NCD980602163_19960607_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_PCBs-OCR

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRO!\'MENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
William L. Meyer
Director, Sol:~faste Management Division
To: P1t:f LU,u,rtm[Sod
Please:
Draft a reply for my signature.
Take appropriate action.
Approve.
For your information
Date: 0/2/'iltz
Nole and return altachcd material to me
See me about auached
Handle and report to me
0 ff, 6. 0 !) J ~ " -/\_., .. ·-Vr , --J. ,.. -· .---· I --• .,, , , 7''"-.,, -,---'' / ... l ------• ' ' .,. \ \ V \ • \ .. ~ ' \ :_,' " ' l\ -\ • \ I ,' \ I ... . I\ \ ,---' .. \ \ \, : -----------, ____ ,/ ___ , V ...... ____ _ ," /'-, ' I I -,, ,,,,, , I I I I ' I I I I ) ,, , I \_~._' b. I surface water (new) surface water ( existing) soiVsediment monitoring wells existing monitoring wells leachate samples hydro punch ,----__ ,,,--,,, l ', ,,_ I I I I ' I I ---... ' ,, ......... . _,,-,.... ,, ', I \ I \ I \ I \ I '-e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : I I I I I I I I I I b. 'BLA SI~ 8 Ci) ,-... ', ...... ,,-.. __ .,,, \ ',, ,' •.q --/' I .... ..,. I _,,,. I ..,. __ , I \ ..... .... ............. -----.. --............ _____________ ,,,.------............ .. _ ----.......... \ I I I I ',---------i I \ ' ...... -.. ... _ ............... , .......... _., ,,-... , .. , \ _.,,' '\ ' ' ' \ ' \ ' I ' ' ' ' ', ' \ \ I ' I I I I ,' ,' ,, I .,, I I I I I I -·· _../ ... , ,, ... , ....... __ ,, r \ \/(
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL AREA DIOXIN RESULTS ALL UNITS IN PARTS PER TRILLION (PPT) SAMPLE NO. IC-003-LC WL-65 IC-001-LCH (gpgfl/If t• • !:[ iil!i§~Mf?t•ttiggpJI • •t:JJ\ IC-001-GW • • Jf (gqp)/Jt I\!i!ijlji!!\Jli •• ;¥,;~j •.••... ················~~¢~!•!GW ND EMPC 0.009 ND 0.013 ND 0.011 ND 1,2,3, 7 ,8-PeCDD ND EMPC 0.011 ND 0.02 ND ND ND 1,2,3,4, 7 ,8-HxCDD ND ND EMPC ND 0.019 ND 0.012 ND 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND ND 0.009 ND 0.024 ND 0.017 ND 1,2,3, 7,8,9-HxCDD ND ND 0.008 ND 0.026 ND 0.018 ND 1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-HpCDD 28 ND 0.038 ND 0.134 ND EMPC ND 1,2,3,4,6, 7 ,8,9-0CDD 2,3, 7,8-TCDF 79 113.3 0.049 ND 0.07 ND 0.065 ND 1,2,3, 7,8-PeCDF 32.8 32.9 0.013 ND 0.047 ND EMPC ND 2,3,4, 7,8-PeCDF 80.8 118.8 0.021 ND 0.043 ND 0.007 ND 1,2,3,4, 7,8-HxCDF 753 1145.2 0.033 ND 0.085 ND 0.07 ND 1,2,3,6, 7,8-HxCDF EMPC 117.2 0.011 ND 0.031 ND 0.02 ND 2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-HxCDF 65.8 101 0.017 ND 0.04 ND 0.037 ND 1,2,3, 7,8,9-HxCDF EMPC EMPC EMPC ND EMPC ND EMPC ND 1,2,3,4,6, 7,8-HpCDF 673 895.8 0.041 ND 0.118 ND 0.099 ND 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 628 549.1 0.005 ND 0.014 ND ND ND 1,2,3,4,6, 7,8,9-0CDF 4630 4207.2 0.061 ND 0.115 ND 0.105 ND ND -Nt DETECTED AT OUiTITION LIMIT FOR METHOD £/1,1-~ EP4 '8.21D ~ EMPC • COMPOUND MAY BE PRESENT BUT COULD NOT BE OUANITFIED ~;u:o DL-; ff PZ DL ~ , rrrr ~
C --·C UQ $ E p _ w
lzm
/7ft>D
~ro
7309
l'im
~~5
s (; t' ~ cY-yt.-..S
s CJ/'(IMJ ----=-
'2..CJ7 s~s ~/7/~3 -,-4'1£~
2~77 ~a.ti~
ZS 80 ~ 0/0/&c( -)/?IS{:;
2 B -;7 ~ 7/z_q /{fj f-D /O/zs /g'J
----
so;; 1 £ b/? o, • 6)
':ryf ftlp_1fs! 55 • 9
ZltJ~Lh b8 ·S
• 11.. <;,. ,,fLh .5~ • S>
pzt /I'/ )l. )(~/~~/~/JS/ 'Lz~8, ·t --yf£f-Of
ho1 •9 }{_
h.5~'}
,, t& ·..s
,,56:.5
• jd" ::I '7 ---d£{. Qf.
