oEFA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
Off ice ot Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
           Water
                June, 1985
           Environmental Profiles
           and Hazard Indices
           for Constituents
           of Municipal Sludge:
           Hexachlorobutadiene

-------
                                  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 OP CONTENTS


                                                                     Page

PREFACE	   i

1.-  INTRODUCTION	  1-1

2.  PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE IN
      MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE..	•  2-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  2-1

    Landfilling	  2-2

    Incineration 	  2-2

    Ocean Disposal 	  2-2

3.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE IN
      MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 	  3-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  3-1

         Effect on soil concentration of hexachlorobutadiene
           (Index 1) 	  3-1
         Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
           (Indices 2-3) 	,	  3-3
         Effect on plants and plant tissue
           concentration (Indices 4-6) 	  3-4
         Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 	  3-6
         Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 	  3-9

    Landf illing 	  3-16

    Incineration 	  3-16

    Ocean Disposal 	  3-16

4.  PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE IN
      MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE	  4-1

    Occurrence 	  4-1

         Sludge 	  4-1
         Soil - Unpolluted 	  4-2
         Water - Unpolluted 	  4-2
         Air 	  4-3
         Food 	  4-3
                                   11

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

                                                                     Page

    Human Effects 	  4-3

         Ingestion 	  4-3
         Inhalation	  4-4

    Plant Effects 	  4-4

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 	  4-4

         Toxicity	  4-4
         Uptake ....	  4-4

    Aquatic Life Effects 	  4-4

    Soil Biota Effects 	  4-4

    Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 	  4-4

5.  REFERENCES	.-	  5-1

APPENDIX.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
    HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE'SLUDGE 	  A-l
                                   ill

-------
                                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.   Hexachlorobutadiene  (HCBD) was  initially identified as
being   of   potential   concern  when   sludge   is   landspread  (including
distribution   and   marketing).*  This   profile  is   a   compilation  of
information  that  may be  useful  in  determining whether  UCBD   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  pollutant  by  a given pathway  to   cause  a  given  effect
(e.g., sludge •* soil •*  plant  uptake  •* animal uptake •*  human  toxicity).
The  values  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 landspreading  and distribution and marketing 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 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE  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-AMD-MARKETING

     A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Hexachlorobutadiene

          Landspreading  of  sludge   is  not  expected  to  increase  soil
          concentrations of HCBD, except  possibly  a  slight  increase when
          sludge  containing  a  worst-case  concentration   of   HCBD  is
          applied at the highest rate (see Index  1).

     B.   Effect on Soil Biota or Predators of  Soil Biota

          Conclusions were  not  drawn because  index  values  could  not  be
          calculated due to lack of  data.

     C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

          Conclusions were  not  drawn because  index  values  could  not  be
          calculated due to lack of  data.

     D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

          Due  to lack of  data,  conclusions were  not  drawn  regarding the
          effect on herbivorous animals from consumption of  plants grown
          on sludge-amended soil (see Index 7).

          Landspreading of sludge is not  expected  to  pose a  toxic  hazard
          to  grazing animals  through  inadvertent ingestion  of  sludge
          containing HCBD (see Index 8).

     E.   Effect on Humans

          Due  to lack of  data,  conclusions were  not  drawn regarding  the
          cancer risk  resulting from human  consumption  of  plants  grown
          on sludge-amended soil or human  consumption of animal  products
          derived from animals feeding on  plants grown on sludge-amended
          soils  (see Indices 9 and  10).

          The  human  consumption of  animal products derived from animals
          that have inadvertently ingested sludge-amended soils may pose
          a risk  of  cancer to humans,   except  for   adults  when  sludge
          containing  typical  concentrations  of  HCBD  is   applied  (see
          Index  11).   Inadvertent  ingestion of sludge-amended  soil  is
                                   2-1

-------
          not expected  to  pose a cancer  risk to humans  except  possibly
          for  toddlers  ingesting  soil  amended  with  sludge  containing
          high concentrations of HCBD at high application  rates  (50 and
          500 mt/ha)  (see  Index 12).   Due  to lack of data,  conclusions
          were not drawn regarding  the aggregate human cancer  risk (see
          Index 13).

 II. LANDPILLING

     Based on  the recommendations  of the experts  at  the  OWRS  meetings
     (April-May,  1984), ah assessment  of  this reuse/disposal option  is
     not being conducted at  this time.  The U.S. 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.  The U.S. EPA reserves  the right
     to conduct such  an assessment  for this  option in  the  future.

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     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.  The U.S. EPA reserves  the right
     to conduct such  an assessment  for this  option in  the  future.
                                  2-2

-------
                                SECTION 3

           PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
                       IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I.   LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AMD-MARKETING

     A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Hexachlorobutadiene

          1.   Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

               a.   Explanation -  Calculates  concentrations  in  Ug/g  DW
                    of pollutant in sludge-amended  soil.   Calculated for
                    sludges   with   typical  (median,  if  available)   and
                    worst   (95   percentile,  if   available)   pollutant
                    concentrations,   respectively,   for  each  of   four
                    applications.    Loadings (as dry matter) are  chosen
                    and explained  as follows:

                      0 mt/ha  No  sludge applied.   Shown  for  all  indices
                               for  purposes  of  comparison,  to  distin-
                               guish hazard  posed  by  sludge  from  pre-
                               existing   hazard   posed   by   background
                               levels  or other sources of  the pollutant.

                      5 mt/ha  Sustainable yearly agronomic  application;'
                               i.e.,  loading   typical  of   agricultural
                               practice,  supplying  . ^50   kg   available
                               nitrogen per  hectare.

                     50 mt/ha  Higher  single application  as  may be  used
                               on  public  lands,  reclaimed areas or  home
                               gardens.

                    500 mt/ha  Cumulative loading   after   100   years  of
                              .application at 5  mt/ha/year.

               b.   Assumptions/Limitations   -   Assumes   pollutant    is
                    incorporated into  the upper  15 cm of  soil (i.e.,  the
                    plow  layer),  which  has  an  approximate mass   (dry
                    matter)   of  2  x  10^  mt/ha   and  is  then dissipated
                    through  first  order processes which can  be  expressed
                    as a soil half-life.

               c.   Data Used and  Rationale

                      ii Sludge  concentration of  pollutant (SC)

                         Typical    0.3 Ug/g DW
                         Worst       8.0 ug/g DW

                         The typical and worst  sludge concentrations  are
                         the   weighted   mean    and   maximum   values,
                                  3-1

-------
          respectively,    statistically    derived    for
          combined sludge  concentration  data  from several
          surveys   of   publicly-owned   treatment   works
          (POTWs)  (Camp Dresser  and McKee,  Inc.  (COM),
          1984).    These  values  are  based  on  detected
          samples   and   thus   constitute   conservative
          values.  (See Section, p.   4-1.)

      ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
          (BS) = 0 ug/g DW

          Background   soil   concentration   of   UCBD   is
          assumed  to  be  zero  (0).    Data  immediately
          available  on the  background   concentrations  of
          HCBD in soil  are limited.   Studies  conducted at
          several chlorinated hydrocarbon  plants  on soils
          expected  to  contain  HCBD  found levels  ranging
          from 0  (none detected)  to 980 Ug/g-   The  high
          values are  all  from  sites  immediately  adjacent
          to   production  plants    and   are   thus   not
          considered  representative  of  U.S.  soils  (U.S.
          EPA,  1976).    It  is  assumed   that  agricultural
          and  garden  soils would  be at the  low end  of
          this range.  (See Section  4,  p. 4-2.)

     iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (tp =
          0 years

          Immediately  available data does not  provide  a
          t^. value.  A  value of 0 is assumed  in- order  for
          the cumulative loading values  to be  calculated.

d.   Index 1 Values (yg/g DW)


                         Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
         Sludge
     Concentration        0       5        50       500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.00075
0.020
0.0073
0.20
0.06
1.6
     Value  Interpretation -  Value  equals  the  expected
     concentration in sludge-amended  soil.

     Preliminary Conclusion -  Landspreading  of sludge  is
     not  expected  to  increase  soil   concentrations   of
     UCBD, except possibly a  slight  increase when  sludge
     containing  a worst-case  concentration  of  HCBD  is
     applied at the  highest rate.
                    3-2

-------
B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

     1.   Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)

          a.   Explanation  -  Compares  pollutant concentrations  in
               sludge-amended soil with  soil  concentration shown to
               be toxic for some soil organism.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Assumes pollutant  form in
               sludge-amended  soil   is   equally  bioavailable  and
               toxic as form used  in  study  where toxic effects were
               demonstrated.

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

                'i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
                    soil (Index 1)

                    See Section 3, p. 3-2.

                ii. Soil concentration  toxic  to  soil  biota  (TB)  -
                    Data not immediately available.

          d.   Index 2  Values  - Values  were  not calculated  due  to
               lack of  data.

          e.   Value Interpretation  - Value equals factor  by which
               expected soil concentration  exceeds  toxic  concentra-
               tion.  Value >  1 indicates a toxic  hazard  may exist
              .for soil biota.

          f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  Conclusion was  not  drawn
               because  index values  could not be calculated  due  to
               lack of  data.

     2.   Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index  3)

          a.   Explanation  -   Compares  pollutant  concentrations
               expected in  tissues of organisms  inhabiting sludge-
               amended   soil with  food  concentration  shown  to  be
               toxic to a predator on soil organisms.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  pollutant  form
               bioconcentrated   by  soil  biota   is  equivalent   in
               toxicity to  form used  to  demonstrate   toxic  effects
               in  predator.    Effect  level   in  predator  may   be
               estimated from that in a different species.

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

               i.   Concentration  of  pollutant  in sludge-amended
                    soil (Index 1)

                    See Section 3, p.  3-2.


                             3-3

-------
               ii.  Uptake factor of pollutant  in  soil  biota (UB) -
                    Data not immediately available.

               iii. Peed    concentration    toxic    to    predator
                    (TR) - Data not immediately available.

          d.   Index 3  Values  - Values  were  not calculated  due  to
               lack of data.

          e.   Value Interpretation - Values equals  factor by which
               expected  concentration  in  soil  biota  exceeds  that
               which is.toxic  to predator.  Value > 1  indicates a
               toxic hazard may exist for predators of  soil biota.

          f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Conclusion was   not  drawn
               because index values  could  not  be calculated  due  to
               lack of data.

C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

     1.   Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)

          a.   Explanation  -  Compares  pollutant concentrations  in
               sludge-amended    soil    with    the    lowest    soil
               concentration shown to be toxic  for some plants.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations  - Assumes pollutant  form  in
               sludge-amended  soil  is  equally  bioavailable  and
               toxic as form used in 'study where toxic  effects were
               demonstrated.

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

                 i. Concentration  of  pollutant  in  sludge-amended
                    soil (Index 1)

                    See Section 3, p. 3-2.

                ii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP)  - Data
                    not immediately available.

          d.   Index 4  Values  - Values  were not calculated  due  to
               lack of data.

          e.   Value Interpretation -  Value  equals factor  by which
               soil concentration exceeds  phytotoxic concentration.
               Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard  may exist.

          f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Conclusion was  not  drawn
               because index values  could  not  be calculated  due  to
               lack of data.
                              3-4

-------
2.   Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)

     a.   Explanation    -    Calculates     expected    tissue
          concentrations,  in  Ug/g  DW,  in 'plants  grown  in
          sludge-amended soil, using  uptake data for  the most
          responsive   plant    species    in    the    following
          categories:   (1)  plants included  in the  U.S.  human
          diet; and (2) plants serving  as animal  feed.  Plants
          used vary 'according to availability of data.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  an uptake  factor
          that is  constant  over  all  soil concentrations.   The
          uptake factor  chosen  for the  human diet  is assumed
          to be representative of  all crops  (except  fruits) in
          the human  diet.    The  uptake  factor chosen  for  the
          animal diet  is  assumed  to  be representative of  all
          crops  in the  animal  diet.    See  also  Index  6  for
          consideration of  phytotoxicity.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

          i.   Concentration  of  pollutant   in  sludge-amended
               soil (Index  1)

               See  Section  3, p.  3-2.

          ii.  Uptake factor of pollutant in  plant  tissue (UP)
               r Data not immediately available.
     d.   Index 5 Values  - Values were  not calculated due  to
          lack of data.

     e.   Value  Interpretation -  Value  equals  the  expected
          concentration  in tissues of  plants grown  in  sludge-
          amended  soil.    However,  any  value  exceeding  the
          value of  Index   6  for the  same  or  a similar  plant
          species may be unrealistically  high  because  it  would
          be precluded by  phytoxicity.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Conclusion was  not  drawn
          because index  values  could  not be calculated due  to
          lack of data.

3.   Index  of  Plant  Concentration Permitted by  Phytotoxicity
     (Index 6)

     a.   Explanation -  The  index  value  is the maximum  tissue
          concentration,    in   Pg/g   DW,   associated    with
          phytotoxicity  in the same  or  similar plant  species
          used  in  Index   5.    The  purpose  is  to  determine
          whether the  plant   tissue  concentrations  determined
                         3-5

-------
               in Index  5 for  high  applications are  realistic,  or
               whether  such  concentrations  would  be  precluded  by
               phytotoxicity.   The maximum concentration  should  be
               the highest at  which  some plant  growth still  occurs
               (and  thus  consumption   of  tissue   by  animals  is
               possible)  but above which consumption  by  animals  is
               unlikely.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations   -   Assumes   that   tissue
               concentration  will  be  a  consistent  indicator  of
               phytotoxicity.

