United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Water
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington. DC 20-160
June, 1385
2,4,6-Trichlorop
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to: (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard-to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling 2-1
Incineration 2-1
Ocean Disposal 2-1
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreadirig and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Landf ill ing 3-1
Incineration 3-1
Ocean Disposal 3-1
Index of seawater concentration resulting
from initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3-1
Index of seawater concentration representing
a 24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 3-5
Index of toxicity to aquatic life (Index 3) 3-6
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from seafood consumption (Index 4) 3-8
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
• IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-1
Air 4-2
Food 4-2
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Human Effects 4-2
Ingestion 4-2
Inhalation 4-3
Plant Effects 4-3
Phytotoxicity 4-3
Uptake 4-3
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-3
Toxicity 4-3
Uptake 4-3
Aquatic Life Effects 4-3
Toxicity 4-3
Uptake 4-4
Soil Biota Effects 4-4
Toxicity 4-4
Uptake 4-4
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-4
5 . REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE .' A-l
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This preliminary data profile is one of a series of profiles
dealing with chemical pollutants potentially of concern in municipal
sewage sludges. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol was initially identified as being
of potential concern when sludge is ocean disposed."* This profile is a
compilation of information that may be useful in determining whether
2,4,6-trichlorophenol poses an actual hazard to human health or the
environment when sludge is disposed of by this method.
The focus of this document is the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the .hazard that could result from
movement of a pollut-ant by a given pathway to cause a given effect.
(e.g., sludge -*• seawater •* marine organisms •> human toxicity). The val-
ues and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to represent a
reasonable "worst case"; analysis of error or uncertainty has been
conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most cases is
indexed to unity; i.e., values >1 may indicate a potential hazard,
depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on information presented in the "preliminary data profile",
Section 4. Information in the profile is based on a compilation of the
recent literature. An attempt has been made to fill out the profile
outline to the greatest extent possible. However, since this is a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has not been exhaustively perused.
The "preliminary conclusions" drawn from each index in Section 3
are summarized in Section 2. The preliminary hazard indices will be
used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants and pathways may
pose a hazard. Where a potential hazard is indicated by interpretation
of these indices, further analysis will include a more detailed exami-
nation of potential risks as well as an examination of site-specific
factors. These more rigorous evaluations, may change the preliminary
conclusions presented in Section 2, which are based on a reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
The preliminary hazard indices for selected exposure routes
pertinent to ocean disposal practices are included in this profile. The
calculation formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix. The
indices are rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWES) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL.SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of "preliminary hazard indices", which represent conserva-
tive or "worst case" analyses of hazard. The indices and their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDFILLING
Based on the •recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Slight increases in seawater concentration of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
is evident in all the scenarios evaluated for initial mixing of
disposed sludge (see Index 1).
A
Slight concentration increases were apparent in all the scenarios
evaluated for a 24-hour dumping cycle (see Index 2).
The index of toxicity to aquatic life could not be calculated due
to lack, of data (see Index 3).
Slight incremental increases related to human health were assessed
for all the scenarios evaluated (see Index 4).
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDFILLING
Based on t.he recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
For the purpose of evaluating pollutant effects upon and/or
subsequent uptake by marine life as a result of sludge disposal,
two types of mixing were modeled. The initial mixing or dilution
shortly after dumping of a single load of sludge represents a high,
pulse concentration to which organisms may be exposed for short
time periods but which .could be repeated frequently; i.e., every
time a recently dumped plume is encountered. A subsequent addi-
tional degree of mixing can be expressed by a further dilution.
This is defined as the average dilution occurring when a day's
worth of sludge is dispersed by 24 hours of current movement and
represents the time-weighted average exposure concentration for
organisms in the disposal area. This dilution accounts for 8 to 12
hours of the high pulse concentration encountered by the organisms
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting
from Initial Mixing of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased concentrations in Ug/L
of pollutant in seawater around an ocean disposal site
assuming initial mixing.
3-1
-------
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the background
seawater concentration of pollutant is unknown or zero.
