PB89-136576
TECHNICAL  SUPPORT DOCUMENT  -  LAND APPLICATION  AND
DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING  OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
(U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency
Washington,  DC
1988
               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
             National Technical Information Service

-------
vvEPA
              United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC  20460
              Water
              TECHNICAL SUPPORT
              DOCUMENT
              Land Application and Distribution

              and Marketing of Sewage Sludge

-------
                                  PREFACE

    Section 405(d)  of  the  Clean Water  Act requires  the U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to issue regulations that identify:

    •  Uses for sludge, including various means of disposal
    •  Factors, including cost, which must  be  considered  when determining the
       measures and practices applicable to each use
    •  Pollutant concentrations which interfere with each use or disposal

    To comply  with  this statutory mandate,  EPA has embarked  on  a  program for
developing  five  major  technical regulations:  land  application,  including
distribution and  marketing';  monofilling;  surface disposal;   incineration;  and
pathogens and  vector  attraction reduction.   EPA  has  also  proposed  regulations
for governing the establishment of State sludge management programs, which will
implement both existing and future criteria (40 CFR 501).

    The principal goal of the  proposed regulation governing land application of
sewage  sludge  is  to  protect  terrestrial  and aquatic  ecosystems.   Specific
provisions detail how  air, land, surface water, and ground water can be protected
from  damage  due  to the land  application  of sludge  or sludge  products.   This
document provides the  technical background and justification for the provisions
contained in Subparts B and C of  the proposed regulation.

    Public comment  on the technical adequacy and scientific  validity  of this
document, as  well as   the  requirements  contained in  the  proposed  regulation,
should be submitted during the public comment period.  Any questions related to
this document may be  directed to:
Barbara A. Corcoran                      Elvia E. Niebla,  Ph.D.
US Environmental Protection Agency       US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and          Office of Water Regulations and
  Standards                                Standards
Wastewater Solids Criteria Branch        Wastewater Solids Criteria Branch
  (WH-585)                                 (WH-585)
401 M Street, S.W.                       401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460                  Washington, D.C.   20460
(202) 475-7332                           (202) 382-3542
                              Martha G. Prothro, Director
                              Office of Water Regulations and Standards
                                    -i-

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                        Page


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

LIST OF UNITS AND ACRONYMS

1.  INTRODUCTION                                                        1 1

    1.1  Background to the Proposed Regulation                          1 1
    1.2  Statutory Authority for Sludge Regulations                      1-3
    1.3  Overview and Purpose of this  Document                          1-4


2.  MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSOCIATED WITH LAND  APPLICATION  OF  SLUDGE      2-1

    2.1  Distribution and Marketing                                     2-1
    2.2  Agricultural Use                                               2-2
    2.3  Nonagricultural Use                                            2-4
         2.3.1 Silviculture                                              2-4
         2.3.2 Land Reclamation                                          2-5
         2.3.3 Dedicated Land Disposal                                   2-6


3.  RISK ASSESSMENT FACTORS                                             3-1

    3.1  Exposure Pathways                                              3-1
    3.2  Pollutants of Concern                                          3-2
    3.3  Summary of the MEI Risk Assessment Methodology                  3-6
         3.3.1 Definitions of Pathways  and  MEIs                          3-6
         3.3.2 Computer Modeling Using  Pathway Equations                 3-9


4.  DATABASE FOR RISK MODELS                                            4-1

    4.1  Pathway 1                                                      4-1
         4.1.1 Criteria Methodology                                      4-2
         4.1.2 Model Development and Criteria  Generation                 4-4
         4.1.3 Data Points and Rationale  for Selection                   4-16

    4.2  Pathway 2                                                      4-111
         4.2.1 Pathway Equations                                        4-112
         4.2.2 Data Points and Rationale  for Selection                   4-113

    4.3  Pathway 3                                                      4-133
         4.3.1 Pathway Equations                                        4-134
         4.3.2 Data Points and Rationale  for Selection                   4-136
         Preceding page blank
-in-

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)
                                                                        Page

    4.4  Pathway 4                                                      4-L99
        4.4.1 Pathway Equations                                         4-200
        4.4.2 Data Points and Rationale for Selection                   4-201

    4.5  Pathway 5                                                      ^-223
        4.5.1 Pathway Equations                                         4-224
        4.5.2 Data Points and Rationale for Selection                   4-224

    4.6  Pathway 6                                                      4-273
        4.6.1 Pathway Equations                                         4-274
        4.6.2 Data Points and Rationale for Selection                   4-274

    4.7  Pathway 7                                                      4-277
        4.7.1 Pathway Equations                                         4-278
        4.7.2 Data Points and Rationale for Selection                   4-279

    4.8  Pathway 8                                                      4-335
        4.8.1 Pathway Equations                                         4-336
        4.8.2 Data Points and Rationale for Selection                   4-336

    4.9  Pathway 9                                                      4-341
        4.9.1 Pathway Equations                                         4-342
        4.9.2 Data Points and Rational for Selection                    4-342

    4.10 Pathway 10                                                     4-373
        4.10.IPathway Risk Assessment Model and Equations               4-374
        4.10.2Data Points and Rationale for Selection                   4-375

    4.11 Pathway 11                                                     4-377
        4.11.IPathway Risk Assessment Model and Equations               4-378
        4.11.2Data Points and Rationale for Selection                   4-390

    4.12 Pathway 12                                                     4-401
        4.12.IPathway Model  and Equations                               4-403
        4.12.2Data Points and Rationale for Selection                   4-408
5.   SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS                                                5-1

    5.1  Effect  on  Metals                                                5-3
    5.2  Effect  on  Organic  Chemicals                                     5-6
6.    CRITERIA DERIVATION                                                6-1
7.    REFERENCES                                                         7 -1

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table No.                        Title                                     Page
 3-1     Chemicals Selected for Environmental Profile Development        3-3
         for Land Application

 3-2     Pollutants in Sludge Used for Land Application/D&M for          3-5
         Which Risk Assessments Were Performed

 4-1     Fraction of Crop (FC) for Sludge-Soil-Plant-Human Tox-          4-10
         icity Pathway, as Affected by Exposure Scenario

 4-2     Human Population, Sludge Production, Cropland and Crop          4-11
         Land Required Annually for the Application of Sewage
         Sludge in Illinois, New Jersey and the United States in
         1970, and Projected Values for 1985

 4-3     Average Percentage of Food Consumed by Rural Farm House-        4-13
         holds Annually That Is Homegrown

 4-4     The Highest Daily Dry-Weight Consumption of Vegetable           4-17
         Food Groups by Age and Sex

 4-5     The Daily Dry-Weight Consumption of Vegetables Food Groups      4-18
         by 2-Yr-Olds

 4-6     Uptake of Aldrin/Dieldrin by Plants                             4-20

 4-7     Drinking Water as a Source of Arsenic for a 70-kg Adult         4-24
         Male

 4-8     Summary of Total Diet Study Estimates of Arsenic Intake         4-26
         for Infants and Toddlers

 4-9     Uptake of Arsenic by Plants                                     4-27

 4-10    Uptake of Benzo(a)pyrene by Plants                              4-33

 4-11    Relative Source Contribution Assessment of Cadmium for          4-35
         a 70-kg Adult Male

 4-12    Summary of Cadmium Intake Estimates for Infants and             4-37
         Toddlers from Total Diet Study

 4-13    Uptake of Cadmium by Plants                                     4-39
                                 -v

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)



Table No.                        Title                                    Page


 4-14    Uptake of DDT/DDE/DDD by Plants                                 4-44

 4-15    Uptake of Heptachlor by Plants                                  4-47

 4-16    Uptake of Hexachlorobenzene by Plants                           4-51

 4-17    Uptake of Lead by Plants                                        4-62

 4-18    Uptake of Mercury by Plants                                     4-71

 4-19    Uptake of Nickel by Plants                                      4-76

 4-20    Uptake of PCBs by Plants                                        4-81

 4-21    Daily Dietary Intake of Selenium                                4-87

 4-22    Uptake of Selenium by Plants                                    4-90

 4-23    Uptake of Toxaphene by Plants                                   4-97

 4-24    Uptake of Zinc by Plants                                        4-100

 4-25    National Background Concentrations of Inorganic                 4-115
         Pollutants  in U.S. Soils

 4-26    Uptake of Aldrin/Dieldrin by Domestic and Wild                  4-138
         Animals

 4-27    Uptake of Cadmium by Domestic and Wild Animals                  4-144

 4-28    Uptake of Chlordane by Domestic and Wild Animals                4-150

 4-29    Uptake of Chlordane by Plants                                   4-154

 4-30    Uptake of DDT/DDE/DDD by Domestic and Wild Animals              4-158

 4-31    Uptake of Heptachlor by Domestic and Wild Animals               4-162

 4-32    Uptake of Hexachlorobenzene by Domestic and Wild Animals        4-167

 4-33    Uptake of Mercury by Domestic and Wild Animals                  4-172
                                   -vi-

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (Continued)



Table No.                        Title                                    Page



 4-34    Exposure Pathways for Herbivorous Animals for Human Con-        4-177
         sumption:  Effects of Management Practice on Various
         Parameters

 4-35    The Highest Average Daily Dry-Weight Consumption of Animal-     4-178
         Derived Food Groups (DA) by Age and Sex

 4-36    Uptake of Polychlorinated Biphenyls by Domestic and Wild        4-181
         Animals

 4-37    Uptake of Selenium by Domestic and Wild Animals                 4-184

 4-38    Uptake of Taxaphene by Domestic and Wild Animals           •     4-189

 4-39    Uptake of Zinc by Domestic and Wild Animals                     4-193

 4-40    Uptake of Hexachlorobutadiene by Domestic and Wild Animals      4-213

 4-41    Uptake of Lindane by Domestic and Wild Animal's                  4-216

 4-42    Toxicity of Cadmium to Domestic and Wild Animals                4-225

 4-43    Toxicity of Copper to Domestic and Wild Animals                 4-231

 4-44    Uptake of Copper by Plants                                      4-236

 4-45    Toxicity of Molybdenum to Domestic and Wild Animals             4-241

 4-46    Uptake of Molybdenum by Plants                                  4-253

 4-47    Toxicity of Salenium to Domestic and Wild Animals               4-254

 4-48    Toxicity of Zinc to Domestic and Wild Animals                   4-267

 4-49    Phytotoxicity of Cadmium                                        4-280

 4-50    Phytotoxicity of Chromium                                       4-290
                                       -vii-

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (Continued)



Table No.                        Title                                    Page


 4-51    Phytotoxicity of Copper                                         4-296

 4-52    Phytotoxicity of Lead                                           4-306

 4-53    Phytotoxicity of Nickel                                         4-313

 4-54    Phytotoxicity of Zinc                                           4-324

 4-55    Toxicity of Copper to Soil Biota                                4-337

 4-56    Uptake of Aldrin/Dieldrin by Soil Biota                         4-343

 4-57    Toxicity of Aldrin/Dieldrin to Domestic and Wild Animals        4-346

 4-58    Uptake of Cadmium by Soil Biota                                 4-359

 4-59    Uptake of Lead by Soil Biota                                    4-362

 4-60    Toxicity of Lead to Domestic and Wild Animals                   4-364

 4-61    Uptake of Zinc by Soil Biota                                    4-368

 4-62    Uptake of Zinc by Earthworms                                    4-369

 4-63    Runoff Curve Numbers for Hydrologic Soil-Cover Complexes        4-392

 4-64    Antecedent Rainfall Conditions and Curve Numbers                4-394

 4-65    Parameters Used to Calculate Sigma                              4-409

 4-66    Water Content of Sludges from Various Treatment Processes       4-410

 4-67    Default Values for Some of the Material Characteristics         4-415

 4-68    Chemical-Specific Factors                                       4-417

 5-1     Percentage of 25- to 30-Yr-Old Male Home Gardener's Dietary     5-2
         Intake of Sludge-Applied Crops
                                    -v i i i -

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (Continued)



Table No.                         Title                                    Page


 5-2     Percentage of 25- to 30-Yr-Old Male's Dietary Intake of         5-4
         Products from Animals Raised on Sludge-Applied Pasture or
         Feed Crops

 6-1     Distribution and Marketing                                      6-3

 6-2     Distribution and Marketing Pollution Limits                     6-4

 6-3     Agriculture                                                     6-6

 6-4     Standards for Agricultural Sludge Application                   6-7

 6-5     Maximum Sewage Sludge Concentration                             6-8

 6-6     Nonagricultural Land Pollutant Limits                           6-10
                                     -ix-

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES



Figure No.                          Title                                 Page


 4-1       Schematic of Surface Runoff and Erosion from a Sludge  Land    4-382
           Application Area as Addressed by the Methodology

 4-2       Flow Chart for Estimating Long-Term Average  Concentrations  as 4-383
           Addressed by the Methodology

 4-3       Field Capacity Water Content for Soils  of Various  Textures    4-398

 4-4       Wilting Point Water Content for Soils of Various Textures     4-399
            Preceding page blank
-xi-

-------
                       LIST OF UNITS AND ACRONYMS
ac       acre
ACGIH    American Conference of Governmental Industrial  Hygienists
ADI      allowable daily intake
AR       sludge application rate
AR.,      annual sludge application rate
ARc      cumulative sludge application rate

BB       background concentration in soil biota (ug/g DW)
BC       background concentration
BCH      background concentration of pollutant in feed crop of herbivorous
         animals
BCF      bioconcentration factor
BS       background concentration of pollutant in soil (ug/g DW)
BW       body weight

CEC      cation exchange capacity (soil)
cm       centimeter
CWA      Clean Water Act
•CWSS     Community Water Supply Study

DA       exposure duration adjustment (unitless)
DC       daily dietary consumption
dL       deciliter
D&M      distribution and marketing
DW       dry weight

Eh       potential required to transfer electrons from the oxidant  to the
         reductant
EPA      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FA       fraction of food group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil
         or feedstuffs
FC       fraction of food group assumed to originate from sludge-amended soil
         (unitless)
FL       fraction of the animal diet assumed to be from  soil
FS       fraction of the animal diet assumed to be from  sludge
FY       fiscal year

g       gram

ha       hectare

I,       soil ingestion rate (g DW/day)

k       loss rate constant
kg       kilogram
                                     -xiii-
        Preceding page blank

-------
                 LIST OF UNITS AND ACRONYMS  (Continued)
L        liter
LC50      lethal  concentration of chemical (in liquid)  at which 50% of study
         animals die
LD50      lethal  dose  of chemical at which 50% of study animals die
LOEL     lowest  observed effect level

m        meter
MCL      maximum contaminant level
MED      maximum equivalent dose
MEI      most exposed individual
mg       milligram
MGD      million gallons per day
mon      month
MS       presumed mass of the top six inches of soil
mt       metric  tons

NCI      National Cancer Institute
NIOSH    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NOEL     no observed  effect level

qj*      human cancer potency (measure of a pollutant's ability to increase
         the risk of  contracting cancer over a lifetime)

ORD      Office  of Research and Development (EPA)
OSW      Office  of Solid Waste (EPA)
OWRS     Office  of Water Regulations and Standards  (EPA)

PCBs     polychlorinated biphenyls
POTWs    publicly owned treatment works
ppm      parts  per million

RE       relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure  (unitless)
RFC      reference feed concentration of pollutant  (ug/g DW)
RfD      risk reference dose (threshold below which adverse health effects are
         unlikely to  occur)
RIA      adjusted reference intake (ug/day)
RL       risk level
RLC      reference concentration in soil (ug/g DW))
RP       reference application rate of pollutant (kg/ha)
RPa      reference annual application rate of pollutant (kg/ha)
RPC      reference cumulative application rate (kg/ha)
RSC      reference sludge concentration
RWS      Rural Water  Survey
RCRA     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

T        waiting period
TA       threshold feed concentration
                                      -xxv-

-------
                 LIST OF UNITS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
TAH      threshold feed concentration that  is  toxic  to herbivorous  animal

TB       soil  concentration of pollutant  that  is  toxic to  soil biota
TBI      total background intake  rom all  sources  of  exposure
TBIa      TBI  for adults
TBI,      TBI  for toddlers
TP       threshold phytotoxic  application rate  of a  pollutant
TSCA     Toxic Substances Control Act

UA       uptake response slope of pollutant in  animal tissue
UB       uptake response slope in soil biota
UC       uptake response slope for contaminants
UCo      uptake response slope of pollutant in  plant tissue  found  in  diet  of
         grazing animals
UCH      uptake response slope of forage  crop  for herbivorous animal
UCV      uptake response slope for each vegetable food group in  the human  diet
ug       microgram
USDA     U.S.  Department of Agriculture
USLE     Universal Soil Loss Equation

wk       week
WW       wet weight

yr       year
                                     -xv-

-------
                                SECTION ONE
                               INTRODUCTION
1.1  BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSED REGULATION

    Sewage treatment works  generate  sludge  in the process of maintaining the
quality of our water resources.   As  the quantity of raw sewage increases, so
does the quantity of sludge,  which must then be disposed of or used in a safe
fashion.

    The term landspreading  encompasses all  means of applying sludge or sludge-
derived material on the soil,  as  well as  of incorporating the material into
soil surfaces. Recently landspreading has been gaining attention as a viable
option because of the growing volume of sludge, the need to conserve natural
resources, and the legal restrictions on  other disposal options (or their
increasing cost) .

    Landspreading sludge that is  contaminated by toxic organics or heavy
metals presents problems, however;  the sludge may interfere with plant growth
or be passed by plants to animals or humans.  In addition, if landspreading of
contaminated sludge is improperly managed,  runoff from fields may pass metals
and other pollutants to surface  and  ground  waters.

    The Agency is concerned with  controlling adverse effects to health and the
environment caused by any means  of use or disposal of sludge.  In 1982,  the
EPA established a Sludge Task Force  to recommend the best procedure for
implementing a comprehensive regulatory program for sludge management.   This
group suggested the development  of  two sets of regulations:  one to specify
requirements for state sludge management  programs and the other to provide the
technical criteria.
                                     1-1

-------
    Following that recommendation, the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Division developed and proposed (51 Fed. Reg. 4458, February 4, 1986) the
State Sludge Management Program Regulations.  This set of regulations requires
states to develop management programs that comply with federal sludge use and
disposal criteria, including management practices.  The regulations  focus on
the procedural requirements for submission, review, approval of state sludge
management programs, EPA oversight, and withdrawal of approval when warranted.
On March 9, 1988, these regulations were reproposed (53 Fed. Reg. 7642) to
reflect changes in requirements for sludge management programs imposed by the
1987 Water Quality Act.  After public comment, these regulations will be
promulgated under 40 CFR Part 501.

    The second type of regulation was first handled by the EPA's Office of
Solid Waste (OSW), which in 1980 prepared a draft regulation on the
distribution and marketing of sludge.  Public meetings were held in five major
U.S. cities, and comments were incorporated into the draft rule where
appropriate.  OSW failed to propose this regulation, however, due to the
diversion of resources to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste programs.

    In 1984, this task was transferred to the Office of Water, and a
Wastewater Solids Criteria Branch was established to begin developing the risk
assessment to support this rule.  The Office of Water Regulations and
Standards  (OWRS) within the Wastewater Solids Criteria Branch is now
generating criteria and developing technical regulations for the
reuse/disposal of municipal wastewater (sewage) sludge.  These regulations are
based on risk assessment methodologies and technical support documents that
describe the rationale for the criteria.

    As an early step in the development of the risk assessment methodologies,
the OWRS held four expert meetings from April to May 1984 to identify:

       • Pollutants in sewage sludge for which an adequate database existed  to
         indicate the hazard posed to human health and/or the environment
         (i.e., potential health hazards)
                                      1-2

-------
       • Pollutants for which enough data existed to  exclude  them as  hazards
         to human health and/or the environment
       • Pollutants for which insufficient data were  available  to determine  if
         they posed a problem

    For each of the 52 organic and inorganic chemicals  identified as  potential
hazards, environmental profiles were then prepared that tabulated the data
pertinent to the environmental and health hazard posed  by the chemical.   In
addition, hazard indices or calculated numeric values of relative risk over
background levels were included in the profiles.   The 34 pollutants  that  were
considered to present problems for land application and distribution  and
marketing (D&M) of sludge were then further evaluated by detailed exposure
assessment analysis.   (The other 18 chemicals were considered to  be  of concern
only for other disposal practices, such as landfilling.)
1.2  STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR SLUDGE REGULATIONS

    Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)  as  amended (33  U.S.C.  1345)
directed the Agency to develop, propose,  and promulgate  regulations  for  the
disposal of sludge.  Additional authorizing legislation  includes  sections  of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the  Toxic Substances  Control
Act (TSCA).

    Other regulations that apply to land application of  sludge  include
regulations at 40 CFR 257, which establish maximum  contaminant  levels  for
cadmium, polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCBs),  and minimum pathogen density
reduction but do not address other  pollutants.  Because  the regulations  at 40
CFR 257 only modeled a few pathways and evaluated two chemicals,  the proposed
rule -- which is much more thorough -- would make these  regulations
inapplicable to sewage sludge.
                                      1-3

-------
1.3  OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

      This document provides the technical data and justification supporting
one of the proposed regulations --  land application --  issued under §405(d)  of
the CWA.   The data contained here are used to establish good management
practices and set numeric concentration limits for pollutants and application
rates. Good management is essential for the beneficial  reuse of municipal
sludge and thus the protection of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems from
sludge contamination.  (Many more pollutants are found  in sludge than are
covered here, however; as these are studied,  additional regulations covering
land application will become necessary.)

    Section 2 outlines land application options,  sludge characteristics,  and
previous experience with land application of sludge.  Section 3 introduces  13
environmental pathways through which sludge pollutants  may reach target
organisms and the means of quantifying the magnitude  of the resultant risk.

    The environmental profiles that OWRS  developed for  each of the pollutants
that were identified as being of concern in the use or  disposal of sludge
contain data compilations, as well as hazard indices, for each of the
environmental pathways associated with the land application of sewage sludge.
Hazard indices generated for the land application/distributing and marketing
(D&M) option include indices for toxicity to soil biota and their predators,
phytotoxicity,  animal toxicity from plants and soil ingestion,  human toxicity
from consuming plants and animal products from animals  grazed on sludge-
amended soils,  and human toxicity resulting from direct ingestion of sludge.

    Risk assessment methodologies for all the use and disposal options,
including land application/D&M, were developed to quantify the risk of
individual sludge pollutants through specific pathways.   This risk assessment
enabled the Agency to establish maximum permissible contaminant levels,
maximum application or disposal rates, and to identify  management practices
that will minimize risk from exposure by these pathways.   Section 4 contains
the data by which the pollutants of concern in the land application of sludge
                                      1-4

-------
were quantified for each pathway as well as the data by which the subsequent
fate and transport of these contaminants in air, water, and soil were
identified.  Photolysis, volatilization, hydrolysis, and other processes were
examined for their effects on bioavailability and toxicity to target
organisms.  The influence of site-specific factors (e.g., type of soil,
distance to ground water, soil pH, and slope of the land) on increasing or
decreasing the impact of sludge constituents on animals, humans, and the
environment is also discussed.

    Section 5 describes the sensitivity analyses that were used to evaluate
the effects of different most-exposed individual (MEI) scenarios for a number
of the pathways discussed.  Section 6 contains a summary of the pathways
selected for D&M and agricultural use sludge practices as well as
justifications for inclusion.

    The pollutants of concern in land application of sludge were analyzed
using the Land Application Risk Assessment Methodology (EPA,1989) with
"reasonable worst-case" assumptions.  These calculations were used to set the
maximum numeric concentrations of pollutants allowed in sludge, maximum
cumulative or annual application rates, and appropriate management practices
for each pathway.  With the outcome of these exercises, EPA identified data
gaps and informational needs, which the Agency's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) will handle during future regulatory development activities.
(These tasks are described in the Preamble to the rule.)

    The permissible contaminant level for each end use, which was chosen using
national data inputs, is the most restrictive concentration permitted for that
chemical through any of the pathways of exposure applicable to that end use.
In other words, each chemical relevant to land application of sludge was
analyzed using the 13 relevant pathways.  Whatever pathway showed the lowest
safe concentration of the chemical is the so-called limiting pathway for that
chemical.  The concentration of the chemical allowed by the limiting pathway
-- which is the most stringent one measured -- is then defined as the
permissible contaminant level for that chemical for land application of
                                      1-5

-------
sludge.   This value determines the national annual or cumulative loading rate
for land application.  Thus, setting permissible contaminant levels for
chemicals provides protection from unsafe concentrations of that chemical,
regardless of the pathway by which the contaminant later moves through the
environment.

    No provision has been made in this methodology for variance of site-
specific factors because the limited relief from the national standards that
could have been given would not have been offset by the greatly increased
burden for permitting authorities.'  Allowing site-specific factors to be used
could have resulted in a site-by-site analysis for each land application use
and would have defeated the intention of the Act, which requires the setting
of national limits.
                                      1-6

-------
                               SECTION TWO
            MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSOCIATED WITH LAND
                         APPLICATION OF SLUDGE
    Land application is  the  spreading of sludge on or just below the surface
of the soil.   Three management practices are associated with land application:
distribution and marketing  (D&M); agricultural use; and nonagricultural use,
such as application on forest lands, drastically disturbed lands,  and
dedicated lands for sludge  treatment.  Which of these management practices is
chosen determines the appropriate sludge application rate, contaminant
concentrations, and management protocol.

     Sludge application can  enhance  the condition of soil:  sludge can improve
the soil's physical properties by increasing its moisture-holding capacity and
improving texture.   Sludge  can also  provide valuable plant nutrients that
supplement those provided by chemical fertilizers, thus reducing the need for
their use.  The positive impact  on the soil is relative to the quality of the
sludge, but sludge application has. proved useful in the reclamation of areas
damaged by strip mining, erosion, or other activities for park,  residential,
or agricultural use.
2.1  DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING

    Distribution and marketing refers  to  the give-away or sale of sludge or
sludge products either in bulk or  in  bags  to the public, commercial growers,
or local governments for use as fertilizer or soil conditioner for food chain
and non-food chain vegetation.   State  or  regional offices write permits for
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)  to  distribute and market sludge, and
recordkeeping of how much sludge is applied to each site is usually a
condition of the permit.  If another  entity besides the treatment works (e.g.,
a garden center) distributes the sludge or sludge product, that entity must
                                     2-1

-------
still meet the requirements established by the rule through a contract (or
similar mechanism) with the treatment works.   In most cases,  the permitting
authority will not establish a contractual agreement with the ultimate user
(e.g., individual who buys sludge from a garden center to fertilize a home
garden).

    Before release to the public, D&M sludges have usually undergone treatment
to reduce the pathogen concentrations and to  either dewater or reduce the
moisture content of the product.   Sludge treatment before distribution varies
among POTWs and includes, but is  not limited  to,  the following processes:

    •  Aerobic digestion
    •  Anaerobic digestion
    •  Heat drying
    •  Mechanical dewatering
    •  Air drying
    •  Composting

    In addition, wood chips or nutrient additives may be  blended with the
sludge to increase its fertilizing or soil-conditioning value.   Lime or ocher
chemicals may also be added to the products to ensure a pH of 6 or greater for
soils in which optimum plant growth is achieved at higher pHs.
2.2  AGRICULTURAL USE

    Agricultural use of sludge comprises the following practices:

    •  Application on farm lands to increase the  production of a wide range of
       crops (e.g., grains,  animal feeds,  and non-food chain crops)
    •  Application on pasture lands to increase  the  production of animal
       forage
                                      2-2

-------
    Both liquid and dewatered sludge can be beneficially applied to
agricultural lands.  The method of application depends on the physical
characteristics of the sludge, the soil, and the crops grown on the land.
Liquid sludge can either be applied with tractors,  tank wagons,  irrigation
systems, or special application vehicles, or it can be injected under the
surface layer of the soil.  Surface application is  normally limited to slopes
of 6% or less (to reduce surface runoff).  As the sludge dries,  exposure to
the sun and air helps degrade any toxic organics,  partially volatilize other
organics, and destroy pathogens. After partial drying, the sludge is usually
incorporated into the topsoil by plowing or disking before row crops are
planted.

    Subsurface methods have the advantage of reducing the potential exposure
of crops, grazing animals, or humans to the sludge.  In addition, subsurface
application significantly reduces odors, though it  may also reduce the rate at
which volatile organic pollutants disperse into the air.

    Dewatered sludge, on the other hand, is typically applied to cropland by
equipment similar to that used for applying limestone, animal manures, or
commercial chemical fertilizers.  Generally, the dewatered sludge is
surface-applied and then incorporated by plowing or disking.  When applied to
pasture land, sludge is usually surface-applied with no subsequent
incorporation.  If the sludge solids content does not exceed approximately
20%, dewatered sludges can also be injected below the surface.

    Sludge is sometimes applied to agricultural land after composting or air-
or heat-drying.  These treatment processes reduce the water content of sludge,
minimize odors and vector attraction, and decrease  pathogen and organic
chemical concentrations.  These treatments thus make the dried forms of sludge
more stable and easier to store.

    The major concern in sludge application on agricultural land is the
potential contamination of the human food chain.  Contaminants from sludge can
be absorbed by crops or by forage plants that will  be subsequently consumed by
                                      2-3

-------
domesticated animals or wildlife.  The criteria set forth in the proposed rule
are intended to preclude adverse effects on this food chain.
23  NONAGRICULTURAL USE

     23.1  Silviculture

    Sludge application to forest lands (silviculture) increases forest
productivity by enhancing the soil's nutrients.   The application rate for
sludge used in silviculture is approximately 10  to 100 metric tons per hectare
(mt/ha) in a single application every 3 - 5 yr.   (These rates are often
limited by the nitrogen needs of the trees.)

    The application of sludge to forest land has received far less attention
as an option for reuse than application to agricultural land, in spite of the
fact that 40% of the land area of the United States is forested.  A consid-
erable amount of research in the United States and elsewhere, however, has
focused on the effects of the practice.  The results suggest that, when proper
management practices are followed,  sludge can be effectively used to increase
forest productivity without causing significant  environmental problems.   These
practices, to be effective, must control the following factors:

    •  Degree of stabilization of the sludge used
    •  Application rates for the sludge
    •  Degree of land slope
    •  Important siting issues (e.g., quality of aquifer and depth to ground
       water, type and age of tree stand, buffer zones)

    If the sludge is properly applied, problems  such as excessive odors,
nitrate leaching, and movement of pathogens or other sludge constituents into
surface waters or ground waters can be minimized or avoided.
                                      2-4

-------
    The experiments have also shown, however,  that plants and trees show
significant differences in uptake and accumulation of heavy metals, although
the uptake levels observed under field conditions have generally been small
and do not cause phytotoxic conditions.  Not all tree species have responded
well under all test conditions; but excellent growth responses,  even exceeding
those achieved by commercial forest fertilization trials, have been noted.  It
appears that, at least in certain locations, the increased growth response
from a single sludge application (or pulse) at the rate of 20 dry tons per
acre (ac) can be maintained for at least 5 yr.

    Sludge application to forest land has been undertaken (at least on an
experimental field-scale level) in at least ten states, but most extensively
in the Pacific Northwest.  Seattle METRO and a number of smaller towns in
Washington conduct land application of sewage sludge to forest lands on a
relatively large scale.  Sludge has been applied to recently cleared land and
young tree'farms, but most frequently to established forest stands on
privately or commercially owned forest, as well as on publicly owned sites.  A
wide array of site conditions and tree species have been involved.

    Forest products are an insignificant part of the human food chain; thus
the primary focus of regulations controlling this method of sludge use is to
prevent the contamination of either surface or ground waters.  Also, a forest
site may be converted to other uses after sludge application; therefore,
possible future uses of a site should be considered in the management of
sludge contaminants on forest land.
    23.2  Land Reclamation

    In land reclamation, sludge is used to return barren land to productivity
or to provide the vegetative cover necessary for controlling soil erosion.  A
relatively high application rate -- 7 - 450 mt/ha --is common, but such a
rate is necessary to provide sufficient organic matter and nutrients to
support the vegetation until a self-sustaining ecosystem can be established.
                                     2-5

-------
Because of these large, one-time applications of sludge in land reclamation,
effective management criteria must concentrate on the contamination of surface
water by runoff and ground water by leaching.

    Application of sewage sludge to reclaimed land, as to forest land, has
received much less attention than application to agricultural land.  The
results of both pilot- and full-scale demonstration projects undertaken in at
least 20 states, however, suggest that when proper management practices are
followed sludge can be effectively used to help reclaim disturbed sites and
improve low-productivity soils without causing significant environmental
problems.  The same factors must be controlled in land reclamation as in
sludge application to forest land:

    •  Degree of sludge stabilization
    •  Application rates
    •  Maintainance of slopes at reasonable levels
    •  Important siting factors (e.g., quality of aquifer and depth to ground
       water, site preparation, surface water drainage controls, buffer zones)

    Again, as with forest land, proper management can control problems such as
excessive odors, nitrate leaching, and movement of pathogens or other sludge
contaminants into surface waters or ground waters.
    233  Dedicated Land Disposal

    By applying sludge on a dedicated land disposal site, site managers are
using the soil as a treatment system for the sludge.   In such a system, the
soil binds metals and then sunlight, microorganisms,  and oxidation destroy the
organic matter in the sludge.   (The nutrient qualities of the sludge are
rarely used productively in this means of disposal.)   High total annual sludge
application rates (e.g.,  100+ dry tons/ac/yr) of liquid or partially dewatered
sludge applied with soil incorporation equipment at 10-20+ dry
:ons/ac/application is not an uncommon practice.  Because these application
                                     2-6

-------
rates are as high as twenty times the rate used in agricultural applications,
management, criteria must be directed (as with land reclamation) at protection
of both surface and groundwater supplies.  Furthermore, contaminants must be
contained within the dedicated site boundaries.

    Dedicated land disposal allows the POTWs or privately owned utilities
considerable control over the ultimate fate of the sludge and sludge
contaminants, but at the cost of increased management.  In addition, direct
management of the land allows much greater control of sludge application
scheduling, application rates, and other procedures used on the disposal site.
Onsite construction (e.g., grading, drainage, storage, fencing, roads) can be
implemented to optimize both ongoing and future operations without concern for
potential impact on a private land owner.

    Dedicated land disposal has received less attention as an option for
sludge use/disposal than has application to agricultural land, yet in 1981 at
least 20 full-scale projects were in operation in the United Stares.  Most
commonly, dedicated disposal sites are located first by choosing areas with
temperate, arid climates and high net evaporation rates, and then finding Land
underlain by a nearly impervious geologic barrier (e.g., bedrock, continuous
thick clay layer) or an aquifer that has no potential for use as a potable
water supply due to poor water quality.  Large buffer areas (e.g., 300+ meters
(m)) are typically maintained between the disposal sites and occupied
dwellings, public use areas, or surface water bodies.

    Depending on site conditions, underdrains with leachate collection and
treatment may be necessary.  Vector (e.g., flies, rodents) control is often
needed to manage offsite migration and onsite breeding.  Odor control is often
a major concern at dedicated sites, leading to the installation of
specifically designed air dispersion systems to handle lengthy inversion
conditions.
                                      2-7

-------
                              SECTION THREE

                        RISK ASSESSMENT FACTORS

3.1  EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

    Sludge exposure pathways are  the  environmental routes by which potentially
hazardous pollutants reach organisms  or  environmental targets following land
application of sludge.   In this methodology,, the target organisms of concern
are humans, soil biota,  plants, and animals,  and the environmental targets
include ground and surface waters.

    The risk assessment methodology used here defines the following 13
exposure pathways for sludge:

    1.  Sludge--Soil--Plant--Human toxicity
    2.  Sludge--Human toxicity
    3.  Sludge--Soil--Plant--Animal--Human  toxicity
    4.  Sludge--Animal (Direct ingestion)--Human toxicity
    5.  Sludge--Soil--Plant--Animal toxicity
    6.  Sludge--Animal toxicity  (Direct  ingestion)
    7.  Sludge--Soil--Plant toxicity
    8.  Sludge--Soil--Soil biota  toxicity
    9.  Sludge--Soil--Soil biota--Predator  toxicity
    10. Particulate resuspension
    11. Surface runoff
    12. Ground water
    13. Vaporization
                                     3-1.

-------
    Equations developed for each of these pathways are used to generate the
criteria for establishing safe exposure levels.  The impact of exposure to
pollutants by each pathway is influenced by the management practice:  well-
managed procedures for sludge application can eliminate the risk involved with
an exposure pathway.  For example,  if sludge is applied to agricultural land
that is far away from residential dwellings, children would not be expected to
be in the area and therefore pathway 2 (the "pica child" pathway) is not an
exposure route of concern.  Thus not all the pathways are analyzed for both
D&M and agricultural uses:  pathway 2 is not evaluated for agricultural uses
of sludge, and pathways in which a grazing animal, such as a cow, is the MEI
are not assessed for sludge marketed in residential settings. (See Section 6
for a summary discussion of which pathways are of concern for D&M and which
are of concern for agricultural applications.)

    For a description and explanation of each of the 13 exposure pathways for
sludge (including algorithms), see Development of a Risk Assessment Method-
ology for Land Application and Distribution and Marketing of Municipal Sludge
(EPA, 1989).  The following material only summarizes the algorithms and
restates some of the limiting assumptions.
3.2  POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN

    The OWRS expert committees chose 34 pollutants as being of potential
concern in land application of sludge because of their toxicity,  persistence,
and frequent presence  in sludge  (EPA, 1985f) (see Table 3-1).   For each of
these pollutants,  an environmental profile document was generated that
included data compilations for each contaminant and hazard indices for the
major environmental pathways associated with the land application option for
slddge use.

    Thirteen indices were evaluated for land application/D&M using typical and
worst-case pollutant concentrations and several cumulative application rates
(i.e., 5, 50, or 500 mt/ha).   These data were used to determine,  for each
                                      3-2

-------
       TABLE 3-1.  Sludge Contaminants Selected for Environmental
                    Profile Development for Land Application
INORGANIC                     VOLATILE COMPOUNDS            ACID COMPOUNDS
COMPOUNDS
Arsenic                       Methylene                     Pentachlorophenol
Chloride                      Trichlorethylene
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
BASE NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS     PESTICIDES AND PCBS    MISCELLANEOUS

Dimethyl nitrosamine       Aldrin/Dieldrin        Methylenebis
Benzo(a)anthracene         Chlordane              (2-chloro-
Benzo(a)pyrene             DDT/DDE/DDD            aniline) [MOCA]
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)         Heptachlor             Tricresyl phosphate
phthalate                  Lindane
Hexachlorobenzene          PCBs
Hexachlorobutadiene        Toxaphene
Source: EPA, 1985f.
                                      3-3

-------
index, the application rate at which a pollutant becomes a hazard.  Chemicals
posing an incremental risk greater than background were subsequently run
through the complete risk assessment methodology, while the rest were dropped
from consideration.  A summary of the results of the land application
environmental profiles and hazard indices for pollutants is included in Table
6 of the Profile Summary Document (EPA, 1985f).

    Pathways 10 to 13 (i.e., the aquatic routes) were not initially included
in the Profile Summary Document because they were not considered very likely
routes for exposure, assuming good management practices were in place for land
application of sludge.  After this assumption was challenged, OPJ) developed a
methodology to evaluate these pathways during the complete risk assessment.

    For the vapor pathway, only those sludge contaminants sufficiently
volatile to pose a vapor hazard were evaluated.   For the groundwater pathway,
the pollutants analyzed are the same as those that were found to pose a risk
for sludge landfilling option, which is a worst-case scenario of land
application.  In addition, some pollutants were evaluated that were not
analyzed for the landfill option but were considered to pose a risk for land
application.

    Because no hazard indices were generated for surface-runoff pathways using
any disposal option, all 34 of the original pollutants of concern for land
application were evaluated for those pathways.  The particulate resuspension
pathway was analyzed only for agricultural land application use, with the MEI
defined as a tractor driver plowing large areas.  Exposure to particulates in
the residential setting is presumably insignificant and, therefore, was not
modeled.  Table 3-2 lists the sludge contaminants that were analyzed using all
the appropriate land application and distribution and marketing risk
assessment methodologies.
                                      3-4

-------
      TABLE 3-2.  Sludge Contaminants Used for Land Application/
                   D&M for Which Risk Assessments Were Performed
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Arsenic
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
DDT/DDE/DDD
Dimethyl nitrosamine
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methylene chloride
Nickel
PCBs
Pentachlorophenol
Selenium
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Zinc
                                      3-5

-------
33  SUMMARY OF THE MEI RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

    33.1  Definitions of Pathways and MEIs

    For agricultural land application, the MEI is defined as an individual
residing in a region where 2.5% of his or her diet (see EPA, 1986c) consists
of crops grown on sludge-amended soils and where 34-48% of the animal products
in the diet are from animals raised on feed or pasture where sludge has been
applied.  The MEI is in the age and sex group having the highest total food
consumption for any given food group, as reported in the FDA revised total
diet study (Pennington, 1983).

    One possible future use of agricultural lands that was considered was the
conversion to residential development 5 yr after sludge application.  Risk for
this future use was assessed on the basis of the home gardening that could
eventually take place, where the percentage of the MEI's diet of crops from
sludge-amended soil (17-60%) was higher than under the agricultural scenario.
Future use as a residential development is also analyzed using pathway 2
(human toxicity from sludge ingestion).   (See Section 6.)

     Pathway 1 (sludge--soil--plant--human toxicity)  assumes that sludge
contaminants are taken up from the soil through plant roots.  Direct adherence
of sludge or soil to crop surfaces is assumed to be minimal, and the small
amounts of contaminants on the plant's surface are presumably washed off
before consumption.  The MEI for this pathway is a person of the age bracket
and sex with the highest consumption of each vegetable food group (the diet is
assumed to consist of  2.5% of plant groups grown on sludge-amended soils)
The plant groups included in this analysis are potatoes, leafy vegetables,
root crops, garden fruits, dried legumes, nondried legumes,  grains and
cereals, and peanuts.

    Pathway 2 (sludge--human toxicity),  or the pica child pathway, is assumed
to be a potential contamination route only when agricultural land has been
converted to residential development.  The MEI is defined as a 1-yr-old child
                                     3-6

-------
who ingests soil containing sludge.  The pollutants in the sludge are modeled
on the assumption that the child is not exposed to undiluted sludge, but
rather to concentrations equivalent to those of sludge mixed in a plow layer
of soil.

    Pathway 3 (sludge--soil--plant--animal--human toxicity) and Pathway 4
(sludge--soil--animal--human toxicity) are the routes by which humans are
exposed to pollutants in sludge by the contamination of animal tissue, eggs,
and dairy products.  In pathway 3, row crops (i.e., grains) or other forage
crops  (i.e., grasses) are grown on sludge-amended soils and take up
contaminants through the roots.  These crops are then fed to animals whose
meat,  milk, or eggs are consumed by humans.  In pathway 4, sludge is applied
over forage crops and adheres to crop surfaces or remains in the top thatch
layer  on the soil surface, where it is accessible for direct ingestion by
foraging animals.

    For pathways 3 and 4, the MEI for each animal-derived food group is a
person of the age bracket and sex with the highest consumption of that food
group.  Forty-four percent of the MEI's diet is assumed to consist of beef,
beef liver, lamb, and pork that was raised on sludge-contaminated feed crops
or pasture.  In  addition, 34% of the MEI's poultry intake, 40% of dairy
products, and 40% of the eggs eaten are assumed to be from animals raised on
sludge-contaminated feed.

    Pathway 5 (sludge--soil--plant--animal toxicity) and pathway 6 (sludge
--soil--animal toxicity) are the routes by which the exposure of animals to
toxic  concentrations of sludge pollutants can be evaluated.  These animals may
or may not be eaten by humans.  The MEI for these pathways is the animal that
has the lowest (most sensitive) toxicity threshold for a pollutant, e.g.,
swine  for cadmium, chickens for zinc and selenium, cattle for molybdenum, and
sheep  for copper.

     Pathway 7 (sludge--soil--plant toxicity) describes the steps by which
plants are exposed to phytotoxic concentrations of sludge contaminants.  The
                                      3-7

-------
MEI for this pathway is the plant that has the lowest toxicity threshold for a
pollutant, e.g., lettuce for cadmium and zinc, rye for copper, celery and corn
for nickel, leafy vegetables for lead, and corn for chromium.

    Pathway 8 (sludge--soil--soil biota toxicity) is the pathway by which
pollutant effects reach a broad range of soil organisms, including
microorganisms; soil invertebrates, such as earthworms; and various arthropods
living in or near the soil.  Potential effects in these organisms are
evaluated only  if they can be related to soil pollutant concentrations.  The
MEI is the organism that has the lowest toxicity threshold.

    Pathway 9 (sludge--soil--soil biota--predator toxicity) can be used to
examine, toxic effects on predators of soil biota, especially small animals and
birds, that can harmed by sludge pollutants.   The MEI is the organism that has
the lowest toxicity threshold for a pollutant, e.g., chickens for cadmium and
zinc, ducks for lead, and partridges for aldrin/dieldrin.

    Pathway 10  involves the particulate resuspension of contaminated soils and
human inhalation of the toxicants adsorbed on these particles.  This pathway
may be of concern when sludge is applied to large areas where established
vegetation is lacking or where mechanical resuspension, such as by tilling,
occurs.  The MEI is a tractor driver tilling sludge-amended soil and working
an 8-hour  (hr)  day.

    Pathway 11  is the route by which sludge-amended soil is transported in
surface runoff  to receiving waters, such as streams, lakes, and estuaries. As
a result of such transport, aquatic organisms residing in the water can be
harmed, as can  humans who drink the water and consume the organisms.  The
surface-runoff  pathway is a potential problem for all land use options, except
when the sludge is completely enclosed by a structure (e.g., at indoor nursery
operations).  The MEI definition depends on whether the water quality
criterion for aquatic life is more or less stringent than the criterion for
human health.   The human MEI is an adult who drinks 2 liters (L) per day of
the contaminated water and eats 6.5 grams (g) per day of the contaminated fish
                                     3-8

-------
over a 70-yr lifespan.  If the aquatic life criterion is more stringent,
however, the aquatic organism is considered to be the MEI.

    Pathway 12 is the route by which groundwater sources of human drinking
water is contaminated by land-applied sludge.  It is considered a potential
problem for all land uses, except when sludge is completely enclosed by a
structure, such as at indoor nurseries.  The MEI is an adult who resides on
the sludge land application area and drinks 2 L of the ground water every day
for a 70-yr lifespan.  This pathway has been combined with pathway 13 because
the same MEI who is exposed to the ground water in the vicinity of a land
application site has been presumably exposed simultaneously to vapors.

    Pathway 13 describes the vaporization of volatile contaminants and their
subsequent inhalation by a human.  The MEI is an adult who resides on the land
application area and inhales the vapors every day for a 70-yr lifespan.
    33.2  Computer Modeling Using Pathway Equations

    The Agency has developed an IBM PC-compatible program using equations from
all 13 environmental exposure pathways.  The model includes as defaults the
"reasonable worst-case" national values for all the parameters in the 13
pathways.  For agricultural land application, the model is used to calculate
the maximum allowable sludge concentration and loading rate for each pollutant
in each pathway, taking into account for pathways 1 and 2 that the land may be
used in the future as a residential home garden.  The maximum allowable
concentrations for each pollutant have been set by whatever pathway requires
the most stringent value.  The equations for each of these pathways are
discussed in the Risk Assessment Methodology for Land Application and
Distribution and Marketing of Municipal Sludge (EPA, 1989).

    The nine soil and food chain contamination pathways of the model have been
reviewed by the Science Advisory Board.  The Agency is maintaining a continual
literature search to update the toxicological database for these pathways.
                                      3-9

-------
Field data on plant uptake of sludge contaminants, as well as on the rates at
which animals bioaccumulate contaminants, have been obtained from the
published scientific literature.  The Agency is also requesting that any
relevant unpublished data be brought to its attention during the public
comment period for the proposed rule.

    Pathway 1 (sludge--soil--plant--human toxicity) equations are used to
calculate the maximum allowable application of pollutants in sludge that will
not cause humans ingesting contaminated plants to suffer from adverse health
effects or unacceptable incremental carcinogenic risks over background levels.
The pathway 1 model allows either linear or curvilinear plant uptake
functions, but sufficient data are currently available only for linear
responses. Consequently, the proposed rule is based only on linear uptake
rates for plants.  Plant uptake of metals is treated as a linear function with
application rate, until contaminant concentrations in the plant tissue cause
the plant to die.  Thus the model's calculated application rate represents a
cumulative pollutant application.

    In contrast, the uptake of organics is treated as linear with soil
concentration, until phytotoxic concentrations are reached.  The model's
calculated application rate for organics represents the amount that could be
applied in a single sludge application, given no waiting or conversion period.
The model also contains a decay rate for the pollutant, however, for
calculating permissible single application rates when a waiting or conversion
period has been  instituted, or for calculating annual application rates.

    The assumptions underlying the pathway 1 model can over- or underpredict
plant tissue concentrations and human toxicity effects.  First, using a linear
plant uptake function may overpredict plant tissue concentrations if the
relationship is  truly curvilinear.  Second, the assumption that organic
contaminants undergo first-order degradation could over- or underpredict
concentrations:  in fact, the decay process is complex and not necessarily
first order.  Third, using zero soil background concentrations for organic
chemicals (because the methodology is designed to calculate only an
                                      3-10

-------
incremental risk for carcinogens) may result in an underprediction of plant
concentration.  Fourth, the assumption that sludge is incorporated into the
soil to a depth of 15 centimeters (cm) may cause either over- or
underpredictions of plant concentrations.   If incorporation depths are greater
than 15 cm, plant tissue concentrations will be less than predicted,  whereas
the opposite will be true if depths are less than 15 cm.

    Input data for pathway 1 model runs include:

    •  Uptake rates for each plant type in the human diet
    •  The MEI's mean daily dietary intake of each plant type
    •  The fraction of the MEI's dietary intake of each plant type assumed to
       have originated from sludge-amended soil
    •  Phytotoxic levels for each contaminant and each plant type
    •  The mass of the upper soil layer
    •  The annual pollutant and whole sludge application rates
    •  First-order decay rates for the organic chemicals
    •  The MEI's total background intake of pollutants from sources other than
       sludge-contaminated food
    •  Soil background concentrations
    •  The waiting period between sludge application and crop planting
    •  The conversion period between sludge application and the use of the
       soil for a residential garden

    The plant groups evaluated for agricultural land application include dried
legumes, nondried legumes, garden fruits, grains and cereals, peanuts, pota-
toes,  leafy vegetables, and root crops.  Vegetable oils were not evaluated
because there were no data available on the percentage of the pollutants in
plant  tissue  that would remain after the plants were processed into vegetable
oil.   Based on the physical/chemical characteristics of the contaminants, as
well as on the processes used in the production of vegetable oils, negligible
quantities of pollutants would presumably be found in the finished product.
                                      3-11

-------
    The Agency's pathway 2 model is based on Che assumption that children do
not have access to sludge applied at agricultural sites, but only to home
gardens.  As a result, pathway 2 is modeled for sludge application to
agricultural sites that will later be used as residential developments after a
5-yr conversion period.  Given this conversion scenario, the model reduces the
organic chemical concentrations originally applied in the sludge by the amount
they would decay during the conversion period.

    Children between 1 and 6 yr of age ingest soil either by inadvertent
hand-to-mouth transfer or by intentional eating; thus the MEI for the child
ingestion pathway is a 1-yr-old child.  In this case, the cancer potency of
the carcinogenic contaminants in sludge is adjusted to reflect a 5-yr rather
than a 70-yr adult exposure.  Note that for children, who are more susceptible
to chemical carcinogenesis than adults, this 5/70 adjustment of cancer potency
could underestimate the hazard to their health.

    The input data for pathway 2 include:

    •  Soil ingestion rate
    •  Conversion period to residential gardens
    •  Soil background concentrations of contaminants for metals
    •  First-order decay rates for organic chemicals
    •  The MEI's total background intake of pollutants from sources other than
       sludge-contaminated soil

     Pathway 3 (sludge--soil--plant--animal--human toxicity) examines all meat
groups (beef, beef liver, lamb, pork, poultry, dairy products,  and eggs) in
the human diet, except fish.  Pathway 3 equations involve:

    •  Uptake by plants of pollutants from sludge-amended soil
    •  Ingestion of the contaminated feed crops by herbivores
    •  Ingestion of the contaminated herbivore tissue or products by humans
                                    3-12

-------
    The pathway 3 model uses the linear response slope of the most responsive
forage crop to represent all forage crops in the animal diet.  (This
conservative approach overpredicts the uptake of contaminants from feed
crops.)

    Linear response slopes are also derived for the uptake of inorganics and
organics by animal tissue consumed by humans.  Animal tissue pollutant
concentrations are regressed against the pollutant concentrations in feed to
obtain uptake slopes.  This procedure could under- or overpredict animal
tissue uptake outside the observed range of responses.  Input data for pathway
3 include:

    •  Sludge application rate
    •  Animal bioaccumulation rates
    •  Forage crop uptake slope
    •  Fraction of the MEI's food group derived from animals raised on feed
       grown on sludge-amended soil
    •  MEI's daily dietary consumption of herbivore tissue or products
    •  Soil background concentrations
    •  MEI's total background intake of contaminants
    •  First-order decay rates for organic chemicals
    •  Waiting period between sludge application and the harvesting of feed
       crops

    Pathway 4 (sludge--soil--animal--human toxicity) algorithms evaluate che
direct ingestion of sludge by herbivores and the subsequent ingestion of
contaminated herbivore tissues and products by humans.  This pathway affects
only the products of grazing animals, i.e., beef, lamb, and dairy foods.
Input data for pathway 4 include:

    •  Sludge fraction of the herbivore's diet
    •  Soil fraction of the herbivore's diet
                                     3-13

-------
    •  Animal bioaccumulation rates
    •  Fraction of the MEI's food group derived from animals raised on feed
       grown on sludge-amended soil
    •  MEI's mean daily consumption of herbivore tissue or products
    •  Soil background concentrations
    •  MEI's total background intake of contaminants
    •  First-order decay rates for organic chemicals
    •  Waiting period between sludge application and grazing

    Pathway 5 (sludge--soil--plant--animal toxicity) equations represent che
uptake by plants of pollutants from sludge-amended soil and the subsequent
ingestion of the contaminated plants by herbivores.   Because toxicity to the
animal itself is now the endpoint of concern,  the list of animals that are
considered has been broadened to all herbivores, regardless of whether humans
eat them.  Input data for pathway 5 include:

    •  Sludge application rates
    •  Forage crop uptake response slopes
    •  First-order decay rates for organic chemicals
    •  Soil background concentrations
    •  Toxic threshold concentrations of pollutants  in the forage crop
       (defined as the geometric mean of the maximum value that causes no
       toxic effect and of the minimum value that causes a toxic effect)

    The toxic threshold concentration is derived from data from whichever
animal has the greatest sensitivity to a pollutant.   For example, the cadmium
threshold is derived from studies with swine,  the zinc and selenium thresholds
from chicken studies, the molybdenum threshold from studies with cattle, and
the copper threshold from sheep studies.

    Pathway 6 (sludge--soil--animal toxicity)  equations represent the direct
ingestion of sludge by grazing animals.  As with pathway 5, the animal itself
                                     3-14

-------
is the target organism (MEI) that the rule is intended to protect from
toxicity.  Input data for pathway 6 include:

    •  Sludge fraction of diet
    •  Soil fraction of diet
    •  Soil background concentrations
    •  First-order decay rates for the organic chemicals
    •  Toxic threshold concentration of each contaminant in the feed

    The toxic threshold concentrations are the same as those described for
pathway 5.

    Pathway 7 (sludge--soil--plant toxicity)  equations represent the uptake of
pollutants by plants from sludge-amended soils.  The plant itself is the
target organism (MEI) that the rule is intended to protect from toxicity
Input data for pathway 7 include:

    •  Sludge application rate
    •  Soil background concentrations
    •  First-order decay rates for the organic chemicals
    •  Phytotoxic threshold given as a concentration of a metallic pollutant
       in soil in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) or an application rate of an
       organic pollutant in kg/ha.  (The phytotoxic threshold is defined as
       the geometric mean of the maximum value that causes no toxic effect and
       of the minimum value that causes a toxic effect.)

    The threshold for phytotoxicity is derived from data on whichever plant
has the lowest toxic threshold (greatest sensitivity) for a pollutant.  For
example, the cadmium and zinc thresholds were established'from data for
lettuce, the copper threshold from rye, the nickel threshold from celery and
corn, the lead threshold from a variety of leafy vegetables, and the chromium
threshold from corn.
                                     3-15

-------
    Pathway 8 (sludge--soil--soil biota toxicity) equations represent the

uptake of pollutants, by soil biota, such as microorganisms or invertebrates,

from sludge-amended soil.  Input data include:


    •  Sludge application rates

    •  Soil background concentrations

    •  First-order decay rates from organic chemicals

    •  Toxic threshold concentration of pollutants in the soil biota  (defined
       as the geometric mean of the maximum value that causes no toxic effect
       and of the minimum value that causes a toxic effect).   The toxic
       threshold concentration is derived from data for whichever organism has
       the greatest sensitivity to the pollutant.  Toxic thresholds for this
       pathway for all of the chemicals for which data are available  come from
       earthworm studies.


    Pathway 9 (sludge--soil--soil biota--soil biota predator toxicity)
equations represent the uptake of pollutants by soil biota and the subsequent

ingestion of contaminated soil biota by predators, such as birds and
insectivorous mammals.  Input data include:


    •  Sludge application rates

    •  Soil background concentrations

    •  Soil biota uptake response slope

    •  First-order decay rates for organic chemicals

    •  Toxic threshold concentration of contaminants sin feed for the  predators
       (defined as the geometric mean of the maximum value that causes no
       toxic effect and of the minimum value that causes a toxic effect)


    The toxic threshold concentration is derived from data for whichever

organism has the highest sensitivity for a pollutant.  The cadmium and zinc

thresholds, for example, were established from data on chickens, the  lead

threshold from ducks, and the aldrin/dieldrin threshold from partridges.


