United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
•^
of Municipal Sludge:
Pentachlorophenol
-------
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 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landf illing 2-2
Incineration 2-2 •
Ocean Disposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL,
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE \ 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of pentachlorophenol
(Index 1) 3-1
Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) . 3-2
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration (Indices 4-6) 3-4
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-7
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-10
Landf illing 3-17
Incineration .. 3-17
Ocean Disposal 3-17
Index of seawater concentration resulting from
initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3-18
Index of seawater concentration representing a
24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 3-21
Index of toxicity to aquatic life (Index 3) 3-22
Index of human toxicity resulting from seafood
consumption (Index 4) 3-24
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4v PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-2
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-2
Food 4-3
Human Effects . 4-3
Ingestion 4-3
Inhalation 4-4
Plant Effects 4-4
Phytotoxicity 4-4
Uptake 4-4
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-4
Toxicity 4-4
Uptake .......; 4-5
Aquatic Life Effects .. 4-5
Toxicity 4-5
Uptake 4-5
Soil Biota Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-6
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
PENTACHLOROPHENOL IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
111
-------
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. Pentachlorophenol (POP) was initially identified as
being of potential concern when sludge is landspread (including
distribution and marketing) or ocean disposed.* This profile is a
compilation of information that may be useful in determining whether PCP
poses an actual hazard to human health or the environment when sludge is
disposed of by these methods.
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 and ocean
disposal practices are included in this profile. The calculation
formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix. The indices are
rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings were determined' by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of "preliminary hazard indices", which represent conserva-
tive or "worst case" analyses of hazard. The indices and their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Pentachlorophenol
The landspreading of municipal sewage sludge is expected to
result in slight increases of PCP concentration in amended
soils (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota And Predators of Soil Biota
PCP concentrations in sludge-amended soils are not expected to
pose a toxic hazard to soil biota (see Index 2). As a result,
soil biota inhabiting sludge-amended soils are unlikely to
concentrate sufficient PCP in their tissue to pose a toxic
hazard to their predators (see Index 3).
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Phytotoxic effects of PCP on plants grown in sludge-amended
soils were not determined due to a lack of data (see Indices
4 and 6). There may be a slight increase of PCP
concentrations in plants consumed by animals and humans (see
Index 5).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
Forage plants grown in sludge-amended soil are unlikely to
concentrate sufficient PCP in their tissues to pose a toxic
hazard to herbivorous animals (see Index 7). Also, the
expected dietary intake of PCP by animals ingesting sludge-
amended soils while grazing is unlikely to exceed toxic
concentrations (see Index 8).
E. Effect on Humans
The expected dietary intake of PCP due to the consumption of
edible plants grown on sludge-amended soil is not expected to
.pose a human health risk (see Index 9). Direct ingestion of
sludge-amended soil is unlikely to result in a PCP health risk
to toddlers or adults (see Index 12). Conclusions
concerning human health risk resulting from consumption of
animal products derived from animals feeding on plants grown
2-1
-------
on sludge-amended soil, and aggregate human toxicity risk were
not drawn because index values could not be calculated due to
lack of data (see Indices 10, 11, and 13).
II. LAMDPILLIHG
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meeting
(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 meeting
(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 ah assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
No significant increases of PCP levels in seawater around disposal
sites are expected as a result of sludge disposal (see Index 1).
Similarly, only slight increases in the PCP concentration occur at
the typical site after a 24-hour dumping cycle (see Index 2).
No toxic conditions for aquatic life are expected due to PCP in the
area of a disposal site. Only slight incremental increases in
hazard occur unde-r the scenarios evaluated (see Index 3). No
increase in human health risks were determined to be associated
with PCP when municipal sewage sludge- is disposed of in the. ocean-
(see Index 4). ' • • '
2-2
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES. FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Pentachlorophenol
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
~~ a. Explanation - Calculates concentrations in Mg/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
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.0865 Ug/g DW
Worst 30.434 Ug/g DW
3-1
-------
The typical and worst concentrations are the
mean and 95th percentile, respectively,
statistically derived from sludge concentration
data presented by U.S. EPA, 1982. (See Section
4, p. 4-2.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil ~
(BS) = 0.0 Ug/g DW
Data are not immediately available on soil
background concentrations of POP. To calculate
Index 1, the background soil concentration was
assumed to be 0 Ug/g DW.
iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (tp = 0.0548 years
In soil microcosm studies, 48 percent of the
applied PCP persisted 20 days after application
(Cole and Metcalf, 1980). (See Section 4, p.
4-6.)
d. Index 1 Values (yg/g DW)
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.0
0.0
5
0.00022
0.076
50
0.0021
0.74 '
500
0.00022
0.076
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in sludge-amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The landspreading of
municipal sewage sludge is expected to result in
slight increases of PCP concentration in amended
soils.
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.
3-2
-------
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) =
40.0 Ug/g DW
Oxygen uptake by nitrifying soil bacteria was
reduced by 50 percent in the presence of
40 ug/g PCP (Hale et al., 1957). (See Section
4, p. 4-10.)
d. Index 2 Values
Sludge Application Rate Cmt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0000054
0.0019
50
0.000053
0.019
500
0.0000054
0.0019
e. Value Interpretation - Value equal? factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota. •
f. Preliminary Conclusion - PCP concentrations in
sludge-amended soils and are not expected to pose a
toxic hazard to soil biota.
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
-------
\iŁ. Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota (UB) =
6.2 yg/g tissue DW (yg/g soil DW)"1
x
In a soil microcosm study, five terrestrial
invertebrate species were exposed to POP (Gile
et al., 1982). Of. the five exposed species,
worms exhibited 'the highest uptake factor for
the compound. The uptake factor for worms was
chosen because it represents a worst-case
value. (See Section 4, p. 4-11.)
iii. Feed concentration tozic to predator (TR) =
50.0 yg/g DW
Data on the effects of PCP on typical predators
of soil biota were not immediately available.
In a 90-day feeding study, rats fed a diet
containing 50 yg/g DW exhibited elevated
hematocrits, increased hemoglobin, and
increased liver weights. Concentrations of PCP
below 50 yg/g DW had no effect (Knudson et al.,
1974). This value is conservative because it
is the lowest feed concentration of PCP
required to produce adverse effects in rats.
(See Section 4, p. 4-9.)
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.000027
0.0094
0.00026
0.092
0.000027
0.0094
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 - Soil biota inhabiting
sludge-amended soils are unlikely to concentrate
sufficient PCP in their tissue to pose a toxic
hazard to their predators.
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.
3-4
-------
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.
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.
3-5
-------
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
d.
Diet
Human
Animal Diet:
Rye grass 2.8 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1
Human Diet: —.
