United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPAWO/5-«W>19
September 1886
Toxic Substances
x>EPA
Exposure Assessment for
Hexachlorobenzene
-------
EPA 560/5-86-019
September 1986
Final Report
Exposure Assessment for Hexachlorobenzene
by
Clay Carpenter, Gregory Schweer,
Georgianne Stinnett, Norman Gabel
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3968
Project Officer
Elizabeth Bryan
Prepare'd for:
Exposure Evaluation Division
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C. 20460
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed and approved for publication by the
Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The use of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute Agency endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Versar Inc. of Springfield, Virginia, for
the EPA Office of Toxic Substances, Exposure Evaluation Division, Exposure
Assessment Branch (EAB), under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3968 (Task 127).
The EPA-EAB Task Manager was Greg Schweer, the EPA Program Manager was
Elizabeth Bryan; their support and guidance is gratefully acknowledged.
Acknowledgement is also given to Anne Brown (U.S. Department of
Agriculture), Christine Bunck (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and
Ellis Gunderson and Pasquale Lombardo (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)
for their assistance in obtaining and interpreting the results of the
monitoring programs of their respective agencies.
A number of Versar personnel have contributed to this task over the
two-year period of performance as shown below:
Program Management - Gayaneh Contos
Task Management - Clay Carpenter
Technical Support - Norman Gabel
Georgianne Stinnett
Tim Holden
John Ooria
Editing - Juliet Crumrine
Lynne Crane
Secretarial/Clerical - Lynn Maxfield
Shirley Harrison
LaVonnia Brown
Kammi Johannsen
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1. INTRODUCTION 7
2. GENERAL INFORMATION 9
2.1 Chemical Identity 9
2.2 Chemical and Physical Properties 9
2.3 References 12
3. SOURCE DATA 15
3.1 Uses of HCB 15
3.1.1 Pesticide Uses of HCB 17
3.1.2 Other Uses of HCB 19
3.2 Inadvertent Production 22
3.2.1 Pesticides 22
3.2.2 Other Inadvertent Production of HCB 34
3.3 Miscellaneous Sources 37
3.3.1 Municipal Waste Incineration 41
3.3.2 Wastewater and Process Water Chlorination 42
3.4 Previous Sources 43
3.5 References 51
4. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND TRANSPORT 55
4.1 Summary 7 55
4.2 Photodegradation 55
4.3 Oxidation and Hydrolysis 57
4.4 Volatilization 57
4.5 Sorption 58
4.6 Bioaccumulation 59
4.6.1 Terrestrial Plants 59
4.6.2 Aquatic Biota 63
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page No.
4.7 Biodegradatlon 64
4.8 References 65
5. MONITORING DATA 69
5.1 FDA Total Diet Study 69
5.1.1 Program Description 69
5.1.2 Summary of Results 71
5.2 FDA Surveillance Monitoring Data 80
5.2.1 Program Description 80
5.2.2 Summary of Results 80
5.3 National Pesticide Monitoring Program Activities of the
FWS 91
5.3.1 FWS Monitoring Network for Freshwater Fish 91
5.3.2 FWS Monitoring Network for Starlings 98
5.3.3 FWS Monitoring Network for Waterfowl 105
5.4 USDA National Meat and Poultry Residue Monitoring
Program 112
5.4.1 Program Description 112
5.4.2 Summary of Results for Domestic Meat and Poultry . 117
5.4.3 Summary of Results for Imported Meat and Poultry . 126
5.5 EPA NHATS Program 126
5.5.1 Program Description 126
5.5.2 Summary of Results 132
5.6 Other Monitoring Data 136
5.6.1 Water Monitoring Data 159
5.6.2 Air Monitoring Data 172
5.6.3 Sediment/Soil Monitoring Data 173
5.6.4 Biota and Food Monitoring Data 174
5.7 References 175
VI 1 1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page No.
6. MODELING DATA 181
6.1 Air Concentrations Downstream of Industrial
Incinerators 181
6.2 Air and Ground-Water Concentrations Resulting from
HCB Releases from Landfi 11s 185
6.2.1 Air Concentrations 185
6.2.2 Ground-Water Concentrations 185
6.3 References 189
7. EXPOSURE SCENARIOS 191
7.1 Inhalation Exposure 191
7.1.1 Ambient Monitoring Data 193
7.1.2 Ambient Air Concentrations near Industrial
Incinerators Releasing HCB 193
7.1.3 Ambient Air Concentrations near a Landfill
Containing HCB 193
7.2 Drinking Water Exposure 193
7.2.1 Monitoring Data 197
7.2.2 Ground-Water Modeling 197
7.3 Ingestion Exposure .' 197
7.4 Exposure to HCB-Contaminated Fish 199
7.5 Exposure to HCB in Pesticide-Contaminated Food 199
7.6 Pharmacokinetic Modeling of NHATS Survey Data 200
7.7 References 211
8. CONCLUSIONS, HYPOTHESES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 213
8.1 Conclusions 213
8.2 The USDA "Hump" 215
8.2.1 Introduction 215
8.2.2 Ingestion Exposure Route 222
8.2.3 Dermal Exposure Route 229
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page No.
8.3 High Levels of HCB In Human Adipose Tissue Samples
from the Pacific Census Division 236
8.3.1 Introduction 236
8.3.2 Potential Sources 236
8.4 Recommendations 247
8.5 References 249
Appendix A. HCB Detection Frequencies in FDA Surveillance
Monitoring Program (Fiscal Years 1970-1984) 251
Appendix B. HCB Detection Frequencies in Domestic Meat and
Poultry Fat Samples (Tabular Data by "Species" and
Year - 1972 to 1984) 259
Appendix C. Statistical Analysis of USDA HCB Residue Data in
Domestic Meat and Poultry Fat Samples 275
Appendix D. HCB Detection Frequecies in Domestic Meat and
Poultry Fat Samples (Graphical Data by "Species" and
Year - 1972 to 1984) 309
Appendix E. HCB Detection Frequencies in Imported Meat
and Poultry (1979 to June 1984) 315
Appendix F. Modeling Inhalation Exposure and Ground-Water
Contamination of hexachlorobenzene from
Landf 111s 323
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 2-1 Physical and Chemical Properties of
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
Hexachlorobenzene
Summary of Source Data
Other Reported Uses of HCB
Domestic PCNB Usage by Site, 1983-1984
Comparison of PCNB Uses, 1979 vs 1983-84
Domestic Chlorothaloni 1 Usage by Site, 1979 and 1981 .
Domestic DCPA (Dacthal) Usage by Site, 1980-1983
Domestic Picloram Usage by Site, 1981
Locations of Facilities Currently Producing
Chemicals Whose Manufacture Is Known to Generate
HCB, 1985
Estimated Quantities of HCB Produced During the
Manufacture of Carbon Tetrachloride, Trichloro-
ethylene, and Chlorinated Benzenes
Nonpesticide Compounds Whose Manufacture Is Known
to Produce or Suspected of Producing HCB
Estimated HCB Releases Resulting from the
Production of Other Organi c Chemi cal s
Superfund and Potential Superfund Sites Known to
Contain HCB
Locations of Facilities that Previously Produced
Chemicals Whose Manufacture Is Known to Generate
HCB ( 1 975 - 1 984)
Chlorine Manufacturing Sites Where Oil-Impregnated
Graphite Electrodes Are Used or Have Been Used
10
16
20
23
26
28
31
33
35
38
39
40
44
46
49
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 4-1 Summary of Environmental Fate and Transport of
Hexachlorobenzene 56
Table 4-2 Accumulation of HCB in Terrestrial Plants of
Agricultural Relevance 60
Table 5-1 FDA Total Diet Studies - Daily Dietary Intakes of
HCB for Fiscal Years 1970 to 1982/84 72
Table 5-2 FDA Total Diet Studies for Infants - Summary of HCB
Detection Frequency in Market Basket Samples for
Fiscal Years 1975 - 1980 74
Table 5-3 FDA Total Diet Studies for Toddlers - Summary of HCB
Detection Frequency in Market Basket Samples for
Fiscal Years 1975 - 1980 75
Table 5-4 FDA Total Diet Studies for Adults T Summary of HCB
Detection Frequency in Market Basket Samples for
Fiscal Years 1970 - 1982 76
Table 5-5 FDA Total Diet Studies - HCB Residues in Individual
Commodities of the Adult Dairy Composite for Fiscal
Years 1973 to 1978 81
Table 5-6 FDA Total Diet Studies - HCB Residues in Individual
Commodities of the Adult Meat-Fish-Poultry Composite
for Fiscal Years 1973 to 1978 82
Table 5-7 Summary of FDA Domestic and Import Surveillance
Monitoring for 1970 to 1984 84
Table 5-8 Summary of FDA Surveillance Data (1978-1984) for Food
Products Containing Quantifiable Levels of HCB 86
Table 5-9 Summary of FDA Surveillance Data (1978-1984) for Food
Products Containing Only Trace Levels of HCB 88
Table 5-10 Summary of FDA Domestic Surveillance Data for HCB for
Four Major Commodity Groupings 89
xn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 5-11 FDA Domestic Surveillance Summary Data for Animal
Feeds 90
Table 5-12 Summary of FDA Domestic Surveillance Data
(1978-1984) for Animal Feeds Containing Detectable
Levels of HCB 92
Table 5-13 FWS National Pesticide Monitoring Program Fish
Collection Stations 94
Table 5-14 Summary of the 1971 to 1981 HCB Residue Data from
the FWS Fi sh Sampl i ng Network 99
Table 5-15 Summary of Results for the 97 FWS Fish Sampling
Stations with Continuous Data for 1976 to 1981 102
Table 5-16 FWS Fish Sampling Stations at Which HCB Was Detected
in at Least Two of the Following Three Sampling
Periods: 1976-1977, 1978-1979, or 1980-1981 104
Table 5-17 Occurence of HCB and Maximum Level (PPM Wet-Weight)
in Starlings from the Continental United States 107
Table 5-18 Occurence of HCB and Maximum Level (PPM Wet-Weight)
in Wings of Ducks Harvested in the Continental
United States 113
Table 5-19 Animal Production Classes That Are Sampled by
the USDA 115
Table 5-20 USDA Residue Monitoring Program - Summary of HCB
Detection Frequency in Domestic Nationwide Meat and
Poultry Fat Samples 118
Table 5-21 Relative Species Fraction of 1980 U.S. Production
of Dressed Red Meat and Ready-to-Cook Poultry 120
Table 5-22 Summary of Analyses of Regional Variation in HCB
Detection Frequency for the Grazer and Nongrazer
Groups 127
xi n
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 5-23 USDA National Residue Monitoring Program Summary
of HCB Detection Frequency in Imported Meat and
Poultry for Calendar Years 1979 to June 30, 1984 129
Table 5-24 Summary Statistics for the Unweighted U.S. NHATS
Data 133
Table 5-25 Summary of Air and Occupational Exposure Monitoring
Data for Hexachlorobenzene 138
Table 5-26 Summary of Ambient Water and Wastewaste Monitoring
Data for Hexachlorobenzene 142
Table 5-27 Summary of Sediment/Soil Monitoring Data for
Hexachlorobenzene 148
Table 5-28 Summary of Biota/Food Monitoring Data for
Hexachlorobenzene 154
Table 5-29 HCB Concentrations in POTW Sludges 158
Table 5-30 STORET Ambient Stream Monitoring Data for HCB 160
Table 5-31 STORET Ambient Well water Monitoring Data for HCB 163
Table 5-32 STORET Ambient Lake Monitoring Data for HCB 165
Table 5-33 STORET Industrial Effluent (Treated Outflow Pipe)
Moni toring Data for HCB 167
Table 5-34 Facilities Reporting Actual Detected Levels of HCB
in Treated Wastewater Based on STORET Form 2C Data ... 170
Table 6-1 Location and Release Data for the Seven Modeled
Industrial Incinerators 182
Table 6-2 Predicted Maximum Annual Concentration (ug/m^)
Downstream of Seven Industrial Incinerators 184
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 6-3 Estimated Annual Average Intra-Ring Concentrations
(ug/m3) Based on HCB Volatilization from a
Landfill 186
Table 6-4 HCB Concentrations in Ground Water (ug/1) at the
Water Table Surface along Plume Centerline 188
Table 7-1 Summary of the Exposure Scenarios for HCB 192
Table 7-2 Annual Inhalation Exposure to HCB 194
Table 7-3 Estimated Annual Inhalation Exposures (ug/yr) Based
on Ambient Air Concentrations Downstream of
Industrial HCB Incinerators 195
Table 7-4 Estimated Annual Inhalation Exposures Resulting from
HCB Volatilization from a Landfill 196
Table 7-5 Estimated Annual Individual Exposures Resulting from
the Consumption of Contaminated Ground Water. 198
Table 7-6 Estimated Maximum Contribution of Selected Pesticides
to Annual Dietary Intake of HCB 201
Table 7-7 Estimated Maximum Annual Dietary Intake of HCB
Associated with Dacthal 202
Table 7-8 Estimated Maximum Annual Dietary Intake of HCB
Associated with Chlorothaloni1 203
Table 7-9 Estimated Maximum Annual Dietary Intake of HCB
Associated with Picloram 204
Table 7-10 Estimated Maximum Annual Dietary Intake of HCB
Associated with PCNB 205
Table 7-11 Estimated Steady-State Exposure Levels Resulting in
: the 50th and 90th Percentile NHATS Adipose Tissue
Concentrations Observed in Males (1980s NHATS Data) .. 206
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 7-12 Estimated Steady-State Exposure Levels Resulting in
the 50th and 90th Percentile NHATS Adipose Tissue
Concentrations Observed in Females (1980s NHATS
Data) 208
Table 8-1 Trends in Insecticide Use, 1966-1982 220
Table 8-2 Pesticide Use on Forage and Pastures (percent of
acreage treated) 223
Table 8-3 FDA Domestic Surveillance Summary Data 224
Table 8-4 Quantities of Herbicide Used on Corn (106 pounds) .. 225
Table 8-5 Quantities of Insecticide Used on Corn
(106 pounds) 227
Table 8-6 Insecticide Used on Alfalfa (106 pounds) 228
Table 8-7 Insecticide Used on Soybeans 231
Table 8-8 Insecticide Used on Livestock (10^ pounds -
active ingredient) 233
Table A-l Summary of HCB Detection Frequency in FDA Domestic
Surveillance Program (1970-1976) 253
Table A-2 Summary of HCB Detection Frequency in FDA Domestic
Surveillance Program (1978-1984) 255
Table A-3 Summary of HCB Detection Frequency in FDA Import
Surveillance Program (1978-1984) 257
Table B-l Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1972) 262
Table B-2 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1973) 263
Table B-3 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1974) 264
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table 8-4 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1975) 265
Table B-5 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1976) 266
Table B-6 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1977) 267
Table B-7 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1978) 268
Table B-8 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1979) 269
Table B-9 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1980) 270
Table B-10 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1981) 271
Table B-ll Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1982) 272
Table B-12 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1983) 273
Table B-13 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat
Samples (Calendar Year 1984) 274
Table C-l Analysis of Variance Results for the HCB Detection
Frequencies in Livestock by Year, Type of Species,
and Region 279
Table C-2 Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Type of Species and Region 283
Table C-3 Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Types of Species and Years 284
xvi i
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table C-4 Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Region and Year 285
Table C-5 Analysis of Variance Results for the Types of
Species by Region and Year 288
Table C-6 Analysis of Variance Results for the HCB Detection
Frequencies in Livestock by Grazers/Nongrazers,
Region, and Year 289
Table C-7 Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies by Grazers
and Nongrazers Type and Region 291
Table C-8 Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in Livestock
by Type (Grazer/Nongrazer) and Year 292
Table C-9 Analysis of Variance Results for the HCB Detection
Frequencies in Livestock by Type of Species, Region,
and Period 293
Table C-10 Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Types of Species and Time Period 295
Table C-ll Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies by Region
and Period 296
Table C-12 Analysis of Variance Results for the HCB Detection
Frequencies in Livestock by Grazers/Nongrazers Type,
Region, and Period 297
Table C-13 Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Period and Type (Grazer/Nongrazer) 299
Table C-14 Analysis of Variance Results for Grazers and
Nongrazers by Region and Period 300
Table C-15 Analysis of Variance Results for the Grazers and
Nongrazers Type of Species by Region for the
Period 1974 to 1978 , 301
xvm
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page No.
Table C-16 Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Type (Grazer/Nongrazer) and Region
for the Peri od 1974 to 1978 302
Table C-17 Weight Fractions of U.S. Meat Consumption in 1980 304
Table C-18 Analysis of Variance Results for the HCB Weighted
Detection Frequencies in Livestock by Region
and Year 305
Table C-19 Analysis of Variance Results for the Weighted HCB
Detection Frequencies in Livestock by Region
and Period 306
Table E-l USDA National Residue Monitoring Program Summary
of HCB Residues Found in Imported Meat and Poultry
for Calendar Years 1979 - June 30, 1984 317
xix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 3-1 Major Geographic Areas of HCB Use 18
Figure 3-2 Major Geographic Areas of PCNB Use 24
Figure 3-3 Major Geographic Areas of Chlorothalonil Use 29
Figure 3-4 Locations of Facilities Currently Producing
Chemicals Whose Manufacture Is Known to
Generate HCB 36
Figure 3-5 Superfund and Potential Superfund Sites Known
to Contain HCB 45
Figure 3-6 Locations of Facilities That Previously Produced
Chemicals Whose Manufacture Is Known to Generate
HCB 48
Figure 3-7 Chlorine Manufacturing Sites Where Oil-Impregnated
Graphite Electrodes Are Used or Have Been Used 50
Figure 5-1 FDA Total Diet Study Regions 70
Figure 5-2 FDA Total Diet Studies - HCB Daily Dietary
Intake, 1970-1984 73
Figure 5-3 FDA Total Diet Studies for Infants, Toddlers, and
Adults, HCB Detection Frequency, 1975-1982 77
Figure 5-4 FDA Total Diet Studies for Infants, HCB Intake
(ug/day), 1975-1982 78
Figure 5-5 FDA Total Diet Studies for Toddlers, HCB Intake
(ug/day), 1975-1982 79
Figure 5-6 FWS National Pesticide Monitoring Program - Fish
Col lection Stations 93
Figure 5-7 FWS National Pesticide Monitoring Program: HCB
Residues in Freshwater Fish, 1971-1974 100
Figure 5-8 FWS National Pesticide Monitoring Program: HCB
Residues in Freshwater Fish, 1976-1981 101
xx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Page No.
Figure 5-9 FWS National Pesticide Monitoring Program: HCB
Residues in Freshwater Fish at 97 Stations with
Consecutive Data for the 1976-77, 1978-79, and
1980-81 Surveys 103
Figure 5-10 FWS National Pesticide Monitoring Program -
Starling Collection Stations 106
Figure 5-11 Occurrence of HCB in Starlings by Regions,
1 972-1982 108
Figure 5-12 FWS National Pesticide Monitoring Program: HCB
Residues in Starlings, 1972-1976 109
Figure 5-13 FWS National Pesticide Monitoring Program: HCB
Residues in Starlings, 1979-1982 110
Figure 5-14 Major Waterfowl Migration Flyways Ill
Figure 5-15 Detection Frequency of HCB in Ducks Organized
by Flyway, 1972-1982 114
Figure 5-16 USDA Meat and Poultry Inspection Program Regions 116
Figure 5-17 HCB Detection Frequency in Domestic Meat and
Poultry, 1972-1984 119
Figure 5-18 HCB Detection Frequency in Domestic Meat and
Poultry by USDA Region, 1972-1984 121
Figure 5-19 Comparison of HCB Detection Frequencies in Grazing
and Nongrazing Domestic Animals, 1972-1984 123
Figure 5-20 HCB Detection Frequency in Grazing and Nongrazing
Domestic Animals by USDA Region, 1972-1984 124
Figure 5-21 HCB Detection Frequency in Meat and Poultry,
Regional Comparison 125
Figure 5-22 HCB Detection Frequency in Imported Meat and
Poultry, 1972-1984 128
xxi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Page No.
Figure 5-23 Four Census Regions (top) and Nine Census
Divisions (bottom) of the United States 131
Figure 5-24 Plot of National Time Trend and 95 Percent
Confidence Bands for the Percent of Population
Having Detectable Levels of HCB 134
Figure 5-25 Plot of National Time Trend and 95 Percent
Confidence Bands for the Average Amount of HCB
i n Adi pose Ti ssue from NHATS Data 135
Figure 5-26 Percent of Specimens above 0.09 ppm of HCB Residue
Level by Census Division and Age Group 137
Figure 5-27 Locations of Facilities Reporting Results of HCB
Analysis of Treated Wastewater (Form 2C Data) 171
Figure 8-1 HCB Detection Frequency in Meat and Poultry and
HCB Daily Dietary Intake, 1971-1984 216
Figure 8-2 Plot of National Time Trend and 95 Percent
Confidence Bands for the Average Amount of HCB in
Adipose Tissue and the Percent of Population Having
Detectable Levels of HCB 217
Figure 8-3 HCB Detection Frequency in Starlings, Duckwings,
and Fish 218
Figure 8-4 HCB Detection Frequency in Livestock 221
Figure 8-5 HCB Detected in Swine, 1972-1984 230
Figure 8-6 HCB Detected in Poultry versus Starlings 232
Figure 8-7 Comparison of HCB Levels in Cattle 235
Figure 8-8 Percent of Speciments above 0.09 ppm of HCB
Residue Level by Census Division and Age Group 237
Figure 8-9 Detection Frequency of HCB in Ducks and Starlings ... 238
xxn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Page No.
Figure 8-10 FWS National Pesticide Monitoring Program: HCB
Residues in Freshwater Fish at 97 Stations with
Consecutive Data for the 1976-1977, 1978-1979,
and 1980-1981 Surveys 239
Figure 8-11 HCB Dection Frequency in Domestic Meat and
Poultry by USDA Region (1972-1984) 240
Figure 8-12 Major Geographic Areas of HCB Use 242
Figure 8-13 Major Geographic Areas of PCNB Use 243
Figure 8-14 Major Geographic Areas of Chlorothalonil Use 244
Figure 8-15 Locations of Facilities Currently Producing
Chemicals Whose Manufacture Is Known to
Generate HCB 245
Figure 8-16 Locations of Facilities That Previously Produced
Chemicals Whose Manufacture Is Known to
Generate HCB 246
Figure D-l HCB Detection Frequency in Bulls, Calves, Cows,
and Goats, 1972-1984 311
Figure D-2 HCB Detection Frequency in Heifers, Horses,
Poultry, and Sheep, 1972-1984 312
Figure D-3 HCB Detection Frequency in Steers and Swine,
1972-1984 313
xx m
-------
XXIV
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report analyzes the exposure of the human population to
hexachlorobenzene (HCB), a fully chlorinated, six-membered aromatic
carbon compound that has been used as a pesticide and is also present as
a contaminant in other agriculturally dispersed organochlorine
compounds. HCB also has been used, in the past, in several manufacturing
processes not related directly to agriculture. It has been detected in
nearly all human fat samples monitored in the U.S.A., and it has become a
substance of concern because it may be a human carcinogen. This report
is based on information currently available on HCB regarding its sources
of production, environmental entry and behavior, detection in
environmental media, and routes by which it can be introduced into the
human body.
Sources and Environmental Releases
Direct use of HCB as a pesticide has declined sharply since the
1970s. Its principal use was to treat wheat seeds, and, to a lesser
extent, it was applied to onions and sorghum. As late as 1985, it was in
limited use to prevent wheat smut (or bunt). Although HCB is no longer
used as a pesticide in the U.S.A., it is known to be inadvertently
produced or introduced during the manufacture of certain pesticides
(pentachloronitrobenzene, chlorothalonil, dacthal, picloram, and
pentachlorophenol). The total environmental release of HCB associated
with the use of these five pesticides has been estimated to be
17.4 kkg/yr. Most of the HCB in this country, however, is produced
during the manufacture of certain chlorinated solvents (carbon
tetrachloride, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and chlorinated
benzenes); total estimated releases from this source vary from 70 to
,241 kkg/yr, with most of the releases being emitted to land. HCB is also
suspected of being inadvertently produced during the manufacture of many
additional pesticides and industrial chlorinated compounds.
Nonagricultural uses of HCB are thought to have ceased. They included
manufacture of pyrotechnic and ordnance materiel and synthetic rubber
production.
Incineration of municipal waste is an additional source of HCB
pollution. HCB has been detected in both flue gas and fly ash, and it is
thought to be produced during the combustion process; estimated releases
from this source vary from 0.06 to 0.5 kkg/yr. Many industrial
wastewaters and process waters are chlorinated before being released to
the environment. Although the evidence is not conclusive, HCB does not
appear to be produced during this chlorination.
-------
Environmental Fate and Transport
Hexachlorobenzene is widely distributed throughout the environment
because of its mobility and resistance to degradation. HCB volatilizes
from both water and landfills, and it can be removed from the troposphere
by precipitation/dry deposition or transport to the stratosphere.
Although HCB has been reported to be immobi'le in soil, it can be
transported in runoff water as an adsorbate on suspended particulates.
This adsorbed HCB eventually enters surface waters where it may remain
suspended or become part of the sediment. Volatilization of HCB from
soil can occur when the sorption capacity of the soil for HCB is
exceeded. Volatilization is considered to be the principal mechanism for
removal of HCB from landfills. Leaching into ground water is not
considered to be a severe problem.
Some terrestrial plants can accumulate HCB to an extent greater than
the soil HCB content in their roots and also in portions of the plant
growing closest to the soil. The roots of carrots have been demonstrated
to accumulate HCB to as great an extent as 19 times the soil
concentration. Bioaccumulation of HCB also appears to be a problem in
the aquatic environment. In controlled aquatic ecosystems, higher food
chain organisms always contain more HCB than lower food chain organisms.
Nonequi 1 ibrium bioaccumul.ation factors for HCB in algae and fish have
been observed to be 24,800 and 2,600, respectively. The equilibrium or
steady-state value for fish is expected to be much higher. Freshwater
clams remove HCB from water rapidly but also depurate the unchanged
chemical when placed in uncontaminated water. Experiments conducted with
a group of ponds showed that sediment and aquatic biota can act as a
short-term sink for HCB and thereafter as a long-term source.
Microorganisms appear to have little or no ability to metabolize
HCB. Soil cultures, aerobic and anaerobic mixed cultures, and activated
sludge demonstrated no detectable degradation of this compound. Aerobic
mixed cultures also showed no tendency to acclimate themselves to HCB.
Seventy percent of the HCB absorbed by wheat plants appears to become
incorporated into high molecular weight organic matter, nonextractable
with water or organic solvents. Less than 1 percent of the absorbed HCB
was transformed to pentachlorothiophenol. The remainder of the
extractable material from wheat was principally unchanged HCB. In an
aquatic microcosm to which 14C-HCB had been added, a very small amount
of pentachlorophenol was identified in algae and mosquito larvae as a
degradation product.
-------
Monitoring Data
Monitoring data confirm that HCB is a ubiquitous pollutant; it has
been detected in all environmental media and in numerous types of living
organisms, including insects, aquatic biota, birds, and mammals. The
data have been organized into five subsections: human food (FDA), HCB in
fish, starlings, and ducks (Fish and Wildlife Service), HCB in livestock
(USDA), the National Human Adipose Tissue Survey (EPA), and monitoring
data from the open literature and EPA's STORET data base.
The human diet studies indicate a rise in both HCB intake and HCB
detection frequency for toddlers and infants during the late 1970s
followed by a decrease in the 1980s. Dairy products, meat, fish,
poultry, and prepared foods that contained oils and fats accounted for
the majority of HCB intake.
HCB residue levels and occurrence frequencies decreased significantly
in freshwater fish between 1976-1977 and 1978-1979; no significant change
was evident between the latter period and 1980-1981. Occurrence of HCB
detection in starlings has generally decreased during the period
1972-1982, except in the western region of the U.S.A. Nationwide
occurrence frequency of HCB detection in duckwings was highest in the
1976-1977 hunting season during the period 1972-1982; generally,
occurrence frequencies from Atlantic and Pacific sampling regions were
higher than those from the central portion of the U.S.A.
Data on HCB detection in domestic livestock fat samples exhibit a
significant increase in occurrence frequencies during the period
1974-1978 compared to 1972-1973 and 1979-1984; regional variability
during 1972-1984 was significant. Detection of HCB in fat samples from
imported meat and poultry has declined steadily during the period
1979-1984.
HCB detection frequency in monitored human fat samples has increased
steadily from 97.6 percent in 1974 to 100 percent in 1983. Residue
levels, however, exhibit a quadratic trend, increasing to a maximum in
1979 and decreasing thereafter. Detection frequencies and residue levels
show no significant age, sex, or race differences; geographic differences
in residue reflect higher levels in the West Census Region than in the
North Central and South Regions.
Monitoring data on environmental levels of HCB indicate detection in
all areas of the country with consistent detection in sediments and in
the surface waters and soils of industrialized areas. The nature of the
data, however, makes inter-reference comparisons difficult. The highest
-------
concentrations of HCB in ambient air and soil were obtained from samples
gathered near industrial facilities. Samples of aquatic sediment from
the surface waters of industrial areas also exhibited higher
concentrations of HCB than were found in sediments from nonindustrial
areas.
Model ing Data
Two sets of modeling data were developed for this report:
(1) estimated HCB concentrations in air downstream of seven industrial
incinerators and (2) estimated HCB concentrations in air and ground water
resulting from landfill releases. It was found that HCB concentrations
in air downstream of an industrial incinerator may be significant,
depending on the quantity of HCB incinerated and the destruction
efficiency of the incinerator. Concentrations in air resulting from
volatilization of HCB from landfills may also be important, but they are
dependent on the amount of HCB in the landfill, the depth of HCB in the
landfill, and the material used as the cover (if any). HCB in landfills
should not have a critical effect on ground-water quality, since it is
immobile in soi1.
Exposure Scenarios
Exposure scenarios were developed for inhalation of ambient air,
ingestion of drinking water, and ingestion of food. Exposures from food
ingestion were found to be the most significant (68 ug/yr based on the
FDA total diet data for adults), followed by drinking water ingestion
(best estimate of exposure is < 4.4 ug/yr based on monitoring data for
ambient drinking water), and ambient air inhalation (best estimate of
exposure is 3.5 ug/yr based on monitoring data for ambient air). Other
specific scenarios that were developed (e.g., inhalation of air
downstream of an incinerator, ingestion of contaminated ground water,
consumption of contaminated fish, ingestion of pesticide treated crops)
also supported the finding that food is the major route of exposure.
Furthermore, results from the pharmacokinetic modeling of the NHATS
survey data showed that food is probably the major route of human
exposure. HCB levels found in ambient air and drinking water are
approximately one to two orders of magnitude too low to cause the
steady-state HCB exposures estimated by the model. However, the average
adult intake of HCB estimated by FDA through their Total Diet Study (0.02
to 0.004 ug/kg/day) compares quite well with the exposures estimated by
the model (0.004 to 0.007 ug/kg/day).
-------
Conclusions, Hypotheses, and Recommendations
The most significant conclusion is that food ingestion appears to be
the major route of human exposure to HCB, although some contribution to
total exposure will be made through the inhalation of ambient air and
possibly through the ingestion of drinking water. HCB detection
frequency in domestic and imported meat and poultry, daily dietary
intakes, and levels in human adipose tissues have all decreased during
the period 1979-1984. No universal trends were observed for HCB
detection frequencies in wildlife (starlings, ducks, and freshwater fish).
Hypotheses were presented in this report to address the following two
phenomena: (1) the consistent increase in detection frequencies of HCB
found in fat samples taken from livestock from 1974 to 1978 and (2) the
relatively high concentrations found in the NHATS survey data for HCB in
the Pacific Census Division. It was hypothesized that ingestion by farm
animals of feedstuffs contaminated with a higher than usual level of HCB
was responsible for the increased HCB level in livestock during
1974-1978. A more concentrated use of HCB-containing pesticides in the
Northwest was speculated to add to the increased HCB levels in human
adipose tissue in the Pacific Census Division, although no conclusive
hypothesis could be reached about this phenomenon.
Several recommendations were made, including the development of a
more comprehensive source assessment, additional monitoring work (for
pesticides; air downstream of an incinerator; biota, water, and sediments
of shorelines; and ambient air and water), and a study of temporal
differences among existing data sets (e.g., USDA data, FDA data, and
NHATS data).
-------
-------
1 . INTRODUCTION
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) is a very stable, ubiquitous chlorinated
aromatic compound that originates from a variety of sources. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is concerned with HCB because it
has been detected in nearly all human fat samples and because it is
suspected of being a human carcinogen. To address these concerns, the
Office of Toxic Substances developed an overall work plan for an Agency-
wide strategy for assessing HCB. Besides the Office of Toxic Substances,
the following EPA offices are working on this coordinated effort:
Research and Development (ORD), Solid Waste (OSW), Remedial and Emergency
Response (OERR), Pesticide Programs (OPP), Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), Drinking Water (ODW), and Water Regulation and
Standards (OWRS). The final goal of this coordinated effort is to
develop an Agency-wide risk management strategy to control the risks, if
significant, associated with HCB. In support of that goal, this report,
prepared under the guidance of the Exposure Evaluation Division of OTS,
provides an exposure assessment for HCB.
Several offices within the EPA have been very helpful in providing
information for this exposure assessment, including the following:
• Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. Provided
published and unpublished research papers dealing with
physical-chemical properties of HCB.
• Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.
Assisted in obtaining and interpreting STORET data.
• Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. Supplied
retrievals from the Tolerance Assessment System and in-house
monitoring data bases.
• Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. Provided a 1984 assessment of HCB sources and
releases to the atmosphere. This report served as a starting
point and guide to our efforts to assess the magnitude and
impact of HCB releases to air.
In addition to this assistance from the EPA, several other government
agencies cooperated by providing data and information:
• U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
- Columbia National Fisheries Lab. Furnished results of
freshwater fish monitoring programs for 1976-1979.
-------
- Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Provided published and
unpublished results of starling and waterfowl, monitoring
programs.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Food and Drug Administration. Furnished published and
unpublished results of FDA total diet studies and FDA
surveillance and compliance monitoring data for HCB from
1978-1984.
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Supplied
retrievals from in-house data bases (NOHS and CRF).
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Furnished
retrievals from in-house data bases (NIOSHTIC and OHDS4).
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection
Service. Provided data on HCB residue levels in meat and poultry
from 1972 to 1984.
In general, this report is organized by the major components of an
exposure assessment. Following this introduction, Section 2 defines the
chemical's identity and lists the known properties of HCB. Section 3
presents a source assessment, which contains estimates on HCB releases to
the environment. Section 4 provides information on the environmental
fate of HCB in air, water, and soil, along with a discussion of the
bioaccumulation of HCB in plants and animals. A discussion of the
available monitoring data is included in Section 5. Section 6 presents
the modeling results of the estimated HCB concentrations in air near
incinerators that may release HCB and in air and ground water near model
landfills that contain HCB. Several exposure scenarios are presented in
Section 7. Finally, conclusions and hypotheses are provided in Section 8.
-------
2.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This section presents background information on the chemical identity
and the chemical-physical properties of HCB. Subsection 2.1 discusses
the physical form, molecular formula and structure, and other names by
which HCB is known. Subsection 2.2 is a compilation of the chemical and
physical properties of HCB that influence its behavior in the environment,
2.1 Chemical Identity
Hexachlorobenzene (CAS No. 118-74-1),
crystalline solid (Verschueren 1983). It
hydrocarbon. The chemical formula of HCB
is:
Ci
or HCB, is a colorless to white
is a chlorinated aromatic
is CCl, and the structure
Ci
2.2
HCB is known by the following names:
- Hexachlorobenzene
- Perchlorobenzene
- Amatin
- Anticarie
- Bunt-Cure
- Bunt-No-More
- Co-op Hexa
- Granox NM
- HEXA C.B.
Chemical and Physical Properties
Ju
No
No
No
No
in's
Bunt
Bunt
Bunt
Bunt
Carbon Chloride
40
80
1iquid
Pentachlorophenyl chloride
Phenyl perchloryl
Sanocide
Smut-Go
Snieciotox
The chemical and physical properties of HCB gathered from several
references are presented in Table 2-1. Of particular importance for
assessing environmental fate and potential for exposure are HCB's low
solubility in water and its low vapor pressure.
-------
Table 2-1. Physical and Chemical Properties of Hexachlorobenzene
Property
Condition/Comment
Value
Reference
Molecular weight (MW)
Melting point
Boiling point
742 mm-Hg
760 mm-Hg
760 mm-Hg
284.79
229°C
309°C
322°C, sublimes
326°C
Weast (1974)
Hawley (1981)
Perry & Chilton
Weast (1974)
Hawley (1981)
(1973)
Equilibrium vapor
concentration3
20°C
0.17 mg/m3
Calculated using
Ceq = PVD
RT
Vapor pressure
Specific gravity
Density of sol id
Relative "vapor density"
Solubility
water
alcohol
ether
chloroform
benzene
Flash point
15°C
20°C
25°C
35°C
114. 4°C
149. 3°C
166. 4°C
185. 7°C
206 °C
235. 5°C
283. 5°C
309. 4°C
23°C
23°C
0.40 xlQ-* n
1 .089xlO~5 n
1 .91 xlO~5 n
6.40x 10~5 n
1 mm-Hg
5 mm-Hg
10 mm-Hg
20 mm-Hg
40 mm-Hg
100 mm-Hg
400 mm-Hg
740 mm-Hg
2.044
1 .57 g/cm3
nn-Hg
im-Hg
im-Hg
im-Hg
16°C
20°C
25°C
25°C
9.84 (air=l)
3.0 ug/1
4.9 ug/1
5.0 ug/1
6 ug/1
sparingly soluble
soluble
soluble
very soluble
242°C
Farmer et al. (1980)
Verschueren (1983)
Farmer et al. (1980)
Farmer et al. (1980)
Weast (1974)
Perry & Chilton (1973)
Perry & Chilton (1973)
Perry & Chilton (1973)
Weast (1974)
Weast (1974)
Weast (1974)
Weast (1974)
Verschueren (1983)
Weast (1974) '
Verschueren (1983)
Dime (1982)
Chiou and Schmedding (1982)
Weil et al. (1974)
Verschueren (1983)
Weast (1974)
Weast (1974)
Weast (1974)
Weast (1974)
Hawley (1981)
10
-------
Table 2-1. (continued)
V'
Property Condition/Comment
Critical temperature
Critical pressure
Critical density
Adsorption capacity on
activated charcoal
Log octanol -water
partition coefficient
(log P or log KQW)
Soil/sediment
adsorption coefficient
(Koe)
Henry's law constant
Experimental
value
Experimental
value
Experimental
value
Experimental
value
Ava silty clay
loam
Batcombe silt
loam
Panoche sandy
clay loam
Hontezuma clay
Tule
Theoretical
Experimental
value
Theoretical
Value
551°C
2.847 kPa
0.518 g/cm3
450 mg/g
5.2
5.31
5.44
5.50
l.lSxlO4
1.78xl04
7.36X104
1.74X104
4.98X104
1.6xl04
1.7xlO~3 atm-m3
mole
l.OSxlO'3 atm-m3
mole
Reference
Kao and Poffenberger (1979)
Kao and Poffenberger (1979)
Kao and Poffenberger (1979)
Ramanathan (1979)
Platford et al . (1982)
Watarai et al . (1982)
Briggs (1981)
Chiou and Schmedding (1982)
Griffin and Chou ( 1981 )
(Koc = k/mass fraction
organic carbon)
Briggs (1981)
Dime (1982)
Dime (1982)
Dime (1982)
Calculated using equation
log Koc= 0.544 log kQW +
1.377 (Lyman 1982)
USEPA (1983)
Calculated (at 25°C) using
H = Vp(mm-HQ) MW (a/mole)
Sol (mg/1 ) 760 (nro/atm)
aEquilibrium vapor concentration represents the air saturation concentration under ideal
conditions. It is useful in calculating air inhalation exposures. The calculation is based on
the ideal gas law. In our equation, Pvp is the vapor pressure in atmospheres at 293°K, R is
the universal gas constant (0.08205 l-atm/mole-°K). and T is temperature in °K (293°K). Ceq is
the equilibrium vapor concentration in moles/liter which is then converted to mg/m3.
11
-------
2.3 References
Briggs GG. 1981. Theoretical and experimental relationships between
soil adsorption, octanol-water partition coefficients, water
solubilities, bioconcentration factors, and the parachor. J. Agric Food
Chem. 29(5):1050-1059.
Chiou CT, Schmedding DW. 1982. Partitioning of organic compounds in
octanol-water systems. Environmental Science and Technology. 16(1):4-10.
Dime RA. 1982. Environmental fate of hexachlorobenzene. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University Microfi1ms International. Order No. 82-20134.
Farmer WJ, Yang MS, Letey J, Spencer WF. 1980. Hexachlorobenzene: its
vapor pressure and vapor phase diffusion in soil. Soil Sci. Am. J.
44:676-680.
i
Griffin RA, Chou SFJ. 1981. Movement of PCB's and other persistent
compounds through soil. Water Science and Technology 13:1153-1163.
Hawley GG. 1981. The condensed chemical dictionary. New York, NY: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co. pp. 526.
Kao CI, Poffenberger N. 1979. Chlorocarbons: chlorinated benzenes.
Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology, 3rd ed. 5:799-808.
Lyman W. 1982. Handbook of chemical property estimation methods. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 4:1-32, 15:1-34, 5:1-30.
Perry RH, Chilton CH. 1973. Chemical engineer's handbook. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co. pp. 3-53.
Platford RF, Carey JH, Hale EJ. 1982. The environmental significance of
surface films. Environmental Pollution (Series B) 3:125-128.
Ramanathan M. 1979. Water pollution. Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of
chemical technology, 3rd ed. 24:306.
USEPA. 1983. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Treatability manual: Volume 1 Treatability data.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/2-82-001a.
Verschueren K. 1983. Handbook of environmental data on organic
chemicals. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
12
-------
Watarai H, Tanaka M, Suzuki N. 1982. Determination of partition
coefficients of halobenzenes in heptane/water and 1-octanol/water systems
and comparison with the scaled particle calculation. Analytical
Chemistry 54(4):702-705.
Weast RC. 1974. Handbook of chemistry and physics. Cleveland, OH: CRC
Press. C1-C658, D170-D186.
Weil VL, Dure G, Quentin KE. 1974. Wasserloslichkeit von insektiziden
chlorierten kohlenwasserstoffen und polychlorierten biphenylen im
hinblick auf eine gewasserbelastung mit diesen stoffen.
Z. Wasser-Abwasser - Forsch. 6:169-175.
13
-------
14
-------
3. SOURCE DATA
A source assessment or materials balance is one of the major building
blocks of an exposure assessment. This section contains the compilation
of source data that were obtained under this task. It is based mostly on
previous assessments of HCB sources, although it also contains a
considerable amount of new or updated information, especially for
pesticidal uses.
Table 3-1 summarizes the estimates of current environmental releases
of HCB that are discussed in this section. The direct use of HCB as a
fungicide appears to have ceased during 1985 because of the voluntary
cancellation of pesticide registrations by all HCB pesticide
registrants. The majority of the HCB generated occurs as a byproduct
during the manufacture of chlorinated solvents. This source also
accounts for most of the releases to the environment, although other
sources may be more important in terms of actual exposure of humans and
other living organisms to HCB. This is because nearly all the HCB
produced during the manufacture of chlorinated solvents ends up in solid
wastes, which are mostly destroyed through incineration or disposed of in
RCRA approved landfills. However, most HCB produced during pesticide
manufacture is contained in the product, which is directly applied to
soil or crops. Although historical sources of HCB could not be
quantified, they may also be a significant source-today because of the
persistence of HCB.. With the possible exception of landfills that
contain HCB, other known sources (manufacture of other chlorinated
compounds and municipal incineration) appear to be insignificant.
This section is organized into three subsections. Subsection 3.1
contains information on the past uses of HCB including pesticide and
industrial uses. Subsection 3.2 presents information on the inadvertent
production of HCB during the manufacture of pesticides, chlorinated
solvents, and other chlorinated industrial chemicals. This subsection
also presents information on facilities that are known to produce or are
suspected of having previously produced HCB. Subsection 3.3 discusses
three miscellaneous sources of HCB production: (1) municipal waste
incineration, (2) wastewater and process water chlorination, and
(3) landfills that are known to contain HCB.
3.1 Uses of HCB
There have been many commercial uses of HCB. The most significant
use has been as a pesticide, but HCB has been reported to be used in at
least eight other commercial products, processes, or operations. A
discussion of these uses is presented below.
15
-------
Table 3-1. Summary of Source Data
Estimated releases (kol
Source of HCB Air Water Land Total
1. Manufacture of chlorinated 343 - 11.2703 0-41 70.000 - 230.000 70.343 - 241,311
solvents
2. Manufacture of other 2.6a 29 13 45
chlorinated compounds'3
3. Municipal incineration 57 - 454 ~0 ~0 57 - 454
4. Pesticide usec
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) d d d 5,675
Chlorothalonil d d d 1.700
OCPA (dacthal) d d d 6,540
Picloram d d d 91
Pentachlorophenol d d d 3,360
5. Historical sources6 d d d f
Total 87,811 - 259,176
Estimated incinerator emissions assuming a 99.9 to 99.99 percent range in incinerator destruction
efficiency.
''This includes all other chlorinated compounds besides chlorinated solvents.
cThis only includes those pesticides that are known to contain HCB.
dAmounts to each medium could not be estimated.
Historical sources include facilities that previously generated HCB. but are no longer producing HCB
or are no longer in operation.
fCould not be quantified.
16
-------
3.1.1 Pesticide Uses of HCB
The manufacturer of the last registered HCB pesticide voluntarily
requested cancellation of its products in March 1985 (personal
communication between HM Jacoby, Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, and
Greg Schweer, Office of Toxic Substances, USEPA, on January 24, 1986).
After existing inventories of these pesticides are depleted, HCB
pesticides can no longer be legally used in the United States. Most
manufacturers of registered HCB pesticides requested cancellation of
their products in July 1984; existing inventories were allowed to be used
until the supply was exhausted or until July 1985, whichever came earlier
(49 FR 23440).
One producer (Chipman Chemicals, Inc.) of a pesticide formulated with
HCB (GRANOX, which is a mixture of HCB and maneb) was contacted to learn
whether they still had any supplies of the unsold pesticide (Farm
Chemicals Handbook 1986). They reported that they had not had any stock
of this product since September 1985 (personal communication between G.
Stinnett, Versar Inc., and G. Wasmand, Chipman Chemicals, Inc. of River
Rouge, Michigan, on April 25, 1986). In addition, one of the two
registered distributors of GRANOX was contacted, and they also reported
that they did not have any supplies of the pesticide in stock (personal
communication between C. Carpenter, Versar Inc., and Marshall Thomas,
Marshall Thomas Distributing Co., on April 17, 1986.)
Prior to the registration cancellations, HCB had been registered as a
seed protectant for use on several grain and field crops, including
barley, beans, corn, cotton, flax, oats, onions, peanuts, peas, sorghum,
soybeans, rye, and wheat (Devine 1982, Pelletier 1985). HCB was
principally used to treat wheat seed and to a minor extent was used to
treat onions and sorghum. The treatment rates were 0.2 to 2.0
ounces/bushel of wheat seed, 6 to 16 ounces/bushel of onion seed, and
0.32 to 0.75 ounces/bushel of sorghum seed. The major geographic areas
of use were in the Northwest for wheat and onions and in Colorado for
sorghum. HCB use for seed treatment of the remaining crops listed above
was negligible (Pelletier 1985). Figure 3-1 provides a map of geographic
areas of probable concentrated use.
Only very limited information on historical production and use of HCB
as a pesticide is available. Mumma and Lawless (1975) estimated HCB
pesticide production volumes of 760,000 pounds in 1958, 720,000 pounds in
1959, 440,000 pounds in 1960, and 700,000 pounds in 1973. Blackwood and
Sipes (1979) estimated a production volume of 3,200,000 pounds in 1975
(estimate may be for all HCB uses). Dime (1982) reported that use of HCB
for pesticidal purposes increased from about 1,800 Ibs in 1966 to about
17
-------
Figure 3-1. Major geographic areas of HCB use [constructed by overlaying
maps from the 1978 Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of
Commerce 1982) of "crop acreage harvested" for wheat in the
Northwest U.S. and sorghum in Colorado. No maps available for
onion acreage. Darkened areas of map indicate usage areas].
18
-------
14,000 In 1971. It has been estimated that the supply of HCB available
for pesticide use declined from more than 100,000 pounds per year prior
to 1977 to less than 50,000 pounds per year in the early 1980s.
(Personal communication between G. Schweer, Office of Toxic Substances,
USEPA, and T. Burkhalter, Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA).
3.1.2 Other Uses of HCB
Other commercial uses of HCB in the U.S. have essentially ceased as
supplies diminished and acceptable substitutes were, found. From a
historical point of view, however, HCB was used in a wide range of
commercial operations; these uses are summarized in Table 3-2. A brief
description of each of the identified historical uses of HCB is given
below.
• Pyrotechnic and Ordnance Materiels Production - Several sources
have indicated that HCB was used in the production of pyrotechnic
(e.g., signal flares) and ordinance (e.g., tracer bullets)
materiels (Brooks and Hunt 1984, Quinlivan 1975, and Blackwood and
Sipes 1979). Information on this former use of HCB is very
limited, however, mostly because of the secretive nature of
munition production operations. The use of HCB in this
application appears to have diminished in the early 1970s as
commercial sales of HCB declined and acceptable substitutes were
found. By the mid-to-late 1970s, the use of HCB in pyrotechnic
and ordinance materiels production should have been completely
replaced by more dependable long-term substitutes.
• Synthetic Rubber Production - Mumma and Lawless (1975) reported
that in 1974 the largest domestic supplier of HCB was diverting
its entire HCB production volume into, the manufacture of nitroso
and styrene rubber for use in automobile tires. HCB functioned as
a peptizing agent, which at the time was a new type of peptizing
agent to the rubber industry. This was essentially an
experimental use of HCB and as sales declined, several chemicals
were likely substituted for HCB. Any significant use of HCB in
this capacity from the mid-1970s to the present is very remote
(Brooks and Hunt 1979). A characterization of rubber industry
wastes in a treatability manual published by EPA did not include
HCB as a waste stream constituent (USEPA 1983a).
• Primary Aluminum Production - Quinlivan et al. (1975) reported
that HCB has been used as a fluxing agent in the production of
aluminium. However, a 1975 survey of the several aluminum
manufacturers indicated HCB was not being used for this purpose.
19
-------
Table 3-2. Other Reported Uses of HCB
1. Pyrotechnic materials
2. Synthetic rubber production
3. Primary aluminum production
4. Wood preservation
5. Graphite electrode production
6. Intermediate in dye manufacturing
7. Organic synthesis
8. Feedstock in the production of pentachlorophenol
Sources: Mumma and Lawless (1975), Brooks and Hunt (1984),
Blackwood and Sipes (1979). Quinlivan et al. (1975).
20
-------
If HCB was used In this capacity, the quantity used should have
been small and several compounds could have been substituted. A
1980 draft of Efficient Limitations Guidelines for the Aluminum
industry did not mention the use of HCB in its description of the
flexing process. During the selection of priority pollutants for
the establishment of these guidelines, HCB was not detected in any
of the wastewater samples analyzed (USEPA) 1980a). A treatability
manual published by the Office of Research and Development of EPA
did not list HCB in the wastewater characterization of the
Aluminum Industry (USEPA 1983c).
Wood Preservation - The use of HCB as a wood preservative was
reported in Mumma and Lawless (1975). However, Quinlivan et al.
(1975) contacted several major wood preserving companies and none
was aware of any use of HCB as a wood preservative. Brooks and
Hunt (1979) hypothesized that this confusion occurred because of
the similar abbreviation between HCB and a compound commonly used
in wood preservation (BHC or g-hexachlorocyclohexane).
According to the American Wood Preservers Association, HCB was not
used as a wood preservative in 1980 (Brooks and Hunt 1984). More
recently, Farm Chemicals Handbook (1986) reported that HCB was not
available as a wood preservative and Environ (1985) indicated that
it was not found in RCRA wastes from wood preservative facilities.
Graphite Electrode Production - Mumma and Lawless (1975) reported
that HCB was used as a porosity controller in the manufacture of
graphite electrodes. However, a survey of graphite electrode
manufacturers, which was reported by Quinlivan et al. (1975),
indicated that HCB was not used for this purpose. No other data
are available to confirm this potential use of HCB. However, the
use of oil-impregnated graphite electrodes to manufacture chlorine
is known to have resulted in the inadvertent production of HCB.
Most chlorine manufacturing facilities today use metal electrodes,
which do not produce HCB as a byproduct.
Dye Manufacturing - HCB was listed in both Blackwood and Sipes
(1979) and Mumma and Lawless (1975) as a possible intermediate in
dye manufacturing. A treatability manual, published in 1983 by
the USEPA, cited a detection of HCB in its waste stream
characterization for textile manufacturers. Since this same
concentration was listed for the influent stream, the HCB
contamination was probably not due to an industrial practice in;
the textile plant (USEPA 1983c). When contacted, a representative
of a dye works said that HCB was not used at that facility and, to
his knowledge, not used by anyone as an intermediate in the
industry. (Personal communication between Nick Stabulas of Brooks
Textile Dye Works and Georgianne Stinnett of Versar Inc. on
April 22, 1986.)
21
-------
• Other Uses - Very little is known about the remaining historical
uses of HCB (i.e., organic synthesis, and a feedstock in the
production of pentachlorophenol). They were mentioned as possible
uses in Blackwood and Sipes (1979) and the use as an intermediate
in organic synthesis was mentioned in Mumma and Lawless (1975).
Other than the sources mentioned, data on these historical uses of
HCB could not be located.
3.2 Inadvertent Production
HCB is known to be produced during the manufacture of several
commercial products including pesticides, chlorinated solvents, and other
chlorinated compounds. This section discusses the inadvertent production
of HCB and provides estimates of HCB releases to the various
environmental media.
3.2.1 Pesticides
HCB is known to be inadvertently produced during the manufacture of
several pesticides and is suspected of being produced or introduced as an
impurity during the manufacture of others (Mould et al. 1985). Five
pesticides (PCNB, chlorothaloni1, dacthal, picloram, and
pentachlorophenol) have been identified as containing HCB in the
technical grade product. This section summarizes for each of these five
pesticides, the uses, HCB contaminant levels, production/consumption, and
estimated current environmental releases of HCB.
In addition to these five pesticides, several triazine herbicides
were reported to contain low levels of HCB, 0.025 to 0.25 ppm (Mumma and
Lawless 1975). Tobin (unpublished) has reported that a historical sample
of aldrin, one of the chlorinated cyclopentadiene derived pesticides, was
recently analyzed and found to contain 65 ppm of HCB.
(1) Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
uses - PCNB is a fungicide used primarily as a soil and seed
treatment agent for field crops, vegetables, turf, and ornamentals.
Table 3-3 summarizes the current (circa 1983-1984) uses of PCNB.
Cotton, turf, and soybeans are the largest volume use sites and
account respectively, for 19 percent, 18 percent, and 14 percent of
total estimated U.S. consumption. Major geographic areas of use are
in the Southeast and Northwest/California regions. Although they are
not major use sites, some crops have rather significant portions of
their total acreage treated with PCNB; barley, Brussels sprouts,
cabbage, garlic, peppers, and rice have from 11 to 29 percent of
their total planted acreage treated with PCNB. Figure 3-2 provides a
map of geographic areas of probable concentrated use of PCNB.
22
-------
Table 3-3. Domestic PCNB Usage by Site, 1983-1984
ro
oo
Site
Agricultural uses
Barley6
Beans
Broccol i
Brussels sprouts
Cabbage
Caul i flower
Cotton - soil
Cotton - seedb
Crucifer seedbeds
Garl ic
Oatsb
Peanuts
Peppers
Potatoes
Riceb
Soybeans6
Sugarbeets6
Tomatoes
Wheat6
Nonaqri cul tral Uses
Ornamental s
Turf
Total
Use
(1.000 Ibs)
82-84
26-35
8-10
20-22
195-198
83-85
370-390
45-50
24-37
35-37
26-28
75-150
101-103
67-108
36-38
304-306
1-2
20-22
101-103
60-200
360-450
2041-2458
Percent o
total use
4
1
<1
1
9
4
17
2
1
2
1
5
4
4
2
14
<1
1
4
6
18
100
f Acres treated
(1,000)
958
13
0.2
0.7
10.5
3.3
400
1.000
0.9
1.8
222
11
6.8
5.6
800
7,100
Unknown
2.7
3,000
Unknown
14.7
12,751
Percent of site
acreage treated
12
4
<1
13
11
8
4
7
Unknown
14
1
<)
12
<1
29
10
Unknown
1
4
Unknown
Unknown
Regional
usage
WA. OR. CA
MI, NE, NY, TN, VA, NC
OR
CA. OR
NY, MI, GA. OR, NC
MI. NY, OR
Southeast
Southeast
CA, GA, NY
CA
Northwest, CA
Southeast
GA. LA, MS, NC, TN
WA, OR, ID, WI
AR, MS, LA, TX
AL, AR, LA, MS
MN, CA, ID, CO, NB. NO, WA
GA, LA, MS, NC, TN, TX
WA, OR, CA, AR, TX
US (primarly WA, CA, FL)
US
Tolerances3
(ppm)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
_
0.1
-
_
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
_
0.1
_
-
a All tolerences are interim except for cotton seed. There is also a tolerance of 0.1 ppm for edible banana pulp.
Indicates used treatment; all other sites are soil treated.
Sources: Torla (1985); USEPA (1981a); 40 CFR 180.291.
-------
Figure 3-2. Major geographic areas of PCNB use [constructed by overlaying maps
from the 1978 Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Commerce 1982) of
"crop acreage harvested" for the following crops using the regional PCNB
usage information in Table 3-2: barley, beans, cotten, oats, peanuts,
potatoes, rice, soybeans, tomatoes, and wheat. Maps were not available
for other crop uses. Darkened areas of map indicate usage areasj.
24
-------
HCB Level in PCNB - By terms of the termination of EPA's PCNB
Rebuttal Presumption Against Registration in 1982 (47 FR 18177), PCNB
registrants agreed to reduce HCB contaminant levels in PCNB to a
maximum of 0.5 percent by April 1983 and to a maximum of 0.1 percent
by April 1988. The limited information available on historical
levels of HCB in PCNB was summarized in EPA's Position 1 Document in
1977 (USEPA 1977). The sole U.S. manufacturer reported the
contaminant level to be 1 percent in 1976. In 1971, the technical
grade PCNB used in a West German bioassay contained 2.7 percent HCB,
and the suspected HCB level in a 1966 domestic bioassay was 11
percent.
Production/consumption of PCNB - Domestic use of PCNB began in 1959
with the issuance of a registration for technical PCNB (USEPA
1981a). Estimates of domestic consumption are readily available only
for the period 1979 to 1984. Consumption appears to have steadily
declined over this period with consumption in 1979 estimated to be
5.2 to 6.7 million pounds and consumption in 1984 estimated to be 2.0
to 2.5 million pounds (USEPA 1980b, USEPA 1981a, Torla 1985,
Bomberger et al. 1985). A comparison of PCNB uses in 1979 to uses in
1983-1984 is presented in Table 3-4.
The limited amount of data on domestic production and exports/imports
of PCNB during the 1970s also indicate that domestic consumption of
PCNB may have peaked during the late 1970s. Estimates of domestic
production are available for 1971 (3.0 million pounds), 1972 (2.6
million pounds), 1979 (8.0 million pounds), and 1980 (4.8 to 5.5
million pounds (USEPA 1977, Mumma and Lawless 1975, USEPA 1980b,
USEPA 1981a). Estimates of imports over the period 1967 to 1979 were
relatively low (never more than 0.14 million pounds) (Caswell 1979),
and exports are estimated to have ranged from 25 percent of
production (circa 1977) (USEPA 1977) to between 8 and 17 percent of
production in 1980 (USEPA 1981a).
PCNB is not currently being manufactured in the U.S. The sole
domestic manufacturer over the period 1959 to 1984, Olin Corporation,
recently ceased PCNB production and sold its PCNB registrations to
Uniroyal Corporation, which has not resumed manufacturing PCNB. PCNB
is imported into the U.S. now primarily from Mexico.
HCB Releases - Prior to 1984, Olin Corporation manufactured PCNB at
two sites, Mclntosh, Alabama, and Leland, Mississippi. Wastes
generated at these sites containing HCB are believed to have been
landfilled (Brooks and Hunt 1984).
25
-------
Table 3-1. Comparison of PCNB Uses, 1979 vs 1983-84
ro
Site
Agricultural uses
Grains (total)
- Barley
- Oats
- Wheat
Crucifers (total)
- Seedbeds
- Broccol i
- Brussels sprouts
- Cabbage
- Cauliflower
Beans
Cotton-soil
Cotton-seed
Garl'ic
Peanuts
Peppers & tomatoes
- Peppers
- Tomatoes
Rice
Soybeans
Sugarbeets
Nonagricul tural uses
Ornamental s
Turf
Percent of total use
1979 1983-84
2.5 9
4
4
1
4-7 15
1
<1
1
9
4
<1 1
36-51 17
2.5 2
<1 2
,24 5
<1 5
-
-
2 2
4-6 14
0 <1
<1 6
10-13 18
Acres
1979
3,750
.-
-
-
16
-
,-
-
-
-
25
2,178
2,725
1
142
4
-
-
833
7,000
8
0,
16.
treated (1.000)
1983-84
4,180
3,000
958
222
.4 15.6
0.9
0.2
0.7
10.5
3.3
.2 13
400
1,000
.8 1.8
11
.4 9.5
-
-
800
7,100
.3
.98
,8 14.7
Percent of
1979
3.6
-
-
-
9
-
-
-
-
-
8
17
21
19
9
2.4
-
-
36
12
<]
_
-
site acreage treated
1983-84
_
4
12
1
-
-
<1
13
11
8
4
4
7
14
<1
-
12
1
29
10
-
_
-
Treatment rate
(Ib/acre)
NA
NA
NA
, NA
" NA
NA
11-15
11-15
11-15
NA
l-2a
NA
NA
10-17a
35
7.0
7.5a
7.5a
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
NA - Not available.
3 This rate is per 14,500 linear feet; the actual area of application depends on the width of the crop row.
C): Torla (1985), USEPA (1981a), Pelletier (1985).
'
-------
Assuming a current annual domestic use of 2.5 million pounds of
PCNB and assuming an HCB contaminant level of 0.5 percent (5,000 ppm)
yields an estimated release to the environment of 12,500 pounds
(5,675 kg) of HCB annually from PCNB use. When the allowable
contaminant level drops to 0.1 percent (in 1988), the HCB release
will be 2,500 pounds (1,135 kg).
(2) Chlorothalonll
uses - Chlorothalonil is a fungicide registered for use on a wide
range of agricultural crops and for use on horticultural crops, on
golf courses and residential turf, and in paint as a preservative.
It is applied primarily as a spray to foliage by various types of
ground and aerial application equipment (Pelletier 1985). Table 3-5
summarizes the estimated uses of Chlorothalonil in 1979 and 1981.
Peanuts and tomatoes are the major agricultural use sites of
Chlorothalonil, accounting for 56 and 12 percent, respectively, of
the estimated total Chlorothalonil used in 1981. Other major use
sites are golf courses and paint which represented 10 and 5 percent,
respectively, of the total U.S. use in 1981.
Major geographic areas of use for peanuts are Georgia and Alabama;
smaller amounts are used in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, and
Oklahoma. A Major area of use for tomatoes is California, followed
by tomato producing areas in the North/Northeast and South
(primarily Florida). Figure 3-3 provides a map of geographic areas
of probable concentrated use of Chlorothalonil.
HCB Level in Chlorothalonil - A registration standard was issued by
EPA for Chlorothalonil in September 1984. HCB was recognized as a
manufacturing impurity and, as a result, the standard requires that
Chlorothalonil not contain more than 0.05 percent (500 ppm) of HCB
(Duffy 1985). The HCB level in Chlorothalonil prior to the issuance
of the 1984 standard is not known.
Production/Consumption of Chlorothalonil - The first registration
for a Chlorothalonil product was issued in 1966 (personal
communication between Greg Schweer, Office of Toxic Substances, USEPA
and H.M. Jacoby, Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, on January 24,
1986). Domestic production of Chlorothalonil apparently did not
begin until about 1977. Available information indicates that until
1970 little Chlorothalonil was imported. From about 1970 to 1977,
annual imports averaged about 3 million pounds, from 0.9 million
pounds imported in 1970 to 3.6 million pounds imported in 1977
(Eckerman 1982, Caswell 1979).
27
-------
Table 3-5. Domestic Chlorothaloni1 Usage by Site, 1979 and 198)
ro
00
Site
Agricultural uses
Broccol i
Celery
Cucumbers
Onions
Peanuts
Potatoes
Tomatoes
Other sites3
Nonagri cul tural uses
Golf courses
Paint preservative
Residential turf
Horticultural crops
Total
Use in 1979
(1,000 Ibs)
134
327
16
54
5,000-7,000
400-500
700-900
-300
661
350
43
7
7,990-10,320
Percent of
1979
2
4
<1
1
66
5
9
-3-4
7
4
<1
<1
100
total use
1981
<1
1
2
3
56
4
12
-4-7
10
5
<1
<1
100
Acres treated Regional usage
in 1981 (I. 000)
None specifically
None specifically
None specifically
None specifically
952 AL.GA.VA.NC.TX.OK
106 West, N. East, MI
119 CA,N/N.East,FL
None specifically
None specifically
None specifically
None specifically
None specifically
Tolerance Treatment rate
(ppm) (Ib/acre)
5 1.5
15 0.8 - 2.3
5 1.5
0.5 (dry) 1.2 - 2.3
0.3 0.8 - 1.2
0.1 0.8 - 1.2
5 1.4 - 2.3
a NA
NA
2.4 - 11. 5b
NA
NA
NA - Not available.
a All other sites account for 1 percent or less, individually, of the total annual usage. EPA has established
tolerances for 27 other raw agricultural commodities (40 CFR 180.275) and for citrus oil (21 CFR 193.84).
" This rate is in pounds per 100 gallons.
Sources: Eckerman (1982); Schutte (1984); Pelletier (1985); 40 CFR 180.275.
-------
Figure 3-3. Major geographic areas of chlorothalonil use [constructed by
overlaying maps from the 1978 Census of Agriculture
(U.S. Department of Commerce 1982) of "crop acreage harvested"
for the following crops using the regional chlorothalonil usage
information in Table 3-4: cucumbers, peanuts, potatoes, and tomatoes.
Haps were not available for other crop uses. Darkened areas of map
indicate usage areasj.
29
-------
In 1979, an estimated 28 to 31 million pounds of chlorothaloni1
were produced domestically. Domestic use had increased in 1979 to an
estimated 8 to 11 million pounds annually with 20 million pounds
being exported (Eckerman 1982). An estimated 7.5 million pounds were
used domestically in 1981 (Schutte 1984). Since 1977, imports have
been negligible (Eckerman 1982).
HCB Releases - Chlorothaloni1 is currently manufactured at one
site, Greens Bayou, Texas, by SDS Biotech. Manufacturing wastes
containing HCB are apparently disposed of at an offsite landfill
(Brooks and Hunt 1984).
Assuming a current annual domestic use of 7.5 million pounds of
chlorothaloni1 and assuming an HCB contaminant level of 0.05 percent
(500 ppm) yields an estimated release of 3,750 pounds (1,700 kg) of
HCB annually from chlorothaloni1 use.
(3) Dimethyl Tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA)
Uses - DCPA (trade name Dacthal) is a preemergence herbicide for
treatment of mineral soils that grow vegetables, nursery stocks, and
field crops, and for treatment of foliage of turf and strawberries
(Pelletier 1985). There are 192 registered products containing DCPA,
the majority of which are formulated and packaged for the home and
garden markets (Holtorf 1984). Table 3-6 summarizes the approximate
annual usage of DCPA during the period 1980 to 1983. There do not
appear to be any specific regional areas of use.
