ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE

PROPOSED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES

FOR THE

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY

Volume I

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science and Technology

Engineering and Analysis Division

401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Charles Tamulonis

Task Manager
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER

The Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology, reviewed and approved

this report for publication. Versar, Inc. (under Contract No. 68-C-98-010) prepared this report with the

direction and review of the Office of Science and Technology. Neither the United States Government nor

any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees make any warranty, expressed or

implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of or the results of such use

of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represent that its use by such

party would not infringe on privately owned rights.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................... viii

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1

2. METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 4

2.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts ....................................... 4

2.1.1 Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria .................................................... 4

2.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities ............................ 5

2.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities ........................... 8

2.1.1.3 Assumptions and Caveats .............................. 12

2.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits ...................... 13

2.1.2.1 Carcinogenic and Systemic Human Health Risks and 

Benefits ............................................. 14

2.1.2.2 Assumptions and Caveats (Carcinogenic and Systemic 

Analyses) ........................................... 18

2.1.2.3 Lead-Related Human Health Risks and Benefits ............. 19

2.1.2.4 Assumptions and Caveats (Lead Analysis) ................. 26

2.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits ................................. 28

2.1.3.1 Assumptions and Caveats ............................. 30

2.1.4 Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits ....................... 31

2.1.4.1 Assumptions and Caveats .............................. 32

2.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity ........................................... 33

2.2.1 Identification of Pollutants of Concern ............................. 34

2.2.2 Compilation of Physical-Chemical and Toxicity Data .................. 34

2.2.3 Categorization Assessment ..................................... 39

2.2.4 Assumptions and Limitations .................................... 43

2.3 Documented Environmental Impacts .................................... 44

3. DATA SOURCES .......................................................... 45

3.1 Water Quality Impacts .............................................. 45

3.1.1 Facility-Specific Data ......................................... 45

3.1.2 Information Used To Evaluate POTW Operations ................... 46

3.1.3 Water Quality Criteria ........................................ 47

3.1.3.1 Aquatic Life ......................................... 47

3.1.3.2 Human Health ....................................... 49

3.1.4 Information Used To Evaluate Human Health Risks and Benefits ......... 52
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

3.1.5 Information Used To Evaluate Ecological Benefits .................... 53

3.1.6 Information Used To Evaluate Economic Productivity Benefits .......... 54

3.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity ........................................... 54

3.3 Documented Environmental Impacts .................................... 55

4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................... 56

4.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts ...................................... 56

4.1.1 Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality 

Criteria ................................................... 56

4.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities ............................ 56

4.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities ........................... 58

4.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits ...................... 60

4.1.2.1 Direct Discharging Facilities ............................ 60

4.1.2.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities ........................... 64

4.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits ................................. 66

4.1.3.1 Direct Discharging Facilities ............................ 67

4.1.3.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities ........................... 68

4.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity ........................................... 69

4.3 Documented Environmental Impacts .................................... 70

4.4 Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits from Proposed Effluent 

Guidelines and Standards ........................................... 71

5. REFERENCES ........................................................... R-1
iii

VOLUME II

Page No.

Appendix A Iron and Steel Facility-Specific Data ................................. A-1

Appendix B National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)

Dissolved Concentration Potentials (DCPs) ............................ B-1

Appendix C Water Quality Analysis Data Parameters .............................. C-1

Appendix D Risks and Benefits Analysis Information ............................... D-1

Appendix E Water Quality Analysis at Current (Baseline) and Proposed BAT

Treatment Levels ................................................ E-1

Appendix F Water Quality Analysis at Current (Baseline) and Proposed PSES

Treatment Levels ................................................ F-1

Appendix G POTW Analysis at Current (Baseline) and Proposed PSES

Treatment Levels ................................................ G-1

Appendix H Risks and Benefits Analyses at Current (Baseline) and Proposed BAT

Treatment Levels ................................................ H-1

Appendix I Risks and Benefits Analyses at Current (Baseline) and Proposed PSES

Treatment Levels ................................................. I-1

Appendix J Lead-Related Risks and Benefits Analyses ............................. J-1
iv

LIST OF TABLES

Page No.

Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Effects/Benefits from the Proposed Effluent Guidelines

for the Iron and Steel Industry (National Level) ............................. ix

Table 1 Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 103 Direct Discharging

Iron and Steel Facilities .............................................. 73

Table 2 Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Iron and Steel Facilities

(Sample Set) ...................................................... 74

Table 3 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Direct 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set) ............................. 75

Table 4 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set) ........................ 76

Table 5 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Direct 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (National Level) .......................... 78

Table 6 Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (56) Discharged from 47 Indirect Discharging

Iron and Steel Facilities .............................................. 79

Table 7 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Indirect 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set) ............................. 80

Table 8 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel

Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set) ....................... 81

Table 9 Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems

from Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set) ....... 82

Table 10 Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Indirect 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (National Level) ........................... 83

Table 11 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set) ......... 84
v

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page No.

Table 12 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron 

and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

(Sample Set) ...................................................... 85

Table 13 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)

(Sample Set) ...................................................... 93

Table 14 Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) 

(Sample Set) ...................................................... 94

Table 15 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set) ..... 95

Table 16 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National Level) ...... 96

Table 17 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water

Consumption) (National Level) ........................................ 97

Table 18 Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) 

(National Level) ................................................... 98

Table 19 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption) 

(National Level) ................................................... 99

Table 20 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) (Sample Set) ........ 100

Table 21 Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and

Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) 

(Sample Set) ..................................................... 101
vi

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page No.

Table 22 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel

Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water

Consumption) (Sample Set) .......................................... 102

Table 23 Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel

Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

(Sample Set) ..................................................... 103

Table 24 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption) (Sample Set) .... 104

Table 25 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National Level) ..... 105

Table 26 Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Indirect Iron and Steel

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)

(National Level) .................................................. 106

Table 27 Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel

Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption) (National

Level) .......................................................... 107

Table 28 Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect 

Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption) 

(National Level) .................................................. 108

Table 29 Summary of Ecological (Recreational and Nonuse) Benefits for Iron and Steel

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set and National Level) ........ 109

Table 30 Summary of Ecological (Recreational and Nonuse) Benefits for Iron and Steel

Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Sample Set and National Level) ....... 110

Table 31. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (70) Discharged from

103 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities ........................... 111

Table 32. Iron and Steel Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects

(Direct Dischargers) ............................................... 113
vii

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table 33. Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence 

Classifications, and Target Organs (Direct Dischargers) ..................... 114

Table 34. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (66) Discharged from

47 Indirect Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities ........................... 115

Table 35. Iron and Steel Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects 

(Indirect Dischargers) .............................................. 117

Table 36. Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence 

Classifications, and Target Organs (Indirect Dischargers) .................... 118

Table 37. Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies

Listed Under Section 303(d) of Clean Water Act (1998) .................... 119

Table 38. Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies 

with State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisories ..................... 129

Table 39. Significant Noncompliance (SNC) Rates for Iron and Steel Mills .............. 140

Table 40. Summary of Potential Effects/Benefits from the Proposed Effluent Guidelines

for the Iron and Steel Industry (National Level) ........................... 141
1

 Of a total of 254 iron and steel facilities, 56 facilities are zero dischargers, and therefore are not included in the analysis.

EPA had sufficient data to model 150 of the remaining 198 facilities. EPA used scaling techniques to extrapolate the

results of the 150 facilities to the national level of 198.

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents an environmental assessment of the water quality-related benefits that would

be expected from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) promulgation of proposed effluent

limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards for the iron and steel

point source category. EPA estimates that, under current (baseline) conditions, 198 iron and steel facilities1

discharge approximately 253 million pounds per year (lb/year) of priority and nonconventional pollutants.

The proposed rule is expected to reduce this pollutant loading by 22 percent, to 198 million lb/year. The

proposed rule is also estimated to provide annual monetized benefits ranging from $1.07 million to $2.61

million (1997 dollars). The range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of the proposed rule and

in placing a monetary value on those effects. The estimate of reported benefits also understates the total

benefits expected to result under this proposed rule. Additional benefits, which cannot be quantified in this

assessment, include improved ecological conditions, improvements to recreational activities (other than

fishing), reduced noncarcinogenic (systemic) human health hazards (other than lead), and reduced discharge

of conventional pollutants. Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental effects and benefits of the proposed

effluent guidelines and standards.
2

In performing this analysis, EPA used guidance documents published by EPA that recommend numeric human health

and aquatic life water quality criteria for numerous pollutants. States often consult these guidance documents when

adopting water quality criteria as part of their water quality standards. However, because those State-adopted criteria

may vary, EPA used the nationwide criteria guidance as the most representative values.

ix

Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits Extrapolated to National Level (198 Facilities)

(a) Ambient Water Quality Effects

EPA analyzed the environmental effects associated with discharges from 198 iron and steel

facilities. The analysis compared modeled instream pollutant concentrations to ambient water quality

criteria (AWQC)2 or to toxic effect levels. EPA estimates that current discharge loadings contribute to

instream concentrations in excess of AWQC in 269 cases at 55 receiving streams. The proposed rule is

expected to reduce the number of instream concentrations exceeding AWQC to 175 at 51 receiving

streams, allowing 4 streams to obtain “contaminant-free” status. EPA monetizes the attainment of the

contaminant-free status based on improvements in recreational fishing opportunities and on the nonuse

(intrinsic) value of the streams. The estimated monetized benefit of this improvement ranges from $0.38

million to $1.35 million (1997 dollars).
x

Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits of the Proposed Effluent

Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Industry a

Current Proposed

Rule

Summary of Benefits

Loadings (million lb/yr) b, c 253 198 22 percent reduction

Number of Instream

Excursions for Pollutants

That Exceed AWQC

269 at 55

streams

175 at 51

streams

4 streams become “contaminant-free”

d

Monetized benefits

(recreational/nonuse) = 

$0.38 to $1.35 million

Excess Annual Cancer

Casese

0.31 0.29 Reduction of 0.02 cases each year

Monetized benefits = 

$0.05 to $0.25 million

Population Potentially at

Risk to Lead Exposuree

948,000 948,000 Annual benefits:

C Reduction of 0.036 cases of adult

and neonatal premature mortality

C Prevention of aggregate loss of 57

IQ points in children

Monetized benefits =

$0.64 to $1.01 million

Population Potentially

Exposed to Other

Noncarcinogenic Health

Riskse

900 none Health effects to exposed population

eliminated 

Benefits not quantifiable

POTWs Experiencing

Inhibition

none of 61 none of 61 No baseline impacts

Improved POTW Biosolid

Quality

0 metric tons 0 metric tons No baseline impacts

Total Monetized Benefits $1.07 to 2.61 million (1997 dollars)

a. Modeled results from 103 direct and 47 indirect facilities were extrapolated to represent 198 iron and steel facilities.

b. Loadings are representative of 60 priority and nonconventional pollutants evaluated; 4 conventional pollutants and

6 nonconventional pollutants are not included.

c. Loadings account for POTW removals.

d. “Contaminant-free” from iron and steel discharges; however, potential contamination from other point source

discharges and nonpoint sources is still possible.

e. Through consumption of contaminated fish.
xi

(b) Human Health Effects

EPA estimates that carcinogens in the current discharge loadings from the 198 iron and steel

facilities could be responsible for 0.31 total excess annual cancer cases from the consumption of

contaminated fish. The proposed rule is expected to reduce the carcinogenic loadings and the estimated

excess annual cancer cases to 0.29. In addition, the proposed rule is expected to reduce lead discharges

into 104 receiving streams, reducing the potential lead-related health effects through the consumption of

lead-contaminated fish for an estimated 948,000 persons. EPA estimates that the proposed rule will

reduce lead uptake enough to avoid the aggregate loss of 57 IQ points in 18,000 children and to reduce

the number of cases of premature mortality by 0.036 in 930,000 adults and neonates. The estimated

monetized benefit of these reductions in human health effects ranges from $0.69 million to $1.26 million

(1997 dollars). EPA also projects that the proposed rule will eliminate the hazard to approximately 900

people potentially exposed to additional systemic toxicant effects from consumption of contaminated fish.

A monetary value of these benefits could not be estimated.

(c) POTW Effects

EPA estimates that none of the 61 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) considered in this

assessment are experiencing inhibition problems or impaired biosolid quality due to iron and steel

wastewater discharges. EPA therefore projects no potential economic benefits from reduced biosolid

disposal costs.

(d) Basis of Conclusions

This environmental assessment bases its conclusion of the water quality-related benefits on

aggregate site-specific analyses of current conditions and of changes expected to result from compliance

with the proposed iron and steel effluent guidelines and standards for Best Available Technology
3

Evaluations do not include the impacts of 4 conventional and 6 nonconventional pollutants when modeling the effects

of the proposed rule on receiving stream water quality and POTW operations or when evaluating the potential fate and

toxicity of discharged pollutants. The discharge of these pollutants may adversely affect human health and the

environment.

xii

Economically Achievable (BAT) and Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES). The proposed

regulations limit the discharges of pollutants into navigable waters of the United States and the introduction

of pollutants into POTWs from existing sources and from new sources in seven iron and steel

subcategories. These categories are cokemaking, steel finishing, nonintegrated steelmaking and hot

forming, integrated and stand-alone hot forming, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and other. Many iron

and steel facilities have more than one subcategory-defined production line. In these cases, loadings from

each subcategory are aggregated to estimate the combined environmental effects of the proposed rule.

Modeling Techniques

EPA employed stream dilution modeling techniques to assess the potential impacts and benefits of

the proposed effluent guidelines and standards. Using site-specific analyses, EPA estimated instream

pollutant concentrations for 60 priority and nonconventional pollutants3 under current (baseline) and

proposed treatment levels. Chapter 10 of the Technical Development Document explains more about these

estimates. EPA analyzed the effects on water quality from direct and indirect discharge operations

separately. EPA had sufficient data to analyze water quality impacts for 150 of the 198 iron and steel

facilities. EPA extrapolated the results to the national level of 198 facilities using the statistical methodology

for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. EPA combined the impacts for each of the

subcategories to estimate water quality effects as a result of the proposed rule.

EPA assessed the potential impacts and benefits in terms of effects on aquatic life, human health,

and POTW operations. EPA projected the benefits to aquatic life by comparing the modeled instream

pollutant concentrations to published EPA aquatic life criteria guidance or to toxic effect levels. EPA

projected human health benefits by (1) comparing estimated instream pollutant concentrations to health-
xiii

based toxic effect values or criteria derived using standard EPA methodology, (2) estimating the potential

reductions of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard (systemic) from consuming contaminated fish

and drinking water, and (3) estimating the potential reductions of lead exposure from consuming

contaminated fish.

The assessment estimated upper-bound individual cancer risks, population risks, and systemic

hazards using modeled instream pollutant concentrations and standard EPA assumptions. The assessment

evaluated modeled pollutant concentrations in fish and drinking water to estimate cancer risk and systemic

hazards among the general population (drinking water only), sport anglers and their families, and

subsistence anglers and their families. The assessment also evaluated modeled pollutant concentrations in

fish to estimate human health effects from exposure to lead among sport anglers and their families, and

subsistence anglers and their families. EPA assessed improvements in aquatic habitats using its findings of

reduced occurrence of instream pollutant concentrations in excess of both aquatic life and human health

criteria or toxic effect levels. EPA expects that these improvements in aquatic habitats will improve the

quality and value of recreational fishing opportunities and nonuse (intrinsic) values of the receiving streams.

The environmental assessment also evaluated the potential inhibition of POTW operations and

potential contamination of sewage biosolids (which limits its use for land application) based on current and

proposed pretreatment levels. EPA estimated inhibition of POTW operations by comparing modeled

POTW influent concentrations to available inhibition levels. EPA assessed the potential contamination of

sewage biosolids by comparing projected pollutant concentrations in sewage biosolids to available EPA

regulatory standards for land application and surface disposal of sewage biosolids.

Pollutant Fate and Toxicity

EPA identified a total of 70 pollutants of concern (28 priority pollutants, 4 conventional pollutants,

and 38 nonconventional pollutants) in waste streams from iron and steel facilities. EPA evaluated 60 of
xiv

these pollutants with sufficient data to assess their potential fate and toxicity on the basis of known

physical-chemical properties, and aquatic life and human health toxicity data.

Most of the 70 pollutants have at least one known toxic effect. EPA determined that 23 exhibit

moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 16 are classified as known or probable human carcinogens, 39 are

human systemic toxicants, 23 have drinking water values, and 28 are designated as priority pollutants. In

terms of projected partitioning among media, 16 of the evaluated pollutants are moderately to highly volatile

(potentially causing risk to exposed populations via inhalation), 25 have a moderate to high potential to

bioaccumulate in aquatic biota (potentially accumulating in the food chain and causing increased risk to

higher trophic level organisms and to exposed human populations via consumption of fish and shellfish), 18

are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids, and 8 are resistant to biodegradation or are slowly

biodegraded.

Documented Impacts

This report also summarizes documented environmental impacts on aquatic life, human health, and

receiving stream water quality. The summaries are based on a review of an EPA enforcement and

compliance report, State 303(d) lists of impaired waterbodies, and State fishing advisories. 

States identified at least 17 impaired waterbodies, with industrial point sources as a potential source

of impairment, that receive direct discharges from iron and steel facilities (and other sources). States also

issued fish consumption advisories for 12 waterbodies that receive direct discharges from iron and steel

facilities (and other sources). The advisories are for mercury, a pollutant of concern for the iron and steel

industry. Over 25 fish consumption advisories were reported in the 1997 Update of Listing of Fish and

Wildlife Advisories for waterbodies that receive wastewater discharges from iron and steel facilities.

However, the majority of advisories are for chemicals that are not pollutants of concern for the iron and

steel industry. In addition, EPA identified in its 1998 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
xv

Accomplishment Reports by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) significant

noncompliance (SNC) rates (most egregious violations under each program or statute) for iron and steel

facilities. Of the 27 integrated mills inspected in fiscal years (FY) 1996 and 1997, 26 facilities were out

of compliance with one or more statutes, and 18 facilities were in SNC. In FY 1998, of the 23 integrated

mills inspected, the number in SNC included 9 facilities for water permits, 17 facilities for air, and 7 facilities

with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) violations. SNC rates for 91 mini-mills included

19 facilities for air, 2 facilities for water permits, and 4 facilities for RCRA. Key compliance and

environmental problems included groundwater contamination from slag disposal, contaminated sediments

from steelmaking, electric arc furnace dust, unregulated sources, SNCs from recurring and single peak

violations, and no baseline testing.
1

1. INTRODUCTION

This environmental assessment quantifies the water quality-related benefits associated with

achievement of the Best Available Technology (BAT) and Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources (PSES) proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate iron

and steel facilities. Using site-specific analyses of current conditions and changes in discharges

associated with the proposed regulation, EPA estimated instream pollutant concentrations for 60

priority and nonconventional pollutants from direct and indirect discharges in seven industry

subcategories (cokemaking, steel finishing, nonintegrated steelmaking and hot forming, integrated

and stand-alone hot forming, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, and other) using stream dilution

modeling.

The assessment evaluates the potential impacts and benefits to aquatic life by comparing the

modeled instream pollutant concentrations to published EPA aquatic life criteria guidance or toxic

effect levels. The assessment evaluates the potential benefits to human health by (1) comparing

estimated instream concentrations to health-based water quality toxic effect levels or EPA’s

published water quality criteria, (2) estimating the potential reduction of carcinogenic risk and

noncarcinogenic hazard (systemic) from consuming contaminated fish or drinking water, and (3)

estimating the potential reduction of lead exposure from consuming contaminated fish. The

assessment monetizes reductions in carcinogenic risks using estimated willingness-to-pay values for

avoiding premature mortality to which monetary values can be applied. The assessment monitizes

reductions in exposure to lead based on dose-response functions related to specific health endpoints

(IQ levels in children 0-6 years and adult/neonatal premature mortality) to which monetary values

can be applied. The assessment projects potential ecological benefits, including nonuse (intrinsic)

benefits, by estimating improvements in recreational fishing habitats and, in turn, by estimating a

monetary value for enhanced recreational fishing opportunities. The assessment estimates economic

productivity benefits on the basis of reduced POTW sewage sludge contamination (e.g., reducing

contamination increases the number of allowable sludge uses or disposal options).
2

In addition, the assessment evaluates the potential fate and toxicity of pollutants of concern

associated with iron and steel wastewater on the basis of known characteristics of each chemical.

The assessment also reviews recent reports and databases for evidence of documented

environmental impacts (e.g., case studies) on aquatic life, human health, and receiving stream water

quality.

This assessment does not evaluate impacts associated with releases of 4 conventional

pollutants (biological oxygen demand [BOD], oil and grease (measured as hexane extractable

material [HEM] and silica gel-treated HEM), total suspended solids [TSS]) and 6 nonconventional

pollutants (chemical oxygen demand [COD], total organic carbon [TOC], total recoverable

phenolics, total kjeldahl nitrogen, amenable cyanide, and weak acid dissociable cyanide).

However, the discharge of these pollutants may adversely affect human health and the

environment. For example, habitat degradation may result from increased suspended particulate

matter that reduces light penetration and primary productivity or from the accumulation of sludge

particles that alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. Oil and grease can have lethal

effects on fish by coating the surface of gills and causing asphyxia, by depleting oxygen levels as

a result of excessive BOD, or by reducing stream reaeration because of surface film. Oil and

grease can also have detrimental effects on waterfowl by destroying the buoyancy and insulation

of their feathers. Bioaccumulation of oily substances can cause human health problems including

tainting of fish and bioaccumulation of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic compounds. High COD

and BOD5 levels can deplete oxygen concentrations in water, which can result in fish mortality or

other adverse effects in fish. High TOC levels may interfere with water quality by causing taste

and odor problems in water and mortality in fish.

Following this introduction, Section 2 of this report describes the methodologies used to

evaluate projected water quality impacts and projected impacts on POTW operations for direct and

indirect discharging facilities (including potential human health risks and benefits, ecological

benefits, and economic productivity benefits); to evaluate the potential fate and toxicity of pollutants

of concern; and to evaluate documented environmental impacts. Section 3 describes data sources
3

and information used to evaluate water quality impacts, such as facility-specific data; information

used to evaluate POTW operations; water quality criteria; and information used to evaluate human

health risks and benefits, ecological benefits, economic productivity benefits, pollutant fate and

toxicity, and documented environmental impacts. Section 4 provides a summary of the results of

this assessment, and Section 5 is a complete list of references cited in the report. The appendices

presented in Volume II provide additional detail on the specific information addressed in the main

report.
4

 In performing this analysis, EPA used guidance documents published by EPA that recommend numeric human health

and aquatic life water quality criteria for numerous pollutants. States often consult these guidance documents when

adopting water quality criteria as part of their water quality standards. However, because those State-adopted criteria

may vary, EPA used the nationwide criteria guidance as the most representative values.

4

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts

This assessment evaluates the water quality impacts and associated risks/benefits of iron and

steel discharges at various treatment levels by (1) comparing projected instream concentrations with

ambient water quality criteria (AWQC),4 (2) estimating the human health risks and benefits

associated with the consumption of fish and drinking water from waterbodies impacted by iron and

steel facilities, (3) estimating the ecological benefits associated with improved recreational fishing

habitats on impacted waterbodies, and (4) estimating the economic productivity benefits based on

reduced sewage sludge contamination at POTWs receiving the wastewater of iron and steel

facilities. The assessment analyzes the impacts and associated risks/benefits for a representative

sample set of 103 direct discharging facilities and 47 indirect discharging facilities. The

assessment extrapolates the results to the national level based on the statistical methodology used

for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The following sections describe the

methodologies used in this evaluation.

2.1.1 Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality Criteria

The instream concentration analysis quantifies and compares current and proposed

BAT/PSES pollutant releases and uses stream modeling techniques to evaluate potential aquatic life

and human health impacts resulting from those releases. The analysis compares projected instream

concentrations for each pollutant to EPA water quality criteria or, for pollutants for which no water

quality criteria have been developed, to toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic

concentration). The analysis also evaluates inhibition of POTW operation and sludge
5

Cis

L/OD

FF SF

x CF (Eq. 1)

contamination. Sections 2.1.1.1 through 2.1.1.3 describe the methodologies and assumptions used

for evaluating the impacts of direct and indirect discharging facilities.

2.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities

Using a stream dilution model that does not account for fate processes other than complete

immediate mixing, the analysis calculates projected instream concentrations at current and proposed

BAT treatment levels for stream segments with direct discharging facilities. For stream segments

with multiple iron and steel facilities, pollutant loadings are summed, if applicable, before

concentrations are calculated. The dilution model used for estimating instream concentrations is

as follows.

where:

Cis = instream pollutant concentration (micrograms per liter [Fg/L])

L = facility pollutant loading (pounds/year [lb/year])

OD = facility operation (days/year)

FF = facility flow (million gallons/day [gal/day])

SF = receiving stream flow (million gal/day)

CF = conversion factors for units

The analysis uses various resources, as described in Section 3.1.1 of this report, to derive

the facility-specific data (i.e., pollutant loading, operating days, facility flow, and stream flow) used

in Eq. 1. One of 3 receiving stream flow conditions (1Q10 low flow, 7Q10 low flow, and

harmonic mean flow) is used for the two treatment levels; use depends on the type of criterion or
6

Ces

L/OD

FF

x CF / DF (Eq. 2)

toxic effect level intended for comparison. To estimate potential acute and chronic aquatic life

impacts, the analysis uses the 1Q10 and 7Q10 flows, which are the lowest 1-day and the lowest

consecutive 7-day average flow during any 10-year period, respectively, as recommended in the

Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991). EPA

defines the harmonic mean flow as the inverse mean of reciprocal daily arithmetic mean flow

values. EPA recommends the long-term harmonic mean flow as the design flow for assessing

potential human health impacts because it provides a more conservative estimate than the arithmetic

mean flow. Because 7Q10 flows have no consistent relationship with the long-term mean dilution,

they are not appropriate for assessing potential human health impacts.

For assessing impacts on aquatic life, the analysis uses the facility operating days to

represent the exposure duration; the calculated instream concentration is thus the average

concentration on days the facility is discharging wastewater. For assuming long-term human health

impacts, it sets the operating days (exposure duration) at 365 days. The calculated instream

concentration is thus the average concentration on all days of the year. Although this calculation

for human health impacts leads to a lower calculated concentration because of the additional

dilution from days when the facility is not in operation, it is consistent with the conservative

assumption that the target population is present to consume drinking water and contaminated fish

every day for an entire lifetime.

Because stream flows are not available for hydrologically complex waters such as bays,

estuaries, and oceans, the analysis uses site-specific critical dilution factors (DFs) or estuarine

dissolved concentration potentials (DCPs) to predict pollutant concentrations for facilities

discharging to estuaries and bays, if applicable, as follows:
7

Ces

L x DCP x CF

BL (Eq. 3)

where:

Ces = estuary pollutant concentration (Fg/L)

L = facility pollutant loading (lb/year)

OD = facility operation (days/year)

FF = facility flow (million gal/day)

DF = critical dilution factor

CF = conversion factors for units

where:

Ces = estuary pollutant concentration (Fg/L)

L = facility pollutant loading (lb/year)

DCP = dissolved concentration potential (milligrams per liter [mg/L])

CF = conversion factor for units

BL = benchmark load (10,000 tons/year)

A survey of States and Regions conducted by EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

(OPPT), Mixing Zone Dilution Factors for New Chemical Exposure Assessments, Draft Report,

(U.S. EPA, 1992), provides the site-specific critical DFs. The analysis uses acute critical DFs to

evaluate acute aquatic life effects, whereas it uses chronic critical DFs to evaluate chronic aquatic

life or adverse human health effects. The analysis assumes that the drinking water intake and

fishing location are at the edge of the chronic mixing zone.

The Strategic Assessment Branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s (NOAA) Ocean Assessments Division developed DCPs based on freshwater

inflow and salinity gradients to predict pollutant concentrations in each estuary in the National

Estuarine Inventory (NEI) Data Atlas. NOAA applies these DCPs to predict concentrations.

NOAA did not consider pollutant fate and designated the DCPs to simulate concentrations of

nonreactive dissolved substances under well-mixed steady-state conditions given an annual load of

10,000 tons. In addition, the DCPs reflect the predicted estuary-wide response and may not be
8

Cis (L/OD) x

(1 TMT) x CF

PF SF

(Eq. 4)

indicative of site-specific locations.

