United States Office of Wster EPA-821-B-97-007
Environmental Protection (4303) January 1998
Agency
®EPA Environmental
Assessment for Proposed
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
for the Landfills
Point Source Category
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
PROPOSED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
FORTHE
LANDFILLS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
VoJume I
January 199S
Prepared for:
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Charles Tamulords
Task Manager,
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
The Standards and Applied Science Division, Office of Science and Technology, reviewed
and approved this report for publication. Versar, Inc. (Contract 7W-3300-NASA) prepared this
report with the direction and review of the Office of Science and Technology. Neither the United
States Government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees make
any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third
party's use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process
discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such party would not infringe on privately
owned rights.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. METHODOLOGY 3
2.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts 3
2.1.1 Comparison of In-stream Concentrations with Ambient Water
Quality Criteria 3
2.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities 4
2.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities 7
2.1.1.3 Assumptions and Caveats 10
2.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits 12
2.1.2.1 Fish Tissue 12
2.1.2.2 Drinking Water 16
2.1.2.3 Assumptions and Caveats 17
2.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits 18
2.1.3.1 Assumptions and Caveats 20
2.1.4 Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits 20
2.1.4.1 Assumptions and Caveats 22
2.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity 22
2.2.1 Pollutants of Concern Identification 23
2.2.2 Compilation of Physical-Chemical and Toxicity Data 23
2.2.3 Categorization Assessment 27
2.2.4 Assumptions and Limitations 31
2.3 Documented Environmental Impacts 32
3. DATA SOURCES 33
3.1 Water Quality Impacts 33
3.1.1 Landfill-Specific Data 33
3.1.2 Information Used to Evaluate POTW Operations 34
3.1.3 Water Quality Criteria (WQC) 35
3.1.3.1 Aquatic Life 35
3.1.3.2 Human Health 36
3.1.4 Information Used to Evaluate Human Health Risks and Benefits ... 39
3.1.5 Information Used to Evaluate Ecological Benefits 40
3.1.6 Information Used to Evaluate Economic Productivity Benefits .... 41
3.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity 41
3.3 Documented Environmental Impacts 42
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No,
4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 43
4.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts 43
4.1.1 Comparison of In-stream Concentrations with Ambient Water
Quality Criteria 43
4.1.1.1 Direct Discharges 43
4.1.1.2 Indirect Discharges 45
4.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits 46
4.1.2.1 Direct Discharges 47
4.1.2.2 Indirect Discharges 49
4.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits 51
4.1.3.1 Direct Discharges 51
4.1.3.2 Indirect Discharges 52
4.1.2.3 Additional Ecological Benefits 53
4.1.4 Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits 53
4.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity 53
4.3 Documented Environmental Impacts 54
5. REFERENCES R-l
ii
-------
VOLUME n
Page Nn
Appendix A CDD/CDF Analysis A-l
Appendix B Landfill-Specific Data B-l
Appendix C National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
Dissolved Concentration Potentials (DCPs) C-l
Appendix D Water Quality Analysis Data Parameters D-l
Appendix E Risks and Benefits Analysis Information E-l
Appendix F Direct Discharger Analysis at Current (Baseline) and
Proposed RAT Treatment Levels F-l
Appendix G Indirect Discharger Analysis at Current (Baseline) and
Proposed Pretrpatmpnt Levels G-l
Appendix H POTW Analysis at Current (Baseline) and
Proposed Pretrpatment Levels H-l
Appendix I Direct Discharger Risks and Benefits Analyses at Current (Baseline)
and Proposed RAT Treatment Levels 1-1
Appendix J Indirect Discharger Risks and Benefits Analyses at Current (Baseline)
and Proposed Pretreatment Levels J-l
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page Nn
Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (32) Discharged from 43 Direct and
85 Indirect Nonhazardous Landfills 56
Table 2 Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Direct and Indirect
Hazardous and Nonhazardous Landfills 58
Table 3 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Leachate) (Sample Set) 59
Table 4 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Leachate) (Sample Set) 60
Table 5 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill
Dischargers (Leachate) (National Level) 61
Table 6 Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 3 Indirect Hazardous
Landfills 62
Table 7 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Indirect Hazardous Landfill
Dischargers (Leachate) (Sample Set) 65
Table 8 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Indirect Hazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Leachate) (Sample Set) 66
Table 9 Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems
from Indirect Hazardous Landfill Dischargers (Sample Set) 67
Table 10 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Indirect Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Leachate) (Sample Set) 68
Table 11 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Indirect
Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate) (Sample Set) 69
Table 12 Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems
from Indirect Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Sample Set) 70
Table 13 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set) 71
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 14 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for
Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set) 72
Table 15 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Direct
Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water
Consumption) (Sample Set) 76
Table 16 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set) 77
Table 17 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National Level) 78
Table 18 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Direct
Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water
Consumption) (National Level) 79
Table 19 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (National Level) 80
Table 20 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Indirect Hazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set) 81
Table 21 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts
for Indirect Hazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set) 82
Table 22 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Indirect
Hazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water
Consumption) (Sample Set) 83
Table 23 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Indirect Hazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set) 84
Table 24 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Indirect Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set) 85
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No
Table 25 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for
Indirect Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set) 86
Table 26 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Indirect
Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water
Consumption) (Sample Set) 87
Table 27 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Indirect Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set) 88
Table 28 Summary of Ecological (Recreational) Benefits for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Sample Set and National Level) 89
Table 29 Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (Hazardous Landfills) ... 90
Table 30 Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects
(Hazardous Landfills) 92
Table 31 Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications,
and Target Organs (Hazardous Landfills) 93
Table 32 Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (Nonhazardous
Landfills) 94
Table 33 Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects (Nonhazardous
Landfills) 95
Table 34 Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and
Target Organs (Nonhazardous Landfills) 96
Table 35 Landfills Included on State 304(L) Short Lists 97
Table 36 POTWs Which Receive Discharge from Landfills and are Included On
State 304(L) Short Lists 98
Table 37 Modeled Landfill Facilities/POTWs Located on Waterbodies With State-
Issued Fish Consumption Advisories 99
vi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This environmental assessment quantifies the water quality-related benefits associated with
achievement of the proposed BAT (Best Available Technology) and PSES (Pretreatment Standards
for Existing Sources) controls for hazardous and nonhazardous landfills. Based on site-specific
analyses of current conditions and changes in discharges associated with the proposal, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in-stream pollutant concentrations for 65 priority
and nonconventional pollutants from direct and indirect discharges using stream dilution modeling.
EPA assessed the potential impacts and benefits to aquatic life by comparing the modeled in-stream
pollutant concentrations to published EPA aquatic life criteria guidance or to toxic effect levels. EPA
projected potential adverse human health effects and benefits by: (1) comparing estimated in-stream
concentrations to health-based water quality toxic effect levels or criteria; and (2) estimating the
potential reduction of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard (systemic) from consuming
contaminated fish or drinking water. Estimates of upper-bound individual cancer risks, population
risks, and systemic hazards result from modeled in-stream pollutant concentrations and standard EPA
assumptions. The assessment evaluates modeled pollutant concentrations in fish and drinking water
to estimate cancer risk and systemic hazards among the general population, sport anglers and their
families, and subsistence anglers and their families. Due to the hydrophobic nature of the two
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (ODD) congeners and one chlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF) congener
under evaluation, EPA projected human health benefits for only these pollutants by using the Office
of Research and Development's Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation (DRE) model to estimate the
potential reduction of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard from consuming contaminated
fish. EPA used the findings from the analyses of reduced occurrence of in-stream pollutant
concentrations in excess of both aquatic life and human health criteria or toxic effect levels to assess
improvements in recreational fishing habitats that are impacted by hazardous and nonhazardous
landfill wastewater discharges (ecological benefits). These improvements in aquatic habitats are
expected to improve the quality and value of recreational fishing opportunities.
The report presents evaluations of the effect of the discharges on potential inhibition of
operations at publicly owned treatment works (POTW) and on concentrations of pollutants in sewage
sludge (thereby limiting its use for land application) based on current and proposed pretreatment
levels. Estimations of the inhibition of POTW operations are made by comparing modeled POTW
-------
influent concentrations to available inhibition levels and estimations of contamination of sewage
sludge are made by comparing projected pollutant concentrations in sewage sludge to available EPA
regulatory standards. The report also presents economic productivity benefits estimations based on
the incremental quantity of sludge that, as a result of reduced pollutant discharges to POTWs, meet
criteria for the generally less expensive disposal method, namely land application and surface disposal.
In addition, the report presents the potential fate and toxicity of pollutants of concern
associated with hazardous and nonhazardous landfill wastewater based on known characteristics of
each chemical. The report includes reviews of recent literature and studies, as well as State
environmental agencies contacted, for evidence of documented environmental impacts on aquatic life
human health, POTW operations, and on the quality of receiving water.
Performed analyses include discharges from a representative sample set of 43 direct
nonhazardous landfills, 3 indirect hazardous landfills, and 85 indirect nonhazardous landfills. EPA
extrapolated results for only direct nonhazardous landfills, to the national level (approximately 158
landfills), based on the statistical methodology used for estimated costs, loads, and economic impacts.
In this report, EPA provides the results of these analyses, organized by the type of discharge (direct
and indirect) and type of landfill (hazardous and nonhazardous).
Comparison of In-stream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(AWOCVImpacts at POTWs
Direct Discharges
(a) Nonhazardous Landfills (Sample Set)
The water quality modeling results for 43 direct nonhazardous landfills discharging 32
pollutants to 41 receiving streams indicate that at current discharge levels, in-stream concentrations
of 1 pollutant will likely exceed acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 1 of the 41
receiving streams. In-stream concentrations of 3 pollutants will likely exceed chronic agnatic life
criteria or toxic effect levels in 12 percent (5 of the total 41) of the receiving streams. The proposed
BAT regulatory option will eliminate acute aquatic life excursions. The regulatory option will also
viii
-------
reduce the chronic aquatic life excursions to 2 pollutants in 3 receiving streams. Additionally, at
current discharge levels, the modeling results project that in-stream concentrations of 1 pollutant
(using a target risk of lO^lE-^) for carcinogens) will exceed human health criteria or toxic effect
levels (developed for consumption of water and organisms) in 5 percent (2 of the total 41) receiving
streams. EPA projects no excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for
organisms consumption only). The proposed BAT regulatory option will not reduce human health
criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of water and organisms) excursions. The
proposed BAT regulatory option reduces pollutant loadings by 52 percent.
(b) Nonhazardous Landfills (National Extrapolation)
Extrapolations of modeling results of the sample set include 158 nonhazardous landfills,
discharging 32 pollutants to 154 receiving streams. From the extrapolated in-stream pollutant
concentrations, 1 pollutant is projected to exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels
(developed for water and organisms consumption) in 3 percent (4 of the total 154) receiving streams
at both current and proposed BAT discharge levels. The proposed regulation will reduce excursions
of chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels due to the discharge of 3 pollutants in 4
receiving streams. Proposed BAT discharge levels will reduce the number of excursions from 97
excursions in 38 receiving streams at current conditions to 44 excursions in 34 receiving streams.
Indirect Dischargers
(a) Hazardous Landfills (Sample Set)
EPA expects compliance of all the hazardous landfills included in the sample set with the
baseline treatment standards established for indirect dischargers. EPA did, however, evaluate the
effects of hazardous landfill discharges to POTWs and their receiving streams.
Water quality modeling results for 3 indirect hazardous landfills that discharge 60 pollutants
to 3 POTWs with outfalls on 3 receiving streams indicate that at current discharge levels, no
in-stream pollutant concentrations will likely exceed aquatic life criteria (acute or chronic) or toxic
effect levels. Additionally, at current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels, projections
indicate that the in-stream concentration of 1 pollutant (using a target risk of 10"6 (1E-6) for
carcinogens) will exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption
ix
-------
of water and organisms) in 1 receiving stream with the magnitude of the excursion at only twofold
or less. Projections show no excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed
for organisms consumption only). Pollutant loadings show a 42 percent reduction.
In addition, this report includes an evaluation of the potential impact of the three hazardous
landfills, which discharge to three POTWs, on the inhibition of POTW operation and contamination
of sludge. Projections show no inhibition or sludge contamination problems at the three POTWs
receiving wastewater.
(b) Nonhazardous Landfills (Sample Set)
EPA evaluated the potential effects of POTW wastewater discharges on receiving stream
water quality at only current discharge levels for a representative sample of 85 indirect discharging
nonhazardous landfills. EPA is not proposing pretreatment standards for these indirect discharges
from nonhazardous landfills based on preliminary data analyses, which show no documented
persistent problems with POTW upsets or with inhibition or sludge contamination. Pollutant loadings
for the 85 landfills at current discharge levels are 506,335 pounds-per-year.
Modeling results for the 85 indirect nonhazardous landfills that discharge 32 pollutants to 80
POTWs with outfalls on 80 receiving streams indicate that at current discharge levels no in-stream
pollutant concentrations will likely exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed
for water and organisms consumption/organisms consumption only). Projections indicate that
in-stream concentrations of 3 pollutants will exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect
levels in 2 of the receiving streams, with a twofold or less magnitude of the excursions. Projections
show no excursions of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels. Nor do projections show
inhibition or sludge problems at the 80 POTWs receiving discharges from the 85 nonhazardous
landfills.
Human Health Risks and Benefits
Projections for both direct and indirect landfill (hazardous and nonhazardous) wastewater
discharges, show the excess annual cancer cases at current discharge levels and, therefore, at
x
-------
proposed BAT and proposed pretreatment discharge levels to be far less than 0.5 for all
populations evaluated from the ingestion of contaminated fish and drinking water. This benefit,
therefore, projects no monetary value to society. Projections indicate systemic toxicant effects from
fish consumption for both direct and indirect nonhazardous landfill discharges. For direct discharges
(sample set), projections indicate that systemic effects will result from the discharge of 1 pollutant
to 1 receiving stream at both current and proposed BAT discharge levels. Estimates indicate an
affected population of328 subsistence anglers and their families. Results, extrapolated to the national
level, project an estimated population of 643 subsistence anglers and their families affected from the
discharge of 1 pollutant to 2 receiving streams. For indirect discharges, projections show systemic
toxicant effects at only current discharge levels due to the discharge of 1 pollutant to 1 receiving
stream. Projected estimates indicate a population of 52 subsistence anglers and their families to be
affected. Evaluations do not include systemic toxicant effects at proposed pretreatment levels.
Currently, the reduction of systemic toxic effects does not include estimation of monetary values.
Ecoloaical Benefits
Projections show potential ecological benefits of the proposed regulation, based on
improvements in recreational fishing habitats, for only direct nonhazardous landfills wastewater
discharges. Projections indicate that the proposed regulation will not completely eliminate in-stream
concentrations in excess of aquatic life and human health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) in
any stream receiving wastewater discharges from indirect hazardous landfills (evaluations include
indirect nonhazardous landfills at only current discharge levels; therefore, the analysis excludes
than). For direct nonhazardous landfill discharges, the proposed BAT regulatory option eliminates
concentrations in excess of AWQC at 1 receiving stream. Estimation of the monetary value of
improved recreational fishing opportunity involves first calculating the baseline value of the receiving
stream using a value per person day of recreational fishing, and the number of person-days fished on
the receiving stream. Calculations then show the value of improving water quality in this fishery,
based on the increase in value to anglers of achieving contaminant-free fishing. The resulting estimate
of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers on the improved receiving stream is $64,300
to $230,000 (1992 dollars). Based on extrapolated data to the national level, projections indicate that
the proposed regulation completely eliminates in-stream concentrations in excess of AWQC at 2
xi
-------
receiving streams. The resulting estimate of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers
ranges from $126,000 to $450,000.
The estimated benefit of improved recreational fishery opportunities is only a limited measure
of the value to society of the improvements in aquatic habitats expected to result from the proposed
regulation. Additional benefits, which could not be quantified in this assessment, include increased
assimilation capacity of the receiving stream, protection of terrestrial wildlife and birds that consume
aquatic organisms, maintenance of an aesthetically pleasing environment, and improvements to other
recreational activities such as swimming, water skiing, boating, and wildlife observation. Such
activities contribute to the support of local and State economies.
Economic Productivity Benefits
This report also presents an evaluation of potential economic productivity benefits, based on
reduced sewage sludge contamination and sewage sludge disposal costs, at POTWs receiving the
discharges from indirect hazardous and nonhazardous landfills. Because projections do not show
sludge contamination problems at the 3 POTWs receiving wastewater from 3 hazardous landfills, or
at the 80 POTWs receiving wastewater from 85 nonhazardous landfills, projections do not include
economic productivity benefits.
Pollutant Fate and Toxicity
EPA identified 68 pollutants of concern (priority, nonconventional, and conventional) in
wastestreams from hazardous landfills. EPA evaluated 60 of these pollutants to assess their potential
fate and toxicity based on known characteristics of each chemical.
Most of the 60 pollutants have at least one known toxic effect. Based on available physical-
chemical properties and aquatic life and human health toxicity data for these pollutants, 13 exhibit
moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 16 are classified by EPA as known or probable human
carcinogens, and 43 are human systemic toxicants. In addition, 23 have EPA drinking water values
(MCLs or action levels), and 20 are designated by EPA as priority pollutants. In terms of projected
partitioning, 18 of the evaluated pollutants are moderately to highly volatile (potentially causing risk
xii
-------
to exposed populations via inhalation). In the same terms, 12 have a moderate to high potential to
bioaccumulate in aquatic biota (potentially accumulating in the food chain and causing increased risk
to higher trophic level organisms and to exposed human populations via consumption of fish and
shellfish). Also, 3 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids. Twelve (12) are resistant to
biodegradation or slowly biodegraded.
EPA also identified 38 pollutants of concern (priority, nonconventional, and conventional)
in wastestreams from nonhazardous landfills. Evaluations included 32 of these pollutants to assess
their potential fate and toxicity, based on known characteristics of each chemical.
Most of the 32 pollutants have at least one known toxic effect. Based on available
physical-chemical properties and aquatic life and human health toxicity data for these pollutants, 5
exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 24 are human systemic toxicants, and 8 are classified
as known or probable carcinogens by EPA. Eight (8) of the pollutants have EPA drinking water
values (MCLs) and EPA designated 7 as priority pollutants. In terms of projected environmental
partitioning among media, 7 of the evaluated pollutants are moderately to highly volatile. Also, 2
have a moderate to high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic biota, 2 are moderately to highly
adsorptive to solids, and 2 are slowly biodegraded.
Evaluations did not include the impacts of the 2 conventional and 5 nonconventional
pollutants (one additional pollutant, amenable cyanide, is evaluated as cyanide) when modeling the
effect of the proposed regulation on receiving stream water quality and POTW operations or when
evaluating the potential fate and toxicity of discharged pollutants. These pollutants are total
suspended solids (TSS), 5-day biological oxygen demand (BODs), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
total dissolved solids (IDS), total organic carbon (TOC), hexane extractable material, and total
phenolic compounds. The discharge of these pollutants may adversely affect human health and the
environment. For example, habitat degradation may result from increased suspended particulate
matter that reduces light penetration, and thus primary productivity, or from accumulation of sludge
particles that alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. High COD and BOD5 levels may
deplete oxygen concentrations, which can result in mortality or other adverse effects on fish. High
TOC levels may interfere with water quality by causing taste and odor problems and mortality in fish.