The index also assumes that disposal is by tanker and
that the daily amount of sludge disposed is uniformly
distributed along a path transversing the site and
perpendicular to the current vector. The initial
dilution volume is assumed to be . determined by path
length, depth to the pycnocline (a layer separating
surface and deeper water masses), and an initial plume
width defined as the width of the plume 4 hours after
dumping. The seasonal disappearance of the pycnocline is
not considered.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Disposal conditions
Sludge Sludge Mass Length
Disposal Dumped by a of Tanker
Rate (SS) Single Tanker (ST) Path (L)
Typical 825 mt DW/day 1600 mt WW 8000 m
Worst 1650 mt DW/day 3400 mt WW 4000 m
The typical value for the sludge disposal rate assumes
that 7.5 x 10^ mt WW/year are available for dumping
from a metropolitan coastal area. The conversion to
dry weight assumes 4 percent solids by weight. The
worst-case value is an arbitrary doubling of the
typical value to allow for potential future increase.
The assumed disposal practice to be followed at the
model site representative of the typical case is a
modification of that proposed for sludge disposal at
the formally designated 12-mile site in the New York
Bight Apex (City of New York, 1983). Sludge barges
with capacities of 3400 mt WW would be required to
discharge a load in no less than 53 minutes travel-
ing at a minimum speed of 5 nautical miles (9260 m)
per hour. Under these conditions, the barge would
enter the site, discharge the sludge over 8180 m and
exit the site. Sludge barges with capacities of
1600 mt WW would be required to discharge a load in
no less than 32 minutes traveling at a minimum speed
of 8 nautical miles (14,816 m) per hour. Under
these conditions, the barge would enter the site,
discharge the sludge over 7902 m and exit the site.
The mean path length for the large and small tankers
is 8041 m or approximately 8000 m. Path length is
assumed to lie perpendicular to the direction of
p'revailing current flow. For the typical disposal
rate (SS) of 825 mt DW/day, it is assumed that this
would be accomplished by a mixture of four 3400 mt
3-2
-------
WW and four 1600 mt WW capacity barges. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For the worst-case disposal rate (SS) of
1650 mt DW/day, eight 3400 mt WW and eight 1600 mt
WW capacity barges would be utilized. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For both disposal rate scenarios, there
would be a 12 to 16 hour period at night in which no
sludge would be dumped. It is assumed that under
the above described disposal operation, sludge
dumping would occur every day of the year.
The assumed disposal practice at the model site
representative of the worst case is as stated for
the typical site, except that barges would dump half
their load along a track, then turn around and
dispose of the balance along the same track in order
to prevent a barge from dumping outside of the site.
This practice would effectively halve the path
length compared to the typical site.
b. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 2.3 mg/kg DW
Worst 4.6 mg/kg DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are the
mean and maximum values, respectively, from a
summary of sludge data from a U.S. EPA study of 50
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) (Camp Dresser
and McKee, Inc. (COM), 1984a). Concentrations of
2,4,6-trichlorophenol were detected in only 2 of 438
samples (0.46 percent) from 40 POTWs and in none of
the samples from an additional 10 POTWs (U.S. EPA,
1982a). It has been reported that trichlorophenols
disappear within a few days from activated sludge
systems and aerated lagoons, possibly as a result of
microbiological degradation mechanisms (U.S. EPA,
1979a).
c. Disposal site characteristics
Average
current
Depth to velocity
pycnocline (D) at site (V)
Typical 20 m 9500 m/day
Worst 5 m 4320 m/day
3-3
-------
Typical site values are representative of a large,
deep-water site with an area of about 1500 km^
located beyond the continental shelf in the New York
Bight. The pycnocline value of 20 m chosen is the
average of the 10 to 30 m pycnocline depth range
occurring in the summer and fall; the winter and
spring disappearance of the pycnocline is not consi-r
dered and so represents a conservative approach in
evaluating annual or long-term impact. The current
velocity of 11 cm/sec (9500 m/day) chosen is based
on the average current velocity in this area (CDM,
1984b).
Worst-case values are representative of a near-shore
New York Bight site with an area of about 20 km^.
