United States
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
                Office of Water
                (4303)
EPA-821-B-98-015
May 1998
&EPA
Environmental Assessment Of
Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines And Standards For
The Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Category

-------

-------
         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE'
            PROPOSEDT5FFLU6NT GUIDELINES
                     ', . FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CLEANING (tEC) INDUSTRY
                        , Volume t

                        Final Report
                        Prepared for:
                i     f  s       s     •>    !
                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Office of Science and Technology
               Standards and Applied Science Division
                ' ,    ,40 XM Street, S.W.
                    Washington, D,C. 20460
                       Patricia Harrigan
                        Task Manager

-------
IF It	  '    I   •





11,1	•     '      !-

-------
                     ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
       This report has been reviewed and approved for publication by the Standards and Applied
Science Division, Office of Science and Technology.  This report was prepared with the support
of Versar, Inc.  (Contract 68-W6-0023) under 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 NVv
                           *          '               -,               .  •
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	  .... .................:.	 ix

1.  INTRODUCTION . .				.............. 1

2.  METHODOLOGY	 3
      2.1    Projected Water Quality Impacts	 .-.  ..... . . . .	3
           .2.1.1  Comparison of Instream  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	11
                 2.1.2.1 FishTissue			 11
                 2.1.2.2 Drinking Water   . ,		 14
                 2.1.2,3 Assumptions and Caveats		......... 15
            2.1.3  Estimation of Ecological  Benefits  ..:.'....-...	 16
                 2.1.3.1 Assumptions and Caveats	 . .	 18
            2.1.4  Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits .  . . .	 19
                 2.1.4.1 Assumptions and Caveats		20
      2.2    Pollutant Fate and Toxicity	.21
            2.2.1  Pollutants of Concern Identification	 . 21
            2.2.2  Compilation of Physical-Chemical and Toxicity Data	 22
            2.2.3  Categorization Assessment ........................... 26
            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  Facility-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  ......  ..r			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
                                                                           Mr>
 4.  SUMMARY OF RESULTS	                 43
       4.1    Projected Water Quality Impacts ........'.....'.".".*.'."."!]' |	43
             4.1.1  Comparison of Instream 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  ........ . . ' . .  49
                   4.1.2.1  Direct Discharges	„	 .    50
                   4.1.2.2  Indirect Discharges	;	.'.*'''  52
             4.1.3  Estimation of Ecological Benefits	.........        57
                  4.1.3.1 Direct Discharges	.'.'..'.'"'  57
                  4.1.3.2 Indirect Discharges	   58
                  4.1.2.3 Additional Ecological Benefits	   '  go
            4-1-4 Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits	               61
      4.2   Pollutant Fate and Toxicity 	.....'..''   61
      4.3   Documented Environmental Impacts  	               62

5. REFERENCES  ........		
                                  	***••••	.-••-.	R~ 1

-------
VOLUME n
                                                                        Page Nn

Appendix A   Facility-Specific Data	A-l

Appendix B   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
             Dissolved Concentration Potentials (DCPs)	B-l

Appendix C   Water Quality Analysis Data Parameters\ .	  .	 C-l

Appendix D   Risks and  Benefits Analysis Information ...	 D-l

Appendix E   Direct Discharger Analysis at'Current (Baseline) and
             Proposed  BAT Treatment Levels .... ... ......		 E-l
            Indirect Discharger Analysis at Current (Baseline) and
            Proposed Pretreafmpnf Levels  . ; .	         F-l

            POTW Analysis at Current (Baseline) and
            Proposed Prpfrpafrnp-nt Levels  ..............                   G-l

            Direct Discharger Risks and Benefits Analyses at Current (Baseline)
            and Proposed RAT Treatment Levels	  H-l

            Indirect Discharger Risks and Benefits Analyses at Current (Baseline)
            and Proposed Prftrpatmpnt Levels  	                     1-1
                                       111

-------
                                   LIST OF TABLES
                                                                                  Nn
  Table 1.


  Table 2


  TableS


 Table 4


 TableS


 Table 6


 Table 7


 fable 8



 Table 9'


 fable 10


 fable 11


 Table 12


Table 13
 Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 6 Direct and
 1 Indirect TEC Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities	  64
 Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Direct and Indirect
 TEC Facilities	
                                                                        66
 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for TEC Direct Barge-Chemical
 and Petroleum Dischargers (Sample Set) ......................... 57

 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for TEC Direct Barge-
 Chemical and Petroleum Dischargers (Sample Set)  . . ' ........ ........ 53
 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for TEC Direct Barge-Chemical
 and Petroleum Dischargers (National Level) ...................... 59

 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for TEC Direct
 Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Dischargers (National Level)  .  . . . ....... 70

 Suffiniary of Projected Criteria Excursions for TEC Indirect Barge-Chemical
 and Petroleum Dischargers (Sample Set) .......................    71

 Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination
 Problems from TEC Indirect Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Dischargers
 (Sample Set) ...................................  _         72

 Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (103) Discharged from 12 Indirect TEC
 Rail-Chemical Facilities  ....... ,....' .................          73

 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for TEC Indirect Rail-Chemical
 Dischargers (Sample Set)   ............. .......... ...........  75

 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for TEC Indirect
 Rail-Chemical Dischargers (Sample Set)  ........................ ;  77

 Sum,mary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems
 from TEC Indirect Rail-Chemical Dischargers (Sample Set)  ............ 78
   11 ' i'lltjl ' '     „,  ,'""'!'    ' ;'' . ' '         •. '   .  ' ' ,  !:' '  '  i     '                    >
Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Inhibition/Sludge Contamination
Values for TEC Indirect Rail-Chemical Dischargers (Sample Set) ......... 79
                                         IV

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES  (continued)
                                                                       Pa PP. No.
Table 14   Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for TEC Indirect Rail-Chemical
          Dischargers (National Level)	 80

Table 15   Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for TEC Indirect
          Rail-Chemical Dischargers (National Level)	 81

Table 16   Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems
          from TEC Indirect Rail-Chemical Dischargers (National Level)	82

Table 17   Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Inhibition/Sludge Contamination
          Values for TEC Indirect Rail-Chemical Dischargers (National Level) ....... 83

Table 18   Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (80) Discharged from 40 Indirect TEC
          Truck-Chemical Facilities	.......:.. 84

Table 19   Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for TEC Indirect Truck-Chemical
          Dischargers (Sample Set)	. .1	>	86

Table 20   Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for TEC Indirect
          Truck-Chemical Dischargers (Sample Set)	 87
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25
Table 26
Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems
from TEC Indirect Truck-Chemical Dischargers (Sample Set)  ........... 88

Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for TEC Indirect Truck-Chemical
Dischargers (National Level)	 89
Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for TEC Indirect
Truck-Chemical Dischargers (National Level)  ...............
                                                                             90
Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Direct Barge-Chemical
and Petroleum Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set)	91

Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for TEC Direct
Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water
Consumption) (Sample Set)	 92
              -   •      •  .   » '          -       -           .
Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Direct Barge-Chemical
and Petroleum Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set)  .... 93

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES  (continued)
  Table 27


  Table 28



  Table 29


  Table 30


  Table .31



 Table 32


 Table 33


 Table 34


 Table 35



 Table 36


Table 37


Table 38
                                                                   Page No.

  Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Direct Barge-Chemical
  and Petroleum Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National Level)	 94

  Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for TEC Direct
  Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking
  Water Consumption) (National Level)	                   95

  SH"1111^ of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Direct Barge-Chemical
  and Petroleum Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (National Level)	  96

  Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Barge-Chemical
  and Petroleum Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set)	   97

  Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect
 Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking
 Water Consumption) (Sample Set)	            _         98

 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Barge-Chemical
 and Petroleum Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set)	 99

 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Rail-Chemical
 Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set)
 Slimmary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for TEC
 Indirect Rail-Chemical Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set)...  101

 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Rail-
 Chemical Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
 (Sample Set)	                106

 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Rail-Chemical
 Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set)	   \QJ

 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Rail-
 Chemical Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National Level)  	'.  108

 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Rail-
Chemical Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level) 	
                                        VI

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES  (continued)
                                                                            Page No.
 Table 39


 Table 40


 Table 41



 Table 42



 Table 43


 Table 44


 Table 45



 Table 46


 Table 47


 Table 48


Table 49.


table 50.
 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Rail-
 Chemical Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (National Level) .......  110

 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Truck-
 Chemical Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set)	:  .  111

 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for TEC
 Indirect Truck-Chemical Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
 (Sample Set) ...........; ..	....................                112

 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts-for TEC Indirect Truck-
 Chemical Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
 (Sample Set) .-...,.................;.......                        j 17

 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Truck-
 Chemical Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set) 	  us

 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Truck- ~ '
 Chemical Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National Level) ........... 119

 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect truck-
 Chemical Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
 (National Level)	...'....                  120

 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for TEC Indirect Truck-
 Chemical Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (National Level) .......  121

 Summary of Ecological (Recreational) Benefits for TEC Direct Barge-
 Chemical Dischargers (Sample Set and National Level)	       122

 Summary of Ecological (Recreational) Benefits for TEC Indirect Truck-
 Chemical Dischargers (Sample Set and National Level)	   123

Potential Fate and Toxieity of Pollutants of Concern (Barge-Chemical
and Petroleum) ........		                           124

Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects (Barge-Chemical
and Petroleum)	  ......                126
                                        vn

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES  (continued)
                                                                              Page No.
 Table 51.


 Table 52.

 Table 53.

 Table 54.


 Table 55.

 Table 56.

 Table 57.


Table 58.


Table 59.
 Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and
 Target Organs (Barge-Chemical and Petroleum)	  127

 Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (Rail-Chemical)  	  128

 Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects (Rail-Chemical)  	  131

 Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and
 Target Organs (Rail-Chemical)  	-.	  132

 Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (Truck-Chemical)	  133

 Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects (Truck-Chemical) ...  135

 Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and Target
 Organs (Truck-Chemical) 	,                     136

 POTWs Which Receive Discharge From Modeled TEC Facilities and are
 Included on State 304(1) Short Lists  	            137

 TEC Modeled Facilities/PQTWs Located on Waterbodies With State-Issued
Fish Consumption Advisories 	
                                        via

-------
                                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

        This environmental assessment quantifies the water quality-related benefits For Transportation
 Equipment Cleaning (TEC) facilities based on site-specific analyses of current conditions and the
 conditions that would be achieved by process changes under proposed BAT  (Best Available
 Technology)  and PSES  (Pretreatment Standards  for Existing Sources)  controls.   The  U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated instream pollutant concentrations for 157 priority
 and nonconventional pollutants from three subcategories (barge-chemical and petroleum, rail-
 chemical, and truck-chemical) of direct and indirect discharges using stream dilution modeling. The
 potential impacts and  benefits to aquatic life are projected by comparing the modeled instream
 pollutant concentrations to published EPA aquatic life criteria guidance or to toxic effect levels.
 Potential adverse human health effects and benefits are projected by: (1)  comparing estimated
 instream 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. Upper-bound individual cancer risks,  population risks, and.
 systemic hazards are estimated using modeled instream pollutant concentrations and standard EPA
 assumptions. Modeled pollutant concentrations in fish and drinking water are used to estimate cancer
 risk and systemic hazards among the general population, sport anglers and their families, and
 subsistence anglers and their families. EPA used the findings from the analyses .of reduced occurrence
 of instrearh.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 TEC
 wastewater discharges (ecological benefits).  These improvements in aquatic habitats are then
 expected to improve the quality and value of recreational fishing opportunities and nonuse  (intrinsic)
 values of the receiving streams.

       Potential inhibition of operations at publicly owned treatment works (POTW) and sewage
 sludge contamination (thereby limiting its use for land application) are also evaluated based on current
and proposed pretreatment levels.  Inhibition of POTW operations is estimated  by comparing
modeled POTW influent concentrations .to available inhibition levels; contamination of sewage sludge
                                           IX

-------
  is estimated by comparing projected pollutant concentrations in sewage sludge to available EPA
  regulatory standards. Economic productivity benefits are estimated on the basis of the incremental
  quantity of sludge that, as a result of reduced pollutant discharges to POTWs, meets criteria for the
  generally less expensive disposal method, namely land application and surface disposal.

        In addition, the potential fate and toxicity of pollutants of concern associated with TEC
  wastewater are evaluated based on known characteristics of each chemical.  Recent literature and
  studies are also reviewed and State and Regional environmental agencies are contacted for evidence
  of documented environmental impacts on aquatic life, human health, POTW operations, and on the
  quality of receiving water.

        These analyses are performed for discharges from representative sample sets of 6 direct barge-
 chemical and petroleum facilities, 1 indirect barge-chemical and petroleum facility,  12 indirect rail-
 chemical facilities, and 40 indirect truck-chemical facilities. Results are extrapolated to the national
 level based on the statistical methodology used for estimated costs, loads, and economic impacts.
 This report provides the results of these analyses, organized by the type of discharge (direct and
 indirect) and type of facility (barge-chemical and petroleum, rail-chemical, and truck-chemical).
                               i    ' !:       '        •        "  '                       •     '\
              • '         "       !'   " : i ' •           •        '.''','
 Comparison  of  Instream  Concentrations  with   Ambient  Water  Quality  Criteria
 (AWOO/Impacts at POTWs

       Direct Discharges
   *                                        
-------
  of the total 6) of the receiving streams. Excursions of human healthcriteria or toxic effect levels
  (developed for organisms .consumption only) are projected in 1  of the 6 receiving streams due to.the
  discharge of the 2 pollutants.  The proposed BAT regulatory option will reduce human health
  criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of water and organisms) excursions to 1
  receiving stream and eliminate excursions of human health criteria nr toxic effect levels (developed
  for organisms consumption only).  Under the firofioseiBAT regulatory option, pollutant loadings
  are reduced 95 percent.

         (b)     Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities (National Extrapolation)
         Modeling results of the sample set are extrapolated to 14 barge-chemical and petroleum
  facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 14 receiving streams. Extrapolated instream concentrations of
  2 pollutants are projected to exceed human health criteria Or, toxic effect levels (developed for
  water and  organisms consumption) in 43  percent (6  of the total  14) of the receiving streams at
  current discharge levels. The proposed regulation will reduce excursions of human health criteria
  or toxic effect levels (developed for water and organisms consumption) to 2 pollutants in 3 receiving
  streams. A total of 9 excursions in 6 receiving streams at current conditions will be reduced to 6
  excursions in 3  receiving streams at proposed BAT discharge levels. The 6 excursions of human
  health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for organisms consumption only) in 3  receiving
 streams will be eliminated at proEosedBAT discharge levels.

       Indirect Dischargers
       (a)    Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities (Sample Set)
       The 1 indirect barge-chemical and petroleum facility is not being proposed for pretreatment
 standards.  EPA did, however, evaluate the effects of the facility's discharge on a POTW and its
 receiving stream.

       Water quality modeling results for the  1 indirect barge-chemical and petroleum facility that
discharges 60  pollutants to  1 POTW with an outfall on 1 receiving stream  indicate that at both
current  and Proposed pretreafmenf discharge levels no instream pollutant concentrations are
expected to  exceed aquatic  life criteria (acute or chronic) or toxic effect levels.  Additionally, at
                                           XI

-------
   current and Proposed pretreatment discharge levels, the instream concentrations (using a target
   risk of Iff* (1E-6) for carcinogens) are not projected to exceed human health criteria or toxic effect
   levels (developed for consumption of water and organisms/organisms consumption only).  Pollutant
   loadings are reduced 54 percent.

         In addition, the potential impact of the 1 barge-chemical and petroleum facility is evaluated
  in terms of inhibition of POTW operation and contamination of sludge.  No inhibition or sludge
  contamination problems are projected at the 1 POTW receiving wastewater.
         Since no excursions of ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or impacts at POTWs
  projected, results are not extrapolated to the national level.
are
        (b)    Rail-Chemical Facilities (Sample Set)
        The potential effects of POTW wastewater discharges on receiving stream water quality are
 also evaluated at current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels for a representative sample
 set of 12 indirect rail-chemical facilities that discharge 103 pollutants to 11 POTWs with outfalls on
 11 receiving streams.  Modeling results indicate that at both current and proposed pretreatment
 discharge levels instream concentrations of 3 pollutants and 1 pollutant, respectively,  (using a target
 risk of ID"6 (1E-6) for carcinogens) are projected to exceed human health criteria or toxic effect
 levels (developed for organisms consumption only) in 45 percent (5 of the total 11) of the receiving
 streams for 1 pollutant. Excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for
 organisms consumption only) are projected in 18 percent (2 of the total 11) of the receiving streams
 for 1 pollutant. The proposed pretreatmcnt regulatory option will  eliminate these excursions.
 Instream concentrations of 4 pollutants are also projected to exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or
 toxic effect levels in 18 percent (2 of the total 11) of the receiving streams at current discharge
 levels- Proposed pretreatment discharge levels reduce projected excursions to 3 pollutants in  1 of
 the 11 receiving streams.  The 1 excursion of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels is
 eliminated by  the proposed pretreatment regulatory option. Pollutant  loadings are  reduced 42
percent.
                                           xn

-------
         In addition, the potential impact of the  12 rail-chemical" facilities, which discharge to  11
  POTWs, are evaluated in terms of inhibition ofPOTW operation and contamination of sludge. At
  current discharge levels, inhibition from 4 pollutants are projected at 55 percent (6 of the total 11)
  of the POTWs receiving wastewater discharges.  The proposed pretreatment regulatory option
  reduces inhibition'problems to 4 POTWs. No sludge problems are projected at the 11 POTWs
  receiving wastewater discharges.

         (c)    Rail-Chemical Facilities (National Extrapolation)
         Modeling results of the sample set are extrapolated to 3 8 rail-chemical facilities discharging
  103 pollutants to 3:7 POTWs with outfalls on 37 receiving streams. Extrapolated instream pollutant
  concentrations are projected to exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for
  water and organisms consumption) in 43 percent (16 of the total 37) of the receiving streams at both
  current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels. A total of 32 excursions due to the discharge
  of 3 pollutants will be reduced to  16 excursions due to the discharge of 1  pollutant. Additionally, the
  8 excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for organisms consumption
  only) projected in 8 receiving streams will be eliminated by the proposed pretreatment regulatory
 option.   ,

        Extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations are also projected to exceed chronic aquatic
 life criteria or toxic effect levels in 22 percent (8 of the total 37) of the receiving streams at current
 discharge levels, A total of 4 pollutants at current discharge levels are projected to exceed instream
 criteria or toxic'effect levels.   Proposed nretreatment discharge levels will  reduce projected
 excursions to 3 pollutants in 16 percent  (6 of the total 37) of the receiving streams. A total of 26
 excursions at current conditions will be reduced  to  17  excursions as a result  of the proposed
 pretreatment regulatory option. The 6 excursions of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect
 levels projected in 6 receiving streams will be eliminated by the proposed pretreatment regulatory
 option.                                                                   '

       In addition, extrapolated inhibition problems are projected at 57 percent (21 of the 37) of the
POTWs  receiving wastewater discharges at  current discharge levels.   Proposed  pretreatment -
                                           xiu

-------
 discharge levels will reduce projected problems to 35 percent (13 of the 37) of the POTWs. A total
 of 42 inhibition problems at current conditions will be reduced to 34 inhibition problems as a result
 of the proposed pretreatment.

        (d)    Truck-Chemical Facilities (Sample Set)
        Additionally, the potential effects of POTW wastewater discharges  of 80 pollutants on
 receiving stream water quality are evaluated at current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels
 for  a representative sample set of 40 truck-chemical facilities which discharge to 35 POTWs with
 outfalls on 35 receiving streams.

        Instream concentrations of 1 pollutant (using a target risk of 10"* (1E-6) for carcinogens) are
 projected to exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for water and organisms
 consumption/organisms consumption only) in 6 percent (2 of the total 35) of the receiving streams
 at current discharge levels. The proposed pretreatment regulatory option eliminates excursions
 of human health criteria.

        Instream pollutant concentrations are also projected to exceed chronic aquatic life criteria
 or toxic effect, .levels in 23 percent (8 of the total 35) of the receiving streams at current discharge
 levels. A total  of 1  pollutant at current discharge levels is projected to exceed instream criteria or
 toxic effect levels.   Proposed pretreatment discharge levels reduce projected excursions to  1
 pollutant in 17 percent (6 of the total 35) of the receiving streams.  No excursions of acute aquatic
 life  criteria or toxic effect levels are projected.  Under the proposed pretreatment regulatory
 option, pollutant loadings are reduced 80 percent.

       In addition, the potential impact  of the 40 truck-chemical facilities are evaluated in terms of
inhibition of POTW operation and contamination of sludge. No inhibition or sludge contamination
problems  are projected at the 35 POTWs receiving wastewater discharges.  Since no impacts at
POTWs are projected, results are not extrapolated to the national level.
                                           xiv

-------
         (e)    Truck-Chemical Facilities (National Extrapolation)
         Modeling results of the sample set are extrapolated  to  288 truck-chemical facilities
  discharging 80 pollutants to 264 POTWs located on 264 receiving streams. Extrapolated mstream
  pollutant concentrations of 1 pollutant are projected to exceed human health criteria or toxic effect
  levels (developed for water and organisms consumption/organisms consumption only) in 5 percent
  (14 of the total 264) of the receiving streams at current discharge levels.' Excursions of human
  health criteria are eliminated at the proposed pretreatment regulatory option.

        Extrapolated instream concentrations of 1 .pollutant are also projected to exceed chronic
  aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 19 percent (49 of the total 264) of the receiving streams
  at current discharge levels. Proposed pretreatment discharge levels reduce  excursions to 1
  pollutant in 14 percent (37 of the total 264) of the receiving streams.  A total of 49 excursions in 49
  receiving streams at current conditions will be reduced to 37 excursions in 37 receiving streams at
  the proposed pretreatment regulatory option

 Human Health Risks and Benefits

        The excess annual cancer cases at current discharge levels and, therefore, at proposed BAT
 and proposed pretreatment discharge levels are projected to be far less than 0.5 for all populations
 evaluated from the ingestion of contaminated fish and drinking water for both direct and indirect TEC
 (barge-chemical and  petroleum,  rail-chemical, and  truck-chemical)  wastewater  discharges.  A
 monetary value  of.this benefit to society is, therefore, not projected. The risk to develop systemic
 toxicant effects are projected from fish consumption for only indirect truck-chemical discharges. For
 truck-chemical discharges (sample set), the risk to develop systemic effects are projected to result
 from the discharge of 1 pollutant  to 7 receiving streams at current discharge levels and from the
 discharge of 1 pollutant to 3 receiving streams at  proposed  pretreatment discharge levels. An
 estimated population of 4,284 subsistence anglers and their families are projected to be affected at
 current discharge levels.  The affected population is reduced to 687 at proposed pretreatment  '
levels.  Results are extrapolated to the national level; an estimated population of 14,173 subsistence
anglers and their families are projected to be affected from the discharge of 1 pollutant to 39 receiving
                                            xv

-------
  streams at current discharge levels.  The affected population is reduced to 3,492 (16 receiving
  streams) as a result of the proposed pretreatment regulatory option.  Monetary values for the
  reduction of systemic toxic effects cannot currently be estimated.

  Ecological Benefits
  , ,            , s                '                   •                         _
                                                                          %
        Potential ecological  benefits  of the  proposed  regulation,  based on improvements in
  recreational fishing habitats, are projected for only direct barge-chemical and petroleum wastewater
  discharges and indirect truck-chemical wastewater discharges, because the proposed regulation is not
  projected to completely eliminate instream concentrations in excess of aquatic life and human health
  ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) in any stream receiving wastewater discharges from indirect
  barge-chemical and petroleum, and indirect rail-chemical facilities.  For the direct barge-chemical and
  petroleum sample set, concentrations in excess of AWQC are projected to be eliminated at 1 receiving
 stream as a result of the proposed BAT regulatory option.  The monetary value of improved
 recreational fishing opportunity is estimated by 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. The value of improving water quality in this fishery, based on the increase in
 value to anglers of achieving contaminant-free fishing, is then calculated.  The resulting estimate of
 the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers on the improved receiving-stream is $54,400
 to 5194,000 (1994 dollars). Based on extrapolated data to the national level, the proposed regulation
 is projected to completely eliminate instream concentrations in excess of AWQC at 3 receiving
 streams. The resulting estimate of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers ranges from
 $157,000 to $562,000 (1994 dollars).  In addition, EPA conservatively estimates that the nonuse
 (intrinsic) benefits compose one-half of the recreational fishing benefits.  The resulting estimate of the
 nonuse value on the improved receiving stream is $27,200 to $97,000 (1994 dollars). Based on
 extrapolated data to the national level, the resulting increase in nonuse value ranges from $78,500 to
 $281,000 (1994 dollars).

