ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE
     FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
                 FOR THE
       IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
                  Volume I

                 Final Report
                April 30, 2002
                 Prepared for:

       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Office of Science and Technology
         Engineering and Analysis Division
              Ariel Rios Building
         1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
             Washington, DC  20460
               Charles Tamulonis
                Task Manager

-------
                     ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
       The Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology, prepared and
approved this report for publication. Neither the United States Government nor any of its employees,
contractors, subcontractors, or their employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume
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 represent that its use by such
party would not infringe on privately owned rights.

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                             Page No.
1.  INTRODUCTION	1

2.  METHODOLOGY	4
       2.1    Projected Water Quality Impacts	4
             2.1.1   Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality
                    Criteria	4
                    2.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities	5
                    2.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities	8
                    2.1.1.3 Assumptions and Caveats	12
             2.1.2   Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits  	14
                    2.1.2.1 Carcinogenic and Systemic Human Health Risks and Benefits  . 14
                    2.1.2.2 Assumptions and Caveats (Carcinogenic and Systemic
                          Analyses) 	19
             2.1.3   Estimation of Ecological Benefits	21
                    2.1.3.1 Assumptions and Caveats	23
             2.1.4   Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits	23
                    2.1.4.1 Assumptions and Caveats	25
       2.2    Pollutant Fate and Toxicity  	26
             2.2.1   Identification of Pollutants of Concern 	26
             2.2.2   Compilation  of Physical-Chemical and Toxicity Data 	27
             2.2.3   Categorization Assessment 	31
             2.2.4   Assumptions and Limitations  	36
       2.3    Documented Environmental Impacts	37

3.  DATA SOURCES  	38
       3.1    Water Quality Impacts	38
             3.1.1   Facility-Specific Data	38
             3.1.2   Information Used To Evaluate POTW Operations  	39
             3.1.3   Water Quality Criteria	40
                    3.1.3.1 AquaticLife	40
                    3.1.3.2 HumanHealth	42
             3.1.4   Information Used To Evaluate Human Health Risks and Benefits	45
             3.1.5   Information Used To Evaluate Ecological Benefits	46
             3.1.6   Information Used To Evaluate Economic Productivity Benefits	46
       3.2    Pollutant Fate and Toxicity  	47
       3.3    Documented Environmental Impacts	47

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Cont'd)
                                                                              Page No.
4.  SUMMARY OF RESULTS	48
       4.1    Projected Water Quality Impacts	48
             4.1.1   Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality
                    Criteria	48
                    4.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities  	48
                    4.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities	49
             4.1.2   Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits  	50
                    4.1.2.1 Direct Discharging Facilities  	50
                    4.1.2.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities	51
             4.1.3   Estimation of Ecological Benefits	52
                    4.1.3.1 Direct Discharging Facilities  	53
                    4.1.3.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities	53
       4.2    Pollutant Fate and Toxicity  	54
       4.3    Documented Environmental Impacts	55
       4.4    Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits from Final Effluent Guidelines
             and Standards	56

5.  REFERENCES	R-l
                                          11

-------
VOLUME II


                                                                              Page No.

Appendix A   Iron and Steel 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    Site-Specific Angler Information  	 E-l
                                          in

-------
                                  LIST OF TABLES

                                                                              Page No.

Table ES-1  Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits of the Final Effluent Guidelines
            and Standards for the Iron and Steel Industry	 vii

Table 1      Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (50) Discharged from 15 Direct Discharging
            Iron and Steel Facilities	 57
Table 2

Table 3


Table 4


Table 5


Table 6


Table 7


Table 8


Table 9
Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Iron and Steel Facilities  	  59

Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Direct
Dischargers (All Subcategories)	  60

Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)  	  61

Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (26) Discharged from 8 Indirect Discharging
Iron and Steel Facilities	  62

Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Indirect
Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)	  63

Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)	  64

Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems
from Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)	  65
Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)	
                                                                                    66
Table 10    Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron
            and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)  . .  67

Table 11    Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct
            Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption) 71

Table 12    Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct
            Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption) 	  72

Table 13    Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect
            Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory) (Fish Tissue Consumption) 	  73
                                          IV

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
                                                                               Page No.
Table 14    Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and
            Steel Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)
            (Fish Tissue Consumption)  	  74

Table 15    Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
            Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory) (Fish Tissue and Drinking
            Water Consumption)	  76

Table 16    Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect
            Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory) (Drinking Water Consumption)	  77

Table 17.    Summary of Ecological (Recreational and Nonuse) Benefits for Iron and Steel
            Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)  	  78

Table 18.    Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from
            15 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities  	  79

Table 19.    Iron and Steel Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects
            (Direct Dischargers) 	  81

Table 20.    Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence
            Classifications, and Target Organs (Direct Dischargers)  	  82

Table 21.    Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (35) Discharged from
            8 Indirect Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities  	  83

Table 22.    Iron and Steel Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects
            (Indirect Dischargers)	  84

Table 23.    Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence
            Classifications, and Target Organs (Indirect Dischargers)	  85

Table 24.    Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies
            Listed Under Section 303(d) of Clean Water Act (1998)	  86

Table 25.    Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies
            with State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories	  88

Table 26.    Significant Noncompliance (SNC) Rates for Iron and Steel Mills	  92

Table 27.    Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits of the Final Effluent Guidelines
            and Standards for the Iron and Steel Industry	  93

-------
                                 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       This report presents an environmental assessment of the water quality-related benefits that
would be expected from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) promulgation of final
effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards for the
iron and steel point source category. EPA estimates that, under current (baseline) conditions, 22 iron
and steel facilities1 discharge approximately 4.43  million pounds per year (Ib/year) of priority and
nonconventional pollutants. The final rule is expected to reduce this pollutant loading by 22 percent,
to 3.44 million Ib/year. The final rule is also estimated to provide annual monetized benefits ranging
from $1.4 million to $7.3 million (2001 dollars). The range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the
effects of the final rule and in placing a monetary value on those effects. The estimate of reported
benefits also understates the total benefits expected to result under this final rule. Additional benefits,
which cannot be  quantified in this assessment,  include improved ecological  conditions  from
improvements in water  quality, improvements to recreational  activities (other than fishing), and
reduced discharge of conventional pollutants. Table ES-1  summarizes the environmental effects and
benefits of the final  effluent guidelines and standards.

Summary of Environmental  Effects/Benefits

       (a) Ambient Water Quality Effects

       EPA analyzed the environmental effects associated with discharges from 22 iron and steel
facilities. The analysis compared modeled instream pollutant concentrations to ambient water quality
criteria (AWQC)2 or to toxic effect levels. EPA estimates that  current discharge loadings
1 Of a total of 254 iron and steel facilities potentially affected by the proposed rule, EPA presents here the analysis results
for the 22 facilities (in the cokemaking and sintering subcategories) affected by the final rule. The assessment also
includes results for 29 pollutants (in addition to the regulated chlorinated furans), primarily metals, in the sintering
subcategory based on preliminary loadings.
 In performing this analysis, EPA used guidance documents published by EPA that recommend numeric human health
and aquatic life water quality criteria for numerous pollutants. States often consult these guidance documents when
adopting water quality criteria as part of their water quality standards. However, because those State-adopted criteria may
vary, EPA used the nationwide criteria guidance as the most representative values.
                                              vi

-------
           Table ES-1.  Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits of the Final Effluent
                     Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Industry a

Loadings (million Ib/yr) b> °
Number of Instream
Excursions for Pollutants
That Exceed AWQC
Excess Annual Cancer
Cases6
Population Potentially
Exposed to Other
Noncarcinogenic Health
Risks6
POTWs Experiencing
Inhibition
Improved POTW Biosolid
Quality
Total Monetized Benefits
Current
4.43
82 at 15
streams
0.9
5000
none of 7
0 metric tons

Final Rule
3.44
72 at 14
streams
0.4
5000
none of 7
0 metric tons

Summary of Benefits
22 percent reduction
1 stream becomes "contaminant-free" d
Monetized benefits
(recreational/nonuse) =
$0.12 to $0.44 million
Reduction of 0.5 cases each year
Monetized benefits =
$1.3 to $6.9 million
Health effects to exposed population
not eliminated
No baseline impacts
No baseline impacts
$1.4 to 7.3 million (2001 dollars)
a.   Modeled results from 15 direct and 8 indirect facilities; 1 facility is both a direct and an indirect discharger.
b.   Loadings are representative of 50 priority and nonconventional pollutants evaluated; 3 conventional pollutants and
    7 nonconventional pollutants are not included.
c.   Loadings are adjusted for POTW removals.
d.   "Contaminant-free" from iron and steel discharges; however, potential contamination from other point source
    discharges and nonpoint sources is still possible.
e.   Through consumption of contaminated fish.
                                                  vn

-------
contribute to instream concentrations in excess of AWQC in 82 cases at 15 receiving streams. The
final rule is expected to reduce the number of instream concentrations exceeding AWQC to 72 at 14
receiving  streams,  allowing  1 stream to obtain "contaminant-free" status.  EPA monetizes the
attainment of the contaminant-free status based on improvements in recreational fishing opportunities
and  on the nonuse (intrinsic) value of the streams.  The estimated monetized benefit of this
improvement ranges from $0.12 million to $0.44 million (2001 dollars).

       (b)    Human Health Effects

       EPA estimates that carcinogens in the current discharge loadings from the 22 iron and steel
facilities could be responsible for 0.9 total excess annual cancer cases from the consumption of
contaminated fish.  The final rule is expected to reduce the carcinogenic loadings and the estimated
excess annual cancer cases to 0.4.  The estimated monetized benefit of these reductions in human
health effects ranges from $1.3 million to $6.9 million (2001 dollars). In addition, EPA projects that
the final rule will not eliminate  the hazard to approximately 5000 people potentially exposed to
systemic toxicant effects from consumption of contaminated fish. EPA, therefore,  projects  no
potential economic benefits from reduced systemic effects.

       (c)    POTW Effects

       EPA estimates that none of the 7 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) considered in this
assessment are experiencing inhibition problems or impaired biosolid quality due to iron and steel
wastewater discharges.  EPA, therefore, projects no potential economic  benefits from reduced
biosolid disposal costs.

       (d)    Basis of Conclusions

       This environmental assessment bases its conclusion of the water quality-related benefits on
aggregate  site-specific analyses of current conditions and of changes  expected to  result from
compliance with the final iron  and steel effluent guidelines and standards for Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
                                          viii

-------
(PSES). The final regulations limit the discharges of pollutants into navigable waters of the United
States and the introduction of pollutants into POTWs from existing sources and from new sources
in two iron and steel subcategories. These categories are cokemaking and sintering. Many iron and
steel facilities have more than one subcategory-defined production line. Only loadings from the two
subcategories are aggregated to estimate the combined environmental effects of the final rule.

Modeling Techniques

       EPA employed stream dilution modeling techniques to assess the potential impacts and
benefits of the final effluent guidelines and  standards.  Using site-specific analyses, EPA estimated
instream pollutant concentrations for 50 priority and nonconventional pollutants3 under current
(baseline) and final treatment levels.  Chapter 10 of the Technical Development Document explains
more about these estimates.  EPA analyzed the effects on water quality from direct and indirect
discharge operations separately. EPA had sufficient data to analyze water quality impacts for all 22
of the  iron  and steel facilities being evaluated.   EPA  combined the impacts  for each  of the
subcategories to estimate water quality effects as a result  of the final rule.

       EPA assessed the potential impacts and benefits in terms of effects on aquatic life, human
health, and POTW operations. EPA projected the benefits to aquatic life by comparing the modeled
instream pollutant concentrations to published EPA aquatic life criteria guidance or to toxic effect
levels.   EPA projected human health  benefits by (1) comparing  estimated instream pollutant
concentrations  to  health-based  toxic  effect  values or criteria derived using standard EPA
methodology, and (2) estimating the potential reductions of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic
hazard (systemic) from consuming contaminated fish  and  drinking water.    Because  of the
hydrophobic nature of the seven chlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF) congeners under evaluation, EPA
proj ected human health benefits for these pollutants using the Office of Research and Development's
(ORD) Dioxin  Reassessment Evaluation  (DRE)  model to estimate the potential reduction of
carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard from consuming contaminated fish.
Evaluations do not include the impacts of 3 conventional and 7 nonconventional pollutants when modeling the effects
of the final rule on receiving stream water quality and POTW operations or when evaluating the potential fate and toxicity
of discharged pollutants.  The discharge of these pollutants may adversely affect human health and the environment.
                                            ix

-------
       The assessment estimated upper-bound individual cancer risks, population risks, and systemic
hazards using modeled instream pollutant concentrations and standard EPA assumptions.  The
assessment evaluated modeled pollutant concentrations in fish and drinking water to estimate cancer
risk and systemic hazards among the general population (drinking water only), sport anglers and their
families, and subsistence anglers and their families. EPA assessed improvements in aquatic habitats
using its findings of reduced occurrence of instream pollutant concentrations in excess of both aquatic
life and human health criteria or toxic effect levels. EPA expects that these improvements in aquatic
habitats will improve the quality and value of recreational fishing opportunities and nonuse (intrinsic)
values of the receiving streams.

       The environmental assessment also evaluated the potential inhibition of POTW operations and
potential contamination of sewage biosolids (which limits its use for land application) based on
current and final pretreatment levels. EPA  estimated inhibition of POTW operations by comparing
modeled POTW influent concentrations to available inhibition levels. EPA assessed the potential
contamination of sewage biosolids by comparing projected pollutant  concentrations in  sewage
biosolids to available EPA regulatory standards for land application and surface disposal of sewage
biosolids.

Pollutant Fate and Toxicity4

       EPA identified a total of 60 pollutants of concern (22 priority pollutants, 3 conventional
pollutants, and 35 nonconventional pollutants) at treatable levels in waste streams from the 22 iron
and steel facilities. EPA evaluated 50 of these pollutants with sufficient data to assess their potential
fate and toxicity on the basis of known physical-chemical properties, and aquatic life and human
health toxicity data.

       Most of the 50 pollutants have at least one known toxic effect.  EPA determined that 20
exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 19 are classified  as known or probable human
carcinogens, 37 are human systemic toxicants, 16 have drinking water values, and 23 are designated
4Revisions to the pollutant loadings, prior to rulemaking signature, resulted in minor changes to the results of this analysis.
Due to time constraints, the preamble and economic analysis do not reflect these changes, which had no impact on the
overall monetized benefits.

-------
as priority pollutants. In terms of proj ected partitioning among media, 17 of the evaluated pollutants
are moderately to highly volatile (potentially causing risk to exposed populations via inhalation), 27
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), 20 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids,
and 7 are resistant to biodegradation or are slowly biodegraded.

Documented Impacts5

       This report also summarizes documented environmental impacts on aquatic life, human
health, and receiving stream water quality.  The summaries are based  on a review of an EPA
enforcement and compliance report, State 303(d) lists of impaired waterbodies, and State fishing
advisories.

       States identified at least 3 impaired waterbodies, with industrial  point sources as a potential
source of impairment, that receive direct discharges from 3  and  iron steel facilities (and other
sources). Eight additional waterbodies that receive direct discharges are also identified as impaired.
However, the  States did not identify the potential sources of impairment.  States also issued fish
consumption advisories for 9  waterbodies that receive direct discharges from 10 iron  and steel
facilities (and other sources). The advisories were reported in the 7997 Update of Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories. In addition, EPA identified in its 7995 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Accomplishment Reports by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
significant noncompliance (SNC) rates (most egregious violations under  each program or statute) for
iron and steel facilities. Of the 27 integrated mills inspected in fiscal years (FY) 1996 and 1997, 26
facilities were out of compliance with one or more statutes, and 18 facilities were in SNC. In FY
1998, of the 23 integrated mills inspected, the number in SNC included 9 facilities for water permits,
17 facilities for air, and 7 facilities with Resource Conservation  and  Recovery Act (RCRA)
violations. SNC rates for 91 mini-mills included 19 facilities for air, 2 facilities for water permits,
and 4 facilities for RCRA.  Key compliance and environmental problems  included groundwater
5Revisions to the pollutant loadings, prior to rulemaking signature, resulted in minor changes to the results of this analysis.
Due to time constraints, the preamble and economic analysis do not reflect these changes, which had no impact on the
overall monetized benefits.
                                            xi

-------
contamination from slag disposal, contaminated sediments from steelmaking, electric arc furnace
dust, unregulated sources, SNCs from recurring and single peak violations, and no baseline testing.
                                           xn

-------
                                  1. INTRODUCTION

       This environmental assessment quantifies the water quality-related benefits associated with
achievement of the Best Available Technology  (BAT) and Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES) promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate iron
and steel facilities. Using site-specific analyses  of current conditions and changes in discharges
associated with the final regulation, EPA estimated instream pollutant concentrations for 50 priority
and nonconventional pollutants from direct and indirect discharges in two industry subcategories
(cokemaking and sintering) using stream dilution modeling.