The pycnocline value of 5 m chosen is the minimum
value of the 5 to 23 m depth range of the surface
mixed layer and is therefore a worst-case value.
Current velocities in this area vary from 0 to
30 cm/sec. A value of 5 cm/sec (4320 m/day) is
arbitrarily chosen to represent a worst-case value
(CDM, 1984c).
4. Factors Considered in Initial Mixing
When a load of sludge is dumped from a moving tanker, an
immediate mixing occurs in the turbulent wake of the
vessel, followed by more gradual spreading of the plume.
The entire plume, which initially constitutes a narrow
band the length of the tanker path, moves more-or-Iess as
a unit with the prevailing surface current and, under
calm conditions, is not further dispersed by the current
itself. However, the current acts to separate successive
tanker loads, moving each out of the immediate disposal
path before the next load is dumped.
Immediate mixing volume after barge disposal is
approximately equal to the length of the dumping track
with a cross-sectional area about four times that defined
by the draft and width of the discharging vessel
(Csanady, 1981, as cited in National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1983). The resulting
plume is initially 10 m deep by 40 m wide (O'Connor and
Park, 1982, as cited in NOAA, 1983). Subsequent
spreading of plume band width occurs at an average rate
of approximately 1 cm/sec (Csanady et al., 1979, as cited
in NOAA, 1983). Vertical mixing is limited by the depth
of the pycnocline or ocean floor, whichever is shallower.
Four hours after disposal, therefore, average plume width
(W) may be computed as follows:
W = 40 m + 1 cm/sec x 4 hours x 3600 sec/hour x 0.01 m/cm
= 184 m = approximately 200 m
3-4
-------
Thus the volume of initial mixing is defined by the
tanker path, a 200 m width, and a depth appropriate to
the site. For the typical (deep water) site, this depth
is chosen as the pycnocline value of 20 m. For the worst
(shallow water) site, a value of 10 m was chosen. At
times the pycnocline may be as shallow as 5 m, but since
the barge wake causes initial mixing to at least 10 m,
the greater value was used.
5. Index 1 Values (ug/L)
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)
825
1650
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0046
0.0092
0.039
0.078
0.0046
0.0092
0.039
0.078
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
in 2,4,6-trichlorophenol concentration in seawater around
a disposal site as a result of sludge disposal after
initial mixing.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Slight increases in seawater
concentration of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is evident in all
the scenarios evaluated for initial mixing of disposed
sludge.
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased effective concentra-
tions in Ug/L of pollutant in seawater around an ocean
disposal site utilizing a time weighted average (TWA)
concentration. The TWA concentration is that which would
be experienced by an organism remaining stationary (with
respect to the ocean floor) or moving randomly within the
disposal vicinity. The dilution volume is determined by
the tanker path length and depth to pycnocline or, for
the shallow water site, the 10 m effective mixing depth,
as before, but the effective width is now determined by
current movement perpendicular to the tanker path over 24
hours.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Incorporates all of the assump-
tions used to calculate Index 1. In addition, it is
3-5
-------
assumed that organisms would experience high-pulsed
sludge concentrations for 8 to 12 hours per day and then
experience recovery (no exposure to sludge) for 12 to 16
hours per day. This situation can be expressed by. the
use of a TWA concentration of sludge constituent.
3. Data Used and Rationale
See Section 3, pp. 3-2 to 3-4.
4. Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, pp. 3-5 to 3-6.
5. Index 2 Values (ug/L)
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)
825
1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0012
0.0025
0.0025
0.0050
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.011
0.022
0.022
0.044
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the effective
increase in 2,4,6-trichlorophenol concentration expressed
as a TWA concentration in seawater around a disposal site
experienced by-an'organism over a 24-hour period.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Slight concentration increases
were apparent in all the scenarios evaluated for a 24-
hour dumping cycle.
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Explanation - Compares the effective increased concentra-
tion of pollutant in seawater around the disposal site
resulting from the initial mixing of sludge (Index 1)
with the marine ambient water quality criterion of the
pollutant, or with another value judged protective of
marine aquatic life. For 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, this
value is the criterion that will protect marine aquatic
organisms from both acute and chronic toxic effects.