       For the indirect truck-chemical sample set, concentrations in excess of AWQC are projected
to be eliminated at 2 receiving streams as a result of the proposed pretreatment regulatory option.
                                            xvi

-------
  The monetary value of improved recreational fishing opportunity is estimated by 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.  The value of improving water quality in this
  fishery, based on  the increase in value to anglers of achieving  contaminant-free fishing,  is then
  calculated. The resulting estimate of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers on the
  improved receiving streams is $248,000 to $886,000 (1994 dollars). Based on extrapolated data to
  the national level,  the proposed  regulation is projected to  completely eliminate  instream
  concentrations in excess of AWQC at 12 receiving streams.  The resulting estimate of the increase
 in value of recreational fishing to anglers ranges from $1,494,000 to $5,334,000 (1994 dollars).  In
 addition, the estimate of the npnuse value (intrinsic) on the improved receiving streams is $124,000
 to $443,000 (1994 dollars).  Based on extrapolated data to the national level, the resulting increase
 m nonuse value ranges from  $747,000 to $2,667,000 (1994 dollars).

        There ,are a number  of additional use and nonuse benefits associated with the proposed
 standards that could not be monetized. The monetized recreational benefits were estimated only for
 fishing by recreational anglers,  although there are other categories of recreational and other use
 benefits that could not be monetized. An example of these additional benefits includes enhanced
 water-dependent recreation other than fishing. There are also nonmonetized benefits that are nonuse
 values, such as benefits to wildlife,  threatened or endangered species, and biodiversity  benefits.
 Rather than attempt the difficult task of enumerating, quantifying, and monetizing these nonuse
 benefits, EPA calculated, nonuse benefits as 50 percent of the use value for recreational fishing. This
 value of 50 percent is a reasonable approximation of the total nonuse value for a population compared
 to the total use value for that population. This approximation should be applied to the total use value
 for the affected population; in this case, all of the direct uses of the affected reaches (including fishing,
 hiking, and boating).  However, since this approximation was only applied to recreational, fishing
benefits for recreational anglers, it does not take into account nonuse values for non-anglers or for
the uses other than fishing by anglers/Therefore, EPA has estimated only a portion of the nonuse
benefits for the proposed standards.
                                           xvn

-------
  Economic Productivity Benefits

        Potential economic productivity benefits, based on reduced sewage sludge contamination and
  sewage sludge disposal costs, are evaluated at POTWs receiving the wastewater discharges from
  indirect TEC facilities.  Because no sludge contamination problems are projected at the 1 POTW
  receiving wastewater from 1 barge-chemical and petroleum facility,  at the 11 POTWs receiving
  wastewater from 12 rail-chemical facilities, or at the 35 POTWs receiving wastewater from 40 truck-
  chemical facilities, no economic productivity benefits are projected  as a result of the proposed
  regulation.

 Pollutant Fate and Toxicitv

        Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities
        EPA identified 67 pollutants of concern (priority, nonconventional, and conventional) in
 wastestreams from barge-chemical and petroleum facilities.  These pollutants are evaluated to assess
 their potential fate and toxicity based on known characteristics of each chemical.

        Most of the 67 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, 20 exhibit
 moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life; 10 are classified as known or probable human carcinogens;
 33 are human systemic toxicants; 23 have drinking water values; and 25 are designated by EPA as
 priority pollutants.  In terms of projected partitioning,  27 of the evaluated pollutants are moderately
 to highly volatile (potentially causing risk to exposed populations via inhalation); 29 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 offish and shellfish); 24 are moderately to  highly adsorptive to solids; and 8 are resistant
to or slowly biodegraded.
                                          XVlll

-------
        Rail-Chemical Facilities
        In addition, EPA identified  106 pollutants of concern  (priority, nonconventional, and
 conventional) in wastestreams from rail-chemical facilities. These pollutants are also evaluated to
 assess their potential fate and toxicity, based on known characteristics of each chemical.

        Most of the 106 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, 55 exhibit
 moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life; 62 are human systemic toxicants; 28 are classified as known
 or probable carcinogens; 22 have drinking water values; and 23 have been designated by EPA as
 priority pollutants.  In terms of projected environmental partitioning. among media,  22 of the
 evaluated pollutants are  moderately to highly volatile; 64 have a moderate to high potential to
 bioaccumulate in aquatic biota; 48 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids; 'and 43 are resistant
 to or slowly biodegraded.                                                            .

        Truck-Chemical Facilities
        EPA also identified 86 pollutants of concern (priority, nonconventional, and. conventional)
 in wastestreams from truck-chemical facilities.  These pollutants are also evaluated to assess their
 potential fate and toxicity, based on known characteristics of each chemical.
   ^       •         ..                 •         °'   .'     ,
       Most of the 86 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, 32
 exhibit moderate to.high toxicity to aquatic life; 52 are human systemic toxicants; 19 are classified
 as known or probable carcinogens; 29 have drinking water values; and 25 have been designated by
 EPA as priority pollutants.  In terms of projected environmental partitioning among media, 28 of the
 evaluated pollutants are moderately to highly volatile; 46 have a moderate to high potential to
 bioaccumulate in aquatic biota; 29 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids; and 21 are resistant
 to or slowly biodegraded.                                                          •

        *            '•>,.'                 -   ,            *    - -             i
       The impacts of 3 conventional and 4 nonconventional pollutants are not evaluated when
modeling  the effect of the proposed regulation on receiving stream  water quality and POTW
                                           xix

-------
 operations or when evaluating the potential fate and toxicity of discharged pollutants.  These
 pollutants are total  suspended solids  (TSS),  5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5),  total
 recoverable oil and grease, chemical oxygen demand (COD),  total dissolved solids (IDS),  total
 organic carbon (TOG), and total petroleum hydrocarbons. The discharge of these pollutants can have
 adverse effects on human health and the environment.  For example, habitat degradation can 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. Oil and grease can have lethal effects on fish, by coating surface of gills causing
 asphyxia, by depleting oxygen levels due to excessive biological oxygen demand, or by reducing
 stream reaeration because of surface film. Oil and grease can also have detrimental effects on water
 fowl by destroying the buoyancy and insulation of their feathers.  Bioaccumulation of oil substances
 can cause human health problems including tainting offish and bioaccumulation  of carcinogenic
 polycyclic aromatic compounds. High COD and BOD5 levels can 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

       Documented environmental  impacts on aquatic life, human health, POTW  operations, and
 receiving stream water quality are also summarized in this assessment. The summaries are based on
 a review of published literature abstracts,'State 304(1) Short Lists, State Fishing Advisories,  and
 contact with State and Regional environmental agencies1. Five (5) POTWs receiving the discharge
 from 1 rail-chemical and 4 truck-chemical facilities are identified by States as being point sources
 causing water quality problems and are included on their 304(1) Short List.  All POTWs listed
 currently report no problems with TEC wastewater discharges.  Past and potential problems are
 reported by the POTWs for oil and grease, pH, TSS, surfactants, glycol ethers, pesticides  and
mercury.  Several POTW contacts stated the need for a national effluent guidelines for the TEC
industry.  Current  and  past problems (violation of  effluent limits,  POTW  pass-through  and
                               1                                                t
interference problems, POTW sludge contamination, etc.) caused by direct and indirect discharges
from all three subcategories of TEC facilities (barge-chemical and petroleum, rail-chemical and truck-
                                           xx

-------
chemical) are also reported by State and Regional contacts in 7 regions. Pollutants causing the
problems include BOD, cyanide, hydrocarbons, metals (copper, chromium, silver, zinc), oil and
grease, pesticides, pH, phosphorus, styrene, surfactants, and TSS. In addition, 1 barge-chemical and
petroleum facility and 19 POTWs receiving wastewater discharges of 2 rail-chemical and 20 truck-
chemical facilities are  located on waterbodies with  State-issued fish consumption  advisories.
However, the vast majority of advisories are based on chemicals that are not pollutants of concern
for the TEC industry.
                                         xxi

-------

-------
                                    i:  INTRODUCTION

        The purpose of this report is to present an assessment of the water quality benefits of
 controlling the discharge of wastewater from transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities
 (barge-chemical and petroleum, rail-chemical, and truck-chemical subcategories) to surface waters
 and publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). Potential aquatic life and human health impacts, of
 direct barge-chemical and petroleum discharges on receiving stream water quality and of indirect
 barge-chemical and petroleum, rail-chemical, and truckTchemical 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 instream concentrations to health-based water quality toxic effect levels or U.S
 Environrr -ntal 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.  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 TEC 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-three
conventional pollutants (total suspended solids [TSS], 5-day biological oxygen demand [BOD5] and
total recoverable oil and grease) and four classical pollutant parameters (chemical oxygen demand
[COD], total dissolved solids [TDS], total organic carbon [TOC],.and total petroleum hydrocarbons),
the discharge of these pollutants can have adverse effects on human health and the environment.  For

-------
 example, habitat degradation can result from increased suspended particulate matter that reduces light
 penetration and primary productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles that alter benthic
               ,'         ,       I
 spawning grounds and feeding habitats. Oil and grease can have lethal effects on fish, by coating
 surface of gills causing asphyxia, by depleting oxygen levels due to excessive biological oxygen
 demand, or by reducing stream reaeration because of surface film.  Oil and grease can also have
 detrimental effects on waterfowl by  destroying-the buoyancy and insulation  of their feathers.
 Bioaccumulation of oil substances can cause human health problems including tainting offish and
 bioaccumulation of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic compounds. High COD and BOD5 levels can
 deplete oxygen levels, which.can 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 TEC facilities (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. METHODOLOGY

  2-!     Projected Water Quality Impacts

          The water quality  impacts and  associated risks/benefits of TEC discharges at various
  treatment levels are evaluated by:  (1) comparing projected instream concentrations with ambient
  water quality  criteria,1  (2)  estimating the human health risks and benefits associated  with the
  consumption offish and drinking water from waterbodies impacted, by the TEC 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 TEC facilities.  These analyses are performed
  for a representative sample set of 6 direct barge-chemical and petroleum facilities, 1 indirect barge-
  chemical and petroleum facility, 12 indirect rail-chemical facilities, and 40 indirect truck-chemical
  facilities. Results are extrapolated to the national level 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 Instream 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  instream 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
    ^ performing this analysis, EPA used guidance documents published by EPA that recommend numeric human health
and aquanc hfe water quahty criteria for numerous pollutants.  States often consult these guidance documents when
adoptmg w*er quahty criteria as part of their water-quality standards. However, because t£se StateSo^critS
may vary> EPA used the nat.onw.de criteria guidance as the most representative values. EPA also recognizes that
currently there * no sc.ent.fic consensus on the most appropriate approach for extrapolating the dose-response rSSonship
to the lowKlose assorted w,th dnnkrng water exposure for arsenic.  EPA's National Center for Environmental
Assessment and EPA', Office of Water sponsored an Expert Panel Workshop, May 21-22, 1997, to review a^TcS
the relevant sc.ent.fic LteratUre for evaluating the possible modes of action underlying the carcinogenic action of arsenic!

-------
 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 instream concentrations are calculated at current and proposed BAT
 treatment levels for stream segments with direct discharging facilities.  For stream segments with
 multiple facilities, pollutant loadings are summed, if applicable, before concentrations are calculated.
 The dilution model used for estimating instream concentrations is as follows.
                       _
                          FF t SF
                                                                                 (Eq. 1)
where:
       L
       OD
       FF
       SF
       CF
instream pollutant concentration (micrograms per liter [fj,gfL])
facility pollutant loading (pounds/year [Ibs/year])
facility operation (days/year)
facility flow (million gallons/day [gal/day])
receiving stream flow (million gal/day)
conversion factors for units
       The facility-specific data (i.e., pollutant loading, operating days, facility 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 7QJO flows are the lowest  1-day and the lowest consecutive 7-day
average flow during any 10-year period, respectively, and are used to estimate potential acute and
elironic 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 facility operating days are used to represent the
  exposure duration; the calculated instream concentration is thus the average concentration on days
  the facility is dischargingwastewater.  For assuming long-term human health impacts, the operating
  days (exposure duration) are set at 365 days; the calculated instream 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 facility 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 facilities discharging
 to estuaries and bays, if applicable, as follows:
               Ces  =
    LIOD\
    ~~
x CF   / CDF
                                                                                   (Eq.2)
where:
       L
       OD
       FF
       CDF
       CF
estuary pollutant concentration
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
facility operation (days/year)
facility flow (million gal/day)
critical dilution factor
conversion factors for units
                                            5

-------
                     Ca  = L x DCP x CF
                                                             (Eq.3)
 where:
        L
        DCP
        CF
estuary pollutant concentration (/^g/L)
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
dissolved concentration potential (milligrams per liter [mg/L])
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
 (NEI) 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 instream (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.

-------
 2.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities


        Assessing the impacts of indirect discharging facilities 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 facilities  as shown  in Eq. 4. For stream segments with multiple facilities,

 pollutant loadings are summed, if applicable, before concentrations are calculated. The facility-

 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).
                  = (L/OD) x
                                 PF + SF
                                                            (Eq.4)
where:
       0,
       L
       OD
       TMT
       PF
       SF
       CF
instream pollutant concentration (//g/L)
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
facility operation (days/year)
POTW treatment removal efficiency
POTW.flow (million gal/day)
receiving stream flow (million gal/day)
conversion factors for units
            _(LIODX(\-TMT)\
                 ~	jp	J
                                                            (Eq. 5)

-------
 where:
        L
        OD
        TMT
        PF
        CDF
        CF
estuary pollutant concentration
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
facility operation (days/year)
POTW treatment removal efficiency
POTW flow (million gal/day)
critical dilution factor
conversion factors for units
              C.  = L x (l-TMT) x DCP x CF
                                                            (Eq.6)
 where:
       L
       TMT
       DCP
       CF
estuary pollutant concentration (//g/L)
facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
POTW treatment removal efficiency
dissolved concentration potential (mg/L)
conversion factors for units
       Potential impacts on freshwater quality are determined by comparing projected instream

pollutant concentrations (Eq. 4) at reported POTW flows and at 1Q10 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 instream 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, and comparison with criteria or toxic effect levels.  A value greater than 1.0
indicates an excursion.
                                           8

-------
         (b)    Impacts on POTWs


         Impacts on POTW operations are 'calculated in terms of inhibition of POTW processes (i.e.,
  inhibition of microbial degradation) and contamination 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.
                                                                                   (Eq. 7)
 where:
        L
        OD
        PF
        CF
 POTW influent concentration
 facility pollutant loading (Ibs/year)
 facility operation (days)
 POTW flow (million gal/day)
 conversion factors for units
 Contamination of sludge (thereby limiting its use for land application, etc.) 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.
where:
       TMT
       PART
       SGF
Cpi x TMT x PART x SGF
sludge pollutant concentration (milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg])
POTW influent concentration Cug/L)
POTW treatment removal efficiency
chemical-specific sludge partition factor
sludge generation factor (5.96 parts per million [ppm])
                                                                                  (Eq.8)
       Facility-specific data and information used to evaluate POTWs are derived from the sources
described in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. For facilities 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

fj.gfL 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 facilities are evaluated.

                    An exposure duration of 365 days is used to determine the likelihood of actual
                    excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels.

                    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 facility 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 facility 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
                                          10

-------
                       and Toxics (OPPT) of 1Q10 and 7Q10 flows from representative U.S. rivers
                       and streams taken from Upgrade of Flaw Statistics Used to Estimate Surface
                       Water  Chemical  Concentrations for  Aquatic  and  Human  Exposure
                       Assessment (Versar, 1992).  Harmonic mean flows are estimated from the
                       mean and 7Q10 flows as recommended in the Technical Support Document
                      for Water-Ouality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA,  199la).  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 instream
                       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 ahalysis of facilities discharging to estuaries or bays.
 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 offish

 tissue and drinking water derived from waterbodies impacted by direct and indirect discharging
 facilities.                                                               .


 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
                                            11

-------
 estimated for each pollutant discharged from a facility based on the instream 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 = (CxIRx BCF xFxD)l(BWxLT)
                                                              (Eq.9)
where:
       LADD

       C
       IR
       BCF
       F
       D
       BW
       LT
   potential lifetime average daily dose (milligrams  per kilogram per day
   [mg/kg/day])
   exposure concentration (mg/L)
   ingestion rate (See Section 2.1.2.3 - Assumptions)
   bioconcentration factor, (liters per kilogram [L/kg] (whole body x 0.5)
   frequency duration (365 days/year)
   exposure duration (70 years)
   body weight (70 kg)
   lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
       Individual risks are calculated as follows:
where:
       R
       LADD
       SF
                      R  = LADD x SF
                                                            (Eg. 10)
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, facility, and overall industry basis.  The number of
                                            12

-------
 reduced cancer cases is assumed to be the difference between the estimated risks at current and
 proposed treatment levels,            .    ,

        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 (OP A) 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  chariges 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, OP A recommends a range of $ 1.6 to $8.5
 million (1986 dollars) for valuing ah 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 thatrvalue of life estimates are clustered in the range of $3 to $7 million (1990 dollars). For
 this analysis, the figures recommended in the OP A study are adjusted  to 1992 using the relative
 change in the Employment Cost Index of Total Compensation for All Civilian Workers from 1986
to 1994 (38 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 expectation that
willingness-to-pay to  avoid  risk is  a normal  economic  good,  and, accordingly,  society's
    These estimates, however, do not represent the willingness-to-pay to avoid the certainty of death.
                '.                           13

-------
 willingness-to-pay to avoid risk will increase as national income increases. Updating to 1994 yields
 a range of $2.2 to $11.7 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/RfD
                                                     (Eq.  11)
 where:
        HQ
        ORI
        RfD
hazard quotient
oral intake (LADD x BW, mg/day)
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
facility 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.

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 IR x F x D ) I ( BW x LT )
                                                    (Eq.  12)
                                           14

-------
 where:
       LADD
       C
       IR
       F
       D
       BW
       LT
potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg/day)
exposure concentration (mg/L)
ingestion rate (2L/day)
frequency duration (365 days/year)
exposure duration (70 years)
body weight (70 kg)
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 cases that may occur during the life of the population.  Systemic
toxicant effects are evaluated by estimating the sizes of populations exposed to  pollutants from a
given facility, 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.
                                           15

-------
                       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 offish 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 facility is located.

                      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 facility'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 TEC 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
                                            16

-------
  of recreational fishing opportunities and nonuse (intrinsic) value of the receiving streams.  The
  estimation of the monetary value to society of improved recreational fishing opportunities is based
                               ...          . •        '      •           .p         ,      t"
  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:
               A multiple site, trip generation, travel cost model was used to estimate net benefits
               associated wjth the fishery under baseline (i.e., contaminated) conditions.
               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
    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.

                                             17       .    -       .  .   '     .  ' •   -

-------
 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, $29.47 and $37.32, respectively, in 1994 dollars is used.  Summing over all
 benefiting stream segments provides a total baseline recreational fishing value of TEC facility 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 TEC facility stream segments
 expected to benefit by elimination of pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC.

       In  addition, nonuse (intrinsic) benefits  to the general public, as  a  result of the same
 improvements in water quality, as described above, are expected. These nonuse benefits (option
 values, aesthetics, existence values, and request values) are based on the premise that individuals who
 never visit or otherwise use a natural resource might nevertheless be affected by changes in its.status
 or quality.  Nonuse benefits are not associated with current use of the affected ecosystem or habitat,
                                1     /
 but arise rather from 1) the realization of  the improvement in the affected ecosystem or habitat
 resulting from reduced effluent discharges, and 2) the value that individuals place on the potential for
 use  sometime in  the future.   Nonuse benefits  can  be substantial for some resources and are
 conservatively estimated as one-half of the recreational benefits.  Since this approximation was only
 applied to recreational fishing benefits for recreational anglers, it does not take into account nonuse
 values for non-anglers or for the uses other than fishing by anglers. Therefore, EPA estimated only
 a portion of the nonuse benefits.

2.1.3.1 Assumptions and Caveats

      The following major assumptions are used in the ecological benefits analysis:
                                            18

-------
               •       Background concentrations of the TEC 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 2113  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 TEC
 facilities 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 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
                                            19

-------
 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
               i                i                             ,                           '
 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 TEC facility 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 = PFx Sx CD x PD x CF
where:
                                                                               (Eq.  13)
       SCR  =

       pp
       S      —

       CD    =
       PD
       CF    =
 estimated POTW-sewage sludge use or disposal cost reductions resulting from
 the proposed regulation (1994 dollars)
 POTW flow (million gal/year)
 sewage sludge to wastewater ratio (1,400 Ibs (dry weight) per million gallons
 of water)
 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 ($1994/dry metric ton)
 percent of sewage sludge disposed
 conversion factor for units
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.
                                           20

-------
                  , f   ^^       ,                     -,                 -                   /
                      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 TEC 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    Pollutant Fate and Toxicitv

        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 lexicological 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 TEC
 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.,

 2.2.1  Pollutants of Concern Identification

       From 1994 through 1996, EPA conducted 20 sampling episodes to determine the presence
 or absence of priority, conventional,  and nonconventional pollutants at TEC facilities  located
 nationwide. EPA visited 7 truck facilities, 5 rail facilities, 7 barge facilities^ and 1 closed-top hopper
barge facility. There, EPA collected grab and composite samples of untreated process wastewater
                                           21

-------
  and treated final effluent. Most of these samples were analyzed for 478 analytes to identify pollutants
  at these facilities.  Using these data, EPA applied three criteria to identify non-pesticide/herbicide
  pollutants effectively removed (i.e., pollutants of concern) by technology options: (1) detected at least
  two times in the subcategory influent, (2) average concentration of the pollutant in the influent greater
  than five times the detection limit, and (3) effectively treated with a removal rate of 50 percent or
  more.  EPA applied two criteria to identify pesticide/herbicide pollutants effectively removed by
  technology options: (1) detected at least one time in subcategory wastewater, and (2) treated with
  a removal rate greater than 0 percent.

        In the barge-chemical and petroleum subcategory, EPA detected 67 pollutants (25 priority
 pollutants, 3 conventional pollutant parameters, and 39 nonconventional pollutants) in waste streams
 that met the selection  criteria.  These pollutants are identified as pollutants of concern and are
 evaluated to assess their potential fate and toxicity based on known characteristics of each chemical.

        In  the rail-chemical subcategory, EPA detected 106 pollutants (23 priority pollutants, 2
 conventional pollutant parameters, and 81 nonconventional pollutants) in waste streams that met the
 selection criteria. These pollutants are identified as pollutants of concern and are evaluated to assess
 their potential fate and toxicity based on known characteristics of each chemical.

        In the truck-chemical subcategory, EPA  detected 86 pollutants (25 priority pollutants, 3
 conventional pollutant parameters, and 58 nonconventional pollutants) in waste streams that met the
 selection criteria. These pollutants are identified as pollutants of concern and are evaluated 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.J,
                                            22

-------
 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, 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 offish or invertebrate.  The hierarchy used to select the appropriate acute;
value is listed below in descending order of priority.
                                          23

-------
                     National acute freshwater quality criteria;
                     Lowest reported  acute test  values (96-hour LC^ for fish and  48-hour
                     ECjo/LCjp for daphnids);
                     Lowest reported LC50 test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate a.
                     96-hour exposure period;
                     Lowest reported LCSO test value of longer duration, up to a maximum of 2
                     weeks exposure; and
                     Estimated 96-hour LCSO from the ASTER QSAR model.
       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

                                           24

-------
 deleterious noncarcinogenic health effects over a lifetime (U.S. EPA, i989b). 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  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 Glean
 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 carbon-water partition coefficient (KJ, 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, 1994a), or the  quantitative
                                           25

-------
 structure-activity  relationship (QSAR)  system (U.S.  EPA,  1993a),  maintained  by EPA's
 Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL) in Duluth, Minnesota.

