United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (4303)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-B-99-006
January 2000
vvEPA Environmental Assessment
for Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Landfills
Point Source Category
-------
Acknowledgments and Disclaimer
The Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology, reviewed and approved
this report for publication. Versar, Inc. (under subcontract to AQUA TERRA Consultants, Contract No.
68-C-98-010) prepared this report with the direction and review of the Office of Science and Technology.
Neither the United States Government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their
employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any
third party's use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed
in this report, or represent that its use by such party would not infringe on privately owned rights.
-------
Table of Contents
Page No.
Executive Summary vi
1. Introduction 1
2. Methodology 3
2.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts 3
2.1.1 Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality
Criteria 3
2.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities 3
2.1.1.2 Assumptions and Caveats 6
2.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits 7
2.1.2.1 Fish Tissue 7
2.1.2.2 Drinking Water 10
2.1.2.3 Assumptions and Caveats 11
2.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits 12
2.1.3.1 Assumptions and Caveats 14
2.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity 14
2.2.1 Pollutants of Concern Identification 14
2.2.2 Compilation of Physical-Chemical and Toxicity Data 15
2.2.3 Categorization Assessment 17
2.2.4 Assumptions and Limitations 21
2.3 Documented Environmental Impacts 22
3. Data Sources 23
3.1 Water Quality Impacts 23
3.1.1 Landfill-Specific Data 23
3.1.2 Water Quality Criteria 23
3.1.2.1 AquaticLife 24
3.1.2.2 HumanHealth 25
3.1.3 Information Used To Evaluate Human Health Risks and Benefits 28
3.1.4 Information Used To Evaluate Ecological Benefits 28
3.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity 28
3.3 Documented Environmental Impacts 29
4. Summary of Results 30
4.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts 30
4.1.1 Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality
Criteria 30
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page No.
4.1.1.1 Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set 30
4.1.1.2 Nonhazardous Landfills - National Extrapolation 30
4.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits 31
4.1.2.1 Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set 31
4.1.2.2 Nonhazardous Landfills - National Extrapolation 32
4.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits 32
4.1.3.1 Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set 33
4.1.3.2 Nonhazardous Landfills - National Extrapolation 33
4.1.3.3 Additional Ecological Benefits 33
4.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity 33
4.3 Documented Environmental Impacts 34
5. References R-l
-------
Volume II
Page No.
Appendix A CDD Analysis A-l
Appendix B Landfill-Specific Data B-l
Appendix C National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
Dissolved Concentration Potentials (DCPs) C-l
Appendix D Water Quality Analysis Data Parameters D-l
Appendix E Risks and Benefits Analysis Information E-l
Appendix F Direct Discharger Analysis at Current (Baseline) and
BAT Treatment Levels F-l
Appendix G Direct Discharger Risks and Benefits Analyses at Current (Baseline)
and BAT Treatment Levels G-l
in
-------
List of Tables
Page No.
Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (26) Discharged from 37 Direct
Nonhazardous Landfills 35
Table 2 Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Direct Nonhazardous Landfills .. 36
Table 3 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Leachate) (Sample Set) 37
Table 4 Summary of Pollutants Projected To Exceed Criteria for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Leachate) (Sample Set) 38
Table 5 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill
Dischargers (Leachate) (National Level) 39
Table 6 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set) 40
Table 7 Summary of Pollutants Projected To Cause Human Health Impacts for
Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set) 41
Table 8 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Direct
Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water
Consumption) (Sample Set) 44
Table 9 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set) 45
Table 10 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National Level) 46
Table 11 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Direct
Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water
Consumption) (National Level) 47
Table 12 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous
Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption) (National Level) 48
iv
-------
List of Tables (Continued)
Page No.
Table 13 Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (Nonhazardous
Landfills) 49
Table 14 Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects (Nonhazardous
Landfills) 50
Table 15 Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and
Target Organs (Nonhazardous Landfills) 51
Table 16 Landfills Included on State 304(L) Short Lists 52
Table 17 Modeled Landfill Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State-
Issued Fish Consumption Advisories 53
-------
Executive Summary
This environmental assessment quantifies the water quality-related benefits associated with
achievement of the Best Available Technology (BAT) limitations promulgated by EPA to regulate
nonhazardous landfills. Using site-specific analyses of current conditions and changes in discharges associated
with the regulation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated instream pollutant
concentrations for 26 priority and nonconventional pollutants from direct discharges using stream dilution
modeling.
EPA assessed the potential impacts and benefits to aquatic life by comparing the modeled instream
pollutant concentrations to published EPA aquatic life criteria guidance or to toxic effect levels. EPA
projected potential adverse human health effects and benefits by (1) comparing estimated instream
concentrations to health-based water quality toxic effect levels or criteria, and (2) estimating the potential
reduction of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard (systemic) from consuming contaminated fish or
drinking water.
The assessment estimated upper-bound individual cancer risks, population risks, and systemic hazards
using modeled instream pollutant concentrations and standard EPA assumptions. The assessment evaluated
modeled pollutant concentrations in fish and drinking water to estimate cancer risk and systemic hazards
among the general population, sport anglers and their families, and subsistence anglers and their families.
Because of the hydrophobic nature of the two chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD) congeners under
evaluation, EPA projected human health benefits for only these pollutants by using the Office of Research and
Development's Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation (DRE) model to estimate the potential reduction of
carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard from consuming contaminated fish. EPA used the findings from
the analyses of reduced occurrence of instream pollutant concentrations in excess of both aquatic life and
human health criteria or toxic effect levels to assess improvements in recreational fishing habitats that are
impacted by nonhazardous landfill wastewater discharges (ecological benefits). EPA expects these
improvements in aquatic habitats will improve the quality and value of recreational fishing opportunities.
In addition, the report presents the potential fate and toxicity of pollutants of concern associated with
nonhazardous landfill wastewater on the basis of known characteristics of each chemical. The report includes
reviews of recent literature and studies, as well as information obtained from State environmental agencies,
as evidence of documented environmental impacts on aquatic life, human health, and on the quality of receiving
water.
Performed analyses included discharges from a representative sample set of 37 direct nonhazardous
landfills. EPA extrapolated results to the national level (approximately 143 nonhazardous landfills), based on
the statistical methodology used for estimated costs, loads, and economic impacts. This report provides the
results of these analyses.
VI
-------
Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWOC)
Nonhazardous Landfills (Sample Set)
The water quality modeling results for 37 direct nonhazardous landfills discharging 26 pollutants to
3 5 receiving streams indicate that at current discharge levels, instream concentrations of 1 pollutant will likely
exceed acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 1 of the 35 receiving streams. Instream
concentrations of 2 pollutants will likely exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 9 percent
(3 of the total 35) of the receiving streams. The landfills guidelines will reduce pollutant loadings by 39
percent. The landfills guidelines also will eliminate acute aquatic life excursions and reduce the chronic
aquatic life excursions to 1 pollutant in the 3 receiving streams. Additionally, at current and BAT discharge
levels, EPA projects no excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels.
Nonhazardous Landfills (National Extrapolation)
Extrapolating the modeling results of the sample set yields 143 nonhazardous landfills, discharging 26
pollutants to 139 receiving streams. From the extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations, the analysis
projects 2 pollutants will exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 24 percent (34 of the
total 139) of the receiving streams at current discharge levels. The landfills guidelines will reduce excursions
of chronic aquatic life criteria to 1 pollutant in the 34 receiving streams. BAT discharge levels will
eliminate the excursions of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels due to 1 pollutant in 2 receiving
streams.
Human Health Risks and Benefits
Projections for the sample set show that the landfills guidelines will reduce total excess annual cancer
cases from the ingestion of contaminated fish for direct wastewater discharges by 3.5E-4 cancer cases. The
monetary value of benefits to society from these avoided cancer cases is $700-$3,800 (1992 dollars).
Results, extrapolated to the national level, project the reduction of total excess annual cancer cases to be
l.OE-3 cases with monetary benefits estimated at $2,100-$ 11,000 (1992 dollars). Projections indicate
systemic toxicant effects from fish consumption for direct nonhazardous landfill discharges. For the sample
set, projections indicate that systemic effects will result from the discharge of 1 pollutant to 1 receiving stream
at both current and BAT discharge levels. Estimates indicate an affected population of 328 subsistence
anglers and their families. Results, extrapolated to the national level, project an estimated population of 643
subsistence anglers and their families affected from the discharge of 1 pollutant to 2 receiving streams.
Ecological Benefits
The analysis projects no potential ecological benefits of the final regulation resulting from
improvements in recreational fishing habitats. The final regulation will not completely eliminate instream
vu
-------
concentrations in excess of aquatic life and human health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) in any stream
receiving wastewater discharges from direct nonhazardous landfills.
The estimated benefit of improved recreational fishery opportunities is only a limited measure of the
value to society of the improvements in aquatic habitats expected to result from the final regulation. Additional
benefits, which could not be quantified in this assessment, include increased assimilation capacity of the
receiving stream, protection of terrestrial wildlife and birds that consume aquatic organisms, maintenance of
an aesthetically pleasing environment, and improvements to other recreational activities such as swimming,
water skiing, boating, and wildlife observation. Such activities contribute to the support of local and State
economies.
Pollutant Fate and Toxicity
EPA identified 32 pollutants of concern (priority, nonconventional, and conventional) in wastestreams
from nonhazardous landfills. In this assessment, EPA evaluated the potential fate and toxicity of 26 of these
pollutants on the basis of the known characteristics of each chemical.
Most of the 26 pollutants have at least one known toxic effect. Using available physical-chemical
properties and aquatic life and human health toxicity data for these pollutants, the analysis determined that 5
exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 7 are classified by EPA as known or probable/possible human
carcinogens, and 20 are human systemic toxicants. In addition, 7 have EPA drinking water values (MCLs
or secondary MCLS), and 6 are designated by EPA as priority pollutants. In terms of projected partitioning
among media, 9 of the evaluated pollutants are moderately to highly volatile (potentially causing risk to
exposed populations via inhalation), 1 has a moderate potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic biota (potentially
accumulating in the food chain and causing increased risk to higher trophic level organisms and to exposed
human populations via consumption offish and shellfish), 2 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids, and
2 are slowly biodegraded.
Evaluations do not include the impacts of the 2 conventional and 4 nonconventional pollutants when
modeling the effect of the final regulation on receiving stream water quality or when evaluating the potential
fate and toxicity of discharged pollutants. These pollutants are total suspended solids (TSS), 5-day biological
oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon
(TOC) and total phenolic compounds. The discharge of these pollutants may adversely affect human health
and the environment. For example, habitat degradation may result from increased suspended particulate
matter that reduces light penetration, and thus primary productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles
that alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. High COD and BOD5 levels may deplete oxygen
concentrations, which can result in mortality or other adverse effects on fish. High TOC levels may interfere
with water quality by causing taste and odor problems and mortality in fish.
Vlll
-------
Documented Environmental Impacts
This assessment also summarizes documented environmental impacts on aquatic life, human health,
and receiving stream water quality, based on a review of published literature abstracts, State 304(1) Short
Lists, State Fishing Advisories, and contact with State environmental agencies. States identified 2 direct
discharging landfills as point sources that cause water quality problems; these are included on their 304(1)
Short List. State contacts indicate that of the 2 direct facilities, 1 is no longer a direct discharger and the other
is currently in compliance with its permit limits and is no longer a source of impairment. In addition, States
issued fish consumption advisories for 2 waterbodies that receive the discharge from 2 direct discharging
nonhazardous landfills. One of the advisories is based on dioxin levels. The other advisory is based on
chemicals that are not pollutants of concern for the landfills industry.