       The assessment evaluates the potential impacts and benefits to aquatic life by comparing the
modeled instream pollutant concentrations to published EPA aquatic life criteria guidance or toxic
effect levels.  The assessment evaluates the potential benefits to human health by (1) comparing
estimated instream concentrations to health-based water quality toxic effect levels or EPA's published
water quality  criteria, and  (2)  estimating the potential reduction of  carcinogenic risk and
noncarcinogenic hazard (systemic) from consuming contaminated fish or drinking water. Because
the hydrophobic nature of the seven chlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF) congeners under evaluation,
EPA  projected  human health  benefits  for  these pollutants  using the Office  of Research
Development's (ORD) Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation (DRE) model to estimate the potential
reduction of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard from consuming contaminated fish. The
assessment monetizes reductions in carcinogenic risks using estimated willingness-to-pay values for
avoiding premature mortality to which monetary values can be applied. The  assessment projects
potential ecological benefits, including nonuse (intrinsic) benefits, by estimating improvements in
recreational fishing habitats and, in turn, by estimating a monetary value for enhanced recreational
fishing opportunities. The assessment estimates economic productivity benefits on the basis of
reduced POTW sewage sludge contamination (e.g., reducing contamination increases the number of
allowable sludge uses or disposal options).

-------
       In addition, the assessment evaluates the potential fate and toxicity of pollutants of concern
associated with iron and steel wastewater on the basis of known characteristics of each chemical.
The assessment also reviews recent reports and databases for evidence of documented environmental
impacts (e.g., case studies) on aquatic life, human health, and receiving stream water quality.

       This assessment does not evaluate impacts associated with releases of 3 conventional
pollutants (biological oxygen demand [BOD], oil and grease (measured as hexane extractable material
[HEM]), and total suspended solids [TSS]), and 7 nonconventional pollutants (chemical oxygen
demand [COD], total organic carbon [TOC], total recoverable phenolics, total kjeldahl nitrogen,
nitrate/nitrite, amenable cyanide, and weak acid dissociable cyanide).  However, the discharge of
these pollutants may adversely affect human health and the environment.  For example, habitat
degradation may result from increased suspended particulate matter that reduces light penetration and
primary productivity or from the accumulation of sludge particles that alter benthic spawning grounds
and feeding habitats. Oil and grease can have lethal effects on fish by coating the surface of gills and
causing asphyxia, by depleting oxygen levels as a result of excessive BOD, 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 oily substances can
cause human health problems including tainting of fish and bioaccumulation of carcinogenic
polycyclic aromatic compounds. High COD and BOD5 levels can deplete oxygen concentrations in
water, which can result in fish mortality  or other adverse effects in fish. High TOC levels may
interfere with water quality by causing taste and odor problems in water and mortality in  fish.

       Following this introduction, Section 2 of this report describes the methodologies used to
evaluate projected water quality impacts and projected impacts on POTW operations for direct and
indirect discharging facilities (including potential human health risks and benefits, ecological benefits,
and economic productivity benefits); to evaluate the potential  fate and toxicity of pollutants of
concern; and to evaluate documented environmental impacts. Section 3  describes data sources and
information used to evaluate water quality impacts, such as facility-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. Section 4 provides a summary of the results of this
assessment, and  Section 5 is a complete list of references cited in the report.   The appendices
presented in Volume II provide additional detail on the specific information addressed in the main
report.

-------
                                   2.  METHODOLOGY

2.1    Projected Water Quality Impacts

       This assessment evaluates the water quality impacts and associated risks/benefits of iron and
steel discharges at various treatment levels by (1) comparing projected instream concentrations with
ambient water quality  criteria (AWQC6),  (2) estimating the human health risks and benefits
associated with the consumption offish and drinking water from waterbodies impacted by iron and
steel facilities, (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 atPOTWs receiving the wastewater of iron and steel facilities.
The assessment analyzes the impacts and associated risks/benefits for 15 direct discharging facilities
and 8 indirect discharging facilities.  The following sections describe the methodologies used in this
evaluation.

2.1.1  Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality Criteria

       The instream concentration analysis quantifies and compares current and B AT/PSES pollutant
releases and uses stream modeling techniques to evaluate potential aquatic life and human health
impacts resulting from those releases. The analysis compares projected instream concentrations for
each pollutant 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). The
analysis also evaluates inhibition of POTW  operation and sludge contamination.  Sections 2.1.1.1
through 2.1.1.3 describe the methodologies and assumptions used for evaluating the impacts of direct
and indirect discharging facilities.
6In performing this analysis, EPA used guidance documents published by EPA that recommend numeric human health
and aquatic life water quality criteria for numerous pollutants. States often consult these guidance documents when
adopting water quality criteria as part of their water quality standards. However, because those State-adopted criteria may
vary, EPA used the nationwide criteria guidance as the most representative values.

-------
2.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities

       Using a stream dilution model that does not account for fate processes other than complete
immediate mixing, the analysis calculates projected instream concentrations at current and BAT
treatment levels for stream segments with direct discharging facilities. For stream segments with
multiple iron and steel facilities, pollutant loadings are summed, if applicable, before concentrations
are calculated.  The dilution model used for estimating instream concentrations is as follows.
                           LIOD      ~r
                                    *CF
where:
       Cis     =      instream pollutant concentration (micrograms per liter [Ŧg/L])
       L      =      facility pollutant loading (pounds/year [lb/year])
       OD    =      facility operation (days/year)
       FF     =      facility flow (million gallons/day [gal/day])
       SF     =      receiving stream flow (million gal/day)
       CF     =      conversion factors for units

       The analysis uses various resources, as described in Section 3.1.1  of this report, to derive the
facility-specific data (i.e., pollutant loading, operating days, facility flow, and stream flow) used in
Eq. 1.  One of 3 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.  To estimate potential acute and chronic aquatic life impacts, the
analysis uses the 1Q10 and 7Q10 flows, which are the lowest 1 -day and the lowest consecutive 7-day
average flow during any  10-year period, respectively, as recommended in the Technical Support
Document for  Water Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S.  EPA, 1991).  EPA defines the harmonic

-------
mean flow as the inverse mean of reciprocal daily arithmetic mean flow values. 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. Because 7Q10 flows
have no consistent relationship with the long-term mean dilution, they are not appropriate for
assessing potential human health impacts.

       For assessing impacts on aquatic life, the analysis uses the facility operating days to represent
the exposure duration; the calculated instream concentration is thus the average concentration on days
the facility is discharging wastewater. For assuming long-term human health impacts, it sets the
operating days (exposure duration) 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, the analysis uses site-specific critical dilution  factors  (DFs)  or estuarine
dissolved concentration potentials (DCPs) to predict pollutant concentrations for facilities discharging
to estuaries and bays, if applicable, as follows:
               C  =
                 es
L/OD\    ™
	  x CF
 FF
I DF                                     (Eq. 2)
where:
       Ces    =      estuary pollutant concentration (Ŧg/L)
       L      =      facility pollutant loading (Ib/year)
       OD    =      facility operation (days/year)
       FF    =      facility flow (million gal/day)

-------
       DF     =     critical dilution factor
       CF     =     conversion factors for units
                   „     L x DCP x CF
                   C" -	                                        (EĢi  3)
where:
       Ces     =     estuary pollutant concentration (wg/L)
       L      =     facility pollutant loading (Ib/year)
       DCP   =     dissolved concentration potential (milligrams per liter [mg/L])
       CF     =     conversion factor for units
       BL     =     benchmark load (10,000 tons/year)
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), provides the site-specific critical DFs. The analysis uses acute critical DFs to
evaluate acute aquatic life effects, whereas it uses chronic critical DFs to evaluate chronic aquatic life
or adverse human health effects.  The analysis assumes 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 developed DCPs based on freshwater inflow and salinity
gradients to predict pollutant concentrations in each estuary in the National Estuarine Inventory (NEI)
Data Atlas.  NOAA applies these DCPs to predict concentrations. NOAA did not consider pollutant
fate and designated the DCPs to simulate concentrations of nonreactive dissolved substances under
well-mixed steady-state conditions given an annual load of 10,000 tons. In addition, the DCPs reflect
the predicted estuary-wide response and may not be indicative of site-specific locations.

       The analysis determines potential impacts on freshwater quality by comparing projected
instream pollutant concentrations (Eq. 1) at reported facility flows, 1Q10 and 7Q10 low flows, and

-------
harmonic mean receiving stream flows with EPA AWQC or toxic effect levels for the protection of
aquatic life and human health.  The analysis compares projected estuary pollutant concentrations
(Eq. 2 and Eq. 3), based on critical DFs or DCPs, to EPA AWQC or toxic effect levels to determine
impacts. To determine water quality criteria excursions, the analysis divides the projected instream
or estuary pollutant concentration by the EPA water quality criteria or toxic effect levels. A value
greater than 1.0 indicates an excursion.

CDD/CDF Congeners

       Although hydrophobic chemicals like CDD and CDF congeners become associated primarily
with suspended particulates and sediments, concentrations will be found in the water column near
the discharge point. This is particularly true if discharges are assumed to be continuous. Therefore,
although the stream dilution approach is conservative, it provides a reasonable estimate of dioxin-
related water quality impacts on aquatic life. However, use of the stream dilution model to assess
human health impacts (water quality excursions) from the discharge of CDD/CDF congeners is
inappropriate.  EPA uses ORD's Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation (DRE)  model, which provides
more reliable information regarding the partitioning of CDD/CDF congeners between sediment and
the water  column,  and thus  their  bioavailability to fish,  to estimate  the carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic risks from these contaminants, (see Section 2.1.2.)

2.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities

       The analysis uses a 2-stage process to assess the impacts of indirect discharging facilities.
First, water quality impacts are evaluated as described in  subsection (a) below.  Next, impacts on
POTWs are considered as described in subsection (b).

-------
       (a)     Water Quality Impacts
       Using a stream dilution model that does not account for a fate process other than complete
immediate mixing, the analysis calculates projected instream concentrations at current and PSES
treatment levels for stream segments receiving wastewaters from indirect discharging facilities. For
stream segments with multiple iron and steel facilities, pollutant loadings are summed, if applicable,
before concentrations are calculated. The dilution model used for estimating instream concentrations
is as follows:
                              (l-TMT) x CF
                                                                                     . 4)
where:
Cis
L
OD
TMT
PF
SF
CF
                     instream pollutant concentration (Ŧg/L)
                     facility pollutant loading (Ib/year)
                     facility operation (days/year)
                     POTW treatment removal efficiency
                     POTW flow (million gal/day)
                     receiving stream flow (million gal/day)
                     conversion factors for units
       The analysis uses various resources, as described in Section 3.1.1 of this report, to derive the
facility-specific data (i.e., pollutant loading, operating days, facility flow, and stream flow) used in
Eq. 4.  One of 3 receiving stream flow conditions (1Q10 low flow, 7Q10 low flow, and harmonic
mean flow) is used for the two treatment levels.  The analysis uses site-specific critical DFs or
estuarine DCPs to predict pollutant concentrations for facilities discharging to estuaries and bays, if
applicable, as follows:
ces =
                 (L/ODx(l-TMT)\
                         PF
I DF
                                                                          (Eq. 5)

-------
where:
       Ces     =     estuary pollutant concentration (Ŧg/L)
       L      =     facility pollutant loading (Ib/year)
       OD    =     facility operation (days/year)
       TMT  =     POTW treatment removal efficiency
       PF     =     POTW flow (million gal/day)
       DF     =     critical dilution factor
       CF     =     conversion factors for units
             „     L x (1 - TMT) x DCP x CF
              es	BL	
where:
       Ces     =     estuary pollutant concentration (Ŧg/L)
       L      =     facility pollutant loading (Ib/year)
       TMT  =     POTW treatment removal efficiency
       DCP   =     dissolved concentration potential (mg/L)
       CF     =     conversion factors for units
       BL     =     benchmark load (10,000 tons/year)


       The analysis determines potential impacts on freshwater quality by comparing projected

instream pollutant concentrations (Eq. 4)  at reported POTW flows, 1Q10 and 7Q10 low flows, and
harmonic mean receiving stream flows with EPA AWQC or toxic effect levels for the protection of

aquatic life and human health. The analysis compares projected estuary pollutant concentrations

(Eq. 5 and Eq. 6), based on critical DFs or DCPs, to EPA AWQC or toxic effect levels to determine

impacts. To determine water quality criteria excursions, the analysis divides the projected instream

or estuary pollutant concentration by the EPA AWQC or toxic effect levels. (See Section 2.1.1.1 for

discussion of stream flow conditions, application of DFs or DCPs, assignment of exposure duration,

and comparison with criteria or toxic effect levels.) A value greater than 1.0 indicates an excursion.
                                           10

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


       The analysis calculates impacts on POTW operations in terms of inhibition of POTW

processes (i.e., inhibition of microbial degradation processes) and contamination of POTW sludges.

Contamination is defined as a pollutant concentration that exceeds the levels at which sewage sludge

may be land applied or surface disposed under 40 CFR Part 503.  To determine inhibition of POTW

operations, the analysis divides calculated POTW influent levels (Eq. 7) by chemical-specific

inhibition threshold levels. Excursions are indicated by a value greater than 1.0.
                    ~     LIOD    „„
                      pl =  ~     x                                              (Eq-7)
where:

       Cpi     =     POTW influent concentration (wg/L)
       L      =     facility pollutant loading (Ib/year)
       OD    =     facility operation (days/year)
       PF     =     POTW flow (million gal/day)
       CF     =     conversion factors for units

The analysis evaluates contamination levels of sludge (and thus its use for land application, etc.) 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.


             Csp =  Cpi x  TMTx PART x SGF                                   (Eq. 8)


where:

       Csp     =     sludge pollutant concentration (milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg])
       Cpi     =     POTW influent concentration (Ŧg/L)
       TMT   =     POTW treatment removal efficiency
       PART  =     chemical-specific sludge partition factor
       SGF   =     sludge generation factor (5.96 parts per million [ppm])
                                           11

-------
       The analysis derives facility-specific data and information used to evaluate POTWs from the

sources described in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. For facilities that discharge to the same POTW, the

analysis sums their individual loadings, if applicable, before calculating the POTW influent and

sludge concentrations.


       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 1 million gallons of wastewater processed (Metcalf
& Eddy, Inc., 1972).  This results in a sludge generation factor of 5.96 mg/kg per /ugfL (i.e., for every

1 ,ug/L of pollutant removed from wastewater and partitioned to sludge, the concentration in sludge
is 5.96 mg/kg dry weight).


2.1.1.3 Assumptions and Caveats


       The instream and POTW analyses assume the following:
              Background concentrations of each pollutant, both in the receiving stream and in the
              POTW influent, are equal to zero; therefore, the analysis evaluates only the impacts
              of discharging facilities.

              The analysis uses an exposure duration of 365 days 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; therefore, the analysis calculates an "average stream" concentration,
              even though the actual concentration may vary across the width and  depth of the
              stream.

              The intake process water and noncontact cooling water at each facility, and the water
              discharged to a POTW, are obtained from a source other than the receiving stream for
              7 iron and steel facilities as identified in the facility questionnaire; all other noncontact
              cooling waters and process waters are obtained from the receiving stream.
                                           12

-------
The stream dilution model includes the process water and noncontact cooling water
in estimating the instream concentrations only for those facilities whose waters are
obtained from a source other than the receiving stream.

The pollutant load to the receiving stream is continuous and is representative of long-
term facility operations. These assumptions may overestimate risks to human health
and aquatic life, but may underestimate potential short-term effects.

The analysis uses 1Q10 and 7Q10 receiving stream flow rates to estimate aquatic life
impacts; harmonic mean flow rates are used to estimate human health impacts. It
estimates 1Q10 low flows using the results of a regression analysis of 1Q10 and 7Q10
flows from representative U.S. rivers  and streams conducted by Versar, Inc., for
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) (Versar, 1992a). Harmonic
mean flows are estimated from the mean and 7Q10 flows as recommended in the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA,
1991). These flows may not be the same as those used by specific States to assess
impacts.

The  analysis adjusts the 7Q10 receiving stream flow rate to equal the facility or
POTW flow rate for receiving streams where the facility or POTW flow rate is greater
than the 7Q10 flow rate.

The analysis assumes effluent pollutant concentrations at BAT treatment levels are
equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current treatment levels for those
pollutants and sites/subcategories  where pollutants were never  detected above
minimum levels  or where there is a projected reduction in flow but not a projected
reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

The analysis does not consider pollutant fate processes such as sediment adsorption,
volatilization, and hydrolysis. This may result in estimated instream concentrations
that are environmentally conservative (higher).

The  analysis assigns a removal efficiency of zero to pollutants without a specific
POTW  treatment removal  efficiency  value  (provided  by EPA or found in the
literature). Pollutants without a specific partition factor are assigned a value of zero.

Sludge criteria levels are available for only 2 pollutants:  mercury and selenium.

The analysis uses AWQC or toxic effect levels developed for freshwater organisms
for facilities discharging to estuaries or bays.
                              13

-------
2.1.2   Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits

       The analysis evaluates the potential benefits to human health by estimating the risks
(carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic hazard [systemic]) associated with reducing pollutant levels in
fish tissue and drinking water from current to final treatment levels. EPA monetizes the reduction
in carcinogenic risks using estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding premature mortality.
Sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2 describe the methodology and assumptions used to evaluate the human
health  risks and benefits (carcinogenic and systemic)  from the consumption of fish tissue and
drinking water derived from waterbodies impacted by direct and indirect discharging facilities.

