Unlod Stales
EnvronnKnlnl
Agoncy
Offn d Water
EPAK?l-fl-IHHI1(I
Docnnto-20CC
Environmental Assessment
of the Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines for
the Iron and Steel Industry
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE
PROPOSED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
FOR THE
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Volume I
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology
Engineering and Analysis Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Charles Tamulonis
Task Manager
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
The Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology, reviewed and approved
this report for publication. Versar, Inc. (under Contract No. 68-C-98-010) prepared this report with the
direction and review of the Office of Science and Technology. Neither the United States Government nor
any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees make any warranty, expressed or
implied, or 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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii
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 13
2.1.2.1 Carcinogenic and Systemic Human Health Risks and
Benefits 14
2.1.2.2 Assumptions and Caveats (Carcinogenic and Systemic
Analyses) 18
2.1.2.3 Lead-Related Human Health Risks and Benefits 19
2.1.2.4 Assumptions and Caveats (LeadAnalysis) 26
2.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits 28
2.1.3.1 Assumptions and Caveats 30
2.1.4 Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits 31
2.1.4.1 Assumptions and Caveats 32
2.2 PollutantFate and Toxicity 33
2.2.1 Identification of Pollutants of Concern 34
2.2.2 Compilation of Physical-Chemical and Toxicity Data 34
2.2.3 Categorization Assessment 39
2.2.4 Assumptions and Limitations 43
2.3 Documented Environmental Impacts 44
3. DATA SOURCES 45
3.1 Water Quality Impacts 45
3.1.1 Facility-Specific Data 45
3.1.2 Information Used To Evaluate POTW Operations 46
3.1.3 Water Quality Criteria 47
3.1.3.1 Aquatic Life 47
3.1.3.2 HumanHealth 49
3.1.4 Information Used To Evaluate Human Health Risks and Benefits 52
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.1.5 Information Used To Evaluate Ecological Benefits 53
3.1.6 Information Used To Evaluate Economic Productivity Benefits 54
3.2 PollutantFate and Toxicity 54
3.3 Documented Environmental Impacts 55
4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 56
4.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts 56
4.1.1 Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality
Criteria 56
4.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities 56
4.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities 58
4.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits 60
4.1.2.1 Direct Discharging Facilities 60
4.1.2.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities 64
4.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits 66
4.1.3.1 Direct Discharging Facilities 67
4.1.3.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities 68
4.2 PollutantFate and Toxicity 69
4.3 Documented Environmental Impacts 70
4.4 Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits from Proposed Effluent
Guidelines and Standards 71
5. REFERENCES R-l
-------
VOLUME H
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 Water Quality Analysis at Current (Baseline) and Proposed BAT
Treatment Levels
. E-l
Appendix F Water Quality Analysis at Current (Baseline) and Proposed PSES
Treatment Levels
. F-l
Appendix G POTW Analysis at Current (Baseline) and Proposed PSES
Treatment Levels
G-l
Appendix H Risks and Benefits Analyses at Current (Baseline) and Proposed BAT
Treatment Levels
H-l
Appendix I Risks and Benefits Analyses at Current (Baseline) and Proposed PSES
Treatment Levels
1-1
Appendix J Lead-Related Risks and Benefits Analyses J-l
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Effects/Benefits from the Proposed Effluent Guidelines
for the Iron and Steel Industry (National Level) ix
Table 1 Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 103 Direct Discharging
Iron and Steel Facilities 73
Table 2 Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Iron and Steel Facilities
(Sample Set) 74
Table 3 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Direct
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set) 75
Table 4 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set) 76
Table 5 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Direct
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (National Level) 78
Table 6 Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (56) Discharged from 47 Indirect Discharging
Iron and Steel Facilities 79
Table 7 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Indirect
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set) 80
Table 8 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set) 81
Table 9 Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems
from Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set) 82
Table 10 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Indirect
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (National Level) 83
Table 11 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set) 84
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 12 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron
and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set) 85
Table 13 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set) 93
Table 14 Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set) 94
Table 15 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set) 95
Table 16 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National Level) 96
Table 17 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water
Consumption) (National Level) 97
Table 18 Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(National Level) 98
Table 19 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level) 99
Table 20 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set) 100
Table 21 Summary of Pollutants Proj ected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and
Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set) 101
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 22 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water
Consumption) (Sample Set) 102
Table 23 Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set) 103
Table 24 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set) .... 104
Table 25 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National Level) 105
Table 26 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Indirect Iron and Steel
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level) 106
Table 27 Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National
Level) 107
Table 28 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect
Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level) 108
Table 29 Summary of Ecological (Recreational and Nonuse) Benefits for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set and National Level) 109
Table 30 Summary of Ecological (Recreational and Nonuse) Benefits for Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set and National Level) 110
Table 31. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (70) Discharged from
103 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Ill
Table 32. Iron and Steel Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects
(Direct Dischargers) 113
VI
-------
Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 35.
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence
Classifications, and Target Organs (Direct Dischargers)
Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (66) Discharged from
47 Indirect Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities
Iron and Steel Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects
(Indirect Dischargers)
Table 36. Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence
Classifications, and Target Organs (Indirect Dischargers)
114
115
117
118
Table 37. Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies
Listed Under Section 303(d) of Clean Water Act (1998) 119
Table 38. Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies
with State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories 129
Table 39. Significant Noncompliance (SNC) Rates for Iron and Steel Mills 140
Table 40. Summary of Potential Effects/Benefits from the Proposed Effluent Guidelines
for the Iron and Steel Industry (National Level)
141
vn
-------
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 proposed 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, 198 iron and steel facilities1
discharge approximately 253 million pounds per year (Ib/year) of priority and nonconventional pollutants.
The proposed rule is expected to reduce this pollutant loading by 22 percent, to 198 million Ib/year. The
proposed rule is also estimated to provide annual monetized benefits ranging from $1.07 million to $2.61
million (1997 dollars). The range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of the proposed 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 proposed rule. Additional benefits, which cannot be quantified in this
assessment, include improved ecological conditions, improvements to recreational activities (other than
fishing), reduced noncarcinogenic (systemic) human health hazards (other than lead), and reduced discharge
of conventional pollutants. Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental effects and benefits of the proposed
effluent guidelines and standards.
Of a total of 254 iron and steel facilities, 56 facilities are zero dischargers, and therefore are not included in the analysis.
EPA had sufficient data to model 150 of the remaining 198 facilities. EPA used scaling techniques to extrapolate the
results of the 150 facilities to the national level of 198.
Vlll
-------
Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits Extrapolated to National Level (198 Facilities)
(a) Ambient Water Quality Effects
EPA analyzed the environmental effects associated with discharges from 198 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 contribute to
instream concentrations in excess of AWQC in 269 cases at 55 receiving streams. The proposed rule is
expected to reduce the number of instream concentrations exceeding AWQC to 175 at 51 receiving
streams, allowing 4 streams 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 $0.38
million to $1.35 million (1997 dollars).
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.
ix
-------
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits of the Proposed Effluent
Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Industry a
Loadings (million lb/yr)b- c
Number of Instream
Excursions for Pollutants
That Exceed AWQC
Excess Annual Cancer
Cases6
Population Potentially at
Risk to Lead Exposure6
Population Potentially
Exposed to Other
Noncarcinogenic Health
Risks6
POTWs Experiencing
Inhibition
Improved POTW Biosolid
Quality
Total Monetized Benefits
Current
253
269 at 55
streams
0.31
948,000
900
none of 61
0 metric tons
Proposed
Rule
198
175 at 51
streams
0.29
948,000
none
none of 61
0 metric tons
Summary of Benefits
22 percent reduction
4 streams become "contaminant-free"
d
Monetized benefits
(recreational/nonuse) =
$0.38 to $1.35 million
Reduction of 0.02 cases each year
Monetized benefits =
$0.05 to $0.25 million
Annual benefits:
• Reduction of 0.036 cases of adult
and neonatal premature mortality
• Prevention of aggregate loss of 57
IQ points in children
Monetized benefits =
$0.64 to $1.01 million
Health effects to exposed population
eliminated
Benefits not quantifiable
No baseline impacts
No baseline impacts
$1.07 to 2.61 million (1997 dollars)
a. Modeled results from 103 direct and 47 indirect facilities were extrapolated to represent 198 iron and steel facilities.
b. Loadings are representative of 60 priority and nonconventional pollutants evaluated; 4 conventional pollutants and
6 nonconventional pollutants are not included.
c. Loadings account 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.
X
-------
(b) Human Health Effects
EPA estimates that carcinogens in the current discharge loadings from the 198 iron and steel
facilities could be responsible for 0.31 total excess annual cancer cases from the consumption of
contaminated fish. The proposed rule is expected to reduce the carcinogenic loadings and the estimated
excess annual cancer cases to 0.29. In addition, the proposed rule is expected to reduce lead discharges
into 104 receiving streams, reducing the potential lead-related health effects through the consumption of
lead-contaminated fish for an estimated 948,000 persons. EPA estimates that the proposed rule will
reduce lead uptake enough to avoid the aggregate loss of 57IQ points in 18,000 children and to reduce
the number of cases of premature mortality by 0.036 in 930,000 adults and neonates. The estimated
monetized benefit of these reductions in human health effects ranges from $0.69 million to $1.26 million
(1997 dollars). EPA also projects that the proposed rule will eliminate the hazard to approximately 900
people potentially exposed to additional systemic toxicant effects from consumption of contaminated fish.
A monetary value of these benefits could not be estimated.
(c) POTW Effects
EPA estimates that none of the 61 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 proposed iron and steel effluent guidelines and standards for Best Available Technology
XI
-------
Economically Achievable (BAT) and Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES). The proposed
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 seven iron and steel
subcategories. These categories are cokemaking, steel finishing, nonintegrated steelmaking and hot
forming, integrated and stand-alone hot forming, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and other. Many iron
and steel facilities have more than one subcategory-defmed production line. In these cases, loadings from
each subcategory are aggregated to estimate the combined environmental effects of the proposed rule.
Modeling Techniques
EPA employed stream dilution modeling techniques to assess the potential impacts and benefits of
the proposed effluent guidelines and standards. Using site-specific analyses, EPA estimated instream
pollutant concentrations for 60 priority and nonconventional pollutants3 under current (baseline) and
proposed 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 150 of the 198 iron and steel
facilities. EPA extrapolated the results to the national level of 198 facilities using the statistical methodology
for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. EPA combined the impacts for each of the
subcategories to estimate water quality effects as a result of the proposed 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-
Evaluations do not include the impacts of 4 conventional and 6 nonconventional pollutants when modeling the effects
of the proposed 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.
xii
-------
based toxic effect values or criteria derived using standard EPA methodology, (2) estimating the potential
reductions of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard (systemic) from consuming contaminated fish
and drinking water, and (3) estimating the potential reductions of lead exposure from consuming
contaminated fish.
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. The assessment also evaluated modeled pollutant concentrations in
fish to estimate human health effects from exposure to lead among 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
proposed 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 Toxicity
EPA identified a total of 70 pollutants of concern (28 priority pollutants, 4 conventional pollutants,
and 38 nonconventional pollutants) in waste streams from iron and steel facilities. EPA evaluated 60 of
Xlll
-------
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 70 pollutants have at least one known toxic effect. EPA determined that 23 exhibit
moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 16 are classified as known or probable human carcinogens, 39 are
human systemic toxicants, 23 have drinking water values, and 28 are designated as priority pollutants. In
terms of proj ected partitioning among media, 16 of the evaluated pollutants are moderately to highly volatile
(potentially causing risk to exposed populations via inhalation), 25 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), 18
are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids, and 8 are resistant to biodegradation or are slowly
biodegraded.
Documented Impacts
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 17 impaired waterbodies, with industrial point sources as a potential source
of impairment, that receive direct discharges from iron and steel facilities (and other sources). States also
issued fish consumption advisories for 12 waterbodies that receive direct discharges from iron and steel
facilities (and other sources). The advisories are for mercury, a pollutant of concern for the iron and steel
industry. Over 25 fish consumption advisories were reported in the 199 7 Update of Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories for waterbodies that receive wastewater discharges from iron and steel facilities.
However, the majority of advisories are for chemicals that are not pollutants of concern for the iron and
steel industry. In addition, EPA identified in its 1998 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
xiv
-------
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
withResource 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 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.
xv
-------
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) proposed 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 proposed regulation, EPA estimated instream pollutant concentrations for 60
priority and nonconventional pollutants from direct and indirect discharges in seven industry
subcategories (cokemaking, steel finishing, nonintegrated steelmaking and hot forming, integrated
and stand-alone hot forming, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and other) 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, (2) estimating the potential reduction of carcinogenic risk and
noncarcinogenic hazard (systemic) from consuming contaminated fish or drinking water, and (3)
estimating the potential reduction of lead exposure 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 monitizes
reductions in exposure to lead based on dose-response functions related to specific health endpoints
(IQ levels in children 0-6 years and adult/neonatal 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 4 conventional
pollutants (biological oxygen demand [BOD], oil and grease (measured as hexane extractable
material [HEM] and silica gel-treated HEM), total suspended solids [TSS]) and 6 nonconventional
pollutants (chemical oxygen demand [COD], total organic carbon [TOC], total recoverable
phenolics, total kjeldahl nitrogen, 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 participate
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 (AWQC),4 (2) estimating the human health risks and benefits
associated with the consumption of fish 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 at POTWs receiving the wastewater of iron and steel
facilities. The assessment analyzes the impacts and associated risks/benefits for a representative
sample set of 103 direct discharging facilities and 47 indirect discharging facilities. The
assessment extrapolates the results to the national level based on the statistical methodology used
for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. 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 proposed
BAT/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
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.
4
-------
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.
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 proposed
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.
r
L/OD
FF SF
CF
(Eq. 1)
where:
Cis
L
OD
FF
SF
CF
instream pollutant concentration (micrograms per liter [• g/L])
facility pollutant loading (pounds/year [lb/year])
facility operation (days/year)
facility flow (million gallons/day [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. 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:
(Eq.2)
-------
where:
Ces = estuary pollutant concentration (• g/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
BL (Eq'3)
where:
Ces = estuary pollutant concentration (• g/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, 1992), 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
7
-------
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.
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 proposed
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:
C (L/OD} X CF (Eq 4)
is \ ' W4- ^
-------
where:
Cis
L
OD
TMT
PF
SF
CF
instream pollutant concentration (• g/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:
C
LIOD x (1 TMT)
PF
x CF \l DF
(Eq. 5)
where:
Ces
L
OD
TMT
PF
DF
CF
estuary pollutant concentration (• g/L)
facility pollutant loading (Ib/year)
facility operation (days/year)
POTW treatment removal efficiency
POTW flow (million gal/day)
critical dilution factor
conversion factors for units
L x (1 TMT} x DCP x CF
BL
(Eq. 6)
where:
-------
Ces = estuary pollutant concentration (• g/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.
(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.
10
-------
LIOD * CF (Eq. 7)
where:
Cpi = POTW influent concentration (• g/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 TMT x PART x SGF (Eq. 8)
where:
Csp = sludge pollutant concentration (milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg])
Cpi = POTW influent concentration (• g/L)
TMT = POTW treatment removal efficiency
PART = chemical-specific sludge partition factor
SGF = sludge generation factor (5.96 parts per million [ppm])
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 • g/L (i.e., for
every 1 • g/L of pollutant removed from wastewater and partitioned to sludge, the concentration
11
-------
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 29 iron and steel facilities as identified in the facility questionnaire; all
other noncontact cooling waters and process waters are obtained from the receiving
stream.
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, 1992).
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
12
-------
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 proposed 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 7 pollutants: arsenic, cadmium, copper,
lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc.
The analysis uses AWQC or toxic effect levels developed for freshwater organisms
for facilities discharging to estuaries or bays.
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 proposed treatment levels. EPA monetizes the
reduction in carcinogenic risks using estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding premature
mortality. The analysis also evaluates the potential benefits to human health by estimating blood
lead levels associated with reducing lead levels in fish tissue. EPA monetizes this reduction using
estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding a decrease in a child's intelligence quotient (IQ)
and avoiding premature adult and neonatal mortality. Sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2 describe the
13
-------
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. Sections 2.1.2.3 and 2.1.2.4 describe the
methodology and assumptions used to evaluate lead-related human health risks and benefits from
the consumption of fish tissue derived from the same waterbodies.
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 proposed 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 IRx 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)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
LT = lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
Individual risks are calculated as follows:
14
-------
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)4
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
proposed BAT/PSES treatment levels.
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.5 EPA uses the resulting estimates of the value of a
These estimates, however, do not represent the willingness to pay to avoid the certainty of death.
15
-------
"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
finding that value-of-life estimates are clustered in the range of $3 to $7 million (1990 dollars). For
this analysis, the figures recommended in the OPA study are adjusted to 1997 using the relative
change in the Employment Cost Index of Total Compensation for All Civilian Workers from 1986
to 1997 (49 percent). Using the change in nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) instead of
change in inflation as the basis for adjustment in the willingness-to-pay values accounts for the
expectation that willingness-to-pay to avoid risk is a normal economic good, and that, accordingly,
society's willingness to pay to avoid risk will increase as national income increases. Updating to
1997 dollars yields a range of $2.4 to $12.6 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 OWIRfD (Eq. 11)
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 proposed BAT/PSES treatment levels to assess benefits in
16
-------
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.
(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. 12)
where:
LADD = potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
C = exposure concentration (mg/L)
IR = ingestion rate (2L/day)
F = frequency duration (365 days/year)
D = exposure duration (70 years)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
LT = lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
The analysis applies estimated individual pollutant risk levels greater than 106 (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).