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

               i.   Maximum  plant tissue  concentration  associated
                    with  phytoxicity (PP)  -   Data  not  immediately
                    available.
                                   t
          d.   Index*  6   Values  (yg/g  DW)   -  Values   were   not
               calculated due to lack of data.

          e.   Value  Interpretation   -   Value  equals   the  maximum
               plant  tissue  concentration  which  is  permitted  by
               phytotoxicity.   Value is compared  with  values  for
               the same or similar plant species given by Index  5.
               The lowest of the  two indices  indicates the maximal
               increase  that can  occur  at   any given  application
               ra*te.

          f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Conclusion was  not  drawn
               because index values  could  not be calculated  due  to
               lack of data.

D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

     1.   Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting  from Plant  Consumption
          (Index 7)

          a.   Explanation   -   Compares  pollutant  concentrations
               expected  in  plant  tissues  grown in sludge-amended
               soil with  feed   concentration  shown  to be  toxic  to
               wild or domestic herbivorous animals.   Does  not  con-
               sider  direct  contamination  of   forage   by  adhering
               sludge.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations   -  Assumes  pollutant   form
               taken up by plants is equivalent  in toxicity to  form
               used to demonstrate toxic effects in animal.   Uptake
               or toxicity  in  specific plants  or  animals  may  be
               estimated from other species.
                              3-6

-------
     c.   Data Used and Rationale

            i. Concentration  of pollutant  in  plant grown  in
               sludge-amended soil (Index 5)  -. Values  were not
               calculated due to lack of data.

           ii. Peed concentration  toxic to herbivorous  animal
               (TA) = 30 Ug/g DW

               Since there is no data  for  grazing animals, the
               toxicity value for  rats is used  to approximate
               toxic  concentrations  for  herbivorous  animals.
               A  dosage  of  30  Ug/g  produced  slight  renal
               toxicity (Kociba  et al.,  1977).    (See  Section
               4, p. 4-6.)

     d.   Index  7  Values  - Values were not  calculated  due  to
          lack of data.

     e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value equals factor  by which
          expected  plant  tissue  concentration  exceeds  that
          which  is  toxic  Co  animals.   Value  >   1  indicates  a
          toxic hazard may exist for  herbivorous animals.

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Conclusion  was not  drawn
          because index values  could  not be  calculated  due  to
          lack of data.

2.   Index of  Animal  Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
     (Index 8)

     a.   Explanation - Calculates the amount of  pollutant  in
          a  grazing   animal's   diet    resulting   from   sludge
          adhesion  to  forage or  from  incidental  ingestion  of
          sludge-amended  soil  and  compares   this with  the
          dietary toxic  threshold  concentration  for a  grazing
          animal.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -   Assumes   that  sludge  is
          applied over and  adheres  to. growing forage,  or that
          sludge constitutes  5  percent  of dry  matter  in  the
          grazing animal's  diet,  and   that pollutant  form  in
          sludge  is equally  bioavailable  and  toxic .as  form
          used to demonstrate toxic  effects.   Where no  sludge
          is applied  (i.e.,  0 mt/ha),  assumes diet is  5 per-
          cent soil as a basis for comparison.
                         3-7

-------
Data Used and Rationale

  i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

     Typical    0.3  Ug/g  DW
     Worst      8.0, ug/g DW

     See Section 3, p. 3-1.

 ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed  to  be soil (GS)
     = 5%

     Studies  of sludge  adhesion  to  growing  forage
     following applications of  liquid  or filter-cake
     sludge  show  that when  3  to  6  mt/ha  of  sludge
     solids  is  applied,   clipped  forage  initially
     consists of up  to 30  percent  sludge  on  a dry-
     weight  basis  (Chaney and  Lloyd,  1979; Boswell,
     1975).   However, this contamination  diminishes
     gradually  with  time  and  growth, and  generally
     is not  detected  in the following  year's growth.
     For example,  where pastures  amended  at  16  and
     32 mt/ha were  grazed throughout a  growing sea-
     son (168 days),  average  sludge content  of for-
     age    was    only    2.14    and    4.75 percent,
     respectively (Bertrand et al., 1981).   It seems
     reasonable to  assume that  animals  may  receive
     long-term dietary  exposure  to 5  percent  sludge
     if maintained  on a  forage to  which  sludge  is
     regularly applied.   This  estimate of  5  percent
     sludge  is  used  regardless of application rate,
     since  the  above studies  did not  show a  clear
     relationship between  application  rate and ini-
     tial  contamination,  and   since  adhesion  is  not
     cumulative yearly because  of die-back.

     Studies  of  grazing animals  indicate  that  soil
     ingestion,  ordinarily <10 percent of  dry weight
     of diet,  may  reach  as  high  as  20  percent  for
     cattle  and  30 percent for  sheep during  winter
     months  when   forage   is  reduced  (Thornton  and
     Abrams,  1983).     If  the  soil  were  sludge-
     amended, it is conceivable that up  to  5  percent
     sludge may be ingested  in this manner  as  well.
     Therefore,  this  value  accounts   for  either  of
     these scenarios, whether  forage is  harvested  or
     grazed in the  field.

iii. Peed concentration toxic  to herbivorous  animal
     (TA) - 30 Ug/g DW

     See Section 3, p. 3-7.
               3-8

-------
               Index 8 Values


                                  Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
                   Sludge
               Concentration        0         5       50       500

                  Typical           0       0.0005   0.0005   0.0005
                  Worst             0       0.013    0.013    0.013
          e.   Value Interpretation -  Value equals factor  by which
               expected dietary concentration  exceeds  toxic concen-
               tration.   Value >  1  indicates a  toxic hazard  may
               exist for grazing animals.

          f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Landspreading of  sludge  is
               not  expected   to pose  a  toxic  hazard  to, grazing
               animals   through  inadvertent   ingestion  of  sludge
               containing HCBD.

