v>EPA
         United States
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
          Industrial Environmental Research  EPA-600/7-79-140
          Laboratory          June 1979
          Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Criteria for Assessment
of Environmental
Pollutants from CoaJ
Cleaning  Processes

Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report


-------
                  RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES


 Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
 gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
 vironmental technology. Elimination of  traditional grouping was consciously
 planned  to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
 The nine series are:

     1. Environmental Health Effects Research

     2. Environmental Protection Technology

     3. Ecological Research

     4. Environmental Monitoring

     5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

     6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)

     7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development

     8. "Special" Reports

    9. Miscellaneous Reports

 This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
 effort funded under the 17-agency  Federal Energy/Environment Research and
 Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
 health and welfare  from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
 tems. The goal of  the Program is to assure the  rapid development of domestic
 energy supplies in  an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
 essary environmental data and control technology Investigations include analy-
 ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
 effects; assessments  of, and development of, control technologies  for energy
 systems;  and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
 mental issues.
                        EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for  publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the  views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products  constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                   EPA-600/7-79-140

                                            June 1979
     Criteria  for Assessment
  of Environmental Pollutants
from Coal Cleaning  Processes
                     by
          R. A. Ewing, B. W. Cornaby, P. Van Voris,
           J. C. Zuck, G. E. Raines, and S. Min

                 Battelle-Columbus
                 505 King Avenue
               Columbus, Ohio 43201
               Contract No. 68-02-2163
                  Task No. 242
             Program Element No. EHE623A
           EPA Project Officer: James D. Kilgroe

         Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
          Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
            Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                   Prepared for

        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           Office of Research and Development
               Washington, DC 20460

-------
                                FOREWORD


     Many elements and chemical compounds are known to be toxic  to man and
other biological species.  But, our knowledge concerning the levels and
conditions under which these substances are toxic is extremely limited.
Further, little is known concerning the emission of these pollutants from
industrial processes and the mechanism by which they are transported,
transformed, dispersed, or accumulated in our environment.

     Portions of the Federal Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act require the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency  (EPA) to identify and regulate hazardous or toxic substances
which result from man's industrial activities.  Industrial pollutants are often
identified only after harmful health or ecological effects are noted.  Remedial
actions are costly, the damage to human and other biological populations is
often irreversible, and the persistence of some environmental contaminants
may  endanger future populations.

     EPA's Office  of Research  and Development  is responsible for health and
ecological research, studies concerning  the  transportation and fate of pollutants,
and  the development of  technologies for  controlling  industrial pollutants.
As  a part of this  Office  of R&D, the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
which  is  responsible  for  development of  pollution  control technology,  conducts
   large environmental  assessment program.  The primary  objectives  of  this program
 a
 are:
         The development of information on the  quantities  of  toxic
         pollutants emitted from various industrial  processes—
         information needed to prioritize health and ecological
         research efforts.

      •  The identification of industrial pollutant  emissions
         which pose a clearly evident health or ecological risk
         and which should be regulated.

      •  The evaluation and development of technologies for
         controlling pollution from these toxic substances.

      The coal cleaning environmental assessment program has as  its specific
 objectives the evaluation of pollution and pollution control problems which
 are unique to coal preparation, storage, and transportation.  The coal
 preparation industry is a mature yet changing industry and in recent years
 significant achievements have been made  in pollution abatement.  The environ-
 mental assessment work will document existing environmental regulations and
 the adequacy of commercial pollution control techniques.  Hopefully, any
 potential  long range environmental problems which may exist will be identified,
 Specifically, this report provides preliminary  criteria  for the assessment of
 environmental pollutants  associated with coal  cleaning processes.
                                      11

-------
                                ABSTRACT

     The objective of this research was to develop criteria for the assess-
ment of environmental pollutants associated with coal cleaning processes.
The primary problem is concerned with emissions of pollutants to all three
media—air, water, and land—and assessment of their effects on man and the
environment.
     The pollutants associated with coal cleaning are primarily inorganic
compounds associated with the ash fraction.  Lists of potential pollutants
from coal cleaning and utilization containing hundreds of entries have been
proposed.  A group of 51 elements and 23 substances or groups of substances
was selected judgmentally from larger lists for investigation.
     The fundamental criterion for ranking the importance of any pollutant
is the relationship between its expected environmental concentration and the
maximum concentration which presents no hazard to man or biota on a long-term
basis.  Environmental concentrations depend upon emission rates and the
effects of physical transport and dispersion.  Ultimately, these data will
come from field measurements  but in the interim must be estimated.  Method-
ology for these estimations are reviewed; the requisite methodology is well
developed and little further development appears necessary.
     Ecological transport and distribution is much less well developed, and
the investigation has revealed that there are large gaps in the data for
many elements and many species.  Illustrative data are presented for eight
of the most important trace elements.
     Twenty formulae for deriving estimated permissible concentrations
(EPC's) were identified and considered in this study.  No one formula was
found to fulfill all needs; recommendations were developed for suggested
improvements.  A major deficiency in all formulae is the inability to utilize
the variety of pertinent toxicological data available.  Improved methods
are badly needed for interconversion of toxicological data to more useable
                                   iii

-------
forms.  Equations have been developed for conversion of  toxicological  data
for four non-oral routes of administration to an LD^Q basis.
     This preliminary investigation has shown that the problem of an adequate
health and toxicological effects data base equals or exceeds the methodology
problem.  One of the most critical information needs to support the derivation
of EPC's are dose-response data on the health and ecological effects of
individual pollutants and their mixtures.  Data are sparse on the pollutants
of concern to coal cleaning, and much more research needs to be done in this
area.
     This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Subtask 242 of
Contract No. 68-02-2163 by Battelle's Columbus Laboratories under the sponsor-
ship  of the U .S .Environmental Protection Agency.  The report covers the period
from  November 8, 1976,  to October 30, 1978,  and work was completed as of
December 30, 1978.
                                    iv

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword	     ±±
Abstract	    ill
List of Tables	     ix
List of Figures	     xi
Acknowledgements  	    xii

1.0  Executive Summary/Overview 	 ......      1

     1.1  Introduction  	      1
     1.2  Potential Environmental Pollutants/Regulations  	      2
     1.3  Estimating Environmental Concentrations  	      5
     1.4  Developing Environmental Goals   	      7
     1.5  Decision Criteria for Prioritization  	     13
     1.6  Recommendations for Future Work	     13

2.0  Introduction	     15

     2.1  Basis for Environmental Assessment  	     16
     2.2  Approach to Environmental Assessment  	     16

3.0  Potential Environmental Pollutants
       and Applicable Regulations 	     18

     3.1  Universe of Pollutants	     18

          3.1.1  Pollutants of Concern	     18
          3.1.2  Pollutants in Coals	     25

     3.2  Federal and State Standards and  Criteria  	     28

          3.2.1  Air Pollution Regulations	     31

                 3.2.1.1  Federal .  . .	     31

                    3.2.1.1.1  Ambient Air Quality Standards  ...     31
                    3.2.1.1.2  New Source Performance Standards .  .     33
                    3.2.1.1.3  Hazardous Pollutant Emission
                                 Standards	     35
                    3.2.1.1.4  Prevention of Significant
                                 Deterioration of Air Quality ...     35
                    3.2.1.1.5  Visibility Protection for
                                 Federal Class I Areas  	     36
                    3.2.1.1.6  Nonattainment Areas  	     35

                 3.2.1.2  State 	     38

                                    v

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                     Page


          3.2.2   Water  Pollution  Regulations   	    30

                 3.2.2.1   Federal 	    39

                    3.2.2.1.1   Effluent  Guidelines  Limitations   ...    39
                    3.2.2.1.2   Toxic  Pollutants  	    40
                    3.2.2.1.3   Water  Quality  Criteria  	    43

                 3.2.2.2   State 	    43

          3.2.3  Solid Waste Regulations	,	    ^,
                 3.2.3.1  Federal
                 3.2.3.2  State
                                                                        46

     3.3  References  ........................    ^

4.0  Estimation of Environmental Concentrations ...........    rn

     4.1  Modeling of Pollutant Emissions ......  <.......    50

          4.1.1  Fractionation Factors  .........  ,  .....    r,
          4.1.2  Estimation of Emission Concentrations  .......     /-
     4.2  Modeling of Physical Transport and Distribution
          4.2.1  Air Dispersion of Pollutants ............    ,-n
          4.2.2  Water Dispersion of Pollutants ...........    /-Q
          4.2.3  Dispersion Through Porous Media  ..........    63
          4.2.4  Goundwater Dispersion of Pollutants  ........
     4.3  Ecological Transport and Distribution
          4.3.1  Ecological Overview
          4.3.2  Pollutant Transfer
                 4.3.2.1  Pollutant Uptake in Plants  ........    72
                 4.3.2.2  Pollutant Uptake/Retention
                            in Animals  ...............    73
                 4.3.2.3  Ecological Accumulation and
                            Magnification ..............    -,,

          4.3.3  Designated Priority 1 Pollutants ..........    77

                 4.3.3.1  Arsenic  ..................    70
                 4.3.3.2  Beryllium .............. '.'.'.    80
                                     vi

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                     Page

                 4.3.3.3  Cadmium 	   83
                 4.3.3.4  Iron	   91
                 4.3.3.5  Lead	   91
                 4.3.3.6  Manganese  	   96
                 4.3.3.7  Mercury 	   97
                 4.3.3.8  Selenium  	  103
                 4.3.3.9  Other Pollutants   	  107

          4.3.4  Discussion	107

     4.4  References	110

5.0  Development of Environmental Goals 	  122

     5.1  Introduction	123

          5.1.1  Basic Problem	123
          5.1.2  Working Definitions  	  124
          5.1.3  Scope	125

     5.2  Research Approach 	  126
     5.3  Review of Formulae	126

          5.3.1  Basic Formula	127
          5.3.2  Overview of State-of-the-Art Formulae  	  127

     5.4  Identification of Major Strengths
            and Weaknesses of Formulae	132

          5.4.1  Media Viewpoint	132
          5.4.2  Dose/Response Viewpoint  	  133

                 5.4.2.1  Strengths 	  133
                 5.4.2.2  Limitations 	  134

          5.4.3  Adjustment Factors 	  134

                 5.4.3.1  Strengths	135
                 5.4.3.2  Limitations 	  135

          5.4.4  Selection of Limitations for Analysis  	  137

     5.5  Research to Reduce Limitations in Formulae   	  139

          5.5.1  Identification of Other Formulae 	  139
                                     vii

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)

                                                                    Page

                5.5.1.1  Maximum Permissible
                           Concentrations for Radioisotopes  .  .  .    140
                5.5.1.2  CUMEX (Cumulative Exposure) Index ....

         5.5.2  Correlation of Oral LD   and Other Routes
                  of Administration
         5.5.3  Use of Chronic Effects Data  ...........
         5.5.4  Extrapolation of Response of One
                  Animal Species to Another  ...........   -j.51
                5.5.4.1  Method I	   153
                5.5.4.2  Method II	'  [   156
                5.5.4.3  Comparison of Methods I and II	
          5.5.5  Toward a Biological Basis for
                   Safety Factors
                 5.5.5.1  Ranges of Sensitivity in Selected
                            Aquatic Plants and Animals
                 5.5.5.2  Ranges of Sensitivity to Toxicants
                            of Selected Terrestrial Animals .
                 5,5.5.3  Selected Findings Related
                            to Safety Factors
     5.6  Application of Improved Formulae  ............

     5.7  References  .......................   165

6.0  Decision Criteria for Prioritizing Pollutants,
       Sources, and Problems  ...................
     6.1  References  .......................  173

7.0  Recommendations for Future Work  ...............  174

     7.1  Potential Environmental Pollutants  ...........  174

     7.2  Estimation of Environmental Concentrations  .......  174

     7.3  Development of Environmental Goals  ...........  175

Appendix A.  Sample Computer Printout for Emission
               Concentration Model  ................  177

Appendix B.  Additional Formulae for Developing Estimated
               Permissible Concentrations (EPC's) .........  183
                                    viii

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES

                                                                   Paee
TABLE 3-1.  Proposed Priority 1 Pollutants for
              Coal Cleaning Processes 	
TABLE 3-2.  Mean Analytical Values for Elemental Concentration
              in Coal Samples from Various Regions	    26

TABLE 3-3.  Geometric Mean Concentrations of
              Eight Elements in Coal	    28

TABLE 3-4.  Concentrations of Trace Metals in
              Coal and Coal Dust	    29

TABLE 3-5.  National Ambient Air Quality Standards  	    32

TABLE 3-6.  Allowable Pollutant Increases above
              Baseline Concentrations 	    37

TABLE 3-7.  Effluent Limitations Guidelines for
              Coal Preparation Plants 	    41

TABLE 3-8.  List of 65 Pollutants Being Considered
              for Effluent Limitations  	    42

TABLE 4-1.  Values for Arsenic Uptake	    81

TABLE 4-2.  Values for Beryllium Uptake	    84

TABLE 4-3.  Values for Cadmium Uptake	    86

TABLE 4-4.  Values for Iron Uptake	    92

TABLE 4-5.  Values for Lead Uptake	    94

TABLE 4-6.  Values for Manganese Uptake	    98

TABLE 4-7.  Values for Mercury Uptake	   100

TABLE 4-8.  Values for Selenium Uptake	   105

TABLE 5-1.  EPC/MATE Formulae for the Air Medium	   128

TABLE 5-2.  EPC/MATE Formulae for the Water Medium	   129
                                   ix

-------
                      LIST  OF  TABLES  (Continued)

                                                                   Page

TABLE 5-3.  EPC/MATE Formulae for the Land Medium	   130

TABLE 5-4.  Summary of Rankings of Limitations of Formulae
              Used in Development of Environmental Goals  ....   133

TABLE 5-5.  Equations Relating Toxicological Effects from Non-Oral
              Administration Routes to the Oral Route	


TABLE 5-6.  Summary of Biological Effects of
              Various Elements on Mice and Rats
              During Life-Time (Chronic) Experiments 	  148

TABLE 5-7.  Summary of Biological Effects of Six Elements
              on Multigenerations of Mice and Rats	150

TABLE 5-8.  Tissue Concentrations of Tour Elements
              in Organs of Controls and Exposed
              Mice and Rats	152

TABLE 5-9.  LC^Q Concentrations of Various Metals for
              Three Species of Freshwater Plankton 	  161

TABLE 5-10. Sensitivity of Early Juvenile Fish
              to Various Metals	162

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES

                                                                     Page
FIGURE 3-1.  Illustration of Relationship of Elements
               Selected for Priority 1 Pollutant List
               to Those Omitted	23

FIGURE 4-1.  Fractionation Factor Versus Ionic Potential 	  52

FIGURE 4-2.  Calculation of Fractionation Factors, Arsenic,
               Herrin (No. 6), Illinois (Float-Sink Set 1)	55

FIGURE 4-3.  Generalized Flow Quantities in Coal
               Cleaning Process  	  57

FIGURE 4-4.  General Area for Which Generic Ecosystem is
               Defined for Purposes of Estimating Distribution
               of Potential Coal Cleaning Pollutants 	 68

FIGURE 4-5.  Compartmental Model of Generic Ecosystem and
               Dominant Pathways of Pollutant Transport   	 69

FIGURE 4-6.  Matrix Configuration of Important Rate Transfer
               Coefficients Within the Generic Ecosystem  	  70

FIGURE 4-7.  Mercury  Interconversions  in  the  Environment  	  75

FIGURE 5-1.  Interrelationships of Five Principal
               Phases of  Environmental Assessment	125

FIGURE 5-2.  Subcutaneous LD   ' s for Hydrogen Cyanide   	 155
                            LjU

FIGURE 5-3.  Oral LD   's  for  Arsenic Trioxide	157
                                     XI

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

     This study was conducted as a task on Battelle's  Columbus  Laboratories'
program, "Environmental Assessment of Coal Cleaning Processes", supported
by the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park (IERL/RTP),  North Carolina,
under Contract No. 68-02-2163.
     In  addition  to the authors,  significant contributions were made by
Steven  E. Pomeroy, M.  Claire Matthews, Ralph I. Mitchell, and  Frederick
K. Goodman.   The  contributions  of the  Program Manager, G. Ray  Smithson,  Jr.;
 the  Deputy  Program Manager,  Alexis W.  Lemmon, Jr.;  and the Task Leader,
 Gerald  L.  Robinson,  are gratefully acknowledged.
      The advice,  counsel,  and comments of the  EPA Project Officer,  Mr.  James
 D. Kilgroe, and others at the IERL/RTP facility were  invaluable in  performance
 of this work.
                                       xii

-------
                            1.0   EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

                              1.1  Introduction

     The fundamental criterion  for assessing environmental pollutants
associated with coal cleaning is the relationship of the permissible
environmental concentrations to  those which actually can or do occur.
Elucidating this relationship involves determining a number of factors, some
of which are complex:

     (1)  The pollutants most needing control need to be identified,
          either because of the quantities emitted or their toxicities,
          or both.   Also, almost by definition, substances designated as
          pollutants by EPA are candidates for  control.   Identification
          of the pollutants most needing control is a basic objective of
          this study.   The pollutants likely to be associated  with coal
          cleaning  are  discussed in Section 3.1.   Also important are the
          ever-changing Federal and state environmental  regulations
          governing the emission of pollutants; the current status of
          those  regulations likely  to affect coal cleaning processes
          are  discussed in Section  3.2.
     (2)  Data on the quantities and  concentrations of  those pollutants
          emitted to the environment  are needed.   These  data come from
          other  subtasks analyzing  the process  steps (coal cleaning,
          handling,  transportation,  storage,  and  combustion).   The
          approach  to this problem  is discussed in Section 4.1.
     (3)  Estimates  of  environmental  concentrations  of pollutants in
          all  three  media—air,  water,  and  land—are needed.   This
          estimation initially  involves  physical  transport  and dispersion;
          the  approaches to modeling  physical distribution  are discussed in
          Section 4.2.   Ecological  transport  and  distribution  is  much
          less well-studied;  there  are  large  gaps in the data  for many
         elements  and  many species.   Qualitatively,  the pathways and
         mechanisms for accumulation and dispersal  have been  identified;

-------
           the problems arise in attempting to quantify these mechanisms.
           The approach to these problems and several illustrative
           examples are described in Section 4.3.
      (4)   One of the most critical information needs is data on the
           toxicities of the individual pollutants, from which estimated
           permissible concentrations  (EPC's) can be derived.  Also
           needed are improved methods for converting toxicological data
           to the threshold levels represented by EPC's, and biologically
           supported safety factors for incorporation into the formulae.
           The complexities of deriving EPC's on the basis of available
           toxicological data are discussed in Section 5.
      (5)   Decision criteria are needed to determine the relative priori-
           ties to be assigned to controlling specific pollutants.
           Compiling and analyzing the data mentioned above will lead to
           these criteria.   Approaches to this somewhat subjective exercise
           are discussed in Section 6.
      (6)   The environmental assessments to be performed as another task
           on this program will require quantitative emission and
           distribution data for specific process configurations, coal types,
           geographic locations, etc.   In developing and illustrating
           assessment criteria and methodologies, this study utilizes
           approximations of emissions and dilutions such as might be
           associated with a hypothetical coal cleaning plant.

            1.2  Potential Environmental Pollutants/Regulations

      The pollutants directly associated with coal cleaning are primarily
inorganic  compounds associated with the ash fraction.  Water will be the
major receptor of these pollutants; operations causing major emission of
air pollutants are infrequent in coal cleaning.   The largest air emissions
will arise as particulates from thermal dryers and as fugitive dust from coal
storage and refuse piles and coal handling.   The reverse situation is true
in the ultimate combustion of coal; air emissions, particularly SC^ and
suspended particulates,  are of much more concern than water effluents.

-------
      Lists  of  potential  pollutants  from  coal  cleaning  and utilization
containing hundreds of entries have been compiled.   To arrive at a more
manageable number, a "Priority 1" list was selected to include those elements
and substances already identified as pollutants of  concern,  and whose
presence in finite concentrations in coal cleaning  processes is known or
highly suspected.  This list contains 49 elements and 23 substances or groups
of substances,  the latter including such well-known items as SO ,  total
suspended particulates (air), and total suspended solids (water).
     An abbreviated pollutant "short list" of eight elements and four
compound groups was also employed to limit the scope of some of the explora-
tory studies undertaken.
     Abundance is a factor in evaluating the significance of a pollutant.
Almost every naturally occurring element occurs in coal, but the abundances
vary widely, both regionally and from seam to seam.  Averages and ranges
representative of U. S. coals determined by the Illinois Geological Survey
are being used in pollutant evaluations.
     Health and  ecological considerations are important  criteria for
assessing environmental pollutants.  Also important are Federal and state
regulations governing emissions.  Recent significant changes in Federal
regulations have occurred, and more are mandated by laws passed but not yet
fully implemented.  Some of these will directly affect allowable emissions
from coal cleaning processes.  Others will affect the processes indirectly,
through new and more restrictive regulations governing emissions from
coal utilization.
     The  Clean Air  Act Amendments  of 1977 may have  the most  effect  on
both coal cleaning and utilization.  Earlier regulations had established
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for particulate emissions from
coal cleaning  plants.  The 1977 Amendments require establishing percentage
reduction standards for S0« emissions from the combustion of coal in large
electric utility steam generating units; 85 percent has been proposed.  This
cannot now be  achieved by coal cleaning alone.  The effects of these probable
regulations on the utilization of coal cleaning is uncertain.  More restrictive
regulations on existing boilers, which are also possible, may increase the
demand for cleaned coal.  Existing boilers are likely  to represent a larger
market for clean coal than new boilers for years to come.

-------
      Other sections of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 which may
 significantly  influence both  the  role of  cleaned coal  and  the operation of
 coal  cleaning  plants  are  those  to prevent significant  deterioration of air
 quality  (PSD)  and  the emission  control measures which  will  be required in
 nonattainment  areas not now achieving primary or secondary  ambient air
 quality  standards.  States are  to continue  to make  "reasonable further
 progress"  in achieving annual incremental reductions of pollutants not
 meeting  standards;  these  requirements will  tend to  favor cleaner  fuels.
      In  1977,  effluent guidelines were promulgated  for existing coal
 cleaning plants and proposed  for new sources.  Regulated pollutants are
 total suspended solids (TSS), iron, and manganese.  Discharge limits for TSS
 are sufficiently low  (35  ppm  for a 30-day average)  so  that  any plant in
 compliance should have no siltation problem downstream.  The proposed perfor-
 mance standards for new sources are structured to strongly  favor  the recycle
 of wastewater.  No discharge  of pollutants  is permitted for sources which do
 not recycle wastewater.
     The Clean Water  Act  of 1977 introduced a new requirement for the
 control of toxic pollutants which are to be limited by the  application of
 the best available technology economically achievable  (BATEA).   Pursuant to
 this act,  the EPA Administrator published a list of 65 toxic pollutants for
 which effluent standards  are  required.  Regulations previously existed for
 six of the listed pollutants, but regulations have not yet been promulgated
 for any of the other  listed pollutants.  EPA has further identified specific
 compounds, within the chemical classes in the published list, to be considered
 for effluent standards.   The  thirteen elements in the published list, and
 their compounds, should receive emphasis in the environmental assessment of
 coal cleaning processes because of their observed existence in coal.  However,
 none of the classes of organic chemicals in the list appears to have signifi-
 cance as a pollutant  from coal cleaning processes because they have not been
 observed to exist in  coal and have not been used as agents  in coal cleaning
 operations.
     Existing regulations for solid waste disposal, basically only guidelines,
do not establish new standards but set forth requirements and recommended
procedures to ensure that the design, construction, and operation provide
for environmentally acceptable land disposal site operations.   Additionally,

-------
their thrust is toward sanitary and municipal wastes,  and mining or coal
cleaning wastes are essentially ignored.
     The management of solid and hazardous wastes entered a new era on
October 21, 1976, upon the passage of the comprehensive Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.  Although the Act has not yet been implemented,
it is already clear that the management of solid and hazardous wastes will be
revolutionized by the specific regulations now in the process of being drafted
by EPA.  Whether coal cleaning refuse (and combustion ash) will be classified
as hazardous wastes is presently uncertain.

              1.3  Estimating Environmental Concentrations

     Estimates of environmental concentrations of pollutants are needed
during the interim period before field measurements of emissions and environ-
mental concentrations can be conducted at actual operating plants.  These
estimates of environmental concentrations must be based upon pollutant emission
rates, which are themselves estimates.
      Estimates of emission concentrations  are based on process  configura-
tions, coal type and composition, percentage recovery,  and fractionation
factors, among other parameters.  All of these parameters except the fraction-
ation factor are controlled or reasonably well-known.   Fractionation factors
are characteristic of  a given coal but  vary among coals.  In  this  study, the
fractionation factors used were based on the coal washability tests conducted
on numerous coals by the Illinois Geological Survey.  Illustrative emission
calculations use a simple mass-flow model of a coal cleaning plant and fraction-
ation factors appropriate for the assumed coal; simulation experiments were
made both with and without assumed pollution controls.
      Only  limited efforts were  directed to physical transport and
dispersion models.  The state of the art in this area is quite advanced and
the principal problem will be in selecting the model or combination of models
to use.  Air dispersion and dilution models are well known and readily available.
Only  simple models of  dispersion and dilution in surface water courses may be
needed, since most streams receiving coal cleaning plant effluents are so small
they  can possibly be treated as fully mixed.  The areas of greatest uncertainty
are leaching and runoff of precipitation through coal storage and  coal refuse
piles  and percolation through  the bottoms of tailings ponds.  Available
                                    5

-------
simplified approaches to estimating pollutant adsorption and leaching in porous
media are expected to be applicable to this general problem.
     Ecological transport and distribution previously has been much less
well-studied than physical transport and distribution.  For this reason, a
substantial effort was expended in this study investigating the ecological
aspect of the problem.  A principal finding of the study is that little is
known and much more needs to be learned before predictions can be made with
confidence on the ecological transport and fate of potentially hazardous
pollutants that might be released by a coal cleaning facility.
     The potential sources of coal cleaning pollutants vary from facility
to facility but in general include leachate and runoff from coal storage and
refuse disposal piles; process wastewater or blowdown from closed water circuits;
and dust and gases emitted from coal piles, refuse piles, and thermal dryers.
The more apparent environmental effects from these contaminants can be seen in
direct contact toxicity resulting from changes in pH in the surrounding media;
increasing levels of sulfate sulfur,  sulfur dioxide, nitrate nitrogen, and
nitrogen oxides; or resultant chemical changes in the abiotic components.   These
types of effects are usually long term and easily identified.   The fate of
those trace elements (e.g.,  arsenic,  cadmium,  and mercury) whose release is
into both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems is  not quite so apparent.
     The present preliminary study has focused on the short list of poten-
tially hazardous trace contaminants mentioned previously.  These include elemental,
inorganic and organic forms  of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, iron, lead, manganese,
mercury, and selenium.  It is well known and documented that these contaminants
are absorbed, retained,  released, and cycled among the biotic (i.e., producers,
herbivores, omnivores, carnivores, and decomposers) and the abiotic (i.e., soil,
groundwater, surface water,  and sediment) compartments.
     The toxicity of  these contaminants  to living  systems under  certain
conditions has been established by other researchers.  So, the ultimate goal
of transport and fate studies is to determine whether or not toxic concentrations
could be reached through normal environmental exposure pathways.  That is, even
if the source release rates  for a specific pollutant from a coal cleaning
facility were below the current U.S.  Government regulations, would concentration
of the contaminant ecologically magnify to a point at or beyond the toxic
threshold values?

-------
     When magnified by an organism, concentration of a contaminant is
greater than that of its source or donor compartments.  The term describing
this is eco-magnification, which is non-source-specific.  It includes all
potential exposure pathways  (ingestion, inhalation, adsorption, and immersion)
within the ecosystem.  Eco-magnification is frequently misunderstood as a
simplistic biological phenomenon when, in fact, it is quite complex.  Eco-
magnif ication is all inclusive, whereas the classic term bio-magnification
only considers food ingestion as the mode of exposure.  Thus, the ability of
an organism to accumulate or magnify contaminants depends on a number of
ecological, chemical, and physiological factors, such as:
          •  Chemical form of contaminant
          •  Concentration of contaminant in soil, water, or air
          •  Interaction with other trace elements
          •  Soil characteristics and properties
          •  Genetic makeup  of target organism.
     The ultimate goal of the study of ecological  transport and fate was
to identify likely distribution factors and supply much needed input data for
simulation models describing the transport and fate of these pollutants.  Computer
simulation of transport and  fate would enable scientists to compare the computer-
predicted long-term body burdens with reported toxic concentrations for individual
pollutants.  Unfortunately,  the need to use computer simulations and then compare
the results to reported toxic effects values is ahead of the data base.  The
data required to accurately  calculate the rate transfer coefficients are not
available in the literature.  Investigators, in general, fail to consider or
report:  (1) the measurement of major parameters affecting transport and fate,
(2) partitioning data into specific exposure sources  (i.e., food source, inhalation,
direct absorption),  (3) chemical form of the pollutant, and/or (4)  time duration
of the experiment.  Therefore, computer modeling to predict ecological transport
and fate of pollutants is still beyond the state of the art.

                   1.4  Developing Environmental Goals

     Documenting  and evaluating  biological  effects ideally  should  precede
setting of standards and development of control technology for coal cleaning
facilities.  The burden of proof of a need for establishing environmental goals

-------
rests with health and ecological effects data; i.e., if no problem exists,
there is no need for a solution.  Data need to be sound, complete, and rigorous,
and they must be interpreted correctly to support environmental goals and
recommendations for further development of control devices for coal cleaning
facilities.  Materials highly toxic to many life stages of many important
species during the entire year will require a different level of effort for
their control than those mildly toxic to only one unimportant species at a
particular time of the year.  Unfortunately, the differentiation is not always
easy to make.  Effects data are not only relatively sparse compared to those
needed for adequate assessments but also are typically laboratory results
rather than real results from practice.  Thus, the following material was
developed as another step in providing the necessary feedback for setting
standards and for developing control strategies, i.e.,  which substances need
how much control in order to protect health and the environment.
     Most biological effects data are obtained in the laboratory and need
to be extrapolated to "real world" situations.  Extrapolation is the process
of inferring or extending a known toxicological response into an unknown area.
This extension of knowledge assumes a continuity, similarity, or other parall-
elism between the two situations.   Often biological effects need to be extra-
polated from (1) laboratory to field - many differences make this difficult;
(2) one species to another - no two species are alike;  (3) one medium to another -
drinking is not the same as breathing; and (4) one life stage to another -
ranges of sensitivity may differ by orders of magnitude.  In the present state
of the art, biological effects data are collected from a few life stages of a
few species for a few routes of entry in a few controlled conditions.  On the
other hand, the real world situation around a coal cleaning facility contains
thousands of species in many stages of growth, all of which may be continuously
exposed to various types of doses.   Clearly, extrapolation must be done with
caution.
     Despite the technical difficulties involved in estimating permissible
concentrations of toxicants in emission streams, rational approaches are
available for dealing with the problem.   There are many potentially applicable
formulae, some of them developed by or for the U.S.  EPA.  The formulae have
two basic parts:  a dose/response part and an adjustments part.  The dose/
response generally consists of one of the typical laboratory effects measurements:

-------
LD  , LC ~, and TL -96 hr.*  Each effects measurement is adjusted by several
factors, the argument being that the adjusted dose/response data better conform
to the "real world" situation.  Adjustments include the following:  media
conversion (e.g., airborne to waterborne toxicants), safety factors (e.g.,  0.01),
various types of exposure (e.g., work day to full week), and elimination rate
(biological half-life).  All the formulae provide estimates of permissible
concentrations for single chemicals.  All three media (air, water, and land)
are considered for both human and nonhuman populations.  The multimedia
environmental goals (MEG) chart is the principal tool for displaying these
quantitative values and represents a major ongoing work supported by the U.S.
EPA.   The predicted permissible pollutant concentrations are compared against
observed environmental concentrations to identify those pollutants whose
concentrations exceed the estimated acceptable level.
     Twenty  formulae were identified and considered  in  this study.  The
formulae were reviewed for their major strengths and limitations from three
viewpoints:  media, dose/response data, and adjustment factors.  This evaluation
provided a good basis from which to improve the state of the art.
     Ten major strengths of the formulae were  identified.  Some  of  the
most powerful were embodied in the formulae used to estimate permissible
concentrations for airborne pollutants.  These formulae use a variety of the
most rigorous dose/response data, which include a variety of measurements,  e.g.,
threshold limit values (TLV's) and other large data sets.  The ability to
incorporate  simple adjustment factors is seen  as a strength; generally, the
prediction is assumed to improve as more adjustment factors are  incorporated.
Particularly useful adjustment factors are those for exposure time, elimination
rates, and safety  factors.
     Seventeen major limitations of the formulae were  identified.   From
the media viewpoint, the formulae for land- or food-borne pollutants exhibit
 * LD  :   Lethal dose 50,  i.e.,  the dose of a pollutant  required  to kill
          50 percent of a  particular animal species  by methods  other than
          inhalation.
   LD  :   Lethal dose low,  i.e.,  the lowest dose  of  a substance introduced
          in one or more portions by any route other than inhalation over
          any period of time and  reported to have caused death  in a
          particular animal species.
   TL :    Median threshold  limit  value,  i.e.,  the concentration in water of
          a pollutant required to kill  50 percent of a particular aquatic
          species.

-------
the most limitations; the crop uptake model is too simplistic among other
deficiencies.  Many available toxicological response data, e.g., LD  's,
                                                                   lj(j
have not been used in the available formulae.  Responses are limited to a
few species of animals; few or no responses are provided for plants and
microorganisms.  The bulk of the effects data are based on acute or short-
term exposure when chronic or long-term exposure effects data are needed.  The
effects data are for single chemicals when responses to mixtures of chemicals
are needed.  So, from the dose/response viewpoint, there are many deficiencies.
From the adjustment factor viewpoint, there is a great need for validation of
the reasonableness of the factors.  Safety factors need a biological basis.
And for every limitation in the effects data, there should be compensatory
adjustment.  For example, when chronic effects data are not available (the
usual case), an adjustment factor can be used with the more readily available
acute effects data to estimate chronic effects.
     The scope  of work permitted  research  to  reduce or  remove  5  of  the
17 major limitations.  The relevance and availability of pertinent data were
ranked for each limitation.  Five limitations were regarded as the most fruitful
research candidates.  Their mitigation required research to identify alternative
state-of-the-art formulae; correlate nonoral with oral LD  ' s; use chronic
effects data; extrapolate data from one species to another; and develop a
biological basis for safety factors.  The  following material summarizes some
of the major points achieved in the research.
     Other  formulae merit  incorporation into  the  present  system.   Some
formulae handle exposure and biological half-lifes more rigorously than any
one of the twenty formulae.  Typical state-of-the-art formulae are those for
(1) maximum permissible concentration for  radioisotopes, and (2) CUMEX  (cumulative
exposure) index.  Inclusion of the former  would provide a more rigorous estima-
tion of waterborne radionuclides and related pollutants.  The latter would
provide estimates for permissible air and  water pollutant  exposures  separately
and simultaneously.
     Multiple  exposures are  the reality, and more formulae capable  of handling
such exposures  need  to be  developed  for future estimations of potential
dangers to  living organisms,
     A major deficiency common to all of these formulae is the  inability
to utilize  the  variety of  available  pertinent  toxicological  data.   For  example,
one of  the best formulae  in  use requires that  dose/response  data be  in  the  form

                                     10

-------
of oral LD    for  rats.  However,  there  are many nonoral  toxicological response
data which could  be  used,  if  a  conversion method were  available.  To overcome
this limitation,  specially designed equations  have  been  developed to permit
quantitative  conversion of toxicological data  for nonoral routes of administra-
tion to the oral  route.  Conversions were developed for  intraveneous, intraperi-
toneal, and subcutaneous LD   ' s and inhalation LC _  to the oral LD™.  For
example, the  relationship  for intraveneous LD   to  oral  LD „  is:

          J>n(oral LD5()) =  -0.5714 + 1.587 £n(intraveneous LD5Q)

     This  research expands the  access to other readily available toxi-
cological effects data and is immediately applicable.  However, this research
needs to be extended to better utilize  the wealth of toxicological data for
other routes  of administration, e.g., LD    TD   LC     etc., and for other
                                        LJ(J     LjO     LjO
species (e.g., mice, hamsters, and dogs).
     Limitations  inherent  to  biological effects data for short-term  (acute)
exposure can  be removed only by use of  effects data  for  long-term (chronic)
exposure.   Chronic exposure (low  levels of chemicals for long periods of  time)
can depress reproductive capacity, increase the number of malignant tumors,
and generally shorten the  life span of  males,  females, or both.  Chronic  effects
for life-term (1000+ days) and multi-generation (three-generation) studies for
rodents are discussed herein.  Generally, concentrations lower  than those
used in acute exposure (high levels of  chemicals for short periods of time)
cause effects that could not have been  known on the basis of acute tests only.
Concentrations of 5 ppm for some elements in drinking  water seem to show
increasingly  harmful effects the longer the study and  the greater the number
of generations studied.  At present, there seems to be no quantitative way to
predict chronic effects based on effects data  only  from acute experiments.
When chronic  effects data are available, they  should be used in the dose/
response part of  the formulae if the effects are greater than those indicated
by acute exposure data.
     Animal toxicity data  can be  extrapolated  from  one species  to another
in two ways.   In Method 1, the equation deals with only one toxicant at  a time,
but this single equation can be used to predict the responses of animals of
many sizes (including man) to that particular  toxicant.  In Method 2,  the

                                    11

-------
equation deals with responses to many different toxicants, but it can only be
used to extrapolate from the response of one particular species to the response
of another species (say, from rat to human).  Both methods are described in
detail, using the basic relationship of Y = aW  where Y = the response, W =
body weight (or area), and a and b are constants relative to the particular
Y.  Examples of both approaches indicate that often the basic data are not
readily available.  Of the many other limitations with these approaches, not
the least is the credibility of even attempting extrapolation of response
from one species to another.
     The range of sensitivity for certain  organisms to given  toxicants
provides a biological basis for safety factors.  Toxic levels and effects of
a substance vary greatly.  For example, toxicity ratios for young of a species
versus adults can vary from 0.002 to 16 - a variation of nearly four orders
of magnitude.   Green algae species differ in their response to cadmium by a
factor of 100.   Frog embryos and larvae are more sensitive than adults to
mercury by factors of 100 and 1000,  respectively.  Bird embryos and fetal and
newborn mammals are more susceptible to metals than their adult counterparts.
Baby mammals appear to be four or five times more sensitive than adults to some
chemicals.   Thus, in aquatic situations, safety factors of 100 to 1000 seem
reasonable if available effects data are from least sensitive  (most resistant)
species.  If effects data are from tests on more sensitive species in an
ecosystem,  such high safety factors  are not needed to protect the less
sensitive species.  In terrestrial situations, smaller safety factors seem
biologically reasonable.  For example, 10 to 100 would be reasonable safety
factors when the available dose/response data are for resistant species.
     All of these improvements still fall short of the needed advancements
in this important research to protect human health and the environment from
adverse effects.   True, the formulae provide quantitative values, and increas-
ingly higher quality effects data and adjustment factors are being used in
such formulae.   The state-of-the-art predictions are not absolute; they are
relative.  Furthermore, the relative relationships of one prediction to
another may not be correct.  Caution is warranted.  Validation and future
monitoring are needed to confirm the reliability of the predictions.  Another
major step forward involves the issue of mixtures as compared to single chemical
species.  The approach of predicting permissible concentrations for single
chemical species will need  to be replaced by approaches addressing synergistic/
                                    12

-------
antagonistic effects associated with actual emission streams.   Then,  the
feedback to standards setting and control technology development will be
more sound biologically.

                    1.5  Decision Criteria for Prioritization

     Since all pollutants from coal cleaning processes are not equal in
toxicities nor in quantities, there are differing degrees of hazard,  and
corresponding differences in the relative importance necessary to be placed
upon identifying and controlling them.
     All of the parameters making -up  the total hazard of a pollutant are
embodied in the estimated permissible concentration (EPC).   However,  as noted
in the previous section, for many pollutants of known importance, EPC's cannot
yet be established.
     EPA contractors are developing multimedia environmental  goals (MEG)
and minimum acute toxicity effluent (MATE) values for an increasing list of
pollutants; when this work is complete,, a rigorous prioritization of pollutants
should be possible—at least into groups of similar hazard.  However, because
these lists are incomplete, their usefulness is limited.
     For the near  term,  it appears that  less rigorous and more  pragmatic
prioritization criteria may be required to fill the gap.  Since the relative
importance of controlling a pollutant can be generally assessed from its acute
toxicity and its abundance in coal cleaning processes, criteria are available
for their categorization.  Also, substances with established criteria or those
designated as pollutants should be prioritized.  The "Priority 1" pollutants
mentioned above were selected using criteria of this type.
     A further modifying parameter, for which data are not yet available
to implement, is the availability or  lack of availability of adequate control
technology for pollutants identified  as  inherently high-risk.

                   1.6   Recommendations  for Future Work

     While  substantial progress  in developing  environmental  assessment
criteria for coal  cleaning processes  has been made during the past two  years,
additional work  is  required.  Recommended  tasks  include:

                                     13

-------
          •  Pragmatically group the Priority 1 pollutants into 3 to
             5 severity classes using available data on pollutants from
             coal cleaning processes (i.e., abundances in raw coal,
             toxicities, and quantities released).  This approach will
             allow environmental assessments to proceed until data to
             support more rigorous rankings are available.
          •  Select, exercise, and validate models recommended
             to assess physical transport and dilution.
          •  Determine the relative importance of each ecological
             exposure pathway; determine the rate transfer coefficients
             for each dominant pathway; and develop and validate
             simulation models for ecological transport and fate.
          •  Continue development of the methodology for establishing
             realistic environmental goals from the multiplicity of
             toxicological and epidemiological data which are available;
             further develop interconversion factors between different
             routes of administration and between different species;
             and continue the rationalization of safety factors.
     Research needs and recommendations for future work are described in
detail in Section 7.