1
II -zo'h
1, BS 1h
Oz-/-{J(l
n?On cnrS r
fq rtl '60£-fl a /
:fJ/}1@
_______ .._.._. ...... ,.s --•211a11a111■• -'~-
-a t al? ~--
oEPA
Un1:ec S;a:es
E'1vircnmer:a P:-~tac:ic '"'
Agency
Dioxin Facts
C::~~:.;n,:::a:1cr-,s . Ec:.;ca: ::-
Anc P:.;o;,c Aiia,'.5
• Scientific Highlights from
Draft Reassessment
Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency, other Federal
agencies and the general scientific community have been involved in a
comprehensive, scientific reassessment of dioxin and related compounds since
1991. External review drafts of the reassessment documents entitled
"Estimating Exposure to Dioxin and related Compounds" and ''Health
Assessment of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dibenzodioxin (TCDD) and Related
Compounds" are now being made available by the Agency for public comment
and review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB).
The exposure document provides the first comprehensive survey of
U.S. sources of dioxin and related compounds. A ug ~ety £ l;;lf:C of
awWI· 1:aha:v.:e llee --~el-r ma exist. The available information
suggests that the presence of dioxin-like compounds in the environment has
occurred primarily as a result of industrial practices and is likely to reflect
changes in release over time. The principal identified sources of
environmental release may be grouped into f~~ld~j-~GEW,~~~2mt:>c1
=n n ·neratie irrres; Eh:ec1N€ an.uiaet.u-ring=/q:iroeeSS'.· re ,
Ln--dus-trial · • -· !a. ~::00esses, an -R rv01r ource . Because dioxin-like
chemicals are persistent and accumulate in biological tissues, particularly in
animals, t mzj oute of xp.os is ;ffl'"Oll ·ng • 0-~~i'f,5
a ntaining minat< q-uarm:-tte o aioxin-li ke eompm1nd . • wide-
-Sf)l'@aEi, k> -.e~ Xp€>St1r-e e-t~ener-ai epuiation iom-likse
GGm:pG\if\ds Certain segments of the population may be exposed to additional
increments of exposure by being in proximity to point sources or because of
dietary practices. The levels of dioxin and related compounds in the
environment and in food in the U.S. are based on relatively few samples and
must be conside~e<:f quite uncertain. However, they seem consistent with
levels rneasured__[n a studies in Western Europe and Canada. ~ :Sistene
0-£ these :e:.¥€1-s --c-cess ina¼lshializea eaW'\me FJ'f@vid acss-m-an ha the
l::LS. es-ti.mat-es arc--easonab}e. Collection of additional data to reduce
uncertainty in U.S. estimates of dioxin-like compounds in the environment
and in food is an important need and such data collection is currently
underway in a study being carried out by EPA, FDA and USDA scientists.
The new assessment adopts the hypothesis that the primary mechanism
by which dioxin-like compounds enter the terrestrial food chain is via
atmospheric deposition_ Dioxin and related compounds enter the atmosphere
directly through air emissions or indirectly, for example, through
volatilization from land or water or from re-suspension of particles.
Deposition can occur directly on to soil or on to plant surfa~. At present, it is
unclear whether atmospheric deposition represents primarily current
contributions of dioxin and related compounds from all media reaching the
atmosphere or it represents past emissions of dioxin and related compounds
which persist and recycle in the environment. Understanding the ·
relationship between these two scenarios will be particularly important in
understanding the relative contributions of individual point sources of these
compounds to the food chain and assessing the effectiveness of control •
strategies focussed on either current or past emissions of dioxins in attempting
to reduce dioxin exposures.