2.1.2.1  Carcinogenic and Systemic Human Health Risks and Benefits

       (a)   Fish Tissue

       To determine the potential benefits, in terms of reduced cancer cases, associated with
reducing pollutant levels in fish tissue, the analysis estimates lifetime average daily doses (LADDs)
and individual risk levels for each pollutant discharged from a facility on the basis of the instream
pollutant concentrations calculated at current and BAT/PSES treatment levels in the site-specific
stream dilution analysis (see Section 2.1.1).  EPA presents estimates for sport anglers and their
families, and subsistence anglers and their families.  LADDs are calculated as follows:

    LADD = (C x IR x BCF  xFxD)l(BWxLT)                           (Eq. 9)

where:
       LADD    =    potential lifetime average daily dose (milligrams per kilogram  per day
                      [mg/kg-day])
       C         =    exposure concentration (mg/L)
       IR        =    ingestion rate (see Section 2.1.2.2, Assumptions)
       BCF      =    bioconcentration factor (liters per kilogram [L/kg]; whole body x 0.5)
       F         =    frequency duration (365 days/year)
       D         =    exposure duration (70 years)

                                           14

-------
       BW       =    body weight (70 kg)
       LT        =    lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
       Individual risks are calculated as follows:

                    R =  LADD x SF                                         (Eq. 10)

where:
       R       =     individual risk level
       LADD  =     potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
       SF      =     cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1

       The analysis then applies the estimated individual pollutant risk levels to the potentially
exposed populations of sport anglers and subsistence anglers to estimate the potential number of
excess annual cancer cases occurring over the life of the population. It then sums the number of
excess cancer cases on a pollutant, facility, and overall industry basis.  The analysis assumes the
number of reduced cancer cases to be the difference between the estimated risks at current and
BAT/PSES treatment levels.

       Because of the hydrophobic nature of the two CDD congeners and the two CDF congeners,
the analysis estimates LADDs and individual risk levels for these pollutants based on the pollutant
fish tissue concentrations calculated at current and PSES treatment levels using the DRE model. The
DRE model calculates the fish tissue concentration by calculating the equilibrium between CDD/CDF
congeners in fish tissue and CDD/CDF congeners adsorbed to the organic fraction of sediments
suspended in the water column. The analysis calculates LADDs as follows:

                 (CFT x IR x  F x D x CF)
       LADD =  IU                   U ;                                     (Eq. 11)
                        (BW x LT)


where:
                                          15

-------
       LADD    =  potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
       CFT      =  fish tissue concentration (mg/kg)
       IR        =  ingestion rate (see Section 2.1.2.2, Assumptions)
       F         =  frequency duration (365 days/year)
       D         =  exposure duration (70 years)
       BW      =  body weight (70 kg)
       LT       =  lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
       CF       =  conversion factor
Individual risks are then calculated as shown in Eq. 10.

       EPA estimates a monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases using
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,
this analysis values avoided cancer cases on the basis of avoided mortality. To value mortality, the
analysis uses a range of values recommended by an EPA Office of Policy Analysis (OPA) review
of studies quantifying individuals' willingness to pay to avoid risks to life (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 the amount they will need to be compensated
to accept a slight increase in risk of mortality. The willingness-to-pay values estimated in those
studies are associated with small changes in the probability of mortality.  To estimate a willingness
to pay for avoiding certain or high-probability mortality events, EPA extrapolated the estimated
values for a 100 percent probability event.7 EPA uses the resulting estimates of the value  of a
"statistical life  saved" to value regulatory effects that are expected to reduce the  incidence of
mortality.

       From this review of willingness-to-pay studies, OPA recommends a range of $1.6 to $8.5
million (1986 dollars) for valuing an avoided event of premature mortality or a statistical life saved.
A more recent survey of value-of-life studies by Viscusi (1992) also supports this range with the
7 These estimates, however, do not represent the willingness to pay to avoid the certainty of death.
                                            16

-------
finding that value-of-life estimates are clustered in the range of $3 to $7 million (1990 dollars).
Updating to 2001 dollars yields a range of $2.6 to $13.7 million.

       The analysis estimates potential reductions in risks due to reproductive, developmental, or
other chronic and subchronic toxic effects by comparing the estimated lifetime average daily dose and
the oral reference dose (RfD) for a given chemical pollutant as follows:

                      HQ  =  ORIIRfD                                           (Eq. 12)

where:

       HQ       =   hazard quotient
       ORI      =   oral intake (LADD x BW, mg/day)
       RfD      =   reference dose (mg/day assuming a body weight of 70 kg)

       The analysis then calculates a hazard index (i.e., sum of individual pollutant hazard quotients)
for each facility or receiving stream. A hazard index greater than 1.0 indicates that toxic effects may
occur in exposed populations.  The analysis then sums  and  compares the sizes of the affected
subpopulations at current and BAT/PSES treatment levels to assess benefits in terms of reduced
systemic toxicity. Although the analysis could not estimate the monetary value of benefits to society
associated with a reduction in the number of individuals exposed to pollutant levels that are likely to
result in systemic health effects, it expects any reduction in risk will yield human health-related
benefits.

       The analysis does not estimate the noncarcinogenic hazard of the CDD/CDF congeners on
the basis of the oral intake and RfD because the establishment of an RfD for these pollutants, using
the standard conventions of uncertainty, will likely be one or two orders of magnitude below average
background population  exposures.  This situation  precludes using an RfD for determining an
acceptable level of CDD exposure, because at ambient background levels, effects are not readily
                                            17

-------
apparent (personal communication from William Farland, Director of the National Center for
Environmental Assessment, to Andrew Smith, State Toxicologist, Maine Bureau of Health, January
24, 1997 - Appendix D).   Therefore, the  analysis evaluates potential  systemic effects of the
CDD/CDF congeners by comparing the estimated LADDs (converted to units of toxic equivalent
[TEQ] by multiplying by the congener-specific toxic equivalent factor [TEF]) to ambient background
levels of 41 picograms (pg) TEQ/day as estimated by EPA in the 2000 Review Draft Document
Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and
Related Compounds (U. S. EPA, 2000a). EPA estimates that adverse impacts associated with dioxin
exposures may occur at or within on order of magnitude of average background exposures.  As
exposures increase within and above this range, the probability and severity of systemic effects most
likely increase. For this assessment, fish tissue exposures greater than one order of magnitude above
ambient background concentration indicate that toxic effects may occur in exposed populations. The
analysis sums and compares the sizes of the affected subpopulations at the various treatment levels
to assess benefits in terms of reduced systemic toxicity.

       (b) Drinking Water

       The analysis determines potential benefits associated with reducing pollutant levels in drinking
water in a manner similar to that used for fish tissue. The analysis calculates LADDs for drinking
water consumption as follows:

        LADD = (C x IR x F x D ) / (  BW x LT )                            (Eq. 13)

where:
       LADD       =      potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
       C         =  exposure concentration (mg/L)
       IR        =  ingestion rate (2L/day)
       F         =  frequency duration (365 days/year)
                                          18

-------
       D         =  exposure duration (70 years)
       BW       =  body weight (70 kg)
       LT        =  lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
The  analysis applies estimated individual pollutant risk levels greater than 10"6 (1E-6) to the

populations served by any drinking water utilities within 50 miles downstream of each discharge site

to determine the number of excess annual cancer cases that may  occur during the life of the

population. It evaluates systemic toxicant effects by estimating the sizes of populations exposed to

pollutants from a given facility, the sum of whose individual hazard quotients yields a hazard index

greater than 1.0. If applicable, EPA estimates a monetary value of benefits to society from avoided

cancer cases, as described above in  subsection (a).


2.1.2.2 Assumptions and Caveats (Carcinogenic and Systemic Analyses)


       The analyses of human health risks and benefits use the following assumptions:
          A linear relationship exists between pollutant loading reductions and benefits attributed
          to the cleanup of surface waters.

          The analysis does not assess synergistic or antagonistic effects of multiple chemicals on
          aquatic ecosystems; therefore, the total benefit of reducing toxics may be under- or over-
          estimated.

          EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) recently  recommended that the value  of  a
          statistical life (VSL) be adjusted downward using a discount factor to account for latency
          in cases (such as cancer) where there is a lag between exposure and mortality.  This
          adjustment was not performed in  the current analysis because EPA requires more
          information to estimate latency periods associated with cancers caused by iron and steel
          pollutants.  For example, the risk assessments for several pollutants are based on data
          from animal bioassays; these data are not sufficiently reliable to estimate a latency period
          for humans.

          The analysis estimates the total number of individuals who might consume recreationally
          caught fish and the number who rely on fish on a subsistence basis in each State, in part
          by assuming that these anglers regularly share their catch with family members;
                                           19

-------
therefore, the number of anglers in each State is multiplied by the State's average
household size. The analysis does not include benefits to the general population because
the location of facilities in relation to commercial fisheries is unknown.

Subsistence anglers make up 5 percent of the resident anglers in a given State; the other
95 percent are sport anglers.

Recreationally valuable species occur or  are taken in the vicinity  of the discharges
included in the evaluation.

The analysis offish tissue uses ingestion rates of 12.1 grams per day for sport anglers and
124.1 grams per day  for subsistence anglers (U.S. EPA, 2000b).  These ingestion rates
are based on uncooked fish weights and use data from all ages of the population surveyed.
They represent the 90th and the 99th percentiles, respectively, of the empirical distribution
of the U.S. per capita freshwater/estuarine finfish and shellfish consumption, and do not
include the consumption of marine fish.

A State's resident anglers fish all rivers or  estuaries within a State equally, and the fish
are consumed only by the population within that State.

The analysis estimates the sizes of populations potentially exposed to discharges to rivers
or estuaries  that border more than one State using only populations within the State in
which the facility is located.

The analysis estimates the size of the population potentially exposed to fish caught in an
impacted waterbody in a given State using the ratio of impacted river miles to total river
miles or of impacted estuary square miles to total estuary square miles. The number of
miles potentially impacted by a facility's  discharge is 50 miles for rivers (U.S. EPA,
1992b) and the total surface area of the various estuarine zones for estuaries.

When estimating the pollutant concentration in drinking water or fish, the analysis does
not consider pollutant fate processes (e.g., sediment adsorption, volatilization, hydrolysis);
consequently, estimated concentrations are environmentally conservative  (higher).
                                  20

-------
2.1.3  Estimation of Ecological Benefits

       The analysis evaluates the potential ecological benefits of the final regulation by estimating
improvements in the recreational fishing habitats that are adversely impacted by iron and steel
wastewater discharges. The analysis first identifies stream segments in which the final regulation is
expected to eliminate all occurrences of pollutant concentrations in excess of both aquatic life and
human health AWQC or toxic effect levels (see Section 2.1.1).  The analysis  expects  that the
elimination of pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC will result in significant improvements
in aquatic habitats, which will then improve  the  quality  and value of recreational fishing
opportunities.  The estimate of the monetary value to society  of improved recreational fishing
opportunities is based on the concept of a "contaminant-free fishery" as presented by Lyke (1993).

       Research by Lyke (1993) shows that anglers may place a significantly higher value on a
contaminant-free fishery than a fishery with some level  of  contamination.  Specifically, Lyke
estimates the consumer surplus8 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. Two analyses form the basis of Lyke's results:

       1.  A multiple-site, trip-generation, travel cost model was used to estimate net benefits
           associated with the fishery under baseline conditions (i.e., contaminated).
       2.  A contingent valuation model was used to estimate willingness-to-pay values for the
           fishery if it was free of contaminants.

Both analyses used data collected from licensed anglers before the 1990 season. The estimated
incremental-benefit values associated with freeing the fishery of contaminants range from  11.1
percent to 31.3 percent of the value of the fishery under current conditions.
  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.
                                             21

-------
       To estimate the gain in value of stream segments identified as showing improvements in
aquatic habitats as a result of the final regulation, the analysis estimates the baseline recreational
fishery value of the stream  segments on the basis of estimated annual person-days of fishing per
segment and estimated values per person-day of fishing. To calculate annual person-days of fishing
per segment, the analysis uses estimates of the affected (exposed) recreational fishing populations (see
Section 2.1.2).  The analysis then multiplies the number of anglers 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 analysis calculates the baseline value for each fishery by multiplying the estimated total
number of fishing days by an estimate of the net benefit that anglers receive from a day of fishing,
where net benefit represents the total value of the fishing day, exclusive of any fishing-related costs
(license fee, travel costs, bait, etc.) incurred by the angler. This analysis uses a range of median net
benefit values for warm-water and cold-water fishing days ($34.49 and $43.68, respectively, in 2001
dollars). Summing all benefitting stream segments provides a total baseline recreational fishing value
of 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 analysis multiplies the baseline value for benefitting  stream segments by the
incremental gain in value associated with achievement of the "contaminant-free" condition. Using
Lyke' s estimated increase in value, from 11.1 to 31.3 percent, multiplying the baseline value by these
values yields a range of the expected increase in value for stream segments that are expected to
benefit by elimination of pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC.

       In addition, EPA expects nonuse (intrinsic) benefits to  the general public as a result of the
improvements in water quality described above. 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
(Fisher and Raucher, 1984). Nonuse benefits are not associated with current use of the affected
ecosystem or habitat, but rather arise from (1) the realization  of the improvement in the affected

                                           22

-------
ecosystem or habitat that results 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 Fisher and  Raucher conservatively estimate nonuse values as one-half of the

recreational benefits. Because this approximation applies only to recreational fishing benefits for

recreational anglers and does not take into account nonuse values for nonanglers or for uses other than

fishing by anglers, EPA estimates only a portion of the nonuse benefits.


2.1.3.1  Assumptions and Caveats


       The ecological benefits analysis uses the following major assumptions:
          The analysis does not consider background concentrations of the iron and steel pollutants
          of concern in the receiving stream.

          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  final 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.

          The analysis includes significant simplifications and uncertainties; thus, the monetary
          value to  society of improved recreational  fishing opportunities  may be  over- or
          underestimated,  (see Sections  2.1.1.3 and 2.1.2.2.)

          Potential overlap may exist in the valuation of improved recreational fishing opportunities
          and avoided cancer cases from fish consumption. This potential is considered to be minor
          in terms of numerical  significance.
2.1.4   Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits


       The analysis estimates potential economic productivity benefits on the basis of reduced

sewage sludge contamination due to the final regulation. The treatment of wastewaters generated by

iron and steel 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

                                           23

-------
of this sludge.  The analysis expects the PSES levels 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, the
analysis calculates the sewage sludge pollutant concentrations at current and PSES levels (see Section
2.1.1.2).  It then compares pollutant concentrations to sewage sludge pollutant limits for surface
disposal and land application  (minimum ceiling limits and pollutant  concentration limits). The
analysis projects that a POTW that meets all pollutant limits as a result of pretreatment will benefit
from the increase in options for sewage sludge use or disposal. 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. The analysis assumes that POTWs will choose the
least expensive sewage sludge use or disposal practice for which their sewage sludge meets pollutant
limits. POTWs with sewage sludge whose baseline qualifies for land application will dispose of their
sewage sludge by land application; likewise, POTWs with sewage sludge that meets surface disposal
limits (but not the land application ceiling or pollutant limits) will dispose of their sewage sludge at
surface disposal sites.

       EPA calculates the economic benefit for POTWs receiving wastewater from an iron and steel
facility by multiplying the cost differential between baseline and postcompliance  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, the analysis calculates cost reductions  from  changes  in sewage  sludge use or
disposal for each POTW.

             SCR = PF x S x CD x PD x CF                                 (Eq. 14)
                                           24

-------
where:
       SCR   =  estimated POTW sewage sludge use or disposal cost reductions resulting from the
                 final regulation (1997 dollars)
       PF     =  POTW flow (million gal/year)
       S      =  sewage sludge to wastewater ratio (1,400 Ib [dry weight] per million gallons of
                 water)
       CD    =  estimated cost differential between least costly composite baseline use or disposal
                 method for which POTW qualifies and least costly use or disposal method for
                 which POTW qualifies postcompliance (1997 dollars/dry metric ton)
       PD    =  percentage of sewage sludge disposed
       CF    =  conversion factor for units
2.1.4.1 Assumptions and Caveats


       The economic productivity benefits analysis uses the following major assumptions:
          Of the POTW sewage sludge generated in the United States, 13.4 percent 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.  The analysis does not associate this
          percentage of sewage  sludge with benefits from  shifts to surface  disposal or land
          application.

          The  analysis  does not estimate benefits  expected from  reduced record-keeping
          requirements and exemption from certain sewage sludge management practices.

          No definitive source of cost-saving differentials exists. The 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 final iron and steel regulation may differ from those estimates.

          Because of the unavailability of data on baseline pollutant loadings from all industrial
          sources, those  data are not included in the analysis.
                                           25

-------
2.2    Pollutant Fate and Toxicitv

       Human and ecological exposure and risk from environmental releases of toxic chemicals
depend largely on toxic potency, intermedia partitioning, and chemical persistence. These factors in
turn depend on chemical-specific properties relating to toxicological effects on living organisms,
physical state, hydrophobicity/lipophilicity, and reactivity, as well as on the mechanism and media
of release and site-specific environmental conditions.