-------
Documented Environmental Impacts
This assessment also includes summaries of documented environmental impacts on aquatic
life, human health, POTW operations, and receiving stream water quality, based on a review of
published literature abstracts, State 304(1) Short Lists, State Fishing Advisories, and contact with
State environmental agencies. States identified two (2) direct discharging landfills and 10 POTWs
receiving the discharges from 12 landfills as point sources that cause water quality problems and are
included on their 304(1) Short List. State contacts indicate that of the two direct facilities, one is no
longer a direct discharger and the other is currently in compliance with its permit limits and is no
longer a source of impairment. All POTWs listed report no problems with landfill wastewater
discharges. In addition, States issued fish consumption advisories for waterbodies which receive the
discharge from 4 direct discharging landfills and 13 POTWs receiving the discharge from landfills.
However, the majority of advisories are based on chemicals that are not pollutants of concern for the
landfill industry.
xiv
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present an assessment of the water quality benefits of
controlling the discharge of wastewater from hazardous and nonhazardous landfills to surface
waters and publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). Potential aquatic life and human health
impacts of direct nonhazardous discharges on receiving stream water quality and of indirect
hazardous and nonhazardous discharges on POTWs and their receiving streams are projected at
current, proposed BAT (Best Available Technology), and proposed PSES (Pretreatment Standards
for Existing Sources) levels by quantifying pollutant releases and by using stream modeling
techniques. The potential benefits to human health are evaluated by: (1) comparing estimated
in-stream concentrations to health-based water quality toxic effect levels or U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) published water quality criteria; and (2) estimating the potential
reduction of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard (systemic) from consuming
contaminated fish or drinking water. Reduction in carcinogenic risks is monetized, if applicable,
using estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding premature mortality. Due to the
hydrophobic nature of the two chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD) congeners and one chlorinated
dibenzofuran (CDF) congener being evaluated, human health benefits are projected for only these
pollutants by using the Office of Research and Development's Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation
(DRE) model to estimate the potential reduction of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard
from consuming contaminated fish. Potential ecological benefits are projected by estimating
improvements in recreational fishing habitats and, in turn, by projecting, if applicable, a monetary
value for enhanced recreational fishing opportunities. Economic productivity benefits are
estimated based on reduced POTW sewage sludge contamination (thereby increasing the number
of allowable sludge uses or disposal options). In addition, the potential fate and toxicity of
pollutants of concern associated with landfill wastewater are evaluated based on known
characteristics of each chemical. Recent literature and studies are also reviewed for evidence of
documented environmental impacts (e.g., case studies) on aquatic life, human health, and POTW
operations and for impacts on the quality of receiving water.
While this report does not evaluate impacts associated with reduced releases of 2
conventional pollutants (total suspended solids jTSS] and 5-day biological oxygen demand
1
-------
[BODJ) and 5 classical pollutant parameters (chemical oxygen demand [COD], total dissolved
solids [IDS], total organic carbon [TOC], hexane extractable material, and total phenolic
compounds), the discharge of these pollutants may have adverse effects on human health and the
environment (one additional pollutant, amenable cyanide, is evaluated as cyanide). For example,
habitat degradation may result from increased suspended particulate matter that reduces light
penetration and primary productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles that alter benthic
spawning grounds and feeding habitats. High COD and BOD} levels may deplete oxygen levels,
which may result in mortality or other adverse effects in fish. High TOC levels may interfere
with water quality by causing taste and odor problems and mortality in fish.
The following sections of this report describe: (1) the methodology used in the evaluation
of projected water quality impacts and projected impacts on POTW operations for direct and
indirect discharging landfills (including potential human health risks and benefits, ecological
benefits, and economic productivity benefits) in the evaluation of the potential fate and toxicity
of pollutants of concern, and in the evaluation of documented environmental impacts; (2) data
sources used to evaluate water quality impacts such as plant-specific data, information used to
evaluate POTW operations, water quality criteria, and information used to evaluate human health
risks and benefits, ecological benefits, economic productivity benefits, pollutant fate and toxicity,
and documented environmental impacts; (3) a summary of the results of this analysis; and (4) a
complete list of references cited in this report. The various appendices presented in Volume II
provide additional detail on the specific information addressed in the main report. These
appendices are available in the administrative record.
2
-------
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts
The water quality impacts and associated risks/benefits of landfill discharges at various
treatment levels are evaluated by: (1) comparing projected in-stream concentrations with ambient
water quality criteria,1 (2) estimating the human health risks and benefits associated with the
consumption of fish and drinking water from waterbodies impacted by the landfills industry, (3)
estimating the ecological benefits associated with improved recreational fishing habitats on
impacted waterbodies, and (4) estimating the economic productivity benefits based on reduced
sewage sludge contamination at POTWs receiving the wastewater of landfill facilities. These
analyses are performed for a representative sample set of 43 direct nonhazardous landfills, 3
indirect hazardous landfills, and 85 indirect nonhazardous landfills. Results are extrapolated, for
only the direct nonhazardous landfills, to the national level (approximately 158 landfills) based
on the statistical methodology used for estimated costs, loads, and economic impacts. The
methodologies used in this evaluation are described in detail below.
2.1.1 Comparison of In-stream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Current and proposed pollutant releases are quantified and compared, and potential aquatic
life and human health impacts resulting from current and proposed pollutant releases are evaluated
using stream modeling techniques. Projected in-stream concentrations for each pollutant are
compared to EPA water quality criteria or, for pollutants for which no water quality criteria have
been developed, to toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic concentration).
Inhibition of POTW operation and sludge contamination are also evaluated. The following three
1 In performing this analysis, EPA used guidance documents published by EPA that recommend numeric human health
and aquatic life water quality criteria for numerous pollutants. States often consult these guidance documents when
adopting water quality criteria as part of their water-quality standards. However, because those State-adopted criteria
may vary, EPA used the nationwide criteria guidance as the most representative values. EPA also recognizes that
currently there is no scientific consensus on the most appropriate approach for extrapolating the dose-response
relationship to the low-dose associated with drinking water exposure for arsenic. EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment and EPA's Office of Water sponsored an Expert Panel Workshop, May 21-22, 1997, to review
and discuss the relevant scientific literature for evaluating the possible modes of action underlying the carcinogenic action
of arsenic.
3
-------
sections (i.e., Section 2.1.1.1 through Section 2.1.1.3) describe the methodology and assumptions
used for evaluating the impact of direct and indirect discharging facilities.
2.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities
Using a stream dilution model that does not account for fate processes other than complete
immediate mixing, projected in-stream concentrations are calculated at current and proposed BAT
treatment levels for stream segments with direct nonhazardous discharging landfills. For stream
segments with multiple landfills, pollutant loadings are summed, if applicable, before
concentrations are calculated. The dilution model used for estimating in-stream concentrations
is as follows.
C„= U0D xCF
u FF + SF
(Eq. 1)
where:
Q,
L
OD
FF
SF
CF
in-stream pollutant concentration (micrograms per liter [^g/L])
landfill pollutant loading (pounds/year [lbs/year])
landfill operation (days/year)
landfill flow (million gallons/day [gal/day])
receiving stream flow (million gal/day)
conversion factors for units
The landfill-specific data (i.e., pollutant loading, operating days, landfill flow, and stream
flow) used in Eq. 1 are derived from various sources as described in Section 3.1.1 of this report.
One of three receiving stream flow conditions (1Q10 low flow, 7Q10 low flow, and harmonic
mean flow) is used for the two treatment levels; use depends on the type of criterion or toxic
effect level intended for comparison. The 1Q10 and 7Q10 flows are the lowest 1-day and the
4
-------
lowest consecutive 7-day average flow during any 10-year period, respectively, and are used to
estimate potential acute and chronic aquatic life impacts, respectively, as recommended in the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991a). The
harmonic mean flow is defined as the inverse mean of reciprocal daily arithmetic mean flow
values and is used to estimate potential human health impacts. EPA recommends the long-term
harmonic mean flow as the design flow for assessing potential human health impacts, because it
provides a more conservative estimate than the arithmetic mean flow. 7Q10 flows are not
appropriate for assessing potential human health impacts, because they have no consistent
relationship with the long-term mean dilution.
For assessing impacts on aquatic life, the landfill operating days are used to represent the
exposure duration; the calculated in-stream concentration is thus the average concentration on days
the landfill is discharging wastewater. For assuming long-term human health impacts, the
operating days (exposure duration) are set at 365 days; the calculated in-stream concentration is
thus the average concentration on all days of the year. Although this calculation for human health
impacts leads to a lower calculated concentration because of the additional dilution from days
when the landfill is not in operation, it is consistent with the conservative assumption that the
target population is present to consume drinking water and contaminated fish every day for an
entire lifetime.
Because stream flows are not available for hydrologically complex waters such as bays,
estuaries, and oceans, site-specific critical dilution factors (CDFs) or estuarine dissolved
concentration potentials (DCPs) are used to predict pollutant concentrations for landfills
discharging to estuaries and bays, if applicable, as follows:
LIOD
(Eq. 2)
where:
C,
'ea
estuary pollutant concentration (^g/L)
5
-------
L = landfill pollutant loading (lbs/year)
OD — landfill operation (days/year)
FF = landfill flow (million gal/day)
CDF = critical dilution factor
CF = conversion factors for units
Ca = Lx DCP x CF (£q. 3)
where:
C„ = estuary pollutant concentration (/xg/L)
L = landfill pollutant loading (lbs/year)
DCP = dissolved concentration potential (milligrams per liter [mg/L])
CF = conversion factor for units
Site-specific critical dilution factors are obtained from a survey of States and Regions conducted
by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Mixing Zone Dilution Factors for
New Chemical Exposure Assessments, Draft Report, (U.S. EPA, 1992a). Acute CDFs are used
to evaluate acute aquatic life effects; whereas, chronic CDFs are used to evaluate chronic aquatic
life or adverse human health effects. It is assumed that the drinking water intake and fishing
location are at the edge of the chronic mixing zone.
The Strategic Assessment Branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Ocean Assessments Division has developed DCPs based on freshwater
inflow and salinity gradients to predict pollutant concentrations in each estuary in the National
Estuarine Inventory (NET) Data Atlas. These DCPs are applied to predict concentrations. They
also do not consider pollutant fate and are designed strictly to simulate concentrations of
nonreactive dissolved substances. In addition, the DCPs reflect the predicted estuary-wide
response and may not be indicative of site-specific locations.
Water quality excursions are determined by dividing the projected in-stream (Eq. 1) or
estuary (Eq. 2 and Eq. 3) pollutant concentrations by EPA ambient water quality criteria or toxic
effect levels. A value greater than 1.0 indicates an excursion.
6
-------
rnn/rnF rongpnprs
Although hydrophobic chemicals like CDD and CDF congeners will become associated
primarily with suspended particulates and sediments, concentrations will be found in the water
column near the discharge point. This is particularly true if discharges are assumed to be
continuous. Therefore, although the stream dilution approach is conservative, it provides a
reasonable estimate of dioxin-related water quality impacts on aquatic life. However, use of the
stream dilution model to assess human health impacts (water quality excursions) due to the
discharge of CDD/CDF congeners is inappropriate. The Office of Research and Development's
Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation (DRE) model, which provides more reliable information
regarding the partitioning of CDD/CDF between sediment and the water column, and thus their
bioavailability to fish, is used to estimate the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks from these
contaminants. (See Section 2.1.2.)
2.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities
Assessing the impacts of indirect hazardous and nonhazardous discharging landfills is a
two-stage process. First, water quality impacts are evaluated as described in Section (a) below.
Next, impacts on POTWs are considered as described in Section (b) that follows.
(a) Water Quality Impacts
A stream dilution model is used to project receiving stream impacts resulting from releases
by indirect discharging landfills as shown in Eq. 4. For stream segments with multiple landfills,
pollutant loadings are summed, if applicable, before concentrations are calculated. The landfill-
specific data used in Eq. 4 are derived from various sources as described in Section 3.1.1 of this
report. Three receiving stream flow conditions (1Q10 low flow, 7Q10 low flow, and harmonic
mean flow) are used for the current and proposed pretreatment options. Pollutant concentrations
are predicted for POTWs located on bays and estuaries using site-specific CDFs or NOAA's DCP
calculations (Eq. 5 and Eq. 6).
7
-------
where:
Q.
L
OD
TMT
PF
SF
CF
where:
C,,
L
OD
TMT
PF
CDF
CF
where:
Cc
L
TMT
DCP
CF
„ frlnrsx (\-TMT)xCF
C. = {LIOD) x pF'sp (Eq. 4)
= in-stream pollutant concentration (^g/L)
= landfill pollutant loading (lbs/year)
= landfill operation (days/year)
= POTW treatment removal efficiency
= POTW flow (million gal/day)
= receiving stream flow (million gal/day)
= conversion factors for units
LIOD x (1-7MZ)>
PF
x CF
/ CDF
(Eq. 5)
= estuary pollutant concentration (Mg/L)
= landfill pollutant loading (lbs/year)
= landfill operation (days/year)
= POTW treatment removal efficiency
= POTW flow (million gal/day)
= critical dilution factor
= conversion factors for units
C - Lx (1-TM7) x DCP x CF
(Eq. 6)
estuary pollutant concentration (mg/L)
landfill pollutant loading (lbs/year)
POTW treatment removal efficiency
dissolved concentration potential (mg/L)
conversion factors for units
8
-------
Potential impacts on freshwater quality are determined by comparing projected in-stream
pollutant concentrations (Eq. 4) at reported POTW flows and at 1Q1Q low, 7Q10 low, and
harmonic mean receiving stream flows with EPA water quality criteria or toxic effect levels for
the protection of aquatic life and human health; projected estuary pollutant' concentrations (Eq.
5 and Eq. 6), based on CDFs or DCPs, are compared to EPA water quality criteria or toxic effect
levels to determine impacts. Water quality criteria excursions are determined by dividing the
projected in-stream or estuary pollutant concentration by the EPA water quality criteria or toxic
effect levels. (See Section 2.1.1.1 for discussion of streamflow conditions, application of CDFs
or DCPs, assignment of exposure duration, comparison with criteria or toxic effect levels, and
assessment of CDD and CDF congeners.) A value greater than 1.0 indicates an excursion.
(b) Impacts on POTWs
The impacts of landfill discharges on POTW operations are evaluated for the potential to
inhibit POTW processes (i.e., inhibition of microbial degradation) and to limit land use or
disposal of POTW sludges. Inhibition of POTW operations is determined by dividing calculated
POTW influent levels (Eq. 7) with chemical-specific inhibition threshold levels. Excursions are
indicated by a value greater than 1.0.
„ LIOD
" = ~pF (Eq-71
where:
Cpi = POTW influent concentration (^g/L)
L = landfill pollutant loading (lbs/year)
OD = landfill operation (days)
PF = POTW flow (million gal/day)
CF = conversion factors for units
Limitations on sludge use (for land application) is evaluated by dividing projected pollutant
concentrations in sludge (Eq. 8) by available EPA-developed criteria values for sludge. A value
greater than 1.0 indicates an excursion.
9
-------
csp = C\ X TMT X PART x SGF
(Eq. 8)
where:
Cq, = sludge pollutant concentration (milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg])
Cpi = POTW influent concentration (//g/L)
TMT = POTW treatment removal efficiency
PART = chemical-specific sludge partition factor
SGF = sludge generation factor (5.96 parts per million [ppm])
Landfill-specific data and information used to evaluate POTWs are derived from the
sources described in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. For landfills that discharge to the same POTW,
their individual loadings are summed, if applicable, before the POTW influent and sludge
concentrations are calculated.
The partition factor is a measure of the tendency for the pollutant to partition in sludge
when it is removed from wastewater. For predicting sludge generation, the model assumes that
1,400 pounds of sludge are generated for each million gallons of wastewater processed (Metcalf
& Eddy, 1972). This results in a sludge generation factor of 5.96 mg/kg per //g/L (that is, for
every 1 //g/L of pollutant removed from wastewater and partitioned to sludge, the concentration
in sludge is 5.96 mg/kg dry weight).
2.1.1.3 Assumptions and Caveats
The following major assumptions are used in this analysis:
Background concentrations of each pollutant, both in the receiving stream
and in the POTW influent, are equal to zero; therefore, only the impacts
of discharging landfills are evaluated.
Landfills are assumed to operate 365 days per year.
An exposure duration of 365 days is used to determine the likelihood of
actual excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels.
10
-------
Complete mixing of discharge flow and stream flow occurs across the
stream at the discharge point. This mixing results in the calculation of an
"average stream" concentration, even though the actual concentration may
vary across the width and depth of the stream.
The process water at each landfill and the water discharged to a POTW are
obtained from a source other than the receiving stream.
The pollutant load to the receiving stream is assumed to be continuous and
is assumed to be representative of long-term landfill operations. These
assumptions may overestimate risks to human health and aquatic life, but
may underestimate potential short-term effects.
1Q10 and 7Q10 receiving stream flow rates are used to estimate aquatic life
impacts, and harmonic mean flow rates are used to estimate human health
impacts. 1Q10 low flows are estimated using the results of a regression
analysis conducted by Versar, Inc. for EPA's Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) of 1Q10 and 7Q10 flows from
representative U.S. rivers and streams taken from Upgrade of Flow
Statistics Used to Estimate Surface Water Chemical Concentrations for
Aquatic and Human Exposure Assessment (Versar, 1992a). Harmonic
mean flows are estimated from the mean and 7Q10 flows as recommended
in the Technical Support Document for Water-Quality-based Toxics Control
(U.S. EPA, 1991a). These flows may not be the same as those used by
specific States to assess impacts.
Pollutant fate processes, such as sediment adsorption, volatilization, and
hydrolysis, are not considered. This may result in estimated in-stream
concentrations that are environmentally conservative (higher).
Pollutants without a specific POTW treatment removal efficiency provided
by EPA or found in the literature are assigned a removal efficiency of zero;
pollutants without a specific partition factor are assigned a value of zero.
Sludge criteria levels are only available for seven pollutants-arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc.
Water quality criteria or toxic effect levels developed for freshwater
organisms are used in the analysis of landfills discharging to estuaries or
bays.
11
-------
2.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits
The potential benefits to human health are evaluated by estimating the risks (carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic hazard [systemic]) associated with reducing pollutant levels in fish tissue and
drinking water from current to proposed treatment levels. Reduction in carcinogenic risks is
monetized, if applicable, using estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding premature
mortality. The following three sections (i.e., Section 2.1.2.1 through Section 2.1.2.3) describe
the methodology and assumptions used to evaluate the human health risks and benefits from the
consumption of fish tissue and drinking water derived from waterbodies impacted by direct
nonhazardous landfills and indirect hazardous and nonhazardous discharging landfills.