The analysis determines potential impacts on freshwater quality by comparing projected

instream pollutant concentrations (Eq. 1) at reported facility flows, 1Q10 and 7Q10 low flows, and

harmonic mean receiving stream flows with EPA AWQC or toxic effect levels for the protection

of aquatic life and human health. The analysis compares projected estuary pollutant concentrations

(Eq. 2 and Eq. 3), based on critical DFs or DCPs, to EPA AWQC or toxic effect levels to

determine impacts. To determine water quality criteria excursions, the analysis divides the

projected instream or estuary pollutant concentration by the EPA water quality criteria or toxic

effect levels. A value greater than 1.0 indicates an excursion.

2.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities

The analysis uses a 2-stage process to assess the impacts of indirect discharging facilities.

First, water quality impacts are evaluated as described in subsection (a) below. Next, impacts on

POTWs are considered as described in subsection (b).

(a) Water Quality Impacts

Using a stream dilution model that does not account for a fate process other than complete

immediate mixing, the analysis calculates projected instream concentrations at current and proposed

PSES treatment levels for stream segments receiving wastewaters from indirect discharging

facilities. For stream segments with multiple iron and steel facilities, pollutant loadings are

summed, if applicable, before concentrations are calculated. The dilution model used for estimating

instream concentrations is as follows:
9

Ces

L/OD x (1 TMT)

PF

x CF / DF (Eq. 5)

Ces

L x (1 TMT) x DCP x CF

BL

(Eq. 6)

where:

Cis = instream pollutant concentration (Fg/L)

L = facility pollutant loading (lb/year)

OD = facility operation (days/year)

TMT = POTW treatment removal efficiency

PF = POTW flow (million gal/day)

SF = receiving stream flow (million gal/day)

CF = conversion factors for units

The analysis uses various resources, as described in Section 3.1.1 of this report, to derive

the facility-specific data (i.e., pollutant loading, operating days, facility flow, and stream flow) used

in Eq. 4. One of 3 receiving stream flow conditions (1Q10 low flow, 7Q10 low flow, and

harmonic mean flow) is used for the two treatment levels. The analysis uses site-specific critical

DFs or estuarine DCPs to predict pollutant concentrations for facilities discharging to estuaries and

bays, if applicable, as follows:

where:

Ces = estuary pollutant concentration (Fg/L)

L = facility pollutant loading (lb/year)

OD = facility operation (days/year)

TMT = POTW treatment removal efficiency

PF = POTW flow (million gal/day)

DF = critical dilution factor

CF = conversion factors for units

where:
10

Ces = estuary pollutant concentration (Fg/L)

L = facility pollutant loading (lb/year)

TMT = POTW treatment removal efficiency

DCP = dissolved concentration potential (mg/L)

CF = conversion factors for units

BL = benchmark load (10,000 tons/year)

The analysis determines potential impacts on freshwater quality by comparing projected

instream pollutant concentrations (Eq. 4) at reported POTW flows, 1Q10 and 7Q10 low flows, and

harmonic mean receiving stream flows with EPA AWQC or toxic effect levels for the protection

of aquatic life and human health. The analysis compares projected estuary pollutant concentrations

(Eq. 5 and Eq. 6), based on critical DFs or DCPs, to EPA AWQC or toxic effect levels to

determine impacts. To determine water quality criteria excursions, the analysis divides the

projected instream or estuary pollutant concentration by the EPA AWQC or toxic effect levels.

(See Section 2.1.1.1 for discussion of stream flow conditions, application of DFs or DCPs,

assignment of exposure duration, and comparison with criteria or toxic effect levels.) A value

greater than 1.0 indicates an excursion.

(b) Impacts on POTWs

The analysis calculates impacts on POTW operations in terms of inhibition of POTW

processes (i.e., inhibition of microbial degradation processes) and contamination of POTW sludges.

Contamination is defined as a pollutant concentration that exceeds the levels at which sewage

sludge may be land applied or surface disposed under 40 CFR Part 503. To determine inhibition

of POTW operations, the analysis divides calculated POTW influent levels (Eq. 7) by chemicalspecific inhibition threshold levels. Excursions are indicated by a value greater than 1.0.
11

Cpi

L/OD

PF

x CF (Eq. 7)

Csp Cpix TMT x PART x SGF (Eq. 8)

where:

Cpi = POTW influent concentration (Fg/L)

L = facility pollutant loading (lb/year)

OD = facility operation (days/year)

PF = POTW flow (million gal/day)

CF = conversion factors for units

The analysis evaluates contamination levels of sludge (and thus its use for land application, etc.)

by dividing projected pollutant concentrations in sludge (Eq. 8) by available EPA-developed criteria

values for sludge. A value greater than 1.0 indicates an excursion.

where:

Csp = sludge pollutant concentration (milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg])

Cpi = POTW influent concentration (Fg/L)

TMT = POTW treatment removal efficiency

PART = chemical-specific sludge partition factor

SGF = sludge generation factor (5.96 parts per million [ppm])

The analysis derives facility-specific data and information used to evaluate POTWs from

the sources described in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. For facilities that discharge to the same POTW,

the analysis sums their individual loadings, if applicable, before calculating the POTW influent and

sludge concentrations.

The partition factor is a measure of the tendency for the pollutant to partition in sludge

when it is removed from wastewater. For predicting sludge generation, the model assumes that

1,400 pounds of sludge are generated for each 1 million gallons of wastewater processed (Metcalf

& Eddy, Inc.,1972). This results in a sludge generation factor of 5.96 mg/kg per Fg/L (i.e., for

every 1 Fg/L of pollutant removed from wastewater and partitioned to sludge, the concentration
12

in sludge is 5.96 mg/kg dry weight).

2.1.1.3 Assumptions and Caveats

The instream and POTW analyses assume the following:

C Background concentrations of each pollutant, both in the receiving stream and in

the POTW influent, are equal to zero; therefore, the analysis evaluates only the

impacts of discharging facilities.

C The analysis uses an exposure duration of 365 days to determine the likelihood of

actual excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels.

C 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.

C The intake process water and noncontact cooling water at each facility, and the

water discharged to a POTW, are obtained from a source other than the receiving

stream for 29 iron and steel facilities as identified in the facility questionnaire; all

other noncontact cooling waters and process waters are obtained from the receiving

stream.

C The stream dilution model includes the process water and noncontact cooling water

in estimating the instream concentrations only for those facilities whose waters are

obtained from a source other than the receiving stream.

C The pollutant load to the receiving stream is continuous and is representative of

long-term facility operations. These assumptions may overestimate risks to human

health and aquatic life, but may underestimate potential short-term effects.

C The analysis uses 1Q10 and 7Q10 receiving stream flow rates to estimate aquatic

life impacts; harmonic mean flow rates are used to estimate human health impacts.

It estimates 1Q10 low flows using the results of a regression analysis of 1Q10 and

7Q10 flows from representative U.S. rivers and streams conducted by Versar, Inc.,

for EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) (Versar, 1992).

Harmonic mean flows are estimated from the mean and 7Q10 flows as

recommended in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics

Control (U.S. EPA, 1991). These flows may not be the same as those used by
13

specific States to assess impacts.

C The analysis adjusts the 7Q10 receiving stream flow rate to equal the facility or

POTW flow rate for receiving streams where the facility or POTW flow rate is

greater than the 7Q10 flow rate.

C The analysis assumes effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT treatment

levels are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current treatment levels for

those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never detected above

minimum levels or where there is a projected reduction in flow but not a projected

reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

C 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).

C The analysis assigns a removal efficiency of zero to pollutants without a specific

POTW treatment removal efficiency value (provided by EPA or found in the

literature). Pollutants without a specific partition factor are assigned a value of

zero.

C Sludge criteria levels are available for only 7 pollutants: arsenic, cadmium, copper,

lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc.

C The analysis uses AWQC or toxic effect levels developed for freshwater organisms

for facilities discharging to estuaries or bays.

2.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits

The analysis evaluates the potential benefits to human health by estimating the risks

(carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic hazard [systemic]) associated with reducing pollutant levels in

fish tissue and drinking water from current to proposed treatment levels. EPA monetizes the

reduction in carcinogenic risks using estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding premature

mortality. The analysis also evaluates the potential benefits to human health by estimating blood

lead levels associated with reducing lead levels in fish tissue. EPA monetizes this reduction using

estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding a decrease in a child’s intelligence quotient (IQ)

and avoiding premature adult and neonatal mortality. Sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2 describe the
14

LADD (C x IR x BCF x F x D ) / ( BW x LT ) (Eq. 9)

methodology and assumptions used to evaluate the human health risks and benefits (carcinogenic

and systemic) from the consumption of fish tissue and drinking water derived from waterbodies

impacted by direct and indirect discharging facilities. Sections 2.1.2.3 and 2.1.2.4 describe the

methodology and assumptions used to evaluate lead-related human health risks and benefits from

the consumption of fish tissue derived from the same waterbodies.

2.1.2.1 Carcinogenic and Systemic Human Health Risks and Benefits

(a) Fish Tissue

To determine the potential benefits, in terms of reduced cancer cases, associated with

reducing pollutant levels in fish tissue, the analysis estimates lifetime average daily doses (LADDs)

and individual risk levels for each pollutant discharged from a facility on the basis of the instream

pollutant concentrations calculated at current and proposed BAT/PSES treatment levels in the sitespecific stream dilution analysis (see Section 2.1.1). EPA presents estimates for sport anglers and

their families, and subsistence anglers and their families. LADDs are calculated as follows:

where:

LADD = potential lifetime average daily dose (milligrams per kilogram per

day [mg/kg-day])

C = exposure concentration (mg/L)

IR = ingestion rate (see Section 2.1.2.2, Assumptions)

BCF = bioconcentration factor (liters per kilogram [L/kg]; whole body x 0.5)

F = frequency duration (365 days/year)

D = exposure duration (70 years)

BW = body weight (70 kg)

LT = lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)

Individual risks are calculated as follows:
5

 These estimates, however, do not represent the willingness to pay to avoid the certainty of death.

15

R LADD x SF (Eq. 10)

where:

R = individual risk level

LADD = potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)

SF = cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)-1

The analysis then applies the estimated individual pollutant risk levels to the potentially

exposed populations of sport anglers and subsistence anglers to estimate the potential number of

excess annual cancer cases occurring over the life of the population. It then sums the number of

excess cancer cases on a pollutant, facility, and overall industry basis. The analysis assumes the

number of reduced cancer cases to be the difference between the estimated risks at current and

proposed BAT/PSES treatment levels.

EPA estimates a monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases using

estimates of society’s willingness to pay to avoid the risk of cancer-related premature mortality.

Although it is not certain that all cancer cases will result in death, to develop a worst-case estimate,

this analysis values avoided cancer cases on the basis of avoided mortality. To value mortality, the

analysis uses a range of values recommended by an EPA Office of Policy Analysis (OPA) review

of studies quantifying individuals’ willingness to pay to avoid risks to life (Fisher, Chestnut, and

Violette, 1989; and Violette and Chestnut, 1986). The reviewed studies used hedonic wage and

contingent valuation analyses in labor markets to estimate the amounts that individuals are willing

to pay to avoid slight increases in risk of mortality or the amount they will need to be compensated

to accept a slight increase in risk of mortality. The willingness-to-pay values estimated in those

studies are associated with small changes in the probability of mortality. To estimate a willingness

to pay for avoiding certain or high-probability mortality events, EPA extrapolated the estimated

values for a 100 percent probability event.5 EPA uses the resulting estimates of the value of a
16

HQ ORI/RfD (Eq. 11)

“statistical life saved” to value regulatory effects that are expected to reduce the incidence of

mortality.

From this review of willingness-to-pay studies, OPA recommends a range of $1.6 to $8.5

million (1986 dollars) for valuing an avoided event of premature mortality or a statistical life saved.

A more recent survey of value-of-life studies by Viscusi (1992) also supports this range with the

finding that value-of-life estimates are clustered in the range of $3 to $7 million (1990 dollars). For

this analysis, the figures recommended in the OPA study are adjusted to 1997 using the relative

change in the Employment Cost Index of Total Compensation for All Civilian Workers from 1986

to 1997 (49 percent). Using the change in nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) instead of

change in inflation as the basis for adjustment in the willingness-to-pay values accounts for the

expectation that willingness-to-pay to avoid risk is a normal economic good, and that, accordingly,

society’s willingness to pay to avoid risk will increase as national income increases. Updating to

1997 dollars yields a range of $2.4 to $12.6 million.

The analysis estimates potential reductions in risks due to reproductive, developmental, or

other chronic and subchronic toxic effects by comparing the estimated lifetime average daily dose

and the oral reference dose (RfD) for a given chemical pollutant as follows:

where:

HQ = hazard quotient

ORI = oral intake (LADD x BW, mg/day)

RfD = reference dose (mg/day assuming a body weight of 70 kg)

The analysis then calculates a hazard index (i.e., sum of individual pollutant hazard

quotients) for each facility or receiving stream. A hazard index greater than 1.0 indicates that toxic

effects may occur in exposed populations. The analysis then sums and compares the sizes of the

affected subpopulations at current and proposed BAT/PSES treatment levels to assess benefits in
17

LADD (C x IR x F x D ) / ( BW x LT ) (Eq. 12)

terms of reduced systemic toxicity. Although the analysis could not estimate the monetary value

of benefits to society associated with a reduction in the number of individuals exposed to pollutant

levels that are likely to result in systemic health effects, it expects any reduction in risk will yield

human health-related benefits.

(b) Drinking Water

The analysis determines potential benefits associated with reducing pollutant levels in

drinking water in a manner similar to that used for fish tissue. The analysis calculates LADDs for

drinking water consumption as follows:

where:

LADD = potential lifetime average daily dose (mg/kg-day)

C = exposure concentration (mg/L)

IR = ingestion rate (2L/day)

F = frequency duration (365 days/year)

D = exposure duration (70 years)

BW = body weight (70 kg)

LT = lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year)

The analysis applies estimated individual pollutant risk levels greater than 10-6 (1E-6) to the

populations served by any drinking water utilities within 50 miles downstream of each discharge

site to determine the number of excess annual cancer cases that may occur during the life of the

population. It evaluates systemic toxicant effects by estimating the sizes of populations exposed to

pollutants from a given facility, the sum of whose individual hazard quotients yields a hazard index

greater than 1.0. If applicable, EPA estimates a monetary value of benefits to society from avoided

cancer cases, as described above in subsection (a).
18

2.1.2.2 Assumptions and Caveats (Carcinogenic and Systemic Analyses)

The analyses of human health risks and benefits use the following assumptions:

C A linear relationship exists between pollutant loading reductions and benefits

attributed to the cleanup of surface waters.

C The analysis does not assess synergistic effects of multiple chemicals on aquatic

ecosystems; therefore, the total benefit of reducing toxics may be underestimated.

C EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) recently recommended that the value of a

statistical life (VSL) be adjusted downward using a discount factor to account for

latency in cases (such as cancer) where there is a lag between exposure and

mortality. This adjustment was not performed in the current analysis because EPA

requires more information to estimate latency periods associated with cancers caused

by iron and steel pollutants. For example, the risk assessments for several

pollutants are based on data from animal bioassays; these data are not sufficiently

reliable to estimate a latency period for humans.

C The analysis estimates the total number of individuals who might consume

recreationally caught fish and the number who rely on fish on a subsistence basis

in each State, in part by assuming that these anglers regularly share their catch with

family members; therefore, the number of anglers in each State is multiplied by the

State’s average household size. The analysis does not include benefits to the

general population because the location of facilities in relation to commercial

fisheries is unknown.

C Subsistence anglers make up 5 percent of the resident anglers in a given State; the

other 95 percent are sport anglers.

C Recreationally valuable species occur or are taken in the vicinity of the discharges

included in the evaluation.

C The analysis of fish tissue uses ingestion rates of 12.1 grams per day for sport

anglers and 124.1 grams per day for subsistence anglers (U.S. EPA, 2000a).

These ingestion rates are based on uncooked fish weights and use data from all ages

of the population surveyed. They represent the 90th and the 99th percentiles,

respectively, of the empirical distribution of the U.S. per capita freshwater/estuarine

finfish and shellfish consumption, and do not include the consumption of marine

fish.
6

 The analysis does not consider potential benefits associated with reducing lead levels in drinking water. EPA has

issued a drinking water standard for lead and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems will reduce

19

C 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.

C The analysis estimates the sizes of populations potentially exposed to discharges to

rivers or estuaries that border more than one State using only populations within the

State in which the facility is located.

C The analysis estimates the size of the population potentially exposed to fish caught

in an impacted waterbody in a given State using the ratio of impacted river miles

to total river miles or of impacted estuary square miles to total estuary square miles.

The number of miles potentially impacted by a facility’s discharge is 50 miles for

rivers and the total surface area of the various estuarine zones for estuaries.

C When estimating the pollutant concentration in drinking water or fish, the analysis

does not consider pollutant fate processes (e.g., sediment adsorption, volatilization,

hydrolysis); consequently, estimated concentrations are environmentally

conservative (higher).

2.1.2.3 Lead-Related Human Health Risks and Benefits

Research has shown that the ingestion of lead may cause adverse health effects in children

and adults. Elevated blood levels in children may impair intellectual development as measured by

reduced IQ levels. Ingestion of lead by adults may cause numerous cardiovascular problems

including hypertension, coronary heart disease, and strokes. These ailments may cause premature

death, particularly in adults 40-74 years of age. In addition, elevated blood lead levels in pregnant

women may increase the risk of neonatal mortality due to decreased gestational age and low

birthweight.

EPA estimates the potential benefits of reduced lead exposure (resulting from reduced

consumption of contaminated fish tissue) associated with reduced neurological and cognitive effects

in children (0-6 years of age) as well as reduced cases of premature adult (40-74 years of age) and

neonatal mortality.6 This analysis of lead-related health effects is based on dose-response functions
concentrations below adverse effect thresholds.

20

related to specific health endpoints to which monetary values can be applied. EPA uses the

methodologies developed for assessing human health risks from lead at Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)/RCRA sites (U.S. EPA,

1996a) and for estimating the benefits of the Clean Air Act (U.S. EPA, 1997a). EPA presents

estimates for children living in sport and subsistence anglers households, prenatal children, and

adult men/women sport and subsistence anglers.

(a) Children’s Health Risks and Benefits - IQ Levels

To determine the potential benefits to children in terms of reduced lead exposure (associated

with reducing lead levels in fish tissue), the analysis first estimates the instream lead concentrations

at current and proposed BAT/PSES treatment levels (see Section 2.1.1). The analysis then projects

the average daily doses (ADDs) for lead based on the instream concentrations, the bioconcentration

factor for lead, and fish consumption rates for children, as follows:

ADD (Eq. 13)

C x IR x BCF

CF

where:

ADD = potential average daily dose (Fg/day)

C = exposure concentration (Fg/L)

IR = ingestion rate for children (see Section 2.1.2.4, Assumptions)

BCF = bioconcentration factor for lead (49 L/kg)

CF = conversion factors for units

The analysis estimates the changes in blood lead levels resulting from the changes in

environmental lead levels by using EPA’s Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model

for Lead in Children (U.S. EPA, 1994). This model allows the user to estimate the geometric
21

mean blood lead concentration for a hypothetical child or populations of children. Using the

estimated ADD, the model estimates a plausible distribution of blood lead concentrations centered

on the geometric mean (GM) blood lead concentration.

The analysis then applies the change in the estimated geometric mean blood lead level (from

current to proposed BAT/PSES) to the potentially exposed child populations by multiplying the

estimated populations of sport anglers and subsistence anglers by the corresponding estimated

percentage of children in the anglers’ families. The analysis uses the Statistical Abstract of the

United States: 1997 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997) to estimate the percentage of the population

between 0 and 6 years of age (10.31 percent). The analysis estimates the change in children’s IQ

levels as follows:

(Avoided Loss of IQ Points) ÎGM x 1.117 x 0.25 x (POP/7) (Eq. 14)

where:

(Avoided Loss of IQ Points) = total reduction of IQ points in affected population

aGM = change in the geometric mean of affected populations’ blood lead levels

1.117 = ratio between the expected value (mean) of the distribution and the

geometric mean

0.25 = decrease in IQ points expected for every 1 Fg/dL increase in blood lead

level

POP = number of affected children (0-6 years of age) in anglers’ families

7 = exposure duration (7 years)

EPA estimates a monetary value of benefits to society from avoided loss of IQ points to

approximate society’s willingness-to-pay to avoid the loss. To value the loss of IQ points, the

analysis considers the effects of IQ loss on decreased present value of expected lifetime earnings.

Reduced IQ has direct and indirect effects on earnings. The direct effects are decreased job

attainment and performance. Indirect effects include reduced years of schooling and reduced labor

force participation. The analysis models the overall impact from a one-point reduction in IQ as a

sum of these direct and indirect effects on lifetime earnings.
22

Using 1992 Bureau of the Census data on earnings, the adjusted value of expected lifetime

earnings equals the present value for an individual entering the labor force at age 18 and working

until age 67. Given a three percent social discount rate and current survival probabilities, and the

assumption that real wages grow one percent per year, the analysis uses the present value of

lifetime earnings of a person born today in the United States as presented in Economic,

Environmental, and Benefits Assessment of the Proposed Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M)

Regulation (U.S. EPA, 2000b). The value is adjusted to $412,000 (1997 dollars) using the

Consumer Pricing Index (CPI). EPA then estimates the total effect of IQ on earnings by

combining the value of lifetime earnings ($412,000, 1997 dollars) with the estimate of percent

wage loss per IQ point of 2.626 percent (U.S. EPA, 2000b). This results in $10,820 (1997

dollars) per IQ point.

The analysis further adjusts the effect of IQ on earnings by valuing the cost of education.

The increase in lifetime earnings from additional education equals the gross return on education.

The cost of the education must be subtracted from the gross return to obtain the net increase in

earnings from additional education. The cost of education has two components: the direct cost of

the education and the opportunity cost of lost income during the education. In this analysis, EPA

uses the U.S. Department of Education’s reported $7,299 average per-student annual expenditure

in public primary and secondary schools in 1996-1997 as an estimate of the educational cost (U.S.

Department of Education, 2000). Using the estimated effect of IQ on educational attainment

(0.1007 years/IQ point) (U.S. EPA, 2000b), the estimated cost of an additional 0.1007 years of

education per IQ point is $735 (i.e., 0.1007 x $7,299). The average level of educational

attainment in the population over age 25 is 12.9 years. The marginal educational cost is, therefore,

assumed to occur at age 19, resulting in a discounted present value cost of $420 (1997 dollars).

The opportunity cost of lost income is the difference between full-time and part-time earnings. The

analysis uses the discounted value of lost income associated with being in school an additional

0.1007 years, as presented in Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Assessment of the Proposed

Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Regulation (U.S. EPA, 2000b). The value is adjusted

to $690 (1997 dollars) at age zero using the CPI.
23

Subtracting the education ($420, 1997 dollars) and opportunity costs ($690, 1997 dollars)

from the percent wage loss per IQ point of $10,820 (1997 dollars) results in a value of $9,710

(1997 dollars) per IQ point.

(b) Neonatal and Adult Health Risks and Benefits - Mortality

A number of studies (U.S. EPA, 1990a) have linked fetal exposure to lead to several

adverse health effects. These effects include premature birth, reduced birth weight, late fetal death,

and increases in infant mortality. In 1991, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) developed a

methodology to estimate changes in infant mortality due to changes in maternal blood lead levels

during pregnancy. Combining the relationship of gestational age as a function of maternal blood

level and infant mortality as a function of gestational age results in a decreased risk of infant

mortality of 0.0001 for each 1 Fg/dL decrease in maternal blood lead level during pregnancy (U.S.

EPA, 1997a). EPA uses the estimated willingness-to-pay values for avoiding a mortality to

estimate the monetary benefit associated with risks of neonatal mortality. The neonatal percentage

of the population of sport and subsistence anglers’ families (1.48 percent) is based on the average

birth rate in the United States in 1995 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997). The estimates of the

value of a statistical life range from $2.4 to $12.6 million (1997 dollars) (see Section 2.1.2.1).

The health effects of lead exposure in adults, included in the benefits analysis, are based

only on lead’s effects on blood pressure (BP) as it relates to premature mortality. The estimated

relationship between this health effect and lead exposure differs between men and women.

EPA estimates the potential health benefits to adults using a methodology similar to that used

in estimating health benefits to children. The analysis first estimates the instream lead

concentrations at current and proposed BAT/PSES treatment levels (see Section 2.1.1). The

analysis then projects the changes in the blood level distribution in the affected adult population by

modifying the dose-response relationship recommended in EPA’s Recommendations of the

Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with
24

Adult Exposure to Lead in Soil (U.S. EPA, 1996a). The modified Interim Guidance equation is

as follows:

PbB (Eq. 15) adult, central PbBadult,0

PbC x BCF x IR AF BKSF F CF

AT

where:

PbBadult, central = central estimate of blood lead level concentrations (Fg/dL)

PbBadult,0 = typical blood level concentration (Fg/dL) in adults in the absence of

exposures via fish consumption (2.0 Fg/dL, U.S. EPA, 1996a)

PbC = exposure concentration (Fg/L)

BCF = bioconcentration factor (49 L/kg)

IR = ingestion rate (g/day)

AF = absolute gastrointestinal absorption fraction (0.03, Maddaloni et

al., 1998)

BKSF = biokinetic slope factor relating (quasi-steadystate) increases in typical

adult blood level concentrations to average daily lead uptake (0.4

Fg/dL PbB increase per Fg/day lead uptake)

F = frequency duration (days/year)

AT = averaging time (365 days/year)

CF = conversion factor

The analysis then quantifies the effect of blood lead levels on changes in BP to predict the

probability of premature mortality in men and women using the following equations:

ÎDBP (Eq. 16) men 1.4 x ln

PbB1

PbB2

where:

ÎDBPmen = change in men’s diastolic BP expected from change in blood lead

levels

1.4 = coefficient relating blood pressure to blood lead level

PbB1 = blood lead level at current discharge levels (Fg/dL)

PbB2 = blood lead level at proposed BAT/PSES discharge levels (Fg/dL)
25

ÎDBPwomen (0.6 x 1.4) x ln (Eq. 17)

PbB1

PbB2

where:

ÎDBPwomen = change in women’s diastolic BP expected from change in blood lead

levels

0.6 = percent change in blood pressure of women versus men

1.4 = coefficient relating blood pressure to blood lead level

PbB1 = blood lead level at current discharge levels (Fg/dL)

PbB2 = blood lead level at proposed BAT/PSES discharge levels (Fg/dL)

The analysis quantifies the relationship between blood pressure and premature mortality for

men and women as follows:

(Eq. 18) ÎPr(MORTmen

)

1

1 e

a b DBP2

1

1 e

a b DBP1

where:

ÎPr(MORTmen) = change in two-year probability of death in men

a, b = coefficients which vary by age group (see Section 2.1.2.4,

Assumptions)

DBP1 = mean diastolic blood pressure at proposed BAT/PSES levels (80)

DBP2 = mean diastolic blood pressure at current discharge levels (DBP1

+ ÎDBPmen)

(Eq. 19) ÎPr(MORTwomen

)

1

1 e

5.40374 0.01511 DBP2

1

1 e

5.40374 0.01511 DBP1

where:

ÎPr(MORTwomen) = change in two-year probability of death in women

DBP1 = mean diastolic blood pressure at proposed BAT/PSES levels (80)

DBP2 = mean diastolic blood pressure at current discharge levels (DBP1

+ ÎDBPwomen)

5.40374/0.01511 = coefficients for women 45 to 74

EPA monetizes the reductions in premature mortality for men by first estimating the changes
26

in annual probability of premature mortality for men in three different age groups (40-54, 55-64,

65-74). EPA then calculates avoided premature death cases by multiplying the estimated change

in annual probability of premature mortality by the relevant population of men (sport and

subsistence anglers). The analysis uses the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997 (U.S.

Bureau of the Census, 1997) to estimate the percentages of the population that fall into the various

age groups (men 40-54 = 9.86 percent; men 55-64 = 3.83 percent; and men 65-74 = 3.14

percent). Changes in premature mortality are valued based on the value of a statistical life saved.