17
-------
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 effects of multiple chemicals on aquatic
ecosystems; therefore, the total benefit of reducing toxics may be underestimated.
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; 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 of fish 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, 2000a).
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.
18
-------
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 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).
2.1.2.3 Lead-Related Human Health Risks and Benefits
Research has shown that the ingestion of lead may cause adverse health effects in children
and adults. Elevated blood levels in children may impair intellectual development as measured by
reduced IQ levels. Ingestion of lead by adults may cause numerous cardiovascular problems
including hypertension, coronary heart disease, and strokes. These ailments may cause premature
death, particularly in adults 40-74 years of age. In addition, elevated blood lead levels in pregnant
women may increase the risk of neonatal mortality due to decreased gestational age and low
birthweight.
EPA estimates the potential benefits of reduced lead exposure (resulting from reduced
consumption of contaminated fish tissue) associated with reduced neurological and cognitive effects
in children (0-6 years of age) as well as reduced cases of premature adult (40-74 years of age) and
neonatal mortality.6 This analysis of lead-related health effects is based on dose-response functions
The analysis does not consider potential benefits associated with reducing lead levels in drinking water. EPA has
issued a drinking water standard for lead and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems will reduce
19
-------
related to specific health endpoints to which monetary values can be applied. EPA uses the
methodologies developed for assessing human health risks from lead at Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)/RCRA sites (U.S. EPA,
1996a) and for estimating the benefits of the Clean Air Act (U.S. EPA, 1997a). EPA presents
estimates for children living in sport and subsistence anglers households, prenatal children, and
adult men/women sport and subsistence anglers.
(a) Children's Health Risks and Benefits - IQ Levels
To determine the potential benefits to children in terms of reduced lead exposure (associated
with reducing lead levels in fish tissue), the analysis first estimates the instream lead concentrations
at current and proposed BAT/PSES treatment levels (see Section 2.1.1). The analysis then projects
the average daily doses (ADDs) for lead based on the instream concentrations, the bioconcentration
factor for lead, and fish consumption rates for children, as follows:
ADD C * " « BCF (Eq.13)
where:
ADD = potential average daily dose (• g/day)
C = exposure concentration (• g/L)
IR = ingestion rate for children (see Section 2.1.2.4, Assumptions)
BCF = bioconcentration factor for lead (49 L/kg)
CF = conversion factors for units
The analysis estimates the changes in blood lead levels resulting from the changes in
environmental lead levels by using EPA's Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model
for Lead in Children (U.S. EPA, 1994). This model allows the user to estimate the geometric
concentrations below adverse effect thresholds.
20
-------
mean blood lead concentration for a hypothetical child or populations of children. Using the
estimated ADD, the model estimates a plausible distribution of blood lead concentrations centered
on the geometric mean (GM) blood lead concentration.
The analysis then applies the change in the estimated geometric mean blood lead level (from
current to proposed BAT/PSES) to the potentially exposed child populations by multiplying the
estimated populations of sport anglers and subsistence anglers by the corresponding estimated
percentage of children in the anglers' families. The analysis uses the Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 1997 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997) to estimate the percentage of the population
between 0 and 6 years of age (10.31 percent). The analysis estimates the change in children's IQ
levels as follows:
(Avoided Loss of IQ Points) • GM x 1.117 x 0.25 x (POP/7) (Eq. 14)
where:
(Avoided Loss of IQ Points) = total reduction of IQ points in affected population
• GM = change in the geometric mean of affected populations' blood lead levels
1.117 = ratio between the expected value (mean) of the distribution and the
geometric mean
0.25 = decrease in IQ points expected for every 1 • g/dL increase in blood lead
level
POP = number of affected children (0-6 years of age) in anglers' families
7 = exposure duration (7 years)
EPA estimates a monetary value of benefits to society from avoided loss of IQ points to
approximate society's willingness-to-pay to avoid the loss. To value the loss of IQ points, the
analysis considers the effects of IQ loss on decreased present value of expected lifetime earnings.
Reduced IQ has direct and indirect effects on earnings. The direct effects are decreased job
attainment and performance. Indirect effects include reduced years of schooling and reduced labor
force participation. The analysis models the overall impact from a one-point reduction in IQ as a
sum of these direct and indirect effects on lifetime earnings.
21
-------
Using 1992 Bureau of the Census data on earnings, the adjusted value of expected lifetime
earnings equals the present value for an individual entering the labor force at age 18 and working
until age 67. Given a three percent social discount rate and current survival probabilities, and the
assumption that real wages grow one percent per year, the analysis uses the present value of
lifetime earnings of a person born today in the United States as presented in Economic,
Environmental, and Benefits Assessment of the Proposed Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M)
Regulation (U.S. EPA, 2000b). The value is adjusted to $412,000 (1997 dollars) using the
Consumer Pricing Index (CPI). EPA then estimates the total effect of IQ on earnings by
combining the value of lifetime earnings ($412,000, 1997 dollars) with the estimate of percent
wage loss per IQ point of 2.626 percent (U.S. EPA, 2000b). This results in $10,820 (1997
dollars) per IQ point.
The analysis further adjusts the effect of IQ on earnings by valuing the cost of education.
The increase in lifetime earnings from additional education equals the gross return on education.
The cost of the education must be subtracted from the gross return to obtain the net increase in
earnings from additional education. The cost of education has two components: the direct cost of
the education and the opportunity cost of lost income during the education. In this analysis, EPA
uses the U.S. Department of Education's reported $7,299 average per-student annual expenditure
in public primary and secondary schools in 1996-1997 as an estimate of the educational cost (U.S.
Department of Education, 2000). Using the estimated effect of IQ on educational attainment
(0.1007 years/IQ point) (U.S. EPA, 2000b), the estimated cost of an additional 0.1007 years of
education per IQ point is $735 (i.e., 0.1007 x $7,299). The average level of educational
attainment in the population over age 25 is 12.9 years. The marginal educational cost is, therefore,
assumed to occur at age 19, resulting in a discounted present value cost of $420 (1997 dollars).
The opportunity cost of lost income is the difference between full-time and part-time earnings. The
analysis uses the discounted value of lost income associated with being in school an additional
0.1007 years, as presented in Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Assessment of the Proposed
Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Regulation (U.S. EPA, 2000b). The value is adjusted
to $690 (1997 dollars) at age zero using the CPI.
22
-------
Subtracting the education ($420, 1997 dollars) and opportunity costs ($690, 1997 dollars)
from the percent wage loss per IQ point of $10,820 (1997 dollars) results in a value of $9,710
(1997 dollars) per IQ point.
(b) Neonatal and Adult Health Risks and Benefits - Mortality
A number of studies (U.S. EPA, 1990a) have linked fetal exposure to lead to several
adverse health effects. These effects include premature birth, reduced birth weight, late fetal death,
and increases in infant mortality. In 1991, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) developed a
methodology to estimate changes in infant mortality due to changes in maternal blood lead levels
during pregnancy. Combining the relationship of gestational age as a function of maternal blood
level and infant mortality as a function of gestational age results in a decreased risk of infant
mortality of 0.0001 for each 1 • g/dL decrease in maternal blood lead level during pregnancy (U.S.
EPA, 1997a). EPA uses the estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding a mortality to
estimate the monetary benefit associated with risks of neonatal mortality. The neonatal percentage
of the population of sport and subsistence anglers' families (1.48 percent) is based on the average
birth rate in the United States in 1995 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997). The estimates of the
value of a statistical life range from $2.4 to $12.6 million (1997 dollars) (see Section 2.1.2.1).
The health effects of lead exposure in adults, included in the benefits analysis, are based
only on lead's effects on blood pressure (BP) as it relates to premature mortality. The estimated
relationship between this health effect and lead exposure differs between men and women.
EPA estimates the potential health benefits to adults using a methodology similar to that used
in estimating health benefits to children. The analysis first estimates the instream lead
concentrations at current and proposed BAT/PSES treatment levels (see Section 2.1.1). The
analysis then projects the changes in the blood level distribution in the affected adult population by
modifying the dose-response relationship recommended in EPA's Recommendations of the
Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with
23
-------
Adult Exposure to Lead in Soil (U.S. EPA, 1996a). The modified Interim Guidance equation is
as follows:
PbB adult, central PbB
PbC x BCF x IR AF BKSF F CF
AT
(Eq. 15)
where:
Pt)B
'adult, central
PbC
BCF
IR
AF
BKSF
F
AT
CF
central estimate of blood lead level concentrations (• g/dL)
typical blood level concentration (• g/dL) in adults in the absence of
exposures via fish consumption (2.0 • g/dL, U.S. EPA, 1996a)
exposure concentration (• g/L)
bioconcentration factor (49 L/kg)
ingestion rate (g/day)
absolute gastrointestinal absorption fraction (0.03, Maddaloni et
al., 1998)
biokinetic slope factor relating (quasi-steadystate) increases in typical
adult blood level concentrations to average daily lead uptake (0.4
• g/dL PbB increase per • g/day lead uptake)
frequency duration (days/year)
averaging time (365 days/year)
conversion factor
The analysis then quantifies the effect of blood lead levels on changes in BP to predict the
probability of premature mortality in men and women using the following equations:
- PbB,
DBPmen 1.4* In1
(Eq. 16)
where:
• DBPmen
1.4
PbBj
PbB2
change in men's diastolic BP expected from change in blood lead
levels
coefficient relating blood pressure to blood lead level
blood lead level at current discharge levels (• g/dL)
blood lead level at proposed BAT/PSES discharge levels (• g/dL)
24
-------
'PbB, „
' (Eq-
where:
• DBPwomen = change in women's diastolic BP expected from change in blood lead
levels
0.6 = percent change in blood pressure of women versus men
1.4 = coefficient relating blood pressure to blood lead level
PbBj = blood lead level at current discharge levels (• g/dL)
PbB2 = blood lead level at proposed BAT/PSES discharge levels (• g/dL)
The analysis quantifies the relationship between blood pressure and premature mortality for
men and women as follows:
•Pr(MORT )
, a b DBP2 , a b DBF l
where:
• Pr(MORTmen) = change in two-year probability of death in men
a, b = coefficients which vary by age group (see Section 2.1.2.4,
Assumptions)
DBPj = mean diastolic blood pressure at proposed BAT/PSES levels (80)
DBP2 = mean diastolic blood pressure at current discharge levels (DBPj
+ • DBPmen)
•Pr(MORT )
women
5.40374 0.01511 DBP2 , 5.40374 0.01511 DBPl
where:
• Pr(MORTwomen) = change in two-year probability of death in women
DBPj = mean diastolic blood pressure at proposed BAT/PSES levels (80)
DBP2 = mean diastolic blood pressure at current discharge levels (DBPj
+ • DBPwomen)
5.40374/0.01511 = coefficients for women 45 to 74
EPA monetizes the reductions in premature mortality for men by first estimating the changes
25
-------
in annual probability of premature mortality for men in three different age groups (40-54, 55-64,
65-74). EPA then calculates avoided premature death cases by multiplying the estimated change
in annual probability of premature mortality by the relevant population of men (sport and
subsistence anglers). The analysis uses the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997 (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1997) to estimate the percentages of the population that fall into the various
age groups (men 40-54 = 9.86 percent; men 55-64 = 3.83 percent; and men 65-74 = 3.14
percent). Changes in premature mortality are valued based on the value of a statistical life saved.
Estimates of this value ranges from $2.4 to $12.6 million (1997 dollars) and is based on the
willingness-to-pay to avoid the risk of death (see Section 2.1.2.1). EPA monetizes the reductions
in premature mortality for women using the same methodology. The analysis for women uses
14.35 percent as the percentage of the population that falls into the 45-74 age group.
2.1.2.4 Assumptions and Caveats (Lead Analysis)
In addition to the assumptions presented in Section 2.1.2.2, the analyses of lead-related
human health risks and benefits use the following assumptions:
Currently, quantitative dose-response functions for most health effects associated
with lead exposure do not exist. Therefore, these analyses do not provide a
comprehensive estimate of health benefits from reduced lead discharges from iron
and steel facilities.
EPA estimates the health risks and monetary benefits for reduced IQ levels in
children using the methodology and equations presented in EPA's The Benefits and
Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to 1990. (U.S. EPA, 1997a)
The children's health risks and benefits analysis uses the following fish tissue
ingestion rates for children in sport anglers' families (U.S. EPA, 1997b):
26
-------
Age Rate (g/day)
0.5-1 3.3579
1-2 4.1697
2-3 4.9077
3-4 5.6457
4-5 6.4206
5-6 7.2693
6-7 6.2376
Ingestion rates for children of subsistence anglers are obtained by multiplying the
recreational rates by a factor of 10, the ratio of ingestion rates for subsistence
(124.1 g/day) to sport anglers (12.1 g/day).
The children's health risks and benefits analysis does not consider all lead-related
health effects. Health effects not quantified include fetal effects from maternal
exposure (diminished IQ and reduced birth weight), low IQ, permanent brain
structure changes, slowed/delayed growth, delinquent and antisocial behavior,
metabolic effects, impaired hearing, probable cancer, and lead effects in children
over 6 years of age. Additional benefits not quantified include costs of lead
screening, medical treatment, and special education. Therefore, this analysis does
not provide a comprehensive estimate of children's health benefits from reduced
lead discharges from iron and steel facilities.
The population of children affected by increased lead exposure up to age 6 is
divided by 7 to avoid double counting the results from the IEUBK model. This
creates some undercounting because in the first year of the analysis children ages
1-6 are not accounted for, while presumably they are affected by lead exposure.
Lead bioavailability varies across chemical forms in which lead can exist and is
influenced by many factors including nutritional status and timing of meals. EPA
uses the default media-specific bioavailability in the IEUBK model for the children's
health risks and benefits analysis.
When exposure and uptake values are not specified, the IEUBK model provides
default values. EPA uses the same default values at current and proposed
BAT/PSES discharge levels to characterize exposure rates for pathways other than
fish consumption (i.e., air, dust, soil, water). Therefore, the analysis estimates only
blood lead levels attributable to the consumption of lead-contaminated fish.
The probability of adult male mortality (as shown in Eq. 18) is calculated using the
following coefficients: for ages 40-54, a = 5.3158 and b = 0.03516; for ages 55-
64, a = 4.89528 and b = 0.01866; and for ages 65-74, a = 3.05723 and b =
27
-------
0.00547 (U.S. EPA, 1997a).
EPA estimates the health risks and monetary benefits for reduced premature adult
and neonatal mortality using the methodology and equations contained in
Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim
Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil. (U.S.
EPA, 1996a) and in EPA's The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to
1990 (U.S. EPA, 1997a).
The analyses presented in this report do not account for increased risks of
hypertension, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular accidents, and brain
infractions associated with increased blood lead levels, so the overall benefits from
reduced lead discharges from iron and steel facilities are underestimated.
In estimating blood pressure changes, EPA assumes that a diastolic level of 80 is
representative of a normal adult (American Heart Association, 2000).
A gastrointestinal absorption fraction of 0.03 is used for lead ingested in fish tissue
based on a recent study (Maddaloni et al., 1998). This value is a reasonable
estimate for most adults. This analysis does not address individuals who are at
unusually high risk (e.g., pregnant women, individuals with poor nutritional habits,
and individuals with metabolic disorders).
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 proposed
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).
28
-------
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 surplus7 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.
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
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.
29
-------
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 ($31.68 and
$40.12, respectively, in 1997 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
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.
30
-------
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 proposed regulation; increased assimilation capacity of the receiving
stream, improvements in taste and odor, or improvements to other recreational
activities, such as swimming and wildlife observation, are not addressed.
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 proposed 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 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 proposed PSES levels
(see Section 2.1.1.2). It then compares pollutant concentrations to sewage sludge pollutant limits
31
-------
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. 20)
where:
SCR = estimated POTW sewage sludge use or disposal cost reductions resulting
from the proposed 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
32
-------
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 proposed 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.
2.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity
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.
33
-------
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 16 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. EPA
identified as pollutants of concern all 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,
• The mean detected concentration in untreated process wastewater samples was
greater than the mean detected concentration in the source water samples, and
• The mean detected concentration in all process wastewater samples was greater than
the mean detected concentration in the source water samples.
In the waste streams from direct discharging iron and steel facilities, EPA detected 70
pollutants (28 priority pollutants, 4 conventional pollutant parameters, and 38 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 66
pollutants (27 priority, 4 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.
34
-------
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 (K^), 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 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 (QSAR) 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
35
-------
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 of fish 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 EC5o/LC5o 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
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.
36
-------
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.
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).
37
-------
(c) Physical-Chemical Property Data
The analysis uses 2 measures of physical-chemical properties to evaluate environmental fate:
Henry's Law constant (HLC) and organic-carbon adsorption partition coefficient (K^).
HLC is the ratio of vapor pressure to solubility and is indicative of the propensity of a
chemical to volatilize from surface water (Lyman et al., 1982). The larger the HLC, the more
likely that the chemical will volatilize. The analysis obtains most HLCs 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, 1996b), or the QSAR system (U.S. EPA, 1998-1999), maintained by EPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota.
1^ 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 K^, the more likely that the
chemical will adsorb to solid material. The analysis obtains most K^s from Syracuse Research
Corporation's CHEMFATE database and EPA's 1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk
Screening Guide (U.S. EPA, 1989b).
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.
38
-------
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.
