ami
ORNL/TM-9074
OAK RIDGE
NATIONAL
LABORATORY
AffXMVTYAT MARIETTA
Environmental Risk Analysis for
Direct Coal Liquefaction
G. W. Suter II
L. W. Barnthouse
C. F. Baes III
S. M. Bartell
M. G. Cavendish
R. H. Gardner
R. V. O'Neill
A. E. Rosen
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION
Publication No. 2294
-------
Printed in the United States of America. Available from
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
NTIS price codes—Printed Copy: A08 Microfiche A01
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the
United States Government. Neither the U nited States Government nor any agency
thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein
to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or
any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency
thereof.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ANALYSIS FOR DIRECT COAL LIQUEFACTION
Authors
G. W. Suter III
L. W. Barnthouse^
C. F. Baes III
S. M. Bartell
M. G. Cavendish
R. H. Gardner
R. V. O'Neill
A. E. Rosen
ORNL Project Manager
S. G. Hildebrand
Environmental Sciences Division
Publication No. 2294
^ORNL Principal Investigators.
Date of Issue - November 1984
EPA Project Officer
A. A. Moghissi
Prepared for
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Interagency Agreement No. DW 8993 0292-01-0
(DOE 40-740-78)
Prepared by the
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
operated by
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under Contract No. DE-AC05-840R21400
-------
DISCLAIMER
Although the research described in this report has been funded
wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
through Interagency Agreement Number DW 8993 0292-01-0 to the U.S.
Department of Energy, it has not been subjected to EPA review and
therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of EPA and no official
endorsement should be inferred.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vii
SUMMARY xiii
ABSTRACT xvi i
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SOURCE TERMS AND EXPOSURE 4
2.1 Source Terms 4
2.2 Aquatic Exposure Assessment 5
2.3 Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition 11
3. AQUATIC ENDPOINTS 26
3.1 Quotient Method 26
3.2 Analysis of Extrapolation Error 32
3.3 Ecosystem Uncertainty Analysis 45
4. TERRESTRIAL ENDPOINTS 57
4.1 Vegetation 57
4.2 Wildlife 63
5. EVALUATION OF RISKS 68
5.1 Evaluation of Risks to Fish 68
5.2 Evaluation of Risks of Algal Blooms 70
5.3 Evaluation of Risks to Vegetation and Wildlife 71
5.4 Validation Needs 71
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 73
7. REFERENCES . 74
APPENDIX A. Aquatic Toxicity Data 89
APPENDIX B. Terrestrial Toxicity Data 105
APPENDIX C. Common and Scientific Names of Animals and Plants . . 119
APPENDIX D. Species-Specific Results of the Analysis
of Extrapolation Error 125
APPENDIX E. Detailed Methods and Assumptions for
Ecosystem Uncertainty Analysis 143
m
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.3.1 Risk estimates for naphthalene (RAC 14) over a
range of environmental concentrations 48
3.3.2 Risk estimates for phenol (RAC 21) and lead (RAC 35)
over a range of environmental concentrations 49
3.3.3 Risk estimates for cadmium (RAC 34) and mercury
(RAC 32) over a range of environmental concentrations ... 50
3.3.4 Risk estimates for ammonia (RAC 5) over a range of
environmental concentrations 51
3.3.5 Maximum risk estimates 54
3.3.6 Comparison of risks among technologies 56
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Risk Analysis Categories (RACs) 2
2.1-1 Aqueous source terms for four direct coal
liquefaction technologies, control option 1 6
2.1-2 Aqueous source terms for four direct coal
liquefaction technologies, control option 2 7
2.2-1 Stream characteristics for the eastern reference site ... 9
2.2-2 Contaminant characteristics 10
2.2-3 Estimated ambient contaminant concentrations, eastern
reference stream, Exxon Donor Solvent process 12
2.2-4 Estimated ambient contaminant concentrations,
eastern reference stream, SRC-I process 14
2.2-5 Estimated ambient contaminant concentrations,
eastern reference stream, SRC-II process 16
2.2-6 Estimated ambient contaminant concentrations,
eastern reference stream, H-Coal process 18
2.3-1 Maximum ambient atmospheric and soil concentrations
for Exxon Donor Solvent process 22
2.3-2 Maximum ambient atmospheric and soil concentrations
for SRC-I process 23
2.3-3 Maximum ambient atmospheric and soil concentrations
for SRC-I I process 24
2.3-4 Maximum ambient atmospheric and soil concentrations
for H-Coal process 25
3.1-1 Toxicity quotients for toxicity to fish and algae
(ambient contaminant concentration/toxic benchmark
concentration) for the Exxon Donor Solvent process .... 28
3.1-2 Toxicity quotients for toxicity to fish and algae
(ambient contaminant concentration/toxic benchmark
concentration) for the SRC-I process 29
3.1-3 Toxicity quotients for toxicity to fish and algae
(ambient contaminant concentration/toxic benchmark
concentration) for the SRC-II process 30
Vll
-------
Table Page
3.1-4 Toxicity quotients for toxicity to fish and algae
(ambient contaminant concentration/toxic benchmark
concentration) for the H-Coal process ........... 31
3.2-1 Ranges of ratios of ambient concentrations to
PGMATCs and probabilities of exceeding the PGMATC
for Exxon Donor Solvent .................. 35
3.2-2 Ranges of ratios of ambient concentrations to
PGMATCs and probabilities of exceeding the PGMATC
for SRC-I ......................... 36
3.2-3 Ranges of ratios of ambient concentrations to
PGMATCs and probabilities of exceeding the PGMATC
for SRC-II ........................ 37
3.2-4 Ranges of ratios of ambient concentrations to
PGMATCs and probabilities of exceeding the PGMATC
for H-Coal ........................ 38
3.2-5 Estimated acute LC$Q for largemouth bass and
ratio of upper 95th percentile of the ambient
concentration to the LC for Exxon Donor Solvent ..... 40
3.2-6 Estimated acute LCso for largemouth bass and
ratio of upper 95th percentile of the ambient
concentration to the LC5Q for SRC-I ............ 41
3.2-7 Estimated acute LCso for largemouth bass and
ratio of upper 95th percentile of the ambient
concentration to the LC for SRC-II ........... 42
3.2-8 Estimated acute LCso for largemouth bass and
ratio of upper 95th percentile of the ambient
concentration, to the LC$Q for H-Coal ........... 43
3.3-1 Values of LCsn/ECso (mg/L) used to calculate E
matrix for SWACOM ..................... 47
3.3-2 Deterministic results of ecosystem uncertainty analyses . . 52
4.1-1 Toxicity quotients for terrestrial plants for Exxon
Donor Solvent process ................... 58
4.1-2 Toxicity quotients for terrestrial plants for SRC-I
process ............ .............. 59
4.1-3 Toxicity quotients for terrestrial plants for SRC-II
process ....... ...................
vm
-------
Table Page
4.2-1 Toxicity quotients for terrestrial animals for Exxon
Donor Solvent 64
4.2-2 Toxicity quotients for terrestrial animals for SRC-I
process 65
4.2-3 Toxicity quotients for terrestrial animals for SRC-II
process 66
5.1-1 RAC's determined to pose potentially significant
risks to fish populations by one or more of three
risk analysis methods 69
A-l Acute toxicity of synfuels to aquatic animals ........ 91
A-2 Chronic toxicity of synfuels chemicals to aquatic
animals 100
A-3 Toxicity of synfuels chemicals to algae 102
B-l Toxicity of chemicals in air to vascular plants 107
B-2 Toxicity of chemicals in soil or solution to
vascular plants 110
B-3 Toxicity of chemicals in air to animals 114
D-l Predicted geometric mean maximum allowable toxicant
concentrations (PGMATCs) for each RAC and each
species of fish 127
D-2 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 5 at annual median ambient
concentrations for Exxon Donor Solvent 128
D-3 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 13 at annual median ambient
concentrations for Exxon Donor Solvent 128
D-4 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 14 at annual median ambient
concentrations for Exxon Donor Solvent 129
D-5 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 20 at annual median ambient
concentrations for Exxon Donor Solvent 129
IX
-------
Table
D-6 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 21 at annual median ambient
concentrations for Exxon Donor Solvent ..........
D-7 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 22 at annual median ambient
concentrations for Exxon Donor Solvent
D-8 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 28 at annual median ambient
concentrations for Exxon Donor Solvent
D-9 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 34 at annual median ambient
concentrations for Exxon Donor Solvent .......... '31
D-10 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 5 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-I ................. 132
D-ll Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 13 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-I ................. 132
D-12 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 14 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-I ................. 133
D-13 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 21 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-I ................. 133
D-14 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 35 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-I ................. 134
D-15 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 5 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-II ................. 134
D-16 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 8 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-II ................. 135
D-17 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 12 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-II ................. 135
-------
Table page
D-18 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 14 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-II 136
D-19 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 15 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-II 136
D-20 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 21 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-II 137
D-21 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 26 at annual median ambient
concentrations for SRC-II 137
D-22 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 5 at annual median ambient
concentrations for H-Coal 138
D-23 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 13 at annual median ambient
concentrations for H-Coal 138
D-24 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 14 at annual median ambient
concentrations for H-Coal 139
D-25 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 20 at annual median ambient
concentrations for H-Coal 139
D-26 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 21 at annual median ambient
concentrations for H-Coal 140
D-27 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 22 at annual median ambient
concentrations for H-Coal 140
D-28 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 28 at annual median ambient
concentrations for H-Coal 141
D-29 Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish
populations due to RAC 34 at annual median ambient
concentrations for H-Coal 141
XI
-------
SUMMARY
The Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, is analyzing the potential environmental risks associated
with commercial-scale synthetic liquid fuels (Synfuels) technologies.
The overall objective of this environmental risk analysis project,
which is funded by the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, is to guide research on environmental
aspects of synfuel technologies by identifying the most hazardous
synfuel-derived contaminants and the most important sources of
scientific uncertainty concerning the fate and effects of these
contaminants.
The general strategy adopted for the project involves (1) grouping
the contaminants present in effluents and products of commercial-scale
processes into 38 categories termed Risk Analysis Categories (RACs),
(2) defining generalized reference environments with characteristics
representative of regions in which synfuels plants may be sited, and
(3) assessing risks of five distinct, adverse ecological effects:
reductions in fish populations, development of algal blooms that
detract from water use, reductions in timber yield or undesirable
changes in forest composition, reductions in agricultural production,
and reductions in wildlife populations.
This report presents results of a risk analysis of four direct
coal liquefaction technologies: Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS), Solvent
Refined Coal-I (SRC-I), Solvent Refined Coal-II (SRC-II), and H-Coal.
All four technologies had equal capacites (2.72 x 10 Mg coal/d) and
the same waste treatements. All were located in a reference
environment resembling eastern Kentucky. Estimates of concentrations
of released contaminants in the air, and surface water of the reference
environment were obtained, using a simple Gaussian-plume atmospheric
dispersion and deposition model and a steady-state surface water fate
model. Concentrations in soil and soil solution were obtained from a
terrestrial food chain model.
xm
-------
Risk to the five ecological end points were estimated using one or
more of three methods: the quotient method, analysis of extrapolation
error, and ecosystem uncertainty analysis. In the quotient method,
estimated environmental concentrations were simply compared to
toxicological benchmarks such as LC 's available for standard test
organisms. In analysis of extrapolation error, statistical
relationships between the sensitivities to contaminants of the various
taxa of fish and between acute- and chronic-effects concentrations were
used to estimate, with appropriate error bounds, chronic-effects
thresholds for reference fish species characteristic of the reference
environment. Taxonomic extrapolations were used to express the acute
effects of RACs in terms of a common unit, the 96-h LC™ for
largemouth bass. The extrapolated LC 's and the source-term
estimates were then combined and used to assess the acute toxicities of
the whole effluents from the four technologies. In ecosystem
uncertainty analysis, an aquatic ecosystem model was used to compute
risk estimates that explicitly incorporate biological phenomena such as
competition and predation that can magnify or offset the direct effects
of contaminants on organisms.
With respect to fish, nine RACs were determined to be significant
for one or more technologies. RAC 5 (ammonia) was the only RAC found
to be significant for all technologies, waste water treatment options
and analysis methods. RAC 34 (cadmium) was significant for all
technologies and water treatment options according to the quotient
method and by all three methods for EDS and H-Coal. The whole effluent
from the H-Coal technology with conventional water treatment appeared
to be the most acutely toxic. For all technologies, conventional
pollutants appear to be more hazardous to fish than the complex organic
contaminents usually associated with synfuels.
Algal toxicity data were available for only 10 RACs. Because of
the diversity of experimental designs and test end points used in algal
bioassays, it was not possible to rank the RACs using the quotient
method. However, most of the toxicity quotients calculated for algae
were lower than the corresponding quotients for fish. Ecosystem
uncertainty analysis suggested greater risks of effects on algae than
xiv
-------
did the quotient method, primarily because reductions in grazing
intensity related to effects of contaminants of zooplankton and fish.
Both methods indicate that RAC 21 (phenols) and RAC 34 (cadmium) posed
a significant risk to algal communities.
Conventional pollutants, especialy S0?and NCL, were found to
have the greatest potential effects on terrestrial biota. Ground-level
SCL concentrations for all technologies were within 1 to 2 orders
of magnitude of phytotoxic levels, even excluding background
concentrations. Gaseous pollutant levels were well below toxic
concentrations for terrestrial mammals; however, it was not possible to
assess risks to nonmammalian wildlife (e.g., birds). Of the materials
deposited on soil, RACs 31 (arsenic), 33 (nickel), and 34 (cadmium)
pose the greatest threat of toxicity. However, observable effects are
unlikely unless these trace elements are deposited on soils with high
background concentrations and chemical properties favoring the solution
phase.
xv
-------
ABSTRACT
SUTER, G. W. II, L. W. BARNTHOUSE, C. F. BAES III,
S. M. BARTELL, M. G. CANVENDISH, R. H. GARDNER,
R. V. O'NEILL, and A. E. ROSEN. 1984. Environmental
risk analysis for direct coal liquefaction. ORNL/TM-9074.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
166 pp.
This document presents an analysis of the risks to fish,
water quality (due to noxious algal blooms), crops, forests, and
wildlife of four technologies for the direct liquefaction of
coal: Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS), Solvent Refined Coal-I (SRC-I),
Solvent Refined Coal-II (SRC-II), and H-Coal. A variety of risk
analysis techniques were used to make maximum use of the available
data while considering effects of effluents on different levels of
ecological organization. The primary objective of the analysis
was to identify potentially significant effluent components.
Ammonia, cadmium, and phenols were identified as presenting the
highest risk to fish. An analysis of whole-effluent toxicity
indicates that the H-Coal effluent poses the highest risk of the
aqueous effluents examined. Six effluent components appear to
pose risks of algal blooms, primarily because of their effects on
higher trophic levels. The most important atmospheric emissions
for crops, forests, and wildlife appear to be the conventional
combustion products S0?, NO , and respirable particles. Of
£ /\
the materials deposited on the soil, arsenic, cadmium, and nickel
appear to be of greatest concern for phytotoxicity.
xvn
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Environmental risk analysis is defined as the process of
identifying and quantifying probabilities of adverse changes in the
environment resulting from human activities. This includes explicit
incorporation and, to the extent possible, quantification of scientific
uncertainties regarding the adverse effects being considered. The
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has
been developing and demonstrating methods for environmental risk
analysis for the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The methods employed in this project were described
by Barnthouse et al. (1982a). Although the concept of risk is
applicable to many types of environmental problems, this project is
focusing on risks associated with toxic environmental contaminants
derived from synthetic liquid fuels technologies. The overall
objective of the project is to guide research on environmental aspects
of synfuel technologies by identifying the most hazardous contaminants
(or classes of contaminants) and the most important sources of
scientific uncertainty concerning the fate and effects of
contaminants. The analyses, results, and conclusions of this research
are intended to be generic and are not estimates of actual impacts of
specific plants at specific sites.
For purposes of risk analysis, the thousands of potentially
significant contaminants in waste streams and products of synthetic
liquid fuels technologies have been grouped into the 38 categories,
termed Risk Analysis Categories (RACs) listed in Table 1-1. Five
ecological endpoints are used: (1) reductions in fish populations,
(2) development of algal communities that detract from water use,
(3) reductions in timber yield due to reduced growth or changes in
forest composition, (4) reductions in agricultural production, and
(5) reductions in wildlife populations. Rather than descriptions of
specific sites, we use reference environments, with characteristics
representative of regions in which synfuels plants may be sited.
Two reference environments are being used in the research for EPA: an
eastern environment resembling eastern Kentucky or West Virginia, and a
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 1-1. Risk Analysis Categories (RACs)
RAC Number
Name
Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
CO
SOX
NOX
H2S, HCN
NH3
C]-C4 alkanes,
alkynes, and
7 Formaldehyde
8 Volatile organochlorines
9 Volatile carboxylic acids
10 Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
11 Volatile N heterocyclics
12 Benzene
13 Aliphatic/alicyclic
hydrocarbons
14 Mono- or diaromatic hydro-
carbons (excluding
benzene)
15 Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons
16 Aliphatic amines (excluding
N heterocyclics)
17 Aromatic amines (excluding
N heterocyclics)
18 Alkaline N heterocyclics
("azaarenes")
(excluding "volatiles")
19 Neutral N, 0, S hetero-
cyclics (excluding
"volatiles")
20 Carboxylic acids
(excluding "volatiles")
21 Phenols
22 Aldehydes and ketones
("carbonyls") (excluding-
formaldehyde)
23 Nonheterocyclic organo-
sulfur
24 Alcohols
25 Nitroaromatics
26 Esters
27 Amides
28 Nitriles
29 Tars
30 Respirable particles
31 Arsenic
32 Mercury
33 Nickel
34 Cadmium
35 Lead
36 Other trace elements
37 Radioactive materials
38 Other remaining materials
cyclocompounds; bp < •v20°C
HCHO
To bp -vl20°C; CH2Cl2, CHC13, CC14
To bp M20°C; formic and acetic acids only
To bp -vl20°C; furan, THF, thiophene
To bp M20°C; pyridine, piperidine,
pyrrolidine, alkyl pyridines
Benzene
C$ (bp T40°C) and greater; paraffins,
olefins, cyclocompounds, terpenoids, waxes,
hydroaromatics
Toluene, xylenes, naphthalenes, biphenyls,
alkyl derivatives
Three rings and greater; anthracene, BaA,
BaP, alkyl derivatives
Primary, secondary, and tertiary nonhetero-
cyclic nitrogen, MeNH2, diMeNH, triMeN
Anilines, napthylamines, amino pyrenes;
nonheterocyclic nitrogen
Quinolines, acridines, benzacridines
(excluding pyridines)
Indoles, carbazoles, benzofurans, dibenzo-
thiophenes
Butyric, benzoic, phthalic, stearic
Phenol, cresols, catechol, resorcinol
Acetaldehyde, acrolein, acetone, benzaldehyde
Mercaptans, sulfides, disulfides,
thiophenols, CS2
Methanol, ethanol
Nitrobenzenes, nitropyrenes
Acetates, phthalates, formates
Acetamide, formamide, benzamides
Acrylonitrile, acetonitrile
As, all forms
Hg, all forms
Ni, all forms
Cd, all forms
Pb, all forms
-------
3 ORNL/TM-9074
western environment resembling the western slope of the Rocky Mountains
in north-western Colorado. Descriptions of the meteorology, hydrology,
demography, land-use patterns, and biota of these two reference
environments have been developed by Travis et al. (1983). The direct
coal liquefaction plants are assumed to be located in the east.
This report analyzes risks associated with four direct coal
liquefaction technologies: Exxon Donor Solvent, Solvent Refined Coal-I,
Solvent Refined Coal-II, and H-Coal. We assumed commerical-scale
facilities, with identical feed coal capacities and similar
environmental control technologies, sited in the eastern reference
environment. The objectives of the risk analyses were:
1. to identify the RACs of greatest concern for each technology,
2. to compare, as far as possible, the risks associated with
different technologies,
3. to compare the risks of the direct coal liquefaction
technology to the five ecological endpoints described above,
and
4. to compare the magnitudes of uncertainty concerning risks of
different RACs and different components of risk for each RAC.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 4
2. SOURCE TERMS AND EXPOSURE
This section presents (a) estimates of aqueous and atmospheric
source terms for four commercial-scale direct coal liquefaction plants,
and (b) estimates of exposure concentrations for aquatic and
terrestrial biota in the vicinity of a hypothetical plant site with
environmental characteristics that roughly correspond to those of
proposed sites for coal liquefaction facilities in eastern Kentucky and
West Virginia.
2.1 SOURCE TERMS
Under a subcontract with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TRW Inc.
(TRW) described commer'ical-scale plant configurations for four direct
coal liquefaction processes: Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS), Solvent
Refined Coal-I (SRC-I), Solvent Refined Coal-II (SRC-II), and H-Coal
(TRW 1983). The plant configurations evaluated by TRW were adapted
from design information provided by the developers of the four
technologies. The source term estimates developed by TRW were based
largely on published process conceptual designs and test data obtained
from bench-scale, pilot, or demonstration units. Control technology
efficiencies were extrapolated from similar applications in other
industries.
All four plant configurations reflect a feed coal capacity of
2.72 x 104 Mg (30,000 tons) per day. TRW estimated quantities and
compositions of all uncontrolled and controlled waste streams,
expressed in terms of Risk Analysis Units (RACs, Sect. 1). For aqueous
waste streams, two alternative control options were considered:
1. Steam stripping/ammonia recovery, followed by phenol
extraction and biological oxidation, and
2. Option 1, followed by carbon adsorption.
Because of the large number of atmospheric effluent sources associated
with each technology, the atmopherlc source terms are not presented in
this report. They are in Tables 2-8, 3-8, 4-8, and 5-8 of TRW (]983).
-------
5 ORNL/TM-9074
The aqueous source terms are summarized in Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-2.
They include process-generated wastewaters, coal pile runoff, and
cooling tower blowdown.
2.2 AQUATIC EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Estimates of contaminant concentrations in the surface waters of
the eastern reference environment were computed based on the source
terms described in the preceding section. The model used for this
purpose is described by Travis et al. (1983). The model used for the
synfuels risk analyses is similar in concept to the EXAMS model
(Baughman and Lassiter 1978), but is simpler in process chemistry and
environmental detail. A river is represented as a series of completely
mixed reaches. Within each reach, steady-state contaminant
concentrations are computed, based on dilution and on physical/chemical
removal of contaminants from the water column. Ranges and variances
can be placed on all of the environmental and chemical parameters in
the model to compute frequency distribution of environmental
concentrations. For this analysis, frequency distributions were
computed for all RACs, based on observed variability in environmental
parameters affecting contaminant transport and transformation.
2.2.1 Stream Characteristics
The environmental parameters used in the surface water exposure
analysis were: stream flow (m /s), stream width (m), reach length
o
(m), sediment load (mg/L), sediment density (g/m ), depth of the
biologically active sediment (cm), fraction of organic carbon in the
sediment (unitless), stream temperature (K), current velocity (m/s),
wind velocity (m/s), and radius of sediment particles (cm). Estimates
of stream flow, temperature, and suspended solids for the eastern site
were set within ranges observed by the U.S. Geological Survey for the
Big Sandy River at Louisa, Kentucky, and the Monongahela River at
Braddock, Pennsylvania (USGS 1977, 1979). Values for the other stream
parameters were taken from Southworth (1979). Irradiance values
p i
(photons cm s ) for estimating photolysis rates were obtained
from Zepp and Cline (1977).
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 2.1-1. Aqueous source terms (kg/h) for four direct coal
liquefaction technologies, control option 1
RAC
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
Exxon Donor
Solvent
0
5.5
0
0
0
0
0.41
0.066
0.26
35
2.6
0.011
0
0.23
Q
5.7
81
9
1.3
0.32
0
0
0
0
5.4
0.0033-0.0042
0.00202
0.0308-0.035
0.038
0.0382-0.0402
3.52
Solvent
Refined
Coal-I
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
1.2
0.11
0
0
0
0.11
0
43
0
4.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.0065
0.0115
0.0363
0.0033
0.5607
1.226
Solvent
Refined
Coal-II
0
5
0.002-0.017
0.79-1.8
0.017-0.96
0.15
0.0097
0.0047
0.0016-0.8
0.0063-0.12
2.2-7.2
0.093-0.26
0
0.023
0
9.5-14
0
7.7-16
0
0.0077-0.09
, 0.011
0.12
0.08-0.72
0
0
0.0045-0.0071
0.000518-0.008018
0.0076-0.0086
0.0025-0.003
0.0029-0.0039
0.46-7.79
H-Coal
0
5
0
4.8
0
0
0.05
0.0083
0.033
45
3.2
0.014
0
0.25
0
7.2
100
46
1.6
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0.0083
0.0005
0.0132-0.
0.01062-0
0.01762-0
0.353
0572
.01962
.08762
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 2.1-2. Aqueous source terms (kg/h) for four direct coal
liquefaction technologies, control option 2
RAC
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
Exxon Donor
Solvent
0
5.5
0
0
0
0
0.041
0.0066
0.026
3.5
0.26
0.0011
0
0.023
0
0.57
8.1
0.9
0.13
0.032
0
0
0
0
0.54
0.0033-0.0042
0.00202
0.0308-0.035
0.038
0.0382-0.0402
3.52
Solvent
Refined
Coal-I
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.5
0.12
0.011
0
0
0
0.011
0
4.3
0
0.41
0
0
0
0
0
0.0065
0.0115
0.0363
0.0033
0.5607
1.226
Solvent
Refined
Coal-II
0
5
0.0002-0.0017
0.079-0.18
0.0017-0.096
0.015
0.00097
0.00047
0.00016-0.08
0.00063-0.012
0.22-0.72
0.0093-0.0256
0
0.0023
0
0.95-1.4
0
0.77-1.6
0
0.00077-0.009
0.0011
0.012
0.008-0.072
0
0
0.0045-0.0071
H-Coal
0
5
0
0.48
0
0
0.005
0.00083
0.0033
4.5
0.32
0.0014
0
0.028
10
0.72
10
4.6
0.16
0.04
0
0
0
0
0.68
0.0083
0.000518-0.008018 0.0005
0.0076-0.0086
0.0025-0.003
0.0029-0.0039
0.46-7.79
0.0132-0.0572
0.01062-0
0.01762-0
0.353
.01962
.08762
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 8
Probability distributions for flow, temperature, and suspended
solids were determined from the means, minima, and maxima of these
parameters observed at the USGS stations. Normal distributions for
particle radius, organic carbon fraction, current velocity, and wind
velocity were derived from ranges used by Southworth (1979). Because
current velocity and sediment load are influenced by stream flow, a
correlation coefficient of 0.7 was specified between flow and velocity
and between flow and suspended solids. All environmental parameters
used in the exposure analysis are presented in Table 2.2-1.
2.2.2 Contaminant Characteristics
For organic contaminants, the chemical properties (Table 2.2-2)
used were molecular weight (g/mol), aqueous solubility (g/L),
octanol-water partition coefficient (unitless), quantum yield of direct
photolysis (unitless), molar extinction coefficient (cm-L/mol) and
vapor pressure (mmHg). Although microbial degradation rates can be
accommodated in the model, none were used for this assessment.
Molecular weights of organic compounds were obtained from Weast (1980);
aqueous solubility data were obtained from Verschueren (1977); and
octanol-water partition coefficients were obtained from Leo et al.
(1971) and Briggs (1981). Equations relating vapor pressure to ambient
temperature were generated from data points reported in Verschueren
(1977). These equations are linear approximations that should provide
adequate accuracy over the small ^temperature range (280-310 K) involved.
Derived characteristics of organic contaminants were calculated
using functional relationships obtained from the literature. Henry's
Law coefficients were approximated using the method of Dilling (1977).
Mass transfer rates and dissolved fractions were calculated using the
method of Southworth (1979), while particulate settling velocities were
calculated from Stoke's Law (Weast 1980). Direct photolysis rate
constants for anthracene were calculated using the method of Zepp and
Cline (1977), and adsorption/desorption coefficients were approximated
using the method of Karickhoff et al. (1979).
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 2.2-1. Stream characteristics for the eastern reference site
Environmental
parameter
Stream flow
Reach length
Stream width
Suspended solids
Sediment depth
Solids density
Fraction organic
carbon
Particle radius
Temperature
Current velocity
Wind velocity
Units
m3/s
m
m
mg/L
cm
g/cm3
cm
K
m/s
m/s
Mean
value
120
1000
40
25
1
1.02
0.1
0.005
298
0.25
1.5
Standard
deviation
75
0
0
20
0
0
0.1
0.0025
3
0.1
0.1
Minimum
value
50
1000
40
1
1
1.02
0.05
0.001
283
0.1
0.25
Maximum
value
600
1000
40
250
1
1.02
0.25
0.01
310
1.0
4.0
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
10
Table 2.2-2. Contaminant characteristics
RAC
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
Molecular
or atomic
Representative weight3
contaminant (g/mol)
Hydrogen sulfide
Ammonia
Butane
Formaldehyde
Methylene chloride
Acetic acid
Thiophene
Pyridine
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Toluene
Anthracene
Anil ine
Dibenzofuran
Butanoic acid
Phenol
Acrolein
Methanethiol
Methanol
Nitrobenzene
Methyl phthalate
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Fluorine
34.06
17.03
58.12
30.03
84.93
60.05
84.14
79.10
78.12
84.16
92.15
178.24
93.13
168.21
88.1
94.11
56.07
48.11
32.04
123.11
194.19
53.06
74.92
200.59
58.71
112.40
207.19
19.00
Octanol -water Quantum
Aqueous partition yield of
solubilityb coefficient photolysis
(g/L) (log P) (unitless)
6.1 E-02
1.67 E+01
3.80 E-02
4.43 E-01
3.00 E-02
1.78 E+00
5.5 E-02
5.15 E-01
7.50 E-05
3.40 E+01
3.00 E-03
5.62 E+01
8.20 E+01
9.74 E-01
4.00 E-05
2.7 E-01
1.9 E+00
5.0 E+00
3.83 E-01
-0.17C
1.81C
0.650C
2.13C
4.0C
2.69C
4.45C 0.003d
0.90C
4.12C
0.79°
1.46°
0.90e
-0.660C
-0.74C
2.316
-0.92C
aWeast (1980).
