A Review of an Exposure Assessment Strategy. Applied to Dockworkers in the Petroleum Industry

Transcription

1 A Review of an Exposure Assessment Strategy Applied to Dockworkers in the Petroleum Industry Ted Grigorieff Project Report submitted to the Graduate College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Industrial and Management Systems Engineering/ Industrial Hygiene Committee Members: Dr. Warren Myers, Ph.D., Chair Dr. Steven Guffey, Ph.D. Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering And Dr. Michael McCawley, Ph.D. Department of Occupational and Environmental Health Science Morgantown, West Virginia 2013 Keywords: Exposure Assessment, Industrial Hygiene, Benzene, Petroleum, Oil and Gas, Bayesian Decision Analysis, Occupational Exposure Limit, Qualitative Assessment, Quantitative Assessment, Compliance Copyright 2013 Theodore N. Grigorieff

2 Abstract A Review of an Exposure Assessment Strategy Applied to Dockworkers in the Petroleum Industry Theodore N. Grigorieff A petroleum company s exposure assessment strategy that combined qualitative exposure assessment and quantitative industrial hygiene exposure monitoring using Bayesian statistical analysis was applied to five years of full-shift and task-based exposure data from the three SEGs of Light Product River Terminal Operator, Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman, and Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman. Each step in the process placed the 95 th percentile of the exposure data for a chemical agent into one of five risk categories. The historical exposure data monitored for five chemicals: benzene, toluene, xylene, n-hexane, and total organic vapor (TOV). The exposure data were used to verify predefined SEGs and SETs based on company criteria, judge exposure profiles according to company s risk tolerance guidelines, and determine if the risk categories for each chemical established by the qualitative assessments captured the risk categories generated from quantitative sampling. Finally, a true risk category resulting from the integrated Bayesian Analysis was reported for each SEG s full-shift and task-related exposure profiles. The company defined a SEG or a SET as having exposure data with a lognormal distribution and a geometric standard deviation (gsd) equal to or less than four. All SEGs met the criteria. Most SETs supported the lognormal distribution hypothesis but several had gsds greater than four. The SET results agreed with other published papers that reported gsds greater than four for short-term tasks associated with dockworkers. The company accepted risk tolerance for a SEG s full-shift or task-based exposure sampling data was a 95 th percentile below the occupational exposure limit (OEL) and an exceedance fraction of less than 5%. Both Light Product River Terminal Operators and Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman had full-shift exposure profiles within company guidelines. The task-based benzene exposure data was acceptable for both SEGs with the exception of the task connect product line and the combined task of gauge barge compartment/ collect product sample when performed by Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen. The TOV exposure data for numerous SETs in both the Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen and Light Product River Terminal Operators SEGs failed to meet the compliance guidelines. Refinery Chemical Dock Tankermens full-shift and task-based exposure data for benzene did not meet the compliance guidelines, but all workers wore respiratory protection to mitigate the exposure concerns. The risk categories established by the qualitative assessments were successful in capturing the risk categories obtained through quantitative sampling for full-shift exposures. For task-based exposures, the qualitative assessments were not successful at identifying Category 4 exposures (predicted exposure > 100% OEL). This identified one gap in the formula used to calculate an Exposure Rating (ER) value for the Health Risk Rating (HRR) equation that produced the initial score that predicted the 95 th percentile of the exposure data into one of the five exposure risk categories. Using worst case values for a gas or vapor in the ER formula, the resulting score could not produce a Category 4 ER value. Category 4 exposures were identified throughout the quantitative sampling data for both benzene and TOV.

3 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Similar Exposure Groups (SEGs) and Similar Exposure Tasks (SETs) 2 Chemical Agents 5 Methods: Qualitative Analysis Calculation of the Health Risk Rating (HRR) 5 Calculation of the Exposure Rating (ER) Value for the HRR 8 Quantitative Sampling 10 Company Criteria for Defined SEGs and SETs 11 Results Similar Exposure Groups 12 Results Similar Exposure Task Product Line Connection/ Disconnection 13 Results Similar Exposure Task Barge Compartment Gauging and Product Sample Collection 14 Results Similar Exposure Task Barge Compartment Stripping 16 Results Compliance Determination - SEGs TWA Exposures 16 Results Compliance Determination SETs of Product Line Connection and Product Line Disconnection 18 Results Compliance Determination SETs of Gauge Barge Compartment and Collect Product Sample 20 Results Compliance Determination SET of Barge Compartment Stripping 22 Discussion and Recommendations Similar Exposure Groups and Similar Exposure Tasks 22 Discussion and Recommendations TWA and STEL Compliance 25 Process Review and Recommendations 27 Citations and Reference 30 Acknowledgements 32 Appendix A Health Risk Rating Calculations 33 Appendix B Exposure Rating Calculations 34 Appendix C Historical Exposure Data 35 Appendix D IHDA Statistical Reports Light Product River Terminal Operator 46 Appendix E IHDA Statistical Reports Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman 96 Appendix F IHDA Statistical Reports Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman 130

4 Introduction In 2008, a large petroleum company implemented an exposure assessment strategy that combined qualitative exposure assessments, quantitative exposure monitoring, and Bayesian statistical analysis. First, similar exposure groups (SEGs) were established. Next, qualitative exposure assessments were completed for each SEG s full-shift exposure profile and for the similar exposure tasks (SETs) identified for each SEG. These assessments were used to calculate the Health Risk Rating (HRR) for each chemical agent of concern for each SEG and their associated SETs. The HRR placed each SEG and SET into an initial exposure category that was used to prioritize quantitative sampling surveys. Results from qualitative and quantitative sampling data were analyzed using the Bayesian statistical program IHDA (Hewitt, 2011). The end result of exposure assessment strategy was to determine the true exposure category for each SEG and SET. This exposure assessment strategy was applied to the historical data collected from 2008 through 2012 for three SEGs in the business unit of Terminal and Transport: Light Product River Terminal Operator, Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman, and Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman. Three questions were addressed: 1. Were the SEGs and their associated SETs identified during the qualitative assessments accurately established based on the following criteria when applied to the historical sampling data: a. The sample population s exposure data supported the lognormal distribution hypothesis based on the results of the Filliben s Test b. The sample population s exposure data had a geometric standard deviation (gsd) equal to or less than 4 2. Were the SEGs historical full-shift and task-based exposure data to benzene, toluene, xylene, n-hexane, and total organic vapor (TOV) in compliance with the company s acceptable risk tolerance to internal occupational exposure limits (OELs) for time weighted average (TWA) and short term exposure limits (STELs)? 1

5 3. Did the calculation of the Health Risk Rating (HRR) for each SEG and SET predict the exposure risk category generated from the historical personal exposure monitoring and what was the final exposure risk category generated from the integrated exposure assessment? Similar Exposure Groups (SEGs) and Similar Exposure Tasks (SETs) Company industrial hygienists established SEGs based on the business unit, the geographical location, the process unit, the job title and task descriptions, and the chemical agents of concern. The qualitative exposure assessments for SEGs were conducted in the fall of 2009 by industrial hygienist trained in the company s exposure assessment strategy. The assessments included observations of work activities, process location walkthroughs, interviews with employees, and reviews of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). The historical data for three SEGs were selected for further review because qualitative assessments predicted exposure concerns: 1. Light Product River Terminal Operators off-loaded gasoline from river barges and into bulk distribution terminal tank farms. This SEG combined the exposure data from five separate light product river terminals. 2. Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen loaded river barges with gasoline for transport to the river terminals. 3. Refinery Chemical Dock Tankermen off-loaded benzene from river barges for use at the refinery. During the qualitative review, two different full-shift exposures profiles were originally identified and characterized for each of the three SEGs; the person-in-charge (PIC) and the tankerman. The PIC managed activities from an office on the dock, performed individual tasks such as barge compartment gauging, and assisted the tankerman with certain tasks such as product line connection and disconnection. The tankerman was required by United States Cost Guard regulations to remain on the barge at all times during product loading or offloading. These two roles were clearly defined at some locations and difficult to separate at others. For this reason, the PIC and the tankerman 2

6 were combined into a single, full-shift exposure profile for the hazardous chemical agents present in the work environment. The SETs identified for the three SEGs were barge compartment gauging, product sample collection, product line connection/ disconnection, and barge compartment stripping. To summarize each SET: a. Gauge Barge Compartment. Each compartment of a barge was manually gauged utilizing a wooden stick to measure the amount of liquid cargo. Light Product River Terminal Operators performed barge compartment gauging prior to offloading a barge. Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman gauged a barge after it was loaded. Work practices varied and compartment gauging was often performed in combination with product sample collection. At the refinery chemical dock, barges were gauged by a third party tankerman and not included as an SET for Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman. Gauging took between 10 and 20 minutes per barge. b. Product Sample Collection. Light Product River Terminal Operators and Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman collected product samples prior to off-loading a barge. Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman collected samples after a barge was loaded. Different numbers and types of samples were collected across all terminals and different work practices were observed. Product sample collection was often combined with barge compartment gauging. Product sample collection took between 10 and 20 minutes. c. Product Line Connection/ Line Disconnection. During product line connection, a flex hose attached to the dock s product pipe was connected to the product pipe of a barge s piping manifold. At the refinery light product dock, the flex hose of the dock s vapor line was also connected to the vapor pipe on a barge s piping manifold. To accomplish the connection, metal blinds were removed from the barge s piping manifold and the flex hose. The flex hose was then bolted to the barge s product piping manifold. Product line disconnection was the same 3

7 process, but in reverse. Product line connection and disconnection were completed by both the PIC and the tankerman working together. Both tasks took between 10 and 20 minutes. Originally, product line connection and product line disconnection were identified as two separate SETs. In the final review of the qualitative analysis, a decision was made to combine these two tasks into a single SET. The reasoning was that the two tasks were very similar and had identical Health Risk Ratings (HRRs). For this report, the decision to combine these two tasks into a single SET was reviewed by using the criteria for a properly defined SET. d. Strip Barge Compartment. Barge compartment stripping was performed during barge offloading. During compartment stripping, the tankerman stood at an open compartment hatch or at the compartment site glass and observed product level as the last of the product drained from a compartment. As a compartment emptied, the compartment valve was slowly closed to reduce the flow of product out of the compartment and minimize air from entering the off-load system. If too much air was allowed into the off-load process, the barge pump would lose vacuum and the product would cease to flow. Compartments were stripped in pairs as a barge was off-loaded; the bow compartments were emptied first, followed by the middle set, and finally the stern compartments. Barge compartment stripping was not performed during loading operations and therefore not included as a SET for Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen. Tank stripping took between 15 and 30 minutes per set. Every SEG had a full-shift exposure profile. The four indentified SETs were not performed within each SEG. Table 1 summarizes the exposure profiles included for each SEG. 4

8 Table 1: Observed exposure profiles for each SEG Similar Exposure Group Full-shift Line Connection Gauge Barge Product Sample Strip Barge and Compartment Collection Compartment Disconnection Light Product River Terminal Operator Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Yes Yes Yes Yes No Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman Yes No Yes Yes Yes Chemical Agents Benzene, toluene, xylene, and n-hexane were identified as chemical agents of concern. Due to the chemical complexity of gasoline, total organic vapor (TOV) was included as a fifth chemical agent. TOV concentration was determined by NIOSH Method 1550 for naphtha. To calculate an exposure concentration for TOV in parts per million (ppm), the petroleum company used n-hexane as a surrogate molecular weight for TOV. The petroleum company had internal OELs that were either identical to or more conservative than established OSHA permissible exposure limits (PELs). These OELs were used for compliance determination. Table 2 summarizes the petroleum company s OELs and the OSHA PELs for the five chemicals. Table 2: Chemical agent of concern and their associated OEL and PEL Chemical Agent Time Weighted Average (TWA) Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) Internal Standard, ppm OSHA PEL, ppm Internal Standard, ppm OSHA Standard, ppm Benzene Toluene NA 1 NA 1 Xylene NA n-hexane NA NA TOV (as n-hexane) 100 NA 150 NA 1 Toluene had a ceiling limit of 300 PPM that was recognized by both the petroleum company and OSHA. 2 The petroleum company had an internal STEL for xylene but analysis was not included because the highest STEL reported for Xylene (2.84 PPM) was only 1.9 % of the internal OEL. Methods: Qualitative Analysis Calculation on the Health Risk Rating (HRR) Qualitative exposure assessments were used to calculate the Health Risk Rating (HRR) for each chemical agent associated with a SEG s full-shift and task-based profiles. The 5