        Koc 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.
       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).

       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 TEC 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.
                                           26

-------
 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  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/LC50 or other benchmark (AT) (/zg/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:

       AT < 100
       1,000 > AT > 100
       AT > 1,000
Highly toxic
Moderately toxic
Slightly toxic
       This scheme, used as a rule-pf-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.
                                           27

-------
        (b)    Volatility from Water
 Key Parameter:      Henry's Law constant (HLC) (atm-m3/mol)
HLC  -
                               Pressure  (atm)
                         Solubility (mol/m3)
                                                                (Eq. 14)
        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 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:
       HLO10-3
       10-3>HLC>10-5
       10-5>HLC>3xlO-7
       HLC < 3 x ID'7
                         Highly volatile
                         Moderately volatile
                         Slightly volatile
                         Essentially nonvolatile
       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 w^ater, yet potentially causing risk to
exposed populations via inhalation.
                                                               i   , ,     '
                              :                            ;  ,   I  .     •
       (c)     Adsorption to Soil/Sediments

Key Parameter:      Soil/sediment adsorption coefficient (KK)

       Koc 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
                                           28

-------
 to such media. K^ is highly inversely correlated with solubility, well correlated with octanol-water
 partition coefficient, and fairly well correlated with BCF.

 Categorization Scheme:
        Koc> 10,000     ,   .
        10,000 ^K^ 1,000
        1,000 >KOC> 10
        Koe<10
 Highly adsorptive
 Moderately adsorptive
• Slightly adsorptive
 Essentially nonadsorptive
        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 K^ value indicates that a chemical is more likely to partition to sediment, it also
 indicates that a chemical may be less hioavailable.

        (d)    Bioaccumulation Potential

 Key Parameter:       Bioconcentration Factor (BCF)
            Equilibrium chemical concentration in organism (wet weight)
                     Mean chemical concentration in water
                                     (Eq. 15)
       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
ffigh potential
Moderate potential
                                           29

-------
        50>BCF>5
        BCF < 5 '
                     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)
       Biodegradation, photolysis, and hydrolysis are three potential mechanisms of organic chemical
 transformation in the environment. ABD 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:
       BDs 7
       28
-------
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.
                            V                                     , '  ''
              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 TEC wastewater.
       (b)     Categorization Schemes

       •  -   •  Receiving waterbody characteristics, pollutant loading amounts, exposed populations,
              arid 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 represent 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.
                                           31

-------
2.3    Documented Environmental Impacts




       State and Regional environmental agencies are contacted, and State 304(1) Short Lists, State
                              i '    '      •      ]       '                            .

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 TEC facilities. Reported impacts are compiled and summarized by

study site and facility.
                                         32

-------
                                   3.  DATA SOURCES

 3.1    Water Quality Impacts

        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   Facility-Specific Data

        EPA's Engineering and Analysis Division (BAD) provided projected facility effluent process
 flows, facility operating days, and pollutant loadings (Appendix A) in February-May 1997 (U.S. EPA,
 1997).  For each option, the long-term averages (LTAs) were calculated for each pollutant of concern
 based  on sampling data.   Facilities reported in the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for  the
 Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry the annual quantity discharged to surface water and
 POTWs (U.S. EPA, 1994b).  The annual quantity discharged (facility 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.

        The locations of facilities 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 facilities discharge are
 obtained from the  1994 TEG Questionnaire (U.S. EPA, 1994b), 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 facility, 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  streamflow  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 NCAA's Ocean Assessments Division (NOAA/U.S. EPA,
  1989-1991) (Appendix B).  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 variety of sources including a
  study of 50 well-operated POTWs, referred to as the "50 POTW Study" (U.S. EPA, 1982), the Risk
  Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) data base (now renamed the National Risk Management
  Reserch Laboratory data base U.S. EPA, 1995a); the Environmental Assessment of the Pesticide
 Manufacturing Industry (U.S. EPA, 1993b); the Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Effluent
  Guidelines for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry (Phase I) (U.S. EPA, 1995b); and the
 Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the Centralized Waste Treatment
 Industry (U.S. EPA,  1995c). When data are not available, the removal rate is based on the removal
 rate of a similar pollutant (Appendix C).

       Inhibition values are obtained from Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference 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 C).

       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, Final
Rule (October 25, 1995) (U.S. EPA, 1995d).  Pollutant limits established for the final use of disposal
                                          34

-------
  of sewage sludge when the sewage sludge is applied to agricultural and non-agricultural land are used
  (Appendix C). 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 C).
•                -."'.,'       ••
•                 f                     .                       •              '             -
  3.1.3  Water Quality Criteria (\VQC)
                                                ' &
        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 C). 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 offish or invertebrate. The hierarchies used to
 select the appropriate acute and chronic values are listed below in descending order  of priority.
                                           35

-------
        Acute Aquatic Life Values:
                     National acute freshwater quality criteria;
                              i                                •

                     Lowest reported acute test values  (96-hour LC50 for  fish and 48-hour
                     EC50/LC50 for daphnids);

                     Lowest reported LCJO test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate a
                     96-hour exposure period;
                                      "V.                                        ,

                     Lowest reported LC50 test value of longer duration, up to a maximum of 2
                     weeks exposure; and

                     Estimated 96-hour LC50 from the ASTER QSAR model.
       Chronic Aquatic Life Values:
                     National chronic freshwater quality criteria;
                         1 "                                    !              '
                     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 Toxicitv Protection fineestion of organisms only)
               HH   =  •*V'tx •*' ffi**
                  00    IRfxBCF
                                                                                 (Eq. 16)
 where:
 RfD   =
 BCF   =
 CF    =
                    human health value (/ug/L)
                    reference dose for a 70-kg individual (mg/day)
                    fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
                    bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
                    conversion factor for units (1,000
        For Carcinogenic Protection Cingestion of organisms only)
                  HH  =  BWxRLx CF
                      00    SFxIRfxSCF
                                                                          (Eq.  17)
 where:
       HH,,,,  =    human health value (/zg/L)
       BW   =    body weight (70 kg)
       RL    =    risk level (10"6)
       SF    •=    cancer slope factor (mgykg/day)"1
       IRf    =    fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
       BCF   =    bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
       CF    =    conversion factor for units (1,000 jug/mg)
       For Toxicitv Protection Cingestion of water and organisms)
         ////   = 	
             ""   IR
                             RfD x CF
x BCF)
                                                                                (Eq. 18)
where:
RfD   =
                   human health value (//g/L)
                   reference dose for a 70-kg individual (mg/day)
                   water ingestion rate (2 liters/day)
                                           37

-------
BCF   =
CF    =
                    fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
                    bioconcentration factor (liters/kg)
                    conversion factor for units (1 000 ^g/mg)
        For Carcinogenic Protection (ingestion of water and organisms)
              HH   =       BW'xRLx CF
                 wo    SFx (IRW f  (IRx BCF))
                                      f
                                                                          (Eq. 19)
 where:
        HH,,,,
        BW
        RL
        SF
       BCF.
       CF
            human health value
            body weight (70 kg)
            risk level (10-*)
            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 //g/mg)
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 W* (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.
                                            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
              offish 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 $3. 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 (US. EVA, 1980); and
             Calculated human health values using RfDs or SFs from data sources other than IRIS
             orHEAST.  -
       This hierarchy is based on Section 2.4.6 of the Technical Support Document for Water

Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 199la), 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'sPATHSCAN (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).  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 1994, 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 D.

 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
 surplus 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 D).  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 1994, based on the change in the Consumer Price Index for all
 urban consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The concept and methodology of
 estimating nonuse (intrinsic) benefits, based on improved water quality, are obtained from Intrinsic
Benefits of Improved Water  Quality: Conceptual and  Empirical  Perspectives (Fisher  and
Raucher, 1984).
                                          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 the Federal Register 40 CFR Part 503, Standards
 for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, Final Rule (October 25, 1995) (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 MetalProductsandMachinery Industry (Phase I) (U.S. EPA, 1995e).  Savings
 are adjusted to 1994 using the Construction Cost Index published in the Engineering News Record.
 In this report, EPA consulted a wide variety of sources, including:

       •'      19S8 National Sewage Sludge Survey;                 .                 ,
                                        •                          \    , '
       •      1985 ~EP A 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 D.
3.2    Pollutant Fate and Toxicitv

       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  C.   Physical/chemical property data are  also presented in
Appendix C.       .                                                                <
                                          41

-------
3.3    Documented Environmental Impacts

       Data are obtained from State and Regional environmental agencies in Regions HI, V, VI, VII,
VEX, DC, X.  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, 1995f). 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    Projected Water Quality Impacts

4.1.1  Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality Criteria

       The results of this analysis indicate the water quality benefits of controlling discharges, from
TEC facilities (barge-chemical and petroleum, rail-chemical, and truck-chemical) 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 E, F,, and G present the results of the stream modeling for each type of discharge and
TEC facility,  respectively.

4.1.1.1  Direct Discharges

       (a)    Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities - Sample Set

       The effects of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water quality are evaluated
at current and  proposed BAT treatment  levels for 6 barge-chemical and petroleum facilities
discharging 60 pollutants to,6 receiving streams (rivers) (Table 1). At current discharge levels,,these
6 facilities.discharge 84,653 pounds-per-year of priority and nonconventional pollutants (Table 2).
These loadings are reduced to 3,931 pounds-per-year at  proposed BAT discharge levels; a 95
percent reduction.                                                        *   -
       '•'.-••               -         '                    '                      "i
       Modeled instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed human health criteria
or toxic effect levels (developed for water and organisms consumption) in 33 percent (2 of the total
6) of the receiving streams at current discharge levels and in 17 percent (1 of the total 6)  of the
receiving streams at proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 3). Two (2) pollutants at both current
                                           43

-------
 and proposed BAT discharge levels are projected to exceed instream criteria or toxic effect levels
 using a target risk of 1CT6 (1E-6) for carcinogens (Table 4).

        Instream pollutant concentrations are not projected to exceed aquatic life criteria (acute or
 chronic) or toxic effect levels at current or proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 3). Excursions
 of human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for organisms consumption only) are also
 presented in Table 3. Instream concentrations of 2 pollutants are projected to exceed human health
 criteria or toxic effect levels in  1 of the 6 receiving streams at current discharge levels. The two
 excursions projected at current discharge levels are eliminated at proposed BAT discharge levels.
                               !''•„ *                     .          !

        (b)    Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities - 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 6 barge-chemical facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 6 receiving streams (Table  1). These
 values are extrapolated to 14 barge-chemical and petroleum facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 14
 receiving streams {Table 5).

        Extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations of 2 pollutants are projected to exceed human
 health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for water and organisms consumption) in 43 percent
 (6 of the total 14) receiving streams at current discharge levels and in 21 percent (3 of the total 14)
 of the receiving streams at proposed BAT discharge levels (Tables 5 and 6). A total of 9 excursions
 in 6 receiving streams at current conditions will be reduced to 6 excursions in 3 receiving streams
 at proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 5).   Additionally, the 6 excursions of human health
 criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for organisms consumption only) in 3 receiving streams
will be eliminated at propased-BAI discharge levels (Table 5).
                                            44

-------
 4.1.1.2 Indirect Discharges

        (a)     Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities - Sample Set

        The 1 indirect barge-chemical and petroleum facility is not being proposed for pretreatment
 standards.  EPA did, however, evaluate the effects of the facility's discharge on a POTW and its
 receiving stream. At current discharge levels, this 1 facility discharges 14,565 pounds-per-year
 of priority and  nonconventional pollutants .(Table 2).  These loadings are reduced to 6,665
 pounds-per-year at proposed pretreatmpnf discharge levels; a 54 percent reduction.

        Water quality modeling results for the 1 indirect barge-chemical and petroleum facility that
 discharges 60 pollutants to 1 POTW with an outfall on  1 receiving stream indicate that.,at both
 current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels no instream pollutant concentrations are
 expected to exceed aquatic life criteria (acute  or chronic) or toxic effect levels (Table 7).
 Additionally, at current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels, the instream concentrations
 (using a target risk of W6 for carcinogens) are not projected to exceed human health criteria or
 toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of water and organisms/organisms consumption
 only) (Table?).                                                             '

                                                        ^  •
        In addition, the potential impact of the 1 barge-chemical and petroleum facility is evaluated
 in terms of inhibition of POTW operation and contamination of sludge.  No inhibition or sludge
 contamination problems are projected at the 1 POTW receiving wastewater (Table 8).

        Since no excursions of ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or impacts at POTWs are
 projected, results are not extrapolated to the national level.

        (b)     Rail-Chemical Facilities - Sample Set
       The effects of POTW wastewater discharges of 103 pollutants on receiving stream water
.quality are evaluated at current and proposed pretrpatmpnt discharge levels, for 12 indirect
                                           45.

-------
  rail-chemical facilities that discharge to 11 POTWs located on 11 receiving streams (rivers)
  (Table 9).  Pollutant loadings for the 12 facilities at current discharge levels are 13,580 pounds-
  per-year (Table 2).   The loadings are reduced to 7,852 pounds-per-year after pmpn^rt
  pretreatment; a 42 percent reduction.

        Instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed human health r-ritPi-ia or toxic
  effect levels (developed for water and organisms consumption) in 45 percent (5 of the total 11)
  of the receiving streams at current  and pmpngpH prptrpatmpnt discharge levels  (Table 10).
  Three (3) pollutants at current and 1 pollutant at prnpnspd  pretrpatmpnt discharge levels are
 projected to exceed instream criteria or toxic effect levels using a target risk of 1&6 (1E-6) for the
 carcinogens (Table 1 1).  Excursions of human hpalth fritpHa Or toxic effect levels (developed
 for organisms consumption only) are projected in 18 percent (2 of the total 11) of the receiving
 streams (Tables 10 and 1 1). The proposed presentment regulatory option will eliminate these
 excursions (Tables 10 and 11).

        Instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed rhmnir aquatic lift> criteria or
 toxic effect levels in 18 percent (2 of the total 11) of the receiving streams at mrrpnt discharge
 levels (Table 10).  A total of 4 pollutants at current discharge levels are projected to exceed
 instream criteria or toxic effect levels (Table 1 1).  Prnpn^H prpt rp^tmpnf discharge levels reduce
 projected excursions to 3 pollutants in 1 of the 11 receiving streams (Tables 10 and 11).  The 1
 excursion of acute aquatic life criteria  or  toxic effect levels is eliminated by the proposed
 pretreatment regulatory option (Tables 10 and 11).
                                               v

       In addition, the potential impact of the 12 rail-chemical facilities, which discharge to 11
 POTWs, are evaluated in terms of inhibition of POTW operation and contamination of sludge.
 Inhibition problems from 4 pollutants are projected at 55 percent (6 of the 11) of the  POTWs
receiving  wastewater discharges at current  discharge levels (Tables 12 and  13).  Inhibition
problems are reduced to 4 POTWs by the proposed pretreatment regulatory option.  No sludge
                             '"                       " f                '      '
contamination problems are projected at the 1 1 POTWs receiving wastewater discharges (Table 12).
                                           46

-------
       (c)    Rail-Chemical Facilities - 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 12 rail-chemical facilities discharging 103 pollutants to 11 POTWs located on 11 receiving
 streams  (Table 9).  These values are extrapolated to 38 rail-chemical facilities discharging 103
 pollutants to 37 PQTWs with outfalls on 37 streams (Table 14).

       Extrapolated instream concentrations are projected to exceed human health criteria or toxic
 effect levels (developed for water and organisms consumption)  in 43 percent (16 of the total 37)
 receiving streams at both current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels (Tables 14 and 15),
 A total of 32 excursions due to the discharge of 3 pollutants at current conditions will be reduced
 to 16 excursions due to the discharge of 1 pollutant (Table 14).  Additionally, the 8 excursions of
 human health criteria or toxic  effect  levels (developed for organisms consumption only) in 8
 receiving streams will be eliminated by the proposed pretreatment regulatory option (Table 14).

       Extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations are projected to exceed chronic aquatic life
 criteria or toxic effect levels in 22 percent (8 of the total 37) receiving streams at current discharge
 levels (Table 14). A total of 4 pollutants at current discharge levels are projected to exceed instream
 criteria or toxic effectlevels (Table 15)., Proposed pretreatment discharge levels reduce projected
 excursions to 3 pollutants in 16 percent (6 of the total 37) receiving streams (Tables 14 and 15). A
 total of 26 excursions at current conditions are reduced to 17 excursions at proposed pretreatment
 discharge levels (Table 14).  Additionally, the 6 excursions of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic
 effect levels in 6 receiving streams will be eliminated by the proposed pretreatment  regulatory
 option (Table 14).                                   .                               ,

       The extrapolated potential impact of the 38 rail-chemical facilities which discharge to 37
POTWs are also evaluated in terms of inhibition ofPOTW operation and contamination of sludge.
Inhibition problems at  57 percent (21 of the  37) of the POTWs at current discharge levels are
                                            47

-------
 reduced to 35 percent (13 of 37) of the POTWs by the proposed pretreatment regulatory option
 (tables 16 and 17). No sludge contamination problems are projected at the 37 POTWs (Table 16).

        (d)    Truck-Chemical Facilities - Sample Set

        The effects of POTW wastewater discharges of 80 pollutants on receiving stream water
 quality are evaluated at current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels for 40 truck-chemical
 facilities which discharge to 35 POTWs with outfalls on 35 receiving streams (29 rivers and 6
 estuaries) (Table 18). Pollutant loadings for the 40 facilities at current discharge levels are 128,932
 pounds-per-year (Table 2).  the loadings are reduced to 26,083 pounds-per-year after the proposed
 pretreatment: an 80 percent reduction.

       Instrearn concentrations of 1 pollutant (using a target risk of 10^ (1E-6) for carcinogens) are
 projected to exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for water and organism
 consumption/organism consumption only) in 6 percent (2 of the total 35) of the receiving streams at
 current discharge levels (Tables  19  and 20).  The proposed pretreatment  regulatory option
 eliminates excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels.

       Instrearn pollutant concentrations are also projected to exceed chronic aquatic life criteria
 or toxic effect levels in 23 percent (8 of the total 35) of the receiving streams at current discharge
 levels (Table 19).  A total of 1 pollutant at current discharge levels is projected to exceed instream
 criteria or toxic effect levels (Table 20). Proposed pretreatment discharge levels reduce projected
 excursions to 1 pollutant in 17 percent (6 of the total 35) of the receiving streams (Tables 19 and 20).
No excursions of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels are projected.

       In addition, the potential impact of the 40 truck-chemical facilities, which discharge to 35
POTWs, are evaluated in terms of inhibition of POTW operation and contamination of sludge. No
inhibition or sludge contamination problems are projected at the 35 POTWs receiving wastewater
discharges (Table 21).                                            .
                                           48

-------
        Since no impacts at POTWs are projected, results are not extrapolated to the national level.

        (e)     Truck-Chemical Facilities - 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 40 truck-chemical facilities discharging 80 pollutants to 35 POTWs with outfalls on 35
 receiving streams (Table 18). The values are extrapolated to 288 truck-chemical facilities discharging
. 80 pollutants to 264 POTWs located on 264 receiving streams (Table 22).

        Extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations of 1 pollutant are projected to exceed human
 health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for water and organisms consumption/organisms
 consumption only) in 5 percent (14 of the total 264) of the receiving streams at current discharge
 levels (Tables 22 and 23). Excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels are eliminated
 bv the proposed pretreatment regulatory option (Table 22).

        Extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations of 1 pollutant are also projected to exceed
 chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 19 percent (49 of the total 264) of the receiving
 streams at current discharge levels (Tables 22 and 23). Proposed pretreatment discharge levels
 reduce excursions to 1 pollutant in 14 percent (37 of the total 264) of the receiving streams (Tables
 22 and 23). A total of 49 excursions in 49 receiving streams at current conditions will be reduced
 to 37 excursions in 37 receiving streams at proposed pretreatment discharge levels (Table 22).

 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 offish tissue and drinking water derived from waterbodies impacted by direct
 and indirect discharges. Risks are estimated for recreational (sport) and subsistence anglers and their
                                            49

-------
 families, as well as the general population. Appendices H and I present the results of the modeling
 for each type of discharge and facility, respectively.

 4.1.2.1 Direct Discharges

        (a)     Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities - Sample Set

        The effects of direct wastewater discharges on human health from the consumption offish
 tissue and drinking water are evaluated at current and proposed BAT treatment levels for 6 barge-
 chemical and petroleum facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 6 receiving streams (rivers) (Table 1).

        Fish Tissue — At current discharge levels, 1 receiving stream has total estimated individual
 pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 1 carcinogen from 1 barge-
 chemical and petroleum facility (Table 24).  Total estimated risks greater than W6 (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 3.9E-4 (Table 24).  At proposed BAT
 discharge levels, 1 receiving stream has total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than
 10"* (1E-6) due to the discharge of 1 carcinogen from 1 barge-chemical and petroleum facility. Total
 estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) are projected for only subsistence anglers. Total excess
 annual cancer cases are reduced to.5.6E-6 at proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 24). 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, systemic toxicant
 effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are not projected at current or proposed BAT discharge
 levels (Table 25).

       Drinking Water — At current and proposed BAT discharge levels, 1 receiving stream has
total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 1
carcinogen from 1 facility (Table 26). Estimated risks are 1.4E-5  and 1.1E-6 at current and at
proposed BAT discharge levels, respectively.  However,  no drinking water utility is located within
50 miles downstream of the discharge site. Total excess annual  cancer cases are, therefore, not
                                            50

-------
  projected.  In addition, no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected at
  current or aroEosedBAT discharge levels (Table 25).

         (b)    Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities-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 6 barge-chemical and  petroleum facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 6 receiving streams
 (Table 1). These values are extrapolated to 14 barge-chemical and petroleum facilities discharging
 60 pollutants to  14 receiving  streams.

        Fish Tissue - At current discharge levels, 3 receiving streams have total estimated individual
 pollutant cancer risks greater than IQ"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 1 carcinogen from 3 barge-
 chemical and petroleum facilities POTWs (Table 27). Total estimated risks greater than W6 (lE-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  1.1E-3 (Table 27)  At
 proposed BAT discharge levels, 3 receiving streams have total estimated individual pollutant cancer
 risks greater than  10"6 (1E-6) due to the. discharge of 1 carcinogen from 3 facilities. Total estimated
 risks greater than  lO^lE-e) are projected for only subsistence anglers  Total excess annual cancer
 cases are reduced to 1.6E-5 at  proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 27). 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, systemic toxicant effects (hazard
 index greater than 1.0) are not  projected at current or proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 28).
  '               '          .        *  "    '                                                  '

       Drinking Water - At current and proposed BAT discharge levels, 3 receiving  streams have
total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than lO"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 1
carcinogen from 3 facilities (Table 29). However, no drinking water utilities are located within 50
miles downstream of the discharge  sites.  Total excess annual cancer cases are, therefore, not
projected. In addition, no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected at
current or erjOEosedJJAT discharge levels (Table 28).
                                            51

-------
 4.1.2.2  Indirect Discharges

        (a)     Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities - Sample Set

        The 1 indirect barge-chemical and petroleum facility that discharges 60 pollutants to 1 POTW
 is not being proposed for pretreatment standards (Table 1). EPA did, however, evaluate the effects-
 of the POTW wastewater discharges on human health from the consumption of fish tissue and
 drinking water at current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels.