-------
                           2.0  INTRODUCTION

     Coal cleaning is one of several energy technologies whose environmental
implications are being investigated by the Energy Assessment and Control
Division of the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
A primary objective of these environmental assessment programs is to identify
potential environmental problems which are likely to be associated with the
large-scale commercial application of the technology and to identify suitable
mitigative and control measures.  Such an approach, when effectively implemented,
can eliminate the necessity of subsequent cumbersome and expensive retrofits
for pollution control.
     The  cleaning  of  coal  by  removal  of  noncoal  materials  is  an  old  art;
in its early days it was sometimes no more sophisticated than picking shale
and rock from a belt carrying the lump coal.  Over the years it has become a
much more complex and sophisticated operation, impelled by various economic,
technical, and political factors.
     Two  of  the most  significant  factors have  been the  sharp  increases
in the price of coal over the past few years and the increasingly restrictive
regulations on emissions of sulfur dioxide.  Additionally, the impending
substitution of increasing amounts of coal for gaseous and liquid fossil fuels
will demand enormous new tonnages of coal.  These demands cannot be wholly
satisfied by using only the best coals;  it will be necessary to rely increasingly
upon lower grade coals.
     Thus, coal cleaning, which  is already an  important link  in  the  utili-
zation of coal, especially of the lower  grades, will become increasingly
important.  Cleaning upgrades coal by removing both ash and S02-forming
constituents.  This reduces pollution from the combustion of coal, at the
potential expense of environmental pollution caused by the cleaning operation.
Accordingly, both economic and environmental benefits and costs associated
with the cleaning process need to be identified and assessed for decision-
                                    15

-------
making purposes.  The benefits and costs can be markedly influenced by the
quantities and characteristics of the pollutants emitted, as well as by the
type and extent of control technologies needed for control of these pollutants
Both benefits and costs increase as broader and more rigorous controls are
introduced.  In order to make critical benefit/cost judgments, criteria are
needed for rating the relative importance which should be placed on identifying
and controlling specific pollutants.
     The problems are several.  Almost every naturally occurring element
is found in coal at some detectable concentration.   However, the coal industry
heretofore has been so result-oriented and so marginally profitable that it
was never possible to generate the- needed research data base on pollutant emissio
from coal cleaning processes.  On the other side of the equation,  a similar
data gap exists with respect to environmental effects, so that it  is not yet
known which pollutants should be most controlled or how much control is
required.  The present investigation is designed to help answer some of these
questions.

                2.1  Basis for Environmental Assessment

     The fundamental criterion for evaluating the importance of any
pollutant is the relationship between its expected environmental concentration
and the maximum concentration which presents no hazard to man or biota on a
continuous long-term basis.  This threshold concentration is designated as the
estimated permissible concentration (EPC).
    While simply stated, this concept represents a rather complex utili-
zation of a number of subcriteria dealing with specific phases of  the overall
problem:
          •  Selecting those environmental pollutants of
             most concern
          •  Selecting methods for estimating environmental
             concentrations of pollutants resulting from
             coal cleaning
          •  Selecting methods for evaluating the EPC's for
             man and biota.
                                    16

-------
                2.2  Approach to Environmental Assessment

     The pollutants selected for consideration include those which have
already been identified as pollutants of concern and whose presence in coal
cleaning processes is known or highly suspected.  Such a list is large, and
further selection is needed to derive a list with a manageable number of
candidates.  Substances already identified and designated by EPA as pollutants
are almost automatic candidates for consideration.
     The  criteria for selecting methods for estimating environmental
concentrations of pollutants are relatively straightforward.  Numerous models
have been developed for estimating air and water concentrations resulting
from emissions from point sources and for transport and diffusion through
the physical environment.  Thus, the problem is to select the most suitable
model or combination of models.
     The basic criterion for an EPC of a potentially hazardous pollutant
is that this concentration shall not adversely affect man or biota upon
continuous long-term exposure.  These are, thus, threshold concentrations,
even lower than the TLV's (threshold limit values) suitable for workroom
atmospheres.  Unfortunately, very few dose/response data at threshold concen-
trations are available for the pollutants of concern in coal cleaning
processes.  Available data are, characteristically, for acute or chronic
exposures, and hardly ever for man.  Conversion of such data to EPC's poses
some major problems, which have not yet been totally overcome.  More work in
this area is badly needed.
                                    17

-------
                    3.0  POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS
                          AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

      The  extent  of  the universe of potential  pollutants  for  this  study de
 on  the  boundaries adopted for coal cleaning processes.   The  definiti
 boundaries  has evolved during the conduct  of  this  studv   Tm'n'nii    .
                                                      j •  j-ii-LLiaiiy ,  the uni-
 verse was taken  to  include pollutants  generated during the combustio   f
 in  coal-fired power plants and the burning of coal refuse piles   n H
 interpretation,  the myriad organics formed by the  combustion of ™ai  •
                                                              UL coai  in oxygen-
 deficient regimes (coking-type reactions)  were included  as representative
 gob-pile  burning.   These  numbered in the hundreds; over  800  compounds have  been
 identified  from  the coking of coal.  Many  different  pollutants have be
 tified  as being  associated with raw coal or with some segment of  the
 industry.   A number of lists  from various  sources, containing hundreds of
 ments and compounds, have been compiled  and were presented in Battelle'
 cleaning  technology overview  draft report.
      As a result of discussions  with the U.S.  EPA  Project Officer  the
 of  this subtask was subsequently redefined to include (1) only those  act' '  •
 directly  related to coal  cleaning,  handling,  transportation, and storage  and
 (2) a Priority 1 list  of  potential pollutants,  discussed later, which contains
 74  of the principal pollutants  of concern.

                          3.1   Universe of  Pollutants

 3.1.1  Pollutants of Concern

     The  original lists of potential pollutants, reproduced  in the technolo
overview  draft report    were based on a survey  of other experiment 1  •
tigations.  These studies had been performed by  different investigate
different objectives and different approaches, so  that there ar« ™ •    j.r
                                                              *• e Tna~]or differ-
ences in  the manner and format in which  the results are
                                                                    in some
                                      18

-------
cases, the approach was tnineralogical, i.e., individual minerals and mineral
classes were identified.  In others, where wet chemical analyses were performed,
pollutants were variously reported as oxides, in some other analytical conven-
tion, or, often, on an elemental basis.  Trace element analysis results,  by
either emission spectrography or spark source mass spectrography (SSMS),  report
only the element, giving no indication of the chemical form(s) present.
     Thus, one of the first tasks involved the reorganization and rational-
ization of the overlapping lists, particularly the organic compounds.  However,
even after the rationalization of the list of organic compounds, many hundreds
remained, only a fraction of which could be represented by "type" compounds
representative of the numerous subgroups.  Reexamination of the basic problem
led to the conclusion that the boundaries could and should be narrowed, to
eliminate pollutants that result from coking-type reactions.  Most of these
compounds will be present in only minute quantities, some not at all, in
oxidizing combustion gases, such as are encountered in thermal coal dryers or
in coal-fired power plants.
     Gob-pile burning is not an intrinsic operation in coal cleaning; rather,
it is symptomatic of mismanagement of refuse piles.  The simple solution, which
eliminates a need to consider the related complex organic compounds, is preven-
tion of such burning.
     The pollutants directly associated with the cleaning of coal are primarily
inorganic compounds associated with the ash fraction.  Water will be the
principal receptor of these pollutants.  Operations causing major emissions of
air pollutants are infrequent in the cleaning of coal.  The largest air
emissions will include fugitive dust from coal handling and transfers, and
particulates and combustion products from thermal dryers.
     As the investigation progressed, it became clear that it would be advan-
tageous to develop a relatively small list of pollutants of most interest for
the first-phase effort.  The original goal was a list of 50 or less; as the
list was created, it seemed advisable to slightly exceed this number, and the
final list contains 74 entries.
     For the first phase, a logical criterion for selection was to define
Priority 1 pollutants as those that already have been identified as pollutants
of concern and whose presence in finite concentrations in coal cleaning
processes is known or suspected.  The chemical substances on this list were

                                      19

-------
 drawn  from a  number  of  sources,  including:
                                        (2  3)
     •  EPA criteria pollutants  for  air   '
     *  Pollutants identified  by effluent  guidelines  for
                                         (4  5)
         coal  mining  and coal preparation  '
     •  Substances included in EPA "Quality Criteria  for Water"(
     •  Toxic and hazardous pollutants  listed  by  EPA  which may
                                          (7 8^
         be associated with coal  cleaning.   '
     In  addition to  these specific pollutants,  a  number of more general non-
 chemical pollutants  and aggregated pollutant parameters were  included  in  the
 list.  The proposed  list, shown  in Table 3-1,  includes 51 elements and 23
 chemical substances  or  aggregated pollutant parameters.  The  selection of
 elements was  based on a number of factors,  including  their recognition by EPA
 as pollutants to be  regulated, their elemental  group, their abundance  in  coal,
 and  the  availability of information  on  toxicity,  abundance, fractionation
 factors, etc.
     The elements selected and their relationship to  the rest of those in the
 periodic table are shown in Figure 3-1;  the  omitted elements  are shaded.  The
 following elemental  groups, or portions  thereof,  were omitted for the  reasons
 shown:
     •  Hydrogen                                       Not applicable
     •  Group  IIIB,  except lanthanum                  Low abundance;
         which will represent the group                 low toxicity
     •  Group  VIIIA,  fixed gases                      Not applicable
     •  Group  VIII,  all precious metals                Low abundance;
                                                       low toxicity
     •   All lanthanides, except  lanthanum              Low abundance;
                                                       low toxicity
     •   All actinides,  except  uranium and              Not applicable
         thorium
     •   All other radioactive  elements,  i.e.,          Not applicable;
         technetium,  radium                             low abundance
     •   All elements above atomic  number 57,           Low abundance;
         except mercury,  thallium,  lead,                little information
         uranium, and thorium
While  the selection  rules may be somewhat arbitrary, the elements selected
are judged to  include those of greatest priority.  Other elements and substances
not listed should not be considered as nonhazardous but as falling in a lower
                                      20

-------
TABLE 3-1.   PROPOSED PRIORITY 1 POLLUTANTS FOR COAL CLEANING PROCESSES
Elements
Aluminum
An t imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbon
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine

Chromium
Cobalt

Copper
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Indium
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
(a)
Specific Pollutant Limitations
ABCDEFGH

X X
X XXX
X X X
X XX
X X
X
X X X X
X



XTJ-
/i \ A
(hi
X(M X X X
x(
(b)
X^ / V V
A A
X



X
X X

X XX

fa)
Specific Pollutant Limitations
Elements ABCDEFGH
Magnesium
Manganese XXX
Mercury X X X X X
Molybdenum X
Nickel X XX
Niobium
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Phosphorus X
Potassium
Rubidium
Selenium X XX
Silicon

Silver X
Sodium

Strontium
Sulfur
Tellurium X
Thallium X
Thorium
Tin
Titanium X
Uranium X
Vanadium X
Zinc X XXX

-------
                                         TABLE  3-1.   (Continued)
Elements
Specific Pollutant Limitations
   ABCDEFGH
                                            (a)
   Elements
Specific Pollutant Limitations
    ABCDEEGH
                                                                                               (a)
Zirconium
Groupings
      X
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Cyanide
Chlorides
Nitrates
Sulfides
Sulfates
SO
NOX
X
X



X X
X X

X X
X
X

X


X
X
X X
X




Total Suspended
   Solids  (TSS)

Total Dissolved
   Solids  (TDS)
Chemical  Oxygen
   Demand  (COD)
Total Suspended
   Partic.  (TSP)  X
Carbon  Dioxide
Carbon  Monoxide  X
       X
       X
                                               Organic Nitrogen
                                                 Compounds
                                               Polycyclic Organic
                                                 Materials  (POM's)
                                               Carbon Chloroform
                                                 Extract  (CCE)
(a)   Column headings are defined as follows:

     A.   National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
           Standards^2)
     B.   OSHA Standards for Workroom Air Contaminants'
     C.   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
           Pollutants(7)
     D.   New Stationary Source Performance Standards
           (Coal Preparation Plants)^)           ,  .
     E.   Interim Drinking Water Regulations  (EPA)          ,..,,
     F.   EPA Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards (Proposed)
     G.   EPA Toxic Pollutant List<8)(See Table  3-8)
     H.   EPA Water Quality Criteria (Proposed - not
           regulations)("'

(b)   Metal as fume or dust.
                                                                                                                  (9)
 Hydrocarbons
 Photochemical
   Oxidants
 Oil and Grease
 Phenols
 Organic Sulfur
   Compounds
                         X
                         X

-------
GROUP
  IA
                                                                                                       VIIIA
                                         9m
                        mmsmm
       Selected Elements

       Omitted Elements

                   FIGURE 3-1.  ILLUSTRATION OF RELATIONSHIP OF ELEMENTS SELECTED FOR PRIORITY
                               1 POLLUTANT LIST TO THOSE  OMITTED

-------
priority class.  Also, some of the 51 elements now included may be dropped
later on the basis of insignificant abundance or lack of sufficient
mation for analysis and evaluation.
     The remaining 23 entries on the proposed Priority 1 list co
number of substances (e.g., sulfur dioxide) defined statutorily as a criteria
air pollutant, as well as aggregated pollutant parameters (e.g., total
pended solids), also defined as a pollutant in effluent guidelines ^
many pollutants of the latter type may be found in variable and undefin bl
mixtures, there may be insufficient information to Denrvft- i-ho-»  «.
                                                   fciuu.i. cneir treatment in a
rigorous fashion.
     Table 3-1 also indicates where existing and proposed standards and criteria
are judged to have application to coal cleaning processes, based in
Cleland and Kingsbury's recent draft report of key Federal regulation  ^12^
Column H indicates water quality criteria recently issued by EPA^
will achieve the status of regulations when they are ultimately adopted by the
states as part of their implementation plans.  Column G in Table 3-1
elements included in the recent "Toxic Pollutant List" published by EPA ^
     Although  the Priority 1 list satisfies the requirement of a manageable
list containing the important pollutants expected from coal pi0o«-»
                                                            <-j.eaning processes,
there appeared to be a need for an even more abbreviated list suitabl
preliminary testing of some of the concepts and approaches to environment
assessment.  To meet this need, an abbreviated "short list" has been
which includes the following chemical pollutants:
          Arsenic                     Manganese
          Beryllium                   Selenium
          Cadmium                     Sulfate sulfur
          Iron                        Sulfur dioxide
          Mercury                     Nitrate nitrogen
          Lead                        Nitrogen oxides
This list, which includes both air and water pollutants, is suitable for the
evaluation of chemical and physical transport models, as well as estimated
emissions and permissible concentrations.
     When the data base on Priority 1 pollutants is complete, it is reco
that a Priority 2 list of pollutants be selected for further consideration
Such pollutants, by definition, would be of lesser importance and conce
                                     24

-------
the basis of today's knowledge of estimated environmental concentrations and
estimated permissible concentrations.  Such a list may include part or all
of the pollutants initially identified as being in the universe of potential
pollutants.
     Compilation and analysis of data on the Priority 2 pollutants probably
will result in the upgrading of a few to the lower end of the Priority 1
group, with the rest assigned to the category of less important pollutants.

3.1.2  Pollutants in Coals

     The importance of a pollutant- is a function not only of its toxicity but
also of its abundance.  Thus, the quantities of the pollutants cited above in
coal are an important parameter.  Unfortunately, there is no simple measure of
abundance; the composition of coals varies greatly, not only from region to
region, but also from seam to seam and within a seam.  Thus, analysis and
comparison demand recourse to averages and ranges about those averages.  Probably
the most complete and definitive investigation of  the analyses of coals
has been the work of  Ruch, Gluskoter, et al., at the Illinois State Geological
Survey.   '  '  This group has analyzed, in considerable detail, hundreds of
U.S. coal samples, not only from the Illinois Basin, but elsewhere.  Summaries
of their analyses of 165 coal samples from three regions are presented in Table
3-2.  It is apparent that the concentrations of some pollutants range tremen-
dously, from sample to sample.  The inclusion of a few exceptionally high values
will severely bias an arithmetic mean.  Thus, although both arithmetic and
geometric means were reported, geometric means are regarded as better measures
of the central value and are shown here.  Also, as pointed out by Gluskoter,
et al.,     the geometric mean more closely approximates the value that would
be expected in an unknown sample.
     The geometric mean concentrations listed in Table 3-3 for the eight
elements on the Priority 1 "short list" are illustrative.  Even though there
are fairly large variations, the order of magnitude is consistent, suggesting
that these averages are suitable for generic, non-site-specific environmental
assessments.
                                     25

-------
TABLE 3-2.  MEAN ANALYTICAL VALUES FOR ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATION IN
            COAL SAMPLES FROM VARIOUS REGIONS^)
Illinois Basin^
Geometric
Element Mean, ppm
Aluminum 12
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium 5
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Europium
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Hafnium
Indium
Iodine
,000
0.81
7.4
75
1.6
98
10
0.6
,100
12
1.2
800
16
6.0
13
1.0
0.25
63
3.0
4.8
0.49
0.13
1.2
Iron 19,000
Lanthanum
Lead
Lutetium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon 23,
Silver
6.4
15
0.08
500
40
0.16
6.2
19.
45

17
1.1
2.5
2.0
000
0.03
Range, ppra
Minimum Maximum
4,300 30,000
0.1
1.0
5.0
0.5
12
0.6
0.1
100 27
4.4
0.5
100 5
4.0
2.0
5.0
0.5
0.1
29
0.8
1.0
0.13
0.01
0.24
4,500 41
2.7
0.8
0.02
100 1
6.0
0.03
0.3
7.6
10

2.0
0.4
1.2
0.4
8.9
120
750
4.0
230
52
65
,000
46
3.6
,400
60
34
44
3.3
0.9
140
10
43
1.5
0.43
14
,000
20
220
0.44
,700
210
1.6
29
68
340

46
3.8
7.7
7.7
5,800 47,000
0.02
0.08
Appalachian Coals
Geometric
Mean, ppm
16,000
1.1
15
170
1.1
28
8.9
0.19
3,400
23
1.6
1,000
18
7.6
16
2.0
0.47
84
5.2
0.87
1.1
0.22
1.4
13,000
14
4.7
0.18
500
12
0.17
1.8
14
81
21.80
19
2.4
4.5
3.4
26,000
0.02
Range , ppm
Minimum Maximum
11,000 31,000
0.25
1.8
72
0.23
5.0
0.71
0.10
900 26
11
0.4
100 8
16
1.5
5.1
0.7
0.16
50
2.9
0.1
0.6
0.13
0.33
500 26
6.1
1.0
0.04
200 1
2.4
0.05
0.10
6.3
7.7
100
420
2.6
120
26
0.6
,000
42
6.2
,000
90
33
30
3.5
0.9
150
11
6
2.2
0.37
4.9
,000
23
18
40
,500
61
0.47
22
28
15 1,500

9.0
0.9
1.6
1.1

63
4.3
9.3
8.1
10,000 63,000
0.01
0.06
Western Coals (c)
Geometric
Mean , ppm
8,800
0.45
1.5
450
0.35
48
2.1
0.15
15,000
9.1
0.16
200
8.1
1.5
8.5
0.57
0.16
57
2.1
0.5
0.7
0.07
0.46
4,900
4.5
2.6
0.05
1,200
28
0.07
0.59
4.4
82
300
2.4
0.56
1.5
1.3
13,000
0.02
Range, ppm
Minimum Maximum
3,100 22,000
0.18
0.34
160 1
0.10
16
0.5
0.10
440 38
2.8
0.02
100 l
2.4
0.6
3.1
0 22
0.07
19
0.8
0.10
0.26
0.01
0.20
3,000 12
1.8
0.7
0.01
300 3
1.4
0.02
0.10
1.5
10
100 3
0.3
0.22
0.50
0.40
3,800 47
0.01
3.5
9.8
,600
1.4
140
25
0.60
,000
30
3.8
,300
20
7
23
1.4
0.80
140
6.5
3.0
1.3
0.25
1.0
,000
13
9.0
0.43
,900
220
0.63
30
18
510
,200
29
1.4
4.5
2.7
,000
0.07
                                26

-------
                            TABLE 3-2.   (Continued)
Illinois Basin(a)
Element
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantalum
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Zinc
Zirconium
Geometric
Mean , pptn
300
30
34,000
0.14
0.18
0.59
1.9
0.94
600
0.63
1.3
2.9
0.53
87
41
Range, ppm
Minimum Maximum
2
10
5,600 64
0.07
0.04
0.12
0.71
0.2
200 1
0.04
0.31
11
0.27
10 5
12
,000
130
,000
0.3
0.65
1.3
5.1
51
,500
4.2
4.6
90
1.5
,300
130
Appalachian Coals
Geometric
Mean, ppm
300
100
19,000
0.26
0.28
_
4.0
0.97
900
0.62
1.3
35
0.73
19
41
Western Coals (c)
Range, ppm Geometric
Range, ppm
Minimum Maximum Mean, pp Minimum
100
28
5,500
0
0
-
1
0
500
0
0
14
0
2
8


50
.12
.06

.8
.2
1
.22
.40

.18
.0
.0
800
550
,000
1.1
0.63
_
9.0
8.0
,600
1.2
2.9
73
1.4
120
88
600
220
7,000
0.12
0.17
_
1.8
0.43
500
0.58
0.99
12
0.34
5.0
26
100
93
3,400
0.
0.
_
0.
0.
200
0.
0.
4.
0.
0.
12
Maximum


19
04
06

62
10
1
13
30
8
13
30

600
500
,000
0.33
0.58
—
5.7
15
,300
3.3
2.5
43
0.78
17
170
(a)   114 Samples
(b)   23 Samples
(c)   28 Samples.
                                          27

-------
  TABLE 3-3.  GEOMETRIC MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF EIGHT ELEMENTS IN COAL(14^
Concentration, ppm

Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Illinois
Basin
7.4
1.6
0.6
19,000
15
40
0.16
2.0
Appalachian
15
1.1
0.19
13,000
4.7
12
0.17
3.4
Western
1.5
0.35
0.15
4900
26
28
0.07
1.3
     Another factor needing consideration,  however,  is the fact that coal dust
appears to be significantly enriched in inorganic constituents compared to
coal, as suggested by Blackwood and Wachter.       They compared the analysis
(by spark source mass spectrometry) of a "typical" coal with that of particu-
late matter from personal samplers carried by coal miners, considered to repre-
sent the dust in the interior of a mine.  It is assumed that the samples were
from comparable coals, although this is not explicitly stated in the original
report.      As shown by Table 3-4, the concentrations of almost all elements
were greater in the respirable dust fractions than  in coal, in some instances
by large  factors.

                3.2 Federal and State  Standards  and Criteria
      One aspect of this study was a summarization of Federal and state regula-
 tions governing pollution resulting from activities associated with coal
 cleaning, transportation, storage, and handling.  This scope, as defined, was
 considered to include the combustion of coal as a fuel, but not the conversion
 of coal to coke or other liquid or gaseous fuels.  Also, the investigation
 focused on pollution, per se, and hence excluded other regulations which may
 impinge upon coal cleaning processes, such as those governing health and
 safety standards for the work place environment or the quality of community
 drinking water supplies.  Some of these other regulations are discussed  in
 several  recent reports.   '
      Pollution regulations with  direct  influence on coal cleaning  activities
 were discussed in an earlier preliminary  report on the development of  environ-
                                       28

-------
TABLE 3-4.  CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE METALS IN
            COAL AND COAL
Concentration, pptn
Element
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Bismuth
Bromine
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluorine
Gallium
Germanium
Iodine
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Neodymium
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Praseodymium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Coal
Major
0.30
69
0.20
0.30
42
0.19
4,000
13
130
4.5
2.3
25
5.7
8.7
0.33
0.20
1,600
5.8
3.9
4,500
30
3.0
8.3
2.7
20
380
410
4.7
3.0
1.7
1.3
0.32
Major
0.22
Coal Dust
283,000
26.4
453
7.50
11.3
3.30
3.80
13,200
45.3
230
170
11.3
868
1.90
68.0
18.9
3.80
79,200
22.6
26.4
792
45.3
15.1
45.3
755
7.60
306
16,600
11.1
7.60
3.80
30.2
7.60
294,000
7.60
Concentration, ppm
Element Coal Coal Dust
Sodium 5,000 755
Strontium 100 291
Sulfur 6,100 3,130
Tellurium 0.25 3.80
Titanium 620 15,800
Uranium 1.9 2.26
Vanadium 12 166
Yttrium 7.7 7.60
Zinc 10 415
Zirconium 76 60.4

























                      29

-------
mental assessment  criteria,     which was  subsequently  updated.      However,
pollution  regulations  frequently  change, and both  of  the  above summaries are
already  out of date.   By  the same token, pending and  foreseeable developments
further  regulating pollution will probably make portions  of  the following
discussion obsolete within the next  six months to  a year.
      The following Federal Acts  constitute the primary  regulatory  authority
governing  pollution  from  activities  associated with  coal  cleaning  processes.
      Air Pollution
           Clean  Air Act of 1970              (P.L.  91-604)
           Energy Supply and Environmental
            Coordination  Act of  1974        (P.L.  93-319)
           Clean  Air Act Amendments
            of 1977                          (P.L.  95-95)
      Water Pollution
           Federal  Water Pollution Control
            Act  Amendments of 1972          (P.L.  92-500)
           Clean  Water  Act of 1977           (P.L.  95-217)
      Solid Waste
           Solid  Waste  Disposal Act
            of 1965                          (P.L.  89-272)
           Resource Recovery Act of 1970      (P.L.  91-512)
           Resource Conservation and
            Recovery Act  of 1976             (P.L.  94-580)
     All of the  above  Acts are administered and enforced by  the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection  Agency  and are  embodied  in Title 40 of  the Code of Federal
Regulations.
     The applicability of the provisions of these Acts  to coal cleaning will
be discussed in  the following sections.  The discussion will not include
other Federal Acts which  at this  time are  only potentially applicable.
For instance, the  Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-469), enacted in
1976, instructs  the EPA Administrator to use other Federal laws to protect
against the risks  of toxic substances, unless it is in the public interest
to use TSCA.   While the possibility exists of adopting this alternative to
control coal cleaning pollutants  classified as toxic substances, it is
regarded as slight.
                                      30

-------
     The discussion will also contain some general mention of state
pollution regulations.  State regulations are generally written or amended
to incorporate, as a minimum, the provisions of the Federal laws.  In some
instances, state regulations are more stringent than are the Federal regula-
tions.  The states are usually required to submit implementation plans for
EPA approval outlining how Federal standards will be met and specifying a
reasonable time frame for implementing those standards.  This state certifi-
cation  procedure  is  essentially  complete  for air pollution, well underway
for water pollution,  and just beginning for solid wastes.

3.2.1  Air Pollution Regulations

     3.2.1.1  Federal.  The development and implementation of air pollution
controls has been approached in two different ways by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Emission standards regulate the quantities of pollutants emitted from sources;
ambient air quality standards regulate the concentrations of pollutants in the
atmosphere.

     3.2.1.1.1  Ambient Air Quality Standards.  The U.S. EPA, under Section 109
of the  Clean Mr Act, has established national primary and secondary ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS), which regulate pollutant levels in order to
protect, respectively, human health and public welfare (property and plant
and animal life).  ^
     Implementation is the responsibility of the individual states, under a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) which must be approved by EPA.  Also, the
permissible levels for certain named pollutants (criteria pollutants) are
established by EPA and must not be exceeded in the SIP.  Some of these
"criteria pollutants" arise mainly from motor vehicles.  Those of interest to
coal cleaning processes  (total suspended particulates, sulfur oxides, and
nitrogen oxides)  arise from stationary sources and are generated mainly from
coal combustion.  Current national ambient air quality standards for the
criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 3-5.
                                                                                 (3)
     A  national ambient air quality standard for lead has just been promulgated.

                                      31

-------
          TABLE 3-5.  NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
                              Averaging Period
                                             Permissible
                                           Concentration,
                                             yg/m3  (ppm)
                                        Primary    Secondary
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Photochemical
  oxidants
Annual Geometric mean

Max. 24-hr concentration, not to be
  exceeded more than once per year

Annual arithmetic mean
Max. 24-hr concentration, not to be
  exceeded more than once per year

Max. 3-hr concentration, not to be
  exceeded more than once per year

Max. 8-hr concentration, not to be
  exceeded more than once per year

Max. 1-hr concentration, not to be
  exceeded more than once per year

Max. 3-hr (6-9 a.m.) concentration,
  not to be exceeded more than once
  per year
Annual arithmetic mean

Max. 4-hr concentration

Max. 1-hr concentration, not to be
  exceeded more than once per year
   75

  260
   80
 (0.03)

  365
 (0.14)
   10
   (9)
   40
  (35)

 160
(0.24)
Nitrogen dioxide   Annual arithmetic mean
 160
(0.08)

 100
(0.05)
   60

  150
   60
 (0.02)

  260
 (0.1)

 1300
 (0.5)

   10
   (9)
   40
  (35)

 160
 (0.24)
 160
(0.08)

 100
(0.05)
                                       32

-------
This is designed to regulate emissions from the nonferrous metals  industry
and the combustion of leaded gasoline and will have no effect upon coal
cleaning processes.

     3.2.1.1.2  New Source Performance Standards.  In accordance with Section
III of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to compile a list of categories of
emission sources that may contribute significantly to air pollution and to
establish Federal standards of performance for new and modified stationary
sources in such categories.  Unlike the ambient air quality standards, these
standards of performance are not based on the effects of pollutants on public
health and welfare, but on "the degree of emission limitation achievable through
the application of the best system of emission reduction which  (taking into
account the cost of achieving such reduction) the Administrator determines
has been adequately demonstrated."*   Agency  terminology  for  this  is  Best
Available Control  Technology  (BACT).
     Regulations have now been promulgated for over 25 types of sources.  The
foremost category  on the list is fossil-fuel-fired stationary sources; many
provisions of the  Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 are aimed specifically at
such sources, and  the restrictions applied are much more rigorous than in the
past.  Where the original New Source  Performance Standard  (NSPS)  for large
(>250 million Btu/hr heat input), coal-fired boilers permitted  the emission of
1.2 Ib SO-/million Btu, the 1977 Amendments specify, in addition, that the
revised NSPS "...shall reflect the degree of emission limitation  and the per-
centage reduction  achievable  through  application of the best technological
system of continuous emission reduction...", i.e., a percentage reduction
will be required rather than maintenance of emissions below an  upper limit.
The criteria are tempered by  the usual energy, cost, and environmental impact
considerations.  Also, credit may be  taken for any cleaning of  the fuel or
reduction in the pollution characteristics of the fuel after extraction and
before combustion.
     The 1977 Amendments require the  promulgation of regulations  not later
than one year after the date  of enactment, i.e., by August 7, 1978.  However,
framing of the  regulations is behind  schedule.  Proposed  regulations
 *   It  should be noted  that  the  setting  of NAAQS provides the justification
    for setting emission  standards  for these pollutants.
                                       33

-------
 were published for comment  on September  19,  1978.       The  proposed  standards
 for solid  fuels would  continue  to  limit maximum SC^  emissions  to  1.2 lb/
 million Btu,  and,  additionally,  uncontrolled S02 emissions  would be  required
 to  be reduced by  85  percent (on  a daily  basis).  For  three  days per  month
 a  75 percent  reduction  requirement  would apply, providing some  allowance for
 system variance.
      A key provision in the proposed  S0» standards  is that  exemptions would not
 be  allowed for malfunctions.   Suggested  compliance  alternatives include installa-
 tion of spare FGD  modules,  derating of steam generators, or temporary shutdown
 and satisfaction  of  electric  demand from other sources.
      The proposed  particulate emission standard would be reduced from the
 present 0.1 Ib/million  Btu  to 0.03  Ib/million Btu,  and uncontrolled  particulate
 matter emissions would  have to be reduced by 99 percent.  These proposed
 emission standards are  based  on  emission levels achievable  with electrostatic
 precipitators (ESP)  and baghouses.
      Proposed NO   emission  standards  for bituminous coals are decreased to
                X
 0.6 Ib/million Btu from the present 0.7  lb limit, with the  additional require-
 ment  of a  65  percent  reduction from uncontrolled emissions, although the percent
 reduction  would not be  controlling.
      Since the proposed NSPS  apply  only  to electric utility steam  generating
 units  larger  than  250 million Btu/hr  heat input, no boilers employed in coal
 cleaning activities will be affected  by  these new standards.  On the other
 hand,  many, if not most, of the  utility  users of coal  use boilers  of this size
 or  larger.  Thus,  depending somewhat  on  the  S02 regulations finally  promulgated,
 the revisions  to  the NSPS for fossil  fuel boilers are  likely to have a signifi-
 cant,  but  indirect, impact  upon  coal  cleaning.  The role of coal cleaning in
 the utilization of coal  undoubtedly will be  influenced materially, although
 in what way is  as  yet unclear.   The percentage reductions required are unlikely
 to be  achievable by coal cleaning alone, so  that some  supplemental form of S02
 removal probably will be required.  On the other hand,  the  converse  may also
 be  true, especially on  high-sulfur  coals, so  that coal  cleaning may  be tech-
 nically desirable  (and  possibly  also  economically advantageous) to supplement
 flue gas desulfurization.   Additionally, coal cleaning offers a non-capital-
 intensive option for significantly  reducing  S02^emissions from the generally
 smaller industrial boilers,  for which emission regulations  have not  yet been
proposed.                             _,

-------
     New source performance standards which are directly applicable to coal
cleaning processes are those for new and modified coal preparation plants and
handling facilities.  Processes covered include thermal dryers, pneumatic
coal cleaning equipment (air tables), coal processing and conveying equipment
(including breakers and crushers), coal storage systems (except for open
storage piles) and coal transfer and loading systems (including barge loading
                                                             C4>
facilities).  [Although the regulations in 40 CFR Part 60.250^ ' do not
specify their application other than to coal preparation plants, the explanatory
discussion in the promulgation announcement (41 Federal Register 2232, January
15, 1976) also included other sources which handle large amounts of coal,
such as power plants, coke ovens, etc.]
     Limitations set by these NSPS, applicable to all coal preparation or
handling facilities processing more than 200 tons/day, include:
     •  Emissions from thermal dryers may not exceed 0.070 g/dscm
        (0.031 gr/dscf) and 20 percent opacity.
     •  Emissions from pneumatic coal cleaning equipment may not
        exceed 0.040 g/dscm (0.018 gr/dscf) and 10 percent opacity.
     •  Emissions from any coal processing and conveying equipment,
        coal storage system, or coal transfer and loading system
        processing coal (nonbituminous as well as bituminous coal)
        may not exceed 20 percent opacity.

     3.2.1.1.3  Hazardous Pollutant Emission Standards.  The atmospheric
emission of several hazardous pollutants is already regulated under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act.  Two of these pollutants  (beryllium and mercury) are
found in coal, but not at levels such that their emission would be expected
to violate standards.  The establishment of regulations governing arsenic
emissions is now under consideration.  Other hazardous pollutants under
consideration include polycyclic organic matter  (POM) and lead, with uncertain
decision dates.  Except for POM's, emissions of the other hazardous pollutants
mentioned above in  concentrations likely to be affected by the  standards are
expected only from  sources other than fossil fuel combustion.
                                      35

-------
      3.2.1.1.4  Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.   A new
 Part C (Sections 160-169)  was incorporated into the Clean Air Act Amendments
 of 1977 for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of the  present
 ambient air quality.   Three land use classes are established, which are
 interpreted by EPA to have the following characteristics:
      •  Class I - little or no development
      •  Class II - scattered development
      •  Class III - concentrated or large-scale development.
 Classification in Class  I  is mandatory for National parks exceeding 6,000 acres
 in size and similar state  parks and wilderness  areas.   The verbiage is complex
 and involved, but the significant "fact with respect to  coal cleaning  processes
 is that any new source in  an area subject to the provisions of this section
 is to employ the Best Available Control Technology  for  each pollutant subject
 to regulation.   Consideration of the cost of achieving  such emission  reduction
 is not invoked as a factor.   Thus,  the best available control technology
 required for prevention  of significant deterioration must be  better than  NSPS.
 It is obvious that these are site-specific problems, and  that a uniform
 national standard will not be utilized.   Each proposed  new source will be
 considered  by the affected state on a case-by-case  basis,  under the state
 implementation plan.   The  Act provides for maximum  allowable  increases in  S07
 and particulates for  each  class of  area,  with the provision that  the  NAAQS
 shall not be exceeded.   Allowable pollutant increases are shown in  Table  3-6
 along with  national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards.

      3.2.1.1.5   Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas.  Section 169
 of  Part  C of  the 1977  Amendments  specifically addresses the national  goal set
 by  the Congress  of preventing any future  impairment  of  visibility and remedying
 any  existing  impairment  from man-made air pollution  in mandatory Class I Federal
 areas.  By August 7, 1979,  the  Administrator  shall promulgate  regulations to
 assure reasonable progress  toward meeting the national  goal.   The requirements
 include existing sources,  and may require  use of  the best  available retrofit
 technology.

      3.2.1.1.6  Nonattainment Areas,  The new Part D (Sections  171-178)  was
also incorporated into the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,  to address  alle-
                                     36

-------
             TABLE 3-6.  ALLOWABLE POLLUTANT INCREASES ABOVE
                         BASELINE CONCENTRATIONS
                                          Concentration, yg/m'
                               Class Area
                                 II
III
                      NAAQS
Primary
Secondary
Partlculate Matter
  Annual geometric mean      5   19     37

  24-hr maximum             10   37     75
                  75

                 260
                60

               150
Sulfur Dioxide
  Annual arithmetic mean     2   20     40

  24-hr maximum              5   91    182

   3-hr maximum             25  512    700
                  80

                 365
                60

               260

             1,300
                                     37

-------
viation of air pollution problems in areas where one or more air pollutants
exceed any national ambient air standard.  Theoretically, no new emission
source could be constructed in a nonattainment area.  Since this was judged
to be an impractical answer, the compromise solution was to require the
"lowest achievable emission rate" (LAER).  This is an even more restrictive
standard than the BACT specified for prevention of significant deterioration.
It includes either the most stringent emission limitation for such category
of source in any state implementation plan, or the most stringent emission
limitation actually achieved in practice, whichever is more stringent.  In
no event shall it be less restrictive than the NSPS for that category of
source.  Like prevention of significant deterioration, this is to be imple-
mented by the individual states through the state implementation plans on a
case-by-case basis.  A key provision is that the states are to continue
"reasonable further progress" in achieving annual incremental reductions of
the applicable air pollutant, including such reduction in emissions from
existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT).
     The above is part of the so-called "offset" approach, wherein existing
emissions are reduced to permit addition of a new source, with the additional
constraint that an overall decrease should be shown.
     In general, designation as a nonattainment area means that an applicable
SIP must be revised to provide for the attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously
as possible.  The revised SIP must require permits for the construction and
operation of major (>250 T/yr emission of any pollution) new and modified
stationary sources, and must contain a prohibition against major new source
construction where emissions would contribute to increases in pollutants for
which a NAAQS was being exceeded.
     The U.S. EPA has published a list of the NAAQS attainment status of all
                        (21)
areas within each state.      This list is revised from time to time.

     3.2.1.2  State.   Although the U.S. EPA promulgates national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS), states have the privilege of establishing more
stringent standards.   Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have
ambient air quality standards for one or more pollutants that are more strin-
gent than the NAAQS.   Ten  of the 19 states with coal preparation plants have

                                     38

-------
ambient air quality standards (AAQS)  that are more stringent  than  the  Federal
standards.
     Since the concentrations of nitrogen oxides and pollutants other  than
sulfur oxides and particulates (for which AAQS exist) are only marginally
related to the quality of coal prepared or burned, emphasis has been placed
on the standards for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (total  suspended
particulates).  Those states with more stringent AAQS are Alaska,  Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,  North
Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming,
     States are required to develop state implementation plans which,  on
approval by the U.S. EPA, specify how the NAAQS or their own state standards,
if more stringent, will be achieved within three years of the promulgation of
the SIP's.  The SIP's cover limitations on existing sources and, where appli-
cable, on new sources.  These plans employ different regulatory means  for
controlling pollutants from fuel-burning equipment.  SIP's exist for sulfur
dioxide, total suspended particulates, and nitrogen dioxide.
     In terms of new source performance standards, all new sources in regulated
industry categories must conform to emission limits set by the U.S. EPA, but
states are required to develop new source review procedures to ensure that all
new sources constructed do not violate NAAQS even if it involves facility
resiting or a total denial of a permit to construct a facility.

3.2.2  Water Pollution Regulations

     3.2.2.1  Federal.  There are  no  national ambient water  quality standards
analogous  to those for air; water pollution is  regulated nationally on the
basis of emissions, termed effluents  in the case of water.

     3.2.2.1.1  Effluent Guideline Limitations.  The enabling Act providing
the authority to establish effluent limitations is the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act  (FWPCA) Amendments of  1972 (P.L. 92-500).  Basic effluent limita-
tions for  existing sources have not been promulgated for numerous industries;
                                      39

-------
others have been challenged by the affected industries and are still in abey-
ance pending further development.  The FWPCA was further amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217).  Effluent guidelines presently are based on
the best practicable control technology currently available (BPCTCA),  which
was to have been achieved by July 1, 1977.  By July 1, 1983, effluent  limi-
tations were to have required the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BATEA).  The Clean Water Act of 1977 extended this
date a year to July 1, 1984.
     Effluent guidelines are also being promulgated for new sources.  These
new source performance standards are intended to be the most stringent
standards applied.
     Federal control of water pollution sources associated with coal prep-
aration and handling is achieved through the issuance of NPDES (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits to each discharger.  These
permits limit specific pollutants in the effluents.  Effluents from
coal cleaning are regulated as a part of the coal mining point source
category (40 CFR, Part 434), which defines a "coal preparation plant"  as a
facility where coal is crushed, screened, sized, cleaned, dried or other-
wise prepared and loaded for transit to a consuming facility.  The term
"associated areas" means the plant yards, immediate access roads, slurry
ponds, drainage ponds, coal refuse piles, and coal storage piles and
facilities.  Regulations have been divided into two groups, one for acidic,
and one for alkaline wastes.  Final regulations for BATEA effluent limita-
tions have not yet been promulgated.
     Regulations for existing plants    and proposed new source performance
         (22)
standards     are summarized in Table 3-7.

     3.2.2.1.2  Toxic Pollutants.  The Clean Water Act of 1977 introduced a
new requirement for the control of toxic pollutants, which must be limited
by the application of BATEA.  Pursuant to this act, the EPA Administrator
published a list of 65 toxic pollutants, shown in Table 3-8, for which
effluent standards are required.  This list of 65 toxic substances and
families of substances was identified in the consent decree between EPA
and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC).  Regulations previously
existed for six of the listed pollutants, but regulations have not yet been
                                    40

-------
         TABLE 3-7.  EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES FOR COAL
                     PREPARATION PLANTS(5>22)
Acidic Wastes Alkaline Wastes
Effluent
Characteristic
Daily 30-Day Daily
Maximum Average Maximum
30-Day
Average
Existing Sources
TSS, mg/1
Iron, total, mg/1
Manganese, total,
pH, daily range
TSS, mg/1
Iron, total, mg/1
Manganese, total,
pH, daily range
70.0
7.0
mg/1 4.0
6.0-9.0
New Source Performance
70.0
3.5
mg/1 4.0
6.0-9.0
35.0 70.0
3.5 7.0
2.0
6.0-9.0
Standards (c'd)
35.0 70.0
3.0 3.5
2.0
6.0-9.0
35.0
3.5
-

35.0
3.0
-

(a)   Excess water effluent from a facility designed to contain or treat the
     volume of water from the 10-year 24-hour precipitation event not subject
     to limitations.

(b)   pH may be slightly exceeded to achieve manganese limitation, up to 9.5

(c)   Proposed NSPS.