9 resulting score placed each chemical agent into one of the five exposure risk categories defined in Table 3. The exposure risk categories established interim engineering controls and prioritized quantitative personal exposure sampling. Appendix A provides the calculated HRR score for each SEG s full shift and task-based exposure profiles. Table 3: Exposure Risk Categories Established by the Calculation of the HRR HRR Exposure Risk Category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2 Category 1 Category 0 Description Exposure conditions are unacceptable and over the OEL. Establish interim controls and conduct survey to assess exposures within one year of initial assessment Exposure conditions are likely over the action limit and have the potential to be over the OEL. Establish interim controls and assess exposures with one year of initial assessment Moderate exposure potential but exposure results are expected to be below the action level. Assess personal exposures within two years of initial assessment Low exposure potential. Assess personal exposures within three years of initial assessment No exposure expected. Assess within five years of initial assessment The HRR for a chemical agent was a function of its toxicity, its potential for worker exposure, and the level of uncertainty in the overall qualitative assessment (Bullock and Ignacio, 2006). The company s internally developed HRR formula expanded upon the Health Risk Rating formula proposed by Bullock and Ignacio in, A Strategy for Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures (2006). The HRR was the product of the Health Effect Rating (HER), the dermal indicator, the frequency of the potential exposure to the chemical agent, the uncertainty factor (UF), and the Exposure Rating (ER). HRR = HER * Dermal * Frequency * UF * ER Each factor had a company provided numerical scale to supply values to the HRR formula: a. The Health Risk Rating (HER) was based on a chemical agent s toxicity and values were defined internally by the company s occupational and environmental health department after a comprehensive review of available information. In order of importance, the HER for a chemical was determined based on the carcinogenicity the chemical, the occupational exposure limit (PEL or TLV), and 6

10 the LD50 or LC50. Table 4 provides a general description for each potential value for the HER factor. Table 4: Values and General Criteria for the Health Effect Rating (HER) HER General Criteria for Values for the HRR Value Description 0 No health effects 1 Slight to moderate irritation 2 Moderate irritation; temporary reversible effects 3 Severely irritating; corrosive. Major injury without medical treatment 4 Life threatening or disabling injury or illness b. The dermal indicator added a multiplier if skin contact was a significant exposure route. If a skin notation was provided by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist, Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents & Biological Exposure Indices, the dermal factor was If no skin notation was documented, the multiplier was one. c. The frequency factor quantified how often a job or task was performed as determined during the qualitative exposure assessments. Values for the frequency factor are included in Table 5. Table 5: Values for the Frequency Factor in the HRR Calculation Values for Frequency in the HRR Calculation 1 Job or task is performed once or more per year 2 Job or task is performed once or more per month 3 Job or task is performed at least once per week d. Uncertainty was introduced into the HRR by a lack of toxicity data for a chemical agent, the absence of an established OEL, no available exposure monitoring data, or the inexperience of the assessor in accurately predicting any of the other HRR factors (Bullock, 2006). If an assessment lacked integrity or had significant gaps, the UF was 2. If the assessor was comfortable with the exposure assessment, the UF was 1. For this report, an UF of 2 was used for all HRR calculations. 7

11 e. The Exposure Rating (ER) value was the predicted percentage of a chemical agent s OEL expected in the work environment. Table 6 lists the values for the ER. Table 6: Values for the Exposure Rating based on Percentage of the OEL (see Bullock and Ignacio, 2006) Exposure Rating (ER) Anticipated Percentage of Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) 4 > OEL 3 50% 100% OEL 2 10% 49% of OEL 1 < 10% OEL Calculation of the Exposure Rating(ER) Value for the HRR To assist with predicting the Exposure Rating (ER) for a chemical agent, the company provided an internally developed equation: ER = (VP + BP + Emissions + Controls + Duration of Exposure) / 5 Where: VP = Value based on the Vapor Pressure of the chemical agent BP = Value based on the Boiling Point of the chemical agent The equation was a function of the potential for hazardous vapor production, the presence of established controls to eliminate or mitigate hazardous vapors, and the duration of any potential exposures. As with the HRR, the company provided numerical scales from which to obtain values for the equation a. The VP and BP factors were a measure of the volatility of the chemical agent. Vapor pressures and boiling points for each chemical agent were taken from the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Hazardous Chemicals and were used to obtain the values for VP and BP factors according to Table 7. 8

12 Table 7: Values for Vapor Pressure and Boiling Point Ranges for Use in the Exposure Rating Calculation Value Vapor Pressure Range, mm Hg Boiling Point Range, C 0.0 <0.1 >148 C >100 <27 b. The emission factor was based on the appearance of vapors and odors during task observations of the work activity and values were determined according to Table 8. Table 8: Values for the Emission Factor in the Exposure Rating Calculation The Emission Factor Value Description 0 No appearance of emission or odor throughout the task 1 Seldom appearance of emission or odor throughout the task 2 Intermittent appearance of emission or odor throughout the task 3 Appearance of emission or odor throughout the task 4 Sensory response reported c. The control factor was based on whether or not effective engineering controls were in place to mitigate potential worker exposure. Values were selected according to Table 9. Table 9: Values for Established Controls Factor in the Exposure Rating Calculation Established Controls Value Description -1 Closed systems 0 Closed system. Potential for release to work area at identified points in process. Effective engineering controls in place to control exposures at open points 1 Open system. Effective engineering controls in place to contain/ remove airborne contaminants from work environment or a combination open/closed system 4 Open system. Ineffective or no engineering controls in place. PPE and administrative controls usual method for minimizing worker exposure 5 Open system. No program in place to minimize worker exposure. Visual or airborne contaminants, odors, or sensory response indicate potential exposures exist 9

13 d. The value for the duration of exposure factor reflected the amount of time needed to complete the job or task as defined in Table 10. Table10: Values for Duration Factor in the Exposure Rating Calculation Duration of Exposure Factors Value Range 0 <5 minutes per day 1 5 minutes 1.5 hours per day 2 >1.5 hours per day 3 hours per day 3 >3 hours per day 6 hours per day 4 >6 hours per day Once the value for each multiplier was determined for each chemical agent, the ER was calculated and the resulting score was incorporated into the HRR calculation. A complete listing of all the calculated ERs values used for this report is in Appendix B. Quantitative Sampling The historical personal exposure monitoring data was collected between 2008 and The majority of the sampling was conducted in July and August as required by the USCG benzene standard 46CFR (c) which states that, monitoring must be repeated each July or August if benzene containing cargoes are carried during these months (1991). Additional exposure monitoring was conducted during other months. Data forms were submitted for each personal exposure sample. These forms were reviewed and used to categorize each sample as a SEG s TWA or STEL exposure sample. Information on submitted reports included: Environmental data Personal protection equipment used by employees A description of the work activity Pre and post pump calibrations and average flow rates reported to the laboratory The time of day that the sampling occurred The duration of the sampling. 10

14 Based on the review, all STEL samples were collect on 150 mg charcoal sorbent tubes (SKC ) that were connected to sampling pumps pre and post calibrated with a primary calibrator. All samples were collected in the breathing zone of the monitored employee. TWA exposure samples were collected utilizing 3M 3500 or 3M 3520 passive diffusion monitors that were placed in the employees breathing zone. All samples were shipped to an AIHA accredited laboratory for analysis and the exposure results were reported in micrograms (μg), milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m 3 ), and parts per million (ppm). All exposure concentrations, in ppm, were recalculated and verified using the information available on the submitted data forms and the micrograms of chemical reported by the lab. All recalculated concentrations with comparison to the reported laboratory results are in Appendix C. Company Criteria for Defined SEGs and SETs Two criteria were used to verify the SEG and SET exposure profiles identified during the qualitative assessments: the Filliben s Test for Lognormal Distribution and the sample population s geometric standard deviation (gsd) (Hewitt, 2001). A combination of a lognormal distribution and a gsd equal to or less than four in the exposure data confirmed a SEG or SET. Personal exposure monitoring data were hypothesized to be log-normally distributed, and the Filliben s Test for Log-normal Distribution is an accepted quantitative method for testing this hypothesis (Hewitt, 2001). All available exposure data were used including censored data points. Values for censored data were determined using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) method (Bullock, 2006). Using the Filliben s Test, the lognormal distribution hypothesis was supported if the calculated correlation coefficient, r, of the exposure data were greater than the critical r that was based on the sample size (n) (Hewitt, 2001). The sample population s geometric standard deviation (gsd) was a measure of variability in the distribution; the higher the geometric standard deviation, the more variability observed in the data set. As the variability increased in a data set, the more likely that the underlying sample distribution represented two or more SEGs/ SETs. The 11

15 petroleum company used a gsd greater than four to indicate that the exposure data may represent two separate or overlapping SEG/ SETs. Results - Similar Exposure Groups All SEGs TWA exposure monitoring data were inputted into the statistical software and the results for the Filliben s Test and the geometric standard deviation are reported in Table 11. Table 11: Filliben's Test for Log-normal distribution and the Geometric Standard Deviation for all SEGs Filliben s Test for the Lognormal Distribution Hypothesis and the Geometric Standard Deviation All SEGs Accept/ Reject Similar Sample Geometric Chemical Detection Filliben s Test Filliben s Test Lognormal Exposure Task Population Standard Agent Frequency Critical r Calculated r Distribution Group (n) Deviation Hypothesis Benzene % Accept 3.04 Toluene % Accept 2.26 LPRT-O TWA Xylene % Reject 2.9 n-hexane % Accept 2.64 TOV % Reject 4.94 Benzene % Accept 2.44 Toluene % Accept 1.85 RLPD-T TWA Xylene % Reject 1.96 n-hexane % Accept 2.04 TOV % Accept 1.98 RCD-T TWA Benzene % Accept 2.56 Benzene, toluene, n-hexane, and TOV s TWA exposure data provided strong evidence that all three SEGs were accurately defined. With one exception, the log-normal distribution hypothesis was supported and no gsd was greater than four across all SEGs TWA exposure data to these four chemicals. TOV TWA exposure data for Light Product River Terminal Operators did not support the lognormal distribution hypothesis and the gsd was greater the four (4.94). No xylene TWA exposure data supported the lognormal distribution hypothesis, likely due to highly censored data sets. However, all other chemical exposure data were lognormally distributed, so the xylene data were assumed to be lognormally distributed as well. 12

