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:
Chlorinated Dioxins
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to: (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a- rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE . ...................
1• INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . 1 —1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 2—i
Landspreading and Distribution—and—Marketing 2—1
Landfilling 2—1
Incineration . 2—1
Ocean Disposal . . . 2—i
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 3—1
Landspreading and Distribution—and—Marketing 3—i
Landfilling ••• . . 3—1
Incineration . 3—1
Index of air concentration increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3—1
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
inhalation of incinerator emissions (Index 2) 3—3
Ocean Disposal . 3—4
Index of seawater concentration resulting from
initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3—4
Index of seawater concentration representing a
24—hourdumpingcycLe (Index 2) 3—8
Index of hazard to aquatic life (Index 3) 3—8
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
seafoodconsumption(Index4)...... 3—b
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXINS IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE . . . . . 4—i
Occurrence . • 4—i
SLudge . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—1
Soil — Unpolluted . . 4—1
Water — Unpolluted 4—2
Air ........ . .. 4—2
Food . . 4—3
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
H n Effects .
Ingestion .. ........ 4—3
Inhalation . . . .
Plant Effects ....
Phytotoxicity 45
Uptake
DomesticAnilnal and WildlifeEffects . 4—6
Toxicity . 4—6
Uptake 4—6
Aquatic Life Effects 4—6
Toxicity ...... . 4—6
Uptake ..........• S 4—6
Soil Biota Effects 4—6
Toxicity
uptake 4—6
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4—7
5. REFERENCES. . . 5—1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
TETRACHLORODISENZODIOXINS IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-i
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. Tetrachlorodibenzodioxins (TCDDs) were initially iden-
tified as being of potential concern when sludge is incinerated or ocean
disposed.* This profile is a compilation of information that may be use-
ful In determining whether TCDDs pose 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 • air 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”, Sec-
tion 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 incineration 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 TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOxINS
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 • LANDSPR ADING AND DISTRIBUTION—AND—MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April—May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to. conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDFILLING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April—May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
III. INCINERATION
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
2—1
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR TETRACELORODIBENZODIOXINS
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I • LANDSPREADINC AND DISTRIBUTION-AND—MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April—May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDFILLING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April—May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. PA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from
Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)
1. Explanation — Shows the degree of elevation of the
pollutant concentration in the air due to the incinera-
tion of sludge. An input sludge with thermal properties
defined by the energy parameter (EP) was analyzed using
the BURN model (Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM),
1984a). This model uses the thermodynamic and mass bal-
ance relationshi.ps appropriate for multiple hearth incin-
erators to relate the input sludge characteristics to the
stack gas parameters. Dilution and dispersion. of these
stack gas releases were described by the U.S. EPA’s
Industrial Source Complex Long—Term (ISCLT) dispersion
model from which normalized annual ground level concen-
trations were predicted (U.S. EPA, 1979). The predicted
pollutant concentration can then be compared to a ground
level concentration used to assess risk.
2. Assumptions/Limitations — The fluidized bed incinerator
was not chosen due to a paucity of available data.
Gradual plume rise, stack tip downuash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly Impact values can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C) =
2.78 x lO hr/sec x g/mg
3—1
-------
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a commun-
ity of approximately 400,000 people. This rate
was incorporated into the U.S. EPA—ISCLT model
based on the following input data:
EP = 360 lb 11 2 0/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature — 1400°F
Solids content — 28%
Stack height — 20 rn
Exit gas velocity — 20 rn/s
Exit gas temperature — 356.9°K (183°F)
Stack diameter — 0.60 rn
ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW represents a
higher feed rate and would serve a major U.S.
city. This rate was incorporated into the U.S.
EPA—ISCLT model based on the following input
data:
EP = 392 lb H 2 0/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature — 1400°F
Solids content — 26.6%
Stack height — 10 m
Exit gas velocity — 10 tn/s
Exit gas temperature — 313.8°K (105°F)
Stack diameter — 0.80 rn
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant. (Sc) — Data not
immediately available.
TCDDs were not analyzed in a study (U.S. EPA, 1982)
of sludges from 50 publicly—owned treatment works
(POTWs) nor were they reported in a summary of
sludge data from POTWs throughout the United States
(CDM, 1984b).
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)
Typical 0.05 (unitless)
Worst 0.20 (unitless)
These values were chosen as best approximations of
the fraction of pollutant emitted through stacks
(Farrell, 1984). No data was available to validate
these values; however, U.S. EPA is currently testing
incinerators for organic emissions.
3—2
-------
e. Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical 3.4 pg/rn 3
Worst 16.0 pg/rn 3
The dispersion parameter is. derived from the U.S.