Wherever a short-term, "pulse" exposure may occur as it
would from initial mixing, it is usually evaluated using
the "maximum" criteria values of EPA's ambient water
3-6
-------
quality criteria methodology. However, under this
scenario, because the pulse is repeated several times
daily on a long-term basis, potentially resulting in an
accumulation of injury, it seems more appropriate to use
values designed to be protective against chronic
toxicity. Therefore, to evaluate the potential for
adverse effects on marine life resulting from initial
mixing concentrations, as quantified by Index 1, the
chronically derived criteria values are used.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
stated for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that all of the
released pollutant is available in the water column to
move through predicted pathways (i.e., sludge to seawater
to aquatic organism to man). The possibility of effects
arising from accumulation in the sediments is neglected
since the U.S. EPA presently lacks a satisfactory method
for deriving sediment criteria.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant: in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-5.
b. Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) - Data not
immediately available
Water quality criteria for the toxic pollutants
listed under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 were developed by the U.S. EPA under
Section 304(a)(l) of the Act. These criteria were
derived by utilization of data reflecting the
resultant- environmental impacts and human health
effects of these pollutants if present in any body
of water. No criteria were available for this
compound; thus Index 3 values could not be
calculated.
4. Index 3 Values - Values were not calculated due to- lack
of data.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the factor by which
the expected seawater concentration increase in 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol exceeds the protective value. A value
> 1 indicates that acute or chronic toxic conditions may
exist for organisms at the site.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
3-7
-------
D. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Explanation - Estimates the expected increase in human
pollutant intake associated with the consumption of
seafood, a fraction of which originates from the disposal
site vicinity, and compares the total expected pollutant
intake with the cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the
pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
listed for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that the seafood
tissue concentration increase can be estimated from the
increased water concentration (Index 2) by a
bioconcentration factor. It also assumes that, over the
-long term, the seafood catch from the disposal site
vicinity will be diluted to some extent by the catch from
uncontaminated areas.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 2)
See Section 3, p. 3-6.
Since biconcentration is a dynamic and reversible
process, it is expected that uptake of sludge
pollutants by marine organisms at the disposal site
will reflect TWA concentrations, as quantified by
Index 2, rather than pulse concentrations.
b. Dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
Typical • 14.3 g WW/day
Worst 41.7 g WW/day
Typical and worst-case values are the mean and the
95th percentile, respectively, for all seafood
consumption in the United States (Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) International, 1980).
c. Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (FS)
For a typical harvesting scenario, it was assumed
that the total catch over a wide region is mixed by
harvesting, marketing and consumption practices, and
that exposure is thereby diluted. Coastal areas
have been divided by the National Marine Fishery
Service (NMFS) into reporting areas for reporting on
data on seafood landings. Therefore it was conven-
ient to express the total area affected by sludge
disposal as a fraction of an NMFS reporting area.
3-8
-------
The area used to represent the disposal impact area
should be an approximation of the total ocean area
over which the average concentration defined by
Index 2 is roughly applicable. The average rate of
plume spreading of 1 cm/sec referred to earlier
amounts to approximately 0.9 km/day. Therefore, the
combined plume of all sludge dumped during one
working day will gradually spread, both parallel to
and perpendicular to current direction, as it pro-
ceeds down-current. Since the concentration has
been averaged over the direction of current flow,
spreading in this dimension will not further reduce
average concentration; only spreading in the perpen-
dicular dimension will reduce the average. If sta-
ble conditions are assumed over a period of days, at
least 9 days would be required to reduce the average
concentration by one-half. At that time, the origi-
nal plume length of approximately 8 km (8000 m) will
have doubled to approximately 16 km due to
spreading.