(d)   No discharge of pollutants from facilities which do not recycle waste
     water for use in processing.
                                    41

-------
            TABLE  3-8.  LIST OF  65 POLLUTANTS BEING CONSIDERED
                       FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
 1.  Acenaphthene                          36.
 2.  Acrolein                              37.
 3.  Acrylonitrile                         38.
 4.  Aldrin/Dieldrin*                      39.
 5.  Antimony and compounds                40.

 6.  Arsenic and compounds                 41.
 7.  Asbestos                              42.
 8.  Benzene                               43.
 9.  Benzidene*                    .        44.
10.  Beryllium and compounds               45.

11.  Cadmium and compounds                 46.
12.  Carbon tetrachloride                  47.
13.  Chlordane                             48.
14.  Chlorinated benzenes                  49.
15.  Chlorinated ethanes                   50.

16.  Chloroalkyl ethers                    51.
17.  Chlorinated naphthalene               52.
18.  Chlorinated phenols                   53.
19.  Chloroform                            54.
20.  2-chlorophenol                        55.

21.  Chromium and compounds                56.
22.  Copper and compounds                  57.
23,  Cyanides                              58.
24.  DDT and metabolites*                  59.
25.  Dichlorobenzenes                      60.

26.  Dichlorobenzidine                     61.
27.  Dichloroethylenes                     62.
28.  2,4-dichlorophenol                    63.
29.  Dichloropropane and dichloropropene   64.
30.  2,4-dimethylphenol                    65.

31.  Dinitrotoluene
32.  Diphenylhydrazine
33.  Endosulfan and metabolites
34.  Endrin* and metabolites
35.  Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Haloethers
Halomethanes
Heptachlor and metabolites
Hexachlorobutadiene

Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds

Naphthalene
Nickel and compounds
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols
Nitrosamines

Pentachloropheno1
Phenol
Phthalate esters
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's)*
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

Selenium and compounds
Silver and compounds
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium and compounds

Toluene
Toxaphene*
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Zinc and compounds
* Pollutants for which regulations have been promulgated.
                                      42

-------
promulgated for any of the other listed pollutants.   EPA has further identified
specific compounds, within the chemical classes in the published list,  to be
considered for effluent standards.  The thirteen elements in the published
list, and their compounds, should receive emphasis in the environmental
assessment of coal cleaning processes because of observed existence in coal.
However, none of the classes of organic chemicals in the list appears to have
significance as a pollutant from coal cleaning processes because they have
not been observed to exist in coal and have not been used as agents in coal
cleaning operations.

     3.2.2.1.3  Water Quality Criteria.  While ambient air quality standards
are set at the Federal level, water quality standards are primarily a state
responsibility.  The only existing Federal water quality standards are those
for drinking water, applicable to public (community) water supplies.  Maximum
contaminant levels in public water supplies have been set for the following
contaminants that are associated with coal and coal activities:  arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, fluoride, lead, mercury, nitrate, selenium, and
silver.
     Federal water quality criteria  (guidelines) have recently been revised
and expanded, and published by the U.S. EPA.   '  While these criteria do not
have direct regulatory application,  the states are expected to adopt these  in
implementing state water  quality regulations.  The criteria are two-fold.   In
one instance, the goal is water quality that will provide for the protection
and propagation of fish and other aquatic life and for recreation in and on
the water.  Criteria are  also presented for domestic water supply use.  These
suggested limits were used in this study in developing estimated permissible
concentrations  (EPC's) for the pollutants listed.

     3.2.2.2  State.  The situation  on control of water pollution by the
states  is analogous to that for air  pollution.  Emission standards  (effluent
guidelines) are established on a national level by EPA, but their implementa-
tion is regarded as a state responsibility.  The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972  (P.L. 92-500) provides for the reduction of
duplicate laws by delegating permit  issuance authority to the states.  Dele-
gation of authority takes place when a state demonstrates that it has  legal

                                     43

-------
 authority and  resources  to operate  the program as envisioned by that Federal
 law.   The States  of  Colorado,  Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Montana,
 North  Dakota,  Ohio,  Virginia,  Washington, and Wyoming are delegated NPDES-
 issuing  states.   The effluent  limitations vary among the delegated and non-
 delegated states.
     Water pollution control enforcement is based on effluent standards
 rather than  stream quality, and plant discharges must be within certain
 limits prescribed for each industry.  The objective of such control systems
 is  to  achieve  or  maintain ambient water quality standards which are primarily
 a state  responsibility.  If these are not achieved by compliance with effluent
 standards, more stringent limits may be applied.

 3.2.3  Solid Waste Regulations

     3.2.3.1  Federal.   Prior  to October 21, 1976, protection of the environ-
 ment from pollution  arising from the land disposal of solid wastes was provided
 by  the Solid Waste Disposal Act of  1965 (P.L. 89-272), as amended by the
 Resource Recovery Act of 1970  (P.L. 91-512),  Federal guidelines for the Land
                                                             (23)
 Disposal of  Solid Wastes are given  in Title 40 CFR, Part 241.   '
     Pursuant  to  Section 211 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as Amended in
 1970,  the guidelines are mandatory  for Federal agencies and are recommended
 to  state, interstate, regional, and local governmental agencies for use in
 their  solid  waste disposal activities.  However, these are only guidelines,
 and do not establish new standards, but set forth requirements and recommended
 procedures to  ensure that the  design, construction, and operation provide for
 environmentally acceptable land disposal site operations.  The thrust of Part
 241 is towards sanitary  and municipal wastes.  Mining wastes are essentially
 ignored.
     The management  of solid and hazardous wastes entered a new era on
 October 21,  1976, with passage of the comprehensive Resource Conservation and
 Recovery Act (RCRA)  of 1976 (P.L. 94-580).  Although this Act is not yet imple-
mented, it is already clear that the management of solid and hazardous wastes
will be revolutionized by the  specific regulations that are currently being
drafted by the U.S.  EPA.
                                    44

-------
     The introductory section of the Act describes the Federal role as one
of providing financial and technical assistance and leadership in the develop-
ment, demonstration, and application of new and improved methods of waste
management.  In practice, it appears that guidelines and regulations will be
developed by the U.S. EPA, for adoption and promulgation by the states, poss-
ibly in a fashion similar to the SIP's used for air pollution control.  The
individual states would enforce their adopted regulations.
     Some of the general provisions of the Act are:
     •  The U.S. EPA was to issue guidelines by October 21,
        1977, for defining sanitary landfills as the only
        acceptable land disposal alternative which can be
        implemented; open dumps are to be prohibited.
     •  By October 21, 1977, the U.S. EPA was to develop and publish
        suggested guidelines for solid waste management.
     •  By April 21, 1978, the U.S. EPA was to promulgate criteria
        for identifying hazardous waste; standards for generators
        and transporters; and standards for treatment, storage,
        and disposal of hazardous wastes.
     •  Permit programs are to be managed by the states under
        minimum guidelines provided by the U.S. EPA.
     •  Each regulation promulgated shall be reviewed and, where
        necessary, revised at least every three years.
     The development of specific regulations  is appreciably behind  schedule,
and discussion of possible requirements is, accordingly, unavoidably  specula-
tive.  However, it is evident that very great attention will be given to those
wastes classified as hazardous.  The criteria for  their identification and
classification have  not yet been proposed;  the boundaries  finally  selected will
have a major impact  upon waste management.   It is  presently uncertain whether
coal refuse  (and combustion ash) will be  classified as  non-hazardous  wastes,
which would avoid the most restrictive provisions  of  the Act.  In  the absence
of developed regulations, it is not possible  at this  time  to delineate either
the details of  its application or  its impact  upon  coal  cleaning.
     The Geological  Survey of the  U.S. Department  of  the Interior  has estab-
lished regulations for  the disposal  of wastes  from coal preparation plants
located on the  surface  of land associated with mining.      Preparation  is
defined as any  crushing,  sizing, cleaning,  drying, mixing, or  other processing
                                     45

-------
of coal to prepare it for market.  The operator is required to:
     "dispose of all waste resulting from the mining and preparation
     of coal in a manner designed to minimize, control, or prevent
     air and water pollution and the hazards of ignition and combustion."
Additionally, more specific requirements are given for waste pile construction,
covering, and revegetation, and for settling ponds.

     3.2.3.2  State.   A few states have solid waste disposal regulations
directly applicable to coal preparation or consumption.  The various states
have general regulations covering solid waste management, solid waste disposal,
and solid waste disposal areas (landfills, sanitary landfills, etc.).  Solid
wastes are not to be disposed of in a place or in a manner that will endanger
human health and plant or animal life or contribute to air pollution.  Disposal
areas are to be located to ensure the least possibility of contaminating
surface or ground waters.  The provisions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 will allow definitive guidelines to be established by
each state for the storage and disposal of solid wastes, including those
generated from coal preparation and consumption.
                                   46

-------
                             3.3  References
(1)   Min,  S.,  Tolle,  D.A.,  Holoman,  V.L.,  Grotta,  H.,  and Minshall,  C.W.,
     "Technology Overview of Coal Cleaning Processes and Environmental
     Controls",  Draft Report to U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,
     Battelle's  Columbus Laboratories (January,  1977).

(2)   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Code  of Federal  Regulations  40,
     Protection  of Environment,  Revised as of July 1,  1977, Office  of  the
     Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service,  General
     Services  Administration, Washington,  D.C. (1977),  Part 50,  "National
     Primary and Secondary Ambient- Air Quality Standards",  pp  3-33.

(3)   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, "National Ambient Air Quality
     Standard for Lead", Final Rules and Proposed Rulemaking,  43 FR 46246-
     46277 (October 5, 1978).

(4)   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations 40,
     Protection of Environment,  Revised as of July 1, 1977, Office of the
     Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service,  General
     Services Administration, Washington,  D.C. (1977), Part 60, Subpart Y,
     "Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants", pp 57-58.

(5)   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations 40,
     Protection of Environment,  Revised as of July 1, 1977, Office of the
     Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General
     Services Administration, Washington, D.C. (1977), Part 434, "Coal
     Mining Point Source Category", pp 685-689.

(6)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Quality Criteria for Water",
     EPA 440/9-76-023, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
     D.C., 501 pp  (1976).

(7)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations 40,
     Protection of Environment, Revised as of July 1,  1977, Office  of  the
     Federal Register, National Archives  and  Records Service, General
     Services Administration, Washington, D.C. (1977), Part 61, "National
     Emissions Standards for Hazardous Pollutants", pp 143-220.

(8)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  "Publication of Toxic Pollutant
     List", 43 FR 4108-4109, January  31,  1978.

(9)  U.S. Department of Labor,  Occupational  Safety and Health Administration,
     Code of Federal Regulations  29,  Labor,  Revised as of  July  1, 1977,
     Office of  the Federal Register,  National Archives and Records  Service,
     General Services Administration, Washington,  D.C.  (1977),  Part 1910,
     Subpart 2,  "Toxic and Hazardous  Substances",  pp  612-712.


                                     47

-------
 (10)   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  40,
       Protection  of  Environment,  Revised  as  of  July  1,  1977,  Office of the
       Federal Register, National  Archives  and Records Service, General
       Services Administration, Washington, D.C.  (1977), Part  141,  "National
       Interim Drinking Water Regulations", pp 169-182.

 (11)   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  "Proposed Toxic  Pollutant
       Effluent Standards",  38 FR  35388-35395  (December  27, 1973).

 (12)   Cleland, J. G.  and  Kingsbury, G.  L., "Summary  of  Key Federal
       Regulations and Criteria for  Multimedia Environmental  Control",
       Draft Report to U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,  Research
       Triangle Institute  (June, 1977),  132 pp + Appendix.

 (13)   Ruch, R. R., Gluskoter, H.  J., and Shimp, N. F.,  "Occurrence and Distri-
       bution of Potentially Volatile Trace Elements  in  Coal:  A Final
       Report", Environmental Geology Notes No.  72, Illinois  State  Geological
       Survey, Urbana, Illinois (August, 1974),  pp 41-50.

 (14)   Gluskoter, H.  J., Ruch, R.  R., Miller, W. G.,  Cahill, R. A., Dreher, G. B.,
       and Kuhn, J. K., "Trace Elements  in  Coal", EPA-600/7-77-064, Industrial
       Environmental  Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (1977),  163 pp.

 (15)   Blackwood, T.  R. and  Wachter,  R.  A., "Source Assessment:  Coal Storage
       Piles", Draft  Report  to U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Monsanto
       Research Corporation  (July, 1977), 96 pp.

 (16)   Brown, R., Jacobs, M. Y., and  Taylor, H. E., "A Survey of the Most Recent
       Applications of Spark Source Mass Spectrometry",  American Laboratory,
       4_, 29-40 (November 1972).

 (17)   Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., "Laws and Regulations
       Affecting Coal with Summaries  of Federal,  State,  and Local Laws and
       Regulations Pertaining to Air  and Water Pollution Control, Reclamation,
       Diligence, and Health and Safety", DOI/OMPRA/CL-76-01, Report to U.S.
       Department of  the Interior,  Office of Mineral Policy and Research
       Analysis (June, 1976), 200+ pp.

 (18)   Ewing, R. A.,  Tolle, D. A., Min, S., Raines, G. E., and Holoman, V. L. ,
       "Development of Environmental Assessment Criteria", Draft Preliminary
       Report to U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Battelle's Columbus
       Laboratories (April 8, 1977), 46 pp.

(19)   Battelle's Columbus Laboratories, "Environmental Assessment  of Coal
       Cleaning Processes", Draft Annual Report to U.S.  Environmental Protection
      Agency,  Vol. II (October, 1977).

(20)  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, "Electric Utility Steam Generating
      Units, Proposed Standards of Performance", 43 FR 42154-42184 (September
      19, 1978).
                                     48

-------
(21)   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, "National Ambient Air Quality
      Standards,  States Attainment Status", 43 FR 8962-9059 (March 3,  1978).

(22)  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, "Coal Mining Point Source
      Category",  41 FR 21380, April 26, 1977.

(23)  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations 40,
      Protection of Environment, Revised as of July 1, 1977, Office of the
      Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General
      Services Administration, Washington, D.C. (1977), Part 241, "Guidelines
      for the Land Disposal of Solid Wastes", pp 529-538.

(24)  U.S.  Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Code of Federal
      Regulations, 30 Mineral Resources, Revised as of July 1, 1977, Office
      of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General
      Services Administration, Washington, D.C. (1977), Part 211, "Coal-
      Mining Operating Regulations", pp 563-623.
                                     49

-------
            4.0  ESTIMATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS

     Eventually, emissions and environmental concentrations at coal cleaning
plants will be measured rather than estimated.  For the present, however,
it is necessary to estimate these concentrations using appropriate models.
The approaches to estimating emissions are described in Section 4.1,
followed by discussions of physical transport and dispersion (Section 4.2)
and ecological transport and distribution (Section 4.3).

                 4.1  Modeling of Pollutant Emissions

     By virtue of its origin, coal has been found to contain nearly every
naturally-occurring element.  The concentrations of these elements in coal
vary widely.  Many of these elements, e.g., arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
lead, and mercury are recognized as toxic substances.
     The various lists of potential pollutants described earlier (Section
3.1.1) identify those pollutants that may be of concern in coal cleaning,
provided that they are present and emitted above some yet undefined rate
of release and/or concentration.  The ranges of pollutant concentrations
characteristic of coals (Section 3.1.2) provide some information on their
presence but none on their possible emissions.  The first item needed to
estimate emissions is information on the process steps embodied in the
cleaning flowsheet (these are a "given").  Many alternatives and combinations
of alternatives are possible in crushing, sizing, and washing coal, and in
separating coal from refuse.  The actual combination of process elements
will influence the degree of pollutant emissions but not the kind.   Thus,
for purposes of developing assessment criteria and methodology, reasonable
approximations of a generic process flowsheet will suffice and are used in
this report.
                                    50

-------
4.1.1  Fractionation Factors

     The second item needed for estimating emissions is information on
"fractionation factors", i.e., the distribution of substances in raw coal
to another fraction or phase as the coal passes each process step.  Examples
are coal:refuse, in cleaning; and coal:ash and coal:atmosphere in combus-
tion.
     One way of classifying noncombustible components in coal is to
characterize the mineral matter as either "inherent" or "extrinsic, extra-
neous, or adventitious".  Inherent mineral matter is usually defined as
that portion of mineral matter originally combined with the coal.  '  It
cannot be detected petrographically or separated by physical methods.
These constituents would be considered as having a high "organic affinity".
Extrinsic or adventitious mineral matter is readily detected petrographi-
cally and more or less readily separated from coal.  It may have originated
during coal formation (syngenetic) or after the coal had formed  (epigenetic).
Extrinsic constituents would have a low "organic affinity".  The degree of
organic affinity is useful in predicting the  distribution of elements
between coal and refuse in coal cleaning.  The theoretical aspects of this
                                                                           (2)
have been examined by Zubovic and coworkers at the U.S. Geological Survey.
Zubovic postulated that trace metals in coal are present in the organic
phase as chelated metal organic complexes.  Metal ions with a high ratio
of ionic charge to ion radius would be the preferred species undergoing
complex formation and would have higher organic affinity.  Experimental data
supported the existence of such complex formations.
     There may be some correlation between the fractionation factor and the
ionic potential of the element.  Figure 4-1 plots fractionation factors
of trace elements, estimated from float-sink experiments, against ionic
potential (the ratio of ionic charge to ion radius for each element).
Although the data are somewhat scattered, there is a correlation between
the two parameters; i.e., the fractionation factors tend to increase as
the ionic potential increases.  The fractionation factors can be approxi-
mated as a function of the ionic strength, and they generally fall in the
range between the two straight lines drawn in Figure 4-1.  In Battelle's
                                     51

-------
                  5       6      7      8       9      10
                     Ionic Potential = |charge/radius|
14
15
FIGURE 4-1.  FRACTIONATION FACTOR VERSUS IONIC POTENTIAL

-------
preliminary draft report on development of environmental assessment
         (3)
criteria    , fractionation factor ranges were estimated for a number
of elements using this approach.  This approach may be useful for
estimating the upper and lower limits of the fractionation factors
for trace elements for which no experimental data are available.
However, it suffers from the fundamental fact that coals are not alike,
and an element may not be consistently associated with either the organic
or the inorganic fraction, from one coal to another.
     More useful than fractionation factors are empirical data based
on laboratory experiments.  Float-sink, or washability data, have been
                                             (4)
compiled for many coals.  Gluskoter, et al.,     have examined this
aspect of coals intensively, concentrating on Illinois Basin coals, but
also including numerous other Eastern coals.
     In one series of extensive washability tests of four Illinois Basin
coals, three Appalachian coals, and one Arizona coal, they found, not
surprisingly, that the Illinois coals were much more similar to each
other with regard to organic affinities than they were to coals from
other areas.  It was possible to make several generalizations for these
coals:
     •  Ge, Be, B, and Sb tended to have the highest organic
        affinities
     •  Zn, Cd, Mn, As, Mo, and Fe tended to have the lowest
        organic affirmities
     •  A number of metals including Co, Ni, Cu, Cr, and Se,
        were  intermediate in value, suggesting a partial
        contribution from sulfide minerals  in the coal,
        along with the presence of organometallic compounds
        that  contain these elements, or the presence of chelated
        species and/or adsorbed cations.
  The grouping of these elements is generally consistent with the
  ordering based on ionic  potential  (Figure  4-1).  Gluskoter, et al.,
  observed  that as Appalachian  and Arizona coals were included,  the number
  of generalizations possible decreased.
      They  classified  the elements  into four groups:
            Organic                          Intermediate-inorganic
            Intermediate-organic             Inorganic.
                                     53

-------
The "organic affinity" indices separating the groups varied from coal
to coal; similarly, some elements occasionally shifted from one group
to the next.  It is clear that no hard and fast grouping is possible
for all elements in all coals, and the rankings are perhaps better
expressed as tendencies.  For the purposes of investigating environmental
assessment criteria, "average" behaviors of the elements generally have
been utilized.
     If it is desirable to base the calculations on a specific coal,
for which washability data are available, fractionation factors
calculated for that coal can be used.  A simple computer program
has been developed and tested which permits estimation of fraction-
ation factors for elements as a function of specific gravity separation
points and/or yield.  Illustrative are the computer plots for arsenic
in Herrin No. 6 Illinois coal (Figure 4-2), based on the data of
                 (4)
Gluskoter, et al.
     Calculating the fractionation factors for a particular constituent
of a particular coal requires data on the ppm of that constituent by
specific gravity fraction and the total weight of material in each specific
gravity fraction.  The first step in the calculation is to compute cumula-
tive ppm of the constituent from lightest specific gravity fraction to
heaviest and cumulative weight in these fractions.  Dividing the cumulative
weight values by the total weight gives yield.  Cumulative ppm versus yield
is shown in Figure 4-2 (b).
     Now the fractionation factor is simply that portion of the total
amount of the constituent in each specific gravity fraction, shown plotted
against yield in Figure 4-2 (c).  Finally, the fractionation factors are
plotted against the midpoints of the specific gravity fractions in Figure
4-2 (d).
     "Fractionation factors" are also available from Klein, et al.,
and others,  for the partitioning of elements upon combustion in a
boiler.   These can be used to estimate losses to the atmosphere from
the thermal  drying of cleaned coal.  For partitioning of elements between
coal and the atmosphere during transport,  handling,  and storage,
"fractionation factors" would correspond to emission factors,  such as
those estimated by EPA    and others.      Analogous  "emission factors"

                                    54

-------
  61.00*
  «.8.80*
N 33.00*
          	XXXXXX
           	                               XXXXXX
                                                      XXXXXX
          	                                     XXXXXX
                      •"              xxxxxx
                                                      xxxxn,:
          	  XXXXXX
                                                      XXXXXX
                         :     . _   .                    XXXXXX
                                                      XKXXXX
                                                    _  xxxxxx
	   	                                           XXXXXX
	•	nor***	Jnmnrx	xixxxx	xxxxxx	xxxxxx -
 o.oo*»*»»»*xxxxxx»»»»*xxxxxx»»»»*xxxxxx»»»»»xyxxxx»»*»»xxxxx»*
  16.00*
 	»-
       *
                                                                         »«**«»«• »««»«**»•«*• *»*»»«*«**»»»4»***l>»»»»»* •««»«** *»**«^*

                                                                     6.VC+                                                       X»
                                                                     5.10*
                                                                         9

                                                                   P     *
 FLOAT
— TO
  1.29
 1.29
- TO
 1.33
1.33
 TO
l.UO
1.<»I
 TO
1.60
1.60
 TO
SINK
                   (a)  Specific  Gravity Fraction
H fc.zc*
      *
      »

  3.10*
..     t .
                                                                                                                           '»
                                                                                                                            »
                                                                                                                            *
                                                                        *4«»»*«* »»*»•»**»» •»•»»«»»•••»»•»»»*»•••»•«»•»»•»»»•»•»»••>•
                                                                       0.30
                                                                                     0.50
        0.70

(b)  Yield
                                                   8.90
R
C
I
u
N
T
1
0
"
A
U
T
-fT
R
»»«»••»*•»•»»•••••••»•»».»»»»»»••»» t*»»»»»»»»»f»»»»»»»»»»+i
i.OtdT X<
* »<
o.ooo* *
* *
D.edB* •
• *
₯ - - — - . . ^ . ^ ' ~ +
Q.
-------
  have yet to be developed for losses of pollutants  leached  out  from coal
  storage  piles,  ash  ponds,  etc.

  4.1.2. Estimation of  Emission Concentrations

       Values of  emission  concentrations are required as  input to dispersion
  models to permit the  calculation of ground level concentrations (GLC)
  for  air  pollutants  and surface water concentrations (SWC)  for water
  pollutants.  A  simplified  preliminary  material balance model has been
  developed covering  the direct process  steps from raw coal  to combusted
  ash,  illustrated by Figure 4-3.  The incidental losses  to  air and
  water arising from  transportation,  handling, and storage are not
  included in this preliminary model,  but can readily be  included when
  data become available.   The  model,  which is normalized  to  a combustion
  output of 10 Btu,  can provide estimates of absolute emissions and
  average  concentrations of  any number of trace constituents in (1)
  recirculated water, (2)  thermal dryer  atmospheric discharge, (3)
  stack discharge from  combustion, and (4) ash flow based on composite
  flows, given an analysis for  the starting raw coal.
      The model has  been derived, programmed, and run with example
  cases, using a composite fuel analysis of 68 percent coal from the
  Helvetia mine and 32  percent  coal from the mine simulating feed to the
  Homer City  coal cleaning plant.*  The results of a recent run of this
  model, using an assumed 80 percent  coal recovery, and fractionation
  factors based on the  float-sink data of Gluskoter, et al.,    for 3/8-in.
  x 28 mesh Pittsburg No. 8 coal,  are  shown in Appendix A.
     Only a  few elements are shown in the illustrative example in
Appendix A.   These can be expanded to include all elements for which
fractionation factors are available or can be estimated.  In this example,
 *  This MCCS (Multistream coal cleaning system) facility, to be in
    operation in 1978, is located near the Homer City Generating Station
    Power Complex, Homer City, Pennsylvania.  The coal cleaning facility
    is owned by Pennsylvania Electric Company (a subsidiary of General
    Public Utilities Corporation) and New York State Electric and Gas
    Corporation.
                                     56

-------
Thermal dryer
discharge
970 »cf ^
(includes 0.6 Ib
combustion pro-
* . i
ducts and
particulates)

Raw coal ^
93.9 Ib.

Thermal dryer
air flow """"
970 scf



X.
^|

166.2 Ib Flue go
Water 835 Ib
4



/
/
/
i
Physical { _
Cleaning 74.3 Ib
(thermal Cleaned Combustion
dryers Coal
use 0.8 Ib
T
•
185



Ib
166.2 Ib "^ — Wct refuse
recirculated
water
\
1
t"-^
Ash from ^sn
thermal
dryers 9-4 lb
0.2 Ib



                                                     I06 Btu
                                              Air  9.9 x tO scf
                                                   (10% excess)
              19.0 Ib
            Dry refuse
FIGURE 4-3.  GENERALIZED FLOW QUANTITIES IN COAL CLEANING PROCESS
                                57

-------
 application  of  some  control  technology was assumed.  The use of a
 Venturi  scrubber was assumed for  the  thermal dryer exhaust  (efficiencies
                      ( 8)
 based on Abel,  et al.   ) and use of  an electrostatic precipitator on
 the boiler ultimately burning the coal was assumed.  Other  control
 technology alternatives can  be  substituted.
          4.2  Modeling of Physical Transport and Distribution

     Pollutants emitted in the course of coal cleaning, handling, trans-
portation, storage, and combustion can both accumulate and disperse, in
both a physical and biological sense, depending upon the characteristics
of  the pollutant and the compartment.  Biological transport and fate
are discussed in Section 4.3.  In this section, modeling of the preceding
physical  transport and dispersion are discussed.  The general need for
modeling  is  to make estimates of the concentrations of trace pollutants
in  environmental media as a result of operation of a coal cleaning
plant.  No regulations or design criteria are available yet for most of
these, although regulations will be proposed and promulgated by EPA
within the next year or two for a number of toxic pollutants (see
Section 4.2.2), which may affect coal cleaning plants.
     In succeeding paragraphs, modeling approaches are discussed relative
to  surface water, groundwater, air, and porous media.  Generally, the air
pollution model should account for deposition, both wet and dry,
providing one input to surface water and soils.  Surface water run-off
will pick up material in the upper soil layer.  The coal pile will be
leached by precipitation, which will also generally be carried into
surface water.  Leaching and leakage through sedimentation pond bottoms
will generally contribute to groundwater pollution, although the movement
of some pollutants through the subsoil and into the groundwater requires
years because of adsorption of materials on soils.  The refuse area,
usually some kind of a fill,  will be leached by the downflow of water
from precipitation and surface flow, contributing to both stream
pollution and groundwater pollution.  The rationale that should be
incorporated in the modeling  approach is to build a capability of
evaluating individual coal cleaning complexes, either existing or

                                  58

-------
under design.  This approach is recommended because the many different
characteristics, e.g., meteorology, topography, stream geometry, soil, and
groundwater characteristics required to characterize a given complex,
vary widely from one plant to another, making generalizations risky
at this time.
     On the other hand, the objective of the present investigation is to
develop criteria and associated methodologies for their application rather
than to estimate site-specific environmental impacts for a given complex.
The solution would seem to be to include the necessary provisions in the
models for the multiplicity of detailed parameters that will ultimately
be required, but to use nominal values, or ranges, or possibly even
"worst-case" estimates, for a hypothetical site in the developmental
phase.
     Validation is an important aspect of model development, and should be
planned for, utilizing one of the  coal cleaning sites chosen for field
data acquisition.  Field data will permit validation and calibration of
the models and suggest their application for future sites.  However, it
is not possible within the time frame of the present program to wait
until field data are available to  initiate model development.  For that
matter, it is not desirable to wait because modeling will define data
that need  to be gathered and will  give preliminary evaluations, using
data that  are available in the literature from other areas.
     A review of models for air, water, and groundwater quality
assessment, which are applicable to coal cleaning, has been compiled by
                (9)
Ambrose, et al.

4.2.1  Air Dispersion of Pollutants

     The concentration of key pollutants in  the  thermal dryer  atmospheric
discharge  and in  the  flue gases  from  combustion  of  the  cleaned coal  will
provide input for  calculations of  atmospheric  dispersion.   The basic
purpose of the  dispersion calculation is to  provide an estimate of  the
dilution factor which, when, divided into the stack  emission concentrations,
will yield ground  level concentrations.
                                     59

-------
     Two basic models are required, depending on whether the pollutant is
 associated with  large  (> 100  ym)  or small  (< 100  ym)  particles.   Large
 particles tend to deposit on  surfaces near the stack  so that their
 concentration in the air diminishes as distance from  the stack increases.
 The concentration of smaller  particles is reduced only by dispersion.
     Simplified dispersion models, typified  by that presented by
 Turner,     are available that consider stack height  and diameter, stack
 gas temperature and exit velocity, and ambient air temperature and wind
 speed.  Calculations are performed for different weather categories.
 Multiple sources can be considered to include the effects of more than
 one stack if distance between stacks is large enough  to merit this
 refinement.
     The large particle deposition model requires only the deposition
 factor, wind speed, and effective stack height.  Deposition factors are
 available in the literature for various wind speeds of interest.
     A fugitive dust emission model, based on the EPA Multiple Point
 Source Model (PTMTP), has been used by Battelle to help in selecting
 environmental sampling sites  and to project mass atmospheric concentrations.
 It is a Gaussian plume, multiple-source model, with a generation function
 for fugitive emissions dependent on wind speed squared.  Deposition is
 accounted for (but not plume  depletion), and the model has been calibrated
 by Battelle based on field data.  The operation of this model has been
 described.      The model may require modification to account for wet
 deposition which has been shown to account for far more than half of
 the deposition of Cd, Hg, Pb, and other trace elements in eastern
 Tennessee (from power p]
 are also available^  '.
                                   (12)
Tennessee (from power plant plumes)    .   Experimental deposition velocities
4.2.2  Water Dispersion of Pollutants

     Two types of effects may need consideration when modeling pollutant
discharges to water: (1) dispersion and sedimentation of particulate solids,
and (2) dispersion and dilution of soluble pollutants.
     For estimating surface water concentrations, data on the concentration
of pollutants and the flow of waste discharges are required.  Emission
                                    60

-------
sources to be considered inlcude the waste water discharge from coal
cleaning, and runoff and percolation from coal and refuse storage piles,
as well as from ash ponds at coal cleaning plants and from coal storage
piles at user plants.
     Sedimentation in settling basins can be modeled by the use of deposi-
tion coefficients.  Since sedimentation removes only a portion of the
pollutant from a water column, a residual concentration remains which is
then further diluted by dispersion and additional sedimentation in streams,
etc.  Simplified dispersion models using point sources of pollutants can
be used.  These models provide a correlation of dispersion coefficient
with flow velocity and stream configuration so that reasonable approxima-
tions for surface water concentrations associated either with a specific
facility or with a generalized case can be calculated for average flows,
low flows, and high flows.  Sedimentation is incorporated by using deposi-
tion factors that relate sedimentation rate to pollutant concentration  in
the water body.  Output consists of sedimentation rate and concentration
in water as a function of position  (normally distance downstream) for each
case.  Pseudo-steady state models are believed to be adequate.  With these
models, when conditions such as release rates or flow of the stream change,
concentrations make a step change from one steady state to another.
Sediment accumulates on the stream  bottom linearly with time until such
a change in conditions occurs.
     Fully mixed  (with stream cross section and depth) models are more
appropriate for small narrow  streams, which are likely to be around a coal
cleaning plant.   In  such a case, the  stream concentration, C.,  for
pollutant A is given by
                               RA
                                    exp  (-k.t)                          (1)
where R.  is  the  release  rate  of  pollutant A (gm/day),  Q  is  the  stream
       A          o
discharge rate  (m /day), k. is the  sedimentation  coefficient  for  pollutant
      -1
A (day  ), and  t is  the  travel time (days)  to  the downstream  position  of
 interest.
                                          /xwddx
                         t  is  defined  by

                                     61

-------
 where x is the distance downstream,  w is the stream width,  and d is the
 stream depth (note that w and d can  be variable).   For a stream with a
 uniform cross section,  t is simply x/V where V is  stream velocity (m/day).
 k.  is equal to k, ./d where k, .  is a  bottom deposition coefficient (m/day)
 and d is the depth.
      The flux of pollutant A to the  bottom at any  given location is given
 ^  WV
      In the case of  a shoreline release to a large stream,  it may be
 advantageous to use  a two-dimensional model,  using dispersion in the cross
 stream direction as  the mixing  mode.   In such a case,  C.(t,y) is given by
                                                        A
           R.w
CA(t,y)	  exp
          Q /TrDt
                                                                       (2)
 C.(t,y)  is  dependent  on both  downstream  travel  time  (or  position)  and  cross-
 stream position,  y.   D is  the dispersion ocefficient, which is  characterized
 by  stream geometry and flow rate.   Sedimentation  at  a given location is
 calculated  by \\ct.(tiy)-
     These  solutions  to the transport equation  have  been known  for years,
 and they are reasonably applicable  for continuously  flowing freshwater
 streams.
     The need for a sedimentation model  is not  certain.  The U.S.  EPA  has
 promulgated effluent  guidelines for existing coal preparation plants and
                 (13)
 associated  areas      and also has proposed new  source performance  stan-
     (14)
 dards    ,  both of which establish upper limits of total suspended solids
 (TSS) of 70 mg/1  (maximum  for any one day) and  35 mg/1 (average of daily
 values for  30 consecutive  days).  For new sources, these values apply
 to  facilities that recycle waste water for use  in processing (nearly all
 new facilities should fall into this category).   A "no-discharge-of-
 process-waste-water"  limitation is proposed for new  facilities that  do
 not recycle waste water.
     The definition of "coal  preparation plant associated areas" is  broad,
 including plant yards, immediate access  roads, slurry ponds, drainage
 ponds,  coal refuse piles,   and  coal storage piles  and facilities    .  Thus,
 in order to be in compliance,  effluent from all areas of a  coal preparation
plant,  including coal and  refuse piles,  will have to be  controlled so  that
                                     62

-------
the total aqueous TSS discharge does not exceed a 30-day average of 35
mg/1.  At this concentration, sedimentation probably can be neglected.

4.2.3  Dispersion Through Porous Media

     Although emission of pollutants to the atmosphere and to surface waters
is regulated by the U.S. EPA, heretofore the invisible and difficult-to-
measure escape of aqueous pollutants downward through the soil has essen-
tially avoided regulation.  This situation is beginning to change, and
this pollutant transport path should be considered in regard to environ-
mental criteria for coal cleaning-plants.  As indicated in the introduction
to this section, this pollutant release pathway can come into play beneath
storage piles of raw and cleaned coal or refuse, as well as under refuse
ponds.
     Simplified approaches  to modeling adsorption and leaching of pollutants
in porous media are available.  Simplified one-dimensional models are
described by Raines     along with  comparisons with sophisticated results
such as computerized finite difference models with Langmuir adsorption-
desorption.  In many cases,  the simplified models are quite adequate.  It
is recommended that initial emphasis be directed toward correlation  of data
and  estimation with these models.
     One  simplified solution for adsorption  is given by
C.(T,Z) - i C
                                      1-erf
                                                -T*
                                               Z-T
                   Av  '  '    2   ACIN)
                   A        ^   AUW;           2  /N^

 where  CA(T,Z)  is the  concentration of pollutant A in the liquid at any
        A.
 relative position z in  the porous medium and at any normalized time,  T.
 T is given by  t/0, where  t is real time and 6 is the residence time for
 the bulk fluid.   CA(-TN\ is the concentration in the liquid at the point
 where  it enters  the porous medium.  T* is the ratio T/Cl+lL.) where KL, is
 a linear equilibrium  constant for the adsorption/desorption process.   N
 is the dispersion parameter,  D/(VL),  where D is the dispersion coefficient,
 V is the average liquid velocity, and L is the characteristic length of
 the porous medium. The notation erf denotes the error function which is
 tabulated in standard references.  This solution assumes local equilibrium,

                                      63

-------
 i.e.,  the concentration of adsorbed pollutant A is always in equilibrium with
 the liquid concentration immediately adjacent to it.
     The concentration of pollutant A leaving the porous body after adsorption
 is given by
                    CA(T,1)  -±
                   -AM,-/   2 -A(IN)

     The analogous solution for desorption is
                                       1-erf
                                              (4)
          CA(T'1)=2CAO
                           1 + erf
                                       Z-T*
                                             (5)
where  C,
      -._ is the concentration in .the fluid phase during the adsorption step.
     The concentration of pollutant A leaving the porous body after desorption
is given by
                                                1-T*
2 CAO
                                      1 + erf
     Plotting of  either C._  /C.,_.TX or  C._,,/CA_  on  a  probability  scale
                         AEa A(IN)     AEd  AO
                                                                          (6)
versus  (T*-!)/  /r*" yields a straight  line with  the  0.5 value  occurring  at
T* = 1.  This model says that a given exit concentration  that would be
achieved at a value T with no adsorption or desorption will not  occur until
(1 + K_)T with  adsorption or desorption present.
     The simplified concept for leaching of coal piles or refuse areas  would
employ Equation (6) where C   is equal to the concentration in water in
                           £\\J
equilibrium with the trace element concentration in the coal  or  refuse.
4.2.4  Groundwater Dispersion of Pollutants

     Groundwater modeling for accurate estimation of  flows and resulting
trace contamination is sophisticated and complicated.  A sophisticated
approach is not deemed within the scope of this program at the present
time.  The recommended approach consists of specifying a groundwater  flow
rate and then using Equation (3) to estimate the concentration of pollutant
A in the groundwater at various locations and times of interest.
Experimental data for various trace elements and various soils are
available     from which approximate IC, values can be determined.  The data
given in Reference (16) are plots from experimental adsorption in soil
                                    64

-------
columns; a graph of C   /CA(TN') for the different element-soil combinations
versus the number of pore volumes of liquid passed through the column were
given.  The number of pore volumes is identical to the parameter, T, in the
simplified model.  Thus, K^ is estimated by subtracting one from the value
of T at which an experimental value of 0.5 for C4T, /CA/T,,X is obtained.
                                                AEa  A(IN)
Estimates for As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se, V, and Zn in 10 soils
are available.  The soils include variations of sands, loams, and clays.
Results range from Kg= 0 (no adsorption) to no detectable trace element in
the effluent for the duration of the experiment, which, in these particular
experiments, corresponds to a 1C, greater than about 30.
                                                         (16)
     Hg was the most mobile of the trace elements tested,     showing at
least some pass-through for all soils tested.  Cd was highly mobile (Kp, ^ 0)
in two soils:  Wagram, a loamy sand from North Carolina, and Ava, a silty
clay loam from Illinois.  Numerical values for results are not given in
the Korte paper,     and it probably will be desirable to try to obtain the
numerical data from the authors.

               4.3  Ecological Transport and Distribution

     In order to assess the ecological effects of the release of pollutants
from coal cleaning processes, an elucidation of their ecological transport
and fate is necessary.  The pollutant's chemical form, concentration, and
mode of entry into the ecological system (i.e., atmosphere, food source,
or water) depends on the coal type, environmental conditions, and type of
coal cleaning technology employed at a facility.  The ultimate concern
when dealing with ecological fate is the rate at which the toxicant or
pollutant moves within the ecosystem and whether or not the pollutant
ecomagnifies within its various components.
     Requirements for implementing a quantitative study focused on deter-
mining the ecological transfer of a toxicant are extremely rigorous.  Recent
investigations have shown that the variability in a pollutant's chemistry,
specific target ecosystem, source release rate, abiotic dispersion factors
and the environmental factors (i.e. soil type, etc.) affect the ability to
accurately quantify ecological transport of pollutants.  This quantifi-
cation requires knowledge of general soil or sediment parameters, dominant

                                    65

-------
vegetative species composition, and other important parameters to accurately
calculate potential rates of movement and specific target organisms' body
burdens.  Such information cannot be extracted from the literature.  Most
researchers have avoided or ignored these confounding parameters altogether,
thus adding to the general misunderstandings of pollutant transport rate
and ultimate fate reported in the literature.  It is not that reported
values are incorrect or inadequate, but that dominant influencing parameters
are not being adequately characterized.  As a result, these investigators
cannot adequately estimate movement of the pollutant in the environment
with respect to time.
     Investigation of the entire list of Priority 1 pollutants (see
Table 3-1) was beyond the scope of this subtask,  which focused on the
abbreviated "short list" extracted from that group.   Since sulfur and
nitrogen are part of the biological cycle, they were eliminated,  and the
following eight elements were investigated.
     •  Arsenic
     •  Beryllium
     •  Cadmium
     •  Iron
     •  Lead
     •  Manganese
     •  Mercury
     •  Selenium.
     The specific objectives of this aspect  of the study were to:
     •  Identify the typical components of the generic ecosystem  that
        are most likely to receive process wastes from a coal cleaning
        facility
     •  Determine the  dominant pathways that are  likely to control
        pollutant transport  through a generic food web
     •  Determine which of the designated pollutants  are most likely
        to cause long-term environmental risk
     •  Estimate from  reported literature values  the  concentration
        factors  for  each pollutant.   These values for concentration
        factors  will be expressed  as the percent  uptake-retention
                                   66

-------
        and are calculated based on reported concentrations In both
        the donor and recipient compartments.