EPA—ISCLT short—stack model.
f. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) — Data not immediately available.
4. Index 1 Values — Values were not calculated due to lack
of data.
5. Value Interpretation — Value equals factor by which
expected air concentration exceeds background levels due
to incinerator emissions.
6. Preliminary Conclusion — Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
B. Index of Hnm in Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Explanation — Shows the increase in human intake expected
to result from the incineration of sludge. Ground level
concentrations for carcinogens typically were developed
based upon assessments published by the U.S. EPA Carcino-
gen Assessment Group (CAG). These ambient concentrations
reflect a dose level which, for a lifetime exposure,
increases the risk of cancer by iO ’6.
2. Assumptions/Limitations — The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24
hours/day. A respiratory volume of 20 m 3 /day is assumed
over a 70—year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1) — Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) — Data not immediately available.
c. Cancer potency = 1.56 x (mg/kg/dayY 1
Cancer potency is based on data generated during a
two—year evaluation of the carcinogenicity of
2,3,7,8—TCDD in rats (u.s. EPA, 1984b). (See
Section 4, p. 4—4.)
3—3
-------
d. Exposure criterion (EC) = 2.2 x i 8 pg/rn 3
A lifetime exposure level which would result in a
cancer risk was selected as ground level con-
centration against which incinerator emissions are
compared. The risk estimates developed by CAC are
defined as the lifetime incremental cancer risk in a
hypothetical population exposed continuously
throughout their lifetime to the stated concentra-
tion of the carcinogenic agent. The exposure
criterion is calculated using the following formula:
EC = iO— 6 x .Ig/rng X 70 kg
Cancer potency x 20 m 3 /day
4. Index 2 Values — Values were not calculated due to lack
of data.
5. Value Interpretation — Value >1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of >10—6 (1 per 1,000,000). Com-
parison with the null index value at 0 kg/hr DW indicates
the degree to which any hazard is due to sludge incinera-
tion, as opposed to background urban air concentration.
6. Preliminary Conclusion — Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
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 dilu tion accounts for 8 to 12
hours of the high pulse concentration encountered by the organisms
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Iüdex 1)
1. Explanation — Calculates increased concentrations in pg/L
of pollutant in seawater around an ocean disposal site
assuming initial mixing.
3—4
-------
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 Dumped by a of Tanker
Rate (sS) Single Tanker (ST) Path CL )
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 1.5 x i06 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 nit 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 iii and
exit the site. Sludge barges with capacities of
1600 mt WW would be required to discharge a load in
no less than 32 minutes traveling at a minimum speed
of 8 nautical miles (14,816 m) per hour. Under
these conditions, the barge would enter the site,
discharge the sludge over 7902 m and exit the site.
The mean path length for the large and small tankers
is 8041 ni 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 nit DW/day, it is assumed that this
would be accomplished by a mixture of four 3400 mt
3—5
-------
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 ir 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) — Data not
immediately available.
See Section 3, p. 3—2.
c. Disposal site characteristics
Ave rage
current
Depth to velocity
pycnocline (D) at site (V )
Typical 20 m 9500 rn/day
Worst 5 rn 4320 rn/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
evaluating annual or long—term impact. The current
velocity of 11 cm/sec (9500 rn/day) chosen is based
on the average current velocity in this area (CDM,
1984c).
Worst—case values are representative of a near—shore
New York Bight site with an area of about 20 km 2 .
The pycnocline value of 5 in chosen is the minimum
value of the 5 to 23 rn depth range of the surface
mixed layer and is therefore a worst—case value.
3—6
-------
Current velocities in this area vary from 0 to
30 cm/sec. A value of S cm/sec (4320 rn/day) is
arbitrarily chosen to represent a worst—case value
(CDM, 1984d).
4. Factors Considered in Initial Mixing
When a load of sludge is dumped from a moving tanker, an
immediate mixing occurs in the turbulent wake of the
vessel, followed by more gradual spreading of the plume.
The entire plume, which initially constitutes a narrow
band the length of the tanker path, moves more—or—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 length of the dumping track
with a cross—sectional area about four times that defined
by the draft and width of the discharging vessel
(Csanady, 1981, as cited in NOAA, 1983). The resulting
plume is initially 10 ra 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 rn/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 rn. For the worst
(shallow water) site, a value of 10 rn was chosen. At
times the pycnocline may be as shallow as 5 m, but since
the barge wake causes initial mixing to at least 10 m,
the greater value was used.
5. Index 1 Values ( ig/L) — Values cannot be calculated due
to lack of data on detection limits for TCDDs in sludge.