HCB Levels in DCPA - Since 1973, the maximum allowed HCB content of
technical grade DCPA has been 0.3 percent (3,000 ppm) (Mumma and
Lawless 1975, Eilrich 1986). An agreement between the sole
manufacturer and EPA requires that 0.3 percent be the maximum HCB
level (Duffy 1985). Prior to 1973, the HCB content of DCPA was
reported by the manufacturer to be as high as 10 percent (Mumma and
Lawless 1975).
Production/Consumption of DCPA - Only limited information on
domestic production and use are available. The first registration
standard for a DCPA product was issued in 1962. The sole
manufacturer reported production volumes of 2 and 4 million pounds in
1972 and 1974, respectively (Mumma and Lawless 1975). Recent
estimates of domestic use, for the period 1980 to 1983, are about 4.8
million pounds per year (Holtorf 1984).
HCB Releases - DCPA is currently manufactured at one site, Greens
Bayou, Texas, by SDS Biotech. Manufacturing wastes containing HCB
are apparently disposed of at an offsite landfill (Brooks and Hunt
1984).
30
-------
Table 3-6. Domestic OCPA (Oacthal) Usage by Site. 1980-1983
Site
Home and garden3
Commercial vegetable
production1'
Field cropsb-c
Total
Annual use
(1 ,000 Ibs)
2,000-2,500
1 .750-2.250
<200
-4,500
Percent of
total use
50-55
40-45
5
100
Percent of site Regional usage
acreage treated
Unknown None specifically
Unknown None specifically
Very minor None specifically
a Includes all turfgrass usage.
13 EPA has established tolerances in or on 45 raw agricultural commodities (40 CFR 180.155).
c Primarily cotton.
Source: Holtorf (1984).
31
-------
Assuming a current annual domestic use of 4.8 million pounds of
DCPA and assuming an HCB contaminant level of 0.3 percent (3,000 ppm)
yields an estimated release of 14,400 pounds (6,540 kg) of HCB
annually from DCPA use.
(4) Picloram
uses - Picloram is a herbicide used for controlling broad-leaved
plants and conifers in grasses. It is applied both aerially and
directly to soil (Thomson 1979). Table 3-7 summarizes the current
(circa 1981) uses of picloram. It does not appear to be widely used
on pastures, rangelands, or wheat (one percent or less of potential
site acreage is treated), and the extent of its use for forest site
preparation and on rights-of-way is unknown.
HCB Levels in picloram - A registration standard for picloram was
issued in March 1985 that specifies a maximum HCB content of 0.02
percent (200 ppm). No information is readily available on historical
HCB contaminant levels.
Production/Consumption of Picloram - Picloram was first introduced
in 1963. Production and use estimates are readily available only for
1981. In 1981, an estimated 2.2 to 2.9 million pounds of picloram
were domestically produced. An estimated 0.8 to 1.0 million pounds
were used domestically with the remainder exported (Schutte 1982).
HCB Releases - Picloram is currently manufactured at one site,
Freeport, Texas, by Dow Chemical, USA. Manufacturing wastes
containing HCB are apparently disposed of by incineration (PEI 1985).
Assuming a current annual domestic use of 1 million pounds of
picloram and assuming an HCB contaminant level of 0.02 percent (200
ppm) yields an estimated of 200 pounds (91 kg) of HCB annually from
picloram use.
(5) Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
uses - PCP is registered for use as an insecticide, fungicide,
herbicide, algicide, and disinfectant and as an antifouling
ingredient in paint. In general, about 80 percent of PCP is used for
wood preservation. Most of the remaining PCP is used as (1) a
fungicide in the manufacture of a variety of industrial products such
as leather and paper and (2) a biocide in cooling towers (USEPA
1981b, Beloian 1985). Except as a seed treatment (for nonfood uses),
PCP has not been registered for use on any food or feed crop. EPA
has established no tolerances or exemptions from tolerances for PCP.
32
-------
Table 3-7. Domestic Picloram Usage by Site, 1981
GO
GJ
Site
Agricultural uses
Pasture
Rangeland
Forest site preparation
Wheat
Nonaori cul tural uses
Rights-of-way
Total use
Use
(1.000 Ibs)
145-180
208-260
160-200
8-10
280-350
800-1,000
Percent of
total use
18
26
20
1
35
100
Percent of site
acreage treated
0.5-1.0
0.05-0.1
Unknown
0.5-1.0
Unknown
Regional Tolerances3
usage (ppm)
East
West
Southeast
Great Plains 0.5 (grain)
None specifically
a EPA has established tolerances for 42 raw agricultural commodities, 30 of which are meat or poultry
products/byproducts (40 CFR 180.292).
Source: Schutte (1982); 40 CFR 180.292.
-------
HCB Level in POP - According to USEPA (1981b), commercial PCP
generally contains 100 ppm of HCB. Cleveland et al. (1982) measured
150 ppm of HCB in Dowicide EC-7 (91 percent PCP) and 56 ppm of HCB in
a composite of the standard production technical grade PCP produced
by three PCP manufacturing companies.
Production/Consumption of PCP - Domestic production of PCP was
about 50 million pounds in 1977 (USEPA 1981b) and 74 million pounds
in 1982 (Beloian 1985).
HCB Releases - PCP is currently manufactured at two sites: Tacoma,
Washington, by Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. and in Wichita, Kansas, by
Vulcan Materials Company. The Tacoma site apparently disposes of
HCB-containing wastes in a landfill, and the Wichita plant uses
incineration as the disposal method.
Assuming a current annual domestic use of 74 million pounds of PCP
and assuming an HCB contaminant level of 0.01 percent (100 ppm)
yields an estimated release of 7,400 pounds (3,360 kg) of HCB
annually from PCP use. Much of this HCB would be expected to be
incorporated into treated wood from which it would slowly be released.
3.2.2 Other Inadvertent Production of HCB
Besides the production of pesticides, HCB can be inadvertently
produced during a number of manufacturing processes. Examples include
chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethylene and other important
industrial chemicals such as chlorine and hexachlorocyclopentadiene. The
names, locations, and products of those facilities that are currently
producing chemicals whose manufacture is known to generate HCB are given
in Table 3-8; the locations of these facilities are depicted graphically
in Figure 3-4. Note that the pesticide manufacturers have been included
in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-4 for continuity. Discussions of HCB
production during the manufacture of chlorinated solvents and other
industrial chemicals are presented separately below.
(1) Chlorinated Solvents - During the production of chlorinated
solvents, HCB is formed in the processing steps of thermal chlorination,
oxychlorination, and pyrolysis operations. The vast majority of HCB
produced during the manufacture of chlorinated solvents is found in the
heavy ends or still bottoms from distillation or product purification.
HCB has also been detected at low concentrations in wastewaters, spent
catalysts, spent caustics, off-specification products, and wastewater
sludges (OSW 1985). Since HCB is easily separated during purification
steps, the product contains essentially no HCB. It has been estimated
34
-------
Table 3-8. Locations of Facilities Currently Producing Chemicals Whose
Manufacture Is Known to Generate HCB, I985a'b-c
Map
numberd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i7
18
19
20
21
22
23
Company
Diamond' Shamrock Corp. ,
Dow Chemical . USA
Dow Chemical , USA
Oow Chemical , USA
E.I. duPont De Nemours & Co, Inc.
KemaNord, Inc.
Kerr McGee Chemical Corp.
Kerr McGee Chemical Corp.
LCP Chemical & Plastics, Inc.
Monsanto Company
Occidental Chemical Corp.
Occidental Chemical Corp. l
Occidental Chemical Corp.
PPG Industries, Inc.
PPG Industries, Inc.
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
SOS Biotech Corp.
Southland Corp.
Standard Chlorine Chemical Co.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Velsicol Chemical Co.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Plant location
Deer Park, TX
Freeport, TXe
Pittsburg, CA
Plaquemine, LA
Corpus Christie, TXf
Columbus, MS
Hamilton, MS
Henderson, NV
Moundsville, WV
Sauget, IL
Montague, MI
Tacoma , WA
Taft, LA
Lake Charles, LA
Natrium, WV
Tacoma, WA
Greens Bayou, TX
Great Meadows, NJ
Delaware City, DE
LeMoyne, AL9
Memphis, TN
Geismar, LA
Wichita, KS
Product(s)
Perc
Perc; TCE; carbon tet;
picloram
Perc; carbon tet
Perc; carbon tet
Perc; carbon tet
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Carbon tet
Oi chlorobenzenes
HEXA
Chlorine
Chlorine
Perc; TCE
Mono-, Di-.Tri -, Tet ra-
chlorobenzenes
PCP
Dacthal ;
chlorothalonil
Trichlorobenzene
Mono-,Di-,Tri-,
chlorobenzenes
Carbon tet
Hexa
Perc; carbon tet
Perc; carbon tet; PCP
HCB waste
disposal"
I
I
I
I
U
U
U
U
L
U
U
U
U
I
U
U
L
U
U
-
L
I
I
Chemicals whose manufacture is known to generate HCB include: perchloroethylene (perc), trichloroethylene
(TCE). carbon tetrachloride (carbon tet). chlorine, pentachlorophenol (PCP). hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HEXA),
picloram. dacthal, chlorothalonil, and chlorinated benzenes.
Facility locations obtained from SRI Directory of Chemical Producers (1975 to 1985) for manufacturers of
organic compounds and from Callison and Ferguson (1985) for chlorine manufacturers.
With the following exceptions, all listed facilities produced the listed organic chemicals continuously from
at least 1975 to 1985:
• SOS Biotech Corp - chlorothalonil (1977-1985)
• Southland Corp - trichlorobenzene (1981-1985).
Map number refers to location on Figures 4-2.
According to USEPA (1985a), Oow Chemical was to stop production of perchlorethylene and carbon tetrachloride
at its Freeport facility in 1984.
According to USEPA (1985a). Dow Chemical was to stop production of perchloroethylene at its Corpus Christi
facility in 1985.
carbon tetrachloride manufacturing process used at this facility is not expected to generate HCB
3omberger et al. 1985).
These data are from Brooks and Hunt (1984); no detailed attempt was made to
examine waste disposal practices at those facilities not examined by Brooks
and Hunt (1984). I is incineration. U is unkown, and L is landfill.
35
-------
OJ
aSee Table 3-8 for site locations.
Figure 3-4. Locations of facilities currently producing chemicals whose manufacture is
known to generate HCBa.
-------
that approximately 75 percent of the total amount of HCB produced in this
country occurs as a byproduct in the production of three commercially
important chlorinated solvents: carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene,
and tetrachloroethylene (OSW 1985). Much smaller quantities of HCB are
produced during the manufacture of chlorinated benzenes. Other
chlorinated solvents (e.g., 1,1,1-trichlorethane) generate insignificant
quantities of HCB during their production (Bomberger et al. 1985).
Table 3-9 summarizes the estimated quantities of HCB in the wastes and
estimated HCB releases to the environment resulting from the manufacture
of carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, and
chlorinated benzenes. A listing of the specific facilities that
manufacture these compounds was shown in Table 3-8, and they were
depicted graphically in Figure 3-4.
(2) Other Important Industrial Compounds - Besides chlorinated
solvents and pesticides, the manufacture of several other industrial
compounds also produces HCB. A list of compounds that are either
suspected or known to produce HCB during their manufacture is presented
in Table 3-10.
Most of the HCB produced during these processes will end up in
product purification residues such as still bottoms or heavy ends from
distillation; very little is expected in the product. OSW (1985) has
estimated that the total amount of HCB in miscellaneous solid waste from
chlorinated organic compound manufacture is 2.6 kkg/yr. This is a worst
case estimate since it includes some small miscellaneous waste streams
from chlorinated solvent production. Nearly all of these wastes will be
incinerated; less than 0.5 percent is landfilled (OSW 1985).
Small amounts may also end up in the process wastewaters. OSW (1985)
estimated that 2.88 kkg/yr may be in process wastewaters from chlorinated
organic production, before treatment. A summary of the estimated HCB
releases from other chlorinated organic compound production is presented
in Table 3-11. As can be seen in this table, estimated HCB releases from
these processes are much less than the estimated releases from
chlorinated solvent manufacture.
3.3 Miscellaneous Sources
Several miscellaneous sources of HCB have been identified in the
literature. Three of the most important are municipal incineration,
wastewater and process water chlorination, and releases from landfills
that are known to contain HCB. A discussion of each of these sources is
presented below.
37
-------
Table 3-9. Estimated Quantities of HCB Produced During the Manufacture of Carbon
Tetrachloride, Trichloroethylene, Perchloroethylene, and Chlorinated Benzenes
CO
00
Chlorinated solvent
Carbon tetrachloride
Tri chloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Chlorinated benzenes
Total
Production
volume
(106 kg)
323. 4d
65. 7e
260. Od
173. 2f
Amount of
heavy ends
and still
bottoms
produced3
(106 kg)
12.9
2.6
10.4
NA
Concentration of Amount of HCB
HCB in waste" produced
(%) dO6 kg)
10-65 1.3 - 8.4
5-20 0.1-0.5
20-25 2.1-2.6
-f <0.0l9
3.5 - 11.5
Airc
(kg)
1,260 - 8,220
130 - 510
2,040 - 2,540
<0.01
3,430 - 11,270
Releases
Landc
(kg)
26,000 - 168,000
2,000 - 10.000
42,000 - 52.000
<0.1
70,000 - 230,000
Water
(kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
-0-4 lh
NA - Not available.
aThis is based on a generation rate of 0.04 kg of bottoms per kg of product (OSW 1985).
bThe range was selected from Environ (1985) and OSW (1985).
cReleases were estimated based on the assumption that 98 percent of the wastes are incinerated and 2 percent are landfilled
(OSW 1985). It was assumed the destruction efficiency of the incinerator is 99.9 percent.
dUSITC (1985). These are 1984 production volume estimates.
eUSEPA (1985b). These are 1983 production volume estimates.
'Environ (1985) has reported that HCB is present in wastes from the production of chlorinated benzenes;
however, no concentrations were given.
%SW (1985).
"This was based on monitoring data of wastewater discharges from industrial facilities that produce carbon tetrachloride,
trichloroethylene, or perchloroethylene (Li et al. 1976) and on wastewater discharges reported in the IFO file that are known to
produce carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, and perchloroethylene. It was assumed all process water at the facilities was
contaminated with 7.1 ug/1 of HCB, and the total volume of process water was estimated based on the total production volume. The
41 kg is a worst case estimate.
-------
Table 3-10. Nonpesticide Compounds Whose Manufacture Is Known
to Produce or Suspected of Producing HCB
Compounds Known to Produce HCB3.13
1. Chlorobenzenes
2. Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons (carbon tetrachloride.
Perch!oroethylene. trichloroethylene)
3. Benzyl chloride0
4. Ethyl chlorided
5. Phthalic anhydride8
6. Chlorine
7. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HEX)
8. Phthalocyanine dyes and pigments
Compounds Whose Manufacture Is Suspected of Producing HCB13
1. Phosgene
2. Toluene diisocyanate (TOI)
3. Cyanuric chloride
4. 2-chloro-l,3-butadiene (chloroprene)
5. Titanium dioxide
6. 1.1,2-Trichloro-l,1,1-trifluoroethane (fluorocarbon 113)
7. Chlorophenols
8. Tetrachlorophthalic anhydride
9. Polychlorinated naphthalenes
10. Chlorinated paraffins
11. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride) and vinyl chloride
monomer (VCM)
12. Azo dyes
13. Polyethylene and polypropylene
14. 3-Chloropropane (allyl chloride) and dichloropropenes
aEnviron (1985).
bBomberger et al. (1985).
cEnviron (1985) reports HCB levels of 0.4-0.6 percent in still bottoms.
^Environ (1985) reports HCB levels of 0-18 percent in the heavy ends.
eUSEPA (1983b).
39
-------
Table 3-11. Estimated HCB Releases Resulting from the Production of Other Organic Chemicals
Estimated total Estimated total Estimated releases (kg)
quantity of HCB- quantity of HCB
Waste stream containing waste3 generated3 Air Land Water
(kkg/yr) (kkg/yr)
Miscellaneous solid wastes 16.670
Process wastewater 41,980
2.60 2.6b 13C
2.88 d d
29e
3OSW (1985)
bAssuming that 99.5 percent of the waste is incinerated (OSW 1985) and that the incinerator
destruction and removal efficiency is 99.9 percent.
"-Assuming 0.5 percent is landfilled.
^Negligible amount, although it could not be quantified.
eAssum1ng biological treatment and >99 percent removal (USEPA 1983a).
40
-------
3.3.1 Municipal Waste Incineration
HCB has been detected in both the flue gas and fly ash resulting from
municipal waste incineration. Most of this HCB is produced during the
combustion process, although small amounts may be contained in the
municipal waste.
Combustion in an incinerator is a very complicated process that
depends on such factors as the reactor type, residence time, reactor
temperatures, and feed materials. The destruction efficiency and the
amount of inadvertent waste compounds produced during incineration depend
on the relationships among the operating variables and the constituents
found in the feed material (i.e., the municipal waste). To produce HCB
during combustion, however, the waste products must contain chlorine. In
the case of municipal wastes, several commonly found materials contain
chlorine (e.g., plastics, paper products).
Estimated Emissions
Actual HCB emission levels from municipal incineration are very
site-specific and thus cannot be generically estimated. However, based
on monitoring data and previous studies, a rough range of the total HCB
releases from all municipal incinerators in the U.S. can be
approximated. This range has been estimated to be 57-454 kg/yr. The
assumptions used to derive this result are given below:
1. It is assumed that 18,500 metric tons of municipal waste are
disposed of by incineration facilities in the U.S. per day for 300
days per year; this is 5.55 x 10~6 metric tons per year
(Bomberger et al. 1985)
2. It has been reported that one metric ton of municipal waste
produces 30 kg of fly ash and 7000 m3 of cleaned stack gases
which contain 0.66 kg of particulates (Bomberger et al. 1985)
3. Several studies have estimated HCB concentrations in incinerator
flue gasses, the range of concentrations is approximately 1.4 to
11 ug/m3 (Tiernan et al. 1983, Samuelsson and Lindskog 1983,
Janssens et al. 1982). Furthermore, Janssens et al. (1982)
estimated that 93.8 percent of the total HCB released is in the
vapor phase, 5.4 percent is in particulates <0.5 urn, and 0.8
percent is in particulates >0.5 urn.
4. Estimated amount of flue gas produced: 5.55 x 10^ kg/yr x
7000 m3/kg = 3.89 x 1010 m3/yr.
41
-------
5. Estimated quantity of HCB In the flue gas: 3.89 x TO10 m3/yr
x 1.4-11 ug/m3/yr = 54 - 428 kg.
6. Estimated quantities in the flyash:
Light particulates = 54 - 428 kg/yr x 0.008
= 0.43 - 3.4 kg/yr.
Heavy particulates = 54 - 428 kg/yr x 0.054
=2.9-23 kg/yr.
Total particulates = 3.3 - 26 kg/yr.
7. Total estimated HCB releases from municipal incinerators is
57 to 454 kg/yr.
3.3.2 Wastewater and Process Water Chlorination
Numerous processes require chlorination of aqueous streams. Examples
include drinking water disinfection, wastewater treatment, chlorination
of cooling water, and chlorination of wood pulp. These processes have
the potential to produce HCB since it is known that the chlorination of
aqueous streams containing dissolved organics produces chlorinated
organic materials.
However, a review of the literature by Bomberger et al. (1985) found
very little convincing data to support this hypothesis. The most
rigorous reaction conditions possible in water appear to be insufficient
for complete chlorination of the benzene ring. Extensive studies of
contaminant levels in industrial wastewater failed to detect HCB, except
at plants where HCB was produced as a byproduct. Some evidence does
indicate that HCB was produced during the treatment of cooling water,
since it has been detected in fish from a power plant cooling pond
(Bomberger et al. 1985). In addition, it has been detected in the
treated wastewater from three electric power plants (See Table 5-34).
However, the evidence is not conclusive because the contaminations could
have occurred from the deposition of HCB released to the atmosphere from
the power plant boilers or it could have been introduced as a contaminant
in pentachlorophenol, which has been used in cooling water as a biocide.
Finally, no direct evidence was found in the literature of HCB
contamination in pulp and paper wastewater discharges in the United
States (Bomberger et al. 1985).
Since HCB is so stable (see Section 4), it is also important to
consider HCB that had been previously disposed of in landfills as a
potential current source. Because of low costs and convenience,
landfill ing was the predominant final waste management practice in the
1970s (OSW 1985). Therefore, a considerable amount of HCB may be present
42
-------
in landfills, which could potentially volatilize or very slowly leach
into ground water or run off into surface waters. Table 3-12 presents a
list of the Superfund and potential Superfund sites that are known to
contain HCB; their locations are depicted graphically in Figure 3-5.
Most of the sites are located in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Louisiana. No quantitative HCB release data are available for these
historical sites.
3.4 Previous Sources
Since HCB is very persistent in the environment, it is important to
examine historical source data on HCB. Table 3-13 lists the locations of
facilities that previously produced chemicals during the period from 1975
to 1984 whose manufacture is known to generate HCB; the locations of
these facilities are graphically depicted in Figure 3-6. As can be seen,
the locations of these facilities are concentrated in New Jersey, western
New York, along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, and in the Northwest.
As noted in Section 3.1.2, the manufacture of chlorine using
oil-impregnated graphite electrodes may generate HCB as a byproduct.
Although some facilities still use this manufacturing technique, most
have switched to metal anodes over the last 15 years or have shut down.
Consequently, a historical perpective on this source of HCB is
important. Table 3-14 lists chlorine manufacturing sites where
oil-impregnated graphite electrodes are used or have been used, and
Figure 3-7 graphically depicts their locations. Most of the facilities
are located along the Mississippi drainage basin or in the Northwest.
43
-------
Table 3-12. Superfund and Potential Superfund Sites Known to Contain HCB
Map
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
a
b
no. Site
National Priority List site
Myers Property
Maryland Sand & Gravel
01 in Corp.
Calumet Container
Berl in & Farro
Liquid Disposal . Inc.
Summit National Liquid
Old Mill Site
Cleve-Reber
Petro-Processors
Removal sites
Love Canal (Black Creek)0
Sealand Ltd.
Potential Suoerfund sites
Alchem Products
Jefferson Twp Drum Site
PPG Indust. . Inc.
South Charleston Landfill
Parrot Road Dump
Approved Industrial Removal
Jacksonville City Landfill
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Media in which HCB was detected;
HfR hac hpen Hetprforl in cnlirlc :
Location
Franklin Twp.. NJ
Elkton. MD
Mclntosh. AL
Hammond, IN
Swartz Creek. MI
Utica, MI
Deerfield, OH
Rock Creek. OH
Sorrento, LA
Scotlandville, LA
Niagara Falls, NY
Mt. Pleasant, OE
Ambler, PA
Media3
Solids
Water
Water
Water
Solids
Solids
N/A
Water/sediments
Sol ids/water
Solids
Water/sol ids/air
Leaking tank
Water
Jefferson Twp. . PA N/A
Natrium. WV
S. Charleston, WV
New Haven, IN
Wyoming, MI
Jacksonville, AR
Portland, OR
N/A indicates not
anri air at nther 1 n
Solids
Sol ids
Water
Water
Solids
Solids
available.
\yo Tana! araa citoc incl
102 N. Street, Bloody Run Creek, and Gill Creek.
Source: Fields (1984).
-------
aSee T?bl» 3-12 for Superfund site locations.
Fiqure 3-5. Superfund and potential Superfund sites known to contain HCB
-------
Table 3-13. Locations of Facilities That Previously Produced Chemicals
Whose Manufacture Is Known to Generate HCB (1975 - 1984)a'°-c
Hap
number
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11 .
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Company
name
Allied Chemical Corp.
Champion Intnl. Corp.
Dover Chemical Corp.
Dow Chemical , U.S.A.
Eastman Kodak Co.
Ethyl Corporation
FMC Corporation
Formosa Plastics Corp.
Guardian Chem. Corp.
Hummel Chem. Co.. Inc.
ICC Industries, Inc.
Montrose Chem. Corp.
of CA
Occidental Chem. Corp.
Occidental Chem. Corp.
01 in Corporation
01 in Corporation
Plant
location
Syracuse, NY
Canton, NC
Dover, OH
Midland. MI
Rochester. NY
Baton Rouge, LA
S. Charleston, WV
Baton Rouge, LA
Hauppauge, NY
S. Plainfield, NJ
Niagara Falls. NY
Henderson, NV
Niagara Falls. NY
Taft. LA
Mclntosh, AL
Lei and. MS
Products
Mono-.Dichlorobenzenes
Chlorine
PCP; HCB
Mono-.Di-.Tri-.Tetrachlorobenzenes;
PCP
Dichlorobenzene
Perc; TCE
Carbon tet
Chlorine
Dichlorobenzenes
HCB
Mono-.Dichlorobenzenes
Mono-.Dichlorobenzenes
Hexa; Mono-.Di-.Tri-,
Tetrachlorobenzenes
Perc; TCE
PCNB
PCNB
Years of
manufacture
(1975-84)
1975-79
e
1975-77
1975-83
1975-77
1975-82
1975-79
9
1975-76
1975-77
1976-78
1975-82
1975-82 (Hexa)
1975 (Chloro-
benzenes)
1975-78
1975-83
1978-84
46
-------
Table 3-13. (continued)
Map
number
Company
name
Plant
location
Products
Years of
manufacture
(1975-84)
17. Pennwalt Corporation
18. Pennwalt Corporation
19. Pennwalt Corporation
20. PPG Industries. Inc.
21. PPG Industries, Inc.
22. Sobin Chems. Inc.
23. Solvent Chem. Co.. Inc.
24. Solvent Chem. Co.. Inc.
25. Sanford Chem. Co.
26. Standard Chlorine Chem.
27. Stauffer Chem. Co.
28. Stauffer Chem. Co.
29. Vertac, Inc.
30. Vulcan Materials Corp.
Calvert City, KY
Portland, OR
Tacoma, WA
Lake Charles. LA
Natrium. WV
Newark. NJ
Niagara Falls. NY
Maiden, MA
Houston, TX
Kearny. NJ
Louisville. KY
Niagara Falls, NY
Jacksonville, AR
Denver City, TX
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Trichlorobenzenes
Mono-.Di-.Trichlorobenzenes
Mono-.Di-,Trichlorobenzenes
PCP
Di.-Trichlorobenzenes
Carbon tet; perc
Carbon tet
Tetrachlorobenzene
Chlorine
d
d
d
9
9
1975
1975-77
-1975-76
1975
1975-77
1975-84
1975-76
1975-77
a Chemicals whose manufacture is known to generate HCB include: perchloroethylene (perc),
trichloroethylene (TCE). carbon tetrachloride (carbon tet). chlorine, pentachlorophenol (PCP),
hexachlorocyclopentadiene (hexa), chlorinated benzenes, and pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB).
& Facility locations obtained from the SRI Directory of Chemical Producers for the years 1975 to 1984
and from Callison and Ferguson (1985) (for chlorine manufacturers).
c The list of previous chlorine manufacturers may not be all-inclusive.
** Converted to non-HCB-generating metal anodes in early to mid 1970s.
e Plant shut down in 1984.
f Plant shut down in 1983.
9 Converted to non-HCB-generating metal anodes between 1980 and 1984.
47
-------
JSee Table 3-13 for site locations
Figure 3-6. Locations of facilities that previously produced chemicals whose manufacture is
known to generate HCfi".
-------
Table 3-14. Chlorine Manufacturing Sites Where Oil-Impregnated
Graphite Electrodes Are Used or Have Been Used3
Map
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Company
name
Kema Nord, Inc.
Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp.
Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp.
Pennwwalt Corp.
Pennwalt Corp.
PennwaK Corp
Occidental Chem. Corp.
Occidental Chem. Corp
Champion Intnl. Corp.
Vulcan Materials Corp.
Formosa Plastics Corp.
PPG Industries. Inc.
PPG Industries. Inc.
Plant
location
Columbus. MS
Hamilton. MS
Henderson, NV
Calvert City. KY
Portland. OR
Tacoma , WA
Taft, LA
Tacoma, WA
Canton, NC
Denver City. TX
Baton Rouge, LA
Lake Charles, LA
Natrium. WV
Use status15
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
4
5
5
5
aSites identified in Callison and Ferguson (1985). Not all sites that have been converted from
graphite to metal anodes were identified.
bUse status codes:
1 = current user.
2 = converted to metal anodes in early to mid 1970s.
3 = plant shut down in 1984.
4 = plant shut down in 1983.
5 = converted to metal anodes between 1980 and 1984.
Source: Callison and Ferguson (1985).
49
-------
See Table 3-14 for sitj locations.
Figure 3-7. Chlorine manufacturing sites where oil-impregnated graphite
electrodes are used or have been used".
-------
3.5 REFERENCES
Beloian A. 1985. HCB project. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Memo from A Beloian to
SL Duffy, February 20, 1985.
Blackwood TR, Sipes TG. 1979. Status assessment of toxic chemicals:
hexachlorobenzene. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA-600/2-79-210g.
Bomberger DC, Bruckman EM, Frierman M, Jimenez A, Nelson C, Doeltz MK,
Mould CB. 1985. Hexachlorobenzene: Chemistry of formation and
identified sources. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3976.
Brooks GW, Hunt GE. 1984. Source assessment for hexachlorobenzene.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3818.
Callison SL, Ferguson FA. 1985. Evaluation of the extent of HCB
contamination that may result from the use of graphite electrodes to
produce chlorine and sodium chlorate via electroysis. Menlo Park,
California: SRI International. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3976.
Caswell RL. 1979. Pesticide handbook - entoma 1979-1980. College Park,
MD: Entomological Society of America.
Cleveland L, Buckler DR, Mayer FL, Branson DR. 1982. Toxicity of three
preparations of pentachlorophenol to fathead minnows - a comparative
study. Environmental Toxic, and Chemical (1): 205-212
Devine K. 1982. Preliminary quantitative usage analysis of
hexachlorobenzene. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Dime RA. 1982. Environmental fate of hexachlorobenzene. Ph.D
Dissertation, University Microfilms International. Order No. 82-20134.
Duffy SL. 1985. Registration Division report on pesticides containing
HCB. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Eckerman DE. 1982. Preliminary quantitative usage analysis of
chlorothaloni1. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
51
-------
Eilrich GL. 1986. Letter from GL Eilrich
(National Toxiology Program) February 24,
(SDS Biotech)
1986.
to DP Rail
Environ Corp. 1985. Characterization of waste streams listed in 40 CFR
Section 261 waste profiles. Draft report. Washington, DC: Office of
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Farm Chemicals Handbook.. 1986.
OH: Meister Publishing Co.
Farm chemicals handbook. Willoughby,
Fields T. 1984. Emergency Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Information on hexachlorobenzene (HCB) at Superfund
and potential Superfund sites. Memorandum to Arnold M. Edelman,
Chairman, Hexachlorobenzene Task Group, Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Holtorf RC. 1984. Preliminary quantitative usage analysis of dimethyl
tetrachloroterephthalate. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Janssens J, Van Vaeck L, Schepens D, and Adams F.
quantitative analysis of emissions of a municipal
installation. Comm Eur. Commun. EUR 7624: 28-38.
1982. Qualitative
incineration
and
Li RT, Spigarelli JL, Going JE. 1976. Sampling and analysis of selected
toxic substances, task 1A - hexachlorobenzene. Washington, DC: Office
of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-560/6-76-001 (PB 253-794).
Mould DB, Doelty MK, Burchmann EM. 1985. Classification of pesticides
based on the potential for occurrence of hexachlorobenzene as an impurity
and/or byproduct. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3976.
Mumma CE, Lawless EW. 1975. Survey of industrial processing data, Task
I - hexachlorobenzene, pollution from chlorocarbon processes.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No.
68-01-2105. EPA 560/3-75-003.
OSW. 1985. OSW report on HCB source and management assessment.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
PEI Associates, Inc. 1985. Sources of hexachlorobenzene.
Pelletier EN 1983. Report on Agricultural pesticide containing HCB.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, memo from EN Pelletier to H Testillman (EPA)
October 18, 1983.
52
-------
Pelletier EN. 1985. Fungicidal uses of HCB and other fungicides
possibly containing HCB. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Memo from EN Pelletier to P Tobin,
February 11, 1985.
Quinlivan SM, Ghasseni M, Shanty M. 1976. Survey of methods used to
control wastes containing hexachlorobenzene. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. PB 253 051.
Samuelsson U, Lindskog A. 1983. Chlorinated compounds in emissions from
municipal incinerators. Chemsophere. 12(4/5): 665-668.
Schutte WD. 1982. Preliminary quantitative usage analysis of picloram.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Schutte WD. 1984. Current benefits review of chlorothaloni1.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Thomson WT. 1979. Agricultural chemicals - Book II - herbicide.
Fresno, CA: Thompson Publications.
Tiernan TO, Taylor ML, Garrett GF et al. 1983. Chlorobenzodoxins,
chlorodibenzofurans and related compounds in the effluents from
combustion processors. Chemosphere, 12(4/5): 595-606.
Tobin PS. (unpublished). HPLC analysis of pesticides, Ti02, and
chlorinated organic solvents for HCB content. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances.
Torla RF. 1985. Preliminary quantitative usage analysis of PCNB.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1982. 1978 census of agriculture. Graphic
Summary. Vol. 5, Part 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.
USEPA. 1977. Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB): Position document 1.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
USEPA. 1980a. Development document for the aluminum forming point
source category. Draft report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and
Waste Management.
53 •
-------
USEPA. 1980b. Preliminary quantitative usage analysis of PCNB.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
USEPA. 1981a. Preliminary benefit analysis of pentachloronitrobenzene
(PCNB). Draft, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
USEPA. 1981b. Creosote, inorganic arsenials, pentachlorophenol -
Position Document No. 2/3. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Pesticide Programs NTIS-PB82-229956.
USEPA. 1983a. Development document for final effluent limitations and
standards for the rubber manufacturing point source category. Draft
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent
Guidelines Division, Office of Water.
USEPA. 1983b. Development document for proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and new source performance standards for the organic chemicals
and plastics and sythetic fibers industry. Washington, DC: Effluent
Guidelines Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1983c Treatability manual - industrial description. Volumes I
and II. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development.
USEPA. 1985a. Survey of perchloroethylene emission sources. Research
Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-450/3-85-017.
USEPA. 1985b. Survey of trichloroethylene emission sources. Research
Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-450/3-85-021.
USITC. 1985. Synthetic organic chemicals, United States production and
sales, 1984. Washington, DC: United States International Trade
Commission. USITC Publication 1745.
54
-------
4. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND TRANSPORT
4.1 Summary
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) exhibits high environmental mobility because
of its volatility from both water and landfills. Once in the
troposphere, HCB appears resistant to photodegradation and can be removed
by precipitation/dry deposition or possible transport to the
stratosphere. Slow photolytic dechlorination, however, appears to be the
principal mechanism for degradation in surface water. Although HCB has
been reported to be immobile in soil after agricultural application, it
can be transported in runoff water as an adsorbate on suspended
particles. In addition, transport by volatilization from the soil occurs
readily if the sorption capacity of the soil for HCB has been exceeded,
as it would be in a landfill. Volatilization from landfills is
considered to be the principal path for removal of HCB deposited therein
as a waste. Seepage into ground water is not considered to be a likely
problem. Some plants can accumulate HCB to an extent greater than the
soil HCB content in their roots and also in portions of the plant growing
closest to the soil. Bioaccumulation also occurs in aquatic animals, but
unchanged HCB can be depurated when the source of pollution is removed.
Microorganisms appear incapable of degrading HCB, but both terrestrial
and aquatic plants and animals are reported to effect slow
biotransformation of HCB to several compounds, primarily chlorinated
phenols and thiophenols. A summary of the environmental fate and
transport of HCB is presented in Table 4-1.
4.2 Photodegradation
Hexachlorobenzene absorbs ultraviolet radiation with wavelengths
<310 nm, and it has an absorption maximum at 290 nm (Dime 1982).
Nonetheless, photodegradation of HCB as a vapor, or as an adsorbate on
silica gel, has been reported as not occurring when HCB was irradiated at
290 nm for six days (Parlar 1978). Production of HC1 and C02 was
observable, however, when HCB was irradiated at 230 nm. Freitag et al.
(1984) also reported radiation above 290 nm to be ineffective with regard
to photodegradation of HCB adsorbed on silica gel. HCB is probably
photochemically stable in the troposphere (Parlar 1978), but degradation
in the stratosphere by photodissociation due to the action of the shorter
wavelength, higher ultraviolet light present there may be a mechanism for
atmospheric destruction.
When a dilute solution of HCB in distilled water or 2 percent aqueous
methanol was irradiated in a laboratory photoreactor or in summer
sunlight, half-lives of 284 + 62 and 293 + 163 hours were observed,
55
-------
Table 4-1. Summary of Environmental Fate and
Transport of Hexachlorobenzene
Environmental
process
Summary statement
Confidence
of data
Photolysis
Oxidation
Hydrolysis
Volatilization
Sorption
Bioaccumulation
Biodegradation
Slow photolytic dechlorination Medium
in the aquatic environment is probably
a major mechanism for degradation.
Photodissociation of any HCB that
diffuses upward to the stratosphere
should occur because of the action
of shorter wavelength, higher energy
ultraviolet 1ight.
Not a significant process. High
Not a significant process. High
Volatilization from water and landfills High
is a major transport path for removal
of hexachlorobenzene through
atmospheric dissipation.
Hexachlorobenzene is strongly sorbed High
to soil and sediments and is not
considered a danger to ground water;
it can, however, be transported on
particulates in runoff and surface
water.
Bioaccumulation occurs in plants and High
animals but can also be followed by
depuration of the unchanged compound
from aquatic animals.
Biodegradation occurs slowly and to High
a small extent in both plants and
animals, but microorganisms do not
degrade hexachlorobenzene.
56
-------
respectively (Dime 1982). The presence of 2 percent acetone increased
the photolysis rate to give a half-life in sunlight of 69 + 17 hours.
Approximately 15 percent of the reacted HCB was converted to
pentachlorobenzene; tetrachlorobenzene also was tentatively identified as
a product. Water can apparently serve as a hydrogen donor in the
photolytic dechlorination of hexachlorobenzene. Although photolysis in
the aquatic environment would be slow, it still makes (in comparison to
other processes) a major contribution to the global disposition of this
pollutant (Dime 1982).
4.3 Oxidation and Hydrolysis
Hexachlorobenzene is both thermally and hydrolytically stable under
conditions of the ambient environment (Callahan et al. 1979). It is
resistant to oxidation except under extreme conditions and reacts with
strong caustic solutions only above 130°C (Leoni and D'Arca 1976).
4.4 Volatilization
Dime (1982) has studied the rate of HCB volatilization from water
both in the presence and in the absence of a surface slick of dodecanol.
The surface slick did not retard volatilization. At 26°C, the half-lives
were 5 hours and 5.7 hours in the presence and absence of the dodecanol,
respectively. This compares well with the predicted half-life of 8 hours
given by calculations (Callahan et al. 1979) according to the method of
MacKay and Leinonen (1975).
In laboratory experiments designed to simulate conditions of an
outdoor pond, Sugiura et al. (1984) determined the half-life for
volatilization of dilute aqueous HCB to be 10 hours. This value (as well
as other laboratory-determined transport data) was successfully used in
the aquatic model of Neely and Blau (1976) to predict environmental
concentrations in an experimental outdoor pond. Schauerte et al. (1982)
found that the half-life for disappearance of HCB from an experimental
pond was 1.3 days. This half-life, however, was attributed to the
interaction of volatilization with sorption by suspended particulates and
biota. Volatilization from surface water is thus an important transport
pathway for HCB, but competition of volatilization with sorption and
bioaccumulation probably governs the short-term fate of HCB.
Volatilization is considered to be the principal transport path for
removal of HCB deposited as a waste in landfills (Farmer et al. 1980a,
Dime 1982). Covers of compacted wet soil and plastic sheeting reduce
this volatilization but do not eliminate it (Farmer et al. 1980b).
However, some of the hexachlorobenzene that is introduced into soil
57
-------
during agricultural use or deposited with rain and airborne particulates
is probably not volatilized readily (Beck and Hansen 1974, Ausmus et al.
1979, Scheunert et al. 1983). Beall (1976) followed the persistence of
HCB applied aerially (equivalent to 10 ppm in the top 5 cm of soil) to a
simulated pasture in a greenhouse for 19 months. Twenty hours after
application, the top 2 cm of soil contained 5.6 ppm HCB. Concentrations
found after 0.5, 1, 6.5, 12, and 19 months were 45.2 percent, 24.4
percent, 7.9 percent, 4.7 percent, and 3.4 percent of the initial 5.6
ppm. Concentrations in the 2 to 4 cm layer averaged 0.11 ppm with no
significant change throughout the 19 months. Although it appears that
HCB volatilizes readily from the soil surface but not the soil itself, an
alternative explanation is that the sorption capacity of the soil for HCB
had been exceeded in the top 2 cm during the initial application. After
19 months, the concentration (0.19 ppm) in the top 2 cm approached the
concentration (0.11 ppm) in the 2 to 4 cm layer. Under these
circumstances, sorption of HCB to the soil appears to compete
successfully with volatilization . In another example, loss of applied
HCB from a pine forest soil by both volatilization and leaching was less
than 0.1 percent over a period of 21 days (Ausmus et al. 1979).
Hexachlorobenzene apparently volatilizes from soil only when the sorptive
capacity of the soil has been exceeded, as it would be, for example, in a
saturated area of a landfill.
4.5 Sorption
Hexachlorobenzene has been reported to be very immobile in soil and
sediment with respect to partitioning with water (Griffin and Chou 1981,
Scheunert et al. 1983). In experiments conducted by Karickhoff and
Morris (1985), it was observed that sorption of HCB to natural aquatic
sediments required extended time periods for complete equilibration.
This sorption consisted of two components, an easily reversible one
requiring only a few hours to achieve an equilibrated exchange of HCB
with the water and a slow sorption that was not easily reversible and
required several weeks before equilibration occurred. Karickhoff and
Morris (1985) interpreted this observation as the consequence of sorption
of HCB to the surface of sediment particles (rapid exchange) and
diffusion of HCB within the interior of sediment particles (slow
exchange).
HCB can be transported from soil as an adsorbate on finely divided
particulates in runoff water (Ausmus et al. 1979). Presumably, HCB can
also be transported in surface water as an adsorbate on suspended
particulates. Transport on suspended particulates is probably
responsible for the contamination of Lake Ontario water and sediments by
hexachlorobenzene that was originally present in the Niagara River
58
-------
(Durham and Oliver 1983). Dime (1982) considers transport to the ocean
on finely divided particulates in runoff water and surface water to be a
minor but relevant mechanism for removal of HCB from the continental
environment. Leaching of HCB into ground water is not considered to be a
serious problem (Dime 1982, Scheunert et al. 1983, Griffin and Chou 1981).
4.6 Bioaccumulation
A much more detailed review of the literature (than is presented in
this subsection) concerning HCB bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and
depuration in aquatic and terrestrial organisms is presented in
USEPA (1986).
4.6.1 Terrestrial Plants
Some plants can accumulate HCB to an extent greater than the soil HCB
content in their roots and also in portions of the plant growing closest
to the soil (Smelt and Leistra 1974, Scheunert et al. 1983). Smelt
(1976) observed that the accumulation of HCB in leafy vegetables appears
to occur principally at the growth stage of seedlings. The roots of
plants generally accumulate higher concentrations of soil-applied organic
chemicals than do aerial plant parts. This observation has been
demonstrated for HCB with sugar beets, carrots, turnips, wheat, and
pasture grass (Smelt and Leistra 1974, Scheunert et al. 1983). When HCB
is applied directly to wheat seeds before they are planted, all parts of
the plant accumulate more of the chemical than they do through uptake of
soil-applied HCB (Scheunert et al. 1983). In a terrestrial laboratory
ecosystem, studied by Gile and Gillett (1979), the initial accumulation
(<20 ppm) of HCB in plants was followed by a decrease in concentration.
Table 4-2 summarizes data on the accumulation of HCB by terrestrial
plants. The agricultural product that accumulates the greatest amount of
HCB is the carrot root.
There are some contradictory studies that report the accumulation of
HCB in leafy plants to be higher than that listed in Table 4-2
(Dejonckheere et al. 1976, 1981; Hafner 1981). These studies, however,
were conducted in greenhouses or forcing beds where HCB, evaporating from
the soil, would not be rapidly dissipated to the atmosphere. Hafner
(1981) points out that temperature and moisture are higher in the soils
of greenhouses and forcing beds than they would be in the soil of an open
field. Under these indoor conditions, HCB could more easily volatilize
from the soil and condense on the cooler surfaces provided by the leafy
plants. Thus, higher amounts of HCB would be associated with the plant
leaves than could normally be absorbed from soil.
59
-------
Table 4-2. Accumulation of HCB in Terrestrial
Plants of Agricultural Relevance
Plant
Potato tubers3
Potatob
Tulip bulbs3
Shallot bulbs3
Sugar-beet bulbs3
Sugar-beet crowns3
Sugar-beet leaves3
Grass roots3
HCB (mg/kg)
Plant Soil
0.11
0.20
0.13
0.017
0.10
0.013
0.046
0.011
0.031
0.045
0.12
0.065
<0.002
0.16
0.056
0.095
0.012
0.027
0.010
0.014
0.004
0.005
0.002
0.022
0.010
0.017
0.006
0.81C
0.56C
0.19C
0.76d
0.039d
0.22
0.40
0.18
0.027
, 0.16
0.091
0.059
0.082
0.064
0.060
0.30
0.10
0.003
0.10
0.12
0.41
0.027
0.056
0.024
0.41
0.027
0.056
0.024
0.41
0.027
0.056
0.024
0.09
0. 14
0.07
0.033
0.001
Plant/Soil Ratio
O.SO
0.50
0.72
0.63
0.63
0.14
0.78
0.13
0.48
0.75
0.40
0.65
<0.67
1.60
0.47
0.23
0.44
0.48
0.42
0.03
0.15
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.37
0.30
0.25
9.0
4.0
2.7
23
39
GO
-------
Table 4-2. (Continued)
Plant
Grass blades3
(lower 5 cm)
Grass blades3
(above 5 cm)
Wheat roots6
wheat low stems
Wheat straw
wheat husks
Wheat grain
Wheat (total)
Carrot roots3
Carrot leaves3
Turnip roots3
Turnip leaves3
Lettucef
HCB (mg/kg)
Plant Soil
0.22C
0.20C
0.1 Oc
0.028°
0.042C
0.016C
0.003d
0.011d
_
-
-
-
-
1.25
0.48
0.44
0.25
0.18
0.014
0.029
0.031
0.04J
<0.02k
<0.02]
0.041
0.05J
0.02k
<0.021
0.09
0.14
0.07
0.09
0.14
0.07
0.033
0.12
_
-
-
.
:•
0.065
0.04
0.065
0.04
0.062
0.062
1.4h
0.20h
1.5h
l.lh
0.90h
0.30m
3.2m
1.9m
1 .5m
Plant/Soil Ratio
2.4
1 .4
1 .4
0.31
0.30
0.23
0.09
0.09
2.59
0.390
0.083
0.009
0.003
0.214
19
12
6.8
6.2
2.9
0.23
0.014
0.15
0.027
<0.018
<0.022
0:13
0.016
0.010
<0.013
61
-------
Table 4-2. (Continued)
Plant
HCB (mg/kg)
Plant Soil
<0.021
5.11
Plant/Soil Ratio
Lettuce*1 (continued)
0.05J
0.02k
<0.021
<0.02k
0.021
5.4"
2.8"
2.5"
4.QP
2.5P
0.009
0.007
<0.008
<0.005
<0.008
<0.004
Agricultural crops taken from fields that had been treated three to five times with
HCB-containing pentachloronitrobenzene. HCB content is based on dry sample mass
(Smelt and Leistra 1974).
Each entry represents 8 to 10 samples from a specific county in Western Slovakia.
It was not stated whether tubers or whole plants were analyzed, and it is uncertain
whether values are based on wet mass or dry mass (Uhnak et al. 1979).
Young grass (1 or 2 months after sowing).
One-year old pasture.
Relative content of HCB-14C in sunnier wheat (wet mass) in relation to soil (air
dried) residues at 0 to 20 cm depth (Scheunert et al. 1983).
Botrilex dust (20% pentachloronitrobenzene plus HCB impurity) applied as 34 g of
dust/m2 to greenhouse soil and raked in before planting lettuce (Paxton and Purser
1982).
Harvested at approximate 2 g fresh mass of plants.
One application of Botrilex dust.
Second crop: 45 days after first harvest.
Third crop: 90 days after first harvest.
Fourth crop: 135 days after first harvest.
Fifth crop: 225 days after first harvest.
Two applications of Botrilex dust.
Three applications of Botrilex dust.
Four applications of Botrilex dust.
Five applications of Botrilex dust.
9
h
i
j
k
1
m
n
P
q
62
-------
4.6.2 Aquatic Biota
The bioaccumulation potential of hexachlorobenzene has been studied
using radiotracer techniques in model aquatic ecosystems, and in all
studies, HCB has been found to be bioaccumulated and resistant to
biodegradation (Callahan et al. 1979). Isensee et al. (1976) observed
that for any specific concentration of added HCB, higher food chain
organisms (such as snails and mosquito larva) always contained 1.5 to 2
times more hexachlorobenzene than lower food chain organisms such as
algae and daphnids. Furthermore, the highest food chain organism
(catfish) in the study accumulated 10 times more hexachlorobenzene than
did any other organisms.
Dime (1982) has found that freshwater clams (i.e., Corbicula
malensensis) rapidly remove HCB from water with steady state being
reached in 50 to 60 hours. His study also showed that clams can depurate
the unchanged chemical, although much more slowly, when they are placed
in an uncontaminated environment (half-life for elimination was longer
than 30 hours).
Freitag et al. (1984) have observed bioaccumulation factors for HCB
in algae and fish to be 24,800 and 2,600, respectively. The algae were
exposed to a constant concentration of 0.05 mg/1 for 24 hours, and the
fish were exposed at the same concentration of HCB for 3 days. Freitag
et al. (1984) state that their bioaccumulation factor for HCB in fish is
a nonequilibrium value. Using a computerized kinetic approach, Kosian et
al. (1981) estimated that a steady-state bioconcentration factor for HCB
in freshwater fish should be 52,000. Based on this bioconcentration
factor, Niimi and Cho (1981) have interpreted the relative HCB levels
found in the water of Lake Ontario, the lake's Coho salmon, and the smelt
and alewives in the salmon stomachs to mean that bioaccumulation rather
than bioconcentration has been the more important process in determining
the contamination levels of HCB in these fish.
Schauerte et al. (1982) investigated the distribution of
hexachlorobenzene in the water, sediment, and biota of a group of
experimental ponds. After addition of HCB to the pond, the half-life for
its decrease in the water was 1.3 days. Concomitantly, there was a rapid
build-up of HCB in the sediment and biota followed by a slow decrease in
the sediment over a period of three years and a somewhat more rapid
decrease in the biota. These observations can be rationalized by
recognizing that, although the initial rates of sorption and
bioaccumulation of HCB successfully compete with its rate of
volatilization from water, equilibrium partitioning of HCB eventually
decreases the HCB concentration in sediment and biota as the HCB
63
-------
volatilizes from the water. In this case, the rate of volatilization is
much faster than the rate of desorption or depuration. Therefore, the
sediment and aquatic biota can act not only as a short-term sink for HCB,
but also as a long-term source.
4.7 Biodegradation
Although hexachlorobenzene is degraded very slowly by both plants and
animals (Callahan et al. 1979, Scheunert et al. 1983, Sandermann et al.
1984), microorganisms appear to have little or no ability to degrade this
compound (Isensee et al. 1976, Tabak et al. 1981). Aerobic mixed
cultures showed no tendency to acclimate themselves to hexachlorobenzene
after three weekly subcultures (Tabak et al. 1981). Soil biotic activity
(measured by C0£ efflux) was inhibited by HCB at all doses in a pine
forest microcosm (Ausmus et al. 1979). Scheunert et al. (1983)
concluded, after studying the fate of 14C-labeled HCB that had been
applied to wheat field microcosms under outdoor conditions, that HCB
metabolism in soil is negligible. Isensee et al. (1976) have reported
that no loss of HCB occurred in soil cultures under aerobic or anaerobic
conditions over a period of one year. Freitag et al. (1984) were not
able to detect any degradation of HCB in activated sludge.
Most of the hexachlorobenzene taken up by terrestrial'plants appears
to become incorporated into high molecular weight organic matter,
nonextractable with water or organic solvents. This nonextractable
material amounts to 70 percent of absorbed HCB in wheat grain (Scheunert
et al. 1983). Sufficient extractable material was available only for
identification of the major metabolite, pentachlorothiophenol. This
metabolite represents less than 1 percent of the HCB absorbed by the
wheat plant. Smaller amounts of unidentified compounds and unchanged HCB
constituted the remainder of the extractable material.
It is generally accepted that fish excrete accumulated hexachloro-
benzene primarily unchanged, at a rate related to its lipophilicity
(Zitko 1977). In an aquatic microcosm to which 14C-HCB had been added,
Lu and Metcalf (1975) found that unchanged hexachlorobenzene accounted
for 84 percent of the total radioactivity in the snail, 67 percent in the
water flea, 65 percent in mosquito larva, and 64 percent in fish.
Pentachlorophenol was identified in algae, in mosquito larvae, and in the
aqueous phase as a degradation product. Lu and Metcalf (1975) considered
HCB to be more easily biodegraded than DDT by an order of magnitude in
aquatic ecosystems.
64
-------
4.8 References
Ausmus BS, Kimbrough S, Jackson DR, Lindberg S. 1979. The behavior of
hexachlorobenzene in pine forest microcosms: transport and effects on
soil processes. Environ. Pollut. 20:103-111.
Beall ML, Jr. 1976. Persistence of aerially applied hexachlorobenzene on
grass and soil. J. Environ. Qual. 5:367-369.
Beck J and Hansen KE. 1974. The degradation of quintozene,
pentachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, and pentachloroaniline in soil.
Pestic. Sci. 5:41-48.
Callahan MA, Slimak MW, Gabel NW, May DP, Fowler CF et al. 1979.
Water-related environmental fate of 129 priority pollutants. Vol. II.
Washington, DC: Office of Water Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-440/4-79-029b.
Dejonckheere W, Steurbaut W, Kips RH. 1976. Residues of quintozene, its
contaminants and metabolites in soil, lettuce, and witloof-chicory,
Belgium - 1969-74. Pestic. Monlt. J. 10:68-73.
Dejonckheere W, Steurbaut W, Kips RH. 1981. Problems caused by
quintozene and hexachlorobenzene residues in lettuce and chicory
cultivation. In: Decomposition of toxic and nontoxic organic compounds
in soils. M.R. Overcash, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers
Inc., pp. 15-24.
Dime RA. 1982. Environmental fate of hexachlorobenzene. Ph. D.
Dissertation, University Microfilms International. Order No. 82-20134.
Durham RW, Oliver BG. 1983. History of Lake Ontario contamination from
the Niagara River by sediment radiodating and chlorinated hydrocarbon
analysis. J. Great Lakes Res. 9:160-168.
Farmer WJ, Yang MS, Letey J, Spencer WF. 1980a. Hexachlorobenzene: its
vapor pressure and vapor phase diffusion in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
44:676-680.
Farmer WJ et al. 1980b. Land disposal of hexachlorobenzene wastes.
Controlling vapor movement in soil. Cincinnati, OH: Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory. EPA 600/2-80-119.
Freitag D, Lay JP, Korte F. 1984. Environmental Hazard Profile - Test
results as related to structures and translation into the environment.
In: QSAR in Environmental Toxicology. KLE Kaiser, et al. Netherlands:
D. Reidel Publishing Co., pp.111-136.
65
-------
Gile JD, Gillett JW. 1979. Fate of selected fungicides in a terrestrial
laboratory ecosystem. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:1159-1164
Griffin RA, Chou SFJ. 1981. Attenuation of polybrominated biphenyls and
hexachlorobenzene by earth materials. Cincinnati, OH: Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/2-81-191.
Hafner M. 1981. Hexachlorobenzene residues in vegetables as a result of
hexachlorobenzene adsorption from the soil. In: Decomposition of toxic
and nontoxic organic compounds in soils. M.R. Overcash, ed. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc. pp. 25-38.
Isensee AR, Holden ER, Wool son EA, Jones GE. 1976. Soil persistence and
aquatic bioaccumulation potential of hexachlorobenzene. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 24:1210-1214. (as quoted in Callahan et al. 1979).
Karickhoff SW, Morris KR. 1985. Sorption dyanamics of hydrophobic
pollutants in sediment suspensions. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4:469-479.
Kosian P, Lemke A, Studders K, Veith G. 1981. The precision of the ASTM
bioconcentration test. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA 600/3-81-022, (NTIS PB81-168932).
Leoni V, D'Arca SU. 1973. Experimental data and critical review of the
occurrence of HCB in the Italian environment. Sci. Total Environ.
5: 253-272.
Lu P, Metcalf RL. 1975. Environmental fate and biodegradabi1ity of
benzene derivatives as studied in a model aquatic ecosystem. Environ.
Health Perspect. 10:269-284. (as quoted in Callahan et al. 1979).
Mackay D, Leinonen PJ. 1975. Rate of evaporation of low-solubility
contaminants from water bodies to atmosphere. Environ. Sci. Technol.
9:1178-1180.
Neely WB, Blau GE. 1976. The use of laboratory data to predict the
distribution of chlorpyrifos in a fish pond. In: Khan MAQ (ed)
Pesticides in aquatic environments. New York: Plenum Press.
pp. 145-163. (as quoted in Sugiura et al. 1984).
Niimi AJ, Cho CY. 1981. Elimination of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) by
rainbow trout (Salmo qairdneri) and the examination of its kinetics in
Lake Ontario salmonids. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:1350-1356.
Parlar H. 1978. Organochlorine compounds and their reactions in the
atmosphere. Ecotox. Environ. Safety. 2:219-232. (as quoted in
Dime 1982).
66
-------
Paxton ARP, Purser D. 1982. Build-up and subsequent decline of residues
of quintozene and hexachlorobenzene in lettuce in sequential crops.
Pestic. Sci. 13:401-406.
Sandermann H., Jr., Scheel D, Trenck TVD. 1984.
cultures to study the metabolism of environmental
Environ. Safety 8:167-182.
Use of plant cell
chemicals. Ecotoxical
Schauerte W, Lay JP, Klein
organochlorine xenobiotics
Safety. 6:560-569.
W, Korte F. 1982. Long-term fate of
in aquatic ecosystems. Ecotox. Environ.
Scheunert I, Marra C. Viswanathan R, Klein W, Korte F. 1983. Fate of
hexachlorobenzene - 14C in wheat plants and soil under outdoor
conditions. Chemosphere 12(7/8):843-858.
Smelt JH. 1976. The behavior of quintozene and hexachlorobenzene
soil and their absorption into corps. Gewasbescherming. 7:49-58.
German; translation)
in the
(In
Smelt JH, Leistra M. 1974. Hexachlorobenzene in soils and crops after
soil treatment with pentachloronitrobenzene. Agric. Environ. 1:65-71.
Sugiura K, Masahtro A, Kaneko S, et al. 1984. Fate of
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, pentachlorophenol, p-chlorobiphenyl, and
hexachlorobenzene in an outdoor experimental pond: comparison between
observations and predictions based on laboratory data. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 13:745-758.
Tabak H, Quave SA, Mashni CI, Barth EF. 1981
with organic priority pollutant compounds. J
Fed. 53:1503-1509.
Biodegradability studies
Water Pollut. Control
Uhnak J. Mahelova E., Sackmauerova M, Tibenska M. 1979. Transfer of
hexachlorobenzene and chlorinated insecticide residues from soil into
plants. Agrochemia. 19:154-156. (In Russian; translation).
USEPA 1986. Environmental hazard assessment
Revised draft. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Environmental Protection Agency.
of hexachlorobenzene.
Toxic Substances, U.S.
Zitko V. 1977. Uptake and excretion of chlorinated and brominated
hydrocarbons by fish. Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report No.
737. Fisheries and Environmental Sciences Resource Branch, St. Andrews,
New Brunswick, (as quoted in Callahan et al. 1979).
67
-------
68
-------
5. MONITORING DATA
This section presents the available monitoring data for HCB. In
general, these data indicate that HCB is a ubiquitous pollutant; it has
been detected in all environmental media (air, water, and land) and
numerous types of living organisms, including insects, aquatic biota, and
mamma1s.
The monitoring data in this section have been organized into five
categories. Section 5.1 presents data from the diet studies conducted by
the Food and Drug Administration. Section 5.2 has a summary of FDA's
Surveillance and Compliance Monitoring Program. Section 5.3 contains
information from the various studies performed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service; data are presented for HCB residues found in fish, starlings,
and ducks. In Section 5.4, the results of the analyses of HCB residues
in livestock, as performed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, are
discussed. The National Human Adipose Tissue Survey results are detailed
in Section 5.5. Section 5.6 contains a compilation of data from numerous
HCB monitoring studies that have been reported in the open literature.
5.1 FDA Total Diet Study
5.1.1 Program Description
The Total Diet Study, initiated by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) in the mid-1960s, consists of analyses of ready-to-eat foods for
residues of pesticides, industrial chemicals, radionuclides, and
essential element content. Analysis for HCB residues began in fiscal
year (FY) 1970. The analytical methods used for this program are
contained in FDA's Pesticide Analytical Manual (FDA 1971). Limits of
quantitation for HCB are about ten times lower than those achieved in
FDA's Surveillance and Compliance Monitoring Program (i.e., 0.001 ppm
rather than 0.01 ppm).
Until mid-FY 1982, the food items collected and the food consumption
values used in this program were based primarily on the 1965 USDA
Household Food Consumption Survey. The prescribed balanced diets of
three age groups in each of four geographic regions (see Figure 5-1) were
analyzed: adults (16 to 19 year old males), infants (6 months old), and
toddlers (2 years old). The Total Diet. Studies for infants and toddlers
were not initiated until FY 1975. To perform a total diet study, a 2- to
4-week food supply was collected in the form of market basket samples
from several retail stores in one of the four regions. Generally, 20
adult and 10 infant/toddler market baskets were collected each year. The
collected foods were separated into several classes of commodities (12
for the adult diet, 11 for the infant and toddler diets), prepared as for
consumption, and the food items in each class were blended prior to
analysis.
69
-------
I
II
III
IV
- Wnl
- South
- North Ctntril
- Norlhwtt
Figure 5-1. FDA total diet study regions.
-------
Starting in mid-FY 1982, the Total Diet Study was revised to reflect
more recent (1976-1980) food consumption data and to involve the analysis
of 234 individual food items rather than food class composites. In
addition, the dietary intakes of eight age-sex groups are calculated
rather than three age groups. Four market baskets (one from each
geographic region) are collected each year. Only preliminary data for
the period 1982-1984 are available for this revised study.
5.1.2 Summary of Results
Based on the results of the Total Diet Studies, FDA estimated the
average daily dietary intake of chemicals for each age group. Table 5-1
summarizes these estimated intakes for HCB, and Figure 5-2 graphically
presents the estimates by year for each age group. There is an apparent
rise in HCB intakes for toddlers and infants during the late 1970s
followed by a decrease through the 1980s .
Tables 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 summarize the occurrence frequencies of HCB
in each food class by year for each of the three age groups. It is
evident from these tables that the dairy products; meat, fish, and
poultry; and oils and fats* food classes account for the majority of
the HCB detections. Figure 5-3 graphically depicts the percent of
occurrence of HCB in each of these food classes by year for each of the
three age groups. Similar to the increase in dietary intakes for infants
and toddlers, a noticeable peak in the occurrence of HCB in the late
1970s followed by a decline is evident for each age group.
Figures 5-4 and 5-5 show the daily per person intake of HCB from the
dairy products (combined milk and other dairy product food classes),
meat/fish/poultry, and oils/fats food groups relative to the total daily
intake for infants and toddlers, respectively. It is evident from the
figures that for FY 1977-1980 dairy products generally account for the
majority of HCB intake for toddlers and infants. The oils/fats food
group accounts for the largest fraction of the intake in FY 1975, 1976,
1980, and 1981/1982. (Published information does not provide sufficient
data to construct a similar figure for adult intake.)
The dramatic increase in intake for both toddlers and infants during
1977 was apparently caused by the detection of a relatively high
concentration of HCB in one of the whole milk composites (3 ppb).
Because of the high intake of milk by these age groups and the skewing
effect of this one sample on the calculated avarage HCB level in milk,
the calculated HCB intake may be unrealistically high.
**The oils/fats food class includes items such as peanut butter,
mayonnaise, salad dressings, shortening, and margarine.
71
-------
Table 5-1. FDA Total Diet Studies - Daily Dietary Intakes of
HCB for Fiscal Years 1970 to 1982/84
Estimated daily dietary intake of HCB (ua/ka body wt/day)3- b
No
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981/82
1982/84
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981/82
1982/84
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981/82
1982/84
. of market No. of
baskets cities
30
30
35
30
30
20
20
25
20
20
20
27
8
10
10
12
10
10
10
13
8
10
10
12
10
10
10
13
8
28
27
32
30
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
27
NA
10
10
12
10
10
10
13
NA
10
10
12
10
10
10
13
NA
National Geoaraohic reaional averaaes
average West North East
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adults (16-19 year old males)
.0006
.0004
.0057
.0010
.0046
.0019 0.0035 0.0021
.0018
.0039
.0032
.0042
.0020
.0027
Toddlers (2 years old)
.0064
.0042 0.0158 Trace
.0219 0.0134 0.0621
.0145
.0077
.0058
.0046
.0044
Infants (6 months old)
.0044
.0009 0.0031 0.0000
.0382 0.0095 0.1433
.0116
.0101
.0061
.0056
.0017
North Central South
0.0005 0.0017
0.0038 Trace
0.0068 0.0048
0.0001 Trace
0.0002 Trace
NA - Not available.
aTypical body weights assumed by FOA are: 69.1 kg for adults; 13.7 kg for toddlers and
8.2 kg for infants.
bGeographic regional average intakes are available only for those years listed.
72
-------
X
o -
i
O
3
O
0.04
0.035 -
0.03 -
0.025 -
0.02 -H
0.015 -
0.01 -
0.005 -i
61/82 82/84
Adults
Y«ar
ToddUra
Infants
*The dramatic increase in intake for both toddlers and infants during
1977 was apparently caused by the detection of a relatively high
concentration of HCB in one of the whole milk composites (3 ppb).
Because of the high intake of milk by these age groups and the skewing
effect of this one sample on the calculated average HCB level in milk,
the calculated HCB intake may be unrealistically high.
Figure 5-2. FDA total diet studies-HCB daily dietary intake. 1970-1984.
-------
Table 5-2. FDA Total Diet Studies for Infants - Surmiary
of HCB Detection Frequency in Market Basket
Samples for Fiscal Years 1975 - 1980
Food class
Total
Percent of market basket samples
that contain HCB residues
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981/82
Drinking water
Whole milk
Other dairy products
Meat. fish, and poultry
Grain and cereal products
Potatoes
Vegetables
Fruit and fruit juices
Oils and fats
Sugar and adjuncts
Beverages
ND
20
10
30
ND
ND
ND
NO
33
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
20
NO
13
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
33
25
17
NO
NO
8.3
NO
100
NO
NO
ND
50
40
40
NO
13
ND
NO
100
NO
ND
NO
50
40
30
ND
ND
NO
NO
30
ND
ND
ND
30
30
30
NO
NO
ND
ND
20
NO
ND
NO
15
NO
23
ND
ND
ND
ND
23
ND
ND
7.0
3.1
11.1 17
14
10
5.6
ND - Not dectected.
a Includes samples containing "trace" residues of HCB (i.e., detected, but too
low to quantify). Although the nominal limit of quantification of the analytical
method for organochlorine pesticides is 0.002 ppm and the nominal limit of
detection is 0.001 ppm, lower levels of HCB have been quantified or detected in
some samples.