       Fish  Tissue ~ At current and proposed  pretreatment discharge levels, the 1 stream
 receiving the discharge from 1 barge-chemical and petroleum facility/POTW is not projected to have
 a total estimated individual pollutant cancer risk greater than W6 (1E-6) (Table 30).  In addition, no
 systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected at current or  proposed
 pretreatment discharge .levels (Table 31).

        Drinking Water — At current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels, the 1 stream
 is not projected to have a total estimated individual pollutant cancer risk greater than 10"6 (1E-6)
 (Table 32).In addition, no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected at
 current  or proposed pretreatment discharge levels (Table 31).

       (b)    Rail-Chemical Facilities - Sample Set

       The effects of POTW wastewater discharges on human health from the consumption offish
tissue and drinking water are evaluated at current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels for
 12 rail-chemical facilities that discharge 103 pollutants to 11 POTWs with outfalls on 11 receiving
streams (rivers) (Table 9).

       Fish Tissue - At current discharge levels, 7 streams  receiving the discharge from 8
facilities/POTWs, have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) from
13 carcinogens (Tables 33  and 34). Total estimated risks greater than 10^ (1E-6) are projected for
                                           52

-------
 the general population, sport anglers, and subsistence anglers.  Total excess annual cancer cases
         t • -             -  - -                       "  " . -                      • •    •          !
 are estimated at 6.5E-3.  At proposed pretreatment discharge levels, 5 streams, receiving the
 discharge from 6 facilities /POTWs, have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than
 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 12 carcinogens (Tables 33 and 34). Total estimated risks greater
 than W6 (1E-6) are still projected for the general population, sport anglers, and subsistence
 anglers.  Total excess annual cancer cases are reduced to an estimated 1.1E-3.  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  nor projected.  Additionally, no systemic toxicant effects
 (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected at current or proposed pretreatment discharge levels
 (Table 35)!                  ,                                                 ''•..••-
                    i  '                      '      -  •             .                .
        Drinking Water — At current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels, 5 receiving
 streams are projected to have atotal estimated individual pollutant cancer risk greater than 10"6 (1E-
 6) due to the discharge of 2 carcinogens (Table 36). However, no drinking Water utilities are located
 within  50 miles downstream of the discharge  sites.  Total  excess cancer cases are, therefore, not
 projected. In addition, no systemic toxicant effects (hazard  index greater than 1.0) are projected at
 current or proposed pretreatment discharge levels (Table 35).
                                                                                           f
        (c)     Rail-Chemical Facilities - National Extrapolation
                                         i   .          '          .              ,

        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 12 rail-chemical facilities discharging 103 pollutants to 11 POTWs with outfalls on 11 receiving
 streams (Table 9).  These values are extrapolated to 38 rail-chemical facilities discharging  103
 pollutants to 37 POTWs located on 37 receiving streams.

        Fish Tissue — At current discharge levels, 24 receiving streams have total estimated
 individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10 ~*. (1E-6) due to the discharge of 13. carcinogens from
 25 rail-chemical facilities/POTWs (Table 37).  Total estimated risks greater than W6 (1E-6) are
 projected for the general  population, sport anglers, and subsistence anglers. At current discharge
                                            53

-------
   levels, total excess annual cancer cases are estimated to be 2.7E-2 (Table 37).   At proposed
   pretreatment discharge levels, 16 receiving steams have total estimated individual pollutant cancer
   risks greater than 10*  (1E-6)  due to the discharge of 12 carcinogens from 17 rail-chemical
   facilities/POTWs. Total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) are still projected for the general
   population, sport anglers, and subsistence anglers  Total excess annual cancer cases are reduced
   to 4.5E-3 at proposed pretreatment levels (Table 37). 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 pretreatment discharge levels (Table 38).

         Drinking Water -- At current and proposed pretreatmont discharge levels, 16 receiving
   streams have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6)  due to the
   discharge of 2 carcinogens (Table 39).  However, no drinking water utilities are located within 50
  miles downstream of the discharge sites. Total excess cancer cases are,, therefore, not projected.

         (d)    Truck-Chemical Facilities  - Sample Set

         The effects of POTW wastewater discharges on human health from the consumption offish
  tissue and drinking water are evaluated at current and  proposed pretreatment discharge levels for
  40 truck-chemical facilities discharging 80  pollutants to 35 POTWs with outfalls on 35 receiving
  streams (29 rivers and 6 estuaries) (Table 18)

        Fish Tissue — At current discharge levels, 12 receiving streams have total  estimated
  individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10 " (1E-6) due to the discharge of 5 carcinogens from
  13 truck-chemical facilities/POTWs (Tables 40 and 41). Total estimated risks greater than W6 (1E-
 6) are projected for the general population  sport anplers  and subsistence anglers  At current
 discharge levels, total excess annual cancer  cases are  estimated to be 1.8E-3 (Table 40).  At
 proposed pretreatment discharge levels, 5 receiving steams have total  estimated individual pollutant
 cancer risks greater than W6 (1E-6) due to  the discharge of 4  carcinogens from 5 truck-chemical
 facilities/POTWs.   Total  estimated risks greater than  10"6 (1E-6) are still projected  for only
                                            54

-------
 subsistence anglers.  Total  excess  annual  cancer cases  are reduced to 5.5E-5  at proposed
 pretreatment levels (Table 40).  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.-
        The risk to develop systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected
 from 1 pollutant for only subsistence anglers in 7 receiving streams at current discharge levels and
 in 3 receiving streams  at proposed pretreatment discharge  levels (Table 42).  An estimated
 population of 4,284 subsistence anglers and their families are projected to be affected at current
 discharge levels. The affected population is reduced to 687 at proposed pretreatment levels.

        Drinking Water - At current discharge levels, 2 receiving streams have total estimated
 individual pollutant cancer risks greater than W* (1E-6) due to the discharge of 6 carcinogens
 (Table 43).  Estimated risks range from 3.2E-8 to 6.4E-7.  A drinking water utility is located within
 50 miles downstream of 1 discharge site. However, EPA has published a drinking water criterion for
 5  of the 6  pollutants,  and it is assumed that drinking water  treatment systems will  reduce
 concentrations to below adverse effect thresholds. The cancer risk for the remaining pollutant is less
 than 10'6 (1E-6). Total excess annual cancer cases are, therefore, not projected.  Total estimated
 individual cancer risks greater than  W6 (lE-6) are eliminated at proposed pretreatment discharge
.levels.  In addition, no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected at
 current or proposed pretreatment levels (Table 42)

        (e)     Truck-Chemical Facilities — 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 40 truck-chemical facilities discharging 80 pollutants to 35 POTWs with outfalls  on 35 receiving
 streams (Table 18). These values are extrapolated to 288 truck-chemical facilities discharging 80
 pollutants to 264 POTWs located on 264 receiving streams.
                                            55

-------
        Fish Tissue ~  At current discharge levels,  90 receiving streams have total estimated
 individual pollutant cancer risks greater than W* (1E-6) due to the discharge of 5 carcinogens from
 99 barge-chemical facilities/POTWs (Table 44). 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 1.2E-2 (Table 44).   At proposed
 pretreatment discharge levels, 30 receiving streams have total estimated individual pollutant cancer
 risks  greater than 10^  (1E-6) due to the discharge  of 4  carcinogens from 30 truck-chemical
 facilities/POTWs.  Total estimated risks greater than W* (1E-6) are projected for only subsistence
 anglers.  Total excess annual cancer cases are reduced to 3. 1E-4 at proposed pretreatment levels
 (Table 44). 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.

        The risk to develop systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) are projected for
 only subsistence anglers in 39 receiving streams from 1 pollutant at current discharge levels and in
 16 receiving streams at proposed pretreatment discharge levels (Table 45). An estimated affected
 population of 14,173 subsistence anglers and their families is  reduced to a population of 3,492 as a
 result of the proposed pretreatment.  A monetary  value of benefits to society could not be
 estimated.
       Drinking Water — At current and proposed pretreatment discharge levels, 14 receiving
streams have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10* (1E-6) due to the
discharge of 6 carcinogens (Table 46).  Drinking water utilities are located within 50 miles  of 7
discharge sites. However, EPA has published a drinking water criterion for 5 of the 6 pollutants, and
it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems will reduce concentrations to below adverse effect
thresholds.  The cancer risk for the remaining pollutant is less than W6 (1E-6).  Total excess annual
cancer cases are, therefore, not projected. In addition, no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index
greater than 1.0) are projected at current or proposed pretreatment levels (Table 45).
                                           56

-------
 4.1.3  Estimation of Ecological Benefits
                             i                    -                  '

        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
 TEC 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 use
 and  nonuse benefits for direct and indirect discharges as well  as additional benefits that are not
 monetized. Appendices H and I present the results of the analyses for each type of discharge and
 facility, respectively.

 4.1.3.1 Direct Discharges
        (a)     Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities - Sample Set

        The effects of direct wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats are evaluated at current and
 proposed BAT treatment levels  for 6  barge-chemical  and petroleum facilities discharging 60
 pollutants to 6 receiving streams (Tables  1  and 3).  The proposed regulation is projected to
 completely eliminate instream 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 16,616 person-days  fished on  the  stream segment, and the value per person-day of
 recreational fishing ($29.47 and $37.32, 1994 dollars), a baseline value of $490,000 to $620,000 is
 estimated for the 1 stream segment (Table 47). 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 $54,400 to $194,000.  In addition, the estimate
                                            57

-------
 of the nonuse (intrinsic) benefits to the general public, as a result of the same improvements in water
 quality, ranges from at least $27,200 to $97,000 (1994 dollars) (Table 47). These nonuse benefits
 are estimated as one-half of the recreational benefits and may be significantly underestimated.

        (b)     Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities - 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 6 barge-chemical and petroleum facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 6 receiving streams
 (Table 1). These values are extrapolated to 14 barge-chemical and  petroleum facilities discharging
 60 pollutants to 14 receiving'streams (Table 5).                   '

        The proposed regulation is projected to completely eliminate instream concentrations in
 excess of AWQC at 3 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  $157,000 to $562,000
 (Table 47).  In addition, the resulting increase in nonuse value to the general public ranges from
 $78,500 to $281,000 (1994 dollars) (Table 47).

 4.1.3.2 Indirect Discharges

       (a)    Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities - Sample Set

       The effects of indirect wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats are evaluated at current and
 proposed pretreatment discharge levels for 1 barge-chemical and petroleum facility that discharges
 60 pollutants to 1 POTW, with an outfall located on 1 receiving stream (Tables 1 and 7).  Because
the proposed regulation is not estimated to eliminate instream concentrations in excess of AWQC
(i.e., excursions of AWQC are not projected), no benefits to recreational (sport) anglers, based on
improved quality and improved value of fishing opportunities, are estimated.  In addition, nonuse
benefits are not estimated.
                                           58

-------
        (b)     Rail-Chemical Facilities-Sample Set

        The effects of indirect wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats are evaluated at current and
 proposed pretreatment discharge levels for 12 rail-chemical facilities that discharge 103 pollutants
 to 11 POTWs with outfalls  on 11 receiving streams (Tables 9 and 10).  Because the proposed
 regulation is not estimated to completely eliminate instream concentrations in excess of AWQC, no
 benefits to recreational (sport) anglers, based on improved quality and improved value of fishing
 opportunities, are estimated.  In addition, nonuse benefits are not estimated.
       (c)    Rail-Chemical Facilities - National Extrapolation
                          •-\                -    ....                     t
       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 12 rail-chemical facilities discharging 103 pollutants to 11 POTWs located on 11 receiving
 streams  (Table 9).   These values are extrapolated to 38 rail-chemical facilities discharging 103
 pollutants to 37 POTWs located on 37 receiving streams (Tables 9 and  14).  Because the proposed
 regulation is not estimated to completely eliminate instream concentrations in excess of AWQC, no
 benefits to recreational (sport) anglers, based on improved quality and improved value of fishing
 opportunities, are estimated. In addition, nonuse benefits are not estimated.

       (d)    Truck-Chemical Facilities - Sample Set

       The effects of indirect wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats are evaluated at current and
 proposed pretreatment levels for 40 truck-chemical facilities that discharge 80 pollutants to 35
 POTWs with outfalls located on 35 receiving streams (Tables 18 and 19). The proposed regulation
 is projected to completely eliminate instream concentrations in excess of AWQC at 2 receiving
 streams (Table 19).  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 75,815 person-days fished on the 2 stream segments, and the value per person-day
of recreational fishing ($29.47 and  $37.32, 1994 dollars),  a baseline value of  $2,234,261 to
                                           59

-------
 $2,829,407 is estimated for the 2 stream segments (Table 48).  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 $248,000 to $886,000. In addition, the estimate
 of the nonuse (intrinsic) benefits to the general public, as a result of the same improvements in water
 quality, ranges from $124,000  to $443,000 (1994 dollars) (Table 48).  These nonuse benefits are
 estimated as one-half of the recreational benefits and may be  significantly underestimated.
                                   ,•''.'         i. ! •                  '      '

        (e)    Truck-Chemical  Facilities - 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 40 truck-chemical facilities discharging 80 pollutants to 35 POTWs located on 35 receiving
 streams (Table 18).  These values are extrapolated to 288 truck-chemical facilities discharging 80
 pollutants to 264 POTWs on 264 receiving streams (Table 22).

        The proposed regulation is projected to completely eliminate instream concentrations in
 excess of AWQC at 12 receiving streams (Table 22).  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 $1,494,000 to
 $5,334,000 (Table 48). In addition, the resulting .increase in nonuse value to the general public ranges
 from $747,000 to $2,667,000 (1994 dollars) (Table 48).

 4.1.2.3  Additional Ecological Benefits

       There are a number of additional use and nonuse benefits  associated with the proposed
 standards that could not be monetized. The monetized recreational benefits were estimated only for
fishing  by recreational anglers,  although there are other categories of recreational and other use
benefits that could not be monetized. An example of these additional benefits .includes enhanced
water-dependent recreation other than fishing. There are also nonmonetized benefits that are nonuse
values,  such as benefits to wildlife, threatened or endangered species, and biodiversity benefits.
                                            60

-------
 Rather than attempt the difficult task of enumerating, quantifying, and monetizing these nonuse
 benefits, EPA calculated nonuse benefits as 50 percent of the use value for recreational fishing.  This
 value of 50 percent is a reasonable approximation of the total nonuse value for a population compared
 to the total use value for that population.  This approximation should be applied to the total use value
 for the affected population; in this case, all of the direct uses of the affected reaches (including fishing,
 hiking, and boating). However, since, this approximation was only applied to recreational fishing
 benefits for recreational anglers, it does not take into account nonuse values for non-anglers or for
 the uses other than fishing by anglers.  Therefore, ,EPA has estimated only a portion of the nonuse
 benefits for the proposed standards.

 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 TEC facilities.  Because no sludge contamination problems are projected at the 1 POTW
 receiving  wastewater from 1 barge-chemical and petroleum facility, at the 11 POTWs receiving
 wastewater from 12 rail-chemical facilities, or at the 35 POTWs receiving wastewater from 40 truck-
 chemical facilities, no economic productivity benefits are projected.

 4.2    Pollutant Fate and Toxicitv
       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,  hydrbphobicity/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 67 barge-chemical and petroleum
pollutants of concern, 20 exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life; 33 are human systemic
toxicants; 10 are classified  as known or probable human carcinogens; 23 have drinking water values
(21 with enforceable health-based MGLs, I with a1 secondary MCL for aesthetics or taste, and 1 with
an action level for treatment); and 25 are designated by EPA as priority pollutants (Tables 49, 50, and';
                                            61,

-------
 51).   In terms of projected environmental partitioning among media, 27 of the pollutants are
 moderately to highly volatile (potentially causing risk to exposed populations via inhalation); 29 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); 24 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids; and 18 are
 resistant to or slowly biodegraded.

        Based on available physical-chemical properties, and aquatic life and human health toxicity
 data for the 106 rail-chemical pollutants of concern, 55 exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic
 life; 62 are human systemic toxicants; 28 are classified as known or probable carcinogens; 22 have
 drinking water values (20 with enforceable health-based MCLs, 1  with' a secondary MCL and 1 with
 an action level for treatment); and 23 are designated by EPA as priority pollutants (Tables 52, 53, and
 54). In terms of projected environmental partitioning among media, 22 of the evaluated pollutants
 are moderately to highly volatile; 64 have a moderate to high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic
 biota; 48 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids; and 43 are resistant to or slowly biodegraded.

        In addition, based on available physical-chemical properties, and aquatic life and human health
 toxicity data for the 86 truck-chemical pollutants of concern, 32 exhibit moderate to high toxicity to
 aquatic life; 52 are human systemic toxicants; 19 are classified as known or probable carcinogens; 29
 have drinking water values (27 with enforceable health-based MCLs, 1 with a secondary MCL and
 1 with an action level for treatment); and 25 are designated by EPA as priority pollutants (Tables 55,
 56, and 57). In terms of projected environmental partitioning among media, 28 of the pollutants are
 moderately to highly volatile; 46 have a moderate to high potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic biota;
 29 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids; and 21 are resistant to or slowly biodegraded.

 4.3     Documented  Environmental Impacts
       Literature abstracts, State 304(1) Short Lists, and State fishing advisories are reviewed and
State and Regional environmental agencies are contacted for documented impacts due to discharges
from TEC facilities.  Five (5) POTWs receiving wastewater discharges from 1 rail-chemical and 4
truck-chemical facilities are identified by States as being point sources causing water quality problems
                                            62

-------
 and are included on their 304(1) Short List (Table 58). 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. All POTWs
 listed currently report no problems with TEC wastewater discharges.  Past and potential problems
 are reported by the POTWs for oil and grease, pH, TSS, surfactants, glycol ethers, pesticides and
 mercury.  Several POTW contacts stated the need for a national effluent guidelines for the TEC
 industry.  Current and past problems (violation of effluent limits, POTW pass-through interference
 problems, POTW sludge contamination, etc.) caused by direct and indirect discharges from all three
 subcategories of TEC facilities (barge-chemical and petroleum, rail-chemical, and truck-chemical) are
 also reported by State and Regional contacts in 7 regions. Pollutants causing the problems include
BOD, cyanides, hydrocarbons, metals (copper, chromium, silver, zinc),  oil and grease, pesticides, pH,
phosphorus, styrene, surfactants, and TSS (See Appendix  J for summary of information received
from State and Regional environmental agencies).  In addition, 1 barge-chemical and petroleum
facility and 19 POTWs receiving wastewater discharges of 2 rail-chemical and 20. truck-chemical
facilities  are located on waterbodies with State-issued fish consumption advisories (Table 59).
However, the vast majority of advisories are based on chemicals which are not pollutants of concern
for the TEC industry.
                                           63

-------
                  Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 6 Direct
                          and 1 Indirect TEC Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities

83329
208968
67641
107131
7429905
7664417
120127
71432
243174
65850
7440417
92524
117817
7440439
67663
7440473
7440508
99876
75990
124185
1576676
117840
629970
112403
112958
100414
86737
16984488
630013
544763
18540299
7439896
7439921
7439965
7439976
78933
108101
75092
1730376
91576
832699
7439987
91203
7440020
630024
593453
Pollutant

ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACETONE
ACRYLONITRILE
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
ANTHRACENE
BENZENE
BENZOFLUORENE, 2,3-
BENZOIC ACID
BERYLLIUM
BIPHENYL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
CADMIUM
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYMENE, P-
DALAPON
DECANE, N-
DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE, 3,6-
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DOCOSANE, N-
DODECANE, N-
EICOSANE. N-
ETHYLBENZENE
FLUORENE
FLUORIDE
HEXACOSANE, N-
HEXADECANE, N-
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
IRON •
LEAD
MANGANESE
MERCURY
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
METHYLFLUORENE, 1-
METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2-
METHYLPHENANTHRENE, 1-
MOLYBDENUM
MAPHTHALENE
NICKEL
DCTACOSANE, N-
DCTADECANE, N-
TABLE-1.WK4
                                                 64
                                                                                             03/13/98

-------
                  Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 6 Direct
                          and 1 Indirect TEC Barge-Chemical and Petroleum Facilities


85018
108952
129000
100425
7440257
646311
629594
7440326
108883
108383
136777612
7440666
7440677


Pollutant

PHENANTHRENE .
PHENOL 	 ~
PYRENE 	
STYRENE
TANTALUM


TETRACOSANE, N-
TETRADECANE, N-
FITANIUM ~
TOLUENE - •
XYLENE, M-
XYLENE, O+P-
ZINC "
ZIRCONIUM
                  Source:1 Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), April/May 1997
                          Version 5.0/5.1 Loading File
TABLE-1.WK4
                                                 65
                                                                                             03/13/98

-------
ft,
U

s ••














*
IT
£•>
i
4
I
W
00
C
•3
as
5













C
*£
£








C
.c
"S






1
1
o
cu
T3
C
03
_o
1
U
1
OQ




' 2
1
S
-^
J3


2
0
oo
,b*
c3
1
5
1
""2

w

t*

f— o en "° cC 1 4 •2 § •3 ° 55 I S SJ '3 o ^ O o C 0 o .& •o .c "3 e3 , c — o o •^ ^ CJ ^ e 'S o r. t? Si •8 J 1 s C3 « -d I "§ ™ "O ~5 ~3 oo — • > u. o « 2 £-|1 O ^ ••-; Ings are representative leum hydrocarbons an ame pollutant may be -o o w C3 J3 CJ Q o> -C * # * 00 66


-------
-


CO
Ui
0)
M
u<
eB
.C .
0
CO
5
1
1
13
"S
re
13
1 :
5
1)
§*
p*)
o
4>
w
5 ,~,
•«•?
td ^
i~- "S.

**"" re
Vj c/3 :
_0 '"""'

g
re
"ul
"C .
-u
•O
O
iw
£ :
*o. , .
re
E :
3

J*^
-O
CQ
H





*
3
^







•
::,' \.^g!.'./. .;
•.•'••••••• •••'SJ*c
.-./•;, 5ft o
•-. ' :g ••«
,••••' :^::b



.- ^'';S
^rt --^i
^:*g
-
1 -2=

»»p< K
^



O
^
1
< ji
' I3
J3
U

JJ
a
0
I '
•^
' ! -






•





r>» rs — c-4










.00"
^, • •
— < (S M O O (O




r*~ s~*.
^ T.
— CM
ci 6

CM C^J ' PO ^^ C^i ^4









o o o o o o




o o o o o o





en en
._ E _- C
^".2 ^".2
'§¥§ it¥§
^ E |w | s |w
,cucQ3cQ ores^*
H is "o "S §• J- "5 '"S
a co cu ^* L^ co cu £••*
U ftj














o
II
• . • a '
c
to
J
I
'o
1

3

•o
C
-
vcT
II
§3
' '-S3
'a i
O f j-y
1 'o
S K
u .a
o M
i"=.
ll
. cc -^<
E ^
03 \O
§ 11
o *o'
w D
'-'&I'
co re
§ «
^1
il
re is
n. .to

.£ 'o

E E
3 3

U
O ,
z
§

.2 '
S


o
M
c -



g
1
3
, 1.
O
S
CO
1"
Ci
1
CO
s

_*
2
'S
a\
"

o
tu
^
co"
re
s.
CO
th.
O
'1
|
C
o
.2
.23
'C
t>
1
' I


•*2
C
3
1





















"























-E
I


^~"
l« ;
c
"55
>




                                            I
67

-------
 J
  o
 .a
 Q


  S

  2

 S.
 •o
  §
 ca
 Q



 g~

 S3'
 <—  o

 |f


 | S2.