       The methodology used in assessing the fate and toxicity of pollutants associated with iron and
steel wastewaters consists of three steps: (1) identification of pollutants of concern, (2) compilation
of physical-chemical and toxicity data, and (3) categorization assessment.  The following sections
describe these steps in detail, as well as present a summary of the major assumptions and limitations
associated with this methodology.

2.2.1   Identification of Pollutants of Concern

       EPA conducted a sampling and analytical program at 18 steel industry sites. EPA sampled
and analyzed a broad list of pollutants to identify pollutants present in wastewaters from each type
of process operation and to determine their fate in industry wastewater treatment systems. In general,
EPA identified as pollutants of concern those pollutants that met these following screening criteria:
          The pollutant was detected at greater than or equal to ten times the minimum level (ML)
          concentration in at least 10 percent of all untreated process wastewater samples, and
       •   The mean detected concentration in untreated process wastewater samples was greater
          than the mean detected concentration in the source water samples.
(This is a simplification of the methodology employed in identifying pollutants of concern. See
Section 7 of the Technical Support Document for more details.)
                                           26

-------
       In the waste streams from direct discharging iron and steel facilities, EPA detected 60
pollutants (22 priority pollutants, 3 conventional pollutant parameters,  and 35 nonconventional
pollutants) in waste streams that met the selection criteria.  EPA identified these pollutants as
pollutants of concern and evaluated them to assess their potential fate and toxicity based on known
characteristics of each chemical.

       In the waste streams from indirect discharging iron and steel facilities, EPA detected 35
pollutants (14 priority, 3 conventional pollutant parameters, and 18 nonconventional pollutants) in
waste streams that met the selection criteria. EPA identified these pollutants as pollutants of concern
and evaluated them 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 (organic-carbon) adsorption
coefficients (Koc), and bioconcentration  factors  (BCFs) for native  aquatic species and aqueous
aerobic biodegradation half-lives (BD).

       Sources of the above data include EPA AWQC 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  database, EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), EPA's 1997 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST), EPA's 1998 Region III Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, EPA's 1996 Superfund
Chemical Data Matrix, EPA's  1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide,
Syracuse Research Corporation's CHEMFATE database, EPA and other government reports,
scientific literature, and other primary and secondary data sources. To ensure that the examination

                                           27

-------
is as comprehensive as possible, this analysis has taken alternative measures 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, EPA estimates values for the chemicals using the quantitative
structure-activity relationship (QS AR) model incorporated in ASTER or, for some physical-chemical
properties, using published linear regression correlation equations.

       (a) Aquatic Life Data

       The analysis obtains ambient criteria or toxic effect concentration levels for the protection of
aquatic life primarily from EPA's AWQC 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, the analysis uses an acute value from published aquatic
toxicity test data or an estimated acute value from the ASTER QSAR model. When selecting values
from the literature, the analysis prefers measured concentrations from flow-through studies under
typical pH and temperature conditions.  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.

       1.  National acute freshwater quality criteria
       2.  Lowest reported acute test values (96-hour LC50 for fish and 48-hour EC50/LC50 for
          daphnids)
       3.  Lowest reported LC50 test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate a 96-hour
          exposure period
       4.  Lowest reported LC50 test value of longer duration, up to a maximum of 2 weeks exposure
       5.  Estimated 96-hour LC50 from the ASTER QSAR model
                                           28

-------
       The analysis uses BCF data from numerous data sources, including EPA's AWQC documents
and EPA's ASTER.  Where measured BCF values are not available for several chemicals, the
analysis estimates the parameter using the octanol-water partition coefficient or solubility of the
chemical.  Lyman et al. (1982) details such methods. The analysis then reviews multiple values and
selects a representative value 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's AWQC
          documents.

The analysis uses the most conservative value (i.e., the highest BCF) 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.  The analysis obtains RfDs and SFs first from EPA's IRIS, and
secondarily uses EPA's HEAST or EPA's Region III RBC Table. The RfD is an estimate of a daily
exposure level for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to be
without an appreciable risk of deleterious noncarcinogenic health effects over a lifetime (U. S. EPA,
1989a).   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.

                                           29

-------
The SF is an upper-bound estimate of the probability of cancer per unit intake of a chemical over a
lifetime (U.S. EPA, 1989a). 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 EPA's Office
of Water.  EPA  has designated 126 chemicals and compounds as priority pollutants under the
authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

       (c) Physical-Chemical Property Data

       The analysis uses 2 measures of physical-chemical properties to evaluate environmental fate:
Henry's Law constant (FtLC) and organic-carbon adsorption partition  coefficient (Koc).

       FtLC 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 FtLC, the more likely
that the chemical will volatilize. The analysis obtains most FtLCs from EPA's Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances' (OPTS) 1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide (U.S.
EPA, 1989b), the Office of Solid Waste's (OSW) Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (U.S. EPA,
1996a), or the QSAR system (U.S. EPA,  1998-1999), maintained by EPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota.

       Koc is indicative of the propensity of an organic compound to adsorb to soil or sediment
particles and, therefore, to partition to  such media.  The larger the Koc, the more likely that the
chemical will adsorb to solid material.  The analysis obtains most Kocs from Syracuse Research
Corporation's CFLEMFATE database and EPA's 1989 Toxic Chemical Release  Inventory Risk
Screening Guide (U.S. EPA, 1989b).

                                           30

-------
       The biodegradation half-life (BD) is the empirically derived length of time during which half
the amount of a chemical 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.  The
analysis obtains most BDs from the Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates (Howard, 1991)
and EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth's QSAR.

2.2.3   Categorization Assessment

       The objective of evaluating 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 the following descriptors:

       •  Acute aquatic toxicity (high, moderate, or slightly toxic)
       •  Volatility from water (high, moderate, slight, or nonvolatile)
       •  Adsorption to soil/sediment (high, moderate, slight, or nonadsorptive)
       •  Bioaccumulation potential (high, moderate, slight, or nonbioaccumulative)
       •  Biodegradation potential (fast,  moderate, slow, or resistant)

       With  the use  of 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 iron and steel wastewater. In addition, the categorization schemes
identify the potential of each chemical to partition to various media (air, sediment/sludge, or water)
and to persist in the environment. The analysis uses these schemes for screening purposes only; they
do not take the place of detailed pollutant assessments that analyze 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 and presents the ranges of
parameter values that define the categories.

       (a) Acute Aquatic Toxicity

Key Parameter:   Acute aquatic life criteria/LC50 or other benchmark (AT) (Ŧg/L)

       Using acute criteria or lowest reported acute test results (generally 96-hour and 48-hour
durations for fish and invertebrates, respectively), the analysis groups chemicals according to their
relative short-term effects on aquatic life.

Categorization Scheme:

       AT < 100            Highly toxic
       1,000 > AT > 100    Moderately toxic
       AT > 1,000          Slightly toxic

       This scheme, used as a rule-of-thumb guidance by EPA's OPPT for Premanufacture Notice
(PMN) evaluations, indicates  chemicals  that could potentially  cause lethality to aquatic  life
downstream of discharges.

       (b) Volatility from Water

Key Parameter:   Henry' s Law constant (HLC) (atm-m3/mol)
               TTT „    Vapor Pressure (atm)
               HLC  =  —	
                        Solubility (mol/m3)
                                           32

-------
       HLC is the measured or calculated ratio of vapor pressure to solubility at ambient conditions.
This parameter indicates 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:

       HLC>10-3                 Highly volatile
       10'3 > HLC > 10'5           Moderately volatile
       1Q-5 > HLC > 3 x 1Q-7        Slightly volatile
       HLC < 3 x 10"7             Essentially nonvolatile

       This scheme, adopted from Lyman et al.  (1982), indicates chemical potential to volatilize from
process wastewater and surface water, thereby reducing the threat to aquatic life and human health
via contaminated fish consumption and drinking water, yet potentially causing risk to exposed
populations via inhalation.

       (c) Adsorption to Soil/Sediments

Key Parameter:   Soil/sediment (organic-carbon) adsorption coefficient (Koc)

       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
to such media. Koc is highly inversely correlated with solubility, well correlated with octanol-water
partition coefficient, and fairly well correlated with BCF.
                                            33

-------
Categorization Scheme:

       Koc > 10,000                Highly adsorptive
       10,000 > Koc > 1,000        Moderately adsorptive
       1,000 > Koc > 10            Slightly adsorptive
       Koc<10                    Essentially nonadsorptive

       This scheme evaluates substances that may partition to solids and potentially contaminate
sediment underlying surface water or land receiving sewage sludge applications. Although a high
Koc value indicates that a chemical is more likely to partition to sediment, it also indicates that a
chemical may be less bioavailable.

       (d) Bioaccumulation Potential

Key Parameter:    Bioconcentration factor (BCF)
                _  Equilibrium chemical concentration in organism (wetweight)
                -  	        (Eel  16)
                           (Mean chemical concentration in water)
BCF is a good indicator of potential to accumulate in aquatic biota through uptake across an external
surface membrane.

Categorization Scheme:

       BCF > 500                 High potential
       500 > BCF > 50             Moderate potential
       50 > BCF > 5               Slight potential
       BCF < 5                    Nonbioaccumulative

                                           34

-------
       This scheme identifies 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 who consume 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.  The analysis selects BD to represent chemical persistence on the
basis  of its importance and the  abundance of measured  or estimated data relative to other
transformation mechanisms.

Categorization Scheme:

       BD < 7                     Fast
       7 < BD < 28                Moderate
       28
-------
2.2.4   Assumptions and Limitations


       The following two subsections summarize the maj or assumptions and limitations associated
with the data compilation and categorization schemes.


       (a) Data Compilation
          If data are readily available from electronic databases, the analysis does not search other
          primary and secondary sources.

          Many of the data are estimated and therefore can have a high degree of associated
          uncertainty.

          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 analysis does not completely
          assess iron and steel wastewater.
       (b) Categorization Schemes
          The analysis does not consider receiving waterbody characteristics, pollutant loading
          amounts, exposed populations, and potential exposure routes.

       •   For several categorization schemes, the analysis  groups chemicals using arbitrary
          order-of-magnitude data breaks.  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 photodegrade or hydrolyze, since the analysis does not consider
          these degradation mechanisms.
                                           36

-------
2.3    Documented Environmental Impacts

       EPA reviewed State 303(d) lists of impaired water, State fishing advisories, and reports for
evidence of documented environmental impacts on aquatic life, human health, and the quality of
receiving water due to discharges of pollutants from iron and steel facilities.  The analysis compiles
and summarizes reported impacts by facility.
                                          37

-------
                                  3.  DATA SOURCES

3.1    Water Quality Impacts

       The analysis uses readily available EPA and other agency databases, models, and reports to
evaluate 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 (EAD) provided projected iron and steel facility
effluent process flows, facility operating days, and pollutant loadings (Appendix A) in April 2002
(U.S. EPA, 2002). EAD determined an average performance level (the "long-term average") that a
facility with well-designed and well-operated model technologies (which reflect the appropriate level
of control) is capable of achieving. This long-term average (LTA) was calculated from data from the
facilities  using the  model technologies for the option.  The LTAs were  based  on pollutant
concentrations collected from three data sources: EPA sampling episodes, the 1997 analytical and
product follow-up survey, and data submitted by industry.  Facilities reported the annual quantity
discharged to surface waters and POTWs in one of two versions (short or detailed) of the U.S. EPA
Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel Industry Data (U.S. EPA, 1997a). EAD multiplied the annual
quantity discharged  by the facility (facility flow) by the LTA for each pollutant and converted the
results to the proper units to calculate the loading (in pounds per year) for each pollutant at each
facility. (This is a simplification of the methodology employed.  See Section 11 of the Technical
Support Document for more details).

       The analysis identifies the locations of iron and steel facilities on receiving streams using the
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) cataloging and stream segment (reach) numbers contained in EPA's
Industrial  Facilities Discharge (IFD) File (U.S. EPA, 2000c).  It also uses latitude-longitude
coordinates, if available, to locate facilities or POTWs that have not been assigned a reach number

                                           38

-------
in the IFD database.  The names, locations, and flow data for the POTWs to which the indirect
facilities discharge are obtained from the 1997 iron and steel questionnaire (U. S. EPA, 1997a), EPA's
1996 Needs Survey (U.S. EPA,  1996b), the IFD database, and EPA's Permit Compliance  System
(PCS) (U.S.  EPA, 2000d).  If these sources do not yield information for a facility, alternative
measures are taken to obtain a complete set of receiving streams and POTWs.

       The analysis obtains the receiving stream flow data from either the W.E. Gates study data or
measured stream flow data, both of which are contained in EPA's GAGE file (U.S. EPA, 2000e).
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. EPA
contacted State environmental agencies for additional information, as necessary. The analysis obtains
dissolved concentration potentials (DCPs) for estuaries and bays from the Strategic Assessment
Branch of NCAA's Ocean Assessments Division (NO AA/U.S. EPA, 1989a-c, 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

       The primary  source of the POTW treatment removal efficiencies is the Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works., commonly referred to as the "50-POTW Study"
(U.S. EPA, 1982). This study presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated POTWs that
employ  secondary biological treatment in removing pollutants.  Each sample was analyzed for 3
conventional, 16 nonconventional, and 126 priority toxic pollutants. Additionally, because of the
large number of pollutants of concern for the iron and steel industry, EPA also uses data from the
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) Treatability Database (formerly called
the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) (U.S. EPA, 1995a). For pollutants
of concern not found in the 50-POTW Study, EPA uses data from the NRMRL database, using only
                                          39

-------
treatment technologies representative of typical POTW secondary treatment operations (activated
sludge, activated sludge with filtration, aerated lagoons).

       The analysis obtains inhibition values from the 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, the analysis uses a value based on compound type, such as aromatics
(Appendix C).

       The analysis obtains sewage sludge regulatory levels, if available for the pollutants of concern,
from the Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, Final Rule (U.S. EPA, 1995b). The
analysis uses pollutant limits established  for the final use or disposal of sewage sludge when the
sewage sludge is applied to agricultural and nonagricultural land (Appendix C). Sludge partition
factors are obtained from the Report to Congress on the Discharge ofHazardous Wastes to Publicly-
Owned Treatment Works (Domestic Sewage Study)  (U.S. EPA, 1986) (Appendix C).

3.1.3   Water Quality Criteria

       The analysis obtains the AWQC (or toxic effect levels) for the protection of aquatic life and
human health from a variety of sources, including  EPA  criteria documents, EPA's ASTER, and
EPA's IRIS (Appendix C).  It uses ecological toxicity estimations 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

       EPA establishes AWQC for many pollutants 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

                                          40

-------
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 AWQC are developed, the analysis uses specific toxicity values
(acute and chronic effect concentrations reported in published literature or estimated using various
application techniques).  When selecting values from the literature, the analysis prefers measured
concentrations from flow-through studies under typical pH and temperature conditions. The test
organism has to 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.

       Acute Aquatic Life Values:
          1.   National acute freshwater quality criteria
          2.   Lowest reported acute test values (96-hour LC50 for fish and 48-hour EC50/LC50 for
              daphnids)
          3.   Lowest reported LC50 test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate a 96-hour
              exposure period
          4.   Lowest reported LC50 test value of longer  duration, up to a maximum of 2 weeks of
              exposure
          5.   Estimated 96-hour LC50 from the ASTER QSAR model

       Chronic Aquatic Life Values:
          1.   National chronic freshwater quality criteria
          2.   Lowest  reported   maximum  allowable  toxicant  concentration   (MATC),
              lowest-observed-effect concentration (LOEC), or no-observed-effect concentration
              (NOEC)
          3.   Lowest reported chronic growth or reproductive toxicity test concentration
                                           41

-------
          4.  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


       EPA establishes AWQC for the protection of human health in terms of a pollutant's toxic

effects, including carcinogenic potential, using two exposure routes: (1) ingesting the pollutant via

contaminated aquatic organisms only, and (2) ingesting the pollutant via both water and contaminated

aquatic organisms. The values are determined as follows.


       For Toxicitv Protection (ingestion of organisms only):
                             RfD x CF
                          -                                                     (Eq. 17)
where:

       HH00   =  human health value (Ŧg/L)
       RfD   =  reference dose for a 70-kg individual (mg/day)
       IRf    =  fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
       BCF   =  bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
       CF    =  conversion factor for units (1,000 ,ug/mg)
       For Carcinogenic Protection (ingestion of organisms only):
                           BW x RL x CF
                     00  ~   SFXIRfXBCF
where:
       HH00   =  human health value (Ŧg/L)
       BW    =  body weight (70 kg)
       RL    =  risk level (ID'6)
       SF     =  cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1
                                           42

-------
       IRf    =  fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
       BCF   =  bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
       CF    =  conversion factor for units (1,000 ,ug/mg)
       For Toxicitv Protection (ingestion of water and organisms):
                             RfD x  CF
                        IRw + (IRf x BCF)

where:

       HHWO  =  human health value (Ŧg/L)
       RfD   =  reference dose for a 70-kg individual (mg/day)
       IRW    =  water ingestion rate (2 L/day)
       IRf    =  fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
       BCF   =  bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
       CF    =  conversion factor for units (1000 ^g/mg)


       For Carcinogenic Protection (ingestion of water and organisms):


                          BW x  RL x CF
            HH   =  	
                     SF x (IRw  + (IRf x BCF))

where:
       HHWO  =  human health value
       BW    =  body weight (70 kg)
       RL    =  risk level (ID'6)
       SF     =  cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1
       IRW    =  water ingestion rate (2 L/day)
       IRf    =  fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
       BCF   =  bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
       CF    =  conversion factor for units (1,000 ,ug/mg)
The analysis derives the values for ingesting water and organisms by assuming an average daily
ingestion rate of 2 liters of water, an average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams of potentially

                                           43

-------
contaminated fish products, and an average adult body weight of 70 kilograms (U.S. EPA, 1991).

