table are calculated using
the example algorithms presented in the ASTM E1739-95 “Standard Guide to Risk-
Based Corrective Action at Petroleum Release Sites” (1995) for all pathways except
indoor air from soil. The volatilization to indoor air RBSL is calculated using the
Johnson-Ettinger (1992) model with both the diffusive and advective terms (the
RBCA algorithm only includes the diffusive term). There is an additional site-
specific target level (SSTL) sheet presenting clean-up levels in soil and groundwater
calculated using the Domenico groundwater model and Green-Ampt infiltration
model. These clean-up levels are called SSTLs because they use models that are
more complicated than the models in Tier 1 and the receptor location is assumed to be
located away from the source.

2-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

The features and applications of the spreadsheet are summarized in the following
section. The equations used to develop the tables are provided in Appendix H. The
Johnson-Ettinger (1992) model is described in Appendix D.

2.1.1 Tier 1 Applications

In the RBCA approach, a Tier 1 Look-up Table is used to identify those chemicals
and pathways that warrant further evaluation. It is generally understood that soil,
groundwater, or air concentrations falling below Look-Up Table values are not of
concern. It is envisioned that this RBCA Tier 1 spreadsheet could be used to identify
those chemicals and pathways that warrant further evaluation through use of the RISC
software. The default values in the spreadsheet have been chosen to reflect the values
used by BP for their Tier 1 table.

Users should review the assumptions and inputs built into this table before using any
of the values. Users should also note that there are differences between the
algorithms used in this specific look-up table and those contained in the RISC
software. In most cases, the algorithms used in the Tier 1 spreadsheet are
simplifications (assumptions of steady-state or infinite sources) of algorithms used in
the RISC software. In some cases (e.g., inhalation exposures during showering), the
RISC software includes exposure pathways and algorithms not included in the sample
ASTM E1739-95 (1995) “Look-Up” table.

2.1.2 Tier 2 Applications

The Tier 1 spreadsheet may also be used as the first step of a Tier 2 analysis in which
site-specific input values are used in conjunction with the Tier 1 algorithms to
calculate site-specific target levels (SSTLs). In this mode, site-specific inputs are
substituted for the very conservative inputs assumed in Tier 1. Of course, the
“Calculate Clean-up Levels” option in Step 5 of RISC may also be used to calculate
SSTLs for both types of exposure points, i.e. directly at the source and at a site-
specific distance from the source zone. RISC has the added capability of calculating
clean-up levels that are protective of multiple routes and chemicals in an additive
mode.

2-2
 Data and Analysis Tools

In addition to the ASTM algorithms in the Tier 1 spreadsheet there are two additional
models: (1) the Domenico groundwater model, and (2) the Green-Ampt algorithm for
estimating travel time through the vadose zone. These models can account for
degradation in the saturated zone and vadose zone, respectively. The Domenico
model can also be used for a receptor location downgradient from the source area.
The Domenico and Green-Ampt models are described in more detail in Appendix H.

2.1.3 How to Use

The Tier 1 spreadsheet contains four main worksheets summarized in Table 2-1. The
input parameters are entered in the “Inputs” sheet, part of which is shown in Figure 2-
1. Note, there are input cells for both an adult and child residential scenario and an
industrial/commercial scenario. For the residential carcinogenic risk calculation, a
combination child and adult scenario is assumed. For calculating hazard indices, a
child receptor is assumed for the residential scenario. The residential and industrial
scenarios generate different screening levels (presented in the screening level table.)
The input values may be modified by the user to reflect site-specific conditions.
Changes made in the Tier 1 spreadsheet will not affect the RISC model output. The
input values in the spreadsheet are only used to calculate the RBSL and SSTL tables
in the spreadsheet. Appendix H discusses the Tier 1 spreadsheet in more detail.

2-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table 2-1. Summary of the Sheets in the Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Sheet Name Description of Contents
Inputs This is location to review and/or change non-chemical specific
input values for the RBSL and SSTL tables.

RBSLs Contains RBSLs calculated with the ASTM algorithms. The

soil to indoor air pathway is calculated with Johnson-Ettinger
model (1992). To match the ASTM algorithm for this pathway
set the pressure differential between the soil and the basement
equal to zero.
SSTLs 1. Contains SSTLs for the subsurface soil to protect ingestion
of groundwater calculated using the following model
combinations:
• Green-Ampt model only. (Considers degradation in the
vadose zone with a receptor point location in
groundwater directly beneath source).
• Domenico model only. (Considers advection/dispersion
and degradation in the saturated zone with a receptor
point location in groundwater downgradient of the
source.)
• Green-Ampt model linked with Domenico model.
(Considers degradation in both the vadose and saturated
zones and advection/dispersion in the saturated zone for a
receptor point location in groundwater downgradient of
the source.)
2. Contains SSTLs in groundwater calculated using:
• Domenico model for down-gradient receptor point
location in groundwater. (Considers
advection/dispersion and degradation in the saturated
zone.)

Chemical DB Contains the chemical-specific toxicity and fate and transport

database for the Tier 1 spreadsheet. These values may be
changed/updated by the user. Note: this database is not linked
to the chemical database in RISC.

2-4
 Data and Analysis Tools

Figure 2-1. Part of the "Inputs" Sheet in the Tier 1 Spreadsheet

2.2 SURFACE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

This button will use Excel to display a spreadsheet summarizing the ambient water
quality criteria (acceptable surface water concentrations in fresh and marine waters)
and sediment criteria contained in RISC. The spreadsheet contains many additional
standards (that are not used in the RISC software itself) for water and sediment
quality criteria. Changes made to this spreadsheet will not be used in the RISC
software; its purpose is just to summarize existing standards (as of the release date of
this version). This spreadsheet may be linked to RISC in future versions. Appendix
M contains a table summarizing the data contained in this spreadsheet.

2-5
Chapter Choose Chemicals
3.0 Of Concern

In this first step users identify chemicals that are of concern

for their analysis. The RISC software contains a database
with 87 chemicals. The chemicals of concern may be
chosen from this database or new chemicals may be added
to the system database and then chosen as a chemical of
concern. Figure 3-1 shows the Step 1 main screen before any chemicals have been
selected.

FIGURE 3-1. Chemical Selection Screen

3-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

3.1 CHOOSE CHEMICALS

The box on the left contains a list of all the chemicals currently in the system
database. To select chemicals of concern, choose one or more chemicals from this list
(by clicking on them with the mouse) and then choose the "Select Chemicals ---->"
button. (Use the scroll bar to find chemicals not currently shown in the window.)
The chemicals selected will be displayed in the box on the right. To "un-select" a
chemical (or chemicals) of concern click on the chemical in the right box and choose
the "<---Deselect Chemicals" button. Figure 3-2 shows the chemicals of concern
screen with four chemicals of concern selected.

FIGURE 3-2. Chemical Selection Screen with Four Chemicals Selected

These four chemicals will now be the only chemicals considered in the current
analysis. At any point it is possible to come back to this step and add or remove
chemicals from the list of chemicals selected. However, if data has been entered, fate
and transport models run or a risk calculation performed with a previous suite of
chemicals, information for the new chemical(s) will need to be entered and the models
re-run. The number of chemicals that can be analyzed at one time is limited to 20

3-2
 Choose Chemicals of Concern

(due to memory limitations in the fate and transport and risk assessment
computational codes).

3.2 VIEW CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

The "View Chemical Properties" allows one to view and edit the chemical properties
in the system database. The physical and chemical properties were assembled from
common chemical handbooks; the toxicological properties (including dose-response
and absorption adjustment factors) were extracted from the an internal BP report
prepared by ENSR (1995). Figure 3-3 shows the chemical properties for
acenapththene. To view other chemicals, select the chemical from the list box in the
top center of the screen. To edit the property values, click on the box containing the
value and then enter the new value. Any changes made to the chemical properties
will be stored in the permanent system database so the user should be sure that
the change is correct.

FIGURE 3-3: Chemical Properties Screen

3-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

3.3 ADD NEW CHEMICAL TO DATABASE

Selecting the "Add New Chemical to DB" button from the chemical selection screen
(Figure 3-1) will allow one to add a chemical to the system database. The user will be
prompted to enter the chemical name.

FIGURE 3-4. Adding a New Chemical

After selecting the "OK" button, the chemical properties screen for the new chemical
(in this case, "aldrin") will be displayed. Most of the chemical properties are listed as
"ND" for no data (or not determined) as shown in Figure 3-5. At this point the "ND"s
should be replaced with the appropriate physical, chemical, and toxicological
properties for the new compound.

3-4
 Choose Chemicals of Concern

FIGURE 3-5. Default Chemical Properties for New Chemical

The empty boxes, "1st Title Line" and "2nd:" are used for long chemical names (more
than 20 letters) when printing tables later in the software. For long chemical names
that are printed in a column heading, the user has the opportunity to specify what to
print on the first line and what to print on the second. The chemical name shown here
(aldrin) is short, so nothing need be entered in these two edit boxes and the name will
not be split into two title lines.

3.4 REMOVE CHEMICAL FROM DATABASE

After selecting a chemical (or multiple chemicals) from the chemical selection screen
(Figure 3-1) they may be removed from the system database by clicking on the
"Remove Chemical from DB" button. This action (if completed) will permanently
remove the chemicals from the system database. It is recommended that chemicals
only be removed that have been personally added in order to leave the original
chemicals in the database. One reason to remove a added chemical is if it were

3-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

misspelled. Figure 3-6 shows the warning window that appears when choosing to
remove chemicals.

FIGURE 3-6. The Warning Window When Removing Chemicals

3.5 RESTORING THE ORIGINAL CHEMICAL DATABASE

The chemical database is contained in a binary (non-editable) file called

"chemical.cdb". A duplicate file called "chemback.cdb" has been included in the
RISC system directory. If the database has been changed and at some point it would
be useful to restore the original database, delete the file "chemical.cdb".

Deleting "chemical.cdb" will tell RISC to use the backup file (the original database as
it was shipped with RISC). However, any changes made to the chemical database
(additions, deletions and modifications of chemical properties) will be erased.

3-6
Chapter Choose Exposure
4.0 Pathways

On the Step 2 button of the main menu (see chapter logo above) the user must define
the exposure scenario by selecting contaminated
media(s), fate and transport models (if any), and
associated exposure pathways. RISC is set up so that in
any single analysis, either human health exposure
pathways can be evaluated or ecological/water quality
concerns can be evaluated. The two main sections in this chapter will explain the
choices available under each option.

4.1 HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Figure 4-1 shows the screen that is displayed when the human health option is chosen.
On the left of this screen the user can identify the contaminated media and/or
transport models to be evaluated. The exposure pathways are listed on the right side
of the screen. These exposure pathways are not available for selection until the
associated media is selected from the left side.

The selection of potential transport pathways and exposure pathways is a very

important step in the risk assessment process. The user needs to identify those
pathways that are likely to be complete, based on knowledge of the locations of
impacted soil, groundwater, air, and/or surface water relative to the location and
habits of people or ecosystems that might be exposed to the chemicals of concern.
The US EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (1989) provides guidance
for selecting appropriate exposure pathways for various human health risk assessment
situations.

4-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

FIGURE 4-1. Choose Exposure Pathways Screen

4.1.1 Select Contaminated Media and Fate and Transport Models

The three buttons shown on the left side in Figure 4-1 correspond to three separate
potential source areas that can be considered in any given analysis. All the sources do
not need to be selected at one time. The assumptions made by RISC for a given
analysis are as follows:

• Only one receptor location is modeled in any given scenario.

• The vegetable ingestion exposure can be evaluated for surface soil or for
groundwater but not from both.
• Either indoor air or outdoor air can be considered in the analysis. (Usually the
indoor air pathway dominates the risk estimate if the concentrations come
from the same source so adding the risk from both pathways is neither
meaningful nor essential).
• Only one model (or combination of linked models) can be used to estimate
concentrations in a receptor media.

4-2
 Choose Exposure Pathways

• If groundwater concentrations are being modeled downgradient from the

source and volatilization from groundwater to indoor air is considered, then it
is assumed that the building is located downgradient. The concentrations at
the receptor point in groundwater are used as the source term for the vapor
model.

Figure 4-2 shows the source media options, the fate and transport mechanisms
available, and the associated receptor media. The receptor media is that media which
actually contacts the receptor. Concentrations must be either entered or estimated for
receptor media in order to evaluate exposure routes (section 4.1.2) associated with
that media.

The next subsections introduce the fate and transport model choices for each of the
three source options. Use of the fate and transport models is described in more detail
in Chapter 5 (Step 3: Receptor Point Concentrations) and the equations and
assumptions are detailed in the Appendices.

4.1.1.1 Surface Soil

The receptor point concentrations in surface soil cannot be estimated using a fate and
transport model but must be entered explicitly by the user. Surface soil is any soil
that a receptor may come into contact with directly. The reason concentrations are
not modeled in this media is that many models may overestimate the leaching to
groundwater or other transport process away from the soil source. While this may be
conservative for estimating groundwater concentrations it will tend to underestimate
the time-averaged soil concentration.

4-3
 RISC Manual Version 4.0

Potential Source Media Intermediate Media and/or

Receptor Media
For Direct Soil Pathways Transport Models

Direct exposure Surface Soil

Surface Soil

Potential Source Media

For Air Pathways Intermediate Media and/or Receptor Media
(Choose one only) Transport Models

Indoor or Direct exposure

Outdoor Air

Subsurface Soil Vapor model Indoor or Outdoor Air

(any depth)

Groundwater
(User-specified Vapor model
concentrations or
modeled
concentrations)

Figure 4-2a. Source and Receptor Media

4-4
 Choose Exposure Pathways

Potential Source Media for

Intermediate Media and/or Receptor Media
Groundwater and Surface
Water Pathways Transport Models
(Choose One Only)

Subsurface Soil Leaching model linked with GW model

(any depth)

Groundwater GW model
Groundwater

Direct exposure
Groundwater

Leaching model linked

Subsurface Soil with GW model Mixing model
Groundwater
(any depth)

GW model Groundwater Mixing model

Groundwater
downgradient
Surface water
Mixing model
Groundwater

Surface water Direct exposure

Figure 4-2b. Source and Receptor Media

4-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

4.1.1.2 Subsurface Soil, Groundwater and Surface Water

Figure 4-3 shows the screen for selecting options associated with sources in
subsurface soil, groundwater, or surface water. The options on this screen define how
concentrations in groundwater or surface water will be estimated. The user may
select to enter concentrations for groundwater and/or surface water; the use of fate
and transport models is elective and not required. In Figure 4-3, concentrations will
be modeled in both media.

Figure 4-3. Options Associated With Subsurface Soil, Groundwater, or

Surface Water Sources

Groundwater
If concentrations in groundwater are to be modeled, (i.e. the “GW conc. estimated
downgradient” option is chosen), the user must choose between three models: vadose
zone soil to groundwater model, saturated zone soil to groundwater, or dissolved
source groundwater model. Both the “saturated soil zone to groundwater model" and
the “dissolved source to GW model" simulate transport of contaminants in the
saturated zone only. These models differ only by the assumptions made about the

4-6
 Choose Exposure Pathways

source term. In the “saturated soil zone to groundwater model" the total soil
concentrations in the source and the saturated depth of the source must be specified.
In this option, the source is assumed to be in, or just above, the water table, enabling
the effects of fluctuating water tables on groundwater loading to be modeled. The
saturated zone soil to groundwater model, which allows for a depleting source, is
described in Appendix C. In the "dissolved source to GW model", the dissolved
phase (groundwater) concentrations in the source area must be specified. The
dissolved source to groundwater model does not allow for a depleting source per se,
but the source can be ‘switched off’ at a point in time (equal to the pulse length). This
model is described in Appendix B. In the option, "vadose zone soil to GW model",
the depleting source is assumed to be located in the vadose zone above the water table
and the transport of contaminants is modeled through the vadose zone to the
groundwater. Once in the groundwater, the concentrations are transported to the
receptor well. This option really consists of two fate and transport models linked
together: the vadose zone model and the saturated zone model (described in
Appendices A and B, respectively).

Surface Water
The concentrations in surface water can either be entered directly or estimated using a
mixing model that uses groundwater concentrations as a source term. There are two
surface water mixing models: river, and lake/estuary. These are essentially the same
simple mixing model, they differ only in the way the input parameters are collected
and the volume of the surface water body is calculated. For example, in the river
mixing model one of the input parameters is cross-section of the river and the volume
of water for mixing is calculated as the cross-sectional area and the impacted length of
the reach. In the lake mixing model, the volume of the lake is asked for explicitly.
Appendix L describes the surface water mixing model.

If a groundwater model is being used to estimate groundwater concentrations

downgradient of the source area and the surface water mixing model is being used to
estimate surface water concentrations from groundwater, it is assumed that these two
models are linked together. In that situation, the source concentrations for the surface
water mixing model are being calculated by the groundwater model and are assumed
to be located at the “well” location of the groundwater model.

4-7
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

4.1.1.3 Indoor and Outdoor Air

Figure 4-4 shows the input screen for selecting indoor or outdoor air as a receptor
media of concern. As with the other receptor media, the user can specify whether or
not to model concentrations in indoor or outdoor air and which models to use if the
modeling option is chosen. One of the assumptions made is that for the same source
or receptor location, either indoor or outdoor air will dominate the risk estimates
(usually indoor air), therefore only one of the two media can be considered in a given
analysis.

Figure 4-4. Options for Indoor and Outdoor Air

Each of the options on the right side of Figure 4-4 can be used with either indoor air
or outdoor air. The models listed on the right are for vapor transport through the
vadose zone. The choice of indoor or outdoor air determines the type of mixing
model used once the contaminant exits the vadose zone (either into ambient air or into
a building). The vapor model from groundwater uses the same approach as the
ASTM (1995) RBCA model (described in Appendix E). The groundwater source

4-8
 Choose Exposure Pathways

concentrations may be entered by the user or they may be estimated with one of the
groundwater models chosen in the “Subsurface Soil, Groundwater, and Surface
Water” section (see Figure 4-3).

There are three choices for vapor transport through the vadose zone from a soil
source: Johnson and Ettinger (1992), dominant layer model (Johnson and
Kemblowski, 1998), and the oxygen-limited model (Johnson, to be published). All
three of these three models are one-dimensional, steady-state models (infinite source
terms). They differ by the processes considered and the model layering system
allowed.

• Johnson and Ettinger: in RISC can simulate the presence of a “lens” of

different soil material between the source and the building or ambient air.
Ignores degradation. Described in Appendix D.
• Dominant Layer Model: considers three potentially different soil horizons
with degradation allowed in the middle soil horizon (or layer). Described in
Appendix J.
• Oxygen-Limited Model: uniform soil properties, calculates distance away
from source where the oxygen concentration may be high enough to support
degradation. Oxygen concentrations and transfer rates across the soil surface
are input requirements. Described in Appendix K.

4.1.2 Select Exposure Pathways

After defining potential source media, transport models and receptor media, the user
must select at least one human exposure route in order to continue. Routes are
selected by clicking on the exposure route description or clicking on the check box
(see Figure 4-1).

There are fourteen human exposure routes available in RISC. Table 4-1 summarizes
the exposure routes available for each receptor media. Only the routes associated
with receptor media chosen will become available. For example, if surficial soil is the
only media selected on the left side of the Step 2 main screen (Figure 4-1), then the
only exposure routes to become available for selection are: ingestion of soil, dermal
contact of soil, and vegetable ingestion (from soil).

Depending on the type of appropriate receptor, it may not be appropriate to consider

all of the exposure routes for a receptor media. For example, for a commercial

4-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

exposure scenario for contaminated groundwater, it is not customary to consider

inhalation in the shower since workers usually don’t take showers at work. The
default input parameter values for each exposure pathway are discussed in more detail
in Chapter 6 (Step 4: Describe the Receptors). The equations used to estimate risk
from each exposure pathway are presented in Chapter 7 (Step 5: Calculate Risk).

TABLE 4-1. Exposure Pathways Associated With Receptor Media

RECEPTOR
MEDIA POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Surface Soil Ingestion
Dermal contact
Vegetable ingestion

Groundwater Water used indoors:

Ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation in the shower
Water used outdoors:
Ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation from spray (such as sprinklers)
Vegetable ingestion

Outdoor Air Inhalation

Indoor Air Inhalation

Surface Water Ingestion

Dermal contact

4-10
 Choose Exposure Pathways

4.2 ECOLOGICAL/WATER QUALITY

The ecological/water quality option is used to model

concentrations in surface water and sediment for
purposes of ecological concerns. The modeled
concentrations are then compared with “gold
standards” for surface water and sediment quality.
Figure 4-5 shows the main screen in Step 2 when the
“Ecological/Water Quality” option is chosen.

Figure 4-5. Ecological/Water Quality Screen in Step 2

In future versions of RISC, food-chain modeling for aquatic and terrestrial food webs
will be available when using this option. In the current version the user must specify
how the surface water concentrations are to be estimated. The options are identical to
the options under the human health choice for surface water discussed in section
4.1.1.2.

4-11
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Using the ecological option, the user will run the fate and transport models in Step 3
(identical to the human health procedure) to estimate surface water and sediment
concentrations. Then in Step 4, the modeled concentrations can be compared with the
“gold standards” contained in the RISC database. Tables summarizing the results in
Step 4 can be easily transferred to Word or other reports. The water quality and
sediment criteria database in RISC contains criteria from several different countries:

• United States Environment Protection Agency Ambient Water Quality Criteria

• United Kingdom Environmental Quality Standards (statutory and proposed)
• Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
(ANZECC) Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems
• European Commission Water Quality Objective
• Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment Freshwater Aquatic Life
Guideline

The sediment criteria in the database is from the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The criteria listed above were chosen because
they are considered “gold standards” in their respective countries.

4-12
Chapter Determine Receptor
5.0 Point Concentrations

The third step in RISC is to determine receptor point

concentrations for the various media of concern
specified in Step 2: Choose Exposure Pathways.
The Step 3 interface will appear differently
depending on the choices made in Step 2. There are
two methods for determining receptor point
concentrations; the user can enter receptor point concentrations directly into RISC, or
the user can enter source zone concentrations and then utilize chemical fate and
transport models to estimate the receptor point concentrations. The method(s) to be
used in Step 3 are determined by the choices made in Step 2. The Step 3 interface and
options will be the same for “Human Health” and “Ecological/Water Quality” if the
same models are chosen in Step 2. This chapter will describe how to use both the
direct option and the modeling options for estimating receptor point concentrations.

If the concentrations in one media are to be estimated with fate and transport models,
and concentrations in another media are to be entered directly, the interface will
appear as in Figure 5-1. For the screen shown, a chemical fate and transport model is
to be used to estimate receptor point groundwater concentrations and the receptor
point concentrations in soil will be entered directly. If all the media of concern are to
have concentrations entered directly, or all the media are to be modeled, the screen
shown in Figure 5-1 will not appear.

5-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

5.1 USER-SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS

Receptor point concentrations can be specified directly by the user (as opposed to
using fate and transport models) for any receptor media. There are three different
ways the concentrations may be entered directly by the user: (1) as a single value, (2)
as a Monte Carlo Distribution, or (3) by building a site sample database. Figure 5-2
shows the screen with the three options as they appear for an example with soil as the
media of concern.

FIGURE 5-1. Main Screen for Step 3

5-2
 Determine Receptor Point Concentrations

FIGURE 5-2. The Three Choices for Specifying Concentrations Directly

5.1.1 Single Value

This option is used to specify concentrations when a point value or single

deterministic value is known. In this case the user will be asked to enter one
concentration value for each chemical of concern. This concentration will then be
used to calculate risk in Step 5. Even if a Monte Carlo analysis for the exposure
parameters is chosen in Step 4 (see next chapter), the user is still free to choose to use
a single media concentration, which will then be treated as constant in the Monte
Carlo analysis.

Figure 5-3 shows the input screen for entering receptor point concentrations in surface
soil. The values entered here will only be used for ingestion of soil, dermal contact
with soil, and/or vegetable ingestion - they are not the source term for any fate and
transport models. The soil concentrations entered in the screen shown in Figure 5-3
should be reflective of the concentrations that receptors are likely to come in contact
with - usually the top meter of soil for residential or no deeper than typical excavation
depths for a construction scenario. If the user also selects any pathways involving

5-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

leaching or volatilization from subsurface soils, then a second soil concentration will
be required in a later step to represent the source term for the models.

FIGURE 5-3. Entering Single Values for Receptor Point Concentrations

5.1.2 Monte Carlo Distributions

The second option for entering receptor point concentrations is to specify a "Monte
Carlo Distribution" for each concentration. These distributions are used for the
"Monte Carlo" option described in the next chapter. Figure 5-4 shows the input
screen for specifying Monte Carlo distributions. Note the options for the statistical
distributions are chosen by clicking on the "down arrow" next to the distribution
description box.

5-4
 Determine Receptor Point Concentrations

FIGURE 5-4. Entering Monte Carlo Distributions

The user may select between five distributions: Constant, Normal, Log-Normal,
Uniform, or Triangular. These distributions are described in the next chapter (6.0
Describe the Receptors) under the Monte Carlo section. Note, when a distribution is
chosen, the edit boxes required to describe the distribution appear. For example in
Figure 5-4, benzene concentration in soil is described as having a normal distribution
with the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum shown. If Monte Carlo
distributions are specified, but a deterministic analysis is performed in Step 4, the
mean value will be used in the risk calculation.

5.1.3 Sample Data Base

The RISC Sample Data Base is provided as a tool for users to summarize their site
data, and if appropriate, to calculate means of the data to be used as inputs to the
software. The sample data base can be used for both receptor point concentrations
and for source concentrations that serve as inputs to fate and transport models.

5-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

The sample data base option is used when more than one (hopefully many more)
measured concentrations exist for the chemicals of concern (i.e. multiple samples or
analytical results). The data may consist of samples from different locations on the
site, or it may consist of multiple samples taken at one location over time. In both
cases, the sample data base is used to summarize the site data for purposes of
estimating receptor point concentrations. Once all the samples are entered, the user
must select a method for handling "Non-Detects" (NDs) data points and for averaging
the concentration data in order to derive a value that is used to calculate risk in Step 5.
When the Sample Data Base option is chosen the user will be prompted to enter
concentration data for each sample (Figure 5-5).

FIGURE 5-5. Entering Concentrations in the Sample Data Base

Default values have been provided for the Sample Name, Date, and Weighting Factor,
however, the user is encouraged to change them to reflect the actual sample
description and sampling date. The Weighting Factor is discussed below.
Concentrations should be entered in the "Chemical Concentration" edit boxes,
selecting "Next" to go onto the next sample. When all the samples have been entered,
select "Done" to close the "Add a Sample" window and to view the data base. Figure
5-6 shows the Sample Data Base with four samples entered.

5-6
 Determine Receptor Point Concentrations

This database shows four samples, labeled Soil-001 to Soil-004, collected on 1/9/98.
The concentration averaging type used in this example is "Arithmetic" so the average
concentration shown in the last line corresponds to the arithmetic mean of all the
concentrations for each chemical. In Figure 5-6, the method chosen to handle NDs is
to use the detection limit in averaging; therefore a value of “0.001” was substituted
for Soil – 004 when calculating the average. The average concentration line is not
editable. The concentrations shown in the "Average Concentration" line are the
values that will be used to calculated risk. To change the method of calculating
average concentration, select from the "Type of Averaging" options in the drop down
list at the top of the sample data base. All the rest of the lines in the data base are
editable so the user can change values after the samples have been entered.

FIGURE 5-6. The Sample Data Base with Four Samples

Method for Handling Non-Detects

For purposes of concentration averaging, the user must choose a method for handling
non-detect values. There are three options. The NDs may be averaged using the
detection limit, 1/2 the detection limit, or they may be considered equal to zero.

5-7
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Detection Limits
The detection limit for each chemical is shown on the first line of the data base. If
there are "non-detects" (NDs) entered in the data set, it is important to make sure that
the detection limit is entered correctly. In this example, the soil detection limits are
0.001 mg/kg for both benzene and ethylbenzene. The detection limits may be
changed by clicking on the box containing the value and typing a new value. To
move to another cell (and save the change) either press the "Enter" key or the "Tab"
key.

Type of Averaging
The concentrations for each chemical are averaged to get a concentration to use for
calculating risk. There are five different options for averaging the concentrations:
arithmetic, geometric, weighting factors, 95th Upper Confidence Level (UCL) of the
Mean assuming a Normal distribution, and 95th Upper Confidence Level (UCL) of
the Mean assuming a log-normal distribution.

The arithmetic mean can be used if the underlying distribution of concentrations is

normal. It is calculated as follows:
n

− ∑C i
C= i =1
(5-1)
n

where
C = average concentration
n = number of samples
i = counter for sample number
Ci = concentration for sample i

The geometric mean can be used if the underlying distribution is log-normal (usually
assumed to be the case for concentration data). The geometric mean is calculated
from:

5-8
 Determine Receptor Point Concentrations

−
C = [C1 * C 2 * C 3 * ...C n ]n
1
(5-2)

The geometric mean cannot be used with any zeros entered for concentrations in the
data base or for the option of considering NDs as zero.

Weighting Factors
The Weighting Factor option for calculating average concentrations uses the "Weight
Factor" column from the data base. This factor assigns a relative weight to each
sample entered in the data base. The weight may correspond to the area of the site (or
groundwater) that is assigned the given sample concentration, or, it may correspond to
the number of samples at the reported concentration. Figure 5-7 shows an example
where a 100 m2 site has been sampled extensively and found to have a hot spot of 3
m2 and the samples taken from the rest of the site were below the detection limit.

FIGURE 5-7. Using the Weight Factors

In this case, two samples are entered, one with a weight of "3" and one with a weight
of "97". The two weights correspond to the areas of the site represented by each
concentration. (The units for weighting factor could be in area or just a relative

5-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

number and it is not necessary that the sum of the weighting factors equals 1, 10, or
100, etc.) It is important to remember that the total area represented in the data base
should correspond to the area that a receptor may come in contact with routinely. In
other words, if the site is very large and it is reasonable to expect that a receptor may
only work on a small area of the site, the database should be used to estimate
concentrations over that small area.

When all the weight factors are equal to one, the average concentration estimated
using the weighting approach will equal the arithmetic mean.

Upper Confidence Levels of the Mean

The methods described here are based on guidance provided by EPA (May, 1992).
The EPA guidance was developed for Superfund sites and should be used cautiously
for sites that do not meet the assumptions outlined here.

The 95 percent Upper Confidence Level (UCL) of a mean is defined as a value that,
when calculated repeatedly for randomly drawn subsets of site data, equals or exceeds
the true mean 95 percent of the time. The 95% UCL provides a conservative estimate
of the average concentration, however, it should not be confused with the 95th
percentile on the probability density function of site concentration data. The UCL
approach should only be used with a large sample data set that is based on random
sampling. If the sampling is performed at targeted "hot spots" or contains few data
points, this method may generate UCL means that are higher than the maximum
concentration detected. EPA recommends that the data sets consist of 20 to 30
samples in order to provide fairly consistent estimates of the UCL mean. Of course, a
higher number of samples is even better. Data sets containing less than 10 samples
provide poor estimates of the UCL mean concentration (i.e., there is a large difference
between the sample mean and the 95% UCL).

Method for Calculating the 95% UCL of the Mean Assuming a Normal
Distribution
In this approach the underlying data is assumed to be normally distributed. The 95%
UCL is calculated as follows:

5-10
 Determine Receptor Point Concentrations

−  s 
UCL = C + t   (5-3)
 n

where

UCL = upper confidence limit (in units of concentration)

C = arithmetic mean of the concentrations
s = standard deviation of the data
t = Student-t statistic (for 95% UCL)
n = number of samples

The Student-t statistic has been programmed in RISC to calculate the 95% UCL.

Method for Calculating the 95% UCL of the Mean Assuming a Log-Normal
Distribution
In this approach the underlying data is assumed to be log-normally distributed
(usually the case for random concentration data). This is the method recommended
by EPA (May, 1992) for randomly sampled Superfund sites. In this approach, the
concentrations are transformed by taking the log of each. Then the mean and standard
deviation is calculated for the transformed data. The 95% UCL is calculated as
follows:

− sH 
 C + 0.5 s + 
2

UCL = e  n −1 
(5-4)

where
UCL = upper confidence limit (in units of concentration)
C = arithmetic mean of the transformed concentrations
s = standard deviation of the transformed data
H = H-statistic (for 95% UCL)
n = number of samples

Tables of the H-statistic can be found in Gilbert (1987). The H-statistic has been
programmed in RISC to calculate the UCL. The 95% UCL cannot be calculated for a
log-normal distribution when any individual data point is zero or NDs are considered

5-11
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

to be zero. The user must choose the NDs to be equal to the detection limit or 1/2 the
detection limit.

5.2 FATE AND TRANSPORT MODELS

As an alternative to entering concentrations directly, fate and transport models can be

used to estimate receptor point concentrations in groundwater, surface water, outdoor
air, or indoor air. The models to be used in this step are determined by the choices
made in Step 2. Figure 5-8 shows the four basic steps in using the fate and transport
models.

FIGURE 5-8. The Four Steps of the Fate and Transport Screen

Step 3a: Describe the Site Properties

In this step, the user is asked to enter site-specific data needed to run the model(s)
chosen. Figure 5-9 shows the input screen that appears when a "Dissolved Source
GW model" is chosen to estimate receptor point concentrations in groundwater.

5-12
 Determine Receptor Point Concentrations

FIGURE 5-9. Describing the Site for the Dissolved Concentrations Model

In this example there are only three groups of data that need be entered: Source
Geometry, Aquifer properties, and the Well Location. Depending on the model(s)
chosen, the screen in Figure 5-9 will look different and there will be additional groups
of data required. Note that when asked to specify aquifer or soil properties, the user is
provided with suggested default values and parameter ranges for up to 9 soil types,
ranging from gravel to clay. An example of the parameter input screens is shown in
Figure 5-10. This screen shows the input parameters needed to specify aquifer
properties in the saturated zone. The drop-down list (with "Sandy Loam" shown)
allows the user to select a different default soil type. When the down arrow on the
drop-down list is selected the vertical scroll bar (shown in Figure 5-11) can be used to
view all the soil data types.

5-13
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

FIGURE 5-10. Input Parameter Screen for Aquifer

FIGURE 5-11. Input Parameter Screen Showing Soil Property

Database Selection

5-14
 Determine Receptor Point Concentrations

Table 5-1 shows the default values contained in the soil properties database. The soil
bulk density for all soil types has been set to 1.7 g/cm3. Since this parameter is almost
always measured during field work, it is suggested that the user update it with the site
specific value.

These soil properties are based on best professional judgment and they are not
necessarily conservative. They are discussed in detail in the appendices containing
the model descriptions (Appendices A through E). The van Genuchten's n parameter
is used to calculate water content in the unsaturated zone and is described in both
Appendix A and Appendix C.

Step 3b: Enter the Source Concentrations

The source concentrations required to run the fate and transport models are entered in
this step. Depending on the model(s) selected, the source may be a dissolved phase
concentration in groundwater, a soil concentration in the vadose zone, or a soil
concentration in/at the water table. Table 5-2 lists the models available and the type
of source term required.

5-15
 Table 5-1. Soil Properties Database
Water Intrinsic
Irreducible Fraction Saturated van Height Air Content Content in Permeability
Total Effective Water Organic Hydraulic Genuchten’s Capillary Capillary Soil Below (for advection
SOIL TYPE Porosity* Porosity** Content Carbon Conductivity n Parameter Fringe Fringe Building of vapors)
cm3/cm3 cm3/cm3 cm3/cm3 g oc/g soil m/d - cm cm3/cm3 cm3/cm3 cm2
Clay 0.45 0.20 0.17 0.02 0.015 1.09 152 0.005 0.40 1E-13
Silty Clay 0.40 0.25 0.21 0.015 0.022 1.09 152 0.005 0.32 1E-11
Silt 0.35 0.25 0.21 0.005 0.25 1.37 152 0.005 0.25 1E-11
Silty Loam 0.35 0.30 0.17 0.008 0.16 1.41 50 0.005 0.22 1E-9
Loam 0.30 0.25 0.15 0.008 0.32 1.56 50 0.005 0.18 1E-8
Sandy Loam 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.007 0.62 1.89 10 0.01 0.15 1E-8
Silty Sand 0.25 0.20 0.12 0.005 0.86 1.5 50 0.005 0.15 1E-10
Sand 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.002 5 2.68 10 0.01 0.12 1E-7
Sandy Gravel 0.25 0.25 0.04 0.002 10 2.7 5 0.03 0.10 1E-6
Gravel 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.002 20 2.7 5 0.03 0.10 1E-5
*Total porosity (i.e., all the void space) is used in the vadose zone and vapor models.
**Effective porosity (i.e., the ‘connected’ void space) is used in the saturated zone model.

5-16
 Table 5-2. List of Fate and Transport Models and Source Terms Required for
Each Model

Receptor Point
Fate and Source Term Concentration
Transport Model Required for Model Estimated by Model
Vadose Zone Model Soil Concentrations in the
Linked With Groundwater Vadose Zone
Model
Groundwater
Dissolved Phase Source Groundwater
Groundwater Model Concentrations
Saturated Soil Soil Concentrations in
Groundwater Model Saturated Zone
Johnson and Ettinger
Model
Vapor Transport Model
Without Degradation Soil or Soil Gas
Concentrations in the
Dominant Layer Model Vadose Zone
Vapor Transport Model Indoor or
considering Degradation
Outdoor Air
Oxygen-Limited Model
Vapor Transport Model
Considering Degradation
Groundwater
Vapor Emissions from Concentrations or Use
Groundwater Linked With One of the
Groundwater Models

Step 3c: Run the F&T Model

In this step, the simulation time and source pulse length are entered. The source pulse
length, which is used for the dissolved concentrations groundwater model only, is the
time the source is active, i.e. before it is either physically removed or assumed to be
depleted (either intrinsically or by active remediation). The fate and transport models
are run once (automatically) for each chemical of concern. When the simulations
have finished the user is notified to continue.

5-17
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Step 3d: View the Results

In this step, the user can view tables and charts of the model results. The options for
the types of tables and charts will vary depending on the model(s) run. There is
always an “Model Input Summary” listing all of the input parameter values. The
other tables summarize concentrations in one media (per table) or model calculations
and are designed for quick review or for inclusion in the modeling write-up.

Both the tables and charts can be transferred to another software application (such as a
word processor) by clicking on the 'Copy' button. Then the user can minimize or
close the RISC main screen, open the new destination software, and choose "Paste"
(or the Shift and Insert keys). The tables and charts can also be printed directly from
the model results screens. Note: these tables are not tab-delimited so they look best
in Word when displayed with a courier (or other fixed point size) font.

5-18
Chapter Describe The
6.0 Receptors

The screens in this step appear differently depending

on the type of analysis chosen in Step 2 (human health
or ecological). These two options are described in the
following sections.

6.1 HUMAN HEALTH

In Step 4, the receptor(s) of concern are chosen and the receptor-specific intake
parameters are entered. The RISC software contains both deterministic and stochastic
(Monte Carlo input) default data on exposure for many different types of receptors.
The user is free to use the default data provided or to change the intake parameters to
reflect actual site-specific values. Figure 6-1 shows the main screen for Step 4.

6-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

FIGURE 6-1. The Two Steps Required to Describe the Receptor(s)

6.1.1 STEP 4a: CHOOSE RECEPTORS AND ANALYSIS TYPE

The decisions that must be made in this step are:

• Will the analysis be deterministic or Monte Carlo?

• If deterministic, will one or two receptors of concern be considered?
• If two receptors are being considered, are the exposures to be summed (e.g. a
receptor is considered as both a child and an adult)?
• Are default, or user-specified, site-specific exposure parameters and/or Monte
Carlo distributions to be used?

Figure 6-2 shows the input screen for Step 4a.

6-2
 Describe the Receptors

FIGURE 6-2. Input Screen for Step 4a

One the left side of the input screen the user must choose between: (1) performing a
deterministic or Monte Carlo analysis, (2) if deterministic, to evaluate one or two
receptors, and (3) if two receptors, whether or not to calculate the additive case.
These options are described in the following sections.

On the right side of the input screen the default receptor types are listed. If only one
receptor is to be analyzed, then a lower box ("Case 2:") will not be shown. There are
eight receptors types to choose from for the deterministic case and four for the "Monte
Carlo" case. The default receptor types and the potential exposure routes considered
for each are shown in Table 6-1 (all tables appear at the end in this chapter). The
choices made here will affect how the exposure data input screen appears.

6.1.1.1 Deterministic and Monte Carlo Analyses

The risk calculations may be performed in either a deterministic mode or using Monte
Carlo sampling. The deterministic mode means that a single value (point estimate)

6-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

will be used for each intake parameter and therefore a single value of risk will be
calculated for the analysis.

In a Monte Carlo analysis, on the other hand, probability distributions are specified
for each of the input parameters and values are randomly drawn from these input
distributions. The model is run many times (recommended 1000 to 10,000 iterations)
and the resultant risks are evaluated statistically. The Monte Carlo analysis is a
powerful tool for estimating exposures when population distribution data exists. The
results indicate the wide range of exposures that might occur as well as the probability
of each exposure happening. The results from a Monte Carlo analysis can be
presented by summarizing the output statistics in tabular form or by generating
probability density functions or cumulative probability density functions of the
output. These output options are described in Sections 8.1 and 8.2.

6.1.1.2 One or Two Receptors

The risk analysis may be performed for one or two receptors simultaneously. When
two receptors are chosen, the results between the two may be compared in the same
table or chart. For example, one might examine the effect of changing exposure
assumptions by comparing very conservative exposure parameter estimates with that
calculated for a more representative “average” member of the population. The default
“typical” exposure inputs correspond to this latter case, while the default “RME”
(reasonable maximum exposure) inputs correspond to the conservative parameter
estimates.

6.1.1.3 Additive Case

In the additive case the exposures for two receptors are evaluated and then summed.
This option can be used for the situation where the user wants to consider a residential
receptor that is assumed to be a child for a certain number of years (with appropriate
child intake values) and an adult for a certain number of years.

6.1.2 STEP4b: ENTER EXPOSURE DATA

For deterministic analysis, default sets of intake parameters have been developed for a
“Reasonable Maximum Exposure” (RME) and a “Typical Exposure” for adults,

6-4
 Describe the Receptors

children, workers, and trespassers for a total of eight data sets. The “Reasonable
Maximum Exposure” is a term originally used by USEPA to refer to an 85-95
percentile exposure when given a cumulative probability distribution of exposure
values. It has since also been used to refer to an exposure risk from a pathway (e.g.
vapor inhalation in a shower) in which individual exposure parameters that define the
pathway (e.g. time in the shower, flow and temperature of the water, etc) are
conservatively selected from the 85-95 percentile of their individual distributions. In
this latter case, the overall pathway risk often exceeds the 95 percentile of the
cumulative probability distribution of exposure values. Thus, the RME exposure
scenario is typically regarded as a very conservative exposure scenario, but is often
used as a base case for calculations (e.g. in the development of a RBCA Tier 1 Look-
Up Table). Because the RME exposure is generally considered to be overly
conservative, a “Typical” default set of exposure inputs is also included in RISC.
These are more representative of the characteristics of an “average” member of the
general population, rather than a “maximum exposed individual” (MEI).

Tables 6-2 through 6-5 show the deterministic default values for the receptors. There
are many parameters that are highly site-specific such as exposure duration and
frequency. The database has default values for these parameters, however, it is
important to use site-specific data where available. Figure 6-3 shows the input screen
for a deterministic case with two receptors. Because ingestion of soil was chosen in
Step 2, the user is asked to enter soil bioavailability values for each chemical.
(Bioavailability reflects the fact that not all the contaminant that is present in the soil -
and extractable with a solvent - is actually toxic to a human because it is not available
for uptake or capable of being metabolized.) If no soil routes had been chosen, this
second lower window would not appear. Note the arrows indicate that additional
exposure parameters must be accessed by using the scroll bar.

6-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Figure 6-3. Input Screen for Step 4b for a Deterministic Analysis

Table 6-6 shows the default distributions for the Monte Carlo case. The majority of
these distributions were extracted from the guidance document from the American
Institute of Health Council (AIHC), entitled "Exposure Factors Sourcebook" (1994).
Appendix H describes the methodology behind the development of these
distributions.

Figure 6-4 shows the input screen for a Monte Carlo analysis. The distribution types
are selected from the drop-down lists shown. When a distribution type is changed
(e.g. from "Constant" to "Log-Normal") the boxes to the right change to reflect the
required inputs for the selected distribution.

The constant distribution is defined with a single value in the "Mean" column. The
normal and log-normal distributions must be defined with four statistics: mean,
standard deviation, minimum and maximum. The triangular distribution is defined by
the expected value (the peak of the triangle) entered in the "mean" box and by a
minimum and a maximum (the x-axis parameter values where the two lines on the
probability density function cross this axis).

6-6
 Describe the Receptors

Figure 6-4. Input Screen for Step 4b for a Monte Carlo Analysis

6-7
 RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table 6-1. Default Receptor Types and Exposure Routes

Default Receptors Types Default Receptors Potential Exposure Routes
for the Deterministic Types for the Considered
Case Monte Carlo Case
Adult Resident – Typical Adult Resident Ingestion of Soil
Adult Resident – RME* Dermal Contact with Soil
Vegetable Ingestion from Soil Media
Ingestion of Groundwater
Dermal Contact with Groundwater
Vegetable Ingestion from GW Media
Inhalation in the Shower
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Inhalation of Indoor Air
Ingestion of Surface Water (Swimming)
Dermal Contact with Surface Water
Dermal Contact with Irrigation Water
Ingestion of Irrigation Water
Inhalation of Irrigation Water Spray
Child Resident - Typical Child Resident Ingestion of Soil
Child Resident – RME* Dermal Contact with Soil
Vegetable Ingestion from Soil Media
Ingestion of Groundwater
Dermal Contact with Groundwater
Vegetable Ingestion from GW Media
Inhalation in the Shower
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Inhalation of Indoor Air
Ingestion of Surface Water (Swimming)
Dermal Contact with Surface Water
Dermal Contact with Irrigation Water
Ingestion of Irrigation Water
Inhalation of Irrigation Water Spray
Trespasser - Typical Trespasser Ingestion of Soil
Trespasser – RME* Dermal Contact with Soil
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Ingestion of Surface Water (Swimming)
Dermal Contact with Surface Water
Worker – Typical Worker Ingestion of Soil
Worker – RME* Dermal Contact with Soil
Ingestion of Groundwater
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Inhalation of Indoor Air
*RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure

6-8
 Describe the Receptors

Table 6-2. Intake Parameters for Adult Residents (page 1 of 2)

Reasonable
Maximum Typical
Parameter Units Exposure Exposure
Common to All Routes
Body Weight kg 70 70
Lifetime years 70 70
Exposure Duration years 30 9
Exposure Frequency (unless days/year 350 350
specified under route-specific
parameters)
Ingestion of Drinking Water
Ingestion Rate l/day 2 1.1
Dermal Contact While Showering
Exposure Time hours/day 0.2 0.12
Skin Surface Area cm2 23,000 18,400

Inhalation During Shower

Exposure Time in Shower per day hours/day 0.2 0.12
Inhalation Rate in Shower m3/hr 0.6 0.6
Volume of Bathroom m3 3 5.2
Flowrate of Shower Water l/min 10 8
o
Temperature of Shower C 48 45
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Exposure Time Outdoors hours/day 2.5 1.1
Inhalation Rate Outdoors m3/hr 0.83 0.625

Inhalation of Indoor Air

Exposure Time Indoors hours/day 24 18.3
Inhalation Rate Indoors m3/hr 0.83 0.625
Dermal Contact with Soil
Exposure Frequency days/year 350 40
Total Skin Surface Area cm2 23,000 18,400
Fraction of Total Skin Surface Area cm2/cm2 0.56 0.11
Exposed to Soil
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor mg/cm2 0.2 0.2

Ingestion of Soil
Exposure Frequency days/year 350 40
Ingestion Rate mg/day 100 40
Bioavailability in Soil fraction Chemical- Chemical-
Specific Specific

6-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table 6-2. Intake Parameters for Adult Residents (page 2 of 2)

Reasonable
Maximum Typical
Parameter Units Exposure Exposure
Dermal Contact with Surface Water
Exposure Frequency days/year 36 5
Exposure Time hours/day 2.6 2.6
Total Skin Surface Area cm2 23,000 18,400
Incidental Ingestion of Water While
Swimming
Exposure Frequency days/year 36 5
Exposure Time hours/day 2.6 2.6
Ingestion Rate ml/hr 50 10
Dermal Contact with Irrigation
Water
Exposure Frequency days/year 150 20
Exposure Time hours/day 2 0.5
Total Skin Surface Area cm2 23,000 18,400
Fraction of Skin Surface Area for fraction 0.5 0.1
Dermal Contact with Water
Ingestion of Irrigation Water
Exposure Frequency days/year 150 20
Exposure Time hours/day 2.6 0.5
Ingestion Rate ml/hr 50 10
Inhalation of Irrigation Water Spray
Exposure Frequency days/year 150 20
Exposure Time hours/day 2 0.5
Width of Sprinkler Spray m 9 25
o
Temperature of Irrigation Water C 25 20
Flowrate of Sprinkler l/min 50 30
Diameter of Sprinkler Droplet cm 0.2 0.2
Droplet Droptime sec 5 5
Height of Breathing Zone m 2 2
Average Wind Speed m/sec 2.25 3.5
Ingestion of Vegetables
Ingestion Rate for Above Ground g/day 127 127
Vegetables
Ingestion Rate for Root Vegetables g/day 87.5 87.5
Fraction of Vegetables Grown in g/g 0.25 0.1
Contaminated Soil or Water
Fraction Organic Carbon in Garden g oc/g soil 0.05 0.05
Soil

6-10
 Describe the Receptors

Table 6-3. Intake Parameters for Child Residents (page 1 of 2)

Reasonable
Maximum Typical
Parameter Units Exposure Exposure
Common to All Routes
Body Weight kg 15 15
Lifetime years 70 70
Exposure Duration years 6 6
Exposure Frequency (unless specified days/year 350 350
under route-specific parameters)
Ingestion of Drinking Water
Ingestion Rate l/day 1 0.5
Dermal Contact While Showering
Exposure Time hours/day 0.2 0.12
2
Skin Surface Area cm 7280 6800
Inhalation During Shower
Exposure Time in Shower per day hours/day 0.2 0.12
3
Inhalation Rate in Shower m /hr 0.6 0.6
Volume of Bathroom m3 3 5.2
Flowrate of Shower Water l/min 10 8
o
Temperature of Shower C 48 45
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Exposure Time Outdoors hours/day 24 2.2
3
Inhalation Rate Outdoors m /hour 0.83 0.83
Inhalation of Indoor Air
Exposure Time Indoors hours/day 24 19.6
Inhalation Rate Indoors m3/hour 0.83 0.625
Dermal Contact with Soil
Exposure Frequency days/year 350 130
2 2
Fraction of Total Skin Surface Area cm /cm 0.55 0.13
Exposed to Soil
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor mg/cm2 0.2 0.2
Ingestion of Soil
Exposure Frequency days/year 350 130
Ingestion Rate mg/day 200 90
Bioavailability in Soil fraction Chemical- Chemical-
Specific Specific

6-11
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table 6-3. Intake Parameters for Child Residents (page 2 of 2)

Reasonable
Maximum Typical
Parameter Units Exposure Exposure
Dermal Contact with Surface
Water
Exposure Frequency days/year 36 5
Exposure Time hours/day 2.6 2.6
Skin Surface Area cm2 7280 6800
Incidental Ingestion of Water
While Swimming
Exposure Frequency days/year 36 5
Exposure Time hours/day 2.6 2.6
Ingestion Rate ml/hour 50 10
Dermal Contact with Irrigation
Water
Exposure Frequency days/year 150 20
Exposure Time hours/day 2 0.5
Total Skin Surface Area cm2 7280 6800
Fraction of Skin Surface Area for fraction 0.5 0.1
Dermal Contact with Water
Ingestion of Irrigation Water
Exposure Frequency days/year 150 20
Exposure Time hours/day 2.6 0.5
Ingestion Rate ml/hour 50 10
Inhalation of Irrigation Water
Spray
Exposure Frequency days/year 150 20
Exposure Time hours/day 2 0.5
Width of Sprinkler Spray m 9 25
o
Temperature of Irrigation Water C 25 20
Flowrate of Sprinkler l/min 50 30
Diameter of Sprinkler Droplet cm 0.2 0.2
Droplet Droptime sec 5 5
Height of Breathing Zone m 2 2
Average Wind Speed m/sec 2.25 3.5
Ingestion of Vegetables
Ingestion Rate for Above Ground g/day 55.8 55.8
Vegetables
Ingestion Rate for Root Vegetables g/day 48.5 48.5
Fraction of Vegetables Grown in g/g 0.25 0.1
Contaminated Soil or Water
Fraction Organic Carbon in Garden g oc/g soil 0.05 0.05
Soil

6-12
 Describe the Receptors

Table 6-4. Intake Parameters for Workers

Reasonable
Maximum Typical
Parameter Units Exposure Exposure
Common to All Routes
Body Weight kg 70 70
Lifetime years 70 70
Exposure Duration years 25 8
Exposure Frequency (unless days/year 250 250
specified under route-specific
parameters)
Ingestion of Drinking Water
Ingestion Rate l/day 1 0.5
Inhalation of Volatile Soil
Emissions
Time Outdoors hours/day 8 4
Inhalation Rate m3/hour 2.5 0.83
Dermal Contact with Soil
Exposure Frequency days/year 250 125
2 2
Fraction of Total Skin Surface Area cm / cm 0.57 0.11
Exposed to Soil
Adherence Factor mg/cm2 0.2 0.2
Ingestion of Soil
Exposure Frequency days/year 250 125
Ingestion Rate mg/day 100 40
Inhalation of Indoor Air
Exposure Frequency days/year 250 125
Exposure Time Indoors hours/day 8 4
Inhalation Rate Indoors m3/hour 0.83 0.625

6-13
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table 6-5. Intake Parameters for Trespassers

Reasonable
Maximum Typical
Parameter Units Exposure Exposure
Common to All Routes
Body Weight kg 42 42
Lifetime years 70 70
Exposure Duration years 12 9
Exposure Frequency (unless days/year 52 26
specified under route-specific
parameters)
Inhalation of Volatile Soil
Emissions
Exposure Time hours/day 3 1.5
Inhalation Rate m3/hr 2.3 1.68
Dermal Contact with Soil
Fraction of Skin Surface Area fraction 0.57 0.11
Exposed to Soil
Adherence Factor mg/cm2 1 0.2
Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion Rate mg/day 100 40
Dermal Contact with Surface
Water
Exposure Frequency days/year 36 5
Exposure Time hours/day 2.6 2.6
Skin Surface Area cm2 16550 14000
Incidental Ingestion of Water
While Swimming
Exposure Frequency days/year 36 5
Exposure Time hours/day 2.6 2.6
Ingestion Rate ml/hr 50 10

6-14
 Describe the Receptors

Table 6-6. Monte Carlo Default Distributions

Point Estimate
Distribution Expected Standard
Parameter Units Type Value Deviation Min. Max. Typical RME Reference for Monte Carlo
Distributions
Body Weight kg
Adult Resident Normal 72 15.9 24 125 70 70 AIHC (1994)
Child Resident (Age Normal 15.6 3.7 6 30 15 15 Anderson et al. (1985)
1-6)
Trespasser Normal 47 8.3 20 120 42 42 Anderson et al. (1985)
Worker Normal 72 15.9 24 125 70 70 AIHC (1994)
Lifetime yr
Adult Resident Constant 70 NA NA NA 70 70 EPA (1989)
Child Resident (1-6) Constant 70 NA NA NA 70 70 EPA
Trespasser Constant 70 NA NA NA 70 70 EPA
Worker Constant 70 NA NA NA 70 70 EPA
Exposure Duration yr
(All Exposure Routes)
Adult Resident Lognormal 11.36 13.72 0 70 9 30 Israeli and Nelson (1992); data for
owners
Child Resident (1-6) Uniform NA NA 1 5 5 5 Best Profession Judgement (BPJ)
Trespasser Lognormal 11.36 13.72 0 70 9 12 Israeli and Nelson (1992); data for
owners
Worker Lognormal 8.3 8.7 0 50 8 25 Bureau of Labor Statistics (1992)

6-15
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table 6-6. Monte Carlo Default Distributions

Point Estimate
Distribution Expected Standard
Parameter Units Type Value Deviation Min. Max. Typical RME Reference for Monte Carlo
Distributions
Exposure Frequency d/yr
(Indoor Air and
Groundwater)
Adult Resident Constant 350 NA NA NA 350 350
Child Resident (1-6) Constant 350 NA NA NA 350 350 Defaults to be modified based upon
Trespasser NA NA NA NA NA NA NA site-specific observations and
information.
Worker Constant 250 NA NA NA 250 250
Exposure Frequency d/yr
(Soil Routes)
Adult Resident Triangular 40 NA 10 350 40 350
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 130 NA 10 350 130 350 Defaults to be modified based upon
Trespasser Triangular 26 NA 0 52 26 52 Site-specific observations and
information.
Worker Triangular 125 NA 10 250 125 250
Exposure Frequency d/yr
(Swimming)
Adult Resident Triangular 7 NA 0 60 5 36 Expected: EPA (1988); Remainder:
BJP
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 7 NA 0 60 5 36 Same as above
Trespasser Triangular 7 NA 0 60 5 36 Same as above
Worker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

6-16
 Describe the Receptors

Table 6-6. Monte Carlo Default Distributions

Point Estimate
Distribution Expected Standard
Parameter Units Type Value Deviation Min. Max. Typical RME Reference for Monte Carlo
Distributions
Total Skin Surface Area cm2
(Showering/Swimming)
Adult Resident Normal 18400 2300 8000 30000 18400 23000 AIHC
Child Resident (1-6) Normal 6800 600 5000 11000 6800 7280 Anderson et al.
Trespasser Normal 14000 1700 7000 20000 14000 16550 AIHC
Worker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Fraction of Total Skin cm2
Surface
Area Exposed to Soil
(Soil Contact/Wading)
Adult Resident Triangular 0.11 NA 0 0.56 0.11 0.56 Anderson et al. (1985)
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 0.13 NA 0 0.55 0.13 0.55 Anderson et al. (1985)
Trespasser Triangular 0.11 NA 0 0.57 0.11 0.57 Anderson et al. (1985)
Worker Triangular 0.11 NA 0 0.19 0.11 0.19 Anderson et al. (1985)
Soil Ingestion mg/d
Adult Resident Lognormal 40.4 37.3 1.5 666.8 40 100 Assumed to be one-half child soil
ingestion rate
Child Resident (1-6) Lognormal 86 84 3 1854 90 200 Thompson and Burmaster (1991)
Trespasser Lognormal 41 36.9 1.4 518.9 40 100 Assumed to be one-half child soil
ingestion rate
Worker Lognormal 40 37.3 1.8 437.1 40 100 Assumed to be one-half child soil
ingestion rate

6-17
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table 6-6. Monte Carlo Default Distributions

Point Estimate
Distribution Expected Standard
Parameter Units Type Value Deviation Min. Max. Typical RME Reference for Monte Carlo
Distributions
Soil-On-Skin Adherence mg/cm2
Factor
Adult Resident Triangular 0.2 NA 0.0 1 0.2 0.2 Expected value from EPA (1998)
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 0.2 NA 0.0 1 0.2 0.2 Expected value from EPA (1998)
Trespasser Triangular 0.2 NA 0.0 1 0.2 0.2 Expected value from EPA (1998)
Worker Triangular 0.2 NA 0.0 1 0.2 0.2 Expected value from EPA (1998)
Drinking Water Ingestion l/d
Adult Resident Lognormal 1.27 0.6 0.1 3 1.1 2 Roseberry and Burmaster (1992):
age group 20-65
Child Resident (1-6) Lognormal 0.7 0.35 0.1 2 0.5 1 Roseberry and Burmaster (1992):
age group 1-11
Trespasser NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Worker Lognormal 0.63 0.3 0.1 2 0.5 1 Assumed to be one-half adult
resident watering rate
Swimming Ingestion Rate l/d
Adult Resident Uniform NA NA 0 50 10 50 EPA (1988)
Child Resident (1-6) Uniform NA NA 0 50 10 50 EPA (1988)
Trespasser Uniform NA NA 0 50 10 50 EPA (1988)
Worker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

6-18
 Describe the Receptors

Table 6-6. Monte Carlo Default Distributions

Point Estimate
Distribution Expected Standard
Parameter Units Type Value Deviation Min. Max. Typical RME Reference for Monte Carlo
Distributions
Swimming Exposure hr/d
Time
Adult Resident Triangular 2.6 NA 0.5 6 2.6 2.6 Expected: EPA (1988); Remainder:
BPJ
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 2.6 NA 0.5 6 2.6 2.6 Same as above
Trespasser Triangular 2.6 NA 0.5 6 2.6 2.6 Same as above
Worker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Time Spent Outdoors hr/d
Adult Resident Triangular 1.1 NA 0.25 2.5 1.1 2.5 Expected: AIHC (1994);
Remainder: BPJ
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 2.2 NA 0.5 5 2.2 5 Same as Adult
Trespasser Triangular 1.5 NA 0.25 3 1.5 3 BPJ
Worker Triangular 4 NA 2 6 4 6 BPJ
Time Spent Indoors hr/d
Adult Resident Triangular 18.3 NA 8 24 18.3 24 Expected: EPA (1988); Remainder:
BPJ
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 19.6 NA 10 24 19.6 24 Same as above
Trespasser NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Worker Triangular 4 NA 2 6 4 6 Same as above

6-19
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table 6-6. Monte Carlo Default Distributions

Point Estimate
Distribution Expected Standard
Parameter Units Type Value Deviation Min. Max. Typical RME Reference for Monte Carlo
Distributions
Inhalation Rate m3/hr
(Indoor and Outdoor Air)
Adult Resident Triangular 0.79 NA 0.25 1.33 0.83 0.83 AIHC (1994)
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 0.72 NA 0.35 1.18 0.83 0.83 AIHC (1994)
Trespasser Triangular 1.68 NA 1.06 2.3 1.68 2.3 Anderson et al. (1985)
Worker Triangular 0.8 NA 0.7 2.5 0.8 2.5 Anderson et al. (1985)
Inhalation Rate m3/hr
(In the Shower)
Adult Resident Constant 0.6 NA NA NA 0.6 0.6 EPA (1989)
Child Resident (1-6) Constant 0.6 NA NA NA 0.6 0.6 EPA (1989)
Trespasser NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Worker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Flowrate of Shower l/min
Adult Resident Lognormal 8 2.7 0 30 8 10 Finley and Paustenbach (1994)
Child Resident (1-6) Lognormal 8 2.7 0 30 8 10 Finley and Paustenbach (1994)
Trespasser NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Worker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

6-20
 Describe the Receptors

Table 6-6. Monte Carlo Default Distributions

Point Estimate
Distribution Expected Standard
Parameter Units Type Value Deviation Min. Max. Typical RME Reference for Monte Carlo
Distributions
Water Temperature C
(Showering)
Adult Resident Triangular 45 NA 35 50 45 48 Smith (1994)
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 45 NA 35 50 45 48 Smith (1994)
Trespasser NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Worker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Volume of Bathroom m3
(Showering)
Adult Resident Triangular 2.9 NA 2 6 5.2 3 Smith (1994)
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 2.9 NA 2 6 5.2 3 Smith (1994)
Trespasser NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Worker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Exposure Time hr/d
(Showering)
Adult Resident Triangular 0.11 NA 0.03 0.33 0.12 0.2 AIHC (1994)
Child Resident (1-6) Triangular 0.11 NA 0.03 0.33 0.12 0.2 AIHC (1994)
Trespasser NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Worker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

6-21
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

6.2 ECOLOGICAL/WATER QUALITY

Figure 6-5 shows the input screen for selecting water quality criteria (with some
marine surface water criteria selected).

Figure 6-5. Step 4 Screen for Selecting Water Quality and Sediment Criteria

The procedure for creating a summary table in this step is to select the criteria desired
and then select the appropriate button from the “Table Options” group. Figure 6-6
shows an example of the surface water criteria table.

6-22
 Describe the Receptors

Figure 6-6. Example of the Surface Water Criteria Table

6-23
Chapter
7.0 Calculate Risk

The potential carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic

hazard are calculated using equations presented in
EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(EPA, 1989a). The following exposure routes are
considered in the software:

1. Dermal contact with contaminated soil.

2. Ingestion of contaminated soil.
3. Ingestion of contaminated groundwater.
4. Dermal contact with contaminated groundwater (while showering).
5. Inhalation while showering.
6. Inhalation of outdoor air (either from soil or groundwater emissions).
7. Inhalation of indoor air (either from soil or groundwater emissions).
8. Ingestion of surface water (e.g. while swimming).
9. Dermal contact with surface water.
10. Ingestion of home-grown vegetables grown in contaminated soil.
11. Ingestion of home-grown vegetables irrigated with contaminated groundwater.
12. Ingestion of irrigation water (groundwater used outdoors).
13. Dermal contact with irrigation water.
14. Inhalation of irrigation water spray (from sprinklers etc.).

Pathways 1-3 and 6-7 represent some of the more common exposure pathways for
many petroleum contaminated sites (e.g. former gas stations). If surface water bodies
are present on the site, exposure pathways eight and nine may be important.
Pathways 11 – 14 represent the potential pathways associated with irrigation water
and will usually only be of concern if the house has its own well while drinking water
used in the house is provided by a municipality.

7-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

As mentioned previously, the reader should note that throughout this document the
term “risk” will be used to refer to the estimated potential for adverse human health
impacts, for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds. For some, this is a
departure from the more rigorous use of the term “risk”, where it is sometimes only
used to refer to the probability of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a
chemical or group of chemicals.

7.1 DESCRIPTION OF EACH INTAKE ROUTE

The first step in the risk calculation is to estimate the intake rate for each chemical of
concern from each exposure route. This intake rate, or dose, is expressed in
milligrams per day of chemical taken into the body per unit body weight [mg/kg-d).
EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) manual (EPA, 1989a)
recommends that when evaluating longer-term exposure to non-carcinogenic
toxicants, the intake is to be calculated by averaging the intake over the period of
exposure (or averaging time). The resulting term is called the chronic average daily
dose (CADD) and is used to estimate the hazard quotient from each route by
comparison with a safe "reference dose". Because this dose is derived for exposure
periods greater than seven years, the maximum 7-year average concentration of the
compound is used in the CADD calculations (rather than the average of the exposure
duration). If the exposure duration is specified to be less than 7 years, the average
concentration over the exposure duration is used.

For carcinogens, the intake rate is calculated by time-averaging the cumulative dose
over a 70-year lifetime. In this case, the averaging time is considered to be the
receptors lifetime, while the exposure duration may be considerably shorter. The
Lifetime Averaged Daily Dose (LADD) is used to estimate the incremental excess
lifetime cancer risk (IELCR) by multiplying the LADD by a toxicity factor (known as
the slope factor). In cases where time-varying concentrations are considered,
algorithms in the RISC software compute the maximum average receptor point
concentration over the exposure duration.

7-2
 Calculate Risk

Sections 7.1.1 through 7.1.14 present the equations used to estimate CADD and
LADD for each exposure pathway. Section 7.2 discusses the calculation of
carcinogenic risk and section 7.3 discusses calculation of the hazard quotients and
resulting hazard index for non-carcinogens.

For reference, there is a detailed description of the absorption adjustment factors and
their derivation in Appendix I. The numerical values are listed in Table 9-1. For a
description of the skin permeability coefficients the reader is referred to the EPA
EPA's Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (1992).

7.1.1 Ingestion of Soil

Adults working outdoors may ingest soil through incidental contact of the mouth with
hands and clothing. Soil ingestion by children is often the primary exposure route of
concern for contaminated soils (Paustenbach, 1989a,b). Intake of contaminants in soil
by ingestion is estimated as follows:

Cmax × IR × AAF × EF × BIO kg

CADD = × 10 − 6 (7-1a)
d mg
BW × 365
yr

C ave × IR × AAF × EF × ED × BIO kg

LADD = × 10 −6 (7-1b)
d mg
LT × BW × 365
yr

where
CADD = chronic average daily dose [mg/kg-day]
LADD = lifetime average daily dose [mg/kg-day]
Cmax = maximum 7-year average concentration of chemical in
soil [mg/kg]
Cave = time-averaged concentration of chemical in soil over the
exposure duration [mg/kg]
IR = soil ingestion rate [mg/day]
AAF = chemical-specific oral-soil absorption adjustment factor
[mg/mg]

7-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

BIO = bioavailability of chemical in soil [mg/mg]

EF = exposure frequency [events/year]
ED = exposure duration [years]
LT = lifetime = 70 years [by definition]
BW = body weight [kg]

Note, in RISC, the soil concentration is assumed to be constant with time.