Estimates of this value ranges from $2.4 to $12.6 million (1997 dollars) and is based on the

willingness-to-pay to avoid the risk of death (see Section 2.1.2.1). EPA monetizes the reductions

in premature mortality for women using the same methodology. The analysis for women uses

14.35 percent as the percentage of the population that falls into the 45-74 age group.

2.1.2.4 Assumptions and Caveats (Lead Analysis)

In addition to the assumptions presented in Section 2.1.2.2, the analyses of lead-related

human health risks and benefits use the following assumptions:

• Currently, quantitative dose-response functions for most health effects associated

with lead exposure do not exist. Therefore, these analyses do not provide a

comprehensive estimate of health benefits from reduced lead discharges from iron

and steel facilities.

• EPA estimates the health risks and monetary benefits for reduced IQ levels in

children using the methodology and equations presented in EPA’s The Benefits and

Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to 1990. (U.S. EPA, 1997a)

• The children’s health risks and benefits analysis uses the following fish tissue

ingestion rates for children in sport anglers’ families (U.S. EPA, 1997b):
27

Age Rate (g/day)

0.5-1 3.3579

1-2 4.1697

2-3 4.9077

3-4 5.6457

4-5 6.4206

5-6 7.2693

6-7 6.2376

Ingestion rates for children of subsistence anglers are obtained by multiplying the

recreational rates by a factor of 10, the ratio of ingestion rates for subsistence

(124.1 g/day) to sport anglers (12.1 g/day).

• The children’s health risks and benefits analysis does not consider all lead-related

health effects. Health effects not quantified include fetal effects from maternal

exposure (diminished IQ and reduced birth weight), low IQ, permanent brain

structure changes, slowed/delayed growth, delinquent and antisocial behavior,

metabolic effects, impaired hearing, probable cancer, and lead effects in children

over 6 years of age. Additional benefits not quantified include costs of lead

screening, medical treatment, and special education. Therefore, this analysis does

not provide a comprehensive estimate of children’s health benefits from reduced

lead discharges from iron and steel facilities.

• The population of children affected by increased lead exposure up to age 6 is

divided by 7 to avoid double counting the results from the IEUBK model. This

creates some undercounting because in the first year of the analysis children ages

1-6 are not accounted for, while presumably they are affected by lead exposure.

• Lead bioavailability varies across chemical forms in which lead can exist and is

influenced by many factors including nutritional status and timing of meals. EPA

uses the default media-specific bioavailability in the IEUBK model for the children’s

health risks and benefits analysis.

• When exposure and uptake values are not specified, the IEUBK model provides

default values. EPA uses the same default values at current and proposed

BAT/PSES discharge levels to characterize exposure rates for pathways other than

fish consumption (i.e., air, dust, soil, water). Therefore, the analysis estimates only

blood lead levels attributable to the consumption of lead-contaminated fish.

• The probability of adult male mortality (as shown in Eq. 18) is calculated using the

following coefficients: for ages 40-54, a = 5.3158 and b = 0.03516; for ages 55-

64, a = 4.89528 and b = 0.01866; and for ages 65-74, a = 3.05723 and b =
28

0.00547 (U.S. EPA, 1997a).

• EPA estimates the health risks and monetary benefits for reduced premature adult

and neonatal mortality using the methodology and equations contained in

Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim

Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil. (U.S.

EPA, 1996a) and in EPA’s The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to

1990 (U.S. EPA, 1997a).

• The analyses presented in this report do not account for increased risks of

hypertension, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular accidents, and brain

infractions associated with increased blood lead levels, so the overall benefits from

reduced lead discharges from iron and steel facilities are underestimated.

• In estimating blood pressure changes, EPA assumes that a diastolic level of 80 is

representative of a normal adult (American Heart Association, 2000).

• A gastrointestinal absorption fraction of 0.03 is used for lead ingested in fish tissue

based on a recent study (Maddaloni et al., 1998). This value is a reasonable

estimate for most adults. This analysis does not address individuals who are at

unusually high risk (e.g., pregnant women, individuals with poor nutritional habits,

and individuals with metabolic disorders).

2.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits

The analysis evaluates the potential ecological benefits of the final regulation by estimating

improvements in the recreational fishing habitats that are adversely impacted by iron and steel

wastewater discharges. The analysis first identifies stream segments in which the proposed

regulation is expected to eliminate all occurrences of pollutant concentrations in excess of both

aquatic life and human health AWQC or toxic effect levels (see Section 2.1.1). The analysis

expects that the elimination of pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC will result in significant

improvements in aquatic habitats, which will then improve the quality and value of recreational

fishing opportunities. The estimate of the monetary value to society of improved recreational

fishing opportunities is based on the concept of a “contaminant-free fishery” as presented by Lyke

(1993).
7

 Consumer surplus is generally recognized as the best measure from a theoretical basis for valuing the net economic

welfare or benefit to consumers from consuming a particular good or service. An increase or decrease in consumer

surplus for particular goods or services as the result of regulation is a primary measure of the gain or loss in consumer

welfare resulting from the regulation.

29

Research by Lyke (1993) shows that anglers may place a significantly higher value on a

contaminant-free fishery than a fishery with some level of contamination. Specifically, Lyke

estimates the consumer surplus7 associated with Wisconsin’s recreational Lake Michigan trout and

salmon fishery, and the additional value of the fishery if it was completely free of contaminants

affecting aquatic life and human health. Two analyses form the basis of Lyke’s results:

1. A multiple-site, trip-generation, travel cost model was used to estimate net benefits

associated with the fishery under baseline conditions (i.e., contaminated).

2. A contingent valuation model was used to estimate willingness-to-pay values for the

fishery if it was free of contaminants.

Both analyses used data collected from licensed anglers before the 1990 season. The estimated

incremental-benefit values associated with freeing the fishery of contaminants range from 11.1

percent to 31.3 percent of the value of the fishery under current conditions.

To estimate the gain in value of stream segments identified as showing improvements in

aquatic habitats as a result of the final regulation, the analysis estimates the baseline recreational

fishery value of the stream segments on the basis of estimated annual person-days of fishing per

segment and estimated values per person-day of fishing. To calculate annual person-days of fishing

per segment, the analysis uses estimates of the affected (exposed) recreational fishing populations

(see Section 2.1.2). The analysis then multiplies the number of anglers by estimates of the average

number of fishing days per angler in each State to estimate the total number of fishing days for

each segment. The analysis calculates the baseline value for each fishery by multiplying the

estimated total number of fishing days by an estimate of the net benefit that anglers receive from
30

a day of fishing, where net benefit represents the total value of the fishing day, exclusive of any

fishing-related costs (license fee, travel costs, bait, etc.) incurred by the angler. This analysis uses

a range of median net benefit values for warm-water and cold-water fishing days ($31.68 and

$40.12, respectively, in 1997 dollars). Summing all benefitting stream segments provides a total

baseline recreational fishing value of stream segments that are expected to benefit by elimination

of pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC.

To estimate the increase in value resulting from elimination of pollutant concentrations in

excess of AWQC, the analysis multiplies the baseline value for benefitting stream segments by the

incremental gain in value associated with achievement of the “contaminant-free” condition. Using

Lyke’s estimated increase in value, from 11.1 to 31.3 percent, multiplying the baseline value by

these values yields a range of the expected increase in value for stream segments that are expected

to benefit by elimination of pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC.

In addition, EPA expects nonuse (intrinsic) benefits to the general public as a result of the

improvements in water quality described above. These nonuse benefits (option values, aesthetics,

existence values, and request values) are based on the premise that individuals who never visit or

otherwise use a natural resource might nevertheless be affected by changes in its status or quality

(Fisher and Raucher, 1984). Nonuse benefits are not associated with current use of the affected

ecosystem or habitat, but rather arise from (1) the realization of the improvement in the affected

ecosystem or habitat that results from reduced effluent discharges, and (2) the value that individuals

place on the potential for use sometime in the future. Nonuse benefits can be substantial for some

resources, and Fisher and Raucher conservatively estimate nonuse values as one-half of the

recreational benefits. Because this approximation applies only to recreational fishing benefits for

recreational anglers and does not take into account nonuse values for nonanglers or for uses other

than fishing by anglers, EPA estimates only a portion of the nonuse benefits.
31

2.1.3.1 Assumptions and Caveats

The ecological benefits analysis uses the following major assumptions:

C The analysis does not consider background concentrations of the iron and steel

pollutants of concern in the receiving stream.

C The estimated benefit of improved recreational fishing opportunities is only a limited

measure of the value to society of the improvements in aquatic habitats expected to

result from the proposed regulation; increased assimilation capacity of the receiving

stream, improvements in taste and odor, or improvements to other recreational

activities, such as swimming and wildlife observation, are not addressed.

C The analysis includes significant simplifications and uncertainties; thus, the monetary

value to society of improved recreational fishing opportunities may be over- or

underestimated. (see Sections 2.1.1.3 and 2.1.2.2.)

C Potential overlap may exist in the valuation of improved recreational fishing

opportunities and avoided cancer cases from fish consumption. This potential is

considered to be minor in terms of numerical significance.

2.1.4 Estimation of Economic Productivity Benefits

The analysis estimates potential economic productivity benefits on the basis of reduced

sewage sludge contamination due to the proposed regulation. The treatment of wastewaters

generated by iron and steel facilities produces a sludge that contains pollutants removed from the

wastewaters. As required by law, POTWs must use environmentally sound practices in managing

and disposing of this sludge. The analysis expects the PSES levels to generate sewage sludges with

reduced pollutant concentrations. As a result, the POTWs may be able to use or dispose of the

sewage sludges with reduced pollutant concentrations at lower costs.

To determine the potential benefits, in terms of reduced sewage sludge disposal costs, the

analysis calculates the sewage sludge pollutant concentrations at current and proposed PSES levels

(see Section 2.1.1.2). It then compares pollutant concentrations to sewage sludge pollutant limits
32

SCR PF x S x CD x PD x CF (Eq. 20)

for surface disposal and land application (minimum ceiling limits and pollutant concentration limits).

The analysis projects that a POTW that meets all pollutant limits as a result of pretreatment will

benefit from the increase in options for sewage sludge use or disposal. The amount of the benefit

deriving from changes in sewage sludge use or disposal practices depends on the sewage sludge

use or disposal practices employed under current levels. The analysis assumes that POTWs will

choose the least expensive sewage sludge use or disposal practice for which their sewage sludge

meets pollutant limits. POTWs with sewage sludge whose baseline qualifies for land application

will dispose of their sewage sludge by land application; likewise, POTWs with sewage sludge that

meets surface disposal limits (but not the land application ceiling or pollutant limits) will dispose

of their sewage sludge at surface disposal sites.

EPA calculates the economic benefit for POTWs receiving wastewater from an iron and

steel facility by multiplying the cost differential between baseline and postcompliance sludge use

or disposal practices by the quantity of sewage sludge that shifts into meeting land application

(minimum ceiling limits and pollutant concentration limits) or surface disposal limits. Using these

cost differentials, the analysis calculates cost reductions from changes in sewage sludge use or

disposal for each POTW. 

where:

SCR = estimated POTW sewage sludge use or disposal cost reductions resulting

from the proposed regulation (1997 dollars)

PF = POTW flow (million gal/year)

S = sewage sludge to wastewater ratio (1,400 lb [dry weight] per million gallons

of water)

CD = estimated cost differential between least costly composite baseline use or

disposal method for which POTW qualifies and least costly use or disposal

method for which POTW qualifies postcompliance (1997 dollars/dry metric

ton)

PD = percentage of sewage sludge disposed

CF = conversion factor for units
33

2.1.4.1 Assumptions and Caveats

The economic productivity benefits analysis uses the following major assumptions:

C Of the POTW sewage sludge generated in the United States, 13.4 percent is

generated at POTWs that are located too far from agricultural land and surface

disposal sites for these use or disposal practices to be economical. The analysis

does not associate this percentage of sewage sludge with benefits from shifts to

surface disposal or land application.

C The analysis does not estimate benefits expected from reduced record-keeping

requirements and exemption from certain sewage sludge management practices.

C No definitive source of cost-saving differentials exists. The analysis may

overestimate or underestimate the cost differentials.

C Sewage sludge use or disposal costs vary by POTW. Actual costs incurred by

POTWs affected by the proposed iron and steel regulation may differ from those

estimates.

C Because of the unavailability of data on baseline pollutant loadings from all

industrial sources, those data are not included in the analysis.

2.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity

Human and ecological exposure and risk from environmental releases of toxic chemicals

depend largely on toxic potency, intermedia partitioning, and chemical persistence. These factors

in turn depend on chemical-specific properties relating to toxicological effects on living organisms,

physical state, hydrophobicity/lipophilicity, and reactivity, as well as on the mechanism and media

of release and site-specific environmental conditions. 

The methodology used in assessing the fate and toxicity of pollutants associated with iron

and steel wastewaters consists of three steps: (1) identification of pollutants of concern, (2)

compilation of physical-chemical and toxicity data, and (3) categorization assessment. 
34

The following sections describe these steps in detail, as well as present a summary of the major

assumptions and limitations associated with this methodology.

2.2.1 Identification of Pollutants of Concern

EPA conducted a sampling and analytical program at 16 steel industry sites. EPA sampled

and analyzed a broad list of pollutants to identify pollutants present in wastewaters from each type

of process operation and to determine their fate in industry wastewater treatment systems. EPA

identified as pollutants of concern all pollutants that met these following screening criteria:

• The pollutant was detected at greater than or equal to ten times the minimum level

(ML) concentration in at least 10 percent of all untreated process wastewater

samples,

• The mean detected concentration in untreated process wastewater samples was

greater than the mean detected concentration in the source water samples, and

• The mean detected concentration in all process wastewater samples was greater than

the mean detected concentration in the source water samples.

In the waste streams from direct discharging iron and steel facilities, EPA detected 70

pollutants (28 priority pollutants, 4 conventional pollutant parameters, and 38 nonconventional

pollutants) in waste streams that met the selection criteria. EPA identified these pollutants as

pollutants of concern and evaluated them to assess their potential fate and toxicity based on known

characteristics of each chemical.

In the waste streams from indirect discharging iron and steel facilities, EPA detected 66

pollutants (27 priority, 4 conventional pollutant parameters, and 35 nonconventional pollutants) in

waste streams that met the selection criteria. EPA identified these pollutants as pollutants of

concern and evaluated them to assess their potential fate and toxicity based on known

characteristics of each chemical.
35

2.2.2 Compilation of Physical-Chemical and Toxicity Data

The chemical-specific data needed to conduct the fate and toxicity evaluation for this study

include aquatic life criteria or toxic effect data for native aquatic species, human health reference

doses (RfDs) and cancer potency slope factors (SFs), EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)

for drinking water protection, Henry’s Law constants, soil/sediment (organic-carbon) adsorption

coefficients (Koc), and bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for native aquatic species and aqueous

aerobic biodegradation half-lives (BD).

Sources of the above data include EPA AWQC documents and updates, EPA’s Assessment

Tools for the Evaluation of Risk (ASTER) and the associated Aquatic Information Retrieval System

(AQUIRE) and Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth fathead minnow database, EPA’s

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), EPA’s 1997 Health Effects Assessment Summary

Tables (HEAST), EPA’s 1998 Region III Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, EPA’s 1996

Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, EPA’s 1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening

Guide, Syracuse Research Corporation’s CHEMFATE database, EPA and other government

reports, scientific literature, and other primary and secondary data sources. To ensure that the

examination is as comprehensive as possible, this analysis has taken alternative measures to compile

data for chemicals for which physical-chemical property and/or toxicity data are not presented in

the sources listed above. To the extent possible, EPA estimates values for the chemicals using the

quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) model incorporated in ASTER or, for some

physical-chemical properties, using published linear regression correlation equations.

(a) Aquatic Life Data

The analysis obtains ambient criteria or toxic effect concentration levels for the protection

of aquatic life primarily from EPA’s AWQC documents and EPA’s ASTER. For several

pollutants, EPA has published ambient water quality criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic

life from acute effects. The acute value represents a maximum allowable 1-hour average
36

concentration of a pollutant at any time that protects aquatic life from lethality. For pollutants for

which no acute water quality criteria have been developed by EPA, the analysis uses an acute

value from published aquatic toxicity test data or an estimated acute value from the ASTER QSAR

model. When selecting values from the literature, the analysis prefers measured concentrations

from flow-through studies under typical pH and temperature conditions. In addition, the test

organism must be a North American resident species of fish or invertebrate. The hierarchy used

to select the appropriate acute value is listed below in descending order of priority.

1. National acute freshwater quality criteria

2. Lowest reported acute test values (96-hour LC50 for fish and 48-hour EC50/LC50 for

daphnids)

3. Lowest reported LC50 test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate a 96-hour

exposure period

4. Lowest reported LC50 test value of longer duration, up to a maximum of 2 weeks

exposure

5. Estimated 96-hour LC50 from the ASTER QSAR model

The analysis uses BCF data from numerous data sources, including EPA’s AWQC

documents and EPA’s ASTER. Where measured BCF values are not available for several

chemicals, the analysis estimates the parameter using the octanol-water partition coefficient or

solubility of the chemical. Lyman et al. (1982) details such methods. The analysis then reviews

multiple values and selects a representative value according to the following guidelines:

C Resident U.S. fish species are preferred over invertebrates or estimated values.

C Edible tissue or whole fish values are preferred over nonedible or viscera values.

C 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.
37

The analysis uses the most conservative value (i.e., the highest BCF) among comparable candidate

values. 

(b) Human Health Data

Human health toxicity data include chemical-specific RfD for noncarcinogenic effects and

potency SF for carcinogenic effects. The analysis obtains RfDs and SFs first from EPA’s IRIS,

and secondarily uses EPA’s HEAST or EPA’s Region III RBC Table. The RfD is an estimate of

a daily exposure level for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely

to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious noncarcinogenic health effects over a lifetime (U.S.

EPA, 1989a). A chemical with a low RfD is more toxic than a chemical with a high RfD.

Noncarcinogenic effects include systemic effects (e.g., reproductive, immunological, neurological,

circulatory, or respiratory toxicity), organ-specific toxicity, developmental toxicity, mutagenesis,

and lethality. EPA recommends a threshold-level assessment approach for these systemic and other

effects, because several protective mechanisms must be overcome prior to the appearance of an

adverse noncarcinogenic effect. In contrast, EPA assumes that cancer growth can be initiated from

a single cellular event and therefore should not be subject to a threshold-level assessment approach.

The SF is an upper-bound estimate of the probability of cancer per unit intake of a chemical over

a lifetime (U.S. EPA, 1989a). A chemical with a large SF has greater potential to cause cancer

than a chemical with a small SF.

Other chemical designations related to potential adverse human health effects include EPA

assignment of a concentration limit for protection of drinking water, and EPA designation as a

priority pollutant. EPA establishes drinking water criteria and standards, such as the MCL, under

authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Current MCLs are available from EPA’s

Office of Water. EPA has designated 126 chemicals and compounds as priority pollutants under

the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
38

(c) Physical-Chemical Property Data

The analysis uses 2 measures of physical-chemical properties to evaluate environmental fate:

Henry’s Law constant (HLC) and organic-carbon adsorption partition coefficient (Koc).

HLC is the ratio of vapor pressure to solubility and is indicative of the propensity of a

chemical to volatilize from surface water (Lyman et al., 1982). The larger the HLC, the more

likely that the chemical will volatilize. The analysis obtains most HLCs from EPA’s Office of

Pesticides and Toxic Substances’ (OPTS) 1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening

Guide (U.S. EPA, 1989b), the Office of Solid Waste’s (OSW) Superfund Chemical Data Matrix

(U.S. EPA, 1996b), or the QSAR system (U.S. EPA, 1998-1999), maintained by EPA’s

Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota.

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 that the

chemical will adsorb to solid material. The analysis obtains most Kocs from Syracuse Research

Corporation’s CHEMFATE database and EPA’s 1989 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk

Screening Guide (U.S. EPA, 1989b).

The biodegradation half-life (BD) is the empirically derived length of time during which half

the amount of a chemical in water is degraded by microbial action in the presence of oxygen. BD

is indicative of the environmental persistence of a chemical released into the water column. The

analysis obtains most BDs from the Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates (Howard,

1991) and EPA’s Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth’s QSAR.
39

2.2.3 Categorization Assessment

The objective of evaluating fate and toxicity potential is to place chemicals into groups with

qualitative descriptors of potential environmental behavior and impact. These groups are based on

categorization schemes derived for the following descriptors:

• Acute aquatic toxicity (high, moderate, or slightly toxic)

• Volatility from water (high, moderate, slight, or nonvolatile)

• Adsorption to soil/sediment (high, moderate, slight, or nonadsorptive)

• Bioaccumulation potential (high, moderate, slight, or nonbioaccumulative)

• Biodegradation potential (fast, moderate, slow, or resistant)

With the use of appropriate key parameters, and where sufficient data exist, these

categorization schemes identify the relative aquatic and human toxicity and bioaccumulation

potential for each chemical associated with iron and steel wastewater. In addition, the

categorization schemes identify the potential of each chemical to partition to various media (air,

sediment/sludge, or water) and to persist in the environment. The analysis uses these schemes for

screening purposes only; they do not take the place of detailed pollutant assessments that analyze

all fate and transport mechanisms.

This evaluation also identifies chemicals that (1) are known, probable, or possible human

carcinogens; (2) are systemic human health toxicants; (3) have EPA human health drinking water

standards; and (4) are designated as priority pollutants by EPA. The results of this analysis can

provide a qualitative indication of potential risk posed by the release of these chemicals. Actual

risk depends on the magnitude, frequency, and duration of pollutant loading; site-specific

environmental conditions; proximity and number of human and ecological receptors; and relevant

exposure pathways. The following discussion outlines the categorization schemes and presents the

ranges of parameter values that define the categories.
40

HLC Vapor Pressure (atm)

Solubility (mol/m3)

(Eq. 21)

(a) Acute Aquatic Toxicity

Key Parameter: Acute aquatic life criteria/LC50 or other benchmark (AT) (Fg/L)

Using acute criteria or lowest reported acute test results (generally 96-hour and 48-hour

durations for fish and invertebrates, respectively), the analysis groups chemicals according to their

relative short-term effects on aquatic life.

Categorization Scheme:

AT < 100 Highly toxic

1,000 >_ AT >_ 100 Moderately toxic

AT > 1,000 Slightly toxic

This scheme, used as a rule-of-thumb guidance by EPA’s OPPT for Premanufacture Notice

(PMN) evaluations, indicates chemicals that could potentially cause lethality to aquatic life

downstream of discharges.

(b) Volatility from Water

Key Parameter: Henry’s Law constant (HLC) (atm-m3/mol)

HLC is the measured or calculated ratio of vapor pressure to solubility at ambient

conditions. This parameter indicates the potential for organic substances to partition to air in a twophase (air and water) system. A chemical’s potential to volatilize from surface water can be

inferred from HLC.
41

Categorization Scheme:

HLC > 10-3 Highly volatile

10-3 >_ HLC >_ 10-5 Moderately volatile

10-5 > HLC >_ 3 x 10-7 Slightly volatile

HLC < 3 x 10-7 Essentially nonvolatile

This scheme, adopted from Lyman et al. (1982), indicates chemical potential to volatilize

from process wastewater and surface water, thereby reducing the threat to aquatic life and human

health via contaminated fish consumption and drinking water, yet potentially causing risk to

exposed populations via inhalation.

(c) Adsorption to Soil/Sediments

Key Parameter: Soil/sediment (organic-carbon) adsorption coefficient (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

10,000 >_ Koc >_ 1,000 Moderately adsorptive

1,000 > Koc >_ 10 Slightly adsorptive

Koc < 10 Essentially nonadsorptive

This scheme evaluates substances that may partition to solids and potentially contaminate
42

BCF Equilibrium chemical concentration in organism (wet weight)

Mean chemical concentration in water

(Eq. 22)

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 is a good indicator of potential to accumulate in aquatic biota through uptake across

an external surface membrane.

Categorization Scheme:

BCF > 500 High potential

500 >_ BCF >_ 50 Moderate potential

50 > BCF >_ 5 Slight potential

BCF < 5 Nonbioaccumulative

This scheme identifies chemicals that may be present in fish or shellfish tissues at higher

levels than in surrounding water. These chemicals may accumulate in the food chain and increase

exposure to higher-trophic-level populations, including people who consume their sport catch or

commercial seafood.
43

(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 < BD # 180 Slow

180 < BD Resistant

This scheme is based on classification ranges given in a recent compilation of environmental fate

data (Howard, 1991). The 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 subsections summarize the major assumptions and limitations associated

with the data compilation and categorization schemes.
44

(a) Data Compilation

• If data are readily available from electronic databases, the analysis does not search

other primary and secondary sources.

• Many of the data are estimated and therefore can have a high degree of associated

uncertainty.

• For some chemicals, neither measured nor estimated data are available for key

categorization parameters. In addition, chemicals identified for this study do not

represent a complete set of wastewater constituents. As a result, this analysis does

not completely assess iron and steel wastewater.

(b) Categorization Schemes

• The analysis does not consider receiving waterbody characteristics, pollutant loading

amounts, exposed populations, and potential exposure routes.

• For several categorization schemes, the analysis groups chemicals using arbitrary

order-of-magnitude data breaks. Combined with data uncertainty, this may lead to

an overstatement or understatement of the characteristics of a chemical.

• Data derived from laboratory tests may not accurately reflect conditions in the field.

• Available aquatic toxicity and bioconcentration test data may not represent the most

sensitive species.

• The biodegradation potential may not be a good indicator of persistence for organic

chemicals that rapidly photodegrade or hydrolyze, since the analysis does not

consider these degradation mechanisms.

2.3 Documented Environmental Impacts

EPA reviewed State 303(d) lists of impaired water, State fishing advisories, and reports for

evidence of documented environmental impacts on aquatic life, human health, and the quality of

receiving water due to discharges of pollutants from iron and steel facilities. The analysis compiles

and summarizes reported impacts by facility.
45

3. DATA SOURCES

3.1 Water Quality Impacts

The analysis uses readily available EPA and other agency databases, models, and reports

to evaluate water quality impacts. The following six sections describe the various data sources

used in the analysis.

3.1.1 Facility-Specific Data

EPA’s Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) provided projected iron and steel facility

effluent process flows, facility operating days, and pollutant loadings (Appendix A) in May 2000

and July 2000 (U.S. EPA, 2000c). EAD determined an average performance level (the “longterm average”) that a facility with well-designed and well-operated model technologies (which

reflect the appropriate level of control) is capable of achieving. This long-term average (LTA) was

calculated from data from the facilities using the model technologies for the option. The LTAs

were based on pollutant concentrations collected from three data sources: EPA sampling episodes,

the 1997 analytical and product follow-up survey, and data submitted by industry. Facilities

reported the annual quantity discharged to surface waters and POTWs in one of two versions

(short or detailed) of the U.S. EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel Industry Data (U.S. EPA,

1997c). EAD multiplied the annual quantity discharged by the facility (facility flow) by the LTA

for each pollutant and converted the results to the proper units to calculate the loading (in pounds

per year) for each pollutant at each facility.

The analysis identifies the locations of iron and steel facilities on receiving streams using

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) cataloging and stream segment (reach) numbers contained in

EPA’s Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) File (U.S. EPA, 2000d). It also uses latitude-longitude

coordinates, if available, to locate facilities or POTWs that have not been assigned a reach number

in the IFD database. The names, locations, and flow data for the POTWs to which the indirect
46

facilities discharge are obtained from the 1997 iron and steel questionnaire (U.S. EPA, 1997c),

EPA’s 1996 Needs Survey (U.S. EPA, 1996c), the IFD database, and EPA’s Permit Compliance

System (PCS) (U.S. EPA, 2000e). If these sources do not yield information for a facility,

alternative measures are taken to obtain a complete set of receiving streams and POTWs.

The analysis obtains the receiving stream flow data from either the W.E. Gates study data

or measured stream flow data, both of which are contained in EPA’s GAGE file (U.S. EPA,

2000f). The W.E. Gates study contains calculated average and low flow statistics based on the best

available flow data and on drainage areas for reaches throughout the United States. The GAGE

file also includes average and low flow statistics based on measured data from USGS gaging

stations. EPA contacted State environmental agencies for additional information, as necessary.