     Pathway 10 (particulate resuspension) refers to the inhalation of

particulates that are resuspended by the tilling of dewatered sludge.  The


                                     3-16

-------
methodology used in this document is a modified version of that previously
published in the Development of a Risk Assessment for Land Application and
Distribution and Marketing of Municipal Sludge (EPA, 1989).   The previous risk
assessment approach calculated a particulate emission rate from tilling and
then used the INPUFF model to predict concentrations in the air and in the
vicinity of the tractor driver (MEI).   Model predictions were then used to
determine the maximum allowable pollutant concentrations in sludge that would
not result in violations of the occupational health standards recommended by
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

    INPUFF predictions, however,  have been shown to be inaccurate for the
short distances between the ground and the MEI in an agricultural setting.  As
a result, a new methodology is being used to estimate the maximum allowable
sludge concentrations that will not exceed the NIOSH health standards. This
new method is based on the assumption that the MEI will not be exposed to a
concentration of dusts that exceeds 10 mg/m3,  the  level  recommended  as a
threshold by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH).   Pathway 10 equations are now based on the assumption that the MEI
will work in an enclosed cab that prevents dust exposure exceeding this
10 mg/m3  concentration.

    Thus the maximum allowable pollutant concentration that can be added to
the soil (kg/ha) is calculated as the product of the 10 mg/m3  total  dust
concentration, the NIOSH standard for each contaminant, and the mass  of soil
in which the sludge is incorporated (the sludge is assumed to be well mixed
with the soil and incorporated to a depth of 15 cm).  Input data for  pathway
10 include the NIOSH contaminant standard and the mass of soil estimated for
the depth of sludge incorporation.

     The pathway 11 (surface runoff) model predicts the surface water impact
of runoff from land application areas based on the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE).  The USLE was developed for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and is widely used by USDA and EPA.  The USDA has  collected
a considerable amount of field data to support the model.  Monographs and
                                       3-17

-------
tables based on field data have been prepared to facilitate proper selection
of model parameters for site-specific conditions (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978).

     The model user must first input the total mass of contaminant added to
the site per year and the number of years of application.  Repeated
applications of sludge will result in the gradual elevation of contaminant
levels in the sludge application area.  These concentrations will continue to
rise until the losses from erosion, volatilization, biodegradation, and other
transformation processes equalize the input.  At this point, a steady-state
level of contaminants exists.  Using a lumped, first-order loss rate for the
contaminants, the Agency's pathway 11 model calculates the average contaminant
level in the sludge application (kg/ha) that occurs during the life of the
facility.  The loss of organic chemicals represents chemical and biological
degradation processes, and the loss of inorganics represents leaching into
ground water (calculated as the concentration in the leachate times the
recharge rate).

    When the pollutant load rate contaminant level (kg/ha) is calculated, the
long-term average concentration (mg/kg) can be calculated by dividing the
contaminant level by the affected mass of soil or sludge.  For surface
applications of sludge, the affected mass is the bulk density of the sludge
times the depth of the sludge.  For soil incorporation, the affected mass is
the average bulk density of the sludge and the soil mixture multiplied by nhe
incorporation depth.

    The model then computes the average annual loss of the contaminant as the
product of the area of land to which sludge is applied, the annual sediment
loss from the USLE, and the long-term average concentration.  If a buffer zone
is located at the land application site, the sediment delivery ratio is a
function of the length of the buffer strip normal to the direction of runoff.
Next,  the model calculates the concentration of the contaminant in the
receiving water using a simple dilution calculation with the total annual flow
volume of the site-specific stream, lake, or estuary.  This simple dilution
calculation assumes complete mixing of the runoff with the receiving water and
                                     3-18

-------
assumes no loss of contaminants in the receiving water due to decay,
transformation, or settling processes.

     For the surface-runoff model, the primary simplifying assumption is that
runoff effects can be represented as a steady-state situation; in actuality,
they are event-oriented.  The second major assumption is that loadings to the
receiving water can be calculated as a function of solids loadings.  The fate
of contaminants with low adsorption to solids is thus not well predicted by
the model, and the assumption of the effectiveness of sediment controls will
overestimate the control of these contaminants.   Third,  buffer efficiency is
assumed to be constant over the life of the operation --an assumption that
will underpredict contaminant loadings because buffer zones normally lose
effectiveness over time as solids and contaminants accumulate.  Finally, no
enrichment or preferential transport of solids is assumed to take place.  In
reality, during the erosion process, smaller, less dense particles are more
easily transported to the edge of the field than are heavier particles (e.g.,
clays and organic matter). Thus the concentration of contaminants is higher in
these smaller particles, causing an apparent "enrichment" over the
concentrations observed in the soils.  The model will, therefore,
underestimate contaminant transport if some form of enrichment does occur.
Input data for pathway 11 include:

    •  Area of land to which sludge is applied
    •  Whole sludge application rate
    •  Time period over which application is proposed
    •  First-order decay rates for organics
    •  Bulk density of soil/sludge
    •  Depth of s.ludge incorporation
    •  Recharge rate for metals leaching
    •  Leachate concentrations of the sludge
    •  Dry weight concentrations of pollutants in the sludge
    •  Length and width of the buffer zone

                                     3-19

-------
    •  Length and width of the buffer zone
    •  Mean annual flow for the receiving water
    •  Average annual precipitation

    In addition, slope, soil,  and management practice information for the site
must be known to select the appropriate input parameters to the USLE from
monographs and tables.

     The pathway 12 model evaluates the effects on ground water of sludge
application.  The land application groundwater models are the same ones used
to model the landfill disposal option.  The only difference lies in the source
term specified for the model.   The groundwater modeling for land application
assumes that the mass of contaminants added to the soil in a year reaches the
aquifer, whereas the groundwater modeling for landfill assumes only that the
leachate reaches the aquifer.   The CHAIN model is used to predict contaminant
concentrations in the soil profile (unsaturated zone) beneath the land
application site, and the AT123D model is used to predict concentrations in
the ground water (saturated zone).  CHAIN and AT123D have not been
field-validated, but these and similar models have been used widely by the
Agency in support of regulations and investigations.

    The pathway 13 model predicts the vapor concentrations to which the ME I is
exposed from the land application site.  The land application vapor model uses
the same dispersion model as does the model for landfill disposal.  The only
difference lies in the source term specified for the model.  The vapor model
for land application assumes that all the volatile chemicals are released Co
the air, while the vapor model for landfill calculates a loss rate that is
controlled by diffusion of the contaminants through the soil.  The vapor model
is linked to the groundwater model, because the same MEI who drinks ground
water from a land application site is also presumably exposed to vapor
concentrations from the site.   Vapor concentrations, therefore, are added to
the drinking water intake of the MEI.  The vaporization model has not been
field-validated, but it has been used to develop the Agency RCRA Subtitle C
regulation (40 CFR Part 264).

                                     3-20

-------
                              SECTION FOUR
                      DATABASE FOR RISK MODELS
    In this  section the database inputs  for the pathway models,  which  estimate
the exposure and subsequent risk to the  MEI for each pathway,  are  described.
4.1  PATHWAY 1

    For pathway 1  (human  toxicity  from  plant ingestion),  the following are
chemicals  of  concern:

    Aldrin/Dieldrin
    Arsenic
    Benzo(a)pyrene
    Cadmium
    DDT/DDD/DDE
    Heptachlor
    Hexachlorobenzene
    Lead
    Mercury
    Nickel
    PCBs
    Selenium
    Toxaphene
    Zinc
                                   4-1

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY 1
    4.1.1  Criteria Methodology

    For inorganic pollutants in sludge applied to cropland, concentration
criteria may be calculated using a curvilinear response model which postulates
that plant uptake approaches a plateau that is not dependent on cumulative
application rate.  If the uptake response is assessed on the basis of a
plateau, the tissue concentration at which a plateau occurs must be estimated
for a given study.

    The shape or slope of the lower portion of the curve is not important.
Nonlinear regression techniques for fitting a curve to the data and
determining and placing confidence limits around the asymptote should be used.
If an upper confidence limit of the asymptote is used as the plateau, the
number of points and goodness-of-fit of the data will help determine how low a
plateau can be assumed.  This method would provide a built-in measure of
safety when less-than-ideal data are used, and it would be consistent with the
procedures that are currently used in the Agency for estimating cancer potency
(i.e., use of an upper-bound value rather than a maximum-likelihood estimate
of the parameter sought).  The maximum-likelihood estimate would also be
useful, however, especially for illustrating the variability associated with a
parameter.

    Nonlinear regression may be carried out with the same type of data as used
for linear regression, that is, tissue contaminant concentrations (in ug/g dry
weight (DW)) versus cumulative contaminant applications (in kg/ha DW).

    In a report from the 1985 Las Vegas workshop that was jointly sponsored by
EPA (Cincinnati), University of California-Riverside, and Ohio State
University,  Page et al. (1987) advanced the hypothesis that, given similar
soil pH, the relative response among crops will be fairly consistent across
soils and sludge.  In other words, if the linear slope of a metal in crop A is
                                      4-2

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY 1
five times higher than that for the same metal in crop B under one set of
environmental conditions, it will be approximately five times as high in
another study conducted with different sludge or soil concentrations, but
similar pH (even though the absolute response may differ significantly)   The
response of any crop can therefore theoretically be compared to that of
another crop, given that the two crops can then be compared to a simple,
responsive, frequently studied crop such as lettuce.   At the present time,
however, the absence of sufficient data makes it impossible to use this method
for criteria generation.

    Criteria may also be based on the assumption of linear uptake and relative
uptake values in these situations:

    •  If the available data are not sufficient to determine the reference
       sludge concentrations (RSCs)
    •  If the RSC for acid soils cannot be derived and maintaining a certain
       pH is not feasible
    •  For governing the application of sludges that do not meet the RSC
       (Insufficient data are available for the pollutants of concern,
       however, to use this method of calculating criteria in the model for
       pathway 1.)

    Criteria were calculated, therefore, based on a linear response model
without using relative uptake response values because these values could not
be determined for an adequate number of crops to characterize the affected
food groups.  Instead of using such values, which are unitless, absolute
uptake response slopes  [in units of ug/g DW (kg/ha)"1]  were used to measure
dietary response to the sludge-borne contaminant.  The main disadvantage of
this method is that the uptake response slopes for each crop in the different
food groups are often derived from studies done under different experimental
conditions.  If sufficient studies are available, however, this variety can be
turned to advantage, because the entire range of growing conditions can then
be represented.  In the pathway 1 model, using absolute uptake response slopes
                                      4-3

-------
                                                                      PATHWAY  1
was the method of choice for calculating plant uptakes for agricultural  and
D&M uses.
    4.1.2  Model Development and Criteria Generation

    Step 1:  Sort available response data for all food crops

    The data for all crops consumed by humans are sorted according  to whether
the soil pH was less or greater than 6 and according to whether  the plateau
was observed in the first year of sludge application or over several years.
If the criteria are being derived for agricultural use --  i.e.,  on  land where
human food chain crops are grown and where the soil pH is  assumed to be
maintained at levels of 6 or above in sludge-amended soils  --  then  studies
conducted at pHs below 6 were not used for calculations unless no other
studies were available.  If the enduse (e.g., D&M) does- not ensure  maintenance
of the soil pH at a level of 6 or above, however, then data from studies
conducted at lower pHs were used as a conservative measure because  these
studies usually show higher metal uptake.

    This approach differs from that upheld by the current  40 CFR 257.3-5
regulation, which uses pH 6.5 as the cutoff between different  permissible
application rates.  In the draft Las Vegas workshop report, Page et al.  (1987)
concluded that plant uptake of metals does not increase significantly as  the
soil pH decreases from 6.5 to 6.0, although plant uptake may increase at  pHs
less than 6.  In addition, the group concluded that the use of soil cation
exchange capacity (CEC) in calculating metal application rates is not
supported by current data. CEC is not considered in calculating  the criteria
in the proposed rule.
                                      4-4

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY 1
    Page et al.  (1987) also stated that plant uptake responses based on the
first year of sludge application tend to be higher than those from annually
applied sludge additions.  It is unreasonable to assume that any individual
would be continually exposed, year after year, to crops which were grown on
land where sludge has just been applied for the first time.  Still, exposure
to such crops is possible, and thus criteria calculations were based on boch
first-year and multiyear applications to determine the potential range of
results.  The response data for all food crops were sorted according to the
following groups:

            Agricultural Use               D&M Use
            Potatoes                      Potatoes
            Leafy vegetables              Leafy vegetables
            Legumes, nondried             Legumes, nondried
            Legumes, dried                Legumes, dried
            Root vegetables               Root vegetables
            Garden  fruits                 Corn
            Peanuts
            Grains  and cereals

    Vegetable oils  were not included under agricultural use because no
evidence exists that either the organic or inorganic pollutants from sludge
remain after commercial processing of these products.  No additional exposure
to humans should therefore result from sludge contaminants in products derived
from crops grown on sludge-amended soils.
    Step 2:  Determine uptake response slopes for each food group

    Linear response slopes were calculated from any dataset in which plant
tissue analyses and cumulative metal application rates had been recorded.
Tissue analyses from various application rates in a single year (whether  or
not previous sludge additions have been made) are generally more easily
                                      4-5

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY L
interpreted because year-to-year variability of conditions is eliminated.  As
previously mentioned, data from the first year of sludge application will
generally result in higher slopes than those from later years, but multiyear
slopes may be more representative of typical sludge application practices.  If
at all possible, both types of data were used to reflect the entire range of
possibilities.

    Data derived from sludge applications in the field are most appropriate
for use in agricultural or D&M risk assessment,  because they best approximace
the conditions being regulated.  Greenhouse studies in which plants are grown
in pots are often known to overpredict the uptake under field conditions
(Logan and Chaney, 1983).   In the absence of field data,  however, data from
pot studies were used, especially from studies in which large pots were
employed to minimize restriction of root growth.  Studies using metal salts,
added either to soil or a sludge-soil mixture, also tend to overpredict field
response.  Metallic salt uptake data were therefore not used for risk
assessment when sludge data were available.

    Studies in which plants were grown in culture solution also were not used:
there is no reliable way to relate concentration in solution to total soil
concentration in the field or application rate.   Studies  in which sludge has
been applied over growing plants demonstrate physical adherence rather than
physiological uptake and,  therefore, were not used.

    Uptake response slopes were calculated by regressing plant tissue
contaminant concentration (ug/g DW) against cumulative contaminant application
rate (kg/ha) for the various treatment levels, including the control.  Where
the control application rate was zero,  the tissue concentration is greater
than zero because of background occurrence of these elements.  Where data from
a pot study were used, the soil concentration was first converted to
application rates using the formula

       RP =  (RLC - BS) x MS  x 10°                                      (1)
                                     4-6

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY 1
where   RP  — reference application rate of pollutant (kg/ha)
        RLC - reference soil concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
        BS  - background concentration of pollutant in soil (ug/g DW)
        MS  - 2 x 103 rat/ha  - assumed mass  of  soil  (ug/g DW)
        10° — conversion factor (kg/g)

    Linear uptake response was assumed for organic chemicals, as for
inorganics but with some significant differences.  Because organic compounds
tend to degrade under field conditions, in most published studies plant  tissue
concentration is expressed as a function of measured soil concentration  rather
than as an application rate.  The soil concentration in ug/g dry weight  is
then used as the x-axis to determine slope.   Because of this choice, and
because most organic compounds of concern are xenobiotics, tissue pollutant
concentrations are assumed  to be zero when the soil concentration is zero.

    The uptake response slope can then be expressed as a bioconcentration
factor  (BCF) that is derived from a single data pair rather than through
regression analysis, as is used for most metals for which sufficient data have
been accumulated.  Few studies, however, have quantified the uptake of organic
compounds from land-applied sludge, so most estimates of response slopes
relied  on other data, such  as from pesticide  studies in which the plant  uptake
from the soil occurred through the roots.  Uptake data for organics were not
segregated on the basis of  either soil pH or  years of sludge application
because no data have yet shown such segregation is necessary

    No  data were available  on the background  levels of organic contaminants  in
national agricultural soils.  Because the limited data that were available
showed  little or no accumulation, the background level in soil for all of the
organic pollutants was assumed to be zero.
    Step 3:  Determine reference application rate of pollutant

    The reference application  rate of the pollutant  (RP) is calculated
directly from the response data by the equation:
                                      4-7

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY 1
         RP = 	RIA                                           (2)
               S (UQ x DC, x FQ)
               i-i
where  RIA-  adjusted reference  intake  (ug/day)
       UCi  -  uptake response slope  for  the  food  group i
              (ug/g DW)  [kg/ha]'1
       DCi  -  daily dietary consumption  of the food group i
       FQ  -  fraction of food group i assumed to originate
              from sludge-amended soil  (unitless)

    The criteria derivation procedure for organics is very similar to that for
the inorganics except that tissue concentration  is expressed as a linear
function of soil concentration instead of application rate.  Thus the equation
above yields a reference concentration in soil (RLC) in ug/g DW, instead of
the reference application rate of pollutant in kg/ha, assuming the soil
background concentration (BS) is zero.

    The assignment  of values for the factors used in calculating this
pathway's model varied depending on the specific end use anticipated.  The
methodology assumes that agricultural lands could be converted to residential
use 5 yr following  addition of agricultural-quality sludge.  Therefore, the
pica child pathway  is also modeled,  but with the 5-yr waiting period.

    It is difficult to state a priori whether sludge application to
agricultural lands  or to home gardens entails the higher risk.  A home
gardener may grow a higher percentage of certain types of  foods, but a wider
number of food types would probably be affected by agricultural use of sludge.
Both of these exposure scenarios were therefore  examined separately to
determine the acceptable concentrations for each contaminant of concern.

    Pathway 1 deals with crops for human consumption, including grains and
cereals, potatoes,  leafy vegetables, legume vegetables, root vegetables,
garden fruits, and  peanuts.  Mushrooms,  which compose a negligible portion of
                                      4-8

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY 1
the human diet, were assumed to be unaffected by sludge application practices.
For food groups that may be affected,  the fraction of the food group assumed
to originate from sludge-amended soil (FC) is set between 0 and 1,  based on
the percentage of the crop that probably originated from sludge-amended soils.
Table 4-1 summarizes the input parameter values for FC as affected by the
exposure scenario.

    Agricultural Use.  Sludge production in the United States is not
sufficient to enable application to all U.S.  cropland (Table 4-2)    Not all of
the U.S. diet, therefore, will be affected by sludge application -- even if
all the sludge that is produced were applied to agricultural soils.  The
degree to which any individual's diet is affected depends on what portion of
the diet consists of crops grown on sludge-amended soil.  If the percentage
was spread out over the entire United States, the FC for the individual's
overall diet could not exceed the fraction of available cropland in the United
States that would be needed to receive all the sludge produced (assuming that
fertilization/irrigation achieves yields equivalent to those following sludge
application).

    Table 4-2, taken from CAST (1976), illustrates the percentage of total
available cropland that would be required, based on nitrogen content,  to
dispose of the total sludge production for the entire United States.
Estimates for 1985 (based on 1975 information) ranged from 0.49-1.98%.  If
mixing were complete only on a more geographically limited basis,  such as
statewide, the fraction could be much higher, especially in areas where
available cropland is small compared with population size (e.g. ,  55% for New
Jersey).  It is unlikely that all crops consumed within any state,  especially
a highly urbanized one, would originate within that state.  Assuming complete
mixing nationwide, however, may be insufficiently conservative.  An average of
the U.S. and New Jersey estimates (based on 4% available nitrogen)  was taken,
therefore, which resulted in a somewhat arbitrary value of 29%.
                                     4-9

-------
                                                            PATHWAY 1
   TABLE 4-1.  Fraction of Crop (FC) for Sludge-Soil-Plant-Human
                Toxicity Pathway, as Affected by Exposure Scenario
                                      Exposure Scenario
Input Parameter               Agricultural Use        Home Garden


Crops Included                All except        All except cereals
                           •   mushrooms         and grains (other than
                                                corn)  peanuts,
                                                mushrooms

FC                              0.025           0.45 potatoes
                                                0.17 dried legumes
                                                0.60 corn
                                                0.60 all other
                                                     vegetables
                              4-10

-------
                                                                                                                         PATHWAY 1
                               TABLE 4-2.  Human Population, Sludge Production, und Cropland Required Annually for the
                                            Application of Sewage Sludge in Illinois, New Jersey, and the
                                            United States in 1970, and Projected Values for 1985
Cropland Required for Indicated Sludge
Sludee Containing 1% avail, N Sludge Containing 4% avail. N
Population
Area (millions)

Illinois 11.14
New Jersey 7 . 20
USA 203.90

Illinois 12.56
New Jersey 8 .49
USA 234.50
Sludge Produced
(thousands of
metric tons)

197
127
3,602

390
264
7,278
Cropland"
(thousands Thousands
of hectares) of Hectares
1970
9,242 17 4
170 11.3
131,548 322.0
1985
8,586 34.8
166 23.5
126,526 650.0
% of Total Thousands % of Total
Cropland of Hectares Cropland

0.19 70.5 0.76
6.68 45.4 26.71
0.24 1,287.7 0.98

0.38 139.3 1.51
13.83 94.0 55.34
0.49 2,560.0 1.98
Source:   CAST,  1976.

'Harvested cropland.

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY L
    Not all of the sludge produced is currently land-applied.  The percentage
applied to agricultural land is lower (16%) for large treatment plants  (>10
million gallons/day (MGD);  characteristic of population centers) than for
small plants (31% for plants <1 MGD;  characteristic of rural areas).  Pierce
and Bailey (1982) estimated a weighted average of 17% for land application of
all the sludge produced.  The product of the percentage of human diet from
crops grown on sludge-amended soil (29%) times the percentage of land to which
sludge is applied (17%) yields an FC value of 0.025, or 2.5%, as a reasonable
worst-case estimate.  The use of this FC value for all food groups may
overestimate exposure because not all sludge-grown crops are used for human
consumption.

    D&M Use.   Home gardeners are assumed to produce and consume potatoes,
leafy vegetables, legume vegetables,  root vegetables, corn,  and garden  fruits,
but not grains and cereals, peanuts,  or mushrooms.  The USDA (1966) survey of
U.S. food consumption in 1965-1966 includes data on the percentages of  foods
consumed that were homegrown for urban,  rural nonfarm, and rural farm
households.

    The highest percentages of homegrown foods were for rural farm households,
which constituted 6% of all U.S. households (Table 4-3).  The rural farm
dweller is taken as the MEI for the home gardening scenario in this pathway
Values of FC (after rounding) are 0.60 for all vegetables (except dried
legumes), 0.45 for potatoes, and 0.17 for dried legumes (see Table 4-1)

    For both the agricultural and home garden scenario,  uptake response data
have been collected for as many crops as possible in the food groups for which
FC is not negligible or zero.  The response slope (UC) for many contaminants
varies inversely with soil pH and the number of years of previous sludge
applications (or years since most recent application).  The following
assumption was applied for selecting response data to represent different
types of land application:   on agricultural land, soil pH may be controlled

                                     4-12

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY 1
          TABLE 4-3.  Average Percentage of Food Consumed by Rural
                       Farm Households Annually That Is Homegrown
         Food Group                             % Homegrown
       Milk,  cream,  and cheese                        39.9
       Fats and oil                                   15.2
       Flour and cereals                              1.6
       Meat                                          44.2
       Poultry and fish                              34.3
       Eggs                                          47.9
       Sugar and sweets                               9.0
       Potatoes and  sweet potatoes                    44.8
       Vegetables                                    59.6
       Fruit                                         28.6
       Juice                                         11.0
       Dried vegetables and fruits                    16.7
Source:   Calculated from data presented  in USDA  (1966).
                                     4-13

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY 1
(>6.0) or uncontrolled (possibly <6.0,  as determined using a 1:1 soil-water
paste)   Both situations were thus evaluated to determine whether pH control
is warranted.  Because such pH control should not be assumed in home gardens,
studies showing soil pH both above and below 6.0 should be used to determine
UC. On agricultural land and in home gardens, crops may be grown in the firsc
year of sludge application.  Data of this type were therefore used to
determine annual application limits,  but data based on prior sludge
applications (or intervening years without sludge application) were used to
determine cumulative limits.

    Quantifying potential dietary exposures requires an estimation of the
amounts of various types of foods in the human diet.  The most up-to-date and
detailed source of information regarding food consumption habits of the U.S.
population is the FDA Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists and Diets
(Pennington, 1983).  This list is based on combined results of the USDA
Nationwide Food Consumption survey (1977-1978) and the Second National Healch
and Nutrition Examination Survey (1976-1980).  The list provides average,
fresh-weight consumption data for 234 foods (201 adult foods; 33 infant/junior
foods) for eight age/sex groups ranging from infancy to 60-65 yr of age.

    Although the Pennington (1983) food list provides a very detailed picture
of the U.S. diet, it cannot be used in its published form for risk assessmencs
of this type.  Many of the food items listed are complex prepared foods (e.g.,
soup, pizza), rather than the raw commodities (e.g., crops, meats) for which
contaminant uptake data are available.   To predict the impact of sludge
application using uptake data, therefore, the diet needed to be reorganized so
that the consumed amounts of raw commodities could be determined.

    Two previous efforts at this task had been undertaken.  In 1981, the EPA
Office of Solid Waste proposed an approach that grouped the 201 adult foods
into the 12 dietary categories used in the previous FDA Total Diet Study food
list, for the purpose of estimating the amount of cadmium in the typical U.S.

                                     4-14

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY 1
diet (Flynn, 1981).  (Metal analyses for foods on the revised food list were
not then -- and still are not -- available.)  These 12 categories (e.g.,
grains and cereals, potatoes, leafy vegetables) include a number to which
uptake data may be applied and, therefore, can be used to estimate the impacts
of sludge application on contaminant amounts in the diet.  By this approach,
however, individual foods were not broken down according to their contents  --
for example, beef and vegetable stew was listed in the "meat, fish, and
poultry" group. In addition, some of the listed items consisted largely of
added water, such as canned, reconstituted bouillon (also listed under "meat,
fish, and poultry").  Thus the resulting consumption values for each food
still did not reflect the raw commodities.
                                                       •
    A second approach was presented in the draft Air Quality Criteria Document
for Lead (EPA, 1984a).  Here many of the individual foods from the Pennington
(1983) diet were fractionally apportioned into different food groups.  For
example, the food item "pancakes" was apportioned as follows:  60% food crops,
10% dietary, and 30% meat, to represent the contribution from.grains, milk,
and eggs, respectively.  The limitations of this approach are the following:
(1) the number of food groups employed were too few for use with the present
methodology (i.e., all crops were lumped into a single category); and (2)
apportionments were made not on the basis of the weight of each ingredient, as
desired for this analysis, but on the basis of the amount of lead in each
.ingredient.

     Because of the limitations described above, a third analysis of the
Pennington  (1983) diet was undertaken for this methodology.  Each item in  the
Pennington diet (including the infant/junior foods) was broken down  into its
component parts based on information available in FDA  (1982) and USDA (1975)
The percentages of dry matter and fat for each component were also listed.
These components were then aggregated into the specific commodity groups
required for this methodology.  A summary of consumption for each category by
each age/sex group is presented in Table 4-2 of the Land Application Risk
Assessment Methodology.  Data for the entire analysis are compiled in Table
Al-1 of the Land Application Risk Assessment Methodology (EPA, 1989)

                                     4-15

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY  L
    The dry-weight consumption for the age or sex group having  the highest
daily consumption for each food group (see Table 4-2, EPA, 1989) was used  to
calculate the daily dietary consumption of the food group on a  g DW/day basis.
To derive these values, the daily intake for raw agricultural commodities  and
processed foods were summed.  The total daily dietary intakes for each food
group for the age and sex having the highest consumption as compiled from  that
List is given in Table 4-4.

    In the case of plant uptake of lead, the risk reference dose (RfD) is
based on the most sensitive life stage,  young childhood, instead of on an
average health-based number for a 70-yr lifespan.  The daily consumption
listed in Table 4-5, therefore, was chosen from Table 4-2 in the Land
Application Methodology to reflect the data for a 2-yr-old child of either
sex.  Children younger than 2 yr of age were not chosen because vegetables
compose such a small part of their diet.
    4.13 Data Points and Rationale for Selection

    4.13.1  Aldrin/Dieldrin (A/D)

   i.     The human cancer potency (qi*) -  17  (mg/kg/day)"1.
         The cancer potency of A/D is  17  (mg/kg/day)"1 based  on several studies
         conducted with aldrin on male and female  mice.   Davis (1965) observed
         an increased incidence of liver  carcinomas  in  male  and female mice
         fed 10  parts per million (ppm) of aldrin  for up to  2 yr.   A bioassay
         conducted by the National Cancer Institute  also reported a dose-
         related increase in heptocellular carcinomas  in mice fed doses of
         either  4 and 8 ppm or 3 and 6 ppm of aldrin for 80  wk (NCI, 1978).

  ii-v.  The rationale for selecting  these data points  is the  same  as  that
         given for hexachlorobenzene for  this pathway.
                                      4-16

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 1
               TABLE 4-4.  The Highest Daily Dry-Weight Consumption of
                            Vegetable Food Groups by Age and Sex
         Food  Group
Total Daily Intake
    (g DW/day)
Age
(yr)
Sex
Potatoes
Leafy vegetables
Dried legumes
Nondried legumes
Root vegetables
Garden fruits
Peanuts
Grains and cereals
Corn
22.831
2.782
3.340
8.412
2.140
5.405
4.043
134.511
27.843
14-16
60-65
25-30
25-30
14-16
25-30
14-16
*
14-16
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
*
Male
-Varied depending  on  individual grain or cereal.
                                     4-17

-------
                                                    PATHWAY  1
TABLE 4-5.   The Daily Dry-Weight Consumption of
             Vegetable Food Groups by 2-Yr-Olds
                               Total Daily Intake
 Food  Group                           (g DW/day)
 Potatoes                             10.034
 Leafy vegetables                      0.485
 Dried legumes                         3.262
 Nondried  legumes                      1.295
 Root  vegetables                       0.668
 Garden fruits                         1.669
 Peanuts                              2.208
 Grains and  cereals                   64.823
 Corn                                 15.354
                   4-18

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY  L
vi.   The uptake response slopes [ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)'1]  for each
     vegetable food group in the human diet (UCV)  are:
                              Agricultural Use         Residential Use
     Food Group                     (UC.)                  (UC)	
     Potatoes                      0.13                   0.13
     Leafy vegetables              0.20                   0.20
     Legume vegetables             0.81                   0.81
      nondried
     Legume vegetables             0.81                   0.81
      dried
     Root vegetables               0.43                   0.43
     Garden fruits                 0.22                   0.22
     Peanuts                       0.81
     Grains and cereals            0.03
     Corn*                          --                    0.02
     *The uptake for corn is included under grains and cereals for
      agricultural application.

     The uptake response slopes for all food groups have been chosen from
     data described in Table 4-6.  The uptake response for potatoes for
     both end uses, 0.13, was calculated from results of a field study
     with dieldrin after conversion of the reported tissue concentrations
     from a wet to dry weight and division by the dry weight soil
     concentration (Harris and Sans, 1969).  The moisture content of 80%
     for potato tubers was assumed to be similar to that for the entire
     plant.  The uptake of 0.20 for leafy vegetables for both end uses was
     derived from the uptake of dieldrin by sugar beet tops after
     conversion of the wet weight tissue concentration to dry and
     calculation of a new slope (Harris and Sans, 1969).  The uptake for
     dried and nondried legumes and peanuts for both end uses, 0.81, was
     derived from uptake data for peanuts after conversion of the units to
     a dry weight basis and recalculation of the slope (Nash, 1974).
                                   4-19

-------
TABLE 4-6.   Uptake of Aldrin and Dieldrin by Plants
                                                                     PATHWAY  1
Plant/Tissue
Wheat/grain
Corn/grain
Wheat/grain
Corn/grain
Corn/seed
1 Oats/seed
N)
o
Peanuts/seed
Sugar beet/plant
Alfalfa/plant
Oats/plant
Corn/plant
Sugar beet/top
Potato/pi ant
Soil
Type
Loess
Loess
Loess
Loess
Clay loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
Clay loam
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Chemical Form
Applied Soil
(study type)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Aldrin (field)
Aldrin (field)
Aldrin/Dieldrin (field)
Aldrin/Dieldrin (field)
Aldrin/Dieldrin (field)
Aldrin/Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Concentration
(ug/g)
0.52
0.55
1.09
0.78
0.4-3.0
0.4-3.0
0.4-3.0
0.01-0.97
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1 .2
Range of Tissue (WW)
Concentrations'
(ug/g)
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.003-0.008
0.1-1.0
0.1-1.0
< 0.01-0.96
0.02
0.02
0.020
0.03
0.03
Uptake
Slope'
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.25-0.33
0.33- < 1.0
0.33- < 1.0
0.02
0.02
0.020
0.03
0.03
Reference
Weisgerber, 1974
(p. 610)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Bruce et al. , 1966
(p. 180)
ibid.
ibid.
Onsager et al . ,
1970 (p. l',U4)
Harris and Sans,
1969 (p. 184)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

-------
                                                            TABLE 4-6. (Continued)
                                                                                                                   PATHWAY 1
Plant/Tissue
Carrot/plant
Sugar beet/root
Alfalfa
oats , corn
beet , potato ,
carrot/as above
Alfal fa/plant
Alfalfa/plant
Carrot/plant
Carrot/plant
Carrot/NR'
Peanut/meat
Soil
Type
Clay
Clay
Clay


Sandy
Sandy
Sandy
Sandy
NR
NR
Chemical Form
Applied Soil
(study type)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Aldrin (field)


loam Dieldrin (field)
loam Aldrin (field)
loam Dieldrin (field)
loam Aldrin (field)
Aldrin/Dieldrin (field)
Aldrin/Dieldrin (field)
Concentration
("g/g)
1.2
1.2
0.14-0.37


0.57
0.06
0.57
0.06
0.05-0.26
0.08-0.20
Range of Tissue (WW)
Concentrations6
("g/g)
0.04
0.07
< 0.01


< 0.01
0
0.03
0
0.01-0.14
0.08-0.13
Uptake
Slope'
0.03
0.46
0


0
0
0.05
0
0.48"
0.75"
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.


ibid.
ibid.
Ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
*  Tissue concentration is in dry weight.   Conversion  is based on an assumed water content of 87.3% for sugar beets
  and roots of common red beets, and 13.8% for corn kernels, which is taken as  typical.
6  Uptake slope -  tissue  concentration/soil concern rat ion
'  NR  - Not  reported.
J  Based  on  midpoint of soil  and tissue  concent ratiun  ranges.

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 1
     The only uptake data available for the edible part of  a  root
     vegetable was 0.43 for sugar beet roots after conversion of all  the
     units to dry weights (Harris and Sans, 1969).  The uptake  slope  for
     corn of 0.02 was based on studies on corn grain reported by
     Weisgerber  (1974) after conversion of all units to a dry weight
     basis.  The uptake slope for cereals and grains of 0.03  was based  on
     a weighted mean for wheat and corn'grains calculated on  a dry-weight
     basis (Weisgerber, 1974).  There were no data readily  available  for
     uptake of aldrin/dieldrin by garden fruits, so the mean  of all of  the
     uptakes for food groups for which data were available, 0.22, was used
     to represent the uptake for this group.
4.13.2  Arsenic (As)

 i.   The RfD - 0.0014 mg/kg/day.
     Although inorganic As has been shown to cause skin cancer in humans
     when ingested in drinking water (EPA, 1980b),  the organic forms of As
     that predominate in food have not been shown to be carcinogenic.  In
     a study of vegetables grown in soil treated with arsenic acid, Pyles
     and Woolson  (1982) found that arsenite, the trivalent inorganic form.
     was not detectable.  Arsenate, the pentavalent inorganic form, was
     present, probably due to soil contamination, but 84-97% of the As
     present was  in the organic form.  Although some ambiguity remains as
     to which form of As may be carcinogenic, in this document the As that
     is transferred via the food chain is assumed to be noncarcinogenic.
     Furthermore,  it is assumed that the hazard to humans should be
     assessed using an RfD based on arsenic's systemic toxicant
     properties.,  or a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 50 ug/L  (Fed.
     Reg., 1980).   Calculating a daily dose for a 70-kg person consuming  2
     L of water a day yields an RfD of 0.0014 (mg/kg/day).
                                  4-22

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY 1
ii-iv. The  rationale  for selecting these data points is the same as that
      given  for  hexachlorobenzene for this pathway.

  v.   The  total  background intake from all sources of exposure (TBI) for
      toddlers  (TBIt) - 0.013 mg/day and for adults  (TBIJ  - 0.057 mg/day.

      The  majority of Americans using public water supplies are exposed  to
      levels of  arsenic below 2.5 ug/L.  At this drinking water
      concentration,  the 70-kg adult male is exposed to 0.0005 ug/kg/day of
      As  in  air,  0.07 ug/kg/day in drinking water, and 0.74 ug/kg/day in
      all  sources of food, as described in Table 4-7.

      For  drinking water:

                 0.07 ug/kg/day = 0.07 ug/kg/dav x 70 kg
                                    1,000 ug/mg

                              = 0.0049 mg/day
      For  air:

                 0.0005 ug/dav x 70 kg  = 0.00004 mg/day (negligible)
                   1,000 ug/mg
       For food:
                 0.74 ug/dav x 70 kg   =  0.0518 mg/day
                   1,000 ug/mg
       The total As intake for adults from air, food and drinking water  is
       0.0049 mg/day + 0.00004 mg/day + 0.0518 mg/day - 0.057 mg/day

       The average toddler consumes 1 L of water a day compared  to  2  L  for
       adults.   Half of the adult drinking water intake 0.07 ug/kg/day
       equals 0.035 ug/kg/day.
                                    4-23

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY 1
         TABLE 4-7.  Relative Source Contribution Assessment of Arsenic
                      for a 70-kg Adult Male
Drinking Water
Concentration
(ug/L)
0
2.5
Drinking
Water Dose3
(ug/kg/day)
0
0.07
Food & Drinking
Water- -All
Sources"
(ug/kg/day)
0.67 (0%)
0.74 (9.5%)
3Assuming  2  L per  day  consumption and 100%  absorption.
bAssuming  consumption  of 46.6  ug/day arsenic and 100% absorption.

Source:  EPA, 1984e.
                                     4-24

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 1
               0.035 ug/kg/day x  10 kg = 0.35 ug/day or 0.00035 mg/day


     The geometric mean of the diet intake of As for the years 1975 to

     1979 for toddlers given in Table 4-8 is 12.8 ug/day, or 0.013 mg/day


     The total exposure to As in air is negligible.


     The total toddler exposure to As from all sources considered is

     0.00035 mg/day +'0.013 mg/day - 0.013- mg/day


vi.  The uptake of As [ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1]  for each vegetable

     food group in the human diet (UCV)  is:
                              Agricultural Use         Residential Use
     Food Group                      (UC.)	            (UC.)	

     Potatoes                      0.0006                 0.0006
     Leafy vegetables              0.04                   0.04
     Legume vegetables             0.0002                 0.0002
      nondried
     Legume vegetables             0.0002                 0.0002
      dried
     Root vegetables               0.02                   0.02
     Garden fruits                 0.002                  0.002
     Peanuts                       0.0002
     Grains and cereals            0.0004
     Corn*                           --                   0.0001
     *The uptake for corn is included under grains and cereals for
      agricultural application.
     The uptake response slopes for all of the food groups listed above

     have been chosen from data shown in Table 4-9.  The uptake for

     potatoes of 0.0006 was calculated as the geometric mean of the

     arsenic uptakes reported for potato peels and tubers by Chisholm

     (1972) .   The leafy vegetable uptake is the weighted mean of the

     reported values for lettuce (MacLean,  1974) and Swiss chard (Furr et
                                  4-25

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 1
              TABLE 4-8.  Summary of Total Diet Study Estimates of
                          Arsenic Intake for Infants and Toddlers
Fiscal Year
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
Infant (6 mon old.1)
as As203 as As
5.3 4.0
2 1.5
4.6 3.5
0.4 0.3
2.8 2.1
Toddler (2 vr old)
as As203
22.9
18
24.7
12.3
11.1
as As
17.3
13.6
18.7
9.3
8.4
Source:  FDA 1980b; 1982.

Note:  Data presented by FDA as As203 is  converted to As using a factor of
       0.757
                                      4-26

-------
TABLE 4-9.   Uptake of Arsenic by Plants
                                                                       PATHWAY 1
Plant/Tissue
Bean/green
bean
Potato/tuber
pulp
Potato/peel
•P-
1
1^ Carrot/root
Corn/kernel
Bean/green
bean
Bean/green
bean
Potato/tuber
pulp
Chemical Form
Applied
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Soil
PH
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loan
Sandy loam
Range (N)'
of Application
(kg/ha)
469 kg/ha/yr
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr
5 yr (1)
Rates
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
for
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR'
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05 .
0.08
< 0.01
< 0.01
Uptake
Slope"
3.6 x 10"
1.3 x
1.0 x.
4. 7 x
4.3 x
1.9 x
1.2 x
1.9 x
10'
10J
10 <
10'
10'
10'
10'
Reference
Chisholra, 1972
(p. 586)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

-------
                                                             PATHWAY 1
TABLE 4-9. (Continued)
Plant/Tissue
Potato/peel
Carrot/root
Turnip/root
pulp
Turnip/ root
| peel
ho
00
Swiss chard/
aurial shoot
Corn/kernel
Fodder rape/
plant
Onions/planC
Millett/plant
Chemical Form
Applied
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Sludge
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenate
Soil
(pH)
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
NR
Gravelly
loam
Gravel ly
loam
Range (N)'
of Application Rates
(kg/ha)
469 kg/ha/yr for
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr for
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr for
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr for
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr for
5 yr (1)
469 kg/ha/yr for
5 yr (1).
0.69 (I)
4-8 Ib/ac for
50 yr
4-B Ib/ac tor
50 yr
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.3;
0.1
0.3
Uptake
Slope'
2.3 x 10 '
5.5 x 10' '
2.1 x 10'
2.3 x 10J
7.9 x 10'
8.5 x 10s
0.52
4.5 x 10!
1.2 x 10'
Reference
Ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Ibid.
Baxter et al.
1983 (p. 45)
Elfving et al . ,
1978 (p. 96)
ibid.

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 1
TABLE 4-9.  (Continued)
Chemical Form Soil
Plane/Tissue Applied (pH)
Carrots/plant Lead arsenate Gravelly
loam
Swiss chard/ Sludge 6.5
plant
Swiss chard/ Sludge 5.5
pi ant
-P-
K> Let tuce/leaf Lead arsenate NR
U3
Lettuce/leaf Lead arsenate NR
Lettuce/leaf Lead arsenate NR
Baby beet/root Lead arsenate NR
Baby beet/root Lead arsenate NR
Baby beet/root Lead arsenate NR
Range (N)'
of Application Rates
(kg/ha)
4-8 Ib/ac for
50 yr
1.47 (1)
1.47 (1)
250 Ib/ac
250 Ib/ac
250 Ib/ac
500 lb/acc
500 Ib/ac'
500 Ib/ac'
Soil Control Tissue
Concentration Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) Slopeb Reference
NR < 0.
NR 0.
NR 0.
30.2 I.
(0.
60.3 1 .
(0.
120.7 2.
(0.
30.2 0
(0.
60.3 0
(0.
120.7 ' 0
(0.
1
63
16
26
10)J
76
14)"
02
16)J
.67
11)'
. 59
10)J
.95
16)J
1.4 x 10' ibid.
0. 32 Furr et al . ,
1976b (p. 87)
0.34 ibid.
0.042 HacLean, 1974
0.029 ibid.
0.017 ibid.
0.022 ibid.
0.010 ibid.
0.008 ibid.

-------
                                                                                                                            PATHWAY 1
                                                             TABLE 4-9.  (Continued)


.p-
1
0-1
O
Plant/Tissue
Radish/root
Radish/root
Radish/root

Chemical Form Soil
Applied (ptl)
Lead arsenate NR
Lead arsenate NR
Lead arsenate NR

Range (N)'
of Application Rates
(kg/ha)
1000 lb/ac'
1000 lb/ac'
1000 lb/ac'

Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
30.2
60.3
120.7

Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.55
(0.04)d
3. 17
(0.23)"
3.yy
(0.29)"

Uptake
Slope"
0.018
0.053
0.033

Reference
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

'  N  -  Number  of  application rates.
".Slope  - y/x, where y - tissue  concentration (ug/g),  and  x - application rate (kg/ha).
1  NR - Not  reported.
J  Lead arsenate  incorporated into the  soil  at 250,  500, and 1,000  lb/ac, equivalent to 30.2, 60.3, and 120.7 kg/ha,
  respectively.
1  Reported  wet weight.   Percentage  water: lettuce,  94.0%;  baby beet root, 94.5%; Source:   W.B.  Spector, 1956;  and USDA,  1963.

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY 1
      al., 1976b; Chisholm,  1972).  The  calculated  uptake  for peanuts  and
      dried and nondried  legumes was based  on  the mean of  these  uptakes
      reported for  green  beans by  Chisholm  (1972).  The root vegetable
      uptake of 0.02  is the  weighted mean of the uptakes for carrots,
      turnips, onions, beets, and  radishes  described in studies  by Chisholm
      (1972) and MacLean  (1974).   The  uptake for corn of 0.0001  is the mean
      of  two values for corn kernels reported  by Chisholm  (1972)    The mean
      t
      of  these two  corn uptakes and an uptake  reported for millet by
      Elfving et al.  (1978)  yield  a value for  grains and cereals of 0.0004.
      Because no data were readily available for As uptake by garden
      fruits, the geometric  mean of 0.000 was  calculated based on the
      combined uptakes of all of the food groups for which data  were
      available.
 4.13.3 Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)

  i.    The human  cancer potency (q!*) -11.5 (mg/kg/day)"1.
       The potency  value of 11.5  (mg/kg/day)"1  for  ingestion  of  BaP was
       calculated based on a study by Neal  and Rigdon (1967,  as cited in
       EPA,  1980j)  in which BaP was fed to  mice at concentrations  ranging
       from  1  to  250  ppm.   Results showed a significant  increase in  the
       incidence  of stomach .tumors in the test animals compared to  the
       controls.

ii-v.  The rationale for selecting  these data points is the same as  that
       given for  hexachlorobenzene for this pathway.

  vi.   The uptake response slopes  [ug/g tissue DW  (ug/g  soil DW)"1] for  each
       vegetable  food group in the human diet  (UCV) are:
                                    4-31

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY 1
                               Agricultural Use          Residential Use
     Food Group                    fUC.)	              (UC.)	
     Potatoes                         0.42                    0.42
     Leafy vegetables                 0.29                    0.29
     Legume vegetables                0.42                    0.42
      nondried
     Legume vegetables                0.42                    0.42
      dried
     Root vegetables                  0.61                    0.61
     Garden fruits                   0.42                    0.42
     Peanuts                         0.42
     Grains and cereals               0.42
     Corn*                             --                     0.42
     *The uptake for corn is  included under grains  and cereals for
      agricultural application.

     The uptake response slopes  for all  of the  food groups  listed above
     have been chosen from data  available  on BaP  uptake in  plants,  as
     listed in Table 4-10.   Because the  uptake  of organic chemicals is not
     dependent on soil pH,  as is the case  for metals,  the uptakes are the
     same for both settings.

     The uptake for root vegetables, 0.61,  was  calculated as the weighted
     mean of uptakes for carrots and radishes from  studies  by Connor
     (1984).  Because no data were available for  any other  food groups,
     the geometric mean of the two vegetable groups for which data are
     available, 0.42, was used to represent legumes,  garden fruits,
     peanuts, potatoes,  corn, grains, and  cereals.
4.1-3.4   Cadmium (Cd)

i.   At present,  there is no Agency-approved risk reference dose for
     cadmium,  although efforts are being made to do so in the near future.
     In developing the previous regulation for limiting cadmium
     concentrations in sludge, the Agency determined that daily intake of
                                  4-32

-------
                                                 TABLE 4-10.   Uptake of Benzu(a)pyreue by Plants
                                                                                                                        PATHWAY 1
Plant/Tissue
Carrot/root
C;ir rot/root
CiirroL/lol (age
Carrot/foliage
Radish/root
Radish/foliage
Spinach/leaf
Soil
Type
Sand
Compost
Sand
Conpost
NR
NR
NR
Chemical Form
Appl led
BaP
BaP
BaP
BaP
BaP
BaP
BaP
Range of Range of Tissue
Soil Concentration Concentration Uptake
(ug/g) ("g/g) Slope'
NR*
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0.75
NR 0.08
NR 0.08
NR 0.08
NR 0.08
NR 0.08
NR 0.16
-1.8(0.09-0.22)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
-0.16(0.01-0.02)
(0.01)
-0.42(0.02-0.05)
Reference
Connor. 1984 (p. 48)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
*  Values were reported as plant-to-soil concentration ratio (using fresh  weight,  FW:FW)  in  the original reference.  These
  values are in parentheses.  Values were converted  to a DU:DW ratio by dividing by 0.12,  since  Connor (1984)  had
  multiplied by 0.12  to  convert  from DU:DU  to FW:FW.
  NR
Not reported.

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY  1
       approximately  200  ug Cd/day could lead to serious health effects
       (40  CFR  Part 257 44  Federal Register  53451 September 13,  1979).   To
       provide  a  margin of  safety  EPA recommended that a limit of 150 ug
       Cd/day from all sources  of  exposure be considered for regulatory
       purposes.

       Heavy smokers.(3 °r  more packs of cigarettes/day)  can add about 75 ug
       of Cd more a day to  their exposure.   Subtracting that amount from the
       acceptable daily intake  of  150 ug/day yields  a  presumably safe dose
       of 75 ug/day.  This  result  is  close to the World Health
       Organization's recommendation  of  57-71 ug/day.   Therefore,  EPA
       decided  that a level of  70  ug/day represented a reasonable  limit on
       the  maximum acceptable dietary intake of  cadmium.

ii-iv.  The  rationale and  the data  points  are the  same  as  those given for
       HCB  for  this pathway.

 v.    The  total  background intake rate  of Cd from all sources of  exposure
       (TBI) for  adults (TBI.)  - 0.007 mg/day and for toddlers
       (TBIt) -  0.013  mg/day.

       According  to the Cadmium Occurrence in Drinking Water,  Food and Air
       document (EPA, 1984f), the  typical drinking water  concentration of Cd
       in water is 2 ug/L.  Using  Table  4-11,  a concentration of 2 ug/L
       would result in a  Cd intake in drinking water of 0.057 ug/kg/day,  a
       0.002 ug/kg/day air  exposure,  and a 0.41 ug/kg/day from dietary
       sources.

       To convert  to mg/day:

                0.057 ug/kg/day x 70 kg = 0.004 mg/day for drinking water
                     1,000 ug/mg

                0.002 ug/kg/dav x 70 kg = 0.00014 mg/day for air
                     1,000  ug/mg

                                   4-34

-------
                                                                        PATHWAY 1
 TABLE 4-11.  Relative Source Contribution Assessment of Cadmium for a 70-kg Adult Male
Drinking Water    Drinking        Food         Air        Total     %  from
 Concentration  Water Intake3     Intake       Intake      Intake    Drinking
    (ug/L)        (ug/kg/day)   (ug/kg/day)  (ug/kg/day) (ug/kg/day)  Water
0
2
0
0.057
0.41
0.41
0.002
0.002
0.4
0.46
0
12.5
 3 Assumes consumption of 2 L per day

 Source:   EPA,  1984f.
                                     4-35

-------
                                                             PATHWAY  1
          0.041 ug/kg/dav x 70 kg = 0.0029 mg/day for food
               1,000 ug/mg
The total exposure of Cd to adults from drinking  water,  air,  and food
is 0.004 mg/day + 0.00014 mg/day + 0.0029 mg/day  - 0.007 mg Cd/day.

The average toddler consumes 1 L of water a day compared to 2 L for
adults.  Therefore, the Cd intake from  drinking water  for toddlers is
half the adult dose, or 0.002 mg/day.

The geometric mean for Cd intake from food by  toddlers,  as given in
the Table 4-12 for the years 1975-1979, is 10.4 ug/day,  or 0.0104
mg/day.

The only information available on Cd inhalation exposure was  a median
air level of 0.007 ug Cd/m3,  with the Cd intake for the  70-kg male
having a ventilation rate of 23 m3/day,  or 0.16 ug/day (EPA,  1984f) .
The report of the Taskgroup on Reference Man  (ICRP,  1977) states a
10-yr-old child has a ventilation .rate  of 15 m3/day.  By  extrapolating
from these data, a 2-yr-old toddler  is  estimated  to have a
ventilation rate of 7 . 6 m3/day.

The geometric mean of the values for infants  and  10-yr-old children
is 4.8 m3/day  for a toddler.   Therefore, the Cd daily  inhalation
exposure for a toddler is estimated  to  be:

          0.007 ug Cd/m3 x 7.6 m3/day = 0.053 ug/day or 0.00005 mg Cd/day

The total exposure of toddlers to Cd from air,  drinking water,  and
food is:

          0.0005 mg/day + 0.002 mg/day + 0.0104 mg/day =  0.013 mg/day
                              4-36

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY  1
      TABLE 4-12. Summary of Cadmium Intake Estimates for Infants and
                   Toddlers from Total Diet Study
Fiscal Year
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975

Infants (6 mon)
4
6
6
12
5
Intake Cue/day)
Toddlers (2 yr)
9
11
8
14
11
Source:   FDA,  1980b,  1982.
                                    4-37

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 1
vi.  The uptake response slopes [ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)-]'1 for each
     of the vegetable food groups in the human diet (UCV)  are:

                            Agricultural Use          Residential Use
     Food Group                  (UC.)                    QIC.)	
     Potatoes                    0.03                     0.03
     Leafy vegetables            0.38                     0.43
     Legume vegetables           0.01                     0.01
      nondried
     Legume vegetables           0.01                     0.01
      dried
     Root vegetables             0.22                     0.22
     Garden fruits               0.05                     0.05
     Peanuts                     0.01
     Grains and Cereals          0  016
     Corn*                         --                      0.03
     *The uptake for corn is included under grains and cereals for
      agricultural application.

     The uptake response slopes for all the food groups listed above have
     been chosen from data described in Table 4-13.  The uptake for
     potatoes for both end uses, 0.03,  was derived from data reported by
     Dowdy and Larson (1975).  The uptake for leafy vegetables grown in an
     agricultural setting, 0.38, was derived from sludge studies conducted
     at pH 6 or above that measured Cd uptake in lettuce and swiss chard
     (Dowdy and Larson,  1975; CAST, 1980; Chang et al., 1978).  The uptake
     of 0.43 for leafy vegetables given for residential use is the mean of
     the values for lettuce and Swiss chard described for agricultural
     use, but it also includes data from studies below, as well as above,
     pH 6.   The value for peanuts as well as for dried and nondried
     legumes for both end uses, 0.001,  is the uptake reported for string
     beans, the only data available for a legume grown with sludge
     (Giordano and Mays, 1977).  The uptake of 0.22 used to represent  root
     vegetables grown under both agricultural and home garden conditions
     is the weighted mean of uptakes reported for carrots and radishes
     grown in sludge (field studies by Dowdy and Larson (1975) and Chang
                                  4-38

-------
                                                   TABLE 4-13.  Uptake of Cadmium by Plants
                                                                                                                PATHWAY 1
Plant/Tissue
Tomato/fruit
Lettuce/leaf
Swiss chard/
leaf

1
t*j
yj Turnip/greens
Carrot/tuber
Radish/tuber
Potato/tuber
Sweet corn/
grain
String bean/
bean
Chemical Form
Applied
(study type)
Sludge (field)
Sludge (field)
Sludge
Sludge

Sludge
Sludge (field)
Sludge (field)
Sludge
Sludge (field)
Sludge (field)
Sludge
Range (N)*
of Application Control Tissue
Soil Year of Rates Concentration Uptake
(pH) Application (kg/ha) (ug/g DU) Slope*
6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
5.5-5.7
6.1-6.4
5.5-5.7
6.1-6.4
NR'
5.6
6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
NR'
6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
5.0-5.5
5.0-5.5
First
First
NR
NR 0.87
NR 0
Multiple 0-5.1 (3) 1.0
First
First
First
First
NR
0.05
0.60
0.42
0.15
0.85
0.43
0.51
0.67
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.009
0.08
0.01
Reference
Dowdy and Larson,
ibid.
CAST. 1980 (Table
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Chang et al . . 1978
Miller and Boswell
(p. 1362)
Dowdy and Larson,
ibid.
Chang et al , 1978'
Dowdy and Larson,
ibid.
Giordano and Mays,
ibid.

1975°
15)'


, 1979
1975'

1975'
1977
Wheat/grain    Sludge
                                NK'
Sal>«y and Hart,  19751

-------
TABLE 4-13.  (Continued)
                                                     PATHWAY  I
Plant/Tissue
Oats/grain
Oats/grain
Field corn/
grain
&. Field corn/
i. leaf
o


Field corn/
silage
Chemical Form
Applied
Sludge.