IX
-------
1. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to present an assessment of the water quality benefits of controlling the
discharge of wastewater from nonhazardous landfills to surface waters. This assessment projects potential
aquatic life and human health impacts of direct nonhazardous landfill discharges on receiving stream water
quality at current and Best Available Technology (BAT) levels by quantifying pollutant releases and by using
stream modeling techniques.
The assessment evaluates the potential benefits to human health by (1) comparing estimated instream
concentrations to health-based water quality toxic effect levels or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published water quality criteria, and (2) estimating the potential reduction of carcinogenic risk and
noncarcinogenic hazard (systemic) from consuming contaminated fish or drinking water. The assessment
monetizes reductions in carcinogenic risks using estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding premature
mortality. Because of the hydrophobic nature of the two chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD) congeners
being evaluated, the assessment projects human health benefits for only these pollutants by using the Office
of Research and Development's Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation (DRE) model to estimate the potential
reduction of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard from consuming contaminated fish. The assessment
projects potential ecological benefits by estimating improvements in recreational fishing habitats and, in turn,
by estimating a monetary value, including intrinsic benefits, for enhanced recreational fishing opportunities, if
applicable.
In addition, the assessment evaluates the potential fate and toxicity of the pollutants of concern
associated with nonhazardous landfill wastewater based on known characteristics of each chemical. The
assessment also reviews recent literature and studies for evidence of documented environmental impacts (e.g.,
case studies) on aquatic life and human health, and for impacts on the quality of receiving water.
While this assessment does not evaluate impacts associated with reduced releases of 2 conventional
pollutants (total suspended solids [TSS] and 5-day biological oxygen demand [BOD5]) and 4 classical
pollutant parameters (chemical oxygen demand [COD], total dissolved solids [TDS], total organic carbon
[TOC], and total phenolic compounds), the discharge of these pollutants may have adverse effects on human
health and the environment. For example, habitat degradation may result from increased suspended
paniculate matter that reduces light penetration and primary productivity, or from accumulation of sludge
particles that alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. High COD and BOD5 levels may deplete
oxygen levels, which may result in mortality or other adverse effects in fish. High TOC levels may interfere
with water quality by causing taste and odor problems and mortality in fish.
Following this introduction, Section 2 of this report describes the methodologies used to evaluate
proj ected water quality impacts for direct discharging nonhazardous landfills (including potential human health
risks and benefits, and ecological benefits); to evaluate the potential fate and toxicity of pollutants of concern;
and to evaluate documented environmental impacts. Section 3 describes data sources used to evaluate water
quality impacts such as landfill-specific data; water quality criteria; and information used to evaluate human
1
-------
health risks and benefits, ecological benefits, pollutant fate and toxicity, and documented environmental
impacts. Section 4 provides a summary of the results of this assessment, and Section 5 is a complete list of
references cited in the report. The various appendices presented in Volume n provide additional detail on
the specific information addressed in the main report.
-------
2. Methodology
2.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts
This assessment evaluates water quality impacts and associated risks/benefits of landfill discharges
at various treatment levels by (1) comparing projected instream concentrations with ambient water quality
criteria,1 (2) estimating the human health risks and benefits associated with the consumption offish and
drinking water from waterbodies impacted by nonhazardous landfills, and (3) estimating the ecological benefits
associated with improved recreational fishing habitats on impacted waterbodies. The assessment analyzes
the impact and associated risks/benefits for a representative sample set of 37 direct nonhazardous landfills and
extrapolates the results to the national level (approximately 143 landfills) based on the statistical methodology
used for estimated costs, loads, and economic impacts. The following sections describe the methodologies
used in this evaluation.
2.1.1 Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality Criteria
The instream concentration analysis quantifies and compares current and BAT pollutant releases and
uses stream modeling techniques to evaluate potential aquatic life and human health impacts resulting from
those releases. The analysis compares projected instream concentrations for each pollutant to EPA water
quality criteria or, for pollutants for which no water quality criteria have been developed, to toxic effect levels
(i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic concentration). The following two sections (i.e., Section 2.1.1.1 and
Section 2.1.1.2) describe the methodology and assumptions used for evaluating the impact of direct
discharging landfills.
2.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities
Using a stream dilution model that does not account for fate processes other than complete immediate
mixing, the analysis calculates projected instream concentrations at current and BAT treatment levels for
stream segments with direct discharging nonhazardous landfills. For stream segments with multiple landfills,
it sums pollutant loadings, if applicable, before concentrations are calculated. The dilution model used for
estimating instream concentrations is as follows.
LIOD
CF
In performing this analysis, EPA used guidance documents published by EPA that recommend numeric human health
and aquatic life water quality criteria for numerous pollutants. States often consult these guidance documents when
adopting water quality criteria as part of their water-quality standards. However, because those State-adopted criteria
may vary, EPA used the nationwide criteria guidance as the most representative values.
-------
where:
Cis = instream pollutant concentration (micrograms per liter
L = landfill pollutant loading (pounds/year [lb/year])
OD = landfill operation (days/year)
FF = landfill flow (million gallons/day [gal/day])
SF = receiving stream flow (million gal/day)
CF = conversion factors for units
The analysis uses various sources as described in Section 3.1.1 of this report to derive the landfill-
specific data (i.e., pollutant loadings, operating days, landfill flow, and stream flow) used in Eq. 1. One of 3
receiving stream flow conditions (1Q10 low flow, 7Q10 low flow, and harmonic mean flow) is used for the
two treatment levels; use depends on the type of criterion or toxic effect level intended for comparison. To
estimate potential acute and chronic aquatic life impacts, the analysis uses the 1Q10 and 7Q10 flows, which
are the lowest 1-day and the lowest consecutive 7-day average flow during any 10-year period, respectively,
as recommended in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S.
EPA, 199 la). EPA defines the harmonic mean flow as the inverse mean of reciprocal daily arithmetic mean
flow values. EPA recommends the long-term harmonic mean flow as the design flow for assessing potential
human health impacts, because it provides a more conservative estimate than the arithmetic mean flow.
Because 7Q10 flows have no consistent relationship with the long-term mean dilution, they are not appropriate
for assessing potential human health impacts.
For assessing impacts on aquatic life, the analysis uses the landfill operating days to represent the
exposure duration; the calculated instream concentration is thus the average concentration on days the landfill
is discharging wastewater. For assuming long-term human health impacts, it sets the operating days
(exposure duration) at 365 days. The calculated instream concentration is thus the average concentration on
all days of the year. Although this calculation for human health impacts leads to a lower calculated
concentration because of the additional dilution from days when the landfill is not in operation, it is consistent
with the conservative assumption that the target population is present to consume drinking water and
contaminated fish every day for an entire lifetime.
Because stream flows are not available for hydrologically complex waters such as bays, estuaries, and
oceans, the analysis uses site-specific critical dilution factors (CDFs) or estuarine dissolved concentration
potentials (DCPs) to predict pollutant concentrations for landfills discharging to estuaries and bays, if
applicable, as follows:
x CF\I CDF (Eq. 2)
-------
where:
Ces = estuary pollutant concentration (//g/L)
L = landfill pollutant loading (Ib/year)
OD = landfill operation (days/year)
FF = landfill flow (million gal/day)
CDF = critical dilution factor
CF = conversion factors for units
L x DCP x CF
c" = TL <&3)
where:
Cm = estuary pollutant concentration (//g/L)
L = landfill pollutant loading (Ib/year)
DCP = dissolved concentration potential (milligrams per liter [mg/L])
CF = conversion factor for units
BL = benchmark load (10,000 tons/year)
A survey of States and Regions conducted by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT),
Mixing Zone Dilution Factors for New Chemical Exposure Assessments, Draft Report (U.S. EPA,
1992), provides the site-specific critical dilution factors. The analysis uses acute CDFs to evaluate acute
aquatic life effects; whereas it uses chronic CDFs to evaluate chronic aquatic life or adverse human health
effects. The assessment assumes that the drinking water intake and fishing location are at the edge of the
chronic mixing zone.
The Strategic Assessment Branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) Ocean Assessments Division developed DCPs based on freshwater inflow and salinity gradients
to predict pollutant concentrations in each estuary in the National Estuarine Inventory (NET) Data Atlas.
NOAA applies these DCPs to predict concentrations. NOAA did not consider pollutant fate and designed
the DCPs strictly to simulate concentrations of nonreactive dissolved substances under well-mixed steady-
state conditions given an annual load of 10,000 tons. In addition, the DCPs reflect the predicted estuary-wide
response and may not be indicative of site-specific locations.
The analysis determines water quality excursions by dividing the projected instream (Eq. 1) or estuary
(Eq. 2 and Eq. 3) pollutant concentrations by EPA ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or toxic effect
levels. A value greater than 1.0 indicates an excursion.
-------
CDD Congeners
Although hydrophobic chemicals like CDD congeners become associated primarily with suspended
particulates and sediments, concentrations will be found in the water column near the discharge point. This
is particularly true if discharges are assumed to be continuous. Therefore, although the stream dilution
approach is conservative, it provides a reasonable estimate of dioxin-related water quality impacts on aquatic
life. However, use of the stream dilution model to assess human health impacts (water quality excursions)
from the discharge of CDD congeners is inappropriate. EPA uses the Office of Research and Development's
Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation (DRE) model, which provides more reliable information regarding the
partitioning of CDD between sediment and the water column, and thus their bioavailability to fish, to estimate
the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks from these contaminants. (See Section 2.1.2.)
2.1.1.2 Assumptions and Caveats
The instream concentration analysis assumes the following:
Background concentrations of each pollutant in the receiving stream are equal to zero;
therefore, the analysis evaluates only the impacts of discharging landfills.
Landfills operate 365 days per year.
The analysis uses an exposure duration of 365 days to determine the likelihood of actual
excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels.
Complete mixing of discharge flow and stream flow occurs across the stream at the discharge
point; therefore, the analysis calculates an "average stream" concentration, even though the
actual concentration may vary across the width and depth of the stream.
The process water at each landfill is obtained from a source other than the receiving stream.
The pollutant load to the receiving stream is continuous and representative of long-term landfill
operations. These assumptions may overestimate risks to human health and aquatic life, but
may underestimate potential short-term effects.
The analysis uses 1Q10 and 7Q10 receiving stream flow rates to estimate aquatic life
impacts; harmonic mean flow rates to estimate human health impacts. It estimates 1Q10 low
flows using the results of a regression analysis of 1Q10 and 7Q10 flows from representative
U. S. rivers and streams conducted by Versar, Inc., for EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT) (Versar, 1992a). Harmonic mean flows are estimated from the mean
and 7Q10 flows as recommended in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
-------
based Toxics Control (U. S. EPA, 1991 a). These flows may not be the same as those used
by specific States to assess impacts.
The analysis does not consider pollutant fate processes such as sediment adsorption,
volatilization, and hydrolysis. This may result in estimated instream concentrations that are
environmentally conservative (higher).
The analysis uses water quality criteria or toxic effect levels developed for freshwater
organisms in the analysis of landfills discharging to estuaries or bays.