The analysis obtains dissolved concentration potentials (DCPs) for estuaries and bays from the

Strategic Assessment Branch of NOAA’s Ocean Assessments Division (NOAA/U.S. EPA, 1989ac, 1991) (Appendix B). Critical dilution factors are obtained from the Mixing Zone Dilution

Factors for New Chemical Exposure Assessments (U.S. EPA, 1992).

3.1.2 Information Used To Evaluate POTW Operations

The primary source of the POTW treatment removal efficiencies is the Fate of Priority

Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, commonly referred to as the “50-POTW Study”

(U.S. EPA, 1982). This study presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated POTWs that

employ secondary biological treatment in removing pollutants. Each sample was analyzed for 3

conventional, 16 nonconventional, and 126 priority toxic pollutants. Additionally, because of the

large number of pollutants of concern for the iron and steel industry, EPA also uses data from the

National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) Treatability Database (formerly called

the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) (U.S. EPA, 1995a). For pollutants

of concern not found in the 50-POTW Study, EPA uses data from the NRMRL database, using

only treatment technologies representative of typical POTW secondary treatment operations

(activated sludge, activated sludge with filtration, aerated lagoons).
47

The analysis obtains inhibition values from the Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference

at POTWs (U.S. EPA, 1987) and from CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual

(U.S. EPA, 1990b). The most conservative values for activated sludge are used. For pollutants

with no specific inhibition value, the analysis uses a value based on compound type, such as

aromatics (Appendix C).

The analysis obtains sewage sludge regulatory levels, if available for the pollutants of

concern, from the Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, Final Rule (U.S. EPA,

1995b). The analysis uses pollutant limits established for the final use or disposal of sewage sludge

when the sewage sludge is applied to agricultural and nonagricultural land (Appendix C). Sludge

partition factors are obtained from the Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes

to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (Domestic Sewage Study) (U.S. EPA, 1986) (Appendix C).

3.1.3 Water Quality Criteria

The analysis obtains the AWQC (or toxic effect levels) for the protection of aquatic life and

human health from a variety of sources, including EPA criteria documents, EPA’s ASTER, and

EPA’s IRIS (Appendix C). It uses ecological toxicity estimations when published values are not

available. The hierarchies used to select the appropriate aquatic life and human health values are

described in the following sections.

3.1.3.1 Aquatic Life

EPA establishes AWQC for many pollutants for the protection of freshwater aquatic life

(acute and chronic criteria). The acute value represents a maximum allowable 1-hour average
48

concentration of a pollutant at any time and can be related to acute toxic effects on aquatic life.

The chronic value represents the average allowable concentration of a toxic pollutant over a 4-day

period at which a diverse genera of aquatic organisms and their uses should not be unacceptably

affected, provided that these levels are not exceeded more than once every 3 years.

For pollutants for which no AWQC are developed, the analysis uses specific toxicity values

(acute and chronic effect concentrations reported in published literature or estimated using various

application techniques). When selecting values from the literature, the analysis prefers measured

concentrations from flow-through studies under typical pH and temperature conditions. The test

organism has to be a North American resident species of fish or invertebrate. The hierarchies used

to select the appropriate acute and chronic values are listed below in descending order of priority.

Acute Aquatic Life Values:

1. National acute freshwater quality criteria

2. Lowest reported acute test values (96-hour LC50 for fish and 48-hour

EC50/LC50 for daphnids)

3. Lowest reported LC50 test value of shorter duration, adjusted to estimate a

96-hour exposure period

4. Lowest reported LC50 test value of longer duration, up to a maximum of 2

weeks of exposure

5. Estimated 96-hour LC50 from the ASTER QSAR model

Chronic Aquatic Life Values:

1. National chronic freshwater quality criteria

2. Lowest reported maximum allowable toxicant concentration (MATC),

lowest-observed-effect concentration (LOEC), or no-observed-effect

concentration (NOEC)

3. Lowest reported chronic growth or reproductive toxicity test concentration
49

HHoo

RfD x CF

IRfx BCF (Eq. 23)

HHoo

BW x RL x CF

SF x IRfx BCF (Eq. 24)

4. Estimated chronic toxicity concentration from a measured acute:chronic ratio

for a less sensitive species, QSAR model, or default acute:chronic ratio of

10:1

3.1.3.2 Human Health

EPA establishes AWQC for the protection of human health in terms of a pollutant’s toxic

effects, including carcinogenic potential, using two exposure routes: (1) ingesting the pollutant via

contaminated aquatic organisms only, and (2) ingesting the pollutant via both water and

contaminated aquatic organisms. The values are determined as follows.

For Toxicity Protection (ingestion of organisms only):

where:

HHoo = human health value (Fg/L)

RfD = reference dose for a 70-kg individual (mg/day)

IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)

BCF = bioconcentration factor (L/kg)

CF = conversion factor for units (1,000 Fg/mg)

 For Carcinogenic Protection (ingestion of organisms only):

where:

HHoo = human health value (Fg/L)

BW = body weight (70 kg)
50

HHwo

RfD x CF

IRw(IRfx BCF)

(Eq. 25)

HHwo

BW x RL x CF

SF x (IRw(IRfx BCF))

(Eq. 26)

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 Fg/mg)

For Toxicity Protection (ingestion of water and organisms):

where:

HHwo = human health value (Fg/L)

RfD = reference dose for a 70-kg individual (mg/day)

IRw = water ingestion rate (2 L/day)

IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)

BCF = bioconcentration factor (L/kg)

CF = conversion factor for units (1000 Fg/mg)

For Carcinogenic Protection (ingestion of water and organisms):

where:

HHwo = human health value (Fg/L)

BW = body weight (70 kg)

RL = risk level (10-6)

SF = cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)-1

IRw = water ingestion rate (2 L/day)

IRf = fish ingestion rate (0.0065 kg/day)

BCF = bioconcentration factor (L/kg)

CF = conversion factor for units (1,000 Fg/mg)

The analysis derives the values for ingesting water and organisms by assuming an average daily
51

ingestion rate of 2 liters of water, an average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams of

potentially contaminated fish products, and an average adult body weight of 70 kilograms (U.S.

EPA, 1991). If EPA has established a slope factor, the analysis uses values protective of

carcinogenicity to assess the potential effects on human health.

The analysis develops protective concentration levels for carcinogens in terms of

nonthreshold lifetime risk level, using criteria at a risk level of 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. Human health criteria values calculated using EPA’s IRIS RfDs or SFs in

conjunction with adjusted 3 percent lipid BCF values derived from Quality Criteria

for Water (U.S. EPA, 1980). Three percent is the mean lipid content of fish tissue

reported in the study from which the average daily fish consumption rate of 6.5

g/day is derived.

2. Human health criteria values calculated using current IRIS RfDs or SFs and

representative BCF values for common North American species of fish or

invertebrates or estimated BCF values.

3. Human health criteria values calculated using RfDs or SFs from EPA’s HEAST or

EPA’s Region III RBC Table in conjunction with adjusted 3 percent lipid BCF

values derived from Quality Criteria for Water (U.S. EPA, 1980).

4. Human health criteria values calculated using current RfDs or SFs from HEAST

or EPA’s Region III RBC Table and representative BCF values for common North

American species of fish or invertebrates or estimated BCF values.

5. Criteria from the Quality Criteria for Water (U.S. EPA, 1980).

6. Human health values calculated using RfDs or SFs from data sources other than
52

IRIS, HEAST, or Region III RBC Table.

This hierarchy is based on Section 2.4.6 of the Technical Support Document for Water

Quality-based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991), which recommends using the most current risk

information from IRIS when estimating human health risks. In cases where chemicals have both

RfDs and SFs from the same level of the hierarchy, the analysis calculates human health values

using the formulas for carcinogenicity, which always result in the more stringent value, given the

risk levels employed.

3.1.4 Information Used To Evaluate Human Health Risks and Benefits

The analysis obtains fish ingestion rates for adult sport and subsistence anglers from the

draft report Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the United Sates, Based on the Data

Collected by the United States Department of Agriculture’s 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food

Intakes by Individuals (U.S. EPA, 2000a). Fish ingestion rates for children are obtained from the

Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997b). Data on average household size are obtained

from the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1995 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995).

Population and birth rate data are obtained from the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997

(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997). Data concerning the number of anglers in each State (i.e.,

resident anglers) are obtained from the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife

Associated Recreation (U.S. Dept. of the Interior FWS, 1991). The total number of river miles

or estuary square miles within a State are obtained from the 1990 National Water Quality Inventory

Report to Congress (U.S. EPA, 1990c). The analysis identifies drinking water utilities located

within 50 miles downstream from each discharge site using EPA’s REACHSCAN (U.S. EPA,

2000g). The population served by a drinking water utility is obtained from EPA’s Safe Drinking

Water Information System (SDWIS) (U.S. EPA, 2000h). The average per-student annual

expenditure of public primary and secondary schools is obtained from the Digest of Education

Statistics, 1999 (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). The effect of IQ on education, percent

wage loss per IQ point, and the discounted value of lost income associated with additional
53

schooling are obtained from Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Assessment of the Proposed

Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Regulation (U.S. EPA, 2000b). Changes in blood lead

levels resulting from the changes in environmental lead are estimated using the Guidance Manual

for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model for Lead in Children (U.S. EPA,

1994). Health risks and monetary benefits for reduced IQ levels in children are estimated using

the methodology and equations presented in The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to

1990 (U.S. EPA, 1997a). Health risks and monetary benefits for reduced premature adult and

neonatal mortality are estimated using the methodology and equations contained in

Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to

Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil (U.S. EPA, 1996a). Willingnessto-pay values are obtained from OPA’s review of the 1989 and 1986 studies “The Value of

Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on New Evidence” (Fisher et al., 1989) and Valuing Risks:

New Information on the Willingness to Pay for Changes in Fatal Risks (Violette and Chestnut,

1986). The analysis adjusts values to 1997 on the basis of the relative change in the Employment

Cost Index of Total Compensation for all Civilian Workers. Information used in the evaluation is

presented in Appendix D.

3.1.5 Information Used To Evaluate Ecological Benefits

The analysis uses the concept of a “contaminant-free fishery” and the estimate of an

increase in the consumer surplus associated with a contaminant-free fishery which are presented

in Discrete Choice Models to Value Changes in Environmental Quality: A Great Lakes Case

Study, a thesis submitted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Lyke, 1993). The analysis uses

data concerning the number of resident anglers in each State and average number of fishing days

per angler in each State obtained from the 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife

Associated Recreation (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, FWS, 1991) (Appendix D). Median net benefit

values for warm-water and cold-water fishing days are obtained from Nonmarket Values from Two

Decades of Research on Recreational Demand (Walsh et al., 1990). The analysis adjusts values

to 1997, on the basis of the change in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, as
54

published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The concept and methodology of estimating nonuse

(intrinsic) benefits, based on improved water quality, are obtained from “Intrinsic Benefits of

Improved Water Quality: Conceptual and Empirical Perspectives” (Fisher and Raucher, 1984).

3.1.6 Information Used To Evaluate Economic Productivity Benefits

The analysis obtains sewage sludge pollutant limits for surface disposal and land application

(ceiling limits and pollutant concentration limits) from the Standards for the Use or Disposal of

Sewage Sludge, Final Rule (U.S. EPA, 1995b). Cost savings resulting from shifts in sludge use

or disposal practices (from composite baseline use and disposal practices) are obtained from the

Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and Standards for the

Metal Products and Machinery Industry (Phase I) (U.S. EPA, 1995c). The analysis adjusts

savings, if applicable, to 1997 using the Construction Cost Index published in the Engineering

News Record. In that report, EPA consulted a wide variety of sources, including the following:

C 1988 National Sewage Sludge Survey

C 1985 EPA Handbook for Estimating Sludge Management Costs

C 1989 EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Regulations for Sewage

Sludge Use and Disposal

C Interviews with POTW operators

C Interviews with State government solid waste and waste pollution control experts

C Review of trade and technical literature on sewage sludge use or disposal practices

and costs 

C Research organizations with expertise in waste management

Information used in the evaluation is presented in Appendix D.
55

3.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity

The analysis obtains the chemical-specific data needed to conduct the fate and toxicity

evaluation from various sources as discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this report. Aquatic life and

human health values are presented in Appendix C, as well as physical-chemical property data.

3.3 Documented Environmental Impacts

The analysis obtains data concerning environmental impacts from the 1998 State 303(d) lists

of impaired waterbodies (U.S. EPA, 1998a), the 1998 National Listing of Fish and Wildlife

Consumption Advisories (U.S. EPA, 1998b), and EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,

FY 98 Accomplishments Report (U.S. EPA, 1999).
56

4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

4.1 Projected Water Quality Impacts

4.1.1 Comparison of Instream Concentrations with Ambient Water Quality Criteria

The results of this analysis indicate the water quality benefits of controlling discharges from

iron and steel facilities to surface waters and POTWs. The following two sections summarize

potential aquatic life and human health impacts on receiving stream water quality and on POTW

operations and their receiving streams for direct and indirect discharges. All tables referred to in

these sections are presented at the end of Section 4. Appendices E, F, and G present the results

of the stream and POTW modeling.

4.1.1.1 Direct Discharging Facilities

(a) Sample Set

The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water

quality at current and proposed BAT discharge levels for 103 iron and steel facilities directly

discharging 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams (Table 1). At current discharge levels, these 103

facilities discharge 211.9 million pounds per year of priority and nonconventional pollutants (Table

2). The proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce these loadings to 162.8 million pounds per

year at proposed BAT discharge levels, a 23 percent reduction.

The analysis projects that modeled instream pollutant concentrations will exceed human

health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of water and organisms) in 35

percent of the receiving streams (27 of the total 77) at current discharge levels and in 25 percent

(19 of the total 77) of the receiving streams at proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 3). Using

a target risk of 10-6 (1E-6) for the carcinogens, the analysis projects that 12 pollutants at current
57

discharge levels and 11 pollutants at proposed BAT discharge levels will exceed instream criteria or toxic

effect levels (Table 4). The analysis also projects a total of 6 pollutants will exceed human health criteria

or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of organisms only) in 21 percent of the receiving streams

(16 of the total 77) at current discharge levels (Tables 3 and 4). The proposed iron and steel guidelines

will eliminate excursions of the instream criteria or toxic effect levels in 3 of the receiving streams.

The analysis projects that modeled instream pollutant concentrations of 7 pollutants will exceed

acute aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 25 percent of the receiving streams (19 of the total 77)

at current discharge levels (Tables 3 and 4). The analysis also projects modeled instream concentrations

of 16 pollutants will exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 48 percent of the

receiving streams (37 of the total 77) (Tables 3 and 4). The proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce

acute aquatic life excursions to 3 pollutants in 17 percent of the receiving streams (13 of the total 77) and

chronic aquatic life excursions to 12 pollutants in 40 percent of the receiving streams (31 of the total 77).
Table 1. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (60) Discharged from 103 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities

Subcategory

Nonintegrated Integrated and

CAS Steel Steelmaking Stand-Alone Integrated

Number Pollutant Cokemaking Finishing and Hot Forming Hot Forming Ironmaking Steelmaking Other

C005 Nitrate/Nitrite X X X X X

50328 Benzo(a)pyrene X

56553 Benzo(a)anthracene X

57125 Total Cyanide X X X

62533 Aniline X

67641 Acetone X X

71432 Benzene X

85018 Phenanthrene X X

91203 Naphthalene X

91576 2-Methylnaphthalene X

95487 o-Cresol X X

95534 o-Toluidine X

98555 alpha-Terpineol X

100027 4-Nitrophenol X

105679 2,4-Dimethylphenol X X

106445 p-Cresol X X

108952 Phenol X X X

110861 Pyridine X X

112403 n-Dodecane X

112958 n-Eicosane X

117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate X

124185 n-Decane X

129000 Pyrene X

132649 Dibenzofuran X

142621 Hexanoic Acid X

205992 Benzo(b)fluoranthene X

206440 Fluoranthene X X

207089 Benzo(k)fluoranthene X

218019 Chrysene X

302045 Thiocyanate X X

544763 n-Hexadecane X

593453 n-Octadecane X

612942 2-Phenylnaphthalene X

7429905 Aluminum X X X X X

7439896 Iron X X X X X X

7439921 Lead X X X X X

7439954 Magnesium X X X X

7439965 Manganese X X X X X

7439976 Mercury X X X

7439987 Molybdenum X X X X X

7440020 Nickel X X X X

7440224 Silver X

7440280 Thallium X

7440315 Tin X X

7440326 Titanium X X X X

7440360 Antimony X X X X

7440382 Arsenic X X X X

7440393 Barium X

7440428 Boron X X X X

7440439 Cadmium X X

7440473 Chromium X X X X X

7440484 Cobalt X X

7440508 Copper X X X X X

7440622 Vanadium X

7440666 Zinc X X X X X

7664417 Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) X X X X X X

7782492 Selenium X X

14808798 Sulfate X X

16984488 Fluoride X X X X X

18540299 Chromium, Hexavalent X X

Source: U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for 

Cokemaking Subcategory.

^ October 25, 2000
59

Table 2. Summary of Pollutant Loadings for Evaluated Iron and Steel Facilities

(Sample Set/National Level)

Loadings (Million Pounds-per-Year)*

Total*** Direct Dischargers Indirect Dischargers

Current 211.9/234.5 15.1/18.7 227.1/253.2

Proposed BAT/PSES** 162.8/180.0 14.2/17.6 177.0/197.6

No. of Pollutants Evaluated 60 56 60

No. of Facilities Evaluated 103/131 47/67 150/198

* Loadings are representative of pollutants evaluated; conventional and nonconventional pollutants such as TSS, BOD5, COD, TOC, TKN, total phenols,

amenable cyanide, weak acid dissociable cyanide, and oil and grease are not evaluated.

** BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory, BAT1 for all other subcategories; PSES1 for all subcategories.

*** The same pollutant may be discharged from a number of direct and indirect facilities; therefore, the total does not equal the sum of pollutants.

Source: U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
60

Table 3. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Sample Set)

Acute Aquatic Life Chronic Aquatic Life Human Health

Water and Orgs.

Human Health

Orgs. Only

Total*

Current

 Stream (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 Total Excursions

Proposed BAT**

 Stream (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 Total Excursions

19

 7 (1.0-105.0)

35

13

 3 (1.0-105.0)

18

37

16 (1.0-371.7)

98

31

12 (1.0-371.7)

53

27

12 (1.1-2,072)

66

19

11 (1.1-1,955)

47

16

 6 (1.2-2,072)

37

13

 6 (1.0-1,955)

32

41

26

39

21

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.

Number of streams evaluated = 77, number of facilities = 103, and number of pollutants = 60.

Pollutants detected at or below the minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

* Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.

** BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected excursions calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are

equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never detected above minimum level. Also,

projected excursions calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for select pollutants

and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow but not a projected reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
61

(b) National Extrapolation

The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology

for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample set

of 103 iron and steel facilities directly discharging 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams (Table 3) to 131

iron and steel facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 100 receiving streams (Table 5). At current discharge

levels, these 131 facilities discharge 234.5 million pounds per year of priority and nonconventional

pollutants (Table 2). The proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce these loadings to 180.0 million

pounds per year at proposed BAT discharge levels, a 23 percent reduction.
62

Table 4. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Sample Set)

Number of Excursions

Acute Aquatic Life Chronic Aquatic Life Human Health

Water and Orgs.

Human Health

Orgs. Only

Current Proposed BAT Current Proposed BAT Current Proposed BAT Current Proposed BAT

Aluminum 0 0 2 (1.8) 1(1.8) 0 0 0 0

Antimony 0 0 0 0 2 (1.2-1.5) 1 (1.2) 0 0

Arsenic 0 0 0 0 22 (1.2-74.0) 13 (1.1-12.8) 9 (1.3-9.3) 4 (1.0-1.6)

Benzo(a)anthracene 0 0 0 0 6 (2.3-132.1) 6 (2.5-132.0) 6 (2.1-123.8) 6 (2.4-123.8)

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0 0 0 0 7 (1.8-277.2) 7 (1.6-277.2) 7 (1.8-277.2) 7 (1.6-277.2)

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0 0 0 0 4 (1.6-27.5) 4 (1.6-27.5) 4 (1.6-27.5) 4 (1.6-27.5)

Benzo(a)pyrene 0 0 1 (4.4) 1 (4.2) 10 (2.4-2,072) 10 (1.5-1,955) 10 (2.4-2,072) 10 (1.5-1,955)

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0 0 0 0 1 (2.7) 1 (1.4) 0 0

Boron 0 0 5 (1.2-5.0) 2 (2.1-2.9) 0 0 0 0

Chromium 0 0 1 (1.5) 0 0 0 0 0

Chromium, hexavalent 1 (7.5) 0 1 (9.1) 1 (1.1) 0 0 0 0

Chrysene 0 0 0 0 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.1)

Copper 8 (1.0-36.0) 1 (4.5) 8 (1.2-43.9) 1 (5.6) 0 0 0 0

Cyanide 7 (1.2-105.0) 7 (1.0-105.0) 15 (1.1-371.7) 10 (1.2-371.7) 0 0 0 0

Fluoride 14 (1.0-13.8) 10 (1.1-13.8) 33 (1.0-116.3) 28 (1.2-116.3) 0 0 0 0
Table 4. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Sample Set) (continued)

Number of Excursions

Acute Aquatic Life Chronic Aquatic Life Human Health

Water and Orgs.

Human Health

Orgs. Only

Current Proposed BAT Current Proposed BAT Current Proposed BAT Current Proposed BAT

63

Iron 0 0 5 (1.3-6.9) 1 (1.3) 8 (1.1-13.6) 2 (2.4-3.7) 0 0

Lead 1 (1.9) 0 11 (1.0-41.3) 3 (1.1-1.6) 0 0 0 0

Manganese 0 0 0 0 3 (1.1-1.6) 1 (1.1) 0 0

Magnesium 0 0 2 (1.4-1.6) 1 (1.0) 0 0 0 0

Molybdenum 0 0 6 (1.2-30.9) 3 (1.1-1.8) 0 0 0 0

Nickel 0 0 3 (1.6-2.9) 0 0 0 0 0

Nitrate/Nitrite 0 0 0 0 1 (2.0) 0 0 0

Selenium 1 (1.3) 0 1 (3.1) 1 (1.6) 0 0 0 0

Silver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Thiocyanate 0 0 1 (4.2) 0 0 0 0 0

Toluidine,o- 0 0 0 0 1 (1.6) 1 (1.6) 0 0

Zinc 3 (1.3-8.8) 0 3 (1.1-7.5) 0 0 0 0 0

NOTE: Number of pollutants evaluated = 60

Numbers outside parentheses represent the number of excursions; numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.

May 16, 2000 Loading Files; September 19, 2000 Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
64

Table 5. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(National Level)

Acute Aquatic Life Chronic Aquatic Life Human Health

Water and Orgs.

Human Health

Orgs. Only

Total*

Current

 Stream (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 Total Excursions

Proposed BAT**

 Stream (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 Total Excursions

23

 7 (1.0-105.0)

40

16

 3 (1.0-105.0)

22

47

16 (1.0-371.7)

116

41

12 (1.0-371.7)

68

30

12 (1.1-2,072)

69

20

11 (1.1-1,955)

48

17

 6 (1.2-2,072)

38

14

 6 (1.0-1,955)

33

51

26

49

21

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.

Number of streams evaluated = 100, number of facilities = 131, and number of pollutants = 60.

Pollutants detected at or below the minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

* Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.

** BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected excursions calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations

atproposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never

detected above minimum level. Also, projected excursions calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are equal

to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for select pollutants and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow but not

a projected reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
65

The analysis projects that extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations will exceed human health

criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of water and organisms) in 30 percent of the

receiving streams (30 of the total 100) at current discharge levels and in 20 percent of the receiving

streams (20 of the total 100) at proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 5). The analysis projects

excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for consumption of organisms only)

in 17 percent of the receiving streams (17 of the total 100) at current discharge levels (Table 5). The

proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce the excursions of human health criteria or toxic effect

levels (developed for consumption of organisms only) from 17 to 14 receiving streams.

In addition, the analysis projects that extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations will exceed

acute aquatic life criteria in 23 percent of the receiving streams (23 of the total 100) at current

discharge levels (Table 5). The proposed regulation will reduce excursions to 16 percent of the receiving

streams (16 of the total 100). The analysis projects that extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations will

exceed chronic aquatic life criteria in 47 percent (47 of the total 100) and 41 percent (41 of the total

100) of the receiving streams at current and proposed BAT discharge levels, respectively (Table 5).

4.1.1.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities

(a) Sample Set

The analysis evaluates the effects of POTW wastewater discharges on receiving stream water

quality at current and proposed PSES discharge levels for 47 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging

56 pollutants to 43 POTWs located on 43 receiving streams (Table 6). At current discharge levels, these

47 facilities discharge 15.1 million pounds per year of priority and nonconventional pollutants (Table 2).

The proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce these loadings to 14.2 million pounds per year at

proposed PSES discharge levels, a 6 percent reduction.
Table 6. Evaluated Pollutants of Concern (56) Discharged from 47 Indirect Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities

Subcategory

Nonintegrated Integrated and

CAS Steel Steelmaking Stand-Alone Integrated

Number Pollutant Cokemaking Finishing and Hot Forming Hot Forming Ironmaking Steelmaking Other

C005 Nitrate/Nitrite X X XX

50328 Benzo(a)pyrene X

56553 Benzo(a)anthracene X

57125 Total Cyanide XX X

67641 Acetone X X

71432 Benzene X

85018 Phenanthrene X

91203 Naphthalene X

91576 2-Methylnaphthalene X

95487 o-Cresol X X

95534 o-Toluidine X

98555 alpha-Terpineol X

105679 2,4-Dimethylphenol X X

106445 p-Cresol X

108952 Phenol X

110861 Pyridine X X

112403 n-Dodecane X

117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate X

124185 n-Decane X

129000 Pyrene X

132649 Dibenzofuran X

142621 Hexanoic Acid X

205992 Benzo(b)fluoranthene X

206440 Fluoranthene X X

207089 Benzo(k)fluoranthene X

218019 Chrysene X

302045 Thiocyanate X X

544763 n-Hexadecane X

612942 2-Phenylnaphthalene X

7429905 Aluminum X X X XX

7439896 Iron X X X X XX

7439921 Lead X X X XX

7439954 Magnesium X X XX

7439965 Manganese X X X XX

7439976 Mercury X

7439987 Molybdenum X X X XX

7440020 Nickel XX XX

7440224 Silver X

7440280 Thallium X

7440315 Tin X X

7440326 Titanium X X XX

7440360 Antimony XX X X

7440382 Arsenic X XX

7440393 Barium X

7440428 Boron XX X X

7440439 Cadmium X X

7440473 Chromium X X X XX

7440484 Cobalt X X

7440508 Copper X X X XX

7440622 Vanadium X

7440666 Zinc X X X XX

7664417 Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) XX X X X X

7782492 Selenium X

14808798 Sulfate X X

16984488 Fluoride XX X X X X

18540299 Chromium, Hexavalent X X

Source: U.S. EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD), May 16, 2000, Loading Files

^ 1 October 25, 2000
67

Using a target risk of 10-6 (1E-6) for the carcinogens, the analysis projects that modeled instream

pollutant concentrations will not exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels (developed for either

the consumption of water and organisms or for the consumption of organisms only) at current or proposed

PSES discharge levels (Table 7). Because the analysis projects no excursions, it does not extrapolate these

results to the national level.

The analysis projects that modeled instream pollutant concentrations will not exceed acute aquatic

life criteria or toxic effect levels in any of the receiving streams at current or proposed PSES discharge

levels (Table 7). Therefore, the analysis does not extrapolate these results to the national level. The

analysis does project that modeled instream concentrations of 2 pollutants at current discharge levels will

exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 7 percent of the receiving streams (3 of the

total 43). The proposed iron and steel guidelines will reduce excursions of the 2 pollutants from 3 to 2

receiving streams (Tables 7 and 8).

In addition, the analysis evaluates the potential impact of the 47 indirect discharging iron and steel

facilities, which discharge to 43 POTWs, in terms of inhibition of POTW operation and contamination of

sludge. The analysis projects that no inhibition problems or sludge contamination problems will occur at

any of the POTWs (Table 9). Because the analysis projects no impacts at POTWs, the analysis does not

extrapolate these results to the national level.