Sludge
Sludge (field)
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Year of
Soil Application
(PH)
6.1-6.4 NR
5.5-5.7 NR
4.9-5.4 NR
5.8-6.4
6.5 Multiple
6.5' ^IR
4.6'
6.5'
4.6"
7.0 • SIR
5.4
Range (N)'
of Application
Rates
(kg/ha)


Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)


0-38.7 (2)
(applied over
3 years)
0-3.0 (4)
0-3.0 (4)
0-3.0 (4)
0-3.0 (4)
0-21.6 (2)
0-25.3 (2)
0.83
1.01
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.29
Uptake6
Slope
0.01
0.02
0.001
0.001
0.004
3.4
3.4
1.5
0.83
0.077
0.14
Reference
CAST, 1980 (Table 15)c
ibid.
ibid.
ibid. , Table IT
Lisk et al. , 1982
(p. 617)
Pepper et al. , 1983
(p. 272)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Heffron et al. , 1980
(P. 59)
Telford et al. , 1982

-------
TABLE 4-13.  (Continued)
                                                    PATHWAY 1
Chemical Form
Plant/Tissue Applied Soil
(pH)
Barley/straw Sludge (field) 4.8-5
Sludge (field) 5.5-7
Bromegrass Sludge (field) 7.2-7
Sludge (field) 7.4
Range (N)'
Year of of Application Control Tissue Uptake6
Application Rates Concentration Slope
(kg/ha) (ug/g DW)
.5 Multiple 0-8.6 0.04-0.10 0.06
.0 Multiple 0.04-0.09 0.10
4 Multiple 0.76-6.08 NR 0.07
Multiple 0.2-1.6 NR 0.07
Reference
Vlamis et al . , 1985
Soon and Bates, 1981
N - Number of application rates, including control (i.e., zero).
Uptake slope - x/y, where x - kg/ha applied, and y - ug/g plant tissue DW.
As reported in Ryan et al.. 1982 (p. 283).
NR - Not reported
Assumed to be > pH 7
Silt loam soil, limed or unlimed.
Sandy loam soil, limed or unlimed

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY  1
      et al.  (1978) respectively).  The uptake  for  garden fruits of 0.08
      for both end uses was  derived from  a  sludge/field study of tomatoes
      (Dowdy  and Larson,  1975).  The uptake of  0.03 for corn grown in home
      gardens is the mean of two values for sweet corn grain grown under
      sludge/field conditions  at pHs above  and  below 6,  reported by Dowdy
      and Larson (1975) and  Giordano and  Mays  (1977) .
  4.L3.5  DDT/DDE/DDD

  i.    The human cancer potency  (qt*) -0.34 (mg/kg/day)"1.
       A  recent  evaluation by the  EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group indicates
       that  DDT,  DDE,  and ODD are  all similar  in regard to cancer potency
       (EPA,  1985a).   The potency  value  for  DDT  and its metabolites was
       based on  tests  on mice in which hepatocellular carcinomas were
       observed  in mice fed pp'-DDE,  and liver tumors and lung adenomas were
       observed  after  the mice were  fed  ODD.   Male  rats dosed with pp'-DDD
       developed follicular cell adenomas.

ii-v.   The rationale for selecting these data points is  the same  as  that
       given for r.exachlorobenzene for this  pathway.

  vi.   The uptake response slopes  [ug/g  tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1]  for
       DDT/DDE/DDD for each of the vegetable groups in the human diet (UCV)
       are:
                                  4-42

-------
                                                            PATHWAY  1
                           Agricultural Use       Residential Use
Food Group                     QIC.)                 (UC.)	
Potatoes                         0.07                  0.07
Leafy vegetables                 0.11                  0.11
Legume vegetables                0.04                  0.04
  nondried
Legume vegetables                0.04                  0 .-04
  dried
Root vegetables                  0.11                  0.11
Garden fruits          "          0.11                  0 11
Peanuts                          0.04
Grains and cereals               0.48
Corn*                             --                   0.51
*The uptake for corn is included under grains and cereals
 for agricultural application.

The uptake response slopes for all the food groups have been chosen
from data described in Table 4-14.  The uptake response slope for
potatoes for both end uses, 0.07, was based on the DDT uptake of
potatoes reported by Edwards (1970).   No data were readily available
on DDT uptake in leafy vegetables or garden fruits; therefore, the
geometric mean of the uptakes for all of the plant groups for which
data were available was used to represent -these two food groups.
The uptake of 0.04 for dried and nondried legumes, as well as
peanuts,  was calculated as the mean of the two values reported for
alfalfa,  the only legume for which data are available  (Harris and
Sans, 1969).  The uptake for root vegetables of 0.11 was derived
from data on sugar beets and carrots, after conversion of the data
to a dry weight basis (Harris and Sans, 1969; Onsager et al., 1970;
Edwards,  1970).  The uptake for grains and cereals was based on the
weighted mean of values for corn and oats after conversion of all
the units to dry weights (Harris and Sans, 1969).  The uptake for
corn of 0.51 was based on the mean of several values for corn grain
reported by Harris and Sans (1969).
                           4-43

-------
TABLE 4-14.  Uptake of DDT, DDE, and DDD by Plants
                                                             PATHWAY 1
Plant/Tissue
Carrot/root
Potato/tuber
Alfalfa/aerial
Alfalfa/aerial
Corn/aerial
*• Corn/aerial
Corn/aerial
Oats/aerial
Oats/aerial
Sugar beet/root
Sugar beet/root
Sugar beet/root
Soil
Type
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Clay
Sandy loam
Clay
Muck
Clay
Muck
Clay
Muck
Agricultural
Chemical Form
Applied
DDT
DDT
DDT-RC
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDR-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
Soil Concentration"
(ug/g DW)
24.8
24.8
0.23
0.60
0.23
0.60
17.58
0.60
17.58
0.60
17.58
0.45
Tissue
Concentration
(ue/s)
3.17
1.63
0.02
0.01
0.12
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.02
Bloconcentrationb
Factor
0.13
0.07
0.09
0.02
0.52
0.07
< 0.001
0.05
< 0.01
0.05
< 0.001
0.04
Reference
Edwards, 1970
(p. 35)
ibid. , p. 35
Harris and Sans
1969 (p. 184)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Onsager et al . ,
1970 (p. 1114)
ibid.

-------
                                                                                                                    PATHWAY 1
                                                                   TABLE 4-14.   (Continued)

Plant/Tissue
Sugar beet/root
Sugar beet/root
Sugar beet/root
Sugar beet/root
Sugar beet/root
Soil Chemical Form Soil Concentration'
Type Applied (ug/g DU)
Agricultural DDT-R 0.76
Agricultural DDT-R 1.10
Agricultural DDT-R 2.36
Agricultural DDT-R 4.42
Agricultural DDT-R 5.32
Tissue
Concentration Bioconcentrationb Reference
("g/g) Factor
0.04 0.05 Onsager et al . ,
1970 (p. 1,114)
0.08 0.07 ibid.
0.20 0.08 ibid.
0.35 0.08 ibid.
0.33 0.06 ibid.
"  Edwards (1970)  and Onsager et al.  (1970)  did not  specify whether their calculations of concentrations were based on dry
  or fresh weights.  Harris and Sans (1969) calculated concentrations for  dry weight of soil  and  fresh weight of  crop.
'  Bioconcentration factor - y/x,  where  y -  tissue concentration  (DW)  and x -  soil concentration (DW).   Uptake based on dry-
 weight  tissue/dry-weight soil.  The following moisture percentages  were used:   alfalfa,  80%;  corn, 13.8%;  oats,  13%.
'  DDT-R  - DDT  + DDE + DDD for  Harris  and Sans  data  (1969).  DDT-R - p.p'DDT + o,p'DDT+DDE for Onsager et al. data (1970).

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 1
4.L3.6   Heptachlor (HEPC)


i.    The human  cancer potency  (qj*) =9.1 (mg/kg/day)'1.
      The human  cancer potency  for  HEPC of 9 . 1  (rag/kg/day)"1  is  based on

      four  long- term carcinogenesis bioassays of heptachlor  epoxide in

      which the  major finding was an  increased  incidence  of  liver

      carcinomas  (EPA, 1988b)


ii-v.  The rationale for  selecting these data  points  is  the same as that

      given for  hexachlorobenzene for this pathway.


vi .    The uptake response  slopes  [ug/g tissues  DW  (ug/g soil DW)'1]  for

      each  vegetable food  group  in  the human  diet  (UCV) are:
                              Agricultural Use       Residential Use
       Food Group                   (UC.)	            (UC.)	

       Potatoes                      0.30                 0.30
       Leafy vegetables              0.02                 0.02
       Legume vegetable              0.04                 0  04
          nondried
       Legume vegetables             0.04                 0.04
        dried
       Root  vegetables               2.71                 2.71
       Garden fruits                 0.21                 0.21
       Peanuts                       0.04
       Grains and  cereals            0.14
       Corn*                          - -                  0.14
      *The uptake  for  corn  is  included under  grains  and cereals for
       agricultural  application.


      The uptake response slopes  for  all  of the food groups listed above

      have been chosen from data  described in Table  4-15.   Because plant

      uptakes of organics do not  appear to be related to soil pH, the

      uptakes are  the  same  for both settings.
                                  4-46

-------
TABLE 4-15.   Uptake of Ileptachlor by Plants
                                                                       PATHWAY 1
Plant/Tissue
Rutabaga/root
Cucumber/fruit
Alfalfa/plant
ft. Carrot/root
1
-J Potato/tuber
Cucumber/fruit
Lettuce/leaf
Carrot/root
Carrot/root
Radish/root
Garden beet/tuber
Chemical Form
Applied
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Growth
Medium
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.32
3.8
0.78
0.49
0.49
2.34
2:75
4.26
1.25
1.33
1.33
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.024
0.091
0.028
0.36
0.05
4.36
0.58
23.47
9.49
3.28
2.34
Uptake
Uptake
Slope1
0.075
0.024
0.036
0.73
0.20
1.86
0.21
5.51
7.59
2.47
1.76
Reference
Edwards, 1970
(p. 34)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Lichtenstein et al .
1965
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

-------
                                                           PATHWAY  1





TABLE 4-15.  (Continued)
Plant/Tissue
Potato/tuber
Parsnip/tuber
' Uptake slope
1
00
Chemical Form
Applied
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
- y/x , where x - ug/g


Growth
Medium
Soil
Soil
soil(DW) and


Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
1.33
4.04
y - ug/g tissue (DW)


Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
1.22
7.15



Uptake
Slope* Reference
0.91 ibid.
1.77 ibid.




-------
                                                               PATHWAY 1
      The uptake for potatoes, 0.30,  is  the  geometric mean  of  the  data
      from two potato  studies by Edwards  (1970)  and Liechtenstein  et  al.
      (1965).  The uptake  for leafy vegetables,  0.02, was based  on the
      uptake of HEPC by  lettuce (Liechtenstein  et  al.,  1965).  The value
      used for peanuts,  dried and nondried legume, 0.04, was based on an
      alfalfa study by Edwards (1970).   Although alfalfa is not  a  human
      food chain crop, it  is the only  legume  for which  heptachlor  uptake
      data were available.  The uptake for root  crops,  2.71, was
      calculated as the  weighted mean  of uptakes reported for  carrots
      (Edwards, 1970), radishes, beets,  parsnips,  and rutabagas
      (Liechtenstein et  al., 1965).  The  uptake  for garden  fruits  of  0.21
      was calculated as  the mean of two  values  for cucumbers from  studies
      by Edwards (1970)  and Liechtenstein et  al. (1965).  Because  no  data
      were available on  HEPC uptakes  for grains  and cereals, the geometric
      mean of all of the plant groups  for which  data were available --
      0.14 -- was used to  represent corn, grains,  and cereals  as well.
4.13.7  Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)

i.    The human  cancer  potency  (qi)-1.67 (mg/kg/day)"1 .
      This value is  based on hepatocellular  carcinomas  responses  in  rats
      (EPA,  1985e).

ii.    The risk level (RL)  -  10"1.
      Specification  of  a given  risk  level  on which  to base  regulations  is
      a matter of policy.  The  risk  level  for D&M and agricultural use  is
ill.   The average  adult  body  weight  (BW)  -  70  kg.
      This  is  the  average  body weight  of  an adult  male.
                                   4-49

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 1
iv.   The relative  effectiveness  of  ingestion  exposure  (RE)  - 1.
      Due to  lack of  data  on potency estimates from  exposure to food chain
      contamination,  RE  is considered equal  to 1.

v.    The total background intake from all sources of exposure (TBI) for
      toddlers  (TBI,)  and adults (TBI,) - 0 mg/day.

      Because no "safe"  dose exists  for nonthreshold chemicals,  only
      incremental risks  over background were calculated for  carcinogens.
      Because the background exposures from  nonsludge sources were not
      considered in these  calculations, TBI  is equal to zero.

vi.   The uptake response  slopes  for each vegetable  food group in the
      human diet (UCV) are:
                                 Agricultural Use         Residential Use
      Food Group                     (UC.)                   (UC.)	
      Potatoes                        0.75                    0.75
      Leafy vegetables                0.56                    0.56
      Legume vegetables,               0.78                    0.78
        nondried
      Legume vegetables,               0.78                    0.78
        dried
      Root vegetables                  0.11                    1.11
      Garden fruits                   0.78                    0.78
      Peanuts                         0.78
      Grains and cereals               0.78
      Corn*                            -                       0.78
      *The  uptake for corn is included under grains and cereals for
       agricultural application.

      The uptake values for all food groups (Connor,  1984)  are listed in
      Table 4-16 after adjustment of the reported wet weight tissue/dry
      weight soil uptake values to a dry weight basis for both.  The uptake
      for potatoes,  0.75,  was taken from the only study on HCB for which
                                  4-50

-------
                                             TABLE 4-16.  Uptake of Hexachlorobenzene* by Plants
                                                                                                                PATHWAY 1
Plant/Tissue
Carrot/root
Carrot/root
Radish/root
Radish/root
Sugar beet/head
Sugar beet/root
Potato/tubor
Lettuce/head
Lettuce/head late
harvest
Le t tuce/head
Spinach/leaf
Grass/ > 5 cm leaf
Grass/stubble
Grass/root
Grass/plant
Soil Type
NRd
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Sandy loam
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.189-2.529
Range of Tissue
Concentration
("g/g)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.079-15.635
Uptake
Slope6
1.9'
0.140-0.31'
0.45'
0.008'
o.or
0.05'
0.09'
0.011-0.02'
0.36'

0.065'
0.25'
0.03
0.20
0.62
0.41-6.18
Uptake
Slope'
15.8
1.77
9.0
0.2
0.08
0.40
0.45
0.38
9.0

1.63
3.13
0.25



Reference
Connor, 1984 (p.
Ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Beall. 1976 (p.

. 48)














369)
Chemical form applied  - HCB.
Uptake slope - y/x where y - plant tissue concentration (WW),  and x - soil concentration (DW).
Uptake on dry weight basis assuming the following moisture percentages:   carrot,  88%;  radish,  95%;  sugar  beet,  87.3%;
 potato,  80%;  lettuce,  96%  and spinach,  92%  (USDA,  1979).
NR - Not reported.
Fresh-weight to dry-weight ratio can be obtained by dividing the uptake  factor by 0.12.

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 1
     data were available.   The  uptake  for leafy vegetables represents the
     weighted mean of the  values  reported for lettuce and spinach.   The
     uptake for root crops,  1.11,  is  the  weighted mean of the uptake
     slopes reported for carrots,  radishes,  and sugar beets.   (The  carrot
     uptake response,  15.8,  was not used  in  these calculations because it
     appears to be an outlier).  Because  no  data were readily available
     for legumes,  peanuts,  grains,  cereals,  corn, or garden fruits,  the
     value used to represent these food groups is the geometric mean of
     the values for the food groups in the human diet for which uptake
     data are available.
4.13.8  Lead (Pb)

i.   The  adjusted reference  intake  (RIA)  —  20  ug/day.
     This intake  rate  is  based on a reasonable incremental increase in
     lead exposure contributed by sludge-grown crops  to  the total dietary
     intake.   The 1988  proposed MCL of  5  ug/L  for  Pb  represents an
     allowable level of lead in drinking  water,  assuming additional
     exposures from air,  food,  beverages, and  dust.

     The  assumed  contribution from  food and beverages combined varies by
     age  and  sex  from  14.9  to 44.6  ug Pb/day.   Background exposures to Pb
     will presumably drop substantially by  1990, due  to  recent and
     continuing trends  in reducing  Pb levels in canned foods,  the
     elimination  of Pb  solders,  decreasing  the Pb  in  drinking water
     following the recent nationwide proposed  maximum contaminant level
     for  drinking water,  the phasedown  of Pb concentrations in gasoline,
     and  the  increased public awareness of  the hazards of Pb exposure.
     All  of these changes should result in  lower baseline Pb exposures.
                                  4-52

-------
                                                         PATHWAY 1
Derivation of Lead Limitations for Land Application

When sewage sludge is applied to agricultural land, individuals are
exposed to lead from food or food products grown on sludge-amended
soil.  EPA is concerned about the health implications of such
exposure to lead and is working to minimize lead exposure,
particularly for susceptible subpopulations.

In land application, an ecological pathway -- not a human health
pathway -- is the most stringent for the control of Pb.
Nonetheless, because of the paramount importance given to analysis
of the human health impacts of Pb,  the methodology by which the
Agency derived the Pb limits based on human impacts is detailed
here.  This description should not only promote public discussion
and  informed comment but also demonstrate how the Agency's
methodology works for a given pollutant.

By 1990, EPA estimates that the average daily total intake of Pb
will be approximately 30 ug for children and adults in the United
States.  Although food is the source of 50-75% of the overall Pb
intake for the average adult and of 30-45% for the average child,
only 0.02% of this food is grown on sludge-amended soil.  Therefore
the portion of overall Pb intake attributable to food from sludge-
amended soil is negligible (30 ug x .75 x .0002 =• 0.0045 ug) even
before Federal regulation of Pb in sewage sludge.  For comparison
purposes, the proposed drinking water MCL is 5 ug/L, a level that
allows an individual to intake 10 ug/day (assuming an average
individual drinks 2 L of water per day).  This level is 2,000 times
higher than the average exposure from lead in sludge applied to
agricultural land.

According to EPA, the concentration of Pb in sewage sludge applied
to agricultural land should be limited.  Despite its small
                             4-53

-------
                                                         PATHWAY 1
contribution to daily lead intake, further reduction will promote
EPA's policy of lowering blood lead levels.  The Aggregate Risk
Analysis estimates that at a baseline 920 women, children, and white
men (the Aggregate Risk Analysis explains why only white men were
tabulated) would be at risk of adverse effects as a result of the
application of sewage sludge to agricultural land with current
concentrations of lead.  The overwhelming majority of these are men
with hypertension.  The same analysis estimates there could be 38
cases of adverse health effects related to this sludge exposure (see
Table VIII-2 in Part VIII of the Preamble).  These data demonstrate
the potential to reduce human health impacts of lead exposure
through control of the Pb levels in sewage sludge that is applied to
agricultural land.  Furthermore, adverse health impacts could
increase if, in accordance with EPA's Policy on Beneficial Reuse,
the rate of land application of sewage sludge is increased.

Consistent with the statutory directive that the Agency protect
against "reasonably anticipated adverse effects" (see §405(d)(3) of
the CWA),  EPA's analysis used a combination of reasonable worst-case
assumptions to calculate the Pb limit.  This work required a model
of how lead that is applied in sludge to land travels through the
food chain to a human endpoint.

The additive effect of the combination of reasonable worst-case
parameters produced a Pb limitation that is sufficiently protective
of the MEI while also accounting for potential data inadequacies.
Using this limitation will protect the general population because
the total exposure to Pb from food grown on sludge-amended soils
will be lowered.  This method, however, does not drive the limits to
levels necessary for protection in every conceivable worst-possible
circumstance.  Following are the steps in the methodology.

1.  Because  EPA  has  not estalished an RFD for lead,  the health
    effects  from lead that  are generally correlated with blood Pb
                            4-54

-------
                                                     PATHWAY 1
levels were examined to select the human endpoint most sensitive
to lead exposure from sewage sludge.  Lead exposure across a
broad range of blood lead levels is associated with a continuum
of pathophysiological effects, including interference with the
heme synthesis necessary for formation of red blood cells,
anemia, kidney damage,  impaired reproductive function,
interference with vitamin D metabolism, impaired cognitive
performance, delayed neurological and physical development in
newborns,  and elevations in blood pressure among adults.

Several options are available for this sensitivity parameter.
White middle-aged men (40-59 yr),  young children (0-2 yr), and
pregnant women (as exposure surrogates for the fetus) are all
subpopulations that are especially sensitive to the toxic
effects of  lead.  For white, middle-aged men, several studies
have found  a small but consistent relationship between blood
lead levels and blood pressure.  The blood pressure increases
may be associated with some increased risk for more serious
cardiovascular disease events, such as strokes and heart
attacks, especially if blood  lead levels are chronically
elevated (EPA, 1986b).   In young children, lead impacts include
impairment  of mental and physical development, including  loss of
hearing and reduced attention span in school.  Delays in  early
mental and  physical development of fetuses and infants have also
been associated with maternal blood lead levels.  Because the
biokinetics of lead during pregnancy have not been well
elucidated, the available data are inadequate to quantitatively
predict fetal lead exposure under various exposure scenarios.

Although children absorb more lead from food than do adults,
they are not maximally exposed to the lead in sewage sludge.
Children do not typically consume as much food grown on sludge-
amended soils as adults.  Because adult males consume more food
than women  and children, they are more exposed to  -- and  may be

                        4-55

-------
                                                        PATHWAY  1
   most affected by  -- changes in Lead concentrations  in  the  sludge
   that is applied to agricultural lands.  For this parameter,
   therefore, EPA selected middle-aged men as the human endpoint
   most sensitive to lead effects.

2.  A blood Pb level  of concern had to be selected.  In recent
   rulemakings, the  Agency has selected a level of 10  ug  of Pb  per
   deciliter of blood as a level of concern for health effects  that
   warrant avoidance in infants and children.  Research on white
   males 40-59 yr old (Pirkle, 1985) found significant associations
   between blood pb  levels and blood pressure after accounting  for
   the other factors known to be associated with elevated blood
   pressure.  This research showed that, with little change in  the
   coefficient, the  relationship also held when tested against
   every dietary and serological variable measured in  NHANES  II
   data, a database  on health and nutrition in the U.S. population
   (Pirkle, 1985).   Considerable uncertainty remains as to the
   level of a blood  Pb threshold, if any. for a blood  pressure
   change and the mechanisms by which these changes occur.  The
   Agency, therefore, has not yet determined an appropriate blood
   Pb level to serve as a target for the protection of adult  men
   from elevated blood pressure associated with exposure  to Pb.
   For purposes of this analysis only, however, EPA assessed  the
   potential effects of this proposed regulation on adult men based
   on a blood Pb level of 10 ug/dL.  If  the Agency determines that
   the level of concern is lower than 10 ug/dL, a different limit
   may be chosen for lead in sludge that better reflects  the
   appropriate blood Pb level of concern.

3.  EPA chose a baseline lead exposure level  from all  sources  other
   than food grown on sludge-amended soils.  The August 1988  Draft
   Report, Review of the National Ambient Air Quality  Standards for
   Lead:  Exposure Analysis Methodology  and Validation (EPA,  1988e)
   included estimates of average Pb exposure levels under various
                             4-56

-------
                                                        PATHWAY 1
   air  Lead concentrations.  The report projected a 1990 baseline
   average blood lead level for white middle-aged men of 3.9 to 4.9
   ug/dL.  These levels result from exposure to all media,
   including air, drinking water, food other than food grown or
   raised on sludge-amended soils, dust, and dirt.

   These calculations are approximate for an average exposed
   individual  in a large population.  Baseline exposure to  lead
   results in  blood Pb levels that are lognormally distributed.  To
   more completely characterize risk, blood lead distribution
   around the  average baseline must be examined.  Given a mean
   baseline lead in middle-aged men of 4.4 ug/dL and a geometric
   standard derivation of 1.37 (from NHANES II), approximately 10%
   of the population would be over 6.7 ug/dL and 1.0% would be over
   9.2  ug/dL.   Because of the Agency's concern for those
   individuals who are exposed to above-average lead levels at the
   baseline (e.g., individuals most exposed to lead), EPA selected
   8.0  u/dL as the baseline blood lead exposure level.  This
   corresponds approximately to the 95th percentile of the
   distribution.

4.  Next EPA determined the allowable daily intake (ADI) of  lead
   from sludge that is still protective of the blood lead level of
   concern.  To derive the ADI, the baseline blood lead exposure
   level  (8 ug/dL) was subtracted from the blood lead level of
   concern (10 ug/dL).  Then the amount of lead intake from food
   grown on sludge-amended soils that would translate into  2 ug/dL
   was  calculated.

   Not  all of  the lead in food that is eaten is absorbed by the
   body.  A method to convert dietary lead intake to blood  lead
   level is described in the Draft Exposure Report and is based on
   experimental studies in which dietary supplements were
   administered to volunteers and on duplicate diet studies.   Two
                            4-57

-------
                                                         PATHWAY I
    studies were  identified  as most useful  in  estimating a dietary
    lead/blood  Pb relationship (Cools  et  al.,  1976;  Sherlock et al.,
    1982).  For middle-aged  men,  the coefficient  of  increase of
    blood  Pb  level and  Pb  intake  attributable  to  consumption of Pb
    in food is  0.032.   Dividing 0.032  into  2 yields  62.5 ug of Pb
    per day allowable intake due  to consumption of lead in foods
    raised on sludge-amended soils'.  To be  conservative, the Agency
    chose  to  limit the  allowable  daily intake  of  Pb  from sludge to
    20 ug  per day rather  than 62.5 ug.

5.  The Agency  chose an MEI.  Approximately 0.02% of national
    agricultural  land is  treated  with  sludge each year.   Given the
    assumption  that there  is a complete national  mixing of food,  an
    average individual's  diet of  fruits,  vegetables,  and meat
    products  contains no  more than 0.02%  of foods grown on sludge -
    amended lands.  As  a  protective measure, the  MEI is assumed to
    receive over  100 times more of his or her  food supply from
    sludge-amended soils  than the average individual.   The model
    attributes  2.5% of  the MEI's  diet  to  food  from sludge-treated
    soils  because of potentially  high  consumption from roadside
    stands.

6.  Then the  Agency established,  for each step in the pathway of
    exposure  through the  environment,  an  allowable concentration of
    Pb in  the soil and  in plants.  The concentrations are based on
    reasonable  worst-case  assumptions  that  speed  the transport of Pb
    through the environment  and that magnify the  bioaccumulative
    effects of  lead in  plants and animals.  The approach and values
    used are  detailed in  Part IV  of the Preamble  and in this
    document.

7.  Next the  Agency established a lead limitation that would not
    exceed the  allowable  daily dietary intake  (DDI).   In this case,
    the model calculated  for the  human health  pathway a cumulative
                           4-58

-------
                                                     PATHWAY 1
pollutant loading rate of Pb of 176 kg/ha, as opposed to a
nonhuman health cumulative pollutant loading rate of 77 kg/ha.
The human health pathway, therefore, is not the most stringent
for this pollutant.  Because the environmental or nonhuman
health limitation is more stringent, the limit for Pb will be
even more protective of human health.

It is. important to note the relationship between the proposed
limitation and current requirements.  Thirty-two States now
limit the application of lead to soil at rates ranging from 200
kg/ha to 2,520 kg/ha (median - 530 kg/ha).  Current EPA guidance
suggests that Pb should not be applied at a cumulative pollutant
loading rate in excess of 500-2,000 kg/ha.  The proposed Pb
limit of 77 kg/ha will result in very significant reductions of
more than 80%.

Because of the reasonable worst-case conservative nature of this
methodology, the proposed regulation is very protective of human
health impacts from lead.  Comment on the methodology and
selection of parameters is, however, encouraged.  Has EPA been
sufficiently protective, or should the Agency have been more
conservative?  For example, should 15 ug Pb/day have been
selected instead of 20 ug Pb/day as the DDI from sludge (see
step 4)?  Conversely, should EPA have used the 62.5 ug Pb/day
produced by the analysis as the DDI (see step 4)?

The Aggregate Risk Analysis projects that the number of people
exceeding blood thresholds would drop from 920 to 249 after
regulation, for a benefit of 671.  The limiations derived from
this methodology will not only protect the MEI (middle-aged
white man), however, but will also protect the general
population and other sensitive subpopulations.  Of the 920
people estimated at the baseline to be at risk of adverse health
effects resulting from Pb in sewage sludge applied to
                        4-59

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 1
             agricultural land, fewer than 30 are women or children.  The
             proposed regulation will reduce that number to fewer than 10.
             Nonetheless, the Agency invites comment on whether the proposed
             limitations are sufficiently protective for children between 0-2
             yr and pregnant women.

             If, as mentioned earlier,  an increased amount of sewage sludge
             is applied to agricultural land, human exposure to Pb from
             sewage sludge would also increase.  In fact, the impact analysis
             projects a 10% decrease in agricultural land applications as a
             result of this regulation.  Nonetheless, the Agency requests
             comment on the potential effects of an increase in application
             of sewage sludge to agricultural land.

             EPA is also interested in comments on the impact of these
             limitations on the beneficial reuse of sludge and on the
             potential inter-media transfer of Pb risks.  Some municipalities
             have suggested that the EPA analysis understates the impact and
             will preclude land application of sludge in most cases.  As a
             result, increased amounts of sludge will be incinerated, thus
             reducing Pb exposure and the number of individuals adversely
             affected by sludge application to land.  On the other hand,
             reduction of lead in gasoline may have resulted in lower amounts
             of lead in sludge (at treatment plants with combined sewers).
             Therefore, tight limits on lead in sludge may not preclude or
             reduce land application or force an increase in incineration of
             sewage sludge.  EPA is particularly interested in data on these
             matters that commenters could provide.

ii-iv.    The rationale  for  selecting these  data points  is  the  same  as that
         given for  HCB  for  this  pathway.

   v.     The uptake response  slope [ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil  DW)"1]  for  each
         vegetable  food group  in the human  diet (UCV) are:
                                      4-60

-------
                                                         PATHWAY  1
Food Group
Potatoes
Leafy vegetable
Legume vegetables
   nondried
Legume vegetables
   dried
Root vegetables
Garden fruits
Peanuts
Grains and cereals
Corn*
Agricultural Use
      ruo
      0.0008
      0.006
      0.001
      0.001
      0.003
      0.002
      0.001
       .01
Residential Use
     QIC.)
    0.0008
    0.008
    0.001
    0.001
    0.003
    0.002
                        0.01
*The uptake for corn is included under grains and cereals for
 agricultural application.

The uptake response slopes for all of the food groups listed above
are chosen from data described in Table 4-17.  The uptake used to
represent potatoes for both end uses, 0.0008, is derived from a
sludge study on potatoes reported by CAST (1976).  The uptake for
leafy vegetables grown under agricultural conditions, 0.006, was
calculated as the weighted mean of uptakes for lettuce and broccoli
grown at pHs above 6 with sludge (CAST, 1976).  The uptake for chis
food group grown under home garden conditions, 0.008, is the
weighted mean of the uptakes for lettuce and broccoli described
previously, as well as that for turnip greens grown at a pH below 5
(Miller and Boswell, 1979).  Legume uptakes from plants grown in
either setting were derived as the mean of the uptakes for string
beans reported by CAST (1976).  The uptake of 0.003 for root
vegetables is the weighted mean of the values reported for carrots
and radishes by Dowdy and Larson (1975).   The uptake for garden
fruits of 0.002 for both end uses was calculated as the weighted
mean of the uptakes reported for tomatoes, cucumbers, and eggplants
grown with sludge at pHs above 6 (CAST, 1976; Dowdy and Larson,
1975).  The uptakes for corn and grains and cereals are the same,
because corn is the only grain for which data are readily available
                             4-61

-------
                                                      TAULEL 4-17.  Uptake of Lead by IMants
                                                                                                                                       PATHWAY 1
Chemical Form
Plane/Tissue Applied
Lettuce/leaf PbCl2
PbCO,
Pb(NO,)2
PbCl2
PbCO,
Pb(NO,),
Oats/top PbCl2
PbCOj
4> Pb
-------
TABLE 4-17.   (Continued)
                                                                          PATHWAY I
Plant/Tissue
Corn/forage
Turnip/root
peel
Parsnip/root
Alfalfa/top
Corn/who 1 e
p 1 a 1 1 1
Corn/leaf
Eggplant/edible
Stringbean/
edible
Carrot/root
Radish/root
Potato/tuber
Chemical Form
Applied
Sludge compost
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb acetate
Pb acetate
Pb acetate
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Range (N)' of
Soil Application Rates
(Pll) (ug/g)
4.9-5.6 0-624 (4)
Sandy loam 0-310 (2)'
Sandy loam 0-310 (2)'
5.9 40-200 (2)'
5.9 0-3,200 (8)
5.9 0-3,200 (8)
6.4 0-119 (2)
6.4 0-119 (2)
6.5 0-232 (4)
6.5 0-232 (4)
6.5 0-232 (4)
Control Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DW) Slope" Reference

7.7 0.005 Giordano et al.,
1975 (pp. 395-396)
2.81 0.007 ibid.
0.70 0.020 ibid.
1.7-2.3 0.030-0.048 Karamanos
1976 (p.
2.4 0.011 Baurahardt
1972 (p.
3.6 0.008 ibid.


et al.
488)
and Welch
93)

1.2 0.0008 CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
2.5 0.002 ibid.
<0.4 0.003 Dowdy and
1975 (p.
0.5 0.001 ibid.
<0.4 NS ibid.

Larson,
280)



-------
TABLE 4-17.  (Continued)
                                                                        PATHWAY  1
Plant/Tissue
Pea/fruit
Tomato/fruit
Corn/grain
Corn/grain
.p-
1 Turnip/green
o
-p-
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
Lettuce/leaf
Broccoli/edible
Potato/edible
Tomato/edible
Cucumber/edible
Lettuce/top
Chemical Form
Applied
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge compost
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Pb arsenate
Soil
(Pll)
6.5
6.5
6.5
4.9-5.6
5.6
NR«
NR
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
Sandy loam
Range (N)' of
Application Rates
(ug/g)
0-232 (4)
0-232 (4)
0-232 (4)
0-624 (4)
0-114 (3)
0-1275 (4)'
0-1275 (4)'
0-119 (2)
0-119 (2)
0-119 (2)
0-119 (2)
0-119 (2)
0-1,400 (2)J
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.3
<0.4
<0.2
2.0
7.8
1.5
0.14
2.4
2.4
1.3
1.6
2.6
1.73
Uptake
Slope"
NS
NS
NS
NS«
0.039
NS
NS
0.006
0.002
0.0008
0.0008
NS
0.003
Reference
Dowdy and Larson,
1975 (p. 280)
ibid.
ibid.
Giordano et al . ,
1975 (pp. 395-396)
Miller and Boswell
1979 (p. 1362)
CAST. 1976
(p. 46)
ibid. , 48
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

-------
TABLE 4-17.   (Continued)
                                                                         PATHWAY  1
Plant/Tissue
Green bean/
bean
Green bean/
bean
Carrot/tuber
Carrot/tuber
Corn/kernel
Corn/kernel
Turnip/root
pulp
Lettuce/leaf
Corn/leaf
Let cuce/leaf
Radish/root
Chemical Form
Applied
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Sludge
Sludge
Urban garden
soil
Urban garden
soil
Range (N)' of Control Tissue
Soil Application Rates Concentration Uptake
(pH) (ug/g) (ug/g DW) Slope"
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Saiuly loam
Sanity loam
Samly loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
6. 5
6,5
NR
NR
0-1,400 (2)" 1.97 0.0007
0-310 (2)' 0.68 0.0009
0-1,400 (2)J 1.60 0 004
0-310 (2)' 1.61 0.012
0-1,400 (2)" 4.45 0.008
0-310 (2)' 4.56 0.044
0-310 (2)c 1.25 0.002
0-232 (4) 1.1 NS
0-232 (4) 3.5 NS
200-3300 (7)1 12 0.034'
200-3300 (8)c 10 O.OOT
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Chlsholm,
(p. 585)
ibid.
ibid.
Dowdy and
1975 (p.
ibid.





1972


I .arson
280)

Spittler and
Feder, 1979
(p. 1,206)
ibid.


-------
                                                                                                                                   PATHWAY 1
                                                          TABLE 4-17.  (Continued)
Plant/Tissue
Leafy
vegetables
(various)
Chemical Form
Applied
Urban garden
soil
Soil
(pH)
NR
Range (N)' of
Application Kates
(«g/e)
300-4.400 (2)'
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
6
Uptake
Slope'
0.002'
Reference
Preer et al . ,
1980 (p. 99)
N - Number of application rates, including control.
Slope - y/x: x - kg Pb applied/ha; y - ug/g plant tissue (dry weight)
Application rate estimated from soil concentration based on assumption of  1  ug/g  soil - 2 kg/ha.
Cumulative application during 5 yr.  Measured soil concentration was 277 ug/g DU.
Single application.  Measured soil conceutralion was 143 ug/g DU.
Cumulative application during 4 yr.
NS - Tissue concentration not significantly increased by Pb application.
NR - Not reported.

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 1
      Because  the uptakes  for  all parts  of  the  corn  plant  were  similar  to
      those  for  grain,  the geometric mean of  all  of  these  values,  0.01,
      was used to represent these two  food  groups for both end  uses
      (Chisholm, 1972;  Giordano  et  al.,  1975; Baumhardt  and Welch,  1972).

vi.   The daily  dietary consumption (DC) for  each vegetable food  group  is
      as follows for both  residential  and agricultural use (see Table 4-
      5):

      Food Group                   DC
      Potatoes                   10.034
      Leafy  vegetables            0.485
      Legume vegetables          3.262
        nondried
      Legume vegetables          1.295
        dried
      Root vegetables             0.668
      Garden fruits               1.669
      Peanuts                     2.208
      Grains and cereals         64.823
      Corn                        15.354

      The daily  consumption data were  based on  the average daily  intake
      for a  2-yr-old child (see  Table  4-2 of  the  Land Application Risk
      Assessment Methodology).   This choice is  in contrast to the
      methodology used  for all the  other chemicals,  for  which the
      consumption data  for the age/sex group  having  the  highest daily
      consumption for each food  group  were  used.   The switch is necessary
      because  the numeric  criteria  and the  RfD  for lead  are based on the
      most sensitive life  stage  of  the MEI, mainly young children.
                                  4-67

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 1
 4.13.9  Mercury (Hg)

 I.    The RfD - 0.0003  (mg/kg/day).
       The earliest observed  toxic  effects  to humans  occurred at blood
       concentrations between 200 and 500 mg Hg/mL, for both  pre-  and
       postnatal exposures.   Blood  concentrations correspond  to  body
       burdens in  the ranges  of  30-50 mg Hg/70 kg,  and are  equivalent to
       intakes in  the range of 3-7  ug/kg/day (WHO,  1976).   A  ten-fold
       uncertainty factor  is  used to adjust to a more conservative value,
       thus  deriving an  RfD of 0.0003 mg/kg/day (EPA, 1988b).

ii-iv.  The rationale for selecting  these data points  is the same as that
       given for HCB for this pathway.

 v.    The total background intake  rate of  Hg from  all sources of exposure
       (TBI)  for adults  (TBI,) - 0.006  mg/day and for toddlers (TBIt)  =
       0.001 mg/day.

       At present, insufficient  data are available  to assess  the intake of
       Hg in its various organic and inorganic forms.  The  information that
       is available, however, suggests  that the Hg  intake  from air,
       drinking-water, and food  is  mainly in the inorganic  form.  According
       to the Agency's Office of Drinking Water report on  Hg  in  drinking
       water, food, and  air  (EPA, 1984g), exposure  to organic mercury is
       mainly from fish  consumption.

       According to the  same  report, most exposures to Hg  from public water
       supplies appear to  be  below  0.5  ug/L.  To be conservative,
       therefore,  a 0.5  ug/L  concentration  in drinking water  was used to
       calculate criteria  for this  pathway.
                                    4-68

-------
                                                         PATHWAY 1
Relative Source Contribution Assessment for the Adult Male:
Total Dose (ug/kg/day) from Drinking Water, Air, and Food"
                                       Food, Water, and Air
                                             (ug/kg/day)
Drinking Water      Drinking Water
Concentration       Doseb              Rural'         Urband
0

0.5

0 (0%) 0.075
(0%)
0.014 (15.7%) 0.089
(14.7%)
0.081
(0%)
a. 095
(14.7%)
aAssumes  a constant food intake of 5.2 ug/day or 0.074 ug/kg
 per day; 100% absorption.
"Assumes  2 L/day consumption;  100% absorption.
cAssumes  exposure to 5 mg/m3;^m3/day ventilation rate;
 80% absorption.
dAssumes  exposure to 30 mg/m3;  20 m3/day ventilation rate;
 80% absorption.
'Assumes  exposure to 50 mg/m3;  20 m3/day ventilation rate;
 80% absorption.


The total adult  daily  intake of Hg  from air, water, and food

exposures is calculated assuming a  0.5 ug/L  Hg  contribution from

water and taking the mean of the values for  rural  and  urban

settings.  The total background exposure to  Hg  for the average  adult

is, therefore, 0.09 ug/kg/day, or  0.006 mg/day.
The total toddler daily intake of Hg from air, water,  and  food

exposures is the geometric mean of the values for rural, urban,  and

indoor settings. This intake, according to  the Office  of Drinking

Water's report on mercury in drinking water, food,  and air,   is

0.087 ug/kg/day, or 0.001 mg/day (EPA, 1984g).
                            4-69

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 1
vi.   The plant uptake  response  slopes  (ug/g  tissue  DW/ug/g  soil  DW)  for
      each vegetable  group  in  the human diet  (UCV) are:

                            Agricultural Use     Residential Use
      Food Group                 QIC.)              fUC.)
      Potatoes                   0.0033           0.0033
      Leafy vegetables           0.007             0.007
      Legume  vegetables          0.001             0.001
         nondried
      Legume  vegetables          0.001             0.001
         dried
      Root vegetables           0.017             0.017
      Garden  fruits              0.0033           0.0033
      Peanuts                   0.001            _   --
      Grains  and  cereals         0.001
      Corn*                       --               0.0033
       *The  uptake  for  corn  is  included  under  grains  and  cereals  for
        agricultural  application.
       The  uptake  response  slopes  for  all  of  the  food  groups  listed above
       have been chosen from  data  described in  Table 4-18.  No  data were
       readily available for  Hg  uptake in  potatoes, corn,  peanuts,  and
       garden fruits.   The  uptake  for  these crops,  therefore, under both
       residential and agricultural  conditions  (0.0033)  was calculated as
       the  mean of all of the uptakes  for  each  food group  for which data
       are  available.   The  uptake  for  leafy vegetables for both end uses,
       0.007,  was  calculated  as  the  weighted  mean of  the uptakes for
       spinach and lettuce  reported  from pot  studies with  Hg  salts  or
       fungicides  that did  not use sludge  (John,  1972; MacLean, 1974).  The
       uptake for  root vegetables  for  both applications, 0.017, was derived
       from a salt pot study  conducted at  pH  5.1  without the  addition of
       sludge (John,  1972). These  values are  more conservative  worst-case
       values than the sludge/field  values usually chosen, but  no data from
       sludge/field studies were available.
                                  4-70

-------
                                                           TABLE 4-18. Uptake of Mercury by Plants
                                                                                                                              PATHWAY 1
4>
I
Plant/Tissue
Fescue/plant


Bean/edible

Cabbage/edible

Carrot/edible

Mil let/edible

Onion/edible

Potato/edible

Tomato/edible

Broraegrass/
stem
Broraegrass/
root
Lettuce/edible
Spinach/edible
Broccol i/edible
Chemical Form
Applied
(study type)
Atmospheric
deposited Hg
(field)'
Hg fungicide
(field)
Hg fungicide
(field)
Hg fungicide
(field)
Hg fungicide
(field)
Hg fungicide
(field)
Hg fungicide
(field)
Hg fungicide
(field)
PMAd (pot)'
(sewage/effluent)
MMC' (pot)
(effluent /sewage)
HgCl2 (pot)
HgCl2 (pot)
HgCl2 (pot)
Soil
pH
NR"


NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

5 1
5 1
I). 1
Range of
Application Rates
(kg/ha)
0.04-25.2


0.2-1.0

0.2-1.0

0.2-1.0

0.2-1.0

0.2-1.0

0.2-1.0

0.2-1.0

0-20

0-20

0-40
0-40
0-40
Control Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DW) Slope' Reference
0.07


0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.095

0.11

0.031
0.094
0.063
0.53 Bull et al
(p. 138)

Elfvlng et
(p. 96)
-

ibid.

ibid.

ibid.

ibid.
-


0.039 Hogg et al .
(p. 449)
2.12 ibid.

0.001 John, 1972
0.014 ibid.
ibid.
., 1977


al., 1978













, 1978



(p. 79)



-------
                                           TABLE 4-18.  (Continued)
                                                                                                       PATHWAY  1
Plant/Tissue
Cauliflower/
edible
Peas/edible
Oats/grain
_p. Radishes/edible
K> Carrot/edible
Alfalfa/root
Lettuce/edible

Chemical Form Range of
Applied Soil Application Rates
(study type) (pH) (kg/ha)
HgClj (pot) 5. 1 0-40
HgClj (pot) 5.1 0-40
HgCl2 (pot) 5.1 0-40
HgCl2 (pot) 5. 1 0-40
HgCl2 (pot) 5.1 0-40
Atmospheric 5.1-5.3 2.3-184
deposited Hg
(field)
Hg fungicide 5.9 0.012-14.26
(pot)
Hg fungicide 7.1 ND«-3.28
(pot)
Control Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DW) Slope" Reference
0.079 - ibid.
0.001 0.001 ibid.
0.009 0.001 ibid.
0.013 0.017 ibid.
0.044 - - ibid.
0.56 0.057 Lindberg
1979 (p.
0.033 0.005 MacLean.
(p. 289)
0.023 0.047






et al .
575)
1974

Bermuda grass/
 leaf
HgCl2  (pot)
                    7.6
0.99.9
                                                                          0.01
0.025
                                                      Weaver  et  al .   1984
                                                      (pp.  135-138)
HgCl2  (pot)
                    ft. 7
                                  0.99.9
                       0.01
                                                                         0.064

-------
                                                                   TABLE 4-18.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                               PATHWAY 1
I
^l
U)
Plant/Tissue
Tomato/seedling
Chemical Form
Applied
(study type)
MMH" (pot)
Soil
(pH)
Nutrient
solution
Range of
Application Rates
(kg/ha)
0.002-0.118
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
0.1
Uptake
Slope*
24.7
Reference
Haney and Lipsey,
1973 (p. 305)
*  Uptake  slope  - x/y,  when y  -  g/g tissue  (DW) ,  and  x - Kg/ha  (DW)
k  NR  -  Not  reported.
c  Field - Field test.
*  PMA - Phenyl  mercuric  acetate.
'  Pot - Pot  test.
1  HHC - Methyl  mercuric  chloride.
'  Nl)  -  Not  detected.
h  MMH - Methylmercury  hydrozide.

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 1
  4.13.10  Nickel (Ni)

 i.    The RfD - 0.02  (mg/kg/day).
       The RfD of 0.02 is based on a 2-yr nickel-feeding  study  with rats,
       in which significantly decreased body weights  in the  treated rats
       were observed compared to  those of the controls.   Adverse
       reproductive effects were  also observed  (Ambrose et al.,  1976).
       These results were equivocal, however, due  to  such statistical
       design limitations as small sample size.    A subchronic  study
       conducted by the American  Biogenic Corporation (ABC,  1986)  also
       supports the toxicity results reported by Ambrose  and collaborators.
ii-iv.  The  rationale  for selecting these data points  is  the  same  as  that
       given  for HCB  for this pathway.

 v.    The  total background  intake of Ni from all  sources  of exposure  (TBI)
       for  adults  (TBIJ  -  0.400 mg/day and for toddlers (TBIt) -  0.135
       mg/day.

       Estimates of average  total daily intake of  Ni  range from  165  to  600
       ug/day (EPA, 1980h; EPA,  1985b).  An average value  of 400  ug/day for
       adults  was  selected by an expert panel for  use in risk assessment
       (EPA,  1985b).  The present analysis indicates  that  total  Ni dietary
       intake  for  toddlers would be about one-third of the adult  dose,  or
       approximately  135 ug/day.  No  suitable data are available  for
       estimating  background concentrations of Ni  from drinking water  or
       air, so only dietary  sources were considered in estimating
       background  exposures.

 vi.    The  response slopes [ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)'1]  for each
       vegetable food group  in  the human diet  (UCV) are:
                                    4-74

-------
                                                         PATHWAY 1
                     Agricultural Use        Residential Use
 Food Group                (UC.)                (UC.)
 Potatoes                   0.044               0.125
 Leafy vegetables           0.09                 0.09
 Legume vegetables          0.04                 0.13
   nondried
 Legume vegetables          0.04                 0.13
   dried
 Root vegetables           0.03                 0.52
 Garden fruits             0.03                 0.04
 Peanuts                   0.04
 Grains and cereals        0.04
 Corn*                      --                  0.13
 *The uptake for corn is included under grains  and cereals  for
  agricultural application.

The uptake response slopes for all of the food groups listed above
have been chosen from data shown in Table 4-19.  The uptake for leafy
vegetables for both agricultural and residential sludge use is the
mean of the values for  lettuce, Swiss chard, and collard greens grown
in sludge at pHs of 6 or greater (Chaney et al.,  1982).  The uptake
of 0.03 for root vegetables grown under agricultural conditions was
derived from a sludge/pot study conducted at pH 7.1 (Furr et al.,
1981).  The residential use uptake for this food group, 0.50, was
calculated as the mean  of the data from that study and of the data
from another kohlrabi study by the same authors carried out at a pH
of 4.9.  The uptake for garden fruits grown under agricultural
conditions, 0.03, is derived from a sludge/pot study on green peppers
grown at pH 7.1 (Furr et al.,  1981).  The residential value for this
food group, 0.04, is the mean of data from the study used for
deriving agricultural uptake,  as well as of another value for green
pepper from the same report conducted at pH 4.9.   As no data were
available for peanuts,  legumes, potatoes, corn, cereals and grains,
the uptake of 0.04 for  agricultural use was calculated as the mean
for all of the uptakes  of crops grown under agricultural conditions
for which information is available.  The uptake under residential use
conditions for these food groups, 0.13, is the mean of all the values
                             4-75

-------
TABLE 4-19.   Uptake of Nickel by Plants
                                                           PATHWAY I
Plant Tissue
Ryegrass/tops

Romaine lettuce/
NR6
Swiss chard/
NR
Collard greens/
NR
Reed canary
grass/NR
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
Green pepper/
edible
Kohlrabi/
edible
Chemical Form
Applied
(study type)
Sludge

Sludge

Sludge

Sludge

Sludge

Sludge
Sludge
Sludge

Sludge

(pot)

(field)

(field)

(field)

(field)

(field)
(field)
(pot)

(pol)

Range (N)' of
Soil Application Rates
(pit) (ug/g)
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6.

6
6
7
4 .
/
4
.5
.0
.2-7.7
.3 - 5.6
.7 - 7.7
.7 - 6.3
.3-77
.5 - 6.3
.2 - 7.4

.2 - 7.4
.2 - 74
1
9
1
.9
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -

0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
120C (4)
120' (4)
59 (6)
59 (1)
59 (6)
59 (3)
59 (6)
59 (3)
1.45 (2)'

1.24 (2)'
1.24 (2)'
33.8 (2)'
33.8 (2)c
33.8 (2)1
33.8 (2)'
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
10
20
1
1
1.
2.
1
2
2.

0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
.0
.8
6
.7
.9
.8
.9
.4

.9
.6
.4
.4
3
.9
Uptake
Slope"
0.55
0.67
NS'
0.044
0.053
0.12
0.033
0.027
NS

NS
NS
0.033
0.056
0.030
013
Reference
Bolton,

Chaney
et al. .
ibid.

ibid.

Duncorab
et al.
ibid.
ibid.
Furr et
1981
ibid.

1975


1982





, 1982


al .




-------
                                                           TABLE 4-19.  (Continued)
                                                                                                              PATHWAY  1
Plant Tissue
Lettuce/edible
Peas/edible
Spinach/edible
Sweet potato/
edible
Turnip/edible
Apple/fruit
Corn/grain
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
Chemical Form
Applied
(study type)
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
(pot)
(pot)
(pot)
(pot)
(pot)
(pot)
(field)
(field)
Range (N)' of Control Tissue
Soil Application Rates Concentration
(pH) (ug/g) (ug/g DW)
7
4.
7
4
7
4.
7.
4
7
4
7
4.
7.
.1
.9
I
.9
1
.9
1
.9
1
.9
1
9
3
Sandy soil
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
33.8 (2)c
33.8 (2)c
33.8 (2)c
33.8 (2)'
33.8 (2)'
33.8 (2)c
33.8 (2)'
33.8 (2)'
33.8 (2)c
33.8 (2)c
33.8 (2)c
33.8 (2)c
180 (4)'
165 (4)K
1.65 (4)"
0
0.
1
1
0
1
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0.
.8
.6
.3
. 7
.7
.0
1
3
.2
.7
1
2
.5
3
3
Uptake
Slopeb
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
NS
0.
0.
0.
027
0/1
033
11
068
086
012
027
021
068
009
009
017
022
Reference
Furr et al . ,
1981
ibid'.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Hinesly et al .
1982
CAST, 1976
(p. 46)
Lettuce/leaf
Sludge (field)
                                     6.4
4.48 (2)
                                                                            2.4
ibid.   p.  48

-------
                                                    TABLE 4-19.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                      PATHWAY 1
I
-~j
00
Range (N) of
Chemical Form Soil Application Rates
Plant/Tissue Applied pH (ug/g)
Cabbage/edible Sludge (field) 6.2 -6.4 0 - 16.2 (2)

Squash/edible Sludge (field) 6.2 - 6.4 0 - 16.2 (2)
Control Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DU) Slopeb Reference
1.7 0.80 Boyd et al . ,
1982
1.9 0-.28 ibid.
          Number of application rates, including control.
          Slope  y/x; x  -  kg/ha  applied; y  -  ug/g  DU  plant  tissue concentration.
          Application rate estimated  from  Hi additions  to  potted soil based on assumption of 1 ug Ni/g soil - 2 kg Ni/ha.
          NR - Not reported.
          NS - Not  statistically significant
          Cumulative application during 5  yr.  Applications to canary grass were made immediately after cutting and before  regrowth.
          Cumulative application during 10 yr.
          Cumulative application during A  yr.
          Cumulative application during 2  yr.
          Sludge ashes from  ten different  cities were used.  No relationship between Ni content and uptake was found.

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 1
      for crops grown under residential conditions for which data are
      available.
4.13.11  Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)


i.    The human  cancer potency  (qj*) — 7.7 (mg/kg/day)"1.
      Human  studies  on PCBs,.  although  suggestive  of  a  link between
      exposure and cancer  development,  are not  yet suitable for
      quantitative risk  assessment.  The  qt* value of 7. 7  (mg/kg/day)"1,
      therefore,  is  based  on  a  study by Norbeck and  Weltman (1985),  in
      which  chronic  dietary administration of PCBs in  the  form of Aroclor
      1260 caused hepatocellular  carcinomas  in  male  and  female
      Sprague-Dawley rats  (EPA, 19801).


ii-v. The rationale  for  selecting these data points  is the same as that
      given  for  hexachlorobenzene for  this pathway.


vi.   The uptake response  slopes  [ug/g tissue DW  (ug/g soil DW)"1]  for  each

      vegetable  food group in the human diet (UCV) are:


                              Agricultural Use       Residential Use
      Food Group                   (UC.)	          (UCJ	

      Potatoes                     0.02              0.02
      Leafy  vegetables             0.38              0.38
      Legume vegetables            0.002             0.002
        nondried
      Legume vegetables            0.002             0.002
        dried
      Root vegetables             0.36              0.36
      Garden fruits                0.02              0.02
      Peanuts                     0.001
      Grains and cereals          0
      Corn*                         - -                0
      *The uptake for corn is included under grains and cereals for
       agricultural application.
                                   4-79

-------
                                                         PATHWAY 1
The uptake response slopes for all of the food groups listed above
have been chosen from data shown in Table 4-20.   Because no
evidence exists that soil pH influences plant uptake of organics, a
separate evaluation was not necessary for each end use based on
experimental conditions.  The uptakes are the same, therefore, for
both settings.

The uptake for leafy vegetables, 0.38, was based on the results of a
study on lettuce leads by Hafner (1982) after conversion from a
fresh-weight basis to a dry (96% moisture content assumed).   The
uptake for root vegetables of 0.36 was based on the weighted mean of
the uptake values for radishes and carrot roots in studies by
Wallnofer (1984), Connor (1984), and Pal et al. (1980).  The uptake
for peanut tops of 0.001 (Strek and Weber, 1981) is given on a wet-
weight tissue/dry weight-soil basis.  Because peanuts have only a 1%
moisture content, the difference in calculating the slope on a dry-
weight basis is negligible.  It is assumed that the uptake rate for
the leafy portion of the peanut plant is similar to that of the part
normally consumed by humans.   The value for dried and nondried
legumes, 0.002, was derived from a soybean sprout study (Pal et al. ,
1980).  These are the only data for PCS uptake in legumes.  The zero
uptake for corn grain was derived from the data developed by Taylor
(1988).  The zero uptake for grains and cereals was calculated from
the same sludge study on corn kernels reported by Taylor (1988).
The uptake for potatoes, 0.02, was derived from a PCB study on
potato pulp after conversion of the tissue from wet weight to dry
weight.  Because no data were readily available for garden fruits,
the geometric mean of all of the vegetable groups for which data
were available, 0.02, was used  to represent this class.
                            4-80

-------
                                                     TABLE 4-20.  Uptake of Poly chlorinated Biphenyls by Plants
                                                                                                                              PATHWAY 1
I
CD
Plant/Tissue
Carrot/root


Lettuce/head
Soybean/plant
Oats/plant
Corn/plant
Range of Range of Tissue
Soil Chemical Form Soil Concentration Concentration Uptake
Type Applied (Ug/g) (Ug/g) Slope" Reference
NR" 2 -PCB
NR 4 -PCB
NR 6 -PCB
NR PCB
NR PCB
Clay loam PCB-sludge
Varied PCB-sludge
NR NR 0.19e Wallnofer et. al.
1982 (pp. 99-109)
NR 0.06-0.12' ibid.
NR NR 0.02 - 0.12' ibid.
NR NR < 0.03' Hafner, 1982
(pp. 39-54)
NR NR 0.01 - O.IT ibid.
0.013 0.026 2.0 Webber et al . , 198
(pp. 191-193)
0.111-0.453 0.027-0.053 0.08 - 0.38 ibid.