Throughout this reassessment, concentrations of dioxin and related
compounds .have been presented as 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-p-dibenzodioxin
(TCDD) equivalents (TEQs). One compound, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is the best studied
of this class of compounds and is the reference compound with regard to
toxicity equivalence. The strengths and weaknesses as well as the
uncertainties associated with the TEF /TEQ approach have been discussed in
the report and remain controversial. As noted, the use of the TEQ approach is
fundamental to the evaluation of this group of compounds and as such
represents a key assumption upon which many of the conclusions in this
characterization hinge.
e~m '~a~gr-0uft€l" bee: used et1ghettt""Y\1s-
t eass.essmen esm et the-,gel'lffaJ puclatien, which is not
exposed to readily identifiable point sources of dioxin-like compounds. Data
Oi human.Jissue.,lavcel sagg -1.lcWI, __ , w-ae le •
natieRS41'€..reasonably-•'.smci:I-a1. Aver~acekgr-eWlEi
hW'de • the hwnan pepul, • eracg 4
equat @-60 t-) whe .• and-di€>
included. High-end estimates of body burden of individuals in the general
population (approximately the top 10% of the general population) may be
greater than 3 times higher.
In addition to general population exposure, some individuals or groups
of individuals may also be exposed to dioxin-like compounds from discrete
sources or pathways locally within their environment. Examples of these
"special" exposures include: occupational exposures, direct or indirect ·
exposure of local populations to discrete sources, exposure of nursing infants
from mother's milk, or exposures of subsistence or recreational fishers.
Although daily exposures to these populations may be significantly higher
than daily exposures to the general population, simply evaluating these
exposures as average daily intakes pro-rated over a lifetime might obscure the
potential significance of elevated exposures for these sub-populations,
particularly if exposures occur for a short period.of time during critical times
during growth and development of children.
&EPA
!Jnited States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Communications. Education.
And Public Attairs
(1700)
STATEMENT OF LYNN GOLD!\iAN, M.D ..
September 1994
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES, AND TOXICS
SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 .
Today the EPA is releasing a "public review draft" of its dioxin
reassessment. This release marks a major milestone in our effort to
reevaluate our scientific understanding of dioxin. More than 100
EPA and outside scientists have worked for over -three years to
develop the current draft of the reassessment. Over the next 120
days , the EPA will be taking public comments on the draft document.
Early in 1995 EP A's Science Advisory Board will conduct a formal
scientific peer review. We will conclude the reassessment about a
year from now, incorporating appropriate changes that have been
indicated by the public comments, peer reviewers and the SAB.
Dioxins are a group of chemical compounds inadvertently
created through a number of activities including: combustion,
certain types of chemical manufacture, chlorine bleaching of pulp
and paper, and other industrial processes. Dioxin is produced in
very small quantities compared to other pollutants (around 30
pounds annually); however, because it is highly toxic, it has been
treated as a significant environmental pollutant since the early
1970's. EPA first took action against dioxin regarding the herbicide
2,4,5.T in 1979. Since then, EPA has expanded its dioxin control
efforts to each of its major programs. •
In 1985 EPA published a scientific review of the health effects of
2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic of the dioxin family of compounds.
That assessment serves as the scientific basis for dioxin risk
estimates for all EPA programs. Since 1985 a number of scientific
and newspaper reports have raised questions about the risks posed
by dioxin. The draft study not only updates the 1985 document, but
also represents an ongoing process to build a broad scientific
consensus on dioxin's toxic effects.
To help foster this consensus, EPA has worked to make each
phase of the dioxin reassessment an open and participatory process.
These efforts have included the involvement of outside scientists as
principal authors of several chapters, several ·public meetings to take
comment on our plans and progress, and publication of earlier drafts
of our work for public comment and review. We are continuing this
participatory process by making the current draft available for public
comment and full scientific review. When this process is completed,
we anticipate having an up-to-date and thorough scientific
assessment of dioxin that is at the cutting edge of environmental
toxicology .
