oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office oi Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Wafer
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
3,3'-Dich!orobenzidine
-------
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
1. INTRODuCTION 1—1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR 3,3’—DICHLOROBENZIDINE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE . . . 2—1
Landspreading arid Distribution—and—Marketing 2—1
Landfi lling 2—1
Incineration 21
Ocean Disposal 21
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR 3,3—DICHLOROBENZIDINE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 3—1
Landspreading arid Distribution—and—Marketing 3—1
Landfilling 31
Incineration 3—1
Ocean Disposal . . 31
Index of seawater concentration resulting from
initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3—1
Index ofseawater concentration representing
a 24—hour dwnping c.ycle (Index 2) 3—5
Index of toxicity to aquatic life (Index 3) 3—6
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from seafood consumption (Index 4) 3—8
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR 3,3’-DICHLOROBENZIDINE IN MUNICIPAL
SEWAGE SLUDGE 4—1
Occurrence . ..................•..• .••••• • 4—1
Sludge .................•• . . 4—1
Soil — UnpoLluted . 4—1
Water — Unpolluted .........e.e 41
Air ... . .............. 41
Food ,......... I. ....... 4—1
H an Effects . . . . • • • 4—2
Ingestion . . 4—2
Inhalation 4—2
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Plant Effects ii...... .. . 4—2
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4—2
Toxicity . 4—2
Uptake 4—2
Aquatic Life Effects 4—3
Toxicity (water concentration causing) 4—3
Uptake . 4—3
Soil Biota Effects 4—3
Physicochernical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4—3
5. REFERENCES . 5—1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
3,3’-DICHLOROBENZIDINE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A—I
111.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This preliminary data profile is one of a series of profiles
dealing with chemical pollutants potentialLy of concern in municipal
sewage sludges. 3,3’—Dichlorobenzidine (3,3’—DCB) was initially identi-
fied as being of potential concern when sludge is ocean disposed. This
profile is a compilation of information that may be useful in determin-
ing whether 3,3’—DCB poses an actuaL hazard to human health or the
environment when sludge is disposed of by these methods.
The focus of this document is the calculation of “preliminary
hazard indices” for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge - seawater - marine organisms - human toxicity). The val-
ues and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to represent a
reasonable “worst case”; analysis of error or uncertainty has been con-
ducted 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 “prelimiriary 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 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 3,3’—DICHLOROBENZIDINE 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 • L.ANDSPREADING 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. 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. 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. EPA reserves the ri ght to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Only slight increases in 3,3’—DCB concentrations occur after
dumping of sludge and initial mixing at a typical disposal site (see
Index 1).
Only slight increases of 3,3’—DCB occur after a 24—hour dumping
cycle at the typical site (see Index 2).
No toxic conditions for aquatic life are expected to occur due to
3,3’—DCB for the scenarios evaluated (see Index 3).
Only slight incremental increases in cancer risks to humans are
evident from the typical consumption of seafood residing at a
typical site after the dumping of typical sludge (see Index 4).
2—1
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY IIAZARD INDICES FOR 3,3’-DICULOROBENZIDINE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING 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. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDFILLINC
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. 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. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
For the purpose of evaluating pollutant effects upon and/or
subsequent uptake by marine life as a result of sludge disposal,
two types of mixing vere modeled. The initial mixing or dilution
shortly after dumping of a single load of sludge represents a high,
pulse concentration to which organisms may be exposed for short
time periods but which could be repeated frequently; i.e., every
time a recently dumped plume is encountered. A subsequent addi-
tional degree of mixing can be expressed by a further dilution.
This is defined as the average dilution occurring when a day’s
worth of sludge is dispersed by 24 hours of current movement and
represents the time—weighted average exposure concentration for
organisms in the disposal area. This dilution accounts for 8 to 12
hours of the high pulse concentration encountered by the organisms
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation — Calculates increased concentrations in .ig/L
of pollutant in seawater around an ocean disposal site
assuming initial mixing.