Rice grain 0.35 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1
In a soil microcosm study, rye grass exhibited
an uptake factor of 2.8 for PCP (Gile et al.,
1982). Corn plants grown in soil dosed with
PCP exhibited uptake factor in the leaves of
0.81 (Lu -et al., 1978). The rye grass uptake
factor represents a worst-case value for forage
plants. Weiss et al. (1982a,b) reported
radioactive residues of 4 ppm in rice grains
grown on plots amended with ^C-labeled pep.
Uptake factor was based on reported tissue
concentration and application rate. (See
Section 4, p. 4-8.)
Index 5 Values (pg/g DW)
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
' Sludge
Concentration 05 50 500
Animal
Typical
Worst
0.0
' 0.0
0.00060
0.21
0.0059
2.1 .
0.00060
0.21
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.000076
0.027
0.00074
0.26
0.000076
0.027
f.
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.
Preliminary Conclusion - There may be a slight
increase of PCP concentrations in plants consumed by
animals and humans.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Permitted by Phytotoxicity
(Index 6)
a. Explanation - The index value is the maximum tissue
concentration, in Ug/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
in Index 5 for high applications are realistic, or
3-6
-------
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.
d. Index 6 Values - 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
rate.
. f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
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.
3-7
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5)
The pollutant concentration values used are
those Index 5 values for an animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
\.
ii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 491.0 ug/g DW
Female yearling cattle fed a diet containing
491 Ug/g technical grade PCP for 118 days
exhibited reduced weight gain and feeding
efficiency, and increased liver weights
(McConnell et al., 1980). McConnell et al.'
(1980) also reported that female yearling
cattle fed a diet containing analytical grade
PCP at 647 Ug/g DW for only 42 days exhibited
minimal adverse effects. (See Section 4, p.
4-9.)
d. Index 7 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical"
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0000012
0.00043
0.000012
0.0042
0.0000012
0.00043
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected plant tissue concentration exceeds that
which is toxic to animals. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Forage plants grown in
sludge-amended soil are unlikely to concentrate
sufficient PCP in their tissues to pose a toxic
hazard to herbivorous animals.
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.
3-8
-------
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.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.0865 Ug/g DW
Worst 30.434 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. .
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
3-9
-------
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
iii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 491 pg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-8.
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application- Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.0 0.0000088 0.0000082 0.0000082
Worst 0.0 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031
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 - The expected dietary intake
of PCP by animals ingesting sludge-amended soils
while grazing is unlikely to exceed toxic
concentrations.
Effect on Humans .
1. Index of Human Toxicity 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
acceptable daily intake (ADI) 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)
The pollutant concentration values used are
those Index 5 values for a human diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
3-10
-------
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
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 (1984b). 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 0.326
Adult 0.987
Total diet studies did not detect PCP in the
diet of adults in FY 1978 (FDA, 1979). PCP
residues were detected sporadically between FY
1976 and 1977. The daily dietary intake (DI)
of PCP is based- on the mean value of the. FDA
Total Relative Daily Intake (ug/'kg/body-
weight/day) for 'PCP between 1975 and 1977 of
0.0141 Ug/kg body weight/day. An adult body
weight of 70 kg is assumed for determining DI
from FDA data or 0.987 Ug/day. Toddler intake
is assumed to be 33 percent of the adult value
or 0.326 Ug/day. (See Section 4, p. 4-3.)
iv. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
2100 Ug/day
An ADI of 2100 Ug/day was derived by the U.S.
EPA (1980) based on studies showing a NOEL of
3 mg/kg/day in rats. The effect of concern in
these studies was teratogenicity. An
uncertainty factor of 100 was applied in
calculation of the human ADI. (See Section 4,
p. 4-3.)
3-11
-------
d. Index 9 Values
Group
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (rot/ha)
5 50
500
Toddler Typical
Worst
Adult
Typical
Worst
0.00016 0.00016 0.00018 0.00016
0.0016 0.0011 0.0094 0.0011
0.00047 0.00048 0.00054 0.00048
0.00047 0.0031 0.026 0.0031
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected intake exceeds ADI. Value > 1 indicates a
possible human health threat. 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.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The expected dietary intake
of PGP due to the consumption of edible plants grown
on sludge-amended soil is not expected to pose a
human health risk.
2. Index of Human -Toxicity 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
ADI.
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.
3-12
-------
Data Used and Rationale \
\
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5)
The pollutant concentration values used are
those Index 5 values for an animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - Data not immediately available.
Parker et al. (1980) reported terminal serum
PCP concentrations of 33 to 77 ppm in cattle
fed a diet containing 491 Ug/g PCP for 160
days. However, the relationship between serum
and tissue concentrations is not well
understood. Therefore, an uptake factor could
not be estima-ted.
iii. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 43.7 g/day
Adult 88.5 g/day
The fat intake values presented, which comprise
meat, fish, poultry, eggs and milk products,
are derived from the FDA Revised Total .Diet
(Penningtori, 1983), food groupings listed by
the U.S. EPA (1984b) 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 0.326 Ug/day
Adult 0.987 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
v. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
2100 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
3-13
-------
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.
3. Index of Human Toxicity 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 ADI.
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
(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. Animal tissue - Data not immediately available.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.0865 yg/g DW
Worst 30.434 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.0 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5Z
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
v. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - Data not immediately available.
3-14
-------
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddter, 39.4 g/day
Adult x 82.4 g/day
The affected tissue intake value is assumed to
be from tffre 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).
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.326 pg/day
Adult 0.987 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
viii. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
2100 Ug/day .
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
d. Index 11 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.
4. Index of Human Toxicity 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 ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the pica
child consumes an average of 5 g/day of sludge-
amended soil. If an ADI specific for a child is not
available, this index assumes the ADI 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 ADI provide protection for the child,
taking into account the smaller body size and any
other differences in sensitivity.
3-15
-------
c. 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, 1983b).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA, 1984b.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.326 Ug/day
Adult 0.987 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
iv. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
. 2100 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11. • .
d. Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group
Toddler
Adult
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0
0
0
0
.00016
.00016
.00047
.00047
0
0
0
0
5
.00016
.00034
.00047
.00047
0.
0.
0.
0.
50
00016
0019
00047
00048
0
0
0
0
500
.00016
.00034
.00047
.00047
e. Value Interpretation - Same as'for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Direct ingest ion of sludge-
amended soil is unlikely to result in a PCP health
risk to toddlers or adults.
3-16
-------
S. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (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 ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
c. Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
d. Index 13 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.
