&EFA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Offini of Water
Peculations and Standards
i.', DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Hexachlorobenzene
-------
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 HEXACHLOROBENZENE 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 HEXACHLOROBENZENE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of hexachlorobenzene
(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
Landfilling 3-18
Incineration 3-18
Ocean Disposal 3-18
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR HEXACHLOROBENZENE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-2
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-3
Food 4-4
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued-)
Page
Human Effects 4-5
Ingestion 4-5
Inhalation 4-6
Plant Effects 4-6
Phytotoxicity 4-6
Uptak 4-6
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-7
Toxicity 4-7
Uptake 4-7
Aquatic Life Effects 4-8
Soil Biota Effects 4-8
Toxicity 4-8
Uptake 4-8
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-9
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD CALCULATIONS FOR HEXACHLOROBENZENE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
iii
-------
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. Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 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 HCB poses an
actual hazard to human health or the environment when sludge is disposed
of by this method.
The1" 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 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 HEXACHLOROBENZENE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from Che
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 Hexachlorobenzene
HCB levels in soil are expected to increase when sludge is
landspread. This increase is expected to be most pronounced
for very high (500 mt/ha) application rates of typical sludge
and for all application rates (5 to 500 mt/ha) of worst-case
sludge (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
The effects on soil biota of landspreading sludge could not be
determined due to Lack of data (see Index 2). A toxic hazard
may exist for predators of soil biota when high-HCB
concentration municipal sewage sludge is applied at a rate of
50 mt/ha (see Index 3).
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Conclusions on the phytotoxic effects of HCB on plants due to
the landspreading of sludge could not be drawn due to a lack
of data (see Index 4). Landspreading of municipal sewage
sludge is expected to cause a slight increase in HCB levels in
plants tissues associated with animal and human consumption
(see Index 5).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
Landspreading of sludge at any application rate (5 to
500 mt/ha) is not expected to pose a hazard to herbivorous
animals due to increased HCB levels in plant tissue (see
Index 7).
Direct ingestion of sludge-amended soil is not expected to
pose a toxic hazard to grazing animals due to HCB (see Index
8).
E. Effect on Humans
Ingestion of plants grown in sludge-amended soil is expected
to pose a substantial increase in cancer risk due to HCB for
both toddlers and adults (see Index 9).
2-1
-------
Consumption of animal products derived from animals feeding on
plants grown in sludge-amended soils is expected to pose an
increased cancer risk due to HCB for both toddlers and adults
(see Index 10).
The cancer risk due to HCB associated with consumption of
animal tissue derived from animal's incidentally ingesting
sludge-amended soil is substantially increased for toddlers
and adults at all application rates (5 to 500 mt/ha) (see
Index 11).
Consumption of sludge-amended soil is expected to pose an
increased cancer risk due to HCB for toddlers especially at
high application rates (50 to 500 mt/ha). Consumption of
sludge-amended soil is not expected to increase the cancer
risk due to HCB for adults (see Index 12).
The aggregate human cancer risk due to landspreading sludge
containing HCB is substantially increased for both toddlers
and adults at all application rates (5 to 500 mt/ha) (see
Index 13).
II. LANDPILLINC
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.
2-2
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR HEXACHLOROBENZENE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Hezachlorobenzene
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Explanation - Calculates concentrations in pg/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 «T50 kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
SO 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 0.38 ug/g DW
Worst 2.18 lJg/g DW
3-1
-------
The typical and worse-case sludge concentra-
tions are the median and 95th percentile,
respectively, derived from sludge concentration
data from a survey of 40 publicly-owned treat-
ment works (POTWs) (U.S. EPA, 1982). (See
Section 4, p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.001 yg/g DW
The geometric mean of HCB concentrations in
1,483 soil samples taken from cropland in 37
states was <0.001 ug/g DW (Carey et al., 1979).
(See Section 4, p. 4-2.)
iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (tp =4.2 years
The half-life determination was derived from a
study using HCB-treated soils in covered pots
(U.S. EPA, 1980). These were the only
quantitative data on HCB persistence in soil
that were immediately available. (See Section
4, p. 4-9.)
d. Index 1 Values (pg/g DW)
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.0010
0.0010
0.0020
0.0064
0.010
0.054
0.013
0.042
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in sludge-amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - HCB levels in soil are
expected to increase when sludge is landspread.
This increase will be most pronounced for very high
(500 mt/ha) application rates of typical sludge and
for application rates (5 to 500 mt/ha) of worst-case
sludge.
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) -
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.
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.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota (UB) =
4.6 ug/g tissue DW ( pg/g soil DW)'1
The uptake (bioconcentration) factor used is
for pillbugs and is the worst-case value from
those soil biota data that are immediately
available (Gile and Gillett, 1979). (See
Section 4, p. 4-13.)
iii. Peed concentration toxic to predator (TR) =
0.2 yg/g DW
3-3
-------
Adverse effects of HCB exposure have been
observed in rats after long-term exposure to
a drinking water concentration of 0.1 mg/L,
or 0.025 mg/kg body weight/day (Booth and
McDowell, 1975). (See Section 4, p. 4-11.)