It is probably unnecessary to follow the plume
further since storms, which would result in much
more rapid dispersion of pollutants to background
concentrations are expected on at least a 10-day
frequency (NOAA, 1983). Therefore, the area
impacted by sludge disposal (AI, in km2) at each
disposal site will be considered to be defined by
the tanker path length (L) times the distance of
current movement (V) during 10 days, and is computed
as follows:
AI = 10 x L x V x 10~6 km2/m2 (1)
To be consistent with a conservative approach, plume
dilution due to spreading in the perpendicular
direction to current flow is disregarded. More
likely, organisms exposed to the plume in the area
defined by equation 1 would experience a TWA concen-
tration lower than the concentration expressed by
Index 2.
Next, the value of AI must be expressed as a
fraction of an NMFS reporting area. In the New York
Bight, which includes NMFS areas 612-616 and 621-
623, deep-water area 623 has an area of
approximately 7200 km2 and constitutes approximately
0.02 percent of the total seafood landings for the
Bight (CDM, 1984b). Near-shore area 612 has an area
of approximately 4300 km2 and constitutes
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (CDM, 1984c). Therefore the fraction of
all seafood landings (FSC) from the Bight which
could originate from the area of impact of either
the
3-9
-------
typical (deep-water) or worst (near-shore) site can
be calculated for this typical harvesting scenario
as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
-<, _ AI x 0.02% = (2)
ebt ' 7200
[10 x 8QOO m x 9500 m x 10~6 km2/m21 x Q.QOQ2 . , 1A _s
-1 - : - ' - = 2.1 x 10 ->
7200 km2
For the worst (near shore) site:
FSt = ALJE_2« = (3)
4300 km2
[10 x 4000 m x 4320 m x 10~6 km2/m2] x 0.24 _ 3
— — «7 • Q X 1 0
4300 km2
To construct a worst-case harvesting scenario, it
was assumed that the total seafood consumption for
an individual could originate from an area more
limited than the entire New York. Bight. For
example, a particular fisherman providing the entire
seafood diet for himself or others could fish
habitually within a single NMFS reporting area. Or,
an individual could have a preference for a
particular species which is taken only over a more
limited area, here assumed arbitrarily to equal an
NMFS reporting area. The fraction of consumed
seafood (FSW) that could originate from the area of
impact under this worst-case scenario is calculated
as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
AI
7200 km2
FSW = „ = 0.11 (4)
For the worst (near shore) site:
AI
4300 km2
FSW = „ = 0.040 (5)
d. Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (BCF) =
150 L/kg
The value chosen is the weighted average BCF of
2,4,6-trichlorophenol for the edible portion of all
freshwater and estuarine aquatic organisms consumed
by U.S. citizens (U.S. EPA, 1980). The weighted
average BCF is derived as part of the water quality
criteria developed by the U.S. EPA to protect human
3-10
-------
health from the potential carcinogenic effects of
2,4,6-trichlorophenol induced by ingestion of
contaminated water and aquatic organisms. The
weighted average BCF is calculated by adjusting the
mean normalized BCF (steady-state BCF corrected to 1
percent lipid content) to the 3 percent lipid
content of consumed fish and shellfish. It should
be noted that lipids of marine species differ in
both structure and quantity from those of freshwater
species. Although a BCF value calculated entirely
from marine data would be more appropriate for this
assessment, no such data are presently available,
e. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
= 0 Ug/day
Although no data are immediately available on DI, a
value of 0 ug/day is assumed so that index values
can be calculated.
f. Cancer potency = 1.98 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)"1
The cancer potency value is derived by U.S. EPA
(1980) based on studies of hepatocellular carcinomas
and adenomas developed in mice dosed with 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol .
g. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 3.535 ug/day
The RSI is the pollutant intake value which results
in an increase in cancer risk of 10~° (1 per
1,000,000). The RSI is calculated from the cancer
potency using the following formula:
RSI = 1Q"6 x 70 kg x 103 UE/mg
Cancer potency
4. Index 4 Values
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge Seafood
teristics Concentration3 Intake3>°
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)
0 825 1650
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6xlO~8
0.00049
0.000064
0.0016
3.1xlO~8
0.00097
0.00013
0.0031
a All possible combinations of these values are not
presented. Additional combinations may be calculated using
the formulae in the Appendix.