(b) National Extrapolation

The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology

for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample set

of 47 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 43 POTWs located on 43 receiving

streams (Table 7) to 67 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 61 POTWs with outfalls

on 61 receiving streams (Table 10). At current discharge levels, these 67 facilities discharge 18.7 million
68

pounds per year of priority and nonconventional pollutants (Table 2). The proposed iron and steel

guidelines will reduce these loadings to 17.6 million pounds per year at proposed PSES discharge levels,

a 6 percent reduction.

The analysis projects that extrapolated instream pollutant concentrations will exceed only chronic

aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 7 percent of the receiving streams (4 of the total 61) at current

discharge levels (Table 10). The proposed iron and steel guidelines will eliminate excursions in 2 of the

4 receiving streams at proposed PSES discharge levels.

4.1.2 Estimation of Human Health Risks and Benefits

The analysis evaluates the potential benefits to human health by estimating the risks (carcinogenic

and systemic) associated with current and reduced pollutant levels in fish tissue and drinking water. The

analysis also evaluates the potential benefits to human health by estimating blood lead levels associated with

reducing lead levels in fish tissue. Sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.2.2 summarize potential human health impacts

(carcinogenic and systemic) from the consumption of fish tissue and drinking water that are derived from

waterbodies impacted by direct and indirect discharging facilities. Potential lead-related human health

impacts from the consumption of fish tissue that are derived from the same waterbodies are also

summarized. The analysis estimates risks for recreational (sport) and subsistence anglers and their families,

as well as the general population (drinking water). Appendices H, I, and J present the results of the

modeling.
69

Table 7. Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Sample Set)

Acute Aquatic Life Chronic Aquatic Life Human Health

Water and Orgs.

Human Health

Orgs. Only

Total*

Current

 Stream (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 Total Excursions

Proposed PSES**

 Stream (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 Total Excursions

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

3

2 (1.3-7.1)

5

2

2 (1.3-4.8)

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 0

0

0

0

0

3

2

2

2

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.

Number of streams evaluated = 43, number of POTWs = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants = 56.

Pollutants detected at or below the minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

* Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.

** PSES1 for all subcategories.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
70

Table 8. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Exceed Criteria for Iron and Steel

Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Sample Set)

Number of Excursions

Acute Aquatic Life Chronic Aquatic Life Human Health

Water and Orgs.

Human Health

Orgs. Only

Current Proposed PSES Current Proposed PSES Current Proposed PSES Current Proposed PSES

Fluoride 0 0 2 (1.3-1.8) 2 (1.3-1.8) 0 0 0 0

Molybdenum 0 0 3 (3.5-7.1) 2 (1.9-4.8) 0 0 0 0

NOTE: Number of pollutants evaluated = 56.

Numbers outside parentheses represent the number of excursions; numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
71

Table 9. Summary of Projected POTW Inhibition and Sludge Contamination Problems from Iron and Steel

Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Sample Set)

Biological Inhibition Sludge Contamination Total

Current

 POTWs (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 Total Problems

Proposed PSES*

 POTWs (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 Total Problems

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 0

 0

 0

 0

NOTE: Number of POTWs evaluated = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants = 56.

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

* PSES1 for all subcategories.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
72

4.1.2.1 Direct Discharging Facilities

(a) Sample Set

The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on human health from the

consumption of fish tissue and drinking water at current and proposed BAT discharge levels for 103 iron

and steel facilities directly discharging 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams.Fish Tissue (Carcinogenic

and Systemic) -- At current discharge levels, 28 receiving streams have total estimated

individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 7 carcinogens (Tables 11

and 12). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) for sport anglers and

subsistence anglers. At current discharge levels, total excess annual cancer cases are estimated to be

3.0E-1. At proposed BAT discharge levels, 23 receiving streams have a total estimated

individual-pollutant cancer risk greater than 10-6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 7 carcinogens (Tables 11

and 12). The analysis again projects total estimated risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) for sport anglers and

subsistence anglers. Total excess annual cancer cases will be reduced to an estimated 2.9E-1 at

proposed BAT discharge levels (Table 11). Based on the reduction of total excess cancer cases (1.0E-2),

the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases ranges from $24,000 to $126,000

(1997 dollars).

In addition, the analysis projects systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) in 3

receiving streams from 2 pollutants at current discharge levels (Table 13). An estimated population of 868

subsistence anglers and their families are projected to be affected. The proposed iron and steel

guidelines will eliminate systemic toxicant effects. A monetary value of these benefits to society could not

be estimated.
73

Table 10 . Summary of Projected Criteria Excursions for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(National Level)

Acute Aquatic Life Chronic Aquatic Life Human Health

Water and Orgs.

Human Health

Orgs. Only

Total*

Current

 Stream (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 Total Excursions

Proposed PSES**

 Stream (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 Total Excursions

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

4

2 (1.3-7.1)

6

2

2 (1.3-4.8)

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 0

0

0

0

0

4

2

2

2

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent the range in the magnitude of excursions.

Number of streams evaluated = 61, number of POTWs = 61, number of facilities = 67, and number of pollutants = 56.

Pollutants detected at or below the minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

* Pollutants may exceed criteria on a number of streams; therefore, total does not equal sum of pollutants exceeding criteria.

** PSES1 for all subcategories.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
74

Fish Tissue (Lead) -- At the proposed BAT discharge levels, the ingestion of lead-contaminated

fish tissue by children (ages 0-6) of sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 39 receiving streams (Table

14). The analysis projects a potentially exposed population of 15,000 children. Based on the annual

reduction in total IQ loss (55.83 points), the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided loss of IQ

points is $542,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 14). Additionally, the ingestion of lead-contaminated fish tissue

by adult sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 55 receiving streams (Table 14). The analysis projects

that the proposed guidelines will reduce premature mortality by an estimated 3.0E-2 cases annually for

191,000 men (ages 40-74), 9.8E-4 cases annually for 163,000 women (ages 45-74), and 3.5E-3 cases

annually for 17,000 neonates. Based on the reductions in blood pressure, as it relates to premature

mortality, the total annual monetary benefits to society from avoided mortality range from $83,000 to

$435,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 14).

Drinking Water -- At current discharge levels, the analysis projects that 22 receiving streams

will have total estimated individual pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of

6 carcinogens (Table 15). Estimated risks range from 1.1E-6 to 8.7E-5. Drinking water utilities are

located within 50 miles downstream of 3 sites that discharge 2 carcinogens with risks greater than 10-6 (1E6). However, EPA has published a drinking water standard for the 2 carcinogens, and the analysis assumes

that drinking water treatment systems will reduce concentrations to below adverse effect thresholds.

Therefore, the analysis projects no total excess annual cancer cases (Table 15). In addition, the analysis

projects no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at current or proposed BAT

discharge levels (Table 13).
75

Table 11. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

(Sample Set)

Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10-6 Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Carcinogens (No.)

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

 TOTAL

Proposed BAT*

 Streams (No.)

 Carcinogens (No.)

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

 TOTAL

28

7

18 (1.3E-6 to 4.6E-3)

28 (2.9E-6 to 4.7E-2)

23

7

15 (1.2E-6 to 4.4E-3)

23 (1.2E-6 to 4.4E-2)

NA/NA

NA

1.9E-1

1.1E-1

3.0E-1

NA/NA

NA

1.9E-1

1.0E-1

2.9E-1

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 77, number of facilities = 103 and number of pollutants = 60.

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk exceeds 10-6 (1E-6). 

Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10-6 (1E-6).

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

NA = Not Applicable

* BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations

at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never

detected above minimum level. Also, projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to

effluent pollutant concentrations at current for select pollutants and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow, but not a projected

reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
76

Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue Consumption)

(Sample Set)

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Sport Anglers

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Subsistence Anglers

Current:

Stream No. 1

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

1.7E-6/4.6E-5

3.2E-5/8.9E-4

4.4E-4/1.2E-2

7.6E-5/2.1E-3

7.8E-6/2.1E-4

0/NA

1.7E-5/2.5E-5

3.3E-4/4.8E-4

4.5E-3/6.5E-3

7.8E-4/1.1E-3

8.0E-5/1.1E-4

2.9E-6/4.2E-6

Stream No. 2

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

3.3E-6/8.9E-5

2.3E-4/6.3E-3

3.8E-3/1.0E-1

5.0E-4/1.4E-2

5.0E-5/1.4E-3

2.2E-6/5.9E-5

3.3E-5/4.8E-5

2.4E-3/3.4E-3

3.9E-2/5.6E-2

5.2E-3/7.4E-3

5.1E-4/7.4E-4

2.2E-5/3.2E-5

Stream No. 3

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

1.7E-6/4.7E-5

3.6E-5/9.7E-4

3.3E-6/9.1E-5

0/NA

1.8E-5/2.6E-5

3.6E-4/5.2E-4

3.4E-5/4.9E-5

3.2E-6/4.6E-6

Stream No. 4

Arsenic 7.8E-6/2.1E-4 8.0E-5/1.2E-4

Stream No. 5

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

2.3E-6/1.5E-4

2.1E-5/1.4E-3

2.8E-4/1.9E-2

4.8E-5/3.3E-3

4.9E-6/3.3E-4

0/NA

2.3E-5/8.3E-5

2.1E-4/7.5E-4

2.9E-3/1.0E-2

5.0E-4/1.8E-3

5.1E-5/1.8E-4

1.9E-6/6.6E-6

Stream No. 6

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

2.9E-6/1.9E-4

0/NA

2.9E-5/1.0E-4

3.0E-6/1.1E-5

Stream No. 7

Arsenic 1.4E-5/9.7E-4 1.5E-4/5.2E-4
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

(Sample Set)

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Sport Anglers

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Subsistence Anglers

77

Stream No. 8

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

0/NA

0/NA

3.5E-6/1.0E-5

5.1E-7/1.5E-6

Stream No. 9

Arsenic 1.7E-5/9.5E-4 1.7E-4/5.1E-4

Stream No. 10

Arsenic 0/NA 7.0E-6/1.7E-5

Stream No. 11

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

0/NA

0/NA

6.8E-6/1.6E-5

4.6E-7/1.1E-6

Stream No. 12

Arsenic 2.9E-6/7.6E-5 3.0E-5/4.1E-5

Stream No. 13

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

0/NA

1.7E-5/4.4E-4

4.8E-5/1.3E-3

3.2E-5/8.5E-4

3.0E-6/7.9E-5

0/NA

5.2E-6/7.2E-6

1.7E-4/2.4E-4

5.0E-4/6.9E-4

3.3E-4/4.6E-4

3.1E-5/4.3E-5

1.7E-6/2.4E-6

Stream No. 14

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pryene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

1.5E-7/6.1E-6

4.7E-6/1.9E-4

2.9E-7/1.2E-5

1.5E-6/3.3E-6

4.8E-5/1.0E-4

2.9E-6/6.3E-6

Stream No. 15

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

2.9E-7/4.2E-6

3.6E-7/5.1E-6

4.4E-6/6.2E-5

4.4E-7/6.3E-6

3.0E-6/2.3E-6

3.7E-6/2.8E-6

4.5E-5/3.4E-5

4.5E-6/3.4E-6

Stream No. 16

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

1.3E-7/5.3E-6

9.3E-7/3.8E-5

2.5E-7/1.0E-5

1.3E-6/2.9E-6

9.5E-6/2.1E-5

2.6E-6/5.5E-6

Stream No. 17

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

3.7E-6/1.5E-4

1.5E-6/6.3E-5

3.8E-5/8.3E-5

1.6E-5/3.4E-5
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

(Sample Set)

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Sport Anglers

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Subsistence Anglers

78

Stream No. 18

Arsenic 0/NA 3.5E-6/7.6E-6

Stream No. 19

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

0/NA

0/NA

2.9E-6/6.9E-6

4.3E-7/1.0E-6

Stream No. 20

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

0/NA

0/NA

2.1E-6/4.6E-6

1.1E-6/2.4E-6

Stream No. 21

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

0/NA

0/NA

3.4E-6/8.1E-6

1.1E-6/2.7E-6

Stream No. 22

Arsenic 0/NA 4.1E-6/9.7E-6

Stream No. 23

Arsenic 0/NA 2.9E-6/6.8E-6

Stream No. 24

Arsenic 0/NA 3.9E-6/9.2E-6

Stream No. 25

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

1.3E-7/5.7E-6

1.7E-6/7.8E-5

3.0E-7/1.3E-5

1.3E-6/3.1E-6

1.8E-5/4.2E-5

3.1E-6/7.2E-6

Stream No. 26

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

4.4E-7/2.5E-5

6.0E-6/3.4E-4

1.0E-6/5.9E-5

1.1E-7/6.0E-6

4.5E-6/1.4E-5

6.1E-5/1.8E-4

1.1E-5/3.2E-5

1.1E-6/3.2E-6

Stream No. 27

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

7.5E-6/1.1E-3

4.0E-6/5.8E-4

9.5E-5/1.4E-2

9.5E-6/1.4E-3

9.5E-7/1.4E-4

0/NA

7.6E-5/5.9E-4

4.1E-5/3.1E-4

9.8E-4/7.5E-3

9.8E-5/7.5E-4

9.8E-6/7.5E-5

1.5E-6/1.2E-5
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

(Sample Set)

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Sport Anglers

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Subsistence Anglers

79

Stream No. 28

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

0/NA

7.4E-6/3.0E-4

1.9E-4/7.8E-3

1.4E-5/5.8E-4

1.3E-6/5.5E-5

5.8E-6/1.2E-5

7.6E-5/1.6E-4

2.0E-3/4.2E-3

1.5E-4/3.1E-4

1.4E-5/2.9E-5
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

(Sample Set)

80

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Sport Anglers

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Subsistence Anglers

Proposed BAT*:

Stream No. 1

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

0/NA

3.4E-5/9.4E-4

4.7E-4/1.3E-2

8.1E-5/2.2E-3

8.3E-6/2.3E-4

0/NA

2.5E-6/3.5E-6

3.5E-4/5.1E-4

4.8E-3/6.9E-3

8.3E-4/1.2E-3

8.5E-5/1.2E-4

3.1E-6/4.5E-6

Stream No. 2

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

1.8E-6/5.0E-5

2.3E-4/6.3E-3

3.6E-3/9.7E-2

5.0E-4/1.4E-2

5.0E-5/1.4E-3

2.1E-6/5.8E-5

1.9E-5/2.7E-5

2.4E-3/3.4E-3

3.6E-2/5.2E-2

5.2E-3/7.4E-3

5.1E-4/7.4E-4

2.2E-5/3.2E-5

Stream No. 3

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

1.5E-6/4.0E-5

2.7E-5/7.3E-4

2.8E-6/7.8E-5

0/NA

1.5E-5/2.2E-5

2.8E-4/4.0E-4

2.9E-5/4.2E-5

2.7E-6/3.9E-6

Stream No. 4

Arsenic 0/NA 9.7E-6/1.4E-5

Stream No. 5

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

0/NA

2.2E-5/1.5E-3

3.0E-4/2.0E-2

5.1E-5/3.5E-3

5.2E-6/3.5E-4

0/NA

4.0E-6/1.4E-5

2.2E-4/7.9E-4

3.0E-3/1.1E-2

5.2E-4/1.9E-3

5.3E-5/1.9E-4

2.0E-6/7.0E-6

Stream No. 6

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

1.4E-6/9.7E-5

0/NA

1.5E-5/5.3E-5

1.5E-6/5.4E-6

Stream No. 7

Arsenic 2.9E-6/2.0E-4 3.0E-5/1.1E-4
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

(Sample Set)

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Sport Anglers

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Subsistence Anglers

81

Stream No. 8

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

0/NA

0/NA

3.5E-6/1.0E-5

5.1E-7/1.5E-6

Stream No. 9

Arsenic 0/NA 7.0E-6/2.1E-5

Stream No. 10

Arsenic 0/NA 1.4E-6/3.3E-6

Stream No. 11

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

0/NA

0/NA

4.5E-6/1.1E-5

3.2E-7/7.5E-7

Stream No. 12

Arsenic 2.9E-6/7.6E-5 3.0E-5/4.1E-5

Stream No. 13

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Chrysene

0/NA

1.7E-5/4.4E-4

4.8E-5/1.3E-3

3.2E-5/8.5E-4

3.0E-6/7.9E-5

0/NA

5.2E-6/7.2E-6

1.7E-4/2.4E-4

5.0E-4/6.9E-4

3.3E-4/4.6E-4

3.1E-5/4.3E-5

1.7E-6/2.4E-6

Stream No. 14

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pryene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

1.5E-7/6.1E-6

2.7E-6/1.1E-4

2.9E-7/1.2E-5

1.5E-6/3.3E-6

2.8E-5/6.0E-5

2.9E-6/6.3E-6

Stream No. 15

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0/NA

2.7E-7/3.9E-6

3.4E-6/4.8E-5

3.4E-7/4.8E-6

1.2E-6/8.7E-7

2.8E-6/2.1E-6

3.4E-5/2.6E-5

3.5E-6/2.6E-6

Stream No. 16

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

1.2E-7/5.1E-6

8.8E-7/3.6E-5

2.4E-7/9.8E-6

1.3E-6/2.7E-6

9.1E-6/2.0E-5

2.4E-6/5.3E-6

Stream No. 17

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

1.9E-6/7.8E-5

7.8E-7/3.2E-5

1.9E-5/4.2E-5

8.0E-6/1.7E-5
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

(Sample Set)

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Sport Anglers

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Subsistence Anglers

82

Stream No. 20

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

0/NA

0/NA

1.9E-6/4.1E-6

9.3E-7/2.0E-6

Stream No. 21

Arsenic

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

0/NA

0/NA

1.7E-6/4.1E-6

5.6E-7/1.3E-6

Stream No. 24

Arsenic 0/NA 1.2E-6/2.8E-6

Stream No. 26

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

4.4E-7/2.5E-5

6.0E-6/3.4E-4

1.0E-6/5.9E-5

1.1E-7/6.0E-6

4.5E-6/1.4E-5

6.1E-5/1.8E-4

1.1E-5/3.2E-5

1.1E-6/3.2E-6

Stream No. 27

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

0/NA

4.5E-6/6.5E-4

8.1E-5/1.2E-2

1.1E-5/1.6E-3

1.1E-6/1.6E-4

6.9E-6/5.3E-5

4.6E-5/3.5E-4

8.4E-4/6.4E-3

1.1E-4/8.4E-4

1.1E-5/8.4E-5
Table 12. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue Consumption) (Continued)

(Sample Set)

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Sport Anglers

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Subsistence Anglers

83

Stream No. 28

Arsenic

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

0/NA

7.5E-6/3.1E-4

1.4E-4/5.5E-3

1.4E-5/5.9E-4

1.4E-6/5.5E-5

1.6E-6/3.5E-6

7.7E-5/1.6E-4

1.4E-3/3.0E-3

1.5E-4/3.2E-4

1.4E-5/3.0E-5

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 77, number of facilities = 103, and number of pollutants = 60. Table presents

results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk exceeds 10-6 (1E-6). Primary

chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary, even if cancer risk did not exceed 10-6

(1E-6).

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

* BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected cancer risks/cases calculated

assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations

at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never detected above

minimum level. Also, projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations

at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for select pollutants and

sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow, but not a projected reduction in load (i.e.,

loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

NA = Not Applicable

May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
84

Table 13. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron 

and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)

(Sample Set)

Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1 Drinking Water Hazard Indices >1

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 General Population

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

Affected Population

Proposed BAT**

 Streams (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 General Population

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

3

2*

NA

0

3 (1.6 - 5.3)

868

0

0

NA

0

0

0***

0

0

0

0

0***

0

0

0

0

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 77, number of facilities = 103, and number of pollutants = 60. 

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected hazard indices exceed 1.0. [See

footnote *** below.]

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

NA = Not Applicable

* Thallium and Copper

** BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected hazard indices

calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant

concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never

detected above minimum level. Also, projected hazard indices calculated assuming effluent pollutant

concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for select

pollutants and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow, but not a projected

reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

*** Total hazard indices exceed 1.0 at 7 streams at current and at 3 streams at proposed BAT. However,

at all of these streams, one or more of the following modifying factors negate the concern: pollutants’

critical effects and target organs differ, no drinking water utilities are located within 50 miles

downstream, or drinking water treatment systems are assumed to reduce concentrations below adverse

effect thresholds.

May 16, 2000, Loading File; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
85

Table 14. Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers

(All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

(Sample Set)

Health Effect Improved Streams

(No.)

Exposed Populations Reduced Cases/

IQ Points

Total Annual Benefit

($ 1997)

Gender Age Group Size

Premature Mortality 55 Men 40-54

55-64

65-74

112,000

43,000

36,000

0.0250

0.0034

0.0017

$60,000 - $315,000

$8,200 - $43,000

$4,100 - $21,000

55 Women 45-74 163,000 0.00098 $2,400 - $12,000

55 Both Neonates 17,000 0.0035 $8,400 - $44,000

Subtotal 0.035 $83,000 - $435,000

IQ Changes 39 Both 0-6 15,000 55.83 $542,000 - $542,000

Total Benefits $625,000 - $977,000

Note: Number of streams evaluated = 77 and number of facilities = 103.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
86

(b) National Extrapolation

The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology

used for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample

set of 103 iron and steel facilities directly discharging 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams to 131 iron and

steel facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 100 receiving streams.

Fish Tissue (Carcinogenic and Systemic) -- At current discharge levels, 31 receiving streams

have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 7

carcinogens (Table 16). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) for sport

anglers and subsistence anglers. At current discharge levels, total excess annual cancer cases are

estimated at 3.1E-1 (Table 16). At proposed BAT discharge levels, 24 receiving streams have total

estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 7 carcinogens.

The analysis again projects total estimated risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) for sport anglers and

subsistence anglers. Total excess annual cancer cases will be reduced to 2.9E-1 at proposed BAT

discharge levels (Table 16). Based on the reduction of total excess cancer cases (2.0E-2), the monetary

value of benefits to society from avoided cancer cases ranges from $48,000 to $252,000 (1997 dollars).

In addition, the analysis projects that the systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at 3

receiving streams for 874 subsistence anglers and their families will be eliminated at proposed BAT

discharge levels (Table 17).
87

Table 15. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)

(Sample Set)

Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10-6 Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Carcinogens (No.)

 With Drinking Water Utility # 50 miles

 Carcinogens (No.)

Proposed BAT*

 Streams

 Carcinogens (No.)

 With Drinking Water Utility # 50 miles

 Carcinogens (No.)

22

6** (1.1E-6 to 8.7E-5)

3

2*** (1.2E-6 to 5.0E-6)

14

6** (1.3E-6 to 7.8E-5)

1

2*** (2.6E-6)

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

0

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 77, number of facilities = 103, and number of pollutants = 60. Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected

excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10-6 (1E-6). Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did not

exceed 10-6 (1E-6).

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

* BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at

proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never detected

above minimum level. Also, projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant

concentrations at current for select pollutants and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow, but not a projected reduction in load (i.e.,

loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

** Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, o-Toluidine, and Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.

*** Arsenic and Benzo(a)pyrene. EPA has published a drinking water standard for the 2 carcinogens and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems will

reduce concentrations below adverse effect thresholds.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
88

Table 16. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

(National Level)

Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10-6 Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Carcinogens (No.)

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

 TOTAL

Proposed BAT*

 Streams (No.)

 Carcinogens (No.)

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

 TOTAL

31

7

19 (1.3E-6 to 4.6E-3)

31 (2.9E-6 to 4.7E-2)

24

7

16 (1.2E-6 to 4.4E-3)

24 (1.2E-6 to 4.4E-2)

NA/NA

NA

2.0E-1

1.1E-1

3.1E-1

NA/NA

NA

1.9E-1

1.0E-1

2.9E-1

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 100, number of facilities = 131, and number of pollutants = 60. 

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk exceeds 10-6 (1E-6). 

Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10-6 (1E-6). 

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

NA = Not Applicable

* BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed

BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never detected above minimum

level. Also, projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations

at current for select pollutants and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow, but not a projected reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the

cost-effectiveness analysis).

May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
89

Fish Tissue (Lead) -- At the proposed BAT discharge levels, the ingestion of lead-contaminated

fish tissue by children (ages 0-6) of sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 46 receiving streams (Table

18). The analysis projects a potentially exposed population of 17,000 children. Based on the annual

reduction of total IQ loss (57.26 points), the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided loss of IQ

points is $556,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 18). Additionally, the ingestion of lead-contaminated fish tissue

by adult sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 68 receiving streams (Table 18). The analysis projects

that the proposed guidelines will reduce premature mortality by an estimated 3.1E-2 cases annually for

200,000 men (ages 40-74), 1.0E-3 cases annually for 170,000 women (ages 45-74), and 3.6E-3 cases

annually for 18,000 neonates. Based on the reductions in blood pressure, as it relates to premature

mortality, the total annual monetary benefits to society from avoided mortality ranges from $86,000 to

$451,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 18).

Drinking Water -- At current discharge levels, 27 receiving streams have total estimated

individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 6 carcinogens (Table 19).

Drinking water utilities are located within 50 miles downstream of 5 sites that discharge 2 carcinogens with

risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6). However, EPA has published a drinking water standard for the 2

carcinogens and the analysis assumes that drinking water treatment systems will reduce concentrations to

below adverse effect thresholds. Therefore, the analysis projects no total excess cancer cases. In addition,

the analysis projects no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at current or proposed

BAT discharge levels (Table 17).
90

Table 17. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron 

and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)

(National Level)

Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1 Drinking Water Hazard Indices >1

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 General Population

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

Affected Population

Proposed BAT**

 Streams (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 General Population

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

3

2*

N/A

0

3 (1.6 - 5.3)

874

0

0

N/A

0

0

0***

0

0

0

0

0***

0

0

0

0

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 100, number of facilities = 131, and number of pollutants = 60. 

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected hazard indices exceed 1.0. [See

footnote *** below.]

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

* Thallium and Copper

** BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT for other subcategories. Projected hazard indices calculated

assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant

concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never

detected above minimum level. Also, projected hazard indices calculated assuming effluent pollutant

concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for select

pollutants and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow, but not a projected

reduction in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

*** Total hazard indices exceed 1.0 at 7 streams at current and at 3 streams at proposed BAT. However,

at all of these streams, one or more of the following modifying factors negate the concern: pollutants’

critical effects and target organs differ, no drinking water utilities are located within 50 miles

downstream, or drinking water treatment systems are assumed to reduce concentrations below adverse

effect thresholds.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
91

Table 18. Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers

(All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

(National Level)

Health Effect Improved Streams

(No.)

Exposed Populations Reduced Cases/

IQ Points

Total Annual Benefits

($ 1997)

Gender Age Group Size

Premature Mortality 68 Men 40-54

55-64

65-74

117,000

46,000

37,000

0.026

0.0035

0.0017

$62,000 - $328,000

$8,400 - $44,000

$4,100 - $21,000

68 Women 45-74 170,000 0.0010 $2,400 - $13,000

68 Both Neonates 18,000 0.0036 $8,600 - $45,000

Subtotal 0.036 $86,000 - $451,000

IQ Changes 46 Both 0-6 17,000 57.26 $556,000 - $556,000

Total Benefits $642,000 - $1,007,000

Note: Number of streams evaluated = 100, and number of facilities = 131.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
92

Table 19. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)

(National Level)

Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10-6 Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Carcinogens (No.)

 With Drinking Water Utility # 50 miles

 Carcinogens (No.)

Proposed BAT*

 Streams

 Carcinogens (No.)

 With Drinking Water Utility # 50 miles

 Carcinogens (No.)

27

6** (1.1E-6 to 8.7E-5)

5

2*** (1.2E-6 to 5.0E-6)

15

6** (1.3E-6 to 7.8E-5)

1

2*** (2.6E-6)

NA

NA

NA

0

NA

NA

NA

0

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 100, number of facilities = 131, and number of pollutants = 60. 

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10-6 (1E-6). 

Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10-6 (1E-6).

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

* BAT3 for cokemaking subcategory; BAT1 for other subcategories. Projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at

proposed BAT are equal to effluent pollutant concentrations at current for those pollutants and sites/subcategories where pollutants were never detected

above minimum level. Also, projected cancer risks/cases calculated assuming effluent pollutant concentrations at proposed BAT are equal to effluent

pollutant concentrations at current for select pollutants and sites/subcategories where there is a projected reduction in flow, but not a projected reduction

in load (i.e., loads used in the cost-effectiveness analysis).

** Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, o-Toluidine, and Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.

*** Arsenic and Benzo(a)pyrene. EPA has published a drinking water standard for the 2 carcinogens and it is assumed that drinking water treatment systems

will reduce concentrations below adverse effect thresholds.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files; September 19, 2000, Loading File for Cokemaking Subcategory.
93

4.1.2.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities

(a) Sample Set

The analysis evaluates the effects of POTW wastewater discharges on human health from the

consumption of fish tissue and drinking water at current and proposed PSES discharge levels for 47 iron

and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 43 POTWs with outfalls on 43 receiving streams.

Fish Tissue (Carcinogenic and Systemic) -- At current discharge levels, 4 receiving streams

have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 3

carcinogens (Tables 20 and 21). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) for

only subsistence anglers. At current discharge levels, total excess annual cancer cases are estimated

to be 6.0E-5 (Table 20). At proposed PSES discharge levels, the 4 receiving streams have total estimated

individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 2 carcinogens (Tables 20

and 21). The analysis again projects total estimated risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) for only subsistence

anglers. Total excess annual cancer cases will be reduced to 5.7E-5 at proposed PSES levels (Table

20). Based on the reduction of total excess cancer cases (3.0E-6), the monetary value of benefits to

society from avoided cancer cases is less than $100 (1997 dollars). In addition, the analysis projects no

systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at current or proposed PSES discharge levels

(Table 22).

Fish Tissue (Lead) -- At the proposed PSES discharge levels, the ingestion of lead-contaminated

fish tissue by children (ages 0-6) of sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 4 receiving streams (Table

23). The analysis projects a potentially exposed population of 800 children. Based on the annual reduction

of total IQ loss (0.026 points) the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided loss of IQ points is

$250 (1997 dollars) (Table 23). Additionally, the ingestion of lead-contaminated fish tissue by adult sport

and subsistence anglers is reduced at 24 receiving streams (Table 23). The analysis projects that the

proposed guidelines will reduce premature mortality by an estimated 3.1E-5 cases annually for 181,000
94

Table 20. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

(Sample Set)

Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10-6 Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Current

Streams (No.)

Carcinogens (No.)

Sport Anglers

Subsistence Anglers

TOTAL

Proposed PSES*

Streams (No.)

Carcinogens (No.)

Sport Anglers

Subsistence Anglers

TOTAL

4

3

0

4 (1.9E-6 to 4.7E-6)

4

2

0

4 (1.9E-6 to 4.3E-6)

NA/NA

NA

NA

6.0E-5

6.0E-5

NA/NA

NA

NA

5.7E-5

5.7E-5

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 43, number of POTWs = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants = 56.

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk exceeds 10-6 (1E-6). 

Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10-6 (1E-6).

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

NA = Not Applicable

* PSES1 for all subcategories.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
95

Table 21. Summary of Pollutants Projected to Cause Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue Consumption)

(Sample Set)

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Sport Anglers

Cancer Risks >10-6/

Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Subsistence Anglers

Current:

Stream No. 1

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0/NA

0/NA

1.6E-6/3.4E-6

2.9E-7/6.3E-7

Stream No. 2

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0/NA

0/NA

3.2E-6/7.6E-6

5.9E-7/1.4E-6

Stream No. 3

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0/NA

0/NA

2.5E-6/8.9E-6

4.6E-7/1.6E-6

Stream No. 4

Arsenic

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0/NA

0/NA

0/NA

4.2E-7/3.2E-6

3.6E-6/2.8E-5

6.6E-7/5.1E-6

Proposed PSES*:

Stream No. 1

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0/NA

0/NA

1.6E-6/3.4E-6

2.9E-7/6.3E-7

Stream No. 2

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0/NA

0/NA

3.2E-6/7.6E-6

5.9E-7/1.4E-6

Stream No. 3

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0/NA

0/NA

2.5E-6/8.9E-6

4.6E-7/1.6E-6

Stream No. 4

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0/NA

0/NA

3.6E-6/2.8E-5

6.6E-7/5.1E-6

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 43, number of POTWs = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants

= 56. Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk exceeds 10-6

(1E-6). Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary, even if cancer risk

did not exceed 10-6 (1E-6).

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

NA = Not Applicable

* PSES1 for all subcategories.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
96

Table 22. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron 

and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)

(Sample Set)

Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1 Drinking Water Hazard Indices >1

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 General Population

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

Proposed PSES*

 Streams (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 General Population

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

0

0

NA

0

0

0

0

NA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 43, number of POTWs = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants

= 56. 

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected hazard indices exceed 1.0.

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

NA = Not Applicable

* PSES1 for all subcategories.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
97

men (ages 40-74), estimated 3.1E-5 cases annually for 181,000 men (ages 40-74), 1.0E-6 cases annually

for 155,000 women (ages 45-74), and 3.4E-6 cases annually for 16,000 neonates. Based on the

reductions in blood pressure, as it relates to premature mortality, the total annual monetary benefits to

society from avoided mortality range from $85 to $450 (1997 dollars) (Table 23).

Drinking Water -- At current and proposed PSES discharge levels, the analysis projects that

no receiving streams will have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6)

(Table 24).

(b) National Extrapolation

The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology

for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. Extrapolated values are based on the sample set of 47

iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 43 POTWs with outfalls on 43 receiving streams. The

analysis extrapolates these values to 67 iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 61 POTWs

located on 61 receiving streams.

Fish Tissue (Carcinogenic and Systemic) -- At current discharge levels, 4 receiving streams

have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 3

carcinogens (Table 25). The analysis projects total estimated risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) for only

subsistence anglers. At current discharge levels, total excess annual cancer cases are estimated to be

6.0E-5 (Table 25). At proposed PSES discharge levels, the 4 receiving streams have total estimated

individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) due to the discharge of 2 carcinogens (Table 25).

The analysis again projects total estimated risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6) for only subsistence anglers.

Total excess annual cancer cases will be reduced to 5.7E-5 at proposed PSES discharge levels (Table

25). Based on the reduction of total excess cancer cases (3.0E-6), the monetary value of benefits
98

Table 23. Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers

(All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

(Sample Set)

Health Effect Improved Streams

(No.)

Exposed Populations Reduced Cases/

IQ Points

Total Annual

Benefits

Gender Age Group Size ($ 1997)

Premature Mortality 24 Men 40-54

55-64

65-74

106,000

41,000

34,000

0.000026

0.0000036

0.0000018

$60 - $330

$10 - $45

$5 - $20

24 Women 45-74 155,000 0.0000010 $0 - $10

24 Both Neonates 16,000 0.0000034 $10 - $45

Subtotal 0.000036 $85 - $450

IQ Changes 4 Both 0-6 800 0.026 $250 - $250

Total Benefits $340 - $700

Note: Number of streams evaluated = 43, and number of facilities = 47.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
99

Table 24. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)

(Sample Set)

Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10-6 Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Carcinogens (No.)

 With Drinking Water Utility # 50 miles

 Carcinogens (No.)

Proposed PSES*

 Streams

 Carcinogens (No.)

 With Drinking Water Utility # 50 miles

 Carcinogens (No.)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 43, number of POTWs = 43, number of facilities = 47, and number of pollutants = 56. 

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10-6 (1E-6). 

Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10-6 (1E-6).

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

NA = Not Applicable

* PSES1 for all subcategories.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
100

Table 25. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

(National Level)

Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10-6 Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Carcinogens (No.)

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

 TOTAL

Proposed PSES*

 Streams (No.)

 Carcinogens (No.)

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

 TOTAL

4

3

0

4 (1.9E-6 to 4.7E-6)

4

2

0

4 (1.9E-6 to 4.3E-6)

NA/NA

NA

NA

6.0E-5

6.0E-5

NA/NA

NA

NA

5.7E-5

5.7E-5

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 61, number of POTWs = 61, number of facilities = 67, and number of pollutants = 56.

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk exceeds 10-6 (1E-6). 

Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10-6 (1E-6).

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

NA = Not Applicable

* PSES1 for all subcategories.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
101

to society from avoided cancer cases is less than $100 (1997 dollars). In addition, the analysis projects

no systemic toxicant effects (hazard index greater than 1.0) at current or proposed PSES discharge levels

(Table 26).

Fish Tissue (Lead) – At the proposed PSES discharge levels, the ingestion of lead-contaminated

fish tissue by children (ages 0-6) of sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 5 receiving streams (Table

27). The analysis projects a potentially exposed population of 1,000 children. Based on the annual

reduction of total IQ loss (0.030 points), the monetary value of benefits to society from avoided loss of IQ

points is $290 (1997 dollars) (Table 27). Additionally, the ingestion of lead contaminated fish tissue by

adult sport and subsistence anglers is reduced at 37 receiving streams (Table 27). The analysis projects

that the proposed guidelines will reduce premature mortality by an estimated 3.6E-5 cases annually for

280,000 men (ages 40-74), 1.2E-6 cases annually for 238,000 women (ages 45-74), and 3.9E-6 cases

annually for 24,000 neonates. Based on the reductions in blood pressure, as it relates to premature

mortality, the total annual monetary benefits to society from avoided mortality range from $100 to $520

(1997 dollars) (Table 27).

Drinking Water -- At current and proposed PSES discharge levels, the analysis projects that

no receiving streams will have total estimated individual-pollutant cancer risks greater than 10-6 (1E-6)

(Table 28).

4.1.3 Estimation of Ecological Benefits

The analysis evaluates the potential ecological benefits of the proposed regulation by estimating

improvements in the recreational fishing habitats that are adversely impacted by direct and indirect iron and

steel wastewater discharges. Impacts include acute and chronic toxicity, sublethal effects on metabolic and

reproductive functions, physical destruction of spawning and feeding habitats, and loss of prey organisms.
102

Table 26. Summary of Potential Systemic Human Health Impacts for Iron 

and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Fish Tissue and Drinking Water Consumption)

(National Level)

Fish Tissue Hazard Indices > 1 Drinking Water Hazard Indices >1

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 General Population

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

Proposed PSES*

 Streams (No.)

 Pollutants (No.)

 General Population

 Sport Anglers

 Subsistence Anglers

0

0

NA

0

0

0

0

NA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 61, number of POTWs = 61, number of facilities = 67, and number of pollutants

= 56. 

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected hazard indices exceed 1.0.

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

NA = Not Applicable

* PSES1 for all subcategories.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
103

Table 27. Summary of Potential Lead-Related Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers

(All Subcategories) (Fish Tissue Consumption)

(National Level)

Health Effect Improved Streams

(No.)

Exposed Populations Reduced Cases/

IQ Points

Total Annual Benefits

($ 1997)

Gender Age Group Size

Premature Mortality 37 Men 40-54

55-64

65-74

164,000

64,000

52,000

0.00003

0.0000041

0.0000020

$70 - $380

$10 - $50

$5 - $25

37 Women 45-74 238,000 0.0000012 $5 - $15

37 Both Neonates 24,000 0.0000039 $10 - $50

Subtotal 0.000041 $100 - $520

IQ Changes 5 Both 0-6 1,000 0.030 $290 - $290

Total Benefits $400 - $800

Note: Number of streams evaluated = 61, and number of facilities = 67.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
104

Table 28. Summary of Potential Human Health Impacts for Iron and Steel 

Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories) (Drinking Water Consumption)

(National Level)

Total Individual Cancer Risks > 10-6 Total Excess Annual Cancer Cases

Current

 Streams (No.)

 Carcinogens (No.)

 With Drinking Water Utility # 50 miles

 Carcinogens (No.)

Proposed PSES*

 Streams

 Carcinogens (No.)

 With Drinking Water Utility # 50 miles

 Carcinogens (No.)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NOTE: Number of streams evaluated = 61, number of POTWs = 61, number of facilities = 67, and number of pollutants = 56. 

Table presents results for those streams/facilities for which the projected excess cancer risk for any pollutant exceeds 10-6 (1E-6). 

Primary chemicals contributing to the excess cancer risk are included in summary even if cancer risk did not exceed 10-6 (1E-6).

Pollutants detected at or below minimum level were assumed to be present at the minimum level.

NA = Not Applicable

* PSES1 for all subcategories.

May 16, 2000, Loading Files.
105

These effects will vary because of the diversity of species with differing sensitivities. For example, lead

exposure can cause spinal deformities in rainbow trout. Copper exposure can affect the growth activity of

algae. In addition, copper and cadmium can be acutely toxic to aquatic life, including finfish. The following

sections summarize the potential monetary benefits for direct and indirect iron and steel discharges, as well

as additional benefits that are not monetized.

4.1.3.1 Direct Discharging Facilities

(a) Sample Set

The analysis evaluates the effects of direct wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats at current

and proposed BAT discharge levels for 103 iron and steel facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 77

receiving streams (Tables 1 and 3). The analysis projects that the final regulation will completely eliminate

instream concentrations in excess of AWQC at 2 receiving streams (Table 3). The analysis estimates the

monetary value of improved recreational fishing opportunities by first calculating the baseline value of the

benefitting stream segment (Table 29). From the estimated total of 30,423 person-days fished on the 2

stream segments and the value per person-day of recreational fishing ($31.68 to $40.12, 1997 dollars),

the analysis estimates a baseline value of $964,000 to $1,221,000 for the 2 stream segments (Table 29).

The value of improving water quality in these fisheries is then calculated on the basis of the increase in value

(11.1 percent to 31.3 percent) to anglers of achieving a contaminant-free fishing stream (Lyke, 1993). The

resulting estimate of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers ranges from $107,000 to

$382,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 29). In addition, the estimate of the nonuse (intrinsic) benefits to the

general public, as a result of the same improvements in water quality, ranges from $53,500 to $191,000

(1997 dollars) (Table 29). The analysis estimates these nonuse benefits as one-half of the recreational

benefits, which may be significantly underestimating them.
106

Table 29. Summary of Ecological (Recreational and Nonuse) Benefits for Iron and Steel Direct Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Sample Set and National Level)

Data

Number of Stream Segments

with Concentrations

Exceeding AWQC Eliminated

Total Fishing

Days

Baseline Value of

Fisheries ($ 1997)

Increased Value of

Fisheries ($ 1997)

Sample Set 2 30,423 $964,000 - $1,221,000 $107,000 - $382,000

National Level 2 30,947 $980,000 - $1,242,000 $109,000 - $389,000

NOTE: Value per person-day of recreational fishing = $31.68 (warm water) and $40.12 (cold water).

Increased value of contaminant-free fishing = 11.1 to 31.3 percent.

Data

Number of Stream Segments

with Concentrations

Exceeding AWQC Eliminated

Increased Nonuse

Value ($ 1997)

Sample Set 2 $53,500 - $191,000

National Level 2 $54,500 - $194,500

NOTE: Nonuse value estimated as one-half of the recreational benefits.
107

(b) National Extrapolation

The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology

for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample set

of 103 iron and steel facilities directly discharging 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams (Tables 1 and 3)

to 131 iron and steel facilities discharging 60 pollutants to 100 receiving streams (Tables 1 and 5).

The analysis projects the final regulation will completely eliminate instream pollutant concentrations

in excess of AWQC at 2 receiving streams (Table 5). The analysis estimates the benefits to recreational

(sport) anglers based on improved water quality and improved value of fishing opportunities. The resulting

estimate of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers ranges from $109,000 to $389,000 (1997

dollars) (Table 29). In addition, the resulting increase in nonuse value to the general public ranges from

$54,500 to $194,500 (1997 dollars) (Table 29).

4.1.3.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities

(a) Sample Set

The analysis evaluates the effects of indirect wastewater discharges on aquatic habitats at current

and proposed PSES discharge levels for 47 iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 43 POTWs

with outfalls located on 43 receiving streams (Tables 6 and 7). The analysis projects that the final regulation

will completely eliminate instream concentrations in excess of AWQC at 1 receiving stream (Table 7). The

analysis estimates the monetary value of improved recreational fishing opportunities by first calculating the

baseline value of the benefitting stream segment (Table 30). From the estimated total of 22,923 persondays fished on the 1 stream segment and the value per person-day of recreational fishing ($31.68 and

$40.12, 1997 dollars), the analysis estimates a baseline value of $726,000 to $920,000 for the 1 stream

segment (Table 30). The value of improving water quality in this fishery is then calculated on the basis of
108

Table 30. Summary of Ecological (Recreational and Nonuse) Benefits for Iron and Steel Indirect Dischargers (All Subcategories)

(Sample Set and National Level)

Data

Number of Stream Segments

with Concentrations

Exceeding AWQC Eliminated

Total Fishing

Days

Baseline Value of

Fisheries ($ 1994)

Increased Value of

Fisheries ($ 1997)

Sample Set 1 22,923 $726,000 - $920,000 $81,000 - $288,000

National Level 2 40,556 $1,285,000 - $1,627,000 $143,000 - $509,000

NOTE: Value per person-day of recreational fishing = $31.68 (warm water) and $40.12 (cold water).

Increased value of contaminant-free fishing = 11.1 to 31.3 percent.

Data

Number of Stream Segments

with Concentrations

Exceeding AWQC Eliminated

Increased Nonuse

Value ($ 1997)

Sample Set 1 $40,500 - $144,000

National Level 2 $71,500 - $254,500

NOTE: Nonuse value estimated as one-half of the recreational benefits.
109

the increase in value (11.1 percent to 31.3 percent) to anglers of achieving a contaminant-free fishing

stream (Lyke, 1993). The resulting estimate of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers ranges

from $81,000 to $288,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 30). In addition, the estimate of the nonuse (intrinsic)

benefits to the general public, as a result of the same improvements in water quality, ranges from $40,500

to $144,000 (1997 dollars) (Table 30). The analysis estimates these nonuse benefits as one-half of the

recreational benefits, which may be significantly underestimating them.

(b) National Extrapolation

The analysis extrapolates the sample set data to the national level using the statistical methodology

for estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts. The analysis extrapolates values from the sample set

of 47 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 43 POTWs located on 43 receiving

streams (Tables 6 and 7) to 67 indirect iron and steel facilities discharging 56 pollutants to 61 POTWs

located on 61 receiving streams (Tables 6 and 10).

The analysis projects the final regulation will completely eliminate instream pollutant concentrations

in excess of AWQC at 2 receiving streams (Table 10). The analysis estimates the benefits to recreational

(sport) anglers based on improved water quality and improved value of fishing opportunities. The resulting

estimate of the increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers ranges from $143,000 to $509,000 (1997

dollars) (Table 30). In addition, the resulting increase in nonuse value to the general public ranges from

$71,500 to $254,500 (1997 dollars) (Table 30).

4.2 Pollutant Fate and Toxicity

Levels of human exposure, ecological exposure, and risk from environmental releases of toxic

chemicals depend largely on toxic potency, intermedia partitioning, and chemical persistence. These

exposure and risk factors depend on the chemical-specific properties of toxicological effects on living
110

organisms, physical state, hydrophobicity/lipophilicity, and reactivity, as well as on the mechanism and

media of release and site-specific environmental conditions.

Using available data on the physical-chemical properties, and aquatic life and human health toxicity

data for the 70 direct discharge iron and steel pollutants of concern, the analysis determines the following:

23 pollutants exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 39 are human systemic toxicants, 16 are

classified as known or probable carcinogens, 23 have drinking water values (15 with enforceable

health-based maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), 6 with a secondary MCL, and 2 with an action level

for treatment), and 28 are designated by EPA as priority pollutants (Tables 31, 32, and 33). In terms of

projected environmental partitioning among media, 16 of the evaluated pollutants are moderately to highly

volatile (potentially causing risk to exposed populations via inhalation), 25 have a moderate to high potential

to bioaccumulate in aquatic biota (potentially accumulating in the food chain and causing increased risk to

higher trophic level organisms and to exposed human populations via fish and shellfish consumption), 18

are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids, and 8 are resistant to biodegradation or are slowly

biodegraded.

In addition, using available data on the physical-chemical properties, and aquatic life and human

health toxicity data for the 66 indirect discharge iron and steel pollutants of concern, the analysis determines

the following: 22 exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life, 38 are human systemic toxicants, 15 are

classified as known or probable carcinogens, 23 have drinking water values (15 with enforceable healthbased MCLs, 6 with a secondary MCL, and 2 with an action level for treatment), and 27 are designated

by EPA as priority pollutants (Tables 34, 35, and 36). In terms of projected environmental partitioning

among media, 16 of the pollutants are moderately to highly volatile, 22 have a moderate to high potential

to bioaccumulate in aquatic biota, 16 are moderately to highly adsorptive to solids, and 8 are resistant to

biodegradation or are slowly biodegraded.
111

4.3 Documented Environmental Impacts

The analysis reviews information received from reports, State 303(d) lists of impaired waterbodies,

and State fishing advisories for documented impacts due to discharges from iron and steel facilities. States

identified at least 17 impaired waterbodies, with industrial point sources as a potential source of impairment,

that receive direct discharges from iron and steel facilities (and other sources). These waterbodies are

included on the States’ 303(d) prioritized lists of impaired waterbodies (Table 37). Section 303(d) of the

Water Quality Act of 1987 requires States to identify waterbodies that do not meet state water quality

standards and to develop a “total maximum daily load” or TMDL for each listed waterbody. A TMDL

is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water

quality standards, which is then allocated to the pollutant’s sources. States also have issued fish

consumption advisories for 12 specific waterbodies that receive direct discharges from iron and steel

facilities (and other sources) (Table 38). The advisories are for mercury, an iron and steel pollutant of

concern. Over 25 fish consumption advisories were issued for waterbodies that receive wastewater

discharges from iron and steel facilities. However, the vast majority of advisories are for chemicals that are

not pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, FY 98

Accomplishments Report (U.S. EPA, 1999) identified significant noncompliance (SNC) rates (most

egregious violations under each program or statute) for iron and steel facilities (Table 39). Of the 27

integrated mills inspected in fiscal years (FY) 1996 and 1997, 96 percent were out of compliance with one

or more statutes, and 65 percent were in SNC. In FY 1998, of the 23 integrated mills inspected, 39.1

percent of the facilities were in SNC with their water permits, 72.7 percent with air violations, and 30.4

percent with RCRA violations. SNC rates for 91 mini-mills were 21.2 percent for air, 2.7 percent for

water permits, and 4.5 percent for RCRA. Key compliance and environmental problems included

groundwater contamination from slag disposal, contaminated sediments from steelmaking, electric arc

furnace dust, unregulated sources, SNCs from recurring and single peak violations, and no baseline testing.
Table 31. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (70) Discharged from 103 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities

Acute Volatility Biodegra- Drinking

CAS Aquatic from Adsorption Bioaccumulation dation Systemic Water Priority

No. Number Name Toxicity Water to Solids Potential Potential Carcinogen Toxicant Value Pollutant

1 C002 BOD 5-day (carbonaceous) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

2 C004 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

3 C005 Nitrate/Nitrite (NO2 + NO3-N) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X M

4 C009 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

5 C012 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

6 C020 Total Recoverable Phenolics Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

7 C021 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

8 C025 Amenable Cyanide Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

9 C036 Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

10 C037 Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

11 C042 Weak Acid Dissociable Cyanide Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

12 50328 Benzo(a)pyrene High Slight High High Resistant X M X

13 56553 Benzo(a)anthracene High Slight High High Resistant X X

14 57125 Total Cyanide High Unknown Slight Nonbioaccumulative Moderate X M X

15 62533 Aniline Moderate Slight Slight Slight Moderate X

16 67641 Acetone Slight Moderate Slight Nonbioaccumulative Fast X

17 71432 Benzene Slight High Slight Slight Moderate X X M X

18 85018 Phenanthrene Moderate Moderate High Moderate Resistant X

19 91203 Naphthalene Slight Moderate Slight Slight Moderate X X X

20 91576 2-Methylnaphthalene Slight Moderate Moderate High Moderate X

21 95487 o-Cresol Slight Slight Slight Slight Fast X X

22 95534 o-Toluidine Moderate Slight Slight Slight Fast X

23 98555 alpha-Terpineol Slight Moderate Slight Slight Moderate

24 100027 4-Nitrophenol Slight Nonvolatile Slight Moderate Fast X X

25 105679 2,4-Dimethylphenol Slight Slight Slight Moderate Fast X X

26 106445 p-Cresol Slight Slight Slight Slight Fast X X

27 108952 Phenol Slight Slight Slight Nonbioaccumulative Fast X X

28 110861 Pyridine Slight Slight Nonadsorptive Nonbioaccumulative Fast X

29 112403 n-Dodecane * Slight Unknown High High Moderate

30 112958 n-Eicosane * Slight Unknown High High Moderate

31 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate Unknown Nonvolatile High Moderate Moderate X X M X

32 124185 n-Decane Slight Unknown High High Moderate

33 129000 Pyrene Moderate Moderate High High Resistant X X

34 132649 Dibenzofuran Slight Moderate Moderate High Moderate X

35 142621 Hexanoic Acid Slight Moderate Slight Slight Moderate

36 205992 Benzo(b)fluoranthene Unknown Moderate High High Resistant X X

37 206440 Fluoranthene High Moderate High High Resistant X X

38 207089 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Unknown Moderate High High Resistant X X

39 218019 Chrysene Moderate Moderate High High Resistant X X

40 302045 Thiocyanate Moderate Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

41 544763 n-Hexadecane * Slight Unknown High High Moderate

42 593453 n-Octadecane * Slight Unknown High High Moderate

43 612942 2-Phenylnaphthalene Moderate Moderate High High Moderate

44 7429905 Aluminum Moderate Unknown Unknown Moderate Unknown X SM

^ October 25, 2000
Table 31. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (70) Discharged from 103 Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities (continued)

Acute Volatility Biodegra- Drinking

CAS Aquatic from Adsorption Bioaccumulation dation Systemic Water Priority

No. Number Name Toxicity Water to Solids Potential Potential Carcinogen Toxicant Value Pollutant

45 7439896 Iron Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X SM

46 7439921 Lead High Unknown Unknown Slight Unknown X TT X

47 7439954 Magnesium Slight Unknown Unknown High Unknown

48 7439965 Manganese Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X SM

49 7439976 Mercury High High High High Unknown X M X

50 7439987 Molybdenum Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

51 7440020 Nickel** Moderate Unknown Slight Slight Unknown X X

52 7440224 Silver High Unknown Unknown Nonbioaccumulative Unknown X SM X

53 7440280 Thallium Slight Unknown Unknown Moderate Unknown X M X

54 7440315 Tin Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

55 7440326 Titanium Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

56 7440360 Antimony Slight Unknown Unknown Nonbioaccumulative Unknown X M X

57 7440382 Arsenic Moderate Unknown Unknown Slight Unknown X X M X

58 7440393 Barium Slight Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X M

59 7440428 Boron Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

60 7440439 Cadmium High Unknown Unknown Moderate Unknown X X M X

61 7440473 Chromium Moderate Unknown Unknown Slight Unknown X M X

62 7440484 Cobalt Slight Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

63 7440508 Copper High Unknown Unknown Moderate Unknown X TT X

64 7440622 Vanadium Slight Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

65 7440666 Zinc Moderate Unknown Unknown Slight Unknown X SM X

66 7664417 Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Slight Moderate Nonadsorptive Unknown Moderate

67 7782492 Selenium High Unknown Unknown Nonbioaccumulative Unknown X M X

68 14808798 Sulfate Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown SM

69 16984488 Fluoride Slight Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X M

70 18540299 Chromium, Hexavalent High Unknown Unknown Slight Unknown X X M X

Note: Metals, because of their physical/chemical properties, are, in general, not applicable to categorization into groups based on volatility, adsorption to solids, and biodegradation 

potential.

M= Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established for health-based effect.

SM= Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) established for taste or aesthetic effect.

TT= Treatment technology action level established.

* Aquatic toxicity data for n-decane are reported based on structural similarity.