"Verschueren (1977).
:Leo et al. (1971).
QZepp and Schlotzhauer (1979),
5Briggs (1981).
-------
11 ORNL/TM-9074
Because of their complex environmental chemistry, removal processes
for trace elements were not directly modeled. Rates of removal by
sedimentation were estimated, using an adsorption/desorption coefficient
of 200. Schell and Sibley's (1982) study of Kd's for radionuclides
suggests that this is probably a conservative estimate for most trace
elments under most environmental conditions.
2.2.3 Results
Model runs were performed for the reference stream using the source
rates presented in Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-2. The means, medians, and upper
95% concentrations (i.e., the concentrations equaled or exceeded in 5% of
the Monte Carlo simulations) in 1-km stream reaches immediately adjacent
to the release sites are presented in Tables 2.2-3 through 2.2-6. For all
practical purposes, the concentrations computed using contaminant-specific
removal rates are identical to concentrations computed from pure dilution
rates. Thus, at least in the immediate vicinity of contaminant sources
located on rivers such as the eastern and western reference streams, the
environmental removal processes modeled have very little influence on
steady-state contaminant concentrations. It is possible, however, that
some of the processes not modeled (e.g., hydrolysis, complexation, or
microbial degradation) may occur more rapidly than do photolysis,
sedimentation, and volatilization.
2.3 ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION
The short-range atmospheric dispersion code AIRDOS-EPA (Moore et al.
1979) was used in the environmental risk analysis to calculate
ground-level atmospheric concentrations and deposition. This code is
summarized by Travis et al. (1983), who also describe the method for
calculating accumulation in soil. Soil concentrations are calculated for
a 35-year accumulation period using site-specific values for soil bulk
density, precipitation, evapotranspiration, and irrigation and taking into
account removal by leaching, biological degradation, and chemical
degradation.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
12
Table 2.2-3. Estimated ambient contaminant concentrations, eastern
reference stream, Exxon Donor Solvent process
RAC
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Treatment
Reference compound option
Hydrogen sulfide
Ammonia
Butane
Formaldehyde
Methylene chloride
Acetic acid
, Thiophene
Pyridine
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Toluene
Anthracene
Methyl ami ne
Aniline
Quinol ine
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
. 1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Mean (g/L)
0
0
1.3 E-05
1.3 E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.5 E-07
9.5 E-08
1.5 E-07
1.5 E-08
6.0 E-07
6.0 E-08
8.1 E-05
8.1 E-06
6.0 E-06
6.0 E-07
2.2 E-08
2.2 E-09
0
0
5.3 E-07
5.3 E-08
0
0
Median (g/L)
0
0
1.1 E-05
1.1 E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.3 E-07
8.3 E-08
1.3 E-07
1.3 E-08
5.3 E-07
5.3 E-08
7.1 E-05
7.1 E-06
5.3 E-06
5.3 E-07
2.1 E-08
2.1 E-09
0
0
4.7 E-07
4.7 E-08
0
0
95% (g/L)
0
0
2.5 E-05
2.5 E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9 E-06
1.9 E-07
3.0 E-07
3.0 E-08
1.2 E-06
1.2 E-07
1.6 E-04
1.6 E-05
1.2 E-05
1.2 E-06
3.8 E-08
3.8 E-09
0
0
1.0 E-06
1.0 E-07
0
0
-------
13
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 2.2-3. (continued)
RAC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
Reference compound
Uioenzof uran
Butanoic acid
Phenol
Acrolein
Methanethiol
Methanol
Nitrobenzene
Methyl pntnalate
Acetamiae
Acrylonitri le
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Fluorine
Treatment
option
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
" 2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Mean (g/L)
1.3 E-05
1.3 E-06
1.9 E-04
1.9 E-05
2.1 E-05
2.1 E-06
3.0 E-06
3.0 E-07
7.4 E-07
7.4 E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2 E-05
1.2 E-06
9.7 E-09
9.7 E-09
4.7 E-09
4.7 E-09
8.1 E-08
8.1 E-08
8.8 £-08
8.8 E-08
9.3 E-08
9.3 E-08
8.1 E-06
8.1 E-06
Median (g/L)
1.2 E-05
1.2 E-06
1.6 E-04
1.6 E-05
1.8 E-05
1.8 E-06
2.6 E-06
2.6 E-07
6.5 E-07
6.5 E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1 E-05
1.1 E-06
8.5 E-09
8.5 E-09
4.1 E-09
4.1 E-09
7-1 E-08
7.1 E-08
7.7 E-08
7.7 E-08
8.2 E-08
8.2 E-08
7.2 E-06
7.2 E-06
95% (g/L)
2.6 E-05
2.6 E-06
3.7 E-04
3.7 E-05
4.1 E-05
4.1 E-06
5.9 E-06
5.9 E-07
1.5 E-06
1.5 E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.5 E-05
2.5 E-06
1.9 E-08
1.9 E-08
9.2 E-09
9.2 E-09
1.6 E-07
1.6 E-07
1.7 E-07
1.7 E-07
1.8 E-07
1.8 E-07
1.6 E-05
1.6 E-05
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 14
Table 2.2-4. Estimated amoient contaminant concentrations, eastern
reference stream, SRC-I process
RAC
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
VI
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Treatment
Reference compound option
Hydrogen sulfide
Ammonia
Butane
Formaldehyde
Metnylene chloride
Acetic acid
Thiophene
Pyridine
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Toluene
Antnracene
Methyl amine
Aniline
Quinol ine
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1-
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Mean (g/L)
0
0
2.1 E-05
2.1 E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.1 E-05
8.1 E-06
2.8 E-06
2.8 E-07
2.2 E-07
2.2 E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
Median (g/L)
0
0
1.8 E-05
1.8 E-05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.1 E-05
7.1 E-06
2.4 E-06
2.4 E-07
2.1 E-07
2.1 E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
95% (g/L)
0
0
4.1
4.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6
1.6
5.5
5.5
3.8
3.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
E-05
E-05
E-04
E-05
E-06
E-07
E-07
E-08
-------
15
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 2.2-4. (continued)
RAC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
Reference compound
Oibenzofuran
Butanoic acid
Phenol
Acrolein
Methanethiol
Methanol
Nitrobenzene
Metnyl phthalate
Acetamide
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Fluorine
Treatment
option
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Mean (g/L)
2.5 E-07
2.5 E-08
0
0
9.9 E-05
9.9 E-06
0
0
9.5 E-06
9.5 E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5 E-08
1.5 E-08
2.7 E-08
2.7 E-08
8.4 E-08
8.4 E-08
7.6 E-09
7.6 E-09
1.3 E-06
1.3 E-06
2.8 E-06
2.8 E-06
Median (g/L)
2.2 E-07
2.2 E-08
0
0
8.7 E-05
8.7 E-06
0
0
8.3 E-06
8.3 E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3 E-08
1.3 E-08
2.3 E-08
2.3 E-08
7.4 E-08
7.4 E-08
6.7 E-09
6.7 E-09
1.1 E-06
1.1 E-06
2.5 E-06
2.5 E-06
95% (g/L)
5.0 E-07
5.0 E-08
0
0
2.0 E-04
2.0 E-05
0
0
1.9 E-05
1.9 E-06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0 E-08
3.0 E-08
5.2 E-08
5.2 E-08
1.7 E-07
1.7 E-07
1.5 E-08
1.5 E-08
2.6 E-06
2.6 E-06
5.6 E-06
5.6 E-06
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
16
Table 2.2-5. Estimated ambient contaminant concentrations, eastern
reference stream, SRC-II process
RAC
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Treatment
Reference compound option
Hydrogen sulfide
Ammonia
Butane
Formaldehyde
Methylene chloride
Acetic acid
Thiophene
Pyridine
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Toluene
Anthracene
Metnylamine
Anil ine
Quinol ine
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1 -
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Mean (g/L)
0
0
1.2 E-05
1.2 E-05
3.9 E-08
3.9 E-09
4.2 E-06
4.2 E-07
2.2 E-06
2.2 E-07
3.5 E-07
3. 5. E-08
2.2 E-08
2.2 E-09
1.1 E-08
1.1 E-09
1.9 E-06
1.9 E-07
2.8 E-07
2.8 E-08
1.7 E-05
1.7 E-06
5.3 E-07
5.3 E-08
0
0
5.3 E-08
5.3 E-09
0
0
Median (g/L)
0
0
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-05
3.5 E-08
3.5 E-09
3.7 E-06
3.7 E-07
2.0 E-06
2.0 E-07
3.1 E-07
3.1 E-08
2.0 E-08
2.0 E-09
9.6 E-09
9.6 E-10
1.6 E-06
1.6 E-07
2.4 E-07
2.4 E-08
1.5 E-05
1.5 E-06
4.9 E-07
4.9 E-08
0
0
4.7 E-08
4.7 E-09
0
0
95% (g/L)
0
0
2.3 E-05
2.3 E-05
7.8 E-08
7.8 E-09
8.2 E-06
8.2 E-07
4.4 E-06
4.4 E-07
6.8 E-07
6.8 E-08
4.4 E-08
4.4 E-09
2.1 E-08
2.1 E-09
3.6 E-06
3.6 E-07
5.5 E-07
5.5 E-08
3.3 E-05
3.3 E-06
9.1 E-07
9.1 E-08
0
0
1.1 E-07
1.1 E-08
0
0
-------
17
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 2.2-5. (continued)
RAC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
Reference compound
Oibenzofuran
Butanoic acid
Phenol
Acrolein
Metnanethiol
Methanol
Nitrobenzene
Methyl phthalate
Acetamide
Acrylonitri le
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Fluorine
Treatment
option
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
Mean (g/L)
3.2 E-05
3.2 E-06
0
0
3.7 E-05
3.7 E-06
0
0
2.1 E-07
2.1 E-08
2.5 E-08
2.5 E-09
2.8 E-07
2.8 E-08
1.7 E-06
1.7 E-07
0
0
0
0
1.6 E-08
1.6 E-08
1.9 E-08
1.9 E-08
2.0 E-08
2.0 E-08
6.9 E-09
6.9 E-09
9.0 E-09
9.0 E-09
1.8 E-05
1.8 E-05
Median (g/L)
2.8 E-05
2.8 E-06
0
0
3.3 E-05
3.3 E-06
0
0
1.8 E-07
1.8 E-08
2.2 E-08
2.2 E-09
2.4 E-07
2.4 E-08
1.5 E-06
1.5 E-07
0
0
0
0
1.4 E-08
1.4 E-08
1.6 E-08
1.6 E-08
1.7 E-08
1.7 E-08
6.1 E-09
6.1 E-09
7.9 E-09
7.9 E-09
1.6 E-05
1.6 E-05
95% (g/L)
6.4 E-05
6.4 E-06
0
0
7.3 E-05
7.3 E-06
0
0
4.1 E-07
4.1 E-08
5.0 E-08
5.0 E-09
5.5 E-07
5.5 E-08
3.3 E-06
3.3 E-07
0
0
0
0
3.2 E-08
3.2 E-08
3.7 E-08
3.7 E-08
3.9 E-08
3.9 E-08
1.4 E-08
1.4 E-08
1.8 E-08
1.8 E-08
3.6 E-05
3.6 E-05
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
18
Table 2.2-6. Estimated ambient contaminant concentrations, eastern
reference stream, H-Coal process.
RAC
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Treatment
Reference compound option
Hydrogen sulfide
Ammonia
Butane
formaldehyde
Methylene chloride
Acetic acid
Thiophene
Pyridine
benzene
Cyclohexane
Toluene
Anthracene
Methyl ami ne
Ani 1 ine
Quinol ine
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Mean (g/L)
0
0
1.2 E-05
1.2 E-05
0
0
1.1 E-05
1.1 E-06
0
0
0
0
1.2 E-07
1.2 E-08
1.9 E-08
1.9 E-09
7.6 E-08
7.6 E-09
1.0 E-04
1.0 E-05
7.4 E-06
7.4 E-07
2.9 E-08
2.9 E-09
0
0
6.5 E-07
6.5 E-08
0
0
Median (g/L)
0
0
1.0 E-05
1.0 E-05
0
0
9.8 E-06
9.8 E-07
0
0
0
0
1.0 E-07
1.0 E-08
1.7 E-08
1.7 E-09
6.7 E-08
6.7 E-09
9.1 E-05
9.1 E-06
6.5 E-06
6.5 E-07
2.7 E-08
2.7 E-09
0
0
5.7 E-07
5.7 E-08
0
0
95% (g/L)
0
0
2.3 E-05
2.3 E-05
0
0
2.2 E-05
2.2 E-06
0
0
0
0
2.3 E-07
2.3 E-08
3.8 E-08
3.8 E-09
1.5 E-07
1.5 E-08
2.0 E-04
2.0 E-05
1.5 E-05
1.5 E-06
4.9 E-08
4.9 E-09
0
0
1.3 E-06
1.3 E-07
0
0
-------
19
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 2.2-6. (continued)
rtAC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
Reference compound
Dioenzofuran
Butanoic acid
Phenol
Acrolein
Methanethiol
Methanol
Nitrobenzene
Metnyl pnthalate
Acetamide
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Fluorine
Treatment
option
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Mean (g/L)
1.7 E-05
1.7 E-06
2.3 E-04
2.3 E-05
1.1 E-04
1.1 E-05
3.7 E-06
3.7 E-07
9.3 E-07
9.3 E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.6 E-05
1.6 E-06
1.9 E-08
1.9 E-08
1.2 E-09
1.2 E-09
1.3 E-07
1.3 E-07
4.5 E-08
4.5 E-08
2.0 E-07
2.0 E-07
8.2 E-07
8.2 E-07
Median (g/L)
1.5 E-05
1.5 E-06
2.0 E-04
2.0 E-05
9.3 E-05
9.3 E-06
3.3 E-06
3.3 E-07
8.1 E-07
8.1 E-08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.4 E-05
1.4 E-06
1.7 E-08
1.7 E-08
1.0 E-09
1.0 E-09
1.2 E-07
1.2 E-07
4.0 E-08
4.0 E-08
1.8 E-07
1.8 E-07
7.2 E-07
7.2 E-07
95% (g/L)
3.3 E-05
3.3 E-06
4.6 E-04
4.6 E-05
2.1 E-04
2.1 E-05
7.3 E-06
7.3 E-07
1.8 E-06
1.8 E-07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.1 E-05
3.1 E-06
3.8 E-08
3.8 E-08
2.3 E-09
2.3 E-09
2.6 E-07
2.6 E-07
8.9 E-08
8.9 E-08
4.0 E-07
4.0 E-07
1.6 E-06
1.6 E-06
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 20
Because most phytotoxicity studies are done in solution culture,
we added a calculated concentration in soil solution that is not
described in previous documents. For calculation of the soil solution
concentration, the total accumulation in the soil compartment is first
calculated as above. That is, the depositing material is summed over
the lifetime of the facility and corrected for leaching, degradation,
and other removal processes. The retained material is then partitioned
between the solid and solution phases of the soil compartment assuming
the relationship:
where C, = the concentration of compound i in root zone soil
I o ^
solution (ug/L),
C. = the concentration of compound i in root zone soil
(ug/kg), and
K, = the distribution coefficient (L/kg).
Because Kd is in the denominator of Eq. (1), the soil solution
concentration, C. could take on extremely high values with small values
of K, . To bound the maximum value of C- , it is assumed that the upper
bound concentration is represented by the total deposited and retained
material divided by the quantity of water in the root zone defined by d or
max j - -X$i tb)]
10 p 9 d Xs-
where
-2 -1
D. = the ground-level deposition rate of compound i (ug m s ),
Xgi = the sum of all soil removal rate constants (L/s),
t, = the period of long-term buildup in soil, equal to the length
of time that the source term is in operation(s),
? ? 2 ?
10 = a conversion factor from g/cm to kg/m [(10,000 cm /I m )
(1 kg/1000 g)],
-------
21 ORNL/TM-9074
p = soil bulk density (g/cm3),
O O
9 = volumetric water content (cm /cm ),
d = the depth of the root zone (cm), and
2
r = soil volumetric water content (ml/cm ).
If Ciss calculated using Eq. (1) exceeds Cmax calculated using
Eq. (2), then C-ss is set equal to Cmax. The value of 9 used in
Eq. (2) is very important in providing a reasonable estimate of Cmax.
Since measured values of K, are usually determined under saturated
conditions, 9 in Eq. (2) represents total soil porosity.
These calculations generate sector-average ground-level
concentrations in air, soil, and soil solution in 16 directions at 500-m
intervals from 1,500 m to 50,000 m from the source. The highest annual
average concentrations in air and the highest soil and soil solution
concentrations after 35 years of deposition are presented in Tables 2.3-1
through 2.3-4.
-------
Table 2.3-1. Maximum ambient atmospheric and soil concentrations for Exxon Donor Solvent process.
o
70
KAC
RAC name
Annual average
concentration in air
(ug/m3)
Concentration in
soil (ug/kg)
Concentration in
soil solution (ug/L)
i
10
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene >
Aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono- or di aromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Other trace elements
Radioactive materials
17
6
7
5
4
2
1.
3
0
7
0
1
0
9
9
45
1
1
8
1
1
0
0
.4
.61
.57
.92
.43
.47
.37
.19
E-02
E-02
.415
.14
.261
.09
.52
.96
.38
.4
.85
.54
.57
.32
.32
E-03
E-03
E-06
E-04
E-05
E-04
E-04
E-03
2
1
1
35
1
37
3
2
4
133
1
1
330
2
2460
49
981
No accumulation in soil
No accumulation in soil
No accumulation in soil
No emissions
No emissions
.38 2.
No emissions
No emissions
.82 E-03
.03 E-02
.4
.85
.3
.79 E-02
.39
.14 E-02
.65 E-02
.12 E-05
.46 E-03
.1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
1.
7.
2.
0.
0.
7.
0.
1.
196
3.
5.
1.
2.
16.
7.
1.
47
51
91
53
37
E-03
E-03
573
81
E-02
919
09
4
1
65
46
4
56
09
E-02
E-02
E-06
E-04
.0287
.0226
ro
ro
-------
Table 2.3-2. Maximum ambient atmospheric and soil concentrations for SRC-I
RAC
RAC name
Annual average
concentration in air
(ug/m3)
Concentration in
soil (ug/kg)
Concentration in
soil solution (ug/L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono- or diaromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Other trace elements
Radioactive materials
2
5
7
1
3
4
1
2
1
8
8
1
96
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
.61
.40
.86
.79 E-02
.11 E-01
.77
.29
.96
.48
.71 E-01
.32 E-01
.82
.7
.23 E-03
.44 E-05
.01
.99 E-05
.01 E-03
.0287
.0226
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
No emissions
1.92
33.4
1.72
133
4.62
3.16 E-02
466
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
No accumulation in
2200
2.30 E-03
32000
4.74
766
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
soil
soil
soil
1.
2.
3.
2.
9.
8.
686
soi 1
11.
2.
213
7.
8.
soil
soil
99
38
44
05
53
31
0
30
29
51
E-01
E-03
E-04
E-01
E-01
ro
CO
o
po
i
10
o
-------
Table 2.3-3. Maximum ambient atmospheric and soil concentrations for SRC-II Process.
o
70
RAC RAC name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono- or diaromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S neterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmi urn
Lead
Other trace elements
Radioactive materials
Annual average
concentration in air
(ug/m3)
1.67
1.53
8.30
3.72
0.0622
0.234
0.12
2.10
2.07
0.463
0.00386
0.0564
0.235
0.784
63.3
4.84 E-04
1.35 E-05
3.57 E-04
1.68 E-05
2.27 E-04
2.40 E-02
Concentration in Concentration in
soil (ug/kg) soil solution (ug/L)
1.50
2.55 E-03
1.18
0.0498
54.3
1.20
41.6
0.0205
0.516
0.00892
201
14.5
2.16 E-03
10.4
8.41 E-02
1.92
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
No emissions
soil
soil
soil
1.55
2.13 E-03
2.43
0.0383
3.88
0.241
0.640
0.0422
0.198
0.00235
295
soi 1
7.24 E-02
2.16 E-04
6.93 E-02
1.29 E-02
2.13 E-03
soil
-------
Table 2.3-4. Maximum ambient atmospheric and soil concentrations for H-Coal Process
RAC
RAC name
Annual average
concentration in air
(ug/m3)
Concentration in
soil (ug/kg)
Concentration in
soil solution (ug/L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/ali cyclic hydrocarbons
Mono- or diaromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmi urn
Lead
Other trace elements
Radioactive materials
0.679
2.50
3.18
7.65 E-03
5.74
0.103
0.946
4.63
0.0658
0.0285
0.0960
0.175
0.556
0.959
0.0485
58.4
3.10 E-04
1.77 E-05
1.12 E-03
1.84 E-04
1.89 E-03
4.73 E-02
1.20 E-02
2.31
0.516
24.4
2.69
5.91
0.152
0.877
0.00664
8.86
245
0.0581
307
2.83 E-03
1130
23.2
776
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
No accumulation in
soil
soil
soil
soil
2.39
1.06
1.75
0.537
0.0909
0.313
0.337
0.00175
7.38
361
0.0264
soi 1
1.53
2.83 E-04
7.51
3.57
0.863
soil
soil
ro
01
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 26
3. AQUATIC ENDPOINTS
3.1 QUOTIENT METHOD
Also known as the "Ratio Method," this approach to assessing the
relative hazard of several constituents has been used in such fields as
environmental health and epidemiology. The quotient is calculated from
the ratio of the known or estimated concentration of a chemical in the
environment to a concentration of that chemical proven or calculated
(by extrapolation from experimental data) to be toxic to certain
organisms at a particular test endpoint. The endpoint, known as a
toxicological benchmark, may be one of several, among them the EPA
water quality criteria (USEPA 1980a-p), EC2Q (the effective
concentration causing a designated effect on 20% of the test
organisms), LOTC (lowest observed toxic concentration), TL (median
tolerance limit), and IC™ (the concentration required to kill 50% of
the test organisms).
Because this report compares potential toxic differences amoung
groups of chemicals (RACs), benchmarks common to as many of the RACs as
possible were preferred. The LC,-n and TL (which are equivalent),
OU III
were selected to represent acute toxicity (Table A-l). Chronic effects
are presented as GMATCs (geometric mean maximum allowable toxicant
concentrations, which is the geometric mean of the highest no observed
effect concentration and the lowest-observed-effect concentration)
(Table A-2). In contrast, benchmarks used in algal tests can vary
between studies, and, therefore, a variety of test endpoints were
selected for this report (Table A-3).
Appendix A does not include all extant data on the responses of
freshwater organisms to the test chemicals. For example, with the
heavy metals, several representative values are included for the sake
of brevity.
As in the selection of benchmarks, the test species chosen for
tabulation were those that appear most frequently in the literature.
Invertebrates were usually represented by cladocerans (Daphnia species),
with insect data presented when available. The fish species selected
-------
27 ORNL/TM-9074
are those usually used in toxicity testing, namely, fathead minnows
(Pimephales promelas), bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus), and rainbow
trout (Salmo gairdneri). Data for algal assays are sparse, so all
species appearing in the literature, to our knowledge, were included
in Table A-3.
Tables 3.1-1 to 3.1-4 present the highest quotients for each RAC
and category of effect for the four direct liquefaction technologies.
The acute toxicity quotients were calculated using the upper 95th
percentile concentration (an estimate of the worst acute exposure,
assuming stable plant operation). The chronic quotients were
calculated using the annual median concentration, and the algal
quotients were calculated for both concentrations because the
distinction between acute and chronic effects is not clear for algae.
The higher the value of these quotients the greater the risk of acute
effects on organisms in the reference stream.
Quotients are interpreted according to the best judgment of the
analyst (Barnthouse et al. 1982a). A value of 0.01 (1.0 E-02) or less
indicates little apparent environmental significance; 0.01 to 10
(1.0 E+01) suggests possible or potential adverse effects; and greater
than 10 describes a chemical of probable environmental concern. The
utility of these screening criteria must be confirmed by further
experience in risk analysis and by field studies.
Ammonia (alkaline gases-RAC 5) appears to be the most serious
ichthyotoxin in the effluents of all four technologies, with quotients
for fish acute toxicity of 0.23 to 0.60 for both effluent treatments.
Cadmium (RAC 34) also appears to be a general problem with fish
quotients greater than 0.01 for acute toxicity in all technologies.
Quotients greater than 0.01 for acute or chronic toxicity appeared in
three technologies for aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons (RAC 13) and
phenols (RAC 21); in two technologies for mono- or diaromatic
hydrocarbons (RAC 14), aldehydes and ketones (RAC 22), and mercury
(RAC 32); and in one technology for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(RAC 15) and esters (RAC 26). SRC-II has the most RACs (8) that appear
problematical for effects on fish.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
28
Table 3.1-1.
Toxicity quotients for toxicity to fish and algae (ambient contaminant concentration/toxic benchmark
concentration) for the Exxon Donor Solvent process
Highest quotient3
RAC No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
RAC name
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N-heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/alicyclic
hydrocarbons
Mono- or diaromatic
hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carooxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocycl ic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Other trace elements
(fluorine)
Treatment^
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
Z
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Fish acute
95?
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
3.69 E-01
3.69 E-01
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
2.23 E-04
2.23 E-05
1.14 E-02
1.14 E-03
5.15 E-03
5.15 E-04
9.60 E-04
9.60 E-05
No effuent
No toxicity data
No effluent
No toxicity data
2.05 E-03
2.05 E-04
5.29 E-03
5.29 E-04
1.29 E-01
1.20 E-02
No toxicity data
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
2.43 E-03
2.43 E-04
No effluent
No effluent
1.43 E-06
1.43 E-06
3.84 E-04
3.84 E-04
3.47 E-05
3.47 E-05
1.73 E-01
1.73 E-01
3.05 E-04
3.05 E-04
6.97 E-03
6.97 E-03
Fish chronic
Median
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
8.52 E-03
8.52 E-04
No toxicity data
No toxicity dat ,.
No toxicity data
8.35 E-03
8.35 E-04
1.26 E-01
1.25 E-02
4.22 E-03
4.22 E-04
1.71 E-06
1.71 E-06
1.79 E-02
1.79 E-02
6.53 E-04
6.53 E-04
4.55 E-02
4.55 E-02
4.30 E-03
4.30 E-03
6.33 E-05
6.33 E-05
Algae
Median 95%
No toxicity data
1.01 E-06 2.25 E-06
1.01 E-07 2.25 E-07
No toxicity data
1.60 E-04 3.59 E-04
1.60 E-05 3.59 E-05
3.84 E-07 7.06 E-07
3.84 E-08 7.05 E-08
4.67 E-02 1.05 E-01
4.67 E-03 1.05 E-02
No toxicity data
9.15 E-04 2.05 E-03
9.15 E-05 2.05 E-04
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
3.68 E-06 8.25 E-06
3.68 E-06 8.25 E-06
5.13 E-05 1.15 E-04
5.13 E-02 1.15 E-04
7.12 E-04 1.60 E-03
7.12 E-04 1.60 E-03
1.55 E-02 3.46 E-02
1.55 E-02 3.46 E-02
1.63 E-04 3.66 E-04
1.63 E-04 3.66 E-04
No toxicity data
^The quotients are calculated using the lowest acute LC50 or TU for fish in each RAC (Table A-l), the lowest chronic
response by a fish (Table A-2), and the lowest algal response Table A-3) with either the median or upper 95th
percentile of the predicted ambient contaminant concentration (Tables 2.2-3 through 6).
DThe alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia recovery, phenol extraction, and bioloqical
oxidation; and (2) treatment 1 plus carbon adsorption.
-------
29
ORNL/TM-9074
Taole 3.1-2.
Toxicity quotients for toxicity to fish and algae (ambient contaminant concentration/toxic benchmark
concentration) for the SRC-I process
Highest quotient*1
RAC No.
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
RAC Name Treatment
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Alipnatic/alicyclic
hydrocarbons
Mono- or di aromatic
hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline nitrogen heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Other trace elements
(fluorine)
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Fish acute
9~5?
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
6.03 E-01
6.03 E-01
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
1.14 E-02
1.14 E-03
2.38 E-03
2.38 E-04
9.60 E-03
9.60 E-04
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No toxicity data
No effluent
2.53 E-02
2.53 E-03
No effluent
No toxicity data
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
2.22 E-06
2.22 E-06
2.18 E-03
2.18 E-03
3.60 E-05
3.60 E-05
1.50 E-02
1.50 E-02
4.26 E-03
4.26 E-03
2.43 E-03
2.43 E-03
Fish chronic
Median
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
3.93 E-03
3.93 E-04
No toxicity data
3.99 E-02
3.99 E-03
2.64 E-06
2.64 E-06
1.02 E-01
1.02 E-01
6.77 E-04
6.77 E-04
3.95 E-03
3.95 E-03
6.00 E-02
6.00 E-02
2.21 E-05
2.21 E-05
Algae
Median 95*
No toxicity data
(nutrient)
No toxicity data
7.39 E-05 1.66 E-04
7.39 E-06 1.66 E-05
3.84 E-06 7.06 E-06
3.84 E-07 7.06 E-07
4.37 E-03 9.79 E-03
4.37 E-04 9.79 E-04
5.70 E-06 1.28 E-05
5.70 E-06 1.28 E-05
2.92 E-04 6.55 E-04
2.92 E-04 6.55 E-04
7.38 E-04 1.65 E-03
7.38 E-04 1.65 E-03
1.34 E-03 3.01 E-03
1.34 E-03 3.01 E-03
2.28 E-03 5.11 E-03
2.28 E-03 5.11 E-03
No toxicity data
aThe quotients are calculated using the lowest acute LC^Q or Tlm for fish in each RAC (Table A-l), the lowest chronic
response by a fish (Table A-2), and the lowest algal response (Table A-3) with either the median or upper 95th
percentile of the predicted ambient contaminant concentration (Table 2.2-4).
