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
------- |