74
-------
Table 5-3. FDA Total Diet Studies for Toddlers - Suimary
of HCB Detection Frequency in Market Basket
Samples for Fiscal Years 1975 - 1980
Food class
Total
Percent of market basket samples
that contain HCB residues
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981/82
Drinking water
Whole milk
Other dairy products
Meat, fish, and poultry
Grain and cereal products
Potatoes
vegetables
Fruit and fruit juices
Oils and fats
Sugar and adjuncts
Beverages
NO
20
30
30
NO
NO
ND
NO
40
ND
ND
ND
NO
50
40
ND
10
ND
NO
40
ND
ND
ND
33
67
50
ND
8.3
ND
ND
58
8.3
ND
NO
50
80
60
NO
10
ND
ND
90
NO
NO
NO
50
80
70
ND
ND
ND
NO
100
ND
NO
ND
30
90
70
ND
ND
ND
NO
100
NO
NO
ND
15
62
46
ND
NO
ND
ND
9.2
7.7
ND
11
13
20
26
30
26
20
NO - Not dectected.
a Includes samples containing "trace" residues of HCB (i.e., detected but too low
to quantify). Although the nominal limit of quantification of the analytical
method for organochlorine pesticides is 0.002 ppm and the nominal limit of
detection is 0.001 ppm, lower levels of HCB have been quantified or detected in
some samples.
75
-------
Table 5-4. FOA Total Diet Studies for Adults - Summary of HCB Detection Frequency in
Market Basket Samples for Fiscal Years, 1970-1982
CT»
Percent positive
Food class
Dairy products
Meat, fish, and poultry
Grain and cereal products
Potatoes
Leafy vegetables
Legume vegetables
Root vegetables
Garden fruit
Frui ts
Oils, fats, and shortening
Sugar and adjuncts
Beverages
Total
1970
ND
6.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13
ND
ND
1.7
1971
13
3.3
ND
NO
3.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.7
1972
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.6
ND
ND
1.0
1973
3.3
6.7
ND
ND
ND
NO
3.3
ND
ND
20
ND
ND
2.8
1974
10
13
ND
3.3
ND
3.3
3.3
ND
ND
23
ND
ND
4.7
market
1975
40
35
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
5.0
ND
8.3
baskets (20.001 ppm HCB)
1976
25
55
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15
ND
NO
7.9
1977
20
68
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
40
4.0
ND
11
1978
50
90
ND
ND
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
95
5.0
ND
20
1979
70
100
ND
5.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
65
ND
ND
20
1980
40
75
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
70
20
ND
17
1981/82
15
59
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
82
15
ND
14
ND - Not detected.
alncludes samples containing "trace" residues of HCB (i.e., detected, but too low to quantify). Although the
nominal limit of quantification of the analytical method for organochlorine pesticides is 0.002 ppm and the
nominal limit of detection is 0.001 ppm, lower levels of HCB have been quantified or detected in some samples.
-------
1OO
Oils. Fata
Figure 5-3. FDA total diet studies for infants, toddlers,
and adults, HCB detection frequency, 1975-1982.
77
-------
0.32
o
•o
o
3
m
o
00
1976
1977
Total
Dairy
1978
Fiscal Y«ar
O M«ats
1979
1980
Oil/Fats
1981/82
*The dramatic increase in intake for both toddlers and infants
during 1977 was apparently caused by the detection of a relatively
high concentration of HCB in one of the whole milk composites (3 ppb).
Because of the high intake of milk by these age groups and the skewing
effect of this one sample on the calculated average HCB level in milk,
the calculated HCB intake may be unrealistically high.
Figure 5-4. FDA total diet studie
nfants, HCB intake (ug/day), 1975-1982.
-------
X
0
o
3
•
|
ffl
O
X
1975
Total
1976
1977
Dairy
1978
Fiscal Y«ar
O M«at»
1979
1980
Oil/Fata
1981/82
*The dramatic increase in intake for both toddlers and infants
during 1977 was apparently caused by the detection of a relatively
high concentration of HCB in one of the whole milk composites (3 ppb).
Because of the high intake of milk by these age groups and the skewing
effect of this one sample on the calculated average HCB level in milk,
the calculated HCB intake may be unrealistically high.
Figure 5-5. FDA total diet studies for toddlers, HCB intake (ug/day), 1975-1982.
-------
During the 1973 through 1978 surveys , individual food items in the
adult dairy products and meat-fish-poultry food classes were analyzed for
HC8. Tables 5-5 and 5-6 summarize the results of the analyses for these
two food classes, respectively. Even when detected, HCB residues were
low; however, there is a distinct peak in the percent occurrence of HCB
in 1976 to 1978.
5.2 FDA Surveillance Monitoring Data
5.2.1 Program Description
FDA's monitoring program for domestic and imported foods involves the
testing of large numbers of samples of fresh fruits, fresh vegetables,
grains, animal feedstuffs, milk and dairy products, fish, and a variety
of processed products and by-products. FDA conducts both surveillance
and compliance monitoring. Surveillance samples are those samples
collected without suspicion of excessive residues or pesticide chemical
misuse. Compliance samples are those collected when excessive residues
are suspected. Only the results of the surveillance monitoring are
included in this report.
Domestic samples are usually collected at major harvesting and
distribution points throughout the United States. Samples of imported
food are collected at ports of entry into the United States. All samples
are analyzed in FDA laboratories primarily by multiresidue methods of
analysis. Limits of quantitation for HCB are generally about 0.01 ppm.
Commodity priorities for testing may be modified annually and may be
different for domestic and imported foods (Duggan et al. 1983).
5.2.2 Summary of Results
(1) Foods. With the exception of fiscal year (FY) 1977, the results
of domestic surveillance sampling are available for fiscal years 1970
through 1984. The results of import surveillance sampling are available
for FY 1978 through 1984; before 1978, samples of imported food were not
identified separately for surveillance and compliance purposes. The
sampling results summarized in this section were obtained from two
sources. Results for FY 1970 through 1976 were obtained from an FDA
report (Duggan et al. 1983) that presents summary data for commodity
groups (i.e., root vegetables, fruits, ate.). Results for FY 1978
through 1984 were supplied in computer printouts to EPA by the FDA Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. These printouts contain
commodity-specific results (e.g., peanuts, apples, etc.) enabling more
accurate identification of the actual foods in which HCB has been
detected.
80
-------
Table 5-5. FDA Total Diet Studies - HCB Residues in Individual Commodities
of the Adult Dairy Composite for Fiscal Years 1973 to 1978
Commodity
Whole milk
Evaporated milk
Buttermilk
Nonfat dry milk
Ice cream
Cottage cheese
Processed cheese
Natural cheese
Butter
Skim milk
Ice milk
Total
Percent detected
1973
1/4
1/4
0/7
O/?
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
O/?
0/3
2/-43
(4.6%)
Frequency of
1974 1975
0/4
0/4
O/?
O/?
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
O/?
0/3
0/-43
(0%) (
0/4
1/4
O/?
O/?
1/4
0/4
2/4
0/4
3/4
O/?
0/2
7/42
17%)
detection
1976 1977
1/4
2/4
O/?
O/?
3/4
1/4
3/4
3/4
4/4
1/4
1/2
19/43
(44%)
2/4
3/4
0/1
0/4
3/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
?/3
1/2
23/38
(61%)
Range of detected values (ppbla
1978 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
1/4 T T T T
1/4 T T T T T
n /i
n /A _ _ _ _ _ _
3/4 T T T-l t-3
1 /A ITT
A /A __ TP T-l T-"7 T-l
A /A T 7 T 1 T 7
j /A T T T 1
20/41 T T-6 ' T-4 T-3 T-4
(49%)
aT = trace, which is less than 1 ppb.
Source: Johnson and Manske (1976, 1977). Manske and Johnson (1977), Johnson et al. (1981, 1984),
Podrebarac (1984).
81
-------
Table 5-6. FDA Total Diet Studies - HCB Residues In Individual Commodities
of the Adult Meat-Fish-Poultry Composite for Fiscal Years 1973 to 1978
Commodity
Roast beef
Ground beef ~
Pork chops
Bacon
Chicken
Fish fillet
Canned fish
Shrimp
Lunch meat
Frankfurters
Beef liver
Eggs :
Ham
Round steak
Veal
Lamb
Total
Percent detected
1973
2/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
1/4
0/4
0/1
0/4
0/4
1/4
0/4
0/4
1/4
0/2
1/3
6/~59
(10%)
Frequency of
1974 1975
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
1/4
0/4
O/?
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
1/1
2/~59
(3.4%)
0/4
2/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
1/4
2/4
0/2
2/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
1/1
1/1
0/1
9/~57
(16%)
detection
1976 1977
3/4
2/4
1/4
1/4
2/4
2/4
1/4
0/2
2/4
2/4
1/4
2/4
0/4
0/1
0/1
2/2
23/57
(40%)
4/4
4/4
0/4
2/4
0/4
3/4
1/4
0/2
3/4
4/4
2/4
2/4
1/4
2/4
2/2
1/2
31/58
(53%)
Range of detected values (ppbla
1978 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
o/rt 9_7 _ _ T "> T £ T
,4/4 T 2 T-3 T-l
D*
O/yl _ _„ 7 Q T
2/4 211 T-3 T-5 T-4
1/4 T-2 T 31
n/? ' - -
3/4 T-3 T-2 T-1 /"^S
2/4 2 T T-1 T-l
' 1 /A. T T 1 T
(I/A _ _ T
1/4 1 T T T T
2/2 2 1 T-l
2/2 1 16 2 3 T-2
28/58 . 1-7 1-16 T-3 T-30 T-5 T-4
(48%)
aT = trace, which is less than 1 ppb.
Source: Johnson and Manske (1976. 1977), Manske and Johnson (1977), Johnson et al. (1981, 1984),
Podrebarac (1984).
82
-------
During the period 1970 to 1984, more than 71,000 samples of domestic
food were analyzed for HCB residues. HCB was detected (including trace
levels of less than 0.01 ppm) in slightly less than two percent of the
samples tested. During the period FY 1978 to 1984, HCB was detected in
2.3 percent of the tested domestic foods when trace values are included,
but in only 0.60 percent of the foods when trace values are excluded;
differentiation between trace and non-trace detections is not possible
for the FY 1970 to 1976 results. HCB was detected in 1.34 percent of the
more than 19,000 samples of imported food tested during FY 1978 to 1984
(0.41 percent if trace values are excluded).
Although the overall HCB detection frequency has been low (less than
2 percent of all samples) in both foreign and domestic foods, HCB has
been detected much more frequently in certain commodity groups and
individual product types than in others. For example, although dairy
products and fish, taken as a group, account for 21.2 percent of all
domestic samples analyzed and 7.5 percent of all imported samples
analyzed, they account for 86.4 percent of all HCB detections in domestic
foods and 66.5 percent of the detections in imported foods. Table 5-7
summarizes the HCB detection frequencies in 39 commodity groups over the
period FY 1970 to 1984. As can be seen from the table, HCB has been
detected in samples from 19 of the 39 commodity groups. Appendix A
provides tables showing more detailed summaries of these data for each
year of sampling.
Table 5-8 lists individual products (except for individual types of
cheese and fish) in which HCB has been detected at quantifiable levels
(i.e., _>0.01 ppm) during FY 1978 through 1984. In addition to dairy
products and fish, HCB was detected in more than 0.5 percent of the
domestic samples of the following products: wheat, peanuts, stringbeans,
squash, lettuce, parsley, carrots, parsnips, and potatoes. Table 5-9
lists those individual products in which HCB has been detected at only
trace levels during FY 1978 through 1984.
No attempt has been made to quantitatively measure residue trends,
primarily because there is no assurance that similar or equivalent
products are represented for comparison of samples on an annual basis.
Table 5-10, however, shows that for four major commodity groupings (fish,
milk/cheese, fruits, and vegetables) there has been no readily
discernible temporal trend in the overall detection frequency.
(2) Animal feeds. HCB was detected in only 1 percent of the more
than 5,000 animal feed samples analyzed by FDA during the period FY 1970
to 1976. Table 5-11 summarizes the results of this FDA testing for HCB.
Overall, the HCB detection frequency was low and when detected the levels
83
-------
Table 5-7. Summary of FDA Domestic and Import Surveillance Monitoring for 1970 to 1984a
CO
Product
code
02A
02B-Y
OX
0-1
o:>
07
U')A
O'lC-l
12
13
14
15
16A-D
16E-G
IbJ-L
16M-Y
18
20-22
23
24A-I.
24 1 -V
25A-C
25J-N
26
27
Number of samples
1970-1976 I978-1984 1978-1984
Commodity group Domestic Domestic Import
whole grains 1032
Milled grain products
Hakt-ry prudui: Is
Hcn.aroni and noodle products
Ct-i'trdl preparations
Snack 1 ood items
Butter
Milk and milk products 4441
Cheese and cheese products 758
Ice cream and related
products
Imitation milk products
Egg and egg products ' 2445
Fish and lish products 2898
Shel ll ish 443
Crustaceans
Other aquatic animals
and produi. ts
Vegetable protein products
Fruits anil Iruit products 4603
Nuts and edible seeds 174
Btoiis , v i tie , and ear
vegetables 3396
Leal and stein vc-getables 5134
Mushrooms
koot and tuber vegetables 3178
Vegetable oils
Dressings and condiments
1952
136
14
0
6
12
145
3165
764
71
19
2607
3157
364
358
38
1
7820
906
6809
7388
182
4094
155
3
42
76
6
78
8
3
8
51
443
2
0
264
951
65
90
37
0
3729
264
10,753
1172
102
789
23
3
% Positive (including trace values)b % Positive (not including trace values)
1970-1976 1978-1984 1978-1984 1978-1984 1978-1984
Domestic Domestic Import Domestic Import
0.10 0.56
0
0
-
0
0
13.79
3.25 3.00
2.11 4.97
0
0
0.61 0.31
5.52 18.40
1.13 1.10
0.84
0
0
0.37 0.43
2.30 4.64
0.05 0.73
1.36 0.26
1.65
1.07 0.71
0
0
4.76
0
0
11.54
0
0
25.00
3.92
19.64
0
-
0.38
8.62
3.08
3.33
8.11
-
0.05
1.52
0.18
0
3.92
3.80
0
0
0.26
0
0
-
0
0
2.07
0.57
0.39
0
0
0.08
5.23
0
0
0
0
0
2.54
0.12
0.07
1.10
0.20
0
0
0
0
0
1.28
0
0
0
0
6.55
0
-
0.38
1 .47
0
0
5.40
-
0.03
0.38
0.06
0
1.96
2.53
0
0
-------
Table 5-7. (Continued)
Product
code
28
29
:io
•./
-i •;
,'S'l
35
00 ™
<•" 37
38
40
41
45-4<:>
Commodity group
$l>ii.fs, llcwors, and salts
Soil drinks and waters
Bi-VL-rai|i'- liases ,
i om.t-'i' rates , and nectars
i ui i c-i? and tea
A 1 1.0(10 1 i r. beverages
Camly witliout chocolate
Chocolate and cocoa products
Gelatin, rennet, pudding,
and pie mixes
Food sweeteners
Multiple food dinners,
gravies, and sauces
Soups
Infant and junior
food products
Dietary conventional foods
Food additives
Number of samples
1970-1976 1978-1984 1978-1984
Domestic Domestic Import
117
24
2
12
30
0
0
0
51
21
3
471 18
2
0
284
5
8
78
7
6
13
3
19
8
9
0
0
5
% Positive (including
1970-1976 1978-1984
Domestic Domestic
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0.64 0
0
-
trace values)"
1978-1984
Import
2.82
0
0
0
0
0
7.69
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
% Positive (not including trace values)
1978-1984 1978-1984
Domestic Import
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
-
0.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
aOata for 1970-76 obtained from Duygan et al. (1983); results were not reported for all commodity groups. Data for 1978-84 obtained
Irom FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Detection limit is 0.01 ppm. Trace levels were not analytically confirmed.
-------
Table 5-8. Summary of FDA Surveillance Data (1978-1984) for Food
Products Containing Quantifiable Levels of HCBa
Number of
Product samples
Domestic products
Wheat
Butter
Milk
Cheese
Eggs (chicken)
Fish
Peanuts (in shell)
Peanuts (shelled)
Peanut butter
Stringbeans
Squash
Lettuce
Parsley
Mushrooms
Carrots
Parsnips
Potatoes
Imported products
Macaroni
Cheese
Eggs (duck)
Fish
Cod 1 iver oil
Pears
Pumpkin seeds
Navy beans
"Other" beans
809
145
3165
764
2607
3157
195
217
10
656
641
2649
130
182
762
33
1651
33
443
192
951
13
36
5
5
233
% Positive
( including''
trace values)
0.99
13.79
3.00
4.97
0.31
18.40
1.54
15.21
60.00
1.52
1.56
0.60
0.77
0.16
1.57
6.06
0.73
9.09
19.64
0.52
8.62
1 5 . 38
2.78
20.00
20.00
2. 14
% Positive
(not including
trace values)
0.62
2.10
0.57
0.39
0.08
5.23
0.51
8.29
40.00
0.15
1.09
0.15
0.77
0.11
0.66
3.03
0.12
3.03
6.55
0.52
1.47
15.38
2.78
20.00
20.00
0.43
Range of positive
values (ppm)
T-5.28
T-0.01
T-0.27
T-0.02
T-0.01
T-0.42
T-0.06
T-0.13
T-0.014
T-0.01
T-0.06
T-0.03
0.01
T-0.07
T-0.06
T-0.01
T-0.01
T-0.01
T-200
0.08
T-700
0.10-0.14
0.01
0.03
0.02
T-0.01
Years in
which detected
79, 81, 82
82-84
78-84
78. 80-83
79. 80, 82-84
78-84
78, 79
78-80, 84
83, 84
78-81
79-83
78, 79, 81, 83
78
79, 80
78-83
78, 80
79, 80, 84
78, 80
78-83
79
78-84
80
84
83
80
79-82
-------
Table 5-8. (Continued)
Product
Imported products
Squash
Mushrooms
Carrots
Parsnips
Caraway seeds
Number of
samples
1395
102
165
8
8
% Positive
( including"
trace values)
0.79
3.92
17.58
12.50
50.00
% Positive
(not including
trace values)
0.36
1.96
11.52
12.50
12.50
Range of positive
values (ppm)
T-0.02
T-0.40
T-0.05
0.13
T-0.02
Years in
which detected
80-84
78-80
78-84
84
79, 81, 83
aData supplied by FDA Center tor Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
Detection limit of 0.01 ppm. Trace levels were not analytically confirmed.
00
-------
Table 5-9. Summary of FDA Surveillance Data (1978-1984) for Food
Products Containing Only Trace Levels of HCBa-b
Product
Domestic products
Corn
Oysters
Lobsters
Shrimp
Grapes
Apples
Pears
Peaches
Cantalopes
Plums
Broccoli
Red beets
Soybeans
Sweet peas
Eggplant
Peppers
Cucumbers
Imported products
Rice
Spaghetti
Vermicelli
Butter
Milk
Oysters
Lobsters
Squid
Peaches
Sesame seeds
Brazil nuts
Chick-peas
Peppers
Water chestnuts
Fennel
Coriander
"Other" spices
Chocolate liquor
Number of
samples
152
145
91
58
391
1550
424
914
290
7
459
128
59
547
157
625
682
28
19
1
3
51
20
13
2
61
63
6
21
2235
7
1
127
10
2
% Positive
0.66
2.76
2.20
1.72
1.02
0.71
0.24
0.33
0.69
7
0.22
2.34
1.69
0.55
0.64
0.32
0.73
7.14
21.05
100
25.00
3.92
10.00
23.08
50.00
1.64
3.17
16.67
4.76
0.04
7
100
0.79
20.00
50.00
Number
positive
1
4
2
1
4
11
1
3
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
2 ,
5
2
4
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
aOata supplied by FDR Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
''Detection limit is 0.01 ppm. Trace levels were not analytically confirmed.
88
-------
Table 5-10 Summary of FDA Domestic Surveillance Data for HCB
for Four Major Commodity Groupings
Fiscal
year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Fish
1.3
0.3
0.8
5.9
12.0
3.3
8.4
11.0
13.5
26.9
19.3
35.7
18.4
6.6
HCB detection frequency (%)
(including trace values)3-*5
Milk/cheese Fruits
0.4
2.3
2.9
5.8
3.8
5.0
1.2
4.9
2.8
0.9
5.5
5.9
2.4
1.0
0
0.2
0
0.9
1.6
0
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.8
0
0
Vegetables
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.0
O.S
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.3
0.4
0.1
aNominal limit of quantification is 0.01 ppm.
Available data for 1970 to 1976 do not allow differentiation
between trace and non-trace values.
89
-------
Table 5-11. FDA Domestic Surveillance Summary Data
for Animal Feeds
Animal feed commodity
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1970-
1976
Number of samples
Whole grain
Hay
Dehydrated hay
Animal byproducts
Fish byproducts
Misc. animal feed
Cereal byproducts
Whole grain
Hay
Dehydrated hay
Animal byproducts
Fish byproducts
Misc. animal feed
Cereal byproducts
Whole grain
Hay
Dehydrated hay
Animal byproducts
Fish byproducts
Misc. animal feed
Cereal byproducts
89
138
26
18
12
, 139
7
0
0
0
0
41.
0
7
0
0
0
0
20
0
1
82
82
37
15
9
119
•
Percent
0
1 .
0
0
77 0
0
7
Average
0
0.
0
0
0
0
7
226
24
8
5
86
537
7
265
17
7
78
30
118
•
145
-
-
98
25
37
•
68
50
20
154
41
109
•
31
37
36
236
83
98
•
906
348
134
604
286
1157
166
positive samples3
0
22 0
0
0
1.16
0.37
7
concentration
0
9 0
0
0
0.2
<0.1
?
1.13
0
0
5.13
0
2.54
?
(oob)
1
0
0
0.8
0
0.4
7
0
-
-
1
0
0
?
0
-
-
0
0
0
7
Commodities in which HCB was apparently not detected3 (
Animal feeds
Oilseed byproducts
Ground grains
Vegetable byproducts
Silage
0
8.00
0
.02 0.65
0
2.75
?
0
1
0
.7 0.1
0
3
7
1970-1976)
22.58
16.22
8.33
0.42
8.43
2.04
7
14
2
1
0.1
2
0.9
7
1.10
3.16
2.24
1.16
4.55
0.60
0.60
r*
°-->^<
0.6
0.3
0.2
2
0.4
7
Number of samples
551
453
250
272
Detection limit is 10 ppb.
Source: Duggan et al. (1983).
90
-------
were also low. No readily discernible trend appears in the detection
frequency except possibly in 1976, when relatively high detection
frequencies were observed in several of the commodities. Duggan et al.
(1983) caution against using these data to speculate on trends or
relationships because of the relatively small number of samples and the
variation in the number of samples tested from year to year.
Data for the fiscal years 1978 to 1984 were also supplied to EPA by
the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Because the
supplied data did not include total counts of numbers of individual
commodities tested, it is not possible to calculate detection frequencies
for these years. However, the supplied data provide an indication of the
individual commodities in which HCB was detected. Table 5-12 summarizes
these results. The results indicate that grain screenings, animal
(mammal) byproducts, and fish byproducts account for the majority of the
detections.
5.3 National Pesticide Monitoring Program Activities of the FWS
The National Pesticide Monitoring Program (NPMP) was established in
the mid-1960s to assess temporal and geographic contaminant trends in
selected environmental components. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), U.S. Department of the Interior, contributes to this program by
periodically determining contaminant levels in freshwater fish,
starlings, and waterfowl. This section summarizes the results of the FWS
residue analyses for HCB during the 1970s and early 1980s; analyses of
HCB residues were not performed prior to the early 1970s.
5.3.1 FWS Monitoring Network for Freshwater Fish
(1) Network description. FWS began nationwide monitoring of HCB
residues in freshwater fish as part of'the NPMP in 1971. Fish are
collected from a network of 117 sampling sites in major river basins
throughout the United States and in the Great Lakes (see Figure 5-6 and
Table 5-13). Prior to 1976, collections were made annually. Since 1976,
collections have been made biannually. Three samples are typically
collected at each site — two of a representative bottom-feeding species
and one of a representative predator species. Each sample consists of
three to five whole adult fish, composited and thoroughly homogenized for
chemical analysis.
(2) Summary of results. HCB residue levels have been determined for
fish collections in the years 1971-1974, 1976-1979, and 1980-1981
(Schmitt et al. 1981, Schmitt et al. 1983, and Schmitt et al. 1985,
respectively). HCB analyses from 1971 to 1974 were conducted only as
91
-------
Table 5-12. Summary of FDA Domestic Surveillance Data (1978-1984)
for Animal Feeds Containing Detectable Levels of HCB
Animal feed Number of Range of positive
positive samples3 values (ppm)
Whole or ground grains
- Barley
- Corn
- Oats
- Mixed
Grain screenings
- Barley
- Corn
- Wheat
Grass hay
Other hay
Mixed feed for cattle
Mixed feed for poultry
Animal (mammal) byproducts
Animal (poultry) byproducts
Fish byproducts
Spent brewery malt barley
Carrot byproducts
Oilseed byproducts
1
1
1
1
21
2
20
1
1
1
2
31
1
32
1
1
11
0.07
T"
T
T
T-0.08
T-0.01
T-1.25
T
T
T
T
T-0.08
T
T-0.24
0.01
T
T-0.05
alncludes trace values (i.e. < 0.01 ppm).
bT = trace.
92
-------
<^r«r--"
Figure 5-6. FWS national pesticide monitoring program - fish collection stations.
aSee Table 5-13 for collection station locations.
93
-------
Table 5-13. FWS National Pesticide Monitoring Program
Fish Collection Stations
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
River or lake
Penobscot River
Connecticut River
Hudson River
Delaware River
Susquehanna River
Potomac River
Roanoke River
Cape Fear River
Cooper River
Savannah River
St. Johns River
St. Lucie Canal
Apalachicola River
Tombigbee River
Mississippi River
Rio Grande
Genessee River
Lake Ontario
Lake Erie
Lake Huron (Saginaw Bay)
Lake Michigan
Kanawha River
Lake Superior
Ohio River
Cumberland River
Illinois River
Mississippi River
Arkansas River
Arkansas River
White River
Missouri River
Missouri River
Missouri River
Red River of the North
Green River
Location
Old Town. ME
Windsor Locks, CT
Poughkeepsie, NY
Camden, NJ
Conowingo Dam, MD
Little Falls, MD
Roanoke Rapids. NC
Elizabethtown. NC
Lake Moultrie, SC
Savannah, GA
welaka, FL
Indiantown, FL
J. Woodruff Dam, FL
Mclntosh, AL
Luling, LA
Mission, TX
Scottsville, NY
Port Ontario. NY
Erie, PA
Bay Port, MI
Sheboygan, WI
Winfield, WV
Bayfield. WI
Marietta, OH
Clarksville, TN
Beardstown, IL
Guttenburg, IA
Pine Bluff, AR
Keystone Reservoir, OK
Devalls Bluff, AR
Nebraska City. NE
Garrison Dam, NO
Great Falls, MT
Noyes. MN
Vernal . UT
94
-------
Table 5-13. (Continued)
Station
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
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
71
River or lake
Colorado River
Truckee River
Utah Lake
Sacramento River
San Joaquin River
Snake River
Snake River
Salmon River
Yakima River
Willamette River
Columbia River
Klamath River
Rogue River
Chena River
Kenai River
Kennebec River
Lake Champlain
Merrimac River
Raritan River
James River
Pee Dee River
Altamaha River
Suwanee River
Alabama River
Brazos River
Colorado River
Nuees River
Rio Grande
Rio Grande
Pecos River
St. Lawrence River
Allegheny River
Wabash River
Ohio River
Ohio River
Tennessee River
Location
Imperial Reservoir, AZ
Fernley, NV
Provo, UT
Sacramento, CA
Los Banos, CA
Hagerman, ID
Lewiston, ID
Riggins, ID
Granger, WA
Oregon City, OR
Cascade Locks, OR
Hornbrook, CA
Go! dray Dam, OR
Fairbanks, AK
Soldatna, AK
Hinckley, ME
Burl ington, VT
Lowell, MA
Highland Park, NJ
Richmond, VA
Johnsonville, SC
Ooctortown, GA
Old Town, FL
Chrysler, AL
Richmond, TX
Wharton, TX
Mathis, TX
Elephant Butte, NM
Alamosa, CO
Red Bluff Lake. TX
Massena. NY
Natrona, PA
New Harmony, IN
Cincinnati, OH
Metropolis, IL
Savannah , TN
95
-------
Table 5-13. (Continued)
Station
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
River or lake
Wisconsin River
Oes Moines River
Mississippi River
Mississippi River
Mississippi River
Arkansas River
Verdigris River
Canadian River
Yazoo River
Red River
Red River
Missouri River
Big Horn River
Yellowstone River
James River
North Platte River
South Platte River
Platte River
Kansas River
Colorado River
Colorado River
Colorado River
Gila River
Bear River
Snake River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Waikele Stream
Manoa Stream
Androscoggin River
Lake Superior
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake St. Clair
Location
Woodman, WI
Keosauqua. IA
Little Falls, MN
Cape Girardeau. MO
Memph is, TN
John Martin Reservoir, CO
Oologah, OK
Eufaula, OK
Redwood, MS
Alexandria, LA
Lake Texoma. OK
Hermann, MO
Hardin, MT
Sidney, MT
Olivet, SD
Lake McConaughy, NE
Burle, NE
Louisville, NE
Bonner Springs, KS
Lake Havasu, AZ
Lake Mead. NV
Lake Powell , AZ
San Carlos Reservoir, AZ
Preston, ID
Ice Harbor Dam, WA
Pasco. WA
Grand Coulee, WA
Waipahu. HI
Honolulu, HI
Lewiston, ME
Keeweenaw Point, MI
• Whitefish Point, MI
Beaver Island, MI
Saugatuck, MI
Alpena, MI
Mt. Clemens, MI
96
-------
Table 5-U. (Continued)
Station River or lake Location
108 Lake Erie Port Clinton, OH
109 Lake Ontario Roosevelt Beach, NY
110 Lake Ontario Cape Vincent, NY
111 Mississippi River Lake City, MN
112 Mississippi River Oubuque, LA
113 San Antonio River McFaddin, TX
114 Bear River Brigham City, UT
115 Colorado River Yuma, AZ
116 Sour is River Upham, ND
117 Flathead River Creston, MT
97
-------
part of crosscheck analyses of samples either known to contain high
residue levels of chlorinated pesticides or collected at stations with a
history of high residue levels. HCB analyses were routinely performed on
all samples starting in 1976.
Table 5-14 summarizes the results of the fish surveys conducted from
1971 to 1981. Figures 5-7 and 5-8 are maps showing the locations of
sites where HCB was detected in each survey.
Because of the large differences in the number of stations sampled in
the early versus the later surveys as well as the probable bias of the
early surveys to collection of contaminated fish, it is not possible to
assess temporal and geographic trends for the ten-year period covered by
the surveys. However, an assessment of trends for the last five survey
years can be made by examining the results for those stations with
continuous data from 1976 to 1981. Of the 106 to 108 stations sampled
during the latter three surveys, 97 stations were sampled in each of the
three surveys.
Table 5-15 presents a comparison of the results from the 1976-1977,
1978-1979, and 1980-1981 surveys for these 97 stations. There was a
significant decrease in the mean HCB residue levels and occurrence
frequencies between 1976-1977 and 1978-1979; there was no significant
difference between the 1978-1979 and 1980-1981 results. Figure 5-9 shows
the locations of the sites where HCB has been detected in at least two of
these last three surveys. Table 5-16 lists the locations of the sites.
HCB has consistently been detected in fish collected from sections of the
Mobile, Ohio, Columbia, Merrimac, and Mississippi Rivers as well as in
the Great Lakes.
5.3.2 FWS Monitoring Network for Starlings
(1) Network description. FWS began nationwide monitoring of HCB
residues in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) as part of the NPMP in 1972.
Starlings were selected for monitoring because they are a terrestrial
species; they are found throughout most of the contiguous 48 states; they
are regarded as expendable; and their omnivorous feeding habits should
reflect pesticide intake from insects, fruits, crops, and other foods
(Cain and Bunck 1983).
The starling collection sampling design was originally described by
Martin (1969). Basically, the procedure is to trap or shoot 10 starlings
in the fall at each of up to 139 sites throughout the United States. The
sites were chosen by selecting randomly up to four latitude and longitude
coordinates within each 5 degree block of latitude and longitude in the
98
-------
Table 5-14. Summary of the 1971 to 1981 HCB Residue Data from the FWS Fish Sampling Network3
10
Col lection
period
1980-81
1978-79
!97t>-77
1974
1973
1972
1971
Number of
stations
107
108
106
44
32
29
29
Number of
samples
315
314
310
47
38
33
30
Percent with
Stations
24.3
21.3
45.2
45.4
65.6
51.7
79.3
detected HCB
Samples
14.6
14.0
28.1
46.8
60.5
51.5
76.7
Wet-weight
Max.
0.12
0.13
0.70
0.06
4.20d
0.42
1.00
residues (ug/g)
Geom. meanc
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.03
0.08
Lipid-weight
Max.
1.17
1.69
6.42
1.00
127d
3.13
5.29
residues (ug/g)
Geom. meanc
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.12
0.16
0.31
0.57
dBecdu!>e of the large differences in the number of stations sampled in the early versus the later surveys as well as the
probable bias ot the early surveys to collection of contaminated fish, it is not possible to reliably assess temporal trends
tor the entire ten-year period covered by the surveys.
tach sample consists ot three to live whole adult specimens of a single fish species.
'-Geometri c means were computed by transforming all values to the log^n, (residue + 1.0) scale, averaging the
translormed values, and back transforming the means to the arithmetic scale (10X - 1, where x is the transformed mean).
The maximum concentration of 4.20 ug/g (wet weight) was found in a sample with a lipid concentration of 3.3 percent.
-------
1973
o
o
1974
l(\ '-'.p.
Urlr r
"\
/
LEGEND
O = HCB not detected (det. limit = 0.01 ppm wet-weight).
O = HCB detected but at a level not exceeding 0.05 ppm wet-weight.
% = HCB detected at a level greater than 0.05 ppm wet-weight.
Figure 5-7. FWS national pesticide monitoring program:
HCB residues r "^shwater fish, 1971-1974.
-------
1976 — 1977
• / o
•••SV;.,
.fa--,.. / -0
LEGEND:
® • Site not sampled.
O • HCB not detected (det. limit = 0.01 ppm net-weight) .
O " HCB detected in at least one sample but at levels not exceeding 0.05 ppm wet-weight.
• ° HCB detected in at least one sample at levels exceeding 0.05 ppm wet-weight.
Figure 5-8. FWS national pesticide monitoring program:
HCB residues in freshwater fish, 1976-1981.
-------
Table 5-15. Summary of Results for the 97 FWS Fish Sampling
Stations with Continuous Data for 1976 to 1981
Sampling period
1976-1977 1978-1979 1980-1981
Percent of stations w/detected 46.4 20.6 24.7
HCB (%)
Number of samples3
Percent of samples w/detected
HCB (%)
Wet-weight mean0 residue*- (ug/g)
Lipid-weight mean0 residue*' (ug/g)
284
28.9
0.01
0.09
283
13.1
0.01
0.03
282
15.6
<0.01
0.03
aEach sample consists of 3 to 5 whole adult specimens of a single fish
species.
°Geometric means were computed by transforming all values to the
Iog10 (residue + 1.0) scale, averaging the transformed values, and
back transforming the means to the arithmetic scale (10X - 1,.where
x is the transformed mean).
"•Although not significantly different from each other (ANOVA, P<0.05),
the 1978-1979 and 1980-1981 means are significantly different from the
1976-1977 mean (Schmitt et al. 1985).
^Although not significantly different from each other (ANOVA, PiO.Ol),
the 1978-1979 and 1980-1981 means are significantly different from the
1976-1977 mean (Schmitt et al. 1985).
102
-------
\.
o
CO
LEGEND:
O ~ HCB not detected or detected in only one of three sampling periods.
O * HCB detected in two of three sampling periods.
• - HCB detected in all three sampling periods.
Figure 5-9. FWS national pesticide monitoring program:
HCB residues in freshwater fish at 97 stations
with consecutive data for the 1976-77, 1978-79,
and 1980-81 surveys.
-------
Table 5-16. FWS Fish Sampling Stations at Which HCB Was Detected
in at Least Two of the Following Three Sampling
Periods: 1976-1977. 1978-1979. or 1980-1981
Station River or lake Location Percent detected3
Stations with HCB detected in all 3 sampling periods
15 Mississippi River Luling, AL 100
24 Ohio River Marietta. OH 100
53 Merrimac River Lowell, MA 100
107 Lake St. Clair Mt. Clemens. MI 100
21 Lake Michigan Sneboygan, WI 80
105 Lake Michigan Saugatuck. MI 78
59 Alabama River Chrysler, AL 78
14 Tombigbee River Mclntosh, AL 75
108 Lake Erie Port Clinton, OH 67
23 Kanawha River Winfield, WV 67
18 Lake Ontario Port Ontario, NY 62
42 Snake River Lewiston, ID 55
22 Lake Superior Bayfield. WI 50
69 Ohio River Cincinnati, OH 45
70 Ohio River Metropolis, IL 44
Stations with HCB detected in 2 of 3 sampling periods
76
96
46
100
20
106
54
45
81
Mississippi River
Snake River
Columbia River
Manoa Stream
Lake Huron
Lake Huron
Raritan River
Willamette River
Red River
Memphis, TN
Ice Harbor Dam, WA
Cascade Locks, OR
Honolulu. HI
Bay Port. MI
Alpena. MI
Highland Park, NJ
Oregon City, OR
Alexandria, LA
50
50
44
40
40
30
28
22
22
aPercent of total number of composite samples collected in the three
sampling periods in which HCB was detected (detection limit is 0.01 ppm,
wet-weight).
104
-------
contiguous 48 states. Composite samples of 10 starlings are then
prepared for chemical analysis from each site. Figure 5-10 is a map of
the United States showing the locations of the starling sampling sites.
Many changes in the method of quantification for HCB occurred between
1972 and 1976. Few changes in the methods have taken place since 1976.
These improvements in methodology confound comparisons among collections,
although results from a particular collection can be used to assess
regional differences of HCB levels (Bunck 1985).
(2) Summary of results. HCB residue levels have been determined for
starling collections in 1972, 1974, 1976, 1979, and 1982 (Nickerson and
Barbehenn 1975, White 1976, White 1979a, Cain and Bunck 1983, and Bunck
1985 in preparation, respectively). The results of the five surveys are
summarized in Table 5-17 and Figure 5-11 on a regional basis.
Figures 5-12 and 5-13 are maps showing the locations of the sites where
HCB was detected in each of the five survey periods.
HCB residue levels in starlings have generally been below 0.01 ppm
wet-weight. The highest nationwide occurrence was 32 percent for samples
from the 1972 collection. Geographical variation in the occurrence of
.HCB is significant in all years except 1976. The locations sampled in
each collection were similar except for 1979. No starling pools from
sites in Washington and Oregon were obtained in that year. Generally,
HCB was detected more frequently in samples from the northwestern and
southwestern regions. In 1976 and 1979, HCB was also commonly found in
starling pools from the south central region (Bunck 1985).
5.3.3 FWS Monitoring Network for Waterfowl
(1) Network description. FWS began nationwide monitoring of HCB
residues in the wings of hunter-killed ducks as part of the NPMP in
1972. Two duck species are monitored in this network — the aquatic
mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and the black duck (Anas rubripes). These
two species were selected because their combined range encompasses the
continental United States. The mallard is relatively abundant in all but
the eastern states where the black duck predominates (White and Heath
1976).
The wings used for the survey are a byproduct of an established
nationwide survey of waterfowl productivity and harvest. Each fall,
selected waterfowl hunters mail wings of ducks harvested during each
hunting season to a collection station within each of the four major
waterfowl flyways. The major flyways, depicted on the map in
Figure 5-14, are corridors comprising states or parts of states in which
105
-------
W/WCC.EC, E
Source: Bunck (1985).
Grouping of 5 degree blocks to obtain regions referred to in Table 5-17.
N = Northern, S = Southern, E = East, EC = East Central, C = Central,
WC = West Central, W = West- Small letters and numbers represent first
two characters in site codes of sample locations for starlings.
Figure 5-10. FWS national pesticide monitoring program - starling collection stations.
106
-------
Table 5-17. Occurrence of HCB and Maximum Level (PPM Wet-Weight)
in Starlings from the Continental United States
Regi on
NORTHERN
East
liasl central
Central
West central
West
SOUTHERN
East
East central
Central
West central
West
Mat i onwi (le
Nb
11
13
15
14
16
12
16
12
13
8
130
19723
Occur.
(•/„)
45
31
0
0
75
17
63
25
8
50
32
Max
0.28
0.55
NDC
NO
3.3
0.014
0.14
0.027
0.025
0.037
3.3
N
10
12
15
13
16
12
16
12
12
8
126
19743
Occur.
20
17
7
0
56
8
6
33
17
38
20
Max
0.029
0.17
0.26
ND
9.1
0.24
0.038
0.038
0.052
0.042
9.1
N
10
13
16
13
16
9
16
12
13
7
125
1976
Occur.
20
23
19
8
31
33
13
42
0
0
19
Max
0.73
0.56
0.03
0.02
2.0
0.20
0.23
0.07
ND
ND
2.0
N
10
13
15
11
7
12
12
11
13
8
112
19793
Occur.
30
23
0
0
28
33
33
81
0
25
24
Max
0.03
0.02
ND
ND
0.06
0.41
0.04
0.16
ND
0.03
0.41
N
11
13
16
13
15
12
14
14
13
8
129
1982a
Occur.
(*)
9
0
0
0
73
17
14
14
0
50
17
Max
0.04
ND
NO
ND
0.68
0.02
0.01
0.02
ND
0.16
0.68
•^Occurrence frequencies dilfer significantly among regions (P<0.005).
"(lumber nl pools (10 samples per pool).
'•Not. detected in any samples (detection limit of 0.01 ppm wet-weight).
Source: Bunck ( 1985).
-------
100
o
00
TJ
-------
1972
1974
\
1976
o
10
LEGEND:
® = Site not sampled.
O ~ HCB not detected (det. limit = 0.01 ppm wet-weight).
O = HCB detected but at level not exceeding 0.05 ppm wet-weight
0 = HCB detected at a level greater than 0.05 ppm wet-weight .
Figure 5-12. FWS national pesticide monitoring program:
HCB residues in starlings, 1972-1976.
-------
1979
1982
LEGEND:
® - Site not sampled (11 sites mere not sampled in 1982; the site locations are not known).
O • HCB not detected (det. limit * 0.01 ppm wet-weight) _
O • HCB detected but at level not exceeding O.OS ppm wet-weight .
• = HCB detected at a level greater than 0.05 ppm wet-weight.
Figure 5-13. FWS national monitoring program:
HCB residues in starlings, 1979-1982.
110
-------
I
II
III
IV
= Atlantic
= Mississippi
= Central
= Pacific
Figure 5-14. Major waterfowl migration flyways.
-------
large numbers of waterfowl migrate each spring and fall (White 1979b).
Wings from each state and flyway are grouped randomly in pools of 25. A
subset of these composite samples is randomly selected for chemical
analysis.
Many changes in the methods of quantification for HCB have occurred
between 1972 and 1976. Few changes in the methods have taken place since
1976. These improvements in methodology confound comparisons among
collections, although results from a particular collection can be used to
assess regional differences of HCB levels (Bunck 1985).
(2) Summary of results. HCB residue levels have been determined for
duck wings from the 1972-1973, 1976-1977, 1979-1980, and 1981-1982
hunting seasons (White and Heath 1976, White 1979b, Cain 1981, and Prouty
and Bunck in press, respectively). The results of the four surveys are
summarized in Table 5-18 and Figure 5-15 on a flyway basis.
HCB levels in duck wings have generally been below 0.01 ppm wet
weight. The highest nationwide occurrence was 15 percent in wings from
the 1976-1977 hunting season. The occurrence frequencies of HCB in wings
from the Mississippi and Central flyways have generally been lower than
those from the Atlantic and Pacific flyways. These differences were
significant only in the 1972-1973 and 1979-1980 samples. Wings from the
Pacific flyway had the highest occurrence frequency in the 1976-1977 and
1979-1980 samples, but in 1981-1982 the occurrence frequency in wings
from the Pacific flyway was similar to that of the other flyways (Bunck
1985).
5.4 USDA National Meat and Poultry Residue Monitoring Program
5.4.1 • Program Description
Since 1972, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has monitored fat samples from domestic
meat and poultry for residues of HCB as part of the National Residue
Monitoring Program. In addition, USDA routinely monitors HCB residue
levels in imported meat and poultry products. Sampling of 17 animal
production classes (hereafter referred to as "species") (see Table 5-19)
is conducted at federally inspected slaughter facilities on a specific
schedule to ensure that a statistically random nationwide sample is
collected annually. The monitoring program is designed to ensure a
95 percent probability of detecting a chemical residue when one percent
or more of a "species" presented for slaughter contains detectable
levels. Figure 5-16 illustrates the five geographic regions of the
United States designated by USDA for the monitoring program.
112
-------
Table 5-18. Occurrence of HCB and Maximum Level (PPM Wet-Weight) in Wings
of Ducks Harvested in the Continental United States
Flyway
Atlantic
Mississippi
Central
Pacific
Nationwide
1972 - 733 1976 - 77 1979 - 80* 1981 - 82
N& Occur.0 Max N Occur. Max N Occur. Max N Occur, max
65 23 0.031 52 15 0.03 S3 11 0.16 50 12 0.04
61 3 0.012 69 4 0.12 64 2 0.01 78 8 0.06
56 7 0.014 56 11 0.03 54 4 0.03 70 1 0.01
55 9 0.017 50 26 0.50 44 23 0.22 58 12 0.05
237 11 0.031 227 IS 0.50 215 9 0.22 256 8 0.06
Occurrence frequency differs significantly among flyways (P<0.01).
Number of pools (25 duck wings per pool).
Detection limit of 0.01 ppm wet weight.
Source: Bunck (1985).
113
-------
0)
-4-»
o
5
-------
Table 5-19. Animal Production Classes That Are Sampled
by the USDA
Animal class
or species
1. Bulls
2. Steers
3. Cows
4. Heifers
5. Calves
6. Sheep
7. Goats
8. Swine
9. Horses
10. Young chickens
11. Mature chickens
12. Fryer/roaster turkeys
13. Young turkeys
14. Mature turkeys
IS. Ducks
16. Geese
17. Rabbits
115
-------
CT>
I
II
III
IV
V
= Western8
= Southwestern
» North Central
0 Southeastern
= Northeastern'1
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
Western region includes: Alaska, Guam, American Samoa, Hawaii,
and the Mariana Islands •
Northeastern region includes: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands .
Figure 5-16. USDA meat and poultry inspection program regions.
-------
5.4.2 Summary of Results for Domestic Meat and Poultry
(1) Temporal variability. More than 55,000 fat samples from
domestic meat and poultry have been analyzed for HCB during the period
1972 to 1984. Table 5-20 summarizes, by year, the number of samples
analyzed and the number of HCB detections by residue concentration
interval. Similar tables summarizing the sampling results by year and by
species are presented in Appendix B. The results listed in Table 5-20
indicate that HCB levels have typically been low; only 1.6 percent of the
positive samples (0.2 percent of all samples) had residue levels greater
than 0.10 ppm. The results do indicate, however, that the percent of
positive samples rose sharply in 1974 and then fell off rapidly after
1978. Since 1980, the percent of samples containing detectable levels of
HCB has remained relatively constant at three to five percent.
Figure 5-17 shows this temporal change in HCB detection frequencies
on a nationwide basis over the period 1972 to 1984; it shows the annual
detection frequency on both a total sample basis and a "weighted" sample
basis. "Weighting" to adjust for the relative contributions of
individual species to the meat and poultry food supply of the United
States was done by computing for each species its relative fraction of
the total poundage of dressed red meat and ready-to-cook poultry produced
in the U.S. Meat and poultry production data for 1980 were arbitrarily
selected as the reference data for weighting calculations (see
Table 5-21). Statistical analyses (ANOVA) of the data indicate that
detection frequencies in periods 1972-73 and 1979-84 are statistically
the same (assuming significance of p = 0.05), and they are significantly
lower than the detection frequencies in period 1974-78.
Figure 5-18 shows the temporal changes in HCB detection frequency (on
a total sample basis) by regions. This figure shows the same
significantly higher detection frequencies during 1974-78 in every region.
Additional analyses were performed to determine whether any
significant temporal differences in detection frequencies could be found
for individual species or groups of species. Because the results for
individual species (see Appendix B) indicate that grazing animals more
frequently had detectable levels of HCB in their fat than did swine or
poultry, the data were aggregated to form a grazer type (i.e., horse,
bull, steer, cow, heifer, calf, sheep, and goat) and a non-grazer type
(i.e., swine, young chicken, mature chicken, fryer/roaster turkey, young
turkey, mature turkey, duck, goose, and rabbit). Statistical analyses of
the HCB detection frequencies for these two groups (see Appendix C) and
*See Appendix C for a more detailed description of the statistical
analyses performed.
117
-------
Table 5-20. USDA Residue Monitoring Program - Summary of HCB Detection
Frequency in Domestic Nationwide Meat and Poultry Fat Samples
Number of samoles w/detected HCB Percent of
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
TOTAL
Sample
size
1..041
2.501
4,172
4,591
4,736
2,316
2,452
4,704
6,527
5,374
4.050
6,551
6,259
55,274
Between
0.01 - 0.10 ppm
48
155
1.239
1.618
1.667
937.
626
381
188
256
111
277
249
7.752
Between Greater than total samples
0.11 - 0.50 ppm 0.5 ppm w/detected HCB
4 2 5.2
16 3 7.0
12 1 30.0
14 1 35.6
9 1 35.4
4 0 40.6
4 1 25.7
15 1 8.4
5 0 3.0
10 1 5.0
4 2 2.9
3 3 4.3
5 1 4.0
105 17
Percent of
weighted samples
w/detected HCBa
5.4
9.7
18.7
20.6
21 .8
23.3
20.4
4.6
1.6
2.7
1 .4
2.1
2.1
aThe positive HCB sample percentages are weighted by annual production rates of dressed red meat and
ready-to-cook poultry (on a poundage basis). See Section 5.3.2 for details and Table 5-15 for individual
species weight fractions used.
Source: Data supplied by USDA/FSIS.
118
-------
T>
0)
"u
0)
-*_•
Q)
Q
^->
C
0)
o
uw —
50 -
40 -
20 -
10-
n
p7
/
/
^ /
y y
/ /
-1^, /^ /
/\ /\ /
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
K
y
/
/
y
/
/
-
— •••*
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
F—
/
/
/
/
y
y
/
/
/
[/
^
\
\
\
\
\(
\
\
\
y
/
/
/
/
/
y
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\,
\
\s
\
7"
/
/
/
y
/
/
/
/
^
\
^
\
\
'^
\ ^
7\ _. \] __
/\ (y4\l I7\l f7-\ IZ
\y
\
rx
irk
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
\7~7\ Weighted
Year
lV\l Unweighted
Figure 5-17. HCB detection frequency in domestic meat and poultry, 1972-1984.
-------
Table 5-21. Relative Species Fraction of 1980 U.S. Production of
Dressed Red Meat and Ready-to-Cook Poultry
Fraction of 1980
Species production
Horse .0040
Bulls .0099
Steers .2219
Cows .0592
Heifers .1060
Calf .0059
Sheep .0059
Goats .0001
Swine .3085
Young chickens .2183
Mature chickens .0125
Fryer/roaster turkeys .0015
Young turkeys .0441
Mature turkeys .0004
Ducks .0016
Geese .0001
Rabbits .0001
l.OOOO
Sources: USDA (1981). USDA (1982).
120
-------
North Central Region
0- 20 -
I
!
1972 1974 1976
1978
Yeor
19BO 1982 1984
60
Northeast Region
50 -
1
I
1
1972 1974 1976
1978
Year
198O 1982 1984
Southwest Region
1972 1974 1976
1978
Year
1980 1982 1984
Southeast Region
Ys
1972 1974 1976
1978
Year
198O 1982 1984
0 -**-(
7/1
Western Region
I
„-„ Y7A
1972 1974 1976
1978
Year
198O 1982 1984
Figure 5-18. HCB detection frequency in domestic meat and
poultry by USDA region, 1972-1984.
121
-------
for each individual grazer species indicate a significant time effect
(p <0.05) over the period 1972-1984 on a nationwide basis for both groups
and for each individual grazer species. Significantly higher detection
frequencies were in roughly the same period (1974-1978) as was found for
all species combined; however, the detection frequencies were
significantly lower for the non-grazer category than for the grazer
category. Figure 5-19 shows the temporal changes in detection frequency
for the grazer and non-grazer groups on a nationwide basis, and
Figure 5-20 shows the temporal changes on a regional basis. Appendix D
contains bar graphs showing the temporal changes in detection frequencies
for each grazer species and for swine, and a cumulative graph for farm
poultry (young chicken, mature chicken, fryer/roaster turkey, young
turkey, and mature turkey).
(2) Regional variability. Statistical analysis of the data revealed
that significant regional variability exists for all species combined,
grazers and nongrazers, and for most individual species.
Statistical analysis of the data for all species combined (weighted
by the 1980 U.S. production of dressed red meat and ready-to-cook
poultry) over the period 1972-1984 yielded a p-value of 0.0001 for
regional effects (for more details on the statistical analyses, see
Appendix C). In addition, the interaction between region and time was
also significant (p = 0.03). Figure 5-21 presents a graphical comparison
of the regional data by year. As can be seen from this figure, the West,
Southwest, and Northeast regions generally had higher HCB detection
frequencies than the Southeast and North Central regions. Re-analysis of
the data after the results were grouped into three time periods
(1972-1973, 1974-1978, and 1979-1984) again showed significant regional
effect (p = 0.0001), although the interaction between region and period
was only of near significance (p = 0.0554).
Statistical analysis of the data for individual species showed
significant regional effects over the period 1972-1984 for 11 of the 17
species. The species that do not exhibit significant regional
variability are bull (p = 0.2650), cow (p = 0.2500), swine (p = 0.0927),
mature turkey (p = 0.3873), duck (p = 0.1867), and rabbit (p = 0.3197).
Even though significant regional differences were found for most species,
there was no consistent pattern in the data. Horses and calves had about
the same pattern (i.e., higher than average percent detected in the North
Central and Northeast regions and lower than average in the other
regions). Cows had a pattern opposite to that of horses and calves
(i.e., lower than average in the North Central and Northeast and higher
than average elsewhere).
Statistical analysis of the data for the grazer and nongrazer groups
individually and combined over the period 1972 to 1984 (Table 5-22) shows
122
-------
CO
1 UU -
90 -
80 -
70 -
Q
a 6°-
b
Q 50 -
z:
LJ
o 40 -
fK
iu
Q.
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -
~''~\
/
/
•
XL.
72
/
/
[/_
M
r
S
s.
f
'/t
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
73 74
•^
>r
^
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
75
**
' ,
/
'/
/
/
/
/
y
\
\
\
\
\
76
'/
/
/
y/
'y
/
^
/
/
/
/
/
^
k /
N/ „*
^ ^ ^
\ /\ 7
\ ^^ ^ ^
\ /\ / / pl
\. /\ /T1 [/[-x. /-« \,\,
77 78 79 80 81 82
YEAR
64
IZZ] Grazers
Non—grazers
Figure 5-19. Comparison of HCB detection frequencies in grazing and non-grazing
domestic animals, 1972-1984.
-------
Northeast Region
100 -
90 -
ao -
7O -
o
¥
<-> 60 -
uj
t
Q 50-
t-
•£
S 40-
(K
UJ
°- 30-
20 -
1O -
0 -
o, r/| :
/ / /
/ / /
/ pn / /
/ / / »
/ / ^ / N] *
C/l X ^0 / \1 /' si
j^-q 1/1=. l/f-xLl/ISl L-j\l L
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
' /X C7-
' XJ / X / 171
' xi / x / f-ikl P^
=a_
72 73 74 7S 76 77 7B 79 BO 81 82
YEAR
\7~/\ Grazora 153 Non-giojers
Southwest Region
90 -
80 -
70 -
o
f
u 6O -
t
0 50 -
t—
2
UJ
0 40 -
(T
UJ
Q^
30
2O
1O
0
I/-]
/ C71 /
/ / /
/ / ^ ^]
/ Ni / ... / X
/ X / X / X
pi / x / x / x
/I v\ / x / x / x
<4ak|^ kplkfJ v\^
^
/
/x
/x
/x
/x
/ \
/X t-,
/X X
ilil.K^
[H
E
il
83
p-
I
84
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
a
P
0 60 -
t,
Q 50-
•z
B 40-
a:
S 30-
20 -
10 -
0 -
•-P-
72
7
/
/
/
/
21.
'
/
'.
/
/
',
/
/
^
/
/
/
/J
/
/
/
/
/
/
xl /
N x
x] /
xLk
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
73 74 75
7\
/
/
^
^
/
^
/
/
/
^
\]
X
X
X
X
^J-
n
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
^ S
^ \
^ s
^ \
/ \
qh .
7]
/
/
/
/
^ ra W
/ si / p_ . /'
/ 0 / j/j /' p^j _ — -
^ N ^ KJ ^' rl K 1 I/I
4J Jk^Lkfa. k^- —kj. „ k }.^ kd . ,
76 77 78 79 80 SI 82 83 84
YEAR
[7^] Cra^efB (
84
1 00 -
9O -
ao -
7O -
o
o 60 -
UJ
Li
0 50-
B 40-
or
UJ
a 30 -
20 -
1O -
O -
72
7
/
/
*
,
i
',
'',
p'
/
.
,
/
',
E
73 74 75
Southeast Region
[
7-
^
j
J
',
'',
^
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
s S
' \
x \
^ \
/\
,
/ ~-.
/ /
/\] x
^ si kL, . ki „. k ,. M _ l=l __j:/i_,
76 77 78 79 8O 81 8? 8J 84
YEAR
\£/_\ Cicizers \X] Non --.jraz«rs
Western
90 -
ao -
70 -
o
ti
Q SO -
t—
UJ
o 40 - r-\
-------
O
0)
^-/
Q)
Q
c
0)
O
L.
t- Q)
ro n
tn u-
ou -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
n _
/
/
/
-i
/ j
/ /
^ ' -i
/ n M ^ ^
'tm 's
/
^
/•
s
s
^
R
X
X
/
f
/
/
S
'
/
t
/
/
s
t
/
/
.
s
V
V
N
S
S
s
s ' -
/ s
\ ' s
/ s
N ' S
f S
s ' v
t S
\ ' \
\ f V
' s
s 'V
' N
V ' S
/ s
N ' V
S
\
N
S
N
S
S
S
N
\
S
V
V
S
S
\
s
/
/
/
/
/
l>
/
/
/
f
f
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
f
\
s
s
s
s
s
\
s
s
\
N
s
s
s
N
N
S
>
/
\
S
N
S
S
N
S
V
S
s
s
s
^
s
v
s
s
s
f
t
t
t \
/ N
t s
f \
f \
f S
•• s
f \
f S
f S
/ s
f \
t V
/ N
' \
/ s
/ S
f \
t V
/ s
f \
•I
X '
X '
X '
X '
X '
X I
X '
* '
y* '
y, '
Y /
*4 /
X /
X '
X /
X f
s
s
N
s
s
s
N
„ s
f \
t \
s \
/ s
/ N
f S
t s
^ N
<• s
/ s
/ s
f \
t \
f \
f \
> s
/ s
' S
/ s
/ s
/ N
' S
^ s
/ s
' >
^
s
s
P s
f S
/ s
/ >,
n
f
f
f
/
/
f
/
t ^
t \
^ \
t s
/ s
/ \
/ s
f \
' S
/ s
/ V
f S
f \
/ s
' S
f S
' S
' S
^ s
/ s
•i
N
»
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
r-|
* s R
X S T X H
/ l_
XS^X n X X/ .-f^
/ —
X N (* ^ X X _-K 71 X X / ^3 X / > X
X y N / S K [_pfs K UK /Tx X _KPj ** S Yl * ' ^ ^- "
1972
IZZI West
1974
K3 s.w.
1976
1978
Year
N.C.
1980
1982
S.E.
1984
N.E.
Figure 6-21. HCB detection frequency in meat and poultry, regional comparison.
-------
a significant regional effect for grazers (p = 0.0385), nongrazers
(p = 0.0001), and the combination of the two groups (p = 0.0001). The
regional effect was also tested for the grazers and nongrazers groups
over the period 1974 to 1978 (Table 5-22) and shows a significant
regional effect for grazers (p = 0.0069), nongrazers (p = 0.0001), and
the combination of the two groups (p = 0.0001).
5.4.3 Summary of Results for Imported Meat and Poultry
More than 15,000 fat samples from imported meat and poultry were
analyzed for HCB by USDA during the period 1979 through June 1984. Table
5-23 summarizes, by year, the percentage of positive detections by
country of origin. Figure 5-22 presents the results graphically. A
table summarizing, by year, the number of samples analyzed and the number
of HCB detections by residue concentration interval is presented in
Appendix E. Data are not available for analyses performed prior to
1979. The results listed in Table 5-23 and Figure 5-22 show the
detection frequency has steadily declined from an incidence of 15.2
percent in 1979 to 1.4 percent in 1984.
5.5 EPA NHATS Program
The following section is excerpted in large part from Mack and
Mohadjer (1985) and Robinson et al. (1985). These two reports present
detailed analyses of the NHATS data for HCB. The major findings of these
reports are summarized in this section.
5.5.1 Program Description
The National Human Adipose Tissue Survey (NHATS) is an annual program
to collect and chemically analyze a nationwide sample of adipose tissue
specimens for the presence of toxic compounds. The program is
administered by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances.
The NHATS program uses a statistical multi-stage sampling design to
select a representative national sample of adipose tissue specimens each
year. The United States is divided into four Census Regions which are
further subdivided into nine Census Divisions (see Figure 5-23). The
NHATS design stratifies the 48 contiguous states into the nine Census
Divisions. Within each Census Division, standard metropolitan
statistical areas (SMSAs) are selected with probabilities proportional to
their respective populations. The number of SMSAs selected from each
Census Division is determined by the Division's population relative to
the entire U.S. Within each SMSA one or more hospitals and/or associated
pathologists/medical examiners are identified and asked to contribute
126
-------
Table 5-22. Summary of Analyses of Regional Variation in HCB Detection
Frequency for the Grazer and Nongrazer Groups a' ^
Group West Southwest North central
Period 1972-1984
Grazer High Low Low
Nongrazer High High Low
The two types
combined High High Low
Period 1974-1978
Grazer High Low Low
Nongrazer High High Low
The two types
combined High High Low
Southeast Northeast p-Level
Low Low 0.0385
Low High 0.0001
Low High 0.0001
High High 0.0069
Low High 0.0001
Low High 0.0001
aFor more detail on the statistical analyses (ANOVA), see Appendix C.
''"High," and "Low." are relative to the overall percent detected
values for that particular group.
127
-------
rv>
CO
TJ
0)
.*-»
o
0)
-»J
0)
Q
-4->
C
O
u
w.
G>
CL
1979
1980
1981 1982
Year
1983
1984
Figure 5-22. HCB detection frequency in imported meat and poultry, 1972-1984.
-------
Table 5-23. USDA National Residue Monitoring Program Summary of
HCB Detection Frequency in Imported Meat and Poultry
for Calendar Years 1979 to June 30, 1984
Country
Argentina
Austral ia
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Rep. of China
Costa Rica
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Rep.
El Salvador
Finland
France
Germany
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Poland
Romania
Sweden
Percent of samples with detected HCB (.£0.01 ppm)a
1979 1980 1981 198Z 1983 1984
38.7
5.6
90.9
7.5
ND
5.5
-
4.5
80.8
13.5
13.3
5.3
-
30.8
9.1
3.3
7.1
5.2
20.0
8.1
75.0
5.9
-
87.5
ND
48.4
5.6
3.8
ND
NO
11.5
19.7
-
31.9
3.8
77.8
7.1
20.0
10.8
ND
4.0
86.5
5.0
ND
ND
-
40.9
ND
8.2
NO
6.9
7.1
9.2
-
25.1
-
83.3
-
33.3
S.S
2.5
ND
NO
13.0
21.0
-
14.3
ND
17.4
NO
-
2.9
-
ND
71.0
4.3
7.7
NO
-
NO
60.0
ND
14.3
•NO
NO
NO
33.3
14.3
100.0
100.0
-
13.3
5.3
ND
ND
-
8.3
NO
.
14.7
2.0
7.5
3.5
-
2.7
NO
2.6
45.4
2.3
2.0
ND
-
9.1
7.1
NO
6.7
5.4
23.5
2.7
ND
19.5
NO
43.8
-
15.5
2.2
ND
NO
-
2.7
9.4
-
6.5
1.3
2.8
NO
-
1.2
-
NO
37.9
0.9
ND
ND
NO
13.8
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
3.6
ND
5.8
4.2
ND
3.2
NO
0.8
NO
NO
-
3.2
ND
NO
6.0
1.8
NO
3.5
-
0.7
-
ND
NO
0.9
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
33.3
2.8
ND
100.0
NO
2.6
ND
NO
NO
-
1.6
NO
ND
129
-------
Table 5-23. (Continued)
Percent of samples with detected HCB (>0.0l ppm)a
Country 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Switzerland
Taiwan
Uruguay
Yugoslavia
Total
NO
-
39.5
5.0
15.2
40
6
7
10
13
.0
.4
.4
.2
.9
13.
NO
12.
NO
7.
3
5
7
21.2
NO
NO
NO
5.9
23.5
NO
NO
NO
2.4
11
3.
NO
NO
1
.1
4
.4
ND - Not detected.
a Detection limit of 0.01 ppm for animal fat samples on a wet-weight basis.
Source: Data supplied by USDA/FSIS.
130
-------
NORTH CENTRAL
WEST \ J M«ini-
NORTH CENTRAL C CENTRAL
i _ x I 1
v_.
Figure 5-23. Four census regions (top) and nine census divisions (bottom)
of the United States-
131
-------
tissue specimens according to design specifications involving age (0-14
years, 15-44 years, and 45 + years), sex (male, female), and race (i.e.
white, black, etc.) categories. The quotas are based on the
corresponding age, sex, and race distributions of the Census Division to
which the SMSA belongs.
5.5.2 Summary of Results
Data on HCB body burden levels are available for the years 1974
through 1983, excluding 1980 and 1982. The arithmetic mean residue level
of the 6,115 specimens analyzed over this time period is 0.053 ppm and
the range of values is from "not detected" to 4.33 ppm. HCB has been
detected in 98.8 percent of the specimens. Table 5-24 presents summary
statistics for the NHATS data.
A national time trend analysis shows that although the HCB detection
frequency has been slowly increasing over time (from 97.6 percent
positive in 1974 to 100 percent positive in 1983), the mean residue level
exhibits a quadratic trend over time. The mean levels increase until
1979 and then decline to a 1983 average level of 0.037 ppm. Figures 5-24
and 5-25 illustrate the national time trend results for HCB detection
frequencies and mean levels, respectively.
Comparisons of mean residue levels across the demographic
subpopulations indicate no significant age, sex, or race differences.
Overall, however, HCB levels tend to increase with age and males tend to
have higher levels than females. There are significant geographic
differences in mean levels with the West Census Region showing a higher
mean level than the North Central and South Regions. There are no
significant differences across the subpopulations with respect to HCB
detection frequency.
A comparison of time trends with respect to median HCB levels across
the subpopulations indicates the trends are significantly different
across the age groups (the 0-14 years age group levels are constant over
time, while the older age groups exhibit elevated levels in the late
1970s), but not between the sexes, race groups, or geographic regions. A
comparison of time trends with respect to HCB detection frequency showed
no significant differences across the subpopulations or geographic
regions.