Assuming that a rat's daily dietary consumption
is about one-half of its water consumption, an
equivalent dietary concentration would be
0.2 Mg/g DW. The rat may be considered repre-
sentative of small mammals such as moles and
shrews that include soil invertebrates in their
diet.
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Rate (me/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.023
0.023
0.045
0.15
0.24
1.2
0.29
0.97
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 - A toxic hazard may exist
for predators of soil biota when high-HCB concentra-
tion municipal sewage sludge is applied at a rate of
50 mt/ha.
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.
3r4
-------
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.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue concentra-
tions, in Ug/g DW, in plants grown in sludge-amended
soi'l, 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)
Animal Diet:
Grass leaf 0.25 Mg/g tissue DW(pg/g soil DW)-1
Human Diet:
Carrot root 16.0 yg/g tissue DW(ug/g soil DW)"1
Immediately available data on uptake factors of
plants commonly used for animals are Limited.
The use of grass leaves was based upon
assumption that they constitute a large portion
of the diet of a grazing animal. This value of
0.25 pg/g tissue dry weight was calculated by
dividing the reported uptake factor of 0.03 by
3-5
-------
d.
0.12 to adjust from fresh weight to dry weight.
The value is from Connor (1984). (See
Section 4, p. 4-10.)
The uptake factor for carrot roots was selected
on the basis of its common consumption by
humans and its high rate of uptake, compared
with other foodstuff uptake factors (Connor,
1984). (See Section 4, p. 4-10.)
Index 5 Values (yg/g DU)
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Diet
Animal
Human
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.00025
0.00025
' 0.016
0.016
5
0.00049
0.0016
0.031
0.10
50
0.0026
0.014
0.16
0.87
500
0.0032
0.010
0.20
0.68
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.
£.' Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of municipal
sewage sludge is expected to cause a slight increase
in HCB levels in plant tissues associated with
animal and human consumption.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Permitted by Phytotoxicity
(Index 6)
a. Explanation - The index value is the maximum tissue
concentration, in Ug/g DM, 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
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.
3-6
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with phytoxi'city (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.
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) = 1 yg/g DW
The value of 1 ug/g DW is the feed
concentration found to be toxic to swine.
Swine exposed to this feed concentration for 13
weeks displayed increased liver weights
3-7
-------
(Courtney, 1979). Although swine are omnivores
and not strict herbivores, the swine data used
includes internal organ toxic effects whereas
the herbivore (sheep) data only provide
external growth rate effects. (See Section 4,
p. 4-11.)
d. Index 7 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.00025 0.00049 0.0026 0.0032
Worst 0.00025 0.0016 0.014 0.010
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.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge at
any application rate (5 to 500 mt/ha) is not
expected to pose a hazard to herbivorous animals due
to increased HCB levels in plant tissue.
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.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.38 yg/g DW
Worst 2.18 Mg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
3-8
-------
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) =1.0 pg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-7.
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.019
0.11
0.019
0.11
0.019
0.11
3-9
-------
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 - Direct ingestion of sludge-
amended soil is not expected to pose a toxic hazard
to grazing animals due to HCB.
E. 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)
The pollutant concentration values used are
those Index'5 values for a human diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
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 ai., 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 (1984a). 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.
3-10
-------
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.11 jig/day
Adult 0.22 Ug/day
Using total'^ relative daily intakes (in lag/kg
body weight/day in the U.S. diet for the fiscal
years 1975 through 1978 (FDA, No date), the
mean value was determined and adjusted (multi
plied by 70 kg) to conform to the 70 kg average
adult body weight. This value (0.22 pg/day)
represents the average daily intake of
pollutant for adults.
The toddler value was developed using the FDA
total relative daily intakes of HCB (for todd-
lers) for the fiscal years 1974 through 1977.
Using 10 kg for the average toddler body
weight, the mean value of toddler daily intake
(0.011 Mg/kg body wt/day) was multiplied to
produce the average total intake value of
0.11 yg/day (FDA, 1980). (See Section 4,
p. 4-4.)
iv. Cancer potency = 1.7 (mg/kg/day) ~*
•
This value is based upon hepatocellqlar
carcinoma response in rats (U.S. EPA, 1985).
(See Section 4, p. 4-6.)
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.041 ug/day
The RSI is the pollutant intake value which
results in an increase in cancer risk of 10~6
(1 per 1,000,000). The RSI is calculated from
the cancer potency using the following formula:
RSI = 10"6 x 70 kg x 103 ug/mg
Cancer pocency
d. Index 9 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Croup Concentration 05 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
32
32
59
190
300
1600
370
1200
Adult Typical 85 160 820 160
Worst 85 520 4300 520
3-11
-------
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.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Ingestion of plants grown
in sludge-amended soil is expected to pose a
substantial increase in cancer risk due to HCB for
both toddlers and adults.