16 Results Similar Exposure Task Product Line Connection/ Disconnection STEL exposure data for product line connection and disconnection were analyzed as individual SETs and as the combined SET that was established after the qualitative assessments. Data for the separated and combined tasks are displayed in Table 12. Table 12: Filliben's Test for Log-normal distribution and the Geometric Standard Deviation for Product Line Connection and Product Line Disconnection Filliben s Test for the Lognormal Distribution Hypothesis and the Geometric Standard Deviation Product Line Connection/ Disconnection All SEGs SEG Task Chemical Agent Sample Population Detection Frequency Filliben s Test Critical r Filliben s Test Calculated r Accept/ Reject Lognormal Distribution Hypothesis Geometric Standard Deviation LPRT-O RLPD-T Connect Product Line Disconnect Product Line Combined Connect Product Line Disconnect Product Line Combined Benzene % Accept 4.95 TOV % Accept 5.27 Benzene % Reject 3.41 TOV % Accept 5.2 Benzene % Reject 5.67 TOV % Accept 6.73 Benzene % Accept 3.91 TOV 8 100% Accept 2.95 Benzene % Accept 4.52 TOV % Accept 3.72 Benzene % Accept 4.47 TOV % Accept 3.42 RCD-T Connect Product Line Benzene 9 100% Accept 3.95 Disconnect Product line Benzene 7 100% Accept 2.5 Combined Benzene % Accept 3.38 Light Product River Terminal Operators benzene exposures data during product line connection supported the lognormal distribution hypothesis, but the gsd was greater than four (4.95). Benzene exposure data during product line disconnection had reverse results; the lognormal distribution hypothesis was not supported but the gsd was acceptable (3.41). Also, a much lower detection frequency was observed in the benzene exposure data (31.3%) during product line disconnection. Benzene exposure 13

17 data in the combined SET did not support the lognormal distribution hypothesis and had a gsd greater than four (5.67). The lognormal distribution hypothesis was supported for the TOV exposure data for all three SETs, but the gsd was greater than four in all three task groupings with the most variability in the combined task (6.73). Refinery Light Product Dock Operators benzene exposure data supported the lognormal distributed hypothesis across all task combinations, but had gsds greater than four during product line disconnection (4.52) and the combined SET (4.47). TOV exposures met the criteria for a SET in all three task combinations. For all three SET groupings, the Refinery Chemical Dock Tankermen benzene exposure date accepted the lognormal distribution hypothesis and the gsds were less than 4. Results Similar Exposure Task Barge Compartment Gauging and Product Sample Collection Analyses included the STEL exposure data for the individual SETs for barge compartment gauging and product sample collection, a combined SET during which a worker performed both tasks simultaneously, and a further combined SET consisting of the other three data sets. The combined analyses were necessary due to these two tasks being performed simultaneously during some sampling surveys. Table 13 displays results for the Filliben s Test and the calculation of the gsd for all four SETs. For Light Product River Terminal Operators, only the TOV exposure data during barge compartment gauging had a gsd greater than four (4.3). All other gsds were less than four and the lognormal distribution hypothesis was supported across all other SET groupings. Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermens benzene exposure data during the individual task groupings had small sample populations (n=4) and low detection frequencies (25% for barge compartment gauging, 50% for sample collection) making lognormal hypothesis testing and gsd calculations unreliable. The TOV exposure data for the individual tasks supported the lognormal distribution hypothesis but barge compartment 14

18 gauging had a gsd greater than four (9.45). When performed as one task, both benzene and TOV exposure data met the SET criteria. When exposure data for all three SETs were combined into a single SET, the data supported the lognormal distribution hypothesis for both benzene and TOV, but the gsds were greater than four (benzene = 7.47, TOV = 6.09). At the Refinery Chemical Dock, Tankermen did not gauge the barge compartments. The lognormal distribution was supported and the gsd was less than four (3.36) for the benzene exposure data during product sample collection. Table 13: Results for the Filliben's Test for Log-normal distribution and the Geometric Standard Deviation for Barge Compartment Gauging and Product Sample Collection Filliben s Test for the Lognormal Distribution Hypothesis and the Geometric Standard Deviation Barge Compartment Gauge and Product Sample Collection All SEGs SEG Task Chemical Agent Sample Population Detection Frequency Filliben s Test Critical r Filliben s Test Calculated r Accept/ Reject Lognormal Distribution Hypothesis Geometric Standard Deviation LPRT-O RLPD-T RCD-T Gauge Barge Compartment Collect Product Sample Gauge/ Sample Combined SET Gauge Barge Compartment Collect Product Sample Gauge/ Sample as One Task Combined SET Collect Product Sample Benzene % Accept 3.36 TOV % Accept 4.3 Benzene 9 100% Accept 2.29 TOV 9 100% Accept 2.71 Benzene 6 100% Accept 1.96 TOV 6 100% Accept 2.06 Benzene % Accept 2.55 TOV % Accept 3.13 Benzene 4 25% Reject - TOV 4 75% Accept 9.45 Benzene 4 50% Accept 5.2 TOV 4 100% Accept 2.27 Benzene 5 100% Accept 1.73 TOV 5 100% Accept 1.76 Benzene % Accept 7.47 TOV % Accept 6.09 Benzene 5 100% Accept

19 Results Similar Exposure Task Strip Barge Compartment Filliben s Test results and gsd calculations for STEL exposure data during barge compartment stripping are included in Table 14. Light Product River Terminal Operators benzene exposure data did not support the lognormal distribution hypothesis but the gsd was less than four (3.37). TOV exposure data for Light Product River Terminal Operators did not support the lognormal distribution hypothesis and had a gsd greater than four (6.27). For Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman, the benzene exposure data met the criteria for an SET. However, the sample population was only three and additional sampling was needed to further verify this task as a SET. Table 14: Results for the Filliben's Test for Log-normal distribution and the Geometric Standard Deviation for Barge Compartment Stripping SEG Filliben s Test for the Lognormal Distribution Hypothesis and the Geometric Standard Deviation Strip Compartment All SEGs Accept/ Reject Chemical Sample Detection Filliben s Test Filliben s Test Task Lognormal Agent Population Frequency Critical r Calculated r Distribution Hypothesis Geometric Standard Deviation LPRT-O RCD-T Strip Barge Compartment Strip Barge Compartment Benzene % Reject 3.37 TOV % Reject 6.27 Benzene % Accept 2.02 Results - Compliance Determination SEGs TWA Exposures The company s acceptable risk tolerance for the exposure data were a sample population s exceedance fraction of less than 5% and point estimate of the 95 th percentile below the OEL. The results for the TWA exposure data to the chemical agents of concern for each SEG are provided in Table

20 Table 15: Compliance Determination for TWA Exposure Profiles - All SEGs Compliance Determination TWA Exposure Profile All Docks SEG Task and Sample Population (n) Chemical Agent Detection Frequency Max Detect (ppm) Geometric Mean (ppm) 90% Confidence Interval - Geometric Mean 95 th Percentile (ppm) Exceedance Fraction OEL (ppm) Compliant LPRT-O RLPD-T RCD-T TWA (n = 31) TWA (n = 14) TWA (n = 10) Benzene 80.6% % 1 Yes Toluene 83.9% % 20 Yes Xylene 22.6% % 100 Yes n-hexane 87.1% % 50 Yes TOV 93.5% % 100 Yes Benzene 92.9% % 1 Yes Toluene 100% % 20 Yes Xylene 57.1% % 100 Yes n-hexane 85.7% % 50 Yes TOV 100% % 100 Yes Benzene 100% % 1 No Except for the Refinery Chemical Dock Tankermens benzene exposure data, no overexposures were documented to any chemical agent at any dock and all TWA exposure data were compliant. At the Refinery Chemical Dock, the highest TWA exposure result for benzene was 4.4 ppm, a result 4 times greater than the OEL. The geometric mean of the sample population (1.2 ppm) and the point estimate of the 95 th percentile (5.64 ppm) were both above the OEL of 1 ppm. An exceedance fraction of 57.8% suggested that more than half of future sampling results can be expected to exceed the OEL. Benzene exposure data were not corrected for respiratory protection and Refinery Chemical Dock Tankermen wore full-face air purifying respirators (APR) with organic vapor (OV) cartridges at all times when working on a benzene barge. Use of an APR with OV cartridges is an accepted work practice for benzene exposure control in the OSHA Standards for General Industry (2003). Although the benzene TWA exposure data were often above the OEL at the chemical dock, proper implementation of a respiratory protection program protected the Tankermen and effective exposures were likely below the OEL. Light Product River Terminal Operators were compliant with the TWA OELs for benzene and TOV, but the exposure data indicated that at least one sample was above the 17

21 action limit for benzene (max detect = 0.71 ppm) and TOV (max detect = 54.7 ppm). No samples were excluded from the analyses, but a review of the historical data forms revealed improper reporting by the collector for the one sample that was above the action limit. A total sample time of 285 minutes was reported for this exposure monitoring result, but the collector noted that the organic vapor monitor was capped for an additional 143 minutes while the monitored employee left the dock for a personal appointment. The total exposure time should have been corrected to 428 minutes to account for the zero exposure time that occurred during the work shift. When corrected, the sample was below the action limit for both chemical agents. Results Compliance Determination SETs of Product Line Connection and Product Line Disconnection The exposure data compliance results for the SETs of product line connection, product line disconnection, and the combined task grouping for all three SEGs are provided in Table 16. The Light Product River Terminal Operator STEL exposure data were in compliance for exposure to benzene. For the TOV STEL exposures data, only the individual SET of product line disconnection was compliant. The gsds of the combined SET exposure data indicated high variability (gsd benzene = 5.67, gsd TOV = 6.73) which suggested that the underlying distribution could be from two separate sample populations. The STEL compliance data provided additional evidence to support this. Although no benzene overexposures occurred, the exceedance fraction indicated that 3.9% of future benzene exposures during product line connection were expected to exceed the OEL while only 0.03% of future product line disconnection exposures were expected to exceed. Also, the seven highest benzene exposure results were in the individual task of product line connection. Similarly, the nine highest TOV exposures were recorded during product line connection, including one over-exposure (225 ppm). Finally, the geometric means for both the benzene and TOV exposure data during product line disconnection fell outside the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric means for these exposures during product line connection. 18

22 Table 16: Compliance Determination for the SETs of Product Line Connection and Product Line Disconnection - All SEGs Compliance Determination Product Line Connection and Disconnection All Docks SEG Task and Sample Population (n) Chemical Agent Detection Frequency Max Detect (ppm) Geometric Mean (ppm) 90% Confidence Interval - Geometric Mean 95 th Percentile (ppm) Exceedance Fraction OEL (ppm) Compliant LPRT - O Connect (n = 17) Disconnect (n = 16) Combined (n = 33) Benzene 70.6% % 5 Yes TOV 100% % 150 No Benzene 31.3% % 5 Yes TOV 68.8% % 150 Yes Benzene 51.5% % 5 Yes TOV 84.8% % 150 No RLPD-T Connect (n = 8) Disconnect (n = 11) Combined (n = 19) Benzene 87.5% % 5 No TOV 100% % 150 No Benzene 63.6% % 5 Yes TOV 100% % 150 No Benzene 73.7% % 5 No TOV 100% % 150 No Connect (n = 9) Benzene 100% % 5 No RCD-T Disconnect (n = 7) Benzene 100% % 5 No Combined (n = 16) Benzene 100% % 5 No For Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen, only product line disconnection exposure data had no benzene over-exposures and was compliant with company guidelines. This contradicted other published data that reported that, the highest exposures were associated with the disconnection of cargo loading hoses (Widner et al, 2010). Product line connection was not compliant. The two highest exposures to benzene (5.3 ppm, 4.1 ppm) occurred on the same day in 2010 during this task. These two exposure results were collected on third-party Tankermen working on the same day, at the same time, and on the same barge. The next highest benzene exposure during line connection was in compliance (1.57 ppm), however, the collector allowed a run-time of 32 minutes which was over the company s acceptable run-time for a STEL sample. 19