** MCL of 0.1 mg/L remanded in 1995. EPA is reconsidering limit.

^ October 25, 2000
Table 32. Iron and Steel Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects*

(Direct Dischargers)

Cas Number Toxicant Reference Dose Target Organ and Critical Effects

1 C005 Nitrate/Nitrite Blood: methemoglobinemia (infants) (a)

2 57125 Total Cyanide Whole Body, Thyroid, Nerve: weight loss, thyroid effects, and 

myeline degeneration

3 67641 Acetone Liver, Kidney: increased liver and kidney weights and nephrotoxicity

4 71432 Benzene (b)

5 91203 Naphthalene Body Weight: decreased body weights

6 91576 2-Methylnaphthalene (b)

7 95487 o-Cresol Body Weight, Nervous System: decreased body weights and 

neurotoxicity

8 100027 4-Nitrophenol (b)

9 105679 2,4-Dimethylphenol General Toxicity, Blood: lethargy, hematological changes

10 106445 p-Cresol Nervous System, Respiratory, Whole Body: hypoactivity, distress, 

maternal death

11 108952 Phenol Reproductive: reduced fetal body weights

12 110861 Pyridine Liver: increased liver weights

13 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate Liver: increased liver weights

14 129000 Pyrene Kidney: renal tubular pathology, decreased kidney weights

15 132649 Dibenzofuran (b)

16 206440 Fluoranthene Kidney, Liver, Blood: nephropathy, increased liver weights, 

hematological alterations, and clinical effects

17 7429905 Aluminum (b)

18 7439896 Iron (b)

19 7439965 Manganese Nervous System: CNS effects

20 7439976 Mercury Nervous System: neurotoxicity

21 7439987 Molybdenum Urine, Joint, Blood: increased uric acid, pain and swelling, 

decreased copper level

22 7440020 Nickel Body Weight: decreased body and organ weights

23 7440224 Silver Skin: argyria

24 7440280 Thallium (b)

25 7440315 Tin Kidney, Liver: lesions

26 7440326 Titanium (b)

27 7440360 Antimony Blood: blood glucose and cholesteral, decreased longevity

28 7440382 Arsenic Skin: hyperpigmentation, keratosis, possible vascular complications

29 7440393 Barium Cardiovascular: increased blood pressure

30 7440428 Boron Testis: testicular atrophy, spermatogenic arrest

31 7440439 Cadmium Kidney: significant proteinuria

32 7440473 Chromium No adverse effects observed (c)

33 7440484 Cobalt (b)

34 7440508 Copper (b)

35 7440622 Vanadium GI, Kidney, Nervous System: GI disturbances, renal function, CNS 

effects

36 7440666 Zinc Blood: anemia

37 7782492 Selenium Respiratory: clinical selenosis

38 16984488 Fluoride Dental: objectionable dental fluorosis

39 18540299 Chromium, Hexavalent No adverse effects observed (c)

* Chemicals with EPA-verified or provisional human health-based reference doses (RfD), referred to as 

"systemic toxicants."

(a) Values for nitrate are assumed.

(b) RfD is an EPA-NCEA provisional value; Contact EPA-NCEA Superfund Technical Support Center for 

supporting documentation.

(c) RfD based on no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL).
Table 33. Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence

Classifications, and Target Organs 

(Direct Dischargers)

CAS Carcinogen Weight-of-Evidence Target Organs

Number Classification

1 50328 Benzo(a)pyrene B2 Stomach, Lungs

2 56553 Benzo(a)anthracene B2 Liver, Lungs

3 62533 Aniline B2 Spleen, Body Cavity

4 71432 Benzene A Blood

5 91203 Naphthalene* C Lungs

6 95487 o-Cresol* C Skin

7 95534 o-Toluidine B2 Skin

8 106445 p-Cresol* C Bladder

9 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate B2 Liver

10 205992 Benzo(b)fluoranthene B2 Lungs, Skin

11 207089 Benzo(k)fluoranthene B2 Lungs

12 218019 Chrysene B2 Liver

13 7439921 Lead* B2 Kidney

14 7440382 Arsenic A Skin and Lungs

15 7440439 Cadmium* B1 Lungs, Trachea, and Bronchi

16 18540299 Chromium, Hexavalent* A/D Lungs

A= Human carcinogen

B1= Probable human carcinogen (limited human data)

B2= Probable human carcinogen (animal data only)

C= Possible human carcinogen

D= Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity

* Not included in Risks and Benefits Analysis; quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral 

exposure not available.
Table 34. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (66) Discharged from 47 Indirect Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities

Acute Volatility Biodegra- Drinking

CAS Aquatic from Adsorption Bioaccumulation dation Systemic Water Priority

No. Number Name Toxicity Water to Solids Potential Potential Carcinogen Toxicant Value Pollutant

1 C002 BOD 5-day (carbonaceous) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

2 C004 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

3 C005 Nitrate/Nitrite (NO2 + NO3-N) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X M

4 C009 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

5 C012 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

6 C020 Total Recoverable Phenolics Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

7 C021 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

8 C025 Amenable Cyanide Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

9 C036 Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

10 C037 Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

11 C042 Weak Acid Dissociable Cyanide Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

12 50328 Benzo(a)pyrene High Slight High High Resistant X M X

13 56553 Benzo(a)anthracene High Slight High High Resistant X X

14 57125 Total Cyanide High Unknown Slight Nonbioaccumulative Moderate X M X

15 67641 Acetone Slight Moderate Slight Nonbioaccumulative Fast X

16 71432 Benzene Slight High Slight Slight Moderate X X M X

17 85018 Phenanthrene Moderate Moderate High Moderate Resistant X

18 91203 Naphthalene Slight Moderate Slight Slight Moderate X X X

19 91576 2-Methylnaphthalene Slight Moderate Moderate High Moderate X

20 95487 o-Cresol Slight Slight Slight Slight Fast X X

21 95534 o-Toluidine Moderate Slight Slight Slight Fast X

22 98555 alpha-Terpineol Slight Moderate Slight Slight Moderate

23 105679 2,4-Dimethylphenol Slight Slight Slight Moderate Fast X X

24 106445 p-Cresol Slight Slight Slight Slight Fast X X

25 108952 Phenol Slight Slight Slight Nonbioaccumulative Fast X X

26 110861 Pyridine Slight Slight Nonadsorptive Nonbioaccumulative Fast X

27 112403 n-Dodecane* Slight Unknown High High Moderate

28 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate Unknown Nonvolatile High Moderate Moderate X X M X

29 124185 n-Decane Slight Unknown High High Moderate

30 129000 Pyrene Moderate Moderate High High Resistant X X

31 132649 Dibenzofuran Slight Moderate Moderate High Moderate X

32 142621 Hexanoic Acid Slight Moderate Slight Slight Moderate

33 205992 Benzo(b)fluoranthene Unknown Moderate High High Resistant X X

34 206440 Fluoranthene High Moderate High High Resistant X X

35 207089 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Unknown Moderate High High Resistant X X

36 218019 Chrysene Moderate Moderate High High Resistant X X

37 302045 Thiocyanate Moderate Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

38 544763 n-Hexadecane* Slight Unknown High High Moderate

39 612942 2-Phenylnaphthalene Moderate Moderate High High Moderate

40 7429905 Aluminum Moderate Unknown Unknown Moderate Unknown X SM

41 7439896 Iron Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X SM

42 7439921 Lead High Unknown Unknown Slight Unknown X TT X

43 7439954 Magnesium Slight Unknown Unknown High Unknown

^ 1 October 25, 2000
Table 34. Potential Fate and Toxicity of Pollutants of Concern (66) Discharged from 47 Indirect Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities (continued)

Acute Volatility Biodegra- Drinking

CAS Aquatic from Adsorption Bioaccumulation dation Systemic Water Priority

No. Number Name Toxicity Water to Solids Potential Potential Carcinogen Toxicant Value Pollutant

44 7439965 Manganese Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X SM

45 7439976 Mercury High High High High Unknown X M X

46 7439987 Molybdenum Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

47 7440020 Nickel** Moderate Unknown Slight Slight Unknown X X

48 7440224 Silver High Unknown Unknown Nonbioaccumulative Unknown X SM X

49 7440280 Thallium Slight Unknown Unknown Moderate Unknown X M X

50 7440315 Tin Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

51 7440326 Titanium Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

52 7440360 Antimony Slight Unknown Unknown Nonbioaccumulative Unknown X M X

53 7440382 Arsenic Moderate Unknown Unknown Slight Unknown X X M X

54 7440393 Barium Slight Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X M

55 7440428 Boron Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

56 7440439 Cadmium High Unknown Unknown Moderate Unknown X X M X

57 7440473 Chromium Moderate Unknown Unknown Slight Unknown X M X

58 7440484 Cobalt Slight Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

59 7440508 Copper High Unknown Unknown Moderate Unknown X TT X

60 7440622 Vanadium Slight Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X

61 7440666 Zinc Moderate Unknown Unknown Slight Unknown X SM X

62 7664417 Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Slight Moderate Nonadsorptive Unknown Moderate

63 7782492 Selenium High Unknown Unknown Nonbioaccumulative Unknown X M X

64 14808798 Sulfate Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown SM

65 16984488 Fluoride Slight Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown X M

66 18540299 Chromium, Hexavalent High Unknown Unknown Slight Unknown X X M X

Note: Metals, because of their physical/chemical properties, are, in general, not applicable to categorization into groups based on volatility, adsorption to solids, and 

biodegradation potential.

M= Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established for health-based effect.

SM= Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) established for taste or aesthetic effect.

TT= Treatment technology action level established.

* Aquatic toxicity data for n-decane are reported based on structural similarity.

** MCL of 0.1 mg/L remanded in 1995. EPA is reconsidering limit.

^ 2 October 25, 2000
Table 35. Iron and Steel Toxicants Exhibiting Systemic and Other Adverse Effects*

(Indirect Dischargers)

Cas Number Toxicant Reference Dose Target Organ and Critical Effects

1 C005 Nitrate/Nitrite Methemoglobinernia (infants) (a)

2 57125 Total Cyanide Weight loss, thyroid effects, and myeline degeneration

3 67641 Acetone Increased liver and kidney weights and nephrotoxicity

4 71432 Benzene (b)

5 91203 Naphthalene Eye damage, decreased body weight

6 91576 2-Methylnaphthalene (b)

7 95487 o-Cresol Decreased body weights and neurotoxicity

8 105679 2,4-Dimethylphenol General Toxicity, Blood: Lethargy, hematological changes

9 106445 p-Cresol Hypoactivity, distress, maternal death

10 108952 Phenol Reduced fetal body weight in rats

11 110861 Pyridine Liver: increased liver weights

12 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate Increased relative liver weight

13 129000 Pyrene Kidney effects (renal tubular pathology, decreased kidney weights)

14 132649 Dibenzofuran (b)

15 206440 Fluoranthene Nephropathy, increased liver weights, hematological alterations, and clinical effects

16 7429905 Aluminum (b)

17 7439896 Iron (b)

18 7439965 Manganese CNS effects

19 7439976 Mercury CNS effects

20 7439987 Molybdenum Increased uric acid

21 7440020 Nickel Decreased body and organ weights

22 7440224 Silver Skin: argyria

23 7440280 Thallium (b)

24 7440315 Tin Kidney and liver lesions

25 7440326 Titanium (b)

26 7440360 Antimony Blood: blood glucose and cholesteral, decreased longevity

27 7440382 Arsenic Hyperpigmentation, keratosis, and possible vascular complications

28 7440393 Barium Increased blood pressure

29 7440428 Boron Testicular atrophy, spermatogenic arrest

30 7440439 Cadmium Significant proteinuria

31 7440473 Chromium No adverse effects observed (c)

32 7440484 Cobalt (b)

33 7440508 Copper (b)

34 7440622 Vanadium GI, Kidney, Nervous System: GI disturbances, renal function, CNS effects

35 7440666 Zinc Anemia

36 7782492 Selenium Respiratory: clinical selerosis

37 16984488 Fluoride Objectionable dental fluorosis

38 18540299 Chromium, Hexavalent No adverse effects observed (c)

* Chemicals with EPA-verified or provisional human health-based reference doses (RfD), referred to as "systemic 

(a) Values for nitrate are assumed.

(b) RfD is an EPA-NCEA provisional value; Contact EPA-NCEA Superfund Technical Support Center for supporting 

documentation.

(c) RfD based on no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL).

^ 1 October 25, 2000
Table 36. Iron and Steel Human Carcinogens Evaluated, Weight-of-Evidence

Classifications, and Target Organs 

(Indirect Dischargers)

CAS Carcinogen Weight-of-Evidence Target Organs

Number Classification

1 50328 Benzo(a)pyrene B2 Stomach, Lungs

2 56553 Benzo(a)anthracene B2 Liver, Lungs

3 71432 Benzene A Blood

4 91203 Naphthalene* C Lungs

5 95487 o-Cresol* C Skin

6 95534 o-Toluidine B2 Skin

7 106445 p-Cresol* C Bladder

8 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate B2 Liver

9 205992 Benzo(b)fluoranthene B2 Skin and Lungs

10 207089 Benzo(k)fluoranthene B2 Lungs

11 218019 Chrysene B2 Liver

12 7439921 Lead* B2 Kidney

13 7440382 Arsenic A Skin and Lungs

14 7440439 Cadmium* B1 Lung, Trachea, and Bronchi

15 18540299 Chromium, Hexavalent* A/D Lungs

A= Human Carcinogen

B1= Probable human carcinogen (limited human data)

B2= Probable human carcinogen (animal data only)

C= Possible human carcinogen

D= Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity

* Not included in Risks and Benefits Analysis; quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk 

from oral exposure not available.

^ 1 October 25, 2000
120

4.4 Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits from Proposed Effluent Guidelines and

Standards

EPA estimates that the annual monetized benefits resulting from the proposed effluent guidelines

and standards will range from $1.07 million to $2.61 million (1997 dollars). Table 40 summarizes these

effects/benefits. The range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of this proposed rule and in

placing a monetary value on these effects. The estimate of reported benefits also understates the total

benefits expected to result under this proposed rule. Additional benefits, which cannot be quantified in this

assessment, include improved ecological conditions from improvements in water quality, improvements to

recreational activities (other than fishing), reduced noncarcinogenic (systemic) human health hazards (other

than lead), additional health benefits due to reduced lead exposure, reduced POTW costs, and reduced

discharge of conventional and other pollutants.
121

Table 37. Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies Listed

Under Section 303(d) of Clean Water Act (1998)

State Facility Name City Watershed

Waterbody

Name

Parameters of

Concern

Priority for

TMDL

Development

Potential Sources of

Impairment

Alabama USX Corp. Fairfield Upper Black Warrior

03160112

Opossum Creek Metals,

Nonpriority

Organics, Nutrients,

Oil and Grease,

Pesticides, pH,

Priority Organics,

Toxicity

— —

Empire Coke

Tuscaloosa Steel

Holt

Tuscaloosa

Upper Black Warrior

03160112

Black Warrior

River

Organic

Enrichment/DO

Low Dam Construction, Flow

Regulations/Modifications

Gulf States Steel, Inc. Gadsden Middle Coosa

03150106

Black Creek Priority Organics,

Ammonia, Organic

Enrichment/DO

Low Industrial, Urban

Runoff/Storm Sewers,

Contaminated Sediments

SMI Steel Birmingham Locust

03160111

Village Creek Nonpriority

Organics, Metals,

Ammonia, pH,

Siltation, Organic

Enrichment, DO

Low Industrial Point Sources,

Municipal Point Sources,

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, 

Abandoned Surface and

Subsurface Mining, and Mine

Tailings

California USS-POSCO Pittsburg Suisun Bay

18050001

New York

Slough/Suisun Bay

Copper, Mercury,

Nickel, Selenium,

Exotic Species,

Diazinon, PCBs,

Chlordane, DDT,

Dieldrin, Dioxins,

Furans, PCBs

— Atmospheric Deposition,

Ballast Water, Industrial Point

Sources, Municipal Point

Sources, Nonpoint Sources,

Natural Sources, Resource

Extraction, Urban

Runoff/Storm Sewers

Colorado CF&I Steel Pueblo Upper Arkansas

11020002

Arkansas River Iron, Manganese,

Sulfate, Selenium

Low —
State Facility Name City Watershed

Waterbody

Name

Parameters of

Concern

Priority for

TMDL

Development

Potential Sources of

Impairment

122

Connecticut Allegheny Ludlum Steel Wallingford Quinnipiac

01100004

Quinnipiac River Bacteria High Wet Weather Discharges

Illinois Northwestern Steel Sterling Lower Rock

07090005

Rock River Nutrients,

Suspended Solids,

Noxious Aquatic

Plants

251/267 Agriculture, Crop Production,

Pastureland, Hydrologic

Modification

Laclede Steel Alton Peruque-Piasa

07110009

Mississippi River Priority Organics,

Nutrients, Siltation

Suspended Solids,

Habitat Alterations,

Metals

3 Industrial Point Sources,

Municipal Point Sources,

Agriculture, Crop Production,

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,

Hydrologic/Habitat

Modification

Austeel Lemont Lemont Des Plaines

07120004

Chicago Ship Canal Ammonia,

Nutrients, Priority

Organics, Metals,

Organic

Enrichment/DO,

Flow Alterations,

Habitat Alterations,

Pathogens, pH

6 Industrial Point Sources,

Municipal Point Sources,

Combined Sewer Overflows,

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,

Hydrologic/Habitat

Modification, Flow

Regulation/Modification, Inplace Contaminants

LTV Steel Hennepin Lower IllinoisSenachwine Lake

07130001

Illinois River Metals, Nutrients,

Siltation, Flow

Alterations,

Suspended Solids,

Organic

Enrichment/DO,

Priority Organics

5-30 Municipal Point Sources,

Industrial Point Sources,

Agriculture, Hydrologic/

Habitat Modification, Flow

Regulation/Modification, Inplace Contaminants
State Facility Name City Watershed

Waterbody

Name

Parameters of

Concern

Priority for

TMDL

Development

Potential Sources of

Impairment

123

National Steel Granite City Cahokia-Joachim

07140101

Horseshoe Lake Metals, Nutrients,

Siltation, Organic

Enrichment/DO,

Suspended Solids,

Noxious Aquatic

Plants

1 Point Sources, Industrial

Point Sources, Agriculture,

Crop Production, Urban

Runoff/ Storm Sewers,

Resource Extraction, Dredge

Mining, In-place

Contaminants

Indiana Inland Steel Flat Products

LTV Steel Co.

East Chicago

East Chicago

Little Calumet -Galien

04040001

Indiana Harbor

Canal

Dissolved Oxygen,

Mercury, PCBs,

Lead, Pesticides

1998-2000 —

Bethlehem Steel Corp Chesterton Little Calumet-Galien

04040001

Little Calumet

River

Cyanide, E. Coli,

Mercury, PCBs,

Pesticides, Impaired

Biotic Communities

2000-2012 —

U.S. Steel Gary Little Calumet-Galien

04040001

Grand Calumet

River

Impaired Biotic

Communities, 

Copper, Cyanide,

Mercury, PCBs,

Lead, Oil and

Grease, Pesticides

1998-2000 —

National Steel Portage Little Calumet-Galien

04040001

Burns Ditch E. Coli, Mercury,

PCBs, Lead,

Pesticides, Impaired

Biotic Communities

2000-2012 —

Plymouth Tube Winamac Tippecanoe

05120106

Sigerson D/

Tippecanoe River

Cyanide, Mercury,

PCBs

2003-2010 —

Allegheny Ludlum Steel New Castle Driftwood

05120204

Big Blue River Cyanides, PCBs 2002-2014 —

Iowa North Star Wilton Lower Cedar

07080206

Mud Creek Ammonia, Toxics — —
State Facility Name City Watershed

Waterbody

Name

Parameters of

Concern

Priority for

TMDL

Development

Potential Sources of

Impairment

124

Kentucky AK Steel Corp. Ashland Little Scioto-Tygarts

05090103

Ohio River Pathogens, PCBs,

Priority Organics

Second Priority —

North American Stainless

Gallatin Steel

Carrollton

Warsaw

Middle Ohio-Laughery

05090203

Ohio River Pathogens, PCBs,

Priority Organics

Second Priority —

Maryland Bethlehem Steel Corp. Sparrows Point Gunpowder-Patapsco

02060003

Bear Creek Chromium, PCBs,

Zinc

High Point Sources, Nonpoint

Sources, Legacy, Unknown

Michigan National Steel Corp. Ecorse Detroit

04090004

Detroit River Mercury, PCBs,

Pathogens

— CSOs, Untreated Sewage

Discharge

Rouge Steel Corp.

Double Eagle Steel

Dearborn

Dearborn

Detroit

04090004

Rouge River Dissolved Oxygen,

PCBs, Pathogens,

Fish/Macroinvertebate Community

Rated Poor

— CSOs, Untreated Sewage

Discharge

North Carolina Teledyne Allvac Monroe Rocky

03040105

Richardson Creek Sediment Low Point Sources, Municipal

Pretreatment, Nonpoint

Sources, Agriculture

Ohio Republic Engineered Steels Lorain Black-Rocky

04110001

Black River Priority Organics,

Nutrients, Habitat

Alteration

9 Municipal Point Sources,

Industrial Point Sources,

Agriculture, Urban

Runoff/Storm Sewers,

Hydromodification, Dredging

New Boston Coke New Boston/

Portsmouth

Little Scioto-Tygarts

05090103

Ohio River Metals 17 —

AK Steel Corp. Middletown Lower Great Miami

05080002

Dicks Creek/Great

Miami River

Metals, Ammonia,

Organic

Enrichment/DO,

Thermal

Modification, Flow

Alteration

7 Municipal Point Sources,

Industrial Point Sources, Land

Disposal, Wastewater

Hydromodification, Flow

Regulation/Modification
State Facility Name City Watershed

Waterbody

Name

Parameters of

Concern

Priority for

TMDL

Development

Potential Sources of

Impairment

125

Ohio (cont’d) Warren Consolidated

CSC Industries

Thomas Steel Strip

Warren

Warren

Warren

Mahoning

05030103

Mahoning River Priority Organics,

Metals, Ammonia,

Chlorine, Nutrients,

Pathogens, Oil and

Grease

6 Municipal Point Sources,

Industrial Point Sources,

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,

Land Disposal, Hazardous

Waste, Spills, Contaminated

Sediments, Unknown

Babcox and Wilcox Alliance Mahononing

05030103

Ryans

Run/Mahoning

River

Priority Organics,

Metals, Nutrients,

Siltation, Pathogens

11 Industrial Point Sources,

Municipal Point Sources,

Agriculture, Pasture Land,

Spills, Contaminated

Sediments, Unknown

Worthington Steel

North Star BHP Steel

Delta

Delta

Lower Maumee

04100009

Maumee River Sitation, Organic

Enrichment/D0,

Habitat Alteration

13 Point Sources, Municipal

Point Sources, Agriculture,

Crop Production,

Hydromodification, Dam

Construction

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel

Steubenville

Mingo Junction

Upper Ohio

05030101

Ohio River Priority Organics,

Metals,

Ammonia

17 —

LTV Steel

American Steel and Wire

Cleveland

Cuyahoga Heights

Cuyahoga

04110002

Cuyahoga River Priority Organics,

Metals, Ammonia,

Inorganics, Organic

Enrichment/DO,

Habitat Alteration,

Oil and Grease

6 Industrial Point Sources,

Municipal Point Sources,

Combined Sewer Overflow,

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
State Facility Name City Watershed

Waterbody

Name

Parameters of

Concern

Priority for

TMDL

Development

Potential Sources of

Impairment

126

Ohio (cont’d) Ohio Coatings Co.

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel

Yorkville

Yorkville

Upper Ohio-Wheeling

05030106

Ohio River Priority Organics,

Metals, Ammonia

17 —

Timken Co. Canton Tuscarawas

05040001

Nimishillen Creek Priority Organics,

Metals, Ammonia,

Organic

Enrichment/D0

8 Industrial Point Sources,

Municipal Point Sources,

Spills, Contaminated

Sediments

J&J Speciality Steel

Republic Engineered Steel

Louisville

Canton

Tuscarawas

05040001

East Branch

Nimishillen Creek

Ammonia,

Nutrients, Organic

Enrichment/DO,

Salinity, TDS,

Chloride, Flow

Alteration, Oil and

Grease

8 Industrial Point Sources,

Municipal Point Sources,

Agriculture

Lukens Inc.

Republic Engineered Steel

Massillon

Massillon

Tuscarawas

05040001

Tuscarawas River Metals, Nutrients,

Organic

Enrichment/DO,

Habitat Alteration

6 Industrial Point Sources,

Municipal Point Sources,

Combined Sewer Overflow,

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,

Hydromodification

Copperweld Corp. Shelby Mohican

05040002

Tuby Run Metals, pH, Habitat

Alteration

8 Industrial Point Sources,

Hydromodification, Spills

ARMCO Zanesville Muskingum

05040004

Muskingum River Organic

Enrichment/DO,

Thermal

Modification,

Habitat Alteration

13 Industrial Point Sources,

Natural
State Facility Name City Watershed

Waterbody

Name

Parameters of

Concern

Priority for

TMDL

Development

Potential Sources of

Impairment

127

Oregon Cascade Steel McMinnville Yamhill

17090008

S. Yamhill River Temperature,

Bacteria

— —

Oregon Steel Mills Portland Lower Willamette

17090012

Willamette River Temperature,

Mercury, Creosote,

Bacteria

— —

Pennsylvania USS Irvin Plant

USX Corp.

Koppers Industry

Dravosburg

Dravosburg

Monessen

Lower Monongahela

05020005

Monongahela River Pesticides

(Chlordane),

Priority

Organics(PCBs)

— —

Shenango, Inc. Pittsburgh/Neville

Island

Upper Ohio

05030101

Ohio River Pesticides

(Chlordane),

Priority Organics

(PCBs)

— —

J&L Specialty Steel

J&L Structural

Koppel Steel

Midland

Aliquippa

Beaver Falls

Upper Ohio

05030101

Ohio River Pesticides

(Chlordane),

Priority Organics

(PCBs)

— —

Luken Steel Washington Upper Ohio

05030101

Chartiers Run Nutrients, Siltation,

Turbidity, Organic

Enrichment/D0,

Habitat Alterations,

Metals, pH

— Construction, Habitat

Modification, Agriculture,

Abandoned Mine Drainage,

On-site Wastewater

Washington Steel Washington Upper Ohio

05030101

Chartiers Creek Metals, Nutrients,

Siltation, Habitat

Alterations,

Turbidity,

Pesticides

(Chlordane),

Priority Organics

(PCBs)

— Abandoned Mine Drainage,

Urban Runoff/Storm Sources,

Agriculture, Habitat

Modification, Unknown
State Facility Name City Watershed

Waterbody

Name

Parameters of

Concern

Priority for

TMDL

Development

Potential Sources of

Impairment

128

Pennsylvania

(cont’d)

US Steel-USX Fairless Hills Crosswicks-Neshaminy

02040201

Delaware River Pesticides

(Chlordane),

Priority Organics

(PCBs)

— Unknown

Carpenter Technology

Corp.

Berks County Schuylkill

02040203

Schuylkill River Metals, Pesticides,

Priority Organics

(PCBs)

— Industrial Point Sources,

Unknown

Lukens Steel Corp. Coatesville Brandywine-Christina

02040205

Sucker Run

West Branch

Brandywine Creek

Nutrients,

Water/Flow

Variability

Nutrients, Siltation

—

—

Agriculture, Urban

Runoff/Storm Sewers

Agriculture

Jersey Shore Steel Co. Jersey Shore Middle West Branch

Susquehana

02050203

West Branch

Susquehana River 

Metals High Abandoned Mine Drainage

Bar Technologies Johnstown Conemaugh

05010007

Little Conemaugh

River

Metals — Abandoned Mine Drainage

Allegheny Ludlum Brackenridge Kiskiminetas

05010008

Kiskiminetas River Metals, Suspended

Solids

— Abandoned Mine Drainage

Standard Steel Burnham Kiskiminetas

05010008

Loyalhanna Creek Metals, Suspended

Solids

— Abandoned Mine Drainage

Allegheny Ludlum Steel

Pittsburgh Flatroll Co.

Braeburn Alloy Steel

Brackenridge

Pittsburgh

Lower Burrell

Lower Allegheny

05010009

Allegheny River Pesticides

(Chlordane),

Priority Organics

(PCBs)

— Unknown
State Facility Name City Watershed

Waterbody

Name

Parameters of

Concern

Priority for

TMDL

Development

Potential Sources of

Impairment

129

Pennsylvania

(cont’d)

Sharon Tube Co.

Wheatland Tube Co.

