PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
TULSA FUEL AND MANUFACTURING
COLLINSVILLE, TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

Figure 1. Location Map and Demographic Information

Figure 2. Site Sketch from Removal Assessment Report

Figure 3. Arsenic Levels in Surface Soil

Figure 4. Lead Levels in Surface Soil

Figure 5. Cadmium Levels in Surface Soil
Table B1. On-site Surface Soil Results, Tulsa Fuel & Manufacturing Site, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
| Contaminant | From Site Investigation,
9/94 1 n=7 |
From Removal Assess. Report,
5/99; XRF analysis 2 n=106 |
From Removal Assess. Report,
5/99 TAL lab analysis 3 n=2 |
Comparison Value 4 | ||||
| Concentration Range (ppm) | Average (ppm) |
Concentration Range (ppm) | Average (ppm) |
Concentration Range (ppm) | Average (ppm) |
Concentration (ppm) |
Type | |
| Arsenic |
18.5 - 302
|
151
|
ND - 864
|
138
|
12.1 - 26.7
|
19.4
|
0.5
20 |
CREG
EMEG-child |
| Cadmium |
41.1 - 275
|
119
|
DNU
|
-
|
17.2 - 76.9
|
47.1
|
10
|
EMEG-child
|
| Copper |
126 - 1670
|
874
|
ND - 4023
|
659
|
87.3 - 122
|
105
|
2,000
|
estimated CV for child
|
| Lead |
1160 - 16,600
|
8539
|
138 - 36,565
|
4992
|
566 - 1560
|
1063
|
400
|
EPA SSL
|
| Manganese |
691 - 24,700J
|
10,610
|
ND - 45,655
|
5641
|
657 - 974
|
816
|
7,000
|
RMEG-child
|
| Zinc |
6770 -37,000J
|
20,714
|
694 - 104,232
|
27,842
|
3030 - 11,500
|
7265
|
20,000
|
EMEG-child
|
| Contaminant | XRF analysis Slag samples from waste piles, 0-9 ft. n=37 |
XRF analysis Road samples, 2-24 inches n=6 |
TAL lab analysis 1 n=6 |
Comparison Value 2 | ||||
| Concentration Range (ppm) | Average (ppm) |
Concentration Range (ppm) | Average (ppm) |
Concentration Range (ppm) | Average (ppm) |
Concentration (ppm) |
Type | |
| Arsenic |
ND - 1071
|
285
|
ND - 69
|
36
|
5.8 - 258
|
53.8
|
0.5
|
CREG
|
| Cadmium |
DNU
|
-
|
DNU
|
-
|
ND - 35.4
|
22.2
|
10
|
EMEG-child
|
| Copper |
ND - 2826
|
792
|
ND - 44
|
17
|
13 - 1130
|
225
|
2000
|
estimated CV for child
|
| Lead |
50 - 39,964
|
7604
|
3.4 - 986
|
350
|
14.4 - 91,800
|
15,722
|
400
|
EPA SSL
|
| Manganese |
323 - 56,320
|
18,382
|
216 - 1086
|
518
|
159 - 6540
|
1774
|
7000
|
RMEG-child
|
| Zinc |
396 - 79,511
|
30,841
|
139 - 7647
|
3465
|
42.7 - 25,200
|
5935
|
20,000
|
EMEG-child
|
Table B3. Off-site Surface Soil Results, Tulsa Fuel & Manufacturing Site, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
| Contaminant | From Site Investigation,
9/941 n=2 |
From Removal Assess. Report,
5/99; XRF analysis2 n=6 |
From Removal Assess. Report, 5/99 TAL lab analysis3 n=1 |
Comparison Value 4 | |||
| Concentration Range (ppm) |
Average Concentration (ppm) |
Concentration Range (ppm) | Average (ppm) |
Concentration (ppm) |
Concentration (ppm) |
Type | |
| Arsenic |
10.4 - 13.7
|
12.1
|
ND - 48
|
33
|
5.56
|
0.5
|
CREG
|
| Cadmium |
4.2 - 6.2
|
5.2
|
DNU
|
-
|
0.85
|
0.4
10 |
EMEG-pica
EMEG-child |
| Lead |
226 - 362
|
294
|
ND - 700
|
166
|
14
|
400
|
EPA SSL
|
| Manganese |
521 - 548
|
535
|
205 - 893
|
490
|
323
|
300
7000 |
RMEG-pica
RMEG-child |
| Zinc |
892 - 786
|
839
|
360 - 3824
|
1094
|
311
|
600
20,000 |
EMEG-pica
EMEG-child |
Table B4. On-site Sediment Sample Results, Tulsa Fuel & Manufacturing Site, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
| Contaminant | Site Investigation, 9/94 n=4 |
Removal Assess. Report,
5/99 TAL lab analysis, n=29 |
Comparison Value1 | |||
| Concentration Range (ppm) | Average Concentration (ppm) |
Concentration Range (ppm) | Average Concentration (ppm) |
Concentration (ppm) |
Type | |
| Antimony |
ND - 50.9
|
18
|
ND - 20J
|
6.1
|
20
|
RMEG-child
|
| Arsenic |
7.8 - 514
|
157
|
ND - 110
|
14
|
0.5
|
CREG
|
| Cadmium |
13.9 - 1833
|
498
|
1.5 - 189
|
33
|
10
|
EMEG-child
|
| Lead |
160 - 25,400
|
8192
|
12 - 395J
|
129
|
400
|
EPA SSL
|
| Manganese |
741 - 6946
|
3894
|
35 - 2280J
|
856
|
7000
|
RMEG-child
|
| Zinc |
1590 - 22,900
|
12,780
|
101 - 4800
|
1300
|
20,000
|
EMEG-child
|
Table B5. Surface Water Sample Results, Tulsa Fuel & Manufacturing Site, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
| Contaminant | Site Investigation, 9/94 n=4 |
Removal Assess. Report,
5/99 n=12 |
Surface Water Comparison Values 1 |
|||
| Concentration Range (ppb) | Average Concentration (ppb) |
Concentration Range (ppb) |
Average Concentration (ppb) |
Concentration (ppb) |
Type | |
| Arsenic |
ND - 3.2 J
|
1.6
|
ND - 51