3—1
-------
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 4 hours after
dumping. The seasonal disappearance of the pycnoc].ine 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 U.. )
Typical 825 mt DW/day 1600 mt WW 8000 in
Worst 1650 mt DW/day 3400 mt WW 4000 in
The typicaL value for the sludge disposal rate assumes
that 7.5 x 106 mt WW/year are available Eor dumping
from a metropolitan coastal area. The conversion to
dry weight assumes 4 percent solids by weight. The
worst—case value is an arbitrary doubling of the
typical value to allow for potential future increase.
The assumed disposal practice to be followed at the
model site representative of the typical case is a
modification of that proposed for sludge disposal at
the formally designated 12—mile site in the New York
Bight Apex (City of New York, 1983). Sludge barges
with capacities of 3400 mt WW would be required to
discharge a load in no less than 53 minutes traveL-
ing at a minimum speed of 5 nautical miles (9260 in)
per hour. Under these conditions, the barge would
enter the site, discharge the sludge over 8180 in 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 in) per hour. Under
these conditions, the barge would enter the site,
discharge the sludge over 7902 in and exit the site.
The mean path length for the large and small tankers
is 8041 m or approximately 8000 in. Path length is
assumed to lie perpendicular to the direction of
prevailing current flow. For the typical disposal
rate (SS) of 825 mt DW/day, it is assumed that this
would be accomplished by a mixture of four 3400 mc
3—2
-------
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 OW/day, eight 3400 mt WW and eight 1600 nit
WW capacity barges would be utilized. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For both disposal rate scenarios, there
would be a 12 to 16 hour period at night in which no
sludge would be dumped. It is assumed that under
the above described disposal operation, sludge
dumping wouLd occur every day of the year.
The assumed disposal practice at the model site
representative of the worst case is as stated for
the typical site, except that barges wouLd dump half
their load along a track, then turn around and
dispose of the balance along the same track in order
to prevent a barge from dumping outside of the site.
This practice would effectively halve the path
length compared to the typical site.
b. Sludge concentration of pollutant (Sc)
Typical 1.64 mg/kg DW
Worst 2.29 mg/kg OW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are the
mean and maximum values, respectively, from a
summary of sludge data from an EPA study of 50
publicly—owned treatment works (POTWs) (Camp Dresser
and McKee, Itic. (CDM), 1984a).
c. Disposal site characteristics
Average
current
Depth to velocity
pycnocline (D) at site (V )
Typical 20 in 9500 rn/day
Worst 5 in 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 pycnoclirie value of 20 in 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 (CDrI,
1984b).
3—3
-------
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 m chosen is the minimum
value of the S to 23 m depth range of the surface
mixed layer and is therefore a worst—case value.
Current velocities in this area vary from 0 to
30 cm/sec. A value of 5 cm/sec (4320 rn/day) is
arbitrarily chosen to represent a worst—case value
(CDM, l984c).
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 m deep by 40 m wide (O’Connor and
Park, 1982, as cited in MOA.A, 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 compute d as follows:
W = 40 in + 1 cm/sec x 4 hours x 3600 sec/hour x 0.01 rn/cm
= 184 in = approximately 200 in
Thus the volume of initial mixing is defined by the
tanker path, a 200 in 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 m was chosen. At
times the pycnocline may be as shalLow as 5 m, but since
the barge wake causes initial mixing to at least 10 m,
the greater value was used.
3—4
-------
5. rndex 1 Values (pgIL)
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day )
Site Charac— Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical Typical 0.0 0.0033 0.0033
Worst 0.0 0.0046 0.0046
Worst Typical 0.0 0.028 0.028
Worst 0.0 0.039 0.039
6. Value Interpretation — Value ecuats the expected increase
in 3,3’—DCB concentration in seawater around a disposal
site as a result of sludge disposal after initial mixing.
6. Preliminary Conclusion — Only slight increases in 3,3’—
DCB concentrations occur after dumping of sludge md
initial mixing at a typical disposal site.