-------
                                                                                                                 PATHWAY  1
                                                           TABLE 4-20.  (Continued)
Plant/Tissue
Beet/top
Sorghum/top
Peanut/top
Corn/top
Carrot/root
Corn/leaves
Carrot/root
Carrot/plant
Soil Chemical Form
Type Applied
Lakeland sand PCB
Lakeland sand PCB
Lakeland sand PCB
Lakeland sand PCB
Agricultural PCB
Agricultural PCB
Agricultural PCB
Acidic PCB
Range of
Soil Concentration
(Ug/g)
20
20
20
20
100
92 - 144 ug/L
in sludge
100
0.05 - 0.5
Range of Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(Ug/g) Slope' Reference
0.815 0.04111 Strek et al . . 1980
(p. 292)
0.058 0.003d ibid.
0.473 0.024' ibid.
0.002 0.001' ibid.
7-16 0.16 or less Pal et. al.,
1980 (p. 79)
0.045 - 0.081 <1 ibid. , p. 80
7 - 16 0.16 or less ibid.
0 0 ibid. . p. 79
Carrot/plant
                  Acidic
                                PCB
                                                                          0.081
0.16
ibid.

-------
                                                                  TABLE 4-20.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                        PATHWAY  1
CD
UJ
Plant/Tissue
Radish/plant
Radish/root
Radish/plane
Sugarbeet/
le.if
Sugarbeet/
root
Sugarbeet/
plant
Soybean/
sprout
Soil Chemical Form
Type Applied
Acidic PCB
Brown sand PCB
Acidic PCB
Agricultural PCB
Agricultural PCB

Brown PCB
Sandy PCB

Range of Range of Tissue
Soil Concentration Concentration Uptake
(Ug/g) (Ug/g) Slope1 Reference
0.05 - 0.5 0 0 ibid.
0.2 0.01 0.02 ibid.
5 0.025 0.005 ibid.
0.24 0.007 0.03 ibid.
0.24 0.004 0.07 ibid.

0.3 0.01 - 0.15 0.01 - 0.5 Pal et al., 1980
(p. 80)
100.00 0.15 0.002 ibid.


-------
                                                                   TABLE 4-20.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                         PATHWAY 1
I
CO
Plant/Tissue
Soybean/
plant
Fescue/leaves
Corn/grain
Corn/stover
Potato/pulp
Potato/peel
Sudangrass
Soil Chemical Form
Type Applied
Sandy loam PCB
Sandy PCB
Silt loam PCB
Silt loam PCB
NR PCB
NR PCB
NR PCB
Range of Range of Tissue
Soil Concentration Concentration Uptake
(Ug/g) (Ug/g) Slope' Reference
0-3 NR 0 Fries and Marrow
(p. 757)
20.0 NR 0.25' (0.04)' Strek and Weber,
(p. 231)
2.5-250 0 0 Taylor, 1988
2.5 - 250 3.22 - 12.45 0.02 ibid.
0.38 - 0.83 0.028 0.02 (0.05)' Naylor, 1983
0.38 - 0.83 0.04-0.061 0.01 (0.07)' ibid.

, 1981
1980




0 - 50 0.012-0.073 0.0005' Peterson and Corey, 1<
(P- ^52)
       * Uptake  slope  - y/x,  where  y - tissue  concentration  (DW),  and x - soil concentration (DW) unless otherwise specified.
       b NR - Not  reported.
       ' Fresh weight/fresh weight.
       d Fresh weight/dry weight.
       ' Dry weight/dry weight,  based on a  fescue  moisture content of 31% (NAS, 1971).

-------
                                                                PATHWAY L
       4.1.3.12  Selenium  (Se)

 i.    The risk reference  dose  (RfD) - 0.0045  (mg/kg/day)
       The RfD  for  selenium  is  based on human  epidemiologic  studies  on
       selenious  acid by Yang ec  al. (1983), in which  the  lowest  observed
       effect level (LOEL) for  selenosis was found  to  be 3.2 mg/day
       Applying an  uncertainty  factor of 10 gives a value  of 0.32 mg/day or
       0.0045 mg/kg/day  for  a 70-kg adult.

ii-iv.  The rationale for selecting these data  points is  the  same  as  that
       given  for  HCB for this pathway.

 v.  •  The total  background  intake from all sources of exposure  (TBI)  for
       adults (TBI,) - 0.141 mg/day and for toddlers (TBI,) - 0.052 mg/day

       There  is a limited  database on human exposure to  selenium  in
       drinking water, food, and  air.  In  1969. the U.S. Public Health
       Service  conducted the first Community Water  Supply  Study  (CUSS)  to
       determine  the nation's drinking water quality (McCabe et al.,  1970;
       PHS, 1970).  Analytical  results were obtained for 671 groundwater
       and 106  surface water supplies.  The mean of the positive
       groundwater  samples  (656 of the 671 supplies for which data are
       available) was 2.7  ug/L, with a median  of 2.0 ug/L.   The mean value
       for Se from  ail 106 surface water sources was 4.6 ug/L, with  a
       median value of 4.0 ug/L.

       In 1978, EPA conducted a second Community Water Supply Survey.   Data
       were collected for  258 ground water and 94 surface  water supplies
       (Click,  1984).  The mean value of the 17 positive groundwater
       samples  was  8.2 ug/L, with a median of  5 ug/L.   The concentration of
                                   4-85

-------
                                                         PATHWAY 1


selenium for the two positive surface water supplied were 3.1 and
3.8 ug/L, with a mean of 3.5 ug/L.

The third national survey providing data on Se levels in U.S.
drinking water is the Rural Water Survey (RWS) conducted by EPA in
1978-1980 (Brower, 1983).  The 30 positive samples of the 71
groundwater samples surveyed had a mean Se level of 12.1 ug/L and
median of 8.54 ug/L.  The 2 positive surface water samples of the 21
tested had concentrations of 5 and 10 ug/L, which yield a mean of
7.5 ug/L.

Because it is not possible to assess which of these survey data, if
any, are representative of current levels of selenium in public
water supplies, the geometric mean of the median (when possible) of
the three surveys' values for surface and groundwater was used.
This national mean was, therefore, calculated as 5.1 ug Se/L in U.S.
drinking water supplies.  Assuming a 2 L/day adult consumption and
90% absorption (EPA, 1983c),  the Se contribution from drinking water
would be:

    5.1 ug/L x 2 L x 0.9 = 0.009 mg/day
       1,000 ug/mg

Table 4-21 describes the daily Se dietary intakes  for adults and
toddlers, as developed by the most recent FDA Market Basket survey
(FDA, 1982).  As shown in the table, the mean intake from food for
adults is 131.5 ug/day, or 0.132 mg SE/day.

Konz (1979) reported the intake of selenium from air as 0.02 ug/day,
0.07 ug/day, and <1 ug/day based on values from three sources.  The
mean of 0.02 and 0.07 ug/day is 0.05 ug/day, or 0.00005 mg/day.
Because this value is negligible, the contribution of air to total
                            4-86

-------
                 TABLE 4-21.  Daily Dietary Intake of Selenium
Fiscal Year

1977-1978
1976-1977
1976-1977
1978-1979
                   Daily Intake fug/day)
      Toddlers  (2  nrV

             52
             46.3
             54.0
             37.9
             43.1
             50.1
             45
         Region of CoTintry

156.2           All
110.7           All
                Northeast
                South
                North central
                West
                All
1 Source:
" Source:
FDA, 1980b.
FDA, 1980a.
                                     4-87

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 1
       selenium intake was  not included in the calculations for total
       exposure.   The total Se intake for adults,  therefore, is equal to
       the  sum of the intakes  from food and drinking water, or 0.141
       mg/day.

           TBIa = 0.132 mg/day + 0.009 mg/day = 0.141 mg Se/day

       Toddlers consume 1 L/day of drinking water  compared to 2 L for
       adults.   The toddler dose,  therefore,  is half the adult dose, or
       0.005  mg/day.
                                       •
       The  toddler dietary  intake  of selenium is the geometric mean of
       values taken from Table 4-21:  46.8 ug/day,  or 0.047 mg/day. The
       contribution from air is negligible.

           TBIt = 0.005 mg/day  + 0.047
               = 0.052 mg/day

vi.    The  uptake response  slopes  [ug/g tissue DW  (ug/g soil DW)"1] for each
       vegetable  food group in the human diet (UCV)  are:
                                  4-80

-------
                                                         PATHWAY 1
                       Agricultural Use      Residential Use
Food Group                 (UC.)                (UC.)	
Potatoes                    0.02                0.02
Leafy vegetables            0.07                0.07
Legume vegetables           0.02                0.02
  nondried
Legume vegetables           0.02                0.02
  dried
Root vegetables             0.04                0.04
Garden fruits               0.04                0.04
Peanuts                     0.02
Grains and cereals          0.03
Corn*                        --                 0.03
*The uptake for corn is included under grains and cereals for
 agricultural application.

The uptake response slopes for all of the food groups listed above
have been chosen from data shown in Table 4-22.  All of the studies
from which the uptake data were selected were conducted at pHs
greater than 6 and used sludge-amended soil.  The uptakes,
therefore, are the same for both enduses.

The uptake for potatoes, 0.02, is the geometric mean of the uptakes
reported for two potato studies by Furr et al. (1976a).   The uptake
for leafy vegetables, 0.07, is the mean of all of the values for a
variety of leafy vegetables in studies conducted by Cappon (1981)
and Furr et al. (1976a).  The uptakes for peanuts and dried and
nondried legumes, 0.02, were calculated as the geometric mean of the
uptakes reported for green, yellow, and lima beans by Cappon (1981)
and Furr et al. (1976a).  The root vegetable uptake, 0.04, is the
geometric mean of the uptakes for carrots, radishes, onions, garlic,
and beets (Cappon, 1981; Furr et al., 1976a).  The same
investigators reported the values of a variety of garden fruit
uptakes, from which a geometric mean of 0.04 was used to represent
                            4-89

-------
                                                    TABLE 4-22. Uptake of Selenium by Plants
                                                                                                                 PATHWAY 1
Plant/Tissue
Acorn squash/
NR'
Pepper/NR
Spaghetti
squash/NR
1
Q Summer squash/NR
Tomato/NR
Zucchini/NR
Chemical Form
Applied
(study type)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
Soil
PH
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
Soil
Concentration (N)*
(ug/g)
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.0026
0.0161
0.0081
0.0115
0.0564
0.0086
Uptake
Slopeb Reference
0.007 Cappon, C.T. 1981
0.041 ibid.
0.021 ibid.
0.029 ibid.
0.145 ibid.
0.022 ibid.
Cucumber/NR
Pumpkin/NR
(sludge/field)

Selenium           6.8
(sludge/field)

Selenium           6.8
(sludge/field)

Selenium           6 . 8
(sludge/field)
0.3902
                                                   0.3902
                                                   0.3902
0.0076
                      0.0102
                                                                         0.0183
0.019
                 0.026
                                                                                          0. 04 7
ibid.
                                                                                                           ibid.

-------
                                         TABLE 4-22.  (Continued)
                                                                                            PATHWAY 1
Plant/Tissue
TomaCo/NR
Broccoli/top
Cabbage/leaf
Cauliflower/
leaf
Caul if lower/ top
Celery/stalk
Collard/leaf
Swiss chard/NR
Cabbage/leaf
Chemical Form
Applied
(study type)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
(sludge/field)
Selenium
Soil
PH
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6. 8
Soil
Concentration (N)'
(ug/g)
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0. 3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.0564
0.0260
0.0348
0.0074
0.0348
0.0307
0.0198
0.0351
0.0421
Uptake
Slope*
0.145
0.067
0.089
0.019
0.089
0.079
0.051
0.090
0 108
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
(sludge/field)

-------
TABLE 4-22.  (Continued)
                                                   PATHWAY  1
Plant/Tissue
Lettuce/stem
Lettuce/head
Lettuce/leaf
Parsley/leaf
Red cabbage/
leaf
Swiss chard/NR
Spinach/leaf
Green bean/seed
Lima bean/seed
Yellow bean/
seed

Beet/root
Carrot/tuber
Chemical Form
Applied
(study type)
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium
Selenium

Selenium
Selenium
S e 1 e n i um
Soil
PH
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8

6.8
6.8
6 .b
Soil
Concentration (N)"
(ug/g)
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902

0.3902
0. 3902
0. 3902
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.0486
0.0234
0.0414
0.0048
0.0731
0.0182
0.0343
0.011
0.0097
0.0150

0.0104
0.0154
0.0265
Uptake
Slopeb
0.125
0.060
0.106
0.012
0.187
0.047
0.088
0.029
0.025
0.038

0.027
0.004
0.068
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

-------
TABLE 4-22. (Continued)
                                                  PATHWAY 1
Plant/Tissue
Garlic/tuber
Spanish onion/
tuber
Northern onion/
tuber
Radish/tuber
Tomato/NR
Cabbage/NR
Bean/NR
Potato/NR
Carrot/NR
Onion/NR
Chemical Form
Applied Soil
(study type) pH
Selenium 6 . 8
Selenium 6.8
Selenium 6.8
Selenium 6.8
Selenium 7.1
(sludge/pot)
Selenium 7 . 1
(sludge/pot)
Selenium 7 . 1
(sludge/pot)
Selenium 7 . 1
(sludge/pot)
Selenium /I
(sludge/pot)
Selenium / . 1
(a ludge/pot )
Soil
Concentration (N)°
(u6/g)
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
0.3902
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1 7
1 .7
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.2355
0.0605
0.0078
0.0467
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.01
NDC
Uptake
Slope1
0.604
0.155
0.020
0.120
0/006
0.018
0.024
0.012
0 . 006
NR
Ret crence
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Furr et al . ,
1976a
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

-------
                                                                                                                PATHWAY 1
                                                            TABLE 4-22.  (Continued)
Plant/Tissue
Tomato/NR
Cabbage/NR
Bean/NR
Potato/NR
Carrot/NR
Onion/NR
Chemical Form
Applied Soil
(study type) pH
Selenium 7 . 1
(sludge/pot)
Redenaue 7 . 1
(sludge/pot)
Selenium 7 . 1
(sludge/pot)
Selenium 7 . 1
(sludge/pot)
Selenium 7.1
(sludge/pot)
Selenium 7 . 1
(sludge/pot)
Soil
Concentration (N)°
(ug/g)
1.7(2)
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
Uptake
Slope"
0.012
0.024
0.12
0.018
0.024
0.012
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
"  N  -  Number  of applications,  if  reported.
b  Slope  =• y/x;  y -> DW tissue  concentration;  x =  DW  soil concentrations.
c  NR = Not reported.
d  ND = Not detected.

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 1
      this food group.   Because  no  data  were  readily available on Se
      uptakes for  grains and  cereals,  the  mean of  all of the plant groups
      for which data  are available,  0.03,  was used to represent these
      vegetable groups.
4.1.3.13   Toxaphene (TOX)

i.    The human  cancer  potency  (qi*) — 1.13 (mg/kg/day)'1
      This  potency was  derived  by  the  EPA based on data from a
      carcinogenicity study  by  Litton  Bionetics (1978,  as cited in EPA,
      1980k).  In this  study, the  incidence  of hepatocellular carcinomas
      and neoplastic nodules was  significantly increased among male mice
      that  were  fed diets  containing 50  ug/g  of toxaphene for 18 months
      (mon).

ii-v. The rationale for selecting  these  data  points is  the same as that
      given for  HCB for this pathway.

vi.    The uptake response  slopes  [ug/g tissue DW (ug/g  soil DW)'1]  for each
      vegetable  food group in the  human  diet  (UCv) are:
                                    4-95

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 1
                                Agricultural Use        Residential Use
      Food Group                   QIC.)                  OJC.)	.
      Potatoes                        0.27                   0.27
      Leafy vegetables                0.07                   0.07
      Legume vegetables               0.07                   0.07
        nondried
      Legume vegetables               0.07                   0.07
        dried
      Root vegetables                 1.73                   1.73
      Garden fruits                   0.07                   0.07
      Peanuts                         0.07
      Grains and  cereals              0.07
      Corn*                           --                    0.07
       *The  uptake  for  corn  is  included  under  grains  and cereals for
        agricultural  application.

       The uptake response slopes  for  all  of the  food groups listed above
       have  been chosen from data  shown  in Table  4-23.   The uptake for
       potatoes  was derived  as  the mean  of two uptakes  for toxaphene in
       potatoes  reported by  Muns et al.  (1960).   The  uptake for root crops,
       1.73,  is  the weighted mean  of the values reported by Muns et al.
       (1960)  for radishes and  sugar beets.  No data  were readily available
       for uptakes  of toxaphene by representatives  of the other plant
       groups.   The mean of  the values for the two  groups for which data
       are available,  therefore, was used  as a surrogate uptake for all of
       the other plant  categories  for  which data  were not readily
       available.
4.13.14   Zinc (Zn)

i.    The  risk reference dose (RfD)  - 0.47 (mg/kg/day).
      Studies  by Porter et al.  (1977) and Prasad et al.  (1978) strongly
      indicated that chronic human exposure to 2.14 mg/kg/day of zinc may
                                  4-96

-------
                                                           TABLE 4-23.  Uptake of Toxaphene by Plants
                                                                                                                          PATHWAY 1
        Plant/Tissue
Chemical Form
   Applied
Soil Type
    Soil
Concentration*
  (ug/g DU)
Application         Tissue
    Rateb          Concentration'    Uptake
  (kg/ha)          (£>
        Potato/tuber
        Radish
        Sugar beet
Toxaphene
(preplanting)

Toxaphene
(pre-planting)

Toxaphene
(pre-planting)
Sandy loam


Sandy loam


Sandy loam
                                      1.68
                                      1.68
                                      1.68
                                     3.36
                                     3.36
                                     3.36
1.35 (0.3)


6.25 (4)


2.36 (3)
                                                        0.88     Muns  et  al.
                                                                1960
                                                        3.72
                                               ibid.
                                                        1.40      ibid.
        " Soil concentration was calculated from the application rate of 3.36 kg/ha, assuming toxaphene was evenly distributed in
          2,000  rat soil/ha in the  top 15 cm.
        b Converted from Ib/ac to kg/ha  using a factor of 1.1209.
        ' Value in parentheses is wet-weight concentration (ug/g) reported by original author.  Dry weight was calculated by assuming
          that potatoes contain  79.8% water (USDA,  1975)
        4 Uptake slope - y/x, where y -  ug/g plant  tissue (DW), and x - ug/g soil (DW) .

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 1
       result in a severe hypochromic microcytic anemia,
       hypoceruloplasminemia, and neutropenia.  Because no  data on
       experimental animals  suggested a  lower maximum  equivalent dose
       (MED), the dosage of  2.14 mg/kg/day was chosen  as  a  starting point
       for deriving an RfD.

       An uncertainty factor of 10 was chosen to protect  especially
       sensitive populations, such as those with below-normal  copper
       intakes.  Thus the dose becomes 0.214 mg/kg/day. or  15  mg/day.   This
       represents an acceptable chronic  intake value beyond background
       dietary  exposures.  The latest available data on average daily  human
       dietary  intake of Zn  is 18 mg/day for adults, based  on  the FDA
       Market Basket studies for fiscal  year 1977  (FDA, 1980a,b).   Dividing
       the sum  of the acceptable chronic intake value  and the  average
       dietary  intake by a 70-kg adult body weight yields an RfD of 0.47
       mg/kg/day.

ii-iv.  The rationale for selecting these data points is the same as that
       given for hexachlorobenzene for this pathway.

 v.    The total background  intake of zinc from all sources of exposure
       (TBI) for adults  (TBIJ  - 18 mg/day and for toddlers (TBL)  =7.8
       mg/day.

       An average daily human dietary intake of 17,989 ug/day  for adults
       was reported in the FDA Market Basket studies for  fiscal year (FY)
       1977 (FDA, 1980a).  Values for FY 1974, 1975, and  1976  were 18,600,
       18,400,  and 19,100, respectively.  An average daily  intake of 7,800
       ug/day for toddlers was also  obtained from  FDA  Market Basket studies
       for FY 1977 (FDA, 1980b).  Values for fiscal year  1975  and 1976 were
       8,300 and 9,500 ug/day. respectively.  Data for FY 1977 were chosen
       to represent the most current data immediately  available.
                                   4-98

-------
                                                               PATHWAY L
      Because no suitable data were available  for measuring  the  average

      background concentrations of Zn  in air and drinking water,  only  the

      dietary sources were considered  when calculating background

      exposures.


vi.   The plant uptake  response slopes for each vegetable group  in the

      human  diet  (UCV)  are:
                              Agricultural Use           Residential Use
       Food Group                  (UC.)                     (UC.)	

       Potatoes                     0.06                      0.02
       Leafy vegetables             0.27                      0.80
       Legume vegetables            0.05                      0.04
         nondried
       Legume vegetables            0.05                      0.04
         dried
       Root vegetables              0.05                      0.05
       Garden fruits                0.04                      0.04
       Peanuts                      0.05
       Grains and  cereals           0.03
       Corn*                        - -                       0.04
       *The  uptake  for  corn is  included  under  grains  and cereals  for
        agricultural  application.


       The uptake response  slopes  for  all  of the  food groups  listed above

       have  been chosen from data  shown  in Table  4-24.   Only  studies

       conducted at pH  6  and above were  used for  evaluating the uptake

       under agricultural use conditions,  whereas data collected  from

       studies  conducted  both above and  below  pH  6 were used  to estimate

       residential  plant  uptakes.   The uptake  for potatoes  for agricultural

       use,  0.06, is  from a sludge/field study conducted at pH 6.2-6.5 by

       Dowdy and Larson (1975).  The residential  use  uptake was calculated

       as the mean  of data  from that study and from another conducted at pH
                                  4-99

-------
TABLE 4-24.  Uptake of Zinc by Plants
                                                           PATHWAY 1
Chemical Form
Applied
Plane/Tissue (study type)
Bibb lettuce/
edible

Roraaine lettuce/
edible
Boston lettuce/
edible
Cabbage/
edible
Carrot/
edible
Cantaloupe/
edible
Bell pepper/
edible
Sludge
(field)

Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Soil
PH
4

6
4
6
4
6
4.
6
4
6.
4 .
6.
4.
4 .
.6

.5
.6
.5
.6
.5
.6
.5
.6
5
6
5
6
5
Range (N)° Control
of Application Rates Tissue Concentration Uptake
(kg/ha) ("g/g DW) Slope' Reference
0-403

0-403
0-403
0-403
0-403
0-403
0-403
0-403
0-403
0-403
0-403
0-403
0-403
0-403
(2)

(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
46

43
35
31
29
31
48
29
39
22
18
18
29
24
0.

0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0
14 Giordano et al., 1979
(p. 235)
062
045 ibid.
050
22 ibid.
.079
027 ibid.
.042
NSC ibid.
0
0
0
0
0
.017
.017 ibid.
.005
.010 ibid.
.012

-------
                                                                   TABLE 4-24. (Continued)
                                                                                                                       PATHWAY 1
-P-
I
Chemical Form
Applied Soil
Plant/Tissue (study type) pit
Broccoli/
edible
Eggplant/
edible
Red potato/
edible
Sweet corn/
edible
Sweet corn/
foliage
Bean/seed
Carrot/edible
root
Sludge 4.6
(field)
Sludge 4.6
(field)
Sludge 4 .6
(field)
Sludge 4.6
(field)
Sludge 4.6
(field)
Sludge 4.6
(field)
Sludge 6.2-6.5
(field)
Range (N)' Control
of Application Rates Tissue Concentration Uptake
(kg/ha) (ug/g DW) Slope" Reference
0-403 (2) 87
0-403 (2) 15
0-403 (2) 16
0-403 (2) 25
0-403 (2) 52
0-403 (2) 64
0-482 (4) 23
0.030 ibid.
0.017 ibid.
0.007 ibid.
0.037 ibid.
0.22 ibid.
0.022 ibid.
0.16 Dowdy and Larson,
1975 (p. 280)

-------
TABLE 4-24. (Continued)
                                                    PATHWAY 1
Chemical Form
Applied Soil
Plant/Tissue (study type) pH
Radish/edible
root
Potato/edible
tuber
^ Pea/seed
1— *
0
Pea/pod

Tomato/fruit

Sweet corn/
grain
Sweet corn/
leaf
Sludge 6.2-6.5
(field)
Sludge 6.2-6.5
(field)
Sludge 6.2-6.5
(field)

Sludge 6.2-6.5
(field)
Sludge 6.2-6.5
(field)
Sludge 6.2-6.5
(field)
Sludge 6.2-6.5
(field)
Range (N)* Control
of Application Rates Tissue Concentration Uptake
(kg/ha) (ug/g DU) Slope" Reference
0-482 (4) 37

0-482 (4) 24

0-482 (4) 70


0-482 (4) 28

0-482 (4) 9'

0-482 (4) 41

0-482 (4) 22

0.13 ibid.

0.061 Ibid.

0.11 ibid.


0.20 ibid.

0.044 Ibid.

0.049 ibid.

0.58 ibid.


-------
                                                                  TABLE 4-24. (Continued)
                                                                                                                      PATHWAY 1
o
UJ
Plane/Tissue
Lettuce/leaf
Lettuce
Radish/tuber
Radish/top
Carrot/tuber
Carrot/top
Corn/leaf
Chemical Form Range (N)' Control
Applied Soil of Application Rates Tissue Concentration Uptake
(study type) pH (kg/ha) ("g/g DW) Slope" Reference
Sludge 6.2-6.5 0-482 (4) 21
(field)
Sludge 7.0-7.5 0-1,397 (4)" 52
(field)
Sludge 7.0-7.5 0-1,397 (5)d 41
(field)
Sludge 7.0-7.5 0-1,397 (5)d 39
(field)
Sludge 7.0-7.5 0-1,397 (5)" 41
(field)
Sludge 7.0-7.5 0-1,397 (5)" 24
(field)
Sludge 4.7-5.5 0-54. 6(3) 13
(field) 6.5-6.8 0-54.6 (3) 12
0.42 ibid.
0.048 CAST, 1980 (p. 39)
Chang et al. 1983
(p. 392)
0.087 ibid.
0.098 ibid.
0.038 ibid.
0.017 ibid.
0.76 CAST, 1980 (p. 41)
0.97

-------
                                                                     TABLE 4-24. (Continued)
                                                                                                                           PATHWAY 1
.p-
I
h-1
O
Plant/Tissue
Corn/grain
Barley/leaf
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
Bromegrass/
aerial
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
Chemical Form
Applied
(study type)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Soil
PH
4.7-5.5
6.5-6.8
5.3-6.1
6.3-7.0
7 A
7. A
6. 9-7. A
7 A
7. A
Range (N)B
of Application Rates
(kg/ha)
0.5A.6 (3)
0-5A.6 (3)
0-A97 (A)
0-1, A92 (A)e
0-2,125 (A)'
0-2.125 (A)'
168-672
8A
0-2,891 (A)'
0-2,891 (A)«
Control
Tissue Concentration
(ug/g DW)
25
2A
26
21
15.5'
28'
NR
NR
15«
17'
Uptake
Slope*
0.17
0.11
0.058
0.039
0.062*
0.011'
0.10
0.33n
O.OAO'
0.005'
Reference
ibid.
Chang et al . ,
(p. 396)
CAST, 1980 (p.
ibid.
Soon and Bates,
Hinesly et al .
(P. A73)
ibid.


1983
AA)

, 1981
, 1982


-------
                                                                   TABLE 4-24. (Continued)
                                                                                                                        PATHWAY 1
.p-
I
o
Ul
Plant/Tissue
Corn/stover

"Vegetation"


Lettuce

Swiss chard

Soybean/seed

Lettuce


Chemical Form
Applied
(study type)
Sludge
(field)
Smelter
fallout
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)







5
6
5
6
5
6
5
4
7
Soil
pH
7.4

NR"


.7-6.3
.7
.7-6.3
.7
.7-6.3
.7
.6-6.7
.5-5.1
.0
Range (N)1
of Application Rates
(kg/ha)
0-2891

88-910


0-416
0-416
0-416
0-416
0-416
0-416
48-432
(4)"

(5)1


(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(5)'
138-432 (4)'
198-484 (3)'
Control
Tissue Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DU) Slope* Reference
11"

6.8


71
388
98
39
46
43
41
27
41
0.063' ibid.


0.064b CAST. 1980 (p. 49)


0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
2
0


39 ibid., p. 51
17
61 ibid.
29
061 ibid.
064
.48" ibid. , p. 54
.69"
.17h

-------
TABLE 4-24. (Continued)
                                                   PATHWAY 1
Chemical Form
Applied
Plant/Tissue (study type)
Corn/silage
Corn/grain
Swiss chard
Oat/grain
Turnip/greens
Swiss chard
Cabbage
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge ash
(pot)
Soil
PH
6.5-7.2
6.5-7.2
A. 9-5. 9
6.0-6.4
4,9-5.9
6. 0-6. A
5.6
6.5
5.5
5.2-5.7
Range (N)8
of Application Rates
(kg/ha)
0-360 (4)
0-360 (4)
106-312 (2)'
106-312 (2)'
106-312 (2X
106-312 (2)'
0-170 (3)
0-330 (2)
0-330 (2)
<800'
Control
Tissue Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DW) Slope6
24
23
141'
50"
28
29
83
92
293
31
0.71
0.099
3,971J
0.26U
0 . 0961J
0.036"
1.99
2.30
2.29
NS1
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
ibid. , p. 77
ibid.
Miller and Boswell,
1979 (p. 1.362)
Furr et al . , 1976b
(p. 87)
Furr et al , 1979
(p. 1,505)

-------
                                                                                                                        PATHWAY  1
                                                                   NOTES TO TABLE 4-24



      * N - Number of application rates,  including control.
      ' Slope - y/x; x - kg/ha applied; y - ug/g plant tissue DW.
      c NS - Tissue concentration not significantly increased.
      J Cumulative application during 3 yr.
      * Cumulative application during 6 yr.
      ' Cumulative application during 8 yr.
      * Mean value of two hybrids.
      * Cumulative application during 12 yr.
      ' Application rate estimated from measured soil  concentration based on assumption of 1 ug/g soil concentration =• 2 kg/ha applied.
      1 Mean value for unlimed soils of three  farms.   A fourth  farm with an outlier slope was omitted.
      * Mean value for limed soils of three fauns.
        Sludge ashes from ten different cities were used;  no  relationship between metal content and uptake was found.
      " NK - Not  reported.
I
h-1
O

-------
                                                         PATHWAY 1
4.6 on red potatoes by Giordano et al. (1979).  The uptake  for  leafy
vegetables under agricultural conditions, 0.27, was calculated  as
the weighted mean of the values for lettuce, cabbage, and Swiss
chard from reports by Giordano et al.  (1979), CAST  (1980),  and  Furr
et al. (1979).  The leafy vegetable uptake for the  residential
setting,  0.80, is the mean of data from these same  studies, as  well
as from one by Miller and Boswell (1979) on turnip  greens,  which was
conducted at pHs above and below 6.   The residential use uptake for
dried and nondried legumes, 0.04, is the geometric  mean of  the
values for beans and peas taken from reports by Dowdy and Larson
(1975) and Giordano et al.  (1979).  The agricultural use uptake,
0.05, for the same food groups is the mean of data  from the two
studies conducted at pHs greater than 6 for peas by Giordano and
associates (1979).  As no data were readily available for peanuts,
the value for agricultural-use legumes,  0.05, was used to represent
this type of legume as well.

The uptake for root crops grown in either setting,  0.05, is the
weighted mean of data from several studies conducted at pHs greater
than 6 on radishes and carrots (Dowdy and Larson, 1975; Giordano et
al., 1979; CAST, 1980; Chang et al., 1983).  The uptake value for
corn grown in a residential setting, 0.04, is the geometric mean of
the uptakes from studies on corn grown at pHs both  above and below 6
(Dowdy and Larson, 1975; Giordano et al., 1979; CAST, 1980; Hinesly
et al. ,  1982).  The uptake for grains and cereals of 0.03 was
calculated as the weighted mean of uptakes reported for corn and
oats grown at pHs above 6  (Dowdy and Larson, 1975;  CAST, 1980;
Hinesly et al.,  1982).  The uptake for residential  use garden fruits
of 0.04 was derived from the weighted mean of uptakes for bell
peppers,  eggplants, and tomatoes from studies conducted at  pHs  above
and below 6 (Dowdy and Larson, 1975; Giordano et al., 1979).  The
uptake of for garden fruits grown in an agricultural setting, 0.04,
                            4-108

-------
                                                        PATHWAY  1
was derived from the weighted mean of studies conducted at pHs above
6 on bell peppers and tomatoes (Giordano et al.,  1979; Dowdy and
Larson, 1975).
                            4-109

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY  2


4.2  PATHWAY 2

     For pathway 2 (human toxicity to  children  from  eating  sludge-amended
soil),  the following are the chemicals of concern:

    Aldrin/Dieldrin
    Arsenic
    Benzo(a)pyrene
    Cadmium
    Chlordane
    DDT/DDE/DDD
    Hexachlorobenzene
    Hexachlorobutadiene
    Lead
    Mercury '
    PCBs
    Toxaphene
          Preceding page blank
4-111

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2
4.2.1  Pathway Equations
   For nonthreshold chemicals:
      RIA =
 RLxBW ^  -TBI
 qt* x RE
x 103
(3)
where   RIA  - adjusted reference  intake  (ug/day)
        q!*   - human cancer potency  (mg/kg/day'1)
        RL   - risk level  (unitless) ;  e.g.,  10'5, 1CT6
        BW   - human body  weight  (kg)
        RE   - relative effectiveness  of  ingestion  exposure  (unitless)
        TBI  - total background intake rate  of  pollutant  (mg/day),  from
               all other sources  of  exposure
               103-conversion factor (ug/rag)
   For threshold chemicals:
      RIA =
RfD x BW  \ - TBI
    RE    J
x 103
(4)
where   RIA  - adjusted reference intake (ug/day)
        RfD  — risk reference dose (mg/kg/day)
         BW  =- human body weight (kg)
        TBI  - total background intake rate of pollutant  (mg/day)
         RE  — relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure  (unitless)
        103   - conversion factor (ug/mg)
      RLC   =
   RIA
                (I, x DA)
                                              (5)
where    I,  - soil ingestion rate (g DW/day)
         DA  - exposure duration adjustment  (unitless)
        RLC  - reference soil concentration  of pollutant  (ug/g  DW)
                                 4-112

-------
                                                               PATHWAY  2
   When the sludge is soil-incorporated and applied annually:

      RPa  = RLC x MS x 10-3 x ekT [1 + Dek + DV* +...+ D^'e'1-
where  RPa  -  reference annual application rate of pollutant  (kg/ha)
       RLC  -  reference soil concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
        MS  -  2x10" Mg/ha -  assumed mass  of  soil  in upper  15 cm
       10"3  -  conversion factor (kg/g)
          e  -  base of natural logarithm;  2.718 (unitless)
          k  -  loss rate constant (years'1)
          T  —  waiting (or land-use conversion) period (yr)
          D  -  (MS-ARJ/MS
       AR,  -  annual application rate (mg DW/ha)
4.2.2   Data Points and Rationale for Selection

4.2.2.1   Aldrin/Dieldrin (A/D)

i.     The human cancer potency (qi*)  is  17 mg/kg/day"1.
       See Section 4.1.3.1, i.

ii-x.  The rationale and the data points are the same as for
       hexachlorobenzene for this pathway.

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) =• 0 ug/g.
       See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

xii.   The loss rate constant (k) for soil - 0.693 years"1.
       Onsager et al. (1970) have reported half-lifes for aldrin  of  3.1
       mon,  for a combination of aldrin and dieldrin of 8.5 mon,  and for
       dieldrin alone of 29.7 mon.  The average half-life for all of thse
       compounds is, therefore, 1 yr.
                                 4-113

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 2
       The degradation rate (k) can be calculated using  the  following
      formula:

           k   =    In 2                                          (7)
                    soil tw

               =  0.6932  / 7 yr

               =  0.693 yr'1

xiii.  The total  background intake of pollutant from all other  sources  of
       exposure (TBI)  for adults (TBI,) and  toddlers  (TBI,) - 0 mg/day.
       For carcinogenic  chemicals, only the incremental risk over
       background was  evaluated.  The total background intake is thus
       considered to be  zero.
4.2.2.2  Arsenic (AS)

i.     The risk reference dose (RfD) - 0.0014 mg/kg/day.
       See Section 4.1.3.2,  i.

ii-x.  The rationale and the data points are the same as  for
       hexachlorobenzene for this pathway

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) =  3  ug/g.
       See Table 4-25.

xii.   The loss rate constant (k) - 0 yr'1.
       The degradation rate in soil is assumed to be zero for all
       inorganic chemicals.
                                 4-114

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY  2
  TABLE 4-25. Background Concentrations of Pollutants in U.S. Soil
Chemical
                      Soil Concentration
Number of Samples          (ug/g)
                  Reference
Arsenic


Cadmium


Chromium


Copper


Lead

Mercury



Molybdenum


Nickel


Selenium


Zinc
          16


          3,325


          NRa


          3,325


          3,325

          NR



          NR


          3,325


          NR


          3,325
0.2


 100


19


11

0.1
18
0.21
54
Baxter et al. ,
1983

Holmgren et al.
1985 (p  L8)

Allaway,  1968
(p. 241)

Holmgren et al.
1985 (p. 18)
U.S. Geological
Survey, 1970
(p. 1)

Allaway, 1968
(p. 242)

Holmgren et al.,
1985 (p. 181

Cappon, 1984
(p. 100)

Holmgren et al.
1985 (p. 18)
   'NR - Not  reported.
                                 4-115

-------
                                                               PATHWAY  2
xiii.  The total background intake rate of arsenic from all sources of
       exposure (TBI)  for adults (TBIJ -  0.057 mg/day  and  for  toddlers
       (TBIt) - 0.013 mg/day. See Section 4.1.3.2, v.

       The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS)  = 3 ug/g DW
       See Table 4-25.
4.2.2-3 Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)

i.     The human cancer potency (qi*) -  11.5  (mg/kg/day)"1
       Cancer potency for ingestion of BaP was based on a study by Neal
       and Rigdon (1967,  as  cited in EPA,  1980) in which BaP was fed to
       mice at concentrations ranging from 1 to 250 ppm in the diet for
       approximately 110 days.   Results showed a significant increase in
       the incidence of stomach tumors at several doses.   In the four
       highest dose groups receiving 5.85, 6.5, 13.0, and 13.5 mg/kg body
       weight/day,  tumors developed in 4 of 40, 24 of 34, 19 of 23, and 66
       of 73 mice,  respectively,  compared to 0 of 289 in controls.

ii-x.  The rationale for the data points is the same as for
       hexachlorobenzene for this pathway

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) = 0 ug/g.
       See Section 4.2.2.7,  xi.

xii.   The loss rate constant (k) for soil =» 3.65 yr'1.
       Biodegradation is considered to be the most important fate  of BaP
       in soil.  Herbes and Schwall (1978) reported a soil half-life for
       BaP of 0.18986 yr.
                                 4-116

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 2
       The degradation rate (k) can be calculated using the following
       formula:

               k  =    In 2
                       soil tv,                                     (  •*
                  =  0.6932
                     0.1899 yr
                  =  3.65 yr-1

xiii.  The total background intake of BaP from all other sources of
       exposure  (TBI) for adults (TBI,) and  toddlers  (TBIJ  - 0 mg/day.

       For carcinogenic chemicals, only incremental risk over background
       is being  evaluated.   The total background intake is thus considered
       to be zero.
4.2.2.4   Cadmium (Cd)

i.     The acceptable daily intake (ADI) - 70 ug/day.
       See Section 4.1.3.4, i.

ii-x.  The rationale and data points are the same as those for HC3 for
       this pathway.

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) - 0.2 ug/g.
       See Table 4-25.

xii.   The loss rate constant (k) - 0 yr'1.
       The degradation rate in soil is assumed to be zero for all
       inorganic chemicals.
                                 4-117

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2
xiii.  The total background intake of cadmium from all sources of exposure
       (TBI)  for adults (TBI,) - 0.007 mg/day and  for  toddlers  (TBIt) -
       0.013  mg/day.
       See Section 4.1.3.4, v.
4.2.2.5  Chlordane

i.     The human cancer potency (q\*) of chlordane -  1.3  (mg/kg/day)"1.
       This potency is estimated from the results of four mouse and four
       rat long-term carcinogenesis bioassays,  in which dose-related
       incidences of liver carcinomas were observed in animals fed
       chlordane compared to controls (EPA,  1988b).   For criteria
       generation purposes,  the persistent metabolites of chlordane, such
       as oxychlordane,  are assumed to be as potent as the parent
       compound.  This potency estimate will, therefore, be applied to the
       total residues of chlordane and its metabolites that are ingested
       by humans.

ii-x.  The rationale for the data points is the same as that for
       hexachlorobenzene for this pathway.

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) - 0 ug/g.
       See Section 4.2.2.7,  xi.

xii.   The loss rate constant (k) for soil - 0.582 yr"1.
       The half-life of chlordane in Umapine loam soil was 14.3 mon or
       1.192 yr (Onsager et al., 1970).  If first-order decay is assumed,
       95% of chlordane will disappear from the soil in approximately 5 yr
       (Lawless et al.,  1975).  Matsumara (1972a) also reported a 95%
                                 4-110

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2


       disappearance of chlordane from soil in 3 Co 5 yr.   The Loss rate
       constant (k)  can then be calculated by dividing the natural log of
       2 by the soil half-life according to the following formula:

               k  =    In 2
                     ~
                  =  0.6932
                     1.19 yr
                  =  0.583 yr1

xiii.  The total background intake of chlordane from all sources of
       exposure (TBI) for adults (TBIJ and  (TBIJ  for toddlers  - 0 mg/day.

       For carcinogenic chemicals,  only incremental risk over background
       is being evaluated.   Therefore,  the total background intake is
       considered to be zero.
4.2.2.6   DDT/DDE/DDD

i.     The human cancer potency (q!*) -0.34  (mg/kg/day)"1.
       This potency value applies to available DDT/DDE and ODD residues
       and is based on data from mice.   A recent evaluation by the U.S.
       EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group  (EPA,  1985a)  indicates that DDT,
       DDE, and ODD are similar in potency.

ii-x.  The rationale and the data points are  the same as those for
       hexachlorobenzene for this pathway.

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) - 0 ug/g.
       See Section 4.2.2.7,  xi.
                                 4-119

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 2
xii.   The loss rate constant (k) of DDT/DDE/DDD for soil - 0.
       The soil half-life of DDT varies greatly depending on soil type,
       acidity, and application rate (Nash and Woolson, 1967).  Wolfe et
       al. (1977) estimated the hydrolysis half-lives of ODD to be 570
       days at a pH of 9 or 190 yr at pH 5 and 27°C.   Because  it is  not
       possible to predict what the half-lives of DDT and its metabolites
       could be under all possible conditions, and considering their known
       persistence in soil, the loss rate is conservatively estimated to
       be zero.  Therefore, it is not necessary to use the following
       equation:

           k    =   In2                                              (10)
                    soil tw

xiii.  The total background intake rate of DDT/DDE and ODD from all
       sources of exposure (TBI) for adults (TBIJ and  toddlers  (TBIt) =• 0
       mg/day.

       For carcinogenic chemicals,  only incremental risk over background
       was evaluated.   The total background intake is thus considered to
       be zero.

4.2.2.7  Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)

i.     The human cancer potency (q!*) -  1.67  (mg/kg/day)"1.
       This value is based upon hepatocellular carcinoma responses in rats
       (EPA,  1985e).
                                 4-120

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2
ii.     The  risk level  (RL)  - 1CT4.
       Specification of a given risk level  on which to base regulations is
       a  matter of policy.   For agricultural  and D&M applications,  a 10"1
       risk was calculated.

iii.   The  average body weight (BW)  for  toddlers - 10 kg.
       This is  the average weight for a  2-yr-old child.   Pica behavior is
       usually  seen in children under 3  yr,  so using the weight of a 2-yr-
       old  is a conservative choice.   Children under the age of 1 are
       unlikely to be  left unattended or permitted to engage in this form
       of activity.

iv.     The  relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) =» 1.
       Due  to the lack of data on potency estimates from exposure to food
       chain contamination,  RE is considered equal to 1.

v.     Soil ingestion  rate (I5) =• 0.1 g DW/day.
       Soil ingestion  has been recognized as  an important source of
       exposure to pollutants such as lead.   For adults,  a value of 0.02
       g/day has been  used to estimate dust ingestion (EPA, 1984a).
       Children may ingest soil by either inadvertent hand-to-mouth
       transfer or by  intentional direct eating.  When such behavior is
       frequent,  it is called pica.   Lepow et al.  (1975)  estimated that
       children frequently mouthing  their hands may inadvertently ingest
       at least 100 mg of soil per day.   In the past, the U.S.  EPA
       Exposure Assessment Group has estimated that children who eat soil
       directly can consume as much  as 5 g/day (EPA,  1983b) .  Thus a
       plausible typical-to-worst range  of 0.1-5 g/day can be established.

       Studies  aimed at more accurately  determining the range of ingestion
       rates have yielded some data,  but are  as yet inconclusive.  Binder
       et al. (1985) conducted a pilot study to establish methods for

                                  4-121

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2
       determining soil  ingestion rates  in children living near a lead
       smelter.   Three tracer elements  --  aluminum,  silicon,  and
       titanium  -- were  measured in soil and dust samples and in stool   f
       samples of 70  children.   Results  for the  three sets of measurements
       were often in  disagreement,  indicating either a metabolic rate,
       loss or unrecognized sources of  one or more of the elements.

       Assuming  that  the lowest estimate for a given child was accurate
       and that  the higher estimates for the other two elements
       represented sources other than soil,  the  following results were
       obtained  (in g DW/day) with soil  and stool measurements from 59
       children:

       •  Mean  ingestion,  0.108
       •  Median,  0.088
       •  Geometric mean,  0.065
       •  Range,  0.004-0.708
       •  95th percentile, 0.386

       Estimates  based on aluminum and  silicon were possibly the most
       accurate,  because these were in  relatively close agreement.  The
       titanium  results  should probably be dismissed as anomalous,
       however,  because  these averaged  higher by a factor of 10.  This
       assumption produced slightly higher estimates.  Based on these
       preliminary data, a value of 0.1 g/day is suggested as a reasonably
       protective value  for I,.  Further studies  are  being  undertaken by
       the EPA  to improve these estimates.

vi.    Exposure  duration adjustment (DA) - 0.07.
       An adjustment  to  the RIA may be  required, based on the brief
       duration  of this  exposure.   Values of RfD and q!*  are  usually

                                4-122

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2
       calculated to  be  representative  of a lifetime  exposure.   Adjustment
       of  RfD  values  for exposure  duration is  not  recommended because
       higher  exposures  may lead to  more  severe  toxic effects.   However,
       time  adjustment of cancer risk estimates  is consistent with the
       method  in which potency estimates  (qt*) are derived, and has been
       used  previously.   Therefore,  a DA  value is  suggested for use with
       carcinogenic chemical exposure to  children  who are 5 yr of age and
       younger.   The  value is derived on  the basis of exposure duration
       divided by assumed lifetime,  or  5  yr/70 yr  — 0.07.

vii.   The waiting (or land-use conversion) period (T)  - 0.
       No  waiting period is assumed  here.   Waiting periods following
       sludge  application are evaluated as part of the  discussion of
       specific exposure pathways, such as grazing of cattle or planting
       of  feed crops.

viii.  The sludge application rate (AR) - 0.
       Two kinds of sludge application  rates were  considered:  AR,.  in
       metric  tons dry weight per hectare (mt DW/ha),  a cumulative race;
       and AR,  (in  mt  DW/ha),  an annual rate.  Because  large values of AR
       slightly increase RP, low values should ordinarily be assumed for a
       protective approach.  AR, typically  is  5 mt DW/ha for many
       agricultural uses.  AR^  can be much higher,  because sludge
       applications may  be repeated  indefinitely.   If only a single
       application is made, however, AR^ —  AR,.  AR is  thus ordinarily
       considered for purposes of criteria calculation.
                               4-123

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2
ix.     The  loss  rate  constant (k)  - 0.165  yr"1.

           k   =    In 2
                    soil tw
               =   0.165 yr-1

       The k value of 0.165 yr"1  corresponds  to  the  natural log of 2
       divided by  a soil  half-life of 4.2 yr (EPA,  1985c) .

.i.     The number  of annual applications (n) -  34.
       Because no  limit has been established for the number of sludge
       applications that  may occur in most utilization practices, an
       infinite number should ordinarily be assumed.  In practical terms,
       if n - 5.6/k,  then the final term e(l-n)/k in the equation for RPa
       is <0.01,  and the  result  of further increasing it will be
       negligible.  Therefore, n - 5.6/k - 5.6/0.165 -- 34.

       In certain utilization practices, however, especially where
       site-specific information can be used, it may be appropriate to
       assume a more finite value of n.  For example, land reclamation may
       involve only one or a few years of sludge application.

xi.    The background concentration of pollutant (BS) - 0 ug/g.
       In calculating criteria for organic pollutants in land application
       of sludge,  the soil background concentration of xenobiotics is
       assumed to  be zero.  Because they do not occur naturally, their
       concentrations would be negligible when averaged for a national
       value.  In addition, organic compounds tend to degrade under
       environmental conditions.  Thus the criteria for organics will
                                4-124

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2
      reflect  only  the  incremental  risk  associated with  sludge
      application.  The criteria are calculated  independently of  sources
      of  contaminants other  than sludge.

      For inorganic pollutants, the study by Holgren  (1984)  was selected
      as  the source for concentrations of cadmium, copper,  lead,  nickel,
      and zinc backgrounds,  because this study was the most  recent,  ,
      reliable,  and informative available.  It was conducted specifically
      to  determine  soil background  concentrations in  order  to calculate
      criteria for  sludge  application  to land.   The study also had the
      largest  sampling  population,  represented the most  regions in the
      United States,  and" used a universally defined analytical method.
      Based on a large  number of samples, the median  was selected as the
      most representative  of a national  sampling.

xii.  The total  background intake of HCB from all sources of exposure
       (TBI) for  adults  (TBI.) - 0 mg/day.

      The typical values of soil background concentration for chromium,
      molybdenum, and selenium were taken from Allaway  (1968) .  This
      scientist  usually bases his results on reviews  and summary
      compilations, which  were in turn generalized from  original  data.
      The other  studies describing  soil  concentrations  for  these  elements
      had an overriding advantage over the Allaway report,  so they were
      not used in these calculations.

      The typical soil  concentration of  mercury  was the  mean of data from
      two studies:  Ratsch  (1974) and the U.S. Geological Survey  (1970).
      The soil concentration from these  studies  took  precedence,  because
      the data represented averaged U.S. soils,  while the other studies
      referred to specific locations.  Table 4-25 lists  the average U.S.
                                4-125

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2


       soil  background concentrations  for inorganic pollutants found in
       sludge.

xiii.  The total background intake  of  HCB from all sources of exposure
       (TBI)  for adults (TBIJ and toddlers (TBIt)  - 0  mg/day
       For carcinogenic chemicals,  only incremental risk over background
       was evaluated.   The total background intake is  thus considered to
       be zero.
4.2.2.8   Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD)

i.     The human cancer potency (qt*) for HCBD - 0.0775  (rag/kg/day)'1
       The cancer potency value was  derived from data presented in EPA
       (1980),  from a study in which rats  that were dosed orally with HCBD
       developed renal tubular adenomas and carcinomas.

ii-x.  The rationale for the data points is the same as  that for HCB for
       this pathway.

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) - 0 ug/g.
       See Section 4.2.2.7,  xi.

xii.   The loss rate constant (k) for soil = 0.165 yr'1
       This loss rate constant is calculated by dividing the natural log
       of 2 by the soil half-life of 4.2 yr (Beck and Hansen, 1974, as
       reported in EPA, 1980f).  The loss  rate constant (k) can then be
       calculated according to the following formula:
                                 4-126

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 2
           k   =    In 2                                          (12)
                    soil tw

               =   0.6932
                   4.2 yr

               =   0.165  yr'1

xiii.  The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources  of
       exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.
       For carcinogenic chemicals, only incremental risk over background
       was evaluated.  The total background intake is thus considered  to
       be zero.
4.2.2.9  Lead (Pb)

i.     The adjusted reference intake (RIA) - 20 ug/day.
       See Section 4.1.3.8, i.

ii-x.  The rationale and the data points are the same as those  for  HCB  for
       this pathway.

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) -  11 ug/g.
       See Table 4.25.

xii.   The loss rate constant (k) - 0 yr"1.
       The degradation rate in soil is assumed to be zero  for all
       inorganic chemicals.
                                  4-127

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 2
xiii.  The total background intake rate of lead from all sources of
       exposure (TBI)  for adults (TBIJ -  0 mg/day  and  for  toddlers (TBIt)
       - 0 mg/day.
       See Section 4.1.3.8, vi.
4.2.2.10  Mercury (Hg)

i.     The RfD =- 0.0003 mg/kg/day for toddlers and 0.002 mg/kg/day for
       adults.
       See Section 4.1.3.9,  i.

ii-x.  The rationale and the data points are the same as those for HCB for
       this pathway.

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) =0.1 ug/g.
       See Table 4-25.

xii.   The loss rate constant (k) = 0 yr"1.
       The degradation rate in soil is assumed to be zero for all
       inorganic chemicals.

xiii.  The total background intake of mercury from all sources of exposure
       (TBI) for adults (TBIJ =  0.010  mg/day  and for toddlers (TBI,) =
       0.001 mg/day.
       See Section 4.1.3.9,  v.
                                 4-128

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2
4.2.2.11   Polychlorinated Biphenols (PCBs)

i.     The human cancer  potency (qi*) is 7.7  (mg/kg/day)"1.
       This potency value was derived from data collected from studies in
       which rats ingesting PCBs developed hepatocellular carcinomas and
       neoplastic nodules (EPA, 19801).

ii-x.  The rationale for the data points is the same as that for
       hexachlorobenzene for this pathway.

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) — 0 ug/g.
       See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

xii.   The loss rate constant (k) for soil - 0.116 yr"1.
       Although most of  the PCBs have a half -life (t^) greater than  1 yr
       in sediments, the half -lives can be as high as 16 yr depending on
       the amount of chlorine contained in the PCBs (Fries, 1982)   All of
       the PCBs found in the environment are 42-60% chlorine by weight
       (WHO, 1976b) .  Therefore, Arochlor 1254, which has a 54% chlorine
       content by weight, was chosen to conservatively represent the half-
       life of PCBs.

       The degradation rate (k) can be calculated by dividing the natural
       log of 2 by the soil half -life in years according to the following
       formula:
                      soil tw
                                                                  (13)
                                                                  v  ;
                  =  0.116 yr

                                 4-129

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2


xiii.  The total background intake of PCBs from all sources of exposure
       (TBI)  - 0 mg/day.

       For carcinogenic chemicals, only incremental risk over background
       was evaluated.   The total background intake is thus considered to
       be zero.
4.2.2.12   Toxaphene

1.     The human cancer potency (qi*) of toxaphene  is  1.13  (mg/kg/day)'1
       The cancer potency was derived by the EPA (1980k) based on a
       carcinogenicity study by Litton Bionetics (1978, as cited in EPA,
       1980k).   In this study the incidence of hepatocellular carcinomas
       and neoplastic nodules was significantly increased among male mice
       that were fed diets containing 50 ug/g of toxaphene for 18 mon.

ii-x.  The rationale and the data points are the same as those for
       hexachlorobenzene for this pathway.

xi.    The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS) =» 0 ug/g.
       See 4.2.2.7,  xi.

xii.   The loss rate constant (k) for soil - 0.063 yr'1.
       The reported soil half-lives for toxaphene range from 100 days to
       11 yr (EPA, 1979).  The half-life of 11 yr was selected as the most
       conservative value, because it represents the longest persistence
       of toxaphene in soil.  The loss rate constant (k) can
                                 4-130

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 2
      then be calculated by dividing the natural log of 2 by the soil
      half-life according to the following formula:

           k.   =  _Jn_2_                                      (14)
                    soil tw

               =   0.6932
                    11 yr

               =   0.063  yr1

xiii.   The total background intake rate of toxaphene from all sources of
       exposure (TBI)  for adults (TBIJ and toddlers  (TBIt)  - 0  mg/day.
       For carcinogenic  chemicals,  incremental risk over background was
       evaluated.   The total background intake is thus considered to be
       zero.
                               4-131

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY 3


4 J. PATHWAY 3

     Pathway 3 expresses  the  pathway  of human  exposure from animal products.
These products come from  animals  that were  fed plants grown on sludge-amended
soil (uptake).  For pathway 3,  the  chemicals of concern are:

     Aldrin/dieldrin
     Cadmium
     Chlordane
     DDT/DDE/DDD
     Heptachlor
     Hexachlorobenzene
     Mercury
     PCBs
     Selenium
     Toxaphene
     Zinc
          Preceding page blank      4,I33

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 3
     43.1 Pathway Equations


     A grazing animal can be exposed Co sludge by direct ingestion through two
different exposure pathways:   pathway 3,  the adherence pathway whereby animals
while foraging consume sludge that has been incorporated into the soil; or
pathway 4, whereby animals directly ingest sludge that has not been
incorporated into soil from pasture lands.