4.3.1  Ecological Overview

     In this portion of the study, the potential or final distribution of
pollutants within a generic ecosystem has been investigated.  The hypothet-
ical temperate ecosystem chosen can be found in northern Appalachian and
midwestern regions (Figure 4-4).  The ecosystem is composed of both terres-
trial and aquatic components, with biotic functional groups being specified
for each compartment (i.e., producers, herbivores, omniovores, carnivores,
and decomposers).  Literature values pertaining to the abiotic components
(soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater) and functional groups
likely to be found in the zone demarcated in Figure 4-4 were used in
determining ultimate projected distribution.
     This generic ecosystem has been partitioned into functional compartments
which represent the dominant sinks, biotic groups, and pathways of a typical
ecosystem.  Figure 4-5 is a fifteen-compartment model of the hypothetical
system under consideration.  This diagram allows one to conceptualize more
easily the number of sources that may influence a specific compartment's
concentration and their complex interactions.  Here a semantic difficulty
needs clarification.  If an organism magnifies a pollutant, its concentra-
tion on a per gram basis is greater than any of its source compartments.
The term "magnify" is non-source specific and includes both food sources
and abiotic exposure.  For this discussion, this has been designated as
ecomagnification or eco-accumulation.  The classical terminology, in contrast,
has been "biomagnification", based on the assumption that higher concen-
trations in the recipient organism result from food source ingestion only.
This assumption disregards the abiotic exposure via inhalation, adsorption,
or immersion.  Therefore, in this presentation, ecomagnification is used
and is based on all potential exposure modes within the ecosystem.
     An alternate method of expressing the interactions of biotic and abiotic
components in an ecosystem is shown in Figure 4-6.  This matrix form of
interactive notation lends itself to rigorous linear mathematical analysis
and leads to defining the transient or time-based behavior of an individual
                                    67

-------
ON
00
                        FIGURE 4-4.  GENERAL AREA FOR WHICH GENERIC  ECOSYSTEM IS  DEFINED  FOR PURPOSES  OF
                                    ESTIMATING DISTRIBUTION  OF POTENTIAL  COAL CLEANING POLLUTANTS

-------
VO
                                                     -»  " ^ -V*'
                                                        , '•*,- *16
                                                                    SURFACE (STREAM.
                                                                     POND. OR LAKE)
                                                                        WATER   X3
                                 TERRESTRIAL
                                                                                 AQUATIC
                          (having  components F.^ and F1_2) = airborne  atmospheric
                           forcing  function, and F2 = aquatic  input  forcing

                          function.]   Man is shown, but no data are  reported.
                  FIGURE 4-5.  COMPARTMENTAL MODEL OF GENERIC ECOSYSTEM AND DOMINANT
                               PATHWAYS  OF POLLUTANT TRANSPORT

-------
                                                                Biological Transport
                                             Abiotic
                                          Components
                                              _*"s^
  Aquatic
Components
             >
 Terrestrial
Components
 Physical  i
Transport \
Biological
Transport'
             Abiotic
           Components
             Aquatic   /
           Components
           Terrestrial
          Components

Soil X,
Groundwater X2
Surface Water X3
Sediments X4
Producers X6
Herbivores X,
V
Omnivores X7
Carnivores X8
Decomposers X9
Producers X10
Herbivores X, ,
Omnivores X12
Carnivores X,3
Decomposers X,4
MANX15
x,
»
pi
*






•
(a)
(a)
(a)
•

Xz
*
Ipfs
MMf












W
Xa
(b)

BAN!
•
•
*
•
•



(c)

-------
 component or of the entire system.  This can be done by expressing the
 solution to each compartment's interactions as a differential equation with
 respect to time.  For example, the rate of change of a pollutant concentra-
 tion  Xg in compartment  8,  the  aquatic  carnivore, is given by:
           ~dT = a3-8X3 + V8X6 + S7-8X7 ~ &9-8X9 " a!2-8X12

                ~ a!3-8X13 ~ a!5-18X15

where Xg is the pollutant concentration in compartment 8, a. _8 represents the
rate transfer coefficients for compartment i to compartment 8, and X. is the
pollutant concentration in compartment i, where i = 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, or 15.
Therefore, compartmental values of pollutant concentration transient
behavior could be predicted if and only if these transfer coefficients
could be defined.   The current state-of-the-art of research pertaining to
the designated Priority 1 pollutants and their movement does not yet lend
itself to accurate analysis of this nature.

4.3.2  Pollutant Transfer

     During coal cleaning, some contaminants are released and dispersed in
the aquatic and terrestrial environments by means of atmospheric and aqueous
inputs from refuse and coal storage areas, emissions from thermal dryers,
waste water discharge, etc.  However, long-term ecological behavior of trace
elements in the biosphere including pathways, rates of dispersion, resi-
dence times in various components of the ecosystem, and chemical transfor-
mations, is largely unknown.   Of the Priority 1 pollutants, cadmium, lead,
and mercury represent the most heavily studied.  Despite this, information
relative to their rate of ecological transport is scarce.  Cycling of
heavy metals — their accumulation and transfer from water to man through
the food chain — often can be brief and potentially dangerous.  In addition,
harmful effects on members of ecosystems usually have an indirect impact
on man.  For example, Truhart     notes:
     (1)  Food resources are directly affected by immense fish
          kills caused by industrial discharge containing toxic
                                     71

-------
           materials  into rivers or lakes,  or by the havoc wrought
           to agricultural crops by air pollution.
      (2)   Agricultural  productivity is indirectly  affected by
           assaults on organisms that have  a beneficial  function
           in the biosphere,  such as bees as vehicles for  pollen,
           or earthworms and  other organisms that ensure aeration
           of the soil medium.
      (3)   Production of primary source materials,  such  as textile-
           producing  plants and  forest cultures, is affected by
           industrial discharge.
      (4)   Toxification  of certain constituents  of  the food chain
           results in effects such as the toxification of  fish
           and the passage of various residues into milk.   The
           presence of trace amounts of toxic organic contaminants
           in drinking water produced from  contaminated  river water
           can pose problems of  the same magnitude.
      (5)   The disturbance of biological balance or ecological
           stability  can result  in disastrous consequences on the
           regenerative  capacities of the ecosystem and, as  a
           result, the quality of  life as a whole.
      Iron, manganese, and selenium are essential elements for biological
activities;  however,  excessive  concentrations have been found to be toxic.
Thus, there  is a  very delicate balance between  the utilization  of metals
for  important  catalytic processes which occur in cells of organisms and
the  eco-accumulation of metals  to a level  that  may be toxic  to  the cell.
The  accumulation  of  heavy metals  by organisms is governed by many physio-
logical and  environmental factors,  many of which are  still unknown.  Their
toxicity and  tolerance  is equally complex.

     4.3.2.1  Pollutant  Uptake in Plants.   Terrestrial autotrophs absorb
pollutants via their  roots from soil  solution and  direct  adsorption of
atmospheric particles deposited on  leaf tissues.  Aquatic plants, in
addition to root uptake,  absorb pollutants  directly  from  the  surrounding
water.  The availability  and movement  of elements  and pollutants from soils
and water to plants  are not completely  understood.   Both  direct ion

                                    72

-------
absorption and uptake of organic complexes are involved.  Various conditions
and factors influence the uptake of trace elements by plants.   These
include:
     (1)  Chemical form of the pollutant
     (2)  Concentration of the pollutant in soil or water
     (3)  Interactions with other trace elements
     (4)  Genetic constitution of the plant species
     (5)  Solubility of the pollutant compound
     (6)  Climatic conditions
     (7)  Soil characteristics (e.g., pH, texture, till, composition,
          and structure)
     (8)  Cation exchange capabilities of the soil.
     The most important condition to consider in determining plant uptake
is the availability of the trace element to the plant.  Some soils may
contain high concentrations of pollutants, but transport into plant
tissues may be low due to the pollutants' unavailability.  Soils high in
organic matter or clay particles have an affinity for or the ability to
retain large quantities of heavy metals.  This decreases the availability
of the heavy metals for plant uptake.  In contrast, sandy soils have a
lower capacity to retain heavy metals.  This translates into a greater
available concentration for plant uptake.  On the other hand, leachability
of heavy metals in sandy soils is greater, therefore reducing the amount
available for plant uptake.  These and other factors listed above, to a
greater or lesser extent, influence  the availability of trace elements and
other pollutants for plant uptake.

     4.3.2.2  Pollutant Uptake/Retention in Animals.  Pollutants are
absorbed by animals in one or more of the following ways:  inhalation
through the lungs, ingestion through the gastrointestinal tract, direct
absorption through the skin or gills, fetal transfer  through the placenta,
and  ovarian transfer into the egg.   The percent uptake/retention in
animals depends on several factors.  These include:
      (1)  Chemical form of the pollutant
      (2)  Genetic constitution of  the animal species
      (3)  Concentration of the pollutant consumed or  inhaled
                                     73

-------
      (4)   Interactions with  other  trace  elements,  such  as  competitive
           antagonism among elements with similar properties  and
           synergistic interactions
      (5)   Element  content in the gastrointestinal  tract, such  as
           in  chelated or complexed formations, and  in adsorption
           on  surfaces of insoluble compounds
      (6)   Feeding  behavior of  the animal.
      Biological  transformation can alter the pollutant  either  by synthesis
 or  degradation into  a form that is more  or less available  or toxic  than
 the original  form.   A noteworthy example of biotransformation  is shown in
 Figure 4-7  for mercury.  In  this case, both physical and biological  forces
 change the  form  of mercury.   In addition, it has been shown  that inorganic
 mercury can be methylated in bottom sediments contained in fresh water
 aquaria to  form  both mono- and dimethylmercury.  It is believed that this
 conversion  involves  anaerobic  microbes.   Thus, the relatively  nontoxic
 inorganic  and arylmercurials can be biologically converted to  the extremely
                     (18)
 toxic methylmercury.      The  pollutant,  in various forms, is  released into
 the environment  from the animal by excretion (urine, feces,  or volatili-
 zation from the  body surface)  and by decomposition after the animal's death.
 Three mechanisms that are important in the metabolism of a pollutant in an
 animal's body are  transport, tissue retention, and excretion.  These
 mechanisms  are responsible for the length of time a pollutant  remains in
 the  body.  Various pollutants  also are retained in specific  tissues  in the
 body; this  is evidenced by mercury and cadmium in the liver  and kidney and
 by  lead in bones.

     4.3.2.3  Ecological Accumulation and Magnification.  Those trace
 elements whose concentrations  are higher  in herbivorous animals than in
 plants, higher in omnivorous animals than in herbivores, and highest of all
 in top carnivores are said to be ecologically magnified or "accumulated in
 food chains".   However,  these  terms, frequently misunderstood, present a
misleading impression of simplicity of these mechanisms.  The  phenomenon of
 eco-accumulation, in  fact,  is quite complex.  The ability of plants  to
 concentrate metal ions is minimized by a number of factors;  ion inactiva-
 tion, soil fixation,  accumulation at the soil surface above  the root zone,
                                    74

-------
               Bocleriol oxidollon
               Plankton
               Plant!
               Inorganic
               reactions
                                       Mercuric ion.
                                       cheloted cations and onions,
                                       simple complex**,
                                       o«id**, sulphides
                                            Hg(ll)
                                     Bacterial reduction
El*m*ntol mercury
ot vapouj. liquid
or dissolute
                 Hg (0)
         Bacterial oxidotion
         Plant*
         Inorganic reactions
DispropN>rtionotion and
  electro" exchange
       Fungi
     Plants
  Inorganic reactions
 Sunlight


         Bacteria
        "Sunlight

.Bacterial reduction
  Fungi
    .Plants
       Inorganic
                                                                    Bacterial synthesis
                                                                    Chtlolion
                                                     Bacteria,
                                                     conversion by
                                                     organic oxidonts
Organo • mercury
  compound*

R, R' = alkyl, aryl,
     mercopto,
     protein, etc.

X * monovolent onion
   eg. halide, acetate.
   etc
                                                                     Bacterial synthesis
                                                                     Chelation
                                                                     Organic oxidanti
                                           Mercurous ion,
                                           ckelaled cations and onions,
                                           simple complexes
       FIGURE 4-7.    MERCURY  INTERCONVERSIONS  IN THE  ENVIRONMENT
                                                                                     (18)
                            Reprinted  with permission from
                            Jonasson,  I.R.,  and Boyle, R.W.,
                            "Geochemistry of Mercury", Proc.
                            Soc.  Can.  Symp.,  Mercury in Man's
                            Environment, Ottawa, February  15-16,
                            1971, p. 5-21.
                                                75

-------
                                                        (19)
 exclusion at the root  zone,  and immobility in the root.       The  term
 accumulation refers  to the  greater  trace metal concentration in the  plant
 (recipient)  than in  the growth medium (donor).
      Terrestrial animals ingest trace contaminants primarily through their
 food,  or  as  a result of certain feeding  habits,  and by  inhalation.   Aquatic
 organisms, such  as fish and  crustaceans,  absorb  trace contaminants both
 from  food and directly from  the water in which they are  immersed.  Aquatic
 organisms must process large volumes  of  water to obtain  oxygen  so that water
 becomes their main route of  exposure  to  toxic materials.  Thus, for  aquatic
 organisms, with  the  uptake/retention  of  a pollutant being primarily  from
 ambient water, there is greater likelihood for eco-accumulation than in
 terrestrial  organisms,  where exposure to  pollutants originates primarily
 with  food sources.   However, ecomagnification for terrestrial organisms
 does  occur (e.g., for  mercury  and DDT).
      According to the  equilibrium theory     ,  organisms  exposed to constant
 levels of toxicants  display  a  rapid initial  increase in  the  concentrations,
 which  then level off to reach  a quasi-equilibrium value.  At  this concentra-
 tion,  the rate of toxicant intake is  balanced by the rates of excretion
 and metabolic  breakdown.  The  lower the  rate  of  excretion, the longer it
 takes  to  reach equilibrium and  the higher  the ultimate tissue concentra-
 tions.  In general,  larger animals have more  difficulty  excreting toxicants
 due to a  lower metabolic rate  and a smaller surface-to-volume ratio.
 Since predators are  usually  larger than their prey,  a greater concentration
 can be expected in the  predator.  The  equilibrium theory has been
 questioned since most  animals  in their natural environment are usually not
 exposed to a constant  level  of  pollutant.  This  is  due to the fact that
 environmental pollutants are not homogeneously distributed in the environ-
ment.  However, pollutants tend to accumulate in biologically productive
areas; thus predators,  which usually  concentrate  their activities in such
areas, can be exposed to high levels of pollutants.
     In the past, there has been much  controversy and confusion involving
the term magnification.  References to biomagnification through a food web
seem to leave the impression that the  toxicant is transferred solely
through food sources.  Thus, the focal point of  the  confusion is the
exposure source.   It is virtually impossible to delineate between the two

                                    76

-------
routes of exposure in the real environment.  Huckabee     agrees with the
general feeling that methyl mercury is biomagnified in terrestrial
                                               (22)
ecosystems; however, he argues with Goldwater's^  ' and Peakall and
        (23)
Lovett's     contention that mercury biomagnifies in the aquatic ecosystem.
Here we avoid the argument by defining the term as ecomagnification, which
includes all sources of exposure.  It then becomes clear that ecological
magnification of toxic materials is a phenomenon controlled by numerous
ecological variables, in addition to physiological and physico-chemical
factors.

4.3.3  Designated Priority 1 Pollutants

     The review of the literature has been limited to those references
dealing with movement of Priority 1 pollutants for which percent uptake/
retention (on a concentration basis) could be calculated.  Information
extracted from these references is listed in Tables 4-1 through 4-8 for
each of the eight elements investigated.  The tables are arranged according
to the individual pollutant, and within each table entries are classified
according to the functional component (i.e., abiotic component, terrestrial
producers, terrestrial herbivores, etc.).  Functional components lacking
representative samples were omitted.  Listed for each entry are the sample
type, source form, percent uptake/retention, additional remarks, and
reference.  The sample types are listed by common name, but the scientific
name is listed when given in the reference.
     As stated previously, the chemical form of the pollutant in question
is of paramount importance when dealing with ecological transport and fate
problems.  In the following narrative sections and tables dealing with the
ecological distribution of Priority 1 pollutants, it may seem as if the
reference is to the elemental form of that pollutant; however, it should
be recognized that an unspecified form of that pollutant is being referred
to.  For example, mercury-contaminated fly ash used in plant uptake
experiments or discussion of the toxic effects of beryllium do not neces-
sarily refer to the elemental form of these metals, but rather to an
unspecified chemical form of the pollutant in question.
                                    77

-------
      Calculation of  values  for percent  uptake on the  basis  of  concentration
 required  specific pieces  of information.   Plant  uptake  values  were  calcu-
 lated by  dividing the  concentration  of  pollutant in the plant  by  the  con-
 centration of  pollutant in  the soil  and nutrient solution.   For example,
 5  ppm cadmium  is present  in the soil and  2.5  ppm cadmium is present in  an
 oak  tree  grown in the  contaminated soil;  therefore, the percent uptake  on
 a  concentration basis  is  50 percent.  Animal  uptake values  were calculated
 in a similar manner  by dividing the  concentration of  pollutant in the
 recipient by the concentration of pollutant in the  food source, water,  or
 gas  to which the animal was exposed.  The percent uptake values are
 recorded  as single values,  range values,  or a mean  value +  the standard
 deviation.  Similar  values  recorded  as  concentration  factors are  most
 common in the  literature; however, for  purposes  of  these tables,  the values
 have been recorded as  percent  uptake/retention.   The  percent uptake/
 retention is equal to  the concentration factor times  100.
      In addition,  such information as type of  experiment, mode of adminis-
 tration or  application, time period, soil  characteristics and/or  tissue
 concentration  sampled  have  been presented  as  remarks when available or
 pertinent.  Identifying the type of  experiment,  either  field,  laboratory,
 or microcosm,  can  be extremely important when  interpreting  the percent
                                                             (24)
 uptake values.   In a microcosm study by Huckabee  and  Blaylock     , a radio-
 isotope was applied to a  model  ecosystem.  At  the termination  of  the exper-
 iment  a materials  balance was  performed to identify target  organisms and
 sinks.  Studies  of this type identifying total distribution of a  pollutant
within an ecosystem are highly  desirable but are  extremely  scarce.
Microcosm studies  should be interpreted from an overall  systems view.
                       f 7 S 9fi 97 )
Laboratory experiments    *   '    , on the other hand, are usually  based  on
 response of an  individual organism to a pollutant.  That is, a laboratory
animal is given  a  contaminated  food and after  a period  of time is analyzed
to determine the pollutant concentration.  This type of  study  examines  an
individual's metabolism of the  pollutant while the microcosm study examines
the system's metabolism of the  pollutant.  In  field experiments,   percent
uptake values  are determined from resident pollutant concentrations present
                            (28 29)
in the environment and biota    '    or by spiking the ecosystem with known
concentrations of pollutants and determining concentrations in each
                                    78

-------
compartment.   '  '     Information presented as representing standing pool
values was of little use for calculating percent uptake on a concentration
basis in this study.  Standing pools of toxicants are represented as the
total amount in any of the ecological compartments (i.e., biomass x con-
centration) .
     It should be emphasized that since the conditions and methods are quite
different for each experiment type, differences in calculated percent uptake
values can be expected.  The tables are not intended to represent accurate
uptake values, but rather are to be used for identifying concentration
and/or expected magnification within the functional components of a generic
ecosystem of Priority 1 pollutants.

     A.3.3.1  Arsenic.  Arsenic appears in Group V of the Periodic Table of
Elements which also includes nitrogen, phosphorus, antimony, and bismuth.
Although it is strictly a nonmetal or metalloid, the element in one  free
form is commonly referred to as "arsenic metal".  It usually occurs  in  small
quantities in association with other metals and in crystalline rocks,
schists, and coals.  Therefore, it is considered as a potential pollutant
in association with the coal cleaning process.  The most prevalent chemical
forms are the oxides, arsenates, sulfides, and complexes with other metals.
     Research work over the past century has clearly demonstrated that
arsenic is toxic when received either as an inhalant or through food source
              (33)
contamination.      Most reports have dealt solely with acute exposures
from industries that manufacture products containing high levels of arsenic
(certain war gases or pesticides) rather than chronic  (low level) exposures
that one might anticipate from a coal cleaning facility.  This makes
references related to arsenic movement within ecosystems usually unavailable
because research has concentrated on the chemical form of input, its
transition chemistry, toxicity, and the analytical methods.
     The toxicity of the most common inorganic arsenic form, a + 3 valence,
                                                     (34)
varies widely, as reported by Schroeder and Balassa.      Bacteria have
been toxified with as low as 290 ppm and as high as >10,000 ppm, whereas
rats and mice have been found to have LD   concentrations ranging from 5.8
ppm to 21.0 ppm.  The phenomenon of decreasing toxicity as one moves  closer
                                     79

-------
 to the more rudimentary or fundamental single cellular organisms  is  not
 uncommon in environmental toxicology.   Thus,  prediction of  effective con-
 centrations (EC)  or permissible release rates is  difficult  and  usually
 inaccurate.
      Bio-accumulation of arsenical  pesticides has been noted by Woolson.
             /Og\
 Luh,  et al.,      also report bio-magnification to be  evident in aquatic  food
 webs.   However, the same argument is posed  for arsenic as for all other
 Priority 1 pollutants;  that is,  it  has not  been clearly demonstrated
 whether the increasing concentrations  of toxicants  as one moves through  the
 food web result from abiotic exposure  or from actual  biological ingestion.
     Table 4-1 presents the best available  data as  it relates to antici-
 pated  distribution  of arsenic  in a  typical  generic  ecosystem as so defined.

      4.3.3.2  Beryllium.  There is  a strong contrast  between  the  toxic  effects
 of beryllium released as a result of industrial activities  and  the  lack of
 harmful effects of  beryllium in natural  materials.  Beryllium is widespread
 in the rocks  of the earth's crust and  in soils  derived from them.  The con-
 centration of beryllium in soils in the  United  States ranges from less than
 1  up to 7  ppm, with a mean value of approximately 1 ppm.  Areas rich in
 beryllium  are small and  usually located  away  from areas  important in food
 production.   Very little beryllium is  released  to groundwater during
 weathering because  of prompt capture by  clay  particles.  The concentrations
                                                                (37)
 in surface waters of  the eastern U.S.  range from  0.1  to  0.9 ppb.      But
 beryllium  has been  found in coal ash,  originating primarily from the organic
 matter  of  the coal,  in  concentrations  as high as  100  ppm.
                                                         (27 38}
     The toxic effects  of beryllium have been documented   '    ; however,
 very little information  exists on its  uptake  by plants and animals.   The
 major potential toxic hazard to humans is via the inhalation of beryllium-
 containing  fumes and dusts that might  emanate during  processing
            (39)
 operations.      Inhaled beryllium concentrates in the skeletal system and
 lungs depending on  the compound.      However, the highest beryllium con-
 centrations are usually  associated with the liver, spleen, and bone
marrow.
     An inhibiting  effect of beryllium on the growth  of bush beans was
 evident from the dry weight of the plants grown in beryllium solutions of
                                    80

-------
                                        TABLE 4-1.  VALUES FOR  ARSENIC UPTAKE
oo
Sample
Soil
Water
Water
Water
Water
Sediment
Sediment
Grass (mixture)
Ferns
Fine needles
Agricultural crops
Agricultural crops
Agricultural crops
Source Form
74
Pentavalent As in soil
74
As in water
Arsenic** in water
Arsenic**
AsSO, in solution
AsSO. in solution
Arsenic**
Arsenate in solution
Arsenate in water
Arsenate in soil
Arsenic pesticides in soil
Arsenic pesticides in soil
Arsenic pesticides in soil
Percent Uptake/Retention*
Abiotic Components
66.2-97.1
14.5-16.4
5.0
1.2
10.0
87.0
96.0
Terrestrial Producers
2.14
12.31
8.79
16. 0-0. 10
0.83
1.25
Remarks
Microcosm
Microcosm (sediment)
Field (New Zealand)
Field (Newfoundland)
Field experiment (30 days)
Field experiment (30 days)
Field (Newfoundland)
Field (natural background
study)
Field (natural background
study)
Field (natural background
study)
Field
Field
Field
Reference
42
43
44
45
46
46
45
34
34
34
47
48
49
    *0n a concentration basis.
   **Chemical form not specified.

-------
                                             TABLE 4-1.   (Continued)
Sample

Benthic algae

Algae
Algae
00
ho
Mollusks

Snails and daphnla
Daphnids

Fish
Crustacean and fish

Source Form

Potassium arsenate
Sodium arsenate
14C-Cacodylic acid
Arsenic** in water

Potassium arsenate
Sodium arsenate in water
14C-Cacodylic acid
Arsenic** in water

14
C-Cacodylic acid in water
Potassium arsenate
Sodium arsenate in water
Percent Uptake/Retention*
Aquatic Producers
200

450
3400
Aquatic Herbivores
650

44-86
40-50
Aquatic Omnivores
3.1-5.7
400-700

Remarks Reference

Field 36

Microcosm 50
Microcosm (model ecosystem) 35

Field 36

Microcosm 50
Microcosm (model ecosystem) 35

Microcosm 50
Field 36

 * On a concentration basis.
** Chemical form not specified.

-------
various concentrations.   '  Beryllium might also be injurious to higher
plants if high levels were dispersed onto soil or into ground and irrigation
waters where plant roots might come in contact with beryllium concentrations
exceeding 1 ppm.  Studies by Slonim indicated that the amount of beryllium
concentrated within the bodies of guppies (Lebestes reticulatus) varied
directly with the concentration of beryllium in the surrounding medium and
                                            (27)
to a lesser extent with the exposure period.      In general, Slonim's results
indicate that toxicity and lethality may depend on the amount of beryllium
concentrated within the fish but would more likely be due to the effect of
beryllium on a particular target organ or cellular or subcellular component.
     According to the data presented in Table 4-2, beryllium accumulates
to a considerable degree in various vegetable crops and in the aquatic
omnivore, Lebestes reticulatus.  Beryllium concentrations were noted to be
highest in the root zone of vegetable crops and in the gastro-intestinal
tracts, kidneys, and ovaries of aquatic omnivores.  There can be no con-
clusion drawn on the ecological magnification of beryllium in either aquatic
or terrestrial ecosystems; however, the existing data imply that beryllium
concentrations in plants and animals can be greater than those in the
medium.

     4.3.3.3  Cadmium.  Cadmium may be considered  as one of  the  rarer  elements
found naturally in the earth's crust; however,  it  is fairly  accessible mainly
as an industrial by-product.  Cadmium, which  is always found  in  association
with zinc, is released as a result of zinc smelting operations and electro-
lytic refining.  Many of the forms of cadmium released as a result of  these
processes are soluble and biologically active;  therefore, they pose a
                                                     (52)
serious, potential source for organism contamination.      Zinc  is an
essential element for biological processes while  cadmium is not.  Concern
about environmental contamination from cadmium  stems from the metal's  known
tendency to replace zinc in certain enzymes,  thereby altering their
                                                                          (28)
stereostructure, impairing their catalytic activity, and causing disease.
Cadmium is present in various quantities  in soil,  water, air, and food.   In
non-polluted areas, the concentration of  cadmium  is reported  to  be <1  ppm in
soil and <1 ppb in water.
                                     83

-------
                                       TABLE 4-2.   VALUES FOR BERYLLIUM UPTAKE
Sample
                               Source Form
                              Percent Uptake/Retention*
                                  Remarks
                                 Reference
oo
Alfalfa

Barley


Pea

Lettuce

Bush bean
                               Bed-  in nutrient solution

                               Bed-  in nutrient solution
BeCl. in nutrient solution

Bed- in nutrient solution

Be in solution**
Terrestrial Producers  "

     1.93 x 102 + 0.72 x 102

     3.50 x 102 +0.91 x 102
     1.29 x 10  +0.57 x 104

     5.48 x 102 +1.57 x 102

     7.0 + 102 + 3.80 x 102

     4.08 x 104, + 1.01 x 104
     6.46 x 10Z + 1.29 x 102
     15.4 x 102 + 1.34 x 102
     1.77 x 102 + 0.35 x 102
Leaf and stem concentrations         53

Foliage concentration               53
Root concentration

Leaf and stem concentrations         53

Foliage concentration       •        53

Root concentration                  51
Stem concentration
Leaf concentration
Fruit concentration
                                                     Terrestrial Omnivores
Lab rat
Guppy
 (Lebistes reticulatus)
                                BeCl2 in solution
                                BeSO,  in water
                                <  0.2
                            Aquatic Omnivores

                                1.216  x 102 + 0.95 x  102
                                  Laboratory, administered
                                  by stomach tube
                                  Laboratory
                                                                                                                           26
                                   27
   *  On  a  concentration basis.
  **  Chemical form not specified.

-------
     There have been numerous studies documenting the toxicity of cadmium
to plants and animals.   However, there is little information in the liter-
ature related to the behavior of cadmium in ecosystems and to its transport
through food webs.  Cadmium is relatively immobile in both terrestrial and
aquatic environments.  According to the data presented in Table 4-3, the
greatest proportion (98.9 percent) of the cadmium remains in the soil and
litter, and of the cadmium introduced into the aquatic environment, 92
percent remains in the sediment.  In ecosystems subject to various inputs
of cadmium, those animals whose food base is in the soil and litter or
detritus are most susceptible to contamination.  The terrestrial decomposers,
earthworms and woodlice, substantiate this susceptibility by displaying
                                   2                     3
uptake values ranging from 1.9 x 10  percent to 1.74 x 10  percent.  In
addition, the crayfish whose food base is in the detritus also shows signs
of ecological magnification of cadmium.  However, this phenomenon is due
solely to direct uptake from the water environment.  Ecological magnifi-
                                                                     (52)
cation of cadmium in a grassland arthropod food chain does not occur.
Field crickets accumulated 60 percent of the cadmium concentration  found  in
the contaminated vegetation and the predatious wolf spider accumulated
only 70 percent of the cadmium  found in  the crickets.  Ecological magnifi-
                                                                   (54)
cation of cadmium is evidenced  in the aquatic environment.  Martin
states that cadmium concentrations in zooplankton are more than  6000 times
that in water.  In addition, concentrations in algae are 100 to  1000 times
that in water.  5'
     As shown  in Table 4-3, producers, in most cases, do not ecomagnify
cadmium.  Pollutant uptake by plants, as mentioned  in a previous section,
depends on many factors.  In a  radiotracer study of  cadmium behavior in
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems,  two  chemical forms of cadmium were
tested.      The water soluble  CdCl  was found to have a greater avail-
ability  for uptake  than the water insoluble CdO.  Uptake of trace elements
in soil by plants is highly  dependent on the  equilibrium of the  chemical
activity  of cations  in  the soil solution.  It  is important  to  measure  the
free ion  in solution to estimate  availability.   Cadmium uptake from soil
by plants was  found to be greater in acid  soils  and lower  in  organic soils
than in mineral soils; however, organic  acids from decaying leaf litter
                                    85

-------
                                              TABLE 4-3.   VALUES FOR CADMIUM UPTAKE
cx>
Sample

Soil









Source Form

109
CdCl2 in solution
ino
CdCl_ in solution
115
CdCl, in solution

CdCl2 in solution
1 OQ
1 *CdCl2 in solution

Percent Uptake/Retention*
Abiotic Components
98.9 + 1.2

95.7 + 3.7

85.5

88.4 + 2.7

91.2

Remarks

Field, spray application to
clipped plot
Field, spray application to
undipped, vegetated plot
Microcosm, applied as
simulated rainfall, 27 days
Microcosm, applied as
simulated rainfall, 70 days
Field, applied as simulated
rainfall, 6 months
Reference

56



24

57

31

      Sediment
      Water
      Moss

      Higher plants

      Grass
      Grasses, forbes, and
      goldenrod
                               115
   CdCl0  in solution
                               115
   CdCl« in solution
                               115
115
CdCl. in solution

CdCl, in solution
Cd from automobile
emissions in soil **
                               109
   CdCl- in solution
   92.47 + 1.82


   6.07 + 0.26


Terrestrial Producers

   9.2 + 1.4

   0.20 + 0.14

   127.0 +33.0
   19.8 + 5.8

   0.71 + 0.75

   3.25 + 1.82
                                                         Microcosm, transport from a          24
                                                         terrestrial microcosm, 27 days

                                                         Microcosm, transport from a          24
                                                         terrestrial microcosm, 27 days
Microcosm, 27 days                  24

Microcosm, 27 days                  24

Field, soil pH 5.9                  28
Field, soil pH 7.1

Field, applied as simulated         31
rainfall, clipped plots
Field, applied as simulated
rainfall, undipped plots
        * On  a  concentration basis.
       ** Chemical  form not specified.

-------
                                             TABLE 4-3.   (Continued)
Sample
Old field vegetation
Vegetable crop
Soybean
oo Oat shoots
Wheat
Oak tree
Sweet clover
Rabbit
Sheep
Cow
Goat
Grasshopper
Source Form
CdCl2 In solution
Cd in soil**
11sCd in soil**
1 Cd in solution**
Cd in soil**
Cd in soil**
Cd in litter-soil**
Cd in fly ash**
Cd in iron dust**
CdCl2 in feed
CdCl2 in feed
109CdCl2 in feed
Cd in vegetation**
Percent Uptake /Retention*
2.0 + 0.9
6.9 + 1.9
141.26 + 24.0
15.78
1.93
34.8-41.3
39.2-66.2
167.9 + 159.3
34.9 + 0.5
25.4
Terrestrial Herbivores
*> 30.0
5.3
18.0
-v 2.0
^ 130
Remarks
Field, spray application to
clipped plots, 1 month
Field, spray application to
undipped plots, 1 month
Field
Field, root uptake from soil
Field, foliage application
and uptake
Field, 46 ppm applied in soil
Field, 1.3 ppm applied in soil
Field
Field
Field
Laboratory, inhalation


Field
Reference
56
58
59
32
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
 * On a concentration basis.
** Chemical form not specified.

-------
                                             TABLE 4-3.   (Continued)
Sample
Lab rat
Lab rat
Lab mouse
Lab mouse
Lab mouse
Lab mouse
Lab mouse
Chipping sparrow
Field cricket
Cog
Wolfe spider
Predatory arthropod
Source Form
109
*CdCl2 in solution
115CdN03 in solution
CdCl- in gaseous form
109Cd**
109
CdCl- in solution
109
CdCl2 in solution
115CdCl2 in solution
Wild bird seed soaked in
109Cd solution**
Vegetation grown in
109cd solution**
CdCl2 in gaseous form
Crickets fed on
109cd-grown vegetation**
Cd in prey**
Percent Uptake/Retention*
Terrestrial Omnivores
0.5-8
1-2
10-20
0.5-3.0
4.5-12
1.0-2.3
1.6
7.3
2.7
8
60.9
Terrestrial Carnivores
•v 40
71.4
124.0 + 93.5
Remarks
Orally administered, 4 hours
Administered by stomach tube,
24 hours
Inhalation

Stomach injection, 11 hours
Stomach injection, 164 hours
Orally administered, VL5 days
Orally administered, 24 hours
Orally administered, 48 hours
Ingestion, 20 days
Ingestion, 30 days
Inhalation
Ingestion, 30 days
Field, ingestion
Reference
68
69
70
71
72
25
73
74
52
75
52
76
 * On a concentration basis.
** Chemical form not specified.

-------
                                            TABLE  4-3.   (Continued)
Sample Source Form
Earthworm Cd in soil**
Earthworm Cd In soil**
Earthworm Cd in soil**
Woodlouse Cd in litter-soil**
Arthropod litter Cd in litter**
oo consumer
vo
Watercress 115CdCl2 in water
Snail 115CdCl2 in water
(Goniobasis clavaefor
clavaeformis)
109
Crayfish CdCl, in water
(Orconectes propinquus)
Fish 115CdCl2 in water
(Gambusia af finis)
Percent Uptake/Retention* Remarks
Terrestrial Decomposers
3 3
1.74 x 10 + 0.42 x 10 Microcosm
1.03 x 103 + 0.03 x 103
1.63 x 103
4.96 x 102 + 1.90 x 102
36.8 + 18.4
Aquatic Producers
< 2.06 Microcosm, 27 days
Aquatic Omnivores
< 2.25 Microcosm, 27 days
1.84 x 105 Field
Aquatic Carnivores
< 2.25 Microcosm, 27 days
Reference
30
77
78
54
76
24
24
79
24
 *0n a concentration basis.
**Chemical  form not specified.

-------
 increases solubility and subsequent transport of heavy metals ^80\  Data
 presented by Miller, et al.      show a cadmium uptake by corn plants higher
 than values reported in most literature.   This may have been due to the low
 ion exchange capacity of the sandy loam soil used in the experiment.  A
 change in soil pH from 5.9 to 7.1 decreased the percent cadmium uptake from
                           ( 2.8)
 127 percent to 20 percent.      In the absence of iron chelates there was
 no difference between cadmium uptake from pH 4 and pH 6 soil solutions,
 while in the presence of Fe  DTPA, plants  grown in lower pH soil had a
 significantly greater uptake.   Also, the  addition of zinc to cadmium con-
                                                                        /OON
 taminated soils decreased the availability of cadmium for plant uptake.
      Cadmium is predominantly released from industrial activities  as an
 atmospheric aerosol,  with the airborne particulates containing  cadmium
 being deposited on the surface  of soils and plants by rain,  snow,  or as
 particulate fallout.   In grain  crops,  cadmium absorption via the foliage
 from airborne particulates is not as serious as  absorption via  the root
                                 (59)
 systems  from contaminated soils.       However,  it is important  to  remember
 that those crops consumed by either  man or animals are continuously exposed
 directly to atmospheric contamination.  Cadmium  is absorbed  and retained to
 a  considerable  degree in the body of animals following inhalation.   The
 absorption is primarily directly  from the  lungs.   Animal experiments have
 shown that absorption is between  10  and 40 percent of the inhaled  cadmium.
 A  considerable  difference might well exist for different cadmium
 compounds.
      There are  no  clear indications  from the data presented  in  the litera-
 ture of  any differences in the cadmium uptake of  herbivorous and carnivorous
 animals.   Body  concentrations of  cadmium are greatest in the liver and
 kidneys.           Cadmium retention  from gastrointestinal absorption is
                                                (83)
 greater  for acute  doses than for  chronic doses.       Dietary factors have
 been shown to influence uptake and retention of  cadmium in animals.
 Laboratory rats on a  low calcium  diet  accumulate  50  percent  more cadmium
                                f 85)
 than  rats  on  a high calcium  diet     .  Mice  on a  low protein diet  had
                                                           (72)
higher levels of cadmium than mice on a high protein diet.       Cadmium
will be found in blood,  internal  organs, and excreta after absorption
 following  exposure via  air,  oral  intake, or  injection.
     With  increasing amounts of cadmium entering  the biosphere,  it  is
important  to examine the uptake and elimination of this  element  in  organisms
                                    90

-------
and to relate elemental cycling processes to food web dynamics.  An under-
standing of these mechanisms would allow predictions of the concentrations
of cadmium in the various ecological compartments.

     4.3.3.4  Iron.  Iron ranks second to aluminum in abundance in the earth's
crust.  Depending on the season, river water concentrations of iron may range
                                ( 86)
up to several parts per million.      Iron exists in the environment in close
association with sulfur.  It is sufficiently stable to exist in the free
state and its compounds may be in either of two oxidation states, both of
which can form readily under natural conditions.
     Iron is an essential element-; it is vital for both plants and animals.
In higher animals the blood pigment, hemoglobin, contains an iron complex.
Iron may also be present in some enzymes.  The iron bacteria (general
Leptothrix, Gallionella, and Spirophyllum) accumulate ferric hydroxide in a
sheath as a part of their cell structure.  Phytoplankton exhibit a capacity
to concentrate iron up to 100,000 times the concentration in water.^
There are other species that have the ability to ecomagnify iron, but a
true understanding of this system remains obscure.
     Referring to Table 4-4, terrestrial plants and animals show very low
percent uptake values; however, macrophytes and whitefish ecomagnify iron
in the aquatic environment.  Their most significant route for uptake seems
to be by absorption from the water environment rather than transfer through
food sources.

     4.3.3.5  Lead.  Large quantities of lead are used each year in the United
States.   The largest consumer is the electric-storage battery industry (39
percent), followed by the petroleum industry which uses 20 percent of the
total for gasoline additives.  The amount of lead released into the atmosphere
over the United States is measured in hundreds of tons per day, of which 98
percent can be attributed to the combustion of gasoline.  Since lead from
automobile exhaust is an important source of lead contamination, many
                                     (88 89 90 91)
studies involve roadside ecosystems.    '  '  '     In addition, lead
smelters have been investigated as a major contributor to environmental
lead contamination.    '      The concentration of lead in the atmosphere
is highly variable depending on vehicular density and climate.  Much of

                                    91

-------
                                               TABLE  4-4.   VALUES FOR IRON UPTAKE
    Sample
vo
ho
    Sweet Clover
    Cotton rat
    Assassin bug
    (Triatomid)
    Macrophyte
    Whitefish
Source Form
Percent Uptake/Retention*   Remarks
Fe in fly ash **
                               59.
                                                  ,**
  Fe tagged lettuce
59
  Fe in hemoglobin
injected in chicken**
Fe in water**
Fe in water
                                          **
Terrestrial Producers

     0.51

Terrestrial Herbivores

     1.5


 Terrestrial Carnivores

     -v2.0-3.0



  Aquatic Producers

     3.6 x 105~  (wet weight)
     2.3 x 105

  Aquatic Carnivores

     1.4 x 104  (wet weight)
     1.5 x 10^  (x^et weight)
                            Field
                             Laboratory, absorbed  in
                             tissue after 15 hours
                             Laboratory, 87 days
                             (blood sucking and/or
                             insectivorous)
                             Field
                             Field, muscle  concentration
                             Field, bone  concentration
Reference
   62
                                                                                                                                92
   93
   29
   29
     * On a concentration basis.
    ** Chemical form not specified.