If this information were available, all null values would
be 0 and all other values would be expressed in the form
of “less than”.
6. Value Interpretation — Values would equal the expected
increase in concentration of TCDDs in seawater around a
disposal site as a result of sludge disposal after
initial mixing.
3—7
-------
7. Preliminary Conclusion — Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24—Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Explanation — Calculates increased effective concentra-
tions in pg/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. AssumptionslLimitations — 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—5 to 3—7.
4. Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, p. 3—8.
5. Index 2 Values (pgIL) — Values cannot be calculated due
to lack of data on detection limits for TCDDs in sludge.
If this information were available, all null values would
be 0 and all other values would be expressed in the form
of “less than”.
6. Value Interpretation — Value would equal the effective
increase in TCDD concentration expressed as a TWA concen-
tration in seawater around a disposal site experienced by
an organism over a 24—hour period.
7. Preliminary Conclusion — Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
C. Index of Hazard to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Explanation — Compares the effective increased concentra-
tion of pollutant in seawater around the disposal site
3—8
-------
(Index 2) expressed as a 24—hour TWA concentration with
the marine ambient water quality criterion of the pollu-
tant, or with another value judged protective of marine
aquatic life. For TCDDs, this value is the criterion
that will protect the marketability of edible marine
aquatic organisms.
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 2) — Values were not calculated
due to lack of data.
b. Ambient water quality criterion (AbJQC) =
0.00001 ugIL
Water quality criteria for the toxic pollutants
listed under Section 307(a)(1) 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 TCDDs.
The 0.00001 I.Ig/L value chosen as the criterion to
protect saltwater organisms is expressed as a 24—
hour average concentration (Federal Register, 1984).
Estimated bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for
2,3,7,8—TCDD range from 3,000 to 900,000, but the
available measured BCFs range from 390 to 13,000.
If the BCF is 5,000, concentrations above
0.00001 g/L should result in concentrations in edi-
ble freshwater and saltwater fish and shellfish that
exceed levels identified in an FDA health advisory.
If the BCF is greater than 5,000 or if uptake in a
field situation is greater than that in laboratory
tests, concentrations of less than 0.00001 .lg/L
could result in exceedence of level in the FDA
health advisory. (See Section 4, p. 4—6.)
4. Index 3 Values — Values could riot be calculated due to
lack of Index 2 values.
3—9
-------
5. Value Interpretation — Value would equal the factor by
which the expected seawater concentration increase in
TCDDs exceeds the marine water quality criterion. A val-
ue >1 would indicate that a tissue residue hazard might
exist for aquatic life. Even for values approaching 1, a
TCDD residue in tissue hazard might exist thus jeopardiz—
£ng the marketability of edible saltwater organisms. The
criterion value of 0.00001 pgIL is probably too high
because if the assumed BCF of 5,000 is actually greater
or if uptake in a field situation is greater than in lab-
oratory tests upon which the 5,000 BCF is based, ambient
water concentrations of less than 0.00001 Iig/L could
result in exceedence of the FDA health advisory tissue
TCDDs residue level.
6. Preliminary Conclusion — Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
D. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Explanation — Estimates the expected increase in human
pollutant intake associated with the consumption of
seafood, a fraction of which originates from the disposal
site vicinity, and compares the total expected pollutant
intake with the cancer risk—specific intake.(RSI) of the
pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations — In addition to the assumptions
listed for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that the seafood
tissue concentration increase can be estimated from the
increased water concentration (Index 2) by a bioconcen—
tration 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) — Values were not calculated
due to lack of data.
Since bioconcentration is a dynamic and reversible
process, it is expected that uptake of sludge pollu-
tants 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
3—10
-------
Typical and worst—case values are the mean and the
95th percentile, respectively, for all seafood
consumption in the United States (Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) International, 1980).
c. Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (FS)
For a typical harvesting scenario, it was assumed
that the total catch over a wide region is mixed by
harvesting, marketing and consumption practices, and
that exposure is thereby diluted. Coastal areas
have been divided by the National Marine Fishery
Service (NMFS) into reporting areas for reporting on
data on seafood landings. Therefore it was conven-
ient to express the total area affected by sludge
disposal as a fraction of an NMFS reporting area.