2.1.2.1 Fish Tissue
To determine the potential benefits, in terms of reduced cancer cases, associated with
reducing pollutant levels in fish tissue, lifetime average daily doses (LADDs) and individual risk
levels are estimated for each pollutant discharged from a landfill based on the in-stream pollutant
concentrations calculated at current and proposed treatment levels in the site-specific stream
dilution analysis. (See Section 2.1.1.) Estimates are presented for sport anglers, subsistence
anglers, and the general population. LADDs are calculated as follows:
LADD = (CxIRxBCFxFxD) / (BWxLT) (Eq. 9)
where:
LADD = potential lifetime average daily dose (milligrams per kilogram per day
[mg/kg/day])
C = exposure concentration (mg/L)
ER = ingestion rate (See Section 2.1.2.3 - Assumptions)
BCF = bioconcentration factor, (liters per kilogram [L/kg] (whole body x 0.5)
F = frequency duration (365 days/year)
D = exposure duration (70 years)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
LT = lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
12
-------
Individual risks are calculated as follows:
R = LADD x SF
(Eq. 10)
where:
R
LADD
SF
individual risk level
potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg/day)
potency slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1
The estimated individual pollutant risk levels are then applied to the potentially exposed
populations of sport anglers, subsistence anglers, and the general population to estimate the
potential number of excess annual cancer cases occurring over the life of the population. The
number of excess cancer cases is then summed on a pollutant, landfill, and overall industry basis.
The number of reduced cancer cases are assumed to be the difference between the estimated risks
at current and proposed treatment levels.
Due to the hydrophobic nature of the two CDD congeners and the one CDF congener,
LADDs and individual risk levels are estimated for these pollutants based on the pollutant fish
tissue concentrations calculated at current and proposed treatment levels using the DRE model.
The DRE model calculates the fish tissue concentration by calculating the equilibrium between
CDD/CDF congeners in fish tissue and CDD/CDF congeners adsorbed to the organic fraction of
sediments suspended in the water column (Appendix A). LADDs are calculated as follows:
LADD =
(CFT x IRx F x D x CF )
( BWxLT)
(Eq. 11)
where:
CFT
m
F
D
BW
LADD
potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg/day)
fish tissue concentration (mg/kg)
ingestion rate (See Section 2.1.2.3 - Assumptions)
frequency duration (365 days/year)
exposure duration (70 years)
body weight (70 kg)
13
-------
LT = lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
CF = conversion factor
Individual risks are then calculated as shown in Eq. 10.
A monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases is estimated if current
wastewater discharges result in excess annual cancer cases greater than 0.5. The valuation of
benefits is based on estimates of society's willingness-to-pay to avoid the risk of cancer-related
premature mortality. Although it is not certain that all cancer cases will result in death, to develop
a worst case estimate for this analysis, avoided cancer cases are valued on the basis of avoided
mortality, To value mortality, a range of values recommended by an EPA, Office of Policy
Analysis (OPA) review of studies quantifying individuals' willingness-to-pay to avoid risks to life
is used (Fisher, Chestnut, and Violette, 1989; and Violette and Chestnut, 1986). The reviewed
studies used hedonic wage and contingent valuation analyses in labor markets to estimate the
amounts that individuals are willing to pay to avoid slight increases in risk of mortality or will
need to be compensated to accept a slight increase in risk of mortality. The willingness-to-pay
values estimated in these studies are associated with small changes in the probability of mortality.
To estimate a willingness-to-pay for avoiding certain or high probability mortality events, they
are extrapolated to the value for a 100 percent probability event.2 The resulting estimates of the
value of a "statistical life saved" are used to value regulatory effects that are expected to reduce
the incidence of mortality.
From this review of willingness-to-pay studies, OPA recommends a range of $1.6 to $8.5
million (1986 dollars) for valuing an avoided event of premature mortality or a statistical life
saved. A more recent survey of value of life studies by Viscusi (1992) also supports this range
with the finding that value of life estimates are clustered in the range of $3 to $7 million (1990
dollars). For this analysis, the figures recommended in the OPA study are adjusted to 1992 using
the relative change in the Employment Cost Index of Total Compensation for All Civilian Workers
from 1986 to 1992 (29 percent). Basing the adjustment in the willingness-to-pay values on change
in nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) instead of change in inflation, accounts for the
These estimates, however, do not represent fa willingness-to-pay to avoid fa certainty of death.
-------
expectation that willingness-to-pay to avoid risk is a normal economic good, and, accordingly,
society's willingness-to-pay to avoid risk will increase as national income increases. Updating to
1992 yields a range of $2.1 to $11.0 million.
Potential reductions in risks due to reproductive, developmental, or other chronic and
subchronic toxic effects are estimated by comparing the estimated lifetime average daily dose and
the oral reference dose (RfD) for a given chemical pollutant as follows:
HQ = ORI/R/D (Eq. 12)
where:
HQ = hazard quotient
ORI = oral intake (LADD x BW, mg/day)
RfD = reference dose (mg/day assuming a body weight of 70 kg)
A hazard index (i.e., sum of individual pollutant hazard quotients) is then calculated for
each landfill or receiving stream. A hazard index greater than 1.0 indicates that toxic effects may
occur in exposed populations. The size of the subpopulations affected are summed and compared
at the various treatment levels to assess benefits in terms of reduced systemic toxicity. While a
monetary value of benefits to society associated with a reduction in the number of individuals
exposed to pollutant levels likely to result in systemic health effects could not be estimated, any
reduction in risk is expected to yield human health related benefits.
The noncarcinogenic hazard of the CDD/CDF congeners is not estimated based on the oral
intake and RfD because the establishment of an RfD for these pollutants, using the standard
conventions of uncertainty, will likely be one or two orders of magnitude below average
background population exposures. This situation precludes using an RfD for determining an
acceptable level of CDD/CDF exposure, because at ambient background levels, effects are not
readily apparent (Personal Communication from William Farland, Director of the National Center
for Environmental Assessment to Andrew Smith, State Toxicologist, Maine Bureau of Health,
January 24, 1997 - Appendix A). Therefore, potential systemic effects of the CDD/CDF
15
-------
congeners are evaluated by comparing the estimated LADD (converted to units of toxic equivalent
[TEQ] by multiplying by the congener-specific toxic equivalent factor [TEF]) to ambient
background levels of 120 picograms (pg) TEQ/day as estimated by EPA in the 1994 Review Draft
Document Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and
Related Compounds (U.S. EPA, 1994a). EPA (1994a) estimates that adverse impacts associated
with dioxin exposures may occur at or within one order of magnitude of average background
exposures. As exposures increase within and above this range, the probability and severity of
systemic effects most likely increase. For this assessment, fish tissue exposures greater than one
order of magnitude above ambient background concentration indicate that toxic effects may occur
in exposed populations. The sizes of the subpopulation affected are then summed and compared
at the various treatment levels to assess benefits in terms of reduced systemic toxicity.
2.1.2.2 Drinking Water
Potential benefits associated with reducing pollutant levels in drinking water are determined
in a similar manner. LADDs for drinking water consumption are calculated as follows:
LADD = (C x 1R x F x D ) I ( BWx LT) (Eq. 13)
where:
LADD = potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg/day)
C = exposure concentration (mg/L)
IR = ingestion rate (2L/day)
F = frequency duration (365 days/year)
D = exposure duration (70 years)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
LT = lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
Estimated individual pollutant risk levels greater than 10"6 (1E-6) are applied to the population
served downstream by any drinking water utilities within 50 miles from each discharge site to
determine the number of excess annual cancer rases that may occur during the life of the
population. Systemic toxicant effects are evaluated by estimating the sizes of populations exposed
16
-------
to pollutants from a given landfill, the sum of whose individual hazard quotients yields a hazard
index (HI) greater than 1.0. A monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases
is estimated, if applicable, as described in Section 2.1.2.1.
2.1.2.3 Assumptions and Caveats
The following assumptions are used in the human health risks and benefits analyses:
• A linear relationship is assumed between pollutant loading reductions and
benefits attributed to the cleanup of surface waters.
• Synergistic effects of multiple chemicals on aquatic ecosystems are not
assessed; therefore, the total benefit of reducing toxics may be underestimated.
• The total number of persons who might consume recreationally caught fish and
the number who rely upon fish on a subsistence basis in each State are
estimated, in part, by assuming that these anglers regularly share their catch
with family members. Therefore, the number of anglers in each State are
multiplied by the average household size in each State. The remainder of the
population of these States is assumed to be the "general population" consuming
commercially caught fish.
• Five percent of the resident anglers in a given State are assumed to be
subsistence anglers; the other 95 percent are assumed to be sport anglers.
• Commercially or recreationally valuable species are assumed to occur or to be
taken in the vicinity of the discharges included in the evaluation.
• Ingestion rates of 6.5 grams per day for the general population, 30 grams per
day (30 years) + 6.5 grams per day (40 years) for sport anglers, and 140
grams per day for subsistence anglers are used in the analysis of fish tissue
(Exposure Factors Handbook, U.S. EPA, 1989a)
• All rivers or estuaries within a State are equally fished by any of that State's
resident anglers, and the fish are consumed only by the population within that
State.
• Populations potentially exposed to discharges to rivers or estuaries that border
more than one State are estimated based only on populations within the State
in which the landfill is located.
17
-------
• The size of the population potentially exposed to fish caught in an impacted
water body in a given State is estimated based on the ratio of impacted river
miles to total river miles in that State or impacted estuary square miles to total
estuary square miles in that State. The number of miles potentially impacted
by a landfill's discharge is assumed to be 50 miles for rivers and the total
surface area of the various estuarine zones for estuaries.
• Pollutant fate processes (e.g., sediment adsorption, volatilization, hydrolysis)
are not considered in estimating the concentration in drinking water or fish;
consequently, estimated concentrations are environmentally conservative
(higher).
2.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits
The potential ecological benefits of the proposed regulation are evaluated by estimating
improvements in the recreational fishing habitats that are impacted by landfill wastewater
discharges. Stream segments are first identified for which the proposed regulation is expected to
eliminate all occurrences of pollutant concentrations in excess of both aquatic life and human
health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or toxic effect levels. (See Section 2.1.1.) The
elimination of pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC is expected to result in significant
improvements in aquatic habitats. These improvements in aquatic habitats are then expected to
improve the quality and value of recreational fishing opportunities. The estimation of the
monetary value to society of improved recreational fishing opportunities is based on the concept
of a "contaminant-free fishery" as presented by Lyke (1993).
Research by Lyke (1993) shows that anglers may place a significantly higher value on a
contaminant-free fishery than a fishery with some level of contamination. Specifically, Lyke
estimates the consumer surplus3 associated with Wisconsin's recreational Lake Michigan trout and
salmon fishery, and the additional value of the fishery if it was completely free of contaminants
affecting aquatic life and human health. Lyke's results are based on two analyses:
Consumer surplus is generally recognized as the best measure from a theoretical basis for valuing the net economic
welfare or benefit to consumers from consuming a particular good or service. An increase or decrease in consumer
surplus for particular goods or services as the result of regulation is a primary measure of the gain or loss in consumer
welfare resulting from the regulation.
18
-------
1. A multiple site, trip generation, travel cost model was used to estimate net benefits
associated with the fishery under baseline (i.e., contaminated) conditions.
2. A contingent valuation model was used to estimate willingness-to-pay values for
the fishery if it was free of contaminants.
Both analyses used data collected from licensed anglers before the 1990 season. The estimated
incremental benefit values associated with freeing the fishery of contaminants range from 11.1
percent to 31.3 percent of the value of the fishery under current conditions.
To estimate the gain in value of stream segments identified as showing improvements in
aquatic habitats as a result of the proposed regulation, the baseline recreational fishery value of
the stream segments are estimated on the basis of estimated annual person-days of fishing per
segment and estimated values per person-day of fishing. Annual person-days of fishing per
segment are calculated using estimates of the affected (exposed) recreational fishing populations.
(See Section 2.1.2.) The number of anglers are multiplied by estimates of the average number
of fishing days per angler in each State to estimate the total number of fishing days for each
segment. The baseline value for each fishery is then calculated by multiplying the estimated total
number of fishing days by an estimate of the net benefit that anglers receive from a day of fishing
where net benefit represents the total value of the fishing day exclusive of any fishing-related costs
(license fee, travel costs, bait, etc.) incurred by the angler. In this analysis, a range of median
net benefit values for warm water and cold water fishing days, $27.75 and $35.14, respectively,
in 1992 dollars is used. Summing over all benefiting stream segments provides a total baseline
recreational fishing value of landfill stream segments that are expected to benefit by elimination
of pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC.
To estimate the increase in value resulting from elimination of pollutant concentrations in
excess of AWQC, the baseline value for benefiting stream segments are multiplied by the
incremental gain in value associated with achievement of the "contaminant-free" condition. As
noted above, Lyke's estimate of the increase in value ranged from 11.1 percent to 31.3 percent.
Multiplying by these values yields a range of expected increase in value for the landfill stream
segments expected to benefit by elimination of pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC.
19
-------
2.1.3.1 Assumptions and Caveats
The following major assumptions are used in the ecological benefits analysis:
Background concentrations of the landfill pollutants of concern in the receiving
stream are not considered.
The estimated benefit of improved recreational fishing opportunities is only a
limited measure of the value to society of the improvements in aquatic habitats
expected to result from the proposed regulation; increased assimilation capacity
of the receiving stream, improvements in taste and odor, or improvements to
other recreational activities, such as swimming and wildlife observation, are
not addressed.
Significant simplifications and uncertainties are included in the assessment.
This may overestimate or underestimate the monetary value to society of
improved recreational fishing opportunities. (See Sections 2.1.1.3 and
2.1.2.3.)
Potential overlap in valuation of improved recreational fishing opportunities
and avoided cancer cases from fish consumption may exist. This potential is
considered to be minor in terms of numerical significance.
2.1.4 Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits
Potential economic productivity benefits are estimated based on reduced sewage sludge
contamination due to the proposed regulation. The treatment of wastewaters generated by landfills
produces a sludge that contains pollutants removed from the wastewaters. As required by law,
POTWs must use environmentally sound practices in managing and disposing of this sludge. The
proposed pretreatment levels are expected to generate sewage sludges with reduced pollutant
concentrations. As a result, the POTWs may be able to use or dispose of the sewage sludges with
reduced pollutant concentrations at lower costs.
To determine the potential benefits, in terms of reduced sewage sludge disposal costs,
sewage sludge pollutant concentrations are calculated at current and proposed pretreatment levels.
(See Section 2.1.1.2.) Pollutant concentrations are then compared to sewage sludge pollutant
limits for surface disposal and land application (minimum ceiling limits and pollutant
20
-------
concentration limits). If, as a result of the proposed pretreatment, a POTW meets all pollutant
limits for a sewage sludge use or disposal practice, that POTW is assumed to benefit from the
increase in sewage sludge use or disposal options. The amount of the benefit deriving from
changes in sewage sludge use or disposal practices depends on the sewage sludge use or disposal
practices employed under current levels. This analysis assumes that POTWs choose the least
expensive sewage sludge use or disposal practice for which their sewage sludge meets pollutant
limits. POTWs with sewage sludge that qualifies for land application in the baseline are assumed
to dispose of their sewage sludge by land application; likewise, POTWs with sewage sludge that
meets surface disposal limits (but not land application ceiling or pollutant limits) are assumed to
dispose of their sewage sludge at surface disposal sites.
The economic benefit for POTWs receiving wastewater from a landfill is calculated by
multiplying the cost differential between baseline and post-compliance sludge use or disposal
practices by the quantity of sewage sludge that shifts into meeting land application (minimum
ceiling limits and pollutant concentration limits) or surface disposal limits. Using these cost
differentials, reductions in sewage sludge use or disposal costs are calculated for each POTW
(Eq. 14):
SCR = PF x S x CD x PD x CF (Eq. 14)
where:
SCR = estimated POTW sewage sludge use or disposal cost reductions resulting from
the proposed regulation (1992 dollars)
PF = POTW flow (million gal/year)
S = sewage sludge to wastewater ratio (1,400 lbs (dry weight) per million gallons
of water)
CD = estimated cost differential between least costly composite baseline use or
disposal method for which POTW qualifies and least costly use or disposal
method for which POTW qualifies post-compliance ($1992/dry metric ton)
PD = percent of sewage sludge disposed
CF = conversion factor for units
21
-------
2.1.4.1 Assumptions and Caveats
The following major assumptions are used in the economic productivity benefits analysis:
• 13.4 percent of the POTW sewage sludge generated in the United States is
generated at POTWs that are located too far from agricultural land and surface
disposal sites for these use or disposal practices to be economical. This
percentage of sewage sludge is not associated with benefits from shifts to
surface disposal or land application.
• Benefits expected from reduced record-keeping requirements and exemption
from certain sewage sludge management practices are not estimated.
• No definitive source of cost-saving differential exists. Analysis may
overestimate or underestimate the cost differentials.
• Sewage sludge use or disposal costs vary by POTW. Actual costs incurred by
POTWs affected by the landfill regulation may differ from those estimates.
• Due to the unavailability of such data, baseline pollutant loadings from all
industrial sources are not included in the analysis.
2.2 Pnllntant Fate and TmriHty
Human and ecological exposure and risk from environmental releases of toxic chemicals
depend largely on toxic potency, inter-media partitioning, and chemical persistence. These factors
are dependant on chemical-specific properties relating to toxicologic^ effects on living organisms,
physical state, hydrophobicity/lipophilicity, and reactivity, as well as the mechanism and media
of release and site-specific environmental conditions.
The methodology used in assessing the fate and toxicity of pollutants associated with
landfill wastewaters is comprised of three steps: (1) identification of pollutants of concern; (2)
compilation of physical-chemical and toxicity data; and (3) categorization assessment. These steps
are described in detail below. A summary of the major assumptions and limitations associated
with this methodology is also presented.
22
-------
2.2.1 Pollutants of Concern Identification
From 1992 to 1995, EPA conducted sampling and site visits at hazardous and nonhazardous
landfills to determine the presence or absence of priority, conventional, and nonconventional
pollutants at landfills located nationwide. Raw wastewater samples were collected at 5 hazardous
landfills, and raw wastewater samples were collected at 13 nonhazardous landfills. Over 400
pollutants were characterized from the sampling including: (1) 233 priority and nonconventinal
organic compounds; (2) 69 priority and nonconventional metals; (3) 4 conventional pollutants; and
(5) 123 priority and nonconventional pollutants (pesticides, herbicides, dioxins, and fiirans). From
this characterization sampling data, EPA identified pollutants of interest, by subcategory, based on
their detection at treatable levels in raw wastewaters. Pollutants further eliminated from this list
included treatment chemicals and non-toxic parameters. The remaining pollutants of concern (68
discharged by hazardous landfills and 38 discharged by nonhazardous landfills) are evaluated (with
the exception of 2 conventional, 5 nonconventional, and amenable cyanide) to assess their potential
fate and toxicity based on known characteristics of each chemical.
2.2.2 Compilation of Physical-Chemical and Toxicity Data
The chemical specific data needed to conduct the fate and toxicity evaluation for this study
include aquatic life criteria or toxic effect data for native aquatic species, human health reference
doses (RfDs) and cancer potency slope factors (SFs), EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
for drinking water protection, Henry's Law constants, soil/sediment adsorption coefficients (K^,
bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for native aquatic species, and aqueous aerobic biodegradation
half-lives (BD).
Sources of the above data include EPA ambient water quality criteria documents and
updates, EPA's Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk (ASTER) and the associated
AQUatic Information REtrieval System (AQUIRE) and Environmental Research Laboratory-
Duluth fathead minnow data base, EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), EPA's
1993-1995 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), EPA's 1991-1996 Superfund
Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM), EPA's 1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Screening Guide,
23
-------
Syracuse Research Corporation's CHEMFATE data base, EPA and other government reports,
scientific literature, and other primary and secondary data sources. To ensure that the examination
is as comprehensive as possible, alternative measures are taken to compile data for chemicals for
which physical-chemical property and/or toxicity data are not presented in the sources listed
above. To the extent possible, values are estimated for the chemicals using the quantitative
structure-activity relationship (QSAR) model incorporated in ASTER, or for some physical-
chemical properties, utilizing published linear regression correlation equations.