"The alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia recovery,
oxidation; and (2) treatment 1 plus carbon adsorption.
phenol extraction, and biological
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
30
Table 3.1-3. Toxicity quotients for toxicity to fisn and algae (ambient contaminant concentration/toxic benchmark
concentration) for the SRC-II process
Highest quotient3
Fish acute Fish chronic Algae
RAC No.
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
RAC name Treatment0
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/alicyclic
Mono- or diaromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocycl ic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Other trace elements
(fluorine)
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
aThe quotients are calculated using the lowest acute
response by a fish (Table A-2), and the lowest algal
95% Median
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
3.35 E-01 No toxicity
3.35 E-01
1.57 E-08 No toxicity
1.57 E-09
1.64 E-04 No toxicity
1.64 E-05
1.60 E-04 1.63 E-03
1.60 E-05 1.63 E-04
7.76 E-06 No toxicity
7.76 E-07
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
6.87 E-04 No toxicity
6.87 E-05
3.90 E-05 No toxicity
3.90 E-06
1.43 E-02 2.36 E-02
1.43 E-03 2.36 E-03
2.27 E-02 No toxicity
2.27 E-03
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No effluent
No toxicity data
No effluent
9.40 E-03 1.48 E-02
9.40 E-04 1.48 E-03
No effluent
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
4.49 E-03 1.83 E-01
4.49 E-04 1.83 E-02
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
2.43 E-06 2.89 E-06
2.43 E-06 2.89 E-06
1.58 E-03 7.09 E-02
1.58 E-03 7.00 E-02
8.52 E-06 1.60 E-04
8.52 E-06 1.60 E-04
1.37 E-02 3.59 E-03
1.37 E-02 3.59 E-03
2.96 E-05 4.17 E-04
2.96 E-05 4.17 E-04
1.54 E-02 1.40 E-04
1.54 E-02 1.40 E-04
Median 95%
data No toxicity data
data No toxicity data
data No toxicity data
data No toxicity data
data 3.10 E-06 6.93 E-06
3.10 E-07 6.93 E-07
data No toxicity data
4.43 E-04 9.94 E-04
4.43 E-05 9.94 E-05
data 9.07 E-06 1.67 E-05
9.07 E-07 1.67 E-06
1.63 E-03 3.64 E-03
1.63 E-04 3.64 E-04
1.33 E-02 2.98 E-02
1.33 E-03 2.98 E-03
6.22 E-06 1.39 E-05
6.22 E-06 1.39 E-05
2.04 E-04 4.57 E-04
2.04 E-04 4.57 E-04
1.75 E-04 3.92 E-04
1.75 E-04 3.92 E-04
1.22 E-03 2.73 E-03
1.22 E-03 2.73 E-03
1.59 E-05 3.55 E-05
1.59 E-05 3.55 E-05
No toxicity data
LC5Q or TLm for fish in each RAC (Table A-l), the lowest chronic
response (Table A-3) with either the median or upper 95th
percentile of the predicted ambient contaminant concentration (Table 2.2-5).
"The alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia recovery, phenol extraction, and biological
oxidation; and (2) treatment 1 plus carbon adsorption.
-------
31
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 3.1-4.
Toxicity quotients for toxicity to fish and algae (ambient contaminant concentration/toxic benchmark
concentration) for the H-Coal process
Highest quotient*
RAC No.
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
RAC name Treatment13
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S neterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono-or diaromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respiraole particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmi um
Lead
Other trace elements
(fluorine)
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Fish acute
95%
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
3.35 E-01
3.35 E-01
No effluent
4.37 E-04
4.37 E-05
No effluent
No effluent
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
2.83 E-05
2.83 E-06
1.46 E-02
1.46 E-03
6.33 E-03
6.33 E-04
1.22 E-03
1.22 E-04
No effluent
No toxicity data
No effluent
No toxicity data
2.53 E-03
2.53 E-04
2.70 E-02
2.70 E-03
1.58 E-01
1.58 E-02
No toxicity data
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
3.05 E-03
3.05 E-04
No effluent
No effluent
2.84 E-06
2.84 E-06
9.49 E-05
9.49 E-05
5.67 E-05
5.67 E-05
8.94 E-02
8.94 E-02
6.66 E-04
6.66 E-04
7.00 E-04
7.00 E-04
Fish chronic
Median
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
1.05 E-02
1.05 E-03
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
4.27 E-02
4.27 E-03
1.55 E-01
1.55 E-02
5.31 E-03
5.31 E-04
3.38 E-06
3.38 E-06
4.42 E-03
4.42 E-03
1.07 E-03
1.07 E-03
2.35 E-02
2.35 E-02
9.38 E-03
9.38 E-03
6.35 E-06
6.35 E-06
Algae
Median 95%
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
1.28 E-07 2.86 E-07
1.28 E-08 2.86 E-08
No toxicity data
1.97 E-04 4.42 E-04
1.97 E-05 4.42 E-05
4.88 E-07 8.99 E-07
4.88 E-08 8.99 E-08
5.69 E-02 1.28 E-01
5.69 E-03 1.28 E-02
No toxicity data
4.67 E-03 1.05 E-02
4.67 E-04 1.05 E-03
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
7.28 E-06 1.63 E-05
7.28 E-06 1.63 E-05
1.27 E-05 2.85 E-05
1.27 E-05 2.85 E-05
1.16 E-03 2.61 E-03
1.16 E-03 2.61 E-03
7.98 E-03 1.79 E-02
7.98 E-03 2.79 E-02
3.56 E-04 7.99 E-04
3.56 E-04 7.99 E-04
No toxicity data
aThe quotients are calculated using the lowest acute LC50 or TLm for fish in each RAC (Table A-l), the lowest chronic
response by a fish (Table A-2), and the lowest algal response (Table A-3) with either the median or upper 95th
percentile of the predicted ambient contaminant concentration (Table 2.2-6).
percentile
DThe alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia recovery,
oxidation; and (2) treatment 1 plus carbon adsorption.
phenol extraction, and biological
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 32
Fewer RACs appear to be important for algal toxicity due to both
the shortage of algal toxicity data and the relative insensitivity of
algae to several tested RACs. Aromatic amines (RAC 17) may be toxic in
EDS and H-Coal effluents, with quotients greater than 0.1 for acute
exposures and 0.01 for chronic exposures. Cadmium may also be toxic in
EDS and H-Coal effluents, and phenols (RAC 21) and esters (RAC 26)
may be toxic in effluents from H-Coal and SRC-II, respectively.
Barnthouse et al. (1982a) discussed the uncertainties involved in
applying the quotient method to environmental data. One of the major
inherent problems is that of comparing results from dissimilar tests.
Although an attempt was made in this analysis to avoid such pitfalls
by comparing, when possible, the same test species and benchmarks,
uncontrolled variables inevitably remain. For example, in tests with
certain metals (RACs 33, 34, and 35), water hardness is important in
determining the concentrations of these metals required to elicit a
toxic response (Table 3.1-1), a fact reflected in the EPA criteria for
each. Usually the data are insufficient to compare quotients from
tests using the same organisms in both "soft" and "hard" water. Also,
in some instances, the analyst must compare quotients derived from
tests using water of unspecified or inconsistent quality.
This exercise with the quotient method, in addition to suggesting
which of the assigned RACs pose the greatest potential environmental
threat, emphasizes the lack of toxicological research on algae as
important components of the ecosystem and on synfuels-related organic
compounds in general. Despite obvious weaknesses, the method does
provide a useful means of screening data from a variety of sources.
3.2 ANALYSIS OF EXTRAPOLATION ERROR
This method of risk analysis is based on the fact that application
of the results of laboratory toxicity tests to field exposures requires
a series of extrapolations, each of which is made with some error
(Barnthouse et al. 1982a; Suter et al. 1983). The products of the
extrapolation are estimates of the centroid and distribution of the
ambient concentration of a chemical at which a particular response will
occur. The risk of occurrence of the prescribed response is equal to
-------
33 ORNL/TM-9074
the probability that the response concentration is less than the
ambient concentration, given the probability distribution of each. In
this section, we extrapolate from acute toxic concentrations for test
species of fish to chronic responses of the reference commercial and
game species characteristic of the eastern and western reference sites
(Travis et al. 1983). The acute toxicity criterion is the 96-h
LC5Q. The chronic toxicity criterion is the life-cycle maximum
allowable toxicant concentration (MATC), an interval bounded by the
highest no-observed-effects concentration and the lowest concentration
causing a statistically significant effect on growth, survival, or
reproduction in a life-cycle toxicity test (Mount and Stephan 1969).
The geometric mean of the bounds (GMATC) is used as a point estimate of
the MATC, as was done in calculating the national water quality
criteria (USEPA 1980a-p).
3.2.1 Methods
A detailed description of the computational methods used for the
analysis of extrapolation error (AEE) is contained in Suter et al.
(1983). Acute toxicity data from the Columbia National Fisheries
Research Laboratory (Johnson and Finley 1980) are used for the
extrapolation between species. Life-cycle toxicity data (Suter et al.,
1983) were used to develop a regression relationship between acute and
chronic toxicity data. Variances associated with extrapolating acute
toxicity between taxa and acute to chronic toxicity are accumulated to
provide an estimate of the variability associated with the estimate of
chronic toxicity and used in obtaining estimates of risk, given
estimates of the distribution of the ambient contaminant concentrations.
All of the emitted RACs for which 96-h LC 's could be found
bU
(Table A-l) have been analyzed by the extrapolation error method. The
quotient of the ratio of the ambient concentration of an RAC to its
predicted GMATC (PGMATC) is presented as an estimate of the hazard of
chronic toxicity. Risk, which is defined as the probability that the
ambient contaminant concentration exceeds the GMATC, is also presented.
Both the hazard and risk estimates are based on the annual average
ambient concentrations (Tables 2.2-3 through 6).
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 34
In general, the extrapolation between species was done using the
regression relationship between the tested and assessed fish at the
same taxonomic level and having in common the next higher level. For
example, if the fish are in the same family but different genera, the
extrapolation would be made between genera. There were three instances
when our hierarchical approach failed because of the limitation in the
acute toxicity data for the contaminant. The only acute toxicity datum
available for hydrogen sulfide (RAC 4) and for fluoranthene (RAC 15)
was for bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus); and the only acute
toxicity datum available for indan (RAC 13) and for quinoline (RAC 18)
was for fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Difficulties also arose
with RAC 15 for estimating the acute toxicity of white bass (Morone
chrysops) and with RAC 13 for estimating the acute toxicity of bigmouth
and smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus and ^. bubalus). The
problem arose because no fish in the family Percichthyidaea or in the
genus Ictiobus were tested at the Columbia National Fisheries Research
Laboratory. The genus Ictiobus is in the family Catostomidae, members
of which were tested at the Columbia National Fisheries Research
Laboratory, but the Cyprinidae-Catostomidae relationship had
insufficient sample size (n = 1). Hence, further statistical
relationships were developed comparing bluegill sunfish with all
Perciformes other than bluegills (R2 = 0.91) and fathead minnow with
all Cypriniformes other than fathead minnow (R = 0.92).
3.2.2 Results
The species-specific values of the predicted GMATCs, quotients,
and the risks of exceeding the GMATC for the annual median ambient
contaminant concentrations are presented in Appendix D. These
species-specific values are only presented for those RACs with a hazard
greater than or equal to 0.01. They are summarized in Tables 3.2-1
through 3.2-4 for the four technologies. Ammonia (RAC 5) appears to
present the most consistent threat of chronic toxicity to fish, with
quotients and risks greater than 0.1 for all species, technologies, and
water treatments. For SRC-I, the predicted GMATC for ammonia slightly
exceeds the ambient median concentration for five out of nine fish
-------
35
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 3.2-1. Ranges of ratios of ambient concentrations to PGMATCs and
probabilities of exceeding the PGMATC for Exxon Donor Solvent3
Ambient concentration/PGMATC
RAC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32A
33
34
35
treatmentl13
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
0.2572-0.6205
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
No fish toxicity data
0.0013-0.0046
0.2786-1.0832
0.0362-0.0813
0.0001-0.0010
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
0.0034-0.1147
0.0396-0.3539
0.2082-1.1049
No fish toxicity data
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
0.0282-0.2706
No effluent
No effluent
0 0000-0.0001
0.0001-0.0003
0.0004-0.0009
0.0001-0.0027
0.0010-0.1468
0.0002-0.0015
treatment2
0.2572-0.6205
0.0001-0.0005
0.0279-0.1083
0.0036-0.0081
0.0000-0.0001
0.0003-0.0115
0.0040-0.0354
0.0208-0.1105
0.0028-0.0271
0.0000-0.0001
0.0001-0.0003
0.0004-0.0009
0.0001-0.0027
0.0010-0.1468
0.0002-0.0015
Probability of exceeding the PGMATC
treatmentl
0.2616-0.4039
0.0003-0.0072
0.2530-0.5145
0.0497-0.1063
0.0000-0.0008
0.0047-0.3107
0.0478-0.3230
0.2241-0.5182
0.0449-0.2805
0.0000-0.0000
0.0000-0.0001
0.0001-0.0003
0.0000-0.0040
0.0000-0.1692
0.0000-0.0017
treatment2
0.2616-0.4039
0.0000-0.0003
0.0312-0.1557
0.0021-0.0121
0.0000-0.0000
0.0001-0.1540
0.0020-0.0698
0.0225-0.1561
0.0013-0.0542
0.0000-0.0000
0.0000-0.0001
0.0001-0.0003
0.0000-0.0040
0.0000-0.1692
0.0000-0.0017
aSpecies-specific values are provided in Appendix D.
bThe alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia recovery,
phenol extraction, and biological oxidation; and (2) treatment 1 plus carbon
adsorption.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
36
Table 3.2-2. Ranges of ratios of ambient concentrations to PGMATCs and
probabilities of exceeding the PGMATC for SRC-Ia
Ambient concentration/PGMATC Probability of exceeding the PGMATC
RAC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32A
33
34
35
treatment!13
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
0.420-1.02
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
0.2786-1.0832
0.0167-0.0375
0.0011-0.0095
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
No effluent
0.1890-1.6908
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
0.0000-0.0002
0.0007-0.0017
0.0020-0.0052
0.0001-0.0028
0.0001-0.0128
0.0028-0.0212
treatment2
0.420-1.02
0.0279-0.1083
0.0017-0.0038
0.0001-0.0010
0.0189-0.1691
0.0000-0.0002
0.0007-0.0017
0.0020-0.0052
0.0001-0.0028
0.0001-0.0128
0.0028-0.0212
treatmentl
0.342-0.5031
0.2530-0.5145
0.0199-0.0565
0.0002-0.0171
0.1951-0.5918
0.0000-0.0001
0.0003-0.0010
0.0017-0.0038
0.0000-0.0042
0.0000-0.0147
0.0005-0.0380
treatment2
0.342-0.5031
0.0312-0.1557
0.0005-0.0048
0.0000-0.0008
0.0203-0.2150
0.0000-0.0001
0.0003-0.0010
0.0017-0.0038
0.0000-0.0042
0.0000-0.0147
0.0005-0.0380
^Species-specific values are provided in Appendix D.
bThe alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia recovery,
phenol extraction, and biological oxidation; and (2) treatment 1 plus carbon
adsorption.
-------
37
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 3.2-3. Ranges of ratios of ambient concentrations to PGMATCs and
probabilities of exceeding the PGMATC for SRC-II3
Ambient concentration/PGMATC Probability of exceeding the PGMATC
RAC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32A
33
34
35
treatmentlb
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
0.2334-0.5639
0.0000-0.0000
No fish toxicity data
0.0016-0.0177
0.0000-0.0003
No fish toxicity data
No fish toxicity data
0.0039-0.0140
0.0010-0.0037
0.1002-0.2251
0.0026-0.0225
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
No effluent
0.0704-0.6293
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
No fish toxicity data
No fish toxicity data
0.0051-0.1813
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
0.0000-0.0002
0.0005-0.0012
0.0014-0.0036
0.0000-0.0007
0.0001-0.0116
0.0000-0.0001
treatment2
0.2334-0.5639
0.0000-0.0000
0.0002-0.0018
0.0000-0.00000
0.0004-0.0014
0.0001-0.0004
0.0100-0.0225
0.0003-0.0022
0.0070-0.0629
0.0005-0.0181
0.0000-0.0002
0.0005-0.0012
0.0014-0.0036
0.0000-0.0007
0.0001-0.0116
0.0000-0.0001
treatmentl
0.2472-0.3851
0.0000-0.0073
0.0004-0.0402
0.0000-0.0000
0.003-0.0251
0.0001-0.0054
0.1335-0.2242
0.0011-0.0421
0.0856-0.4189
0.0070-0.2178
0.0000-0.0001
0.0002-0.0006
0.0010-0.0022
0.0000-0.0005
0.0000-0.0131
0.0000-0.0000
treatment2
0.2472-0.3851
0.0000-0.0020
0.0000-0.0030
0.0000-0.0000
0.0000-0.0015
0.0000-0.0002
0.0100-0.0353
0.0000-0.0028
0.0053-0.1107
0.0002-0.0336
0.0000-0.0001
0.0002-0.0006
0.0010-0.0022
0.0000-0.0005
0.0000-0.0131
0.0000-0.0000
aSpecies-specific values are provided in Appendix D.
bThe alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia recovery,
phenol extraction, and biological oxidation; and (2) treatment 1 plus carbon
adsorption.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
38
Table 3.2-4. Ranges of ratios of ambient concentrations to PGMATCs and
probabilities of exceeding the PGMATC for H-Coala
Ambient concentration/PGMATC Probability of exceeding the PGMATC
RAC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32A
33
34
35
treatmentlb
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
0.2338-0.05639
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
No effluent
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
No fisn toxicity data
0.0002-0.0006
0.3582-1.3927
0.0445-0.1001
0.0001-0.0012
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
No effluent
No fish toxicity data
0.0042-0.1416
0.2022-1.8089
0.2563-1.3601
No fish toxicity data
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
0.0355-0.3407
No effluent
No effluent
0.0000-0.0003
0.0000-0.0001
0.0001-0.0002
0.0001-0.0044
0.0005-0.0758
0.0004-0.0033
treatment2
0.2338-0.5639
0.0000-0.0001
0.0358-0.1393
0.0045-0.0100
0.0000-0.0001
0.0004-0.0142
0.0202-0.1809
0.0256-0.1360
0.0036-0.0341
0.0000-0.0003
0.0000-0.0001
0.0001-0.0002
0.0001-0.0044
0.0005-0.0758
0.0004-0.0033
treatmentl
0.2472-0.3851
0.0000-0.0004
0.2966-0.5599
0.0620-0.1239
0.0000-0.0011
0.0063-0.3278
0.2048-0.6034
0.2592-0.5561
0.0586-0.3160
0.0000-0.0001
0.0000-0.0000
0.0000-0.0000
0.0000-0.0075
0.0000-0.0990
0.0000-0.0048
treatment2
0.2472-0.3851
0.0000-0.0000
0.0416-0.1847
0.0030-0.0152
0.0000-0.0000
0.0002-0.1657
0.0221-0.2248
0.0292-0.1800
0.0021-0.0664
0.0000-0.0001
0.0000-0.0000
0.0000-0.0000
0.0000-0.0075
0.0000-0.0990
0.0000-0.0048
^Species-specific values are provided in Appendix D.
bThe alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia recovery,
phenol extraction, and biological oxidation; and (2) treatment 1 plus carbon
adsorption.
-------
39 ORNL/TM-9074
species so the risk is greater than 0.5. Four organic RACs,
aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons (RAC 13), mono- or diaromatic
hydrocarbons (RAC 14), phenols (RAC 21), and aldehydes and ketones
(RAC 22), have high quotients and risks for treatment 1 for at least 2
of the technologies. However, use of treatment 2 reduces the
concentration of all of these RACs by an order of magnitude so that
only RACs 13, 21, and 22 have hazards exceeding 0.1 and none exceed 1.
The only other RAC with hazard or risk values exceeding 0.1 for both
treatments is cadmium (RAC 34) for EDS. The only other RACs with
hazard or risk values greater than 0.1 for any combination of species,
technology, and treatment are carboxylic acids (RAC 20) for EDS and
H-Coal, esters (RAC 26) for SRC-II, and nitriles (RAC 28) for EDS and
H-Coal.
The differences in the relative rankings between species is
attributable to variation in three factors: (1) the magnitudes of the
LC 's of different species tested for a particular chemical,
(2) differences in sensitivity of the site species expressed as biases
in the extrapolation between the test species and site species, and
(3) the variance associated with the extrapolation.
3.2.3 Toxicity of the Whole Effluent
Tables 3.2-5 to 3.2-8 present a consideration of the acute
toxicity of the whole effluent. Only acute toxicity is considered
because there is no accepted theory for modeling addition of effects
expressed as toxic thresholds such as GMATCs. The acute effects are
expressed in a common unit, the 96-h LC™ to largemouth bass, which
is generated by taxonomic extrapolation from IC™ data for a variety
of species (Appendix A) using the method of Suter et al. (1983).
The possible modes of joint action of chemicals are synergism,
concentration addition, independent action (response addition), and
antagonism (Muska and Weber 1977). Concentration addition is generally
accepted to be the best general model for combined effects of mixed
chemicals on fish (Alabaster and Lloyd 1982; EIFAC 1980; SGOMSEC, in
press). In a recent review, Lloyd (in press) stated "There is no
evidence for synergism (i.e., more-than-additive action) between the
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
40
Table 3.2-5.
Estimated acute LC^g for largemouth bass and ratio of
upper 95th percentile of the ambient concentration to the
for Exxon Donor Solvent
RAC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32A
33
34
•35
Total
LC50 (yg/L)
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
36.3
444
5,716,048
No toxicity data
52,048
10,511
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
4,815
2,324
2,296
3,310
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
6,,171
No toxicity data
184,876
14,282
160
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
601
No toxicity data
9,437
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
22,236
321
74.6
4,496
1,696
20,865
Concentration/LC
Treatment la
No effluent
5.64 E-02
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
2.46 E-04
6.85 E-02
5.16 E-03
1.16 E-05
No effluent
1.99 E-03
2.87 E-03
3.70 E-02
No effluent
2.60 E-03
8.61 E-07
2.87 E-05
1.23 E-04
3.55 E-05
1.02 E-04
8.78 E-06
1.75 E-01
50
Treatment 2
5.64 E-02
2.46 E-05
6.85 E-03
5.16 E-04
1.16 E-06
1.99 E-04
2.87 E-04
3.70 E-03
2.60 E-04
8.61 E-07
2.87 E-05
1.23 E-04
3.55 E-05
1.02 E-04
8.78 E-06
6.85 E-02
aThe alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia
recovery, phenol extraction, and biological oxidation; and
(2) treatment 1 plus carbon adsorption.
-------
41
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 3.2-6.
Estimated acute LC§n for largemouth bass and ratio of
upper 95th percent-lie of the ambient concentration to the
LC5Q for SRC-I
Concentration/LC™
bU
RAC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32A
33
34
35
Total
LC50 (yg/L)
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
36.3
444
5,716,048
No toxicity data
52,048
10,511
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
4,815
2,324
2,296
3,310
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
6,171
No toxicity data
184,876
14,282
160
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
601
No toxicity data
9,437
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
22,236
321
74.6
4,496
1,696
20,865
Treatment la
No effluent
9.23 E-02
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
6.85 E-02
2.38 E-03
1.16 E-04
No effluent
No effluent
1.37 E-02
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
1.33 E-06
1.63 E-04
7.02 E-04
3.68 E-05
8.87 E-06
1.22 E-04
1.78 E-01
Treatment 2
9.23 E-02
6.85 E-03
2.38 E-04
1.16 E-05
1.37 E-03
1.33 E-06
1.63 E-04
7.02 E-04
3.68 E-05
8.87 E-06
1.22 E-04
1.02 E-01
alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia
recovery, phenol extraction, and biological oxidation; and
(2) treatment 1 plus carbon adsorption.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
42
Table 3.2-7-
Estimated acute LUn for largemouth bass and ratio of
upper 95th percentile of the ambient concentration to the
for SRC-II
Concentration/LCrQ
RAC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32A
33
34
35
Total
LC50 (yg/L)
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
36.3
444
5,716,048
No toxicity data
52,048
10,511
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
4,815
2,324
2,296
3,310
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
6,171
No toxicity data
184,876
14,282
160
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
601
No toxicity data
9,437
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
22,236
321
74.6
4,496
1,696
20,865
Treatment la
No effluent
5.13 E-02
1.36 E-08
8.40 E-05
6.50 E-05
7.56 E-04
2.35 E-04
1.43 E-02
2.74 E-04
No effluent
No effluent
5.10 E-03
No effluent
5.45 E-03
No effluent
1.45 E-06
1.14 E-04
4.90 E-04
8.72 E-06
8.06 E-06
8.52 E-07
7.82 E-02
Treatment 2
5.13 E-02
1.36 E-09
8.40 E-06
6.50 E-06
7.56 E-05
2.35 E-05
1.43 E-03
2.74 E-05
5.10 E-04
5.45 E-04
1.45 E-06
1.14 E-04
4.90 E-04
8.72 E-06
8.06 E-06
8.52 E-07
5.45 E-02
aThe alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia
recovery, phenol extraction, and biological oxidation; and
(2) treatment 1 plus carbon adsorption.
-------
43
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 3.2-8.
Estimated acute LC§g for largemouth bass and ratio of
upper 95th percentile of the ambient concentration to the
LC5Q for H-Coal
Concentration/LC.-n
bu
RAC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32A
33
34
35
Total
LC50 (yg/L)
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
36.3
444
5,716,048
No toxicity data
52,048
10,511
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
4,815
2,324
2,296
3,310
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
6,171
No toxicity data
184,876
14,282
160
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
601
No toxicity data
9,437
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
22,236
321
74.6
4,496
1,696
20,865
Treatment la
No effluent
5.13 E-02
No effluent
No effluent
No effluent
3.12 E-05
8.81 E-02
6.35 E-03
1.48 E-05
No effluent
2.46 E-03
1.47 E-02
4.55 E-02
No effluent
3.28 E-03
1.70 E-06
7-10 E-06
3.05 E-05
5.80 E-05
5.27 E-05
1.91 E-05
2.12 E-01
Treatment 2
5.13 E-02
3.12 E-06
8.81 E-03
6.35 E-04
1.48 E-06
2.46 E-04
1.47 E-03
4.55 E-03
3.28 E-04
1.70 E-06
7.10 E-06
3.05 E-05
5.80 E-05
5.27 E-05
1.91 E-05
6.75 E-02
aThe alternate effluent treatments are: (1) steam stripping/ammonia
recovery, phenol extraction, and biological oxidation; and
(2) treatment 1 plus carbon adsorption.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 44
common pollutants; at toxic concentrations the joint action is additive
and at concentrations below those considered 'safe' there is
circumstantial evidence for less-than-additive joint action."
Furthermore, Parkhurst et al. (1981) found that when ammonia speciation
was accounted for, the toxicity of the major components of synfuels
effluents was concentration additive. Therefore, we use the
concentration addition model to examine the potential toxicity of the
combined RACs.
The analysis was performed by calculating the total toxic units
(ZTU) of the effluent, where a toxic unit is the concentration of a
toxiciant divided by the threshold LC5Q (Sprague and Ramsey 1965).
We used the upper 95th percentile of the predicted ambient
concentration since the concern in this case is with acute lethality,
and we use the 96-h LC5Q as a reasonable approximation of the
threshold LC5Q (Ruesink and Smith 1975). The ZTU values for the
eight combinations of liquefaction technologies and effluent treatment
ranged from 0.0545 to 0.212. The highest value is for treatment 1 of
H-Coal effluent and is primarily due to the summation of RACs 5, 13,
21, and 22 (alkaline gases, aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons, phenols,
and aldehydes and ketones). While these values do not suggest that
acute lethality of post-larval fish would be caused by these effluents,
they indicate that the toxicity of the total effluent could be
considerably higher than that of any one RAC and suggest that sublethal
effects or mortality of sensitive life stages due to direct
liquefaction effluents may be a problem.
These results can be compared with results of tests for Daphnia
acute lethality in diluted SRC and H-Coal effluent treated in
bench-scale facilities (Bostick et al. 1982). The Daphnia magna 48-h
LC5Q for steam-stripped and bio-oxidized SRC effluent (equivalent to
treatment 1 but without phenol extraction) was 2.4% effluent and for
effluent additionally ozonated and carbon filtered (treatment 2 only
adds carbon filtration) was 4.7% effluent. The D. magna LCcn for
— —a— bU
steam-stripped and solvent-extracted H-Coal effluent (only roughly
equivalent to treatment 1) was 4.4% effluent and with additional
ozonation and carbon filtration was 3.2% effluent (ozonation increased
-------
45 ORNL/TM-9074
the toxicity). For comparison, our model generates an exposure in the
first river reach equivalent to 0.4% effluent. Thus our predicted
exposure is approximately an order of magnitude lower than the acute
toxic concentration to Daphnia of bench-treated effluent. This result
is consistent with the ZTU values shown in Tables 3.2-5 to 3.2-8
which are approximately one-tenth of those for a largemouth bass LC™.