|
14
|
2.0
5000 |
CREG2
MCL2 |
| Cadmium |
5 - 58.3
|
36
|
ND - 30
|
9.3
|
200
500 |
EMEG-child2
MCL2 |
| Lead |
ND - 31.8
|
17
|
ND - 18
|
6.0
|
1500
|
EPA Action Level2
|
| Manganese |
ND - 300
|
107
|
45 - 289
|
210
|
5000
|
RMEG-child2
|
Table B6. Completed Exposure Pathways
| Pathway Name/ Media: |
Surface Soil (On-site) | Sediment (On-site) | Surface Water |
| Source: | TFM | TFM | TFM |
| Exposure Point: | on-site surface soil/ waste piles |
northern ponds, southern impoundments, ditches | northern ponds, southern impoundments, ditches |
| Exposure Route: | ingestion | ingestion | ingestion |
| Likely Exposed Population: | on-site residents visitors/trespassers smelter workers (1914-25) |
on-site residents visitors/trespassers/fishers smelter workers (1914-25) |
on-site residents visitors/trespassers/fishers smelter workers (1914-25) |
| Exposure Period: | past current future |
past current future |
past current future |
| Contaminants potentially of public health interest | metals - arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, zinc | metals - antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, zinc | metals - arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese |
| Comments | Residential area has lower concentrations than waste piles. No children currently live on site. As this site is somewhat isolated, trespassing would be limited, but has occurred. | Exposure to sediments is limited. Past levels are not known. | This water is not used for drinking water; exposure would be incidental during recreational activities such as fishing. Swimming in the past has been reported . |
| NOTE: THE PRESENCE OF AN EXPOSURE PATHWAY IN THIS TABLE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT AN EXPOSURE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIVE OR THAT AN ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT WOULD OCCUR | |||
Table B7. Other Pathways Considered
| Pathway Name/ Media: |
Soil (off-site) | Surface Water (off-site) | Groundwater | Air | Sediment (off-site) | Biota/Food chain |
| Source: | TFM | TFM & possible Collinsville smelter | TFM | TFM | TFM & possibly Collinsville smelter | TFM |
| Exposure Point: | 1) near site 2) possibly residential driveways, or anywhere smelter waste was deposited |
ditches off-site and intermittent streams | on-site residence tap water | on-site | ditches off-site and intermittent streams | Residences nearby Wherever fish or berries or goat milk are consumed |
| Exposure Route: | ingestion inhalation (dust) |
ingestion | ingestion | inhalation | ingestion | ingestion |
| Likely Exposed Population: | nearby residents | nearby residents, children playing in stream | on-site resident | past & future workers on-site resident |
nearby residents, children playing in stream | nearby residents who ingest berries & fish gathered from site or ingest milk from goat which roams site. |
| Exposure Period: | past current future |
past current future |
future | past future |
past current future |
past current future |
| Contaminants potentially of health interest | metals | metals | metals | metals sulfur dioxide (during operation of smelter) |
metals | metals |
| Comments | The extent of off-site soil contamination is unclear. The possibility of off-site disposal of slag/waste in driveways, roads, tracks exists, but has not been investigated. | Limited sampling. The downstream ditches and streams are not used for drinking water. | Limited sampling. One on-site well did not show metal contamination. Currently, on-site resident does not drink the well water. | Recent sampling shows no significant contamination. In the past, smelter workers could have been exposed SO2, etc. Any future soil removal would have the potential to increase dust in air. | Limited sampling. Exposure would be limited. | Reports of fishing & berry-picking on-site have been made. Frequency is unknown. Low levels of a few metals were detected in catfish fillet. Berries have not been sampled. Goat has been seen on-site - no sampling data. |
| NOTE: THE PRESENCE OF AN EXPOSURE PATHWAY IN THIS TABLE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT AN EXPOSURE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIVE OR THAT AN ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT WOULD OCCUR | ||||||
Appendix C - Comparison Values
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide.