23 TOV short-term exposures were noncompliant in all three task groupings. The two highest exposures to TOV were also recorded in 2010 during the line connection by the two third-party tankerman with the two highest benzene exposures. No other line connections were above the company s internal OEL for TOV. Two TOV overexposures occurred during product line disconnection (179 ppm, 182 ppm). As with the Light Product River Terminal Operators, the geometric means for both the benzene and TOV exposure data suggested separate underlying distributions for product line connection and disconnection. The geometric means of the product line disconnection data were either equal to or very close to the 95% lower confidence limit for the geometric means of the exposure data from product line connection. Like the full-shift profile, benzene exposure data at the Refinery Chemical Dock were not compliant with company guidelines but exposure data were not corrected for respiratory protection. The highest exposure of 142 ppm occurred in 2009 during product line connection. Across all exposure data during product line connection and disconnection, the four highest exposures were reported during product line connection. The geometric mean of the benzene exposure data during product line connection fell outside the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean for product line disconnection. Results Compliance Determination SETs of Gauge Barge Compartment and Collect Product Sample The compliance results for the STEL exposure data in the SETs of gauge barge compartment, product sample collection, both tasks performed simultaneously and the combination of all three groupings are provided in Table 17. Only product sample collection data were provided for the refinery chemical dock because barge compartment gauging was performed by a third party tankerman. For Light Product River Terminal Operators, benzene exposure data were complaint for all four SET groupings no over exposures were identified, all 95 th percentiles were below the OEL, and all exceedance fractions were less than 5%. One TOV overexposure occurred during product sample collection and two TOV overexposures 20

24 occurred during barge compartment gauging. For all three of these samples, collection techniques were acceptable. Other short-term TOV exposures in excess of 50% of the OEL were recorded for both of the individual tasks. When performed simultaneously, the 95 th percentile (103 ppm) and the exceedance fraction (1.5%) were acceptable with only one sample was in excess of 50% of the OEL for TOV. Table 17: Compliance Determination for the SETs of Product Sample Collection and Gauge Barge Compartment - All SEGs Compliance Determination Barge Compartment Gauge and Product Sample Collection All Docks SEG Task and Sample Population (n) Chemical Agent Detection Frequency Max Detect (ppm) Geometric Mean (ppm) 90% Confidence Interval - Geometric Mean 95 th Percentile (ppm) Exceedance Fraction OEL (ppm) Compliant LPRT-O RLPR-T RCD-T Sample (n = 11) Gauge (n = 9) Sample and Gauge (n = 6) Combined (n = 26) Sample (n = 4) Gauge (n = 4) Sample and Gauge (n = 5) Combined (n = 13) Sample (n = 5) Benzene 100% % 5 Yes TOV 100% % 150 No Benzene 81.8% % 5 Yes TOV 100% % 150 No Benzene 100% % 5 Yes TOV 100% % 150 Yes Benzene 92.3% % 5 Yes TOV 100% % 150 No Benzene 50% % 5 Yes TOV 100% % 150 Yes Benzene 25% Yes TOV 75% % 150 No Benzene 100% % 5 No TOV 100% % 150 No Benzene 61.5% % 5 No TOV 92.3% % 150 No Benzene 100% % 5 No Refinery Light Product Dock Operators benzene STEL data were compliant for the individual tasks of barge compartment gauging and product sample collection, but the sample populations were small. For barge compartment gauging, only one of four samples was above the LOD for benzene. For product sample collection, only two of four samples were above the LOD for benzene. When performed simultaneously, the detection frequency was 100% and no benzene overexposures occurred, but both the 21

25 95 th percentile (5.1 ppm) and exceedance fraction (5.3%) of the data were not compliant. The TOV STEL data were compliant with company guidelines during product sample collection. For barge compartment gauging, no TOV overexposures occurred, but both the sample population s 95 th percentile (208 ppm) and the exceedance fraction (6.7%) were over company guidelines. When these two tasks were performed simultaneously, the TOV exposure data did not meet company compliance guidelines and three overexposures were recorded. Results Compliance Determination SET of Barge Compartment Stripping For both Light Product River Terminal Operators and Refinery Chemical Dock Tankermen, the STEL data for barge compartment stripping were compliant for both benzene and TOV exposures. Results are included in Table 18. Additional exposure sampling should be conducted at the refinery chemical dock because only three exposure results were available for analysis. Table 18: Compliance Determination for the SET of Strip Barge Compartment - All SEGs Compliance Determination Barge Compartment Stripping All Docks SEG LPRT-O RCD-T Task Strip Barge Compartment Strip Barge Compartment Max Geometric 90% Confidence Chemical Detection Detect Mean Interval - Agent Frequency (ppm) (ppm) Geometric Mean 95 th Percentile (ppm) Exceedance OEL Compliant Fraction (ppm) Benzene 21.1% % 5 Yes TOV 60.5% % 150 Yes Benzene 66.7% % 5 Yes Discussion and Recommendations Similar Exposure Groups and Similar Exposure Tasks For Light Product River Terminal Operators and Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen, worker exposure data to four of the five chemical agents met the SEG criteria with one exception (TOV exposures Light Product River Terminal Operator). At the refinery chemical dock, worker exposure data to benzene fit the SEG criteria. At river and refinery light product docks, SET exposure data often supported the lognormal distribution hypothesis, but had high variability as indicated by several gsds 22

26 greater than four. Widner reported gsds greater than four for task-related datasets including disconnect product hose (gsd = 14), sample product on cargo vessel (gsd = 10), and load benzene/ gasoline barge (gsd = 14) (2011). The variability in task exposure data can be influenced by numerous factors. Rappaport, Selvin, and Waters suggested the variability in exposures to hydrocarbon components of gasoline can be influenced by, random fluctuations in the process and environmental conditions (2011). Williams, Robinson, and Paustenbach noted that concentrations could vary depending on factors such as, the job task, vessel characteristics, cargo type, and sample type and duration (2005). Tasks were generally performed in a similar manner within each SEG, but the work environments were not static. Sources of variability in this study included: 1. Worker Variability a. Experience b. Work practices 2. Location Variability a. Protocols b. Controls c. Work practices d. Equipment e. Training f. Terminal management 3. Product Variability a. Chemistry b. Composition c. Prior product on a barge 4. IH Variability a. Experience b. Attention to detail 5. Environmental factors a. Temperature b. Humidity 23

27 c. Wind speed and direction Based on this study, the following SEG and SET conclusions and recommendations were made: 1. The roles of PIC and tankerman often overlapped and should be combined into a single, TWA profile for each SEG. The combined TWA exposure data met the criteria for a SEG for all three worker groups. 2. Increased variability should be expected in dock workers STEL exposure data and a gsd of less than four may be too conservative for a SET criterion during short-term tasks with few exposure controls. 3. Product line connection and product line disconnection should be separated into individual SETs. The combined SET data set had the highest variability. The individual task groupings minimized variability and accounted for the higher detection frequencies observed in the product line connection data. The STEL compliance data in all three SEGs provided additional evidence that exposures during product line connection and product line disconnection were likely from two separate SETs. 4. Barge compartment gauging and product sample collection should be monitored as both individual and combined tasks until additional exposure data is collected for Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen. Refinery Light Product Tankermen benzene exposure data were insufficient to confirm SETs in the individual tasks. The combined grouping accepted the lognormal distribution hypothesis for benzene and TOV exposures, but had gsds greater than four. 5. Barge compartment gauging and product sample collection should be combined into a single SET for Light Product River Terminal Operators. Benzene exposure data in any combination of these two tasks fit the SET criteria. TOV exposures data met SET criteria in all task groupings except for the individual task of barge compartment gauging. 6. Barge compartment stripping was not a SET for Light Product River Terminal Operators. Detection frequencies were low and the lognormal distribution 24

28 hypothesis was not supported. At the refinery chemical dock, only three samples were available for analysis and additional validation is needed. 7. As additional data becomes available, the SEG of Light Product River Terminal Operator and the associated SETs should be reevaluated to ensure that the individual docks were not unique SEGs. Analysis of variance was one technique that could be used to compare the exposure variability at an individual river terminal to the variability of the overall SEG (Bullock, 2006). 8. A final consideration in determining if a SEG/SET was correctly defined was the nature of the chemical agents of concern. Light Product River Terminal Operator and Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman handled gasoline, a complex mixture of many hydrocarbons. For one chemical agent, exposure data met the SEG/SET criteria, but did not for another chemical agent. Should a SEG or SET be defined by what was the most prevalent chemical (TOV), the most hazardous chemical (benzene), or the most volatile chemical (n-hexane)? The ultimate decision that an exposure profile was well-defined should rely not only on the results of the statistical analyses, but also on a thorough review of all of the available information; the personal monitoring results, the chemistry, the health effects, the toxicity, and the target organs for each of the chemical agents of concern. Discussion and Recommendations TWA and STEL Compliance Refinery Chemical Dock Tankermen TWA benzene exposure data were not compliant with company criteria, but these workers wore respiratory protection to reduce the effective exposure to acceptable limits. Light Product River Terminal Operators and Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen exposure data were in compliance to company TWA OELs for all five chemical agents. This agreed with other published articles that found that TWA exposures for dock workers were generally below the occupational exposure limit (Spear, Selvin, Schulamn, & Francis, 1987; Panko et al, 2009). Although the full-shift exposure data were acceptable, numerous studies suggested that the TWA exposures may not be representative for dockworkers. Verma stated that, it would be preferable to do more task-based assessments and fewer TWA long-term 25

29 exposure assessments for dockworkers (2001). Williams concluded that exposures were driven by, specific tasks and the type of cargo (2005). Widner suggested that exposures, generally resulted from exposures during short-duration tasks (2011). Gaffney found that occupational exposures to dock workers were higher than those of other refinery workers, since dock operations required workers to connect and disconnect lines containing residual cargo, and to sample and gauge barges (2010). Finally, Halder reported that, marine workers are likely to experience high intermittent exposures to gasoline fumes (1986). A focus of the company s exposure assessment strategy was SET compliance with internal risk tolerance guidelines. Based on the historical exposure data, seven general conclusions were made concerning SET compliance with internal OELs: 1. Benzene exposure data were acceptable for Light Product River Terminal Operators in all SETs. 2. Two over-exposures were observed at the Refinery Light Product dock on contractor Tankermen performing line connection. Otherwise, benzene exposure data were acceptable. 3. Product line connection had higher exposures when compared to product line disconnection. This conflicted with one published paper that found the highest exposures were observed during product line disconnection (Widner, 2011). 4. Exposure data during barge compartment stripping were highly censored and overexposures were unlikely. Compartment stripping did not have any overexposures to either benzene or TOV. 5. TOV over-exposures occurred in all SET datasets except for barge compartment stripping. TOV had no regulatory limit, but TOV exposures can be expected to exceed the internal OEL during short duration tasks across all light product docks. 6. TOV concentrations in the work environment were calculated using the molecular weight of n-hexane. TOV as n-hexane was a conservative predictor of exposure potential to regulated chemical compounds. A change to a hydrocarbon with a 26

30 greater molecular weight would reduce exposure concentrations and improve compliance. However, this is not recommended. 7. Over-exposures to benzene were frequent at the refinery chemical dock, but workers wore respiratory protection that mitigated exposures and the effective exposures were likely much lower than the STEL OEL. Process Review and Recommendations The end result of qualitative analysis was the calculation of the HRR that predicted and placed the 95 th percentile for each SEG s full-shift or SET exposure profiles into one of five initial exposure risk categories (see Table 3) that prioritized industrial hygiene surveys. Category 3 and 4 HRRs predicted high chemical exposure potential and required monitoring within one year. Category 2 HRRs required monitoring within two years, Category 1 within three years, and Category 0 within five years. The qualitative assessment process was considered successful if the calculated HRR captured the exposure risk category that resulted from quantitative sampling. The qualitative and quantitative results were then combined using Bayesian Decision Analysis (BDA) to determine a final exposure category. BDA allowed for professional judgment to enter into the analysis by allowing a prior to be factored into the final exposure category output. The prior was the predicted probability into which of the five exposure risk categories a chemical agent was likely to fall. For this analysis, priors were set to 20% probability for each exposure risk category allowing the exposure monitoring data to determine the final exposure category resulting from the integrated exposure assessment. Table 19 provides the predicted exposure category based on the calculation of the HRR, the exposure category resulting from personal exposure sampling, and the final exposure category that resulted from the integrated exposure assessment for each chemical agent associated with a SEG/ SET. Overall, the exposure assessment strategy was an effective tool at identifying high risk exposures and focused quantitative sampling towards those SEGs and SETs with the highest exposure concerns. With one exception, the qualitative exposure assessment 27