7.1.2 Dermal Contact with Soil

Some soil contaminants may be absorbed across the skin into the bloodstream.
Absorption will depend upon the amount of soil in contact with the skin, the
concentration of chemicals in soil, the skin surface area exposed, and the potential for
the chemical to be absorbed across skin. The intake is computed as follows:

Cmax × SA × AAF × AF × EF × BIO kg

CADD = × 10 − 6 (7-2a)
d mg
BW × 365
yr

C ave × SA × AAF × AF × EF × ED × BIO kg

LADD = × 10 −6 (7-2b)
d mg
LT × BW × 365
yr

where
Cmax = maximum 7-year average concentration of chemical in
soil [mg/kg]
Cave = time-averaged concentration of chemical in soil over the
exposure duration [mg/kg]
SA = skin surface area exposed to soil [cm2]
AAF = dermal-soil chemical specific absorption adjustment
factor [mg/mg]
BIO = bioavailability of chemical in soil [mg/mg]

7-4
 Calculate Risk

AF = soil-to-skin adherence factor [mg/cm2/event]

and the rest of the variables are as defined previously.

The skin surface area available for soil exposure will vary seasonally and between
receptors. For example workers would most likely have less skin exposed than
children playing in the summer. Note, in RISC, the soil concentration is assumed to
be constant with time.

7.1.3 Ingestion of Groundwater

Intake from ingestion of contaminated water is estimated using the following

equations:

Cmax × IR × AAF × EF
CADD = (7-3a)
d
BW × 365
yr

C ave × IR × AAF × EF × ED
LADD = (7-3b)
d
LT × BW × 365
yr

where
Cmax = maximum 7-year average concentration of chemical in
drinking water [mg/l]
Cave = time-averaged concentration of chemical in drinking
water over the exposure duration [mg/l]
IR = water ingestion rate [l/day]
AAF = chemical-specific oral-water absorption adjustment
factor [mg/mg]

and the rest of the variables are as defined previously.

Note that in the above equations, IR is the rate of ingestion from the contaminated
water source only, and is not necessarily equal to the total daily fluid intake.

7-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

7.1.4 Dermal Intake in the Shower

During showers and baths receptors may absorb dissolved contaminants across the
skin into the bloodstream. The dose depends upon the absorption characteristics of
the chemical (permeability coefficient), the surface area of skin in contact with the
water, and the duration of the bath or shower:

Cmax × SA × AAF × ET × PC × EF l
CADD = × 10 − 3 (7-4a)
BW × 365
d cm3
yr

Cmax × SA × AAF × ET × PC × EF × ED l
LADD = × 10 − 3 (7-4b)
LT × BW × 365
d cm3
yr

where
Cmax = maximum 7-year average concentration of chemical in
drinking water [mg/l]
Cave = time-averaged concentration of chemical in drinking
water over the exposure duration [mg/l]
SA = total skin surface area [cm2]
AAF = dermal-water chemical specific absorption adjustment
factor [mg/mg]
PC = chemical-specific skin permeability constant [cm/hr]
ET = bath or shower duration [hr/day]

and the rest of the variables are as defined previously.

The permeability constant, PC, quantifies the diffusion properties of the skin and the
chemical; values of PC are tabulated in EPA's Dermal Exposure Assessment:
Principles and Applications (1992). This document also describes methods for
estimating values of PC from other chemical parameters, such as the octanol water
partition coefficient, Kow.

7-6
 Calculate Risk

7.1.5 Inhalation in the Shower

While showering, chemicals in the shower water can volatilize into the air not only
within the shower stall but into the bathroom and potentially the remainder of the
house. Studies have shown that risks from inhalation while bathing can be
comparable to, or greater than, risks from drinking contaminated water (McKone,
1987). Inhalation intake during showering is computed as a function of the
concentration of volatiles in the shower air, the inhalation rate, and the duration of the
shower:

Cmax × InhR × AAF × ET × LRF × EF

CADD = (7-5a)
d
BW × 365
yr

Cave × InhR × AAF × ET × LRF × EF × ED

LADD = (7-5b)
d
LT × BW × 365
yr

where
Cmax = maximum concentration of chemical in bathroom air
[mg/m3] (calculated from the maximum 7-year average
groundwater concentration)
Cave = time-averaged concentration of chemical in bathroom air
[mg/m3] (calculated from the maximum average
groundwater concentration over the exposure duration)
InhR = inhalation rate while showering [m3/hr]
ET = shower duration [hr/day]
AAF = chemical-specific inhalation absorption adjustment
factor [mg/mg]
LRF = lung retention factor [dimensionless]

and the rest of the variables are as defined previously.

These equations assume that the concentration in the bathroom air is known. RISC
calculates this concentration using a shower volatilization model developed by Foster
and Chrostowski (1986). The equations used in this model are described in Appendix
F.

7-7
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

7.1.6 Inhalation of Outdoor Air

In this exposure pathway the inhalation of chemicals in outdoor air due to volatile
chemical emissions is considered. The intake is computed as follows:

Cmax × InhR × ET × AAF × LRF × EF

CADD = (7-6a)
d
BW × 365
yr

Cave × InhR × ET × AAF × LRF × EF × ED

LADD = (7-6b)
d
LT × BW × 365
yr

where
Cmax = maximum 7-year concentration of chemical in outdoor
air [mg/m3)
Cave = time-averaged concentration of chemical in outdoor air
over the exposure duration [mg/m3)
InhR = inhalation rate outdoors [m3/hr]
ET = exposure time outdoors [hr/day]
AAF = chemical-specific inhalation absorption adjustment
factor [mg/mg]
LRF = lung retention factor [mg/mg]

and the rest of the variables are as defined previously.

For sites where hydrocarbon-contaminated soil is the primary media of concern, the
chemicals in the air are assumed to have volatilized from the soil.

7.1.7 Inhalation of Indoor Air

In this exposure pathway the inhalation of chemicals in buildings is considered.

Chemicals may volatilize from contaminated soil or groundwater and migrate through
the vadose zone and into a building. The intake is computed using the same equations
as for outdoor air:

7-8
 Calculate Risk

Cmax × InhR × ET × AAF × LRF × EF

CADD = (7-7a)
d
BW × 365
yr

Cave × InhR × ET × AAF × LRF × EF × ED

LADD = (7-7b)
d
LT × BW × 365
yr

where
Cmax = maximum 7-year averaged concentration of chemical in
indoor air [mg/m3]
Cave = time-averaged concentration of chemical in indoor air
over the exposure duration [mg/m3]
InhR = inhalation rate indoors [m3/hr]
ET = exposure time indoors [hr/day]
AAF = chemical-specific inhalation absorption adjustment
factor [mg/mg]
LRF = lung retention factor [mg/mg]

7.1.8 Ingestion of Surface Water

Water may be incidentally ingested while swimming or playing in surface water.

Exposure duration and frequency will be less for recreational users than for residents
living nearby. Intake is calculated similar to that for ingestion of drinking water
(Equation 7-3):

Cmax × IRsw × ET × AAF × EF l

CADD = × 10− 3 (7-8a)
d ml
BW × 365
yr

Cave × IRsw × ET × AAF × EF × ED l

LADD = × 10 − 3 (7-8b)
d ml
LT × BW × 365
yr

7-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

where
Cmax = maximum 7-year average contaminant concentration in
surface water [mg/l]
Cave = time-averaged contaminant concentration in surface
water over the exposure duration [mg/l]
IR = water ingestion rate [ml/hr]
ET = exposure time for surface water [hr/day]
AAF = chemical-specific oral-water absorption adjustment
factor [mg/mg]

Workers are not expected to be exposed via this pathway.

7.1.9 Dermal Contact With Surface Water

If a site contains surface water that is contaminated or has the potential of becoming
contaminated, the risk to swimmers (or waders) should be evaluated. The intake from
this exposure pathway is calculated similarly to that of dermal intake while
showering (Section 7.1.5):

C max × SA × AAF × PC × ET × EF l
CADD = × 10 −3 (7-9a)
d cm 3
BW × 365
yr

C ave × SA × AAF × ET × PC × EF × ED l
LADD = × 10 −3 (7-9b)
d cm 3
LT × BW × 365
yr

where
Cmax = maximum 7-year average contaminant concentration in
surface water [mg/l]
Cave = time-averaged contaminant concentration in surface
water over the exposure duration [mg/l]
SA = total skin surface area exposed to surface water [cm2]
PC = chemical-specific skin permeability constant [cm/hr]
ET = exposure time for surface water [hr/day]

7-10
 Calculate Risk

AAF = dermal-water chemical-specific absorption adjustment

factor [mg/mg]

The parameter values used in this calculation should reflect the a plausible situation.
For example, if the surface water is a stream and swimming is impossible, intake
values should reflect a more realistic case such as wading or playing in the water. In
this situation the skin surface area exposed would be less than for a swimming
scenario.

7.1.10 Ingestion of Home-Grown Vegetables Grown in Contaminated

Soil

This exposure route is identical to 7.1.11 (vegetables watered with contaminated

groundwater) except in the way that the concentration of chemical in the vegetable is
calculated. For purposes of estimating concentrations and uptakes, the vegetables are
divided into root vegetables and above-ground (or leafy) vegetables. The total dose is
the sum of the root vegetables and the above-ground consumed. Concentrations in the
root and above-ground vegetables are calculated by multiplying the concentration in
soil by an appropriate vegetable uptake factor from soil, Bvr or Bva, respectively. The
calculation of the vegetable uptake factors is presented in Appendix O (Section O.8,
specifically for a summary).

 
 (B × IR + B × IR ) × FI × EF  kg
CADD =  vr vr va va
 × Cmax × 10 −3 (7-10a)
 BW × 365
d  g
 yr 

 
 (B × IR + B × IR ) × FI × EF × ED  kg
LADD =  vr vr va va
 × Cave × 10 − 3 (7-10b)
 LT × BW × 365
d  g
 yr 


where
Bvr = soil-to-root uptake factor [mg chemical/kg root per mg
chemical/kg soil]

7-11
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Bva = above ground soil-to-root uptake factor [mg chemical/kg

root per mg chemical/kg soil]
Cmax = maximum 7-year average contaminant concentration in
soil [mg/kg]
Cave = time-averaged contaminant concentration in soil over the
exposure duration [mg/kg]
IRvr = ingestion rate of root vegetables [g/day]
IRva = ingestion rate of above-ground vegetables [g/day]
FI = fraction of the ingested vegetables grown in
contaminated soil [-]

Note, in RISC, the soil concentration is assumed to be constant with time. Workers
and trespassers are not expected to be exposed via this pathway.

7.1.11 Ingestion of Home-Grown Vegetables Irrigated With Groundwater

This exposure route is identical to 7.1.10 (vegetables grown in contaminated soil)

except in the way that the concentration of chemical in the vegetable is calculated.
For purposes of estimating concentrations and uptakes, the vegetables are divided into
root vegetables and above-ground (or leafy) vegetables. The total dose is the sum of
the root vegetables and the above-ground vegetables consumed. Concentrations in the
root and above-ground vegetables are calculated by multiplying the concentration in
groundwater by the root concentration factor, RCF, or the above-ground vegetable
concentration factor, ABCF. The calculation of the uptake factors is presented in
Appendix O (Section O.8, specifically, for a summary) .

 
 (RCF × IR + ABCF × IR ) × FI × EF  kg
CADD =  vr va
 × C max × 10 −3 (7-11a)
 BW × 365
d  g
 yr 

 
 (RCF × IR + ABCF × IR ) × IR × FI × EF × ED  kg
LADD =  vr va r
 × C ave × 10 −3 (7-11b)
 LT × BW × 365
d  g
 
 yr 

7-12
 Calculate Risk

where
RCF = root concentration factor [(mg chem/kg veg)/(mg chem/l
water)]
ABCF = above-ground vegetable concentration factor [(mg
chem/kg veg)/(mg chem/l water)]
Cmax = maximum 7-year average contaminant concentration in
irrigation water [mg/l]
Cave = time-averaged contaminant concentration in irrigation
water over the exposure duration [mg/l]
IRvr = ingestion rate of root vegetables [g/day]
IRva = ingestion rate of above-ground vegetables [g/day]
FI = fraction of the ingested vegetables grown with
contaminated irrigation water [-]

In RISC, the concentration in irrigation water may be estimated using the

groundwater models. Workers and trespassers are not expected to be exposed via this
pathway.

7.1.12 Ingestion of Irrigation Water

Ingestion of irrigation water may occur if children are playing in sprinklers or if the
irrigation water is used to fill a swimming pool. Similar to 7.1.3, Ingestion of
Groundwater, intake from ingestion of contaminated irrigation water is estimated
using the following equations:

Cmax × IRiw × ETiw × AAF × EF l

CADD = × 10 − 3 (7-12a)
d ml
BW × 365
yr

C ave × IRiw × ETiw × AAF × EF × ED l

LADD = × 10 − 3 (7-12b)
d ml
LT × BW × 365
yr

where
Cmax = maximum 7-year average concentration of chemical in
drinking water [mg/l]

7-13
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Cave = time-averaged concentration of chemical in drinking

water over the exposure duration [mg/l]
IRiw = water ingestion rate [ml/hr]
ETiw = exposure time for irrigation water [hr/day]
AAF = chemical-specific oral-water absorption adjustment
factor [mg/mg]

and the rest of the variables are as defined previously.

Note that in the above equations, IR is the rate of ingestion from the contaminated
water source only, and is not necessarily equal to the total daily fluid intake.

7.1.13 Dermal Intake with Irrigation Water

This pathway estimates the intakes for dermal contact with irrigation water. Exposure
to irrigation water may occur while playing in the sprinkler or watering a garden.
Similar to 7.1.4, Dermal Contact in the Shower, the dose depends upon the absorption
characteristics of the chemical, the permeability coefficient, the surface area of skin in
contact with the water, and the duration of the sprinkler operation:

Cmax × SA × FS × AAF × ET × PC × EF l
CADD = × 10 −3 (7-13a)
BW × 365
d cm 3
yr

Cave × SA × FS × AAF × ETiw × PC × EF × ED l

LADD = × 10 −3 (7-13b)
LT × BW × 365
d cm 3
yr

where
Cmax = maximum 7-year average concentration of chemical in
irrigation water [mg/l]
Cave = time-averaged concentration of chemical in irrigation
water over the exposure duration [mg/l]
SA = total skin surface area [cm2]
FS = fraction of total skin surface area exposed to irrigation
water [cm2/cm2]

7-14
 Calculate Risk

AAF = dermal-water chemical specific absorption adjustment

factor [mg/mg]
PC = chemical-specific skin permeability constant [cm/hr]
ETiw = exposure time for irrigation water [hr/day]

and the rest of the variables are as defined previously.

The permeability constant, PC, quantifies the diffusion properties of the skin and the
chemical; values of PC are tabulated in EPA's Dermal Exposure Assessment:
Principles and Applications (1992). This document also describes methods for
estimating values of PC from other chemical parameters, such as the octanol water
partition coefficient, Kow.

7.1.14 Inhalation of Irrigation Water Spray

Volatilization from water used for irrigation may occur while sprinkling or watering a
garden. This exposure route assumes a width of sprinkler spray, droplet size, and
time for the water to infiltrate or leave the area. The method used to estimate the
concentration in the air uses the shower model (Appendix G) with exposure
parameters chosen to reflect an outdoor exposure. The application of the shower
model for outdoor exposures is also discussed in Appendix G. Inhalation intake from
irrigation spray is computed as a function of the concentration of volatiles in the air,
the inhalation rate, and the length of time spent in or around irrigation spray:

Cmax × InhR × AAF × ETiw × LRF × EF

CADD = (7-14a)
d
BW × 365
yr

Cave × InhR × AAF × ETiw × LRF × EF × ED

LADD = (7-14b)
d
LT × BW × 365
yr

where
Cmax = maximum concentration of chemical in outdoor air
[mg/m3] (calculated from the maximum 7-year average
groundwater concentration)

7-15
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Cave = time-averaged concentration of chemical in outdoor air

[mg/m3] (calculated from the maximum average
groundwater concentration over the exposure duration)
InhR = inhalation rate outdoors [m3/hr]
ETiw = exposure time for irrigation water [hr/day]
AAF = chemical-specific inhalation absorption adjustment
factor [mg/mg]
LRF = lung retention factor [dimensionless]

and the rest of the variables are as defined previously.

7.2 CALCULATION OF CARCINOGENIC RISK

For carcinogens, risks are estimated as the incremental probability of an individual

developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the potential carcinogen.
This risk is referred to as the individual excess lifetime cancer risk, IELCR, or just
carcinogenic risk. Published values of chemical carcinogenic toxicity (slope factor)
are used to calculate risk from the LADD:

IELCRij = SFij LADDij (7-15)

where
IELCRij = individual excess lifetime cancer risk for chemical i,
exposure route i [dimensionless]
SFij = slope factor for chemical i, exposure route j [mg/kg-d]-1
LADDij = lifetime average daily dose for chemical i, exposure
route j [mg/kg-d]

This approach to estimating risk is based on the linear low-dose cancer risk model
described by the EPA (1989a), and is considered valid for risks below 0.01. The
model assumes that exposure to any amount of a carcinogen will increase the risk of
cancer, i.e. there is no safe or threshold dosage. This assumption is fundamentally
different from that assumed for non-carcinogens, where a safe "reference dose" exists.

7-16
 Calculate Risk

Ideally the slope factor used in Equation 7-15 should reflect the route of intake (e.g.,
ingestion, inhalation, or dermal absorption). Unfortunately, toxicological data is not
always available for each route (e.g., inhalation data only might be available), and so
route-to-route extrapolations must be made. In such cases one sometimes assumes
that the slope factor for one unknown intake route is equal to the slope factor for some
known route. (It is quite common to use the oral slope factor for dermal exposures.)
Risks are assumed to be additive from multiple chemicals and routes, therefore the
total risk is estimated by:

IELCRt = ∑ IELCRij (7-16)

where
IELCRt = total individual excess lifetime cancer risk (or,
incremental cancer occurrences/individuals exposed)

7.3 CALCULATION OF HAZARD INDEX

The potential for non-carcinogenic effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure

level over the exposure duration (maximum of 7 years) with a reference dose derived
for a similar exposure period. This ratio of exposure to toxicity for an individual
pathway and chemical is called a hazard quotient. The hazard quotients are usually
added across all chemicals and routes to estimate the hazard index. Some, however,
will argue that it is more appropriate to only sum the hazard quotients for chemicals
that affect the same target organ (e.g. liver or blood).

The noncancer hazard quotient assumes that there is a level of exposure below which
it is unlikely that even sensitive populations would experience adverse health effects
(EPA 1989a). This reference dose, or RfD, is a toxicity value for evaluating non-
carcinogenic effects. It has the same units as intake and it is assumed that if the intake
is below the RfD (hazard quotient < 1) no adverse health affects occur, even if the
receptor is exposed to this dose continuously over a lifetime. Two types of RfDs are
generally used: a subchronic RfD for short-term exposures and a chronic RfD for

7-17
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

long-term exposure. The chemical database in RISC contains the values for chronic
RfDs. If a subchronic case is being evaluated, it is important to modify the RfD.

The hazard quotient for an individual chemical and individual route is calculated by:

HQij = CADDij / RfDij (7-17)

where
HQij = hazard quotient for chemical i, exposure route j
[dimensionless]
CADDij = chronic daily intake for chemical i, exposure route j
[mg/kg-d]
RfDij = reference dose for chemical i, exposure route j [mg/kg-d]

The hazard quotients from each chemical and route are then added to obtain the
hazard index:

HI = ∑ ∑ HQij (7-18)

where
HI = hazard index [dimensionless]
HQij = hazard quotient for chemical i, exposure route j
[dimensionless]

As discussed previously, the hazard index is an indication of the potential for adverse
noncarcinogenic effects, and is not a probabilistic risk. As a rule, the greater the value
of the hazard index, the greater the level of concern. Hazard indices above one
generally indicate the potential for adverse health effects and suggest the need to
undertake a further level of investigation or possibly remedial action.

7-18
Chapter Calculate
8.0 Clean-Up Levels

When the “Calculate Clean-up Levels” option is

chosen from Step 5, RISC can be used to “back-
calculate” clean-up levels using the models and
assumptions selected in the current analysis. In the
“forward risk” assessment, risk is calculated from
input or estimated receptor point concentrations and
receptor input parameters. In the back-calculation, the user specifies target risks or
concentrations (e.g. MCLs) and then the software calculates “allowable” source
concentrations (clean-up levels). The clean-up levels represent source and/or receptor
point concentrations for the chemicals of concern such that the risk levels are not
exceeded for the scenario outlined.

There are several options for selecting targets in Step 5. The user may specify a target
risk or hazard index either for individual chemicals or for a cumulative scenario
where the risks are summed across all chemicals of concern. If groundwater or
surface water is a receptor media the user may enter target concentrations (e.g. MCLs
in groundwater) for these media. Note, since the surface water is linked to the
groundwater models, if surface water is being modeled then only target concentrations
in surface water may be entered. The groundwater concentrations will be dependent
on the surface water target concentrations.

8.1 SET-UP THE SIMULATION

The first four steps involved in calculating clean-up levels are the same first four steps
used in making a “forward” calculation of risk. First, the user describes the scenario

8-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

by choosing chemicals of concern (Step 1, main menu). In Step 2, the user chooses
pathways and fate and transport models to be used, if any. Next, the receptor point
concentrations are specified, and/or fate and transport models are run (Step 3). In
Step 4, “Define the Receptors”, one receptor is selected and the intake parameters
describing the scenario are defined.

For scenarios involving transport models, clean-up levels can only be calculated for
one receptor at a time. Note that this receptor may be defined as the "additive" child
+ adult case. However, multiple chemicals and exposure pathways may be considered
simultaneously for the single receptor. Clean-up levels may only be calculated using
the deterministic scenario. The reader is reminded that the ASTM Tier 1 spreadsheet
distributed with RISC may be used to establish initial, relatively conservative, clean-
up levels (without pathway or chemical additivity, however).

Figure 8-1 shows a sample input screen for specifying the target risk and hazard index
without any groundwater pathways.

Figure 8-1. Target Risk Input Screen

8-2
 Calculate Clean-Up Levels

Figure 8-2 shows how the input screen would look like if groundwater pathways are
being considered (e.g. a groundwater model is used to estimate groundwater
concentrations downgradient of a soil source). In Figure 8-2, the user has the option
of specifying MCLs in groundwater (or target concentrations in surface water if this
media were selected in Step 2) under the "Individual Constituent Levels" option.

Figure 8-2. Target Risk Input Screen for a Scenario With Groundwater
Pathways

If the "Individual Constituent Levels" option is chosen and the MCL or target surface
water concentration displayed in the MCL column is not equal to "ND" (no data), then
this concentration will be used in the back-calculation rather than the target risk or
hazard level. To use risk or hazard targets for the individual chemicals the values in
the target concentration column (either MCLs or surface water targets) must be
changed to "ND".

8-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

During the back-calculation, each individual chemical source concentration used in

the model is reduced or increased to achieve the selected target levels. If the
"Cumulative Risk" option is chosen and the scenario includes fate and transport
models, the concentrations of each chemical are increased or reduced proportionately
to each other in order until the target is reached. In this case, the same relative
concentrations as were originally specified in the source term (Step 3b) will be used.

After the targets and method used to adjust the source are specified, the back-
calculation code is run by clicking on the “Start Simulation” button. If no fate and
transport models are used, the code should run quickly. If fate and transport models
are used, however, they must be run iteratively until the source concentrations
converge to meet the target. This may require the models to be run up to 7 times, so
the simulation time may be up to 7 times longer than running the fate and transport
models in Step 3. The actual methods used to estimate the clean-up levels for the
“direct pathways” and the “fate and transport pathways” are described in the
following sections.

8.2 "RULES" USED IN THE BACK-CALCULATION

This section provides a brief summary of the rules used by the code to calculate clean-
up levels. If the "Individual Constituent Levels" option is chosen the following rules
will apply:
• If groundwater or surface water concentrations are being modeled, then the
user will have the option of entering target concentrations for each chemical of
concern. Since the calculated surface water concentration is dependent on the
groundwater concentration, if both surface water and groundwater are media
of concern, the user will only have the opportunity to enter surface water
concentrations.
• If there is a concentration entered in the MCL or Target Surface Water
Concentration box for the chemical, this value will be used as the target for the
chemical rather than the target risk and hazard indices. This option does not
consider risk in the calculations, therefore additivity across chemicals or
pathways does not apply.

8-4
 Calculate Clean-Up Levels

• If the value entered in the MCL or surface water target concentration box
equals "ND" then the risk and hazard targets will be used for that chemical.
• If multiple pathways that emanate from a single source media have been
chosen, RISC will add each pathway contribution to risk and hazard for each
source media. For example, if a soil to groundwater model is chosen to
estimate groundwater concentrations for both drinking water and volatilization
from groundwater to indoor air, the clean-up level calculated for the soil
source will be protective of both of these pathways added together.
• If individual compounds have a TPH concentration (to identify them as part of
a mixture) in a fate and transport model source term, the original mole fraction
of each chemical will be maintained. This will mean that the TPH
concentrations may be adjusted up or down accordingly (and they may differ
for each chemical modeled).

If the "Cumulative Risk" option is chosen the following rules will apply:
• The targets for this scenario cannot be specified as concentrations.
• The clean-up levels calculated for each source area will reflect the additive
effects from each chemical and each pathway associated with the source
media.
• The risk from multiple source media is not summed for purposes of
calculating the clean-up levels. If multiple sources are being considered, the
user may want to adjust the targets so that the total risk across all sources, all
chemicals, and all pathways doesn't exceed the desired overall target.
• The concentrations of each chemical in a given source are increased or
reduced proportionately to each other in order to reach the target. For
example, if the original concentrations of two chemicals are such that one
chemical is twice the concentration of the other chemical, the concentrations at
the final solution will also have this ratio.
• If individual compounds have a TPH concentration (to identify them as part of
a mixture) in a fate and transport model source term, the original mole fraction
of the limiting chemical will be maintained. The limiting chemical is the
chemical that is driving the risk..

8-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

8.3 DESCRIPTION OF METHOD USED TO CALCULATE

CLEAN-UP LEVELS

The approach used to calculate clean-up levels differs slightly between (1) direct
pathways and (2) pathways involving fate and transport models. The next two
sections will describe the two approaches.

8.3.1 Direct Pathways

This section describes the approach used for direct pathways, i.e. for the cases where
no fate and transport models are used in Step 3. Target groundwater or surface water
concentrations are not specified for direct pathways since the target concentrations are
the solution already. The steps used to calculate clean-up levels for direct scenarios
are:
1) Determine how many separate source areas there are and the pathways
associated with each source. Perform steps 2 through 4 for each source area.

2) Calculate target concentrations in the receptor media that meet the target risk.
If the "Individual Constituent Levels" option is chosen, this is the only step in
the back-calculation process.
3) If the chemical is both a carcinogen and a non-carcinogen (that is, it has both a
slope factor and a reference dose), the receptor concentrations are calculated to
meet the targets for both cases and the lowest concentration of the two
solutions becomes the clean-up level.
4) If the "Cumulative Risk" option is chosen with a direct pathway, the fraction
of contribution to the overall risk is calculated for each chemical. The clean-
up levels are adjusted so the original ratios between the chemical
concentrations are maintained.

8-6
 Calculate Clean-Up Levels

8.3.2 Pathways Using Fate and Transport Models

For pathways that use receptor point concentrations calculated using fate and
transport models, the clean-up levels are calculated in the source area such that the
risk from the modeled receptor point concentrations meets the specified target. The
approach used to calculate clean-up levels using models differs slightly from the steps
described in 8.3.1. The reason for this difference is that the fate and transport models
use chemical-specific data and many of the models are non-linear, that is, the receptor
concentration is not linearly correlated with the source concentration. In other words,
for one chemical a source reduction of one-half may result in a 50% reduction of the
receptor concentration but for another chemical the same source reduction could
cause the chemical not to reach the downgradient receptor media at all. (This can
especially be true for cases with degradation.)

For the cumulative target risk option using models, the source concentrations are
adjusted so that the original concentration ratios (entered by the user) are maintained.
The receptor point concentrations calculated using these source concentrations may
not maintain the same ratios. The following steps then are used for the cumulative
modeled scenarios:
1) Determine how many separate source areas use fate and transport models.
Perform the following steps for each source area.
2) Segregate the chemicals of concern into carcinogens and non-carcinogens.
Some chemicals may be in both groups.
3) For the cumulative risk option, the fractional contribution towards the total
risk or total hazard is calculated for each chemical in the two groups.
4) The "limiting" chemical and limiting risk type is determined. The limiting or
driving chemical is the chemical that generates the most risk among the
chemicals of concern. The limiting risk type is determined by comparing the
current estimated risk with the target risk for the carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic chemical groups. The group with the higher initial percentage of
risk is the limiting risk type.
5) The fate and transport models are run for the limiting chemical so that the
overall risk for that single chemical equals the same initial proportion of total

8-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

risk allocated to the chemical in Step 2. This involves:

a) The clean-up level (solution) for the limiting chemical is "bound". That
means that two source concentrations are determined, one that generates a
risk above the target risk fraction and one that generates a risk lower than
the target fraction.

b) After the solution is bound, a numerical solver (the secant method) is used
to calculate the source concentration that meets the initial target. The
secant method (a standard non-linear solver described in many numerical
method texts) allows the solution to be found in fewer iterations than many
other numerical methods (such as bisection). Most problems in RISC can
be solved in less than 6 iterations.

6) The source concentrations for the other chemicals are adjusted according to
their initial concentration ratios. The fate and transport model is run for all
chemicals and the resultant risk calculated.
7) The total risk is compared against the target risk specified. If the target is not
met (within a certain tolerance of 0.1%), the source concentrations are
adjusted slightly and the models re-run.

8.3.3 Equations Used to Calculate Target Receptor Point

Concentrations

The equations used to calculate receptor point concentrations that meet the specified
risk target for direct pathways are simply the equations from in Chapter 7 (Calculate
Risk) rearranged to solve for the media concentration. All of the pathways associated
with each source are added together when calculating the clean-up level for that
source. If the "Cumulative Risk" option is chosen, the risk from all pathways and
from all chemicals are added together for each source.

For carcinogens, equation 7-15 can be rearranged to solve for the Lifetime Average
Daily Dose (LADD). For non-carcinogens, equation 7-17 is rearranged to solve for
the chronic daily intake (CADD):

LADDij = IELCRij /SFij (8-1a)

8-8
 Calculate Clean-Up Levels

CADDij = RfDij HQij (8-1b)

where
IELCRij = the individual excess lifetime cancer risk for chemical i,
exposure route j (dimensionless)
SFij = the slope factor for chemical i, exposure route j (mg/kg-
d)-1
LADDij = the lifetime average daily dose for chemical i, exposure
route j (mg/kg-d)
HQij = the hazard quotient for chemical i, exposure route j
(dimensionless)
CADDij = the chronic daily intake for chemical i, exposure route j
(mg/kg-d)
RfDij = the reference dose for chemical i, exposure route j
(mg/kg-d)

The LADD and CADD are functions of the media concentration.

LADDij = CONCcarci FACTORcarcj (8-2a)

CADDij = CONCnoni FACTORnonj (8-2b)

where
CONCcarci = the concentration of chemical i averaged over the
exposure duration (for carcinogens)
CONCnoni = the concentration of chemical i averaged over 7 years
(for non-carcinogens)
FACTORcarcj = the carcinogenic route-specific exposure factor defined
in equations 7-1 through 7-14.
FACTORnonj = the non-carcinogenic route-specific exposure factor
defined in equations 7-1 through 7-14.

The total daily doses (LADDs and CADDs) are summed for all of the exposure routes
associated with one source media:

LADDi = CONCcarci ∑ j
FACTORcarcj (8-3a)

8-9
RISC Manual Version 4.0

CADDi = CONCnoni ∑
j
FACTORnonj (8-3b)

Equations 8-1a and 8-1b can now be solved for media concentration; the user-
specified target risk and target hazard are substituted for the IELCR and HQ,
respectively:

CONCcarci = TRi / ∑j
(SFij * FACTORj) (8-3a)

CONCnoni = THQi / ∑j
(RfDij * FACTORj) (8-3a)

where
TRi = the target excess cancer risk for chemical i (user-
specified) (-)
THQi = the target hazard quotient for chemical i (user-specified)
(-)

For direct pathways, the concentrations calculated in Equations 8-3 are the clean-up
levels. If there are multiple source media with direct exposure pathways, equation 8-3
is calculated for each media. If a chemical is both a carcinogen and a non-carcinogen,
the lowest concentration is assumed to be the clean-up level.

8.4 RESULTS OF THE CLEAN-UP LEVEL CALCULATION

For direct pathways (i.e., no fate and transport models), the back-calculation code will
calculate receptor point concentrations for each media so that the target risk and
hazard index will not be exceeded for that media. If there are exposure pathways
emanating from one source that use different receptor point media, the target risk will
be met for each source media. Therefore, if there are more than one source media, the
total risk will equal the product of the specified target risk and the total number of

8-10
 Calculate Clean-Up Levels

source media. For example, if a groundwater model is used and the following
pathways are chosen:

• Ingestion of groundwater
• Dermal contact with groundwater
• Inhalation in the shower
• Inhalation of indoor air with emissions from groundwater

the clean-up level in the source region will be calculated so that the sum of the risks
from all four of these exposure routes equals the target risk. If ingestion of soil and
dermal contact with soil were also considered in this scenario there would be two
source media (soil and groundwater). The clean-up levels for each media would equal
the target and if a receptor was actually was exposed to both soil and groundwater at
the clean-up levels calculated, the total risk would be equal to twice the target risk
specified.

For direct pathways, if both carcinogens and non-carcinogenic chemicals are present,
both the target risk and the target hazard will be met. Within each group of chemicals
(carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic) the concentration ratios relative to each other
(entered in Step 3) will be maintained. However, the concentration ratio between
carcinogens and non-carcinogens will not be maintained.

The results are displayed in Step 6: “View Results”, from the main menu. Step 6,
“View Results,” is described in Chapter 9.

8-11
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Chapter
9.0 Results

After a successful risk calculation has been

performed, the results can be viewed in the form of
tables and charts selected from the main screen of
Step 6 (Figure 9-1).

Figure 9-1. Menu for Viewing Results of a Deterministic Risk Assessment

9-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

9.1 DETERMINISTIC OUTPUT

Three different tables are available for all risk assessments: "Carcinogenic Risk",
"Hazard Index", and the "Input/Output Summary" which lists the values used in the
risk calculation. The tables are viewed by first selecting the table type from the
"Select Table" box and then choosing the "View Table" button. Figure 9-2 shows an
example of a "Carcinogenic Risk" table.

Figure 9-2. Example of Carcinogenic Risk Table

Note, the entire table is not shown in on the screen in Figure 9-2. The rest of the table
may be viewed by using the vertical and horizontal scroll bars.

These tables may be copied and pasted into other applications for inclusion in reports.
(This is discussed in section 9.3.) Examples of the "Carcinogenic Risk" and the
"Input/Output Summary" tables (copied into Microsoft Word) are shown in Tables

9-2
 Results

9-1 and 9-2 (at the end of this chapter). The "Input/Output Summary" lists all the
input values used to calculate the risk and hazard index. This table is very useful as a
concise summary of the entire risk analysis.

Charts are chosen similarly to the tables, however, there are more options for setting
up charts (see Figure 9-1). Figure 9-3 shows "Carcinogenic Risk by each route" for
the example presented in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. Most of the risk in this example is
posed by ingestion of groundwater.

Figure 9-3. Chart of Carcinogenic Risk by Route

If more than one receptor is considered, (e.g. "Typical" and “RME” adult) the user has
the option to view a chart of the results one at a time or for both receptors at once
(select both receptors with the mouse). When both receptors are selected for plotting
in one chart, the user may choose to either show the results in a "Clustered" or in a
"Stacked" bar chart. Clustered bar charts are useful for making side-by-side
comparisons of total risk or hazard between two receptors. Figure 9-4 shows an

9-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

example of a "Clustered" bar chart comparing a “RME” and "Typical" residential

adult receptor. Default values were used for all intake parameters.

Figure 9-4. Chart of Carcinogenic Risk for Two Receptors

The results presented in Figure 9-4 were calculated using the example shown in Table
9-2 with a "Typical" receptor added. The total risk for the "Typical" residential adult
receptor for this case is 8.8E-6 which is an order of magnitude less than the risk
calculated for the RME receptor (9.9E-05). The clustered chart illustrates how the
risk was distributed among the exposure routes and how the two receptors compare
risk-wise for each route. Because the Y-axis is on a linear scale (as opposed to
logarithmic) the bars indicating risk for the "Typical" receptor are quite small
compared to the RME receptor.

Multiple receptor charts may also be presented using the "Stacked" option. This
option is really only appropriate for cases when the additive risk to two receptors is
being considered (e.g. an individual exposed as both a child and an adult). Figure 9-5
shows an example of a stacked chart for an RME adult and RME child.

9-4
 Results

Figure 9-5. "Stacked" Chart for Additive Receptors

In this case the receptor is considered to be a child for 5 years and an adult for 30
years for a total exposure duration of 35 years. Since the behavior (and intake
parameters) of children are different than adults, different risks will be calculated for
the same length of exposure. The clustered option illustrates the contribution of both
exposure periods to the total risk. In Figure 9-5, for example, just over one-half of
the risk from ingestion of soil occurs while the receptor is a child (only 5 years of the
35 year exposure duration).

9-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

9.2 MONTE CARLO OUTPUT

When a Monte Carlo analysis is performed the types of tables and charts available are
different than for the deterministic case. Figure 9-6 shows the options for the Monte
Carlo analysis case.

Figure 9-6. Menu for Viewing Results of a Monte Carlo Risk Assessment

9.2.1 Monte Carlo Tables

There are three table options for Monte Carlo similar to the three table options for the
deterministic case. For the former, the carcinogenic risk and hazard index tables
present the statistics calculated from the Monte Carlo output. Tables 9-3 and 9-4 (at
the end of this chapter) show the "Carcinogenic Risk" and "Input/Output Summary"
tables for a residential adult. The "Input/Output Summary" table presents all the input
distributions specified for the intake parameters.

9-6
 Results

When using the Monte Carlo analysis an acceptable non-exceedence risk level must
be decided. Typically this value is the 90th or 95th percentile although there is no
universally accepted standard. The statistical summary table of risk (Table 9-3)
indicates that the Monte Carlo output generated total risk values that ranged from a
minimum of 3.11E-07 (about 3 in 10,000,000) to a maximum of 1.93E-04 (about 2 in
10,000). The 95% exceedence value is 4.05E-05. The deterministic example
presented in Section 9.1 estimated a total risk of 9.9E-05 for the reasonable maximum
exposure (RME) residential adult. One point of interest is to locate where the
deterministic RME value falls on the range of Monte Carlo results. For this example,
the RME value is above the 99th percentile but less than the maximum of the Monte
Carlo results. This indicates that for this case, the risk estimated using the RME
deterministic case would only be exceeded by less than 1% of the receptors exposed
to this site.

9.2.2 Monte Carlo Charts

The charts available for a Monte Carlo analysis present summaries of total risk or
total hazard, (not risk broken out from each route or chemical). These charts can be
viewed as a frequency distribution or they can be viewed as a cumulative frequency
distribution. Either type of chart may viewed on a linear or logarithmic scale.

9.2.2.1 Frequency Distributions

Frequency distributions are constructed from the Monte Carlo output by arranging the
output values into classes and representing the frequency of occurrence in any class
by the height of the bar. The frequency of occurrence corresponds to probability.
Frequency distributions are sometimes called probability density functions (PDFs),
however, a probability density function is a statistical term implying that the
frequency distribution was constructed with an infinitely large data set and infinitely
small class size (in essence a continuous curve). Frequency distributions are useful
for evaluating the spread of the values and the shape of the "tails" (i.e. how narrow or
wide they are). They are not as useful as cumulative distribution functions for
evaluating probabilities of exceedence of a certain risk level. Figure 9-7 shows an
example of a frequency distribution of total risk on a log scale.

9-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Figure 9-7. Frequency Distribution of Total Risk on a Logarithmic Scale

The most likely value (or mode) is the value that occurs most often (in other words,
has the highest probability) in the set of values. In the histogram shown in Figure 9-7,
the most likely value corresponds to a bar with a log risk of around -4.9. A log risk of
-4.9 corresponds to a risk of 1.26E-5, which is very close to the 50th percentile of risk
presented in Table 9-3. The most likely value is the center value of the class or bar
with the highest probability, (in this case a log risk of -4.9) and does not necessarily
equal the mean. (Consider a log-normal distribution where the most likely value
occurs below the mean.)

9.2.2.2 Cumulative Frequency Distribution

Frequency distributions may also be presented in a cumulative form. A cumulative

curve is typically scaled from 0 to 100% (or from 0 to 1 as a fraction) on the Y-axis,
with Y-axis values representing the cumulative probability up to the corresponding X-
axis value. For example, in a cumulative frequency distribution, the 50% cumulative
value is the point of 50% probability. Fifty percent of the values in the distribution
fall below this value and 50% are above. The 0 cumulative value is the minimum

9-8
 Results

value and the 100% cumulative value is the maximum value of the distribution (100%
of the values fall below this point). The most likely value can be found at that point
where the slope of the Cumulative Probability vs. the Risk curve is greatest. Figure 9-
8 shows a cumulative distribution of total risk on a log scale.

90%

Figure 9-8. Cumulative Risk on a Logarithmic Scale

Lines have been added to the chart in Figure 9-8 indicating the 90th percentile and the
corresponding log risk value of -4.54 (or non-log value of 2.87E-5, as taken from the
90% value in Table 9-3). Ninety percent of the risk results for this Monte Carlo
analysis fall below the total risk of 2.87E-5 (or about 3 in 10,000). Most of the output
values fall in the range of -5.5 to -4.5 (the area where the curve is the steepest or the
percentile increases fastest for the increase in risk). Only 10% of the values fall in the
range -4.5 to -1.6.

9-9
RISC Manual Version 4.0

9.3 TRANSFERRING TABLES AND CHARTS TO OTHER

APPLICATIONS

Both the tables and charts can be transferred to another software application (such as a
word processor) by clicking on the 'Copy' button at the top of the table or chart. Then
the user can minimize or close the RISC main screen, open the new destination
software, and choose "Paste" (or the Shift and Insert keys). When many routes of
concern are being evaluated, the risk and hazard summary tables may be too wide to
print in a portrait mode. To print these, the printer configuration should be changed
using the printer control from the Windows® Control Panel. Many laser printers
allow text to be printed in a landscape mode and will accept scaling factors. If the
report is copied into another software package, the report can be re-formatted (font
size may be reduced). The Carcinogenic Risk and Hazard Quotient Summary tables
have tabs separating the data so that they can be transferred to a spreadsheet program
directly (they are tab-delimited).

Table 9-1. Summary of Carcinogenic Risk

SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISK

CASE 1:
Adult Resident - RME

Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Inhalation

of Contact of During
Soil Soil Groundwater Shower TOTAL

____________________________________________________________________________

Benzene 8.5E-06 2.2E-05 3.4E-06 4.0E-06 3.8E-05

Benzo(a)pyrene 2.7E-06 1.1E-05 4.7E-05 0.0E+00 6.1E-05

____________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 1.1E-05 3.3E-05 5.1E-05 4.0E-06 9.9E-05

9-10
 Results

Table 9-2. Input/Output Summary (Page 1 of 3)

Title:
New Project
07/21/95

Scenarios:
Adult Resident - RME

Routes:
INGESTION OF SOIL
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL
INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER
INHALATION DURING SHOWER

Chemicals:
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene

SUMMARY OF INPUT PARAMETERS Scenario 1

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Lifetime and Body Weight

Body Weight (kg) 70.00
Lifetime (years) 70.00

INGESTION OF SOIL
Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) 100.00
Exp. Frequency Soil (events/year) 350.00
Exp. Duration Soil (years) 30.00
Absorption Adjustment Factor for
Ingestion of Soil (-)
Benzene 1.0
Benzo(a)pyrene .63

Soil Bioavailability (-)

Benzene 1.0
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0

DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL

Fraction Skin Exposed to Soil (-) .56
Adherence Factor for Soil (mg/cm^2) 1.00
Exposure Freq. Soil (events/year) 350.00
Exposure Duration Soil (years) 30.00
Absorption Adjustment Factor for
Dermal Exposure to Soil (-)
Benzene 2.00E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.00E-02

Soil Bioavailability (-)

Benzene 1.0
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0

INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER
Ingestion rate (l/day) 2.00
Exp. Freq Groundwater (events/year) 350.00
Exp. Duration Groundwater (years) 30.00
Absorption Adjustment Factor for
Ingestion of water (-)
Benzene 1.0
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.1

9-11
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table 9-2. Input/Output Summary (Page 2 of 3)

INHALATION DURING SHOWER

Volume of Bathroom (m^3) 3.00
Temperature of Shower Water (C) 48.00
Shower Flow Rate (l/min) 10.00
Time in Shower (hour/day) .20
Inhal. Rate in the Shower (m^3/hr) .60
Lung Retention Factor (-) 1.00

Exp. Freq Groundwater (events/year) 350.00

Exp. Duration Groundwater (years) 30.00
Absorption Adjustment Factor for
Inhalation (-)
Benzene 1.0
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0

Henry"s Law Constant (-)

Benzene .25
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.77E-05

Molecular Weight (g/mole)

Benzene 78.
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.52E+02

MEDIA CONCENTRATIONS
--------------------
Concentration in Groundwater (mg/l)
Used in calculating carcinogenic risk and hazard index
Benzene 1.00E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene 5.00E-04

Concentration in Soil (mg/kg)

Used in calculating carcinogenic risk and hazard index
Benzene 5.00E+02
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0

SLOPE FACTORS AND REFERENCE DOSES

---------------------------------

Ingestion Slope Factor [1/(mg/kg-day)]

Benzene 2.90E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene 7.3

Ingestion Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)

Benzene ND
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.00E-02

Inhalation Slope Factor [1/(mg/kg-day)]

Benzene 2.90E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene ND

Inhalation Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)

Benzene ND
Benzo(a)pyrene ND

Dermal Slope Factor [1/(mg/kg-day)]

Benzene 2.90E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene 7.3

Dermal Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)

Benzene ND
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.00E-02

9-12
 Results

Table 9-2. Input/Output Summary (Page 3 of 3)

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
---------------------------------------------------------

INGESTION OF SOIL
Benzene
CDI (mg/kg-day) 6.85E-04
LADD (mg/kg-day) 2.94E-04
Cancer Risk (-) 8.51E-06
Hazard Index (-) 0.00E+00

Benzo(a)pyrene
CDI (mg/kg-day) 8.63E-07
LADD (mg/kg-day) 3.70E-07
Cancer Risk (-) 2.70E-06
Hazard Index (-) 2.88E-05

DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL

Benzene
CDI (mg/kg-day) 1.76E-03
LADD (mg/kg-day) 7.56E-04
Cancer Risk (-) 2.19E-05
Hazard Index (-) 0.00E+00

Benzo(a)pyrene
CDI (mg/kg-day) 3.53E-06
LADD (mg/kg-day) 1.51E-06
Cancer Risk (-) 1.10E-05
Hazard Index (-) 1.18E-04

INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER

Benzene
CDI (mg/kg-day) 2.74E-04
LADD (mg/kg-day) 1.17E-04
Cancer Risk (-) 3.41E-06
Hazard Index (-) 0.00E+00

Benzo(a)pyrene
CDI (mg/kg-day) 1.51E-05
LADD (mg/kg-day) 6.46E-06
Cancer Risk (-) 4.71E-05
Hazard Index (-) 5.02E-04

INHALATION DURING SHOWER

Concentration in Bathroom Air (mg/m^3)

Benzene .195
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.055E-05
Fraction Volatilized from Shower Water (-)
Benzene .488
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.027E-03
Total Mass Volatilized per Shower (mg)
Benzene .586
Benzo(a)pyrene 6.164E-05
Benzene
CDI (mg/kg-day) 3.21E-04
LADD (mg/kg-day) 1.38E-04
Cancer Risk (-) 3.99E-06
Hazard Index (-) 0.00E+00

Benzo(a)pyrene
CDI (mg/kg-day) 3.38E-08
LADD (mg/kg-day) 1.45E-08
Cancer Risk (-) 0.00E+00
Hazard Index (-) 0.00E+00

9-13
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table 9-3. Summary Statistics of Carcinogenic Risk for a Monte Carlo Analysis

SUMMARY STATISTICS OF CARCINOGENIC RISK

(by route)
Route of Concern Min. 5% Mean 75% 90% 95% 99% Max. Std.Dev.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INGESTION OF SOIL 7.04E-10 2.49E-08 6.39E-07 6.71E-07 1.55E-06 2.45E-06 5.36E-06 3.72E-05 1.24E-06
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL 2.07E-09 2.48E-08 6.92E-07 7.54E-07 1.69E-06 2.67E-06 5.94E-06 2.13E-05 1.26E-06
INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER 1.34E-07 1.23E-06 1.16E-05 1.40E-05 2.57E-05 3.72E-05 7.37E-05 1.91E-04 1.40E-05
INHALATION DURING SHOWER 1.90E-09 3.20E-08 6.97E-07 7.96E-07 1.73E-06 2.62E-06 5.65E-06 1.81E-05 1.12E-06
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 3.11E-07 2.02E-06 1.36E-05 1.66E-05 2.87E-05 4.05E-05 7.88E-05 1.93E-04 1.49E-05
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY STATISTICS OF CARCINOGENIC RISK

(by chemical)
Chemical Min. 5% Mean 75% 90% 95% 99% Max. Std.Dev.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene 6.35E-08 4.01E-07 2.42E-06 3.03E-06 5.06E-06 7.01E-06 1.22E-05 3.34E-05 2.42E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.09E-07 1.41E-06 1.12E-05 1.36E-05 2.43E-05 3.52E-05 6.92E-05 1.78E-04 1.31E-05
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 3.11E-07 2.02E-06 1.36E-05 1.66E-05 2.87E-05 4.05E-05 7.88E-05 1.93E-04 1.49E-05
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9-15
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table 9-4. Input/Output Summary for a Monte Carlo Analysis (Page 1 of 2)

Title:
New Project
07/21/95

Scenarios:
Resident -- Adult

Routes:
INGESTION OF SOIL
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL
INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER
INHALATION DURING SHOWER

Chemicals:
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene

Number of Monte Carlo runs: 5000

SUMMARY OF INPUT PARAMETERS Distribution Mean Std Dev Min Max

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lifetime and Body Weight

Body Weight (kg) Normal 7.20E+01 1.59E+01 2.40E+01 1.25E+02

Lifetime (years) Constant 7.00E+01 NA NA NA

INGESTION OF SOIL

Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) Lognormal 4.04E+01 3.73E+01 1.50E+00 6.67E+02

Exp. Frequency Soil (events/year) Triangular 4.00E+01 NA 1.00E+01 3.50E+02
Exp. Duration Soil (years) Lognormal 1.14E+01 1.37E+01 0.00E+00 1.00E+02
Absorption Adjustment Factor for
Ingestion of Soil (-)
Benzene 1.0
Benzo(a)pyrene .63

Soil Bioavailability (-)

Benzene 1.0
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0

DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL

Fraction Skin Exposed to Soil (-) Triangular 1.00E-01 NA 0.00E+00 5.60E-01

Adherence Factor for Soil (mg/cm^2) Triangular 2.00E-01 NA 2.00E-01 1.00E+00
Exposure Freq. Soil (events/year) Triangular 4.00E+01 NA 1.00E+01 3.50E+02
Exposure Duration Soil (years) Lognormal 1.14E+01 1.37E+01 0.00E+00 1.00E+02
Absorption Adjustment Factor for
Dermal Exposure to Soil (-)
Benzene 2.00E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.00E-02

Soil Bioavailability (-)

Benzene 1.0
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0

INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER

Ingestion rate (l/day) Lognormal 1.27E+00 6.00E-01 1.00E-01 3.00E+00

Exp. Freq Groundwater (events/year) Constant 3.50E+02 NA NA NA
Exp. Duration Groundwater (years) Lognormal 1.14E+01 1.37E+01 0.00E+00 7.00E+01
Absorption Adjustment Factor for
Ingestion of water (-)
Benzene 1.0
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.1

9-16
 Results

Table 9-4. Input/Output Summary for a Monte Carlo Analysis (Page 2 of 2)

INHALATION DURING SHOWER

Volume of Bathroom (m^3) Triangular 2.90E+00 NA 2.00E+00 6.00E+00

Temperature of Shower Water (C) Triangular 4.50E+01 NA 3.50E+01 5.00E+01
Shower Flow Rate (l/min) Lognormal 8.00E+00 2.70E+00 0.00E+00 3.00E+01
Time in Shower (hour/day) Triangular 1.10E-01 NA 3.00E-02 3.30E-01
Inhal. Rate in the Shower (m^3/hr) Constant 6.00E-01 NA NA NA
Lung Retention Factor (-) Constant 1.00E+00 NA NA NA
Exp. Freq Groundwater (events/year) Constant 3.50E+02 NA NA NA
Exp. Duration Groundwater (years) Lognormal 1.14E+01 1.37E+01 0.00E+00 7.00E+01
Absorption Adjustment Factor for
Inhalation (-)
Benzene 1.0
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0

Henry"s Law Constant (-)

Benzene .25
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.77E-05

Molecular Weight (g/mole)

Benzene 78.
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.52E+02

MEDIA CONCENTRATIONS
--------------------
Concentration in Groundwater (mg/l)
Used in calculating carcinogenic risk and hazard index
Benzene Constant 1.00E-02 NA NA NA
Benzo(a)pyrene Constant 5.00E-04 NA NA NA

Concentration in Soil (mg/kg)

Used in calculating carcinogenic risk and hazard index
Benzene Constant 5.00E+02 NA NA NA
Benzo(a)pyrene Constant 1.00E+00 NA NA NA

SLOPE FACTORS AND REFERENCE DOSES

---------------------------------

Ingestion Slope Factor [1/(mg/kg-day)]

Benzene 2.90E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene 7.3

Ingestion Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)

Benzene ND
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.00E-02

Inhalation Slope Factor [1/(mg/kg-day)]

Benzene 2.90E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene ND

Inhalation Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)

Benzene ND
Benzo(a)pyrene ND

Dermal Slope Factor [1/(mg/kg-day)]

Benzene 2.90E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene 7.3

Dermal Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)

Benzene ND
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.00E-02

Monte Carlo Output is summarized in separate tables.

---------------------------------------------

9-17
 Chapter
Example Risk
10.0 Assessment Scenarios

This chapter presents three risk assessment scenarios and discusses how to use RISC
to evaluate the scenarios. These examples are designed to be worked through by the
user on the computer. There are also saved project files shipped with the software for
each of these three examples.

The first example is for a former gas station that is planned to be re-developed with
single family homes. In the second example, residents adjacent to an existing gas
station use groundwater to irrigate their yards and gardens (the indoor water is
provided by a municipality). The gas station has impacted groundwater in the past.
The third scenario illustrates a simple ecological screening model using the surface
model in RISC to estimate surface water concentrations in a stream adjacent to
contaminated groundwater. These surface water concentrations will be compared
with ambient water quality criteria. The three examples are described in detail in the
following sections.

10.1 EXAMPLE 1: FORMER GAS STATION REDEVELOPED

WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING

This example is saved in a project file called “Example1.prj”. The reader is

encouraged to work through the example and enter in the information for themselves.

In this scenario, it is assumed that a former gas station site containing contaminated
soil (both at the ground surface and at depth) might be re-developed at some point in
the future for single-family houses. There are two questions to be answered for this
site: (1) what is the human health risk from the site if the soil is left as is?, and (2)
what clean-up levels would be protective of human health at this site?

10-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Benzene, ethylbenzene and toluene have been detected in the top foot of soil and at
depth. Three soil borings were made and samples collected at 0.5, 3.0, and 6.0 meters
below ground surface. The table below shows the analytical results. It is suspected
that the surficial contamination arose from surface spills or hose leaks and the
contamination at depth resulted from a leaky storage tank. The fuel tank has been
removed along with any stained soil from the pit. (The soil samples were collected
after the stained soil was removed.) Groundwater is at 6 meters below ground surface
and is not potable (due to contamination from a neighboring silicon fabrication plant).

Chemical Concentrations Detected at Former Gas Station Site

Example #1
Benzene Ethylbenzene Toluene
Sample Units Concentration Concentration Concentration
Description
Soil Boring #1 mg/kg
0.5 m depth soil ND (0.005) 0.012 ND (0.005)
3.0 m depth 2.6 0.047 17
6.0 m depth 0.68 ND (0.005) 5.8
Soil Boring #2 mg/kg
0.5 m depth soil 0.01 0.008 0.03
3.0 m depth 6 4.5 37
6.0 m depth 1.2 ND (0.005) 8.2

Soil Boring #3 mg/kg

0.5 m depth soil ND (0.005) ND (0.005) ND (0.005)
3.0 m depth 0.086 0.11 0.74
6.0 m depth 0.006 ND (0.005) 0.009
Creek Sample #1 mg/l 0.007 ND (0.0005) 0.012
water
Creek Sample #2 mg/l 0.016 ND (0.0005) 0.032
water
( ) = detection limit

10-2
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Step 1: Choose Chemicals of Concern (Example #1)

Benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene were the only chemicals detected from an
analysis that included BTEX, MTBE, the PAHs, and heavy metals. These three
chemicals are the chemicals of concern. The screen in Step 1 should look like the
following after the chemicals of concern have been selected.

Example #1: Step 1

Step 2: Identify Appropriate Exposure Pathways and Determine Method

for Estimating Receptor Point Concentrations (Example #1)

In this step, potential exposure pathways for a residential exposure at this site will be
chosen. It is assumed that a single-family house (with a backyard) will be built on the
former gas station site with no vapor membrane under the house. Both children and
adults may live in the house and use the garden. There are restrictions preventing the
residents from installing a well and using groundwater in this area. The next table
lists the potential exposure pathways, contaminated media and receptor contact media.

10-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Exposure Pathways, Source Media, and Receptor Contact Media

Example #1
Exposure Pathway Source Media Receptor Contact Media
Ingestion of soil Surficial soil Surficial soil
(top 50 cm might be
reasonable for a residential
exposure)
Dermal contact with soil Surficial soil Surficial soil
(top 50 cm might be
reasonable for a residential
exposure)
Ingestion of vegetables Surficial soil Surficial soil
grown in contaminated (top 50 cm might be
soil reasonable for a residential
exposure)
Volatilization from soil to Soil (any depth) Indoor air
indoor air

The above exposure pathways could apply to both children and adult residents.

After determining the potential exposure pathways, the next step is to decide how to
estimate receptor point concentrations. Two of the exposure routes (ingestion of soil
and dermal contact with soil), are direct exposure routes. That is, the source media is
also the media that the receptor may contact. The contaminants in soil, however, may
also volatilize into indoor air, so the concentrations in air need to be estimated. Fate
and transport models are used to estimate the receptor point concentrations in indoor
air. For estimating indoor air concentrations, the vapor transport model from soil into
buildings will be used, the maximum soil concentration found at the relevant depth
where the basement will be located will be used for the source. The following screens
show the choices made in Step 2.

10-4
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example #1: Step 2, Before Choosing any Media and Exposure Pathways

Example #1: Step 2, Choosing Surface Soil as a Contaminated Media

10-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example #1: Step 2, Choosing Indoor Air Model

Example #1: Step 2, Choosing Exposure Pathways

10-6
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Step 3: Estimate Receptor Point Concentrations (Example #1)

The receptor point concentrations for the direct contact media (surficial soil) will be
taken from the analytical data. Since so few samples were collected, the maximum
values detected in the direct contact media will be used. The table below lists the
receptor point concentrations used for surface soil.

Example 1: Receptor Point Concentrations in Surficial Soil

Surface Soil
Chemical Concentration
[mg/kg]
Benzene 0.01
Ethylbenzene 0.12
Toluene 0.03

The receptor point concentrations for surface soil will be entered into the screens in
Step 3. The information for the indoor air model will also be entered in Step 3 and
the indoor air concentrations will be estimated. The following screens illustrate this
process; first, the receptor point concentrations will be entered for the surface soil,
then, the indoor air model will be run.

10-7
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 1: Main Screen of Step 3

Example 1: Choose the "Single Value" Option

10-8
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 1: Entering Surface Soil Concentrations

The next step is to use the fate and transport models to estimate concentrations in
indoor and outdoor air. Select “Use Fate and Transport Models” from the following
screen:

Example 1: Select “Fate and Transport Models”

10-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Then select “Step 3a: Describe the Site Properties”:

Example 1: Select "Describe the Site Properties

The next screen, uniquely generated for the defined exposure pathways, identifies all
of the parameter groups for this problem: building, lens, source data, and unsaturated
zone.

Example 1: Input Data Groups for the Indoor Air Model

10-10
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Unsaturated Zone Data

At the site, the soil bulk density was measured and found to be 1.62 g/cm3. Total
porosity was measured in several samples and found to range from 0.3 to 0.45 cm3
voids/cm3 soil. Fraction organic carbon was measured in one soil sample from the 3
meter depth and found to be 0.007 g OC/g soil. Moisture content and soil
conductivity were not measured so they will be estimated from the literature based on
the soil type observed at the site. (Note that the moisture content under the house is
not estimated by this indoor air model and must be entered explicitly by the user.) By
visual observation, the soils samples were very wet so the moisture content under the
(proposed) house is set to 0.32 cm3/cm3 (80% of the porosity is assumed saturated).
Note, the soil samples were collected from an area that was originally under pavement
(that was recently removed) so conditions under a new house are expected to be
similar.

The boring logs for adjacent water wells and site observation indicate that the soil
consists predominantly of silty clay. The input parameters which are needed for
modeling can be obtained from default values in the soils database (available from the
unsaturated zone parameters screen), if they are not specifically known. It is assumed
that a house may be built anywhere on the site so the shortest distance to a
hypothetical basement will be used. Assuming the bottom of the basement is 2 meters
below grade, the bulk of the contamination could be within 1 meter of the foundation.

In this indoor air model, degradation of contaminants in the vapor phase is ignored.
Entering the unsaturated zone parameters into the model yields:

10-11
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 1: Entering Unsaturated Zone Parameters

Source Data
The source geometry is defined based on several considerations, including the size of
the former gas station, visual extent of contamination, and size of building. The
source should be no larger than the footprint of the building or the cross-sectional area
of the foundation available for vapor flux. In this example, based on visual
observation, the source size is estimated to be approximately 12 meters by 8 meters.
The bulk of the contamination occurs at the bottom of the tank, 3 m below ground
surface (bgs). The Johnson-Ettinger indoor air model assumes that the source is
constant (i.e. infinite), therefor the vertical extent is not specified. The porosity, water
content, fraction organic carbon, and soil bulk density are entered to reflect the
conditions in the source area. These parameters are used to estimate the partitioning
into the vapor phase (including any solubility limitations) at the source.

10-12
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 1: Entering the Vapor Model Source Data

Lens
The soil borings do not reveal a continuous lens that would affect vapor transport at
this site. The lens thickness is therefore set equal to zero.

10-13
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 1: Entering Lens Data

Building Data
Since the house will be new construction, the amount of cracks in the basement will
assumed to be 0.001 (0.1%). The remainder of the parameters are left at their default
values since these represent fairly conservative values for single family residential
houses.

10-14
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 1: Enter Building Parameters

Source Concentrations
The maximum detected concentrations at 3 m depth are assumed for the source
concentrations since that is closest to the depth of the basement foundation. If
additional spatial data were available, the total contaminant mass in the soil could be
roughly estimated and the average concentration representing that mass could be used.
TPH was measured at this site and the average concentration was 1290 mg/kg. An
average value for the molecular weight of gasoline is 95 g/mol.

10-15
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 1: Step 3b, Entering Source Concentrations

Run the Fate and Transport Model

At this point all the data required to run the model has been entered. Select “Step 3c:
Run the F&T Model”. The simulation time is not needed because the indoor air
model is assumes that the system is already at steady-state (e.g. there is no change in
concentration).

10-16
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

View the Results

Under “Step 3d: View the Results”, a number of different tables and charts are
available for viewing. The maximum concentration of benzene in indoor air is
estimated to be 3.34E-2 mg/m3 whereas the concentration in the soil gas just below
the foundation is 1.23E+01 (see figure below). Note, the concentration plot for indoor
air yields straight lines (constant indoor air concentrations) because the indoor air
model assumes steady-state conditions.

Example 1: The Vapor Model Results for Benzene

Step 4: Describe the Receptors (Example #1)

The receptors of concern will be a residential child and adult. The additive receptor
(child growing into an adult at the same residence) will also be considered for the
carcinogenic scenario. Under Step 4a: Choose Receptors and Analysis Type, select
the following options: “Deterministic”, “Two Receptors”, and “Include Additive
Case”. The two receptors considered in this initial screening will be a “child resident
– RME” and an “Adult Resident – RME”.

10-17
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 1: Step 4, Choosing Analysis Type and Receptor Types

The exposure duration for the child and adult are modified to be 6 and 24 years,
respectively, so that when added, a 30-year exposure results. The input parameter
values assumed for this scenario are shown in the following table. This table was
generated by copying the “Input/Output Summary” table (from Step 6: Results) into
this Microsoft Word document. The font was changed to “Courier New” to maintain
the formatting.

10-18
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 1: Input Parameter Values for the Residential Scenario

Title:
Example 1 (from the RISC manual)
07/18/01 09:47

Scenarios:
Child Resident - RME
Adult Resident - RME

Routes:
INGESTION OF SOIL
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL
INHALATION OF INDOOR AIR
INGESTION OF ROOT VEGETABLES
INGESTION OF ABOVE GROUND VEGETABLES

SCENARIO:
SUMMARY OF INPUT PARAMETERS 1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------

LIFETIME AND BODY WEIGHT

Body Weight (kg) 15. 70.
Lifetime (years) 70. 70.

INGESTION OF SOIL
Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) 2.00E+02 1.00E+02
Exp. Frequency Soil (events/year) 3.50E+02 3.50E+02
Exp. Duration Soil (years) 6.0 24.
Soil Bioavailability (-)
Benzene 1.0 1.0
Ethylbenzene 1.0 1.0
Toluene 1.0 1.0

DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL

Total Skin Surface Area (cm^2) 7.28E+03 2.30E+04
Fraction Skin Exposed to Soil (-) 0.55 0.25
Adherence Factor for Soil (mg/cm^2) 0.20 0.20
Exposure Freq. Soil (events/year) 3.50E+02 3.50E+02
Exposure Duration Soil (years) 6.0 24.
Soil Bioavailability (-)
Benzene 1.0 1.0
Ethylbenzene 1.0 1.0
Toluene 1.0 1.0

INHALATION OF INDOOR AIR

Inhalation rate (m^3/hr) 0.62 0.83
Time indoors (hours/day) 24. 24.
Lung Retention Factor (-) 1.0 1.0
Exp. Freq. Indoor Air (events/yr) 3.50E+02 3.50E+02
Exp. Duration Indoor Air (yr) 6.0 24.
INGESTION OF ROOT VEGETABLES
INGESTION OF ABOVE GROUND VEGETABLES
Root Veg. Ingestion Rate (g/day) 48. 88.
Above Ground Veg. Ing. Rate(g/day) 56. 1.27E+02
Fraction Organic Carbon in Soil g/g 5.00E-02 5.00E-02
Exp. Frequency Veg. (events/year) 3.50E+02 3.50E+02
Exp. Duration Veg. Intake (years) 6.0 24.
Fraction grown in home garden (-) 0.25 0.25

10-19
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Step 5: Calculate Risk (Example #1)

In this step, the carcinogenic risk and hazard index are calculated for the screening
level assessment.

Example 1: Ready to Calculate Risk

STEP 6: View the Results (Example #1)

The following two tables show the screening level results for carcinogenic risk and
hazard index for this example. The total carcinogenic risk for the additive case was
estimated to be 2.4E-8 from surface soil and 1.6E-4 from the indoor air pathway. The
total carcinogenic risk is 1.6E-4 and the driver for the carcinogenic risk is inhalation
of indoor air. The total hazard indices for the child and adult receptors were estimated
to be 0.56 and 0.16, respectively. Most of the risk comes from the indoor air
pathway.

The hazard indices are not added together for the child and adult cases because non-
carcinogenic effects are not considered additive over a lifetime. Although the USEPA
is in the process of finalizing an assessment of the non-carcinogenic effects of
benzene, its non-carcinogenic toxicity will be ignored in this example. The next
example however takes this effect into account.