 •3
 u
tu
 o
 o

 b
|

CO
                     •S'-SM
                     KO
                     E m

                    K   "
 So
 S -o
 g S;
 I U:
         a

         •5
tic
Aq
|

u
PA
carbon
hyd
                            H

                            ffi
J

.2
 a

 §•

                                 o
                                •c
                                              8
                                              !
                           |

                           z
                                                     g
                                                    _C8


                                                     O
                                                     C
                                                     O
                                 J
                                 c
                                 S
                                 £

                                 "8
                                                          E
'  §

  2
  u
                                                   68

-------
   00

  a
  u

  •3
  u

  0)

  £?
  CS
  m
 u
 u
  £


 I
 U


 "8
 a.
 c
 =
•no-
                                                               69

-------
Q


J
8

£
 !
 at
 I
 5
 o
 ?I
 ^j
 •gl
 e) o
 SI
 1~
 I
, 2
 •3
 1

 E
 CO

 vd
            lill
                                                                          1
                                  o
                                  a
                                  o
                                 -e
                                  C3

                                  s
                                 .£.
                                 a
                                 .
                                 1
                                 •3
                                 VI
                             O   a
                             \o   -Q

                             II   5

                             2   S
                               8.
                              "o
                               fc.

                              "I
                               c
_   _o
c  , iE
C   c
J   ^
u   g
.2   j

1   ^
•i   .1
                                  >
                                  »
                                     u
                                                                         •S
                                                                         8

                                                                         §
                                                                         •
                               70

-------


'in •
t_
«J
"P
5
3
0)
1
O

•o
«
"s ••
1
j:
U
&>
1
1
53
G 1"
*- •£
>
03
|.
• * '' .-
3:'
1 O
-H -.



if
••ae-o
S3 bj

,§o



»
• -s a
' So
c "^
rt
| S
X >


^o
3
cr

"o ~
• •g i-l
o

 u
^'1

•|-"a*'
. , M >
is
5-
0 00 000 § .11
§ "S

I li
s >

1
en D
£ s
1 C! fci
" ' ' ti
c.
' CW "^ ^
^-N C ' ^ ' C
V-'d'S-l 1 9S i •
> o, « &• Z v' w
C- § x ^ O •£ X .
•cSS_ z^-= —
i-ij'o'S • §'S"c1'S
•• co Cu £^ 23 C/D Cu f*1'
'f*
2 S
« .fa
a, oo
.— o
1- Ui
li ^
••'Is.
3 3
2 2

tii
E-.
0
•-y

a
*C
o
g3
C
I
1
3

1
'o
S
3
"«3
O"
"
C
GO
8
•o
"s
Q
M

-------
                                                                                                          00
                                                                                                          s
                                                                                                          H
                                                                                                          C3
  I
  u
  i
  CO
 CO


 1
 5
 i
  §
  0>
 1
  §
 •a
  C -E2
  5 Q

 0

txS "O
c  e
o  ra

 .£>


 1
O
a.
•a
.3
 I
CO

od
 u
3
                                                                 I

                                                               XI


                                                               2
                                                                I
                                                                z
                                                                      O
j



1
                                           72

-------
     Table 9. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (103) Discharged from 12 Indirect TEC Rail-Chemical Facilities.
CAS Number
94757
94826
93765
93721
72548
72559
50293
30560191
15972608
319846
5103719
7429905
120127
1912249
7440393
1861401
65850
319857
314409
1689992
23184669
78933
2425061
133062
86748
786196
510156
2675776
7440473
61949766
- 7440508
106445
1861321
75990
319868
2303164
1918009
117806
120365
115322
60571
88857
78342
629970
112403
112958
Pollutant
2,4rD
2,4-DB (BUTOXQN)
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-TP
4,4-DDD
4(,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
ACEPHATE
ALACHLOR
ALPHA-BHC
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
ALUMINUM
ANTHRACENE
ATRAZINE
BARIUM
BENEFLURALIN
BENZOICACID
BETA-BHC
BROMACIL
BROMOXYNIL OCTANOATE
BUTACHLOR
BUTANONE.2-
CAPTAFOL
CAPTAN
CARBAZOLE
CARBOPHENOTHION
CHLOROBENZILATE
CHLORONEB
CHROMIUM
CIS-PERMETHRIN .
COPPER
CRESOL, P-
DACTHAL (DCPA) • . t
DALAPON
DELTA-BHC
DIALLATE
DICAMBA
DICHLONE
DICHLOROPROP
DICOFOL
DIELDRIN , ,
DINOSEB
DIOXATHION ,
DOCOSANE, N-
DODECANE, N-
N-EICOSANE
TABLE-9.WK4
73
                                                                                             03/13/98

-------
     Table 9.  Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (103) Discharged from 12 Indirect TEC Rail-Chemical Facilities
CAS Number
959988
1031078
72208
7421934
53494705
55283686
100414
2593159
60168889
206440
16984488
58899
5103742
1024573
630013
544763
465736
33820530
94746
7085190
72435
832699
21087649
2385855
91203
1836755
630024
593453
40487421
82688
72560
85018
108952
1918021
1918167
139402
129000
122349
8001501
100425
5902512
5915413
22248799
646311
629594
7440326
Pollutant
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ENDRIN KETONE
ETHALFLURALIN
ETHYLBENZENE
ETRADIAZOLE
FENARIMOL
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORIDE
GAMMA-BHC
GAMMA-CHLORDANE
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
HEXACOSANE, N-
HEXADECANE, N-
ISODRIN
ISOPROPALIN
MCPA
MCPP
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYLPHENANTHRENE, 1-
METRIBUZIN
MIREX
NAPHTHALENE
NITROFEN
OCTACOSANE, N-
OCTADECANE, N-
PENDAMETHALIN
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE (PCNB)
PERTHANE
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PICLORAM
PROPACHLOR
PROPAZINE
PYRENE
SIMAZINE
STROBANE
STYRENE
TERBACIL
TERBUTHYLAZINE
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
TETRACOSANE, N-
TETRADECANE, N-
TITANIUM
TABLE-9.WK4
74
                                                                                             03/13/98

-------
      Table 9.  Evaluated Pollutants of Concern .(103) Discharged from 12 Indirect TEC Rail-Chemical Facilities


95807
638686
43121433
52686
327980
1582098
512561
108383
136777612
7440666



TOLUENE, 2,4-DIAMINO-
TRIACONTANE, N-
TRIADIMEFON
TRICHLORFON
FRICHLORONATE ~ "i
FRIFLURALIN
TRIMETHYLPHOSPHAT
E ,
XYLENE, M-
XYLENE, O+P
ZINC
                    Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), February/May 1997
                           . Version 4.0/5.0 Loading File                  .           .
TABLE-9.WK4
                                                  75
                                                                                              03/13/98

-------
3
•£
                             >O f-
                                                           8
  CO)
 s-l
                                                           c

                                                           3
 5

 1
 a>
 6

 1
I
                                           000
 TO
 U

ffi
                  £
                     -
                     «

                                              0
                            cs,

                         W) —« V}
                                          o

                                         i

 H

 ,o
                                         o
                                         Ui



                                         |
u

1
 u
ex,
u-
 O

3
1
u
                  o
                 •a.
                               CO
              •

                                      C 'ii'


                                      £5 —
                                      n  ||


                                      di "O
                                      C  u
                                      Crt  W
                                      0)  g

                                      ^  c«
                                      f  E

                                      I  s
                                                       .S'S
                                      £ E
                                      3 3
                                     2 2
                                                       W
CO


I
CO
                                               |


                                               ce

                                               o
                                              •a
                                               ID


                                               §
                                               
-------
                                                                                I
 ce

 "I
 *W
 u
   W Q)

   3 o

 111.
 a. 33' co '
= OS

•«£
 S

 c












' U3
C
" "E
1
umber ol
2


















"li
a; c
§i
o
ac



« 1
o C
C n
rt ™
$




1 '
""s
:f •
1
.e
0




,0
_o
I
o
3
o
<


,|;
'i


•g
A)
:;;0
nposed
reatment
<£ *
*

C
§
5

•si
• 5 j
it
a.


-
§
fc
S
U

o ^
I ^
°- 1


•E
g
"3
U .







o



"1
i
vq
O


^>,
o\
vq
S.


O





O




0




o







3
QJ
5
o





o
p




o


p
Ci



•
r**
rj

— «

. -
o




0







g
i
o





0
p


^^,
r«o

-------
                                                                                               00
                                                                                               85
 g O
 "s °°
 c  e.
 o  c
 CO
 1
 «
 §
 S
 2
                 SI
                 ^
                 I
                 f
                 3
                 CO
                 §
                 S
                        000      000
                                          00

                                                 1
                                                 3
                                                 ~5
                                                 a.
                                                 JB
                                                 3
                                                 «
                                                c-f
                                                 CO
                                                •a
 u
I
                                                I   s
                                                 rt   [L,
                                                5    60
 «_>
*
CO
01
1
                                     il
                                                £
                                                o
      •§
      ,3
      o
                                                      o
                                                     "53
                                                      i_i
W .

2
                                               ts
                                               2
                                               j
                                               •§
                                               s
                                                                                               s
                                                                                               o
                                             78

-------
I
Oi
£•





• a
O
'•5
•|
o
U
a
I
co




jj
1
"i
"1
"o
a











"G
a;
1
1
eu
"8
C
Q
2
0,



"•g
£
a
i
'•s
i
Ǥ



i
s
U










0









o







„








O

i

0









Q
TJ-






^









.!'•• '.
                                                                                                               1
                                                                                                               2
J3



"8
                                                                                                              o
                                                                                                              n-
                                                                                                              •s
                                                                                                              o
                                              79

-------




w
1
re
"5
5
.S
*c
§
T3
S
I
1
»— «
g
k £?•
.O a)
**- >
1-3
1.1
* 5
to 2:
ca - —

1
u
o
t
a.
u-
o
i?
c
E
3
CO

••a-


IS


*
3
s2'


KC
e i0
Jo
CG



5 e
"« £
W "g
1 ]
K|



.Ǥ
_o
1

1
0


3
o
•a
ca
s
a-
^^
o
3
O









vo i^. vo -4.
i— i ^ — . ^r


S
•o
OO — 00 O O O




oo ^-^,
od , — ".
00 00
1 00
c, ci
— tn f3 — • — **





ft ^
co r4
41
C^"J
*~'\o ^ t*~





&
r-Z
^"^
\o — vo o o o




1
en i- vi
o|| Io||
O ^ 3 t- 0 ^> 3
Z ^ g *• Z .eg w
'eS-2 *S2
*e^^"w c to s "g
iis'o^ g'is'o^
= co-P.H HooCuH
fi
0
II
c
"o
S,
t-f
1
S3
3
2
•§
C8

Ow
en
II
S
'o
O
1
S
w—
2
pf
II
Cfl
^\
S o
O Pi
"53 «*-
l- O
c
O 3
^ c

3 P*
•— 2
ca 'SJ'
s s
CO >
C 3-
M
2 *?
*^ II

V-l »5
CO S
Jf
1*
•as-
•s|
<-< 3
1 ^


EJQ
S





oS
1
o
0
s
c

3
1
'o
s
s
1
1
CO
0

3
2
tq
i_
CO
1.
C8
ca
CO
<£
u.
o
I '
«
§
.2
'C

• "C
o
"8
X
u
Pollutants rr

*



































CO

E
bO
1
0
cB
Tf
O
"S3
S
^


                                                          s
                                                          1
                                                           I
                                                          •5-
80

-------
U
  .
•g Q -J
Is §
  I -S





















tfi
c
_e
K
'S

.£3
a









__



;« >,
- SB C
e '•'
1 0
a



.-'


,M V

"3 r\
3 O
a -o
c i
I *•
3 ~
a.^





2
I
.2
g
u
.S
1
—


1 —
•o .•
X
o
0.
•«



a
&
a
0

i"
n.
<§' '
!




1
a


i
•a \
li



i
a .
Proposed
relreatmcnt
o.
- ^
£
y •
U
..





o



^
o
^

<£*
oo

0






Ch
s.
oo



0



o
0


0





II Dieldrin


o





0




.0






o





ci
VO



a
VO
O


O





X
fi
s


0





o


>

o






V
c.
oo



o



o
o


o




c
|| Phenanthre


o





o




o






0





VO


^,
oo
oo
0

S"
H

VD



II Simazine


o





.0




0






o





o



NO
0


o





|| Strobane


o





o



• oc
—
d
VO




00
oo
ci
s



o



o
• o


o"


§
1
5
4
c '
_3


o





o











o





£
VO



d
VO
.


ol




J
(
                                                           _c
                                                           ; T3
                                                       S
o
ft}
1
I
1
o
£.•
o
                                                       I   i
                                                       i.   M

                                                       i   1
                                                       3   O
                                                       I
    3
    o
                                                    81

-------
1
5
"8
"s
CO
a
1
I
i




1


CM £2 "*










8
ii
1
 J
 "s
 G.

  g
 v-« .3

 -If
 2 ^
 CO

 1

 .0

 IE
 O
 o.
S
_a>


I
                            000
                                           000
 6
 §
s
s|)      ^
         cs
—I
.2
CQ
1

a
o
                                                        c
                                           3
                                           o
                                                              O
                                                     I
                                                     ^
                                                     82

-------
, §>
'I
CA
S. ,
"3 -
.S
u

"S
«
.i •-•,
y
H
IM
<2
CO
2
>
1
grt
Jo'
o >
^"2
00'*"*
1 1 •
CO •£
1 1, .
is- '
•s
>S
"8
QJ
O
&
o
i
o>
'If
CX
CA
1-
J3
1 .
o
i
s
CO


-•<•'•••






a
_c
S
.c
;'£
':tt
.1
4>
0.
"S






•§
;s

3
§
OB
~
S







^»
^**
"eo
3
cc







1
1
a
1
1
2






•s
to
t
c



1
1
1

(A
S.
^
0.





c

H
a


















o










o






VO












0




w.








OH
U



0










o






2












—













OH
a,
u

v

o










o






ON












—












CD
1
CO



o










o






\O












VO









CO
-i
cs
"^!
_§


.-






























• ^
O
II
CO
13
2- .•• S
% ep
w .2
S -a
*e e
3 >3
^ q

. "« '^i
'^" ^

T^-
§
CA
jj S
0 >
2
                                                      Ed

                                                      5
                                                    1
                                                    1
                                                    i
                                                    1
83

-------
     Table 18. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (80) Discharged from 40 Indirect TEC Truck-Chemical Facilities
Number

94826
93765
93721
50293
98555
7429905
2642719
86500
71432
65850
100516
319857
117817
7440428
78933
510156
67663
95578
7440473
7440508
56724
95487
106445
57125
99876
75990
124185
2303164
97176
95501
107062-
60571
117840
88857
298044
629970
112403
112958
33213659
1031078
2104645
100414
16984488
58899
Pollutant
2,4-D 	 	 	
2,4-DB (BUTOXON)
2,4,5-T 	
2,4,5-TP 	
4.4-DDT • 	
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
ALUMINUM 	 : 	
AZINPHOS ETHYL
AZINPHOS METHYL
BENZENE 	
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BETA-BHC 	 	
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BORON 	 : 	
BUTANONE, 2- (METHYL ETHYL KETONE)
CHLOROBENZILATE
CHLOROFORM 	
CHLOROPHENOL, 2-
CHROMIUM
COPPER . . 	
COUMAPHOS
CRESOL, O-
CRESOL, P-
CYANIDE (TOTAL)
ICYMENE, P- 	
DALAPON 	
DECANE, N-
DIALLATE ~ 	
DICHLOFENTHION
DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2- 	
DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2-
DIELDRIN 	
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DINOSEB
DISULFOTON 	
DOCOSANE, N- 	
DODECANE, N-
EICOSANE, N-
zNDOSULFAN II
zNDOSULFAN SULFATE
EPN 	
ETHYLBENZENE
-LUORIDE
3AMMA-BHC 	
TABLE-18.WK4
                                                 84
                                                                                            03/13/98

-------
     Table 18. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (80) Discharged from 40 Indirect TEC Truck-Chemical Facilities
Number

630013
544763
2027170
21609905
7439965
94746
7085190
7439976
150505
108101
75092
91576
91203
1836755
593453
82688
1918021
67641
122349
100425
5915413
127184
22248799
646311
629594
7440315
7440326
108883
638686
71556
79016
108383
136777612
7440666
Pollutant

HEXACOSANE, N-
HEXADECANE, N-
ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE, 2-
LEPTOPHOS
MANGANESE
MCPA '
MCPP
MERCURY
MERPHOS
METHYL-2-PENTANONE, 4- (METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2- . ,
NAPHTHALENE
NITROFEN •
OCTADECANE, N-
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE (PCNB)
PICLORAM
PROPANONE, 2- (ACETONE)
SIMAZINE
STYRENE
TERBUTHYLAZINE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
TETRACOSANE, N-_
TETRADECANE, N-
TIN
TITANIUM
TOLUENE
TRIACONTANE, N-
TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1- . • •
TRICHLOROETHENE
XYLENE, M-
XYLENE, O+P- - ,
ZINC , '
                 Source:  Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), March 1997
                         Version 5.1 Loading File
TABLE-18.WK4
                                                  85
                                                                                             03/13/98

-------






E
M
J1"


Q
IS
»M
1
2
3

t-
H
1

w
f_ i
o O
«J5 SJ
g CO
• 2 *O-
£ c
£3 «J
^J c/*>
t2 "•"
.2
"C
O
•o
ai
B
(X
t*^
O
r
%
3\
HM)
•K
2
^





5 ^
CO ^*

« 0
e „
g 0

,K°



-C °
ll
S «

S a
£C *S
^




o
•a
CS
§•
^^ **-
O
6


.Ǥ
P_J
o
«
<
1
^^
- -
3
»4


CO fS» VO •— <






C'T
I •

f4
»-H
^^^
01 — «S O O O




'S
t
CS

o
c^ — • rj o o o






^^
^4" ^™N
•*' °-.
i i
0 0
00 — 00 VO — •• VO




o o o o o o



~-l L?i
75- s- |7Si
2; ^ O & 2^ ^ u
_,. C r-ri "O ^""^ C M
eES_ S E S _
ai«._3— a°3^^
Si:"o5 §'S'orO
^coft.H HcoO-H

Q
t^
JJ "
£
g
•2
•M
03
o"
-^"
II

CO
•1
•3
o
o
(*t

3
g
J^"
II •
GO

^
o .
cu
C5

£
3
C
g ^
.2 •—
*S3 Js
l_4 CU
|1
0 VO
^5 **
W OT
1) U-i
•i J
W) ^^
cd PI
E?
W CO
IM 3

W CQ

C« rt^
: Number in parenthei
Number of streams i
pollutants = 80.
W
O
•7-


«
'g
•—
0
1?
13
8
X
1)

I
3
a



—
§-
<0 '
O.
en
S
•o
a
0

Ut
«2
o
^
•s
co"
ea
S
t5
o

1
§
§
.5
"C
o
•o
S
* Pollutants may exc










































m—i
P.
1
O
"co

-------
 U
 w



 £
 a

 "I
II
S.a^
•o Q w
•1-3J8
s .a a.
 2 u
 s ji
 o


 £>
 'C3






' .'. '
V
_C
>
U)
t«~
O
u<
C
t
2









'';1'~
•.,a <
I5


— i
J|






;{•;
Chronic t



-------
60
I-
ca
s
1
c5
.M
o
5
H
i
i-M
CO
—
15
o
u.
o.
c
_o
1 1?
•a °°
1 JS
if
^ CO
o> **-*
on
•g

CO
•g
03
_o
IS
I
g




j
/


c
R
r
£
j!
c
c

-^
ts
. J
CO




c

IE
c
"re
CJ
'5
c
c

—
0
0-
AsJ
jj
I
o
CO
E ,
CO

^J
CM




o o o o





o o o o o o

















O O 0 O O 0






1
o g 1 ^ a
6- eg O 0> S' w O
"S^-S— 1^1^
4 t_t 3 A fi ^L^ 3 flj
*• Si S '** CL £? Z2 +•*
tOoo aO^o
• C^t CL* ^^ LJ ^^ ^^ ^^
U o3














^K
T^-
II
I
'o
C4—

O
(_,

o>
CA
o
cu
o
1
2

U
L^
O
"y.
































_CD
E

~
I
«/-!
o
'fa
cu
>





                                                a
88

-------
 "I
U
.§
.2  g
E  o

il
P-I

CO
o

-------
U

1
UJ ^ —*
 _ o "3
2 .a >

^ s
to

a

















w
C
*«
k
C
x
w
<*-!
O
1
2






























.
S .
•SS'O
e ,
Jo
zc




•*• i
1o
ffi-o
<= r
C3
£ $3
3 •;







3
.2
."S
3

_O
"2
e
_c
O








£
j
o

o*
.0
3
U










1
g
.I"
£


~
s
o
li
2 ^

"•




1
5




i!
as
II
0,





K
^
g
3
U





•si
en C
11
CL: 'S
O.