31 category predicted by the calculation of the HRR effectively captured the exposure risk category resulting from quantitative exposure data for benzene, toluene, xylene, and n- hexane at all light product docks. The lone exception was benzene exposure during the task of product line connection when performed by Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen. During this task, the calculation of the HRR predicted a category 3 exposure, but the monitoring results determined this to be a category 4 exposure. Table 19: Qualitative Exposure Category for the Health Risk Rating, Quantitative Sampling Exposure 95 th Percentile Exposure Category, and Exposure Category Based on BDA Qualitative Quantitative Sampling 95 th Exposure Category based on BDA. BDA SET Chemical Agent HRR Assessment Exposure Category Percentile Exposure Category Exposure Category Probability in Parenthesis LPRT O RLPD -T RCD-T LPRT-O RLPD-T RCD-T Full shift Product Line Connect Product Line Disconnect Gauge Barge Compartment Collect Product Sample Strip Barge Compartment Benzene 57 CAT 3 CAT 2 CAT 2 CAT 4 CAT 2 (89%) CAT 2 (79%) CAT 4 (100%) Toluene 32 CAT 2 CAT 1 CAT 1 NA CAT 1 (100%) CAT 1 (100%) NA Xylene 20 CAT 1 CAT 0 CAT 0 NA CAT 0 (97%) CAT 0 (96%) NA n-hexane 30 CAT 1 CAT 1 CAT 0 NA CAT 1 (69%) CAT 0 (57%) NA TOV 24 CAT 1 CAT 2 CAT 2 NA CAT 2 (49%) CAT 1 (100%) NA Benzene 57 CAT 3 CAT 3 CAT 4 CAT 4 CAT 4 (52%) CAT 4 (86%) CAT 4 (100%) TOV 24 CAT 1 CAT 4 CAT 4 NA CAT 4 (96%) CAT 4 (99%) NA Benzene 57 CAT 3 CAT 2 CAT 3 CAT 4 CAT 2 (65%) CAT 4 (54%) CAT 4 (100%) TOV 24 CAT 1 CAT 2 CAT 4 NA CAT 2 (62%) CAT 4 (94%) NA Benzene 63 CAT 3 CAT 3 CAT 2 NA CAT 3 (38%) CAT 2 (44%) NA TOV 26 CAT 1 CAT 4 CAT 4 NA CAT 4 (97%) CAT 1 (51%) NA Benzene 63 CAT 3 CAT 2 CAT 2 CAT 4 CAT 2 (50%) CAT 2 (42%) CAT 4 (100%) TOV 26 CAT 1 CAT 4 CAT 3 NA CAT 4 (89%) CAT 4 (53%) NA Benzene 57 CAT 3 CAT 1 NA CAT 1 CAT 1 (78%) NA CAT 2 (46%) TOV 24 CAT 1 CAT 2 NA NA CAT 2 (89%) NA NA The calculation of the HRR in qualitative analysis was not successful at predicting Category 4 exposure risk observed in the quantitative exposure data for benzene. This result identified a gap in the supplemental equation used to obtain values for the Exposure Rating (ER) factor used in the Health Risk Rating (HRR) calculation; a Category 4 ER (> 100% OEL predicted exposure) could not be obtained by using the supplemental equation. Using worst case values, the highest obtainable value for the ER for any gas or vapor was 3.4, a Category 3 exposure (50% - 100% of OEL 28

32 predicted). The sampling data demonstrated that category 4 exposures existed. For this reason, caution should be used by inexperienced assessors using the ER equation as a method to supply the appropriate ER value to the HRR. The exposure assessment strategy was not successful at predicting total organic vapor (TOV) exposures. For all SEGs and SETs, quantitative TOV exposure data were higher than the exposures predicted qualitatively by the HRR. In the exposure assessment strategy, TOV had a health effect rating (HER) of two on a scale of one to four. Consideration should be given to raising the Health Effect Rating (HER) of TOV from two to three. This would increase the predictability of the exposure assessment strategy and assure priority is given to those SEGs and SETs that are identified as having high potential for exposure to hydrocarbons. The integrated exposure assessment which combined both the qualitative and quantitative assessments identified two tasks that should be evaluated for engineering controls, administrative controls, and PPE. Both connect and disconnect product line had greater than 50% probability of being Category 4 benzene exposure at light product docks. The highest probable Category 4 benzene exposure (86% probability) was during product line connection at the refinery light product dock. The only other category 4 exposures identified were for Refinery Chemical Dock Tankermen, but the exposure data were not corrected for respiratory protection in use at this dock. 29

33 Citations and References: Bullock, W. H., & Ignacio, J. S. (Eds.). (2006). A strategy for assessing and managing occupational exposures, (3 rd ed.). Fairfax, VA: AIHA Press. Gaffney, S. H., Burns, A. M., Kreider, M. L., Unice, K. M., Widner, T. E., Paustenbach, D. J., Booher, L. E., Gelatt, R. H., & Panko, J. M. (2012). Occupational exposures to benzene at the ExxonMobil refinery in Beaumont, TX ( ). International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 213(4), Halder, C. A., Van Gorp, G. S., Hatoum, N. S., & Warne, T. M. (1986). Gasoline vapor exposures. Part I. characterization of workplace exposures. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 47(3), Hewitt, P. (2001). Industrial hygiene exposure assessment data analysis and interpretation. In Alaimo, R. J. (Ed.). Handbook of chemical health and safety (Ch 16). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hewitt, P. (2011). IHDataAnalyst (Version 1.26) [Software]. Exposure Assessment Solutions. Available from National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety. (2007). NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards (DHHS Publication No ). Pittsburgh, PA: U.S Government Printing Office. OSHA Standards for General Industry. 29 CFR (2003). 30

34 Panko, J. M., Gaffney, S. H., Burns, A. M., Unice, K. M., Kreider, M. L., Booher, L. E., Gelatt, R. H., Marshall, J. R., & Paustenbach, D. J. (2009). Occupational exposures to benzene at the ExxonMobil refinery at Baton Rouge, Louisiana ( ). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 6(9), Rappaport, S. M., Selvin, S., & Waters, M. A. (1987). Exposures to hydrocarbon components of gasoline in the petroleum industry. Applied Industrial Hygiene, 2(4), Shipping. 46 CFR (1991). Spear, R. C., Selvin, S., Schulman, J., & Francis, M. (1987). Benzene exposure in the petroleum refining industry. Applied Industrial Hygiene, 2(4), Verma, D. K., Johnson, D. M., Shaw, M. L., & des Tombe, K. (2001). Benzene and total hydrocarbon exposures in the downstream petroleum industries. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 62, Widner, T. E., Gaffner, S. H., Panko, J. M., Unice, K. M., Burns, A. M., Kreider, M., Marshall, J. R., Booher, L., E., Gelatt, R. H., Paustenbach, D. J. (2011). Airborne concentrations of benzene for dock workers at the ExxonMobil refinery and chemical plant, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA ( ). Scandanavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health 37(2), Williams, P. R. D., Robinson, K., Paustenbach, D. J. (2005). Benzene exposures associated with tasks performed on marine vessels (Circa 1975 to 2000). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2(11),

35 Acknowledgements: The author would like to recognize and thank the following individuals and organizations for their assistance, guidance, and support. West Virginia University Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources, Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering o Dr. Warren Myers, CIH o Dr. Steve Guffey, CIH West Virginia University Department of Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences o Dr. Michael McCawley, CIH Marathon Petroleum Company Corporate Industrial Hygiene o Duane DeBoo, CIH o Aaron Robinson Marathon Petroleum Company Terminal, Transport, and Rail Industrial Hygiene o Stephen Bournias, CIH o Tom Bonner, CIH o Brian Ceraldi, 2008 Intern Data Collection o Lauren Schuster, 2009 Intern Data Collection o Adam Prater, 2011 Intern Data Collection o Jordan Dalrymple, 2012 Intern Data Collection o All the dockworkers that participated in both the qualitative assessments and quantitative sampling 32

36 Appendix A Calculation of the Health Risk Rating SEG All Locations Health Risk Rating HRR = Health Effect Rating*Dermal Indicator*Exposure Frequency*Uncertainty*Exposure Rating Health Chemical Dermal Exposure Exposure SET Effect Uncertainty Agent Indicator Frequency Rating Rating Gauge Barge Compartment Catch Product Sample Connect/ Disconnect Product Line Strip Barge Compartment Full-shift HRR Benzene Xylene TOV Benzene Xylene TOV Benzene Xylene TOV Benzene Xylene TOV Benzene Toluene Xylene n- Hexane TOV Uncertainty Factor 1 = Certain 2 = Uncertain Dermal Indicator 1 = No Skin Notation 1.25 = ACGIH Skin Notation Frequency 1 = Yearly 2 = Monthly 3 = Weekly Value 0 = 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = Health Effect Rating Description No Health Effects Slight to Moderate Irritation Moderate Irritation. Temporary Reversible Effects Severely Irritating. Corrosive. Major Injury Without Medical Treatment Life Threatening, Disabling Injury, or Illness Exposure Rating See Appendix B for Calculated Values and Descriptions 33

37 Appendix B Calculation of the Exposure Rating Exposure Rating of Chemical Agents Vapor Pressure and Boiling Points for Chemical Agents 1 Vapor Pressure Boiling Point Chemical VP (mmhg) BP ( C) Value Range Value Range Agent Benzene 68 F mmhg 0 >148 C Toluene 68 F >0.1-1 mmhg C Xylene 68 F >1-10 mmhg 1 <93-38 C n-hexane 68 F mmhg 1.2 <38-27 C TOV 2 68 F 69 2 >100 mmhg 2 <27 C Task Duration Emissions Value Range Value Description 0 <5 min/day 0 No Appearance of Emissions or odor for Duration of Task 1 5 min-1.5 Hr/day 1 Seldom Appearance of Emissions or odor for Duration of Task 2 >1.5-3 Hr/day 2 Intermittent Appearance of Emissions or odor for Duration of Task 3 >3-6 Hr/day 3 Appearance of Emissions or odor for Duration of Task 4 >6 Hr/day 4 Sensory Response Report Established Controls Value Description -1 Closed System. No Potential for Release to Work Area 0 Closed System. Potential for Release to Work Area at Identified Point in Process. Effective Engineering Controls in Place to Control Exposures at Open Points 1 Open System. Effective Engineering Controls in Place to Contain or Remove Airborne Contaminants from Work Area. A combination Open/ Closed System 4 Open System. Ineffective or No Engineering Controls in Place. PPE or Administrative Controls are the usual method for Minimizing Worker Exposure 5 Open System. No Program in Place to Minimize Worker Exposure. Visual Airborne Contaminants, Odors, or Sensory Response Indicate Potential Exposure Exists SET Full Shift Gauge Barge Compartment Collect Product Sample Connect/ Disconnect Product Lines Strip Barge Compartment Exposure Rating = Vapor Pressure Value*Boiling Point Value*Duration*Emissions*Controls Chemical Agent Vapor Pressure Boiling Point Task Duration Emissions Controls ER Benzene Toluene Xylene n-hexane TOV Benzene TOV Benzene TOV Benzene TOV Benzene TOV Notes 1 Physical properties of chemical agents were taken from the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Hazardous Chemicals 2 The molecular weight of n-hexane was used to calculate concentrations of TOV in ppm. Therefore, the physical properties of n-hexane were used a surrogates for the physical [properties of TOV 34