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 kin/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 (Al, in km ) 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:
Al 10 x 1. x V x i06 km 2 /m 2 (1)
To be consistent with a conservative approach, plume
dilution due to spreading in the perpendicular
direction to current flow is disregarded. More
3—11
-------
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 Al must be expressed as a
fraction of an NNFS 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 kin 2 and constitutes approximately
0.02 percent of the total seafood landings for the
Bight (CDM, 1984c). Near—shore area 612 has an area
of approximately 4300 km 2 and constitutes
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (CDM, 1984d). Therefore the fraction of
all seafood landings (FS ) 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:
Al x 0.02% = (2)
FS 7200 kin 2
[ 10 x 8000 m x 9500 m x 10—6 kin 2 /m 2 1 x 0.0002 — 2 1 l0
7200km 2 —
For the worst (near shore) site:
FS = Al x 24% = (3)
4300 kin 2
[ 10 x 4000 rn x 4320 m x 106 km 2 Im 2 ] x 0.24 —
= 9.6 x 10
4300 kin 2
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
NNFS reporting area. The fraction of consumed
seafood (FS ) that could originate from the area of
impact under this worst—case scenario is calculated
as follows
3-12
-------
For the typical (deep water) site:
FS = Al = 0.11 (4)
7200 2
For the worst (near shore) site:
FS = Al = 0.040 (5)
4300 2
d. Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (BCF)
1975 Lfkg
The value chosen is the weighted average BCF of
TCDDs for the edible portion of all freshwater and
estuarine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S. citi-
zens (U.S. EPA, 1984a,b). 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 carcinogenic effects of TCDDs
induced by ingestion of contaminated water and
aquatic organisms. The weighted average BCF is cal-
culated by adjusting the mean normalized BCF
(steady—state BCF corrected to 1 percent lipid con-
tent) to the appropriate percent lipid content of
consumed fish and shellfish. It should be noted
that lipids of marine species differ in both struc-
ture and quantity from those of freshwater species.
Although a BCF value calculated entirely from marine
data would be more appropriate for this assessment,
no such data are presently available.
e. Average daily humAn dietary intake of pollutant
( D I) — Data not immediately available.
f. Cancer potency = 1.56 x iO (mgJkg/day)
See Section 3, p. 3—3.
g. Cancer risk—specific intake (RSI) =
4.49 x i0 pg/day
The RSI is the pollutant intake value which results
in an increase in cancer risk of i0’6 (1 per
1,000,000). The RSI is calculated from the cancer
potency using the following formula:
RSI = 10 X 70 kg x i0 3 pg/mg
Cancer potency
4. Index 4 Values — Values were not calculated due to lack
of data.
3—13
-------
5. Value Interpretation — Value equals factor by which the
expected intake exceeds the RSI. 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
hazard is due to sludge disposal, as opposed to
preexisting dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion — Conclusion was not drawn because
index values could not be calculated.
3—14
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR TETRACIILORODIBENZODIOXIN
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
Polychiorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), U.S. EPA, 1984b
including 2,3,7,8—TCDD, are not commercially (p. 4—1)
produced. They are found as trace amounts
and unwanted impurities in the manufacture
of other chemicals, primarily chiorophenols
and their derivatives. There is no known
technical use for PCDDs.
Despite the large scale application of TCDD Crosby and Wong,
contaminated herbicides, and extensive TCDD 1977 (p. 1337)
analysis and monitoring, there is little
evidence of widespread occurrence of TCDDs in
the environment.
A. Sludge
Data not immediately available on con-
centrations of TCDDs in sludge.
TCDDs were not detected in sludge U.S. EPA, 1982
from 50 POTWs. (p. 41)
TCDDs not detected in comparison study of CDM, 1984b
surveys of toxic substances in sludges from (p. 7)
POTWs throughout the United States.
B. Soil — Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
Dioxin in soils of U.S. cities Long and Hanson,
(1978 data): 1983 (p. 32)
Midland, MI — 0.0016—0.0072 ng/g
Chicago, IL — 0.0010—0.0042 ng/g
Lansing, MI — ND—O.0030 ng/g
Detroit, MI — 0.0021—0.0036 ng/g
<0.020 to 2.9 ng/g in soils in U.S. EPA, 1984b
contaminated areas (p. 4—25)
4—1
-------
C. Water — Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
A National. Academy of Sciences U.S. EPA, 198 4 a
document (NAS, 1977) states that (p. c—i)
2,3,7,8-TCDD has never been detected
in drinking water in the parts per
trillion range. The two most likely
sources of 2,3,7,8—TcDD contamination
are discharge of contaminated
effluents and washouts from contamin-
ated disposal sites. However, even
after contamination 2,3,7,8—TCDD
should remain strongly sorbed to
sediments and biota.
No PCDD contamination of any U.S. U.S. EPA, 1984b
water supply has been .reported. (p. 4—31)
2 . Concentration
Data not immediately available.
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detectign
Data not immediately available.