39
-------
(a) Acute Aquatic Toxicity
Key Parameter: Acute aquatic life criteria/LC5o or other benchmark (AT) (• g/L)
Using acute criteria or lowest reported acute test results (generally 96-hour and 48-hour
durations for fish and invertebrates, respectively), 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-mVmol)
TTT „ Vapor Pressure (atm)
HLC ^ v ' (EQ 21)
Solubility (mol/m3) 4'
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.
40
-------
Categorization Scheme:
HLC > 10 3 Highly volatile
10 3 > HLC > 10 5 Moderately volatile
10 5 > HLC > 3 x 10 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
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. K^ is highly inversely correlated with solubility, well correlated with
octanol-water partition coefficient, and fairly well correlated with BCF.
Categorization Scheme:
Kx > 10,000 Highly adsorptive
10,000 > Kx > 1,000 Moderately adsorptive
1,000 > Kx > 10 Slightly adsorptive
Kx < 10 Essentially nonadsorptive
This scheme evaluates substances that may partition to solids and potentially contaminate
41
-------
sediment underlying surface water or land receiving sewage sludge applications. Although a high
Kx 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 (wet weight)
Mean chemical concentration in water
BCF is a good indicator of potential to accumulate in aquatic biota through uptake across
an external surface membrane.
Categorization Scheme:
BCF > 500 High potential
500 > BCF > 50 Moderate potential
50 > BCF > 5 Slight potential
BCF < 5 Nonbioaccumulative
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.
42
-------
(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
-------
(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.
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.
44
-------
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 (BAD) provided projected iron and steel facility
effluent process flows, facility operating days, and pollutant loadings (Appendix A) in May 2000
and July 2000 (U.S. EPA, 2000c). BAD 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,
1997c). BAD 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.
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, 2000d). It also uses latitude-longitude
coordinates, if available, to locate facilities or POTWs that have not been assigned a reach number
in the IFD database. The names, locations, and flow data for the POTWs to which the indirect
45
-------
facilities discharge are obtained from the 1997 iron and steel questionnaire (U.S. EPA, 1997c),
EPA's 1996 Needs Survey (U.S. EPA, 1996c), the IFD database, and EPA's Permit Compliance
System (PCS) (U.S. EPA, 2000e). 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,
2000f). 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 NOAA's Ocean Assessments Division (NOAA/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, 1992).
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 treatment technologies representative of typical POTW secondary treatment operations
(activated sludge, activated sludge with filtration, aerated lagoons).
46
-------
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, 1990b). 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 of Hazardous 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
47
-------
concentration of a pollutant at any time and can be related to acute toxic effects on aquatic life.
The chronic value represents the average allowable concentration of a toxic pollutant over a 4-day
period at which a diverse genera of aquatic organisms and their uses should not be unacceptably
affected, provided that these levels are not exceeded more than once every 3 years.
For pollutants for which no 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 of fish 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
EC5o/LC5o 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
48
-------
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 Toxicity Protection (ingestion of organisms only):
RfD x CF
IRf x BCF
where:
HH00 = human health value (• g/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 • g/mg)
For Carcinogenic Protection (ingestion of organisms only):
BW x RL x CF
HH
00 SF x IRf x BCF
where:
HH00 = human health value (• g/L)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
49
-------
RL = risk level (106)
SF = cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)4
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1,000 • g/mg)
For Toxicitv Protection (ingestion of water and organisms):
HR RfDx CF
wo
IR (IRfx BCF) (Eq. 25)
[y
where:
HHWO = human health value (• g/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
wo SFx(IRw (IRfxBCF)) (Eq'26)
where:
HHWO = human health value (• g/L)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
RL = risk level (106)
SF = cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)4
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 • g/mg)
The analysis derives the values for ingesting water and organisms by assuming an average daily
50
-------
ingestion rate of 2 liters of water, an average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams of
potentially contaminated fish products, and an average adult body weight of 70 kilograms (U.S.
EPA, 1991). If EPA has established a slope factor, the analysis uses values protective of
carcinogenicity 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 106 (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 of fish 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 of fish 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 for 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 of fish 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
51
-------
IRIS, HEAST, or Region III RBC Table.
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 carcinogenicity, 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 Sates, 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. of the Interior FWS, 1991). The total number of river miles
or estuary square miles within a State are obtained from the 1990 National Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress (U.S. EPA, 1990c). The analysis identifies drinking water utilities located
within 50 miles downstream from each discharge site using EPA's REACHSCAN (U.S. EPA,
2000g). The population served by a drinking water utility is obtained from EPA's Safe Drinking
Water Information System (SDWIS) (U.S. EPA, 2000h). The average per-student annual
expenditure of public primary and secondary schools is obtained from the Digest of Education
Statistics, 1999 (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). The effect of IQ on education, percent
wage loss per IQ point, and the discounted value of lost income associated with additional
52
-------
schooling are obtained from Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Assessment of the Proposed
Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Regulation (U.S. EPA, 2000b). Changes in blood lead
levels resulting from the changes in environmental lead are estimated using the Guidance Manual
for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model for Lead in Children (U.S. EPA,
1994). Health risks and monetary benefits for reduced IQ levels in children are estimated using
the methodology and equations presented in The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to
1990 (U.S. EPA, 1997a). Health risks and monetary benefits for reduced premature adult and
neonatal mortality are estimated using the methodology and equations contained in
Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to
Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil (U.S. EPA, 1996a). 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 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.
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
53
-------
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, 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
1985 EPA Handbook for Estimating Sludge Management Costs
1989 EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Regulations for Sewage
Sludge Use and Disposal
Interviews with POTW operators
Interviews with State government solid waste and waste pollution control experts
Review of trade and technical literature on sewage sludge use or disposal practices
and costs
Research organizations with expertise in waste management
Information used in the evaluation is presented in Appendix D.
54
-------
3.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity
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).
55
-------
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. Appendices E, F, and G present the results
of the stream and POTW modeling.
4.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities
(a) Sample Set
The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water
quality at current and proposed BAT discharge levels for 103 iron and steel facilities directly
discharging 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams (Table 1). At current discharge levels, these 103
facilities discharge 211.9 million pounds per year of priority and nonconventional pollutants (Table
2). The proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce these loadings to 162.8 million pounds per
year at proposed BAT discharge levels, a 23 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 35
percent of the receiving streams (27 of the total 77) at current discharge levels and in 25 percent
(19 of the total 77) of the receiving streams at proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 3). Using
a target risk of 106 (1E-6) for the carcinogens, the analysis projects that 12 pollutants at current
56
-------
discharge levels and 11 pollutants atproposedBAT discharge levels will exceed instream criteria or toxic
effect levels (Table 4). The analysis also projects a total of 6 pollutants will exceed human health criteria
or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of organisms only) in 21 percent of the receiving streams
(16 of the total 77) at current discharge levels (Tables 3 and 4). The proposed iron and steel guidelines
will eliminate excursions of the instream criteria or toxic effect levels in 3 of the receiving streams.
The analysis projects that modeled instream pollutant concentrations of 7 pollutants will exceed
acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 25 percent of the receiving streams (19 of the total 77)
at current discharge levels (Tables 3 and 4). The analysis also projects modeled instream concentrations
of 16 pollutants will exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 48 percent of the
receiving streams (37 of the total 77) (Tables 3 and 4). The proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce
acute aquatic life excursions to 3 pollutants in 17 percent of the receiving streams (13 of the total 77) and
chronic aquatic life excursions to 12 pollutants in 40 percent of the receiving streams (31 of the total 77).
57
-------
Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 103 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities
CAS
Number
COOS
50328
56553
57125
62533
67641
71432
85018
91203
91576
95487
95534
98555
100027
105679
106445
108952
110861
112403
112958
117817
124185
129000
132649
142621
205992
206440
207089
218019
302045
544763
593453
612942
7429905
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7440224
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440484
7440508
7440622
7440666
7664417
7782492
14808798
16984488
18540299
Pollutant
Nitrate/Nitrite
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Total Cyanide
Aniline
Acetone
Benzene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2-Methyl naphthalene
o-Cresol
o-Toluidine
alpha-Terpineol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
n-Dodecane
n-Eicosane
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate
n-Decane
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Hexanoic Acid
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Thiocyanate
n-Hexadecane
n-Octadecane
2-Phenyl naphthalene
Aluminum
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Vanadium
Zinc
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N
Selenium
Sulfate
Fluoride
Chromium, Hexavalent
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steel
Finishing
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
X
X
X
X
Nonintegrated
Steelmaking
and Hot Forming
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Integrated and
Stand-Alone
Hot Forming
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ironmaking
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
X
X
X
X
Integrated
Steelmaking
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
X
X
Source: U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for
Cokemaking Subcategory.
October 25, 2000
-------
Table 2. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Iron and Steel Facilities
(Sample Set/National Level)
Loadings (Million Pounds-per-Year)*
Direct Dischargers
Indirect Dischargers
Total*
Current
211.9/234.5
15.1/18.7
227.1/253.2
Proposed BAT/PSES*
162.8/180.0
14.2/17.6
177.0/197.6
No. of Pollutants Evaluated
60
56
60
No. of Facilities Evaluated
103/131
47/67
150/198
**
***
Loadings are representative of pollutants evaluated; conventional and nonconventional pollutants such as TSS, BOD5, COD, TOC, TKN, total phenols,
amenable cyanide, weak acid dissociable cyanide, and oil and grease are not evaluated.
BATS for cokemaking subcategory, BAT1 for all other subcategories; PSES1 for all subcategories.
The same pollutant may be discharged from a number of direct and indirect facilities; therefore, the total does not equal the sum of pollutants.
Source: U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
59
-------
Table 3. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Sample Set)
Current
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Proposed BAT**
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
19
7 (1.0-105.0)
35
13
3 (1.0-105.0)
18
Chronic Aquatic Life
37
16 (1.0-371.7)
98
31
12 (1.0-371.7)
53
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
27
12 (1.1-2,072)
66
19
11 (1.1-1,955)
47
Human Health
Orgs. Only
16
6 (1.2-2,072)
37
13
6 (1.0-1,955)
32
Total*
41
26
39
21
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.
Number of streams evaluated = 77, number of facilities = 103, and number of pollutants = 60.
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.
** BATS for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected excursions calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed 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 calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations atproposed 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).
May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
60
-------
(b) National Extrapolation
The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology
for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample set
of 103 iron and steel facilities directly discharging 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams (Table 3) to 131
iron and steel facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 100 receiving streams (Table 5). At current discharge
levels, these 131 facilities discharge 234.5 million pounds per year of priority and nonconventional
pollutants (Table 2). The proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce these loadings to 180.0 million
pounds per year at proposed BAT discharge levels, a 23 percent reduction.
61
-------
Table 4. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Sample Set)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Boron
Chromium
Chromium, hexavalent
Chrysene
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Number of Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
Current
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (7.5)
0
8(1.0-36.0)
7(1.2-105.0)
14(1.0-13.8)
Proposed BAT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (4.5)
7(1.0-105.0)
10(1.1-13.8)
Chronic Aquatic Life
Current
2(1.8)
0
0
0
0
0
1 (4.4)
0
5(1.2-5.0)
1(1.5)
1(9.1)
0
8(1.2-43.9)
15(1.1-371.7)
33(1.0-116.3)
Proposed BAT
1(1.8)
0
0
0
0
0
1 (4.2)
0
2(2.1-2.9)
0
1(1.1)
0
1 (5.6)
10(1.2-371.7)
28(1.2-116.3)
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
Current
0
2(1.2-1.5)
22(1.2-74.0)
6(2.3-132.1)
7(1.8-277.2)
4(1.6-27.5)
10 (2.4-2,072)
1 (2.7)
0
0
0
1(1.2)
0
0
0
Proposed BAT
0
1(1.2)
13(1.1-12.8)
6(2.5-132.0)
7(1.6-277.2)
4(1.6-27.5)
10(1.5-1,955)
1(1.4)
0
0
0
1(1.2)
0
0
0
Human Health
Orgs. Only
Current
0
0
9(1.3-9.3)
6(2.1-123.8)
7(1.8-277.2)
4(1.6-27.5)
10 (2.4-2,072)
0
0
0
0
1(1.2)
0
0
0
Proposed BAT
0
0
4(1.0-1.6)
6(2.4-123.8)
7(1.6-277.2)
4(1.6-27.5)
10(1.5-1,955)
0
0
0
0
1(1.1)
0
0
0
62
-------
Table 4. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Sample Set) (continued)
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Magnesium
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate/Nitrite
Selenium
Silver
Thiocyanate
Toluidine,o-
Zinc
Number of Excursions
Acute At
Current
0
1(1.9)
0
0
0
0
0
1(1.3)
0
0
0
3(1.3-8.8)
|uatic Life
Proposed BAT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chronic A
Current
5(1.3-6.9)
11(1.0-41.3)
0
2(1.4-1.6)
6(1.2-30.9)
3(1.6-2.9)
0
1(3.1)
0
1 (4.2)
0
3(1.1-7.5)
quatic Life
Proposed BAT
1(1.3)
3(1.1-1.6)
0
1(1.0)
3(1.1-1.8)
0
0
1(1.6)
0
0
0
0
Human
Water ar
Current
8(1.1-13.6)
0
3(1.1-1.6)
0
0
0
1 (2.0)
0
0
0
1(1.6)
0
Health
id Orgs.
Proposed BAT
2 (2.4-3.7)
0
1(1.1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1(1.6)
0
Human Health
Orgs. Only
Current
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Proposed BAT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NOTE: Number of pollutants evaluated = 60
Numbers outside parentheses represent the number of excursions; numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.
May 16, 2000 Loading Files; September 19,2000 Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
63
-------
Table 5. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(National Level)
Current
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Proposed BAT**
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
23
7 (1.0-105.0)
40
16
3 (1.0-105.0)
22
Chronic Aquatic Life
47
16(1.0-371.7)
116
41
12(1.0-371.7)
68
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
30
12(1.1-2,072)
69
20
11 (1.1-1,955)
48
Human Health
Orgs. Only
17
6 (1.2-2,072)
38
14
6 (1.0-1,955)
33
Total*
51
26
49
21
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.
Number of streams evaluated = 100, number of facilities = 131, and number of pollutants = 60.
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.
BATS for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected excursions calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations
at proposed 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 calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed 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).
May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
64
-------
The analysis proj ects that extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations will exceed human health
criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of water and organisms) in 30 percent of the
receiving streams (30 of the total 100) at current discharge levels and in 20 percent of the receiving
streams (20 of the total 100) at proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 5). The analysis projects
excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of organisms only)
in 17 percent of the receiving streams (17 of the total 100) at current discharge levels (Table 5). The
proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce the excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect
levels (developed for consumption of organisms only) from 17 to 14 receiving streams.
In addition, the analysis projects that extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations will exceed
acute aquatic life criteria in 23 percent of the receiving streams (23 of the total 100) at current
discharge levels (Table 5). The proposed regulation will reduce excursions to 16 percent of the receiving
streams (16 of the total 100). The analysis projects that extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations will
exceed chronic aquatic life criteria in 47 percent (47 of the total 100) and 41 percent (41 of the total
100) of the receiving streams at current and proposed BAT discharge levels, respectively (Table 5).
4.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities
(a) Sample Set
The analysis evaluates the effects of POTW wastewater discharges on receiving stream water
quality at current and proposedPSES discharge levels for 47 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging
56 pollutants to 43 POTWs located on 43 receiving streams (Table 6). At current discharge levels, these
47 facilities discharge 15.1 million pounds per year of priority and nonconventional pollutants (Table 2).
The proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce these loadings to 14.2 million pounds per year at
proposed PSES discharge levels, a 6 percent reduction.
65
-------
Table 6. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (56) Discharged from 47 Indirect Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities
CAS
Number
COOS
50328
56553
57125
67641
71432
85018
91203
91576
95487
95534
98555
105679
106445
108952
110861
112403
117817
124185
129000
132649
142621
205992
206440
207089
218019
302045
544763
612942
7429905
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7440224
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440484
7440508
7440622
7440666
7664417
7782492
14808798
16984488
18540299
Pollutant
Nitrate/Nitrite
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Total Cyanide
Acetone
Benzene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
o-Cresol
o-Toluidine
alpha-Terpineol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
n-Dodecane
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate
n-Decane
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Hexanoic Acid
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Thiocyanate
n-Hexadecane
2-Phenylnaphthalene
Aluminum
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Vanadium
Zinc
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N
Selenium
Sulfate
Fluoride
Chromium, Hexavalent
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
Steel
Finishing
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
X
X
X
X
Nonintegrated
Steelmaking
and Hot Forming
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Integrated and
Stand-Alone
Hot Forming
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Iron making
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
Integrated
Steelmaking
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
X
X
Source:
U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), May 16, 2000, Loading Files
1
October 25, 2000
-------
Using a target risk of 10"6 (1E-6) for the carcinogens, the analysis projects that modeled instream
pollutant concentrations will not exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for either
the consumption of water and organisms or for the consumption of organisms only) atcurrent orproposed
PSES discharge levels (Table 7). Because the analysis projects no excursions, it does not extrapolate these
results to the national level.
The analysis proj ects that modeled instream pollutant concentrations will not exceed acute aquatic
life criteria or toxic effect levels in any of the receiving streams atcurrent or proposed PSES discharge
levels (Table 7). Therefore, the analysis does not extrapolate these results to the national level. The
analysis does proj ect that modeled instream concentrations of 2 pollutants at current discharge levels will
exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 7 percent of the receiving streams (3 of the
total 43). The proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce excursions of the 2 pollutants from 3 to 2
receiving streams (Tables 7 and 8).