Current











o





o

o







0





cT
c
t-






^
^
q
^
v™> *
o\





o






o




V)
&
a
es
3
O
U


o 11



~
2 II

2
o






rT
es
2




o









o








o






o





c
T3
U
II









5
1
e

"8
1
a.
09
«
V3
C
_o
"S
w
3
P
><
O
1

"rt
' 3
S"
O
C
S
o
•u
c/9
C
.2
'to
1
4)
1=
C
3
"o
• a.
§ I
!i g
tr ,
i ^ «
« "3 5r
S § H
^ 1 1
O -O • Q
Si-3
JD O *- '
s *• ^
§ 2 =
« « .2
log
H * >

UJ
3 b
II z
                                             90

-------



"a"
o
'•s.
B
• a •
n
o
U
(U
a
w
W
H
CA
S. '
a

£? «
22^:^t---^ 2222 i«w




,











y-^. ^^ ^
^ ^5 Vrt \o
B& W li - • ' W
*^* */^ O fO
— d-d-d- — d.

















t . • • . ' t' .
W 05
.2 ®
•^S #• _J W ' ."tJ it * W5
eg (j *j3 CUQ - cs ® *J? bfi
^7 W ft^ DO tJ fmm >yr 'O ^\ f)Q o
U to U O -co coH ' W 3j U 6 eo eo H

91 ,
•o
3
S
<2 ;

.w
^3
"o
<£

g
S

"w
D
J
M.
en
- "3
2
.
c
U
S
te
J2
- o
f2 • .
8'
ji
U9
J*^

•—
S.
' *«>
1.
S '
fTl
•*w !i
~ ^5
^O T-«
tl J2

J o
•*- S
- -•=! S
^1
•si
** «M
11
S >.
§ S
\o ^
"' .a .'
© w
"8 
-------
•. . . ' • • s
12
111 '"
" tw
1
03
"§
5
S
§
O
to
£
•g
CO
"s
1
 9-
E |

Q g
uc3
aj <-'
H &
0 5 *>
(2 Et V
fa "^ <*>
o g»JS
|1 I-
s§&
S"S
*T* ^
|p
P
E* N^^X
%
00

03
*C5
O
(X
tl—
o
I4
§

u-i

1
* '





»— t
A
c
t
*E
c
«
i.
o
^
o
S
•4
C
^
£

'S
.£
u



A
to
. •£
S
ce
ac
(D
§
JC
E



























o 5
ooooo ooooo






•





o o
oooo^ ooooo











^^*^ ^**\
i i
w ta
_o> u
S 'e 2 S c 2
"3 _o ^J 'o o a>
r^ ^^ **"^ ^Q Ct3 .^^ **3 P"]|T
U^ • C3 g^ MI ^Z^ • CO r£
X.g'5<2< 

£
o
II
"c
a
"o
c.
*o
li
* S
II |;
* ^ v
"5 o
<2 &
o S
S «
Js o
£ ^^^

C -n
vo".S
II 1=
sams evaluated
projected hazai
to 
>



                                                               e
                                                               «3
                                                              1
                                                              -o
                                                              f.
92

-------
OS
43
• S •
"o

fc
60
L-.
.2
o
.52
. Q •
3

c

•!
j
^
_
,; i
J ^
"3 II "*•
43 \l m
£ I I

1 II
-"S \\ S
.« II -J=>
E
Js
U
43
60
m <$
43 "*-*
t. Cu
5 | '
O S 0
W o JS
t- U "*>
u. . 43
5? M ^— *
c£ .43, &
^ ^ E
g ^ CO,.
§" c
— 2
•S •— '
"w Q .
43 N— -
ffi
e • • .
ea
c-<


c
o
' A
a
*^
tt
4
C,
"c

_5
T
>£
5
o
E2


E • 1
3 II
DC
is ||

o
Cu,
tj-j
0
&*
I
1
5
S'
















1 §
»-"
*
1 o
«
*•
,o
1 a • -
^^<<< .<<<<:<: 1
z z z z z z z z z z s

£3
e
43
43
-• .-•&
' -
- • -e • -
H-
•
,11 S'






If
s— ^ ^^*
— — o o — — o o










*


en en ' ~ •
43 13
••^ "»M
•E "- •' E
0 - ' ,0
VI . VI


II
1 ^
3 VD
-" *"* frj
S.o
2^2 •
J5 «
E "S
BS
-sS
w c
vo, S
II- | '


s §•> • •
'S cs
,CO i_
f. . jO
° _ti
1 -c
S <-
vo" g
II m
" w
•a 43
S ><
. g o
1 1 JJ
33 o -0
oo « -g
*• • i_ I S ^ CU 43
• * 5^' it 43 1 1 a 43 l-a>j iSM-sgjj ^,0^^
1 S -'0 -s 'g H §• g 'g-5 "S fc w
^ &3 cc iitr co ^5 2 *^ cs *"* ** cc ^^ II ^^
U to U ^ UH BJ&oU^UH O
















































. --S
1°
1
>o
_o
"co
1




                                                                     vo
                                                                     C-l
                                                                    8
                                                                    S
                                                                     1
93

-------
a
                 o
                 »—t
                 1
                 u
                 i
                 3
                           2
m S ^ ^
                                       C-l —<
                                P  W
     o
     en






j

I
II

II





. -



•
o
2
M
Current
Stream (No.)/Facilitie
Carcbogens (No.)*
General Population
Sport Anglers













Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
P-CODOsed BAT









"'"?' 1
O 1
£
—
Stream (No.)/Facilities
Carcinogens (No.)*
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL 	

^ I*
S a
JO I;
a <£
s-s
3 "S
•J i
— 0
H (A
S
^ s
a g ®

£ -a -1
£ 5 S
W *rf >«M
OTE: Total number of
wliich the projec
NA = Not Appl
2












*AcrylonitriIe








£
tE

BO
_g
"l3
eg
,3
v-4
*X
.§
w
1

                                             94

-------
  Ml
 •o

 CS
 43



 U
 o' 9-

 8  i
 Q  S
 s
-—; -Q

 S  e
w-
 _ ."
 a
I j=


If
on
I
o
D.
£8






3
' • . • O
. . - - -s
•'.'•' • . ' £

I/\

t
j
•s
. J

'''.•X
V' 1
•-. a
': t>
.,;. s

''''•', <
' • ' $£
M
J
1C
•H
0





A
V.
c.
c
n
a
X
• a
|
.0
V.
"

1









13 '
CO
«
M
S
C

S
0,
, 4>
. 3
£
.0
•
-a
c
s .
3.
S3
O "
• CU
'i ,
O
•o O
S «
- , 3 t3



-

c o>,
O 45
•o "S
C _ffj
« 3
rr" "o
1 »'>
_ . ti **
^3 ^K , 11 rft CO
2^ .. • **^ . ' II C/a •
Ooo.oo • cSoooo
\






1 1. .
^_x - — -
to co
« .«-..-
3 c, .2 ./. S-. e_. .2
o _o JJ ' o o jj

•^J 1. 2 < <.^S "g 2-<
o.^S §• jj « efl o' 5. §•.« «
ti- ^ ^ CS '"S^-S^ce
1 1 11^.1 i si 2<|
a S ~ B . Q- S o*S*~Coj§
*3 O ^ OM 3 2 *^ "o ^3 S^ "2
Uooo»CDoooo> wooCuOoooo

 1=
-. n
e co
1 1
c— to
[jj
H
0 '
z •






































4>
E
.S
1
c
0
1




                                                                                                            09
                                                                                                            CN




                                                                                                            I



                                                                                                            8
                                            95

-------
I
1
5

g
g
o
•S
1)
II ' (
II '

U
if 1
U a
II ^
L.

II "
£
c

V
c/
a
s
rr
a
II C
II
II
l|

?•>
I
A
II u

II *
II W

J
1 'K
|
T-
—
II ^
It F^»

1 "
II




















^^ ^C *^ ^C *^C ^^ "^C ^C- ^C ^
zzzzz zzzzz


















^- ^
tQ (i]
-4 _J
CO •— < O O ro »— < O O
• -







en en
1 1
O , O
V"} (/•}
VI VI ,'
2? ' &
•"* •-•.
•«3 '*3
*^ fj- ^^ *^ ^ ^^
<2 s d d^d
^Z ^ U !7 ^
fc- W) C^ 5 6- 60 ^
X 52 'S c« ... '"^ »9 .S eg
-tlllj itilL
1 e S S J ^ ls§Q§^
fcS£J«£ifr & S 2 -S "2 fc
d^U^OH fl^u'^CJH
b
**"
<*s
"^
C/3
W'
c •
U
2
a.
a>
3
C8
H


s
II
03
c ^
5>o
3 pi
1^
G-^,
o 2
t_ en
1 §
3 X
c S
5 c
o *s
•» =3
It
Tf" &*
7 «s
s -g
"•^ *w
rt o
t^ , 41*4
° S
S&s
_ fli
i -o
— 32
|.s,
~ c<
— u . .
II ^
en O
E 2
S * .«
S o •«

vfOTE: Total number of,
streams/facilities 1
NA = Not Applic
* Acrylonitrile

















































_i2
E
M
C
^
J
§
1
                                                                               8


                                                                               8


                                                                               I
                                                                               E
                                                                               3
                                96

-------







'CO
bri
60
CO
O
00
5
£ •
3
"o
D
•o

co
1
i
O
j^
1
o
«•> /ev
.=: o
c c.
^^ C
u s o
u i $

<2 *« 1*
« s ^
« .52 ^E,
c, r~
C •£•
1—1 E
3 ^-"
03
I
c
g
3 •

_oa
. C
O
a.
•t
c
w. -
«
s
J
^
15


CO
• .a
"-o;
«

j
t<
,„
|
C
00
o
5
.£
• ^5
"c
H

to

A
W5
_•»•
.2
S
',«
CJ
C
cc
CJ
"3
s
^a
.S
T3
•-1
;|














•







•< •<
Z Z
"^C *^« ^^ ^^ '^C ^C *^ ^C
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z















o -' . o
o o o o o . o o
















x- v /— x
6 o
•z, ^ z.
00 _• O 05
D 7? W g,j
"S c n It3
1 2? "1 § -1 ^lz^
J¥li o 1 ^¥
^^| V O ,T*Tl O «•• ^^ 5^
Is'lsEl^ s¥f
^ ca o ^ u> w c™^ CU c'J o
u^Sol-ln 115

• ' -j3
"3
•8
• 'JS
e











^C ^C ^C ^
z z z z


• "













o o o






"











B. 1
General Populatio
Sport Fishermen
Subsistence Fishei
TOTAL
VJ
S
c.

—
3
.£ . .

- s .. •"
u
&
1
_3
1 •
g^j t
O
1
-E
§--
.
•§
-------
w
1)
J
.8
Q
1
2

D.
"32
J
5
I -
w -^
<§?
o 'S.
J I
•§ g
u u
fm, O
U. ^2 **•>
jO^a)

Hi
11

^
1 .s
5 H
,T^ *••
13
«£* ji^
i *"
s
to
3
1
^
0.
e
b
i
i
^
o
~zz
is
E-



A
U
2
J
• T
b.
Jr

£
P?
G
|
C





A



ffi
3
ta
CO
H
^M

cu


















-







o o
ooooo ooooo












o o
ooooo ooooo
















6 6
%£ ^
Scs ? w c-
	 § 3 .2 S
*"• ^ S jj »£i ^ c
"5 o § ® "S o §
fl T^ C3 ^*r ? ec *p 53 *-i
U.-.2 ".2 •*-t[-'^'^ "".£,
*5i ^^" ^ ^— ;•* d> 5U ^^ "c — ;*^ d>
^ £• cc cc »>^ ^ ^ •-4 S etf tl< ^
= 1 ^ i 1-1 S 1 ^ 1 !•§
UcoO-Ococo CucoCuOcoco







c>
o
II —
05 W
-S S
II
SS "S
"1'°;
§ §
1 «
- X
"I
.§•8
*- cs
^S N
lumber of faci
e projected ha
*• ~

n ~
II ^
CO ^
^ fc*

• 9 ^
CU .£

CD CB
3 1
c S
—•" *3
11 CO
-ll
— ,o
12
§ g
5R
w co
to "S
•*- s
0 g
§ &
•i jj
1 -i
2 E=
[ii
O







































.2
E
OJO
.3
•s

o
iX
Version


                                                                   oo
                                                                  ' C7\

                                                                   cn"

                                                                   "u
98

-------
  !U
  M
                18
                                                       o


                                                       Q*

                                                      J-
                                                      3
                                                       « ,
                                                                                               w
                                                                                              •s
  I

 I
 8,
 •o
 8

 I
 u
•a»
«/-^
' O O-
    rti ' f^-
    *-f C^
    s8 C
 &.s
ffi
 c

 I
'3
 I
 O
 &.
 re


 o '
JO
               -.3
               %
                      < < < <
                                       < < < <
               %
               S

               8
               c
               CO
              .U

                      o o o o
                                       o o o o
                          o

                          VI

                          &
                     CO "o
                     <
                                                      o
                                                      p.
                                                      t-  C.
                                                      s-s
                                                     -1
                                                     •
                                                     1
tl-
 c

1
o
                                                                o
                                          99

-------
                                                       «
100

-------
                                                                     90
                                                                     e»
                                                                     o\
 S2

 §>•
 S

 1
 Q
 S

 V
III
I
•
I
5
jj

S
•w '
.5- Oi'l
2 •• •*• '-.I
ffl O tt

"•« 1 I
u. S 53
a -1
;c3 en ,JC
;l
o i- ,e
»— l OJ. 1
All
IS2 —" -2
111
• S sw
V a>
8
W
Owe
* 1 -
a TS «£
8 J g
US0
X
.w





















1
5


oo t*^ \o oo r*» oo
W W UJ ffl U] B
u^ — < oo o\ o O
r-3 •— < »^- o\ — r
oo oo c^* oo oo oo
ti UJ ti PJ ii si
CM O\ C^l W^ r-* OO



Z Z Z Z Z Z
o o o o o o

Z Z Z Z Z Z
0 O O 0 0 O


o
o '3
•o g
3 1 I
" S i^ **•• ™^* CC ^ fli
^ ai O r^i ^f 2 3
^ M O O ^"" M •— •
« « 5 5 x «j f2


||||§|Sg||§|
rScJNO^. cntn— HC^CSTI-IOOO
^ pc^ pf^ pf^) pi FT^ p-^ pr'^ ^ . ^ fT^ p



zzzzzzzzzzzz
ooooooS.ooooS

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
oooooooooooo



"> •» '1
T 1 l| 1
' 2' 0 1 V •!• jj^QWH
53 < O Q S_'O-E S tw fS'^f, ^r ^:
                                101

-------
                                                                                                                                 oo
                                                                                                                                 ON
                                                                                                                                 ON
£
•8
 b
 s
S
^

I
8
c§ %
x?""1 O fl
O u f
A §4
W f^ rl
'S
f 1 j
H '!
1s
.J
'?"'* ^J
2 S §
all
fS . *C?
**•* ^n •*•"
'wit
o 3 5
C
03 CO ^^
U S
o
K
W
8

2 ** -2
"3 r i S
J2 V n
.
I_
L.
t3




^D Vi «t± If) \Q If) \f}
w w w w w w w
— o — * oo en o\ -^
t^- m *n CNJ 10 rQ •-<
\9 5p ^ vo S ^ 5
C"4 OO "~~* C^* ""•* OO f

vp i/p cn ir> vp in iri
FT'I fT'i fy1^ FT'I n'l [ii p^
vq o\ — ; c^ cJ >o vc
~ vo -^ ^d -^ vo 1 FT'l P*1 [T'l u'l ttl f-T>1
m o \o r-' o oo u->
O\ Tf ^5 c*} C*™1 f^i *~^

o
o •§
"2 §
"x .«
S, 9
| u _ c | 0 «

c3 m 5 5 a: S co H




o\ op rp op CN op c|
CM OO O t~- CM f~ «
•* ^H n -^ m «-< vo
op op vip op op op op
rl- CM O r— — ON f
<-• vo «-< vr> >-i >n CM



S $ S $ $ S £
^ ^^ ^! ^1 ^1 ^! ^
0 O O O 0 O 0











2 § 2 Z 2 Z Z
O O O O O 0 O



(0 §
"x S
S -S
TW ta •
e o "^

I 5 S'o £•§ §• —
_u gj .s .i; cs ^ .5 O




VO VO VO pp
W W ti B
—I ~-I —^ 4
fTl ^T") fTl pi
CM ON O> V£
4 TT f^ ~



S S 1$ 2
^ « ^ «
0 0 O O











2222
o o o o



o
•8 1
"x *
g.5
W ^h
c h c^J
g - .s =i «

53 Q Q K H
                                                                                                                                  2
                                                                                                                                  os
                                                           102

-------
                                                                                                    00
 o
 o
  \o vp

                               w ta w m
                               \O rr \o «S
               m — cj\ --• CM —-. n rj- T»- — i
oo ts oo —


VO vr> ^ v^
                               222222
                               o S S o S o
                                                  ON VO
                              o o o o
    — oo r~ o \o o\ o

    r™1. 3^" "^ oo f^ f** o<
                                     g.
                                     tu
                                       x -
                                 8 ? £.§ g J
                                ia '5 a: S to j2
                                                            'arfg-
                                                             '
                                    .a .2
                                  oa Q Q .as
                                                                                                    "f
                                                                                                    as
                                                                                                    s
                                             103

-------
                                                                     ce
                                                                     0-.
8
A | £
tfi p \ '•"
^ \J iLt
2 1 I

8> S *••
M ^ "M
§ •£
•?- u
O v. C
A 1 |
J2 0 J
*iS , _«
05 § k<
4) ^ Q
S* ^» £
§ to W
o
X
U)
S
13
w- U i-
— S -2
A S —
(* r^ 3
^ —• ^
S 11
§o
w U
W CD































OJ

Proposed Pretrei

ssssssssssss
- ^^ t>j -^j- o^ r^i O
cnc^vo-fmu^*— •c^c^Tfinoo
opoov£p\oop\oc^opr^oprpoo
p^ ft_^ pp pp pp pj fi^ fi^ pi} pi} pp pr^
C^ ^0 "^> O r^i ^d" VD oJ VO ^^ ol CK
^i/^^H^Mf-*— «€St/^Vi^-*-^^^




zzzzzzzzzzzz
oooooooooooo









^•^^^•^•^•^•^^^f^f^
ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
oooooooooooo


.1

« •- ._
" "28. Q
«S — O [§" '
IlliJitsiilii
| S 3 .2 .2 § 8- -| J •§ ^r ^r ^r

tl3 W £13 W tt3
O oo oo en ~*
m CM 
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Heptaclllor Epoxic
Toluene, 2,4-Dian
                                                                      o

                                                                      OS
104

-------
                                                                                                                                               00
                                                                                                                                               s

 _

 o
 o
  (U
  DO
 s
 2
 U
 en 'Z:

Ho
 s  1^
    2
 S .
 ac
 U
 _o
 •O
 

:Mi
••/\:-'53 *C
: • ••» *• % "*•
w &«
£3 '^3 ?
|||
.•'.•g'-<,. -5
'•*£*
i
-?- U
o i_ a
*"* O CD
A c ^
,_. W ^j
Q Ci »J
,W •«< .2
2 § ^
u 1 1
a < &
•a «> ««
r \ ca
u 8
X
oa
<2"~ U a
O v. O
— •> CD -J
A a ~
gK ^ S
Is — (2
? i "s
^ ^ g>
r \ (0 \2
u 8-
X



—


































1
1
.§
- -g
1
k.
Cu
•g
i.
s
Cu

• w w ii m a

oo -^ ^>
w w ta w w
fH ^i* C'J *~^ C^





j«* -** '^rf* -^ ^**
2 2 Z Z Z
o o o S S








^ ^ ^ j ^
Z Z Z Z Z
. o o o p o







. o |
3 S
"x s
i *'^
•^ _ s 2 CD"
§  CM \O »-
...


^j \O io i^j ^i vrt ^P
[13 W U3 W M f-T1 M
C^ \O ^" VO O4 *O OO
^ g c ^ ^ g t
t 1 1 , . 1 1 ' 1 1
ml [Tl fT; [jj yj |T^ pr^
— in in vo \O oo t—
^ — r~ n «M r- —





>n >« \n m 1/1 >« \o
fT1 fT1 fT1 TT1 fT'l FT'l fT'l
cs vo ^f r** CM vo o\
!Q vo rn :— ;- en t^
03 ta w m ti -us ti
>n r— c?\ ^j- o — < oo
•* <^ CM — — m vo





: o
"x .1
•3 t '• 5-
Z „ ^ CD ^. g
1 2 | | x •§ | Q
- £ .§ ."2 §" •- S •§ Tt-
M o a s S co ny
                                                                                                   
-------
St
P
G
S
S
Ero
Str
Pollu
Gene
Sp
Su
po
b
                                                                  1
                                                                  a
                                    s
                                    •s
                           3 ~    Q
                           C w    i—)
                                    a
                                    o
                                   '
                                    
-------
• 2 tt

-?
O
H.
£ .- .
.3
CO
O
w
1
.60
C
1 : '
Ui
Q
^T
CD
w>
w-
1
5. '
' 1 •
0)
.c
^^
' '
1
Si "C^
•- »3
"c . « ^ a ^- « O
z ^ z • 1 z ^ z ••
j¥l¥ l7¥|¥
*2 CO C CU •« ^ CO C CO
-j-j ^ &p •— oo 2 ,c^ esc ~ So
§£eQe S£§Qn
J§ '1 5 1 1 § 1 5 1
55U^U WooCJ^U
c ' s
1 •' 1,
o. ' • a> •
JO ' . *<
•2 i>
: - H «
J>
8 =
I' 1
11, I

O ^5 W
S y
X *

§ ° c
If 1 •
- = N
01 p 2
— ' S. . £
II ^ "53
"82. «§ ' •

"2 o c
1 ^ . -g .
as -g- « ^
o fe , 'S 1
1- O U. 00

£ ° 0 "S
2 W &0 "e^
. 0 •§ «2'
~ S c "S
_ "C rti
II o "^ w
GO O W 4i

p^. "o1 ''_g' "^
Oo. 'a £
. cu o •§ o
'^2 s* ^
H II
C O '^ *-*

^ g gs -g
. 11 S "§• 8
11 ns 'p c
•o °- .So
ig ,« « 0
Number of streams evalual
results for those streams/1
NA = Not Applicable
* 2,4-Diaminotoluene,
systems will reduce

w
H •
0









































1}
E
I
o
c5
o
"I




                                                               oo
                                                               Os^
                                                               o\
107

-------
ncer Risk
.S
I
      =5   m w ta
      < <; -H —i «sj
      2 2 -; ~ v>
   2   V V T "
   5   w ta w K
   *7 *y  *  * -j
   Xi x£. •—i •—i ON
            W to
          00 —
          *- — \o
          *? "? w
          W [X] 0
                          w ca
                          W U
                      VO 04 """ ^^ VO
                      — « — < oo oo — i
I '•=

P
1
i
o
tion
o.)/F
ns (N
ulat
rs
An
cinoge
eral Pop
rt Angle
sistenc
TAL
po
Sub
TO
                                     2 is
                                              —
                                              E
liil
l»-"i|
•§ 1  e-
§ §i£
I^'S •
I'aisg
                1
                                              o
                                              
-------
                                                          00
                                                          o\
                                                          OS






2
. «
1
0 . '
"3
.y
.8 ' ' •
u
Is
fti
1
(lM
J3 ^o
u |
£ 1

a <3
O ^*
el -s if
-J £ 3 • •
ill
1 S-5-
a S '
* 0
•a S
S .a
JH H1
*W ,M
fi
•s
§

5
o
fc
I ' •
a
CO

00

CD
1




,.





•t— t
A
;«
•'• '.I
J
«E
a

^
:. a
"c
•5
Q





*-<
A
i
'"I
1
w
c
5
tQ
f"1
M?
•S2

























s






o ^
1 • o o o o o o o o o o













o S
o o o o o o o.o o o

*





•











^^ s~^
6 ' 6 .
2 '2 . • . -
1 .£ * .a
'I ' .2 — a ^o .2 —
S~J O ™~" w 5 ^ -i^ O *S tft J?
*y--s' 21 5^ ** *" /-^* ^Zi £^ **
2,^(£l)|. •« 5, » «£ "5> 1
s H !§ -§ 2 •« g's— § g_-e
.UwfcDcoc? flcoa,0coc§
' « ,
3
as
H .
, •
o


1
1.
£*
o
Is
f"



"H ^
oo" •§
II .fi.
.1 1

S ^
J «s
to- ^J-
it
ll

t-T .S
tn o5
II -o.
w '
. J
109

-------
1

f
•fi

1
<3
J3
CO
£
1?
1
S
a
09
t-«
go
eo
•S
00
S
, ,
8
'i
a
t
*t3
*0
«3 «
•S3
•si
u I
U4 "3
£~^ ^
w 2
«2 ""^
"52
o
a
«
°p?

1
TO
U
"rt
12
•E*
I
nn
cq































^ ^ 'y 'y ^ "7 "7 "7
^-4 ^H ^^ rf^>4 ^*l ^^ 4C^ ^-4
1 . '








^ (r?
W 03
rn rj-
O 0
\o vo
W W
~-C ^—1
•— CS O O — « CS © O












W 00
— . —
"S . '£
p o •

VI VI
£" ^>
3 *J =a
^ § =3
i- a u.
•Jf 3s H Af gj
•/-> « *~? ^ <^. « /"T-
O ^ O • £ " O ^ O
j¥|¥ 1 7¥|¥
*jS)'~S) "^ Si •— Si>
I's'cQc I'i'cQc
5" C^ O r^ O Q* CO "o _C *O
uaju.'iafc: qou.'isw
•• ±3 cc tr" rt tj *-j «j zr^ cc
U55O^O cP55O^O
•*-'

8
u

f ^
J ^
1-C-

0 0
kc "— '
£ •§
1 i
-S •*— >
. 0 C
s
ll
rt o
00 *~
a
u-
CQ O
_« 1C
S "to
"o 'C
c2 *-
M— c ?i
O 53
w rt
w o
C OQ
Ii
1 "§
*. o
en •§>
II a,
^ -S
|1
*O u


J^ OS
s -S
S3 »^
^ "o
"« 42
0 "S3
- S
t— C3
b^

S 8
'« ^ —
2 u, "«
f [^ ^^ *TS
H 8 !•
§f2 *•
_^ C ,||
•§ s <

[ii
H
O
S
S
*1
u<
«

J?

•a

rt
assumed
M
• M ,
• |

1 -
!«

"S3
Ui
o

1U
Hi
i «
M •£
C ^j

•- SC
•t5 «*
rt QQ
•s s
S >
•g -2
*M CO
il.
CO ^

< t^
CU C
W .0
if «3
c S
'H S
C 0
C M
*S3 S
Wrf ^
S* 8
l-i
| S

•I p
9 |
«s i*

#











































2
6C
.S
S
p
p
C
.2
*w
4^



                                                              B

                                                              ll
                                                             to
                                                             3

                                                             I

                                                             i
                                                             §
                                                              i
                                                              §
                                                              a.
                                                              o.
110

-------
  c •
  o

  I
  fa
  O
  CJ
  H
  x:
  S?
  CQ

  O
'  ee
 _o


  o m
 1
J
 o
 CO
 c.

 I

ac.