B.   Effect on Humans

     1.   Index   of   Human   Cancer   Risk   Resulting  from   Plant
          Consumption (Index  9)

          a.   Explanation -  Calculates  dietary intake expected  to
               result  from  consumption  of  crops  grown on  sludge-
               amended   soil.    Compares  dietary  intake  with  the
               cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the pollutant.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that  all  crops  are
               grown on sludge-amended soil and that  all those con-
               sidered  to be  affected  take  up the pollutant  at  the
               same rate.   Divides possible  variations in  dietary
               intake into two  categories:   toddlers  (18  months  to
               3 years) and individuals over 3 years  old.

          c.   Data Used and  Rationale

                 i. Concentration   of  pollutant  in plant  grown  in
                    sludge-amended  soil (Index 5) - Values  were  not
                    calculated due  to  lack of data.

                ii. Daily human dietary  intake of  affected  plant
                    tissue (DT)

                    Toddler      74.5 g/day
                    Adult      205   g/day

                    The intake  value  for adults is  based  on  daily
                    intake of  crop  foods   (excluding  fruit)   by
                              3-9

-------
          vegetarians  (Ryan  et  al.,  1982);  vegetarians
          were  chosen  to represent  the  worst case.   The
          value for  toddlers  is based on  the FDA Revised
          Total   Diet   (Pennington,   1983)   and   food
          groupings  listed  by  the  U.S.  EPA  (1984).   Dry
          weights   for   individual   food    groups   were
          estimated  from composition  data  given by  the
          U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture  (USDA)  (1975).
          These values were  composited  to  estimate  dry-
          weight consumption of all non-fruit crops.

    iii.  Average daily human  dietary  intake of pollutant
          (DI)

          Toddler    0 Ug/day
          Adult      0 Ug/day

          The average  daily  human dietary  intake  of  HCBD
          is  assumed  to  be zero  (0).   A survey  of  milk,
          eggs, and vegetable  samples  in  areas  where  HCBD
          contamination would  be  expected  to be  greatest
          detected  no  HCBD   in  the   samples  (U.S.  EPA,
          1980).  (See Section 4,  p. 4-3.)

     iv.  Cancer potency = 0.0775  (mg/kg/day) ""*

          The cancer  potency  value was derived  from  data
        •  presented  in U.S.   EPA,  1980  for a  study  in
          which  rats  dosed  orally with  HCBD  developed
          renal tubular adenomas  and carcinoma  (U.S.  EPA,
          1980).  (See Section 4,  p. 4-4.)

      v.  Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.90 tig/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 1Q3 ug/mg
                     Cancer potency

d.   Index 9  Values  - Values  were not calculated due  to
     lack of data.

e.   Value  Interpretation  -   Value  >  1   indicates   a
     potential  increase  in  cancer risk of  > 10"^  (1  per
     1,000,000).  Comparison with  the  null  index  value  at
     0 mt/ha  indicates the  degree to which  any hazard  is
     due  to  sludge   application,  as  opposed   to   pre-
     existing dietary sources.
                   3-10

-------
     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  Conclusion  was  not  drawn
          because index values  could not be calculated  due to
          lack of data.

2.   Index of Human  Cancer Risk Resulting  from  Consumption of
     Animal  Products Derived  from Animals  Feeding  on  Plants
     (Index 10)

     a.   Explanation  -   Calculates   human  dietary   intake
          expected to result from  pollutant  uptake by  domestic
          animals  given   feed   grown  on  sludge-amended  soil
          (crop or pasture land) but  not directly contaminated
          by adhering  sludge.    Compares expected intake  with
          RSI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -   Assumes  that  all  animal
          products are from  animals  receiving  all their  feed
          from sludge-amended  soil,.    Assumes  that all  animal
          products . consumed   take   up  the  pollutant   at   the
          highest  rate  observed  for  muscle of  any  commonly
          consumed species  or  at  the  rate  observed  for  beef
          liver  or  dairy  products   (whichever   is   higher).
          Divides possible  variations  in  dietary intake  into
          two categories:   toddlers  (18  months to  3 years)  and
          individuals over 3  years  old.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale
               «
           i.  Concentration  of  pollutant  in  plant  grown  in
               sludge-amended soil  (Index 5) - Values  were  not
               calculated  due to lack of data.

          ii.  Uptake  factor  of  pollutant  in  animal  tissue
               (UA) = 3.5  Ug/g tissue DW (yg/g feed DW)"1

               Available   data  on  animal  uptake  of  HCBD  are
               very  limited.   The UA value used  is  for  rats
               (kidney fat).   The  high end of  the 1.75  to  3.5
               bioconcentration  (uptake)   factor  range   was
               selected to  provide   a  conservative   analysis
               (U.S.   EPA,  1980).     The  uptake  factor   of
               pollutant  in animal  tissue (UA) used is  assumed
               to apply to all animal  fats.   (See Section  4,
               p. 4-6.)
         iii.  Daily human  dietary intake  of affected  animal
               tissue (DA)

               Toddler   43.7  g/day
               Adult     88.5  g/day
                        3-11

-------
               The fat intake  values  presented,  which comprise
               meat,  fish,  poultry,  eggs  and milk  products,
               are  derived  from  the  FDA  Revised  Total  Diet
               (Pennington,   1983),   food  groupings  listed  by
               the U.S.  EPA (1984)  and food  composition  data
               given by USDA (1975).   Adult intake  of meats is
               based on males  25 to  30 years of age  and  that
               for milk  products on  males  14  to  16  years  of
               age, the age-sex  groups with  the highest daily
               intake.   Toddler  intake  of  milk  products  is
               actually based  on  infants,  since  infant  milk
               consumption is  the highest  among  that  age group
               (Pennington,  1983).

          iv.  Average daily human dietary intake  of pollutant
               (DI)

               Toddler    0  ug/day
               Adult      0  Ug/day

               See Section 3,  p.  3-10.

           v.  Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
               0.90 pg/day

               See Section 3,  p.  3-10.

     d.   Index 10 Values -  Values  were not  calculated  due  to
          lack of data.

     e.   Value Interpretation -  Same as for Index  9.

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Conclusion was  not  drawn
          because index values could  not be  calculated  due  to
          lack of data.

3.   Index of  Human  Cancer  Risk Resulting  from Consumption  of
     Animal  Products  Derived  from   Animals  Ingesting  Soil
     (Index 11)

     a.   Explanation  -   Calculates   human  dietary   intake
          expected  to  result  from   consumption  of   animal
          products derived  from  grazing animals  incidentally
          ingesting  sludge-amended  soil.    Compares  expected
          intake with RSI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations -   Assumes  that  all  animal
          products  are  from  animals  grazing  sludge-amended
          soil, and that all  animal  products consumed take  up
          the  pollutant   at   the  highest   rate  observed   for
          muscle  of  any  commonly  consumed  species  or at  the
          rate  observed   for  beef   liver   or  dairy   products
                        3-12

-------
(whichever is  higher).   Divides  possible variations
in  dietary  intake  into  two  categories:    toddlers
(18 months to  3  years)  and individuals  over  3 years
old.