II. LAHDFILLING
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
For the purpose of evaluating pollutant effects upon and/or
subsequent uptake by marine life as a result of sludge disposal,
two types of mixing were modeled. The initial mixing or dilution
shortly after dumping of a single load of sludge represents a high,
pulse concentration to which organisms may be exposed for short
time periods but which could be repeated frequently; i.e., every
time a recently dumped plume is encountered. A subsequent addi-
tional degree of mixing can be expressed by a further dilution.
This is defined as the average dilution occurring when a day's
worth of sludge is dispersed by 24 hours of current movement and
represents the time-weighted average- exposure concentration for
organisms in the disposal area. This dilution accounts for 8 to 12
hours of the high pulse concentration encountered by the organisms
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
3-17
-------
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Nixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased concentrations in Ug/L
of pollutant in seawater around an ocean disposal site
assuming initial mixing.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the background
seawater concentration of pollutant is unknown or zero.
The index also assumes that disposal is by tanker and
that the daily amount of sludge disposed is uniformly
distributed along a path transversing the site and
perpendicular to the current vector. The initial
dilution volume is assumed to be determined by path
length, • depth to the pycnocline (a layer separating
surface and deeper water masses), and an initial plume
width defined as the width of the plume four hours after
dumping. The seasonal disappearance of the pycnocline is
not considered.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Disposal conditions
Sludge Sludge'Mass Length
Disposal ' bumped by a of Tanker
Rate (SS) Single Tanker (ST) Path (L)
• Typical 825 mt DW/day 1600 mt WW 8000 m
Worst 1650 mt DW/day 3400 mt WW 4000 m
The typical value for the sludge disposal rate assumes
that 7.5 x 10*> mt WW/year are available for dumping
from a metropolitan coastal area. The conversion to
dry weight assumes 4 percent solids by weight. The
worst-case value is an arbitrary doubling of the
typical value to allow for potential future increase.
The assumed disposal practice to be followed at the
model site representative of the typical case is a
modification of that proposed for sludge disposal at
the formally designated 12-mile site in the New York
Bight Apex (City of New York, 1983). Sludge barges
with capacities of 3400 mt WW would be required to
discharge a load in no less than 53 minutes travel-
ing at a minimum speed of 5 nautical miles (9260 m)
per hour. Under these conditions, the barge would
enter the site, discharge the sludge over 8180 m and
exit the site. Sludge barges with capacities of
3-18
-------
discharge the sludge over 7902 m and exit the site.
The mean path length for the large and small tankers
is 8041 m or approximately 8000 m. Path length is
assumed to lie perpendicular to the direction of
prevailing current flow. For the typical disposal
rate (SS) of 825 mt DW/day, it is assumed that this
would be accomplished by a mixture of four 3400 mt
WW and four 1600 mt WW capacity barges. The overall
daily disposal operation- would last from 8 to 12
hours. For the worst-case disposal rate (SS) of
1650 mt DW/day, eight 3400 mt WW and eight 1600 mt
WW capacity barges would be utilized. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For both disposal rate scenarios, there
would be a 12 to 16 hour period at night in which no
sludge would be dumped. It is assumed that under
the above described disposal operation, sludge
dumping would occur every day of the year.
The assumed disposal practice at the model site
representative of the worst case is as stated for
the typical site, except that barges would dump half
their load along a track, then turn around and
dispose of the balance along the same track in order
to prevent a barge from dumping outside of the site..
This practice would effectively halve the path
length compared to the typical site.
b. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
»T» . '
' Typical 0.0865 mg/kg DW
Worst 30.434 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
c. Disposal site characteristics
Average
current
Depth to velocity
pycnocline (D) at site (V)
Typical 20 m 9500 m/day
Worst 5 m 4320 m/day
Typical site values are representative of a large,
deep-water site with an area of about 1500 km^
located beyond the continental shelf in the New York
Bight. The pycnocline value of 20 m chosen is the
average of the 10 to 30 m pycnocline depth range
occurring in the summer and fall; the winter and
spring disappearance of the pycnocline is not consi-
dered and so represents a conservative approach in
3-19
-------
evaluating annual or long-term impact. The current
velocity of 11 cm/sec (9500 m/day) chosen is based
on the average current velocity in this area (COM,
1984a).
Worst-case values—are representative of a near-shore
New York Bight site with an area of about 20 km^.
The pycnocline value of 5 m chosen is the minimum
value of the 5 to 23 m depth range of the surface
mixed layer and is therefore a worst-case value.
Current velocities in this area vary from 0 to
30 cm/sec. A value of 5 cm/sec (4320 m/day) is
arbitrarily chosen to represent a worst-case value
(CDM, 1984b).
4. Factors Considered in Initial Nixing
When a load of sludge is dumped from a moving tanker, an
immediate mixing occurs in the turbulent wake of the
vessel, followed by more gradual spreading of the plume.
The entire plume, which initially constitutes a narrow
band the length of the tanker path, moves more-or-less as
a unit with the prevailing surface current and, under
calm conditions, is not further-dispersed by the current
itself. However, the current acts to separate successive
tanker loads, moving each out of the immediate disposal
path before the next load is dumped.
Immediate mixing volume after barge disposal is
• . approximately equal to .the le'ngth of the dumping track.
with a cross-sectional area about four times that defined
by the draft and width of the discharging vessel
(Csanady, 1981, as cited in NOAA, 1983). The resulting
plume is initially 10 m deep by 40 m wide (O'Connor and
Park, 1982, as cited in NOAA, 1983). Subsequent
spreading of plume band width occurs at an average rate
of approximately 1 cm/sec (Csanady et al., 1979, as cited
in NOAA, 1983). Vertical mixing is limited by the depth
of the pycnocline or ocean floor, whichever is shallower.
Four hours after disposal, therefore, average plume width
(W) may be computed as follows:
W = 40 m + 1 cm/sec x 4 hours x 3600 sec/hour x 0.01 m/cm
= 184 m = approximately 200 m
Thus the volume of initial mixing is defined by the
tanker path, a 200 m width, and a depth appropriate to
the site. For the typical (deep water) site, this depth
is chosen as the pycnocline value of 20 m. For the worst
(shallow water) site, a value of 10 m was chosen. At
times the pycnocline may be as shallow as 5 m, but since
the barge wake causes initial mixing to at least 10 m,
the greater value was used.
3-20
-------
5. Index 1 Values (ug/L)
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day) .
Worst
825
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0015
0.52
1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.00017
0,061
0.00017
0.061
0.0015
0.52
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
in PCP concentration in seawater around a disposal site
as a result of sludge disposal after initial mixing.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - No significant increases of .PCP
levels in seawater. around disposal sites are expected as
a result of sludge disposal.