Is
.S3
 £

C/3
             A
             00
            s
' rt
u

13

-§
                          w.w
                                           *

                                           •S

                                           »o"

                                            2

                                           ^
                                           W
                                           o\
                             n —<
                                           m
                                                 O O
       s
       I
                                           ^
                       S |JB «
                       9>- £ 59 y
                    g3

                 2 <
                 (D
                 a
                a
arcinog

eneral
port An
TAL
       55 U O c^v5 H
•s &•
, w
^1 :
£ cu •
. 3
C •
= S^
w S-c6
o" '—' C-
T^*
II - 6
C/5 ^5a ^"^
.S ^ -a
SS O  O ^
Z, S; o Z


































. ^
CO
.3
.2
"55
Ui
                                                                                           m

                                                                                           _c
                                                                                            o
        W

        |
                                              in

-------
i
U-sf
j o u S
AM
J2UE
III



w til ta w w
pp «p p~ p~ p~
ryi TTI fTi rTi TTI
O o in p- CN



W U} U II] (£)
m en o n
fTl rM fTl fT1 TT1
P- p~ — TJ- o



NO *n t*~ vo
CX) Ul U W
W UJ [13 [x]
oo p~ oo r)-



P*- NO P*- P^ P*-
W fT"j m yj ^T^
O o m p- en
m m cs c>J en
Op Pj- Op Op Op
, U3 UQ [13 t6 [Xi
in in NO in en
                  : -s
                                                                                           CO
                                (S — —
                                                       m
                                                                          oo oo NO
                                                                                   ON
 III
II o u e

11 ^ 9 §
II jo r N 2
1 1 a

s J I
s»«
u g
I 0
1 x
i
ra
Is. I
A 1 3
J2 u "•
55 "™ "^
S 1 1

M ^ ^*
S CA rHt
US0



-*• J*< -^ -rf< ^*^
§ ^ ^ ^ ^
O O O O S









^ 2 ^ si 2
S o o o 5




1^ ^. 1^ ^ 1^
PJ CU ti C£) ti
J en





to -^ vj wp iri
FT^t M [II p^ fT'l
-^ -^ \q c\ m
f^ \o So f^ f^
TT] pi [TJ f^l rT*1

* * ^^ • •




rf^ J< _^ ^J<
2222
o o o o









-------
  1
  f
  I
  "o

 f— I
    c
  &s
 c

 .K
  »*•
s "5 ?•
* 1 1
« w ,£

g or
W
•"".*
• ^-'8
O u B
A 1 1
' / £ U |
^ "co rT
*** S3
j-5 s -e
|l a
i » w
u s
X
JJQ
.CA
V
en
03
- >-. *^^ -^- —
c*^ vo r**1 f"^ c^*
ua 01 'ta ta {£
t^ \O \O O CN
^* ^ m tn t/"







'<•<<<<
22222
. 0 O O O. O








< < < < <
22222
o o o o o




*
s ' o
1 21 1 H
i



TTI rTi fyi rTi p
o o en r— f
en m cs r-j c*"
W- U] [I] [I] Ii
<*» m fn en •<»







< < < < <
22222
o o o o o
• , •


•,




< < « <
22222
o o o o S




2
- 1
^ -1 1
J J s u E-
a J 1 1 g 4
co U Q O S, rr



> rp \o t^- r^- t-
1 U3 (1} [i] PJ (i
> 00 00 VO P~ CT
C^ VO f^ C^- C"*
ta m li a a
00 00 "3- VO C








•<<<:<;•*:
22222
o S o o o








<
22222
o o o o S




2
fj I 1
? | .s « a
• § | ^ E co a
& U Q O Is! rr



• c^* vo r~* c** r^
) .« BJ ffl U -BJ
1 IO V") W^ O t^1
> •* •* en •* vi
rj- \o op oo p-
1 U] U] U [I] W
~ — •* vo cs
r- — i oo o\, *—







.
22222
o o o o o









22222
Q O O 0 O

1


,
« 1
•al ,j .H-
g|| iga
co u <5 o cu -*
                                                                                          B
                                                                                          03
                                       113

-------
                                                                                             •8
                                                                                              OS
                                                                                             • tn


                                                                                              •§
 S*
 ">.
•3
.£
Q

1
•s
 i
P<3-§.

|l ss
 c .s
•""• U-
5
o

i
•—.
o
b
Is w £
v«4 O »"<
S t§ E
s| §
«> S —
i » jl
|W
sl
A g S
"9 r i 2
Se >J J3
^ -, .a
o! § «•
g | t:

§ c«
o i
o
CA
0)
W
•?- U ti
O i. O

A £2 ^^
to " S
i "• ^
sll
" < g
<§








*o ^± ^p \p *o
O O 00 O -^
\O *O VO VO vo
fiS trl frt fjl frS
vo vo o m oo
CM CJ CJ  tn v>
pp p^ W W W
C*^ fO OO C5 *O
cj cj c: cj cj
fTi fTi fT'i FT'I r^

tn en CM cJ en




VO *A) \O VO Vrt
FT1 TT1 M TT1 fT1
n c^i c^ m o
o\ o\ t*- oo *— '
U (i] (i] (i] U
CM C>1 -^ — M
— i ^^ o\ »— i •— i

S1
u
S u
.S S
s * "g
y. e "S 2
4 g U H
c g ^ .S « Q
a 1 2 1 i §'^
u M u a o £.-*

m u u u

ii pa ia B3
o ON r~ oo
vr> ^s- tn ui



^ ^ ^ ^

0 O 0 0









Z Z Z Z
S S S S



i
I1 1

"5 -S .S s Q
c c i g Q
cd Q ^ ^- i
1 3 .2 i ^r
w U Q O Tt

ffl W tt) [i W

TT'I fTt m fyS rT"<
O vo m in oo


•

rff* /1 OO
rp vo t~- r^- c~-
ta ta w ca ca
vn tn »o O o\
•* rr tn TS- ^-



rft* rf< *? *<
& &%:, £tz
0 O O ^ S








^ - . ^ ^
z z z z z
o o S S o



i
q J i
J "S IS
•° S A Q
i o 2 H Z -'
w C 5 O eu ^-"
                                        114

-------
                                                                                                                             00
                                                                                                                             o\
 I
 g.


 I
 .2
 Q
 s
 2

 0
 C
 £ ^
~ fe.
 ce
 ?~ U r;
2 "• .1
A | |
IH 

Stream_Mo_5.
Clllorobenzilate
Dieldrin
Gamma-Chlordi
4,4'-DDT

» B3 CO tL
\O O oo c-
fT) fy'l fr'"] p
>O r~; O O
c4 CQ c**i t*

*

,


< < < <
2222
• S o o o









2222
0 Q O 0



0>
S
* -P
cw ^ S
• 'S ";a
2 S 0 H
^ •£ .S CB Q
II ill
« U Q O **f
                                                                                                                             I
                                                     115

-------
                                                              oo
                                                              Os












"B

****
&0
Er
5
1 '
1
V

§
*-
B •?
2 ^o
•"•* '"5
"t3 &
»3 ^ <*"*"»

y *3 C/3
S -Q o>
U, Q«
<* 1 i
|.SS£
ft. JS
S .H
•= £
*£3 *•"*'

g
O
g
s
u
3
.1

W*
tn
I
J§
0
s


(
5:
o
1
(5
S
§- -• -a

§~ J
•K
«^ ^J ^
•a "3 °
^ g e
o 2 *-•
a "^ "5
§ w «c
CJ S •"
Q C^

w

o
^U
O t- C
A a ^
w r % S
J>S (-> —
W _4 ^
2 g u.
ill
§ w W
U S
U
X.
W




13
6
•?- U e
0^0
A 1 S
J U §
.2 — (2
.^y CB
P. S —•
«- s 2
to £ S
a ^^ o
u i D
u
W



















w oa « w
O <— * *f) f*^
*-4 1— < 06 ^

flj jjj £13 [£]
^~ c*- \o r~*
^ ^ fr^ tri









< < < <

S o o o












Z Z Z Z
o o o o




•
?
w
s
.e
0
i:
1
S 5
'S 35 1
'O £ ^ U H
£ ,0 a fjg Q
8. I II 19
2 £ 3 -a i ^ .
B. a u Q D •*


2
_o
I
w
"a
g

eS
g

.' Cu
O
oo *
II 
CB ^
i s
J3
l"l<5-
C CN rJj

*?!£
^ "f "S
2|!
*S :1 i
S 'g -a
•2 t2 "3
s "3 •»
J? i '^
w °

X #M J*j
g ~ a '
> w U JJ
3} *— !>« ^?
2 1 £1
3 
-------
                                                                                                                oo
                                                                                                                o\
                                                                                                                0\
  S2


 I
  O
  tfi
 5
 §
2.
s
CO
11 "
*—•
i
\
.J
4
J
. 5
(
"
*i


A
G
C
.2
•s
0
*T

2
3
a
H
•i
E











I




^
o o o o o

•









V}
\o
'O TJ-
00 . -.8
t~- '•— • O O C^ ^









0
J §
i c. s :i
3 o jg ^
« ^^ '2 OB &
fe1 x — >3 °
>.^ "3 S < fc
o"'€^ §-.£  »

-------
                                                            a ~
                                                                                                            00
                                                                                                            OS
  oa
  e
 o
 00
 u

 U
 "i-S
 £>
ac
"ra
 ai
<£
I
N
!>
II c
11 ^
i
i
*5
£






22222 .222
I f '
^ s
** oo
£ "
^ IT
* *
(S 
-------
*TJ» ' ' O
S • . so
••o
Q,
a
3
CO
O
U
3
w
03
H
JZ!
E
\^s

W
c3
"1
5
S
1
.c
U
Q
3
I*
•o ^
a> ^3
^"* ^
OQ S
' *£ ^n*
§
c.
""^
•;S

(U
ac
' CQ
c.
b«
X
"ff?
'•s
o
Q
O.
o
I
S
GO


, ...1
: vfl

>r
.u
i*
a
c.
it!
"2
c
c
•1
•:ft
'•K-t,
••*5
"c


"9
O
A
• V.
£
tw
1
S
IS
1
>-N
S
o
f2





















- 1 22 2 g | 23
^ ^ o . ...'..•


WWW , ' W
oo •<*• r~ • •.. M
— < ^ m \o"
222 ' • 2
Svo NO vo
w ti d
r*- ^Z^- ^x N^ co ^3x
NO ^ ^ SO O iO
' r* ir> — ^ — • r:- • , cn-^-ooen
'. -••• '
"





4 •






'-^ *-*.
6 6 •
& Z
i ^ c « | i c «
J||-J« ®:/^ii'i's'
2r Q 1) U. C r1! S —
S3i3eow£,3W u in eg O p, ^t O
II
S
e

J3
1
t. .
0 ^
.S |
•° s
•I*
L-. ,' ^.^
' S "9
2 ti
•a ^
C v= '
05 0 .
§§3^
« 13 w
ii 8 c.-
m
S w
•3 'C -g
cS ^ «
Ct-1 D o
° 1 «
g-s s
. •§ g c '
c >
. S «
•^ co e
•s-S 1
I, w 3
II « <»
CB 00 C
C O — « jj
fc -S -o 2
sis
<*s .3 •—
Total number of
presents results
contributors incl
NA = Not App
~ W '
O

































'




_w
E
"f
^
Version 5. 1 Loa


                                                               a
                                                               =3
                                                              S
                                                              I
                                                              o
                                                              •a
                                                              M
                                                              cx

                                                              °,


                                                              o
119

-------
                                                                                                  n

                                                                                                  "o
I
A
C
C
c
1
•8
•e
1
trt
4
1
B
if
C
A
8
c
1
*S
g
£
KG
1
.«
•s
IE















o
o o o o o








in"
\o
O rf}
i =•-.
5; * o\ •<£
en •— o O en ~*

6
Z,
S %
•2 e S2 "i
•3 .§ ^ 1
>.;! •£ g •§ <£
_ Z « <£ I1 c -R
*j ^""^ C ^^ -5 S fl5
a s s £ < .« e
U CO G. O CO CO







o
o o o o o








S1
2
VO _^ Cvl
S * \o "^
— — o o — en

o
-S
S (§ g
i '1 j ^ "I
l^tf ill
*Q Z w CU °0 '^ ^
^ ^*^ *c ^^ 5 S3 S\
(U 00 CU O CO CO
                                                           g
                                                            8,
                                                            o
                                                            o 
-------
 o
 •a
 5-
5

"I
5
 o
'
u .1
w s
 S
 c
 I
a
is
 c
 o
ON
*O
'&•
 I
 S
 3

                                                                                    00
                                                                                    o\
    » is
     V
                                                        •s.
   *

                                                        ~' 1J O
                                                        $£ i
                                                        J= -9 o
                                                        S w 8
                           jo
                           1
                                                                                   o
                                                                                   o
                                                                                   s
         §
         "53
                                                                                    -
                                                                                   r-
                                                                                   i
                                   121

-------
                                                                          oe
                                                                          £7\
                                                                          Ov
g
If
1
S
E
a
0
S
0
•cu
1
cs
•a
o

j
i
O
g>
CQ
L
CJ >
tu §
H -3
11
Is
3 "2
w §
g C/3
& jj
it
S GO
es ^^
-~3
|

Jj
£
Nw*
1
1
o
^^
cs1
1
3
00
^

IB

f~*





	
o ^
o ON
3 ON
"3 •""
^ §£.
13 c/>
1/3 •?•*

Sx ^gjj
a *™
i— • >*<






o ^"
S ON
> **

"3 o
en J5
CQ £

OO
J „
E Jo1
1


bO
c *-5
O u
oo W ^
III
£j cs t^y
(X) is r)
|ll
3 ~
52 'i







C3
ts
Q








-- -
o
o
S"
1


^«J
?f
&^




C3
CT>
O
o"
ee
i
o
o
o"
ON


vo

















tS
00
o
CL.
a
oo






o
o
o
S
1
o
0

*>
•o
r^



ro
f».

o"

"™

0
o
o
c\"
S


f-
ro
*\
oo







rn








y
g
i—4
"S
1

ra
ljirt





















""t^
*j
cs
5
•o
o
o
CN
r
[jj
H
o
2





















*j
1
0
O
•«_»
^Z
II
00
c
IS
1
<*—>
a
"E
CS
1

O
S
cs
>
CO
cs
2
0
^




                                                                           o
                                                                           a
"^3
•1^"

« ^
£H O\
O OS

*s^
(U
k>
o
&o
•2 .S
c -o
S § -o
1 i 1
Number of Stre
with Concentrati
AWQCEl

os
03
Q


o
0
o_

&
.

o
o
0)
f-T
CN








u
oo
"E,
CS
oo
o
0
^^
«HH
oo
CN
vry
1
o
o
""1.
oo"







~S
J3
"3
_O

cs
                                      c
                                     _o
                                     '^^
                                      C3
                                      U
                                     CM
                                      O
                                      S3


                                     1
                                      O
                                      ta
                                      cs
                                     TJ
                                      U
                                     J
                                      CS
                                      u
                                      I
                                      o
                                      UJ

                                      O
122

-------
  O

  cf
 •s
  CO
 5 •
  C3
  U
  U

 U
 H
 •*-*
 g

'1  '  •
 U
 U-l
 H ^
 c2.^

 ci5
 11
 CQ -2
 'x^ «
 S^
 SI"
 O C3
 z -s
 •a co
 § Ji

 1|
 •S$E
 C3
 U
 i
 ra
 u

 1
 O
 u
 ULJ
 *3
 b
 .C
 oo

 cc
 •5 "~
^C? o
O 1
11
O 0
£3 *™

':-•. ':
• ^5 ^3
' CS
'I!
O CO
S •£
IBM W
T3 t
CO A
CO V
•CQ E


60

l.R
I1
O

00
I'
Q T3
>< *£2
*^"* ; 2
CO -5
|,J
±5 0
o O1
c ^
^
*'

to
Q

o
0
^
00
00
1
0
o
OO"
^f
tN
O
rr^
fS
oo
s
1
3
f"vj

s
s.



>n"








fS







"5
oo
"5.
C3
oo




o
o
c
CO
r*1
V
i
O
O
o
•<*
0\

0
c
^s
o^
t
.K
c
*"•
oo
••a;
£



VO
"*







es






fl_a
£
d
re
**•
C3
Z


















.
i^**-

x !« .
1
cs
m
t~-
c
(S
'fc
•*— »
", ' ra
'^,.
t^
l^'
C7\
CN
II
oo
CO
1
:' ' ' a
§
CJ
>>
•§
n
o
CO
&
O.
*&
1)
_3
.^ -'
tii
H
o.
<-y

























4^
c
a.
!2
r^
0
*^
•-^
II
.S
CO
IS
tf
S
c
c
"S
o
CM
O
u
"ra
o
CO
C3
2
U



                                                           I
                                                              o\
                                                              o\
                                                            a
                                                            I
                                                            ao
                                                         -2 .S
 » •
''e -«> -S
• I. •§ ;l
                                                        CO £
                                                              ?
                                                           5
                                                           a
                                                                   o
                                                                   o
          CN

          &%
                                                                       vq^
                                                                       tN
                                                                       O
          o
          oo
          JO
          o.

          C3
          oo
                                                                       2
                                                                      .3
                                                                                1

                                                                                "ra
                                                                                e
                                                                                §
                                                                                .8
                                                                                o
                                                                                a
                                                                               •S
C3

O
CO


O
                                            123,

-------
|j
 X
o


                                                                                 i
                                                                                 o
                                    124

-------
 E
 3

£

 2
 o
o.

•a
 c
 (0

15



 v


9


 I
 V
 u

 o
 u

 •s

 J2


 I

 "5
 a.
T5


(0
I
a
.5
       I

       c

       Q


       o|



       ll
       *l
        c
        o
        =
      5

      to
      •&%&
      •xt
       E
       ca
       Z
                         f
                         ^—
                         s*
                   S
                                filll
                                              33
                                                  li
                                                  .S^
                                             u>
                                             0
                                             o

                                             O

                                                  ll
                                                           CO

                                                           5
                                                           0)

                                                           I

                                                          i s

                                                          i"S
                                                          ^y^
                                                          s^l
                                                         S ra 5
                                                         w .^ >
                                                         QJ g _O

                                                           ro c
                                                           "c .2

                                                         „ O ra

                                                        ! i I ^
                                                        ; .s g a
                                                        i E -§ o

                                                        : S g ^

                                                        L§5f
                                                        JO £• =
                                                        . e w c


                                                        ; I = 1 •
                                                         .i Si
                                                             u

                                                            it,
                                                       5\S
                                            ,125
                                                                                           <
                                                                                           o

-------
                      Table 50. Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects* (Barge-Chemical and Petroleum)



3
4

6

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

23
24
25
25
27
23
29
30
31
32
33


67641
107131
120127
65850
7440417
92524
117817
7440439
67663
7440473
75990
117840
100414
I 86737]
16984488
18540299
7439921
7439SE5
7439976

Acetone
Aery ton rtrile
Anthracene
Benzotc Acid
Beryllium
Biphenyl
Bu(2-«thylhexyl) Phthalate
Cadmium
Chtoroform
Chromium
Reference Dose Tarqet Organ and Effects

Increased liver and kidney weights and nephrotoxicity
Decreased sperm counts (Under review)
No adverse effects observed"
No adverse effects observed"
No adverse effects observed"
Kidney damage
Increased relative liver weight
Significant proteinuria
patty cyst formation in liver
No adverse effects observed"
Dalapon {Increased kidney body weight ratio
Oi-N-Octyl Phthalate . • [Increased liver and kidney weight (Under review) '
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Fluoride
Liver and kidney toxicrty
Decreased etythrocyte counts
Objectionable dental fluorosis
Haxavalent Chromium !NO adverse effects observed"
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
78933 (Methyl Ethyl Ketone
108101 i
75092
74399871
108383
91203 1
7440020
1367776121
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
Molybdenum
Cardiovascular and CNS effects
CNS effects
CNS effects
Decreased fetal birth weight
Increased liver and kidney weight, lethargy (Under review)
Liver toxicrty
Increased uric acid
m-Xylene JHyperacthrity. decreased weiaht
Naphthalene
Nickel
-ye damage, decreased body weight
decreased body and organ weights
o+p Xytene" iHyperactivity, decreased body weight, increased mortality
108952 IPhend (Reduced fetal body weight in rats
129000 IPyrene iKidney effects (renal tubular patholoov. decreased kidney weights)
1004251
108883
Styrene
Toluene
Red blood cell and liver effects
Changes in liver and kidney weights
7440666 IZrnc iAnemia
     Reference dose based on no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL).
EFECTS50.WK4
                                                                 126
                                                                                                                              03/13/98

-------
     Table 57.  Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and Target Organs
                                    (Barge-Chemical and Petroleum)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Cas Number
107131
71432
7440417
117817
' 7440439
67663
18540299
7439921
75092
85018
Carcinogen
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Beryllium
Bis(2-ethylhexy!) Phthalate
Cadmium
Chloroform
Hexavalent Chromium
Lead
Methylene Chloride
Phenanthrene*
Weight-of-Evidence
Classification
B1
; A
B2
B2
B1
B2
'A
B2 .
B2
D
Target Organs
Lung
Blood
Lung, bone
Liver •
Lung, trachea, bronchus
Kidney, liver
Lung
Kidney, stomach, lung ,
Liver, lung
Skin, lungs, and epithelial tissue
  A- Human Carcinogen
 B1- Probable Human Carcinogen (limited human data)
 B2- Probable Human Carcinogen (animal data only)
  C- Possible Human Carcinogen
  D- Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity
   * Evaluated as a carcinogen based on EPA ambient water quality criteria for human health cancer risk
  .  for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as a class
EFECTS51.WK4
127
03/13/98

-------
S?

J

 Q)


1
cc
      F

      I,
     -'»

     UUJ
     S
       iP
I
•s

t
"x
o
I

*  !&H~
1  !!&•§,
           «»
           ^E

•g
a.