3.3 ECOSYSTEM UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
3.3.1 Explanation of Method
Ecosystem Uncertainty Analysis (EUA) estimates the risk associated
with both direct and indirect effects of toxicants. It considers data
on a variety of test organisms rather than emphasizing a single
taxonomic group. By integrating effects across trophic levels, EUA
considers components of environmental risk not included in other
methods.
The method uses the Standard Water Column Model, SWACOM (O'Neill
and Giddings 1979; O'Neill et al. 1982). SWACOM is an adaptation of an
earlier model, CLEAN (Park et al. 1974), and considers 10 phytoplankton,
5 zooplankton, 3 forage fish, and a game fish population. The model
simulates the annual cycle of a lake and incorporates temperature,
light, and nutrient responses. Changes can be made to tailor SWACOM
for toxicological assessments in a variety of aquatic ecosystems. The
model is designed to simulate a generalized water column and sacrifices
site specificity to emphasize complex interactions and indirect effects.
Available toxicity data are primarily in the form of mortalities.
Therefore, assumptions about the mode of action of the toxicant are
required to determine appropriate changes in model parameters. We
assumed that organisms respond to all chemicals according to a general
stress syndrome (GSS). That is, they increase respiration rates,
decrease photosynthetic and grazing rates, become more susceptible to
predation, etc. This assumption permits us to define percent changes
in model parameters that cause the same mortality as that measured in
the laboratory. This extrapolation of laboratory data involves
considerable uncertainty. In our analysis, the uncertainties are
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 46
preserved by associating each parameter change with a probability
distribution. In calculating risk, parameter values are selected from
the distributions and a simulation is performed with SWACOM. The
process is repeated 500 times. The risk associated with an undesirable
effect, such as a significant reduction in game fish, is estimated by
the frequency of simulations that showed this effect. Further details
of the method are given in Appendix E and in O'Neill et al. (1982).
The data used for the EUA are shown in Table 3.3-1. Estimates of
risk can be made for nine RAC. These RACs were the only chemical
groups for which adequate data exist.
3.3.2 Results of Ecosystem Uncertainty Analysis
Results of the risk analysis for the direct liquefaction
technologies are shown in Fig. 3.3-1 to 3.3-4 and determininstic
results are shown in Table 3.3-2. None of the technologies produces
measureable amounts of quinoline (RAC 18), and this risk assessment
unit will not be considered in the analysis. Environmental
concentrations of benzene (RAC 12), arsenic (RAC 31), and nickel (RAC
33) were very low and did not result in significant risks. Therefore,
results for these three chemicals are not shown on the graphs.
Two endpoints were considered: a quadrupling of the peak biomass
of noxious blue-green algae and a 25% decrease in game fish biomass.
These endpoints were chosen as indicative of minimal effects that could
be noticed in the field. Risk values were calculated for these
endpoints across a range of environmental concentrations that encompass
the 5th to 95th percentile exposures. The range of exposures for each
technology is shown at the bottom of the figures.
The lines on the graph do not pass through the origin because there
is a risk of an increase in algae (0.086) or a decrease in fish biomass
(0.038), even as the environmental concentrations of the toxicants
approach zero. This reflects residual uncertainty in simulating
ecosystem effects. For example, there is always some probability of a
small decrease in fish biomass due to natural variability.
Results for naphthalene, phenol, mercury, and lead show a similar
pattern. In all of these cases, there is an upturn in the risk curves,
-------
Table 3.3-1. Values3 of
(mg/L) used to calculate E matrix for SWACOM
Trophic
Level
Algae
Zooplankton
Forage fish
Game fish
Model
species
1-3
4-7
8-10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Ammonia
420.0
420.0
420.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
1.1
8.2
23.7
0.41
Benzene
525.0
525.0
525.0
450.0
380.0
300.0
233.8
17.6
33.0
22.0
34.0
5.3
Naphthalene
33.0
33.0
33.0
8.6
8.6
6.5
4.5
2.5
6.6
78.3
150.0
2.3
Quinoline
25.0
25.0
117.0
57.2
28.5
48.2
39.3
30.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
11.0
Phenol
258.0
20.0
95.0
300.0
36.4
58.1
157.0
14.0
36.0
16.4
34.9
9.0
Arsenic
2.32
2.32
2.32
4.47
5.28
1.35
2.49
0.51
15.6
41.8
26.0
13.3
Nickel
0.50
0.50
0.50
9.67
0.85
1.93
4.91
0.15
4.87
5.27
4.45
0.05
Cadmium
0.16
0.06
0.06
0.5
0.0099
0.14
0.25
0.0035
0.63
1.94
1.63
0.002
Lead
0.50
0.50
0.50
40.8
0.45
27.4
14.0
0.67
4.61
23.8
31.5
1.17
Mercury
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.78
0.005
0.53
0.27
0.01
0.15
0.24
0.50
0.25
aValues taken from following documents: ammonia - Hohreiter (1980); benzene - USEPA (1980c); naphthalene - USEPA (1980e);
quinoline - O'Neill et al. (1982); phenol - USEPA (1980g); arsenic - USEPA (19801); nickel - USEPA (1980n); cadmium - USEPA (1980o);
lead - USEPA (1980p); and mercury - USEPA (1980m).
i
UD
O
-------
10
0
ORNL-DWG 83-16214
cr
10
-2
- NAPHTHALENE
ALGAE
4^
.E/B.
SI/G
o
73
I
10
O
—I
oo
10'
r5
10~4 10~5
CONCENTRATION (mg L~1)
10"
r2
Fig. 3.3-1. Risk estimates for naphthalene (RAC 14) over a range of environmental
concentrations. The 5th percentile, mean, and 95th percentile concentrations
associated with the Exxon (E), H-Coal (H), SRC-I (SI), and SRC-II (SII)
technologies are shown at the bottom of the graph. The notation /B and /G
refer to the biologic and 6AC methods (treatment options 1 and 2) for each
technology. The plotted values are the probability of a quadrupling of the
blue-green algal bloom and a 25% reduction in game fish biomass.
-------
49
ORNL/TM-9074
ORNL-DWG 83-12718
*:
E
10"
LEAD
-4—,
,SI ,-
.sn
10
r5
5 10~4 2 5
CONCENTRATION (mg L"1)
10~3 2
Fig. 3.3-2. Risk estimates for phenol (RAC 21) and lead (RAC 35) over
a range of environmental concentrations. The 5th
percent!le, mean, and 95th percent!le concentrations
associated with the Exxon (E), H-Coal (H), SRC-I (SI), and
SRC-II (SII) technologies are shown at the bottom of the
graph. The notation /B and /G refer to the biologic and
6AC methods (treatment options 1 and 2) for each
technology. The plotted values are the probability of a
quadrupling of the blue-green algal bloom and a 25%
reduction in game fish biomass.
-------
10°
5
- CADMIUM
2 -
10'
.si
10
r5
FISH
.H
- MERCURY
5 10
r4
ORNL-DWG 83-12716
.H
10
r6
H h
ALGAE
FISH
.SI
.SH
10
r5
CONCENTRATION (mg L"1)
O
—I
cn
o
Fig. 3.3-3. Risk estimates for cadmium (RAC 34) and mercury (RAC 32) over a range of
environmental concentrations. The 5th percentile, mean, and 95th percentile
concentrations associated with the Exxon (E), H-Coal (H), SRC-I (SI), and SRC-II
(SII) technologies are shown at the bottom of the graph. The plotted values are the
probability of a quadrupling of the blue-green algal bloom and a 25% reduction in
game fish biomass.
-------
51
ORNL/TM-9074
ORNL-DWG 83-16211
CONCENTRATION (mg L"1)
Fig. 3.3-4.
Risk estimates for ammonia (RAC 5) over a range of
environmental concentrations. The 5th percentile, mean,
and 95th percentile concentrations associated with the
Exxon (E), H-Coal (H), SRC-I (SI), and SRC-II (SII)
technologies are shown at the bottom of the graph. The
plotted values are the probability of a quadrupling of the
blue-green algal bloom and a 25% reduction in game fish
biomass.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
52
Table 3.3-2.
Deterministic results of ecosystem uncertainty analyses.
Values are percent increases in maximum algal bloom and
percent decrease in game fish biomass at the mean
environmental concentration for each of the direct
liquefaction technologies. When two values are given,
the first is for treatment 1 and the second value (in
parentheses) is treatment 2.
Arnmon i a
Benzene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Algae
Algae
Fish
Algae
Fish
Algae
Fish
Algae
Fish
Algae
Fish
Algae
Fish
Algae
Fish
Algae
Fish
Algae
Fish
EXXON
80
17
a (a)
a (a}
42 (2)
2 (a)
14 (a)
2 (a)
a
a
4
a
4
a
351
20
1
a
H-Coal
66
14
a (a)
a (a)
53 (3)
3 (a)
87 (6)
8 (a)
a
a
a
a
5
a
250
13
3
a
SRC-I
176
32
b
b
17 (a)
1 (a)
77 (6)
8 (a)
a
a
26
2
4
a
22
3
18
2
SRC-I I
66
14
1
a
124
6
25
3
a
a
17
1
1
a
20
2
a
a
(a)
(a)
(9)
(a)
(2)
( )
aPercent change is less than 1.
bSRC-I has no effluent for this chemical.
-------
53 ORNL/TM-9074
showing significant risks at the higher concentrations reached by at
least one of the technologies. The increased risk of an effect to game
fish populations seems intuitively reasonable. However, the increasing
risk of a blue-green algal bloom with increasing concentration is
counterintuitive. This is an example of the indirect effects which EUA
is capable of showing. Even though each of the chemicals is toxic to
the algae, the reduction in sensitive grazing organisms more than
compensates for the direct effect on phytoplankton.
Results for ammonia and cadmium show both higher risk values and
more complex response curves. Because of the wide range of
environmental concentrations, cadmium tends to be more important for
some technologies than for others. Environmental concentrations for
ammonia overlap broadly so that this chemical takes on major importance
for all of the technologies. The results indicate that these two risk
assessment units should be of primary concern in evaluating the
environmental hazards of direct coal liquefaction.
All of the graphs illustrate the complexity of the ecosystem
responses simulated by EUA. The relationship between concentration of
toxicant and risk is not simply linear or exponential. The complexity
of these responses results from the nonlinear interactions considered
in the analysis.
3.3.3 Comparison of Risks across RACs
The importance of cadmium and ammonia is further emphasized in
Figure 3.3-5. The graph shows the maximum risk associated with each of
the nine RACs. The maximum risk is defined as the risk associated
(1) with the upper 95th percent!le concentration for whichever
technology showed the highest concentrations and (2) with either algal
blooms or a reduction in game fish biomass, whichever showed the higher
risk. Thus, the maximum risk attempts to separate RACs that never show
a significant risk from those that are significant in at least one of
the relevant calculations.
The figure shows that there is a very reasonable probability that
cadmium and ammonia could cause significant effects in the aquatic
ecosystem. In addition, the graph indicates that mercury (RAC 32)
-------
ORNL-DWG 83-12713
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
O
-vj
en
Fig. 3.3-5. Maximum risk estimates. The numbers represent each of the nine RACs. The
risk values are associated with either algal blooms or reductions in fish
biomass, whichever is larger, at the 95th percentile concentration of the
technology with the highest concentration.
-------
55 ORNL/TM-9074
could also cause problems, though only in the SRC processes.
Naphthalene (RAC 14) and phenol (RAC 21) show significant maximum
risks, but this appears only in treatment option 1.
3.3.4 Comparison of Risks between Technologies
Figure 3.3-6 compares risks across the nine RACs for the four
technologies. The risk values are those associated with the upper 95th
percentile concentrations. For each RAC, moving in a clockwise
direction, results are given first for the risk of algal blooms and
then for the risk of a reduction in game fish.
Application of treatment option 2 would largely eliminate the
risks associated with naphthalene (RAC 14) and phenol (RAC 21). This
would seem to be particularly important for H-Coal and SRC processes.
The Exxon and H-Coal methods show high risks for emissions of
cadmium (RAC 34). The SRC processes show much lower risks associated
with cadmium, with smaller significant risks for the other heavy metals
(RACs 31-35). However, all four technologies have high risks for
ammonia (RAC 5). The risk of reduction in game fish populations is
particularly high.
-------
EXXON
ORNL-.DWG 83-12712
HCOAL
i i i I i i i r
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
SRC I
SRCH
o
70
l£>
O
tn
CTl
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig. 3.3-6. Comparison of risks among technologies. Risks at the 95th percentile
concentration are shown first for the algae and then for game fish, for
each of the nine RACs (indicated by numbers).
-------
57 ORNL/TM-9074
4. TERRESTRIAL ENDPOINTS
The quotient method, as discussed in Sect. 3.1, consists of
dividing the ambient concentrations of toxicants by the concentration
at which some toxic effect is induced. It is used in this section to
provide an indication of the likelihood of effects due to emissions of
the individual RACs. The other risk analysis methods are not readily
applicable to terrestrial organisms because of the limited data for
most terrestrial taxa, the lack of standard tests and toxicological
benchmarks in the data base, and the lack of agreed-upon standard
responses for terrestrial biota.
4.1 VEGETATION
The phototoxicity data for the gaseous and volatile RACs are
presented in Table B-l, the concentrations in ambient ground-level air
are in Tables 2.3-1 through 4, and the quotients of the ratios of these
values are in Table 4.1-1 through 4.1-3. The ambient concentrations
are the increment of the entire RAC to the background concentration at
the point of maximum ground-level concentration (Sect. 2.3). It is
assumed that the RAC is composed entirely of the representative
chemical and that the background concentration is zero. Quotients are
calculated from two classes of data: (1) the lowest toxic concentration
found in the literature for any flowering plant species as an indication
of maximum toxic potential of the RAC, and (2) the range across studies
of the lowest concentrations causing effects on growth or yield of the
whole plant or some plant part. The latter set of responses is
relatively consistent and closely related to crop and forest yield.
The worst atmospheric toxicant in the emissions of all
technologies is hydrocarbon gases (RAC 6). This rank is misleading
because the worst-case representative chemical (ethylene) is a plant
hormone whereas most members of this RAC are essentially inert (NRC
1976). However, because atmospheric ethylene has caused significant
damage to crops near urban areas and in the vicinity of petrochemical
plants (NRC 1976), the emission rate of this gas should be specifically
considered in the future. The most serious phytotoxicants in air
-------
o
73
Table 4.1-1. Toxicity quotients for terrestrial plants for Exxon Donor Solvent Process. Ambient concentrations in air (annual, median, ground-level) ana
soil (soil solution or whole dry soil basis) are divided by concentrations causing reductions in growth, yield, or other toxic responses3
RAC
RAC name
Air concentration/
lowest toxic concentration
Range of air concentration/
growth effects concentration
Soil concentration/
lowest toxic concentration
Range of soil concentration/
growth effects concentration
o
--J
-p.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile O&S heterocyclics
Volatile N-heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono- or diaromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline nitrogen heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
9.67
1.
3.
5.
,02
,60
15
E-03
E-01
E-02
No
No
No
No
No
1.58 E-06
1.69 E-02 - 5.08 E-02
1.89 E-03 - 3.60 E-02
emissions
emissions
2.48 E-03 - 8.64 E-03
emissions
emissions
emissions
No
No
No
accumulation
accumulation
accumulation
in soil
in soil
in soil
No phytotoxicity data
8.
1.
1.
2.
23
22
70
64
E-07
E-12
E-05
E-05
No
No
emissions
emissions
1.
3.
3.
00 E-04
7 E-06
73
3.
1,
.7 E-06
.15-3. 73b
No phytotoxicity data
3.
3.
98
47
E-05
E-09
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
emissions
1.91 E-08
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
1.
9.
3.
2.
No phytotoxicity data
1.
54
E-06
1.
2.
4.
3.
1.
09 E-06
8 E-05
4'E-07
6-7 E-llb
1 E-01b
46 E-07
92 E-02b
78 E-02
96 E-03b
1
3
5
2
5
8
1
.09 E-07 - 1
.4 E-07
.16 E-03b -
.26 E-09 - 2
.34 E-05 - 4
.4 E-04 - 3.
.76 E-05 - 1
.09 E-06
1.1 E-01b
.46 E-07
.92 E-02b
78 E-02
.96 E-03b
cn
CO
aAmbient air concentrations and soil and soil solution concentrations are presented in Table 2.3-1. Toxic concentrations are presented in Appendix B.
^Quotients calculated from concentrations in soil and results of tests performed in soil. Quotients without superscript were calculated from
concentrations in soil solution and results of tests performed in nutrient solution.
-------
Table 4.1-2. Toxicity quotients for terrestrial plants for SRC-I Process. Ambient concentrations in air (annual, median, ground-level) and soil (soil
solution or whole dry soil basis) are divided by concentrations causing reductions in growth, yield, or other toxic responses3
Phytotoxicity in air
Phytotoxicity in air
RAC
RAC Name
Air concentration/
lowest toxic concentration
Range of air concentration/
growth effects concentration
Soil concentration/
lowest toxic concentration
Range of soil concentration/
growth effects concentration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Alipnatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono- or di aromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
1.45 E-03
8.31 E-02
3.74 E-02
6.39 E-05
1.48 E-04
4.15
No
No
No
No
No
No
1.15 E-12
1.57 E-05
2.37 E-07
1.38 E-02 - 4.15 E-02
1.97 E-03 - 3.74 E-02
6.39 E-05
2.0 E-03 - 6.96 E-03
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
No accumulation
No accumulation
No accumulation
No accumulation
No accumulation
9.44 E-05
in soil
in soil
in soil
in soil
in soil
3.44 E-06 3.44 E-06
13. 3b 4.1-13.3b
No
3.23 E-03
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2.3 E-05
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
8.31 E-07 8.31
3.43 E-04
No accumulation
7.33 E-01b 3.44
2.3 E-07 2.11
6.4 E-01b 7.58
3.65 E-03 8.1
1.53 E-03b 1.37
E-08 - 8.31 E-07
in soil
E-02b - 7.33 E-01b
E-09 - 2.3 E-07
E-04 - 6.4 E-01b
E-05 - 3.65 E-03
E-05 - 1.53 E-03b
tn
aAir, soil and soil solution concentrations are presented in Table 2.3-2. Toxic concentrations are presented in Appendix B.
bQuotients calculated from concentrations in soil and results of tests performed in soil. Quotients without superscript were calculated from
concentrations in soil solution and results of tests performed in nutrient solution.
l
10
O
-------
Table 4.1-3. Toxicity quotients for terrestrial plants for SRC-II Process. Ambient concentrations in air (annual, median, ground-level) and soil Uoil
solution or whole dry soil basis) are divided by concentrations causing reductions in growth, yield, or other toxic responses3
RAC
RAC Name
Air concentration/
lowest toxic concentration
Range of air concentration/
growth effects concentration
Soil concentration/ Range of soil concentration/
lowest toxic concentration growth effects concentration
i
IO
O
1
2
3
4
5
b
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono- or diaromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Other trace elements
Radioactive materials
9.28 E-04 1.52 E-07
2.35 E-02 3.92 E-03 - 1.18 E-02
3.95 E-02 2.08 E-03 - 3.95 E-02
No emissions
No emissions
3.23 £+00 1.56 E-03 - 5.43 E-03
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No phytotoxicity data
4.0 E-06
1.88 E-12
1.10 E-05
No
1.43 E-05
emissions
2
1
2
4
.61
.54
•41K
.16b
No
No
No
E-05
E-04
E-06
accumulation in soil
accumulation in soil
accumulation in soil
2.61 E-05
2.41
1.
E-06
.28-4.16°
No phytotoxicity data
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
1.35 E-06
No
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
2
1
4
2
2
6
3
.35
.48
.83
.16
.08
.45
.84
E-07
E-04
No
E-03b
E-07
E-04b
E-05
E-06b
No
2.35
accumulation
2
1
2
1
3
.27
.98
.47
.43
.44
accumulation
E-08 -
in soil
E-04b
E-09 -
E-07 -
E-06 -
E-08 -
in soil
2.35 E-07
- 4.83 E-03b
2.16 E-07
2.08 E-04b
6.45 E-05
3.84 E-06b
CT>
O
aAir, soil and soil solution concentrations are presented in Table 2.3-3. Toxic concentrations are presented in Appendix B.
°Quotients calculated from concentrations in soil and results of tests performed in soil. Quotients without superscript were calculated from
concentrations in soil solution and results of tests performed in nutrient solution.
-------
61 ORNL/TM-9074
(ignoring ethylene) are SOX and NOX. The maximum annual average
concentrations predicted for S02 (RAC 2) from EDS emissions are
within a tenth of those that cause visible injury to needles of
sensitive white pines, and, for both S(L and NO (RAC 3) emissions
C. X
from all technologies, those concentrations are greater than a
hundredth of those that reduce growth or yield of several plant species.
Because of its ubiquity and importance as a phytotoxicant, sulfur
dioxide (RAC 2) has been relatively well studied for its effects on
crop yield and can be analyzed in greater detail than other RACs.
Mclaughlin and Taylor (in press) have put forward the following
dose-response relationship for yield reduction of beans as a function
of SCL exposure:
% yield reduction = -17.4 + 29.2 (log dose-ppmh).
This empirical relationship is based on a regression of 20 points
from five field experiments on soybeans and snap beans. Eighty percent
of the variation in yield reduction was associated with variation in
dosage, and the equation was significant at a = 0.0001.
Because S02 appears to be the most serious phytotoxic air
pollutant, we used this relationship to examine the potential effects
of full growing-season exposure to S02 on crop yield. If we assume a
200-d growing season for soybeans on the eastern site and a 12 h
exposure day, the S02 dose from EDS at 6.61 ug/m3 S02 is 5.95 ppmh.
Sulfur dioxide concentrations from EDS are 1.2 times those from SRC-I,
2.6 times those from H-Coal, and 4.3 times those from SRC-II. That
dose results in a 5.6% reduction in yield using McLaughlin and Taylor's
formula.
This predicted effect is remarkable in that it results from an
S02 concentration that is more than 10 times lower than the lowest
concentration reported to affect yield. This anomaly is due to the
great length of a growing season relative to the length of
experiments. The longest fumigation available to McLaughlin and Taylor
was 337 h. Thus, use of their formula for a full growing season
requires an extrapolation of almost a factor of 10 in the duration
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 62
component of the dose. Because the experimental field fumigations are
typically carried out in the most sensitive stage (assumed to be the
pod-fill in the case of beans), use of the formula for the full growing
season probably overestimates effects.
We might place a lower bound on the level of effect by assuming
that effects only occur during pod-fill. If that stage is assumed to
last 30 d, the dose is 0.89 ppmh. This is less than a quarter of the
threshold dose for effects on yield (3.92 ppmh).
For a real synfuels plant, this S00 emission would be added to a
3
background SOp concentration that may reach 80 ug/m under the current
annual average ambient air quality standard. The SO,, would also
interact with ozone, which reaches phytotoxic levels in many areas of
the United States. This analytical exercise emphasizes the need for
the full season field experiments on effects of S02 and SO^ + 03
originally planned for the EPA's National Crop Loss Assessment Network.
The phytotoxicity of materials deposited on the landscape is a
more complex phenomenon than that of gases and vapors. Because the
atmospheric transport model AIRDOS-EPA has a deposition velocity of
zero for inorganic gases and does not model the formation of aerosols,
RACs 1 through 5 are assumed to not accumulate in the soil. This
assumption is likely to be acceptable except in the case of SO.
deposition in forests with acid soils. The effects of SO. deposition
in forests result from regional-scale emissions and atmospheric
processes, and therefore are well beyond the scope of this report.
Deposited nongaseous RACs were assumed to accumulate in the soil over
the 35-year life of the liquefaction plant. Losses due to
decomposition and leaching from the root zone were calculated by the
terrestrial food chain model (Sect. 2.3). The toxicity data
(Table B-3) were primarily derived from exposure of plants or plant
parts to solutions of the chemicals rather than contaminated soil
because few data are available on toxicity in soil. Whereas the
results of tests conducted in soil can be directly compared with
concentrations in the whole soil, results of tests conducted in
solution must be compared with a calculated concentration in soil
solution. Because the concentration in soil solution is more difficult
-------
63 ORNL/TM-9074
to model than concentration in whole soil and requires more simplifying
assumptions, solution concentrations are less reliable. In addition,
as with the gases and vapors, the toxicity data concern a wide variety
of tests and measured responses that are not equivalent. Finally, for
most of the RACs, only one or two chemicals have been tested. We
cannot determine whether the chemicals used are representative of the
entire RAC.
For all four technologies, the most phytotoxic RAC deposited in
soil was polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (RAC 15). The high rank of
RAC 15 is suspect because benzo(a)pyrene and some other PAHs appear to
act as plant hormones and can stimulate growth at very low
concentrations. While PAHs can modify plant growth at concentrations
as low as 0.5 ng/g soil and alteration of growth patterns can affect
survival, there is no evidence that they reduce plant growth or cause
injury, even at relativity high experimental concentrations (Edwards,
1983). Phytotoxic concentrations are more than 10 times those in soil
or soil solution for all other RACs from all technologies, except
arsenic (31) and nickel (33) for SRC-I. They are within a factor of
100 for arsenic (31), nickel (33), and cadmium (34) from EDS; phenols
(21) from SRC II; and phenols, arsenic, and cadmium from H-Coal. The
results for phenols are highly uncertain since only one test result has
been found, inhibition of wheat seed germination. More data on the
phytotoxicity of nonhalogenated phenols would be desirable. While the
trace elements arsenic, nickel, and cadmium do not appear to be serious
problems on the basis of this simple analysis, their concentrations are
high enough to warrant greater attention in future research and risk
analysis methods development.
4.2 WILDLIFE
Table 4.2-1 through 4 present the lowest quotients for the two
technologies for toxicity to terrestrial animals. The quotients are
calculated from the lowest lethal concentration for any species and
from the lowest concentration producing any toxic effect (Table B-3)
divided by the highest annual average ground-level concentration in
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
64
Table 4.2-1.
Toxicity quotients for terrestrial animals for Exxon
Donor Solvent. Concentrations in air (annual, median,
ground-level) are divided by lethal concentrations and
the lowest toxic concentrations3
RAC
RAC name
Lowest lethal
concentration
Lowest toxic
concentration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono- or diaromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
1.89 E-08 4.05 E-04
3.67 E-04 6.61 E-02
3.29 E-04 8.05 E-03
No emissions
No emissions
1.6 E-08
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
1.48 E-09 1.48 E-09
No emissions
1.3 E-07 1.3 E-07
1.49 E-08 9.79 E-07
2.13 E-06 4.04 E-05
No data on respiratory toxicity
No emissions
9.65 E-09 9.65 E-09
No data on respiratory toxicity
No data on respiratory toxicity
No data on respiratory toxicity
No data on respiratory toxicity
5.53 E-07 1.95 E-05
6.25 E-ll 9.38 E-10
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
No emissions
9.87 E-02
7.4 E-06
9.06 E-08
3.57 E-09 3.57 E-09
2.64 E-08 1.32 E-05
2.64 E-06
aAmbient air concentrations are presented in Table 2.3-1. Toxic
concentrations are presented in Appendix B.
-------
65
ORNL/TM-9074
Table 4.2-2.
Toxicity quotients for terrestrial animals for SRC-I
Process. Concentrations in air (annual, median,
ground-level) are divided by lethal concentrations and
the lowest toxic concentrations3
RAC
RAC name
Lowest lethal
concentration
Lowest toxic
concentration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono- or di aromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
2.84 E-09
3.0 E-04
3.42 E-04
8.52 E-08
4.44 E-07
—
No
No
No
No
No
No
1.40 E-08
1.97 E-06
No
1.18 E-06
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
4.21 E-06
3.98 E-09
6.
5.
07
E-05
4 E-02
8.36
2.
2.
1.
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
56
39
29
9.21
3.75
emissions
1,
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
2
4
8
4
1
2
.18
.10
.92
.47
.21
.99
.02
E-03
E-07
E-05
E-08
E-07
E-05
E-06
E-01
Ef\ r*
-05
E-08
E-06
E-06
E-06
aAmbient air concentrations are presented in Table 2.3-2. Toxic
concentrations are presented in Appendix B.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
66
Table 4.2-3.
Toxicity quotients for terrestrial animals for SRC-II
Process. Concentrations in air (annual, median,
ground-level) are divided by lethal concentrations and
the lowest toxic concentrations9
RAC
RAC name
Lowest lethal
concentration
Lowest toxic
concentration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile 0 & S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Aliphatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono- or diaromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N heterocyclics
Neutral N, 0, S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonheterocyclic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Respirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
1
8
3
2
1
6
2
1
5
1
3
.82
.5
.61
.07
.8
.32
.28
.38
.22
.49
.36
E-09
E-05
E-04
No
No
No
No
No
E-09
E-08
E-07
E-08
E-06
No
E-09
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
E-09
E-09
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
emissions
3
1
8
1
2
1
6
1
2
5
1
1
7
1
1
4
.88 E-05
.53
.83
.01
.07
.8
.32
.5
.62
.22
.38
.94
.94
.49
.68
.54
E-02
E-03
E-08
E-09
E-08
E-07
E-06
E-05
E-09
E-01
E-05
E-08
E-09
E-06
E-07
aAmbient air concentrations are presented in Table 2.3-3.
concentrations are presented in Appendix B.