(a) Aquatic Life Data
Ambient criteria or toxic effect concentration levels for the protection of aquatic life are
obtained primarily from EPA ambient water quality criteria documents and EPA's ASTER. For
several pollutants, EPA has published ambient water quality criteria for the protection of
freshwater aquatic life from acute effects. The acute value represents a maximum allowable 1-
hour average concentration of a pollutant at any time that protects aquatic life from lethality. For
pollutants for which no acute water quality criteria have been developed by EPA, an acute value
from published aquatic toxicity test data or an estimated acute value from the ASTER QSAR
model is used. In selecting values from the literature, measured concentrations from flow-through
studies under typical pH and temperature conditions are preferred. In addition, the test organism
must be a North American resident species of fish or invertebrate. The hierarchy used to select
the appropriate acute value is listed below in descending order of priority.
• National acute freshwater quality criteria;
• Lowest reported acute test values (96-hour LCX for fish and 48-hour ECS0/LCX
for daphnids);
• Lowest reported UCX test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate a 96-
hour exposure period;
• Lowest reported LCjo test value of longer duration, up to a maximum of 2
weeks exposure; and
• Estimated 96-hour LC^ from the ASTER QSAR model.
24
-------
BCF data are available from numerous data sources, including EPA ambient water quality
criteria documents and EPA's ASTER. Because measured BCF values are not available for
several chemicals, methods are used to estimate this parameter based on the octanol/water partition
coefficient or solubility of the chemical. Such methods are detailed in Lyman et al. (1982).
Multiple values are reviewed, and a representative value is selected according to the following
guidelines:
• Resident U.S. fish species are preferred over invertebrates or estimated values.
• Edible tissue or whole fish values are preferred over nonedible or viscera
values.
• Estimates derived from octanol/water partition coefficients are preferred over
estimates based on solubility or other estimates, unless the estimate comes from
EPA Criteria Documents.
The most conservative value (i.e., the highest BCF) is selected among comparable candidate
values.
(b) Human Health Data
Human health toxicity data include chemical-specific RfD for noncarcinogenic effects and
potency SF for carcinogenic effects. RfDs and SFs are obtained first from EPA's IRIS, and
secondarily from EPA's HEAST. The RfD is an estimate of a daily exposure level for the human
population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious noncarcinogenic health effects over a lifetime (U.S. EPA, 1989b). A chemical with
a low RfD is more toxic than a chemical with a high RfD. Noncarcinogenic effects include
systemic effects (e.g., reproductive, immunological, neurological, circulatory, or respiratory
toxicity), organ-specific toxicity, developmental toxicity, mutagenesis, and lethality. EPA
recommends a threshold level assessment approach for these systemic and other effects, because
several protective mechanisms must be overcome prior to the appearance of an adverse
noncarcinogenic effect. In contrast, EPA assumes that cancer growth can be initiated from a
single cellular event and, therefore, should not be subject to a threshold level assessment
25
-------
approach. The SF is an upper bound estimate of the probability of cancer per unit intake of a
chemical over a lifetime (U.S. EPA, 1989b). A chemical with a large SF has greater potential
to cause cancer than a chemical with a small SF.
Other chemical designations related to potential adverse human health effects include EPA
assignment of a concentration limit for protection of drinking water, and EPA designation as a
priority pollutant. EPA establishes drinking water criteria and standards, such as the MCL, under
authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Current MCLs are available from IRIS. EPA
has designated 126 chemicals and compounds as priority pollutants under the authority of the
Clean Water Act (CWA).
(c) Physical-Chemical Property Data
Three measures of physical-chemical properties are used to evaluate environmental fate:
Henry's Law constant (HLC), an organic caibon-water partition coefficient (K^), and aqueous
aerobic biodegradation half-life (BD).
HLC is the ratio of vapor pressure to solubility and is indicative of the propensity of a
chemical to volatilize from surface water (Lyman et al., 1982). The larger the HLC, the more
likely the chemical will volatilize. Most HLCs are obtained from EPA's Office of Toxic
Substances' (OTS) 1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Screening Guide (U.S. EPA, 1989c),
the Office of Solid Waste's (OSW) Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (U.S. EPA, 1994b), or the
quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) system (U.S. EPA, 1993), maintained by
EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL) in Duluth, Minnesota.
K^. is indicative of the propensity of an organic compound to adsorb to soil or sediment
particles and, therefore, partition to such media. The larger the K^., the more likely the chemical
will adsorb to solid material. Most K^s are obtained from Syracuse Research Corporation's
CHEMFATE data base and EPA's 1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Screening Guide.
26
-------
BD is an empirically-derived time period when half of the chemical amount in water is
degraded by microbial action in the presence of oxygen. BD is indicative of the environmental
persistence of a chemical released into the water column. Most BDs are obtained from Howard
et al. (1991) and ERL-Duluth's QSAR.
2.2.3 Categorization Assessment
The objective of this generalized evaluation of fate and toxicity potential is to place
chemicals into groups with qualitative descriptors of potential environmental behavior and impact.
These groups are based on categorization schemes derived for:
• Acute aquatic toxicity (high, moderate, or slight);
• Volatility from water (high, moderate, slight, or nonvolatile);
• Adsorption to soil/sediment (high, moderate, slight, or nonadsorptive);
• Bioaccumulation potential (high, moderate, slight, or nonbioaccumulative); and
• Biodegradation potential (fast, moderate, slow or resistant)l
Using appropriate key parameters, and where sufficient data exist, these categorization
schemes identify the relative aquatic and human toxicity and bioaccumulation potential for each
chemical associated with landfill wastewater. In addition, the potential to partition to various
media (air, sediment/sludge, or water) and to persist in the environment is identified for each
chemical. These schemes are intended for screening purposes only and do not take the place of
detailed pollutant assessments analyzing all fate and transport mechanisms.
This evaluation also identifies chemicals that: (1) are known, probable, or possible human
carcinogens; (2) are systemic human health toxicants; (3) have EPA human health drinking water
standards; and (4) are designated as priority pollutants by EPA. The results of this analysis can
provide a qualitative indication of potential risk posed by the release of these chemicals. Actual
risk depends on the magnitude, frequency, and duration of pollutant loading; site-specific
environmental conditions; proximity and number of human and ecological receptors; and relevant
27
-------
exposure pathways. The following discussion outlines the categorization schemes. Ranges of
parameter values defining the categories are also presented.
(a) Acute Aquatic Toxicity
Key Parameter: Acute aquatic life criteria/LC^ or other benchmark (AT) (^g/L)
Using acute criteria or lowest reported acute test results (generally 96-hour and 48-hour
durations for fish and invertebrates, respectively), chemicals are grouped according to their
relative short-term effects on aquatic life.
Categorization Scheme:
This scheme, used as a rule-of-thumb guidance by EPA's OPPT for Premanufacture Notice
(PMN) evaluations, is used to indicate chemicals that could potentially cause lethality to aquatic
life downstream of discharges.
(b) Volatility from Water
Key Parameter: Henry's Law constant (HLC) (atm-m3/mol)
HLC is the measured or calculated ratio between vapor pressure and solubility at ambient
conditions. This parameter is used to indicate the potential for organic substances to partition to
AT < 100
1,000 > AT > 100
AT > 1,000
Highly toxic
Moderately toxic
Slightly toxic
HLC = ^°POT ^ressure (dm)
Solubility (mollm3)
(Eq. 15)
28
-------
air in a two-phase (air and water) system. A chemical's potential to volatilize from surface water
can be inferred from HLC.
Categorization Scheme:
This scheme, adopted from Lyman et al. (1982), gives an indication of chemical potential
to volatilize from process wastewater and surface water, thereby reducing the threat to aquatic life
and human health via contaminated fish consumption and drinking water, yet potentially causing
risk to exposed populations via inhalation.
(c) Adsorption to Soil/Sediments
Key Parameter: Soil/sediment adsorption coefficient (K,J
Kk is a chemical-specific adsorption parameter for organic substances that is largely
independent of the properties of soil or sediment and can be used as a relative indicator of
adsorption to such media. is highly inversely correlated with solubility, well correlated with
octanol-water partition coefficient, and fairly well correlated with BCF.
Categorization Scheme:
HLC > 1CT3
10~3 > HLC > 105
10 s > HLC > 3 x 10"7
HLC < 3 x 10"7
Highly volatile
Moderately volatile
Slightly volatile
Essentially nonvolatile
K« > 10,000
10,000 >K«> 1,000
1,000 > > 10
Kc < io
Highly adsorptive
Moderately adsorptive
Slightly adsorptive
Essentially nonadsorptive
29
-------
This scheme is devised to evaluate substances that may partition to solids and potentially
contaminate sediment underlying surface water or land receiving sewage sludge applications.
Although a high value indicates that a chemical is more likely to partition to sediment, it also
indicates that a chemical may be less bioavailable.
(d) Bioaccumulation Potential
Key Parameter: Bioconcentration Factor (BCF)
BCF = Equilibrium chemical concentration in organism (wet weight)
Mean chemical concentration in water '
BCF is a good indicator of potential to accumulate in aquatic biota through uptake across
an external surface membrane.
Categorization Scheme:
BCF > 500
500 > BCF > 50
50 > BCF > 5
BCF < 5
High potential
Moderate potential
Slight potential
Nonbioaccumulative
This scheme is used to identify chemicals that may be present in fish or shellfish tissues
at higher levels than in surrounding water. These chemicals may accumulate in the food chain and
increase exposure to higher trophic level populations, including people consuming their sport catch
or commercial seafood.
(e) Biodegradation Potential
Key Parameter: Aqueous Aerobic Biodegradation Half-life (BD) (days)
30
-------
Biodegradation, photolysis, and hydrolysis are three potential mechanisms of organic
chemical transformation in the environment. A BD is selected to represent chemical persistence
because of its importance and the abundance of measured or estimated data relative to other
transformation mechanisms.
Categorization Scheme:
BD < 7
7 < BD < 28
28 < BD ^ 180
180 < BD
Fast
Moderate
Slow
Resistant
This scheme is based on classification ranges given in a recent compilation of
environmental fate data (Howard et al., 1991). This scheme gives an indication of chemicals that
are likely to biodegrade in surface water, and therefore, not persist in the environment. However,
biodegradation products can be less toxic, equally as toxic, or even more toxic than the parent
compound.
2.2.4 Assumptions and limitations
The major assumptions and limitations associated with the data compilation and
categorization schemes are summarized in the following two sections.
(a) Data Compilation
• If data are readily available from electronic data bases, other primary and
secondary sources are not searched.
• Much of the data are estimated and, therefore, can have a high degree of associated
uncertainty.
31
-------
For some chemicals, neither measured nor estimated data are available for key
categorization parameters. In addition, chemicals identified for this study do not
represent a complete set of wastewater constituents. As a result, this study does
not completely assess landfill wastewater.
(b) Categorization Schemes
• Receiving waterbody characteristics, pollutant loading amounts, exposed
populations, and potential exposure routes are not considered.
• Placement into groups is based on arbitrary order of magnitude data breaks for
several categorization schemes. Combined with data uncertainty, this may lead to
an overstatement or understatement of the characteristics of a chemical.
• Data derived from laboratory tests may not accurately reflect conditions in the
field.
• Available aquatic toxicity and bioconcentration test data may not present the most
sensitive species.
• The biodegradation potential may not be a good indicator of persistence for organic
chemicals that rapidly photoxidize or hydrolyze, since these degradation
mechanisms are not considered.
2.3 DfwnmpntPfl Environmental Impacts
State environmental agencies are contacted, and State 304(1) Short Lists, State Fishing
Advisories, and published literature are reviewed for evidence of documented environmental
impacts on aquatic life, human health, POTW operations, and the quality of receiving water due
to discharges of pollutants from landfills. Reported impacts are compiled and summarized by
study site and landfill.
32
-------
3. DATA SOURCES
3.1 Water Qualify Imparts
Readily available EPA and other agency data bases, models, and reports are used in the
evaluation of water quality impacts. The following six sections describe the various data sources
used in the analysis.
3.1.1 Landfill-Specific Data
EPA's Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) provided projected landfill effluent process
flows, landfill operating days, and pollutant loadings (Appendix B) in October 1996-January 1997
(U.S. EPA, 1996-1997). For each option, the long-term averages (LTAs) were calculated for each
pollutant of concern based on EPA sampling data and industry-supplied data. Landfills reported in
the 1994 Waste Treatment Industry: Landfills Questionnaire the annual quantity discharged to
surface water and POTWs (U.S. EPA, 1994c). The annual quantity discharged (landfill flow) was
multiplied by the LTA for each pollutant and converted to the proper units to calculate the loading
(in pounds per year) for each pollutant at each facility.
The locations of landfills on receiving streams are identified using the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) cataloging and stream segment (reach) numbers contained in EPA's Industrial
Facilities Discharge (IFD) data base (U.S. EPA, 1994-1996a). Latitude/longitude coordinates,
if available, are used to locate those facilities and POTWs that have not been assigned a reach
number in IFD. The names, locations, and the flow data for the POTWs to which the indirect
landfills discharge are obtained from the 1994 Waste Treatment Industry: Landfills Questionaire
(U.S. EPA, 1994c), EPA's 1992 NEEDS Survey (U.S. EPA, 1992b), IFD, and EPA's Permit
Compliance System (PCS) (U.S. EPA, 1993-1996). If these sources did not yield information
for a landfill, alternative measures are taken to obtain a complete set of receiving streams and
POTWs.
33
-------
The receiving stream flow data are obtained from either the W.E. Gates study data or from
measured stream flow data, both of which are contained in EPA's GAGE file
(U.S. EPA, 1994-1996b). The W.E. Gates study contains calculated average and low flow
statistics based on the best available flow data and on drainage areas for reaches throughout the
United States. The GAGE file also includes average and low flow statistics based on measured
data from USGS gaging stations. "Dissolved Concentration Potentials (DCPs)" for estuaries and
bays are obtained from the Strategic Assessment Branch of NOAA's Ocean Assessments Division
(NOAA/U.S. EPA, 1989-1991) (Appendix C). Critical Dilution Factors are obtained from the
Mixing Zone Dilution Factors for New Chemical Exposure Assessments (U.S. EPA, 1992a).
3.1.2 Information Used to Evaluate POTW Operations
POTW treatment efficiency removal rates are obtained from a study of 50 well-operated
POTWs entitled, Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works, commonly referred
to as the "50 POTW Study," September 1982 (U.S. EPA, 1982) (Appendix D). Due to the large
number of pollutants applicable for this industry, additional data from the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) data base (now renamed the National Risk Management Research Laboratory
data base) are used to augment the POTW data base for the pollutants for which the 50 POTW Study
did not cover (U.S. EPA, 1995a). When data are not available, the removal rate is based on the
removal rate of a similar pollutant. More detailed information on the removal rates is found in
Chapter 7 of the Technical Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Landfills Category (U.S. EPA, 1997).
Inhibition values are obtained from Guidance Manual for Preventing Irueiference at
POTWs (U.S. EPA, 1987) and from CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual
(U.S. EPA, 1990a). The most conservative values for activated sludge are used. For pollutants
with no specific inhibition value, a value based on compound type (e.g., aromatics) is used
(Appendix D).
Sewage sludge regulatory levels, if available for the pollutants of concern, are obtained
from the Federal Register 40 CFR Part 503, Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge,
34
-------
Final Rule (October 25, 1995) (U.S. EPA, 1995b). Pollutant limits established for the final use
or disposal of sewage sludge when the sewage sludge is applied to agricultural and non-
agricultural land are used (Appendix D). Sludge partition factors are obtained from the Report
to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (Domestic
Sewage Study) (U.S. EPA, 1986) (Appendix D).
3.1.3 Water Quality Criteria (WQC)
The ambient criteria (or toxic effect levels) for the protection of aquatic life and human
health are obtained from a variety of sources including EPA criteria documents, EPA's ASTER,
and EPA's IRIS (Appendix D). Ecological toxicity estimations are used when published values
are not available. The hierarchies used to select the appropriate aquatic life and human health
values are described in the following sections.
3.1.3.1 Aquatic Life
Water quality criteria for many pollutants are established by EPA for the protection of
freshwater aquatic life (acute and chronic criteria). The acute value represents a maximum
allowable 1-hour average concentration of a pollutant at any time and can be related to acute toxic
effects on aquatic life. The chronic value represents the average allowable concentration of a toxic
pollutant over a 4-day period at which a diverse genera of aquatic organisms and their uses should
not be unacceptably affected, provided that these levels are not exceeded more than once every
3 years.
For pollutants for which no water quality criteria are developed, specific toxicity values
(acute and chronic effect concentrations reported in published literature or estimated using various
application techniques) are used. In selecting values from the literature, measured concentrations
from flow-through studies under typical pH and temperature conditions are preferred. The test
organism must be a North American resident species of fish or invertebrate. The hierarchies used
to select the appropriate acute and chronic values are listed below in descending order of priority.
35
-------
Ar.ntft Aquatic. T .iff Values-
• National acute freshwater quality criteria;
• Lowest reported acute test values (96-hour LCM for fish and 48-hour
ECjq/LCso for daphnids);
• Lowest reported LC50 test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate
a 96-hour exposure period;
• Lowest reported LCjo test value of longer duration, up to a maximum of
2 weeks exposure; and
• Estimated 96-hour LC^ from the ASTER QSAR model.
fhranir. Aquarir. T ife. Values-
• National chronic freshwater quality criteria;
• Lowest reported maximum allowable toxic concentration (MATC), lowest
observable effect concentration (LOEC), or no observable effect concentration
(NOEC);
• Lowest reported chronic growth or reproductive toxicity test concentration; and
• Estimated chronic toxicity concentration from a measured acute chronic ratio
for a less sensitive species, QSAR model, or default acute:chronic ratio of
10:1.
3.1.3.2 Human Health
Water quality criteria for the protection of human health are established in terms of a
pollutant's toxic effects, including carcinogenic potential. These human health criteria values are
developed for two exposure routes: (1) ingesting the pollutant via contaminated aquatic organisms
only, and (2) ingesting the pollutant via both water and contaminated aquatic organisms as
follows.
36
-------
For Trmr.ity Protection (ingpstion of organisms only)
where:
TjTj _ RfD x CF
00 IRf x BCF ^ 17)
HH,,,, = human health value (ptg/L)
RfD = reference dose for a 70-kg individual (mg/day)
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1,000 /zg/mg)
For raminngptiir Prntprrinn (ingpstinn nf organisms only)
„„ _ BWx RLx CF
00 SFx IRj x BCF ^ 18)
where:
HH^ =
human health value (u-g/L)
BW =
body weight (70 kg)
RL
risk level (10-6)
SF
cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)"1
IRf =
fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF =
bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
CF =
conversion factor for units (1,000 ptg/mg)
Fnr Tmrirify Prntpr.fion (ingp.stion nf wafp.r and organisms)
jjTj _ RfD x CF
IRw + (IRfx BCF) ^ 19)
where:
HH^, = human health value (^g/L)
RfD = reference dose for a 70-kg individual (mg/day)
IR^ = water ingestion rate (2 liters/day)
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
37
-------
BCF = bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1000 ,ug/mg)
For Carcinogenic Protection (ingestion of water and organisms)
BWxRLxCF
where:
HH_ =
BW =
RL
SF
IRw =
IR, =
BCF =
CF
The values for ingesting water and organisms are derived by assuming an average daily ingestion
of 2 liters of water, an average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams of potentially
contaminated fish products, and an average adult body weight of 70 kilograms (U.S.