Evaluation of the upper 10th percent!le of the HCB residue
distribution (i.e., residue levels above 0.09 ppm) indicates no
132
-------
Table 5-24 Summary Statistics for the Unweighted U.S. NHATS Data
Number of
Category specimens
Overall
Sex
Male
Female
Age Group
0-14 years
15-44 years
45 + years
Race
White
Non-white
Census division
New England
Mid-Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
6115
3070
3045
1255
2240
2618
5086
1029
287
1095
1278
439
897
546
782
311
480
Average
residue
level (ppm)
.05
.05
.05
.06
.05
.06
.06
.05
.05
.07
.05
.05
.04
.04
.06
.07
.10
Standard
deviation
(ppm)
.11
.07
.13
.18
.09
.07
.12
.04
.03
.19
.05
.10
.04
.03
.09
.14
.13
Geometric
mean
(ppm)
.04
.04
.04
.03
.04
.05
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.04
.03
.03
.04
.05
.08
90th percentile
(ppm)
.09
.10
.09
.09
.08
.10
.09
.09
.07
.11
.08
.07
.06
.07
.09
.10
.16
Maximum
(ppm)
4.33
2.83
4.33
4.33
3.35
2.63
4.33
2.83
.23
4.33
2.63
1.99
.61
.26
1.81
2.23
2.83
Source: Robinson et al. (1985)
133
-------
95 -
90 _
85 -
80 -
75 -
70 -
T-
80
75 76 77 78 79
Fiscal Year
81
Figure.5-24. Plot of national time trend and 95 percent confidence bands
for the percent of population having detectable levels of HCB.
134
-------
V
e
n
A
C
A
U
S
N
T
P
P
0.10 -i
009 -
"• *
007 -
0.06 -
004 -
003 -
0.02 -
001 -
0.00
74
7S
i
78
l
77
i i
78 r»
FISCAL TEAR
•0
•1
82
Figure 5-25. Plot of national time trend and 95 percent confidence bands
for the average amount of-HCB in adipose tissue from NHATS data.
135
-------
significant differences; however, it does indicate differences among the
Census Divisions across the three age groups. Fifty-three percent (53%)
of the levels above 0.09 ppm are from the oldest age group (45+ years).
This percentage varies across the Census Divisions (see Figure 5-26).
Analysis of the data also indicates that a large percentage of the
specimens collected in the Pacific Census Division (38.1 percent) were
above 0.09 ppm. The highest percentage for any other Census Division was
14.4 percent for the Middle Atlantic Division.
5.6 Other Monitoring Data
A considerable amount of HCB ambient monitoring data is available in
the literature, mostly through university research and various national
and State programs. To identify these data, a literature search was
performed covering both journal articles and government publications.
The information from these monitoring studies is summarized in
Tables 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, and 5-28 for HCB levels in air (including
occupational air), water, sediment/soil, biota, and food, respectively.
Table 5-29 summarizes reported HCB concentrations in POTW sludges. These
tables contain information on the number of samples, the number of
detected values, the concentration, and the analytical technique, when
available. For every entry, the reference and any pertinent comments are
presented.
In addition to data obtained in the literature, data were also
obtained from STORET (Storage and Retrieval). This is a computerized
water quality data base that is operated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The data in STORET are collected by the states, EPA
regions, and other government agencies (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey).
In 1984, STORET was reported to have approximately 80,000,000 pieces of
data (Staples et al. 1984).
Data in STORET are organized into categories describing the general
sampling site. Ambient sites include streams, lakes, ponds, wells,
reservoirs, canals, estuaries, and oceans. Pipe sites are industrial or
municipal influents or effluents.
There are several limitations associated with the use of STORET
data. The major limitation is the wide range of detection limits,
sampling procedures, and overall quality of the various monitoring
studies from which the data in STORET were obtained. With these
136
-------
Ptmrrt
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
England
Middi* EMI Mfrst South EMI Wfeat
Atlantic North North Atlantic South South
Central Central Central Central
Data I* for Fiscal Mian 1974-1983 Excluding 1980 A 1982
Mountain
Picific CENSUS
DIVISION
Figure 5-26. Percent of specimens above 0.09 ppm of HCB residue level by
census division and age group.
137
-------
Table 5-25. Summary of Air and Occupational Exposure Monitoring Data for Hexachlorobenzene
Environmental compartment/
location
Ambient air
1975/76 EPfl Suryey:
-Ft. Collins, CO
-Harrisburg, PA
-Jackson, MS
-Lafayette, IN
1977 EPA Survey:
-Greenville, MS
-Pasadena, CA
-Uheaton, IL
I—*
» 1976 EPA Survey:
-flathead, MT
-Greenville, MS
-Pasadena, CA
1979 EPA Survey:
-Cahohia, IL
-Colunbia, SC
-Fresrio, CA
-Harlinger, TX
-Houston, TX
-Leland, MS
-Lubbock, TX
-Pasadena, CA
Number of Number of
sauples detected values
Concentration
Min Max
12
12
10
11
12
10
0
0
ND
NO
Mean
14
9
14
9
1
9
4
7
ND
0.1
ND
ND
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.5
(0.1 ng/n3
0.1 ng/m3
(0.1 ng/m3
0.2 ng/m3
45.4
0.7
0.6
4.4 ng/m3
0.1 ng/«3
0.1 ng/m3
11
12
10
11
11
12
12
10
4
0
5
5
5
5
3
1
ND
-
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5
-
3.2
4.2
4.6
5.1
1.6
1.8
0.3 ng/«3
-
1.0 ng/«3
0.6 ng/n3
0.9 ng/m3
0.9 ng/«3
0.2 ng/«3
0.2 ng/m3
Analytical
technique
Reference/comnents
GC/ECD Carey et al. (1985). Detection limit of
0.1 ng/n3.
GC/ECD Carey et al. (1985). Detection limit of
0.1 ng/«3.
GC/ECD Carey et al. (1985). Detection limit of
0.1 ng/»3.
GC/ECD Carey et al. (1985). Detection hut of
0.1 ng/n3.
-Great Lakes Basin
NA
NA 0.1 0.3 0.2 ng/i«3 NA Eisenreich et al. (1980; as reported in
Eisenreich et al. 1981). Study suggests that
atmospheric deposition represents a sizable,
if not a major source, of organic pollutants
to the Great Lakes.
-------
Table 5-25. (continued)
Environmental compartment/
location
-Columbia, SC
-August, 1978
-September, 1978
-March, 1979
-May, 1979
-July, 1979
-August, 1979
-October, 1979
-April, 1980
-October, 1980
-Denver, CO
-January, 1980
CO
vo
-New Bedford, MA
-June, 1980
Number of Number of Concentration Analytical Reference/comments
samples detected values Min Max Mean technique
1
3
6
2
3
2
1
3
2
9
6
1
3 0.28 0.32
6 - -
2 0.21 0.25
3
2 0.29 0.39
1
3 0.18 0.26
2 0.21 0.25
9 0.18 0.34
6 0.14 0.25
0.40 ng/m3 6C/ECD
0.31 ng/m3
0.28 ng/m3
0.23 ng/n3
0.27 ng/m3
0.34 ng/m3
0.25 ng/m3
0.21 ng/m3
0.23 ng/m3
0.24 ng/m3
0. IB ng/m3
Billings and Bidleman (1980,1983).
High volume 24-hr.
samples collected in
downtown area.
Billings and Bidleman (1983).
High volume 24-hr.
samples collected in
downtown area.
Billings and Bidlenan (1983).
High volume 24-hr.
saaples collected above a
Municipal landfill containing PCBs.
-Houston, TX
-Enewetak Atoll
(North Pacific Ocean)
-North Atlantic
-College Station, TX
-Pigeon Key, FL
-E. I. (iuPont Company
Corpus Christi, TX
NA
11
NA
NA
NA
10
NA 0.2 0.3ng/m3
11 0.095 0.130 0.10ng/o3
NA - - 0.15 ng/ra3
NA - - 0.20 ng/n3
NA - - 0.12 ng/«3
ND
ND
NA Brooks (1984)
6C/ECD Atlas and Giata (1981). Indicates long-
range atmospheric transport of HCB, and
are good measures of background concentrations.
Atlas and Gian (1981).
Atlas and Gian (1981).
Atlas and Giam (1981).
GC/ECD Li et al. (1976). Detection linit dependent on
sample volume. Perc, carbon tet, and chlorine
production; with onsite land disposal and
deep-well injection of wastes.
-------
Table 5-25. (continued)
Environmental compartment/
location
Nunber of Nuuber of
samples detected values
Concentration
Min Max
Analytical
Mean technique
Reference/comment s
-Diamond Shamrock 24 0
Deer Park, TX
-Ciba-Geigy Corporation 14 5
St. Gabriel, LA
-DOM Chemical Conpany 8 8
Pittsburg, CA
-PPG Industries 38 13
Lake Charles, LA
-01 in Corporation 24
Macintosh, AL
-Stauffer Chemical Company 108 108
Louisville, KY
-Vulcan Materials Coupany 180 180
Uichita, KA
-DarroM, LA NA Nfi
(Baton Rouge)
Aerial fallout (dry deposition)
-Southern California coast 5 5
ND ND
ND 20 ng/n3
BQL 80 ng/n3
ND 1,700 ng/n3
ND 2,200 ng/a3
240 7,000 ng/n3
530 24,000 ng/m3
16,000 ng/o3
0.1 3.4 1.0 ng/m2/day
NA
GC/ECD
Li et al. (1976). Perc, TCE, and chlorine
production. No onsite disposal.
Li et al. (1976). Atrazine, propazine, and
sinazine production. No onsite disposal.
Li et al. (1976). Perc, carbon tet, and chlor-
ine production; with onsite incineration
of wastes. Detection limit of 0.02 ug/n3.
Li et al. (1976). Perc, TCE, VC, vinylidene
chloride, chlorine, etc. production; with
onsite incineration, landfill, and treat-
ment canal for disposal of wastes.
Li et al. (1976). PCNB and chlorine production;
with solid wastes (in blocks) stored in open
field covered with plastic.
Li et al. (1976). Perc, carbon tet, MC, chloro-
form, and chlorine production. No onsite
disposal.
Li et al. (1976). Perc, carbon tet, and chlor-
ine production; with onsite landfill and
deep-well injection of wastes.
USEPA (1975a). Landfill receiving hex wastes
from a perc plant.
Young and Heesen (1976). Study indicates,
since CBs are more volatile than DDT or PCBs,
they are much less likely to be carried via
dry particulate fallout. Fallout rates for HCB
(1* that measured for DDT or 1254 PCB.
-------
Table 5-25. (continued)
Environmenta1 conpart Merit/
location
Number of Nunber of Concentration
samples detected values Min Max
Mean
Analytical
technique
Ref erence/coment s
Occupational Exposure
1. Air
-DOM Chenical Co.
(Plaquenine, LA)
2. Surface contact (denal)
-Dow Cheuical Conpany
(Plaquenine, LA)
MA
NA
BQL 154,000 ng/«3
MA
NA
NA
3,000 124,000 ng/«2
NA
Currier et al. (1980). Exposure (TUAs) to HCB
of nen employed in chlorinated solvent
Manufacture. Detection liirit is 1 ppb.
Currier et al. (1980). Wipe sanples in non-
production areas: the control roo», laboratory,
and clerical work areas.
NA - not available
NO - not detected
BQL - identified, but below quantification Halts
GC - gas chrouatography
ECD - electron capture detection
FID - flame ionization detection
MS - nass spectrometry
Perc - perchloroethylene
Carbon tet - carbon tetrachloride
TCE - trichloroethylene
VC - vinyl chloride
MC - nethylene chloride
PCNB - pentachloronitrobenzene (Quinozene, Terrachlor)
CB - chlorinated benzenes
TUfl - tine weighted average
Note: All reported units of concentration converted to ng/u3, ng/u2, or ng/to2/day.
Conversion of ppb to ng/tn3 (based on the ideal gas law).
-------
'able 5-26. Summary of ftnbient Hater and Wastewater Monitoring Data for Hexachlorobenzene
Environmental compartment/
location
Number of Nuuber of Concentration
samples detected values Min Max
Mean
Analytical
technique
Reference/comments
flnbient Mater
1. Drinking water
-Lake Ontario
6.0E-5 2.0E-4 1.0E-4 ug/1
6C/ECD
ro
-Dade County, PL
ie
ND
6.6E-1
1.4E-2 ug/1
6C/ECD
-Region V
63
0.004 0.066 ug/1
NA
-Nationwide
6C/HS
Oliver and Nicol (1962). Major sources appear
to be chemical waste dump leachates and direct
industrial effluents around Niagara Falls, NY.
No significant difference Mas found before or
after chlorination.
Barquet et al. (1961). Chlorinated Municipal
drinking Mater, froa an area with extensive
pesticide use, including past use of per-
sistent organochlorines. HCB was not
detected in 10 wellwater samples frou the
sane area. Detection limit of V6 ng/1.
USEPfl (1975b). Samples of raw and
finished Hater collected froa 63 utilities
between January and March 1975. HCB
Mas detected in 3 of the 83 water
samples (6, 6, and IBng/l).
Boland (1961). Sanples of both raw
and finished water from %
locations. Quantification limit
of 0.2 ug/1.
-------
Table 5-26. (continued)
Environnental coupartuent/
location
Nunber of Nunber of
sanples detected values
Concentration
Nin Max
Mean
Analytical
technique
2. Surface water
Reference/comment5
-Lake Ontario 5
-Lake Huron 5
-Lake Ontario western basin 13
-------
Table 5-26. (continued)
Environnental compartment/
location
-Mississippi River
(Baton Rouge to below
New Orleans, LA)
-Wolf River
(Memphis, TN)
Number of Nunber of Concentration Analytical
samples detected values Min Max Mean technique
Reference/comments
NA
BQL
98.3
(2 ug/1
90
NA
A: 5.4E-3 ug/1
B: 1.61E-2 ug/1
-Nueces Estuary/Corpus
Christi Bay, TX
(marine environoent)
21
NA
BQL
6.1E-4 2.4E-4 ug/1
6C/ECD Laska et al. (1976). Collections of samples
at 5 aile intervals. This section of river
contains numerous large chemical plants,
having HCB as one of their byproducts. Detec-
tion limit of 0.7 ug/1.
NA Jaffe et al. (1982). Mean values, at points
above (A) and below (B) waste dump site.
Point source of HCB is the North Hollywood
site. The pesticide industry, among others,
used this site (ca 20 years old, now closed)
for waste disposal. Site is ca 5 km upstream
of confluence with Mississippi River.
6C/ECD Ray et al. (1983a). Major potential sources
or are the numerous industrial plants, mainly
FID petrochemical, located along the Tule Lake
Channel and Corpus Christi Bay. Detection
limit is 0.01 ng/1.
-San Luis Pass, TX
(marine environment)
3. Ground water (well)
4. Precipitation
-Great Lakes Basin
NA
ND
GC
NA
-Enewetak Atoll
(North Pacific Ocean)
NA 1.0E-3 4.0E-3 2.0E-3 ug/1
NA - >3.0E-5 ug/1
NA
GC/ECD
Murray et al. (1981). West Balveston Bay.
Detection limit of 0.1 ng/1.
Eisenreich et al. (1980; as reported in
Eisenreich et al. 1981). Met deposition
of airborne organics is suggested as a
major source to the Great Lakes.
Atlas and Giam (1981). Indicates long-
range atmospheric transport of HCB, and
are good Measures of background ambient
values.
-------
Table 5-26. (continued)
Environmental coupartuent/
location
Nunber of Nunber of Concentration Analytical
samples detected values Min Max Mean technique
Reference/comments
-Isle Royale
(Lake Superior)
6.1 ng/1
6C/ECD Strachan et al. (1985).
0.81 ng/1 GC/ECD
NO 6C/ECD
-Caribou Island
(Lake Superior)
ND
0.01 ng/1
0.02 ng/1
0.4 ng/1
ND
GC/ECD
GC/ECD
GC/ECD
GC/ECD
GC/ECD
UasteMater
1. Industrial
-Ciba-6eigy Corporation
St. Gabriel, LA
ND
Strachan et al. (1985). Also included Mere estinates of
rainfall loadings of HCB
Volume weighted rain cone. 0.075 ng/1.
Loadings from rain and snow 3.7 kg/yr.
Previous estimates: rain 138 kg/yr,
dryfall 1,608 kg/yr.
GC/ECD Li et al. (1976). Refer to consents on
anbient air for infornation on sources
(see Table 5-25). Detection limit of
8.085 to 0.01 ug/1, dependent on sauple
volume.
-------
Table 5-26. (continued)
EnvironBerital compart Bent/
location
-Dianond Shanrock
Deer Park, TX
-Linden Chlorine
Linden, NJ
-E. I. duPont Inc.
Corpus Christi, TX
-PPG Industries Inc.
Lake Charles, LA
-Stauffer Chenical Company
Louisville, KY
-01 in Corporation
Macintosh, AL
-Vulcan Materials Company
Wichita, KS
Nuaber of Number of Concentration
samples detected values Min Max
2
6
7
7
,ny 6
10
»y 4
1
1
NA
6
6
7
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2
ND
0.009
0.1 ug/1
0.34 ug/1
2.8 ug/1
7.1 ug/1
35 ug/1
160 ug/1
300 ug/1
Mean
Analytical Reference/comoents
technique
GC/ECD Li et al. (1976).
Li et al. (1976).
Li et al. (1976).
Li et al. (1976).
Li et al. (1976).
Li et al. (1976).
Li et al. (1976).
2. Municipal
-Lakes Ontario/Huron
-Los Angeles County, CA
(JUPCP)
-Los Angeles City, CA:
5-uile plant
7-raile plant
-Orange County, CA
-San Diego City, CA
4
NA
4 1.0E-3 2.0E-3 1.5E-3 ug/1
NA 2.0E-4 4.0E-4 ug/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
l.OE-5
4. 1E-4
7.0E-6
1.0E-5
4.0E-5
1.0E-4 ug/1
6.8E-3 ug/1
4.0E-5 ug/1
1.0E-5 ug/1
4.0E-4 ug/1
GC/ECD Oliver and Nicol (1982).
GC/ECD Voung and Heesen (1976). EPfl-sponsored
or of chlorinated pesticide levels in Major
MS municipal wastewaters of southern California.
Indication of importance of surface runoff as
a source of CBs to coastal ecosystems.
Young and Heesen (1976).
" Young and Heesen (1976).
Young and Heesen (1976).
Young and Heesen (1976).
Young and Heesen (1976).
-------
Table 5-26. (continued)
NA - not available
ND - not detected
BQL - identified, but below quantification li»its
6C - gas chroaatography
ECD - electron capture detection
FID - flame ionization detection
MS - Bass spectrouetry
HCB - hexachlorobenzene
CB - chlorinated benzenes
Note: fill reported units of concentration are converted to ug/1.
-------
'able 5-27. Surmary of Sedinent/Soil Monitoring Data for Hexachlorobenzene
Environmental compartment/
location
Number of Number of Concentration
samples detected values Min Max
Sediient/soil
i. Suspended sediment
-Niagara River at Ft. Erie
(upper reach)
-Lake Ontario western basin
(Niagara-on-the-Lake, at the
nouth of the Niagara R.)
oo
NA
17
-Lower Niagara River
-Upper Niagara River
-Lower Niagara River
70
NA
NA
NA
17
0.015 0.460
70
NA
NA
ND
0.0052
Mean
Analytical
technique
Reference/consents
0.005 ug/g 6C/ECD Fox et al. (1983). Dry Height sanples.
Collected nith 125 ui plankton net.
8.108 ug/g " Fox et al. (1983). Dry weight sanples.
Collected with 125 ui plankton net, size
fractionated by wet sieving, 75 to 700 un
particles, before analysis. Range for all
sizes of particles given.
0.124 ug/g GC/ECD Kuntz and Harry (1983). Dry Height basis.
0.030 ug/g NA Kauss (1983). Dry weight basis.
0.097 ug/g NA Kauss (1983). Dry weight basis.
2. Bottom sediment
-Lake Ontario western basin
(Niagara-on-the-Lake, at the
mouth of the Niagara R.)
0.062" 0.840 0.220 ug/g
GC/ECD Fox et al. (1983). Dry weight basis. Study
compares concentrations found in sedintent to
biota. Refer to comnents on aquatic biota,
i.e., oligochaetes, aaphipods, mysids, and fish
(see Table 5-28).
-Lake Ontario
-Lake Erie
-Lake Huron
-Lake Superior
-Lake
/ >
11
5
42
13
NA
11
5
42
13
NA
0.009 0.320
0.097 ug/g
7.0E-4 0.012 0.003 ug/g
4.0E-4 0.005 0.002 ug/g
2.0E-5 7.0E-4 2.0E-4 ug/g
0.270 0.460 ug/g
/ J)
Oliver and Nicol (1982). Surficial sedinent
samples. Refer to contents on drinking water
(see Table 5-26).
Oliver and Nicol (1982).
Oliver and Nicol (1982).
Oliver and Nicol (1962).
Oliver and Nicol (1982). 0-1 and 1-2 en depth
core samples, representing deposition from
1976-1980 and 1971-1976, respectively.
-------
lable 5-27. (continued)
Environmental compartment/
location
Number of Number of Concentration
samples detected values Min Max Mean
analytical
technique
«£>
Sediment/soil
1. Suspended sediment
-Niagara River at Ft. Erie
(upper reach)
-Lake Ontario western basin
(Niagara-on-the-Lake, at the
•outh of the Niagara R.)
-Lower Niagara River
-Upper Niagara River
-Lower Niagara River
Reference/comment s
NA
17
NA - - 0.005 ug/g
17 0.015 0.468 0.108 ug/g
70
NA
NA
70
NA
NA
ND
.0052
GC/ECD
Fox et al. (1983). Dry weight sasples.
Collected with 125 UB plankton net.
Fox et al. (1983). Dry weight saiples.
Collected with 125 urn plankton net, size
fractionated by wet sieving, 75 to 700 urn
particles, before analysis. Range for all
sizes of particles given.
0.124 ug/g GC/ECD Kuntz and Harry (1983). Dry weight basis.
0.030 ug/g NA Kauss (1983). Dry weight basis.
0.097 ug/g NA Kauss (1983). Dry weight basis.
2. Bottom sediment
-Lake Ontario western basin
(Niagara-on-the-Lake, at the
•outh of the Niagara R.)
-Lake Ontario
-Lake Erie
-Lake Huron
-Lake Superior
-Lake Ontario
(Niagara basin)
11
5
42
13
NA
0.062 0.840 0.220 ug/g GC/ECD
11 0.009 0.320 0.097 ug/g
5 7.0E-4 0.012 0.003 ug/g
42 4.0E-4 0.005 0.002 ug/g
13 2.0E-5 7.0E-4 2.8E-4 ug/g
NA 0.270 0.460 ug/g
Fox et al. (1983). Dry weight basis. Study
conpares concentrations found in sediment to
biota. Refer to comments on aquatic biota,
i.e., oligochaetes, anphipods, nysids, and fish
(see Table 5-28).
Oliver and Nicol (1982). Surficial sediment
samples. Refer to comments on drinking water
(see Table 5-26).
Oliver and Nicol (1982).
Oliver and Nicol (1982).
Oliver and Nicol (1985).
Oliver and Nicol (1982). 0-1 and 1-2 en depth
core samples, representing deposition from
1976-1980 and 1971-1976, respectively.
-------
Table 5-27. (continued)
Environmental compartnent/
location
Number of Nunber of
saiples detected values
Concentration
Min Max
Mean
Analytical
technique
Reference/conuents
tn
o
-Upper Niagara River
-Lower Niagara River
-Niagara River Watershed
(Niagara Falls, NY)
-E. I. duPont Inc.
Corpus Christi, TX
-Linden Chlorine
Linden, NJ
-01 in Corporation
Mclntosh, ftL
-PPG Industries
Lake Charles, LA
NO
NA
NA
NA
ND - 3 ug/g
- - 55 ug/g
8 30 16 ug/g
ND 0.11 ug/g
0.10 7.6 ug/g
12.4 ug/g
0.01 63 ug/g
Nfl Kauss (1983). Dry Height, Bean values.
NA Kauss (1983). Dry weight, Bean values.
GC/MS Elder et al. (1981). Sample sites adjacent to
3 hazardous waste disposal areas: 102nd Street
dump, Hyde Park landfill, and an industrial-
ized complex with several dunpsites on the
property. Detection limit of 0.5 ug/g.
GC/ECD Li et al. (1976). Refer to contents on
ambient air (see Table 5-25). Detection
liait of 0.005 t0 0.01 ug/g, dependent
on sample volune.
Li et al. (1976).
° Li et al. (1976). Only one sample.
Li et al. (1976).
-Stauffer Cheuical Company
Louisville, KY
-Wolf River
(Memphis, TN>
-Nueces Estuary/Corpus
Christi Bay, TX
(marine environment)
NA
3 0.01 200 ug/g
NA 0.0053 0.0576 ug/g
6 BQL 7.3E-4 l.lE-4ug/g
Li et al. (1976).
NA Jaffe et al. (1982). Mean values, for points
above and below dump site, respectively. Refer
to cements on surface waters (see Table 5-26).
GC/ECD Ray et al. (1983a). Major potential sources
or are the numerous industrial plants, mainly
FID petrochemical, located along the Tule Lake
Channel and Corpus Christi Bay. Detection
limit is 0.01 ng/g. Dry weight.
-------
Table 5-27. (continued)
Environmental compartment/
location
Nutiber of Number of Concentration
samples detected values Mm Max
Mean
Analytical Reference/comments
technique
-San Luis Pass, TX
(marine environment)
-Portland Harbor, ME
(marine environment)
3. Soil
a. Industrial sites:
-Ciba-Geigy Corporation
St. Gabriel, LA
-PPG Industries
Lake Charles, LA
-E. I. duPont Inc.
Corpus Christi, TX
-Linden Chlorine
Linden, NJ
-Dow Chemical Company
Pittsburg, CA
-Diamond Shamrock
Deer Park, TX
-Stauffer Chenical Company
Louisville, KY
-Vulcan Materials Coapany
Wichita, KA
-01 in Corporation
Mclntosh, AL
'-Darrow, Lfl
(south of Baton Rouge)
5.0E-5 1.5E-3 4.9E-4 ug/g
3
1
3
3
5
10
1
3
1
3
3
5
10
1
Nfl
Nfl
BQL
3.7E-4 1.4E-4 ug/g
ND
0.01 ug/g
0.015 0.10 ug/g
0.015 0.39 ug/g
1.7 ug/g
0.014 a. 61 ug/g
0.06 £4 ug/g
0.25 5,700 ug/g
1.1 ug/g 5X
0.98 ug/g 13)1
5,000 ug/g
GC Murray et al. (1981). West Galveston Bay.
Detection limit of 0.03 ng/g.
GC/ECD Ray et al. (1983b). Major potential sources
or are numerous industrial plants along the
FID harbor. Detection limit is 0.03 ng/g.
GC/ECD Li et al. (1976). Refer to consents on
ambient air. Detection linit of 0.005 to
0.01 ug/g, dependent on sanple volume.
Li et al. (1976).
Li et al. (1976).
Li et al. 11976). Only one sample.
Li et al. (1976).
Li et al. 11976).
Li et al. (1976).
" Li et al. (1976). Maximum concentrations
reported as percent values.
" Li et al. (1976). Maximum concentrations
reported as percent values.
NA USEPA (1975a). Results of soil samples near
a landfill receiving hex wastes from a
perc plant; suspected as the major source
of HCB contamination of local beef cattle.
-------
Table 5-27. (continued)
Environmental conpartuent/
location
-Mississippi River
(Baton Rouge to below
New Orleans, LA)
b. Urban soils
1974 EPfl Survey:
-San Francisco, CA
-Gary, IN
1975 EPA Survey:
-Milwaukee, HI
-Salt Lake City, UT
-Uaterbury, CT
CJl
ro
1976 EPfl Survey:
-Sioux City, IA
-Wilmington, DE
1979 EPft Survey:
-Washington, DC
Nunber of Number of Concentration
samples detected values Min Max Mean
29 Nfl BQL 1.677 ug/g
•~
164 1 ND 0.02 (0.01 ug/g
85 1 ND 0.59 (0.01 ug/g
47 2 ND 0.06 (0.01 ug/g
50 2 ND 0.05 (0.01 ug/g
44 1 ND 0.30 (0.01 ug/g
22 2 ND 0.03 (0.01 ug/g
25 1 ND 0.45 (0.01 ug/g
123 1 ND 0.02 (0.01 ug/g
Analytical Reference/coaments
technique
6C/ECD Laska et al. (1976). Dry weight basis. L
and ditch sauples. Detection lisit of 0.
GC/ECD Carey et al. (1985). Detection Unit of
0.01 ug/g wet weight.
n
GC/ECD Carey et al. (1985). Detection liait of
0.01 ug/g wet weight.
"
ii
GC/ECD Carey et al. (1985). Detection Unit of
0.01 ug/g wet weight.
B
GC/ECD Carey et al. (1985). Detection liiit of
c. Agricultural soils
-1972 EPfl Survey-nationwide
(37 states, 1,485 sites)
1,485 11 ND
(6 in Ufl; 2 in OK;
1 in CA, MI, ID)
0.44
(0.01 ug/g GC/ECD
0.01 ug/g wet weight.
Carey et al. (1985). Eight detected values
were front snail-grain fields, one from
cotton field (max value), one from soybean
field, and one unknown. Three fields had
HCB applied, two - PCNB, one - linuron,
one - BHC/mercury, one - 2,4-D/uercury,
and two unknowns. Detection limit of 0.01
ug/g dry weight.
-------
Table 5-27. (continued)
Environmental conpartnent/
location
-1973 EPfl Survey-nationwide
(37 states, 1,470 sites)
-1976 EPfl Survey-nationwide
(11 states, 391 samples)
Nuiber of Nunber of Concentration
saaples detected values Min Max
Mean
Analytical
technique
1,470 1
(in Cfl)
391
2
(in Ufl)
NO
ND
.01
0.02
(0.01 ug/g GC/ECD
(0.01 ug/g GC/ECD
Reference/contents
Carey et al. (1985). Detected sample from
a cotton field where trifluralin had been
applied. Detection limit of 0.01 ug/g.
Carey et al. (1965). Both detected values
were fron wheat fields. Detection litoit of
0.01 ug/g dry weight.
en
CO
NA - not available
ND - not detected
BQL - identified, but below quantification liiits
GC - gas chronatography
ECD - electron capture detection
FID - flame ionization detection
MS - uass spectrometry
HCB - hexachlorobenzene
BHC - benzene hexachloride
Note: All reported units of concentration converted to ug/g.
-------
Table 5-28. Summary of Biota/Food Monitoring Data for Hexadilorobenzene
Environmental compartment/
location
Number of Number of Concentration
samples detected values Min Max
Mean
Analytical
technique
Reference/comments
Aquatic biota
1. Freshwater fish
-Lake Ontario
-Lake Ontario western basin
NA
NA
25 100 ppb
63 ppb
-Lake Ontario
-Lake Superior
-Lake Superior
NA
NA
24
NA
NA
NA
61 127 ppb
13 ppb
5 ppb
GC/ECD
Niimi (1979; reported in Ray et al., 19B3b).
No species reported.
Fox et al. (1983). Lake trout (S. namaycush),
age 1+ years. Composite sample. Dry weight.
Oliver and Nicol (1982). Lake trout, age 5+
to 6+ years.
Oliver and Nicol (1982). Lake trout, age 6+ years.
Swain (1978). Lake trout. Wet weight, average
for all stations.
-Mississippi River
(Baton Rouge to.below
New Orleans, LA)
2. Freshwater invertebrates
-Lake Ontario western basin
-Lake Ontario western basin
-Lake Ontario western basin
-Mississippi River
(Baton Rouge to below
New Orleans, LA)
29
NA
71.8 379.8 ppb
9
8
1
29
9
8
1
NA
63
90
-
22.2
1,200
1,600
% ppb
194.3 ppb
301 ppb
570 ppb
-
_
Laska et al. (1976). Whole body tissue
extracts of uosquitofish (6. affinis).
Fox et al. (1983). Oligochaete benthic
worms (primarily T. tubifex). Dry weight.
Fox et al. (1983). Amphipods (P. hoyi, and
some Garamarus spp.). Dry weight.
Fox et al. (1983). Mysid shrimp. Dry weight.
Laska et al. (1976). Crayfish, predominantly
the red swamp crayfish (P. clarki), from
ditches along the river.
-------
Table 5-88. (continued)
Erivironwental compartment/
location
Number of Number of
samples detected values
Concentration
Min Max
Mean
Analytical
technique
Reference/comments
in
in
3. Marine fish
-New York Bight
(offshore of Nassau County,
Long Island)
-New York Bight
4. Marine invertebrates
-San Luis Pass, TX
-Portland Harbor, ME
-Port 1 arid Harbor, ME
-Galveston Bay, TX
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.15
BQL
0.45 ppb NA Conner (1984). An equal nixture of winter
and windoMpane flounder, lobster, and
mussels Has analyzed.
1.1 ppb NA Conner (1S84). Striped bass
-------
Table 5-28. (continued)
Environmental compartwent/
location
Nunber of Number of Concentration
sauples detected values Min Max
Mean
Analytical
technique
Reference/connent s
Feed annals
1. Beef cattle
-Denver, CO
(Lowry Bonbing Range)
NA
-Darrow, LA
NA
NA
10 ppb NA Baxter et al. (1983). Cattle grazing a
Municipal sewage sludge disposal site.
Fat tissue, wet weight samples. No significant
difference from 29 control animals. No
detectable levels Mere found in nuscle,
liver, or kidney tissues.
1,520 ppb - NA USEPfl (1975a). Routine analyses by the Dept. of
Agriculture, far in excess of the tolerance level
of 6.3 ppn in beef fat. Biopsy fat saaples Mere
obtained from 555 aninals in 157 herds. 29* of
the cattle tested and 34* of the herds, contained
HCB at >0.5 ppn. Sources appear to be air-
borne Missions fron industrial plants pro-
ducing chlorinated hydrocarbons and waste
disposal practices of these plants; particularly
hex waste disposal froa a local perc plant.
Food itens
1. Peanut butter
11
2. Wheat
NA
11 0.97 38 7.4 ppb GC/ECD Heikes (1980). FDA routinely analyzes
or peanut butter for pesticide residues. PCNB
MS is used as a soil fungicide and seed disin-
fectant on peanuts. HCB has been reported
at significant levels in both soils treated
with PCNB and in crops grown on these soils.
NA ND 62 ppb - NA Johns (1969), P.S.I.Ag.Ch.E.-Finland (1972)5
reported in Scheunert et al. (1983). Samples
of wheat grown from HCB-treated seed.
-------
Table 5-28. (continued)
Environmental compartnent/
location
Nuuber of Nunber of
sanples detected values
Concentration
Mm Max
Mean
Analytical
technique
Reference/cownents
3. Inported cheese
NA
Nfl
trace 810 ppb
NA FAO-WHO (1970; reported in Booth and McDowell,
1975). On a fat basis.
4. Malt beverages
51
5. Counercial fish food
88 ppb
NA Personal coanunication between J. Renoer (EPA/
OTS) and R. Dyer (BATF) on July 8, 1985.
During 1983-84, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms conducted cheaical analyses of
51 ualt beverages (24 domestic and 27 foreign).
HCB Mas not detected in any of the beverages at
a detection Unit of 1 ppb.
GC/ECD Laska et al. (1976). Used nationwide in game
fish culture. Indicates neccesity of care in
toxicological studies.
NA - not available
ND - not detected
BQL - identified, but below quantification liaits
GC - gas chrouatography
ECD - electron capture detection
FID - flatae ionization detection
MS - mass spectrouetry
HCB - hexachlorobenzene
PCNB - pentachloronitrobenzene (Quinozene, Terrachlor)
Note: All reported concentration units converted to ppb.
-------
Table 5-29. HCB Concentrations in POTW Sludges
en
oo
Study
USEPA (1982)
Jacobs et al . (1981)
Mi chigan
Department of Natural
Resources (1984)
NYC - Department of
Envi ronmental
Protection (1983)
City of Galveston
Other studies combined
(not including
USEPA 1982)
Al 1 studi es combi ned
Number of Number of n ,. .. • -i • • ,.
Percent Dectectton limit
POIWs POlWs -
detected a b
analyzed detected Wet wt. Dry wt.
44 7 16 5-10 ug/1 0.02 - 0.04d mg/kg
237 102 43 - 0.1 mg/kg
27 1 4 - 0.1 mg/kg
12 0 0 45 ug/1 0.2 mg/kgd
3 0 0 10 ug/1 0.04 mg/kgd
279 103 37
323 110 34
Concentrations (mg/kg dry weight)
Mean Median Minimum Maximum
1.25 0.92 0.37 2.31
468 18 0.188 26,200
<0.13 <1.0
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
468e - <0.13 26,200
374f
4389 - <0.13 26,200
a Wet weight, usually reported in ug/1.
Dry weight, usually reported in ug/kg and converted to mg/kg.
*• Based on analysis ol detected values only.
^ Specific gravity ol sludge is approximately 1, hence ug/1 and ug/kg wet weight were used interchangeably (NYC - DEP 1983).
Reported mean moisture content ol sludge was 77 percent. This figure was used to convert wet weight to dry weight (mg/kg).
e Actual weighted mean.
Normali zed mean.
'J Weighted by population size.
Sourtf-: (.DM (1984). A Comparison of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges. Prepared by: Camp Dresser & McKee, Annandale, VA.
Tor: USEPA, 01 lice of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. August 1984. Contract
No. 68-01-6403.
-------
differences in data quality, it is difficult to compare specific data
points within the STORE! system. Another major disadvantge to some of
the data in STORE! is the way the qualified nondetected values are
reported (i.e., by reporting HCB as detected, but below a given
concentration). With concentrations reported in this manner, it is
difficult to estimate the true average or mean concentrations for a given
set of data.
Monitoring results for HCB in ambient streams, wells, and lakes are
summarized in !ables 5-30, 5-31, and 5-32, respectively. Table 5-33
contains data from STORET on HCB levels in industrial effluents that have
been reported on the relatively new NPDES Application Form 2C.
Table 5-34 lists those Form 2C facilities that have reported actual
measured concentrations of HCB in their industrial effluents (i.e., this
table does not include qualified nondetected values). Figure 5-27
presents the locations of those facilities reporting results of HCB
analysis of treated wastewater (Form 2C data).
Data on HCB levels in the environment were collected from all regions
of the country. Several areas, such as the Great Lakes region and
several parts of Texas, were more heavily studied than others. HCB was
detected in all areas of the country. It was consistently detected in
sediments and in some surface waters and soils in industrialized areas.
The nature of compiled monitoring and STORET data make
inter-reference comparisons difficult. Pertinent information, such as
number of samples, sampling technique, and basis for reporting (wet or
dry basis) are not always provided. Reproducibility of extraction of HCB
for analysis is difficult to ensure. It may, however, be assumed that
the extraction techniques used were similar, though probably not
identical, from study to study. Summaries for each medium are presented
below.
5.6.1 Water Monitoring Data
Monitoring data for water were compiled from literature sources and
STORET. Information extracted from literature is grouped into two major
categories: (1) ambient water, containing data on drinking water,
surface water and precipitation, and (2) wastewater with information on
industrial and municipal effluents. The Great Lakes area, the focus of
most studies detailed in the literature, yielded samples with the
greatest HCB concentrations for ambient water. The amount of HCB
monitoring data reported in STORET varies widely among regions. For
159
-------
Table 5-30. STORE! Ambient Stream Monitoring Data for HCB
Remark Number of
Location State code samples
Ambient Stream:
Region I CT, HA, ME, NH - 0
RI, VT
Region II NJ , NY K 69
Region III DE, MD, PA, VA K 121
WV U 866
Total: 987
Region IV At, f'L, GA, KY, K 237
^ MS, NC, SC, TN U 553
S M 5
N 369
N" 346"
Total: 1,164
1 ,141*
Region V IL, IN, MI , MN, K 420
OH, WI U 291
N 5
Total: 716
keg 101. VI Ak, LA, NM, OK K 412
IX U 95
Number of
detections
_
69
121
0
121
237
0
5
369
346*
611
588"
420
0
5
425
412
0
Concentration (uo/1 )
Max.
_
5.0
10.0
NO
0.0
10.0
NO
-
22,000
105.0*
22,000
105.0"
5.0
NO
4.0
4.0
5.0
NO
Min.
_
0.5
<0.001
ND
NO
<0.001
ND
-
0.06
ND
<0.001
ND
0.01
ND
<0.001
ND
Mean Comments
Samples collected:
_
0.0 1981-1984; NY only.
0.0 1978-1984.
0.0
0.0
0.0 1976-1984.
0.0
-
158.291
4.186*
50.396
1.275"
0.0 1975-1984; No samples
ND reported for WI.
0.826
0.006
0.0 1973-1984.
ND
507
412
0.0
ND
0.0
-------
Table 5-30. (continued)
Remark
ic.it ion State code
Region VII IA, KS, MO, NE K
U
N
Total :
Region VIII CO, NT, ND, SD K
UT, WY U
Total :
Region IX A,?, CA , HI, NV K
Region X AK , ID, OR, WA K
U
Total :
Puerto Rico U
Wellington, DC K
Subtotal: K
U
M
U
N"
I01AL:
Number of
samples
315
102
4
421
16
10
26
2
%
14
109
1
2
1,689
1,932
5
378
355"
4,004
3,981*
Number of
detections
315
0
4
319
16
0
16
2
95
0
9C,
0
2
1,689
0
5
378
355"
2,072
2,049*
Concentration (ua/1)
Max.
360
ND
0.19
0.19
5.0
ND
0.0
5.0
5.0
ND
0.0
ND
5.0
360
ND
-
22,000
105.0"
22,000
105.0*
Min.
0.001
ND
0.03
ND
0.5
ND
ND
5.0
0.5
ND
ND
ND
0.5
<0.001
ND
-
0.06
ND
Mean Comments
0.0 1977-1983.
0.0
0.0775
<0.001
0.0 1980-1984; No samples
0.0 reported for MT, ND.
0.0
0.0 1978-1984; No samples
reported for CA, HI, NV.
0.0 1973-1980; No samples
0.0 reported for AK.
0.0
0.0 1979.
0.0 1979-1980.
0.0
-
154.534
4.092"
14.607
0.365"
-------
Table 5-30. Footnotes
K - Actual value is known to be less than reported value. Assumed value of zero used in calculation of means.
U - Indicates HCB was analyzed for but not detected (ND). Nondetected values are considered as zeros in calculation of means.
tl - Actual reported values (no remark code).
H - Presence of HCB verified but not quantified. These samples were not used in calculation of means.
' - Calculations alter removal of the following suspicious data: 23 samples averaging 2,476.56 mg/1 HCB, with a maximum reported value of 22,000 mg/1
from tlie lol lowing station in Jetlerson County, KY:
• OHIO R EFF FRM MORRIS FOREMAN STP (77/06/0'J)
-------
Table 5-31. STORE! Ambient Wenwater Monitoring Data for HCB
00
icat i on
il> i ent we 1 1 water :
Region I
Region 11
Region 1 1 1
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Krcjion VI I
Region VIII
Remark Number of Number of Concentration (ug/1)
State code samples detections Max. Min. Mean
CI, MA, ME, NH K 4 4 0.5 0.5 0.0
RI, VT
NJ, NY K 261 261 1,250 0.5 0.0
DE, MO, PA, VA K 14 14 0.5 0.5 0.0
wv
Al , fL, GA, KY K 238 238 25.0 0.5 0.0
MS, NC, SC, TN U 200 0 ND ND 0.0
N 1 1 <0.01 <0.01 0.004
Total: 439 239 <0.01 ND «0.001
IL, IN, MI, MN K 31 31 0.5 0.001 0.0
OH, WI
AR, LA, NM, OK K 69 69 2.5 0.4 0.0
TX
IA, KS, MO, NE K 23 23 10.0 5.0 0.0
CO, MT, ND, SD K 2 2 0.5 0.005 0.0
LIT, WY U 1 0 ND ND 0.0
Comments
Samples collected:
1984; Samples reported for
MA only.
1979-1984.
1982-1984; Samples reported for
PA only.
1977-1984; No samples reported for
MS.
1975-1984.
1983-1984; No samples reported for
NM and OK.
1978-1981; No samples reported for
MO and NE.
1980-1984; Samples reported for
CO and LIT only.
Total :
0.0 ND
0.0
-------
Table 5-31. (continued)
CTt
Remark Number of Number of
Location State code samples detections
Region IX A2, CA, HI, NV K 17 17
Region X AK, ID, OR, WA K 7 7
U 3 0
Total: 10 7
Puerto Rico K 17 17
Concentration (ua/l)
Max.
5.0
5.0
ND
0.0
0.5
Min. Mean Comments
0.25 0.0 1983-1985; Samples reported for
CA only.
0.001 0.0 1978-1980; Samples reported for
ND 0.0 OR and WA only.
ND 0.0
0.5 0.0 1981-1982.
Washington, DC - 0 - -
Subtotal: K 713 713
U 201 0
N I I
TOTAL: 918 711
1,250
ND
<0.01
1,250
0.5 0.0
ND 0.0
<0.01 0.001
ND «0.001
Means calculated assuming those samples with remark code K (actual value is known to be less than reported value) and remark code U (not detected - ND) as
,>ero values.
N - Actual reported value (no remark code).
-------
Table 5-32. STORET Ambient Lake Monitoring Data for HCB
Local ion
State
Remark Number of
code samples
Number of
detections
Concentration (ua/1)
Max.
Min.
Mean
Comments
Ambient lake:
Region I
CT, MA, ME, NH
RI, VT
Samples collected:
cr>
en
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VI 1
NJ, NY
DE, HD, PA, VA K
WV
[A, KS, MO, ME
12
12
10.0
10.0
0.0
1982; DE only.
AL , 1 1. , GA, KY K
MS, NC, SC, TN U
Total :
IN, IL, MI, MN K
OH, Wl U
Total :
AR, LA, MM; OK K
TX U
Total :
13
1
,4
34
32
66
32
1
33
13
0
13
34
0
34
32
0
32
0.5
ND
0.0
50.0
ND
0.0
0.25
ND
0.0
0.001
ND
ND
0.05
ND
ND
0.001
ND
ND
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1980-1983; Samples reported for
FL and MS only.
1975-1984.
1974-1981; Samples reported for
LA and OK only.
5.0
1.0
0.0
1978-1981; No samples reported for
IA.
CO, MT, ND, SD
U I , 1-/Y
-------
Table 5-32. (continued)
Remark Number of
Location State code samples
Number of
detections
Concentration (ua/1)
Max.
Min.
Mean Comments
Region IX AZ , CA, HI, NV - -0
Region X AK, ID, OR, WA K 11
N 1
Total: 12
Subtotal: K 103
U 34
N 1
TOTAL: 138
11
1
12
103
0
1
104
5.0
0.1
0.1
50
NO
0.1
0.1
<0.001
0.1
0.0
<0.001
NO
0.1
0.0
0.0 1978-1979.
0.1
0.008
0.0
ND
0.1
<0.001
CTl
01 Means, calculated assuming those samples with remark code K (actual value is known to be less than reported value) and remark code U (not detected - ND) as
zero values.
N - Actual reported value (no remark code).
-------
Table 5-33. STORET Industrial Effluent (Treated Outflow Pipe) Monitoring Data for HCB
CTl
Location States
1 nelust rial el t 1 uent :
Reijion I CT, MA, HE, NH ,
RI , VT
Region 11 NJ , NY
Ret) ion III OE, MD, HA, VA,
WV
Rf-gion IV AL, FL, GA, KY,
MS, NC, SC, TN
Remark Number of
code samples
K 57
U 24
Total: 81
K 8<1
U 69
N 1
Total: 154
K 267
U 136
N 3
Total: 40 b
K 195
U 175
N 13
12"
Total: 383
381"
Number of
detections
57
0
57
9
0
1
10
267
0
3
270
195
0
13
12"
208
206"
Concentration (uo/1)
Max.
25,000
ND
25,000
10.0
ND
10.0
10.0
5,000
ND
11.0
5,000
5,000
ND
10,000
10. 0«
10,000
10.0"
Min.
<0.001
ND
ND
<0.001
ND
10.0
ND
<0.001
ND
0.004
<0.001
ND
0.003
ND
Mean Comments
Sampling reported for 1983 only.
0.0 No samples reported for CT
0.0 and VT.
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.06
0.0
0.0
5.668
0.04
0.0 No samples reported for GA,
0.0 MS, and NC.
774.662
5.883«
26.29
0.185*
-------
Table 5-33. (continued)
Remark Number of
Location States code samples
Region V 11. , IN, MI , MN , K 25
OH, Wl U 2
Total: 27
Region VI AK! , LA, NM, OK, K 304
TX U 114
N 7
Total : 425
Region VII IA, KS, MO, NE U 14
Total: 14
k<-Ljion VIII CO, MT, ND, SD K 9
VI , WY U 2
N 2
Total: 13
K'pgioii IX A2, CA, HI, NV K 2
U 3
Total: 5
(^-•giun X AK, ID, OR, WA K 43
U 38
N 1
Total : 82
Put-rto Rico K 4
U 9
Number of
detections
25
0
25
304
0
7
311
0
0
9
0
2
11
2
0
2
43
0
1
44
4
0
Concentration (ua/1)
Max.
5.0
ND
5.0
5,000
ND
37.0
5,000
ND
ND
5.0
ND
<0.001
5.0
19.25
ND
19.25
5.0
ND
10.0
10.0
5.0
ND
Min.
0.005
ND
ND
<0.001
ND
0.041
ND
ND
ND
0.005
ND
<0.001
ND
5.0
ND
ND
0.001
ND
10.0
ND
<0.001
ND
Mean Comments
0.0 MN only.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.092
0.149
0.0 MO only.
0.0
0.0 SD, UT, and WY.
0.0
<0.001
<0.001
0.0 CA and NV only.
0.0
0.0
0.0 No samples reported for AK.
0.0
10.0
0.122
0.0
0.0
Total:
5.0
ND
0.0
-------
Table 5-33. (continued)
Remark Number of
Loc.it ion States code samples
SUBTOTAL: K 990
U 586
N 27
26*
GRAND TOTAL: 1 ,603
1,602*
Number of
detections
990
0
27
26*
1,017
1,016*
Concentration (uo/1 )
Max.
25,000
NO
10,000
37.0*
25,000
74.5*
Min.
<0.001
NO
<0.001
NO
Mean Comments
103.036
0.0
376.713
6.586*
69.979
0.107*
K - Actual value is known to be less than given value. Assumed values of zero in calculation of means.
U - Indicates material was analyzed for but not detected (NO). Nondetectable values are considered zeroes in calculation of means.
N - Actual reported values, i.e., no remark code.
" - Calculations after removal of suspicious values that were used in the calculation of means.
vo
-------
Table 5-34. Facilities Reporting Actual Detected Levels of HCB
in Treated Wastewater Based on STORET Form 2C Data
Company name Location SIC Code3 Number of
Samples
Rheen Mfg. Co. Greenville, AL 3585 3
Hall Chemical Arab, AL 2819 2
Dresser Ind. Anniston, AL 3494 2
Etowah Mfg. Co Gadsen, AL 3483 1
Mead Corp. Anniston, AL 3321 1
M. Birmingham Birmingham, AL 2865.3296, 1
Complex 3312,3321
Hooker Chem. Corp Burlington, NJ 2821 1
Owens Corning St. Helens, OR 2661 1
Babcock & Wilcox Parks Twp., PA 3339 1
Zippo Mfg. Co. Bradford City, PA 3471 1
Penelec Warren, PA 4911 1
S.C. Public Service Pinopolis, SC 4911 2
Quaker Oats Memphis. TN 2865.2869 1
Diamond Shamrock Deer Park. TX 2812 6
Brazos Elec. Coop. Gordon, TX 4911 l
Caribou Four Corn. Woods Cross, UT 2911 2
aSIC Codes:
3585 - Manufacture of refrigeration and heating equipment
2819 - Manufacture of industrial inorganic chemicals
3494 - Manufacture of valves and pipe fittings
3483 - Manufacture of ammunition
3321 - Gray iron foundry
2865 - Manufacture of cyclic crudes and intermediates
3296 - Manufacture of mineral wool
3312 - Blast furnaces and steel mills
2821 - Manufacture of plastic materials and resins
2661 - Building paper and board mills
3339 - Manufacture of primary non-ferrous metals
3471 - Electroplating
4911 - Generation of electric power
2869 - Manufacture of industrial organic chemicals
2812 - Manufacture of alkalies and. chlorine
2911 - Petroleum refining
Concentration (ug/1)
Max. Min. Mean
10 10 10
10 0.006 5.0
10.000 0.024 5000
10
0.003
0.42
10
10
11
0.003
6
10 0.2 5.1
10
13 0.041 4.44
37
0.00009 0.00009 0.00009
Source: Storet/IFD, March 29. 1985.
170
-------
NMl .•".?'» I ' I?!! ACINC
I T SYSTI 1-1
'II. XA/ MLT,'. "SI N.'! Mf
t o'."-i :" o«: *
I I !'}• b'!
' I JT. '.•.',•, '.'. Ib; U 'illf.
Source: IFD and STORE!..
'•HITS »IO'
77
Figure 5-27. Locations of facilities reporting results of HCB analysis
of treated wastewater (form 2C data).
-------
example, some regions have data based on a thousand or more samples while
other regions have reported data for fewer than ten samples. In
addition, some of the data in STORE! look suspicious (e.g., a HCB ambient
stream concentration of 22,000 ug/1). (See Tables 5-30 - 5-34.)
Ambient water data from the literature contain an insufficient number
of drinking water studies to illustrate any regional or time trends. The
maximum concentration found in drinking water was detected in 1975 at
0.006 ug/1 in Region V. Ambient surface water and precipitation studies
were conducted primarily in the Great Lakes area with additional sampling
in Louisianna, Tennessee, and Texas. The maximum mean surface water
concentration reported in any study was 8 x 10~4 ug/1 in Lake Ontario
at the mouth of the Niagara River, while the maximum reported mean value
for precipitation was 0.1 ng/1.
The wastewater data found in the literature is divided into
industrial and municipal categories. Industrial wastewater at the Vulcan
Materials Company had the highest concentration, 300 ug/1 of HCB; the
highest value for a municipal discharge was 6.8 x 103 ug/1. No
regional or temporal trends were observed.
As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to make comparisons among the
data in STORET, mostly because of differences in data quality. However,
it is illustrative to estimate the percent of samples that positively
identify HCB. If it is assumed that HCB was not present in all samples
with remark codes of "K", HCB was detected in ambient streams, wells, and
lake water 10, <1, <1 percent of the time, respectively. Based on this
assumption, treated industrial effluents may have contained HCB
approximately 2 percent of the time. However, if it is assumed that HCB
was present at less than quantifiable levels in all samples with remark
codes of "K", in ambient streams, wells, and lake water, HCB was detected
52, 78, and 75 percent of the time, respectively. HCB may have been
present 73 percent of the time in treated industrial effluents.
5.6.2 Air Monitoring Data
Air and occupational exposure monitoring data are provided in nine
separate sources. For the years 1975 through 1979, EPA survey data were
listed for sites throughout the contiguous United States. The remaining
ambient air samples, the majority of which were collected near industrial
facilities, were scattered throughout the country. Occupational exposure
data are given for the Dow Chemical Company in Plaquemine, Louisiana, and
comprise the highest concentrations included in this table. Samples
gathered near industrial facilities usually show the highest
concentrations of HCB in ambient air.
172
-------
For the EPA survey data, mean concentrations range from less than
0.1 ng/m3, the detection limit, to 4.4 ng/m3 in Greenville,
Mississippi. The majority of samples taken had no detectible HCB
content. This was especially pronounced in 1978 when all EPA samples
taken in Montana, Mississippi, and California tested negative for HCB.
No regional trends are apparent in EPA or other data.
The highest concentrations of HCB in ambient air were found near
industrial facilities, with maximum values detected at the Vulcan
Materials Company in Wichita, Kansas. In addition to production, onsite
landfill and deep-well injection of waste has occurred, resulting in a
sample with a concentration of 24,000 mg/m3. Waste disposal or storage
operations characterizes facilities with four of the next five highest
concentrations. This suggests that HCB release to the atmosphere can be
facilitated by the storage and disposal of wastes. Samples near
industrial operations were taken in 1973 or 1976, which makes a
characterization of present conditions impossible. More recent studies
have significantly lower concentrations; however, no conclusions may be
drawn from these.
Occupational exposure data for the Dow Chemical Company in
Plaquemine, Louisiana, report maximum concentrations for air and surface
contact at 154,000 ng/m3 and 124,000 ng/m2 respectively. They are
much higher than any ambient values detected but no conclusions may be
formed based on only two values.
5.6.3 Sediment/Soil Monitoring Data
These data comprise information and HCB concentrations from 13
separate references found in the literature. The monitoring data are
organized into three categories; suspended pediment, bottom sediment, and
soil. Samples were taken from all areas of the country, but no
significant regional differences were observed. Reported mean
concentrations ranged from 1.1 x 10~4 to 5,000 ug/g. The largest
concentrations were observed near industrial sites; with highest reported
maximum concentration being 13 percent for the Olin facility in Mclntosh,
Alabama.
Suspended sediment data were obtained from samples taken in the
Niagara River or in Lake Ontario at the mouth of the Niagara River. Mean
concentrations, all of which were reported on a dry-weight basis, range
from 0.005 to 0.124 ug/g. The highest concentrations were found near the
Lower Niagara River while the lowest concentrations were from the upper
reaches. This suggests that the suspended sediment load of the Niagara
becomes increasingly rich with HCB as it moves downstream.
173
-------
Bottom sediment was collected primarily in the Great Lakes area with
samples also taken in southern, midwestern, eastern, and northeastern
regions. Of the sites in the Great Lakes region, the highest mean
concentration, 55 ug/g, was detected in the lower Niagara. This
supports the evidence suggested by suspended sediment data, that HCB
concentration increases downstream in the Niagara River. The maximum
concentration found in any bottom sediment was 200 ug/g near the Stauffer
Chemical Company in Louisville, Kentucky. Concentrations reported cannot
be specifically compared since testing procedures may have included
surficial or core samples.
Soil samples were taken at industrial, urban, and agricultural sites
throughout the country. Two exceptionally high concentrations were noted
at the Vulcan Materials Company in Wichita, Kansas, and at the Olin
Corporation in Mclntosh, Alabama. These values, expressed as 5 and
13 percent respectively (approximately 50,000 and 130,000 ug/g) were
roughly one and two orders of magnitude higher than others found for
soils. A relatively low 6.7 percent of urban and 0.42 percent of samples
gathered at agricultural sites contained detectable levels of HCB. All
mean values reported for urban and agricultural sites were below the
detectable limit of 0.01 ug/g. Urban and agricultural samples were taken
by EPA in national surveys conducted from 1972 to 1979. From the soil
data, it may be concluded that industrial facilities are a primary source
for HCB contamination of this medium.
5.6.4 Biota and Food Monitoring Data
A total of 16 sources were found in the literature listing HCB
concentrations in either aquatic biota, wildlife, feed animals, or food
items. The Great Lakes area was the focus of freshwater studies with
additional studies being done in t,he South, Northeast, Southwest, and
West. The variety of organisms tested makes determination of regional
trends difficult.
The mean concentrations given range from 0.45 ppb for marine fish in
the New York Bight to 570 ppb for freshwater invertebrates in the western
basin of Lake Ontario. The western basin is also the site of the maximum
concentration; a measurement of 1,600 ppb for freshwater invertebrates.
Beef cattle data include a maximum concentration of 1,520 ppb for cattle
in Darrow Louisanna, a value three times greater in magnitude than the
USDA enforcement level of 0.5 ppm of HCB in beef fat. Industrial sources
appear to be the common denominator for the high level in these two
samples. The Great Lakes area is heavily industrialized and air
emissions from plants producing chlorinated hydrocarbons are thought to
be the source for the Darrow, Louisiana, cattle.
174
-------
5.7
References
Atlas E, Giam CS. 1981.
ambient concentrations in
211(4478):163-165.
Global transport of organic pollutants:
the remote marine atmosphere. Science
Barquet A, Carmen M, Pfaffenberger CD. 1981. Determination of
organochlorine pesticides and metabolites in drinking water, human blood
serum, and adipose tissue. J. Toxicology and Environ. Health 7:469-479.
Baxter JC, Aquilar M, Brown K. 1983. Heavy metals and persistent
organics at a sewage sludge disposal site. J. Environ. Qual.
12(3):311-315.
Beyer UN, Kaiser TE. 1984. Organochlorine pesticide residues in moths
from the Baltimore, MD - Washington, DC area. Environ. Monit. and
Assess. 4:129-137.
Billings UN, Bidleman TF.
hydrocarbons in urban air
17(2):383-391.
1983. High volume collection
using three solid adsorbents.
of chlorinated
Atmos. Env.
Billings WN, Bidleman TF. 1980. Field comparison of polyurethane foam
and tenax-GC resin for high-volume air sampling of chlorinated
hydrocarbons. Envir. Sci. Tech. 14(6):679-683.
Boland PA. 1981. National screening program for organics in drinking
water. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Drinking Water. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4666.
Booth NH, and McDowell JR. 1975.
residues in edible animal tissues
166(6):591-595.
Toxicity of hexachlorobenzene
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.
and
Brooks GW, Hunt GE. 1984. Source assessment for hexachlorobenzene.
Research Triangle Park, NC: Pollution Asessment Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3818.
Bunck CM. 1985. Residue levels of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) in wildlife
from the United States. Unpublished report. Laurel, MD: U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cain BW, Bunck CM.
starlings (Sturnus
3:161-172.
1983. Residues of organochlorine compounds in
vulgaris), 1979. Environ. Monit. and Assess.
175
-------
Cain BW. 1981. Nationwide residues of organochlorine compounds in wings
of adult mallards and black ducks, 1979-80. Pest. Monit. J.
15(3):128-134.
Carey AE, Dixon TE, Yang HSC. 1985. Environmental exposure to
hexachlorobenzene in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ofice of Pestcides and Toxic Substances.
Conner MS. 1984. Comparison of the carcinogenic risks from fish vs.
groundwater contamination by organic compounds. Environ. Sci. and Tech.
18<8):628-631.
Currier MF, McClimans CD, Barna-Lloyd G. 1980. Hexachlorobenzene blood
levels and the health status of men employed in the manufacture of
chlorinated solvents. J. Toxicology and Environ. Health 6:367-377.
Duggan RE, Carveliusser PE, Duggan MB, Memahom BM, Martin RJ. 1983
Pesticide residue levels in foods in the United States from July 1, 1969
to June 30, 1976. Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Arlington, VA; Association of Ethical Analytical Chemicals.
Eisenreich SJ, Hollod GJ, Johnson TC. 1980. Assessment of airborne
organic contaminants in the Great Lakes ecosystem, Science Advisory
Board, Windsor, Ontario, (as reported in Eisenreich et al. 1981.)
Eisenreich SJ, Looney BB, Thornton JD. 1981. Airborne organic
containmants in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Environ. Sci. and Tech.
15(l):30-38.
Elder VA, Proctor BL, Hites RA. 1981. Organic compounds found near dump
sites in Niagara Falls, New York. Environ. Sci. and Tech.
15(10):1237-1243.
FAO-WHO. 1970. Evaluation of some pesicides in food: hexachlorobenzene
WHO/Food additives monograph. FAO/PL/1969/M/17/1. (as reported in Booth
and McDowell 1975.)
FDA. 1971. The Food and Drug Administration's pesticide analytical
manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Food and Drug Administration.
Finland. 1972. Investigation on pesticide residues in 1971.
Publications of the State Institute of Agricultural Chemistry, Helsinki,
Finland, (as reported in Scheunert et al. 1983.)
176
-------
Fox ME, Carey JH, Oliver BG. 1983. Compartmental distribution of
organochlorlne contaminants in the Niagara River and the western basin of
Lake Ontario. J Great Lakes Res. 9(2):287-294.
Gartrell MJ, Craun JC, Podrebarac DS, Gunderson EL. 1985a. Pesticides,
selected elements, and other chemicals in infant and toddler total diet
samples, October 1979-September 1980. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem.
68(6):1163-1183.
Gartrell MJ, Craun JC, Podrebarac DS, Gunderson EL. 1985b. Pesticides,
selected elements, and other chemicals in adult total diet samples,
October 1979-September 1980. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 68(6):1184-1197.
Gartrell MJ, Craun JC, Podrebarac DS, Gunderson EL. 1986a. Pesticides,
selected elements, and other chemicals in infant and toddler total diet
samples, October 1980 - March 1982. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem.
69(1):123-145.
Gartrell MJ, Craun JC, Podrebarac DS, Gunderson EL. 1986b. Pesticides,
selected elements, and other chemicals in adult total diet samples,
October 1980 - March 1982. J. Assoc. Off Anal. Chem. 69(1):146-159.
Heikes DL. 1980. Residues of pentachloronitrobenzene and related
compounds in peanut butter. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24:338-343.
JRB Assoc. 1984. Occurrance of miscellaneous synthetic organic
chemicals in drinking water, food, and air. Washington, DC: Office of
Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No.
68-01-9388.
Jaffe PR, Parker FL, Wilson DJ. 1982. Distribution of toxic substances
in rivers. J. Environ. Eng. 108 (EE4):639-649.
Johns TH. 1969. Translation of HCB in wheat. Report to Australian
Pesticides Sub-Committee from N.S.W. Department of Agriculture, (as
reported in Scheunert et al. 1983.)
Johnson, RD, Manske DD, Podrebarac DS. 1981. Pesticide, metal, and
other chemical residues in adult total diet study samples^ (XII).
August 1975-July 1976. Pest. Monit. J. 15(l):54-69.
Johnson RD, Manske DD, New DH, Podrebarac DS. 1984. Pesticide, metal,
and other chemical residues in adult total diet samples. (XIII).
August 1976-September 1977. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 67(1):154-166.
177
-------
Johnson RD, Manske DD. 1976. Pesticide residues in total diet samples
(IX). Pest. Monit. J. 9(4): 157-169.
Johnson RD, Manske DD. 1977. Pesticide and other chemical residues in
total diet samples (XI). Pest. Monit. J. 11(3):116-131.
Kauss PB. 1983. Studies of trace contaminants, nutrients, and bacteria
levels in the Niagara River. J. Great Lakes Res. 9(2):249-273.
Kuntz KW, Harry NO. 1983. Chlorinated organic contaminants in water and
suspended sediments of the lower Niagara River. J. Great Lakes Res.
9(2):241-248.
Laska AL, Bartell CK, Laseter JL. 1976. Distribution of
hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene in water, soil, and selected
acquatic organisms along the lower Mississippi River, Louisiana. Bull.
of Environ. Contain, and Toxicol. 15(5) :535-542.
Li RT, Spigarelli JL, Going JE. 1976. Sampling and analysis of selected
toxic substances, task 1A - hexachlorobenzene. Washington, DC: Office
of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-560/6-76-001 (PB 253-794).
Mack GA, Mohadjer L. 1985. .Baseline estimates and time trends for
B-BHC, HCB and PCBs in human adipose tissue 1970-1983. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances. EPA
Contract No. 68-01-6721.
Manske DD, Johnson RD. 1977. Pesticide and other chemical residues in
total diet samples (X). Pest. Monit. J. 10(4): 134-148.
Martin WE. 1969. Organochlorine insecticide residues in starlings.
Pest. Monit. J. 3:102-114.
McLane MAR, Hughes DL, Heinz GH. 1984. Changes in levels of
organochlorines in woodcock wings from 1971-1975. Environ. Monit. and
Assess. 4:105-111.
Murray HE, Ray LE, Giam CS. 1981. Analysis of marine sediment, water,
and biota for selected organic pollutants. Chemosphere
10(11/12):1327-1334.
Murray HE et al. 1980. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxcol. 25:663-667. (as
reported in Ray et al. 1983b.)
178
-------
Nickerson PR, Barbehenn KR. 1975. Organochlorine residues in starlings,
1972. Pest. Monit. J. 8(4): 247-254.
Niimi AJ. 1979. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 23:20-24. (as reported
in Ray et al. 1983b.)
Oliver BG, Nicol KD. 1982. Chlorobenzenes in sediments, water, and
selected fish from Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie, and Ontario. Environ.