Toxic
-------
67 ORNL/TM-9074
air. Data from all species are lumped because there were not enough
data on the nonmammalian taxa for separate treatment. Carcinogenesis
and other genotoxic effects were not included.
Lethality is considered because it is a consistent and frequently
determined response that has clear population implications, but all
predicted concentrations were well below lethal levels. The lowest
toxic concentrations include a diversity of endpoints, most of which
cannot be readily related to effects on wildlife populations but which
occur at concentrations that are as low as one ten-thousandth of lethal
concentrations. These responses range from increased airway resistance
in one-hour exposures of guinea pigs to impaired lung and liver
function in human occupational exposures. The most toxic RACs for all
technologies by this sublethal criterion are the conventional combustion
products: sulfur oxides (2) and respirable particulates (30). Whereas
these concentrations may constitute a locally significant increment to
the background concentration of these major pollutants, the significance
of ambient air pollution to wildlife is largely unknown. While the
predicted sulfur oxide and respirable particle concentrations are
below the annual primary ambient air quality standards for S02
(1.5-6.6 ug/m3 vs 80 ug/m3) and total particulates (45.4-63.3
ug/m3 vs 75 ug/m3), there is little scientific basis for the
assumption that protection of human health will automatically protect
wildlife.
-------
RNL/TM-9074 68
5. EVALUATION OF RISKS
5.1 EVALUATION OF RISKS TO FISH
Table 5.1-1 lists, for each technology and wastewater treatment
option, the RACs determined to be potentially ecologically significant
by one or more of the three methods employed in this report. The
significance criterion for the quotient method is an acute effects
quotient greater than 0.01 (i.e., a lowest observed LC5Q or TLM%
less than a hundred times the estimated environmental concentration).
For analysis of extrapolation error, RACs are considered to be
significant if the risk that the environmental concentration may exceed
the PGMATC of one or more of the reference fish species is greater than
0.1. For ecosystem uncertainty analysis, RACs are considered to be
significant if the risk of a 25% reduction in game fish biomass is
greater than 0.1.
A total of nine RACs were determined to be significant for one or
more technologies. RAC 5 (ammonia) was the only RAC found to be
significant for all technologies, all treatment options, and all risk
analysis methods. RAC 34 (cadmium) was significant for all
technologies and treatment options according to the quotient method;
RAC 21 (phenols) was significant for all technologies according to
analysis of extrapolation error (AEE). AEE ranked five RACs as
significant for at least one combination of technology and waste
treatment that was not picked by the other two methods, and AEE found
cadmium (RAC 34) to be significant less often than the other methods.
These differences can be largely accounted for by the fact that while
the other methods use the responses of the species that are tested, AEE
predicts the responses of a specific fish fauna. Several members of
this fauna are significantly more sensitive to most chemicals than are
the species used to test those five RACs. However, in the case of
cadmium, data are available for the other methods on rainbow trout,
which is more sensitive to this metal than are the warm-water species
used in AEE. Thus, differences in sensitivity among fish taxa appear
to account for most of the variation between methods in the lists of
significant RACs.
-------
Table 5.1-1. RACs determined to pose potentially significant risks to fish populations by one or more of three risk
analysis methods
Exxon Donor
Solvent
ia
5 (QM, AEE,
EUA)C
13 (QM, AEE)
14 (AEE)
20 (AEE)
21 (AEE)
22 (QM, AEE)
28 (AEE)
34 (QM, AEE,
EUA)
2b
5 (QM, AEE,
EUA)
13 (AEE)
20 (AEE)
22 (QM, AEE)
34 (QM, AEE,
EUA)
SRC- 1
1 2
5 (QM, AEE, 5 (QM, AEE,
EUA) EUA)
13 (QM, AEE) 13 (AEE)
21 (QM, AEE, 21 (AEE)
EUA)
34 (QM) 34 (QM)
SRC-II
1 2
5 (QM, AEE, 5 (QM, AEE,
EUA) EUA)
14 (QM, AEE, 21 (AEE)
EUA)
21 (AEE) 34 (QM)
26 (AEE)
34 (QM)
H-Coal
1
5 (QM, AEE,
EUA)
13 (QM, AEE)
14 (QM, AEE)
20 (AEE)
21 (QM, AEE,
EUA)
22 (QM, AEE)
28 (AEE)
34 (QM, EUA)
2
5 (QM, AEE,
EUA)
13 (QM, AEE)
20 (AEE)
21 (AEE)
22 (QM, AEE)
34 (QM, EUA)
aWastewater treatment option 1.
bWastewater treatment option 2.
CQM = quotient method; AEE = analysis of extrapolation error, EUA = ecosystem uncertainty analysis.
01
10
vo
o
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 70
The exposure analyses, the significance criteria, and the methods
themselves are conservative, and therefore it would be premature to
conclude that adverse consequences would result from the contaminant
releases assessed in this report. These nine RACs should, however, be
foci for future refinements of the risk analyses and for future
toxicological and ecological research. In addition to the RACs listed
in Table 5.1-1, there are eight RACs for which no applicable toxicity
data were available. These are RACs 10 (volatile 0 & S heterocyclics),
11 (volatile N heterocyclics), 16 (aliphatic amines), 17 (aromatic
amines), 23 (nonheterocyclic organosulfur compounds), 24 (alcohols),
25 (nitroaromatics), and 27 (amides).
There are two ways to compare the four technologies for ecological
risk. It was shown using the toxic units approach (Sect. 3.2-3) that,
for treatment option 1, the H-Coal effluent has the greatest potential
for acute toxicity to fish; for option 2, the Exxon Donor Solvent
effluent appears to be the most acutely toxic. SRC-I's total toxicity
is almost entirely due to ammonia while H-Coal also has large emissions
of organics and cadmium. By the other criterion, number of potentialy
significant RACs in the effluent (Table 5.1-1), H-Coal and EDS appear
to pose the greatest risk to fish.
5.2 EVALUATION OF RISKS OF ALGAL BLOOMS
Algal toxicity data were available for only 10 RACs. Moreover,
because of the diversity of experimental designs and test endpoints
used in algal bioassays, it is not meaningful to rank the RACs using
the quotient method. Finally, as noted in Sect. 3.1, there is no clear
distinction between acute effects and chronic effects in algal
bioassays.
It does appear, however, that most of the quotients that can be
calculated are lower for algae than for fish; only RACs 17, 21, 26, and
34 would be judged significant for any technology using the quotient
method. For treatment option 2, only RAC 34 is significant.
Ecosystem uncertainty analysis suggests greater risks of effects
on algae than does the quotient method. Risks of 10% or more of a
fourfold increase in algal biomass, for one or more technologies and
-------
71 ORNL/TM-9074
for treatment options, were estimated for six of the nine RACs
examined: 5, 14, 21, 32, 34, and 35. It is important to note that the
effects pathway postulated in ecosystem uncertainty analysis is
indirect rather than direct. All of the RACs are toxic to algae. The
increases in algal biomass are caused by reductions in grazing
intensity resulting from effects of contaminants on zooplankton and
fish.
5.3 EVALUATION OF RISKS TO VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Gases and vapors emitted by direct coal liquefaction processes
appear to pose a minor threat to terrestrial plants and animals. The
most serious problems appear to arise from conventional products of
combustion: sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and respirable particles
that may already be present in high concentrations at synfuels plant
sites. Of the materials deposited on the soil, the trace elements
arsenic, cadmium, and nickel cause the greatest concern. However, they
are unlikely to be a problem except when deposited on acid soils with
preexisting high concentrations of heavy metals.
5.4 VALIDATION NEEDS
There are no uniquely correct methods of quantifying ecological
risks. There are several plausible ways to combine uncertainties
concerning differential sensitivities of fish taxa and acute-chronic
relationships. Similarly, there are many aquatic ecosystem models.
Different models produce different estimates of uncertainty and risk.
Validation studies of the methods used in these risk analyses would
greatly increase the credibility of the results.
There are two ways in which these synfuels risk analyses can be
validated. A specific validation would involve building a synfuels
industry and monitoring the resulting environmental effects. A generic
validation would involve checking the assumptions and models used in
the risk analyses against the results of field and laboratory studies.
Given the current state of the synfuels industry, a generic validation
seems more practical.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 72
Generic validation of the environmental risk analysis methods
would begin by examining the ability of existing published evidence to
support or refute the models or their component assumptions. To a
certain extent this has been done by us as a part of our methods
development (e.g., Suter et al. 1983, Suter and Vaughan, 1984), and by
others for generally used models such as the Gaussian plume atmospheric
dispersion model. However, there has been no systematic consideration
of such major assumptions as the validity of hydroponic phytotoxicity
studies nor of the risk analysis methodology as a whole. The results
of validation studies would not only indicate the level of confidence
that can be placed in environmental risk analyses but also would
indicate what research is necessary for further development and
validation of risk analysis methods.
-------
73 ORNL/TM-9074
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank G. A. Holton and F. R. O'Donnell for performing
the atmospheric dispersion and deposition calculations used in this
report. We also than R. E. Millemann, J. W. Webb, and the members of
the Environmental Protection Agency's Peer Review Panel for their
thorough review of this report. Finally, we thank A. A. Moghissi and
S. G. Hildebrand for their support and encouragement during this
project.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 74
7. REFERENCES CITED IN TEXT AND APPENDIXES
Adelman, I. R., and L. L. Smith, Jr. 1970. Effects of hydrogen
sulfide on northern pike eggs and sac fry. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
99:501-509.
Agarwala, S. C., S. S. Bisht, and C. P. Sharma. 1977. Relative
effectiveness of certain heavy metals in producing toxicity and
symptoms of iron deficiency in barley. Can. J. Bot. 55:1299-1307.
Alabaster, J. S., J. H. N. Garland, I. C. Hart, and
J. F. De L. G. Solbe. 1972. An approach to the problem of
pollution and fisheries. Symp. Zool. Soc. London 29:87-114.
Alabaster, J. S., and R. Lloyd. 1982. Water Quality Criteria for
Freshwater Fish, 2nd ed. Butterworths, London.
Albert, W. B., and C. H. Arndt. 1932. The Concentration of Soluble
Arsenic as an Index of Arsenic Toxicity to Plants. S. C. Agric.
Exp. Stn. Annu. Rep. No. 44. [As cited in Deuel and Swoboda
(1972)].
Allen, W. R., W. L. Askew, and K. Schreiber. 1961. Effect of
insecticide-fertilizer mixtures and seed treatments on emergence
of sugar beet seedlings. J. Econ. Entomol. 54:181-187.
Anderson, B. G. 1946. The toxicity thresholds of various sodium salts
determined by the use of Daphnia magna. Sewage Works J. 18:82-87.
Ashendon, T. W., and T. A. Mansfield. 1978. Extreme pollution
sensitivity of grasses when S02 and ML are present in the
atmosphere together. Nature 273:142-143.
Angelovic, J. W., W. F. Sigler, and J. M. Newhold. 1961. Temperature
and fluorosis in rainbow trout. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.
33:371-381.
Badilescu, T., S. Botis-Simon, and Z. Simon. 1967. Response of some
seeds of different ploidies towards alkylating agents and some
common phytotoxica. Rev. Roum. Biochim. 4:279-285.
-------
75 ORNL/TM-9074
Barnthouse, L. W., D. L. DeAngelis, R. H. Gardner, R. V. O'Neill,
C. D. Powers, G. W. Suter II, and D. S. Vaughan. 1982a.
Methodology for environmental risk analysis. ORNL/TM-8167.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Barnthouse, L. W., S. M. Barbell, D. L. DeAngelis, R. H. Gardner,
R. V. O'Neill, C. D. Powers, G. W. Suter II, G. P. Thompson, and
D. S. Vaughan. 1982b. Preliminary environmental risk analysis
for indirect coal liquefaction. Report to the Office of
Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Batterton, J., K. Winters, and C. Van Baalen. 1978. Anilines:
Selective toxicity to blue-green algae. Science 199:1068-1070.
Baughman, G. L., and R. R. Lassiter. 1978. Prediction of environmental
pollution concentration, pp. 35-54. IN J. Cairns, K. L. Dickson,
and A. W. Maki (eds.), Estimating the Hazard of Chemical
Substances to Aquatic Life. ASTM STP 657. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Bazzaz, F. A., G. L. Rolfe, and P. W. Windle. 1974. Differing
sensitivity of corn and soybean photosynthesis and transpiration
to lead contamination. J. Environ. Qua!. 3:156-157.
Biesinger, K. E., and G. M. Christensen. 1972. Effects of various
metals on survival, growth, reproduction, and metabolism of
Daphnia magna. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 29:1691-1700.
Birge, W. J., and J. A. Black. 1981. Aquatic toxicity tests on organic
contaminants originating from coal conversion. University of
Kentucky report to the Advanced Fossil Energy Program,
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Bostick, W. D., R. L. Jolley, J. D. Hewitt, and J. B. Overton. 1982.
Bench-scale treatment of Coal Liquefaction Process Wastewaters,
ORNL/TM-8408. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Brenniman, G., R. Hartung, and W. J. Weber, Jr. 1976. A continuous
flow bioassay method to evaluate the effects of outboard motor
exhausts and selected aromatic toxicants on fish. Water Res.
10:165-169.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 76
Briggs, G. G. 1981. Theoretical and experimental relationships
between soil adsorption, octanol-water partition coefficients,
water solubilities, bioconcentration factors, and the parachor.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 29:1050-1059.
Canton, J. H., and D. M. M. Adema. 1978. Reproducibility of
short-term and reproduction toxicity experiments with Daphnia
magna and comparison of the sensitivity of Daphnia magna with
£. pulex and J). cucullata in short-term experiments.
Hydrobiologia 59:135-140.
Cardwell, R. D., D. G. Foreman, J. R. Payne, and D. J. Wilker. 1976.
Acute toxicity of selected toxicants to six species of fish.
EPA-600/3-76-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth,
Minnesota.
Carlson, R. W., F. A. Bazzaz, and G. L. Rolfe. 1975. The effects of
heavy metals on plants. Part II, Net photosynthesis and
transpiration of whole corn and sunflower plants treated with Pb,
Cd, Ni, and Tl. Environ. Res. 10:113-120.
Carlson, R. L., and F. A. Bazzaz. 1977. Growth reduction in American
sycamore (Platanus occidental is L.) caused by Pb-Cd interaction.
Environ. Pollut. 12:243-253.
Cassidy, D. R., and A. Furr. 1978. Toxicity of inorganic and organic
mercury compounds in animals, pp. 303-330. IN F. W. Oehme (ed.),
Toxicity of Heavy Metals in the Environment. Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
New York.
Cheeseman, J. M., and T. 0. Perry. 1977. Suspect identification
through biological assay (The Wake County, N.C., pine kill).
Plant Physiol. 59:123.
Chen, S.-C., and R. M. Olofson. 1978. Phytotoxicity of organic and
inorganic iodines to Avena fatua. J. Agric. Food Chem. 26:287-289.
Chou, C.-H., and Z. A. Patrick. 1976. Identification and phytotoxic
activity of compounds produced during decomposition of corn and
rye residues in soil. Phytopathology 58:41-45.
Clubb, R. W., A. R. Gaufir, and J. L. Lords. 1975. Acute cadmium
toxicity studies upon nine species of aquatic insects. Environ.
Res. 9:332-341.
-------
77 ORNL/TM-9074
Cleland, J. G., and G. L. Kingsbury. 1977. Multimedia Environmental
Goals for Environmental Assessment, Vol. II. EPA-600/7-77-136b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Cushman, R. M., S. G. Hildebrand, R. H. Strand, and R. M. Anderson.
1977. The toxicity of 35 trace elements in coal to freshwater
biota: A data base with automated retrieval capabilities.
ORNL/TM-5793. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. 46 pp.
Davies, W., G. A. Atkins, and P- C. B. Hudson. 1937. The effect of
ascorbic acid and certain indole derivatives on the regeneration
and germination of plants. Ann. Bot. 1:329-351.
Davies, P. H., J. P. Goetth, J. R. Sinley, and N. F. Smith. 1976.
Acute and chronic toxicity of lead to rainbow trout (Salmo
gairdneri) in hard and soft water. Water Res. 10:199-206.
DeGraeve, D. M., R. G. Elder, D. C. Woods, and H. L. Bergman. 1982.
Effects of naphthalene and benzene on fathead minnows and rainbow
trout. Arch. Environ. Toxicol. 11:487-490.
Deubert, K. H., R. M. Devlin, R. M. Kisiel, and M. J. Koslusiak.
1979. The influence of benzo(a)pyrene on the growth of wheat and
corn. Environ. Int. 1:91-93.
Deuel, L. E., and A. R. Swoboda. 1972. Arsenic toxicity to cotton and
soybeans. J. Environ. Qual. 1:317-320.
Dilling, W. L. 1977. Interphase transfer processes II. Evaporation
rates of chloromethanes, ethanes, ethylenes, propanes, and
propylenes from dilute aqueous solution. Comparison with
theoretical predictions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11(4):405-409.
Dowden, B. F., and H. J. Bennett. 1965. Toxicity of selected chemicals
to certain animals. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 37:1308-1316.
Dutta, T. R., J. Prasad, and R. P. Singh. 1972. Evaluation of
herbicides for submerged weeds in Chambal and Bhakra-Nangal canal
systems. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 42:70-75.
Edwards, N. T. 1983. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
the terrestrial environment: A review. J. Environ. Qual.
12:427-441.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 78
European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commision (EIFAC). 1970. Water
Quality Criteria for European Freshwater Fish. Report on Ammonia
and Inland Fisheries. EIFAC Tech. Paper II. Food and Agriculture
Organisation, Rome. 12 pp.
European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commision (EIFAC). 1980. Working
Party on Water Quality Criteria. Report on Combined Effects on
Freshwater Fish and Other Aquatic Life of Mixtures of Toxicants in
Water. EIFAC Tech. Pap. 37. Food and Agriculture Organisation,
Rome.
Gaur, A. C., and R. P- Pareek. 1976. A study on the effect of certain
phenolic acids and fumaric acid in soil on the development of
paddy seedlings and nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Zentralbl.
Bakteriol. Parasitenkd. Infektionskr. Hyg. abt. 2. 131:148-156.
Giddings, J. M., A. J. Stewart, R. V. O'Neill, and R. H. Gardner. An
efficient algal bioassay based on short-term photosynthetic
response. American Society of Testing and Materials (in press).
Gledhill, W. E., R. G. Kaley, W. J. Adams, 0. Hicks, P. R. Michael, and
V. W. Saeger. 1980. An environmental safety assessment of butyl
benzyl phthalate. Environ. Sci. Technol. 14:301-305.
Graf, W., and W. Nowak. 1966. Promotion of growth in lower and higher
plants by carcinogenic polycyclic aromatics. Arch. Hyg.
Bakteriol. 150:513-528.
Haghiri, F. 1973. Cadmium uptake by plants. J. Environ. Qual.
2:93-95.
Hale, J. G. 1977. Toxicity of metal mining wastes. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 17:66-73.
Halstead, R. L., B. J. Finn, and A. J. Maclean. 1969. Extractability
of nickel added to soils and its concentration in plants. Can. J.
Soil Sci. 49:335-342.
Hammons, A. S., J. E. Huff, H. M. Braunstein, J. S. Drury, C. R. Shiner,
E. B. Lewis, B. L. Whitfield, and L. E. Torvill. 1978. Reviews
of the Environmental Effects of Pollutants: IV. Cadmium.
ORNL/EIS-106. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
-------
79 ORNL/TM-9074
Heck, W. W., and D. T. Tingey. 1979. Nitrogen dioxide:
Time-concentration model to predict acute foliar injury.
EPA 600/3/-79-057. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Heck, W. W., and E. G. Pires. 1962. Growth of Plants Fumigated with
Saturated and Unsaturated Hydrocarbon Gases and Their
Derivatives. MP-603. The Agricultural and Mechanical Experiment
Station, College Station, Texas.
Herbert, D. W. M., and D. S. Shurben. 1963. A preliminary study of
the effect of physical activity on the resistance of rainbow trout
(Salmo gairdnerii Richardson) to two poisons. Ann. Appl. Biol.
52:321-326.
Hilton, H. W., and N. Nomura. 1964. Phytotoxicity of herbicides as
measured by root absorption. Weed Res. 4:216-222.
Hohreiter, D. W. 1980. Toxicities of Selected Substances to
Freshwater Biota. ANL/ES-94. Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Illinois.
Huange, C. Y., F. A. Bazzaz, and L. N. Vanderhoef. 1974. The
inhibition of soybean metabolism by cadmium and lead. Plant
Physiol. 54:122-124.
Ivens, G. W. 1952. The phytotoxicity of mineral oils and hydrocarbons.
Ann. Biol. 39:418-422.
John, M. K., and C. J. VanLaerhaven. 1972. Lead uptake by lettuce and
oats as affected by lime, nitrogen, and sources of lead.
J. Environ. Qual. 1:169-171.
Johnson, S. C. 1967. Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika
32:241-254.
Johnson, W. W., and M. T. Finley. 1980. Handbook of acute toxicity of
chemicals to fish and aquatic invertebrates. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Resource Publication 137. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. 98 pp.
Karickhoff, S. W., D. S. Brown, and T. A. Scott. 1979. Sorption of
hydrophobic pollutants on natural sediments. Water Res.
13:241-248.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 80
Kingsbury, G. L., R. S. Sims, and J. B. White. 1979. Multimedia
Environmental Goals for Environmental Assessment. Vol. IV.
EPA-600/7-79-176. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Leo, A. C., C. Hansch, and D. Elkins. 1971. Partition coefficients
and their uses. Chem. Rev. 71(6):525-616.
Lloyd, R. The toxicity of mixtures of chemicals to fish.
IN Hazard Assessment of Complex Effluents, Proceedings of the 5th
Pellston Workshop. Pergamon Press, New York (in press).
Lloyd, R., and L. D. Orr. 1969. The diuretic response by rainbow
trout to sublethal concentrations of ammonia. Water Res.
3:335-349.
Lynch, J. M. 1977. Phytotoxicity of acetic acid produced in the
anaerobic decomposition of wheat straw. J. Appl. Bacteriol.
42:81-87.
Mattson, V. R., J. W. Arthur, and C. T. Walbridge. 1976. Acute
Toxicity of Selected Organic Compounds to Fathead Minnows.
EPA-600/3-76-097. Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota.
Mayer, F. L., and H. 0. Sanders. 1973. Toxicology of phthalic acid
esters in aquatic organisms. Environ. Health Perspect. 3:153-157.
McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf (eds.). 1963. Water Quality Criteria
2nd ed. Publ. No. 3-A. California State Water Quality Control
Board, Sacramento
McKim, J. M., G. F. Olson, G. W. Holcombe, and E. P. Hunt. 1976.
Long-term effects of methylmercuric chloride on three generations
of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis): Toxicity, accumulation,
distribution, and elimination. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
33:2726-2739.
McLaughlin, S. B., Jr., and G. E. Taylor, Or. Effects of
SO^ on dicot crops: Some issues, mechanisms and indicators. IN
W. E. Winner, H. A. Mooney, and R. A. Goldstein (eds.), The
effects of S02 on plant productivity. Stanford Univ. Press (in
press).
-------
81 ORNL/TM-9074
Meyer, H., and A. M. Mayer. 1971. Permeation of dry seeds with
chemicals: Use of dichloromethane. Science 171:583-584.
Millemann, R. E., W. J. Birge, J. A. Black, R. M. Cushman,
K. L. Daniels, P. J. Franco, J. M. Giddings, J. F. McCarthy, and
A. J. Stewart. 1984. Comparative acute toxicity to aquatic
organisms of components of coal-derived synthetic fuels. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 113:74-85.
Moore, R. E., C. F. Baes III, L. M. McDowell-Boyer, A. P. Watson,
F. 0. Hoffman, J. C. Pleasant, and C. W. Miller. 1979.
AIRDOS-EPA: A computerized methodology for estimating
environmental concentrations and dose to man from airborne
releases of radionuclides. ORNL/TM-5532. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Mount, D. I., and C. E. Stephan. 1969. Chronic toxicity of copper to
the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) in soft water. J. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 26:2449.
Mukhiya, Y. K., KV. C. Gupta, N. Shrotriya, J. K. Joshi, and
V. P. Singh. 1983. Comparative responses of the action of
different mercury compounds on barley. Int. J. Environ. Stud.
20:323-327.
Muska, C. F., and L. J. Weber. 1977. An approach for studying the
effects of mixtures of environmental toxicants on whole organism
performances, pp. 71-87. IN R. A. Tubb (ed.), Recent Advances in
Fish Toxicology. Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Nag, P., A. K. Paul, and S. Mukherji. 1980. Effects of mercury,
copper, and zinc on the growth, cell division, GA-induced
ct-amylase synthesis and membrane permeability of plant tissues.
Indian J. Exp. Biol. 18:822-827-
Naik, M. N.9 R. B. Jackson, J. Stokes, and R. J. Swaby. 1972.
Microbial degradation and phytotoxicity of Picloram and other
substituted pyridines. Soil Biol. Biochem. 4:313-323.
National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA). 1970. Air
Quality Criteria for Hydrocarbons. AP-64. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 82
National Research Council (NRC). 1972. Lead. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1975. Nickel. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1976. Vapor-Phase Organic
Pollutants. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1977a. Carbon Monoxide. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1977b. Nitrogen Oxides. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1977c. Arsenic. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1979a. Hydrogen Sulfide. University
Park Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
National Research Council (NRC). 1979b. Ammonia. University Park
Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
National Research Council (NRC). 1979c. Airborne Particles.
University Park Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
National Research Council (NRC). 1981. Formaldehyde and Other
Aldehydes. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
O'Neill, R. V., and J. M. Giddings. 1979. Population interactions and
ecosystem function, pp. 103-123. IN G. S. Innis and R. V. O'Neill
(eds.), Systems Analysis of Ecosystems. International Cooperative
Publishing House, Fairland, Maryland.
O'Neill, R. V., R. H. Gardner, L. W. Barnthouse, G. W. Suter,
S. G. Hildebrand, and C. W. Gehrs. 1982. Ecosystem risk
analysis: A new methodology. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1:167-177.
Oseid, D. M., and L. L. Smith, Jr. 1974. Chronic toxicity of hydrogen
sulfide to Gammarus pseudolimnaeus. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
103:819-822.
Page, A. L., F. T. Bingham, and C. Nelson. 1972. Cadmium absorption
and growth of various plant species as influenced by solution
cadmium concentration. J. Environ. Qua!. 1:288-291.
-------
83 ORNL/TM-9074
Park, R. A., R. V. O'Neill, J. A. Bloomfield, H. H. Shugart,
R. S. Booth, R. A. Goldstein, J. B. Mankin, J. F. Koonce,
D. Scavia, M. S. Adams, L. S. Clesceri, E. M. Colon,
E. H. Dettmann, J. Hoopes, D. D. Huff, S. Katz, J. F. Kitchell,
R. C. Kohberger, E. J. LaRow, D. C. McNaught, J. Petersen,
J. Titus, P. R. Weiler, J. W. Wilkinson, and C. S. Zahorcak.
1974. A generalized model for simulating lake ecosystems.
Simulation 23:33-50.
Parkhurst, B. R. 1981. Unpublished data on acute toxicity of coal
organics to Daphnia magna. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Parkhurst, B. R., J. S. Meyer, 6. M. DeGraeve, and H. L. Bergman.
1981. A reevaluation of the toxicity of coal conversion process
waters. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 26:9-15.
Pickering, Q. H., and C. Henderson. 1966a. Acute toxicity of some
important petrochemicals to fish. J. Water Pollut. Control. Fed.
38(9):1419-1429.
Pickering, Q. H., and C. Henderson. 1966b. The acute toxicity of some
heavy metals to different species of warm water fishes. Air Water
Pollut. 10:453-463.
Pickering, Q. H. 1974. Chronic toxicity of nickel to the fathead
minnow. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 37:1308-1316.
Pizey, J. S., and R. L. Wain. 1959. Pre-emergent herbicidal activity
of some substituted amides and related compounds. J. Sci. Food
Agric. 10:577-584.
Rehwoldt, R., L. Lasko, C. Shaw, and E. Wirhouski. 1973. The acute
toxicity of some heavy metal ions toward benthic organisms. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 10:291-294.
Rice, S. D., and R. M. Stokes. 1975. Acute toxicity of ammonia to
several developmental stages of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri.
Fish. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. 73:207-211.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 84
Ruesink, R. G., and L. L. Smith, Jr. 1975. The relationship of the
96-hour LCrr> to the lethal threshold concentration of hexavalent
50
chromium, phenol, and sodium pentachlorophenate for fathead
minnows (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
3:567-570.
Sanders, H. 0., and 0. B. Cope. 1966. Toxicities of several pesticides
to two species of cladocerans. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 95:165-169.
Sanders, H. 0., and 0. B. Cope. 1968. The relative toxicities of
several pesticides to naiads of three species of stoneflies.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 13:112-117.
Schell, VI. R., and T. H. Sibley. 1982. Distribution coefficients for
radionuclides in aquatic environments. NUREG/CR-1869. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Schlesinger, A. H., and D. T. Mowry. 1951. Benzothiophenes and their
1-dioxides. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 73:2614-2616.
Schultz, T. W., M. Cajina-Quezada, and J. N. Dumont. 1980.
Structure-toxicity relationships of selected nitrogenous
heterocyclic compounds. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 9:591-598.
Shukla, S. P. 1972. The effects of some chemicals on the germination
of a weed, Psoralea corylifolia L. Weed Res. 12:293-300.
Scientific Group on Methods for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals
(SGOMSEC). Joint Report of the Workshop on Methods for Assessing
the Effects of Mixtures of Chemicals. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,
Chichester, England (in press).