In addition, the analysis evaluates the potential impact of the 47 indirect discharging iron and steel
facilities, which discharge to 43 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 9). Because the analysis projects no impacts at POTWs, the analysis does not
extrapolate these results to the national level.
(b) National Extrapolation
The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology
for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample set
of 47 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 43 POTWs located on 43 receiving
streams (Table 7) to 67 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 61 POTWs with outfalls
on 61 receiving streams (Table 10). At current discharge levels, these 67 facilities discharge 18.7 million
67
-------
pounds per year of priority and nonconventional pollutants (Table 2). The proposed iron and steel
guidelines will reduce these loadings to 17.6 million pounds per year at proposed PSES discharge levels,
a 6 percent reduction.
The analysis projects that extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations will exceed only chronic
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 7 percent of the receiving streams (4 of the total 61) atcurrent
discharge levels (Table 10). The proposed iron and steel guidelines will eliminate excursions in 2 of the
4 receiving streams at proposed PSES discharge levels.
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. The
analysis also evaluates the potential benefits to human health by estimating blood lead levels associated with
reducing lead levels in fish tissue. 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. Potential lead-related human health
impacts from the consumption of fish tissue that are derived from the same waterbodies are also
summarized. The analysis estimates risks for recreational (sport) and subsistence anglers and their families,
as well as the general population (drinking water). Appendices H, I, and J present the results of the
modeling.
68
-------
Table 7. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Sample Set)
Current
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Proposed PSES**
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chronic Aquatic Life
3
2(1.3-7.1)
5
2
2(1.3-4.8)
4
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Human Health
Orgs. Only
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total*
3
2
2
2
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.
Number of streams evaluated = 43, number of POTWs = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants = 56.
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.
** PSES1 for all subcategories.
May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
69
-------
Table 8. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Sample Set)
Fluoride
Molybdenum
Number of Excursions
Acute A
Current
0
0
Aquatic Life
Proposed PSES
0
0
Chronic A
Current
2(1.3-1.8)
3(3.5-7.1)
quatic Life
Proposed PSES
2(1.3-1.8)
2(1.9-4.8)
Human
Water ar
Current
0
0
Health
id Orgs.
Proposed PSES
0
0
Human Health
Orgs. Only
Current
0
0
Proposed PSES
0
0
NOTE: Number of pollutants evaluated = 56.
Numbers outside parentheses represent the number of excursions; numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.
May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
70
-------
Table 9. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems from Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Sample Set)
Current
POTWs (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Problems
Proposed 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 = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants = 56.
Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.
* PSES1 for all subcategories.
May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
71
-------
4.1.2.1 Direct Discharging Facilities
(a) Sample Set
The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on human health from the
consumption of fish tissue and drinking water at current and proposedBAT discharge levels for 103 iron
and steel facilities directly discharging 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams.Fish Tissue (Carcinogenic
and Systemic) — At current discharge levels, 28 receiving streams have total estimated
individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 7 carcinogens (Tables 11
and 12). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) for sport anglers and
subsistence anglers. At current discharge levels, total excess annual cancer cases are estimated to be
3.0E-1. At proposed BAT discharge levels, 23 receiving streams have a total estimated
individual-pollutant cancer risk greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 7 carcinogens (Tables 11
and 12). 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 2.9E-1 at
proposedBAT discharge levels (Table 11). Based on the reduction of total excess cancer cases (1 .OE-2),
the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases ranges from $24,000 to $126,000
(1997 dollars).
In addition, the analysis projects systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) in 3
receiving streams from 2 pollutants atcurrent discharge levels (Table 13). An estimated population of 868
subsistence anglers and their families are projected to be affected. The proposed iron and steel
guidelines will eliminate systemic toxicant effects. A monetary value of these benefits to society could not
be estimated.
72
-------
Table 10 . Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(National Level)
Current
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Proposed PSES**
Stream (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chronic Aquatic Life
4
2(1.3-7.1)
6
2
2(1.3-4.8)
4
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Human Health
Orgs. Only
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total*
4
2
2
2
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.
Number of streams evaluated = 61, number of POTWs = 61, number of facilities = 67, and number of pollutants = 56.
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.
** PSES1 for all subcategories.
May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
73
-------
FishTissue (Lead) - At theproposedBAT discharge levels, the ingestion of lead-contaminated
fish tissue by children (ages 0-6) of sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 39 receiving streams (Table
14). The analysis projects a potentially exposed population of 15,000 children. Based on the annual
reduction in total IQ loss (55.83 points), the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided loss of IQ
points is $542,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 14). Additionally, the ingestion of lead-contaminated fish tissue
by adult sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 55 receiving streams (Table 14). The analysis projects
that the proposed guidelines will reduce premature mortality by an estimated 3.0E-2 cases annually for
191,000 men (ages 40-74), 9.8E-4 cases annually for 163,000 women (ages 45-74), and 3.5E-3 cases
annually for 17,000 neonates. Based on the reductions in blood pressure, as it relates to premature
mortality, the total annual monetary benefits to society from avoided mortality range from $83,000 to
$435,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 14).
Drinking Water— At current discharge levels, the analysis projects that 22 receiving streams
will have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of
6 carcinogens (Table 15). Estimated risks range from 1.1E-6 to 8.7E-5. Drinking water utilities are
located within 50 miles downstream of 3 sites that discharge 2 carcinogens with risks greater than 10"6 (1E-
6). However, EPA has published a drinking water standard for the 2 carcinogens, 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 15). In addition, the analysis
projects no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at current or proposed BAT
discharge levels (Table 13).
74
-------
Table 11. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
Proposed BAT*
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
Total Individual Cancer Risks > lO'6
28
7
18(1.3E-6to4.6E-3)
28(2.9E-6to4.7E-2)
23
7
15(1.2E-6to4.4E-3)
23(1.2E-6to4.4E-2)
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
NA/NA
NA
1.9E-1
1.1E-1
3.0E-1
NA/NA
NA
1.9E-1
l.OE-1
2.9E-1
NOTE: Numberof streams evaluated = 77, number of facilities = 103 and number of pollutants = 60.
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
* BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations
at proposed 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 proposed 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).
May 16,2000, Loading Files; September 19,2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
75
-------
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current:
Stream No. 1
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 2
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 3
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Stream No. 4
Arsenic
Stream No. 5
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 6
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 7
Arsenic
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
1.7E-6/4.6E-5
3.2E-5/8.9E-4
4.4E-4/1.2E-2
7.6E-5/2.1E-3
7.8E-6/2.1E-4
0/NA
3.3E-6/8.9E-5
2.3E-4/6.3E-3
3.8E-3/1.0E-1
5.0E-4/1.4E-2
5.0E-5/1.4E-3
2.2E-6/5.9E-5
1.7E-6/4.7E-5
3.6E-5/9.7E-4
3.3E-6/9.1E-5
0/NA
7.8E-6/2.1E-4
2.3E-6/1.5E-4
2.1E-5/1.4E-3
2.8E-4/1.9E-2
4.8E-5/3.3E-3
4.9E-6/3.3E-4
0/NA
2.9E-6/1.9E-4
0/NA
1.4E-5/9.7E-4
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
1.7E-5/2.5E-5
3.3E-4/4.8E-4
4.5E-3/6.5E-3
7.8E-4/1.1E-3
8.0E-5/1.1E-4
2.9E-6/4.2E-6
3.3E-5/4.8E-5
2.4E-3/3.4E-3
3.9E-2/5.6E-2
5.2E-3/7.4E-3
5.1E-4/7.4E-4
2.2E-5/3.2E-5
1.8E-5/2.6E-5
3.6E-4/5.2E-4
3.4E-5/4.9E-5
3.2E-6/4.6E-6
8.0E-5/1.2E-4
2.3E-5/8.3E-5
2.1E-4/7.5E-4
2.9E-3/1.0E-2
5.0E-4/1.8E-3
5.1E-5/1.8E-4
1.9E-6/6.6E-6
2.9E-5/1.0E-4
3.0E-6/1.1E-5
1.5E-4/5.2E-4
76
-------
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)
(Sample Set)
Stream No. 8
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 9
Arsenic
Stream No. 10
Arsenic
Stream No. 11
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 12
Arsenic
Stream No. 13
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 14
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pryene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 15
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 16
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 17
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cancer Risks >1Q-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
0/NA
1.7E-5/9.5E-4
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
2.9E-6/7.6E-5
0/NA
1.7E-5/4.4E-4
4.8E-5/1.3E-3
3.2E-5/8.5E-4
3.0E-6/7.9E-5
0/NA
1.5E-7/6.1E-6
4.7E-6/1.9E-4
2.9E-7/1.2E-5
2.9E-7/4.2E-6
3.6E-7/5.1E-6
4.4E-6/6.2E-5
4.4E-7/6.3E-6
1.3E-7/5.3E-6
9.3E-7/3.8E-5
2.5E-7/1.0E-5
3.7E-6/1.5E-4
1.5E-6/6.3E-5
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
3.5E-6/1.0E-5
5.1E-7/1.5E-6
1.7E-4/5.1E-4
7.0E-6/1.7E-5
6.8E-6/1.6E-5
4.6E-7/1.1E-6
3.0E-5/4.1E-5
5.2E-6/7.2E-6
1.7E-4/2.4E-4
5.0E-4/6.9E-4
3.3E-4/4.6E-4
3.1E-5/4.3E-5
1.7E-6/2.4E-6
1.5E-6/3.3E-6
4.8E-5/1.0E-4
2.9E-6/6.3E-6
3.0E-6/2.3E-6
3.7E-6/2.8E-6
4.5E-5/3.4E-5
4.5E-6/3.4E-6
1.3E-6/2.9E-6
9.5E-6/2.1E-5
2.6E-6/5.5E-6
3.8E-5/8.3E-5
1.6E-5/3.4E-5
77
-------
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)
(Sample Set)
Stream No. 18
Arsenic
Stream No. 19
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 20
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 21
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 22
Arsenic
Stream No. 23
Arsenic
Stream No. 24
Arsenic
Stream No. 25
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 26
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Stream No. 27
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cancer Risks >1Q-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
1.3E-7/5.7E-6
1.7E-6/7.8E-5
3.0E-7/1.3E-5
4.4E-7/2.5E-5
6.0E-6/3.4E-4
1.0E-6/5.9E-5
1.1E-7/6.0E-6
7.5E-6/1.1E-3
4.0E-6/5.8E-4
9.5E-5/1.4E-2
9.5E-6/1.4E-3
9.5E-7/1.4E-4
0/NA
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
3.5E-6/7.6E-6
2.9E-6/6.9E-6
4.3E-7/1.0E-6
2.1E-6/4.6E-6
1.1E-6/2.4E-6
3.4E-6/8.1E-6
1.1E-6/2.7E-6
4.1E-6/9.7E-6
2.9E-6/6.8E-6
3.9E-6/9.2E-6
1.3E-6/3.1E-6
1.8E-5/4.2E-5
3.1E-6/7.2E-6
4.5E-6/1.4E-5
6.1E-5/1.8E-4
1.1E-5/3.2E-5
1.1E-6/3.2E-6
7.6E-5/5.9E-4
4.1E-5/3.1E-4
9.8E-4/7.5E-3
9.8E-5/7.5E-4
9.8E-6/7.5E-5
1.5E-6/1.2E-5
78
-------
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)
(Sample Set)
Stream No. 28
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Cancer Risks >lCr6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
7.4E-6/3.0E-4
1.9E-4/7.8E-3
1.4E-5/5.8E-4
1.3E-6/5.5E-5
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
5.8E-6/1.2E-5
7.6E-5/1.6E-4
2.0E-3/4.2E-3
1.5E-4/3.1E-4
1.4E-5/2.9E-5
79
-------
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)
(Sample Set)
Proposed BAT*:
Stream No. 1
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 2
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 3
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Stream No. 4
Arsenic
Stream No. 5
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 6
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 7
Arsenic
Cancer Risks >1Q-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
3.4E-5/9.4E-4
4.7E-4/1.3E-2
8.1E-5/2.2E-3
8.3E-6/2.3E-4
0/NA
1.8E-6/5.0E-5
2.3E-4/6.3E-3
3.6E-3/9.7E-2
5.0E-4/1.4E-2
5.0E-5/1.4E-3
2.1E-6/5.8E-5
1.5E-6/4.0E-5
2.7E-5/7.3E-4
2.8E-6/7.8E-5
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
2.2E-5/1.5E-3
3.0E-4/2.0E-2
5.1E-5/3.5E-3
5.2E-6/3.5E-4
0/NA
1.4E-6/9.7E-5
0/NA
2.9E-6/2.0E-4
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
2.5E-6/3.5E-6
3.5E-4/5.1E-4
4.8E-3/6.9E-3
8.3E-4/1.2E-3
8.5E-5/1.2E-4
3.1E-6/4.5E-6
1.9E-5/2.7E-5
2.4E-3/3.4E-3
3.6E-2/5.2E-2
5.2E-3/7.4E-3
5.1E-4/7.4E-4
2.2E-5/3.2E-5
1.5E-5/2.2E-5
2.8E-4/4.0E-4
2.9E-5/4.2E-5
2.7E-6/3.9E-6
9.7E-6/1.4E-5
4.0E-6/1.4E-5
2.2E-4/7.9E-4
3.0E-3/1.1E-2
5.2E-4/1.9E-3
5.3E-5/1.9E-4
2.0E-6/7.0E-6
1.5E-5/5.3E-5
1.5E-6/5.4E-6
3.0E-5/1.1E-4
80
-------
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)
(Sample Set)
Stream No. 8
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 9
Arsenic
Stream No. 10
Arsenic
Stream No. 11
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 12
Arsenic
Stream No. 13
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Stream No. 14
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pryene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 15
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 16
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 17
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
2.9E-6/7.6E-5
0/NA
1.7E-5/4.4E-4
4.8E-5/1.3E-3
3.2E-5/8.5E-4
3.0E-6/7.9E-5
0/NA
1.5E-7/6.1E-6
2.7E-6/1.1E-4
2.9E-7/1.2E-5
0/NA
2.7E-7/3.9E-6
3.4E-6/4.8E-5
3.4E-7/4.8E-6
1.2E-7/5.1E-6
8.8E-7/3.6E-5
2.4E-7/9.8E-6
1.9E-6/7.8E-5
7.8E-7/3.2E-5
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
3.5E-6/1.0E-5
5.1E-7/1.5E-6
7.0E-6/2.1E-5
1.4E-6/3.3E-6
4.5E-6/1.1E-5
3.2E-7/7.5E-7
3.0E-5/4.1E-5
5.2E-6/7.2E-6
1.7E-4/2.4E-4
5.0E-4/6.9E-4
3.3E-4/4.6E-4
3.1E-5/4.3E-5
1.7E-6/2.4E-6
1.5E-6/3.3E-6
2.8E-5/6.0E-5
2.9E-6/6.3E-6
1.2E-6/8.7E-7
2.8E-6/2.1E-6
3.4E-5/2.6E-5
3.5E-6/2.6E-6
1.3E-6/2.7E-6
9.1E-6/2.0E-5
2.4E-6/5.3E-6
1.9E-5/4.2E-5
8.0E-6/1.7E-5
81
-------
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)
(Sample Set)
Stream No. 20
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 21
Arsenic
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Stream No. 24
Arsenic
Stream No. 26
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Stream No. 27
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
4.4E-7/2.5E-5
6.0E-6/3.4E-4
1.0E-6/5.9E-5
1.1E-7/6.0E-6
0/NA
4.5E-6/6.5E-4
8.1E-5/1.2E-2
1.1E-5/1.6E-3
1.1E-6/1.6E-4
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
1.9E-6/4.1E-6
9.3E-7/2.0E-6
1.7E-6/4.1E-6
5.6E-7/1.3E-6
1.2E-6/2.8E-6
4.5E-6/1.4E-5
6.1E-5/1.8E-4
1.1E-5/3.2E-5
1.1E-6/3.2E-6
6.9E-6/5.3E-5
4.6E-5/3.5E-4
8.4E-4/6.4E-3
1.1E-4/8.4E-4
1.1E-5/8.4E-5
82
-------
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)
(Sample Set)
Stream No. 28
Arsenic
B enzo (a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
7.5E-6/3.1E-4
1.4E-4/5.5E-3
1.4E-5/5.9E-4
1.4E-6/5.5E-5
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
1.6E-6/3.5E-6
7.7E-5/1.6E-4
1.4E-3/3.0E-3
1.5E-4/3.2E-4
1.4E-5/3.0E-5
NOTE: Numberof streams evaluated = 77, number of facilities = 103, and number of pollutants = 60. 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.
* BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory ;BAT1 for othersubcategories. Projected cancer risks/cases calculated
assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed 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 proposed 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).
NA = Not Applicable
May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
83
-------
Table 13. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron
and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Affected Population
Proposed BAT**
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1
o
6
2*
NA
0
3(1.6-5.3)
868
0
0
NA
0
0
Drinking Water Hazard Indices >1
Q***
0
0
0
0
o***
0
0
0
0
NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 77, number of facilities = 103, and number of pollutants = 60.
Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected hazard indices exceed 1.0. [See
footnote *** below.]
Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.
NA = Not Applicable
* Thallium and Copper
** BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected hazard indices
calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations atproposedBAT 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 proposed 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).