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24—Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Explanation — Calculates increased concentrations in .ig/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 cur-
rent movement perpendicular to the tanker path over 24
hours.
2. Assumptions/Limitations — Incorporates all of the assump-
tions used to calculate Index 1. tn 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—2 to 3—4.
3—5
-------
4. Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, p. 3—5.
5. Index 2 Values (pg/L)
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day )
Site Charac— Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical Typical 0.0 0.00089 0.0018
Worst 0.0 0.0012 0.0025
Worst Typical 0.0 0.0078 0.016
Worst 0.0 0.011 0.022
6. Value Interpretation — Value equals the effective
increase in 3,3’—DCB concentration expressed as a TT.4A
concentration in seawater around a disposal site
experienced by an organism over a 24—hour period.
7. Preliminary Conclusion — Only slight increases of
3,3’—DCB occur after a 24—hour dumping cycLe at the
typical site.
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Explanation — Compares the effective increased concentra-
tion of pollutant in seawater around the disposal site
resulting from the initial mixing of sludge (Index 1)
with the marine ambient water quality criterion of the
pollutant, or with another value judged protective of
marine aquatic Life. For 3,3’—DCB, this value is the
criterion that will protect marine aquatic organisms from
both acute and chronic toxic effects.
Wherever a short—term, “puLse” exposure may occur as it
would from initial mixing, it is usually evaluated using
the “maximum” criteria values of EPA’s ambient water
quality criteria methodology. However, under this
scenario, because the pulse is repeated several times
daily on a long—term basis, potentially resulting in an
accumulation of injury, it seems more appropriate to use
values designed to be protective against chronic
toxicity. Therefore, to evaluate the potential for
adverse effects on marine life resulting from initial
mixing concentrations, as quantified by Index 1, the
chronically derived criteria values are used.
3—6
-------
2. Assumptions/Limitations — In addition to the assumptions
stated for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that all of the
released pollutant is available in the water column to
move through predicted pathways (i.e., sludge to seawater
to aquatic organism to man). The possibility of effects
arising from accumulation in the sediments is neglected
since the U.S. EPA presently Lacks a satisfactory method
for deriving sediment criteria.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3—5.
b. Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) = 0.5 ilg/L
Water quality criteria for the toxic polLutants
listed under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 were developed by the U.S. EPA under
Section 304(a)(l) of the Act. These criteria were
derived by utilization of data reflecting the
resultant environmental impacts and human health
effects of these pollutants if present in any body
of water. The criteria values presented in this
assessment are excerpted from the ambient water
quality criteria document for 3,3’—DCB.
This vaLue is based on an acute toxicity test for a
freshwater fish species (Centerfar Chemical Hazard
Assessment (CCHA), 1960). As there is no AWQC
presently available for marine organisms, it is
assumed for the purpose of this study that the value
would be similar.
4. Index 3 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day )
Site Charac— Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical Typical 0.0 0.0066 0.0066
Worst 0.0 0.0092 0.0097
Worst Typical 0.0 0.056 0.056
Worst 0.0 0.078 0.078
5. Value Interpretation — Value equals the factor by which
the expected seawater concentration increase in 3,3’—DCB
exceeds the protective value. A value > 1 indicates that
3—7
-------
acute or chronic toxic conditions may exist for organisms
at the site.
6. Preliminary Conclusion — No toxic conditions for aquatic
Life are expected to occur due to 3,3’—DCB for the
scenarios evaluated.
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 bioconceri—
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)
See Section 3, p. 3—6.