If EPA has established a slope factor, the analysis uses values protective of carcinogen! city to assess

the potential effects on human health.


       The analysis develops protective concentration levels for carcinogens in terms of nonthreshold

lifetime risk level, using criteria at a risk level of 10"6 (1E-6). This risk level indicates a probability

of 1  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.


       The hierarchy used to select the most appropriate human health criteria values is listed below

in descending order of priority:
       1.  Human health criteria values calculated using EPA's IRIS RfDs or SFs in conjunction
          with adjusted 3 percent lipid BCF values derived from Quality Criteria for Water (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.

       2.  Human health criteria  values  calculated  using current  IRIS  RfDs  or SFs  and
          representative BCF values for common North American species offish or invertebrates
          or estimated BCF values.

       3.  Human health criteria values calculated using RfDs or SFs from EPA's HEAST or EPA's
          Region III RBC Table in conjunction with adjusted 3 percent lipid BCF values derived
          from Quality Criteria/or Water (U.S. EPA,  1980).

       4.  Human health criteria values calculated using current RfDs or SFs from HEAST or
          EPA's Region III RBC Table and representative BCF values for common North American
          species offish or invertebrates or estimated BCF values.

       5.  Criteria from the Quality Criteria for Water  (U.S. EPA, 1980).

       6.  Human health values calculated using RfDs  or SFs from data sources other than IRIS,
          HEAST, or Region III RBC Table.
                                           44

-------
       This hierarchy is based on Section 2.4.6 of the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991), 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, the analysis calculates human health values using
the formulas for carcinogen!city, which always result in the more stringent value, given the risk levels
employed.

3.1.4  Information Used To  Evaluate Human Health Risks and Benefits

       The analysis obtains fish ingestion rates for adult sport and subsistence anglers from the draft
report Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the United States, Based on the Data Collected
by the United States Department of Agriculture's 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals (U.S. EPA, 2000a). Fish ingestion rates for children are obtained from the Exposure
Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997b).  Data on average household size are obtained from the
Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1995  (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995). Population and
birth rate data are obtained from the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997 (U.S. Bureau of
the Census, 1997).  Data concerning the number of anglers in each State (i.e., resident anglers) are
obtained from the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,  and Wildlife Associated Recreation
(U.S.Dept. ofthelnteriorFWS, 1991)(Site-specificinformationisusedfor special cases). Thetotal
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).  The analysis identifies drinking
water utilities located within 50  miles  downstream from  each  discharge  site  using  EPA's
REACHSCAN (U.S. EPA, 2000f).  The population served by a drinking water utility is obtained
from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) (U. S. EPA, 2000g). Total suspended
solids (TSS) concentrations (effluent and receiving stream) used in the DRE model are obtained from
EAD and from the Analysis of STORET Suspended Sediments Data for the United States (Versar,
1992b), respectively.  Willingness-to-pay values are obtained from OPA's review of the 1989 and
1986 studies "The Value of Reducing Risks of Death:  A Note on New Evidence" (Fisher et al.,
1989) and Valuing Risks:  New Information on the Willingness to Pay for Changes in

                                          45

-------
Fatal Risks (Violette and Chestnut, 1986). The analysis adjusts values to 1997 on the basis of 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 and E.

3.1.5  Information Used To Evaluate Ecological Benefits

       The analysis uses the concept of a "contaminant-free fishery" and the estimate of an increase
in the consumer surplus associated with a contaminant-free fishery which are presented in Discrete
Choice Models to Value Changes in Environmental Quality:  A Great Lakes Case Study, a thesis
submitted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Lyke, 1993). The analysis uses data concerning
the number of resident anglers in each State and average number of fishing days per angler in each
State obtained from the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated
Recreation (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 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).  The analysis adjusts values to 1997, on
the basis of 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).

3.1.6  Information Used To Evaluate Economic Productivity Benefits

       The analysis obtains sewage sludge pollutant limits for surface disposal and land application
(ceiling limits and pollutant concentration limits) from the Standards for the  Use  or Disposal of
Sewage Sludge, Final Rule (U.S. EPA, 1995b). Cost savings resulting from shifts in sludge use or
disposal practices (from composite baseline use and disposal practices) are obtained from the
Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations, Guidelines  and Standards for the
Metal Products and Machinery Industry (Phase I) (U.S. EPA, 1995c). The analysis adjusts savings,
                                           46

-------
if applicable, to 1997 using the Construction Cost Index published in the Engineering News Record.
In that report, EPA consulted a wide variety of sources, including the following:

          1988 National Sewage Sludge Survey
          19 8 5 EPA Handbook for Estimating Sludge Management Costs
          1989 EP A 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
       •   Research organizations with expertise in waste management

Information used in the evaluation is presented in Appendix D.

3.2    Pollutant Fate and Toxicitv

       The analysis obtains the chemical-specific data needed to conduct the fate and toxicity
evaluation from various sources as discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this report. Aquatic life and human
health values are presented in Appendix C, as well as physical-chemical property data.

3.3    Documented Environmental Impacts

       The analysis obtains data concerning environmental impacts from the 1998 State 303(d) lists
of impaired  waterbodies (U.S. EPA, 1998a), the 1998 National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Advisories (U. S. EPA, 1998b), and EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
FY98 Accomplishments Report (U.S. EPA, 1999).
                                          47

-------
                              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
iron and steel facilities 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.

4.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities

       The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water
quality at current and BAT discharge levels for 15 iron and  steel facilities directly discharging 50
pollutants to 13 receiving streams (Table 1). At current discharge levels, these 15 facilities discharge
3.83 million pounds per year of priority and nonconventional pollutants (Table 2). The iron and steel
guidelines will reduce these loadings to 3.10 million pounds per year at BAT discharge levels, a 19
percent reduction.

       The analysis projects that modeled instream pollutant concentrations will exceed  human
health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of water and organisms) in 69
percent of the receiving streams (9 of the total 13) at current and BAT discharge levels (Table 3).
Using a target risk of 10"6 (1E-6) for the carcinogens, the analysis projects that 6 pollutants at current
and BAT discharge levels will exceed instream criteria or toxic effect levels (Table 4). The analysis
also projects a total of 5 pollutants will exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels
(developed for consumption of organisms only) in 69 percent of the receiving streams (9 of the total
                                           48

-------
13) at current and BAT discharge levels (Tables 3 and 4). The final iron and steel guidelines will
reduce the magnitude of the human health excursions.

       The analysis projects that modeled instream pollutant concentrations of 4 pollutants will
exceed acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 15 percent of the receiving streams (2 of
the total 13)  at current discharge  levels (Tables 3  and 4).   The analysis also projects modeled
instream concentrations of 11 pollutants will exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect
levels in 38 percent of the receiving streams  (5 of the total 13) (Tables 3 and 4). The final iron and
steel guidelines will reduce acute aquatic life excursions to 3 pollutants in 8 percent of the receiving
streams (1 of the total  13) and will  reduce chronic  aquatic life excursions to 9 pollutants in 23
percent of the receiving streams (3 of the total 13).

4.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities

       The analysis evaluates the effects of POTW wastewater discharges on receiving stream water
quality at current and PSES discharge levels for 8 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging 26
pollutants to 7 POTWs located on 7 receiving streams (Table 5). At current discharge levels, after
accounting for POTW removal, these 8 facilities discharge 0.60 million pounds per year of priority
and nonconventional pollutants (Table 2). The iron and steel guidelines will reduce these loadings
to 0.34 million pounds per year at PSES discharge levels, a 43 percent reduction.

       Using a target risk of 10"6 (1E-6) for the carcinogens, the analysis  projects that modeled
instream pollutant concentrations  will  exceed human health criteria or  toxic  effect levels
(developed for both the consumption of water and organisms and for the consumption of organisms
only) in 71 percent of the receiving streams (5 of the total 7) at current and PSES discharge levels
(Tables 6 and 7).

       The analysis projects that modeled instream concentrations of 1 pollutant will  exceed acute
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in  14 percent of the receiving streams (1 of the total 7) at

                                            49

-------
current  discharge levels (Tables 6 and 7).  The final iron and steel guidelines will eliminate this
excursion.  The analysis also projects modeled instream concentrations of 3 pollutants will exceed
chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 43 percent of the receiving streams (3 of the
total 7) at both current and PSES discharge levels (Tables 6 and 7).

       In addition, the analysis evaluates the potential impact of the 8 indirect discharging iron and
steel facilities,  which discharge to 7 POTWs, in terms of inhibition of POTW operation and
contamination of sludge. The analysis projects that no inhibition problems or sludge contamination
problems will occur at any of the POTWs (Table 8).

4.1.2  Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits

       The analysis evaluates the potential benefits to human  health by  estimating the risks
(carcinogenic and systemic) associated with current and reduced pollutant levels in fish tissue and
drinking  water.  Sections  4.1.2.1  and 4.1.2.2  summarize potential  human health impacts
(carcinogenic and systemic) from the consumption offish tissue and drinking water that are derived
from waterbodies impacted by direct and indirect discharging facilities.  The analysis estimates risks
for recreational  (sport) and subsistence anglers and their families, as well as the general population
(drinking water).

4.1.2.1 Direct Discharging Facilities

       The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on human health from the
consumption offish tissue and drinking water at current and BAT discharge levels for 15 iron and
steel facilities directly discharging 50 pollutants to 13 receiving streams.

       Fish Tissue (Carcinogenic and Systemic) — At current discharge levels, 12 receiving
streams have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the
discharge of 12 carcinogens (Tables 9 and 10).  The analysis projects total estimated risks greater

                                           50

-------
than 10'6 (1E-6) for sport anglers and subsistence anglers. At current discharge levels, total excess
annual cancer cases are estimated to be 8.5E-1. At BAT discharge levels, 12 receiving streams still
have a total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risk greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge
of 12 carcinogens (Tables 9 and 10).  The analysis again projects total estimated risks greater than
10"6 (1E-6) for sport anglers and subsistence anglers  Total excess annual cancer cases will be
reduced to an estimated 3.7E-1 at BAT discharge levels (Table 9). Based on the reduction of total
excess cancer cases (5E-1), the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases
ranges from $1,300,000 to $6,900,000 (2001 dollars).

       In addition, the analysis projects systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) in
1 receiving stream from 8 pollutants at current discharge levels (Table 11). An estimated population
of 5000 sport and subsistence anglers and their families are proj ected to be affected. The iron and
steel guidelines are not projected to eliminate systemic toxicant effects.

       Drinking Water — At  current and BAT discharge levels, the analysis projects that 5
receiving streams will have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6)
due to the discharge of 4 carcinogens (Table 12). Estimated risks range from 2.0E-6 to 3.4E-5.
Drinking water utilities are located within 50 miles downstream of 1 site that discharges 1 carcinogen
with risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6). However, EPA has published a drinking water standard for the
1  carcinogen, and  the analysis  assumes that drinking water treatment systems  will reduce
concentrations to below adverse effect thresholds.  Therefore, the analysis projects no total excess
annual cancer cases (Table 12). In addition, the analysis projects no systemic toxicant effects (hazard
index greater than 1.0) at current or BAT discharge levels (Table 11).

4.1.2.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities

       The analysis evaluates the effects of POTW wastewater discharges on human health from the
consumption offish tissue and drinking water at current and PSES discharge levels for 8 iron and
steel facilities discharging 26 pollutants to 7 POTWs with outfalls on 7 receiving streams.

                                            51

-------
       Fish Tissue (Carcinogenic and Systemic) — At current discharge levels, 6 receiving
streams have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the
discharge of3 carcinogens (Tables 13 and 14). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than
106 (1E-6) for both sport anglers and subsistence anglers At current discharge levels, total excess
annual cancer cases are estimated to be 2.6E-2 (Table 13). At PSES discharge levels, the 6 receiving
streams still have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the
discharge of the 3 carcinogens (Tables 13 and 14). The analysis again projects total estimated risks
greater than 10"6 (1E-6) for both sport anglers and subsistence anglers Total excess annual cancer
cases will be reduced to 2.5E-2 at PSES levels (Table 13).  Based on the reduction of total excess
cancer cases (1 .OE-3), the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases is $2,600
to $14,000 (2001 dollars).  In addition, the analysis projects no  systemic toxicant effects (hazard
index greater than 1.0) at current or PSES discharge levels (Table 15).

       Drinking Water - At current and PSES discharge  levels, the analysis projects that 1
receiving stream will have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6)
(Table 16). However, there are no drinking water utilities located within 50 miles downstream of the
discharge site. In addition, the analysis projects no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater
than 1.0) at current or PSES discharge levels (Table 15).

4.1.3  Estimation of Ecological Benefits

       The analysis evaluates the potential ecological benefits of the final regulation by estimating
improvements in the recreational fishing habitats that are adversely impacted by direct and indirect
iron and steel wastewater discharges. 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 effects will vary  because of the diversity of species with differing
sensitivities. 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
                                            52

-------
toxic to aquatic life, including finfish. The following sections summarize the potential monetary
benefits for direct and indirect iron and steel discharges, as well as additional benefits that are not
monetized.

4.1.3.1 Direct Discharging Facilities

       The analysis evaluates the  effects of direct wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats at
current and BAT discharge levels for 15 iron and steel facilities discharging 50 pollutants to 13
receiving streams (Tables 1 and 3). The analysis projects that the final regulation will completely
eliminate instream concentrations in excess of AWQC at 1 receiving stream (Table 3).  The analysis
estimates the monetary value of improved recreational fishing opportunities by first calculating the
baseline value of the benefitting stream  segment (Table 17). From the estimated total of 21,300
person-days fished on the  1 stream segment and the value per person-day of recreational fishing
($34.49 to $43.68,2001 dollars), the analysis estimates a baseline value of $735,000 to $930,000 for
the 1 stream segment (Table 17). The value of improving water quality in these fisheries is then
calculated on the basis of the increase in value (11.1 percent to 31.3 percent) to anglers of achieving
a contaminant-free fishing stream (Lyke, 1993). The resulting estimate of the increase in value of
recreational fishing to anglers ranges from $82,000 to $291,000  (2001 dollars)  (Table 17).  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 $41,000 to $145,000 (2001 dollars) (Table  17).  The
analysis estimates these nonuse  benefits as one-half of the recreational benefits, which may  be
significantly underestimating them.

4.1.3.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities

       The analysis evaluates  the effects of indirect wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats at
current and PSES discharge levels for 8 iron and steel facilities discharging 26 pollutants to 7
POTWs with outfalls located on 7 receiving streams (Tables 5 and 6).  The analysis projects that the
final regulation will not eliminate instream concentrations in excess of AWQC. (Table 6).

                                            53

-------
4.2    Pollutant Fate and Toxicity

       Levels of human exposure, ecological exposure, and risk from environmental releases of toxic
chemicals depend largely on toxic potency, intermedia partitioning, and chemical persistence. These
exposure and risk factors depend on the chemical-specific properties of toxicological effects on living
organisms, physical state, hydrophobicity/lipophilicity, and reactivity, as well as on the mechanism
and media of release and site-specific environmental conditions.

       Using available data on the physical-chemical properties, and aquatic life and human health
toxicity data for the 60 direct discharge iron and steel pollutants of concern, the analysis determines
the following: 20 pollutants exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 37 are human systemic
toxicants, 19 are classified as known or probable carcinogens, 16 have drinking water values (10 with
enforceable health-based maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), 4 with a secondary MCL, and 2 with
an action level for treatment) and 23 are designated by EPA as priority pollutants (Tables 18,19, and
20).  In terms of projected environmental partitioning among media, 17 of the evaluated pollutants
are moderately to highly volatile (potentially causing risk to exposed populations via inhalation), 27
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), 20 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids, and
7 are resistant to biodegradation or are slowly biodegraded.

       In addition, using available data on the physical-chemical properties, and aquatic life and
human health toxicity data for the 35 indirect discharge iron and steel pollutants of concern, the
analysis determines the following: 12 exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 15 are human
systemic toxicants, 9 are classified as known or probable carcinogens, 5 have drinking water values
(all with enforceable health-based MCLs),  and 14 are designated by EPA as priority pollutants
(Tables 21, 22, and 23).  In terms of projected environmental partitioning among media,  13 of the
pollutants are moderately to highly volatile,  14 have a moderate to high potential to bioaccumulate
                                            54

-------
in aquatic biota, 13 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids, and 7 are resistant to biodegradation
or are slowly biodegraded.