10-20
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 1: Summary of Carcinogenic Risk (page 1 of 2)

SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISK
For Surface Soil

CASE 1:
Child Resident - RME
Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Ingestion
of Contact of Root AboveGround
Soil Soil Vegetables Vegetables TOTAL
____________________________________________________________
Benzene 3.2E-10 1.3E-10 1.4E-10 7.9E-09 8.5E-09
____________________________________________________________
TOTAL 3.2E-10 1.3E-10 1.4E-10 7.9E-09 8.5E-09

CASE 2:
Adult Resident - RME
Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Ingestion
of Contact of Root AboveGround
Soil Soil Vegetables Vegetables TOTAL
____________________________________________________________
Benzene 1.4E-10 1.6E-10 2.1E-10 1.5E-08 1.6E-08
____________________________________________________________
TOTAL 1.4E-10 1.6E-10 2.1E-10 1.5E-08 1.6E-08

CASE 3:
Cases 1 and 2 Added Together
Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Ingestion
of Contact of Root AboveGround
Soil Soil Vegetables Vegetables TOTAL
____________________________________________________________
Benzene 4.5E-10 2.8E-10 3.5E-10 2.3E-08 2.4E-08
____________________________________________________________
TOTAL 4.5E-10 2.8E-10 3.5E-10 2.3E-08 2.4E-08

10-21
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 1: Summary of Carcinogenic Risk (page 2 of 2)

SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISK
For Vapor Model Soil Source

CASE 1:
Child Resident - RME
Inhalation
of
Indoor Air TOTAL
________________________
Benzene 7.4E-05 7.4E-05
________________________
TOTAL 7.4E-05 7.4E-05

CASE 2:
Adult Resident - RME
Inhalation
of
Indoor Air TOTAL
________________________
Benzene 8.4E-05 8.4E-05
________________________
TOTAL 8.4E-05 8.4E-05

CASE 3:
Cases 1 and 2 Added Together
Inhalation
of
Indoor Air TOTAL
________________________
Benzene 1.6E-04 1.6E-04
________________________
TOTAL 1.6E-04 1.6E-04

10-22
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 1: Summary of Hazard Index (page 1 of 2)

SUMMARY OF HAZARD QUOTIENTS
For Surface Soil

CASE 1:
Child Resident - RME
Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Ingestion
of Contact of Root AboveGround
Soil Soil Vegetables Vegetables TOTAL
____________________________________________________________
Ethylbenzene 1.5E-05 6.1E-06 4.5E-06 1.0E-04 1.3E-04
Toluene 1.9E-06 7.7E-07 6.9E-07 1.9E-05 2.2E-05
____________________________________________________________
TOTAL 1.7E-05 6.9E-06 5.1E-06 1.2E-04 1.5E-04

CASE 2:
Adult Resident - RME
Ingestion Dermal Ingestion Ingestion
of Contact of Root AboveGround
Soil Soil Vegetables Vegetables TOTAL
____________________________________________________________
Ethylbenzene 1.6E-06 1.9E-06 1.7E-06 4.9E-05 5.4E-05
Toluene 2.1E-07 2.4E-07 2.7E-07 9.1E-06 9.8E-06
____________________________________________________________
TOTAL 1.8E-06 2.1E-06 2.0E-06 5.8E-05 6.4E-05

10-23
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 1: Summary of Hazard Index (page 2 of 2)

SUMMARY OF HAZARD QUOTIENTS
For Vapor Model Soil Source

CASE 1:
Child Resident - RME
Inhalation
of
Indoor Air TOTAL
________________________
Ethylbenzene 7.3E-03 7.3E-03
Toluene 5.5E-01 5.5E-01
________________________
TOTAL 5.6E-01 5.6E-01

CASE 2:
Adult Resident - RME
Inhalation
of
Indoor Air TOTAL
________________________
Ethylbenzene 2.1E-03 2.1E-03
Toluene 1.6E-01 1.6E-01
________________________
TOTAL 1.6E-01 1.6E-01

NOTE: A zero hazard index may indicate that a RfD

was not entered for that chemical.

10-24
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Determining Clean-up Levels

Clean-up levels for this example can be calculated by returning to “Step 5: Calculate
Clean-up Levels”. In this example, clean-up levels will be calculated so that the risk
from each chemical does not exceed an individual target for that chemical, rather than
the cumulative case from all chemicals.

Example 1: Specifying Target Risk Levels

The results of the clean-up level calculation (shown in the table below) indicate that
the clean-up levels for benzene, ethylbenzene and toluene in surface soil are 4.1, 950
and 1,400 mg/kg, respectively. All of these levels exceed the measured
concentrations from the upper soil samples. For subsurface soil, (soil that could
potentially be a vapor source for indoor air), the site concentrations for all three
chemicals would need to be reduced to meet the estimated clean-up levels. The
calculated clean-up levels are 0.38, 1.6, and 22 mg/kg for benzene, ethylbenzene and
toluene, respectively.

Example 1: Summary Of Clean-Up Levels (part 1 of 2)

Clean-up Levels in Surface Soil SSTLs
Receptor: Additive Receptor Case [mg/kg]
___________________________________________________________________________
Benzene 4.1E+00
Ethylbenzene 9.5E+02
Toluene 1.4E+03
__________________________________________________________________________
The exposure routes that depend on this source are:
Ingestion of soil
Dermal contact with soil
Ingestion of root vegetables
Ingestion of above ground vegetables

10-25
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 1: Summary Of Clean-Up Levels (part 2 of 2)

Vapor Model Soil Source

--------------------------------------

Exposure pathways depending on this source:

Inhalation of indoor air

Summary of Original Source Concentrations

for Vapor Model Soil Source
______________________________________

Original TPH Mass Effective Residual

Source Conc. Fraction Solubility Conc.
[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [-] [mg/l] [mg/kg]
________________________________________________________________________________________

Benzene 6.0E+00 1.3E+03 4.7E-03 8.1E+00 1.1E+03

Ethylbenzene 4.5E+00 1.3E+03 3.5E-03 5.9E-01 4.6E+02
Toluene 3.7E+01 1.3E+03 2.9E-02 1.5E+01 7.7E+02
________________________________________________________________________________________

Site-Specific Target Levels (SSTLs)

for Vapor Model Soil Source
______________________________________
TPH Mass
SSTL Conc. Fraction
[mg/kg] [mg/kg] [-]
__________________________________________________________________________

Benzene 3.8E-01 8.1E+01 4.7E-03

Ethylbenzene 1.6E+00 4.6E+02 3.5E-03
Toluene 2.2E+01 7.7E+02 2.9E-02
__________________________________________________________________________

10-26
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

10.2 EXAMPLE 2: IRRIGATION AND VOLITILIZATION FROM

GROUNDWATER

This example is saved in the project file named “Example2.prj”. The reader is
encouraged to work through the example and enter in the information for themselves.

A potential human scenario often overlooked in creating risk-based cleanup goals is

the ‘irrigation’ scenario. This refers to residential use of contaminated well water for
watering lawns or gardens at homes that have their potable water supplied by their
municipality. Exposure may occur from ingestion, dermal contact, or vapor
inhalation by a child playing under the sprinkler, from vapor inhalation by an adult
gardening downwind of the sprinkler, and from adult or child ingestion of vegetables
grown in a garden irrigated by the sprinkler. In this example, target levels for
benzene in groundwater are derived for reasonable exposure assumptions associated
with a receptor living as both a child and then as an adult in the house over a 30-year
duration.

In this example benzene is considered both as a carcinogen and non-carcinogen (i.e. it

has both a slope factor and reference dose) because the example site is located within
USEPA Region 9 and the overseeing regulatory agency in this case uses the toxicity
factors used by Region 9. This means that the RISC chemical database will need to
be modified in Step 1.

Step 1: Identify Chemicals of Concern (Example #2)

Since groundwater contamination of backyard wells is often associated with migration

of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbon constituents from a remote source, the most
soluble and toxic VOCs present the greatest risk. Benzene, MTBE, ethylbenzene,
toluene and xylenes are probably the most soluble and toxic chemicals commonly
found in petroleum mixtures. Benzene is often a driver for groundwater clean-ups
because of its carcinogenicity and this is the only chemical considered in this

10-27
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

example. Select benzene as a chemical of concern in Step 1. The RISC chemical

database only contains values of slopes factors for benzene since these are the only
toxicity values listed in the Integrated Risk and Information System (IRIS, see
Chapter 12 for more information). In order to evaluate the non-carcinogenic effects,
reference doses need to be added to the database. In Step 1, select "View Chemical
Properties". Select "Benzene" from the list of chemicals at the top. The screen
should look like the following figure.

Example 2. Chemical Properties in the RISC Database for Benzene

Note, the Oral, Inhalation, and Dermal Reference Dose boxes contain NDs. USEPA
Region 9 uses a reference dose of 3.0E-3 mg/kg-d for the oral pathway and 1.7E-3
mg/kg-d for the inhalation pathway. It will be assumed that the dermal reference dose
is equal to the oral value. Enter "3.0E-3" in the oral and dermal reference dose boxes
and "1.7E-3" in the inhalation reference dose box. The Chemical Properties screen
should now look like the next figure.

10-28
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 2. Chemical Properties Database Screen for Benzene After Entering

Reference Doses

Click on the "Continue" button. A warning message will appear saying that the
values in the chemical database have been changed. Click on "OK." In the main Step
1 screen, make sure that benzene is selected as a chemical of concern and then select
Continue to go to the Main Menu.

Step 2: Identify Appropriate Exposure Pathways and Determine Method

for Estimating Receptor Point Concentrations (Example #2)

For a child, whose exposure duration is typically defined as 6 years (ages 0 to 6), the
behavioral assumption is that the child may play in the sprinkler and eat vegetables
from the garden. The relevant routes of exposure for the irrigation water are:
inhalation of vapor emissions, dermal contact with the water, ingestion of water while
playing, and ingestion of vegetables irrigated with the water. For an adult, the
behavioral assumption is that he/she may be gardening or attending the lawn in a
location downwind of the contaminated vapors being emitted from the sprinkler
drops. No dermal contact or ingestion of the water is assumed. The relevant

10-29
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

exposure routes are thus inhalation of vapor emissions and the ingestion of home-
grown vegetables.

All of the above pathways are “direct” pathways, that is fate and transport models
(with the exception of the shower model) will not be used to estimate concentrations
in the media. The screen for Step 2 should look like this:

Example 2: Choosing Exposure Pathways

Step 3: Determine Receptor Point Concentrations (Example #2)

The goal of this example is to develop a clean-up level for benzene in groundwater,
not to calculate risk, so the concentration entered in Step 3 is not important. Accept
the default concentration of “0.0” for benzene in groundwater.

Step 4: Describe the Receptors (Example #2)

Three receptors are considered in this example: a child, an adult, and a receptor that
is a child for 6 years and an adult for 24 years (the additive case). In Step 4a: Choose

10-30
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Receptors and Analysis Type, choose two receptors, a child RME and an adult RME,
and select the additive case, exactly as was done in the previous example.

In this example, the scenario for the irrigation pathways (direct water contact,
ingestion, and vapor inhalation) assumes the residents (child or adult) may be outside
twice a week during the warm weather season, which may last for half the year or 27
weeks. It is assumed the child plays under the sprinkler for 30 minutes per event; the
adult gardens 2 hours during each of the days outside.

Dermal Contact and Ingestion of Groundwater—Child

For the child, 100% of their skin surface area is assumed to get wet and they are
assumed to ingest 0.50 ml/hr.

Volatilization and Inhalation of Vapors—Child and Adult

The inputs for this model are similar to those of the shower model. In the shower
model however the air is assumed to be stagnant whereas in this model an outdoor
box is assumed to be ventilated by the wind. An average wind speed of 2 m/s and
sprinkler flowrate of 30 l/min is assumed. The width of the box is defined by the
dimension that the receptor is playing or working in; it is assumed to be 9 m. The
height of the receptor, assumed to be 2 m, defines the third dimension. This model
conservatively assumes the receptor is always downwind of the source.

Other input parameters that are changed from shower defaults are: drop time of the
water droplets, drop size diameter, and water temperature. The drop time is assumed
to be ten seconds (after which volatilization is assumed not to occur). This drop time
is lengthened (from the shower default of 2 seconds) to account for volatilization
occurring from water before it soaks into the soil. The drop size is assumed to be 0.2
cm and the water temperature 25o C.

Vegetable Intake—Child and Adult

The EPA Exposure Factors Handbook (1996) was used to obtain default vegetable
ingestion rates. It is assumed that the adult consumes 127 grams (1.82 g/kg
bodyweight-day) of above ground vegetables and 87.5 (1.25 g/kg bodyweight-day) of
root vegetables for a total of 215 grams of vegetables total per day. It is assumed that
the child consumes 55.8 grams (3.72 g/kg bodyweight-day) of above ground

10-31
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

vegetables and 48.5 (3.23 g/kg bodyweight-day) of root vegetables for a total of about
105 grams of vegetables total per day. This same reference states that the fraction of
homegrown vegetables, averaged over the whole year (accounting for those months
outside the growing season), is 24%. The fraction organic carbon (FOC) in soil is
required to estimate partitioning into the above ground vegetables. The FOC is
assumed to equal 0.05 g OC/g soil. The input parameter values used in this example
are summarized in the next table.

Example 2: Input Parameters Used to Calculate Clean-Up Levels

(excerpted from "Input/Output Summary Table" in Step 6)

SCENARIO:
SUMMARY OF INPUT PARAMETERS 1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------

LIFETIME AND BODY WEIGHT

Body Weight (kg) 15.0 70.0
Lifetime (years) 70.0 70.0

INGESTION OF ROOT VEGETABLES

INGESTION OF ABOVE GROUND VEGETABLES
Root Veg. Ingestion Rate (g/day) 48.5 87.5
Above Ground Veg. Ing. Rate(g/day) 55.8 127.
Fraction Organic Carbon in Soil g/g 5.000E-02 5.000E-02
Exp. Frequency Veg. (events/year) 350. 350.
Exp. Duration Veg. Intake (years) 6.00 24.0
Fraction grown in home garden (-) 0.240 0.240

INHALATION OF GW SPRAY
Width of Sprinkler Spray (m) 9.00 9.00
Height of Breathing Zone (m) 2.00 2.00
Average Windspeed (m/s) 2.00 2.00
Temperature of Irrigation Water (C) 25.0 25.0
Sprinkler Flow Rate (l/min) 30.0 30.0
Droplet Diameter Sprinkler (cm) 0.200 0.200
Droplet Droptime for Sprinkler (s) 10.0 10.0
Time in Sprinkler (hour/day) 0.500 2.00
Inhal. Rate Outdoors (m^3/hr) 0.830 0.830
Lung Retention Factor (-) 1.00 1.00
Exp. Freq Irrigation (events/year) 54.0 54.0
Exp. Duration Groundwater (years) 6.00 24.0

DERMAL CONTACT WITH IRRIG. WATER

Total Skin Surface Area (cm^2) 7.280E+03 2.300E+04
Fraction Skin Exposed to Water (-) 1.00 0.00
Time in Irrigation Water (hour/day) 0.500 2.00
Exp. Freq Irrigation (events/year) 54.0 54.0
Exp. Duration Groundwater (years) 6.00 24.0

INGESTION OF IRRIGATION WATER

Ingestion rate (ml/hr) 50.0 0.00
Exp. Freq Irrigation (events/year) 54.0 54.0
Exp. Duration Groundwater (years) 6.00 24.0

10-32
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Step 5: Calculate Clean-Up Levels (Example #2)

In Step 5, choose the “Calculate Clean-Up Levels” option and click on the button.
-
For this example, a target cancer risk level of 1x10 5 is adopted as well as a hazard
quotient of one. Since this example has just one chemical of concern, the option of
“Cumulative Risk” or “Individual Constituent Levels” will generate the same results.
When the "Calculate Clean-up Levels" button is chosen, a warning message will
prompt the user to save their work so far. The reason is that the new clean-up levels
will overwrite the concentrations stored in Step 3. In this example, the receptor point
concentrations were equal to zero. For scenarios using fate and transport models,
calculating clean-up levels in Step 5 will overwrite the source concentrations entered
in Step 3.

Example 2: Specifying Target Risk in Example #2

Step 6: View the Results (Example #2)

In “Step 6: View the Results”, summary tables of carcinogenic risk, hazard index,
input/output parameters, and clean-up levels may be viewed.

The calculated groundwater clean-up level is shown in the following table.

10-33
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 2: Summary of Clean-up Levels for the Irrigation Scenario

SUMMARY OF CLEAN-UP LEVELS

--------------------------

Clean-up Levels in Groundwater SSTLs Solubility

Receptor: Additive Receptor Case [mg/l] [mg/l]

___________________________________________________________________________

Benzene 5.1E-01 1.8E+03

___________________________________________________________________________

The exposure routes that depend on this source are:

Ingestion of root vegetables
Ingestion of above ground vegetables
Inhalation of irrigation water spray
Dermal contact with irrigation water
Ingestion of irrigation water

In this case, the carcinogenic component drove the clean-up level calculations so the
clean-up level presented is for the additive receptor. This can be verified by looking at
the two risk summary tables. The table summarizing carcinogenic risk indicates that
the target risk of 1E-5 was met exactly for the additive receptor whereas the total
hazard index was below the target of 1.0 for both receptors.

The next two tables present summaries of carcinogenic risk and hazard indices,
respectively.

10-34
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 2: Summary of Carcinogenic Risk by Route after Calculating Clean-up Levels

CASE 1:
Child Resident - RME
Ingestion Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Ingestion
of Root AboveGround of Contact of Irrig.
Vegetables Vegetables GW Spray Irrig.Water Water TOTAL
________________________________________________________________________
Benzene 2.0E-06 1.1E-06 4.9E-08 9.6E-07 3.2E-07 4.5E-06
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 2.0E-06 1.1E-06 4.9E-08 9.6E-07 3.2E-07 4.5E-06

CASE 2:
Adult Resident - RME
Ingestion Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Ingestion
of Root AboveGround of Contact of Irrig.
Vegetables Vegetables GW Spray Irrig.Water Water TOTAL
________________________________________________________________________
Benzene 3.1E-06 2.2E-06 1.7E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.5E-06
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 3.1E-06 2.2E-06 1.7E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.5E-06

CASE 3:
Cases 1 and 2 Added Together
Ingestion Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Ingestion
of Root AboveGround of Contact of Irrig.
Vegetables Vegetables GW Spray Irrig.Water Water TOTAL
________________________________________________________________________
Benzene 5.1E-06 3.4E-06 2.2E-07 9.6E-07 3.2E-07 1.0E-05
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 5.1E-06 3.4E-06 2.2E-07 9.6E-07 3.2E-07 1.0E-05

10-35
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 2: Summary of Hazard Index by Route after Calculating Clean-up Levels

SUMMARY OF HAZARD QUOTIENTS

For Groundwater

CASE 1:
Child Resident - RME
Ingestion Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Ingestion
of Root AboveGround of Contact of Irrig.
Vegetables Vegetables GW Spray Irrig.Water Water TOTAL
________________________________________________________________________
Benzene 2.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.2E-02 1.3E-01 4.2E-02 6.1E-01
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 2.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.2E-02 1.3E-01 4.2E-02 6.1E-01

CASE 2:
Adult Resident - RME
Ingestion Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Ingestion
of Root AboveGround of Contact of Irrig.
Vegetables Vegetables GW Spray Irrig.Water Water TOTAL
________________________________________________________________________
Benzene 1.0E-01 7.5E-02 1.1E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.9E-01
________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 1.0E-01 7.5E-02 1.1E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.9E-01

10-36
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

10.3 EXAMPLE 3: SURFACE WATER ECOLOGICAL RISK

This example is saved in a project file called “Example3.prj”. The reader is

encouraged to work through the example and enter in the information for themselves.

In this example, a site adjacent to a medium-sized stream in New Zealand has free
product gasoline in the ground water. The edge of the free product is estimated to be
approximately 18 meters up-gradient of the stream. Dissolved phase concentrations
in groundwater have not been measured at this site (the groundwater samples
contained free product), so the dissolved phase concentrations at the downgradient
edge of the source will be estimated using conservative gasoline composition and
solubility assumptions.

The goal of this assessment is to predict the movement of the dissolved-phase

contaminants emanating from the free product towards the stream. The surface water
mixing model will be used to estimate concentrations in the surface water and those
concentrations will be compared with the Australia/New Zealand Environment and
Conservation Council (ANZECC) surface water quality criteria numbers for the
protection of ecological species.

Step 1: Identify Chemicals of Concern (Example #3)

The main chemicals of concern are the soluble and mobile components of the free
product, including benzene, toluene, xylenes, and naphthalene. These will be the
chemicals of concern for this example.

Step 2: Identify Appropriate Exposure Pathways (Example #3)

Before entering Step 2, select the "Ecological/Water Quality" option. The next figure
shows what the main screen looks like before selecting Step 2.

10-37
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 3: The Main Screen With the "Ecological/Water Quality" Option

Selected

Choosing Models in Step 2

The Dissolved Phase Transport (groundwater) model will be used to model the
movement of the chemicals of concern from the source to the surface water edge,
followed by the surface water mixing model for estimating the concentrations in the
stream. The Dissolved Phase Model is chosen to model the groundwater transport
because the groundwater source will be assumed to be non-depleting (due to the
potentially large amount of free product compared to dissolved phase chemicals
leaving the source). At the edge of the surface water body, the river mixing model
will be used to estimate concentrations in the stream.

The next figure shows the model selections made in Step 2 to estimate surface water
concentrations.

10-38
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 3: Choosing Options for Estimating Surface Water Concentrations

Step 3: Determine Receptor Point Concentrations (Example 3)

The input parameter values for the groundwater model are obtained from the RISC
database for silty sands (the regional aquifer has been characterized as predominantly
silty sands). The default values for degradation rates from the RISC chemical
database rates are used in this example. The input values used for this example are
listed in the following figures from Step 3a. The first figure shows how the site
properties schematic should look in Step 3a. The input values used in the models
follow.

10-39
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Example 3: Site Properties Schematic

Example 3: Saturated Zone Parameters

10-40
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Saturated Source Parameters

The free product has been roughly been estimated to be about 0.1 m thick. The width
of the product perpendicular to the direction of groundwater flow has been estimated
to be less than 5 meters. These two dimensions form the vertical plane that will be the
dissolved phase source. The model will set all of the groundwater exiting this plane
equal to the source concentration specified in the source inputs. The length of the
source area should be equal to zero to specify a vertical planar source. The next
figure shows the saturated source data input screen.

If the groundwater concentrations had been measured at a location between

the source and the surface water edge, these concentrations could have
been used as the source term. The thickness of the source should be
adjusted to equal the length of the screen of the sampling well. The source
concentration should be set equal to the measured concentration in the well
and the distance to the surface water body should be adjusted to the distance
to the well. The width of the source would have to be estimated.

Example 3: Saturated Source Parameters

10-41
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

River Data
The next figure shows the data used in this example for the surface water input values.

Example 3: Surface Water Mixing Model Data

In Step 3b, the groundwater model source concentrations must be specified. The
following assumptions are made about the free product composition:

• Benzene, 3%;
• Naphthalene, 1%;
• Toluene, 10%; and
• Xylenes, 12%.

These assumptions translate to the dissolve phase source concentrations shown in the
following table.

10-42
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 3: Source Concentration for the Groundwater Model

Source
Solubility Mole Fraction Concentration
Chemical [mg/l] [-] [mg/l]
Benzene 1750 0.03 53
Naphthalene 31 0.01 0.31
Toluene 526 0.1 53
Xylenes 198 0.12 24

In Step 3c, the model was run for 75 years. The maximum concentrations in surface
water are presented in the next section.

Step 4: Surface Water and Sediment Criteria (Example 3)

In Step 4, the ANZECC water quality criteria are selected for comparison with the
calculated maximum surface water concentrations. The following table presents the
results.

Example 3. Maximum Surface Water Concentrations and ANZECC Criteria

Results for Example 3

Surface Water Concentrations and Selected Freshwater Criteria (ug/l)

Maximum
Modeled Australia/NZ
SW ANZECC
Conc. ug/l
__________________________________________________________
Benzene 72 230
Naphthalene 5.8E-04 0.3
Toluene 0.146 170
Xylenes 22 61

The maximum modeled surface water concentrations did not exceed the ANZECC
criteria for the three chemicals that have criteria (benzene, naphthalene and toluene).

10-43
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Sensitivity Analysis (Example 3)

It is important to perform sensitivity analyses to bracket the range of possible surface

water concentrations. One scenario that might be important to consider is the
seasonal differences in stream flow rates. Depending on the location of the stream,
the variation in flow rates could be substantial. Note, that the groundwater gradient
may also be different.

A sensitivity analysis is performed for this example. The streamflow used in the
previous analysis corresponds to the wet flow rate of an average year. The flow rate
in the dry season is approximately 1/5 of the wet season flow (36 m3/d). One thing to
potentially consider when using low flow rates is the species for which the surface
water criteria was developed; can the species live, or does it live, in streams with that
low of a flow rate and can it live in the stream during that time of year? Another
thing to consider is that the groundwater gradient may change during various times of
the year or from year to year. For this sensitivity analysis, it is assumed that the
hydraulic gradient in the aquifer is 0.006 m/m in the dry season (it was 0.01 in the wet
season).

The thickness of the NAPL typically increases in the dry season so its thickness will
be increased from 0.1 m to 0.15 m.

The next table shows the results from Step 4 for this sensitivity analysis comparing
the maximum modeled surface water concentrations with the ANZECC criteria. In
this scenario, the benzene and xylenes concentrations exceed their criteria by about
115 and 26µg/l, respectively.

10-44
 Example Risk Assessment Scenarios

Example 3. Results for Sensitivity Analysis

Maximum Surface Water Concentrations and ANZECC Criteria
Surface Water Concentrations and Selected Freshwater Criteria (ug/l)

Maximum
Modeled Australia/NZ
SW ANZECC
Conc. ug/l
__________________________________________________________
Benzene 345 230
Naphthalene 1.6E-04 0.3
Toluene 0.053 170
Xylenes 87 61

If the water table drops, the thickness of the aquifer at the surface water boundary (an
input parameter in the "River" section) may also be less than during the wet season.
The same is true for the hydraulic gradient between the groundwater and surface
water. In this scenario, if the thickness of the aquifer intersecting the river is changed
from 1 m to 0.6 m and the hydraulic gradient between the aquifer and river is changed
from 0.05 to 0.03 m/m the model predicts the following results.

Example 3. Results for Sensitivity Analysis with Reduced Aquifer Thickness and
Reduced Gradient at River Edge
Surface Water Concentrations and Selected Freshwater Criteria (ug/l)

Maximum
Modeled Australia/NZ
SW ANZECC
Conc. ug/l
__________________________________________________________
Benzene 185 230
Naphthalene 7.7E-05 0.3
Toluene 0.025 170
Xylenes 46 61

10-45
 Chapter Chemical
11.0 Database

The RISC software contains a large chemical database that can be accessed
through Step 1: Select Chemicals of Concern. The chemical database
contains physical and chemical parameters used in fate and transport modeling,
toxicity values, and absorption adjustment factors for 86 chemicals potentially found
at oil and gas sites. The database can be modified by the user through the RISC
interface. This procedure is described in Chapters 3.2 through 3.5 of this document.

Table 11-1 (at the end of this chapter) shows the chemicals in the RISC database and
their various properties. The primary reference consulted for chemical properties was
the U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Guidance Technical Background Document (1996).
This document contains default values of Henry’s Law coefficient, Koc, log Kow,
diffusion coefficients in air and water, and solubility for most of the chemicals in the
RISC database.

For the TPH fractions, all of the chemical parameters (except for the skin permeability
coefficient) were obtained from the TPH Criteria Working Group document entitled
“A Risk-Based Approach for the Management of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in
Soil” (TPHCWG, 1997).

11.1 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

11.1.1 Density

The density of the chemical is presented in g/cm3. The density of water is 1 g/cm3.
Currently density is not used in the RISC equations. It may be used in future updates.

11-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

The density values in the chemical database were obtained from the following
reference:

1. Verschueren (1983)

11.1.2 Vapor Pressure (saturated)

The vapor pressure of a liquid or solid is the pressure of the gas in equilibrium with
the liquid or solid at a given temperature. Chemicals with relatively low vapor
pressures, high adsorptivity onto solids, or high solubility in water are less likely to
vaporize and become airborne than chemicals with high vapor pressures or with less
affinity for solution in water or adsorption to solids and sediments (Verschueren,
1983). Vapor pressures are expressed either in mm Hg (or just mm) or in atmospheres
(atm.) If vapor pressures for certain compounds are not available, they can be derived
graphically from their boiling points and the boiling point/vapor pressure relationship
for homologous series. (See Verschueren, 1983, for an example using chlorinated
benzenes and phenols as the homologous series.)

The vapor pressure values in the RISC database are presented in mm of mercury
(mmHg). Vapor pressures for the contaminants in the database were obtained from
Verschueren (1983). Vapor pressures in units of atmospheres can be converted to
mmHg by the following equation:

760 mmHg
VP(mmHg ) = VP(atm) × (11-1)
atm

where
VP(mmHg) = vapor pressure in units of mmHg
VP(atm) = vapor pressure in units of atm
760 = conversion factor for mmHg to atm

Vapor pressure is an indication of volatility and is used to calculate the saturated

vapor pressure for the Tier 1 spreadsheet. This value is compared with the soil gas
RBSL in the vadose zone. If the soil gas RBSL exceeds the saturated vapor pressure,

11-2
 Chemical Database

then a ">VP" is substituted into the RBSL table for the soil gas number. This
indicates that the target risk level cannot be reached at saturated conditions.

The vapor pressure values in the chemical database were obtained from the following
references (by order of preference):

1. Howard and Meylen (1997)

2. Verschueren (1983)

11.1.3 Solubility

Solubility in water indicates a chemicals likelihood to mix and transport with water in
the environment (e.g. leaching from vadose zone soils to groundwater and
transporting with groundwater flow). Chemicals with high solubility in water tend to
remain dissolved in water and not to partition into soil or bioconcentrate in organisms.
Further, they are less likely to volatilize from water (also dependent on vapor pressure
and Henry’s Law constant) and are generally more likely to biodegrade (Howard,
1989).

The following references were used (by order of preference):

1. U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document

(1996).
2. Howard and Meylen (1997)

Solubility values are required for all of the fate and transport models except the
Dissolved Phase Transport model. For this model, it is important to check that the
source concentrations do not exceed solubility. For contaminants that are part of a
mixture, the effective solubility will be lower than the pure phase solubility.

11.1.4 Henry’s Law Coefficient

The Henry’s Law Coefficient, H, is the air/water partition coefficient. Henry’s Law
relates the chemical concentration in the gas phase to its concentration in the water

11-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

phase (Howard, 1989). The conversion from the dimensional form of Henry’s Law
coefficient to the dimensionless form is given by:

H
H' = (11-2)
RT

where
H’ = the non-dimensional form of Henry’s Law constant
[(mg/l)/(mg/l)]
H = Henry’s Law constant [atm-m3/mol]
R = the universal gas constant, [atm-m3/mol-K]
(R = 8.2 × 10-5 )
T = absolute temperature [K] (20 oC = 293 K)

For Henry’s Law, the following references were used (by order of preference):

1. U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document

(1996).
2. Howard and Meylen (1997)

Henry’s Law is used in all of the fate and transport models (except the Dissolved
Phase Transport model).

11.1.5 Log Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient (log Kow)

The octanol/water partition coefficient is the ratio of the chemical concentration in

octanol divided by the concentration in water. Log Kow is used to estimate the
vegetable uptake factor for organic chemicals. It is not used in any of the fate and
transport models in Version 4 of RISC. In future versions it will be used for the
ecological risk component because it is an important indicator of bioaccumulation in
organisms.

The values for log Kow were obtained from:

1. U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document

(1996).

11-4
 Chemical Database

2. Howard and Meylen (1997)

3. Howard’s (1989) Handbook of Fate and Exposure Data (Volumes 1 - 3)

11.1.6 Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (Koc)

The organic carbon partition coefficient is an important chemical transport property

describing an organic chemical’s affinity for sorption to organic carbon (the higher the
Koc, the higher the sorption). Experimentally measured Koc values for gasoline
constituents are not readily available in the literature (Lyman et al., 1992). They have
been included for many chemicals in the database; however, if the user needs to add
new chemicals, the Koc may not be easily found. Lyman et al. (1992) suggests the
following algorithms for estimating Koc. One equation uses the octanol/water
partition coefficient, Kow , while the other uses the chemical solubility, S.

log Koc = 0.779 log Kow + 0.46 (11-3)

log Koc = -0.602 log S + 0.656 (11-4)

where
S = liquid phase solubility for chemical [mg/l]
Koc = chemical-specific organic carbon partition coefficient
[l/kg]
Kow = chemical-specific octanol/water partition coefficient
[l/kg]

For gasoline constituents with low Kow values, solubility-based relationships are
probably superior to those based on Kow (Lyman et al., 1992). For the organic carbon
partition coefficient (Koc), the following references were used (by order of
preference):

1. U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document

(1996).
2. U.S. EPA: Basics of Pump and Treat Groundwater Remediation
Technology (1990)

11-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

For inorganic chemicals, the Koc values are assumed to be zero and the Kd parameter
is used to estimate partitioning between the sorbed and dissolved phases. Koc is used
in all the fate and transport models except volatilization from groundwater.

11.1.7 Inorganic Partition Coefficient (Kd)

The Kd parameter is used for inorganic chemicals (usually metals) to estimate the
relationship of the dissolved and sorbed phases of the chemical. Unlike Koc for
organic chemicals, the sorption of metals is highly site-specific and usually dependent
on water pH so the Kd value should be adjusted in the chemical database if site-
specific data is available. The following reference was used for the Kd values in the
RISC database (a pH of 7.0 was assumed):

1. U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document

(1996).

Most of the inorganic chemicals in the RISC database have a Kd value of zero because
of the site-specific nature of the parameter. This means that the chemicals will be
treated by the models as if they are non-retarded. For many pathways this is a
conservative assumption.

11.1.8 Diffusion Coefficients in Air and Water

Diffusion coefficients in air and water were obtained predominantly from:

1. U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document

(1996).
2. U.S. EPA: Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
(TSDF) –Air Emission Models (1987)

The diffusion coefficients in air and in water are used by all of the models estimating
volatilization or transport of vapors to estimate the effective diffusion coefficient.
The diffusion coefficient in water is used by the Dissolved Phase Transport model.

11-6
 Chemical Database

11.1.9 Degradation Rates

The degradation rates are used in all of the fate and transport models in RISC with the
exception of the Johnson and Ettinger and the Volatilization from Groundwater vapor
models. The degradation rates in the RISC database represent the "high-end" and
"low-end" degradation rates presented in Howard (1991) for groundwater. These were
obtained for a limited number of chemicals. These values should not be construed as
absolute minimum and maximum rates. Degradation rates are highly site-specific and
can also vary across a plume because of available dissolved oxygen and nutrients in
the groundwater.

The degradation rates represent the minimum and maximum values found by Howard
(1991) in the published literature at the time the reference was published. There have
been many new studies published since 1991.

The degradation rates may be modified in Step 3 of RISC for use in the fate and
transport models. This is the only chemical-specific parameter that can be modified
outside of Step 1 (the chemical database).

The degradation rates are also used in the Tier 1 spreadsheet to calculate the RBSLs
when using the Green-Ampt and Domenico models.

11.1.10 Vegetable Uptake Factor

Baes et al (1984) presents soil-to-plant concentration factors (called Bv by Baes) for

the elements of the periodic table. Eleven chemicals in RISC have values for Bv
entered in the database (Table 11-1). These Bv values are used by RISC to estimate
the uptake factors for both root and above-ground vegetables. The vegetable model is
described in detail in Appendix O. The following relationships are used if the uptake
factor is entered in the chemical database (excerpted from Appendix O):

For soil: Bva = BvBaes × (1 − 0.85) (11-5)

Bvr = BvBaes × (1 − 0.85) (11-6)

For water: RCF = BvBaes × (1 − 0.85) × K d (11-7)

11-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

ABCF = BvBaes × (1 − 0.85) × K d (11-8)

where:
Bvr = soil-to-root uptake factor [mg chemical/kg wet weight
root vegetable per mg chemical/kg soil]
Bva = soil-to-above-ground vegetable uptake factor [mg
chemical/kg wet weight above-ground vegetable per mg
chemical/kg soil]
BvBaes = soil-to-plant concentration factor [mg chemical/kg dry
weight vegetable per mg chemical/kg dry soil]
(1 - 0.85) = adjustment from dry weight to wet weight vegetable
where 0.85 is the assumed moisture content of the
vegetable
RCF = root concentration factor [mg chemical/kg produce per
mg chemical/l water]
ABCF = above-ground concentration factor [mg chemical/kg
vegetable per mg chemical/l water]
Kd = equilibrium partitioning coefficient [l/kg or ml/g]

The chemicals that have Bv's entered in the database are inorganic, (i.e. they are not
expected to have Kow or Koc values). If a chemical does not have a Kd, Koc, or a Kow
entered in the database, the uptake factors from water are assumed to be equal to zero.

For organic chemicals, the vegetable uptake factors will be calculated from Kow or Kd
using the equations found in Appendix O.

11.2 TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES

11.2.1 USEPA Carcinogenic Classification

USEPA’s Carcinogenic Classification, or Weight-of-Evidence Classification, is a

system for characterizing the extent to which the available data indicate that an agent
is a human carcinogen. The evidence is characterized separately for human studies

11-8
 Chemical Database

and animal studies as sufficient, limited, inadequate, no data, or evidence of no effect

(USEPA, 1989a).

The carcinogenicity classification values for each chemical were obtained from
USEPA's Integrated Risk and Information System (IRIS). The USEPA classification
system for weight of evidence is shown below.

Table 11-2. USEPA's Carcinogenic Classification

Group (Classification) Description
A Human carcinogen

B1 or Probable human carcinogen:

B2 B1 indicates that limited human data are available.
B2 indicates sufficient evidence in animals but
inadequate or no evidence in humans.

C Possible human carcinogen

D Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (may be

a hazard, however).

E Evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans.

11.2.2 Toxicity Parameters

The slope factor (or potency factor) is the toxicity parameter (developed by USEPA)
to evaluate carcinogenic risk. The reference dose, or RfD, is the toxicity parameter
used to evaluate non-carcinogenic risk. Values for both toxicity parameters were
obtained from the USEPA's Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (USEPA,
1999). The introduction section to the Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals lists
the following order of preference for obtaining toxicological constants:

1. IRIS (U.S. EPA's on-line Integrated Risk Information System)

2. NCEA (U.S. EPA's National Center for Exposure Assessment)
3. Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST) (USEPA, 1995)

11-9
RISC Manual Version 4.0

4. Withdrawn from IRIS or HEAST and under review (but previously

published value still being used), and
5. Obtained from other USEPA documents.

Many chemicals do not have toxicity values for both inhalation and oral exposure
routes. The USEPA's Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (USEPA, 1999) notes
the following:

Route-to-route extrapolations were frequently used when there were no

toxicity values available for a given route of exposure. Oral cancer slope
factors and reference doses were used for both oral and inhaled exposures for
organic compounds lacking inhalation values. Inhalation slope factors and
inhalation reference doses were used for both inhaled and oral exposure for
organic compounds lacking oral values. Route extrapolations were not
performed for inorganics due to portal of entry effects and known differences
in absorption efficiency for the two routes of exposure. An additional route
extrapolation is the use of oral toxicity values for evaluating dermal
exposures.

11.2.3 Inhalation Conversion Factors

As of January 1991, IRIS and NCEA databases (used as toxicology sources by the
PRG table) no longer present inhalation reference doses (RfDi) or inhalation slope
factors (SFi). Rather, reference concentrations (RfCs) for non-carcinogenic effects
and unit risk factors (URFs) for carcinogenic effects are used. For purposes of
estimating risk and calculating risk-based concentrations, inhalation reference doses
and inhalation slope factors are preferred. This is not a problem for most chemicals
because the inhalation toxicity criteria are easily converted. To calculate an RfDi
from a RfC, the following equation is used:

 mg   mg  20m
3
1
RfDi  = RfC  3  × × (11-9)
 kg ⋅ d  m  d 70kg

Likewise, to calculate an SFi from a URF, the following equation is used:

 kg ⋅ d   m3  d 10 µg
SFi  = URF   × × 70kg × (11-10)
 µg  20m
3
 mg  mg

11-10
 Chemical Database

11.2.4 Absorption Adjustment Factors (AAFs)

Absorption adjustment factors are used to account for the differences between applied
and absorbed dose. For the most part, the AAFs are equal to 1; i.e., the dose is not
adjusted.

Dermal AAFs (sometimes called dermal absorption values) were obtained from
USEPA’s Region 9's Preliminary Remediation Goals (USEPA, 1996). Note that this
is the previous version of the PRG table. The current PRG table (1999) presents
dermal absorption values for non-volatile organics (AAF = 0.10) and a few select
chemicals only (arsenic, cadmium, chlordane, 2,4-D, DDT, lindane, TCDD, PAHs,
PCBs, and pentachlorophenols) as recommended in the "Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental
Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim Guidance" (U.S. EPA 1999). The
dermal absorption factors have been withdrawn for all other chemicals (inorganics and
VOCs) in the current PRG table, effectively eliminating dermal contact with soil as an
exposure pathway of concern for these chemicals. Since many states have not adopted
this approach yet, the previous absorption coefficients were maintained in the RISC
database.

The default values used for dermal-soil AAFs for organic chemicals is 0.1 and for
inorganic chemicals is 0.01. The following chemicals have chemical-specific dermal-
soil AAFs: arsenic (0.03), cadmium (0.001), PAHs (0.1), and PCBs (0.14).

11.2.5 Skin Permeability Coefficient

The permeability coefficient is used to evaluate the amount of intake for dermal
contact with water exposure pathways. The value is presented in terms of flux,
normalized for concentration, and represents the rate at which a chemical penetrates
the skin. Dermal permeability coefficients are presented in USEPA’s Dermal
Exposure Assessment guidance (1992). For chemicals not listed in the guidance,
permeability was estimated from:

log K p = −2.72 + 0.71 log K ow − 0.0061MW (11-6)

11-11
RISC Manual Version 4.0

where
Kp = skin permeability coefficient [cm/hr]
Kow = chemical-specific octanol/water partition coefficient
[l/kg]
MW = molecular weight [g/mol]
For the TPH groups, the skin permeability coefficient was estimated using the above
equation.

11.3 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE CHEMICAL DATABASE

Table 11-1 presents the chemical database. This table is contained in the Tier 1
spreadsheet (Tier 1.xls).

11.3.1 Chemical Database Format

The chemical database used in RISC is contained in a tab-delimited text file,

'CHEMICAL.TXT' (originally created from the Tier 1 spreadsheet). Changes to the
database should be made through the RISC interface in Step 1. The modifications
should also be made in the Tier 1 spreadsheet since the spreadsheet and the RISC
software do not share data and are not directly linked.

11.3.2 Restoring the Original Chemical Database

There are two choices for reinstalling the original chemical database for RISC: (1)
reinstall the software from the installation file, or (2) delete the file named
'CHEMICAL.TXT'. The second method notifies the RISC software to create a new
chemical database from the backup file 'CHEMBACK.TXT'.

11-12
 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

Acenaph Acenaph Benz(a)

Chemical Parameters Units Acetone Anthracene Arsenic Barium Benzene
thene thylene anthracene

CAS Number - 83-32-9 208-96-8 67-64-1 120-12-7 7440-38-2 7440-39-3 56-55-3 71-43-2
Molecular Weight g/mol 154.2 152.2 58.08 178.2 74.9 137.3 228.0 78
3
Density g/cm 1.07 0.90 0.79 1.25 ND ND 1.27 0.88
Vapor Pressure mmHg 2.3E-03 9.1E-04 2.3E+02 2.7E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.1E-08 9.5E+01
Solubility mg/L 4.24E+00 3.93E+00 1.00E+06 4.34E-02 ND ND 9.40E-03 1.75E+03
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 6.36E-03 4.67E-03 1.59E-03 2.67E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.37E-04 2.28E-01
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g 7.1E+03 4.8E+03 5.8E-01 3.0E+04 ND ND 4.0E+05 5.9E+01
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g ND ND ND ND 2.9E+01 3.0E+01 ND ND
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg 3.9E+00 3.9E+00 -2.4E-01 4.6E+00 ND ND 5.7E+00 2.1E+00
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm2/s 4.2E-02 5.4E-02 1.2E-01 3.2E-02 ND ND 5.1E-02 8.8E-02
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s 7.7E-06 6.6E-06 1.1E-05 7.7E-06 ND ND 9.0E-06 9.8E-06
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day 2.8E-02 8.2E-03 ND 7.0E-03 ND ND 3.4E-03 7.0E-02
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day 3.4E-03 5.8E-03 ND 7.5E-04 ND ND 5.1E-04 9.6E-04
Uptake Factor for Plants - Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow 4.00E-02 1.50E-01 Use Kow Use Kow
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - ND D D D A D B2 A
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND ND ND 1.5E+00 ND 7.3E-01 2.9E-02
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND ND ND 1.5E+01 ND 3.1E-01 2.7E-02
RfD Oral mg/kg-d 6.0E-02 ND 1.0E-01 3.0E-01 3.0E-04 7.0E-02 ND ND
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d 6.0E-02 ND 1.0E-01 3.0E-01 ND 1.4E-04 ND ND
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.01 0.1 0.1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 1.5E-01 9.6E-02 5.7E-04 2.2E-01 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 8.1E-01 2.1E-02
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l ND ND ND ND 5.0E-02 2.0E+00 ND 5.0E-03

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 1 of 11 11-13

 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

Bis(2 Butyl
Benzo(a) Benzo(b) Benzo(g,h,i) Benzo(k)
Chemical Parameters Units Beryllium ethylhexyl) benzyl
pyrene fluoranthene perylene fluoranthene
phthalate phthalate

CAS Number - 50-32-8 205-99-2 191-24-2 207-08-9 7440-41-7 117-81-7 85-68-7

Molecular Weight g/mol 252.3 252.3 276.3 252.3 9.0 390.6 312.4
3
Density g/cm 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 ND 0.99 1.10
Vapor Pressure mmHg 5.5E-09 5.0E-07 1.0E-10 9.7E-10 0.0E+00 9.8E-06 8.3E-06
Solubility mg/L 1.62E-03 1.50E-03 2.60E-04 8.00E-04 ND 3.40E-01 2.69E+00
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 4.63E-05 4.55E-03 1.09E-05 3.40E-05 0.00E+00 4.18E-06 5.17E-05
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g 1.0E+06 1.2E+06 7.8E+06 1.2E+06 ND 1.5E+07 5.8E+04
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g ND ND ND ND 8.2E+01 ND ND
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg 6.1E+00 6.2E+00 7.1E+00 6.2E+00 ND 7.3E+00 4.8E+00
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm2/s 4.3E-02 2.3E-02 4.1E-02 2.3E-02 ND 3.5E-02 3.9E-02
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s 9.0E-06 5.6E-06 4.9E-06 5.6E-06 ND 3.7E-06 7.0E-06
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day 6.1E-03 9.6E-04 5.9E-04 3.9E-04 ND ND ND
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day 6.5E-04 5.7E-04 5.3E-04 1.6E-04 ND ND ND
Uptake Factor for Plants - Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow 1.00E-02 Use Kow Use Kow
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - B2 B2 D B2 B1 B2 C
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) 7.3E+00 7.3E-01 ND 7.3E-02 ND 1.4E-02 ND
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) 3.1E+00 3.1E-01 ND 3.1E-02 8.4E+00 1.4E-02 ND
RfD Oral mg/kg-d ND ND ND ND 2.0E-03 2.0E-02 2.0E-01
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d ND ND ND ND 5.7E-06 2.2E-02 ND
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 1.7E+00 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 3.3E-02 7.4E-02
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l 2.0E-04 ND ND ND ND ND ND

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 2 of 11 11-14

 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

Carbon Carbon Chloro Chromium Chromium

Chemical Parameters Units Cadmium Chloroform Chrysene
Disulfide Tetrachloride benzene (III) (VI)

CAS Number - 7440-43-9 75-15-0 56-23-5 108-90-7 67-66-3 7440-47-2 7440-47-3 218-01-9
Molecular Weight g/mol 112.4 76.1 153.8 112.6 119.4 52.0 52.0 228.3
3
Density g/cm ND 1.26 1.59 1.11 1.49 ND ND 1.27
Vapor Pressure mmHg 0.0E+00 3.6E+02 1.2E+02 1.2E+01 2.0E+02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.2E-09
Solubility mg/L ND 1.19E+03 7.93E+02 4.72E+02 7.92E+03 ND ND 1.60E-03
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 0.00E+00 5.92E-01 1.25E+00 1.52E-01 1.50E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.88E-03
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g ND 4.6E+01 1.7E+02 2.2E+01 4.0E+01 ND ND 4.0E+05
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g 3.7E+01 ND ND ND ND 2.0E+05 2.3E+01 ND
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg ND 2.1E+00 2.7E+00 2.9E+00 1.9E+00 ND ND 5.7E+00
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm2/s ND 1.0E-01 7.8E-02 7.3E-02 1.0E-01 ND ND 2.5E-02
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s ND 1.0E-05 8.8E-06 8.7E-06 1.0E-05 ND ND 6.2E-06
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day ND ND 1.0E-01 5.1E-03 1.2E-02 ND ND 9.3E-04
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day ND ND 1.9E-03 2.0E-03 4.0E-04 ND ND 3.0E-04
Uptake Factor for Plants - 5.50E-01 Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - B1 ND B2 D B2 D A B2
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND 1.3E-01 ND 6.1E-03 ND ND 7.3E-03
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) 6.3E+00 ND 5.3E-02 ND 8.1E-02 ND 2.9E+02 3.1E-03
RfD Oral mg/kg-d 5.0E-04 1.0E-01 7.0E-04 2.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.5E+00 3.0E-03 ND
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d ND 2.0E-01 7.0E-04 1.7E-02 8.6E-05 ND ND ND
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.001 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 1.0E-03 2.4E-02 2.2E-02 4.1E-02 8.9E-03 1.3E-03 1.3E-03 8.1E-01
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l 5.0E-03 ND 5.0E-03 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 ND ND ND

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 3 of 11 11-15

 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

Dichloro Dichloro
Dibenz(a,h)
Chemical Parameters Units Copper Cresol(m) Cresol(o) Cresol(p) Cyanide ethane ethane
anthracene
(1,1) (1,2) (EDC)

CAS Number - 7440-50-8 108-39-4 95-48-7 106-44-5 57-12-5 53-70-3 75-34-3 107-06-2
Molecular Weight g/mol 63.5 108.1 108.1 108.1 0.0 278.4 99.0 99.0
3
Density g/cm ND 1.04 1.04 1.03 ND 1.28 1.17 1.17
Vapor Pressure mmHg 0.0E+00 1.4E-01 3.0E-01 1.1E-01 0.0E+00 1.0E-10 2.3E+02 7.9E+01
Solubility mg/L ND 2.27E+04 2.60E+04 3.53E+04 ND 2.49E-03 5.06E+03 8.52E+03
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 0.00E+00 3.55E-05 4.92E-05 4.10E-05 0.00E+00 6.03E-07 2.30E-01 4.01E-02
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g ND 8.7E+01 9.1E+01 8.1E+01 ND 3.8E+06 3.2E+01 1.7E+01
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g 2.5E+00 ND ND ND 9.9E+00 ND ND ND
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg ND 2.0E+00 2.0E+00 2.0E+00 ND 6.7E+00 1.8E+00 1.5E+00
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm2/s ND 7.4E-02 7.4E-02 7.4E-02 ND 2.0E-02 7.4E-02 1.0E-01
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s ND 1.0E-05 8.3E-06 1.0E-05 ND 5.2E-06 1.1E-05 9.9E-06
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day ND ND ND ND ND 9.6E-04 1.1E-02 7.0E-03
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day ND ND ND ND ND 3.7E-04 1.9E-03 1.9E-03
Uptake Factor for Plants - 4.00E-01 Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - D C C C D B2 C B2
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND ND ND ND 7.3E+00 ND 9.1E-02
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND ND ND ND 3.1E+00 ND 9.1E-02
RfD Oral mg/kg-d 3.7E-02 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 5.0E-03 4.0E-02 ND 1.0E-01 3.0E-02
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d ND 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 5.0E-03 ND ND 1.4E-01 1.4E-03
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 1.0E-03 1.5E-02 1.6E-02 1.8E-02 1.0E-02 2.7E+00 8.9E-03 5.3E-03
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l 1.3E+00 ND ND ND ND ND ND 5.0E-03

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 4 of 11 11-16

 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

Dichloro Dichloro Dichloro Dimethyl

Dimethylbenza(a) di-n-Butyl di-n-Octyl
Chemical Parameters Units ethylene ethylene ethene phenol
anthracene (7,12) phthalate phthalate
(1,1) (cis 1,2) (trans 1,2) (2,4)

CAS Number - 75-35-4 156-59-2 156-60-5 57-97-6 105-67-9 84-74-2 117-84-0

Molecular Weight g/mol 96.9 96.9 96.9 147 122.2 178.3 390.6
3
Density g/cm 1.22 1.21 1.26 1.30 1.04 1.05 1.00
Vapor Pressure mmHg 6.0E+02 2.0E+02 3.3E+02 5.6E-09 9.8E-02 7.3E-05 2.6E-06
Solubility mg/L 2.25E+03 3.50E+03 6.30E+03 6.10E-02 7.87E+03 1.12E+01 2.90E-01
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 1.07E+00 1.67E-01 3.85E-01 1.28E-06 8.20E-05 3.85E-08 7.50E-09
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g 5.9E+01 3.6E+01 5.3E+01 4.8E+05 2.1E+02 8.3E+07 1.1E+05
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg 2.1E+00 1.9E+00 2.1E+00 5.8E+00 2.4E+00 4.6E+00 9.2E+00
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm2/s 9.0E-02 7.4E-02 7.1E-02 4.6E-02 5.8E-02 1.5E-02 3.7E-02
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s 1.0E-05 1.1E-05 1.2E-05 5.0E-06 8.7E-06 3.6E-06 4.0E-05
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day 1.2E-02 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day 5.0E-03 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Uptake Factor for Plants - Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - C C C ND ND D ND
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) 6.0E-01 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) 1.8E-01 ND ND ND ND ND ND
RfD Oral mg/kg-d 9.0E-03 1.0E-02 2.0E-02 3.0E-02 2.0E-02 1.0E-01 2.0E-02
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d 9.0E-03 1.0E-02 2.0E-02 ND 2.0E-02 1.0E-01 2.0E-02
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 1.6E-02 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.2E+00 1.5E-02 3.3E-02 2.7E+01
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l 7.0E-03 7.0E-02 1.0E-01 ND ND ND ND

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 5 of 11 11-17

 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

Indeno
Dinitro Ethyl Ethylene Fluoran
Chemical Parameters Units Dioxane (1,4) Fluorene (1,2,3CD) Lead
toluene (2,4) benzene Dibromide thene
pyrene

CAS Number - 121-14-2 123-91-1 100-41-4 106-93-4 206-44-0 86-73-7 193-39-5 7439-92-1
Molecular Weight g/mol 182.1 88.1 106.2 187.9 202.3 166.2 276.3 0.0
3
Density g/cm 1.31 1.03 0.87 2.18 1.25 1.20 1.35 ND
Vapor Pressure mmHg 1.5E-04 3.8E+01 9.6E+00 1.1E+01 1.2E-08 8.4E-03 1.0E-10 0.0E+00
Solubility mg/L 2.70E+02 1.10E-02 1.69E+02 4.30E+03 2.06E-01 1.98E+00 2.20E-05 ND
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 3.80E-06 1.10E-02 3.23E-01 2.89E-02 6.60E-04 2.61E-03 6.56E-05 0.00E+00
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g 9.6E+01 1.7E+01 3.6E+02 4.4E+01 1.1E+05 1.4E+04 3.5E+06 ND
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 9.9E+00
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg 2.0E+00 -2.7E-01 3.1E+00 1.8E+00 5.1E+00 4.2E+00 6.7E+00 ND
2
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm /s 2.0E-01 2.3E-01 7.5E-02 5.0E-02 3.0E-02 3.6E-02 1.9E-02 ND
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s 7.1E-06 1.0E-05 7.8E-06 9.6E-06 6.4E-06 7.9E-06 5.7E-06 ND
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day ND ND 1.0E-01 3.5E-02 2.5E-03 1.1E-02 5.8E-04 ND
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day ND ND 3.0E-03 5.8E-03 7.9E-04 5.8E-03 4.8E-04 ND
Uptake Factor for Plants - Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - B2 B2 D B2 D D B2 NA
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) 6.8E-01 1.1E-02 ND 8.5E+01 ND ND 7.3E-01 ND
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) 6.8E-01 1.1E-02 ND 7.7E-01 ND ND 3.1E-01 ND
RfD Oral mg/kg-d 2.0E-03 ND 1.0E-01 ND 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 ND 3.6E-03
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d 2.0E-03 ND 2.9E-01 ND 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 ND ND
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 3.8E-03 3.6E-04 7.4E-02 3.3E-03 3.6E-01 3.6E-01 1.9E+00 0.0E+00
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l ND ND 7.0E-01 5.0E-05 ND ND ND 1.5E-02

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 6 of 11 11-18

 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

Methyl Methyl
Methylene
Chemical Parameters Units Mercury Methanol ethyl napthalene MTBE Naphthalene Nickel
Chloride
ketone (2)

CAS Number - 7439-97-6 67-56-1 78-93-3 75-09-2 91-57-6 1634-04-4 91-20-3 7440-02-0
Molecular Weight g/mol 200.6 32 72.1 84.93 142.2 88.17 128.2 58.7
3
Density g/cm ND 0.80 0.82 1.34 0.99 0.74 1.16 ND
Vapor Pressure mmHg 1.3E-03 1.3E+02 9.5E+01 4.4E+02 8.3E-03 2.5E+02 8.5E-02 0.0E+00
Solubility mg/L ND 1.00E+06 2.12E+05 1.30E+04 2.46E+01 4.80E+04 3.10E+01 1.73E+05
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 4.67E-01 1.87E-04 2.33E-03 8.98E-02 2.12E-02 2.04E-02 1.98E-02 0.00E+00
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g ND 0.0E+00 4.5E+00 1.2E+01 8.5E+03 1.2E+01 2.0E+03 ND
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g 8.2E+01 ND ND ND ND ND ND 8.8E+01
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg ND -7.7E-01 2.9E-01 1.3E+00 4.1E+00 1.3E+00 3.4E+00 ND
2
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm /s 3.1E-02 1.6E-01 8.1E-02 1.0E-01 5.8E-02 7.1E-02 5.9E-02 ND
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s 6.3E-06 1.6E-05 9.8E-06 1.2E-05 7.4E-06 9.0E-06 7.5E-06 ND
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day ND ND ND 5.0E-02 ND 1.2E-02 7.0E-01 ND
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day ND ND ND 1.2E-02 ND 1.9E-03 2.7E-02 ND
Uptake Factor for Plants - 9.00E-01 Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow 4.00E-02
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - D ND D B2 ND ND C A
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND ND 7.5E-03 ND ND ND ND
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND ND 1.6E-03 ND ND ND 8.4E-01
RfD Oral mg/kg-d 3.0E-04 5.0E-01 6.0E-01 6.0E-02 4.0E-02 ND 2.0E-02 2.0E-02
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d 8.6E-05 5.0E-01 2.9E-01 8.6E-01 4.0E-02 8.6E-01 8.6E-04 ND
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 1.7E-03 3.5E-04 5.0E-03 4.5E-03 1.8E-01 3.1E-03 6.9E-02 1.0E-03
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l 2.0E-03 ND ND 5.0E-03 ND 2.0E-02 ND 1.0E-01

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 7 of 11 11-19

 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

Phenanthren
Chemical Parameters Units Nitrobenzene PCBs Phenol Pyrene Pyridine Selenium Silver
e

CAS Number - 98-95-3 1336-36-3 85-01-8 108-95-2 129-00-0 110-86-1 7782-49-2 7440-22-4
Molecular Weight g/mol 123.1 225.1 178.2 94.1 202.3 79.1 79.0 107.9
3
Density g/cm 1.20 1.10 1.18 1.07 1.27 0.98 ND ND
Vapor Pressure mmHg 2.5E-01 8.0E-05 1.1E-04 3.5E-01 2.5E-06 2.0E+01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
Solubility mg/L 2.09E+03 4.20E-01 1.29E+00 8.28E+04 1.35E-01 1.00E+06 ND ND
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 9.84E-04 1.11E-02 1.60E-03 1.63E-05 4.51E-04 4.51E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g 6.5E+01 3.1E+05 2.3E+04 2.9E+01 1.1E+05 5.4E+01 ND ND
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g ND ND ND ND ND ND 4.3E+00 1.3E+01
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg 1.8E+00 5.7E+00 4.6E+00 1.5E+00 5.1E+00 6.5E-01 ND ND
2
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm /s 7.6E-02 1.0E-01 5.2E-02 8.2E-02 2.7E-02 9.1E-02 ND ND
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s 8.6E-05 1.0E-05 5.9E-06 9.1E-06 7.2E-06 7.6E-06 ND ND
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day ND ND 2.2E-02 ND 1.7E-03 ND ND ND
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day ND ND 2.0E-03 ND 1.8E-04 ND ND ND
Uptake Factor for Plants - Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow 2.50E-02 4.00E-01
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - D B2 D D D ND D D
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) ND 2.0E+00 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) ND 2.0E+00 ND ND ND ND ND ND
RfD Oral mg/kg-d 5.0E-04 ND ND 6.0E-01 3.0E-02 1.0E-03 5.0E-03 5.0E-03
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d 5.7E-04 ND ND 6.0E-01 3.0E-02 1.0E-03 ND ND
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.1 0.14 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 7.0E-03 1.3E+00 2.7E-01 5.5E-03 3.2E-01 1.8E-03 1.0E-03 6.0E-04
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l ND 5.0E-04 ND ND ND ND 5.0E-02 1.0E-01

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 8 of 11 11-20

 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

Tetrachloro Tetrachloro TPH TPH TPH

Tetraethyl
Chemical Parameters Units Styrene ethane ethylene Toluene Aliphatic Aliphatic Aliphatic
Lead
(1,1,2,2) (PCE) C5-6 C6-8 C8-10

CAS Number - 100-42-5 79-34-5 127-18-4 78-00-2 108-88-3 NA NA NA

Molecular Weight g/mol 104.2 167.9 165.8 323 92.1 81 100 130
Density g/cm3 0.90 1.60 1.63 1.66 0.87 0.64 0.68 0.72
Vapor Pressure mmHg 6.4E+00 4.6E+00 1.9E+01 3.0E+01 2.8E+01 2.7E+02 4.8E+01 4.8E+00
Solubility mg/L 3.10E+02 2.97E+03 2.00E+02 2.10E-01 5.26E+02 3.60E+01 5.40E+00 4.30E-01
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 1.13E-01 1.41E-02 7.54E-01 2.33E+01 2.72E-01 3.40E+01 5.10E+01 8.20E+01
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g 7.8E+02 9.3E+01 1.6E+02 4.9E+03 1.8E+02 7.9E+02 4.0E+03 3.2E+04
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg 2.9E+00 2.4E+00 2.7E+00 4.9E+00 2.8E+00 3.3E+00 4.0E+00 4.8E+00
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm2/s 7.1E-02 7.1E-02 7.2E-02 5.7E-02 8.7E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s 8.0E-06 7.9E-06 8.2E-06 6.4E-06 8.6E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.0E-05
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day 2.5E-02 1.6E+00 1.9E-03 ND 1.0E-01 ND ND ND
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day 3.0E-03 1.5E-02 9.6E-04 ND 2.5E-02 ND ND ND
Uptake Factor for Plants - Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - ND C B2 ND D D D D
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) ND 2.0E-01 5.2E-02 ND ND ND ND ND
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) ND 2.0E-01 2.0E-03 ND ND ND ND ND
RfD Oral mg/kg-d 2.0E-01 6.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.0E-07 2.0E-01 5.0E+00 5.0E+00 1.0E-01
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d 2.9E-01 6.0E-02 1.1E-01 ND 1.1E-01 5.0E+00 5.0E+00 2.7E-01
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 5.5E-02 9.0E-03 4.8E-02 3.6E-02 4.5E-02 1.4E-01 3.0E-01 7.5E-01
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l 1.0E-01 ND 5.0E-03 1.5E-02 1.0E+00 ND ND ND

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 9 of 11 11-21

 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

TPH TPH TPH TPH TPH TPH TPH TPH TPH

Chemical Parameters Units Aliphatic Aliphatic Aliphatic Aromatic Aromatic Aromatic Aromatic Aromatic Aromatic
C10-12 C12-16 C16-35 C5-7 C7-8 C8-10 C10-12 C12-16 C16-21

CAS Number - NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Molecular Weight g/mol 160 200 270 78 92 120 130 150 190
Density g/cm3 0.74 0.76 0.79 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.10
Vapor Pressure mmHg 4.9E-01 3.6E-02 5.8E-03 9.9E+01 2.9E+01 4.8E+00 4.8E-01 3.6E-02 5.8E-03
Solubility mg/L 3.40E-02 7.60E-04 1.30E-06 1.80E+03 5.20E+02 6.50E+01 2.50E+01 5.80E+00 5.10E-01
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 1.30E+02 5.40E+02 6.40E+03 2.30E-01 2.70E-01 4.90E-01 1.40E-01 5.40E-02 1.30E-02
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g 2.5E+05 5.0E+06 1.0E+09 7.9E+01 2.5E+02 1.6E+03 2.5E+03 5.0E+03 1.6E+04
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg 5.6E+00 6.8E+00 8.9E+00 2.1E+00 2.5E+00 3.1E+00 3.5E+00 3.9E+00 4.7E+00
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm2/s 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 1.0E-05
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Uptake Factor for Plants - Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - D D D D D D D D D
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
RfD Oral mg/kg-d 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 2.0E+00 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 3.0E-02
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d 2.7E-01 2.7E-01 ND 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 5.5E-02 5.5E-02 5.5E-02 ND
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 1.9E+00 8.2E+00 9.2E+01 1.8E-02 2.9E-02 6.0E-02 8.7E-02 1.4E-01 3.0E-01
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 10 of 11 11-22

 Table 11-1. Chemical Properties Database in RISC

TPH Trichloro Trichloro Trichloro

Vinyl
Chemical Parameters Units Aromatic ethane ethane ethylene Vanadium Xylenes Zinc
Chloride
C21-35 (1,1,1) (1,1,2) (TCE)

CAS Number - NA 71-55-6 79-00-5 79-01-6 7440-62-2 75-01-4 1330-20-7 7440-66-6

Molecular Weight g/mol 240 133.4 133.4 131.4 50.9 62.5 106.2 65.38
3
Density g/cm 1.20 1.35 1.35 1.46 ND 0.91 0.87 ND
Vapor Pressure mmHg 3.3E-06 1.2E+02 2.3E+01 6.9E+01 0.0E+00 3.0E+03 8.8E+00 0.0E+00
Solubility mg/L 6.60E-03 1.33E+03 4.42E+03 1.10E+03 ND 2.76E+03 1.98E+02 ND
Henry's Law Constant (no NDs) - 6.80E-04 7.05E-01 3.74E-02 4.22E-01 0.00E+00 1.11E+00 2.90E-01 0.00E+00
Koc (for organics -- ND for inorganics) ml/g 1.3E+05 1.1E+02 5.0E+01 1.7E+02 ND 1.9E+01 2.4E+02 ND
Kd (partition coefficient for inorganics) ml/g ND ND ND ND 1.0E+03 ND ND 7.5E+01
log Kow -- Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient L/kg 6.1E+00 2.5E+00 2.1E+00 2.7E+00 0.0E+00 1.5E+00 3.3E+00 0.0E+00
2
Diffusion Coeff. in Air cm /s 1.0E-01 7.8E-02 7.8E-02 7.9E-02 ND 1.1E-01 7.2E-02 ND
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s 1.0E-05 8.8E-06 8.8E-06 9.1E-06 ND 1.2E-06 8.5E-06 ND
Degradation Rate -- high end of range 1/day ND 5.0E-03 5.1E-03 2.2E-03 ND 1.2E-02 5.0E-02 ND
Degradation Rate -- low end of range 1/day ND 1.3E-03 9.5E-04 4.0E-04 ND 2.4E-04 1.9E-03 ND
Uptake Factor for Plants - Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow Use Kow 5.50E-03 Use Kow Use Kow 1.50E+00
Toxicity Parameters
EPA Classification - D D C B2 ND A D D
Slope Factor Oral 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND 5.7E-02 1.1E-02 ND 1.5E+00 ND ND
Slope Factor Inhalation 1/(mg/kg-d) ND ND 5.6E-02 6.0E-03 ND 3.1E-02 ND ND
RfD Oral mg/kg-d 1.0E+00 3.5E-02 4.0E-03 6.0E-03 7.0E-03 3.0E-03 2.0E+00 3.0E-01
RfD Inhalation mg/kg-d ND 2.9E-01 4.0E-03 6.0E-03 ND 2.9E-02 2.0E-01 ND
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Soil - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Oral-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Soil - 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.01
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Dermal-Water - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Absorption Adjustment Factor: Inhalation - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Skin Permeability Coefficient cm/hr 1.5E+00 1.7E-02 8.4E-03 2.3E-01 1.0E-03 7.3E-03 8.0E-02 6.0E-04
Maximum Contaminant Levels in Groundwater
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) mg/l ND 2.0E-01 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 ND 2.0E-03 1.0E+01 ND

RISC User's Manual; Version 4.0 Page 11 of 11 11-23

 Chapter
12.0 References

American Industrial Health Council, 1994. Exposure Factors Sourcebook. Available

from Update Coordinator, American Industrial Health Council, Suite 760,
2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006-1807. May 1994.