2. ConcentratIon
<9 to 20 pg of 2,3,7,8—TCDD in air of U.S. EPA, l98 4 a
Elizabeth, NJ, following industrial (p. c—iS)
fire, based on air filter analysis
No 2,3,7,8—TCDD detected in air above U.S. EPA, l984a
Love Canal, NY area (Detection limit: (p. C—16)
1 to 20 ppt; 13.17 to 263.31 ag/rn 3 )
1,100 ppt (14.48 jig/rn 3 ) detected in U.S. EPA, l98 4 a
air above hazardous waste disposal - (p. C—16)
site near Jacksonville, AR
Emissions from incinerators are a U.S. EPA, l98 4 a
potential source of dioxins which (p. C—16)
are formed during burning of organic
materials. 2,3,7,8—TCDD detected in
incinerator emissions at a “low level”
and at 0.4 ng/g In fly ash.
4—2
-------
E. Food
1. Total Average Intake
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
Dioxin has not been detected in U.S. U.S. EPA, 1984a
grains and cereals, even in areas (p. C—6)
where contaminated 2,5,4—trichioro—
phenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5—T) has been
sprayed.
4 to 70 pg/g 2,3,7,8—TCDD has been U.S. EPA, 1984a
observed in fatty tissues of cattle (p. c—i)
grazing on 2,4,5—T treated grazing
land. Other studies show no dioxin
in fat of cattle (Detection limit
1 pg/g) grazing in 2,4,5—T treated land.
No dioxin observed in charcoal broiled
steak; study conducted to determine
dioxin formation during cooking (Detection
limit: 1 to 10 pg/g)
<7 to 480 pg/g in fish from the lower U.S. EPA, 1984a
Arkansas River drainage
1.0 to 162 pg/g in fish from Great Lakes
region
28 to 695 pg/g in fish from Tittabawassee,
Saginaw, and Grand Rivers (all values
result of industrial contamination)
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
The evidence for human carcinogenic— U.S. EPA, 1984b
ity of 2,3,7,8—TCDD is regarded as (p. 11—133)
“inadequate” in the IARC classifica-
tion. Based on the overall evidence,
including animal studies, 2,3,7,8—TCDD
is given an IARC rating of 2B, or
“probably carcinogenic in humans”.
4—3
-------
b. Potency
The cancer potency for 2,3z7,8—TCDD U.S. EPA, 1984b
is 1.56 io (mg/kg/dayY 1 based on (p. 11—113)
statistical analyses of tumors
occurring in female Sprague—Dawley
rats during a lifetime feeding study.
c. Effects
Taken together, epidemiological U.S. EPA, 1984b
studies of workers exposed to
phenoxy acids and/or chiorophenols
(and consequently with other impuri-
ties including TCDDs) suggest an
association with the occurrence of
soft tissue sarcomas (STS) in exposed
individuals. These studies are only
suggestive of a relationship between
TCDDs and STS due to the presence of
the confounding effects of phenoxy
acids and/or chiorophenols.
2. Chronic Toxicity
Data not assessed since evaluation is
based on carcinogenicity.
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
a. Ambient Water
The U.S. EPA has set criteria U.S. EPA, 1984b
of 1.3 x 1O , 1.3 x i08 (p. 13—1)
or 1.3 x 1O ig/L based
on lifetime cancer risks of iO ,
and respectively.
b. Fish
>50 ng/g 2,3,7,8—TCDD in fish should U.S. EPA, 1984a
not be consumed, based on FDA Health (p. C—176)
advisory.
4—4
-------
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
See Section 4, p. 4—3.
b. Potency
The cancer potency for 2,3 2 7,8—TCDD
is 1.56 x iO (mglkglday) 1 .
This potency estimate has been derived
from that for ingestion, assuming 100%
absorption for both ingestion and
inhalation routes. (See Section 4,
P. 4—4.)
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Toxicity
Data not assessed since evaluation based
on carcinogenicity.
3. Absorption Factor
Data not assessed since evaluation based
on carcinogenicity.
4. Existing Regulations
No current regulations in effect. U.S. EPA, 1984b
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
Data not immediately available.
B. Uptake
2,3,7,8—TCDD adsorbs strongly onto soils, U.S. EPA, 1984b
reducing its bioavailability (p. 5•-9)
Two researchers failed to detect any U.S. EPA, 1984b
uptake of TCDDs in plants. It was con— (p. 5—11)
eluded that 2,3,7,8—TCDD is not Likely
to concentrate in plants grown in
contaminated soils.
See Table 4—1.
4—5
-------
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4—2.