S

     ^
     e&
     «1
     §•
        e»
        c»
             «•!«•
                                 .  .
                                rVrrr^-Tr

-------
 E
 v

 O

 're
 DC
 o
 U
 O
a.
_

1
•a
n
I
a
fl • • '
irx -' x x *
C ' s ' ,J, T '
15 '.
•c , '
a
T5 ' •
Q>
x-g ,
.H.g X X X X XXXXX XXXXXXX
"w
«
"H
cno
g£ XXX X
•giu
10
C
0
lililflllilllissTsifiiii
•g 5 K 3 3 5 3 3 0? 3 K 3 S. 3 5 3 K 5 tt 3 3
_ • , a, a,
I . II
S& ffi^co oj^S
-S-=J=-=-=S 2 2.= g 2j=J:£ji2S ij: i.c.c.c
= g1 .21 .S'.S'I.S' .ra 01 a> .g> § o .91 .21 si S o, |o S 3\ 3 ira .01 c
3 S S '
a o o
5
J& c «,«J=SCC '§ S ^
So 3 SS 5s5 = "Wra "'SS
£• ,~ '•=—'—' 0 ^^
- ^. Z
a
.£, «c « cfflcolCffl'^^aiSfflCC

|e 	 •§-_ ' * 	 .-„_
*T. S .Sl.S".™ .9" S1 .3=  -S1 S .51 .S1 .S> 5 01 o) ra m rai fe •§ "ra
= lXIX:l:w55E5555Xx]xx-gS55gxgE55w
|0 2 2 2
^.^Ss^^s^i E ° * g "" °?S3X J2J2 E2222iSc c
' 1
, XX X

5 S 5





XXX X


IlililllislissIsI-issSs^
^BB§§^B^^cn^u''"§a> ""-c"" gwj
^l^l^^^lE^lE^jr^l | | £ f j= | \
3 3 3 2 .i||W2 |5
22 Z

: S g S £ c
i|f|iijl|i|li|liillllilj


l|llllillazslllls|||s|i

fslflff|gjff||§ls°|f °ff


S


lllllllffl .m 1 1 1
g^gSg-olra S — IgfflS E^= " *>
xxooi^iS^g-.Sacjg'E. -g§ ^as^Eg
cccccci::ZZoQ.a.a.a.a. Q.IQ. ol cL n. w M
?!J?§g5SSSSS!SSS§5SSSSSSSSSSRRffJ2SR:SRi5g SSS S
                                                     129

-------
*-  cy fo  *«•
                                                                                                                                                                      o

-------
                            Table 53. Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects* (Rail-Chemical)


2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
m
15
16
1/
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
4b
47
48
49
bO
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
ba
60
61
62


94757
94826
93765
93721
50293
30560191
15972608
5103719
120127
1912249
7440393
1861401
65850
1689992
2425061
133062
510156
7440473
1861321
75990
1918009
60571
88857
78342
959988
1031078
72208
7421934
53494705
100414
206440


2,4-D
2,4-DB (Butoxon)
2,4,5-T '
2,4,5-TP
4,4-DDT . ,
Acephate
Alachlor
alphs-Chlordane
Anthracene
Atrazine
Barium
Benefiuralin .
Benzole Acid
Bromoxynil Octanoate
Captafol
Captan
Chlorobenzilate
Chromium
Oacthal (DCPA)
Dalapon
Dicamba
Oieldrin
Dinoseb
Oioxathion
Endosulfan I
Endosutfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
16984488 iFluoride
. 58899
5103742
1024573
33820530
94746
gamma-BHC '
gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor Epoxide
Isopropalin
MCPA
7085190 iMCPP
72435
21087649
Methoxychlor
Metribuzih
2385855 IMirex
108383 1 m-Xylene
91203 (Naphthalene
1 36777612 io+p Xylene*
106445 ip-Cresol
40487421 Pendamethalin
82688 iPentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
108952
1918021
1918167
139402
Phenol
Pidoram •
Propachlor
Propazine
129000 iPyrene
122349 ISimazine
100425
5902512
22248799
95807
43121433
52686
1582098
7440666
Styrene >
Terbacil
Tetrachlorvinphos
- Reference Dome Target Organ and Effects
Decreased fetal birth weight
Hematologic. hepatic, and renal toxicity
Internal hemorrhage, mortality
Increased unnary caproporphyrins. reduced neonatal survival
Histopathological changes in liver
Liver lesions
Inhibition of brain ChE
Hemosiderosis. hemolytic anemia
Hypertrophy of liver
No adverse effects observed"
Decreased weight gain, cardiac toxicity. and moderate to severe dilation of right atrium
Increased blood pressure
Depressed erythrocyte counts
No adverse effects observed". • - - -.
No adverse effects observed"
Kidney and bladder toxicity
Decreased mean body weights
Decreased stool quantity, food consumption and body weight
^lo adverse effects observed"
effects on lungs, liver, kidney, and thyroid
ncreased kidney body weight ratio
Maternal and fetal toxicity
.iver lesions
Decreased fetal weight
Inhibition of cholinesterase
Glomenilonephrosis (kidney) aneurysms (blood vessel)
Glomerulonephrosis (kidney) aneurysms (blood vessel)
Mild histotogical lesions in liver, occasional convulsions
Mild histological lesions in liver, occasional convulsions (Endrin)
Md histological lesions in liver, occasional convulsions (Endrin)
.iver and kidney toxicity
vlephropathy. increased liver weights, hematologicai alterations, and clinical effects
Objectionable dental fiuorosis
Liver and kidney toxicity
Hypertrophy of liver
Increased liver-to-body weight ratio in both males and females
Reduced hemoglobin concentration, lowered hematocrits, and altered organ weights
Kidney and liver toxicity
Increased absolute and relative kidney weights
Excessive loss of litters
Liver and kidney effects, decreased body weight mortality . •
Liver cytomegaly. fatty metamorphosis, angiectasis; thyroid cystic follicles ,
rlyperactivity. decreased weight
=ye damage, decreased body weight
Hyperacthrity. decreased body weight, increased mortality
Hypoactivity, distress, maternal death
ncrease in serum alkaline phosphatase and liver weight and hepatic lesions
.iver toxicity
Deduced fetal body weight in rats -
ncreased liver weights
Decreased weight gain, food consumption: increased relative liver weights
Decrease in body weight

• 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 (NOAEL). , • "
EFECTS53.WK4
                                                               131
                                                                                                                          03/13/98

-------
     Table 54.  Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and Target Organs
                                             (Rail-Chemical)

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
Cas Number
72548
72559
' 50293
30560191
15972608
319846
5103719
1912249
319857
2425061
133062
86748
510156
2303164
115322
60571
58899
5103742
1024573
2385855
106445
82688
85018
122349
22248799
95807
1582098
512561
Carcinogen
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Acephate
Alachlor
alpha-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
Atrazine
beta-BHC
Captafol
Captan
Carbazole
Chlorobenzilate
Diallate
Dicofol
Dieldrin
gamma-BHC
gamma-Chlordane
Heptachlor Epoxide
Wirex
p-Cfesol
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Phenanthrene*
Simazine
Tetrachlorvinphos
Toluene, 2,4-Diamino-
Trifluralin
Trimethylphosphate
Weight-of-Evidence
Classification
B2
B2
B2
C
B2"
B2
B2
C
C s
C"
B2**
B2
B2
B2
C**
B2
B2-C
B2
B2
B2**
C
C"
D
C
C
B2
C
B2
Target Organs
Lung, liver, thyroid
Liver, thyroid
Liver
Liver
Lung, thorax
Liver
Liver
Mammary
Liver
Lymphatic System
Gastrointestinal
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Bladder
Liver
Skin, lungs, and epithelial tissue
Mammary
Liver
Mammary
Urinary tract, thyroid
Uterus
  A- Human Carcinogen
 B1- Probable Human Carcinogen (limited human data)
 B2- Probable Human Carcinogen (animal data only)
  C- Possible Human Carcinogen
  D- Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity
   * Evaluated as a carcinogen based on EPA ambient water quality criteria for human health cancer risk
     for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as a class
  ** Under review                                                 .
EFECTS54.WK4
132
03/13/98

-------
 cu

 u

 o
o

 o
a.
•a


n
i
o
a.

10
10
!
£
z
c
Drinking Water
Value
1-
am
I4
w
Carcinogenic
Effect
e
n
01
-S
o
m
Bloaccumulation
Category
o
era
CDO
E e
"I
= 0
CO 0)
o n
>0
h
o S°
1°
CAS Number
Chemical Name
X
«




1
O

§
CO
CD
CO

en
X

S
CO
CD
m
1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane
X
5




7.

£
^
CO

c

.S1
CO
o
tn
tn
en
2

1
s
3
m
CM
X





a
a
I

1 Moderate
o
S3
o
£
i

»
CO
00
m
tn
o>
2-Ch!oropheno1






c
c

c
X
5
X
D
i
D
"n
•n
E
i
CM
C
i>
5
5
g
?
i
5
2
CM







2
£
CO
I
3
Q>
6
3
D
D
B
3
3
0
5
CM






a
u_

1 Nonbioaccumulative
—
CO
3
1

s
CO
s
3
2-Propanone (Acetone)

s




CO 1

S ^
to
u
•o ^
£ •
5 i
coo
D c
« S
5 J

is
CO f
n e
Hi
9 1
r ^
CM" c\








Moderate
i ra
5 co
;i
i
D
: to
Jo
) 0
in
e
s
-
'
tn
" CM

2




1
CO

Moderate
5
CO
s
en
§
5
0
ffi
!
M
S
tn
CM"






^}
CO

Nonbioaccumulative
fri
CO
3
n
w

S
CO
}
0
|4-Methy!-2-Pcntanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone)
x



x

n
tn

.c
X

X
3
CO
•§
i

"a

o
M
O
tn
D






1

Unknown •
i
5
s
i

3
CO
1
3
O
3
i
5
3
'I

=




1

Moderate
i
£
t
S
S
CD

5
7429905
3
i
5






c
c:

. Moderate
£
3
£
i
5

«
•
0
M
3
|




>

1)
— J M
Moderate
CD C
coc7
S.
"to f
o c
5



gp
S3
CO N
J
li
x
i


<

3 g
J a
3 T3
D O
£ ^
II
X CD
555

?S
• CO

s .s
) CO
1 O
u>
CO
• CD
BenzoicAcid






1
"
Nonbtoaccumulalive
a
5
TD
E

S>
CO
-s
01
CO
3
5
O
3
3
i
?
5
m
X



X 3

55-

£ J
S !
0 •
E ;
s :
5 j
en c


II
» a
03 (t

o "c
3 a
n t*
o *-
beta-BHC
Rifif9-ethvthflYvh Phthfllntn
X
>5
•£ .




J 3
sl
Z 13
Unknown
33 c

li
II
• Z)
> 1
c
*c
3
BOD 5-Day (Carbonaceous)






1

C
|
^
5
e
c
5
c


7440428
5
;






1
""
Unknown
|
5
e
i
c
^
5
M
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)




x

§.

JZ
.c
X
S
*
i
i
3

*
§
in
Chlorobenzilate
x
s


x

1

Nonbioaccumulative
s,
CO

"S

3
CO
CO
o
3
S
Chloroform
X
s




C
C
^

i
°
£
r>
c
"
£

0
c/;
|
r
5
S
X
=




1 j
- c
JJ
Moderate
I s
i X
5
. 0
: Tn
jo
) ^

I CO

) ^f
> CM
r^
in
u>
3
i
JS
L t
L 3
O
CJ

1


X

111
C C C
_,_,_,
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
High
£ S x:
5555 =
c
O CO c

oy cas .ra
co eo x
o wr co
3) CD f*-
n co r^
Dalapon
Diallate
Dichlofenthion
XX XX
. S


X

"c £ S S
co co > co > > 3
|j ffi £ ffi o 0 |
IT 5 5 3
-c j= £ S "£ "S j:
3> .C? ffi CD 03 OJ .£
5555
^ .1
o a ^ S B "5 g
ffl £ a> S S ffi c
•S -D = -S -S -o 5
||"1|I5

« S S S S S i
co co co 55 5 x |
3
a  o: z> 13
± 5 "« ^ -.
lj||i
= 5
c o c
i!lN
ilElx
=> 5 =>
i- 1 =
'* i « i 1
•111!

i en a a a
co X X X
eo o> CM m
co a> IT o
•^ co t^ en
-V CO CO O>
eo in o o
o> ^— to
> m i—
•«- CM
Fluoride
gamma-BHC
gamma-Chlordane
Leptophos
                                                                                                            i.
                                                                                                           CO

                                                                                                           cn
                                                                                                           s
                                                                                                           O
                                                    133

-------








fS
0
1
1
fc.
H
o
o
!
Q.
ll

I
•gsi

1
fl
g
o
f!
S
I
5
e
3
ft
II
o

"5
o.
•s
3?
u
£
R
Sidtmint
ptlon Call
|

s


x




X
1








1




""



Unknown
Slghl


Z)

•a i i
i *JE
a>
S
•8

^
S
ja
»-













if
>u

£
"x £l
3"
<
£
|
z
CO
.u




Jt
£
*•
"?
O
1


p
|



i
CO

*
J



i

uitto












0)
i
i
ra
s











l




X






— >

«
"m
i
r
z

•1
z
„
1
g



i

§
s
r-










2
X
E


X






Unknown



1


.c
X


1



1

o




X






Unknown



1


Moderate

c
1



to

S
SjS
r^










J











2!
X
S


X


X



Moderate

§
(S
|
1
z.

I


i



1
to

S
S











Melhylene Chloride

S


X






Moderate



1


"n


i



j=
CB
O

S
CD
D











O
i
x



x






Moderate




e
CO


i
CO

°,
D



1
to

o
n











Naphthalene











Unknown




s
X


a
x

e
i
c
13



1

00
s











n-Decane











c
cz




S
X


1
1
z
=
i
c



=
w


S
-4
to








1











Unknown




s
x


i

c
i
z5



I

o
?i









i

D

n-Dodecane











c
Z>




S
X


5
x

e
|
5



1

5
2











n-Eicosane











Unknown



c
c
Z)


Unknown

c
g
z5



o


D











n-Hexacosane











1




s
x


1

c
i
c



i

(O
in











i
f











CO




ffl
X


Moderate


3
to


o
5
S
i

in
to
P3
ta











Nilrofen











c




5
X


X

c
|



.3
CO

in
s
U)











n-Octadecane











c
c
r)




i


CO
X

p
|
r>



j=
ra
o


to











n-Tetracosane











Unknown




x


-C
CD
X

c
i



a
o

s
en
CM
CO











n-Tetradecane











c
c
c
3



c
c
o


Unknown

c
1
Z)



1
o

CD
CD
eo
CO











n-Tn'acontane




x


X



T5
CO
u.




9
to


£


i
to



CO
O

CO
if>
Ol











o-Cresol

s


x






Moderate




1


c
ta
to


i



^=
?
o


i

*-









o+p Xylene




x


x



ta
u.




B
CO


2


c



1
o

"
0











3











Unknown




s
X


Moderate


i



•s
«


g











P-Cymene




x


x



Resistant




5>
X


.c
O)
X

«!
2
o
S


?i
n
ID
g

CO
D







m
0.,
fi
«i
Penlachloronitroben

s


x






Unknown

u
>
n
nbioaccumu
o
•z.

S

«
•Jonvola



D3
I

M
03
cn











Picloram

S


X


X



CO

CD
>
ro
nbioaccumu
o

ex
T)

S.
\lonvola



nt
X

O)
>j











Simazine

E


X






0
CQ



i
to


C
n>


03




S
o

N
g











D
5
>•
to











Unknown



Moderate


£

_eo
o
1
?



f
9
in




Unknown

c
1
c
Z)


p
c
5

S
o
^










Titanium
x
s


X






Moderate



1,
CO


c
9
to


•s
X



£
9

X

a
n











Total Cyanide











c
I



Unknown


c
c
JC
c

c
c


c
c
13




D
O





5*
f.

Total Organic Carbo







•



Unknown



c
c
z>


Unknown

c
c


c
z5




s
o



D_
»
•p

p
•o
X
E
I
5
a
2
o











c
15



J


Unknown

c
1C
c
13


C
1
B




S
o




s
(5
C
_J.
Total Recoverable 0











c
c



Unknown


Unknown

c
5


c
1




D
O






w
~O
Total Suspended So
x
S





X



Resistant



n


if


x



a>

o
5











Trichloroethene
X
s


X






Unknown



?
S


c
c
c
Z>

c
c


«*
2
CO
•o
o

o
s
N-










U




*















I
i
CO
£
3
II
"i
•? S
f 0

-w«
111
111
S f 1
I f -I
i O a
| 1 II
s -s 3 j=

2 <3 e-r
• - Values for p-Xyler
Note: M = Maximum
SM = Seconda
TT = Treatmen

                                                      f-'
134
                                                      CO
                                                      o

-------
                                   Table 56. Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects* (Truck-Chemical)


                95501
                      1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
                                                                  No adverse effects observed**
                                                                  Decreased
                                                                                birth weight
                                                                                          '
                                                                  Reproductive effects
                                                                  Increased liver and kidney weights and nephrotoxicity
                                                                      atologie. hapatie and renal toxicity
                                                                   istopathological changes in liver
                                                                                       ive and absolute weight in liver and kidney
                                                                                                          "
                                                                   NS effects, inhibition of cholinesterase. respiratory system
                                                                                                            "
                                                                   o adverse effects observed*
                                                                           relative liver weight
                                                                 Testicular atrophy, spermatogenic arrest
                                                                    eased kidney body weight ratio
                                                                  rccreased liver and kidney weight (under review)
                                                                                 eight
                                                                  lomerulonephrosis (kidney), aneurysms (blood
                                                                  tomerulonephrosis (kidney), aneurysms (blood vessel)
                                                                  eurotoxicrty
                                                                  idney and liver toxicity
                                                                  icreased absolute and re alive kidney weights
                                                                                '      "                   '
                                                                  itaxia, delayed neurotoxieity, and wei
                                                                                      '
                                                                  iver toxicty
                                                                     ractivity. decreased weight
                                                                  ye damage, decreased body weight

                                                                  yperaetivity, decreased body weight increased mortality
                                                                   poactivity. distre
                                                                               ~
                               ath
                                                                  ver toxicity
                                                                  creased liver weights
                                                                  educfion in weight gains, hematological changes in females
                                                                  epatotoxicrty in mice, weight gain in
                                                                  creased liver and kidney weights
                                                                   ney and liver lesions
                                                                 hanges in liver and kidney weights
Weight toss, thyroid effects, and myeline degener
 jiemii
                                                                                                            tion
          meals with EPA verified or provisional human health-based reference doses, referred to as "systemic toxicants."
      Reference dose based on no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL).
EFECTS56.WK4
                                                                               135
                                                                                                                                                       03/13/98

-------
     Table 57. Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and Target Organs
                                           (Truck-Chemical)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
18
19
Gas Number
1 07062
50293
71432
319857
117817
510156
67663
2303164
60571
58899
5103742
75092
95487
106445
82688
122349
Carcinogen
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
4,4-DDT
Benzene
beta-BHC
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroform
Diallate
Dieldrin
gamma-BHC
gamma-Chlordane
Methylene Chloride
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Simazine
1271 84 |Tetrachloroethene
22248799 (Tetrachlorvinphos
79016 ITrichloroethene
Weight-of-Evidence
Classification
B2
B2
A
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2-C
B2
B2
C
C
• c*
C
B2*
C
B2*
Target Organs
Circulatory system
Liver
Blood
Liver
Liver
Liver
Kidney, liver
Liver
Liver
. Liver
Liver
Liver, lung
Skin
Bladder
Liver
Mammary
Liver
Liver
Liver
  A- Human Carcinogen
 B1- Probable Human Carcinogen (limited human data)
 B2- Probable Human Carcinogen (animal data only)
  C- Possible Human Carcinogen
  D- Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity
   * Under Review
EFECTS57.WK4
136
                                            03/13/98

-------
  CS
 •«^

 1/1



  O

 •o
  w
 •o


  C3
 I
 •o
 o

,

-2?
 es

•s
 en


1
cc
tn


W
1
?


•l-r

"1
z

en
a!
•1
,S .
'•£
^

POTW
NPDES i
.2 -.
W»
.*•*
4>
as




>,
.C


i
, u
1
3
. CO



U
a

US
'I
U.



j
"o
J2
U
z
1
1
5-N

fi
8
0

C5
o

*
J3
1
1
T
^*

$ 
c
<
o

^_l
o
*i
i
i
t
(
(
«i
IL0065145
t
a

"4
&
«
CO



a

c^
1
-C
U
u
P
H


1

"C
03
U
1

o
t£





1
s

NO
S
1

o
8
J!
2
CA
1.
VA0063177
^3
a.
11
i?
•a £
C <3
11
«C tfl
O C
2£


•o
j

a:
"S
1

9
u
P
H.


1s
to

"S
S
o
c5

f"





•
o

o
2
<
o
o

<
c
<
t
1 T;
1
j
a
c
a.
i
e

JS
O
«
u
o
0
s
1H
O
w
c-
O]
> u
I

u
o
a
£


ervice
CO

t§
"8

c
3






i

r-
t
c
fsl
o
00
c
c
kl
I
c
'(/
(
I
VA0024970
1
t-

J
c
-J


u
~c

-J
8
E

U
rs
rt

O
?
V-
C3
O

"5
as
1
c

CQ
                                                                                                                                "i
o\
Ov

 >.
 4




1

"8

I
                                                             o


                                                             I


                                                             .3
                                                             "S.


                                                             I

                                                                  o
                                                                  n-

-------
   I
   oT

   8
   z
   i
2*
*S
•5-1
                    I
ll
                                .sf
                                '£•
                                3 fi

                                 K.
                                      O o.
                                      Si
                                                      8
                                                             •a   Ul

                                                              £.  S
                                                              = m A
                                               U-i — »^

                                               4   =
                                               S   3
                                                                        a,


                                                                        I
i
                                                                     1
                                                                        •
                                                                 L
                                                                                     •S
S


S
                             S
                                    a
                             I

                             1
                                                                        .a
I
                                                                  .S
                                                                  K
                                                                                     i
    I
I
                                             138
                                                                            .§
                                                                            9
                                                                  E


                                                                  ^
                                                                                          'O
                                                                                          •^r

                                                                                          2
                                                                                           §

-------



-a

1
i

'„
Js
g
1
• i£
i



cu






•g
U.










u



nes River



>

|

o



oo
2




•s
1


1
1
i-




o
S





1



J3

»
•f
.
a
U







m



Miami River
1


o

S0002005

O
o

oo
O*
i
r


^*

ts
.S
•o


.§
|
U
H




1





8






1










ffl



Miami River
|


g

10002005

O



OO
oo
Ov
2




•















0.




-c
1
1
^:
U








I
<3
iJ


1
1


§

|

O



1




J
I


.1
u
I




1





1






1










1
§



2
I


=3

1

e*-
o •



anuaiy 199




•5


,8
u
f-




I





o*
§






1










t)
"H.
1



ear Kansas City,
and Springfield
c .E
£55

1

1
O

o



i




•5


1
1
I




o





1
,
5
w
u
£
|
'•1-1
I?
5
^u
' 1
u
o




"i
.2
QJ



ssippi River
1


,4

I
O

O


oo
00
I




•3


1
1
£




oo















>, '





1
=
.=
1
1
•S- 'S

•s . s
*-• ' £
1 1
i • • $
5 ***
§ |
M> - «
1 •*
C ' • J
S f
•>-• U
§ "S
S) *>
' a. 5

0? g
u C
1,1
S j=. ^ •
^ .2 E
CJ d Jn
- « g
>-tJ Ji
— c E
.2 3 o
g lie |

~ S.'o .2 "g
u •** 
-------

-------
                                   5. REFERENCES
Fisher, A; L, Chestnut; and D. Violette. 1989. "The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on
New Evidence." Journalof Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 8, No.. 1.

Fisher, A; R. Raucher, 1984.  "Intrinsic Benefits  of Improved Water Quality; Conceptual and
Empirical Perspectives." Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, Vol. 3.

Howard, P.H. Editor. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradation 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.
                                         R-l

-------
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1995. Statistical Abstract ofthe United States: 1995. Washington, DC:
U.S. Bureau of the Census.

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 440/1-2/303.                               ,

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.
                           ,i              '• "•''",]'        '         •   '
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS),
Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A).  Washington, DC:  U.S. EPA, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002. Available from NTIS, 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. 199 la.  Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA/505/2-90-001.  Available
from NTIS, Springfield, VA.  PB91-127415.
                             i        ,                       i              •

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.
                                        R-2

-------
 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.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992b. Needs Survey: Washington, DC:  U.S. EPA, Office
 of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1993a. OSAR. Duluth, MN: U.S. EPA, Environmental
 Research Laboratory.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1993b.   Environmental Assessment of the Pesticide
 Manufacturing Industry. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.

 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. Superjund Chemical Data Matrix.  Washington,
 DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste.                 ,

 U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1994b.  1994  Detailed  Questionnaire for  the
 Transportation Equipment  Cleaning Industry.  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.  Environmental Assessment  of the Proposed
Effluent Guidelines for the Metal Products  and Machinery Industry (Phase I). Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA, Office of Water.                             ,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995c. Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent
Guidelines for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.  Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of
Water.  EPA 821-R-95-003.                            :

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1995d. Standards for the Vse and Disposal of Sewage
Sludge:  Final Rules.  40 CFR Part 257 et seq. Washington, DC: Federal Register.  October
1995.
                                        R-3

-------
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995e.  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. 1995f.  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.

 U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1996c. Federal Reporting Data  System (FRDS).
 Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
                                                                   )
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997.  TEC Pollutant Loading Files.  Washington, DC:
 U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division.

 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991;  National Survey  of Fishing,
 Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation.

 Versar, Inc. 1992.  Upgrade of Flow  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.

 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.
NOTE:      Many of these references are available hi the public  docket for the Effluent
             Guidelines for Industrial Laundries.  Reference EPA 1989b is available in the
             public docket for the Effluent Guidelines for Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard.  For
             additional information, contact Pat Harrigan, EPA/SASD, at 202/260-8479.
                                         R-4

-------