38 Appendix C Historical Exposure Data Light Product River Terminal Operator - TWAs - Benzene Sample ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) Flow I (L/ min) Flow F (L/min) Flow (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) Below LOD C (µg) C (mg) C ppm (mg/m3) Lab TTM /24/2008 Full Shift :08 16: na na no TTM /24/2008 Full Shift :06 16: na na no TTM /9/2009 Full Shift :50 16: na na no TTM /9/2009 Full Shift :50 16: na na yes TTM /28/2009 Full Shift :40 4: na na no TTM /29/2009 Full Shift :42 4: na na no TTM /30/2009 Full Shift na na na na no TTM /30/2009 Full Shift :27 15: na na no TTM /14/2010 Full Shift :52 3: na na no TTM /15/2010 Full Shift :23 14: na na no TTM /15/2010 Full Shift :10 16: na na no TTM /28/2010 Full Shift :54 4: na na no TTM /28/2010 Full Shift :55 4: na na yes TTR /26/2011 Full Shift :30 16: na na yes TTR /10/2011 Full Shift :20 14: na na no TTR /10/2011 Full Shift :20 14: na na no TTR /18/2011 Full Shift :47 11: na na no TTR /18/2011 Full Shift :47 11: na na no TTM /5/2009 Full Shift :23 15: na na no TTM /5/2009 Full Shift :22 15: na na no TTR /11/2011 Full Shift :32 16: na na no TTR /1/2012 Full Shift :45 6: na na yes TTR /1/2012 Full Shift :45 6: na na no TTR /25/2012 Full Shift :30 17: na na no TTR /25/2012 Full Shift :30 17: na na yes TTR /31/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /31/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /8/2012 Full Shift :30 18: na na yes TTR /8/2012 Full Shift :30 18: na na no TTR /6/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /6/2012 Full Shift 78 8:00 16: na na no

39 Light Product River Terminal Operator - SETs - Benzene Sample ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) Flow I (L/ min) Flow F (L/min) Flow Avg (L/min) V(L) V(m3) Below LOD C (µg) C (mg) C ppm (mg/m3) Lab TTM /25/2008 Connect :37 8: no TTM /25/2008 Connect :34 8: no TTM /22/2009 Connect :23 9: yes TTM /28/2009 Connect :51 20: no TTM /28/2009 Connect :52 20: no TTM /13/2010 Connect :54 20: no TTM /27/2010 Connect :57 19: no TTM /27/2010 Connect :57 19: no TTM /28/2010 connect :25 8: no TTM /4/2010 Connect :24 8: no TTR /18/2011 Connect :05 3: yes TTR /1/2012 Connect :16 21: yes TTR /25/2012 Connect :47 9: no TTR /25/2012 Connect :47 9: yes TTR /31/2012 Connect :41 7: no TTR /8/2012 Connect :04 7: no TTR /6/2012 Connect :09 9: yes TTM /9/2009 Disconnect :28 16: yes TTM /9/2009 Disconnect :28 16: yes TTM /30/2009 Disconnect :08 15: yes TTM /14/2010 Disconnect :03 3: yes TTM /15/2010 Disconnect :02 16: no TTM /28/2010 Disconnect :12 4: yes TTM /28/2010 Disconnect :12 4: yes TTM /4/2010 Disconnect :00 19: no TTR /26/2011 Disconnect :56 14: no TTR /10/2011 Disconnect :01 13: no TTR /2/2012 Disconnect :15 6: yes TTR /25/2012 Disconnect :21 16: yes TTR /25/2012 Disconnect :21 16: yes TTR /31/2012 Disconnect :05 16: yes TTR /8/2012 Disconnect :43 10: yes TTR /6/2012 Disconnect :32 23: no TTM /22/2009 Gauge :22 9: no TTM /28/2010 Gauge :25 8: no TTM /4/2010 Gauge :23 8: no TTR /2/2012 Gauge :50 22: yes TTR /25/2012 Gauge :36 9: no TTR /25/2012 Gauge :36 9: no TTR /31/2012 Gauge :02 8: no TTR /8/2012 Gauge :54 7: no TTR /6/2012 Gauge :21 9: no TTM /13/2010 Gauge :32 19: yes TTR /10/2011 Gauge/ Connect :11 7: no TTM /28/2010 Sample :02 13: no TTM /28/2010 Sample :18 13: no TTM /4/2010 Sample :42 8: no TTR /1/2012 Sample :44 21: no TTR /31/2012 Sample :45 8: no TTR /8/2012 Sample :40 6: no TTR /6/2012 Sample :22 9: no TTM /13/2010 Sample :57 20: no TTR /8/2012 Sample :40 6: no TTM /24/2008 Sample/ Gauge :29 9: no TTM /15/2010 Sample/ Gauge :17 8: no TTM /28/2010 Sample/ Gauge :02 13: no TTM /28/2010 Sample/ Gauge :18 13: no TTR /18/2011 Sample/ Gauge :05 3: no TTR /11/2011 Sample/ Gauge :55 10: no

40 TTM /24/2008 Strip :28 14: yes TTM /24/2008 Strip :28 14: yes TTM /24/2008 Strip :58 15: yes TTM /24/2008 Strip :57 15: yes TTM /29/2009 Strip :42 3: yes TTM /29/2009 Strip :40 3: yes TTM /30/2009 Strip :59 15: yes TTM /14/2010 Strip :29 2: yes TTM /14/2010 Strip :46 3: no TTM /15/2010 Strip :55 13: yes TTM /15/2010 Strip :27 15: yes TTM /15/2010 Strip :41 15: no TTM /4/2010 Strip :41 15: yes TTM /4/2010 Strip :55 16: no TTM /4/2010 Strip :12 18: yes TTM /4/2010 Strip :28 18: no TTR /26/2011 Strip :07 12: yes TTR /10/2011 Strip :43 12: yes TTR /18/2011 Strip :21 10: yes TTM /5/2009 Strip :13 14: yes TTM /5/2009 Strip :12 14: yes TTM /5/2009 Strip :19 16: no TTM /5/2009 Strip :20 16: no TTR /1/2012 Strip :50 6: yes TTR /2/2012 Strip :25 4: yes TTR /2/2012 Strip :30 3: yes TTR /25/2012 Strip :41 14: yes TTR /25/2012 Strip :50 16: yes TTR /25/2012 Strip :35 13: yes TTR /31/2012 Strip :37 15: yes TTR /31/2012 Strip :20 14: yes TTR /31/2012 Strip :41 13: yes TTR /8/2012 Strip :28 9: yes TTR /8/2012 Strip :30 10: yes TTR /6/2012 Strip :07 17: yes TTR /6/2012 Strip :05 18: no TTR /6/2012 Strip :57 23: yes TTM /28/2010 Strip :27 1: yes

41 Light Product River Terminal Operator - TWAs- Toluene Sample ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) Flow I (L/ min) Flow F (L/min) Flow (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) Below LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab TTM /24/2008 Full Shift :08 16: na na no TTM /24/2008 Full Shift :06 16: na na no TTM /9/2009 Full Shift :50 16: na na yes TTM /9/2009 Full Shift :50 16: na na yes TTM /28/2009 Full Shift :40 4: na na no TTM /29/2009 Full Shift :42 4: na na no TTM /30/2009 Full Shift na na na na no TTM /30/2009 Full Shift :27 15: na na no TTM /14/2010 Full Shift :52 3: na na no TTM /15/2010 Full Shift :23 14: na na no TTM /15/2010 Full Shift :10 16: na na no TTM /28/2010 Full Shift :54 4: na na no TTM /28/2010 Full Shift :55 4: na na yes TTR /26/2011 Full Shift :30 16: na na no TTR /10/2011 Full Shift :20 14: na na no TTR /10/2011 Full Shift :20 14: na na no TTR /18/2011 Full Shift :47 11: na na no TTR /18/2011 Full Shift :47 11: na na no TTM /5/2009 Full Shift :23 15: na na no TTM /5/2009 Full Shift :22 15: na na no TTR /11/2011 Full Shift :32 16: na na no TTR /1/2012 Full Shift :45 6: na na yes TTR /1/2012 Full Shift :45 6: na na no TTR /25/2012 Full Shift :30 17: na na no TTR /25/2012 Full Shift :30 17: na na no TTR /31/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /31/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /8/2012 Full Shift :30 18: na na yes TTR /8/2012 Full Shift :30 18: na na no TTR /6/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /6/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no

42 Light Product River Terminal Operator - TWAs - Xylene Sample ID Date Task MW Tem p. T I T F T T T (min) Flow I (L/ min) Flow F (L/min) Flow (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) Below LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab TTM /24/2008 Full Shift :08 16: na na yes TTM /24/2008 Full Shift :06 16: na na no TTM /9/2009 Full Shift :50 16: na na yes TTM /9/2009 Full Shift :50 16: na na yes TTM /28/2009 Full Shift :40 4: na na yes TTM /29/2009 Full Shift :42 4: na na no TTM /30/2009 Full Shift na na na na no TTM /30/2009 Full Shift :27 15: na na yes TTM /14/2010 Full Shift :52 3: na na yes TTM /15/2010 Full Shift :23 14: na na yes TTM /15/2010 Full Shift :10 16: na na yes TTM /28/2010 Full Shift :54 4: na na yes TTM /28/2010 Full Shift :55 4: na na yes TTR /26/2011 Full Shift :30 16: na na yes TTR /10/2011 Full Shift :20 14: na na no TTR /10/2011 Full Shift :20 14: na na yes TTR /18/2011 Full Shift :47 11: na na yes TTR /18/2011 Full Shift :47 11: na na no TTM /5/2009 Full Shift :23 15: na na yes TTM /5/2009 Full Shift :22 15: na na yes TTR /11/2011 Full Shift :32 16: na na yes TTR /1/2012 Full Shift :45 6: na na yes TTR /1/2012 Full Shift :45 6: na na yes TTR /25/2012 Full Shift :30 17: na na no TTR /25/2012 Full Shift :30 17: na na yes TTR /31/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /31/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na yes TTR /8/2012 Full Shift :30 18: na na yes TTR /8/2012 Full Shift :30 18: na na yes TTR /6/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na yes TTR /6/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na yes

43 Light Product River Terminal Operator - Composite - TWAs - n-hexane Sample ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) Flow I (L/ min) Flow F (L/min) Flow (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) Below LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab TTM /24/2008 Full Shift :08 16: na na no TTM /24/2008 Full Shift :06 16: na na no TTM /9/2009 Full Shift :50 16: na na no TTM /9/2009 Full Shift :50 16: na na yes TTM /28/2009 Full Shift :40 4: na na no TTM /29/2009 Full Shift :42 4: na na no TTM /30/2009 Full Shift na na na na no TTM /30/2009 Full Shift :27 15: na na no TTM /14/2010 Full Shift :52 3: na na no TTM /15/2010 Full Shift :23 14: na na no TTM /15/2010 Full Shift :10 16: na na no TTM /28/2010 Full Shift :54 4: na na no TTM /28/2010 Full Shift :55 4: na na yes TTR /26/2011 Full Shift :30 16: na na no TTR /10/2011 Full Shift :20 14: na na no TTR /10/2011 Full Shift :20 14: na na no TTR /18/2011 Full Shift :47 11: na na no TTR /18/2011 Full Shift :47 11: na na no TTM /5/2009 Full Shift :23 15: na na no TTM /5/2009 Full Shift :22 15: na na no TTR /11/2011 Full Shift :32 16: na na no TTR /1/2012 Full Shift :45 6: na na yes TTR /1/2012 Full Shift :45 6: na na no TTR /25/2012 Full Shift :30 17: na na no TTR /25/2012 Full Shift :30 17: na na yes TTR /31/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /31/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /8/2012 Full Shift :30 18: na na no TTR /8/2012 Full Shift :30 18: na na no TTR /6/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /6/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no