. Regarding health risks, the draft study reaffirms the
association of dioxin and cancer. In its 1985 assessment, EPA
concluded that dioxin is a proven animal carcinogen and a probable
human carcinogen. Today's report reaches the same conclusion, but
with greater confidence. Based upon both animal and human
evidence, EP A's estimate of dioxin's cancer potency is essentially
unchanged from that of 1985. •
The draft reassessment differs significantly from the 1985
document in its evaluation of dioxin's non-cancer effects. Today we
have a stronger body of evidence to suggest that at some dose,
dioxin exposure can result in a number of non-cance_r health effects
in humans. These effects may include developmental and
reproductive effects, immune suppression, and disruption of
regulatory hormones. We have no direct evidence to show that any
of these non-cancer effects occur in humans at everyday levels of
exposure. However, we can infer from the data that average
everyday exposures are close to exposures that· are known to cause
such effects in laboratory animals.
'.fhe--d-nrft-smd-y-alsG..idaRtaie&-€li~ • s0ttr=ees ~ e-lfflevvn
Wftmbtt -~meaIRental..c~ami.Ratiefl. W,ast . n
c,.u:"~cn~5% ~ OWfremlSSlORSr-WiJ~ ·:e
mli~l}iB'd~ €©m00Sfl~ c0mmatia tlle--e@mmtSOOR SGm€e
• • !-a=Fl~a--I=l oo • deI:l.illi~~.es.oLm.oxm m
t.h •~ffl-.........,,1~--'~~ G ha..v£si 1 £6.cient..information..ab&ttt
6fil.,€€S pmMid -IX! "--=_,at.es. It is also
...... /1// /
/
I
I
possible that much of the dioxin that contributes to human exposure
results from past dioxin emissions recirculating in the environment.
AJtl:10eig-h ~ef ooe oom natur=a1 011Tces rlto • , suoo a f=&l'es
Jir~-, ·4; eecm lea=F ha--t €Y0xms a:r-e prin=tacFi.Jy: a' r0€lt1e ef 0d-e-m
i-rui11&t--reia1 S€><:iety. • •
We elieve tha he~wa~A-, ru:-mans • s
p_ti~ • ·rb...or,n _ "Gxin hat eUl ~ laFt:ffi, and that are
passed on through the food chain and associated particularly eith
fat. The federal government emphasizes that the benefits from a
balanced diet far outweigh any theoretical risks from dioxin
exposure.
yVhile the reassessment has been underway, EPA has continued
to move forward in implementing its dioxin control programs. EPA
has taken action under every one of its major statutes to control the
risks of dioxin, and we believ~ these activities have made, and will
continue to make, major strides in reducing dioxin emissions. Recent
actions taken by EPA include proposing air emission standards for
n1unicipal waste incinerators, proposing stringent water effluent
standards for pulp and paper mills and waste incinerators. No later
than next February, EPA will propose strict air standards for
reducing dioxin and other emissions from medical waste
incinerators.
While the science of the reassessment is undergoing peer
review, EPA will be examining the reassessment's policy implications
to determine what changes, if any, are needed in existing programs.
I want to stress that existing EPA efforts and programs will not be
changed on the basis of this draft reassessment,however, they may
change significantly after the completion of the peer review. EPA is
committed to developing an agency-wide strategy for managing
dioxin risks, concurrent with completion of the dioxin reassessment.
As with the reassessment, we want to provide an opportunity for
early public input into our policy evaluations. This spring, EPA will
hold dioxin policy workshops to explore the policy implications of the
reassessment. The details of these workshops will be announced
later.
·'
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
Estimating
Exposure to .
Oioiin•Like
Compounds
Volume I:
Executive Summary
Notice
s <:. L '.i
EP A/600/6-88/00SCa
June 1994
External Review Draft
This document Is a preliminary draft. It has not been formally
released by EPA and should not at this stage be construed to
represent Agency policy. It Is being circulated for comment on its
technical accuracy and policy Implications.
DRAFT--DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
statistically derive estimates of the range of uncertainty surrounding the central emission
estimates. Instead, a judgement-based approach was used that assigned a factor of 10
from the low to high end of the range for the low confidence class, a factor of 6 for th~
medium confidence class and a factor of 2 for the high confidence class. It is emphasized
that these ranges should be interpreted as judgements which are symbolic of the relative
uncertainty among sources, and not statistical derivations of uncertainty. The emission
factors and production values used to generate air emission estimates are illustrated in
figure 11-3. Key source categories are discussed below:
t t-tospital Waste Incinerators: Collectiv~ly, this may be the largest source in the United
States. This is due to the facts that most of these incinerators do not rely on highly
sophisticated control technologies, are high in number (over 6000 facilities) and burn high
chlorine content waste. Although the dioxin emissions from these facilities are collectively
large, individually they are relatively small. Therefore, local impacts may also be relatively ·
small. However, the area of impact is an uncertain issue in general for combustors.