Since bioconcentration is a dynamic and reversible
process, it is expected that uptake of sludge
pollutants by marine organisms at the disposal site
will reflect TWA concentrations, as quantified by
Index 2, rather than pulse concentrations.
b. Dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
Typical 14.3 g WW/day
Worst 41.7 g WW/day
Typical and worst—case values are the mean and the
95th percentiLe, respectively, for alL seafood
consumption in the United States (Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) International, 1980).
c. Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (FS)
For a typical harvesting scenario, it was assumed
that the total catch over a wide region is mixed by
3—8
-------
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 km/day. Therefore, the
combined plume of all sludge dumped during one
working day will gradually spread, both parallel to
and perpendicular to current direction, as it pro-
ceeds down—current. Since the concentration has
been averaged over the direction of current flow,
spreading in this dimension will not further reduce
average concentration; only spreading in the perpen-
dicular dimension will reduce the average. If sta-
ble conditions are assumed over a period of days, at
least 9 days would be required to reduce the average
concentration by one—half. At that time, the origi-
nal plume length of approximately 8 km (8000 in) will
have doubled to approximately 16 kin 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 (NOA.A, 1983). Therefore, the area
impacted by sludge disposal (Al, in kin 2 ) at each
disposal site will be considered to be defined by
the tanker path length CL) times the distance of
current movement (V) during 10 days, and is computed
as follows:
Al = 10 L V b— 6 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
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 NMFS reporting area. In the New York
Bight, which includes NMFS areas 612—616 and 621—
623, deep—water area 623 has an area of
approximately 7200 kin 2 and constitutes approximately
3—9
-------
0.02 percent of the total seafood landings for the
Bight (cDM, 1984b). Near—shore area 612 has an area
of approximately 4300 kin 2 and constitutes
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (CDM, 1984c). 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)
FSt — 7200 km 2
[ 10 x 8000 m x 9500 m x 10—6 km 2 /m 2 ] x 0.0002 = 2 1 x 10
7200 km 2
For the worst (near shore) site:
— Al x 24% —
FSt — —
4300 kin 2
[ 10 x 4000 in x 4320 m x iO6 km 2 /m 2 ] x 0.24 = 9 6 x l0
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
NMFS reporting area. The fraction of consumed
seafood (FSw) that could originate from the area of
impact under this worst—case scenario is calculated
as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
FSw = Al = 0.11 (4)
7200 km 2
For the worst (near shore) site:
4300 km 2 —
3—10
-------
d. Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (BCF)
312 L/kg
The value chosen is the weighted average BCF of
3,3’—DCB for the edible portion of all freshwater
and estuarine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S.
citizens (U.S. EPA, 1980). The weighted average BCF
is derived as part of the water quality criteria
developed by the U.S. EPA to protect human health
from the potential carcinogenic effects of 3,3’—DCB
induced by ingestion of contaminated water and
aquatic organisms. The weighted average BCF i_s
calculated by adjusting the mean normalized BCF
(steady—state BCF corrected to 1 percent lipid
content) to the 3 percent lipid content of consumed
fish and shellfish. It should be noted that lipids
of marine species differ in both structure and
quantity from those of freshwater species. Although
a BCF value calculated entirely from marine data
would be more appropriate for this assessment, rio
such data are presently available.
e. Average daily hunmn dietary intake of poLlutant (DI)
0 jig/day
Although no data is immediately availabLe on DI, a
value of 0 jig/day is assumed so that index vaLues
can be calculated.
f. Cancer potency = 1.69 (mg/kgJday)
The cancer potency value was derived by the U.S. EPA
(1980) based on studies of mice which showed hepato—
cellular carci.rioma and adenoma at higher levels.
g. Cancer risk—specific intake (RSI) = 0.0414 jig/day
The RSI is th pollutant intake value which resuLts
in an increase in cancer risk of 1O (1 per
1,000,000). The RSI is calculated from the cancer
potency using the following formula:
RSI = i —6 x 70 k x jig/mg
Cancer potency
3—li
-------
4. Index 4 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Sludge Rate (tnt DW/day )
Site Charac— Concen— Seafood
teristics trationa Intakea,l 0 825 1650
Typical TypicaL Typical 0.0 0.0000020 0.0000040
Worst Worst 0.0 0.043 0.085
Worst Typical Typical 0.0 0.0081 0.016
Worst Worst 0.0 0.14 0.27
a All possibLe combinations of these values are not
presented. Additional combinations may be calculated
using the formulae in the Appendix.
b Refers to both the dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
and the fraction of consumed seafood originating from
the disposal site (FS). “Typical” indicates the use of
the typical—case values for both of these parameters;
“worst” indicates the use of the worst—case values for
both.