4.3    Documented Environmental Impacts

       The  analysis reviews information received from reports, State  303(d) lists of impaired
waterbodies, and State fishing advisories for documented impacts due to  discharges from iron and
steel facilities.  States identified at least 3 impaired waterbodies, with industrial point sources as a
potential source of impairment, that receive direct discharges from iron and steel facilities (and other
sources).  These waterbodies are included on the States'  303(d) prioritized lists of impaired
waterbodies (Table 24).  Section 303(d) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 requires States to identify
waterbodies that do not meet state water quality standards and to develop a "total maximum daily
load" or TMDL for each listed waterbody. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a
pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, which is then allocated
to the pollutant's sources. States also have issued fish consumption advisories for 9 waterbodies that
receive direct discharges from  10 iron and steel facilities  (and  other sources) (Table 25).  The
advisories include mercury and dioxins, iron and steel pollutants of concern.  In  addition, EPA's
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, FY 98 Accomplishments  Report (U.S. EPA,  1999)
identified significant noncompliance (SNC) rates (most egregious violations under each program or
statute) for iron and steel facilities (Table 26).   Of the 27 integrated mills inspected in fiscal years
(FY) 1996 and 1997, 96 percent were out of compliance with one or more statutes, and 65 percent
were in SNC. In FY 1998, of the 23 integrated mills inspected, 39.1 percent of the facilities were in
SNC with their water permits, 72.7  percent with air violations, and 30.4 percent with RCRA
violations. SNC rates for 91 mini-mills were 21.2 percent for air, 2.7 percent for water permits, and
4.5 percent  for RCRA.   Key compliance and environmental problems included groundwater
contamination from slag disposal, contaminated sediments from  steelmaking, electric arc furnace
dust, unregulated sources,  SNCs from recurring and single peak violations, and no baseline testing.
                                           55

-------
4.4    Summary  of Environmental Effects/Benefits  from  Final Effluent Guidelines and
       Standards

       EPA estimates that the annual monetized benefits resulting from the final effluent guidelines
and standards will range from $1.4 million to $7.3 million (2001 dollars). Table 27 summarizes these
effects/benefits.  The range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of this final rule and in
placing a monetary value on these effects. The estimate of reported benefits also understates the total
benefits expected to result under this final rule.  Additional benefits, which cannot be quantified in
this assessment, include improved ecological  conditions from improvements in water quality,
improvements to recreational activities (other than fishing), and reduced discharge of conventional
and other pollutants.
                                            56

-------
Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (50) Discharged from 15 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities
CAS Number
50328
56553
57125
62533
67641
71432
85018
91203
91576
95487
100027
105679
106445
108952
110861
112958
129000
132649
205992
206440
218019
302045
593453
612942
7429905
7439896
7439976
7439921
7439954
7439965
7439987
7440020
7440280
7440326
Pollutant
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Total Cyanide
Aniline
Acetone
Benzene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
o-Cresol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
n-Eicosane
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Thiocyanate
n-Octadecane
2-Phenylnaphthalene
Aluminum
Iron
Mercury
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Titanium
Subcategory
Cokemaking
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X







Sintering


X*



X*


X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*




X*

X*


X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
                                                 57
April 30, 2002

-------
              Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (50) Discharged from 15 Direct Discharging
                                      Iron and Steel Facilities  (Cont'd)
CAS Number
7440382
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440508
7440666
7664417
7782492
16984488
51207319
57117314
57117416
57117449
60851345
67562394
70648269
Pollutant
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
Selenium
Fluoride
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Subcategory
Cokemaking






X
X








Sintering
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*  Preliminary loadings.

Source:  U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (BAD), April 10, 2002, Loading Files
                                                    58
April 30, 2002

-------
                              Table 2. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Iron and Steel Facilities
                                                        Loadings (Million Pounds-per-Year)*
                                                 Direct Dischargers
                                                                      Indirect Dischargers
                                                                                                                  Total**
 Current
                                              3.83
0.60
4.43
 BAT/PSES
                                              3.10
0.34
3.44
 No. of Pollutants Evaluated
                                               50
   26
 50
 No. of Facilities Evaluated
                                               15
                              22 ****
****
Loadings are representative of pollutants evaluated; conventional and nonconventional pollutants such as TSS, BOD, COD, TOC, TKN,
total phenols, amenable cyanide, nitrate/nitrite, weak acid dissociable cyanide, and oil and grease are not evaluated.
The same pollutant may be discharged from a number of direct and indirect facilities; therefore, the total does not equal the sum
of pollutants.
Accounts for POTW removal; loadings prior to POTW removal are 1.74 million pounds-per-year (current) and 1.18 million
pounds-per-year (PSES).
One facility is both a direct and an indirect discharger.
Source:   U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (BAD), April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
                                                                59
                                                                                                                              April 30, 2002

-------
                 Table 3. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

Current
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
BAT**
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
2
4(1.3-2.7)
4
1
3 (1.3-2.7)
3
Chronic Aquatic
Life
5
11(1.0-23.3)
15
3
9(1.1-23.3)
11
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
9
6(1.1-1,020)
21
9
6(1.1-894)
19
Human Health
Orgs. Only
9
5(1.1-1,020)
20
9
5(1.1-894)
18
Total*
10
16
9
14
NOTE:   Numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.
         Number of streams evaluated = 13, number of facilities = 15, and number of pollutants = 50.
         Pollutants detected at or below the minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

         *   Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.
         * *  Projected excursions calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current
             for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never detected above minimum level.  Also, projected excursions

             and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow but not a projected reduction in  load (i.e., loads used in the cost-
             effectiveness analysis).

         April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
                                                                 60
                                                                                                                        April 30, 2002

-------
                                            Table 4. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel
                                                              Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)



Aluminum
Ammonia as N
Arsenic
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Boron
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Selenium
Thallium
Thiocyanate
Zinc
Number of Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
Current
0
1(1.3)
0
0
0
0
0
1(1.7)
1 (2.7)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1(1.5)
BAT
0
1(1.3)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (2.7)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1(1.5)
Chronic Aquatic Life
Current
1(1.8)
1(5.1)
0
0
1(2.1)
0
1 (3.0)
4(1.4-7.1)
1 (23.3)
0
1 (4.0)
1(1.1)
1(1.6)
0
2(1.0-2.3)
1(1.3)
BAT
1(1.8)
1(5.1)
0
0
1(1.8)
0
1 (3.0)
3 (3.4-4.0)
1 (23.3)
0
1 (4.0)
1(1.1)
0
0
0
1(1.3)
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
Current
0
0
1 (28.5)
5(1.1-725)
8(1.7-1,020)
5(1.6-74)
0
0
0
1(1.1)
0
0
0
1 (4.0)
0
0
BAT
0
0
1 (28.5)
4 (2.6-42)
8(1.6-894)
4 (6.0-74)
0
0
0
1(1.1)
0
0
0
1 (4.0)
0
0
Human Health
Orgs. Only
Current
0
0
1 (3.6)
5(1.1-68)
8(1.8-1,020)
5(1.6-74)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1(1.1)
0
0
BAT
0
0
1 (3.6)
4 (2.5-40)
8(1.6-894)
4 (6.0-74)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1(1.1)
0
0
NOTE:   Number of pollutants evaluated = 50; AWQC or toxic effect levels were not available for all pollutants (See Appendix C).
         Numbers outside parentheses represent the number of excursions; numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.

April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
                                                                               61
                                                                                                                                                   April 30, 2002

-------
  Table 5. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (26) Discharged from 8 Indirect Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities
CAS Number
50328
56553
57125
62533
67641
71432
85018
91203
91576
95487
105679
106445
108952
110861
112958
129000
132649
205992
206440
218019
302045
593453
612942
7439976
7664417
7782492
Pollutant
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Total Cyanide
Aniline
Acetone
Benzene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
o-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
n-Eicosane
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Thiocyanate
n-Octadecane
2-Phenylnaphthalene
Mercury
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
Selenium
Cokemaking Subcategory
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source:  U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (BAD), April 10, 2002, Loading Files
                                                    62
April 30, 2002

-------
             Table 6. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)

Current
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
PSES
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
1
1(1.6)
1
0
0
0
Chronic Aquatic Life
3
3(1.2-5.7)
5
3
3(1.2-2.6)
5
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
5
3(1.1 - 144)
8
5
3(1.0- 144)
8
Human Health
Orgs. Only
5
3(1.1- 144)
8
5
3(1.0- 144)
8
Total*
5
6
5
6
NOTE:  Numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.
        Number of streams evaluated = 7, number of facilities = 8, and number of pollutants = 26.
        Pollutants detected at or below the minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

       * Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.

       April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
                                                                63
                                                                                                                       April 30, 2002

-------
                                              Table 7.  Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel
                                                            Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)

Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Cyanide
Thiocyanate
Selenium
Number of Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
Current
0
0
0
1(1.6)
0
0
PSES
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chronic Aquatic Life
Current
0
0
0
3(1.2-5.7)
1(1.4)
1 (2.2)
PSES
0
0
0
3(1.2-2.6)
1(1.4)
1 (2.2)
Human Health
Water and Ores.
Current
1 (2.8)
5 (4.7 - 144)
2(1.1-9.8)
0
0
0
PSES
1 (2.8)
5 (4.7 - 144)
2(1.0-9.8)
0
0
0
Human Health
Orgs. Only
Current
1 (2.6)
5 (4.7 - 144)
2(1.1-9.8)
0
0
0
PSES
1 (2.6)
5 (4.7 . 144)
2(1.0-9.8)
0
0
0
NOTE:    Number of pollutants evaluated = 26; AWQC or toxic effect levels were not available for all pollutants (See Appendix C).
          Numbers outside parentheses represent the number of excursions; numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.

          April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
                                                                               64
                                                                                                                                                   April 30, 2002

-------
           Table 8.  Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems from Iron and Steel
                                    Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)

Current
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
PSES
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Biological Inhibition
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sludge Contamination
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
NOTE:  Number of POTWs evaluated = 7, number of facilities = 8, and number of pollutants = 26.
        Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

        April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
                                                           65
                                                                                                              April 30, 2002

-------
  Table 9.  Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

Current
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
BAT*
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10"6
12
12
ll(1.4E-6to2.2E-3)
12 (2.8E-6 to 2.2E-2)
12
12
10(1.2E-6tol.8E-3)
12(2.8E-6tol.9E-2)
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
NA/NA
NA
5.5E-1
3.0E-1
8.5E-1
NA/NA
NA
2.4E-1
1.3E-1
3.7E-1
NOTE:  Number of streams evaluated = 13, number of facilities = 15 and number of pollutants = 50.
        Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk exceeds 10"6 (1E-6).
        Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10"6 (1E-6).
        Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

        NA = Not Applicable
        *   Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at BAT are equal to effluent pollutant
            concentrations at current  for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never detected above minimum level.
            Also, projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at BAT are equal to effluent pollutant
            concentrations at current  for select pollutants and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow, but not a
            projected reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

        April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
                                                                66
                                                                                                                               April 30, 2002

-------
Table 10.  Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
                         Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
                               (Fish Tissue Consumption)

Current:
Stream No. 1
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 2
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 3
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
Stream No. 4
Arsenic
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Stream No. 5
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 6
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pryene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 7
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 8
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers

1.3E-4/3.6E-3
1.9E-3/5.2E-2
1.4E-4/3.7E-3
1.2E-6/3.3E-5
2.0E-6/5.5E-5
4.3E-5/1.2E-3
2.9E-6/8.0E-5
0/NA
6.5E-6/4.4E-4
1.3E-5/8.8E-4
1.3E-5/8.8E-4
1.3E-5/8.8E-4
6.5E-5/4.4E-3
1.3E-5/8.8E-4
6.5E-5/4.4E-3
3.9E-6/2.6E-4
1.8E-5/4.8E-4
2.3E-4/6.1E-3
1.6E-5/4.2E-4
0/NA
1.8E-7/7.4E-6
4.7E-6/1.9E-4
2.7E-7/1.1E-5
3.6E-7/5.1E-6
4.4E-6/6.3E-5
4.4E-7/6.3E-6
1.1E-6/4.5E-5
2.8E-7/1.1E-5
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers

1.3E-3/1.9E-3
1.9E-2/2.7E-2
1.4E-3/2.0E-3
1.3E-5/1.9E-5
2.1E-5/3.0E-5
4.4E-4/6.3E-4
3.0E-5/4.3E-5
2.8E-6/1.0E-5
6.7E-5/2.4E-4
1.3E-4/4.6E-4
1.3E-4/4.6E-4
1.3E-4/4.6E-4
6.7E-4/2.4E-3
1.3E-4/4.6E-4
6.7E-4/2.4E-3
4.0E-5/1.4E-4
1.1E-4/1.5E-4
2.4E-3/3.3E-3
1.6E-4/2.2E-4
1.1E-6/1.5E-6
1.9E-6/4.1E-6
4.8E-5/1.0E-4
2.8E-6/6.0E-6
3.7E-6/2.8E-6
4.5E-5/3.4E-5
4.5E-6/3.4E-6
1.1E-5/2.4E-5
2.8E-6/6.1E-6
                                         67
                                                                                  April 30, 2002

-------
Table 10.  Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
                         Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
                         (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

Stream No. 9
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Stream No. 10
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 11
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 12
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
2.6E-7/1.2E-5
1.8E-7/8.1E-6
1.0E-7/4.5E-6
1.5E-7/6.7E-6
1.4E-6/6.3E-5
1.8E-7/8.1E-6
1.5E-7/8.6E-6
3.2E-6/1.8E-4
2.2E-7/1.3E-5
4.6E-6/6.7E-4
1.1E-4/1.6E-2
1.1E-5/1.6E-3
1.0E-5/7.6E-3
6.0E-4/4.6E-1
1.5E-5/1.1E-2
1.0E-7/7.6E-5
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
2.1E-6/5.0E-6
1.9E-6/4.5E-6
1.0E-6/2.4E-6
1.5E-6/3.5E-6
1.4E-5/3.3E-5
1.8E-6/4.3E-6
1.5E-6/4.5E-6
3.3E-5/9.9E-5
2.2E-6/6.6E-6
4.7E-5/3.6E-4
1.1E-3/8.7E-3
1.1E-4/8.7E-4
1.1E-4/4.4E-3
6.1E-3/2.4E-1
1.6E-4/6.4E-3
1.1E-6/4.4E-5
                                         68
                                                                                  April 30, 2002

-------
Table 10.  Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
                         Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
                         (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

BAT*:
Stream No. 1
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 2
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 3
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
Stream No. 4
Arsenic
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Stream No. 5
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 6
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pryene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 7
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 8
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers

7.4E-5/2.0E-3
1.6E-3/4.4E-2
1.4E-4/3.7E-3
7.4E-7/2.0E-5
0/NA
1.7E-5/4.6E-4
1.3E-6/3.6E-5
0/NA
6.5E-6/4.4E-4
1.3E-5/8.8E-4
1.3E-5/8.8E-4
1.3E-5/8.8E-4
6.5E-5/4.4E-3
1.3E-5/8.8E-4
6.5E-5/4.4E-3
2.6E-6/1.8E-4
1.8E-5/4.8E-4
2.3E-4/6.1E-3
1.6E-5/4.2E-4
0/NA
1.5E-7/6.2E-6
3.6E-6/1.5E-4
2.7E-7/1.1E-5
3.6E-7/5.1E-6
4.4E-6/6.3E-5
4.4E-7/6.3E-6
9.4E-7/3.9E-5
2.4E-7/9.8E-6
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers

7.6E-4/1.1E-3
1.7E-2/2.4E-2
1.4E-3/2.0E-3
7.6E-6/1.1E-5
7.4E-6/1.1E-5
1.8E-4/2.6E-4
1.4E-5/2.0E-5
2.8E-6/1.0E-5
6.7E-5/2.4E-4
1.3E-4/4.6E-4
1.3E-4/4.6E-4
1.3E-4/4.6E-4
6.7E-4/2.4E-3
1.3E-4/4.6E-4
6.7E-4/2.4E-3
2.7E-5/9.6E-5
1.1E-4/1.5E-4
2.4E-3/3.3E-3
1.6E-4/2.2E-4
1.1E-6/1.5E-6
1.5E-6/3.2E-6
3.6E-5/7.8E-5
2.8E-6/6.0E-6
3.6E-6/2.7E-6
4.5E-5/3.4E-5
4.5E-6/3.4E-6
9.7E-6/2.1E-5
2.5E-6/5.4E-6
                                         69
                                                                                  April 30, 2002

-------
          Table 10.  Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
                                    Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
                                   (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

Stream No. 9
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Stream No. 10
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 11
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 12
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
1.2E-7/6.8E-6
2.9E-6/1.6E-4
2.2E-7/1.2E-5
4.6E-6/6.7E-4
1.1E-4/1.6E-2
1.1E-5/1.6E-3
8.3E-6/6.3E-3
2.0E-4/1.5E-1
1.5E-5/1.1E-2
8.3E-8/6.3E-5
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
1.1E-6/2.6E-6
1.1E-6/2.6E-6
5.6E-7/1.3E-6
1.1E-6/2.6E-6
5.6E-6/1.3E-5
2.3E-7/5.4E-7
1.2E-6/3.7E-6
2.9E-5/8.8E-5
2.2E-6/6.7E-6
4.7E-5/3.6E-4
1.1E-3/8.7E-3
1.1E-4/8.7E-4
8.5E-5/3.4E-3
2.0E-3/8.0E-2
1.6E-4/6.4E-3
8.5E-7/3.4E-5
NOTE:  Number of streams evaluated = 13, number of facilities = 15, and number of pollutants = 50. Table presents
        results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk exceeds  10"6 (1E-6). Primary
        chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary, even if cancer risk did not exceed 10"6
        (1E-6).
        Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

        *       Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant  concentrations at BAT are equal
                to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where
                pollutants were never detected above minimum level.  Also, projected cancer risks/cases  calculated
                assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at
                                                                                                      ff, but
                not a projected reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

        NA =   Not Applicable

        April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
                                                    70
                                                                                              April 30, 2002

-------
                   Table 11.  Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron
                               and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
                                (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)

Current
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Affected Population
BAT**
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Affected Population
Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1

1
8*
NA
1 (2.2)
1 (22.8)
5,000

1
8*
NA
1 (2.2)
1 (22.8)
5,000
Drinking Water Hazard Indices >1

0
0
0
0
0


0
0
0
0
0

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 13, number of facilities = 15, and number of pollutants = 50.
        Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected hazard indices exceed 1.0.
        Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.
        NA = Not Applicable
        *        1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran; 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran; 1,2,3,7,8-
                Pentachlorodibenzofuran; 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran;
                 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran; 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran; and Thallium.
        **      Projected hazard indices calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at BAT are equal to
                effluent pollutant concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where
                pollutants were never detected above minimum level. Also, projected hazard indices calculated
                assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at
                current for select pollutants and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow,
                but not a projected reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

        April 10, 2002, Loading File.
                                                    71
                                                                                               April 30, 2002

-------
                                       Table 12. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
                                         Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)
                                                              Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10"f
                                Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
       Current
        Streams (No.)
        Carcinogens (No.)
        With Drinking Water Utility < 50 miles
        Carcinogens (No.)