Anderson, E., N. Browne, S. Duletsky, J. Ramig, and T. Warn. 1985. Development

of Statistical Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure
Assessments. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. Contract Nos. 68-02-3510 and 68-02-3997.
January 1985.

ASTM. 1995. Standard Guide to Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at

Petroleum Release Sites, ASTM E1739-95.

Baes, C.F., Sharp, R.D., Sjoreen, A.L., and Shor, R.W. 1984 A Review and Analysis
of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released
Radionulides Through Agriculture. Oak Ridge National Lab Report ORNL-
5786. September.

Brooks, R.H. and A. T. Corey, 1964. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media,

Hydrology Paper No. 3, Civil Engineering Dept., Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado.

Brown, S.L. and J.E. Rossi. 1989. A Simple Method for Estimating Dermal
Absorption of Chemicals in Water. Chemosphere. Vol. 19, No. 12. Great
Britain.

Calabrese, E.J., et al. 1989. How Much Soil do Young Children Ingest?: An
Epidemiologic Study. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Vol. 10, pp.
123-137.

Carsel, R.F. and R. S. Parish 1988, Developing Joint Probability Distributions of Soil
Water Retention Characteristics, Water Resources Research, 24:755-769.

Domenico, P.A., 1987, "An Analytical Model for Multidimensional Transport of a

Decaying Contaminant Species," Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 91, p 49-58.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

12-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Finley, Brent , and Paustenbach, Dennis, The Benefits of Probabilistic Exposure

Assessment: Three Case Studies Involving Contaminated Air, Water, and
Soil, Risk Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 1: 53-73, February, 1994.

Foster, S.A. and P.C. Chrostowski. 1986. Integrated Household Exposure Model for
Use of Tap Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Chemicals. 79th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis, MN.

Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring.

Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

Green, W.H. and G.A. Ampt. 1911. “Studies in Soil Physics. I. The Flow of Air and
Water through Soils”, Journal of Agricultural Science, 4:1-24.

GSI (Groundwater Services, Inc.). 1995. Tier 2 Guidance Manual for Risk-Based
Corrective Action (and the software), GSI, Houston, TX.

Howard, P.H. 1989. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data For
Organic Chemicals (Volumes 1-3), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.

Howard, P.H., et al. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates, Lewis

Publishers Inc., Chelsea, MI.

Howard, P.H., and W.M. Meylan. 1997. Handbook of Physical Properties of Organic
Chemicals, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Israeli, Miron and Nelson, Christopher B., Distribution and Expected Time of
Residence for U.S. Households, Risk Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 1: 65-72, 1992.

Johnson, P.C., and Ettinger, R.A., 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion
Rate of Contaminant Vapors into Buildings, Environmental Science and
Technology, 25, 1445-1452.

Lyman, W. J., P. J. Reidy, and B. Levy. 1992. Mobility and Degradation of Organic
Contaminants in Subsurface Environments, C. K. Smoley, Inc, Chelsea,
Michigan.

McKone, T.E. 1987. Human Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds in Household

Tap Water: The Indoor Inhalation Pathway. Environmental Science and
Technology. Vol. 21. Page 1194.

Parker and Kemblowski, 1994. VADSAT: A Monte Carlo Model for Assessing the
Effects of Soil Contamination on Groundwater Quality, User and Technical
Guide, Version 2.0, developed for the American Petroleum Institute, Project
GW-23, unpublished.

12-2
 References

Paustenbach, D.J. 1989a. A Methodology for Evaluating the Environmental and

Public Health Risks of Contaminated Soil. In Petroleum Contaminated Soils -
Vol. I. Remediation Techniques, Environmental Fate, Risk Assessment. P.T.
Kostecki and E.J. Calabrese, Ed., Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.

Paustenbach, D.J., editor. 1989b. The Risk Assessment of Environmental and

Human Health Hazards: A Textbook of Case Studies, Chapter 7. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.

RIVM (Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment --

Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu). 1991. Vermeire, T.G., M.E.
Apeldoorn, J.C. de Fouw and P.J.C.M. Janssen, Voorstel tot humaan-
toxicologische onderbouwing van C-(toetsings)waarden, RIVM-report number
725201005.

Roseberry, Ann M. and Burmaster, David E., Lognormal Distributions for Water
Intake by Children and Adults, Risk Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 1: 99-104, 1992.

Ryan, E.A., E.T. Hawkins, B. Magee, and S.L. Santos. 1986. Assessing Risk from
Dermal Exposure at Hazardous Waste Sites. Superfund '87: Proceedings of
the 8th National Conference. pp. 166-168. Hazardous Materials Control
Research Institute. Silver Spring, Maryland.

Smith, Roy L., Use of Monte Carlo Simulation for Human Exposure Assessment at a
Superfund Site, Risk Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 4: 443-439, August, 1994.

Texas Risk Reduction Program. June 2000. Development of Human Health PCLs for
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Mixtures. TNRCC Regulatory Guidance. RG-
366/TRRP-27

Thompson, Kimberly M. and Burmaster, David E., Parametric Distributions for Soil
Ingestion by Children, Risk Analysis: Vol. 11, No. 2: 339-342, 1991.

TPHCWG (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group). 1997. A Risk-

Based Approach for the Management of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in
Soil.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage

and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) – Air Emission Models. EPA/450/3-87/026.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Superfund Exposure Assessment

Manual. EPA/640/1-88/001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for

Superfund. Vol. I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/540/1-89/002.

12-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office

of Health and Environmental Assessment, EPA/600/8-89/043.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Basics of Pump-and-Treat Ground-

Water Remediation Technology. Office of Research and Development, EPA-
600/8-90/003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992a. Dermal Exposure Assessment:

Principles and Applications. Interim Report. Office of Research and
Development, EPA/600/8-91/011B.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992b. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:

Calculating the Concentration Term. Intermittent Bulletin. Volume 1,
Number 1, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, PB 92-963373.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Health Effects Assessment Summary

Tables (HEAST): Annual Update, FY 1994. Environmental Criteria
Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1996. Soil Screening Guidance:

Technical Background Document, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, EPA/540/R-95/128.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office

of Health and Environmental Assessment, Vol. I PB98-124225, Vol. II PB98-
124233, Vol. III PB98-124241, The Set PB98-124217. Web page:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/exposfac.htm

Verschueren, K. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals.

Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.

Vorhees, Donna, Weisman, Wade and Gustafson, John. June 1999. Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series, Volume 5: Human Health Risk-
Based Evaluation of Petroleum Release Sites: Implementing the Working
Group Approach. Available on the web site:
www.aehs.com/publications/catalog/contents/Volume5.pdf

12-4
 References

USEFUL WEB PAGES

U.S. EPA Risk Based Decision Management home page:

http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/rbdm/rbdmlnks.htm

U.S. EPA New Exposure Factors Handbook:

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/exposfac.htm

U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS):

http://www.epa.gov/iris/

U.S. EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) [source of default values
for slope factors, reference doses, and dermal absorption adjustment factors]:
http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/intro.htm

Association for the Environmental Health of Soils:

http://www.aehs.com

TPH Criteria Working Group document on calculating site-specific TPH risk-based

screening levels:
www.aehs.com/publications/catalog/contents/Volume5.pdf

Texas Risk Reduction Rules

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rules/indxpdf5.html

Guidance documents for calculating clean-up levels for TPH mixtures search
from (document number #366 or RG-366/TRRP-27):
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/trrp.htm

12-5
 APPENDICES
Table of Contents

A. VADOSE ZONE MODEL

A.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

A.2 APPLICATIONS OF THIS MODEL
A.3 FATE AND TRANSPORT PROCESSES
A.3.1 Initial and Boundary Conditions

A.4 SOURCE TERM

A.4.1 Aqueous Losses
A.4.2 Volatilization Losses (Incorporating Lens)
A.4.3 Effective Diffusion Coefficients
A.4.4 Overall Source Depletion Rate
A.4.5 Calculating Whether or Not Residual Phase Hydrocarbon is Present
A.4.6 Source -- When Residual Phase Hydrocarbon is Present
A.4.7 Source -- When Residual Phase Hydrocarbon is Not Present

A.5 LEACHING AND PERCOLATION RATE

A.5.1 Unit Gradient Approach
A.5.2 Estimating the Unsaturated Zone Hydraulic Conductivity
A.5.3 Estimating Moisture Content and Seepage Velocity

A.6 UNSATURATED ZONE TRANSPORT

A.6.1 Mass Loading To Groundwater
A.6.2 Retardation
A.6.3 Degradation
A.6.4 Dispersion

A.7 DATA REQUIREMENTS

A.8 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE VADOSE ZONE MODEL
A.9 REFERENCES

B. DISSOLVED-PHASE TRANSPORT MODEL

B.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

B.2 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES

i
RISC Manual Version 4.0

B.2.1 Initial and Boundary Conditions

B.2.2 Retardation Coefficient
B.2.3 Dispersion Coefficients

B.3 ESTIMATING THE CONCENTRATION IN THE WELL

B.4 SOURCE TERM
B.4.1 Using the Groundwater Model With a Source Containing Non-Mobile
Residual Hydrocarbons
B.4.2 Using the Model Without Concentration Data in the Source
B.4.3 Using the Model With Measured Concentration Data

B.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS

B.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DISSOLVED PHASE
TRANSPORT MODEL
B.7 REFERENCES

C. SATURATED SOIL MODEL

C.1 MODEL DESCRIPTON

C.2 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES
C.3 SOURCE MODEL
C.4 DATA REQUIREMENTS
C.5 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SATURATED SOIL MODEL
C.6 REFERENCES

D. VAPOR TRANSPORT FROM SOIL INTO BUILDINGS WITHOUT

BIODEGRADATION

D.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

D.2 APPLICATIONS OF THIS MODEL
D.3 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES
D.4 SOURCE TERM
D.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOIL VAPOR MODEL
D.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE SOIL VAPOR MODEL
D.7 REFERENCES

ii
 Table of Contents - Appendices

E. VAPOR TRANSPORT FROM GROUNDWATER INTO BUILDINGS

E.1 MODEL DESCRIPTON

E.2 APPLICATIONS OF THIS MODEL
E.3 TRANSPORT EQUATION AND PROCESSES
E.4 SOURCE TERM
E.4.1 Effective Diffusion Coefficient
E.4.2 Moisture Content
E.4.3 Concentration in the Building

E.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS

E.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF GROUNDWATER VAPOR
MODEL
E.7 REFERENCES

F. OUTDOOR AIR MODEL

F.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

F.2 APPLICATIONS OF THIS MODEL
F.3 TRANSPORT EQUATION AND PROCESSES
F.3.1 Dimensions of Box

F.4 DATA REQUIREMENTS

F.5 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE OUTDOOR AIR MODEL

G. VOLATILIZATION IN THE SHOWER/VOLATILIZATION FROM

SPRINKLERS

G.1 MODEL OVERVIEW

G.2 SHOWER MODEL DESCRIPTION
G.3 SPRINKLER VOLATILIZATION MODEL DESCRIPTION
G.4 REFERENCES

H. TIER 1 LOOK-UP TABLE

H.1 TIER 1 SPREADSHEET DESCRIPTION

H.2 GREEN-AMPT MODEL

iii
RISC Manual Version 4.0

H.3 DOMENICO GROUNDWATER MODEL

H.4 REFERENCES

I. RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF MONTE CARLO DISTRIBUTIONS

I.1 BODY WEIGHT

I.2 EXPOSURE DURATION
I.3 EXPOSURE FREQUENCY
I.3.1 Soil
I.3.2 Indoor Air, Outdoor Air and Drinking Water
I.3.3 Swimming Frequency per Year
I.3.4 Swimming Frequency per Day

I.4 TOTAL SKIN SURFACE AREA (SHOWERING/SWIMMING)

I.4.1 Fraction Skin Exposed (Soil Contact/Wading)
I.4.2 Soil-on-Skin Adherence

I.5 INGESTION RATE

I.5.1 Soil
I.5.2 Drinking water
I.5.3 Water While Swimming

I.6 ACTIVITY TIME

I.6.1 Time Spent Outdoors
I.6.2 Time Spent Indoors

I.7 INHALATION RATE

I.7.1 While Showering
I.7.2 While Indoors and Outdoors

I.8 SHOWER PARAMETERS

I.8.1 Flow Rate
I.8.2 Water Temperature
I.8.3 Shower Volume
I.8.4 Exposure Time While Showering

I.9 REFERENCES

J. VAPOR TRANSPORT MODEL CONSIDERING DEGRADATION—

DOMINANT LAYER MODEL

J.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

J.2 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES
J.2.1 Using the Dominant Layer Model for Indoor Air

iv
 Table of Contents - Appendices

J.2.2 Using the Dominant Layer Model for Outdoor Air

J.3 SOURCE TERM

J.4 EXAMPLE USING ACTUAL SITE DATA
J.4.1 Evaluate Field Data
J.4.2 Estimate Model Parameters
J.4.3 Estimate Minimum Degradation Rate

J.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS OF THE DOMINANT LAYER VAPOR MODEL

J.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE DOMINANT LAYER VAPOR MODEL
J.7 REFERENCES

K. VAPOR TRANSPORT MODEL CONSIDERING DEGRADATION—

OXYGEN-LIMITED MODEL

K.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

K.1.1 Comparison With Other Vapor Models
K.1.2 Applicability of the Model/Soil Gas Profile Types
K.2 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES
K.2.1 Using the Oxygen-Limited Model for Indoor Air
K.2.2 Using the Oxygen-Limited Model for Outdoor Air

K.3 SOURCE TERM

K.4 DATA REQUIREMENTS OF THE OXYGEN-LIMITED VAPOR MODEL
K.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE OXYGEN-LIMITED VAPOR MODEL
K.6 REFERENCES

L. SURFACE WATER MIXING AND SEDIMENT PARTITIONING MODELS

L.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

L.2 APPLICATIONS OF THIS MODEL
L.3 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES
L.3.1 Surface Water Mixing Model
L.3.2 Sediment Partitioning Model

L.4 EXAMPLES
L.4.1 River Example
L.4.2 Lake Example
L.4.3 Adjusting the Mixing Volume for Large Surface Water Bodies
L.4.4 Calculation of Groundwater Inflow Rate

v
RISC Manual Version 4.0

L.4.5 Calculation of Length of Reach

L.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS

L.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENT MIXING MODELS
L.7 REFERENCES

M. SUMMARY OF NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL STATUS GUIDELINES

FOR THE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE

M.1 UNITED STATES - NATIONAL AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

M.2 CANADA – WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES
M.3 EUROPE - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS
M.4 UNITED KINGDOM - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS
M.5 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND - WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES
M.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

N. SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA

N.1 REVIEW OF SEDIMENT CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF

AQUATIC ECOLOGY
N.2 NOAA (1995)
N.3 NOAA (1998)
N.4 FDEP (1994)
N.5 US EPA ARCS (1996)
N.6 US EPA OSWER (1996)
N.7 US EPA REGION IV (1995)
N.8 WASHINGTON STATE (1995)
N.9 ORNL (1997)
N.10 OMEE (1993)
N.11 RIZA (1989)
N.12 ENVIRONMENT CANADA (1995)
N.13 CONCLUSIONS
N.14 REFERENCES

vi
 Table of Contents - Appendices

O. VEGETABLE UPTAKE

O.1 CONCENTRATION IN VEGETABLES

O.2 VEGETABLES UPTAKE MODELS
O.2.1 Travis and Arms Empirical Model
O.2.2 Briggs Empirical Model
O.2.3 Uptake Factors for Inorganic Compounds

O.3 COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES VERSUS OBSERVATIONS

O.4 PRODUCE INGESTION RATES
O.5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
O.6 SUMMARY OF APPROACH
O.6.1 Chemicals With Bv Values Entered In The Chemical Database
O.6.2 Organic Chemicals

O.7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
O.8 REFERENCES

P. IRRIGATION WATER MODEL

P.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

P.2 INGESTION OF IRRIGATION WATER
P.3 DERMAL CONTACT WITH IRRIGATION WATER
P.4 INHALATION OF SPRINKLER SPRAY
P.5 VEGETABLES IRRIGATED IN CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
P.6 REFERENCES

Q. CALCULATING CLEAN-UP LEVELS FOR TPH MIXTURES

Q.1 SOIL SOURCES IN RISC WHERE THE TPH SSTLS CAN BE

CALCULATED
Q.2 APPROACH USED TO CALCULATE TPH SSTLS
Q.3 EXAMPLE PROBLEM
Q.4 REFERENCES

R. RISC PEER REVIEW

vii
RISC Manual Version 4.0

LIST OF TABLES
Table A-1. Data Requirements for the Vadose Zone Model

Table B-1. Data Requirements for the Saturated Zone Model

Table C-1. Data Requirements for the Saturated Soil Model

Table C-1. Data Requirements for the Saturated Soil Model

Table D-1. Data Requirements for the Soil Vapor Model for Indoor Air

Table E-1. Data Requirements for the Groundwater Vapor Model.

Table F-1. Data Requirements for the Outdoor Air Model.

Table G-2. Data Requirements for the Irrigation Volatilization Model.

Table H-1. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) –
Carcinogenic Effects
Table H-2. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) –
Non-Carcinogenic Effects
Table H-3. Exposure Parameter Variables Used in Tables H-1 and H-2.
Table H-4. Volatilization Factors, Leaching Factor, and Effective Diffusion Coefficients
Table H-5. Soil, Building, Surface, and Subsurface Parameters Used in Table H-4.
Table H-6. Green-Ampt Equations Used to Calculate Attenuation Coefficients in the Vadose
Zone (for SSTLs)
Table H-7. Unique Input Parameters Required for the Green-Ampt Model
Table H-8. Domenico Groundwater Model Equations Used to Calculate Attenuation
Coefficients in Groundwater (for SSTLs)
Table H-9. Parameters Used in Table H-8, Groundwater Attenuation Factor.

Table J-1. Data Used For Example Problem (from BP, 1997)
Table J-2. Estimated Total Porosity for the Example Problem
Table J-3. Data Requirements for the Dominant Layer Vapor Model

Table K-1. Transport Processes Modeled by the Vapor Models in RISC.

Table K-1. Data Requirements for the Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model.
Table K-1. Data Requirements for the Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model (concluded).
Table L-1. Data Requirements for the Surface Water Mixing and Sediment Partitioning
Model
Table M-1. Surface Water Quality Criteria Database in RISC
Table N-1. Sediment Quality Criteria Database in RISC
Table O-1. Vegetable Ingestion Rates

Table Q-1. TPH Fraction Concentrations Used in the Example Problem

viii
 Table of Contents - Appendices

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A-1. Schematic of the Vadose Zone Model.

Figure B-1. Saturated Zone Model with Source in Groundwater

Figure B-2. Vertically Averaging the Concentration Over the Length of the Well Screen
(showing 3 averaging points)
Figure B-3. Schematic of Groundwater Model With a Residual Source

Figure C-1. Saturated Soil Model with Source in and above the Water Table

Figure D-1. Schematic of the Vapor Transport Model (from Soil into Buildings).

Figure E-1. Schematic of the Vapor Transport Model from Groundwater into Buildings.
Figure E-2. Vapor Transport from Groundwater Using a Saturated Zone Fate and Transport
Model to Estimate Source Concentrations
Figure E-3. Vapor Transport from Groundwater Using a Linked Vadose Zone and Dissolved
Phase Transport Model

Figure F-1. Schematic of the Outdoor Air Model.

Figure H-1. Main Menu of the Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Figure H-2. "Inputs" Sheet Showing Worksheet Tabs

Figure J-1. Schematic of the Dominant Layer Vapor Transport Model.

Figure J-2. Data Used for the Example Problem, from BP (1997).
Figure J-3. Layers for the Dominant Layer Model.
Figure J-4. Model Results Using the Reported Diffusion Coefficients, the "Base Case"
Figure J-5. Model Results for the "Dry Case" in Bottom Layer
Figure J-6. Model Results Using a Dry Bottom Layer and a Wet Middle Layer
Figure J-7. Model Results With A Degradation Rate of 0.007/d

Figure K-1. Schematic of the Oxygen-Limited Vapor Transport Model.

Figure K-4. Four Generalized Soil Gas Profiles

Figure L-1. Surface Water Mixing Model Geometry.

Figure L-2. Cross-Sectional Model Geometry.
Figure L-3. Calculating the Length of the Reach
Figure L-4. Calculating the Mass Loading Function

Figure O-1. Wild and Jones (1983) Carrot Core Data For Three Different PAH
Concentrations and Wang and Meresz Peeled Root Vegetable Data as a
Function of Kow
Figure O-2. Comparison of Above Ground Uptake Factors, Bva

ix
Appendix
Vadose
A Zone Model

A.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

The Vadose Zone model in RISC simulates contaminant transport through unsaturated
soil. The transport equations are solved using the analytical solutions of the one-
dimensional advective-dispersive solute transport equation (van Genuchten and Alves,
1982). The model considers the following fate and transport processes: (i) a well-
mixed finite-mass source zone, (ii) pseudo steady-state volatilization and diffusive
vapor transport from the source to ground surface, (iii) leaching from the source zone,
(iv) advective dissolved-phase transport, (v) dissolved-phase dispersion, (vi)
adsorption, and vii) first-order decay in the leachate.

This model is similar to the vadose zone model presented by Unlü et al. (1992) with
the exception of several significant differences that are discussed. The most
significant change is that the Vadose Zone transport model in RISC allows for the
presence of a second soil layer located between the source zone and the ground
surface; this layer may have soil properties different from the rest of the vadose zone
which can dramatically affect vapor emissions to the surface.

The purpose of the Vadose Zone model is to predict (1) loading to groundwater and
(2) volatilization losses. The groundwater loading term may be used as a source input
to the saturated zone model (Appendix B). The volatilization losses may be used as a
source for the box air model to calculate concentrations in outdoor air (Appendix F).
Figure A-1 shows the processes simulated by the Vadose Zone model.

A-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Well

Volatilization

Vadose
Source Zone

Leaching Exposure
Point

Saturated
Zone

FIGURE A-1. Schematic of the Vadose Zone Model.

This appendix describes the equations used to predict volatile losses from a vadose
zone source, leaching/mass loading rates from the source to groundwater and
concentration distributions in the vadose zone. Appendix B describes the model used
for the saturated zone (including groundwater transport).

A.2 APPLICATIONS OF THIS MODEL

This is a partial list of the main applications and limitations of the model:

• This model estimates the mass loading to groundwater from a vadose zone
source. The model accounts for source depletion due to volatilization and
leaching. The volatilization flux is only used to estimate losses from the
source; it is not linked with an indoor or outdoor air model.
• This model does not simulate the movement of NAPL (free phase product). It
is a dissolved phase-only model. Volatilization losses from the source are
accounted for, however, the vapor phase concentrations with depth are not
estimated. The volatile losses are assumed to be instantaneous and
irreversible.

A-2
 Vadose Zone Model

• Degradation is considered in the dissolved phase for the region between the
source and the water table.
• The vadose zone model is automatically linked with the dissolved phase model
in RISC so that concentrations in groundwater may be estimated.
• The model accounts for the presence of NAPL by limiting the dissolved phase
concentration in the source region to the chemicals' effective solubility limit.
This is important for two reasons:
1. Otherwise the leachate and groundwater concentrations may be greatly
over-estimated.
2. Limiting the leachate concentrations to effective solubility limits may
cause the source to deplete at a slower rate, thereby increasing the
length of time for loading to groundwater. Depending on the problem
being simulated, this approach may be more conservative than ignoring
solubility limitations because it increases the exposure duration and
hence the estimate of long-term cancer risk.

• The source is assumed to be located in the vadose zone. The region in the
vadose zone below the source and the groundwater aquifer itself is assumed to
be "clean" at the start of the simulation. This means that the vertical extent of
the contamination in the vadose zone must be known. If the groundwater is
already contaminated there are several ways to model the situation. Here are
two ideas:
1. Assume that the start of the simulation coincides with the date that the
spill occurred ("back it up in time"). Run the model through the
present day using the current site information to calibrate the model
(e.g. make the model predict the current distribution of contaminants in
the soil and groundwater).
2. Skip the vadose zone portion and model the site with one of the
groundwater models. If there is still a large amount of contamination
in the vadose zone but the system appears to be at steady-state (i.e. the
groundwater concentrations are not increasing with time) then use the
dissolved phase model with a constant source.

• It is important to choose the source concentration and size of the source

carefully. The best approach is to estimate (roughly) the amount of mass
thought to be in the vadose zone. The average concentration multiplied by the
source size should not exceed the estimated mass. This seems obvious,
however, it is very easy to use an unreasonably large source mass especially if
maximum concentrations and the maximum extent of detection are used
simultaneously.

A-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

• The size of the source in the vadose zone is "mapped" onto the water table and
becomes the footprint of the groundwater source size. If the receptor well is
close to the source region, it may be more conservative to use a smaller source
size and a larger source concentration than to average the concentrations
across a large source region. More concentrated (but smaller) sources in the
groundwater yield higher concentrations along the centerline of the plume
when the receptor point is close to the source region.

A.3 FATE AND TRANSPORT PROCESSES

RISC’s vadose zone transport model uses a “compartmental” approach; in other

words, different models are used to describe the source zone, the vadose zone above
the source, and the vadose zone between the source and groundwater.

The source zone is described as being a well-mixed finite source that depletes with
time, while the vadose zone above the source is treated as being one-dimensional and
at pseudo-steady state.

Beneath the source zone, solute transport of leachate occurs via advection and
dispersion, and mass loss may occur through a first-order degradation reaction. The
one-dimensional transport equation (including adsorption) in this zone is given by:

∂C w ∂ 2Cw ∂C
R = Dx − v w − µCw (A-1)
∂t ∂x 2
∂x

where
Cw = dissolved phase concentration of chemical [mg/L]
Dx = dispersion coefficient in the unsaturated zone [cm2/d]
v = seepage velocity (or interstitial velocity) [cm/d]
µ = first-order decay coefficient for chemical [1/d]
x = distance below the source (measured positively
downward) [cm]
t = time [d]

A-4
 Vadose Zone Model

R = retardation factor (defined in Equation A-31) [-]

The x-axis is assumed to be aligned with the direction of fluid flow; in the vadose
zone that direction is vertically downward. The model considers dispersion in the
downward direction only (longitudinal dispersion). The advection-dispersion
equation is used to solve for aqueous-phase concentration with depth below the
source. This concentration at the water table will be used with the infiltration rate to
estimate mass loading to groundwater.

A note on nomenclature: In this appendix the variable, C (Cw, Cv, or CT), will always
refer to the concentration of the individual chemical being modeled (not the TPH
mixture). If the concentration of TPH is being referenced, the variable CTPH will be
used. The same applies to all chemical properties. For example, Deff refers to the
chemical-specific diffusion coefficient, MW refers to the chemical-specific molecular
weight, and MWTPH refers to the molecular weight of the TPH mixture.

A.3.1 Initial and Boundary Conditions

Below the source it is assumed that concentrations are zero at time = 0:

Cw (x, 0) = 0 (A-2)

The leachate concentration leaving the source zone is assumed to decay exponentially
with time

C w (0, t ) = C w 0 e − βt (A-3)

where
Cwo = dissolved phase concentration of chemical in the source
at the beginning of the simulation [mg/L]
β, = source depletion term [-]

A-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

The source depletion term, β, is described in equations A-19 and A-23. At a "long
distance" below the source the concentration gradient is always zero.

∂C w
(∞, t ) = 0
∂x (A-4)

The solution for the advection-dispersion equation (A-1) with the above boundary
conditions is given by van Genuchten and Alves (1982)

C w ( x , t ) = C 0 e − βt B ( x , t ) (A-5)

where

1  (v − w) x   Rx − wt  1  (v + w) x   Rx + wt 
B ( x, t ) = exp   erfc   + exp   erfc  
2  2 Dx   2 D x Rt  2  2Dx   2 D x Rt 

(A-6)

and

w = v 1+
4 Dx
[µ − Rβ ] (A-7)
v2

where
Cw(x,t) = dissolved phase concentration of chemical at distance x
(in cm) below the source and time (in days) [mg/L]
β = source zone depletion coefficient (loss term) defined in
equations A-19 and A-23 [-]

In order to solve the above set of equations, the first-order source decay rate must be
determined.

A-6
 Vadose Zone Model

A.4 SOURCE TERM

Depletion of the source is assumed to occur due to volatilization and leaching losses.
Note that the source is not assumed to undergo microbial decay, or biodegradation, on
the assumption that high soil concentrations are toxic to the microorganisms. In terms
of a molar balance this can be written as

dm J J
=− w − v (A-8)
dt MW MW

where
m = number of moles of chemical per unit area in the
hydrocarbon source [moles/cm2]
MW = molecular weight of chemical [g/mol]
Jw = rate of mass depletion per area due to percolating water
[g/cm2/d]
Jv = rate of mass depletion per area due to volatilization
[g/cm2/d]
t = time [d]

A.4.1 Aqueous Losses

The leaching loss is assumed to be purely advective (due to water percolating through
the source)

 L   g 
J w = qC ws  ⋅
3  
 (A-9)
 1000cm   1000mg 

where
Jw = rate of mass depletion per area due to percolating water
[g/cm2/d]
q = net recharge or infiltration rate [cm/d]
Cws = dissolved phase concentration in the source [mg/L]

A-7
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

In the RISC model, the dissolved phase concentration, Cws, is checked for solubility
limitations and therefore is calculated differently depending on whether or not residual
phase hydrocarbon (NAPL) is present (see Sections A.4.5 through A.4.7). (Unlü et
al., 1992, assumes that the source always contains immiscible phase hydrocarbons.)

A.4.2 Volatilization Losses (Incorporating Lens)

The diffusive vapor loss is estimated using Fick's Law, assuming a linear
concentration drop from the source area to the soil surface. Source zone
volatilization losses are calculated using a pseudo-steady state vapor flux model based
on Fick’s Law. In this approach, the steady-state solution for vapor transport is
coupled with a source zone concentration that is changing with time. It is assumed
that vapor transport reaches steady conditions much faster than the rate at which the
source zone concentration changes with time. It is also assumed that vapor
concentrations at ground surface are much less than those at the source zone. The
mass depletion rate of the source due to volatilization (the volatile losses) is calculated
from:

C vs  86400 s 
J v = Deff   (A-10)
Ld  d 

where
Jv = rate of mass depletion per area due to volatilization
[g/cm2/d]
Deff = effective diffusion coefficient in soil [cm2/s]
Cvs = vapor-phase concentration of chemical in the source area
[g chemical/cm3 vapor]
Ld = diffusion path length [cm]

Equation A-10 is Fick's Law applied to the concentration gradient from the source to
the ground surface. The concentration of chemical in vapor at the soil surface is
assumed to be equal to zero (or very small compared to the source vapor phase
concentration). The diffusion path length is assumed to be equal to the distance from
the soil surface to the center of the source.

A-8
 Vadose Zone Model

The vapor concentration in the source zone is calculated from Henry's Law:

 L  g 
C vs = K H C ws  
3 
 (A-11)
 1000cm  1000mg 

where
KH = Henry’s Law Constant for chemical [(mg/l vapor)/(mg/l
water)]

A.4.3 Effective Diffusion Coefficients

The effective diffusion coefficient in vadose zone soil and the lens soil is estimated
using the Millington-Quirk relationships:

 θ a 10 / 3  1  θ W v
10 / 3

Deff v = Dair  v  + D  (A-12a)
 θT 2  water
K 
H  θ
2 
 v  Tv 

 θ 10 / 3  1  θ W lens
10 / 3

Deff lens = Dair  a lens 2  + Dwater  (A-12b)
 θ  K  θ 2 
 T lens  H  T lens 

where
Deff v = effective diffusion coefficient for the vadose zone above
the source (not including the lens) [cm2/s]
Deff lens = effective diffusion coefficient for the lens [cm2/s]
Dair = molecular diffusion coefficient for chemical in air
[cm2/s]
Dwater = molecular diffusion coefficient for chemical in water
[cm2/s]
θ av = air-filled porosity in the vadose zone [cm3 air/cm3 soil]

θ wv = water-filled porosity in the vadose zone [cm3 water/cm3

soil]
θT v = total porosity in the vadose zone [cm3 pores/cm3 soil]
θ a lens = air-filled porosity in the lens [cm3 air/cm3 soil]

A-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

θ w lens = water-filled porosity in the lens [cm3 water/cm3 soil]

θ T lens = total porosity in the lens [cm3 pores/cm3 soil]
KH = Henry’s Law Constant for chemical [(mg/l vapor)/(mg/l
water)]

Note, the above porosity terms used by the diffusion equations should be total porosity
rather than effective porosity. The total effective diffusion coefficient for the vadose
zone and lens combined is estimated as the depth-weighted average (Johnson and
Ettinger, 1995):

(hv + hlens )
Deff = (A-13)
hlens h
+ v
Deff lens Deff v

where
Deff = depth-weighted average effective diffusion coefficient
for the vadose zone in between the source and the soil
surface [cm2/s]
hv = thickness of the vadose zone above the source (minus the
lens thickness) [cm]
hlens = thickness of the lens [cm]

As a consequence of the modeling assumptions, one can actually account for more
than one lens above the source zone, as long as each lens has the same material
properties (total porosity, moisture content, etc.). If this is the case, then the user
simply sets hlens equal to the combined thickness of all the lenses and hv is the
remaining thickness of the vadose zone.

A.4.4 Overall Source Depletion Rate

Combining equations A-8 through A-11 yields:

dm − K H Deff 
= − βm = − v θ w + C w (A-14)
dt  Ld 

A-10
 Vadose Zone Model

where β is a loss term accounting for both dissolution and volatile losses. The loss
term is calculated differently depending on whether or not residual phase is present.

A.4.5 Calculating Whether or Not Residual Phase Hydrocarbon is

Present

To determine if residual phase hydrocarbon is present, the following condition for

multiple chemicals must be met:

N CTi ρ b
1> ∑ S (ρ K ) (A-15)
i =1 i b oci Foc + θ w + θ a K H i

where
N = total number of chemicals in mixture
CT i = total concentration of chemical i in soil [mg/kg]
Si = liquid phase solubility for chemical i [mg/l or kg/m3]
ρb = soil bulk density of the source area [g/cm3]
Foc = fraction organic carbon in soil [g oc/g soil]
Koc i = organic carbon partition coefficient for chemical i [ml/g]
KH i = Henry’s Law Constant for chemical i [(mg/l vapor)/(mg/l
water)]

This partitioning equation assumes that the total soil concentration for each chemical,
CT i, can be accounted for by summing the mass in the solid, liquid, and vapor phases
(i.e. no residual is present). However, equation A-15 requires that all of the
chemicals in the mixture are accounted for in the sum. In risk assessments, more
often the number of chemicals of concern (and characterized with respect to their
concentration) is a small subset of the total number of chemicals present in the
mixture. The vadose zone model checks the following equation for each chemical
used in the model

CT ρ b
Cw = (A-16)
ρ b K oc Foc + θ w + θ a K H

A-11
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Again, it is assumed that CT can be accounted for by summing the mass in the solid,
liquid, and vapor phases (i.e. no residual is present). If the liquid phase concentration,
CW, calculated with equation A-15a exceeds the effective solubility of the compound,
then it is assumed that residual phase is present (and equation A-15a does not apply).

A.4.6 Source -- When Residual Phase Hydrocarbon is Present

If there is residual phase hydrocarbon present in the source, the aqueous

concentration, Cw, will be calculated from

C w = xS (A-17)

where
S = aqueous solubility of pure component [mg/l or kg/m3]
x = mole fraction of component in the hydrocarbon mixture
[mol/mol]

The mole fraction is calculated from

m
x= (A-18)
mTPH

Fi MWTPH
x= (A-19)
MWi FTPH

where
ρ b Lw Fi
m = total moles of component [mol] ( A)
MWi
ρ b Lw FTPH
mTPH = total moles of hydrocarbon mixture [mol] ( A)
MWTPH
Lw = thickness of the source area [cm]
A = area (plan view) of the source [cm2]
MWTPH = average molecular weight of hydrocarbon [g/mol]
MWi = average molecular weight of component i [g/mol]

A-12
 Vadose Zone Model

FTPH = mass fraction (concentration) of hydrocarbon mixture in

the soil source [TPH concentration) [g/g]
Fi = mass fraction (concentration) of component i in the soil
source [component concentration) [g/g]

As long as there is immiscible phase present, the aqueous phase concentration is given
by Equation A-16. Once immiscible phase has been depleted, then the remaining
amount of each compound is depleted from the source according with the decay rate
given in Equation A-22. In the RISC model, however, it is assumed that if immiscible
phase is present initially, then it is present for all time, Thus the approximation
developed below is for the case of a more soluble compound leaching from a less
soluble mixture, (e.g., benzene from a petroleum fuel mixture).

The source zone depletion coefficient (loss term), β, for the residual case is given by

qMWTPH S Deff K H MWTPH S

β = + = βw + βv (A-20)
ρ b Lw FTPH MW ρ b Ld Lw FTPH MW

The source zone depletion coefficient is the sum of the leachate losses (βw) and the
vapor losses (βv). If it is assumed that FTPH is constant (this assumption is only
approximate since the source does deplete slowly over time) equation A-8 may be
solved analytically to obtain

m = m0 exp(− βt ) (A-21)

where
m0 = initial moles of chemical per area [mol/cm2]

The aqueous concentration decreases similarly

C w = C w 0 exp(− βt ) (A-22)

where
Cw0 = initial aqueous concentration of species defined in
equation A-16 [mg/l]

A-13
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Unlü et al. (1992) assumes there is always residual phase hydrocarbon present and
uses equation A-19 to estimate losses from the source. This approach is realistic for
the types of waste zones that Unlü et al. equations were developed for -- waste sludge
pits with high levels of hydrocarbons. However, RISC also allows the user to
estimate the behavior of sources for which immiscible phase is not initially present
(e.g., equation A-15a is satisfied).

A.4.7 Source -- When Residual Phase Hydrocarbon is Not Present

When an immiscible phase is not present it is assumed that the concentrations of the
chemical in each phase are in equilibrium. The equilibrium partitioning equation is:

CT ρ b
C ws = (A-23)
(ρ b K oc Foc + θ w + θ a K H )

which when inserted into Equation A-14 yields:

q Deff K H
β= + = β w + βv (A-24)
( ρ b K oc Foc + θ w + θ a K H ) Lw ( ρ b K oc Foc + θ w + θ a K H ) Ld Lw

where all the variables are as defined previously.

A.5 LEACHING AND PERCOLATION RATE

Following Unlü et al. (1992), the RISC Vadose Zone model uses a unit hydraulic
gradient approximation, estimating the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity with the
Brooks and Corey (1964) model. The unit gradient approach assumes that the
pressure (suction) head in the soil profile is constant, as is the moisture content. This
is a major simplification of the real processes that control flow in the unsaturated
zone. However, the goal in modeling the concentration is to estimate average
conditions over long time periods (for purposes of risk assessment: 7 to 30 years). For

A-14
 Vadose Zone Model

this objective, the unit gradient approach has been shown to work reasonably well
(Unlü et al., 1992).

A.5.1 Unit Gradient Approach

For more information on this subject the reader is referred to the two papers
mentioned above as well as Carsel and Parrish (1988). Briefly, Darcy's equation for
the unit gradient case may be written as:

q = k r K su (A-25)

where
q = infiltration rate or net recharge rate [cm/d]
kr = relative permeability [unitless]
Ksu = hydraulic conductivity of the unsaturated zone if it were
fully saturated [cm/d]

When using RISC, the user is asked to input the infiltration rate, q, and the
unsaturated zone's hydraulic conductivity (Ksu). This term, Ksu, is the hydraulic
conductivity of the unsaturated zone if it were assumed to be fully saturated, i.e. no
air-filled porosity. In many applications of RISC, Ksu is assumed equal to the
hydraulic conductivity of the soil below the water table. If the value entered for the
infiltration rate exceeds Ksu, then q is set to Ksu assuming that the excess flow will be
diverted as runoff.

Having values for q and Ksu, Equation A-25 is used to solve for the relative
permeability, kr:

K su
kr = (A-26)
q

where the terms are as defined for Equation A-24.

A-15
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

A.5.2 Estimating the Unsaturated Zone Hydraulic Conductivity

In the unsaturated zone, the hydraulic conductivity varies as a function of the moisture
content. It is assumed that this relationship can be described by the Brooks and Corey
(1964) model

γ
θ − θ r 
kr =  w  (A-27)
θ T − θ r 

where
θT = total porosity in unsaturated zone [-]
θw = volumetric water content or water-filled porosity [cm3
water/cm3 soil]
θr = irreducible water content [cm3 water/cm3 soil]
γ = pore size distribution parameter [-]

The pore size distribution parameter is estimated from the van Genuchten "n"
parameter using the following relationship (Lenhard et al., 1989)

2
γ = 3+ n
(A-28)
( n −1)
(n − 1)(1 − 0.5 )

The model requires the user to enter n. Carsel and Parrish (1988) have a large
database of van Genuchten's "n" for various soil types. This database is also available
in the RISC software.

A.5.3 Estimating Moisture Content and Seepage Velocity

The water-filled porosity, θw, is calculated using Equation A-27 since values of all the
other terms are either specified or previously derived. The calculated water-filled
porosity is then used to estimate the seepage velocity, v :

A-16
 Vadose Zone Model

q
v= (A-29)
θw

where
v = seepage velocity (actual water flowrate through vadose
zone) [cm/d]
q = infiltration rate (recharge rate to groundwater) [cm/d]
θw = volumetric water content or water-filled porosity [cm3
water/cm3 soil]

The seepage velocity, v , is the average rate of flow that the model uses for the water
percolating through the vadose zone.

The water content for the lens may differ from the vadose zone and is also calculated
from the same equations as presented above using the lens properties. The values of
the estimated moisture contents are presented in the RISC model output. The
moisture content is not calculated by the volatilization models (Appendices D, E, J
and K) since it is assumed that for soils under a house or building, the infiltration rate
is close to zero. In these models the user is requested to specify the average moisture
content in the vadose zone. If the vadose zone is subject to infiltration, the above
algorithm may be run using the vadose zone model to estimate likely ranges of
moisture content. The moisture content can then be entered in the air models.

A.6 UNSATURATED ZONE TRANSPORT

Equations A-5 through A-7 are used to calculate the dissolved phase concentrations in
the unsaturated zone from the bottom of the source zone to the groundwater aquifer.

A.6.1 Mass Loading To Groundwater

The mass flux of contaminant at the water table is calculated using Equation A-5
solved at the water table multiplied by the infiltration rate:

A-17
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

 L 
Q( Lu , t ) = q C ( Lu , t ) ⋅  2 
(A-30)
 1000cm 

where
Q(Lu,t) = mass flux at the water table as a function of time
[g/cm2/d]
C(Lu,t) = dissolved phase concentration of contaminant at the
water table as a function of time [mg/L]
Lu = the distance from the source to the water table [cm]
q = net infiltration rate [cm/d]

The mass flux, Q, is used as the time-varying source for the saturated zone model
described in Appendix B.

A.6.2 Retardation

The retardation factor for the unsaturated zone, R, is estimated using

ρ b Foc K oc
R =1+ (A-31)
θw

where
Foc = fraction organic carbon in dry soil [g/g]
Koc = organic carbon normalized partition coefficient [ml/g]

This retardation equation is assumed to be valid when Foc > 0.001. [Below values of
0.001 the retardation is estimated to be equal to 1 -- essentially non-retarded.)

A.6.3 Degradation

Degradation is assumed to be a first-order reaction occurring only in the aqueous

phase as the leachate is carried from the source to the water table.

A-18
 Vadose Zone Model

A.6.4 Dispersion

The dispersion coefficient is assumed to be a linear function of the seepage velocity,

v , (defined in Equation A-27)

 m 
D = αLv ⋅  (A-32)
 100cm 

where
αL = longitudinal dispersivity [m]

The longitudinal dispersivity is calculated using data from Gelhar et al. (1985) as a
function of the vertical distance from the source:

ln α L = −4.933 + 3.811 ln x m x m ≤ 2m (A-33a)

ln α L = −2.727 + 0.584 ln x m x m ≥ 2m (A-33b)

where
xm = distance from the source to the observation location [m]

A.7 DATA REQUIREMENTS

The data required to run the Vadose Zone model are shown in Table A-1.

A-19
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table A-1. Data Requirements for the Vadose Zone Model

Typical Range of Values

Units Minimum Maximum

MEDIA-SPECIFIC PARAMETERS

Porosity cm3/cm3 0.01 0.5

Irreducible Water Content cm3/cm3 0 porosity
Fraction Organic Carbon g oc/g soil 0.001 0.05
Hydraulic Conductivity m/day 1.00E-07 100
Soil Bulk Density fraction 1.4 2.2
van Genuchten Parameter dimensionless ~1 ~3
Unsaturated Zone Thickness m site-specific site-specific
SOURCE PARAMETERS

Length of Source (x-direction) m site-specific site-specific

Width of Source (y-direction) m site-specific site-specific
Thickness of Source (z- m site-specific site-specific
direction)
TPH DATA

Molecular Weight of TPH g/mol 80 120

Concentration of TPH mg/kg site-specific site-specific
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC DATA (individual chemical component)

Molecular Weight g/mol chem-specific chem-specific

Source Concentration mg/kg site-specific site-specific
Solubility mg/l chem-specific chem-specific
Diffusion Coefficient in Air cm2/s chem-specific chem-specific
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s chem-specific chem-specific
Koc ml/g chem-specific chem-specific
Degradation Rate 1/d site-specific site-specific
Henry's Law Constant (mg/l)/(mg/l) chem-specific chem-specific

A-20
 Vadose Zone Model

A.8 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE VADOSE

ZONE MODEL

1. The Vadose Zone model simulates the transport of dissolved phase

contaminants downward, and vapor phase contaminants upward. It does not
simulate the movement of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs).

2. The Vadose Zone model is a one-dimensional model (from the source to the
water table) and accounts for volatile and leachability losses from the source.

3. The vadose zone is considered to be homogeneous and uniform below the

source (a lens may be modeled above the source). The hydraulic conductivity
is calculated as a function of moisture content, however, this derived moisture
content is assumed to be constant for the entire depth of the soil column.

4. The contaminant source has a uniform concentration across the user-specified

source volume.

5. Water table fluctuations are not considered. The depth to the aquifer is
considered fixed.

A.9 REFERENCES

Brooks, R.H. and A. T. Corey, 1964. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media,

Hydrology Paper No. 3, Civil Engineering Dept., Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado.

Carsel, R.F. and R.S. Parrish. "Developing joint probability distributions of soil water
retention characteristics." Water Resources Research, 24 (1988):755-769.

Gelhar, L. W., A. Mantoglou, C. Welty, and K. R. Rehfeldt. 1985. A Review of

Field-Scale Physical Solute Transport Processes in Saturated and Unsaturated
Porous Media, EPRI, EA-4190, Research Project 2485-5. Palo Alto, CA.

A-21
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Johnson, P.C., and Ettinger, R.A., 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion
Rate of Contaminant Vapors into Buildings, Environmental Science and
Technology, 25, 1445-1452.

Lenhard, R.J., J.C. Parker, and S. Mishra. 1989. “On the correspondence between
Brooks-Corey and van Genuchten models, J. Irrig. And Drainage Eng.” ASCE
115: 744-751.

Ünlü, K., Kemblowski, M.W., Parker, J.C., Stevens, D., Chong, P.K. and Kamil, I.,
1992. A screening model for effects of land-disposed wastes on groundwater
quality. J. Contam. Hydrol., 11: 27-49.

van Genuchten, M. Th. and Alves, W.J., 1982. Analytical Solutions of the One-
Dimensional Convective-Dispersive Solute Transport Equation, United States
Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin Number 1661.

A-22
Appendix Dissolved-Phase
B Transport Model

B.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

The groundwater model in RISC simulates dissolved phase contaminant transport in

the groundwater aquifer. This model can be used (i) to predict the concentration in
groundwater at a "receptor well", or, (ii) to predict the concentration in groundwater as
a source for volatile emissions into a building (see Appendix E). It is appropriate to
use this model either when soils data is lacking, or when the groundwater at the source
is already impacted and it is not necessary to model the soil-to-groundwater pathway.
To run the model, the user defines the source by specifying a dissolved-phase source
concentration, the pulse length (which simulates how long the source is active), and
the volume of the source. Figure B-1 shows a schematic of the dissolved phase
groundwater model and the processes simulated.

Well

Vadose
Zone

Exposure Point

Source Saturated
Zone

FIGURE B-1. Saturated Zone Model with Source in Groundwater

B-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

B.2 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES

The model considers the following fate and transport processes:

• one-dimensional flow
• three-dimensional dispersion
• retardation (adsorption)
• degradation.

This model is identical to the AT123D code (Yeh, 1981) with the exception of
allowing the user to input a source concentration rather than a mass loading. (The
model in RISC automatically calculates the mass loading from the source
concentration input.) The three-dimensional dispersion equation for a uniform flow
field is given by:

∂ Cw ∂ 2C w ∂ 2Cw ∂ 2Cw ∂C w M! (B-1)

R = Dx + D + D −v − µC w +
∂t ∂ x ∂ y ∂ z ∂ x θ
2 y 2 z 2

where
Cw = concentration of component in the aqueous phase ([g/l or
g/m3]
x = distance in the direction of groundwater flow [m]
y = cross-gradient distance (from centerline of plume) [m]
z = vertical distance positive downwards from water table
[m]
Dx = dispersion coefficient in the direction of groundwater
flow [m2/d]
Dy = transverse dispersion coefficient [m2/d]
Dz = vertical dispersion coefficient [m2/d]
v = seepage velocity [m/d]
µ = first-order decay coefficient for chemical [1/d]
t = time [d]

B-2
 Saturated Zone Model

R = retardation factor [-]

M! = source term [mass flux) for chemical [g/d/m3]
θ = porosity (effective) of the saturated zone [cm3/cm3]

The source term, M! , is non-zero over a finite rectangular area at the water table and
zero elsewhere. When the model is run, the user must specify the length, width and
thickness of the source. The length of the source is in the direction of groundwater
flow.

The aquifer is considered to be infinite in depth and width. The source term may be a
constant concentration specified for a certain duration ("pulse") or it may vary with
time. The length of the pulse is tantamount to specifying how long the source is
active (i.e., the duration between the spill event and the point in time when either the
source is removed or is naturally depleted).

B.2.1 Initial and Boundary Conditions

At the beginning of the simulation, the aquifer is assumed to have a concentration of

zero everywhere. The mass loading is assumed to occur uniformly over the volume of
the source. The model simulates dissolved phase transport only so the contaminant
mass is assumed to be instantly dissolved and mixed uniformly over the source
volume. The concentration at a great distance away from the source is assumed to be
zero for all times. The advection-dispersion equation (B-1) is solved using Green's
functions for the conditions described (Galya, 1987).

B.2.2 Retardation Coefficient

Retardation describes a contaminants movement relative to the bulk movement of

groundwater flow. The retardation factor, R, is estimated using

ρ b Foc K oc
R = 1+ for organic chemicals (B-2a)
θ

B-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

ρb K d
R =1 + for inorganic chemicals (B-2b)
θ

where
Foc = fraction organic carbon in dry soil [g oc/g soil]
Koc = organic carbon normalized partition coefficient [ml/g or
m3/kg]
Kd = inorganic distribution coefficient [ml/g]
ρb = soil bulk density of the saturated zone [g/cm3]
θ = porosity (effective) of the saturated zone [cm3/cm3]

If a non-zero value for Kd is entered in the RISC chemical database, the code uses
equation B-2b. For organic chemicals that do not have Kd values the code assumes
that the only process causing retardation is the sorption of the chemical due to the
presence of organic carbon in the aquifer. In this situation, the quantity Koc*Foc is
used to estimate the distribution coefficient (Kd). In reality there may be several
processes (such as the presence of silts and clays) contributing to the retardation (or
sorption) of the chemical. The equations in RISC (and most fate and transport
models) assume that the retardation can be completely predicted using the relationship
in Equation B-2a. This will usually under-predict the amount of sorption (and hence
retardation) that is actually occurring. Usually this will be conservative for purposes
of estimating risk. If it appears that there may be much more retardation occurring
than what the site-specific measured value of Foc would indicate (usually the case for
low Foc soils), the actual partitioning may be measured in a lab and then the measured
Kd value could be entered for the chemical being modeled.

This retardation equation assumes that sorption and desorption processes are
instantaneous and fully reversible. See Chapter 11 (the chemical database) for
equations for estimating Koc from other chemical parameters.

B.2.3 Dispersion Coefficients

The dispersion coefficients in equation B-1 are calculated using the following
relationships

B-4
 Saturated Zone Model

α xV α yV α V
Dx = , Dy = , Dz = z (B-3)
θ θ θ

where
αx , αy, αz = dispersivity in x, y, and z directions [m] (longitudinal,
transverse and vertical dispersivities)
V = Darcy velocity [m/d]

The Darcy velocity is defined as follows

V=Ki (B-4)

where
K = saturated zone conductivity [m/d]
i = hydraulic gradient [m/m]

The seepage groundwater flow velocity, v , is calculated from the Darcy velocity

V
v= (B-5)
θ

where the variables are as defined previously.

The dispersivities can be calculated by the model or the user may enter values. If the
code calculates the dispersivities, the longitudinal dispersivity (αx) is calculated from

ln αx = -3.795 + 1.774 ln x - 0.093 ( ln x )2 (B-6)

where x is the distance downgradient (m) from the source to the receptor well (Gelhar
et al., 1985). Equation B-6 is different from the equation used to calculate dispersivity
in the Vadose Zone model (equation A-32) where the dispersivity in the vertical
direction (the direction of groundwater flow) is being calculated. In equation B-5, the
dispersivity is calculated in the horizontal direction. Both these equations are based
on empirical data and not derived from mathematical "first principles".

From an American Petroleum Institute's report (1987), the transverse and vertical
dispersivities are assumed to be related to the longitudinal dispersivity as follows:

B-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

αx αy
αy = , αz = (B-7)
τ1 τ2

where τ1 and τ2 are assumed to have a mean value of 3 and 87, respectively, based on
field data. If the user chooses to have RISC calculate the dispersivities, then the
values of τ1 and τ2 are assumed to be equal to 3 and 87 respectively.

B.3 ESTIMATING THE CONCENTRATION IN THE WELL

The concentration in the well is estimated by vertically averaging the estimated

concentrations over the "screened interval" of the well. The user specifies the distance
downgradient from the downgradient edge of the source to the exposure point location
(possibly a well screen). A distance off the centerline may also be entered. To
estimate the concentration on the centerline of the plume, this value should be left at
zero. The code will always predict the highest concentrations to be along the
centerline of the plume because it assumes a uniform flow field. The depth to the top
and bottom of the well screen measured from the water table (not ground surface)
must be specified. The code will calculate concentrations in the groundwater at the
top and bottom of the well screen at a minimum. The user may increase the number
of points used to average the concentration across the well screen. A minimum of two
averaging points must be specified in the input, i.e. the output will be an average of
the concentrations at the top and bottom of the well screen. If more than two points
are used, the averaging points are assumed to be located at equal intervals (= n-1
intervals, where n = number of points) with one point at the top of the well screen and
one at the bottom. The concentrations at the top and bottom of the well screen are
weighted at 1/2 the value of the concentrations at the other points. The maximum
number of averaging points is ten. Figure B-2 shows a schematic with three averaging
points as an example.

B-6
 Saturated Zone Model

Segments

Point 1
1/2 Segment

Point 2 1 Segment

1/2 Segment
Point 3

Figure B-2. Vertically Averaging the Concentration Over the Length of the Well
Screen (showing 3 averaging points)

For the case shown in Figure B-2 the average concentration would be calculated from
the following equation

1 1
C1 + C2 + C3
Cave = 2 2 (B-8)
2

where
Cj = concentration at point j, (where j = 1, 2, or 3) [mg/l]
2 = the number of segments for averaging

B.4 SOURCE TERM

The source term used by the model is estimated by the code from the source
concentration input by the user. The input concentration is assumed to be a dissolved-

B-7
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

phase concentration that applies over the entire source volume and is constant for the
duration of the release, i.e. the length of the pulse. The way in which the transport
equation defined in B-1 is solved, however, requires a mass loading rate as the source
term and not a concentration. The RISC code calculates the mass loading rate as
follows:

 1000l 
M! = A ⋅ V ⋅ C gw ⋅  3  (B-9)
 m 

where
M! = mass loading rate [mg/day]
A = cross-sectional area of the source perpendicular to
groundwater flow (=y*z dimensions) [m2]
V = groundwater flux (Darcy velocity) [m/day]
Cgw = concentration in groundwater at the source [mg/l]

B.4.1 Using the Groundwater Model With a Source Containing Non-

Mobile Residual Hydrocarbons

There are several ways to use RISC to model the plume emanating from a residual
source. The first option is to use the dissolved phase groundwater model with a
constant source term. This approach is described below. The second option is to use
the saturated soil model described in Appendix C. The saturated soil model is
appropriate if the volume of the source and the concentrations of the chemicals in the
source are known. The saturated soil model uses a depleting source term and
therefore accounts for mass balance.

The dissolved phase groundwater model can be used with some conservative
assumptions to predict concentrations downgradient of a source that has residual
hydrocarbon present. This model is appropriate when the volume of and/or
concentrations in the source are not known. This is a fairly common situation when
the product has reached the water table as a separate phase. Residual non-mobile
hydrocarbon is not free to move on top of the groundwater as a separate phase. The
groundwater model cannot simulate the movement of free phase residual; rather it

B-8
 Saturated Zone Model

simulates the dissolved phase plume that may originate from a residual source. Figure
B-3 shows a simplified schematic.

Monitoring well
Receptor well
near source

Residual
source

Planar source
used in model

Figure B-3. Schematic of Groundwater Model With a Residual Source

In Figure B-3, the source is assumed to be in the shape of a vertical plane

perpendicular to the direction of groundwater flow. Using a vertical plane is similar
to the geometry assumed in the Domenico groundwater model (Domenico, 1987).
The width and depth of the vertical planar source should be estimated based on site
data. Usually the size of the source will not be known so estimating a conservative
value may be appropriate.

B.4.2 Using the Model Without Concentration Data in the Source

If there are no measurements of dissolved phase concentrations near or just

downgradient of the source, the source concentrations can be assumed to equal the
chemical's effective solubility. For this case, all of the groundwater passing through
the source area is assumed to be equal to the constituent's effective solubility. Since
there are residual levels of contaminants in the source it might be reasonable (and

B-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

conservative) to assume that the source is constant (non-depleting) over the simulation
time.

As an example, if the product spilled is fresh gasoline, the mass fraction of benzene in
the product can be estimated based on published product data or based on measured
data from similar sites. If the mass fraction of benzene is assumed to be 0.03 in the
product (fairly conservative, i.e. high, for gasoline), the effective solubility can be
roughly calculated from the following equation:

C w = xS (B-10)

where
Cw = dissolved concentration of chemical adjacent to residual
product [mg/l]
S = aqueous solubility of pure component [mg/l]
x = mole fraction of component in the hydrocarbon mixture
[mol/mol]

This equation is also discussed in Appendix A (equation A-16). Of course, it is not

easy to estimate the mole fraction of the chemical. For chemicals and product
mixtures that have similar molecular weights, the mole fraction can be replaced by the
mass fraction. This example assumes that benzene is 3% by mass of the product. The
pure chemical solubility for benzene is 1750 mg/l, therefore the effective solubility
can be estimated as = 0.03*1750 mg/l (solubility of benzene) = 52.5 mg/l. This is the
concentration that would be specified for the source concentration.

B.4.3 Using the Model With Measured Concentration Data

If there is a monitoring well in the source or just down gradient, this information can
be used to estimate the model source depth and the source concentrations. If the
monitoring well has a screen length of 2 meters and has benzene concentrations
around 5 mg/l then the source depth would be assumed to be 2 meters and the source
concentration would equal the measured value. Note, in many situations the residual
can be located in the top few inches of the aquifer (at the water table) but the
concentrations measured in the monitoring well average the concentration over the
well screen length. If the source is assumed to be only a few inches thick, then the

B-10
 Saturated Zone Model

source concentrations should be increased to account for the higher concentrations at

the top of the aquifer.

B.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS

The data required to run the saturated zone model in RISC are listed in Table B-1.

B-11
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table B-1. Data Requirements for the Saturated Zone Model

Typical Range of Values
Units Minimum Maximum
MEDIA-SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
Porosity fraction 0.01 0.5
Fraction Organic Carbon fraction 0.001 0.05
Hydraulic Conductivity m/day 1.00E-07 100
Soil Bulk Density fraction 1.4 2.2
Hydraulic Gradient m/m >0 0.05
Longitudinal Dispersivity m site-specific site-specific
(Note: May be code calculated)
Transverse Dispersivity m site-specific site-specific
(Note: May be code calculated)
Vertical Dispersivity m site-specific site-specific
(Note: May be code calculated)
WELL LOCATION
Distance Downgradient m site-specific site-specific
Distance Cross-Gradient m site-specific site-specific
Depth to Top of Well Screen m site-specific site-specific
Depth to Bottom of Well Screen m site-specific site-specific
Number of averaging segments - 1 10
DISSOLVED PHASE SOURCE
Thickness of Source Area m site-specific site-specific
Length of Source Area m site-specific site-specific
(in direction of GW flow)
Width of Source Area m site-specific site-specific
(perpendicular to GW flow)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC DATA (individual chemical component)

Source Concentration mg/l site-specific site-specific

2
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm /s chem-specific chem-specific
Koc ml/g chem-specific chem-specific
Degradation Rate 1/d site-specific site-specific

B-12
 Saturated Zone Model

B.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DISSOLVED

PHASE TRANSPORT MODEL

1. The model simulates the transport of dissolved phase contaminants only. It

does not simulate the movement of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs).
2. The concentrations estimated by the model represent concentrations in the
groundwater aquifer and not concentrations in a pumping well. The
concentrations in a pumping well would probably be lower than the
concentrations predicted in the aquifer due to dilution effects.
3. The aquifer is considered to be homogeneous and uniform, as well as being
infinite in thickness and width.
4. Water table fluctuations are assumed to have no influence on the flow field of
the aquifer.

B.7 REFERENCES

American Petroleum Institute. Oil and Gas Industry Exploration and Production
Wastes, API Document No. 471-01-09. Washington, D.C.: API, 1987.

Galya, D.P. "A horizontal plan source model for ground-water transport." Ground
Water 25 (1987):733-739.

Gelhar, L.W., Mantoglou, A., Welty, C. and Rehfeldt, K.R., 1985. A review of field-
scale physical solute transport processes in saturated and unsaturated porous
media. Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) Palo Alto, CA EA-4190,
Res. Proj. 2485-5.

Yeh, G.T., 1981. AT123D: Analytical Transient One-,Two-, and Three-dimensional

Simulation of Waste Transport in the Aquifer System. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN.

B-13
Appendix
C Saturated Soil Model

C.1 MODEL DESCRIPTON

The saturated soil model in RISC simulates dissolved chemical transport from a soil
source zone at or near the water table. The source's position, relative to the aquifer,
may change during the year due to groundwater table fluctuations. Thus, it may be
located entirely within the aquifer during part of the year, and located partially above
the aquifer during the rest of the year. The location relative to the water table is
important as the two different processes of rainwater infiltration and groundwater flow
through the source are necessary to introduce contamination into the aquifer. The
source term in this model is specified with a total soil concentration (mg/kg) whereas
the source in the dissolved phase groundwater model (Appendix B) is specified as a
dissolved phase concentration (mg/l).

This is a compartmental model, consisting of a source zone leaching model and a

dissolved chemical groundwater transport model. The groundwater transport model is
identical to the model described in Appendix B. This appendix focuses on presenting
the source leaching model. Similar to the dissolved phase groundwater model, the
saturated source model can be used (i) to predict the concentration in groundwater at a
"receptor well", or, (ii) to predict the concentration in groundwater as a source for
volatile emissions into a building (see Appendix E). The saturated soil model is not
linked with a vadose zone model.

In the saturated source model the source concentration is defined as a total

soil concentration. This soil concentration may be above the residual limit. In
the dissolved phase transport model (Appendix B), the input concentration
must be a dissolved phase concentration.

C-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Figure C-1 shows the schematic of the saturated soil (groundwater) model.

Well

Vadose
Zone

Exposure
Point

Source
Saturated
Zone

FIGURE C-1. Saturated Soil Model with Source in and above the Water
Table

C.2 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES

The saturated soil model consists of a source model and a dissolved phase
groundwater model. The source model is used to estimate the mass loading rate (that
serves as a source for the dissolved phase model) based on the concentrations of the
individual constituent in soil and the concentration of TPH (if used to indicate
presence of a mixture).

The mass of chemical contained in the portion of the source above the water table (if
any) is assumed to be leached due to infiltration. The mass in the portion of the
source below the water table (if any) is assumed to be leached horizontally with the
groundwater flow. These leaching rates are calculated from the effective solubility or
from equilibrium partitioning. That is, the equilibrium dissolved phase concentration
is estimated and is assumed to be constant until the source is gone. If the water table
shifts during the year, the loading rates from the submerged portion of the source and

C-2
 Saturated Soil Model

the unsaturated portion also shift accordingly. If the water table doesn’t fluctuate, the
mass loading rate is assumed to be constant until the source is depleted. The source
model accounts for mass balance as the source “shuts off” after the mass of the
constituent has been depleted.

C.3 SOURCE MODEL

The source is defined by a specifying a total soil concentration for each chemical
modeled and the total source volume. The source may be just above the water table,
partially submerged, or completely submerged. The water table may be considered to
fluctuate during part of the year. Mass loading is due to: (1) groundwater flow
through the source zone that is submerged, and (2) rainwater infiltration through the
source zone that is above the water table.

The total initial mass of contaminant is calculated as follows:

(
CT ρ b H W L 1E 6 cm 3 m 3 )
Mass = (C-1)
(1000 g kg )

where
Mass = total initial mass in saturated source [mg]

CT = total concentration in soil [mg/kg]

ρb = soil bulk density [g/cm3]

H = height of source [m]

W = width of source [m]

L = length of source [m]

The total initial mass is depleted when the groundwater carries away the contaminant
in the dissolved phase. The depletion (and hence source term for the groundwater
model) is calculated by estimating the dissolved phase contaminant concentration in

C-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

the source volume and assuming that this concentration leaves the source with the
bulk groundwater flow.

In order to estimate the dissolved phase concentration, it must be determined whether

or not residual phase hydrocarbon (NAPL) is present. If residual phase hydrocarbons
are present, the dissolved phase source concentration for each chemical is assumed to
be equal to its effective solubility. This is the same approach used in the Vadose Zone
model (discussed in Appendix A).

To determine if residual phase hydrocarbon is present, the following condition for

multiple chemicals must be met

CT ρ b
1> ∑
all chemicals S i (ρ b K oc Foc + θ w + θ a K H )
(C-2)

where
CT = total concentration of chemical in soil [mg/kg]
Si = dissolved phase solubility for chemical i [mg/l]
ρb = soil bulk density of the source area [g/cm3]
Foc = fraction organic carbon in soil [g oc/g soil]
Koc = chemical-specific organic carbon partition coefficient
[ml/g or m3/kg]
KH = Henry’s Law constant [(mg/l)/(mg/l)]
θa = air-filled porosity of vadose zone [cm3 of air/cm3 total
soil volume]
θw = water-filled porosity of vadose zone [cm3 of water/cm3
total soil volume]

This partitioning equation assumes that the total soil concentration, CT, can be
accounted for by summing the mass in the solid, liquid, and vapor phases (i.e. no
residual is present). However, Equation C-2 requires that all of the chemicals in the
mixture are accounted for in the sum. In risk assessments, the number of chemicals of
concern is often a small subset of the total number of chemicals present in the

C-4
 Saturated Soil Model

mixture. The saturated soil model checks the following equation for each chemical
used in the model:

CT ρ b
Cw = (C-2a)
ρ b K oc Foc + θ w + θ a K H

Again, it is assumed that CT can be accounted for by summing the mass in the solid,
liquid, and vapor phases (i.e. no residual is present). If the liquid phase concentration,
CW, calculated with equation C-2a exceeds the effective solubility of the compound,
then it is assumed that residual phase is present (and equation C-2a does not apply).

The effective solubility is calculated from the following equation:

 C Ti  MWTPH 
S eff i =  
 MW
 S i (C-3)
 C TPH  i 

where
Seff i = effective solubility for chemical i [mg/l]
CT i = total concentration of chemical i in soil [mg/kg]
MWTPH = average molecular weight of hydrocarbon [g/mol]
MWi = average molecular weight of component i [g/mol]
CTPH = concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil
[mg/kg]

C-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

C.4 DATA REQUIREMENTS

The data required to run the saturated zone model in RISC are listed in Table C-1.