     For the plant uptake of pollutants,  the following equations are used to
calculate criteria for nonthreshold and threshold chemicals:


   •  For nonthreshold chemicals:
         RIA  =
           RLx BW
           q,* x RE
-  TBI
x 103
(15)
   where
qt*  — human cancer potency (mg/kg/day4)
RL  - risk level (unitless)
BW  — human body weight (kg)
RE  =• relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure  (unitless)
TBI - total background intake rate of pollutant(kg/day) from all
      sources of exposure
103  = conversion factor (ug/mg)
      For  threshold chemicals:
          RIA  =
        'RfD x BW"]  - TBI
        ,    RE    /
   x 103
                            (16)
   where RIA  - adjusted reference intake (ug/day)
         RfD  - risk reference dose (mg/kg/day)
         BW   — human body weight (kg)
         TBI  = total background intake rate of pollutant  (ing/day)
         RE   - relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure  (unitless)
         103   — conversion factor (ug/mg)
                                     4-134

-------
                                                               PATHWAY  3
•  For both threshold and nonthreshold chemicals:
         RFC =      RIA
                 z(UA x DA x FA)
where RFC  -  reference feed concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
      RIA  =•  adjusted reference intake of pollutant in humans (ug/day)
      UAj   -  uptake response slope of pollutant in the animal tissue food
             group i[ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1]
      DA;   =-  daily dietary consumption of the animal tissue food group  i
             (g DW/day)
      FAi   =-  fraction of food group i assumed to be derived from
             sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs
   For inorganics, a cumulative application rate (RPC in kg/ha) is
   calculated:
           RPC = RFC/UC
where RFC - reference  feed concentration of pollutant  (ug/g DW)
       UC —linear  response slope  of  forage crop  [ug/g crop DW  (kg/ha'1]
•  For organics,  before determining a pollutant application rate,  a
   reference soil concentration (RLC in ug/g DW)  is calculated:

          RLC = (RFC/UC)  + BS


where BS  - background soil  concentration of pollutant  (ug/g DW)
      UC  - linear  response  slope  of  forage crop  [ug/g  crop DW (ug/g soil
            DW1)]

•  Then a reference annual application is calculated:
                                 4-135

-------
                                                                PATHWAY  3
      RPa = RLC x M, x 10° x ekT [1 + De'k + D2e'a +  ...+
where RPa  - reference annual application rate of pollutant (kg/ha)
      RLC - reference soil concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
      MS  - 2 x 103 mg/ha - assumed mass of soil  in upper  15  cm
      10° - conversion factor (kg/g)
       e  -base of natural logarithms,  2.718 (unitless)
       k  = loss rate constant (yr)"1
       T  = waiting (or land-use conversion)  period (yr)
       D  - (MS-ARJ/MS
      AR,  = annual application rate  (mg DW/ha)
43.2  Data Points and Rationale for Selection

43.2.1  Aldrin/Dieldrin (A/D)

i.   The human cancer potency (qt*)  for  aldrin/dieldrin = 17 (mg/kg/day)'1
     See 4.1.3.1, i.

ii.  The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
     exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.
     For all carcinogenic chemicals, only incremental  risk  over background
     was evaluated.  The total background intake is thus considered  to be
     zero.

iii. Human body weight (BW) — 70 kg.
     This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.  The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure  (RE)  - 1.
     Because no potency estimates from exposure to food  chain  contamination
     from A/D were available, RE was considered equal  to 1.
                                   4-136

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
v.   The total of the products of the uptake response slope of the
     pollutant in animal tissue (UA),  times the daily dietary consumption
     of animal tissue food groups (DA),  times the fraction of the food
     group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs
     (FA) from uptake - 143.85 ug/day.

     All of the animal tissue uptakes are derived from studies listed in
     Table 4-26.  The uptake mean of 2.67 for beef is the geometric mean of
     the values derived from the uptake factors for steer and cattle body
     fat (Edwards, 1970; Fries, 1982).  The geometric mean of the dieldrin
     uptake factors for rat liver, 0.14, was used as the uptake for beef
     liver in lieu of any other data for mammalian organ tissues (EPA,
     1980a).   The uptake of aldrin/dieldrin in lamb fat is 2.24, the
     geometric mean of the values for lamb fat (Edwards, 1970) and sheep
     fat (Fries, 1982).  The uptake for pork, 1.17, was derived from the
     mean of the values for hog fat in the study by Edwards (1970)   The
     uptake factor for poultry is represented by the geometric mean of the
     factors for chicken fat, 44.07 (Edwards, 1970).  The dieldrin uptake
     factor of 5.54 reported by Fries (1982) for cattle milk fat is assumed
     to be similar to the factors for all dairy products.  The geometric
     mean of the dieldrin uptake factors for barn owl eggs, 11.95, was used
     to represent aldrin/dieldrin uptake in chicken eggs as well in Lieu of
     more specific information for that species (Mendenhall et al.,  L983)

     For an explanation of the FA and DA values, see Tables 4-34 and 4-35.
                                   4-137

-------
                            TABLE 4-26.  Uptake of Aldrin/Dieidrin by Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                                                         PATHWAY 3
 -ts
 I
U)
00
Species Tissue Chemical
(N)a Analyzed Form Fed
Cattle Fat Dieldrin

Fat Aldrin
Sheep Fat Dieldrin

Pheasant Muscle Dieldrin
Barn owl Carcass Dieldrin
male (12)
female (7)
Eggs
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
3.25

50
25
50
50
0.58

0.58
Control Tissue Test Tissue
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
18

36.99°
(31.0)d
162"
(126)d
246C
2.7
0.47' 9.6
(0.33)d
0.21C 9.2
(0.15)d
0.42° 4.9C
(0.31)d (3.6)d
Uptake
Slope"
5.54

0.74
6.48
4.90
0.05
15.74
15.50
7.72
Reference
Fries, 1982
(p. 15)

ibid.

Edwards, 1970
(p. 45)
Mendenhall et
al., 1983
(p. 237)



-------
TABLE 4-26.  (Continued)
                                                     PATHWAY 3
Feed Control Tissue
Species Tissue Chemical Concentration Concentration
(N)1 Analyzed Form Fed (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
Barn owl
female
Rat Fat Dieldrin

Hen Fat Dieldrin

Steer Fat Dieldrin
•
Fat

Fat

Hog Fat Dieldrin
Fat
0.27° 11.0°
(0.20)d (8.1)d
1.0
10.0
0.25
0.75
0.25 NRr

0 75 NR

2.25 NR

0.25 NR
0.75 NR
Test Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DW) Slope" Reference
18.50

15.1 15.1 Edwards, 1970
67.5 6.7 (p. 45)
10.2 40.8 ibid.
35.7 47.6
0.96C 3.84 ibid.
(0.8)d
4.2C
(3.5)"
10. 4C 3.9
(8.7)"
0.56C 0.91 ibid.
(0.4)J
3 4l 4.5
                              (2.ar

-------
                                                     PATHWAY 3
TABLE 4-26.  (Continued)
Feed
Species Tissue Chemical Concentration
(N)a Analyzed Form Fed (ug/g DW)
Hog Fat 2.25

Lamb Fat Dieldriri 0.25

Fat „ 2.25

I
£ Fat 2.25
o
Rat Fat Dieldrin 0.1
male 1.0
10.0
female 0 . 1
1.0
10.0
Control Tissue Test Tissue
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
NR 4 . 9C
(4.3)d
NR 1 . 6C
(0.5)d
NR 0 . 8C
(0.22)d

NR 0.76C
(2.2)"
0.06 0.03
NR 1.49
19.72 NR
0.31 0.90
NR 13.90
NR 57.81
Uptake
Slope'
0.39

2.04

0.96


0.91

0.0
1.43
1.97
5.90
13.59
NR
Reference
ibid.

ibid.






EPA, 1980a
(p. C-14)





-------
                                                                                                         PATHWAY  3
                                                 TABLE 4-26.   (Continued)
I
M
4N

Species
(N)'
Rat
male

female


Feed
Tissue Chemical Concentration
Analyzed Form Fed (ug/g DW)
Liver 0.1
1.0
10.0
0.1
1.0
10.0
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.006
NR
NR
0.11
NR
NR
Test Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.016
0.016
1.476
0.035
0.43
2.97

Uptake
Slope6
0.10
0.01

0.75
0.32
0.29

Reference
ibid.





       "  N = Number of experimental animals, if reported.
       '  Uptake slope — y/x, where y = tissue concentration and x = feed concentration.
       1  Tissue concentration is in dry weight.  Conversion assumes a mean water content  of  16.2%  in  cattle  and
         steer fat, 12.4% in hog fat, and 22% in sheep fat.
       d  Reported wet weights.
       c  Tissue concentration is in dry weight.  Conversion assumes a mean water content  of  70%  for carcass  (mostly
         muscle) and 74% for chicken eggs.
       '  NR = Not reported.

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry (fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
2.
0.

2.
1.
44.
5.
11.
,67
.14

,24
,17
,07
.54
.95
DA
26.
0.

0.
•19.
1.
30,
1.
.979
.394

.344
.252
.835
.148
.321
FA
0,
0,

0,
0
0.
0.
0,
.44
.44

.44
.44
.34
.40
.48
UA x DA x FA
31.
0.

0,
9
27,
66,
7,
,69
,02

.34
.91
,50
.81
.58
     TOTAL                                               143.85

vi.   The uptake response slope of pollutant in plant tissue found in the
     diet of grazing animals (UCG)  =0.02  ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)'1.

     The uptake alfalfa, and oats of 0.02  ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)'1
     (see Table 4-6) was used as representative of crops that are typically
     used for herbivorous animal feed (Harris and Sans, 1969).  This value
     was applied to dieldrin, which is more persistent in soil and more
     readily taken up in plants than is aldrin.  The uptake has been
     adjusted for moisture content and represents dry weight as opposed to
     the reported wet weight for the plant tissue.
43.2.2  Cadmium (Cd)

i.   The ADI - 70 ug/day.
     See Section 4.1.3.4, i.
                                 4-142

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
ii.   The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
     exposure (TBI)  - 0 rag/day.
     This value has  already been considered in setting the ADI.

ill.  Human body weight (BW) - 70 kg.
     This is the average weight  of an adult male.

iv.   The relative effectiveness  of ingestion exposure (RE) - 1.
     Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain contaminacion
     from cadmium were available, RE was considered equal to 1.

v.   The total of the products of uptake response  slope of pollutant in
     animal tissues  (UA) times the daily dietary consumption of the animal
     tissue food groups (DA) times the fraction of the food group assumed
     to be derived from sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs (FA) = 0.009
     g/day for uptake.

     The uptake response slopes  for Cd in animal tissues (UA) were taken
     from the studies described in Table 4-27   The uptake of cadmium in
     beef muscle was not significant in the sludge study reported by Beyer
     et al.  (1981).   Johnson et al. (1981)  reported an uptake slope from
     wet weight tissue and dry weight feed of 0.0006.  Assuming a moisture
     content of 72%  for muscle gives a dry weight/dry weight feed slope of
     0.00002.

     Beyer et al. (1981) and Johnson et al. (1981) reported wet-weight
     tissue/dry-weight feed uptakes of 0.12 and 0.135, respectively, for
     cattle liver from animals given sludge-grown feed.  The geometric mean
     of these two values,  after conversion to a dry-weight basis, is 0.005
     The studies by  Munshower (1977) and Sharma (1979) were not included
     because the feed was not grown on sludge-amended soils.
                                  4-143

-------
                        TABLE 4-27.  Uptake of Cadmium by Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                                                  PATHWAY  3


Species
w

Chemical
Form Tissue
Fed Analyzed
Range (N)b
of Feed Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
Control
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)


Uptake
Slope0111


Reference
Cattle (6)
Cattle (6)
Sludge
Sludge
Cattle (9-13)  Grass,
              alfalfa
            grown matter
              smelter
Pig (6-14)  Barley grown
            near smelter
Kidney
0 77-12.2 (2)
0.31
0.15
Liver
Muse It
Kidney
Liver
Muscle
Kidney
Liver
Kidney
0.
0.
0.14-10.6 (2) 0.
0.
<0.
0.07-1.72 (2) 0.
0
0.08-0.65 (2) 0.
.08
.02
,27
.057
,002
.05
018
.09
0.12
NS£
0.27
0.135
0.0006
0.20f
0.05(
0.24'
Beyer et al.,
1981 (p. 286)
                                                             Johnson et al,
                                                             1981 (p.  112)
                                                                            Munshower,  1977
                                                                             ibid.

-------
TABLE 4-27.  (Continued)
                                                       PATHWAY 3
Chemical
Species Form
(N)a Fed
Pig (28) Sludge -grown
corn grain

Cattle (12) CdCl2
Pig (30) CdCl2
Sheep (6) CdSO«
Sheep (10) Sludge-grown
corn silage


Tissue
Analyzed
Kidney
Liver
Muscle
Liver
Liver
Liver
Kidney
Liver
Muscle
Range (N)b Control
of Feed Tissue Tissue
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
0.08-0.24 (2) 0.15
0.04
0.006
0.2-11.3 0.5
0.23-10.1 0.07
0.7-12.3 (4) 0.29
0.26-3.14 (2) 1.24
0.35
0.001
Uptake
Slope0"11 Reference
1.24 Lisk et al. .
1982
0.15
NS
0.3 Sharma et al . ,
1979
1.2
0.20 Mills and
Dalgarno, 1972
2.28 Heffron et al . ,
1980 (p. 60)
1.04
0.0013

-------
                                           TABLE 4-27.  (Continued)
                                                                                                   PATHWAY 3

Chemical
Species Form
(N)" Fed
Chicken (15) CdS04



Chicken CdCl2






Tissue
Analyzed
Kidney

Liver
Muscle
Kidney

Liver
Muscle
Eggs/yolk
Range (N)b Control
of Feed Tissue Tissue
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
0.22-12.22 (3) 3.2

0.7
0.029
0.32-13.06 (3) 3.0

0.2
0.063
0.004


Uptake
Slope01"1 Reference
13 Leach et al . ,
1979
1.0
0.017
15 Sharraa et al . ,
1979
1.65
0.019
0.004
"  N =• number of experimental animals, if reported.
*  N — number of feed concentrations, including control.
c  When tissue values were reported as dry weight, a moisture content of 77% was assumed for kidney,  70% for
  liver, 74% for egg, and 72% for muscle (cattle, sheep, pig), unless otherwise indicated.   When tissue
  values were reported on fat-free dry-weight basis, moisture plus fat content were assumed as follows:
  kidney, 81%; chicken breast muscle, 76%.
d  Uptake slope — y/x, where y = tissue concentration and x = feed concentration.
'  NS = No significant increase in tissue cadmium.
f  Slope may actually be higher than shown,  because the diet also contained feed supplements,  which would
  have lowered the total cadmium concentration of the contaminated diet.

-------
                                                          PATHWAY 3
Telford et al.  (1982) reported no significant Cd uptake for sheep
muscle for animals fed sludge-grown crops.  Heffron et al.  (1980)
reported an uptake of 0.0013 for sheep muscle in a sludge study
Conversion of this wet-weight tissue value to dry weight, assuming a
72% moisture content, gives a dry-weight tissue/dry-weight feed uptake
of 0.0001 for lamb.

The uptake for poultry was derived from salt studies on chicken muscle
reported by Leach et al. (1979) and Sharma et al. (1979) in lieu of
any sludge uptake studies.  Assuming a moisture content of 70% and
converting the slopes into dry-weight tissue and dry-weight feed
yields a negligible slope, 0.0006, for both even under these worst-
case conditions.

No data were available on pork muscle, except for. an insignificant
increase in cadmium concentration reported by Lisk et al. (1982)  Due
to the lack of available data, the geometric mean of the muscle values
for beef, lamb, and poultry -- 0.0001 -- was used to represent pork as
well.

The value for eggs was derived from a study by Sharma et al.  (1979) on
egg yolks, in which chickens were fed cadmium chloride in their feed.
Conversion of the uptake slope of 0.004 into dry weight yields a value
of 0.0002.

Because no data were available on the uptake of cadmium in milk, the
uptake slope was assumed to be the same as that for beef, or 0.00002.
For an explanation of the FA and DA values, see Tables 4-34 and 4-35
                              4-147

-------
                                                               PATHWAY  3
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef
Beef liver
Lamb
Pork
Poultry
Dairy
Eggs
UA
0.00002
0.005
0.0001
0.0001
0.0006
0.00002
0.0002
DA
56.174
1.837
0.675
32.700
10.969
83.171
11.467
FA
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.34
0.40
0.48
UA x DA x FA
0.0005
0.004
0.00003
0.001
0.002
0.0007
0.001
      TOTAL
0.009
vi.  The uptake response slope of pollutants in plant tissue found in the
     diet of grazing animals (UC0)  =0.10  ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)'1 soil.

     The uptake rate for field corn silage (Telford et al.,  1982) was
     selected as the worst-case cadmium value for a crop in the herbivorous
     animal's diet that is grown in sludge-amended soil at a pH of 6 or
     greater (see Table 4-13).   The two values for field corn were taken
     from studies conducted at pH 5.4 and pH 7.   Because the pH expected
     for agricultural soils falls between these values, the geometric mean
     of the two reported uptakes, or 0 10, was used to represent this daca
     point.

     Although uptake slopes one or two orders of magnitude or greater were
     calculated for other crops in the grazing animal's diet, these data
     were not selected.  These slopes were for plant parts that are not
     usually consumed by foraging animals, or the sludge had been applied
     to the emerging crops and may not have been completely washed off.
     Using these slopes would thus have resulted in an inflated estimate of
     the actual uptake.
                                  4-148

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
43.2.3   Chlordane

i.   The human cancer potency (qj*)  of  chlordane -1.3  (mg/kg/day)"1
     See Section 4.2.2.5, i.

ii.  The total background intake of chlordane from all other sources of
    . exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.

     For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the incremental risk over
     background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was thus
     considered to be zero.

iii. Human body weight (BW)  - 70 kg.
     This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.  The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) — 1.
     Due to the lack of potency estimates from exposure to food chain
     contamination from chlordane, RE is considered equal to 1.

v.   The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS)  - 0 ug/g DW.
      See Section 4.3.2.7, v

vi.  The product of the uptake response slopes for chlordane in animal
     tissues (UA) times the daily dietary consumption of the animal tissues
     (DA) times the fraction of the food groups assumed to be derived from
     sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs from uptake (FA) is 3.53 g/day

     The uptake response slopes for chlordane in animal tissue (UA) are
     listed in Table 4-28.  The value chosen to represent beef fat is 0 04
     ug/g for body, the geometric mean of all of the body fat uptakes
                                 4-149

-------
                                                          PATHWAY 3
TABLE 4-28.  Uptake of Chlordane by Domestic and Wild Animals
Feed
Species Concentration
(N)' (ug/g DW)
Cattle (1) 1




10




100




Cattle (1) 1




Test Tissue
Tissue Concentration
Analyzed (ug/§ DW)
Milk fat 0.29
0.32
0.33
0.43
0.48
0.87
1.53
2.10
2.53
2.64
1.82
2.98
3.76
4.58
4.85
0.46
0.07
0.48
0.41
0.06
Uptake
Slopeb Reference
0.19° Dorough and Hemken
0.32C 1973 (pp. 213-15)
0.33C
0.43'
0.48°
0.09C
0.15°
0.21-2.2°
0.25'
0.26'
0.02C
0.03C
0.03C
0.05C
0.05C
0.46d ibid.
0.07d
0.48d
0.41d
0.06d

-------
                                                                                        PATHWAY 3
                                                TABLE 4-28. (Continued)
I
M
Ln
Feed
Species Concentration Tissue
(N)' (ug/g DW) Analyzed
Cattle (1) 10




Cattle (1) 100




Cattle (1) 1 Body fat

Cattle (1) 10

Cattle (1) 100

Cattle (1) 1

Test Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.14
0.18
0.27
0.30
0.22
0.30
0.37
0.56
0.67
0.47
0.24
0.47
1.40
1.18
2.65
3.97
0.11
0.07
Uptake
Slopeb
0.01d
0.02d
0.03d
0.03d
0.02d
0.003d
0.004d
0.006d
0.007d
0.005d
0.24C
0.47C
0.14C
0.12C
0.03C
0.04C
0 lld
0.07d
Reference
ibid.




ibid.




ibid.

ibid.

ibid.

ibid.


-------
                                                                                           PATHWAY  3
                                                 TABLE 4-28. (Continued)
Ln
N>

Species
(N)1
Cattle (1)
Cattle (1)
Rat


Feed
Concentration Tissue
(ug/g DW) Analyzed
10
100
1 Body fat
5
25
Test Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.16
0.11
0.30
0.37
3
15
75

Uptake
Slope6 References
0.02" ibid.
o.or1
0.003d ibid.
0 . 004d
3 EPA, 1980c (p. C-5)
3
3
       " N =• Number  of  experimental  animals,  if  reported.
       b Uptake  slope — y/x, where y — tissue concentration and x
       c Uptake  for  total  isomers.
       d Uptake  for  chlordane.
feed concentration.

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 3
      reported for beef (Dorough and Hemken,  1973).   This uptake slope is
      also used to calculate the uptake for beef liver,  because chlordane
      uptake data are not available for organ tissue in any herbivorous
      animal.   The uptake slope of 0.04 ug/g for lamb,  pork, poultry, and
      eggs is  the same as the value for beef body fat,  in lieu of any other
      herbivorous animal tissue uptake data.   The arithmetic mean of the
      uptake slopes for milkfat, 0.22 ug/g, was used to represent all dairy
      products (Dorough and Hemken, 1973) .

      For an explanation of the FA and DA for 25- to 30-year-old males, see
      Tables 4-34 and 4-35.
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
0.04
0.04

0.04
0.04
0.04

0.22
0.04
DA
26.979
0.394

0.344
19.252
1.835

30.148
1.321
FA
0.44
0.44

0.44
0.44
0.34

0.40
0.48
UA x DA x FA
0 47
0 01

0 01
0.34
0.02

2.65
0 03
       TOTAL                                                    3.53

vii.  The uptake response slope of pollutant in plant tissue found in the
      diet of grazing animals (UCG)  - 0.63 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1

      Given the limited information available on chlordane uptake in the
      plants that are normally found in the diet of grazing animals, corn
      silage was taken as representative of all these plants (see Table 4-
      29).   For corn silage grown in chlordane-treated soils, the highest
                                     4-153

-------
TABLE 4-29.   Uptake of Chlordane by Plants
                                                              PATHWAY  3
Soil Chemical Form Concentration
Plant Tissue Type Applied (ug/g)
Corn Plant Agricultural
Corn Silage Agricultural
Corn Grain Agricultural
Corn Stalk Agricultural
I
fX Soybean Plant Agricultural
Sugar beet Plant Agricultural
Sweet Plant Agricultural
potato
Sugar beet Root Loam (field)

Chlordane 0.053
Chlordane 0.18
(alpha and gamma)
Chlordane 0.17
(alpha and gamma)
Chlordane 0.17
(alpha and gamma)
Chlordane 0.02
(alpha and gamma)
Chlordane 1.233
(alpha and gamma)
Chlordane 0.28
(alpha and gamma)
Chlordane 0.187
0.67
Concentration
(ug/g) WW
<0.008
0.34
0.116b
0.008
0.020
<0.0001
<0.0003b
0.224
0.001
0.02
0.16b
0.08
0 63b
Uptake
Slope2
<0.15
0.19
0.63
0.05
0.12
<0.01
<0.015
0.18
<0.01
0.11
0.89
0.12
0.94
Reference
Fairchild, 1976
(P- 58)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Onsager et al . ,
1970 (p. 1,144)
ibid.

-------
                                                                                                       PATHWAY  3
                                             TABLE 4-29.   (Continued)
Soil Chemical form Concentration Concentration
Plant Tissue Type Applied (ug/g) (ug/g) w«
Sugarbeet Root Loam (field) Chlordane 1.28 0.
2.
2.90 0.
4.
4.42 0.
5.
4.14 1 .
8.
37
.91"
61
80"
73
75b
12
82"
Uptake
Slope'
0
2.
0
1
0.
1
0,
2,
.29
.28
.21
.66
.17
.30
.27
.13
Reference
Ibid.
Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

*  Uptake slope — y/x,  where y •= tissue concentration and x = soil  concentration.
'  Tissue concentration is in dry weight.   Adjustment assumes that  the  raw  sugar  beet has  the same water content as
  raw common red beets, which is 87.3%,  while corn silage is taken as  70%  water  (Barnes,  1976), raw soybeans
  (immature) are 69.2% water (USDA,  1963)

-------
                                                               PATHWAY  3
     uptake reported is 0.63 ug/g DW (ug/g soil DW)'1 (Fairchild,  L976),
     assuming a 70% moisture content and conversion from the wet plant
     tissue value reported to a dry weight basis for both soil and plant
     tissue concentrations (Barnes,  1976)
43.2.4   DDT/DDE/DDD

i.    The human cancer potency of DDT/DDE/DDD (qt*)  =0.34  (mg/kg/dayi
      The value of 0.34 (mg/kg/day)'1 was based on data for
      carcinogenicity tests in mice and applies to available residues of
      DDT, as well as its degradation products, DDE and ODD (EPA, 1985a'

ii.   The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
      exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.
      For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the incremental risk over
      background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was thus
      considered to be zero.

iii.  Human body weight (3W)  - 70 kg.
      This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.   The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) = 1.
      Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain
      contamination from DDT/DDE/DDD were available, RE was considered  to
      be equal to 1.

v.    The background soil concentration of pollutant  (BS) - 0 ug/g  DW.  See
      Section 4.2.2.7, xi.
                                 4-156

-------
                                                               PATHWAY  3
vi.   The total of the products of the uptake response slope of the
      pollutant in animal tissues (UA), times the daily dietary
      consumption of animal tissue food groups  (DA), times the fraction of
      the food group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or
      feedstuffs (FA) - 139.20 ug/day  for uptake.

      All of the animal tissue uptakes were derived from studies  listed in
      Table 4-30.  The geometric mean  of the range of values provided for
      beef fat is 4.57 (Connor, 1984)   No uptake data were available for
      DDT and its products for any organ tissue; therefore, the uptake for
      beef liver fat was assumed to be similar  to the value for beef fat,
      or 4.57.  The uptake factor for  lamb fat  is 3.11 (Connor, 1984;
      Fries, 1982).  No data were available for uptake of  this pesticide by
      any swine tissue, so the geometric mean of uptakes for lamb and sheep
      fat, 3.77, was used to represent pork fat.  The slope of 5  for
      chicken liver was used as a surrogate uptake for all poultry fat
      tissue in the human diet in lieu of' any other poultry tissue values
      (Bevenue, 1976).  The uptake for poultry  fat  is similar  to  the mean
      of the body fat uptakes for pheasants, cowbirds, and bald eagles, or
      1.6 (Edwards, 1970), but it is lower than the very high  uptakes of
      50.3 and 71.9 reported by McArthur et al. (1983) for dove body fat.
      The same value of 5 was used as  the uptake for eggs, because this is
      the only uptake available for any poultry tissue.  The geometric mean
      of the values reported for cattle milk fat, 3.77, was used  to
      represent the uptake factor for  the fatty portion of all dairy
      products (Fries, 1982).
                                   4-157

-------
                         TABLE 4-30.   Uptake of DDT, DDE, and ODD by Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                                                   PATHWAY 3
Ul
CO
Species
Cattle
Pheasant
Cowbird
Bald eagle



Dove
Dove
Kestral

Hen
Owl
Chemical
Form Fed
DDE
DDT-Rf
DDT
DDT



DDE
DDE
DDE
DDT
DDT
DDE
Tissue
Analyzed
Body fat
Body fat
Body fat
Brain
Liver
Fat
Muscle
Fat
Fat
Carcass
NR
Liver
Ca re ass
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NRC
10
500
5


800
1.67
4.61
6.0
6.0
0.05
3.01
Test Tissue
Concentration"
(ug/g DW)
NR
29.1
74-171
0.7
1.9
35.7
291.0
120"
232. Oe
35. 3£
489. T
0.25"
112. oc
Uptake
Slopeb
2.2-2.9"
2.9e
0.1-0. 3d
1.4'
0.38d
7.14d
0.36*
71.9
50.3
5.9
81.6
5.0
37 . 3
Reference
Connor, 1984
(P- 48)
Edwards, 1970
(p. 45)
ibid.
ibid.



McArthur et
al., 1982
(p. 345)

Rudolf et al . ,
1983 (p. 128)
ibid.
Bevenue, 1976
(p. 87)
Mendeiiha 1 1
at nl , 198 3

-------
                                        TAItLli 4-30.  (Continued)
                                                                                              PATHWAY

Species
Cow

Cow
Cow
Cow
*- Sheep
Ul

-------
                                                                PATHWAY
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef
Beef
(fat)
Lamb
Pork
Poult
(far)
Dairy
Eggs
(fat)
liver

(fat)
(fat)
ry

(fat)
(fat)
UA
4.
4,

3.
3.
5.

3.
5
,57
,57

,11
,77
,00

77
00
DA
26,
0,

0,
19.
1.

30.
1.
.979
.394

,344
,252
,835

.148
321
FA
0
0

0
0.
0

0
0
UA
.44
.44

.44
44
.34

.40
.48
x DA x
54.
0.

0.
31
3.

45 .
3
FA
25
79

47
.94
12

46
17
      TOTAL                                                  139.20
vii.  The uptake response slope of pollutant in plant  tissue  found  in  the
      diet of grazing animals (UC0) - 0.61 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)';

      The. highest uptake factor reported for a crop in the diet of  a
      herbivorous animal is 0.52 ug/g tissue WW (ug/g  soil DW)'1 reported b
      Harris and Sans (1969) for corn (see Table 4-14)   Assuming z'r.az
      field corn is 13.8% water (USDA, 1985), conversion of the uptake  to
      DW tissue/DW soil value yields an uptake of 0.61 ug/g tissue  DW
      (ug/g DW)-1 soil.
43.2.5   Heptachlor (HEPC)

i.     The human cancer potency (q^)  of  heptachlor - 9.1 (mg/kg/day)''1
      See Section 4.1.3.6, i.

ii.    The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
      exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.
                                  4-160

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
      For all carcinogenic chemicals,  only the incremental risk over
      background is being evaluated.   The total background intake was thus
      considered to be zero.

iii.   Human body weight (BW)  =- 70 kg.
      This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.   The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) = L.
      Due to the lack of potency estimates from exposure to food chain
      contamination from heptachlor,  RE was considered equal to 1.

v.    The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) = 0 ug/g DW
      The background soil concentrations of all organic sludge pollutants
      were considered to be zero.
      See Section 4.3.2.10, v.

vi.   The total of the products of the uptake response slope of the
      pollutant in animal tissues (UA),  times the daily dietary consumption
      of animal tissue food groups (DA),  times the fraction of the food
      group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs
      from uptake  (FA) - 151.57 ug/day for adherence.

      All of the animal tissue uptakes are derived from studies listed in
      Table 4-31.  The heptachlor uptake for beef fat, 4.94, is the
      geometric mean of the values for cattle body fat reported by Bruce ec
      al. (1965), Bovard et al.  (1971) and Connor (1984)   Because no data
      were available for beef liver tissue, the uptake is assumed to be
      similar to that reported for beef body fat, or 4.94.  Because no data
      were available for eggs, the uptake for chicken fat is assumed to be
      similar to the uptake for the lipid portion of eggs.  The uptake for
      dairy fat, 4.27, is the geometric mean of the values for heptachlor
      uptakes in milk fat from studies by Bruce et al. (1965) and by Bache
                                   4-161

-------
TABLE 4-31.   Uptake of Heptachlor by Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                          PATHWAY 3
Chemical
Species Form Tissue
(N)" Fed Analyzed
Dairy cow Heptachlor Milk fat
(2) epoxide


I
f~*
o\
Dairy cow Heptachlor Body fat
(2) epoxide


Dairy cow Heptachlor Milk fat
epoxide
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.2
0.5
1.5
10.0
50.0
0.5
1.5
10.0
50.0
0.5
Test Tissue
Concentration11
(ug/g DW)
4.25
11.25
21.7
119.7
460.0
7.1
14 7
83.5
293.4
0.38
Uptake
Slope0 Reference
21.25 Bruce et al. ,
1965 (p. 64)
22.5
14.5
11.9
9.2
14.2 ibid.
9.8
8.4
5.9
0 76 Bache et al. ,
1960 (as cited
                                                              in Bruce et al
                                                              1965)
                      1 .0
1.94
1 .94

-------
TABLE 4-31.  (Continued)
                                                       PATHWAY 3
Species
(N)1
Woodcock


Steers
(20)
Cattle

Chicken
(1)

Chicken
(1)

Chicken
(1)

Chicken
(1)

Chemical
Form
Fed
Heptachlor
epoxide

Heptachlor
epoxide
Heptachlor

Heptachlor
(technical
grade)
Heptachlor
(technical
grade)
Heptachlor
(technical
grade)
Heptachlor
(technical
grade)
Tissue
Analyzed
Body fat


Body fat

Body fat

Body fat


Body fat


Body fat


Body fat-


Feed Test Tissue
Concentration Concentration"1 Uptake
(ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) Slope' Reference
0.65 1.7 2.6 Stickel et al.,
1965 (p. 239)
4.5
0.19 0.6-1.2 0.65-6.3 Bovardetal.,
1971 (p. 29)
NRd NRd 3.8 Connor, 1984
(P- 48)
0.010 0.100" 10.0 Wagstaff et al . ,
1980

0.031 0.200" 6.45 ibid.


0.308 1.700" 5.52 ibid.


0.308 0.250" 0.81 ibid.



-------
                                          TABLE 4-31.   (Continued)
                                                                                                   PATHWAY 3
Species
  (N)"
            Chemical
              Form        Tissue
              Fed        Analyzed
     Feed        Test Tissue
Concentration  Concentration6    Uptake
  (ug/g DW)       (ug/g DU)       Slope'
            Reference
Chicken      Heptachlor      Liver
(1)          (technical
               grade)

Chicken      Heptachlor   Muscle fat
(910)        (technical
               grade)
                                            0.308
                                            0.308
                   20.50011
                    0.170"
68.60
 0.55
ibid.
ibid.
N - Number of experimental animals,  if reported
Conversion from wet  weight  to  dry - {l/(100-% water in tissue fat] x 100, where % water  in  fat  tissue
adipose is 20, liver is 80; muscle  is 76%.  Source:  Spector, 1976; USDA, 1963.
Uptake slope — y/x, where y - tissue concentration, x - feed concentration.
NR - Not reported.
                                                                                                          in

-------
                                                               PATHWAY  3


      et al.  (1960).  Because no data were available for pork or  lamb fat,
      the uptake of 4.19, derived as the mean of the uptakes for  beef and
      poultry fat, is used as a reasonable estimate for these food groups.

      For an explanation of the FA and DA values, see Tables 4-34 and 4-35
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef
Beef
(fat)
Lamb
Pork
(fat)
liver

(fat)
(fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy
Eggs

(fat)
(fat)
UA
4.
4.

4.
4.
3.

4.
3.
94
94

19
19
55

.27
,55
DA
26.
0.

0
19
1.

30
1
.979
.394

.344
.252
.835

.148
.321
FA UA x DA
0.
0,

0.
0.
0,

0,
0,
,44
.44

.44
.44
.34

.40
.48
58
0

0
35
2.

51
2.
x FA
.64
.86

.53
.49
.21

.49
.25
         TOTAL                                                 151.57

vii.  The uptake response slope of pollutant in plant  tissue  found  in  the
      diet of grazing animals  (UCG) - 0.036 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g DW)'1 soil.
      Of the plants for which  uptake factors were available for heptachlor,
      alfalfa was the only one that is commonly fed  to grazing animals  ^ses
      Table 4-15).  The uptake factor reported by Edwards  (1970)  is  0.036
      ug/g tissue (ug/g soil)'1.


43.2.6   Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)

i.    The human cancer potency (qt*)  -  1.67 (mg/kg/day)"1.
      This value is based upon hepatocellular carcinoma response  in rats
      (EPA, 1985e).
                                  4-165

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
ii.    The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
      exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.
      For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the incremental risk over
      background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was thus
      considered to be zero.

iii.  Adult human body weight (BW) - 70 kg.
      This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.    The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) - 1.
      Due to the lack of potency estimates from exposure to food chain
      contamination from HCB,  RE was considered equal to 1.

v.    The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) - 0 ug/g DW.
      See Section 4.3.2.10, v.

vi.    The total of the products of the uptake response slope of the
      pollutant in animal tissue (UA),  times the daily dietary consumption
      of animal tissue food groups  (DA),  times the fraction of the food
      group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs
      from uptake (FA) = 120.52 ug/day

      The FA and DA values are the  same as those provided  in Section
      4.3.2.10, Tables 4-34 and 4-35.

      All of the animal tissue uptakes were derived from studies listed in
      Table 4-32.  The uptake slope chosen for beef, 3.0,  is the mean of
      the midpoint values for beef  fat in a report by Fries and Marrow
      (1975).  Because no data were available for any beef organ tissue,
      the 'same uptake slope was used for beef liver fat as for beef  fat.
      The uptake slope of 7.0 for lamb is the geometric mean of  the  uptakes
                                   4-166

-------
TABLE 4-32.  Uptake of Hexachlorobenzene by Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                            PATHWAY 3
Species Tissue
(N)' Analyzed
Chicken, Fat
broiler
Chicken, Fat
hen
Chicken Eggs
Rhesus Fat
monkey
male (l)b
female (1)" Fat

Cow 3" Milk fat



Sheep Body fat


Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)b
NR"
NR
NR
1


0.62
0.62
3.1
3.1
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
Test Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
6.
9.
23.
4.
10.
18.
2.
1.
8.
8.
0.
7.
7.
650.



6
2
7
3
7
1
10C
90C
77C
53C
9
5
5
0
Uptake
Slope' Reference
11-13 Connor, 1984
(p. 48)
21-38 ibid.
4.5-6.5 ibid.
6.6 Rozraan et al.,
23.7 1978 (p. 181)
4.3-18.1
10.7
18.1
3.1-3.9 Fries and Marrow,
1975 (p. 477)
2.6-3.4
2.2-3.8
2.0-3.7
6 . 5 Booth and
McDowell,
7.5 1975 (p. 593)
7.5
6.5

-------
                                                 TABLE 4-32.  (Continued)
                                                                                                         PATHWAY  3
CTi
Co
Species Tissue
(N)" Analyzed
Chicken Body fat




Egg yolks



Egg

Japanese Liver
quail Brain


Liver

Mice

Rat


Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)b
0.02

0.08
0.7
7.0
0.02
0.08
0.7
7.0
10.0
100.0
5(1)"
5(l)b
1.0
1.4
68.9
56.0
167.0
56.0
8.0


Test Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.7


5.0
29.0
0.2
0.3
2.0
15.0
20.0
140.0
6.9
8.6




68.9

83.0
17.0
125.0
Uptake
Slope'
35.0

87.5
7.1
4.1
10.0
3.8
2.9
2.1
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.7
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
10.4
2.1
15.6
Reference
Booth and
McDowell,
1975 (p. 593)






EPA, 1980e

EPA, 1980e
(p. 110)




ibid.

EPA, 1980e
(p. c-113)

      * ti  =  Number  of experimental, animals.

      b Chemical  form fed was HCB.
      c Uptake factor •= y/x,  where y — animal tissue concentration,
      J NR = Not  reported.
and x = feed concentration..

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
      of HCB reported for sheep fat, the only sheep tissue for which values
      were available (Booth and McDowell, 1975).  The literature showed no
      uptake testing of HCB in swine, so the uptake value for pork fat is
      4.6, the geometric mean of the values for beef and lamb fat.  The
      uptake values for poultry fat ranged widely from 4.1 to 87.5 in a
      study by Connor (1984).   The mean of all of the values for chicken
      fat reported by Booth and McDowell (1975) was 18.4   The geometric
      mean of all of the values for chicken fat, 5.9, was selected to
      represent poultry uptake (Connor, 1984)   The uptake for dairy
      products, 3.2, is the mean for milk fat, the only dairy product
      tested (Fries and Marrow, 1975)   The mean of the value for whole
      eggs, 5.4, was reported for egg yolks, the fraction of whole eggs
      with the highest lipid content and, therefore, the greatest potential
      for bioaccumulation of organic chemicals (Booth and McDowell, 1975)
      The geometric mean of the uptake values for egg yolks and eggs
      reported by Connor (1984) and the EPA (1980e) is 3.3.
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs
UA
3.
3.

7.
4
5.

3
3.
.0
.0

.0
.6
.9

.2
.3
DA
26.
0.

0.
19.
i

30
1.
,979
.394

.344
.252
.335

.148
.321
FA
0,
0.

0,
0.
0

0
0
UA x DA x FA
,44
.44

.44
.44
.34

.40
.48
35
0

1
38
3

38
2
.61
.52

.06
.97
.68

.59
.09
      TOTAL                                              120.52

vii.  The uptake response slope of pollutant in the plant tissue found  in
      the diet of grazing animals (UCG) -0.25 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g DW)~l
      soil.
                                  4-169

-------
                                                                PATHWAY  3
      The uptake rate for grass leaves higher than 5 cm is selected as  the
      worst-case HCB value for a crop typically; found in an herbivorous
      animal's diet (Connor, 1984).  This value of 0.25 ug/g  tissue DW
      (ug/g soil DW)"1 was calculated by dividing the reported uptake of
      0.03 based on the wet weight of tissue/dry weight of soil by 0.12.
      The other values for grass were not used in the calculation, because
      they involved portions of the plant that do not constitute a major
      portion of the grazing animal's diet.
43.2.7   Mercury (Hg)

i.    The risk reference dose (RfD) =- 0.0003 mg/kg/day.
      See Section 4.1.3.9, i.

ii.   The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
      exposure (TBIJ  - 0.006 mg/day
      See Section 4.1.3.9, v

iii.  Human body weight (BW) =- 70 kg.
      This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.   The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure  (RE) = L.
      Because no potency estimates from exposure  to food chain
      contamination from mercury are available, RE is considered  equal
      to 1.

v.    The total of the products of  the uptake response  slope  of the
      pollutant in animal tissue  (UA) times  the daily  dietary consumption
      of animal tissue food  groups  (DA)  times the fraction of the food
                                   4-l70

-------
                                                         PATHWAY 3
group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs
(FA) - 25.11 ug/day for uptake.

All of the animal tissue uptakes are derived from studies Listed in
Table 4-33.  The uptake response slope for beef of 0.002 is the mean
of the values from the two sludge studies of cattle muscle reported
by Johnson et al.  (1981) and Vreman et al.  (1986)   Data from the
studies on beef muscle, liver, and milk by Vreraan (1986) in which
cattle were fed only mercury salt, but not crops grown on sludge-
amended soil, were not included in the calculations because they
represent worst-case conditions that are not being regulated.  The
uptake for beef liver of 0.02 is the mean of three values on beef
liver from sludge studies by Johnson et al. (1981), Vreman et al.
(1986), and Baxter et al. (1983).  The uptake for milk of 0.007,
reported by Vreman et al. (1986) for a sludge study, was used to
represent all dairy products.  The uptake for lamb of 0.0014 is the
only sludge value reported for this tissue (Van der Veen and Vreman,
1986) .  No sludge studies are available for mercury uptakes in
poultry, so the value for poultry of 2.33 was derived from a mercury
salt study by Finley and Stendell (1978) for duck muscle uptake.
The uptake of 2.88 for duck eggs from the same report was used to
represent all avian eggs in the human diet.  No mercury uptake data
were available for swine, so the geometric mean of the values for
beef, lamb, and pork, 0.019, was used to represent pork.
                             4-171

-------
                               TABLE 4-33.  Uptake of Mercury by Wild and Domestic Animals
                                                                                                      PATHWAY 3
 I
M

NJ
Feed
Chemical Concentration Tissue
Species Form Fed (ug/g DW) Analyzed
Duckling HgCl <0.05 Egg
(female) 2.92

<0.05
3.41

<0.05 Liver
2.92

<0.05
3.41

<0.05 Muscle
2.92

<0.05
3.41

<0.0'j
3 . 00

Control
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
<0.05
NRC

0.09
(0.07)

<-0.05
NRC

0.05
NRC

0.05
NRC

0.03
NRC

<0.05
NRC

Test Tissue
Concentration" Uptake
(ug/g DW) Slopeb Reference
NR' 2.88 Finley and
8.30 Stendell, 1978
(6.14)' ' (pp. 56 - 60)
NRC 1.53
5.22
(3 86)d
NRC 7 . 08
20.37
(14.46)J
NRC 4.27
14.41
(10.23)"
NRC 3.06
8.84
(6.19)J
NRC 2.29
7.71
(5.40)d
NRC 7.05
20.84
(16.05)J

-------
TABLE 4-33.  (Continued)
                                                      PATHWAY 3
Feed Control Test Tissue
Chemical Concentration Tissue Concentration Concentration* Uptake
Species Form Fed (ug/g DW) Analyzed (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) Slope11 Reference
Cattle Sludge 0.0
11.5
0.0
11.5
0.0
11.5
Mink Methyl 0.0
*- mercury
UJ
0.0
Duck HgCl <0.05
(male)
3.0
(female) HgCl <0.05
1 0
Liver <0.01
NRC
Kidney 0.09
NRC
Muscle <0.01
NRC
Liver 0.39
(0.28)d
210.16
(155. 6)d
0.07
Muscle
(0.05)d
Liver 0.18
(0.13)d
<0.05
NRC
NRC 0.023 Johnson et al.,
0.27 1981 (p. 112)
NRC 0.17
2.04
NRC 0.0001
0.02
NR' 43.75 Auerlich et al .
1974 (p. 48)
NRC
NRC 7.19
36.00
(25.2)a
NAC 10.12 ibid.
30.04
(21.33)d
NRC 11.0
32.49
(23.0/)J

-------
                                                TABLE 4-33. (Continued)
                                                                                                       PATHWAY 3
-fN
I
Species
Duck
(male)


Duck
(female)
Duck
(male)





•

Cattle






Feed
Chemical Concentration Tissue
Form Fed (ug/g DW) Analyzed

HgCl <0.05 Muscle
3.0

HgCl <0.05
3.0
HgCl <0.05 Kidney
3.0
0 Kidney

5.0

0.0 Kidney
5.0

Mercury 0.2-1.7 Milk
acetate
added to
feed 1.2-3.1

0. 2- J . 1 Liver

Control
Concentration
(ug/g DW)

<0.05
NRC

<0 05
NRC
0.06
NRC
0.88
(0.68)d
NRC

0.16
NRC

NRC


NRC

NRC

Test Tissue
Concentration" Uptake
(ug/g DW) Slopeb Reference

NRC 1 . 94
5.76
(4.03)J
o'-lll '
NRC 2.17
(4.51)J
NRC 4.89
14.49
NRC 9.62

48.96
(37.7)J
NRC 8.37
41.98
(32.1,,
0.0039- 0.12 Vreman et al. , 1986
0.-0715

0.0101- 0.007
0.0190
0.001- 0 015
0.033

-------
                                                TABLE 4-33. (Continued)
                                                                                                         PATHWAY  3
I
M
Ul
Feed
Chemical Concentration Tissue
Species Form Fed (ug/g DW) Analyzed
1.2-3.1

<0. 005-0 4

Cattle 0.20-0.024
0.02-L.7 Muscle

0.20-2.6

Lamb Mercury 0.02-0.30
acetate
added to'
feed
Control
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NRC

NRC

NRC
NRC

NRC

NRC


Test Tissue
Concentration"
(ug/g DW)
0.0030-
0.0046
0.01-
0.027
<0.01- 02
0.005-
0.001
0.003-
0.02
0.0003-


Uptake
Slopeb Reference
0.002

1.29 Baxter et al. , 1983

0.26
0.009 Vreman et
al. , 1986
0.004

0.006 Van der Veen and
0.0008 Vreman, 1986


        When tissue values were  reported as wet weight,  a  moisture content of  77% was assumed for kidney,  71%  for
        liver, 74% for egg, and 70% for muscle.  These  are  the geometric means of the worst-case  values  reported by
        the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1963)
        Uptake slope: y/x; y = animal  tissue concentration; x -  feed concentration.
        NR = Not reported.
        Reported wet weight.

-------
                                                          PATHWAY  3
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef
Beef liver
Lamb
Pork
Poultry
Diary
Eggs
UA
0.
0,
0.
0,
2.
0.
2.
.002
.02
.0014
.019
.33
.007
.88
DA
56.
1.
0.
32.
10.
83.
11.
.174
.837
.675
700
969
.171
.467
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FA
.44
.44
.44
.44
.34
.40
.48
UA x DA x FA
0.
0,
0.
0,
8.
0,
15
.05
.02
.0004
.27
,69
.23
.85
TOTAL                                               25.11
»

For an explanation of the  fraction of  the animal  diet  assumed to  be
from soil  (FL) or sludge  (FS) for the  agricultural  and D&M sludge
use MEIs,  see Section 4.4.3.1 of the Land Application  Risk
Assessment Methodology  (EPA, 1989)   The age  and  gender population
is selected  for  the group  having the highest  daily  consumption for
each animal-derived food  group have the highest overall consumption
compared to  the  other groups represented.  Table  4-34  describes the
fraction of  the  food group assumed to  be derived  from  sludge-amended
soil or sludge for pathways 3 and 4.   Table 4-35  lists the daily
dietary consumption of  animal tissue food groups  for the age  and  sex
group having the highest  consumption for each food  group.   The
uptake response  slopes  for metals are  reported on a dry-weight basis
for the entire tissue.  The dry-weight consumption,  therefore,
includes both the lean  and the fat values.  For organics,  the uptake
response slope is usually only for. the lipid  portion.   The
consumption  for  organics  would, therefore, only be  for the fat
contribution.
                             4-176

-------
                                                                                                PATHWAY  3
               TABLE 4-34.  Exposure Pathways for Herbivorous Animals for Human Consumption:
                             Effects of Management Practice on Various Parameters
Pathway
Uptake
Adherence

Management Practice
Row or pasture crops
Pasture crops, with
soil incorporation
Pasture crops,
without soil
incorporation
Dietary
Form in Diet
Grain, grass,
other animal
feeds
Sludge -amended
soil and roots
Pure sludge on
plant surfaces
and in thatch
layer
Animal Products
Affected
Beef liver, beef
Lamb , pork
Dairy
Poultry, eggs
Beef, lamb only
Dairy
Beef, lamb only
Dairy
FAa
0.44
0.40
0.34
0.48
0.44
0.40
0.44
0.40
Form of
FS/FSb Criterion
NAC RPd
FL=0 . 10 RP
FS-0.30 RSC*
or 0.08'
*  Fraction of food group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil  or  feedstuffs.
'  Fraction of the animal diet assumed to be from sludge.
c  Not applicable.
d  Reference application rate of pollutant.
e  Reference sludge concentration.
1  Choice of value depends on whether or not a 30-day waiting period is employed before  grazing or harvest.
Source:  EPA, 1989

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY 3
           TABLE 4-35.  Highest Average Daily Human Consumption of
                        Animal Products (DA) by Age and Sex
Animal Product
Daily Consumption
   (g DW/day)
Age (Yr)    Sex
Meats
Beef
Beef fat
Beef liver
Beef liver fat
Lamb
Lamb fat
Pork
Pork fat
Poultry
Poultry fat
Dairy
Dairy fat
Eggs
Egg fat
29.194
26.979
1,443
0.394
0.332
0.344
13.447
19.252
9.133
1.835
53.022
30.148
10.146
1.321
25-30
25-30
60-65
60-65
25-30
25-30
25-30
25-30
25-30
25-30
14-16
6-11
60-65
60-65
Males
Males
Males
Males
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Females
Males
Males and females
Males
Males
Source:  EPA,  1989.   Based on  a reanalysis of the RDA Revised Total Diet Food
         List (Pennington,  1983; FDA, 1982).
                                     4-178

-------
                                                               PATHWAY  3
vi.   The uptake response slope of pollutant in plant  tissue  found  in  the
      diet of grazing animals  (UCG) - 0.04 ug/g tissue DW  (kg/ha'1 soil)
      Bull et al.  (1977), Elfving et al.  (1978), Hogg  et al.  (1978), John
      (1973), Lindberg et al.  (1979), MacLean  (1974) and Weaver  et  al.
      (1984) examined the effects of mercury compounds on  plants  (see
      Table 4-18).  The crops  studies by  Haney and Lipsey  (1973)  were
      grown in nutrient solution so data  reported for  this  study  are not
      analogous to the uptakes by plants  grown in sludge-amended  soils;
      thus these data were not included in the analyses.

      In the studies by Bull et al. (1977) and Lindberg et  al.  (1979),
      plants were  contaminated with mercury compounds  from  industrial
      emissions, resulting in  abnormally  high mercury  concentrations.
      Therefore, these values  are not considered representative  of  the
      uptake rates observed  in plants grown in sludge-amended  soil.

      The highest  uptake slopes for a crop in  the diet of  herbivorous
      animals that are in the  human food  chain are 0.025 and  0.064  ug/g
      [kg/ha]"1, reported by Weaver et al.  (1984) for a salt/pot study on
      Bermuda grass leaves.  The pH values of  the two  tested  soils, 4.7
      and 7.6, bracket the usual agricultural  soil pH  of 6  that  is  being
      regulated; therefore,  the geometric mean of these two uptakes, 0.04
      ug/g  [kg/ha]"1, is used to represent UC.  This value  is also very
      similar to the uptake  for bromegrass, 0.039 ug/g  [kg/ha]"'1,  reported
      for a sludge/pot study by Hogg et al.  (1978) at  an unreported pH.
43.2.8   Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

i.    The human cancer potency  (qi*) - 7.7 (mg/kg/day)'1.
      See Section 4.1.3.11,  i.

                                  4-179

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
ii.    The total background intake of pollutants from all other sources of
      exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.

      For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the incremental risk over
      background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was thus
      considered to be zero.
iii.  Adult human body weight (BW) - 70 kg.
      This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.    The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) - 1.
      Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain
      contamination from PCBs were available, RE was considered to be
      equal to 1.

v.    The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) — 0 ug/g DW.
      See Section 4.3.2.7, v.

vi.    The total of the products of the uptake response slope of the
      pollutant in animal tissues (UA),  times the daily dietary
      consumption of animal tissue food groups (DA), times the fraction of
      the food group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or
      feedstuffs (FA) =• 145.58 ug/day for uptake.

      All of the animal tissue uptakes were derived from studies  listed in
      Table 4-36.   The only animal tissue for which PCB uptake data are
      available is cattle body fat.  The geometric mean of the body fat
      uptakes for PCBs, 4.0, was therefore used to represent the  fat
      uptake factors for the fatty portions of beef, beef  liver,  lamb,
      pork, poultry, and eggs (Connor, 1984; Fries et al., 1973).   The
      geometric mean of all of the PCB uptake factors for  milk  fat, 4.8,
      was assumed to be similar to the uptakes for all dairy products  in
                                  4-180

-------
                  TABLE 4-36.  Uptake of Pulychlorinated Biphenyls by Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                                                      PATHWAY 3
00
Feed Test Tissue
Chemical Tissue Concentration Concentration
Species Form Fed Analyzed (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
Cattle PCBs Milk fat NRb NR
Arochlor 1254 Body fat NR NR
Milk fat 12.4 60.9
0.87 3.7
0.43 1.8
0.22 1.0
Cow Arochlor 1254 (9) Milk fat 12.4 56.6-70.6
(geometric
mean - 58 . 3)
Body fat 12.4 25.3-60.2
(geometric
mean = 40 . 1)
Uptake
Slope" Reference
4.5-4.9 Connor, 1984
(p. 48)
3.5-5.5
4.9 Fries, 1982
(p. 15)
4:3
4.2
4.5
4.7C Fries et al . ,
1973 (pp. 118-
119)
3.2£
"Uptake  slope is y/x ,  where y
6NR  = Not reported.
'Based on mean test  tissue i.o
                                   - animal tissue concentration and x =  feed concentration.

-------
                                                                PATHWAY  3
      lieu of more specific data (Connor, 1984; Fries,  1982;  Fries  et  al.
      1973).
      For an explanation of the FA and DA values, see Tables  4-34  and
      4-35.
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
4.
4,

4,
4,
4.

4.
4.
.0
.0

,0
,0
0

.8
,0
DA
26
0.

0.
19
1.

30.
1.
.979
.394

.344
.252
.835

,148
,321
0
0.

0
0
0.

0,
0,
FA
.44
.44

.44
.44
.34

,40
,48
UA x
47
0

0
33
2,

57
2,
DA x FA
48
.69

.61
.88
.50

.88
.54
      TOTAL                                              145.58

vii.  The uptake response slope of pollutant in plant  tissue  found  in  t:he
      diet of grazing animals  (UCG) =0.25 ug/g tissue DW  (ug/g DW)'1 soil.

      The highest uptake for a crop in the diet of a grazing  animal (see
      Table 4-20) is 0.25 ug/g tissue DW  (ug/g DW)"1 reported  for  fescue in
      a study by.Strek and Weber  (1980)

      Webber et al. (1983) reported that  PCB uptake for  corn  leaves grown
      in sludge-amended soil ranged from  0.08 to 0.38, but the  average is
      0.15 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1.  The uptake slope  reported  for
      oat plants by the same investigator is a higher  value,  but  this
      value takes into account a  portion  of the plant  that is not usually
      consumed by grazing animals.
                                  4-182

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
43.2.9   Selenium (Se)

I.    The risk reference dose  (RfD) for selenium - 0.0045 mg/kg/day
      See 4.1.3.12, i.

ii.   The total background intake rate of selenium from all  sources  of
      exposure (TBI)  for adults  (TBIJ  - 0.141 mg/day and for toddlers
      (TBIt)  -  0.052 mg/day.
      See 4.1.3.12, v.

iii.  Human body weight  (BW) - 70 kg.
      This is  the average weight of an adult  male.

iv.   The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure  (RE)  -  1.
      Because  no potency estimates from exposure to  food chain
      contamination from selenium exist, RE was considered equal  to  1.

v.    The total of the products  of the uptake response  slope of  the
      pollutant is animal tissue (UA), times  the daily  dietary consumption
      of animal tissue food  groups (DA), times  the fraction  of the  food
      group  assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or  feedstuffs
      (FA)-  41.50 ug/day for uptake.