Sci. and Tech. 16:532-536.
Podrebarac DS. 1984. Pesticide, metal, and other chemical residues in
adult total diet samples. (XIV). October 1977-September 1978. J.
Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 67(1):176-185.
Prouty RM, Bunck CM. Organochlorine residues in adult mallard and black
duck wings, 1981-1982. (in press).
Ray RE, Murray HE, Giam CS. 1983a. Analysis of water and sediment from
the Nueces Estuary/Corpus Christi Bay (Texas) for selected organic
pollutants. Chemosphere 12(7/8):1039-1045.
Ray RE, Murray HE, Giam CS. 1983b. Organic pollutants in marine samples
from Portland, Maine. Chemosphere 12(7/8>:1031-1038.
Robinson PE, Leczynski BA, Kutz FW, Remmers JC, Carra JS. 1985. An
evaluation of hexachlorobenzene body burden levels in the general United
States population. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Toxic Substances.
Scheunert I, Marra C, Viswanathan R, Klein W, Korte F. 1983. Fate of
hexachlorobenzene-14C in wheat plants and soil under outdoor
conditions. Chemosphere 12(7/8):843-858.
Schmitt CJ, Ludke JL, Walsh OF, 1981. Organochlorine residues in fish:
National pesticide monitoring program, 1970-74. Pest. Monit. J.
14(4):136-206.
Schmitt CJ, Ribick MA, Ludke JL, May TW. 1983. National pesticide
monitoring program: Organochlorine residues in freshwater fish, 1976-79.
Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Resource Publication 152.
Schmitt CJ, Zajicek JL, Ribick MA. 1985. National pesticide monitoring
program: residues of Organochlorine chemicals in freshwater fish,
1980-81. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14:225-260.
179
-------
Staples CA, Werner AF, Hoogheem TJ. 1985. Assessment or priority
pollutant concentrations in the United States using STORE! database.
Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. 4:131-142.
Swain WR. 1978. Chlorinated organic residues in fish, water, and
precipitation from the vicinity of Isle Royale, Lake Superior. J Great
Lakes Res. 4(3-4): 398-407.
USDA. 1981. Livestock slaughter - annual summary 1980. Washington,
DC: Economics and Statistics Service, Crop Reporting Board, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
USDA. 1982. Agricultural Statistics (Table 481), 1982.
USEPA. 1975a. Survey of industrial processing data. Task I -
hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene pollution from chlorocarbon
processes. Washington, DC: Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. PB 243-641 .
USEPA. 1975b. Preliminary assessment of suspected carcinogens in
drinking water, report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. PB 250961 .
USEPA. 1976. Environmental contamination from hexachlorobenzene.
Washington, DC: Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. PB 251-874.
White DH, Heath RG. 1976. Nationwide residues of organochlorines in
wings of adult mallards and black ducks, 1972-73. Pest. Monit. J.
9(4):176-185.
White DH. 1976. Nationwide residues of organochlorines in starlings,
1974. Pest. Monit. J. 10(1): 10-17.
White DH. 1979a. Nationwide residues of organochlorine compounds in
starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), 1976. Pest. Monit. J. 12(4): 193-197.
White DH. 1979b. Nationwide residues of organochlorine compounds in
wings of adult mallards and black ducks, 1976-77. Pest. Monit. J.
Young DR and Heesen TC. 1976. Inputs of chlorinated benzenes. Coastal
Water Research Project/Sources of Pollution. Annual Report. Southern
California Research Project. 31-37.
180
-------
6. MODELING DATA
This section contains the results of the modeling work. Two sets of
modeling data were developed: (1) estimated HCB concentrations in air
downstream of seven industrial incinerators and (2) estimated HCB
concentrations in air and ground water resulting from landfill releases.
6.1 Air Concentrations Downstream of Industrial Incinerators
Releases from industrial incinerators were modeled for seven sites
using the Industrial Source Complex Long Term (ISCLT) model to assess
their impact on ground-level concentrations of HCB in air. The seven
facilities modeled along with their locations and associated estimated
release data are presented in Table 6-1.*
The latitude/longitude values in Table 6-1 were used to determine
what meteorological data were appropriate for modeling these particular
sources. The OTS Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS) Atmospheric
Modeling Subsystem (GAMS) was used to make that determination. In the
case of Wichita, Kansas (Vulcan), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, (240 km away
from Wichita) was used because it was the only available similar data set
that could be used in the ISCLT model. Although Wichita data could not
be used directly, they could be compared with the Oklahoma City data, and
.that comparison showed no major differences in meteorological conditions
between the two sites. Oklahoma City data looked as if they would •
produce more conservative results because of somewhat higher freqencies
*EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) previously
estimated HCB air levels downwind of these seven facilities using the COM
model and HCB release estimates (assuming 99.99 percent ORE) provided in
Brooks and Hunt (1984) (Zaragoza 1984). The OAQPS modeling work differs
from the modeling discussed here primarily in the choice of models used
and several input parameters dealing with HCB waste generation rates.
Brooks and Hunt (1984) based their HCB generation rates on 1984 plant
capacity data and information from the open literature concerning
chlorinated solvent waste generation rates and HCB concentrations in
these wastes. The Versar modeling used 1985 plant capacity data adjusted
with U.S. International Trade Commission data (USITC 1985) to provide
estimates of actual chemical production. Versar used estimates provided
by EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW 1985) for chlorinated solvent waste
generation rates and HCB concentrations in these wastes. These OSW
estimates were made based on open literature information and confidential
information (OSW 1985). The OAQPS modeling results differ from the
Versar results for 99.99 percent ORE typically by a factor of six or less.
181
-------
Table 6-1. Location and Release Data for the Seven Modeled Industrial Incinerators
Company
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
Dow Chemical , U.S.A.
Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
PPG Industries, Inc.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Plant location Latitude/Longitude3
Deer Park, TX 294335/950540
Freeport, TX 285857/952310
Plaquemine. LA 301700/911416
Pittsburg, CA 380142/1215117
Lakes Charles, LA 301328/931657
Geismar, LA 301115/905902
Wichita, KS 373451/972521
Chemical
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Perchloroethylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Perchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Perchloroethylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Production
capacity (106 lbs)b
165
120
125
120
80
50
200
200
150
90
50
60
Estimated
HCB incinerated*-
(kkg/year)
584
49
245
425
157
177
708
82
531
176
177
118
Estimated total
HCB released
(kg/yr)
58.4
4.9
67.0
33.4
79.0
70.7
29.5
aSource: Brooks and Hunt (1984); based on data in NEDS (National Emissions Data System), a data base maintained by the Monitoring and Data
Analysis Division of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
"Source: SRI 1985 Directory of Chemical Producers (estimates as of January 1, 1986).
cAssumes 0.04 kg of waste produced per kg of product (OSW 1985). Assumes the following HCB content of wastes (OSW 1985): perchloroethylene-25 percent;
carbon tetrachloride 15 percent; trichloroethylene-5 percent. Assumes the following production/capacity ratios: perchloroethylene-78 percent; carbon
tetrachloride-72 percent; trichloroethylene-45 percent. The production/capacity ratios are based on capacity data from SRI 1985 Directory of Chemical
Producers and production data from Table 3-9 (Section 3.2.2 of this report). In all cases, it was assumed that the entire quantity of HCB was burned in
only one incinerator.
°The estimated release is based on a destruction and removal efficiency of 99.99.
-------
of certain wind directions and lower wind speeds; this should be
considered during review of the results for the Vulcan plant in Wichita.
None of the specific incinerator stack parameters for the seven
modeled facilities was known; therefore, it was necessary to assume stack
parameters. To account for the potential variations in the incinerator
design and conditions, two sets of stack parameters were modeled for all
seven sites:
Model Model
Incinerator A Incinerator B
Stack height 15.2 meters 27.4 meters
Stack diameter 2.4 meters 2.1 meters
Exit gas velocity 7.1 meters/second 6.4 meters/second
Exit gas temperature 346°K 366°K
Operating characteristics 300 days/year 300 days/year
24 hours/day 24 hours/day
The stack parameters fjr Model Incinerator A were obtained directly from
Brooks and Hunt (1984) . These parameters are based on actual data
from two hazardous waste incinerators that are known to have burned HCB
wastes. The stack parameters for Model Incinerator B were taken directly
from Holton et al. (1984)**, and they are based on a review of existing
incinerators and engineering judgment.
In addition to modeling two sets of stack parameters, it was assumed
that the ORE for the incinerators may fluctuate by an order of magnitude
from the best estimate of 99.99 percent. The estimated maximum annual
average concentrations for all three DREs are given in Table 6-2. The
ISCLT model estimated concentrations at a distance ranging from 200 to
50,000 meters away from the source; the maximum concentrations generally
occurred between 800 and 1,000 meters from the source.
Note that releases from Model Incinerator A consistently resulted in
higher downstream concentrations than releases from Model Incinerator B.
In addition, it was found that the highest emitters did not necessarily
produce the highest downwind concentrations. For example, the Dow
Chemical plant in Pittsburgh, California, (ranked fifth in estimated
emissions) produced the highest estimated downwind concentrations mostly
because of the meteorological conditions in that region.
*A source assessment for HCB prepared for EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.
**An assessment of emissions from incineration of pesticide-related
wastes; prepared for the Incineration Review Branch of EPA's Office of
Research and Development.
183
-------
Table 6-2. Predicted Maximum Annual Concentrations (ug/rtr) Downstream of Seven Industrial Incinerators
00
Company
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
Dow Chemical , U.S.A.
Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
PPG Industries, Inc.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Worst case3
Plant Location Incinerator A Incinerator B
Deer Park, TX 1.0 x )0~2 6.5 x 10~3
Freeport, TX 9.1 x 10~4 5.9 x 10~4
Plaquemine, LA 5.4 x 10~3 3.7 x 10~3
Pittsburg, CA 1.3 x 10~2 8.5 x 10~3
Lake Charles, LA 1.1 x 10~2 7.4 x 10~3
Geismar, LA 5.7 x 10~3 3.9 x 10~3
Wichita, KS 1.1 x 10~2 7.1 x 10~3
Best estimateb Best casec
Incinerator A Incinerator B Incinerator A Incinerator B
1.0 x 10~3 6.5 x 10~4 1.0 x 10~4 6.5 x 10~5
9.1 x 10~5 5.9 x 10~5 9.1 x 10~6 5.9 x 10~6
5.4 x 10~4 3.7 x 10~4 5.4 x 10~5 3.7 x 10~5
1.3 x 10~3 8.5 x 10~4 1.3 x 10~4 8.5 x 10~5
1.1 x 10~3 7.4 x 10~4 1.1 x 10~4 7.4 x 10~5
5.7 x 10~4 3.9 x 10~4 5.7 x 10~5 3.9 x 10~5
1.1 x 10~3 7.1 x 10~4 1.1 x 10~4 7.1 x 10~5
aAssumes a 99.9 percent DRE.
bAssumes a 99.99 percent DRE.
cAssumes a 99.999 percent DRE.
Source: Hlinka (1986).
-------
6.2 Air and Ground-Water Concentrations Resulting from HCB Releases
from Landfills
The atmospheric exposure and ground-water concentrations resulting
from hexachlorobenzene in landfills were estimated for several scenarios
using computer simulation models. The scenarios included two sites
(Tacoma, Wahington, and Memphis, Tennessee), two landfill sizes (1/2 acre
and 1 acre), and four clay cap thicknesses for the atmospheric exposure
simulation (0, 6, 12, and 24 inches). All simulations were performed for
a 20-year time period, starting at the time loading to the landfill
began. Details on the exact assumptions and models used in this analysis
are contained in GSC (1986). For convenience, GSC (1986) has been
included in Appendix F of this report. A brief summary of the results is
presented in this section.
6.2.1 Air Concentrations
The SESOIL model was used to estimate HCB volatilization rates from a
landfill to the atmosphere. The Industrial Source Complex Long-Term
model was then used to estimate the annual average ground-level
atmospheric concentrations near the landfill. The original estimates
(GSC 1986) were based on the assumption that both sites receive a total
of 12,100 metric tons of industrial sludge for 10 years (i.e., 1,210
tons/yr for years 1 to 10). The sludge was assumed to contain HCB at a
concentration of 100 ppm at the Memphis site and 10 ppm at the Tacoma
site. However, since HCB loadings from the sludge are linear with
respect to air concentrations (personal communication between Clay
Carpenter of Versar Inc. and Scott Rheingraver of GSC on Table 6-1
April 18, 1986), it was assumed that HCB was found at higher
concentrations in the waste in order to obtain more worst case
scenarios. The concentrations presented in this section are based on the
assumption that the sludge at both sites consists of HCB in
concentrations of 100 and 1,000 ppm. The resulting concentrations are
given in Table 6-3. Maximum concentrations were found at the Memphis
site for the 1 acre landfill that has a zero inch clay cap.
6.2.2 Ground-Water Concentrations
The SESOIL model was used to simulate the vertical transport of HCB
from the landfill through the unsaturated zones to the ground-water
surface, and the AT123D model was used to simulate HCB concentrations in
ground water. As previously stated, all model runs were performed over a
20-year simulation period with sludge disposal assumed to begin at year 1
and end at year 10. Maximum ground-water concentrations of HCB were
reached at year 20. The system, however, had still not reached
steady-state by year 20, and higher concentrations would be expected for
longer simulation periods. It was estimated that steady-state would be
185
-------
Table 6-3. Estimated Annual Average Intra-Ring Concentrations (ug/ni^) Based on HCB Volatilization from a Landfill
Memphis. Tennessee Tacoma. Washington
Clay cap 1/2-Acre landfill 1/2-Acre landfill 1-Acre landfill 1-Acre landfill 1/2-Acre landfill 1/2-Acre landfill 1-Acre landfill 1-Acre landfill
(inches) 100 ppm HCB in 1,000 ppm HCB in 100 ppm HCB in 1.000 ppm HCB in 100 ppm HCB in 1.000 ppm HCB in 100 ppm HCB in 1,000 ppm HCB in
sludge sludge sludge sludge sludge sludge sludge sludge
1— •
CO
8
6
12
24
1.01 x
1.11 x
1.06 x
9.72 x
10~6
io-7
io-7
io-8
1.01 X
1.11 x
1.06 x
9.72 x
10-5
10~6
10~6
io-7
1.74 x 10"6
1.92 x 10~7
1.84 x 10~7
1.68 x ID'7
1 .74 x
1.92 x
1.84 x
1.68 x
10-5
10~6
io-6
io-6
3
3
3
1.0 x
.58 x
.42 x
.12 x
10~6
io-7
io-7
io-7
1
3
3
3
.00 x
.58 x
.42 x
.12 x
10-5
10~6
10~6
10~6
1.78 x
6.34 x
6.05 x
5.52 x
10~6
io-7
io-7
io-7
1.78 x
6.34 x
6.05 x
5.52 x
10-5
10~6
10~6
io-6
Source: Derived from GSC (1986).
-------
reached In approximately 100 years, although it may take up to 500 years
(personal communication between Clay Carpenter of Versar Inc. and Jim
Pilot of GSC on April 22, 1986).
Like volatilization from landfills, ground-water concentrations have
a linear relationship to loadings from the landfill (personal
communication between Clay Carpenter of Versar Inc. and Jim Pilot of GSC
on April 22, 1986). To simulate more worst case scenarios, it was
assumed that the sludge in both landfills contains HCB at concentrations
of 100 and 1,000 ppm. All other assumptions are identical to those
contained in GSC (1986).
The resulting concentrations of HCB in ground-water are presented in
Table 6-4. The highest concentrations are found at the Tacoma Site,
although the contaminated plume had not spread far from the center of the
landfill by year 20.
187
-------
Table 6-4. HCB Concentrations in Ground Water (ug/1) at
the Water Table Surface along Plume Centerline3
Memphis. Tennessee
Tacoma. Washington
Horizontal dis- 1/2-Acre land-
tance from land- fill 100 ppm
(ill (meters) HCB in sludge
8
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
^ 160
Co 180
00
1.1
7.7
6.0
4.3
2.2
7.3
1.5
1.8
4.4
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
io-7
10~8
io-9
,0-10
io-'1
io-13
,0-14
io-15
io-'9
1/2-Acre land-
fill 1,000 ppm
HCB in sludge
1.1 x 10~5
7.7 x 10~7
6.0 x 10~8
4.3 x 10"9
2.2 x 10-'°
7.3 x 10"12
1.5 x 10~13
1.8 x 10"14
4.4 x 10"'8
0
1-Acre land-
fill 100 ppm
HCB in sludge
1.1 x 10"7
1 .0 x IO"7
2.0 x lO"8
1.5 x 10"9
9.5 x 10""
3.9 x 10-'2
1.0 x 1Q-'3
1.6 x 10~15
1.2 x 1Q-'7
0
1-Acre
fill 1
HCB in
1.1 x
1.0 x
2.0 x
1.5 x
9.5 x
3.9 x
1 .0 X
1.6 x
1.2 x
0
land-
000 ppm
sludge
10~6
10~6
io-7
10"8
10-"
io-11
io-'2
io-'4
,0-16
1/2-Acre land-
fill 100 ppm
HCB in sludge
2.7 x IO-5
2.6 x 10~5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1/2-Acre land-
fill 1 ,000 ppm
HCB in sludge
2.7 x 10~4
2.6 x 10~9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-Acre land-
fill 100 ppm
HCB in sludge
2.7 x ID"5
2.7 x 10~5
5.1 x 10"'°
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-Acre land-
fill 1,000 ppm
HCB in sludge
2.7 x
2.7 x
5.1 x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
io-4
io-4
io-9
aThese are the maximum concentrations, which were reached in year 20 of the analysis. Note that steady-state had not been attained by year 20, and
higher concentrations in ground water would be expected for longer simulation periods.
Source: GSC (1986).
-------
6.3 References
Brooks GW, Hunt GE. 1984. Source assessment for hexachlorobenzene.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3818.
GSC. 1986. Modeling inhalation exposure and groundwater contamination
of hexachlorobenzene from landfills. Draft report. Washington, DC:
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3968.
Holton GA, Travis CC, Etnier EL et al. 1984. Multiple-pathways
screening-level assessment of a hazardous waste incineration facility.
Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Report No. ORNL/TM-8652.
Hlinka, D. 1986. Modeling of two incinerators emitting hexachlorobenzene
at seven sites. Memorandum to Clay Carpenter (Versar Inc.) on August 8,
1986.
Industrial Economics, Inc. 1985. Comparisons of risks from land-based
and ocean-based incineration. Draft report. Washington, DC: Office of
Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
PEL 1985. Sources of hexachlorobenzene. Memorandum to Paul Quillen
(Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) on
December 31, 1985.
Zaragoza LJ. 1984. Hexachlorobenzene exposure and risk assessment.
Memorandum to the Files. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
189
-------
190
-------
7. EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
This section presents several exposure scenarios that were developed
to estimate human exposure to HCB. Scenarios in this section are based
on modeling estimates of HCB levels in the environment and on HCB
monitoring data. Besides the modeling results from Section 6, other
modeling data, which were generated by the USEPA, were used to develop
scenarios for the ingestion of pesticide-contaminated food. These models
were based on the tolerances of pesticides allowed in food and not on
specific sources of HCB contamination. All monitoring data used in the
exposure scenarios were extracted directly from Section 5.
Five sets of scenarios are presented in this section, with a separate
subsection for each. These are related to assessment of exposure to the
following: (1) ambient air, (2) drinking water, (3) food (based on FDA
market basket studies), (4) fish, and (5) pesticide-laden food (based on
the tolerances to four pesticides that are known to contain HCB).
Table 7-1 summarizes the results of the scenarios for inhalation
exposure, drinking water exposure, and exposure through food.
In addition to the exposure scenarios, a separate subsection is
presented on the pharmacokinetic modeling of the National Human Adipose
Tissue Survey (NHATS) data. This subsection discusses the linkage
between steady-state exposures of HCB and levels found in human adipose
tissues.
7.1 Inhalation Exposure
Inhalation exposure was estimated based on three sets of data:
(1) ambient air monitoring data, (2) modeling data of ambient air
concentrations near industrial incinerators that may be releasing HCB,
and (3) modeling data of ambient air concentrations near a hypothetical
landfill that contains HCB. In all cases, the following equation was
used to calculate annual exposure:
EXP = (IR)(C)(D)(F)
where
EXP = annual inhalation exposure
IR = inhalation rate
C = ambient concentration
D = duration of exposure
F = frequency of exposure.
Furthermore, the weighted average inhalation rate for all ages,
sexes, and activities is assumed to be 0.79 m^/hr (Freed et al. 1983).
Duration was assumed to be 24 hrs/day, and frequency was assumed to be
365 days/yr.
191
-------
Table 7-1. Summary of the Exposure Scenarios for HCB
Exposure route
Exposure range
(ug/yr)
Best estimate
(ug/yr)
Best estimate
(ug/kg/day)
Inhalation
Monitoring data3
Incinerator modeling data
Landfill modeling data
Drinking water ingestion
Monitoring datab
<0.69 - 30.4
0.04 - 90.0
0.007 - 0.12
0.073 - 10.2
3.5d
0.4 - 9.0e
0.008 - 0.044
<4.49
f
1.4 x 10~4
1 .6 x 10"5 - 3.5 x 10"4
3.1 x 10~7 - 1.7 x 10~6
Ground-water modeling data
Food ingestion
Adults0
Toddlersc
Infants0
0 - 0.2
68.1
22.0
5.1
<3.0 x 10
68.1
22.0
5.1
-8
"12
.2 x 10
2.7 x 10"3
4.4 x 10'3
1.7 x 1C"3
Freshwater fish eaters'
Dacthal-treated cropsJ
Chlorothalonil-treated cropsJ
Picloram-treated cropsJ
PCNB-treated cropsJ
<53.7
<83 - 800
<14 - 630
<0.8 - 10. S
<1 .5 - 41
<53.7
<4
<0
<0.
<0.
.2 -
.7 -
01 -
08 -
40
32
0.11
2.1
<1 .0
<2.6
<2.4
<2.7
x
X
X
X
<2.1
io-3
io-4
lO'6
10-5
x IO-3
- 4
- 6
- 9
- 1
.4
.0
.6
.4
x
x
x
x
io-3
io-4
10~6
io-4
aWith the exception of one high air value, estimated exposures range from <0.692 to 6.92 ug/yr (see Table 6-2),
bRange based on mean values reported in Oliver and Nicol (1982) and Barquet et al. (1981).
C8ased on 1982-1984 FDA total diet study estimates.
dOveran mean of 18 city surveys listed in Table 7-2.
eRange of estimated exposures based on maximum annual concentrations within 50 km radius of an incinerator
achieving 99.99 percent destruction of HCB.
^Range of estimated exposures from landfill with a 6-inch clay cap containing 1,000 ppm HCB waste.
^Assumes most water has less than 6 ng/1 HCB.
"Estimated drinking water exposures i.100 meters horizontal distance from landfill containing 1,000 ppm HCB
waste.
Assumes consumption of 14.7 grams of fish daily. Fish are assumed to contain less than 0.01 ug/g HCB (wet
weight).
JThe "best estimate" columns assume that less than 5 percent of target crops are treated with dacthal. PCNB,
or chlorothalonil, and that less than 1 percent of target crops are treated with picloram.
192
-------
7.1.1 Ambient Monitoring Data
Atmospheric HCB concentrations in urban areas reported in the
literature range from 4.4 ng/m3 in Greenville, Mississippi, to less
than 0.1 ng/m3 in Fort Collins, Colorado. HCB concentrations in urban
areas along with the estimated annual inhalation exposure are presented
in Table 7-2.
Based on the assumptions presented above, annual exposures were found
to range from 0.69 to 30.4 ug/yr. With the exception of Greenville,
Mississippi, all estimated mean exposures were less than 7 ug/yr.
7.1.2 Ambient Air Concentrations near Industrial Incinerators
Releasing HCB
Dispersion modeling was performed to estimate HCB concentrations
downwind of seven industrial incinerators that may be releasing HCB.
Predicted maximum annual concentrations were found to vary from 5.9 x
10~6 to 1.09 x K)-2 ug/m3. The HCB concentrations along with the
estimated annual inhalation exposures are presented in Table 7-3. Based
on the assumptions presented above, annual exposures for all cases were
found to range from 0.04 to 90.0 ug/yr; best estimate exposures ranged
from 0.4 to 9.0 ug/yr.
7.1.3 Ambient Air Concentrations near a Landfill Containing HCB
Modeling work was done to estimate the ambient air concentrations
resulting from the volatilization of HCB from a landfill. Concentrations
were estimated for landfills near Memphis, Tennessee, and Tacoma,
Washington. The maximum annual average iatra-ring concentrations and the
estimated individual inhalation exposures are presented in Table 7-4.
Concentrations range from 9.72 x 10~7 to 1.78 x 10~5 ng/m3, and
estimated individual exposures range from 6.7 x 10~3 to 1.23 x 10"1
ug/yr.
As part of the modeling work, inhalation exposures were calculated
for each segment of the population and across all sector segments around
the two landfills. The assumptions used to estimate inhalation exposures
were similar to those used in the previous scenarios. The maximum
cumulative inhalation exposures were 8.7 ug/yr for the Memphis,
Tennessee, site and 1.3 ug/yr for the Tacoma, Washington, s.ite (GSC
1986). A complete discussion of this work is presented in Appendix F.
7.2 Drinking Water Exposure
Drinking water exposures were estimated using monitoring data of HCB
levels in finished municipal drinking water and using modeled
193
-------
Table 7-2.
City
Ft. Collins, CO
Harrisburg. PA
Jackson, MS
Lafayette, IN
Greenville, MS
Pasadena, CA
Wheaton. IL
Flathead, MT
Cahohia. IL
Columbia, SC
Fresno, CA
Harlingen, TX
Houston, TX
Leland, MS
Lubbock, TX
Annual Inhalation
Mean air
concentration3
(ng/m3)
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.2
4.4
ND
0.1
NO
0.2
0.1
ND
0.3
ND
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.2
Exposure to HCB
Annual
inhalation
exposure
(ug/yr)b
<0.69
0.69
0.69
1.38
30.4
ND
0.69
NO
1.38
0.69
ND
2.08
NO
6.92
4.15
6.23
6.23
1.38
Survey
year
1975/76
1975/76
1975/76
1975/76
1977
1978
1977
1978
1979
1977
1978
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
ND - Not detected; the detection limit is 0.1 ng/m3.
a Monitoring data based on EPA surveys.
b Calculated (see text).
Source: Carey et al. (1985).
194
-------
Table 7-3. Estimated Annual Inhalation Exposures (ug/yr) Based on Ambient Air Concentrations Downstream of Industrial HCB Incinerators3
Company
Diamond Shamrock
Dow Chemical , U.
Dow Chemical , U.
Dow Chemi cal , U.
PPG Industries,
i — >
VO
en Vulcan Materials
Vulcan Materials
Corp.
S.A.
S.A.
S.A.
Inc.
Co.
Co.
Plant location
Deer Park, TX
Freeport, TX
Plaquemine, LA
Pittsburg, CA
Lake Charles, LA
Geismar, LA
Wichita, KS
69
6
37
90
76
39
76
Worst case
Incinerator A
.2
.3
.3
.0
.1
.4
.1
exposures"
Incinerator B
45
4
25
58
51
27
49
.0
.0
.6
.8
.2
.0
.3
Best estimate
Incinerator A
6.9
0.6
3.7
9.0
7.6
3.9
7.6
exposuresc
Incinerator B
4.5
0.4
2.6
5.9
5.1
2.7
4.9
Best case
Incinerator
0.69
0.06
0.37
0.90
0.76
0.39
0.76
exposures'*
A Incinerator B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.45
.04
.26
.59
.51
.27
.49
a See Section 6.1 for information on the ambient air concentrations.
b Assumes a 99.9 percnet ORE.
c Assumes a 99.99 percent ORE.
d Assumes a 99.999 percent ORE.
-------
Table 7-4. Estimated Annual Inhalation Exposures Resulting from HCB Volatilization from a Landfill3
Memphis. TN
Maximum average
tntra-ring
concentration
1/2-acre land-
Cap (in) fill (ug/m3)
0 l.OlxlfT5
6 l.nxKT6
12 1.06xl(T6
_ 24 9.72xl(T7
ID
rr\
Estimated
individual
exposure
(ug/yr)
7.0xl(T2
7.7xlO~3
7.3xlO~3
6.7xlO~3
Maximum average
intra-ring
concentration
1-acre land-
fill (ug/m3)
1.74xlO~5
1.92xlO~6
1.84xlO"6
1.68xlQ-6
Estimated
i ndi vi dual
exposure
(ug/yr)
1.2x10-'
1 .3xl(T2
1.3xlO~2
I.2xl0-2
Maximum average
intra-ring
concentration
1/2-acre land-
fill (ug/m3)
l.OOxlO"5
3.58xl(T6
3.42xlQ-6
3.12xl(T6
Tacoma. WA
Estimated
individual
exposure
(ug/yr)
6.9xlO-2
2.5x10-2
2.4xlO-2
2.2x10-2
Maximum average
intra-ring
concentration
1-acre land-
fill (ug/m3)
1 .78xlO"5
6.34xlO"6
6.05xlO~6
5.52xlO-6
Estimated
individual
exposure
(ug/yr)
1. 23x10-'
4.4xlO"2
4.2xlO-2
3.8x10-2
a Concentrations in air and resulting exposures are based on a concentration of HCB in the sludge of lOOOppm.
-------
concentrations of HCB level in ground water. For all estimations, a
daily drinking water intake of 2 liters per day (Versar 1983), 365 days,
was assumed. A separate subsection is presented for each scenario.
7.2.1 Monitoring Data
Four studies were found that presented monitoring results of drinking
water supplies; these results were presented in Table 5-26. The areas
that were monitored were Lake Ontario (near Niagara Falls, New York);
Dade County, Florida; and USEPA Region V; and a Nationwide Survey (96
locations) by EPA's Office of Drinking Water.
The study of Lake Ontario presented a mean concentration (three
samples) of 0.1 ppt, or 1 x 10~4 ug/1. Major sources of HCB pollution
here seem to be chemical waste dump leachate and direct industrial
effluents around Niagara Falls, New York (Oliver and Nicol 1982). The
estimated annual HCB intake is 7.3 x 10~2 ug/yr.
The mean concentration of ten samples from Dade County, Florida, an
area of extensive pesticide use (Barquet et al. 1981), was 14 ng/1,
corresponding to an estimated annual HCB intake of 10.2 ug/yr. The
lowest concentration was below detection limits (Barquet et al. 1981).
The Region V study was based on 83 samples; however, only two of the
samples had detectable levels of HCB. The two detectable levels were
0.004 and 0.006 ug/1, which correspond to an estimated annual exposure of
2.9 ug/yr and 4.4 ug/yr, respectively. The EPA nationwide survey of 96
locations found no HCB at a quantification limit of 0.2 ug/1.
7.2,.2 Ground-Water Modeling
Estimated HCB concentrations in ground water that have resulted from
landfill releases were presented in Section 6. It is assumed that this
contaminated ground water is used as drinking water, and thus individual
drinking water exposures were estimated; the results are presented in
Table 7-5.
Estimated annual individual exposures range from 0 ug/yr to
2.0 x 10-1 ug/yr.
7.3 Ingestion Exposure
The food ingestion scenario is based on the FDA Total Diet Study.
The Total Diet Study was initiated by the Food and Drug Administration in
the mid-1960s. It comprises analyses of ready-to-eat foods for residues
197
-------
Table 7-5. Estimated Annual Individual Exposures Resulting
from the Consumption of Contaminated Ground Water3'
Memphis. TN
Horizontal Concentrations
distance from from the
center of 1/2-acre Estimated
landfill
(m)
0
20
40
60
80
100
CO
140
160
180
landfill
1.1
7.7
6.0
4.3
2.2
7.3
1.5
1.8
4.4
0.0
(ug/1)
x 10"6
x 10
-8
x 10
x 10~9
x 10
x IO-12
x IO-13
x IO-14
x 10
exposures
(ug/yr)
8.0 x 10"
5.6 x 10~4
4.4 x 10"
3.1 x 10~
1.6 x 10"7
5.3 x 10"
1.1 x 10"10
1.3 x 10"11
3.2 x 10"15
0.0
Concentrations
from the
1-acre Estimated
landfill
1.1
1.0
2.0
1.5
9.5
3.9
1.0
1.6
1.2
0.0
(ug/1)
x 10~6
x 10"6
x 10"
x 10"8
x ,0-10
x 10-"
x IO-12
x ID'14
x ,0-16
exposures
(ug/yr)
8.0 x 10"4
7.3 x 10"4
1.5 x 10"
1.1 x 10~5
6.9 x I0~
2.8 x 10~
7.3 x 10~10
1.2 xlO-11
8.8 x IO"14
0.0
Tacoma. WA
Concentrations
from the
1/2-acre Estimated
landfill
(ug/1)
2.7 x IO"4
2.6 x 10~4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
exposures
(ug/yr)
2.0 x 10"1
1.9 x 10"1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Concentrations
from the
1-acre Estimated
landfill
(ug/1)
-4
2.7 x 10
2.7 x 10~4
5.1 x 10~9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
exposures
(ug/yr)
2.0 x 10"1
2.0 x 10~'
3.7 x 10'1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
aBased on the consumption of 2 liters/day, 365 days/yr.
''Concentrations of HCB in ground water and the resulting exposures were based on the assumption that HCB was present in the waste sludge
at a concentration of 1,000 ppm.
-------
of pesticides, industrial chemicals, radionuclides, and essential element
content. Analysis for HCB residues began in 1970, using FDA analytical
methods with a quantification limit of 0.001 ppm (FDA 1971).
Samples consisted of a 2- to 4-week food supply collected in the form
of market basket samples from several retail stores in each of the four
FDA regions (see Figure 5-1). The collected foods were separated into
classes of commodities; 12 for the adult diet and 11 for the infant and
toddler diets. The foods were then prepared as for consumption, and the
food items in each class were blended prior to analysis.
Results of the 1982-1984 survey included HCB levels of
0.0027 ug/kg/day for adults, 0.0044 ug/kg/day for toddlers, and
0.0017 ug/kg/day for infants. Adults are defined as males age 16 to 19,
since this group is thought to have the highest food consumption rate.
Toddlers are 2 years old, and infants are 6 months old.
Multiplying the above results by 365 days/year, the estimated annual
intake is 0.99 ug/kg for adults, 1.6 ug/kg for toddlers, and 0.62 ug/kg
for infants. To estimate annual exposures, the following average body
weights were used: 69.1 kg for adults, 13.7 kg for toddlers, and 8.2 kg
for infants. Consequently, estimated annual exposures to HCB are
68.1 ug, 22.0 ug, and 5.1 ug for adults, toddlers, and infants,
respectively.
7.4 Exposure to HCB-Contaminated Fish
Based on the fish sampling data from the Fish and Wildlife Service
(see Section 5.3), an exposure scenario was developed for the ingestion
of contaminated fish. However, it is difficult to determine what
proportion of dietary HCB intake results from eating contaminated fish,
since the FDA studies report only the combined total of fish and meat.
According to Nelson and Yang (1984), average daily fish consumption is
14.7 g/day. Freshwater fish contamination by HCB averages less than
0.01 ug/g on a wet-weight bases (Schmitt et al. 1983). Consequently,
total annual consumption of fish is 5,370 g/yr, which corresponds to
ingestion of less than 53.7 ug of HCB per year. This assumes that, as a
worst case, all edible fish are contaminated at the level reported for
freshwater fish.
7.5 Exposure to HCB in Pesticide-Contaminated Food
Exposure to HCB in four pesticides via food ingestion was estimated
using draft routine chronic analyses from the Office of Pesticide
Programs, Hazard Evaluation Division's Tolerance Assessment System.
199
-------
Based on the USDA 1977 and 1978 food consumption surveys for several
hundred food products, this system estimates the dietary intakes for 22
subpopulations in the United States. The system was used to estimate the
dietary intake of HCB that may be present on crops that have been treated
with pesticides known to contain HCB. Only those pesticides for which
EPA has established tolerances and that are known to contain HCB were
considered. These are dacthal, chlorothalonil, picloram, and
pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB). The assumed HCB contamination levels in
the pesticides are presented in Table 7-6 along with the estimated
maximum contribution of the above four pesticides to the annual dietary
intake of HCB. These estimates assume that HCB is present in or on the
crop in the same proportion relative to the pesticide as it is found in
the original pesticide product. If the pesticide dissipates from the
crop at a faster rate than HCB, then the estimated HCB concentrations in
or on the crops may be underestimated. Tables 7-7 through 7-10 provide
subpopulation breakdowns of these same data for each of the four
pesticides. As can be seen in these tables, dacthal may contribute the
largest amount of HCB to the diet among the four pesticides considered.
7.6 Pharmacokinetic Modeling of NHATS Survey Data
Scott (1985, 1986) used a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model
to estimate the steady-state HCB exposures required to yield the human
adipose HCB levels observed in the NHATS survey data for the 1980s. The
pharmacokinetic model has been described by Feder et al. (1985) and by
Yesair et al. (1985). Two underlying assumptions of Scott's analysis are
that adipose tissue levels represent steady-state levels and that a
linear relationship exists between exposure and deposition of HCB in
adipose tissue.
The steady-state exposures (in ug/kg/day) estimated by Scott (1985,
1986) to result in the adipose HCB levels corresponding to the 50th and
90th percent!le NHATS values are presented in Table 7-11 and Table 7-12
for males and females, respectively. As can be seen in the tables, the
estimated exposures for males are, in general, slightly higher than for
females; the exceptions to this are 90th percentile values in some census
divisions for the older age group. In most census divisions and for both
sexes, the older age group has higher estimated exposures than the
younger age group. The most notable exceptions are the West South
Central Division for females and the Mountain Division for males where
both the 50th and 90th percentiles for the younger age group are higher.
The Pacific Census Division has overall higher estimated exposures for
both sexes when compared to the total U.S. and to the other census
divisions.
200
-------
Table 7-6. Estimated Maximum Contribution of Selected
Pesticides to Annual Dietary Intake of HCBa
Pesticide
Dacthal
Chlorothalonil
Picloram
PCNB
Estimated
dietary intake
of active
ingredient''
(mg/yr)
235
324
45.8
4.96 x lo"2
Estimated
HCB dietary intake of HCBd
contamination0
(percent)
<0.3
<0.05
<0.02
<0.5
(ug/yr)
<7.1 x 10
<1.6 x 10
<9.2
<3.7 x 10
aBased on the U.S. population from the contiguous 48 states.
''Estimated from USEPA (1985) assuming a body weight of 68 kg and
ingestion 365 days per year.
cMaximum contamination levels as specified in agreements between EPA
and the manfacturers.
dThese estimates assume that all target crops potentially treated with
the pesticides are treated. More reasonable approximations are that
only 5 percent of the crops potentially treated with dacthal, PCNB or
Chlorothalonil and 1 percent of the crops potentially treated with
picloam are in fact treated.
201
-------
Table 7-7. Estimated Maximum Annual Dietary Intake of HCB Associated
with Dacthal
IS)
O
INi
Population subgroup
U.S. Pop. - 48 states - all seasons
U.S. Pop. - spring season
U.S. Pop. - summer season
U.S. Pop. - fall season
U.S. Pop. - winter season
Northeast region
North Central region
Southern region
Western region
Hispanics
Non-Hispanic whites
Non-Hispanic blacks
Non-Hi spanics other than whites and blacks
Nursing infants (less than 1 year old)
Non-nursing infants (at least 1 year old)
Females (13+ years, pregnant, not nursing)
Females (13+ years, nursing)
Children ( 1-6 years)
Children (7-12 years)
Males (13-19 years)
Females (13-19 years, not pregnant or nursing)
Males (20+ years)
Females (20+ years, not pregnant or nursing)
Estimated
dietary intake
of active
ingredient
(mg/kg/yr)
3.46
3.34
3.50
3.53
3.48
3.34
3.53
3.39
3.63
3.93
3.44
3.34
3.45
3.65
10.6
2.53
3.09
7.12
5.11
3.50
2.98
2.63
2.52
Estimated
dietary intake
of HCBa-b
(ug/kg/yr)
< 10.4
< 10.0
< 10.5
< 10.6
< 10.4
< 10.0
< 10.6
< 10.2
< 10.9
< 11.8
< 10.7
< 10.0
< 10.4
< 11.0
< 31.9
< 7.6
< 9.3
< 21.4
< 15.3
< 10.5
< 8.9
< 7.9
< 7.6
Estimated
individual
body weightc
(kg)
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
66
68
7.5
9.8
53.8
53.8
14.4
31.2
61.7
53.8
69
63.7
Estimated
individual dietary
intake of HCBb
(ug/yr)
< 7.1 x 102
< 6.8 x 102
< 7.1 x 102
< 7.2 x 102
< 7.1 x 102
< 6.8 x 102
< 7.2 x 102
< 6.9 x 102
< 7.4 x 102
< 8.0 x 102
< 7.3 x 102
< 6.8 x 102
< 7.1 x 102
< 8.3 x 101
< 3.1 x 102
< 4.1 x 102
< 5.0 x 102
< 3.1 x 102
< 4.8 x 102
< 6.5 x 102
< 4.8 x 102
< 5.5 x 102
< 4.8 x 102
aBased on < 0.3% contamination.
^These estimates assume that all food crops potentially treated with dacthal are treated. A more reasonable
approximation is that only 5 percent of the potentially treated crops are in fact treated.
C0erived from Versar (1983).
-------
Table 7-8. Estimated Maximum Annual Dietary Intake of HCB Associated
with Clilorothaloni 1
ro
O
CO
Estimated
dietary intake
of active
ingredient
Population subgroup (mg/kg/yr)
U.S. Pop. - 48 states - all seasons
U.S. Pop. - spring season
U.S. Pop. - summer season
U.S. Pop. - fall season
U.S. Pop. - winter season
Northeast region
North Central region
Southern region
Western region
Hispanics
Non-Hispanic whites
Non-Hispanic blacks
Non-Hispanics other than whites and blacks
Nursing infants (less than 1 year old)
Non-nursing infants (at least 1 year old)
Females (13+ years, pregnant, not nursing)
Females (13+ years, nursing)
Children (1-6 years)
Children (7-12 years)
Males (13-19 years)
Females (13-19 years, not pregnant or nursing)
Males (20+ years)
Females (20+ years, not pregnant or nursing)
4.78
4.64
5.40
4.56
4.49
4.85
4.82
4.42
5.15
4.96
4.89
3.80
5.33
3.80
8.07
3.91
4.53
8.72
6.90
4.64
4.12
3.80
3.91
Estimated
dietary intake
of HCBa-b
(ug/kg/yr)
< 2.4
< 2.3
< 2.7
< 2.3
< 2.2
< 2.4
< 2.4
< 2.2
< 2.6
< 2.5
< 2.4
< 1.9
< 2.7
< 1.9
< 4.0
< 2.0
< 2.3
< 4.4
< 3.4
< 2.3
< 2.1
< 2.0
< 2.0
Estimated
individual
body weight*-
(kg)
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
7.5
9.8
53.8
53.8
14.4
31.2
61.7
53.8
69
63.7
Estimated
individual dietary
intake of HCBb
(ug/yr)
< 1.6 x )02
< 1.5 x 102
< 1.8 x 102
< 1.5 x 102
< 1.5 x 102
< 1.6 x 102
< 1.6 x 102
< 1.5 x 102
< 1.8 x 102
< 1.7 x 102
< 1.6 x 102
< 1.3 x 102
< 1.8 x 102
< 1.4 x 101
< 3.9 x 101
< 1.1 x 102
< 1.2 x 102
< 6.3 x 102
< 1.1 x 102
< 1.4 x 102
< 1.1 x 102
< 1.4 x 102
< 1.3 x 102
aBased on < 0.05% contamination.
bThese estimates assume that all food crops potentially treated with chlorothalonil are in fact treated. 'A more
reasonable approximation is that only 5 percent of the potentially treated crops are in fact treated.
C0erived from Versar (1983).
-------
Table 7-9. Estimated Maximum Annual Dietary Intake of HCB Associated
with Picloram
ro
o
Estimated
dietary intake Estimated
of active dietary intake
ingredient of HCBa-b
Population subgroup (mg/kg/yr) (ug/kg/yr)
U.S. Pop. - 48 states - all seasons
U.S. Pop. - spring season
U.S. Pop. - summer season
U.S. Pop. - fall season
U.S. Pop. - winter season
Northeast region
North Central region
Southern region
Western region
Hispanics
Non-Hispanic whites
Non-Hispanic blacks
Non-Hi spanics other than whites and blacks
Nursing infants (less than 1 year old)
Non-nursing infants (at least 1 year old)
Females (13+ years, pregnant, not nursing)
Females (13+ years, nursing)
Chi Idren ( )-6 years)
Children (7-12 years)
Males (13-19 years)
Females (13-19 years, not pregnant or nursing)
Males (20+ years)
Females (20+ years, not pregnant or nursing)
0.67
0.65
0.67
0.69
0.68
0.69
0.69
0.62
0.69
0.77
0.68
0.62
0.69
0.51
1.75
0.47
0.58
1.57
1 .06
0.73
0.58
0.51
0.44
< 1.3 x 10~'
< 1.3 x 10~'
< 1.3 x 10"1
< 1.4 x 10~]
< 1.4 x 10-1
< 1.4 x 10'1
< 1.4 x 10"1
< 1.2 x 10"'
< 1.4 x 10"1
< 1 .5 x 10-1
< 1.4 x 10"1
< 1 .2 x 10"1
< 1.4 x 10~'
< 1.0 x 10"1
< 3.5 x 10"1
< 9.4 x 10~2
< 1.2 x 10"1
< 3. 1 x )0~'
< 2.1 x 10"1
< 1.5 x 10~'
< 1.2 x 10"1
< 1.0 x 10"1
< 8.8 x 10~2
Estimated Estimated
individual individual dietary
body weight0 intake of HCBD
(kg) (ug/yr)
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
7.5
9.8
53.8
53.8
14.4
31.2
61.7
53.8
69
63.7
< 9.1
< 8.8
< 9.1
< 9.3
< 9.2
< 9.3
< 9.3
< 8.4
< 9.3
<10.5
< 9.2
< 8.4
< 9.3
< 0.8
< 3.4
< 5.1
< 6.2
< 4.5
< 6.6
< 9.0
< 6.2
< 7.0
< 5.6
aBased on < 0.02% contamination.
''These estimates assume that all food crops potentially treated with picloram are in fact treated. A more
reasonable approximation is that only 1 percent of the potentially treated crops are in fact treated.
C0erived from Versar (1983).
-------
Table 7-10. Estimated Maximum Annual Dietary Intake of HC6 Associated with PCNB
PO
o
en
Estimated
dietary intake
of active
ingredient
Population subgroup (mg/kg/yr)
U.S. Pop. - 48 states - all seasons
U.S. Pop. - spring season
U.S. Pop. - summer season
U.S. Pop. - fall season
U.S. Pop. - winter season
Northeast region
North Central region
Southern region
Western region
Hispanics
Non-Hispanic whites
Non-Hispanic blacks
Non-Hi spani cs other than whites and blacks
Nursing infants (less than 1 year old)
Non-nursing infants (at least 1 year old)
Females (13+ years, pregnant, not nursing)
Females (13-f years, nursing)
Children ( 1-6 years)
Children (7-12 years)
Males (13-19 years)
Females (13-19 years, not pregnant or nursing)
Males (20+ years)
Females (20+ years, not pregnant or nursing)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.12
.11
.10
.10
.04
.12
.09
.10
.21
.17
.12
.10
.09
.08
Estimated
dietary intake
of HCBa'b
(ug/kg/yr)
< 0
< 0
< 0
< 0
< 0
< 0
. < 0
< 0
< 0
< 1
< 0
< 0
< 0
< 0
< 0
.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.60
.55
.50
.50
.20
.60
.45
.50
.05
.85
.60
.50
.45
.40
Estimated
individual
body weightc
(kg)
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
7.5
9.8
53.8
53.8
14.4
31.2
61.7
53.8
69
63.7
Estimated
individual dietary
intake of HCBb
(ug/yr)
< 3
< 4
< 3
< 3
< 3
< 1
< 5
< 2
< 2
< 1
< 2
< 3
< 2
< 3
< 2
.7
.1
.7
.4
.4
.5
.9
.4
.7
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
x
x
X
X
X
X
.5 x
.6
.7
.7
.1
X
X
X
X
.5 x
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA - Data not available.
aBased on < 0.5% contamination.
"These estimates assume that all food crops potentially treated with PCNB are in fact treated.
approximation is that only 5 percent of the potentially treated crops are in fact treated.
cDerived from Versar (1983).
A more reasonable
-------
Table 7-11. Estimated Steady-State Exposure Levels Resulting in the 50th and 90th Percentile NHATS
Adipose Tissue Concentrations Observed in Males (1980s NHATS Data)
Census division/
age group (yrs)
Northeast
15-44
45+
Middle Atlantic
15-44
45+
o South Atlantic
cri
15-44
45+
East North Central
15-44
45+
East South Central
15-44
45+
Estimated steady-state
exposure (ug/kg/day)a
50th percentile
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.005
90th percentile
0.010
0.028
0.015
0.024
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.013
0.007
0.009
Required ambient air
HCB concentration (ng/m3'b
50th percentile
18
18
20
23
18
18
20
20
18
15
90th percentile
29
82
44
70
29
35
41
38
20
26
Required drinking water
HCB concentration (ug/l)c
50th percentile 90th percentile
0.21 0.35
0.21 0.98
0.24 0.52
0.28 0.84
0.21 0.35
0.21 0.42
0.24 0.49
0.24 0.46
0.21 0.24
0.18 0.32
-------
Table 7-11. (Continued)
ro
O
Census division/
age group (yrs)
Estimated steady-state
exposure (ug/kg/day)a
Required ambient air
HCB concentration (ng/m3*b
Required drinking water
HCB concentration (ug/l)c
West North Central
15-44
45+
West South Central
15-44
45+
Mountain
15-44
45+
15-44
45+
Total U.S.
15-44
45+
50th percentile
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.012
0.008
0.011
0.010
0.006
0.007
90th percentile
0.011
0.013
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.012
0.021
0.044
0.013
0.014
50th percentile
18
20
20
20
35
23
32
29
18
20
90th percentile
32
38
47
50
52
35
61
128
38
41
50th percentile
0.21
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.42
0.28
0.38
0.35
0.21
0.24
90th percentile
0.38
0.46
0.56
0.60
0.63
0.42
0.74
1.54
0.46
0.49
Estimated exposures were calculated using the human physiologic pharmacokinetic model for hexachlorobenzene.
Feder et al. (1985) and Yesair et al. (1985). Source: Scott (1985, 1986).
bAssumes inhalation rate of 24 m-vday, a body weight of 70 kg, and 100 percent HCB absorption.
"-Assumes ingestion of 2 liters of water/day, a body weight of 70 kg, and 100 percent HCB absorption.
This model is described by
-------
Table 7-12. Estimated Steady-State Exposure Levels Resulting in the 50th and 90th Percentile NHATS
Adipose Tissue Concentrations Observed in Females (1980s NHATS Data)
Census division/
age group (yrs)
Northeast
15-44
"45+
Middle Atlantic
15-44
45+
o South Atlantic
c»
15-44
45+
East North Central
15-44
45+
East South Central
15-44
45+
Estimated steady-state
exposure (ug/kg/day)a
50th percentile 90th percentile
0.004 0.004
0.004 0.010
0.004 0.009
0.005 0.029
0.003 0.006
0.004 0.014
0.002 0.008
0.004 0.008
0.002 0.005
0.004 0.010
Required ambient air
HCB concentration (ng/irr)°
50th percentile 90th percentile
10 10
10 25
10 23
12 72
8 15
10 35
5 20
10 20
5 12
10 25
Required drinking water
HCB concentration (ug/l)c
50th percentile 90th percentile
0.12 0.12
0.12 0.30
0.12 0.27
0.15 0.87
0.09 0.18
0.12 0.42
0.06 0.24
0.12 0.24
0.06 0.15
0.12 0.30
-------
Table 7-12. (Continued)
PO
o
10
Census division/
age group (yrs)
Estimated steady-state
exposure (ug/kg/day)a
Required ambient air
HCB concentration (ng/m3)b
Required drinking water
HCB concentration (ug/l)c
West North Central
15-44
45+
West South Central
15-44
45+
Mountain
15-44
45+
Pacific
15-44
45+
TOTAL U.S.
15-44
45+
50th percentile
0.004
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.007
0.004
0.009
0.004
0.005
90th percentile
0.016
0.010
0.011
0.007
0.009
0.014
0.008
0.059
0.007
0.012
50th percentile
10
15
12
10
10
18
10
23
10
12
90th percentile
40
25
28
18
23
35
20
148
18
30
50th percentile
0.12
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.21
0.12
0.27
0.12
0.15
90th percentile
0.48
0.30
0.33
0.21
0.27
0.42
0.24
1.77
0.21
0.36
a£stimated exposures were calculated using the human physiologic pharmacokinetic model for hexachlorobenzene.
Feder et al. (1985) and Yesair et al. (1985). Source: Scott (1985, 1986).
"Assumes inhalation rate of 24 nrvday, a body weight of 60 kg, and 100 percent HCB absorption.
cAssumes ingestion of 2 liters of water/day, a body weight of 60 kg, and 100 percent HCB absorption.
This model is described by
-------
Tables 7-11 and 7-12 also contain estimates of the steady-state
ambient air and drinking water HCB concentrations that would be required
to result in the steady-state exposures estimated by Scott (1985, 1986)
assuming, as a worst case, 100 percent absorption of inhaled or ingested
HCB. Although the estimated required HCB concentrations are very low,
they are generally much higher than the concentrations of HCB that have
been measured in these two environmental media.
For example, to obtain the 50th percentile exposure for the total
U.S. of 0.004 to 0.007 ug/kg/day would require HCB air concentrations of
10 to 20 ng/m3. The summary statistics of 18 ambient city surveys
conducted by EPA that are summarized in Table 7-2 indicate that only one
survey reported a mean HCB concentration higher than 1 ng/m3. That
high mean level was due to one high sample (45.5 ng/m3); ten of the
eleven other samples collected in that city had no detectable HCB
(detection limit of 0.1 ng/m3). Twelve of the 18 city surveys had mean
HCB levels of 0.2 ng/m3 or less which is 50 to 100 times lower than the
concentration required to obtain the 50th percentile exposure estimated
by Scott (1985, 1986).
Similarly, to obtain the 50th percentile exposure for the total U.S.
.would require HCB drinking water concentrations of 0.12 to 0.24 ug/1.
The few monitoring results for HCB in drinking water that have been
reported are summarized in Table 5-26 and in Section 7.2. HCB was
detected in only 9 of 192 samples. At least seven of these positives
were collected in areas where HCB contamination might reasonably be
expected (i.e., areas with extensive pesticide use or industrial waste
discharges and chemical waste landfills). The highest reported
concentration, 0.068 ug/1, is at the low end of the range of
concentrations that would be required to achieve the 50th percentile
exposures estimated by Scott (1985, 1986). The bulk of the reported
measurements are one to two orders of magnitude less than is required to
achieve the 50th percentile exposure.
Unlike the reported measurements of HCB in air and water, the
reported measurements of HCB intake via food do provide the necessary
levels to achieve the exposures estimated by Scott (1985, 1986). The
average adult intake of HCB estimated by FDA through their Total Diet
Study for the late 1970s and early 1980s ranges from 0.002 to
0.004 ug/kg/day. This estimate compares quite well to the exposures
estimated for the 50th percentile by Scott (1985, 1986) of 0.004 to
0.007 ug/kg/day.
210
-------
7.7
References
Barquet A, Carmen M, Pfaffenberger CD. 1981. Determination of
organochlorine pesticides and metabolites in drinking water, human blood
serum, and adipose tissue. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health 7:469-479.
Carey AE, Dixon TE, Yang HSC. 1984. Environmental Exposure to
hexachlorobenzene in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
FDA. 1971. The Food and Drug Administration's pesticide analytical
manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Food and Drug Administration.
Feder PI, Yesair DW, and Naber SO. 1985. Pharmacokinetic applications
to quantitative risk assessments. Draft report. Battelle, Columbus
Division-Washington Operations. Prepared under EPA Contract No.
68-01-6721.
Freed JR, Chambers T, Christie WN, Carpenter CE. 1983. Methods for
assessing exposure to chemical substances. Vol. 2. Methods for
assessing exposure to chemical .substances in the ambient environment.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 560/5-83-015.
GSC. 1986. Modeling inhalation exposure and groundwater contamination
of hexachlorobenzene from landfills. Draft report. Washington, DC:
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3968.
Nelson CB, Yang YY. 1984. An estimation of the daily food intake based
on data from the 1977-1978 USDA nationwide food consumption survey.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Radiation Programs.
Oliver BG, Nicol KD. 1982. Chlorobenzenes in sediments, water, and
selected fish from Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie, and Ontario.
Environmental Science & Technology 16:532-536.
Schmitt CJ, Ribick MA, Ludke JL, May TW. 1983. National pesticide
monitoring program: organochlorine residues in freshwater fish,
1976-79. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service Resource Publication 152.
211
-------
Scott CS. 1985. Pharmacokinetically-derived environmental exposure
estimates from adipose burdens of hexachlorobenzene. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances.
Memorandum. October 4, 1985.
Scott CS. 1986. Estimated exposure levels to hexachlorobenzene for U.S.
males. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Toxic Substances. Memorandum. January 16, 1986.
USEPA. 1985. Routine chronic analysis. Printout 7/31/85, Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Versar Inc. 1983. Methodology for assessing exposures to chemical
substances from drinking water. Draft report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances. Contract
No. 68-01-6271.
Yesair DW, Feder PI, Chin AE, Naber.SJ, Jupier-Goodman T, Scott CS, and
Robinson PE. 1985. Development, evaulation and use of a pharmacokinetic
model for hexachlorobenzene. Presented at IARC, International Symposium
on Hexachlorobenzene. June 24-28, 1985.
212
-------
8. CONCLUSIONS, HYPOTHESES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section contains two hypotheses and several preliminary
conclusions and recommendations. Section 8.1 presents the major
conclusions of this report. Section 8.2 provides a hypothesis addressing
the consistent increase in the detection frequencies of HCB found in fat
samples taken from livestock from 1974 to 1978; this phenomenon was
originally identified in Section 5.4. The second hypothesis, presented
in Section 8.3, addresses the relatively high NHATS levels for HCB that
were found in the Pacific Census Division. Finally, Section 8.4 presents
the recommendations for this exposure assessment.
8.1 Conclusions
The conclusions are organized according to the major components of
this report:
• Based on the available data, this study found that the vast
majority of the HCB produced in this country is inadvertently
generated during the manufacture of chlorinated solvents. Nearly
all of the HCB from this source is either landfilled or
incinerated, with most of the estimated releases being to
landfills (95 percent), with considerably less to air (5 percent
after incineration) and water (approximately 0 percent).
• The direct use of HCB as a fungicide appears to have ceased during
1985. However, HCB is known to still be inadvertently produced
during the manufacture of five pesticides, and it is suspected of
being produced during the manufacture of many others. Inadvertent
production during pesticide manufacture appears to be the second
most significant source of HCB.
• Although historical sources of HCB have not been quantified, they
may also be a significant source. Nith the possible exception of
landfills that contain HCB, other known historical sources
(manufacture of certain other chlorinated compounds and municipal
incineration) appear to be insignificant.
• Although HCB has apparently become widely distributed through
volatilization, atmospheric transport, and precipitation, the
principal paths for its environmental removal appear to be
transport as an adsorbate on particulate matter in runoff and
surface water and aquatic photolysis near the air-water
interface. Contaminated particulate material may be washed out of
the continental interior and deposited at shorelines and mouths of
rivers where it can serve as a source of HCB to the biota. The
short-term fate of HCB, however, is absorption to soils and
sediments.
213
-------
FDA Total Diet Studies show a decrease in the daily intake of HCB
for human toddlers and infants from the maximum, reached in 1977.
The daily intake of HCB in the adult diet remained generally
constant from 1971 to 1984. However, the HCB detection
frequencies in the adult diet increased in 1976 up through 1979.
Since 1979, detection frequencies in the adult human diet and
daily intake of HCB have been decreasing.
FDA surveillance monitoring data indicate that HCB is not commonly
detected at the analytical limit of 0.01 mg/kg (less than 2
percent of the samples) in either foreign or domestic foods,
although it has been much more frequently detected in certain
commodity groups and individual products than in others. Groups
experiencing more frequent detection include dairy products, meat
and fish, and, to a lesser extent, peanuts, carrots, stringbeans,
squash, lettuce, parsley, parsnips, and potatoes. HCB was only
detected in 1 percent of the animal feed samples analyzed by the
FDA between 1970 and 1976.
As monitored by the USDA, the percent of meat and poultry samples
in which HCB was detected O0.01 mg/kg) increased significantly in
1974 and decreased significantly in 1978, producing a "hump"
within the period 1974-1978. It is hypothesized that ingestion of
feedstuffs contaminated with a higher than usual level of HCB was
responsible.
The NHATS data show that the HCB detection frequency in human
adipose tissue has been slowly increasing over time (from 97.6
percent positive in 1974 to 100 percent positive in 1983). The
mean residue levels show a quadratic trend over time, with the
peak levels occurring in 1979. A comparison of the mean residue
levels found no significant age, sex, or race differences;
however, significant geographic differences were found with the
West Census Region showing higher mean levels than the North
Central and South Regions.
Ambient monitoring data indicate that HCB is an ubiquitous
chemical. It has been detected in all environmental media and in
all areas of the country.
Based on modeling estimates, it appears that HCB releases from
clay-capped landfills result in very low HCB concentrations in
ground water and ambient air downwind of the landfill. HCB
concentrations in air downstream of an industrial incinerator may
be more significant, depending on the quantity of HCB incinerated
and the destruction efficiency of the incinerator.
214
-------
• As Indicated in Table 7-1, It appears that food ingestion is the
major route of human exposure. For example, a comparison between
best estimate exposures for food ingestion and inhalation and
drinking water ingestion for adults indicates that food ingestion
exposure is between 15 and 20 times more significant. The types
of food classes that most commonly contain HCB are meat, fish, and
dairy products.
• The pharmacokinetic modeling of the NHATS data (see Section 7.6)
also indicated that food is probably the major route of human
exposure. Estimates of the HCB concentrations in ambient air and
drinking water that would be required to result in steady-state
50th percent!le exposures estimated by the model are approximately
one to two orders of magnitude higher than those actually found
through ambient monitoring. However, the average adult intake of
HCB estimated by FDA through their Total Diet Study (0.002 to
0.004 ug/kg/day) compares quite well to the 50th percentile
exposures estimated by the model (0.004 to 0.007 ug/kg/day).
• Several important temporal trends were observed for human
exposures; summaries of the relevant data are presented in
Figures 8-1 and 8-2. The HCB levels in meat and poultry, the
total HCB daily dietary intake, and the average levels of HCB in
human adipose tissues all decreased slightly for the period
1979-1983. However, the percent of the population having
detectable levels of HCB increased slightly during this period.
The HCB detection frequency in domestic meat and poultry peaked
between 1974 and 1978, daily dietary intake of HCB peaked in
1977-1978 (for all age groups combined), and the HCB levels in
human adipose tissue were the highest between 1979 and 1981.
• No universal trends were observed for the detection frequency of
HCB in wildlife; a summary of the available data is presented in
Figure 8-3. The HCB detection frequency in ducks and fish peaked
in 1976-1977, decreased in 1979, and remained relatively constant
through the next sampling period. The HCB detection frequency in
starlings has remained relatively constant from 1974 to 1982,
although it was slightly higher in 1979.
8.2 The USDA "Hump"
8.2.1 Introduction
Statistical analysis of data on the detection of HCB residue levels
in livestock has disclosed a significant temporal difference that grouped
215
-------
HCB Detection Frequency
in Domestic Meat and Poultry
78 79 BO 81
20
19
18
17
16
IS
14
13
12
11
10-
9
8
7-
6 -
5-
4 -
3-
2-
1 -
0
HCB Detection Frequency
in Imported Meat and Poultry
198O 1981
1983
FDA Total Diet Studies
HCB Daily Dietary Intake
71 72 73 74 79 76 77 78 7t 80 81/M 82X84
Figure 8-1. HCB detection frequency in meat and poultry and HCB daily
dietary intake, 1971-1984.
216
-------
0.10 -
0.09 -
0.08 -
0.07 _
0.06 -
0.05 -
0.04 -
0.03 -
0.02 -
0.01 -
0.00 -
74
75
76
77
78 79
Fiscal Tear
80
81
82
83
Plot of national time trend and 95 oercent confidence bandn
for the average anount of HCB.
95-
90.
85 -
80 -i
75 -
70 -
74 75 76 77 78 79
Fiscal Tear
SO
81
82
83
Plot of national time trend and 95 percent confidence bands for
the percent of population having detectable levels of HCB.
Figure 8-2. Plot of national time trend and 95 percent confidence bands for the
average amount of HCB in adipose tissue and the percent of population
having detectable levels of HCB.
217
-------
HCB Detection Frequency in Starlings
1972
1974
1976
1979
1902
HCB Detection Frequency in Duckwings
1972-73
1978-77
1979-00
1901-62
FWS Fish Sampling Data
•g
1
3
1
1
50
46
40
30
30
20
20
15
10
9
0
E
"I
1 P^
1 ^
-I f^S
! Kv-N>
_
-
:
Z/7Z
/////
'////
/////
'////,
' / / ' .
'////,
/ / / '
v///
ll
m
^
^
^
C^x^s
Jp
Y /' s * f
V//^
^\\V\1
^> 3 F^
^:;"^ vy/A
<^\ m^
^ 'A
^
\\
N;
\\
1878-77 1978-79 1980-81
7~7\ Actual Somplo l\. SI Sampling Station!
n
t
xV^^
NS
>N
'•,\
X\N
i
AN
Figure 8-3. HCB detection frequency in starlings, duckwings, and fish.
218
-------
the data Into three periods: 1972-1973, 1974-1978, and 1979-1984 (Section
5.4). As is evident from Figure 8-4, the percent of meat and poultry
samples in which HC8 was detected increased significantly in 1974 and
decreased significantly after 1978, producing a "hump" within the period
1974-1978. Since the dietary intake of HCB in meat and poultry (as well
as dairy products) may account for the apparent peak in human adipose
levels of HCB during the late 1970s, a rationale for this "hump" is
relevant to the assessment of human exposure. From considerations to be
given in the following discussion, it is hypothesized that ingestion by
farm animals of feedstuffs contaminated with a higher than usual level of
HCB was responsible for the increased level of HCB in meat and poultry
samples during 1974-1978.
Inadvertent synthesis of HCB during the manufacture of several
organic solvents produced in large volume appears to be the most
significant production source of this compound, but essentially all of
the HCB synthesized during solvent manufacture becomes part of the still
bottoms, which are generally disposed of by landfilling or through
incineration. Both of these practices curtail the entry of HCB into the
environment, and thus widespread livestock contamination from this source
should, not be significant.
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), however, has been introduced directly into
the agricultural environment as a fungicide and as a contaminant of
organochlorine insecticides and herbicides. The use of agricultural
organochlorine compounds, in general, appears to have declined steadily
over the period 1966-1982 (Table 8-1), and it can be assumed that the
total release of HCB to the environment declined similarly. Although the
persistence of HCB in soils has been noted (Section 4.5), this compound
can be photolytically degraded in the presence of water (Section 4.2) and
can also be transported in runoff water as an adsorbate on finely divided
particulates (Section 4.5). Additionally, the moderately rapid rate of
volatilization of this pollutant from water (Section 4.4) favors its
widespread dissipation. For these reasons, an environmental accumulation
of HCB, corresponding to the increased frequency of HCB detection in
livestock within the period 1974-1978, should not have occurred. The
increased frequency of HCB detection in livestock during this period,
therefore, was probably associated with a specific route (or routes) of
exposure rather than a general environmental build-up. In support of
this contention, the ambient environmental level of HCB, as reflected in
the downward trend of residue levels detected in starlings and fish
during the period 1972-82, appears to be decreasing.