44 Light Product River Terminal Operator - Composite - TWAs - Total Hydrocarbon (THC) Sample ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) Flow I (L/ min) Flow F (L/min) Flow (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) Below LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab TTM /24/2008 Full Shift :08 16: na na no TTM /24/2008 Full Shift :06 16: na na no TTM /9/2009 Full Shift :50 16: na na no TTM /9/2009 Full Shift :50 16: na na yes TTM /28/2009 Full Shift :40 4: na na no TTM /29/2009 Full Shift :42 4: na na no TTM /30/2009 Full Shift na na na na no TTM /30/2009 Full Shift :27 15: na na no TTM /14/2010 Full Shift :52 3: na na no TTM /15/2010 Full Shift :23 14: na na no TTM /15/2010 Full Shift :10 16: na na no TTM /28/2010 Full Shift :54 4: na na no TTM /28/2010 Full Shift :55 4: na na yes TTR /26/2011 Full Shift :30 16: na na no TTR /10/2011 Full Shift :20 14: na na no TTR /10/2011 Full Shift :20 14: na na no TTR /18/2011 Full Shift :47 11: na na no TTR /18/2011 Full Shift :47 11: na na no TTM /5/2009 Full Shift :23 15: na na no TTM /5/2009 Full Shift :22 15: na na no TTR /11/2011 Full Shift :32 16: na na no TTR /1/2012 Full Shift :45 6: na na no TTR /1/2012 Full Shift :45 6: na na no TTR /25/2012 Full Shift :30 17: na na no TTR /25/2012 Full Shift :30 17: na na no TTR /31/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /31/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /8/2012 Full Shift :30 18: na na no TTR /8/2012 Full Shift :30 18: na na no TTR /6/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no TTR /6/2012 Full Shift :00 16: na na no

45 Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen - TWAs - Benzene Sample Number Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) F I (L/ min) F F (L/min) F (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) <LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab MAR /13/2008 Composite :40 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Composite :41 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Composite :38 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Composite :42 5: na na no MAR /23/2009 Composite :13 17: na na no MAR /23/2009 Composite :10 17: na na no MAR /23/2009 Composite :16 17: na na no TTR /4/2011 Composite :52 16: na na no TTR /21/2012 Composite :00 11: na na no TTR /21/2012 Composite :00 18: na na yes TTR /21/2012 Composite :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Composite :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Composite :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Composite :00 18: na na no Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen - SETs - Benzene Sample Number Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) F I (L/ min) F F (L/min) F Avg (L/min) V(L) V(m3) <LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab TTR /22/2012 Connect :00 9: yes TTR /21/2012 Connect :53 17: no TTM /2/2010 Connect :11 10: no MAR /13/2008 Connect :48 15: no TTM /2/2010 Connect :42 10: no MAR /13/2008 Connect :02 15: no TTM /2/2010 Connect :05 23: no TTM /2/2010 Connect :05 23: no TTM /2/2010 Disconnect :44 21: yes <0.11 TTR /4/2011 Disconnect :57 12: yes TTR /21/2012 Disconnect :24 14: yes TTR /22/2012 Disconnect :31 12: yes TTM /2/2010 Disconnect :40 20: no TTM /2/2010 Disconnect :16 13: no TTM /2/2010 Disconnect :16 13: no TTM /8/2010 Disconnect :59 16: no TTM /8/2010 Disconnect :58 16: no TTR /21/2012 Disconnect :57 9: no TTM /8/2010 Disconnect :47 17: no TTR /21/2012 Gauge :54 15: yes TTR /22/2012 Gauge :03 9: yes TTR /22/2012 Gauge :06 6: yes TTM /2/2010 Gauge :15 10: no TTR /21/2012 Sample :06 15: yes TTR /21/2012 Sample :50 10: yes TTR /22/2012 Sample :00 14: no TTM /2/2010 Sample :54 14: no TTM /8/2010 Sample Gauge :49 17: no TTM /8/2010 Sample Gauge :33 16: no TTM /8/2010 Sample Gauge :00 16: no TTM /2/2010 Sample Gauge :43 21: no TTM /2/2010 Sample Gauge :38 20: no TTR /4/2011 Slop Tank :01 10: yes

46 Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen - TWAs - Toluene Sample ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) F I (L/ min) F F (L/min) F (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) <LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab MAR /13/2008 Full Shift :40 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full Shift :41 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full Shift :38 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full Shift :42 5: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full Shift :13 17: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full Shift :10 17: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full Shift :16 17: na na no TTR /4/2011 Full Shift :52 16: na na no TTR /21/2012 Full Shift :00 11: na na no TTR /21/2012 Full Shift :00 18: na na no TTR /21/2012 Full Shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full Shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full Shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full Shift :00 18: na na no Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen - TWAs - Xylene Sample ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) F I (L/ min) F F (L/min) F (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) <LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab MAR /13/2008 Full-shift :40 5: na na yes MAR /13/2008 Full-shift :41 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full-shift :38 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full-shift :42 5: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full-shift :13 17: na na yes MAR /23/2009 Full-shift :10 17: na na yes MAR /23/2009 Full-shift :16 17: na na no TTR /4/2011 Full-shift :52 16: na na yes TTR /21/2012 Full-shift :00 11: na na yes TTR /21/2012 Full-shift :00 18: na na yes TTR /21/2012 Full-shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full-shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full-shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full-shift :00 18: na na no Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen - TWAs - n-hexane Sample ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) F I (L/ min) F F (L/min) F (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) <LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab MAR /13/2008 Full-shift :40 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full-shift :41 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full-shift :38 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full-shift :42 5: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full-shift :13 17: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full-shift :10 17: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full-shift :16 17: na na no TTR /4/2011 Full-shift :52 16: na na yes TTR /21/2012 Full-shift :00 11: na na no TTR /21/2012 Full-shift :00 18: na na no TTR /21/2012 Full-shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full-shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full-shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full-shift :00 18: na na no

47 Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen - TWAs - TOV sample ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) F I (L/ min) F F (L/min) F (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) <LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab MAR /13/2008 Full-Shift :40 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full-Shift :41 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full-Shift :38 5: na na no MAR /13/2008 Full-Shift :42 5: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full-Shift :13 17: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full-Shift :10 17: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full-Shift :16 17: na na no TTR /4/2011 Full-Shift :52 16: na na no TTR /21/2012 Full-Shift :00 11: na na no TTR /21/2012 Full-Shift :00 18: na na no TTR /21/2012 Full-Shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full-Shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full-Shift :00 18: na na no TTR /22/2012 Full-Shift :00 18: na na no Refinery Light Product Dock Tankermen - SETs - TOV Sample ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) F I (L/ min) F F (L/min) F Avg (L/min) V(L) V(m3) <LOD C (µg) C (mg) C (mg/m3) ppm Lab TTR /22/2012 Connect :00 9: no TTM /2/2010 Connect :11 10: no TTR /21/2012 Connect :53 17: no MAR /13/2008 Connect :48 15: no TTM /2/2010 Connect :42 10: no MAR /13/2008 Connect :02 15: no TTM /2/2010 Connect :05 23: no TTM /2/2010 Connect :05 23: no TTM /2/2010 Disconnect :44 21: no TTR /21/2012 Disconnect :24 14: no TTR /4/2011 Disconnect :57 12: no TTR /22/2012 Disconnect :31 12: no TTM /2/2010 Disconnect :40 20: no TTM /2/2010 Disconnect :16 13: no TTM /2/2010 Disconnect :16 13: no TTM /8/2010 Disconnect :59 16: no TTM /8/2010 Disconnect :58 16: no TTR /21/2012 Disconnect :57 9: no TTM /8/2010 Disconnect :47 17: no TTR /22/2012 Gauge :03 9: yes TTR /21/2012 Gauge :54 15: no TTR /22/2012 Gauge :06 6: no TTM /2/2010 Gauge :15 10: no TTR /21/2012 Sample :50 10: no TTR /21/2012 Sample :06 15: no TTR /22/2012 Sample :00 14: no TTM /2/2010 Sample :54 14: no TTM /2/2010 Sample/ Gauge :43 21: no TTM /8/2010 Sample/ Gauge :49 17: no TTM /8/2010 Sample/ Gauge :33 16: no TTM /8/2010 Sample/ Gauge :00 16: no TTM /2/2010 Sample/ Gauge :38 20: no TTR /4/2011 Slop Tank :01 10: no

48 Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman - TWAs - Benzene Marathon ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) Flow I (L/ min) Flow F (L/min) Flow (cc/min) V(L) V(m3) <LOD C (µg) C (mg) C ppm (mg/m3) Lab MAR /23/2009 Full Shift :25 17: na na no MAR /22/2009 Full Shift :13 5: na na no MAR /22/2009 Full Shift :00 5: na na no MAR /23/2009 Full Shift :10 10: na na no TTM /29/2010 Full Shift :07 4: na na no TTM /29/2010 Full Shift :50 6: na na no TTR /5/2011 Full Shift :40 16: na na no TTR /5/2011 Full Shift :40 16: na na no TTR /28/2012 Full Shift :21 4: na na no TTR /28/2012 Full Shift :23 4: na na no Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman -SETs - Benzene Marathon ID Date Task MW Temp. T I T F T T T (min) Flow I (L/ min) Flow F (L/min) Flow Avg (L/min) V(L) V(m3) <LOD C (µg) C (mg) C ppm (mg/m3) Lab TTR /8/2012 Sample :50 10: no MAR /22/2009 Sample :59 22: no TTR /28/2012 Sample :32 17: no TTM /29/2010 Sample :06 18: no TTM /9/2010 Sample/ Connect :27 21: no TTR /8/2012 Check/ Observe :12 13: yes TTR /5/2011 Check/ Observe :45 12: no MAR /23/2009 Check/ Observe :10 1: no TTR /28/2012 Connect :35 17: no TTM /9/2010 Connect :29 21: no TTM /29/2010 Connect :29 20: no TTR /8/2012 Connect :03 10: no TTR /8/2012 Connect :03 10: no TTM /29/2010 Connect :29 20: no MAR /22/2009 Connect :14 22: no TTR /5/2011 Connect :16 11: no MAR /23/2009 Connect :33 14: no MAR /23/2009 Disconnect :10 10: no TTR /29/2012 Disconnect :04 19: no TTR /28/2012 Disconnect :52 17: no TTR /8/2012 Disconnect :39 16: no TTM /30/2010 Disconnect :26 6: no TTR /29/2012 Disconnect :04 19: no TTM /30/2010 Disconnect :33 6: no TTR /5/2011 Engine repair :05 16: yes MAR /22/2009 Gauge :13 21: no TTR120043C 5/8/2012 Gauge :42 9: no TTR120048C 5/8/2012 Gauge :46 16: no MAR /23/2009 Strip :54 10: yes TTR /29/2012 Strip :11 16: no TTR /28/2012 Strip :24 16: no