      All of the animal  tissue uptakes were derived  from studies  listed in
      Table  4-37.  Because no  data were available on the uptake  of
      selenium in beef,  the  geometric mean of 0.55 for  the muscle tissue
      of guinea pigs  (Furr et  al., 1976b). and pigs (NAS, 1980) was  used as
      a surrogate for all herbivorous animals (after conversion  of  the
      swine  tissue data  to dry weights).  This  value was also  used  to
                                   4-183

-------
                                                                                      PATHWAY 3
            TABLE 4-37.   Uptake of Selenium by Domestic and Wild Animals
Range (N)a
of Feed Tissue
Chemical Concentrations Tissue
Species Form Fed (ug/g DW) Analyzed
Rat Se 0-0.25 (4) Liver

Mouse Selenite 0.1-3 (2) Heart
^ Liver
00
Kidney
Spleen
Selenite 0.1-3 (2) Heart
Liver
Kidney
Spleen
Guinea pig Se in 0.05-0.08 (3) Liver
Control Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DW) Slopeb
0.40 2.75

0.24 0.33
0.54 0.69

1.19 0.24
0.8 1.31
0.19 0.09
0.22 0.18
0.56 0.11
0.19 0.13
1.12'- 10. ld
Reference
Harr et al . ,
1978
(pp. 430-431)
Schroeder and
Kitchener. 1972
(p. 69)




Ibid. , p. 70



Furr et al . ,
Swiss
chard
                        1976b (pp.  87-88)
                              Muscle
0.38C
2.07J

-------
                                                TABLE 4-37.   (Continued)
                                                                                                          PATHWAY 3
oo
Ln
Species
Pig


Pig
Chemical
Form Fed
Sodium
selenite


Natural
diet
Range (N)'
of Feed Tissue
Concentrations
(ug/g DW)
0.04-0.44 (2)'


0.027-0.493 (2)
Tissue
Analyzed
Liver
Muscle
Kidney
Muscle
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR'
NR
NR
NR
Uptake
Slopeb
0.575
0.9
0.075
1.058
Reference
NAS, 1980
(P- 399)


NAS. 1980
(p. 399)
         N — Number of  feed concentrations,  including control.
          Uptake slope — y/x,  where y — tissue concentration,  and x - plant  concentration.
          ug/g tissue  DW.
          y and x both in DW.
          0.04 represents a selenium-deficient diet,  0.44 represents a selenium-sufficient  diet.
          NR - Not reported.
          Only the ranges of dietary arid  tissue  concentrations  were reported.   Because  diet  and tissue levels were
          highly correlated (r — 0.95),  to  compute the slope from these ranges  it was assumed  that the highest tissue
          concentration occurred with the highest diet,  and the  lowest with  the  lowest.

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
      represent the uptakes for lamb, poultry, eggs, and dairy  in  lieu of
      more specific information for these food groups.  The uptake  for
      pork, 0.28, is the geometric mean of the two values reported  by NAS
      (1980) for pig muscle after conversion of the data to dry weights.
      The uptake factor used to represent beef liver, 0.42, was derived
      from the geometric mean of the liver values for mice  (Schroeder and
      Kitchener, 1972), rats (Harr et al.,  1978), pigs  (NAS,  1980)  and
      guinea pigs (Furr et al., 1976b) after conversion of  the  tissue data
      to dry weights.

      For an explanation of the FA and DA values, see Tables  4-34  and
      4-35.
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef
Beef liver
Lamb
Pork
Poultry
Diary
Eggs

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UA
.55
.42
.55
.28
.55
.55
.55

56
1
0
32
10
83
11
DA
.174
.837
.675
.700
.969
.171
.467

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FA
.44
.44
.44
.44
.34
.40
.48
UA x
13.
0
0.
4.
2
18.
3.
DA x FA
.59
34
16
.03 .
.05
,30
.03
      TOTAL                                              41.50

vi.   The uptake response slope of pollutant  in  plant  tissue  found in the
      diet of grazing animals  (UCG) =0.09 ug/g  tissue DW  (ug/g  soil  DW)'1.

      No studies are available on selenium uptake  for  the  plants that are
      found in the diet of herbivorous animals  (see  Table  4-22).
      Therefore, the geometric mean of all of the  values  for  leafy
      vegetables, 0.09 ug/g DW (ug/g DW)"1, was used  as a surrogate to
                                   4-186

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
      represent the uptake of crops such as grasses in the diet of grazing
      animals (Cappon, 1981).
43.2.10  Toxaphene (TOX)

i.    The human cancer potency (qi*)  of toxaphene  =• 1.13  (mg/kg/day)'1
      The cancer potency was derived by the EPA (1980h) based on a
      carcinogenicity study by Litton Bionetics (1978, as cited in EPA,
      1980h).  In this study the incidence of hepatocellular carcinomas
      and neoplastic nodules was significantly increased among male mice
      that were fed diets containing 50 ug/g of toxaphene for 18 mon.

ii.   The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources  of
      exposure (TBI) - 0.
      For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the incremental risk over
      background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was  thus
      considered to be zero.

iii.  Human body weight (BW) - 70 kg.

     This is  the average weight  of  an  adult male.

iv.   The relative effectiveness of  ingestion exposure (RE) - 1.
      Because no potency estimates  from exposure  to food chain
      contamination from toxaphene  are available,  RE  is considered to  be
      equal to 1.

v.    The background soil concentration of pollutant  (BS) - 0 ug/g DW.
      See 4.3.2.7, v.
                                   4-187

-------
                                                                PATHWAY  3
vi.   The total of the products of the uptake response  slope  of the
      pollutant in animal tissues (UA), times the  daily dietary
      consumption of animal tissue food groups  (DA),  times  the  fraction
      of food group assumed to be derived from  sludge-amended soil or
      feedstuffs from uptake  (FA) - 18.27 ug/day.

      Whenever values are available for uptakes of organic  chemicals  for
      both fat and nonfat tissue, the more conservative choice  is usually
      the fat value for lipophilic compounds.   Therefore, the uptake  in
      ..at was chosen over that for the lean portion for all of  the
      following meat groups.  All of the animal tissue  uptakes  were
      derived from studies listed in Table 4-38.   The uptake  of toxaphene
      in beef fat is the geometric mean of the  values for steer and cow
      fat, 0.85, that were reported by Pollock  and Kilgore  (1978) and
      EPA (1979).  Because no data were available  on beef liver,  the
      uptake of its fatty portion was assumed to be similar to  that for
      beef, or 0.85.  The uptake for lamb fat,  0.74,  is the mean of the
      two values for sheep fat (Pollock and Kilgore,  1978)    The uptake
      for milk fat, 0.02, is  the median of the  range reported by EPA
      (1979).  Because no data were available on the uptake of  toxaphene
      in eggs, poultry, or pork, the geometric  mean of  the  values for  beef
      and lamb fat, 0.79, was used to represent the fatty portion of  these
      tissues as well.

      For an explanation of the FA and DA values,  see Tables  4-34 and
      4-35.
                                   4-188

-------
                                                                                                         PATHWAY 3
                               TABUi 4-38.  Uptake of Toxuphenc by domestic and Wilt) Animals
JN
I
Feed
Conceu-
Chemical Tissue traLiou
Species Form Fed Analysed (ug/g 1>U)
Steer Toxaphene Abdominal 306
in hay fat
Subcutaneous
fat
Lean meat
Sheep Abdominal
fat
Subcutaneous
fat
Leau meat
Cow Toxaphene' Perirenal 13U
in feed fat

Toxaphene Milk 250
in hay
82


Cow Toxaphene Milk 10
in feed 20
140
Mammals Toxaphene NH1' tl\l
in teed
Test Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DU) Slope'
772
618
18-35
317
162
21-51
88

13
0.5


0.11
0.18
1.4
2.5
m
2.52
2.02
O.Orf-O.ll
1.04
0.53
0.0 /-O.I 7
0.68

0
0.


0
0
0
0.
0. 3

.05
006


.01
.01
.01
.02
-0. 5
Reference
Diephuis and Dunn, 1949,
as cited in Pollack and
Kilgore, 1978 (p. 109)
ibid.
Bateman et al . , 1953, as
cited in Pollack and '
Kilgore.
Carter et
as cited
Kilgore ,
Zweig et
as cited
Kilgore ,
Uuycr et
i-iU:d I'ol
1978
al. ,
(p. HO)
1956,
in Pollack
1978

al., 1963c,
in Pollack
1978
al. ,
luck
(p. 11
19/1 ,
and

and

as
and
1)
as
                                                                                       I' i lj',01'0 ,  1978 (p.  1 10)

-------
                                          TAULE 4-38.  (Continued)
                                                                                                 PATHWAY  3
Species
Chemical
Form Fed
 Tissue
Analyzed
Feed
Concen-
tration
(ug/g DW)
Test Tissue
Concentration
  (ug/g DW)
Uptake
S,lope°
Reference
Cow         Toxaphene      Milk        <0.1-0.02       2.5-20       0.02-0.34   EPA,  1979  (pp.  5-135)

                           Fat         0.14-0.17       60-140      8.4-24.3
"Uptake  slope Is y/x,  where y --= animal tissue concentration and x — feed concentration.
bNR  =  Not reported.

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
0.85
0.85

0.74
0.79
0.79

0.02
0.79
DA
26.979
0.394

0.344
19.252
1.835

30.148
1.321
FA UA x DA x FA
0.44
0.44

0.44
0.44
0.34

0.40
0.48
10.09
0.15

0 11
6.69
0.49

0.24
0.50
      TOTAL                                                18.27

vii.  The uptake resonse slope of pollutant in plant tissue found in the
      diet of grazing animals (UCG)  =0.88 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)'1

      The uptake factor for toxaphene in plants was difficult to determine
      because all the immediately available data were reported as
      toxaphene residues (see Table 4-23).  These residue values do not
      generally distinguish between the chemical adhering to the surface
      of the plants and that taken up in the plant tissue.  The value
      selected is that reported for the residue in potatoes grown in soil
      receiving a toxaphene application before planting (Muns et al..
      1960).   In addition, the report states that the potatoes were washed
      before analysis.

      Data for toxaphene uptake in the plants that make up a high
      percentage of the grazing animal diet are not immediately available.
      Potatoes,  however, can compose up to 30% of a cattle diet, so data
      from this plant may be considered analogous to the uptake in plants
      normally found in the herbivorous animal's diet (EPA, 1982b)
                                   4-191

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 3
43.2.11   Zinc (Zn)

i.    The risk reference dose  (RfD) - 0.47  (mg/kg/day).
      See Section 4.1.3.14,  i.

ii.   The total background  intake  of pollutant  from  all  sources  of
      exposure (TBI) -  7.8  mg/day  for toddlers  (TBIt) and 18 mg/day for
      adults  (TBIJ .  See Section 4.1.3.14,  v.

iii.  Human body weight (BW) - 70  kg.
      This is the average weight of an  adult  male.

iv.   The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure  (RE)  - 1.
      Because no potency estimates from exposure  to  food chain
      contamination  from selenium  are available,  RE  was  considered to be
      equal  to 1.

v.    The background soil concentration of  pollutant (BS)  = 54 ug/g DW.
      This value was derived from  a report  by Holmgren  et al. (1985).  See
      Section 4.3.2.7,  v.

vi.    The total of  the products of the uptake response  slopes of  the
      pollutant  in animal tissues  (UA),  times the daily  dietary
      consumption  of animal tissue food groups  (DA),  times the fraction
      of the  food  group assumed to be  derived  from  sludge-amended soil or
      feedstuffs (FA) - 0.51  ug/day  for uptake.

      All of  the animal tissue uptakes  were derived  from studies listed in
      Table 4-39   Two  studies by  Boyer et  al.  (1981)  and Johnson et al.
                                   4-192

-------
                                                                        PATHWAY 3
TA11LE 4-39.   Uptake of Zinc by Domestic and Wild Animals
Chemical
Species Form Tissue
(N)* Fed Analyzed
Cattle (6) Sludge Kidney
Liver
Muscle
-p Cattle (6) Sludge Kidney
H-"
U)
Liver
Muscle
Sheep (5-9) Sludge-grown Kidney
corn silage
Liver
Muscle
Range (N)b Control
of Feed Tissue Tissue
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
36-325 76.4
111
293
26.3-236 (2) 93

143
340
25.6-64.8 (2) 3,271
1,523
108

Uptake
Slope^ Reference
NSe Boyer et al. ,
1981 (pp. 286-289)
NS
NS
NS Johnson et al . ,
1981 (p. 112)

NS
NS
NS Heffron et al . ,
1980 (p. 60)
NS
1.10
Sheep       Sludge-grown
            corn silage
  I.i ver
  Huso lu
36.0-93 (2)
                      NR
NS
NS
Bray et al.,  1981
(p.  384)

-------
TABLE 4-39.  (Continued)
                                                 PATHWAY 3
Chemical
Species Form
(N)" Fed
Pig (12) Sludge


Guinea pig Sludge-grown
Swiss chard

Mallard ZnC03
duck (6)


Range (N)b Control
of Feed Tissue Tissue
Tissue Concentration Concentration Uptake
Analyzed ("g/g DW) (ug/g .DW) Slope0'1* Reference
Kidney 183.4-773.7 (2)
Liver
Muscle
Kidney 159.0-1,050 (3)
Liver
Muscle
Kidney 250.0-3,250 (2)
Liver
Muscle
104
180
50
19
28
15
117
180
50
0.099 Osuna et al . , 1981
(p. 1.545)
NS
NS
0.004 Furr et al. , 1976
(pp. 87-88)
NS
NS
0.56 Gasaway and Buss,
1972 (p. 1,115)
0.38
0.02

-------
                                                                                                   PATHWAY  3
                                                TABLE 4-39.  (Continued)

Species
(N)a
Hen

Sheep

Chemical
Form Tissue
Fed Analyzed
ZnO in feed Liver
Kidney
ZnO in feed Liver

Range (N)b
of Feed Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
55.6-15,056.3

31.0-731 (3)
116.0-1,431 (3)
Control
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
99.0-1,888
117.0-953
139.0-1,888
31.0-1,431

Uptake
Slope0"11 Reference
0.65 Ellis et al . , 1984
0.56
1.76 ibid.
2.12
'  N = Number of experimental animals, if reported.
'  N = Number of feed concentrations, including control.
c  When tissue values were reported as wet weight a moisture content of 77%  was  assumed  for  kidney,  70%  for
  liver, and 72% for muscle, unless otherwise indicated.
d  Slope =- y/x, where Y = tissue concentration, and x = feed concentration.
"  NS — Tissue concentration not significantly increased.
(  NR = Not reported.

-------
                                                                PATHWAY  3
       (1981) showed no  significant uptake  of  Zn  in  beef muscle or liver.
       No data are available  for Zn uptake  in  milk,  which is  therefore
       assumed to be similar  to that  for  other cattle  tissues (i.e.,
       insignificant).   The uptake for sheep muscle  was  reported by Heffron
       et al. (1980) to  be 1.10, but  it was insignificant in  studies  by
       Bray et al. (1981).  A conservative  value  of  1.10 was  therefore used
       to represent uptake in lamb.   The  uptake of Zn  in swine muscle was
       also insignificant in  a study  by Osuna  et  al.  (1981)    No data were
       available  for chicken  uptake,  but  the value of  0.02 reported by
       Gasaway and Buss  (1972) for mallard  duck muscle was used to
       represent  all poultry  products in  the human diet.   Because there
       were no data available for zinc uptake  in  eggs, the uptake for
       poultry of 0.02 was used for eggs  as well.

       For an explanation of  the FA and DA  values, see Sections 4.4.3.1 and
       4.1.4, respectively, of the Land Application  Risk Assessment Method-
       ology  (EPA, 1989) as well as Tables  4-34 and  4-35 in this document.
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef
Beef liver
Lamb
Pork
Poultry
Diary
Eggs
UA
0
0
1.10
0
0.02
0
0.02
DA
56.174
1.837
0.675
32.700
10.969
83.171
11.467
FA
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.34
0.40
0.48
UA x DA x FA
0
0
0.33
0
0.07
0
0.11
      TOTAL                                                0.51

viii. The uptake response  slope of pollutants  in plant tissue found in the
      diet of grazing animals  (UCG) =-0.97 ug/g  tissue DW  (kg/ha)"1  soil.
                                   4-196

-------
                                                         PATHWAY 3
The uptake rate for corn leaves (CAST, 1980) is selected as the
worst-case Zn value for a crop in the grazing animal's diet from a
sludge/field study conducted at a pH of 6.5-6.8.  This uptake was
similar to other uptakes of 0.76 for corn leaf and 0.71 for corn
silage (CAST, 1980), but was an order of magnitude higher than
values for corn leaf of 0.04 and 0.063 for corn stover reported by
Hinesly et al.  (1980) or 0.062 for corn leaf (CAST, 1980) in studies
conducted at a higher pH of 7.4 (see Table 4-24)
                             4-197

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY  4


4.4  PATHWAY 4

    Pathway 4 concerns human toxicity from the  ingestion  of  products  derived
from animals that incidentally ingested sludge-amended soil  (adherence)    For
this pathway, the following are chemicals  of concern:

    Aldrin/Dieldrin
    Cadmium
    Chlordane
    DDT/DDE/DDD
    Heptachlor
    Hexachlorobenzene
    Hexachlorobutadiene
    Lindane
    Mercury
    PCBs
    Toxaphene
         Preceding page blank
4-199

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 4
4.4.1  Pathway Equations
    For nonthreshold chemicals:
             RIA =
RL x BW\   -TBI
q,*  x RE
x 103            (21)
 where  RIA   - adjusted reference intake (ug/day)
         q:*   - human cancer potency ( [mg/kg/day] )"1
         RL   - risk level (unitless)
         BW   - human body weight (kg)
         RE   - relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure
                (unitless)
        TBI   - total background intake of pollutant (mg/day)
                from all the sources of exposure
        103   - conversion factor (ug/mg)
             RFC =            RIA	                  m
                          S (UA, x DA x FA)                   (  '
 where  RFC  =•  reference feed concentration of pollutant  (ug/g DW)
        RIA  —  adjusted reference intake (ug/day)
        UAj   =•  uptake response slope of pollutant in the  animal tissue
                food group i  [ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)'1]
        DA,   =•  daily dietary consumption of the animal tissue food group
                i (g DW/day)
        FAj   =•  fraction of food group i assumed to be derived from
                sludge-amended soil
 Assuming the sludge is diluted into the soil:
            RLC = (RFC/FL) + BS
                                        (23)
 where  RLC  -  reference soil concentration of pollutant  (ug/g  DW)
        RFC  -  reference feed concentration of pollutant  (ug/g  DW)
        FL   -  fraction of diet that is adhering  soil  (g  soil DW/g  diet
                DW)
        BS   =-  background soil concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
                                 4-200

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 4
        RP   =  (RLC - BS) x MS x 10°                          (24)
 where   RP  -  reference application rate of pollutant (kg/ha)
        RLC  -  reference soil concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
         BS  -  background concentration of pollutant in soil  (ug/g DW)
         MS  -  2 x 103 mg/ha  - assumed mass  of  soil  in  upper 15  cm
        10~3  —  conversion factor (kg/g)
    For threshold chemicals:
             RIA =
 RfD x BW  ^ - TBI
v RE
x 103
                                                                (25)
where   RIA  — adjusted reference intake (ug/day)
        RfD  - risk reference dose (mg/kg/day)
         BW  - human body weight (kg)
        TBI  - total background intake of pollutant (mg/day) from all
               other sources of exposure
         RE  - relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure
               (unitless)
        103  - conversion factor (ug/mg)
4.4.2  Data Points and Rationale for Selection


4.4.2.1 Aldrin/Dieldrin (A/D)


i.      The human cancer potency (qt*)  for  aldrin/dieldrin = 17
        (mg/kg/day)-1
        See Section 4.1.3.1, i.


ii.     The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
        exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.
                                  4-201

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 4
        For all carcinogenic chemicals, only incremental risk over
        background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was
        thus considered to be zero.

ill.    Human body weight (BW) - 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.

LV.     The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) =• 1.
        Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain
        contamination from aldrin/dieldrin are available, RE was
        considered to be equal to 1.

v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) =• 0 ug/g DW.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

vi.     The total of the products of the uptake response slope of the
        pollutant in animal tissue (UA),  times the daily dietary
        consumption of animal tissue food groups (DA), times the  fraction
        of the food group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil
        or feedstuffs (FA) from adherence = 98.86 ug/day

        See Section 4.3.2.1, vi,  for an explanation of the selection of
        data points for UA, FA, and DA.  Pork, poultry, and eggs  were not
        included for this pathway because these food groups are not
        derived from grazing animals that consume sludge adhering to
        plants.

        The values for all of the data points selected for this pathway
        are summarized below:
                                  4-202

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
2.67
0.14

2.24
1.17
44'. 07

5.54
11.95
DA
26.979
0.394

0.344
19.252
1.835

30.148
1.321
FA
0.44
0.44

0.44
0
0

0.40
0
UA x DA x FA
31.69
0.02

0.34
0
0

66.81
0
        TOTAL                                               98.86
4.4.2.2  Cadmium  (Cd)

i.      The ADI - 70 ug/day.
        See Section 4.1.3.4,  i.

ii.     The total background intake of Cd from all other sources of exposure
        (TBI) - 0 rag/day.
        This value has already been considered in setting the ADI.

iii.     Human body weight (BW) - 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.     The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) - 1.   Because
        no potency estimates from exposure to food chain contamination from
        cadmium were available,  RE was considered to  be equal to 1.
                                     4-203

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY 4
v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant  (BS)
        See Table 4-25.
0.2 ug/g DW.
vi.     The total of the products of the uptake response slope of the
        pollutant in animal tissues (UA),  times the daily dietary consumption
        of animal tissue food groups (DA)  times the fraction of the food group
        assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs from
        adherence (FA) - 0.005 ug/day

        See Section 4.3.2.2, vi,  for an explanation of the selection of
        data points for UA, FA, and DA.  Pork, poultry and eggs are not
        evaluated for this pathway, because these groups are not derived from
        grazing animals consuming sludge.adhering to plants.

        The values for all of the data points selected for this pathway are
        summarized below:
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef
Beef liver
Lamb
Pork
Poultry
Dairy
Eggs

0,
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
UA
.00002
.005
.0001
.0001
.0006
.00002
,0002
DA
56,
1,
0
32
10
83,
11
.174
.837
.675
.70
.969
.171
.467
FA
0.44
0.44
0.44
0
0
0.40
0
UA x DA x FA
0.
0,
0,
0
0
0,
0
.0005
.004
.00003


.0007

        TOTAL
                                                            0.005
                                      4-204

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
4.4.23  Chlordane (CLD)

i.      The human cancer potency (qi*)  of  chlordane  - 1.3  (njg/kg/day)"1
        See Section 4.2.2.5, i.

ii.     The total background intake of chlordane from all other sources of
        exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.

        For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the incremental risk over
        background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was thus
        considered to be zero.

iii.    Human body weight (BW) =• 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.     The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure  (RE) =• 1.
        Because no potency estimates from exposure  to food chain contamination
        from chlordane are available, RE is considered equal to 1.

v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) =- 0 ug/g DW.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

vi.     The product of the uptake response slopes for chlordane in animal
        tissues (UA),  times the daily dietary consumption of che animal cissue
        (DA),  times the fraction of the food groups  assumed to be derived  from
        sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs from adherence  (FA) =» 3.13 ug/day

        See Section 4.3.2.3, vi, for an explanation of the selection of data
        points for UA, DA, and FA.   Pork, poultry,  and eggs are not evaluated
        for this pathway because these food groups  were not derived from
        grazing animals that consume sludge adhering to plants.
                                     4-205

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY  4
        The values for all of the data points selected for  this  pathway
        are summarized below:
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(Fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
0.04
0.04

0.04
0.04
0.04

0.22
0.04
DA
26.979
0.394

0.344
19.252
1.835

30.148
1.321
FA
0.44
0.44

0.44
0
0

0.40
0
UA x DA x FA
0.47
0.01

0.01
0
0

2.65
0
        TOTAL                                               3.13


4.4.2.4  DDT/DDE/DDD

i.      The human cancer potency (qj*)  =0.34 (mg/kg/day)"1
        See Section 4.3.2.4, i.

ii.      The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
        exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.
        For all carcinogenic chemicals, only incremental risk  over background
        is being evaluated.  The total background intake was thus considered
        to be zero.

iii.     Human body weight (BW) - 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.      The relative effectiveness of ingestion of exposure (RE) - 1.
                                     4-206

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
        Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain contamination
        from DDT/DDE/DDD are available, RE is considered equal to 1.

v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) =- 0 ug/g DW.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

vi.     The products of the uptake response slopes for chlordane in animal
        tissues (UA),  times the daily dietary consumption of the animal
        tissues (DA),  times the fraction of the food groups assumed to be
        derived from sludge-amended -soil or feedstuffs from adherence (FA) =
        100.97 ug/day.

        See Section 4.3.2.4, vi,  for an explanation of the data point
        selections for UA, DA, and FA.  Pork, poultry, and eggs are not
        evaluated for this pathway because these food groups are not derived
        from grazing animals that consume sludge adhering to plants.

        The values for all of the data points selected for this pa,thway
        are summarized below:
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb ( fat )
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
4.57
4.57

3.11
3.77
5.00

3.77
5.00
DA
26.979
0.394

0.344
19.252
1.835

30.148
1.321
FA
0.44
0.44

0.44
0
0

0.40
0
UA x DA x FA
54.25
0.79

0.47
0
0

45.46
0
        TOTAL                                            100.97
                                     4-207

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
4.4.2.5  Heptachlor

i.      The human cancer potency (q^)  of  heptachlor  - 9.1 (rag/kg/day)'1
        See Section 4.1.3.6, i.

ii.     The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
        exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day

        For all carcinogenic chemicals, only incremental  risk over background
        is being evaluated.  The total background intake  was thus considered
        to be zero.

iii.    Human body weight  (BW) - 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.     The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure  (RE) - 1.
        Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain contamination
        from heptachlor are available, RE is considered equal to 1.

v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) = 0 ug/g  DW.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

vi.     The product of the uptake response slopes for chlordane in animal
        tissues (UA),  times the daily dietary consumption of the animal
        tissues (DA),  times the fraction of the food groups assumed  to be
        derived from sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs from adherence (FA)  -
        111.62 ug/day.

        See Section 4.3.2.5, vi, for an explanation  of the data point
        selection for UA,  DA,  and FA.  Pork, poultry, and eggs were  not
                                      4-208

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
        evaluated for this pathway because these food groups are not derived
        from grazing animals that consume sludge adhering to plants.

        The values for all of the data points selected for this pathway
        are summarized below:
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
4.
4.

4,
4.
3,

4.
3.
.94
.94

,19
.19
.55

.27
.55
DA
26.
0.

0.
19.
1.

30.
1.
,979
.394

,344
,252
.835

.148
.321
FA UA x DA x FA
0.44
0.44

0.44
0
0

0.40
0
58
0

0
0
0

51
0
.64
36

.63



.49

         TOTAL                                              111.62
4.4.2.6  Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)

i.       The human cancer potency (qf*)  -  1.67  (rag/kg/day)"1.
        See Section 4.3.2.6, i.

ii.      The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
        exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.
        For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the incremental risk over
        background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was thus
        considered to be zero.

iii.     Adult human body weight (BW) =• 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.
                                    4-209

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
Iv.     The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) - 1.
        Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain contamination
        from HCB are available, RE was considered equal to 1.

v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) - 0 ug/g DW.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

vi.     The total of the products of the uptake response slopes of  the
        pollutant in animal tissue (UA),  times the daily dietary consumption
        of animal tissue food groups (DA),  times the fraction of the food
        group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs
        from adherence (FA) = 75.78 ug/day.

        See Section 4.3.2.6, vi, for an explanation of the selection of data
        points for UA, DA, and FA.  Pork, poultry, and eggs were not evaluated
        for this pathway because these food groups are not derived  from
        grazing animals that consume sludge adhering to plants.

        The values for all the data points selected for this pathway
        are summarized below:
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
3.0
3.0

7.0
4.6
5.9

3.2
3.3
DA
26.979
0.394

0.344
19.252
1.835

30.148
1.321
FA
0.44
0.44

0.44
0
0

0.40
0
UA x DA x FA
35.61
0.52

1.06
0
0

38.59
0
         TOTAL                                                 75.78
                                     4-210

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
4.4.2.7  Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD)

i.      The human cancer potency (qi*)  for  HCBD  - 0.0775  (mg/kg/day)"1.
        The cancer potency value was derived from data presented in EPA
        (1980d) from a study in which rats dosed orally with HCBD developed
        renal tubular adenomas and carcinomas.

ii.     The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
        exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.

        For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the incremental risk over
        background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was thus
        considered to be zero.

iii.    Human body weight (BW) - 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.     The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) - 1.
        Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain contamination
        from HCBD are available, RE was considered to be equal to 1.

v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) = 0 ug/g DW.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

vi.     The total of the products of the uptake response slope of the
        pollutant in animal tissues (UA),  times the daily dietary consumption
        of animal tissue food groups (DA), times the fraction of the food
        group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs =-
        60.16 ug/day.
                                   4-211

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY 4
        The only study available on animal uptake of HCBD  by  Jacobs  et al.
        (1974) reports uptake slopes ranging from 3.5  to 1.75 for inner
        genital and kidney fats (see Table 4-40).  The  geometric  mean of 2.48
        for these values was used to represent HCBD uptake in all animal
        tissues in lieu of specific data on each type  of tissue.

        The DA and FA values are the same as those described  in 4.3.2.7,  vi.
        Pork, poultry, and eggs were not evaluated for  this pathway  because
        these food groups are not derived from grazing  animals that  consume
        sludge adhering to plants.

        "The values for all of the data points selected  for this pathway
        are summarized below:
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
2.48
2.48

2.48
2.48
2.48

2.48
2.48
DA
26.979
0.394

0.344
19.252
1.835

30.148
1.321
FA
0.44
0.44

0.44
0
0

0.40
0
UA x DA x FA
29 44
0.43

0.38
0
0

29.91
0
         TOTAL                                                  60.16
4.4.2.8  Lindane
i.
The human cancer potency (qt*)  - 1.33 (mg/kg/day)'
                                    4-212

-------
                                                                                            PATHWAY 4
          TABLE 4-40.  UFIAKE OF IIEXACHLOROBUTADIENE BY DOMESTIC AND WILD ANIMALS
Species
Rat
Range of Feed
Chemical Concentration (N)a
Form Fed (ug/g DU)
HCBD 2-4 (2)
Tissue
Analyzed
Kidney fat
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
T
Uptake
Factor11 Reference
1.75-3.5 EPA, 1988
(p. C-4)
 I
M
LJ
'  N = Number of feed  rate.
b  Uptake factor = Tissue concentration DW/feed concentration DW.
c  ug/g for both feed  rates.

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
        Because of a Lack of human data, the human cancer potency of  1.33
        (mg/kg/day)"1 is derived from a study with mice in which oral doses of
        lindane resulted in liver tumors (EPA, 1980g).

ii.      The total background intake of pollutant from all other sources of
        exposure (TBI) - 0 mg/day.

        For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the incremental risk over
        background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was thus
        considered to be zero.

iii.    Human body weight (BW)  - 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.      The relative effectiveness of exposure (RE) - 1.
        Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain contamination
        from lindane are available, RE was considered to be equal to  1.

v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant  (BS) = 0 ug/g  D,W.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

vi.      The products of the uptake response slopes for  lindane in animal
        tissues (UA). times the daily dietary consumption of the animal
        tissues (DA), times the fraction of the food  groups assumed to be
        derived from sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs  from adherence  (FA) =
        11.6 ug/day.

        The values for all of the data points selected  for this pathway
        are summarized, on the next page:
                                      4-214

-------
                                                          PATHWAY 4
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb ( fat )
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
0.48
0.48

0.48



0.48
	
DA
26.979
0.394

0.344
19.252
1.835

30.148
1.321
FA
0.44
0.44

0.44
0
0

0.40
0
UA x DA x FA
5.70
0.08

0.0725
0
0

5.79
0
 TOTAL                                                 11.6

The uptake slope of 0.48, used to present beef, beef liver, and dairy
fat, is the mean of the two values reported for cow body fat by
Claborn et al.  (1960) (see Table 4-41).  Due to the scarcity of data,
the uptake for all other animal tissue groups other than beef was
calculated as the geometric mean of the three uptakes available for
mammals -- namely cow and rat body fats -- of 0.60 (Jacobs et al.,
1974; Baron et al.,  1975; Claborn et al., 1960).  See Table 4-41.
This choice is more conservative than using the uptake of 0 48 that  is
derived from beef tissue alone.

See Section 4.3.2.7, vi, for an explanation of the data point
selections for DA and FA.  Pork, poultry, and eggs were not evaluated
for this pathway because these food groups are not derived from
grazing animals that consume sludge adhering to plants.
                              4-215

-------
                                                                                   PATHWAY 4
               TABLE 4-41.  Uptake of Lindane by Domestic and Wild Animals


Species
Cow

Chemical Feed
Form Concentration
Fed (ug/g DW)
Lindane 10
100
Test
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
Fat


Tissue
Analyzed
3.5
65


Uptake
Slope1
0.35
0.65


Reference
Claborn et al . ,
1960 in Kenaga,
1980 (p. 554)
Rat
NR"
Fat
NR
0 .4      Jacobs et al. ,
         1974 in Geyer
         et al., 1980
         (p.  282)
Rat
NR
Fat
NR
1.4      Baron et al.,
         1975 in Geyer
         et al.,  1980
         (p. 282)
a  Uptake slope = y/x; y = tissue concentration;  x  =  feed concentration.
b  NR - Not reported.

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY  4
4.4.2.9  Mercury (Hg)

I.      The risk reference dose (RfD) - 0.0003 mg/kg/day.
        See Section 4.3.2.7, i.

ii.     The tota-l background intake of Hg from all other sources of exposure
        (TBI) = 0.010 mg/day
        See Section 4.1.3.9. v.

iii.    Human body weight (BW) =- 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.     The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) =» 1.
        Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain contamination
        from mercury are available, RE was considered to be equal  to  1.

v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant  (BS) =0.1  ug/g DW.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

vi.     The total of the products of the uptake response slope of  the
        pollutant in animal tissues  (UA), times the daily dietary  consumption
        of animal tissue food  groups (DA) times the fraction of the food group
        assumed to be derived  from sludge-amended soil  or feedstuffs  (FA) =
        0.30 ug/day.

        The uptake of mercury  in animal  tissues for each food group (UA)  is
        described in 4.3.2.8,  vi.  The daily consumption (DA) and  fraction of
        the food group from sludge-amended feedstuffs (FA) is also described
        there.  Pork, poultry, and eggs were not evaluated for this pathway
                                     4-217

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY 4


        because these food groups are not derived  from  grazing animals  that
        consume sludge adhering to plants.

        The values for all of the data points selected  for  this  pathway are
        summarized below:
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef
Beef liver
Lamb
Pork
Poultry
Dairy
Eggs
UA
0.
0
0,
0.
2.
0
2
.002
.02
.0014
.019
.33
.007
.88
DA
56.
1
0,
32,
10
83
11
.174
.837
,675
.700
.969
.171
.467
FA
0 44
0.44
0.44
0
0
0.40
0
UA x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DA x FA
.05
.02
.0004


.23

        TOTAL                                                 0.30
4.4.2.10  Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

i.       The human cancer potency (qi*)  -77 (mg/kg/day)"1.
        See Section 4.3.2.8, i.

ii.      The adult total background intake of pollutants  from  all  ocner  sources
        of exposure (TBI) = 0 mg/day.

        For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the  incremental  risk over
        background is being evaluated.  The total background  intake  was thus
        considered to be zero.

ill.     Adult human body weight (BW) =• 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.
                                      4-218

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
iv.      The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) = 1.
        Because no potency estimates from exposure to food chain contamination
        from PCBs are available, RE was considered to be equal to 1.

v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) - 0 ug/g DW
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

vi.      The total of the products of the uptake response slope of the
        pollutant in animal tissues (UA),  times the daily dietary consumption
        of animal tissue food groups (DA),  times the fraction of the food
        group assumed to be derived from sludge-amended soil or feeds tuffs
        from adherence (FA) - 106.66 ug/day

        See Section 4.3.2.9, vi, for an explanation of the data points
        selected for UA, FA, and DA.  Pork, poultry, and eggs were not
        evaluated for this pathway because these food groups are not derived
        from grazing animals that consume sludge adhering to plants.

        The values for all of the data points selected for this pathway
        are summarized below:
                                     4-219

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
4.0
4.0

4.0
4.0
4.0

4.8
4.0
DA
26.979
0.394

0.344
19.252
1.835

30.148
1.321
FA
0.44
0.44

0.44
0
0

0.40
0
UA x DA x FA
47.48
0.69

0.61
0
0

57.88
0
        TOTAL                                                106.66

4.4.2.11  Toxaphene (TOX)

i.      The human cancer potency (qj*)  of  toxaphene  -1.13  (mg/kg/day)"1
        See Section 4.3.2.10, i.

ii.     The total background intake of pollutant from all sources of exposure
        (TBI) - 0 mg/day.

        For all carcinogenic chemicals, only the incremental risk over
        background is being evaluated.  The total background intake was thus
        considered to be zero.

iii.    Human body weight (BW) - 70 kg.
        This is the average weight of an adult male.

iv.     The relative effectiveness of ingestion exposure (RE) -  1.
        Because no potency estimates from exposure  to food chain contamination
        from toxaphene are available, RE was considered to be equal  to  1.
                                      4-220

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 4
v.      The background soil concentration of pollutant (BS) = 0 ug/g DW.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi.

vi.     The total of the products of the uptake response slope of the
        pollutant in animal tissue (UA), times the daily dietary consumption
        of animal tissue food groups (DA),  times the fraction of food group
        assumed to be derived from, sludge-amended soil or feedstuffs from
        adherence (FA) =- 10.59 ug/day.

        See Section 4.3.2.11, vi, for an explanation of the selection of data
        points for UA, DA, and FA.  Pork, poultry, and eggs were not evaluated
        for this pathway because these  food groups are not derived from
        grazing animals that consume sludge adhering to plants.

        The values for all of the data  points selected for this pathway
        are summarized below:
Animal
Tissue
Group
Beef (fat)
Beef liver
(fat)
Lamb (fat)
Pork (fat)
Poultry
(fat)
Dairy (fat)
Eggs (fat)
UA
0.
0.

0,
0.
0,

0.
0,
.85
.35

.74
.79
.79

.02
.79
DA
26.
0.

0.
19.
1.

30.
1.
.979
,394

.344
.252
.835

.148
,321
FA
0.44
0 . 44

0.44
0
0

0.40
0
UA x DA x FA
10
0.

0
0
0

0
0
.09
.15

i i_



.24

        TOTAL                                                  10.59
                                      4-221

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY  5

4.5  PATHWAY 5

      For pathway 5  (animal  toxicity from plant consumption).  the  following
are the chemicals of concern:

      Cadmium
      Copper
      Molybdenum
      Selenium
      Zinc
      Preceding page blank
4-223

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY  5

 4.5.1   Pathway Equations


 .      RFC = TA - BC                                          (26)
where   RFC - reference feed concentracion  (ug/g DW)
        TA  - threshold feed concentration  (ug/g DW)
        BC  - background concentration in feed crop  (ug/g  DW)
 .      RPC =  RFC
               UC
where   RP0 - reference  cumulative  application rate of pollutant
             (kg/ha)
        RFC - reference feed concentration of pollutant  (ug/g  DW)
        UC  - linear response slope of forage crop
               [ug/g crop DW (kg/ha)•']
 4.5.2   Data Points and Rationale for Selection

 4.5.2.1    Cadmium (Cd)

 i.      The threshold feed concentration that is  toxic  to  a  herbivorous
         animal (TAH) = 5.0 ug/g DW.

         Sheep were chosen as the herbivore that is most sensitive  to  the
         toxic effects of ingested  cadmium  (see Table  4-42).   At  5  ug  Cd/g
         feed, sheep had decreased  levels of copper and  iron  in their  liver
         tissues (Doyle et al.,  1974; Doyle and Pfander,  1975).   Swine had
         a lower toxic threshold, but they  are not solely herbivorous.

 ii.     The linear response slope  of forage crop  for  herbivorous animal
         (UCH) - 0.10 [ug/g DW (kg/ha)'1].
                                  4-224

-------
                                  TAIJLU 4-42.  Toxicity of Cadmium to Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                                                                   PATHWAY 5
I
r~>
to

Species
(N)J
Hog



Chemical
Form Fed
Sludge-
grown
corn
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.56


Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NRb


Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR


Duration
of Study
(days)
56
•



Effects
Decreased RBC
RBC number,
microsomal enzyn


Reference
Hansen and
Hinesly, 1979
le (pp. 52-54)
      (4)
      (12)
CdCl2
CdCl2
50
            150
83
                  50%  sludge   83
NR
                NR
NR
                   NR
NR
NR
                            NR
                                   NR
42
63
activity,  liver
FE and kidney MN

Decreased
hematocrit

Decreased weight
gain and renal
leucine
aminopeptidase

Microcytic,
hypochromic
anemia and
reduced weight
gain

Normal hematologic
parame ters,
depressed
growth,  and
toxicosis  due
to sludge
Cousins et al
1973
Osuna et al
1981
(pp. 143-
1,545)

-------
                                                        Table 4-42.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                     PATHWAY 5
      Species
      (N)a
Chemical
Form Fed
Feed
Concentrati on
(ug/g DW)
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
Duration
of Study
(days)
Effects
Reference
      Cattle (2)   Cd
                  succinate
      Sheep (6)    CdCl2
            50
                  CdCl,
K)
ON
                              15
            30
                              60
                 NR
                             NR
                             NR
                 NR
                             NR
                   NR
                                    NR
                                    NR
                   NR
                                    NR
            343
                                191
            NR
                               NR
            Reduced
            weight and gain,
            fetotoxicity

            Decreased
            liver Fe
            and Cu

            Increased liver
            and kidney Zn
            Decreased
            weight gain gain
            increased kidney Cu

            Liver Mn
            and decreased
            hematocrit
                  Wright et al
                  1977
                                          Doyle et al.,
                                          1974; Doyle  and
                                          Pfander, 1975
      Chicken
      (5-20)
CdCl,
75
NR
NR
21
Decreased
body weight,
hematocrit,
hemoglobin,
liver and kidney
Fe,  serum Zn,
increased seruin
TIBC, and kidney
Zn and Cu
Freeland and
Cousins, 1973
      Chicken
      (10)
CdS04
12,4
                                               NR
                                                                  NR
                                                                              84
                                           Decreased egg
                                           producii on
                                          Leach et al
                                          1979

-------
                                                                                                               PATHWAY  5
                                                   Table 4-42.  (Continued)
Species
(N)'
Chicken
(15)
Chicken
(12-15)
Feed
Chemical Concentration
Form Fed (ug/g DW)
CdSO< 3
12,48
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(rag/kg)
NR
NR
Duration
of Study
(days)
336
336
Effects
No adverse
effect
Decreased
eggshell
thickness
Reference
Ibid.
Ibid.
Japanese    CdCl2
quail
                        75
                NR
                   NR
            28
Mallard
Rabbit
            NR
            CdCl,
200
NR
                                         160
NR
                                    NR
90
                               200
Decreased
body weight,
hematocrit,
total plasma.
proteins and
albumin, increased
transferring,  and
mortality

Kidney-tubule
degeneration

Decreased
growth
                              Jacobs et al.
                              1969;
                              Fox et al,
                              1971
EPA, 1980c
(pp. 8-44)

Stowe et al
1972

-------
                                                   Table 4-42.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                PATHWAY 5
Feed Water
Species Chemical Concentration Concentration
(N)a Form Fed (ug/g DW) (mg/L)
Dog (2) CdClj 0.5
2.5
Rat (46) Cd Acetate 1-25
r so
do
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR
NR


Duration
of Study
(days)
1,460
900


Effects
No adverse
effects
Increased blood
pressure
Decreased weight
gain
Reference
Anwar et al . ,
1961
Perry et al . ,
1977


Rat (100)   Cd acetate
                   NR
            Lifetime
            Increased
            mortality
            hypertension,
            kidney damage,
            heart damage
            and neurological
            disease
                  Schroeder et  al.
                  1965
                  (p. 63)
Rat
                        31
NR
NR
210
Anemia
EPA,  1978a
(p.  143)

-------
                                                       Table 4-42.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                     PATHWAY 5

Species
W

Chemical
Form Fed
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
Duration
of Study
, (days) Effects


Reference
      Rat
      Mouse
            Soluble Cd
                                         NR
10
I
t^l
fo
aN
          Number  of  animals  per  treatment  group.
                   NR
180
2 genera.
Slightly toxic
symptoms

Stillbirths,
young deaths,
runts,
decreased
number of
offspring,
failure to
breed
Gough et al.,  1979
(P- 16)

Schroeder and
Kitchener,
1971
      bNR - Not  reported.

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY  5
        The highest uptake for a. crop consumed by herbivores  was  0.10
        [ug/g DW (kg/ha)]"1 for barley straw grown in sludge-amended  fields
        at pHs ranging from 5.5 to 7.0  (Vlamis et al.,  1985).   The uptake
        for field corn is higher, but corn is not a major  portion of the
        sheep diet (see Table 4-13).

iii.    The background concentration of pollutant in the feed crop of
        herbivorous animals (BCH) — 0.09 ug/g DW.

        This value is the background plant tissue concentration of Cd  from
        the same set of experiments from which the uptake  slope for  UCH
        was calculated (see Table 4-13).
4.5.2.2   Copper (Cu)

i.      Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal  (TAH) =  25 ug/g DW.

        Sheep are the grazing animals that are most  sensitive  to  the  toxic
        effects of copper, followed by cattle, swine, and poultry in  that
        order (see Table 4-43).   Sheep have a maximum tolerable level for
        copper of 25 ug/g, as established by the National Academy of
        Science (NAS, 1980), and this dose is used as the toxic threshold
        for herbivorous animals.

ii.     The linear response slope of forage crop for herbivorous  animals
        (UCH)  - 0.15 [ug/g DW (kg/ha)'1].

        The highest uptake slope for a crop consumed by herbivorous
        animals is 0.3  [ug/g DW  (ug/g)-1] (Shaeaffer  et  al.,  1979)  for
        wheat forage (see Table 4-44)   These studies were done on
                                4-230

-------
                                                                                                            PATHWAY 5
                             TABLE 4-43. Toxicity of Copper to Domestic and Wild Animals
Species
(N)1
Hog,
poultry
Hog,
poultry,
Livestock
-P-
U)
M Sheep
Chemical
Form Fed
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
4
250
15
1-10
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NRb
NR
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study
(days)
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Effects
Adequate
level of Cu
Slight weight
gain
Safe level
Daily requirement
Reference
Demayo et al . ,
1982 (p. 229)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid. , p. 230
Sheep
            CuCl2
            20-100
                NR
NR
NR
Poisoning and
death in 24-
48 hr
                  ibid. , p. 231
Steer
Cu
2,000
                                       NR
NR
122
Toxicity
                                                                                                  ibid.
Goat
Cu
NR
                                       NR
8-32
54-144
Death
                                                                                                  ibid.

-------
TABLE 4-43.  (Continued)
                                                           PATHWAY  5
Species
Mallard
Chicken
Chicken,
duck
Calf .
Chicken
Goose
Sheep
Cattle
Chemical
Form Fed
Cu
Cu
Cu

CuS04
Cu
CuSO<
Cu
Cu
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR

115-300
500
NR
25
100
Water
• Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
100
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(rag/kg)
29
60
300-1,500

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study
(days)
Daily
Daily
NR

129
Daily
NR
Daily
Daily
Effects
Tolerated
Tolerated
Death

Death
Minimal toxic
Acute copper
toxicosis
Maximum
tolerable level
Maximum
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

NAS, 1980
(p. 164)
ibid.
ibid. , p. 168
ibid. , p. 170
ibid.
                                 tolerable level

-------
TABLE 4-43.  (Continued)
                                                           PATHWAY 5
Species
(N)1
Hog
Horse
*- Chicken,
"^ turkey
U)
Sheep
Cattle (5)
Cattle
(32)
Rat (8)
Chemical
Form Fed
Cu
Cu
Cu
Natural
forage
CuSO<
CuSO<
CuSO,
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
250
800
300
50-60
300
0-900
500
Water
Concentration
(uig/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
500
Duration
of Study
(days)
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
129
98
7-70
Effects
Maximum
tolerable level
Maximum
tolerable level
Maximum
tolerable level
Poisoning
Hemolytic
crisis and death
No observed
effects
No effect
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Demayo et al . ,
1982 (p. 231)
Weiss and
Bauer, 1968
Felsman et al . ,
1973 (p. 157)
Boyden et al . ,
                                                  1938 (p.  397)

-------
                                                     TABLE 4-43.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                   PATHWAY 5
I
Ni
LJ
Species
(N)a
Hog (12)
Chemical
Form Fed
CuSCX,
Feed
Cone entrat ion
(ug/g DU)
0-64 as Cu
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
3.2
Duration
of Study
(days)
88
Effects
Accelerated
weight gain
Reference
Kline et al . ,
1971, as
     Swine
CuSCv,
127 as Cu
6.4
                                                                            NR
Decrease In
weight gain,
hemoglobin, and
hematocrlt
cited in
EPA, 1984d
(p.  18) and in
EPA, 1984e
(p.  VIII-6)

Ibid.
     a N = Number of experimental animals,  if reported.

     b NR = Not reported.

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY 5

        sludge-amended soils at agronomic pHs and could represent the feed
        of either sheep.

iii.     The background concentration of pollutant in the feed crop of
        herbivorous animals (BCH)  - 2.1 ug/g DW.

        This value was derived from the background tissue concentrations
        of Cu in the forage crops that were used to estimate the linear
        response slope reported in ii above (see Table 4-44)   The
        background tissue concentration in wheat forage, 2.1 ug/g DW, was
        used as the background tissue concentration of forage crops  in the
        diet of sheep (Shaeaffer et al.,  1979).
4.5.2-3   Molybdenum (Mo)

i.      The threshold feed concentration that is toxic to herbivorous
        animals (TAH)  - 5 ug/g DW.

        As shown in Table 4-45, 5 ug/g Mo is the lowest feed concentration
        showing a toxic effect to a herbivorous animal (i.e., cattle)
        (Buck, 1978) when normal dietary copper levels in the feed are in
        the range of 8 to 10 ppm.  Lower concentrations of molybdenum,
        however, can be toxic to animals when copper concentrations are
        lower than this normal range (Buck, 1978)   Likewise, high-
        molybdenum diets can also lead to a disturbed copper metabolism in
        ruminants.  Because no other concentrations of Mo were tested in
        this study, it is not possible to calculate the mean between the
        level that barely causes an effect and the highest level that does
        not cause an effect.
                                  4-235

-------
Table 4-44.  Uptake of Copper by Plants
                                                                    PATHWAY 5
Plant/Tissue
Corn/plant
Rye/plant
Corn/plant
-P^
I
£ Barley/plant
ON
Barley/plant
Snap bean/
edible
Corn/grain
Oats/forage
Wheat/forage
Chemical
Form
Applied
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Control
Range (N)a Tissue
of Application Concentration Uptake
Soil pH Rates (kg/ha) (ug/g DW) Slope6
6.8 +46 ug/g to soil 4.4 0.045'
6.8 +46 ug/g to soil 7.5 0.10°
6.8 +46 ug/g to soil 10.4 0.30'
7.9 0-0.83 (2) NR" 0
5.9 0-0.83 (2) NR 0
5.3-6.5 0-266 (7) 2.9-7.5 0.44
5.0-6.3 0.6-58 ug/g to soil 1.5 0.01C
5.3-6.3 0.6-58 ug/g to soil 1.5 0.021
5.3-6.3 0.6-58 ug/g to soil 2.1 0 . 3C
Reference
Cunningham, et al . ,
1975a (pp. 461-462)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Dowdy and Larson,
1975a (p. 232)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Shaeaffer et al.,
1979 (p. 458)
Ibid.
Ibid.

-------
Table 4-44.  (Continued)
                                                             PATHWAY  5
Plant/Tissue
Crimson
clover/
forage
Rye/forage
Arrowleaf
clover forage
I
u> Snap bean/
^ edible
Wheat/grain
Fodder rape/
plant
Lettuce/leaf
Broccoli/
fruit
Control
Chemical Range (N)' Tissue
Form of Application Concentration Uptake
Applied Soil pH Rates (kg/ha) (ug/g DW) Slope" Reference
Sludge 5.3-6.3 0.6-58 ug/g to soil 7.1
Sludge 5.3-6.3 0.5-58 ug/g to soil 4.5
Sludge 5.3-6.3 0.6.58 ug/g to soil 7.3

Sludge 5.3 0-266 (6) 4.1
Sludge Sandy loam 0-8.8 3.5
Sludge NR 0-206 (2) 3.9
Sludge 6.4 0-164 (2) 5.2
Sludge 6.4 0-164 (2) 7.5
0.04' Ibid.
0.05C Ibid.
0.09C Shaeaffer et al. ,
1979 (p. 458)

0.04 Latterell et al.,
1978 (p. 255)
0.013 Sabey and Hart,
1975 (p. 255)
0.02 Baxter et al . ,
1983 (p. 45)
0 03 CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
0.03 Ibid.

-------
                                                      Table 4-44  (Continued)
                                                                                                                   PATHWAY  5
LO
OO
Plant/Tissue
Potato/tuber
Tomato/fruit
Cucumber/
fruit
Eggplant/
fruit
String bean/
fruit
Cantaloupe/
leaf
Sorghum/plant
Sorghum/plant
Sorghum/plant
Chemical
Form
Applied Soil pH
Sludge 6.4
Sludge 6.4
Sludge 6.4
Sludge 6.4
Sludge 6.4
Sludge 6.0
Sludge 6.0
Sludge 6.6
Sludge 6.9
Range (N)a
of Application
Rates (kg/ha)
0-164
0-164
0-164
0-164
0-164
0-7.2
0-7.3
0-7.3
0-7 3
(2)
(2)
(20)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Control
Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DW) Slopeb Reference
7.8 0.005 Ibid.
5.0 0.03 Ibid.
7 7 0.04 Ibid.
25.1 0.01 Ibid.
8.1 0.005 Ibid.
9.2 0.06 Ibid.
5.7 0 Ibid. (p. 60)
5.2 0 Ibid.
5.9 -0.06 Ibid.

-------
Table 4-44.  (Continued)
                                                             PATHWAY  5
Plant/Tissue
Corn/leaf
Bean/edible
Cabbage/
f edible
LO
*° Cabbage/
edible
Cabbage/
edible
Millet/edible
Onion/edible
Potato/edible
Tomato/NR
Chemical
Form
Applied Soil pH
Sludge NR
Sludge 5.3
Sludge 5.3
Sludge 5.3
Sludge 5.3
Sludge 6.4
Sludge 5.3
Sludge 5.3
Sludge 5 3
Range (N)°
of Application
Rates (kg/ha)
50.4 average
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
Control
Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DW) Slope6 Reference
8.1 0.004 Webber et al., 1983
(p. 190-193)
3.2 0.003 Furr et al . , 1976a
(p. 891)
3.0 0 Ibid.
0.6 0.008 Ibid.
2.0 0 Ibid.
2.4 0.001 Ibid.
3.4 -0.015 Ibid.
3 1 0.010 Ibid.
2.2 -0.003 Ibid.

-------
                                                       Table 4-44  (Continued)
                                                                                                                     PATHWAY 5
-IN
I
     Plant/Tissue
            Chemical                Range (N)a
            Form                    of Application
            Applied     Soil pH     Rates (kg/ha)
   Control
   Tissue
Concentration  Uptake
  (ug/g DW)     Slopeb
Reference
Ryegrass/
plant
Sorghum/plant
Turnip/greens
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
5.0-6.0 0-86
5.0-6.0 0-86
5.6 0-11.
(6)
(6)
.5 (3)
3
6
7
.9
.1
.7
0.
0.
0,
11
.04
,15
Kelling et al . ,
1977 (p. 353)
Ibid.
Miller and Boswell,
1979 (p. 1,362)
     a  N  = Number of application rates.

     b  Uptake slope — y/x,  where y = tissue concentration (ug/g),  and x. = application
       rate of Cu at kg/ha, except where noted.

     c  Uptake slope — y/x,  where y = tissue concentration (ug/g),  and x = soil  concentration  (ug/g).
       To convert soil concentration to application rate of Cu at kg/ha, divide slope by 2.
       NR
Not reported.

-------
                             TABLE 4-45.  Tuxicity of Molybdenum to Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                                                             PATHWAY 5
r-o
-O-
Species
(N)'
Cattle (5)
Cattle

Cattle
Cattle
Cattle (8)
Feed
Chemical Concentration
Form Fed (ug/g DW)
Natural NRb
forage
High Mo NR
pasture

High Mo NR
pasture
High Mo NR
pasture
Molybdate NR
Water Daily
Concentration Intake
(mg/L) (rag/kg)
NR Up to
6 . 2 ppm
NR 25.6 ppm

NR 100-200 ppm
NR 400 ppm
NR 53-100 ppm
Duration
of Study Effects Reference
5-12 mori Abnormal NAS , 1980
metacarpal, and
tarsal growth
plates
23 days Diarrhea, ibid.
emaciation,
anemia
achromotrichia ,
and death
23 days Transient increase ibid.
in milk Mo level
23 days Increased' milk Mo ibid.
and toxic effects
Up to 6 No effect on liver, ibid.
mon blood, or milk Mo
                                                                                  levels

-------
                                                     TABLE 4-45.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                    PATHWAY 5
I

K)
Species
(N)'
Cattle (4)
Chemical
Form Fed
Molybdate
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
Daily
Intake
(rag/kg)
173-300 ppm
Duration
of Study
Up to 6
mon
Effects
Diarrhea,
inanition,
Reference
ibid.
    Cattle (25) Mo03
    Cattle (32) Mo03
NR
NR
    Cattle (1)  Na2Mo04      NR
    Sheep (2)   (NH4)2Mo04   NR
NR
NR
                NR
                NR
85 ppm
100 ppra
            increased milk
            Cu,  decreased
            liver Cu

11 days     Diarrhea and           ibid.
            locomotor
            disturbances within
            5 days

1 yr        Achromotrichia,         ibid.
            diarrhea, and
            reduced weight gain
                2.34 g/day      7 mon
                           Diarrhea,               ibid.
                           acromotrichia, and
                           20% weight  loss
                10 mg/day       34 days     Increased blood
                                           Mo to 2 ppm

-------
TABLE 4-45.  (Continued)
                                                            PATHWAY  5
Species
(N)1



Chicken
(30)
Chicken
(20)
Chicken (4)

Turkey (23)
Chemical
Form Fed
Na2MoS042H20

NajMoS04
Na2MoO<
Na2Mo04
Na2Mo04
Na2MoO<
Na2MoO<
Na2MoO<
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
1,500 ppm
with 17.8
ppm Cu
1,000 ppm
200-300 ppm
500 ppm
4,000 ppm
5,000 ppm
1,000 ppm
300 ppm
Duration
of Study
69 days

90 days
4 wk
4 wk
4 wk
21 days
21 days
4 wk
Effects
Depressed growth
and enhanced
plasma Cu clearance
No adverse effect
Slight growth
reduction
Decreased growth
Decreased growth
and anemia
Weight loss and
reduced egg hatching
Decreased egg
production
Growth rate
Reference
ibid.

ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
                                 reduced 25%, no
                                 diarrhea or
                                 anemi a

-------
TABLE 4-45.  (Continued)
                                                         PATHWAY 5
Feed
Species Chemical Concentration
(N)a Form Fed (ug/g DW)
Sheep (4) Na^oO, NR


Mule deer Na2MoO< NR

^ Na2MoO< NR
"f
£ Na2MoO< NR
Hog NajMoSO., NR

NR



NR

Hog (208) Na2MoSO4 NA

Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR


NR

NR

NR
NR

NR



NR

NR

Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
50 rag/day


0-1 g/day

2.5-5.0 g/day

5.0-7.5 g/day
26 ppm

26 ppm
with 1,500
ppm Cu

26 ppm with
1,000 ppm S04
50 ppm wi Lh
500 ppm Cu
Duration
of Study
(days)
18 days


27 days

27 days

27 days
9 wk

9 wk



9 wk

61 days

Effects Reference
Rumen S04
increased from
1,576 to 80 ppm
No clinical NAS , 1980
effect
Diarrhea ibid.

Anorexia ibid.
No adverse ibid.
effect
Slight decrease in ibid.
rate of gain and
increased in liver
Cu
Decreased rate of ibid.
.gain
No prevention of ibid.
Cu toxicosis

-------
                                                     TABLE 4-45.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                    PATHWAY 5
I
ro
Species Chemical
(N)a Form Fed
Horse Pasture
Rabbit (31) Na2Mo0^2H20


Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
5-22 ppm
140 ppm with
16 . 4 ppm Cu
500 ppm
1,000 ppm
Duration
of Study
Daily
4 mon
4 wk
4 wk
Effects
Associated with
rachitis
No adverse effect
No adverse effect
Anorexia, weight
Reference
ibid.


ibid.
                             NR
                            NR
2,000 ppm
4 wk
loss,  dermatosis,
and reduced bone
phosphorous

Splayed forelegs
and death
ibid.
     Rat
                             NR
Na2Mo04      NR
                            NR
                                              NR
4,000 ppm       4  mon
with 200 ppm Cu

10-100 ppm      4  wk
in Cu-deficient
diet
            No adverse  effect       ibid.
            Decreased growth,       ibid.
            liver Cu,  and
            hemoglobin levels

-------
                                                  TABLE 4-45.  (Continued)
                                                                                                            PATHWAY 5
I
N>
Species
(N)a



Rat
•

Rat (6)
Feed Water Daily
Chemical Concentration Concentration Intake Duration
Form Fed (ug/g DW) (mg/L) (mg/kg) of Study
NaMo04 NR NR 10 ppm with 4 wk
3 ppm Cu
NR NR 75 ppm 5 wk
NR NR 100 ppm 5 wk
Na2Mo042H20 NR NR 500 ppm 4 wk
with
6 ppm Cu
NR NR 1,000 ppm 4 wk
with 1 ppm
Cu and 20 or
80 Cu IV
NaMo04 NR NR 800 ppm 6 wk
with 1,2%
me thionine
Effects
No adverse
effect
Increased liver
Cu and Mo
Reduced growth
(preventable
with SOJ
Reduced
ceruloplasmin
Reduced
ceruloplasmin

Reduced growth
spared by
methionine
Reference
ibid.


ibid.
ibid.

ibid.

-------
                                                TABLE 4-45.  (Continued)
                                                                                                               PATHWAY 5

Species
(N)*

Chemical
Form Fed
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
r
Duration
of Study Effects


Reference
Rat (10)    NaMo04
                        NR
                        NR
                        NR
NR
NR
NR
800 ppm
with
0.6% methione
300 ppm Cu

800 ppm
with 15.6
ppm Cu

800 ppm
with 15.6
ppm Cu
plus 0.29% S0<
41 days
            Reduced toxicosis
41 days     .Increased liver Cu
                                                                                   No adverse
                                                                                   effect
                                                                                                          ibid.
                                   ibid.
                                   ibid.
Rat (10)    Na2Mo042H20   NR
NR
14.24 mg/day    3  wk
            Increased blood
            and liver Cu and
            increased sp.  gr.
            of blood
                                                                                                          ibid.
                        NR
NR
14.24 mg/day
plus
4 mg Cu
3 wk
                                                                                   No adverse
                                                                                   effect
                                   ibid.

-------
                                                 TABLE 4-45.  (Continued)
                                                                                                            PATHWAY  5
4S


JN
CD
Feed
Species Chemical Concentration
(N)" Form Fed (ug/g DW)
NR
Rat (48) Na2Mo042H20 NR

NR

Guinea pig NR
Cattle Feed or 5-6
forage
Sheep Feed or 10-12
forage
Hog feed 1,000
Water Daily Duration
Concentration Intake of Study
(mg/L) (mg/kg) (days)
NR 500-5,000 ppm 4 wk
NR 400 - 7 wk
1,200 ppm

NR 4,000 ppm 7 wk

NR 100 ppm 6 wk
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR 3 moil
Effects Reference
Reduced growth at ibid.
500 ppm Mo and
above; no diarrhea
Rough hair, ibid.
reduced growth,
and increased
tissue Mo
Rough hair, ibid.
reduced growth,
and increased
tissue Mo
Increased liver ibid.
Mo, no other effect
Poisoning Buck, 1978
Poisoning ibid.
No ill efleccs ibid.

-------
TABLE 4-45.  (Continued)
                                                         PATHWAY  5
Species
(N)a
Rat
Rat (24)
Rat (8)
(10)
(.10)
(8-8)
Rat (10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
Feed
Chemical Concentration
Form Fed (ug/g DW)
Feed 500-1,000
Molybdenite NR
Molybdenum NR
trioxide
NR
NR
NR
Calcium NR
molybdate
NR
NR
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR
10-500 mg/
animal/day
10
25
50
100-500
9
21
43
86
Duration
of Study
(days)
NR
44 days
120 days
137 days
137 days
14-8 days
137 days
128 days
137 days
57 clays
Effects
Reduced growth
and hemoglobin
level
No mortality
50% mortality
80% mortality
90% mortality
100% mortality
50% mortality
100% mortality
60% mortality
100% mortality
Reference
ibid.
Friberg et al . ,
1975
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

-------
TABLE 4-45.  (Continued)
                                                         PATHWAY 5
Species
(10)
Cattle

Sheep
r H0g
ro
° Rat
Rat (24)
Rat (8)
(10)
(10)
Chemical
Form Fed

Feed or
forage
Feed or
forage
Feed
Feed
Molybdenite
Molybdenum-
trioxide


Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
5-6

10-12
1,000
500-1,000
NR
NR
NR
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
430
NR

NR
NR
NR
10-500 mg/
animal/day
10
25
50
Duration
of Study
(days)
17 days
NR

NR
3 mon
NR
44 days
120 days
137 days
137 days
Effects
100% mortality
Poisoned

Poisoned
No ill effects
Reduced growth
and hemoglobin
level
No mortality
50% mortality
80% mortality
90% mortality
Reference
ibid.
Buck, 1978

ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
Friberg et al
1975
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

-------
                                                                                                                PATHWAY 5
                                                  TABLE 4-45.  (Continued)
Species
(N)a
(8-8)
Rat (10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
Rat (8)
Feed
Chemical Concentration
Form Fed (ug/g DW)
NR
Calcium NR
molybdate
NR
NR
NR
NR
Ammonium NR
molybdate
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
100-500
9
21
43
86
430
10
Duration
of Study
(days)
8-14 days
137 days
128 days
137 days
57 days
17 days
232 days
Effects
100% mortality
50% mortality
100% mortality
60% mortality
100% mortality
100% mortality
25% mortality
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
"N  •=  Number  of  animals  per treaunc.-nl  group,  if reported.
6NR = Not  reported.

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY  5

ii.      The linear response slope of forage crops  for  herbivorous animals
        (UCH)  - 0.769 [ug/g DW (kg/ha)'1].

        The linear response slope of 0.769  [ug Mo/g  DW (kg/ha)'1]  for
        fodder rape  (see Table 4-46) was chosen because  it  is  Che highest
        uptake slope for molybdenum reported  for a crop  that-is  consumed
        by herbivorous animals (Page, 1974).

iii.    The background concentration of  pollutant  in the feed  crop of
        herbivorous  animals (BCH) =- 1.1 ug/g DW.

        This value is the background plant  tissue  concentration  of Mo from
        the same set of experiments on fodder rape from  which  its uptake
        slope in plant tissue was calculated  (see  ii above)  (Page,  1974)
4.5.2.4   Selenium (Se)

i.      The threshold feed concentration  that  is  toxic  to  herbivorous
        animals (TAH) -2.3 ug/g DW.

        In a study with chickens  (see Table 4-47) .  feed concentrations  of
        2 ug Se/g in the form of  seleniferous  corn,  barley,  and wheat
        caused no adverse effects  (Moxon,  1937)    At 2.5 ug Se/g,  however.
        many hatched chicks had wiry down and  showed an increased
        mortality.  The threshold  feed  concentration is the geometric  mean
        between the level that barely causes an  effect  and the highest
        level that does not cause  an effect  -- or 2.3 ug Se/g.

        This concentration is similar to  the levels that caused toxic
        effects in three other studies  with bird and rodent species.   At a
        feed concentration of 5 ug/g, Hill (1979)  reported a tendency  for
                                   4-252

-------
                                      Table 4.46.  Uptake of Molybdenum by Plants
                                                                                                               PATHWAY 5
Plant/Tissue
Fodder rape/NRb
Bean/leaf
Tomato/leaf
•Cx
1
K)
Oi
00 Barley/leaf
Leek/NR
Beet/root
Potato/root
Carrot/root
Chemical
Form Applied
(study type)
Sludge
Saturation, extracts
of sludge (pot)
Saturation extracts of
sludge (pot)
Saturation extracts of
sludge (pot)
Sludge (field)
Sludge (field)
Sludge (field)
Sludge (field)
Soil pH
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
0.78
NR
NR
NR
12. y
12. y
12. y
12. y
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
1.1
2.4
2.9
5.0
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.12
Uptake
Slope1
0.769
NR
NR
NR
0.0484
0.0121
0.0105
No slope
Reference
Page, 1974
Bradford et al . ,
1975
ibid.
ibid.
Page, 1974
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
"Uptake  slope  •=  y/x,  when  y  =  ug/g  plant  tissue  SW,  and  x  =  kg/ha  applied.
bNR  =  Not  reported.
'Estimated from  average Mo concentrations in  sludge  and  sludge  aplication rate  (66 mt/ha/19 yr)

-------
TABLE 4-47.  Toxicity of Selenium to Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                             PATHWAY 5
Feed Water
Species Chemical Concentration Concentration
(N)1 Form Fed (ug/g DW) (mg/L)
Chicken Se02 5 NR6
(10)



Chicken NA2Se03 7 NR
(20)



Chicken NA2Se03 8 NR











Daily
Intake Duration
(mg/kg) of Study Effects Refe-rence
NR 4-5 wk Tendency for Hill, 1979'
increased
mortality from
S. Eallinarura
infection
NR 16 wk None on egg Ort and
production, Latshaw,
decreased egg 1978C
weight and
hatching
NR 2 wk No gross Gruenwald,
or longer pathology with 1958C
embryos incubated
to 5 wk but
histologically
pathologic
regression of
previously well-
formed parts
(nervous system,
limb bude , and eyes);
Inhibited necrosis

-------
                                                    TABLE 4-47.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                  PATHWAY 5
I
fxj
Specie^
(N)1
Rat (10)
Hamster
(8)
Feed
Chemical Concentration
Form Fed (ug/g DW)
Seleni- 4.4
ferous
wheat
8.8
17.5
NA2SeOj 6
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily
Intake
(rag/kg)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study Effects Reference
100 days Slight decrease Moxon, 1937°
in weight gain
NR Moderate decrease
in weight gain
NR Marked decreased
in weight gain,
and weight loss
after 70 days
4 wk None on weight Hadjimarkos,
gain, water 1970'
                                                 NR
NR
NR
consumption
reduced 30%

Decreased weight
gain,  water
consumption
reduced 45%

-------
TABLE 4-47.  (Continued)
                                                         PATHWAY 5
Feed Water
Species Chemical Concentration Concentration
(N)a Form Fed (ug/g DW) (mg/L)
Dog (10) NA2Se03 20 NR

J> Seleni- NR NR
N> ferous corn
Ln
cr-

Hog (2) NA2Se03 0.1 NR
Selenium- NR NR
methionine
Selenium- NR NR
methionine
NA.SeO, 10 NR
Daily
Intake Duration
(mg/kg) of Study Effects Reference
NR Several Dull-eyed, Moxon, 1937'
weeks sluggish, aim-
lessly wandering,
decrease feed
consumption and
weight gain
NR NR Dull -eyed,
sluggish, aim-
lessly wandering,
decreased feed
consumption and
weight gain
NR 35-39 days No adverse Herigstad et
effects al., 1973C
NR 35-38 days No adverse effects

NR 38 days No adverse effects

NR 56 days No adverse effects

-------
                                                TABLE 4-47.  (Continued)
                                                                                                               PATHWAY  5

Species
(N)1

Chemical
Form Fed
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)

Duration
of Study Effects


Reference
(2)
-p-
KJ
Hog (2)
Na2Se03
Selenium-
methionine

Na2Se03
                 Selenium-
                 methionine
20
                             NR
                 45
                             NR
                                                  NR
                                 NR
                NR
                                 NR
NR
                              NR
                                                                 NR
                              NR
84 days     Anorexia,  ernes is,
            weight loss,
            depression,
            dyspnea,  death
            of one pig at
            32 days,  no effect
            on second pig

63-84 days  Decreased weight
            gain in one pig

63 days     Weight loss and
            death of one  pig
            at 3 days,
            decreased weight
            gain and toxic
            signs in second
            pig

5-9 days    Weight loss and
            death
                                             ibid.

-------
                                                    TABLE 4-47.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                  PATHWAY 5
Ln
Oo
Species
(N)a
(5)

(4)
Hens,
(10)
Feed Water
Chemical Concentration Concentration
Form Fed (ug/g DW) (mg/L)
Seleni- 5 NR
ferous corn
10 NR
Na2Se03 7 NR
Na2Se03 10 through NR
weaning of
2 litters
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study Effects
NR No adverse
effects
NR Signs of toxicosis
in 60%
108 days Decreased weight
gain, hair loss,
cracked hooves,
emaciation (by 5
wk) , 1 death at
10 wk)
NR Decreased concep-
tion rate,
increased
Reference
Schoening, 1936

Wahlstrom et
al., 1956'
Wahlstrom and
Olson, 1959C
                                                                                       services per
                                                                                       conception, more
                                                                                       small, weak, and
                                                                                       dead pigs at birth,
                                                                                       fewer and lighter
                                                                                       pigs at weaning

-------
                                                TABLE 4-47.  (Continued)
                                                                                                               PATHWAY 5
Species
(N)1
(2)
Chemical
Form Fed
Na2Se03
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
24
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR
Duration
of Study
79 days
Effects
Anorexia, hair
loss, liver
degeneration
Reference
Miller and
Schoening,
1938C
Horse (1)   Na2SeO}
Chicken
(hens 2)
Na2SeOj
                115
                NR
              NR
            5 wk
0.1
NR
                                             NR
NR
                                               NR
28 wk
                                          NR
and death

Emaciation,
listlessness,
loose hair in mane
and tail, softening
and scaling of hoof
walls, hemorrhagic
and cirrhotic liver
and death

No adverse
effects

No adverse
effects
                                 Miller and
                                 Williams,  1940°
Ort and
Latshaw, 1978'

-------
                                                      TABLE 4-47.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                     PATHWAY  5
      Species
Chemical
Form Fed
    Feed
Concentration
  (ug/g DW)
   Water
Concentration
   (mg/L)
Daily
Intake      Duration
(mg/kg)     of Study
                                                                                         Effects
                                                                                            Reference
O\
O
      Chicken,
      pullet
      (50)
Selenious
acid
                                               NR          None on egg
                                                           production, egg
                                                           weight, or
                                                           fertility,
                                                           decreased hatching

                                               16 wk       No adverse effect

                                               NR          Decreased egg weight,
                                                           production, and
                                                           hatchability

                                               76 wk       None, except
                                                           possibly
                                                           increased weight
                                                           at 20 weeks
                                                                                            Thapar et al.
                                                                                            1969C

-------
                                                  TABLE 4-47.  (Continued)
                                                                                                             PATHWAY 5
.p-
I
Species
(N)'

Chicken
Chicken,
hen

Chicken,
hen
Chicken
Chicken,
hen
Feed Water
Chemical Concentration Concentration
Form Fed (ug/g DW) (mg/L)
8 NR
Na2SeO} 2 NR
Seleni- 2.5 NR
ferous corn,
barley
and wheat

Na2Se03 6.5, 3.25 NR
Na2SeO} 8 NR
Seleniferous 10 NR
corn, barley
and wheat
Daily
Intake Duration
(mg/kg) of Study Effects Reference
NR NR Reduced body
weight, egg weight,
production,
hatching and
progeny growth
NR Several No adverse Moxon, 1937°
weeks effects
NR NR None on egg hatch-
ing, wiry down
on many hatched
chicks; and
increased
mortality
NR NR Decreased feed con-
sumption and weight;
deformed embryos
NR NR Decreased weight gain
NR NR Embryonic deformi- Moxon, 1937C
ties and hatcha-
bility declined
                                                                                   to zero.

-------
                                                     TABLE 4-47.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                  PATHWAY 5
-IN
I
Nj

Species
w
Chicken,
pullet






Chicken
(10)


Feed Water
Chemical Concentration Concentration
Form Fed (ug/g DU) (mg/L)
Seleni- 15 NR
ferous corn,
barley,
and wheat




Se02 2.5 NR

5 NR

Daily
Intake 'Duration
(mg/kg) of Study Effects Reference
NR 5 wk Decreased feed
consumption and
weight, no
decrease in egg
production or
fertility,
deformed embryos
and hatching.
NR 2 wk No adverse Hill, 1974C
effect
NR NR No adverse
effect
                                 10

                                 20

                                 40
NR

NR

NR
NR

NR

NR
NR

NR

NR
Gain 72% of controls

Gain 30% of controls

Gain 2% of controls

-------
                                                  TABLE 4-47. (Continued)
                                                                                                             PATHWAY 5
K)
CTv
LO
Species Chemical
(N)' Form Fed
Cynomolgus Na2Se03
monkey (11)
(Macaca
fascicularis)



Rat Se


Se salts

Horse Se salts

Rat Se



Feed Water
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DW) (mg/L)
10 NR



10 (in 10% NR
protein diet)
10 (in 20%
protein diet)
1 0.5

44 2.0

4-6 NR

5 NR

Daily
Intake Duration
(mg/kg) of Study Effects Reference
NR 40 days Tongue erosion, Loew et al . ,
anorexia, lassi- 1975C
tude , leukopenia,
crusty, hemmorr-
hatic tail,
dermatosis, loss
of nails
(onychoptosis)
NR NR Highly toxic Ewan, 1978,
p. 449)
Tolerated

0.5 NR Chronic Harr and Muth,
poisoning 1972 (p. 1,976)
1.0 NR Chronic Harr et al . 19
poisoning (p. 408)
NR 60-10U Lethal
days
NR NR Subacute ibid.
t;el enos is

-------
                                                     TABLE 4-47.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                    PATHWAY 5
0\
.p-
Species
Cattle,
sheep
Cattle,
sheep ,
horse
Pig

Chemical
Form Fed
Primary Se
indicator
plants
Forage
Se

Feed Water
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DW) <«g/L)
100-10,000 NR
20-50 NR
12-18 NR

Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR
NR
NAd

Duration
of Study
NR
NR
Single
dose

Effects Reference
Se poisoning Harr and Muth,
syndrome 1972 (p. 177)
Subacute sele- ibid., p. 178
nosis "alkali
disease
Minimum per Harr et al.,
acute lethal 1978
dose
     * N - Number of animals per  treatment group if reported


     ' NR •= Not reported.


     ' Obtained from NAS  (1980),  Table 29, pp. 402-415.


     d NA •= Not applicable.

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY  5

        chickens to show increased mortality from S. gallinarium
        infections.  Rats showed a slightly decreased gain when fed
        seleniferous wheat containing 4.4 ug Se/g (Moxon, 1937)
        Decreased egg weight and hatchability were also seen in hens  that
        were fed 7 ug Se/g (Ort and Latshaw, 1978)

ii.      The linear response slope of forage crops for herbivorous animals
        (UCH)  - 0.07 [ug/g DW (kg/ha)]'1.

        Because no data were available on uptakes of crops that are
        normally included in the diets of herbivorous animals,  the
        geometric mean for uptakes of leafy vegetables in the human diet,
        0.07 [ug/g DW (kg/ha)]"1,  was used as a reasonable surrogate for
        the uptakes of crops in the diet of herbivorous animals (see  Table
        4-22) .

iii.     The background concentration of pollutant in the feed crop of
        herbivorous animals (BCH)  =• 0.03 ug/g DW.  This value is the
        geometric mean of the background plant tissue concentrations  of Se
        from the same set of experiments (see ii above) on which the
        linear response slopes are based.

4.5.2.5   Zinc (Zn)

i.       The threshold feed concentration that is toxic to herbivorous
        animals (TAH)  - 300- ug/g DW for sheep.

        Campbell and Mills (1979) reported no toxic effects from feeding
        150 ug/g ZnS04  to  sheep, whereas  750 ug/g caused  decreased  gain
        and feed consumption as well as an increased number of still-born
        lambs.   The toxic threshold is the mean  of the No Observed Effect
        Level  (NOEL) and the Lowest Observed Effect Level (LOEL), or  335
                                4-265

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 5

        ug Zn/g feed.   The National Academy of Science recommends  a
        maximum tolerable level of 300 ug Zn/g feed for sheep;  this more
        conservative value is, therefore, used as the toxic threshold  for
        sheep (NAS,  1980).

ii.      The linear response of forage crops for herbivorous animals (UC) =•
        0.058 [ug/g DW (kg/ha)'1] .

        The linear response slope of 0.058 [ug Zn/g DW (kg/ha)"1] for
        barley leaves grown on sludge-amended soil (see Table 4-48) is  the
        highest uptake slope reported for a crop consumed by sheep (Chang
        et al.,  1983).

ill.     The background concentration of Zn in the feed crop of  herbivorous
        animals (BCH)  - 26 ug/g DW.

        This value is the background plant tissue concentration of Zn  from
        the same set of experiments from which the uptake slope in plant
        tissue was calculated (see ii above).
                                4-266

-------
                                                                                                                    PATHWAY 5
                                     TABLE 4-48.  Toxicily of Zinc to Domestic and Wild Animals
Species
(N)1
Cattle (7)
Chemical
Form Fed
ZnO
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
100-500
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NAC
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR"
Duration
of Study
12 wk
Effects
No adverse
effect
Reference*1
Ott et al. ,
1966 a, b
I
1-0
                              900
                              1,300-1,700
                            NA
                            NA
                                   NR
                                   NR
                               NR
                               NR
                        Decreased
                        weight gain,
                        and  liver Cu

                        Decreased
                        weight gain,
                        decreased feed
                        efficiency, and
                        liver Cu
                              2 , 100
                            NA
                                   NR
                               NR
                        Decreased
                        weight, decreased
                        feed efficiency,
                        liver Cu and pica
                        behavior
      Cattle
       (90-100)
ZnO
7,200'
                              1.4.5001
NA
                            NA
72 g/day    3-4  days
                                    14 b g/day   Nl<
Scouring
(diarrhea)  and
decreased milk
production

Scours and death
in 7/102
Allen,  1968

-------
                                                                                                                    PATHWAY 5
                                                      TABLE 4-48. (Continued)
                             Feed             Water               Daily
     Species     Chemical    Concentration    Concentration       Intake      Duration
     (N)"         Form Fed    (ug/g DW)        (mg/L)              (mg/kg)      of  Study     Effects            Reference11
ho
CTi
oo
     Cattle (4)  ZnO
     Horse (3)   ZnO
     Cattle,      NR
     horse

     Sheep (4)    Yeast
     Sheep (2)    ZnS04
600 ppm
6,250'
500
840
                             840
NA
NA
NA
NR
125*
                   NR
NR
                                    NR
21 days
38 wk
            NR
35 days
                               33 days
Increased Zn      Miller et al.
levels in pancreas,  1970
duodenum rumen,
small intestine,
liver, hair, rib,
and testicle,
indicating decline
in homeostatic
control of Zn
Swelling at
epipyseal
region of long
bones, reduced
growth, and anemia

Maximum
tolerable level

Kidney changes
and decreased
food intake and
growth

Kidney changes
and decreased
growth
Willoughby et
al.,  1972
HAS, 1980
(P- 7)

Davies et al.,
1977, as cited
NAS, 1980
                                                                              ibid.

-------
                                                 TABLE 4-48. (Continued)
                                                                                                          PATHWAY 5
I
ho
Feed Water
Species Chemical Concentration Concentration
(N)a Form Fed (ug/g DW) (mg/L)
Sheep (6) ZnO 500 NA
1,000 NA

2,000-4,000 NA


Sheep (6) ZnS04 150 NA
Sheep (6) ZnS04 750 NA


Sheep (6) ZnSO 750 NA

Daily
Intake Duration
(mg/kg) of Study Effects Reference6
NR 10 wk No adverse Ott et al.,
effect 1966a, b
NR NR Decreased food ibid.
intake
NR NR ' Decreased food ibid.
intake, weight
gain, hemoglobin
and hematocrit,
decreased serum,
and liver Cu
NR Gestation No adverse Campbell and
effect Mills, 1979
NR Gestation Decreased gain ibid.
and feed
consumption ,
8.5% nonviable
lambs
NR 100 days 93%-100% ibid.
nonviable
offspring

-------
                                                  TABLE 4-48. (Continued)
                                                                                                           PATHWAY 5
^J
o
Species Chemical
(N)' Form Fed
Sheep NR
Hog (3) Zn lactate
in milk
(6) ZnCOj
(6) ZnO
NR
Chicken (4) ZnO

ZnSO4
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
300
268
500-1,000
2,000-4,000
1,000
1,000
1,500
1,000
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
Nr
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study Effects
NA Maximum
tolerable level
9-12 wk Reduced feed
intake rough
hair, arthritis,
weak bones,
liver necrosis
6 wk No adverse
effect
69 days Slight scour-
ing, decreased
weight gain
NR Maximum
tolerable level
4 wk No adverse
effect
Decreased growth
No adverse effect
Reference1*
NAS, 1980
(p. 7)
Grimmett et
al., 1937
Brink et al. ,
1959
Cox and Hale,
1962
NAS, 1980
(P. 7)
Robertson and
Schaible, 1960



-------
                                                  TABLE 4-48. (Continued)
                                                                                                            PATHWAY 5
.p-
I
Species Chemical
(N)' Form Fed

ZnCOj

Chicken (3) ZnO


Turkey (10) ZnO

Poultry NR
Japanese ZnS03
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
1,500
1,000
1,500
200-400
800-2,000

1,000-2,000
4,000
1,000
62.5
Water
Concentration
(rag/L)
NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
NA
Daily
Intake
(rag/kg)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study Effects Reference6
Decreased growth
No adverse effect
Decreased growth
2 wk No adverse Berg and
effect Martinson, 1972
Decreased
growth with
poor diet,
no effect with
adequate diets
3 wk No adverse Vohra and
effect Kratzer, 1968
Decreased growth
NR Maximum NAS , 1980
tolerable level (p. 7)
2 wk No adverse Hamilton et
effect al. , 1979

-------
                                                       TABLE 4-48. (Continued)
                                                                                                                     PATHWAY 5
      Species
            Chemical
            Form Fed
Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
Water
ConcentraCion
(mg/L)
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
Duration
of Study
                                                                                          Effects
Reference1"
                              250-1,000
                                                                                    Decreased growth,
                                                                                    hemoglobin and
                                                                                    hematocrit
                              2,000
.o

INJ

K>
      Mouse (150) ZnSO<
                                         500
                                    NR
                                                                              14 mon
      "N  =  Number  of animals  per
      ""Source  of all information
      CNA = Not applicable.
      dNR = Not reported.
      "Assuming a  total dietary
                           treatment  group
                           is  NAS,  1980  (p.
                    553-577)
                          intake  of 10  kg/day  Lor adult  cattle.
'Estimated  feed concentration  based on  daily food intake  to body-weight  ratio
"Time-weighted average of exposure varying from 25-183 ing/day
                                           Decreased growth,
                                           hemoglobin and
                                           hematocrit

                                           No gross
                                           effects on
                                          Aughey et
                                          al., 1977
                                                                                          size or appearance,
                                                                                          hypertrophy of
                                                                                          adrenal cortex,
                                                                                          evidence of
                                                                                          hyperactivity in
                                                                                          pancreatic islets
                                                                                          and pituitary
                                                                                          gland
                                                                                    >f  10  kg/500 kg  for horses.

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY 6

4.6  PATHWAY 6

      For pathway 6 (animal toxicity  from  sludge ingestion), che chemical of
concern is:

      Copper
                                    4-273

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY 6

4.6.1   Pathway Equations


*      RFC = TA - BC
where  RFC - reference feed concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
       TA  - threshold feed concentration (ug/g DW)
       BC  - background concentration in feed crop (ug/g DW)
       RLC = (RFC/FL) + BS
where  RLC - reference soil concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
       FL  - fraction of diet that is adhering soil g soil DW/g
             diet DW
       BS  — background soil concentration of pollutant (ug/g
             DW)
Assuming that sludge is soil-incorporated or diluted,  use eq.  24,

where  RP  - reference application rate of pollutant (kg/ha)
       RLC - reference soil concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
       BS  - background concentration of pollutant in soil
             (ug/g DW)
       MS  - 2 x 103 mg/ha - assumed mass of soil  in upper 15 cm
       10° - conversion factor (kg/g)
4.6.2  Data Points and Rationale for Selection


Copper (Cu)


1.     Threshold feed concentrations (TA) - 25 ug/g DW.
       See Section 4.5.2.2, i.
                                 4-274

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY 6


ii.     The background concentration (BC) of copper in feed crop =2.1 ug/'g
       DW.
       See Section 4.5.2.2, iii.

iii.    The fraction of diet that is adhering soil (FL) - 0.10 g soil DW/g
       diet DW.

       Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil ingestion ordinaril"
       ranges from 1-10% of dry weight of diet (but may range as high as
       20%) for cattle and may be 30% or higher for sheep during the
       winter months when forage is reduced (Thornton and Abrams,  1983)
       Because lamb contributes relatively little to the U.S. diet, a
       value of FL - 10%, or 0.10, was used to represent a reasonably high
       exposure situation.

iv.     The background soil concentration (BS) of copper - 19.0 ug/g DW
       This value represents the mean background soil concentration of
       copper, as reported in a national study by Holmgren (1985)  (see
       Table 4-25).  For metals, pollutant additions in sludge are
       considered on the basis of total, rather than extractabie,  metal.
       Soil analyses, therefore, are also reported as total metal
       concentrations.

v.      The fraction of the animal diet chat is sludge (FS) = 0.08
       Studies of sludge adhesion to growing forage following applications
       of liquid or filter-cake sludge show that when 3-6 mg/ha of sludge
       solids is applied, clipped forage initially consists of up to 30%
       sludge on a dry-weight basis (Chaney and Lloyd, 1979;  Boswell,
       1975).  This contamination, however, diminishes gradually with time
       and growth,  and generally it is not detected in the following
       year's growth.  Where pastures amended at 16 and 32 mg/ha were
                                 4-275

-------
                                                           PATHWAY 6

grazed throughout a growing season (168 days), the average  sludge
content of forage was only 2.17 and 5.17% respectively  (Bertrand ec
al., 1981).

Chaney and Lloyd (1986) reviewed these and other data on sludge
adherence to forage crops and showed that, by 21-28 days following
sludge application, the amount of sludge in or on forage was
0.5-5.4% (DW/DW),  depending on the sludge moisture content  and
forage species.  Sludge in the feces of cattle rotationally grazed
on these pastures at least 7-21 days following sludge application
was slightly higher -- as high as 7.7% -- probably indicating some
ingestion of sludge from the soil surface.  Therefore,  an  FS value
of 8%, or 0.08, was used when an average waiting period of  30 days
is allowed between sludge application and grazing or harvesting of
crops.
                          4-276

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY 7






4.7  PATHWAY 7




    The  chemicals of concern for pathway 7 (plant phytotoxicity)  include:




    Cadmium




    Chromium




    Copper




    Lead




    Nickel




    Zinc
                                    4-277

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY  7


    4.7.1  Pathway Equations


    A threshold phytotoxic application rate of a pollutant (TP) in kilograms
per hectare can be derived directly from phytotoxic studies,  if  the pollutant
is not subject to degradation.  The reference cumulative application  rate, or
RPC  (in kg/ha),  is


                Rc =  TP '


    If the  pollutant  is likely to degrade in soil,  then the RP for single
applications is


                RP. = TP x etT


    where  e - base of natural logarithms,  2.718 (unitless)
           k - rate constant for contaminant loss from soil (yr"1)
           T - waiting (or land-use conversion) period (yr)


    The RP  for multiple applications is


                RPC = RLC x MS x 103 x ekt [[1 + De'k + DV* +  ... +  DMe1"1""  '
    where  RPC  -  cumulative application rate of pollutant  (hg/ha)
           RLC -  reference soil concentration of pollutant  (ug/g DW)
           MS  -  2 x 103 mg/ha (assumed mass of  soil in upper 15 cm)
           10° -  conversion factor (kg/g)
           e   -  base of natural logarithms, 2.718  (unitless)
           k   -  rate constant for contaminant loss from soil  (yr4)
           T   —  waiting (or  land-use conversion) period (yr)
           D   -  (MS-ARJ/MS
           AR,  -  annual application rate  (mg DW/ha)
                                      4-278

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 7

4.7.2  Data Points and Rationale for Selection

4.7.2.1 Cadmium (Cd)

I.   The  reference soil concentration of pollutant (RLC)  - 89.4 ug/g.
     As  shown in Table 4-49,  soil concentrations of 40-200 ug of CdCl,  in
     the  soil caused no effects  at the lower level and significantly
     decreased yields  at the  higher level for lettuce, broccoli,
     cauliflower,  and carrots in the study reported by John (1973)  The
     geometric mean of these  levels -- one not causing and the other jusc
     causing toxic effects --is  89 4 ug/g.   Using data from a sludge/field
     study (instead of this pot  study with cadmium salts) would have been
     preferable, but no sludge studies were available that measured the
     "no  effect" level.  Using the lowest concentration that results in a
     toxic effect may still underestimate the phytotoxicity of the metal,
     because theoretically it could also have been toxic at a yet still
     lower, but untested,  concentration. The pH of the soil used in this
     study was 5.1, which represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for
     land application of sludge.

ii.  The  reference cumulative application rate of pollutant (RPC) —  178. i
     kg/ha.

     The  reference cumulative application rate of pollutant is calculacea
     using the following formula:

              RPQ =  (RLC - BS) x MS x 10°                             (33)
                   =  (89.4 ug/g - 0.2 ug/g) x 2,000 rag/ha x 10'3
                   =  178.4 kg/ha
                                  4-279

-------
                                                             TABLE 4-49.  Phytotoxicily of Cadmium
                                                                                                                        PATHWAY 7
CO
o
Chemical
Form
Applied
(study
Plane/Tissue type)
Soybean/top CdCl2


Wheat/top CdCLj


Lettuce/NR CdCl


Oat/root CdClj


Wheat/root CdCl,

Control Tissue Soil
Soil Concentration Concentration
pH (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
6.7 2 2.5
30

6.7 1 2.5
100

6.7 2.8 2.5
10

NR NR 10

100
NR NK 50

Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
NR1
NR

NR
NR

NR
NR

NR

NR
NR

Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g Dw)
7
20

3
20

11.5
27 1

NR

NR
NR

Effect Reference
10% reduced Haghiri, 1973
yield and (p. 94)
discoloration
70% decreased
yield and
chlorosis
21% decreased ibid.
yield
70% decreased
yield
40% decreased ibid.
yield
58% decreased
yield
24.5% decreased Khan and
root biomass Frankland,
1984 (p. 70)
76 . 7% decreased
61.3% decreased i b i d .

-------
                                                                                                                      PATHWAY 7
                                                                  TABLE 4-49.  (Continued)
JN




CO

Plant/Tissue





Radish/root


Lettuce/leaf


Spinach/ leaf
Chemical
Form
Applied
(study Soil
type) pH
CdClj NR
CdSO< NR
CdSO, NR
CdO NR

CdCl2 and NR
CdO (1:1)
CdCl2 and NR
CdO (1:1)
CdCl2 and NR
CdO (1:1)
CdCl2 5.1
(8.5)


CdCl2 5.1

Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
12.2


12.2
(8.5)

Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
100
100
100
100

50
100
50
40
200

40

Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR

Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g Dw)
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
51
(295)
668
(1,628)
207
(214)

Effect Reference
67.7% decreased
root biomass
67.7% decreased
root biomass
13.8% decreased
root biomass
47.5% decreased
root biomass
31.9% decreased ibid.
root biomass
42.6% decreased
root biomass
31.9% decreased
root biomass
No effect on John, 1973
yield (pp. 10-11)
Yield reduced 91%
(60%)
Yield reduced 96% ibid.
(96%)

-------
                                                                   TABLE 4-49.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                     PATHWAY  7
CO
NJ
Chemical
Form
Applied
( s tudy
Plant/Tissue type)
Broccoli/leaf CdCl2
(roots)

Cauliflower/ CdClz
leaf (roots)


Radish/top CdCl2
(tuber)


Carrot/top CdCl2
(tuber)


Pea/seed CdCl2
(pod)


Control Tissue
Soil Concentration
pH (ug/g DW)
5.1 2.7
(6.5)

5.1 4.8
(1.8)


5.1 9.8
(3.6)


5.1 6.6
(2.4)


5.1 5.4


Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
40
200
40
200

40
200

40
200

40
200

Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR

NR
NR

NR
NR

Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g Dw)
36
(153)
269
(1,647)
18.5
(203)
199
(1,357)
265
• (55)
398
(123)
79.3
(26.8)
294
(29.8)
10.1
(9.5)
19. 7
(28.2)
Effect Reference
No effect on ibid. ,
yield (pp. 10-11)
Yield reduced 63%
(15%)
No effect on ibid.
yield
Yield reduced 97%
(90%)
Yield reduced 24%
(28%)
Yield reduced 82%
(93%)
No effect on
yield
Yield reduced 92%
(96%)
Yield reduced 38% ibid.
(30%)
Yield reduced 99%
(82%)

-------
                                             TABLE 4-49.  (Continued)
                                                                                              PATHWAY 7

Plant/Tissue
Oat/grain
(leaves)


Spinach/leaf
4>
I
IXJ
ui Soybean/seed
(leaf)
Cur lycress/
leaf
Lettuce/leaf
(leaf)
Sweet corn/
kernel (leaf)
Ca r rot/ tube r
(leaf )
Chemical
Form
Applied
(study Soil
type ) pH
CdCl2 5.1


CdSO< 7 . 5
enriched
sludge (pot)
CdSO< 7 . 5
enriched
sludge (pot)
CdSO< 7 . 5
enriched
sludge (pot)
CdS04 7 . 5
enriched
sludge (pot)
CdS04 7.b
enriched
sludge (pot)
CdS04 7 . b
enriched

Control Tissue Soil Application
Concentration Concentration Rate
(ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha)
3.9 40 NR
(3.9)
200 NR

3.6 4 NR
0.6 -5 NR
(0.4)
2.4 8 NR
NK 13 NR
0 05 18 NR
(3.9)
0 y 20 NR

Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g Dw) Effect
20.8 Yield reduced 35%
(45.4) (NS)b
33.6 Yield reduced 57%
(177) (NS)
75 Yield reduced 25%
7.0 Yield reduced 35%
(7.0)
80 Yield reduced 25%
70 Yield reduced 25%
19 Yield reduced 25%
(35)
19 Yield reduced 25%
(32)

Reference
ibid.


Bingham
et al. , 1975
(pp. 208, 210)
ibid. and
Bingham et al .
1979 (p. 40)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
s1udgu (po t)

-------
                                             TABLE 4-49. (Continued)
                                                                                             PATHWAY  7
Chemical
Form Experimental
Applied Control Tissue Soil Application Tissue
(study Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
Plant/Tissue
Turnip/tuber
(leaf)

Field bean/
seed (leaf)

4>, Wheat/grain
,1 deaf)
CO
-p-
Radish/tuber
(leaf)

Tomato/fruit


Zucchini/
fruit
(leaf)
Cabbage/head
(leaf)
type) pH (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha)
CdSO, 7.5 <0.1 28 NR
enriched
sludge (pot)
CdS04 7.5 0.05 40 NR
enriched (0.6)
sludge (pot)
CdS04 7.5 <0.1 50 NR
enriched (0.1)
sludge (pot)
CdS04 7.5 0.2 96 NR
enriched
sludge (pot)
CdS04 7.5 <0.l 1 60 NR
enriched (0.1)
sludge (pot)
CdS04 7.5 <0.1 160 NR
enriched
sludge (pot)
CdS04 7.5 0.2 J 70 NR
enriched
(ug/g Dw)
15
(120)

1.7
(15)

12
(33)

21
(75)

7.0
(125)

10
(68)

11
(160)
Effect Reference
Yield reduced 25% ibid.


Yield reduced 25% ibid.


Yield reduced 25% ibid.


Yield reduced 25% ibid.


Yield reduced 25% ibid.


Yield reduced 25% ibid.


Yield reduced 25% ibid.

sludge (pot)

-------
                                             TABLE 4-49.  (Continued)
                                                                                               PATHWAY 7

Plant/Tissue
Swiss chard/
leaf

Rice/grain
(leaf)
KJ Lettuce/
00 '
u> top


Corn/shoot
Tomato/shoot
Chemical
Form
Applied
(study Soil
type) pH
CdSO/ 7 . 5
enriched
sludge (pot)
CdS04- . 5
enriched
sludge (pot)
Sludge 6.7
(pot)
Various 6 . 7
inorganic
forms
(pot) 6.7
CdS04 7 . 6
enriched
sludge
(pot)
CdS04 7.4-
enriched 7 . 8

Control Tissue Soil Application
Concentration Concentration Rate
(ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha)
1.4 250 NR

<0.1 640 NR
1.6 5.0 NR
1.6 5.0 NR
1.6 5.0 NR
0.46 20 NR
0.90- 160 NR
1 .52

Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g Dw)
150

2.9
(3.0)
7-14
38-52
49-52
78.4
100-253

Effect
Yield reduced 25%

No effect on yield
Toxicity, but not
attributed to
Cd
No significant
effect on yield
Yield decreased 16%
Lowest
concentration
causing > 25%
growth reduction
Lowest concentra-
tion causing > 25%

Reference
ibid.

ibid.
Singh, 1981
(p. 22)


Mahler et al .
1980 (p. 360)
ibid.
sludge
(pot)
growth reduction

-------
TABLE 4-49.  (Continued)
                                                   PATHWAY 7

Plant/Tissue
Swiss chard/
(shoot)
Lettuce/NR
-p-
1 Broccoli/NR
oo
ON
Eggplant/NR
Tomato/NR
Potato/NR
Squash/NR
Chemical
Form
Applied
(study
type)
CdS04
enriched
sludge
(pot)
Sludge/
field
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)
Sludge
(field)

Experimental
Control Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
pH (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha) (ug/g Dw)
7.5 1.25 40 NR 153
6.0- 0.3 NR 11.2 10.4
6.7
6.0- 0.27 NR 11.2 1.02
6.7
6.0- 0.54 NR 11.2 1.64
6.7
6.0- 0.52 NR 11.2 1.23
6.7
6.0- 0.11 NR 11.2 0.24
6.7
6.0- 0.11 NR 11.2 0.24
6.7

Effect Reference
Lowest concentra- ibid.
tion causing > 25%
growth reduction
93%
Yield generally Giordano et al
higher with 1979 (p. 235)
sludge
Yield generally ibid.
higher with
sludge
Yield generally ibid.
higher with
sludge
Yield generally ibid.
higher with
sludge
Yield generally ibid.
higher with
a ludge
Yield generally ibid.
higher with
                          s I uclge

-------
TABLE 4-49.  (Continued)
                                                   PATHWAY 7
Plant/Tissue
Pepper/NR



Bean/seeds
(pods)
.£>
K, Cabbage/NR
CO

Carrot/NR


Cantaloupe/
NR

Corn/grain
(leaf)

Corn/grain
(stover)

Coi n/gr<"i i n
( s I ovr 1 )
Chemical
Form
Applied
(study
type)
Sludge
(field)


Sludge
(field)

Sludge
(field)

Sludge
(field)

Sludge
(field)

Sludge
(field)

Sludge
(pot)

Sludge
(pot )
Experimental
Control Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
pH ("g/g UW) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha) (ug/g Dw) Effect Reference
6.0- 0.15
6.1


6.0- 0.07
6.7 (0.14)

6.0- 0.19
6. 7

6.0- 0.96
6.7

6.0- 0.21
6.7

6.0- 0.10
6.7 (0.29)

7.6 0.01
(0.20)

5 ') u ())!
( 1 .' i
NR 11.2 1.70



NR 11.2 0.32
(0.49)

NR 11.2 0.35


NR 11.2 2.29


NR 11.2 0.88
(123)

NR 11.2 1.83
(19.1)

5.23 (M)1 19.2 0 12
(2.05)

JO. 1 (M) 1 /() (i.vui 1.8)
1 1 yr;u .-,) (44 4 )
Yield generally ibid.
higher with
yield reduction
sludge
Yield generally ibid.
higher with
sludge
Yield generally ibid.
higher with
sludge
Yield generally ibid.
higher with
sludge
Yield generally ibid.
higher with
sludge
Yield generally
higher with
s ludge
No signs of Webber and
phy tot oxici ty Beauchamp, 19
(pp. 465-466)
No phy 1 cii oxi i' i l y llini'.sly r I 
-------
                                                                                                             PATHWAY 7
                                                            TABLE 4-49. (Continued)
Chemical
Form
Applied Control Tissue Soil Application
(study Soil Concentration Concentration Rate
Plant/Tissue type) pH (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha)
Barley/grain Sludge 6.0 0.08 (0.12) 5.57 (M) 22.5
(pot)
Fescue/above- Sludge 6.2 4 NR 3.2
ground part (field)
N> Corn/seedling Sludge NR NR NR 74
co (pot)

Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g Dw) Effect
1.27 No significant
(4.57) reduction of
weight
72J No effect on
production
13 No effect on
growth


Reference
Chang et
1982 (pp
411)
Boswell ,
(p. 271)
Shammas ,
al. ,
. 410
1975
1979
*  NR - Not reported.
b  NS - Not significant.
'  M - Measured.
d  Sludge applied over growing fescue (tissue  rinsed before analysis).
'  Reported wet weight.

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 7
        BS is the pollutant background concentration in soil,  or 0.2 ug/g
        (see Table 4-25).  and MS is 2,000 mg/ha,  the presumed mass of the
        top six inches of soil.
4.7.2.2  Chromium

i.      The reference soil concentration of pollutant (RLC) - 200 ug/g DW
        The majority of the studies described in Table 4-50 are not ideal
        for calculating criteria because they involve growing plants in
        nutrient solutions instead of through field studies.  In addition,
        they sometimes fail to describe the effects, pHs,  application
        rates, or experimental soil concentrations.  Many of the studies
        were conducted using hexavalent chromium, which is more soluble --
        and hence more bioavailable for plant uptake than the trivalent
        form usually found under aerobic field conditions.

        The lowest chromium soil concentration that caused a toxic effect
        in plants was 200 ug/g, reported for a field bean study by CAST
        (1976).  Because this was not a sludge study, this soil
        concentration may overpredict phytotoxicity in sludge/field
        situations, but it is the most conservative choice from the data
        available.  The toxic threshold is equal to the reference soil
        concentration.

ii.     The reference cumulative application rate of pollutant (RPJ =  200
        kg/ha.

        The RPC is  calculated using the  following formula:
                                 4-289

-------
TABLE 4-50.  Phytoloxicily of Chromium
                                                                          PATHWAY  7
Chemical
Form Applied
Plant/Tissue (study type)'
Soybean/shoots Cr VI nutrient
solutions
Soybean/top Cr VI nutrient
solutions
K> Soybean/root Cr VI nutrient
Q solutions
Bean/leaf Cr VI nutrient
solutions


Bean/root Cr VI nutrient
Control Tissue Soil Application
Soil Concentration Concentration Rate
pll (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha)
NR" NR 0-5 NR
NR NR 0.5 NR
NR NR 1.0 NR
NR NR 0.01 NR
0.1-1 NR

NR NR 0.2 NR
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
Effect
Decreased
uptake of
nutrients'
Decreased
growth
Decreased
growth
Decrease in
dry-weight
reductions
Chlorosis ;
greatest
weight re-
duction
Decrease in
dry weight
Reference
EPA, 1978a
(p. 97)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.

ibid.

-------
                                                                                                                              PATHWAY  7
                                                           TABLE 4-50.  (Continued)
Plant/Tissue
Corn/NR

Corn/NR
Oats/NR



Field bean/
leaf
Chemical
Form Applied
(study type)
Cr VI
NajCrjO,
Sludge (pot)
Cr 111
CrjfSO,),
sludge
Cr VI
nutrient
solutions


Cr'
Control Tissue Soil
Soil Concentration Concentration
pH (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
NK NR 80
NK NR 320
t.5 NR- 320
NK NR 5

10

NK NR 200
Appl icatlon
Rate
(kg/ha)
NR
NR
NR
NK

NR

NR
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NK
NR

30

30
Effect Reference
87% weight ibid.
decrease
97% weight
decrease
50% reduced ibid.
yield
Diffuse leaf ibid.
chlorosis

Chlorotic and
stunted
25% reduction CAST 1976
in yield (pp. 25, 46)
Tomato/leaf
                  Cr'
                                    NU
                                               NR
                                                             NR
                                                                            NR
                                                                                                    Yield  reduction   ibid.

-------
TABLE 4-50.  (Continued)
                                                                      PATHWAY 7
Chemical
Form Applied
Plant/Tissue (study type)
Corn/leaf Anaerobic
sludge
(field)

Corn/grain Anaerobic
£, sludge
^ (field)
MD
M
Corn/leaf Sludge
(field)

Corn/stover Sludge
(field)
Plants/NR Cr VI
Corn/NR Chromic
sul fate
Experimental
Control Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
pil (ug/g DU) (ug/g DU) (kg/ha) (ug/g DU) Effect Reference
NR 0.4 NR 135, 270, 04, No increase in ibid.
530 0.5, concentration
0 . 5 due to
application rate
NR <0.1 NR 135, 270, < 0 1 No increase in ibid.
530 concentration
due to
application rate
NR 1.2 ppm NR 350-700 1 3-1.2 NR CAST, 1976 (p. 47)
1.5 NR 416-833 1 2 NR
NR 1.0 NR 416-833 1.2 NR ibid.
NR 1.1-1 y 8.4-71 NR c l-y.8 Loss of vigor NAS , 1974 (p. 83)
NU NR 5 NR NR Inhibited growth

-------
TABLE 4-50.  (Continued)
                                                                      PATHWAY 7
Chemical
Form Applied
Plant/Tissue (study type)
Tobacco/leaves Natural hlgh-
Cr soil

t\j Toli.n -co/root s Natural bigb-
^ Cr soil
CJ
Natural high-
Cr soil
Corn/leaf Cr'
Fruit, Natural
vegetable, high-Cr soil
grain
Control Tissue
Soil Concentration
ptl (ug/g DW)
NR NR
NR NR
NK NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Appl ication
Rate
(kg/ha)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
14
18-34
175
375-410
4-8
NR
Effect
No adverse
effects
Toxic effects
visible
No adverse
effects
Toxic effects
visible
Toxic effects
visible
No adverse
ef fee ts
Reference
ibid.

ibid.

ibid.
NAS, 1974
(p. 84)

-------
                                                                     TABLE 4-50.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                            PATHWAY 7
I
ho
Plant/Tissue
Oat/leaves




Soybean/leaf
Corn/leaf

Experimental
Chemical Control Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
(study type) pH (ug/g DW) ("g/g nH) (kg/ha) (ug/g DW) Effect Reference
Crc NR NR NR NR 1.3 Growth reduction Yopp et al..
of 11% 1974 (p. 90)
3.9 Growth reduction
of 22»
252 Growth reduction
of 41%
Cr' NR NR NR NR 5.0 Severe wilting Ibid., p. 93
of tops and
chlorosis
Crc NR NR NR NR 5.0 Stunted roots
and shoots, and
rolling of leaves
        "Uhen sludge was applied, effect may not be due to chromium alone.

        "NR - Not reported.

        'Specified only as chromium

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 7

             RPC  =  (RLC - BS) x MS x 10J                            (34)
                  =  (200 ug/g - 100 ug/g) x 2,000 mg/ha x 10°
                  =   200 kg/ha 4

        BS,  the pollutant background concentration in soil,  is 100 ug/g
        (see Table 4-25)  and the MS,  or  the presumed mass of the top six
        inches of soil,  is 2,000 mg/ha.
4.7.23  Copper (Cu)

i.      The reference soil concentration of pollutant (RLC)  =- 42 ug/g.
        The lowest concentration of copper causing a toxic effect to
        plants  has been reported as 42 ug/g in soil reported by MacLean
        and Dekker (1978) for lettuce in a study listed in Table 4-51.
        Decreased yields ranging ~rom 2-21% were observed for lettuce
        grown in pots with sludge and added as So4 at pHs from 5.9 to 6.5.
        Decreased yields were also seen at a similar soil concentration of
        46 ug/g copper for corn plants grown in pots with sludge at pH 6 3
        (Cunningham et al.,  1975a).   There were no data available on the
        effects on lettuce from applications of copper at lower
        concentrations,  so it is not possible to calculate a geomecric
        mean of the NOEL and LOEL.  It is theoretically possible,
        therefore, that even lower levels of copper could cause phytotoxic
        effects.   A margin of safety was not included in these
        calculations because the worst-case conditions,  i.e.,  a pot study
        with added copper salts are already more conservative than the
        sludge/field conditions being regulated.  The toxicity threshold
        is equal to RLC.
                                4-295

-------
TAU1-E 4-51.   I'hyloloxicily of Copper
                                                                                             PATHWAY 7
Plant/Tissue
Corn/plant


Rye/pi ant
Corn/plant
Control
Chemical Tissue Soil
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration
(study type) pll (ug/g DU) (ug/g DU)
Sludge


Sludge
Sludge
(pot) 6.8 4.4 46


(pot) 6.8 7.5 46
(pot) 6.8 10.4 46
Experimental
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DU) Effect
106 6 . 5 Increased


106 12.1 Increased
106 24.3 Decreased
Reference
yield


yield
yield
Cunningham
al., 1975a
461-62)
ibid.
ibid.
et
(PR.



(tissue above 20

Barley/plant

Sludge

(pot) ?.y NR' NR
ppm toxic
0.83 NR Increased
limit)
yield

Dowdy and


Larson, 1975a

Barley/plant
Snap bean/NR


Sludge
Sludge
Sludge

(pot) 5.9 NR NR
(pot) 5.3 - 5.8 2.9 - 5.8 NR
(pot) 5.3-6.5 4.5-7.5 NR

0.83 NR Increased
0.855 4.2 - 1.3 Increased
0.266 8.5 - 12.0 Increased

yield
yield
yield
(P. 255)
ibid.
ibid.