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. . Explanation . - Calculates increased effective concentra-
tions in Mg/L of pollutant in seawater around an ocean
disposal site utilizing a time weighted average (TWA)
concentration. The TWA concentration is that which would
be experienced by an organism remaining stationary (with
respect to the ocean floor) or moving randomly within the
disposal vicinity^ The dilution volume is determined by
the tanker path length and depth to pycnocline or, for
the shallow water site, the 10 m effective mixing depth,
as before, but the effective width is now determined by
current movement perpendicular to the tanker path over 24
hours.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Incorporates all of the assump-
tions used to calculate Index 1. In addition, it is
assumed that organisms would experience high-pulsed
sludge concentrations for 8 to 12 hours per day and then
experience recovery (no exposure to sludge) for 12 to 16
hours per day. This situation can be expressed by the
use of a TWA concentration of sludge constituent.
3. Data Used and Rationale
See Section 3, pp. 3-18 to 3-20.
3-21
-------
4. . Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, p. 3-21.
5. Index 2 Values (Ug/L)
Disposal x
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration
Sludge Disposal
Jlate (mt DW/day)
0
825
1650
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000047
0.016
0.00041 '
0.14
0.000094
0.033
0.00082
0.29
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the effective
increase in PCP concentration expressed as a TWA
concentration in seawater around a disposal site
experienced by an organism over a 24-hour period.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Only slight increases in the PCP
concentration occur at the typical site after a 24-hour
dumping cycle.
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Explanation - Compares the effective increased concentra-
tion of pollutant in seawater around the disposal site
resulting from the initial mixing of sludge (Index 1)
with the marine ambient water quality criterion of the
pollutant, or with another value judged protective of
marine aquatic life. For PCP, this value is the
criterion that will protect marine aquatic organisms from
both acute and chronic toxic effects.
Wherever a short-term, "pulse" exposure may occur as it
would from initial mixing, it is usually evaluated using
the
maximum
criteria values of EPA's ambient water
quality criteria methodology. However, under this
scenario, because the pulse is repeated several times
daily on a long-term basis, potentially resulting in an
accumulation of injury, it seems more appropriate to use
values designed to be protective against chronic
toxicity. Therefore, to evaluate the potential for
adverse effects on marine life resulting from initial
mixing concentrations, as quantified by Index 1, the
chronically derived criteria values are used.
3-22
-------
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
stated for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that all of the
released pollutant is available in the water column to
move through predicted pathways (i.e., sludge to seawater
to aquatic organism to man). The possibility of effects
arising from accumulation in the sediments is neglected
since the U.S. EPA presently lacks a satisfactory method
for deriving sediment -criteria.
\
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-21.
b. Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) - 34 Ug/L
Water quality criteria for the toxic pollutants
listed under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 were developed by the U.S. EPA under
Section 304(a)(l) of the Act. These criteria were
derived by utilization of data reflecting the
resultant environmental impacts and human health
effects of these, pollutants if present in any body
of water. The criteria values presented in this
assessment are excerpted from the ambient water
quality criteria document for PCP.
. The value chosen to protect marine organisms is
based on the results of chronrc toxicity tests on
adult Eastern oysters (crassostrea Virginia). The
lowest acute toxicity value is 53 Ug/L for a fish
species (U.S. EPA, 1980). (See Section 4, p. 4-5.)
4. Index 3 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical ' Typical 0.0 0.0000051 0.0000051
Worst 0.0 0.0018 0.0018
Worst Typical 0.6 0.000043 0.000043
Worst 0.0 0.015 0.015
Value Interpretation - Value equals the factor by which
the expected seawater concentration increase in PCP
exceeds the protective value. A value > 1 indicates that
acute or chronic toxic conditions may exist for organisms
at the site.
3-23
-------
6. Preliminary Conclusion - No toxic conditions due to PCP
in sludge were determined. Only slight incremental
increases in hazard occur under the scenarios evaluated.
D. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Explanation - Estimates the expected increase in human
pollutant intake associated with -the consumption of
seafood, a fraction of which originates from the disposal
site vicinity, and compares the total expected pollutant
intake with the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of the
pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
listed for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that the seafood
tissue concentration increase can be estimated from the
increased water concentration by a bioconcentration
factor. It also assumes that, over the long term, the
seafood catch from the disposal site vicinity will be
diluted to some extent by the catch from uncontaminated
areas.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 2)
See Section 3, p. 3-22.
Since bioconcentration is a dynamic and reversible
process, it is expected that uptake of sludge
pollutants by marine organisms at the disposal site
will reflect. TWA concentrations, as quantified by
Index 2, rather than pulse concentrations.
b. Dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
Typical 14.3 g WW/day
Worst 41.7 g WW/day
Typical and worst-case values are the mean and the
95th percentile, respectively, for all seafood
consumption in the United States (Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) International, 1980).
c. Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (PS)
For a typical harvesting scenario, it was assumed
that the total catch over a wide region is mixed by
harvesting, marketing and consumption practices, and
that exposure is thereby diluted. Coastal areas
have been divided by the National Marine Fishery
3-24
-------
Service (NMFS) into reporting areas for reporting on
data on seafood landings. Therefore it was conven-
ient to express the total area affected by sludge
disposal as a fraction of an NMFS reporting area.
The area used to represent the disposal impact area
should be an approximation of the total ocean area
over which the average concentration defined by
Index 2 is roughly applicable. The average rate of
plume spreading, of 1 cm/sec referred to earlier
amounts to approximately 0.9 km/day. Therefore, the
combined plume of all sludge dumped during one
working day will gradually spread,, both parallel to
and perpendicular to current direction, as it pro-
ceeds down-current. Since the concentration has
been averaged over the direction of current flow,
spreading in this dimension will not further reduce
average concentration; only spreading in the perpen-
dicular dimension will reduce the average. If sta-
ble conditions are assumed over a period of days, at
least 9 days would be required to reduce the average
concentration by one-half. At that time, the origi-
nal plume length of approximately 8 km (8000 m) will
have doubled to approximately 16 km due to
spreading.
It is probably unnecessary to follow the plume
further since storms, which would result in much
more rapid dispersion of pollutants to background
concentrations are expected on at least a 10-day
frequency (-NOAA, 1983). Therefore, the area
.impacted by sludge disposal (AI, i'n km2) at each
disposal site-will be considered to be defined by
the tanker path length (L) times the distance of
current movement (V) during 10 days, and is computed
as follows:
AI = 10 x L x V x l'0~6 km2/m2 (1)
To be consistent with a conservative approach, plume
dilution due to spreading in the perpendicular
direction to current flow is disregarded. More
likely, organisms exposed to the plume in the area
defined by equation 1 would experience a TWA concen-
tration lower than the concentration expressed by
Index 2.