*** Total hazard indices exceed 1.0 at 7 streams at current and at 3 streams at proposed BAT. However,
at all of these streams, one or more of the following modifying factors negate the concern: pollutants'
critical effects and target organs differ, no drinking water utilities are located within 50 miles
downstream, or drinking water treatment sy stems are assumed to reduce concentrations below adverse
effect thresholds.
May 16, 2000, Loading File; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
84
-------
Table 14. Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers
(All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Health Effect
Premature Mortality
Subtotal
IQ Changes
Total Benefits
Improved Streams
(No.)
55
55
55
39
Exposed Populations
Gender
Men
Women
Both
Both
Age Group
40-54
55-64
65-74
45-74
Neonates
0-6
Size
112,000
43,000
36,000
163,000
17,000
15,000
Reduced Cases/
IQ Points
0.0250
0.0034
0.0017
0.00098
0.0035
0.035
55.83
Total Annual Benefit
($ 1997)
$60,000 -$31 5,000
$8,200 - $43,000
$4,100 -$21,000
$2,400 - $12,000
$8,400 - $44,000
$83,000 - $435,000
$542,000 - $542,000
$625,000 - $977,000
Note: Number of streams evaluated = 77 and number of facilities =103.
May 16,2000, Loading Files; September 19,2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
85
-------
(b) National Extrapolation
The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology
used for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample
set of 103 iron and steel facilities directly discharging 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams to 131 iron and
steel facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 100 receiving streams.
Fish Tissue (Carcinogenic and Systemic) - At current discharge levels, 31 receiving streams
have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 7
carcinogens (Table 16). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) for sport
anglers and subsistence anglers. At current discharge levels, total excess annual cancer cases are
estimated at 3.1E-1 (Table 16). At proposed BAT discharge levels, 24 receiving streams have total
estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 7 carcinogens.
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 2.9E-1 at proposed BAT
discharge levels (Table 16). Based on the reduction of total excess cancer cases (2.0E-2), the monetary
value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases ranges from $48,000 to $252,000 (1997 dollars).
In addition, the analysis projects that the systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at 3
receiving streams for 874 subsistence anglers and their families will be eliminated at proposed BAT
discharge levels (Table 17).
86
-------
Table 15. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
Proposed BAT*
Streams
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10'6
22
6**(l.lE-6to8.7E-5)
3
2***(1.2E-6to5.0E-6)
14
6**(1.3E-6to7.8E-5)
1
2*** (2.6E-6)
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 77, number of facilities = 103, and number of pollutants = 60. 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.
* BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at
proposed 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 proposed 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).
** Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, o-Toluidine, and Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
*** Arsenic and Benzo(a)pyrene. EPA has published a drinking water standard for the 2 carcinogens and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems will
reduce concentrations below adverse effect thresholds.
May 16,2000, Loading Files; September 19,2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
87
-------
Table 16. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(National Level)
Current
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
Proposed BAT*
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10'6
31
7
19(1.3E-6to4.6E-3)
31(2.9E-6to4.7E-2)
24
7
16(1.2E-6to4.4E-3)
24(1.2E-6to4.4E-2)
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
NA/NA
NA
2.0E-1
1.1E-1
3.1E-1
NA/NA
NA
1.9E-1
l.OE-1
2.9E-1
NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 100, number of facilities =131, and number of pollutants = 60.
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
* BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed
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 proposed 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).
May 16,2000, Loading Files; September 19,2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
-------
FishTissue (Lead) - At theproposedBAT discharge levels, the ingestion of lead-contaminated
fish tissue by children (ages 0-6) of sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 46 receiving streams (Table
18). The analysis projects a potentially exposed population of 17,000 children. Based on the annual
reduction of total IQ loss (57.26 points), the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided loss of IQ
points is $556,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 18). Additionally, the ingestion of lead-contaminated fish tissue
by adult sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 68 receiving streams (Table 18). The analysis projects
that the proposed guidelines will reduce premature mortality by an estimated 3.1E-2 cases annually for
200,000 men (ages 40-74), l.OE-3 cases annually for 170,000 women (ages 45-74), and 3.6E-3 cases
annually for 18,000 neonates. Based on the reductions in blood pressure, as it relates to premature
mortality, the total annual monetary benefits to society from avoided mortality ranges from $86,000 to
$451,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 18).
Drinking Water — At current discharge levels, 27 receiving streams have total estimated
individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 6 carcinogens (Table 19).
Drinking water utilities are located within 50 miles downstream of 5 sites that discharge 2 carcinogens with
risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6). However, EPA has published a drinking water standard for the 2
carcinogens and the analysis assumes that drinking water treatment systems will reduce concentrations to
below adverse effect thresholds. Therefore, the analysis proj ects no total excess cancer cases. In addition,
the analysis projects no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at current or proposed
BAT discharge levels (Table 17).
89
-------
Table 17. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron
and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level)
Current
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Affected Population
Proposed BAT**
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1
o
6
2*
N/A
0
3(1.6-5.3)
874
0
0
N/A
0
0
Drinking Water Hazard Indices >1
Q***
0
0
0
0
o***
0
0
0
0
*
**
NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 100, number of facilities =131, and number of pollutants = 60.
Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected hazard indices exceed 1.0. [See
footnote *** below.]
Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.
Thallium and Copper
BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory;BATforothersubcategories. Projected hazard indices calculated
assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant
concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never
detected above minimum level. Also, proj ected hazard indices calculated assuming effluent pollutant
concentrations at proposed 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).
Total hazard indices exceed 1.0 at 7 streams at current and at 3 streams at proposed BAT. However,
at all of these streams, oneormoreof the following modify ing factors negate the concern: pollutants'
critical effects and target organs differ, no drinking water utilities are located within 50 miles
downstream, or drinking water treatment sy stems are assumed to reduce concentrations below adverse
effect thresholds.
May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
90
-------
Table 18. Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers
(All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(National Level)
Health Effect
Premature Mortality
Subtotal
IQ Changes
Total Benefits
Improved Streams
(No.)
68
68
68
46
Exposed Populations
Gender
Men
Women
Both
Both
Age Group
40-54
55-64
65-74
45-74
Neonates
0-6
Size
117,000
46,000
37,000
170,000
18,000
17,000
Reduced Cases/
IQ Points
0.026
0.0035
0.0017
0.0010
0.0036
0.036
57.26
Total Annual Benefits
(S 1997)
$62,000 - $328,000
$8,400 - $44,000
$4,100 -$21,000
$2,400 -$13,000
$8.600 - $45.000
$86, 000 -$451,000
$556,000 - $556,000
$642, 000 -$1,007,000
Note: Number of streams evaluated = 100, and number of facilities = 131.
May 16,2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
91
-------
Table 19. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level)
Current
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
Proposed BAT*
Streams
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10'6
27
6** (LlE-6to8.7E-5)
5
2*** (1.2E-6to5.0E-6)
15
6** (1.3E-6to7.8E-5)
1
2*** (2.6E-6)
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 100, number of facilities =131, and number of pollutants = 60.
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.
* BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at
proposed 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 proposed 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).
** Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, o-Toluidine, and Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
*** Arsenic and Benzo(a)pyrene. EPA has published a drinking water standard for the 2 carcinogens and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems
will reduce concentrations below adverse effect thresholds.
May 16,2000, Loading Files; September 19,2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
92
-------
4.1.2.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities
(a) Sample Set
The analysis evaluates the effects of POTW wastewater discharges on human health from the
consumption offish tissue and drinking water at current and proposed PSES discharge levels for 47 iron
and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 43 POTWs with outfalls on 43 receiving streams.
Fish Tissue (Carcinogenic and Systemic) — At current discharge levels, 4 receiving streams
have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 3
carcinogens (Tables 20 and 21). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) for
only subsistence anglers. At current discharge levels, total excess annual cancer cases are estimated
to be 6.0E-5 (Table 20). At proposed PSES discharge levels, the 4 receiving streams have total estimated
individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 2 carcinogens (Tables 20
and 21). The analysis again projects total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) for only subsistence
anglers Total excess annual cancer cases will be reduced to 5.7E-5 at proposed PSES levels (Table
20). Based on the reduction of total excess cancer cases (3.0E-6), the monetary value of benefits to
society from avoided cancer cases is less than $100 (1997 dollars). In addition, the analysis projects no
systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at current or proposed PSES discharge levels
(Table 22).
Fish Tissue (Lead) — At theproposedPSES discharge levels, the ingestion of lead-contaminated
fish tissue by children (ages 0-6) of sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 4 receiving streams (Table
23). The analysis projects a potentially exposed population of 800 children. Based on the annual reduction
of total IQ loss (0.026 points) the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided loss of IQ points is
$250 (1997 dollars) (Table 23). Additionally, the ingestion of lead-contaminated fish tissue by adult sport
and subsistence anglers is reduced at 24 receiving streams (Table 23). The analysis projects that the
proposed guidelines will reduce premature mortality by an estimated 3.1E-5 cases annually for 181,000
93
-------
Table 20. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
Proposed PSES *
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
Total Individual Cancer Risks > lO'6
4
o
J
0
4(1.9E-6to4.7E-6)
4
2
0
4(1.9E-6to4.3E-6)
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
NA/NA
NA
NA
6.0E-5
6.0E-5
NA/NA
NA
NA
5.7E-5
5.7E-5
NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 43, number of POTWs = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants = 56.
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
* PSES1 for all subcategories.
May 16,2000, Loading Files.
94
-------
Table 21. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current:
Stream No. 1
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 2
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 3
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 4
Arsenic
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Proposed PSES*:
Stream No. 1
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 2
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 3
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Stream No. 4
Benzo(a)pyrene
B enzo (b)fluoranthene
Cancer Risks >10'6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
1.6E-6/3.4E-6
2.9E-7/6.3E-7
3.2E-6/7.6E-6
5.9E-7/1.4E-6
2.5E-6/8.9E-6
4.6E-7/1.6E-6
4.2E-7/3.2E-6
3.6E-6/2.8E-5
6.6E-7/5.1E-6
1.6E-6/3.4E-6
2.9E-7/6.3E-7
3.2E-6/7.6E-6
5.9E-7/1.4E-6
2.5E-6/8.9E-6
4.6E-7/1.6E-6
3.6E-6/2.8E-5
6.6E-7/5.1E-6
NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 43, number of POT Ws = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants
= 56. 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
* PSES1 for all subcategories.
May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
95
-------
Table 22. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron
and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Proposed 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: Numberof streams evaluated = 43, number of POTWs = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants
= 56.
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
* PSES1 for all subcategories.
May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
96
-------
men (ages 40-74), estimated 3. IE-5 cases annually for 181,000 men (ages 40-74), l.OE-6 cases annually
for 155,000 women (ages 45-74), and 3.4E-6 cases annually for 16,000 neonates. Based on the
reductions in blood pressure, as it relates to premature mortality, the total annual monetary benefits to
society from avoided mortality range from $85 to $450 (1997 dollars) (Table 23).
Drinking Water— At current and proposed PSES discharge levels, the analysis projects that
no receiving streams will have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6)
(Table 24).
(b) National Extrapolation
The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology
for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. Extrapolated values are based on the sample set of 47
iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 43 POTWs with outfalls on 43 receiving streams. The
analysis extrapolates these values to 67 iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 61 POTWs
located on 61 receiving streams.
Fish Tissue (Carcinogenic and Systemic) — At current discharge levels, 4 receiving streams
have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 3
carcinogens (Table 25). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) for only
subsistence anglers. At current discharge levels, total excess annual cancer cases are estimated to be
6.0E-5 (Table 25). At proposed PSES discharge levels, the 4 receiving streams have total estimated
individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 2 carcinogens (Table 25).
The analysis again projects total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) for only subsistence anglers
Total excess annual cancer cases will be reduced to 5.7E-5 at proposed PSES discharge levels (Table
25). Based on the reduction of total excess cancer cases (3.0E-6), the monetary value of benefits
97
-------
Table 23. Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers
(All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Health Effect
Premature Mortality
Subtotal
IQ Changes
Total Benefits
Improved Streams
(No.)
24
24
24
4
Exposed Populations
Gender
Men
Women
Both
Both
Age Group
40-54
55-64
65-74
45-74
Neonates
0-6
Size
106,000
41,000
34,000
155,000
16,000
800
Reduced Cases/
IQ Points
0.000026
0.0000036
0.0000018
0.0000010
0.0000034
0.000036
0.026
Total Annual
Benefits
($ 1997)
$60 - $330
$10 -$45
$5 - $20
$0 - $10
$10 -$45
$85 - $450
$250 - $250
$340 - $700
Note: Number of streams evaluated = 43, and number of facilities = 47.
May 16,2000, Loading Files.
98
-------
Table 24. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
Proposed PSES *
Streams
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10'6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 43, number of POTWs = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants = 56.
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.
NA = Not Applicable
* PSES 1 for all subcategories.
May 16,2000, Loading Files.
99
-------
Table 25. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(National Level)
Current
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
Proposed PSES *
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10'6
4
3
0
4(1.9E-6to4.7E-6)
4
2
0
4(1.9E-6to4.3E-6)
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
NA/NA
NA
NA
6.0E-5
6.0E-5
NA/NA
NA
NA
5.7E-5
5.7E-5
NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 61, number of POT Ws = 61, number of facilities = 67, and number of pollutants = 56.
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
* PSESI for all subcategories.
May 16,2000, Loading Files.
100
-------
to society from avoided cancer cases is less than $100 (1997 dollars). In addition, the analysis projects
no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at current or proposed PSES discharge levels
(Table 26).
Fish Tissue (Lead) - At theproposedPSES discharge levels, the ingestion of lead-contaminated
fish tissue by children (ages 0-6) of sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 5 receiving streams (Table
27). The analysis projects a potentially exposed population of 1,000 children. Based on the annual
reduction of total IQ loss (0.030 points), the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided loss of IQ
points is $290 (1997 dollars) (Table 27). Additionally, the ingestion of lead contaminated fish tissue by
adult sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 37 receiving streams (Table 27). The analysis projects
that the proposed guidelines will reduce premature mortality by an estimated 3.6E-5 cases annually for
280,000 men (ages 40-74), 1.2E-6 cases annually for 238,000 women (ages 45-74), and 3.9E-6 cases
annually for 24,000 neonates. Based on the reductions in blood pressure, as it relates to premature
mortality, the total annual monetary benefits to society from avoided mortality range from $100 to $520
(1997 dollars) (Table 27).
Drinking Water— At current and proposed PSES discharge levels, the analysis projects that
no receiving streams will have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6)
(Table 28).
4.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits
The analysis evaluates the potential ecological benefits of the proposed 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.
101
-------
Table 26. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron
and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level)
Current
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Proposed 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 = 61, number of POTWs = 61, number of facilities = 67, and number of pollutants
= 56.
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
* PSES1 for all subcategories.
May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
102
-------
Table 27. Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers
(All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(National Level)
Health Effect
Premature Mortality
Subtotal
IQ Changes
Total Benefits
Improved Streams
(No.)
37
37
37
5
Exposed Populations
Gender
Men
Women
Both
Both
Age Group
40-54
55-64
65-74
45-74
Neonates
0-6
Size
164,000
64,000
52,000
238,000
24,000
1,000
Reduced Cases/
IQ Points
0.00003
0.0000041
0.0000020
0.0000012
0.0000039
0.000041
0.030
Total Annual Benefits
(S 1997)
$70 - $380
$10 -$50
$5 - $25
$5 -$15
$10 -$50
$100- $520
$290 - $290
$400 -$800
Note: Number of streams evaluated = 61, and number of facilities = 67.
May 16,2000, Loading Files.
103
-------
Table 28. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel
Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level)
Current
Streams (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
Proposed PSES *
Streams
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10'6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 61, number of POTWs = 61, number of facilities = 67, and number of pollutants = 56.
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.
NA = Not Applicable
* PSE S1 for all subcategories.
May 16,2000, Loading Files.
104
-------
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 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
(a) Sample Set
The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats at current
and proposed BAT discharge levels for 103 iron and steel facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 77
receiving streams (Tables 1 and 3). The analysis projects that the final regulation will completely eliminate
instream concentrations in excess of AWQC at 2 receiving streams (Table 3). The analysis estimates the
monetary value of improved recreational fishing opportunities by first calculating the baseline value of the
benefiting stream segment (Table 29). From the estimated total of 30,423 person-days fished on the 2
stream segments and the value per person-day of recreational fishing ($31.68 to $40.12, 1997 dollars),
the analysis estimates a baseline value of $964,000 to $1,221,000 for the 2 stream segments (Table 29).
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 $107,000 to
$382,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 29). 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 $53,500 to $191,000
(1997 dollars) (Table 29). The analysis estimates these nonuse benefits as one-half of the recreational
benefits, which may be significantly underestimating them.
105
-------
Table 29. Summary of Ecological (Recreational and Nonuse) Benefits for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Sample Set and National Level)
Data
Sample Set
National Level
Number of Stream Segments
with Concentrations
Exceeding AWQC Eliminated
2
2
Total Fishing
Days
30,423
30,947
Baseline Value of
Fisheries ($ 1997)
$964,000 - $1,221,000
$980,000 - $1,242,000
Increased Value of
Fisheries ($ 1997)
$107,000 - $382,000
$109,000 - $389,000
NOTE: Value per person-day of recreational fishing = $31.68 (warm water) and $40.12 (cold water).
Increased value of contaminant-free fishing = 11.1 to 31.3 percent.