Data Used and Rationale

  i. Animal tissue - kidney fat

 ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

     Typical    0.3 Ug/g DW
     Worst      8.0 Ug/g DW

     See Section 3, p. 3-1.

iii. Background  concentration  of  pollutant in  soil
   , (BS) = 0 Ug/g DW

     See Section 3, p. 3-2.

 iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed  to  be soil (GS)
     = 52

     See Section 3, p. 3-8.

  v. Uptake  factor  of  pollutant  in  animal  tissue
     (UA) = 3.5 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed  DW)-1

     See Section 3, p. 3-11.

 vi. Daily human dietary  intake  of affected'  animal
     tissue (DA)

     Toddler    39.4 g/day
     Adult      82.4 g/day

     The affected  tissue  intake  value is  assumed  to
     be  from  the fat component  of meat  only  (beef,
     pork,    lamb,    veal)    and    milk    products
     (Pennington,  1983).    This  is  a slightly  more
     limited choice than for Index  10.   Adult  intake
     of  meats  is based on males 25  to  30 years  of
     age and  the intake for milk products on  males
     14  to 16  years  of  age, the age-sex  groups  with
     the highest  daily intake.    Toddler  intake  of
     milk  products  is  actually  based  on  infants,
     since  infant  milk  consumption  is  the  highest
     among that age group  (Pennington,  1983).
              3-13

-------
          vii. Average daily human  dietary intake of pollutant
               (DI)

               Toddler     0 yg/day
               Adult       0 yg/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-10.

         viii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.90 yg/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-10.

     d.   Index 11 Values
                                         Sludge Application
                                            Rate (mt/ha)
                       Sludge
         Group      Concentration     0       5      50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
2.3
61
2.3
61
2.3
61
         Adult        Typical       0.0    0.48    0.48   0.48
                      Worst         0.0   13      13     13
     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  The  human  consumption  of
          animal  products  derived   from  animals  that   have
          inadvertently ingested sludge-amended soils  may pose
          a risk  of  cancer to  humans,  except for  adults when
          sludge containing typical  concentrations of  HCBD  is
          applied.

4.   Index of Human Cancer Risk from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)

     a.   Explanation - Calculates  the amount of  pollutant  in
          the diet  of a  child  who  ingests soil   (pica  child)
          amended with sludge.  Compares this amount with RSI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that   the   pica
          child  consumes   an  average  of  5  g/day  of  sludge-
          amended soil.   If  the  RSI specific for  a   child  is
          not  available,   this  index  assumes the  RSI  for  a
          10 kg child  is  the  same as  that  for  a  70  kg adult.
          It is thus  assumed  that uncertainty factors  used  in
          deriving the  RSI provide  protection  for the  child,
          taking  into  account  the  smaller  body  size  and  any
          other differences in sensitivity.
                        3-14

-------
     Data Used and Rationale

       i. Concentration  of  pollutant  in  sludge-amended
          soil (Index 1)

          See Section 3, p. 3-2.

      ii. Assumed amount of soil in human diet (DS)

          Pica child    5    g/day
          Adult         0.02 g/day

          The  value  of  5  g/day  for a  pica  child is  a
          worst-case  estimate  employed  by   U.S.  EPA's
          Exposure  Assessment   Group  (U.S.  EPA,  1983a).
          The  value  of  0.02  g/day  for  an  adult is  an
          estimate from U.S. EPA,  1984.

     iii. Average daily human  dietary intake  of pollutant
          (DI)

          Toddler    0 Ug/day
          Adult      0 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-10.

      iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI)  = 0.90 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-10.

     Index 12 Values
                                    Sludge Application
                                       Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0042
0.11
0.000016
0.00044
50
0.041
1.1
0.00016
0.0043
500
0.33
8.9
0.0013
0.036
e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  Inadvertent  ingestion  of
     sludge-amended soil is not expected to  pose  a cancer
     risk   to   humans   expect    possibly   for   toddlers
     ingesting   soil  amended with  sludge containing  high
     concentrations of HCBD at high application  rates (50
     and 500 mt/ha).

                   3-15

-------
          5.    Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)

               a..   Explanation  - Calculates  the  aggregate  amount  of
                    pollutant  in  the human  diet  resulting  from  pathways
                    described  in  Indices 9  to  12.   Compares  this  amount
                    with RSI.
               b.


               c.


               d.


               e.

               f.



 II. LANDPILLING
Assumptions/Limitations - As  described  for Indices 9
to 12.

Data Used and Rationale - As  described  for Indices 9
to 12.

Index 13 Values  -  Values  were not  calculated  due to
lack of data.

Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

Preliminary  Conclusion -  Conclusion was  not  drawn
because index values  could  not be  calculated  due to
lack of data.
     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.   The U.S. 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.   The U.S. EPA reserves the  right
     to conduct such an assessment for  this option in  the  future.

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     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.   The U.S. EPA reserves the  right
     to conduct such an assessment for  this option in  the  future.
                                  3-16

-------
                              SECTION 4

          PRELIMINARY  DATA PROFILE FOR HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
                    . IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE

   A.   Sludge

        1.   Frequency of Detection
             Observed in 2 of 13 combined sludges
             for U.S.  treatment plants
             Detected in 1 of 937 sludge samples
             from 50 POTWs

             Detected in 1 of 217 samples from 25
             POTWs in Michigan

        2.   Concentration

             Values obtained from a study that
             combined the results of several
             POTW surveys, including U.S. EPA
             (1982) and Michigan survey
             (Jacobs and Zabik, 1983),  for a
             total of 105 detections at 276 POTWs:
             Weighted mean
             Overall minimum
             Overall maximum
0.3 Ug/g DW
9.24 x 10~5 Ug/g DW
8.0 Ug/g DW
             338 ug/L WW median, 10 to 675 Ug/L WW
             range; 4.3 Ug/g DW median, 0.52 to 8.0
             Ug/g range in combined sludges from
             13 POTWs

             2,700 Ug/L for 1 sample
             Concentrations in 103 of 217 sludges
             from MI POTWs:

             Minimum      9.24 (10~5) Ug/g DW
             Maximum      3.74 Ug/g DW
             Mean         0.224 Ug/g DW
             Median       0.0355 Ug/g DW
                      Naylor and
                      Loehr, 1982
                      (p. 20)

                      U.S. EPA,
                      1982 (p. 42)

                      U.S. EPA, 1983b
                      (p. A-14)
                      COM, 1984
                      (p.  8)
                      Naylor and
                      Loehr, 1982
                      (p.  20)
                      U.S.  EPA,
                      1982  (p.  42)
                      Jacobs and
                      Zabik, 1983
                      (p.  425)
                                 4-1

-------
B.   Soil - Unpolluted

     1.   Frequency of Detection

          Data not immediately available.