Siegel, B. Z., and S. M. Siegel. 1979. Biological indicators of
atmospheric mercury, pp. 131-159. In J. 0. Nriagu, (ed.), The
Biogeochemistry of Mercury in the Environment.
Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, New York.
Smith, L. L., D. M. Oseid, G. L. Kimball, and S. M. Elkandelgy. 1976.
Toxicity of hydrogen sulfide to various life history stages of
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 105:442-449.
Southworth, G. R. 1979. Transport and transformation of anthracene in
natural waters, pp. 359-380. IN L. L. Marking and R. A. Kimmerle
(eds.), Aquatic Toxicology. ASTM STP 667. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadilphia, Pennsylvania..
-------
85
Sprague, J. B., and B. A. Ramsay. 1965. Lethal levels of mixed
copper-zinc solutions for juvenile salmon. J. Fish. Res. Board
Can. 22:213-234.
Stahl, Q. R. 1969. Air Pollution Aspects of Mercury and its Compounds.
Litton Systems, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland.
Suter, G. VI. II, and D. S. Vaughan. 1984. Extrapolation of ecotoxicity
data: Choosing tests to suit the assessment, pp. 387-399. IN
K. E. Cowser and C. R. Richmond (eds.), Synthetic Fossil Fuel
Technologies: Results of Health and Environmental Studies.
Butterworth Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts.
Suter, G. W. II, D. S. Vaughan, and R. H. Gardner. 1983. Risk
assessment by analysis of extrapolation error: A demonstration
for effects of pollutants on fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
2:369-378.
Taylor, G. E., Jr. The significance of the developing energy
technologies of coal conversion to plant productivity. J. Am.
Soc. Hort. Sci. (in press).
Thompson, C. R., and G. Kats. 1978. Effects of continuous H^S
fumigation on crop and forest plants. Environ. Sci. Techno!.
12:550-553.
Travis, C. C., C. F. Baes III, L. W. Barnthouse, E. L. Etnier,
G. A., Holton, B. D. Murphy, G. P. Thompson, G. W. Suter II, and
A. P- Watson. 1983. Exposure assessment methodology and
reference environments for synfuel risk analysis. ORNL/TM-8672.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
TRW. 1983. Source term estimates for synthetic fuels technologies:
Direct coal liquefaction technologies. TRW Energy Technology
Division, Redondo Beach, California.
Underhill, G. W., and J. A. Cox. 1940. Carbon disulphide and
dichloroethyl ether as soil fumigants for the woolly aphid,
Eroisoma lanigerum Hausm. V. Fruit 28:20-26.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980a. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Carbon Tetrachloride. EPA 440/5-80-026.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards
Division, Washington, D.C.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 86
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980b. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Chloroform. EPA 440/5-80-033. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980c. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Benzene. EPA 440/5-80-018. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980d. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Toluene. EPA 440/5-80-075. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980e. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Napthalene. EPA 440/5-80-059. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980f. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Fluoranthene. EPA 440/5-80-049. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980g. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Phenol. EPA 440/5-80-066. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980h. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for 2,4 Dimethylphenol. EPA 440/5-80-044.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards
Division, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980i. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Acrolein. EPA 440/5-80-016. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
-------
87 ORNL/TM-9074
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980J. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Phthalate Esters. EPA 440/5-80-067- Office
of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards
Division, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980k. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Acrylonitrile. EPA 440/5-80-017. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 19801. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Arsenic. EPA 440/5-80-021. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980m. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Mercury. EPA 440/5-80-058. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980n. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Nickel. EPA 440/5-80-060. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980o. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Cadmium. EPA 440/5-80-025. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980p. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Lead. EPA 440/5-80-057. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1982. Air quality
criteria for particulate matter and sulfur oxides.
EPA-600/8-82-029C. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Research Triangle, Park, N.C.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1977- Water Resources Data for
Kentucky WY-1976. USGS Water Data Report KY 76-1.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 88
U.S. Geological Survey (US6S). 1979. Water Resources Data for
Pennsylvania WY-f978. Vol. 3. Ohio River and St. Lawrence River
basins. USGS Water-Data Report PA-78-3.
Vergnano, 0., and J. G. Hunter. 1953. Nickel and cobalt toxicities in
oat plants. Ann. Bot. 17:317-328.
Verschueren, K. 1977. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic
Chemicals. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York.
Wakabayashi, M., B. G. Bang, and F. B. Bang. 1977. Mucociliary
transport in chickens infected with newcastle disease virus and
exposed to sulfur dioxide. Arch. Environ. Health 32:101-108.
Waldron, L. J., and N. Terry. 1975. Effect of mercury vapor on sugar
beets. J. Environ. Qual. 4:58-60.
Wallen, I. E., W. C. Greer, and R. Lasater. 1957. Toxicity to Gambusia
affinis of certain pure chemicals in turbid waters. Sewage Ind.
Wastes 29:695-711.
Warnick, S. L., and H. L. Bell. 1969. The acute toxicity of some
heavy metals to different species of aquatic insects. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed. 41:280-284.
Weast, R. C. (ed.). 1980. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio.
Woolson, E. A., J. H. Axley, and P. C. Kearny. 1971. Correlation
between available soil arsenic, estimated by six methods, and
response of corn (Zea mays L.). Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
35:101-105.
Zahn, R. 1975. Begasungsuerusche mit N02 in Kleingewachshauserun.
Staub Reinhalt. Luft 35:194-196.
Zepp, R. G., and P. M. Cline. 1977. Rates of direct photolysis in
aquatic environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11:359-366.
Zepp, R. G., and P. F. Schlotzhauer. 1979. Photoreactivity of
selected aromatic hydrocarbons in water. IN P. W. Jones and
P. Leber (eds.), Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
-------
89 ORNL/TM-9074
APPENDIX A
Aquatic Toxicity Data
-------
Table A-l. Acute toxicity of synfuels chemicals to aquatic animals
Representative
RAC chemical(s)
Test
organism3
Duration
Test typeb (h)
Concentration
(mg/L)
Notesc
Reference
1 Carbon monoxide
2 Sulfur oxides
3 Nitrogen oxides
4 H2S
Scud (Gammarus LC5Q
pseudolimnaeus)
Bluegill
(adults) TLm
(juveniles) TLm
(fry, 35-d-old) TLm
(eggs) TLm
Northern pike
(eggs) TLm
(fry) TLm
96
96
96
96
72
96
96
0.022
0.0448
0.0478
0.0131
0.0190
0.034-0.037
0.009-0.026
No toxicity data
Aquatic problems
associated with pH,
not direct toxicity
Aquatic problems
associated with pH,
not direct toxicity
Flow-through test
Flow-through test
Flow-through test
Flow-through test
DO = 2-6 ppm
DO = 2-6 ppm
Oseid and Smith 1974
Smith et al. 1976
Smith et al. 1976
Smith et al. 1976
Smith et al. 1976
Adelman and Smith 1970
Adelman and Smith 1970
5 Ammonia
6 Heptane
7 Formaldehyde
Rainbow trout
(fry, 85-d-old)
(adults)
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout (fry)
(f ingerlings)
Mosquitofish
Several fish
species
TLm
TLm
LC5Q
LC5Q
TLm
24
24
24
24
24
24
96
24
0.068
0.097
0.50
0.47
0.2
0.2
4924
50-120
Rice and Stokes 1975
Rice and Stokes 1975
Herbert and Shurben 1963
Lloyd and Orr 1969
EIFAC 1970
EIFAC 1970
wallen et al. 1957
National Research
Council 1981
\
l£>
O
-•J
-pi
-------
Table A-l. (continued)
Representative
RAC chemical(s)
8 Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
9 Acetic acid
10 Volati le 0- ana S-
heterocycl ics
11 Pyridine
12 Benzene
13 Cyclohexane
Test
organism3
Daphnia magna
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Bluegill
D. magna
Bluegi 1 1
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
Fathead minnow
Mosquitof ish
Ciliate (Tetrahymena
pyri forma")
D. magna
U. magna
D. magna
D. magna
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Mosquitof ish
Rainbow trout
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Test typeb
LC50
LC50
LC50
50
^50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC30
LC50
LC50
TLm
TLm
TLm
Duration
(h)
48
96
96
96
48
96
96
96
96
96
72
48
48
48
48
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
Concentration
(mg/L)
35.2
43.1
27.3
125.0
28.9
100.0
115.0
43.8
88.0
251.0
1211.8
1165
1755
203.0-620.0
426.0
32.0
15.1
1300.0
5.3
93.0
30.0
32.0
31.0
Notes0 Reference
US EPA 1980a
Flow-through test US EPA 1980a
US EPA 1980a
US EPA 1980a
US EPA 1980b
US EPA 1980b
US EPA 1980b
US EPA 1980b
Mattson et al . 1976
Wallam et al . 1957
No toxicity data
50% growth Schultz et al . 1980
inhibition
Canton and Adema 1978
Canton and Adema 1978
US EPA 1980c
Canton and Adema 1978
US EPA 1980c
Flow-through test DeGraeve et al. 1982
Wallam et al . 1957
Flow-through test US EPA 1980c
Mattson et al. 1976
Pickering and
Henderson 1966a
Pickering and
Henderson 1966a
Pickering and
Henderson 1966a
I
<£>
O
UD
Indan
Fathead minnow
96
14.0
Mattson et al. 1976
-------
Table A-l. (continued)
Representative
RAC chemical (s)
14 Toluene
Naphthalene
Test
organism3
D. magna
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Bluegill
0. magna
D. magna
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Test typeb
LC50
Tl_m
TLm
LC50
LC50
LC50
LCsn
Duration
(h)
48
96
96
96
96
48
48
48
96
Concentration
(mg/L) Notesc
39.22
44.0
45.0
24.0
12.7
2.16
8.57
3.14
4.90-8.90 2 tests
Reference
Millemann, et al .
Pickering and
Henderson 1966a
Pickering and
Henderson 1966a
Pickering and
Henderson, 1966a
US EPA 1980d
Millemann et al.
US EPA 1980e
Millemann et al .
US EPA 1980e
1984
1984
1984
Xylene
15 Antnracene
Phenanthrene
Fluorantnene
16 Aliphatic amines
17 Aniline
3,5-Dimethylani1ine
Rainbow trout
Fathead minnow
Goldfish
D_. magna
Jj. magna
R"ainbow trout
(embryo-larva)
D. magna
Fluegi I I
p_. maqna
Uaphnia cucul lata
D_. magna
]J. magna
TLm
TLm
96
96
96
1059
LC50
1059
48
96
96
48
48
48
48
2.30
42.0
17.0
0.75
1.10
0.04
325.0
3.9
0.65
0,68
0.58
1.29
Not toxic to fish,
even in super-
saturated solutions
No toxicity data
US EPA 1980e
Mattson et al. 1976
Brenniman et al. 1976
McKee and Wolf 1963
Millemann et al. 1984
Parkhurst 1981
Birge and Black 1981
US EPA 1980f
US EPA 1980f
Canton and Adema 1978
Canton and Adema 1978
Millemann et al. 1984
Millemann et al. 1984
<£>
GO
IO
O
-------
Table A-l. (continued)
Representative
RAC chemical(s)
18 Quinoline
2-Methylquinol ine
2,6-Dimethylquinol ine
19 Neutral N-,0-,5-
heterocycl ics
20 Benzoic acid
21 Phenol
2-Methyphenol
4-Methylphenol
Test
organism3
Ciliate (T. pyriforma)
D. magna
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Ciliate (T. pyriforma)
Ciliate (T. pyriforma)
Mosquitof ish
D. magna
D . magna
TJ. magna (Young)
Copepod (Mesocyclops
leukarti")
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
D. magna
U. magna
F athead mi nnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Fathead minnow
Test typeb
LC50
LC50
LC50
EC50
EC50
TLm
LC50
LC50
LC^o
L^SO
LC50
LC50
^-^50
50
50
TLm
TLm
TLm
Duration
(h)
72
48
48
96
72
72
96
48
50
48
96
48
48
96
96
96
96
Concentration
(mg/L)
125.7
30.28
1.50
46.0
48.7
33.0
180
19.79
9.6
7.0
108.0
25.6
24.0-67.5
11.5-23.9
8.9-11.6
9.2
23.5
12.55
13.42
20.78
19.0
Notesc
50% growth
inhibition
50% growth
inhibition
50% growth
inhibition
No toxicity data
4 tests
6 tests
2 flow-through
tests
Soft water
Hard water
Soft water
O
73
\
—1
O
Reference _p>
Schultz et al. 1980
Millemann et al . 1984
Millemann et al . 1984
Mattson et al . 1976
Schultz et al. 1980
Schultz et al. 1980
Wai lam et al . 1957 ^
-p.
Millemann et al . 1984
US EPA 1980g
Dowden and Bennett 1965
US EPA 1980g
Millemann et al . 1984
US EPA 1980g
US EPA 1980g
US EPA 1980g
US EPA 1980g
US EPA 1980g
Pickering and
Henderson 1966a
Pickering and
Henderson 1966a
Pickering and
Henderson 1966a
Mattson et al . 1976
-------
Table A-l. (continued)
RAC
22
23
24
25
26
Representative
chemical (s)
Mixed cresol isomers
2, 4-Di methyl phenol
3,4-Dimethylphenol
2, 5 -Dimethyl phenol
Acrolein
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Nonheterocyl ic
organosulf ur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Di-2-ethylhexyl
phthalate
Test
organism3
Aquatic life
D. magna
Fathead minnow
(juvenile)
Bluegill
Fathead minnow
D. magna
D. magna
U. magna
Mbsquitof ish
Bluegill
Bluegill
Brown trout
Rainbow trout
Largemouth bass
Bluegill
D. magna
D. magna
Test typeb
TLm
LCpQ
50
50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC5Q
LC50
Duration
(h)
96
48
96
96
96
48
48
48
48
96
96
24
24
96
96
48
Concentration
(mg/L) Notesc
1.0-10.0
2.12
16.75 Flow-through test
7.75
14.0
0.96
0.057
0.080
0.061
0.100
0.090
0.046
0.065
0.160
53.0
12,600
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
No toxicity data
11.1
Reference
Kingsbury et al . 1979
US EPA 1980h
US EPA 1980h
US EPA 1980h
Mattson et al. 1976
Millemann et al. 1984
US EPA 1980i
US EPA 1980i
National Research
Council 1981
US EPA 1980i
US EPA 1980i
National Research
Council 1981
National Research
Council 1981
US EPA 19801
National Research
Council 1981
Canton and Adema 1978
US EPA 1980J
10
in
o
73
1 —
— 1
UD
o
-------
o
•yo
Table A-l. (continued)
Representative
RAC chemical(s)
Diethyl phthalate
Butylbenzl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
27 Amides
28 Acrylonitrile
29 Tars
30 Respirable particles
31 Arsenic
Test
organism3
D. magna
Fluegill
D. magna
0. magna
F athead m i n now
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
Scud (G. pseudo-
1 imnaeus"]
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
D. magna
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Bluegill
D. magna
TJ. ma^na
Daphnia pulex
Stonefly (Pteronarcys
cal if ornicT)
Fathead minnow
(juvenile)
Bluegill (juvenile)
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
Brook trout
Test type*1
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC5Q
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
TLm
EC50
EC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Duration
(h)
48
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
48
48
48
96
96
96
93
Concentration
(tng/L)
52.1
98.2
92.3
3.7
5.3
2.1
43.3
1.7
3.3
2.1
1.3
0.73
6.47
7.55
14.3
18.1
10.1
11.8
10.1
7.4
5.28
1.04
22.04
15.66
41.76
15.37
13.34
14.96
Notes0
Hardness: 160
Hardness: 40
No toxicity data
Flow-through test
No aquatic emissions
No aquatic emissions
Immobilization
Immobilization
Flow-through test
Flow-through test
Flow-through test
Reference
US EPA 1980J
US EPA 1980J
US EPA 1980J
Gledhill et al . 1980
Gledhill et al . 1980
Gledhill et al . 1980
US EPA 1980J
Gledhill et al . 1980
Gledhill et al . 1980
Mayer and Sanders 1973
Mayer and Sanders 1973
Mayer and Sanders 1973
Mayer and Sanders 1973
US EPA 1980k
US EPA 1980k
US EPA 1980k
US EPA 1980k
US EPA 1980k
US EPA 1980k
Hohreiter 1980
Anderson 1946
Sanders and Cope 1966
Sanders and Cope 1968
Cardwell et al. 1976
Cardwell et al. 1976
US EPA 19801
US EPA 19801
Cardwell et al . 1976
I
10
o
10
CTl
-------
Table A-l. (continued)
Representative Test
RAC chemical (s) organism8
32 Mercury (inorganic) 0. magna
Stonefly (Acroneuria
lycorius)
Fathead minnow
Rainbow trout
Coho salmon
Rainbow trout
(juvenile)
Methylmercury Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
(sac fry)
(f ingerling)
(Juvenile)
Brook trout
(juvenile)
(yearl ing)
33 Nickel D. magna
U. magna
Mayfly (Ephemerel 1 a
subvaria")
Stonefly (A. lycorius)
Damself ly
(unidentified)
Midge
(Chironomus sp.)
Caddisfly
(unidentified)
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Bluegill
Test type
LC50
TLm
LCso
LC50
LC50
LC§o
LC50
LC50
50
LC^o
50
LCso
LC50
TLm
TLm
TLm
LC50
TLm
TLm
TLm
Duration
(h)
48
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.005
2.0
0.19
0.31
0.24
0.155-0.4
0.03
0.024
0.042
0.025
0.084
0.065
1.81
2.34
4.0
33.5
21.2
8.6
30.2
4.58-5.18
25.0
5.18-5.36
39.6
Notes
4 tests
Flow-through test
Flow-through test
Hardness: 51
Hardness: 100
Hardness: 42
Hardness: 40
Hardness: 50
Hardness: 50
Hardness: 50
Hardness: 20
2 flow-through
tests
Hardness: 210
flow-through test
Hardness: 20
2 tests
Hardness: 360
Reference
Biesinger and
Christensen 1972
Warnick and Bell 1969
US EPA 1980m
Hohreiter 1980
US EPA 1980m
US EPA 1980m
Hohreiter 1980
Hohreiter 1980
Hohreiter 1980
US EPA 1980m
McKim et al. 1976
McKim et al . 1976
US EPA 1980n
US EPA 1980n
Warnick and Bell 1969
Warnick and Bell 1969
Rehwoldt et al. 1973
Rehwoldt et al. 1973
Rehwoldt et al. 1973
US EPA 1980n
Pickering 1974
Pickering and
Henderson 1966b
Pickering and
<-C
^
o
JO
i —
— i
10
o
-------
Table A-l. (continued)
Representative Test
RAC chemical (s) organism3
Rainbow trout
Fish sp., general
Fish sp., general
34 Cadmium D. magna
TJ. magna
0 . magna
Mayfly (Ephemerel 1 a
grandis grandis)
Mayfly (E. subvaria)
Stonefly (Pteronarcella
badia)
Damsel fly
(unidentified)
Midge
(Chironomus) Caddisfly
(unidentif i ed )
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
(swim-up and parr)
Rainbow trout
Carp
Chinook salmon (Parr)
Brook trout
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Test type
LC5Q
LC50
LC50
LC5Q
LC50
LC50
TLm
TLm
TLm
TLm
TLm
TLm
TLm
TLm
TLm
LC50
LC50
LC5Q
LC50
LC50
LC5Q
LC5Q
LC50
Duration
(h)
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
Concentration
(mg/L)
35.5
4.6-9.8
39.2-42.4
0.0099
0.033
0.049
28.0
2.0
18.0
8.1
1.2
3.4
0.630
72.6
1.94
21.1
0.001-
0.00175
0.00175
0.24
0.0035
0.0024
2.84
1.5
Notes
Flow-through test
Soft water
Hard water
Hardness: 51
Hardness: 104
Hardness: 209
Hardness: 54
Hardness: 50
Hardness: 50
Hardness: 50
Hardness: 20
Hardness: 360
Hardness: 20
Hardness: 207
Hardness: 23
2 flow-through
tests
Hardness: 31;
flow-through test
Hardness: 55
Hardness: 23
Hardness: 44
(sodium sulfate)
Hardness: 20
Hardness: 55
Reference
Henderson 1966b
Hale 1977
Hohreiter 1980
Hohreiter 1980
US EPA 19800
US EPA 1980o
US EPA 1980o
Clubb et al. 1975
Warnick and Bell 1969
Clubb et al. 1975
Rehwoldt et al . 1973
Rehwoldt et al. 1973
Rehwoldt et al. 1973
Pickering and
Henderson 1966b
Pickering and
Henderson 1966b
Pickering and
Henderson 1966b
US EPA 1980o
US EPA 1980o
US EPA 1980o
US EPA 1980o
US EPA 1980o
US EPA 1980o
US EPA 1980o
US EPA 1980o
CO
-------
Table A-l. (continued)
Representative
RAC chemical (s)
35 Lead
36 Fluorine
aLatin binomials are 1
bLC5Q = concentration
Test
organism3
D. magna
U. magna
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Bluegill
Rainbow trout (fry)
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Brook trout
D. magna
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
isted in Appendix C.
required to kill 50% of test
Test type
LC50
ic50
LC50
TLm
TLm
LC50
LC50
LC50
50
L 50
TLm
organisms.
Duration
(h)
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
48
96
12-29
60-102
240
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.612
0.952
2.4
482.0
23.8
442.0
0.6
1.17
1.0
8.0
4.1
270.0
120.0
1000.0
1000.0
2.3-7.5
Notes
Hardness: 54
Hardness: 110
Hardness: 20
Hardness: 360
Hardness: 20
Hardness: 360
Hardness: 32;
flow-through test
Hardness: 44
"Toxic threshold"
100% kill
100% kill in soft
water
100% kill in hard
water
TLm varies with
temperature
Tl_ro = median tolerance limit.
EC2Q = effective concentraton causing a designated
effect on 20%
of test organismsn.
Reference
US EPA 1980p
US EPA 1980p
US EPA 1980p
Pickering and
Henderson 1966b
Pickering and
Henderson 1966b
Pickering and
Henderson 1966b
Hohreiter 1980
Davies et al. 1976
Hohreiter 1980 .„
US EPA 1980p S
US EPA 1980p
Hohreiter 1980
Hohreiter 1980
Hohreiter 1980
Hohreiter 1980
Angelovic et al . 1961
Q
•yo
"-Hardness values are given in milligrams per liter as CaC03. DO = dissolved oxygen.
O
— 1
-------
Table A-2. Chronic toxicity of synfuels chemicals to aquatic animals.
OR
RAC
8
12
14
21
22
26
28
31
32
Representative
chemical(s)
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Benzene
Naphthalene
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Acrolein
Di-2-ethylhexyl
phthalate
Butyl benzyl
phthalate
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic
Mercuric chloride
Methylmercuric
chloride
Test
organism3
Fathead minnow
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Daphnia magna
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
D. magna
D. magna
Fathead minnow
£. magna
Rainbow trout
D. magna
Fathead minnow
£. magna
Fathead minnow
JJ. magna
D. magna
Bass sp., general
Pink salmon
fj. magna
0. magna
Fathead minnow
Brook trout
Duration
Test type (d)
Embryo-larval
Embryo- larval 27
Embryo-larval 27
Embryo 23
Life cycle
Embryo-larval
Embryo-larval
Embryo-larval
Embryo-larval
Life cycle
Life cycle
Life cycle
Life cycle
Embryo-larval
Life cycle
Embryo- larval
Life cycle
LC50 30
Life cycle
TLm 21
10
10
Life cycle
Life cycle
Life cycle
Concentration
(mg/L) Notes
>3.4
1.2 200 mg/L water
hardness
2.0 50 mg/L water
hardness
10.6 40% teratogenesis
>98.0
0.62
2.56
2.191
2.475
0.024
0.034 Survival reduced
after 64 days
0.021
<0.003
0.008
0.44
0.22
>3.6
2.6
0.912
2.85
7.60 Toxic
5.00 Lethal
0.001 - 4 tests
0.0025
0.001
0.00023 92% dead, 3 months
0.00052
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1980a
U.S. EPA, 1980b
U.S. EPA, 1980b
U.S. EPA, 1980b
U.S. EPA, 1980c
U.S. EPA, 1980e
U.S. EPA, 1980g
U.S. EPA, 1980h
U.S. EPA, 1980h
U.S. EPA, 1980i
National Research
Council, 1981
U.S. EPA, 19801
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980k
U.S. EPA, 1980k
U.S. EPA, 19801
Hohreiter, 1980
Hohreiter, 1980
Hohreiter, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980m
U.S. EPA, 1980m
Hohreiter, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980m
i —
—1
i
<£i
0
^j
-P>
,
0
^D
-------
Table A-2. (continued).
Representative Test
RAC chemical (s) organism3
33 Nickel
34 Cadmium
35 Lead
36 Fluorine
D. magna
D. magna
CaddTsfTy
(Clistoronia
magnif ica)
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Rainbow trout
D. magna
TJ. magna
If. magna
Midge (Tanytarsus
dissimilis)
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Brook trout
Brook trout
D. magna
TJ. magna
S~tonefly (Acroneuria
lycorias")
Mayfly (Ephemerella
subvarTa]
Caddisfly (Hydropsyche
betteri)
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Duration
Test type (d)
Life cycle
Life cycle
Life cycle
Embryo-larval
Life cycle
Embryo- larval
Life cycle
Life cycle
Life cycle
Life cycle
Life cycle
Embryo-larval
Embryo-larval
Life cycle
Life cycle
LC50 H
LC50 ^
"-C50 7
Embryo-larval
Embryo- larval
Embryo- larval
21
21
Concentration
(mg/L) Notes
0.015
0.123
0.465
0.109
0.527
0.350
0.00015
0.00021
0.00044
0.0031
0.046
0.050
0.0017
0.0092
0.012
0.128
64.0
16.0
32.0
0.092
0.019
0.102
113.0
250.0
Hardness: 51
(mg/L as CaC03)
Hardness: 105
Hardness: 50
Hardness: 44
Hardness: 210
Hardness: 50
Hardness: 53
Hardness: 103
Hardness: 209
Hardness: 201
Hardness: 207
Hardness: 36
Hardness: 187
Hardness: 52
Hardness: 151
Hardness: 41
Hardness: 28
Hardness: 35
100% kill,
45 mg/L CaC03
100% kill,
320 mg/L CaC03,
yearling trout
Reference
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
Hohreiter,
Hohreiter,
Hohreiter,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
Hohreiter,
Hohreiter,
1980n
1980n
1980n
1980n
1980n
1980n
1980o
1980o
19800
19800
19800
1980o
1980o
1980o
1980p
1980p
1980
1980
1980
1980p
1980p
1980p
1980
1980
o
•yo
i
i-D
O
aLatin binomials are listed in Appendix C.
-------
Table A-3. Toxicity of
Representative
RAC chemical(s)
12 Benzene
14 Toluene
Naphthalene
15 Fluoranthene
17 Aniline
p-Toluidene
synfuels chemicals to algae.
Test
organism Test type
Chlorella vulgaris ECi;n
£. vulgaris ECgg
Selenastrum
capricornutum ECgg
C. vulgaris ECsg
Chalamydomonas
angulosa ECg]
S. capricornutum ECt;n
S. capricornutum ECsn
Agmenellum
quadruplicatum
A. quadruplicatum
Coccochloris elabens
Eucapsls sp.
Oscillatoria williamsii
Duration Concentration
(h) (mg/L)
48 525.0
24 245.0
96 433.0
48 33.0
24 34.4
96 54.4
96 54.6
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
Notes
Reduction in cell
numbers
Reduction in cell
numbers
Reduction in cell
numbers and
chlorophyll _a
production
Reduction in
extrapolated
cell numbers
61% mortality of
cells
Reduction in cell
numbers
Reduction in
chlorophyll a
production
Diffusion from disk
onto algal lawn
inhibited growth
for 3-7 days
Same as above
for all 4 species
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1980c
U.S. EPA, 1980d
U.S. EPA, 1980d
U.S. EPA, 1980e
U.S. EPA, 1980e
U.S. EPA, 1980f
U.S. EPA, 1980f
Batterton et al.,
1978
Batterton et al. ,
1978
O
%>
I —
2
O
O
21 Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
S. capricornutum
S^. capricornutum
Nitzschia linearis
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
C. vulgaris
T. pyrenoidosa
Fr20
EC100
20.0 Growth inhibition of
12-66% depending on
time (2-3 d) and
temperature (20,
24, 28°C)
24 40.0 Reduction in cell
numbers
120 258.0 Reduction in cell
numbers
48 1500.0 Complete destruction
of chlorophyll
80 470.0 Growth inhibition
48 500.0 Complete destruction
of chlorophyl1
U.S. EPA, 1980g
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
EPA, 1980g
EPA, 1980g
EPA, 1980g
EPA, 1980g
EPA, 1980g
-------
Table A-3. (continued).
Representative
RAC chemical (s)
26 Butylbenzyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
31 Arsenic
32 Mercuric chloride
Methylmercuric
chloride
33 Nickel
34 Cadmium
Test
organism
S. capricornutum
S. capricornutum
Microcystis aeruginosa
Navicula pelliculosa
S. capricornutum
S. capricornutum
S. capricornutum
S. capricornutum
Cladophora. Spirogyra,
Zygnema 'sp.
Scenedesmus sp.
C. vulgaris
Spring diatom
assemblages
Coelastrum
microporum
Chlamydomonas,
Chlorella,
Haematococcus,
Scenedesmus sp.
Phormidium ambiguum
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus sp.
Scenedesmus sp.