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 co 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)
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) = 38.0 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)'1
The uptake factor for chicken fat reported by
Connor (1984) was selected. This tissue had
the highest uptake value and constitutes a sub-
stantial portion of the U.S. diet. (See Sec-
tion 4, p. 4-12.) The uptake factor of
pollutant in animal tissue (UA) used is assumed
to apply to all animal fats.
3-12
-------
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
(Pennington, 1983), food groupings listed by
the U.S. EPA (1984a) 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 0.11 Ug/day
Adult 0.22 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.041 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
d. Index 10 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
13
13
22
68
110
550
130
430
Adult Typical 26 45 220 270
Worst 26 140 1100 870
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
Preliminary Conclusion - Consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on plants
grown in sludge-amended soils is expected to pose an
increased cancer risk from HCB to both toddlers and
adults.
3-13
-------
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
(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 = Cow body fat
This tissue was selected as representative of
grazing animals. The value for chicken fat
(used in Index 10) is excluded from Index 11,
as chickens are not generally considered
grazing animals.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.38 Ug/g DW
Worst 2.18 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.001 Ug/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) = 3.7 yg/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)'1
Value associated with cow body fat (Fries and
Marrow, 1975). (See Section 4, p. 4-12.)
3-14
-------
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler
Adult
39.4 g/day
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 (Penningcon, 1983).
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler
Adult
0.11 pg/day
0.22 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
viii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI)
Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
= 0.041
Index 11 Values
Croup
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (rot/ha)
5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
2.9
2.9
70
390
70
390
70
390
Adult
Typical
Worst
5.7
5.7
150
820
150
820
150
820
e.
f.
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
Preliminary Conclusion - The cancer risk due to HCB
associated with consumption of animal tissue derived
from animals incidentally ingesting sludge-amended
soil is substantially increased for toddlers and
adults at all application rates (5 to 500 mt/ha).
3-15
-------
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.
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, 1983).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA, 1984a.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.11 Jig/day
Adult 0.22 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.041 Mg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
3-16
-------
d. Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
2.8
2.8
5.4
5.4
5
2.9
3.5
5.4
5.4
50
3.9
9.3
5.4
5.4
50i
4.2
7.8
5.4
5.4
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Consumption of sludge-
amended soil is expected to pose an increased cancer
risk due to HCB for toddlers, especially at high
application rates (50 to 500 me/ha). Consumption of
sludge-amended soil is not expected to increase the
cancer risk due to HCB for adults.
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. 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
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Croup
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
42
42
110
110
5
150
640
340
1500
50
470
2500
1200
6200
500
570
2000
560
2200
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The aggregate human cancer
risk due to landspreading municipal sewage sludge
containing HCB is substantially increased for both
toddlers and adults at all application rates.
3-17
-------
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.
3-18
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR HEXACHLOROBENZENE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
HCB detected in 7 out of 437 sludge
samples (22) from 40 treatment plants
in the United States
HCB detected in 102 out of 237 sludge
samples (43Z) from > 200 POTWs in MI.
2. Concentration
Cumulative frequency analysis of HCB
concentrations derived by R. Bruins
(U.S. EPA) from data presented in a
survey of 40 POTWs:
50Z 0.385 yg/g DW
95Z 2.184 yg/g DW
In 7 out of 437 sludge samples from
40 treatment plants the range of HCB
was 26 to 780 yg/L.
In 102 out of 237 samples from >200 MI
POTWs:
Range 0.19 to 26,200 yg/g DW
Mean 468 yg/g DW
Median 18 yg/g DW
Mean concentrations of HCB determined
in Metro Denver sewage sludges:
Digested 5 ng/g WW
Waste-activated 5 ng/g WW
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 42)
Jacobs and
Zabik, 1983
(p. 425)
U.S. EPA, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
Jacobs and
Zabik, 1983
(p. 425)
Baxter et al.,
1983a (p. 315)
4-1
-------
B. Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
HCB was detected in 0.7% of 1,483
samples of cropland soils from 37
states in 1972.
In 16 control soil samples near a
sludge disposal site, no traces of
HCB were found.
2. Concentration
Concentrations in 1,483 samples of
cropland soils from 37 states in
yg/g DW:
Estimated
% Positive Arithmetic Geometric
Samples Mean Mean
11
<0.01
<0.001
Carey et al.,
1979 (p. 212)
Baxter et al.,
1983a (p. 315)
Carey et al.,
1979 (p. 212)
Gile and
Gillett, 1979
(p. 1160)
In a laboratory microcosm experiment,
HCB applied to soil at a "normal"
race (0.5 Ibs/acre) was detected 45
days later at a level of 0.93 Ug/g.