     2.   Concentration

          Concentration of HCBD found in
          soils sampled at various chlorinated
          hydrocarbon plants ranged from unde-
          tected (0) to 980 ug/g

C.   Hater - Unpolluted

     1.   Frequency of Detection

          Either hexachlorobutadiene or
          hexachlorobenzene was detected
          in every water sample taken from
          the lower Mississippi River between
          Baton Rouge and New Orleans (1975 data).

          Detected in drinking water from 1 of
          10 cities in 1975

     2.   Concentration

               Freshwater
                                         U.S.  EPA, 1976
                                         (p.  60-61)
a
          b.
    <0.7 to 1.5 Ug/L in waterways
     near Mississippi River
    <0.7 to 1.9 Ug/L in lower
     Mississippi River (1975 data)

     Seawater

     Data not immediately available.

     Drinking water

     1.9 to 4.7 Ug/L in drinking "water
     from Louisiana

     0.07 Ug/L highest level found in
     finished water

    <0.01 ug/L from 1 city  in 1975
                                         Laska et al.,
                                         1976 (p. 539)
                                         U.S.  EPA, 1980
                                         (p.  C-l)
                                                   Laska et al.,
                                                   1976 (p. 539)
                                                   U.S.  EPA,  1980
                                                   (p. A-l)

                                                   NAS,  1977
                                                   (p. 799)

                                                   U.S.  EPA,  1980
                                                   (p. C-l)
                    4-2

-------
    D.   Air

         1.   Frequency of Detection

              Data not immediately available.

         2.   Concentration

              <0.5 Ug/m3  in air near chlorohy-         U.S.  EPA,  1980
              drocarbon plants                         (p.  C-4)

    E.   Pood

         1.   Total Average Intake

              Data not immediately available.

         2.   Concentration

              HCBD contamination is not widespread     U.S.  EPA,  1980
              but localized in areas with raw water    (pp«  C-l,  C-2)
              sources near industrial plants pro-
              ducing HCBD.  A survey of milk, eggs,
              and vegetable samples collected near
              chlorohydrocarbon plants  resulted in
              samples with no measurable HCBD.

              HCBD concentrations  in foodstuffs        U.S.  EPA,  1980
              from other countries:                    (p.  C-3)

              England:

                Fresh Milk         0.08 ng/g
                Imported grapes    3.7   ng/g
                Tomatoes           0.8   ng/g

              Germany:

                Evaporated milk     4 ng/g
                Egg yolk        •   42 ng/g
                Vegetable oil      33 ng/g

II. HUMAN EFFECTS

    A.   Ingestion

         1.   Carcinogenicity

              a.   Qualitative Assessment

                   Evidence of carcinogenesis          U.S.  EPA,  1980
                   (renal carcinoma)                   (p. C-35)
                                  4-3

-------
               b.   Potency

                    Cancer potency =                    U.S. EPA, 1980
                    7.75 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)"1 based     (p. C-35)
                    on rat study

               c.   Effects

                    Renal tubular adenoma and           U.S. EPA, 1980
                    carcinoma

          2.   Chronic Toxicity

               Data not assessed since evaluation
               based on carcinogenicity

          3.   Absorption Factor
                                                          •
               Data not assessed since evaluation
               based on carcinogenicity

     B.   Inhalation

          Data not immediately available.

III. PLANT EFFECTS

     Data not immediately available.

IV.  DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS

     A.   Toxicity

          See Table 4-1.

     B.   Uptake

          See Table 4-2.

          2.78 bioconcentration factor for consumption  U.S. EPA, 1980
          of 6.5 g/day of fish and shellfish            (p. C-3)

 V.  AQUATIC LIFE  EFFECTS

     Data not immediately available.

VI.  SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS

     Data not immediately available.

VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT

     Molecular weight:  261
     Solubility:  5 Ug/L at 20°C
     Vapor pressure:   22 mm Hg at 100°C
     Specific gravity:  1.675
                                   4-4

-------
                                   TABLE 4-1.  TOXICITY OF HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species
Rat
Rat
Guinea pig
Mice
Rat
Rat
Japanese quail
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Chemical
Form Fed
HCBD
HCBD
HCBD
HCBD
HCBD
HCBD
HCBD
HCBD
HCBD
HCBD
HCBD
HCBD
Peed Water Daily
Concentration Concentration Intake Duration
(pg/g) (mg/L) (rag /kg) of Study Effects
NRa • NR 250-350 NR Acute oral toxicity
NR NR 20 2 years Renal neoplasms
NR NR 90 NR LD50
NR NR 87-116 NR LD50
1-30 NR NR NR No effect
30-100 NR NR NR Renal toxicity
30 NR 5 NR No effect
NR NR 2-20 90 days Kidney alteration
NR NR NR Lifetime Significant growth
reduction
NR NR 0.2 Lifetime No effect
NR NR 2.0 Lifetime Slight renal toxicity
NR NR 2.0 Lifetime Multiple toxic effects
References
Berndt and Mehendale,
1979 (p. 56)
U.S. EPA, 1980
Kociba et al.,
(p. 589)
Kociba et al.,
(p. 589)
Kociba et al.,
(p. 589)
Kociba et al.,
(p. 589)
Kociba et al.,
(p. 590)
Kociba et al.,
(p. 590)
Kociba et al . ,
(p. 592)
Kociba et al.,
(p. 589)
Kociba et al.,
(p. 589)
Kociba et al.,
(p. 589)
(p. C-5)
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
NR = not reported

-------
                                     TABLE 4-2.  UPTAKE OF HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Range of Feed
Chemical Concentration (N)a
Species Porn Fed (fg/g DW)
Rat HCBD 2-4 (2)
i
Tissue
Tissue Concentration
Analyzed (pg/g DW) Uptake Factor0 References
Kidney fat 7C 1.75-3.5 U.S. EPA, 1980 (p. C-4)

aH = Number of feed rates.
^Uptake factor = Tissue concentration DW/feed concentration DU.
C7 pg/g for both feed rates.

-------
                                SECTION 5

                                REFERENCES
Berndt,  W.  0.   and   H.   M.  Mehendale.     1979.     Effects  of  Hexa-
     chlorobutadiene  (HCBD)  on  Renal  Function  and  Renal   Organic  Ion
     Transport in the Rat.  Toxicology 14:55-65.

Bertrand, J. E., M. C. Lutrick, G. T.  Edds  and R.  L. West.   1981.  Metal
     Residues  in  Tissues,  Animal  Performance  and  Carcass Quality with
     Beef  Steers   Grazing  Pensacola  Bahiagrass  Pastures  Treated  with
     Liquid Digested Sludge.  J.  Ani. Sci.  53:1.