Next, the value of AI must be expressed as a
fraction of an NMFS reporting area. In the New York
Bight, which includes NMFS areas 612-616 and 621-
623, deep-water area 623 has an area of
approximately 7200 km2 and constitutes approximately
0.02 percent of the total seafood landings for the
Bight (COM, 1984a). Near-shore area 612 has an area
of approximately 4300 km2 and constitutes
3-25
-------
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (CDM, 1984b). Therefore the fraction of
all seafood landings (FSt) from the Bight which
could originate from the area of impact of either
the typical (deep-water) or worst (near-shore) site
can be calculated for this typical harvesting
scenario as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
__ _ AI x 0.02% = (2)
tbt ~ 7200
[10 x 8000 m x 9500 m x 10"6 km2/m2] x 0.0002 _ . in
* - = - ' - = 2.1 x 10
7200 km2 .
For the worst (near shore) site:
PSt = = (3)
4300 km2
[10 x 4000 m x 4320 m x 10"6 km2/m2] x 0.24 , in_3
* — y • o x i u
4300 km2
To construct a worst-case harvesting scenario, it
was assumed that the total seafood consumption for
an individual could originate from an area more
limited than the entire New York Bight. For
example, a particular fisherman providing the entire
seafood diet for .himself or others .could fish
- habitually within a single NMFS reporting area. Or,
an individual could have a preference for a
particular species which is taken only over a more
limited area, here assumed arbitrarily to equal an
NMFS reporting area. The fraction of consumed
seafood (FSW) that could originate from the area of
impact under this worst-case scenario is calculated
as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
FSW = - AI . = 0.11 (4)
7200 km2
For the worst (near shore) site:
FSW = - ^—r- = 0.040 (5)
4300 km2
d. Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (BCP) = 11 L/kg
The value chosen is the weighted average BCF of PCP
for the edible portion of all freshwater and
estuarine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S.
3-26
-------
citizens (U.S. EPA, 1980). The weighted average BCF
is derived as part of the water quality criteria
developed by the U.S. EPA to protect "human health
from the potential toxic effects of PCP induced by
ingestion of contaminated water and aquatic
organisms. The weighted average BCF is calculated
by adjusting the mean normalized BCF (steady-state
BCF corrected to 1 percent lipid content) to the 3
percent lipid content of consumed fish, and
shellfish. It should be noted that lipids of marine
species differ in both structure and quantity from
those of freshwater species. Although a BCF value
calculated entirely from marine data would be more
appropriate for this assessment, no such data are
presently available. (See Section 4, p. 4-5.)
Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
= 0.987 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
2100 yg/day
Index 4 Values
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge Seafood
teristics . Concentration3 Intake3***
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)
0 825 1650
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047
Worst 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047
Typical 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047
Worst 0.00047 0.00047 0.00047
3 All possible combinations of these values are not
presented. Additional combinations may be calculated
using the formulae in the Appendix.
D Refers to both the dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
and the fraction of consumed seafood originating from
the disposal site (FS). "Typical" indicates the use of
the typical-case values for both of these parameters;
"worst" indicates the use of the worst-case values for
both.
Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
theexpected intake exceeds the ADI. A value >1 indicates
a possible human health threat. Comparison with the null
index value at 0 mt/day indicates the degree to which any
3-27
-------
hazard is due to sludge disposal, as opposed to
preexisting dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - No increase in human health
risks were determined in this assessment.
3-28
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE ^^
PCP is a commercially produced bactericide,
fungicide, and slimicide used primarily for
the preservation of wood, wood products,
and other materials. As a chlorinated
hydrocarbon, its biological properties have
also resulted in its use as an herbicide,
insecticide, and molluscicide. Technical
PCP contains significant contaminants such
as chlorinated benzenes and dibenzofurans.
Although PCP and Na-PCP are disseminated
in the environment, there is a paucity of
data on their environmental concentration,
fate, and effects.
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
62 out of 438 samples (14%) from 40
POTWs contained PCP
2 out of 42 sample's (5%)'from 10 POTWs
contained PCP
In samples from 25. municipal sewage
plants, PCP occurred in 502 of the
samples
68 out of 223 sludge samples (30.5%)
from Michigan contained measureable
amounts of PCP (Detection Limit =
0.03 Ug/g)
2. Concentration
10 to 10,500 pg/L range for 62 of 438
samples from 40 POTWs
150 to 250 Mg/L range for 2 of 42
samples from 10 POTWs
Maximum levels of PCP from 25
municipal plants -
liquid phase: 58 Mg/L
anaerobically digested sludge: 1200 Wg/kg
effluent: 12 ug/L
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. A-l, A-2)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41, 50)
DeWalle
et al., 1982
(p. 144)
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(p. A-14)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41, 50)
DeWalle
et al., 1982
(p. 145)
4-1
-------
0.0865 and 30.434 mg/kg DW, mean
and 95th percentile, respectively,
from 40 POTWs study.
Out of 223 sludge samples from
Michigan, 68 contained PCP at the
following levels (yg/g):
. Range Mean Median
0.2-8,495 81 + 685 5.0
B. Soil - Unpolluted
Data not immediately available.
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
a. -Freshwater . .
Williamette River - 1969, daily •
and hourly samples over a 24-hour
period showed PCP levels ranging
between 0.10 and 0.70 yg/L
b. Seawater
Data not immediately available.
c. Drinking water
Finished drinking water from
Corvallis, Oregon in 1970 contained
0.06 Mg/L
Highest concentration reported in
drinking water was 1.4 yg/L PCP
D. Air
No airborne concentrations reported in the
literature
Statistically
derived from
sludge concen-
tration data
presented in
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(p. A-14)
Buhler et al.,
1973
(p. 929)
Buhler et al.,
1973
(p. 933)
NAS, 1977
(p. 750)
NRC, 1982
(p. 55)
4-2
-------
E. Food
1. Total Average Intake
U8/kg body weight/day
FY75 FY76 FY77 FY78
0.0240.01740.0009ND
2. Concentration
PCP not detected in FY78 diet study
Total
• Food No.
Type Samples
Dairy
Legumes
Sugars and
Adjuncts
30
30
30
No.
With
' PCP
2
1
6
Range of
Cone.
(UK/g)
Trace-0.010
0.010
0.01-0.02
PCP not found in other food types
Peanut butter - 11 samples contained
an average of 0.028 Ug/g PCP
II. HUMAN EFFECTS.
A. Ingestion .
1. Carcinogenicity
Data not immediately available.
2. .Chronic Tozicity
a. ADI
2100 pg/day for a 70 kg person
b. Effects
Female rats were exposed to PCP
at several doses. At the
30 mg/kg/day level of treatment, a
reduced rate of body weight gained
and increased specific gravity of
the urine were observed. Pig-
mentation of the liver and kidneys
was observed in females exposed to
10 or 30 mg/kg/day.