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
a. Freshwater
Concentrations in water samples Laska et al.,
collected in 1975 at various locations 1976 (p. 539)
along the Mississippi River between
Baton Rouge and New Orleans were
<2 ppb.
In the Great Lakes, HCB was de-
tected at levels ranging from
0.02 to 0.1 ng/L (x = 0.05).
0.010 ug/L in raw water
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 4-21)
MAS, 1977
(p. 667)
4-2
-------
b. Seawater
Data not immediately available.
HCB has been singled out as the
only organic chemical contaminant
present in the ocean at levels
likely to cause serious problems.
(No levels provided, however.)
c. Drinking Hater
0.006 Ug/L in finished drinking
water.
"Detectable" levels were found in
drinking water in Louisiana and
Indiana.
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
a. Urban
Urban Air Samples - 1981
Location
ng/nr* (mean)
Denver, CO
Columbia, SC
0.24
0.22
Atmospheric levels of HCB around
selected industrial plants ranged
from ND to 24 pg/m3. Levels 400
to 3000 feet downwind from the plants
ranged from 0.02 to 2.7 ug/m3.
Air samples taken at a landfill
known to contain "hex" waste with
HCB showed concentrations of
16 Ug/m3 HCB.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-97)
NAS, 1977
(p. 667)
U.S. EPA, 1976a
(p. 15)
Billings and
Bidleman, 1983
(p. 388-9)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(pp. 4-18, 4-19)
U.S. EPA, 1976b
(p. 5)
4-3
-------
b. Rural
Concentration of HCB (ng/m3) in .Atlas and Giam,
the atmosphere in various 1981 (p. 164)
locations in 1979:
Enewetak Atoll North College Sta. Pigeon
(N. Pacific-remote) Atlantic Texas Key, Fla.
0.10
0.15 0.20 0.12
E. Food
1. Total Average Intake
Total Relative Daily Intakes for Adults FDA, Undated
(llg/kg body weight/day) (Attachment G)
FY75 FY76 FY77 FY78
0.0046 0.0019 0.0018 0.0039
Total Relative Daily Intakes for Toddlers FDA, 1980
(Ug/kg body weight/day)
FY75 FY76 FY77
0.0064 0.0042 0.0219
Concentration
"Current evidence would indicate that U.S. EPA, 1980
food intake may be the primary source (p. C-128)
of the body burden of HCB for the
general population."
1971-72 Food Composite Total Diet Study: Manske and
Leafy vegetables: 1 composite sample Johnson, 1975
out of 35 contained HCB at (pp. 100-101)
0.002 Ug/g.
Oils, fats and shortening:
3 composite samples out of 17
contained HCB at 0.004 to 0.011 Ug/g.
4-4
-------
1972-1973 Food Composite Total Diet
Study:
Dairy products: 1 out of 30 composites
contained HCB at 0.0006 Ug/g.
Meat, fish, poultry: 2 out of 30
composites contained HCB at trace levels
to 0.041 Ug/g.
Root vegetables: 1 out of 30 composites
contained HCB at a trace level.
Oils, fats and shortening: 6 out of 30
composites contained HCB at trace levels
to 0.006 Ug/g.
Trace levels of HCB were found in 1 sample
of whole milk and 1 sample of evaporated
milk in a dairy composite from 4 market
basket samples.
In a meat composite from 4 market bas-
kets, HCB was detected in 6 samples out
of 57 at a range of 0.002 to 0.007 Ug/g.
1978 Food Composite Total Diet Study:
43 out of 240 composite food samples
contained HCB in the following food
groups.
Johnson and
Manske, 1976
(pp. 162-169)
Food Group
Total No. Total No.
Composites Positive
Examined Samples
FDA, Undated
(Attachment E)
Dairy
Meat, Fish, Poultry
Leafy Vegetables
Oils, Fats, Shortening
Sugars and Adjuncts
20
20
20
20
20
9
16
1
16
1
Range of positive samples = T-0.0020
HCB in peanut butter: 7.4 ng/g
Heikes, 1980
(p. 341)
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingest ion
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
Evidence of carcinogenesis
(hepatocellular carcinoma)
U.S. EPA, 1985
(p. 12-122)
4-5
-------
b. Potency
Cancer potency = 1..7
(mg/kg/day)'1 based upon
hepatocellular carcinoma
response in rats.
c. Effects
Hepatocellular carcinoma
2. Chronic Toxicity
FAO-WHO acceptable daily intake:
0.6 Ug/kg body weight.
•
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
Data not immediately available.
B. Inhalation
Data not immediately available.
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
0.01 to 0.44 Ug/g in agricultural soil
with no "report" of phytotoxicity
B. Uptake
No HCB detected in edible portions of
agricultural crop samples collected
from 737 sites in 1972 although soils .
contained small amounts (<0.01 Ug/g DW)
of HCB.