EPA, 1991a). Values protective of carcinogenicity are used to assess the potential effects on
human health, if EPA has established a slope factor.
Protective concentration levels for carcinogens are developed in terms of non-threshold
lifetime risk level. Criteria at a risk level of 10"* (1E-6) are chosen for this analysis. This risk
level indicates a probability of one additional case of cancer for every 1-million persons exposed.
Toxic effects criteria for noncarcinogens include systemic effects (e.g., reproductive,
immunological, neurological, circulatory, or respiratory toxicity), organ-specific toxicity,
developmental toxicity, mutagenesis, and lethality.
SF x (IRW + (IRf x BCF))
human health value (p*g/L)
body weight (70 kg)
risk level (10"6)
cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)*1
water ingestion rate (2 liters/day)
fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
conversion factor for units (1,000 Mg/mg)
38
-------
The hierarchy used to select the most appropriate human health criteria values is listed
below in descending order of priority:
• Calculated human health criteria values using EPA's IRIS RfDs or SFs used
in conjunction with adjusted 3 percent lipid BCF values derived from
Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents (U.S. EPA, 1980); three percent
is the mean lipid content of fish tissue reported in the study from which the
average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 g/day is derived;
• Calculated human health criteria values using current IRIS RfDs or SFs and
representative BCF values for common North American species of fish or
invertebrates or estimated BCF values;
• Calculated human health criteria values using RfDs or SFs from EPA's
HEAST used in conjunction with adjusted 3 percent lipid BCF values derived
from Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents (U.S. EPA, 1980);
• Calculated human health criteria values using current RfDs or SFs from
HEAST and representative BCF values for common North American species
of fish or invertebrates or estimated BCF values;
• Criteria from the Ambient "Water Quality Criteria Documents (U.S. EPA,
1980); and
• Calculated human health values using RfDs or SFs from data sources other
than IRIS or HEAST.
This hierarchy is based on Section 2.4.6 of the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991a), which recommends using the most current risk
information from IRIS when estimating human health risks. In cases where chemicals have both
RfDs and SFs from the same level of the hierarchy, human health values are calculated using the
formulas for carcinogenicity, which always result in the more stringent value of the two given the
risk levels employed.
3.1.4 Information Used to Evaluate Human Health Risks and Benefits
Fish ingestion rates for sport anglers, subsistence anglers, and the general population are
obtained from the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1989a). State population data and
39
-------
average household size are obtained from the 1995 Statistical Abstract of the United States (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1995). Data concerning the number of anglers in each State (i.e., resident
fishermen) are obtained from the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
Associated Recreation (U.S. FWS, 1991). The total number of river miles or estuary square miles
within a State are obtained from the 1990 National Water Quality Inventory - Report to Congress
(U.S. EPA, 1990b). Drinking water utilities located within 50 miles downstream from each
discharge site are identified using EPA's PATHS CAN (U.S. EPA, 1996a). The population served
by a drinking water utility is obtained from EPA's Drinking Water Supply Files (U.S. EPA,
1996b) or Federal Reporting Data System (U.S. EPA, 1996c). Total suspended solids (TSS)
concentrations (effluent and receiving stream) used in the DRE model are obtained from EAD and
from the Analysis of STORET Suspended Sediments Data for the United States (Versar, 1992b),
repectively (See Section 3.1.1). Willingness-to-pay values are obtained from OPA's review of
a 1989 and a 1986 study The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on New Evidence (Fisher,
Chestnut, and Violette, 1989) and Valuing Risks: New Information on the Willingness to Pay for
Changes in Fatal Risks (Violette and Chestnut, 1986). Values are adjusted to 1992, based on the
relative change in the Employment Cost Index of Total Compensation for all Civilian Workers.
Information used in the evaluation is presented in Appendix E.
3.1.5 Information Used to Evaluate Ecological Benefits
The concept of a "contaminant-free fishery" and the estimate of an increase in the
consumer suiplus associated with a contaminant-free fishery are obtained from Discrete Choice
Models to Value Changes in Environmental Quality: A Great Lakes Case Study, a thesis submitted
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison by Audrey Lyke in 1993. Data concerning the number
of resident anglers in each State and average number of fishing days per angler in each State are
obtained from the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation
(U.S. FWS, 1991) (Appendix E). Median net benefit values for warm water and cold water
fishing days are obtained from Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of Research on Recreational
Demand (Walsh et al., 1990). Values are adjusted to 1992, based on the change in the Consumer
Price Index for all urban consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
40
-------
3.1.6 Information Used to Evaluate Economic Productivity Benefits
Sewage sludge pollutant limits for surface disposal and land application (ceiling limits and
pollutant concentration limits) are obtained from 40 CFR Part 503 (U.S. EPA, 1995b). Cost
savings from shifts in sludge use or disposal practices from composite baseline disposal practices
are obtained from the Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry (Phase I) (U.S. EPA, 1995c). Savings
are adjusted to 1992 using the Construction Cost Index published in the Engineering News
Record. In this report, EPA consulted a wide variety of sources, including:
• 1988 National Sewage Sludge Survey;
• 1985 EPA Handbook for Estimating Sludge Management Costs;
• 1989 EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Regulations for
Sewage Sludge Use and Disposal;
• Interviews with POTW operators;
• Interviews with State government solid waste and waste pollution control
experts;
• Review of trade and technical literature on sewage sludge use or disposal
practices and costs; and
• Research organizations with expertise in waste management.
Information used in the evaluation is presented in Appendix E.
3.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity
The chemical-specific data needed to conduct the fate and toxicity evaluation are obtained
from various sources as discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this report. Aquatic life and human health
values are presented in Appendix D. Physical/chemical property data are also presented in
Appendix D.
41
-------
3*3 T>On'1 ^T>.nnrniiihyii|'^il
Data concerning environmental impacts are obtained from State environmental agencies
in EPA Regions 3 and 6. Data are also obtained from the 1990 State 304(1) Short Lists (U.S.
EPA, 1991b) and the 1995 National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories (U.S. EPA, 1995d).
Literature abstracts are obtained through the computerized information system DIALOG (Knight-
Ridder Information, 1996), which provides access to Enviroline, Pollution Abstracts, Aquatic
Science Abstracts, and Water Resources Abstracts.
42
-------
4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
4.1 Prgjerteri Water Quality Imparls
4.1.1 Comparison of In-slream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality Criteria
The results of this analysis indicate the water quality benefits of controlling discharges
from hazardous and nonhazardous landfills to surface waters and POTWs. The following two
sections summarize potential aquatic life and human health impacts on receiving stream water
quality and on POTW operations and their receiving streams for direct and indirect discharges.
All tables referred to in these sections are presented at the end of Section 4. Appendices F, G,
and H present the results of the stream modeling for each type of discharge and landfill,
respectively.
4.1.1.1 Direct Discharges
(a) Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set
The effects of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water quality are evaluated
at current and proposed BAT treatment levels for 43 nonhazardous landfills discharging 32
pollutants to 41 receiving streams (39 rivers and 2 estuaries) (Table 1). At current discharge
levels, these 43 landfills discharge 131,567 pounds-per-year of priority and nonconventional
pollutants (Table 2). These loadings are reduced to 63,728 pounds-per-year at proposed BAT
levels; a 52 percent reduction.
The assessment shows no change in human health impacts on receiving stream water
quality if the proposed regulation is adopted. Modeled in-stream pollutant concentrations are
projected to exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for water and
organisms consumption) in 5 percent (2 of the total 41) of the receiving streams at rnrrent and
proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 3). One (1) pollutant at both nirrent and proposed BAT
43
-------
discharge levels is projected to exceed in-stream criteria or toxic effect levels using a target risk
of 10"6 (1E-6) for carcinogens (Table 4).
In-stream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed rhronir agnatic life rritpria or
toxic effect levels in 12 percent (5 of the total 41) of the receiving streams at current discharge
levels (Table 3). A total of 3 pollutants at current discharge levels are projected to exceed
in-stream criteria or toxic effect levels (Table 4). Proposed BAT discharge levels reduce
projected excursions to 2 pollutants in 7 percent (3 of the total 41) of the receiving streams (Tables
3 and 4).
Excursions of human health rriteria or toxic effect levels (developed for organisms
consumption only) and of acute agnatic life criteria or toxic effect levels are also presented in
Table 3. No excursions of human health rriteria or toxic effect levels (developed for organisms
consumption only) are projected at current or proposed BAT discharge levels. The one
excursion of acute agnatic life criteria or toxic effect levels projected at current discharge levels
is eliminated at proposed BAT.
(b) Nonhazardous Landfills - National Extrapolation
Sample set data are extrapolated to the national level based on the statistical methodology
used for estimated costs, loads, and economic impacts. Extrapolated values are based on the
sample set of 43 nonhazardous landfills discharging 32 pollutants to 41 receiving streams (Table
1). These values are extrapolated to 158 nonhazardous landfills discharging 32 pollutants to 154
receiving streams.
Extrapolated in-stream pollutant concentrations of 1 pollutant are projected to exceed
human health rriteria or toxic effect levels (developed for water and organisms consumption)
in 3 percent (4 of the total 154) receiving streams at both current and proposed BAT discharge
levels (Table 5). The proposed regulation is projected to reduce excursions of rhrnnir agnatic
life criteria or toxic effect levels due to the discharge of 3 pollutants in 4 receiving streams
44
-------
(Table 5). A total of 97 excursions in 38 receiving streams at current conditions will be reduced
to 44 excursions in 34 streams at proposed BAT (Table 5).
4.1.1.2 Indirect Discharges
(a) Hazardous Landfills - Sample Set
All hazardous landfills are expected to be in compliance with the baseline treatment
standards established for indirect dischargers. EPA did, however, evaluate the effects of POTW
wastewater discharges of 60 pollutants on receiving stream water quality at rnrrent and proposed
pretreatment discharge levels, for 3 hazardous landfills identified in the 308 Questionnaire,
which discharge to 3 POTWs located on 3 receiving streams (2 rivers and 1 estuary) (Table 6).
Pollutant loadings for 3 landfills at current discharge levels are 81,534 pounds-per-year (Table 2).
The loadings are reduced to 47,532 pounds-per-year after paxtceatmeiit; a 42 percent reduction.
In-stream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed human health criteria or toxic
effect levels (developed for water and organisms consumption) in 33 percent (1 of the total 3) of
the receiving streams at rnn-enf discharge levels (Table 7). One (1) pollutant at rnm»nt and
proposed prpfrpafmpnf discharge levels is projected to exceed in-stream criteria or toxic effect
levels using a target risk of 10"6 (1E-6) for the carcinogens (Table 8). No excursions of human
health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for organisms consumption only) or of agnatic
life criteria (acute or chronic) or toxic effect levels are projected at currant or proposed
pretrpfltment discharge levels (Table 7).
In addition, the potential impact of the 3 hazardous landfills, which discharge to 3 POTWs,
are evaluated in terms of inhibition of POTW operation and contamination of sludge. No
inhibition or sludge contamination problems are projected at the 3 POTWs receiving wastewater
(Table 9).
45
-------
(b) Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set
The potential effects of POTW wastewater discharges of 32 pollutants on receiving stream
water quality are also evaluated at only current discharge levels for a representative sample of 85
indirect discharging nonhazardous landfills. These indirect discharges from nonhazardous landfills
are not being proposed for pretreatment standards based on preliminary data analyses, which show
no documented persistent problems with POTW upsets, or with inhibition or sludge
contamination. These 85 nonhazardous landfills discharge 32 pollutants to 80 POTWs located on
80 receiving streams (Table 1). Pollutant loadings for the 85 landfills at current discharge levels
are 506,335 pounds-per-year (Table 2).
In-stream pollutant concentrations are not projected to exceed human health criteria or
toxic effect levels (developed for water and organisms consumption/organisms consumption only)
(Table 10). In-stream concentrations of 3 pollutants are projected to exceed rhrnnir aqnafir lifp
criteria or toxic effect levels in 2 of the receiving streams, with the magnitude of the excursions
being only twofold or less (Tables 10 and 11). No excursions of acute agnatic lifp criteria or
toxic effect levels are projected. In addition, no inhibition or sludge problems are projected at the
80 POTWs receiving discharges from the 85 nonhazardous landfills (Table 12).
4.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits
The results of this analysis indicate the potential benefits to human health by estimating the
risks (carcinogenic and systemic effects) associated with current and reduced pollutant levels in
fish tissue and drinking water. The following two sections summarize potential human health
impacts from the consumption of fish tissue and drinking water derived from waterbodies
impacted by direct and indirect discharges. Risks are estimated for recreational (sport) and
subsistence anglers and their families, as well as the general population. Appendices I and J
present the results of the modeling for each type of discharge and landfill, respectively.
46
-------
4.1.2.1 Direct Discharges
(a) Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set
The effects of direct wastewater discharges on human health from the consumption of fish
tissue and drinking water are evaluated at current and proposed BAT treatment levels for 43
facilities discharging 32 pollutants to 41 receiving streams (39 rivers and 2 estuaries) (Table 13).
Fish Tissue — At current discharge levels, 13 receiving streams have total estimated
individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 3 carcinogens
from 13 nonhazardous landfills (Tables 13 and 14). Total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6)
are projected for the general population sport anglers, and subsistence anglers. At current
discharge levels, total excess annual cancer cases are estimated to be 1.3E-3 (Table 13). At
proposed BAT discharge levels, 10 receiving streams have total estimated individual pollutant
cancer risks greater than 1CT6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 3 carcinogens from 10 nonhazardous
landfills. Total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) are projected for sport anglers and
siihsfctenre anglers Total excess annual cancer cases are reduced to 3.0E-4 at proposed BAT
levels (Table 13). Because the number of excess annual cancer cases at current discharge levels
is less than 0.5, a monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases is not
estimated.
Systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected for only subsistence
anglers in 1 receiving stream from 1 pollutant at current and proposed BAT discharge levels
(Table 15). An estimated population of 328 subsistence anglers and their families are projected
to be affected. A monetary value of benefits to society could not be estimated.
Drinking Water — At current and proposed BAT discharge levels, 2 receiving streams
have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge
of 1 carcinogen (Table 16). Estimated risks range from 2.3E-6 to 2.6E-6 at enrrent and at
proposed BAT. A drinking water utility is located within 50 miles downstream of one discharge
site. However, EPA has published a drinking water criterion for that pollutant, and it is assumed
47
-------
that drinking water treatment systems will reduce concentrations to below adverse effect
thresholds. Total excess annual cancer cases are, therefore, not projected. In addition, no
systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected at rjirrfint or proposed
pretreatment levels (Table IS).
(b) Nonhazardous Landfills - National Extrapolation
Sample set data are extrapolated to the national level based on the statistical methodology
used for estimated costs, loads, and economic impacts. Extrapolated values are based on sample
set of 43 nonhazardous landfills discharging 32 pollutants to 41 receiving streams (Table 1).
These values are extrapolated to 158 nonhazardous landfills discharging 32 pollutants to 154
receiving streams.
Fish Tissue -- At current discharge levels, 53 receiving streams have total estimated
individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 3 carcinogens
from 53 nonhazardous landfills (Table 17). Total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) are
projected for the general population, sport anglers, and siihsistenre anglers. At current
discharge levels, total excess annual cancer cases are estimated to be 3.4E-3 (Table 17). At
proposed BAT discharge levels, 41 receiving streams have total estimated individual pollutant
cancer risks greater than 10* (1E-6) due to the discharge of 3 carcinogens from 41 nonhazardous
landfills. Total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) are projected for sport anglers and
subsistence anglers. Total excess annual cancer cases are reduced to 7.4E-4 at proposed BAT
levels (Table 17). Because the number of excess annual cancer cases at current discharge levels
is less than 0.5, a monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases is not
estimated.
Systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected for only subsistence
anglers in 2 receiving streams from 1 pollutant at current and proposed BAT discharge levels
(Table 18). An estimated population of 643 subsistence anglers and their families are projected
to be affected. A monetary value of benefits to society could not be estimated.
48
-------
Drinking Water — At current and proposed BAT discharge levels, 4 receiving streams
have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10^ (1E-6) due to the discharge
of 1 carcinogen (Table 19). However, EPA has published a drinking water criterion for that
pollutant, and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems will reduce concentrations to
below adverse effect thresholds. Total excess annual cancer cases are, therefore, not projected.
4.1.2.2 Indirect Discharges
(a) Hazardous Landfills - Sample Set
The effects of POTW wastewater discharges on human health from the consumption of fish
tissue and drinking water are evaluated at current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels
for 3 landfills that discharge 60 pollutants to 3 POTWs with outfalls on 3 receiving streams (2
rivers and 1 estuary) (Table 6).
fish Tissue - At current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels, 1 stream,
receiving the discharge from 1 landfill/POTW, has a total estimated individual pollutant cancer
risk greater than 10"6 (1E-6) from 1 carcinogen (Tables 20 and 21). Total estimated risks greater
than lfr6 (1E-6) are projected for only subsistence anglers. Total excess annual cancer cases are
estimated at 4.6E-5 for current discharge levels and at 3.5E-5 for proposed pretreatment levels
(Table 20). Because the number of excess annual cancer cases at current discharge levels is less
than 0.5, a monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases is not estimated. In
addition, no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected at current or
proposed pretrial iikftnt levels (Table 22).
Drinking Water — At current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels, 1 stream
has a total estimated individual pollutant cancer risk greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge
of 1 carcinogen (Table 23). The estimated risk is 2.0E-6 and 1.5E-6, respectively. However, no
drinking water utility is located within 50 miles downstream of the discharge site (i.e., total excess
annual cancer cases are not projected). In addition, no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index
greater than 1.0) are projected at current or proposed pretreatment levels (Table 22).
49
-------
(b) Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set
The effects of POTW wastewater discharges on human health from the consumption of fish
tissue and drinking water are evaluated at only current discharge levels for 85 landfills that
discharge 32 pollutants to 80 POTWs with outfalls on 80 receiving streams (70 rivers and 10
estuaries) (Table 1). These indirect discharges from nonhazardous landfills are not proposed for
pretreatment standards based on preliminary data analyses, which show no documented persistent
problems with POTW upsets, or with inhibition or sludge contamination.
Fish Tissue — At current discharge levels, 8 streams, receiving the discharge from 8
landfills/POTWs, have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6)
from 2 carcinogens (Tables 24 and 25). Total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) are
projected for the general population, sport anglers, and snhsistenre anglers. Total excess
annual cancer cases are estimated at 7.5E-4. Because the number of excess annual cancer cases
at current discharge levels is less than 0.5, a monetary value of benefits to society from avoided
cancer cases is not projected.
Systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected at currant discharge
levels for only subsistence anglers due to the discharge of 1 pollutant to 1 receiving stream
(Table 26). An estimated population of 52 subsistence anglers and their families are projected to
be affected.
Drinking Water — At current discharge levels, no receiving streams are projected to have
a total estimated individual pollutant cancer risk greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of
carcinogens (Table 27). In addition, no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0)
are projected (Table 26).