2.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits
The analysis evaluates the potential benefits to human health by estimating the risks (carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic hazard [systemic]) associated with reducing pollutant levels in fish tissue and drinking water
from current to BAT treatment levels. EPA has monetized the reduction in carcinogenic risks using estimated
willingness-to-pay values for avoiding premature mortality. The following three sections (i.e., Section 2.1.2.1
through Section 2.1.2.3) describe the methodology and assumptions used to evaluate the human health risks
and benefits from the consumption offish tissue and drinking water derived from waterbodies impacted by
direct discharging nonhazardous landfills.
2.1.2.1 Fish Tissue
To determine the potential benefits, in terms of reduced cancer cases, associated with reducing
pollutant levels in fish tissue, the analysis estimates lifetime average daily doses (LADDs) and individual risk
levels for each pollutant discharged from a landfill on the basis of the instream pollutant concentrations
calculated at current and BAT treatment levels in the site-specific stream dilution analysis. (See Section 2.1.1.)
EPA presents estimates for sport anglers, subsistence anglers, and the general population. LADDs are
calculated as follows:
LADD = (C x IRx BCF xFxD)l(BWxLT) (Eq. 4)
where:
LADD = potential lifetime average daily dose (milligrams per kilogram per day [mg/kg-day])
C = exposure concentration (mg/L)
IR = ingestion rate (See Section 2.1.2.3 - Assumptions)
BCF = bioconcentration factor, (liters per kilogram [L/kg]; whole body x 0.5)
F = frequency duration (365 days/year)
D = exposure duration (70 years)
7
-------
BW = body weight (70 kg)
LT = lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
The analysis calculates individual risks as follows:
R = LADD x SF
(Eq.5)
where:
R
LADD
SF
individual risk level
potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1
The analysis then applies the estimated individual pollutant risk levels to the potentially exposed
populations of sport anglers, subsistence anglers, and the general population to estimate the potential number
of excess annual cancer cases occurring over the life of the population. It then sums the number of excess
cancer cases on a pollutant, landfill, and overall industry basis. The analysis assumes the number of reduced
cancer cases to be the difference between the estimated risks at current and BAT treatment levels.
Because of the hydrophobic nature of the two CDD congeners, the analysis estimates LADDs and
individual risk levels for these pollutants based on the pollutant fish tissue concentrations calculated at current
and BAT treatment levels using the DRE model. The DRE model calculates the fish tissue concentration by
calculating the equilibrium between CDD congeners in fish tissue and CDD congeners adsorbed to the organic
fraction of sediments suspended in the water column (Appendix A). The analysis calculates LADDs as
follows:
LADD = (CFT x IR x F x D x CF )
(BWxLT}
(Eq. 6)
where:
LADD
CFT
IR
F
D
potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
fish tissue concentration (mg/kg)
ingestion rate (See Section 2.1.2.3 - Assumptions)
frequency duration (365 days/year)
exposure duration (70 years)
-------
BW = body weight (70 kg)
LT = lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
CF = conversion factor
Individual risks are then calculated as shown in Eq. 5.
EPA estimates the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases using estimates
of society's willingness to pay to avoid the risk of cancer-related premature mortality. Although it is not
certain that all cancer cases will result in death, to develop a worst-case estimate, this analysis values avoided
cancer cases on the basis of avoided mortality. To value mortality, the analysis uses a range of values
recommended by an EPA Office of Policy Analysis (OPA) review of studies that quantify individuals'
willingness to pay to avoid risks to life (Fisher, Chestnut, and Violette, 1989; and Violette and Chestnut,
1986). The reviewed studies used hedonic wage and contingent valuation analyses in labor markets to
estimate the amounts that individuals are willing to pay to avoid slight increases in risk of mortality or will need
to be compensated to accept a slight increase in risk of mortality. The willingness-to-pay values estimated
in those studies also are associated with small changes in the probability of mortality. To estimate a willingness
to pay for avoiding certain or high-probability mortality events, EPA extrapolates the estimated values for a
100 percent probability event.2 EPA uses the resulting estimates of the value of a "statistical life saved" to
value regulatory effects that are expected to reduce the incidence of mortality.
From this review of willingness-to-pay studies, OPA recommends a range of $1.6 to $8.5 million
(1986 dollars) for valuing an avoided event of premature mortality or a statistical life saved. A more recent
survey of value-of-life studies by Viscusi (1992) also supports this range with the finding that value of life
estimates cluster in the range of $3 to $7 million (1990 dollars). For this analysis, EPA adjusts the figures
recommended in the OPA study to 1992 using the relative change in the Employment Cost Index of Total
Compensation for All Civilian Workers from 1986 to 1992 (29 percent). Using the change in nominal Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) instead of change in inflation as the basis for adjustment in the willingness-to-pay
values accounts for the expectations that willingness to pay to avoid risk is a normal economic good, and,
accordingly, that society's willingness to pay to avoid risk will increase as national income increases. Updating
to 1992 yields a range of $2.1 to $11.0 million.
The analysis estimates potential reductions in risks from reproductive, developmental, or other chronic
and subchronic toxic effects by comparing the estimated lifetime average daily dose and the oral reference
dose (RfD) for a given chemical pollutant as follows:
HQ = ORI/R/D (Eq. 7)
' These estimates, however, do not represent the willingness to pay to avoid the certainty of death.
9
-------
where:
HQ = hazard quotient
OKI = oral intake (LADD x BW, mg/day)
RfD = reference dose (mg/day assuming a body weight of 70 kg)
The analysis then calculates a hazard index (i.e., sum of individual pollutant hazard quotients) for each
landfill or receiving stream. A hazard index greater than 1.0 indicates that toxic effects may occur in exposed
populations. The analysis then sums and compares the sizes of the affected subpopulations at the various
treatment levels to assess benefits in terms of reduced systemic toxicity. Although the analysis could not
estimate the monetary value of the benefits to society that are associated with a reduction in the number of
individuals exposed to pollutant levels likely to result in systemic health effects, it expects any reduction in risk
will yield human health related benefits.
The analysis does not estimate the noncarcinogenic hazard of the CDD congeners on the basis of the
oral intake and RfD because the establishment of an RfD for these pollutants, using the standard conventions
of uncertainty, will likely be one or two orders of magnitude below average background population exposures.
This situation precludes using an RfD for determining an acceptable level of CDD exposure, because at
ambient background levels, effects are not readily apparent (Personal Communication from William Farland,
Director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment to Andrew Smith, State Toxicologist, Maine
Bureau of Health, January 24, 1997 - Appendix A). Therefore, the analysis evaluates potential systemic
effects of the CDD congeners by comparing the estimated LADD (converted to units of toxic equivalent
[TEQ] by multiplying by the congener-specific toxic equivalent factor [TEF]) to ambient background levels
of 120 picograms (pg) TEQ/day as estimated by EPA in the 1994 Review Draft Document Health
Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds
(U.S. EPA, 1994a). EPA (1994a) estimates that adverse impacts associated with dioxin exposures may
occur at or within one order of magnitude of average background exposures. As exposures increase within
and above this range, the probability and severity of systemic effects most likely increase. For this assessment,
fish tissue exposures greater than one order of magnitude above ambient background concentration indicate
that toxic effects may occur in exposed populations. The analysis sums and compares the sizes of the affected
subpopulations at the various treatment levels to assess benefits in terms of reduced systemic toxicity.
2.1.2.2 Drinking Water
The analysis determines potential benefits associated with reducing pollutant levels in drinking water
in a similar manner. The analysis calculates LADDs for drinking water consumption as follows:
10
-------
LADD = (C x IR x F x D ) / ( BW x LT ) (Eq. 8)
where:
LADD = potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
C = exposure concentration (mg/L)
IR = ingestion rate (2 L/day)
F = frequency duration (365 days/year)
D = exposure duration (70 years)
BW = body weight (70 kg)
LT = lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)
The analysis applies estimated individual pollutant risk levels greater than 10"6 (1E-6) to the population served
downstream by any drinking water utilities within 50 miles from each discharge site to determine the number
of excess annual cancer cases that may occur during the life of the population. It evaluates systemic toxicant
effects by estimating the sizes of populations exposed to pollutants from a given landfill, the sum of whose
individual hazard quotients yields a hazard index greater than 1.0. If applicable, EPA estimates a monetary
value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases, as described in Section 2.1.2.1.
2.1.2.3 Assumptions and Caveats
The analyses of human health risks and benefits use the following assumptions:
A linear relationship exists between pollutant loading reductions and benefits attributed to the
cleanup of surface waters.
The analysis does not assess synergistic effects of multiple chemicals on aquatic ecosystems;
therefore, the total benefit of reducing toxics may be underestimated.
The analysis estimates the total number of persons who might consume recreationally caught
fish and the number who rely upon fish on a subsistence basis in each State by assuming that
these anglers regularly share their catch with family members; therefore, the number of anglers
in each State is multiplied by the State's average household size. The analysis considers the
remainder of the population of these States the "general population" consuming commercially
caught fish.
Subsistence anglers make up 5 percent of the resident anglers in a given State; the other 95
percent are sport anglers.
11
-------
Commercially or recreationally valuable species occur or are taken in the vicinity of the
discharges included in the evaluation.
Analysis offish tissue uses ingestion rates of 6.5 grams per day for the general population, 30
grams per day (30 years) + 6.5 grams per day (40 years) for sport anglers, and 140 grams
per day for subsistence anglers (U.S. EPA, 1989a).
A State's resident anglers fish all rivers or estuaries within a State equally, and the fish are
consumed only by the population within that State.
The analysis estimates the size of populations potentially exposed to discharges to rivers or
estuaries that border more than one State using only populations within the State in which the
landfill is located.
The analysis estimates the size of the population potentially exposed to fish caught in an
impacted water body in a given State using the ratio of impacted river miles to total river miles
or impacted estuary square miles to total estuary square miles. The number of miles
potentially impacted by a landfill's discharge is 50 miles for rivers and the total surface area
of the various estuarine zones for estuaries.
When estimating the concentration in drinking water or fish, the analysis does not consider
pollutant fate processes (e.g., sediment adsorption, volatilization, hydrolysis); consequently,
estimated concentrations are environmentally conservative (higher).
2.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits
The analysis evaluates the potential ecological benefits of the final regulation by estimating
improvements in the recreational fishing habitats that are impacted by landfill wastewater discharges. The
analysis first identifies stream segments for which the final regulation is expected to eliminate all occurrences
of pollutant concentrations in excess of both aquatic life and human health AWQC or toxic effect levels. (See
Section 2.1.1.) The analysis expects that elimination of pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC will
result in significant improvements in aquatic habitats, which will then improve the quality and value of
recreational fishing opportunities. The estimate of the monetary value to society of improved recreational
fishing opportunities is based on the concept of a "contaminant-free fishery" as presented by Lyke (1993).
Research by Lyke (1993) shows that anglers may place a significantly higher value on a contaminant-
free fishery than a fishery with some level of contamination. Specifically, Lyke estimates the consumer surplus3
Consumer surplus is generally recognized as the best measure from a theoretical basis for valuing the net economic
welfare or benefit to consumers from consuming a particular good or service. An increase or decrease in consumer
12
-------
associated with Wisconsin's recreational Lake Michigan trout and salmon fishery, and the additional value of
the fishery if it was completely free of contaminants affecting aquatic life and human health. Two analyses form
the basis of Lyke's results.
1. A multiple site, trip generation, travel cost model was used to estimate net benefits associated
with the fishery under baseline (i.e., contaminated) conditions.
2. A contingent valuation model was used to estimate willingness-to-pay values for the fishery
if it was free of contaminants.