After 1978, detection of HCB in meat and poultry fat samples
decreased markedly (see Figure 8-4). This decrease may be directly
219
-------
Table 8-1. Trends in Insecticide Use. 1966-19823
Insecticide type 1966 1971 1976 1982
Organochlorines 82.8b 61.9 37.5 5.9
Organophosphates 36.6 65.0 64.2 >42.2
a Eichers et al. (1978) and Eichers (1983) did not separate herbicide
and fungicide use data into organochlorine and organophosphate
categories
b All values are in millions of pounds.
Source: Eichers (1983). Eichers et al. (1978), USDA (1974), USDA (1970).
220
-------
no
no
OJ
•4-»
O
0)
*J
-------
related to restrictions placed on the agricultural use of organochlorlne
compounds that may contain HCB as a contaminant (e.g., aldrin, dieldrin,
heptachlor) in the mid to late 1970s (USEPA 1985). Specific use(s)
responsible for the increased HCB detection in meat and poultry may have
been restricted at that time. Although HCB has apparently still been in
limited use until recently for the prevention of wheat smut (Farm
Chemicals Handbook 1986), it was not used widely on other grains or
livestock feedstuffs.
The two routes of livestock exposure to HCB that would involve
specific use(s) of organochlorine compounds are ingestion of food and
dermal contact. Livestock feedstuffs could have become contaminated with
HCB from heavy use of pesticides or herbicides during their growth or
harvesting, and dermal exposure to pesticides could have occurred during
the dipping and spraying of livestock. In this latter procedure,
pesticides are applied directly to the skin of livestock for the control
of insects and mite infestations. Specific contamination of ambient air
and water that was being supplied to livestock, however, is difficult to
envision.
8.2.2 Ingestion Exposure Route
Most farm animals in the United States are fed in feedlots, pens, or
sheds before being prepared for slaughter (Van Arsdall and Nelson 1983,
1984; Gilliam 1984; Lasley 1983; Lasley et al. 1985). Prior to this
time, grazing animals are allowed to feed on forage and pasture, although
only a small percentage of this food source is treated with insecticides
or herbicides (Table 8-2). Note, however, that 1976 use of pesticides on
alfalfa was greater than use in 1971 and 1982.
The diet of cattle in a feedlot, according to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, consists of approximately one-third grain (mostly corn),
one-half grain-crop silage, and about one-fifth hay (Van Arsdall and
Nelson 1983). Monitoring data (Table 8-3) from the Food and Drug
Administration (Surveillance and Compliance Summary Data for 1970-1976)
indicate little or no contamination of these feedstuffs by HCB at levels
above 10 ppb in 1974 and 1975. In 1976, however, HCB was detected in 23
percent of sampled feed grain and 25 percent of sampled hay; silage was
reported as uncontaminated throughout the monitoring period.
Data from Eichers (1983), Eichers et al. (1978), and the USDA (1974)
show that variations in the treatment of corn with organochlorine
herbicides (Table 8-4) do not appear related to the periods of variation
in HCB detection in meat and poultry (i.e., total organochlorine
herbicides did not decrease from 1976 to 1982). (Herbicides are applied
222
-------
Table 8-2. Pesticide Use on Forage and Pastures
(percent of acreage treated)
Insecticides
Alfalfa
Hay
Pasture
Herbicides
Alfalfa
Hay
Pasture
1971 1976
8 13
2
-
1 3
1 2
1 1
1982
7
-
-
1
3
1
Sources: Eicners (1983). Eichers at al. (1978). USDA (1974).
223
-------
Table 8-3. FOA Domestic Surveillance Sumnary Data
Animal feed commodity
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1970-
1976
Number of samples
Whole grain
Hay
Dehydrated hay
Animal byproducts
Fish byproducts
Misc. animal feed
Fish byproducts (imported)
Percent positive samples
Whole grain
Hay
Dehydrated hay
Animal byproducts
Fish byproducts
Misc. animal feed
Fish byproducts (imported)
Average concentration (gob)
89
138
26
18
12
139
1
82
82
37
15
9
119
1
226
24
8
5
86
537
43
0
0
0
0
41 .77
0
0
0
1 .22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 .
0.
0
16
37
265
17
7
78
30
118
16
13
13
54
145
98
25
37
3
68
50
20
154
41
109
13
31
37
36
236
83
98
8
906
348
134
604
286
1157
85
0
-
-
1.02
0
0
0
0
8.00
0
0.65
0
2.75
0
22.58
16.22
8.33
0.42
8.43
2.04
0
1.10
3.16
2.24
1 .16
4.55
0.60
0
Whole grain
Hay
Dehydrated hay
Animal byproducts
Fish byproducts
Misc. animal feed
Fish byproducts (imported)
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
< 0.1
0
1
0
0
0.8
0
0.4
0
0
-
-
0.7
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.1
0
3
0
14
2
1
0.1
2
0.9
0
0.9
0.6
0.3
i 0.2
2
0.4
0
Commodities in Which HCB Was Apparently Not Detected3 (1970-1976)
Animal feeds
Number of samples
Oilseed byproducts
Ground grains
Vegetable byproducts
Silage
551
453
250
272
a Detection limit is 10 ppb.
Source: Ouggan et al. (1983).
224
-------
Table 8-4. Quantities of Herbicide Used on Corn
(106 pounds)
1971
2.4-0 9.1
Atrazine 52.0
Cyanazine
Simazine 0.7
Total organochlorines 61.8
Total herbicides 101.1
% organochlorines 61
Acres of Corn Treated with Herbicides
1971
2.4-0 16.6
Atrazine 36.0
Cyanazine
Simazine
Total organochlorines 52.6
Total acres planted
Percent treated
1976
. 3.0
83.8
10.4
2.4
104.6
207.1
51
(106 acres
1976
12. S
56.9
6.6
1.8
77.8
84.1
92.5
1982
5.1
69.7
20.7
3.3
98.8
243.4
41
treated)
1982
11 .3
47.9
13.1
3.3
75.6
77.9
97.0
Source: Eichers (1983), Eichers et al. (1978), USOA (1974).
225
-------
to corn acreage only before growth and maturation occur and should not
contaminate mature portions of the corn plant.) Application rate of
organochlorine insecticides to corn, (i.e., pounds of insecticide per
acres of corn treated), however, appears to have been higher in 1976 than
in 1971 and 1982 (Table 8-5); the increase in 1976 over 1971 is 17.5
percent. The use of heptachlor on corn increased 62 percent (based on
pounds per acre) from 1971 to 1976, and the use of aldrin increased 73
percent. Although the use of chlordane and toxaphene decreased 12
percent and 75 percent, respectively (based on pounds per acre), the
acreage treated by them is less than that treated by the former two
insecticides. In addition, toxaphene is not recommended for use on
post-emergent corn and perhaps should not be considered with the other
three insecticides.
Most hay in the United States is produced from alfalfa (Van Arsdall
and Nelson 1983). Organochlorine insecticide use on alfalfa increased
from 1.04 pounds per acre to 2.4 pounds per acre between 1971 and 1976
(Table 8-6). This is an increase of 131 percent. Acreage of alfalfa
also increased between these two years (Table 8-6) while the number of
feedlot cattle was approximately the same (Van Arsdall and Nelson 1983).
This increased usage of organochlorine insecticides on corn and alfalfa
in 1976 compares well with the increased detection of HCB in sampled feed
grain and hay reported by the FDA during the same year (see Table 8-3).
Since corn and hay constitute almost one-half of the diet provided in a
feedlot, this increased occurrence of HCB may have been the source of the
increased HCB detected in meat produced.from grazing animals.
Nongrazing farm animals (i.e., hogs and poultry) are currently fed a
diet consisting primarily of feed grain (mostly corn) and soybean meal
(Van Arsdall and Nelson 1984, Lasley et al. 1985). Although most hogs
are now grown in total confinement, hog pastures may have contributed a
large part to their diet during 1974-1978. Data given by Van Arsdall and
Nelson (1984) show that approximately one-third of the hog farmers in the
North-central region and one-half in the Southeast Region of the United
States used pastures during their production program in 1980. Van
Arsdall and Nelson (1984) further state that there were twice as many
farms on which pastures were used for hog production in 1975 as there
were in 1980. The pastureland most frequently used for hog production
contained crop residues from legume (i.e., alfalfa, soybeans, and
peanuts) or corn harvesting. Van Arsdall and Nelson (1984) point out,
however, that the hogs rarely obtained their total diet from the pasture
because they received a large portion of nourishment at feeding stations.
Based on the foregoing considerations, the two agricultural crops
that contributed most to the diet of hogs were corn and legumes. The
226
-------
Table 8-5. Quantities of Insecticide Used on Corn
(106 pounds)
1971 1976 1982
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Total organochlorines3
Total insecticides
1 .1
7.8
0.8
0.2
10.0
25.5
1.6
0.9
1 .4
0.1 3.6b
4.0
32.0 27.4
Acres of Corn Treated with Insecticides (106 acres treated)
1971 1976 1982
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Cnlordane
Toxaphene
Total organochlorines3
Total acres planted
Percent acres treated3
1.9
7.5
0.5
0.1
10.3
1.7
0.5
1.0
0.2 NAb
3.5
84.1 77.9
4.2
a Excluding toxaphene.
b Toxaphene is not reconmended for use on post-emergent corn used for
silage.
Source: Eichers (1983). Eichers et al. (1978). USOA (1974).
227
-------
Table 8-6. Insecticide Used on Alfalfa
(106 pounds)
Methoxychlor
Total organochlorines
Total insecticides
Percent organochlorines
6
10 Acres treated
1971
0.5
0.5
2.3
21.7
0.48
1976
1.4
1.4
5.4
27.8
0.62
1982
_
-
NA
-
Source: Eichers (1983), Eichers et al. (1978). USOA (1974).
228
-------
diet, however, has not been as controlled as the diet of cattle, and
sources of contamination in the feedstuffs are more uncertain. This
uncertainty is reflected in the decreased definitiveness between the
periods of concern for detection of HCB residue levels in sampled hog
meat (Figure 8-5).
Possible contamination of feed corn with HCB from the use of
organochlorine insecticides during the period 1974-1978 has been
previously discussed. Contamination of processed soybeans and soybean
meal by a similar route during the same period is less likely even though
insecticide use on soybeans was substantially higher in 1978 than in 1971
and 1982 (Table 8-7). Corn allows penetration of insecticides into the
husks and onto the ripening corn ears. In contrast, individual soybeans
are protected by pods until the pods are removed in a processing
facility. Therefore, although soybean meal is probably not an important
source of HCB in the hog diet, but soybeans in a hog pasture could be a
significant source.
Poultry in the United States is produced under confined conditions,
and feedstuffs are purchased from commercial sources (Lasley 1983, Lasley
et al. 1985). The feed grain used in poultry diets during 1974-1978
would have had the same sources of HCB contamination as the feed grain
consumed by other farm animals. Soybean meal, as discussed, was probably
not an important source of contamination, but protein supplements in the
form of fish meal could have been a contributory source of HCB (see
Table 8-3).
Figure 8-6 compares the occurrence of HCB detected in farm poultry to
that detected in wild starlings during 1972-1982. It is evident that
while HCB detection in the starlings had a downward trend throughout that
period, detection of the contaminant in poultry increased to a peak in
1976, after which it dropped sharply. This difference in patterns is
probably due to the effect of general environmental contamination of a
natural avian diet versus the effect of contaminated feed grain in a
commercial poultry diet.
8.2.3 Dermal Exposure Route
Besides ingestion of contaminated feedstuffs, dipping and spraying of
livestock with organochlorine-containing formulations to combat pests is
widespread, and it may also serve as a route for exposure to HCB.
Table 8-8 gives the pesticides use for dipping or spraying of livestock
for the years 1966, 1971, 1976, and 1982. The total amount of
organochlorine insecticides used for this purpose was lower in 1976
compared to 1966 and 1971, although the amount of methoxychlor used had
229
-------
ro
OJ
o
TJ
Q)
0)
"O)
c
Q)
Q)
Q.
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
#
\/A \/A
i
1972 1974 1976
Source: Data supplied by USDA/FSIS.
1978
Year
1980
1982
1984
Figure 8-5. Hf "-^tected in swine, 1972-1984.
Hf^ "-At
O
-------
Table 8-7. Insecticide Used on Soybeans
1971 1976 1982
6
Toxaphene (10 pounds) 1.5 2.2 3.7
106 Acres treated 0.95 0.49 1.9
Source: Eichers (1983), Eicners et al. (1978), USDA (1974).
231
-------
50 -r
(NO
CO
r\i
Percent Detected
-N
o
(x
o
20 -
10 -
,
t v:l] Farm Poultry
jx~ r -H\ S\N [•''. -''/j^ \ N V /", -1
JvXjX^l J^:^q>N\N ki^/ij
1972 1974 1976
.
k\\1
KX\'
1979
Year
E2l Stariings
•\ \\
>--. \ N
v \ \
.^^j
1982
Source: Data supplied by USDA/FSIS.
Figure 8-6. HCB dete "^n poultry vs. starlings.
-------
Table 8-8. Insecticide Used on Livestock
(IO& pounds - active ingredient]
1966 1971 1976 1982
Oraanochlorines
Lindane
DOT
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Other
Total organochlorines
Organophosphates
Carbonates
0.3
0.5
1.5
3.7
0.2
6.2
3.1
0.5
0.4
0.2
2.0
4.6
0.4
7.6
5.4
1 .2
0.2
-
2.4
2.4
-
5.0
1.6
3.6
a
-
a
b
NA
a
a
a
a Used; quantity unknown.
13 Used but restricted to scabies in beef cattle and sheep.
Source: Etchers (1983), Eichers et al. (1978). USOA (1974).
233
-------
increased over this time period. .Contamination of the livestock from
dips and sprays could be expected to occur via ingestion and dermal
absorption, but a comparison of data regarding the use of dipping and
spraying equipment in the Southeastern and North-central regions of the
United States (Gilliam 1984) with the USDA data for detection of HCB in
meat from grazing animals (see Figure 5-20) in these two regions does not
support this exposure route as an important one.
Between 1975 and 1980, the use of sprayers on cattle for external
parasite control more than doubled in the Southeast and increased only
slightly in the North Central region (Gilliam 1984). If the spraying of
pesticide formulations were a major route for HCB exposure in cattle, the
occurrence frequencies for HCB detection in meat from grazing animals in
the two regions should have reflected this difference in the increased
use of sprayers. Figure 8-7 shows a similar increase in the Southeast
and North-central regions from 1975 to 1977 and an equivalent decrease in
1978. Although the foregoing comparison does not support dipping and
spraying as an important route for HCB exposure, it, of course, cannot
exclude it.
The argument that higher than usual contamination of livestock
feedstuffs with HCB caused the USDA "hump" is based on a consideration of
all available data. Some inconsistencies exist in the data, but they can
probably be attributed to inconsistencies in sampling, since the studies
from which the data were taken had not been designed for the purpose of
testing the hypotheses presently being set forth. As an example,
Table 8-3 (FDA Surveillance and Compliance Summary Data for 1970-1976)
gives positive detection frequencies and concentrations of HCB in whole
grain for agricultural feed but also indicates that HCB was undetected in
silage. Most silage, as well as grain, that is fed to cattle is derived
from corn grown on the farm where the cattle are being produced for
slaughter. It is not known from the survey data whether corn or other
feedstuffs that had not been purchased from commercial suppliers was
included in the survey.
The source of the increased HCB in animal feedstuffs during 1974-1978
appears to be a greater than usual use of organochlorine pesticides on
crops being grown for feedstuffs. Although total acreage treated with
pesticides may not have seemed substantial, the higher concentrations of
pesticide applied per acre could have resulted in a greater frequency of
HCB detection. Reasons for this more frequent use of pesticides during
the period of concern are not known but may have been prompted by pest
infestations. Other possible sources of HCB to which livestock were
exposed could not be assessed because data were not available. The
effect that bioaccumulation of HCB and its clearance time in livestock
have on the detection of HCB residue levels in meat and poultry was also
not assessed.
234
-------
North Central vs. Southeastern Regions
T)
0)
0)
ro
CO
en
0)
Q-
W•/
10 -
y
Ek,
/•
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
pr-
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
rs
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
*
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
rs
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
s
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
T
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
PI \
>fv i IV 1 yiV
/ x xl y ^ x ^^
/\ F7\l /\ /vi / VA
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
Year
North Central
Source: Data supplied by USDA/FSIS.
Figure 8-7. Comparison of HCB levels in cattle.
Southeast
-------
8.3 High Levels of HCB In Human Adipose Tissue Samples from the
Pacific Census Division
8.3.1 Introduction
Leczynski and Stockrahm (1985) found that a large percentage of the
specimens collected in the Pacific Census Division (38.1 percent) were
above 0.09 ppm. The highest percentage for any other Census Division was
14.4 percent for the Middle Atlantic Division (see Figure 8-8). Although
the NHATS Program is not designed for analysis at the state level, the
unusually large percentage of upper residue level specimens found in the
Pacific Census Division led Leczynski and Stockrahm (1985) to examine
state data for this Division. The Washington and Oregon samples, which
account for 16 and 22 percent, respectively, of the total Pacific Census
Division Sample, had 61 percent and 42 percent, respectively, of their
specimens above 0.09 ppm.
Data from other monitoring networks (Fish and Wildlife Service and
USDA networks) were also compared to ascertain whether a similar trend
exists (these data are summarized in Figures 8-9 to 8-11). In general,
the detection frequency of HCB in the western regions was slightly higher
than in other regions, although comparisons are difficult mostly because
of different regional boundaries. The HCB detection frequency in
duckwings was highest in the Pacific flyway for the last three sampling
periods. The Western region had the highest occurrence of HCB in
starlings in 1972, 1974, and 1982; however, in 1976 and 1979, the Western
region's occurrence was similar to that of other regions. HCB was
detected in freshwater fish in Oregon and Washington; however, it was
more frequently detected near the Great Lakes and along the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers. The USDA for the Western Region had the highest HCB
detection frequency in 1975 and 1976, but in other years, the Western
Region was lower or very similar to other regions and overall regional
differences were found not to be statistically significant (see
Appendix C). Therefore, the other networks seem to generally correspond
to the higher levels found in the NHATS data for the Pacific Census
Region; although comparisons are difficult and the data trends are
inconclusive.
8.3.2 Potential Sources
No conclusive information could be found to account for these higher
levels of HCB in human adipose tissue in the Pacific Census Division
(particularly Oregon and Washington) although there are several possible
factors that could have contributed to this phenomenon: (1) the use of
HCB as a pesticide in the region, (2) the use of pesticides that may
236
-------
Percent
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
England
Middle
Atlantic
Eact
North
Central
West
North
Central
South
Atlantic
Ent
South
Central
Mountain
South
Central
Pacific CENSUS
DIVISION
Data are for Fiscal Years 1974-1983, Excluding 1980 and 1982
Age Group:
0-14 yr».
Figure 8-8. Percent of specimens above 0.09 ppm of HCB residue level
by census division and age group.
237
-------
Occurrence of HCB in duckwings
Organized by Flyway 1972-1982
J
9
O
+j
9
2.
o
a.
J
o
s
9
O
I
O
0.
26 -
24 -
22 -
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
O -
y
/
^
V,
'/,
i,
'/,
'/,
/
/
/
\
S
i
I
'i
>0000000
1 ^ \ i
1972-73 1976-77 1979-8O
ITTl Atl
fyxj Miss
Year
V777X Cent RsS3 Pac
LI
'////////////A.
z^s
1
1981-82
IXX1 Nat
Occurrence of HCB in Starlings
1OO
9O -
80 -
70 -
6O -
50 -
4O -
3O -
20 -
1O -
O -
7"
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
s
\
IC-TI
x,
X
x
X
C
x
X
x
§
§
X
8
^
py
YAi
1 1
by Regions 1972-1982
TTI
1
^ >
X
X
X
><
1
I
§
X
X
m ^ F
/ x nn
/\^ ^ '
/
^\
^\
''S
''S
'S
^\
/s
m
i®
V ^S
y x
1 8
i 8
i i
1972 1974 1976 1979
\7~A East
IX \1 EC
Year
V77X Cent. RS53 WC K
R
L/t\^
^5
O
X
o
o
Q
O
ft
ft
§
i
1982
3 West
Figure 8-9. Detection frequency of HCB in ducks and starlings.
238
-------
\.
ro
oo
LEGEND:
O " HCB not detected or detected in only one of three sampling periods
€3 " HCB detected in two of three sampling periods
0 - HCB detected in all three sampling periods
Figure 8-10. FWS national pesticide monitoring program: HCB residues in freshwater
fish at 97 stations with consecutive data for the 1976-77, 1978-79,
and 1980-81 surveys.
-------
North Central Region
60 -
SO •
4O -
3O •
2O
1O
~7~A Y/A
a
B
1
S
i
^
1972 1974 1978
1978
Yeor
Northeast Region
198O 1982 1984
SO -
1 «-
.
I ,0-
.
0. 20-
1O -
vM
ra
i
//
\
|
1
i
1
1 1
1972 1974 1978 1978 198O 1982 1984
Year
Southweet Rvgion
1974 1976 1978 1980
Yeor
Southeast Region
30 -
10 -
1982 1984
^
^
1
^1
^
1972 1974 1976
1978
Yeor
198O 1982 1984
60
Weitvrn Region
30 -
20 -
10 -
1972 1974 1978
1978
Year
198O 1982 1984
Figure 8-11. HCB detection frequency in domestic meat and poultry
by USDA region (1972-1984).
240
-------
contain HCB, (3) industrial sources, and (4) miscellaneous sources or
factors (e.g., agricultural burning, poor air dispersion). Each of these
potential sources is explained below.
(1) Direct Use of HCB as a Pesticide
Figure 8-12 shows the major geographic areas of HCB use. As can be
seen, the heaviest use of HCB occurred in Oregon and Washington. It
is probable that this increase use of HCB contributed to the higher
levels of HCB in adipose tissue in the Northwest.
(2) The Use of Pesticides That May Contain HCB
HCB is known to be inadvertently produced during the manufacture of
five pesticides. Three of these pesticides (dacthal, picloram, and
pentachlorophenol) are used in widespread areas of the country;
however, two of these pesticides (PCNB and chlorothaloni1) are used
in specific geographical areas (see Figures 8-13 and 8-14). As can
be seen, both pesticides are used in Oregon and Washington, although
they are used more extensively in other areas of the country,
particularly the Southeast. If the use of these pesticides had a
significant effect on adipose tissue levels, it should be reflected
in the NHATS data for the Southeast, which was not the case.
Therefore, the use of PCNB and chlorothaloni1 may have slightly
contributed to the higher HCB levels in human adipose tissue samples
from the Northwest, although it is doubtful that they were a
significant source.
(3) Industrial Sources
Several current and historical industrial sources of HCB are located
in the Northwest (see Figures 8-15 and 8-16); however, other areas of
the country have even heavier concentrations of industrial sources,
such as the Gulf Coast. This pattern is similar to that for the use
of pesticides that may contain HCB, i.e., industrial sources are not
expected to be a major contributor to the higher HCB levels in human
adipose tissue samples from the Northwest.
(4) Miscellaneous Sources
Two additional factors that may contribute to the higher adipose
tissue levels are (a) agricultural burning and (b) atmospheric
stagnation. According to McAdams et al. (1985), the burning of
grasses commonly occurs in Oregon, and, to a lesser extent, in
Washington. In addition, it was reported that areas in Oregon that
241
-------
Figure 8-12. Major geographic areas of HCB use [Constructed by overlaying
maps from the 1978 Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of
Commerce 1982) of "crop acreage harvested" for wheat in the
Northwest U.S. and sorghum in Colorado. No maps available for
onion acreage. Darkened areas of map indicate usage areas].
242
-------
Figure 8-13. Major geographic areas of PCNB use [constructed by overlaying maps
from the 1978 Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Commerce 1982) of
"crop acreage harvested" for the following crops using the regional PCNB
usage information in Table 3-2: barley, beans, cotten, oats, peanuts,
potatoes, rice, soybeans, tomatoes, and wheat. Maps were not available
for other crop uses. Darkened areas of map indicate usage areasj.
243
-------
Figure 8-14. Major geographic areas of chlorothaloni1 use [constructed by
overlaying maps from the 1978 Census of Agriculture
(U.S. Department of Commerce 1982) of "crop acreage harvested"
for the following crops using the regional chlorothalon-i 1 usage
information in Table 3-4: cucumbers, peanuts, potatoes, and tomatoes.
Haps were not available for other crop uses. Darkened areas of map
indicate usage areasj.
244
-------
aSee Table 3-8 for site locations
Figure 8-15. Locations of facilities currently producing chemicals whose manufacture is
known to generate HCBa.
-------
See Table 3-13 for site locations
Figure 8-16. Locations of facilities that previously produced chemicals whose manufacture is
known to generate HCB .
-------
commonly burn grasses, such as the Willamette Valley, may exhibit
poor atmospheric mixing. It is hypothesized that if the grasses or
crops that are burned contain HCB, it could be easily transferred to
the ambient air and then poorly dispersed because of the slow air
mixing characteristics of the area. This theory is highly
speculative because it is not known whether the burned grasses or
crops contain HCB and because other geographic areas (e.g.,
California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, Arkansas, and
along the coasts of Texas and Louisiana), which did not show high
human adipose levels, also commonly burned grasses or agricultural
crops. Consequently, it is doubtful that this explains the high
tissue levels of HCB in the Northwest; ambient air monitoring data
are needed to determine whether HCB levels in ambient air are higher
in Oregon and Washington.
In summary, it appears that the use of HCB as a pesticide in the
Northwest is probably the major contributor to the higher HCB levels in
human adipose tissue samples from that area, although other factors may
also contribute. More data are needed to draw definite conclusions.
8.4 Recommendations
Based on the information gathered for this exposure assessment, the
following items are recommended:
• An expanded and more comprehensive source assessment, with
additional data that better quantifies HCB releases to the various
media. An assessment of historical sources of HCB, especially for
past pesticidal uses, would also be useful.
• Field studies on transport of HCB may be necessary to determine
the long-term environmental fate of HCB. Particular attention
should be paid to monitoring the biota, water, and sediments of
shorelines and estuaries.
• Temporal differences exist among USDA data, FDA data, and NHATS
data. It would be useful, therefore, to have a "production to
consumption" study of agricultural products undertaken for the
purpose of resolving these temporal differences in monitoring.
• Pesticides suspected of containing HCB should be tested to see
whether they do in fact contain HCB and at what levels.
Particular emphasis should be placed on large volume pesticides
that are used on foodstuffs and animal feedstuffs. Furthermore,
additional testing of historical pesticide samples would be
useful, particularly for defining the USDA "hump."
247
-------
• Since large quantities of HCB are burned in industrial
incinerators and HCB is known to be produced during combustion of
organochlorine materials, gases and particulates from industrial
incinerators should be monitored for HCB.
• More ambient monitoring data would be useful. We currently have
no HCB monitoring data for ground water, and the data for HCB
levels in ambient air and surface water are somewhat limited.
• Existing data on HCB in aquatic life indicate that
bioconcentration and bioaccumulation may be sufficiently high in
fish to consider restrictions on their use as food in specific
geographic areas. Restrictions could be based on HCB monitoring
in aquatic life from a specific fishing area. Further studies on
HCB bioconcentration and bioaccumulation may be necessary.
248
-------
8.5 References
Duggan RE, Corneliussen PE, Duggan MB, Memahom BM, Martin RJ. 1983
Pesticide residue levels in foods in the United States from July 1, 1969,
to June 30, 1976. Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Arlington, VA; Association of Ethical Analytical Chemicals.
Eichers T. 1983. Pesticides. Outlook and situation. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Eichers TR, Andrilenas PA, Anderso TW. 1978. Farmers' use of pesticides
in 1976. Agric. Econ. Rep. No. 418. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Farm Chemicals Handbook. 1986. Farm chemicals handbook. Willoughby,
OH: Meister Publishing Co.
Gilliam HC Jr. 1984. U.S. beef cow-calf industry. National Economics
Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Economic Report No. 515 (NTIS GPO AER-15).
Lasley FA, Henson WL, Jones HB Jr. 1985. The U.S. turkey industry.
National Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 525 (NTIS GPO AER-02).
Lasley FA. 1983. The U.S. poultry industry. National Economics
Division Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Economic Report No. 502 (NTIS GPO AER-02).
LecZynski BA, Stockrahm JW. 1985. An evaluation of hexachlorobenzene
body burden levels in the general U.S. population. Draft report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic
Substances. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6271.
(
McAdams MT, Meardon KR, Kent DP, Darley EF. 1984 Project summary,
assessment for future environmental problems - agricultural residues.
Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1982. 1978 Census of Agriculture. Graphic
Summary. Vol. 5, Part 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.
USDA. 1970. Quantities of pesticides used by farmers in 1966. Agric.
Econ. Rep. No. 179. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USDA. 1974. Farmers' use of pesticides in 1971. Agric. Econ. Rep. No.
252. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
249
-------
USEPA. 1985. Suspended, cancelled and restricted pesticides.
Washington, DC: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (Compliance
Monitoring Staff), USEPA,
Van Arsdall RN, Nelson KE. 1983. Characteristics of farmer cattle
feeding. National Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 503 (NTIS GPO
AER-03).
Van Arsdall RN, Nelson KE. 1984. U.S. hog production industry.
National Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 511 (NTIS GPO AER-11).
250
-------
APPENDIX A
HCB Detection Frequencies in FDA Surveillance
Monitoring Program (Fiscal Years 1970 to 1984)
251
-------
252
-------
Table A-l. Summary of HCB Detection Frequency in FDA Domestic Surveillance Program (1970-76)3
Proiluc t
CUI.lt?
O^A
OVB-Y
0/i
O'l
05
07
09 A
0C)-C-Y
12
13
14
15
IbA-D
ro 1GE-G
CT)
oo ]f,j-L
1 6M-Y
18
20-22
't.\
24A-1
2'ir-v
25 A- 1
25J-M
?b
il
.:."•
.••i
•;0
•ii
•••'
i.',
,.]
Number of samples Number of positive samples3
Commodity group 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1970- 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
1976
Whole grains ??????? 1032 000000
Milled grain products
Bakery products
Macaroni and noodle products
Cereal prr-parctt i ons
Snack l ood i terns
Butter
Milk and milk products 540 752 762 527 653 561 646 4441 1 18 17 37 26 36
Cheese and cheese products 161 154 67 108 89 93 86 758 237022
Ice cream and related products
Imitation milk products
Egg and egg products ??????? 2445 ? 0 0 ? ? ?
Fish and fish products 52') 3'J2 126 220 408 276 952 2898 7 1 1 13 49 9
Shellfish ??????? 443 ? 0 0 ? 0 ?
Crustaceans
Other aquatic animals & products
Vegetable protein products
Fruits and fruit products 947 644 444 690 551 595 732 4603 0 10690
Huts and edible seeds 24 23 12 12 1 34 68 174 021010
Beans, vine, and ear vegetables 584 437 265 400 479 479 752 3396 200413
leal and stem vegetables 1298 1222 602 721 400 391 500 5134 25 23 1 1 5 3 2
Hush rooms
hoot and tuber vegetables 567 549 249 335 289 641 548 3178 Oil 2 6 2 4
Vegetable oils
Dressings and condiments
Spii.rs, llavors, and salts
Sol t iJi i nks and waters
fieverut.il' bases , concentrates, and
net. 1 ars
loll (-c and tea
A 1 1 oho 1 i i. beverages
i.omdy viithout chocolate
Chocolate and i.ocod products
%Positive
1976 1970- 1970-1976
1976
1 1 0.10
9 144 3.25
0 16 2.11
? 15 0.61
80 160 5.52
? 5 1.13
1 17 0.37
0 4 2 . 30
7 17 0.50
1 70 1.36
9 34 1.07
-------
Table A-l. (Continued)
Product
code Commodity group
Number of samples
1970 1971 1972 1973 1971 1975 1976 1970-
1976
Number of positive samples3 %Positive
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1970- 1970-1976
1976
35
.sb
.sV
38
40
41
45-46
Gelatin, rennet, pudding, and
pie mixes
Kood sweeteners
Multiple I ooil dinners, gravies,
and sauces
Soups
Infant and junior food products ??????? 471 00077003 0.64
Dietary conventional foods
Food additives
dOetection limit is 0.01 ppm. Trace values were included as positive samples; trace levels were not analytically confirmed.
Source: Duggan et al. (1983).
-------
Table A-2. Summary
PrculuCt
COdc
02A
OL'B-Y
03
O'l
05
07
09A
09C-Y
12
13
14
15
IL.A-O
ro ItE-G
$ 16J-I.
16M-Y
18
20-2;.'
i'.i
2'JA-I
>''l 1 -V
25A-.'
2bJ-U .
2b
;-/
/.8
29
30
-,!
i.'
', •;
'•;.!
of HCB Detection
7requency in
FDA Domestic Surveillance Program (1978-84)a
Number of samples
Commod i ty group
Whole grains
Milled grain products
Bakery products
Macaroni and noodle products
Cereal preparations
Snack lood items
Butter
Milk and milk products
Cheese and cheese products
Ice cream and related products
Imitation milk products
Egg and egg products
Fish and fish products
Shell! ish
Crustaceans
Other aquatic animals & products
Vegetable protein products
Fruits and truit products
Nuts, and edible seeds
Beans, vines, and ear vegetables
Lt-al and stem vegetables
Mushrooms
Root, and tuber vegetables
Vfcye-tablc- oi 1 s
Dressings and condiments
Spic.es, llavors, and salts
Sol t dri nk^. and waters
Bcve'rage bases, concentrates,
and n e c t a r s
Loll ft- and tea
Alcoholic beverages
Candy without, chocolate
Ucuiolcitt and c.ocoa products
1978
219
20
1
0
0
0
29
519
95
0
2
298
729
45
38
5
0
856
95
911
654
12
579
10
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
1979
203
27
0
0
3
0
9
499
45
2
0
266
512
42
46
10
0
955
120
881
664
16
516
12
0
16
1
1
1
0
0
0
1980
402
13
0
0
0
0
16
416
133
3
4
491
598
37
104
4
0
1096
96
1086
1043
43
639
9
0
4
1
0
5
16
0
0
1981
314
6
1
0
0
8
23
435
131
9
9
439
502
61
70
4
0
1155
141
854
1013
24
499
46
0
30
4
1
0
0
0
0
1982
350
19
1
0
0
0
25
402
144
9
1
318
272
84
47
1
0
1069
144
1124
1004
31
578
22
0
15
10
0
3
0
0
0
1983
207
21
2
0
0
4
27
498
119
28
1
408
347
69
35
11
1
1107
163
921
1472
32
698
34
3
15
2
0
2
10
0
0
1984 1978-
1984
257 1952
30 136
9 14
0 0
3 6
0 12
16 145
396 3165
97 764
20 71
2 19
387 2607
197 3157
26 364
18 358
3 38
0 1
1582 7820
147 906
1032 6809
1538 7388
24 182
585 4094
22 155
0 3
35 117
5 24
0 2
0 12
4 30
0 0
0 0
1978
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
23
7
-
0
0
80
3
2
0
_
7
13
5
6
0
3
0
_
0
0
-
0
-
_
lumber
1979
5
0
-
-
0
-
0
15
0
0
-
2
69
0
0
0
_
2
12
8
5
1
4
0
_
0
0
0
0
-
_
of positive
1980
1
0
. -
-
-
-
0
4
1
0
0
2
161
1
1
0
_
9
9
10
0
2
10
0
_
0
0
-
0
0
_
1981
1
0
0
-
-
0
0
18
13
0
0
0
97
0
0
0
_
4
0
15
6
0
2
0
_
0
0
0
-
-
_
samples3
1982
4
0
0
-
-
-
15
22
10
0
0
1
97
0
0
0
_
12
0
7
0
0
2
0
_
0
0
-
0
-
_
1983
0
0
0
-
-
0
2
8
7
0
0
2
64
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
_
1984
0
0
0
-
0
-
3
5
0
0
0
1
13
0
0
0
_
0
5
0
1
0
3
0
_
0
0
-
_
0
_
'/^Positive
1978-
1984
11
0
0
-
0
0
20
95
38
0
0
8
581
4
3
0
0
34
42
50
19
3
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
1978-1984
0.56
0
0
-
0
0
13.79 •""
3.00
4.97
0
0
0.31
18.40
1.10
0.84
0
0
0.43
4.64
0.73
0.26
1.65
0.71
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
-------
Table A-2. (Continued)
Product
code Commod i ty group
Number of samples
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1978-
1984
Number of positive samples3 %Positive
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1978- 1978-1984
1984
35
36
37
38
40
41
45-4b
Gelatin, rennet, pudding, and
pie mixes
Food sweeteners
Multiple food dinners, gravies,
and sauces
Soups
Infant and junior food products
Dietary conventional foods
Food additives
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
8
5
0
1
0
0
0
4
3
0
10
0
0
0
8
9
0
6
1
0
0
12
2
3
1
0
0
0
51
, 21
3
18
2
0
_______
000000
0000
______
000
- - 0 - - 0
_
0
0
0
0
-
_
0
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
0
0
ro aData supplied by FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
tn "Detection limit is 0.01 ppm. Trace values were included as positive samples; trace levels were not analytically confirmed.
-------
Table A-3. Summary of HCB Detection Frequency in FDA Import Surveillance Program (1978-84)'
ro
en
•vj
Product
code
02A
02B-Y
03
-------
Table A-3. (Continued)
I'roetuCt
coder Commod i ty group
Number of samples
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1978-
1981
Number of positive samples3 ^Positive
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1978- 1978-1984
1984
.•::;
'id
.-;;
38
40
41
45-46
Gfrlatin, rennet, pudding, and
pie mixes
fuoi! sweeteners
Multiple food dinners, gravies,
and sauces
Soups
Inlant and juni'or food products
Dietary conventional foods
Food additives
1
3
2
5
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
3
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
3
19
8
9
0
0
5
00----00
0000-000
00-0-0-0
000----0
__ ______
________
--00---0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
ro
at)ata supplied by FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
Detection limit is 0.01 ppm. Trace values were included as positive samples; trace levels were not analytically confirmed.
-------
Appendix B
HCB Detection Frequencies in Domestic Meat and
Poultry Fat Samples (Tabular Data by "Species"
and Year - 1972 to 1984)
259
-------
2GO
-------
3308H
Notes for Tables B-l through B-13
aData collected through the National Residue Monitoring Program of the
USDA Food Safety Inspection Service.
^Residues reported on a wet weight basis.
cLimit of detection is 0.01 ppm.
^Includes residues reported for lambs and mature sheep.
elncludes residues reported for hogs, boars, and sows.
261
-------
Table B-l. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1972)
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
2
112
36
52
11
131
0
130
0
126
234
86
121
0
0
0
0
Concentration interval (DDrn)15
Not 0.01- 0.11- >0.50 Percent
detectedc 0.10 0.50 detected
2 00 0 0.0
103 810 8.0
31 40 1 14
51 100 1.9
11 0 0 0 0.0 S*
114 16 0 1 13
x-*
1 26 2 2 0 3.1
—
118 800 6.3
229 5 0 0 2.1
84 2 0 0 2.3
118 210 2.5
—
—
—
..
TOTAL
1 .041
987
48
5.2
262
-------
Table B-2. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1973)
Concentration interval (ODm)°
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
7
118
528
57
84
249
40
232
44
135
395
114
360
43
75
20
0
Not
detected0
5
108
488
56
55
206
32
229
44
129
392
112
345
31
75
20
.
0.01-
0.10
2
8
34
1
29
35
8
2
0
5
2
2
15
12
0
0
_
0.11-
o.so
0
1
6
0
0
6
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
_
>0.50
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
Percent
detected
28.6
8.5
7.6
1.8
34.5 -^
17.3
20 ''~
1.3
0.0
4.4
0.8
1 .8
4.2
27.9
0.0
0.0
_
TOTAL
2.501 2.327
155
16
7.0
263
-------
1
Table B-3. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1974)
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
61
223
587
124
282
267
104
327
265
467
566
248
475
9
100
48
19
Concentration interval (opm)b
Not 0.01- 0.11- >0.50
detected0 0.10 0.50
22 39 0 0
181 42 0 0
285 300 2 0
100 24 0 0
68 213 1 0
133 126 8 0
33 70 0 1
299 27 1 0
176 89 0 0
373 94 0 0
488 78 0 0
193 55 0 0
404 71 0 0
8 100
100 000
42 600
15 400
Percent
detected
63.9
18.8
51.4
19.4
75.9 /-
50.2
68.3 ''
8.6
33.6
20.1
13.8
22.2
14.9
11.1
0.0
12.5
21.1
TOTAL
4,172 2,920
1 .239
12
30.0
264
-------
Table B-4. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samplesa
(Calendar Year 1975)
Concentration interval (Dom)b
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
113
519
771
330
269
292
64
324
261
362
415
209
250
95
235
11
71
Not
detected0
45
414
369
258
97
145
24
308
64
269
342
117
157
66
214
11
58
0.01-
0.10
67
105
399
72
171
143
40
15
191
93
73
92
93
29
21
0
13
0.11-
0.50
1
0
3
0
1
4
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
60.2
20.2
52.1
21.8
63.9 ""
50.3
62.5 '
4.9
75.4
25. 7
17.6
44.0
37.2
30.5
8.9
0.0
18.3
TOTAL
4.591 2,958
1 .618
14
35.6
265
-------
Table B-5 Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1976)
Concentration interval (DDm)*3
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
110
231
1 ,244
200
327
206
44
442
217
381
546
116
227
113
246
21
65
Not
detected0
43
169
715
138
117
105
10
420
39
300
459
57
126
74
223
20
44
0.01-
0.10
65
62
527
61
207
101
34
22
177
81
87
59
101
39
22
1
21
0.11-
0.50
2
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
>O.SO
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
60.9
26.8
42.5
31.0
64.2 "•**
49.0
77.3
5.0
82.0
21.3
15.9
50.9
44.5
34.5
9.3
4.8
32.3
TOTAL
4.736 3,059
1,667
35.4
266
-------
Table B-6. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1977)
Concentration interval (oom)D
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
32
91
656
101
124
75
25
215
112
86
289
60
156
87
176
10
21
Not
detected0
8
65
288
67
40
31
5
199
20
70
210
30
104
58
168
9
3
0.01-
0.10
24
26
365
34
84
44
20
15
92
16
79
30
52
29
8
1
18
0.11-
0.50
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
75.0
28.6
56.1
33.7
67.7 <""*
58.7
80.0
7.4
82.1
18.6
27.3
50.0
33.3
33.3
4.5
10.0
35.7
TOTAL
2.316 1.375
937
40.6
267
-------
Table B-7. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1978)
Concentration interval (DDHI)
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
30
79
781
85
207
81
10
415
73
208
164
50
132
21
77
10
29
Not
detected0
22
62
526
61
125
59
6
335
47
181
143
37
106
11
67
10
23
0.01-
0.10
8
17
255
24
82
22
4
76
25
27
21
13
26
10
10
0
6
b
0.11-
0.50.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
26.7
21 .5
32.7
28.2
39.6 -"
27.2
40.0 x"
19.3
35.6
13.0
12.8
26.0
19.7
47.6
13.0
0.0
20.7
TOTAL
2,452 1,821
626
25.7
268
-------
Table B-8. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels In Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1979)
Concentration Interval (oorn)''
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sampl e
size
69
114
962
113
575
171
91
1,305
191
235
247
73
270
56
172
13
47
Not
Detected0
57
107
850
106
455
144
83
1,282
145
228
244
73
259
55
167
13
39
0.01-
0.10
12
5
110
6
119
27
7
20
43
7
3
0
9
0
5
0
8
0.11-
0.50
0
2
2
1
1
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
>0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
17.4
6.1
11.6
6.2
20.9 **
15.8
8.8 -*"
1.8
24.1
3.0
1.2
0.0
4.1
1.8
2.9
2.9
17.0
TOTAL
4.704
4.307
381
15
8.4
269
-------
Table B-9. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1980)
Concentration interval (oom)''
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
126
254
1.112
243
406
241
91
1.819
206
596
550
127
327
108
258
19
44
Not
Detected0
119
251
1,073
242
347
233
86
1 ,787
192
588
546
124
321
107
256
19
43
0.01-
0.10
7
3
39
1
58
7
5
30
13
8
4
3
6
1
2
0
1
0.11-
0.50
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
5.6
1.2
3.5
0.4
14.5 -"
3.3
5.5 S
1.8
6.8
1.3
0.7
2.4
1.8
0.9
0.8
0.0
2.3
TOTAL
6.527
6,334
188
3.0
270
-------
Table B-10. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1981)
Concentration interval loom)*3
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
114
278
321
275
278
377
140
676
265
950
698
136
423
53
344
—
46
Not
Detectedc
99
274
281
263
239
336
115
663
204
944
696
135
417
53
342
--
46
0.01-
0.10
14
4
40
12
38
39
23
9
60
6
2
1
6
0
2
—
0
0.11-
0.50
1
0
0
0
1
2
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
>0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
0
Percent
detected
13.2
1.4
12.5
4.4
14.0 ''"'
10.9
17.9 S
1 .9
23.0
0.6
0.3
0.7
1 .4
0.0
0.6
--
0.0
TOTAL
5.374
5,107
256
10
5.0
271
-------
Table B-11. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1982)
Concentration interval (oorn)''
. Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
136
270
342
267
305
246
94
783
174
435
348
64
318
66
153
4
45
Not
Detected0
123
264
325
263
272
235
86
779
157
435
346
64
316
66
153
4
45
0.01-
0.10
13
6
17
4
30
11
8
2
16
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0.11-
0.50
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
9.6
2.2
5.0
1.5
10.8 ^
4.5
8.5^
0.5
9.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
4.050
3,933
111
2.9
272
-------
Table 8-12. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1983)
Concentration interval (DDm)b
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
272
423
420
404
653
565
223
1 ,404
294
424
441
65
409
121
332
32
69
Not
Detected0
248
415
401
391
605
515
203
1 ,374
246
424
438
65
398
120
327
32
66
0.01-
0.10
24
6
19
12
47
50
19
29
48
0
3
0
11
1
5
0
3
0.11-
0.50
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>0.50
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
8.8
1.9
4.5
3.2
7.4 •*'
8.8
9.0 '
2.1
16.3
0.0
0.7
0.0
2.7
0.8
1.5
0.0
4.3
TOTAL
6,551
6.268
277
4.3
273
-------
Table B-13. Distribution of HCB Residue Levels in Animal Fat Samples3
(Calendar Year 1984)
Concentration interval (com)''
Species
Bulls
Steers
Cows
Heifers
Calves
d
Sheep
Goats
Swine
Horses
Young chickens
Mature chickens
F/R turkeys
Young turkeys
Mature turkeys
Ducks
Geese
Rabbits
Sample
size
95
355
455
223
616
342
133
1,292
343
470
886
85
292
229
323
25
95
Not
Detected0
77
351
428
212
571
308
116
1,280
290
466
879
83
284
224
320
24
91
0.01-
0.10
18
4
27
11
44
33
17
9
53
4
7
2
8
5
3
1
3
0.11-
0.50
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
>0.50
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
18.9
1.1
5.9
4.9
7.3 ^
9.9
12.8 S
0.9
15.4
0.9
0.8
2.4
2.7
2.2
0.9
4.0
4.2
TOTAL
6.259
6.004
249
4.0
274
-------
Appendix C
Statistical Analysis of USDA HCB Residue Data
in Domestic Meat and Poultry Fat Samples
275
-------
276
-------
Appendix C
Statistical Analysis of the USDA HCB Residue Data
in Domestic Meat and Poultry Fat Samples
C.I Introduction
In this Appendix, an analysis of data on categorical variables for
HCB detection frequencies in livestock in the United States is
presented. (A categorical variable is a variable with a small number of
discrete levels in which the levels are treated as names (e.g., regions)
rather than as representations of some ordered scale (e.g., the height of
adult males).) The analysis uses a special class of statistical
techniques called log-linear models. The results of such an analysis are
presented in analysis of variance (ANOVA) formatted tables. The data
used in this analysis were obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and are discussed in Section 5.4. These data represent the
HCB residue detection and nondetection frequencies in domestic meat and
poultry fat samples classified by type of species, year, and geographic
region. A series of ANOVA tables was obtained to determine sources of
variation among the observed detection frequencies. When a source of
variation proved to be significant, a multiple comparison of the
percentages of that source was performed. A discussion of the analysis
of variance for the log-linear models is presented in Section C.2. A
definition of the factors considered in the analysis and their levels are
given in Section C.3. Type of species, region, and time effects as
sources of variance are investigated in Section C.4. A study of grazers
and nongrazers, region, and time effects is presented in Section C.5. An
analysis of type of species, region, and period effects is given in
Section C.6. An analysis of grazers and nongrazers, species type,
region, and period is also presented in Section C.6. The analysis of
variance results in Sections C.4 through C.6 are followed by a comparison
among the averages of the factors considered. Finally, an analysis of
the HCB weighted detected frequencies is presented in Section C.7; the
weight factors that were used represent the fractions of U.S. meat
consumption in 1980.
277
-------
C.2 Analysis of Variance Method for the Log-Linear Models
Log-linear models are a special class of the statistical models that
have been formulated for the analysis of categorical data. In log-linear
models, all variables (i.e., species types, time period, region) that are
used for classification are considered as independent factors (inputs)
and the number of cases in a cell (frequency) of the cross-tabulation is
considered as the dependent variable (output). These models express the
log of the observed frequency in each cell of the cross tabulation as a
linear function of the main effects and interactions of the input factors.
An "analysis of variance" procedure is often used to test the
significance of each of the main effects and interactions in the
log-linear models. The analysis of variance method partitions the total
variation present in the frequencies into several components. Associated
with each of these components is a specific source of .variation, so that
in the analysis, it is possible to determine the magnitude of each
source's contribution and the total variation. The components of the
total variation in a set of data, and other related statistics, are
usually displayed in an analysis table as shown in Table C-l. The first
column in that table lists the sources of variation investigated. The
first set of these sources comprises the main effects or the individual
names of the classifying factors (e.g., type of species, region)
considered in the analysis. The second set of sources shows the
interactions between each pair of the classifying factors. A two-way
interaction between a pair of factors exists if a change in one of the
factors produces different changes in response in the levels (values) of
the other factor. If more than two factors are investigated, then higher
order interactions are displayed. The examination of an interaction
between two or more factors requires the availability of more than one
observation in each cross-classified cell of these factors. The total
variation, because of main effects and interactions, is called explained
or model variation. The unexplained part is called the residual, which
is the part of the total variation caused by other factors not
investigated.
278
-------
Table C-l. Analysis of Variance Results for the HCB
Detection Frequencies in Livestock by Year.
Type of Species, and Region
Source of variation
Main effects
Type
Region
Year
Interactions
Type by region
Type by year
Region by year
OF
16
4
12
56
160
48
Sum of
squares
1.770.8
175.6
4.084.1
348.4
669.1
343.2
Mean
square
110.67
43.90
340.34
6.22
4.18
7.15
f
88.54
35.12
272.42
4.98
3.35
5.72
Significance
of f
(p-value)
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Residual
Total
336
632
419.8
7.810.8
1.25
279
-------
Associated with each source of the explained variations are the
degrees of freedom (DF), sum of squares (SS), mean square (MS), f-values,
and significance of the f-value (or the p-value). The degrees of freedom
of a source are equal to the number of independent comparisons between
the averages of the levels of that factor and the grand average of the
factor. Therefore, the degrees of freedom of a source equal the number
of levels of that source (e.g., for species type, the number of levels
equals 17) minus one. SS of an explained source is the sum of the
squares of the mean deviations of the source (e.g., all types of species)
from the grand mean of the data. Therefore, the sum of squares tends to
be large if the individual means vary considerably around the grand
mean. The mean squares are obtained by dividing the sums of squares by
the corresponding degrees of freedoms. Thus, the mean squares can be
considered as the average of the sum of squares. The f-value of a source
is obtained by dividing the mean square of source by the mean square of
the residuals. This ratio follows a probability distribution known as
the F distribution. The significance of f (or the p-value) is the area
to the right of the f-value under the probability curve of the F
distribution. Therefore, the p-value of a source of a variation is the
probability that the contribution of that source to the total variation
is not significant. Accordingly, if the p-value is small, there is a
high probability (1-p) that the contribution is significant.
The p-value is considered small if it does not exceed a preassigned
level known as the significance level. The significance level assigned
in this study is 0.05.
The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) package on the IBM 370
mainframe computer was used to obtain all the statistical results in this
study. The SAS general linear model (GLM) procedure was used to model
the detection frequencies. In this procedure, a function of the
detection percentages called a "logit" function was calculated. This
^function models the logs of ratios of binomial probabilities. The
detection frequencies or counts are assumed to follow a binomial
L-80
-------
distribution. The classifying factors group the observed frequencies
into S samples, where S is the number of possible combinations of the
classifying factors. Each possible combination of the classifying
factors (e.g., a specific year with a specific region) is considered a
sample from a binomial distribution. The binomial distribution has two
possible responses (i.e., detected and not detected). Each sample, i, is
assumed to represent the population from which it was drawn. In other
words, the probability of detection in the overall population is
estimated by the percentage of detection in the sample. A logit value is
equal to the natural logarithm of the ratio of the first response
(detection) percentage to the second response (nondetection) percentage.
These logit values follow a normal distribution and the logit function is
a necessary transformation to achieve normality. Normality is an
essential condition to apply the analysis of variance procedure.
C.3 Factors Considered in the Analysis
The classification of the data for the detected HCB residue levels in
livestock permitted the following factors and their interactions to be
investigated for possible significant contributions in the total
variation of the data.
Time. Changes over time in the data are investigated. The 13 years
(1972 to 1984) are considered to be the levels of the time factor.
Regions. Differences among regions are considered as a possible
factor. The five regions (1 - West, 2 - Southwest, 3 - North Central,
4 - Southeast, 5 - Northeast) are considered.
Types of Species. Differences among 17 types of species are
considered as factors. The types are: 1 - horse; 2 - bull; 3 - steer;
4 - cow; 5 - heifer; 6 - calf; 7 - sheep; 8 - goat; 9 - swine; 10 - young
chicken; 11 - mature chicken; 12 - fryer-roaster (f/r) turkey; 13 - young
turkey; 14 - mature turkey; 15 - duck; 16 - goose; and 17 - rabbit.
Grazers and Nongrazers. The types o'f species can be classified,
according to the feeding method, into two groups: 1 - grazers and
281
-------
2 - nongrazers. The grazers group Includes the first eight types of
species (horse, bull, steer, cow, heifer, calf, sheep, and goat). The
nongrazers group includes the last nine types of species (swine, young
chicken, mature chicken, f/r turkey, young turkey, mature turkey, duck,
goose, and rabbit). The differences between these two groups are
considered as a source of variation in the data. Since this factor is a
grouping of the types of species, these two factors (types of species and
grazers - nongrazers) will not be investigated together in the analysis.
C.4 Type of Species, Region, and Time Effects
The first analysis was performed to investigate the significance of
the main effects and interactions of the three factors, i.e., type of
species, regions, and years (1972-1984) as a source of variation. The
three-way interaction among these three factors was not investigated
because of the .unavailability of more than one observation in each of the
cross-classified cells of the three factors. The analysis of variance
results are given in Table C-l.
The following conclusions were derived from the data in Table C-l:
1. Each of the main effects (type of species, region, and year) has a
significant contribution to the total variation of the detected
frequencies (each has a p-value <0.05).
2. Each of the two-way interactions of type of species by region,
type of species by year, and region by year has a significant
contribution to total variation of the detected frequencies (each has a
p-value <0.05).
The three-way (types of species, regions, years) cross-classified HCB
detection percentages were aggregated by each one of the three factors
and the results are listed in Tables C-2, C-3, and C-4. A
cross-classification by types of species and regions is presented in
Table C-2, a cross-classification by types of species and years is
2S2
-------
Table C-2. Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Type of Species and Region
Types of
species
Horse
Bull
Steer
Cow
Heifer
Calf
Sheep
Goat
Swine
Young chicken
Mature chicken
Fryer-roaster turkey
Young turkey
Mature turkey
Duck
Goose
Rabbit
All types
(unweighted)
West
44.1
26.3
17.0
28.8
10.3
14.7
23.8
10.9
3.0
5.8
16.8
23.1
12.4
13.1
1 .4
1.0
0
18.7
Southwest
27.7
23.1
6.3
28.6
11.0
14.2
18.5
33.0
3.9
10.7
7.2
33.3
12.5
4.8
10.5
_«
14.5
16.3
Real on s
North Central
43.1
30.7
9.4
26.7
9.0
23.7
17.8
18.2
3.1
4.4
4.3
13.8
7.8
13.4
4.0
7.0
7.1
11 .7
Southeast
15.9
18.3
8.3
22.7
27.5
24.0
25.6
21.3
1.8
4.3
5.1
5.0
8.6
14.2
0
_*
13.5
8.9
Northeast
49.3
27.5
8.1
20.4
25.0
34.4
21.7
18.7
4.1
14.2
5.8
27.5
19.2
11.8
2.6
_*
_*
20.1
Nationwide
33.6
25.5
9.9
26.2
10.8
27.4
20.9
24.6
3.0
7.2
6.4
18.1
10.8
12.8
3.2
4.2
14.2
14.3
'Data were not available to compute this percentage.
283
-------
Table C-3. Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Types of Species and Years
Year
Type of
species
Horse
Bull
Steer
Cow
Hei l er
Cdll
Sheep
OOut
Swi ne
Young chicken
Mature chicken
Fryer-roaster
turkey
Yuuny turkey
Mature turkey
Duck
Guose
kabhi t
i\ 11 t ypc-s
72
_
0
8.0
13.9
1.9
0
13.0
-
3. 1
6.3
2.1
2.3
2.5
-
-
-
-
5.2
73
0
28.6
8.5
7.6
1.8
34.5
17.3
20.0
1.3
4.4
0.8
1.8
4.2
27.9
0
0
-
7.0
74
33.6
63.9
18.8
51.5
19.3
75.9
50.2
68.3
8.6
20.1
13.8
22.2
15.0
11.1
0
12.5
21.1
30.0
75
75.5
60.2
20.2
52.1
21.8
63.9
50.3
62.5
4.9
25.7
17.6
44.0
37.2
30.5
8.9
0
18.3
35.6
76
82.0
60.9
26.8
42.5
31.0
64.2
49.0
77.3
5.0
21.3
15.9
50.9
44.5
34.5
9.4
4.8
32.3
35.4
77
82.1
75.0
28.6
56.1
33.7
67.7
58.7
80.0
7.4
18.6'
27.3
50.0
33.3
33.3
4.6
10.0
85.7
40.6
78
35.6
26.7
21.5
32.7
28.2
39.6
27.2
40.0
19.3
13.0
12.8
26.0
19.7
47.6
13.0
0
20.7
25.7
79
24.1
17.4
6.1
11.6
6.2
20.9
15.8
8.8
1.8
3.0
1.2
0
4.1
1.8
2.9
0
17.0
8.4
80
6.8
5.6
1.2
3.5
0.4
14.5
3.3
5.5
1.8
1.3
0.7
2.4
1.8
0.9
0.8
0
2.3
3.0
81
23.0
13.2
1.4
12.5
4.4
14.0
10.9
17.9
1.9
0.6
0.3
0.7
1.4
0
0.6
-
0
5.0
82
9.8
9.6
2.2
5.0
1 .5
10.8
4.5
8.5
0.5
0
0.6
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
2.9
83
16.3
8.8
1.9
4.5
3.2
7.4
8.9
9.0
2.1
0
0.7
0
2.7
0.8
1.5
0
4.4
4.3
84
15.5
19.0
1.1
5.9
4.9
7.3
9.9
12.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
2.4
2.7
2.2
0.9
4.0
4.2
4.1
Whole
period
33.6
25.5
9.9
26.2
10.8
27.4
20.9
24.6
3.0
7.2
6.4
18.1
10.8
12.8
3.2
4.2
14.2
14.3
-------
Table C-4. Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Region and Year
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Overall
West
12.6
19.5
34.3
55. 1
50.0
46.4
9.3
2.8
0.9
3.9
1.0
7.7
6.2
18.7
Southwest
5.0
6.3
39.5
40.5
43.3
55.2
17.4
12.6
1 .4
5.4
3.4
5.2
6.8
16.3
North Central
2.5
3.8
21 .6
23.8
27.4
31.3
32.7
8.8
2.9
4.5
3.3
3.7
2.3
11 .7
Real on s
Southeast
4.3
4.0
20.6
21.4
25.8
40.5
23.6
4.3
2.7
3.7
0.6
0.3
1 .4
8.9
Northeast
3.1
6.9
40.5
44.4
38.5
43.2
35.0
11 .7
6.5
9.7
7.6
6.2
6.1
20.1
Nationwide
5.2
7.0
30.0
35.6
35.4
40.6
25.7
8.4
3.0
5.0
2.9
4.3
4.1
14.3
285
-------
shown in Table C-3, and a cross-classification by regions and years is
found in Table C-4. The results in these tables show the following:
1. The total percentages of detection for each type of species are
considerably different from the grand total percentage of detection
(Tables C-2 and C-3). Horse, bull, cow, calf, sheep, goat (grazers type)
and f/r turkey (nongrazers type) have higher total percentages of
detection compared to the grand total percentage of detection. Steer,
heifer (grazers type), swine, young chicken, mature chicken, young
turkey, mature turkey, duck, goose, and rabbit (nongrazer type) have
lower total percentages of detection compared to the grand total
percentage of detection. A test of the grazers and nongrazers type
effects with the other factors is discussed in Section C.5.
2. West, Southwest, and Northeast regions have higher percentages of
detection compared to the grand total percentage of detection. North
central and southeast regions have lower total percentages of detection
compared to the grand total percentage of detection (Tables C-2 and C-4).
3. The total percentages of detection for the individual years are
considerably different from the grand total percentage of detection
(Tables C-3 and C-4). Each of the total percentages for the years 1972,
1973, and 1979 to 1984 is considerably smaller than the grand total
percentage (more than 35 percent lower). Each of the total percentages
of detection for the years 1974 to 1978 is considerably larger than the
grand total percentage of detection (more than 78 percent higher).
4. The detection percentages for each region (Table C-2) have a
different type of species behavior from that of the overall type of
species conclusion discussed above. Moreover, the detection percentages
for each type of species (Table C-2) have a different regional behavior
from the overall regional conclusion discussed above. These results are
another indication of the significant type of species by region
interaction conclusion given in Table C-l.
206
-------
5. Most of the detection percentages for years 1974 to 1978,
cross-classified by horse, bull, cow, calf, sheep, f/r turkey, mature
turkey, and rabbit, are relatively higher than the grand total percentage
of detection (see Table C-3).
6. The detection percentages for years 1972, 1973, and 1979 to 1982
have different regional behavior from the overall regional conclusion
discussed above.
To examine the effects of years and regions for each type of species,
separate analysis of variance (without interaction) studies were
performed. The 17 analysis of variance studies are summarized in
Table C-5. They indicate that:
1. Region is not a significant factor for bull, cow, swine, mature
turkey, duck, and rabbit. However, region is a significant factor for
all other species (p-value <0.05).
2. All types of species, except rabbit, have significant year effect.
C.5 Grazers/Nongrazers, Region, and Time Effects
To examine the grazers/nongrazers type of species effect and its
interactions with region and year, an analysis of variance for these
three factors was performed. The results are given in Table C-6. The
following conclusions were derived from the data in Table C-6:
1. There are significant main effects because of grazers/nongrazers,
region, and year (each has a p-value <0.05).
2. There is a significant two-way interaction of grazers/nongrazers
by region, grazers/nongrazers by year, and region by year (each has a
p-value <0.05).
3. The three-way interaction of grazers/nongrazers by region by year
is not significant.
287
-------
Table C-5. Analysis of Variance Results for the Types of
Species by Region and Year
Type of species
Horse
Bull
Steer
Cow
Heifer
Calf
Sheep
Goat
Swine
Young chicken
Mature chicken
Fryer roaster/turkey
Young turkey
Mature turkey
Duck
Goose
Rabbit
Region
(p-level)
0.0001
0.2650
0.0090
0.2500
0.0200
0.0005
0.0446
0.0005
0.0927
0.0001
0.0001
0.0079
0.0001
0.3873
0.1867
*
0.3197
Year
(p-level)
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0087
0.0001
0.0266
0.0079
*
0.3628
Insufficient cross-classified data were available to perform this
analysis.
288
-------
Table C-6. Analysis of Variance Results for the HCB Detection Frequencies
in Livestock by Grazers/Nongrazers, Region, and Year
Source of variation
Main effects
Grazers/nongrazers
Region
Year
Sum of
DF squares
1 837.0
4 212.1
12 3.909.7
Mean
square
837.00
53.02
325.81
Significance
of f
f (p-value)
207.35 0.0001
13.14 0.0001
8,071.0 0.0001
Interactions
Grazers/nongrazers
type by region 4 208.6 52.15
Grazers/nongrazers
type by year 12 100.4 8.37
Region by year . 48 390.7 8.14
Grazers/nongrazers type
by region by year 42 97.6 2.32
Residual 509 2.054.6 4.04
Total 632 7,810.8
12.92
2.07
2.02
0.58
0.0001
0.0172
0.0001
0.9855
289
-------
To illustrate the differences between grazer and nongrazer types and
their interactions with region and year, cross-classifications of HCB
detection percentages by grazers/nongrazers type with region and by
grazers/nongrazers type with year were obtained and presented in
Tables C-7 and C-8. The results in Tables C-7 and C-8 show the following:
1. The nationwide detection percentage for grazers type is higher
(60 percent) than the overall detection percentage. The nationwide
detection percentage for nongrazers type is lower (54 percent) than the
overall detection percentage.
2. For each region, the detection percentage for grazers type is
higher and for nongrazers type it is lower than the total detection
percentage for that region; however, the actual differences in the
detection percentages vary among regions compared to nationwide
differences for all types of species.
3. For each year, the detection percentage for grazers type is higher
and for nongrazers type it is lower than the overall detection percentage
for all years combined; however, the actual differences in the detection
percentages vary among years compared to overall differences for all
species.
C.6 Type of Species. Region, and Period Effects.
The classification of HCB detection percentages by years (1972 to
1984) showed different historical behavior within the period 1974 to 1978
from that within the period 1972 to 1973 and 1979 to 1984. To examine
the effects of the three periods and interactions with types of species
and region, an analysis of variance for these factors was performed and
the results are presented in Table C-9. The results show the following:
1. Each of the main effects of type of species, region, and period
has a significant contribution to the total variation of the detected
frequencies (each has a p-value <0.05).
290
-------
Table C-7. Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies by
Grazers and Mongrazers Type and Region
Region
Grazer/Nonqrazer Type
Grazers
Nongrazers
All types
West
Southwest
North Central
Southeast
Northeast
Nationwide
23.7
20.5
21.8
21.6
21.6
22.9
9.8
9.3
4.8
4.8
10.6
6.6
18.7
16.3
11.7
8.9
20.1
14.3
291
-------
Table C-8. Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies
in Livestock by Type (Grazer/Nongrazer) and Year
Tvoe
Year
1972
1973
1974
197S
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Overall
Grazers
9
11
47
45
48
56
32
14
5
11
5
7
8
22
.3
.8
.8
.9
.2
.9
.5
.8
.1
.6
.9
.1
.2
.9
Nongrazers
3
3
14
21
20
22
17
2
1
0
0
1
1
6
.2
.0
.9
.8
.1
.6
.5
.4
.5
.9
.4
.6
.2
.6
Both types
combined
5
7
30
35
35
40
25
8
3
5
2
4
4
14
.2
.0
.0
.6
.4
.6
.7
.4
.0
.0
.9
.3
.1
.3
292
-------
Table C-9. Analysis of Variance Results for the HCB Detection Frequencies
in Livestock by Type of Species. Region, and Period*
Source of variation
Main effects
Type
Region
Period
Interactions
Species type by region
Species type by period
Region by period
Species type by region
by period
OF
16
4
2
56
28
8
69
Sum of
squares
1.770.7
175.6
3.775.6
431 .8
90.7
47.2
138.3
Mean
square
110.67
43.90
1.887.80
7.71
3.24
5.90
2.00
f
35.99
14.27
613.84
2.51
1.05
1.92
0.65
Significance
of f
(p-value)
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.3926
0.0554
0.9852
by period
Residual
Total
69
449
632
138.3 2.00
1.380.9 3.07
7,810.8
0.65 0.9852
•Period refers to the three time periods assumed in this analysis:
1974-1978. and 1979-1984.