5. Value Interpretation — Value > 1. indicates’ a potential
increase in cancer risk of > i 6 (1 per 1,000,000).
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 pre—existing dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion — Only slight incremental
increases in cancer risks to humans are evident from the
typical consumption of seafood residing at a typical site
after the dumping of typical sludge.
3—12
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR 3,3’-DICffLOROBENZIDINE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
3,3’—DCB is used in the production of dyes and pig-
ments and as a curing agent for polyurethanes.
A. Sludge
3,3’—DCB detected in 5Z (2 of 44) of POTWs CDtI, 1984a
surveyed. (p. 15)
Mean = 1.64 mg/kg DW
Maximum 2.29 mg/kg DW
B. Soil — Unpolluted
“DCB’s basic nature suggested that it may Radding
be fairly tightly bound to humic materials et al., 1975
in soils. Soils may consequently be (p. 14)
moderate—to—long—term reservoirs.”
No data on concentrations of 3,3’—DCB in
soils immediately available.
C. Water — Unpolluted
Few measurements of 3,3’—DCB in water U.S. EPA, 1980
supplies have been undertaken. One study (p. c—I)
of purge wells and seepage water near a waste
disposal lagoon receiving 3,3’—DCB—manufacture
wastes showed leveLs of 3,3’—DCB ranging from
0.13 to 0.27 mgIL.
“Changes in toxicity and mobility upon Radding
entry into salt waters appear probable et aL., 1975
and ... warrant attention.”
D. Air
Minimum air concentrations which could Morales
be quantitated: 3.5 j .Lg/m 3 et aL., 1979
(p. 977)
E. Food
Few studies have attempted to identify U.S. EPA, 1980
3,3’—DCB as a contaminant of human food. (p. c—I)
Since 3,3’—DCB has never had an application
as an agricultural or food chemical,
4—1
-------
the most likely source o’f 3,3’—DCB would
be through consumption of contaminated
fish.
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicicy
a. Qualitative Assessment
Data not immediately availabLe.
b. Potency
Cancer potency = 1.69 (mg/kg/day) 1 U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C—33)
Based on a study inducing hepatic
carcinomas in female beagle dogs
by exposure to 7.36 mg/kg/day of
3,3’—DCB.
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Toxicity
Data not immediately available.
B. Inhalation
Data not immediately available.
III. PLANT EFFECTS
Data not immediateLy available.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
“That 3,3’—DCB can cause cancer of the Raddirtg
bladder is well known. Less well defined et aL., 1975
are its effects other than as a carcinogen.” (p. 15)
See Table 4—1.
B. Uptake
No data available on 3,3’—DCB uptake.
4—2
-------
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity (Water Concentration Causing)
1. Freshwater
Acute toxicity concentration
for fish species = 0.5 j.ig/L
2. Saltwater
B. Uptake
Data not immediateLy available.
CCFIA, 1980
(p. 5)
BCF is 312 for the edible portion of
all freshwater and estuarine aquatic
organisms consumed by U.S. citizens.
‘11. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
Data not immediately available.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C—3)
VII. PMYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
Molecular weight:
Melting point:
Solubility:
253.13
132—133°C
InsoLuble in water, readily
soluble in alcohol, benzene,
glacial acetic acid.
Merck Index,
1983 (p. 444)
4—3
-------
TABLE 4—1. TOXICITY OF 3,3’—D!CIILOROBENZIDINE TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Beagle dog, female
• 3,3s_DcB HR
3,3’—DCB 1,000
HR 100 mg 3-S doses
total per wk for
up to 7 yrs
HR MR
Carcinogenic — hepatic
and urinary bladder
carcinomas at significant
levels (p < 0.025)
No cancer observed
U.S. EPA, 1980 (p. c—13)
a H = Number of experimental animate when reported.