Both analyses used data collected from licensed anglers before the 1990 season. The estimated incremental
benefit values associated with freeing the fishery of contaminants range from 11.1 percent to 31.3 percent of
the value of the fishery under current conditions.
To estimate the gain in value of stream segments identified as showing improvements in aquatic
habitats as a result of the final regulation, the analysis estimates the baseline recreational fishery value of the
stream segments on the basis of estimated annual person-days of fishing per segment and estimated values
per person-day of fishing. To calculate annual person-days of fishing per segment the analysis uses estimates
of the affected (exposed) recreational fishing populations. (See Section 2.1.2.) The analysis then multiplies
the number of anglers by estimates of the average number of fishing days per angler in each State to estimate
the total number of fishing days for each segment. The analysis calculates the baseline value for each fishery
by multiplying the estimated total number of fishing days by an estimate of the net benefit that anglers receive
from a day of fishing where net benefit represents the total value of the fishing day exclusive of any fishing-
related costs (license fee, travel costs, bait, etc.) incurred by the angler. The analysis uses a range of median
net benefit values for warm-water and cold-water fishing days, $27.75 and $35.14, respectively, in 1992
dollars. Summing over all benefiting stream segments provides a total baseline recreational fishing value of
landfill stream segments that are expected to benefit by elimination of pollutant concentrations in excess of
AWQC.
To estimate the increase in value resulting from elimination of pollutant concentrations in excess of
AWQC, the analysis multiplies the baseline value for benefiting stream segments by the incremental gain in
value associated with achievement of the "contaminant-free" condition. As noted above, Lyke's estimate of
the increase in value ranged from 11.1 percent to 31.3 percent. Multiplying by these values yields a range
of expected increase in value for the landfill stream segments expected to benefit by elimination of pollutant
concentrations in excess of AWQC.
surplus for particular goods or services as the result of regulation is a primary measure of the gain or loss in consumer
welfare resulting from the regulation.
13
-------
2.1.3.1 Assumptions and Caveats
The ecological benefits analysis uses the following major assumptions:
The analysis does not consider background concentrations of the landfill pollutants of concern
in the receiving stream.
The estimated benefit of improved recreational fishing opportunities is only a limited measure
of the value to society of the improvements in aquatic habitats expected to result from the final
regulation; increased assimilation capacity of the receiving stream, improvements in taste and
odor, or improvements to other recreational activities, such as swimming and wildlife
observation, are not addressed.
The analysis includes significant simplifications and uncertainties, which may overestimate or
underestimate the monetary value to society of improved recreational fishing opportunities.
(See Sections 2.1.1.2 and 2.1.23.)
Potential overlap in valuation of improved recreational fishing opportunities and avoided
cancer cases from fish consumption may exist. This potential is considered to be minor in
terms of numerical significance.
22 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity
Human and ecological exposure and risk from environmental releases of toxic chemicals depend
largely on toxic potency, inter-media partitioning, and chemical persistence. These factors in turn depend on
chemical-specific properties relating to lexicological effects on living organisms, physical state,
hydrophobicity/lipophilicity, and reactivity, as well as the mechanism and media of release and site-specific
environmental conditions.
The methodology used in assessing the fate and toxicity of pollutants associated with landfill
wastewaters consists of three steps: (1) identification of pollutants of concern, (2) compilation of physical-
chemical and toxicity data, and (3) categorization assessment. The following sections describe these steps
in detail, as well as present a summary of the major assumptions and limitations associated with this
methodology.
2.2.1 Pollutants of Concern Identification
From 1992 to 1995, EPA conducted sampling and site visits at hazardous and nonhazardous landfills
to determine the presence or absence of priority, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants at landfills
located nationwide. EPA collected raw wastewater samples at 13 nonhazardous landfills. More than 400
pollutants were characterized from the sampling, including (1) 233 priority and nonconventional organic
14
-------
compounds, (2) 69 priority and nonconventional metals, (3) 4 conventional pollutants, and (4) 123 priority
and nonconventional pollutants (pesticides, herbicides, dioxins, and furans). From this characterization
sampling data, EPA identified pollutants of interest, by subcategory, based on their detection at treatable levels
in raw wastewaters. EPA also eliminated from this list treatment chemicals and nontoxic parameters. This
analysis evaluates the remaining pollutants of concern (32 discharged by nonhazardous landfills, with the
exception of 2 conventional and 4 nonconventional pollutants) to assess their potential fate and toxicity on the
basis of known characteristics of each chemical.
2.2.2 Compilation of Physical-Chemical and Toxicity Data
The chemical-specific data needed to conduct the fate and toxicity evaluation for this study include
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect data for native aquatic species, human health reference doses (RfDs) and
cancer potency slope factors (SFs), EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water protection,
Henry's Law constants, soil/sediment adsorption coefficients (Koc), bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for
native aquatic species, and aqueous aerobic biodegradation half-lives (BD).
Sources of the above data include EPA's AWQC documents and updates, EPA's Assessment Tools
for the Evaluation of Risk (ASTER) and the associated Aquatic Information Retrieval System (AQUIRE) and
Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth fathead minnow database, EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), EPA's 1997 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), EPA's 1998 Region IE
Risk-Based Concentration Table, EPA's 1996 Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, EPA's 1989 Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide, Syracuse Research Corporation's CHEMFATE
database, EPA and other government reports, scientific literature, and other primary and secondary data
sources. To ensure that the examination is as comprehensive as possible, the analysis takes alternative
measures to compile data for chemicals for which physical-chemical property and/or toxicity data are not
presented in the sources listed above. To the extent possible, EPA estimates values for the chemicals using
the quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) model incorporated in ASTER or, for some physical-
chemical properties, using published linear regression correlation equations.
(a) Aquatic Life Data
The analysis obtains ambient criteria or toxic effect concentration levels for the protection of aquatic
life primarily from EPA's AWQC documents and EPA's ASTER. For several pollutants, EPA has published
ambient water quality criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life from acute effects. The acute value
represents a maximum allowable 1-hour average concentration of a pollutant at any time that protects aquatic
life from lethality. For pollutants for which no acute water quality criteria have been developed by EPA, the
analysis uses an acute value from published aquatic toxicity test data or an estimated acute value from the
ASTER QSAR model. When the analysis uses values selected from the literature, measured concentrations
from flow-through studies under typical pH and temperature conditions are preferred. In addition, the test
organism must be a North American resident species offish or invertebrate. The hierarchy used to select the
appropriate acute value is listed below in descending order of priority:
15
-------
1. National acute freshwater quality criteria
2. Lowest reported acute test values (96-hour LC50 for fish and 48-hour EC50/LC50 for
daphnids)
3. Lowest reported LC 50 test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate a 96-hour exposure
period
4. Lowest reported LC 50 test value of longer duration, up to a maximum of 2 weeks exposure
5. Estimated 96-hour LC50 from the ASTER QSAR model
The analysis uses BCF data from numerous data sources, including EPA AWQC documents and
EPA's ASTER. Where measured BCF values are not available, the analysis estimates the parameter using
the octanol/water partition coefficient or solubility of the chemical. Lyman et al. (1982) details such methods.
The analysis then reviews multiple values and selects a representative value according to the following
guidelines:
Resident U.S. fish species are preferred over invertebrates or estimated values.
Edible tissue or whole fish values are preferred over nonedible or viscera values.
Estimates derived from octanol/water partition coefficients are preferred over estimates based
on solubility or other estimates, unless the estimate comes from EPA's AWQC documents.
The analysis uses the most conservative value (i.e., the highest BCF) among comparable candidate values.
(b) Human Health Data
Human health toxicity data include chemical-specific RfD for noncarcinogenic effects and potency SF
for carcinogenic effects. The analysis obtains RfDs and SFs first from EPA's IRIS, and secondarily uses
EPA's HEAST or EPA's Region m RBC Table. The RfD is an estimate of a daily exposure level for the
human population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious noncarcinogenic health effects over a lifetime (U.S. EPA, 1989b). A chemical with a low RfD is
more toxic than a chemical with a high RfD. Noncarcinogenic effects include systemic effects (e.g.,
reproductive, immunological, neurological, circulatory, or respiratory toxicity), organ-specific toxicity,
developmental toxicity, mutagenesis, and lethality. EPA recommends a threshold level assessment approach
for these systemic and other effects, because several protective mechanisms must be overcome prior to the
appearance of an adverse noncarcinogenic effect. In contrast, EPA assumes that cancer growth can be
16
-------
initiated from a single cellular event and, therefore, should not be subject to a threshold level assessment
approach. The SF is an upper bound estimate of the probability of cancer per unit intake of a chemical over
a lifetime (U.S. EPA, 1989b). A chemical with a large SF has greater potential to cause cancer than a
chemical with a small SF.
Other chemical designations related to potential adverse human health effects include EPA assignment
of a concentration limit for protection of drinking water, and EPA designation as a priority pollutant. EPA
establishes drinking water criteria and standards, such as the MCL, under authority of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). Current MCLs are available from EPA's Office of Water. EPA has designated 126
chemicals and compounds as priority pollutants under the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
(c) Physical-Chemical Property Data
The analysis uses 3 measures of physical-chemical properties to evaluate environmental fate: Henry's
Law constant (HLC), an organic carbon-water partition coefficient (Koc), and aqueous aerobic
biodegradation half-life (BD).
HLC is the ratio of vapor pressure to solubility and is indicative of the propensity of a chemical to
volatilize from surface water (Lyman et al, 1982). The larger the HLC, the more likely the chemical will
volatilize. The analysis obtains most HLCs from EPA's Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) 1989 Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide (U.S. EPA, 1989c) or from the QSAR system (U.S.
EPA, 1998-1999) maintained by EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota.
Koc is indicative of the propensity of an organic compound to adsorb to soil or sediment particles and,
therefore, to partition to such media. The larger the Koc, the more likely the chemical will adsorb to solid
material. The analysis obtains most Koc from Syracuse Research Corporation's CHEMFATE database and
EPA's 1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide.
BD is the empirically derived length of time during which half the amount of a chemical in water is
degraded by microbial action in the presence of oxygen. BD is indicative of the environmental persistence
of a chemical released into the water column. The analysis obtains most BDs from Howard et al. (1991) and
Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth's QSAR.
2.2.3 Categorization Assessment
The objective of evaluating fate and toxicity potential is to place chemicals into groups with qualitative
descriptors of potential environmental behavior and impact. These groups are based on categorization
schemes derived for the following descriptors:
Acute aquatic toxicity (high, moderate, or slightly toxic)
17
-------
Volatility from water (high, moderate, slight, or nonvolatile)
Adsorption to soil/sediment (high, moderate, slight, or nonadsorptive)
Bioaccumulation potential (high, moderate, slight, or nonbioaccumulative)
Biodegradation potential (fast, moderate, slow, or resistant)
Using appropriate key parameters, and where sufficient data exist, these categorization schemes
identify the relative aquatic and human toxicity and bioaccumulation potential for each chemical associated
with landfill wastewater. In addition, they identify the potential of each chemical to partition to various media
(air, sediment/sludge, or water) and to persist in the environment. The analysis uses these schemes for
screening purposes only; they do not take the place of detailed pollutant assessments that analyze all fate and
transport mechanisms.
This evaluation also identifies chemicals that (1) are known, probable, or possible human carcinogens;
(2) are systemic human health toxicants; (3) have EPA human health drinking water standards; and (4) are
designated as priority pollutants by EPA. The results of this analysis can provide a qualitative indication of
potential risk posed by the release of these chemicals. Actual risk depends on the magnitude, frequency, and
duration of pollutant loading; site-specific environmental conditions; proximity and number of human and
ecological receptors; and relevant exposure pathways. The following discussion outlines the categorization
schemes and presents the ranges of parameter values that define the categories.