B. Uptake
See Table 4—3.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
Concentrations of 0.001 to 0.0001 jiglL U.S. EPA, l984a
of 2,3,7,8—TCDD resulted in sublethal (p. B—7)
effects when tested on rainbow trout and
northern pike early life stages.
2. Saltwater
Data not immediately available.
B. Uptake
Weighted average BCF for edible portion of U.S. EPA, 1984b
all freshwater and estuarine aquatic (p. 4—33)
organisms consumed by U.S. citizens = 1975
Estimated BCF for 2,3,7,8—TCDD is from 3,000 Federal
to 900,000. If BCF is 5,000, concentrations Register, 1984
above 0.00001 ig/L should cause concentra-
tions in edible fish and shellfish to exceed
levels identified in an FDA health advisory.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
Forest soil exposed to dioxin contaminated Bollen and
2,4,5—T with dioxin concentration of Norris, 1979
0.1 g/g: No effect on CO 2 evolution (p. 649—50)
at application rates of 4.48 x iO to
44.8 kg/ha of 2,4,5—T
See Table 4—4.
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
4—6
-------
VII • PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
2,3,7,8—TCDD:
Melting point: 305°C
Quite stable, thermal destruction requires
temperatures >700°C
Lipophilic, binding strongly to soils and
other organic matter
Sparingly soluble in water and most organic
liquids
Worthy, 1983
(p. 51)
Degraded rather quickly when directly exposed
to sunlight or artifical ultraviolet
light. Once in soil, however, degradation
is not significant.
Water solubility:
0.2 .ig/L
immobile in soil
1 year half—life in laboratory soil
Emperical formula: C 12 H 4 C1 4 O 2
Molecular weight: 321.9
Vapor pressure: iO6 mm of Hg at 25°C
Henry’s law constant:
2.1 x i0 atmosphere m 3 mol
Half—life of 6 minutes from water 1 cm deep
Half—life of 10 hours from water 1 in deep
Only 5 of approximately 100 microbial strains
that have the ability to degrade persistent
pesticides show a slight ability to degrade
2,3,7,8—TCDD.
4.8 x soil/water partition coefficient
for soil with 10% organic matter
1 to 3 year half—life in soils
Sunlight is the principal factor in dioxin
disappearance from inert surfaces, plants,
and soils treated with TCDD—contaminated
pesticides
56% recovery of TCDDs in Hagerstown silty
clay loam after 1 year
63% recovery of TCDDs in Lakeland loamy
sand after 1 year
Worthy, 1983
(p. 53)
Boilen and
Norris, 1979
(p. 648)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. A—i)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. A—i)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 5—1)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 5—7)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 5—10)
Crosby and Wong,
1976 (p. 1338)
Kearney et al.,
1972 (p. 1017)
4—7
-------
TABLE 4—1. UPTAKE OF TCDDS BY PLANTS
Plant/Tissue
Chemical
Form
Applied
Soil Type
Experimental
Concentration
Soil
(i&g/g)
Range of Tissue
Concentration
(pglg)
Bioconcentration
Factora
Relerences
Oats/seed
TCDDs
Sandy loam
0.06
-------
TABLE.4-2. TOXICITY OF TCDDS TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Chemical
Species (N)a Form Fed
Feed
Concentration
(ng/g)
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
Daily
Intake
(pg/kg)
Duration
of Study Effects References
Guinea pig TCDDs in gavage 0.6—2.1 2—8 weeks LD 50 U.S. EPA, 1984a (p. C—37)
Rat (5—10) TCDDS in gavage 22 2—8 weeks L0 50
Mouse (14) TCDDs in gavage 144 - LD 50
Rabbit TCDDS in gavage 115 - LD 50
Dog (2) TCDDS in gavage 30—100 2—8 weeks Not lethal U.S. EPA, 1984a (p. C—39)
Dog (2) TCDDS in gavage 3,000 2—8 weeks All animals died
Rat TCDD5 7 42 days Increased liver weight Fries and Marrow, 1915
Rat TCDDS 20 42 days Increased liver weight, (p. 261)
less than 1 ng/g feed
S rate
Rat TCDDs 0.01—0.1 Lifetime Effects on liver, thymus, U.S. EPA, 1984a (p. c—54)
and reproduction
Rat (10) TCDDs 0.001 0.0003. 95 weeks 80% survival, first death Van Miller et al., 1917
at week 6 (p. 539)
Rat (10) TCDDS 0.005 0.001 95 weeks 60% survival, first death
at week 33
Rat (10) TCDDs 0.050 0.01 95 weeks 60% survival, first death