<0.1 ug/g DW in corn stalks
In a laboratory microcosm experiment,
HCB was applied to the soil at a rate
of 0.5 Ibs/acre. HCB residues in
alfalfa and rye plants 45 days later
were <1 Ug/g.
See Table 4-1.
U.S. EPA, 1985
(p. 12-122)
U.S. EPA, 1985
(p. 12-122)
FDA, Undated
(Attachment G)
Carey et al.,
1979 (p. 212)
Carey et al.,
1979
(p. 222-229)
Gile and
Gillett, 1979
(p. 1162)
4-6
-------
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-2.
B. Uptake
1. Normal (observed) range of tissue
concentrations
See Table 4-3.
"Although HCB has been utilized
agriculturally as a seed dressing,
the levels in wildlife samples were
correlated with levels of industrial
chemicals such as PCBs."
In 555 animals tested from 157 cattle
herds, fat samples >0.5 pg/g (EPA
Action Guideline) were found in 29%
of the cattle and 342 of the herds in
1972.
"Sizeable" numbers of sheep noc
complying with HCB limits (>0.5 Ug/g in
fat tissue) have been found in California
and Texas (New Mexico - raised sheep) and
numerous positive findings complying
with HCB limits have been reported in
virtually all kinds of meat animals from
many parts of the United States,
especially California and Colorado.
Concentrations of HCB determined in fac
tissues of control and sludge-exposed
cattle were all <10 ng/g (WW).
2. Tissue concentration where intake is
elevated
70 Ug/g HCB in body fat of chickens
inadvertently fed HCB.
3. Bioconcentration factor for tissue
versus feed coocentrations
See Table 4-3.
Vole - In a laboratory microcosm
study, HCB was applied to soil at a
rate of 0.5 Ibs/acre. Alfalfa and
Hallett et al.,
1982, (p. 278)
U.S. EPA, 1976b
(p. 4)
U.S
(p.
, EPA,
7)
1976b
Baxter et al.,
1983b, (p. 316)
Booth and
McDowell, 1975
(p. 593)
Gile and
Gillett, 1979
(p. 1159)
4-7
-------
rye plants grown on the soil accumu-
lated approximately 0.5 to 1 ug/g HCB.
After 45 days, a vole in the system
accumulated HCB at a level equivalent
to an ecological magnification index
of 17.7.
"To avoid exceeding the interim
tolerance of 0.5 ug/g HCB in edible
tissues of animals, especially poultry,
the background level of uncontrollable
residues originating from environmental
sources probably would have to be less
than 0.02 ug/g in the finished or
complete diet."
In a 5-day laboratory microcosm study,
a vole accumulated 2.88 Ug/g HCB after
1.25 Ug/g HCB had been applied to the
soil represented a magnification rate
of 2.3.
"The excessive concentration of HCB
in the vole is not readily explainable
on the basis of pesticide accessibility
because of the vole's habitat or trans-
location via the crop; therefore, it is
assumed that HCB is selectively and
strongly retained (sequestered) by
the vole."
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
Data not immediately available.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1.12 kg AI (active ingredient)/ha is a
common field application rate of pesti-
cides. No toxic effects noted to soil •
biota.
0.64 kg/ha application of HCB appeared to
have no adverse effect upon laboratory eco-
system (including: crops, invertebrates,
and vole).
0.56 kg/ha used to kill soil and plant fungi.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-3.
Booth and
McDowell, 1975
(p. 595)
Cole and
Metcalf, 1980
(p. 994)
Cole and
Metcalf, 1980
Gile and
Gillett, 1979
(p. 1160, 1163)
Gile and
Gillett, 1979
-------
VII. PHYSIOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
HCB persisted in soil for at least 12 months
in a laboratory study of HCB persistence in
soil.
Solubility: 0.02 mg/L
Vapor pressure: 1.09 x 10~5 (at 20.25°C)
Partition coeff: 13560
Solubility: 6 Ug/L - very low, basically
insoluble
HCB is extremely lipophilic and resistant
toward degradation.
Boiling pt. = 326°C
Melting pt. = 229°C
HCB has more rapid entry and exit rates to and
from body fat (cattle) than DDE
Volatilization and leachate loss of HCB from
soil is considerably less than 12 of the
dose over a 21 day period
Increasing loss of Ca and depletion of
extractable Ca indicate that soil nutrient
cycling processes are altered by treatment
with HCB.
Diffusion coefficient in air - 1.0x10* cm2/day
The mobility of HCB in soils is greatly
increased in the presence of organic solvents.
Volatilization is a significant factor in the
loss of HCB from soil and for its entry into
the atmosphere. One air drying of moist soil
samples caused a 10 to 20Z loss of HCB. The
half-life of HCB in soil in covered pots
is 4.2 years. HCB was not lost from soil
2 to 4 cm beneath the surface during 19 months
but 55Z was lost from the surface 2 cm of
soil wichin two weeks.