(a) Acute Aquatic Toxicity
Key Parameter: Acute aquatic life criteria/LC50 or other benchmark (AT) (//g/L)
Using acute criteria or lowest reported acute test results (generally 96-hour and 48-hour durations
for fish and invertebrates, respectively), the analysis groups chemicals according to their relative short-term
effects on aquatic life.
Categorization Scheme:
AT < 100 Highly toxic
1,000 > AT > 100 Moderately toxic
AT > 1,000 Slightly toxic
This scheme, used as a rule-of-thumb guidance by EPA's OPPT for Premanufacture Notice (PMN)
evaluations, indicates chemicals that could potentially cause lethality to aquatic life downstream of discharges.
18
-------
(b) Volatility from Water
Key Parameter: Henry' s Law constant (HLC) (atm-rrrYmol)
Vapor Pressure (atm)
(Eq. 9)
Solubility (mol/m )
HLC is the measured or calculated ratio between vapor pressure and solubility at ambient conditions.
This parameter indicates the potential for organic substances to partition to air in a two-phase (air and water)
system. A chemical's potential to volatilize from surface water can be inferred from HLC.
Categorization Scheme:
HLC > 1 O'3 Highly volatile
1 O-3 > HLC > 1 O-5 Moderately volatile
1 0-5 > HLC > 3 x 1 0-7 Slightly volatile
HLC < 3 x 10"7 Essentially nonvolatile
This scheme, adopted from Lyman et al. (1982), indicates chemical potential to volatilize from process
wastewater and surface water, thereby reducing the threat to aquatic life and human health via contaminated
fish consumption and drinking water, yet potentially causing risk to exposed populations via inhalation.
(c) Adsorption to Soil/Sediments
Key Parameter: Soil/sediment adsorption coefficient (Koc)
Koc is a chemical-specific adsorption parameter for organic substances that is largely independent of
the properties of soil or sediment and can be used as a relative indicator of adsorption to such media. Koc
is highly inversely correlated with solubility, well correlated with octanol-water partition coefficient, and fairly
well correlated with BCF.
Categorization Scheme:
Koc > 10,000 Highly adsorptive
1 0,000 > Koc > 1 ,000 Moderately adsorptive
1 ,000 > Koc > 1 0 Slightly adsorptive
Koc < 10 Essentially nonadsorptive
19
-------
This scheme evaluates substances that may partition to solids and potentially contaminate sediment
underlying surface water or land receiving sewage sludge applications. Although a high Koc value indicates
that a chemical is more likely to partition to sediment, it also indicates that a chemical may be less bioavailable.
(d) Bioaccumulation Potential
Key Parameter: Bioconcentration Factor (BCF)
BCF = Equilibrium chemical concentration in organism (wet weight)
Mean chemical concentration in water ^ "' '
BCF is a good indicator of potential to accumulate in aquatic biota through uptake across an external surface
membrane.
Categorization Scheme:
BCF > 500 High potential
500 > BCF > 50 Moderate potential
50 > BCF > 5 Slight potential
BCF < 5 Nonbioaccumulative
This scheme identifies chemicals that may be present in fish or shellfish tissues at higher levels than in
surrounding water. These chemicals may accumulate in the food chain and increase exposure to higher trophic
level populations, including people consuming their sport catch or commercial seafood.
(e) Biodegradation Potential
Key Parameter: Aqueous Aerobic Biodegradation Half-life (BD) (days)
Biodegradation, photolysis, and hydrolysis are three potential mechanisms of organic chemical
transformation in the environment. The analysis selects BD to represent chemical persistence on the basis of
its importance and the abundance of measured or estimated data relative to other transformation mechanisms.
Categorization Scheme:
BD < 7 Fast
7 < BD < 28 Moderate
28
-------
This scheme is based on classification ranges given in a recent compilation of environmental fate data
(Howard et al, 1991). This scheme gives an indication of chemicals that are likely to biodegrade in surface
water, and therefore, not persist in the environment. However, biodegradation products can be less toxic,
equally as toxic, or even more toxic than the parent compound.
2.2.4 Assumptions and Limitations
The following two sections summarize the major assumptions and limitations associated with the data
compilation and categorization schemes.
(a) Data Compilation
If data are readily available from electronic databases, the analysis does not search other
primary and secondary sources.
Much of the data are estimated and, therefore, can have a high degree of associated
uncertainty.
For some chemicals, neither measured nor estimated data are available for key categorization
parameters. In addition, chemicals identified for this study do not represent a complete set
of wastewater constituents. As a result, this analysis does not completely assess landfill
wastewater.
(b) Categorization Schemes
The analysis does not consider receiving waterbody characteristics, pollutant loading
amounts, exposed populations, and potential exposure routes.
For several categorization schemes, the analysis groups chemicals using arbitrary
order-of-magnitude data breaks. Combined with data uncertainty, this may lead to an
overstatement or understatement of the characteristics of a chemical.
Data derived from laboratory tests may not accurately reflect conditions in the field.
Available aquatic toxicity and bioconcentration test data may not represent the most sensitive
species.
The biodegradation potential may not be a good indicator of persistence for organic
chemicals that rapidly photodegrade or hydrolyze, since the analysis does not consider these
degradation mechanisms.
21
-------
23 Documented Environmental Impacts
EPA contacted State environmental agencies and reviewed State 304(1) Short Lists, State fishing
advisories, and published literature for evidence of documented environmental impacts on aquatic life, human
health, and the quality of receiving water due to discharges of pollutants from landfills. The analysis compiles
and summarizes reported impacts by landfill.
22
-------
3. Data Sources
3.1 Water Quality Impacts
The analysis uses readily available EPA and other agency databases, models, and reports to evaluate
water quality impacts. The following six sections describe the various data sources used in the analysis.
3.1.1 Landfill-Specific Data
EPA's Engineering and Analysis Division (BAD) provided projected landfill effluent process flows,
landfill operating days, and pollutant loadings (Appendix B) in September 1999. (U.S. EPA, 1999). For
each option, EAD calculated the long-term averages (LTAs) for each pollutant of concern using EPA
sampling data and industry-supplied data. In the 1994 Waste Treatment Industry: Landfills Questionnaire.,
landfills reported the annual quantity they discharged to surface waters (U.S. EPA, 1994b). EAD multiplied
the annual quantity discharged (landfill flow) by the LTA for each pollutant and converted it to the proper units
to calculate the loading (in pounds per year) for each pollutant at each landfill.
The analysis identifies the locations of landfills on receiving streams using the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) cataloging and stream segment (reach) numbers contained in EPA's Industrial Facilities Discharge
(IFD) database (U.S. EPA, 1994-1996a). It also uses latitude/longitude coordinates, if available, to locate
those landfills that have not been assigned a reach number in IFD. If these sources do not yield information
for a landfill, alternative measures are taken to obtain a complete set of receiving streams.
The analysis obtains receiving stream flow data from either the W.E. Gates study data or from
measured streamflow data, both of which are contained in EPA's GAGE file (U.S. EPA, 1994-1996b). The
W.E. Gates study contains calculated average and low flow statistics based on the best available flow data
and on drainage areas for reaches throughout the United States. The GAGE file also includes average and
low flow statistics based on measured data from USGS gaging stations. The analysis obtains dissolved
concentration potentials (DCPs) for estuaries and bays from the Strategic Assessment Branch of NOAA's
Ocean Assessments Division (NOAA/U.S. EPA, 1989-1991) (Appendix C). Critical dilution factors are
obtained from iheMixing Zone Dilution Factors for New Chemical Exposure Assessments (U.S. EPA,
1992).
3.1.2 Water Quality Criteria
The assessment obtains the ambient criteria (or toxic effect levels) for the protection of aquatic life and
human health from a variety of sources including EPA criteria documents, EPA's ASTER, and EPA's IRIS
(Appendix D). It uses ecological toxicity estimates when published values are not available. The hierarchies
used to select the appropriate aquatic life and human health values are described in the following sections.
23
-------
3.1.2.1 Aquatic Life
EPA establishes water quality criteria for many pollutants for the protection of freshwater aquatic life
(acute and chronic criteria). The acute value represents a maximum allowable 1-hour average concentration
of a pollutant at any time and can be related to acute toxic effects on aquatic life. The chronic value represents
the average allowable concentration of a toxic pollutant over a 4-day period at which a diverse genera of
aquatic organisms and their uses should not be unacceptably affected, provided that these levels are not
exceeded more than once every 3 years.
For pollutants for which no water quality criteria are developed, the analysis uses specific toxicity
values (acute and chronic effect concentrations reported in published literature or estimated using various
application techniques). When selecting values from the literature, the analysis prefers measured
concentrations from flow-through studies under typical pH and temperature conditions. The test organism
must be a North American resident species of fish or invertebrate. The hierarchies used to select the
appropriate acute and chronic values are listed below in descending order of priority.
Acute Aquatic Life Values:
1. National acute freshwater quality criteria
2. Lowest reported acute test values (96-hour LC50 for fish and 48-hour EC5o/LC50 for
daphnids)
3. Lowest reported LC 50 test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate a 96-hour exposure
period
4. Lowest reported LC50 test value of longer duration, up to a maximum of 2 weeks exposure
5. Estimated 96-hour LC50 from the ASTER QSAR model
Chronic Aquatic Life Values:
1. National chronic freshwater quality criteria
2. Lowest reported maximum allowable toxicant concentration (MATC),
lowest-observed-effect concentration (LOEC), or no-observed-effect concentration
(NOEC)
3. Lowest reported chronic growth or reproductive toxicity test concentration
24
-------
Estimated chronic toxicity concentration from a measured acute: chronic ratio for a less
sensitive species, QSAR model, or default acute:chronic ratio of 10:1
3.1.2.2 Human Health
EPA establishes water quality criteria for the protection of human health in terms of a pollutant's toxic
effects, including carcinogenic potential, using two exposure routes: (1) ingesting the pollutant via
contaminated aquatic organisms only, and (2) ingesting the pollutant via both water and contaminated aquatic
organisms. The values are determined as follows:
For Toxicity Protection (ingestion of organisms only)
= RfD x CF
00 ~ IRf x BCF
where:
HH,,,, = human health value
RfD = reference dose for a 70-kg individual (mg/day)
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1,000 //g/mg)
For Carcinogenic Protection (ingestion of organisms only^
= BW x RL x CF
00 ~ SF x IRfx BCF (Eq. 12)
where:
EEL,,, = human health value
BW = body weight (70 kg)
RL = risk level (10'6)
SF = cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1,000//g/mg)
25
-------
For Toxicitv Protection (ingestion of water and organisms')
m _ RfDx CF
wo IRw + (IRf x BCF)
where:
HFL,,, = human health value (ag/L)
RfD = reference dose for a 70-kg individual (mg/day)
IR^, = water ingestion rate (2 L/day)
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1000 //g/mg)
For Carcinogenic Protection (ingestion of water and organisms')
BW x RL x CF
SF x (IRw + (IR, x BCF))
where:
= human health value
BW = body weight (70 kg)
RL = risk level (10'6)
SF = cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1
IR^, = water ingestion rate (2 L/day)
IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
CF = conversion factor for units (1,000 //g/mg)
The analysis derives the values for ingesting water and organisms by assuming an average daily ingestion of
2 liters of water, an average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams of potentially contaminated fish products,
and an average adult body weight of 70 kilograms (U.S. EPA, 199 la). If EPA has established a slope factor,
the analysis uses values protective of carcinogenicity to assess the potential effects on human health,
26
-------
The analysis develops protective concentration levels for carcinogens in terms of nonthreshold lifetime
risk level using criteria at a risk level of 10"6 (1E-6). This risk level indicates a probability of 1 additional case
of cancer for every 1 million persons exposed. Toxic effects criteria for noncarcinogens include systemic
effects (e.g., reproductive, immunological, neurological, circulatory, or respiratory toxicity), organ-specific
toxicity, developmental toxicity, mutagenesis, and lethality.