at week 69
Rat (10) TCDDs 0.500 0.1 95 weeks 50% survival, first death
at week 17
Rat (10) TCDD5 1—5 0.4—2.0 95 weeks 0% survival to 95 weeks,
first death at 31 weeks
Rat (100) TCDDs 2.2 0.1 2 years Increased mortality; Kociba et at., 1978 (p. 219)
decreased body weight
gain, adverse hemoglobin
effect
Rat (100) TCDDs 0.210 0.01 2 years I xLensive hislopathologic
and hemopathologic changes
Rat (100) TCDDs 0.022 0.001 2 years No effect
-------
TABLE 4—2. (continued)
Feed
Water
Daily
Chemical
Concentration
Concentration
Intake
Duration
Species ($)a Form
Fed
(ng/g)
(mgIL)
(pg/kg)
of
Study Effects References
Rat
TCDDS by gavage
0.007/wk 1 year Increased tumor incidence U.S. EPA, 1984a (p. C—159)
0% tumor incidence
30—50% tumor incidence
70% tumor incidence
Lethal within 4 weeks
Rat (7)
Rat (7)
Rat (6)
0 Rat (6)
Rat (5)
TCDDs
TCDDs
TCDDB
TCDDs
TCDDs
25 Day 7—16 of
gestation
50 Day 7—16 of
gestation
100 Day 7—16 of
gestation
200 Day 7—16 of
gestation
400 Day 7—16 of
gestat ion
6% fetal mortality/litter;
42% abnormal fetuses -
13% fetal mortality/litter;
74% abnormal fetuses
14% fetal mortality/litter;
86% abnormal fetuses
87% fetal mortality/litter;
100% abnormal fetuses
97% fetal mortality/litter;
100% abnormal fetuses
Courtney, 1976 (p. 617, 679)
Van Miller et al., 1971
(p. 537)
Rat
TCDDS
.0.001
NRb
Rat
TCDDs
0.005—1
MR
Rat
TCDDs
S
NH
Rat
TCDDa
50
NH
U.S. EPA, 1984b (p. 11—5)
Monkey (9) TCDDs
0.5
9 months Lethal to S of 9 animals
a N = Number of experimental animals when reported.
b NH Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4—3. UPTAKE OF TCDDS BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
S
Species (N) 5
Chemical Form Fed
Range (and N) of Feed
Concentration (ng/g DW)
Tissue
Analyzed
Range of Tissue
Concentration (ng/g WW)
Bioconcentration
Factorb
References
Rat
(60)
TCDDs
0—20(3)
Fat
0—6.20
0.17—0.31
Fries and
Narrow,
1915 (p. 267)
Rat
(60)
TCDD5
0—20(3)
Liver
0—0.33
<0.01—0.03
Fries and
.
Marrow,
1975 (p. 267)
Rat
TC DD s
0.22—2.2(3)
Fat
0.54—8.1
3.68—24.54
Kociba et al.,
1978, (p. 301)
Rat
TCDDs
0.022—2.2(3)
Liver
0.54—24.0
10.9—24.54
Kociba et al.,
1978, (p. 301)
I- . .
a N = Number of experimental animals or feed rates when reported.
b SF = Tissue concentration/feed concentration.
-------
TABLE 4-4. TOXICITY OP TCDDS TO SOIL BIOTA
Species
Chemical Form
Applied
Soil
Type
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g ow)
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
Duration
of Study
Effects
References
Soil
bacteria
TCCD
contaminated
2,4,S—T
Forest
Soil
5.2 x 1O
5.2 x IO
of TCDU
—
—
4
weeks
No
effect on
evolution
CO 2
Rotten and Norris,
1979 (p. 649—50)
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Bollen, W. B., and L. A. Norris. 1979. Influence of 2,3,7,8—
Tetrachlorodibenzo—p—dIoxin on Respiration in a Forest Floor and
Soil. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 22:648-652.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984a. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984b. A Comparison of Studies of Toxic
Substances in POTW Sludges. Prepared for the U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68—01—6403. Annandale, VA. August.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984c. Technical Review of the 106—Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Prepared for the U.S. EPA under Contract No.
68—01—6403. Annandale, VA. January.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984d. Technical Review of the 12—Mile
Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. Prepared for the U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68—01—6403. Annandale, VA. May.
City of New York Department of Environmental Protection. 1983. A
Special Permit Application for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge from
Twelve New York City Water Pollution Control Plants at the 12—Mile
Site. New York, NY. December.
Courtney, K. D. 1976. Mouse Teratology Studies with Chlorodibenzo—p—
dioxins. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16(6):674—681.