FDA, no date
(Attachment G)
FDA, 1979
(Attachment E)
Johnson and
Manske, 1976
Heikes, 1980
(p. 341)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-37)
U.S. EPA, 1984c
(p. 6)
4-3
-------
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
U.S. EPA ambient water quality criteria
for protection of human health =
1010 Ug/L.
B. Inhalation
Not included because incineration
is not evaluated.
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
Tomatoes and tree seedlings grown in
PGP impregnated wood flats exhibited
severe toxic symptoms
B. Uptake
See Table 4-1.
PCP is readily absorbed by the roots
of sugar cane but is not translocated
to other portions of .the plants (grown
in culture solution, tissue concentra-
tion not provided)
PCP is absorbed readily by plant roots
and leaves
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-2.
"Information on the toxicity of PCP is
complicated by the presence of contami-
nants, such as dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzo furans, in technical PCP samples."
The toxicity of technical PCP is directly
proportional to the amount of toxic con-
taminants present such as hexachloro-
benzene, dibenzodioxin, dibenzofurans.
PCP contains a wide variety of poten-
tially toxic contaminants
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-37)
U.S. EPA, 1979
(p. 274-277)
U.S. EPA, 1979
(p. 273)
U.S. EPA, 1979
(p. 18)
NRC, 1982
(p. 33)
Parker et al.,
1980 (p. 366.)
Plimmer, 1973
(p. 42)
4-4
-------
B. Uptake
Available data indicate that the bio-
logical handling of PCP is rather similar
across mammalian species. PCP is rapidly
absorbed and once absorbed is distributed
throughout the body. Half-life for elimina-
tion of an acute single dose is 8 to 9 days.
Half-life for chronic dosages is 20 days.
In a microcosm experiment, the following
terminal levels of PCP were measured:
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. 111-16)
Soil
Rye grass -
Crickets
Vole
1.22 Ug/g
3.5 Ug/g
1.16 Ug/g
3.20 ug/g
In a microcosm experiment with a soil
application of 1.12 kg/ha, the mean
accumulation in terrestrial animals
(5 species exposed for 5 days) was
0.672 Ug/g, 15%. of which was the
parent compound. Accumulation in the
entire body of the vole was 0.530 Ug/g»
7% of which was the parent compound.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
Data not immediately available.
2. Saltwater
a. Acute
53 Ug/L for fish species
b. Chronic
34 Ug/L for Eastern oyster
(crassostrea virginica)
B. Uptake
Bioconcentration factor = 11. Based on
edible portion of all freshwater and
estuarine organisms consumed by Americans.
Gile et al.,
1982
(p. 298-299)
Cole and
Metcalf, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-21)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-27)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-3)
4-5
-------
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
PCP is extremely toxic to almost all forms
of bacteria, algae~and fungi.
P.CP applied to soils at 20 and 10 kg/ha
did not cause any apparent toxicity, but
did cause an increase in PCP-decomposing
microorganisms by about 3 orders of mag-
nitude within 2-3 weeks.
See Table 4-3.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-4.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT
U.S. EPA, 1979
(p. 231)
Watanabe, 1977
(p. 99)
Soluble in water at 20 mg/L at 30°C
Vapor pressure = 1.1 x 10~* mm Hg at 20°C
PCP is not persistent in soil. It is partly
volatilized or mineralized, partly degraded
and incorporated into soil constituents as
unextractable residues.
Molecular formula: CgHCl^O
Molecular weight: 266
Melting point: 1908C
Boiling point: 310°C
Specific gravity: 1.978 (at 20°C
Soluble in alcohol, acetone, ether, pine
oil, and benzene. Slightly soluble in
water.
Persistence after application = 3 years
(medium not stated)
After 20 days in the soil, 48% of the applied
PCP remained, 19% as the parent compound or
transformation products.
Factors affecting decomposition in soil:
— PCP more persistent in dry soils than
water-saturated soils
— PCP more persistent in clay soils than
sandy soils
NAS, 1977
(p. 750)
Weiss et al.,
1982b
NRC, 1982
NRC, 1982
(p. 55)
Cole and
Metcalf, 1980
(p. 987) •
Bevenue et al.,
1967
(p. 88)
4-6
-------
PCP more persistent when there is less Kaufman, 1978
organic matter in the soil (p. 28)
PCP more persistent when temperatures
not optimum for microbial growth
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-1. UPTAKE OF PENTACHLOROPHENOL BY PLANTS
Plant
Rye grass
Rice
Corn
Soil
Tissue Type
leaf topsoil
in lab
grains sandy
clay
leaf silty
clay loam
Chemical
Form
Applied
PCP
PCP
(99% pure)
PCP
Range of
• Soil
Concentration
(Pg/g)
0.93-5.36 mean
1.22 Mg/g
23 kg/ha
1.25 yg/g
Range of
Tissue
Concentration
(Pg/g)
3.5
4
1.01
Uptake
Factor
2.8
0.35a
0.81
References
Gile et al.
(p. 298)
Weiss et al
1982a/(p.
Lu et/ al. ,
, 1982
1189)
1978
a Value derived by converting reported application rate (kg/ha) to soil concentration (pg/g) by assuming •
2000 mt/ha (see Section 3, p. 3-1). The reported plant tissue concentration was divided by the derived
soil concentration to yield the uptake factor.
-------
TABLE 4-2. TOXICITY OF PENTACHLOROPHENOL TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND HFLDLIFE
Species (N)a
Mouse
Rat
Guinea Pig
Rabbit
Dog
Rats (20 per
group)
Hamster
Rats (30 per
group)
4>
i
VD
Rat
Pig (24)
•
Cattle -
female year-
lings (15)
Calf (1)
Chemical Form
Administered
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
• PCP
PCP
Analytical and
technical PCP
PCP
Peed
Concentration '
(lig/g DW)
NRb
NR
NR
NR
NR
0-25
'..' • 50
200
NR
NR
NR
NR
647
491
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/1)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
60
Daily Intake
(mg/kg)
120-140
27-100
' 100
100-130
150-200
0-1.25
2.5
NR
5
•
0-30
* •
146-175.
0-15
20
15
NR
•
Duration
of Study
—
—
—
~
—
90 days
90 days
,
90 days
Days 6-15
of gesta-
tion
22-24 mo s
NR
30 days
42 days
118 days
7 weeks
Effects
LD5o Acute oral doses
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
No effect
Increased hemoglobin,
hematocrit,- and liver wt.
Reduced growth rate
Fetal death or resorption- ""
,.''
No significant increase
in tumors at any dosage.
No toxic effects in males
at 10 mg/kg/day or less.
No toxic effects in females
at 3 mg/kg/day or less.