-------
the lead in the air is removed by aggregation and precipitation.  The usual
                                            (94)
range of lead in soils is from 2 to 200 ppm.      A majority of the lead
in the aquatic ecosystem is insoluble and apparently ends up in the sedi-
ments.
     Soil lead is largely unavailable for uptake by plants; only 0.003-
0.005 percent of the total lead in soil is available for such uptake.
Lead can be accumulated in plants from air and soil, but it rarely
ecomagnifies.  In an exception to the rule, however, fungi in a laboratory
experiment concentrated lead at 34 times the concentration in the culture
       (95)
medium.      A majority of the lead deposited on vegetation from the atmo-
sphere can be removed by washing '   .  Translocation of lead from the roots
                                                                      (97)
is highly variable depending on soil characteristics and plant species
Most of the lead seems to accumulate in the root system, with significantly
                                     (98)
lower levels in the stems and leaves.      The edible portion of exposed
vegetable plants contains only slightly more lead than control plants, but
                                                         (99)
the non-edible portion contains 2 to 3 times as much lead    .  The for-
mation of organic chelates may make lead more mobile in the soil but less
                                               >le pi
                                               .(98)
available to plants.       The level of available phosphorus in the soil
also affects lead uptake in a variety of plants
     Lead is a non-essential, cumulative element, which is stored mainly
in the bones and kidneys.      A low intestinal absorption (less than 5
percent) was noted in cattle six days after ingestion of lead-203 spiked
grain feed.       In a study involving levels of lead in roadside animals,
inhalation of lead sorbed on particles was demonstrated to be another
important avenue of intake/  '  Even though high concentrations of lead
are retained in the soil (97 percent), soil decomposers, such as the
earthworm and arthropod litter consumers, do not ecomagnify lead (Table 4-5)
However, lead is ecomagnified from the herbivore to carnivore-trophic level
in arthropod food webs.     '     In the vicinity of lead mining and milling
operations in Missouri, there was no magnification of lead found in the
grazing food chains involving aquatic vegetation heavily laden with
lead.       Leland and McNurney     , in a study on distribution and
bioaccumulation of lead in a river ecosystem, found higher lead concentra-
tions in detrital feeders and herbivores than carnivores.  Aquatic
                                     93

-------
                                              TABLE 4-5.   VALUES  FOR LEAD  UPTAKE
vo
Sample
Soil
Lichens
Fungi
Vegetable crop
Corn
Soybean
Lettuce
Lettuce
Oats
Oats
Source Form
Pb in aqueous slurry**
Pb in soil**
Pb in culture median**
Pb in soil**
PbCl2 in soil
PbCl2 in soil
Pb (N03)2 in soil
PbCl2 in soil
Pb(N03)2 in soil
PbCl2 in soil
Percent Uptake/Retention*
Abiotic Components
•\. 97.0
Terrestrial Producers
4.0
125.0
3.4 x 103
31.49 + 52.32
45.0
15.1
10.9
14.1
4.0
11.4
5.7
Remarks
Microcosm
Laboratory, soil
concentration - 27,500 ppm
Laboratory, soil
concentration - 20 ppm
Laboratory
Field




Shoots
Roots
Tops
Reference
105
106
95
58
107
107
96
108
96
108
     * On a concentration basis.
    ** Chemical form not specified.

-------
                                                 TABLE 4-5.   (Continued)
  Sample
 Source Form
   Percent Uptake/Retention*
                                                                                       Remarks
                                                                                             Reference
Cattle



Predatory arthropod



Earthworm

Earthworm

Woodlouse
                            203,
                               'Pb in feed**
                            Pb In prey**



                            Pb In soil**

                            Pb in soil**

                            Pb in litter-soil**
 Arthropod litter consumer  Pb in litter**
 consumer
 Bulrush
 (Scirpus americanus)

 Spike rush
 (Eleochaus smallii)

 Pitchforks
 (Bidens cernera)
 Mayfly
 Stonefly
Pb in solution**


Pb in solution**


Pb in solution**




Pb(N03)2 in solution



Pb(N03)2 in solution
  Terrestrial Omnivores

       < 5.0

 Terrestrial Carnivores

       116.0 + 29.0

Terrestrial Decomposers

       17.4

       95.0 + 25.0

       60.0 + 14.8

       7.0  + 2.0


   Aquatic Producers

       3.6  x 103
       5.9  x 104

       2.3  x 104
       2.2  x 105

       9.3  x 103
       4.2  x 104

   Aquatic  Herbivores

       11.82 x  105 +2.57 x 105

   Aquatic  Omnivores

       4.29  x 104 + 1.39 x 104
                                                             6 days
                                                             Field,  ingestion
                                                                                       Stem, laboratory
                                                                                       rhizome

                                                                                       Stem, laboratory
                                                                                       rhizome

                                                                                       Stem, laboratory
                                                                                       rhizome
                                                                                       Laboratory
                                                                                       Laboratory
 101



  76



  56

  77

  54

  76




 109


 109


 109




 110



110
 * On a concentration basis.
** Chemical form not specified.

-------
 organisms display ecomagnification of lead in solution;  however,  the
 occurrence of this phenomenon is most likely due to direct uptake of  lead
 in solution and not to  transfer in the food web.

      4.3.3.6  Manganese.   Manganese,  the twelfth most abundant element,  con-
 stitutes about 0.10 percent of the earth's crust.       Manganese is  next  to
 iron in the periodic series,  similar  to it in its chemical behavior,  and often
 closely associated with it in its natural  occurrence.  Total  manganese in
 the soil ranges from <1 ppra to 7000 ppm with a geometric mean of  340  ppm    .
 Manganese in soils reflects the influence  of rock sources as  soil parent
 materials and the nature of unconsolidated deposits on which  soils are
 formed, as well as manganese losses  through  soil weathering.  The manganese
                                         ppm t<
                                         (114)
content of groundwater ranges from <0.01 ppm to 0.87 ppm      and natural
waters generally contain 0.2 ppm or less.
     Manganese deficiencies and toxicities are well documented for a wide
range of plants      ; however, data dealing with percent uptake and ecologi-
cal transport are scarce.  Manganese in the ecosystem has well established
lines of movement from rocks to soils to plants to animals, from soils to
water, to organisms  and back to water and soils.  It has been shown that
marine organisms can concentrate manganese in their bodies to many times
the concentration in water.       In addition, there are less apparent move-
ments of manganese under natural conditions among the components of the
ecosystem.  The existence of both passive (nonmetabolic) and metabolically
dependent pathways of manganese uptake have been recognized.       In the
presence of excess manganese, uptake continues with a consequent build-up
in various vegetative parts of the plant.  Most plants can tolerate internal
manganese concentrations up to 200 ppm without showing adverse effects.
The availability of manganese to plants from soils can be evaluated by
determining the amount of secondary manganese released from various soil
extractants.  The secondary forms, in general, are amorphic and represent
the bulk of the active manganese fraction in soil.
     Many factors will affect the availability of manganese in soil and
subsequent uptake by plants;  these include concentrations of other cations
and total salts,  pH, cation exchange capacity, drainage, organic matter
content,  temperature, compaction,  and microbial activity.
                                    96

-------
Plants apparently absorb manganese primarily in the divalent state.
Lowering the soil pH or reducing soil aeration by flooding or compaction
favor the reduction of manganese to this form and thereby increases its
solubility and availability to plants.  The addition of organic matter to
soils generally reduces the availability of manganese for plant uptake.
A reduction in the population of manganese-oxidizing organisms may increase
manganese solubility.
     Of the trace elements found in the environment, manganese is among
the least toxic to mammals and birds.      Manganese is an essential
mineral for nearly all organisms.  Most animals can tolerate concentrations
of manganese ranging from 500 to 4,920 ppm without evidence of ill effects.
Large fluctuations in dietary intake do not result in appreciable changes
in the tissue concentrations.  Manganese was absorbed in experimental
animals following the inhalation of automobile exhaust, as indicated by
increased tissue concentrations.       Higher concentrations of manganese
are usually associated with the pigmented portions of the body, pituitary
gland, pancreas, liver, kidney, and bones.
     The data presented in Table 4-6 seem to indicate that manganese is
ecologically magnified in macrophytes and fish in the aquatic environment.
This magnification is due to a direct uptake from the water rather than to
transport within the food web.

     4.3.3.7  Mercury.  Mercury is a relatively rare element and there are
comparatively few places in the world where it occurs naturally in more than
trace amounts.  Essentially, the range of mercury in waters in the U.S. is
from 0.5 ppb to 10 ppb with the great majority of waters having concentrations
of less than 1 ppb.  The natural background levels  of total mercury in
surface and groundwaters is well below 0.5 ppb.  The largest use of mercury
is in the production of electrical apparatus and in the  electrolytic prepara-
tion of chlorine and caustic soda.   Organic-mercury fungicides have had
enormous economic importance since the 1940's  in the prevention of seed
borne diseases of cereals and  flax.   Besides the direct  use of mercury by
man, other activities such as  the burning of fossil fuels  and  land altera-
tions causing erosion increase the cycling  of  mercury  in the  environment.
                                     97

-------
                                           TABLE 4-6.   VALUES FOR MANGANESE  UPTAKE
    Sample
Source Form
  Percent Uptake/Retention*	Remarks
                                Reference
oo
    Sweet clover
     Lab rat
    Macrophytes
     Whitefish
Mn in fly ash**
Terrestrial Producers

     13.80

Terrestrial Omnivores
                               54
  Mn orally administered**      4.0
Mn in water**.
Mn in water **
  Aquatic Producers

     1.5 x 10^- (wet weight)
     1.4 x 102-

  Aquatic  Carnivores
             3
     1.0 x 10  (wet weight)
     1.0 x 105 (wet weight)
Field                               62
                                  Initially absorbed                 120
Field                               29
Field, muscle concentration         29
Field, bone concentration
      * On a  concentration basis.
     ** Chemical  form not specified.

-------
     The toxic effects of mercury on aquatic and terrestrial organisms,
including man, have been recognized for centuries.  In recent years, high
mercury concentrations in the food supply of man, causing neurological
disorders, e.g., the Minamata disease in Japan, have been discovered.  This
awareness of the potentially harmful effects has led to a need for an
understanding of mercury's behavior in the environment, in both aquatic and
terrestrial subsystems.  This need has been partially fulfilled, primarily
by studies dealing with mercury in the aquatic system.  However, the
dynamics of the movement of different forms of mercury in aquatic or
terrestrial food webs and the relative contributions of the direct uptake
component and the trophic component to mercury body burdens in organisms
are largely unknown.
     Most of the mercury reaching surface waters is deposited in the
sediments and subsequently remobilized slowly by microbial and chemical
          (121 122)
processes     '   y  (see Figure 4-7).  The concentration of mercury
increases from the  shallow, near-shore, coarse sediments to the central,
deep-water-basin sediments of fine silty clays.  This is because smaller
particles have a greater surface-area-to-volume ratio and a greater
                                 (123)
adsorption affinity for mercury.       The biological cycle of mercury from
sediments to waters by benthic organisms and by rooted aquatic plants has
                   (122)                   (124)
been investigated.     '  According to Wood      ,  the  interconversions of
mercury compounds are manifested by a dynamic  system  of reversible  reac-
tions, leading to a steady state concentration of methyl mercury in
sediments.  These interconversions can be catabolized by microorganisms.
Although mercury is released into the environment in  several organo-mercury
compounds or  inorganic forms, conversion to the methyl form frequently
occurs as a result  of bacterial  action.
     Ecological magnification of mercury was noted  in soil fungi
(Aspergillus niger  and Penicillum notatum), in aquatic plants  (Elodes densa
and Myriophyllum spicatum L._), and in organisms  (Gambusia affinis and
Carassius auratus)  (see Table 4-7).  Hardcastle and Mavichakana^
 monstrated fungal  uptake of mercury as an  important  aspect of  food chain
contamination.  Mercury uptake by the fungi varied  according to the specific
mercury compound present and the mercury concentration in the nutrient
cultures.  A  greater uptake of mercury in the  fungi was  shown  for  inorganics
                                     99

-------
                                             TABLE  4-7.   VALUES FOR  MERCURY UPTAKE
    Sample
Source Form
   Percent Uptake/Retention*
Remarks
    Moss
    Grass
o   Forbes
    Soil  fungi
     (Aspergillus niger and
    Penicillium notaturn)

    Forbes, grasses, and
    goldenrod
     Sweet  clover
     Rooted plant
     (Elodea densa)

     Water milfoil
     (Myriophyllum specatum
     specatum L.)
                               203
   Kg-tagged fly ash
                                                    **
203Hg-tagged fly ash**

203Hg-tagged fly ash**

203HgCl2 and CH3203HgCl
in nutrient culture
Terrestrial Producers

     0.075

     0.11

     0.09

     1.09 x 104 + 0.49 x 104
203
   Hg(1103)2 in simulated rain   0.64 ± 0.50

                                2.73 + 2.08
Hg in fly astf*
CH 203HgCl and 2°3HgCl2
solution

Organic and inorganic Hg
in solution
                                                               8.64
  Aquatic Producers

     5.19 x 106 + 3.35 x 106
     2.21 x 104 + 1.76 x 104
Reference

Soil-litter
Sediment
Sediment

203
Hg- tagged fly ash **
203
HG-tagged fly ash**

Abiotic Components
46.3
99.6
97.0

Microcosm, 139 days
Microcosm, 139 days


24
24
127
Microcosm, 139 days                 24

Microcosm, 139 days                 24

Microcosm, 139 days                 24

Laboratory                         126
                                  Field application, 165 days        31
                                  on clipped plots
                                  Field application, 165 days
                                  on undipped plots

                                  Field                              62
Laboratory                         127
Laboratory, 8 days                 122
     * On a concentration basis.
    ** Chemical form not specified.

-------
                                                TABLE  4-7.   (Continued)
Sample
Source Form
Percent Uptake/Retention*
Remarks
Reference
Goldfish
(Carassius auratus)

Snail
Fish
(Gambusia affinis)

Fish
(Gambusia affinis)
HgCl2 in solution
203.
                         203,
   Hg-tagged fly ash
                                              **
Aquatic Omnivores

    1.14 x  10* + 1.03 x 104
   Hg-tagged fly ash**          0.13

                            Aquatic  Carnivores
    0.02
Hg° and HgCl2 in solution       2.1 x 104
Laboratory, 81 hours
                                Microcosm, 139 days
Microcosm, 139 days
                                Laboratory, 24 hours
                                  128
                                   24
   24
                                  129
  * On a  concentration basis.
** Chemical  form not specified.

-------
 than organics;  however,  organics display greater toxicity.   The percent
 uptake  of  mercury is  greater at  lower environmental concentrations;
 therefore,  some organisms can accumulate significant amounts even on
                                           f-\ OQ \
 exposure to very low  trace concentrations.        Mosses  do  not  assimilate
 minerals and water from  soil but rather derive  most of their constituents,
 including  heavy metals,  from the atmosphere     .   Mercury  ions dissolved
 in run-off water will accumulate in Dicranum scoparium (a mat-forming moss)
 if the  water contacts any part of the plant.        Mercury  bound in  the  soil
 was  not available for uptake by  the moss, but soil  mercury  was  evidently
 mobile  and leachable  by  groundwater.   Mercury accumulation  in vegetable
 crops is notably in the  root portions.   The mercury concentration in leaf
 lettuce, spinach,  broccoli,  cauliflower,  peas,  oats,  radishes,  and carrots
 was  higher in the root portions  than the above-ground portion.       The
 remaining  terrestrial producers,  for the most part,  exhibit low percent
 uptake  values.
     Mercury uptake directly from the water medium  is evidenced by percent
 uptake  values of 5.2  x 10  for rooted aquatic plants,  2.21  x 10  for water-
                   4                           4
 milfoil, 1.14 x 10 for  goldfish,  and 2.1 x 10   for  fish.   Of the mercury
 in Swedish  pike,  50 percent  was  shown to  come directly from the water
                                 (132)
 rather  than from the  food chain.       Mercury was  found  to concentrate
                                                  (128)
 initially  in the external mucous  secreted by fish.        Additional  factors
 influencing mercury uptake in fish include  water hardness,  temperature,  pH,
 volume  and  associated heavy  metal  ions.  Mercury levels in  predacious
 fish  (smallmouth bass, rock  bass,  green  sunfish, and  yellow bullhead) were
 shown to be two  to three  times greater than mercury  levels  in non-predacious
                                                       (123)
 fish  (white suckers,  carp, common  shiners,  and chubs).        The predators
 appear  to accumulate  higher  concentrations  of mercury from  their diet
 because  of  their position in  the  food  chain; however,  predators  have  higher
 rates of respiration  so greater mercury accumulation  may  occur  due to
 higher  gill  irrigation during respiration.
     Fish accumulate mercury  in aquatic environments,  while  fish-eating
birds may play a major role  in transmitting mercury into  the  terrestrial
 food chain.  Mercury levels  in two  fish eaters, great  blue heron and  common
 tern, far exceeded mercury levels  in other  species.        Very high mercury
concentrations,  up to 17.4 ppm in  the liver, were found in  fish-eating
                                    102

-------
birds'    .  Osprey feed almost entirely on fish (^ 99 percent of diet), and
mercury concentrations in their body tissues appear to be three to five
times those of the fish on which they prey.    '  In addition, increased
levels of mercury concentrations in animals of the terrestrial food chain
have been recognized with seed-eating species ingesting methyl mercury-
                  /QO\
contaminated seed.
     Mercury concentrations appearing in the body accumulate to the greatest
degree in the liver and kidney/13 '  Mercury retention from inhalation
ranges from 10 to 100 percent, depending on the chemical form, aerosol
particle diameter, and density.   '  Daily consumption of fish containing
5 to 6 ppm mercury may be lethal to humans.
     In summary, there is evidence of ecological magnification of mercury
through the food web in both the aquatic and terrestrial food chain.
However, to speak of aquatic food web accumulation without quantification
of mercury uptake directly from the water may not be realistic.  Aquatic
organisms accumulate mercury directly from the water medium and because of
their position in the food web, such as is the case with osprey and other
fish eating species.  There is a need for detailed study on this subject.

     4.3.3.8  Selenium.  Selenium is erratically dispersed in geologic materials
but is usually associated with sulfur and  sulfur compounds in sandstone,  lime-
stone, and other sedimentary rocks.  Average concentrations of selenium in
the earth's crust range from 0.03 to 0.8 ppm.  The selenium content of
black shales and coal is 10 to 20 times the concentration in  the earth's
crust.  The selenium concentration in soils varies with the selenium  con-
tent of the parent material.   Selenium  concentration  in river water in the
United  States is normally  less than  0.5 ppb      .
      Interest in  selenium in  the environment  and in human diets  has
increased in  recent years.  Selenium has  been shown to be an  essential
element when  present in trace concentrations  but  to be a toxicant when
present in greater quantities.      The occurrence of selenium at toxic
concentrations  in a number of species  results from the movement of selenium
 from highly seleniferous soils through plants to animals.   At the other
 end of the physiological scale,  selenium is necessary for the prevention
 of various degenerative processes, including white muscle disease in
                                     103

-------
 ruminants.   Another  reason  for  increasing  interest  in  selenium stems  from
 high selenium concentrations  discovered  in coal  fly ash.   It  is possible
 that coal mining  and combustion constitute the major movement of selenium
 in North America      .   However,  the  selenium in fly ash has  been found to
 be present  as elemental  selenium,  a form which is ordinarily  only slightly
 available to plants  or to animals  from ingested  food.
      Selenium is  relatively mobile in the  terrestrial  environment in
 comparison  with the  other contaminants of  this study.  Two references
 cited  in Table 4-8 report 68  and  76 percent of applied selenium retention
 in the soil.   However, as much  as  99  percent of  the selenium  introduced
 into the aquatic  environment  accumulates in the  sediments.  The secondary
 sources of  selenium  are  biological sinks in which selenium has  accumulated.
 The  presence of above-average amounts of selenium in soils does not always
 affect the  uptake of selenium by all  plants or,  consequently,  its presence
 in the diet of animals.  However,  selenium accumulator plants (plants that
 concentrate high  levels  of  selenium)  can contain selenium concentrations
 that are toxic to animals.  Plants are usually more tolerant  to excessive
 levels of selenium than  are animals.  The  availability of selenium to
 plants from soil  is  determined by  various  factors;  these include the
 chemical form of  selenium in the soil, content of organics and  clay in the
 soil,  soil  pH, and interactions with other compounds such as  phosphates and
 sulfates in the soil.  In general, plants may contain  from 0  to 10 ppm
 selenium; however, concentrations  in accumulator plants may range from 50
 to 100 ppm.  According to Gissel-Nielson and Bisbjerg     , elemental
 selenium is  generally not available for plant uptake.  In addition,
 selenate forms are much more soluble in soils and more available  to plants
 than selenite  forms, and the danger of producing,plants containing toxic
 levels of selenium is much greater with selenates than with selenites.
Thus,  there  is not necessarily a direct relation between the  total selenium
concentration  in  the soil and .its concentration in plants.
     Animals retain 25 to 70 percent of the dietary selenium  consumed
Factors influencing retention include body stores of selenium as well as
the chemical form of selenium present in the diet.  In reference  to
selenium requirements and toxicity, it appears desirable to maintain the
                                   104

-------
                                  TABLE 4-8.  VALUES  FOR SELENIUM UPTAKE
Sample

Soil
Soil

Water
Sediment

M
g Pasture herbage
Ryegrass
Sweet clover
Clover


Barley


Mustard


Plants

Source Form

Sodium selenate solution
75SeO,
£
75Se02
75Se02

Sodium selenite solution
Se in soil**
Se in fly ash**
Se° .
Selenites
Selenates
Se°
Selenites
Selenates
Se°
Selenites
Selenates
75SeO,
f.
Percent Uptake/Retention*
Abiotic Components
68.0
75.6

-v 0.7
99.0
Terrestrial Producers
•v 1.0
< 2.0
13.96
0.005
1.0
46.7 + 20.3
0.02
1.0
22.3 + 9.0
0.07
1.1
44.3 + 18.8
8.0

Remarks

Field, top 9 Inches
Microcosm, applied as
simulated rainfall, 56 days
Microcosm, 56 days
Microcosm, 56 days

Field
Field
Field
Laboratory


Laboratory


Laboratory


Microcosm, applied as
simulated rainfall, 56 days
Reference

139
24

24
24

139
140
62
138


138


138


24

 * On a concentration basis.
** Chemical form not specified.

-------
                                              TABLE  4-8.   (Continued)
Sample
Sheep
Sheep
o Swine
Lab rat
Lab rat
Snail
(Goniobasis
clavaefonnis)
Fish
(Gambusia affinls)
Source Form Percent Uptake/Retention*
Terrestrial Herbivores
75Se** 35.0
Se-selenious acid ^49.0
Terrestrial Omnivores
75Se** 85.0
Selenite-75 > 50.0
Wheat containing selenium ^ 40.0
Aquatic Omnivores
75Se02 < 0.1
Aquatic Carnivores
75Se02 < 0.1
Remarks
Wet absorption
Laboratory, introduced into
rumen, 72 hours
Net absorption
Laboratory, in carcass
Laboratory, 6 weeks
Microcosm, 56 days
Microcosm, 56 days
Reference
141
142
141
143
144
24
24
 * On a concentration basis.
** Chemical form not specified.

-------
selenium concentration in human and animal diets in the range of 0.05 or
0.1 to 3 or 4 ppm.(137)
     Referring to the data in Table 4-8, selenium does not appear to magnify
in any of the ecological components.  The greatest absorption of selenium
was shown by swine,      with a net absorption of 85 percent.  The maximum
uptake in plants was 47 percent by clover.       The interactions of
selenium in soils, plants, and animals are exceedingly complex and difficult
to predict; thus, future research dealing with the transport of selenium
from soils to plants to animals is needed.

     4.3.3.9  Other Pollutants.  As noted in the introduction of this section,
nitrogen and sulfur were not considered relevant to the objective of this
portion of the study.  More specifically, sulfate sulfur, sulfur dioxide,
nitrate nitrogen, and nitrogen oxides were not included.  Both elemental
sulfur and nitrogen are considered to be commonly occurring and biologi-
cally essential macro-nutrients to all living organisms.  Neither element
is known to accumulate in any of the biological compartments in concentra-
tions that are toxic or in excess of that which is normally found in the
environment.  Therefore, the concern involving these compounds is not their
potential accumulation or magnification through a food web, but either the
problem of direct contact toxicity or the problem of resultant chemical
changes effected by these pollutants on the abiotic components.  The Copper
Basin at Copperhill, Tennessee, is a prime example of the problems of both
direct contact toxicity and long-term abiotic chemical changes resulting
from extremely high sulfur dioxide emissions on a terrestrial ecosystem.

4.3.4  Pis cus s ion

     The objective of this preliminary study of ecological transport and
distribution was to review and. identify the current state-of-the art on the
likelihood of environmental transport within a generic ecosystem of certain
specific pollutants that might be generated by a coal cleaning facility.
In each section, the specific discussions (1) relate to the individual
pollutants under consideration and the parameters controlling the transport
and the ultimate ecological fate of each pollutant  and  (2) deal with the
                                    107

-------
 problems  encountered  and  the  limitations  to  be imposed  on extrapolation
 from the  data  reported.
      All  of  the  pollutants  considered  in  this  study  have  been  found  to be
 toxic to  living  systems above certain  concentrations  .   .   However,  the
 concern here was whether  or not  those  levels of reported  toxicity  are
 likely to be reached  through  normal  environmental  exposure.  That  is, even
 if  the source  release  rate  for a specific pollutant  from  a  coal  cleaning
 facility  were  below the U.S.  Government regulation levels,  would the
 pollutant ecomagnify  to the point where the  concentrations  reached the
 toxicity  threshold?
      The  best  method  currently in. use  to  predict pollutant  concentrations
 through a food web is  that  of computer simulation.   In  order to  accomplish
 this  goal of modeling  total body burdens  or  specific organ  concentrations
 of  a  pollutant,  one must  be able to  use data that  reflect all  possible
 exposure  routes  and that  identify the  major  parameters  influencing transport
 via those routes.  Figure 4-5 reflects the individual exposure routes
 that  need characterization  and measurement.  These types of  data,  if  avail-
 able,  would  allow for  calculation of the  rate  transfer  coefficients and
 would allow  development of  a  system  simulation  model.
      A significant finding  related to  this portion of the study  was that
 data  enabling  the calculation of rate  transfer  coefficients  were not
 available.   Investigators in  general either  fail to  consider or  fail  to
 report:
      (1)  Chemical form of  pollutant used  in the experiment  or
          found  in the environment
      (2)  Measurement of major parameters affecting  transport  in
          their  experiments
      (3)  Data partitioned  into  specific exposure sources (i.e.,
          food source, inhalation, and adsorption)
      (4)  Experiment time duration.
     Therefore,  an accurate comparison between  the percent uptake  or  dis-
tribution as reported here and the currently reported toxicity levels is
beyond the state-of-the-art.
                                    108

-------
     The data reported here represent a synthesis of information from many
literature sources.  These data reflect the best estimation of what the
final fate of each pollutant might be in a generic ecosystem.  They do not,
however, take into account such important factors as (1) pollutant chemical
form, (2) species composition of each functional group, (3) age structure
within species and its influence on uptake, (4) seasonal variation (i.e.,
rainfall, growth rates, and soil water freezing), (5) successional stage
variation, and (6) topography, to mention a few.
     The information presented here was organized to permit the identifi-
cation of selected Priority 1 pollutant magnification among the functional
components of a generic Northern Appalachian-Midwest ecosystem (Figure 4-3).
As emphasized in the sections above, a number of factors, both abiotic and
biotic, directly affect the uptake of pollutants by plants and animals.
The pollutant's biological and physical distribution and behavior will vary
from region to region within the generic ecosystem.  This variation is due
to the differences of these factors.  A statement pertaining to the general
behavior of a pollutant, as has been made here, can be misleading if one is
not aware of the large possible variations.  Therefore, limitations on the
usage of the data presented should be imposed.  The information should be
used as a general identification of ecomagnification and not as an accurate
quantification of pollutant transfer.  However, future research incorpo-
rating the necessary data, previously mentioned, for calculation of transfer
coefficients would produce a more accurate quantification.
                                   109

-------
                             4.4  References
(1)  Mezey, E.J., Singh, S., and Hissong, D.W., "Fuel Contaminants", Vol. 1,
     Chemistry, EPA-600/2-76-177a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
     North Carolina (July, 1976).

(2)  Zubovic, P., "Physiochemical Properties of Certain Elements as Con-
     trolling Factors in Their Distribution in Coal", in Coal Science, Ed.
     by R. F. Gould, Advances in Chemistry Series, No. 35, American
     Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. (1966).

(3)  Ewing, R.A., Tolle, D.A., Min, S., Raines, G.E., and Holoman, V.L.,
     "Development of Environmental Assessment Criteria", Draft Report to
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
     (April 8, 1977),  46 pp.

(4)  Gluskoter, H.J.,  Ruch, R.R., Miller, W.G., Cahill, R.A., Dreher, G.B.,
     and Kuhn, J.K., "Trace Elements in Coal:  Occurrence and Distribution".
     E-PA-600/7-77-064, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial
     Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North
     Carolina (June, 1977).

(5)  Klein, D.H., Andren, A.W.,  Carter, J.A., Emergy, J.F., Feldman, C.,
     Fulkerson, W., Lyon, W.S.,  Ogle,  J.C.,  Talmi, Y., Van Hook, R.I., and
     Bolton, N., "Pathways of Thirty-Seven Trace Elements Through Coal-
     Fired Power Plant", Environmental Science and Technology, 9_ (10),
     973-9 (1975).

(6)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Compilation of Air Pollution
     Emission Factors, AP-42, 2nd Ed., Office of Air and Water Programs,
     Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina (April, 1973).

(7)  Blackwood, T.R.  and Wachter,  R.A., "Source Assessment:  Coal Storage
     Piles", Draft Report to U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, from
     Monsanto Research Corporation (July,  1977).

(8)  Abel,  K.H.,  et al., "Final  Report:  Assessment of Emission Control
     Technology for Sulfur Dioxide,  Particles,  and Trace Elements in Flue
     Gas from Large Coal-Fired Power Plants",  Battelle-Northwest Laboratories
     (September 15,  1974).
                                    110

-------
 (9)   Ambrose,  D.,  Harrington,  J.,  Sticksel,  P.,  and Thomas,  T.,  "Final
      Report on Pollution Control Activities  by the U.S.  Environmental
      Protection Agency" to the German UBA, Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
      (November 3,  1977).

(10)   Turner, D.B., Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates, McGraw-
      Hill Publishing Company,  New  York,  N.Y. (1970).

(11)   Ambrose,  D.,  Brown, D., and Clark,  R.,  "Fugitive Monitoring At  a Coal
      Cleaning Plant Site", paper presented at the Second Symposium on
      Fugitive Emissions:  Measurement and Control, Houston,  Texas  (May  23-
      25,  1977).

(12)   Andren, A.W., Lindberg, S.E., and Bate, L.C., "Atmospheric  Input and
      Geochemical Cycling of Selected Trace Elements in Walker Branch
      Watershed", ORNL-NSF-EATC-13  (June, 1975).

(13)   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations, bQ_
      Protection of Environment, Revised  as of July 1, 1977,  Office of the
      Federal Register,  National Archives and Records Service, General
      Services Administration,  Washington, D.C. (1977), Part  434, "Coal
      Mining Point  Source Category", pp 685-689.

(14)   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Coal Mining Point Source
      Category, Standards of Performance  for  New Sources  (Proposed),  42  F.R.
      46932-46938 (September 19, 1977).

(15)   Raines, G.E., "Some Interactions of Chemical Kinetics and Axial
      Dispersion in Transient Systems", Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio  State
      University (1966).

(16)   Korte, N.E.,  Skopp, J., Fuller, W.H., Niebla, E.E., and Alesii, B.A.,
      "Trace Element Movement in Soils:  Influence of Soil Physical and
      Chemical Properties", Soil Science, 122 (6), 350-359 (1976).

(17)   Truhart,  R.,  "Ecotoxicology—A New  Branch of Toxicology: A General
      Survey of its Aims, Methods and Prospects", Ecological  Toxicology
      Research, Mclntyre, A.D.  and  C. F.  Mills, editors,  Plenum Press,
      New York (1974).

(18)   D'ltri. F.  M., the Environmental Mercury Problem, CRC Press,
      Cleveland (1972),  124 pp.

(19)   Bohn, H.L., "Soil  Absorption  of Air Pollutants", J. Environ.  Qual.,
      1 (4), 372-77 (1972).

(20)   Nisbet, C.T., "Ecological Magnification", Technology Review,  77^ (5),
      6 (1975).

(21)   Huckabee, J.W., "Environmental Mercury", Bio. Science,  2£ (6),
      336 (1972).
                                    Ill

-------
 (22)  Goldwater, L.J., "Mercury in the Environment", Sci. Amer., 224  (5),
      15-21  (1971).

 (23)  Peakall, D.B. and Lovett, R.J., "Mercury:  Its Occurrence and Effects
      in the Ecosystem", Bio. Science, 22^  (1), 20-25 (1972).

 (24)  Huckabee, J.W. and Blaylock, B.C., "Microcosm Studies on the Transfer
      of Hg, Cd, and Se from Terrestrial to Aquatic Ecosystems", Trace
      Substances in Environmental Health-VIII, D.D. Hemphill, editor  (1974).

 (25)  Nordberg, G.F., "Effects of Acute and Chronic Cadmium Exposure on the
      Testicles of Mice", Environ. Physiol., 1, 171 (1971).

 (26)  Crowley, J.F., Hamilton, J.G. and Scott, K.G., "The Metabolism of
      Carrier-Free 7Be in the Rat", J. Biol. Chem., 177. 975 (1949).

 (27)  Slonim, A.R., "Acute Toxicity of Beryllium Sulfate to the Common
      Guppy", J. Water Poll. Cent. Fed., 45_, 2110 (1973).

 (28)  Lagerwerff, J.V. and Sprecht, A.W., "Occurrence of Environmental
      Cadmium and Zinc and Their Uptake by Plants", Trace Substance in
      Environmental Health—IV, Dilbert D. Hemphill, editor, University
      of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri (1973).

 (29)  Merlini, M., Bigliocca, Carla, Berg, A., and Pozzi, G., "Trends in
      the Concentrations of Heavy Metals in Organisms of a Mesotrophic
      Lake as Determined by Activation Analysis", reprint from  Nuclear
      Techniques in Environmental Pollution, International Atomic Energy
      Agency, Vienna (1971).

 (30)  Van Hook, R.I., Blaylock, B.C., Boudietti, E.A.,  Frances, C.W.,
      Huckabee, J.W., Reichle, D.E., Sweeton, F.H., and Witherspoon, J.P.,
      "Radioisotope Techniques to Evaluate the Environmental Behavior of
      Cadmium", Reprint from Comparative Studies of Food and Environmental
      Contamination,  International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1974).

 (31)  Matti, C.S., Witherspoon, J.P., Blaylock, B.C.,  "Cycling of Mercury
      and Cadmium in an Old Field During One Growing Season",  Environmental
      Sciences Division,  Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-NSF-EATC-10
      (1975).

(32)  John,  M.K.,  Chuah,  H.N., and Van Laerhoven, C.J., "Cadmium Content
      of Soil and Its Uptake by Oats", Environ. Sci.  Tech., £,  555 (1972).

(33)  Buchanan,  W.D,,  Toxicity of Arsenic Compounds,  Elsevier Publishing
      Company,  New York (1962),  155 pp.

(34)  Schroeder,  H.A,  and Balassa, J.B.,  "Abnormal Trace Elements in Man:
      Arsenic",  J.  Chronic Diseases,  19,  85-106 (1966).
                                   112

-------
(35)   Woolson,  E.A.,  "Bioaccumulation",  Arsenical Pesticides,  ACS Symposium
      Series 7, E.  A.  Woolson,  editor, 97-107,  American Chemical Society
      (1974),  176 pp.

(36)   Luh,  M.,  Baker,  R.A.  and  Henley, D.E.,  "Arsenic Analysis and Toxicity:
      A Review", The  Sci.  of the Total Environment,  2 (1),  1-12 (1973).

(37)   National  Research Council, "Beryllium", Geochemistry  and the Environ-
      ment, Volume II, A Report of the Workshop at the Asiloman Conference
      Grounds,  Pacific Grove, California,  National Academy  of  Science,
      Washington, D.C. (1977).

(38)   Slonim,  A.R.  and Ray, E.E., "Acute Toxicity of Beryllium Sulfate  to
      Salamanda Larvae (Ambystoma spp.)",  Bull. Envir. Contam. Toxicol.,
      13,  307  (1975).

(39)   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  "Beryllium", Quality Criteria
      for  Water, Washington, D.C. (1976).

(40)   Stockinger, H.E., Steadman, L.T. and Root, R.E., "Retention of
      Beryllium in Animal Tissues Following Inhalation of its  Salts", Arch.
      Ind.  Hyg. Occupational Med., 3,  422  (1951).

(41)   Klemperer, F.W., Martin,  A.P. and Liddy,  R.E., "The Fate of Beryllium
      Compounds in the Rat", Arch. Biochem.  Biophys., 41, 148  (1952).

(42)   Draggan,  S.,  "Effects of  Substrate Type and Arsenic Dosage Level  on
      Arsenic  Behavior in Grassland Microcosms.  Part 1:  Preliminary
      Results  on ?4.AS Transport", Proceedings of the Terrestrial Microcosms
      and  Environmental Chemistry Symposium,  Corvallis, Oregon (June 13-17,
      1977), in press.

(43)   Giddings, J.M.  and Eddlemon, G.K., "The Effects of Microcosm Size
      and  Substrate Type on Aquatic Microcosm Behavior and Arsenic
      Transport", Archives of Environmental Contamination and  Toxicology
      (1977).

(44)   Ritchie,  J.A.,  "Arsenic and Antimony in Some New Zealand Thermal
      Waters",  N. Z.  Jour.  Sci., 4_, 218-229 (1961).

(45)   Penrose,  W.R.,  Black, R.  and Hayward, M.J.j "Limited Arsenic Dis-
      persion in Sea  Water, Sediment,  and Biota near a Continuous Source",
      J. Fish Res.  Bd. Can., _3£, 1275-1281 (1975).

(46)   Sohacki,  L.P.,  "Dynamics, of Arsenic in the Aquatic Environment",
      Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University,  East Lansing, Michigan
      (1968),  136 pp.

(47)   Liebig,  G.F., Jr., Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils, Univ. of
      Calif. (1966),  pp 13-23.
                                    113

-------
 (48)  Chisholm, D., "Lead, Arsenic, and Copper Content of Crops Grown on
      Lead Arsenate-Treated and Untreated  Soils", Can. J. Plant Sci., 52,
      583-588  (1972).

 (49)  Woolson, E.A., "Arsenic Phytotoxicity and Uptake in Six Vegetable
      Crops", Weed  Science, 21_, 524-527 (1973).

 (50)  Isensee, A.R., Kearney, P.C., Woolson, E.A., Jones, G.E. and Williams,
      V.P., "Distribution of Alkyl Arsenicals in Model Ecosystems", Env.
      Sci. and Technology, 7_, 841-845  (1973).

 (51)  Romney, E.M., Childness, J.D. and Alexander, G.V., "Beryllium and the
      Growth of Bush Bean", Science, 135,  786 (1962).

 (52)  Van Hook, R.I. and Yates, A.J.,  "Transient Behavior of Cadmium in a
      Grassland Arthropod Food Chain", Environmental Research, _9_  (1),
      76-83 (1975).

 (53)  Romney, E.M.  and Childness, D.J., "Effects of Beryllium in Plants and
      Soil", Soil Sci., 100, 786  (1965).

 (54)  Martin, M.H., Coughtrey, P.J. and Young, E.W., "Observations of the
      Availability  of Lead, Zinc, Cadmium, and Copper in Woodland Litter
      and the Uptake of Lead, Zinc, and Cadmium by the Woodlouse, Oniscus
      asellus", Chemosphere, 5^, 313-318 (1976).

 (55)  Funk, W.H., Rabe, F.W. and Filby, R., "The Biological Impact of
      Combined Metallic and Organic Pollution in the Coeur'd Alene-Spokane
      River Drainage System", Washington State University, Pullman,
      Washington, and University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.  Joint Project
      Completion Report No. B-044WASH and B-015 IDA (1973), 187 pp.

 (56)  Van Hook, R.I., Harris, W.F., Henderson, G.S.  and Reichle, D.E.,
      "Trace Element Distribution on Walter Brand Watershed", Trace
      Contaminants in the Environment, Proceedings of the Second Annual
      NSF-RANN Trace Contaminants Conference (1974).

 (57)  Van Voris,  Peter, "Functional Complexity and Ecosystem Stability:   An
      Experimental Approach", A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of
      Philosophy Degree,  The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (1977).

 (58)  Ratsch,  H.C.,  "Heavy Metal Accumulation in Soil and Vegetation from
      Smelter Emissions",  National Environmental Research Center,  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, EPA 660/3-74-012
      (1974).

(59)  Haghiri,  F., "Cadmium Uptake by Plants", J. Environ.  Quality, 2^ (1),
      93-95 (1973).

(60)  Linnmann, L.,  Anderson,  A.,  Nilsson, K.O.,  Lind,  B.,  Kjellstrom, T.
      and Friberg, L.,  "Cadmium Uptake by  Wheat from Sewage Sludge Used  as a
      Plant Nutrient Source",  Arch.  Environ.  Health, 27,  45 (1973).

                                   114

-------
(61)   Jackson,  D.R.  and Watson,  A.P.,  "Disruption of Nutrient Pools and
      Transport of Heavy Metals  in a Forested Watershed Near a Lead
      Smelter", J. Environ.  Quality (1978),  in press.

(62)   Furr,  Keith, Stoewsand,  G.S., Bache,  C.A.,  Gutenmann,  W.A.  and Lisk,
      J.,  "Multi-element Residues in Tissues of Guinea Pigs  Fed Sweet
      Clover Grown on Fly Ash",  Arch.  Environ.  Health, 30.,  244-248 (1975).

(63)   Friberg,  L., "Health Hazards in the Manufacture of Alkaline
      Accumulators with Special  References  to Chronic Cadmium Poisoning",
      Acta Med. Scand., 138-240  (1950).

(64)   Doyle, J.J., Pfander,  W.H., Giebing,  S.E. and Pierce,  J.O.,II,
      "Effects  of  Dietary Cadmium on Growth and Tissue Levels in Sheep",
      Trace  Substances in Environmental Health-VI, Hemphill, D.D., editor
      (1973).

(65)   Miller,' W.,  Lampp, J.B., Powell, G.W., Salotti, C.A.  and Blackmon,
      D.M.,  "Influence of a High Level of Dietary Cadmium on Cadmium
      Content in Milk,  Excretion and Cow Performance", J. Dairy Sci., 50,
      1404 (1967).

(66)   Miller, W.J.,  Blackmon,  D.M., Gentry,  R.P.  and Pate,  F.M., "Effect  of
      Dietary Cadmium on Tissue Distribution of Cadmium Following a Single
      Oral Dose in Young Goats", J. Dairy Sci., 52, 2029 (1969).

(67)   Munshower, F.F.,  "Cadmium Compartmentation and Cycling in a Grassland
      Ecosystem in the Deer Lodge Valley, Montana", Ph.D. Thesis, Botany
      Department,  University of  Montana, Missoula, Montana,  106 pp (1972).

(68)   Cotzias,  G.C., Borg, D.C.  and Selluk,  B., "Virtual Absence of Turn-
      over in Cadmium Metabolism:  109cd Studies in the Mouse", Am. J.
      Physiol., 201. 927 (1961).

(69)   Decker, C.F.,  Byerrum, R.V. and Hoppert, C.A., "A Study of the
      Distribution and Retention of Cadmium-115 in the Albino Rat", Ard.
      Biochem., 66,  140 (1957).

(70)   Potts, A.M., Simon, F.P.,  Tobias, J.M., Postel, S., Swift, M.N.,
      Patt,  H.M. and Gerald, R.W., "Distribution and Fate of Cadmium in
      the Animal Body", Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med., 2_, 175 (1950).

(71)   Richmond, C.R., Findlay, J.S. and London, J.E., "Whole Body Retention
      of Cadmium-109 by Mice Following Oral, Intraperitoneal, and Intravenous
      Administration",  Biological and Medical Research Group (H-4) of the
      Health Discussion, Annual Report, July, 1965 through June, 1966, Los
      Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-3610-MS, 195 (1966).