An estimated comparison concentration for which exposure is unlikely to cause adverse
health effects, determined by ATSDR from its toxicological profiles for a specific chemical.
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation guide
A comparison concentration that is based on EPA's estimate of the daily exposure to a
contaminant that is unlikely to cause adverse health effects.
CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
A comparison concentration that is based on an excess cancer rate of one in a million persons
and is calculated using EPA's cancer slope factor.
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLs represent contaminant concentrations in drinking water that EPA deems protective of
public health (considering the availability and economics of water treatment technology).
EPA Action Level:
The estimated contaminant concentrations in water where additional evaluation is needed to
determine if action is required to eliminate or reduce exposure. Action levels can be based
on mathematical models.
EPA SSL = Environmental Protection Agency Soil Screening Level
A level of a contaminant in the soil that is used to identify areas needing further investigation
at National Priority List (NPL) sites.
Appendix D - Evaluation Process
In evaluating these data, ATSDR used comparison values to determine which chemicals to examine more closely. Comparison values are health-based thresholds below which no known or anticipated adverse human health effects occur. Comparison values can be based on cancer or non-cancer health effects. Non-cancer levels are based on the lowest (i.e., most toxic) valid toxicological study for a chemical and the assumption that a small child (22 lbs.) is exposed every day. Cancer levels are the media concentrations where there would be a one in a million excess cancer risk for an adult eating contaminated soil everyday for 70 years. For chemicals for which both cancer and non-cancer numbers exist, the more toxic (i.e., lower) level is used. A description of the comparison values used in this evaluation can be found in Appendix C. Exceeding a comparison value does not mean that health effects will occur, just that more evaluation is needed.
Further evaluation focuses on identifying which chemicals and exposure situations are likely to be a health hazard. The first step is the calculation of child and adult exposure doses, as described in Appendix E. These are then compared to an appropriate health guideline for a chemical. An exposure dose is the amount of chemical ingested daily per unit of body weight. Health guidelines are the amount of chemical per unit of body weight where health effects very likely do not occur, based on investigations of human exposures to the chemical, or, if human data don't exist or are not valid, of animal experiments. Most health guidelines are based on animal data. The results of these calculations are presented in Tables E1 through E3 starting on page 37. Any exposure situation, where the exposure dose is lower than a health guideline, is eliminated from further evaluation.
The next step in the evaluation process is determining whether the worst case exposure situations used in earlier calculations need to be revised to better fit the actual situation.
The last evaluation step is the comparison of these revised exposure doses to known toxicological values for the chemical of concern. This would include the no observed and lowest observed adverse health effects levels (NOAEL & LOAEL) identified in ATSDR Toxicological Profiles. If the chemical of concern is a carcinogen, the cancer risk is recalculated using the revised exposure dose. These comparisons are the basis for stating whether the exposure might be a health hazard or not.
Appendix E - Calculation of Environmental Exposure Doses
Calculation of Exposure Dose from Ingestion of Contaminated Soil or Sediment
The exposure doses for ingestion of contaminated soil or sediment were calculated in the following manner. The maximum or mean concentration for a chemical in soil or sediment were multiplied by the soil ingestion rate for adults, 0.0001 kg/day, or the rate for children, 0.0002 kg/day. This product was divided by the average weight for an adult, 70 kg (154 pounds), or for a small child, 10 kg (22 pounds). Those calculations assume that there is frequent daily exposure to soil or sediment contaminated at the specified level. The results of the actual calculations are recorded in Tables E1 through E2 which are on the following pages.
Calculation of Exposure Dose from Ingestion of Contaminated Surface Water
The exposure doses for ingestion of contaminated surface water were calculated in the following manner. The maximum or mean concentration for a chemical in surface water was multiplied by a surface water ingestion rate for adults, 0.02 liters/day, or a rate for children, 0.01 liters/day. This product was divided by the average weight for an adult, 70 kg (154 pounds), or for a small child, 10 kg (22 pounds). Those calculations assume that there is daily exposure to surface water contaminated at the specified level. The results of the actual calculations are recorded in Table E3 which follows.