50
-------
4.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits
The results of this analysis indicate the potential ecological benefits of the proposed
regulation by estimating improvements in the recreational fishing habitats that are impacted by
direct and indirect landfill wastewater discharges. Such impacts include acute and chronic
toxicity, sublethal effects on metabolic and reproductive functions, physical destruction of
spawning and feeding habitats, and loss of prey organisms. These impacts will vary due to the
diversity of species with differing sensitivities to impacts. For example, lead exposure can cause
spinal deformities in rainbow trout. Copper exposure can affect the growth activity of algae. In
addition, copper and cadmium can be acutely toxic to aquatic life, including finfish. The
following sections summarize the potential monetary benefits for direct and indirect discharges
as well as additional benefits that are not monetized. Appendices I and J present the results of the
analyses for each type of discharge, respectively.
4.1.3.1 Direct Discharges
(a) Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set
The effects of direct wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats are evaluated at rnnvnt and
proposed RAT treatment levels for 43 nonhazardous landfills discharging 32 pollutants to 41
receiving streams (Tables 1 and 3). Hie proposed regulation is projected to completely eliminate
in-stream concentrations in excess of AWQC at 1 receiving stream (Table 3). Benefits to
recreational (sport) anglers, based on improved quality and improved value of fishing
opportunities, are estimated. The monetary value of improved recreational fishing opportunity
is estimated by first calculating the baseline value of the benefiting stream segment. From the
estimated total of 20,873 person-days fished on the stream segment, and the value per person-day
of recreational fishing ($27.75 and $35.14, 1992 dollars), a baseline value of $579,000 to
$733,000 is estimated for the 1 stream segment (Table 28). The value of improving water quality
in this fishery, based on the increase in value (11.1 percent to 31.3 percent) to anglers of
achieving a contaminant-free fishing (Lyke, 1993), is then calculated. The resulting estimate of
the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers ranges from $64,300 to $230,000.
51
-------
(b) Noohazardous Landfills - National Extrapolation
Sample set data are extrapolated to the national level based on the statistical methodology
used for estimated costs, loads, and economic impacts. Extrapolated values are based on the
sample set of 43 nonhazardous landfills discharging 32 pollutants to 41 receiving streams
(Table 1). These values are extrapolated to 158 nonhazardous landfills discharging 32 pollutants
to 154 receiving streams (Table 5).
The proposed regulation is projected to completely eliminate in-stream concentrations in
excess of AWQC at 2 receiving streams (Table 5). Benefits to recreational (sport) anglers, based
on improved quality and improved value of fishing opportunities, are estimated. The resulting
estimate of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers ranges from $126,000 to
$450,000 (Table 28).
4.1.3.2 Indirect Discharges
(a) Hazardous Landfills - Sample Set
The effects of indirect wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats are evaluated at mm»nt
and prnpnspd protrpatmpnf levels for 3 hazardous landfills that discharge 60 pollutants to 3
POTWs, with outfalls located on 3 receiving streams (Tables 6 and 7). Because the proposed
regulation is not estimated to completely eliminate in-stream concentrations in excess of AWQC,
no benefits to recreational (sport) anglers, based on improved quality and improved value of
fishing opportunities, are estimated.
(b) Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set
Because the effects of indirect wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats are evaluated at
only current discharge levels for the 85 nonhazardous landfills, ecological benefits, based on
enhanced recreational fishing opportunities, are not estimated.
52
-------
4.1.2.3 Additional Ecological Benefits
As noted in Section 2.1.3.1, the estimated benefit of improved recreational fishing
opportunities is only a limited measure of the value to society of the improvements in aquatic
habitats expected to result from the proposed regulation. Additional ecological benefits include
protection of terrestrial wildlife and birds that consume aquatic organisms. The proposed
regulation will also result in a reduction in the presence and discharge of toxic pollutants, thereby
protecting those aquatic organisms currently under stress, providing the opportunity for the re-
establishment of productive ecosystems in damaged waterways, and protection of resident
endangered species. In addition, recreational activities, such as boating, water skiing, and
swimming, will also be preserved along with the maintenance of an aesthetically pleasing
environment. Such activities contribute to the support of local and State economies.
4.1.4 Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits
The results of this analysis indicate the potential productivity benefits of the proposed
regulation based on reduced sewage sludge contamination at POTWs receiving the discharges from
indirect hazardous and nonhazardous landfills. Because no sludge contamination problems are
projected at the 3 POTWs receiving wastewater from 3 hazardous landfills or at the 80 POTWs
receiving wastewater from 85 nonhazardous landfills, no economic productivity benefits are
projected.
4.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity
Human exposure, ecological exposure, and risk from environmental releases of toxic
chemicals depend largely on toxic potency, inter-media partitioning, and chemical persistence.
These factors are dependent on chemical-specific properties relating to toxicological effects on
living organisms, physical state, hydrophobicity/lipophilicity, and reactivity, as well as the
mechanism and media of release and site-specific environmental conditions. Based on available
physical-chemical properties, and aquatic life and human health toxicity data for the 68 hazardous
landfill pollutants of concern, 13 exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life; 43 are human
53
-------
systemic toxicants; 16 are classified as known or probable human carcinogens; 23 have drinking
water values (21 with enforceable health-based MCLs, 1 with a secondary MCL for aesthetics or
taste, and 1 with an action level for treatment); and 20 are designated by EPA as priority
pollutants (Tables 29, 30, and 31). In terms of projected environmental partitioning among
media, 18 of the evaluated pollutants are moderately to highly volatile (potentially causing risk
to exposed populations via inhalation); 12 have a moderate to high potential to bioaccumulate in
aquatic biota (potentially accumulating in the food chain and causing increased risk to higher
trophic level organisms and to exposed human populations via fish and shellfish consumption);
3 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids; and 12 are resistant to or slowly biodegraded.
Based on available physical-chemical properties, and aquatic life and human health toxicity
data for the 38 nonhazaidous landfill pollutants of concern, 5 exhibit moderate to high toxicity to
aquatic life; 24 are human systemic toxicants; 8 are classified as known or probable carcinogens;
8 have drinking water values (7 with enforceable health-based MCLs and 1 with a secondary
MCL); and 7 are designated by EPA as priority pollutants (Tables 32, 33, and 34). In terms of
projected environmental partitioning among media, 7 of the evaluated pollutants are moderately
to highly volatile; 2 have a moderate to high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic biota; 2 are
moderately to highly adsorptive to solids; and 2 are slowly biodegraded.
4.3 rWnmpntpH Fnvirnnmpntfll Imparts
Literature abstracts, State 304(1) Short Lists, and State fishing advisories are reviewed for
documented impacts due to discharges from hazardous and nonhazardous landfills. Two (2) direct
landfills and 10 POTWs receiving wastewater from 12 landfills are identified by States as being
point sources causing water quality problems and are included on their 304(1) Short List (Tables
35 and 36). Section 304(1) of the Water Quality Act of 1987, which requires States to identify
waterbodies impaired by the presence of toxic substances, to identify point-source discharges of
these toxics, and to develop Individual Control Strategies (ICSs) for these discharges. The Short
List is a list of waters for which a State does not expect applicable water quality standards
(numeric or narrative) to be achieved after technology-based requirements are met due entirely
or substantially to point source discharges of Section 307(a) toxics. State contacts indicate that
54
-------
of the two direct facilities, one is no longer in a direct discharger and the other is currently in
compliance with its permit limits and is no longer a source of impairment. All POTWs listed
report no problems with landfill wastewater discharges. In addition, 4 landfills and 13 POTWs
receiving landfill wastewater discharges are located on waterbodies with State-issued fish
consumption advisories (Table 37). However, the majority of advisories are based on chemicals
which are not pollutants of concern for the landfill industry.
55
-------
Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (32) Discharged from 43 Direct
and 85 Indirect Nonhazardous Landfills
CAS Number
Pollutant
98555
Alpha-Terpineol
7664417
Ammonia as N
7440382
Arsenic
7440393
Barium
65850
Benzoic Acid
7440428
Boron
7440473
Chromium
120365
Dichlorprop
298044
Disulfoton
142621
Hexanoic Acid
18540299
Hexavalent Chromium
75092
Methylene Chloride
7439987
Molybdenum
94746
MCPA
7085190
MCPP
68122
N,N-Dimethylformamid e
C-005
Nitrate/Nitrite
95487
o-Cresol
3268879
OCDD
106445
p-Cresol
108952
Phenol
7440213
Silicon
7440246
Strontium
August 8,1997
56
-------
Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (32) Discharged from 43 Direct
and 85 Indirect Nonhazardous Landfills (cont'd)
CAS Number
Pollutant
7440326
Titanium
108883
Toluene
20324338
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
7440666
Zinc
123911
1,4-Dioxane
35822469
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
78933
2-Butanone
67641
2-Propanone
108101
4-Methyl-2-Pentano ne
Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), October 1996 - January 1997.
57
August 8,1997
-------
Table 2. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Direct and Indirect Hazardous and Nonhazardous Landfills
Loadings (Pounds-per-Year)*
Total
Hazardous
Nonhazardous
Direct Dischargers
Indirect Dischargers
Direct Dischargers
Indirect Dischargers
Current
NA
81,534
131,567
506,335
719,436
Proposed BAT/Pretreatment
NA
47,532
63,728
NA
111,260
No. of Pollutants Evaluated
NA
60
32
32
es**
No. of Landfills Evaluated
NA
3
43
85
131
* Loadings are representative of pollutants evaluated; conventional and nonconventional pollutants such as TSS, BOD,, COD, TDS, TOC, hexane extractable material,
total phenolic compounds, and amenable cyanide are not included.
** The same pollutant may be discharged from a number of direct and indirect landfills; therefore, the total does not equal the sum of pollutants.
NA = Not applicable
NE = Option not evaluated
August 5,1997
-------
Table 3. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate)
(Sample Set)
Acute Aquatic Life
Chronic Aquatic Life
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
Human Health
Orgs. Only
Total*
Current
Stream (No.)
1
5
2**
0
6
Pollutants (No.)
1(1.6)
3(1.0-30.1)
1 (2.7-3.1)
0
4
Total Excursions
1
10
2
0
Proposed RAT
Stream (No.)
0
3
2**
0
5
Pollutants (No.)
0
2(1.4-22.1)
1 (2.7-3.1)
0
3
Total Excursions
0
5
2
0
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents magnitude of excursions.
Number of streams evaluated = 41 (39 rivers and 2 estuaries), number of landfills = 43, and number of pollutants = 32.
* Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.
** Excursions will be eliminated using state-adopted criteria for arsenic.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 4. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate)
(Sample Set)
Number of Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
Chronic Aquatic Life
Human Health
Water and Ores.
Human Health
Ores. Only
Current
Proposed BAT
Proposed BAT
Current
Proposed BAT
Current
Proposed BAT
Ammonia as N
1 (1.6)
0
2(1.2-14.6)
0
0
0
0
0
Arsenic
0
0
0
0
2(2.7-3.1)*
2(2.7-3.1)*
0
0
Boron
0
0
4(1.7-22.1)
3 (1.4-22.1)
0
0
0
0
Disulfoton
o
0
4(1.0-30.1)
2 (3.6 - 20.11
0
0
0
0
NOTE: Number of pollutants evaluated = 32.
* Excursions will be eliminated using state-adopted criteria for arsenic.
s
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 5. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate)
(National Level)
Acute Aquatic Life
Chronic Aquatic Life
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
Human Health
Orgs. Only
Total*
Current
Stream (No.)
2
38
4*#
0
40
Pollutants (No.)
1(1.6)
3(1.0-30.1)
1(2.7-3.1)
0
4
Total Excursions
2
97
4
0
Stream (No.)
0
34
4##
0
38
Pollutants (No.)
0
2(1.4-22.1)
1 (2.7-3.1)
0
3
Total Excursions
0
44
4
0
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents magnitude of excursions.
Number of streams = 154, number of landfills = 158, and number of pollutants = 32.
* Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.
** Excursions will be eliminated using state-adopted criteria for arsenic.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 6. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 3 Indirect Hazardous Landfills
CAS Number
Pollutant
319846
Alpha-BHC
98555
Alpha-Terpineol
7664417
Ammonia as N
62533
Aniline
7440382
Arsenic
1912249
Atrazine
71432
Benzene
65850
Benzoic Acid
100516
Benzyl Alcohol
7440428
Boron
7440473
Chromium
7440508
Copper
57125
Cyanide
1918009
Dicamba
120365
Dichlorprop
60297
Diethyl Ether
100414
Ethylbenzene
142621
Hexanoic Acid
78831
Isobutyl Alcohol
7439932
Lithium
108383
m-Xylene
75092
Methylene Chloride
7439987
Molybdenum
94746
MCPA
62
August 8,1997
-------
Table 6. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 3 Indirect Hazardous Landfills
(cont'd)
CAS Number
Pollutant
7085190
MCPP
91203
Naphthalene
7440020
Nickel
C-005
Nitrate/Nitrite
95487
O-Cresol
136777612
O&P-Xylene
3268879
OCDD
39001020
OCDF
106445
p-Cresol
108952
Phenol
1918021
Picloram
110861
Pyridine
7782492
Selenium
7440213
Silicon
122349
Simazine
7440246
Strontium
5915413
Terbuthylazine
7440315
Tin
7440326
Titantium
108883
Toluene
156605
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
79016
Trichloroethene
20324338
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
63
August 8,1997
-------
Table 6. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 3 Indirect Hazardous Landfills
(cont'd)
CAS Number
Pollutant
75014
Vinyl Chloride
7440666
Zinc
75343
1,1-Dichloroethane
107062
1,2-Dichloroethane
123911
1,4-Dioxane
78933
2-Butanone
67641
2-Propanone
94757
2,4-D
105679
2,4-Dimethylphenol
94826
2,4-DB
93765
2,4,5-T
93721
2,4,5-TP
108101
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Source: Engineering and Analysis Divison (EAD), December 1996.
64
August 8,1997
-------
Table 7. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Indirect Hazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate)
(Sample Set)
Acute Aquatic Life
Chrome Aquatic Life
Human Health
Human Health
Total*
Water and Orgs.
Orgs. Only
Current.
Stream (No.)
0
0
1**
0
1
Pollutants (No.)
0
0
1 (2.3)
0
1
Total Excursions
0
0
1
0
Stream (No.)
0
0
]**
0
1
Pollutants (No.)
0
0
1 (1.7)
0
1
Total Excursions
0
0
1
0
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents magnitude of excursions.
Number of streams evaluated = 3 (2 rivers and 1 estuary), number of landfills = 3, number of POTWs = 3, and
number of pollutants = 60.
* Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.
** Excursions will be eliminated using state-adopted critria for arsenic.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 8. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Indirect Hazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate)
(Sample Set)
Number of Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
Chronic Aquatic Life
. Human Health
Water and Ores.
Human Health
. Orgs. Only
Current
Proposed
Pretreatment
Current
Proposed
Pretreatment
Current
Proposed
Pretreatment- •
Current
Proposed
Pretreatment
Arsenic
0
0
0
0
1
1 M .71*
0
o
NOTE: Number of pollutants evaluated = 60.
* Excursions will be eliminated using state-adopted criteria for arsenic.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 9. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems from Indirect
Hazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Sample Set)
Biological Inhibition
Sludge Contamination
Total
Current.
POTWs (No.)
0
0
0
Pollutants (No.)
0
0
0
Total Problems
0
0
Proposed Pretreatmfint
POTWs (No.)
0
0
0
Pollutants (No.)
0
0
0
Total Problems
0
0
NOTE: Number of POTWs evaluated = 3, number of facilities = 3, and number of pollutants = 60.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 10. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Indirect Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate)
(Sample Set)
Acute Aquatic Life
Chronic Aquatic life
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
Human Health
Orgs. Only
Total*
Currant
Stream (No.)
0
2
0
0
2
Pollutants (No.)
0
3(1.0-2.3)
0
0
3
Total Excursions
0
4
0
0
g£ NOTE: Number in parentheses represents magnitude of excursions.
Number of streams evaluated = 80 (70 rivers and 10 estuaries), number of landfills = 85, number of POTWs = 80, and
number of pollutants = 32.
* Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 11. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Indirect Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate)
(Sample Set)
Number of
Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
Chronic Aquatic Life
Human Health
Water and Orgs,
Human Health
Orgs. Only
Current
Current
Current
Current
Ammonia as N
0
2 (1.0 - 2.31
0
0
Boron
0
1 (1.3)
0
0
Disulfoton
0
1 (1.4)
0
0
NOTE: Number of pollutants evaluated = 32.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 12. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems from Indirect
Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Sample Set)
Biological Inhibition
Sludge Contamination
Total
Currant
POTWs (No.)
0
0
0
Pollutants (No.)
0
0
0
Total Problems
0
0
NOTE: Number of POTWs evaluated = 80, number of landfills = 85, and number of pollutants = 32.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 13. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Total Individual Cancer Risks >10^
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Current
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
13/13
NA/NA
Carcinogens (No.)
3
NA
General Population
1 (2.3H-6)
3.0E-4
Sport Fishermen
2 (1.7E-6 to 6.1H-6)
5.4E-4
Subsistence Fishermen
13 (1.6E-6 to 5.1E-5)
4.4E-4
TOTAL
1.3E-3
Proposed RAT
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
10/10
NA/NA
Carcinogens (No.)
3
NA
General Population
0
NA
Sport Fishermen
1 (1.5E-6)
1.3E-4
Subsistence Fishermen
10 (1.2E-6 to 1.2E-5)
1.7E-4
TOTAL
3.0E-4
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 41 (39 rivers and 2 estuaries), number of landfills = 43 and number of pollutants = 32. Table presents
results for those streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"6. Primary contributors included in
summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10'6.
NA = Not Applicable
August 8, 1997
-------
Tabic 14. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Cancer Risks >10"V
Cancer Risks > 10"*/
Cancer Risks > 10"®/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
General Population
Sport Fishermen
Subsistence Fishermen
Current:
Stream Nn 1
OCDD
0/NA
9.6E-7/5.6E-7
8.1E-6/2.5E-7
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
7.5E-7/4.3E-7
6.3E-6/1.9E-7
Stream No
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
7.4E-7/1.6E-6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
9.7E-7/2.1E-6
Stif-am Nn 1
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
6.9E-7/3.7E-6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
9.2E-7/4.9E-6
Stream No, 4
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
1.3E-6/2.2E-6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
1.3E-6/2.2E-6
Stream Nn. 5
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
4.1E-6/8.9E-6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
3.2E-6/7.0E-6
Stream Nn.
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
6.8E-7/1.5E-6
1.2.3.4.6.7.8-HoCDD
0/NA
0/NA
9.0E-7/1.9E-6
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 14. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (continued)
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Cancer Risks >10"*/
Cancer Risks > 10*/
Cancer Risks >10*/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
General Population
Sport Fishermen
Subsistence Fishermen
Current (cont'd):
Stream Nn. 7
OCDD
1.3E-6/1.7E-4
3.4E-6/3.0E-4
2.9E-5/1.4E-4
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1.0E-6/1.3E-4
2.7E-6/2.4E-4
2.2E-5/1.1E-4
Stream Nn R
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
1.6E-6/7.4E-6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
1.2E-6/5.7E-6
Stream No. 9
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
2.3E-6/1.1E-5
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
1.8E-6/8.5E-6
Stream Nn 10
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
3.8E-6/1.8E-5
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
2.9E-6/1.4E-5
Arsenic
0/NA
0/NA
2.2E-6/6.5E-6
Stream Nn 1?