(72)   Suzuki, S.,  Taguchi,. T.  and Yukohashi, G.,  "Dietary Factors Influ-
      encing Upon  the Retention Rate of Orally Administered H5M ^d CL2
      in Mice With Special Reference to Calcium and Protein Concentrations
      in Diet", Ind. Health, 7,  155 (1969).

                                    115

-------
 (73)  Ogawa, E., Suzuki, S., Tzuzuki, H. and Kawajur, M.,  "Experimental
      Studies on the Absorption of Cadmium Chloride", Jap. J. Pharmacol.,
      22, 63 (1972).

 (74)  Anderson, S.H. and Van Hook, R.I., Jr., "Uptake and  Biological Turn-
      over of 109cd in Chipping Sparrows, Spizella Passerina", Environ.
      Physiol. Biochem., 3^. 243-247  (1973).

 (75)  Harrison, H.E., Bunting, H., Ordway, N. and Albrink, W.S., "The
      Effects and Treatment of Inhalation of Cadmium Chloride in the Dog",
      J. Ind. Hyg. Toxicol., 29.,  302  (1947).

 (76)  Watson, A.P., Van Hook, R.I., Jackson, D.R. and Reichle, D.E.,
      "Impact of a Lead Mining-Smelting Complex on the Forest-Floor Litter
      Arthropod Fauna in the New  Lead Belt Region of Southeast Missouri",
      Environmental Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratories,
      ORNL/NSF/EATC-30 (1976), 163 pp.

 (77)  Gish, C.D. and Christensen, R.E., "Cadmium, Nickel,  Lead, and Zinc
      in Earthworms from Roadside Soil", Environmental Science and
      Technology, _7 (11), 1060-1072 (1973).

 (78)  Anderson, S.H., Andren, A.W., Baes, C.F.,III, Dodson, G.J., Harris,
      W.F., Henderson, G.S., Reichle, D.E., Story, J.D., Van Hook, R.I.,
      Van Winkle, W. and Yates, A.J., "Environmental Monitoring of Toxic
      Materials in Ecosystems", Ecology and Analysis of Trace Contaminants,
      W. Fulkerson, W.D.  Shults and R. I. Van Hook, editors, Oak Ridge
      National Laboratory, ORNL-NSF-EATC-6 (1974), pp 95-139.

 (79)  Gillesp'ie, R., Reisine, T.  and Massaro, E.J., "Cadmium Uptake by
      the Crayfish, Orconectes propinquus propinquus (Girard)", Environ.
      Res., 13, 364-368 (1977).

 (80)  Bolter, E., Butz, T. and Arsenean, J.F., "Mobilization of Heavy
      Metals by Organic Acids in  the Soils of a Lead Mining and Smelting
      District", Trace Substances in Environmental Health-IX, D.D. Hemphill,
      editor (1975).

 (81)  Miller, J.E.,  Hassett, J.J.  and Koeppe, D.E., "Interactions of Lead
      and Cadmium on Metal Uptake and Growth of Corn Plants", J.  Environ.
      Quality,  6_ (1),  18-20 (1977).

 (82)  Francis,  C.W.  and Rush,  S.G.,  "Factors Affecting Uptake and Distri-
      bution of Cadmium in Plants",  Trace Substances in Environmental
      Health-VII,  D.D.  Hemphill,  editor  (1973).

(83)  Friberg,  L.,  Piscator, M.,  Nordberg,  G.F.  and Kjellstrom,  I:,
      Cadmium in the Environment,  CRC Press,  Inc.  (1974).
                                    116

-------
(84)   National Research Council,  "Cadmium,  Zinc,  and Lead",  Geochemistry  and
      the Environment,  Volume II,  A Report  of the Workshop at  the  Asiloman
      Conference Grounds,  Pacific  Grove,  California, National  Academy  of
      Sciences, Washington,  B.C.  (1977).

(85)   Larson,  S.E.  and  Piscator, M., "Effect  of Cadmium on Skeletal Tissue
      in Normal and Calcium-Deficient Rats",  J. Med. Sci., ]_,  495  (1971).

(86)   Day,  F.H., The Chemical Elements in Nature. Reinhold Publishing
      Corporation,  New  York  (1963).

(87)   Neilands, J.B., "Chemistry  of Iron  in Biological Systems", Metal Ions
      in Biological Systems;   Studies of  Some Biochemical and  Environmental
      Problems (Dhar, S. K.,  editor), Plenum  Press,  New York (1973).

(88)   Smith, W.H.,  "Lead Contamination of Roadside White Pine", Forest
      Science, 17_ (2),  195-198 (1971).

(89)   Giles, F.E.,  Middleton, S.G. and Grau,  J.G., "Evidence for the
      Accumulation  of Atmospheric  Lead by Insects in Areas of  High Traffic
      Density", Environmental Entomology, "1_ (2),  299-300 (1973).

      Smith, W.H.,  "Lead Contamination of the Roadside Ecosystem", Journal
      of the Air Pollution Control Association, 2£ (8), 753-766 (1976).

      Williamson,  P. and Evans, P.R., "Lead Levels in Roadside Invertebrates
      and Small Mammals",  Bulletin of Environmental  Contamination  and
      Toxicology,  8 (5), 280-288  (1972).

(92)   Dunaway, P.B., Story,  J.D.,  Kitchinger, J.T.,  III and  Tucker, L.E.,
      "Incorporation of 59pe in Mammals", Health Physics Division  Annual
      Progress Report,  ORNL-4446  (1969).

(93)   de Freitas,  Jose  R.  and Campos, Milton, "Some  Data on  the Rate of
      Iron Elimination  in  Triatomids Measured by Radioactive Iron
      (59Fe)", World Health  Organization  Bulletin, ^5_ (2), 274-276 (1961).

(94)   National Research Council,  Committee  of Biological Effects of Atmo-
      spheric  Pollutants,  Lead, National  Academy of  Sciences,  Washington,
      D.C.  (1972).

(95)   Siegel,  S.M., Eshleman, A.,  Vineno, I., Puerner, N. and  Smith, C.W.,
      "The General  and  Comparative Biology  of Toxic  Metals and Their
      Derivatives:   Mercury  and Lead", Mercury in the Western  Environment,
      Proceedings  of a  Workshop at Portland,  Oreg.,  D.H, Buhler, editor
      (1973),  pp 119-134.

(96)   John, M.K.,  "Mercury Uptake from Soil by Various Plant Species",
      Bulletin of Environ. Contamination  and  Toxicology, 8^ (2), 77-80  (1972).
                                    117

-------
  (97)  Lagerwerff, J.V., Anmiger, W.H. and  Sprecht, A.W.,  "Uptake of Lead
       by Alfalfa and Corn from Soil and Air", Soil Science, U.5  (6),
       455-460  (1973).

  (98)  Rolfe, G.L., "Lead Uptake by Selected Tree Seedlings", J. Environ.
       Quality, 2_ (1), 153-157 (1973).

  (99)  Arvik, J.H. and Zimdahl, R.L., "The  Influence of Temperature, pH, and
       Metabolic Inhibitors on Uptake of Lead by Plant Roots", J. Environ.
       Quality, 3. (4), 374-376 (1974).

(100)  Zimdahl, R.L. and Arvik, J.H., "Lead in Soils and Plants", A
       Literature Review, CRC Critical Review in Environmental Control
       (1973), pp 213-220.

(101)  Potter, G.C., Mclntyre, D.R. and Valtuone, G.M., "The Fate and
       Implications of 203Pb Ingestion in a Dairy Cow and Calf", Health
       Physics, _20, 653-655 (1971).

(102)  Price, P.W., Rathcke, B.J.  and Gentry, D.A., "Lead in Terrestrial
       Anthropods:  Evidence for Biological Concentration", Environ.
       Entomol., 3^, 370 (1974).

(103)  Gale, Nord L., Marcellus,  Paula and Underwood, Gary, "Life, Liberty,
       and the Pursuit of Lead:  The Impact of Lead Mining and Milling
       Activities on Aquatic Organisms",  Trace Contaminants in the Environ-
       ment/ Proceedings of the Second Annual NSF-RANN Trace Contaminants
       Conference (1974).

(104)  Leland', H.V.  and McNurney,  J.M., "Lead Transport in a River
       Ecosystem", Proceedings of the International Conference on Transport
       of Persistent Chemicals in Aquatic Ecosystems, Ottawa, Canada,
       National Research Council of Canada  (1974).

(105)  Jackson,  D.R.,  Selvidge, W.J.  and  Ausmus,  B.S.,  "Behavior of Heavy
       Metals in Forest  Microcosms:   I. Transport and Distribution Among
       Components:   Water,  Air, and  Soil  Pollution" (1978), submitted.

(106)  Brown,  O.K.  and  Slingsby, D.R.,  "The Cellular  Location of Lead and
       Potassium in  the  Lichen. Cladonia rangiformis (L.)  Hoffm",  New
       Phytol.,  _71,  297  (1972).

(1°7)  Bazzaz, F.A., Rolfe,  G.L. and Windle, P.,  "Differing Sensitivity of
       Corn  and  Soybean  Photosynthesis  and  Transpiration  to Lead Contami-
       nation",  J. Environ.  Quality, .3  (2),  156-518  (1974).

(108)  John, M.K. and Van Laerhoven, C.,  "Lead Uptake by  Lettuce and  Oats
       as Affected by Lime, Nitrogen, and Sources of Lead",  J. Environ.
       Quality,  1, 169 (1972).
                                    118

-------
(109)   Carbonneau, M.  and Tremblay,  J.,  "Study of the Role of Scirpus
       americanus Pars,  in Depolluting Waters Contaminated with Heavy
       Metals", Nat.  Can., 9£ (5), 523-532 (1972).

(110)   Nehring, R.B.,  "Aquatic Insects as Biological Monitors of Heavy
       Metal Pollution", Bulletin of Environ. Contamination and Toxicology,
       15 (2), 147-154 (1976).

(Ill)   National Research Council, Committee on Medical and Biological
       Effects of Environmental Pollutants, Manganese, National Academy of
       Sciences, Washington,  D.C. (1973).

(112)   National Research Council, "Manganese", Geochemistry and the Environ-
       ment , Volume II,  A Report of  the  Workshop at the Asiloman Conference
       Grounds, Pacific  Grove, California, National Academy of Sciences,
       Washington, D.C.  (1977).

(113)   U.S. Geological Survey, "Background Geochemistry of Some Rocks,
       Soils, Plants,  and Vegetables in the Contiguous United States",
       Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-F,  U.S. Government Printing
       Office, Washington, D.C. (1975).

(114)   Durum, W.H. and Haffy, J., "Occurrence of Minor Elements in Water",
       U.S. Geological Survey Circular 445, Washington, D.C., U.S.
       Geological Survey  (1961), 11 pp.

(115)   Labanauskas, C.K., "Manganese", Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and
       Soils, Chapman, H. D., editor, University of California, Division
       of Agricultural Sciences, Riverside (1966),  pp 264-285.

(116)   More, D.P., "Mechanisms of Micronutrient Uptake by Plants", Micro-
       nutrients in Agriculture, Soil Science Society of America, Madison,
       Wisconsin (1972), pp 171-198.

(117)   Jenne, E.A., "Controls on Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, and Zn Concentrations
       in Soils and Water:  The Significant Role of Hydrous Mn and Fe
       Oxides", Adv.  Chem., 7J3, 337-387  (1968).

(118)   Lohnis, M.P.,  "Manganese Toxicity in Field and Market Garden Crops",
       Plant Soil, ^,  193-222 (1951).

(119)   Moore, W., Hysell, D., Miller, R., Malanchuk, M., Henners, R.,
       Yang, Y. and Stara, J.F.,. "Exposure of Laboratory Animals to
       Atmospheric Manganese from Automotive Emissions", Environmental
       Research, 9, 274-284 (1975).

(120)   Greenberg, D.M.,  Copp, D.H. and Cuthbertson, E.M., "Studies in
       Mineral Metabolism with the Aid of Artificial Radioactive Isotopes-
       VII.  The Distribution and Excretion, Particularly by Way of the
       Bile, of Iron,  Cobalt, and Manganese", J. Biol. Chem., 147, 749-756
       (1943).

                                      119

-------
 (121)  Ljunggren, K., Sjostrand, B., Jolinels, A.G., Olsson, M., Otterlind,
       G. and Westermark, T.,  "Activation Analysis of Mercury and Other
       Environmental Pollutants in Water and Aquatic Ecosystems", Reprint
       from "Nuclear Techniques in Environmental Pollution", International
       Atomic Agency, Vienna  (1971).

 (122)  Dolar, S.G., Keeney, D.R. and Chesters, G., "Mercury Accumulation
       by Myriophyllum spicatum L.", Environmental Letters, !_,  (3), 191-198
       (1971).

 (123)  Bainbridge, K.L., D'ltri, P.M. and Bahr, T.G., "Mercury Dynamics in
       a Warmwater Stream Receiving Municipal Wastewater", Proceedings of
       the 29th Industrial Waste Conference, Part II, Lafayette, Indiana,
       Purdue University (1974), 115 pp.

 (124)  Wood, J.M., "Biological Cycles for Toxic Elements in the Environment",
       Science, 183  (4129), 1049-1052 (1974).

 (125)  Femreite, N., Holsworth, W.N., Keith, J.A., Pearce, P.A. and Guichy,
       I.M., "Mercury in Fish and Fish-Eating Birds Near Sites of Industrial
       Contamination in Canada", The Canadian Field Naturalist, 85_ (3), 211-
       220 (1971).

 (126)  Hardcastle, J.E. and Mavichakana, Nara, "Uptake of Mercuric Chloride
       and Methylmercury Chloride from Liquid Media by Aspergillus niger
       and Penicillum notatum", Bulletin of Environ. Contamination and
       Toxicology, 11 (5), 456-460 (1974).

 (127)  Mortimer, D.C. and Kudo, Akira, "Interaction Between Aquatic Plants
       and Bed Sediments in Mercury Uptake from Flowing Water", J. Environ.
       Qual.,  4_ (4),  491-495 (1975).

 (128)  McKone, C.E.,  Young, R.G.,  Bache, C.A., and Lisk, D.J., "Rapid Uptake
       of Mercuric Ion by Goldfish", Environ. Sci.  and Technology, _5_ (H)»
       1138-1139 (1971).

 (129)  Schindler,  J.E.  and Alberts, J.J., "Behavior of Mercury, Chronium
       and Cadmium in Aquatic Systems",  Environmental Research Laboratory,
       U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia,  EPA-600/3-77-
       023 (1977), 62 pp.

 (130)  Huckabee, J.W.,  "Mosses:  Sensitive Indicators of Airborne Mercury
       Pollution", Atmospheric Environment,  ]_, 748-754 (1973).

 (131)  Huckabee, J.W. and Janzen,  S.A.,  "Mercury in Moss:   Derived from the
       Atmosphere  or  From the Substrate?",  Chemosphere (1), 55-60 (1975).

(132)  Jemelov,  A.  and  Lann,  H.,  "Mercury Accumulation in Food Chains",
       Oikos,  _22_ (3), 403-406 (1971).
                                    120

-------
(133)   Dustman,  E.H.,  Stickel,  L.F.  and Elder,  J.B.,  "Mercury in Wild
       Animals", Lake  St.  Clair (1970).

(134)   Birke,  G., Johnels, A.G.,  Plantin,  L.,  Sjostrand,  B.  and Westermark,
       T.,  "Mercury Poisoning Through Eating  Fish?",  Lakarhdninger,  j>4,  3628
       (1967), Swedish with English summary.

(135)   National Research Council, "Selenium",  Geochemistry and the Environ-
       ment.  Volume I,  A Report of the Workshop at  the  Asiloman Conference
       Grounds,  Pacific Grove,  California, National Academy of Science,
       Washington, D.C. (1974).

(136)   Gardiner, M.R.  and Gorman, R.C., "Further Observations on Plant
       Selenium Levels in Western Australia",  Expt. Agr.  Animal Husbandry,
       3, 284-289 (1963).

(137)   Allaway,  W.H.,  "Soil and Plant Aspects of the  Cycling of Chromium,
       Molybdenum, and Selenium", Proceedings of the  International
       Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment  Symposium, Toronto,
       Canada, Electric Power Research Institute (1976),  371 pp.

(138)   Gissel-Nielson, G.  and Bisbjerg, "The  Uptake of Applied Selenium by
       Agricultural Plants 2.  The Utilization of Various Selenium Com-
       pounds",  Plant and Soil, J32, 382-396 (1970).

(139)   Davies, E.B. and Watkinson, J.H., "Uptake of Native and Applied
       Selenium by Pasture Species", N.Z.  J.  Agric. Res., 9_, 317-327 (1966).

(140)   Williams, C. and Thornton, I., "The Use of Soil Extractants to
       Estimate Plant-Available Molybdenum and Selenium in Potentially
       Toxic Soils", Plant and Soil, J14_, 149-159 (1973).

(141)   Wright, Paul L., "The Absorption and Tissue Distribution of Selenium
       in Depleted Animals", Symposium:  Selenium in Biomedicine, 0. H.
       Muth, Editor, The AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, Connecticut
       (1967), pp 313-328.

(142)   Butler, G.W. and Peterson, P.J., "Aspects of the Faecal Excretion
       of Selenium by Sheep", N.Z. J. Agric.  Res., 4_, 484-491  (1961).

(143)   Hopkins, L.L., Pope, A.L. and Bauman,  C.A., "Distribution of Microgram
       Quantities of Selenium in the Tissues of Rats and Effects of Previous
       Selenium Intake", J. Nutrition, 88_ (1), 61-65 (1966).

(144)   Anderson, H.D. and Maxon, A.L., "The Excretion of Selenium by Rats
       on a Seleniferous Wheat Ration", The Journal of Nutrition, 22_ (2),
       103-108  (1944).

(145)   Luckey, T.D., Venugopal, B. and Hutcheson, D., Heavy Metal Toxicity,
       Safety and Hormology, Academic Press, New York (1975),  120 pp.
                                    121

-------
                   5.0  DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS

     Traditionally, adverse health and ecological  (H/E) impacts have been
identified after a technology becomes operational.  Then, suitable mitigations
are sought and applied.  However, "retrofitted" controls are often costly and
may be only partially effective in protecting humans and other living organisms.
Comprehensive assessment of potential health and ecological effects associated
with coal cleaning facilities probably would confirm anticipated problems and
aid in identifying previously unknown problems.  In short, a systematic identi-
fication of actual H/E problems could lead to better retrofits and aid in the
design of new coal cleaning facilities.
     The U.S. EPA and others recognize the need for comprehensive and
careful interpretation of predicted and observed health/ecological effects
associated with coal cleaning technology.  However, few methodologies are
available for systematically synthesizing and applying pertinent data on
biological and ecological effects.  As part of EPA's Environmental Assessment
Programs, quantitative target values (environmental goals) are being developed
for many chemicals, nonchemicals  (e.g., heat, noise), and nonpollutant factors
(e.g., land use).  These environmental goals are based on toxicological and
other health/ecological effects data.
     This section of the report presents material associated with the
development of environmental goals.   First, the basic problem and working
definitions are provided for environmental goals and associated activities.
The scope and research plan are discussed.  Then, a review of formulae used
by the U.S. EPA's Environmental Assessment Programs shows the basic dose/
responses and adjustment factors used in estimating permissible concentrations
in air, water, and land.  The strengths and limitations of 20 formulae are
discussed.  The limitations are categorized and a few factors are selected for
in-depth analysis.  The bulk of the report deals with research to restrict these
limitations.   Removal of the limitations means improved reliability of formulae
for developing environmental goals.   Finally, the basic points of the research
are summarized and future directions are specified.
                                     122

-------
                              5.1  Introduction

     Many species of organisms exist near coal cleaning facilities.   Many
of the individuals will be exposed to pollutants from the facilities'  emission
streams.  If pollutants are discharged to the atmosphere, toxic materials may
be deposited on plants and breathed by animals.  Water-borne chemicals can
affect aquatic plants, animals, and microorganisms.   Soluble pollutants can be
leached from land-filled materials and harm soil organisms,  be assimilated
by crop species, and enter food chains.  Previous sections deal with such
transfers.  Here, the problem is to determine if the material can harm living
organisms, including man, once it is transferred to the organisms.
     The burden  of proof rests with the health and ecological effects data.
Since the application of control technology will be based on health/ecological
effects data, the expenditure of millions of dollars to design and implement
engineering control systems can best be justified on the basis of carcinogenic/
toxicological effects data that are as sound, as complete, and as rigorous as
possible.  If, for example, no harm is predicted for any of the sensitive
organisms in fhe ecosystem surrounding the coal cleaning facility, then
judicious monitoring alone may suffice.  If harm of varying types and degress
is predicted, then studies of control  technology at the point of origin would
be the next step.  Chemicals toxic to many species which are emitted in large
quantities, of course, would need greater control than chemicals which are
toxic to only a  few species and emitted in lesser quantities.

5.1.1  Basic Problem

     The basic need is to obtain high-quality health/ecological effects
data and to extrapolate  this data correctly.   Extrapolation  is  the activity
of inferring or  extending known data  into an unknown area.   Conjectural know-
ledge of the unknown  area is developed based on  assumed  continuity, corres-
pondence, or other parallelism between it and  what  is known.  Extrapolations
of biological effects  from  (1) the laboratory  (where most experiments are
conducted) to the  field  (where most problems lie),  (2) one species to another,
and  (3) one chemical  to  another are as much an art  as a  science.  However,
                                      123

-------
 Incentives are increasing for systematically removing the "art" from such
 extrapolations, and this report presents several improvements in the state-of-
 the-art procedures for biological extrapolation.

 5.1.2  Working Definitions

     Environmental objectives are low concentration levels of pollutant(s)
 below which humans, other organisms, and ecological systems would not be
 harmed if the pollutant(s) were released into the air, water, and/or land.
 These environmental objectives should (1) be based on sound extrapolations
 which, in turn, are well-based on epidemiological, toxicological, and ecological
 effects data, (2) be developed in a relatively process-independent manner, and
 (3) provide control engineers with a quantitative goal against which to compare
 emission inventories, identify problems, and improve the best available
 control technology.
     There are several types of environmental goals.  One, called estimated
 permissible concentrations  (EPC), denotes the maximum allowable long-term
 concentration of a substance in the ambient media away from a coal cleaning
 or other facility.  A second environmental goal is the minimum acute toxicity
 effluent (MATE), which is the maximum concentration of a substance at the
 point of emission for which short-term exposure will not adversely affect a
 particular species of organism exposed for short periods of time, i.e.,
 acute toxicity does not exist.
     The Multimedia Environmental Goals  (MEG) chart is the principal tool
 for displaying environmental goals.  The chart, developed at the U.S. EPA's
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL), has been refined by
 Research Triangle Institute (RTI)   , with some assistance from Battelle's
 Columbus Laboratories.  The chart consists of two interrelated tables,  (1) a
 control engineering part including columns for best technology and MATE's, and
 (2) a health/ecological part including columns for standards/criteria and
 EPC's both for human health and for ecological systems.  The chart has rows
 for the three media—air, water, and land.  The MEG chart is considered an
 indispensable part of the environmental assessment programs at IERL.  Any
work on environmental goals needs to be applicable eventually to the MEG
 chart activities.
                                    124

-------
5.1.3  Scope

     The development of environmental goals is associated primarily with
the "effects" portion of the basic phases of environmental assessment.   Briefly,
the basic phases are as follows:
          •  Source -     The coal cleaning facility and its emission streams.
          •  Transport -  The physical, biological, and ecological transfer
                          of toxic substances from the source to receptor
                          organisms.
          •  Effects -    The positive and negative responses of organisms
                          exposed t'o the transported materials.
          •  Evaluation - The comparison of environmental objectives to
                          chemical concentrations measured in emission
                          inventories.
          •  Control -    The selection, application, and development of
                          needed control devices and practices.
The  interrelationships of these phases are depicted in Figure 5-1.  The
previous section deals with transport.  This section concentrates on the use
of dose/response and biological effects data.  Properly used, dose/response
data will allow the  evaluation to be  sound and straightforward.  Thus,  the
correct  control procedures and devices could be applied to reduce the health/
ecological hazard.
  Control
Technology
tion
Eva
                                   Source  of
                                   Pollutants
                                                    Transport/
                                                      Transformation
                                  Biological
                                    Effects
             FIGURE 5-1.
          INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF FIVE PRINCIPAL
          PHASES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
                      125

-------
                            5.2   Research  Approach

      The research approach for  this aspect of the  study consists  of  four
 interrelated  steps  as  follows:
           •   Clarify scope
           •   Identify  and  review formulae
           •   Evaluate  strengths  and limitations  of  formulae
           •   Restrict  limitations.
 About  two-thirds  of the  effort was  devoted to the removal/reduction of limi-
 tations  and was regarded as  the  most critical step.
      The research was  coordinated closely with other work on development
 of  environmental  goals.  Scientists at Research  Triangle Institute (RTI), North
 Carolina,  are performing the majority of  this type  of work for IERL.  Also,
 under  the  U.S. EPA's contract for environmental  assessment of fluidized-bed
 combustion technology, environmental objectives  were developed at Battelle's
 Columbus Laboratories  for  selected  nonchemical and  nonpollutant factors; the
 present  coal  cleaning work benefited from both projects.  Finally, there was
 dialogue among authors of  the other sections  of  this and other coal cleaning
 reports.   The coordination helped to develop  as  useful a product as possible.
      Over  twenty  candidate formulae for estimating  permissible concen-
 trations were obtained through a  search of  the literature and evaluated.
 Formulae identification was  assisted by access to RTI's work.     The liter-
 ature  necessary for the  systematic  removal  of certain limitations was scattered,
 and the data, when  found,  had to be  adapted.  Sometimes the data could not be
 adapted to the coal cleaning problem.  For  example, the necessary concepts for
 optimum use of chronic-effects data  could not be developed within the scope
 of the program and this  limited certain activities.  And, of course,  extrapo-
 lation of animal toxicity  data to humans  looms as one of today's major
 intellectual  challenges.

                           5.3  Review of Formulae

     The first major step  in'the research was to identify and review
formulae for  estimating environmental goals.  These formulae and their
                                      126

-------
rationales, which are scattered in various reports,  ranged in complexity
from simple use of raw dose/response data to well-thought-out formulae used
in radiological protection.   Many notes were assembled about these formulae,
their purposes, and rationales; the exercise served  to delineate the general
state of the art.
     As many of the state-of-the-art formulae were being utilized by RTI
in their development of environmental objectives for single chemicals, the
present research was parallel to part of the RTI work.  To facilitate the
consistency of the two programs, the identification  code used by RTI was adopted
by BCL.  Additional formulae not used in current MEG chart efforts were also
identified; two of these formulae are discussed later as possible approaches
for the reduction of limitations of the current procedure.

5.3.1  Basic Formula

     The basic form for the equation for calculating environmental goals
(EPC's and MATE's) may be simply stated as:

              EPC or MATE = dose/response x adjustment factor(s),
where dose/response is expressed as an oral LD  , TLV (threshold limit value),
lowest concentration, or some similar form relating the dose of a particular
compound or substance to the response of a particular receptor population.  A
variety of factors is used to adjust the dose/response data to yield an EPC
or MATE.  Adjustment factors include exposure time,  elimination rates, bio-
accumulation, method of exposure, and safety factors.  Adjustment factors can
be used to correct deficiencies in the dose/response data or to compensate for
circumstances peculiar to the unknown s-ituation, such as accumulation of the
chemical in tissues that jeopardizes the organism's health.

5.3.2  Overview of State-of-the-Art Formulae

     A review  of  the available  formulae  for  developing  EPC's and MATE's
for air, water, and land is given in Tables 5-1 to 5-3.  All the formulae follow
                                      127

-------
                              TABLE  5-1.   EPC/MATE FORMULAE FOR THE AIR MEDIUM^
Basic Equation
EPC or
MATEU; Unit Conversion
(ug/m3) Dose/Response Factor
EPCAH1 " TLV (m8/m3) * 1()3
EPC 2 - Oral LD5Q (mg/kg) x 10
EPC - - Oral LD5Q (mg/kg) x 10
H EPC.,, - Lowest Reported Dose
g ** (Pg/m3) 1

MATE^ " TLV (mg/m3) x 103
MATEAH2 " ^SO (m8/k8) * 10
"^AHS " LC50' LCLO' or x 1C)3
TCIO (mg/m3)
Adjustment Factors
Exposure Time Safety Correlation Pollutant
Correction Factor Factor Loss Rate
x 40/168 x 0.01
x 40/168 x 4.5 x 10~*
x 5 x 10~ x-^j —
x 0.1


x 100 x 4.5 x 10~4
x 0.1(C)

Final
Inhalation Form of
Factor Equation
- [TLV (mg/m3) x 103] * 420
- LD5Q (mg/kg) x 0.107
*b7T43 ' LD50 (m*/kB) x °-°81
• Lowest Reported Dose
(ug/m3) x 0.1
- TLV (mg/m3) x 103
- LD5Q (mg/kg) x 45
-LC50,-LCLO, ^(mg/m3)
x 100
(a)   Codes are those used in Reference 1.
     EPC » estimated permissible concentration.
     MATE » minimum acute toxicity effluent.
     A - air; H - health; E - ecology.
     1-3 • the number of a particular formula.
(b)   The value 45 was developed from adjustment  factors and the Monsanto/Handy and
     Schindler model.(2)
(c)   Safety factor derived by authors of this report.

-------
                                TABLE 5-2.  EPC/MATE FORMULAE FOR THE WATER MEDIUM
                                                                                   (1)
N3
VO
Basic Equation
EPC or Adjustment Factors
MATEW Unit Conversion Air-Water TLV to LD.Q Safety Pollutant
(lig/1) Dose/Response Factor Conversion Factor Conversion Factor Factor Loss Rate
3 30 m3 air/day
Smi AH ^v&'m ) * 2 1 water/day
31 -40 693
Ell'....- • TLV VRg/m ) XlO X J«*.J XJX1UX OQ
EPCygj^ • Lowest TL (mg/1) x 10
EPCWE2 " Lowest concentration
to cause tainting
(wg/D
""CUM • Lowest TL (ug/l) x 10
wcj m
EPC_, • Maximum allowable.
concentration
(Pg/kg)
MATEWH1 " MATEAH1 (yg/m J * 2 1 water/day
MATEy^ - Lowest LC5() (mg/1) x 103
Final
Drinking Concentration Equation
Factor Factor (ug/l)

x Q 029 " TL™ (tug/™ ) * •L-J-°
x 0.05 - TL^ (mg/1) X 50
• Lowest concentration
causing tainting
* *"""$? ' TI, low (pg/l) x 103
raccor x Application
Factor
._ Concentration m (Maximum allowable
7 Factor*0' Concentration) +
(Concentration
Factor) (pg/kg)
- MATE.U (uR/m3) x 15
An
x 0.1 - 100 x Lowest LC
(a) Codes are those used in Reference 1.
EPC • estimated permissible concentration.
MATE • minimum acute toxicity effluent.
W • water; H - health; E • ecology; A - air.
1-4 - the number of a particular formula.
(b) Application factor varies according to recognized criteria.
(c) Concentration factor varies for each element. For example, it may be 10,000 for mercury.

-------
                        TABLE 5-3.   EPC/MATE FORMULAE  FOR THE LAND MEDIUM
                                                                         (1)
U)
o
Basic Equation
EPC or
MATE(a)
(yg/g) Dose/Response
EPC = EPC (yg/m3)
Ln/ AH
EPC = EPCL (yg/£)
LtE* Wli

Adjustment Factor
Air-Land Water-Land
Conversion Factor Conversion Factor
2 £
X 1000 g
30 m3/day
^ g food/person-day
2 £
x 1000 g
2 £
X 1000 g
2 £
X 1000 g
Final
Crop Uptake Equation
Factor (yg/g)

u.uuz x t,rL vyg/x.;
WH
30 x EPC |
Axl 1 f •
yg food _ g food/person-day Ix yg °
A zg soil zg soil
= 0.002 x EPC^ (yg/£)
— U. UUZ X MAJ.E^ ^.Up/ x^
WH
Wlj
    (a)  Codes are those used in Reference 1.
         EPC = estimated permissible concentration.
         MATE = minimum acute toxicity effluent.
         L = land; H = health; W = water; A = air; E = ecology.
         1-2 = the number of a particular formula.

-------
the basic equation described in Section 5.3.1.   Differences among them include
the type of dose/response data used and the kind and number of adjustment factors
employed.  More data about each formula are available in RTI's MEG report
as well as the original source material whose citations are in the MEG report.
                                (2)
For example, Handy and Schindler    developed some of the formulae.  Types of
dose/response data used are TLV, oral LDcr. for rats, LDT^, TL , and lowest
                                        jU             Lu    m
concentration to cause tainting.  A single type of dose/response information
is insufficient; a multiplicity is desirable because
          (1)  Dose/response data are associated with particular
               receptor species (e.g., TLV's are primarily for
               human exposure; LD^ 's are for small mammal popu-
               lations. )
          (2)  Lack of data (TLV's may be lacking for the receptor
               population) requires the use of proxy data.
Generally, the expression best suited to the receptor population and to  the
needs of the user is employed.
     Numerous adjustment factors have been used in the EPC and MATE for-
mulae.   These factors modify the dose/response data  to  fit particular circum-
stances  or needs, often compensating  for deficiencies in  dose/response information.
The factors may be  classed into six broad categories—(1)  exposure  time,  (2)
exposure pathway, (3) elimination, (A) concentration,  (5)  safety,  and  (6)
conversion.  The  exposure  time  factor is the fraction of  the  day  or week that
the receptor population is continuously exposed  to  the  pollution.   Exposure  is
                                        3
expressed as a  concentration,  i.e., yg/m  or ppm.   Elimination  accounts  for
the loss of  the pollutant  from the body through  means such as fecal and  urinary
excretion and  is  expressed as  biological half-life.  The  concentration factor
provides a means  to consider accumulation where  an  organism  takes  up  and
concentrates a  pollutant,  resulting in a body burden greater  than  might  be
expected if  the chemical were  not  accumulated.   Safety  factors  are generally
included when  definitive  information  concerning  safe,  tolerable levels of the
pollutant are  not available and a  conservative  arbitrary  estimate must be made.
Finally,  conversion factors of three  kinds  are  used.  First,  a units  factor,
                                      131

-------
generally to convert mg to ug, is used in most formulae.  Second, when only
oral LD _ data are available, an equation is used to convert an oral LD
value to a TLV concentration.  Third, when dose/response data are not available
for the medium of interest, a media conversion factor is applied to convert
the EPC from the known medium to the unknown one.  It is assumed that the more
adjustment factors used, the more accurate the EPC will be.  No known formulae
use all the adjustment factors described.  Some of the more complete formulae
include EPCAI1, in Table 5-1, EPCTTUO in Table 5-2, and EPCTU in Table 5-3.
           AnJ                  WHZ                      LH
These formulae consider more variables which influence the safe body burden
of a pollutant than other formulae and are likely, therefore, to be more
accurate.

                   5.4  Identification of Major Strengths
                         and Weaknesses of Formulae

     The strengths and weaknesses of the 20 formulae described in Section
5.3 were evaluated from three viewpoints:  media, dose/response data, and
adjustment factors.  Evaluations were based on common sense and broad professional
knowledge of biological systems.  Many insights resulted in identifying those
limitations most deserving of initial consideration.
     In the ensuing discussion, strengths and limitations are discussed
from several viewpoints.  The evaluation is not meant to be exhaustive, rather
it is to provide a reasonable assessment.  Finally, all the limitations are
listed in one place and they are ranked according to four criteria:  relevance,
data, time, and expertise.  The result of this ranking is the identification of
five limitations which are subjected to in-depth analysis in Section 5.5.

5.4.1  Media Viewpoint

     From the media point of view, the formulae for breathing (air) are
the best.  Land formulae are the least defendable or reasonable, with those for
water being intermediate.  Air formulae have the most quantitative dose/response
data of the three media; there are more oral LD  's and LC,. 's used here than
                                      132

-------
for water and land formulae.  Also, the air formulae tend to have more
believable adjustment factors.  For example, the exposure-time correction
is supported by good reasoning.  For ecologically oriented EPC's and MATE's,
water formulae probably are the best.  This makes sense since fish and other
aquatic life forms can be assayed directly and extrapolation from one life
form to another is minimal.
     Land EPC's and MATE's  start with modified dose/response data from
air and water predictions.  In fact, the EPC's for land are based on EPC's
from the other media.  Thus, if adjustment factors to basic effects data are
not sound for the other media, this distortion would be further reflected in
the land EPC's and MATE's.  Clearly, the land predictions will require more
serious research to make them as rigorous as those for air, for example.

5.4.2  Dose/Response Data

     There are also major strengths and weaknesses of dose/response
data.  Such data are the foundation of all the extrapolation formulae and
this subject deserves considerable discussion.

      5.4.2.1   Strengths.   The formulae use  a  variety  of  toxicological
measurements rather than only one  type of measurement.  The TLV  (threshold
limit value) for air concentration is appropriate to humans in workroom
environments and thus does  not require species-to-species  extrapolation when
used for human EPC's and MATE's.  Use of the  oral LD_n for rats,  the  largest
known data base for mammals,  provided another major data  source.  The largest
data base for  toxic  effects on aquatic organisms is the LC^g  and this measure-
ment was used  in  the formulae.  Use  of LD   and  LC    response  data  rather
than other measurements  is  a strength because of the  ready availability  of
these  two measurements  in the published  literature.
                                      133

-------
     '5.4.2.2   Limitations.   On  the  other  hand,  the  dose/response data
included several weaknesses.  There are many types  of LD,.,. measurements, and
the non-oral ones were either not used or used without interconverting the
                                                    (2)
non-oral administration route to an oral equivalent   .  The LD-- is only one
of several readily available types of toxicological measurements.  For
example, the LD   (lethal dose low or the lowest dose known to kill an indi-
               LiO
vidual of a given species) and the TDT  (toxic dose low, i.e., the lowest
                                     LiO
dose known to be toxic to an organism) are available for many substances when
no LD_» is known.  Thus, only a small part of readily available dose/response
data is being utilized in the formulae.  Likewise,  for responses to toxicants
by aquatic organisms, there are other types of measurements whose application
would strengthen the data base for many of the chemicals; they include such
measurements as the LD   and LCT  (lethal concentration low, i.e., the lowest
                      LiO       LiO
concentration known to kill an individual of a given species).
     There are other limitations.  Little attention was given to responses
of nonhumans and nonmammals.  While humans and similar species may be of
paramount importance, protection of other life forms (plants, micro-organisms)
is also recognized as being important by the U.S. EPA.  Other dose/response
data are available but were used sparingly.  The toxicological-effects data are
for short-term (hours, days or weeks) responses.  Long-term (months or years)
responses can also be anticipated if a coal cleaning facility continuously
emits materials into one of the receiving media.  Finally, the dose/response
data are for single chemicals, not mixtures of chemicals.  Long-term effects
and mixtures causing synergisms or antagonisms are more like the "real world"
than short-term effects and single chemicals.  For example, effects on ecosystem
function and mutagenesis are two possible long-term effects that acute bioassays
may not indicate.  The lack of the above kind of data in formulae is a serious
limitation to the accuracy and biological meaningfulness of the EPC's and MATE's.

5.4.3  Adjustment Factors

     Adjustment factors also have their strengths and limitations.  Unfor-
tunately, these strengths and weaknesses can best be evaluated relative to the
degree to which the predictions provide actual or real protection.  As this
                                      134

-------
ideal reference point is not easily attained, again evaluations were based on
common sense and professional opinion (derived from a general knowledge of bio-
logical systems) instead of experimental data.

     5.4.3.1  Strengths.  No one adjustment factor seems to extrapolate
laboratory-observed dose/response data to the "real world" coal cleaning
problem.  Rather, a series of adjustment factors have been developed as explained
in 5.3.2, each of which can be manipulated individually.
     The formulae contain a variety of simple adjustment factors.  Indeed,
the simplicity of these factors is a strength in that each is usually easy to
understand individually.  Another strength is the adjustment of one exposure
time to another.  This is particularly valuable in the air formulae where the
TLV  (a measurement based on 8 hours of exposure per day for 5 working days per
week) was adjusted to 24 hours for the full  7 days or 168 hours of the week.
The safety factors, albeit arbitrary, can be viewed as a strength because they
are designed  to  provide a conservative estimate of an EPC or MATE.  Development
of the  research  depends on a correlation between the TLV and the LD _.  This
            (21
correlation     represents a first step to better utilization of all available
dose/response data.  For example, if no TLV  is known but the LD..Q is known,
the TLV can be predicted on the basis of the  known relationships of TLV's
and LD,.  's for other substances.  Also, formulae with pollution uptake and
loss rate are superior  to those without biological half-life data.