3-11
-------
b Refers to both the dietary consumption of seafood (QF) and
the fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (FS). "Typical" indicates the use of the
typical-case values for both of these parameters; "worst"
indicates the use of the worst-case values for both. .
5. Value Interpretation - Value > 1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of > 10~6 (1 per 1,000,000).
Comparison with the null index value at 0 mt/day
indicates the degree to which any hazard is due to sludge
disposal, as opposed to pre-existing dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Slight incremental increases
related to human health were assessed for all the
scenarios evaluated.
3-12
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol is used as a bactericide
and fungicide in Che preservation of wood, leather,
and glue and in the treatment of mildew on textile.
It is also used as an ingredient in the preparation
of insecticides and soap germicides. The primary
use of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is as an intermediate
in the synthesis of pesticides including 2,4,6-
trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,6-T) and Ronnel.
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
2,4,6-trichlorophenol was detected in
2 of 438 sludge samples (0.46 percent)
from 40 POTWs. Not observed in sludge
samples from additional 10 POTWs studied.
2. Concentration
11 and 16 Ug/L from 2 samples from 40
POTWs.
2.3 and 4.6 mg/kg (mean and maximum,
respectively) from 50 POTWs.
Soil - Unpolluted
Data not immediately available.
Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
2,4,6-trichlorophenol has been detected
in finished drinking water.
"It is generally accepted that
. chlorinated phenols will undergo
photolysis in aqueous solutions as a
result of ultraviolet radiation and
that photodegradation leads to the
substitution of hydroxyl groups in
place of the chlorine atoms with
subsequent polymer formation."
U.S. EPA,
1979a
(p. 465)
U.S. EPA,
1982a
(p. 42)
U.S. EPA,
1982a
(p. 42)
CDM, 1984a
(p. 14)
U.S. EPA,
1979b
(p. 86-1)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. A-8)
4-1
-------
"Trichlorophenols disappear in a few
days from aerated lagoons or activated
sludge systems."
Cone ent rat i on
Data not immediately available.
D. Air
Data on levels of trichlorophenols in
air are not available.
E. Food
1. Frequency of Detection
"Exposure to other chemicals could
result in exposure to trichlorophenols
via metabolic degradation of the parent
compound."
"Livestock have been shown to form
trichlorophenol residues from the
metabolism of a variety of chemicals
including 2,4,6-T, Silvex, Ronnel,
1,3,5-trichlorobenzene, and
hexachlorocylclohexane
Ingestion of food containing pesticides
which degrade to chlorophenols could
result in human, exposure to trichloro-
phenol, though probably at very low
levels.
2. Concentration
Data not immediately available.
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
Cancer potency = 1.98 x
10~2 (mg/kg/day)-1
Based on hepatocellular carcinoma
and adenoma responses of male mice
ingesting 650 to 1,300 mg/kg/day of
2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
U.S. EPA,
1979a
(p. 465)
U.S. EPA,
1979a
(p. 465)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-51)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-52)
U.S. EPA,
1979a
(p. 465-6)
U.S. EPA,
1980
(p. C-133)
4-2
-------
B.
2. Chronic Toxicity
Data not immediately available.
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
Data not immediately available.
Inhalation
Data not immediately available.
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
"Information on effects, biotransformation,
and elimination of trichlorophenols and
tetrachlorophenols in plants is not
available. No dose-response data have
been reported for. vascular plants."
Corn and pea plants can metabolize
pentachlorocyclohexane to the 2,4,6-
2,3,5-, and 2,4,5-trichlorophenol isomers.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-1.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-2.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-3.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
52 Ug/L of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is
the lowest concentration at which
tainting of the flesh of the rainbow
trout occurs.
U.S. EPA,
1979a
(p. 468)
U.S. EPA,
1980
(p. C-52)
CCHA, no date
(p. 5)
4-3
-------
B.
Acute toxicity values for 2,4,6-
trichlorophenoL for fish and crustacean
species range from 320 t'o 9,040 Ug/L.
Chronic toxicity values for 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol range from 530 to
970 Ug/L for early life stages of
the fathead minnow.