Data
Sample Set
National Level
Number of Stream Segments
with Concentrations
Exceeding AWQC Eliminated
2
2
Increased Nonuse
Value ($ 1997)
$53,500 - $191,000
$54,500 - $194,500
NOTE: Nonuse value estimated as one-half of the recreational benefits.
106
-------
(b) National Extrapolation
The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology
for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample set
of 103 iron and steel facilities directly discharging 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams (Tables 1 and 3)
to 131 iron and steel facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 100 receiving streams (Tables 1 and 5).
The analysis projects the final regulation will completely eliminate instream pollutant concentrations
in excess of AWQC at 2 receiving streams (Table 5). The analysis estimates the benefits to recreational
(sport) anglers based on improved water quality and improved value of fishing opportunities. The resulting
estimate of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers ranges from $109,000 to $389,000 (1997
dollars) (Table 29). In addition, the resulting increase in nonuse value to the general public ranges from
$54,500 to $194,500 (1997 dollars) (Table 29).
4.1.3.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities
(a) Sample Set
The analysis evaluates the effects of indirect wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats at current
and proposedPSES discharge levels for 47 iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 43 POTWs
with outfalls located on 43 receiving streams (Tables 6 and 7). The analysis projects that the final regulation
will completely eliminate instream concentrations in excess of AWQC at 1 receiving stream (Table 7). The
analysis estimates the monetary value of improved recreational fishing opportunities by first calculating the
baseline value of the benefitting stream segment (Table 30). From the estimated total of 22,923 person-
days fished on the 1 stream segment and the value per person-day of recreational fishing ($31.68 and
$40.12, 1997 dollars), the analysis estimates a baseline value of $726,000 to $920,000 for the 1 stream
segment (Table 30). The value of improving water quality in this fishery is then calculated on the basis of
107
-------
Table 30. Summary of Ecological (Recreational and Nonuse) Benefits for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)
(Sample Set and National Level)
Data
Sample Set
National Level
Number of Stream Segments
with Concentrations
Exceeding AWQC Eliminated
1
2
Total Fishing
Days
22,923
40,556
Baseline Value of
Fisheries ($ 1994)
$726,000 - $920,000
$1,285,000 - $1,627,000
Increased Value of
Fisheries ($ 1997)
$81,000 - $288,000
$143,000 - $509,000
NOTE: Value per person-day of recreational fishing = $31.68 (warm water) and $40.12 (cold water).
Increased value of contaminant-free fishing = 11.1 to 31.3 percent.
Data
Sample Set
National Level
Number of Stream Segments
with Concentrations
Exceeding AWQC Eliminated
1
2
Increased Nonuse
Value ($ 1997)
$40,500 - $144,000
$71,500 - $254,500
NOTE: Nonuse value estimated as one-half of the recreational benefits.
108
-------
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 $81,000 to $288,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 30). 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 $40,500
to $144,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 30). The analysis estimates these nonuse benefits as one-half of the
recreational benefits, which may be significantly underestimating them.
(b) National Extrapolation
The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology
for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample set
of 47 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 43 POTWs located on 43 receiving
streams (Tables 6 and 7) to 67 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 61 POTWs
located on 61 receiving streams (Tables 6 and 10).
The analysis projects the final regulation will completely eliminate instream pollutant concentrations
in excess of AWQC at 2 receiving streams (Table 10). The analysis estimates the benefits to recreational
(sport) anglers based on improved water quality and improved value of fishing opportunities. The resulting
estimate of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers ranges from $143,000 to $509,000 (1997
dollars) (Table 30). In addition, the resulting increase in nonuse value to the general public ranges from
$71,500 to $254,500 (1997 dollars) (Table 30).
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 lexicological effects on living
109
-------
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 70 direct discharge iron and steel pollutants of concern, the analysis determines the following:
23 pollutants exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 39 are human systemic toxicants, 16 are
classified as known or probable carcinogens, 23 have drinking water values (15 with enforceable
health-based maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), 6 with a secondary MCL, and 2 with an action level
for treatment), and 28 are designated by EPA as priority pollutants (Tables 31,32, and 33). In terms of
projected environmental partitioning among media, 16 of the evaluated pollutants are moderately to highly
volatile (potentially causing risk to exposed populations via inhalation), 25 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), 18
are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids, and 8 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 66 indirect discharge iron and steel pollutants of concern, the analysis determines
the following: 22 exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 38 are human systemic toxicants, 15 are
classified as known or probable carcinogens, 23 have drinking water values (15 with enforceable health-
based MCLs, 6 with a secondary MCL, and 2 with an action level for treatment), and 27 are designated
by EPA as priority pollutants (Tables 34, 35, and 36). In terms of projected environmental partitioning
among media, 16 of the pollutants are moderately to highly volatile, 22 have a moderate to high potential
to bioaccumulate in aquatic biota, 16 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids, and 8 are resistant to
biodegradation or are slowly biodegraded.
110
-------
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 17 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 37). 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 12 specific waterbodies that receive direct discharges from iron and steel
facilities (and other sources) (Table 38). The advisories are for mercury, an iron and steel pollutant of
concern. Over 25 fish consumption advisories were issued for waterbodies that receive wastewater
discharges from iron and steel facilities. However, the vast majority of advisories are for chemicals that are
not 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 39). 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.
Ill
-------
Table 31. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (70) Discharged from 103 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
43
44
CAS
Number
C002
C004
COOS
C009
C012
C020
C021
C025
C036
C037
C042
50328
56553
57125
62533
67641
71432
85018
91203
91576
95487
95534
98555
100027
105679
106445
108952
110861
112403
112958
117817
124185
129000
132649
142621
205992
206440
207089
218019
302045
544763
593453
612942
7429905
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)
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM
Weak Acid Dissociable Cyanide
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Total Cyanide
Aniline
Acetone
Benzene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
o-Cresol
o-Toluidine
alpha-Terpineol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
n-Dodecane *
n-Eicosane *
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
n-Decane
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Hexanoic Acid
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Thiocyanate
n-Hexadecane *
n-Octadecane *
2-Phenylnaphthalene
Aluminum
Acute
Aquatic
Toxicity
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
High
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Unknown
High
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Volatility
from
Water
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Nonvolatile
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Nonvolatile
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Adsorption
to Solids
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
High
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Nonadsorptive
High
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Slight
High
High
High
High
Unknown
High
High
High
Unknown
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Moderate
Slight
High
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Nonbioaccumulative
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Slight
High
High
High
High
Unknown
High
High
High
Moderate
Biodegra-
dation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Resistant
Resistant
Moderate
Moderate
Fast
Moderate
Resistant
Moderate
Moderate
Fast
Fast
Moderate
Fast
Fast
Fast
Fast
Fast
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Resistant
Moderate
Moderate
Resistant
Resistant
Resistant
Resistant
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Carcinogen
X
X
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
Drinking
Water
Value
M
M
M
M
M
SM
Priority
Pollutant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
zo,
-------
Table 31. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (70) Discharged from 103 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities (continued)
No.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
CAS
Number
7439896
7439921
7439954
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7440224
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440484
7440508
7440622
7440666
7664417
7782492
14808798
16984488
18540299
Name
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel**
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Vanadium
Zinc
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
Selenium
Sulfate
Fluoride
Chromium, Hexavalent
Acute
Aquatic
Toxicity
Unknown
High
Slight
Unknown
High
Unknown
Moderate
High
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Unknown
High
Moderate
Slight
High
Slight
Moderate
Slight
High
Unknown
Slight
High
Volatility
from
Water
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Adsorption
to Solids
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Nonadsorptive
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Unknown
Slight
High
Unknown
High
Unknown
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Slight
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Biodegra-
dation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Carcinogen
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
X
X
Drinking
Water
Value
SM
TT
SM
M
SM
M
M
M
M
M
M
TT
SM
M
SM
M
M
Priority
Pollutant
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.
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.
** MCL of 0.1 mg/L remanded in 1995. EPA is reconsidering limit.
October 25, 2000
-------
Table 32. 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
38
39
Cas Number
C005
57125
67641
71432
91203
91576
95487
100027
105679
106445
108952
110861
117817
129000
132649
206440
7429905
7439896
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7440224
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440484
7440508
7440622
7440666
7782492
16984488
18540299
Toxicant
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Cyanide
Acetone
Benzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
o-Cresol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Vanadium
Zinc
Selenium
Fluoride
Chromium, Hexavalent
Reference Dose Target Organ and Critical Effects
Blood: methemoglobinemia (infants) (a)
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
Liver: increased liver weights
Kidney: 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
Skin: argyria
(b)
Kidney, Liver: lesions
(b)
Blood: blood glucose and cholesteral, decreased longevity
Skin: hyperpigmentation, keratosis, possible vascular complications
Cardiovascular: increased blood pressure
Testis: testicular atrophy, spermatogenic arrest
Kidney: significant proteinuria
No adverse effects observed (c)
(b)
(b)
Gl, Kidney, Nervous System: Gl disturbances, renal function, CNS
effects
Blood: anemia
Respiratory: clinical selenosis
Dental: objectionable dental fluorosis
No adverse effects observed (c)
* 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.
(c) RfD based on no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL).
-------
Table 33. 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
CAS
Number
50328
56553
62533
71432
91203
95487
95534
106445
117817
205992
207089
218019
7439921
7440382
7440439
18540299
Carcinogen
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Aniline
Benzene
Naphthalene*
o-Cresol*
o-Toluidine
p-Cresol*
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Lead*
Arsenic
Cadmium*
Chromium, Hexavalent*
Weight-of-Evidence
Classification
B2
B2
B2
A
C
C
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B1
A/D
Target Organs
Stomach, Lungs
Liver, Lungs
Spleen, Body Cavity
Blood
Lungs
Skin
Skin
Bladder
Liver
Lungs, Skin
Lungs
Liver
Kidney
Skin and Lungs
Lungs, Trachea, and Bronchi
Lungs
A= Human carcinogen
B1= Probable human carcinogen (limited human data)
B2= Probable human carcinogen (animal data only)
C= Possible human carcinogen
D= Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
* Not included in Risks and Benefits Analysis; quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral
exposure not available.
-------
Table 34. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (66) Discharged from 47 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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
CAS
Number
C002
C004
COOS
C009
C012
C020
C021
C025
C036
C037
C042
50328
56553
57125
67641
71432
85018
91203
91576
95487
95534
98555
105679
106445
108952
110861
112403
117817
124185
129000
132649
142621
205992
206440
207089
218019
302045
544763
612942
7429905
7439896
7439921
7439954
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)
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM
Weak Acid Dissociable Cyanide
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Total Cyanide
Acetone
Benzene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
o-Cresol
o-Toluidine
alpha-Terpineol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
n-Dodecane*
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
n-Decane
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Hexanoic Acid
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Thiocyanate
n-Hexadecane*
2-Phenylnaphthalene
Aluminum
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Acute
Aquatic
Toxicity
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
High
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Unknown
High
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
High
Slight
Volatility
from
Water
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Nonvolatile
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Adsorption
to Solids
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
Slight
Slight
Slight
High
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Nonadsorptive
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Slight
High
High
High
High
Unknown
High
High
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
High
Nonbioaccumulative
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Moderate
Slight
High
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Nonbioaccumulative
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Slight
High
High
High
High
Unknown
High
High
Moderate
Unknown
Slight
High
Biodegra-
dation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Resistant
Resistant
Moderate
Fast
Moderate
Resistant
Moderate
Moderate
Fast
Fast
Moderate
Fast
Fast
Fast
Fast
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Resistant
Moderate
Moderate
Resistant
Resistant
Resistant
Resistant
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Carcinogen
X
X
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
Drinking
Water
Value
M
M
M
M
M
SM
SM
TT
Priority
Pollutant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
October 25, 2000
-------
Table 34. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (66) Discharged from 47 Indirect Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities (continued)
No.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
CAS
Number
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7440224
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440484
7440508
7440622
7440666
7664417
7782492
14808798
16984488
18540299
Name
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel**
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Vanadium
Zinc
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
Selenium
Sulfate
Fluoride
Chromium, Hexavalent
Acute
Aquatic
Toxicity
Unknown
High
Unknown
Moderate
High
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Unknown
High
Moderate
Slight
High
Slight
Moderate
Slight
High
Unknown
Slight
High
Volatility
from
Water
Unknown
High
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Adsorption
to Solids
Unknown
High
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Nonadsorptive
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Unknown
High
Unknown
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Slight
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Biodegra-
dation
Potential
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Carcinogen
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
X
Drinking
Water
Value
SM
M
SM
M
M
M
M
M
M
TT
SM
M
SM
M
M
Priority
Pollutant
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.
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.
** MCL of 0.1 mg/L remanded in 1995. EPA is reconsidering limit.
October 25, 2000
-------
Table 35. 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
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Cas Number
COOS
57125
67641
71432
91203
91576
95487
105679
106445
108952
110861
117817
129000
132649
206440
7429905
7439896
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7440224
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440484
7440508
7440622
7440666
7782492
16984488
18540299
Toxicant
Nitrate/Nitrite
Total Cyanide
Acetone
Benzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
o-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Vanadium
Zinc
Selenium
Fluoride
Chromium, Hexavalent
Reference Dose Target Organ and Critical Effects
Methemoglobinernia (infants) (a)
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
Increased relative liver weight
Kidney effects (renal tubular pathology, decreased kidney weights)
(b)
Nephropathy, increased liver weights, hematological alterations, and clinical effe
(b)
(b)
CNS effects
CNS effects
Increased uric acid
Decreased body and organ weights
Skin: argyria
(b)
Kidney and liver lesions
(b)
Blood: blood glucose and cholesteral, decreased longevity
Hyperpigmentation, keratosis, and possible vascular complications
Increased blood pressure
Testicular atrophy, spermatogenic arrest
Significant proteinuria
No adverse effects observed (c)
(b)
(b)
Gl, Kidney, Nervous System: Gl disturbances, renal function, CNS effects
Anemia
Respiratory: clinical selerosis
Objectionable dental fluorosis
No adverse effects observed (c)
* Chemicals with EPA-verified or provisional human health-based reference doses (RfD), referred to as "systemic
(a) Values for nitrate are assumed.
(b) RfD is an EPA-NCEA provisional value; Contact EPA-NCEA Superfund Technical Support Center for supporting
documentation.
(c) RfD based on no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL).
October 25, 2000
-------
Table 36. Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence
Classifications, and Target Organs
(Indirect Dischargers)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
CAS
Number
50328
56553
71432
91203
95487
95534
106445
117817
205992
207089
218019
7439921
7440382
7440439
18540299
Carcinogen
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzene
Naphthalene*
o-Cresol*
o-Toluidine
p-Cresol*
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Lead*
Arsenic
Cadmium*
Chromium, Hexavalent*
Weight-of-Evidence
Classification
B2
B2
A
C
C
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B1
A/D
Target Organs
Stomach, Lungs
Liver, Lungs
Blood
Lungs
Skin
Skin
Bladder
Liver
Skin and Lungs
Lungs
Liver
Kidney
Skin and Lungs
Lung, Trachea, and Bronchi
Lungs
A= Human Carcinogen
B1= Probable human carcinogen (limited human data)
B2= Probable human carcinogen (animal data only)
C= Possible human carcinogen
D= Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
* Not included in Risks and Benefits Analysis; quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk
from oral exposure not available.
October 25, 2000
-------
4.4 Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits from Proposed Effluent Guidelines and
Standards
EPA estimates that the annual monetized benefits resulting from the proposed effluent guidelines
and standards will range from $1.07 million to $2.61 million (1997 dollars). Table 40 summarizes these
effects/benefits. The range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of this proposed 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 proposed 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), reduced noncarcinogenic (systemic) human health hazards (other
than lead), additional health benefits due to reduced lead exposure, reduced POTW costs, and reduced
discharge of conventional and other pollutants.
120
-------
Table 37. Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies Listed
Under Section 303(d) of Clean Water Act (1998)
State
Alabama
California
Colorado
Facility Name
USX Corp.
Empire Coke
Tuscaloosa Steel
Gulf States Steel, Inc.