Germany recognized the importance of these facilities several years ago and instituted
emission limits which required facilities to upgrade their technology or ship 't"aste to
hazardous waste incinerators.
, Municipal Waste Incinerators: The current emissions from this category appear
relatively high, but upgrading is occurring that should substantially reduce these emissions
in the near future. Dioxin is also present in the ash generated from these facilities. The
amount estimated to be in municipal incinerator waste ash nationally is the largest among
the few source categories where estimates could be made concerning solid residues.
• Cement Kilns: EPA is currently evaluating dioxin levels in the clinker dust and stack
emissions from these facilities. The preliminary information suggests that collectively
these facilities could be a moderate to large source. About 16% of the facilities burn
hazardous waste as an auxiliary fuel; limite~ data suggests that the CDD/F levels in clinker
dust and stack emissions of these kilns may be significantly higher than the kilns which do
not burn hazardous waste.
21 4/94
DRAFT--DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
representing hundreds of vehicles, the indirect method of analysis introduces uncertainty.
Much lower emissions were measured by Marklund et al. (1990) on the basis of direct
tailpipe tests involving diesel fuel in a heavy-duty Swedish vehicle (Marklund et al., 1990).
This study reported no emissions at a detection limit of 100 pg/I or approximately 0.05
ng/km. This is a factor of 100 lower than the emission rate reported by Oehme et al.
( 1991 ) . Because this study' s results are based on only one vehicle using Swedish fuel,
this emission factor is also quite uncertain. TheM two studies yield a very wide range of
emission estimates and clearly suggests that further testing Is needed.
• Coal-Fired Utilities: The importance of these facilities remains unknown. • Only one
U.S. facility has been tested and no detectable l~vels of dioxin were found. If dioxin were
present at the detection limit, an emission factor can be calculated which suggests that,
due to their number, these plants could collectively represent a moderately sized source.
The potential importance of this source is enhanced by several factors. In addition to
being numerous, they are large in size and their high stacks indicate that they could impact
very large areas. Testing is currently underway to better characterize these emissions.
6 Pulp and Paper Mills: These facilities can have dioxin releases to water, land and
paper products. The paper industry has recently made process changes which they
estimate have reduced dioxin emissions by 90% from 1988 to 1992 (NCASI, 199j).
Extensive surveys encompassing virtually all mills have been conducted, making this
industry one of the best characterized in terms of dioxin emissions.
The other combustors evaluated in this report appear to be relatively minor sources
on a national scale (although their local impact$ could be important to evaluate). These
include sewage sludge incinerators, hazardou~ waste incinerators, Kraft liquor boilers,
drum and barrel reclaimers, tire combustors, carbon reactivation furnaces and scrap
electric wire recovery facilities. The releases associated with chemical manufacturing
could not be quantified due to the lack of test tfata. Potentially such releases could occur
via the product itself or as emissions to the llir, land or water. Such releases have lead to
the termination of production of PCBs and some phenoxy herbicides. Recently, some
claims have been made that significant dioxin emissions may occur during the production
24 4/94
DRAFT--00 NOT QUOTE OR CITE
of vinyl ctiloride monomer and associated products. These claims have been strongly
disputed by the industry. Insufficient emission data are currently available to make an
independent evaluation.
Several investigators have attempted to conduct "mass balance" checks on the
estimates of national dioxin r~laases to th~ enyironment. Basically, this procedure involves
comparipg estimates of the emission, to ~stimijtes of aerial deposition. Such studies in
Sweden (Rappe, 1991) and Great Britain U-tarr"~ and Jonas, 1992) have suggested that
the e~timated ~eposition ~xceeds the a~tim~ted t:imissions by about 10 fold. These
studi~~ ~r~ aclmowledged to be quit~ specylc,tiy' due to the strQng potential for
inaccur~cies in emission and deposition estimates. In addition, the apparent discrepancies
could be explained by long nmQ~ transport frorn outside the country, resuspension and
depo$ition of reservoir sourc~s, atmospheric tr~nsformations or unidentified sourc~s.
Bearing these limitations in mind, this procedure has been used hare to compare the
estim~ted emissions and depq~itjon in the United States.