Table C-1. Data Requirements for the Saturated Soil Model

(Page 1 of 2)
Typical Range of Values
Units Minimum Maximum
MEDIA-SPECIFIC
PARAMETERS
Porosity fraction 0.01 0.5
Fraction Organic Carbon fraction 0.001 0.05
Hydraulic Conductivity m/day 1.00E-07 100
Soil Bulk Density fraction 1.4 2.2
Hydraulic Gradient m/m >0 0.05
Longitudinal Dispersivity m site-specific site-specific
(Note: May be code calculated)
Transverse Dispersivity m site-specific site-specific
(Note: May be code calculated)
Vertical Dispersivity m site-specific site-specific
(Note: May be code calculated)

C-6
 Saturated Soil Model

Table C-1. Data Requirements for the Saturated Soil Model

(Page 2 of 2)
WELL LOCATION
Distance Downgradient m site-specific site-specific
Distance Cross-Gradient m site-specific site-specific
Depth to Top of Well Screen m site-specific site-specific
Depth to Bottom of Well Screen m site-specific site-specific
Number of averaging segments - 1 10
SATURATED SOIL SOURCE
Total Thickness of Source m site-specific site-specific
(above and below water table)
Length of Source Area m site-specific site-specific
Width of Source Area m site-specific site-specific
Minimum Saturated Thickness of m site-specific site-specific
the Source
Thickness of Water Table m site-specific site-specific
Fluctuations
Fraction of Year at High Elevation fraction 0 1
Infiltration rate in the Vadose Zone m/d >0 site-specific
TPH DATA
Molecular Weight of TPH g/mol 80 120
Concentration of TPH mg/kg site-specific site-specific
Chemical Specific Data (individual chemical component)
Molecular Weight g/mol 80 120
Total Concentration in Soil mg/kg site-specific site-specific
Solubility mg/l chem-specific chem-specific
2
Diffusion Coefficient in Air cm /s chem-specific chem-specific
2
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm /s chem-specific chem-specific
Koc ml/g chem-specific chem-specific
Degradation Rate 1/d site-specific site-specific
Henry's Law Constant dimensionless chem-specific chem-specific

C-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

C.5 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SATURATED

SOIL MODEL

1. The Saturated Soil model simulates the transport of dissolved phase

contaminants only. It does not simulate the movement of non-aqueous phase
liquids (NAPLs).
2. The concentrations estimated by the model represent concentrations in the
groundwater aquifer and not concentrations in a pumping well. The
concentrations in a pumping well would probably be lower than the
concentrations predicted in the aquifer due to dilution effects.
3. The aquifer is considered to be homogeneous and uniform.
4. Water table fluctuations are used to calculate the relative contribution from
infiltration and groundwater advection to source mass loss. The water table
fluctuations are assumed to have no influence on the flow field of the aquifer.

C.6 REFERENCES

American Petroleum Institute. Oil and Gas Industry Exploration and Production
Wastes, API Document No. 471-01-09. Washington, D.C.: API, 1987.

Galya, D.P. "A horizontal plan source model for ground-water transport." Ground
Water 25 (1987):733-739.

Gelhar, L.W., Mantoglou, A., Welty, C. and Rehfeldt, K.R., 1985. A review of field-
scale physical solute transport processes in saturated and unsaturated porous
media. Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) Palo Alto, CA EA-4190,
Res. Proj. 2485-5.

Yeh, G.T., 1981. AT123D: Analytical Transient One-,Two-, and Three-dimensional

Simulation of Waste Transport in the Aquifer System. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN.

C-8
 Vapor Transport From
Appendix Soil Into Buildings
D Without Biodegradation

D.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

The vapor transport model for soil estimates emissions into a building from a soil
source located either below or laterally adjacent to the building. This model is based
on the paper entitled "Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion Rate of
Contaminant Vapors into Buildings" by Johnson and Ettinger (1991). This vapor
transport model combines a model for both diffusive and advective transport through
the soil with a simple model of transport through a building foundation.

Figure D-1 illustrates the problem geometry. Advection is caused by a slightly

reduced pressure (versus atmospheric pressure) inside a building due to temperature
differences, wind, barometric pressure fluctuations or a slight vacuum created by a
basement heating system during operation. The pressure gradient is entered as an
input parameter.

This is the basically the same model as the one used in the Tier 1
spreadsheet to calculate risk-based screening levels in soil that are protective
of indoor inhalation. The enhancements made by the RISC software are
twofold: (1) multiple soil horizons may be considered by using the lens and
(2) the model calculates the effective solubility and limits the soil gas
concentration at the source if residual levels are exceeded. This second
option is an important consideration for chemicals that are part of mixtures
such as petroleum hydrocarbons in fuel. The example equations presented in
the ASTM RBCA guidance are identical to the Johnson and Ettinger model if
the building under-pressurization is equal to zero (no advection).

D-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Receptor Location

Basement

Optional
Lens

Source

Figure D-1. Schematic of the Vapor Transport Model (from Soil into Buildings).

D.2 APPLICATIONS OF THIS MODEL

This is a partial list of the main applications of the model:

• This is a steady-state model. The source concentration is constant and the size
does not deplete with time (i.e. an infinite source). This assumption is valid if
the source is large compared to the mass flux rate into the building.
• This model is not linked with any other fate and transport model in RISC. The
soil leaching to groundwater model is assumed to have a separate (depleting)
source.
• Biodegradation of the chemical vapors is not considered. This is appropriate
for chemicals that do not degrade readily, for very short diffusion distances,
and/or for screening level calculations. BTEX constituents can have very high
degradation rates (higher than in groundwater) under certain conditions. In
this case it may be appropriate to use one of the other two vapor transport
models in RISC that incorporate degradation.
• The source is located in the vadose zone. For sources located in the saturated
zone the volatilization from groundwater model would be more appropriate.
• The likelihood of the building under-pressurization affecting the vapor
transport should be evaluated. Often, the reason that advective transport

D-2
 Vapor Transport From Soil

becomes important is the case where part of the building is sub-grade (e.g.
basement) and the path of least resistance from the source is in the direction of
the basement. This situation can occur for a laterally offset source if the
preferential vapor flow pathways are horizontal (e.g. there are lower
permeability units between the source and the ground surface). If the building
is not large and does not have a sub-grade basement it is unlikely that the
building under-pressurization is affecting the advection processes from an
offset soil vapor source. The path of least resistance may be directly out
through the ground surface.
• A building on a slab foundation can have advective effects if under-
pressurization is present, the source is directly below and close to the
foundation, and no partial low permeability lens is available to direct the
vapors laterally away from the foundation. But a pier and beam house (where
a crawl space is located under the house) would not be subject to advection
(and may in fact have only limited diffusion as well if it is vented).

Appendix K.1.2 discusses vertical soil gas profile types and the applicability of the
models in RISC to model different soil gas profiles.

D.3 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES

The Johnson-Ettinger model assumes that away from the structure, (i.e. out of the
influence of pressure-driven flow), the contaminant transport is diffusive only and can
be described using Fick’s Law:

AB (C vs − C vf )D eff
E= (D-1)
LT

where
E = mass transport rate toward the structure [g/s]
Deff = “overall” effective diffusion coefficient [cm2/s]
Cvs = vapor concentration at the source [g/cm3]
Cvf = vapor concentration in the soil just outside the building
foundation [g/cm3]
LT = distance from source to basement [cm]

D-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

AB = cross-sectional area of foundation available for vapor

flux [cm2]

Note, the effective diffusion coefficient is calculated using the Millington-Quirk

relationship (Millington and Quirk, 1961, and described in Appendix A) which
accounts for the amount of air vs. water-filled porosity in the soil. Furthermore, a lens
can be incorporated in the vapor model so the “overall” effective diffusion coefficient
can consider a different soil unit between the source and the house. A clay lens with a
high water content can dramatically reduce the overall diffusion coefficient and can
result in much lower vapor concentrations inside the house.

Adjacent to the foundation, the transport of contaminants is assumed to occur by a

combination of advective and diffusive transport mechanisms through cracks in the
foundation slab. The steady-state, one-dimensional solution to the advection-
dispersion equation for vapor transport through a crack (just another type of porous
media) is given by:

Qsoil (C vf − C indoor )
E = Qsoil C vf − (D-2)
  Qsoil Lcrack 
1 − exp 
  Dcrack Acrack 

where
E = entry rate of contaminant into the building [g/s]
Qsoil = volumetric flow rate of soil gas into the building [cm3/s]
Cindoor = indoor air concentration in the building [g/cm3]
Cvf = vapor concentration in the soil just outside the building
foundation [g/cm3]
Dcrack = effective diffusion coefficient in foundation cracks
[cm2/s]
Lcrack = thickness of the foundation [cm]
Acrack = area of cracks or openings through which vapors enter
building [cm2]

D-4
 Vapor Transport From Soil

The above two equations are assumed to be equal at steady state allowing the
contaminant concentration in the soil just outside the foundation to be calculated.
Setting Equations D-1 and D-2 equal to each other and rearranging to solve for Cvf:

  D eff AB    Qsoil Lcrack   

C vs   exp  − 1 + C indoor 
C vf =   Qsoil LT    Dcrack Acrack    (D-3)
  D eff AB    Qsoil Lcrack    Q L 
  exp  − 1 + exp soil crack 
  Qsoil LT    Dcrack Acrack    Dcrack Acrack 

Substituting D-3 into equation D-2 yields:

  Dt eff AB C vs    Qsoil Lcrack   C indoor   

  exp  −  

  L T 
   crack crack   C vs   
D A
E= (D-4)
  DT eff AB    Qsoil Lcrack    Q L 
  exp  − 1 + exp soil crack 
  Qsoil LT    Dcrack Acrack    Dcrack Acrack 

In equation D-3, the only unknown variable (not entered by the user) is the
concentration in the building, Cindoor. This concentration can be estimated from a
mass balance equation assuming no other contaminant sources or sinks in the building
(sorption to walls or furniture). Assuming a well-mixed building this mass balance
equation can be written as:

QB C indoor = E (D-5)

where
QB = building ventilation rate (calculated from the number of
air exchanges per day and the volume of the building)
[m3/s]

D-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

where all the variables have been defined previously. Note, the emission rate, E, is
calculated from equation D-4; the building ventilation rate, QB, is calculated from user
input variables. Substituting Equation D-5 into Equation D-4 yields

  Qsoil Lcrack 
exp 
∗
Cindoor
Cindoor =   Dcrack Acrack  (D-6)
  Qsoil Lcrack   D eff AB   D eff AB    Qsoil Lcrack  
exp  +  +  exp  − 1 
  Dcrack Acrack   QB LT   Qsoil LT    Dcrack Acrack   

where

∗
D eff AB C vs
C indoor = (D-7)
QB LT

C*indoor represents the indoor vapor concentration corresponding to the case where
vapors diffuse from the source through a bare soil foundation.

The volumetric soil gas flow rate into the basement, Qsoil, may be specified by the user
or it is calculated from the area of cracks, Acrack, soil type and stratigraphy, pressure
difference between atmospheric and building pressure, and basement geometry. If
Qsoil is specified in RISC to be equal to zero, the vapor transport model will calculate
it from (Johnson and Ettinger, 1991):

2π (∆P )k v X crack rcrack

Qsoil = << 1 (D-8)
µ ln[2Z crack / rcrack ] Z crack

This equation is based on flow through a cylinder of length Xcrack and radius rcrack
located a depth Zcrack below ground surface. The rest of the variables used in D-8 are:

∆P = pressure gradient between building and outside [g/cm-s2]

Zcrack = depth below ground surface to foundation cracks [cm]
kv = permeability of the soil to vapor flow [cm2]
µ = viscosity of vapor [g/cm-s]

D-6
 Vapor Transport From Soil

The crack length, Xcrack , is an input parameter and can be conservatively assumed to
be the total floor/wall seam perimeter distance. rcrack is defined as:

ηAB
rcrack = (D-9)
X crack

where
η = the ratio: Acrack/AB so that 0 =< η =< 1

For intrinsic permeabilities of vapor flow, kv, of less than 1E-8 cm2 (fine sand soils),
the soil gas flow rate through the cracks becomes so low that diffusion is the dominant
transport mechanism and the solution is independent of kv. For “larger” values of kv,
(greater than 1E-8 cm2) the solution is dominated by the advective contribution. In
the model output, the contribution from diffusion is estimated by setting kv to a very
low value.

D.4 SOURCE TERM

The source may be specified by entering total soil concentrations or by entering soil
vapor concentrations. Using measured soil vapor concentrations has the following
advantages:

• It eliminates the uncertainty in the model of estimating the source vapor

concentrations from the equilibrium partitioning equation. This can be
significant because of the complexities of partitioning when the chemicals are
part of a mixture and because the soil properties like soil moisture and porosity
are rarely known.
• The soil vapor concentration may be measured in the vadose zone between the
source and the building. This approach can directly account for attenuation
processes such as degradation and diffusion through different soil horizons
(whose soil properties are not known) that the model may under-estimate.
This can be very significant and many US State risk-based corrective action
programs are developing protocols for starting with soil vapor concentrations
rather than total soil concentrations.

D-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Note that if the location of the soil vapor measurement is not close to the source, it is
important to evaluate whether or not the soil vapor concentration has yet reached
equilibrium. For example, if a recent subsurface chemical spill occurred in a silty clay
and the soil vapor measurement point were 3 meters away, the vapor concentrations
may not have yet reached their maximum values.

If there is no residual phase hydrocarbon present, the source vapor concentration is

calculated from the total soil concentration using the following equation presented by
Jury (1983, 1984, and 1990):

CT ρ b K H  kg 
C vs =   (D-10)
θa KH + θ w + ρ b Foc K oc  1E 6mg 

where
Cvs = vapor concentration at the source [g/cm3]
CT = total soil concentration of chemical i [mg/kg]
ρb = soil bulk density of the source area [g/cm3]
Foc = fraction organic carbon in soil [g oc/g soil]
Koc = chemical-specific organic carbon partition coefficient
[ml/g m3/kg]
KH = Henry’s law constant [(mg/l)/(mg/l)]
θa = air-filled porosity of vadose zone [cm3 of air/cm3 total
soil volume]
θw = water-filled porosity of vadose zone [cm3 of water/cm3
total soil volume]

If residual phase hydrocarbon (NAPL) is present, Raoult's Law is used with the
component mole fraction

i
x P MWi
C vs = i v (D-11)
RT

where

D-8
 Vapor Transport From Soil

xi = mole fraction of component i in the hydrocarbon

[mol/mol]
Piv = pure component vapor pressure of component i [atm]
MWi = molecular weight of component i [g/mol]
R = the universal gas constant (82.1) [cm3-atm/mol-K]
T = absolute temperature [K]

The model checks to see if residual-phase hydrocarbon is present and then calculates
the source term accordingly. (The method for determining the residual limit is
discussed in more detail in Appendix A, starting with Equation A-15.)

The mole fraction, xi, is calculated from

 C  MWTPH 
xi =  T   (D-12)
 CTPH  MW 

where
CT = total soil concentration of chemical i [mg/kg]
CTPH = total soil concentration of TPH mixture [mg/kg]
MWTPH = molecular weight of the mixture [g/mol]
MWi = average molecular weight of component i [g/mol]

If the molecular weights of the component, i, and the mixture are similar, this roughly
translates to the concentration of the component, i, over the concentration of total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the source.

D.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOIL VAPOR MODEL

The input data requirements for this model are presented in Table D-1.

D-9
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table D-1. Data Requirements for the Soil Vapor Model for Indoor Air
(Page 1 of 2)
Typical Range of Values
Units Minimum Maximum
UNSATURATED ZONE
Porosity cm3/cm3 0.01 0.5
Water content in diffusion zone cm3/cm3 0 porosity
Hydraulic conductivity of the soil m/day 1.0E-07 100
surrounding the foundation (used to
estimate soil vapor flow)
Soil Bulk Density fraction 1.4 2.2
LENS (Optional)

Porosity cm3/cm3 0.01 0.5

Water content of lens cm3/cm3 0 porosity
Lens thickness m site-specific site-specific
TPH DATA (Optional)

Molecular weight of TPH g/mol 80 120

Concentration of TPH mg/kg site-specific site-specific
FOUNDATION PARAMETERS
Distance to foundation m site-specific site-specific
Cross-sectional area of foundation m2 site-specific site-specific
perpendicular to vapor flow
Volume of house m3 site-specific site-specific
Number of air exchanges per day d-1 residential: 12 location/site-
industrial: 20 specific
Thickness of foundation m 0 site-specific
3 3
Fraction of cracks in foundation cm /cm 0 1

D-10
 Vapor Transport From Soil

Table D-1. Data Requirements for the Soil Vapor Model for Indoor Air
(Page 2 of 2)
Typical Range of Values
Units Minimum Maximum
PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE PRESSURE-DRIVEN FLOW
Soil Gas Flow Rate Into Building (Qsoil) cm3/s >0 location/site-
(or next three parameters) specific

Length of Foundation Perimeter m 0 site-specific

(not needed if Qsoil specified)
Depth Below Ground Surface of m 0 site-specific
Foundation (not needed if Qsoil
specified)
Pressure Difference From Indoors to g/cm2-s 0 site-specific
Outdoors (not needed if Qsoil
specified)
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC DATA (individual chemical component)

Molecular Weight g/mol chem-specific chem-

specific
Source Concentration:
Soil Vapor Concentration, or mg/m3 site-specific site-specific
Total Soil Concentration mg/kg
Solubility mg/l chem-specific chem-
specific
Diffusion Coefficient in Air cm2/s chem-specific chem-
specific
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s chem-specific chem-
specific
Henry's Law coefficient (mg/l)/(mg/l) chem-specific chem-
specific

D.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE SOIL VAPOR MODEL

1. This is a steady-state, constant and one-dimensional model. The source does

not deplete due to vapor losses so mass is not conserved. This assumption has
only a minor impact on the risk due to non-carcinogens (unless the source is

D-11
RISC Manual Version 4.0

very small) since the highest seven-year running average intake is compared to
the reference dose. It can have a more significant impact however on
carcinogens (such as benzene) since the cumulative exposure over a long
exposure duration (up to 30 years) forms the basis for the risk calculation.
2. There is no biodegradation of the vapors as they migrate through the soil.

D.7 REFERENCES

Johnson, P.C., and Ettinger, R.A., 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion
Rate of Contaminant Vapors into Buildings, Environmental Science and
Technology, 25, 1445-1452.

Jury. W.A., Spencer, W.F., and Farmer, W.J., 1983. Behavior Assessment Model for
Trace Organics in Soil, I, Model description, Journal of Environmental
Quality, 12, 558-564.

Jury. W.A., Spencer, W.F., and Farmer, W.J., 1984a. Behavior Assessment Model for
Trace Organics in Soil, II, Chemical Classification Parameter Sensitivity,
Journal of Environmental Quality, 13, 467-572.

Jury. W.A., Spencer, W.F., and Farmer, W.J., 1984b. Behavior Assessment Model
for Trace Organics in Soil, III, Application of a Screening Model, Journal of
Environmental Quality, 13, 573-579.

Jury. W.A., Spencer, W.F., and Farmer, W.J., 1984d. Behavior assessment model for
Trace Organics in Soil, IV, Review of Experimental Evidence, Journal of
Environmental Quality, 13, 580-586.

Jury, .W.A., Russo, D., Streile, G. and Abid, H. El. 1990. "Evaluation of
Volatilization by Organic Chemicals Residing Below the Soil Surface". Water
Resources Research. 26(1). 13-20.

Millington, J.J. and Quirk, J.P. 1961. Permeability of Porous Solids. Trans. Faraday
Soc., 57. 1200-1207.

D-12
 Vapor Transport
Appendix
From Groundwater
E Into Buildings

E.1 MODEL DESCRIPTON

The groundwater vapor transport model is based on the approach outlined in

American Society of Testing and Materials’ (ASTM's) Risk Based Corrective Action
(RBCA) manual (ASTM, 1995). Vapor emissions from dissolved groundwater
contaminants are estimated using a one-dimensional steady-state vapor diffusion
model, where capillary fringe, vadose zone properties, and building foundation
properties are considered in the estimation of diffusion properties.

This is basically the same model as the one used in the Tier 1 spreadsheet
and the ASTM RBCA guidance manual to calculate risk-based screening
levels in groundwater that are protective of indoor inhalation. The
enhancements made by the RISC software are twofold: (1) multiple soil
horizons may be considered by using the lens and (2) the groundwater
concentration under the house may be predicted using one of the
groundwater models. This second option allows clean-up levels to be
calculated for soil or groundwater that are protective of indoor inhalation for a
plume extending downgradient.

This model considers the diffusion of vapors from groundwater through the vadose
zone. The model ignores chemical degradation in the vadose zone and advection into
the building (pressure-driven flow). Advection is ignored on the assumption that
capillary fringe diffusion resistance dominates the problem. With the capillary fringe
dominating transport, the equations for vapor transport into a building reduce to the
ones presented in this appendix. Figure E-1 shows the problem geometry.

E-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Receptor Location

Optional
Lens
d

Capillary
Fringe
Source

Figure E-1. Schematic of the Vapor Transport Model from Groundwater into
Buildings.

E.2 APPLICATIONS OF THIS MODEL

This is a partial list of the main applications of the model:

• The source is assumed to be in the groundwater only. If the original source

were in the vadose zone and the volatilization to indoor air pathway is being
evaluated for a building close to the source, the soil to indoor air pathway will
dominate the risk.
• The source size is assumed to be as large or larger than the footprint of the
building.
• The chemicals must diffuse out of the groundwater, through the capillary
fringe and through the vadose zone before reaching the building. If
contaminants are located above the water table (e.g. the water table has
dropped considerably and residual product is left in the vadose zone) then one
of the soil vapor models should be used.
• If soil vapor concentrations have been measured above the water table and are
to be used as the source term, one of the volatilization from soil models should
be used.

E-2
 Vapor Transport From Groundwater

• Vapor diffusion through the vadose zone is assumed to be steady-state. The

source concentration in groundwater underneath the building can be specified
by the user (a constant concentration) or it can be estimated using one of the
groundwater models (transient source concentration).
• Biodegradation of the chemical vapors is not considered. This is appropriate
for chemicals that do not degrade readily, that travel very short diffusion
distances, and/or for screening level evaluations. BTEX constituents can have
very high degradation rates (higher than in groundwater) under certain
conditions.
• If measured soil gas concentrations have been taken between the groundwater
and the source, it would be more appropriate to use one of the soil vapor
models with a soil gas source term. The groundwater volatilization model
estimates the soil gas concentration using Henry's Law and then estimates the
diffusion rate through the capillary fringe. After that point, this model is
identical to the Johnson and Ettinger model from a soil gas source (Appendix
D) when building under-pressurization is not considered (set to zero).

E.3 TRANSPORT EQUATION AND PROCESSES

Steady-state one-dimensional diffusive vapor transport over a length, d, can be

described by:

Deff (C vs − C vf )
F = (E-1)
Ld

where
F = volatile emission rate of the chemical constituent being
modeled [g/cm2/s]
Deff = effective diffusion coefficient [cm2/s]
Cvs = vapor phase concentration just above the water table in
the capillary fringe [g/cm3]
Cvf = vapor phase concentration in the soil at the building
foundation [g/cm3]
Ld = diffusion path length (distance from the water table to
the foundation) [cm]

E-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

In this equation, the vapor phase concentration in the soil at the building foundation,
Cvf, is assumed to be negligible (Cvf<<Cvs) in comparison to the concentration in
vapor at the water table.

E.4 SOURCE TERM

The vapor phase concentration at the water table is calculated using Henry's Law
partitioning from the groundwater into the vapor phase concentration:

 L   g 
Cvs = C gw K H  ⋅
3  
 (E-2)
 1000cm   1000mg 

where
Cvs = vapor phase concentration just above the water table in
the capillary fringe [g/cm3]
Cgw = dissolved phase concentration at the top of the
groundwater aquifer (water table - capillary fringe
interface) [mg/l]
KH = Henry's law constant [(mg/l)/(mg/l)]

If this model is linked with the Dissolved Phase Transport model (Appendix B) or the
Saturated Soil Model (Appendix C) then the vapor flux in g/d is calculated for each
time step. If this model is run in a stand-alone mode the user will be asked to specify
a constant concentration in groundwater (Cgw) that is assumed to be directly under the
house.

This model does not check to see if the dissolved phase concentration entered by the
user (in a stand-alone mode) exceeds the effective solubility for the chemical. It is
important that the user enter a concentration in groundwater that does not exceed the
chemicals' effective solubility. This also applies to groundwater with non-aqueous
phase liquids (NAPL) on the surface because the vapor concentrations are also limited

E-4
 Vapor Transport From Groundwater

by Raoult's Law (they cannot exceed the "effective vapor concentration"). Using
Raoult's Law or calculating the effective solubility and multiplying by Henry’s Law
will result in the same equilibrium vapor concentration for a given TPH mixture.

E.4.1 Effective Diffusion Coefficient

The overall effective diffusion coefficient is calculated as a depth-weighted average of

the effective diffusion coefficients in the capillary fringe, the vadose zone above the
capillary fringe, the lens and the building foundation. The reason for considering the
capillary fringe in the calculation is that the moisture content in the capillary fringe is
usually much higher than the moisture content in the unsaturated zone. The smaller
air-filled porosity in the capillary fringe will reduce the overall diffusion coefficient
significantly. Following the approach in ASTM (1995) the overall diffusion
coefficient is given by:

−1
 d cap d d d bldg 
Deff = (d cap + d v + d lens + d bldg )  + v + lens +  (E-3)
 Deff cap Deff v Deff lens ηDeff bldg 

where
D eff = overall effective gaseous diffusion coefficient from water
table to the building foundation [cm2/s]
Deff cap = effective gaseous diffusion coefficient in the capillary
fringe [cm2/s]
Deff v = effective gaseous diffusion coefficient in the vadose zone
between the capillary fringe and the building foundation
[cm2/s]
Deff lens = effective gaseous diffusion coefficient in the lens
[cm2/s]
Deff bldg = effective gaseous diffusion coefficient in the building
foundation [cm2/s]
dcap = thickness of the capillary fringe [cm]
dv = thickness of the vadose zone above the capillary fringe
and below the building foundation [cm]
dlens = thickness of the lens [cm]
dbldg = thickness of the building foundation [cm]

E-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

η = fraction of foundation that is cracks [cm2/cm2]

The effective diffusion coefficient in each zone is calculated using the Millington-
Quirk relationship (Millington and Quirk, 1961):

θ ai Dwater θ wi
3.33 3.33

Deff i = Dair + (E-4)

θ Ti K H θ Ti 2
2

where
Deff i = effective gaseous diffusion coefficient in zone i [cm2/s]
θai = air-filled porosity in zone i [cm3 of air/cm3 total soil
volume]
θwi = water-filled porosity in zone i [cm3 of water/cm3 total soil
volume]
θT = total porosity in zone i [cm3 pores/cm3 total soil volume]
Dair = gaseous diffusion coefficient [cm2/s]
Dwater = liquid diffusion coefficient [cm2/s]
KH = Henry’s Law constant [(mg/l)/(mg/l)]

E.4.2 Moisture Content

The moisture content in the four zones (capillary fringe, vadose zone, lens and
building foundation) are explicitly specified for this model (unlike the Vadose Zone
model, Appendix A). It is assumed that the region of the vadose zone under a
building has no infiltration rate, therefore the moisture content cannot be calculated
using the van Genuchten approach (discussed in Appendix A). The soil beneath the
building is expected to have some moisture content that depends on the soil type and
moisture content of adjacent soil.

E.4.3 Concentration in the Building

The total mass flux of contaminant entering the building is estimated from:

E =F⋅A (E-5)

E-6
 Vapor Transport From Groundwater

where
E = total mass flux of the chemical constituent entering the
building[g/s]
A = cross-sectional area of the foundation (perpendicular to
the vapor flux) [cm2]
F = volatile emission rate of the chemical constituent being
modeled (defined in Equation A-1) [g/cm2/s]

The concentration of contaminant in the building, Cbldg (g/cm3), is estimated by:

E  m 3  86400 s 
C indoor =  
3   (E-6)
QB  1E 6cm  d 

where
Cindoor = concentration of contaminant in building air [g/cm3]
E = volatile emission rate of the chemical constituent being
modeled [g/s]
QB = building ventilation rate (calculated from the number of
air exchanges per day and the volume of the building)
[m3/d]

The building ventilation rate, QB, is calculated from the user input variables the define
the volume of the building and the air exchange rate. Equation E-6 assumes that the
entire flux of contaminant at the exterior of the building is pulled into the building and
there is no reduction of the concentration (due to presence of concrete, etc.). It is also
assumed that the air in the building is well mixed (including the basement air if a
basement is present).

E.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS

The data requirements for the groundwater vapor transport model are shown in Table
E-1. Note, the dissolved phase concentrations in the groundwater source are only

E-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

used if the model is run in a stand-alone mode (not linked with the Vadose Zone or
Saturated Soil models).

Table E-1. Data Requirements for the Groundwater Vapor Model.

Typical Range of Values
Units Minimum Maximum
UNSATURATED ZONE
Porosity cm3/cm3 0.01 0.5
Residual Water Content cm3/cm3 0 porosity
(irreducible)
Hydraulic Conductivity m/day 1.00E-07 100
Distance from groundwater to m site-specific site-specific
foundation
FOUNDATION/BUILDING PARAMETERS
Cross-Sectional Area for Volatile m2 site-specific site-specific
Flux
Volume of Building m3 site-specific site-specific
No. of Air Exchanges per Day d-1 residential: 12 location/site-
industrial: 20 specific
Fraction of Cracks (by area) in cm2/cm2 site-specific site-specific
Building Foundation
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC DATA (individual chemical component)
Concentration in Groundwater* mg/l site-specific site-specific
2
Diffusion Coefficient in Air cm /s chem-specific chem-specific
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm2/s chem-specific chem-specific
Henry's Law Constant (mg/l)/(mg/l) chem-specific chem-specific
* Only needed if the groundwater concentration is not calculated by another model.

E-8
 Vapor Transport From Groundwater

E.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF GROUNDWATER

VAPOR MODEL

1. It is assumed that diffusion through the capillary fringe is the dominant resistance
to transport so that pressure-driven flow into the building can be neglected.
2. When the model is run in a stand-alone mode (not linked with a fate and transport
model), the groundwater source concentrations are assumed to be constant (Figure
E-1).
3. When the model is linked with a fate and transport model, the groundwater source
concentrations calculated by this model at the receptor well are used as the source
concentrations for the vapor transport model. The concentration in groundwater is
assumed to remain constant over each time step. Figures E-2 and E-3 illustrate
how the groundwater vapor transport model can be linked with two fate and
transport models.

Cvs

Source
Cgw at well
location

Figure E-2. Vapor Transport from Groundwater Using a Saturated Zone

Fate and Transport Model to Estimate Source Concentrations

E-9
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Source Cvs

Cgw at well
location

Figure E-3. Vapor Transport from Groundwater Using a Linked Vadose Zone
and Dissolved Phase Transport Model

E.7 REFERENCES

ASTM, 1995. Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) at Petroleum

Release Sites. E1739-95.

Brooks, R.H. and A. T. Corey, 1964. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media,

Hydrology Paper No. 3, Civil Engineering Dept., Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado.

Carsel, R.F. and R.S. Parrish. "Developing joint probability distributions of soil water
retention characteristics." Water Resources Research, 24 (1988):755-769.

Lenhard, R.J., Parker, J.C. and Mishra, S. 1989. "On the Correspondence Between
Brooks-Corey and van Genuchten Models", J. Irrig. and Drainage Eng., ASCE
115: 744-751.

Millington, J.J. and Quirk, J.P. 1961. Permeability of Porous Solids. Trans. Faraday
Soc., 57. 1200-1207.

E-10
Appendix
F Outdoor Air Model

F.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

The outdoor air model uses a "box" model to estimate a concentration in the breathing
zone directly overlying contaminated soil. This model requires the volatile emission
rate to be calculated by one of the soil vapor or groundwater emission models
(Appendices D, E, J, or K) as an input. The approach is applicable for on-site
exposures only (no distant downwind receptors). Figure F-1 shows the problem
geometry.

Source
Length

Receptor
Wind
Location
Direction

Source in Soil or
Groundwater

Note: in the box model the receptor is always assumed to be located at the
edge of the box downwind of the source. The most conservative approach is
to make the length of the box equal to the longest source dimension.

Figure F-1. Schematic of the Outdoor Air Model.

F-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

F.2 APPLICATIONS OF THIS MODEL

This is a partial list of the main applications of the box model:

• This model is a screening model for estimating the worst case air
concentrations for an on-site (directly over source) exposure.
• The box model uses the volatile emission flux estimates from one of the soil
vapor or groundwater emission models (discussed in Appendices D, E, J or K).
• The volatile emissions are assumed to enter a "box" that is ventilated by the
wind. Vertical dispersion of the chemicals out of the box is ignored.
• The receptor is always assumed to be at the downwind edge of the source.
• The wind is assumed to always blow in the direction of the receptor.
• The critical source dimension is the length of the source in the predominant
direction of wind flow. If that direction is not known, the longest horizontal
dimension of the source should be used for the most conservative assumption.
• Degradation and other loss mechanisms (such as deposition and photolysis) in
the air are not considered.
• This model can be used to estimate concentrations in a trench or similar
situations, however a reasonable "wind speed" (for the air exchange rate) must
be chosen.

F.3 TRANSPORT EQUATION AND PROCESSES

The outdoor air model assumes that the volatile emissions leaving the contaminated
soil enter a box-shaped area directly overlying the soil. The box is assumed to be
ventilated by the wind and the contaminant is fully mixed. The air concentration is
calculated by

FL  m 
C outdoor =   (F-1)
uH  100cm 

where
Coutdoor= concentration in outdoor air [g/cm3]

F-2
 Outdoor Air Model

F = volatile emission rate from vadose zone impacted soil

[g/cm2/s]
L = length of the box in the direction of air flow (parallel to
the wind) [m]
H = height of the box [m]
u = wind speed [m/s]

The vapor flux, F, is estimated in RISC using one of the volatile emission models.
Note, this model does not have a variable for the width of the box, (i.e. the width of
the source perpendicular to the wind direction). The width cancels out of the equation
because it is used to calculate both the emission rate in the numerator and the air
exchange rate in the denominator.

The user is encouraged to use site-specific wind speed data if available (from nearby
weather station or from measurements). The USEPA Soil Screening Guidance
Technical Background Document (1995) contains a table of reported average wind
speeds for many major US cities. If this data is not available, a conservative value for
average wind speed over an open site can be considered to be 2 m/s (4.5 mph).

F.3.1 Dimensions of Box

The height of the box is usually assumed to be the height of a person (~2 m). The
length of the box should reflect the length of the vapor source in the predominant
wind direction. It should never be set to a value less than the long dimension of the
source because the model assumes that all of the soil emissions enter the box and are
fully mixed. If the box dimensions are less than the source dimensions, the model
assumes that the vapors are concentrating (which is not likely in open air). If the
predominant direction of wind is not known, the length of the box could be set equal
to the longest areal dimension of the source (this would be the most conservative
approach).

Note, the size of the box should be chosen to equal the reasonable dimension of an
area to which a receptor would be exposed over the entire exposure duration. For
example, if a commercial scenario is being considered for an outdoor worker, the size
of the box should reflect the area and time frame of exposure. The "box" could be the

F-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

entire contaminated site over the entire day or only a portion of the site over a few
hours.

F.4 DATA REQUIREMENTS

The data requirements for the outdoor air model are shown in Table F-1. Note, the
emission rate is not input by the user, it is calculated by one of the volatilization
models (either from a soil or groundwater source).

Table F-1. Data Requirements for the Outdoor Air Model.

Typical Range of Values
Units Minimum Maximum

BOX MODEL PARAMETER

Length of box m Site-specific site-specific
Height of box m 1 2
Wind Speed m/s 2 7

F.5 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE OUTDOOR

AIR MODEL

1. The outdoor air model is for on-site exposures only and does not consider
receptors located downwind or distant from the source area.
2. The size of the box should reflect a reasonable exposure area and the exposure
duration used should be consistent with the time spent in the box by the
potential receptor.
3. The length of the box should never be set to a value less than the respective
length of the soil or groundwater source.
4. The air is considered to be fully mixed at all times.
5. The wind speed ventilates the box at a constant rate.
6. This model uses the volatile emissions calculated by one of the volatilization
models as a source term.

F-4
 Volatilization In
the Shower/
Appendix Volatilization
G From Sprinklers

G.1 MODEL OVERVIEW

The shower model in RISC is based on Foster and Chrostowski's paper entitled
"Integrated Household Exposure Model for Use of Tap Water Contaminated With
Volatile Organic Chemicals" (1986). Of the five shower models "on the market", this
is the most conservative one, as evaluated by Carver et al (1991). However, the
spread of concentrations predicted by the five models is relatively narrow; the Foster
and Chrostowski (1986) model predicts a concentration only twice that of the least
conservative model. The sprinkler model is a variation of the shower model and is
described at the end of this appendix.

In the Foster and Chrostowski (1986) model, a two-film, gas-liquid mass transfer
model is used to estimate the amount of chemical volatilized from the water. For the
shower exposure, the total amount volatilized during the length of the shower is used
to estimate the chemical concentration in shower air. The concentration in shower air
is assumed to be fully mixed for the entire duration of the shower. The total mass
volatilized is assumed to be in the shower stall at the beginning of the shower and to
remain constant throughout the shower. The shower air is assumed to be stagnant (not
exchanged with air outside of the shower). For the sprinkler scenario, the outdoor air
concentration is calculated using a box model approach similar to the outdoor air
model described in Appendix F. In this model, the mass volatilization rate (rather
than the total mass volatilized). is calculated and the air is assumed to exchange via
the wind. In both cases, the shower model is run during the risk calculation (Step 5).

G-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

This appendix is divided into two sections, one describing the shower model for a
shower exposure and the other describing the sprinkler scenario.

G.2 SHOWER MODEL DESCRIPTION

The concentration in shower air is estimated from:

M sh
C sh = (G-1)
Vsh

where
Csh = air concentration in the shower stall [mg/m3]
Msh = mass of contaminant volatilized [mg]
Vsh = volume of air in the shower stall (or bathroom) [m3]

The volume of the shower stall is a user input and should reflect the volume of air that
the volatile chemicals can occupy. Foster and Chrostowski (1986) use a value of 3 m3
in their paper for the volume of shower stall. Note that the smaller the volume of air,
the higher the shower air concentration, therefore, the more conservative values for
volume (e.g. RME value) will be smaller than the average value. The shower air
concentration, Csh, is used in the exposure equations (7-5a and 7-5b) to estimate
chemical intake due to inhalation of volatile emissions in the shower. The air
concentration is assumed to be constant over the entire exposure duration (length of
shower).

The mass of contaminant volatilized is estimated from:

Msh = fv ! Q ! timesh ! Cw ! 60 min/hr (G-2)

where
Msh = mass of contaminant volatilized [mg]

G-2
 Shower and Irrigation Volatilization Model

fv = fraction of contaminant volatilized (calculated in Eqn. G-

11) [mg/mg]
Q = volumetric flow rate of water [l/min]
timesh = duration for which the shower water is flowing [hr]
Cw = concentration of contaminant in shower water (tap water)
[mg/l]

Estimation of volatile organic chemical (VOC) concentration in the shower air is

based on two-film gas-liquid mass transfer theory. First, the volatilization rate of a
VOC across the surface of a hypothetical shower droplet is estimated. The total mass
volatilized is calculated by multiplying the volatilization rate by the droplet droptime
(a user input). The Foster and Chrostowski (1986) approach assumes that the
volatilization of the contaminant is limited by the rate of mass-transfer and not by
Henry's Law equilibrium. The overall mass-transfer coefficient (KL) is calculated
from the following equation (from two-film boundary theory):
−1
1 1 
KL =  +  (G-3)
 k l K H k g 

where
KL = overall mass transfer coefficient [cm/hr]
KH = Henry's Law constant for the contaminant [(mg/l)/(mg/l)]
kg = gas-phase mass-transfer coefficient [cm/hour]
kl = liquid-phase mass-transfer coefficient [cm/hour]

Equation G-3 describes the mass-transfer rate of a compound at an air-water interface

where diffusion may be limited by both liquid- and gas-phase resistances. Empirical
values of KL, kl, and kg are situation-specific. Typical values of gas- and liquid-phase
mass transfer coefficients (kg and kl ) have been measured for CO2 and H2O and are
used to estimate these parameters for other volatile compounds using the following
relationships:

G-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

0.5
18 g mol 
k g (VOC ) = k g ( H 2O )   (G-4)
 MWVOC 

0.5
 44 g mol 
k l (VOC ) = k l (CO2 )   (G-5)
 MWVOC 

where
kg(H2O) = gas-phase mass transfer coefficient for water [cm/hr]
kl(CO2) = liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient for carbon dioxide
[cm/hr]
18 = molecular weight of water [g/mol]
44 = molecular weight of carbon dioxide [g/mol]
MWVOC = molecular weight of contaminant [g/mol]

The gas-phase mass transfer coefficient for water, kg(H2O) is assumed to be 3000 cm/hr.
The liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient for carbon dioxide, kl(CO2), is assumed to be
20 cm/hr. The overall mass transfer coefficient, KL (calculated in equation G-3), must
be adjusted for the shower water temperature:
−0.5
T µ 
K ' L (TS ) = KL  l s  (G-6)
 Ts µ l 

where
K'L(Ts) = temperature-adjusted overall mass transfer coefficient
[cm/hr]
Tl = calibration water temperature of KL [K]
Ts = shower water temperature [K]
µl = water viscosity at Tl [g/m-s]
µs = water viscosity at Ts [g/m-s]

The water viscosity is estimated from the following relationships (Weast, 1986)
depending on the temperature of the water. Note, in the following equations,
temperature is in degrees Centigrade.

G-4
 Shower and Irrigation Volatilization Model

If T < 20 oC: µ = 100 ⋅ 10 y

and

1301
y= − 3.30233 (G-7)
998.33 + 8.1855(T − 20) + 0.00585(T − 20) 2

If T > 20 oC: µ = 1.002 ⋅ 10 y

and

− 1.3272(T − 20) − 0.001053(T − 20) 2

y= (G-8)
T + 105

Volatilization is assumed to be a first-order process, described by the differential

equation:

dC sw
= − K ' L aC sw
dt (G-9)

Integrating G-9 yields:

K 'L 6t
−
C sw = C w e d ( 3600 )
(G-10)

where
Csw = concentration of contaminant in shower droplet after
time t [mg/l]
Cw = concentration of contaminant in shower water (tap water)
[mg/liter]
a = specific interfacial area [cm2-area/cm3-volume]
d = shower droplet diameter [cm]
t = shower droplet drop time [sec]

In equation G-10, the interfacial area, a, has been replaced by the quotient "6/3600d".
The ratio 6/d represents the specific interfacial area per unit volume for a hypothetical
 area πd 2 
shower droplet of diameter d  = 4 3  . The value 3,600 is the unit
 volume 3 πr 

G-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

conversion factor used to convert K'L from cm/hr to cm/sec. The larger the interfacial
area for the hypothetical shower droplet, the more rapid the VOC volatilization into
the shower stall air.

The aqueous concentration leaving the shower droplet (Cd) is obtained by the mass
balance:

C d = C w (1 − e − K 'L t / 600 d ) (G-11)

where
Cd = concentration of contaminant leaving the shower droplet
[mg/liter]

The term (1 − e − K 'L t / 600 d ) represents the fraction volatilized, fv, used in Equation G-2
to calculate the total mass volatilized during the shower.

Table G-1. Data Requirements for the Shower Model.

Typical Range of Values
Units Minimum Maximum
SHOWER DATA
o
Temperature of water C 20 45
Volume of the shower stall m3 3 site-specific
Time in the shower (with water min >0 site-specific
flowing)
Volumetric flow rate of the l/min >0 site-specific
shower
Shower droplet drop time s >0 several seconds
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC DATA (individual chemical component)
Molecular Weight g/mol chem-specific chem-specific
Concentration in water mg/l site-specific site-specific
Diffusion Coefficient in Air cm2/s chem-specific chem-specific
2
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm /s chem-specific chem-specific
Henry's Law coefficient (mg/l)/(mg/l) chem-specific chem-specific

G-6
 Shower and Irrigation Volatilization Model

G.3 SPRINKLER VOLATILIZATION MODEL DESCRIPTION

The shower model can also be used to estimate concentration in outdoor air due to
volatilization from water droplets emanating from a sprinkler. This exposure route
may occur if impacted groundwater (or any impacted water) is used to irrigate
residential gardens, where the potable water is obtained from another source (such as a
municipal water supply). If the same water is also used for the potable water supply,
the indoor groundwater routes will most likely dominate the risk assessment.

The outdoor air concentration in the vicinity of an operating sprinkler is calculated

using the volatilization rate calculated by the shower model:

M!
C air = (G-12)
W ⋅ H ⋅u

where
Cair = concentration of contaminant in outdoor air [mg/m3]
M! = mass of chemical volatilized per time [mg/s]
W = width of the box perpendicular to the direction of air
flow [m]
H = height of the box [m]
u = wind speed [m/s]

The form of Equation G-12 is identical to the outdoor air model (or box model)
described in Appendix F. The difference between the outdoor air model described
here, and the shower model described above, is that the air in the shower stall is
assumed to be stagnant, whereas the air around the sprinkler is assumed to be
ventilated by the wind. Note the width of the box is assumed to be constant at 1 m
since the actual width of the source does not affect the concentration calculation.

The mass volatilized from the sprinkler water is calculated from:

M! = Q sprinkler ⋅ f v ⋅ C w (G-13)

G-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

where
Qsprinkler = flow rate of sprinkler [m3/s]

The fraction volatilized, fv, is calculated using equation G-11 (fv = 1 − e − K 'L t / 600 d ). The
input parameters should be chosen to reflect outdoor conditions:

• The drop time should represent the length of time that a particular droplet is
available to contribute volatile emissions to the outdoor air ‘box’. If the water
infiltrates into the soil or moves out of the box, then it is assumed to no longer
contribute to the volatile emissions. As such, this value may need to be
increased to reflect puddled or standing water.
• The temperature of the water will most likely be less than that of shower
water.
• The sprinkler droplet diameter is probably larger than that of shower water
droplets (especially if the shower has a flow restrictor), however this is a
difficult parameter to estimate or measure. The value could be left at the
Foster and Chrostowski (1986) default to be conservative.

The data requirements for the irrigation volatilization model are listed in Table G-2.

G-8
 Shower and Irrigation Volatilization Model

Table G-2. Data Requirements for the Irrigation Volatilization Model.

Typical Range of Values
Units Minimum Maximum
SPRINKLER DATA
o
Temperature of water C
Length of outdoor air box m site-specific site-specific
Width of outdoor air box m 1 1
Height of breathing zone m 1 2
Wind speed m/s >0 5
Time in the sprinkler (with water min >0 site-specific
flowing)
Volumetric flow rate of the l/min >0 site-specific
sprinkler
Sprinkler droplet diameter cm >0 0.5
Sprinkler droplet drop time s >0 several seconds
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC DATA (individual chemical component)
Molecular Weight g/mol chem-specific chem-specific
Concentration in water mg/l site-specific site-specific
Diffusion Coefficient in Air cm2/s chem-specific chem-specific
2
Diffusion Coefficient in Water cm /s chem-specific chem-specific
Henry's Law coefficient (mg/l)/(mg/l) chem-specific chem-specific

G.4 REFERENCES

Carver, J.H., C.S. Seigneur, R.M. Block, T.M. Miller. 1991. Comparison of
Exposure Models for Volatile Organics in Tap Water. Proceedings of
Hazmacon. April 15, 1991. Santa Clara, California.

Foster, S.A. and P.C. Chrostowski. 1986. Integrated Household Exposure Model for
Use of Tap Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Chemicals. 79th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis, MN.

Weast, R.C., M.J. Astle and W.H. Beyer (eds.), 1986. CRC Handbook of Chemistry
and Physics, 67th ed., CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.

G-9
Appendix Tier 1
H Look-Up Table

H.1 TIER 1 SPREADSHEET DESCRIPTION

The Tier 1 Look-Up Table is accessed by the “Tier 1 Levels”

button on the main screen of the RISC interface. Selecting this
button will bring up an Excel spreadsheet containing a Tier 1 spreadsheet based on the
algorithms presented in the ASTM RBCA standard.

The spreadsheet is organized into a number of worksheets. There are two ways to
navigate through the spreadsheet: (1) using the "Main Menu" the user can click on
buttons to switch from one worksheet to another (each sheet has a button to return to
the Main Menu), and (2) using the labeled worksheet tabs at the bottom of each Excel
screen.

Table H-1 shows the Main Menu worksheet and Table H-2 shows the Inputs sheet
with the labeled tabs at the bottom of the Excel screen.

The worksheet, titled “Inputs”, contains the input variables that may be changed by
the user. The worksheet, “RBSLs” (risk-based screening levels) contains the Tier 1
risk-based screening levels. The chemical database is in the worksheet entitled
“Chemical DB”.

H-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Figure H-1. Main Menu of the Tier 1 Spreadsheet

W orksheet Tabs

Figure H-2. "Inputs" Sheet Showing Worksheet Tabs

H-2
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Tables H-1 through H-5 of this appendix present the equations contained in the Tier 1
spreadsheet for each of the five media considered: surficial soil, subsurface soil,
groundwater, air, and water used for recreation (surface water).

The equations used to calculate the Tier 1 values are identical to the ones suggested in
the ASTM’s Risk-Based Corrective Action standard (ASTM, 1995) with the
following exceptions:

• The equations used to calculate RBSLs for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic

health effects use two different receptor definitions:

- For carcinogenic health effects under the residential land use scenario, the
equations assume an additive child/adult receptor; that is, the receptor is
assumed to be a young child for six years of the 30-year exposure duration
and an adult for the remaining 24 years.

- For non-carcinogenic health effects under the residential land use scenario,
the equations assume that the receptor is always a child.

- For both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects under the

commercial/ industrial land use scenario, the equations assume the
commercial/industrial receptor defined in the inputs sheet (which differs
from the ASTM assumptions).
• Fate and transport effects in both the vadose and saturated zones can be
incorporated in the Tier 1 spreadsheet (but not the ASTM guidance) by
including the Green-Ampt algorithm and Domenico equation, respectively.
However, if the user wants to match the numbers in the ASTM document,
these modifications can be readily bypassed by placing the receptor at the
source which, in turn, is placed at the water table.

Tables H-1 and H-2 present the equations used to calculate RBSLs for carcinogenic
and non-carcinogenic effects, respectively. Table H-3 defines the exposure
parameters used in the RBSL equations. The equations used to calculate the various
volatilization factors, leaching factors, and effective diffusion coefficients are
presented in Table H-4. The soil, building, surface and subsurface parameter
variables used in the Table H-4 equations are defined in Table H-5.

H-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

To match the adult-only case of the ASTM standard or other software, assign
adult parameters to the child case and make sure that the total exposure
duration equals 30 years. For example, assign an exposure duration of 24
years for the adult and 6 years for the “child”.

H.2 GREEN-AMPT MODEL

In Tier 1, the vadose zone leaching algorithm assumes that the vadose zone source
extends to the water table and assumes that there is no degradation or dispersion
occurring in the vadose zone. The Green-Ampt model can be used as a model to
predict the effects of degradation in the vadose zone. The Domenico model
(described in the next section) is used to account for both dispersion and degradation
in the saturated zone.

The Green-Ampt equation (1911) is used to calculate a minimal travel time for a
wetting front to move through the vadose zone (from the source to the water table).
The travel time is then used to estimate a vadose zone attenuation coefficient
considering degradation processes. This algorithm is used by both the U.S. States of
South Carolina and Ohio to estimate risk-based screening levels under their
Underground Storage Tank divisions.

The Green-Ampt model assumes that water infiltrates through the vadose zone soil as
a sharp wetting front. The volumetric water content above the wetting front is
assumed to be completely saturated (equal to the total porosity). Since saturated
conditions produce the highest permeability in the vadose zone (permeability
decreases as soil moisture content decreases) this equation estimates the “fastest
possible travel time”. Therefore it is conservative when used to calculate degradation
losses.

Once the pore water velocity is calculated, the retarded velocity for each chemical is
calculated. The chemical-specific travel time from the middle of the source to the
groundwater is used to estimate degradation losses on the way to the groundwater.
The SSTL (site-specific target level) sheet of the Tier 1 spreadsheet contains the new
risk-based screening levels incorporating the Green-Ampt algorithm. Two different

H-4
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

SSTLs are generated: one using the "high-end" (or upper estimate) degradation rate
and one using the "low-end" rate defined in the chemical database. The values of the
degradation rates in the chemical database may be modified by the user as site-specific
or new information becomes available.

For the default parameters in the Tier 1 spreadsheet, modifying the RBSLs using
Green-Ampt produces no noticeable increase in clean-up levels for most chemicals.
As the input parameters are changed to reflect site-specific conditions (e.g. lower
infiltration rate, greater distance to groundwater) the SSTLs calculated with Green-
Ampt may increase.

Table H-6 presents the Green-Ampt equations and Table H-7 presents the parameter
definitions.

H.3 DOMENICO GROUNDWATER MODEL

In Tier 1, the exposure point in groundwater is assumed to be directly below the

vadose zone source. The leaching and groundwater mixing algorithms do not account
for dispersion or degradation in either the vadose or saturated zones. The Green-
Ampt model described above is one way to account for degradation in the vadose
zone.

The Domenico model is used to account for degradation and dispersion in

groundwater. It is applicable for cases where the groundwater receptor point is
downgradient of the source. The Domenico equation can be combined with either the
ASTM soil leaching equation (LFsw) or the leaching equation using the Green-Ampt
equations. The SSTLs calculated for each of these options are shown on the "SSTLs"
sheet in the Tier 1 spreadsheet.

H-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

H.4 REFERENCES

ASTM. 1995. Standard Guide to Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at

Petroleum Release Sites, ASTM E1739-95, Philadelphia, PA.

Domenico, P.A., 1987, "An Analytical Model for Multidimensional Transport of a

Decaying Contaminant Species," Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 91, p 49-58.

Green, W.H. and G.A. Ampt. 1911. “Studies in Soil Physics. I. The Flow of Air and
Water through Soils”, Journal of Agricultural Science, 4:1-24.

H-6
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table H-1. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels

(RBSLs) – Carcinogenic Effects
(page 1 of 5)
RBSLs in SURFICIAL SOIL [mg/kg]
Ingestion Of Soil, Dermal Contact With Soil,
Inhalation Of Vapors and Particulates in Outdoor Air

Residential

RBSL surf soil =

TR
 EFc × EDc    
  SFo × 10
− 6 kg
× (ING(soil)c × RAFo + SSA(soil)c × M × RAFd ) + (SFinh × INH(out air)c × (VFss + VFp )) 
 BWc × ATcarc × 365 d  mg   
 yr 
 
EFa × EDa   

 +
d  o
 SF × 10 − 6 kg
× (ING(soil)a × RAFo + SSA(soil) a × M × RAF )
d  + (SFinh × INH(out air) a × (VFss + VF ))
p 
 BWa × ATcarc × 365   
mg
 yr 

Commercial/Industrial

RBSLsurf soil =
d
TR × BWi × ATcarc × 365
yr

EFi × EDi  SFo × 10 − 6

kg
mg


( 
× (ING(soil)i × RAFo + SSA(soil)i × M × RAFd ) + SFinh × INH(out air)i × VFss + VFp 

( ))

If the RBSL calculated for surficial soil exceeds the saturated soil
concentration, Csat, the target risk cannot be exceeded for any concentration
and “SAT” is entered in the “RBSLs” worksheet. The equation used to
calculate Csat is defined in Table H-4.

H-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table H-1. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels

(RBSLs) – Carcinogenic Effects
(Page 2 of 5)
RBSLs in SUBSURFACE SOIL [mg/kg]
Inhalation of Outdoor Air

Residential and Commercial/Industrial

RBSL out air mg

RBSL sub soil = × 10 −3
VFsamb µg

RBSLs in SUBSURFACE SOIL [mg/kg]

Inhalation of Indoor Air

Residential and Commercial/Industrial

RBSLind air mg
RBSLsub soil = × 10 −3
VFsesp µg

RBSLs in SUBSURFACE SOIL [mg/kg]

Leaching to Groundwater and Ingestion of Groundwater

Residential and Commercial/Industrial

RBSLgw
RBSLsub soil =
LFsw

If the RBSL calculated for subsurface soil exceeds the saturated soil
concentration, Csat, the target risk cannot be exceeded for any concentration
and “SAT” is entered in the “RBSLs” worksheet. The equation used to
calculate Csat is defined in Table H-4.

H-8
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table H-1. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels

(RBSLs) – Carcinogenic Effects
(page 3 of 5)
RBSLs in GROUNDWATER [mg/l]
Ingestion of Groundwater

Residential

TR d
RBSLgw = × 365
 EDc × EFc × ING( gw) c × SFo EDa × EFa × ING( gw) a × SFo  yr
 + 
 BWc × ATcarc BWa × ATcarc 

Commercial/Industrial

TR × AT carc × BW i d
RBSL gw = × 365
SFo × EFi × ED i × ING ( gw ) i yr

RBSLs in GROUNDWATER [mg/l]

Volatilization from Groundwater and Inhalation of Indoor Air

Residential and Commercial/Industrial

RBSLind air mg
RBSLgw = × 10 −3
VFwesp µg

RBSLs in GROUNDWATER [mg/l]

Volatilization from Groundwater and Inhalation of Outdoor Air

Residential and Commercial/Industrial

RBSLout air mg
RBSLgw = × 10 −3
VFwamb µg

If the RBSL calculated for groundwater exceeds the solubility of the chemical
in water, the target risk cannot be exceeded for any concentration and “>SOL”
is entered in the “RBSLs” worksheet.

H-9
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table H-1. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels

(RBSLs) – Carcinogenic Effects
(page 4 of 5)
RBSLs in Air [µg/m3]
Inhalation of Indoor Air

Residential

RBSLind air =
TR d µg
× 365 × 10 3
 EDc × EFc × INH (ind air ) c × SFinh EDa × EFa × INH (ind air ) a × SFinh  yr mg
 + 
 BWc × ATcarc BWa × ATcarc 

Commercial/Industrial

TR × ATcarc × BWi d µg
RBSLind air = × 365 × 10 3
SFi × EFi × EDi × INH (ind air ) i yr mg

RBSLs in Air [µg/m3]

Inhalation of Outdoor Air

Residential

RBSLout air =
TR d µg
× 365 × 10 3
 c
ED × EF × INH ( out air ) × SF ED × EF × INH ( out air ) × SFinh  yr mg
+
c c inh a a a
 
 BWc × ATcarc BWa × ATcarc 

Commercial/Industrial

TR × ATcarc × BWi d µg
RBSLout air = × 365 × 10 3
SFi × EFi × EDi × INH (out air ) i yr mg

H-10
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table H-1. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels

(RBSLs) – Carcinogenic Effects
(Page 5 of 5)
RBSLs in Surface Water for Recreational Use [mg/l]
Ingestion and Dermal Contact

Residential

RBSLsw =
TR
 
 EF(sw) × ED × SF  PC  EF(sw)a × EDa × SFo  PC 
 c c o
 ING(sw)c + SSA(total)c × 3 3 +  ING(sw)a + SSA(total)a × 3 3 
 BW × AT × 365 d  10 cm l  d  10 cm l 
BWa × ATcarc × 365
 c carc
yr yr 

Commercial/Industrial

Scenario not considered

If the RBSL calculated for water used for recreation exceeds the solubility of
the chemical in water, the target risk cannot be exceeded for any
concentration and “>SOL” is entered in the “RBSLs” worksheet.

H-11
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table H-2. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels

(RBSLs) – Non-Carcinogenic Effects
(page 1 of 5)
RBSLs in SURFICIAL SOIL [mg/kg]
Ingestion Of Soil, Dermal Contact With Soil,
Inhalation Of Vapors and Particulates in Outdoor Air

Residential

RBSLsurf soil =
d
THQ × BWc × AThaz × 365
yr
  − 6 kg  
 10 × (ING( soil ) c × RAFo + SSA( soil ) c × M × RAFd )
 mg + (INH ( out air ) × (
VF + VF ))
EFc × EDc 
c ss p 

 RfDo RfDinh 
 
 

Commercial/Industrial

RBSL surf soil =

d
THQ × BWi × AThaz × 365
yr
  −6 kg  
 10 × (ING ( soil ) i × RAFo + SSA( soil ) i × M × RAFd )
  mg  ( )
INH (out air ) i × (VFss + VF p ) 

EFi × EDi +
 RfDo RfDinh 
 
 

If the RBSL calculated for surficial soil exceeds the saturated soil
concentration, Csat, the target risk cannot be exceeded for any concentration
and “SAT” is entered in the “RBSLs” worksheet. The equation used to
calculate Csat is defined in Table H-4.

H-12
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table H-2. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels

(RBSLs) – Non-Carcinogenic Effects
(Page 2 of 5)
RBSLs in SUBSURFACE SOIL [mg/kg]
Inhalation of Outdoor Air

Residential and Commercial/Industrial

RBSL out air mg

RBSL sub soil = × 10 −3
VFsamb µg

RBSLs in SUBSURFACE SOIL [mg/kg]

Inhalation of Indoor Air

Residential and Commercial/Industrial

RBSLind air mg
RBSLsub soil = × 10 −3
VFsesp µg

RBSLs in SUBSURFACE SOIL [mg/kg]

Leaching to Groundwater and Ingestion of Groundwater

Residential and Commercial/Industrial

RBSLgw
RBSLsub soil =
LFsw

If the RBSL calculated for subsurface soil exceeds the saturated soil
concentration, Csat, the target risk cannot be exceeded for any concentration
and “SAT” is entered in the “RBSLs” worksheet. The equation used to
calculate Csat is defined in Table H-4.

H-13
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table H-2. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels

(RBSLs) – Non-Carcinogenic Effects
(page 3 of 5)
RBSLs in GROUNDWATER [mg/l]
Ingestion of Groundwater

Residential

THQ × AThaz × BWc × RfDo d

RBSLgw = × 365
EFc × EDc × ING ( gw) c yr

Commercial/Industrial

THQ × AThaz × BWi × RfDo d

RBSLgw = × 365
EFi × EDi × ING ( gw) i yr

RBSLs in GROUNDWATER [mg/l]

Volatilization from Groundwater and Inhalation of Indoor Air

Residential and Commercial/Industrial

RBSLind air mg
RBSLgw = × 10 −3
VFwesp µg

RBSLs in GROUNDWATER [mg/l]

Volatilization from Groundwater and Inhalation of Outdoor Air

Residential and Commercial/Industrial

RBSLout air mg
RBSLgw = × 10 −3
VFwamb µg

If the RBSL calculated for groundwater exceeds the solubility of the chemical
in water, the target risk cannot be exceeded for any concentration and “>SOL”
is entered in the “RBSLs” worksheet.

H-14
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table H-2. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels

(RBSLs) – Non-Carcinogenic Effects
(page 4 of 5)
RBSLs in Air [µg/m3]

Inhalation of Indoor Air

Residential

THQ × AThaz × BW c × RfDinh d µg

RBSLind air = × 365 × 10 3
EFc × EDc × INH (ind air ) c yr mg

Commercial/Industrial

THQ × AThaz × BWi × RfDinh d µg

RBSLind air = × 365 × 10 3
EFi × EDi × INH (ind air ) i yr mg

RBSLs in Air [µg/m3]

Inhalation of Outdoor Air

Residential

THQ × AThaz × BW c × RfDinh d µg

RBSLout air = × 365 × 10 3
EFc × EDc × INH (out air ) c yr mg

Commercial/Industrial

THQ × AThaz × BWi × RfDinh d µg

RBSLout air = × 365 × 10 3
EFi × EDi × INH (out air ) i yr mg

H-15
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table H-2. Equations Used to Calculate Tier 1 Risk-Based Screening Levels

(RBSLs) – Non-Carcinogenic Effects
(Page 5 of 5)
RBSLs in Water Used for Recreation [mg/l]

Ingestion and Dermal Contact

Residential

d
THQ × RfDo × BWc × AThaz × 365
yr
RBSLsw =
 l 
EF ( sw)c × EDc × ET ( sw)c ×  ING ( sw)c + SSA(total )c × PC × 10 −3 
 cm3 

Commercial/Industrial

Scenario not considered

If the RBSL calculated for water used for recreation exceeds the solubility of
the chemical in water, the target risk cannot be exceeded for any
concentration and “>SOL” is entered in the “RBSLs” worksheet.