"HCB at doses far below those causing
mortality enhances the capability of animals
to metabolize foreign organic compounds."
Isensee et al.,
1976 (p. 1212)
Gile and
Gillett, 1979
(p. 1163)
NAS, 1977
(p. 11)
U.S. EPA, 1976b
(p. ID
Fries.and
Marrow, 1975
(p. 676)
Ausmus et al.,
1979 (p. 106)
Ausmus et al.,
1979 (p. 110)
Farmer et al.,
1980 (p. 676)
Griffin and
Chou, 1981
(p. 1161-62)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-96)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-121)
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-1. UPTAKE OP HEXACHLOROBENZENB BY PLANTS8
Plant
Carrot
Carrot
Radish
Radish
Sugar Beet
Sugar Beet
Potato
Lettuce
*" Lettuce
i^
° Lettuce
Spinach
Crass
Crass
Crass
Crass
Tissue
Root
Root
Root
Root
Head
Root
Tuber
Head
Head
Late harvest
Head
Leaf
>5 cm
Stubble
Root
Plant
Soil
Type
NRC
NR
NK
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Sandy loam
Soil
Concentration
(M8/B>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.189-2.529
Range of Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0. 079-15.635
Uptake0
Factor
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•9"
.140-0. 31d
.4Sd
.008d
.Old
.05d
.09d
.011-0. 02d
.36d
.065d
.25d
.03
.20d
.62«*
0.41-6.18
References
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Connor,
Beall,
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1976
(P.
(p.
(P.
(p.
(P.
(P.
(p.
(P.
(P-
(p.
(p.
(p.
(p.
(P-
(p.
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
369)
x = soil concentration.
a Chemical form applied = HCB.
D Uptake factor = y/»: y = plant tissue concentration,
c NR = Not reported.
d Fresh weight: fresh weight:dry ratio can be obtained by dividing the uptake factor by 0.12.
-------
TABLE 4-2. TOXICITY OF HEXACHLOROBENZENE TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND UILDLIPE
Peed
Concentration0
Species (N)a
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rhesus monkey
Dog, beagle
Pig (20)
Sheep (5)
Sheep (5)
Chickens (20)
(ug/g)
NRC
NR
NR
1
NR
1-100
0.1-10
100
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
0.1
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
• NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
1-10
30-100
0.025
1.1
1-1,000
NR
0.005-0.45
4.55
0.1-100
Duration
of Study
30 days
30 days
120-140 days
550 days
5-12 months
13 weeks
18 weeks
18 weeks
180 days
Effects
No effect
Cross liver changes
"Adverse Effects"
No effect
Hyperplasia of
lymphoid. 6 of 12
died at 1,000^ mg/kg
No external effect
Increased liver weight
No effect
1/3 reduction in
growth rate
No effect
References
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
Booth and
(p. 592)
Rozman et
(p. 184)
Courtney,
Courtney,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
U.S. EPA,
1976b (p. 15)
1976b (p. 15)
McDowell, 1975
al., 1978
1979 (p. 247)
1979 (p. 248)
1976b (Table III)
1976b (Table III)
1976b (Table III)
a M = Number of experimental animals when reported.
b Chemical form fed = HCB.
c NR - Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-3. UPTAKE OP HEXACHLOROBENZENE BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE*
Species (N)b
Sheep
Chicken
broiler
Chicken
hen
Chicken
egg
Rhesus monkey
- male
Rhesus monkey
- female
Cou (3)
Cow (3)
Cow (3)
Cow (3)
Sheep
Chicken
Chicken
Range of Peed
Concentration (N)D
(Mg/g DW)
0.1-100
NR
NR
NR
1 (1)
1
0.62
0.62
3.1
3.1
0.1-100 (4)
0.02-7.0 •
0.02-7.0
Tissue
Analyzed
Body fat
Fat
Fat
Egg
Fat
Fat
Milk fat
Body fat
Milk fat
Body fat
Body fat
Pat
Egg
Range of
Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
NRd
NR
NR
NR
6.6-23.7
4.3-18.1
1.93-2.44
1.60-2.10
6.8-11.68
6.33-11.49
0.09-650
0.7-29
0.2-15.0
Uptake
Factor0
7-9
11-13
21-38
4.5-6.5
4.3-18.1
4.3-18.1
3.1-3.9
2.6-3.4
2.2-3.8
2.0-3.7
6.5-9.0
4.1-35
2.1-10
References
U.S. EPA, 1976b (p. 15)
Connor, 1984 (p. 48)
Connor, 1984 (p. 48)
Connor, 1984 (p. 48)
Rozman et al, 1978 (p. 181)
Rozman et al , 1978 (p. 181)
Pries and Marrow, 1975 (p. 477)
Pries and Marrow, 1975 (p. 477)
Priea and Marrow, 1975 (p. 477)
Pries and Marrow, 1975 (p. 477)
Booth and McDowell, 1975 (p. 593)
Booth and McDowell, 1975 (p. 593)
Booth and McDowell, 1975 (p. 593)
* Chemical form fed = HCB.
b N = Number of experimental animals or feed rates.
c Uptake factor = y/xl y = animal tissue concentration, »
d NH = Not reported.
feed concentration.