       BAT*
        Streams
        Carcinogens (No.)
        With Drinking Water Utility < 50 miles
        Carcinogens (No.)	
4**(2.0E-6to3.4E-5)
1
1*** (8.9E-6)
4** (2.0E-6 to 2.9E-5)
1
1*** (3.0E-6)	
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NOTE:  Number of streams evaluated = 13, number of facilities = 15, and number of pollutants = 50.  Table presents results for those streams/facilities
        for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"6 (1E-6). Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are
        included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10"6 (1E-6).
        Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.
        *    Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations
             at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never detected above minimum level. Also, projected cancer
             risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for select
             pollutants and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow, but not a projected reduction in load (i.e., loads used in
             the cost-effectiveness analysis).
        **   Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Arsenic.
        ***  Benzo(a)pyrene.  EPA  has published a drinking water standard for the 1 carcinogen and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems
             will reduce concentrations below adverse effect thresholds.

        April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
                                                                        72
                                                             April 30, 2002

-------
     Table 13.  Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)(Fish Tissue Consumption)

Current
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
PSES
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10"6
6
3
5 (9.3E-6 to 2.8E-4)
6 (2.7E-6 to 2.9E-3)
6
3
5 (4.9E-6 to 2.8E-4)
6(1.4E-6to2.9E-3)
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
NA/NA
NA
1.7E-2
9.3E-3
2.6E-2
NA/NA
NA
1.6E-2
8.6E-3
2.5E-2
NOTE:   Number of streams evaluated = 7, number of facilities = 8, and number of pollutants = 26.
         Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk exceeds 10"6 (1E-6).
         Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10"f
         Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

         NA = Not Applicable

         April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
(1E-6).
                                                                       73
                                                                                                                                    April 30, 2002

-------
Table 14.  Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
                     Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)
                              (Fish Tissue Consumption)

Current:
Stream No. 1
Benzo(a)pyrene
Stream No. 2
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 3
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pryene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 4
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 5
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 6
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers

0/NA
4.9E-6/2.0E-4
2.6E-4/1.1E-2
1.8E-5/7.4E-4
1.6E-7/7.2E-6
8.6E-6/3.9E-4
5.8E-7/2.6E-5
2.2E-7/9.9E-6
1.3E-5/5.8E-4
1.2E-6/5.4E-5
1.8E-7/1.2E-5
9.8E-6/6.6E-4
6.6E-7/4.5E-5
3.8E-7/5.6E-5
2.3E-5/3.4E-3
2.0E-6/2.9E-4
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers

2.7E-6/8.0E-6
5.0E-5/1.1E-4
2.7E-3/5.8E-3
1.8E-4/3.9E-4
1.6E-6/3.8E-6
8.8E-5/2.1E-4
6.0E-6/1.4E-5
2.2E-6/5.2E-6
1.3E-4/3.1E-4
1.2E-5/2.8E-5
1.9E-6/6.8E-6
1.0E-4/3.6E-4
6.8E-6/2.4E-5
3.9E-6/3.0E-5
2.3E-4/1.8E-3
2.1E-5/1.6E-4
                                         74
                                                                                 April 30, 2002

-------
         Table 14.  Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
                              Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)
                                  (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

PSES:
Stream No. 1
Benzo(a)pyrene
Stream No. 2
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 3
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 4
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 5
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 6
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers

0/NA
4.9E-6/2.0E-4
2.6E-4/1.1E-2
1.8E-5/7.4E-4
1.6E-7/7.2E-6
8.6E-6/3.9E-4
5.8E-7/2.6E-5
1.2E-7/5.4E-6
4.2E-6/1.9E-4
6.0E-7/2.7E-5
1.8E-7/1.2E-5
9.8E-6/6.6E-4
6.6E-7/4.5E-5
3.7E-7/5.4E-5
1.7E-5/2.5E-3
1.7E-6/2.5E-4
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers

1.4E-6/4.1E-6
5.0E-5/1.1E-4
2.7E-3/5.8E-3
1.8E-4/3.9E-4
1.6E-6/3.8E-6
8.8E-5/2.1E-4
6.0E-6/1.4E-5
1.3E-6/3.1E-6
4.3E-5/1.0E-4
6.2E-6/1.5E-5
1.9E-6/6.8E-6
1.0E-4/3.6E-4
6.8E-6/2.4E-5
3.8E-6/2.9E-5
1.7E-4/1.3E-3
1.9E-5/1.5E-4
NOTE:  Number of streams evaluated = 7, number of facilities = 8, and number of pollutants = 26. Table presents
        results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk exceeds 10"6 (1E-6). Primary
        chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary, even if cancer risk did not exceed
        10'6 (1E-6).
        Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.
        NA =   Not Applicable

        April 10, 2002, Loading Files.
                                                  75
                                                                                           April 30, 2002

-------
                  Table 15.  Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron
                          and Steel Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory)
                              (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)

Current
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
PSES
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1

0
0
NA
0
0

0
0
NA
0
0
Drinking Water Hazard Indices >1

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
NOTE:  Number of streams evaluated = 7, number of facilities = 8, and number of pollutants = 26.
        Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected hazard indices exceed 1.0.
        Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.
        NA = Not Applicable

        April 10, 2002, Loading File.
                                                  76
                                                                                           April 30, 2002

-------
                                         Table 16.  Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
                                       Indirect Dischargers (Cokemaking Subcategory) (Drinking Water Consumption)
                                                            Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10'6
                                Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
  Current
   Streams (No.)
   Carcinogens (No.)
   With Drinking Water Utility < 50 miles
   Carcinogens (No.)

  PSES
   Streams
   Carcinogens (No.)
   With Drinking Water Utility < 50 miles
   Carcinogens (No.)	
1
1* (3.9E-6)
0
0
1
1* (3.9E-6)
0
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NOTE:  Number of streams evaluated = 7, number of facilities = 8, and number of pollutants = 26. Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected
        excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"6 (1E-6). Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did
        not exceed 10'6 (1E-6).
        Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.
        *  Benzo(a)pyrene

        April 10,  2002, Loading Files.
                                                                         77
                                                             April 30, 2003

-------
        Table 17.  Summary of Ecological (Recreational and Nonuse) Benefits for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
Data
Cokemaking and Sintering
Number of Stream Segments
with Concentrations
Exceeding AWQC
Eliminated
1
Total Fishing
Days
21,300
Baseline Value of
Fisheries ($2001)
$735,000 - $930,000
Increased Value of
Fisheries ($2001)
$82,000 -$291,000
NOTE: Value per person-day of recreational fishing = $34.49 (warm water) and $43.68 (cold water).




       Increased value of contaminant-free fishing = 11.1 to 31.3 percent.
Data
Cokemaking and Sintering
Number of Stream Segments
with Concentrations
Exceeding AWQC
Eliminated
1
Increased Nonuse
Value ($ 1997)
$41,000 -$145,000
                         NOTE:  Nonuse value estimated as one-half of the recreational benefits.
                                                                 78
                                                                                                                        April 30, 2002

-------
 Table 18.  Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 15 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
CAS
Number
C002
C004
COOS
C009
C012
C020
C021
C025
C036
C042
50328
56553
57125
62533
67641
71432
85018
91203
91576
95487
1 00027
1 05679
1 06445
1 08952
110861
112958
1 29000
1 32649
205992
206440
218019
302045
593453
612942
7429905
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
Name
BOD 5-day (carbonaceous)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Nitrate/Nitrite (NO2 + NO3-N)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Recoverable Phenolics
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Amenable Cyanide
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
Weak Acid Dissociable Cyanide
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Total Cyanide
Aniline
Acetone
Benzene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Methylnaphthalene, 2-
o-Cresol
Nitrophenol, 4-
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
n-Eicosane *
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Thiocyanate
n-Octadecane *
Phenylnaphthalene, 2-
Aluminum
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Acute
Aquatic
Toxicity
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
High
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Unknown
High
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
High
Slight
Unknown
High
Unknown
Moderate
Volatility
from
Water
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Nonvolatile
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
Unknown
Unknown
Adsorption
to Solids
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
High
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Nonadsorptive
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Unknown
High
High
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
Unknown
Slight
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Moderate
Slight
High
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Nonbioaccumulative
High
High
High
High
High
High
Unknown
High
High
Moderate
Unknown
Slight
High
Unknown
High
Unknown
Slight
Biodegra-
dation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Resistant
Resistant
Moderate
Moderate
Fast
Moderate
Resistant
Moderate
Moderate
Fast
Fast
Fast
Fast
Fast
Fast
Moderate
Resistant
Moderate
Resistant
Resistant
Resistant
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Carcinogen










X
X

X

X

X

X


X





X

X





X





Systemic
Toxicant












X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X




X
X


X
X
X
X
Drinking
Water
Value










M

M


M


















SM
SM
TT

SM
M


Priority
Pollutant










X
X
X


X
X
X


X
X

X


X

X
X
X





X


X

X
TEMP.WK4
                                                                                  79
April 30, 2002

-------
 Table 18. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 15 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities
No.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
CAS
Number
7440280
7440326
7440382
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440508
7440666
766441 7
7782492
1 6984488
51207319
57117314
57117416
57117449
60851 345
67562394
70648269
Name
Thallium
Titanium
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
Selenium
Fluoride
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8-
Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,6,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8-
Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,4,7,8-
Acute
Aquatic
Toxicity
Slight
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Slight
High
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Volatility
from
Water
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Adsorption
to Solids
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Nonadsorptive
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Moderate
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Moderate
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Unknown
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Biodegra-
dation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Carcinogen


X

X






X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Systemic
Toxicant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Drinking
Water
Value
M

M

M
M
TT
SM

M
M







Priority
Pollutant
X

X

X
X
X
X

X








   Note: Metals, because of their physical/chemical properties, are, in general, not applicable to categorization into groups based on volatility, adsorption to solids, and biodegradation potential.

    M=  Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established for health-based effect.
   SM=  Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) established for taste or aesthetic effect.
   TT=  Treatment technology action level established.
      *  Aquatic toxicity data for n-decane are reported based on structural similarity.
TEMP.WK4
                                                                                     80
April 30, 2002

-------
                  Table 19.  Iron and Steel Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects*
                                               (Direct Dischargers)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Cas Number
57125
67641
71432
91203
91576
95487
100027
105679
106445
108952
110861
129000
132649
206440
7429905
7439896
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7440280
7440326
7440382
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440508
7440666
7782492
16984488
51207319
57117314
57117416
57117449
60851345
67562394
70648269
Toxicant
Total Cyanide
Acetone
Benzene
Naphthalene
Methylnaphthalene, 2-
o-Cresol
Nitrophenol, 4-
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Titanium
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Selenium
Fluoride
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8-
Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,6,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8-
Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,4,7,8-
Reference Dose Target Organ and Critical Effects
Whole Body, Thyroid, Nerve: weight loss, thyroid effects, and
myeline degeneration
Liver, Kidney: increased liver and kidney weights and nephrotoxicity
(b)
Body Weight: decreased body weights
(b)
Body Weight, Nervous System: decreased body weights and
neurotoxicity
(b)
General Toxicity, Blood: Lethargy, hematological changes
Nervous System, Respiratory, Whole Body: hypoactivity, distress,
maternal death
Reproductive: reduced fetal body weights
Liver: increased liver weights
Kidney effects (renal tubular pathology, decreased kidney weights)
(b)
Kidney, Liver, Blood: nephropathy, increased liver weights,
hematological alterations, and clinical effects
(b)
(b)
Nervous System: CNS effects
Nervous System: neurotoxicity
Urine, Joint, Blood: increased uric acid, pain and swelling, decreased
copper level
Body Weight: decreased body and organ weights
(b)
(b)
Skin: hyperpigmentation, keratosis, possible vascular complications
Testis: testicular atrophy, spermatogenic arrest
Kidney: significant proteinuria
No adverse effects observed (c)
Irritation of Gastrointestinal System (b)
Blood: anemia
Respiratory: clinical selerosis
Dental: objectionable dental fluorosis
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity, chloracne
  *   Chemicals with EPA-verified or provisional human health-based reference doses (RfD), referred to as "systemic toxicants."
  (a)  Values for nitrate are assumed.
  (b)  RfD is an EPA-NCEA provisional value; Contact EPA-NCEA Superfund Technical Support Center for supporting
  (c)  RfD based on no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL).
TABLE-19.WK4
81
April 30, 2002

-------
                        Table 20. Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence
                                           Classifications, and Target Organs
                                                  (Direct Dischargers)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
CAS
Number
50328
56553
62533
71432
91203
95487
106445
205992
218019
7439921
7440382
7440439
51207319
57117314
57117416
57117449
60851345
67562394
70648269
Carcinogen
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Aniline
Benzene
Naphthalene*
o-Cresol*
p-Cresol*
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Lead*
Arsenic
Cadmium*
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8-
Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8-
Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,6,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8-
Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8-
Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1 ,2,3,4,7,8-
Weight-of-Evidence
Classification
B2
B2
B2
A
C
C
C
B2
B2
B2
A
B1
B2**
B2**
B2**
B2**
B2**
B2**
B2**
Target Organs
Stomach, Lungs
Liver, Lungs
Spleen, Body Cavity
Blood
Lungs
Skin
Bladder
Lungs, Skin
Liver
Kidney
Lungs, Skin
Lungs, Trachea, and Bronchi
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
          A= Human carcinogen
         B1= Probable human carcinogen (limited human data)
         B2= Probable human carcinogen (animal data only)
          C= Possible human carcinogen
            * Not included in Risks and Benefits Analysis; quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral exposure not
              available.
           ** Classified as a carcinogen based on TEF of dioxin
TABLE-20.WK4
82
April 30, 2002

-------
 Table 21. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (35) Discharged from 8 Indirect Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
CAS
Number
C002
C004
COOS
C009
C012
C020
C021
C036
C042
50328
56553
57125
62533
67641
71432
85018
91203
91576
95487
1 05679
1 06445
1 08952
110861
112958
1 29000
1 32649
205992
206440
218019
302045
593453
612942
7439976
766441 7
7782492
Name
BOD 5-day (carbonaceous)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Nitrate/Nitrite (NO2 + NO3-N)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Recoverable Phenolics
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
Weak Acid Dissociable Cyanide
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Total Cyanide
Aniline
Acetone
Benzene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
o-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
n-Eicosane *
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Thiocyanate
n-Octadecane *
2-Phenylnaphthalene
Mercury
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
Selenium
Acute
Aquatic
Toxicity
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
High
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Unknown
High
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Moderate
High
Slight
High
Volatility
from
Water
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
High
Moderate
Unknown
Adsorption
to Solids
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
High
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Nonadsorptive
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Unknown
High
High
High
Nonadsorptive
Unknown
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Moderate
Slight
High
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Nonbioaccumulative
High
High
High
High
High
High
Unknown
High
High
High
Unknown
Nonbioaccumulative
Biodegra-
dation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Resistant
Resistant
Moderate
Moderate
Fast
Moderate
Resistant
Moderate
Moderate
Fast
Fast
Fast
Fast
Fast
Moderate
Resistant
Moderate
Resistant
Resistant
Resistant
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Carcinogen









X
X

X

X

X

X

X





X

X






Systemic
Toxicant











X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X




X

X
Drinking
Water
Value









M

M


M

















M

M
Priority
Pollutant









X
X
X


X
X
X


X

X


X

X
X
X



X

X
   Note: Metals, because of their physical/chemical properties, are, in general, not applicable to categorization into groups based on volatility, adsorption to solids, and biodegradation potential.