H-16
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table H-3. Exposure Parameter Variables Used in Tables H-1 and H-2.
(page 1 of 2)
Parameters Definitions Units
ATcarc averaging time for carcinogens years
AThaz averaging time for non-carcinogens years
BW c,a,i body weight (child, adult, commercial/industrial) kg
Csat saturated soil concentration* mg/kg
ED c,a,i exposure duration (child, adult, commercial/industrial) years
EF(sw)c,a exposure frequency to water used for recreation (child, d/yr
adult)
EFc,a,i exposure frequency, for all pathways except water used d/year
for recreation (child, adult, commercial/industrial)
ET(sw)c,a exposure time to water used for recreation (child, adult) hr/day
ING(gw)c,a,i groundwater ingestion rate (child, adult, l/day
commercial/industrial)
ING(soil) c,a,i soil ingestion rate (child, adult, commercial/industrial) mg/d
ING(sw)c,a water ingestion rate during recreation (child, adult) l/hr
INH(ind air)c,a,i indoor inhalation rate (child, adult, commercial/industrial)
INH(out air)c,a,i outdoor inhalation rate (child, adult, m3/d
commercial/industrial)
LF leaching factor* (chemical-specific) (mg/l)/(mg/kg
)
M soil to skin adherence factor mg/cm2
PC skin permeability coefficient for chemicals in water cm/hr
(chemical-specific)
RAFd dermal relative absorption factor (chem.-specific) mg/mg
RAFo oral relative absorption factor (chemical-specific) mg/mg
RfDinh inhalation chronic reference dose mg/kg-d
RfDo oral chronic reference dose mg/kg-d
SFinh inhalation slope factor 1/(mg/kg-d)
SFo oral slope factor 1/(mg/kg-d)
SSA(soil)c,a,i skin surface area exposed to soil (child, adult, cm2
commercial/industrial)
SSA(total)c,a total skin surface area exposed to water used for recreation cm2
(child, adult)
THQ target hazard quotient unitless
TR target individual excess lifetime cancer risk unitless
*See Table H-4 for definition

H-17
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table H-3. Exposure Parameter Variables Used in Tables H-1 and H-2.
(page 2 of 2)
Parameters Definitions Units
VFss volatilization factor from surficial soils to (mg/m3)/(mg/kg)
outdoor air (vapors) * (chemical-specific)
VFp volatilization factor from surficial soils to (mg/m3)/(mg/kg)
outdoor air (particulates)* (chemical-
specific)
VFsamb volatilization factor from subsurface soils to (mg/m3)/(mg/kg)
outdoor air* (chemical-specific)
VFsesp volatilization factor from subsurface soils to (mg/m3)/(mg/kg)
indoor air* (chemical-specific)
VFwesp volatilization factor from groundwater to (mg/m3)/(mg/l)
indoor air* (chemical-specific)
VFwamb volatilization factor from groundwater to (mg/m3)/(mg/l)
outdoor air* (chemical-specific)
*See Table H-4 for definition

H-18
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table H-4. Volatilization Factors, Leaching Factor,

and Effective Diffusion Coefficients
(Page 1 of 3)

VFss: Volatilization factor from surficial soils to outdoor air (vapors)

[(mg/m3air)/(mg/kg soil)]

2Wρ s Dseff H cm3kg

VFss = × 103 3
U airδ air π (θ ws + k s ρ s + Hθ as )τ mg
or :
Wρ s d cm3kg
VFss = × 103 3 ; whichever is less
U airδ airτ mg

VFp: Volatilization factor from surficial soils to outdoor air (particulates)

[(mg/m3air)/(mg/kg soil)]

PeW cm3kg
VFp = × 103 3
U airδ air mg

VFsamb: Volatilization factor from subsurface soils to outdoor (ambient) air

[(mg/m3air)/(mg/kg soil)]

Hρ s cm3kg
VFsamb = x103
 
[θ ws + ks ρ s + Hθ as ] 1 + U airδeffair Ls 
m3 g
 Ds W 

VFsesp: Volatilization factor from subsurface soils to indoor (enclosed-space) air

[(mg/m3air)/(mg/kg soil)]

Hρ s  D s eff / L s 
 
[θ ws + k s ρ s + Hθ as ]  ER ⋅ L B  cm 3 kg
VFsesp = x10 3

 D s eff / L s   eff
Ds / Ls  m3 g
1+   +  eff 
 ER ⋅ L B   ( D crack / Lcrack )η 

H-19
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table H-4. Volatilization Factors, Leaching Factor,

and Effective Diffusion Coefficients
(Page 2 of 3)

VFwesp: Volatilization factor from groundwater to indoor (enclosed space) air

[(mg/m3air)/(mg/l H2O)]

 D eff L 
H  ws gw 
 ER LB  l
VFwesp = × 103 3
D L  
eff eff
D L  m
1 +  ws gw  +  eff ws gw 
 ER LB   ( Dcrack Lcrack ) η 

VFwamb: Volatilization factor from groundwater to outdoor (ambient) air

[(mg/m3air)/(mg/l H2O)]

H l
VFwamb = × 103 3
U δ L  m
1 +  air aireff gw 
 WDws 

LFsw: Leaching factor from subsurface soil to groundwater

[(mg/l H2O)/(mg/kg soil)]

ρs cm3kg
LFsw = x
U gwδ gw 
[θ ws + ks ρ s + Hθ as ] 1 + 
lg
 IW 

Csat : Soil concentration at which dissolved pore-water and

vapor phases become saturated
[(mg/kg soil)]

lg
Csat =
S
[θ ws + ks ρ s + Hθ as ] x 3
ρs cm kg

H-20
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table H-4. Volatilization Factors, Leaching Factor,

and Effective Diffusion Coefficients
(Page 3 of 3)
D eff
s : Effective diffusion coefficient in soil based on vapor-phase concentration
[cm2/s]

θ as3.33 water  1  θ ws
3.33
D eff
=D air
+D   2
θ T2  H  θT
s

D eff
crack : Effective diffusion coefficient through foundation cracks
[cm2/s]

θ acrack
3.33
water  1  θ wcrack
3.33
D eff
=D air
+D  
θ T2  H  θT
crack 2

D eff
cap : Effective diffusion coefficient through capillary fringe

[cm2/s]

θ acap
3.33
 1  θ wcap
3.33

Deff
=D air
+D water
  2
θ T2  H  θT
cap

Deff
ws : Effective diffusion coefficient between groundwater and soil surface
(depth-weighted average)
[cm2/s]

eff
Dws =
(h
cap + hv )
 hcap hv 
 eff + eff 
 Dcap Ds 

H-21
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table H-5. Soil, Building, Surface, and Subsurface Parameters Used in

Table H-4.
Parameters Definitions Units
d lower depth of surficial soil zone cm
air
D diffusion coefficient in air (chemical-specific) cm2/s
water
D diffusion coefficient in water (chemical-specific) cm2/s
ER indoor air exchange rate s-1
foc fraction organic carbon in soil g OC/g soil
H henry’s law coefficient (cm -H2O)/(cm3-air)
3

hcap thickness of capillary fringe cm

hv thickness of vadose zone cm
I infiltration rate of water through vadose zone cm/yr
3
koc carbon-water sorption coefficient cm H2O/g OC
ks soil-water sorption coefficient (koc x foc) cm3 H2O/g soil
LB indoor air volume/infiltration area ratio cm
Lcrack foundation thickness cm
Lgw depth to groundwater (hcap+hv) cm
Ls depth to subsurface soil sources cm
Pe particulate emission rate g/cm2-s
S pure chemical solubility in water mg/L
Uair wind speed above ground surface in outdoor air cm/s
mixing zone
Ugw groundwater Darcy velocity (gradient x hydraulic cm/yr
conductivity)
W width of source area parallel to wind, or cm
groundwater flow direction
δair outdoor air mixing zone height cm
δgw groundwater mixing zone thickness cm
η areal fraction of cracks in building foundation (cm cracks)/(cm2 area)
2

θacap volumetric air content in capillary fringe soils (cm3 air)/(cm3 soil)
θ acrack volumetric air content in foundation cracks (cm3 air)/(cm3 soil)
θ as volumetric air content in vadose zone soils (cm3 air)/(cm3 soil)
θT total soil porosity (cm3 voids)/(cm3 soil)
θ wcap volumetric water content in capillary fringe soils (cm3 water)/(cm3 soil)
θ wcrack volumetric water content in foundation cracks (cm3 water)/(cm3 soil)
θws volumetric water content in vadose zone soils (cm3 H2O)/(cm3 soil)
ρs soil bulk density g/cm3
τ averaging time for vapor flux s

H-22
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table H-6. Green-Ampt Equations Used to Calculate Attenuation Coefficients in

the Vadose Zone (for SSTLs)
The Green-Ampt equation predicts pore water travel time from a vadose zone soil
source to the water table. This travel time is then used to account for degradation in
the vadose zone.
Time, t, for infiltrating water to move from the source to the water table (days):

θa   i+ L− Hf   1 day
t=  L − (i − H f )ln  
 86400 sec
Ku    i−Hf  

Vertical seepage velocity, Vs, of the water (cm/day):

L
Vs =
t

Individual chemical velocity (considers retardation), Vc, (cm/day):

Vw
Vc =
 ρ * Kd 
1 +  b 
 θT 

The partition coefficient for organic chemicals, (ml/g) is calculated as:

K d = K oc ⋅ Foc

Travel time for the chemical to reach the water table, tc, (days):

L
tc =
Vc

Green-Ampt attenuation coefficient, AFGrAm, is then calculate using the first-order

degradation equation:

C
AFGrAm = = e (− ktc )
Co

RBSL in soil considering degradation in the vadose zone, RBSL (Green-Ampt) [mg/kg]:

RBSLs
RBSL( Green − Ampt ) =
AFGrAm

H-23
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table H-7. Unique Input Parameters Required for the Green-Ampt Model
(other parameters as defined previously)
Parameters Definitions Units
Hf wetting front suction (matric potential) [see figure cm
from Rawls (1989)]
Ksat saturated hydraulic conductivity of vadose zone cm/sec
Ksu unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of vadose zone cm/sec
L distance from the bottom of the source to the water cm
table, calculated as (depth to groundwater - depth
to top of subsurface source/2.0)
Ksu unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of vadose zone cm/sec
t time for water to travel from center of source to d
water table
Vs vertical seepage velocity cm/d
λ chemical-specific degradation rate 1/d

The only "new" input parameters required for Green-Ampt the saturated
hydraulic conductivity and the wetting front suction. The remainder of the
above input parameters are calculated from the previously defined
parameters.

H-24
 Tier 1 Spreadsheet

Table H-8. Domenico Groundwater Model Equations Used to Calculate

Attenuation Coefficients in Groundwater (for SSTLs)

AFdom: Steady-state groundwater attenuation factor (along centerline of plume)

(Domenico)
[(mg/l)/(mg/l)]

C ( x, y = 0, z = 0)  x  4λα x    Wy    Wz  

AFdom = = exp 1 − 1 +  erf   erf  
Co  2α x  υ    4 α y x    2 αz x  
 

x, y, and z are the distances downgradient, cross-gradient in the horizontal direction

and vertically from the centerline of the plume.

H-25
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Table H-9. Parameters Used in Table H-8, Groundwater Attenuation Factor.

Parameters Definitions Units
AFdom attenuation factor calculated using the Domenico (mg/l)/(mg/l
model )
Co dissolved concentration in groundwater at the mg/l
source or directly underneath the soil source
C(x,y,z) dissolved concentration in groundwater at a mg/l
downgradient location where x is in the
direction of the groundwater flow on the
centerline of the plume
υ groundwater seepage velocity (non-retarded) cm/d
(Calculated as υ = k * i / θ, where θ = the
porosity of the saturated zone)
Wy width of the groundwater source in the horizontal cm
direction, perpendicular to groundwater flow
(this is an input parameter, unique to the
Domenico model)
Wz thickness of the groundwater source in the vertical cm
direction, perpendicular to groundwater flow
(assumed to be equal to the groundwater
mixing zone height, δgw )
αx longitudinal dispersivity (in the direction of cm
groundwater flow) (Calculated as αx = 0.1 * x)
αY transverse dispersivity (perpendicular to cm
groundwater flow in the horizontal direction)
(Calculated as αy = αx / 3)
αx vertical dispersivity (Calculated as αy = αx / 3) cm
λ chemical-specific degradation rate 1/d

H-26
 Rationale For Selection
Appendix Of Monte Carlo
I Distributions

Derivation of a Monte Carlo distribution for certain exposure parameters is discussed

in this chapter. In developing these distributions, previously published distributions
for parameters were used when available and appropriate. Many of the distributions
were obtained from the American Industrial Health Council’s Exposure Factors
Sourcebook (1994). For several parameters published data were not available. In
those cases distributions were developed by BP using best professional judgment and
simple distributions (i.e. triangular or uniform). It is also important for users to
recognize that these distributions are “defaults”. They represent the potential
behaviors expected across a range of facilities and areas of the USA. Before
undertaking a Monte Carlo-based risk assessment, users should carefully consider
whether the default distributions are representative of their specific situation and
country.

I.1 BODY WEIGHT

These distributions are taken from the literature and are based upon measured data.
The distributions have been truncated to preclude the possibility of including
abnormally small or large individuals. The expected value (identical to the arithmetic
average) of the distribution is identical to the typical and RME point estimates. Body
weight is one of the few distributions where the RME point estimate is equal to the
typical value and also the arithmetic average.

I-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

I.2 EXPOSURE DURATION

The distributions for adult residents and trespassers are based upon measured data for
owners of homes. Distributions for other groups (renters, etc.) are also available, but
owners were selected because they will result in conservative estimates of potential
risk. The expected value (11.36 years) of this normal distribution is similar to the
typical point estimate of 9 years. As expected, the RME point value (30 years) is
substantially lower than the maximum of the distribution, because the 30 years is
assumed to represent the upper 95th percentile, not the maximum, of the distribution
of duration of residence.

The distribution for child residents (aged 1 to 6) is assumed to be uniform with a

minimum of 1 year and maximum of 5 years - the maximum time a child is assumed
to live adjacent to a site or facility.

The distribution of workers is based upon measured data and reflects a normal
distribution pattern. The expected duration or residence (8.3 years) is about the same
as the typical point estimate of 8 years. The maximum of the distribution is 50 years.
Again, the RME point estimate is 25 years, and represents an upper percentile of the
potential exposure of workers.

I.3 EXPOSURE FREQUENCY

I.3.1 Soil

All these distributions are based upon best professional judgement, are represented by
a triangular distribution, and were developed to encompass the full range of potential
exposure frequencies. The maximum of each distribution is equal to the RME point
estimate and the expected value (which in a triangular distribution is the most likely
value) is equal to the typical point estimate. The minimum of each distribution

I-2
represents the lowest number of days each receptor is assumed to come into contact
with soil. Note, that the assumptions for the worker represent someone whose job
requires them to be outside a portion of the day. It is not intended to represent office
workers.

I.3.2 Indoor Air, Outdoor Air and Drinking Water

This parameter is represented by a constant of 350 days for the adult and child
receptor and 250 days for the worker. This assumes that a resident will breathe air
and drink water during every day of the year, except for two weeks when they are on
vacation, during all of the years they are exposed. Similarly, a worker is assumed to
breathe air and drink water everyday that they are at work, which is assumed to be 250
days per year.

I.3.3 Swimming Frequency per Year

All these distributions are represented by a triangular distribution and are developed to
encompass the full range of potential exposure frequencies. The maximum of each
distribution (60 days) is about twice the RME point estimate (36 days) because the
RME represents an upper percentile while the maximum is designed to represent the
greatest number of days that a person would potentially swim (equal to every day
during the summer). The minimum (0 days) represents the fewest days that a person
could swim. The expected value (7 days), which in a triangular distribution is the
most likely value, is the average number of days the USEPA reports that a person
swims per year, and is equal to the typical point estimate.

I.3.4 Swimming Frequency per Day

The distribution of swimming exposure time per day is assumed to be triangular, with
an expected point estimate value of 1 hour/day. Both the point estimate typical and
RME values are assumed to be 2.6 hours/day, as recommended by USEPA (1988).
USEPA describes this value as an estimate of the national average time per swimming
event while on vacation. In this case, the RME value represents an average parameter
value, rather than an upper-bound value, and is therefore equal to the typical value for
this parameter.

I-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

I.4 TOTAL SKIN SURFACE AREA (SHOWERING/SWIMMING)

These normal distributions are taken from the literature and represent the natural
variation in the skin surface area of receptors of the ages shown. The expected value
of the distribution (the arithmetic average of a normal distribution) is identical to the
typical point estimate value. The RME point values represent an upper percentile of
the distribution of surface area for each receptor group and, thus, are less than the
maximum.

I.4.1 Fraction Skin Exposed (Soil Contact/Wading)

All these distributions are based upon best professional judgment, are represented by a
triangular distribution, and were developed to represent the range of skin surface area
that may potentially be exposed to soil or water for each of the different receptors.
The minimum of each distribution is equal to zero, because it is possible for a receptor
to contact soil or water but not absorb any chemicals because they are wearing
clothing. The expected value is the same as the typical point estimate value and
represents the fraction of skin comprised by the hands and half of the forearms, which
are the parts of the body assumed to be exposed most frequently. The maximum is
identical to the RME point value and represents the fraction of skin comprised by the
legs, feet, arms and hands. Exposure of these parts of the body are assumed to
represent the highest fraction that could be exposed to soil or when wading in water.

I.4.2 Soil-on-Skin Adherence

A single distribution for soil adherence to skin is assumed for all receptors. The
distribution is based upon measured data, however, insufficient data exist to determine
the shape of the distribution. Consequently, a triangular distribution is assumed. The
range of the distribution is based upon information in USEPA (1992). The expected
value (0.2 mg/cm2) is described by USEPA (1992) as “the best value to represent an
average over all exposed skin”. The typical point estimate of 0.6 mg/cm2 is the mid-

I-4
point between the minimum and maximum values. The RME estimate of 1 mg/cm2 is
described by USEPA (1992) as representing a “reasonable upper value.”

I.5 INGESTION RATE

I.5.1 Soil

The distribution of soil ingestion rate for children was derived from the literature and
is based upon measured data, following a normal distribution. The expected soil
ingestion rate for children (86 mg/day) is close to the typical point estimate of 90
mg/day. The RME point estimate value (200 mg/day) is smaller than the distribution
maximum, because 200 mg/day is assumed to represent the 95th percentile, not the
maximum, of the distribution of child soil ingestion rate.

Soil ingestion rates for adult residents, trespassers, and workers are assumed to be
approximately equal to one-half the soil ingestion rate of a child. For this reason, the
expected (mean) and typical soil ingestion rates for these three receptors are
approximately 40 mg/day. As for the child soil ingestion rate, the RME point estimate
(100 mg/day) is less than the distribution maximum, because it represents the upper
95th percentile, not the maximum of the distribution.

I.5.2 Drinking water

The distributions for adults and children is taken from the literature and are based
upon measured data using normal distributions. For adults, the distribution for the age
group 20-65 is used. The expected water ingestion rate (1.27 L/day) is slightly higher
than the typical point estimate value of 1.1 L/day. The RME point estimate value (2
L/day), recommended by EPA (1991), is lower than the distribution maximum, which
is truncated to prevent unrealistically large estimates of water ingestion (greater than 3
L/day).

I-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

The distribution for the age group 1-11 is used for children. The typical point
estimate value (0.5 L/day), assumed to be equal to one-half the adult’s typical drinking
water ingestion rate, is slightly lower than the expected (mean) ingestion rate of 0.7
L/day. The RME point estimate value for the child (1 L/day) is assumed to equal one-
half the adult RME point estimate value (2 L/day), and is truncated at 2 L/day to
prevent unrealistically large water ingestion estimates.

The worker drinking water ingestion rate is assumed equal to one-half the adult
drinking water ingestion rate, as recommended by EPA (1991). The expected water
ingestion rate (0.63 L/day) is slightly higher than the typical point estimate value (0.5
L/day). As for the adult and child resident receptors, the distribution is truncated (at
2L/day) to prevent unrealistically large water ingestion rates.

I.5.3 Water While Swimming

The distribution of water ingestion rates while swimming is assumed to be uniform,

ranging from 0 to 50 mL/hr. A uniform distribution is assumed because little data for
this parameter are available.

The distribution maximum value is recommended in USEPA (1988), and is assumed

to represent a worst-case estimate of water ingestion. A value of 10 mL/hr is assumed
to represent the typical point estimate value. This distribution is used for all receptors
exposed via swimming.

I.6 ACTIVITY TIME

I.6.1 Time Spent Outdoors

The distributions for time spent outdoors for both the adult resident and child resident
are assumed to be triangular, with expected values derived from measured data from
the literature. The ranges surrounding the expected values are determined using
professional judgment. The typical point estimate value is assumed to equal the

I-6
expected value, and the RME point estimate value is assumed to equal the distribution
maximum, in the absence of additional data.

The distributions for the trespasser and the worker are assumed to be triangular, and
are based upon professional judgment. As for the adult and child, the point estimate
typical value is assumed to equal the expected value, and the RME point estimate is
assumed to equal the distribution maximum. An expected value of 4 hours/day is
assumed for workers, and an expected value of 1.5 hours/day is assumed for
trespassers.

I.6.2 Time Spent Indoors

Similar to time spent outdoors, the distribution for time spent indoors is assumed to be
triangular, with expected values of 18.3 and 19.6 hours derived from the literature for
the adult and child resident receptors, respectively. For the worker, professional
judgment is used to derive a triangular distribution with an expected value of 4
hours/day. For all receptors, the typical point estimate value is assumed to equal the
expected value, and the RME point estimate value is assumed to equal the distribution
maximum, because no additional data are available to determine median or upper-
bound estimates.

I.7 INHALATION RATE

I.7.1 While Showering

For all receptors assumed to be exposed via this pathway, the inhalation rate while
showering is assumed to be constant at 0.6 m3/hour, as recommended by USEPA
(1989). This parameter is best described by a constant distribution, because there is
likely very little variability in the distribution.

I-7
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

I.7.2 While Indoors and Outdoors

For the adult and child resident receptors, the distribution is assumed as normal and
taken from the literature based upon measured data. The point estimate typical value
(0.83 m3/hour) is derived assuming an inhalation rate of 20 m3/day, as recommended
by USEPA (1991), and is slightly higher than the expected inhalation rate of 0.79
m3/hour for the adult and 0.72 m3/hour for the child.

For the trespasser, a triangular distribution is derived from data in Anderson et al.
(1985). The distribution minimum represents the average inhalation rate for the age
group 10-18 (males) engaging in light activity. The average moderate activity
inhalation rate for this group is used for the distribution maximum. The trespasser is
assumed to spend one-half the exposure time engaging in light activity and one-half
engaging in moderate activity. The expected value is the arithmetic mean of the
minimum and maximum of the distribution. The typical point estimate value is
assumed to equal the expected value, and the RME value is assumed to equal the
distribution maximum.

A methodology similar to that used to derive the trespasser inhalation rate distribution
is used to derive a distribution for worker inhalation rate. The distribution is based
upon data in U.S. EPA (1985). The distribution is assumed to be triangular, with the
expected value equal to the light activity inhalation rate for adult males. The
distribution minimum is assumed to equal the resting inhalation rate for adult males,
and the distribution maximum is assumed to equal the moderate activity inhalation
rate for adult males. The typical point estimate value is assumed to equal the expected
value, and the RME point estimate value is assumed to equal the distribution
maximum. The RME point estimate also corresponds to EPA’s recommended
inhalation rate for workers of 20 m3/day (EPA, 1991).

I-8
I.8 SHOWER PARAMETERS

I.8.1 Flow Rate

This parameter is relevant only to residents (adult and child) and is taken directly from
the analysis by Finley and Paustenbach (1994), who fit a lognormal distribution to
shower flows determined from a water use study of 2,500 receptors conducted by
James and Kuniman (1987).

I.8.2 Water Temperature

Again relevant to residents (adult and child), the values are taken directly from the
judgment-based estimate of Smith (1994), with the Smith-reported degrees Kelvin
converted to degrees Centigrade. Smith expects that the range of water temperatures
should be fairly "narrow" as receptors have similar comfort levels. It is best
represented as triangular.

I.8.3 Shower Volume

Relevant to residents (adult and child), this distribution is also taken directly from the
judgment-based estimate of Smith (1994). If one assumes a shower stall must be
something more than 2 m high to comfortably accommodate the average individual,
the minimum value (2 m3) would contemplate a stall something less than 1 meter in
length and width, which are quite modest dimensions. The maximum of 6 m3 would
connote a quite generous "tub" structure of, say, 1 by 3 m. As a judgmental decision,
the triangular distribution is considered reasonable.

I.8.4 Exposure Time While Showering

Relevant to residents (adult and child), this distribution is obtained directly from
AIHC (1994), who fit a triangular distribution to survey data on 2,500 individuals
keeping time-activity diaries (James and Kuniman, 1987).

I-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

I.9 REFERENCES

American Industrial Health Council (AIHC). 1994. Exposure Factors Sourcebook.

AIHC, Suite 760, 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006-
1807.

Finley, B.L. and D.J. Paustenbach. 1994. “The Benefits of Probabilistic Exposure
Assessment: Three Case Studies Involving Contaminated Air, Water, and
Soil”, Risk Analysis, 14: 53-73.

James, I.R. and M.W. Kuniman. 1987. “An application of Bayes methodology to the
analysis of diary records from a water use study.” Journal of the American
Statistical Association 82: 705-711.

Smith, R. 1994. “Use of Monte Carlo Simulation for Human Exposure Assessment
at a Superfund Site”, Risk Analysis, 14: 433-439.

U.S. EPA, (Anderson, E., N. Bowne, S. Duletsky, J. Ramiz, and T. Warn). 1985.
Development of Statistical Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Used
in Risk Assessment. NTIS No. PB85 242667 for U.S. EPA. January 1985.

U.S. EPA. 1988. Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. EPA 540/1-88/001.

April 1988.

U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I. Human
Health Evaluation Manual Part A. EPA 540/1-89/02. December 1989.

U.S. EPA. 1989b. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA 600/8-89/043. July 1989.

U.S. EPA. 1991. Role of Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection
Decisions. Memo from Don R. Clay. OSWER Directive #9355.0-30.

U.S. EPA. 1991. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance:

Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. March 25,
1991.

U.S. EPA. 1992. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. EPA
600/8-91/011B. January 1992.

I-10
 Vapor Transport Model
Considering
Appendix Degradation—
J Dominant Layer Model

J.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

This vapor transport model is based on the “dominant layer model” described in
“Assessing the Significance of Subsurface Contaminant Vapor Migration to Enclosed
Spaces: Site-Specific Alternative to Generic Estimates” by Paul Johnson, Mariush
Kemblowski, and Richard Johnson (1998). The model estimates the flux of
contaminants through a three-layered vadose zone system and accounts for
degradation. The layers correspond to a region near the source where no degradation
is occurring, a middle layer where conditions are such that degradation can occur, and
a near building or surface soil region where no degradation is assumed to occur. The
user specifies the thickness of each layer based on observed conditions at the site.

This model may be used to estimate concentrations in both indoor air and outdoor air.
It estimates the vapor flux at the top boundary. This flux term can then be combined
with either the indoor air model or the outdoor air model to estimate air
concentrations. When used to estimate air concentrations in buildings, the model can
consider both diffusive and advective transport through the soil and into the building
foundation. This part of the model is identical to the Johnson and Ettinger model
(Johnson and Ettinger, 1991, Appendix D). Appendices D and F describe the indoor
air model and outdoor air models, respectively.

J-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

The “dominant layer” model was developed because observations of field data of
vapor concentration vs. depth curves indicate that there is often a region where
degradation is occurring while a region exists above and below where diffusion
dominates.

The subsurface region modeled corresponds to the region from the source to the
ground surface (for estimating outdoor air) or the building foundation (for estimating
indoor air). The following assumptions are made:

• the focus of the analysis is the transport of aerobically degradable chemical

vapors under conditions where advection is negligible (although it can be
included in the model),
• the subsurface properties (e.g., bulk density, porosity, moisture content, etc.)
are assumed to be uniform and constant throughout each layer,
• the vapor source concentration is constant (or changes slowly compared to the
simulation time),
• the dissolved and vapor concentrations of the chemical can be related by the
chemical’s Henry’s Law Constant,
• the vapor source plan view dimensions are large in comparison with the depth
to the vapor source, so that the problem can be reasonable approximated as
being one-dimensional,
• the degradation rate is assumed to be first-order with respect to chemical
concentration,
• the degradation rate is assumed to be equal to the product of the dissolved
phase concentration of the chemical, the volumetric moisture content, and a
first-order degradation constant.

Under these conditions, the subsurface can be depicted by the conceptual model
shown in Figure J-1.

J-2
 Dominant Layer Vapor Model

Concentration Profile

CH,min
L3
Layer 3:
No degradation

L2
Layer 2: 1st-order
degradation
L1

Layer 1:
No degradation

CH,max

Vapor Source
Zone

Figure J-1. Schematic of the Dominant Layer Vapor Transport Model.

Appendix K.1.2 discusses additional soil gas profile types and the applicability of the
models in RISC to model the various soil gas profiles.

J.2 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES

The near steady state vapor-phase concentration profile for the scenario shown in
Figure J-1 is given by:

 z 
Region 1 (0<z<L1): C v (z ) = C vs − (C vs − C v 2 )  (J-1)
 L1 

J-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Region 2 (L1<z<L2):

 (L − z)   (L − z) 
C v 3 expη 1  − C v 2 expη 2 
 ( L2 − L1 )   ( L2 − L1 ) 
C v (z ) =
exp(−η ) − exp(η )

 (L − z)   (L − z) 
C v 2 exp − η 2  − C v 3 exp − η 1 
 ( L2 − L1 )   ( L2 − L1 ) 
+
exp(−η ) − exp(η ) (J-2)

 z − L2 
Region 3 (L2<z<L3) C v (z ) = Cv 3 − (C v 3 − C v 4 )  (J-3)
 L3 − L2 

and

λ jθ m (L2 − L1 )
2

η= (J-4)
D 2eff K H

where
Cvs = vapor-phase concentration of chemical at source [g
chemical/cm3 vapor]
Cv2, Cv3, Cv4 = vapor-phase concentration at top of layers 1, 2, and 3 [g
chemical/cm3 vapor]
z = distance measured up from the source [cm]
L1, L2, L3 = distance to top of layers 1, 2, and 3, measured up from
the source [cm]
θm = volumetric moisture content in the middle
layer[cm3/cm3]
λj = first-order reaction rate constant (degradation rate) for
chemical in middle layer [1/s]
KH = Henry’s Law Constant for chemical [(mg/l vapor)/(mg/l
water)]
D2eff = overall effective porous medium diffusion coefficient for
chemical in the middle layer[cm2/s]
The parameter η represents a ratio of degradation rate to diffusion rate; therefore, it is
expected that attenuation will increase with increasing η.

J-4
 Dominant Layer Vapor Model

The effective diffusion coefficients for each layer are calculated using the Millington-
Quirk relationship (Millington and Quirk, 1961, and described in Appendix A) which
accounts for the amount of air vs. water-filled porosity in the soil.

 θ 3.33  D  θ m3.33 
Dieff = Dair  a 2  + water  2  (J-5)
 θT  K H  θT 

where
Dieff = overall effective porous medium diffusion coefficient for
chemical in the layer i [cm2/s]
KH = Henry’s Law Constant for chemical [(mg/l vapor)/(mg/l
water)]
Dwater = molecular diffusion coefficient for chemical in water
[cm2/s]
Dair = molecular diffusion coefficient for chemical in air
[cm2/s]
θT = total porosity [cm3/cm3]
θa = volumetric air content [cm3/cm3]

J.2.1 Using the Dominant Layer Model for Indoor Air

Similar to Johnson and Ettinger (1991) for enclosed spaces the attenuation factor is
calculated from:

Cindoor 1− β
α= = (J-6)
    1 + γψ − 4ψ 2 
(1 − β ) QB  +  β  QB
C vs
 − 1 

 2φγψ    Qsoil   2γψ 2 

where:

 Q L 
β = 1 − exp soil crack  (J-7)
 Dcrack Acrack 

J-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

 D eff  exp(−η ) − exp(η )  L2 − L1 

γ =  1eff    (J-8)
 D2  η  L1 

1
ψ = (J-9)
exp(−η ) + exp(η ) − γ

 A D eff  1
φ =  B 3  (J-10)
 L3 − L2  [σ − (1 / ψ ) − γ + 4ψ ]

 D3eff  exp(−η ) − exp(η )  L2 − L1 

σ =  eff    (J-11)
 D2  η  L3 − L2 

and the variables are defined as:

Cvs = vapor-phase concentration of chemical at source [g
chemical/cm3 vapor]
Cindoor = air concentration of chemical in building [g
chemical/cm3 air]
Qsoil = volumetric flow rate of soil gas into the building [cm3/s]
Dcrack = effective diffusion coefficient in foundation cracks
[cm2/s]
Lcrack = thickness of the foundation [cm]
Acrack = area of cracks or openings through which vapors enter
building: (flux area) x (fraction of floor that is cracks)
[cm2]
AB = cross-sectional area of foundation available for vapor
flux [cm2]
QB = building air exchange rate [cm3/s]

and η has been defined in Equation J-4. Refer to Appendix D for details on
calculating Qsoil and Dcrack. The other input parameters are user inputs.

The flux, E [g/s], from the vadose zone into the building can be calculated from a
mass balance:

E = Cindoor * QB (J-12)

J-6
 Dominant Layer Vapor Model

J.2.2 Using the Dominant Layer Model for Outdoor Air

For outdoor air, the same equations are used as for the indoor air case (J-6 through J-
11); only the soil gas flow rate, Qsoil, is set to near zero and the "building air exchange
rate" is calculated from the user input wind speed and box height. The cross-sectional
area for the outdoor air model is calculated as the product of the length of the source
and 1 m since the width does not factor into the equation for estimating mixing in an
outdoor box.

The following substitutions are made to equations J-6 through J-11:

Qsoil = 1E-20 (essentially zero) cm3/s

Volume = Height * 1 m (width) * Length
Air Exchange Rate = Wind speed * Height * 1 m (width)

where
Volume = volume of the outdoor air “box” [m3]
Height = height of the “box” [m] (a user input)
Length = length of the “box” in the predominant direction of wind
[m] (a user input)
Air Exchange Rate = "Qb" = ventilation rate of the “box” [m3/s]
Wind speed = wind speed [m/s] (a user input)

From these variables the equivalent “QB” parameter [volumes/sec] may be calculated:

QB = Volume/Vent Rate (J-13)

The flux, E [g/s], out the soil surface is calculated similarly to the approach taken with
the indoor air calculations:

E = Coutdoor * QB (J-14)

For additional discussion on the input parameters for this equation, refer to the “Box
Model,” Appendix F.

J-7
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

J.3 SOURCE TERM

The dominant layer model (as all of the vapor models in RISC) may be run using a
specified soil gas concentration or a total concentration in soil as the source term.
Equations J-6 and J-1 require the soil vapor concentration, CHmax, as a starting point.
If soil gas concentration is used as the source term in RISC, then the user-specified
value is used for CHmax.

If the source term is entered as the total concentration in soil, then CHmax is calculated
from equilibrium partitioning equation or from the chemical’s calculated effective
solubility, whichever is less. This is the same approach used by the Vadose Zone
model (Appendix A), the Saturated Soil model (Appendix C), and the other vapor
models (Appendices D and J). See Appendix A for a detailed discussion on how the
dissolved-phase concentration is determined from the user-input total concentration in
soil. Note, this vapor model allows the user to specify values for soil bulk density,
fraction organic carbon, moisture content, and porosity for the source zone which are
separate from those used for the region where vapor transport is modeled. The reason
for this is that the contamination may reside in a different unit than that where vapors
migrate.

Once the dissolved-phase concentration (Cw) is calculated, the soil vapor source
concentration is calculated from:

C Hmax = C w K H (J-15)

where
CHmax = source vapor concentration at z = L [g/cm3]
Cw = dissolved-phase concentration [mg/l]
KH = Henry’s Law Coefficient [(mg/l)/(mg/l)]

J-8
 Dominant Layer Vapor Model

J.4 EXAMPLE USING ACTUAL SITE DATA

This section presents an example problem using actual site data. The objectives are:

1. to evaluate field data,

2. to estimate model parameters to fit the data, and

3. to estimate a "minimum" vapor degradation rate for this soil system.

J.4.1 Evaluate Field Data

The example data used in this section is based on benzene data collected by BP (1997)
and presented by Johnson et al (1998). Soil samples were collected from five regions
below ground surface at an uncovered site. The results are plotted in Figure J- 2.
Depth Relative to Ground Surface [ft]

0
silty sand
CO2 O2
(0.11 g-H2O/g-soil)
(Cmax=12.2%) (Cmax=21%)
-4
silty sand
(0.12 g-H2O/g-soil)

-8 silty sand
THC
(0.10 g-H2O/g-soil)
(Cmax=94000 mg/m3)

sand
-12 (0.056 g-H2O/g-soil)

Benzene sand
(Cmax=124 ppmv) (0.059 g-H2O/g-soil)
-16
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Normalized Concentration [C/Cmax]

Figure J-2. Data Used for the Example Problem, from BP (1997).

J-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

The column on the right side indicates moisture content given on a weight basis. The
plot indicates a sharp drop-off in the benzene concentration with a corresponding
sharp increase in the oxygen concentration at 8 to 12 ft below ground surface (BGS).
This type of behavior would not be predicted very well by a one-dimensional model,
even if it considered degradation (Johnson et al, 1998). The sharp drop-off of benzene
indicates the presence of a layer that seems to "dominate" the vapor transport process
for benzene in this soil profile. There are several things to notice in this plot:

• The maximum concentration occurs at 12 feet BGS rather than at 16 feet BGS
where the source was expected. There is no practical explanation as to why
concentrations are higher at 12 feet BGS. However it is likely there is NAPL
at 16 feet BGS so the model geometry will assume this scenario (maximum
concentrations at 16 feet BGS). If the data in Figure J-2 were to be used
explicitly, the source should probably be assumed to occur at 12 feet BGS.
• The benzene concentration drops from the maximum concentration at 12 feet
BGS to zero at 8 feet BGS. There are no intermediate measurements of
concentration vs. depth, making it difficult to determine the thickness of the
middle layer where degradation is occurring.

These points must be considered when developing the geometry of the dominant layer
model and selecting appropriate values for the parameters.

J.4.2 Estimate Model Parameters

Table J-1 presents the BP data that accompanied Figure J-2 as summarized by
Johnson et al (1998).

J-10
 Dominant Layer Vapor Model

Table J-1. Data Used For Example Problem (from BP, 1997)
Effective
Water Volumetric Diffusion
Content by Water Coefficient,
Depth Soil Weight Content, θm Deff
[ft BGS] Type [g-H2O/g-soil] [cm3/cm3]* [m2/d]**
0-4 silty sand 0.11 0.19 0.016
4-7 silty sand 0.12 0.20 0.010
7-10 silty sand 0.10 0.16 0.023
10-13 sand 0.056 0.10 0.067
13-16 sand 0.059 0.10 0.062
3
* - assuming a bulk soil density of 1.7 g-soil/cm -soil
** - for Dair = 0.09 cm2/s = 0.78 m2/d

The data in Table J-1 does not show the air content or total porosity of the soil
samples. It is not clear whether the effective diffusion coefficients were measured in
the field or the porosities were estimated from the general soil types. In order for this
data to be used in RISC, the air content must be estimated and the units must be
converted. Assuming the effective diffusion coefficients in Table J-1 were measured,
the volumetric air content value may be estimated from the Deff and the volumetric
water content using an iterative approach. Refer to the equation for calculating the
effective diffusion coefficient in Appendix A (Equation A-13). Table J-2 presents the
estimated air contents using the default value for the benzene diffusion coefficient in
air from the RISC chemical database.

J-11
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table J-2. Estimated Total Porosity for the Example Problem

Measured Field Data

Soil Effective Effective Estimated Estimated
Sample Diffusion Diffusion Moisture Air Total
Depth Coefficient Coefficient Content Content Porosity
[ft BGS] [m2/d] [cm2/s] [cm3/cm3] [cm3/cm3] [cm3/cm3]
0-4 0.016 1.9E-03 0.19 0.17 0.36
4-7 0.010 1.2E-03 0.20 0.14 0.36
7-10 0.023 2.7E-03 0.16 0.19 0.35
10-13 0.067 7.8E-03 0.10 0.26 0.36
13-16 0.062 7.2E-03 0.10 0.25 0.35

The information in Table J-2 must be grouped into three layers according to the major
divisions observed on the concentration plot (Figure J-2). Assuming there is residual
NAPL at 16 feet BGS, the vapor concentration at 12 feet BGS is assumed to be the
same as at the source or slightly less. This zone will form the first layer. It is not
clear where the first layer should end. However, because one of the objectives is to
estimate a minimum reasonable degradation rate, a conservative approach is to make
the dominant layer as large as possible. In this way the degradation process will have
a longer vertical distance over which to operate and the degradation rate may be lower
to obtain the same drop in concentration. To make the middle layer as large as
possible it is assumed that the lower layer extends from 16 feet BGS to just above 12
feet BGS. Using that same reasoning and lacking additional information, the soil
between 12 feet BGS and 8 feet BGS is chosen as the middle layer. This leaves the
soil from 8 feet BGS to the ground surface as the top layer.

The model geometry for this example is shown in Figure J-3. Note that this geometry
does not match the soil characterization provided by BP (1997). The reason, as stated
above, is that the objective is to derive a degradation rate that is at the low end of the
range that is expected to occur at the site. The air and water contents are chosen to
equal the highest air content and lowest water content (i.e. the highest diffusion
coefficient) of the soil regions in each of the layers. Not much effort is focused on the
top layer because the measured data does not provide sufficient information to
calibrate effective diffusion coefficients. The measured data points at 0 and 4 feet
BGS are useful to indicate the absence of benzene vapors; however, they do not

J-12
 Dominant Layer Vapor Model

provide any useful information for the modeling effort. The data point at 8 feet BGS
indicates that benzene concentration are reduced to non-detects somewhere below this
point.

Layers for
Dominant Layer Model

Moisture Original Field

Thickness and Air Observations
Content
4.9 m !
silty sand
θm= 0.19
θa = 0.17
silty sand

Distance 2.4 m ! silty sand

from
θm= 0.10
Source θa = 0.19
1.2 m sand
!
θm= 0.10
θa = 0.26 sand

!
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
= measured concentrations
Normalized Benzene
Concentration [C/Cmax] ! = concentration profile used for
model calibration

Figure J-3. Layers for the Dominant Layer Model.

The first model run used the measured effective diffusion coefficients presented in
Table J-2 and a degradation rate for the middle layer equal to the high end value of
0.07/day reported by Howard et al (1991) (and tabulated in the RISC chemical
database). The high degradation rate was chosen to start because it appears that the
benzene concentrations drop off rapidly. Note, the degradation rates summarized in
the RISC chemical database are representative of values reported in Howard (1991)
for degradation in the saturated zone. Degradation rates in the vadose zone, where
oxygen may be much more plentiful, may be much higher than saturated zone
degradation rates. Figure J-4 shows the results of the "first run" using the reported
diffusion coefficients.

J-13
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

4.8

3.6
D istance Abo ve S o urce[m]

Modeled
Concentrations
2.4
Target
Concentrations

1.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
S oil G as C oncentrations
(N orm alized to 1)

Figure J-4. Model Results Using the Reported Diffusion Coefficients,

the "Base Case"

Figure J-4 shows that the model results do not predict the behavior measured in the
field very well. The first thing to notice is that if the source is actually located at 16
feet BGS and there is very little concentration drop-off across the first layer, the
diffusion coefficient in this lower layer may be much higher than the value reported.
Alternatively, and more likely, there may be residual NAPL present at 12 feet BGS
due to water table smearing of the source. However, the effects of changes in the
diffusion coefficient will first be investigated.

J.4.3 Estimate Minimum Degradation Rate

The highest effective diffusion coefficient occurs in high porosity soil that is dry
(water diffusion is very slow compared to air). Given the soil type of the lower layer,
it is possible that the total porosity may actually be 0.40. For a "Dry Case" then, it is
assumed that the air content is equal to 0.35 and the water content is equal 0.05 (about
the residual moisture content of a sand which is being very conservative). Figure J-5
shows the model results using these assumptions for the lower layer.

J-14
 Dominant Layer Vapor Model

4 .8

Modeled
C oncentrations
3 .6
D istan ce Ab ove S ource[m]

Target
C oncentrations

2 .4

1 .2

0 .0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0
S o il G a s C o n c e n tra tio n s
(No rm a liz e d to 1 )

Figure J-5. Model Results for the "Dry Case" in Bottom Layer

Changing the diffusion coefficient (via the air content) changed the normalized
concentration from 0.65 in the "Base Case" to 0.8 in the "Dry Case" shown in Figure
J-5. This improved the model prediction at the interface between the bottom and
middle layers somewhat. The concentration at this location may change more as the
profile changes in the middle layer.

The next step is to focus on the middle layer. In this layer, there are essentially two
major processes being modeled, degradation and diffusion. If the same degradation
rate of 0.07/day is maintained in this iteration, the middle layer’s predicted
concentration profile in Figure J-5 suggests that the diffusion coefficient is too high
relative to the data. Using the same approach as applied to the lower layer, but in
reverse, it is assumed that the soil is wet in this layer. A low air content yields a small
diffusion coefficient and therefore provides a longer duration for the degradation
process. In this iteration, the water content is assumed equal to 0.3 and the total
porosity equal to 0.35, with the degradation rate left at 0.07/day. The model results
are shown in Figure J-6.

J-15
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

4 .8

3 .6 Modeled
D istance Above Source[m]

C onc entrations

Target
2 .4
C onc entrations

1 .2

0 .0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0
S o il G a s C o n ce n tra tio n s
(No rm a liz e d to 1 )

Figure J-6. Model Results Using a Dry Bottom Layer and a Wet Middle Layer

These results could actually match the measured site data because it is not known
precisely at what depth the benzene exceeds non-detect levels. (Note how the
concentration at the interface between the lower and middle layers increased to 0.95 in
this iteration.) Since the degradation rate is relatively high however, this is not a
"conservative" solution for the objectives of this example. It appears that the
"minimum likely" degradation rate for this soil profile is less than 0.07/d. After
several runs, a "best fit" was found using a degradation rate of 0.007/day (Figure J-7).

J-16
 Dominant Layer Vapor Model

4.8

3.6 Modeled
D istance Abo ve S o urce[m]

Concentrations

Target
2.4
Concentrations

1.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
S o il G a s C o n c e n tra tio n s
(No rm a liz e d to 1 )

Figure J-7. Model Results With A Degradation Rate of 0.007/d

This example demonstrates how parameter estimating is used to develop the best
curve fit using as much site data as possible and informed judgement when certain
data are not available.

J-17
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

J.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS OF THE DOMINANT LAYER

VAPOR MODEL

The input data requirements for this model are presented in Table J-1.

Table J-3. Data Requirements for the Dominant Layer Vapor Model
Typical Range of Values
Units Minimum Maximum

UNSATURATED ZONE
Air content for each layer cm3/cm3 0 porosity
Water content for each layer cm3/cm3 0 porosity
Thickness of each layer m Site-specific site-specific
CHEMICAL
(individual chemical component)
Diffusion coefficient in air cm2/s Chem-specific chem-specific
Diffusion coefficient in water cm2/s Chem-specific chem-specific
Henry’s Law coefficient (mg/l)/(mg/l) Chem-specific chem-specific
Degradation rate in the middle layer 1/day Chem-specific chem-specific
Source entered as a Soil Vapor
Concentration:
Soil vapor concentration mg/l Site-specific site-specific
Source entered as a Total Soil
Concentration:
Source concentration mg/kg Site-specific site-specific
Porosity in source region cm3/cm3 0.01 0.5
3 3
Water content in source region cm /cm 0 porosity
Fraction organic carbon in source region m 1.00E-03 1
Soil bulk density in source region fraction 1.4 2.2
Molecular weight of chemical g/mol Chem-specific chem-specific
Solubility of chemical mg/l Chem-specific chem-specific
Molecular weight of TPH g/mol 80 120
Concentration of TPH mg/kg Site-specific site-specific

J-18
 Dominant Layer Vapor Model

J.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE DOMINANT LAYER VAPOR MODEL

1. This is a steady-state, constant and one-dimensional model. The source does

not deplete due to vapor losses so mass is not conserved. This assumption has
only a minor impact on the risk from non-carcinogens (unless the source is
very small) since the worst seven-year running average intake is compared to
the reference dose. It can have a more significant impact however on
carcinogens (such as benzene) since the cumulative exposure over a long
exposure duration (up to 30 years) forms the basis for the risk calculation.
2. The model assumes that degradation occurs only in the middle layer. The
location and thickness of this layer must be specified by the user.

J.7 REFERENCES

British Petroleum. 1997. Summary of Field Activities Hydrocarbon Vapor Migration

Research Project BP Oil Test Site Paulsboro, New Jersey. Prepared by
Integrated Science and Technology, Inc.. Cleveland, OH. February.

Howard, P.H., et al. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates, Lewis

Publishers Inc., Chelsea, MI.

Johnson, P.C., and Ettinger, R.A., 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion
Rate of Contaminant Vapors into Buildings, Environmental Science and
Technology, 25, 1445-1452.

Johnson, P.C., Kemblowski, M.W., and Johnson, R.L., December1998. Assessing the
Significance of subsurface Contaminant Vapor Migration to Enclosed Spaces:
Site-Specific Alternative to Generic Estimates, American Petroleum Institute
Publication Number 4674.

Jury, .W.A., Russo, D., Streile, G. and Abid, H. El. 1990. "Evaluation of
Volatilization by Organic Chemicals Residing Below the Soil Surface". Water
Resources Research. 26(1). 13-20.

Millington, J.J. and Quirk, J.P. 1961. Permeability of Porous Solids. Trans. Faraday
Soc., 57. 1200-1207.

J-19
 Vapor Transport Model
Appendix
Considering Degradation—
K Oxygen-Limited Model

This vapor transport model is based on the paper entitled, “An Oxygen-Limited
Hydrocarbon Vapor-Migration Attenuation Screening Model” by Paul Johnson (1998,
draft). The model estimates the flux of contaminants through the vadose zone and
accounts for degradation. The unique feature of the model is that it calculates an
oxygen profile while recognizing that there must be a minimum amount of oxygen
present for degradation to occur. In the region where oxygen is below this user-
specified minimum, degradation is assumed to be absent.

Section K.1 presents the model description and compares the features of this model
with the other vapor models in RISC. Four generalized soil gas profile types are
evaluated and the applicability of using the model for the profile type is discussed.

In Section K.2 the equations used to estimate the vertical profiles of chemical and
oxygen concentration, the flux, and the indoor or outdoor air concentrations are
presented. The source options, which are the same as for the other vapor models, are
described. Sections K.4 and K.5 present the data requirements and summarize the
model limitations, respectively.

K.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

The Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model assumes that there is a region above the source
that has depleted levels of oxygen where aerobic degradation cannot occur. The
distance above the source at which the oxygen levels become high enough to support
aerobic degradation, called "delta", is calculated by the model. The vadose zone
properties are assumed to be homogeneous in the region modeled. The conceptual
model is shown in Figure K-1.

K-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

CH, min Co, max

Aerobic
degradation
possible Co= Concentration of O2
CH= Concentration of
L hydrocarbon
Co > Co, min
CH'

No aerobic
degradation delta

Co < Co, min

Co, min CH, max

Vapor Source
Zone

Figure K-1. Schematic of the Oxygen-Limited Vapor Transport Model.

In the region between the source and "delta," the transport is assumed to be diffusion-
dominated, represented by the solid, straight line between CH,max and CH' in Figure K-
1. The term CH' is the concentration of the hydrocarbon (or any chemical being
modeled) at "delta". This concentration, CH', is calculated by the model. The oxygen
concentration in the region below "delta" remains constant at the minimum (or less)
indicating that it is depleted and aerobic degradation cannot occur.

In the region between "delta" and the top boundary, the transport is a combination of
degradation and diffusion processes, as represented by the curve between CH' and
CH,min. The degradation is assumed to be first-order with respect to the contaminant
concentration, i.e. it does not depend on the concentration of the oxygen other than the
oxygen concentration must be greater than the minimum specified for aerobic
degradation (a user input). In this region the oxygen concentration increases from the
minimum concentration to the ambient oxygen concentration. This curve is calculated
by the model and is dependent on the chemical's degradation rate and the chemical's
stoichiometric coefficient (a measure of how much oxygen the chemical uses when it

K-2
 Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model

degrades). A constant flux of oxygen is assumed to occur across the top boundary
refreshing the oxygen in the upper portion of the vadose zone.

The oxygen-limited model is based on the advection-dispersion equation written for

the vapor phase transport of a single chemical in the vadose zone. The subsurface
region modeled corresponds to the region from the source to the ground surface (for
estimating outdoor air) or the building foundation (for estimating indoor air). In
summary, the following assumptions are made:

• the focus of the analysis is the transport of an aerobically degradable chemical

and oxygen vapors under conditions where advection is negligible (although it
can be included in an indoor air scenario),
• the subsurface properties (e.g., bulk density, porosity, moisture content, etc.)
are assumed to be uniform and constant over the region modeled,
• the vapor source concentration is constant (or changes slowly compared to the
simulation time),
• the dissolved and vapor concentrations of the chemical can be related by the
chemical’s Henry’s Law Constant,
• the vapor source plan view dimensions are large in comparison with the depth
to the vapor source, so that the problem can be reasonably approximated as
being one-dimensional,
• the degradation rate is assumed to be first-order with respect to chemical
concentration as long as the oxygen concentration exceeds some lower
threshold value,
• when the oxygen concentration is equal to or less than the lower threshold
value, no degradation takes place, and
• the degradation rate is assumed to be equal to the product of the dissolved
phase concentration of the chemical, the volumetric moisture content, and a
first-order degradation constant.

K.1.1 Comparison With Other Vapor Models

The Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model differs from the Dominant Layer Model
(Appendix J) in that it calculates the thickness of the layers where degradation occurs
and does not occur in the vadose zone. In the Dominant Layer Model, the user
specifies the thickness of each layer and it is assumed that degradation occurs in the

K-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

middle layer (the dominant layer). In RISC, the Vapor Transport Model Without
Degradation (Johnson-Ettinger Model) and the Vapor Transport Model from
Groundwater into Buildings do not simulate degradation.

Table K-1 compares the transport processes modeled and the assumptions made by
the four vapor models in RISC.

Table K-1. Transport Processes Modeled by the Vapor Models in RISC.

Assumption/ Vapor Model Dominant Oxygen- Vapor Model
Fate and Without Layer Model Limited From
Transport Degradation* Model Groundwater
Process Into Buildings
May have two May have three Assumes May have two
Layering/ layers (lens), layers, each homogeneous layers (lens)
Heterogeneity each being being system along with the
homogeneous homogeneous capillary fringe

Degradation Not modeled Assumed to Assumed to Not modeled

occur in middle occur if O2
layer levels are high
enough
Model O2 No No Yes No
Concen-
trations?
Considers Yes Yes Yes No
Pressure-
Driven Flow
by Building?
Source Soil gas Soil gas Soil gas or Groundwater
Term or soil or soil soil concentrations
concentrations concentrations concentrations
*This is the Johnson-Ettinger model with the addition of an optional lens.

The Oxygen-Limited Model requires some unique input parameters such as an

oxygen-transfer coefficient at the boundary. This input parameter may not be
available at many sites and may be difficult to estimate. For this reason, until
estimates of this flux parameter become more readily available, this model should be
viewed as a screening level code for learning how vapor transport behaves.

K-4
 Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model

This model may be used to estimate concentrations in both indoor air and outdoor air.
When used to estimate air concentrations in buildings, the model can consider both
diffusive and advective transport through the soil at the building foundation. This part
of the model is identical to the Johnson and Ettinger model (Johnson and Ettinger,
1991, Appendix D). Appendices D and G describe the indoor and outdoor air models,
respectively.

K.1.2 Applicability of the Model/Soil Gas Profile Types

This section briefly presents some generalized soil gas profile types and discusses the
applicability of the Oxygen-Limited Model and the other vapor models in RISC to be
used with various profile types.

Soil gas profiles can be largely grouped into four general types, depending on the
behavior or trends of the hydrocarbon and oxygen concentration profiles with depth.
These types are illustrated in Figure K-2.

K-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Behavior A Behavior B

z/L source
z/L source

1 1
0.1 C/C max 0.1 C/C max

Behavior C Behavior D
z/L source

z/L source

1 1
0.1 C/C max 0.1 C/C max

Hydrocarbon

Oxygen

Figure K-4. Four Generalized Soil Gas Profiles

These four generalized behaviors are described in the following paragraphs.

Behavior A. This profile corresponds to the case where there is an oxygen-limited

zone for some distance above the source where diffusion is the predominant fate and
transport process (as illustrated by the straight line section). At some location above
the source the oxygen levels become high enough to support aerobic degradation and
the hydrocarbon rapidly decreases. This is the behavior depicted in detail in Figure K-
1. The Oxygen-Limited Model was developed to model this type of behavior.

K-6
 Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model

Behavior B. This behavior, illustrated by the parabolic curve, corresponds to the case
where the oxygen profile never reaches asymptotic conditions. Aerobic degradation is
assumed to be able to occur over the entire distance from the source to the top
boundary. The Oxygen-Limited Model or the Dominant-Layer Model can be used to
model this profile. In the Oxygen-Limited Model, this case would not be oxygen-
constrained (in other words, there really is no reason to use the Oxygen-Limited
Model and to determine parameter values for its more difficult input requirements).

Behavior C. Here the oxygen concentration is constant with depth and degradation of
the hydrocarbon is not occurring. This profile often may correspond to soil gas
concentrations found at capped sites or directly under foundations where oxygen
transfer across the upper boundary is limited or eliminated. The predominant
transport process controlling the movement of chemical in the vadose zone is
diffusion, as indicated by the straight line for the hydrocarbon concentration. This
case could actually be characterized by any of the vapor models in RISC, but would be
easiest to model using the Vapor Model Without Degradation (Johnson and Ettinger)
or the Dominant Layer Model with the degradation rate set equal to zero (if there were
three different soil horizons).

Behavior D. In this case, the hydrocarbon is not oxygen-limited near the source
region, therefore degradation can occur and the hydrocarbon profile drops off sharply.
This can be an especially difficult situation to fit a model to because of the lack of
precise field data with which to characterize the hydrocarbon concentration profile.
Although the Oxygen-Limited Model could be applied in this case, the profile is not
oxygen-constrained and it may be more readily represented by the Dominant Layer
Model, adjusting the layer thicknesses as necessary.

K.2 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES

This section presents the equations used to calculate the distance to the aerobic
degradation zone ("delta"), the vertical concentration profiles of both the chemical and
oxygen, and the vapor flux out of the top boundary. Sections K.2.1 and K.2.2 present

K-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

the equations used by RISC to estimate indoor and outdoor air concentrations,
respectively, from the output of the Oxygen-Limited Model.

For the region 0<z<δ where the oxygen concentration is below the minimum required
for aerobic degradation:

∂ 2C H
chemical: 0 = Deff _ H (K-1)
∂z 2

∂ 2 CO 2
oxygen: 0 = Deff _ O 2 (K-2)
∂z 2

For the region δ<z<L where the oxygen concentration is not limited (C02>C02,min):

∂ 2 C H λθm
chemical: 0 = Deff _ H − C K-3)
∂z 2 KH H

∂ 2 CO 2 λθ m
oxygen: 0 = Deff _ O 2 −β CH (K-4)
∂z 2
KH

where
CH = vapor-phase concentration of chemical (or hydrocarbon)
[g chemical/cm3 vapor]
C02 = vapor-phase concentration of oxygen [g/cm3]
z = distance measured up from the source [cm]
θm = volumetric moisture content [cm3/cm3]
λm = first-order reaction rate constant (degradation rate) for
chemical [1/s]
KH = Henry’s Law Constant for chemical [(mg/l vapor)/(mg/l
water)]
Deff_H = overall effective porous medium diffusion coefficient for
chemical [cm2/s]
Deff _O2 = overall effective porous medium diffusion coefficient for
oxygen [cm2/s]

K-8
 Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model

β = stoichiometric coefficient [mg-O2/mg-chemical

degraded]

Note, the effective diffusion coefficient is calculated using the Millington-Quirk

relationship (Millington and Quirk, 1961, and described in Appendix A) which
accounts for the amount of air vs. water-filled porosity in the soil.

 θ 3.33  Dwater _ H  θ m3.33 

Deff _ H = Dair _ H  a 2  +  2  (K-5)
 θT  KH  θT 

 θ 3.33  Dwater _ O 2  θ m3.33 

Deff _ O 2 = Dair _ O 2  a 2  +  2  (K-6)
 θT  K H O2  θT 

where
KH-O2 = Henry’s Law Constant for oxygen [(mg/l vapor)/(mg/l
water)]
KH = Henry’s Law Constant for chemical [(mg/l vapor)/(mg/l
water)]
Dwater_H = molecular diffusion coefficient for chemical in water
[cm2/s]
Dwater_O2 = molecular diffusion coefficient for oxygen in water
[cm2/s]
Dair_H = molecular diffusion coefficient for chemical in air
[cm2/s]
Dwater_O = molecular diffusion coefficient for oxygen in air [cm2/s]
θT = total porosity [cm3/cm3]
θa = volumetric air content [cm3/cm3]

The advection-dispersion equation is solved for the boundary conditions given below:

∂CO
at z = 0: C H = C Hmax and =0 (K-7)
∂z

at z = δ: CH = C’H and CO = CO min (K-8)

K-9
RISC Manual Version 4.0

 ∂C  ∂C
at z = L: K j (C H − C Hamb ) = − Deff _ H  H  and KO (COamb − CO ) = Deff _ O  O  (K-9)
 ∂z   ∂z 

where
C Hmax = source vapor concentration [g/cm3]
C Hamb = ambient chemical vapor concentration [g/cm3]
COamb = ambient oxygen vapor concentration [g/cm3]
C' H = chemical vapor concentration at z = δ [g/cm3]
Kj = mass transfer coefficient for the chemical at the upper
boundary [cm/s]
KO = mass transfer coefficient for oxygen at the upper
boundary [cm/s]

Note, the user has the option to enter a value for the oxygen rate transfer coefficient,
KO. If the number zero is entered, it will be calculated by the software according to
the approaches presented under the sections entitled “Using the Oxygen-Limited
Model for Indoor Air” and “Using the Oxygen-Limited Model for Outdoor Air” later
in this appendix. The chemical mass transfer coefficient, Kj, is calculated by the
software.

The last boundary condition given above (Equation K-9) is a generalized boundary
condition that can simulate both open and semi-pervious upper boundaries. For
example, as the ratio of the effective diffusion coefficient to the mass transfer
coefficient approaches zero, the surface is open (Deff_H/Kj ! 0). For semi-pervious
surfaces (pavement, foundations, etc.) the ratio of effective diffusion coefficient to
mass transfer coefficient approaches infinity (Deff_H/Kj ! infinity). From this point
on, the ambient chemical vapor concentration above the soil (either in the building or
outside) will be assumed to be much lower than the source concentration and the
vapor phase concentrations in the soil column so that CambH may be neglected.

For the two regions in the soil column, using the above boundary conditions, the
following solutions results:

For 0<z<δ (no degradation region):

K-10
 Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model

CH  C H'  z 
= 1 −  1 −
 C max   (K-10)
C Hmax  H  δ 

CO = COmin (K-11)

For δ<z<L (region with first-order hydrocarbon degradation):

−η j z ηjz
CH = Aj e + B je (K-12)

 Deff _ H
CO = ∑ βj 
D _

( )
 A j e −η j z + B j eη j z + D j z + E j

(K-13)
 eff O 

where

λ jθ m
ηj = (K-14)
Deff _ H K H

−η jδ
C H' e
Aj = (K-15)
 Deff _ H
η j − 1
Kj
e j   + e − 2η jδ
− 2η L
 Deff _ H 
η j + 1
 Kj 

 
 
 
 
 −η δ

'  −η j δ e j  (K-16)
B j = C H e − 
  Deff _ H  
 η j − 1

Kj
e j   + e − 2η j δ
− 2η L
 
  Deff _ H  
 η j + 1 
  Kj  

K-11
RISC Manual Version 4.0


(C amb
O

KO 
D

(
− COmin ) − 1 + eff _ O ∑ β j  eff _ H  Bjη j e j − Ajη j e j
D

ηδ −η δ
) + ∑ β  DD
j

(
 Ajη j e−η jδ + B jη j eη jδ
eff _ H

)
  Deff _ O     eff _ O  
Dj =
 Deff _ O 
 + L −δ
 KO 
(K-17)

D
D


(
E j = COmin − Djδ − ∑ β j  eff _ H  Ajη j e j + B jη j e j
−η δ ηδ
) (K-18)
 eff _ O 

Equations (K-10) through (K-18) describe the oxygen and chemical (or hydrocarbon)
profiles in terms of the parameters C’H and δ. In order to derive equations for C’H and
δ the flux of all chemicals (hydrocarbons) and oxygen are required to be continuous
across the interface z = δ (the transition point between the non-degrading region and
the region where degradation is taking place). These conditions provide two
additional equations that can be used to solve for C’H and δ:

C Hmax
C H' =
 
 
 
 
 − 2η δ

 η j δe j η jδ 
1+  + η jδ + 
  Deff _ H   Deff _ H  
η − 1 η j − 1
 −η  j K Kj 
e 2 jL  j  + e − 2η jδ e j 
− 2η L  + e − 2η jδ 
  D   D   (K-19)
η j + 1 η j + 1
eff _ H eff _ H
 
  Kj   Kj  

 Deff _ H  C Hmax − CH' 

0= ∑β j   − Dj (K-20)
D  δ 
 eff _ O  

To solve Equations K-19 and K-20, an iterative technique is used. First, an initial
guess for the value of δ is chosen and Equation K-19 is used to calculate C’H while
Equations K-14 through K-16 are used to solve for Aj, Bj, and Dj. Then Equation K-
20 is checked to see if the condition is satisfied. If not, a new value is chosen for δ

K-12
 Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model

and the process is repeated. If the condition in Equation K-20 is satisfied, then the
values for C’H and δ, along with the other input parameters can be used with
Equations K-12 and K-13 to solve for the chemical and oxygen profiles, respectively.

This approach (Equations K-10 through K-20) assumes that a region exists in the soil
profile where the oxygen is too low for degradation to occur. This may not be the
case. When there is no oxygen-limited region, Equations K-12 through K-18 still
apply, however, δ now equals zero and C’H = CmaxH (the source concentration). For
this situation Equations K-17 and K-20 for the D and E terms respectively must be
replaced with:

 Deff _ H 
Dj = ∑ β j  (η j A j + η j B j ) (K-21)
D 
 eff _ O 

  Deff _ H 
E j = COamb − ∑ β j 

(
 Ajη j e−η j δ + B jη j eη j δ

) − D L − DK
j
eff _ O
  Deff _ H 
∑ β j  ( ) 
 − Ajη j e−η j δ + B jη j eη j δ + D j 

  Deff _ O   O   Deff _ O  
(K-22)

To determine which case is applicable, the concentration of oxygen at z = 0 must be

calculated and then compared with CminO:

 Deff _ H 
CO (z = 0) = ∑ β j  (A j + B j ) + E j (K-23)
D 
 eff _ O 

If the concentration of oxygen calculated with Equation K-23 is greater than CminO,
then Equations K-12 through K-16 and K-21 through K-22 are used to calculate the
soil gas profiles with δ = 0 and C’H = CmaxH. If the case is oxygen-limited, then
Equations K-12 through K-20 are used.

The volatile emission flux per area leaving the source zone and upper boundary can be
calculated from the following:

K-13
RISC Manual Version 4.0

E (z = 0 ) = Deff _ H
(C max
H − C H′ )
, if δ > 0 (K-24)
δ

E area (z = 0) = Deff _ H (A jη j − B jη j ) , if δ = 0 (i.e. CO>CminO) (K-25)

(
E area (z = 0 ) = Deff _ H A jη j e −ηjL − B jη j eηjL ) (K-26)

where
Earea = flux per area through upper boundary [g/cm2/s]

The flux estimate is then used with a dilution model to calculate indoor or outdoor air
concentrations depending on which exposure pathway is chosen in the software.

K.2.1 Using the Oxygen-Limited Model for Indoor Air

For enclosed spaces the indoor air concentration is calculated from:

E area AB
Cbuilding = (K-27)
VQB

where
Cbuilding = vapor concentration in the building [g/cm3]
QB = building air exchange rate [building volumes/sec]
AB = cross-sectional area for vapor flux [cm2]
V = building air volume [cm3]
Earea = contaminant flux per area at z = L [g/cm2/s]

Modeling the flux from soil to enclosed spaces also affects the manner in which Kj
and KO are calculated. Note, the user has the option to specify a value for KO.

The chemical mass transfer coefficient, Kj, for indoor air applications is calculated
using the approach taken by Johnson and Ettinger (1991 and Appendix D):

K-14
 Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model

Q L 
exp  soil crack 
Kj =
Q soil  D crack A B η 
(K-28)
AB   Q soil L crack  
 exp   − 1
  crack B  
D A η

where
Qsoil = volumetric flow rate of soil gas into the building [cm3/s]
Dcrack = effective diffusion coefficient in foundation cracks
[cm2/s]
Lcrack = thickness of the foundation [cm]
Acrack = area of cracks or openings through which vapors enter
building [cm2]
η = fraction of cracks in AB [cm2-cracks/cm2 total area]

Refer to Appendix D for details on calculating Qsoil and Dcrack. The other input
parameters are user inputs.

The approach that should be used for calculating KO is not clear. It is hoped that with
current research in the indoor air field, an approach will be developed for estimating
KO.

K.2.2 Using the Oxygen-Limited Model for Outdoor Air

For outdoor air, the air concentration is calculated from:

E area L  m 
C air =   (K-29)
uH  100cm 

where
Cair = concentration in air [g/cm3]
Earea = emission rate per area from vadose zone impacted soil
[g/cm2/s]
L = length of the box parallel to the direction of air flow [m]
H = height of the box [m]

K-15
RISC Manual Version 4.0

u = wind speed [m/s]

For additional discussion on the input parameters for this equation, refer to the “Box
Model”, Appendix F.

For open surfaces the following conditions apply:

η j Deff _ H
<< 1 (K-30)
Kj

Deff _ O
<< 1 (K-31)
KO

When outdoor air concentrations are being calculated in RISC using the oxygen-
limited model, Kj is estimated from:

Deff _ H
Kj = (K-32)
d

where
d = thickness of surface cover (a user-input) [cm]

For semi-pervious surfaces d should be set to the thickness of the semi-pervious

cover. For an open surface d could be set to the thickness of the soil's stagnant air
boundary layer thickness, following Jury et al. (1990). The simulations presented in
Jury et al. (1990) used a value of 0.5 cm for both sandy soil and clayey soil. Jury et al.
(1983) discuss ways of estimating values of the boundary thickness. The results of the
model may not be very sensitive to changes in the thickness of the surface cover for an
open surface (when using a reasonable range of values) so it may not be necessary to
expend additional time refining the input value.

Similarly, the oxygen-transfer coefficient is calculated from:

Deff _ O
KO = (K-33)
d

K-16
 Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model

Note, the user has the option to enter a value for the oxygen rate transfer coefficient,
KO. If a value of zero is entered for KO, it will be code-calculated according to the
approach presented above.

K.3 SOURCE TERM

The oxygen-limited model (as all of the vapor models in RISC) may be run using a
specified soil gas concentration or a total concentration in soil as the source term. The
equations presented in Equations K-19 and K-20 require the soil vapor concentration,
CHmax, of the chemical as a starting point. If soil gas is selected as the source term in
RISC, then the user-specified value is used for CHmax.

If the source term is to be entered as the total concentration in soil, then CHmax is
calculated from the equilibrium partitioning equation or from the chemical’s
calculated effective solubility, whichever is less. This is the same approach used by
the Vadose Zone Model (Appendix A), the Saturated Soil Model (Appendix C), and
the other vapor models (Appendices D and J). See Appendix A for a detailed
discussion on how the dissolved-phase concentration is determined from the user-
input total concentration in soil. Note, this vapor model allows the user to specify
values for soil bulk density, fraction organic carbon, moisture content, and porosity in
the source area as separate from those used for the modeled transport region. The
reason for this is that the contamination may reside in a different unit than that where
the vapor migrates.

Once the dissolved-phase concentration (Cw) is calculated, the soil vapor source
concentration is calculated from:

C Hmax = C w K H (K-34)

where
CHmax = source vapor concentration at z = L [g/cm3]
Cw = dissolved-phase concentration [mg/l]
KH = Henry’s Law Coefficient [(mg/l)/(mg/l)]

K-17
RISC Manual Version 4.0

K.4 DATA REQUIREMENTS OF THE OXYGEN-LIMITED

VAPOR MODEL

The input data requirements for this model are presented in Table K-1.

Table K-1. Data Requirements for the Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model.