Boswell,  F.  C.   1975.   Municipal  Sewage Sludge  and  Selected  Element
     Applications   to  Soil:   Effect  on Soil  and Fescue.    J.  Environ.
     Qual.  4(2):267-273.

Camp Dresser  and  McKee,   Inc.   1984.   A  Comparison  of  Studies  of  Toxic
     Substances in  POTW  Sludges.   Prepared  for the  U.S. EPA under Con-
     tract No. 68-01-6403.  Annandale, VA.  August.

Chaney,  R.  L., and C.  A.  Lloyd.    1979.    Adherence  of  Spray-Applied
     Liquid  Digest  Sewage  Sludge  to  Tall  Fescue.    J. Environ.  Qual.
     8(3): 407- 411.

Jacobs,  L.  W., and M.  J.  Zabik.    1983.    Importance of  Sludge-Borne
     Organic Chemicals for  Land  Application Programs.   Proc.  Sixth Ann.
     Madison  Conf.  of  Applied   Research  &  Practice  on  Municipal  &
     Industrial Waste,  Sept. 14-15, 1983.  Madison, WI.  pp.  418-426.

Kociba,  R.  J., D. G.  Keys,  G.  C. Jersey,  et al.   1977.   Results  of  a
     Two-Year  Chronic  Toxicity  Study  with Hexachlorobutadiene  in  Rats.
     A.  Indust. Hyg.  Assoc. Journal  38:589-602.

Laska,  A. L.,  C.  K. Bartell, and  J.  L. Laseter.   1976.   Distribution of
     Hexachlorobenzene  and  Hexachlorobutadiene   in  Water,   Soil,  and
     Selected  Aquatic  Organisms  Along  the  Lower Mississippi  River,  LA.
     Bull.  Env. Contam.  & Toxicol. 15(5)535-542.

National  Academy   of   Sciences.    1977.    Drinking  Water  and  Health.
     National   Review    Council,    Safe    Drinking    Water    Committee.
     Washington, D.C.

Naylor, L. M.  and  R.  C.  Loehr.   1982.   Priority  Pollutants  in Municipal
     Sewage Sludge.  Biocycle 23(4):  18-22.

Pennington, J. A.  T.   1983.  Revision  of  the  Total Diet Study Food  Lists
     and Diets.  J. Am. Diet. Assoc.   82:166-173.
                                   5-1

-------
Ryan, J. A., H.  R.  Pahren,  and J. B. Lucas.   1982.   Controlling Cadmium
     in the  Human Food Chain:   A Review  and Rationale Based  on Health
     Effects.  Environ. Res. 28:251-302.

Thornton,  I., and P. Abrams.   1983.   Soil  Ingestion  - A Major Pathway of
     Heavy Metals  into Livestock Grazing  Contaminated Land.  Sci.. Total
     Environ.  28:287-294.

U.S. Department  of Agriculture.   1975.   Composition  of  Foods.   Agri-
     cultural Handbook No. 8.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1976.   Sampling and  Analysis  of
     Selected  Toxic   Substances,  Task  IB—Hexachlorobutadiene.     EPA
     560/6-76-015.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Washington,
     D.C.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.     1980.    Ambient  Water  Quality
     Criteria   for   Hexachlorobutadiene.      EPA-440/5/80/053.      U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection   Agency.     1982.     Fate   of   Priority
     Pollutants  in  Publicly-Owned Treatment  Works.    EPA  440/1-82-303.
     U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1983a.    Assessment  of  Human
     Exposure  to  Arsenic:  Tacoma,  Washington.     Internal  Document.
     OHEA-E-075-U.    Office  of  Health  and  Environmental  Assessment,
     Washington, D.C.   July 19.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   1983b.   Process Design Manual for
     Land  Application  of  Municipal   Sludge.    EPA  625/1-83-016.    U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1984.   Air  Quality  Criteria for
     Lead.    External   Review  Draft.   EPA  600/8-83-028B.   Environmental
     Criteria  and  Assessment   Office,  Research   Triangle  Park,   NC.
     September.
                                   5-2

-------
                              APPENDIX

    PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
                      IN MUNICIPAL  SEWAGE  SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

   A.  Effect on Soil Concentration of Hexachlorobutadiene

       1.  Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

           a.  Formula

               re    (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
               CSs "        AR + MS

               CSr = CSS  [1 + O

               where:

                    CSg = Soil  concentration  of  pollutant   after   a
                          single   year's    application   of    sludge
                         .(Ug/g DW)
                    CSr = Soil  concentration of  pollutant  after  the
                          yearly   application   of   sludge   has   been
                          repeated for n •«• 1 years (ug/g DW)
                    SC  = Sludge concentration of  pollutant  (Ug/g DW)
                    AR  = Sludge application rate  (mt/ha)
                    MS  = 2000  mt  ha/DW  =  assumed  mass  of  soil  in
                          upper 15 cm
                    BS  = Background  concentration  of  pollutant   in
                          soil (Ug/g DW)
                    t±  = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
                    n   = 99 years

           b.  Sample calculation

               CS3 is calculated for AR = 0, 5,  and 50  mt/ha only


       n nnn7* „ /  nu -  (0.3 UR/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (0  Ug/g  DW  x  2000  mt/ha)
       0.00075 Ug/g DW -           (5 mt/ha DW + 2000 mt/ha  DW)

               CSr is calculated for AR = 5 mt/ha  applied for  100 years


   0.06 yg/g DW = 0.00075 Ug/g DW [1 + 0.5(1/0)  +  0.5(2/0)  + ...   +

                        0.5(99/0)]
                                 A-l

-------
B.  Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

    1.  Index.of Soil Biota Tozicity (Index 2)

        a.  Formula

                      II
            Index 2 = —


            where:

                 II  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (pg/g DW)
                 TB  = Soil  concentration   toxic   to   soil   biota
                       (Ug/g DW)

        b.  Sample calculation -  Values  were not calculated  due  to
            lack of data.

    2.  Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)

        a.  Formula

            _ .    ,   II x UB
            Index 3 = —	


            where: •

                 II  = Index 1  = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                 UB  = Uptake  factor of  pollutant  in  soil   biota
                       (Ug/g tissue DW [Ug/g  soil DW]"1)
                 TR  = Feed  concentration  toxic to  predator  (ug/g
                       DW)

        b.  Sample calculation -  Values  were not calculated  due  to
            lack of data.