The hierarchy used to select the most appropriate human health criteria values is listed below in
descending order of priority:
1. Calculated human health criteria values using EPA's IRIS RfDs or SFs used in conjunction
with adjusted 3 percent lipid BCF values derived from Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Documents (U.S. EPA, 1980). Three percent is the mean lipid content of fish tissue
reported in the study from which the average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 g/day is
derived.
2. Calculated human health criteria values using current IRIS RfDs or SFs and representative
BCF values for common North American species offish or invertebrates or estimated BCF
values.
3. Calculated human health criteria values using RfDs or SFs from EPA's HEAST or EPA's
Region m RBC Table used in conjunction with adjusted 3 percent lipid BCF values derived
from Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents (U.S. EPA, 1980).
4. Calculated human health criteria values using current RfDs or SFs from EPA's HEAST or
EPA's Region HI RBC Table and representative BCF values for common North American
species offish or invertebrates or estimated BCF values.
5. Criteria from the Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents (U. S. EPA, 1980).
6. Calculated human health values using RfDs or SFs from data sources other than IRIS,
HEAST, or Region HI RBC Table.
This hierarchy is based on Section 2.4.6 of the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 199la), which recommends using the most current risk information from
IRIS when estimating human health risks. In cases where chemicals have both RfDs and SFs from the same
level of the hierarchy, the analysis calculates human health values using the formulas for carcinogenicity, which
always result in the more stringent value, given the risk levels employed.
27
-------
3.1.3 Information Used To Evaluate Human Health Risks and Benefits
The analysis obtains fish ingestion rates for sport anglers, subsistence anglers, and the general
population from ^.Exposure Factors Handbook (U. S. EPA, 1989a). State population data and average
household size are obtained from the 1995 Statistical Abstract of the United States (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1995). Data concerning the number of anglers in each State (i.e., resident fishermen) are obtained
from the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation (U.S. FWS,
1991). The total number of river miles or estuary square miles within a State are obtained from the 1990
National Water Quality Inventory - Report to Congress (U.S. EPA, 1990). The analysis identifies drinking
water utilities located within 50 miles downstream from each discharge site using EPA's PATHSCAN (U.S.
EPA, 1996a). The population served by a drinking water utility is obtained from EPA's Drinking Water
Supply Files (U.S. EPA, 1996b) or Federal Reporting Data System (U.S. EPA, 1996c). Total suspended
solids (TSS) concentrations (effluent and receiving stream) used in the DRE model are obtained from EAD
and from the Analysis of STORET Suspended Sediments Data for the United States (Versar, 1992b),
respectively (see Section 3.1.1). Willingness-to-pay values are obtained from OPA's review of a 1989 and
a 1986 study The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on New Evidence (Fisher, Chestnut, and
Violette, 1989) and Valuing Risks: New Information on the Willingness to Pay for Changes in Fatal
Risks (Violette and Chestnut, 1986). The analysis adjusts values to 1992 on the basis of the relative change
in the Employment Cost Index of Total Compensation for all Civilian Workers. Information used in the
evaluation is presented in Appendix E.
3.1.4 Information Used To Evaluate Ecological Benefits
The analysis uses the concept of a "contaminant-free fishery" and the estimate of an increase in the
consumer surplus associated with a contaminant-free fishery, which are presented in Discrete Choice Models
to Value Changes in Environmental Quality: A Great Lakes Case Study., a thesis submitted at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison by Audrey Lyke in 1993. The analysis uses data concerning the number
of resident anglers in each State and average number of fishing days per angler in each State obtained from
the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation (U.S. FWS, 1991)
(Appendix E). Median net benefit values for warm water and cold water fishing days are obtained from
Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of Research on RecreationalDemand(Walsh etal., 1990). The
analysis adjusts values to 1992 on the basis of the change in the Consumer Price Index for all urban
consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
3.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity
The analysis obtains the chemical-specific data needed to conduct the fate and toxicity evaluation from
various sources as discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this report. Aquatic life and human health values are
presented in Appendix D, as well as physical-chemical property data.
28
-------
33 Documented Environmental Impacts
The analysis obtains data concerning environmental impacts from State environmental agencies in EPA
Regions HI and VI, as well as from the 1990 State 304(1) Short Lists (U.S. EPA, 1991b) and the 1995
National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories (U.S. EPA, 1995). Literature abstracts are obtained
through the computerized information system DIALOG (Knight-Ridder Information, 1996), which provides
access to Enviroline, Pollution Abstracts, Aquatic Science Abstracts, and Water Resources Abstracts.
29
-------
4. Summary of Results
4.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts
4.1.1 Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality Criteria
The results of this analysis indicate the water quality benefits of controlling discharges from
nonhazardous landfills to surface waters. The following two sections summarize potential aquatic life and
human health impacts on receiving stream water quality for direct discharges. All tables referred to in these
sections appear at the end of Section 4. Appendix F presents the results of the stream modeling.
4.1.1.1 Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set
The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water quality
at current and BAT treatment levels for 37 nonhazardous landfills discharging 26 pollutants to 35 receiving
streams (35 rivers) (Table 1). At current discharge levels, these 37 landfills discharge 111,153 pounds per
year of priority and nonconventional pollutants (Table 2). The landfills guidelines will reduce these loadings
to 67,741 pounds per year at BAT levels, a 39 percent reduction.
The analysis shows no human health impacts on receiving stream water quality. It projects that
instream pollutant concentrations will not exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels at current or
BAT discharge levels (Table 3).
The assessment projects instream pollutant concentrations will exceed chronic aquatic life criteria
or toxic effect levels in 9 percent (3 of the total 35) of the receiving streams at current and BAT discharge
levels (Table 3). At current discharge levels, 2 pollutants are projected to exceed instream criteria or toxic
effect levels (Table 4). BAT discharge levels reduce the projected excursions to 1 pollutant. The 1 excursion
of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels projected at current discharge levels will be eliminated
at BAT discharge levels (Table 3).
4.1.1.2 Nonhazardous Landfills - National Extrapolation
The analysis extrapolates sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology for
estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample set of 37
nonhazardous landfills discharging 26 pollutants to 35 receiving streams (Table 1) to 143 nonhazardous
landfills discharging 26 pollutants to 139 receiving streams.
The analysis projects that extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations will not exceed human
health criteria or toxic effect levels at current or BAT discharge levels (Table 5). It also proj ects that the
final regulation will reduce excursions of chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels from 2 pollutants
to 1 pollutant in 24 percent (34 of the total 139) of the receiving streams with projected excursions (Table
30
-------
5). The 2 excursions of acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels projected at current discharge
levels in 2 receiving streams will be eliminated at BAT discharge levels (Table 5).
4.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits
The results of this analysis indicate the potential benefits to human health by estimating the risks
(carcinogenic and systemic effects) associated with current and reduced pollutant levels in fish tissue and
drinking water. The following two sections summarize potential human health impacts from the consumption
offish tissue and drinking water derived from waterbodies impacted by direct discharges. The analysis
estimates risks for recreational (sport) and subsistence anglers and their families, as well as the general
population. Appendix G presents the results of the modeling.
4.1.2.1 Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set
The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on human health from the
consumption offish tissue and drinking water at current and BAT treatment levels for 37 facilities discharging
26 pollutants to 35 receiving streams (35 rivers) (Table 6).
Fish Tissue At current discharge levels, 9 receiving streams have total estimated individual
pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 2 carcinogens from 9 nonhazardous
landfills (Tables 6 and 7). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) for the general
populatioa sport anglers. and subsistence anglers At current discharge levels, total excess annual
cancer cases are estimated to be 1.2E-3 (Table 6). At BAT discharge levels, 8 receiving streams have total
estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 2 carcinogens from
8 nonhazardous landfills (Tables 6 and 7). The analysis again projects total estimated risks greater than 10"6
(1E-6) for the general populatioa sport anglers. and subsistence anglers Total excess annual cancer
cases will be reduced to 8.5E-04 at BAT discharge levels (Table 6). Based on the reduction of total excess
cancer cases (3.5E-4), the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases is $700-$3,800
(1992 dollars).
The analysis projects systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) for only subsistence
anglers in 1 receiving stream from 1 pollutant at current and BAT discharge levels (Table 8). An estimated
population of 328 subsistence anglers and their families are projected to be affected.
Drinking Water The analysis projects that no receiving streams will have total estimated individual
pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) at current or BAT discharge levels. (Table 9). Therefore,
the analysis projects no total excess annual cancer cases. In addition, projections show no systemic toxicant
effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at current or BAT discharge levels (Table 8).
31
-------
4.1.2.2 Nonhazardous Landfills - National Extrapolation
The analysis extrapolates sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology for
estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. Extrapolated values are based on the sample set of 37
nonhazardous landfills discharging 26 pollutants to 35 receiving streams (Table 1). The analysis extrapolates
these values to 143 nonhazardous landfills discharging 26 pollutants to 139 receiving streams.
Fish Tissue At current discharge levels, 45 receiving streams have total estimated individual
pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 2 carcinogens from 45 nonhazardous
landfills (Table 10). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) for the general
populatioa sport anglers, and subsistence anglers. At current discharge levels, total excess annual
cancer cases are estimated to be 3.1E-3 (Table 10). At BAT discharge levels, 43 receiving streams have
total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 2 carcinogens
from 43 nonhazardous landfills. The analysis again projects total estimated risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) for
the general populatioa sport anglers. and subsistence anglers. Total excess annual cancer cases are
reduced to 2.1E-3 at BAT discharge levels (Table 10). Based on the reduction of total excess cancer cases
(l.OE-3), the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases is $2,100-$ 11,000 (1992
dollars).
The analysis projects systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) for only subsistence
anglers in 2 receiving streams from 1 pollutant at current and BAT discharge levels (Table 11). An estimated
population of 643 subsistence anglers and their families are projected to be affected.
Drinking Water At current and BAT discharge levels, the analysis projects no receiving streams
will have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10"6 (1E-6) (Table 12). Therefore, the
analysis projects no total excess annual cancer cases. In addition, it projects no systemic toxicant effects
(hazard index greater than 1.0) at current or BAT discharge levels (Table 11).
4.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits
The results of this analysis indicate the potential ecological benefits of the final regulation by estimating
improvements in the recreational fishing habitats affected by direct nonhazardous landfill wastewater
discharges. Such impacts include acute and chronic toxicity, sublethal effects on metabolic and reproductive
functions, physical destruction of spawning and feeding habitats, and loss of prey organisms. These effects
will vary because of the diversity of species with differing sensitivities. For example, lead exposure can cause
spinal deformities in rainbow trout. Copper exposure can affect the growth activity of algae. In addition,
copper and cadmium can be acutely toxic to aquatic life, including finfish. The following sections summarize
the potential monetary benefits as well as additional benefits that are not monetized.