      5.4.3.2   Limitations.   Adjustment  factors  have  major  limitations,  the
greatest of which  is the  lack  of validation  about  how well they really work.
Another major limitation  is  the  lack of  certain types of  adjustment  factors.
On the  other  hand,  the  ideal EPC's,  MATE's,  or  their equivalent will probably
not  be  forthcoming because  of  the  tremendous expenses in  time, money,  personnel,
and  risk to get the ideal  information.   Rather  than  despair,  the best  approach
is to  identify limitations  and attempt  to  improve  the formulae systematically.
                                       135

-------
     Safety factors need a biological basis.  Review of background
material on safety factors showed that they were often developed arbitrarily.
This means that they were created without a biological rationale.  For
example, safety factors of one hundredth or one tenth of the TLV, LD  ,  or
LC ., have been proposed.  Although there is nothing incorrect in establishing
an EPC or MATE based on a certain percent of the dose/response data, the
safety factor would be more defensible if there were a biological basis  for it.
The adjustment factors for crop uptake may be limited in their applicability.
Some chemicals are not taken up by plants; others are concentrated.  More work
on an adjustment factor for the food chain transfer is needed.
     Omitted factors include extrapolation of data from one species to
another.  Extrapolation of animal toxicity data to humans for the purpose of
creating environmental objectives is an especially controversial area, and is,
in fact, very risky.  The ecosystem surrounding a coal cleaning facility
contains many thousands of species of animals, plants, and micro-organisms.
Since laboratory test species are limited to a few tens of species, any
formulae for developing environmental objectives would be more powerful  if it
could allow extrapolation to various species.
     Chronic effects, as explained in Section 5.4.2., are a limitation in
the dose/response portion of the equation.  The lack of an adjustment for
chronic effects in the adjustment portion of the equation is also a major limi-
tation.
     Other limitations of omission include the lack of
          •  Adjustment for complex mixtures and consequential synergistic/
             antagonistic effects
          •  Adjustment factors for multiple pathways of exposure (the
             formulae handles breathing, drinking, and eating as if
             they were independent).
     Thus,  there are many limitations both of commission and omission.
                                     136

-------
5.4.4  Selection of
Limitations for Analysis

     The evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the formulae dis-
closed 16 major limitations deserving investigation.  Time constraints allowed
the amelioration of only a few limitations.   Clearly, a simple method was
needed for recognizing which limitations should be studied first, since research
to restrict all limitations was not possible at this time.
     The  identified limitations listed in Table 5-4 were evaluated according
to the following 4 (in some cases 5) criteria:
          •  Relevance   Is the research relevant to the scope of the
                         coal cleaning program?
          •  Data        Is there sufficient tmblished information
                         available to warrant literature synthesis?
          •  Time        Is there time within the constraints of the
                         program to start and finish a block of work?
          •  Expertise   Do Battelle scientists have the expertise to
                         solve the problem?
          •  Special     For some limitations, the  need for research was
                         so great that an additional special category was
                         added.
Although  more  criteria  could have been developed,  these five provide  a  reason-
able balance.
      The degree of relevance,  amount  of  data,  amount of time,  and  avail-
ability  of qualified  experts were evaluated  for each limitation  with  the use
of a  0  to 3  code where  3 means the  most  relevant,  high availability of  data,
etc.  For example, if the  limitation was of  great  relevance it was rated a
3, if of  no  relevance,  the limitation was rated a  0.   Intermediate importance
was  rated 1  or 2.   Rankings were based  on informed judgement  and completed by
the  senior author  in  consultation with  other authors.
      The screening process showed  that  six  of the  limitations  considered
received scores of 10 or  greater  (10 was an  arbitrary cut-off  point).   The higher
the  score the  less the difficulty  in  reducing the  limitation,  and  therefore
the  higher the priority for present research.   Topics related to these six
                                      137

-------
    TABLE 5-4.   EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE LIMITATIONS IN FORMULAE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
oo
Evaluation Criteria
Potential Limitations
MEDIA FORMULAE
Air
Water
Land
DOSE/RESPONSE DATA
LD,-^ not interconverted
LD , etc., not used
Aquatic measurements other than LC _
Plant /microorganism responses
Chronic data need
Synergisms /antagonisms
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Need for validation
Extrapolation from Species 1 and Species 2
Better crop uptake model
Better safety factors
Chronic adjustment
Synergisms /antagonisms
Multiple pathways
Relevance

3
3
2

3
3
3
3
3
3

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Data

2
2
1

3
2
2
2
1
2

1
2
2
3
1
2
2
Time Expertise Special

3
1
1

3
2
2
1
2
1

1
2
1
2
2
1
1

3
3
3

3
2
2
3
3 3
3

3
3
3 3
3
3
3
2
Total

11*
9
7

12*
9
9
9
12*
9

8
10*
12*
11*
9
9
8
    *  High priority selections for further research.

    1 = little; 2 = intermediate; 3 = most (the higher the score, the less the difficulty of reducing the
                                            limitation).

-------
limitations are air formulae that use more available data,  LD  's not inter-
converted, chronic data, better safety factor, better crop  uptake model,  and
extrapolation from species 1 to species 2.
     Five of these limitations are discussed in Section 5.5.  The sixth,
better crop uptake model, is discussed, in part, in Section 4.0 on ecological/
biological transfer.

              5.5  Research to Reduce Limitations in Formulae

     Not all limitations identified in Section 5.4 were considered to be
of equal importance.  Five limitations were judged to be the highest priority
ones to attempt to restrict at this time.  The following narrative, tables,
figures, and conclusions pertain to these five limitations.  They are as
follows, in order of their presentation:
          (1)  Identification of other formulae - some formulae
               handle multiple pathways  (breathing, drinking, and eating)
               better than reviewed formulae.
          (2)  Correlation of oral LD    and non-oral LD   routes of
               administration -  the correlation values will  increase
               the accuracy of predictions for certain chemicals.
          (3)  Use of chromic effects -  more  research is needed, but a
               good foundation was laid.
          (4)  Extrapolation of  one animal species response  to another
               species  -  two logical approaches are presented and
               examples are provided.
          (5)  Development  of  a  biological basis  for safety  factors  -
               the  findings have broad  implications for formulae for
               permissible  concentrations for air and water.

5.5.1   Identification of
Other  Formulae

      Formulae  other than those in Tables 5-1  to 5-3  are available.
scope  of  work  permitted identification  of more  than  the 20  formulae  reviewed
                                      139

-------
in Section 5.3.  When one of the 20 formulae cannot be used to predict an
EPC or MATE, then it is possible to use another formula.
     Two sample formulae are presented.  The two formulae are (1) maximum
permissible concentration for radioisotopes, and (2) CUMEX (Cumulative Exposure)
Index.  No attempt is made to evaluate the two formulae.  Rather, a brief
explanation is presented here and details are provided in Appendix B.  Both are
examples of reasonable alternatives to formulae being used in the U.S. EPA
MEG activities.

     5.5.1.1  Maximum Permissible Concentrations for Radioiostopes.  The
International Commission on Radiological Protection    has established maximum
permissible concentrations of radioactive materials or radionuclides to which
man may be occupationally exposed via inhalation or ingestion.  Formulae have
been derived for (1) body burden in comparison with radium, (2) body burden
based on a permissible RBE (relative biological effectiveness)* dose rate to
the critical body organ, (3) concentrations in air and water (based on an
exponential model) taken into critical organs other than the gastrointestinal
(GI) tract, and (A) concentrations in air and water based on RBE dose delivered
to various segments of the GI tract.  The formulae described here are those
described for (3) above.
    Maximum permissible concentrations are generally based on the RBE      ;
dose, burden of the radionuclide in the critical body organ or segment thereof,
and the biological half-life of the radionuclide.  Depending on the formula
utilized in calculating maximum permissible concentrations, the following
factors are needed:
          •  Effective energy - the total energy absorbed in the body organ
             per disintegration of the radionuclide
*  Relative biological effectiveness is the ratio of the dose of X-rays
   or gamma rays, in rads, to the dose of the given radiation, in rads, which
   has an equal biological effect.
                                      140

-------
          •  Standard-man data
          •  Biological and physical data - average daily ingestion,  mass
             of reference organ,  biological half-life,  radiological half-
             life, distribution fractions, concentration in critical  organs,
             etc.
     Ideally, the maximum permissible body burden and the maximum per-
missible concentration of radioactive materials should be based on human studies
under working conditions over an extended period of time.  However, human data
are scarce; therefore, data from animal studies must be extrapolated  to man.
When animal data are not available» estimates are made from comparison with
elements having similar chemical behavior.  Because of the many assumptions
and approximations made in applying much of the data, detailed refinements in
the calculations are deemed to be generally unwarranted.  See Appendix B for
the equations.

     5.5.1.2   CUMEX  (Cumulative Exposure)  Index.  The CUMEX  (cumulative
exposure) index is a site-specific hazard assessment based on the interrela-
tionships between one or more of the media and biota.  The index relates the
concentration of the pollutant in the ambient medium to a preselected receptor
such as an organ concentration by considering all pathways from the point of
                            (A)
measurement to the end point
     To apply  the CUMEX index, data from  the following are necessary:
          •  Environmental transport models  (air, water, land) which estimate
             pollutant dispersion through  air and water, deposition on soil
             and plant surfaces, uptake by plant, concentrations in air and
             water, and intake by animals  and human  exposure through inhal-
             ation and ingestion.
          •  Physiological models which estimate pollutant uptake and subse-
             quent distribution among organs.
          •  Knowledge of  the biological  effects of  the particular environ-
             mental pollutants of concern.
                                      141

-------
Presently, sufficient data are not usually available for utilizing the CUMEX
Index.  This index is also limited to single pollutants although multiple
pollutants and multiple environmental pathways have been considered.  This
latter capability makes CUMEX worth considering as a tool to handle multiple
pathways.  See Appendix B for the equations.

5.5.2  Correlation of Oral LDcn and
Other Routes of Administration

      In  establishing permissible  cpncentrations of pollutants for contin-
uous exposure, EPA/IERL in cooperation with Research Triangle Institute
                                                                               ( 2)
developed a relationship based upon correlating TLV standards with LD   values.
This work was an extension of the original study in which Monsanto Research
Corporation correlated toxicological information for 30 selected agricultural
chemicals   .  A regression fit was established for 241 chemicals in the expanded
study.  The best fit was on the equation for the type where
          log (TLV) = log a + b log (LD5Q)
and the value of the constants was found to be
          a = (0.0125 < 0.0291 < 0.0678) = 95%
          b = (0.849 < 0.983 < 1.117) = 95%.
By using the lower confidence limit for a safety factor and correcting for
fractional work exposure, the following maximum permissible pollutant concen-
tration (x ) was derived*:
          m
              x  > 1.07 x 10~4(LD,_)  .
               m —               _>U
     The bulk of the toxicity data were oral LD  's for rats; however, if
these data were not available, oral LD n values for other animals were used (e.g.,
mouse, guinea pig, dog, cat).  If LD5Q data were not reported, oral LD-^
rats was used.
     Toxicity data for a wide variety of materials via oral administration
are not available; however, they are available for other routes (intraveneous ,
subcutaneous, intraperitoneal, inhalation, etc.).  Basically, it can be
*  Maximum permissible concentration (x ) and estimated permissible concentration
   (EPC) are synonomous here.
                                     142

-------
assumed that, regardless of the administration route, it should take the same
quantity of toxicant in the blood stream to produce a lethal effect, and that
each administration route has its own transport efficiency.  This will of
course, depend upon solubility and chemical reaction within the body for some
materials.
     The purpose of this study was to try to correlate other routes of
administration with the oral route.  The procedure followed was to tabulate
all rat toxicity data in the Toxic Substances List    which had information
on other routes of administration as well as oral LD  .  With this information,
it was then possible to correlate data using a linear regression analysis.
The toxicity data was transformed logarithmically, resulting in the following
general equation:
          In (oral LD  ) = a + b In (dose/response data for other route of
                                     administration).
     For  the intravenous route,  181 values were used to obtain the
following:
          In 
-------
 data were presented  in parts per million which  then had  to be  converted  to
 milligrams per  cubic meter.  The linear regression equation was  found  to be:
          In  (oral LD5Q) = -4.64 +  1.389 In  (ihl  LCLQ)   .
 This relationship was used to confirm  the reasonableness of the  following
 procedure for converting ihl LC^ to oral LE)   .
     Using a  standard 200 g rat with an average breathing volume of  74 cc/
 min it should be possible to calculate an approximate LC^ from  LD,_n data.
 Generally, the  exposure period for  such information is 4 hours,  making a total
                                                                     3
 inspiration volume of 74 cc/min x 240  min = 17.76 liters or 0.0178 m .
 Recognizing that the weight inhaled is equal to the weight ingested, the
 relationship  can be  further developed.  For a rat for a  4-hour period,
          LC5Q  x V = LD5Q x W  ,
                     3
 where LC,.- is in mg/m
      V    is volume inhaled = 0.0178  m
      LD5Q is in mg/kg
      W    is weight = 0.2 kg
 Therefore,
          LC50 = V X LD50 = 0.0178  x  LD50
          LC5() = 11.24 xLD5Q   .

     If we assume an LE>   of 100 mg/kg, then the  calculated LC,-0 = 11.24 x
 100 = 1,124 mg/m .    The calculated  LC   using the above  linear regression
 equation is 777 mg/m .   That this value is of the right magnitude, lower than
 the approximate LC,.-., indicates a reasonable correlation.
     Using the above correlations with oral LD   values, it should then
be possible to approximate an estimated permissible concentration (x ) from
                                                                    m
rat toxicity data using these other routes of administration.
                                      144

-------
     The above correlations permit non-oral LD  's and LC  's for rats
to be converted to an oral LD5~ for rats.   The oral LD „ measurement, in turn,
is the dose/response data in some of the equations in Section 5.3.  Use of the
correlations will improve the quality of dose/response data when no oral LD _
is available; hence, the quality of the EPC or MATE will also be improved.
     Table 5-5 summarizes the equation for performing the conversions.

5.5.3  Use of Chronic Effects Data

     Dose/response data in the formulae (Section 5.3) are usually for
short-term or acute effects.  This' means that the receptor organisms are exposed
to a high dosage of the chemical for a short period of time (hours, days, or
weeks).  Yet, long-term or chronic exposure (months or years) and effects are
more like the real world situation around a coal cleaning facility.  In the
chronic case, exposure occurs over a long period of time and responses may also
occur over long periods of time.  For example, the death rate may be altered
or the number of malignant tumors in the population may increase.  Chronic
effects are usually more difficult to quantify than the relatively straight-
forward LD,-0  (lethal dose to 50 percent of the population) and other acute
measurements.  Thus, chronic effects data are more difficult to  compare among
themselves than are acute effects data.  On the other hand, any  progress  in
the use of chronic effects data is seen as a positive step.
     Available published literature was reviewed on the effects  of various
elements on rodents in  (1) life-term,  (2) mult igenerat ion, and (3) field/
laboratory comparison studies.  Attention was given to the 10 priority elements,
but other elements also were reviewed.  In the experiments, rats and mice lived
in environments relatively free of trace contaminants.  Dosages  of about  5 ppm
of specified  toxicants were generally  given in the drinking water.   Standard
weighings and autopsies of control and  experimental animals showed certain
trends.
     Most of  the  data come  from the  laboratory of H. A. Schroeder
Information  on virus transfer,  ethylnitrosourea, and pesticides  effects on
                                   ( 18—
 multigenerations  is  also  available       , but  since  these materials  are not
 usually  associated with emissions  from  coal  cleaning  facilities,  the  articles
 were used  only  as auxilliary  background information.
                                     145

-------
TABLE 5-5.  EQUATIONS RELATING TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS FROM NON-ORAL
            ADMINISTRATION ROUTES TO THE ORAL ROUTE
Conversions
ivn LDso — > orl LD50
ipr LD5Q — > orl LDsg
scu LD5Q — > orl LDsg
ihl LC50 — > orl LD50
ivn = intravenous
ipr = intraperitoneal
scu = subcutaneous
orl = oral
Sample
Size Equations
181 ln(orl LD50) = -0.5714 + 1.587 ln(ivn LD50)
311 ln(orl LD50) = -0.1818 + 1.299 ln(ipr LD50)
171 ln(orl LD50) = 0.126 + 1.053 In (scu LD50)
101 ln(orl LD50) = -4.64 + 1.389 ln(ihl LCLo)
also: (orl LD50) = 0.08897 x (ihl LC50)
ihl = inhalation
LD50 = lethal dose fifty
LCso = lethal concentration fifty
LCT = lethal concentration low
                               146

-------
     Table 5-6 presents the biological effects associated with an exposure
for life-term conditions.   Responses of rats and mice did not differ a great
deal when data were available for both species.   Thus, the following general-
izations are believed appropriate to both species.   Some elements are virtually
innocuous to laboratory rodents; aluminum, barium,  beryllium, and tungstem were
especially so.  Some elements or forms of elements  were very toxic to rodents;
e.g., selenate, and chromium (VI) were the most harmful.  The other 19 were
intermediate, with typical responses as follows:  increased longevity (chromium
III), suppressed weight (indium, scandium, etc.), shortened life span in one
or both of the sexes (arsenic, cadmium, etc.), increased number of tumors
(palladium, yttrium, etc.).  In general, many of the 5-ppm dosages had some
adverse effect on the rodents.  However, a critical question is whether repro-
ductive capacity was affected.
     Chronic effects from the multigeneration or reproductive capacity
point of view are shown in Table 5-7.  A subset of the elements in Table 5-6
was administered in drinking water to rodents of reproductive age (F  = first
filial generation) through their progeny  (F0 = second filial generation) to the
                             (12)
third filial generation (F_)   ' .  The responses varied.  Mice exposed to
arsenic survived well, while those exposed to lead died out by the F_ generation.
Rats and mice exposed to cadmium, nickel, selenium, and titanium were inter-
mediate in response compared to  the controls.  In general, most of the chemicals
disrupted reproductive capacity, which would not be evident  from acute effects
data.
     When effects  from the life-term  and multigeneration  studies of  the
same element and similar dosages are  compared, an important  generalization
emerges.  The life-term effects  did not  indicate the  magnitude of the toxicant
effect  on reproductive status  revealed by the multigeneration effects studies.
For  example,  the multigeneration studies  showed  that  cadmium's effects increased
in the  F_ generation compared  to the  F  generation.   And  this trend  was  also
true of effects from nickel,  selenium, and  titanium.   Thus,  a relatively minor
effect  (loss  of body weight)  in  F  may not  indicate  the entire picture of a
chronic effect.  Effects data  from  the perspective of many  generations are
superior  to  life-term  data which, in  turn,  are  superior to  data  from only one
or two  weeks  of exposure.
                                      147

-------
                    TABLE  5-6.    SUMMARY OF  BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS  OF  VARIOUS ELEMENTS  ON  MICE AND  RATS
                                       DURING  LIFE-TERM  (CHRONIC)  EXPERIMENTS
Life-Term Effects on Rate
Element
Aluminum
Antimony
Symbol
Al
Sb
Dosage
(PP«)
5
5
Sample
Site
334
603
Cot
•vents
Virtually Innocuous
Life span and
longevity les-
Reference
US)
(11)
Dosage
(PP«)

5
Life-Term Effects on Mice
Sample
Site

540
Comments Reference

Suppressed growth and longevity (10)
        (Antlmonlte)
      Arsenic
         (Arsenite)
 sened; nonfastlng serum
 glucose levels lower than
 fasting; serum cholesterol
 in soft tissues; not tumori-
 genic
                                                                                                         643
                                                                                                                   some accu
                                                                                                                   tissues
                                                                                                                            ulatlon in aoft
                                                             Shortened life span of oldest
                                                               10Z males and females; ac-
                                                               cumulated in organs; not
                                                               carcinogenic
                                                                                                                                                  (9)
OO
Barium


Beryllium


Cadmium




Chromium (III)




Chromium (VI)
                             Ba     5
                             Be


                             Cd
                             Cr
                                             334
                                             461
                                             461
                                                    Slight growth enhancement;
                                                      virtually Innocuous
                             Cr      —      —
       Fluorine               F
         (Sodium Fluoride)
       Gallium
       Germanium
         (Germans te)
       Indium
       Lead
                             Ca      —      —
                             Ge      —      —
                             Pb
                                             603
Slight  growth depression;
  virtually Innocuous

Arterlolar sclerosis in kid-
  neys; cirrhosis of liver;
  did not accumulate in kid-
  neys; reduced life span

Increased longevity in last
  10Z;  females resisted epi-
  demics of pneumonia; did not
  accumulate
(16)


(16)


 (8)




 (8)
                                                    Increased glycosuria; accumu-
                                                      lated in aoft tissues; coats
                                                      of males were poor; not tum-
                                                      origenlc
                                                                                     (11)
697     Increased male mortality;  Ion-      (7)
         gevity decreased in oldest
         10Z of both sexes; fewer tu-
         mors in male than controls

697     No toxicity  observed               (7)
                                              S      9S8     Weight suppressed at 8 of 16       (13)
                                                               Intervals; tumors in 281
                                                               compared to 27Z in controls;
                                                               all tumors malignant

                                             10      540     Females grew larger than           (10)
                                                               males at older ages; not
                                                               tumorigenlc

                                              5       958    Weight suppressed at 14 of 16      (13)
                                                               intervals;  survival  of older
                                                               females  less than controls;
                                                               tumors In 26Z relative to
                                                               16Z In control

                                              5       643    Shortened  life span of  oldest       (9)
                                                               10Z of males; accumulated in
                                                              spleen with age; not  car-
                                                              cinogenic

                                             5       958    Height suppressed at 8 of  16       (13)
                                                              intervals

                                             5       697    Increased mortality in males;        (7)
                                                              longevity less  in oldest 10Z
                                                              of  both saxes

-------
                                                                   TABLE  5-6.     (Continued)
      Element
                                                      Life-Term Effects on Rats
                                                                                                                     Life-Term Effect*  on Mice
         Dosage    Sample
Symbol   (pp.)    Size
                                                                 Comments
                                                                                       Reference
                                                Dosage
                                                (ppm)
                                                                                                              Sample
                                                                                                               Size
                                                                                                                                  Comments
Reference
VO
      •IcUl
      Niobium
        (Nlobate)
      Palladium.
      Rhodium.
      Scandium
      Selenium
        (Selenate,
        Selenlte)
      Tcllunlum
        (Tallurlte)
      Tin
      Titanium
     Tungsten
                              Hi
                              Mb
                                               104
                                              603
                             Rh       —
                             Sc
                              Se
                             Te
                                     2, 3
                                              313
                                              313
                             So       —      —
                             li       —      —
                                              334
                           Slight  Increase in growth;
                            virtually Innocuous; did noc
                            accumulate In tissues

                           Increased glycosuria;  not
                            tumorlgenlc
Selenlte was extremely toxic;
  selenate did not affect
  growth but was tunorlgenlc
  and carcinogenic In older
  animals

Concentrated In kidneys; tel-
  lurlte did not affect growth.
  survival and longevity
                                                      Slight growth enhancement;
                                                        alight shortening of longev-
                                                        ity; virtually innocuous
                                                                                         (15)
                                                                                         (11)
                                                                                                               697
                                                                                                               540
                                                                                                               958
                                                                                                               958
                                                                                                               958
                                                             (14)
                                                             (14)
                                                                                                               643
                                                                                        (16)
                                                                                                                       Increased mortality In males
                                                                 Suppressed  growth and longevi-
                                                                    ty  in females;  increase in
                                                                    hepatic  fatty aoid degenera-
                                                                    tion; not tumorigenic; sone
                                                                    accumulation in soft tissue*

                                                                 WeIght  suppressed at 7 of 16
                                                                    Intervals; survival of Bales

                                                                   more  In 291 relative to 16X
                                                                    In control; ..ore malignant
                                                                    tumors; appeared to be
                                                                   alight carcinogenic activity

                                                                 Weight suppressed at 6 of 16
                                                                   Intervals; tumors in 292 rel-
                                                                   ative to 162 In controls;
                                                                   more malignant tumors;  ap-
                                                                   peared to be slight carcino-
                                                                   genic activity

                                                                 Weight suppressed  at 10 of 16
                                                                   intervals; tumors in 27Z
                                                                   compared  to 16Z  control
                                                                                           No  toxicity observed;
                                                                                            accumulated in spleen with
                                                                                            age; not carcinogenic

                                                                                           Longevity decreased in oldest
                                                                                            10% of both sexes; accumu-
                                                                                            lated  in organs
                                                                                                                                                           (7)
                                                                                                                                                          (10)
                                                                                                                                                          (13)
                                                                                                                                                         (13)
                                                                                                                                                         (13)
                                                                                                                                                          (9)
                                                                                                                                                          (7)
Vanadium
(Vaoadyl)

Yttrium



Zirconium
(as metal)
V 5 603 Serum choleatrol abnormal; (11)
not tumorlgenic

Y — —



Zr 5 603 Increaaed glycosuria; not (11)
tumorlgenic
5 643 No toxiclty observed; accumu-
lated in organs; not car-
clnogenlc
5 958 Growth suppressed at 12 of 16
Intervals; tumors in 33Z
compared to 27Z on controls;
all tumors malignant
5 540 Showed alight toxicity; not
tumorigenlc
(9)

(13)



(10)


-------
         TABLE 5-7.   SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS OF SIX ELEMENTS
                       ON MULTIGENERATIONS OF MICE AND RATS(12)
                      Dosage
  Element     Symbol    (ppm)   Species
                                                  Major Responses by F3 Generation
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel


Selenium
  (Selanate)

Titanium

CONTROL
                As         3     Mice      Survived well through  F3;  no runts; 8 young
                                           deaths; 1 failure  to breed; only abnormality was
                                           a reduction in litter size

                Cd       10     Mice      Toxic to breeding mice by  F2 generation; 5 litters
                                           had congenital abnormally of  the tail; 13%
                                           runts; 2 still-born;  3 or 5 pairs failed to
                                           breed in F2 generation

                Pb       25     Mice      Died out by F2 generation

                        25     Rats      More tolerant to Pb  than mice; birth in first
                                           litters delayed; 35  deaths in F2; 3 pairs failed
                                           to breed; 1 dead litter; 173 rats in Fj and 22
                                           in F3

                Ni         5     Rats      Litter size decreased  with each generation; few
                                           males in F3; 121 rats in Fj and 81 in F3

                Se         3     Mice      Strain began to die  out by F3 generation; 24%
                                           runts; 7 pairs failed to breed

                Ti         5     Rats      103 rats in F! and 16  in F3

                        —     Mice,     Deaths and runts rare;  bred normally for four
                                 Rats      generations; 209 mice in Fj and 230 in F3 for
                                           total of 687;  114  rats in Fj and 113 in F3 for
                                           total of 348
Fj - first filial generation; Fa « second filial generation; F3 = third filial generation.
                                         150

-------
     In addition to life-term and multigeneration studies,  a third avenue,
field/laboratory comparisons, was explored.   The tissue concentrations  of
rodents exposed to arsenic,  cadmium,  lead,  and vanadium showed that these
elements tended to concentrate at higher levels in target organs than did
                                                    (7 91
these elements in the same organs of  control animalsv '  .   The implication
for field monitoring is that rodents  could be trapped in the area around a
coal cleaning facility.  Their organs could be removed and analyzed chemically,
allowing a comparison of the concentrations in healthy (control) and sick  (or
exposed) animals, as in Table 5-8.  Then assessment could be made about the
relative health of small mammals as indicator organisms of the overall  health
of the ecosystem.  Also, the observed elemental concentrations in the small
mammals can be related to concentrations for elements in the pathways discussed
in Section 4.0.
     The implication of the above research is that data on acute responses
alone are insufficient.  Acute effects data need to be supplemented by  chronic
data and/or an adjustment made in the formulae.  A series of comparisons of
acute and chronic effects data were attempted in order to establish a quanti-
tative relationship between the two types of effects.  Unfortunately, no
commonality was obvious.  This means  that, until more research is performed,
no adjustment can be advanced.

5.5.4  Extrapolation of Response of
One Animal Species to Another

     Methods  of  extrapolating  from animals  to  humans  depend heavily  upon
the expirical relationship Y = aW  which describes many biochemical parameters
                                                                   (21-23)
(Y) of an organism as a function of the organism's body weight  (W)        .  For
example, Y can be defined as metabolic rate, oxygen consumption,  or  a parti-
cular toxic response.  For any specific definition of  Y, a  and b  are constants,
so the same equation fits data for mammals whose body  weight, W,  ranges over
several orders of magnitude  (i.e., all the way from mice to elephants).
Kleiber^  ' showed that the  relationship Y  =  70 W     , where  W  =  weight in  kg,
described total  metabolism,  Y,  in kcal/day for mammals ranging in size from
a rat to a steer.  Also,  this  type of equation fits  such data more accurately
                                                            (25)
when W represents body weight  rather  than body surface area    ,  although
when Y is a toxic response body  area may be useful.
                                     151

-------
                    TABLE 5-8.  TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS OF FOUR ELEMENTS IN ORGANS OF CONTROLS
                                AND EXPOSED MICE AND RATS
-------
     The basic procedure for using the equation Y = aW  as a means  for
extrapolation obviously requires, first,  that the equation be explicitly
known.  That is, W and Y must be clearly  defined and quantitatively measurable,
and the units in which they are expressed must be specified.  Also, the
values for a and b must be known (a must  be a positive number, whereas b can be
either a positive or negative exponent).   Once the equation is known,  an
organism's unknown toxic response (Y) can be predicted from the equation
simply by using the organism's known body weight, W, as input to the equation
and calculating the predicted Y as output.
     The problem which complicates this approach is the fact that the
constants a and b usually are not known.   Consequently, a and b must be obtained
by statistical estimation using a group of (W,Y) data points which have been
previously collected.  Fortunately, the statistical estimation is quite
straightforward because Y = aW  converts  to a linear function when logarithms
are taken of both sides of the equation.   That is, log Y = log a + b log W.
Therefore a and b can be obtained by performing a linear regression on log Y
data as a function of log W data.  Also,  the Y,W data should appear to fall
approximately on a straight line when plotted on log-log graph paper.  Indeed,
part of this approach was used in correlating routes of administration
(Section 5.5.2).
      Two methods for applying basic  extrapolation procedures depend on
what unknown responses are to be predicted and what kind of data are already
available.  In Method I the equation deals with only one toxicant  at a time,
but this single equation can be used to predict the responses of animals of
many different species  (including man) to that particular  toxicant.  In Method
II, the equation deals with responses to many different toxicants, but it can
be used only to extrapolate from the response of one particular species to the
response of another species  (say, from rat to human).  Both of these methods
                      •
are described in more detail below.

      5.5.4.1  Method  I.  First,  one  toxicant must  be  selected  for  study,
and some consistent way of quantifying various  species responses to that
toxicant must be chosen.  For instance, suppose  the toxicant  is HgCl_  and  the
                                       153

-------
 form  of  toxic  response  to be measured  is  the LD   .  Then data must be collected
 from  laboratory experiments which determine the LD^'s  for a variety of mammals
 in  response  to HgCl_.   There will be at least one LD,.,.  (Y ) corresponding to
 each  species (i)  tested.  (No exact way exists for determining the minimum
 number of species which must be  tested, but it should include species ranging
 over  several orders of  magnitude in size;  for instance, mouse, rabbit, dog,
 and pig.)  Then each LDcn (Y.) must be paired with the  body weight (W ) of the
 corresponding  animal, and when the resulting set of (W  , Y ) points are plotted
 on  log-log graph paper  they should fall approximately on a straight line.
 The equation of this line is then determined by linear  regression as explained
 earlier.  This will yield the values a and b in the equation Y = aW .
         Y = LD5Q, mg/Kg
         in response to
         HgCl2  (log scale)
                                                steer
Y = aW
                                    W = weight of animal, g
                                           (log scale)
To interpolate or extrapolate the unknown LD   for an untested animal, it then
becomes a matter of substituting the weight, W, of that animal into the equation
Y = aW  and calculating the predicted Y value.  This calculation procedure
enables the prediction of the LD .. not only for a human but also for other
animals important in a particular ecosystem, such as beaver or deer.
     Several illustrative examples of the method of applying Method I
may be cited.  Figure 5-2 compares the LD   response of three species
                                         LO
                                      154

-------
iaooo
  1000
0>

\
o»



 3
o
   ICX)
    10
E   I    i  i  i MIII      I   i  i  i  mil      I    i y\11i±
—  x
 - x
                                             X
                             Cot
                 Guinea Pig
      I   I  II Mill      I   I   I  I Mill     I    I  I
100
1000
                                     10,000
                                Weight, g
          FIGURE 5-2.  SUBCUTANEOUS LDLQ'S FOR HYDROGEN CYANIDE
                                                           Mil
                                                            IOQOOO
                                155

-------
 to hydrogen  cyanide,  administered  subcutaneously.   The  LD   values  (yg/kg)
                                                         J_iU
 are plotted  as  a  function  of  the mammals' weights  on  log-log  graph  paper.   If
 these weight-response data fit  the basic model,  Y  = aW  ,  the  plotted  points
 should  appear to  fall approximately  on  a straight  line; in this  case  a rough
 linear  relationship  is indicated.  The  dashed  freehand  line was  drawn to show
 how the true regression line  might look if  least squares regression were
 actually performed on this small set of data.
     Figure  5-3 shows another sample application of Method I.  Oral LD   's
 in response  to  arsenic trioxide are  plotted as a function of  the body weights
 of three different mammals, including man.  In this example,  the indicated
 regression line has a negative slope; this relationship can occur when the
 exponent, "b",  in the equation Y = aW   has a negative value.   In both Figures
 5-2 and 5-3, the hand-drawn dashed lines were included  to indicate  the approx-
 imate positions of actual  regression lines which would  be used for  extrapolation
 and prediction.

     5.5.4.2 Method  II.   This method uses an equation  derived from Y = aW
 and which can be considered a slight variation of  it.   Two species  of animals
 must be selected for  consideration,  the first being one on which laboratory
 tests can be conducted easily, e.g., a  rat, and  the second being the  one for
 which extrapolated results are desired  (usually, a  human).  A specific way  of
 quantifying  the toxic response must  be  chosen for  each  species.  For  instance,
 suppose the  rat's response and the human's response are to be quantified as the
 ID,., and the LD  , respectively.   Suppose further  that  both responses are to be
 expressed in term of  dose  (concentration) per unit  weight of  body tissue, for
 instance, mg/kg.  Then the rat's response (X = LD,-,,) to a given  toxicant and
 the human's  response  (Y =  LD  ) to the  same toxicant will be  mathematically
                                             (26)
 related to each other .by a fixed constant,  (T    .   That is, Y =  CX.  (The body
weights  of the  two animals are indirectly incorporated  into this equation
 through  C.)
     In order to determine what value C has, data points must  be collected
whereby  the  responses  of the  two species to a variety of toxicants  are known.
                                      156

-------
 IOO
       TTTT
    —^^ Mouse
     i  i iiiiiii    i  11mm    rrm
                              TTTT
  10
o*
 o
 in
O
  0.1
                     Rat
                                                    Human
   10
IOO
raoo         10,000


   Weight, g
100,000
                 FIGURE 5-3.  ORAL LD5Q'S FOR ARSENIC TRIOXIDE

-------
There will then be at least one data point  (X  , Y ) available for each toxicant
tested, and the range of responses should cover several orders of magnitude.
(The responses of a rat (X.) can easily be  obtained from laboratory experiments,
although empirical data about the human's response (Y ) may need to be obtained
from clinical or industrial exposure observations.)  The set of (X , Y.) data
can then be fitted to a straight line using standard regression techniques and
the equation Y = CX can then be determined.
         Y = LDLQ, mg/kg
         for human (log
         scale)
               Y = CX
            tellurium
         sodium fluoride
      nickel sulfate
   ircuric chloride
lydrogen cyanide
                                  X = LD5Q for rat (mg/kg)
                                          (log scale)
Finally, this equation can be used to predict the unknown human response to
a new toxicant by experimentally determining a rat's response to that toxicant,
substituting that X value into the equation and calculating the estimated Y
value.
     Freireich, et al./26^ used this method to derive the equation
Y =  (1/7)X describing the relationship between the responses of rats and humans
to a variety of cancer drugs.
     So far, it has not been possible to provide a good demonstration of
either extrapolation method due to the lack of readily available, adequately
large sets of parallel data.  For many substances, the toxic concentration
values reported    were given using different modes of entry for different
test species, and it would not make sense to fit the same equation to data
consisting of (for example) oral LD^'s for rats and subcutaneous LD  's for
                                     158

-------
dogs.  The LD   is not a very precisely defined measurement;  it may be over-
             LiO
estimated by one or more orders of magnitude.   LD  's and LC_'s are more
accurate measurements, but these values comprise a fairly small percentage of
the total set of data.  In the future, more substantial sets  of data will
be needed on which to base applications of the models.

     5.5.4.3  Comparison of Methods I and II.   Each of the methods (I and II)
has its own unique advantages and disadvantages.  In both methods, it is safer
to use the obtained regression line for interpolation than for extrapolation.
That is, one will obtain more accurate predictions from the portion of the
line falling within the range of the input data points, rather than from the
portions of the line  extending well beyond this range in either direction.
     Method  I  is more appropriate  to use  in a  situation where  only one
toxicant is being considered at a  time, and the researcher wants to study
the effects of that toxicant upon many different species of animals within
some ecosystem.  Only one equation is needed to estimate all these effects.
However, the disadvantages of this method are  that a  separate  equation must
be derived for each toxicant, and  to fit just  one equation requires that the
responses of a number of  individuals or species of various sizes be known.
     Anderson  and Weber     used  an equation of  the  form LD,.,.  = aW
 (Method  I) to predict toxic  responses of  guppies of varying body weights to
                                                (22)
heavy metal  compounds and dieldrin.  Krasovskii      studied the quantitative
relationships  among the toxic  responses of mammals to several  hundred  chemical
compounds and  found that  the general equation  Y = aW  could be used  to  char-
acterize these relationships for  80 to  85 percent of  the compounds.
     Method II is  appropriate  to  use  if man or another species is  the
only organism whose responses  are to be predicted.   Only one equation  is
needed  to predict the human  responses  to  a variety of toxicants;  and  to  provide
 the  input necessary to this  equation,  all that is required is  a simple experi-
ment with a  laboratory animal.  However,  the disadvantage of this  method  is
 that in  order  to  derive this equation  in  the first place, prior data on human
 responses for  at  least several toxicants  is required.  Accurate information
 of  this  type may not  be easy to acquire because direct experimentation
 involving toxicants  in humans  is  not  possible.
                                      159

-------
5.5.5  Toward a Biological
Basis for Safety Factors

     Safety factors are often used in formulae that estimate permissible
concentrations.  The review of formulae showed that safety factors of 10 to
100 were typical.  However, the biological rationale for such safety factors
usually was not given.  The typical approach for developing safety factors
has been arbitrariness; thus, there is a need for improved rationales for
safety factors.  Available data about the ranges of toxicological responses
for selected organisms are reviewed in this part of the report.  This research
is to provide data on which realistic safety factors can be derived empirically.
     The scope of the present research permitted identification, assembly,
and study of about 15 articles.  Pertinent information is presented in two
sections, followed by a compilation of selected findings related to safety
factors from the two sections.  Throughout, responses are presented by type
of organisms, e.g., algae, fish, birds.  One should recognize, however,
that the available data are sketchy.  On the other hand, merely getting
a qualitative idea of variability of response (and thus the possible threshold
of the most sensitive species) to toxicants represents a step forward.
     Toxicity levels of compounds in air, water, and soil vary widely.
Some substances seem to have no toxic effect at all while others are toxic
at concentrations in the parts per billion (ppb) range.  Toxic levels and
effects of a substance may vary considerably (a) between species, (b) sometimes
between subspecies or races, and (c) during different life stages of an
organism.  For example, toxicity ratios of neonates to adults can vary from
                                                                  (28}
0.002- to 16-fold, a variation of almost four orders of magnitude.
     Many differences in toxicity can be explained by the quantitative
differences in detoxification processes in young versus adult animals.
Increased membrane permeability in the young has been suggested as a possible
mechanism for age-related differences.  Differences in hepatic and clearance
ratios that have been shown to occur (possibly involved in age-dependent
toxicity effects) may contribute to toxicity variation at both ends of the
life span(28).
                                   160

-------
     Variation among species' responses to toxicants is due to many factors
                                                             (29 30)
such as differences in body size and physiological responses.    '     As an
example, carnivores tend to be more sensitive to toxic materials than herbivores:
this is probably due to differences in physiology (e.g., rates of excretion).

     5.5.5.1  Ranges of Sensitivity in Selected Aquatic Plants and Animals.
The sensitivity of green algae to cadmium may vary by a factor of 100 between
species.  Growth is inhibited in Chlamymonas reinhardi at concentrations of
0.1 ppm while Euglena gracilis can withstand concentrations up to 10 ppm for
seven days with no effects.  Some ostracods (zooplankton) have cadmium sensi-
                              (29)
tivity similar to Chlamymonas.
     Zooplankton  also  exhibit interspecific reactions  to  toxicants.  The
                                                           (3D
responses of three species of zooplankton to various metals     is presented
below in Table 5-9.  Cyclops is the most resistant, followed by Eudiaptomus,
while Daphia is considerably more sensitive than the other species.  The widest
range of response is for copper; the ratio of the least sensitive to the most
sensitive is 500.

          TABLE 5-9.  l,C,n CONCENTRATIONS OF VARIOUS METALS FOR
                                                           (3D
                      THREE  SPECIES OF FRESHWATER PLANKTONv   '
48-Hour LC5Q, mg/1
Metal
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Cadmium
Copper
Cyclops
abyssorum

10.0
5.5
2.2
3.8
2.5
Eudiaptomus
padanus
10.1
4.0
0.85
0.55
0.50
Daphia
hyalina

0.022
0.60
0.0055
0.055
0.005
Ratio, Least to
Most Sensitive
455
9
400
76
500





      Frog and toad larvae are sensitive to several metals.   Boreal toads
 (Bufo boreas) will not  metamorphose in water whose iron concentration is  greater
 than 30 mg/1.  These amphibians  are more resistant to acidity than most fish,
                                      161

-------
 but  are  similar  to  other  anuran larvae  and  salmonids  (fish)  in  resistance  to
                (32)
 copper and  zinc     .   Leopard  frog  (Rana pipiens)  embryos  are much  more
 sensitive to mercury  than either larvae or  adults  by  a  factor of  100  to  1000,
 respectively.  Sensitivity also varies  in the  different  stages  of embryonic
 development.   Ten ppb  is  lethal to  cleavage and blastula stages while the  tail
 bud  stage can survive  100 ppb  (0.1  ppm)  concentration with 90 percent survival.
                                                                          (33)
 Adults exhibit no mortality in concentrations  of 5.0  ppm mercury  and  less
 Thus,  sensitivity varies  by 2  and 3 orders  of  magnitude.
      Salamanders (Ambystoma spp.) and  closely  related species of  different
 sizes  exhibit  differential toxicity to  beryllium;  96-hour  survival  in soft
 water  with  10  mg/1 beryllium is only 20 perdent, while  those in hard  water
                      (341
 exhibit  no  mortality.   '
      Immature fish  forms 'are generally  more sensitive than adults;  however,
 this varies with species  and toxicants  by a factor of at least  two.   The LD__
 for  rainbow trout embryos continuously  treated with methyl mercury  is approx-
 imately  5 ppb, the values for  channel catfish  and  largemouth bass are about
                                                .
 25 ppb,  and  for  goldfish, the LD_0  is  500 ppb.    '  The  lethal values of
 mercurial  compounds are  580-1300 ppb and 2000-9200 ppb for  adult  catfish and
                    (33)
 trout, respectively.      Fish with large eggs and/or long  development  time
 appear to  be more susceptible to mercury and perhaps other  metals.  Fish
 embryos, larvae, and early juveniles (ELEJ) are more sensitive to cadmium
 than are adults.  ELEJ sensitivity  to  mercury, lead, and zinc often varies
             /oc\
 with species.      Relative  interspecific sensitivity of some fish species
 to various metals is presented  in Table 5-10.
           TABLE  5-10.  SENSITIVITY  OF  EARLY JUVENILE FISH
                       TO VARIOUS METALS (36)
                                    Sensitivity Range
Metal                  Most             <	>            Least
Cadmium                Brooktrout > Flagfish > Bluegill > Fathead Minnow
Copper                 Brooktrout > Fathead Minnow > Bluegill
Chromium               Brooktrout > Fathead Minnow
Lead                   Flagfish > Brooktrout
Mercury                Fathead Minnow > Flagfish > Brooktrout
                                      162

-------
     5.5.5.2  Ranges of Sensitivity to Toxicants of Selected Terrestrial
Animals.  Embryos of birds tend to be more susceptible to metals than adult
forms.  Chicks are very sensitive to selenium poisoning.  In fact, areas with
high levels of naturally occurring selenium are first detected by low hatch-
ability of chicken eggs; the eggs exhibit no sign of poisoning and may be
fertile, but they do not hatch because of malformed or deformed embryos.
The TL,-n of selenium and other metals for chick embryos is as follows:  selenium
and arsenic together - 0.01 ppm; arsenic alone - 0.05 ppm; methyl mercury alone -
                                             (35)
0.1 ppm; mercury and lead together - 1.0 ppm.      Adult mallards are generally
more resistant to toxicants than are bobwhites and pheasants, except for terpene
polychlorinated and some mercury compounds.  Pheasants  are about  three times as
resistant to Ceresan M in feed as mallards  (LC,-n of 146 and 50 for pheasant
                            (38)
and mallard, respectively).
      Fetal  and newborn mammals  tend  to be more susceptible  to some metals
 (e.g.,  selenium, mercury, arsenic, iron) than adults, and females are more
                                  (39-41)
sensitive to selenium than  males.         Selenium in the diet in excess of
5 ppm may cause chronic toxicity; 10 ppm fed to sows results in  pigs  that  are
small,  weak, or dead at birth.  Malformed or deformed young may  occur in pigs,
                                               (37)
sheep,  cattle, and  rats on  a  seliniferous diet.      Selenium is an  essential
micronutrient, but  if it  occurs  in excess it may interfere  with  reproduction,
even at subtoxic  levels.       The  range  of  adult to  newborn toxicity ratios  for
many pharmaceutical compounds was  about  0.1 to 50  and  averaged  around 4.5  for
                                                               (39)
 a subset of 62 nonpharmaceutical chemicals  on  the  list  of  400.       Perhaps
 a rule  of thumb,  then,  is that baby  mammals are  four or five times  as suscep-
 tible as their adult  counterparts.