C.  Effect on Plants and Plant  Tissue Concentration

    1.  Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index  4)

        a.  Formula

                      Ii
            Index 4 = —
            where:
                 Ij  = Index 1  = Concentration  of  pollutant  in
                       sludge-amended soil  (ug/g DW)
                 TP  = Soil  concentration  toxic to plants  (ug/g DW)
                             A-2

-------
    b.  Sample calculation  - Values were not  calculated due to
        lack of data.

2.  Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)

    a.  Formula

        Index 5 = Ii x UP

        where:

           I± = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
               sludge - amended soil (yg/g DW)
           UP = Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue
                 (pg/g tissue DW [yg/g  soil  DW]'1)

    b.  Sample Calculation  - Values were not  calculated  due to
        lack of data.

3.  Index   of  Plant  Concentration   Increment  Permitted   by
    Phytotoxicity (Index 6)

    a.  Formula

        Index 6 = PP

        where:

             PP  = Maximum  plant   tissue  concentration  associ-
                   ated with phytotoxicity (ug/g D.W)

    b.  Sample calculation  - Values were not  calculated  due to
        lack of data.

Effect on Herbivorous Animals

1.  Index of  Animal Toxicity Resulting from  Plant  Consumption
    (Index 7)

    a.  Formula

        Index 7 = =-r


        where:

             15  = Index   5   =  Concentration  of   pollutant   in
                   plant  grown in sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
             TA  = Feed  concentration   toxic  to   herbivorous
                   animal (yg/g DW)

    b.  Sample calculation  -  Values were not  calculated due  to
        lack of data.
                          A-3

-------
    2.  Index  of  Animal  Toxicity Resulting  from Sludge  Ingestion
        (Index 8)

       • a.  Formula

            If AR = 0; Index 8=0


            If AR * 0; Index 8 =  SC *T^S


            where:

                 AR  = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
                 SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant  (ug/g DW)
                 GS  = Fraction of animal diet assumed to  be soil
                 TA  = Feed  concentration   toxic  to   herbivorous
                       animal (ug/g

        b.  Sample calculation

            If AR = 0; Index 8=0

            If *H*0 , 0.0005 -••'
E.  Effect on Humans

    1.  Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting  from Plant  Consumption
        (Index 9)

        a.  Formula

                      (I5 x DT)   + DI
            Index 9 =


            where :

                 15  = Index   5   =  Concentration  of  pollutant   in
                       plant grown  in  sludge-amended soil  (pg/g DW)
                 DT  = Daily human  dietary intake of affected  plant
                       tissue  (g/day DW)
                 DI  = Average daily human  dietary intake  of
                       pollutant  (ug/day)
                 RSI = Cancer  risk-specific intake (ug/day)

        b.  Sample   calculation   (toddler)   -   Values   were   not
            calculated due  to  lack  of  data.
                             A-4

-------
2.  Index  of  Human  Cancer  Risk  Resulting  from  Consumption of
    Animal  Products  Derived  from Animals  Feeding  on  Plants
    (Index 10)

    a.  Formula

                    (15  x  UA x  DA) + DI
        Index 10 .          RSI	


        where:

             15  = Index  5   =  Concentration  of  pollutant  in
                   plant grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
             UA  = Uptake factor  of pollutant  in  animal  tissue
                   (Ug/g tissue DW  [ug/g feed DW]'1)
             DA  = Daily  human   dietary   intake  of   affected
                   animal tissue  (g/day  DW)  (milk products and
                   meat, poultry, eggs,  fish)
             DI  = Average daily human dietary  intake of
                   pollutant (ug/day)
             RSI = Cancer risk-specific  intake  (Ug/day)

    b.  Sample   calculation  (toddler)   -   Values   were   not
        calculated due to lack of data.

3.  Index  of  Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of  Animal
    Products Derived from Animals Ingesting  Soil (Index 11)

    a.  Formula

        If AR = 0;  Index  11  =     (BS  * GS *  ^  DA) *  DI

        If AR * 0;  Index  11  =     (SC  x GS x  UA JUJA) *_DJL_


        where:

             AR  = Sludge application rate  (mt  DW/ha)
             SC  = Sludge concentration  of pollutant  (ug/g DW)
             BS  = Background  concentration  of   pollutant  in.
                   soil  (Ug/g DW)
             GS  = Fraction  of  animal  diet assumed to be soil
             UA  = Uptake factor  of pollutant  in  animal  tissue
                   (Ug/g tissue DW  [ug/g feed DW]'1)
             DA  = Daily  human   dietary   intake  of   affected
                   animal  tissue  (g/day  DW)  (milk products  and
                   meat  only)
             DI  = Average daily human dietary  intake of
                   pollutant (ug/day)
             RSI = Cancer risk-specific  intake  (ug/day)
                          A-5

-------
        b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

2.298 = [(0.3 pg/g DW x 0.05 x 3.5 pg/g tissue DW (pg/g feed DW)"1

          x 39.4 g/day) + 0 pg/day] * 0.90 pg/day

    4.  Index of  Human Cancer  Risk Resulting  from Soil  Ingestion
        (Index 12)

        a.  Formula

                       (Ii x DS) + DI
            Index 12 , 	_	


            where:

                 II  = Index 1  = Concentration   of   pollutant    in
                       sludge-amended  soil  (pg/g DW)
                 DS  = Assumed  amount  of soil  in human  diet  (g/day)
                 DI  = Average  daily human  dietary intake  of
                       pollutant (ug/day)
                 RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (pg/day)

        b.  Sample calculation  (toddler)


        0 00417  s (0.00075 yg/g DW x 5  g/day)  *  0 yg/day
                          0.90  ug/day                      .   .


    5.  Index of Aggregate Cancer Risk (Index  13)

        a.  Formula


            Index 13 = I9 + I10 + IU +  I12 -

            where:

                 Ig  = Index   9 =  Index   of  human  cancer   risk
                       resulting from  plant consumption (unitless)
                 110 = Index  10 =  Index  "of  human  cancer   risk
                       resulting   from   consumption   of   animal
                       products   derived from  animals  feeding on
                       plants (unitless)
                 111 = Index 11   =  Index   of  human  cancer   risk
                       resulting   from   consumption   of   animal
                       products  derived from animals ingesting  soil
                       (unitless)
                 Il2 = Index 12  =  Index   of   human   cancer   risk
                       resulting from  soil  ingestion (unitless)
                 DI  = Average   daily   human   dietary   intake   of
                       pollutant (pg/day)
                 RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (pg/day)
                             A-6

-------
             b.  Sample   calculation  (toddler)   -   Values   were   not
                 calculated due to lack of data.
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.   The U.S. 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.   The U.S. EPA  reserves  the right
     to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.

IV.  OCEAN DISPOSAL

     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.   The U.S. EPA  reserves  the right
     to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
                                  A-7

-------