32
-------
4.1.3.1 Nonhazardous Landfills - Sample Set
The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats at current and
BAT treatment levels for 37 nonhazardous landfills discharging 26 pollutants to 35 receiving streams (Tables
1 and 3). Because the analysis projects that the final regulation will not completely eliminate instream
concentrations in excess of AWQC, EPA does not estimate benefits to recreational (sport) anglers based on
improved quality and improved value of fishing opportunities.
4.1.3.2 Nonhazardous Landfills - National Extrapolation
The analysis extrapolates sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology for
estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample set of 37
nonhazardous landfills discharging 26 pollutants to 35 receiving streams (Table 1) to 143 nonhazardous
landfills discharging 26 pollutants to 139 receiving streams (Table 5).
Because the analysis projects that the final regulation will not project completely eliminate instream
concentrations in excess of AWQC, EPA does not estimate benefits to recreational (sport) anglers based on
improved quality and improved value of fishing opportunities.
4.1.3.3 Additional Ecological Benefits
As noted in Section 2.1.3.1, the estimated benefit of improved recreational fishing opportunities is only
a limited measure of the value to society of the improvements in aquatic habitats that are expected to result
from the final regulation. Additional ecological benefits include protection of terrestrial wildlife and birds that
consume aquatic organisms. The final regulation will also reduce the presence of and discharge of toxic
pollutants, thereby protecting aquatic organisms currently under stress, providing the opportunity to reestablish
productive ecosystems in damaged waterways, and protecting resident endangered species. In addition,
recreational activities such as boating, water skiing, and swimming will be preserved, along with an
aesthetically pleasing environment. Such activities contribute to the support of local and State economies.
4.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity
Levels of human and ecological exposure, and risk from environmental releases of toxic chemicals
depend largely on toxic potency, intermedia partitioning, and chemical persistence. These factors depend on
chemical-specific properties relating to lexicological effects on living organisms, physical state,
hydrophobicity/lipophilicity, and reactivity, as well as the mechanism and media of release and site-specific
environmental conditions. Using available data on the physical-chemical properties and aquatic life and human
health toxicity for the 26 nonhazardous landfill pollutants of concern, the analysis determines the following:
5 pollutants exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 20 are human systemic toxicants, 7 are classified
as known or probable/possible human carcinogens, 7 have drinking water values (6 with enforceable health-
based MCLs and 1 with a secondary MCL for aesthetics or taste), and 6 are designated by EPA as priority
33
-------
pollutants (Tables 13, 14, and 15). In terms of projected environmental partitioning among media, 9 of the
26 evaluated pollutants are moderately to highly volatile (potentially causing risk to exposed populations via
inhalation), 1 has a moderate potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic biota (potentially accumulating in the food
chain and causing increased risk to higher trophic level organisms and to exposed human populations via fish
and shellfish consumption), 2 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids, and 2 are slowly biodegraded.
43 Documented Environmental Impacts
The analysis reviews literature abstracts, State 304(1) Short Lists, and State fishing advisories for
documented impacts due to discharges from nonhazardous landfills. States identify 2 direct-discharging
nonhazardous landfills as being point sources causing water quality problems and include them on their 304(1)
Short List (Table 16). Section 304(1) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 requires States to identify
waterbodies impaired by the presence of toxic substances, to identify point-source discharges of these toxics,
and to develop Individual Control Strategies (ICSs) for these discharges. The Short List is a list of waters
that a State does not expect will achieve applicable water quality standards (numeric or narrative), even after
technology-based requirements are met, entirely or substantially because of point-source discharges of Section
307(a) toxics. State contacts indicate that of the 2 direct landfills, 1 is no longer a direct discharger and the
other is currently in compliance with its permit limits and is no longer a source of impairment. In addition, 2
nonhazardous landfills are located on waterbodies with State-issued fish consumption advisories (Table 17).
One of the advisories concerns dioxin levels. The other advisory concerns chemicals that are not pollutants
of concern for the landfill industry.
34
-------
Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (26) Discharged from 37 Direct
Nonhazardous Landfills
CAS Number
98555
7664417
7440393
65850
7440473
120365
298044
142621
18540299
75092
68122
C-005
95487
3268879
106445
108952
7440246
7440326
108883
20324338
7440666
123911
35822469
78933
67641
108101
Pollutant
Alpha-Terpineol
Ammonia as N
Barium
Benzoic Acid
Chromium
Dichlorprop
Disulfoton
Hexanoic Acid
Hexavalent Chromium
Methylene Chloride
N,N-Dimethylform amide
Nitrate/Nitrite
o-Cresol
OCDD
p-Cresol
Phenol
Strontium
Titanium
Toluene
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
Zinc
1,4-Dioxane
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
2-Butanone
2-Propanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Source: Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), September 1999.
35
-------
Table 2. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Direct Nonhazardous Landfills
Current
BAT
No. of Pollutants Evaluated
No. of Landfills Evaluated
Loadings (Pounds-per-Year)*
111,153
67,741
26
37
* Loadings are representative of pollutants evaluated; conventional and nonconventional pollutants such as TSS, BOD5, COD, TDS, TOC, and total phenolic
compounds, are not included.
-------
Table 3. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate)
(Sample Set)
Current
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
BAT
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
1
1 (1.4)
1
0
0
0
Chronic Aquatic Life
3
2 (2.3 - 34.0)
4
3
1 (2.3 - 34.0)
3
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Human Health
Orgs. Only
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total*
3
2
3
1
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents magnitude of excursions.
Number of streams evaluated = 35 (35 rivers), number of landfills = 37, and number of pollutants = 26.
* Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.
-------
Table 4. Summary of Pollutants Projected To Exceed Criteria for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate)
(Sample Set)
Ammonia as N
Disulfoton
Number of Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
Current
1(1.4)
0
BAT
0
0
Chronic Aquatic Life
Current
1 (7.9)
3 (2.3 - 34.0)
BAT
0
3 (2.3 - 34.0)
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
Current
0
0
BAT
0
0
Human Health
Orgs. Only
Current
0
0
BAT
0
0
oo
NOTE: Number of pollutants evaluated - 26.
-------
Table 5. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Leachate)
(National Level)
Current
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
BAT
Streams (No.)
Pollutants (No.)
Total Excursions
Acute Aquatic Life
2
1 (1.4)
2
0
0
0
Chronic Aquatic Life
34
2(2.3-34.0)
36
34
1(2.3-34.0)
34
Human Health
Water and Orgs.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Human Health
Orgs. Only
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total*
34
2
34
1
VO
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents magnitude of excursions.
Number of streams = 139, number of landfills = 143, and number of pollutants = 26.
Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.
-------
Table 6. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10'6
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Current
Streams (No.facilities (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
BAT
Streams (No.)/Facilities (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
1 (2.3E-6)
1 (6.0E-6)
9(1.6E-6to5.1E-5)
1 (1.8E-6)
1 (4.5E-6)
8(1.0E-6to3.9E-5)
NA/NA
NA
3.0E-4
5.4E-4
3.2E-4
1.2E-3
NA/NA
NA
2.2E-4
4.0E-4
2.3E-4
8.5E-4
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 35 (35 rivers), number of landfills = 37, and number of pollutants = 26. Table presents results for those
streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"6. Primary contributors included in summary even if
cancer risk did not exceed 10"6.
Number in parentheses represents the range of total cancer risks for stream(s) with risk >10"6.
NA = Not Applicable
-------
Table 7. Summary of Pollutants Projected To Cause Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current:
Stream No. 1
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Stream No. 2
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Stream No. 3
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Stream No. 4
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Stream No. 5
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Stream No. 6
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
General Population
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
1.3E-6/1.7E-4
1.0E-6/1.3E-4
Cancer Risks >1Q-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
3.4E-6/3.0E-4
2.6E-6/2.4E-4
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
3.6E-6/1.1E-7
2.8E-6/8.6E-8
7.4E-7/1.6E-6
9.7E-7/2.1E-6
6.9E-7/3.7E-6
9.2E-7/4.9E-6
1.3E-6/2.2E-6
1.3E-6/2.2E-6
6.8E-7/1.5E-6
9.0E-7/1.9E-6
2.9E-5/1.3E-4
2.2E-5/1.0E-4
-------
Table 7. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (continued)
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current (continued):
Stream No. 7
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Stream No. 8
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Stream No. 9
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
BAT:
Stream No. 1
OCDD
U.3.4.6J.8-HpCDD
Stream No. 2
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Stream No. 3
OCDD
1.2.3.4.6.7.8-HpCDD
Stream No. 4
OCDD
1.2.3.4.6.7.8-HpCDD
Cancer Risks >10-<7
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
General Population
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
Cancer Risks >10-V
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
1.6E-6/7.4E-6
1.2E-6/5.7E-6
2.3E-6/1.1E-5
1.8E-6/8.5E-6
3.8E-6/1.8E-5
2.9E-6/1.4E-5
3.9E-7/1.2E-8
1.0E-6/3.1E-8
3.7E-7/7.9E-7
9.7E-7/2.1E-6
4.6E-7/2.5E-6
1.2E-6/6.5E-6
2.9E-7/4.9E-7
7.6E-7/1.3E-6
-------
Table 7. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (continued)
(Fish Tissue Consumption)
(Sample Set)
BAT ( continued):
Stream No. 5
OCDD
1.2.3.4.6.7.8-HpCDD
Stream No. 6
OCDD
1.2.3.4.6.7.8-HpCDD
Stream No. 8
OCDD
1,2,3,4,6 J,8-HpCDD
Stream No. 9
OCDD
1, 23,4,6 J,8-HpCDD
Cancer Risks >10-<7
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
General Population
0/NA
0/NA
4.9E-7/6.0E-5
1.3E-6/1.6E-4
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
Cancer Risks >10-6/
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Sport Anglers
0/NA
0/NA
1.2E-6/1.1E-4
3.3E-6/2.9E-4
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
0/NA
Cancer Risks >10-V
Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Subsistence Anglers
3.9E-7/8.4E-7
1.0E-6/2.2E-6
1.1E-5/4.9E-5
2.8E-5/1.3E-4
1.1E-6/5.1E-6
2.9E-6/1.3E-5
7.9E-7/3.7E-6
2.1E-6/9.8E-6
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 35 (35 rivers! number of landfills = 37 and total number of pollutants = 26. Table presents results for
those streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10'6. Primary contributors included in summary even if cancer
risk did not exceed IP'6.
NA = Not Applicable
-------
Table 8. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Current
Streams (No.)/Facilities (No.)
Pollutants (No.)*
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Affected Population
BAT
Streams (No.)/Facilities (No.)
Pollutants (No.)*
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Affected Population
Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1
1/1
1
0
0
1 (2.2)
328
1/1
1
0
0
1 (2.2)
328
Drinking Water Hazard Indices >1
0/0
0
0
0
0
NA
0/0
0
0
0
0
NA
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 35 (35 rivers), number of landfills = 37, and number of pollutants = 26.
Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected hazard index for any pollutant exceeds 1.0.
Number in parentheses represents the range of hazard indices for each stream(s) with index >1.
* Disulfoton
-------
Table 9. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption)
(Sample Set)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10"f
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Current
Streams (No.) / Facilities (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility < 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
TOTAL
BAT
Streams (No.) / Facilities (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility < 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
TOTAL
0/0
0
0
0
0/0
0
0
0
NA/NA
NA
NA
NA
NA/NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOTE: Total number of streams evaluated = 35 (35 rivers), number of landfills = 37, and number of pollutants = 26. Table presents results for those
streams/landfills for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"6.