1972-1973,
293
-------
2. Type of species by region interaction is significant (p-value
<0.05). Type of species by period interaction, region by period
interaction, and type of species by region by period interaction are not
significant.
A cross-classification of the HCB detection percentages by types of
species and periods is presented in Table C-10. A cross-classification
of the HCB detection percentages by regions and periods is found in
Table C-ll. The results in Tables C-10 and C-ll show the following:
1. The HCB detection percentage for the period 1974 to 1978 is larger
(135 percent) than the grand total detection percentage, and the HCB
detection percentages are lower for period 1972 to 1973 and 1979 to 1984
(55 percent and 69 percent, respectively) than the grand total detection
percentage.
2. The percentages for each type of species, except calf and mature
turkey (see Table C-10), have a similar behavior to that of the overall
percentages discussed above (higher for period 1974 to 1978, and lower
for periods 1972 to 1973 and 1979 to 1984) than the grand total detection
percentage.
3. The percentages for each region have a similar behavior to that of
the overall percentages (higher for period 1974 to 1978, and lower for
periods 1972 to 1973 and 1979 to 1984).
To test the significance of the interaction of period with
grazers/nongrazers type of species and region, an analysis of variance
for these three factors was performed and the results are listed in
Table C-12. The results in Table C-12 show the following:
1. There are significant main effects because of grazers/nongrazers
type of species, region, and period.
2. There is a significant interaction of grazers/nongrazers type by
region, and grazers/nongrazers type by period. The two-way interaction
of region by period and the three-way interaction of grazers/nongrazers
type by region by period are not significant.
294
-------
Table C-10. Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Types of Species and Time Period
Types of
species 1972-1973
Horse
Bull
Steer
Cow
Heifer
Calf
Sheep
Goat
Swine
Young chicken
Mature chicken
Fryer-roaster turkey
Young turkey
Mature turkey
Duck
Goose '
Rabbit
All types (unweighted)
0
22.2
8.3
8.0
1.8
30.5
15.8
20.0
1.9
5.4
1.3
2.0
3.7
27.9
0
0
*
6.4
Period
1974-1978
62.7
59.5
22.1
46.0
25.7
63.0
48.6
68.4
9.4
20.7
17.1
36.5
27.7
33.2
7.4
8.0
30.2
33.6
1978-1984
16.2
11.0
1.9
7.0
3.2
12.1
8.8
10.8
1.6
0.8
0.7
1.1
2.2
1.3
1.1
1.1
4.6
4.5
All
periods
33.6
25.5
9.9
26.2
10.8
27.4
20.9
24.6
3.0
7.2
6.4
18.1
10.8
12.8
3.2
4.2
14.2
14.3
"Data were not available to compute this percentage.
295
-------
Table C-11. Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies
by Region and Period
Region
1972-1973
Period
1974-1978
1979-1984
Whole
period
West
Southwest
North Central
Southeast
Northeast
Nationwide
17.1
6.0
3.4
4.1
5.7
6.4
43.2
39.7
26.6
25.3
40.6
33.6
4.1
5.6
4.2
2.1
7.8
4.5
18.7
16.3
11.7
8.9
20.1
14.3
296
-------
Table C-12. Analysis of Variance Results for the HCB Detection Frequencies
in Livestock by Grazers/Nongrazers Type, Region, and Period*
Source of variation
Main effects
Grazers/nongrazers type
Region
Period
DF
1
4
2
Sum of
squares
837.0
212.1
3.680.2
Mean
square
837.00
53.02
1,840.10
Significance
of f
f (p-value)
184.46 0.0001
11.69 0.0001
405.53 0.0001
Interactions
Grazers/nongrazers
type by region
Grazers/nongrazers
type by period
Region by period
Grazers/nongrazers type
by region by period
Residual
Total
4
2
8
8
603
632
208.6
32.1
65.0
39.7
2,736.1
7,810.8
52.15
16.05
8.12
4.96
4.54
11.50 0.0001
3.54 0.0295
1.79 0.0760
1.09 0.3657
•Period refers to the three time periods assumed in this analysis: 1972-1973,
1974-1978, and 1979-1984.
297
-------
A cross-classification of the HCB detection percentages by
grazers/nongrazers type and by period is presented in Table C-13. The
results in Table C-13 show that the HCB detection frequencies for each
period are higher for grazers type and lower for nongrazers type than the
overall HCB detection frequencies for the two types combined in that
period.
To examine the effects of region and periods for grazers and for
nongrazers type of species, separate analysis of variance studies were
performed. The two analysis of variance studies are summarized in
Table C-14. The results indicate that:
1. Region effect and period effect are significant for grazers and
also for nongrazers type of species.
2. The interaction of region by period is not significant for grazers
and nongrazers type of species.
An examination of the region effect from the period 1974 to 1978 was
performed for grazers and nongrazers, separately and combined, and the
results are listed in Table C-15. The results showed that for the period
1974 to 1978, region is significant for grazers, nongrazers, and the two
types combined.
A cross-classification of the HCB detection percentages by
grazers/nongrazers type and by region for the period 1974 to 1978 is
presented in Table C-16. The following was concluded from the data in
Table C-16 for the period 1974 to 1978.
1. For the entire nation and for each region, the detection
percentages for grazers type are higher than the overall detection
percentages. The detection percentages for nongrazers are lower
than the overall detection percentages found for each region and
nationwide.
298
-------
Table C-13. Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies in
Livestock by Period and Type (Grazer/Nongrazer)
Period
1972-1973
1974-1978
1979-1984
Total period
1972-1984
Tvoe
Grazer Nongrazer
11.2 3.0
46.4 19.1
8.6 1.3
22.4 6.6
Two types
together
6.4
33.6
4.5
14.3
299
-------
Table C-14. Analysis of Variance Results for Grazers
and Nongrazers by Region and Period
Type
Region
(p-level)
Period
(p-level)
Region by period
(p-level)
Grazers
Nongrazers
0.0385
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0691
0.4458
300
-------
Table C-15. Analysis of Variance Results for the
Grazers and Nongrazers Type of Species
by Region for the Period 1974 to 1978
Region
Type (p-level)
Grazers 0.0069
Nongrazers 0.0001
Two types combined 0.0001
301
-------
Table C-16. Averages of the HCB Detection Frequencies
in Livestock by Type (Grazer/Nongrazer)
and Region for the Period 1974 to 1978
Region
Grazers
Nongrazers
All types
West
Southwest
North Central
Southeast
Northeast
Nationwide
49.0
46.0
39.4
47.6
59.1
46.4
29.2
27.9
12.9
15.6
24.0
19.1
43.2
39.7
26.6
25.3
40.6
33.6
302
-------
2. The detection percentages for nongrazers type of species have a
similar regional behavior to that of the two types combined. The
detection percentages for grazers type of species in the Southwest
and Southeast regions differ significantly from that for the types
of species combined in these two regions.
C.7 Analysis of Weighted Frequencies
In all the analyses discussed in this Appendix so far, equal weights
for the types of species were used. A weighted aggregation over types of
species was obtained by weighting each type of species by the poundage of
dressed meat and ready-to-cook poultry produced in the United States in
1980. The weights that were used are presented in Table C-17.
An analysis of variance study for the weighted detection frequencies
was performed to determine whether there were significant changes over
time and/or significant differences among regions; the results are listed
in Table C-18. The following conclusions were derived from the data in
Table C-18:
1. Differences among years and among regions have significant effects
on the total variation of the weighted detection frequencies (each has a
p-value <0.05).
2. The interaction between years and regions is significant (p-value
<0.05>.
An analysis of variance study for the weighted frequencies to examine
the effects of regions, periods, and their interaction was performed and
the results are listed in Table C-19. The following conclusions were
derived from the data in Table C-19:
1. Region is a significant factor (p-value <0.05).
2. Period is a significant factor (p-value <0.05).
3. Interaction between regions and periods is not a significant
factor (p-value <0.05).
3o 3
-------
Table C-17. Weight Fractions of U.S. Meat Consumption
in 1980
Species
All species
Horse
Bull
Steer
Cow
Heifer
Calf
Sheep
Goat
Swine
Young chicken
Mature chicken
Fryer-roaster turkey
Young turkey
Mature turkey
Duck
Goose
Rabbit
0.0040
0.0099
0.2219
0.0592
0.1060
0.0059
0.0059
0.0001
0.3085
0.2183
0.0125
0.0015
0.0441
0.0004
0.0016
0.0001
0.0001
1 .0000
Sources: USOA (1981) and USOA (1982).
304
-------
Table C-18. Analysis of Variance Results for the HCB Weighted
Detection Frequencies in Livestock by Region and Year
Source of variation
Main effects
Region
Year
Interactions
Region by year
Residual
Total
Significance
Sum of Mean of f
OF squares square f (p-value)
4 47.5 11.87 32.88 0.0001
12 295.4 24.62 68.20 0.0001
48 25.0 0.52 1.44 0.0309
568 205.0 0.36
632 .572.9
305
-------
Table C-19. Analysis of Variance Results for the Weighted HCB
Detection Frequencies in Livestock by Region and Period
Source of variation
Main effects
Region
Period
Sum of
OF squares
4 47.5
2 283.5
Mean
square
11.87
141.75
Significance
of f
f (p-value)
30.79 0.0001
369.70 0.0001
Interactions
Region by period
Residual
Total
8
618
632
3.7
238.2
572.9
0.46
0.39
1.21 0.2976
306
-------
C.8 References
USDA. 1981. Livestock slaughter - annual summary 1980. Washington,
DC: Economics and Statistics Service, Crop Reporting Board, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
USDA. 1982. Agricultural statistics (Table 481), 1982.
307
-------
30C
-------
Appendix D
HCB Detection Frequencies in Domestic Meat and
Poultry Fat Samples (Graphical Data by Species
and Year - 1972 to 1984)
(Source: Data Supplied by USDA/FSIS)
309
-------
310
-------
HCB Detected in Bulls 1972-1984
HCB Detected in Calves 1972-1984
O
I
5
s.
9O -
80 -
70 -
60 -
30 -
4O -
30 -
20 -
1O -
O -
|
1
I
i
I
I „
IOO
90
BO
70
6O
SO
to
30
20
10
O
1
I
1
1
\
I
72 73 74 75 76
77 78 79 80 81
Year
82 83 84
HCB Detected in Cows 1972-1984
HCB Detected in Goats 1972-1984
IOO
9O -
80 -
70 -
60 -
SO -
40 -
30
20 -
10
0
\
\
\
I
//
IOO
90
80
70
60
SO
40
30
2O
IO
0
\
I
I
I
1978
Year
1978
Year
Figure D-l. HCB detection freauency in bulls, calves,
cows, and goats, 1972-1984.
311
-------
HCB Detected in Heifers 1972-1984
HCB Detected in Horses .1972-1984
1OO -
9O -
BO -
70 -
6O -
SO -
40 -
30 -
2O -
1O -
1972 1974
I
I
I
"
90 -
ao -
7O -
0 6O -
K 40-
a
30 -
20 -
10 -
n -
I
\
i
//
V7\
//
V7\
//
\
K
1976 1978 1980 19B2 1984 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984
Y«o«
Year
HCB Detected in Poultry 1972-1984 HCB Detected in Sheep 1972-1984
10O -
90 -
ao -
70 -
eo -
so -
4O -
30 -
20 -
10 -
i
771 I7~7\ Y/A
O — — i 1 1
1972 1974
I
//
I
//
I
//
fy
Y/,
L_
9O -
80 -
7O -
S
u SO -
i:
| 40-
a.
3O -
2O -
10
P"71
YAYA
//
%
//,
//
y/
\
//
//
%
'Y,
^
/j
^/
\
'/:
n
// 7A
Y/YA Y7X t7A ?Z>
Y/YAmYAvTyAY/,
1976 1978 198O 1982 1984 19;2 1974 ,976 |978 1980 ,9a2 1984
Yoor Y«or
Figure 0-2. HCB detection frequency in heifers, horses, poultry, and
sheep, 1972-1984.
-------
HC8 Detected in Steers 1972-1984
HCB Detected in Swine 1972-1984
IUW -
90 -
ao -
70-
6O -
30-
4O -
JO -
20 -
10 -
0 -
p
_. I//] // //
972 1974 1976
/ K/j p/n
1978 198O 1982 1984
Yeor
100
90 -
ao -
70 -
80 -
so -
40 -
JO -
20 -
1O -
Figure D-3. HCB detection frequency in steers and swine, 1972-1984.
313
-------
314
-------
Appendix E
HCB Detection Frequencies in Imported Meat
and Poultry (1979 to June 1984)
315
-------
316
-------
Table E-l. USDA National Residue Monitoring Program Summary
of HCB Residues Found in Imported Meat and Poultry
for Calendar Years 1979 - June 30. 1984
Calendar
Country year3
Argentina
Austral ia
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Rep. of China
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1980
1982
Sample
size
359
207
42
170
187
83
177
183
30
205
153
55
22
18
46
214
179
93
107
197
30
115
172
85
2
10
256
305
171
450
606
277
1
2
Concentration
NDC 0.01-
0.10
220
141
36
145
176
78
167
176
30
201
151
54
2
4
38
198
174
93
99
183
30
111
172
82
2
8
242
272
166
438
599
275
1
2
137
63
6
25
10
5
10
7
0
4
2
1
20
14
7
16
5
0
8
14
0
4
0
3
0
2
13
33
5
12
7
1
0
0
interval^tppm)
0.11- >0.50
0.50
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
38.7
31.9
14.3
14.7
6.5
6.0
5.6
3.8
0.0
2.0
1.3
1.8
90.9
77.8
17.4
7.5
2.3
0.0
7.5
7.1
• 0.0
3.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
20.0
5.5
10.8
2.9
2.7
1 .2
0.7
0.0
0.0
317
-------
Table E-l. (continued)
Calendar
Country year3
Costa Rica
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Rep.
El Salvador
Finland
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1983
1984
Sample
size
155
124
36
76
44
37
47
89
31
66
29
17
1S5
403
258
659
330
320
15
22
13
101
62
12
57
45
2
32
22
8
55
37
Concentration
NDC 0.01-
0.10
148
119
36
74
44
37
9
12
9
36
18
17
134
383
247
644
327
317
13
22
12
99
62
12
54
45
2
32
22
8
55
37
7
5
0
1
0
0
28
64
20
26
11
0
21
19
10
14
3
3
2
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
interval k(ppm)
0.11- >0.50
0.50
0
0
0
1
0
0
10
12
1
4
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
o-
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
4.5
4.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
80.3
86.5
71.0
45.4
37.9
0.0
13. S
5.0
4.3
2.3
0.9
0.9
13.3
0.0
7.7
2.0
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
318
-------
Table E-l. (continued)
Country
France
Germany
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong
Calendar
year3
1979
1980
1981
)982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Sample
size
13
22
7
22
29
13
11
10
5
14
12
10
122
97
3
11
34
29
28
30
7
15
14
1
97
204
24
56
92
18
50
14
5
17
12
3
Concentration
NOC 0.01-
0.10
9
13
7
20
25
13
10
10
2
13
12
10
118
89
3
11
34
29
26
30
6
14
14
1
92.
190
24
53
92
18
40
13
5
13
12
3
4
9
0
2
4
0
1
0
3
1
0
0
3
8
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
5
14
0
3
0
0
10
1
0
3
0
0
intervalt)(ppm)
0.11- >0.50
O.SO
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
30.8
40.9
0.0
.9. 1
13.8
0.0
9.1
0.0
60.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
3.3
8.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
0.0
14.3
6.7
0.0
0.0
5.2
6.9
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
20.0
7.1
0.0
23.5
0.0
0.0
319
-------
Table E-l. (continued)
Country
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Mexico
Netherlands
Calendar
year3
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
" . 1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Sample
size
74
76
24
74
no
31
4
3
2
1
3
17
247
7
154
310
35
1
8
24
8
16
12
3
16
19
3
11
156
7
31
33
IS
58
59
38
Concentration
NOC 0.01-
0.10
68
69
24
72
106
31
1
2
2
1
2
16
185
6
124
292
34
0
8
23
8
2
2
0
9
19
0
11
151
7
16
22
13
49
59
37
6
7
0
2
4
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
62
1
30
18
1
1
0
1
0
14
10
3
7
0
3
0
4
0
15
10
2
3
0
1
interval b(ppm)
0.11- >0.50
0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
8.1
9.2
0.0
2.7
3.6
0.0
75.0
33.3
0.0
0.0
33.3
5.9
25.1
14.3
19.5
5.8
2.8
100.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
87.5
83.3
100.0
43.8
0.0
100.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
48.4
33.3
13.3
15.5
0.0
2.6
320
-------
Table E-1. (continued)
Country
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Poland
Romania
Sweden
Calendar
yeara
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1979
.1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1983
1984
Sample
size
321
274
38
270
250
111
265
81
11
43-
41
13
5
24
15
34
42
3
8
1
200
192
12
74
123
62
137
105
15
32
38
8
21
182
Concentration
NDC 0.01-
0.10
303
259
36
264
248
111
255
79
11
43
41
13
5'
24
IS
34
42
3
8
1
177 •
167
11
72
119
61
110
83
IS
29
38
8
21
182
18
15
1
6
2
0
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
24
1
1
4
1
26
22
0
3
0
0
0
0
Interval ^ppm)
0.11- >0.50
0.50
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent
detected
5.6
5.5
5.3
2.2
0.3
0.0
3.8
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.5
13.0
8.3
2.7
3.2
1 .6
19.7
21.0
0.0
9.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
321
-------
Table E-l. (continued)
Country
Switzerland
Taiwan
Uruguay
Yugoslavia
•
Total
Calendar
yeara
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Sample Concentration
size NDC 0.01-
0.10
10
IS
15
33
34
18
3!
21
SO
37
29
91
27
8
39
62
73
80
59
20
66
52
44
2.943
3.158
918
3.178
3,411
1.766
10
9
13
26
26
16
29
21
50
37
28
SS
25
7
39
62
73
76
53
20
66
52
44
2.496
2,718
847
2.991
3.330
1 .742
0
6
2
7
3
2
2
0
0
0
1
34
2
1
0
0
0 .
4
6
a
0
0
0
425
421
66
178
79
23
interva1b(ppm)
0.11- >0.50
0.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
17
4
9
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
Percent
detected
0.0
40.0
13.3
21.2
23.5
11.1
6.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
39.5
7.4
12.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
10.2
0.0-
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.2
13.9
7.7
5.9
2.4
1.3
NO = Not detected.
aResults for 1984 only reflect period of January through June.
''Residues reported on a wet-weight basis.
cLimit of detection is 0.01 ppm.
Source: Data supplied by USDA/FSIS.
322
-------
Appendix F
Modeling Inhalation Exposure and Ground-Water
Contamination of Hexachlorobenzene from Landfills
323
-------
324
-------
MODELING INHALATION EXPOSURE
AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
OF HEXACHLOROBENZENE FROM LANDFILLS
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
EXPOSURE EVALUATION DIVISION
Task No. 127
Contract No. 68-02-3968
Prepared by:
GENERAL SCIENCES CORPORATION
8401 CORPORATE DRIVE
LANDOVER, MARYLAND 20785
Under Subcontract To:
VERSAR INCORPORATED
6850 Versar Center
Springfield, Virginia 22151
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS: STUART WOLLMAN, SCOTT RHEINGROVER
PROJECT MANAGER: JON CHEN
Submitted: April 16, 1986
325
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I. Summary F-3
II. Introduction F-4
III. SESOIL Model Simulations of Volatilization Rates and
Contaminant Loadings to Groundwater F-5
A. Chemical Data F-5
B. Climatic and Soil Data F-7
C. Application Loading and Release Rates F-7
D. SESOIL Modeling Results F-9
IV. AT123D Model Simulations of Groundwater Concentrations F-13
A. Groundwater Data F-13
B. AT123D Modeling Results F-13
V. ISC Atmospheric Modeling F-17
VI. Inhalation Exposure Estimation F-22
VII. References F-25
Appendix A. Sector Segment and Cumulative Results for all
Atmospheric Modeling Scenarios.
326
-------
I. SUMMARY
The atmospheric exposure and groundwater concentrations resulting
from hexachlorobenzene in landfills were estimated for several
scenarios using appropriate computer simulation models. The scenarios
included two sites (Tacoma, Washington and Memphis, Tennessee), two
landfill sizes (1/2 acre and 1 acre) and four clay cap thicknesses for
the atmospheric exposure simulation (0, 6, 12 and 24 inches). All
simulations were performed for a 20-year time period from the time
loading to the landfill began.
The maximum concentrations obtained in the groundwater were
I.lxl0~7 ppm for the Memphis site and 2.7x10"^ ppm for the Tacoma
site. Both of these concentrations occurred at time equal to 20 yr,
and were located at the water table surface directly under the
landfill for the one-acre landfill size.
The total inhalation exposures obtained were 8.7 ug/yr for
Memphis and 1.3 ug/yr for the Tacoma site, both for the 1-acre,
uncapped landfill case.
327
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to provide modeling results for
estimating the exposure from inhalation and concentrations in the
ground water from hexachlorobenzene (HCB) in landfills.
The modeling procedure for estimating inhalation exposure
involves three stages. The first stage uses an unsaturated soil zone
transport model (SESOIL) to simulate volatilization rates of HCB from
the landfill to the atmosphere. The second stage uses an atmospheric
model (ISC) to simulate the transport and dispersion of the
contaminant in the atmosphere. The third stage uses an inhalation
exposure algorithm within the GEMS Atmospheric Modeling Subsystem
(GAMS) to estimate the inhalation exposure of HCB.
The modeling procedure for estimating groundwater concentrations
involves two stages. The first stage uses the SESOIL model to
simulate the vertical transport of HCB from the landfill through the
unsaturated soil zones to the groundwater surface. The second stage
uses a saturated zone model (AT123D) to simulate the 3-dimensional
transport and resulting concentrations of the contaminant in the
groundwater.
These modeling simulations are applied over several scenarios
which include two sites (Tacoma, Washington and Memphis, Tennessee),
two landfill area sizes (1/2 acre and 1 acre) and four clay cap
thickness (0, 6, 12, and 24 inches).
328
-------
III. SESOIL MODEL SIMULATIONS OF VOLATILIZATION RATES AND CONTAMINANT
LOADINGS TO GROUNDWATER
SESOIL (Bonozountas and Wagner, 1984) is a seasonal soil
compartment model which estimates the rate of chemical
transport/transformation within the unsaturated soil zones in terms of
mass and concentration distributions among the soil, water and air
phases. The model's ability to simulate mass volatilized from a
contaminated soil zone is used to simulate volatilization of HCB from
landfills. The model's ability to simulate vertical
transport/transformation through leaching of the contaminant to the
groundwater zone is used to estimate HCB loadings to groundwater.
A. Chemical Data
The Chemical properties used in the SESOIL model are given in
Table 1. All chemical data was supplied by Versar, Inc. (1986), with
the exception of the diffusion coefficient in air, DA.
The Value of the diffusion coefficient in air was estimated from
data for other compounds based on the relationship that the ratio of
diffusion coefficients is inversely proportional to the square root of
the ratio of molecular weights.
No significant biodegradation nor hydrolysis was assumed to occur
in the soil profile.
329
-------
Table 1. Chemical Data Used in SESOIL Model
Chemical Name
Molecular Weight
Solubility in Water <§ 16°C (mg/1)
Henry's Law Const, (atm -mVnrole)
Diffusion Coefficient in air (cm2/sec)
Coefficient of Adsorption on Organic
Carbon (ml/g)
Hexachlorobenzene
284.79
0.003
1.7xl0~3
0.05
1.78xl04
330
-------
B. Climatic and Soil Data
The climatic and soil data for each of the two landfill sites
(Memphis, TNf and Tacoma, WA) are given in Table 2. All soil data was
obtained from the Cities Data Base of the Graphical Exposure Modeling
System (GEMS), (GSC, 1984). The soil data used as cover material
(clay cap) for the volatilization simulations was a fine generic clay
obtained from the Generic Soil Data Option in the Cities Data Base.
An equivalent soil was chosen to represent the sludge layer
containing the comtaminant HCB in the landfills. The soil chosen was
a default silt loam obtained from the Generic Soil Data option in the
Cities Data Base, and its properties are also given in Table 2. No
information was available as to the properties of the contaminant
sludge.
C. Application Loading and Release Rates
Based on information obtained from Versar, Inc. (1986), each of
the two landfill sites have received a total of 12,100 metric tons of
industrial sludge during the past ten years. The sludge was assumed
to consist of HCB at a concentration of 100 ppm for the Memphis site
and 10 ppm for the Tacoma site. Based on an assumed landfill area of
1 acre, the thickness of the contaminant landfill was calculated as 3
meters for both sites. For the Memphis site, the landfill was assumed
to exist from the soil surface to a depth of 3 meters. However, due
to the shallow groundwater depth at Tacoma (1.5 m), it was assumed
that the contaminated material was piled on the land surface to a
331
-------
Table 2. Soil and Climatic Data Used in SESOIL
00
CO
Soil Data
Soil Name
Bulk Density (g/on^)
Intrinsic Permeability (cnr)
Disconnectedness Index
Effective Porosity
Organic Carbon Content (%)
Groundwater Depth (m)
Climatic Data
Annual Precipitation (cm)
Annual Mean Temp. (°c)
Annual Mean Rel. Hum. (%)
Annual Mean Cloud Cover
Annual Mean Shortwave Albedo
Latitude (°N)
Memphis
Memphis-Silt
Loam
1.35
9.5xl0~9
5.5
0.35
1.0
10.0
124
16.5
56.7
0.56
0.18
35.1
Tacoma
Everett-Gravelly-
Sandy-Loam
1.35
8.7xl0~8
6.0
0.25 -
1.0
1.5
96
10.6
62.3
0.68
0.16
47.4
Sludge
Equivalent
Silt-Loam
(Default)
1.35
3.5xl0~10
5.5
0.35
3.0
N/A
Clay Cap
Clay
(Very Fine)
1.35
7.2xl0~n
12.0
0.20
3.0
N/A
-------
height of 3 meters. For the 1/2 acre size landfills the same HCB
concentrations and landfill thickness were used, however half of the
total sludge mass was assumed to be contained in the landfills.
The contaminant zone release rates used for the volatilization
simulations were calculated as the product of solubility of HCB in
water and the moisture infiltration rate into the comtaminant zone.
For the Memphis site, the average release used was 0.031 ug/cm2/month;
and for the Tacoma site, an average release of 0.025 ug/cm2/month was
used.
For simulation of loadings to ground water, it was assumed that
all HCB mass could be leached through the soil zones in both dissolved
and undissolved states. Thus, the entire mass of HCB applied to the
landfills over the 10 year disposal period was used as the release
rate. The release rates used were 252 and 25.2 ug/cm2/ntonth for the
Memphis and Tacoma sites, respectively.
D. SESOIL Modeling Results
All SESOIL simulations were performed over a 20-year simulation
time period, beginning from the time the loading of HCB was first
applied to the landfills.
For volatilization estimates, a total of 16 model runs were
performed for all combinations of the two sites (Memphis and Tacoma),
two landfill sizes (1/2 and 1 acre), and four clay cover thicknesses
(0, 6, 12 and 24 inch). The maximum volatilization rate is assumed to
333
-------
occur when the concentration of HCB in the soil moisture equals the
solubility of HCB in water. In all cases, this occurred within the
first two years and remained at this limit for the remainder of the
simulation period. The maximum volatilization emission rates for the
eight cases are given in Table 3.
For estimation of contaminant loadings to groundwater, an
additional four SESOIL model runs were performed for all combinations
of the two sites and two landfill sizes. The soil profile for these
simulations consisted of uncapped soil (0-inch clay cap). The release
of HCB in the contaminated zone (landfill zone) was applied to the
first ten years of simulation, and zero release during years 11
through 20. The resulting mass loadings to groundwater are given in
Table 4. It should be noted that steady state had not been attained
after 20 years, and higher mass loading rates to groundwater would be
expected for longer simulation periods.
334
-------
Table 3. Maximum HCB Volatilization from Soil Surface (ug/yr)
Clay Cap
Thickness
(inches)
0
6
12
24
Memphis
1/2 acre 1 acre
3.26xl05 6.52xl05
3.61xl04 7.21xl04
3.45xl04 6.89xl04
3.14xl04 6.28xl04
Tacoma
1/2 acre 1 acre
4.26xl04 8.51xl04
1.52xl04 3.04x104
1.45x104 2.90X104
1.32xl0f
2.64x10*
335
-------
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Table 4. HCB Loadings to Groundwater (ug/yr)
Memphis Tacoma
1/2 acre
0
0
0
0
20.6
78.8
187
353
576
866
1,240
1,700
2,240
2,850
3,550
4,330
5,190
6,120
7,150
8,250
1 acre
0
0
0
0
41
158
374
706
1,150
1,730
2,480
3,400
4,470
5,710
7,100
8,660
10,400
12,200
14,300
16,500
1/2 acre
0
0
14.4
80.1
225
472
846
1,370
2,070
2,960
4,080
5,430
7,010
8,810
10,900
13,100
15,600
18,300
21,200
24,400
1 acre
0
0
28.8
160
450
944
1,690
2,740
4,140
5,930
8,150
10,900
14,000
17,600
21,800
26,200
31,200
36,600
42,500
48,800
336
-------
IV. AT123D MODEL SIMULATIONS OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATIONS
AT123D (Yeh, 1981) is a generalized analytical transient one-,
two-, and/or three dimensional computer model designed for estimating
the rate of pollutant transport/transformation in a groundwater
system. It accounts for various transport and transformation
processes in the groundwater system which include advection,
dispersion, and adsorption. The model produces output in the form of
special distributions of the comtaminant concentrations at selected
time intervals.
A. Groundwater Data
The aquifer data used by AT123D for the two sites are given in
Table 5. Values of soil porosity, hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic
gradient and bulk density were obtained from the GRNDWAT data base
(Versar, Inc., 1984) available in GEMS (GSC, 1984). The value chosen
for each of those parameters was the mean of the four measured values
provided in GRNDWAT. The dispersion coefficients were estimated from
measured values for similar soils as given by Anderson (1979). The
adsorption coefficient on soil was estimated from the assumption that
the aquifer soil consists of 0.1% organic carbon.
B. AT123D Modeling Results
A total of four AT123D model simulations were performed for
combinations of the two sites and two landfill areas. The mass-to-
groundwater loading distributions as calculated by SESOIL were used as
337
-------
Table 5. Groundwater Data Used in AT123D
Soil Porosity (-)
Hydraulic Conductivity (m3/hr)
Hydraulic Gradient (in/m)
Soil Bulk Density (kg/m3)
Longitudinal Dispersion Coeff. (m)
Lateral Dispersion Coeff. (m)
Vertical Dispersion Coeff. (m)
Adsorption Coefficient (nr/kg)
Memphis Tacoma
0.30 0.35
0.75 23.0
3.0X10-3
1850
30
10
1.4x10^
1790
30
10
10 10
1.78xl0"2 1.78xl0~2
33C
-------
input loadings for AT123D for the 20-year simulation period. In all
cases, the maximum concentrations in the groundwater were obtained at
year 20 at the water table surface, and the results are given in Table
6. It should be noted that steady state had not been attained by year
20, and higher concentrations in groundwater would be expected for
longer simulation periods.
339
-------
Table 6. HCB Concentrations inGroundwater
at Water Table Surface along Plume
Centerline at Year 20 (ppm)
Horizontal
Distance from
Memphis
Tacoma
Center of Landfill 1/2 acre
0
20
40
60
80
100
120 •
140
160
180
1.1X1 0~7
7.7xl0~8
6.0X10"9
4.3xl0~10
2.2X10"11
7.3xl0~13
1.5xl0~14
1.8xl0-15
4.4xl0~19
0.0
1 acre
I.lxl0~7
1.0X10"7
2.0xl0~8
1.5xl0~9
9.5X10"11
3.9xl0~12
1.0xl0~13
1.6X10"15
1.2X10"17
0.0
1/2 acre
2.7X10"6
2.6X10"6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 acre
2.7X10"6
2.7X10"6
5.1X10"11
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
340
-------
V. ISC ATMOSPHERIC MODELING
The OTS Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS) Atmospheric
Modeling Subsystem (GAMS) and the GAMS INterface (GAMSIN) were used to
conduct and set up the atmospheric modeling. The Industrial Source
Complex (ISC) long-term model was used to estimate annual average
ground-level atmospheric concentrations due to the volatilized HCB.
ISC was developed by Bowers et al. (1980) for the Source Receptor
Analysis Branch, Office Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
The modeling was conducted using the area source algorithm of
ISC. The area source equation in ISC is based on the equation for a
continuous and finite crosswind line source. Annual average STAR data
(frequencies of occurrence of wind direction versus wind speed for
each atmospheric stability) and auxiliary climatological files were
accessed by GAMSIN to supply required data to the ISC input data
files. Summaries of the climatological and STAR data used are given
in Tables 7-A and B.
The estimated values for mass volatilized presented in Table 3,
were converted into units of (g s-1 m~2) and used for input into the
ISC model. The modeling scenarios consisted of two area sizes (one-
half acre and one acre) and four clay cap thicknesses (0, 6, 12, and
24 inches).
341
-------
Table 7-A. Climatologies! and STAR Data Summaries for Memphis, TN.
STAR STATION 0143
DIRECTION FREQUENCY
MEMPHIS TN ANNUAL 1967-1971
WINUSPEEH DIRECTION FREQUENCY WINDSPEED
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
STABILITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.07196
0.05090
0.05936
0.015203
0.08439
0.03948
0.06345
0.07883
'FREQUENCY
0.00763
0.06174
O.llt.41
0.47379
0.13936
0.20213
4.76
4.42
3.89
3.09
2.65
3.09
3.68
3.82
WINDSPEEH
1.84
2 . 75
4.12
5.41
3.61
1.59
s
ssu
SW
WSW
U
UNW
NW
NNW
0.13630
0.07469
0 . 07632
0.04997
0.05156
0.03991
0,03784
0.03307
4.38
4.61
4.29
4.14
3.77
4.48
5.15
4.97
AUXILIARY VARIABLES
Afternoon mixing height (meters)
Nocturnal mixing height (meters)
Average air temperature (Kelvin)
Avg maximum temperature (Kelvin)
Avg minimum temperature (Kelvin)
Precipitation frequency (percent)
Precipitation intensity (mm/hour)
Grand average windspeed (m/s)
288V6"
292.3
284.9
5.9
2.7
4.1
342
-------
Table 7-B. Climatological and STAR Data Summaries for Tacoma, WA.
STAR STATION 0365
DIRECTION KREUUbNCY W1NDSPEED
SEATTLE/fACUMA WA
ANNUAL 1948-1953
N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
0.07793
0.08441
0.06295
0.02240
0.03687
0.05848
0.07744
0.05622
4.44
4.33
3.87
3.01
2.50
3.34
3.18
3.55
STABILITY FREQUENCY WINDSPE'ED
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.00556
0.03948
0.08725
0.66482
0.083/3
0.11918
1.07
2.05
3.46
5.25
3.74
1.31
DIRECTION FREQUENCY WINDSPEED
S 0.07346
SSW 0.13943
SW 0.12933
USU 0.05977
U 0.02584
WNW 0.02859
NW 0.02496
NNW 0.04194
AUXILIARY VARIABLES
Afternoon mixinS height
Nocturnal mixing height
Average sir temperature
Avg msximum temperature
Avs minimum temperature
Precipitation frecuency
Precipitation intensity
Grand average windspeed
4.56
5.48
6.00
4.84
3.58
2.88
3.30
3.96
(meters)
(meters)
(Kelvin) .
(Kelvin)
(Kelvin)
(percent)
(mm/hour )
( m/s )
1266,0
611 .0
279.5
283 . 2
276 . 0
11.5
1.2
4.3
343
-------
ISC is implemented in GAMS to estimate annual average
concentrations around each source on a polar coordinate system. The
coordinate system is divided into 16 sectors, each of which is 22.5
degrees and centered on the subcardinal compass point directions which
match those of the annual STability ARray (STAR) climatological data
utilized by ISC, and 10 default radial distances or concentric rings
at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 25 and 50 kilometers from the source.
Intra-ring concentration estimates are calculated at three points
along the centerline of each sector segment. The term "sector
segment" is used to discuss a given sector (wind direction) and
distance interval (ring distance interval). The average concentration
for each sector segment (a total of 160) is obtained by calculating
the average of the intra-ring concentration estimates including both
end point concentration estimates for each sector segment.
The maximum annual average intra-ring concentration estimates for
the two locations, two land areas, and the four clay cap thickness are
presented in Table 8. The distances listed are the off fence line
distances corresponding to the intra-ring distance where the maximum
estimate occurred. In all cases the maximums occurred at the first
intra-ring distance of 166.7 m.
344
-------
Table 8. Maximum Annual Average Intra-ring Concentrations (ug/m^)
Cap (in)
0
6
12
24
Memphis, TN
1/2 Acre
141m Distance
l.fllxlfl"6
1.06xl0~7
9.72xl0
1 Acre
130m Distance
1.74x10"
1.92x10
,-7
1.84x10
-7
1.68x10
-7
Tacoma, WA
Cap (in)
0
6
12
24
1/2 Acre
141m Distance
1 Acre
130m Distance
1.00X10"7
3.58xl0~8
3.42xl0~8
3.12X10"8
1.78xl0"7
6.34xl0~8
6.05xl0~8
5.52xl0~8
345
-------
VI. INHALATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATION
Inhalation exposure calculations are performed by GAMS for each
sector segment population and across all sector segments around a
source. The annual average inhalation exposure for a sector segment
is estimated using the following expression:
INHALEXPO(i) = CONC(i)*POP(i)*IVR
where,
(i) = index for a given sector segment
INHALEXPO(i) = annual average inhalation exposure (ug yr )
CONC(i) = annual average concentration (ug m~^)
POP(i) = exposed population (persons)
IVR = annual inhalation volume rate (nr yr~^person~^)
The annual inhalation volume rate is the product of the daily
inhalation volume rate (default value of 22.0 cubic meters per day per
person) and 365 days per year. The default inhalation volume rate is -
the average of the adult man (2.3 x 104 I/day) and adult woman
(2.1 x 104 I/day) breathing rates given by Synder, et al. (1974).
Tables of cumulative population exposed and cumulative inhalation
exposure by concentration level are generated from the sector segment
results by GAMS. The tables range from the maximum sector segment
average concentration to the minimum by order of magnitude steps. The
cumulative population exposed and inhalation exposure results for the
one acre, 0 inch cap scenario for Memphis and Tacoma are presented in
346
-------
Tables 9 and 10 respectively. A complete listing of the 160 sector
segment results (10 ring distances by 16 directions) and the
cumulative tables for all modeling scenarios is given in Appendix A,
347
-------
Table 9. 50 Kilometer Cumulative Population Exposed and
Inhalation Exposure to HCB around Memphis, TN.
One Acre, 0 Inch Cap Scenario
CONCENTRATION LEVEL
(UG/M3)
9.193E-07
1.000E-07
1.000E-08
1.000E-09
1.000E-10
5.540E-11
CUMULATIVE
POPULATION EXPOSED
(PERSONS) (%)
0.00
0.00
0.64
29.94
97.72
0
0
5895
277148
904417
925566
100.00
CUMULATIVE
INHALATION EXPOSURE
(UG/YR) (%)
0.000E+00 0.00
0.000E+00 0.00
8.211E-01 9.40
6.543E+00 74.90
8.724E+00 99.86
8.736E+00 100.00
Table 10. 50 Kilometer Cumulative Population Exposed and
Inhalation Exposure to HCB around Tacoma, WA.
One Acre, 0 Inch Cap Scenario
CONCENTRATION LEVEL
(UG/M3)
9.136E-08
1.000E-08
1.000E-09
1.000E-10
1.000E-11
' 8.462E-12
CUMULATIVE
POPULATION EXPOSED
(PERSONS) (%)
0 0.00
0 0.00
4958 0.28
319902 17.90
1762216 98.61
1787083 100.00
CUMULATIVE
INHALATION EXPOSURE
(UG/YR) (%)
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
8.094E-02
8.139E-01
1.270E+00
1.272E+00
0.00
0.00
6.36
63.99
99.85
100.00
343
-------
VII. REFERENCES
Anderson, M.P. 1979. "Using Models to Simulate the Movement of
Contaminants through Groundwater Flow Systems", CRC-Critical Reviews
in Environmental Control.
Bonazountas, M. and J.M. Wagner. 1984. SESOIL - A seasonal' soil
compartment Model. Arthur D. Little Inc. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Bowers, J.F., et al., 1980. Industrial Source Complex (ISC)
Dispersion Model User's Guide (Volume I), PB80-133044, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
GSC. 1984. User's Guide to the Graphical Exposure Modeling System
(GEMS). Draft Report. General Software Corporation, Washington,
D.C.: Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Contract No. 68016618.
Synder W.S., Cook M.J., Nasset E.S. et al., 1974. Report of the task
group on reference man. International commission on radiological
protection No. 23. New York: Permagon Press.
Versar, Inc. 1984. "Creation of Groundwater Model Parameter Files".
Versar, Inc., Washington, D.C.: Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Versar, Inc. 1986. Personal Communication. Springfield, Va.
Yeh, G.T. 1981. "AT123D: Analytical Transient One-, Two-, and Three-
Dimensional Simulation of Waste Transport in the Aquifer System",
ORNL-Oak Ridge National Labortory, Oak Ridge, TN.
349
-------
350
-------
APPENDIX A. SECTOR SEGMENT AND CUMULATIVE RESULTS FOR ALL
ATMOSPHERIC MODELING SCENARIOS
3Di
-------
MEMPHIS SCENARIO
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; MEMPHIS SOURCE CATEGORY ; one acre EMISSION TYPE ; capO
DEPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS ! ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
POPULATION (PERSONS)
t POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
t POPULATION EXPOSURE - ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATEC22.0M3/DAY A 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.3 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR HID-ANGLE
N 0.0 8.129E-07 1.783E-07 S.745E-08 2.308E-08 1.33BE-OB 9.059E-09 4.695E-09 2.023E-09 1.049E-09 4.S47E-10
0 0 0 00 0 0 4184 675 3439
O.OOOE»00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 6.798E-02 5.686E-03 1.256E-02
NNE 22.5 6.071E-07 1.108E-07 3.154E-08 1.1GOE-03 G.450E-09 4.256E-09 2.143E-09 8.917E-10 4.S44E-10 1.942E-10
000000 10095 7971 2614 11151
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 1.737E-01 5.707E-02 9.538E-03 1.739E-02
NE 45.0 4.B86E-07 1.005E-07 3.159E-08 1.247E-08 7.168E-09 4.826E-09 2.484E-09 1.062E-09 5.479E-10 2.366E-10
000 358 6798 6230 13148 26373 18908 31666
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.S84E-02 3.913E-01 2.414E-01 2.623E-01 2.248E-01 8.320E-02 6.017E-02
ENE 67.5 4.305E-07 8.189E-08 2.401E-08 9.016E-09 5.070E-09 3.371E-09 1.712E-09 7.21BE-10 3.709E-10 1.598E-10
0 0 831 2696 4386 3344 33197 27817 45276 10836
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO 1.602E-01 1.952E-01 1.786E-01 9.052E-02 4.564E-01 1.612E-01 1.349E-01 1.391E-02
E 90.0 3.876E-07 8.186E-08 2.5B6E-08 1.023E-08 5.901E-09 3.982E-09 2.057E-09 8.B51E-10 4.596E-10 1.996E-10
0 0 263 484 2473 5512 25561 37137 33683 15972
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO S.461E-02 3.978E-02 1.172E-01 1.763E-01 4.222E-01 3.639E-01 1.243E-01 2.561E-02
OJ
f> ESE 112.5 2.927E-07 5.654E-08 1.6BOE-08 6.383E-09. 3.604E-09 2.400E-09 1.219E-09 5.129E-10 2.623E-10 1.122E-10
1X9 00 1S34 5115 5592 3585 38084 42248 88358 18498
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.475E-01 2.622E-01 1.618E-01 6.908E-02 3.729E-01 1.740E-01 1.861E-01 1.667E-02
SE 135.0 2.071E-07 3.904E-08 1.173E-08 4.487E-09 2.535E-09 1.688E-09 8.568E-10 3.S99E-10 1.839E-10 7.857E-11
0 0 161 3310 6031 7377 21652 13437 17612 12881
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.516E-02 1.193E-01 1.228E-01 9.997E-02 1.490E-01 3.B83E-02 2.601E-02 8.127E-03
SSE 157.5 2.251E-07 3.B87E-08 1.0G4E-08 3.785E-09 2.057E-09 1.335E-09 6.575E-10 2.6S3E-10 1.327E-10 5.540E-11
0 0 38 1644 3882 5607 120S7 33116 28CJ01 8268
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.247E-03 4.997E-02 6.412E-02 6.012E-02 6.382E-02 7.056E-02 3.079E-02 3.678E-03
S 180.0 3.260E-07 7.098E-08 2.285E-OB 9.167E-09 5.292E-09 3.5&V£-09 1.B3GE-09 7.B35E-10 4.033E-10 1.732E-10
000 1060 1656 4870 11134 41731 9522 8861
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.803E-02 7.037E-02 1.395E-01 1.642E-01 2.626E-01 3.083E-02 1.233E-02
SSU 202.5 3.B17E-07 7.136E-08 2.076E-08 7.763E-09 4.348E-09 2.B82E-09 1.458E-09 6.105E-10 3.121E-10 1.336E-10
0000000 8666 2297 429B
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.249E-02 S.7S7E-03 4.611E-03
SU 225.0 4.977E-07 9.802E-08 3.011E-08 1.171E-OB 6.693E-09 4.494E-09 2.308E-09 9.846E-10 5.082E-10 2.193E-10
000000 20 04 1583
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.706E-04 O.OOOEtOO 1.632E-05 2.788E-03
USU 247.5 7.502E-07 1.455E-07 4.304E-08 1.629E-08 9.224E-09 6.1&7E-09 3.155E-09 1.342E-09 6.929E-10 2.996E-10
00000004 1879 2991
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.312E-05 1.046E-02 7.195E-03
U 270.0 9.193E-07 2.136E-07 7.111E-08 2.915E-08 1.712E-08 1.169E-08 6.121E-09 2.675E-09 1.398E-0'J 6.101E-10
-------
0000 1926 0 12104 5750 996 1774
O.OOOE»00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.648E-01 O.OOOEtOO 5.950E-01 2.094E-01 1.118E-02 8.&92E-03
UNUI 292.5 &.963E-07 1.234E-07 3.44GE-08 1.24&E-08 6.902E-09 4.552E-09 2.294E-09 9.582E-10 4.904E-10 2.103E-10
000000 2318 4144 1854 8789
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.270E-02 3.189E-02 7.301E-03 1.484E-02
NU 315.0 6.373E-07 1.249E-07 3.840E-03 1.495E-08 8.561E-09 5.760E-09 2.96GE-09 1.270E-09 6.565E-10 2.838E-10
0000000 2246 0 2794
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO u.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO 2.290E-02 O.OOOEtOO &.3&8E-03
NNU 337.5 7.900E-07 1.&10E-07 4.942E-08 1.923E-08 1.103E-08 7.421E-09 3.826E-09 1.&41E-09 8.503E-10 3.&85E-10
0000000 196 642 3061
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.583E-03 4.384E-03 9.058E-03
SO.O KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
RESULTING FROM capO EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY one acre
AROUND MEMPHIS
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (X) (UG/YR) (X)
9.193E-07 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-07 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-08 5895 0.64 8.211E-01 9.40
l.OOOE-09 277148 29.94 6.543£tOO 74.90
l.OOOE-10 904417 97.72 8.724EtOO 99.86
S.540E-11 925566 100.00 8.736EtOO 100.00
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; MEMPHIS SOURCE CATEGORY ; one acre EMISSION TYPE ; C3p6
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
I POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
» POPULATION EXPOSURE = ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATE(22.0M3/DAY A 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N 0.0 8.972E-08 1.968E-08 6.340E-09 2.547E-09 1.477E-09 9.998E-10 S.182E-10 2.233E-10 1.158E-10 5.019E-11
0 000000 4184 675 3439
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.503E-03 6.275E-04 1.386E-03
NNE 22.5 6.701E-08 1.223E-08 3.482E-09 1.281E-09 7.118E-10 4.697E-10 2.365E-10 9.842E-11 5.015E-11 2.143E-11
000000 10095 7971 2614 11151
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.917E-02 6.299E-03 1.053E-03 1.919E-03
NE 45.0 5.393E-08 1.109E-08 3.487E-09 1.376E-09 7.912E-10 5.326E-10 2.742E-10 1.172E-10 6.048E-H 2.612E-11
000 358 6798 6230 13148 26373 18908 31666
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.956E-03 4.319E-02 2.6&5E-02 2.895E-02 2.481E-02 9.182E-03 6.641E-03
ENE 67.5 4.752E-08 9.038E-09 2.650E-09 9.951E-10 5.596E-10 3.721E-10 1.890E-10 7.967E-11 4.094E-11 1.764E-11
0 0 831 2696 438G 3344 33197 27817 45276 10836
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.768E-02 2.154E-02 1.971E-02 9.990E-03 5.037E-02 1.780E-02 1.489E-02 1.535E-03
-------
OO'O OO+3000'O OO'O 0- 80-3000M
OO'O OO+3000'O OO'O 0 £0-3000M
OO'O 00»3000'0 OO'O 0 £0-3SIO't
(X) m/DCl) (X) (SNOS83J) (EH/OR)
N0ii«nn OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O
68£B VSBt V»IV 8IEE 0 0 00 0 0
IT-3ieE'Z tl-3El»'S 01-3850'T Ot-3EES'E OI-3»EO'S OI-3£T9'£ 60-39^E'l 60-3frOB'E BO-3E9E'! 80-3989'^ S'E&E HN«
frO-3E6S'G EO-3VEE't EO-3IIE'E EO-3£95'9 OO+3000'O EO-3EE6'E OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O
*iil 966 05^6 VOICt 0 9EG1 0000
TI-3VE£'9 OI-3EVSM Ot-3ES6'E OI-39S^'9 GO-306E't 60-306BM 60-3BIE'E 60-38VB'<: BO-3^SE'E ^0-3SIOM O'OiE H
90-3GSi'V OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O
I66E 6^81 VOOOOOOO
II-390E'E H-3BV9'/; OI-3E8»'I OI-3E8>'E 01-390fl'9 GO-38IO'T 60-386^'T 60-315^'V BO-3909'I BO-308E'B S'^»E HSH
VO-3iiO'E 90-3EOB'! OO+3000'O SO-3IGO'* OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O
E8S1 VOOE 000000
Il-3tEV'E U-3609'S Ot-3^80't OI-3^»S'E 01-3096'* OI-34BEV GO-3CGEM GO-3tEE'E BO-3EBO'! BO-3E6»'S O'SEE MS
frO-3680'S »0-3VSE'9 EO-3689'* OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O OO+3000'O
B&EV £6EE 999B 0000000
t!-3S*V'E II-36E£'9 Ol-3609't OI-3I8I'E 01-366^'* Ot-3B9S'B GO-3tGE'E 60-3^^8'^ BO-3EtE'fr S'EOE HSS
EO-309E'! EO-3EOVE EO-3868'E EO-3EtB'I EO-3GES'! EO-3i9^V EO-3E19'8 OO + 3000'O OO + 3000'O OO + 3000'O
1988 EESG IE£It frEtll OiB* 9S9I 0901 000
U-3ET&'! U-3ISV'* II-38>9'8 OT-3^EO'E 01-39E6'E Ot-3I»B'S GO-3EIO'! GO-3EES'E 60-3>EB'^ BO-366S'E O'OBT
VO-36SO'» EO-386E'E EO-388£'£ EO-3E>0'£ EO-3SE9'9 EO-3^^0'^ EO-3STS'S VO-3V8S'E OO+3000'O OO+3000'O
B9E8 I068E 9I1EE ^BOEI ^09S C8BE . \r\r<)\ 8E 0 0
EI-3HI'9 II-3»9»'I It-36E6'E U-3iSE'i OI-3V^»'T Ot-30^E'E QI-3UI'* &0-3»/;t't &0-30&E'* 80-3>8V'E SVSt 3SS
frO-30^6'8 EO-3U8'E EO-39BE'* EO-3frV9'I EO-3EOIM EO-3SSEM EO-39TEM EO-3Ei9'I OO + 3000'O OO + 3000'O
188ET EI941 iE^EI ES9tE iitf. TE09 OIEE I9T 0 0
Et-3E^9'B n-SOTO'E 1I-3E^6'E n-3^S»'6 01-3E9B'! OI-38Gi'E 01-3ES&'* 60-3*GE'I 60-3GOE'* 80-398E'E O'SEI 35
EO-3&EB't EO-3frSO'E EO-30E&M EO-39ITb EO-3*E9V E0-398il't EO-3V68'E EO-3EEi'E OO + 3000'O OO + 3000'O
BGfrSt 8SE88 81-EEt f-BOSE S8SE c&SS SlIS VE8I 0 0
1I-38EEM TT-3S68'E tI-3T99'S Ol-39lrE'I 01-38»9'E Ol-3i^6'E Ot-3S»OV 60-3SSB'! 60-3IbE'9 80-30EE'E S'EII 3S3
EO-39E8'E EO-3E^E't EO-3Et6'E EO-3099'^ EO-3Sfr6'l EO-3FC-CM EO--306E'fr EO-3£EO'9 OO + 3000'O OO'HOOO'O
C^GSI EB9EE £Et£E 195SE EISS EifrE frB» E9E 0 0
U-3VOE'E It-3Ei:0'S U-369^'6 OI-30^E'E OI-3S6E'V OI-3CI5'9 GO-30ET'! &0-3t-S8'E 60-35EO'6 BO-3BiE'» O'OG '
-------
l.OOOE-09 6955 0.75 9.924E-02 10.29
l.OOOE-10 281292 30.39 7.257E-01 75.26
l.OOOE-11 904417 97.72 9.629E-01 99.86
6.114E-12 925566 100.00 9.642E-01 100.00
* CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATIN«
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; MEMPHIS SOURCE CATEGORY ; one acre EMISSION TYPE ; cap!2
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
» POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
I POPULATION EXPOSURE = ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION k POPULATION k ANNUAL BMiATHINQ RATEC22.OM3/DAY A 365. OAYS/YR*
DISTANCES
-------
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 3.910E-05 O.OOOE+00 1.722E-OG 2.940E-04
USU 247.5 7.913E-08 1.534E-08 4.540E-09 1.718E-09 9.730E-10 G.505E-10 3.328E-10 1.416E-10 7.309E-11 3.160E-11
00000004 1879 2991
O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE»00 O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+OO 4.548E-OG 1.103E-03 7.589E-04
U 270.0 9.G97E-OB 2.253E-08 7.S01E-09 3.075E-09 1.80GE-09 1.233E-09 6.457E-10 2.821E-10 1.475E-10 G.436E-11
0000 1926 0 12104 9750 996 1774
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.793E-02 O.OOOE+00 6.276E-02 2.209E-02 1.179E-03 9.168E-04
UNU 292.5 7.345E-08 1.302E-08 3.G35E-09 1.315E-09 7.280E-10 4.802E-10 2.420E-10 1.011E-10 5.173E-11 2.218E-11
000000 2318 4144 1854 8789
O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 4.504E-03 3.3G3E-03 7.701E-0-1 1.5G6E-03
NU 315.0 G.722E-08 1.318E-08 4.051E-09 1.577E-09 9.030E-10 G.075E-10 3.128E-10 1.340E-10 6.925E-11 2.994E-11
0000000 224G 0 2794
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.416E-03 O.OOOE+00 G.717E-04
NNU 337.5 B.333E-08 1.698E-08 3.212E-09 2.029E-09 1.163E-09 7.828E-10 4.03GE-10 1.731E-10 8.9G9E-11 3.887E-11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 642 30G1
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.725E-04 4.624E-04 9.S54E-04
50.0 KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
RESULTING FROM csp!2 EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY one acre
AROUND MEMPHIS
££ CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
C*» CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (X) (UG/YR) (Z>
9.697E-08 0 0.00 O.OOOE+00 0.00
l.OOOE-08 0 0.00 O.OOOE+00 0.00
l.OOOE-09 5895 0.64 8.6G1E-02 9.40
l.OOOE-10 281292 30.39 6.935E-01 75.26
l.OOOE-11 904417 97.72 9.202E-01 99.86
5.843E-12 925566 100.00 9.215E-01 100.00
* CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE WAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; MEMPHIS SOURCE CATEGORY ; one acre EMISSION TYPE ; cap24
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
t POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
» POPULATION EXPOSURE = ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATE(22.OM3/DAY A 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N 0.0 7.827E-08 1.717E-08 5.531E-09 2.222E-09 1.289E-09 B.722E-10 4.521E-10 1.948E-10 1.010E-10 4.37BE-11
0000000 4184 G7S 3439
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 6.545E-03 5.474E-04 1.209E-03
NNE 22.5 5.846E-08 1.067E-08 3.037E-09 1.117E-09 G.210E-10 4.098E-10 2.063E-10 8.585E-11 4.375E-11 1.8G9E-11
000000 10095 7971 2614 11151
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.G73E-02 5.495E-03 9.183E-04 1.674E-03
NE 45.0 4.704E-OB 9.678E-09 3.042E-09 1.200E-09 G.902E-10 4.64GE-10 2.392E-10 1.022E-10 5.27GE-11 2.278E-11
-------
000 158 679B 6230 13143 26373 18900 31666
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE»00 3.451E-03 3.767E-02 2.324E-02 2.525E-02 2.16SE-02 8.010E-03 S.794E-03
ENE 67.5 4.145E-08 7.B84E-09 2.312E-09 8.680E-10 4.382E-10 3.246E-10 1.64BE-10 6.950E-11 3.372E-11 1.539E-11
0 0 831 2696 4386 3344 33197 27817 45276 10836
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.543E-02 1.879E-02 1.719E-02 8.715E-03 4.394E-02 1.S52E-02 1.298E-02 1.339E-03
E 90.0 3.731E-08 7.881E-09 2.490E-09 9.854E-10 5.682E-10 3.834E-10 1.981E-10 8.522E-11 4.425E-11 1.922E-11
0 0 263 484 2473 5512 25561 37137 33683 15972
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 5.258E-03 3.830E-03 1.128E-02 1.697E-02 4.065E-02 2.541E-02 1.197E-02 2.465E-03
ESE 112.S 2.819E-08 S.444E-09 1.613E-09 G.146E-10 3.470E-10 2.310E-10 1.174E-10 4.93BE-11 2.S26E-11 1.080E-11
0 0 1834 5115 5592 3585 38084 42148 88358 18498
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE*00 2.383E-02 2.524E-02 1.558E-02 6.651E-03 3.591E-02 1.675E-02 1.792E-02 1.605E-03
SE 135.0 1.994E-08 3.759E-09 1.V29E-09 4.320E-10 2.441E-VO 1.625E-10 8.249E-11 3.465E-11 1.77VE-11 7.565E-12
0 0 161 3310 6031 7377 21652 13437 17612 12881
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.460E-03 1.148E-02 1.1B2E-02 9.625E-03 1.434E-02 3.739E-03 2.505E-03 7.825E-04
SSE 157.3 2.167E-08 3.742E-09 1.025E-09 3.644E-10 1.980E-10 1.286E-10 6.331E-11 2.555E-11 1.277E-11 5.334E-12
0 0 38 1644 3882 5607 12087 33116 28901 8268
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.126E-04 4.811E-03 6.174E-03 5.788E-03 6.144E-03 6.794E-03 2.965E-03 3.S41E-04
S 180.0 3.139E-08 6.834E-09 2.200E-09 B.B27E-10 5.095E-10 3.434E-10 1.76BE-10 7.S44E-11 3.803E-11 1.668E-11
000 1060 1656 4870 11134 41731 9522 8861
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.513E-03 6.775E-03 1.343E-02 1.S81E-02 2.528E-02 2.969E-03 1.187E-03
SSU 202.5 3.675E-08 6.871E-09 1.999E-09 7.474E-10 4.187E-10 2.775E-10 1.404E-10 3.878E-11 3.005E-11 1.286E-11
0000000 8666 2297 4298
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.091E-03 S.S43E-04 4.439E-04
SU 225.0 4.792E-08 9.438E-09 2.899E-09 1.127E-09 &.444E-10 4.326E-10 2.222E-10 9.480E-11 4.893E-11 2.112E-U
000000 20 04 1SB3
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.S69E-OS O.OOOEtOO 1.572E-06 2.684E-04
USU 247.5 7.223E-08 1.401E-08 4.144E-09 1.568E-09 8.B81E-10 S.938E-10 3.038E-10 1.293E-10 G.G72E-11 2.884E-11
00000004 1879 2991
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.152E-06 1.007E-03 6.927E-04
U 270.0 8.851E-08 2.036E-08 6.B47E-09 2.807E-09 1.648E-09 1.125E-09 3.894E-10 2.375E-10 1.346E-10 5.875E-11
0 0 0 0 1926 0 12104 9750 996 1774
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.549E-02 O.OOOEtOO 5.728E-02 2.016E-02 1.076E-03 8.3&8E-04
UNU 292.5 6.704E-08 1.188E-08 3.318E-09 1.200E-09 6.645E-10 4.383E-10 2.209E-10 9.226E-1I 4.722E-U 2.02SE-11
000000 2318 4144 1854 8789
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO o:OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.111E-03 3.0.70E-03 7.029E-04 1.429E-03
MU 315.0 6.136E-08 1.203E-08 3.697E-09 1.439E-09 8.243E-10 5.546E-10 2.855E-10 1.223E-10 6.321E-11 2.733E-11
0000000 2246 0 2794
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.20SE-03 O.OOOEtOO 6.132E-04
NNU 337.5 7.606E-08 1.S50E-08 4.758E-09 1.852E-09 1.062E-09 7.145E-10 3.684E-10 1.580E-10 8.187E-11 3.S48E-U
0000000 196 642 3061
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.487E-04 4.221E-04 8.721E-04
SO.O Krt RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
RESULTING FROM c?p24 EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY one acre
AROUND MEMPHIS
-------
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSEIi POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UQ/M3) (PERSONS) (X) (UG/YR) (2>
8.851E-OB 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-08 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-09 5411 0.58 7.523E-02 8.94
l.OOOE-10 277148 29.94 6.300E-01 74.90
l.OOOE-11 904417 97.72 8.400E-01 99.86
S.334E-12 925566 100.00 B.411E-01 100.00
* CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; MEMPHIS SOURCE CATEGORY ; hslfacre EMISSION TYPE ; capO
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
* POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
» POPULATION EXPOSURE * ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATE(22.OM3/DAY A 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N 0.0 4.525E-07 9.216E-08 2.901E-08 1.158E-08 &.705E-09 4.536E-09 2.351E-09 1.013E-09 5.250E-10 2.276E-10
0000000 4184 675 3439
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.402E-02 2.B46E-03 6.2B6E-03
NNE 22.5 3.199E-07 5.397E-08 1.S18E-08 5.&21E-09 3.144E-09 2.084E-09 1.055E-09 4.420E-10 2.260E-10 9.&83E-11
,. 000000 10095 7971 2614 11151
j£ O.OOOE*00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO 8.553E-02 2.829E-02 4.743E-03 8.&70E-03
00
NE 45.0 2.628E-07 S.148E-08 1.5B5E-08 6.229E-09 3.579E-09 2.410E-09 1.241E-09 5.307E-10 2.741E-10 1.184E-10
0 0 0 358 6798 6230 13148 26373 18908 31666
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 1.791E-02 1.954E-01 1.206E-01 1.310E-01 1.124E-01 4.161E-02 3.011E-02
ENE 67.5 2.305E-07 4.056E-08 1.172E-08 4.416E-09 2.493E-09 1.662E-09 8.476E-10 3.589E-10 1.849E-10 7.980E-11
0 0 831 2696 4386 3344 33197 27817 45276 10836
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.B21E-02 9.3&1E-02 8.7B2E-02 4.464E-02 2.2&OE-01 B.01BE-02 &.722E-02 &.944E-03
E 90.0 2.129E-07 4.206E-08 1.301E-08 5.122E-09 2.950E-09 1.991E-09 1.029E-09 4.426E-10 2.300E-10 9.992E-11
0 0 263 484 2473 5512 25561 37137 33683 15972
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.747E-02 1.991E-02 5.859E-02 8.B12E-02 2.H1E-01 1.320E-01 6.220E-02 1.282E-02
ESE 112.5 1.572E-07 2.820E-08 B.251E-09 3.141E-09 1.779E-09 1.187E-09 6.051E-10 2.553E-10 1.309E-10 5.G05E-11
0 0 1834 5115 5592 3585 38084 42248 8B358 18498
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.215E-01 1.290E-01 7.9B6E-02 3.417E-02 1.B50E-01 8.6G3E-02 9.284E-02 8.326E-03
SE 135.0 1.074E-07 1.962E-08 5.795E-09 2.218E-09 1.256E-09 B.374E-10 4.261E-10 1.794E-10 9.185E-11 3.927E-H
0 0 161 3310 6031 7377 21GS2 13437 17612 12881
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.492E-03 5.896E-02 6.080E-02 4.960E-02 7.408E-02 1.936E-02 1.299E-02 4.062E-03
SSE 157.5 1.165E-07 1.871E-OB 5.056E-09 1.815E-09 9.942E-10 6.490E-10 3.218E-10 1.310E-10 6.581E-11 2.758E-11
0 0 38 164-1 3882 5607 12087 33116 28901 8268
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.543E-03 2.39GE-02 3.099E-02 2.922E-02 3.124E-02 3.484E-02 1.527E-02 1.831E-03
S 1BO.O 1.B04C-07 3.686E-08 1.15BE-08 4.612E-09 2.&5&E-09 1.789E-09 9.204E-10 3.924E-10 2.019E-10 B.673E-11
000 1060 1656 4870 11134 41731 9522 8861
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.926E-02 3.532E-02 6.995E-02 8.229E-02 1.315E-01 1.544E-02 6.171E-03
-------
SfJU 202.S 2.023E-07 3.518E-08 1.009E-08 3.792E-09 2.134E-09 1.419E-09 7.209E-10 3.033E-10 I.J55E-10 6.669E-H
0000000 8666 2297 4298
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.111E-02 2.868E-03 2.302E-03
SU 225.0 2.&25E-07 4.952E--08 1.494E-08 5.804E-09 3.322E-09 2.234E-09 1.149E-09 4.912E-10 2.S38E-10 1.097E-10
0 00000 20 04 1533
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.846E-04 O.OOOEtOO 8.154E-06 1.394E-03
USU 247.5 4.049E-07 7.189E-08 2.098E-08 7.971E-09 4.533E-09 3.040E-09 1.5&2E-09 G.&74E-10 3.454E-10 1.49GE-10
0 0 0 0 0 00 4 1879 2991
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.144E-OS 5.211E-03 3.S93E-03
U 270.0 5.207E-07 1.120E-07 3.629E-08 1.473E-08 8.622E-09 5.B7BE-09 3.074E-09 1.341E-09 7.005E-10 3.056E-10
0000 1926 0 12104 9750 996 1774
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.333E-01 O.OOOEtOO 2.987E-01 1.050E-01 5.603E-03 4.3S4E-03
UNU 292.5 3.626E-07 3.933E-08 1.&37E-08 5.978E-09 3.337E-09 2.214E-09 1.124E-09 4.735E-10 2.434E-10 1.048E-10
000000 2318 4144 1854 8789
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.092E-02 1.576E-02 3.624E-03 7.393E-03
NU 315.0 3.344E-07 6.297E-08 1.903E-08 7.403E-09 4.246E-09 2.861E-09 1.476E-09 6.334E-10 3.279E-10 1.419E-10
0 000000 2246 0 2794
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.142E-02 O.OOOEtOO 3.184E-03
KNU 337.5 4.316E-07 8.100E-08 2.44GE-08 9.521E-09 5.467E-09 3.&8&E-09 1.904E-09 8.187E-10 4.247E-10 1.842E-10
0000000 196 642 3061
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.2B9E-03 2.189E-03 4.529E-03
50.0 KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
RESULTING FROM cjpO EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY hilfacre
AROUND MEMPHIS
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (UG/YR) (X)
5.207E-07 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-07 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-08 1094 0.12 1.057E-01 2.43
l.OOOE-09 147377 15.92 2.516EtOO 57.89
l.OOOE-10 788288 85.17 4.266£tOO 98.17
2.7SBE-11 925566 100.00 4.346EtOO 100.00
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE WAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; MEMPHIS SOURCE CATEGORY ; halfacre EMISSION TYPE ; capG
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES WITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
I POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
t POPULATION EXPOSURE » ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATE(22.0H3/DAY A 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 V5.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N 0.0 4.994E-08 1.017E-08 3.202E-09 1.27BE-09 7.401E-10 5.007E-10 2.594E-10 1.118E-10 5.795E-11 2.512E-11
0 000000 4184 675 3439
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.755E-03 3.141E-04 6.938E-04
-------
NNE 22.5 3.531E-08 5.957E-09 1.G75E-09 G.204E-10 3.470E-10 2.300E-10 1.1G5E-10 4.879E-11 2.494E-11 1.0G9E-11
000000 10095 7971 2614 11151
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 9.441E-03 3.123E-03 5.235E-04 9.570E-04
NE 45.0 2.900E-08 5.682E-09 1.749E-09 6.375E-10 3.950E-10 2.6GOE-10 1.370E-10 S.858E-11 3.025E-11 1.307E-11
0 0 0 353 6798 6230 13148 26373 18908 31G66
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 1.977E-03 2.156E-02 1.331E-02 1.446E-02 1.240E-02 4.593E-03 3.323E-03
ENE 67.S 2.544E-08 4.476E-09 1.294E-09 4.875E-10 2.752E-10 1.835E-10 9.355E-11 3.962E-11 2.041E-11 8.808E-12
0 0 831 2696 4386 3344 33197 27817 45276 10836
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 8.632E-03 1.055E-02 9.G93E-03 4.927E-03 2.494E-02 8.849E-03 7.420E-03 7.664E-04
E 90.0 2.350E-08 4.642E-09 1.436E-09 5.653E-10 3.256E-10 2.197E-10 1.135E-10 4.886E-U 2.S38E-11 1.103E-11
0 0 263 484 2473 5512 255&1 37137 33683 15972
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.032E-03 2.197E-03 6.467E-03 9.726E-03 2.330E-02 1.457E-02 6.865E-03 1.414E-03
ESE 112.5 1.733E-08 3.112E-09 9.107E-10 3.467E-10 1.963E-10 1.310E-10 6.678E-11 2.818E-11 1.444E-11 6.186E-12
0 0 1834 5115 5592 3585 38004 42248 88358 18498
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 1.341E-02 1.424E-02 8.815E-03 3.771E-03 2.042E-02 9.561E-03 1.025E-02 9.189E-04
SE 135.0 1.185E-08 2.166E-09 G.396E-10 2.448E-10 1.3B6E-10 9.242E-11 4.703E-11 1.980E-11 1.014E-11 4.335E-12
0 0 161 3310 6031 7377 216S2 13437 17612 12881
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 8.269E-04 6.507E-03 6.711E-03 5.475E-03 8.176E-03 2.137E-03 1.434E-03 4.484E-04
SSE 157.5 1.286E-08 2.065E-09 5.580E-10 2.003E-10 1.097E-10 7.163E-11 3.552E-11 1.446E-11 7.264E-12 3.044E-12
0 0 38 1644 3882 5607 12087 33116 28901 8268
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.703E-04 2.645E-03 3.420E-03 3.225E-03 3.448E-03 3.845E-03 1.686E-03 2.021E-04
S 180.0 1.991E-08 4.068E-09 1.278E-09 5.090E-10 2.932E-10 1.974E-10 1.016E-10 4.330E-11 2.229E-11 9.573E-12
000 1060 1656 4870 11134 41731 9522 8861
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.333E-03 3.898E-03 7.721E-03 9.082E-03 1.451E-02 1.704E-03 6.812E-04
SSU 202.5 2.233E-08 3.883E-09 1.H4E-09 4.1B5E-10 2.355E-10 1.566E-10 7.957E-11 3.348E-11 1.716E-11 7.361E-12
0000000 8666 2297 4298
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.330E-03 3.165B-04 2.540E-04
SU 225.0 2.897E-08 5.466E-09 1.649E-09 6.406E-10 3.666E-10 2.465E-10 1.268E-10 5.422E-U 2.802E-11 1.210E-11
0 00000 20 04 1583
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.037E-05 O.OOOEtOO 8.999E-07 1.538E-04
USU 247.5 4.469E-08 7.934E-09 2.315E-09 8.798E-10 5.003E-10 3.356E-10 1.724E-10 7.367E-11 3.812E-11 1.651E-11
00000004 1879 2991
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.366E-06 5.751E-04 3.965E-04
U 270.0 S.748E-OB 1.236E-08 4.006E-09 1.626E-09 9.516E-10 6.487E-10 3.392E-10 1.480E-10 7.732E-11 3.373E-11
0000 1926 0 12104 9750 996 1774
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.472E-02 O.OOOEtOO 3.297E-02 1.1S9E-02 6.184E-04 4.805E-04
WNU 292.3 4.002E-08 6.549E-09 1.807E-09 6.598E-10 3.684E-10 2.444E-10 1.240E-10 5.226E-11 2.687E-H 1.15GE-11
000000 2318 4144 1854 8789
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 2.309E-03 1.739E-03 4.000E-04 8.160E-04
NU 315.0 3.690E-08 6.950E-09 2.100E-09 B.170E-10 4.687E-10 3.157E-10 1.629E-10 6.991E-11 3.619E-11 1.566E-11
0000000 2246 0 2794
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.261E-03 O.OOOEtOO 3.514E-04
NNU 337.5 4.763E-08 3.940E-09 2.700E-09 1.051E-09 6.034E-10 4.068E-10 2.101E-10 9.036E-11 4.G88E-11 2.033E-11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 642 30G1
O.OOOEtOO 0.00'OEtOO O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.422E-04 2.417E-04 4.998E-04
-------
50.0 KH RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
RESULTING FROM cip6 EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY hjlfacra
AROUND MEMPHIS
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (UG/YR) (%)
5.748E-OB 0 0.00 O.OOOE+00 0.00
l.OOOE-OB 0 0.00 O.OOOE+00 0.00
l.OOOE-09 1094 0.12 1.166E-02 2.43
l.OOOE-IO 162393 17.55 2.902E-01 60.50
l.OOOE-11 833023 90.00 4.747E-01 98.97
3.044E-12 925566 100.00 4.797E-01 100.00
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED WITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; MEMPHIS SOURCE CATEGORY ; halficre EMISSION TYPE ; cap!2
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES WITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
» POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
t POPULATION EXPOSURE = ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION * POPULATION * ANNUAL BREATHING RATE<22.OH3/DAY * 36S. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N 0.0 4.773E-08 9.721E-09 3.060E-09 1.222E-09 7.073E-10 4.7B5E-10 2.479E-10 1.068E-10 5.538E-1I 2.401E-11
0000000 4184 675 3439
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 3.588E-03 3.002E-04 6.630E-04
NNE 22.5 3.375E-08 5.692E-09 1.601E-09 5.929E-10 3.316E-10 2.198E-10 1.113E-10 4.662E-11 2.384E-11 1.021E-11
0 0 0 0 00 10095 7971 2614 11151
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 9.022E-03 2.984E-03 5.003E-04 9.145E-04
NE 45.0 2.772E-08 5.430E-09 1.672E-09 6.571E-10 3.775E-10 2.542E-10 1.309E-10 5.59BE-11 2.891E-11 1.249E-11
000 358 6798 6230 13148 26373 18908 31666
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.889E-03 2.061E-02 1.272E-02 1.382E-02 1.186E-02 4.389E-03 3.176E-03
ENE 67.5 2.431E-08 4.27BE-09 1.236E-09 4.658E-10 2.&30E-10 1.754E-10 8.941E-H 3.786E-11 1.950E-11 8.418E-12
0 0 831 2696 4386 3344 33197 27817 45276 10836
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 8.249E-03 1.008E-02 9.263E-03 4.709E-03 2.383E-02 8.457E-03 7.091E-03 7.324E-04
E 90.0 2.24&E-08 4.437E-09 1.372E-09 5.403E-10 3.112E-10 2.100E-10 1.085E-10 4.6G9E-11 2.426E-11 1.054E-11
0 0 263 484 2473 S512 25561 37137 33683 1S972
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.897E-03 2.100E-03 6.180E-03 9.295E-03 2.227E-02 1.392E-02 6.561E-03 1.352E-03
ESE 112.5 1.658E-08 2.974E-09 8.703E-10 3.313E-10 1.876E-10 1.252E-10 6.382E-11 2.693E-11 1.380E-11 5.912E-12
0 0 1834 5115 5592 3585 38084 42248 88358 18498
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.282E-02 1.361E-02 8.424E-03 3.604E-03 1.952E-02 9.137E-03 9.793E-03 8.782E-04
SE 135.0 1.133E-08 2.070E-09 6.112E-10 2.340E-10 1.324E-10 8.832E-11 4.494E-11 1.892E-11 9.6B8E-12 4.143E-12
0 0 161 3310 6031 7377 21652 13437 17612 12881
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 7.902E-04 6.219E-03 6.413E-03 5.232E-03 7.814E-03 2.042E-03 1.370E-03 4.285E-04
SSE 157.5 1.229E-08 1.973E-09 5.333E-10 1.915E-10 1.049E-10 6.845E-11 3.395E-11 1.382E-11 6.942E-12 2.909E-12
0 ' 0 38 1644 3882 5607 12087 33116 28901 8268
-------
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.G27E-04 2.523E-03 3.269E-03 3.082E-03 3.295E-03 3.G75E-03 1.611E-03 1.932E-04
S 180.0 1.903E-08 3.888E-09 1.222E-09 4.8G5E-10 2.B02E-10 1.887E-10 9.708E-11 4.139E-11 2.130E-11 9.149E-12
000 10GO 1G5G 4870 11134 41731 9522 3861
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 4.141E-03 3.72GE-03 7.378E-03 8.G80E-03 1.387E-02 1.G29E-03 G.510E-04
S!3U 202.5 2.134E-08 3.7HE-09 1.0G5E-09 3.999E-10 2.250E-10 1.497E-10 7.604E-11 3.200E-11 1.G40E-11 7.034E-12
0000000 8G6G 2297 4298
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.227E-03 3.025E-04 2.428E-04
SU 225.0 2.769E-08 5.224E-09 1.576E-09 G.122E-10 3.504E-10 2.35GE-10 1.212E-10 5.1B2E-11 2.G78E-11 1.157E-11
000000 20 04 1383
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.947E-05 O.OOOE+00 8.600E-07 1.470E-04
USU 247.5 4.271E-08 7.583E-09 2.213E-09 8.40BE-10 4.782E-10 3.207E-10 1.G47E-10 7.040E-11 3.G43E-11 1.578E-11
00000004 1879 2991
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.261E-OG 3.496E-04 3.789E-04
U 270.0 5.493E-08 1.181E-08 3.828E-09 1.554E-09 9.094E-10 G.200E-10 3.242E-10 1.414E-10 7.389E-11 3.224E-11
0000 192G 0 12104 9750 996 1774
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.40GE-02 O.OOOE+00 3.151E-02 1.107E-02 S.910E-04 4.592E-04
UNU 292.5 3.825E-08 G.258E-09 1.727E-O9 &.30&E-10 3.S20E-10 2.336E-1O 1.195E-1O 4.995E-11 2.5&8E-11 1.1O5E-11
000000 2318 4144 1854 8789
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.20GE-03 1.GG2E-03 3.823E-04 7.79BE-04
NU 315.0 3.527E-08 G.642E-09 2.007E-09 7.808E-10 4.479E-10 3.017E-10 1.557E-10 &.681E-11 3.459E-11 1.497E-11
00 0 0 0 0 0 224G 0 2794
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.205E-03 O.OOOE+00 3.358E-04
^ NNU 337.5 4.552E-08 8.543E-09 2.580E-09 1.004E-09 5.76GE-10 3.888E-10 2.008E-10 8.G36E-H 4.480E-11 1.943E-11
Oi 0000000 19& 642 30G1
f\5 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.359E-04 2.309E-04 4.777E-04
50.0 KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
RESULTING FROH cipl2 EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY halfacre
AROUND MEMPHIS
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (X) (UG/YR) (X)
3.493E-OB 0 0.00 O.OOOE+00 0.00
l.OOOE-OB 0 0.00 O.OOOE+00 0.00
l.OOOE-09 1094 0.12 1.115E-02 2.43
l.OOOE-10 151259 1G.34 2.&87E-01 58.Gl
l.OOOE-11 815411 88.10 4.523E-01 98.67
2.909E-12 9255G& 100.00 4.5S4E-01 100.00
* CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; MEMPHIS SOURCE CATEGORY ; hilfacre EMISSION TYPE ; cap24
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UIIHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
t POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
I POPULATION EXPOSURE = ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION * POPULATION k ANNUAL BREATHING RATE(22.0M3/DAY * 3G5. DAYS/YR*
-------
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4. •->- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N 0.0 4.356E-08 8.674E-09 2.794E-09 1.USE-OS 6.456E-10 4.368E-10 2.263E-10 9.749E-11 5.055E-11 2.192E-H
0000000 4184 675 3439
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.27GE-03 2.740E-04 G.OS2E-04
NNE 22.5 3.081E-OS 5.19GE-09 1.461E-09 5.412E-10 3.027E-10 2.00GE-10 1.01GE-10 4.25GE-11 2.17GE-11 9.323E-12
000000 10095 7971 2G14 11151
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 8.235E-03 2.724E-03 4.5G7E-04 8.34QE-04
NE 45.0 2.530E-08 4.937E-09 1.526E-09 5.998E-10 3.44GE-10 2.321E-10 1.195E-10 5.110E-11 2.G39E-11 1.140E-11
000 358 G798 G230 13148 2G373 18908 31GGG
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.724E-03 1.B81E-02 1.1G1E-02 1.262E-02 1.0B2E-02 4.007E-03 2.B99E-03
ENE 67.5 2.219E-08 3.905E-09 1.128E-09 4.252E-10 2.401E-10 1.G01E-10 8.1&1E-11 3.45GE-11 1.780E-H 7.G84E-12
0 0 831 2G9G 438G 3344 33197 27817 45276 1083G
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.530E-03 9.20GE-03 8.455E-03 4.298E-03 2.17GE-02 7.720E-03 G.472E-03 6.68GE-04
E 90.0 2.050E-08 4.0SOE-09 1.252E-09 4.931E-10 2.841E-10 1.917E-10 9.904E-11 4.262E-11 2.214E-11 9.621E-12
0 0 2G3 484 2473 5512 25561 37137 33683 15972
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.G45E-03 1.917E-03 5.G41E-03 8.485E-03 2.033E-02 1.271E-02 5.989E-03 1.234E-03
ESE 112.3 1.S14E-08 2.715E-09 7.944E-10 3.024E-10 1.712E-10 1.143E-10 5.82GE-11 2.459E-11 1.260E-11 3.397E-12
0 0 1834 5115 5592 3S85 38084 42248 88358 18498
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.170E-02 1.242E-02 7.GB9E-03 3.290E-03 1.782E-02 B.341E-03 B.939E-03 8.016E-04
SE 135.0 1.034E-08 1.B89E-09 5.579E-10 2.136E-10 1.209E-10 8.0G2E-11 4.102E-11 1.727E-11 8.843E-12 3.781E-12
0 0 161 3310 6031 7377 21652 13437 17612 12881
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.213E-04 5.67GE-03 5.854E-03 4.776E-03 7.132E-03 1.864E-03 1.251E-03 3.911E-04
SSE 157.5 1.122E-08 1.B01E-09 4.868E-10 1.748E-10 9.572E-11 6.248E-1! 3.099E-11 1.261E-11 6.336E-12 2.656E-12
0 0 38 1644 3682 5607 12087 33116 28901 82GB
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.485E-04 2.307E-03 2.9S4E-03 2.813E-03 3.008E-03 3.3S5E-03 1.471E-03 1.763E-04
S 180.0 1.737E-08 3.549E-09 1.115E-09 4.441E-10 2.557E-10 1.722E-10 8.862E-11 3.77BE-11 1.944E-11 8.351E-12
000 1060 1656 4870 11134 41731 9522 8861
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.780E-03 3.401E-03 6.735E-03 7.923E-03 1.266E-02 1.487E-03 5.942E-04
SSU 202.5 1.94BE-08 3.387E-09 9.718E-10 3.651E-10 2.054E-10 1.366E-10 6.941E-11 2.921E-11 1.497E-11 6.421E-12
0000000 8666 2297 4298
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.032E-03 2.761E-04 2.216E-04
SU 225.0 2.328E-08 4.768E-09 1.439E-09 5.588E-10 3.198E-10 2.151E-10 1.106E-10 4.730E-11 2.444E-11 1.056E-11
000000 20 04 1583
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.777E-05 O.OOOEtOO 7.850E-07 1.342E-04
USU 247.3 3.89BE-08 6.921E-09 2.020E-09 7.673E-10 4.365E-10 2.927E-10 1.504E-10 6.426E-11 3.323E-11 1.440E-11
00000004 1879 2991
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.064E-06 S.017E-04 3.4S9E-04
U 270.0 S.014E-08 1.078E-08 3.495E-09 1.418E-09 8.301E-10 S.tS'iE-lO 2.959E-10 1.291E-10 6.745E-11 2.943E-11
0000 192G 0 12104 9750 996 1774
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.2B4E-02 O.OOOEtOO 2.876E-02 1.011E-02 5.394E-04 4.192E-04
UNU 292.5 3.491E-08 5.713E-09 1.57GE-09 5.75GE-10 3.213E-10 2.132E-10 1.082E-10 4.539E-11 2.344E-11 l.OO'.'11-ll
000000 2318 4144 1854 871)9
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.014E-03 1.517E-03 3.489E-04 7.11BE-04
NU 315.0 3.219E-08 6.063E-09 1.832E-09 7.127E-10 4.088E-10 2.754E-10 1.421E-10 6.099E-11 3.157E-11 1.36GE-11
-------
CO
Oi
NNU
0000000 2246 0 2794
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE+00 1.100E-03 O.OOOE+00 3.065E-04
337.5 4.155E-08 7.799E-09 2.355E-09 9.167E-10 5.264E-10 3.549E-10 1.833E-10 7.883E-H 4.089E-11 1.774E-11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 642 3061
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE*00 O.OOOE+00 1.241E-04 2.108E-04 4.3GOE-04
SO.O KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
RESULTING FROM cap24 EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY halfacre
AROUND MEMPHIS
CUMULATIVE
POPULATION EXPOSED
(PERSONS) (Z>
0 0.00
0 0.00
1094 0.12
117632 12.71
788288 85.17
925566 100.00
CUMULATIVE
POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/YR) (X)
O.OOOE+00 0.00
O.OOOE+00 0.00
1.017E-02 2.43
2.186E-01 52.25
4.108E-01 98.17
4.184E-01 100.00
CONCENTRATION LEVEL
(UG/M3)
S.014E-08
l.OOOE-08
l.OOOE-09
l.OOOE-10
l.OOOE-11
2.656E-12
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
-------
TACOMA SCENARIO
PQLL..1ANT ; ncL.