    M=  Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established for health-based effect.
      *  Aquatic toxicity data for n-decane are reported based on structural similarity.
TABLE-21 .WK4
83
April 30, 2002

-------
                  Table 22. Iron and Steel Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects*
                                              (Indirect Dischargers)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Cas Number
57125
67641
71432
91203
91576
95487
105679
106445
108952
110861
129000
132649
206440
7439976
7782492
Toxicant
Total Cyanide
Acetone
Benzene
Naphthalene
2-M ethyl naphthalene
o-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Mercury
Selenium
Reference Dose Target Organ and Critical Effects
Weight loss, thyroid effects, and myeline degeneration
Increased liver and kidney weights and nephrotoxicity
(b)
Eye damage, decreased body weight
(b)
Decreased body weights and neurotoxicity
General Toxicity, Blood: Lethargy, hematological changes
Hypoactivity, distress, maternal death
Reduced fetal body weight in rats
Liver: increased liver weights
Kidney effects (renal tubular pathology, decreased kidney weights)
(b)
Nephropathy, increased liver weights, hematological alterations, and clinical effects
CMS effects
Respiratory: clinical selerosis
   *   Chemicals with EPA-verified or provisional human health-based reference doses (RfD), referred to as "systemic toxicants."
  (a)  Values for nitrate are assumed.
  (b)  RfD is an EPA-NCEA provisional value; Contact EPA-NCEA Superfund Technical Support Center for supporting
      documentation.
TABLE-22.WK4
84
April 30, 2002

-------
                        Table 23. Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence
                                           Classifications, and Target Organs
                                                 (Indirect Dischargers)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CAS
Number
50328
56553
62533
71432
91203
95487
106445
205992
218019
Carcinogen
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Aniline
Benzene
Naphthalene*
o-Cresol*
p-Cresol*
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Weight-of-Evidence
Classification
B2
B2
B2
A
C
C
C
B2
B2
Target Organs
Stomach, Lungs
Liver, Lungs
Spleen, Body Cavity
Blood
Lungs
Skin
Bladder
Skin and Lungs
Liver
                    A= Human Carcinogen
                    B2= Probable human carcinogen (animal data only)
                    C= Possible human carcinogen
                      * Not included in Risks and Benefits Analysis; quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk
                        from oral exposure not available.
TABLE-23.WK4
85
April 30, 2002

-------
Table 24.  Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies Listed
                     Under Section 303(d) of Clean Water Act (1998)
State
Alabama
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Maryland
Facility Name
Empire Coke
National Steel
LTV Steel Co.
Bethlehem Steel Corp
AK Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
City
Holt
Granite City
East Chicago
Chesterton
Ashland
Sparrows Point
Watershed
Upper Black Warrior
03160112
Cahokia-Joachim
07140101
Little Calumet -Galien
04040001
Little Calumet-Galien
04040001
Little Scioto-Tygarts
05090103
Gunpowder-Patapsco
02060003
Waterbody
Name
Black Warrior
River
Horseshoe Lake
Indiana Harbor
Canal
Little Calumet
River
Ohio River
Bear Creek
Parameters of
Concern
Organic
Enrichment/DO
Metals, Nutrients,
Siltation, Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Suspended Solids,
Noxious Aquatic
Plants
Dissolved Oxygen,
Mercury, PCBs,
Lead, Pesticides
Cyanide, E. Coli,
Mercury, PCBs,
Pesticides, Impaired
Biotic Communities
Pathogens, PCBs,
Priority Organic s
Chromium, PCBs,
Zinc
Priority for
TMDL
Development
Low
1
1998-2000
2000-2012
Second Priority
High
Potential Sources of
Impairment
Dam Construction, Flow
Regulations/Modifications
Point Sources, Industrial
Point Sources, Agriculture,
Crop Production, Urban
Runoff/ Storm Sewers,
Resource Extraction, Dredge
Mining, In-place
Contaminants
—

—
Point Sources, Nonpoint
Sources, Legacy, Unknown
                                           86
                                                                                                 April 30, 2002

-------
                               Table 24.  Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies Listed
                                                Under Section 303(d) of Clean Water Act (1998)  (Continued)
State
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Utah
West Virginia
Facility Name
AK Steel Corp.
Koppers Industry
Shenango, Inc.
Geneva Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
City
Middletown
Monessen
Pittsburgh/Neville
Island
Provo/Vineyard
Wheeling
Follansbee
Watershed
Lower Great Miami
05080002
Lower Monongahela
05020005
Upper Ohio
05030101
Utah Lake
16020201
Upper Ohio
05030101
Waterbody
Name
Dicks Creek/Great
Miami River
Monongahela
River
Ohio River
Utah Lake
Ohio River
Parameters of
Concern
Metals, Ammonia,
Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Thermal
Modification, Flow
Alteration
Pesticides
(Chlordane),
Priority
Organics(PCBs)
Pesticides
(Chlordane),
Priority Organic s
(PCBs)
Total Dissolved
Solids, Total
Phosphorus,
Ammonia, Benzene,
Benzopyrene, BOD,
Chlorine Residual,
Cyanide, Lead,
Napthalene, Oil and
Grease, Fecal
Coliform, pH,
Phenolics, Total
Suspended Solids
PCBs, Chlordane,
Aluminum
Priority for
TMDL
Development
7


High
Low/High
Potential Sources of
Impairment
Municipal Point Sources,
Industrial Point Sources,
Land Disposal, Wastewater
Hydromodification, Flow
Regulation/Modification



—
NOTE:  Facilities may be located on waterbodies listed under Section 303(d) of CWA for other states (e.g., Ohio River). Listings are presented based on location (state) of facility.
Source:  1998 TMDL Tracking System Data, Version 1.1, July 1998.
                                                                                87
                                                                                                                                             April 30, 2002

-------
Table 25.  Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies with State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories3
Facility
NPDES
IL0000329


IN0000205



















Facility Name

National Steel


LTV Steel
Company


















City

Granite City


East Chicago



















Discharge
Type
Direct


Direct



















Receiving
Stream
Horseshoe Lake


Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal


















Advisory
Area/No.b
Mississippi River


All Indiana Rivers
and Streams
Statewide
Grand Calumet
River and Indiana
Harbor Ship Canal
Lake Michigan
and tributaries












Pollutant

Chlordane


Mercury,
PCBs

Mercury,
PCBs

Mercury,
PCBs












Species

Shovelnose Sturgeon (fish
and eggs)

Common Carp>15"


All Fish


Chinook Salmon, Black
Crappie>7", Brook Trout,
Brown Trout, White
Sucker>15", Longnose
Sucker 14-23",
Walleye>17", Whitefish,
Lake Trout, Rainbow Trout,
Largemouth Bass>4",
Common Carp, All Catfish
Species, Coho Salmon>17",
Pink Salmon, Northern
Pike>10", Longnose
Sucker>23", Goldfish>4",
Golden Shiner 3-6"
Population^

NCGP


NCSP, RGP,
NCGP

NCGP


NCSP, RGP,
NCGP












Comments

Advisory within 50
miles downstream
of discharge site




















                                                                                                                            April 30, 2002

-------
Table 25.  Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories21  (continued)
Facility
NPDES
IN0000175
















KY0000558


NY0001368







OH0009997






Facility Name

Bethlehem Steel
Corp.















AK Steel Corp


Bethlehem Steel
Corp.






AK Steel
Corporation





City

Chesterton
















Ashland


Lackawanna







Middletown






Discharge
Type
Direct
















Direct


Direct







Direct






Receiving
Stream
Little Calumet
River















Ohio River


Smokes Creek







Great Miami
River





Advisory
Area/No.b
All Indiana Rivers
and Streams
Statewide
Lake Michigan
and Tributaries












Ohio River


Niagara River/2







All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
Great Miami
River/2


Pollutant

Mercury,
PCBs

Mercury,
PCBs












Chlordane,
PCBs

PCBs,
Mirex,
Dioxins





Mercury


Mercury,
Lead, PCBs


Species

Common Carp>15"


Chinook Salmon, Black
Crappie>7", Brook Trout,
Brown Trout, White
Sucker>15", Longnose
Sucker 14-23",
Walleye>17", Whitefish,
Lake Trout, Rainbow Trout,
Largemouth Bass>4",
Common Carp, All Catfish
Species, Coho Salmon>17",
Pink Salmon, Northern
Pike>10", Longnose
Sucker>23", Goldfish>4",
Golden Shiner 3-6"
Paddlefish (fish and eggs),
Channel Catfish, Common
Carp, White Bass
Coho Salmon, Chinook
Salmon, American Eel,
Channel Catfish, Common
Carp, Lake Trout, Brown
Trout, White Perch,
Rainbow Trout, White
Sucker, Smallmouth Bass,
All fish (NCSP)
All Fish


Channel Catfish,
Smallmouth Bass, Common
Carp, White Bass,
Largemouth Bass, Rock
Population^

NCSP, RGP,
NCGP

NCSP, RGP,
NCGP












NCGP


RGP, NCGP,
NCSP






RSP


RGP, RSP,
NCGP


Comments





















Advisories within
50 miles
downstream of
discharge site











                                                                     89
                                                                                                                               April 30, 2002

-------
Table 25.  Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories21  (continued)
Facility
NPDES
PA02 17034
PA0002437
WV0004499
WV0023281
Facility Name
Koppers
Industries
Shenango Inc.-
Neville Coke &
Iron
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel
City
VIonessen
Pittsburgh/
Neville
Island
Follansbee
Wheeling
Discharge
Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Receiving
Stream
Monongahela
River
Ohio River
Ohio River
Advisory
Area/No.b
Ohio River
Monongahela
River
Ohio River
Ohio River
Pollutant
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs,
Dioxins
Species
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish, Smallmouth Bass,
Largemouth Bass, White
Bass, Freshwater Drum,
Flathead Catfish, Hybrid
Striped Bass, Sauger
Population^
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP, RGP
Comments
Advisory within 50
miles downstream
of discharge site



                                                                     90
                                                                                                                              April 30, 2002

-------
      Table 25.  Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa  (continued)



Footnotes:

NOTE:  Facilities may be located on waterbodies with fish consumption advisories issued by other states (e.g., Ohio River - PA, OH, KY).  Advisories are listed based on location
        (state) of facility.
        Based on facilities (sample set) included in environmental assessment.
Source:  1997 Update of Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (LFWA), March 1998.

        NCGP  =   No consumption advisory for general population
        NCSP   =   No consumption advisory for sensitive subpopulations (e.g., pregnant women, nursing mothers, children)
        RGP    =   Restrict consumption of specific species for general population
        RSP    =   Restrict consumption of specific species for sensitive subpopulations
        CFP    =   Commercial fishing ban

        a       =   Includes advisories within 50 miles downstream of discharge site as noted.
        b       =   Multiple advisories have been combined.
        c       =   Consumption of specific species by specific populations not noted.  See LFWA for this information.
                                                                               91                                                           April 30, 2002

-------
                                 Table 26.  Significant Noncompliance (SNC) Rates for Iron and Steel Mills


Industry

Integrated Mills









Mini Mills

Number of
Facilities

23









91
Percentage of Facilities in Significant
Noncompliance as of June 1998

Air
72.7%









21.2%

Water
39.1%









2.7%

RCRA
30.4%









4.5%
Historical Noncompliance*


Air
5.0









1.5

Water
5.4









2.7

RCRA
5.7









1.7

Total
7.9









3.9
Key Compliance
and Environmental
Problems

Groundwater slag
contamination,
contaminated
sediment, arc furnace
dust, unregulated
sources, SNCs from
reoccurring and
single peak
violations, no
baseline testing

Note:    SNC data are based on inspected facilities. SNC refers to the most egregious violations under each program or statute.
        * Average number of quarterly periods, June 1996 - June 1998, with one or more violations or noncompliance events.

Source:  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, FY 98 Accomplishments Report, USEPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, June 1999.
                                                                     92
                                                                                                                               April 30, 2002

-------
               Table 27.  Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits of the Final Effluent
                       Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Industry a

Loadings (million Ib/yr) b> °
Number of Instream
Excursions for Pollutants
That Exceed AWQC
Excess Annual Cancer
Cases6
Population Potentially
Exposed to Other
Noncarcinogenic Health
Risks6
POTWs Experiencing
Inhibition
Improved POTW Biosolid
Quality
Total Monetized Benefits
Current
4.43
82 at 15
streams
0.9
5,000
none of 7
0 metric tons

Final Rule
3.44
72 at 14
streams
0.4
5,000
none of 7
0 metric tons

Summary of Benefits
22 percent reduction
1 stream becomes "contaminant-free" d
Monetized benefits
(recreational/nonuse) =
$0.12 to $0.44 million
Reduction of 0.5 cases each year
Monetized benefits =
$1.3 to $6. 9 million
Health effects to exposed population
not eliminated
No baseline impacts
No baseline impacts
$1.4 to 7.3 million (2001 dollars)
a.   Modeled results from 15 direct and 8 indirect facilities; 1 facility is both a direct and an indirect discharger.
b.   Loadings are representative of 50 priority and nonconventional pollutants evaluated; 3 conventional pollutants
    and 7 nonconventional pollutants are not included.
c.   Loadings are adjusted for POTW removals.
d.   "Contaminant-free" from iron and steel discharges; however, potential contamination from other point source
    discharges and nonpoint sources is still possible.
e.   Through consumption of contaminated fish.
                                                   93
                                                                                            April 30, 2002

-------
                                  5. REFERENCES
Farland, W.  1997.  "Personal Communication from Farland to Andrew Smith, January 24, 1997
(Appendix D).

Fisher, A., L. Chestnut, and D. Violette. 1989. "The Value of Reducing Risks of Death:  ANote on
New Evidence. " Journal of 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.

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, andD.H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods - Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds.  New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater Engineering.  New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

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:  NOAA,
Strategic Assessment Branch.

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: NOAA, Strategic
Assessment Branch.

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:  NOAA,  Strategic Assessment Branch.

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:  NOAA,
Strategic Assessment Branch.
                                         R-l

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

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. Statistical Abstract of the UnitedStates: 1997. Washington, DC:
U.S. Bureau of the Census.

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Quality Criteria for Water. 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) or any Federal Register notices of proposed criteria or
criteria corrections.  The most recent National Recommended Water Quality Criteria used in this
report were published in the Federal Register on December 10, 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1982. Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly-Owned
Treatment  Works   (50-POTW  Study).  Washington,  DC:  U.S.  EPA, Office  of Water.
EPA/440/1-82/303.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous
Wastes to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (Domestic Sewage  Study). Washington, DC:  U.S.
EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at
POTWs. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. 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.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. 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. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA/505/2-90-001, PB91-127415.
                                         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.  A Methodology for Estimating Population
Exposures from the Consumption of Chemically Contaminated Fish., Draft Final Report, April 1992.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and Office of Research and
Development. EPA 600/9-91/017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995a. National Risk Management Research Laboratory
DataBase. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995b. Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage
Sludge: Final Rule 40 CFR Part 503.  Washington, DC: Federal Register. October  1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995c. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitations, Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry (Phase 1).
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA/821-R-95-023.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. SuperfundChemicalData Matrix. Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste.

U.S. Environmental Protect on Agency. 1996b. Needs Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office
of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997a.  Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel Industry Data.
Washington, DC:  U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997b.  Exposure Factors Handbook.  Washington,  DC:
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fb.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a.  1998 TMDL Tracking System Data,  Version 1.1,
July 1. State 303(d) Lists of Impaired Waterbodies. Washington, DC:  U.S. EPA, Office of Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998b. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption
Advisories. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.   1998-1999.  QSAR.  Duluth, MN:   U.S. EPA,
Environmental Research Laboratory.

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1999.  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, FY98
Accomplishments Report. Washington, DC:  U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000a. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, Review Draft, September
2000. Washington, DC:  U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000b. Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the
United States, Based on the Data Collected by the United States Department of Agriculture's 1994-
1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals, Draft Report, March 2000. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency. 2000c. Industrial Facilities  Discharge (IFD) File.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

U.S. Environmental Protect on Agency. 2000d. Permit Compliance System. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2000e. GAGE File.  Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000f. REACHSCAN. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000g. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Iron andSteelPollutantLoadingFiles. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division.

Versar,  Inc.  1992a. 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.

Versar, Inc.  1992b. Analysis of STORE!'Suspended Sediments Data for the UnitedStates.  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 and Private Responsibilities for Risk. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

                                         R-4

-------
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:   Most of these references are available in the Environmental Assessment/Benefits Docket
         EPA-821-R-02-005.
                                        R-5

-------