Deposition measurement$ have bijen mad~ at a number of locations in Europe (see
Volume II) and two places in the United St~tef (Koester and Hites, 1992). These limit~d
data su99est that a deposition rate of 1 ng Tl;O/m 2-yr is typical of remote area~ and that
2-6 nQ T~O/m2-yr is more typical of popul~t~~ ijreas. Applying lhe values of 1 ng TEO/n,2-
yr to Alas~a and 2-6 ng TEO/m 2-yr to th@ continental United Stc1tes, the total U.S.
deposition can be estimated ij~ ~0,000 tQ 60,090 g TEO/yr. This range can be compared
to the r~nge of emission& for the United States, 3,300 to 26,000 g TEO/yr, a~ presented
in Table 11-3. It is not clear vvhether thi$ type of mass balance can ever be refined to the
point where definitive conclusions can be dr,\,\'n. However, it remains one of the few
methods of evaluating the existence of ~nknown sources.
11.3. OCCURRENCE AND BACKGROUND EXPOSURES
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs),
and polychlorinated biphenyl~ (PCBs) U!!!U..,.. ....... .,.. .... ,......... !!1·~..l.l•"..,,..,.' ....... ""'--o__,h~==:..a.i~=~~,
lttdi •
..:a;:=:-:,:=.=~ ·--~-...... _,!!!.!!..1'-~~=!:!!l The highe~t levels of these compoun~s are found in
soils, sediments, and biota; very low leyel~ are four,d in water and air.
26 4/94
I
DRAFT--DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
compounds into the atmosphere, and the overall resistance of these compounds to biotic
and abiotic transformation.
11.3.1. United States Food Data
All available data on background levels in United States food are summarized In
Table 11-4. "Background" concentrations are defined here as those for which no source of
dioxin-like compound contamination was identified to have impacted the concentrations
reported. The background TEO estimates are presented first assuming that nondetects
equal half the detection limits and second assuming that riondetects equal zero. For food
groups such as eggs, a wide range of TEO estimates are seen indicating a high percent of
nondetects among individual congeners. the higher of the two TEO estimates, that
calculated using half the detection limit for nondetects, are generally comparable to the
TEO estimates derived from studies conducted in Germany (Furst et al. 1991) and Canada
(Gilman and Newhook, 1991). The German and Canadian studies did not, however, report
how nondetects were treated in deriving their TEOs, but did report many nondetects in
some food groups. In summary, the limited number of United States food samples and the
high incidence of nondetects make an uncertaih basi~ for estimating national background
levels, although they are reasonably consistenl with food level estimates reported for
Canada and Germany. It is clear that more data are needed to adequately characterize the
levels of dioxin-like compounds in the United States food supply. Although a large scale
survey could confirm residue levels of CDD/F, some attention also needs to be paid to
~ampling/analytical methodology. Since many of the detected values are only a few
multiples above reported detection limits, signHicsrit uncertainty results in reported mean
values when there are many nondetects in a food category.
11.3.2. Summary of Media Levels
The estimated levels of CDD/CDFs in environmental media and food are summarized
in Table 11-5 and shown graphically in Figure 11-4. Except for the TEO levels in European
food which are based on data reported for German food by Furst et al. (1990), all other
TEO levels presented in Figure 11-4 are based on the data analyzed in this study. The
background TEO levels of CDD/CDFs in water and air were found to be lower than in any
of the other environmental media evaluated and were not included in Figure 11-4. For most
26 4/94
DRAFT--OO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Table 11-5. Summary of CDD/F levels in environmental media and food (whole
weight basis).
Soil, ppt: TEO 7.96 ± 5.70 (n=95J 8.69 (n = 1331
Sediment, ppt: TEO 3.91b (n=7) 34.89b (n = 20)
Fish, ppt: TEO 1.16 ± 1.21 (n=60) 0.931 (n= 18)
Air, pg/m3: TEO 0.0949 ± 0.24 (n = 84) 0.108° (n=454)
Water, ppq: TEO 0.0056 ± 0.0079 NOA
(n=214)
Milk, ppt: TEO 0.07°•d (n = 2) 0.05h (n = 168)
Dairy, ppt: TEO 0.36 ± 0.29 (n=5I 0.081 (n = 1 OJ
Eggs, ppt: TEO 0.135 ± 0.119 (n=8) 0.152d (n = 1 I
Beef ppt: TEO 0.48 ± 0.99 (n= 14) 0 .321; 0.61k (n=7)
Pork, ppt: TEO 0.26 ± 0.13 (n = 12) <0.061 ln=3l
Chicken, ppt: TEO 0.19 ± 0.29 (n=9I 0.211 (n=2)
Footnotes:
NOA = No data available.