Oral LDjQ
All groups (except con-
trol) experienced a 3-202
reduction in total
leucocycles
Analytical PCP: minimal
adverse effects
Technical PCP: reduced
weight gain; decreased
feed efficiency; pro-
gressive anemia; increase
in liver and lung weights
decrease in thymus weight
No apparent effect
References
NAS, 1977
(p. 751)
Knudson et al.,
1974 (p. 141)
NAS, 1977
(p. 753)
Schwetz et al . ,
1978 (p. 301)
NRC, 1982
(p. 34)
Hi 11am and
Greichus, 1983
(p. 601)
McConnell et
al., 1980
(p. 468, 487)
Bevenue and
Beckman, 1967
(p. 91)
N = Number of experimental animals when reported.
NR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-3. TOXICITY OF PENTACHLOROPHENOL TO SOIL BIOTA
Species
Soil
Microbes
Chemical
Form
Applied
POP*
Soil
Type
Silt
Loam
Soil
Concentration
(wg/g)
0-200.^
^^ Effects
N
At 40 Mg/g» oxygen
uptake by soil microbes
was reduced by 50%; at
200 Ug/g, almost
complete oxygen uptake
retardation occurred
References
Hale et
1957
(p. 336
al. ,
, 339)
a Sodium pentachlorophenate
4-10
-------
TABLE 4-4. UPTAKE OP PENTACHLOROPHENOL BY SOIL BIOTA
Species
Crickets
Snails
Pi 11 bugs
Worms
Mealworm larvae
Chemical Form
Application
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
PCP
Soil
Type
topsoil
topsoil
topsoil
topsoil
topsoil
Range of
Soil Concentration Range of Tissue
(pg/g) . Concentration (pg/g)
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
0.78-1.16
1.56-2.71
2.14
7.67
1.22
Bioconcentration
Factor
0.67-0.94
1.3-2.2
1.7
6.2
ND
References
Gile
Gile
Gile
Cile
Gile
et
et
et
et
et
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
al.,
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
(P-
(p.
(P-
(P.
(p.
298)
298)
298)
298)
298)
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Bertrand, J. E., M. C. Lutrick, G. T. Edds and R. L. West. 1981. Metal
Residue in Tissue, Animal Performance and Carcass Quality with Beef
Steers Grazing Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures Treated with Liquid
Digested Sludge. J. Ani. Sci. 53:1.
Bevenue, A., and H. Beckman. 1967. Pentachlorophenol: A Discussion of
Its Properties and Its Occurrence as a Residue in Human and Animal
Tissues. Residue Rev. 19:83-133.
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.
Buhler, D., M. E. Rasmus sen, and H. S. Nakane. 1973. Occurrence of
Hexachlorophene and Pentachlorophenol in Sewage and Water. Env.
Sci. Tech. 7(10):929-934.
Camp Dresser and McKee. 1984a. A Technical Review of The 106-Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract No. 68-
01-6403. Annandale, VA. January.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984b. Technical Review of the 12-Mile
Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. May. ' .
Chaney, -R. L., and C. A. Lloyd. 1979. Adherence of Spray-Applied
Liquid Digested Sewage Sludge to Tall Fescue. J. Environ. Qual.
8 (3):407-411.
City of New York Department of Environmental Protection. 1983. A
Special Permit Application for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge from
Twelve New York City Water Pollution'Control Plants at the 12-Mile
Site. New York, NY. December.
Cole, L., and R. Metcalf. 1980. Environmental Destinies of
Insecticides, Herbicides, and Fungicides in the Plants, Animals,
Soil, Air, and Water of Homologous Microcosms. In; Giesy, J.
(ed.), Microcosms in Ecological Research. Tech. Inform. Center,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C.
DeWalle, F., D. A. Kalman, R. Dills, et al., 1982. Presence of Phenolic
Compounds in Sewage, Effluent, and Sludge From Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants. Water Sci. Tech. 14:143-50.
Food and Drug Administration. 1979. FY78 Total Diet Studies—Adult
(7305.003). Unpublished.
Gile, J., J. C. Collins, and J. W. Gillet. 1982. Fate and Impact of
Wood Preservatives in a Terrestrial Microcosm. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 30:295-301.
5-1
-------
Hale, M., F. H. Hulcher, and W. E. ChappellX. 1957. The Effects of
Several Herbicides on Nitrification in a Field Soil Under
Laboratory Conditions. Weeds 5:331-341. \
Heikes, D. 1980. Residues of Pentachloronitrobenzene and Related
Compounds in Peanut Butter. Bull. Env. Contain. Tox. 24:338-343.
Hillam, R., and Y. Greichus. 1983. Effects of Purified
Pentachlorophenol on the Serum Proteins of Young Pigs. Bull. Env.
Contam. Tox. 31:599-604.
Johnson, R., and D. Manske. 1976. Pesticide Residues in Total Diet
Samples (IX). Pest. Monit. J. 9(4):157-169.
Kaufman, D. D. 1978. Degradation of Pentachlorophenol in Soil and by
Soil Microorganisms. In; Rao, K. (ed.), Pentachlorophenol. Plenum
Press, New York, NY.
Knudsen, I., H. G.- Verschuuren, Tonkelaar, et al. 1974. - Short-Term
Toxicity of Pentachlorophenol in Rats. Toxicology 2:141-152.
Lu, P., R. L. Metcalf, and L. K. Cole. 1978. The Environmental Fate of
C-Pentachlorophenol in Laboratory Model Ecosystems. In; Rao, K
(ed.), Pentachlorophenol. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
McConnell, E., J. A. Moore, B. N. Gupta, et al. 1980. The Chronic
Toxicity of Technical and Analytical Pentachlorophenol in Cattle.
I. Clinicopathology Tox..Appl. Pharm. 52:468-490.
National Academy of Science. . 1977. Drinking Water and Health. NAS
National Research Council Safe : Drinking Water Committee,
Washington, D.C.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1983. Northeast
Monitoring Program 106-Mile Site Characterization Update. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-26. U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. August.
National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of the Health Risks of
Seven Pesticides Used for Termite Control. NTIS-PB83-136374.
Parker, C., W. A. Jones, H. B. Mathews, et al. 1980. The Chronic
Toxicity of Technical and Analytical Pentachlorophenol in Cattle
II. Chemical Analysis of Tissues. Tox. Appl. Pharm. 55:359-369.
Pennington, J. A. T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Plimmer, J. 1973. Technical Pentachlorophenol: Origin and Analysis of
Base-Insoluble Contaminants. Env. Health Persp., September 1973,
p. 41-48.
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.
5-2
-------
Schwetz, B., J. F. Quast, P. A. Keeler, et al. 1978. Results of Two-
Year Toxicity and Reproduction Studies on Pentachlorophenol in
Rats. In; Rao, K. (ed.), Pentachlorophenol. Plenum Press, New
York, NY.