2. Seawater
Data not immediately available.
Uptake
Bioconcentration factor = 150 L/kg
Based on the edible portion of all
freshwater and estuarine aquatic
organisms consumed by U.S. citizens.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
"Several genera of bacteria are capable of
metabolizing chlorophenols. 2,4,5-
trichlorophenol is more resistant to soil
microbial degradation than is 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol."
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol inhibits growth of
bacteria at concentrations of 10 to 400 mg/L.
The test organism, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, was
more resistant than other organisms tested.
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol also inhibits a number
of fungal species at concentrations of 2 to 5
mg/L. Most fungi are inhibited at concentra-
tions around 10 mg/L.
B. Uptake
Under experimental conditions, 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol inhibits 02 uptake in mixed
microbial populations at concentrations
of 50 to 100 Ug/g, but has no effect
at 1 to 10 Ug/g.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-6, 7)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-8)
U.S. EPA,
1980
(p. 053)
U.S. EPA,
1979a
(p. 467)
U.S. EPA,
1979a
(p. 467)
U.S. EPA,
1979a
(p. 466)
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
Molecular weight: 197.5
Melting point: 68"C (2,4,5-trichlorophenol) U.S. EPA,
69.5°C (2,4,6-trichlorophenol) 1980
Boiling point: Sublimes (2,4,5-trichlorophenol) (p. A-2)
246°C (2,4,6-trichlorophenol)
4-4
-------
Density: 1.4901 (2,4,6-trichlorophenol)
Water solubility: 0.1 to 0.2 g/100 g
Vapor pressure: 1 mm Hg/72.0°C
(2,4,5-trichlorophenol)
1 mm Hg/76.5°C
(2,4,6-trichlorophenol)
Very soluble in organic solvents U.S. EPA,
1979a
(p. 466)
Microbial degradation appears to be a major U.S. EPA,
elimination mechanism. Bacterial species cap- 1979a
able of metabolizing 2,4,6-trichlorophenbl (p. 466)
have been isolated from soil and activated sludge
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-1. UPTAKE OF 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL BY PLANTS
Plant/Tissue
Tomato/roots
i
a\
Tomato/ stems &
leaves
Chemical Form
Applied
2,4,6-
trichlorophenol
2,4,6-
trichlorophenol
Soil
Concentration
Soil Type • (pg/g)
llydroponic 3.5
llydroponic 3.5
Control Tissue
Concentration Bioconcentration
(pg/g DW) Factor3 References
73.3 20.94 Fragiadakis et al.,
(p. 1317)
1.4 0.4 Fragiadakis et al.,
(p. 1317)
1981
1981
8 BCF = tissue concentration/solution concentration.
-------
TABLE 4-2. TOXICITY OF 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Rats
-P- Rabbits
i
^j
Rabbits
Rats
Rats
Chemical
Form Fed
2,4
2,4
2,4
2,4
2,4
2,4
2,4
2,4
,5-Ta
,5-T
,5-T
,5-T
,5-T
,5-T
,5-T
,5-T
Feed
Concentration
(pg/g)
NRb
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Water Daily
Concentration Intake
(rag/L) (mg/kg)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
18
159
53
820-2900
1-10
500
10-100
300-1000
Duration
•of Study
78 days
78 days
154 days
28 days
28 days
NR
NR
Effects
No toxic effects
No toxic effects
No toxic effects
LD50
No toxic effects
(20 doses)
Slight kidney and liver
changes
No toxic effects
Minor histopathologic
changes in kidney and
1 iver
References
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
1979a
1979a
1979a
1979a
1979a
1979a
1979a
1979a
(p. 468)
(p. 468)
(p. 468)
(p. 469)
(p. 469)
(p. 469)
(p. 469)
(p. 469)
•
a 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol.