Calculation of Risk of Carcinogenic Effects
Carcinogenic risks from the ingestion of soil, sediment, or surface water were calculated using the following procedure. The adult exposure doses for ingestion of soil, sediment, or surface water were calculated as described previously, then multiplied by the EPA's Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) for that chemical (16). The results of the calculation of carcinogenic risk from exposure can be found on Tables E1 through E3 which are on the following pages.
The actual risk of cancer is probably lower than the calculated number. The
method used to calculate EPA's Cancer Slope Factor assumes that high dose animal
data can be used to estimate the risk for low dose exposures in humans (17).
The method also assumes that there is no safe level for exposure (18). There
is little experimental evidence to confirm or refute those two assumptions.
Lastly, the method computes the 95% upper bound for the risk, rather than the
average risk, which results in there being a very good chance that the risk
is actually lower, perhaps several orders of magnitude (19). One order of magnitude
is 10 times greater or lower than the original number, while two orders of magnitude
are 100 times, and three orders 1,000 times.
TABLE E1 - ESTIMATED EXPOSURE DOSES AND CANCER RISK FOR ON-SITE SOIL CONTAMINANTS COMPARED TO HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR INGESTION1
| Contaminant | Level in parts per million (ppm) | Estimated Adult Exposure Doses in mg/kg/day* | Estimated Child Exposure Doses in mg/kg/day* | Health Guideline in mg/kg/day* | Source of Guideline | Cancer Risk |
| Maximum Arsenic Level | 864 | 0.001 | 0.02 | 0.0003 | MRL2 | 2 in 1,0003 |
| Mean Arsenic Level | 138 | 0.0002 | 0.003 | 0.0003 | MRL2 | 3 in 10,0004 |
| Maximum Cadmium Level | 275 | 0.0004 | 0.006 | 0.0002 | MRL2 | No CSF5 |
| Mean Cadmium Level | 119 | 0.0002 | 0.002 | 0.0002 | MRL2 | No CSF5 |
| Maximum Copper Level | 4,023 | 0.006 | 0.08 | 0.04 | pRfD6 | not carcinogen |
| Mean Copper Level | 659 | 0.0009 | 0.01 | 0.04 | pRfD6 | not carcinogen |
| Maximum Lead Level | 36,565 | 0.05 | 0.7 | None available7 | -- | No CSF5 |
| Mean Lead Level | 4,992 | 0.007 | 0.1 | None available7 | -- | No CSF5 |
| Maximum Manganese Level | 45,655 | 0.07 | 0.91 | 0.14 | RfD8 | not carcinogen |
| Mean Manganese Level | 5,641 | 0.008 | 0.11 | 0.14 | RfD8 | not carcinogen |
| Maximum Zinc Level | 104,232 | 0.15 | 2.08 | 0.3 | MRL2 | not carcinogen |
| Mean Zinc Level | 27,842 | 0.04 | 0.56 | 0.3 | MRL2 | not carcinogen |
TABLE E2 - ESTIMATED EXPOSURE DOSES AND CANCER RISK FOR ON-SITE SEDIMENT CONTAMINANTS COMPARED TO HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR INGESTION1
| Contaminant | Level in parts per million (ppm) | Estimated Adult Exposure Doses in mg/kg/day* | Estimated Child Exposure Doses in mg/kg/day* | Health Guideline in mg/kg/day* | Source of Guideline | Cancer Risk |
| Maximum Arsenic Level | 110 | 0.0002 | 0.002 | 0.0003 | MRL2 | 2 in 10,0003 |
| Mean Arsenic Level | 14 | 0.00002 | 0.0003 | 0.0003 | MRL2 | 3 in 100,0004 |
| Maximum Cadmium Level | 189 | 0.0003 | 0.004 | 0.0002 | MRL2 | No CSF5 |
| Mean Cadmium Level | 33 | 0.00005 | 0.0007 | 0.0002 | MRL2 | No CSF5 |
TABLE E3 - ESTIMATED EXPOSURE DOSES AND CANCER RISK FOR SURFACE WATER CONTAMINANTS COMPARED TO HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR INGESTION1
| Contaminant | Level in parts per million (ppm) | Estimated Adult Exposure Doses in mg/kg/day* | Estimated Child Exposure Doses in mg/kg/day* | Health Guideline in mg/kg/day* | Source of Guideline | Cancer Risk |
| Maximum Arsenic Level | 0.05 | 0.00001 | 0.00005 | 0.0003 | MRL2 | 3 in 100,0003 |
| Mean Arsenic Level | 0.01 | 0.000003 | 0.00001 | 0.0003 | MRL2 | 7 in 1,000,0004 |