-------
TABLE 4-4. UPTAKE OP HEXACHLOROBENZENE BY SOIL BIOTA
•p-
1
u>
Species
Cricket
Snail (adult)
Snail (juvenile)
Pillbug
Chemical'
Form
Applied
HCB
HCB
HCB
HCB
Soil
Type
lab
lab
lab
lab
Range of Soil
Concentration
(»S/B>
0.93
0.91
0.93
0.93
Range of Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DU)
0.20
0.43
0.12
4.30
Uptake0
Factor
0.21
0.46
0.13
4.6
References
Cile and Cillett,
1979 (p. 1161)
Cile and Gillett,
1979 (p. 1161)
Cile, and Gillett,
1979 (p. 1161)
Cile and Cillett,
1979 (p. 1161)
a Uptake factor = Tissue concentration/soil concentration.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Atlas, E., and C. S. Giam. 1981. Global Transport of Organic
Pollutants: Ambient Concentrations in the Remote Marine
Atmosphere. Science. 211:163-165.
Ausmus, B., S. Kimbrough, D. R. Jackson, and S. Lindberg. 1979. The
Behavior of Hexachlorobenzene in Pine Forest Microcosms: Transport
and Effects on Soil Processes. Env. Pollut. 20(2):103-111.
Baxter, J. C., J. C. Aguilar, and K. Brown. 1983a. Heavy Metals and
Persistent Organics at a Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. J. Environ.
Qual. 12(3):311-316.
Baxter, J. C., D. E. Johnson, and E. W. Kienholz. 1983b. Heavy Metals
and Persistent Organics Content in Cattle Exposed to Sewage Sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. 12(3):316-319.
Beall, M. L., Jr. 1976. Persistence of Aerially Applied
Hexachlorobenzene on Grass and Soil. J. Environ. Qual.
5(4):367-369.
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 Crazing Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures Treated with
Liquid Digested Sludge. J. Ani. Sci. 53:1.
Billings, W., and T. Bidleman. 1983. High Volume Collection of
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Urban Air Using Three Solid Adsorbents.
Atmosph. Env. 17(2):383-391.
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.
Booth, N., and J. McDowell. 1975. Toxicity of Hexachlorobenzene and
Associated Residues in Edible Animal Tissues. JAVMA.
166(6):591-595.
Carey, A. E., J. A. Cowan, H. Tai, W. G. Mitchell, and G. B. Wiersma.
1979. Pesticide Residue Levels in Soils and Crops from 37 States,
1972 - National Soils Monitoring Program (IV). Pest. Monit. J.
12(4):209-229.
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.
5-1
-------
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; Microcosms in
Ecological Research, J. Giesy, ed. National Technical Information
Center, U.S. Department of Energy.
Connor, M. S. 1984. Monitoring Sludge Amended Agricultural Soils.
Biocycle 25(1):47-51.
Courtney, K. 1979. Hexachlorobenzene: A Review. Env. Res.
20:225-266.
Farmer, W. J., M. S. Yang, J. Letey, and W. F. Spencer. 1980.
Hexachlorobenzene: Its Vapor Pressure and Vapor Phase Diffusion in
Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:676-680.
Food and Drug Administration. 1980. FY77 Total Diet Studies-Infants
and Toddlers (7320-74).
Food and Drug Administration. No date. Compliance Program Report of
Findings. Total Diet Studies - Adult (7305.003).
Fries, C., and G. Marrow. 1975. Hexachlorobenzene Retention and
Excretion by Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 59(3):475-480.
Gile, J. D., and J. W. Gil Lett. 1979. Fate of Selected Fungicides in a
Terrestrial Laboratory Ecosystem. J. Agric. Food Chem.
27(6):1159-1164.
Griffin, R. A., and S. Chou. 1981. Movement of PCB's and Other
Persistent Compounds through Soil. Wat. Sci. Tech. 13:1153-1163.
Hallett, D., R. J. Most ram, F. I. Or u ska, and M. E. Comba. 1982.
Incidence of Chlorinated Benzenes and Chlorinated Ethylenes in Lake
Ontario Herring Gulls. Chemosphere 11(3):277-285.
Heikes, D. 1980. Residues of Pentachloronitrobenzene and Related
Compounds in Peanut Butter. Bull. Env. Contain. Tox. 24:338-343.
Isensee, A., E. R. Holden, E. A. Woolson and G. E. Jones. 1976. Soil
Persistence and Aquatic Bioaccumulation Potential of Hexachloroben-
zene (HCB). J. Agric. Food Chem. 24(6):1210-1214.