SMI Steel
USS-POSCO
CF&I Steel
City
Fairfield
Holt
Tuscaloosa
Gadsden
Birmingham
Pittsburg
Pueblo
Watershed
Upper Black Warrior
03160112
Upper Black Warrior
03160112
Middle Coosa
03150106
Locust
03160111
Suisun Bay
18050001
Upper Arkansas
11020002
Waterbody
Name
Opossum Creek
Black Warrior
River
Black Creek
Village Creek
New York
Slough/Suisun Bay
Arkansas River
Parameters of
Concern
Metals,
Nonpriority
Organics, Nutrients,
Oil and Grease,
Pesticides, pH,
Priority Organics,
Toxicity
Organic
Enrichment/DO
Priority Organics,
Ammonia, Organic
Enrichment/DO
Nonpriority
Organics, Metals,
Ammonia, pH,
Siltation, Organic
Enrichment, DO
Copper, Mercury,
Nickel, Selenium,
Exotic Species,
Diazinon, PCBs,
Chlordane, DDT,
Dieldrin, Dioxins,
Furans, PCBs
Iron, Manganese,
Sulfate, Selenium
Priority for
TMDL
Development
Low
Low
Low
Low
Potential Sources of
Impairment
Dam Construction, Flow
Regulations/Modifications
Industrial, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Contaminated Sediments
Industrial Point Sources,
Municipal Point Sources,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Abandoned Surface and
Subsurface Mining, and Mine
Tailings
Atmospheric Deposition,
Ballast Water, Industrial Point
Sources, Municipal Point
Sources, Nonpoint Sources,
Natural Sources, Resource
Extraction, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers
—
121
-------
State
Connecticut
Illinois
Facility Name
Allegheny Ludlum Steel
Northwestern Steel
Laclede Steel
Austeel Lemont
LTV Steel
City
Wallingford
Sterling
Alton
Lemont
Hennepin
Watershed
Quinnipiac
01100004
Lower Rock
07090005
Peruque-Piasa
07110009
Des Plaines
07120004
Lower Illinois-
Senachwine Lake
07130001
Waterbody
Name
Quinnipiac River
Rock River
Mississippi River
Chicago Ship Canal
Illinois River
Parameters of
Concern
Bacteria
Nutrients,
Suspended Solids,
Noxious Aquatic
Plants
Priority Organics,
Nutrients, Siltation
Suspended Solids,
Habitat Alterations,
Metals
Ammonia,
Nutrients, Priority
Organics, Metals,
Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Flow Alterations,
Habitat Alterations,
Pathogens, pH
Metals, Nutrients,
Siltation, Flow
Alterations,
Suspended Solids,
Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Priority Organics
Priority for
TMDL
Development
High
251/267
3
6
5-30
Potential Sources of
Impairment
Wet Weather Discharges
Agriculture, Crop Production,
Pastureland, Hydrologic
Modification
Industrial Point Sources,
Municipal Point Sources,
Agriculture, Crop Production,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification
Industrial Point Sources,
Municipal Point Sources,
Combined Sewer Overflows,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Hydrologic/Habitat
Modification, Flow
Regulation/Modification, In-
place Contaminants
Municipal Point Sources,
Industrial Point Sources,
Agriculture, Hydrologic/
Habitat Modification, Flow
Regulation/Modification, In-
place Contaminants
122
-------
State
Indiana
Iowa
Facility Name
National Steel
Inland Steel Flat Products
LTV Steel Co.
Bethlehem Steel Corp
U.S. Steel
National Steel
Plymouth Tube
Allegheny Ludlum Steel
North Star
City
Granite City
East Chicago
East Chicago
Chesterton
Gary
Portage
Winamac
New Castle
Wilton
Watershed
Cahokia- Joachim
07140101
Little Calumet -Galien
04040001
Little Calumet-Galien
04040001
Little Calumet-Galien
04040001
Little Calumet-Galien
04040001
Tippecanoe
05120106
Driftwood
05120204
Lower Cedar
07080206
Waterbody
Name
Horseshoe Lake
Indiana Harbor
Canal
Little Calumet
River
Grand Calumet
River
Burns Ditch
Sigerson D/
Tippecanoe River
Big Blue River
Mud Creek
Parameters of
Concern
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
Impaired Biotic
Communities,
Copper, Cyanide,
Mercury, PCBs,
Lead, Oil and
Grease, Pesticides
E. Coli, Mercury,
PCBs, Lead,
Pesticides, Impaired
Biotic Communities
Cyanide, Mercury,
PCBs
Cyanides, PCBs
Ammonia, Toxics
Priority for
TMDL
Development
1
1998-2000
2000-2012
1998-2000
2000-2012
2003-2010
2002-2014
—
Potential Sources of
Impairment
Point Sources, Industrial
Point Sources, Agriculture,
Crop Production, Urban
Runoff/ Storm Sewers,
Resource Extraction, Dredge
Mining, In-place
Contaminants
—
—
—
—
—
123
-------
State
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio
Facility Name
AK Steel Corp.
North American Stainless
Gallatin Steel
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
National Steel Corp.
Rouge Steel Corp.
Double Eagle Steel
Teledyne Allvac
Republic Engineered Steels
New Boston Coke
AK Steel Corp.
City
Ashland
Carrollton
Warsaw
Sparrows Point
Ecorse
Dearborn
Dearborn
Monroe
Lorain
New Boston/
Portsmouth
Middletown
Watershed
Little Scioto-Tygarts
05090103
Middle Ohio-Laughery
05090203
Gunpowder-Patapsco
02060003
Detroit
04090004
Detroit
04090004
Rocky
03040105
Black-Rocky
04110001
Little Scioto-Tygarts
05090103
Lower Great Miami
05080002
Waterbody
Name
Ohio River
Ohio River
Bear Creek
Detroit River
Rouge River
Richardson Creek
Black River
Ohio River
Dicks Creek/Great
Miami River
Parameters of
Concern
Pathogens, PCBs,
Priority Organics
Pathogens, PCBs,
Priority Organics
Chromium, PCBs,
Zinc
Mercury, PCBs,
Pathogens
Dissolved Oxygen,
PCBs, Pathogens,
Fish/Macroinverte-
bate Community
Rated Poor
Sediment
Priority Organics,
Nutrients, Habitat
Alteration
Metals
Metals, Ammonia,
Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Thermal
Modification, Flow
Alteration
Priority for
TMDL
Development
Second Priority
Second Priority
High
—
Low
9
17
7
Potential Sources of
Impairment
—
—
Point Sources, Nonpoint
Sources, Legacy, Unknown
CSOs, Untreated Sewage
Discharge
CSOs, Untreated Sewage
Discharge
Point Sources, Municipal
Pretreatment, Nonpoint
Sources, Agriculture
Municipal Point Sources,
Industrial Point Sources,
Agriculture, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Hydromodification, Dredging
—
Municipal Point Sources,
Industrial Point Sources, Land
Disposal, Wastewater
Hydromodification, Flow
Regulation/Modification
124
-------
State
Ohio (cont'd)
Facility Name
Warren Consolidated
CSC Industries
Thomas Steel Strip
Babcox and Wilcox
Worthington Steel
North Star BHP Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
LTV Steel
American Steel and Wire
City
Warren
Warren
Warren
Alliance
Delta
Delta
Steubenville
Mingo Junction
Cleveland
Cuyahoga Heights
Watershed
Mahoning
05030103
Mahononing
05030103
Lower Maumee
04100009
Upper Ohio
05030101
Cuyahoga
04110002
Waterbody
Name
Mahoning River
Ryans
Run/Mahoning
River
Maumee River
Ohio River
Cuyahoga River
Parameters of
Concern
Priority Organics,
Metals, Ammonia,
Chlorine, Nutrients,
Pathogens, Oil and
Grease
Priority Organics,
Metals, Nutrients,
Siltation, Pathogens
Sitation, Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Habitat Alteration
Priority Organics,
Metals,
Ammonia
Priority Organics,
Metals, Ammonia,
Inorganics, Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Habitat Alteration,
Oil and Grease
Priority for
TMDL
Development
6
11
13
17
6
Potential Sources of
Impairment
Municipal Point Sources,
Industrial Point Sources,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Land Disposal, Hazardous
Waste, Spills, Contaminated
Sediments, Unknown
Industrial Point Sources,
Municipal Point Sources,
Agriculture, Pasture Land,
Spills, Contaminated
Sediments, Unknown
Point Sources, Municipal
Point Sources, Agriculture,
Crop Production,
Hydromodification, Dam
Construction
—
Industrial Point Sources,
Municipal Point Sources,
Combined Sewer Overflow,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
125
-------
State
Ohio (cont'd)
Facility Name
Ohio Coatings Co.
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Timken Co.
J&J Speciality Steel
Republic Engineered Steel
Lukens Inc.
Republic Engineered Steel
Copperweld Corp.
ARMCO
City
Yorkville
Yorkville
Canton
Louisville
Canton
Massillon
Massillon
Shelby
Zanesville
Watershed
Upper Ohio-Wheeling
05030106
Tuscarawas
05040001
Tuscarawas
05040001
Tuscarawas
05040001
Mohican
05040002
Muskingum
05040004
Waterbody
Name
Ohio River
Nimishillen Creek
East Branch
Nimishillen Creek
Tuscarawas River
Tuby Run
Muskingum River
Parameters of
Concern
Priority Organics,
Metals, Ammonia
Priority Organics,
Metals, Ammonia,
Organic
Enrichment/DO
Ammonia,
Nutrients, Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Salinity, TDS,
Chloride, Flow
Alteration, Oil and
Grease
Metals, Nutrients,
Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Habitat Alteration
Metals, pH, Habitat
Alteration
Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Thermal
Modification,
Habitat Alteration
Priority for
TMDL
Development
17
8
8
6
8
13
Potential Sources of
Impairment
—
Industrial Point Sources,
Municipal Point Sources,
Spills, Contaminated
Sediments
Industrial Point Sources,
Municipal Point Sources,
Agriculture
Industrial Point Sources,
Municipal Point Sources,
Combined Sewer Overflow,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Hydromodification
Industrial Point Sources,
Hydromodification, Spills
Industrial Point Sources,
Natural
126
-------
State
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Facility Name
Cascade Steel
Oregon Steel Mills
USS Irvin Plant
USX Corp.
Koppers Industry
Shenango, Inc.
J&L Specialty Steel
J&L Structural
Koppel Steel
Luken Steel
Washington Steel
City
McMinnville
Portland
Dravosburg
Dravosburg
Monessen
Pittsburgh/Neville
Island
Midland
Aliquippa
Beaver Falls
Washington
Washington
Watershed
Yamhill
17090008
Lower Willamette
17090012
Lower Monongahela
05020005
Upper Ohio
05030101
Upper Ohio
05030101
Upper Ohio
05030101
Upper Ohio
05030101
Waterbody
Name
S. Yamhill River
Willamette River
Monongahela River
Ohio River
Ohio River
Chartiers Run
Chartiers Creek
Parameters of
Concern
Temperature,
Bacteria
Temperature,
Mercury, Creosote,
Bacteria
Pesticides
(Chlordane),
Priority
Organics(PCBs)
Pesticides
(Chlordane),
Priority Organics
(PCBs)
Pesticides
(Chlordane),
Priority Organics
(PCBs)
Nutrients, Siltation,
Turbidity, Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Habitat Alterations,
Metals, pH
Metals, Nutrients,
Siltation, Habitat
Alterations,
Turbidity,
Pesticides
(Chlordane),
Priority Organics
(PCBs)
Priority for
TMDL
Development
—
—
Potential Sources of
Impairment
—
—
Construction, Habitat
Modification, Agriculture,
Abandoned Mine Drainage,
On- site Wastewater
Abandoned Mine Drainage,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sources,
Agriculture, Habitat
Modification, Unknown
127
-------
State
Pennsylvania
(cont'd)
Facility Name
US Steel-USX
Carpenter Technology
Corp.
Lukens Steel Corp.
Jersey Shore Steel Co.
Bar Technologies
Allegheny Ludlum
Standard Steel
Allegheny Ludlum Steel
Pittsburgh Flatroll Co.
Braeburn Alloy Steel
City
Fairless Hills
Berks County
Coatesville
Jersey Shore
Johnstown
Brackenridge
Bumham
Brackenridge
Pittsburgh
Lower Burrell
Watershed
Crosswicks-Neshaminy
02040201
Schuylkill
02040203
Brandywine-Christina
02040205
Middle West Branch
Susquehana
02050203
Conemaugh
05010007
Kiskiminetas
05010008
Kiskiminetas
05010008
Lower Allegheny
05010009
Waterbody
Name
Delaware River
Schuylkill River
Sucker Run
West Branch
Brandy wine Creek
West Branch
Susquehana River
Little Conemaugh
River
Kiskiminetas River
Loyalhanna Creek
Allegheny River
Parameters of
Concern
Pesticides
(Chlordane),
Priority Organics
(PCBs)
Metals, Pesticides,
Priority Organics
(PCBs)
Nutrients,
Water/Flow
Variability
Nutrients, Siltation
Metals
Metals
Metals, Suspended
Solids
Metals, Suspended
Solids
Pesticides
(Chlordane),
Priority Organics
(PCBs)
Priority for
TMDL
Development
—
—
High
—
—
—
Potential Sources of
Impairment
Unknown
Industrial Point Sources,
Unknown
Agriculture, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers
Agriculture
Abandoned Mine Drainage
Abandoned Mine Drainage
Abandoned Mine Drainage
Abandoned Mine Drainage
Unknown
128
-------
State
Pennsylvania
(cont'd)
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Facility Name
Sharon Tube Co.
Wheatland Tube Co.
Caparo Steel
ARMCOInc.
Georgetown Steel
Nucor Steel
USS CE-Tex Center
Geneva Steel
City
Sharon
Wheatland
Farrell
Butler
Georgetown
Huger
Bay town
Provo/Vineyard
Watershed
Shenango
05030102
Connoquenessing
05030105
Carolina-Sampit
03040207
Cooper
03050201
North Galveston Bay
12040203
Utah Lake
16020201
Waterbody
Name
Shenango River
Connoquenessing
Creek
Sampit River
Cooper River
East Ditch/Cedar
Bayou
Utah Lake
Parameters of
Concern
Organic
Enrichment/DO,
Nutrients, Habitat
Alterations,
Pesticides
(Chlordane),
Priority Organics
(PCBs)
Pathogens,
Suspended Solids
Mercury
Mercury
Total Dissolved
Solids, Organic
Enrichment/Low
DO, Pathogens
Total Dissolved
Solids, Total
Phosphorus,
Ammonia, Benzene,
Benzopyrene,
BOD, Chlorine
Residual, Cyanide,
Lead, Napthalene,
Oil and Grease,
Fecal Coliform, pH,
Phenolics, Total
Suspended Solids
Priority for
TMDL
Development
Two
Two
Medium
High
Potential Sources of
Impairment
Hydromodiiication, Package
Plants, Unknown
On- site Wastewater,
Abandoned Mine Drainage
—
—
Nonpoint Source, Point
Source
129
-------
State
West Virginia
Facility Name
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Weirton Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Wheeling-Nisshin
City
Wheeling
Weirton
Follansbee
Follansbee
Watershed
Upper Ohio
05030101
Waterbody
Name
Ohio River
Parameters of
Concern
PCBs, Chlordane,
Aluminum
Priority for
TMDL
Development
Low/High
Potential Sources of
Impairment
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.
130
-------
Table 38. Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies with State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories51
Facility
NPDES
AL0055239
CA0005002
CT0003701
DE0051021
IL0000612
1L0001309
IL0002631
lLUUUU32y
!JNUUUUUy4
IN0000205
IN0000281
Facility Name
Gulf States Steel
USS-Posco
Industries (UPI)
Allegheny
Ludlum Steel
Citisteel USA
Incorporated
Laclede Steel
Austeel Lemont
Company Inc.
LTV Steel
National Steel
Inland Steel flat
Products
LTV Steel
Company
U.S. Steel
City
Gadsden
Pittsburgh
Wallingford
Claymont
Alton
Lemont
Hennepin
Granite City
bast Chicago
East Chicago
Gary
Discharge
Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Receiving
Stream
Black Creek
New York
Slough
Quinnipiac River
Delaware River
Mississippi
River
Chicago Ship
Canal
Illinois River
Horseshoe Lake
Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal
Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal
Grand Calumet
River
Advisory
Area/No.b
Coosa River/2
Richmond Harbor
Long Island Sound
A11CT
Freshwaters
Statewide
Delaware
Estuary/2
Mississippi River
Ues Plaines River
Illinois River
Illinois River
Mississippi River
All Indiana Kivers
and Streams
Statewide
Grand Calumet
River and Indiana
Harbor Ship Canal
Lake Michigan and
tributaries
Pollutant
PCBs
PCBs, DDT,
Dieldrin
PCBs
Mercury
PCBs
Chlordane
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Chlordane
Mercury,
PCBs
Mercury,
PCBs
Mercury,
PCBs
Species
Spotted Bass, Catfish,
Largemouth Bass, Striped
Bass, White Bass
Croaker, Gobies, Shellfish,
Surfperch, Bullheads
Bluefish>25", StnpedBass
All Fish, Trout >15"
Striped Bass, White Catfish,
Channel Catfish
Shovelnose Sturgeon (fish
and eggs)
Smallmouth Buffalo,
Common Carp >15",
Channel Catfish, Freshwater
Drum
Common Carp>15", Channel
Catfish
Common Carp >15",
Channel Catfish
Shovelnose Sturgeon (hsh
and eggs)
Common Carp>15"
All Fish
Chinook Salmon, Black
Crappie>7", Brook Trout,
Brown Trout, White
Sucker>15", Longnose
Population0
NCGP,RGP
NCGP
NCSP,RGP
RSP, RGP
RSP, NCGP,
RGP
NCGP
NCSP, RGP,
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCSF, KCJF,
NCGP
NCGP
NCSP, RGP,
NCGP
Comments
Advisories within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
131
-------
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories3 (continued)
Facility
NPDES
1JNI0000337
IN0000175
1NUUU4S4/
Facility Name
National Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Corp.
Flymoum lube
Co.
City
Portage
Chesterton
Wrnamac
Discharge
Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Receiving
Stream
Bums Ditch
Little Calumet
River
Sigerson Ditch
Advisory
Area/No.b
All Indiana Rivers
and Streams
Statewide
Lake Michigan and
Tributaries
All Indiana Kivers
and Streams
Statewide
lippecanoe River-
Pulaski Co.
W abash Kiver-
Tippecanoe Co.