49 APPENDIX D IHDA Reports Light Product River Terminal Operators Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :24:12 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Full-shift SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 1 ppm CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 31 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 3 (Max LOD) = 0.03 (Max detect) = 0.71 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = Critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 31 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL =

50 sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >1 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = E-5 Gmax = 5 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 5E3 47

51 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < < 0.02 < < < < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :37:58 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Full-shift SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Toluene OEL: 20 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 31 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored 48

52 (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 2 (Max LOD) = 0.07 (Max detect) = 0.83 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 31 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = <0.001 BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >20 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood

53 Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 100 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 1E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < 0.07 < <

54 < < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 3:23:46 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Full Shift SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Xylene OEL: 100 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 31 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 8 (Max LOD) = 0.14 (Max detect) = 0.5 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is rejected at the p=0.05 confidence level. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS 51

55 n = 31 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = <0.001 BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >100 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 500 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior

56 Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group 0.10 < < 0.14 < 0.10 < < 0.11 < 0.13 < 0.10 < 0.08 < 0.09 < 0.11 < < 0.10 < < 0.11 < 0.11 < 0.09 < 0.09 < < < 0.07 < 0.07 < 0.11 < 0.11 < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 1:05:24 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Full-shift 53

57 SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: n-hexane OEL: 50 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 31 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 2 (Max LOD) = 0.05 (Max detect) = 1.31 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 31 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = <0.001 BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. 54

58 Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >50 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 250 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group <

59 < < < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 1:10:37 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Full-shift SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 100 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 31 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 2 (Max LOD) = 0.48 (Max detect) = 54.7 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is rejected at the p=0.05 confidence level. Goodness-of-fit Charts: 56

60 ORDER STATISTICS n = 31 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >100 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 500 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. 57

61 Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < <

62 Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 1:14:47 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Connect Product Line SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 17 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 2 (Max LOD) = 0.13 (Max detect) = 3.51 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 17 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd =

63 COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group

64 < < 0.13 < < < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 1:33:36 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Disconnect Product Line SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 16 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 4 (Max LOD) = 0.13 (Max detect) = 0.51 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is rejected at the p=0.05 confidence level. Goodness-of-fit Charts: 61

65 ORDER STATISTICS n = 16 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. 62

66 Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group 0.12 < 0.11 < 0.10 < 0.13 < < 0.13 < < 0.13 < 0.13 < 0.13 < 0.13 < 0.29 Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 1:18:20 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Connect Disconnect Product Line Combined SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION 63

67 Total n = 33 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 5 (Max LOD) = 0.13 (Max detect) = 3.51 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is rejected at the p=0.05 confidence level. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 33 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior

68 Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < < 0.13 < <

69 0.13 < 0.12 < 0.11 < 0.10 < 0.13 < < 0.13 < < 0.13 < 0.13 < 0.13 < 0.13 < 0.29 Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 2:01:31 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Connect Product Line SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 19 min =

70 max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 67

71 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 2:05:30 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Disconnect Product Line SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 16 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 5 (Max LOD) = 1.21 (Max detect) = 31 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. 68

72 Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 16 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior

73 Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group 1.07 < 1.01 < < < 1.19 < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 2:04:15 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Combined SET - Connect/ Disconnect Product Line 70

74 SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 33 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 5 (Max LOD) = 1.21 (Max detect) = 225 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 33 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. 71

75 Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group

76 < 1.01 < < < 1.19 < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 1:37:48 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Gauge Barge Compartment SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 11 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 2 (Max LOD) = 0.11 (Max detect) = 2.13 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: 73

77 Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 11 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION 74

78 OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < < 1.70 Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 1:40:16 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Collect Product Sample SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? 75

79 Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 9 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile 76

80 Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 1:41:58 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Collect Sample/ Gauge Compartment - As one Task SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. 77

81 Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 6 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) :

82 Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 1:46:06 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Collect Sample/ Gauge Compartment - As on Task SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 26 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 2 (Max LOD) = 0.11 (Max detect) = 2.13 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. 79

83 Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 26 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION 80

84 OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 2:08:41 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION 81

85 Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Gauge Barge Compartment SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 11 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = 1.31E0003 ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior

86 Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 2:13:07 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION 83

87 Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Collect Product Sample SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 9 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior

88 Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 2:14:49 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: 85

89 Process: Task: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Gauge Barge Collect Sample as one Task SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 6 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior

90 Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 2:18:09 PM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal - Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: All Gauge Barge Collect Sample Combined SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm 87

91 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 26 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior

92 Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group

93 Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/6/ :39:43 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All grades Task: Tank Stripping SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 38 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 9 (Max LOD) = 0.16 (Max detect) = 1.24 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is rejected at the p=0.05 confidence level. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 38 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd =

94 COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = <0.001 BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group 0.15 < 91

95 0.16 < 0.15 < 0.10 < 0.11 < 0.11 < 0.10 < < 0.11 < < < 0.14 < 0.14 < 0.11 < 0.10 < < 0.09 < 0.09 < 0.13 < 0.09 < 0.13 < 0.08 < 0.12 < 0.11 < 0.13 < 0.13 < 0.13 < < 0.11 < 0.15 < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/6/ :54:32 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Light Product River Terminal Operator Department: Building: Process: Offload Gasoline Barge - All grades Task: Tank Stripping SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 92

96 CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 38 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 11 (Max LOD) = 1.46 (Max detect) = 83.3 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is rejected at the p=0.05 confidence level. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 38 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior

97 Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < < 0.95 < < < < < 94

98 0.85 < 0.85 < 1.14 < < 1.18 < 1.18 < < <

99 APPENDIX E IHDA Reports Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :57:09 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Full-shift SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 1 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 14 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 1 (Max LOD) = (Max detect) = GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 14 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 96

100 mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >1 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = E-5 Gmax = 5 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 5E3 DATA 97

101 Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :01:51 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Full-shift SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Toluene OEL: 20 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 14 min = max = median =

102 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = <0.001 BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >20 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 100 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 1E5 99

103 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :05:11 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Full-shift SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Xylene OEL: 100 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 14 (Num. >= LOD) = 7 50 % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = 7 50 % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 6 (Max LOD) = (Max detect) = GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is rejected at the p=0.05 confidence level. Goodness-of-fit Charts: 100

104 ORDER STATISTICS n = 14 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = <0.001 BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >100 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 500 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. 101

105 Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < < < < < < < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :11:56 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Full-shift SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: n-hexane OEL: 50 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 14 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored 102

106 (Num. unique LODs) = 1 (Max LOD) = (Max detect) = GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 14 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = <0.001 BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >50 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior

107 Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 250 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :14:57 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION 104

108 Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Full-shift SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 100 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 14 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >100 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood

109 Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 500 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :32:52 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION 106

110 Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Product Line Connection SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 8 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 1 (Max LOD) = 0.14 (Max detect) = 5.3 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 8 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL =

111 BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group 0.14 <

112 Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :38:24 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Disconnect Product Line SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 11 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 3 (Max LOD) = 0.14 (Max detect) = 2.01 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 11 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. 109

113 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 110

114 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group 0.11 < 0.13 < 0.14 < 0.14 < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :35:51 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Product Line Connection/ Disconnection Combined SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 19 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 3 (Max LOD) = 0.14 (Max detect) = 5.3 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: 111

115 ORDER STATISTICS n = 19 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood

116 Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group 0.14 < < 0.13 < 0.14 < 0.14 < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :40:00 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Gauge Barge Compartment SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION 113

117 Total n = 4 (Num. >= LOD) = 1 25 % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = 3 75 % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 2 (Max LOD) = 0.14 (Max detect) = 2.12 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is rejected at the p=0.05 confidence level. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 4 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) The number of uncensored values is 1. Statistical analysis is not possible using LPR- or MLE-based methods. All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS COMPLIANCE STATISTICS BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior

118 Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group 0.13 < 0.13 < 0.14 < 2.12 Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :41:53 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Collect Product Sample SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 115

119 CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 4 (Num. >= LOD) = 2 50 % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = 2 50 % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 2 (Max LOD) = 0.13 (Max detect) = 1.02 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 4 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = < %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior

120 Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group 0.12 < 0.13 < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :43:52 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Gauge Compartment and Collect Sample as One Task SUBSTANCE INFORMATION 117

121 Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 5 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior

122 Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :48:01 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Combined SET Gauge Compartment and Collect Sample SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 119

123 CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 13 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 3 (Max LOD) = 0.14 (Max detect) = 4.1 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 13 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior

124 Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < 0.12 < < 0.13 < 0.13 < Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 3/31/ :15:35 AM 121

125 File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock - Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Gauge Barge Compartment SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 4 (Num. >= LOD) = 3 75 % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = 1 25 % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 1 (Max LOD) = 1.19 (Max detect) = 140 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 4 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = 3.75E0004 ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL =

126 BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. WARNING: The true exposure profile GSD may exceed the maximum GSD set for the BDA "Parameter Space." Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. WARNING: The true exposure profile GSD may exceed the maximum GSD set for the PPE "Parameter Space." Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group 1.19 <

127 140.0 Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 3/31/ :24:34 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock - Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Collect Product Sample SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 4 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC 124

128 Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 3/31/ :31:17 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock - Tankerman Department: 125

129 Building: Process: Task: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Collect Sample - Gauge Barge as one Task SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 5 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = 1.04E0003 ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior

130 Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 3/31/ :38:41 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Light Product Dock - Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Load Gasoline Barge - All Grades Task: Collect Sample - Gauge Barge All Combined SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: TOV OEL: 150 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 127

131 CENSORED DATA INFORMATION Total n = 13 (Num. >= LOD) = % uncensored (Num. < LOD) = % censored (Num. unique LODs) = 1 (Max LOD) = 1.19 (Max detect) = 252 GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Dataset is censored. GOF test may be misleading. Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 13 min = max = median = CDA METHOD SELECTION CDA method: MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimation) All parametric confidence intervals were calculated using the full sample size. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = 2.77E0003 ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Decision Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >150 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood

132 Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 750 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile PPE Selection Charts were calculated with adjustment for censored data. Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 7.5E5 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group < 129

133 Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/2013 9:45:40 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Offload Benzene Barge Task: Full Shift SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 1 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? APPENDIX F IHDA Reports Refinery Light Product Dock Tankerman Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 10 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC 130

134 Cutoff (ppm) >1 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = E-5 Gmax = 5 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 5E3 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group

135 Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :19:55 AM File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Offload Benzene Barge Task: Connect Product Line SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 9 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 132

136 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood Posterior Cum Likelihood Cum Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 25 PPE SELECTION OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Respirator APF: >1000 MUC (OELxAPF) : Likelihood Posterior Parameter space: Gmin = Gmax = 2.5E4 DATA Sample # Conc LOD Date Group Version: IH Data Analyst V1.26 Date: 4/14/ :22:43 AM 133

137 File: New File FACILITY INFORMATION Facility: Refinery Chemical Dock Tankerman Department: Building: Process: Offload Benzene Barge Task: Disconnect Product Line SUBSTANCE INFORMATION Substance: Benzene OEL: 5 ppm EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST Subjective Analysis: Do the data appear to be (reasonably) lognormal? Objective Analysis: Filliben s Test: R = critical R = Interpretation: the lognormal distribution hypothesis is not rejected. Goodness-of-fit Charts: ORDER STATISTICS n = 7 min = max = median = DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS mean = %LCL = %UCL = sd = gm = %LCL = %UCL = gsd = COMPLIANCE STATISTICS X0.95 = %LCL = %UCL = ExcFrac = %LCL = %UCL = BAYESIAN DECISION ANALYSIS OEL Interpretation (i.e., Decision Statistic): 95th Percentile Exposure Rating: 0-T 1-HC 2-WC 3-C 4-PC Cutoff (ppm) >5 Cutoff (%OEL) >100 Likelihood