Typical Range of
Values
Units Minimum Maximum
Unsaturated Zone Parameters
Porosity cm3/cm3 0.01 0.5
3 3
Water content cm /cm 0 porosity
Distance to building foundation or soil m site- site-specific
surface specific
Ambient O2 concentration % 0 21
Minimum O2 concentration for % 2 21
degradation (generally)
Oxygen mass transfer coefficient, KO cm/s 0
Chemical-Specific Parameters
Diffusion coefficient in air cm2/s chem- chem-
specific specific
Diffusion coefficient in water cm2/s chem- chem-
specific specific
Henry's Law coefficient (mg/l)/(mg/l) chem- chem-
specific specific
Degradation rate in the middle layer 1/day chem- chem-
specific specific
When Source is entered as a Soil Vapor Concentration:
Soil vapor concentration mg/m3 site-specific site-specific

K-18
 Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model

Table K-1. Data Requirements for the Oxygen-Limited Vapor Model

(concluded).
Typical Range of Values
Units Minimum Maximum
When Source is entered as a Total Soil Concentration:
Source concentration mg/kg site-specific site-specific
3 3
Porosity in source region cm /cm 0.01 0.5
3 3
Water content in source region cm /cm 0 porosity
Fraction organic carbon in source g OC/g soil 0.001 1
region
Soil bulk density in source region g/cm3 1.4 2.2
Molecular weight of chemical g/mol chem-specific chem-specific
Solubility of chemical mg/l chem-specific chem-specific
Molecular weight of TPH g/mol 75 120
Concentration of TPH mg/kg site-specific site-specific
When Model is Used to Predict Indoor Air Concentration:
Cross-sectional area of foundation m2 site-specific site-specific
perpendicular to volatile emissions
Volume of house m3 site-specific site-specific
Building air exchange rate 1/d Residential: 12 location/
Industrial: 20 site-specific
Thickness of foundation m 0 site-specific
3 3
Fraction of cracks in foundation cm /cm 0 1
Qsoil: soil gas flow rate cm3/s 0 site-specific
(OR next three parameters)
Length of foundation perimeter m 0 site-specific
(not needed if Qsoil not equal to zero)
Depth below foundation (not needed if m 0 site-specific
Qsoil not equal to zero)
Pressure difference from indoors to soil g/cm2-s 0 site-specific
(not needed if Qsoil not equal to zero) (probably at
(pascals)
most 100)
When Model is Used to Predict Outdoor Air Concentration:
Height of breathing zone m >0 site-specific
Length of "box" (length of source) m >0 site-specific
Wind speed m >0 site-specific

K-19
RISC Manual Version 4.0

K.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE OXYGEN-LIMITED VAPOR MODEL

1. This is a steady-state, constant and one-dimensional model. The source does

not deplete due to vapor losses so mass is not conserved. This assumption has
only a minor impact on the risk from non-carcinogens (unless the source is
very small) since the worst seven-year running average intake is compared to
the reference dose. It can have a more significant impact however on
carcinogens (such as benzene) since the cumulative exposure over a long
exposure duration (up to 30 years) forms the basis for the risk calculation.
2. The model assumes that the oxygen-transfer coefficient can be estimated or is
entered by the user. This term is difficult to estimate or measure in the field.
3. The model assumes that degradation occurs only when the oxygen in the
vadose zone is above a minimum value. If the oxygen falls below that
minimum, it is assumed that degradation ceases.

K.6 REFERENCES

Johnson, P.C., and Ettinger, R.A., 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion
Rate of Contaminant Vapors into Buildings, Environmental Science and
Technology, 25, 1445-1452.

Johnson, P.C., 1998. An Oxygen-Limited Hydrocarbon Vapor Migration Attenuation

Screening Model (in development).

Jury, .W.A., Russo, D., Streile, G. and Abid, H. El. 1990. "Evaluation of
Volatilization by Organic Chemicals Residing Below the Soil Surface". Water
Resources Research. 26(1). 13-20.

Jury, .W.A., Farmer, W.J., and Spencer, W.F. 1983. "Behavior Assessment Model for
Trace Organics in Soil I, Model Description" Journal of Environmental
Quality. 12, 558-564.

Millington, J.J. and Quirk, J.P. 1961. Permeability of Porous Solids. Trans. Faraday
Soc., 57. 1200-1207.

K-20
 Surface Water Mixing
Appendix
And Sediment
L Partitioning Models

L.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

The surface water mixing and sediment partitioning model is used to estimate the
concentration in surface water and sediment assuming that a groundwater plume is
discharging to surface water. In RISC, the groundwater concentration adjacent to the
surface water body can either be directly entered by the user or it can be estimated by
one of the groundwater fate and transport models.

The model has been formulated for two different types of water bodies:

• lakes, estuaries or large water bodies

• rivers, creeks or streams

The sediment model is a simple partitioning model (from the groundwater

concentration) that predicts the concentration of the contaminant that is sorbed to the
sediment (due to groundwater discharge) in the region where the contaminated plume
passes through the sediments into the surface water. In the present model, no
biodegradation is allowed as the plume enters the sediment interface.

Figure L-1 shows the model geometry from an areal perspective for the surface water
model.

L-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

GROUNDWATER
SOURCE

RIVER or LAKE

Figure L-1. Surface Water Mixing Model Geometry.

L.2 APPLICATIONS OF THIS MODEL

For human health risk assessments, surface water concentrations can either be entered
by the user or they may be estimated with a mixing model (described in this
appendix). These surface water concentrations will then serve as receptor point
concentrations for the human health risk calculations associated with surface water
pathways.

In an ecological assessment the surface water concentrations can be compared with

surface water quality criteria and sediment concentrations compared with sediment
criteria to evaluate potential ecological impact. In the ecological assessments the
surface water and sediment concentrations can be input or estimated using one of the
mixing models with a dissolved-phase groundwater plume as the source. This
appendix describes the models used to estimate concentrations in surface water and
sediment that emanate from a groundwater plume discharging to the surface water.

The main applications of the surface water mixing models are:

L-2
 Surface Water and Sediment Model

1. To estimate potential impacts to a surface water body from adjacent

contaminated groundwater.
2. A source can be linked with a groundwater model to ascertain its impact on
surface water.
3. If groundwater concentrations have been measured next to the surface water
body (and they are at steady state) then the measured groundwater
concentrations can be used as a source term. In this case the mixing model is
not linked with a groundwater model.
4. To evaluate the potential length of groundwater impact along the surface water
body shore.

L.3 TRANSPORT EQUATIONS AND PROCESSES

Water quality is normally simulated in surface water features through assumptions

relating to the kinetics and mass transport. Two types of systems are normally
considered:

• Well mixed, where the concentration through the surface water body (or
specified control volume) is equal throughout. This is normally applied to
lakes.

• Incompletely mixed, in which the contamination is not chemically

homogenized. Incompletely mixed systems can also be described as “plug
flow” or “mixed flow”. Plug flow models exist where advection dominates
(applied to rivers), while mixed flow systems exist where both advection and
diffusion/dispersion apply (applied to estuaries).

Dispersion refers to the movement of contaminants as a result of variations of

velocity in space while diffusion refers to the movement of mass due to the
random motion.

The surface water mixing models in RISC are assumed to be well-mixed. The next
two sections describe the surface water mixing and sediment partitioning models,
respectively.

L-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

L.3.1 Surface Water Mixing Model

The surface water mixing model in RISC is based on a simple “well-mixed” model
where the concentration through the water quality body is equal throughout. This
approach is used by RISC to estimate the surface water concentration for both the
river and lake options. The well mixed model does not account for advection or
dispersion.

The well mixed model is based on the principle of mass balance:

dC sw
V = W (t ) − QC sw − µ swVC sw
dx (L-1)

where:

W(t) = mass loading [mg/d]

V = volume of surface water for mixing [m3]
Csw = concentration of contaminant in surface water [mg/m3]
t = time [d]
Q = inflow/outflow rate [m3/d]
µsw = decay rate of chemical in surface water [d-1]
x = distance downgradient in the river (parallel to the surface
water body edge) [m]

For rivers, the x-dimension is assumed to be parallel to the surface water body edge
(downgradient in a river). The groundwater plume is assumed to intersect the surface
water body at a right angle. For a lake scenario, it is assumed that the plume intersects
the lake along a straight boundary perpendicular to the lake edge. The steady state
solution to Equation L-1 is:

W
c= (L-2)
Q + µ swV

L-4
 Surface Water and Sediment Model

Equation L-2 is used for both rivers and lakes; the only difference between the two is
in the way in which the mixing volume is calculated. For rivers, the surface water
mixing volume, V, is calculated as the product of the length of the plume and the
cross-sectional area of the river, or that part of the river cross-section where mixing
takes place. For lakes (or estuaries), the mixing volume is user-specified directly (it
can equal either the total lake volume or a fraction thereof).

Equation L-2 is very similar to Equation F-1 used for the outdoor air ("box")
model (described in Appendix F). Equation L-2 assumes that there is a fixed
volume of surface water (in this case the reach of the river or section of lake)
that receives loading of contaminant (W) and that the contaminant is evenly
mixed throughout the water volume. The water in the river reach or section of
lake is flushed (or exchanged with fresh water) at the inflow rate. The inflow
rate is similar to the wind speed in the box model.

The inflow/outflow rate, Q, is calculated from the user-specified input parameters

values and is equal to the sum of the groundwater discharge and the inflow rate of
surface water into the surface water volume:

Q = Qsw + Qgw (L-3)

The mass loading rate, W, is calculated from:

W = Qsw*Co + Qgw*Cgw (L-4)

where

Qsw = surface water inflow rate (upstream flow) [m3/d]

Co = upstream (background) concentration of contaminant in
surface water [mg/m3]
Qgw = groundwater inflow rate [m3/d]
Cgw = concentration of contaminant in groundwater inflow
[mg/m3]

L-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

L.3.2 Sediment Partitioning Model

The sediment concentrations are calculated using the equilibrium partitioning

equation:

C sed = C gw K d
(L-7)

where

Csed = concentration in sediments [mg/kg]

Cgw = concentration in groundwater at centerline of plume
estimated by RISC groundwater model or user-specified
[mg/l]
Kd = soil-water partitioning coefficient [ml/g]

For inorganic chemicals, the soil-water partitioning coefficient, Kd, may be directly
entered in the RISC chemical database (Step 1). For organic chemicals (chemicals
that have an "ND" entered for the Kd in the chemical database), the partitioning
coefficient is calculated as the product of the fraction organic carbon and the
chemical's organic partitioning coefficient:

Kd = Foc * Koc (L-8)

where
Foc = fraction organic carbon in dry soil [g/g]
Koc = chemical-specific organic carbon partition coefficient
[ml/g]

Note, if the groundwater concentration, Cgw, is predicted by one of the RISC

groundwater models, it will vary with time. In that situation, the estimated sediment
concentrations will also vary with time.

L-6
 Surface Water and Sediment Model

L.4 EXAMPLES

The following two examples show how Equations L-2 through L-4 are used to
estimate concentrations in surface water for rivers and lakes, respectively.

L.4.1 River Example

A river with inflow upstream of 900 m3/d (approx. 10 l/s), groundwater inflow of 100
m3/d and a generic contaminant concentration in groundwater of 316 mg/l (assumed to
be steady state in this example). Other assumed or measured parameters include:

• Decay rate of contaminant in river 0.05/d.

• Length of polluted reach (where the groundwater plume intersects the surface
water) = 100m
• River cross section of 5 m2.
• Background contaminant concentration in river = 0

Calculations:
3 3
• Contaminant loading, W = 316 mg/l*100 m /d inflow*1000 l/m = 31,600,000
mg/d or 3.16E7 mg/d
• Volume, V = 5 m2 cross section*100 m reach = 500 m3
• Total outflow rate, Q = 900 m3/d inflow upstream +100 m3/d from
groundwater = 1000 m3/d

From Equation L-2, the concentration in the river is:

mg
3.16 E 7
W d 1m 3
C sw = = = 30.8mg / l
Q + kV  3  1000l
1000
m 3  0.05 
+
d  d 
(
 500m  )
 

L-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

L.4.2 Lake Example

A lake with a total volume of 50,000 m3, groundwater inflow rate of 100 m3/d with a
concentration 316 mg/l. The decay rate of the chemical in surface water has been
estimated at 0.05/d and the inflow of surface water is 100 m3/d. Mixing is assumed to
occur throughout the entire lake volume.

Calculations:
• Mass loading, W = 316*100*1000 = 3.16E7 mg/d (as above)
• Outflow, Q = 100 m3/d groundwater + 100 m3/d surface water = 200 m3/d

From Equation L-2, the concentration in the lake is:

mg
3.16 E 7
W d 1m 3
C sw = = = 11.7 mg / l
Q + kV  m 3  0.05   1000 l
200 + 50,000m 
3

 d  d  

L.4.3 Adjusting the Mixing Volume for Large Surface Water Bodies

For large surface water bodies where it is unlikely that the groundwater mixes across
the entire surface water body (e.g. large lakes or wide rivers), the mixing volume
should be adjusted to represent the fraction of the total surface water volume available
for mixing. Choosing an appropriate value for the mixing fraction will usually be a
judgment call based on the site-specific information. In the lake example, if it were
assumed that the groundwater only mixed with 1% of the total lake volume, the
concentration would be estimated as:

mg
3.16 E 6
W d 1m 3
C sw = = = 14mg / l
+ Frac mix (Q sw + kV )  
Q gw
100
m3
+ 0.01 × 100
m 3  0.05 
+ (
 50,000m 
3
)1000 l
d  d  d  

L-8
 Surface Water and Sediment Model

Note that the total surface water inflow rate, Qsw, is adjusted along with the total
surface water volume. Several points to consider when deciding whether or not to
adjust the surface water mixing volume are:

• If the length of the reach is long relative to the cross-section of the river, the
volume may not need to be reduced (the fraction for mixing would be equal to
1).
• If the river is flowing slowly and the cross-sectional area is not too large, it is
probably a fairly good assumption that it is well mixed (the fraction should
equal 1).
• Conversely, if the river (or lake) is flowing quickly and/or the thickness of the
groundwater intersecting the river is small in comparison with the cross-
section, then the mixing fraction should be adjusted to account for the reduced
mixing potential.

L.4.4 Calculation of Groundwater Inflow Rate

In the above two examples, it is assumed that the groundwater inflow rate, Qgw, and
the contaminant loading rate, W, are known. Darcy's Law is used to estimate the
groundwater inflow rate, Qgw:

 hgw − hsw 
Qgw = K sw d sw Lreach   (L-5)
 L 
 f 

where:

Qgw = groundwater inflow rate [m3/d]

Ksw = hydraulic conductivity of the groundwater-surface water
interface (not necessarily the hydraulic conductivity of
the aquifer defined for the simulation of flow and
transport within the aquifer) [m/d]
dsw = thickness of groundwater that ends up discharging in the
surface water body [m]. Note that this is user-specified
and does not necessarily equal the total depth of the
aquifer since, for partially penetrating conditions, some
of the aquifer flow is beneath the surface water body.

L-9
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Lreach = length of surface water reach receiving contamination

[m]
Lf = distance along flow line between hsw and hgw [m]
hsw = river/lake water level [m]
hgw = groundwater hydraulic head [m]

The last term in Equation L-5 is the hydraulic gradient between the groundwater
aquifer and the surface water. This hydraulic gradient may be different than the
overall groundwater gradient away from the surface water body edge. Figure L-2
shows the cross-sectional schematic with the variables.

RIVER / LAKE BED DEPOSITS,

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, Ksw

hgw

hsw

dsw Direction of
GW flow
from source

Lf

Figure L-2. Cross-Sectional Model Geometry.

L.4.5 Calculation of Length of Reach

The length of the reach, Lreach, where the groundwater plume impacts the surface
water body is either directly entered by the user for the case where a groundwater
model is not used, or it is calculated by the groundwater model in the linked situation.
When the surface water mixing model is linked with a groundwater model, the length
of the reach, Lgw, is a function of the plume width where it intersects the surface water
body. Further, an assumption is made that the concentrations across the plume width
is constant and the width of impact is calculated from the point at which the actual

L-10
 Surface Water and Sediment Model

groundwater concentration drops to 5% of the centerline concentration when the

plume is at steady state. Figures L-3 is an areal schematic showing how the length of
the reach is calculated. Figure L-4 is a graph that compares the shape of the actual
mass loading function with the conservative step loading rate assumed in the mixing
model.

Plume Geometry Groundwater

at Steady State flow

Groundwater
Source

Centerline of Plume

Lplume

Maximum concentration, Cmax,

in groundwater at the
surface water boundary

Surface
RIVER or LAKE
water
flow
Lreach
Distance off centerline
where concentration in
groundwater is 0.05 x Cmax

Figure L-3. Calculating the Length of the Reach

L-11
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Centerline of
Groundwater Plume

Mass Loading
Function Used in
Mixing Model
Cmax

Steady State
Groundwater
Concentration

Actual Mass
Loading Function
0.05 x Cmax

-Lreach/2 0 Lreach/2

Distance Along Surface Water Reach

Figure L-4. Calculating the Mass Loading Function

The following equation (Domenico, 1987) is used to estimate the distance off the
centerline at which the concentration becomes 5% of the centerline concentration:

Co  x  4λα x  
C ( x, y , z ) = exp 1 − 1 + 
4  2α x  υ  
  Wy  1   1  
 W
erf  y +   − erf  y − y
  (L-6)
  2  2 α y x   2 α y x  
 2

  Wz  1   W z  1  
 
erf z +   − erf  z −  
  2  2 α z x   2  2 α z x  


where:
C(x,y,z) = steady-state concentration of chemical in groundwater at
a location (x,y,z) [mg/l]
Co = source concentration of chemical in groundwater [mg/l]
x = Cartesian coordinate in the direction of groundwater
flow, measured downgradient of the groundwater source
[m]

L-12
 Surface Water and Sediment Model

y = Cartesian coordinate in the transverse direction,

measured from the centerline of the plume [m]
z = Cartesian coordinate in the vertical direction, measured
positively downward from the water table [m]
Wy = width of the groundwater source in the cross-gradient
direction [m]
Wz = vertical thickness of the groundwater source [m]
αx = longitudinal dispersivity (in the direction of groundwater
flow) [m] (assumed to be equal to 0.1 * Lgw)
αy = transverse dispersivity (perpendicular to the direction of
groundwater flow) [m] (assumed to be equal toαx /3)
αz = vertical dispersivity [m] (assumed to be equal to αx /87)

The length of the surface water reach is calculated by first using Equation L-6 to
calculate the centerline concentration at the surface water body edge. Then L-6 is
solved iteratively until it finds the distance cross-gradient where the groundwater
concentration equals 5% of the centerline concentration. These concentrations will
not likely match the concentrations calculated by the groundwater model in RISC.
The important relationship calculated by Equation L-6 is the relative concentrations.
The Domenico equation presented in L-6 assumes that the groundwater source is
continuous and steady-state for the length of the simulation time. It therefore
calculates a worst case width of the plume at the surface water body edge. This
conservative value of the width is then used in Equation L-5 to estimate the
groundwater loading to the surface water body. Note, the groundwater concentrations
predicted by the RISC groundwater model are used to estimate the actual mass
loading in Equation L-4; the groundwater concentration values in Equation L-6 are
only used to estimate a worst case length of reach. The groundwater concentrations
predicted by the RISC models are transient and therefore the loading rate to surface
water will be a function of time as well.

L-13
RISC Manual Version 4.0

L.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS

Table L-1 lists the data requirements for the surface water mixing and sediment
partitioning models.

L.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SURFACE

WATER AND SEDIMENT MIXING MODELS

1. Impact on surface water and/or sediment caused by soil erosion, overland flow
(runoff) or river upstream effects is not modeled.
2. Impact to surface water from a point discharge (e.g. a pipe) rather than a
groundwater plume is ignored.
3. The mixing model assumes the aquifer discharges into the surface water body.
If the river is a "loosing stream", then the groundwater will not impact the
surface water body and the model should not be used.
4. The model should not be used if the groundwater plume flows underneath the
river and does not discharge into it.
5. The sediment partitioning model assumes no biodegradation as the plume
enters the sediment interface.

L.7 REFERENCES

Domenico, P.A., 1987, "An Analytical Model for Multidimensional Transport of a

Decaying Contaminant Species," Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 91, p 49-58.

L-14
 Surface Water and Sediment Model

Table L-1. Data Requirements for the Surface Water Mixing and Sediment
Partitioning Model

Typical Range of Values

Units Minimum Maximum

MEDIA-SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
Distance to Surface Water Edge m Site-Specific Site-Specific
Hydraulic Conductivity of Surface m/day 1.00E-07 100
Water Bed
Hydraulic Gradient Between m/m Site-Specific Site-Specific
Groundwater and Surface Water
Thickness of Groundwater Aquifer at m Site-Specific Site-Specific
Surface Water Edge
Surface Water Inflow/Outflow Rate m3/d Site-Specific Site-Specific
Cross-Sectional Area of River (only if - Site-Specific Site-Specific
River Mixing Option is chosen)
Total Volume of Surface Water (only m3 Site-Specific Site-Specific
if Lake Mixing Option is chosen)
Fraction of Surface Water Body - Site-Specific Site-Specific
Available for Mixing
Fraction Organic Carbon (in g /g soil 0.001 0.2
sediments)

SOURCE PARAMETERS
(When not linked with a groundwater model)
Length of Impacted Reach m site-specific site-specific
Concentration of Chemical in mg/l site-specific site-specific
Groundwater at Surface Water Body
Edge

CHEMICAL SPECIFIC DATA (individual chemical component)

Koc ml/g chem-specific chem-specific
Degradation Rate in Surface Water 1/d chemical- and chemical- and
site-specific site-specific

L-15
 Summary Of National
& International Status
Appendix

M Guidelines For The

Protection Of Aquatic Life

M.1 UNITED STATES - NATIONAL AMBIENT WATER

QUALITY CRITERIA

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to derive, publish and

update ambient water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human
health under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. The most recent update to the
criteria was published on December 10th, 1998 in the US Federal Register (Volume
63, No 237). The derivation process for National Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(NAWQC) for protection of aquatic life is well documented (see Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and Their Uses; EPA 1985).

The criterion derivation process for each chemical or quality parameter consists of a
literature review phase followed by calculation of a criterion using a prescribed
method for those parameters where sufficient data exist. For the derivation of a
freshwater criterion, acute tests are required for species with breeding populations in
North America from the following eight families:

• Salmonidae (salmonid fish) in the class Osteichthyes;

• a second family in the class Osteichthyes;
• a third family in the phylum Chordata (this phylum includes the class
Osteichthyes);
• a planktonic crustacean;
• a benthic crustacean;

M-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

• an insect;
• a family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g. rotiferans,
annelids, molluscs); and
• another insect or a family from a phylum not already represented.

Tests indicating the relationship between acute and chronic toxicity of a parameter are
also required for aquatic species from at least three different families, which must
include a fish, an invertebrate and at least one acutely sensitive freshwater species. In
addition, one test on a freshwater plant or alga and one freshwater species
bioconcentration factor are required.

Similar requirements exist for the derivation of marine criteria. The following
calculation process is then performed for each chemical in the freshwater and marine
environments:

• The calculation of a species mean acute value (SMAV) representing acute

toxicity to each species represented;
• The calculation of a genus mean acute value (GMAV) representing acute
toxicity to each genus represented;
• The calculation of a final acute value (FAV) protective of 95% of species
against acute toxicity effects;
• The calculation of a final acute-chronic ratio (FACR) indicating the ratio
between acute and chronic endpoints for aquatic life;
• The calculation of a final chronic value (FCV) protective of 95% of aquatic
life against chronic toxicity effects. The FCV is calculated by applying the
FACR to the FAV;
• Calculation of a final plant value (FPV) for protection of plant life; and
• Calculation of a final residue value (FRV) for protection against
bioaccumulation effects.

The final criteria (i.e. the NAWQC) are published as a criterion maximum
concentration (CMC) not to be exceeded in the short term (one-hour average), and a
criterion continuous concentration (CCC) not to be exceeded in the long term (four-
day average) more than once every three years on average.

M-2
 Water Quality Standards

The CMC is taken as half the value of the final acute value (FAV), and the CCC is
selected as the lowest of the final chronic value, the final plant value and the final
residue value from the calculation process above. An element of expert judgement is
incorporated into the process and the derivation methodology may be revised for a
given parameter following a round of public and scientific peer review. For the
assessment of ecological impact of chemicals leaching from contaminated land, CCC
values are considered to be appropriate indicators.

M.2 CANADA – WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES

Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment (CCME) Water Quality

Guidelines for protection of aquatic life are derived following guidelines published by
the International Joint Commission Water Quality Board (IJC 1975) and the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment (OMOE 1979, 1992). The goal is to protect all aquatic
life stages during indefinite exposure to toxicants in water. All aquatic ecosystem
components are considered if the data are available. Where limited data are available
for a given chemical, CCME prefer to set an interim guideline to not specifying a
guideline value.

For most water quality variables CCME have set a single maximum value not to be
exceeded, with this value based on a long-term no-effect concentration.

Candidate chemicals for guideline derivation are selected from the following priority
lists:

• CCME Task Force on Water Quality Guidelines Priority Pesticides List; and
the
• Canadian Environmental Protection Act Priority Substances List.

In addition, chemicals of regional concern within Canada are selected with input from
federal, provincial, and territorial agencies.

Published data on the following are reviewed:

M-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

• acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic biota;

• bioaccumulation potential;
• physico-chemical properties and information on fate and behaviour;
• patterns of production and use in Canada;
• background concentrations in Canada;
• genotoxicity; and
• guideline information from other jurisdictions.

Published toxicity studies are evaluated and classified as primary, secondary, or

unacceptable, dependent upon the degree to which each study fulfils acceptable
laboratory protocols. Specified minimum toxicological and environmental fate data
set requirements must be met for a final guideline to be set. Where these requirements
are not met, a less stringent set of requirements may be fulfilled to derive an interim
guideline.

As with water quality criteria published by other jurisdictions, uncertainty factors are
applied to selected ecotoxicity endpoints to derive a final guideline. When available,
the lowest-observable-effects level (LOEL) from a chronic exposure study on the most
sensitive native Canadian species is multiplied by a safety factor of 0.1 to arrive at the
final guideline concentration. Alternatively, the lowest LC50 or EC50 from an acute
exposure study is multiplied by an acute/chronic ratio or an appropriate uncertainty
factor (this factor being set at 0.05 for non-persistent chemicals and 0.01 for persistent
chemicals) to determine the final guideline concentration. The CCME guidelines
represent concentrations protective of aquatic life from chronic exposure and no acute
exposure guidelines are published.

M.3 EUROPE - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS

The European Community (EC) sets environmental quality standards (EQSs) for
‘priority list substances’, with these standards to be adopted by member states of the
EC. Priority list substances include those named in List I of the Annex to Directive

M-4
 Water Quality Standards

76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the

aquatic environment of the community. Water quality conditions for List I substances
have been established in a series of "daughter Directives" (82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC,
84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC and 86/280/EEC amended by 90/415/EEC). There are two
alternative methods for setting these conditions: member states may apply ‘end-of-
pipe’ emission limit values based the best available techniques, or may base discharge
permits on limits required to meet specified environmental quality objectives (i.e.,
EQSs) in the receiving body of water. The priority list is occasionally reviewed based
on scientific evidence, the most recent review proposed by the European Commission
in February 2000.

The methodology for derivation of EQSs for List I substances at the EC level is not
published, although review of both eco-toxicity data and political/technical
considerations is believed to be incorporated. EQSs published in EC daughter
Directives to the Dangerous Substances Directive are quoted as continuous
concentrations.

Numerical quality objectives for surface water are also specified for commercial
salmonid and cyprinid fisheries waters in Directive 78/659/EC (ammonia, biological
oxygen demand, chlorine, dissolved oxygen, nitrite, pH, phosphorous, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel and zinc) and for shellfish waters in Directive 79/923/EC
(dissolved oxygen and faecal coliform bacteria).

M.4 UNITED KINGDOM - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

STANDARDS

Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for the protection of aquatic life are proposed
and adopted in the UK from the following sources:

1. Adoption of the European Community EQS (chemicals named in List I of

the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the
community).

M-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

2. Set by the DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions) in the Surface Waters (Dangerous Substances)(Classification)
Regulations (1989-1998) and/or the Surface Waters
(Fishlife)(Classification) Regulations (1997). Regulations are published
separately for England & Wales and for Scotland, under the Water
Resources Act 1991.
3. Proposed by the WRc plc under contract to the DETR and awaiting
passage into the Regulations.
4. Set by the Environment Agency (the UK regulatory body) in R&D reports,
for the purposes of monitoring industrial discharge consents or dealing
with specific contamination problems associated with chemicals without
quality standards from the above sources.

For those standards not adopted directly from EC legislation, the EQS concentration is
derived based upon review of the published literature on chemical eco-toxicity, using
expert judgement and the application of uncertainty factors where necessary. Strict
guidance has not been set on data quality and the application of uncertainty factors to
toxicity endpoints. Review of selected R&D documents published by WRc plc
reveals that order-of-magnitude uncertainty factors (i.e. 10, 100, etc) may be applied
to acute toxicity data for sensitive aquatic species in order to derive an EQS.
Background concentrations in the UK, physico-chemical properties, bioaccumulation
potential and guidelines set by other jurisdictions are also considered in the derivation
process.

Some or all of the following criteria may be published for a given chemical;
Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) and Annual Average (AA) for each of
inland (freshwater), estuarine and marine waters.

Specific monitoring regimes are not stipulated in the regulations for determining AA
concentrations – this is left to the Environment Agency’s judgement. For the purposes
of contaminated land assessment, AA concentrations are generally used in preference
to MACs.

M-6
 Water Quality Standards

M.5 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND - WATER QUALITY

GUIDELINES

The Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters were first
published by the Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
(ANZECC) under the National Water Quality Management Strategy in 1992. They
were set largely by review of guidelines used by other jurisdictions, primarily the 1991
CCME Water Quality Guidelines for the protection of aquatic life, and the 1986 US
Environmental Protection Agency’s National Ambient Water Quality Criteria.

The ANZECC water quality guidelines have been revised and a draft version has been
available for review since 1999. It is expected that they will be cleared for release in
April 2001. Information on the new guidelines and the release date are available from
the web site:

http://www.environment.gov.au/water/quality/guidelines/index.html.

Review of these revised guidelines was coordinated by Environmental Research

Institute of the Supervising Scientist (ERISS), part of the Science Group of
Environment Australia. The values shown in Table M-1 for ANZECC were obtained
from the 1999 draft version.

M.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This chapter was written by URS Dames and Moore UK (James Walker) under
contract to BP.

M-7
 Table M-1. Surface Water Quality Criteria Database in RISC

New Zealand/ European

U.S. UK Australia Community Canada
1 2 3 4 5
AWQC UKEQS ANZECC EC WQO CCREM
Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine
Chemical Comments 6 7 6 7 8 9 8 9 8 8
Continuous Maximum Continuous Maximum AA MAC AA MAC AA AA
ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l
Acenaphthene see PAHs (total) 5.8 I
Acenaphthylene see PAHs (total)
Acetone no guideline
Anthracene see PAHs (total) 0.06 0.06 0.012 I
Arsenic 150 340 36 69 50 50 1.6 1.6 50 12.5
Barium no guideline
Benzo(a)anthracene see PAHs (total) 0.018 I
Benzene 30 300 30 300 230 170 370 110
Benzo(a)pyrene see PAHs (total) 0.3 0.3 0.015 I
Benzo(b)fluoranthene see PAHs (total)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene see PAHs (total)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene see PAHs (total)
Beryllium
Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate 2 2
Butyl benzyl phthalate no guideline
Cadmium 2.2 H 4.3 H 9.3 43 5 2.5 0.013 H 1.7 5 2.5 0.03 I H 0.12
Carbon Disulfide no guideline
Carbon Tetrachloride 12 12 240 240 12 12 13.3 I
Chlorobenzene 32 32 1.3 I 25 I
Chloroform (trichloromethane) 12 12 170 170 1.8 I
Chromium (III) 74 H 570 H 9H 9 8.9 I 56 I
Chromium (IV) 11 16 50 1100 1.1 3.1 1 1.5
Chromium (total) 10 H 5 2
Chrysene see PAHs (total)
Copper 9H 13 H 3.1 4.8 3H 5 0.33 H 0.029 2H
Cresol(m) no guideline
Cresol(o) no guideline
Cresol(p) no guideline
Cyanide 5.2 22 1 1 1 1 5
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene see PAHs (total)
Dichloroethane (1,1) no guideline
Dichloroethane (1,2) (EDC) 10 10 1100 1100 10 10 100 I
Dichloroethene (trans 1,2) no guideline
Dichloroethene(trans 1,1-) 610 610
Dichloroethylene (cis 1,2) 610 610
Dimethylbenza(a)anthracene (7,12) see PAHs (total)
Dimethylphenol (2,4) no guideline
di-n-Butylphthalate
Dinitrotoluene (2,4) 13 13
di-n-Octylphthalate no guideline
Dioxane (1,4) no guideline
Ethylbenzene 86 86 90 I
Ethylene Dibromide no guideline
Fluoranthene see PAHs (total) 0.7 0.7 0.04 I
Fluorene see PAHs (total) 3.0 I
Indeno(1,2,3CD)pyrene see PAHs (total)
Lead 2.5 H 65 H 8.1 210 10 H 10 2H
Mercury 0.77 1.4 0.94 1.8 1 0.3 0.013 0.029 1 0.3 0.1
Methanol no guideline

RISC User's Manual Version 4.0 Page 1 of 2 M-8

 Table M-1. Surface Water Quality Criteria Database in RISC

New Zealand/ European

U.S. UK Australia Community Canada
AWQC1 UKEQS2 ANZECC3 EC WQO4 CCREM5
Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine Freshwater Marine
Chemical Comments 6 7 6 7 8 9 8 9 8 8
Continuous Maximum Continuous Maximum AA MAC AA MAC AA AA
ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l
Methyl ethyl ketone no guideline
Methylene Chloride 3100 3100
Methyl napthalene (2) see PAHs (total)
MTBE EPA 1999 51 151 17 50
Naphthalene 10 100 5 80 0.3 8.4 1.1 I 1.4 I
Nickel 52 H 470 H 8.2 74 20 H 15 0.7 H 32.6 65 H
Nitrobenzene 60 60
PAHs (total)
PCBs 0.014 0.03 0.001 0.01
Phenanthrene see PAHs (total) 2 2 0.4 I
Phenol 6 21 4P
Pyrene see PAHs (total) 0.025 I
Pyridine no guideline
Selenium 5 71 290 1.4 1.4 1 1
Silver 3.4 H 1.9 0.005 0.18 0.1
Styrene 72 I
Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2) 200 200
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 10 10 82 82 10 10 111 I
Tetraethyl Lead no guideline
Toluene 50 500 40 400 170 170 2I 215 I
TPH Aliphatic C5-6 no guideline
TPH Aliphatic C6-8 no guideline
TPH Aliphatic C8-10 no guideline
TPH Aliphatic C10-12 no guideline
TPH Aliphatic C12-16 no guideline
TPH Aliphatic C16-35 no guideline
TPH Aromatic C5-7 no guideline
TPH Aromatic C7-8 no guideline
TPH Aromatic C8-10 no guideline
TPH Aromatic C10-12 no guideline
TPH Aromatic C12-16 no guideline
TPH Aromatic C16-21 no guideline
TPH Aromatic C21-35 no guideline
Trichloroethane (1,1,1) 100 1000 100 1000 130 130
Trichloroethane (1,1,2) 400 4000 300 3000 270 470 21 I
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 10 10 10 10
Vanadium 20 H 100 6 10
Vinyl Chloride 100 100
Xylenes 30 300 30 300 61 61
Zinc 120 H 120 H 81 90 300 H DF 10 DF 2.4 H 2.7 300 H DF 10 DF 30

Notes:
1 - United States Environment Protection Agency Ambient Water Quality Criteria
2 - United Kingdom Environmental Quality Standards (statutory and proposed) DF - Applies to designated fishery waters
3 - Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (Draft, July 1999) H - Hardness-dependent. Where a single value is given this applies to a water hardness
4 - European Commission Water Quality Objective of 100 mg/l CaCO3, otherwise a range is quoted
5 - Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment Freshwater Aquatic Life Guideline I - Interim Guideline
6 - Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) - 4-day average not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average P - Criterion applies to total phenols
7 - Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) - one-hour average not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average pH - pH-dependent. Criterion applies to pH7
8 - Annual Average concentration * - The UK Surface Waters (Dangerous Substances)(Classification) Regulations (1989)
9 - Maximum Allowable Concentration state that the total concentration of aldrin + dieldrin + endrin+ isodrin
should not exceed 0.03 ug/l, with endrin not to exceed 0.005 ug/l

RISC User's Manual Version 4.0 Page 2 of 2 M-9

Appendix
Sediment
N Quality Criteria

N.1 REVIEW OF SEDIMENT CRITERIA FOR THE

PROTECTION OF AQUATIC ECOLOGY

This appendix presents sediment screening values that were reviewed for inclusion in
RISC. The screening values are presented in Table N-1. A wide range of sediment
quality criteria has been published by various sources, the majority of which are North
American. The lack of criteria with national status in North America and elsewhere is
largely due to ongoing debate regarding the most appropriate means of criteria
derivation, and indeed whether the use of criteria for screening purposes is in itself an
appropriate means of assessment of contaminated land and water.

The terms ‘criterion’, ‘screening value’, ‘benchmark’, ‘guideline’ and ‘standard’ have
particular definitions under certain jurisdictions. However, they are viewed as
interchangeable in this report, denoting concentrations appropriate for use in a first
tier screening of the potential for ecological receptors to suffer adverse effects as a
result of exposure to chemical contamination.

Part of the problem with sediments is that criteria for specific compounds are
developed from bioassay sampling of real sediments extracted from a water body.
Invariably these sediments are impacted by more than just the target compound for
which a screening criteria is desired. Since it is difficult to isolate the effect due to the
compound of concern, any observed effect is generally attributed to the specific
compound. Criteria that result are therefore normally quite conservative since all the
toxicity is assigned to the target compound.

It is usual for organizations to present a range of sediment criteria corresponding to

various degrees of certainty that adverse effects will be observed in sediment/aquatic

N-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

ecosystems. Many of the criteria published for organic contaminants are dependent
upon the fraction of organic carbon present in the sediment. The criteria presented in
Table N-1 have been normalized to 1% organic carbon where this is the case.

The following sections detail the eleven sources of sediment criteria that have been
reviewed.

N.2 NOAA (1995)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has published

marine sediment criteria in the form of Effects Range–Low (ER-L) and Effects
Range–Median (ER-M) values (Long et al, 1995). NOAA annually collects and
analyses sediment samples from coastal marine and estuarine sites throughout the
United States, and data from this ongoing survey were used to evaluate three
alternative approaches to the derivation of sediment criteria:

• equilibrium partitioning (EqP) from water quality criteria;

• spiked-sediment toxicity testing; and
• evaluation methods for simultaneously collected biological and chemical field
survey data.

Chemical concentrations observed or predicted by these three methods to be

associated with biological effects were ranked, and the lower 10th percentile (the ER-
L) and median (ER-M) concentrations were identified. For screening purposes,
sediment concentrations below the ER-L are considered to be highly unlikely to be
associated with adverse effects to marine organisms, and concentrations above the
ER-M are more likely than not to be associated with toxic effects. These marine ER-L
and ER-M values were recalculated by Long et al (1995) after omitting a small
amount of freshwater data included in original calculations by Long & Morgan (1991)
and adding more recent data.

N-2
 Sediment Quality Standards

N.3 NOAA (1998)

NOAA have also produced screening quick reference tables (‘SQuiRTs’) for
freshwater and marine sediments (NOAA, 1998). These tables were developed for
internal use by the NOAA Coastal Resource Co-ordination Branch (CRCB) and hence
do not represent official NOAA policy. A range of screening values are quoted in the
tables, including the ER-L and ER-M values published in 1995 (see Section 2 above)
and the following values:

• Lowest Hyallela azteca Threshold Effects Level (TEL) measured by US EPA

Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediment (ARCS) project for
the Great Lakes. Hence some of these values correspond to ARCS Threshold
Effect Concentrations - see Section 5).
• Threshold Effects Level (TEL) – calculated as the geometric mean of the 15th
percentile of the toxic effect concentrations data set and the median of the no-
effect concentrations data set. Observed concentrations below the TEL are
rarely expected to produce adverse effects.
• Probable Effects Level (PEL) – calculated as the geometric mean of the
median of the effects data set and the 85th percentile of the no-effects data set.
Concentrations above the PEL may be expected to frequently result in adverse
effects.
• Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) developed for use in Puget Sound,
Washington State (hence some values are identical to the Washington State
marine sediment criteria – see Section N.8). An AET is the highest non-toxic
concentration observed in a biological toxicity test. The AET quoted is the
lowest AET from a range of five different marine tests – the amphipod
bioassay, a benthic community impacts test, the Microtox bioassay, the oyster
larvae bioassay and the echinoderm larvae bioassay. At concentrations above
an AET, effects may always be expected in the chosen organism.
• Upper Effects Threshold (UET) derived for freshwater sediment in an
analogous manner to the marine AET.

N-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

N.4 FDEP (1994)

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) approach (MacDonald

1994) is similar to the NOAA approach. The updated and revised data set used by
Long et al (1995) was also used by MacDonald (1994) to calculate Threshold Effects
Levels (TELs) and Probable Effects Levels (PELs). However, unlike the ER-Ls and
ER-Ms, the TELs and PELs also incorporate chemical concentrations observed or
predicted to be associated with no adverse biological effects (no-effects data).
Specifically, the TEL is the geometric mean of the 15th percentile in the effects data
set and the 50th percentile in the no-effects data set. The PEL is the geometric mean
of the 50th percentile in the effects data set and the 85th percentile in the no-effects
data set. Therefore, the TEL represents the upper limit of the range of sediment
contaminant concentrations dominated by no-effects data. The PEL represents the
lower limit of the range of contaminant concentrations that are usually or always
associated with adverse biological effects.

N.5 US EPA ARCS (1996)

These criteria were produced by the US National Biological Service for the EPA Great
Lakes National Program Office as part of the Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediment (ARCS) Project. The criteria were based upon the following
sediment toxicity tests:

• 14-day and 28-day reduction in survival, growth, or sexual maturation of the

amphipod Hyalella azteca; and
• 14-day reduction in survival or growth of the midge Chironomus riparius.

Three methods were used to calculate Sediment Effect Concentrations from the results
of each of these three tests:

N-4
 Sediment Quality Standards

• the NOAA method for calculation of ER-Ls (Effects Range – Low) and ER-
Ms (Effects Range – Median) (see Section N.2);
• the FDEP method for calculation of Threshold Effect Levels (TELs) and
Probable Effect Levels (PELs) (see Section N.4),
• the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) method to calculate high No-Effect
Concentrations (NECs).

One of the three ER-L and three TEL values for each chemical was selected as the
representative threshold effect concentration (TEC). Similarly, a representative
probable effect concentration (PEC) was selected for each chemical from the three
ER-Ms and three PELs. A representative high no effect concentration (NEC) also was
selected for each chemical from the three NECs.

The TECs are conservative screening values, below which effects are not expected to
occur. NECs and PECs, respectively, are intended to discriminate chemicals that may
contribute to toxicity (effects are less likely than not) from those that probably
contribute to toxicity (effects more likely than not).

N.6 US EPA OSWER (1996)

The US EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Ecotox
Thresholds (ETs) are intended for screening contaminants at CERCLA ‘Superfund’
sites in the US, and are defined as ‘media-specific contaminant concentrations above
which there is sufficient concern regarding adverse ecological effects to warrant
further site investigation’ (USEPA, 1996, 1999).

The preferred method for determining sediment ETs is to use the sediment quality
criteria (SQC) values proposed by the USEPA (USEPA 1993a–c), which are derived
by equilibrium partitioning (EqP) from aquatic chronic values calculated as part of the
process of deriving national ambient water quality criteria (NAWQCs).

For chemicals without USEPA-proposed SQCs, a sediment quality benchmark (SQB)

is used. The SQB is calculated in the same manner as the SQC except that a

N-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) for the protection of aquatic life is used in place of
NAWQC data. SCVs from either the US EPA Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (see Section N.9), or USEPA OSWER were used,
providing that acute toxicity values for the water flea Daphnia were used in their
calculation. Because of the derivation process, both SQCs and SQBs are dependent
on the organic carbon content of sediment (the values presented are normalized to 1%
organic carbon).

An ER-L value from NOAA (1995, see Section 2) is used if neither an SQC nor an
SQB is available. OSWER noted that there is relatively low correlation between
observed incidence of toxic effects and exceedence of the sediment ER-Ls for
mercury, nickel, and total PCBs, and that the ETs for these four chemicals should
therefore be used cautiously. In addition, for those chemicals with the potential to
bioaccumulate to toxic levels in upper trophic wildlife (e.g., PCBs and lead), the
USEPA state that benchmarks may be under-conservative at some sites (US EPA,
1999).

The USEPA have produced software to calculate site-specific ETs by adjusting for pH
and hardness in surface water and total organic carbon in sediment. The software is
freely available from the USEPA internet site (US EPA, 1999), and produces ETs for
freshwater and marine sites.

N.7 US EPA REGION IV (1995)

US EPA Region IV (1995) has recommended the NOAA and FDEP sediment values
as potential lower screening criteria for use at ‘Superfund’ sites. Although these
sediment screening values have been developed from studies conducted
predominantly in marine environments, communication with the authors of the studies
indicate that corresponding values being developed from a freshwater database were
within a factor of three of the marine based numbers. The screening values have
therefore been recommended for use at freshwater sites until specific freshwater
criteria are developed.

N-6
 Sediment Quality Standards

When the Contract Laboratory Program's (CLP) practical quantification limit (PQL) is
above the effect level, the screening value defaults to the PQL. For those contaminants
whose screening values are based on the PQL, data reported below the required
quantification limit should be compared to the Effects Level number. The CLP PQL,
Effects Level and final criteria are presented in Table N-1.

N.8 WASHINGTON STATE (1995)

The state of Washington has developed sediment management standards for a range of
inorganic and organic compounds (WSDE, 1995). The management standards are
specific to Puget Sound in Washington State and should therefore be used with
caution elsewhere. Information was not available on the derivation of the standards,
although some values correspond with the AETs quoted by NOAA (1998, see Section
N.3), suggesting that these values may not be protective of all species.

N.9 ORNL (1997)

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has published sediment quality
benchmarks (SQBs) derived by equilibrium partitioning (EqP) from EPA National
Ambient Water Quality Criteria and ORNL’s own secondary chronic values for the
protection of aquatic life (Jones et al, 1997). These secondary chronic values were
derived by an approach similar to that adopted in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative. The EqP approach has been advocated by the US EPA (1993d) for
developing criteria for non-ionic organic chemicals, and requires a water quality
criterion, Koc value, and a measured or assumed site-specific total organic carbon
(TOC) value. SQBs are normalized in Table N-2 assuming 1% TOC.

For polar organic chemicals, it is noted by ORNL that adsorption mechanisms other
than hydrophobicity may significantly increase the fraction of the chemical sorbed to
the sediment particles and EqP is likely to overestimate the free (bioavailable)

N-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

chemical concentration. SQBs for polar non-ionic organic chemicals are therefore
conservative benchmarks.

N.10 OMEE (1993)

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMEE) has published sediment quality
guidelines based on Ontario sediments and benthic species from a wide range of
geographical areas within the province (Persaud et al. 1993). The lowest effect level
(Low) is the level at which actual eco-toxic effects become apparent. The severe effect
level (Severe) represents contaminant levels that could potentially eliminate most
benthic organisms.

The species-absence endpoint used to derive these guidelines is described as under-

conservative, suggesting the values may not be adequately protective. OMEE values
for organic chemicals are normalized to 1% organic carbon in Table N-1.

N.11 RIZA (1989)

The Netherlands Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment
(RIZA) has calculated eco-tox values for freshwater and sediment (Stortelder et al,
1989). Eco-tox values are derived in one of two ways:

• For non-bioaccumulating chemicals, the lowest No Observed Effect

Concentration (NOEC) from a review of chronic toxicity tests was used.
• For bioaccumulating substances, toxicity to fish-eating mammals was
considered using bioconcentration factors to extrapolate from water and
sediment to aquatic organism tissue concentration.

N-8
 Sediment Quality Standards

N.12 ENVIRONMENT CANADA (1995)

Environment Canada have published interim sediment quality guidelines (ISQGs) for
the protection of aquatic life for both freshwater and marine (including estuarine)
sediments. Environment Canada’s Guidelines and Standards Division is the technical
secretariat for the Water Quality Task Group of the Canadian Council of Ministers of
the Environment (CCME).

The ISQG derivation protocol relies on both the NOAA approach and the spiked-
sediment toxicity test approach. Spiked-sediment toxicity data are currently available
for only a few substances, such as cadmium, copper, fluoranthene, and pyrene.
Therefore, the threshold effect levels (TELs) calculated using the NOAA approach are
most likely to be adopted as ISQGs. The probable effect levels (PELs), also calculated
using this approach, provide additional information regarding the potential for
observing adverse biological effects at higher concentrations.

Sediment chemical concentrations below the ISQGs are not expected to be associated
with any adverse biological effects, while concentrations above the PELs are expected
to be frequently associated with adverse biological effects. Chemical concentrations
between the ISQGs and PELs represent the range in which effects are occasionally
observed.

N.13 CONCLUSIONS

A range of sediment quality criteria was reviewed for use in screening potential harm
to ecological receptors. By virtue of their derivation process, some criteria are more
appropriate for a first tier screen than others. The following criteria were considered
for inclusion in RISC:

• NOAA (1995 & 1998) marine ER-Ls and freshwater TELs;

• FDEP (1994) marine TELs;

N-9
RISC Manual Version 4.0

• US EPA ARCS (1996) freshwater TECs;

• US EPA OSWER (1996) freshwater and marine ecotox thresholds;
• US EPA Region IV (1995) freshwater/marine effects values;
• ORNL (1997) freshwater sediment benchmarks;
• OMEE (1991) freshwater ‘Low’ screening values;
• RIZA (1989) freshwater ecotox values; and
• Environment Canada (1995) freshwater and marine ISQGs.

N.14 REFERENCES

D. S. Jones, G. W. Suter II & R. N. Hull 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for

Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-
Associated Biota:1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-95/R4

Long, E. R,. & L. G. Morgan 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-
Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program,
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and F. D. Calder 1995. “Incidence of

Adverse Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in
Marine and Estuarine Sediments,” Environmental Management 19(1), 81–97.

MacDonald, D. D. 1994. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida

Coastal Waters, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 1998. Screening Quick

Reference Tables (SQuiRTs). (available at
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cpr/sediment/squirt/squirt.html)

OSWER (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) 1996. “Ecotox

thresholds,” ECO Update 3(2):1–12.

Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and
Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, Ontario Ministry of the
Environment and Energy.

N-10
 Sediment Quality Standards

Stortelder, P B M, M A van der Gaag & L A van der Kooij, 1989. Perspectives for
Water Oranisms – An Ecotoxicological Basis for Quality Objectives for Water
and Sediment Parts 1 and 2. DBW/RIZA Memorandum No. 89.016a and b.

US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1993a. Sediment Quality Criteria

for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Acenaphthene, EPA-822-R-93-013.

US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1993b. Sediment Quality Criteria

for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Fluoranthene, EPA-822-R-93-012.

US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1993c. Sediment Quality Criteria

for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Phenanthrene, EPA-822-R-93-014.

US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1993f. Technical Basis for

Deriving Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic Organic Contaminants for
the Protection of Benthic Organisms by Using Equilibrium Partitioning,
EPA-822-R-93-011.

US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1996 Ecotox Thresholds EPA

OSWER (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) Eco Update 3(2)
540/F-95/038.

US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1999 Ecotox Thresholds Software

home page http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/r19/ecotox/

US EPA Region IV (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV) 1995.

Ecological screening values, Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletin No. 2,
Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
IV, Atlanta, Ga (available at
http://www.epa.gov/region04/waste/oftecser/ecolbul.htm)

WSDE (Washington State Department of Ecology) 1995. Sediment Management

Standards. Chapter 173-204 WAC.

N-11
 Table N-1. Sediment Quality Criteria Database in RISC

NOAA NOAA
NOAA (1998)
(1998) (1995)
Chemical Note Freshwater Marine/Estuarine
PEL UET AET ER-M
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Acenaphthene 0.29 0.13 0.5
Acenaphthylene 0.16 0.071 0.64
Acetone no criterion
Anthracene 0.26 0.28 1.1
Arsenic 17 17 57 70
Barium no criterion
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.385 0.5 0.96 1.6
Benzene no criterion
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.782 0.7 1.1 1.6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.8
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.3 0.67
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 13.4 1.8
Beryllium no criterion
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate no criterion
Butyl benzyl phthalate no criterion
Cadmium 3.53 3 2.7 9.6
Carbon disulfide no criterion
Carbon tetrachloride no criterion
Chlorobenzene no criterion
Chloroform (trichloromethane) no criterion
Chromium (III) no criterion
Chromium (IV) no criterion
Chromium (total) 90 95 96 370
Chrysene 0.862 0.8 0.95 2.8
Copper 197 86 390 270
Cresol (-m) no criterion
Cresol (-o) no criterion
Cresol (-p) no criterion
Cyanide no criterion
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 0.23 0.26
Dichloroethane(1,1-) no criterion
Dichloroethane(1,2-) no criterion
Dichloroethene(trans 1,2-) no criterion
Dichloroethene(trans 1,1-) no criterion
Dichloroethene(cis 1,2-) no criterion
Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene(7,12-) no criterion
Dimethylphenol(2,4-) no criterion
Di-n-butyl-phthalate no criterion
Dinitrotoluene(2,4-) no criterion
Di-n-octylphthalate no criterion
Dioxane(1,4-) no criterion
Ethylbenzene 0.004
Ethylene dibromide no criterion
Fluoranthene 2.355 1.5 1.3 5.1
Fluorene 0.3 0.12 0.54
Indeno(1,2,3-CD)pyrene 0.33 0.6
Lead 91.3 127 430 218
Mercury 0.486 0.56 0.41 0.71
Methanol no criterion
Methylethyl ketone no criterion
Methylene chloride no criterion
Methylnaphthalene(2-) 0.064 0.67
MTBE no criterion
Naphthalene 0.6 0.23 2.1
Nickel 35.9 43 110 51.6
Nitrobenzene no criterion
PAHs (total) 12 44.792
PCBs (total) 0.277 0.0026 0.13 0.18
Phenanthrene 0.515 0.8 0.66 1.5

N-12
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0 Page 1 of 2
 Table N-1. Sediment Quality Criteria Database in RISC

NOAA NOAA
NOAA (1998)
(1998) (1995)
Chemical Note Freshwater Marine/Estuarine
PEL UET AET ER-M
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Phenol no criterion 0.048
Pyrene 0.875 1 2.4 2.6
Pyridine no criterion
Selenium 1
Silver 4.5 >0.56 3.7
Styrene no criterion
Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-) no criterion
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 0.057
Tetraethyl lead no criterion
Toluene no criterion
TPH aliphatic C10-C12 no criterion
TPH aliphatic C12-C16 no criterion
TPH aliphatic C16-C35 no criterion
TPH aliphatic C5-C6 no criterion
TPH aliphatic C6-C8 no criterion
TPH aliphatic C8-C10 no criterion
TPH aromatic C10-C12 no criterion
TPH aromatic C12-C16 no criterion
TPH aromatic C16-C21 no criterion
TPH aromatic C21-C35 no criterion
TPH aromatic C5-C7 no criterion
TPH aromatic C7-C8 no criterion
TPH aromatic C8-C10 no criterion
Trichloroethane(1,1,1-) no criterion
Trichloroethane(1,1,2-) no criterion
Trichloroethene (TCE) no criterion
Vanadium no criterion
Vinyl chloride no criterion
Xylenes 0.021
Zinc 315 520 410 410

Notes:
PEL Probable Effects Level
UET Upper Effects Threshold
AET Apparent Effect Threshold
ER-M Effects Range - Median

N-13
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0 Page 2 of 2
Appendix

O Vegetable Uptake

This appendix presents the approach used by RISC to estimate the vegetable uptake
and vegetable ingestion factors used in the human health risk calculations. It also
presents the models reviewed during this study. It is assumed that contaminant uptake
in vegetables may occur from them either being grown in contaminated soil or from
being irrigated with contaminated groundwater. There are other mechanisms that can
also contaminate vegetables, such as particulate deposition, however these
mechanisms are not modeled in RISC.

O.1 CONCENTRATION IN VEGETABLES

The concentration in vegetables (or produce) is assumed to be either a function of soil

concentration or of irrigation water concentration. For soil, the calculation takes the
form of:

C v = C soil Bv (O-1)

where:
Cv = concentration of chemical in vegetables [mg
chemical/mg vegetable]
Csoil = concentration of chemical in soil [mg/kg]
Bv = uptake factor from soil [mg chemical/kg vegetable per
mg chemical/kg soil]

When the vegetables are being irrigated with contaminated groundwater the
calculation takes the form of:

O-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

C v = C water CF (O-2)

where:
Cv = concentration of chemical in vegetables [mg
chemical/mg vegetable]
Cwater = concentration of chemical in irrigation water [mg/l]
CF = water-vegetable concentration factor [g chemical/kg
vegetable per mg chemical/l water]

Both the soil uptake factor, Bv, and the water concentration factor, CF, have been
divided into two component factors for purposes of modeling exposure in RISC. One
is for root vegetables (using the notation Bv) and the other for above-ground leafy
portion of plants, Bva.

The next section reviews the most commonly used models for estimating the produce
uptake factors.

O.2 VEGETABLES UPTAKE MODELS

The approaches used by most regulatory agencies in the U.S. derive from one of two
empirical studies, both of which essentially fit observed ratios of soil-to-plant
chemical concentrations as a function of the lipid solubility of the compound. There
is one additional modeling approach with authors from regulatory agencies which is
based on conceptual understanding of chemical transport in soil and plants (Trapp et
al, 1994). However, this model is complex, has a numerical solution, and has only
been validated against data with a single pesticide. It is, therefore, not presented here.

The empirical models are discussed below, but due to their dependence on Kow, these
approaches do not apply to inorganic compounds. An empirical model for inorganics
is discussed in a separate section.

O-2
 Vegetable Uptake

O.2.1 Travis and Arms Empirical Model

The first of the empirical models is that of Travis and Arms (1988). These
investigators equated the ratio (as Bpr ) of chemical concentration in plants (above-
ground parts of the plant) to soil concentrations as reported in the literature for 29
chemicals. (Note: as described below, Travis and Arms and all the information found
in this literature review is limited to vegetable uptake. As such, produce uptake
factors for these equations have been denoted as Bv rather than Bpr).

Travis and Arms fit a linear regression to log transformed Bv on log Kow, so that, to the
extent the data used by Travis and Arms are representative, Bv for any organic
compound may be calculated as:

log Bv = 1.588 − 0.578 log K ow (O-3)

where:
Bv = uptake factor from soil [mg chemical/kg dry weight
vegetable per mg chemical/kg soil]
log Kow = chemical-specific log octanol/water partitioning
coefficient [(l/kg) (see Chapter 11 of the main text for
definition)]

The use of this Bv provides an estimate of mass of chemical per dry weight of produce,
which can be converted to wet weight by multiplying the result by (1-plant moisture
content). Each plant will be somewhat different, but a general value for plant moisture
content is 0.85 (based on inspection of moisture listed in the re-draft of the Exposure
Factors Handbook; USEPA, 1998).

The Travis and Arms equation was used for virtually all produce risk assessments
prior to about 1994 and continues to be applied in many cases to the present. As such,
there is good precedent for its application in risk assessment. It also has the advantage
of being extremely simple. Among the difficulties with the Travis and Arms approach
are:

• Because the equation relies on bulk soil concentration, it cannot be adjusted

for soils of different organic carbon content. Presumably, the soils that form

O-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

the data are representative, but accounting for various soil parameters might
lead to a more refined estimate.
• Nothing was done by Travis and Arms to account for potential uptake by
mechanisms other than translocation into the root. Thus, the observations of
Travis and Arms may also be due to particulate deposition and/or foliar uptake
of gaseous chemicals.

It is assumed that deposition and foliar uptake of chemicals are of limited

relevance for the compounds and the mechanisms of soil contamination
being modeled by RISC.

• The data used by Travis and Arms were all derived from above-ground
vegetables. Therefore, the method has been criticized as being of questionable
use for other plant types (fruits and root vegetables).
• Inspecting the data in the Travis and Arms paper, there appears to be 2 or 3
“outlier” compounds that may be over-influencing the regression equation.

For the reasons listed in the above bullets, the USEPA has suggested that other
approaches may be more appropriate. Therefore, the model no longer enjoys
unqualified acceptance by U.S. regulatory agencies.

O.2.2 Briggs Empirical Model

As mentioned above, a majority of the criticisms of Travis and Arms were expressed
by the USEPA, who suggested an alternative model for estimating chemical uptake
into root vegetables. This is the model of Briggs, et al (1982). The Briggs equations
were obtained from several documents (USEPA, 1993; Ryan, et al, 1988). The
equations are again empirical, and in this case are derived from Briggs’ experiments
of growing barley shoots in water containing various compounds.

Briggs actually provides a series of equations to derive concentrations in different

parts of the plant. The root equation is:

RCF =10 0.778log K ow −1.52 +0.82 (O-4)

where:

O-4
 Vegetable Uptake

RCF = the root concentration factor [mg chemical/kg produce

per mg chemical/l water]

Briggs performed a portion of his experiments in macerated barley roots, the results of
which - because the cellular structure of the plant would presumably be broken -
should provide a partitioning factor from the growth fluid into the cell wall or other
membranes in plant organelles. In fact, the exponential portion of equation (O-4)
provides that partition constant. Briggs further assumed that the aqueous content of
the plant would be of equivalent concentration to the external (growth) fluid. Briggs
estimated the water content of the root to be 82%. Thus, the overall equation (O-4)
represents the sum of partitioning to plant cell membranes plus equi-concentration cell
water, which is 0.82 of the total weight of the root. The assumption of equal
concentration between growth fluid and cell water seems unlikely because this would
only occur once equilibrium were established (because a chemical has to pass through
the cell wall in order to be present in cell water). However, the assumption would be
reasonable for those plants whose growing period is sufficient to establish equilibrium
and it should be an “upper bound” estimate for others.

Note that, because Briggs worked with aqueous systems, the RCF is not useful for
determining the ratio of vegetable concentration to total soil. However, if one
assumes that the same ratio of plant-to-pore water chemical concentration would hold,
Briggs’ equation may be re-written as:

RCF ∗ρ b RCF
Bvr = ≈ (O-5)
θ w + (1 − θ t )∗K d ρ s K d

where:
Bvr = soil-to-root uptake factor [mg chemical/kg wet weight
root per mg chemical/kg soil]
ρb = soil bulk density [g/cm3]
θw = volumetric water content of soil [cm3/cm3]
ρs = soil bulk density [g/cm3]
θt = total porosity of soil [cm3/cm3]
Kd = equilibrium partitioning coefficient [l/kg or ml/g]

O-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

This equation provides a wet weight (or “bulk weight”) concentration in the plant
root. Although this equation circumvents the “root vegetable difficulty” in the eyes
of the USEPA, it does have some difficulties:

• Risk assessment of the produce pathway becomes more complex when

multiple produce types have to be evaluated separately.
• Briggs’ experiments utilized compounds with fairly low log Kow (in the 2-3
range). The curve fit is an uncertain extrapolation if used for compounds with
higher Kow. Indeed, Poulder, et al (1995) have noted that this model
substantially overestimates polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
concentrations in plant roots.
• Briggs’ barley shoots have very different architecture than typical root
vegetables (e.g. potatoes, carrots, turnip), so that the spatial distribution of
chemical may be important. That is, if compounds move slowly into the root,
their highest concentration would be at the surface. The surface represents a
large proportion of a barley root, but a small portion of the mass of a potato,
carrot, etc.

To respond to the last difficulty, USEPA (1993) suggested using a reduction factor to
estimate the overall concentration of chemical in edible roots. The suggested value
was 0.01 for “lipophilic” compounds (this is slightly less than the ratio of surface area
to volume of a carrot, but USEPA also notes that washing root vegetables reduces the
Bvr to a value even lower than this - thus it is a conservative adjustment). It is unclear
what USEPA regards as lipophilic (they were considering chlorinated dioxins
specifically), but it seems appropriate to consider at least PAHs lipophilic, so that the
Briggs approach would utilize the following equation:

0.01RCF
Bvr = (O-6)
Kd

where the variables have been defined above.

Despite the disadvantages noted above, equation (O-6) does have the advantage of
regulatory acceptance in the United States, as well as providing the opportunity to
account for site-specific factors, such as fraction organic carbon (Foc), unavailable to
Travis and Arms. (Note: the selection of Foc in a risk model may be very important
and Foc in a garden is expected to be substantially higher than Foc in site soils that
have not been optimized to grow edible vegetables).

O-6
 Vegetable Uptake

In recommending the Briggs root equation, USEPA (1993) suggested the Travis and
Arms equation could be used for all other produce estimates. However, because
Briggs derived other equations, it is interesting to consider how they compare to
estimates derived by Travis and Arms.

Briggs developed an empirical equation from the barley shoot experiments to estimate
chemical concentrations in the “transpiration stream” of the plant (i.e. the
concentration of chemical traveling in the water being carried through plant xylem):

( log K ow −1.78 )2
-
2 .44
TSCF=0.748e (O-7)

where:
TSCF = the transpiration stream concentration factor, relating
chemical concentration in xylem water to water in which
the plant was grown [(mg/l)/(mg/l)]

Additionally, Briggs performed experiments with macerated barley stems to derive an

empirical partitioning factor into the cell walls or other organelles of this part of the
plant. Applying the same assumption used for roots - that cell water in the stem
would be of equivalent concentration as the donor fluid and comprises 82% of the wet
weight of the plant, a so-called stem concentration factor, SCF, equation was
developed:

SCF=10 0 .951log K ow − 2 .05 +0.82 (O-8)

where:
SCF = stem concentration factor [mg chemical/kg stem per mg
chemical/l transpiration steam fluid]

As with equation (O-4), the exponential portion of equation (O-8) represents

partitioning into cell walls/organelles of the plant and 0.82 accounts for cell water
content of chemical. Note that in an intact plant the “donor fluid” for stem uptake
would be that in the transpiration stream. Thus, it was suggested by Ryan, et al (1988)
that a stem concentration factor, Bvst, which related stem concentrations to chemical in

O-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

soil could be derived by multiplying SCF by the TSCF and assuming that
concentrations in soil moisture would behave as the growth fluid in Briggs’
experiments (approximated by dividing the uptake equation by Kd). Thus, Bvst is:

SCF × TSCF
Bvst = (O-9)
Kd

where:
Bvst = soil-to-stem uptake factor [mg chemical/kg stem per mg
chemical/kg soil]
TSCF = transpiration stream concentration factor [mg chemical/l
transpiration stream fluid per mg chemical/l growth
fluid]
Kd = equilibrium dissociation constant [ml/g or l/kg]

This ratio may be used to determine wet weight concentrations of chemicals in the
stem.

Ryan, et al (1988) suggested that the stem equation may be used to calculate chemical
concentrations in above-ground plants (in this case, it might be appropriate to use Bva
to describe the parameter). Because Briggs worked with barley shoots, there is little
distinction between stem and leaves. However, stem and leaf parts may be
significantly different in edible plants so it may be appropriate to distinguish between
the two. To evaluate the differences, the Briggs' stem equations were compared with
those of Travis and Arms. This comparison is reported in the next section.

It should be noted that all Briggs equations are derived entirely from data on
vegetables and therefore, like the Travis and Arms equation, may be of questionable
use for estimating chemical concentrations in fruit. Indeed, there are no known
studies suggesting how to estimate organic chemical concentration in fruit. All U.S.
regulatory agencies apply vegetable uptake factors to fruit crops.

O-8
 Vegetable Uptake

O.2.3 Uptake Factors for Inorganic Compounds

As mentioned previously, an uptake model based on Kow is clearly inapplicable to

inorganic compounds. As an alternative, the USEPA has in several guidance
documents recommended the use of a set of “default” uptake factors published by
Baes, et al (1984). Baes, et al have used several methods to develop uptake factors.
For the most part, Baes, et al report the geometric mean of observed soil-to-plant
concentration ratios, although there are some additional evaluations extrapolating
findings from one element to another within periodic groups. These default values
may be questionable however, because Baes, et al show clearly that the uptake ratios
vary with the concentration of the elements in the soil. Thus, the geometric mean
uptake factor will over- or underestimate uptake, depending on the concentration of
the element at the study site. Nonetheless, the Baes, et al data is generally accepted,
therefore it is recommended in RISC for metals.

The pertinent soil-to-plant factors are provided in Figures 2.1 and 2.2 (not included in
this appendix) of the Baes, et al report, which relate to yet another subset of plant
parts:

• the vegetative portions of the plant (stem and leaves), denoted in Baes, et al as
Bv ,
• the reproductive portions of the plant (tubers, flowers, seeds, fruits), denoted
as Br .

All uptake factors reported in Baes, et al relate dry weight plant concentrations to dry
weight soil concentrations. Therefore, to determine wet weight, one should multiply
the estimated dry weight concentration by (1-water content).

It is important not to confuse Baes’ notation with the notation that was used in the
previous sections discussing uptake factors for organic compounds, because they
indicate transfer to different plant parts.

O-9
RISC Manual Version 4.0

O.3 COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES VERSUS

OBSERVATIONS

The relationship of the various soil-to-plant uptake factors to Kow are plotted in
Figures O-1 and O-2.