C. pyrenoidosa
C". vulgaris
3~. capricornutum
Rixed species
Test type
EC50
EC50
EC5Q
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC5Q
EC50
EC100
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC16
EC 50
Duration
(h)
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
336
96
768
2
336
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.11
0.13
1000.0
0.60
42.7
39.8
90.3
85.6
2.32
20.0
1.03
0.08
2.4-4.8
0.1-0.7
0.5-10.0
1.5
0.0061
0.05-0.5
0.25
0.06
0.05
0.005
Notes
Reduction in
chlorophyll a_
Reduction in cell
numbers
Reduction in cell
numbers
Reduction in cell
numbers
Reduction in
chlorophyll a
Reduction in cell
numbers
Reduction in
chlorophyll a
Reduction in cell
numbers
100% kill
Threshold effects
Cell division
inhibition
Reduction in photo-
synthetic activity
Growth inhibition
Growth reduced in
all cultures in
water with 50 mg/L
CaC03
Growth inhibition
Threshold effects
Reduction in cell
numbers
Growth inhibition
Growth inhibition
Growth reduction
Growth reduction
Population reduction
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 1980J
U.S. EPA, 19801
Cushman et al.,
1977
U.S. EPA, 1980m
U.S. EPA, 1980m
U.S. EPA, 1980m
U.S. EPA, 1980n
Cushman et al., 1977
Cushman et al . , 1977
U.S. EPA, 19800
Cushman et al., 1977
U.S. EPA, 1980o
U.S. EPA, 1980o
U.S. EPA, 1980o
U.S. EPA, 1980o
o
to
o
^J
-pi
-------
i
l£5
o
Table A-3. (continued).
Representative Test
RAC chemical (s) organism
35 Lead Ankistrodesmus sp.
Ch lorel la sp.
Scenedesmus sp.
Selenastrum sp.
Anabaena sp.
Chlamydomonas sp.
Cosmarium sp.
Navicula sp.
Scenedesmus sp.
Test type
"24
"53
"35
"52
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
Duration Concentration
(h) (mg/L)
1.
0.
0.
0.
24 15.
24 17.
24 5.
24 17.
2.
00
50
50
50
0-26.0
0
0
0-28.0
5
Notes
Growth inhibition
Growth inhibition
Growth inhibition
Growth inhibition
Reduction in CO?
fixation
Reduction in C02
fixation
Reduction in C02
fixation
Reduction in C02
fixation
Threshold effects
Reference
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
Cushman et
1980p
1980p
1980p
1980p
1980p
1980p
1980p
1980p
al., 1977
-------
105 ORNL/TM-9074
APPENDIX B
Terrestrial Toxicity Data
-------
Table B-l. Toxicity of chemicals in air to vascular plants.
Representative
RAC chemical
1 Carbon monoxide
2 Sulfur dioxidec
3 Nitrogen dioxide
4 Hydrogen sulfide
5 Aramon i a
Test
organism*
Grapefruit
Red clover
Several species
Popinac
Barley
Durum wheat
Alfalfa
Tobacco, Bel W3
Cocksfoot
Broadbean
White pine
Norway spruce
Wheat
Bush bean
Spruce
Endive
Carrot
Tobacco, bean,
tomato, radish,
oat, soybean
Cocksfoot and
meadow grass
Green bean
Green bean
Alfalfa
Lettuce
Douglas-fir
Sugar beets
Mustard
Exposure
uuration
Response (hours)
-C02 uptake
-20% N fixation
-Growth
Defoliation
-44% yield
-42% yield
-26% foliage
-22% foliage
-40% total wt.
Reduced net
photosynthesis
Needle damage
threshold
-25% volume growth
-12% straw yield
-27% yield
-7% linear growth
-37% yield
-30% yield
Visible foliar
injury
-Yield
-20% photosynthesis
-25% whole plant
yield
552
24
72/wk
72/wk
100
100
2070
8
6
1680
334
639
1900
620
357
4
2070
3
64
-39% yield 672-840
-66% yield
-weight and
linear growth
-38% sugar
+43% sugar
Injury
2112
5904
3216
3216
4
Concentration
(ug/m3) Notesb
1.8 E03
1.1 E05
1.1 £07
2.3 E07
3.9 E02
3.9 E02
1.3 E02
1.3 E02
1.78 E02
9.2 E01
6.5 E01
1.3 E02
2 E03
2 E03
2-3 E03
2 EOS
4 E03
3.8 E03
2.1 E02
7.0 E02
2.8 E02
4.2 E02
4.2 E02
4.2 E02
4.2 E02
4.2 E01
2.1 EOS
Detached leaves
Field, growing season
Field, growing season
5 hr/d, 5 d/wk, 4 wk
5 hr/d, 5 d/wk, 4 wk
103.5 hr/wk, 20 wk
sensitive clone
-17% linear growth in
following year
Reference
National Research
Council, 1977a
National Research
Council, 1977a
National Research
Council, 1977a
National Research
Council, 1977a
U.S. EPA, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
Zahn, 1975
Zahn, 1975
Zahn, 1975
Zahn, 1975
Zahn, 1975
Heck and Tingey, 1979
103.5 h/wk, 20 wk
4 h/d, 4 d/wk for 4 wk
continuous fumigation
continuous fumigation
continuous fumigation
continuous fumigation
continuous fumigation
Ashenden and
Mansfield, 1978
Taylor, in press
Taylor, in press
Thompson and Kats,
Thompson and Kats,
Thompson and Kats,
Thompson and Kats,
Thompson and Kats,
National Research
Council, 1979b
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
o
73
VO
o
-------
Table B-l. (continued).
Representative
RAC chemical
6 Ethylene
1 Formaldehyde
8 Vinyl chloride
12 Benzene
13 Cyclohexene
14 Toluene
17 Aniline
22 Acrolein
23 Carbonyl sulfide
Test
organ isma
African marigold
Carnation
Cotton
Lily family
Various plants
Alfalfa
Petunia
Cowpea, cotton,
squash
Pinto bean
Runner bean
Pinto bean
Loblolly pine
Alfalfa
Runner bean
Green bean
Exposure
Uuration
Response (hours)
Epinasty
Flowers do not open
Growth inhibition
Growth inhibition
Growth inhibition
Injury
Necrosis and leaf
symptoms
Injury
Red-bordered spots
LD5Q, toxicity
to leaves
Bronze color
Damage
Oxident-type damage
LDjg, toxicity
to leaves
-13* growth
20
72
720
168
240
5
48
168
0.6
1
0.6
3
9
1
64
Concentration
(vig/m3)
1.15 EDO
1.15 E02
6.85 E02
8.60 E02
2.39 E03
4.9 E02
2.47 E02
2.6 £05
3.0 E04
1.12 E12
1 .88 E05
2.7 E02
2.5 E02
2.7 E03
4.9 E02
Notes'5 Reference
National Air
Pollution Control
Administration, 1970
National Air
Pollution Control
Aamini strati on, 1970
National Air
Pollution Control
Administration, 1970
National Air
Pollution Control
Administration, 1970
National Air
Pollution Control
Administration, 1970
National Research
Council, 1981
Kingsbury et al., 1979
Heck and Pi res, 1962
Kingsbury et al., 1979
Ivens, 1952
Kingsbury et al., 1979
Cheeseman and Perry, 1977
Kingsbury et al., 1979
Ivens, 1952
4 h/d, 4 d/w for 4 wk Taylor, in press
I
<£>
O
O
00
-------
TaoleB-1. (continued).
Exposure
Representative Test
RAC chemical organism8
32 Mercury (metal ic) Rose
Sugar beet
English ivy
Coleus, Thevetia
and Ricinus
Mercuric chloride Thevetia and
Ricinus
Dimethylmercury Coleus, Thevetia
and Ricinus
Response
Severe damage
Damage
Damage
Abscision
Necrosis
Abscision
Duration
(hours)
5
12
168
168
36
Concentration
(ug/m3) Notes6 Reference
1.0
2.8
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
E01
E02
E04
E01
£01
E01
Stahl, 1969
Waldron and Terry,
Waldron and Terry,
Siegel and Siegel,
Siegel and Siegel,
Siegel and Siegel,
1975
1975
1979
1979
1979
Latin binomials are listed in Appendix C.
Unless "field" is noted, results are for laboratory studies.
cSee also Table 4.
O
IX)
O
70
I
(£>
O
-------
Table ti-2. Toxicity of chemicals in soil or solution to vascular plants.
RAC
9
11
13
14
15
16
19
20
21
22
Representative
chemical
Acetic acid
Metnyl pyridine
Hexene
Xylene
8enzo(a)pyrene
3,4-oenzopyrene
1 ,2-benzanthracene
1,2,5-b-ai-
benzanthrancene
Uimethylalkylamine
Benzothiopnene
Indole,
3-ethyl-lH
Indole-3
-acetic acid, 1H
Benzoic acid
2-nydroxy
-benzoic acid
Phenol
4-nydroxy
-benzaldehyoe
Test organism*
and
life stage
Barley (seedling)
Alfalfa (sprout)
Oat (seedling)
Sugar beet (seedling)
Corn (sprout)
Tobacco (seedling)
Tobacco (seedling)
Tobacco (seedling)
Gram, rice
Cucumber (sprout)
Oat, cress,
mustard (sprout)
Oat, cress,
mustard (sprout)
Cucumber
Pea (sprout)
Lettuce (seedling)
Kice (seedling)
Lettuce (seedling)
Durum wheat (seed)
Lettuce (seedling)
Test medium
Solution in sand
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Soil
Soil
Soil
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution on
filter paper
Soil
Solution on
filter paper
Solution
Solution on
filter paper
Response Duration
Root growth inhibition 5d
koot growth inhibition 4d
Mortality
Root growth inhibition 2d
Root growth stimulation 6h
785! growth stimulation 60d
80% growth stimulation 60d
130% growth stimulation 60d
Mortality
9% root growth inhibition 4d
Growth inhibition
Growth inhibition
Mortality lid
Germination reduced by >50% 8h
23% growth inhibition
Seedling growth inhibition 5d
61% growth inhibition
Germination inhibition 4d
26% growth inhibition
Concentration
(ug/g)
600
93.1
25.2
100
0.0005
0.01
0.02
0.02
7.0
10
100
100
35
10
25
1.6
25
2000
100
Reference
Lynch, 1977
Naik et al.,1972
Chen and Elofson, 1978
Allen et al . , 1961
Deubert et al., 1979
Graf and Nowak, 1966
Graf and Nowak, 1966
Graf and Nowak, 1966
Outta et al., 1972
Schlesinger and Mowry, 1951
Davies et al., 1937
Davies et al., 1937
Hilton and Nomura, 1964
Shukla, 1972
Chou and Patrick, 1976
Gaur and Pareek, 1976
Chou and Patrick, 1976
Badilescu et al., 1967
Chou and Patrick, 1976
ORNL/TM-9074
_,
o
-------
Table b-2. (continued).
RAC
22
23
24
27
31
32
33
Representative
cnemical
Acrolein
Carbon disulfide
Etnanol
N,N-dimethyl-
form amide
2-metnyl
-benzamide
Arsenic3
Mercury
Nickel
Test organism*
and
life stage
Alfalfa
Apple
Lettuce (seed)
Lettuce (seed)
Poppy, chickweed,
carrot, ryegrass
corn, lucerne
(mature)
Corn
(seedling)
Cotton
(mature)
Cotton
(mature)
Soybean
(mature)
Soybean (mature)
Cowpea
Barley
(seed-sprout)
Barley
(seed-sprout)
Lettuce
(seed-sprout)
Corn
(mature)
Sunflower
(mature)
Test medium
Soil
Solution
Solution
Soil
Soil
Soil (fine sandy
loam)
Soil (clay)
Soil (fine sandy
loam)
Soil (clay)
-
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Concentration
Response Duration (ug/g) Reference
Oxidant-type damage
Root injury
Germination inhibition
Nearly total suppression of
germination
13-87% reduction in yield
10% growth reduction
(wet tissue weight)
Approx. 55% reduction in yield
Approx. 40% reduction in yield
Approx. 45% reduction in yield
Approx. 40% reduction in yield
Retarded growth
12% growth reduction
(fresh weight)
12% growth reduction
(fresh weight)
68% reduction in elongation
of lettuce hypocotyl
10% decrease
in net photosynthesis
10% decrease
in net photosynthesis
9h 0.1
420
44h 1 ,000,000
24h 1,000,000
3-5w 220,000
4w 64
6w 8b
6w 28b
6w 3b
6w 12b
lb
7d post 5 (as Hg++)
germination
7d post 1 (as PMA)C
germination
5d post 109 (as
germination HgClj)
7d 5
7d 0.8
Kingsbury et al., 1979
Underbill and Cox, 1940
Meyer and Mayer, 1971
Meyer and Mayer, 1971
Pizey and Wain, 1959
Wool son, et al., 1971
Deuel and Swoboda, 1972
ueuel and Swoboda, 1972
Deuel and Swoooda, 1972
Oeuel and Swoboda, 1972
Albert and Arndt, 1932
Mukhiya et al., 1983
Mukhiya et al., 1983
Nag et al., 1980
Carlson et al., 1975
Carlson et al., 1975
O
%
\
O
-P=.
-------
Taole B-2. (continued).
Test organism*
Representative and
RAC chemical life stage
33
Oats
(seeds-seedlings)
Oats (mature)
Barley
(seedling)
34 Cadmium Corn
(mature)
Sunflower
(mature)
Soybeans
(mature)
Bean (5 weeks old)
Beet (5 weeks old)
Turnip (5 weeks old)
Corn (5 weeks old)
Lettuce (5 weeks old)
Tomato (5 weeks old)
Barley (5 weeks old)
Pepper (5 weeks old)
Cabbage (5 weeks old)
Soybean
(seedling)
Wheat
(seedling)
Lettuce
(mature)
Test medium
Solution in
coarse sand
Soil
Solution in sand
Solution
Solution
Solution in sand
and vermiculite
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Solution
Soil (silty clay
loam)
Soil ( s i 1 ty c 1 ay
loam)
Soil (silty clay
loam)
Response
Stunted growth
Decreased grain yield
Over 50% reduction in whole
plant fresh weight
10% decrease
in net photosynthesis
10% decrease
in net photosynthesis
35% decrease in fresh weight
of pods
50% growth reduction
50% growth reduction
50% growth reduction
50% growth reduction
50% growth reduction
50% growth reduction
50% growth reduction
50% growth reduction
50% growth reduction
15% reduction in yield
(dry weight)
20% reduction in yield
(dry weight)
40% reduction in yield
(fresh weight)
Duration
Up to
22d post
germination
Whole life
3w
7d
7d
90d
3w
3w
3w
3w
3w
3w
3w
3w
3w
5w
5w
Whole
life
Concentration
(ug/g)
10
50
281
(NiS04-7H20)
0.9
0.45
2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.2
0.9
4.8
5.6
2.0
9.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
Reference
Vergnano and Hunter, 1953
Halstead et al., 1969
Agarwala et al., 1977
Carlson et al., 1975
Carlson et al., 1975
Huang et al., 1974
Page et al., 1972
Page et al., 1972
Page et al., 1972
Page et al., 1972
Page et al., 1972
Page et al., 1972
Page et al., 1972
Page et al., 1972
Page et al., 1972
Haghiri, 1973
Haghiri, 1973
Haghiri, 1973
-------
Table B-2. (continued).
Test organism*
Representative and
RAC chemical life stage
34 Sycamore
(sapling)
35 Lead Soybeans
^mature)
Lettuce
(44d old)
Corn
(25d seedling)
Soybean
(25d seedling)
Sycamore
(sapling)
Test medium Response Duration
Soil (6:1 silty 25% reduction in new stem 90d
clay loam & perlite) growth
Solution in sand 35% decrease in fresh weight 90d
and vermiculite of pods
Soil (silty clay 25% reduction in yield 30d
loam)
Vermiculite and 20% decrease in ll-21d
solution photosynthesis
Vermiculite and 20% decrease in ll-21d
solution photosynthesis
Soil (6:1 silty 25% reduction in new stem 90d
clay loam & perlite) growth
Concentration
(ug/g) Reference
39
62
1000
(Pb(N03)2
1000
2000
500
Carlson and Bazzaz,
Huange et al., 1974
1977
John and VanLaerhoven
1972
Bazzaz et al., 1974
Bazzaz et al., 1974
Carlson and Bazzaz,
1977
*Latin binomials are listed in Appendix C.
aArsenic shows a stimulatory effect on plants when present at low concentrations (40-50 ug/g total As or 5 yg/g extractable As in soil) (Moolson
et al., 1971).
^Concentration of contaminant available in solution.
c(.PMA-Phenyl mercuric acetate).
CO
O
-•vl
-------
Table B-3. Toxicity of chemicals in air to animals.
i-D
O
Representative Test
RAC chemical organism3
1 Carbon monoxide Rabbit
Uog
Chicken
Rabbit
Human
2 Sulfur dioxide Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Dog
Chicken ,
Sulfuric acid Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Dog
3 Nitrogen dioxide Guinea pig
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat and mouse
4 Hydrogen sulfide Canaries, rats
and dogs
Exposure
Response
Aortic lesions
Heart damage
75% egg hatch
90% neonate survival
Lethality
Increased airway
resistance
I-TSO
Increased airway
resistance
Modified nasal
clearance
Respiratory function
Lethality
Respiratory function
LC50
11% lethality
Bronchial damage
Defects in pulmonary
microbial defense
Pulmonary pathologies
Pulmonary
irritation
Duration
(hours)
4
1008
432
720
1
1.1
5,400
1
8
4,725
1
5,120
24
24
Chronic
Subacute
Concentration
(ug/m^) Notes
1.51 E05
4.3 E04
4.9 E05 egg exposed
1.0 EOS mother exposed
9.2 E08
4.2 E02
5.8 E06
1.3 E04
3.7 E03 Intermittent
exposure, 7 d
1.0 E02
1.8 E04
8.9 E02
1.5 E05
2.3 E04
2.8 E04
3.8 £03
9.4 E02 Also decreased
resistance to
infection
7.0 E04 No established chronic
effects
Reference
National Research
Council, 1977a
National Research
Council, 1977a
National Research
Council, 1977a
National Research
Council, 1977a
Cleland and Kingsbury,
1977
U.S. EPA, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
Wakabayashi et al.,
1977
Wakabayashi et al.,
1977
Wakaoayashi et al.,
1977
Wakabayashi et al. ,
1977
National Research
Council, 1977b
National Research
Council, 1977b
National Research
Council, 1977b
National Research
Council, 1977b
National Research
Council, 1977b
National Research
Council, 1979a
-------
Table B-3. (continued).
Representative
RAC chemical
5 Ammonia
6 Acetylene
7 Formaldehyde
8 Chloroform
9 Acetic acid
10 Furan
Thiophene
11 Pyridine
2-Ethylpyridine
12 Benzene
Test
organism3
Chicken
Pig
Rabbit
Mouse
Human
Human
Rat
Guinea pigs
Rat
Mouse
Human
Mouse
Human
Human
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Human
Exposure
Duration Concentration
Response (hours) (ug/m3) Notes Reference
Increased disease
susceptibility
Respiratory irritation
LTso
Lethal threshold
Throat irritation
Unconsciousness
LC50
Increased airway
resistance
Respiratory and eye
irritation and
liver weight loss
LC50
Enlarged liver
LC5Q
Irritation
Respiratory, stomach
and skin irritation
Lethal threshold
Lethal threshold
Ir50
LC100
Lethal threshold
72
840
33
16
Immediate
0.08
4
1
1400
Chronic
1
0.05
Chronic
8-48
8-48
4
3
Chronic
1.3 E04
4.3 E04
7.0 E06
7.0 E05
2.8 £05
3.7 E08
5.7 E05
3.6 E02
1.0 E03
1.4 E05
4.9 E04
1.4 E07
2.0 E06
1.5 £05
2.4 EOS
3.0 E07
1.3 £07
2.4 E07
1.9 E05
Newcastle virus National Research
Council, 1979b
National Research
Council, 1979b
National Research
Council, 1979b
National Research
Council, 1979b
National Research
Council, 1979b
National Research
Council, 1976
National Research
Council, 1981
National Research
Council, 1981
National Research
Council, 1981
Kingsbury et al., 1979
In workplace air Kingsbury et al., 1979
Kingsbury et al., 1979
Kingsbury et al., 1979
7-12 years, workplace National Research
exposure Council, 1976
Kingsbury et al., 1979
Kingsbury et al., 1979
Kingsbury et al., 1979
Kingsbury et al., 1979
Workplace exposure National Research
Council, 1976
i
i^>
o
•^j
-P.
-------
Table 8-3. (continued).
I
WO
O
RAC
13
14
15
16
17
Representative
chemical
Pentane
Cyclopentane
Hexane
Cyclohexane
Heptane
Butadiene
Cyclopentadine
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
p-Xylene
Tetrahydro-
naphthalene
Naphthalene
Test
organisma
Mouse
Mouse
Mouse
Human
Rabbit
Rabbit
Human
Human
Rat
Rat
Human
Rat
Human
Mouse
Guinea pig
Human
(No data on respiratory toxicity but
Ethyl ami ne
1-Aminopropane
Aniline
Dimethylanaline
Rat
"Animals"
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Exposure
Duration Concentration
Response (hours) (ug/m^) Notes
Lethality
Lethality
Lethality
Dizziness
Lethality
Narcosis and convulsions
Dizziness
Respirtory and eye
irritation
Liver and kidney
damage
Lethal threshold
Psychological effects
Lethal threshold
Eye irritation
Lethal threshold
Lethal threshold
Eye irritation and
damage
several members of this RAC
Lethal threshold
Lung, liver and
kidney damage
LC50
LC50
LCso
-_
0
1
1
0
8
245
4
__
4
<0
4
136
—
are
4
1008
4
4
7
3.8 EOS
1.1 EOS
1.2 EOS
.17 1.8 E07
9.2 E07
4.5 E07
.10 4.1 E06
1.8 E07
1.4 E06 expsoure = 7 hr/day
for 35 days
1.5 E07
3.8 E05
1.7 E07
.08 8.8 E05
1.5 E07
1.5 E06 8 hours for 17 days
7.9 E04
carcinogens)
5.5 E06
1.8 EOS
5.6 E06
9.5 EOS
7.4 EOS Mixed isomers
Reference
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al .,
Kingsbury et al . ,
Kingsbury et al .,
Kingsbury et al .,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al .,
Kingsbury et al .,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al.,
Kingsbury et al .,
Kingsbury et al .,
Kingsbury et al.,
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
18 (No data on respiratory toxicity)
19 (No data on respiratory toxicity)
20 (No data on respiratory toxicity)
21 (No data on respiratory toxicity)
-------
Table B-3. (continued).
RAC
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Representative
chemical
Acrolein
Acetaldehyde
Proprionaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Butanone
Methyl mercaptan
Ethyl mercaptan
n -Butyl mercaptan
Thiophenol
Carbon disulfide
Methanol
Ethanol
Test
organism*
Exposure
Duration
Response (hours)
Rat LC5Q
Monkey Respiratory system
damage
Mice, rabbits and LCso
guinea pigs
Rat LCso
Rat Reduced weight gain
Rat LCi;o
Mouse
Rat
Rat
Human
Rat
Human
Rat
Human
Monkey
Human
Human
LC50
Lethal threshold
4
2,160
4
0.5
36
0.5
0.75
Concentration
(ug/m3) Notes
1.8 E04
5.1 E02
2.0 E06
6.2 E07
3.1 E06 6 h/d x 6 d
1.7 EOS
6.
2.
1
0
LC5g - 1.1
Central nervous
system effects
^50
"Toxic effect"
LC50
Central nervous
system effects
LC50
Central nervous
system effects
Eye and respiratory
irritation and
mental effects
—
4
3
4
1
1.
1.
1.
5.
1.
7.
1.
.
5
0
5
0
3
5
9
EOS
E07
E07
0 E04
E07
E04
E05
E04 7 years exposure
E06
E04
E06
(No data on respiratory toxicity)
Methyl acetate
Methyl methacrylate
Butyl acetate
n-Amyl acetate
Human
Rat
Human
Human
Human
Severe toxic effects
LC50
Throat irritation
Toxic effects
Toxic threshold
1
1
1
0.5
1.
1.
9.
9.
1.
5
5
6
6
0
E06
E07
EOS
E06
E06
(No data on respiratory toxicity)
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Rat
Human
Rat
Lethal threshold
Bronchial effects
Lethal threshold
4
4
1.
2.
1.
3
7
1
E07
E05
E06
Reference
National Research
Council, 1981
National Research
Council, 1981
National Research
Council, 1981
National Research
Council, 1981
National Research
Council, 1981
National Research
Council
National
Council
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
, 1981
Research
, 1981
et
et
et
et
et
et
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
Cleland and Kingsbury,
1977
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
Kingsbury
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
et
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
to
o
-------
Table B-3. (continued).
RAC
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Representative
chemical
Test
organism3
O
-Pi
Exposure
Duration
Response (hours)
Concentration
(Ug/m3) Notes
(No data on respiratory toxicity)
Fly ash
Arsenic trioxide
Mercury (metal)
Nickel carbonyl
Cadmium oxide fumes
Cadmium oxide dust
Cadmium
Lead
Monkey
Rat
Human
Rabbit
Human
Rat
Human
Human
Human
Human
Slight lung fibrosis 13,390
Weight lag and 24
physiological effects
Toxic threshold
Toxic threshold
Central nervous
system effects
LC50 0.5
Lethality 8
Impaired lung function
Pulmonary and renal
effects
Threshold of overt
poisoning
4.6 E02
2.5 E01
1.0 E03
2.9 E04
1.7 E02 40 yr. exposure
2.4 E05
5.0 E03
3.15 E03 20 yr. exposure
1.0-27 E01 Occupational exposure
5.0 E02 Occupational exposure
Reference
Kingsbury et al., 1979
National Research
Council, 1979C
National Research
Council, 1977c
Cassidy and Furr, 1978 ,
Cassidy and Furr, 1978 — '
Kingsbury et al . , 1979 CO
National Research
Council, 1975
Hammons et al., 1978
Hammons et al., 1978
Kingsbury et al., 1979
National Research
Council, 1972
\atin binomials are lised in Appendix C.
-------
119 ORNL/TM-9074
APPENDIX C
Common and Scientific Names of Animals and Plants
-------
121
ORNL/TM-9074
Animals
Common name
Bigmouth buffalo
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brook trout
Brown trout
Canary
Carp
Channel catfish
Chicken
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Dog
Fathead minnow
Goldfish
Green sunfish
Guinea pig
Human
Largemouth bass
Monkey
Mosquitofish
Mouse
Northern pike
Pig
Pink salmon
Pumpkinseed
Rabbit
Rainbow trout
Rat
Smallmouth buffalo
White bass
Scienfitic name
Ictiobus cyprinellus
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Lepomis macrochirus
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salmo trutta
Serinus canarius
Cyprinus carpio
Ictalurus punctatus
Gall us gaTllus
Oncorhynchus tshawytacha
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Canis familiaris
Pimephales promelas
Carassius auratus
Lepomis cyanellus
Cavia cobaya
Homo sapiens
Micropterus salmoides
Macaca sp.
Gambusia affin is
Mus musculus
Esox lucius
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Lepomis gibbosus
Oryctolacjus cuniculus
Salmo gairdneri
Rattus rattus
Ictiobus bulbalus
Morone chrysops
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
122
Plants
Common name
African marigold
Alfalfa
Apple
Barley
Bean
Broadbean
Bush bean
Cabbage
Carnation
Carrot
Chickweed, common
Cocksfoot
Coleus
Corn
Cotton
Cowpea
Cress
Cucumber
Durum wheat
Endive
English ivy
Gram
Grapefruit
Green bean
Lettuce
Loblolly pine
Lucerne
Meadowgrass
Mustard
Norway spruce
Oat
Oat, wild
Pea
Pepper
Petunia
Pinto bean
Popinac
Poppy
Radish
Red clover
Rice
Ricinus
Rose
Runner bean
Ryegrass, Italina
Soybean
Spruce
Squash
Scientific name
Tagetes sp.
Medicago sativa
Mai us sy'lvestns
Hordeum vulgare
Phaseolus vulgaris
Vicia faba
Phaseolus vulgaris
Brassica oleracea
Dianthus caryophyllos
Daucus carota
Stellaria media
Dactyl is glomerata
Coleus blumei
Zea mays
Gossypium hirsutum
Vigna sinensis
Lepidium sativum
Cucumis sativus
Triticum durum
Cicorium endivia
Hedera helix
Cicer arietinum
Citrus paradisi
Phaseolus vulgaris
Lactuca sativa
Pinus taeda
Medicago sativa
Poa pratensis
Brassica alba
Picea
Avena
Avena
abies
sativa
fatua
Psoralea corylifolia
Capsicum frutescens
Petunia sp.
Phaseolus vulgaris
Acacia farnesiana
Papaver sp.
Raphanus sativus
Trifolium pratense
Oryza sativa
Ricinus communis
Rosa sp.
Phaseolus vulgar is
Lolium nuntiflorum
Glycine max
Picea abies
Cucurbita sp.
-------
123 ORNL/TM-9074
Plants (continued)
Common name Scientific name
Sugar beet Beta vulgaris
Sunflower HeTTanthus annuus
Sycamore Platanus occidental is
Thevetia Thevetia neriifolc?
