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
------- |