Pollutant
Mercury,
PCBs
Mercury,
PCBs
Mercury,
PCBs
Mercury,
PCBs
Mercury,
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"
Common Carp>15"
Longear Suntish 3-5",
Channel Catfish >11", Black
Redhorse >16", Northern
Hogsucker>13"
tailback 13"- iy", Channel
Catfish >13",Sauger>13",
Bigmouth Buffalo >19",
Paddlefish >34", Freshwater
Drum > 12", White Bass,
River Redhorse>16",
Flathead Catfish >15",
Largemouth Bass 9-14",
Smallmouth Bass >9", Blue
Sucker >21", Smallmouth
Buffalo >25",Shorthead
Redhorse 15-17"
Population0
NCSP, RGP,
NCGP
NCSP, RGP,
NCGP
NCSF, RCJF,
NCGP
RSP, RGP,
NCSP
KGP, RSP,
NCSP, NCGP
Comments
Advisory within 5U
miles downstream of
discharge site
132
-------
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories3 (continued)
Facility
NPDES
IN0045284
KY0000558
KY0001571
KY0095877
KY0098221
KY0033979
MI0002313
Facility Name
Allegheny
Ludlum Steel
AK Steel Corp
Green River Steel
North American
Stainless
(Matin Steel Co.
KY Electric Steel
Inc
National Steel
Corp.
City
New Castle
Ashland
Owensboro
Carrollton
Warsaw
Coalton
Ecorse
Discharge
Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Receiving
Stream
Big Blue River
Ohio River
Williams Creek
Detroit River
Advisory
Area/No.b
All Indiana Rivers
and Streams
Statewide
Big mie Kiver,
Henry Co.
Big Blue River,
Rush Co.
Big Blue River,
Shelby Co.
Big Blue River,
Johnson Co.
Ohio River
Ohio River
Detroit River
LaKe Jine/z
Pollutant
Mercury,
PCBs
ruis
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Mercury,
PCBs
ruBs
Species
Common Carp>15"
wmte 5>ucKer>» , ureeK
Chub>6",RockBass>4"
Creek Chub >6"
Northern Hogsucker >9",
Golden Redhorse>18",
Rock Bass >4"
Longear Sunfish >5", Rock
Bass >7", Smallmouth Bass
>5", Northern Hogsucker
>8"
Paddlefish (fish and eggs),
Channel Catfish, Common
Carp, White Bass
Paddlehsh (fish and eggs),
Channel Catfish, Common
Carp, White Bass
Freshwater Drum >14",
Common Carp
uommon L-arp, L-amsn,
White Bass 6-22", Coho
Salmon >10", Rainbow
Trout >10', Smallmouth Bass
14-30", White Perch >6",
Walleye >14", Lake Trout
>10",LakeWhitefish>6",
Freshwater Drum >6"
Population0
NCSP,RGP,
NCGP
INL-5>r, K(jf
NCSP, RGP
NCSP, RGP
NCSP,RGP
NCGP
NCGP
RSP,NCGP,
RGP
INL-Lrr, KAjf
Comments
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisories witmn DU
miles downstream of
discharge site
133
-------
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories3 (continued)
Facility
NPDES
M0044415
M0043524
NC0045993
NE01 11287
NY0001368
OH0122386
OH0122271
Facility Name
Double Eagle
Steel Coating Co.
Rouge Steel Corp.
Teledyne Allvac
Nucor Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Corp.
North Star BHP
Steel Inc.
Worthington
Steel
City
Dearborn
Dearborn
VIonroe
Norfolk
Lackawanna
Delta
Delta
Discharge
Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Receiving
Stream
Rouge River
Richardson
Creek
Spring Branch
Creek
Smokes Creek
Vlaumee River
Advisory
Area/No.b
Detroit River
Lake Ene/2
Rouge River, Main
Branch
All North Carolina
Waters Statewide
Blkhom River
Niagara River/2
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
Maumee River/2
Lake tmefZ
Pollutant
Mercury,
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Mercury
PCBs,
Dieldrin
PCBs, Mirex,
Dioxins
Mercury
Mercury,
PCBs
FChis
Species
Freshwater Drum >14",
Common Carp
Common Carp, Cattish,
White Bass 6-22", Coho
Salmon >10", Rainbow
Trout > 10" Smallmouth
Bass 14-30", White Perch
>6", Walleye >14", Lake
Trout >10", Lake
Whitefish>6", Freshwater
Drum>6"
Northern Pike, White
Sucker, Cattish, Common
Carp, Smallmouth Bass,
Largemouth Bass, All fish
(RGP, NCSP)
Bowfin
Common Carp
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 Species
Common Carp, Smallmouth
Bass, Channel Catfish
Wiiite Fercri, Lake trout,
Channel Catfish, Common
Carp, White Bass,
Smallmouth Bass, Chinook
Salmon >19", Steelhead
Trout, Freshwater Drum,
Population0
RSP,NCGP,
RGP
NCGP, RGP
NCGP, RGP,
NCSP
RGP, NCSP
RGP
RGP, NCGP,
NCSP
RSP
RSP, RGP
KXJF, JNLXJF
Comments
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisones within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisories within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisones within 5U
miles downstream of
discharge site
134
-------
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories3 (continued)
Facility
NPDES
OH0001562
OH0000957
OH0002160
OH0101079
OH0011207
OH0011363
OH0011878
Facility Name
Republic
Engineered Steel
LTV Steel
Company Inc.
American Steel
And Wire Corp.
Warren
Consolidated
Industry
CSC Industries
Incorporated
Thomas Steel
Strip Corp.
Babcoxand
Wilcox
City
Lorarn
Cleveland
Cuyahoga
Hts.
Warren
Warren
Warren
Alliance
Discharge
Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Receiving
Stream
Black River
Cuyahoga River
Vlahoning River
Ryans Run
Advisory
Area/No.b
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
Lake Lne
black River
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
Lake Lne
Cuyahoga River
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
Mahoning River
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
Mahoning River
Pollutant
Mercury
PCBs
FChis
Mercury
PCBs
Mercury,
PCBs
Mercury
Mercury,
PCBs
Mercury
Mercury,
PCBs
Species
All Lish
White Perch, Lake Trout,
Channel Catfish, Common
Carp, White Bass,
Smallmouth Bass, Chinook
Salmon >19", Steelhead
Trout, Freshwater Drum,
Walleye, Coho Salmon
Common Carp, freshwater
Drum, Brown Bullhead
Catfish
All Fish
White Perch, Lake Trout,
Channel Catfish, Common
Carp, White Bass,
Smallmouth Bass, Chinook
Salmon >19", Steelhead
Trout, Freshwater Drum,
Walleve, Coho Salmon
White Sucker, Common
Carp, Brown Bullhead
Catfish, Yellow Bullhead
Catfish, Largemouth Bass
All Fish
Smallmouth .bass, White
Crappie, Channel Catfish,
Common Carp, Walleye
All Fish
Smallmouth .bass, White
Crappie, Channel Catfish,
Common Carp, Walleve
Population0
RSP
RGP
RGF
RSP
RGP
RSP, RGP
RSP
RSF, RGF,
NCGP
RSP
RSF, RGF,
NCGP
Comments
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
135
-------
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories3 (continued)
Facility
NPDES
OH0120588
OH0011371
OH0011355
OH0011347
OH0092444
OH0006939
OH0005606
OH0004910
OH0004219
OH0006921
OH0007188
OH0008338
OHUUU6S5S
OH0004260
OH0009997
Facility Name
Ohio Coatings
Co.
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel
Lukens Inc.
Republic
Engineered Steel
Greer Steel Co.
Armcolnc.
Timken Company
Republic
Engineered Steel
J&L Speciality
Steel Inc.
Copperweld Corp.
Armco Inc.
Armcolnc.
AK Steel
Corporation
City
Yorkvffle
Yorkville
Vfingo
Junction
Steubenville
Massillon
Massillon
Dover
Dover
Canton
Canton
Louisville
Shelby
£anesville
Coshocton
Middletown
Discharge
Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Receiving
Stream
Ohio River0
Tuscarawas
River
Hurford
East Branch
Nimishillen River
East Branch
Nimishillen River
Black Fork,
Mohican River
(Tuby Run)
Muskingum
River
Great Miami
River
Advisory
Area/No.b
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
Ohio River/2
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
ruscarawas River
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
ruscarawas River
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
Ail Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
Great Miami
River/2
Pollutant
Mercury
Chlordane,
PCBs,
Mercury
Mercury
PCBs,
Hexachloro-
benzene
Mercury
PCBs,
Hexachloro-
benzene
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury,
Lead, PCBs
Species
All Fish
Common Carp, Flathead
Catfish, Channel Catfish,
Sauger, Hybrid Striped
3ass, Spotted Bass,
Smallmouth Bass,
^argemouth Bass,
7reshwater Drum
All Fish
Rock Bass, Common Carp,
Smallmouth Bass, Channel
Cattish, Yellow Bullhead
Catfish, Largemouth Bass
All Fish
Rock Bass, Common Carp,
Smallmouth Bass, Channel
Cattish, Yellow Bullhead
Catfish, Largemouth Bass
All Fish
All Fish
All Fish
Channel Cattish,
Smallmouth Bass, Common
Carp, White Bass,
Largemouth Bass, Rock
Population0
RSP
RGP, NCGP
RSP
RGP
RSP
RGP
RSP
RSP
RSP
RGP, RSP,
NCGP
Comments
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
136
-------
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories3 (continued)
Facility
NPDES
OH0006068
OR0027260
OR0000469
PA0013463
PA0013129
PA0011568
PA0006327
PA0001996
PA0013820
PA0001406
PA0003620
Facility Name
New Boston Coke
Corp.
Cascade Steel
Rolling Mills
Oregon Steel
Mills Inc.
United States
Steel Group-USX
Carpenter
Technology Corp
Lukens Steel
Corp.
Allegheny
Ludlum Corp
Standard Steel
Allegheny
Ludlum Steel
Braebum Alloy
Steel
Pittsburgh Flatroll
Co.
City
New Boston/
Portsmouth
McMinnville
Portland
F airless Hills
Berks County
Coatesville
Brackenndge
Bumham
Brackenndge
Lower Burrell
Pittsburgh
Discharge
Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Receiving
Stream
Ohio River
1'nb ot South
Yamhill River
Willamette River
Central Canal
Schuylkill River
W. Branch
Brandywine
Creek
Kiskirmnetas
River
Loyalhanna
Creek
Allegheny River
Advisory
Area/No.b
All Ohio
Waterbodies
Statewide
Ohio River
Willamette River
Willamette River
Delaware River
and Estuary
Schuylkill River
Brandywine Creek
Brandywine Creek,
West Branch
Allegheny River
Ohio River
Allegheny River
Allegheny River
Ohio River
Pollutant
Mercury
Chlordane,
PCBs,
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBS
Species
All Fish
Common Carp, Flathead
Catfish, Channel Catfish,
Sauger, Hybrid Striped
Bass, Spotted Bass,
Smallmouth Bass,
^argemouth Bass,
7reshwater Drum
Smallmouth Bass,
^argemouth Bass,
Squawfish
Smallmouth Bass,
Largemouth Bass,
Squawfish
Channel Catfish, American
Eel, White Perch
American Eel, Common
Carp, White Sucker
American Eel
American Eel
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Population0
RSP
RGP, NCGP
RGP, RSP
RGP, RSP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
Comments
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
137
-------
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories3 (continued)
Facility
NPDES
PA0217034
PA0004073
PA0217034
PA0002437
PA0005754
PA0006335
PA0204315
PA0002721
PA0002739
PA0000868
PA0103781
PA0002429
PA0205222
Facility Name
USX Corp
U.S.S. Division
USSIrvin Plant
Koppers
Industries
Shenango Inc.-
NevilleCoke&
Iron
J&L Specialty
Steel Inc.
Koppel Steel
Corp
J&LStructual
Inc.
Washington Steel
Corp
Lukens Steel
Company
Wheatland Tube
Co.
Sharon Tube
Company
Caparo Steel
Company Inc.
Koppel Steel
Corp.
City
Dravosburg
Dravosburg
Monessen
Pittsburgh/
Neville Island
Midland
Beaver Falls
Aliquippa
Washington
Washington
Wheatland
Sharon
Farrell
Koppel
Discharge
Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Receiving
Stream
Monongahela
River
Ohio River
Logstown Run
Chartiers Creek
Chartiers Run
Shenango River
Trib. To Beaver
River
Advisory
Area/No.b
Ohio River
Monongahela
River
Ohio River
Ohio River
Ohio River
Chartiers Creek
Shenango River
Ohio River
Beaver River
Beaver River
Ohio River
Pollutant
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Species
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Largemouth Bass, Common
Carp
Common Carp
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Population0
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
NCGP
Comments
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
Advisory within 50
miles downstream of
discharge site
138
-------
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories3 (continued)
Facility
NPDES
PA0006343
TX0000027
TX0067695
TX0007706
WV0004499
WV0004502
WV0023281
WVOOOTOb
Facility Name
Armcolnc.
Lone Star Steel
Company
N. Star Steel
Texas Inc.
USS Ce-Tex
Center
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel
Wheeling-
Nisshin Inc.
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel
Weirton Steel
Corporation
City
Butler
Lone Star
Rose City
Bay town
Follansbee
Follansbee
Wheeling
Weirton
Discharge
Type
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Receiving
Stream
Connoquen-
essing Creek
Ellison Creek,
Big Cypress
Creek
Trib. To Neches
River
East Ditch
Ohio River
Harmon
Creek/Ohio
River
Advisory
Area/No.b
Beaver River
Ohio River
Big Cypress Creek
Gulf of Mexico
Houston Ship
Channel and
Contiguous
Waters
LruJl ot Mexico
Ohio River
Ohio River
Pollutant
Chlordane,
PCBs
Chlordane,
PCBs
Mercury
Mercury
Dioxins
Mercury
Chlordane,
PCBs,
Dioxins
Chlordane,
PCBs,
Dioxins
Species
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Common Carp, Channel
Catfish
Freshwater Drum,
Largemouth Bass
King Mackerel
Catfish, Blue Crab
l
-------
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories3 (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 (LF WA), 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 LF WA for this information.
d = SeeWV0004499AW0004502AW0023281.
140
-------
Table 39. 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.
141
-------
Table 40. Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits of the Proposed Effluent
Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Industry a
Loadings (million lb/yr)b'c
Number of Instream
Excursions for Pollutants
That Exceed AWQC
Excess Annual Cancer
Cases6
Population Potentially at
Risk to Lead Exposure6
Population Potentially
Exposed to Other
Noncarcinogenic Health
Risks6
POTWs Experiencing
Inhibition
Improved POTW Biosolid
Quality
Total Monetized Benefits
Current
253
269 at 55
streams
0.31
948,000
900
none of 61
0 metric tons
Proposed
Rule
198
175 at 51
streams
0.29
948,000
none
none of 61
0 metric tons
Summary of Benefits
22 percent reduction
4 streams become "contaminant-free"
d
Monetized benefits
(recreational/nonuse) =
$0.38 to $1.35 million
Reduction of 0.02 cases each year
Monetized benefits =
$0.05 to $0.25 million
Annual benefits:
• Reduction of 0.036 cases of adult
and neonatal premature mortality
• Prevention of aggregate loss of 57
IQ points in children
Monetized benefits =
$0.64 to $1.01 million
Health effects to exposed population
eliminated
Benefits not quantifiable
No baseline impacts
No baseline impacts
$1.07 to 2.61 million (1997 dollars)
a. Modeled results from 103 direct and 47 indirect facilities were extrapolated to represent 198 iron and
steel facilities.
b. Loadings are representative of 60 priority and nonconventional pollutants evaluated; 4 conventional
pollutants and 6 nonconventional pollutants are not included.
c. Loadings account 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.
142
-------
5. REFERENCES
American Heart Association. 2000. "About Blood Pressure." .
Fisher, A., L. Chestnut, and D. Violette. 1989. "The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on New
Evidence." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 8, No. 1.
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..L, W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods - Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Maddaloni, M., N. Lolacono, W. Manton, C. Blum, J. Drexler, and J. Graziano. 1998. "Bioavailability
of Soilborne Lead in Adults by Stable Isotope Dilution." Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 106,
Supplement 6.
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.
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 United States: 1997. Washington, DC:
U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Department of Education 2000. Digest of Education Statistics 1999. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, Office oYEducational Research and Improvement. NCES 2000-031.
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. QualityCriteria forWater. 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
143
-------
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 Sunerfund (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. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Lead: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS StafTPaper. Research
Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA, Office of Air, Air Quality Management Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. 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. 1990c. 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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. 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. 1994. Guidance Manual for the Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model far Lead in Children. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. EPA/540/R-93/081, PB93-963510.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995a. NationalRiskManagementResearch Laboratory Data
Base. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995b. Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sew age Sludge:
Final Rule 40 CFR Part 503. Washington, DC: Federal Register. Octoberl995.
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/82 l-R-95-023.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup
for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in
Soil. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. December 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. Sunerfund Chemical Data Matrix. Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996c. Needs Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
144
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to
1990, Appendix G: Lead Benefits Analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation.
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. 1997c. 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. 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. EstimatedPer 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'FoodIntakes by'Individuals, Draft Report, March 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA, Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000b. Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Assessment
of'the ProposedMetalProducts and Machinery (MP&M) Regulation. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,
Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000c. Iron and Steel Pollutant Loading Files. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000d. Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) File. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000e. Permit Compliance System. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000f. GAGE File. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000g. REACHSCAN. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000h. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
Versar, Inc. 1992. Upgrade of Flow Statistics Used to Estimate Surface Water Chemical
Concentrations for Aquatic and Human Exposure Ass< " " L J '--Tr T~- c—
the U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Violette, D., andL. 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.
Walsh, R., D. Johnson, and J. McKean. 1990. "Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of Research on
145
-------
Recreational Demand." Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, Vol. 5.
NOTE: Most of these references are available in the Environmental Assessment/Benefits Docket
(W-99-24).
146
------- |