Arsenic
0/NA
0/NA
7.0E-6/1.7E-5
Stream Nn. 13
Arsenic
0/NA
0/NA
8.1E-6/6.2E-5
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 14. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazatdous Landfill Dischargers (continued)
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
4^
Cancer Risks > 10"®/
Cancer Risks >10*7
Cancer Risks > 10*/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
General Population
Sport Fishermen
Subsistence Fishermen
Proposed BAT:
Stream Nn 1
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
8.8E-7/2.7E-8
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
2.3E-6/7.1E-8
Stream Nn 7
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
3.7E-7/8.0E-7
1,2,3,4,6.7.8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
9.7E-7/2.1E-6
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
3.5E-7/1.9E-6
1,2,3,4,6,7.8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
9.3E-7/5.0E-6
Stream Nn S
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
4.6E-7/9.9E-7
1,2,3,4,6.7.8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
1.2E-6/2.6E-6
Stream Nn 6
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
3.4E-7/7.4E-7
1.2,3,4,6.7.8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
9.0E-7/1.9E-6
Stream Nn 7
OCDD
0/NA
4.1E-7/3.6E-5
3.4E-6/1.6E-5
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
1.1E-6/9.5E-5
9.1E-6/4.2E-5
Strpjin No. 10
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
4.2E-7/2.0E-6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
1.1E-6/5.2E-6
Stream Nn 11
Arsenic
0/NA
0/NA
2.2E-6/6.5E-6
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 14. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (continued)
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Cancer Risks > 10"*/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
General Population
Cancer Risks > 10*/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Fishermen
Cancer Risks > 10*/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Fishermen
Stream Nn. 12
Arsenic
0/NA
0/NA
7.0E-6/1.7E-5
Stream Nn 11
Arsenic
0/NA
0/NA
8.1E-6/6.2E-5
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 41 (39 rivers and 2 estuaries), number of landfills = 43 and total number of pollutants = 32. Table presents results for
those streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"*. Primary contributors included in summary even if cancer
risk did not exceed 10"*.
NA = Not Applicable
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 15. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
•vl
o\
Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > I
Drinking Water Hazard Indices > 1
fnrrpnt
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
1/1
0/0
Pollutants (No.)*
1
0
General Population
0
0
Sport Fishermen
0
0
Subsistence Fishermen
1 (2.0)
0
Affected Population
328
NA
PrnpnspH RAT
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
1/1
0/0
Pollutants (No.)*
1
0
General Population
0
0
Sport Fishermen
0
0
Subsistence Fishermen
1 (1.3)
0
Affected population
328
NA
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 41 (39 rivers and 2 estuaries), number of landfills = 43, and number of pollutants = 32.
Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected hazard index for any pollutant exceeds 1.0.
* Disulfoton
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 16. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10"6
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Tnrrpnt
Stream (No.)
2
NA
Carcinogens (No.)
1 (2.3E-6 to 2.6E-6)
NA
With Drinking Water Utility £ 50 miles*
1
0.03
Carcinogens (No.)**
1 (2.3E-6)
0.03
TOTAL
Stream (No.)
2
NA
Carcinogens (No.)
1 (2.3E-6 to 2.6E-6)
NA
With Drinking Water Utility £ 50 miles
1
NA
Carcinogens (No.)**
1 (2.3E-6)
0.03
TOTAL
0.03
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 41 (39 rivers and 2 estuaries), number of landfills = 43, and number of pollutants = 32. Table presents
results for those streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds lO"4.
NA = Not Applicable
* 3 utilities serving population of 816,750
** Arsenic; EPA has published a drinking water criterion for arsenic and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems will reduce
concentrations to below adverse effect thresholds.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 17. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(National Level)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10^
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Current
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
53/53
NA/NA
Carcinogens (No.)
3
NA
General Population
2 (2.3E-6)
5.9E-4
Sport Fishermen
4 (1.7E-6 to 6.1E-6)
1.1E-3
Subsistence Fishermen
53 (1.6E-6 to 5.1E-5)
1.7E-3
TOTAL
3.4E-3
Proposed RAT
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
41/41
NA/NA
Carcinogens (No.)
3
NA
General Population
0
NA
Sport Fishermen
2 (1.5E-6)
2.6E-4
Subsistence Fishermen
41 (1.2E-6 to 1.2E-5)
4.8E-4
TOTAL
7.4E-4
NOTE: Total number of streams = 154, number of landfills = 158, and number of pollutants = 32. Table presents results for those streams/landfills
for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"*. Primary contributors included in summary even if cancer risk did
not exceed 10'6.
NA = Not Applicable
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 18.
Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level)
Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1
Drinking Water Hazard Indices > 1
Current
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
2/2
0/0
Pollutants (No.)*
1
0
General Population
0
0
Sport Fishermen
0
0
Subsistence Fishermen
2 (2.0)
0
Affected Population
643
NA
Prnpncpri RAT
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
2/2
0/0
Pollutants (No.)*
1
0
General Population
0
0
Sport Fishermen
0
0
Subsistence Fishermen
2 (2.0)
0
Affected population
643
NA
NOTE: Total number of streams = 154, number of landfills = 158, and number of pollutants = 32.
Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected hazard index for any pollutant exceeds 1.0.
* Disulfoton
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 19. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10"6
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Current
Stream (No.)
4
NA
Carcinogens (No.)*
1 (2.3E-6 to 2.6E-6)
NA
With Drinking Water Utility £ 50 miles
2
NA
Carcinogens (No.)*
1 (2.3E-6)
0.06
TOTAL
0.06
PropreeH RAT
Stream (No.)
4
NA
Carcinogens (No.)*
1 (2.3E-6 to 2.6E-6)
NA
With Drinking Water Utility £ 50 miles
2
NA
Carcinogens (No.)*
1 (2.3E-6)
0.06
TOTAL
0.06
NOTE: Total number of streams = 154, number of landfills = 158, and number of pollutants = 32. Table presents results for those streams/landfills
for which the" projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"6.
NA = Not Applicable
* Arsenic; EPA has published a drinking water criterion for arsenic and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems will reduce
concentrations to below adverse effect thresholds.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 20.
Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Indirect Hazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10^
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Current
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
1/1
NA/NA
Carcinogens (No.)
1
NA
General Population
0
NA
Sport Fishermen
0
NA
Subsistence Fishermen
1 (6.0E-6)
4.6E-5
TOTAL
4.6E-5
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
1/1
NA/NA
Carcinogens (No.)
1
NA
General Population
0
NA
Sport Fishermen
0
NA
Subsistence Fishermen
1 (4.5E-6)
3.5E-5
TOTAL
3.5E-S
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 3 (2 rivers and 1 estuary), number of landfills = 3, number of POTWs = 3, and number of pollutants
= 60. Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"*. Primary
contributors included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10"6.
NA = Not Applicable
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 21. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Indirect Hazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Cancer Risks >10"*/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
General Population
Cancer Risks > 10*/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Fishermen
Cancer Risks > 10*/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Fishermen
Current:
Arsenic
0/NA
0/NA
6.0E-6/4.6E-5
Proposed Pretreatment:
Stream No 1
Arsenic
0/NA
0/NA
4.5E-6/3.5E-5
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 3 (2 rivers and 1 estuary), number of landfills = 3, number of POTWs = 3, and total number of pollutants = 60.
Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"4. Primary contributors included in summary
K> even if cancer risk did not exceed 10"4.
NA = Not Applicable
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 22. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Indirect Hazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1
Drinking Water Hazard Indices > 1
Current
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
0/0
0/0
Pollutants (No.)
0
0
General Population
0
0
Sport Fishermen
0
0
Subsistence Fishermen
0
0
Proposed Prfitreafment
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
0/0
0/0
Pollutants (No.)
0
0
General Population
0
0
Sport Fishermen
0
0
^SllhciritK>il
n
0
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 3 (2 rivers and 1 estuary), number of landfills = 3, number of POTWs = 3,
and number of pollutants = 60.
Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected hazard index for any pollutant exceeds 1.0.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 23. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Indirect Hazardous Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10*
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Current
Stream (No.)
1
NA
Carcinogens (No.)*
1 (2.0E-6)
NA
With Drinking Water Utility £ 50 miles
0
NA
Carcinogens (No.)
0
NA
TOTAL
Prnpnwd Prrtrratment
Stream (No.)
1
NA
Carcinogens (No.)*
1 (1.5E-6)
NA
With Drinking Water Utility £ 50 miles
0
NA
Carcinogens (No.)
0
NA
TOTAL
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 3 (2 rivers and 1 estuary), number of landfills = 3, number of POTWs = 3, and number of pollutants
= 60. Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10'6.
NA = Not Applicable
* Arsenic; EPA has published a drinking water criterion for arsenic and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems will reduce
concentrations to below adverse effect thresholds.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 24. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Indirect Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10^
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Current
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
8/8
NA/NA
Carcinogens (No.)
2
NA
General Population
1 (3.2E-6)
1.0E-4
Sport Fishermen
2 (1.2E-6 to 8.3E-3)
4.3E-4
Subsistence Fishermen
8 (1.1E-6 to 1.4E-4)
2.2E-4
TOTAL
7.5E-4
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 80 (70 rivers and 10 estuaries), number of landfills = 85, number of POTWs = 80, and number of
pollutants = 32. Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"6 (1E-
6). Primary contributors included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10"* (1E-6).
NA = Not Applicable
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 25. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Indirect Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Cancer Risks > 10*/
Cancer Risks >10*/ .
Cancer Risks >10*/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
General Population
Sport Fishermen
Subsistence Fishermen
Current:
Stream Nn 1
OCDD
0/NA
1.1E-6/1.5E-4
9.1E-6/6.8E-5
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
1.1E-6/1.6E-4
9.4E-6/7.1E-5
Stream Nn 9
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
5.3E-7/1.1E-6
1,2,3,4,6.7.8-H-CDD
0/NA
0/NA
7.1E-7/1.5E-6
Stream Nn 1
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
5.4E-7/1.2E-6
1,2,3,4.6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
5.6E-7/1.2E-6
Stream Nn 4
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
5.4E-7/9.2E-7
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
5.6E-7/9.5E-7
Stream Nn 5
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
5.2E-7/1.5E-6
1,2,3,4.6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
5.3E-7/1.6E-6
Stream Nn 6
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
1.5E-6/2.1E-6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
1.6E-6/2.2E-6
Stream Nn 7
OCDD
1.6E-6/4.9E-5
4.1E-6/5.8E-5
3.4E-5/2.6E-5
1.2.3.4.6.7.8-HdCDD
1.6E-6/5.1E-5
4.2E-6/5.9E-5
3.5E-5/2.6E-5
Stream Nn. R
OCDD
0/NA
0/NA
8.9E-7/6.7E-6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0/NA
0/NA
9.2E-7/6.9E-6
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 80 (70 rivers and 10 estuaries), number of landfills = 85, number of POTWs = 80, and total number of pollutants = 32. Table
presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10* (1E-6). Primary contributors included in summary
even if cancer risk did not exceed 10* (1E-6).
NA = Not Applicable
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 26. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Indirect Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1
Drinking Water Hazard Indices > 1
Piirrpnt
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
1/1
0/0
Pollutants (No.)*
1
0
General Population
0
0
Sport Fishermen
0
0
Subsistence Fishermen
1(1.6)
0
Affected Population
52
NA
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 80 (70 rivers and 10 estuaries), number of landfills = 85, number of POTWs = 80,
and number of pollutants = 32.
Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected hazard index for any pollutant exceeds 1.0.
* Disulfoton
-------
Table 27. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Indirect Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10^
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Current
Stream (No.)
0
NA
Carcinogens (No.)
0
NA
With Drinking Water Utility £ 50 miles
0
NA
Carcinogens (No.)
0
NA
TOTAL
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 80 (70 rivers and 10 estuaries), number of landfills = 85, number of POTWs = 80, and number of
pollutants = 32. Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10'6
(1E-6).
NA = Not Applicable
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 28. Summary of Ecological (Recreational) Benefits for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Sample Set and National Level)
Data
Number of Stream Segments
with Concentrations Exceeding
AWQC Eliminated
Total Fishing
Baseline Value of
Fisheries ($ 1992)
Increased Value of
Fisheries ($ 1992)
Sample Set
1
20,873
$579,000 - $733,000
$64,300 - $230,000
National Level
2
40,911
$1,135,000- 1,438,000
$126,000 - $450,000
NOTE: Value per person day of recreational fishing = $27.75 (warm water) and $35.14 (cold water).
Increase value of contaminant-free fishing = 11.1 to 31.3 percent.
August 8,1997
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Table 29. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (Hazardous Landfills)
Chemical Name
CAS
Number
Aquatic Toxicity
Cateaorv
Volatility
Cateaorv
Sediment Adsorption
Cateaorv
Bioaccumulation
Cateaorv
Biodearadation
Carcinogenic
Effect
Systemic Health
Effect
Drinking
Water Value
Priority
Pollutant
1,1-Dichloroethane
75343
Slight
Hign
Moderate
Slight
Slight
ilow
X
X
X
1,2-Dichloroethane
107062
Slight
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Slow
X
M
X
1,4-Dioxane
123911
Slight
Slight
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Slow
X
2-Butanone
78933
Slight
Moderate
Nonadsorptive
Nonbioaccumulative
Fast
X
2-Propanone
67641
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Fast
X
2,4-D
94757
Slight
Nonvolatile
Slight
Moderate
Slow
X
M
2,4-DB
94826
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Moderate
Fast
X
2,4-Dimethylphenol
105679
Slight
Moderate
_ Slight
Nonvolatile
Slight
Moderate
Fast
X
X _
2,4,5-T
93765
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
X
2,4,5-TP
93721
Moderate
Nonvolatile
Slight
Moderate
Slow
X
M
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
108101
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Fast
X
Alpha-BHC
319846
Moderate
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Slow
X
X
Alpha-Terpineol
98555
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Amenable Cyanide
C-025
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Ammonia (As N)
7664417
Slight
Moderate
Nonadsorptive
Unknown
Moderate
Aniline
62533
7440382
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
X
Arsenic
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
X
X
M
M
X
Alrazine
1912249
Moderate
Nonvolatile
Slight
Moderate
Resistant
X
X
Benzene
71432
Slight
High
Slight
Slight
Moderate
X
M
X
Benzoic Acid
65850
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
X
Benzyl Alcohol
100516
Slight
Slight
Nonadsorptive
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
X
BOD
C-002
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Boron
7440428
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
Chromium
7440473
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
X
M
X
COD
C-004
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown '
Unknown
Unknown
Copper
7440508
High
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
TT
X
X
Cyanide
57125
High
Unknown
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
X
M
Dicamba
1918009
Slight
Nonvolatile
Slight
Slight
Slow
X
Dichlorprop
120365
60297
Moderate
Nonvolatile
Slight
Slight
Slow
Diethyl Ether
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
X
Ethylbenzene
100414
C-036
Slight
High
Slight
Slight
Moderate
X
M
X
Hexane Extractable Material
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Hexanoic Acid
142621
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Isobutyl Alcohol
78831
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
X
—
Lithium
MCPA
7439932
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
94746
Slight
Nonvolatile
Slight
Slight
Fast
X
MCPP
7085190
Slight
Nonvolatile
Nonadsorptive
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
X
Methylene Chloride
75092
Slight
High
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
X
X
M
X
Molybdenum
7439987
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
M-Xylene
108383
Slight
High
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
X
M
Naphthalene
91203
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Moderate
X
X
Nickel
7440020
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Slight
Unknown
X
M
M
X
Nitrate/Nitrite
C-005
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
OCDD
3268879
Unknown
Slight
High
High
Unknown
X
X
OCDF
39001020
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
X
O-Cresol
95487
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Fast
X
X
O+P Xylene*
136777612
Slight
High
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
X
M
P-Cresol
106445
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Fast
X
X
X
Phenol
108952
Slight
Slight
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Fast
X
Picloram
1918021
High
Nonvolatile
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
X
M
Pyridine
110861
Slight
Slight
Nonadsorptive
Nonbioaccumulative
Fast
X
.WK4
-------
Table 29. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (Hazardous Landfills)
Chemical Name
CAS
Number
Aquatic Toxicity
Cateaorv
Volatility
Cateaorv
Sediment Adsorption
Cateaorv
Bioaccumulation
Cateaorv
Biodearadation
Carcinogenic
Effect
Systemic Health
Effect
Drinking
Water Value
Priority
Pollutant
52
Selenium
7782492
High
Unknown
Unknown
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
X
M
X
53
Silicon
7440213
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
54
Simazine
122349
High
Nonvolatile
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Slow
X
X
M
55
Strontium
7440246
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
56
TDS
C-010
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
57
Terbuthylazine
5915413
Slight
Nonvolatile
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
58
Tin
7440315
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
59
Titanium
7440326
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
60
TOC
C-012
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
61
Toluene
108883
Slight
High
Slight
Slight
Moderate
X
M
X
62
Total Phenols
C-020
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
63
Trans-1,2-Dichlorethene
156605
Slight
High
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
X
M
X
64
Trichloroethene
79016
Slight
High
Slight
Slight
Resistant
X
M
X
65
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
20324338
Slight
Nonvolatile
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
66
TSS
C-009
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
67
Vinyl Chloride
75014
Slight
High
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Slow
X
M
X
68
Zinc
7440666
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
X
SM
X
* Values for p-Xylene assumed.
Note: M = Maximum Contaminant Level established for health-based effect.
SM = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) established for taste or aesthetic effect.
TT = Treatment technology action level established.
ENVCAT.WK4
08/06/97
-------
Table 30. Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects (Hazardous Landfills)*
Toxicant
Reference Dose Target Organ and Effects
1
1,1-Dichtoroethane
No adverse effects observed*"
2
2,4,5-TP
Histopathologic^! changes in liver
3
2,4,5-TP
Increased urinary caproporphyrins, reduced neonatal survival
4
2,4-D
Hematologic, hapatic and renal toxicity
5
2.4-DB
Internal hemorrhage, mortality
6
2,4-Dlmethylphenol
Clinical signs (lethargy, prostration, and ataxia) and hematological changes
7
2-Butanone
Decreased fetal birth weight
B
2-Propanone
Increased liver and kidney weights and nephrotoxicity
9
4-Methyl-2-Pentanor>e
Lethargy, increased relative and absolute weight in liver and kidney
10
Arsenic
Hyperpigmentation, keratosis, and possible vascular complications
11
Atrazine
Decreased weight gain, cardiac toxicity and moderate-to-severe dilation of right atrium
12
Benzoic Acid
No adverse effects observed**
13
Benzyl Alcohol
Epithelial hyperplasia, forestomach
14
Boron
Testicular atrophy, spermatogenic arrest
15
Chromium
No adverse effects observed**
16
Cyanide
Weight loss, thyroid effects, and myeline degeneration
17
Dicamba
Maternal and fetal toxicity
18
Diethyl Ether
Depressed body weights
19
Ethytbenzene
Liver and kidney toxicity
20
Isobutyl Alcohol
Hypoactivity and ataxia
21
M-Xylene
Hyperactivity, decreased weight
22
MCPA
Kidney and liver toxicity
23
MCPP
Increased absolute and relative kidney weights
24
Methylene Chloride
Liver toxicity
25
Molybdenum
Increased uric acid
26
Naphthalene
Eye damage, decreased body weight
27
Nickel
Decreased body and organ weghts
28
Nitrate/Nitrite
Methemoglobinemia
29
O+P Xylene
Hyperactivity, decreased body weight and increased mortality
30
O-Cresol
Decreased body weights and neurotoxicity
31
OCDD
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
32
OCDF
Reproductive aid developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
33
P-Cresol
Hypoactivity, distress, and maternal death
34
Phenol
Reduced fetal body weight in rats
35
Picloram
Increased liver weights
36
Pyridine
Increased liver weight
37
Selenium
Clinical selenosis (hair or nail loss), liver dysfunction
38
Simazine
Reduction in weight gains, hematological changes in females
39
Strontium
Rachitic bone
40
Tin
Kidney and liver lesions
41
Toluene
Changes in liver and kidney weights
42
T rans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Increased serum alkaline phosphatase in male rice
43
Zinc
Anemia
* Chemicals with EPA verified or provisional human health-based reference doses, referred to as "systemic toxicants."