• Values are the arithmetic mean TEOs and standard deviations.
b Standard deviations could not be calculated because detection limit~ for most samples were not reported.
• Value was calculated from the raw data used in EPA ( 1991 bl using half the detection limits for
nondetects.
d Standard deviation could not be calculated because data were limited for the congener that contributed
the most to the total TEO.
• Soil, sediment, and air values based on data from a variety of European countries (see Tables 8-17 to 8-
301; egg data based on Beck et al. (19891; and other food levels based on data from Germany (FOrst et
al., 1990).
TEO calculated from Forst et al. (1990) for fresh water fish by assuming 7% fat content (EPA, 1993).
0 TEO assumed to be the mean of the midpoints of the ranges reported in four European studies (Clayton et
al., 1993; Kc5nig et al., 1993a; Liebl et al., 1993; Wevers et al., 19931.
h TEO calculated from Forst et al. (1990) by assuming 4% fat content.
TEO calculated for cheese from Forst et al. (1990) by assuming 8% fat content.
TEO for beef calculated from FOrst et al. (1990) by assuming 19% fat content.
k TEO for veal calculated from Forst et al. (19901 by assuming 19% fat content.
TEO calculated from Forst et al. (1990) by assuming 15% fat content.new Table 11-5
28 4/94
DRAFT--DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE Soil v cc cc, cc cc cc cc, c {cc,,, cc,,,,,,,,,,,, c,,, c {" I I I Sediment,, I I II I I I I I/ I II I I (//I I I/ I j / / / ///// / // //// /J /I/ II I Ii I I// I// I d34.89;n-2 I I J I Fish.1 { 1 , , , , , , , , , , , 1 , , f , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I 1 Beef I' LL' ' ' L' ' ' ' ' ' L' ' r ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I Vea I , , , , , , , J , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . n•4 Dairy I ' , , , , , , , , , , , , , . I Milk I ( I l l l l l <, l I {I Chicken 1, c,,, c,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I I Pork 1 , , , , , , , , , , , , , I 12 Eggs r < < < < t t ts/ / / / / / / 1.t I nu., .. ,. T-• 1 1 1 1 1 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Media Concentration (ppt of TEO) I ■ North America (b] ~ Europe (c] I Figure 11-4. Background environmental levels in TEO. (a] based on an examination of raw data reported by EPA ( 1991 b); [bl based on N. American studies; (cl environmental media levels based on various European studies, food levels based on Furst, et al. (1990), egg levels based on Beck, et al. (1989) 29 4/94 c,a
DRAFT--DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
media, the average levels appear to be similar between North America and Europe.
However, differences were noted in three areas:
• Sediment: The background levels in Europe were estimated to be higher than North
America. It should be noted, however, that only the 2,3,7,8-TCDD/F and OCDD/F
congeners were analyzed for background sediment sites in the United States and Europe.
The sediment data are quite variable and can be very high in impacted areas (i.e., 2,3, 7 ,8-
TCDD levels over 1000 ppt have been measured in industrial areas). Also, it was difficult
to interpret whether some of the European data truly represent unimpacted areas. Thus,
these differences may be due more to the weakness of the data base and interpretation
difficulties, rather than real differences.
• Dairy Products: The data on dairy products suggest that North America levels are
higher than European. Dairy products include a wide variety of food items with varying
amounts of fat. Thus, the CDD/F levels would vary correspondingly. Differences ir, the
mix of dairy products used for the North America and European estimates could explain
these differences.
• Pork: The pork data suggests that North America levels are higher than European
levels. The low number of samples collected in both Europe and North America may mean
this estimate is not representative.
In general, the differences noted above probably reflect the sparseness or
inequalities in the data rather than real differences. The small number of samples available
for analysis, particularly for food, should be considered when evaluating data from the
United States and elsewhere. The human tissue data (see discussion below) suggest
similar body burden levels in the North America, Europe and other industrial countries.
Thus, it seems likely the media levels would also be similar. Large scale "market basket"
type food surveys would be needed to confirm these levels.
11.3.3. Conclusions for Mechanisms of Impact to Food Chain
CDD/F can enter aquatic systems by either direct effluent discharges or
30 4/94