Chemical Form
Feed
Concentration
Water
Concentration
Daily
Intake
Duration
Species ( i) Fed
(pg/g flu)
(mg/L)
(mg/kg)
of
Study Effects References
.
I
Mice,
Mice,
Mice,
Hice,
female
male
female
male
3,3 ’-DCI I
3 ,3’—DCB
3,3’—DCB
3,3’—DCB
HRb
MR
MR
HR
HR
HR
MR
HR
352
386
488
616
7 days
7 days
single
single
dose
dose
LD 50
LD 50
LD 50
L0 50
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
1980
1980
1980
1980
(p.
(p.
(p.
(p.
C9)
C9)
C—9)
C9)
Rat (100)
3,3’—DCB
1,000
NH
118—488
days
Significant increase in U.S.
cancer rate (p.
EPA,
C—13,
1980
14)
Iiampster (60)
U.S. EPA, 1980 (p. C—li)
b MR Not reported.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984a. A Comparison of Studies of Toxic
Substances in POTW Sludge. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68—01—6403. Annandale, VA. August.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984b. TechnicaL Review of the 106—Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract No. 68—
01—6403. Annandale, VA. January.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984c. TechnicaL Review of the 12—Mile
Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68—01—6403. Annandal.e, VA. May.
Center for Chemical Hazard Assessment. 1980. 3,3’—Dich lorobenzidine:
Hazard Profile. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Syracuse,
NY.
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.
Morales, R., S. Rappaport, and R. Hermes. 1979. Air Sampling and
Analytical Procedures for Benzidine, 3,3’—DichLorobenzidine and
Their Salts. Am. End. Ilyg. Assoc. J. 40:970—978.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS—F NEC—26. 1983. Northeast Monitoring
Program 106—Mile Site Characterization Update. U.S. Department of
Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. August.
Radding, S., B. R. Edt, J, L. Jones, et al. 1975. Review of the
Environmental Fate of Selected Chemicals. EPA 560/5—75—001. U.S.
Environmental. Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Stanford Research Institute International. 1980. Seafood Consumption
Data Analysis. Final Report, Task II. Prepared for U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68—01—3887. Menlo Park, California. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Fate of 3,3’—
Dichlorobenzidine in Aquatic Environments. EPA 600/3—78—068. U.S.
Environmental. Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Water—related
Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants. Volume II. EPA
440/479029b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Dichlorobenzidine. EPA 440/5—80—040. U.S.
Environmental. Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
5—1
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR 3,3’—DICHLOROBENZIDINE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLW)GE
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. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDFILLINC
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April—May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option .s
not being conducted at this time. 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. EPA reserves the right to
conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
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 =
WxDxL
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
0.0033 I.ig/L =
1.64 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x pg/mg
200 m x 20 m x 8000 in x 10 L/m 3
A-i
-------
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
0.00089 .ig1L 825000 kg DW/day x 1.64 mg/kg DW x iø pg/mg
9500 rn/day x 20 m x 8000 m x i0 3 L/m 3
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Formula
Ii
Index 3 = AWQC
where:
Ii = Index I = Index of seawater concentration
resulting from initial mixing after sludge
disposal (j.ig/L)
Ac .JQC = Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from
acute and chronic toxic effects ( g/L)
2. Sample Calculation
0 0066 0.0033 ug/L
— 0.5 g/L
A- 2
-------
D. Index of flunmn Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Formula
( 12 x BCF x io kg/g x FS x QF) + DI
Index 4 = RSI
where:
12 = Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration
representing a 24—hour dumping cycle ( g/L)
QF = Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
FS = Fraction of consumed seafood originating from
the disposal site (unitless)
BCF = Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (L/kg)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of polLutant
(ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk—specific intake (Mg/day)
2. Sample Calculation
0.000002 =
( 0.00089 MgIL x 312 L/kg x 10 k / x 0.000021 x 14.3 g WW/day) + 0 /day
0.0414 Mg/day
A-3
------- |