b NR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-3. UPTAKE OF 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL BY DOMESTIC AHIHALS AND WILDLIFE
Species
Sheep
•P-
oo
Cattle
Cattle
Chemical
Form Fed
2,4,5-Tb
herbicide
2,4,5-Tb
herbicide
2,4,5-Tb
herbicide
Feed
Concentration Tissue
((Jg/g) Analyzed
2,000 muscle
fat
liver
kidney
2,000 muscle
fat
liver
kidney
100 milk
1,000 milk &
cream
Range of
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g)
0.13
<0.05
6.1
0.9
0.05
<0.05
0.42
0.10
0.05
0.15-0.39
Dioconcentratibn
Factor3
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
References
Clark et al., 1975 (p. 576)
Clark et al., 1975 (p. 575)
Bjerke et al., 1972 (p. 965)
a BCF = tissue concentration/feed concentration.
b 2,4,5-trichlorophenol is a photodecomposition product of the herbicide 2,4,5-T.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Bjerke, E. L., J. L. Herman, P. W. Miller, and J. H. Wetters. 1972.
Residue Study of Phenoxy Herbicides in Milk and Cream. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 20(5):963-967.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984a. A Comparison of Studies of Toxic
Substances in POTW Sludges. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. August.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984b. Technical Review of the 106-Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract No. 68-
01-6403. Annandale, VA. January.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984c. Technical Review of the 12-Mile
Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-^6403. Annandale, VA. May.
City of New York. Department of Environmental Protection. 1983. A
Special Permit Application for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge from
Twelve New York City Water Pollution Control Plants at the 12-Mile
Site. New York, NY. December.
Clark, D. E., J. S. Palmer, and R. D. Radeleff, et al. 1975. Residues
of Chlorophenoxy Acid Herbicides and the Phenolic Metabolites in
Tissues of Sheep and Cattle. J. Agric."Food Chem. 23(3):573-578.
Fragiadakis, A., N. Sotiriou, and F. Korte. 1981. Absorption, Balance,
Metabolism of l^C-2,4,6-Trichlorophenol in Hydroponic Tomato
Plants. Chemosphere 10(11):1315-1320.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1983. Northeast
Monitoring Program 106-Mile Site Characterization Update. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-26. U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. August.
Stanford Research Institute International. 1980. Seafood Consumption
Data Analysis. Final Report, Task II. Prepared for the U.S. EPA
under Contract No. 68-01-3887. Menlo Park, California.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Reviews of Environmental
Effects of Pollutants: Chlorophenols. EPA-600/1-79-012. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection • Agency. 1979b. Water-Related
Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants. Volume II. EPA-
440/4-79-029b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Chlorinated Phenols. EPA 440/5-80-032. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
5-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982a. Fate of Priority Pollu-
tants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. EPA 440/1-82/303. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982b. Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste. SW-846. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
5-2
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDPILLING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option'in the future.
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
Index 1 =
SC x ST x PS
W x D x L
where:
SC =
ST =
PS =
W =
D =
L =
Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
Width of initial plume dilution (m)
Depth to pycnocline or effective depth
mixing for shallow water site (m)
Length of tanker path (m)
of
A-l
-------
2. Sample Calculation
0.0046 Ug/L = 2.3 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x 1Q3 ug/mg
200 m x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Formula
SS x SC
Index 2 =
V x D x L
where:
SS = Daily sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
V = Average current velocity at site (m/day)
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of
mixing for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation
0.0012 Ug/L = 825000 kg DW/day x 2.3 mg/kg DW x 1Q3 Ug/mg
9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Formula
Index 3 = AWQC
where:
!]_ = Index 1 = Index of seawater concentration
increment resulting from initial mixing after
sludge disposal (ug/L)
AWQC = Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from
acute and chronic toxic effects (ug/L)
2. Sample Calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
A-2
-------
D. Index of Hunan Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Formula
_ . , (12 x BCF x IP"3 kg/g x FS x OF) + PI
Index 4 = RSI
where:
12 = Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration
representing a 24-hour dumping cycle (ug/L)
QF = Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
FS- - Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unitless)
BCF = Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (L/kg)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
1.6 x 10"8 =
(0.0012 Ug/L x 150 L/kg x 10~3 kg/g x 0.000021 x 14.3 g WW/day) + 0 Ug/dav
3.535 Ug/day
A-3
------- |