NA = Not Applicable
-------
Table 10. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Fish Tissue Consumption)
(National Level)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10'6
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
Current
Streams (No.)/Facilities (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
BAT
Stream (No.)/Facilities (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
TOTAL
45/45
2
2 (2.3E-6)
2 (6.0E-6)
45 (1.6E-6to5.1E-5)
43/43
2
2(1.8E-6)
2 (4.5E-6)
43 (1.0E-6to3.9E-5)
NA/NA
NA
5.9E-4
1.1E-3
1.4E-3
3.1E-3
NA/NA
NA
4.3E-4
7.8E-4
8.5E-4
2.1E-3
NOTE: Total number of streams = 139, number of landfills = 143, and number of pollutants = 26. Table presents results for those streams/landfills for
which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"6. Primary contributors included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed
io-6.
Number in parentheses represents the range of total cancer risks for stream(s) with risk >10"6.
NA = Not Applicable
-------
Table 11. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers
(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level)
Current
Streams (No.)/Facilities (No.)
Pollutants (No.)*
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Affected Population
BAT
Streams (No.)/Facilities (No.)
Pollutants (No.)*
General Population
Sport Anglers
Subsistence Anglers
Affected Population
Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1
2/2
1
0
0
2 (2.2)
643
2/2
1
0
0
2 (2.2)
643
Drinking Water Hazard Indices >1
0/0
0
0
0
0
NA
0/0
0
0
0
0
NA
NOTE: Total number of streams = 139, number of landfills = 143, and number of pollutants = 26.
Table presents results for those streams/landfills for which the projected hazard index for any pollutant exceeds 1.0.
Number in parentheses represents the range of hazard indices for each stream(s) with index >1.
* Disulfoton
-------
Table 12. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Direct Nonhazardous Landfill Dischargers (Drinking Water Consumption)
(National Level)
Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10"f
Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases
oo
Current
Streams (No.) / Facilities (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility < 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
TOTAL
BAT
Streams (No.) / Facilities (No.)
Carcinogens (No.)
With Drinking Water Utility < 50 miles
Carcinogens (No.)
TOTAL
0/0
0
0
0
0/0
0
0
0
NA/NA
NA
NA
NA
NA/NA
NA
NA
NA
NOTE: Total number of streams = 139, number of landfills = 143, and number of pollutants = 26. Table presents results for those streams/landfills for
which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10"6.
NA = Not Applicable
-------
Table 13. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (Nonhazardous Landfills)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Chemical Name
1234678-HPCDD
1 ,4-Dioxane
2-Butonone
2-Propanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Alpha-Terpineol
Ammonia (As N)
Barium
Benzoic Acid
BOD
Chromium
COD
Dichlorprop
Disulfoton
Hexanoic Acid
Hexavalent Chromium
Methylene Chloride
Nitrate/Nitrite
N,N-Dimethvlformamide
OCDD
O-Cresol
P-Cresol
Phenol
Strontium
IDS
Titanium
TOC
Toluene
Total Phenols
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
TSS
Zinc
CAS Number
35822469
123911
78933
67641
108101
98555
7664417
7440393
65850
C-002
7440473
C-004
120365
298044
142621
18540299
75092
C-005
68122
3268879
95487
106445
108952
7440246
C-010
7440326
C-012
108883
C-020
20324338
C-009
7440666
Aquatic
Toxicity
Cateqorv
Unknown
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Moderate
High
Slight
High
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Moderate
Volatility
Cateqorv
Moderate
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Nonvolatile
Slight
Moderate
Unknown
High
Unknown
Nonvolatile
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
High
Unknown
Nonvolatile
Unknown
Unknown
Sediment
Adsorption
Cateqorv
Unknown
Slight
Nonadsorptive
Slight
Slight
Slight
Nonadsorptive
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Nonadsorptive
High
Slight
Slight
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Bioaccumulation
Cateqorv
Unknown
Nonbioaccumulative
Nonbioaccumulative
Nonbioaccumulative
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
Slight
Slight
Nonbioaccumulative
Slight
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Slight
Unknown
Nonbioaccumulative
Unknown
Slight
Biodeqradation
Unknown
Slow
Fast
Fast
Fast
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Slow
Moderate
Moderate
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Fast
Fast
Fast
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Moderate
Unknown
Unknown
Carcinogenic
Effect
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Systemic
Health
Effect
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Drinking
Water
Value
M
M
M
M
M
M
SM
Priority
Pollutant
X
X
X
X
X
X
CD
Note: M = Maximum Contaminant Level established for health-based effect.
SM = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) established for taste or aesthetic effect.
20
-------
Table 14. Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects (Nonhazardous Landfills)*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Toxicant
1234678-HpCDD
2-Butanone
2-Propanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Barium
Benzole Acid
Chromium
Disulfoton
Hexavalent Chromium
Methylene Chloride
N,N-Dimethylformamide
Nitrate/Nitrite
O-Cresol
OCDD
P-Cresol
Phenol
Strontium
Titanium
Toluene
Zinc
Reference Dose Target Organ and Effects
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity,
chloracne
Decreased fetal birth weight
Increased liver and kidney weights and nephrotoxicity
Lethargy, increased relative and absolute weight in liver and kidney
Increased blood pressure
No adverse effects observed**
No adverse effects observed**
ChE inhibition, optic nerve degeneration
No adverse effects observed**
Liver toxicity
Hepatotoxic
Methemoglobinemia
Decreased body weights and neurotoxicity
Reproductive and developmental effects, immunotoxicity,
chloracne
Hypoactivity, distress, and maternal death
Reduced fetal body weight in rats
Rachitic bone
***
Changes in liver and kidney weights
Anemia
Chemicals with EPA verified or provisional human health-based reference doses, referred to as
"systemic toxicants".
Reference dose based on no observed adverse effect level (NOEL).
RfD is an EPA-NCEA provisional value; Contact EPA-NCEA Superfund Technical Support Center
for supporting documentation.
50
-------
Table 15. Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence Classifications, and Target Organs
(Nonhazardous Landfills)
Carcinogen
1 ,4-Dioxane
1234678-HpCDD
Hexavalent Chromium
Methylene Chloride
O-Cresol
OCDD
P-Cresol
Weight-of-Evidence Classification
B2
B2*
A
B2
C
B2*
C
Target Organs
Liver and Gall Bladder
Liver
Lung
Liver and Lung
Skin
Liver
Bladder
A = Human Carcinogen
B2 = Probably Human Carcinogen (animal data only)
C = Possible Human Carcinogen
* - Classified as carcinogen based on TEF of dioxin.
51
-------
Table 16. Landfills Included on State 304(L) Short Lists
Subcategory
Municipal*
Unknown
SIC
Code
4953
4953
Landfill
NPDES
MD0061093
MD0061646
Landfill Name
Reich's Ford Road Landfill
Round Glade Landfill
City
Frederick
Oakland
Waterbody
Bush Creek
Round Glade Run
REACH Number
02070009005
05020006-
Listed Pollutants
Cyanide, silver
Selenium, silver
Source: Compiled from OW files dated April/May 1991.
* Included in water quality modeling analysis.
to
-------
Table 17. Modeled Landfill Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State-Issued
Fish Consumption Advisories
Subcategory
Municipal
Municioal
Discharge Type
Direct
Direct
Advisory Date
February 1992
February 1992
REACH Number
02040105004
01040002001
State
PA
ME
Waterbody
Delaware River
Androscoaain River
Pollutant
Chlordane, PCBs
Dioxins
Species
American Eel, Channel Catfish,
White Perch
Fish
Population
NCGP
NCSP. RGP
Source: The National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories (NLFCA) - December 1995
NCSP - Advises against consumption offish and shellfish by subpopulations potentially at greater risk (e.g., pregnant or nursing women or small children).
RGP - Advises the general population to restrict size and frequency of meals offish and shellfish.
NCGP - Advises against consumption offish and shellfish by general population.
-------
5. References
Fisher, A; L. Chestnut; and D. Violette. 1989. "The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on New
Evidence." Journal of Policy Analysis andManagement, Vol. 8, No. 1.
Howard, P.H. Editor. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates. Chelsea, MI: Lewis
Publishers, Inc.
Knight-Ridder Information. 1996. Knight-Ridder Information Database - DIALOG, Knight-Ridder
Information, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
Lyke, A. 1993. "Discrete Choice Models to Value Changes in Environmental Quality: A Great Lakes Case
Study." Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
(Agricultural Economics) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Lyman, W.J.; W.F. Reehl; and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods - Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a.
Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. "Susceptibility of East Coast Estuaries to Nutrient Discharges:
Albemarle/Pamlico Sound to Biscayne Bay." Rockville, MD: Strategic Assessment Branch. NOAA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b.
Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. "Susceptibility of East Coast Estuaries to Nutrient Discharges:
Passamaquoddy Bay to Chesapeake Bay." Rockville, MD: Strategic Assessment Branch. NOAA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c.
Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. "Susceptibility and Status of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries to
Nutrient Discharges." Rockville, MD: Strategic Assessment Branch. NOAA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991.
Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. "Susceptibility and Status of West Coast Estuaries to Nutrient
Discharges: San Diego Bay to Puget Sound." Rockville, MD: Strategic Assessment Branch. NOAA.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1995. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1995. Washington, DC:
U.S. Bureau of the Census.
R-l
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA 440/5-80 Series. [Also refers to any updated criteria documents
(EPA 440/5-85 and EPA 440/5-87 Series)].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/8-89/043.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. RiskAssessmentGuidanceJvrSuperfund(RAGS), Volume
I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA. PB-90-155581.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening Guide.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA/560/2-89-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. National Water Quality Inventory - Report to Congress.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 199 la. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Control. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA/505/2-90-001. Available from NTIS,
Springfield, VA. PB91-127415.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. National 304(1) Short List Database. Compiled from
Office of Water Files dated April/May 1991. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Mixing Zone Dilution Factors for New Chemical Exposure
Assessments, Draft Report, October 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Contract No. 68-D9-0166. Task
No. 3-35.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds-Review Draft. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA, Office of Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994b. Waste Treatment Industry: Landfills Questionnaire.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994-1996a. Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) File.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994-1996b. Gage File. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
R-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption
Advisories. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. PATHSCAN. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water
WQAB Interactive Procedure.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. Drinking Water Supply (DWS) File. Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996c. FederalReporting Data System (FRDS). Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998-1999. QSAR. Duluth, MN: U.S. EPA, Environmental
Research Laboratory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Landfill Pollutant Loading Files. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division.
U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife Associated Recreation.
Versar, Inc. 1992a. Upgrade of Flow Statistics Used to Estimate Surface Water Chemical
Concentrations for Aquatic and Human Exposure Assessment. Report prepared by Versar Inc. forthe
U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Versar, Inc. 1992b. Analysis of STORET Suspended Sediments Data for the United States. Report
prepared by Versar, Inc. for the U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Violette, D., and L. Chestnut. 1986. Valuing Risks: New Information on the Willingness to Pay for
Changes in Fatal Risks. Report to the U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Contract No. 68-01-7047.
Viscusi, K. 1992. Fatal Tradeoffs: Public & Private Responsibilities for Risk. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Walsh, R.; D. Johnson; and J. McKean. 1990. Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of Research on
Recreational Demand. Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, Vol. 5.
R-3
-------
------- |