      5.5.5.3  Selected Findings Related to Safety  Factors.   The following
 selected findings bring together in one place  the  more quantitative relation-
 ships discussed  in the previous two sections on  safety factors.
           (1)  Differences in toxicity of a substance to different species
                or ages is due in part to physiological and metabolic differ-
                ences and body size.
                                       163

-------
 (2)  Herbivores are generally more resistant than carnivores.
 (3)  The green algae Chlamymonas reinhardi is 100 times more
      sensitive to cadmium than the algae Euglena gracilis.
 (4)  The zooplankton Cyclops abyssorum is 455 times, 9 times, 400
      times, 76 times, and 500 times more resistant to chromium,
      lead, mercury, cadmium, and copper, respectively, than
      Daphia hyalina.  Eudiaptomus padanus is intermediate in
      sensitivity.
 (5)  Boreal toads will not metamorphose in iron concentrations
      greater than 30 mg/1.
 (6)  Leopard frog embryos are 100 times and 1000 times more
      sensitive to mercury than larvae and adults, respectively.
      The cleavage and blastula stages are the most sensitive
      stages in embryonic development.
 (7)  Beryllium is not differentially toxic to salamanders of
      various ages, but is at least 5 times as toxic in soft
      water as in hard water.
 (8)  Rainbow trout and channel catfish larvae,  respectively,
      are 116 to 260 times and 80 to 360 times more sensi-
      tive to mercury than the adults.  Fish species with
      large eggs and/or long development times are the more
      sensitive species.
 (9)  Bird embryos are more sensitive than adults and are espe-
      cially sensitive to selenium.
(10)  Mammalian fetuses are more sensitive than adults.   New born
      are about 4.5 times as sensitive to arsanilic acid, 1.5
      times as sensitive to ferrous sulfate and lead arsenate,
      and 0.6 to 0.9 times as sensitive to some mercury compounds
      as adults.
(11)  Few studies exist that compare sensitivity to metals in
      developing young and adult homeotherms.
                            164

-------
                  5.6  Application of Improved Formulae

     Application of the findings is the next most important step.   Some
of the advances in the state of the art can be implemented immediately, while
others still require more "fitting" of the solution to the problem.   For
example, the interconversion of various types of LD_'s can be utilized any
time there is no oral but there are non-oral LD_n measurements.   The additional
formulae certainly can be used in future refinements of estimating environmental
goals in air and water.
     Extrapolation of dose/response data from one species to another is not
as straightforward as one would like.  On the other hand, some generalizations
can be applied.  Generally, the larger the weight and surface area of an
organism, the greater the relative dosage needed to adversely affect that
species.  Using this and other concepts, predictions of how another species
would respond in general can be made.
     More conceptual work is needed on understanding chronic effects before
these data or adjustments to formulae using acute effects can be attempted.
     Safety factors, which are a function of the test species, now have a
much stronger data base.  A safety factor of 1000 is appropriate for aquatic
populations when the available dose/response data are from one of the less
sensitive species in the ecosystem.  Thus, the insensitive as well as the
sensitive species can receive protection.  If, on the other hand, available
dose/response data are for sensitive aquatic species, then a much smaller
safety  factor would be needed for protecting all less sensitive species in
the ecosystem.  For terrestrial situations, safety  factor recommendations
are more difficult to establish.  However, a safety factor of at least 10
is justified biologically.
                                    165

-------
                               5.7  References
 (1)  Cleland, J. G.,  and Kingsbury, G. L.,  "Multimedia Environmental Goals
      for Environmental Assessment", U.S. EPA 600/7-77-136a, J^ 148 + Appendices.

 (2)  Handy, R.,  and Schindler, A., "Estimation of Permissible Concentrations
      of Pollutants for Continuous Exposure", Research Triangle Institute
      Report, Contract 68-02-1325, Task 34 (September, 1975).

 (3)  Internal Commission on Radiological Protection, "Recommendations of the
      International Commission on Radiological Protection.  Report of Committee
      II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation", ICRP Publication 2,
      Pergamon Press,  New York, 233 (1959).

 (4)  Walsh, P. J., Killough, G. G., Parzuck, D. C., Rohwer, P. S., Rupp, E. M.,
      Whitfield,  B. L., Booth, R. S., and Raridon, R. J., "CUMEX - Accumulative
      Hazard Index for Assessing Limiting Exposures to Environmental Pollutants",
      ORNL-5263.   Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 63 (1977).

 (5)  Blackwood,  T. R., "A Method for Estimating TLV Values for Compounds
      Where None Exist", Letter Report from Monsanto Research Corporation,
      Dayton, Ohio, to Chemical Process Section of EPA (April 15, 1975).

 (6)  The Toxic Substance List, 1976 Edition, U.S. Department of Health,
      Education,  and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control,
      National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (June, 1976).

 (7)  Schroeder,  H. A., Balassa, J. J., and Vinton, W. H., Jr., "Chromium,
      Lead, Cadmium, Nickel, and Titanium in Mice:  Effect on Mortality,  •
      Tumors, and Tissue Levels", J. Nutrition, 83, 239-250 (1964).

 (8)  Schroeder,  H. A., Balassa, J. J., and Vinton, W. H., Jr., "Chromium,
      Cadmium, and Lead in Rats:  Effects on Life Span, Tumors, and Tissue
      Levels", J. Nutrition, 86, 51-66 (1965).

 (9)  Schroeder,  H. A., and Balassa, J. J. ,  "Arsenic, Germanium, Tin, and
      Vanadium in Mice:  Effects on Growth,  Survival, and Tissue Levels",
      J. Nutrition, 92^ 245-252 (1967).

(10)  Schoreder,  H. A., Mitchener, M., Balassa, J. J., Kanisawa, M., and
      Nason, A. P., "Zirconium, Niobium,  Antimony, and Fluorine in Mice:
      Effects on Growth, Survival, and Tissue Levels", J. Nutrition, 95,
      95-101 (1968).

(11)  Schroeder,  H. A., Mitchener, M., and Nason, A. P.,  "Zirconium, Niobium,
      Antimony, Vanadium, and Lead in Rats:   Life-Term Studies", J. Nutrition,
      100,  59-68  (1970).

(12)  Schroeder,  H. A., and Mitchener, M., "Toxic Effects of Trace Elements
      on the Reproduction of Mice and Rats",  Arch. Environ. Health, 23,
      102-106 (1971a).


                                    166

-------
(13)   Schroeder,  H.  A.,  and Mitchener,  M.,  "Scandium,  Chromium (VI),  Gallium,
      Yttrium,  Rhodium,  Palladium,  Indium  in Mice:   Effects  on Growth and
      Life Span",  J.  Nutrition,  101,  1431-1438 (1971).

(14)   Schroeder,  H.  A.,  and Mitchener,  M.,  "Selenium and Tellurium in Rats:
      Effect on Growth,  Survival,  and Tumors", J.  Nutrition, 101,  1531-1540
      (1971).

(15)   Schroeder,  H.  A.,  Mitchener,  M.,  and Nason,  A. P., "Life-Term Effects
      of Nickel on Rats:  Survival, Tumors, Interactions with Trace Elements
      and Tissue Levels", J. Nutrition, 104, 239-243 (1974).

(16)   Schroeder,  H.  A.,  Mitchener,  M.,  "Life-Term Studies in Rats:  Effects
      of Aluminum, Barium, Beryllium, and  Tungsten", J.  Nutrition, 105,
      421-427 (1975).

(17)   Schroeder, H.  A.,  Mitchener,  M.,  "Life-Term Effects of Mercury, Methyl
      Mercury,  and Nine  Other Trace Metals on Mice", J.  Nutrition, 105,
      452-458 (1975).

(18)   Johnson,  A. B., Groff, D.  E., McConahey, P.  J., and Dixon, F. J. ,
      "Transmission of Marine Leukemia Virus  (Scripps) from Parent to Progeny
      Mice as Determined by p30 Antigenemia", Gander Res.,  36, 1228-1232 (1976).

(19)   Tomatis,  L., Ponomarkov, V., and Turusov, V., "Effects of Ethylnitrosourea
      Administration During Pregnancy on Three Subsequent Generations of
      BDVI Rats", Int. J. Cancer, J.9_, 240-248 (1977).

(20)   Deichmann, W.  B.,  MacDonald, W. E., and Cubit, D. A., "Dieldren and DDT
      in  the Tissues of Mice Fed Aldrin and DDT for Seven Generations", Arch.
      Toxicol., ^i,  173-182  (1975).

(21)  Adolph, E.  P., "Quantitative Relations  in the Physiological  Constitutions
      of  Mammals", Science,  109, 579-585  (1949).

(22)  Krasovskii, G. N.,  "Extrapolation of  Experimental Data  from Animals to
      Man", Environmental Health Perspectives, 13,  51-58 (1976).

(23)  Zeuthen, E.,  "Oxygen  Uptake  as Related to Body  Size in  Organisms", The
      Quarterly Review  of Biology, 2j3  (1),  1-12  (1953).

(24)  Kleiber, M., The  Fire of  Life:  An  Introduction to Animal Energetics,
       (1961), John Wiley &  Sons, New York,  200-212.

(25)  Kleiber, M.,  "Body Size and  Metabolic Rate",  Physiological  Reviews,
      27_ (4),  511-541 (1947).

(26)  Freireich,  E.  J.,  Gehan,  E.  A.,  Rail, D. P.,  Schmidt, L.  H., and  Skipper,
      H.  E., "Quantitative Comparison  of  Toxicity of  Anticancer Agents  in
      Mouse, Rat, Hamster,  Dog, Monkey, and Man",  Cancer Chemotherapy Reports,
      50 (4),  219-244  (1966).
                                      167

-------
(27)  Anderson, P.  D.,  and Weber, L. J., "Toxic Response as a Quantitative
      Function of Body Size", Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 33,
      471-475 (1975).

(28)  Casarett, L.  J.,  and Boull, J., "Toxicology-The Basic Science of Poisons",
      MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 768 (1975).

(29)  Buehler, K.,  and Kirshfield, H. I., "Cadmium in an Aquatic Ecosystem:
      Effects on Planktonic Organisms", in T. Novakov (Ed.) Trace Contaminants
      in the Environment, Proceedings of 2nd Annual NSF-RANN Trace Contaminant
      Conference, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California,
      Berkeley, California, 283-294 (1974).

(30)  Stickel, W. H.,  "Some Effects of Pollutants in Terrestrial Ecosystems",
      in A.  D. Mclntyre and C. F. Mills (Eds.), Ecological Toxicology Research,
      Plenum Press, New York, 25-74 (1975).

(31)  Baudouin, M.  F.,  and Scoppa, P., "Acute Toxicity of Various Metals to
      Freshwater Zooplankton", Bull. Environ. Contain, and Toxicol., 12 (6),
      745-751 (1974).

(32)  Porter, K. R.,  and Hakanson, D. E., "Toxicity of Mine Drainage to
      Embryonic and Larval Boreal Toads (Bufonidae:  Bufo boreas)", Copeia 2,
      327-331 (1976).

(33)  Birge,'W. J., and Just, J. J., "Sensitivity of Vertebrate Embryos to
      Heavy Metals  as  a Criterion of Water Quality-Phase I", U.S. Department
      of the Interior,  University of Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute,
      Lexington, Kentucky, Res. Rpt. No. 71, 33 pp.  (1974).

(34)  Slonim, A. R.,  and Ray, E. E., "Acute Toxicity of Beryllium Sulfate to
      Salamander Larvae (Ambystoma spp)", Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.,
      13 (3), 307-312  (1975).

(35)  Birge, W. J., Westerman, A. G., and Roberts, 0. W., "Lethal and Terato-
      genic Effects of Metallic Pollutants on Vertebrate Embryos", in T.
      Novakov (Ed.) Trace Contaminants in the Environment, Proceedings of 2nd
      Annual NSF-RANN  Trace Contaminants Conference, University of California,
      Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Berkeley, California, 366 (1974).

(36)  McKim, J. M., "Evaluation of Tests with Early Life Stages of Fish for
      Predicting Long-Term Toxicity", J. Fish. Res. Bd., Canada, 3^, 1148-1154
      (1977).

(37)  National Research Council, "Selenium", National Academy of Sciences,
      Washington, D.C., 203 (1976).
                                     168

-------
(38)   Heath,  R.  G.,  Spann,  J.  W.,  Hill,  E.  F.,  and Kreitzer,  J.  F.,  "Compar-
      ative Dietary  Toxicities of  Pesticides  to Birds",  U.S.  Department of
      the Interior,  Fish and Wildlife  Service,  Special Scientific Report -
      Wildlife No.  152,  Washington,  B.C.,  57  pp. (1972).

(39)   Goldenthal, E. I., "A Compilation of LDSO Values in Newborn and Adult
      Animals", Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., JL8_,  185-207 (1971).

(40)   Friberg, L.,  and Vostal, J., "Mercury in  the Environment - An Epidemic-
      logical and Toxicological Appraisal", CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio, 215
      (1972).

(41)   Versar, Inc., "Preliminary Investigation of Effects on the Environment
      of Boron, Indium, Nickel, Selenium,  Tin,  Vanadium, and Their Compounds",
      Volume IV - Selenium, Office'of Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C.,
      EPA-560/2-75-0050  (1975).
                                      169

-------
                 6.0  DECISION CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING
                    POLLUTANTS, SOURCES, AND PROBLEMS

     There are major differences in the hazards posed to man and the
environment from different pollutants released as a result of coal cleaning
processes.  One of the objectives of this study is to establish criteria for
rating the relative importance which should be placed upon identifying and
controlling specific pollutants from coal cleaning processes.
     The position has never been taken during the investigation that
pollutants from coal cleaning processes could be prioritized into an ordinal
array, from the worst to the least.  Rather, it has been considered that this
is an unattainable ideal  and that a more realistic goal is to categorize them
into groups of varying degrees of hazard.
     As noted in the Introduction, the fundamental criterion for ranking
the importance of any pollutant is the relationship between its expected environ-
mental concentration and the maximum concentration which presents no hazard
to man or biota on a continuous long-term basis.  The estimated environmental
concentrations (EEC) of pollutants can be projected on the basis of coal
feedstock, process configuration, control devices applied, environmental
dilution and dispersion, etc.  In the case of actual coal cleaning processes,
the EEC of pollutants can be measured by Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 analyses.
     The other half of the relationship, the estimated permissible concen-
tration (EPC), is quite another matter.  As discussed in Section 5.0, the
toxicological and epidemiological data needed to characterize the relative
health and ecological risks of the pollutants to be expected from coal cleaning
processes are woefully inadequate.  The information base is in far better shape
for many of the chemical compounds encountered in the chemical and similar
industries, but almost none of these are of any concern to coal cleaning.
Actually,  the exact chemical form of many coal cleaning pollutants is unknown
more often than not.  There appears very little likelihood that the EPC data
base for coal cleaning pollutants will improve dramatically in the near future.
                                    170

-------
     Thus, in spite of its undeniable theoretical soundness,  the EEC/EPC
relationships probably will be unable to provide substantial  prioritization
guidance over the near term.
     Looking toward the longer term, one of the U.S.  EPA's contractors,
the Research Triangle Institute, is developing the concept of multimedia
environmental goals (MEG's), of which health-related and ecology-related
estimated permissible concentrations for air, water, and land are key parameters.
Current status of this ongoing effort has been described by Cleland and
Kingsbury.     Because of the data insufficiencies mentioned above, the MEG
tabulations for pollutants from coal cleaning processes are incomplete, which
limits the present application of MEG's.
     Another approach to the estimation of acceptable concentrations
utilizes Minimum Acute Toxicity Effluents (MATE's).  These are considered to
represent the very approximate maximum concentrations of pollutants in air,
water, or land effluents without adverse effects for short-term exposure.
As developed by researchers at Research Triangle Institute^ ', six MATE concen-
trations may be described  for a single  compound; two MATE's based  on health
and  ecology for each medium.  While  there are  also large  gaps in the toxicological
data needed to estimate MATE's, the  types of data from which MATE's can be
derived,  e.g., TLV's, LD   's, LD   's, LC   's,  TD   's, etc., do not require the
                        jU     LiU      _}U      1-ivJ
extrapolations which are necessary  to convert  them  to EPC's  (see Section  5.0)
and  are  thus more  amenable to empirical treatment.
      Source Analysis Models (SAM's)  have  been developed  by Acurex, another
of the U.S. EPA's  contractors,  to  assist  in  comparing elements  of  an environ-
mental assessment.  The simplest  SAM, designated  SAM/IA,  is  designed for  rapid
screening of effluent  streams   and assumes no effluent  transport or  transfor-
                                           (2)
mation.   As described  by  Schalit  and Wolfe    , rapid screening  of  the  degree
of hazard and  the  rate of  discharge of  toxic pollutants  may  occur  at any  level
of depth of chemical  and physical analysis   and may even be  used to  provide
guidance for  Level 2  analysis.   In SAM/IA, effluent concentrations are compared
to the  appropriate MATE's; the  comparison may also evaluate  the difference
between  an  uncontrolled  process and one with pollution  controls.
      SAM/IA also estimates a "degree of hazard" (H) which is the ratio of
a specific  pollutant  concentration in  an  effluent stream to  its corresponding
                                     171

-------
health-based MATE; the total stream degree of hazard can be calculated by
summing the individual H's.
     Similarly, Toxic Unit Discharge Rates (TUDR's) can be estimated by
multiplying the degree of hazard (H) by the stream flow rate; these too can
be summed for the total stream.  At present the narrowness of the data base
on MATE's also limits the application of SAM/IA to coal cleaning processes.
     For the near term, a pragmatic approach to prioritization is possible,
based on the assumption that the relative importance of a pollutant can be
based generally on its toxicity and its abundance and that those substances
for which criteria have been established or which have been designated as
pollutants are important.  The preliminary "Priority 1" list of pollutants
(see Section 3.1) had its origin in these considerations.  The relative
importance for investigation probably has increased for the 13 inorganic
elements and their compounds because of their inclusion in the list of 65
toxic pollutants being considered for effluent limitations, as listed in
Table 3-8.
     An important modifying parameter influencing the prioritization of a
pollutant is the availability, or lack of availability, of adequate pollution
controls.   A high-risk pollutant, for which state-of-the-art controls are
inadequate, should have top priority for the development of adequate controls.
More information on adequacy of control, by pollutant, is needed to apply
these adjustments to relative rankings.
     Preliminary working prioritization lists can be derived by comparing
the emission concentrations (uncontrolled and controlled) in each stream (air
or water)  with the concentrations established by air or water quality criteria
or by regulation.   These concentration levels may be health- or ecology-based,
or both; or they may reflect available technology, e.g., "best available
control technology" (BACT).  Such lists will provide a working basis for
prioritization of R&D efforts while the more precise and sophisticated MATE's
and MEG's  are being perfected.
                                    172

-------
                               6.1   References
(1)   Cleland,  J.G.,  and Kingsbury,  G.L.,  "Multimedia Environmental Goals  for
     Environmental Assessment - Vol.  1",  EPA-600/7-77-136a,  November,  1977.

(2)   Schalit,  L.M. and Wolfe, K.J., "SAM/IA:   A Rapid Screening Method for
     Environmental Assessment of Fossil Energy Process Effluents", EPA-600/7-
     78-015, February, 1978.
                                      173

-------
                    7.0  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

     While this research effort has developed a sound understanding of
the types and forms of the environmental assessment criteria needed in support
of the coal cleaning environmental assessment program, the perceived problems
existing at its commencement have not all been answered, and major new problems
have been uncovered along the way.
     Thus, the basic recommendation  for future work is  to continue to bring
to completion the tasks already begun.  Several more specific recommendations
can also be made.  The order is not  chronological, although the output of
one subtask can be the input to another.  Also, some of the more complex
and fundamental problems will require long-term research for their full
elucidation.

                   7.1   Potential  Environmental  Pollutants

     The Priority 1 list of pollutants should be reassessed when better
estimates of emissions and EPC's are available, in order to winnow out marginally
important pollutants and focus attention and efforts on the truly important
ones.   Concomitantly, a number of potential pollutants omitted from that list
should be reassessed to reconfirm the correctness of the omission.

                7.2  Estimation of Environmental Concentrations

     The physical transport and dispersion models which are to be recom-
mended should be selected and exercised on simulated coal cleaning and util-
ization systems to demonstrate their appropriateness and applicability.  As
soon as possible, these models should also be validated in the field using
actual data  and modified as suggested by field experience.
     With respect to ecological transport and fate, the recommendations for
future research fall into three major categories.   First, there  is an immediate
need to conduct research designed to determine the relative importance of each
exposure pathway for a series of populations within each compartment.  A series
                                     174

-------
of closely controlled experiments could be designed to estimate these values.
This would enable concentrated effort to be focused on the second major
category, which is the determination of the rate transfer coefficients for
each dominant pathway and the controlling parameters for each.   The third
category of recommended research is simulation model development and field
test validation of the forecasts obtained from such models.  An orderly timing
of these research recommendations could produce an accurate short-term index
of anticipated impact from released trace contaminants from a coal cleaning
facility.

                   7.3  Development'  of  Environmental Goals

     Several recommendations can be suggested in this complex area, which
has possibly the most uncertain base for environmental assessment.  More work
needs to be conducted on methodology which will permit making better use of the
variety of toxicological and epidemiclogical data which are available.  For
example, data are available on animals  other than laboratory rodents and fish,
on vegetation, and on microorganisms.   Epidemiological data exist that should
be taken advantage of.  Also, a wider range of  toxicological measurements needs
to be utilized; this  includes TDTn, LD  _, and others.  One specific  task would
                                 JLU    LiU
be to interconvert the various toxicological measurements  from  the less fre-
quently used ones to  a more standard measurement, i.e., LD,....
     Adjustment  factors  in the  formulae for estimating  permissible concen-
trations need to be  improved  simultaneously with  the use  and development  of
more and better effects data.  A literature review  of synergistic/antagonistic
effects would help to close one  of  the  larger  data  gaps.   Such  a review would
be indispensible  in  interpreting the results of bioassays using complex
mixtures.  Other  adjustment factors  need  to be  included  too.   For example,  more
work is  warranted on the relationship of chronic  versus acute  effects and
how  to adjust acute  effects data when an  approximation  of chronic effects is
needed.   Special  attention should be directed  to  chronic  effects involving
irreversible alteration  of genetic material.
                                      175

-------
     Present formulae deal with only one pathway at a time.  Formulae
that handle exposure from multiple pathways should be further identified and/or
developed.
     The development and refinement of environmental goals should continue.
They should be developed for electromagnetic radiation, water usage, and
complex mixtures in effluents.  The environmental goals for single chemical
species should undergo continuous refinement, particularly the systematic
reduction and removal of deficiencies in the prediction formulae.  All findings
need to be incorporated into the MEG concept.
                                     176

-------
             APPENDIX A
SAMPLE COMPUTER PRINTOUT FOR EMISSION
         CONCENTRATION MODEL
                  177

-------
                               APPENDIX A
                  SAMPLE COMPUTER PRINTOUT_FQR EMISSION
                         CONCENTRATION MODEL^

INPUT DATA  FOR  THIS KUN ARE PRINTED BELOW

ANALYSIS GIVEN  IMMEDIATELY BELOW REFERS TO  CLEANED COAL PRODUCT
CARBON= .75800  H2 =  .05070 02=  .03300 bULFUR=  .01660 N2= .01340
    ASH = 0.12700     BTU = 13526.0/LB

ANALYSIS RIVEN  BELOW REFERS TO  TRACE CONSTITUENTS IN RAW COAL
  NAME   FRACTION   NAME   FRACTION   NAME    FRACTION   NAME    FRACTION
 PYR S  . 1820E-0l(b)okG S  .4500E-02  SUL S   .5000E-03       N   .1160E-H1
    AS  .2400E-04     CD  .1000E-06     PB   .1450E-04     HG   .3900E-06
    FE  .2180E-01      MN  .4500E-04     BE   .2600E-05     SE   .3000F-05
    AL  .2B60E-01      ZN  .6200E-04     NI   .1710E-04

MASS FRACTIONATION  FACTORS TO  CLEANED COAL  AND  REFUSE RESPECTIVELY FOR
THE COAL WASHING STAGES AKE GIVEN BELOW
    0.8000          0.2000

TRACE FRACTIONATION FACTORS FOR  COAL CLEANING TO CLEANED COAL  ARE GIVEN
BELOW.  FRACTION TO REFUSE IS  ONE MINUS FRACTION TO COAL.
  NAME   FRACTION   NAME   FRACTION   NAME    FRACTION   NAME    FRACTION
 PYR S  .5000       ORG S  .8700       SUL S   .5000           N   .8700
    AS  .5300          CD  .5300          PB   .6700         HG   .5300
    FE  .5300          MN  .5300          BE   .6700         SE   .5300
    AL  .4700          ZN  .6000          NI   .6000

ASH,BTU, AND SULFUR CONTENTS RESPECTIVELY OF  RAW COAL ARE GIVEN BELOW
        0.2367         11689.0          0.0232

PROCESS WATER REQUIREMENT IS GIVEN BELOW IN  TONS PER TON OF HAW COAL
     1 .770

AIR FLOW FOR THERMAL DRYER IS  GIVEN BELOW IN MSCF PER TON 0^ CLEAN COAL
FROM DRYER
     26.00

FRACTION OF CLEANED COAL PRODUCT PROCESSED  BY THERMAL DRYER IS  GIVEN
BELOW
     1.000

EXCESS AIR  FOR  COMBUSTION IS GIVEN BELOW AS  1 PLUS FRACTION FOR EXCESS
AIR
     1.100
 (a)  See Section 4.1.2, "Estimation of Emission Concentrations", for brief
     discussion of model.
 (b)  E-01 means 10"1, etc.

                                  178

-------
TRACE FKACTIONATION FACTORS FOR COMBUSTION)  PROCESS TO SLAG ASH ARE  RIVEN
BELOW.FOR EACH CONSTITUENT.  FRACTION  TO  AIR IS (i - FRACTION TO ASH)  X
(1  - PRECIPITATOR REMOVAL EFFICIENCY)
NAME
PYR S
AS
FE
AL
FRACTION
.0000
. 1090
.31 10
.2930
NAME
ORG S
CD
MN
ZN
FRACTION
.0000
.6710E-01
.2630
.4030E-01
NAME
SUL S
PB
• -BE
NI
FRACTION
.0000
.4070E-01
.0000
.1590
NAME
N
HG
SE

FRACTION
.0000
.7000E-02
. 1040E-02

REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR AND THERMAL  DRYER
SCRUBBER RESPECTIVELY ARE GIVEN  BELOW  FOR EACH TRACE ELEMENT
 PYR S
 OKG S
 SUL S
     N
    AS
    CD
    PB
    HG
    FE
    MN
    BE
    SE
    AL
    ZN
    NI
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.9814
0.9699
0.9636
0.1163
0.9943
0.9931
0.9000
0.8571
0.9957
0.9809
  1 .000
0.5000
0,5000
0.5000
0.5000
0.9800
0.9600
0.9600
0.5000
0.9900
0.9800
0.7500
0.7500
0.9900
0.9800
0.9900
 EMISSION FACTORS  FOR NOX,  PARTICLES, HYDROCARBONS,  AND CO ARE GIVEN
 BELOW.  ALL  BUT PARTICLES  ARE LBS PER TON.  PARTICLES EMISSION FACTOR IS
 LB/TON/% ASH.
      13.00           16.00          0.3000           1.000

 NUMBER PRINTED  BELOW INDICATES ENERGY SOURCE  FOR  THERMAL DRYERl 0 = RAW
 COALJ 1 = CLEAN COAL
   0
                                 179

-------
CALCULATED  RESULTS FOH THIS HUM ARE PRINTED BELOW

TRACE ELEMENT  ANALYSIS FOR CLEANED COAL  IS GIVEN BELOW
NAME
PYR S
AS
FE
AL
FRACTION
. 1 138E-H1
. 1590E-04
. 1444E-01
. 1680E-01
NAME
ORG S
CD
MN
ZN
FRACTION
.4H94E-02
.6625E-07
.2981 E-04
.4650E-04
NAME
SUL S
PB
BE
NI
FRACTION
.3125E-03
. 1214E-04
.2177E-05
. 1283E-04
NAME
N
HG
SE

FRACTION
. 1261E-01
.2584E-M6
. 1988E-05

REQUIRED QUANTITIES OF CLEANED COAL AND  RAW  COAL FOR. 1 MILLION  BTUS OF
ENERGY INPUT  TO  COMBUSTION ARE GIVEN  BELOW
     73.93LB         93.27 LB

TOTAL AMOUNT  OF  WASTE WATER STREAM INCLUDING REFUSE AND THE  AMOUNT  OF
REFUSE COMPONENT THAT HAS BEEN ADDED  TO  THE  WATER ARE GIVEN  RELOW.
     183.7LB         18.65 LB .

TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF TOTAL WASTE WATER  STREAM IS GIVEN  BELOW
PYR S
AS
FE
AL
•4619E-02
.5726E-05
.5201E-02
.7694E-02
ORG S
CD
MN
ZN
.2970E-03
.2386E-07
. 1074E-04
. 1259E-04
SUL S
PB
BE
NI
. 1269E-03
.2429E-05
.4355E-0*
.3472E-05
                                                             N
                                                            HG
                                                            SE
.7655F-93
•9305E-07
.7157E-PI-S
TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THERMAL DRYER ATMOSPHERIC DISCHARGE  IS  GIVEN
BELOW IN MICROGRAMS  PER CUBIC METER
 PYR S  .1300E+06  ORG S  .3215E+05  SUL  S   3572.           N   .8288E+05
    AS  6.112          CD  .5332E-01     PB   7.951          HG   2.767
    FE  2146.          MN  9.479         BE   9.288          SE   10.71
    AL  2889.          ZN  17.01         NI   2.055

CALCULATED AMOUNT  OF COMBUSTION AIR IN MSCF/MILLION BTUS IS GIVEN BELOW
     1 1 .06

TOTAL MSCF OF FLUE GAS AND LBS OF ASH RESPECTIVELY FROM THE COMBUSTION
PROCESS  ARE GIVEN  BELOW
     11.44           9.389
                                  180

-------
TKACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS  IN  MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER  FOR FLUE GAS AND
WEIGHT FRACTIONS FOK ASH STREAMS RESPECTIVELY ARE  RIVEN  BELOW.  ASH
INCLUDES FLY ASH FROM PHECIPITATOR.
 PYR S       0.1180E+07      0.0000
 ORG S       0.5077E+06      0.0000
 SUL S       0.3242E+05      0.0000
     N       0.1309E+07      0.0000
    AS        27.34          0.1231E-03
    CD       0.1930          0.5070E-H6
    PB        43.99          0.9228E-04
    HG        23.52          0.2492E-06
    FE        5885.          0.1133
    MN        15.73          0.2336E-03
    BE        22.59          0.1543E-04
    SE        29.44          0.1342E-04
    AL        5300.          0.1319
    ZN        88.43          0.3594E-03
    NI       0.0000          0.1010E-03

 SULFUR COMPOSITION  OF  FLUE GAS  IN LBS S02/MILLION BTUS AND MICROGRAMS
PER CUBIC METER  RESPECTIVELY ARE GIVEN  BELOW
     2.455          0.1722E+07

NOX, PARTICLE* HYDROCARBON, AND CO MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER  FOR  FLUE
GAS ARE GIVEN BELOW
    0.9337E+06      0.1054E+06     0.1556E+05      0.51R7E+05

 SULFUR COMPOSITION  OF  THERMAL DRYER  EMISSION  IN LBS S02/MILLION  BTUS
 CLEANED COAL AND MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER ARE GIVEN BELOW
    0.3970E-01      0.3315E+06

 MICROGRAMS  PER  CUBIC METER OF NOX,  PARTICLES, HYDROCARBONS,  AND  CO IN
 THE THERMAL DRYER EMISSION ARE  GIVEN BELOW
    0.1286E+0A      0.2706E+05       2143.           7145.

 ABOVE CONCENTRATIONS 'FOR PARTICLES  ASSIIME 99% COLLECTION  EFFICIENCY
 OX
 BYE
                                  181
                          (reverse blank - 182)

-------
                 APPENDIX B
     ADDITIONAL FORMULAE FOR DEVELOPING
ESTIMATED PERMISSIBLE CONCENTRATIONS (EPC's)
                     183

-------
                                 APPENDIX B

                     ADDITIONAL FORMULAE FOR DEVELOPING
                ESTIMATED PERMISSIBLE CONCENTRATIONS (EPC's)

     There  are  additional approaches to predicting possible health/
ecological problems associated with coal cleaning activities.   Two represen-
tative formulae are provided.  Formulations and brief rationales are presented.

                   Formulae for International Commissions
                       on Radiological Protection^)*

     These formulae were developed for estimating maximum permissible
concentrations of radioactive materials to which man could be exposed via
inhalation or ingestion.  Other general comments are available in the text
(Section 5.5.1.1).
     Maximum-permissible-concentration formulae for air- and water-borne
harmful materials, particularly radionuclides, are:
          (1)  For air:         1Q-7
                    (MPC)a=  Tf     -0.693t/T  *Ci/cm
                                a
                    where (MFC)  = maximum permissible concentration in air
                               a
                          qf»    = burden of the radionuclide in the
                                   critical body organ (yC.)
                                   (where q = total radionuclide in the body
                                   and f_ = the fraction in a particular
                                   organ;
                          T      = effective half-life (days)
                          f      = fraction of inhaled radionuclide reaching
                                   the organ of reference
                          t      = period of exposure (days)
                          Other values are constants.
* Reference (3), Section 5.0.
                                     184

-------
          (2)  For water:        ^ ^ 1Q-4qf
                    (MFC)  =  	  AQWT    ^C /cmJ
                        W    Tf  (l-e"°'693t/T)     i
                               w
                    where  (MFC)  = maximum permissible concentration in water
                              w
                         qf_    = burden of the  radionuclide in  the critical
                                  body organ  (viC^)
                         T      » effective half-life  (days)
                         f      = fraction of  that taken  into  the body by
                                  ingestion that is retained in  the critical
                                  organ
                          t      = period of exposure  (days)
                         Other values are constants.
The rationale for the formulae  follows:
          (1)  Radioactive material  is taken into the  critical  body  organ at
               a rate of P  yC./day,  where P =  intake,
          (2)  Biological elimination from  critical  organs follows  a simple
               exponential law.
          (3)  Allowable concentrations  are  to be calculated for occupational
               and continuous exposure.   Occupational  exposure  occurs  at  the
               rate of 40 hours per week and 50 weeks  per year  for  a continuous
               work period of 50 years.   Continuous  exposure occurs at the
               rate of 168 hours per week.   For continuous occupational exposure,
               the MPC values should be divided by 2 x 365/(5 x 50) = 2.92 except
               for  submersion (external to the body) where they should be
               divided by 3 x 365/(5 x 50)  = 4.38.  These values are further
               explained on page 16 of the reference.
           (4)  MPC  values based on a critical organ are set by requirements
               that  the dose rate after 50 years of occupational exposures
               shall not exceed:
                (a)   3 rems for the gonads or the total body during any
                     period of 13 consecutive weeks.
                (b)   Average RBE dose to the skeleton due  to a  body burden
                                    226
                     of  0.1 yC  of Ra    when the effective RBE dose delivered
                                      185

-------
                    to the bone from Internal or external radiation
                    during any 13-week period was averaged over the entire
                    skeleton.
                (c)  4 reins in any 13-week period or 15 rems in one year for
                    any single organ except the gonads, bone, skin, and
                    thyroid: 8 rems in a 13-week period or 30 rems in one
                    year for skin and thyroid.
           (5)  During a 50-year exposure period, equilibrium is reached for
               the majority of radionuclides because effective half-life is
               short compared to this work period.
                                               7   3
           (6)  The average breathing rate is 10  cm  of air per 8-hour work
                                                                     7   3
               day (one-half of the air breathed in 24 hours - 2 x 10  cm ).
           (7)  The average rate of water consumption is 1100 cm  per 8-hour
                                                                             3
               work day (one-half of the water consumed in 24 hours - 2200 cm )
           (8)  Chemical toxicity is not generally considered in estimating the
               body burden or MFC values.
                                                        90    239
           (9)  For bone-seeking radionuclides such as Sr  , Pu   , etc., which
               emit significant amounts of particulate radiation, the estimate
                                               9 9 ft
               is based, on a comparison with Ra    and daughter products.
         (10)  For non-bone-seeking radionuclides, the MPC and body burden
               values are set to limit the weekly RBE (relative biological
               effectiveness) dose received by the various organs of the body.
                              Formulae for CUMEX   , ..
                        (Cumulative Exposure) Index
     CUMEX is a site-specific hazard assessment based on relationships
among media and biota.  The index relates the concentration of the pollutant
in the medium to its concentration in a biological target.  Other comments
on this formula are available in Section 5.5.1.2.
* Reference  (4), Section 5.0.
                                     186

-------
The basic CUMEX formulae are:
         (a)  For air:
                    A
(VAf
v  A a
  f A_M_f
   AFFw
                       f ATTVt.f
                        AWWw
                                                    kf,
where C*
                             = CUMEX index for airborne effluent with
                               air as the sampling medium
                             = acceptable organ burden limit
                         V.  = breathing rate of reference individual
                               (cm /day)
                         f   = fraction of inhaled pollutant  deposited
                           .
                               in reference organ
                             = transfer coefficient from air to food
                         M_  = mass consumption rate of food  (g/day)
                           r

        ATT
        AW
                                fraction of  ingested  pollutant  reaching
                                reference  organ
                                transfer coefficient  from air to water
                                volume  consumption  rate  of drinking water
                                (ml/day)
                                partition  coefficient for pollutant between
                                air  and blood (ug/ml  per pg/cm^)
                                fraction of  pollutant in blood  that is
                                deposited  in the reference organ
                                cumulative retention  to  time,  T, of
                                pollutant  in reference organ (days).
          (b)  For water:
 where
                          C*
                           W J?
    + VTTf ) R
  *    W w
= CUMEX index for a liquid effluent with
  water as the sampling medium
= accepted organ burden limit
= transfer coefficient from water to food
= mass consumption rate of food  (g/day)
                                  187

-------
                         f   = fraction of ingested pollutant reaching
                               the reference organ
                         V   = volume consumption rate of drinking
                         ^     water (ml/day)
                         R   = cumulative retention to time,  T,  of
                               pollutant in reference organ (days).
         When both effluent (air and water) types are present,
                     cl   ciT
                                                                      3
               where C  = concentration of the pollutant in air (yg/cm )
                      A.
                     C  = average concentration of the pollutant in
                          drinking water (pg/ml)
                     C* = CUMEX index for airborne effluent with air
                      A
                          as the sampling medium
                     C* = CUMEX index for a liquid effluent with water
                          as the sampling medium.
The rationale for CUMEX follows:
     (1)   CUMEX indices can be determined practically if one knows in
          detail source emission characteristics,  environmental transport
          process, and biological effects.
     (2)   Exposure, dose, or concentration limit depends upon the knowledge
          of biological effects.
     (3)   If relationships among environmental compartments are understood,
          measurements in a particular sampling medium (air, water, food)
          along with transport models can suffice  to assess human intake.
     (4)   Any estimation of total pollutant intake by humans and resulting
          health effects must include contributions from all possible
          routes of exposure.
     (5)   For the third equation, measurements in  at least  two sampling
          media, along with transport models,  will be necessary to assess
          total human intake if there is more  than one effluent type.
                                188

-------
                               TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                         (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-140
                          2.
                                                     3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
 TITLE AND SUBTITLE Criteria for Assessment of Environ-
mental Pollutants from Coal Cleaning Processes
            . REPORT DATE
            June 1979
                                                      . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
R. A. Ewing, B. W. Cornaby, P. Van Voris,
J. C. Zuck, G. E.  Raines, and S. Min
                                                      ;. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Battelle-Columbus
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
            EHE623A
            11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

            68-02-2163, Task 242
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
            13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD C<
            Task Final; 9/76 - 4/79
                                                                           COVERED
            14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
             EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES  jERL-RTP project officer is James D.  Kilgroe,  Mail Drop 61,
919/541-2851.
16. ABSTRACT The pep0rt describes the development of criteria for assessing environ-
mental pollutants associated with coal cleaning processes. The primary problem
concerns emissions of pollutants to all three media--air, water, and land—and
assessing their effects on humans and the environment. Pollutants associated with
coal cleaning are primarily inorganic compounds associated with the ash fraction.
Lists of potential pollutants from coal cleaning and utilization, containing hundreds
of entries, have been  proposed.  Selected for investigation were 51 elements and  23
substances or groups  of substances. The major criterion for ranking the importance
of any pollutant is the relationship between its expected environmental concentration
and the maximum concentration which presents no long-term hazard to humans or
biota.  Environmental  concentrations depend on emission rates and the effects of
physical transport and dispersion. Although these data will ultimately come from
field measurements, for now they must be estimated. Methodology for these esti-
mates are reviewed; the  methodology is well developed and little further develop-
ment appears necessary. Ecological transport and distribution is much  less well
developed: investigation shows large data gaps for many elements and species. Illus-
trative data are presented for eight of the more important trace elements.
17.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                                          b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                         .  COS AT I Field/Group
 Pollution
 Coal Preparation
 Assessments
 Criteria
 Toxicology
 Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
13B
081
14B

06T
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 Release to Public
                                          19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                          Unclassified
                         21. NO. OF PAGES
                              201
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
 Unclassified
                                                                   22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                       189

-------