" Reference dose based on no observed adverse effect level (NOEL).
92
-------
Tabie 31. Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and Target Organs
(Hazardous Landfills)
Carcinogen
Weight-of-Evidence Classification
Target Organs
1
1,1-Dichloroethane
C
Mammary
2
1,2-Dichloroethane
B2
Circulatory System
3
1,4-Dioxane
B2
Liver and Gall Bladder
4
Alpha-BHC
B2
Liver
5
Aniline
B2
Spleen
6
Arsenic
A
Skin and Lung
7
Atrazine
C
Mammary
8
Benzene
A
Blood
9
Methylene Chloride
B2
Liver and Lung
10
O-Cresol
C
Skin
11
OCDD
B2*
Liver
12
OCDF
B2*
Liver
13
P-Cresol
C
Bladder
14
Simazine
C
Mammary
15
Trichloroethene
«+
16
Vinyl Chloride
A
Liver and Lung
A = Human Carcinogen
B2 = Probably Human Carcinogen (animal data only)
C = Possible Human Carcinogen
* - Classified as carcinogen based on TEF of dioxin.
*" - Under review. Classified as carcinogen based on human health toxicity values set for
carcinogenicity protection.
93
-------
Table 32. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (Nonhazardous Landfills)
Chemical Name
CAS Number
Aquatic Toxicity
Cateaorv
Volatility
Cateaorv
Sediment Adsorption
Cateaorv
Bioaccumulatlon
Cateaorv
Blodearadatlon
Carcinogenic
Effect
Systemic Health
Effect
Drinking Water
Value
Priority
Pollutant
1
1234678-HPCDD
35822469
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
X
2
1,4-Dioxane
123911
Slight
Slight
Slight
Nonbloaccumulative
Slow
X
3
2-Butonone
78933
Slight
Moderate
Nonadsorplive
Nonbioaccumulative
Fast
X
4
2-Propanone
67641
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Fast
X
5
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
108101
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Nonbloaccumulative
Fast
X
6
Alpha-Terpineol
98555
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
7
Ammonia (As N)
7664417
Slight
Moderate
Nonadsorplive
Unknown
Moderate
8
Arsenic
7440382
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
X
X
M
X
9
Barium
7440393
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
M
10
Benzoic Acid
65850
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
X
11
BOD
C-002
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
12
Boron
7440428
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
13
Chromium
7440473
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
X
M
X
14
COD
C-004
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
15
Dichlorprop
120365
Moderate
Nonvolatile
Slight
Slight
Slow
16
Disulfoton
298044
High
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
X
17
Hexanoic Acid
142621
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Slight
Unknown
18
Hexavalent Chromium
18540299
High
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
X
X
M
X
19
MCPA
94746
Slight
Nonvolatile
Slight
Slight
Fast
X
20
MCPP
7085190
Slight
Nonvolatile
Nonadsorptive
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
X
21
Methylene Chloride
75092
Slight
High
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
X
X
M
X
22
Molybdenum
7439987
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
23
Nitrate/Nitrite
C-005
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
M
24
N.N-Dimethylformamide
68122
Slight
Nonvolatile
Nonadsorptive
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
X
25
OCDD
3268879
Unknown
Slight
High
High
Unknown
X
X
26
O-Cresol
95487
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Fast
X
X
27
P-Cresol
106445
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Fast
X
X
28
Phenol
108952
Slight
Slight
Slight
Nonbloaccumulative
Fast
X
X
29
Silicon
7440213
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
30
Strontium
7440246
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
X
31
TDS
C-010
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
32
Titanium
7440326
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
33
TOC
C-012
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
34
Toluene
108883
Slight
High
Slight
Slight
Moderate
X
M
X
35
Total Phenols
C-020
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
36
Tripropyleneqlycol Methyl Ether
20324338
Slight
Nonvolatile
Slight
Nonbloaccumulative
Unknown
37
TSS
C-009
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
38
Zinc
7440666
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
X
SM
X
Note: M = Maximum Contaminant Level established lor health-based effect.
SM = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) established for taste or aesthetic effect.
ENVCAT.WK4
08/06/97
-------
Table 33. Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects (Nonhazardous Landfills)'
Toxicant
Reference Dose Target Organ and Effects
1
1234678-HpCDD
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
2
2-Butanone
Decreased fetal birth weight
3
2-Propanone
Increased liver and kidney weights and nephrotoxicity
4
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Lethargy, increased relative and absolute weight in liver and kidney
5
Arsenic
Hyperpigmentation, keratosis, and possible vascular complications
6
Barium
Increased blood pressure
7
Benzoic Acid
No adverse effects observed"
8
Boron
Testicular atrophy, spermatogenic arrest
9
Chromium
No adverse effects observed"
10
Disulfoton
ChE inhibition, optic nerve degeneration
11
Hexavalent Chromium
No adverse effects observed**
12
MCPA
Kidney and liver toxicity
13
MCPP
Increased absolute and relative kidney weights
14
Methylene Chloride
Liver toxicity
15
Molybdenum
Increased uric acid
16
N,N-Dimethytformamide
Hepatotoxic
17
Nitrate/Nitrite
Methemoglobinemia
18
O-Cresol
Decreased body weights and neurotoxicity
19
OCDD
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
20
P-Cresol
Hypoactivity, distress, and maternal death
21
Phenol
Reduced fetal body weight in rats
22
Strontium
Rachitic bone
23
Toluene
Changes in liver and kidney weights
24
Zinc
Anemia
* Chemicals with EPA verified or provisional human health-based reference doses, referred to as "systemic toxicants."
** Reference dose based on no observed adverse effect level (NOEL).
95
-------
Table 34. Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and Target Organs
(Nonhazardous Landfills)
Carcinogen
Weight-of-Evidence Classification
Target Organs
1,4-Dioxane
B2
Liver and Gall Bladder
1234678-HpCDD
B2*
Liver
Arsenic
A
Skin and Lung
Hexavalent Chromium
A
Lung
Methylene Chloride
B2
Liver and Lung
O-Cresol
C
Skin
OCDD
B2*
Liver
P-Cresol
C
Bladder
A = Human Carcinogen
B2 = Probably Human Carcinogen (animal data only)
C = Possible Human Carcinogen
* - Classified as carcinogen based on TEF of dioxin.
96
-------
Table 35. Landfills Included on State 304(L) Short Lists
Subcategory
Iplllll
Code
Landfill
NPDES
Landfill Name
iiiiiiiiii
Waterbody
REACH Number
Listed Pollutants
Municipal*
4953
MD0061093
Reich's Ford Road Landfill
Frederick
Bush Creek
02070009005
Cyanide, silver
Unknown
4953
MD0061646
Round Glade Landfill
Oakland
Round Glade Run
05020006-
Selenium, silver
Source: Compiled from OW files dated April/May 1991.
* Included in water quality modeling analysis.
vo
-J
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 36. POTWs Which Receive Discharge From Landfills and are Included On State 304(L) Short Lists
Landfill Name
Subcategory
Reoeiving POTW
POTW NPDES
Waterbody
Number
Listed Pollutants
Chambers Atlanta Landfill, Inc.
Municipal
Atlanta
Atlanta-R.M.
Clayton WPCP
GA0021482
Chattahoochee River
03130002044
Lead, Cadmium
Eastern Sanitary Landfill
Municipal
Towson
Back River WWTP
MD0021555
Back River
0206000325
_ Mercury, Lead,
Selenium
BFI of SE MI, Arbor Hills Landfill
Collier Road Landfill
Municipal
Municipal
Northville
Pontiac
Detroit WWTP
M10022802
Rouge River
04090004014
Copper, Lead,
Cadmium, Mercury,
PCBs
Y&S Maintn. Inc. (WMX)
Municipal
Scottdale
Frankin Twp MSA-
Meadowbrook
PA0025674
Turtle Creek
05020005—
Cedar Hills Regional LF/King Co.
Solid Waste Div.
Kent Highlands Landfdl
Municipal
Municipal
Seattle
Seattle
Metro (Renton
STP)
WA0029581
Green River
17110013005
Olympic View Sanitary Landfill
Municipal
Bremerton
City of Port
Orchard (STP)
WA0020346
Sinclair Inlet
17110019024
Chrin Brothers Sanitary Landfill
Municipal
Easton
Easton Area Jt.
Sewer Auth.
PA0027235
Delaware River
02040105012
Cadmium, Nickel,
Chloroform
Lynchburg Waste Management
Municipal
Lynchburg
Lynchburg POTW
VA0024970
James River
02080203049
Silver
Town of Hartland
Subtitle D
Hartland
Town of Hartland
WWTP
ME0101443
Sebasticook River
01030003072
Chromium
CMW Landfill
Subtitle D
Marion
Fall River WWTP
MAO100382
Mount Hope Bay
01090004001
Zinc, Copper,
Toxicity Limits .
Source: Compiled from OW files dated April/May 1991.
All facilities included in water quality modeling analysis.
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 37. Modeled Landfill Facilities/POTWs Located on Waterbodies With State-Issued
Fish Consumption Advisories
Subcategory
Discharge
Type
Advisory Date
REACH Number
State
Wateibody
Pollutant
Species
Population
Municipal
Direct
February 1992
02040105004
PA
Delaware River
Chlordane, PCBs
American Eel, Channel Catfish,
White Perch
NCGP
Municipal
Direct
February 1992
01040002001
ME
Androscoggin River
Dioxins
Fish
NCSP..RGP
Municipal
Indirect
January 1991
01090002040
MA
New Bedford Harbour
PCBs
Shellfish
NCGP
Municipal
Indirect
April 1988
01080201004
MA
Connecticut River
PCBs
Channel Catfish, White Catfish,
American Eel, Yellow Perch
NCGP
Municipal
Indirect
May 1991
07040001004
WI
Mississippi River
PCBs, Pesticides
Carp >21", Flathead Catfish
>30", White Bass >13"
NCGP
PCBs
Channel Catfish >21"
NCGP
Pesticides
Channel Catfish 16-23"
NCGP
Channel Catfish 21-23"
RGP
Municipal
Indirect
June 1986
05020005001
PA
Monongahela River
Chlordane, PCBs
Carp, Channel Catfish
NCGP
Municipal
Indirect
January 1982
08010209001
TN
Loosahatchie River
Chlordane
Fish
NCGP
Municipal
Indirect
March 1986
05050008010
WV
Kanawha River
Dioxins
Bottom Fish
NCGP
Municipal
Indirect
May 1993
10240011001
KS
Missouri River
Multiple
Fish
RGP
Municipal
Indirect
April 1988
01080201009
MA
Connecticut River
PCBs
Channel Catfish, White Catfish,
American Eel, Yellow Perch
NCGP
Municipal
Indirect
May 1993
04090004009
MI
Detroit River
PCBs
Carp
NCGP
Mercury
Drum >14"
RGP, RSP
Municipal
Indirect
July 1988
05030103001
OH
Mahoning River
PAHs, Phthalate
Esters, PCBs, Mirex
All
NCGP
Municipal
Indirect
Seotember 1989
05030202039
WV
Ohio River
Chlordane. PCBs
Caro. Channel Catfish
NCGP
August 8, 1997
-------
Table 37. Modeled Landfill Facillties/POTWs Located on Waterbodies With State-Issued
Fish Consumption Advisories (continued)
Subcategory
: Discharge
Advisory Date
R^CH Number
State
Wateri>ody
Pollutant
Papulation
Subtitle D
Direct
January 1977
07130007003
IL
Sugar Creek (Lake
Springfield)
Chlordane, Dieldrin
Buffalo Bigmoulh, Catfish
>15"
NCSP, RGP
Carp >26"
NCGP
Subtitle D
Direct/Indirect
April 1986
01090004001
RI
Mount Hope Bay
PCBs
Striped Bass
NCSP, RGP
Striped Bass 26-37"
CFB
July 1988
01090004001
RI
Mount Hope Bay
PCBs
Bluefish >25"
NCSP. RGP
Subtitle D
Indirect
July 1988
02080206045
VA
James River
Kepone
Fish
RGP
Source: The National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories (NLFCA) - December 1995
NCSP - Advises against consumption of fish and shellfish by subpopulations potentially at greater risk (e.g., pregnant or nursing women or small children).
RGP - Advises the general population to restrict size and frequency of meals of fish and shellfish.
NCOP - Advises against consumption of fish and shellfish by general population.
CFB - Bans commercial harvest and/or sale of fish and shellfish.
RSP - Advises subpopulations potentially at greater risk (e.g., pregnant or nursing women or small children) to restrict the size and/or frequency of meals of fish and shellfish.
August 8, 1997
-------
5. REFERENCES
Fisher, A; L. Chestnut; and D. Violette. 1989. "The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note
on New Evidence." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 8, No. 1.
Howard, P.H. Editor. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradatin Rates. Chelsea, MI: Lewis
Publishers, Inc.
Knight-Ridder Information. 1996. Knight-Ridder Information Database - DIALOG, Knight-Ridder
Information, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
Lyke, A. 1993. "Discrete Choice Models to Value Changes in Environmental Quality: A Great
Lakes Case Study." Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Agricultural Economics) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Lyman, W.J.; W.F. Reehl; and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property
Estimation Methods - Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater Engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1989a. Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. "Susceptibility of East Coast Estuaries to
Nutrient Discharges: Albemarle/Pamlico Sound to Biscayne Bay." Rockville, MD: Strategic
Assessment Branch. NOAA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1989b. Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. "Susceptibility of East Coast Estuaries to
Nutrient Discharges: Passamaquoddy Bay to Chesapeake Bay." Rockville, MD: Strategic
Assessment Branch. NOAA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1989c. Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. "Susceptibility and Status of Gulf of
Mexico Estuaries to Nutrient Discharges." Rockville, MD: Strategic Assessment Branch.
NOAA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1991. Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. "Susceptibility and Status of West Coast
Estuaries to Nutrient Discharges: San Diego Bay to Puget Sound." Rockville, MD: Strategic
Assessment Branch. NOAA.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1995. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1995. Washington,
DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
R-l
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA 440/5-80 Series. [Also refers to any updated
criteria documents (EPA 440/5-85 and EPA 440/5-87 Series)].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works "50 POTW Study." Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
EPA 440/1-82/303.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous
Wastes to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (Domestic Sewage Study). Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at
POTWs. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/8-89/043.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Supeifimd (RAGS),
Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002. Available from NITS, Springfield, VA.
PB-90-155581.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory - Risk
Screening Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
EPA/560/2-89-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance
Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA/540/G-90/005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. National Water Quality Inventory - Report to
Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA/505/2-90-001.
Available from NTTS, Springfield, VA. PB91-127415.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. National 304(1) Short List Database. Compiled
from Office of Water Files dated April/May 1991. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of
Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992a. Mixing Zone Dilution Factors for New Chemical
Exposure Assessments, Draft Report, October 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Contract No.
68-D9-0166. Task No. 3-35.
R-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992b. Needs Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. QSAR. Duluth, MN: U.S. EPA, Environmental
Research Laboratory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993-1996. Permit Compliance System. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds - Review Draft. Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994b. Superfmd Chemical Data Matrix. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994c. Waste Treatment Industry: Landfills
Questionnaire. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis
Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994-1996a. Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) File.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994-1996b. Gage File. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995a. National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Data Base. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995b. Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage
Sludge: Fined Rules. 40 CFR Part 257 et seq. Washington, DC: Federal Register. October
1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995c. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry (Phase I).
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA/82l-R-95-023.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995d. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. PATHSCAN. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,
Office of Water WQAB Interactive Procedure.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. Drinking Water Supply (DWS) File. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
R-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996c. Federal Reporting Data System (FKDS).
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996-1997. Landfill Pollutant Loading Files.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Technical Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA, Office of Water.
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation.
Versar, Inc. 1992a. Upgrade of Flaw Statistics Used to Estimate Surface Water Chemical
Concentrations for Aquatic and Human Exposure Assessment. Report prepared by Versar Inc. for
the U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Versar, Inc. 1992b. Analysis of STORET Suspended Sediments Data for the United States.
Report prepared by Versar, Inc. for the U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Violette, D., and L. Chestnut. 1986. Valuing Risks: New Information on the Willingness to Pay
for Changes in Fatal Risks. Report to the U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Contract No.
68-01-7047.
Viscusi, K. 1992. Fatal Tradeoffs: Public & Private Responsibilities for Risk. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Walsh, R.; D. Johnson; and J. McKean. 1990. Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of
Research on Recreational Demand. Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, Vol. 5.
R-4
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
form Approve#
QM9 No. 0704-0188
* -jo1 i »*©o'T,*9 our** 'rv c*'«^ian o• -i ntr*i-:* o« .*<-•'*»*?ior. 'tfl»ro«rg tf \ a^rc** ni*m a* i*v ©tf\«r jm
«. «»i verF*«tj©Fi. < "tiw^rf« wlftCWQ** '(%* rivnuj t*». Ours*" *© *cte« terv»cw«, J r«ct6r«t# *0' Owmam «n* Moot* 1J ' I ,
''•JJflJ ,\*c to IN* 3«I|*» o» • *« Sn«H?< »«pgnwtor% gwufliaw E*0|«CT iQ79«-3 1M|) WMiwnytn, OC I05» GuiO&UfOfcS ,Vi>V) Sta~0Av-0<
Pen iv T So o rt I G CftTCil ^ t r'J-H"
3. REPORT TYPi AND DATES COVERED
A 6x$ e £6 eiv-r \0 >lc fc •
e.O
i. AUTHOR
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
RIPORT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMKS) ANO ADORESS(ES)
Or-FiCt OF SCVc»ocG £ Te^-KKjci(,c6 Y
oFpca or ijjfrT£(L (h^6|^)
U:S EtO Jift.Cr'/T> ^rtyrect 'o) ^(i*5KiC Y
401 M ^ nee-T, 6 .wJ.
uU A S M ivTuyO j_ 0 C- ^ c ^ Up
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) ANO AOORISS(ES)
10. SPONSORING / MONITORING
AGENCY RIPORT NUMBER
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12b- DISTRIBUTION code
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
13, ABSTRACT (Msximum 200 wofdl)
/
14.
SUBJECT TERMS
19. NUMBER OP PAGES
IS. PRICE CODE
17.
security classification
OP REPORT
11. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OP THIS PAGE
1». SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
JO. LIMITATION OP ASSTRAC
NSN
7540-61-280-5500
Standard FOffn 298 (Rtv 2-89v,
NurbN m AKii ita. £39-i9
------- |