Crosby, D. C., and A. S. Wong. 1977. Environmental Degradation
2,3,7,8—Tetrachlorodibenzo—p—dioxin (TCDD). Science 195:1337—38.
Farrell, J. B. 1984. Personal Communication. Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. December.
Federal Register. 1984. Water Quality Criteria. Vol. 49(32):5831.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
February 15.
Fries, C. F., and C. S. Marrow. 1975. Retention and Excretion of
2,3,7,8—Tetrachlorodibenzo—p—dioxin by Rats. J. Agr. Food
Chem. 23(2):265—269.
Isensee, A. R., and C. E. Jones. 1971. Absorption and Translocation of
Root and Foliage Applied 2,4—Dichiorophenol, 2,7—Dichlorodibenzo—p—
dioxin, and 2,3,7,8—Tetrachlorodibenzo—p—dioxin. J. Agr. Food
Chem. 19(6):1210—1214.
5—1
-------
Kearney, P. C., E. A. Woolson, and C. P. Ellington. 1972. Persistence
and Metabolism of Chlorodioxins in Soils. Environ. Sci. Technol.
6(12):1017—1019.
Kociba, R. J., D. C. Keyes, and J. E. Beyer et al. 1978. Results for a
Two—Year Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study of 2,3,7,8—Tetra—
chlorodibenzo—p—dioxin in Rats. Toxicol. & Appi. Pharmacology.
46:29—303.
Long, J. R., and D. J. Hanson. 1983. Dioxin Issue Focuses on Three
Major Controversies. Chemical and Engineering News. June 6.
pp. 23—36.
National Academy of Sciences. 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.
Stanford Research Institute International. 1980. Seafood Consumption
Data Analysis. Final Report, Task 11. Prepared for U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68—01—3887. Menlo Park, CA. September.
U.S. EnvironmentaL Agency. 1979. Industrial Source Complex (ISC)
Dispersion Model User Guide. EPA 450/4—79—30. Vol. 1. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly—Owned Treatment Works. Volume 1. EPA 44/1—
82/303. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria Document for 2,3,7,8—Tetrachlorodibenzo—p—dioxin.
External Review Draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Health Assessment
Document for Polychiorinated Dibenzo—p—diàxins. External Review
Draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Van Miller, 1. P., J. J. Lalich, and J. R. Allen. 1977. Increased
Incidence of Neoplasms in Rats Exposed to Low Levels of 2,3,7,8—
TetrachlorodIbenzopdioxifl. Chemosphere 9:537—544.
Worthy. 1983. Both Incidence, Control of Dioxin are Highly Complex.
Chemical and Engineering News. June 6. 51—56.
5—2
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR TETRACULORODIBENZODIOXINS
IN MUNICIPAL SEWACE SLUDCE
I. LANDSPREADINC AND DISTRIBUTION—AND—MARKETINC
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.
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.
E li. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from Incinerator
Emissions (Index 1)
1. Formula
( C x DS x SC x FM x DP) + BA
Indexl BA
where:
C = Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
(hr/sec x g/mg)
DS = Sludge feed rate (kg/hr DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
FM = Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (unitless)
DP = Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum
annual ground level concentration (iiglm 3 )
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air ( igIm 3 )
2. Sample Calculation — Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formula
[ ( 1 i — 1) x BA] + BA
Index 2 = EC
A-i
-------
where:
I = Index 1 = Index of air concentration increment
resulting from incinerator emissions
(unitless)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in
urban air ( ig/m 3 )
EC = Exposure criterion ( .ig/m 3 )
2. Sample Calculation — Values were not calculated due to lack
of data.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
SC x ST x PS
Index 1 =
WxDx 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 — Values were not calculated due to lack
of data.
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24—Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Formula
SS x SC
Index 2 =
VxDxL
where:
SS = Daily sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
V = Average current velocity at site (rn/day)
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of
mixing for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation — Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
A-2
-------
C. Index of Ifazard to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Formula
12
Index 3 AWQC
where:
12 = Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration
representing a 24—hour dumping cycle ( gIL)
AWQC Criterion expressed as an average concentration
to protect the marketability of edible marine
organisms (pg/L)
2. Sample Calculation — Values were not calculated due to
lack of Index 2 values.
D. Index of HumRn Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Formula
( 12 x BCF x iO kg/g x FS x QF) + DI
Index 4 =
where
12 Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration
representing a 24—hour dumping cycle (ugiL)
QF = Dietary consumption of seafood (g WWIday)
FS = Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unitless)
BCF = Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (L/kg)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(big/day)
RSI = Cancer risk—specific intake ( ig/day)
2. Sample Calculation — Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
A-)
------- |