Stanford Research Institute International. 1980. Seafood Consumption
Data Analysis. Final Report, Task II. Prepared for U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68-01-3887. Menlo Park, CA. September.
Thornton, I., and P. Abrams. 1983. Soil Ingestion - A Major Pathway of
Heavy Metal into Livestock Grazing Contaminated Land. Sci. Total
Environ. 28:287-294.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. " Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Reviews of the
Environmental Effects of Pollutants: XI. Chlorophenols. EPA
600/1-79-012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH. June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Pentachlorophenol. EPA 440/5-80-065.
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. 1983a. Process Design Manual-for
Land Application of Municipal Sludge. EPA 625/1-83-016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency". 1983b.' 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. 1984a. Drinking Water Criteria
Document for Pentachlorophenol. Preliminary Draft. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. • External Review Draft. EPA-600/8-83-028B. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984c. Health Effects Assessment
for Pentachlorophenol. EACO-CIN-H043. Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. September.
Watanabe, I. 1977. Pentachlorophenol-Decomposing and PGP-Tolerant
Bacteria in Field Soil Treated with PCP. Soil Biol. 9:99-103.
Weiss, V., P. Mora. I. Scheunert, et al. 1982a. Fate of
Pentachlorophenol-l^C in Soil Under Controlled Conditions. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 30:1186-1190.
5-3
-------
Weiss, V., I. Scheunert, W. Klein, and F. Korte. 1982b. Fate of
Pentachlorophenol-l^C Łn Soil Under Controlled Conditions. J.
. AgriŁ. Food Chem. 30:1191-1194.
5-4
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AMD-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Pentachloropbenol
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Formula
(SC x AR) * (BS x MS)
CSs " AR -f MS
CSr = CSS [1 +
where:
CSS = 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 (pg/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (mt/ha)
MS =2000 m't ' ha/DW = assumed mass of soil in
upper 15 cm !
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
tŁ = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
n =99 years
b. Sample calculation
CSS is calculated for AR = 0, 5, and 50 mt/ha only
n nnnim., / nu - (0.0865 Ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (0.0 Ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
0.000215ug/g DW - • (5 mt/ha DW * 2000 mt/ha DW)
CSr is calculated for AR = 5 mt/ha applied for 100 years
0.00022 ug/g DW = 0.000215 Ug/g DW [1 + 0.5(1/0'°548) * o.5(2/0-°548) * ... +
Q>5(99/0.0548)]
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
A-l
-------
Formula
Index 2 = ~
where:
T! = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
0.00.0033, - °°°°
0g
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
_ . , *1 x UB '
Index 3 = — — -
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
UB = Uptake factor of pollutant in soil . biota
(ug/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]"1)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predatdr (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
°-000215 "g/S Dw x 6-2 "«/« tissue DW (ug/g soil DW) "
0 0000267 =
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Formula
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 caluclated due Co
lack of data.
2. Index of Plant. Concentration Caused by Uptake (index 5)
a. Formula
Index 5 = Ix x UP
where:
1^ = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge - amended soil (ug/g DW)
UP = Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue
(yg/g tissue DW [yg/g soil DW]'1)
b. Sample Calculation
0.000604 yg/g DW = 0.000215 yg/g DW x 2.8 yg/g tissue DW (yg/g soil DW)"1
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 (yg/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values'were not calculated due to
lack of data.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
Index 7 = =|
TA
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)
A-3
-------
b. Sample calculation
0.00000123 =
/n
491.0 ug/g DW
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a . Formula
If AR = 0; Index 8=0
If.AR t 0; Index 8 = SC XS
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
If AR = 0; Index 8=0
»U* 0,0.00000881-
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
(Is x DT)- + DI
Index 9 . - _ -
where:
Ij = 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)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
A-4
-------
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
. nrtni,0 _ (0.000076 ug/g DW x 74.5 g/day) + 0.326 Ug/day
°-°00158 ~ 2100 ug/day
2. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
(Is x UA x DA) + DI
Index 10 . _
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)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Valu.es were not
calculated due to lack of data.
3. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil (Index
11)
a. Formula
If AR = 0; Index 11 = (BS X GS * "A * DA) * DI
ADI
T_ AD , .. T' .. (SC x GS x UA x DA) + DI
If AR F 0; Index 11 = 7Tr;
ADI
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
CS = 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)
A-5
-------
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 (yg/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(pg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
4. Index of Human Tozicity 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 (ug/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet (g/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (pg/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) .
- (0.000215 yg/g DW x 5 g/day) + 0.326 ug/day
— — _, -_ —I .
2100 ng/day
5. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 = I9 + IIQ + In + Ii2 - (>
where:
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human toxicity resulting
from plant consumption (unitless)
= Index 10 = Index of human toxicity resulting
from consumption of animal products derived
from animals feeding on plants (unitless)
= Index 11 = Index of human toxicity resulting
from consumption of animal products derived
from animals ingesting soil (unitless)
A-6
-------
= Index 12 = Index of human toxicity resulting
from soil ingestion (unitless)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (lag/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
b. Sample . calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated .due to lack of data.
II. LANDPILLING x
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
A. Index o-f Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
SC x ST x PS
Index 1 =
W x D x L
where:
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
ST = Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
PS = Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
W = Width of initial plume dilution (m)
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of
mixing for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation
C 00017 Ug/L 0.0865 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x 103 ug/mg
200 m x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
A-7
-------
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping Cycle
(Index 2)
1. Formula
Index 2 =
where :
SS x SC
V x D x L
SS = Daily sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
V = Average current velocity at site (ra/day)
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of
mixing for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation
825000 kg DW/day x 0.0865 mg/kg DW x 103 ue/mg
0.000047 ug/L =
9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
(Select
toxicity . .
or hazard)
1. Formula '
' - Index' 3 = IV , • . . '
AWQC •
where:
1^ = Index 1 = Index of seawater concentration
resulting from initial mixing after sludge
disposal (ug/L)
AWQC = Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from
acute and chronic toxic effects (yg/L)
2. Sample Calculation
o.OOOOOS =
D. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Formula
Index 4 =
(12 x BCF x 10~3 kg/g x FS x QF) + DI
ADI
A-8
-------
where:
12 = Index 2 = Index of seawater--vconcentration
representing a 24-hour dumping cycle (yg~/L)
QF = Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
FS = Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unitless) .
BCF = Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (L/kg)
DI = Average dail-y-^human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day) ^"^x^
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
0.00047 =
(0.000047 Ug/L x 11 L/kg x 10~3 kg/g x 0.000021 x 14.3 g WW/day) + 0.987 Ug/day
2100 pg/day
A-9
------- |