Mature onion no peel

1.00000
Fresh onion no peel

0.10000
Beet no peel

Low PAH Carrot Core

0.01000
Bv
Bvr

Med. PAH Carrot

Core Bv
0.00100
High PAH Carrot Core
Bv
0.00010 Travis Bv

Brigg Bv *.01 (foc

0.00001 0.01)
2.50 4.50 6.50 8.50 Brigg Bv *.01 (foc
0.1)
log Kow

Figure O-1. Wild and Jones (1983) Carrot Core Data For
Three Different PAH Concentrations, and Wang and Meresz
Peeled Root Vegetable Data as a Function of Kow

O-10
 Vegetable Uptake

1.00000

0.10000

0.01000
Bva

Travis and
0.00100 Arms
Briggs Bva
foc = 0.1
Briggs Bva
0.00010
foc = 0.01

0.00001
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50

log Kow

Figure O-2. Comparison of Above Ground Uptake Factors, Bva

The Bv results from the literature for a variety of PAHs has also been plotted. The
sources for this information include:

• A paper by Wild and Jones (1992) on uptake of PAH into carrot parts (skin,
core, and tops) grown in sludge-amended soil.
• A report on PAH in several root vegetables grown near highways (Wang and
Meresz, 1981). Two things are important to note concerning this report. First,
other plant parts were included in the study, but not used in the figures,
because of concern that the nature of the study (PAH from automobile
deposition) was such that PAH in above-ground portions of the plant would be
more likely be due to air deposition than soil uptake. Second, the data for this
study was obtained from a secondary citation on the results (Edwards, 1983)
rather than from the original study. However, it was felt that the information
was important even as a secondary source, because the paper reports
concentrations of PAH in peeled root vegetables and thus represents optimal
data for evaluating the 0.01 adjustment factor suggested by USEPA to account
for poor transport of highly lipid soluble compounds.
• A literature review of benzo(a)pyrene concentration in various plants
(Edwards, 1983).

O-11
RISC Manual Version 4.0

While the last study relates only to benzo(a)pyrene, the previous sources report on a
variety of polynuclear aromatic compounds, so that comparison across a wide range of
Kow is possible.

Bv values were calculated by dividing wet weight plant concentrations by dry weight
soil concentrations as reported in the empirical observations. Note that no correction
was made for soil organic carbon content, because Foc was not reported in all cases.
As such, the calculated Bv should be considered rough approximations.

Figure O-1 shows the Bvr calculations for the Wild and Jones (1992) carrot core data
as well as the Wang and Meresz (1981) peeled root vegetable data as a function of
Kow, which were obtained from the USEPA Drinking Water Criteria Document for
PAHs. The Travis and Arms equation (O-3) adjusted to calculate wet weight
vegetable concentrations, and two values for the Briggs root equation, as modified by
USEPA (1993), based on assumed Foc values of 0.01 and 0.1 were also included in
Figure O-1. A statistical analysis of the equation fits to the data was not performed,
however, visual inspection suggests the following:

• In contrast to the USEPA concerns, it would appear that at high Kow, the Travis
and Arms equations would over-estimate rather than under-estimate plant root
uptake, at least for peeled vegetables.
• The Briggs Bvr equations seem to fit the data reasonably well, but the assumed
Foc is extremely important. It is of interest that the Wild and Jones report on
carrots (symbolized by diamonds) indicate that Foc was in the 1 to 4% range
and the Briggs Bvr, using an assumed 1%, fits these data well. Unfortunately
the Foc from other reports used here is not available, so it is not clear whether
the generally lower Bvr for these data is a result of higher Foc.

In view of these observations, the adjusted Briggs root uptake equation (O-6) is used
in the RISC model for root vegetables. It is recommended that Foc measurements be
taken during site investigations.

Figure O-2 plots Bva calculated for carrot tops from the Wild and Jones experiment
(several different polynuclear aromatic compounds are reported), as well as Bva from
the review data on benzo(a)pyrene, as reported by Edwards. All data are reported as a

O-12
 Vegetable Uptake

function of Kow. Additionally, the Travis and Arms equation, adjusted to wet weight,
and two values for the Briggs/Ryan stem equation, assuming Foc as 0.01 and 0.1, are
included in the figure. In this figure, it appears that all models perform poorly. This
may be due to model failure (remembering Travis and Arms fit few data at high Kow
and Briggs fit none), or, equally possibly, because the PAH measured in above-ground
vegetables resulted from other uptake mechanisms (e.g. air-to-leaf uptake, particulate
deposition). Because of these observations, the Travis and Arms model is chosen to
estimate Bva in RISC because it fits “least poorly.”

O.4 PRODUCE INGESTION RATES

Two separate uptake factors are used in RISC, one to determine plant uptake in roots
and the other for above-ground plants. This means that the exposure calculations use
separate ingestion rate values for each plant “type”.

The USEPA recently updated their Exposure Factors Handbook (1998). This
document uses the most recent market basket survey of the U.S. population
(conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1990) and is therefore more up
to date than other sources for U.S. intake rates. Additionally, the data in this
document are presented in percentiles, so that an empirical distribution can be
obtained for probabilistic risk assessment. As such, the use of data from this source
for ingestion rates is recommended. It should be noted however that the data are not
without problems. These include:

• The data are for U.S. populations and they may not represent habits of other
countries. It is recommended that the U.S. data be used only until it can be
determined if relevant country market basket studies are available from which
to derive more pertinent data.
• The total vegetable intake reported in this document (4.3 g vegetable/kg body
weight or about 300 g/day for a 70 kg adult) is substantially higher than that
reported by other sources including the AIHC Exposure Factors Handbook
(200 g/d), Estimating Exposure to Dioxin Like Compounds (140 g/d), the
Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to
Combustor Emissions (200 g/d) and a review of Canadian vegetable ingestion
rates (200 g/d) (Davies). This might be explained based on the newer data

O-13
RISC Manual Version 4.0

used in the 1996 Exposure Factors Handbook. However, no increase is

reported in fruit intake between older market basket surveys and the 1990
USDA data, which makes one question if the upward trend in vegetable
intakes is real. Additionally, the vegetable data are internally inconsistent.
The Handbook reports intake rates for different vegetable types (root
vegetables, unprotected above-ground vegetables and protected above-ground
vegetables). The sum of the mean intakes for these three types, which should
be inclusive of total vegetable intake, is 3.1g/kg day (approximately 215 g/d),
or 25% lower than the new value suggested for total intake (but a number that
is more consistent with the other studies).

“Unprotected” above-ground vegetables are those eaten without peeling (e.g.

lettuce), while protected vegetables require peeling or hulling (e.g., peas).
This distinction is of no consequence in a RISC evaluation, but is important in
risk assessments of vegetables contaminated by deposition from the air.

In view of the latter difficulty, the data from the Handbook was used, but it was
grouped by vegetable type. These data are better suited to the separate evaluation of
above- ground and root vegetables.

It may be necessary to evaluate the plant ingestion exposure pathway for children as
well. The Handbook only provides a total vegetable intake for children, but it is
notable that this value is much higher than that for adults on a gram per kilogram
basis. Total mass intake is lower in a child, but because toxicity values are on a unit
body weight basis, children would be more at risk than adults. Under the assumption
that total vegetable intake would be distributed in proportions equal to that consumed
by adults, the intake rates for small children (1-2 years of age) can be calculated. The
values suggested are presented in Table O-1.

O-14
 Vegetable Uptake

Table O-1. Vegetable Ingestion Rates

Mean Adult Mean Small Child
Ingestion Rate Ingestion Rate
(g wet weight/kg body (g wet weight/kg body
weight day) weight day)2
Above-ground vegetables1 1.82 3.72
Root vegetables 1.25 3.23
Fruit 3.40 11.84
Notes:
(1) above-ground vegetables calculated as the sum of protected and unprotected vegetables
(2) 1-2 year old child. Rates calculated from total vegetable ingestion rate multiplied by
proportions of vegetable types in adults.

If intake rates of particular vegetables are required, they are available in the Exposure
Factors Handbook.

All values provided here are means. The mean values are used rather than some upper
confidence level because the data underlying the estimates are based on reports of
short-term (3-day menus) reports of intake, but are being extrapolated to long-term
daily intake. The mean value of such reports should be stable, but extreme confidence
limits will be very much “wider” for this type of data than would be the case if long-
term data were available.

Note: Food-type intake is sporadic so that even a commonly eaten food might be
missing from the diet during a three-day period. Alternatively, ingestion of a very
large portion of a food type may occur during the reporting period, but never eaten
again during the year. These possibilities are balanced in the mean estimate, but
result in make for very wide ranges at the extreme of distributions.

O.5 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

In summary, equations O-1 and O-2 are used to calculate the concentration of
contaminants in vegetables. These equations are actually incorporated into Equations
7-10 and 7-11 in the main part of this manual. Separate uptake factors are calculated
for above-ground and root vegetables. The Briggs approach as modified by USEPA
(Equation O-6) is used to calculate Bvr for root vegetables and Travis and Arms

O-15
RISC Manual Version 4.0

(equation O-3) is used to calculate Bva for above-ground vegetables. A concise

summary of the approach used in RISC is presented in the next section.

In view of the major uncertainties discussed for any of these models and the wide
range of PAH concentrations reported in vegetation, direct measurement should be
considered as an alternative to modeling. Also, it is important to consider that
specially amended garden soils will have higher Foc than typical soils and current field
measurements of Foc may not reflect this value.

For inorganic compounds, the default values provided by Baes, et al (1984) for uptake
factors are used. If available, site-specific vegetation data would be more appropriate.

The vegetable ingestion rates from the USEPA Exposure Factors Handbook are used
as default values. As additional information (e.g., other country market basket
surveys) become available, these ingestion rates should be modified to reflect country-
specific rates.

It is worth noting certain issues associated with other equation parameters:

• The fraction ingested from impacted soil (the FI term) is extremely important
and highly contentious. One way of obtaining a value for FI is to ask what
percent of produce is home grown. The USEPA has generally set this at 25%,
but it is probably too high for U.S. gardening habits. European customs may
be quite different from the U.S.
• The soil concentration is assumed to be a constant. However, much risk
modeling underway at the USEPA currently involves calculation of dynamic
environmental contaminant concentrations (e.g. risk assessment models for
evaluation of combustion sources to support the Clean Air Act MACT
standards, and underlying the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule). As such,
it would be perfectly consistent with USEPA approaches to use a value for soil
concentration that reflects the time-weighted average concentration over a
period where loss mechanisms such as volatilization or biodegradation are
active. (This is currently not an option in RISC).
• Note that the soil “compartment” for plant uptake is quite small. The USEPA
generally considers a root zone that is approximately 15 cm deep from the
surface and, given the slow diffusion rate of many compounds, the horizontal
dimensions of the compartment are expected to be only a few centimeters from
the plant root. As such, it may be important to treat the source as finite. (This
is currently not an option in RISC).

O-16
 Vegetable Uptake

O.6 SUMMARY OF APPROACH

This section presents a concise summary of the methodology used in RISC for
calculating the vegetable uptake factors from soil and water. These uptake factors are
then used to calculate the exposure (or dose) as part of the risk calculation.

Briefly, the rules used to calculate the Bv's used in RISC are as follows:

1. If the chemical has a vegetable uptake factor explicitly entered in the chemical
database, then this value is used for both above-ground and root vegetables.
2. A non-zero partitioning coefficient, Kd, is required for the calculation of all
uptake factors except for the case of uptake from soil where the uptake factor,
Bv, is explicitly specified in the RISC chemical database (for non-organics). If
the chemical has a Kd value in the chemical database, this value is used;
otherwise the Kd is calculated from the product of Foc and Koc.
3. If the chemical has a value for Kow entered in the chemical database, then the
vegetable uptake factor is calculated from Kow.
4. If the chemical has neither a value for Bv nor a value for Kow, then the
vegetable uptake factors are assumed to be equal to zero.

O.6.1 Chemicals With Bv Values Entered In The Chemical Database

The Baes, et al (1984) report presents soil-to-plant concentration factors (called Bv by

Baes) for the elements of the periodic table. (Note, the Baes uptake factors are from
soil-to-plant.) Eleven chemicals in RISC have values for Bv entered in the database
(Table 11-2). Both the Bvr and Bva values are assumed to equal the Bv value for these
chemicals. The following relationships are used if the uptake factor is entered in the
chemical database.

For soil: Bva = BvBaes × (1 − 0.85) (O-10)

Bvr = BvBaes × (1 − 0.85) (O-11)

O-17
RISC Manual Version 4.0

For water: RCF = BvBaes × (1 − 0.85) × K d (O-12)

ABCF = BvBaes × (1 − 0.85) × K d (O-13)

where:
Bvr = soil-to-root uptake factor [mg chemical/kg wet weight
root vegetable per mg chemical/kg soil]
Bva = soil-to-above-ground vegetable uptake factor [mg
chemical/kg wet weight above-ground vegetable per mg
chemical/kg soil]
BvBaes = soil-to-plant concentration factor [mg chemical/kg dry
weight vegetable per mg chemical/kg dry soil]
(1 - 0.85) = adjustment from dry weight to wet weight vegetable
where 0.85 is the assumed moisture content of the
vegetable
RCF = root concentration factor [mg chemical/kg produce per
mg chemical/l water]
ABCF = above-ground concentration factor [mg chemical/kg
vegetable per mg chemical/l water]
Kd = equilibrium partitioning coefficient [l/kg or ml/g]

The chemicals that have Bv's entered in the database are inorganic, (i.e. they are not
expected to have Kow or Koc values). If a chemical does not have a Kd, Koc, or a Kow
value entered in the database, the uptake factors from water are assumed to be equal to
zero.

O.6.2 Organic Chemicals

If the chemical has a non-zero value entered for Kow, then the root concentration
factor, RCF, is calculated from Equation O-5, repeated here (Briggs, 1982):

RCF =10 0.778log K ow −1.52 +0.82 (O-5 repeated)

where:
RCF = the root concentration factor [mg chemical/kg produce
per mg chemical/l water]

O-18
 Vegetable Uptake

log Kow = chemical-specific log octanol/water partitioning

coefficient [(l/kg) (see Chapter 11 of the main text for
definition)]

Equation O-5 presents the uptake factor that is used to estimate the dose from
ingestion of root vegetables irrigated with contaminated water. The soil-to-root
uptake factor is estimated using the RCF calculated in equation O-6 and an adjustment
factor as proposed by USEPA (1993):

0.01RCF
Bvr = (O-6 repeated)
Kd

where:
Bvr = soil-to-root uptake factor [mg chemical/kg wet weight
root vegetable per mg chemical/kg soil]

The partitioning coefficient, Kd, is calculated as the product of Koc and Foc if not
explicitly entered in the chemical database:
Kd = Koc x Foc (O-14)
where:
Kd = equilibrium partitioning coefficient [l/kg or ml/g]
Koc = chemical-specific organic carbon partition coefficient
[kg/l or ml/g]
Foc = fraction organic carbon [g oc/g soil]

The soil-to-above-ground vegetable concentration factor, Bva, is calculated from

Equation O-3 (Travis and Arms, 1988):

Bva = 101.588−0.578 log K ow × (1 − 0.85) (O-3 repeated)

where:
Bva = soil-to-above-ground vegetable uptake factor [mg
chemical/kg wet weight above-ground vegetable per mg
chemical/kg soil]

O-19
RISC Manual Version 4.0

log Kow = chemical-specific log octanol/water partitioning

coefficient [l/kg] (see Chapter 11 of the main text for
definition)
(1 - 0.85) = adjustment from dry weight to wet weight vegetable
where 0.85 is the assumed moisture content of the
vegetable

Finally, the water-to-above-ground vegetable concentration factor, ABCF, is

calculated from equation O-3 assuming equilibrium partitioning:

ABCF = Bva × K d = 101.588− 0.578 log K ow × (1 − 0.85) × K d (O-15)

where:
ABCF = above-ground concentration factor [mg chemical/kg
vegetable per mg chemical/l water]

O.7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This appendix was researched and written by Ogden Environmental and Energy
Services (Brad Schwab and Allison Yuhas) of Westford, Massachusetts, under
contract to BP.

O.8 REFERENCES

Baes, C.F., Sharp, R.D., Sjoreen, A.L., and Shor, R.W. 1984 A Review and Analysis
of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released
Radionulides Through Agriculture. Oak Ridge National Lab Report ORNL-
5786. September.

Briggs, G.G., Bromilow, R.H., and Evans, A.A. 1982. Relationships between
lipophilicity and root uptake and translocation of non-ionised chemicals by
barley. Journal of Pesticide Science 13:495-504.

O-20
 Vegetable Uptake

Davies, K. Concentrations and dietary intakes of organochlorines, including PCBs, in

fresh food composites grown in Ontario, Canada. Chemosphere 17:263-276.

Davies, K. Concentrations and dietary intakes of organochlorines, including PCBs, in

fresh food composites grown in Ontario, Canada. Chemosphere 17:263-276.

Edwards, N.T. 1983. Reviews and analyses: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the
terrestrial environment - A review. Journal of Environmental Quality. 12:
427-441.

Poulder, M.D., Hulzebos, E.M., and Jager, D.T. 1995. Validation of models on
uptake of organic chemicals by plant roots. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. 14: 1615-1623.

Ryan, J.A., Bell, R.M., Davidson, J.M., and O’Connor, G.A., 1988. Plant uptake of
non-ionic chemicals from soils. Chemosphere 17:2299-2323.

Trapp, S., McFarlane, C., and Matthies, M. 1994. Model for uptake of xenobiotics
into plants: validation with bromocil experiments. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 13:413-422.

Travis, C.C. and Arms, A.D. 1988. Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk, and
vegetation. Environmental Science and Technology 22:271-274.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Addendum to the Methodology for

Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor
Emissions. EPA 600/AP-93/003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office

of Health and Environmental Assessment, Vol. I PB98-124225, Vol. II PB98-
124233, Vol. III PB98-124241, The Set PB98-124217. Web page:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/exposfac.htm

Wang, D.T. and Meresz, O. 1981. Occurrence and potential uptake of polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons of highway traffic origin by proximally grown food
crops. (abstract) Sixth International Symposia on PAH. Battelle Columbus
Laboratory.

Wild and Jones reported on PAH uptake at three different PAH concentrations, which
are reported which were used to calculate Bvr for “high”, “medium” and “low”
concentrations of PAH.

Wild, S.C. and Jones, K.C. 1992. Organic chemicals in the environment: polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbon uptake by carrots grown in sludge amended soil.
Journal of Environmental Quality. 21:217-225.

O-21
Appendix
P Irrigation Water Model

P.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

The irrigation water pathway refers to the use of a backyard private well to irrigate a
garden whereas the primary water supply for the household is provided by
municipally-supplied water. This is a common scenario in Europe, South Africa,
Australia/New Zealand and parts of the US. A paper by the authors of RISC (Walden
and Spence, 1997) provides more background and explanation on this risk scenario.

There are four potential pathways by which human health risk could be impacted by
use of contaminated groundwater for irrigation:

• Ingestion of the water by children playing in a sprinkler connected to the

irrigation well or by adults gardening near the sprinkler or by residents in a
swimming pool filled with the well water
• Dermal contact with the water by the above receptors
• Inhalation of the spray by the above receptors
• Consumption of vegetables grown in a garden irrigated by the well water

The method by which the receptor concentrations and risks are calculated by these
pathways have been developed in previous chapters. The following briefly references
these sections.

P-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

P.2 INGESTION OF IRRIGATION WATER

The amount of water ingested is a function of the way in which the irrigation water
contacts the receptor. The highest intake is likely if the irrigation water is used to fill
a swimming pool, followed by children playing in a sprinkler and then by an adult
gardening near a sprinkler. Equations 7.8a and 7.8b in the main text are the risk
calculations for non-carcinogens and carcinogens, respectively.

P.3 DERMAL CONTACT WITH IRRIGATION WATER

The degree of dermal contact follows the same trend as ingestion of irrigation water
above. Equations 7.9a and 7.9b in the main text are the risk calculations for non-
carcinogens and carcinogens, respectively.

P.4 INHALATION OF SPRINKLER SPRAY

Volatile compounds in a sprinkler spray can be released to the atmosphere and

potentially inhaled by nearby receptors, such as children playing in the sprinkler or
adults gardening downwind. Section G.3 in the appendices describes the way this is
modelled in RISC, while Equations 7.14a and 7.14b are the risk calculations for non-
carcinogens and carcinogens, respectively.

P-2
 Irrigation Water Model

P.5 VEGETABLES IRRIGATED IN CONTAMINATED

GROUNDWATER

Vegetables grown and consumed by a household having a contaminated irrigation

well are the fourth pathway in this risk scenario. The concentrations in the vegetables
are calculated from Equations O.9 to O.11 in Appendix O, while the risks are
calculated from Equations 7.11a and 7.11b for non-carcinogens and carcinogens,
respectively.

P.6 REFERENCES

Walden, J.T and Spence. L.R. 1997. Risk-Based BTEX Screening Criteria for a
Groundwater Irrigation Scenario. Journal of Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 699-722.

P-3
Appendix Calculating Clean-up
Q Levels for TPH Mixtures

This appendix describes how RISC calculates a site-specific target level (SSTL) for a
TPH mixture. These calculations use the SSTLs calculated for the individual TPH carbon
range fractions and the site-specific measured concentrations of the TPH fractions
detected in the soil to estimate a unique SSTL that is protective for the TPH mixture at
that site. Chapter 8 of this manual describes how clean-up levels are calculated for
individual chemicals both for an individual chemical target and a cumulative target
summed across all chemicals of concern. The approach presented in this appendix has
some similarities with the cumulative option presented in Chapter 8, however, the
algorithms presented here apply solely to the cumulative effects of the TPH fractions and
the calculation of a total TPH clean-up level.

TPH Fractions Used in the Calculations

If the user has chosen to calculate clean-up levels in Step 5 of RISC and the chemicals of
concern contain more than one of the TPH fractions, then a site-specific clean-up level for
the total TPH mixture will be calculated. The model checks the names of the chemicals
of concern and any name containing the letters "TPH" will be included in TPH
calculations. This allows the user to define new fractions for different regulatory or site-
specific needs and still calculate SSTLs for the TPH mixture.

Q-1
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Q.1 SOIL SOURCES IN RISC WHERE THE TPH SSTLS CAN BE

CALCULATED

The RISC model has four different potential soil sources. When any of these sources
have been chosen, the TPH SSTL is calculated automatically if more than one of the
chemicals of concern contains the phrase "TPH" in its chemical name. The four soil
sources are as follows:

• surface soil (for direct pathways)

• vadose zone model source
• saturated soil model source
• vapor model source from soil (rather than soil gas)

For fate and transport modeling, solubility limits are checked explicitly when back-
calculating the source term, as described in each of their respective model appendix
(Appendices A, C, and D, J or K). Solubility limits are not checked (i.e. SSTLs are not
limited due to residual levels) for the surface soil source.

Q.2 APPROACH USED TO CALCULATE TPH SSTLS

The first step in calculating the TPH SSTL is to calculate the mass fraction for each
individual carbon range. The following algorithm is used

C soil i
MFi = Q-1
CTPH

Q-2
 Calculating TPH Clean-up Levels

where

MFi = mass fraction of TPH carbon range fraction i in the total

mixture [(mg/kg TPH fraction i)/(mg/kg total TPH)]
Csoil i = concentration of the TPH carbon range fraction in soil
[(mg/kg TPH fraction i)/(mg/kg soil]
CTPH = concentration of the TPH mixture in soil [(mg/kg
TPH)/(mg/kg soil]

If the concentration of the TPH mixture, CTPH, is not entered by the user, it is calculated
from the sum of the concentrations of all of the TPH fractions. Note: if the user enters a
TPH concentration (for the modeled sources), the sum of all of the mass fractions may
not equal 1 (but the entered TPH concentration is still used). This is the usual scenario
encountered when using field data because there are losses during sampling and not all of
the ranges can be quantified. There is no option to enter a TPH concentration for the
direct soil exposure pathways in this version of RISC.

Q.2.1 Calculating TPH SSTLS FOR DIRECT EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The approach used to calculate the TPH SSTL is based on an inverse weighted average of
the contribution towards the overall risk from all of the fractions:
13
SSTLTPH
HI = ∑ HQ = ∑ MF
i =1
i i
SSTLi
Q-2

where
HI = hazard index for total TPH [-]
HQi = hazard quotient contributed by TPH fraction i [-]
SSTLTPH = site-specific target level for total TPH [mg/kg]
SSTLi = site-specific target level for TPH fraction i [mg/kg]
MFi = mass fraction of TPH carbon range fraction i in the total
mixture [(mg/kg TPH fraction i)/(mg/kg total TPH)]

Q-3
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Equation Q-2 can be rearranged to solve for SSTLTPH

HI
SSTLTPH = Q-3
MF
∑ SSTLi
i

Equation Q-3 is solved by choosing a target hazard index (HI) for the exposure
pathway(s) of interest. In RISC, the target hazard index entered in Step 5 for the
cumulative option is used as the value for HI in equation Q-3. Note that this equation
requires the SSTLs for the individual TPH fractions as if they were not part of the TPH
mixture.

This approach conservatively assumes that each TPH fraction acts cumulatively on the
same organ system. Volume 5 of the TPH Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG)
documentation (Vorhees et al, 1999) and the Texas Risk Reduction Program Draft
Guidance for Development of PCLs for TPH Mixtures (TRRP 2000) describe calculating
TPH SSTLs in more detail.

Q.2.2 Calculating TPH SSTLs for in Soil for Cross-Media Exposure

Pathways

For cross-media exposure pathways, such as leaching from soil to groundwater, solubility
limitations must be checked and utilized. The fate and transport models in RISC check
for solubility limitations explicitly, i.e., if the model equilibrium partitioning equation
predicts a dissolved-phase concentration that exceeds the estimated effective solubility
for the TPH fraction being modeled, the dissolved-phase concentration is limited to the
effective solubility by the source term.

Both the TPHCWG (Vorhees et al, 1999) and the Texas Risk Reduction Program (2000)
present the following modification to the additive fraction approach for situations when
the models being used to predict partitioning do not account for solubility limitations :

Q-4
 Calculating TPH Clean-up Levels

13
 MFi C 
HI = ∑ HQ = ∑ MIN SSTL
i TPH , sat i  Q-4
i =1  SSTLi SSTLi 

Csat i = fraction-specific saturated soil concentration of TPH

fraction i [mg/kg]

The equation to use for calculating saturated soil concentration, Csati, is presented in
Table H-4 of Appendix H. The second term in the brackets in Equation Q-4 reflects the
limits of dissolved or vapor concentrations when in the presence of residual product.
Note: Equation 4 is not used in RISC because the models account for solubility
limitations explicitly.

Q.2.3 Approach Used in RISC to Calculate TPH SSTLs

For direct soil exposure pathways (i.e. the case where the fate and transport models are
not used), RISC uses equations Q-1 and Q-3 to calculate the TPH SSTLs. The approach
used for the modeled pathways with a soil source is different than equation Q-4 presented
above. When calculating clean-up levels, RISC already is calculating SSTLs for each
chemical to meet the overall risk target. That is, if the hazard from the individual
fractions is summed, the total should equal the target hazard index entered by the user.
Therefore, the TPH SSTL is the sum of all of the individual SSTLs. Since the soil source
terms in all of the models check for the solubility limitations, equation Q-4 does not need
to be applied.

Q.3 EXAMPLE PROBLEM

In this example problem, an SSTL for a TPH mixture is calculated for surficial soil. Note
that RISC performs these calculations automatically, this example is provided to show the
exact process used. The exposure pathways of concern are dermal exposure to soil and
ingestion of soil for a residential scenario. Because this is a direct exposure scenario,

Q-5
RISC Manual Version 4.0

solubility constraints do not need to be considered so equation Q-3 may be used. If

solubility constraints apply, Equation Q-4 (which is already accounted for in the RISC
model) would apply.

The steps required to calculate the SSTL for the TPH are as follows:

1. Measure total TPH concentration (or choose to have TPH be the sum of the
individual measured fractions).
2. Measure concentrations of each TPH fraction. Determine mass fraction by
dividing the TPH fraction concentration by the total TPH concentration.
3. Determine appropriate SSTLs for each TPH fraction.
4. Choose the target hazard index.
5. Calculate the SSTL for TPH using Equation Q-3 or Q-4, whichever is
appropriate.

The total TPH concentration for this example will be assumed to equal the sum of the
concentrations of the individual fractions, 2.1E4 mg/kg. The TPH fraction concentrations
are shown in Table Q-1. The mass fractions, MFi, shown in the third column of Table Q-
1 are the quotient of the TPH fraction concentration and the total TPH concentration.

The SSTLi's may be obtained several ways. For a unique exposure situation they should
be calculated. For a "standard" exposure scenario, some regulatory programs have SSTLs
for the TPH fractions listed in their Tier 1 guidance. In this example, the SSTLs were
obtained by running RISC with the "Individual Constituent Levels" target option in Step
5. There, an individual target of HI=1 was entered for each TPH fraction. The results are
then presented in Step 6 under the table option entitled "Clean-up Levels". These values
are entered in the fourth column of Table Q-1.

The last column contains the quotients, MFi/SSTLi, the sum of these (3.15E-04) form the
denominator of the calculation for the SSTLTPH equation (Equation Q-3). The target
hazard index is chosen to be equal to one and the total TPH concentration is calculated to
be equal to 3.2E+03 mg/kg (1/3.15E-04).

Q-6
 Calculating TPH Clean-up Levels

Table Q-1. Example Calculation of a Surficial Soil TPH SSTL.

SSTLi
Mass for Direct
TPH Fraction, Exposure
Fraction MFi Pathways
Carbon Range Conc. (mg/kg) (-) (mg/kg) MFi/SSTLi
>5-6 C aliphatics 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.8E+05 0.0E+00

>6-8 C aliphatics 8.5E+00 4.3E-04 2.8E+05 1.5E-09

>8-10 C aliphatics 9.0E+01 4.5E-03 5.6E+03 8.1E-07

>10-12 C aliphatics 1.1E+02 5.3E-03 5.6E+03 9.4E-07

>12-16 C aliphatics 2.0E+03 9.8E-02 5.6E+03 1.7E-05

>16-21 C aliphatics 2.7E+00 1.4E-04 1.1E+05 1.2E-09

>5-7 C aromatics 1.6E-01 8.1E-06 1.1E+04 7.3E-10

>7-8 C aromatics 1.0E+02 5.2E-03 1.1E+04 4.7E-07

>8-10 C aromatics 7.5E+02 3.8E-02 2.2E+03 1.7E-05

>10-12 C aromatics 9.9E+02 4.9E-02 2.2E+03 2.2E-05

> 12-16 C aromatics 3.4E+03 1.7E-01 2.2E+03 7.7E-05

> 16-21 C aromatics 8.9E+01 4.5E-03 1.7E+03 2.6E-06

> 21-35 C aromatics 1.3E+04 6.5E-01 5.6E+04 1.2E-05

Totals 2.0E+04 1.0E+00 1.50E-04

SSTLTPH 6.7E+03

Q-7
RISC Manual Version 4.0

Q.4 REFERENCES

Texas Risk Reduction Program. June 2000. Development of Human Health PCLs for
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Mixtures. TNRCC Regulatory Guidance. RG-
366/TRRP-27

This guidance is available from:

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/trrp.htm
by going to TRRP Guidance and Forms and then searching for the above
referenced document.

Vorhees, Donna, Weisman, Wade and Gustafson, John. June 1999. Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series, Volume 5: Human Health Risk-
Based Evaluation of Petroleum Release Sites: Implementing the Working Group
Approach.

Available on the web site:

www.aehs.com/publications/catalog/contents/Volume5.pdf

Q-8
Appendix Review of Risk
R Integrated Software for
Cleanups (RISC) v4.0

Prepared by:
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller International Inc., Cambridge, England

R.1 INTRODUCTION

R.1.1 Introduction to RISC

RISC v4.0 is a software package for integrated risk evaluation of contaminated sites,
providing a tool for quantitative assessment of the potential effects of site
contaminants on human health and environmental receptors.

The increasing awareness of the need to manage contaminated land has led to the
development by various national agencies, industry groups and others of framework
systems for risk assessment of contaminated sites. Examples include US EPA
Superfund Guidance (US EPA 1989), American Society for Testing and Material’s
Risk-Based Corrective Action Guidance (ASTM 1995, 1998), American Petroleum
Institute’s Decision Support System (API 1994), CONCAWE 1997, the Norwegian
risk assessment guidance (SFT 1999), and the UK Environment Agency guidance on
risk assessment (Environment Agency 1999a).

A number of software systems have been developed which provide a software

implementation of a quantitative risk assessment approach. Examples include
Groundwater Services International’ “RBCA Toolkit for Petroleum Release Sites” and
“RBCA Toolkit for Chemical Release Sites” both of which implement the ASTM
RBCA systems; Human Exposure to Soil Pollutants (HESP) developed by Shell

R-1
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

International Petroleum in The Netherlands; the German UMS model (Hempfling et al

1997); and the UK CLEA (DoE 1995) and CONSIM (Environment Agency 1999b)
models.

RISC v4.0 is a development of earlier versions of RISC. The first versions, v1.0 and
v2.0 were released in 1994 and 1995 respectively, but were only used internally by
BP. These versions were broadly similar to later versions, but allowed for forward
risk calculations only. The major development in v3.0, which was released in 1997,
was the inclusion of a facility to calculate cleanup target concentrations by backward
calculations. RISC v3.0 was peer reviewed by Johnson 1997.

R.1.2 Arcadis GMI

RISC v3.0 is a key software tool used by Arcadis GMI. Our in depth knowledge and
experience using this package placed us an ideal position to run an extensive program
of testing and validation work on v4.0. Beginning with a single compound and a
single pathway, complex scenarios were built up with comprehensive checking carried
out at each level of complexity. At each stage input and output results were examined
and parameters varied to verify that the expected results were achieved. Many
interface and programming problems were uncovered and communicated to the
authors on a regular basis; each solution was rigorously tested and the software
checked for any knock-on effects of the changes.

R.1.3 Organisation of Review

The organisation of this review adheres to the following structure:

Enhancements in RISC v4.0

Overview of Functional Capabilities
RISC User Interface and User’s Manual
RISC Source Partitioning Algorithms
Back Calculation and Clean-up Targets For Soil and Groundwater
Comparison of RISC with Independent Calculations

R-2
 Review of RISC v4.0

R.2 ENHANCEMENTS IN RISC V4.0

RISC v4.0 has been substantially extended and improved from v3.0. New exposure
pathways and fate and transport models for existing supported pathways have been
added. Improvements have been made to the fate and transport models and
presentation of results

R.2.1 Additional Pathways and Models

The following new human health exposure pathways have been added to v4.0:

“Irrigation pathways”. The pathways that can be evaluated in this option are (i)
ingestion of vegetables irrigated with contaminated groundwater, (ii) ingestion of
irrigation water either directly from irrigation sprinklers or from a swimming pool
filled with irrigation water, (iii) dermal contact with ingestion water and (iv)
inhalation of irrigation water applied by spray irrigation.

Vegetables grown in contaminated soil. This pathway evaluates the intake of

contaminants from ingestion of root and above-ground vegetables grown in
contaminated soil.

The following new modelling options have been added to v4.0:

Surface Water Mixing and Sediment Partitioning Model. This model is used to
estimate surface water and sediment concentrations arising from mixing between the
surface water and a groundwater plume. The following pathways that can be evaluated
in this option: (i) ingestion of surface water and (ii) dermal contact with surface water,
while playing or swimming in a surface water course impacted by site-derived
groundwater.

Ecological/Water Quality Option. This option utilises the surface water mixing and
sediment partitioning models to estimate the concentration in either rivers or lakes
from groundwater contaminant influx. The predicted concentrations may be compared

R-3
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

to a selection of quality criteria, which are tabulated within this option. Clean-up
levels can be calculated based on target surface water concentrations.

Two new vapour intrusion models have been included for simulation of vapour phase
transport from soil to indoor and outdoor air. These are:

Dominant Layer Model, Johnson, Kemblowski and Johnson 1998. This model
divides the unsaturated zone into three layers, with first order aerobic degradation
allowed in the middle layer only. The model is based a conceptual model developed
from field observations. The lower layer contains zero oxygen and therefore no
degradation is allowed while diffusion dominates. The middle layer contains both
oxygen and contaminant, and degradation and diffusion transport occur. The upper
layer contains oxygen but lower contaminant concentration and negligible degradation
is assumed, thus diffusion dominates.

Oxygen-Limited Model, (Johnson, unpublished). This model determines the rate of

aerobic degradation in a system where degradation is limited by the availability of
oxygen from a surface source.

Soil gas can be used as the source term for vapour models from soil.

R.2.2 Alterations Within Existing Models

The following sections outline the main alterations in v4.0:

Database and Input Options

Many of the default exposure parameters have been changed to reflect new data
presented by the US EPA in the updated Exposure Factors Handbook (August, 1997).

Several of the toxicity parameters in the chemical database have been changed, some
of which reflect updates to the IRIS database.

Within the site properties there are some additional parameters that must be specified,
for example, the porosity and water content in foundation cracks can now be specified

R-4
 Review of RISC v4.0

rather than being fixed within the software. The lithology of the source zone can now
be specified as a different lithology to the unsaturated zone.

Groundwater Transport Models

Modifications have been made to the internal calculation of dispersivity in the
groundwater transport models. Dispersivity is calculated as a function of groundwater
flowpath length in both versions. However, in v4.0 the flowpath distance used to
calculate longitudinal dispersivity is the distance from the downgradient edge of the
source to the receptor or compliance point. In v3.0, the flowpath distance was
calculated from the x-coordinate of the compliance point, which was equivalent to the
distance from the centre of the user-defined source to the compliance point.

All three source dimensions input by the user are now used to define the source zone
in the groundwater models. In v3.0 it was assumed that the source area was a vertical
planar source at the down gradient edge of the actual source area. Therefore in v3.0
all of the contaminant loading was assumed to enter groundwater at the down gradient
edge of the source. In v4.0 the contaminant loading is distributed over the specified
source area. This will lead to reduced concentrations at the receptor, relative to v3.0,
because the contaminant will be more dispersed since some of it has started further
back from than the down gradient edge.

Vapour Phase Transport Models

In v4.0 it is assumed that one of the indoor or outdoor air pathways will be dominant
(usually the indoor air pathway). These models may not now be run at the same time.

Additional Changes
In RISC v3.0 the hazard quotients for adult and child receptors were reported
separately, but also as a combined total assuming that the hazard quotient was additive
for a child that becomes an adult and remains at the same residence. This additive
approach is not appropriate for non-carcinogenic effects or hazard quotients and has
been discontinued in v4.0. Note that the additive receptor option is still applicable
and functional in v4.0 for carcinogens.

For depleting sources (in the vadose zone and saturated soil models) in v4.0 the clean-
up level may lie somewhere between the residual concentration (the concentration at

R-5
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

which a fourth phase is present) and complete soil saturation (which is arbitrarily cut-
off at 1 x 106 mg/kg for all contaminants for modelling purposes). This is possible
since the additional mass in the source can increase the risk as the exposure may last
longer than just a source at the residual level. In v4.0 these actual clean-up levels are
reported with the residual saturation values also usefully reported alongside each
SSTL, so that it is immediately apparent if the SSTL exceeds the residual saturation
value. For steady state models and the dissolved groundwater model, if the risk cannot
be exceeded at the point at which residual phase begins to form, the SSTL will be
reported as RES to represent the residual concentration. In v3.0, all SSTLs in excess
of the residual saturation value were reported as the residual saturation value (which
was incorrect for a finite mass soil source).

In RISC v3.0 the soil to outdoor air vapour transport pathway was evaluated using the
same soil zone model used to estimate contaminant loading to the groundwater model;
the volatile emission rate calculated by the Vadose Zone Model (described in
Appendix A) was required as the input to a “box” model. This model incorporated a
depleting source term i.e. mass was conserved, with depletion due to the combined
effects of leaching to groundwater and volatilisation to the overlying atmosphere.
However, in RISC v4.0 leaching to groundwater and volatilisation to atmosphere are
out using separate models. The method used for volatilisation from soil to outdoor air
is now a steady state, non-depleting, soil model based on the Johnson and Ettinger
1991 model. This model was already used in the soil to indoor air model and has the
advantage that the results can be compared to those from the dominant layer and
oxygen-limited models. A second, compatible model must be run to calculate the
leachate losses, if required.

An overall TPH SSTL can now be calculated using the cumulative risk option (see
section 6.0 for further detail).

SSTLs can now be calculated to target concentrations such as MCLs (see section 6.0
for further detail).

The interface has been structured within v4.0 to include food chain pathways and
ecological receptor impacts. However, these options are not yet active but will become
so when v5.0 is released.

R-6
 Review of RISC v4.0

R.3 OVERVIEW OF THE FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITIES OF

RISC

RISC v4.0 provides one of the most comprehensive quantitative risk evaluation
capabilities of all the risk software packages available. Table R-1 provides a summary
of the features supported in RISC v4.0, with the capabilities of GSI’s RBCA Tier 2
Toolkit shown for comparison.

Table R-1. Summary of Features in RISC v4.0.

(Page 1 of 2)
Function/ RISC v4.0 GSI Tier 2
F&T Models Toolkit
General Features:
Internal Chemical Database ✔ ✔
Sample database ✔ ✘
Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis ✔ ✘
Backward calculation for cleanup targets ✔ ✔
Tier 1 Look up Tables ✔ ✔
Forward Calculations ✔ ✔
Source Conceptualisation:
Free product solubility corrections ✔ ✔
Fate & Transport Models:
Outdoor air ✔ ✔
Indoor air ✔ ✔
Unsaturated zone model to Groundwater ✔ ✘
Model
Groundwater – saturated soil leaching to ✔ ✘
groundwater
Groundwater – dissolved phase source ✔ ✔
Groundwater - Surface water ✔ ✘
Soil – surface ✔ ✔
Soil – subsurface ✔ ✔

R-7
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table R-1. Summary of Features in RISC v4.0.

(Page 2 of 2)
Function/ RISC v4.0 GSI Tier 2
F&T Models Toolkit
Intake routes supported:
Ingestion of soil ✔ ✔
Dermal contact with soil ✔ ✔
Ingestion of groundwater ✔ ✔
Dermal intake and inhalation in shower ✔ ✘
Inhalation of indoor and outdoor air ✔ ✔
Ingestion and dermal contact with ✔ ✔
impacted surface water
Ingestion of fish from impacted surface ✘ ✔
water
Ingestion of home-grown vegetables ✔ ✘
Ingestion/dermal contact with irrigation ✔ ✘
water
Inhalation of irrigation water spray ✔ ✘

Most of the fate & transport models are widely used in the industry and in many cases
are also used in other software systems.

R.4 RISC USER INTERFACE AND USER’S MANUAL

RISC is predominantly a point-and-click program. The interface leads the user

through six steps, which must be completed sequentially in order to progress to the
choice of two end-points - calculating risk or calculating clean-up levels.

The user interface has undergone some significant changes since v3.0. Step 2,
Choosing Exposure Pathways, is now a divided screen, which highlights the
distinction between Environmental Pathways (Selecting Contaminated Media and
Fate and Transport Models) and Human Health Exposure Pathways (Exposure
Pathways). The inclusion of a visual representation of the selected fate and transport
models will assist more novice users in visualising the conceptual model being
modelled in RISC. A further improvement is the division of the main data entry screen
(Step 3a) into two screens, distinguishing between the data required for groundwater
models and the data required for volatilisation models.

R-8
 Review of RISC v4.0

An on-line help system and a user’s manual accompany the RISC software. The on-
line help system has undergone some development and now has a structure similar to
that of the user’s manual, and is therefore more easily navigated. However, this
system primarily contains definitions and descriptions and does not refer to the
algorithms or models, which are contained in the user’s manual. In order to gain an
insight into the operations being performed by the RISC software, the user should read
the user’s manual, and particularly those appendices that give a detailed description of
the models being used. In addition to reflecting updates to the software, the manual
has been generally revised. The appendices in particular have been expanded and
contain further descriptions into the workings and assumptions intrinsic to the fate and
transport models.

As with v3.0, a range of output options is available to the user. The user may still find
that the output tables do not always print out well in A4 portrait or landscape format.

R.5 RISC SOURCE PARTITIONING ALGORITHMS

RISC partitions the chemicals between vapor, sorbed and dissolved phases using
conventional partitioning algorithms based on Henry’s Law (liquid to vapor phase)
and the organic carbon partition coefficient, Koc, or inorganic partition coefficient, Kd,
(solid to liquid phase).

An important feature in RISC v4.0, which was also in v3.0, is the inclusion of
facilities that simulate some of the effects of the presence of residual free phase
hydrocarbon. In common with all comparable software tools, RISC cannot simulate
the fate and transport of mobile residual phase hydrocarbons. Separate stand-alone
models are available that simulate the fate and transport of mobile residual phase e.g.
ARMOS (ES&T) or MOFAT (RASI), although these models do not provide a
quantitative evaluation of risk. RISC accounts for the effects of immobile residual
phase on the solubility of individual compounds within multiple-constituent
hydrocarbon mixtures.

R-9
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

RISC carries out a calculation to determine whether residual phase hydrocarbon is

present. This applies in the following fate and transport models:

Vadose zone model – leaching to groundwater / volatilisation to outdoor air

Saturated soil groundwater model
Vapor transport from soil to indoor air

Where residual phase is calculated to be present, RISC uses Raoult’s Law to calculate
the effective solubility or effective vapour pressures. Where residual phase is
calculated not to be present, RISC calculates the concentration in each phase (sorbed,
dissolved and vapor) based on the relevant equilibrium partitioning equations.

RISC uses different source term assumptions for the Vadose Zone model and the
Vapor Transport to Indoor Air model. The Vadose Zone model uses a depleting
source, where depletion occurs due to volatilisation, leaching and / or degradation
loses. The Vapor Transport model uses a steady state non-depleting source.

R.6 BACK-CALCULATION OF CLEANUP TARGETS FOR

SOIL AND GROUNDWATER

RISC allows the user to calculate site specific clean-up target levels for deterministic
scenarios. For scenarios involving transport models, clean-up levels can only be
calculated for one receptor at a time, though it should be noted that this receptor may
be defined as the “additive” child + adult case.

There are two options for calculating clean-up targets:

If the “Individual Constituent Levels” option is chosen, each individual chemical

source concentration is reduced or increased to achieve the selected target level. If
groundwater or surface water is a receptor media, a target concentration such as
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) may be specified instead of the target risk.
This back calculation does not depend on the original source concentration.

R-10
 Review of RISC v4.0

If the “Cumulative Risk” option is chosen, the concentrations of each chemical are
increased or reduced proportionately to each other until the specified target is reached.
This back calculation does not depend on the magnitude of the original source
concentrations but does depend on the relative proportions of the source
concentrations. The clean-up levels will be of the same proportions as the original
source concentrations. This cumulative option can also be used in RISC to calculate a
site-specific target level for a TPH mixture. The model recognises chemical names
containing the letters “TPH” and automatically uses the SSTLs calculated for each
individual TPH fraction and the site specific measured concentrations of the TPH
fractions to estimate a unique SSTL that is protective for the TPH mixture at the site.

The second approach may lead to the conclusion that remediation is required for
compounds present at low concentrations as all SSTLs would decrease in the same
proportion as the compound that is in the risk driver. The first approach should guard
against this as compounds present at low concentrations will have target clean-up
levels greater than the current concentrations on site.

R.7 COMPARISON OF RISC WITH INDEPENDENT

CALCULATIONS

The output from RISC was compared to the output from a number of independent
calculations using the equations described in the user’s manual.

R.7.1 Direct Exposure Pathways

Good or perfect agreement was obtained for all contaminants and exposure pathways
evaluated. The results of this comparison can be seen in the tables at the end of this
peer review.

R-11
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

R.7.2 Validation of Monte Carlo Simulations

The Monte-Carlo option in RISC was used to generate a probability distribution of

risks for exposure to benzene in drinking water. Default adult RME exposure data
were used, with exposure to a constant concentration of 0.005mg/l benzene.

The RISC output was compared to the results of similar calculations carried out using
Crystal Ball software package. The output from both are shown in the table below.
The agreement is very good in the centre of the range, with a consistent difference
between the two estimates at the extreme ends of the range. This was demonstrated
using five hundred model runs.

Table R-2. Comparison of Monte Carlo Results from RISC v4.0 and Crystal
Ball.
Summary Statistics Cancer Risk (RISC) Cancer Risk (Crystal Ball)
minimum 4.19x10-9 5.6x10-9
5% 4.02x10-8 3.9x10-8
50% 3.83x10-7 2.3x10-7
75% 4.73x10-7 4.7x10-7
90% 8.88x10-7 8.7x10-7
95% 1.23x10-6 1.2x10-6
maximum 5.59x10-6 7.4x10-6

R.7.3 Indoor and Outdoor Air Fate and Transport Models

Johnson & Ettinger – Soil – Indoor Air Model

The Johnson & Ettinger model is used to estimate the emissions from a soil source,
either into buildings or to the atmosphere. The indoor air case has been used to
validate the model against an independent solution of the Johnson & Ettinger
equations. The input data and the results are presented in the following table:

R-12
 Review of RISC v4.0

Table R-3. Input Data Used and Results from the Johnson and Ettinger Model
Comparison Runs.
Soil Properties
Parameter Vadose Zone Lens Foundation
Thickness of Transport Zone [m] 2.60 0.2 0.15
Total Porosity [m3/m3] 0.35 0.35 0.25
3 3
Moisture Content [m /m ] 0.05 0.15 0.00
3
Soil Bulk Density [g/cm ] 1.7 1.7 1.7
Building Properties
Volume [m3] 400
Air Exchange Rate [changes/d] 12
Total Infiltration Area [m2] 150
Fraction of Area with Cracks 0.001
Depth Below Ground Surface [m] 2.0
Length of Foundation Perimeter [m] 50.0
2
Pressure Gradient [g/cm -s] 10.0
Permeability of Soil to Vapours [cm2] 1x10-9
Soil Concentrations Case A Case B
Benzene [mg/kg] 1000 10
Total Hydrocarbons [mg/kg] 0 1000
Output–Indoor Air Concentrations
Benzene [mg/m3] 8.57x100 8.57x10-2
Independent calculation [mg/m3] 8.59x100 8.59x10-2

Dominant Layer Model

The Dominant Layer model was also validated against independent solutions of the
equations. In addition this model has been used to validate the use of soil gas, rather
than soil, as the source term. The input data and results are presented in the following
table:

R-13
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table R-4. Input Data Used and Results from the Dominant Layer Model
Comparison Runs.
Soil Properties Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3
(Dominant
)
Total Porosity [-] 0.35 0.35 0.35
Water Content [-] 0.05 0.15 0.05
Air Content [-] 0.30 0.20 0.30
Thickness [m] 1.3 0.2 1.3
Soil Source
Porosity [-] 0.35
Water Content [-] 0.15
Soil Bulk Density [g/cm3] 1.7
Foc 0.01
Degradation Rate Vapour Phase 0.09
Chemical-Specific Parameters
Source Benzene Concentration [mg/kg] 1000
3
Initial Source Vapour Concentration [mg/m ] 3.23x105
Calculated Value [mg/m3] 3.23x105
3
Concentration in Building [mg/m ] 7.28
Calculated Value [mg/m3] 7.28
Concentration in Building using Initial Source 7.27
Vapour Concentration as Soil Gas Source Term
[mg/m3]

Oxygen Limited Model

The output from this model has not been validated.

R.7.4 Groundwater Fate and Transport Models

Groundwater – Indoor Air

The modelling of vapour transport from groundwater into buildings has been
validated against independent calculations. The input data and results are presented in
the following table:

R-14
 Review of RISC v4.0

Table R-5. Input Data Used and Results from Groundwater Vapour to Indoor
Air Model Comparison Runs.
Soil Properties
Parameter Vadose Lens Capillary Foundation
Zone Fringe
Thickness of Zone [m] 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
Total Porosity [-] 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.25
Moisture Content [-] 0.05 0.15 0.345 0.00
Soil Bulk Density [g/cm3] 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Building Properties
Volume [m3] 400
Air Exchange Rate [changes/d] 12
2
Total Infiltration Area [m ] 150
Fraction of Area with Cracks [-] 0.001
Groundwater Source
Groundwater Concentration [mg/l] 1.00
Output – Indoor Concentrations
Benzene [mg/m3] 2.27x10-3
Independent calculation [mg/m3] 2.27x10-3

Groundwater – Outdoor Air

The modelling of vapour transport from groundwater into buildings has been validated
against independent calculations. The input data and results are presented in the
following table:

R-15
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table R-6. Input Data Used and Results from Groundwater Vapour to Outdoor
Air Model Comparison Runs.
Soil Properties
Parameter Vadose Zone Lens Capillary Fringe
Thickness of Zone [m] 1.2 0.2 0.2
Total Porosity [-] 0.35 0.35 0.35
Moisture Content [-] 0.05 0.15 0.345
Soil Bulk Density [g/cm3] 1.7 1.7 1.7
Outdoor Air Parameters
Height of Box [m] 2.00
Length of Box [m] 10.00
Wind Speed [m/s] 2.25
Groundwater Source
Groundwater Concentration [mg/l] 1.00
Output – Outdoor Concentrations
Benzene [mg/m3] 2.27x10-3
Independent calculation [mg/m3] 2.27x10-3

Vadose Zone Leaching to Groundwater Model

The Vadose Zone Model has been validated against independent solutions of the
equations. The input data and results are presented in the table and graphs below:

R-16
 Review of RISC v4.0

Table R-7. Input Data Used and Results from Vadose Zone Leaching to
Groundwater Model Comparison Runs.
Soil Properties
Parameter Vadose Zone Lens Source
Thickness of Zone [m] 4.0m above source 0.2 3.0
2.8m below source
Total Porosity [-] 0.35 0.35 0.35
Soil Bulk Density [g/cm3] 1.7 1.7 1.7
Infiltration Rate [cm/yr] 20 20 20
Van Genuchten’s N [-] 2.68 2.00 2.68
Residual Moisture Content [-] 0.05 0.15 0.05
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity [m/d] 10 1.00 10
Moisture Content [-] Calculated Calculate Calculated
d
Foc [-] 0.01 0.01 0.01
Source Zone Parameters
Source Length [m] 10.0
Source Width [m] 10.0
Chemical-Specific Parameters
First-order decay coefficient in the 0.00
source zone [1/day]
First-order decay coefficient in the 0.001
vadose zone [1/day]
Soil Concentration (Benzene) [mg/kg] 500
Soil TPH Concentration [mg/kg] 5000
TPH Molecular Weight [mg/kg] 100
Output – Groundwater Concentrations
Benzene at Source [mg/l] 224
Independent Calculation [mg/1] 224
Concentration at Water Table at t=10yrs 10.8
[mg/l]
Independent Calculation at t=10yrs 11.0
[mg/l]

Shown below is a graph of the concentration of benzene at the source vs time, for the
Vadose Zone Model, to compare the RISC model outputs to the independent hand
calculations. In general the agreement is good with small differences arising because
the concentration displayed for each year is an average for that year based on the
concentration at each of the monthly time steps. This explains why the difference is
most notable early in the simulation.

R-17
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Benzene Concentration at Source

250
Risc Output
Concentration (mg/l)
Manual Calculations
200

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (yrs)

Figure R-1. Benzene Concentration vs Time in the Vadose Zone Source.

The Graph of concentration at the water table (2.8m below the base of the source)
indicates good agreement between the RISC output and independent calculations. The
slight discrepancy as time increases is likely to be due to the fact that for the
independent calculations the error function values were calculated empirically using
the formula erf (x) = (1- exp(-4x2/pi))1/2, which can have an error of up to 0.7%.

Benzene Concentration at Water Table (2.8m below Source)

90
Risc Output
80
Manual Calculations
Concentration (mg/l)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (yrs)

Figure R-2. Benzene Concentration vs Time at the Water Table.

R-18
 Review of RISC v4.0

R.7.5 Surface Water Mixing Models

The RISC output was compared with manual calculations, as shown in the table
below. For the conditions modelled the RISC output and the manual calculation were
in exact agreement.

Table R-8. Input Data Used and Results from the Surface Water Model
Comparison Runs.
Surface water River Lake
Hydraulic Conductivity of SW bed [m/d] 10 10
Foc in sediment [g/g] 0.01 0.01
Depth of SW [m] 5 5
Length of reach [m] 100 100
Hydraulic gradient between GW and SW 0.05 0.05
[m/m]
Cross Sectional Area of River [m2] 5
Lake Volume [m3] 100000
Fraction available for mixing [-] 1 0.1
SW flow rate [m3/day] 180 180
Degradation rate in SW [1/d] 0.00 0.005
Groundwater Concentration
Benzene (mg/l) 5 5
Chemical Parameters
Mass Flux from GW to SW [mg/d] 1.25x106 1.25x106
Manual Calculation 1.25x106 1.25x106
Surface water concentration [mg/l] 2.91 3.93
Manual Calculation 2.91 3.93
Sediment Concentration [mg/kg] 2.95 2.95
Manual Calculation 2.95 2.95

R-19
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

DECLARATION

This peer review was carried out by the following Arcadis staff:

Helen Tighe
Clair Smith
Matt Gardner
Stephen Swift
Jonathon Rigby
Lawrence Houlden

We declare that the review was completed as described above:

Signed

Name Lawrence Houlden Matt Gardner Helen Tighe

Date 24th September 2001

R-20
 Review of RISC v4.0

R.8 REFERENCES

AERIS 1991 “Aid for Evaluating the Redevelopment of Industrial Sites AERIS Model
Version 3.0”, AERIS Software Inc., Richmond Hill, Canada.

API 1994 “Risk/Exposure Assessment Decision Support System (DSS)”, American

Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C.

ASTM 1998 “Standard Provisional Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action”, PS

104-98, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshochocken

ASTM 1998 “Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at

Petroleum Release Sites”, E 1739-95, American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshochocken

CONCAWE 1997 “European oil industry guide for risk-based assessment of

contaminated sites”. CONCAWE report no. 2/97, Brussels.

DoE 1995 “The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA): Technical
Basis and Algorithms” (Draft), UK Department of the Environment, London.

Environment Agency 1999a “Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for
Soil and Groundwater to Protect Water Resources”, R&D Publication P20,
Environment Agency (England and Wales), Bristol.

Environment Agency 1999b “ConSim: Contamination Impacts on Groundwater:

Simulation by Monte-Carlo Method”. Golder Associates for the Environment
Agency, Bristol.

Hempfling, R., P. Doetsch, S. Stubenrauch, A. Mahr, O. Bauer, H.J. Koschmieder and

D. Grunhoff 1997 “UMS-System zur Altlastenbeurteilung – Instrumente fur
die pfadubergreifende Abschatzung und Beurteilung von altlastenverdachtigen
Flaschen, AbschluBbericht”, F+E-Vorhaben 109 01 215, Umweltbundesamt
(UBA), Berlin.Johnson, P.C. and R.A. Ettinger 1991 “Heuristic Model for
Predicting the Intrusion of Rate of Contaminant Vapours into Buildings”
Environmental Science and Technology, 25(8), p1445-1452.

Johnson, P.C. 1997 “ Review of Risk-Integrated Software for Cleanups (RISC) v3.0”.
Included in RISC v3.0 User Manual.

Johnson, P.C., M.W. Kemblowski and R.L. Johnson 1998 “Assessing the significance
of subsurface contaminant vapour migration to enclosed spaces: Site-specific

R-21
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

alternative to generic estimates”. American Petroleum Institute Publication

no. 4674, Washington D.C.

SFT 1999 “Guidelines for Risk Assessment of Contaminated Sites”. Statens

forurensningstilsyn (Norwegian Pollution Control Authority), Oslo. (in
Norwegian, English version available).

US EPA 1989 “Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1 Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part A)”. Report no. EPA/540/1-89/002, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.

Van den Berg, R. 1994 “Human Exposure to Soil Contamination: A Qualitative and
Quantitative Analysis Towards Proposals for Human Toxicological
Intervention Values” Report no. 725 201 011, National Institute of Public
Health and the Environment, The Netherlands.

R-22
 Review of RISC v4.0

Table R-9. Verification Calculations for the Direct Exposure Pathways.

(Page 1 of 3)
Exposure Pathway/Results Arsenic Benzene Benzo(a)pyrene TPH Aliphatic
C12-C16
Ingestion of Soil
Concentration (mg/kg-soil) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 6.85x10-6 6.85x10-6 6.85x10-6 6.85x10-6
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 6.85x10-6 6.85x10-6 6.85x10-6 6.85x10-6
Cancer Risk (RISC) 4.4x10-6 8.5x10-8 2.1x10-5 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 4.4x10-6 8.51x10-8 2.14x10-5 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 2.3x10-2 0.00 0.00 6.8x10-5
Hazard Index (calculated) 2.28x10-2 NQ NQ 6.85x10-5
Dermal Contact with Soil
Concentration (mg/kg-soil) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 1.18x10-5 3.94x10-5 3.94x10-5 3.94x10-5
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 1.18x10-5 3.94x10-5 3.94x10-5 3.94x10-5
Cancer Risk (RISC) 7.6x10-6 4.9x10-7 1.2x10-4 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 7.60x10-6 4.9x10-7 1.2x10-4 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 3.9x10-2 0.00 0.00 3.9x10-4
Hazard Index (calculated) 3.94x10-2 NQ NQ 3.9x10-4
Ingestion of Groundwater
Concentration (mg/l-H20) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 5.48x10-2 5.48x10-2 5.48x10-2 5.48x10-2
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 5.48x10-2 5.48x10-2 5.48x10-2 5.48x10-2
Cancer Risk (RISC) 3.5x10-2 6.8x10-4 1.7x10-1 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 3.52x10-2 6.81x10-4 1.71x10-1 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 1.8x102 0.00 0.00 5.5x10-1
Hazard Index (calculated) 1.83x102 NQ NQ 5.48x10-1
Dermal Contact in Shower
Concentration (mg/l-H20) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 1.26x10-4 2.65x10-3 1.51x10-1 1.03x100
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 1.26x10-4 2.65x10-3 1.51x10-1 1.03x100
Cancer Risk (RISC) 8.1x10-5 3.3x10-5 4.7x10-1 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 8.10x10-5 3.29x10-5 4.73x10-1 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 4.2x10-1 0.00 0.00 1.0x101
Hazard Index (calculated) 4.20x10-1 NQ NQ 1.03x101
Inhalation in Shower
Concentration (mg/l-H20) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 0.00x100 6.67x10-2 2.34x10-4 4.84x10-2
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 0.00x100 6.67x10-2 2.34x10-4 4.84x10-2
Cancer Risk (RISC) 0.00x100 7.7x10-4 3.1x10-4 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 0.00x100 7.7x10-4 3.1x10-4 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 0.00x100 0.00 0.00 1.8x10-1
Hazard Index (calculated) 0.00x100 NQ NQ 1.8x10-1
Ingestion of Root Vegetables (Soil)
Concentration (mg/kg) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 1.08x10-5 1.29x10-5 6.05x10-7 4.24x10-7
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 1.08x10-5 1.29x10-5 6.05x10-7 4.24x10-7
Cancer Risk (RISC) 6.93x10-6 1.61x10-1 1.89x10-6 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 6.93x10-6 1.61x10-1 1.89x10-6 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 3.60x10-2 0.00 0.00 4.24x10-6
Hazard Index (calculated) 3.60x10-2 NQ NQ 4.24x10-6

R-23
RISC User's Manual Version 4.0

Table R-9. Verification Calculations for the Direct Exposure Pathways.

(Page 2 of 3)
Exposure Pathway/Results Arsenic Benzene Benzo(a)pyrene TPH Aliphatic
C12-C16
Ingestion of Above Ground Vegetables (Soil)
Concentration (mg/kg) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 1.57x10-5 9.27x10-4 4.52x10-6 1.78x10-6
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 1.57x10-5 9.27x10-4 4.52x10-6 1.78x10-6
Cancer Risk (RISC) 1.01x10-5 1.15x10-5 1.41x10-5 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 1.01x10-5 1.15x10-5 1.41x10-5 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 5.22x10-2 0.00 0.00 1.78x10-5
Hazard Index (calculated) 5.22x10-2 NQ NQ 1.78x10-5
Ingestion of Root Vegetables (Groundwater)
Concentration (mg/l-H20) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 1.25x10-4 1.52x10-3 1.21x100 4.24x100
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 1.26x10-4 1.53x10-3 1.21x100 4.26x100
Cancer Risk (RISC) 8.1x10-5 1.9x10-5 3.8x10-1 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 8.0x10-5 1.9x10-5 3.8x10-1 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 4.2x10-1 0.00 0.00 4.2x101
Hazard Index (calculated) 4.2x10-1 NQ NQ 4.2x101
Ingestion of Above Ground Vegetables (Groundwater)
Concentration (mg/l-H20) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 1.82x10-4 1.09x10-3 9.03x10-2 1.78x10-1
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 1.82x10-4 1.09x10-3 9.03x10-2 1.78x10-1
Cancer Risk (RISC) 1.17x10-4 1.36x10-5 2.83x10-1 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 1.17x10-4 1.35x10-5 2.82x10-1 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 6.05x10-1 0.00 0.00 1.78x100
Hazard Index (calculated) 6.05x10-1 NQ NQ 1.78x100
Inhalation of Groundwater Spray
Concentration (mg/l-H20) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 0.00 6.7x10-2 2.4x10-4 4.8x10-2
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 0.00 6.7x10-2 2.4x10-4 4.9x10-2
Cancer Risk (RISC) 0.00 7.8x10-4 3.1x10-4 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 0.00 7.8x10-4 3.1x10-4 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.8x10-1
Hazard Index (calculated) 0.00 NQ NQ 1.8x10-1
Dermal Contact with Irrigation Water
Concentration (mg/l-H20) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 2.70x10-4 5.67x10-3 3.24x10-1 2.21x100
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 2.70x10-4 5.67x10-3 3.24x10-1 2.21x100
Cancer Risk (RISC) 1.74x10-4 7.05x10-5 1.01x100 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 1.74x10-4 7.05x10-5 1.01x100 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 9.00x10-1 0.00 0.00 2.21x101
Hazard Index (calculated) 9.00x10-1 NQ NQ 2.21x101
Ingestion of Irrigation Water
Concentration (mg/l-H20) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 1.17x10-3 1.17x10-3 1.17x10-3 1.17x10-3
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 1.17x10-3 1.17x10-3 1.17x10-3 1.17x10-3
Cancer Risk (RISC) 7.55x10-4 1.46x10-5 3.67x10-3 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 7.55x10-4 1.46x10-5 3.67x10-3 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 3.91x100 0.00 0.00 1.17x10-2
Hazard Index (calculated) 3.91x100 NQ NQ 1.17x10-2

R-24
 Review of RISC v4.0

Table R-9. Verification Calculations for the Direct Exposure Pathways.

(Page 3 of 3)
Exposure Pathway/Results Arsenic Benzene Benzo(a)pyrene TPH Aliphatic
C12-C16
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Concentration (mg/m3-air) 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 2.73x10-1 2.73x10-1 2.73x10-1 2.73x10-1
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 2.73x10-1 2.73x10-1 2.73x10-1 2.73x10-1
Cancer Risk (RISC) 1.8x100 3.2x10-3 3.6x10-1 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 1.8x100 3.2x10-3 3.6x10-1 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0x100
Hazard Index (calculated) NQ NQ NQ 1.0x100
Inhalation of Indoor Air
Concentration (mg/m3-air) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 4.11x10-1 4.11x10-1 4.11x10-1 4.11x10-1
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 4.11x10-1 4.11x10-1 4.11x10-1 4.11x10-1
Cancer Risk (RISC) 2.6x100 4.8x10-3 5.5x10-1 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 2.6x100 4.8x10-3 5.5x10-1 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.5x100
Hazard Index (calculated) NQ NQ NQ 1.5x100
Ingestion while Swimming
Concentration (mg/l-H20) 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 1.10x10-3 1.10x10-3 1.10x10-3 1.10x10-3
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 1.10x10-3 1.10x10-3 1.10x10-3 1.10x10-3
Cancer Risk (RISC) 7.1x10-4 1.4x10-5 3.4x10-3 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 7.1x10-4 1.4x10-5 3.4x10-3 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 3.7x100 0.00 0.00 1.1x10-2
Hazard Index (calculated) 3.7x100 NQ NQ 1.1x10-2
Dermal – Swimming
Concentration (mg/l-H20) 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
CDI (RISC) [mg/kg-d] 5.06x10-4 1.06x10-2 6.07x10-1 4.15x100
CDI (calculated) [mg/kg-d] 5.06x10-4 1.06x10-2 6.07x10-1 4.17x100
Cancer Risk (RISC) 3.2x10-4 1.3x10-4 1.9x100 0.00
Cancer Risk (calculated) 3.2x10-4 1.3x10-4 1.9x100 NQ
Hazard Index (RISC) 1.7x100 0.00 0.00 4.1x101
Hazard Index (calculated) 1.7x100 NQ NQ 4.1x101
NQ- Toxicological information not available

R-25