SITE ; TACOMA SOURCE CATEGORY ; one acre EMISSION TYPE ; cipO
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
I POPULATION EXPOSURE UJG/YR)
t POPULATION EXPOSURE = ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATE(22.OM3/DAY A 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES
-------
00000 1231 30193 13302 1450
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 6.713E-03 8.470E-02 1.649E-02 8.900E-04 1.823E-03
UNU 292.5 8.752E-08 1.761E-08 5.353E-09 2.069E-09 1.17GE-09 7.857E-10 4.004E-10 1.685E-10 8.588E-11 3.634E-11
0 0 262 000 4157 1872 98S3 7710
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO 1.126E-02 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.337E-02 2.533E-03 6.81&E-03 2.250E-03
NU 315.0 9.136E-08 1.949E-08 &.174E-09 2.454E-09 1.410E-09 9.475E-10 4.854E-10 2.053E-10 1.046E-10 4.419E-11
000000 1168 7&9 7919 19737
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.552E-03 1.267E-03 6.654E-03 7.004E-03
NNU 337.5 7.565E-08 1.427E-08 4.197E-09 1.585E-09 8.879E-10 5.874E-10 2.954E-10 1.219E-10 6.135E-11 2.552E-11
00000 1082 774 1299 4542 97970
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO S.104E-03 1.836E-03 1.272E-03 2.238E-03 2.008E-02
SO.O KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
RESULTING FROM capO EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY one acre
AROUND TACOMA
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (X) (UG/YR) (X >
S.136E-08 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-08 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-09 4958 0.28 8.094E-02 6.36
l.OOOE-10 319902 17.90 8.139E-01 63.99
l.OOOE-11 1762216 98.61 1.270EtOO 99.85
8.462E-12 1787083 100.00 1.272EtOO 100.00
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; TACOMA SOURCE CATEGORY ; one acre EMISSION TYPE ; cap&
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES WITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
» POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
» POPULATION EXPOSURE = ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATE(22.0M3/DAY A 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0~ 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N 0.0 2.581E-08 4.909E-09 1.457E-09 5.538E-10 3.106E-10 2.055E-10 1.032E-10 4.251E-11 2.133E-11 B.832E-12
000 1915 0 4330 765 0 22057 417243
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 8.517E-03 O.OOOEtOO 7.146E-03 6.342E-04 O.OOOEtOO 3.778E-03 2.959E-02
NNE 22.5 2.891E-08 6.017E-09 1.866E-09 7.311E-10 4.142E-10 2.753E-10 1.387E-10 5.716E-11 2.861E-11 1.178E-11
0000 553 4974 14804 12041 58778 287872
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.839E-03 1.100E-02 1.649E-02 5.526E-03 1.350E-02 2.724E-02
NE 45.0 2.556E-08 5.171E-09 1.573E-09 6.077E-10 3.424E-10 2.268E-10 1.139E-10 4.683E-11 2.344E-11 9.678E-12
00000 2135 13657 14840 45395 68341
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.888E-03 1.249E-02 5.5BOE-03 B.545E-03 5.303E-03
ENE 67.5 1.710E-08 3.241E-09 9.542E-10 3.594E-10 2.001E-10 1.316E-10 6.564E-11 2.683E-11 1.343E-11 5.578E-12
0 0 1250 000 4149 18566 24114 15125
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 9.578E-03 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.187E-03 4.000E-03 2.601E-03 6.77-1E-04
-------
E 90.0 1.109E-08 1.939E-09 S.428E-10 1.967E-10 1.079E-10 7.042E-U 3.490E-11 1.424E-H 7.178E-12 3.024E-12
0000 663 456 2911 12670, 10674 7748
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 5.744E-04 2.578E-04 8.157E-04 1.450E-03 6.1S2E-04 1.832E-04
ESE 112.5 9.849E-09 1.884E-09 5.&0&E-10 2.113E-10 1.179E-10 7.7&2E-U 3.884E-11 1.60&E-11 8.157E-12 3.479E-12
0000 1837 0 9713 5945 6674 14478
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.739E-03 O.OOOEtOO 3.029E-03 7.6G7E-04 4.372E-04 4.044E-04
SE 135.0 1.134E-08 2.044E-09 5.769E-10 2.101E-10 1.159E-10 7.607E-11 3.800E-11 1.571E-H 7.988E-12 3.411E-12
000000 2726 16043 20693 2641
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 8.317E-04 2.023E-03 1.327E-03 7.235E-05
SSE 137.5 1.792E-OB 3.471E-09 1.041E-09 3.972E-10 2.247E-10 1.498E-10 7.620E-11 3.213E-11 1.G47E-11 7.060E-12
000 411 0 1536 1593 12904 13501 6346
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.311E-03 O.OOOEtOO 1.847E-03 9.748E-04 3.330E-03 1.786E-03 3.598E-04
S 180.0 2.642E-08 S.413E-09 1.668E-09 6.496E-10 3.706E-10 2.482E-10 1.269E-10 5.375E-11 2.737E-11 1.180E-11
00000 1166 11789 .9733 21985 10306
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.324E-03 1.201E-02 4.201E-03 4.867E-03 9.761E-04
SSU 202.5 3.083E-08 6.405E-09 1.984E-09 7.770E-10 4.448E-10 2.9B6E-10 1.532E-10 6.517E-11 3.349E-11 1.436E-11
0000 419 2839 29876 26958 15509 8680
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.497E-03 6.B08E-03 3.676E-02 1.411E-02 4.171E-03 1.001E-03
SU 225.0 2.738E-08 5.753E-09 1.817E-09 7.202E-10 4.152E-10 2.801E-10 1.446E-10 6.199E-11 3.202E-11 1.37SE-11
0 0 148 0 0 700 19699 25062 57958 61247
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.1S9E-03 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.575E-03 2.287E-02 1.248E-02 1.490E-02 6.779E-03
CT> USU 247.5 -2.160E-08 3.7B3E-09 1.060E-09 3.850E-10 2.133E-10 1.406E-10 7.074E-11 2.945E-11 1.501E-11 6.394E-12
^J 0000 1008 5794 25835 25625 642 26351
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.726E-03 6.542E-03 1.468E-02 6.060E-03 7.740E-05 1.353E-03
U 270.0 2.503E-08 5.104E-09 1.395E-09 6.282E-10 3.609E-10 2.429E-10 1.248E-10 5.317E-11 2.732E-11 1.163E-11
00000 1231 30193 13802 1450 6961
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.401E-03 3.027E-02 S.893E-03 3.180E-04 6.513E-04
UNU 292.5 3.128E-08 6.292E-09 1.913E-09 7.392E-10 4.201E-10 2.808E-10 1.431E-10 6.021E-11 3.069E-11 1.299E-11
0 0 262 000 4157 1872 9883 7710
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.025E-03 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.776E-03 9.050E-04 2.436E-03 8.040E-04
NU 315.0 3.265E-08 6.964E-09 2.206E-09 8.769E-10 3.037E-10 3.386E-10 1.735E-10 7.335E-11 3.739E-11 1.579E-11
000000 1168 769 7919 19737
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.627E-03 4.529E-04 2.378E-03 2.503E-03
NNU 337.5 2.703E-08 5.099E-09 1.500E-09 5.66SE-10 3.173E-10 2.099E-10 1.0S6E-10 4.358E-11 2.192E-11 9.120E-12
00000 1082 774 1299 4542 97970
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.824E-03 6.561E-04 4.545E-04 7.996E-04 7.17SE-03
50.0 KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
RESULTING FROM cap6 EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY one acre
AROUND TACOMA
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (X) (UG/rR)
3.26SE-08 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-08 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-09 410 0.02 6.184E-03 1.36
-------
l.OOOE-10 161135 9.02 2.169E-01 47.72
l.OOOE-11 1092899 61.16 4.070E-01 89.55
3.024E-12 1787083 100.00 4.545E-01 100.00
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE MAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATEti UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; TACOMA SOURCE CATEGORY ; one acre EMISSION TYPE ; capl2
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITH IN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
» POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
» POPULATION EXPOSURE =• ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATE(23.0M3/DAY * 363. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 23.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N 0.0 2.462E-08 4.682E-09 1.389E-09 S.283E-10 2.9G3E-10 1.960E-10 9.847E-11 4.0S5E-11 2.034E-11 8.424E-12
000 1915 0 4330 765 0 22037 417243
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 8.123E-03 O.OOOE+00 6.815E-03 6.049E-04 O.OOOE+00 3.603E-03 2.822E-02
NNE 22.5 2.757E-08 5.739E-09 1.780E-09 6.973E-10 3.951E-10 2.626E-10 1.323E-10 5.451E-11 2.728E-11 1.124E-11
0000 553 4974 14804 12041 58778 287872
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.754E-03 1.049E-02 1.573E-02 5.271E-03 1.2BBE-02 2.598E-02
NE 45.0 2.438E-08 4.932E-09 1.500E-09 5.796E-10 3.265E-10 2.163E-10 1.086E-10 4.466E-11 2.236E-11 9.231E-12
00000 213S 13657 14840 45395 68241
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 3.708E-03 1.192E-02 S.322E-03 8.150E-03 S.058E-03
^ ENE 67.5 1.631E-08 3.091E-09 9.101E-10 3.427E-10 1.908E-10 1.255E-10 6.260E-11 2.559E-11 1.281E-11 5.320E-12
CO 00 1250 000 4149 18566 24114 15123
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 9.135E-03 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.086E-03 3.815E-03 2.481E-03 6.461E-04
E 90.0 1.058E-OB 1.850E-09 5.177E-10 1.B76E-10 1.029E-10 6.716E-11 3.328E-11 1.359E-11 6.846E-12 2.884E-12
0 0 0 0 663 456 2911 12676 10674 7748
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 5.478E-04 2.459E-04 7.780E-04 1.383E-03 5.868E-04 1.795E-04
ESE 112.5 9.394E-09 1.797E-09 5.347E-10 2.015E-10 1.124E-10 7.404E-11 3.704E-11 1.532E-11 7.780E-12 3.318E-12
0000 1837 0 9713 5945 6674 14478
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.658E-03 O.OOOE+00 2.B89E-03 7.313E-04 4.1&9E-04 3.857E-04
SE 135.0 1.101E-OB 1.949E-09 S.502E-10 2.004E-10 1.106E-10 7.236E-11 3.624E-11 1.498E-11 7.619E-12 3.254E-12
000000 2726 16043 20693 2641
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 7.933E-04 1.930E-03 1.266E-03 6.900E-05
SSE 157.3 1.710E-08 3.311E-09 9.925E-10 3.78BE-10 2.143E-10 1.42BE-10 7.268E-11 3.065E-11 1.571E-11 6.734E-12
0 0 0 411 0 1536 1593 12904 13501 6346
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.250E-03 O.OOOE+00 1.762E-03 9.297E-04 3.176E-03 1.703E-03 3.431E-04
S 180.0 2.520E-OB 3.163E-09 1.591E-09 6.196E-10 3.535E-10 2.367E-10 1.210E-10 5.127E-11 2.630E-11 1.125E-11
00000 1166 11789 9733 21985 10306
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.216E-03 1.146E-02 4.007E-03 4.642E-03 9.310E-04
SSU 202.5 2.941E-08 6.109E-09 1.893E-09 7.411E-10 4.242E-10 2.848E-10 1.462E-10 6.216E-11 3.194E-11 1.370E-11
0000 419 2839 29876 26958 15509 8680
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.427E-03 6.494E-03 3.507E-02 1.346E-02 3.978E-03 9.548E-04
SU 225.0 2.612E-08 5.487E-09 1.733E-09 6.8G9E-10 3.960E-10 2.672E-10 1.379E-10 5.913E-11 3.054E-11 1.315E-11
0 0 148 0 0 700 19699 25062 57958 61247
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 3.059E-03 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.502E-03 2.182E-02 1.190E-02 1.421E-02 6.465E-03
-------
MSU 247.5 2.061E-08 3.608E-09 1.011E-09 3.G72E-10 2.034E-10 1.341E-10 6.74VE-11 2.809E-U 1.432E-11 6.090£-12
0000 1008 5794 25335 25G23 642 26351
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.647E-03 6.240E-03 1.400E-02 5.780E-03 7.382E-05 1.2906-03
U 270.0 2.387E-08 4.8G8E-09 1.322E-09 5.992E-10 3.442E-10 2.316E-10 1.191E-10 5.072E-11 2.605E-H 1.U1E-11
0 0 0 0.0 1231 30193 13802 14SO 6961
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE»00 O.OOOE»00 O.OOOEtOO 2.290E-03 2.837E-02 5.G21E-03 3.033E-04 G.210E-04
UNU 292.5 2.983E-08 G.001E-09 1.825E-09 7.031E-10 4.007E-10 2.G78E-10 1.3G5E-10 5.742E-11 2.927E-11 1.239E-11
0 0 262 0 0 0 4157 1872 9883 7710
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE»00 3.839E-03 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE«00 O.OOOEtOO 4.S56E-03 8.G32E-04 2.323E-03 7.669E-04
NU 315.0 3.114E-08 G.G42E-09 2.104E-09 8.3G4E-10 4.B04E-10 3.229E-10 1.G34E-10 G.99GE-11 3.5G7E-11 1.506E-11
000000 11G8 769 7919 19737
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.552E-03 4.320E-04 2.26BE-03 2.3B7E-03
NNU 337.5 2.578E-03 4.863E-09 1.431E-09 5.403E-10 3.02GE-10 2.002E-10 1.007E-10 4.156E-11 2.091E-11 8.G99E-12
00000 1082 774 1299 4542 97970
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.740E-03 G.25BE-04 4.335E-04 7.62GE-04 G.843E-03
50.0 KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
JESUIT ING FROM capl2 EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY one acre
AROUND TACOMA
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
Oo (UG/M3) (PERSONS) (Z) (UG/YR)
CTi 3.114E-08 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
10 l.OOOE-08 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-09 410 0.02 5.898E-03 1.3G
l.OOOE-10 160370 8.97 2.0G3E-01 47.58
l.OOOE-11 1092899 61.16 3.B82E-01 89.55
2.8B4E-12 1787083 100.00 4.335E-01 100.00
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; TACOMA SOURCE CATEGORY ; one acre EMISSION TYPE ; C3p24
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES WITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
* POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
t POPULATION EXPOSURE ° ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION * POPULATION * ANNUAL BREATHING RATE<22.OM3/DAY * 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- O.S 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 13.0-2S.O 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N 0.0 2.245E-08 4.270E-09 1.2G7E-09 4.817E-10 2.702E-10 1.787E-10 8.980E-11 3.697E-11 1.B55E-11 7.681E-12
000 1915 0 4330 765 0 22057 417243
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.407E-03 O.OOOEtOO G.215E-03 5.516E-04 O.OOOEtOO 3.28GE-03 2.574E-02
NNE 22.5 2.514E-08 3.233E-09 1.623E-09 6.358E-10 3.603E-10 2.394E-10 1.207E-10 4.971E-11 2.488E-11 1.025E-11
0000 553 4974 14804 12041 58778 287872
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.vOOEtOO l.GOOE-03 9.564E-03 1.434E-02 4.806E-03 1.174E-02 2.369E-02
HE 45.0 2.223E-08 4.497E-09 1.368E-09 5.28GE-10 2.978E-10 1.973E-10 9.908E-11 4.073E-11 2.039E-11 8.418E-12
0-0 0 0 0 2135 13657 14840 45395 68241
-------
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE»00 3.332E-03 1.067E-02 4.853E-03 7.432E-03 4.613E-03
ENE G7.5 1.4B8E-08 2.819E-09 8.299E-10 3.125E-10 1.740E-10 1.145E-10 5.709E-11 2.333E-11 1.1G8E-11 4.351E-12
0 0 1250 000 4149 18566 24114 15125
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 8.330E-03 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.902E-03 3.479E-03 2.262E-03 5.892E-04
E 90.0 9.G45E-09 1.687E-09 4.721E-10 1.711E-10 9.384E-11 6.125E-11 3.035E-11 1.239E-11 G.243E-12 2.G30E-12
0000 GG3 456 2911 12676 10674 7748
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 4.99GE-04 2.243E-04 7.094E-04 1.2G1E-03 5.351E-04 1.G3&E-04
EGE 112.5 8.5G6E-09 1.G39E-09 4.87GE-10 1.837E-10 1.025E-10 G.751E-11 3.378E-11 1.397E-11 7.095E-12 3.026E-12
0000 1837 0 9713 5945 6674 14478
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.S12E-03 O.OOOE+00 2.63SE-03 6.G68E-04 3.802E-04 3.518E-04
SE 135.0 1.004E-08 1.777E-09 5.017E-10 1.827E-10 1.008E-10 6.G1GE-11 3.305E-11 1.3GGE-11 6.947E-12 2.9G7E-12
000000 2726 16043 20693 2641
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 7.234E-04 1.7GOE-03 1.154E-03 6.292E-05
SSE 157.5 1.559E-OB 3.019E-09 9.051E-10 3.455E-10 1.954E-10 1.303E-10 6.628E-H 2.795E-11 1.433E-11 6.140E-12
0 0 0 411 0 1536 1593 12904 13501 6346
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.140E-03 O.OOOE+00 1.607E-03 8.478E-04 2.896E-03 1.553E-03 3.129E-04
S 180.0 2.298E-08 4.708E-09 1.451E-09 5.6SOE-10 3.223E-10 2.159E-10 1.104E-10 4.675E-11 2.398E-11 1.026E-11
00000 116G 11789 9733 21985 10306
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.021E-03 1.045E-02 3.654E-03 4.233E-03 8.490E-04
SSU 202.5 2.G82E-08 5.571E-0') 1.72GE-09 G.758E-10 3.8G8E-10 2.597E-10 1.333E-10 3.G68E-11 2.913E-11 1.249E-U
0 0 0 0 419 2839 29876 26958 15509 8680
S^j O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.302E-03 S.921E-03 3.198E-02 1.227E-02 3.G28E-03 8.706E-04
O
SU 225.0 2.381E-08 S.003E-09 l.SBOE-09 6.264E-10 3.611E-10 2.437E-10 1.258E-10 5.392E-11 2.785E-11 1.199E-11
0 0 148 0 0 700 19699 250G2 57958 61247
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.878E-03 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.370E-03 1.989E-02 1.085E-02 1.296E-02 5.89GE-03
«SU 247.5 1.879E-08 3.290E-09 9.221E-10 3.349E-10 1.855E-10 1.223E-10 6.153E-11 2.562E-11 1.30GE-11 5.5G1E-12
0000 1008 5794 25833 2SG25 642 26351
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.S02E-03 5.690E-03 1.276E-02 5.271E-03 6.732E-05 1.177E-03
U 270.0 2.177E-08 4.439E-09 1.388E-09 5.464E-10 3.139E-10 2.112E-10 1.086E-10 4.62SE-11 2.376E-H 1.013E-11
00000 1231 30193 13802 1450 6961
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.088E-03 2.632E-02 5.126E-03 2.766E-04 5.665E-04
UNU 292.5 2.720E-OB S.472E-09 1.664E-09 6.429E-10 3.G54E-10 2.442E-10 1.244E-10 5.236E-11 2.669E-11 1.130E-11
0 0 262 000 4157 1872 9883 7710
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 3.S01E-03 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 4.154E-03 7.871E-04 2.11BE-03 G.993E-04
NU 315.0 2.840E-OB 6.057E-09 1.919E-09 7.G27E-10 4.381E-10 2.945E-10 1.509E-10 G.380E-11 3.2S2E-11 1.374E-11
000000 1168 769 7919 19737
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.415E-03 3.940E-04 2.068E-03 2.177E-03
NNU 337.5 2.351E-08 4.435E-09 1.305E-09 4.927E-10 2.760E-10 1.826E-10 9.181E-11 3.790E-11 1.907E-11 7.932E-12
00000 1082 774 1299 4542 97970
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.S86E-03 5.70GE-04 3.953E-04 6.954E-04 &.240E-03
50.0 KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hcb
DliSULTING FROM c.jp24 EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY one *cre
AROUND TACOnA
-------
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (7.) (UG/YR) (''.1
2.840E-08 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-08 0 0.00 O.OOOEtOO 0.00
l.OOOE-09 410 0.02 3.37BE-03 1.36
l.OOOE-10 145276 8.13 1.762E-01 44.56
l.OOOE-11 1092899 61.16 3.540E-01 89.55
2.630E-12 1787083 100.00 3.953E-01 100.00
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; TACOMA SOURCE CATEGORY ; hilfacre EMISSION TYPE ; cspO
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITHIH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
I POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
I POPULATION EXPOSURE = ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATE(22.0M3/BAY A 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N • 0.0 3.834E-08 6.855E-09 2.003E-09 7.631E-10 4.292E-10 2.84GE-10 1.434E-10 5.925E-11 2.97BE-11 1.235E-11
000 1915 0 4330 765 0 22057 417243
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.173E-02 O.OOOEtOO 9.897E-03 8.810E-04 O.OOOEtOO 5.275E-03 4.137E-02
NNE 22.5 4.476E-08 8.618E-09 2.618E-09 1.022E-09 5.785E-10 3.846E-10 1.939E-10 7.995E-11 4.003E-11 1.650E-11
0 0 0 0 . 553 4974 14804 12041 58778 287872
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.569E-03 1.536E-02 2.305E-02 7.731E-03 1.890E-02 3.813E-02
NE 45.0 3.936E-08 7.343E-09 2.192E-09 B.455E-10 4.766E-10 3.160E-10 1.5B9E-10 6.542E-11 3.278E-11 1.355E-11
00000 2135 13657 14840 45395 68241
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOETOO O.OOOEtOO 5.418E-03 1.743E-02 7.796E-03 1.195E-02 7.422E-03
ENE 67.5 2.352E-08 4.548E-09 1.317E-09 4.963E-10 2.769E-10 1.825E-10 9.I25E-11 3.741E-11 1.876E-11 7.800E-12
0 0 1250 000 4149 18566 24114 15125
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.322E-02 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.040E-03 S.577E-03 3.632E-03 9.474E-04
E 90.0 1.612E-08 2.669E-09 7.36SE-10 2.683E-10 1.479E-10 9.690E-11 4.824E-11 1.980E-11 l.OOOE-11 4.224E-12
0 0 0 0 663 456 2911 12676 10674 7748
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.874E-04 3.548E-04 1.128E-03 2.015E-03 8.575E-04 2.628E-04
EBE 112.5 1.468E-08 2.685E-09 7.B27E-10 2.941E-10 1.G41E-10 1.081E-10 5.419E-11 2.244E-11 1.141E-11 4.868E-12
0000 1837 0 9713 5945 6674 14478
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.421E-03 O.OOOEtOO 4.226E-03 1.071E-03 6.113E-04 5.660E-04
SE 135.0 1.680E-08 2.814E-09 7.828E-10 2.865E-10 1.589E-10 1.047E-10 5.251E-11 2.182E-11 1.113E-11 4.764E-12
000000 2726 16043 20693 2641
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.149E-03 2.811E-03 1.850E-03 1.010E-04
SSE 157.5 2.679E-OB 4.875E-09 1.438E-09 5.492E-10 3.113E-10 2.079E-10 1.060E-10 4.482E-11 2.302E-11 9.875E-12
0 0 0 411 0 1536 1593 • 12904 13501 6346
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.812E-03 O.OOOEtOO 2.564E-03 1.356£-03 4.645E-03 2.495E-03 5.032E-04
S 180.0 4.045E-08 7.688E-09 2.325E-09 9.037E-10 5.15BE-10 3.458E-10 1.770E-10 7.S09E-11 3.856E-11 1.651E-11
00000 1166 11739 9733 21935 10306
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.238E-03 1.676E-02 5.869E-03 &.807E-03 1.3G6E-03
SSU 202.5 4.759E-08 9.097E-09 2.767E-09 1.081E-09 6.192E-10 4.161E-10 2.138E-10 9.105E-11 4.684E-11 2.010E-11
-------
0000 419 2839 29876 26953 15509 8680
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OqOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.~083E-03 •}. 46'.'E-03 5.129E-02 1.971E-02 5.834E-03 1.401E-03
SU 225.0 4.184E-&8 8.235E-09 2.548E-09 l.OOGE-09 5.799E-10 3.914E-10 2.031E-10 8.671E-11 4.4B1E-11 1.930E-11
'0 0 148 0 0 700 19699 25062 57958 61247
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 3.028E-03 ,OiOOOE*00 O.OOOE+00 2.200E-03 3.198E-02 1.745E-02 3.086E-02 9.492E-03
USU 247.5 3.106E-08 5.102E-09 1.413E-09 5.130E-10 2.892E-10 1.918E-10 9.713E-11 4.077E-11 2.087E-11 8.916E-12
0 0 00 1008 5794 25835 25625 642 26351
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 0.0.002 + 00 2.341E-03 8.922E-03 2.015E-02 8.389E-03 1.076E-04 1.887E-03
U 270.0 3.760E-08 7.270E-09 2.229E-03 8.755E-10 5.030E-,10 3.388E-10 1.743E-10 7.433E-11! 3.822E-11 1.631E-11
00000 1231 30193 13802 1450 6961
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 3.349E-03 4.227E-02 8.238E-03 4.450E-04 9.117E-04
UNU 292.5 4.776E-08 8.853E-09 2.646E-09 1.023E-09 5.824E-10 3.899E-10 1.991E-10 8.400E-11 4.288E-11 1.817E-11
0 0 262 0 0 0 4157 1872 9883 7710
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 S.568E-03 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 6.648E-03 1.263E-03 3.403E-03 1.125E-03
NU 315.0 5.051E-08 1.001E-08 3.104E-09 1.228E-09 7.047E-10 4.736E-10 2.427E-10 1.027E-10 5.236E-11 2.212E-11
000000 1168 769 7919 19737
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.276E-03 6.339E-04 3.329E-03 3.505E-03
NNU 337.5 4.006E-08 7.072E-09 2.051E-09 7.773E-10 4.370E-10 2.B99E-10 1.463E-10 6.065E-11 3.058E-11 1.275E-11
'•' 00000 1082 774 1299 4542 97970
O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 0'0 O.OOOE + 00 2.519E-03 9.094E-04 &.327E-04 1.115E-03 1.003E-02
iCj 50.0 KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSUkE TO hcb
IN3 RESULTING FROM capO EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY hjlfacre
AROUND TACOMA
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (X) •• (UG/YR) (X)
5.051E-08 0 0.00 O.OOOE+00 0.00
l.OOOE-08 0 0.00 . O.OOOE+00 0.00
l.OOOE-09 1660 0.09 2.181E-02 3.44
l.OOOE-10 163497 9.15 3.040E-01 47.97
l.OOOE-11 1714394 95.93 6.295E-01 99.33
4.224E-12 1787083 100.00 6.337E-01 100.00
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE WAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED WITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; TACOMA SOURCE CATEGORY ; halfacra EMISSION TYPE ; cipG
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
., POPULATION (PERSONS) •'';1 ^
I POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
* POPULATION EXPOSURE » ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATEC22.0M3/DAY A 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE
N 0.0 1.370E-OB 2.450E-09 7.155E-10 2.727E-10 1.534E-10 1.017E-10 5.V25E-11 2.117E-11 1.064E-11 4.413E-12
000 1915 0 4330 765 0 22057 417243
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 4.193E-03 O.OOOE+00 3.537E-03 3.148E-04 O.OOOE+00 1.885E-03 1.479E-02
-------
NNE 22.5 1.S99E-08 3.080E-09 9.357E-10 3.G51E-10 2.067E-10 1.374E-10 G.930E-11 2.857E-11 1.431E-11 5.895E-12
0000 553 497-1 14804 12041 58778 287872
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 9.180E-04 5.490E-03 8.238E-03 2.7G3E-03 6.752E-03 1.363E-02
NE 45.0 1.407E-OB 2.G24E-09 7.B32E-\0 3.021E-10 1.703E-10 1.129E-10 5.679E-11 2.333E-11 1.172E-11 4.B41E-12
00000 2135 13&57 14840 45395 63241
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.93&E-03 6.228E-03 2.78GE-03 4.270E-03 2.£:)2E-03
ENE 67.5 9.121E-09 1.625E-u'J 4.705E-10 1.773E-10 9.397E-11 6.522E-11 3.2G1E-U 1.337E-11 &.704E-12 2.7B7E-12
0 0 1250 0 0 •'.' -0 4149 185GG 24114 15125
O.OOOE»00 O.OOOEtOO 4.723E-03 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.08GE-03 1.993E-03 1.298E-03 3.385E-04
E 90.0 5.7GOE-09 9.539E-10 2.632E-10 9.586E-U 5.285E-11 3.4G3E-11 1.724E-I1 7.075E-12 3.575E-12 1.510E-12
0 0 0 0 663 456 2911 12676 10674 7748
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.B14E-04 1.2G8E-04 4.029E-04 7.201E-04 3.064E-04 9.392E-05
ESE 112.5 5.247E-09 9.595E-10 2.797E-10 1.051E-10 5.865E-U 3.865E-11 1.936E-11 8.017E-12 4.076E-12 1.740E-12
0000 1637 0 9713 5945 6674 14478
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 8.&51E-04 O.OOOEtOO 1.SIOE-03 3.827E-04 2.185E-04 2.023E-04
SE 135.0 6.003E-09 1.006E-09 2.798E-10 I.024E-10 3.678E-11 3.740E-11 1.876E-11 7.79BE-12 3.978E-12 1.703E-12
000000 2726 16043 20693 2641
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 4.107E-04 1.005E-03 6.610E-04 3.611E-OS
SSE 157.5 9.372E-09 1.742E-09 5.138E-10 1.962E-10 1.112E-10 7.429E-11 3.789E-11 1.602E-11 8.225E-12 3.529E-12
0 0 0 . 411 0 1536 1593 12904 13501 6346
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 6.477E-04 O.OOOEtOO 9.163E-04 4.846E-04 1.6GOE-03 8.917E-04 1.798E-04
S 180.0 1.446E-08 2.747E-09 8.310E-10 3.229E-10 1.843E-10 1.236E-10 6.327E-11 2.683E-11 1.378E-11 5.899E-12
00000 1166 11789 9733 21985 1030G
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.157E-03 5.989E-03 2.097E-03 2.432E-03 4.882E-04
SSU 202.5 1.701E-08 3.251E-09 9.8B8E-10 3.863E-10 2.213E-10 1.487E-10 7.641E-11 3.254E-11 1.674E-11 7.1B3E-12
0000 419 2839 29876 26958 15509 8680
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.445E-04 3.390E-03 1.833E-02 7.043E-03 2.085E-03 5.007E-04
SU 225.0 1.495E-08 2.943E-09 9.106t-10 3.5S6E-10 2.072E-10 1.399E-10 7.224E-11 3.099E-11 1.601E-11 6.897E-12
00 148 0 0 700 19&99 25062 57958 61247
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.082E-03 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.862E-04 1.143E-02 6.23GE-03 7.453E-03 3.392E-03
USU 247.5 1.110E-08 1.823E-09 3.050E-10 1.851E-10 1.034E-10 6.B53E-U 3.471E-11 1.457E-11 7.457E-12 3.186E-12
0000 1008 5794 25835 25625 642 263S1
O.COOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 8.3G6E-04 3.1B8E-03 7.201E-03 2.998E-03 3.844E-05 6.742E-04
U 270.0 1.344E-08 2.398E-09 7.9G7E-10 3.129E-10 1.798E-10 1.211E-10 6.230E-11 2.656E-11 1.3G6E-11 5.829E-12
00000 1231 30193 13802 1450 G961
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.197E-03 1.510E-Q2 2.944E-03 1.S90E-04 3.258E-04
UNlf 292.5 1.707E-OB 3.164E-09 9.437E-10 3.656E-10 2.081E-1O' 1.393E-10 7.116E-11 3.002E-11! 1.532E-11 G.492E-12
0 0 262 000 4157 1872 9883 7710
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.990E-03 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.376E-03 4.512E-04 1.216E-03 4.019E-04
NW 315.0 1.805E-08 3.577E-09 1.109E-09 4.388E-10 2.518E-10 1.692E-10 8.673E-11 3.66BE-11 1.871E-11 7.903E-12
0 0 ' 0 ' 0 0 0 1163 769 7919 19737
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 8.135E-04 2.2G5E-04 1.190E-03 1.253E-03
NNU
1.432E-08 2.527E-09 7.328E-10 2.778E-10 1.562E-10 1.036E-10 5.229E-11 2.167E-11 1.093E-H 4.555E-12
M"6 0000 1082 774 1299 4542 97970
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO..0.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 9.002E-04 3.250E-04 2.2GIE-04 3.98GE-04 3.583E-03
-------
50.0 KM.RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED^ANp EXPOSURE 'TO^hcb : i - :
(RESULTING''FROM cap6 EMISSIONS UNDER isc SOURCE CATEGORY harriers' '
AROUND TACOMA '.' .,,.u,-. .
; '" ^ -CUMULATIVE < •-' i • CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/,l+2» (PERSONS) (X) (UG/YR) (X)
.aose-oa o o.oor;<< ' OiOOOE+oo o.oo
.OOOE-98, ,•;;•< 0 O.OO'-'-1-'' •0.nOOOE + 00 ' 0.00
.OOOE-09 0 0.00 O.OOOE+00 0.00
..O.OOE-10 24423 1.37 3.353E-02 14.80
. .OOOE-11 617,465 34.55 I1.784E-01 78.7'8
.5lbE-^2 17870B3 100.00 2.265E-01 100.00
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT BY ACCUMULATING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
POLLUTANT ; hcb
SITE ; TACOMA SOURCE CATEGORY ; halfacre EMISSION TYPE ; C3pl2
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
POPULATION (PERSONS)
,,";. , , •..' • if. •-•••'. » POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/YR)
t POPULAIIlDN EXPOSURE = ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION"' A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATE( 22.0M3/DAY A 365. DAYS/Yft.
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0- 3.0 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
SECTOR MID-ANGLE .>.- • "•• • .,-,-..'• • "; •''"
N 0.0 1.307E-08 2.336E-09 6.824E-10 2.601E-10 1.463E-10 9.702E-11 4.88BE-11 2.019E-11 1.015E-11 4i,209E-12
000 1915 0 4330 7G5 0 22057 417243
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 3.999E-03 O.OOOE+00 3.373E-03 3.003E-04 O.OOOE+00 1.798E-03 1.410E-02
.,-, r •
NNE 22.5 1.32GE-08 2.937E-09 8.924E-10 3.482E-10 1.972E-10 1.311E-10 6.610E-H 2.725E-11 1.364E-11 5.623E-12
0 0 0 0 553 4974 * 14804 12041 58778 287872
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 8.7SGE-04 5.236E-03 7.857E-03 2.635E-03 6.440E-03 1.300E-02
.•!! -: .,' f..'-"!' ; •'•• ' ' : ,,
NE 45.0 1.342E-OB 2.503E-09 7.470E-=:1'0' 2.B82E-10 1.G24E-10 1.077E-10 5.417E-11 2.230E-11 1.117E-11 4.617E-12
0 0 '00 0 2135 13657 14840 45395 68241
O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 O.OOOE + 00 1.847E-03 5.9.40E-03 2.657E-03 4.073E-03 2.530E-03
i' • 0' v" • • - * ' '
ENE 67.5 8.700E-09 1.550E-09 4.488E-10 1.691E-10 9.439E-11 6.220E-11 3.110E-11 1.275E-11 Gi394E-12 2.659E-12
0 0 1250 0 ! '•'-' 0' ' : • ' :0 4149 ' 18566 24114 15125
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 4.504E-03 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+OQ 1.036E-03 1.901E-03 1.238E-03 3.229E-04
E 90.0 5.493E-09 9.098E-10 2.510E-10 9.143E-11 5.041E-11 3.303E-11 1.644E-11 6.748E-12 3.410E-12 1.440E-12
0000 663 •' 456 2911 12676 10674 7748
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.684E-04 1.209E-04. 3.843E-04 6.868E-04 2.923E-04 8.958E-05
ESE 112.5 5.005E-09 9.152E-10 2.668E-10 1.002E-10 5. 593E-11 3.6861E,-Xl, 1.847E-11, 7.,&,47E-12 3.888E-12 1.659E-12
0 0 0 0 1837 ! 0' 9713 " 5945 6674 14478
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 8.251E-04 O.OOOE+00 1.440E-03 3.6SOE-04 2.084E-04 1.929E-04
SE 135.0 5.725E-09 9.592E-10 2.668E-10 9.765E-11 5.416E-11 3.567E-11 1.790E-11 7.438E-12 3.794E-12 1.624E-12
000000 2726 16043 20693 2641
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 3.918E-04 9.582E-04 6.304E-04 3.444E-03
SSE 157.5 9.130E-09 1.661E-09 4.901E-10 1.872E-10 1.061E-10 7.0B5E-11 3.613E-11 1.528E-11 7.845E-12 3.3G6E-12
0 0 0 411 0 1536 1593 12904 13501 6346
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 6.177E-04 O.OOOE+00 8.739E-04 4.622E-04 1.583E-03 8.505E-04 1.715E-04
-------
S 180.0 1.379E-08 2.620E-09 7.92GE-10 3.080E-10 1.758E-10 1.179E-10 G.034E-11 2.559E-11 1.314E-11 5.62GE-12
00000 11GG 11789 9733 21985 1030G
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.103E-03 5.712E-03 2.000E-03 2.320E-03 4.65GE-04
SSU 202.5 1.622E-08 3.100E-09 9.431E-10 3.G85E-10 2.110E-10 1.418E-10 7.288E-11 3.103E-11 1.597E-11 G.831E-12
0000 41J9 r2839 29876 26958 15509 8680
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOEfOO O.OOOE+00 7.101E-04 3.2r33E-,03 1.748E-02 6.718E-03 1.988E-03 4.775E-04
SU 225.0 1.42GE-08 2.807E-09 8.G85E-10 3.430E-10 1.976E-VO 1.334E'-1.0 6.B90E-1J 2..955E-11 1.527E-11 G.578E-12
0 0 148 0 •' 0 '•' '•'• • 700 19G99 ' 250G2 57958 G1247
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 1.032E-03 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 7.499E-04 1.090E-02 5.948E-03 7.108E-03 3.235E-03
USU 247.3 1.059E-08 1.739E-09 4.817E-10 1.7&GE-10 9.858E-11 &.S3GE-11 3.311E-11 1.390E-11 7.113E-12 3.039E-12
0000 1008 " 5794 25835 25625 642 2G351
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE + 00 Ov900E + 00 O.OOOE + 00 7.979E-04 3..041E-03 G.8G8E-03 2.859E-03 3.GG7E-03 G.431E-04
U 270.0 1.282E-08 2.478E-09 7.599E-10 2.984E-10 1.715E-10 1.155E-10 5.942E-11 2.533E-11 1.303E-11 5.560E-12
000 "•-••- 0 0 1231 - 30193 13802 1450 6961
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.141E-03 1.441E-02 2.808E-03 1.S17E-04 3.108E-04
UNU 292.5 1.G28E-08 3.017E-09 9.020E-10 3.487E-10 1.985E-10 1.329E-10 6.788E-11 2.8G3E-11 1.462E-11 G.192E-12
0 0 "26'2 7 -,JV; 0 0 0 4157 1872 9883 7710
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 1.898E-03 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 2.26GE-03 4.304E-04 1.1GOE-03 3.833E-04
• •. ;,OOL. • ' • ' '• ,'J •'
NU 315.0 1.722E-08 3.412E-09 1.058E-09 4.185E-10 2.402E-10 1.G14E-10 8,272E-li 3.499E-11 1.785E-11 7.538E-12
0 0 00 0 0 1168 769 7919 19737
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 7.759E-04 2.1G1E-04 1.135E-03 1.19SE-Q3
NNUI 337.5 1.366E-08 2.410E-09 6.989E-10 2.649E-10 1.489E-10 9.882E-11 4.987E-11 2.067E-11 1.042E-11 4.344E-12
'" 0 0 ,.0.0 0 10B2 774 1299 4542 97970
Cj O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE+00 8.586E-04 3.100E-04 2.1S&E-04 3.802E-04 3.418E-03
O1 . . . • >
50.0 KM 8AQIUS POPULAT ION .EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE TO hit : "'' ' "''
RESULTING FROM caf\2 EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY hilfacre
AROUND TACOhA
CUMULATIVE < CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (X) (UG/YR) (X)
.722L-08 0 0.00 O.OOOE+00 0.00
.OOOE-08 -0 0.00 • O.OOOE+00 0.00
.'OOOE-09 0 0.00 O.OOOE + 00 0.00
•OOE-lp 18003 I.01 2.G9SE-02 12.48
lOOE-ll. 6174<,3 34.53 1S.702E-01 78.78-
)..4,4,OEVl3 178708-3 100.00 2.160E-01 100.00''"
A CUMULATIVE POPULATION EXPOSURE UAS ARRIVED AT' BV-> AECUMULAT ING
POPULATION EXPOSURES ASSOCIATED UITH 'INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS.
• ' \ i l:V •.
POLLUTANT ; hcb , . . -.,.,--it, i.,,;-'.:••••:.•-• •-:''
SITE ; TACOMA SOURCE CATEGORY ',: ^ial facre EMISSUONi'TYPE ; C3p24
REPORTED TABULAR VALUES UITHIN INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SEGMENTS : ISC ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (UG/M3)
,.n.. • POPULATION (PERSONS)
' ';'. ^C ' - •-.•riatfii-1-- I'Msiry - .;-,i.-T '..•"- t POPULATION EXPOSURE (UG/TR)
•[POPULATION EXPOSURE ,^ ANNUAL AVERARE CONCENTRATION A POPULATION A ANNUAL BREATHING RATE(22.0M3/DAY A 365. DAYS/YR)
DISTANCES (KM) : 0.0- 0.5 0.5- 1.0 1.0- 2.0 2.0- 3.; 3.0- 4.0 4.0- 5.0 S.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-25.0 25.0-50.0
-------
SECTOR HID-ANilLE
N 0.0 1.192E-08 2.130E-09 6.223E-10 2.372E-10 1.334E-10 8.847E-11 4.457E-11 1.841E-11' 9.256E-12 3.838E-112
000 1915 0 4330 765 0 22057 417243
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.647E-03 O.OOOEtOO 3.076E-03 2.738E-04 O.OOOEtOO 1.639E-03 1.286E-02
NNE 22.5 1.391E-08 2.679E-09 8.138E-10 3.175E-10 1.798E-10 1.195E-10 6.027Erll 2.483E-11 1.244E-11 3.127E-12
0 0 0 0 553 4974 14$04 12041 58779 287872
O.OOOE+00 O.OOOE»00 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOE+00 7.984E-04 4.775E-03 7.165E-03 2.403E-03 5.873E-03 1.185E-02
NE 45.0 1.223E-08 2.282E-09 6.812E-10 2.628E-10 1.481E-10 9.822E-11 4.940E-11 2.033E-11 1.019E-11 4.210E-12
00000 2135 13657 14840 45395 68241
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.684E-03 5.417E-03 2.423E-03 3.714E-03 2.107E-03
//
EHE 67.5 7.933E-09 r.'414E-09 4.092E-10 1.542E-10 8.60BE-11 5.672E-11 2.836E-11 1.163E-11 5.831E-V2 2.424E-12
0 0 1250 000 4149 1B566 24114 15125
.O.OOOEtOO O..OOOEtOO 4.108E-03 O.OOOEtOO 0.000-5+00 O.OOOEtOO 9.449E-04 1.733E-03 1.129E-03 2.945E-04
,,x. '•*
E 90.0 5.009E-09 8.296E-10 2.289E-10 8.338E-11 4.597E-11 3.012E-11 1.499E-11 6.153E-12 3.109E-12 1.313E-12
0000 663 456 2911 12676 10674 7748
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 2.447E-04 1.103E-04 3.S05E-04 6.263E-04 2.66SE-04 8.168E-OS
ESE 112.5 4.S64E-09 8.345E-10 2.433E-10 9.140E-H 5.101E-11 3.361E-11 1.684E-11 6.973E-12 3.54SE-12 1.513E-12
,'i 0000 1837 0 9713 5945 6674 14478
•V.i.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.524E-04 O.OOOEtOO 1.313E-03 3.329E-04 1.900E-04 1.759E-04
SE 135.0 5.221E-09 8.747E-10 2.433E-10 B.905E-11 4.938E-11 3.253E-11 1.632E-11 6.782E-12 3.460E-12 1.481E-12
000000 2726 16043 20693 2641
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 3.S72E-04 8.738E-04 5.749E-04 3.140E-05
SSE 157.5 8.325E-09 1.515E-09 4.469E-10 1.707E-10 9.675E-11 6.461E-11 3.295E-11 1.393E-11 7.154E-12 3.069E-12
000 411 0 1536 1593 12904 13501 6346
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 5.633i:-'04 O.OOOEtOO 7.969E-04 4.215E-04 1.444E-03 7.755E-04 1.564E-04
S 180.0 1.257E-08 2.390E-09 7.228E-10 2.809E-10 1.603E-10 1.075E-10 5.S03E-11 2.334E-11 1.198E-11 5.131E-12
0 0 .0, ..... ,. JfrO r- 0 1166 11789 9733 21985 10306
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 0 . OOOEtO^, '(jnOP.OEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.006E-03 S.209E-03 1.824E-03 2.116E-03 4.246E-04
SSUI 202.5 1.479E-08 2.827E-09 8.600E-10 3.360E-10 1.925E-10 1.293E-10 6.646E-11 2.830E-11 1.4S6E-11 6.247E-12
0 0 0 '" 0 419 2839 29876 26958 15509 8680
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 0 . OOp&tOO ^ . 475E-04 2.949E-03 1.S94E-02 6.126E-03 1.813E-03 4.3S4E-04
'
SU 225.0 1.300E-08 2.559E-09 7.920E-10 3.128E-10 1.803E-10 1.217E-10 6.283E-11 2.695E-11 1.393E-11 5.998E-12
0 0 148 -.,.,,0 . 0 700 19699 25062 57953 61247
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 9.413E-04 O.OOOEvtQO> O.OOOE'tOO 6.838E-04 9.938E-03 5.424E-03 6.482E-03 2.950E-03
..HI.-" '
USU ..,- 247;3"'^ 9.654E-09 1.586E-09 4.392E-10 1.610E-10 8.989E-11 5.960E-11 3.019E-11 1.267E-11 6.4B6E-12 2.771E-12
0000 1008 5794 25835 25625 642 26351
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.276E-04 2.773E-03 6.263E-03 2.6<.J/E-03 3.344E-05 5.864E-04
. „ - '(I.. ' '. »- :
U 270.0 1.169E-08 2.260E-0^> 6.929E-10 2.721E-10 1.563E-10 1.053E-10 S.418E-11 2.310E-11 1.188E-11 5.070E-1-2
00000 1231 30193 13802 1450 6961
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.COOEtQO 1.041E-03 1.314E-02 2.560E-03 1.383E-04 2.834E-04
UNU 292.5 1.4B5E-OB 2.752E-09 8.225E-10 3.179ErlO 1 .810E-10 ' 1 .212E-10 6.190E-H 2.611E-11 1.333E-11 5.646E-12
0 0 262 0 "• ' 0 0 ' 4157 1872 9883 7710
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 1.730E-03 O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO d.OO'OEtOO 2.066E-03 3.925E-04 1.053E-03 3.496E-04
NU 315.0 1.570E-03 3.111E-0'J 9.648E-10 3.817E-10 2.190E-10 1.472E-10 7.543E-11 3.191E-11 1.627E-11 6.874E-12
0-0 00 0 0 1168 769 7919 19737
-------
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OCOE*00 7.075E-04 1.970E-04 1.03SE-03 1.0B9E-O3
NNU 337.5 1.245E-OB 2.198E-09 &.374E-10 2.416E-10 1.3S8E-10'9.012E-11 4.S4BE-11 1.885E-11'9.50GE-12 3.961E-12
00000 10B2 774 1299 4542 97970
O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO O.OOOEtOO 7.B30E-04 2.327E-04 1.9GGE-04 3.4&7E-04 3.11GE-03
50.0 KM RADIUS POPULATION EXPOSED AND EXPOSURE 10-hcb
RESULTING FROM Clp24 EMISSIONS UNDER ISC SOURCE CATEGORY hllfjcre
AROUND TACOHA
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
CONCENTRATION LEVEL POPULATION EXPOSED POPULATION EXPOSURE
(UG/M3) (PERSONS) (X) (UG/.Tk)
------- |