Caparo Steel

Sharon

Wheatland

Farrell

Shenango

05030102

Shenango River Organic

Enrichment/D0,

Nutrients, Habitat

Alterations,

Pesticides

(Chlordane),

Priority Organics

(PCBs)

— Hydromodification, Package

Plants, Unknown

ARMCO Inc. Butler Connoquenessing

05030105

Connoquenessing

Creek

Pathogens,

Suspended Solids

On-site Wastewater,

Abandoned Mine Drainage

South Carolina Georgetown Steel Georgetown Carolina-Sampit

03040207

Sampit River Mercury Two —

Nucor Steel Huger Cooper

03050201

Cooper River Mercury Two —

Texas USS CE-Tex Center Baytown North Galveston Bay

12040203

East Ditch/Cedar

Bayou

Total Dissolved

Solids, Organic

Enrichment/Low

DO, Pathogens

Medium Nonpoint Source, Point

Source

Utah Geneva Steel Provo/Vineyard Utah Lake

16020201

Utah Lake Total Dissolved

Solids, Total

Phosphorus,

Ammonia, Benzene,

Benzopyrene,

BOD, Chlorine

Residual, Cyanide,

Lead, Napthalene,

Oil and Grease,

Fecal Coliform, pH,

Phenolics, Total

Suspended Solids

High —
State Facility Name City Watershed

Waterbody

Name

Parameters of

Concern

Priority for

TMDL

Development

Potential Sources of

Impairment

130

West Virginia Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel

Weirton Steel

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel

Wheeling-Nisshin

Wheeling

Weirton

Follansbee

Follansbee

Upper Ohio

05030101

Ohio River PCBs, Chlordane,

Aluminum

Low/High —

NOTE: Facilities may be located on waterbodies listed under Section 303(d) of CWA for other states (e.g., Ohio River). Listings are presented based on location (state) of facility.

Source: 1998 TMDL Tracking System Data, Version 1.1, July 1998.
131

Table 38. Modeled Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies with State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa

Facility

NPDES

Facility Name City Discharge

Type

Receiving

Stream

Advisory

Area/No.b

Pollutant Species Populationc Comments

AL0055239 Gulf States Steel Gadsden Direct Black Creek Coosa River/2 PCBs Spotted Bass, Catfish,

Largemouth Bass, Striped

Bass, White Bass

NCGP, RGP Advisories within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

CA0005002 USS-Posco

Industries (UPI)

Pittsburgh Direct New York

Slough

Richmond Harbor PCBs, DDT,

Dieldrin

Croaker, Gobies, Shellfish,

Surfperch, Bullheads

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

CT0003701 Allegheny

Ludlum Steel

Wallingford Direct Quinnipiac River Long Island Sound PCBs Bluefish >25", Striped Bass NCSP, RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

All CT

Freshwaters

Statewide

Mercury All Fish, Trout >15" RSP, RGP

DE0051021 Citisteel USA

Incorporated

Claymont Direct Delaware River Delaware

Estuary/2

PCBs Striped Bass, White Catfish,

Channel Catfish

RSP, NCGP,

RGP

IL0000612 Laclede Steel Alton Direct Mississippi

River

Mississippi River Chlordane Shovelnose Sturgeon (fish

and eggs)

NCGP

IL0001309 Austeel Lemont

Company Inc.

Lemont Direct Chicago Ship

Canal

Des Plaines River PCBs Smallmouth Buffalo,

Common Carp >15",

Channel Catfish, Freshwater

Drum

NCSP, RGP,

NCGP

Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Illinois River PCBs Common Carp>15", Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

IL0002631 LTV Steel Hennepin Direct Illinois River Illinois River PCBs Common Carp >15",

Channel Catfish

NCGP

IL0000329 National Steel Granite City Direct Horseshoe Lake Mississippi River Chlordane Shovelnose Sturgeon (fish

and eggs)

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

IN0000094 Inland Steel Flat

Products

East Chicago Direct Indiana Harbor

Ship Canal

All Indiana Rivers

and Streams

Statewide

Mercury,

PCBs

Common Carp>15" NCSP, RGP,

NCGP

IN0000205 LTV Steel

Company

East Chicago Direct Indiana Harbor

Ship Canal

Grand Calumet

River and Indiana

Harbor Ship Canal

Mercury,

PCBs

All Fish NCGP

IN0000281 U.S. Steel Gary Direct Grand Calumet

River

Lake Michigan and

tributaries

Mercury,

PCBs

Chinook Salmon, Black

Crappie>7", Brook Trout,

Brown Trout, White

Sucker>15", Longnose

NCSP, RGP,

NCGP
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa

 (continued)

Facility

NPDES

Facility Name City Discharge

Type

Receiving

Stream

Advisory

Area/No.b

Pollutant Species Populationc Comments

132

IN0000337 National Steel Portage Direct Burns Ditch All Indiana Rivers

and Streams

Statewide

Mercury,

PCBs

Common Carp>15" NCSP, RGP,

NCGP

IN0000175 Bethlehem Steel

Corp.

Chesterton Direct Little Calumet

River

Lake Michigan and

Tributaries

Mercury,

PCBs

Chinook Salmon, Black

Crappie>7", Brook Trout,

Brown Trout, White

Sucker>15", Longnose

Sucker 14-23", Walleye>17",

Whitefish, Lake Trout,

Rainbow Trout, Largemouth

Bass>4", Common Carp, All

Catfish Species, Coho

Salmon>17", Pink Salmon,

Northern Pike>10",

Longnose Sucker>23",

Goldfish>4", Golden Shiner

3-6"

NCSP, RGP,

NCGP

IN0004847 Plymouth Tube

Co.

Winamac Direct Sigerson Ditch All Indiana Rivers

and Streams

Statewide

Mercury,

PCBs

Common Carp>15" NCSP, RGP,

NCGP

Tippecanoe RiverPulaski Co.Mercury,

PCBs

Longear Sunfish 3-5",

Channel Catfish >11", Black

Redhorse >16", Northern

Hogsucker >13"

RSP, RGP,

NCSP

Wabash RiverTippecanoe Co.Mercury,

PCBs

Quillback 13"-19", Channel

Catfish >13", Sauger >13",

Bigmouth Buffalo >19",

Paddlefish >34", Freshwater

Drum >12", White Bass,

River Redhorse >16",

Flathead Catfish >15",

Largemouth Bass 9-14",

Smallmouth Bass >9", Blue

Sucker >21", Smallmouth

Buffalo >25", Shorthead

Redhorse 15-17" 

RGP, RSP,

NCSP, NCGP

Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa

 (continued)

Facility

NPDES

Facility Name City Discharge

Type

Receiving

Stream

Advisory

Area/No.b

Pollutant Species Populationc Comments

133

IN0045284 Allegheny

Ludlum Steel

New Castle Direct Big Blue River All Indiana Rivers

and Streams

Statewide

Mercury,

PCBs

Common Carp>15" NCSP, RGP,

NCGP

Big Blue River,

Henry Co.

PCBs White Sucker>8", Creek

Chub>6", Rock Bass>4"

NCSP, RGP

Big Blue River,

Rush Co.

PCBs Creek Chub >6" NCSP, RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Big Blue River,

Shelby Co.

PCBs Northern Hogsucker >9",

Golden Redhorse >18",

Rock Bass >4"

NCSP, RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Big Blue River,

Johnson Co.

PCBs Longear Sunfish >5", Rock

Bass >7", Smallmouth Bass

>5", Northern Hogsucker

>8"

NCSP, RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

KY0000558

KY0001571

KY0095877

AK Steel Corp

Green River Steel

North American

Stainless

Ashland

Owensboro

Carrollton

Direct

Direct

Direct

Ohio River Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs

Paddlefish (fish and eggs),

Channel Catfish, Common

Carp, White Bass

NCGP

KY0098221 Gallatin Steel Co. Warsaw Direct

KY0033979 KY Electric Steel

Inc

Coalton Direct Williams Creek Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs

Paddlefish (fish and eggs),

Channel Catfish, Common

Carp, White Bass

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

MI0002313 National Steel

Corp.

Ecorse Direct Detroit River Detroit River Mercury,

PCBs

Freshwater Drum >14",

Common Carp

RSP, NCGP,

RGP

Lake Erie/2 PCBs Common Carp, Catfish,

White Bass 6-22", Coho

Salmon >10", Rainbow

Trout >10', Smallmouth Bass

14-30", White Perch >6",

Walleye >14", Lake Trout

>10", Lake Whitefish>6",

Freshwater Drum >6"

NCGP, RGP Advisories within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa

 (continued)

Facility

NPDES

Facility Name City Discharge

Type

Receiving

Stream

Advisory

Area/No.b

Pollutant Species Populationc Comments

134

MI0044415 Double Eagle

Steel Coating Co.

Dearborn Direct Rouge River Detroit River Mercury,

PCBs

Freshwater Drum >14",

Common Carp

RSP, NCGP,

RGP

Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

MI0043524 Rouge Steel Corp. Dearborn Direct Lake Erie/2 PCBs Common Carp, Catfish,

White Bass 6-22", Coho

Salmon >10", Rainbow

Trout >10" Smallmouth

Bass 14-30", White Perch

>6", Walleye >14", Lake

Trout >10", Lake

Whitefish>6", Freshwater

Drum >6"

NCGP, RGP Advisories within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Rouge River, Main

Branch

PCBs Northern Pike, White

Sucker, Catfish, Common

Carp, Smallmouth Bass,

Largemouth Bass, All fish

(RGP, NCSP)

NCGP, RGP,

NCSP

NC0045993 Teledyne Allvac Monroe Direct Richardson

Creek

All North Carolina

Waters Statewide

Mercury Bowfin RGP, NCSP

NE0111287 Nucor Steel Norfolk Direct Spring Branch

Creek

Elkhorn River PCBs,

Dieldrin

Common Carp RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

NY0001368 Bethlehem Steel

Corp.

Lackawanna Direct Smokes Creek Niagara River/2 PCBs, Mirex,

Dioxins

Coho Salmon, Chinook

Salmon, American Eel,

Channel Catfish, Common

Carp, Lake Trout, Brown

Trout, White Perch,

Rainbow Trout, White

Sucker, Smallmouth Bass,

All fish (NCSP)

RGP, NCGP,

NCSP

Advisories within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

OH0122386 North Star BHP

Steel Inc.

Delta Direct Maumee River All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish Species RSP

OH0122271 Worthington

Steel

Delta Direct Maumee River/2 Mercury,

PCBs

Common Carp, Smallmouth

Bass, Channel Catfish

RSP, RGP

Lake Erie/2 PCBs White Perch, Lake Trout,

Channel Catfish, Common

Carp, White Bass,

Smallmouth Bass, Chinook

Salmon >19", Steelhead

Trout, Freshwater Drum,

RGP, NCGP Advisories within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa

 (continued)

Facility

NPDES

Facility Name City Discharge

Type

Receiving

Stream

Advisory

Area/No.b

Pollutant Species Populationc Comments

135

OH0001562 Republic

Engineered Steel

Lorain Direct Black River All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish RSP

Lake Erie PCBs White Perch, Lake Trout,

Channel Catfish, Common

Carp, White Bass,

Smallmouth Bass, Chinook

Salmon >19", Steelhead

Trout, Freshwater Drum,

Walleye, Coho Salmon

RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Black River PCBs Common Carp, Freshwater

Drum, Brown Bullhead

Catfish

RGP

OH0000957 LTV Steel

Company Inc.

Cleveland Direct Cuyahoga River All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish RSP

OH0002160 American Steel

And Wire Corp.

Cuyahoga

Hts.

Direct Lake Erie PCBs White Perch, Lake Trout,

Channel Catfish, Common

Carp, White Bass,

Smallmouth Bass, Chinook

Salmon >19", Steelhead

Trout, Freshwater Drum,

Walleye, Coho Salmon

RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Cuyahoga River Mercury,

PCBs

White Sucker, Common

Carp, Brown Bullhead

Catfish, Yellow Bullhead

Catfish, Largemouth Bass

RSP, RGP

OH0101079 Warren

Consolidated

Industry

Warren Direct Mahoning River All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish RSP

OH0011207

OH0011363

CSC Industries

Incorporated

Thomas Steel

Strip Corp.

Warren

Warren

Direct

Direct

Mahoning River Mercury,

PCBs

Smallmouth Bass, White

Crappie, Channel Catfish,

Common Carp, Walleye

RSP, RGP,

NCGP

OH0011878 Babcox and

Wilcox

Alliance Direct Ryans Run All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish RSP

Mahoning River Mercury,

PCBs

Smallmouth Bass, White

Crappie, Channel Catfish,

Common Carp, Walleye

RSP, RGP,

NCGP

Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa

 (continued)

Facility

NPDES

Facility Name City Discharge

Type

Receiving

Stream

Advisory

Area/No.b

Pollutant Species Populationc Comments

136

OH0120588 Ohio Coatings

Co.

Yorkville Direct Ohio Riverd All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish RSP

OH0011371

OH0011355

OH0011347

WheelingPittsburgh Steel

WheelingPittsburgh Steel

WheelingPittsburgh Steel

Yorkville

Mingo

Junction

Steubenville

Direct

Direct

Direct

Ohio River/2 Chlordane,

PCBs,

Mercury

Common Carp, Flathead

Catfish, Channel Catfish,

Sauger, Hybrid Striped

Bass, Spotted Bass,

Smallmouth Bass,

Largemouth Bass,

Freshwater Drum

RGP, NCGP

OH0092444

OH0006939

Lukens Inc.

Republic

Engineered Steel

Massillon

Massillon

Direct

Direct

Tuscarawas

River

All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish RSP

OH0005606

OH0004910

Greer Steel Co.

Armco Inc.

Dover

Dover

Direct

Direct

Tuscarawas River PCBs,

Hexachlorobenzene

Rock Bass, Common Carp,

Smallmouth Bass, Channel

Catfish, Yellow Bullhead

Catfish, Largemouth Bass

RGP

OH0004219 Timken Company Canton Direct Hurford All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish RSP

OH0006921

OH0007188

Republic

Engineered Steel

J&L Speciality

Steel Inc.

Canton

Louisville

Direct

Direct

East Branch

Nimishillen River

East Branch

Nimishillen River

Tuscarawas River PCBs,

Hexachlorobenzene

Rock Bass, Common Carp,

Smallmouth Bass, Channel

Catfish, Yellow Bullhead

Catfish, Largemouth Bass

RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

OH0008338 Copperweld Corp. Shelby Direct Black Fork,

Mohican River

(Tuby Run)

All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish RSP

OH0006858 Armco Inc. Zanesville Direct Muskingum

River

All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide 

Mercury All Fish RSP 

OH0004260 Armco Inc. Coshocton Direct

OH0009997 AK Steel

Corporation

Middletown Direct Great Miami

River

All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish RSP

Great Miami

River/2

Mercury,

Lead, PCBs

Channel Catfish,

Smallmouth Bass, Common

Carp, White Bass,

Largemouth Bass, Rock

RGP, RSP,

NCGP
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa

 (continued)

Facility

NPDES

Facility Name City Discharge

Type

Receiving

Stream

Advisory

Area/No.b

Pollutant Species Populationc Comments

137

OH0006068 New Boston Coke

Corp.

New Boston/

Portsmouth

Direct Ohio River All Ohio

Waterbodies

Statewide

Mercury All Fish RSP

Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs,

Mercury

Common Carp, Flathead

Catfish, Channel Catfish,

Sauger, Hybrid Striped

Bass, Spotted Bass,

Smallmouth Bass,

Largemouth Bass,

Freshwater Drum

RGP, NCGP

OR0027260 Cascade Steel

Rolling Mills

McMinnville Direct Trib of South

Yamhill River

Willamette River Mercury Smallmouth Bass,

Largemouth Bass,

Squawfish

RGP, RSP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

OR0000469 Oregon Steel

Mills Inc.

Portland Direct Willamette River Willamette River Mercury Smallmouth Bass,

Largemouth Bass,

Squawfish

RGP, RSP

PA0013463 United States

Steel Group-USX

Fairless Hills Direct Central Canal Delaware River

and Estuary

Chlordane,

PCBs

Channel Catfish, American

Eel, White Perch

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

PA0013129 Carpenter

Technology Corp

Berks County Direct Schuylkill River Schuylkill River Chlordane,

PCBs

American Eel, Common

Carp, White Sucker

NCGP

PA0011568 Lukens Steel

Corp.

Coatesville Direct W. Branch

Brandywine

Creek

Brandywine Creek Chlordane,

PCBs

American Eel NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Brandywine Creek,

West Branch

Chlordane,

PCBs

American Eel NCGP

PA0006327 Allegheny

Ludlum Corp

Brackenridge Direct Kiskiminetas

River

Allegheny River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

PA0001996 Standard Steel Burnham Direct Loyalhanna

Creek

Allegheny River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

PA0013820 Allegheny

Ludlum Steel

Brackenridge Direct Allegheny River Allegheny River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP

PA0001406

PA0003620

Braeburn Alloy

Steel

Pittsburgh Flatroll

Co.

Lower Burrell

Pittsburgh

Direct

Direct

Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBS

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa

 (continued)

Facility

NPDES

Facility Name City Discharge

Type

Receiving

Stream

Advisory

Area/No.b

Pollutant Species Populationc Comments

138

PA0217034 USX Corp

U.S.S. Division

Dravosburg Direct Monongahela

River

Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

PA0004073 USS Irvin Plant Dravosburg Direct Monongahela

River

Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP 

PA0217034 Koppers

Industries

Monessen Direct

PA0002437 Shenango Inc.-

Neville Coke &

Iron

Pittsburgh/

Neville Island

Direct Ohio River Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP

PA0005754 J & L Specialty

Steel Inc.

Midland Direct

PA0006335 Koppel Steel

Corp

Beaver Falls Direct

PA0204315 J & L Structual

Inc.

Aliquippa Direct Logstown Run Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

PA0002721 Washington Steel

Corp

Washington Direct Chartiers Creek Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

PA0002739 Lukens Steel

Company

Washington Direct Chartiers Run Chartiers Creek Chlordane,

PCBs

Largemouth Bass, Common

Carp

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

PA0000868 Wheatland Tube

Co.

Wheatland Direct Shenango River Shenango River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp NCGP

PA0103781 Sharon Tube

Company

Sharon Direct Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

PA0002429 Caparo Steel

Company Inc.

Farrell Direct Beaver River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

PA0205222 Koppel Steel

Corp.

Koppel Direct Trib. To Beaver

River

Beaver River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa

 (continued)

Facility

NPDES

Facility Name City Discharge

Type

Receiving

Stream

Advisory

Area/No.b

Pollutant Species Populationc Comments

139

PA0006343 Armco Inc. Butler Direct Connoquenessing CreekBeaver River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish

NCGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

TX0000027 Lone Star Steel

Company

Lone Star Direct Ellison Creek,

Big Cypress

Creek

Big Cypress Creek Mercury Freshwater Drum,

Largemouth Bass

RSP, RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

one discharge site

for 1 outfall and on

receiving stream for

another outfall

TX0067695 N. Star Steel

Texas Inc.

Rose City Direct Trib. To Neches

River

Gulf of Mexico Mercury King Mackerel RSP, RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

TX0007706 USS Ce-Tex

Center

Baytown Direct East Ditch Houston Ship

Channel and

Contiguous

Waters

Dioxins Catfish, Blue Crab RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

Gulf of Mexico Mercury King Mackerel RSP, RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site

WV0004499

WV0004502

WV0023281

WheelingPittsburgh Steel

WheelingNisshin Inc.

WheelingPittsburgh Steel

Follansbee

Follansbee

Wheeling

Direct

Direct

Direct

Ohio River Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs,

Dioxins

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish, Smallmouth Bass,

Largemouth Bass, White

Bass, Freshwater Drum,

Flathead Catfish, Hybrid

Striped Bass, Sauger

NCGP, RGP

WV0003336 Weirton Steel

Corporation

Weirton Direct Harmon

Creek/Ohio

River

Ohio River Chlordane,

PCBs,

Dioxins

Common Carp, Channel

Catfish, Smallmouth Bass,

Largemouth Bass, White

Bass, Freshwater Drum,

Flathead Catfish, Hybrid

Striped Bass, Sauger

NCGP, RGP Advisory within 50

miles downstream of

discharge site for 3

outfalls and on

receiving stream for

3 additional outfalls
Table 38. Direct Discharging Iron and Steel Facilities Located on Waterbodies With State/Tribal/Federal Fish Consumption Advisoriesa

 (continued)

140

Footnotes:

NOTE: Facilities may be located on waterbodies with fish consumption advisories issued by other states (e.g., Ohio River - PA, OH, KY). Advisories are listed based on location (state)

of facility.

Based on facilities (sample set) included in environmental assessment.

Source: 1997 Update of Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories (LFWA), March 1998.

NCGP = No consumption advisory for general population

NCSP = No consumption advisory for sensitive subpopulations (e.g., pregnant women, nursing mothers, children)

RGP = Restrict consumption of specific species for general population

RSP = Restrict consumption of specific species for sensitive subpopulations

CFP = Commercial fishing ban

a = Includes advisories within 50 miles downstream of discharge site as noted.

b = Multiple advisories have been combined.

c = Consumption of specific species by specific populations not noted. See LFWA for this information.

d = See WV0004499/WV0004502/WV0023281.
141

Table 39. Significant Noncompliance (SNC) Rates for Iron and Steel Mills

Industry

Number of

Facilities

Percentage of Facilities in Significant

Noncompliance as of June 1998

Historical Noncompliance* Key Compliance and

Environmental

Problems

Air Water RCRA Air Water RCRA Total

Integrated Mills 23 72.7% 39.1% 30.4% 5.0 5.4 5.7 7.9 Groundwater slag

contamination,

contaminated sediment,

arc furnace dust,

unregulated sources,

SNCs from reoccurring

and single peak

violations, no baseline

testing

Mini Mills 91 21.2% 2.7% 4.5% 1.5 2.7 1.7 3.9

Note: SNC data are based on inspected facilities. SNC refers to the most egregious violations under each program or statute.

* Average number of quarterly periods, June 1996 - June 1998, with one or more violations or noncompliance events.

Source: Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, FY 98 Accomplishments Report, USEPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, June 1999.
142

Table 40. Summary of Environmental Effects/Benefits of the Proposed Effluent

Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel Industry a

Current Proposed

Rule

Summary of Benefits

Loadings (million lb/yr) b, c 253 198 22 percent reduction

Number of Instream

Excursions for Pollutants

That Exceed AWQC

269 at 55

streams

175 at 51

streams

4 streams become “contaminant-free”

d

Monetized benefits

(recreational/nonuse) = 

$0.38 to $1.35 million

Excess Annual Cancer

Casese

0.31 0.29 Reduction of 0.02 cases each year

Monetized benefits = 

$0.05 to $0.25 million

Population Potentially at

Risk to Lead Exposuree

948,000 948,000 Annual benefits:

C Reduction of 0.036 cases of adult

and neonatal premature mortality

C Prevention of aggregate loss of 57

IQ points in children

Monetized benefits =

$0.64 to $1.01 million

Population Potentially

Exposed to Other

Noncarcinogenic Health

Riskse

900 none Health effects to exposed population

eliminated 

Benefits not quantifiable

POTWs Experiencing

Inhibition

none of 61 none of 61 No baseline impacts

Improved POTW Biosolid

Quality

0 metric tons 0 metric tons No baseline impacts

Total Monetized Benefits $1.07 to 2.61 million (1997 dollars)

a. Modeled results from 103 direct and 47 indirect facilities were extrapolated to represent 198 iron and

steel facilities.

b. Loadings are representative of 60 priority and nonconventional pollutants evaluated; 4 conventional

pollutants and 6 nonconventional pollutants are not included.

c. Loadings account for POTW removals.

d. “Contaminant-free” from iron and steel discharges; however, potential contamination from other point

source discharges and nonpoint sources is still possible.

e. Through consumption of contaminated fish.
143

5. REFERENCES

American Heart Association. 2000. “About Blood Pressure.” <http://www.americanheart.org>.

Fisher, A., L. Chestnut, and D. Violette. 1989. “The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on New

Evidence.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 8, No. 1.

Fisher, A., R. Raucher, 1984. “Intrinsic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: Conceptual and Empirical

Perspectives.” Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, Vol. 3.

Howard, P.H. Editor. 1991. Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates. Chelsea, MI: Lewis

Publishers, Inc.

Lyke, A. 1993. “Discrete Choice Models to Value Changes in Environmental Quality: A Great Lakes

Case Study.” Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy (Agricultural Economics) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Lyman, W.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.

Maddaloni, M., N. Lolacono, W. Manton, C. Blum, J. Drexler, and J. Graziano. 1998. “Bioavailability

of Soilborne Lead in Adults by Stable Isotope Dilution.” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 106,

Supplement 6.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater Engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a.

Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. “Susceptibility of East Coast Estuaries to Nutrient

Discharges: Albemarle/Pamlico Sound to Biscayne Bay.” Rockville, MD: NOAA, Strategic Assessment

Branch.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b.

Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. “Susceptibility of East Coast Estuaries to Nutrient

Discharges: Passamaquoddy Bay to Chesapeake Bay.” Rockville, MD: NOAA, Strategic Assessment

Branch.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989c.

Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. “Susceptibility and Status of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries to

Nutrient Discharges.” Rockville, MD: NOAA, Strategic Assessment Branch.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991.

Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. “Susceptibility and Status of West Coast Estuaries to

Nutrient Discharges: San Diego Bay to Puget Sound.” Rockville, MD: NOAA, Strategic Assessment

Branch.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1995. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1995. Washington, DC:

U.S. Bureau of the Census.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997. Washington, DC:

U.S. Bureau of the Census.

U.S. Department of Education 2000. Digest of Education Statistics, 1999. Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. NCES 2000-031.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,

and Wildlife Associated Recreation.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Quality Criteria for Water. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,

Office of Water. EPA/440/5-80 Series. Also refers to any updated criteria documents (EPA/440/5-85

and EPA/440/5-87 Series) or any Federal Register notices of proposed criteria or criteria corrections.

The most recent National Recommended Water Quality Criteria used in this report were published in the
144

Federal Register on December 10, 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment

Works (50-POTW Study). Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA/440/1-82/303.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous

Wastes to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (Domestic Sewage Study). Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,

Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at

POTWs. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS),

Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Risk Screening

Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA/560/2-89-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

for Lead: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS Staff Paper. Research

Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA, Office of Air, Air Quality Management Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b. CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance

Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.

EPA/540/G-90/005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990c. National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based

Toxics Control. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA/505/2-90-001, PB91-127415.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Mixing Zone Dilution Factors for New Chemical

Exposure Assessments, Draft Report, October 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Contract No. 68-

D9-0166. Task No. 3-35.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Guidance Manual for the Integrated Exposure Uptake

Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model for Lead in Children. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response. EPA/540/R-93/081, PB93-963510.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995a. National Risk Management Research Laboratory Data

Base. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995b. Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge:

Final Rule 40 CFR Part 503. Washington, DC: Federal Register. October 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995c. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent

Limitations, Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry (Phase 1).

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA/821-R-95-023.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup

for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in

Soil. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. December 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. Washington, DC:

U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996c. Needs Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of

Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
145

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to

1990, Appendix G: Lead Benefits Analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S.

EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/P95/002Fb.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997c. Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel Industry Data.

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a. 1998 TMDL Tracking System Data, Version 1.1, July

1. State 303(d) Lists of Impaired Waterbodies. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998b. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption

Advisories. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998-1999. QSAR. Duluth, MN: U.S. EPA, Environmental

Research Laboratory.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, FY98

Accomplishments Report. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000a. Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the United

States, Based on the Data Collected by the United States Department of Agriculture’s 1994-1996

Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals, Draft Report, March 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.

EPA, Office of Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000b. Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Assessment

of the Proposed Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) Regulation. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,

Office of Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000c. Iron and Steel Pollutant Loading Files. Washington,

DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000d. Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) File. Washington,

DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000e. Permit Compliance System. Washington, DC: U.S.

EPA, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000f. GAGE File. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of

Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000g. REACHSCAN. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000h. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

Versar, Inc. 1992. Upgrade of Flow Statistics Used to Estimate Surface Water Chemical

Concentrations for Aquatic and Human Exposure Assessment. 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 and Private Responsibilities for Risk. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Walsh, R., D. Johnson, and J. McKean. 1990. “Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of Research on
146

Recreational Demand.” Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, Vol. 5.

NOTE: Most of these references are available in the Environmental Assessment/Benefits Docket

(W-99-24).