Tobacco Nicotiana tabacum
Tomato Lycopersicon esculentum
Turnip Brassica napus
Wheat Triticum durum
White pine Pinus strobus
-------
125 ORNL/TM-9074
APPENDIX D
Species-specific Results of the Analysis of Extrapolation Error
-------
Table u-1. Predicted geometric mean maximum allowable toxicant concentrations (PGMATCs) for each RAC and each species of fish.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32A
33
34
35
RAC
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Acid gases
Alkaline gases
Hydrocarbon gases 1,565
Formaldehyde
Volatile organochlorines
Volatile carboxylic acids
Volatile O&S heterocyclics
Volatile N heterocyclics
Benzene
Alipnatic/alicyclic hydrocarbons
Mono/di aromatic hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic nydrocarbons
Aliphatic amines
Aromatic amines
Alkaline N neterocyclics
Keutral N, O&S heterocyclics
Carboxylic acids 48
Phenols
Aldehydes and ketones
Nonneterocylic organosulfur
Alcohols
Nitroaromatics
Esters
Amides
Nitriles
Tars
Kespirable particles
Arsenic
Mercury (inorganic)
Mercury (methyl )
Nickel
Cadmium
Lead
Carp Buffalo
8.
43.
,162
533
941
421
218
120
190
562
,548
462
12.
33.
215
238
34.
11.
94
11.
54
8
5
1,565
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
48
7
No data
No data
No data
0
No data
No data
No data
2
7
1
8.8
43.5
,162
1245
933
252
255
146
190
590
,548
387
12.7
287.4
389
479
34.2
11.7
876
1.5
171
Channel
Catfish
11.6
32.9
11,313
600
518
144
166
91
134
590
1435
207
11.7
160.9
237
247
26.9
10.9
410
2.0
104
White
Bass
3.3
18.0
29,185
135
213
116
66
65
79
347
2001
182
4.9
133.0
65
229
14.0
4.5
433
0.5
77
PGMATC
Green
Sunfisn
6.7
18.0
29,185
705
213
116
66
65
121
141
2001
308
10.7
40.5
236
409
14.0
4.5
147
76.7
393
(pg/i)
Bluegill
Sunfish
3.1
18.0
29,185
814
213
116
66
65
98
141
2001
302
5.4
26.6
220
424
14.0
4.5
124
57.0
404
Largemouth
Bass
2.5
18.0
29,185
744
213
116
66
65
86
141
2001
271
8.1
22.8
196
383
14.0
4.5
110
51.3
364
Black
Crappie
1.6
18.0
29,185
110
213
116
66
65
22
141
2001
52
2.4
8.1
41
67
14.0
4.5
26
14.8
65
Rainbow
Trout
2.6
15.3
19,705
566
252
125
68
65
74
159
1317
208
4.0
145.9
160
257
11.9
2.3
552
0.2
61
Brook
Trout
2.6
14.9
19,705
566
252
86
68
50
74
159
1317
131
4.4
97.6
160
281
12.0
4.4
296
0.3
102
l£5
O
•vj
-pa
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
128
Table D-2. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 5 at annual median ambient concentrations for
EDS.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.2572
0.2572
0.2572
0.3397
0.6205
0.6205
0.6205
0.6205
0.6205
TMT2
0.2572
0.2572
0.2572
0.3397
0.6205
0.6205
0.6205
0.6205
0.6205
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.2616
0.2616
0.2616
0.3177
0.4039
0.4039
0.4039
0.4039
0.4039
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.2616
0.2616
0.2616
0.3177
0.4039
0.4039
0.4039
0.4039
0.4039
Level of
extrapolation
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Table D-3. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 13 at annual median ambient concentrations for
EDS.
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Ambient Probabi
conc/PGMATC exceeding
TMT1
0.3257
0.2786
0.2786
0.4281
1 .0832
1.0832
1.0832
1.0832
1.0832
TMT2
0.0326
0.0279
0.0279
0.0428
0.1083
0.1083
0.1083
0.1083
0.1083
TMT1
0.2786
0.2530
0.2530
0.3419
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0366
0.0312
0.0312
0.0652
0.1557
0.1557
0.1557
0.1557
0.1557
Level of
extrapolation
Family
*
*
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
*Fathead minnow - Cypriniformes.
-------
129
ORNL/TM-9074
Table D-4.
Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 14 at annual median ambient concentrations for
c.Uo •
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Ambient Probability of
conc/PGMATC exceeding the PGMATC
TMT1
0.0440
0.0362
0.0362
0.0580
0.0813
0.0813
0.0813
0.0813
0.0813
TMT2
0.0044
0.0036
0.0036
0.0058
0.0081
0.0081
0.0081
0.0081
0.0081
TMT1
0.0497
0.0603
0.0603
0.1063
0.1010
0.1010
0.1010
0.1010
0.1010
TMT2
0.0021
0.0043
0.0043
0.0121
0.0072
0.0072
0.0072
0.0072
0.0072
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Table D-5. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 20 at annual median ambient concentrations for
EDS.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.0034
0.0034
0.0034
0.1147
0.0823
0.0823
0.0823
0.0823
0.0823
TMT2
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0115
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.0047
0.0047
0.0047
0.3107
0.1229
0.1229
0.1229
0.1229
0.1229
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.1540
0.0129
0.0129
0.0129
0.0129
0.0129
Level of
extrapolation
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
130
Table D-6. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 21 at annual median ambient concentrations for
EDS.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.0396
0.0473
0.0473
0.0885
0.1003
0.0594
0.0606
0.0675
0.3539
TMT2
0.0040
0.0047
0.0047
0.0089
0.0100
0.0059
0.0061
0.0068
0.0354
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.0478
0.0783
0.0783
0.1455
0.1226
0.0669
0.0568
0.0824
0.3230
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0022
0.0065
0.0065
0.0198
0.0100
0.0032
0.0020
0.0050
0.0698
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
Table D-7. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 22 at annual median ambient concentrations for
EDS.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.2082
0.2082
0.2082
0.2258
0.5397
0.2466
0.4890
0.3255
1.1049
TMT2
0.0208
0.0208
0.0208
0.0226
0.0540
0.0247
0.0489
0.0325
0.1105
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.2301
0.2301
0.2301
0.2566
0.3769
0.2241
0.3412
0.2601
0.5182
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0342
0.0342
0.0342
0.0479
0.0689
0.0225
0.0422
0.0249
0.1561
Level of
extrapolation
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Species
Family
-------
131
ORNL/TM-9074
Table D-8. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 28 at annual median ambient concentrations for
EDS.
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Ambient Probabi
conc/PGMATC exceeding
TMT1
0.0509
0.0282
0.0282
0.0462
0.1690
0.0464
0.0500
0.0560
0.2706
TMT2
0.0051
0.0028
0.0028
0.0046
0.0169
0.0046
0.0050
0.0056
0.0271
TMT1
0.0596
0.0566
0.0566
0.0968
0.2090
0.0509
0.0449
0.0680
0.2805
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0029
0.0046
0.0046
0.0115
0.0316
0.0021
0.0013
0.0037
0.0542
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
Table D-9. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 34 at annual median ambient concentrations for
EDS.
Ambient Probability of
conc/PGMATC exceeding the PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.0069
0.0501
0.0501
0.0388
0.1468
0.0010
0.0014
0.0015
0.0052
TMT2
0.0069
0.0501
0.0501
0.0388
0.1468
0.0010
0.0014
0.0015
0.0052
TMT1
0.0022
0.0814
0.0814
0.0782
0.1692
0.0000
0.0001
0.0003
0.0086
i
TMT2
0.0022
0.0814
0.0814
0.0782
0.1692
0.0000
0.0001
0.0003
0.0086
Level of
extrapolation
Species
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
132
Table D-10. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 5 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-I.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.4208
0.4208
0.4208
0.5558
1.0152
1.0152
1.0152
1.0152
1.0152
TMT2
0.4208
0.4208
0.4208
0.5558
1.0152
1.0152
1.0152
1.0152
1.0152
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.3420
0.3420
0.3420
0.3982
0.5031
0.5031
0.5031
0.5031
0.5031
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.3420
0.3420
0.3420
0.3982
0.5031
0.5031
0.5031
0.5031
0.5031
Level of
extrapolation
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Table D-ll. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 13 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-I.
Ambient Probabi
conc/PGMATC exceeding
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.3257
0.2786
0.2786
0.4281
1.0832
1.0832
1.0832
1.0832
1.0832
TMT2
0.0326
0.0279
0.0279
0.0428
0.1083
0.1083
0.1083
0.1083
0.1083
TMT1
0.2786
0.2530
0.2530
0.3419
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
0.5145
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0366
0.0312
0.0312
0.0652
0.1557
0.1557
0.1557
0.1557
0.1557
Level of
extrapolation
Family
*
*
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
*Fathead minnow-Cypriniformes.
-------
133
ORNL/TM-9074
Table D-12.
Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 14 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-I.
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
TMT1
0.0203
0.0167
0.0167
0.0268
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
0.0375
TMT2
0.0020
0.0017
0.0017
0.0027
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.0199
0.0278
0.0278
0.0565
0.0475
0.0475
0.0475
0.0475
0.0475
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0005
0.0014
0.0014
0.0048
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
Level of
extrapolation
Fami ly
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
*Fathead minnow-Cypriniformes.
Table D-13.
Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 21 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-I.
Ambient Probability of
conc/PGMATC exceeding the PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.1890
0.2257
0.2257
0.4229
0.4792
0.2836
0.2896
0.3226
1.6908
TMT2
0.0189
0.0226
0.0226
0.0423
0.0479
0.0284
0.0290
0.0323
0.1691
TMT1
0.1951
0.2449
0.2449
0.3539
0.3550
0.2517
0.2422
0.2799
0.5918
TMT2
0.0203
0.0393
0.0393
0.0841
0.0624
0.0293
0.0228
0.0383
0.2159
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
134
Table D-14. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 35 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-I.
Ambient Probabi
conc/PGMATC exceeding
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.0212
0.0067
0.0067
0.0109
0.0148
0.0029
0.0028
0.0031
0.0177
TMT2
0.0212
0.0067
0.0067
0.0109
0.0148
0.0029
0.0028
0.0031
0.0177
TMT1
0.0203
0.0096
0.0096
0.0241
0.0162
0.0010
0.0005
0.0015
0.0380
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0203
0.0096
0.0096
0.0241
0.0162
0.0010
0.0005
0.0015
0.0380
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
Table D-15. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 5 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-II.
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
TMT1
0.2334
0.2334
0.2334
0.3087
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
TMT2
0.2334
0.2334
0.2334
0.3087
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.2472
0.2472
0.2472
0.3028
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.2472
0.2472
0.2472
0.3028
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
Level of
extrapolation
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
-------
135
ORNL/TM-9074
Table D-16.
Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 8 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-II.
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Ambient Probability of
conc/PGMATC exceeding the PGMATC
TMT1
0.0037
0.0016
0.0016
0.0033
0.0145
0.0028
0.0024
0.0026
0.0177
TMT2
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0003
0.0014
0.0003
0.0002
0.0003
0.0018
TMT1
0.0020
0.0023
0.0023
0.0066
0.0273
0.0010
0.0004
0.0012
0.0402
TMT2
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.0003
0.0015
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0030
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
Table D-17.
Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 12 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-II.
Ambient Probability of
conc/PGMATC exceeding the PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.0039
0.0064
0.0064
0.0113
0.0140
0.0140
0.0140
0.0140
0.0140
TMT2
0.0004
0.0006
0.0006
0.0011
0.0014
0.0014
0.0014
0.0014
0.0014
TMT1
0.0020
0.0094
0.0094
0.0251
0.0153
0.0153
0.0153
0.0153
0.0153
TMT2
0.0000
0.0003
0.0003
0.0015
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
136
Table D-18. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 14 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-II.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.1219
0.1002
0.1002
0.1606
0.2251
0.2251
0.2251
0.2251
0.2251
TMT2
0.0122
0.0100
0.0100
0.0161
0.0225
0.0225
0.0225
0.0225
0.0225
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.1335
0.1410
0.1410
0.2117
0.2242
0.2242
0.2242
0.2242
0.2242
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0100
0.0157
0.0157
0.0353
0.0269
0.0269
0.0269
0.0269
0.0269
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Table D-19. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 15 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-II.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.0026
0.0026
0.0026
0.0037
0.0062
0.0041
0.0050
0.0057
0.0225
TMT2
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0004
0.0006
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0022
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.0036
0.0036
0.0036
0.0081
0.0037
0.0014
0.0011
0.0032
0.0421
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0028
Level of
extrapolation
Class
Class
Class
Class
*
Genus
Species
Family
Family
*Bluegi11-Perciformes.
-------
137
ORNL/TM-9074
Table D-20.
Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 21 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-II.
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
TMT1
0.0704
0.0840
0.0840
0.1574
0.1783
0.1055
0.1078
0.1201
0.6293
TMT2
0.0070
0.0084
0.0084
0.0157
0.0178
0.0106
0.0108
0.0120
0.0629
Probability of
exceeding the PGMATC
TMT1
0.0856
0.1252
0.1252
0.2103
0.1918
0.1162
0.1044
0.1373
0.4189
TMT2
0.0053
0.0133
0.0133
0.0353
0.0209
0.0078
0.0053
0.0113
0.1107
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
Table D-21.
Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 26 at annual median ambient concentrations for
SRC-II.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
j
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.0444
0.0051
0.0051
0.0091
0.0110
0.0361
0.0551
0.0641
0.1813
TMT2
0.0044
0.0005
0.0005
0.0009
0.0011
0.0036
0.0055
0.0064
0.0181
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.0486
0.0070
0.0070
0.0201
0.0112
0.0362
0.0482
0.0751
0.2178
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0020
0.0002
0.0002
0.0011
0.0003
0.0012
0.0014
0.0041
0.0336
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
138
Table D-22. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 5 at annual median ambient concentrations for
H-Coal.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.2338
0.2338
0.2338
0.3087
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
TMT2
0.2338
0.2338
0.2338
0.3087
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
0.5639
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.2472
0.2472
0.2472
0.3028
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.2472
0.2472
0.2472
0.3028
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
0.3851
Level of
extrapolation
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Table D-23. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 13 at annual median ambient concentrations for
H-Coal.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.4187
0.3582
0.3582
0.5504
1.3927
1.3927
1.3927
1.3927
1.3927
TMT2
0.0419
0.0358
0.0358
0.0550
0.1393
0.1393
0.1393
0.1393
0.1393
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.3244
0.2966
0.2966
0.3872
0.5599
0.5599
0.5599
0.5599
0.5599
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0485
0.0416
0.0416
0.0820
0.1847
0.1847
0.1847
0.1847
0.1847
Level of
extrapolation
Family
*
*
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
*Fathead minnow-Cypriniformes.
-------
139
ORNL/TM-9074
Table D-24.
Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 14 at annual median ambient concentrations for
H-Coal.
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
TMT1
0.0542
0.0445
0.0445
0.0714
0.1001
0.1001
0.1001
0.1001
0.1001
TMT2
0.0054
0.0045
0.0045
0.0071
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.0620
0.0728
0.0728
0.1239
0.1209
0.1209
0.1209
0.1209
0.1209
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0030
0.0057
0.0057
0.0152
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Table D-25. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 20 at annual median ambient concentrations for
H-Coal.
Ambient Probability of
conc/PGMATC exceeding the PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Level of
extrapolation
TMT1
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.1416
0.1015
0.1015
0.1015
0.1015
0.1015
TMT2
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0142
0.0102
0.0102
0.0102
0.0102
0.0102
TMT1
0.0063
0.0063
0.0063
0.3278
0.1439
0.1439
0.1439
0.1439
0.1439
TMT2
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.1657
0.0165
0.0165
0.0165
0.0165
0.0165
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
-------
ORNL/TM-9074
140
Table D-26. Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 21 at annual median ambient concentrations for
H-Coal.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.2022
0.2415
0.2415
0.4524
0.5126
0.3034
0.3098
0.3451
1 .8089
TMT2
0.0202
0.0242
0.0242
0.0452
0.0513
0.0303
0.0310
0.0345
0.1809
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.2048
0.2548
0.2548
0.3649
0.3678
0.2633
0.2542
0.2917
0.6034
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0221
0.0420
0.0420
0.0888
0.0667
0.0317
0.0250
0.0413
0.2248
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
Table D-27- Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 22 at annual median ambient concentrations for
H-Coal.
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
TMT1
0.2563
0.2563
0.2563
0.2780
0.6644
0.3035
0.6019
0.4006
1.3601
TMT2
0.0256
0.0256
0.0256
0.0278
0.0664
0.0304
0.0602
0.0401
0.1360
Probabi
exceeding
TMT1
0.2608
0.2608
0.2608
0.2869
0.4177
0.2592
0.3858
0.3001
0.5561
lity of
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0423
0.0423
0.0423
0.0577
0.0840
0.0292
0.0540
0.0327
0.1800
Level of
extrapolation
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Species
Family
-------
141
ORNL/TM-9074
Table D-28.
Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 28 at annual median ambient concentrations for
H-Coal.
Ambient
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
conc/PGMATC
TMT1
0.0641
0.0355
0.0355
0.0582
0.2127
0.0584
0.0629
0.0705
0.3407
TMT2
0.0064
0.0036
0.0036
0.0058
0.0213
0.0058
0.0063
0.0070
0.0341
Probability of
exceeding
TMT1
0.0753
0.0692
0.0692
0.1145
0.2404
0.0651
0.0586
0.0850
0.3160
the PGMATC
TMT2
0.0041
0.0061
0.0061
0.0148
0.0398
0.0031
0.0021
0.0052
0.0664
Level of
extrapolation
Family
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
Table D-29.
Probabilities of chronic toxic effects on fish populations
due to RAC 34 at annual median ambient concentrations for
H-Coal.
Ambient
conc/PGMATC
Species
Carp
Bigmouth buffalo
Smallmouth buffalo
Channel catfish
White bass
Green sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
•j
Largemouth bass
Black crappie
TMT1
0.0036
0.0259
0.0259
0.0200
0.0758
0.0005
0.0007
0.0008
0.0027
TMT2
0.0036
0.0259
0.0259
0.0200
0.0758
0.0005
0.0007
0.0008
0.0027
Probability of
exceeding the PGMATC
TMT1
0.0006
0.0442
0.0442
0.0440
0.0990
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0037
TMT2
0.0006
0.0442
0.0442
0.0440
0.0990
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0037
Level of
extrapolation
Species
Class
Class
Class
Class
Genus
Species
Family
Family
-------
143 ORNL/TM-9074
APPENDIX E
Detailed Methods and Assumptions for Ecosystem Uncertainty Analysis
-------
145 ORNL/TM-9074
APPENDIX E
DETAILED METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR
ECOSYSTEM UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
E.I ORGANIZING TOXICITY DATA
The first step in Ecosystem Uncertainty Analysis (EUA) is selection
of appropriate toxicity data and association of the data with components
of SWACOM.
Toxicity data on phytoplankton are sparse. It is possible to find
values for green algae, such as Selenastrum capricornutum. and these
data are used for all 10 algal populations if no other information is
available. If data are available on diatoms and blue-greens, then a
further division is possible based on physiological parameters in the
model and past experience with SWACOM. Like diatoms, species 1-3 appear
early in the spring and are associated with low temperatures and high
nutrient concentrations. Species 4 to 7 dominate the spring bloom and
are associated with intermediate temperatures and light. Species 8 to
10 appear in the summer and are tolerant of high temperatures and low
nutrient concentrations.
The identification of the zooplankton is more tenuous. Based on
model behavior and physiological parameters, species 12 and 13 are
identified with Cladocerans. The ubiquitous data for Daphnia magna are
used for species 12. When data are available for Daphnia pulex, they
are used for species 13. The remaining zooplankters (species 11, 14
and 15, and species 13 when no data was available for D_. pulex) are
simply identified as crustaceans. Of the available data, the smallest
concentration is assigned to 15 and the largest to 11. Species 14 (and
13 when necessary) is assigned an intermediate value between these
extremes. Assuming species 15 to be the most sensitive is conservative.
Since blue-green algae increase is one of our endpoints, we assign the
greatest sensitivity to the consumer (i.e., 15) which is most abundant
during the summer of the simulated year.
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 146
LC5Q data for fathead minnow (Pimephales sp.), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), and guppy (Poecilia reticulata) are assigned to forage
fish (species 16, 17 and 18). When data on these species are not
available, others are substituted, such as goldfish or mosquitofish.
The game fish (species 19) was identified as rainbow trout.
E.2 TRANSFORMING TOXICITY DATA
A critical step in applying EUA involves changing parameter values
in SWACOM. This requires three important assumptions which are
outlined below.
E.2.1 The General Stress Syndrome (GSS)
Toxicity tests provide information on mortality (or similar
endpoint) but provide little insight on the mode of action of the
chemicals. Thus, some assumption must be made about how the toxicant
affects physiological processes in SWACOM. In an application that
focuses on a single chemical it may be possible to obtain detailed
information on modes of action. However, the present effort must cover
a number of Risk Assessment Units, and it was necessary to make a
single overall assumption.
We assumed that organisms respond to all toxicants according to a
General Stress Syndrome (GSS). For phytoplankton, this involved
decreased maximum photosynthetic rate, increased Michaelis-Menten
constant, increased susceptibility to grazing, decreased light
saturation, and decreased nutrient assimilation. For zooplankton and
fish, the syndrome involves increased respiration, decreased grazing
rates, increased susceptibility to predation, and decreased nutrient
assimilation. For all organisms, the optimum temperature was assumed
to be unchanged. The GSS represents how organisms respond to most
toxicants. Where observations were recorded for the chemicals used in
this assessment, the researchers noted hyperactivity, increased
operculation and other symptoms consistent with the assumption of the
GSS. However, some organics might have a "narcotic" effect which would
be opposite to the reaction assumed here.
-------
147 ORNL/TM-9074
The General Stress Syndrome defines the direction of change of
each parameter in SWACOM. It is also necessary to make an assumption
about the relative change in each parameter. We have assumed that all
parameters of SWACOM change by the same percentage. This assumption
can be removed only if considerable information is available on modes
of action of each chemical.
E.2.2 The MICROCOSM Simulations
The key to arriving at new parameters is simulation of the
experiments which generated the toxicity data. This involves simulating
each species in isolation with light, temperature, food supply, and
nutrients set at constant levels that would maintain the population
indefinitely. Then the parameters are altered together in the direction
indicated by the GSS until we duplicate the original experiment. Thus,
for an LCgg (96 hours), we find the percentage change which halves
the population in 4 d.
At the conclusion of the MICROCOSM simulations, we have the
percentage change in the parameters which matches the experiment.
We must now make an additional assumption to arihive at the expected
response for concentrations below the LC™ or EC™. We assume a
linear dose response. Thus, an environmental concentration 1/5 of the
LCcr. would cause a 10% reduction in the population. The MICROCOSM
50
simulations are then repeated with this new endpoint to arrive at a new
percentage change in the parameters. Since most response curves are
concave, our assumption should be conservative.
E.2.3 Choosing Uncertainties
To implement the analysis, it is necessary to associate
uncertainties with the parameter changes. We assume that all parameter
changes have an associated uncertainty of plus or minus 100%. This
assumption seems sufficiently conservative. One might wish to adopt a
more complex strategy which would combine information on modes of
action with a Delphi survey of experienced researchers to arrive at
more specific estimates of uncertainty.
-------
149
ORNL/TM-9074
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
1-2. S. I. Auerbach
3-7. C. F. Baes III
8-12. L. W. Barnthouse
13-17. S. M. Bartell
18. R. 0. Chester
19. C. C. Coutant
20. W. F. Furth
21-25. R. H. Gardner
26. C. W. Gehrs
27- A. K. Genung
28. J. M. Giddings
29. M. R. Guerin
30. S. G. Hildebrand
31. S. V. Kaye
32. L. E. McNeese
33. R. E. Millemann
34. C. W. Miller
35-39. R. V. O'Neill
40. D. E. Reichle
41. A. E. Rosen
42. L. L. Sigal
43-47. G. W. Suter II
48. C. C. Travis
49. P. J. Walsh
50. H. E. Zittel
51. Central Research Library
52-71. ESD Library
72-73. Laboratory Records Dept.
74. Laboratory Records, ORNL-RC
75. ORNL Y-12 Technical Library
76. ORNL Patent Office
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
77. J. Frances Allen, Science Advisory Board, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460
78. Richard Balcomb, TS-769, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460
79. Nathaniel F. Barr, Office of Health and Environmental Research,
Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545
80. Colonel Johan Bayer, USAF OHEL, Brook AFB, TX 78235
81. Frank Benenati, Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
82. K. Biesinger, Environmental Protection Agency, National Water
Quality Laboratory, 6201 Congdon Boulevard, Duluth, MN 55804
83. J. D. Buffington, Director, Office of Biological Services,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 1730 K Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20240
84. J. Cairns, Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
VA 24061
85. Melvin W. Carter, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of
Nuclear Engineering and Health Physics, Atlanta, GA 30332
86-90. M. G. Cavendish, 619 C, Dewdrop Circle, Cincinnati, OH 45240
91. Paul Cho, Health and Environmental Risk Analysis Program,
HHAD/OHER/ER, Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545
92. C. E. Cushing, Ecosystems Department, Battelle-Northwest
Laboratories, Richland, WA 99352
93. R. C. Dahlman, Carbon Cycle Program Manager, Carbon Dioxide
Research Division, Office of Energy Research, Room J-311,
ER-12, Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 150
94. Sidney Draggan, Ecologist-Policy Analyst, Division of Policy
Research and Analysis, National Science Foundation,
Washington, DC 20550
95. Charles W. Edington, Office of Health and Environmental
Research, Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545
96. Gerhard R. Eisele, Comparative Animal Research Laboratory,
1299 Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, TN 37830
97. David Flemar, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC 20460
98. G. Foley, Environmental Protection Agency, MC RD-682,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
99. Ralph Franklin, Office of Health and Environmental Research,
Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545
100. David Friedman, Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565),
Office of Solid Waste, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
101. Norman R. Glass, National Ecological Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, 200 SW 35th Street,
Corvallis, OR 97330
102. D. Heyward Hamilton, Office of Health and Environmental
Research, Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545
103. Leonard Hamilton, Department of Energy and Environment,
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
104. Norbert Jaworski, Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth,
6201 Congdon Boulevard, Duluth, NM 55804
105. The Institute of Ecology, 1401 Wilson Blvd., Box 9197,
Arlington, VA 22209
106. Donald Johnson, Gas Research Institute, 8600 West Bryn Mawr
Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631
107. Library, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department
of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240
108. Library, Food and Agriculture, Organization of the United
Nations, Fishery Resources and Environment Division, via
delle Termi di Caracal!a 001000, Rome, Italy
109. Library, Western Fish Toxicology Laboratory, Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR 97330
110. Ronald R. Loose, Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545
111. Helen McCammon, Director, Ecological Research Division,
Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy
Research, MS-E201, ER-75, Room E-233, Department of Energy,
Washington, DC 20545
112-161. A. Alan Moghissi, Environmental Protection Agency, MC RD-682,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
162. Dario M. Monti, Division of Technology Overview, Department
of Energy, Washington, DC 20545
163. Harold A. Mooney, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305
164. Sam Morris, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated
Universities, Inc., Upton, NY 11973
165. Haydn H. Murray, Director, Department of Geology, Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN 47405
-------
151 ORNL/TM-9074
166. J. Vincent Nabholz, Health and Environmental Review Division,
Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
167. Barry E. North, Engineering-Science, 10 Lakeside Lane,
Denver, CO 80212
168. Goetz Oertel, Waste Management Division, Department of
Energy, Washington, DC 20545
169. William S. Osburn, Jr., Ecological Research Division, Office
of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy
Research, MS-E201, EV-33, Room F-216, Department of Energy,
Washington, DC 20545
170. F. L. Parker, College of Engineering, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, TN 37235
171. G. P. Patil, Statistics Department, 318 Pond Laboratory,
Pennsylvania State Universtiy, University Park, PA 16802
172. Ralph Perhac, Electric Power Research Institute, 3412
Hillview Avenue, P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA 94304
173-177. C. D. Powers, Science Applications, Inc., 100 Jackson Plaza,
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
178. J. C. Randolph, School of Public and Environmental Affairs,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
179. Irwin Remson, Department of Applied Earth Sciences, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305
180. Abe Silvers, Electric Power Research Institute, P.O. Box
10412, Palo Alto, CA 94303
181. David Slade, Office of Health and Environmental Research,
Department of Energy, Washington, DC 10545
182. R. J. Stern, Director, Division of NEPA Affairs, Department
of Energy, 4G064 Forrestal Building, Washington, DC 20545
183. Frank Swanberg, Jr., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555
184. The Institute of Ecology, 1401 Wilson Blvd., Box 9197,
Arlington, VA 22209
185. Burt Vaughan, Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
Richland, WA 99352
186-192. D. S. Vaughan, National Fisheries Service, Beaufort
Laboratories, Beaufort, NC 28516
193. John Walker, Assessment Division, TS 778, Office of Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
194. Robert L. Watters, Ecological Research Division, Office of
Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research,
MS-E201, ER-75, Room F-226, Department of Energy, Washington,
DC 20545
195. D. E. Weber, Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460
196. A. M. Weinberg, Institute of Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge
Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, TN 37830
197. Ted Williams, Division of Policy Analysis, Department of
Energy, Washington, DC 20545
-------
ORNL/TM-9074 152
198. Frank J. Wobber, Division of Ecological Research, Office of
Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research,
MS-E201, Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20545
199. M. Gordon Wolman, The Johns Hopkins University, Department of
Geography and Environmental Engineering, Baltimore, MD 21218
200. Bill Wood, TS-798, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
201. Robert W. Wood, Director, Division of Pollutant
Characterization and Safety Research, Department of Energy,
Washington, DC 20545
202. R. Wyzga, Manager, Health and Environmental Risk Department,
Electric Power Research Institute, P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto,
CA 94303
203. Office of Assistant Manager for Energy Research and
Development, Oak Ridge Operations, P. 0. Box E, Department of
Energy, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
204-230. Technical Information Center, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
irU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984-544-045/4260
------- |