Jacobs, L. W., and K. J. Zabik. 1983. Importance of Sludge-Borne
Organic Chemicals for Land Application Programs. Proc. 6th Annual
Madison Conf. September 14.
Johnson, R. D., and D. D. Manske. 1976. Pesticide Residues in Total
Diet Samples (IX). Pest. Monit. J. 9(4):157-169.
Laska, A., 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. Tox. 15(5):535-541.
5-2
-------
Manske, D. D., and R. D. Johnson. 1975. Pesticide Residues in Total
Diet Samples (VIII). Pest. Monit. J. 9(2):94-105.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Drinking Water and Health.
National Review Council Safe Drinking Water Committee. NAS,
Washington, D.C.
Pennington, J. A. T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Rozman, K., W. F. Mueler, F. Coulston, and F. Korte. 1978. Chronic Low
Dose Exposure of Rhesus Monkeys to Hexachlorobenzene. Chemosphere
2:177-184.
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 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. 1976a. An Ecological Study of
Hexachlorobenzene. EPA 560/6-76-009. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976b. Environmental
Contamination from Hexachlorobenzene. EPA 560/6-76-014. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water -Quality
Criterion for Chlorinated Benzenes. EPA 440/5-80-028. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Volume I. EPA
440/1-82-303. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. 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. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. EPA 600/8-83-0288. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Health Assessment
Document for Chlorinated Benzenes. EPA-600/8-84-015A.
5-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Health Assessment Document
for Chlorinated Benzenes. Final Report. EPA 600/8-84-015F.
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.
January.
5-4
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR HEXACHLOROBENZENE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Hexachlorobenzene
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Formula
(SC x AR) * (BS x MS)
CSS ' AR + MS
CSr = CSS [1 +
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 (mc/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
CSS is calculated for AR = 0, 5, and 50 mt/ha only
(0.38 Ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) * (0.001 Ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
0.00194513 ug/g DW (5 mt/ha DW + 2000 mt/ha DW)
CSr is calculated for AR = 5 mt/ha applied for 100 years
0.01278551 Ug/g DW = 0.00194513 ug/g DW [1 + 0.5(1/4'2) + 0.5<2 A<2) + ... +
0<5(99/4.2)]
A-l
-------
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Formula
II
Index 2 = —
where:
T! = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(yg/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
T j i Tl 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 [yg/g soil DW]"1)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator (yg/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
n fiAAiiiiKA - 0.0019*513 Ug/g DW x 4.6 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1
0.044738154 -
A-2
-------
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Formula
Index 4 = ^
where:
1} = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (ug/g DW)
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 = !]_ x UP
where:
1} = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge - amended soil (ug/g DW)
UP = Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]"1)
b. Sample Calculation
0.000486 Ug/g DW = 0.00194513 ug/g DW x 0.25 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/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 (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
Lack of data.
A-3
-------
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
Index 7 = jf
where :
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (pg/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Formula
If AR = 0; Index 8=0
SC x GS
If AR i 0; Index 8 =
TA
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (rot DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
CS = 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
IfAR^O; 0.091 =°'3
A-4
-------
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 (yg/g DM)
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)
(0.031 Ug/g DW x 74.5 g/day) + 0.11 Ug/day
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
(I5 x UA x DA) + DI
Index 10 = -2 —
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 incake 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)
22.3786266 = [(0.00048 Ug/g DW x 38 ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW]'1
x 43.7 g/day DW) + 0.11 Ug/day] * 0.041 Ug/day
"A-5
-------
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil (Index
11)
a. Formula
Tr AO n T j 11 (BS X GS X UA X DA) + PI
If AR = 0; Index 11 = * —
T, ._ , n. T , .. (SC x GS x UA x DA) + PI
If AR f 0; Index 11 =
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (me PU/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (pg/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 PW [ug/g feed PW]'1)
PA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day PW) (milk products and
meat only)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant dig/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
70.23951 = [(0.38 Ug/g DW x 0.05 x 3.7 yg/g tissue PW [ug/g feed DW] -1
x 39.4 g/day PW) + 0.11 Ug/day] * 0.041 ug/day
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(Index 12)
a. Formula
(I I x PS) + PI
Index 12 ...
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g PW)
PS - Assumed amount of soil in human diet (g/day)
PI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
A-6
-------
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
, Ooft1,fl*7 (0.00194513 ug/g DW x 5 g/day) * 0.11 ug/day
2.92013867 - fl<041 yg/(Jay
5. Index of Aggregate Hunan Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 - Ig + I10 * In + Ii2 -
where:
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from plant consumption (unitless)
Index 10 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
Index II = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals ingesting soil
(unitless)
112 = Index 12 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (llg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
146.7237 = (59.23423 + 22.3786266 + 70.23951 + 2.92013867) -
II. LANDFILLING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. 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.
A-7
-------
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-8
------- |