-------
TABLE 4-51.   (Continued)
                                                                                     PATIIUAY  7
Plant/Tissue
Pearl millet/
leaf

.P-
1
N)
VD
Corn/p Ian t








Chemical
Form Applied
(study type)
Sludge/field





CuSO, (pot)

CuSO, (pot)

CuSO, (pot)

CuSO, sludge (pot)

CuSO, sludge (pot)
Control
Tissue Soil
Soil Concentration Concentration
pll (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
5.5-6.9 5.2-6.6 NR





6.3 4.5 60

6.3 4.5 60

6.3 4.5 240

5.9 4.3 72

i.'J 4.3 252
Experimental
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DW)
0.232 7.2 - 10.3





NAb 5.7

NA 6.0

NA 8.6

NA 5.2

NA 4.5
Effect Reference
No effect Korcak et al.,
1979 (pp. 65-
67)
HacLean and
Dekker, 1978
(P. 383)
23% reduction ibid.
in yield
32% reduction in
yield
50% reduction in
yield
14% increased yield
with sludge
30% increase yield
                                                     with sludge

-------
TABU: 4-51.   (Continued)
                                                                                   PATHWAY 7
Chemical
Form Applied
Plant/Tissue (study type)
• Corn/plant CuSO, sludge (pot)
CuSO, sludge (pot)

*• CuSO, sludge (pot)
Oo
Celery/ma rke (able Sludge (field)


Lettuce/plant CuSO,
sludge (pot)

CuSO,
sludge (pot)
CuSO,
sludge (pot)
Control
Tissue
Soil Concentration
pll (ug/g DU)
5.9 4.3
6.5 (limed) 3.5

C.5 (limed) 3.5
NR NR


6.3 12.8


6.3 12.8

6.3 12.8

Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
492
72

252
NR


42


72

132

Appl ication
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA
NA

NA
187
(over 3 yr)
1 ,000
NA


NA

NA

Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
5.5
3.2

3. 1
NR


13.8


18.7

20.0'

Effect Reference
48% increase yield ibid.
6% reduction in yield
with sludge
9% increased yield
with sludge
13% yield reduction, Webber, 19/2
NS (p. 407)
No yield reduction
21% reduction in MacLean and
yield Dekker, 1978
(p. 384)
43% reduction in
yield
47% reduction in
yield

-------
TABLE 4-51.   (Continued)
                                                                                 PATHWAY 7
Control
Chemical Tissue Soil
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration
Plant/Tissue (study type) pll (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
Lettuce/plant CuSO,
sludge
CuSO,
sludge
CuSO,
s ludge
.p-
1
K> CuSO,
^ sludge
CuSO,
sludge
CuSO,
sludge
CuSO,
sludge
CuSO,
sludge
6.3 12.8 252
(pot)
6.3 12.8 492
(pot)
59 11 .8 42
(pot)


59 11.8 72
(pot)
5.9 11.8 132
(pot)
5.9 11.8 252
(pot )
5.9 11.8 492
(pot)
6 5 (limed) 11 0 42
(pot)
Expti r i mental
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DW) Effect Reference
NA 21.4' 59» reduction in ibid.
yield
NA 22.0' 52» reduction in
yield
NA 11.5 4% reduction in
yield


NA 113 9» reduction in
yield
NA 14 3 2» reduction in
yield
NA 13.0 9% reduction in
yield
NA 15.7 5% reduction in
yield
NA 11 0 2» reduction in
yield

-------
                                                                    TABLE 4-51.   (Continued)
                                                                                                                                                      PATHWAY  7
Control
Chemical
Form
Applied
Plant/Tissue (study type)
Lettuce/plant CuSO,
sludge
CuSO,
sludge
CuSO,
1 sludge
U)
§ CuSO,
sludge
Rye grass/plant sludge

Corn/plant CuSO,
sludge

(pot)

(pot)

(pot)


(pot)
(field)


(field)
Ti
ssue Soil
Soil Concentration Concentration
pll (ug/g DU) (ug/g DU)
6.5 (limed)

6.5 (limed)

6.5 (limed)


6.5 (limed)

/.6

6 5 (limed)

11 0 72

11.0 132

11.0 252


11.0 492

11.6

3.5 492

Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA

NA

NA
•

NA

59

NA

Experimental
Tissue
Concent rat ion
(ug/6
12.

12

12.


12.

15

5

DU)
7

.5

9


, 7

.7

4

Effect Reference
2» reduction in ibid.
yield
9% reduction in
yield
8% reduction in
yield

3% reduction in
yield
Increased yield King et al . , 1974
(p. 363)
4% reduction in yield
with sludge
Corn/plant
Sludge (pot)
                                                6.8
                                                            4.4
                                                                           170
                                                                                             424
                                                                                                           19. 1
Reduced yield
Cunningham et al
197Sa (pp. 449-
453)
                     Sludge (pot)
                                                            4.4
                                                                        109  -  343
                                                                     300 - 399    l/.O -  22.2     Keduced yield

-------
TABLE 4-51.  (Continued)
                                                                                PATHWAY 7
Chemical
Form Appl led
Plant/Tissue (study type)
Rye/plant Sludge (pot)
Corn/plant Sludge (pot)
^ Sludge
1 Cue I, (pot)
U)
o
Rye/plant Sludge
CuCl2 (pot)
Lettuce/shoot Sludge (pot)
Wheat/leaf Sludge (pot)
Whe.it/grain Sludge (pot)
Let luce/shoot Sludge (pot)
Control f Experimental
Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
pll (ug/g LIU) (ug/g DU) (kg/ha) (ug/g DU) Effect
6.8 7.5 16 - 189 38 - 472 14.4 - 19.1 Increased yield
6.8 4.4 16 - 189 38 - 472 7 4 - lb.8 Increased yield
6.8 NR 120 NA 56.1 Decreased yield
t, 8 NR 194 NA 30.9 Decreased yield
/.5 6.2 160 NA 8.2 Significant yield
reduction
/.5 11.5 320 NA 15.4 Significant yield
reduction
/.5 7.5 320 NA 9.1 Significant yield
reduc t ion
5.7 7.0 320 NA 10.7 Significant yield
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
Cunningham et al .
1975b (pp. 456-
458)
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid
                                                  reduc t ion

-------
TABLE 4-51.  (Continued)
                                                                                PATHWAY  7
Control Experimental
Chemical Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
Plant/Tissue (study type) pll (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha) (ug/g DU)
Wheat/leaf Sludge (pot) 5.7 10.5 160 NA 11.8

Wheat/grain Sludge (pot) 5.6 7.1 160 NA 11.0

Snap bean/plant CuSO, (field) 6.7 8.3-24.7 NR 486 > 40

-(S
1
OJ CuSO. 6.7 8.3-24.; NR 162 20 - 30
O
K)
Red beet/top Sludge (field) NR NR 80 200 NR

Red beet/whole Sludge (field) NR NR 187 NR
(over 3 yr)
500 NR
1,000 NR
Wheat/grain CuSO, 5.2 NR 100 NA NR

Effect Reference
Significant yield ibid.
reduc t ion
Significant yield ibid.
reduc t ion
Severe toxicity Walsh et al.,
1972 (p. 197)


Reduced yield


27% yield reduction Webber, 1972
73% yield reduction (p. 197)
19% yield reduction, ibid.
NSe
25% yield reduction
72% yield reduction
14% reduction in Bingham et al.,
yield 1979

-------
TABLE 4-51.   (Continued)
                                                                                   PATHWAY 7
Control Experimental
Chemical Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
Plant/Tissue (study type) pll (ug/g DU) (ug/g DU) (kg/ha) (ug/g DU)
Ulieat/grain CuSO, (pot) b.2 NR 200 NA NR
CuSO, b.7 NK 100 NA NR
0 CuSO, 6 / NR 200 NA NR
LO
r i .mi s i n
giMi.-idl Cu in nutrient soil NR 11 NR NA 18.2 - 20.3
Ryegruss/plant Sludge (pot) 4.3 - 6.8 10. b 98.1 40
Red beet/
marketable Sludge (field) NR NR 2bO NR
(over 2 years)
Effect
26» reduction in
yield
4» increase in
yield
9% reduction in
yield
Upper critical
limit
Reduced yield,
40 ug/g toxic
limit
b2» yield
reduc t ion
Reference
ibid.
Beckett and
Davis, 1977
(p. 104)
Bolton, 197b
(p. 409)
Webber, 1972
(p. 409)

-------
                                                                     TABLE 4-51.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                                       PATHWAY 7
Plant/Tissue
                               Chemical
                             Form Applied
                             (study type)
Soil
 pll
   Control
   Tissue
Concentration
  (ug/g DU)
    Soil
Concentration
  (ug/g DU)
Application
   Rate
  (kg/ha)
 Experimental
   Tissue
Concentration
  (ug/E DU)
                                                                                                                             Effect
                                                                                                                                                    Reference
 I
o
    beel/markeLable
l.cltuce
                       Sludge (field)
                                                                            m
                                                                                                500
                                                                                              1,000
                                                                                              1,000
                                                                                                              UK
                                                                                                     250            NR
                                                                                              (over 2 yr)

                                                                                                     500            NR
                                                                                                              UK
                                                                            63% yield
                                                                            reduction

                                                                            95» yield
                                                                            reduction

                                                                            No yield
                                                                            reduction

                                                                            43* yield
                                                                            reduction

                                                                            Al» yield
                                                                            reduction
                                                                                                                                                    ibid.
'  MS.  -  Hoc  reported.

'  NA  -  Hot  available

1  US  -  Not  statistically  significant.

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 7

ii.      The reference cumulative application rate of pollutant (RPC) -  46
        kg/ha.

        The reference cumulative application rate of pollutant is
        calculated using the following formula:

             RPC  =  (RLC - BS) x MS x 10°                           (35)
                  =  (42 ug/g - 19 ug/g) x 2,000 mg/ha x 10°
                  =  46 kg/ha

        BS,  the pollutant background concentration in soil,  is 19 ug/g
        (see Table 4-25) and MS, the presumed mass of the top six inches
        of soil,  is 2,000 mg/ha.
4.7.2.4  Lead (Pb)

i.      The reference soil concentration of pollutant (RLC)  - 0 ug/g DW.
        As shown in Table 4-52,  Karamanos et al.  (1976)  and Khan and
        Frankland (1984) reported that PbCl, at 100 ug Pb/g soil had no
        significant effects on yields of bromegrass or bioraass of oat
        roots.   Most of the reports in which lead was applied in sludge at
        concentrations up to 186 ug/g and at pHs  ranging from 5,6-7.6
        caused no signs of phytotoxicity in a variety of plants.   In some
        cases,  yields were even enhanced (Webber  and Beauchamp,  1979;
        Boswell,  1975; Chang et al.,  1983;  Giordano,  1975 and 1979;  and
        CAST,  1976).  The only available sludge/field study that tested
        leafy vegetable phytotoxicity at pHs 6.0-6.7 was conducted by
        Giordano et al. (1979),  in which increased yields were generally
        observed for crops grown in sludge-amended soils at an application
        rate  of 119 kg/Pb/ha.   The lowest lead soil concentration that
                                  4-305

-------
                                                                TABLE 4-52.   Phytotoxicity of Lead
                                                                                                                                               PATHWAY 7
.0
I
CJ
o
Chemical Control Tissue Soil
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration
Plant/Tissue (study type) pll ("g/g DU) (ug/g DU)
Lettuce/leaf PbC12 3.8 - 5.2 43 - 57 1,000
PbCO 38 - 5.2 43 - 57 1,000
Pb(NO))2 3.8-5.2 43-57 1,000
Oat/top PbCl2 3.8 - 5.2 3.2 - 5.6 1,000
PbCO, 3.8-5.2 3.2-5.6 1, 000
Pb(NOj); 3.8-5.2 3.2-5.6 1,000
Oat/root PCI, 3.8-5.2 19-21 1,000
PbCOj 3.8 - 5 2 19 - 21 1,000
Pb(NOjh 3.8-5.2 19-21 1 ,000
Experii.. >, Lai
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DU) Effect Reference
NA' 54 - 224 Yield reduced John and van l.aer-
36% hoven, 1972
(p. 170)
NA 54 198 Yield reduced
NA 65 - 216 Yield reduced
25»
NA 17 - 5/ No yield reduction ibid.
NA 12 - 45 No yield reduction
NA 17 - 54 No yield reduction
NA 45 - 7J No yield reduction ibid.
NA 44 - 74 No yield reduction
NA 48 - 69 No yield reduction

-------
                                                                    TABLE 4-52.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                            PATHWAY  7
-p-
I


Plant/Tissue
Oats/red clover

Beans

Peanut/pi ant

Corn/plant
Chemical
Form Applied
(study type)
NR"

NR

NR

NR

Soil
pll
NR

NR

NR

NR
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
NR

NR

NR

NR
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
> 50

820

820

> 125
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA

NA

NA

NA
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
NR

NR

NR

NR


Effect
Yield reduction

Yield reduction,
discoloration
No adverse
effect
Decreased uptake


Reference
Demayo et
1982 (p.
ibid.

ibid.

ibid.



al .
293)





        Alfalfa/top
PbCl,
                                            6.6
                                                      NR
                                                                      100
                                                                                    NA
                                                                                                11.8
of Ca, Mg, K,
and f and
increased growth

Yield not         Kararaanos et al
significantly      19/6 (p.  488)
reduced
                           PbClj
                                                      NR
                                                                      100
                                                                                    NA
                                                                                                10.8
                                                                                                              Yield  reduced 25%

-------
TABLE 4-52. (Continued)
                                                                    PATHWAY 7
Chemical
Form Applied
Plant/Tissue (study type)
PcCl,
Radish root PcCl, and PbO
(1:1)
o
00
Corn/plant Pb acetate
Corn Sludge
Fescue Sludge
Experimental
Control Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
pH (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha) (ug/g DW) Effect
6.3 NR 100 NA 8.1 Yield not
significantly
reduced
NR NR 500 NA NR Root biomass not
significantly
reduced
1,000 NA NR 19.8% reduced
root biomass
5.9 2.4 - 4.2 NA 3,200 20 - 38 No effect on
emergence ,
height, or
grain yield
7.6 NR NA 132° NR No signs of
phytotoxicity
6.2 14 NA 54d NR No signs of
phy Lotoxici ty
Reference
ibid.
ibid.
Baumhardt and
Welch, 1972
(p. 93)
Webber and
Beaucharap, 1979
(pp. 465 and 466)
Boswell, 1975
(p. 271)

-------
                                                             TABLE 4-52.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                      PATHWAY 7
Plant/Tissue
Barley
Barley
-P~
1
o
^£> Carden/veget ables
(13 varieties)
Corn/forage
Bromegrass/top
Chemical Control Tissue Soil
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration
(study type) pll (ug/g DU) (ug/g DU)
Sludge 6.0 NR
Sludge 5. B /.2 NR
Sludge fa.O 6.7 NR
Sludge/compost 5.6 3.4 - 10.5 186
PbCl, 6.3 - 7. 7 NR 100
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
113
624'
119
624
NA
Experiment al
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
NR
NR
NK .
11.3
H.O - 9.0
Effect
No significant
reduction of
height or weight
No apparent
inhibition of
growth
Yield generally
higher with
sludge
Yield increased
by sludge
addit ion
Yield not
signi t leant ly
reduced
Reference
Chang e t al . ,
1982 (pp. 410 and
411)
Chang e t al . ,
1983 (pp. 392 to
394)
Giordano et al .
1979 (p. 235)
Giordano e t al .
1975 (pp. 395 and
396)
Karamanos et al .
1976 (p. 4-90)
Oat/root
PbCl,
                                     NR
                                               NK
                                                               100
                                                                             NA
                                                                                           NR
Root b i omass noL  Klian arid Frank land,
signi f icaiu ly     1984 ( LI . 70)

-------
                                        TABLE 4-52.  (Continued)
                                                                                                               PATHWAY  7



Plant/Tissue




£•-
1
LJ Wheat/root
1 — *
0








Chemical Control Tissue Soil
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration
(study type) pll (ug/g DW) (ug/g DU)
SOO

1 ,000


PbCl2 NR NR bOO

1,000

PbSO, NR NR 1,000


PbCO, NR NR 1,000


Appl ication
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA

NA


NA

NA

NA


NA

Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR

NR


NR

NR

NR


NR




Effect Reference
36. 8» decreased
root biomass
42 . 9% decreased
root biomass

14.8% reduced ibid. 70
root bioroass
33 . 7 decreased
root biomass
Root bioroass not
s igni f icanlly
reduced
12.8% reduced
root bioraass
PbO
                 NR
                          NR
                                        1 , 000
                                                        NA
                                                                     NR
Root biomass  not
s i gni1icanlly

-------
                                                                   TABLE 4-52.   (Continued)
                                                                                                                                           PATHWAY 7
I
LJ



Plant/Tissue

Chemical
Form Applied
(study type)


Soil
Ptl

Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)

Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DU)

Experimental

Application Tissue
Rate
(kg/ha)
Concentration
(ug/g DU) Effect

Reference
        Corn/grain
       Corn/leaf
       Corn/grain
Sludge compost   5.6      0.9-2.7
Sludge
Sludge
                                            NK
                                            NR
1.5
                                                     0.14
                                                                     186
 624         1 6          Forage  yield
                          increased by
                          sludge  addition

1275'         0 7          Grain yield
                          increased by
                          sludge  addition

1,275'        0.14         Grain yield
                          increased by
                          sludge  addition
Giordano et al.,
1975 (pp.  395 and
396)

CAST, 1976 (p. 46)
       'NA - not applicable.
       bNR - not reported.
       'Cumulative application during 3 yr.
       dSludge applied on growing fescue (tissue rinsed before analysis)
       "Cumulative application during 6 yr.
       fCumulative  application during 4  yr.

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 7

            caused plant phytotoxicity was 125 ug/g for corn planes  (Demayo et
            _al.,  1982), but the literature did not state whether  it  was a
            sludge or salt study.

            Because no sludge studies were available in which lead levels were
            high enough to cause phytotoxicity,  calculating the reference soil
            concentration is not possible.
4.7,2.5  Nickel  (Ni)

    I.      The reference soil concentration of.pollutant (RLC) =- 57 ug/g DW.
            As shown in Table 4-53, Swiss chard grown in pots with sludge at
            pH 5.6-6.3 had no reduction in yields at a nickel soil
            concentration of 66 ug/g, but the yields were reduced 37% at
            concentrations of 73 ug Ni/g soil (Valderes et al., 1983).  The
            geometric mean of the NOEL and the LOEL, which describe the toxic
            threshold, is 69 ug/g.  However, corn grown in sludge with added
            nickel salts at pH 5.9 had a 20% decreased yield at an even lower
            nickel concentration, 61 ug/g (MacLean and Debber, 1978).  Corn
            was not tested at lower nickel concentrations under the proper pH
            and sludge conditions; no data are available, therefore, to
            establish a no-effect level that can be used for calculating the
            toxic threshold.  To be conservative, a 10% margin of safety was
            used to establish an estimated toxicity threshold value of 57 ug
            Ni/g DW soil.  The toxicity threshold equals the RLC.

    ii.     The reference cumulative application rate of pollutant  (RPC)  - 78
            kg/ha.
                                     4-312

-------
                                                       TABLE 4-53.   Phytolnxicily of Nickel
                                                                                                                                    PATHWAY 7
Concrol
Chemical Tissue Soil
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration
Plant/Tissue
Ryegrass/top


(study
Sludge


type) pll (ug/g DU) (ug/g DW)
(pot) 5.0 - 6.5 JO - 20 NR'


Experimental
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DW) Effect
NAb 160 Threshold concen-
tration for adverse
effects on yield


Reference
Cuiini ngham
el al.
19/ia
Corn/top
Rye/cop
High-Ni sludge      6. i
(pot)
                                                  4 .
High-Ni sludge
(pot)
                                     6. 5
                                                < 4.5
190


380



190

380
                                                                                   NA
                                                                                   NA
                                                                                                  NR
No yield reduction     ibid
Yield reduced
32 - 84% compared
to controls

No yield reduction     ibid.

Yield not reduced
compared to controls,
but reduced 34%
compared to lower
sludge levels

-------
TABLE 4-53.  (Continued)
                                                                     PATHWAY 7
Control
Chemical Tissue Soil
Fora Applied Soil Concentration Concentration
Plant/Tissue (study type) pH (ug/g DU) (ug/g DU)
Agronomic crop NA NA NA NA
tissues
p. Lettuce/shoot Nl-enriched 5.7 3.5 AO
1 sludge (pot)
UJ
-P- 80
160
7.5 A. 5 160
320
6AO
Swiss chard Sludge (pot) 7.3 - 7 6 5 200
Experimental
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DU)
NA 3
NA Al
2A1 .
NA 3A5
NA 29
61
166
NA 39
Effect Reference
Suggested • ibid.
tolerance level
Yield reduced 13% Mitchell et
al. , 1978
Yield reduced 30%
Yield reduced 75%
Yield not signifi-
cantly reduced
Yield reduced 35%
Yield reduced 95%
Yield not reduced Valdares et
al., 1983

-------
                                                                  TABLE 4-53.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                        PATHWAY  7
I
U)
Control
Chemical Tissue Soil
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration
Plant/Tissue (study type) pli (ug/g DU) (ug/g DU)
Swiss chard Sludge (pot) 6.6-7.3 < 10 46
6.6-7.3 < 10 50
6.6 - 7.3 < 10 73
5.5 - 6.3 < 10 66
5.5-6.3 <10 73
Swiss chard/NR Sludge (pot)
5.5-6.3 < 10 100
Red beet/whole High-Ni sludge 6.1-7.0 NR
plant (field)
Celery/ Hlgh-Ni 6.1 - 7 0 NR NR
marketable
Experimental
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DU) Effect
85 Yield
160 Yield
180 Yield
70 Yield
170 Yield
251' Yield
250 Yield
94J NK Yield

94" NK Yield
cantly
Reference
not reduced ibid.
reduced 28%'
reduced 74%'
not reduced
reduced 37%c
reduced 48%
reduced 82%'
reduced 25% Uebber, 1972

not signifi- ibid.
reduced

-------
                                                                   TABLE 4-53.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                         PATHWAY 7
CO
Plant/Tissue
Celery/
marketable

Oats/shoot



Wheat/leaf
Uheat/grain




Chemical
Form Applied
(study type)
High-Ni


Ni-enriched
sludge


Ni-enriched
sludge




Control
Tissue
Soil Concentration
pll (ug/g DU)
6-1-7.0 NR


5.5 NR



5.7 2.3

< 1.40
5.7 2.3

< 1.0
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
NR


12.5

25
37.5
40

40
80

80
Experimental
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DU)
251'

502'
NA NR



NA 16

22
NA 46

64%
Effect Reference
Yield reduced 23%

Yield reduced 70%
No height reduction ibid.

Height reduced 27%
Height reduced 53%
Grain yield not Mitchell et
significantly al . , 1978
reduced
Grain yield Mitchell et
reduced 22% al. , 1978


-------
                                                                    TABLE 4-53.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                           PATHWAY 7
I
OJ
Chemical
Form Applied
Plant/Tissue (study type)
Uheat/leaf Nl-enrlched
Uheat/grain sludge



Corn/plant N1SO,

Control
Tissue
Soil Concentration
pll (ug/g DU)
5.7 2.3
< 1.0
7.5 3.4
< 1.0
7.5 3.4
< 1.0
7.5 3.4
< 1.0
6 . J 0.6

Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
160
160
160
160
320
320
640
640
61

Appl Ication
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
125
119
6.8
5. 1
18
26
41
50
1.6

Effect
Grain yield
reduced 40%
Grain yield not
significantly
reduced
Grain yield
reduced 37%
Grain yield
reduced 80»
32» reduction in

Reference



Mitchell et
al., 1978
MacLean and
Dekker, 1978
(p. 383)
                                             6 .1
                                                          0.6
                                                                           241
                                                                                           NA
                                                                                                         21 6       64* reduction in

                                                                                                                    yield

-------
TABLE 4-53.  (Continued)
                                                                     PATHWAY 7
Chemical
Form Applied Soi 1
Plant/Tissue (study type) pll
Corn/plant NiSO, 6.J
NiSO, 5.9
(sludge)
-C^ S Q
1 5'y
U)
1 1
00
5.9

6.5
(limed)
6.5
(limed)
b. 5
(1 illllid)
Control
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
481
61
241
481

61

241

481

Appl ication
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA

NA

NA

Experimental
Ti ssue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
78 I
1 .5
5.9
19. 1

1 .2

J. 1

fc.8

Effect
91% reduction in
yield
201 reduction in
50» reduction in
yield
88% reduction in
yield
15% reduction in
yield
33% reduction in
yield
42* reduction in
yield
Reference
ibid.
yield










-------
TABLE 4-53.  (Continued)
                                                                      PATHWAY 7
Chemical
Foru Applied
Plant/Tissue (study type)
Lettuce/plant N1SO<

1
LO
M
i£>







Soil
pH
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3

6.3

5.9
i.9
i.9
Control
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3

1.3

1. 3
1 .3
1 . j
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
31
61
121
241

481

31
61
121
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA

NA
NA
NA
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
6.1
10.7
16.8
28.6

133.1

8.1
17.2
Jl 2
Effect
36% reduction in
yield
31% reduction in
41% reduction in
yield
41% reduction in
yield
98% reduction in
yield
Increased yield
Increased yield
Increased yield
Reference
MacLean and
Dekker, 1978
(p. 384)










-------
TABLE 4-53.  (Continued)
                                                                     PATHWAY 7
Control Experimental
Chemical Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
Plant/Tissue (study type) pH (ug/g DU) (ug/g DU) (kg/ha) (ug/g DU) Effect Reference
Lettuce/plant N1SO,

1
U)
N3
O




5.9 1.3 241 NA 51.0 8% yield reduction ibid.
5.9 1.3 481 NA 3,619 98% yield reduction
6.5 1.6 31 NA 4.6 Decreased yield
(limed)
6.5 1.6 61 NA 9.0 5% yield reduction
(limed)
6.5 1.6 121 NA 11.8 Increased yield
(limed)
6.5 1.6 241 NA 20.0 Increased yield
(limed)
6.5 1.6 481 NA 31.8 Increased yield
(liuied)

-------
TAIiLE 4-53.   (Continued)
                                                                        PATHWAY 7
Chemical
Form Applied
Plane/Tissue (study type)
Oats NiSO, (pot)

.p-
1
UJ
ro
^— »


Mustard NiS(X, (put)



Control Experimental
Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
pll (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha) (ug/g DU)
6.4 NR 50 NA NR
100
250
50
100
250
6. A Nk 100 NA NK
250
t> . 1 50 NA NK
100 NA NR
Effect
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Reference
reduced 15% Webber, 1972
reducted 26%
reduced 30%
reduced 16%
reduced 71%
reduced 88%
reduction ibid.
reduced 69%
reduced 31%
reduced 97%

-------
                                                           TABLE 4-53.   (Continued)
                                                                                                                                  PATHWAY 7





-p-
UJ
NJ


Plant/Tissue
Corn/grain

Corn/leaf

Corn/grain
Control
Chemical Tissue
Form Applied Soil Concentration
(study type) pll (ug/g DU)
Sludge (field) 7.3 0.5 - 1.6

Sludge (field) Sandy soil 0.3

Sandy soil 0.3
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
NR

NR

NR
Experimental
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DU)
< 1BO' < 4.0

165 3.0

165 4.0


Effect
No yield reduction

No grain yield
reduction
ibid.


Reference
Mines ly et
al., 1984
CAST, 1976
(p. 46)
Ibid.
"  NR  -  Not  reported.
'  NA  -  Not  applicable.
'  Since  sludge was applied, effect may not be due to nicktl alone.
d  Cumulative  application during 3 yr.
'  Single application  3 yr  prior to cropping.
1  Cumulative  application during 10 yr.

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 7

        The reference cumulative application rate of pollutant is
        calculated using the following formula:

             RPC  = (RLC -  BS) x MS x 10°                          (36)
                  = (57 ug/g - 18 ug/g) x 2,000 mg/ha x 10°
                  = 78 kg/ha

        BS,  the pollutant background concentration in soil,  is 54 ug/g
        (see Table 4-25) and MS,  the presumed mass of the top six inches
        of soil,  is 2,000 mg/ha.

4.7.2.6  Zinc (Zn)

i.      The reference soil concentration of pollutant (RLC)  = 140 ug/g.
        According to the studies shown in Table  4-54,  lettuce appears to
        be the plant that is most sensitive to the phytotoxic effects of
        zinc.  In a study reported by Mitchell et al.  (1978), lettuce
        shoots grown in pots with zinc-enriched sludge at pH 5.7 had no
        yield reduction when zinc was added at 80 ug/g soil.   However,
        when zinc added at 160 ug/g, the yield was reduced 33%.   The
        geometric mean of the levels that just cause and just don't cause
        a phytotoxic effect is 113 ug Zn/g soil.   At the higher pH of 7.5,
        lettuce yields were not significantly reduced, even at a zinc
        concentration of 160 ug/g.  The value of 113 ug/g represents che
        amount of zinc added to the levels already in sludge plus the
        background zinc concentration in soil.  The original Zn
        concentration in sludge was 2,036 ug/g and was applied to the soil
        at a 1% rate.  Therefore,  the amount of zinc in the unenriched
        sludge was 20 ug/g.   Because the background concentration, of zinc
        in the experimental soil was not reported, the average national
        background concentration (see Table 4-25), 54 ug/g,  is used to
                                 4-323

-------
                                                                 TABLE 4-54.  Phytotoxicity of Zinc
                                                                                                                                                     PATHWAY 7
Chemical Control Tissue Soil
Form Applied Soil Concentration Concentration
Plant/Tissue (study type) pll (ug/g DU) (ug/g DU)
Agronomic crop NA NR NR NR
tissues
Barley/leaf Sludge (field) 6.3 - 7.0 12.5 - 33.3 NR'
Bush bean/vine ZnSO, (field) 4.9 48 NR
Bush bean/pod ZnS04 (field) 4.9 48 NR
Bush bean/vine Sludge (field) 5.3 44 NR
Exper iraehtal
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (ug/g DW) Effect
NR 300 Suggested tolerance
level
1,492' 81.9 No apparent Inhibition
of plant growth
360' 577 Vine yield reduced 98%
360' NR Pod yield reduced 99.9*
180' 63 Vine yield not slgnlfl-
Reference
Melsted,
Chang et
1983 (pp
396)
ibid.
ibid.
Ibid.
1973
al. ,
. 394-



Bush bean/pod


Bush bean/vine
Sludge (field)


Sludge (field)
                                             5.3
5.6
                                                        49
            44
                                                                           NR
                               NR
                                                                                             180
                                                 360
                                                                                                            90
                                                                63
cantly reduced

Pod yield not slgnlfl-  ibid.
cantly reduced

Vine yield not signifi- ibid.
cantly reduced

-------
                      TABLE 4-54.  (Continued)
                                                                                                      PATHWAY 7
Plant/Tissue
Bush bean/pod
Bush bean/vine
Bush bean/pod
Chard
Chemical
Fora Applied
(study type)
Sludge (field)
Sludge (field)
Sludge
Sludge (pot)
Soil
pll
5.J
5 6
5 6
fa. 9 -
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
49
48
49
7.6 65"
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
< 160
Appl ication
Kate
(kg/ha)
360
720
720
NA'
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
90
211
101
< 1/0
Effect
Pod yield reduced 20»'
Vine yield not signifi-
cantly reduced
Pod yield reduced 60»'
Yield not signifi-
cantly reduced
Reference
Ibid.
ibid
ibid.
Valdares et
al. , 1983
(pp. 50-54)
52-7.3
4.6 -  6.3
              100J
              3UOJ
                              < 95
                             < 106
                                             NA
                                             NA
                                                              400
                                                            < 600
Yield not signifi-
cantly reduced

Yield not signifi-
cantly reduced

-------
TABLE 4-54.  (Continued)
                                                                             PATHWAY  7
Chemical
Form Applied
Plant/Tissue (study type)
Corn/plant ZnSO,
ZnSO,
ZnSO,
ZnSO,

ZnSO,
Corn/plant: ZnSO,
(sludge)
ZnSO,
ZnSO,
Control Tissue Soil
Soil Concentration Concentration
pll (ug/g DU) (ug/g DW)
63 48 138
t 3 48 258
6.J 48 498
lj 9 28 /8
5 9 28 258
5 'j 28 498
b.i 21 78
(1 lined)
NK NR 258
(IK NK 498
Appl Ication
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
txpe r i mental
Tissue
Concenl rat 1 on .
(ug/g DW) Effect Reference
146 16% yield reduction Macl.ean and
Dekker, 19/8
(p 381)
J9/ No yield reduction
/09 No yield reduction
41 Increased yield
122 8% yield reduction
260 11% yield reduction
28 No yield reduction ibid.
59 Increase yield
IIJ/ No yield reduction

-------
                                           TABLE 4-54. (Continued)
                                                                                                                           PATHWAY 7
Chemical " Control Tissue
Fora Applied Soil Concentration
Plant/Tissue (study type) pit
Corn/forage ZnS04 (pot) 5


7
6
6
5
7
6
6
5
Sludge (pot) 5
.5


.0
. b
.0
. 5
.0
5
.0
. 5
.5
(ug/g DU)
11


8
10
8
11
8
10
8
11
14
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
60


240
240
240
240
960
960
960
960
1,400
Appl ication
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA


NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
N.A
NA
NA
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)





1
2
5
8
8
8

438


462
365
,575
,302
,622
,237
,624
,924
508
Effect
Yield
cantly

Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
not slgnifi-
reduced

reduced 5%
reduced 8%
reduced 29%
reduced 51%
reduced 85%
reduced 96%
reduced 96%
reduced 98%
not signifl-
Reference
Mortvedt and
Giordano, 1975
(p. 173)









ZnSO(  (field)
                     4.9
                                   47
                                                  NR
                                                                     180
                                                                                   472
cantly reduced

Forage yield reduced
56%
Giordano et
al.,  1975 (pp.
397-398)

-------
TABLE 4-54.  (Continued)
                                                                             PATHWAY 7
Plant/Tissue



Corn/grain
Corn/stover
Corn/tops
Chemical
Form Applied
(study type)
ZnSO, (field)

Sludge (field)
Sludge (field)
Sludge (field)
Metal-enriched
sludge (pot)
Control Tissue
Soil Concentration
PH (ug/g DU)
4.9 53
4.9 53
5.3 53
5.5 16
5.5 8.3
6.8 26
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
NR
NR
NR
606 (H)
606 (M)
707
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
360'
720'
720'
2,891'
2,891'
NA
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
884
1,025
241
42.8
204
587
Effect Reference
Forage yield reduced
47%
Forage yield reduced
Forage yield not reduced
No phytotoxicity or Hinesly et
Z-related yield al . , 1982
reduction
No phytotoxicity or ibid.
Z-related yield
reduction
Reduced yield due to Cunningham et
Zn al., 1975a
(p. 456)

-------
TABLE 4-54.  (Continued)
                                                                              PATHWAY 7
Plant/Tissue
Corn, rye/tops



Rye/top
Lettuce/shoot



Chemical
Form Applied
(study type)
High-Zn
sludge (pot)



Metal -enriched
sludge (pot)
Metal-enriched
sludge (pot)



Control Tissue Soil
Soil Concentration Concentration
pil (ug/g DW) (ug/g DW)
59 NR 1,355
5.7 NR 2,710


68 45 707
/.5 82 160h
82 320"
1 . J 82 640h
5 7 139 80
Appl ication
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA
NA


NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Exper i menial
Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NR
NK


602
lyo
JBO
1 ,265
527
Effect Reference
Yield not reduced Ibid.
Yield reduced 50% com-
pared to lower sludge
treatments
Reduced yield due to ibid.
Zn
Yield no slgnifi- Mitchell et
candy reduced al . , 1978 (pp.
166-168)
Yield reduced 15%
Yield reduced 55%
Yield no slgnifi-
                                                    cantly  reduced

-------
TABLE 4-54.  (ConliniieiJ)
                                                                                PATHWAY 7
Chemical Control Tissue
Form Applied Soil Concentration
Plant/Tissue (study type) pil (ug/g DW)
Metal -enriched 5 . 7
sludge (pot) 5.7
Lettuce/plant ZnSO, (sludge) 6 3

1
LO
0 Lettuce/plant ZnSO, (sludge) 6.3
Lettuce/plant ZnSO, b 3
5.9
5.9
5.9
5 9
6 5
(1 imed)
6 5
(limed)
6.5
(liiuod)
139
139
75



75
75
87
87
87
87
61

61

61

Soil
Concentration
("B/g DU)
160"
320"
138



258
498
78
138
258
498
138

258

498

Appl ica t ion
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA
NA
NA



NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA

NA

Experimental
Tissue
Concent rat ion
(ug/g DU)
1,058
1,585
93



98
159
241
417
443
1 ,821
88

167

217

Effect Reference
Yield reduced 33%
Yield reduced 55»
No effect MacLean and
Dekker 1978
(p. 384)

31% yield reduction ibid.
81% yield reduction ibid.
Increased yield
51% yield reduction
50% yield reduction
95% yield reduction
Increased yield

8% yield reduction

23% yield reduction


-------
                                                                                                                                                    PATHWAY 7
                                                                    TABLE 4-54.  (Continued)
        'NR -  Not  reported.

        "Cumulative  application during 6  yr.

        'Cumulative  application during 2  yr.

        "Estimated from  regression analysis.

        'NA -  Not  applicable.

t-       'Since sludge was applied,  effect may not  be due  to zinc or to zinc alone.

£       'Cumulative  application during 12 yr.
        ''Values  represent  the  concentration  ot  metals  added to  soil  over  and  above  the concentration in sludge and soil.  Because original sludge,
         containing 2,036 ug Zn/g ,   was applied aL a rate of 1%, the zinc concentration contributed by the  sludge  would be  an  additional  20 ug/g.
                                         te
         Background soil Zn was not reported.

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 7

        represent  this  value.   The  total  Zn concentration in the Zn-
        enriched,  sludge-amended soil,  is thus  187  ug/g.   The low pH  at
        which this study  was  conducted, as well as  the lack of actual Zn
        background soil concentration,  makes this  study unsuitable for
        criteria generation;  but it can be used to  compare the
        reasonableness  of other studies used in these calculations.

        MacLean and Dekker (1978) described a sludge/pot study with
        lettuce conducted at  pH 5.9 in  which increased yields were seen  at
        78  ug Zn/g soil,  but  a 51%  yield  reduction  at 138 ug/g.   The
        geometric  mean  of these two values is 104 ug Zn/g soil.   The  toxic
        threshold  at the  higher pH  of 6.5 is the geometric mean of the
        levels that just  cause and  just do not  cause an effect,  or 187.
        Because the conditions being regulated  are  expected to have pHs  of
        6  or  above,  which is  approximately the  mean of these two studies,
        the threshold soil concentration  was calculated as the mean of the
        values for these  two  studies, or  140 ug/g.   The toxic threshold  is
        equal to the RLC.

ii.      The reference cumulative application of pollutant (RPJ =  172
        kg/ha.

        The reference cumulative application rate  of pollutant is
        calculated using  the  following  formula:

             RPC  =  (RLC - BS) x MS x 10°                           (37)
             RPC  =  (140 ug Zn/g -  54 ug/g) x 2,000 mg/ha x 10'3 kg/g
                  =  172  kg/ha
                                 4-332

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 7

iii.     The soil background concentration of pollutant (BS)  = 54 ug/g.
        BS,  the pollutant background concentration in soil,  is 54 ug/g
        (see Table 4-25)  and MS,  the presumed mass of the soil in the top
        six inches,  is 2,000 mg/ha.
                                 4-333

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 8
4.8  PATHWAY 8







     For pathway  8  (soil biota toxicity),  the chemical of concern is:






     Copper
        Preceding page blank

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 8
     4.8.1  Pathway Equations

     The lowest concentration of pollutant in soil that causes an adverse
effect to a soil biota, including microorganisms and soil invertebrates (e.g.,
earthworms or various anthropods living on or near the soil), constitutes the
criteria for this pathway.  It is assumed that reduction in  soil microbial
activity or deviations from the normal condition that can be attributed to the
chemical are considered adverse, unless evidence points to the contrary   No
calculations are thus necessary to generate numeric standards for this
pathway.
     4.8.2  Data Points and Rationale for Selection

     Copper (Cu)

     i.      The soil concentration of pollutant that is toxic to soil biota
             (TB)  - 131 ug/g DW.

             Toxic effects to earthworms were observed at 85 and 110 ug Cu/g
             of soil (Van Rhee,  1975 and 1977).  These studies are not
             suitable, however,  because the soils described may have been
             contaminated by other chemicals, such as pesticides, which may
             have  caused the toxic effects.

             At a  soil concentration of 131 ug/g DW, earthworms displayed a
             significant reduction in cocoon production and litter breakdown
             (Ma,  1984).   This was the lowest concentration reported in which
             Cu was toxic to soil biota, and, therefore, the most conservative
             value to use (see Table 4-55)   One additional study reports a 50
                                    4-336

-------
                                                     TAU1.E 4-55.  Toxicity of (Copper to Soil Uiolu
                                                                                                                                         PATHWAY 8

Species Applied Soil pH
Soil bacteria Cu(NO,)2 / 1-8.4
Earthworm CuSO, NK'
NR
LJ Earthworm Cud; Sandy loam
Eartliworm CuClj NK
Soi 1 Appl ication
(ug/g DW)
50 ug/ml. 1 1 i|ui d
culture uiediuin
150
260
1 ,000
500-2,000

(kg/ha)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

Duration Efteclb
4 days Inhibition of
diuii tri f ication
NK Population reduced 50»
NK loud population
reduc t i on
6 wk l.CM
NR Inhibition of growth
and cocoon production

Reference
fiol 1 ag an
1979 (p.
Nielson,
ibid.
Ma, 1984
Malecki e
1982


d Barabasz ,
196)
1951


t al.
EarUiwonn
                   CUCI;
                                         .8
                                                        131
                                                                         NR
                                                                                   6 wk
Significant reduction
in cucuon production
ijnd litLer breakdown
(i nc i'etii> i ng soil  pM  to
6_0 iuid 7.1 reduced
toxic ellects of  high
Cu iiiil concen 11 a t i on)
Ma, 1984  (p.  211)
                                        A  8
                                                                         NR
                                                                                   t uk
                                                                                                1/  jjt  mo rid lily

-------
                                                                                                                                  PATHWAY 6
                                                           TABLE 4-55.  (Continued)
Chemical Form
Species Applied
Earthworm NR
Earthworm Copper-
containing
fungicides
js. Earthworm CuCl)
1
U)
CO
00
Earthworm CuCl;

Earthworm CuClj




Soil pll
NK
NK


NK

NR

6.5-7.0

4.8
4.8
7.3
4 .8
4.8
Soil Application
Concentra t ion
(ug/g DU)
110
85


168

644

1 ,100-22,000

372
160
160
160
J73
Rate
(kg/"a)
NR
NR


NR

NR

NR

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Duration
NR
NR


NR

NR

NK

NR
NR
NR
NK
NK
Effects
Toxici ty
Gradual decline in
population

U)so

U3)U

100* mortality

17. 5» mortality
l/» mortality
13* mortality
37'« mortal ity
1 / . 5 mortal ity
Reference
Van Rhee, 1975
Van Rhee, 1977


Miller at al . , 1985

ibid.

Hartenatein et al.,
1980a
Ma, 1984
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
"NR  -  Not  reported.

-------
                                                   PATHWAY 8
ug/mL liquid culture medium that inhibited dentrification (BoLlag
and Barabasz, 1979), but there was no method of determining what
this concentration would have been equal to as a soil
concentration in ug/g DW.
                        4-339

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY 9
4.9  PATHWAY 9

     For pathway 9 (toxicity  to  soil biota predators), the following are
chemicals of concern:

     Aldrin/Dieldrin
     Cadmium
     Lead
     Zinc
          Preceding page blank
                                     4-341

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 9
4.9.1   Pathway Equation
                                                                 (38)
       RLC = TA- BB  +  BS                                   v
                 UB
where  RLC — reference soil concentration of pollutant  (ug/g DW)
        TA - threshold feed concentration of predator of soil biota
             (ug/g DW)
       BB  — background concentration in soil biota  (ug/g DW)
       UB  — uptake response slope in soil biota  (ug/g  [mg/gj'1
       BS  - background soil concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
4.9.2  Data Points and Rationale for Selection

4.9.2.1   Aldrin/Dieldrin (A/D)

i.      Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota  (UB) - 67.7 ug  tissue DW
        (ug/g soil DW)'1.

        Because aldrin is readily converted to dieldrin under  Che
        regulated field conditions, data points  for either are  used
        interchangeably in calculating the criteria.  Uptake data  are
        provided in Table 4-56 for a variety of  soil invertebrates,
        including earthworms, slugs, crickets, and ground beetles.  Most
        soil and tissue values are reported on a wet weight basis.  The
        uptake slopes for aldrin range from 0.17 for crickets  to 5.8 ug/g
        tissue WW (ug/g soil WW)'1 for ground beetles; in contrast, the
        values for dieldrin range from 0.88 for  crickets  to 37.33  for
        ground beetles (Korschgen, 1970).  The highest uptake  factor is
        67.7 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)'1 for  slugs (Gish, 1970), which
        represents the geometric mean of values  -- 43, 62, and 118 --
        that were obtained from three different  sites.  Tissue
                              4-342

-------
TABLE 4-56.  Uptake of Aldrin/Dieldrin by Soil Biota
                                                                                        PATHWAY 9
Range of Soil Range of Tissue
Species/ Chemical Form Concentrations Concentration Uptake
Tissue Applied Soil Type ("g/g UW) (ug/g UW) Slope*"
Earthworm/whole Aldrln
Ground beetle Aldrin
(Uarpalus) /whole
Cricket/whole Aldrin
Ground beetle Aldrin
( Poec i 1 us ) /whole
Cricket/whole Dieldrin
Snail/whole Dieldrin
Earthworm/whole Dieldrin
Agricultural 0.06 0.07 1.2
Agricultural 0.06 0.11 1.8
Agricultural 0.06 0.34 0.17
Agricultural 0.06 0.34 5.80
Agricultural 0.13-1.46 0.63-11.79 12.0
Agricultural 0.13-1.46 0.79-7.53 104
Agricultural 0.10' 0.99' 9.9
Reference
Korschgen, 1970
(pp. 190-192)
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Clle et. al. , 1982
(pp. 298-299)
Ibid.
Clsh, 1970
(pp. 241-252)

-------
                                                                                                                                     PATHWAY  9
                                                            TABLE 4-56.  (Continued)
Species/ Chemical Form
Tissue Applied
Crickec/whole Dieldrin
Ground beetle Dieldrin
(liar pal us) /whole
-P-
^ Earthworm/whole Dieldrin
Earthworm/whole Aldrin plus
dieldrin
Ground beetle Dieldrin
(Poeci_lus) /whole
Slug Dieldrin
Range of Soil Range of Tissue
Concentrations Concentration Uptake
Soil Type (ug/g UU) (ug/g WU) Slope1'
Agricultural 0.25 0.22 0.88
Agricultural 0.25 0.99 3.9
Agricultural 0.13-1.46 3.7 9.2"
Agricultural 0.31 0.56-5.65 4.8
Agricultural 0.25 9.33 37.33
Agricultural 0.0034-0.024' 0.21-2.84 67.7'
Reference
Ibid.
Ibid.
Gile et al. , 1982
(p. 298)
Thompson, 1973
(p. 101)
Korschgen, 1970
(pp. 190-192)
Gish, 1970
(pp. 249-250)
"Uptake  slope —  tissue  concentration/soil  concentration.



"Based on  arithmetic  mean  for  biota  and  soil  concentrations.





'Dry weight.




JBased on  a  weighted  average  oi  itm  soil concentration  in  a  38  x  50  x  10  cm area,  i.e., 0.4U u^

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 9


        concentrations from two other sites were more than two standard
        deviations higher than the mean and were considered outliners;
        thus they were not included in the calculation.

ii.      Background concentration of pollutant in soil (BS) - 0.
        See Table 4-25.

iii.     Background concentration in soil biota (BB) =0.59 ug/g DW.
        This concentration corresponds to the geometric  mean of the
        background levels of aldrin/dieldrin uptake for  the soil biota
        from which the uptake slope for this contaminant in ~he study by
        Gish (1970) was derived.  Two of the slug samples had a
        background aldrin/dieldrin concentration of 18.3 and 3.90 ug/g.
        These data were noc included in Che calculations because they
        were more than two standard deviations from the  mean and should,
        therefore, be considered outliers.

iv.     Threshold feed concentration for the predator (TA) = 1.7 ug/g DW.
        As seen in Table 4-57, the lowest dose of aldrin/dieldrin in feed
        that causes a toxic effect in a predator of soil biota is 3 ug/g
        for mallard ducks (EPA, 1976).   At this feed concentration,
        dieldrin caused slight eggshell thinning.  This  concentration was
        very similar to the dose of dieldrin, 3 1 ug/g,  that caused
        reproductive effects in Japanese quail (Call and Call. 1974)
        However, at levels of 0.1 1 ug/g dieldrin, Shellenberger (1978)
        observed no toxic effects in Japanese quail.  The threshold feed
        concentration, therefore, is the mean of the value causing no
        effects and the concentration just causing an effect, or 1.7 ug/g
        DW.
                                4-345

-------
TABLE 4-57. Toxicity of Aldrin/Dieldria to Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                                              PATHWAY 9
Feed Water Daily
Chemical Concentration Concentration Intake Duration
Species (N)' Form Fed (ug/g DU) dug/L) (mg/kg) of Study Effects
Bobwhite (5) Dieldrin 0.05-0.3" NR' NR 2B days At 0.05 rag. pacing
and vocalization ceased;
doses above 0.1 mg
resulted in slower and
less accurate behavioral
responses
Bubuhile (/) Dieldrin 0.05-l'jOk NR NR 10 days No effect on body
^ or ether -extractable
I fat reserves
i_~>
01 Bobwhite (10) Dieldrin 38. 2J NR NR 5 days LCSO
Bobwhite (10) Aldriri 3/J NR NR 5 days LCio
Bobwhite (10) Dieldrin 38J NR NR NR 1,CW
Reference
Cesell et al . ,
1979
(pp. 153-170)


Beardraore and
Robel, 1976
Hill et al. ,
1972
Hill et al. ,
1977
Hill et al.
1977

-------
TABLE 4-57. (Continued)
                                                                    PATHWAY 9
Species (N)'
Bobwhite (16)
Bobwhlte (21)
Dogs (10)
Rock Dove (15)
Fulvous
wh i s 1 1 1 ng
duck (8)
Fulvous
whistling
duck (3)
Mallard duck
Chemical
Form Fed
Dleldrln
Dleldrln
Dleldrin
Dleldrln
Aldrln
Dleldrln
Dleldrln
Feed Water
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DU) (mg/L)
0.006-0.125' NR
0.05-0.1" NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
3J NR
Dally
Intake Duration
(rag/kg) of Study
NR 66 days
NR 70 days
0.005-0.05 2 yrs
26.6 NR
29.2 NR
2.5 30 days
NR NR
Effects
Decreased body weights
Decreased body weights
No effect lebel
LDSO
LDio
Empirical minimum
lethal dose
Slight eggshell
Lhi nning
Reference
Nusz et al . ,
1976
ibid.
EPA, 1980a
(p. C-57)
Hudson et al . ,
1984
Ibid.
Ibid.
EPA, 1976
(p. 130)

-------
TABLE 4-57. (Continued)
                                                                    PATHWAY 9
Species (N)'
Mallard duck

Mallard duck
(3-7)

f- Mallard duck
1
LJ
00
Mallard duck (5)

Mallard duck

Mallard duck
Mallard duck
(12)
Chemical
Form Fed
Dieldrin

Dieldrin


Dieldrin


Dieldrin

Aldrin

Dieldrin
Aldrin

Feed Water
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DU) (mg/L)
NR NR

NR NR


NR NR


NR NR

NR NR

91d NR
NR NR

Daily
Intake
(rag/kg)
1.25

381


5.0


60

3.4

NR
5

Duration
of Study Effects
30 days Chronic lethal
thinning
NR LDJO


30 days Empirical minimum
lethal dose

NR No effect on
eggshell thickness
NR LDjo

NR LCM
30 days Empirical minimum
lethal dose
Reference
Matsiunura ,
1972a (p. 536)
Tucker and
Haegele, 1971
(pp. 57-65)
Hudson et al . ,
1984

Haegele and
Tucker, 1974
Hudson et al . ,
1978
Ibid.
Hudson et al . ,
1984

-------
TABLE 4-57.  (Continued)
                                                                      PATHWAY  9
Chemical
Species (N)" Form Fed
Mallard duck Dleldrin
(12)
Mallard duck Dieldrin
(15)

Mallard duck Aldrln
(16)
Mallard duck Dleldrln
(28)


Goat (3) Dleldrin

Feed UaLer
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DW) 
-------
TABLE 4-57. (Continued)
                                                                    PATHWAY 9
Species (N)*
Mouse
House
Mouse
Mouse
Mouse
Rhesus monkey
(30)
Deer mouse (15)

Chemical
Form Fed
Aldrin
Dleldrin
Oieldirin
Dieldrln
Dieldrin
Dleldrin
Dieldrin

Feed Water
Concent ration Concentration
(ug/g DU) dag/L)
10J NR
10J NK
2 . 5J NK
5 . 0J NK
1()J NR
NR NR
NR NR

Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0-5.0
5

Dura t ion
of Study Effects
2 yr Lifespan shortened
by two uion
2 yr l.ifespan shortened
by two mon
23 months Tumor appearance
10 months Tumor appearance
9, months Tumor appearance
6 yr 0.1,1.0, and 5.0
nig/kii proved lethal
to four animals
NR Behavioral changes

Reference
EPA, 1976
(p. C-45)
ibid.
ibid. ,
p. 128
ibid. ,
p. 128
ibid.
EPA, 1980a
(p. C-58)
Snyder, R. I . ,
1974
(pp. 362-364)

-------
TABLE 4-57.  (Conlinued)
                                                                       PATHWAY  9
Species (N)'
Chicken
partridge (3-7)
Gray
partridge (6)
Gray
partridge (2)
Hunga r ian
partridge
Hieasant (22)
Pheasant (22)
Chemical
Form Fed
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Aldrin and
Dieldrin
Feed Uater
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DM) (mg/L)
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
1 NR
0.5-1.5" NR
0.5-1.5" NR
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
23.4
8.84
1.25-5
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study Effects
NR LDSO
NR IAo
30 days Empirical minimum
lethal dose
NR Altered reproduction
2-7 wk Inhibited growth at
1 mg; ataxia, tremors,
mortalities at 1.5 rag
2-7 wk No effects at 0.5 rag;
retarded growth at
Reference
Tucker and
Haegele, 1971
(pp. 57-65)
Hudson et al . ,
1984
ibid.
EPA, 1976
Hall et al. ,
1971
ibid. ,
pp. 429-434
                                      1  ing;  ataxia,  tremors,
                                      convulsions  and mortalities
                                      at  1.5  mg

-------
TABLE 4-57.  (Continued)
                                                                     PATHWAY 9
Chemical
Species (N)" Form Fed
Ring-necked Dieldrin
pheasant (3-7)

Ring-necked Dieldrin
pheasant (9)

Ring-necked Aldrin
pheasant (12)
Pigeon (3) Dieldrin






Pigeon (3-7) Dieldrin


California Dieldrin
quail (12)
Feed Water Daily
Concentration Concentration Intake Duration
(ug/g DW) (rag/L) (rag/kg) of Study Effects
NR NR 79 NR LDSO


NR NR 79.0 NR LDSO


NR NR 16.8 NR LDSO

NR NR 1-4 8 uk Weight loss, increased
thyroid weight,
cerebral hemorrhage,
vascular congestion,
hyperplasive of epithelium
at 1 ug/g; mortalities
at 4 ug/g
NR NR 26.6 NR l.Dso


NR NR 8.78 NR .l.D,0

Reference
Tucker and
Haegele, 1971
(pp. 57-65)
Hudson et al . ,
1984
(pp. 57-65)
ibid.

Jefferies et
al. , 1972
(pp. 24-30)




Tucker and
Haegele, 1971
(pp. 57-65)
Hudson et al . ,
1984

-------
TABLE 4-57.  (Continued)
                                                                       PATHUATf  9





1
UJ
L/l
Ul



Species (N)'
Coturnix
quail (3-7)
Coturnix
quail (6)
Co turn i x
quail (20)
CoCurnix
quail (20)
Japanese
quai 1
Chemical
Form Fed
Dieldrin

Dieldrin

Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
1'ced Uater
Concent rat ion Concentration
(ug/g DW) dag/1-)
NR NR

NR NR

NR NR
4J NR
3.1 -Mr* NR
Dally
Intake
(rag/kg)
69. 7

10

20
NR
NR
Duration
of Study ' Effects '
NR !.!),„

NR Nu effect on
eggshell thickness
48 days Changes in eggshell
s L rue Cure
8 days Reduced vigilance
behavior
21 days Decreased egg
production, altered

Reference
Tucker and
Haegele, 1974
Ibid.

Andujar e t al . ,
1978
Kreltzer and
Heinz, 1984
Call and Call ,
1974
                                      lay i ng patterns,
                                      decreased egg  weights,
                                      thinner eggshells

-------
TABLE 4-57.  (Continued)
                                                                      PATHWAY 9
Chemical
Species (N)' Form Fed
Japanese Dieldrin
quail (10)

Japanese Dieldrin
quail
Japanese Dieldrin
quail (12)
Japanese Dieldrin
quail (21-35)
Raccoon Dieldrin
Feed Viatel Daily
Concentration Concentration Intake Duration
(ug/g DU) (rag/1.) (rag/kg) of Study Effects
10-40J NR NR 18 wk Generalized or
localized tissue
associated with
convulsions at 10 ug/g;
reduced onset of fertility
egg production and
hatchability at 20 ug/g;
mortalities
blj NR NR 5 days LCW
NR NR 69.7 NR IS)M
0.1-1J NR NR 10 wk No effects
2J NR NR NR Impaired reproduction
Reference
Walker et al . ,
1969 (pp. 59-73)

Hill et al.
1977
Hudson et al . ,
1984
Shellenberger ,
1978 (pp.
137-146)
'hienzle, 1972
(p. 488)

-------
TABLE 4-57.  (Continued)
                                                                    PATHWAY 9
Species (N)'
Raccoon
Rat
Rat
Rat (3-6)
Rat (6)

Rat (4)
Chemical
Form Fed
Dieldrin
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Aldrin

Dieldrin
Feed Uater
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DW) (rag/L)
2-6J NR
40-60J NR
AOJ NR
NR NR
NR NR

20J NR
Daily
Intake
(rag/kg)
NR
NR
NR
75-150
0.05-2.5

NR
Duration
of Study Effects
NR Altered reproduction
NR LDSO
NR LDW
NR Mortalities
13 days Dose -dependent increase
in relative liver
weight and mlcrosonial
protein, except at
1.25 rag/kg
7 days Increased cytochrome
p-450 levels
Reference
NAS, 1977
(p. 567)
Lawless et al . ,
1975 (p. 37)
Ibid.
Hayes, 1974
Krampl et al . ,
1975
(pp. 571-578)
Bellward
et al. , 1975

-------
                                                             TABLE 4-57.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                   PATHWAY 9






-p-
1
un
Ch

feed
Chemical Concentration
Species (N)1 Form Fed (ug/g DW)
Rat (4) Dieldrin 5-25J

Rat (4) Dieldrin '/>5J


Rat (6) Dieldrin NR

Water Daily
Concentration Intake Duration
(ing/L) (rag/kg) of Study
NR NR 7 days

NR NR 1-30 days


NR 0.05-2.5 13 days



Effects
Dose-related increase
epoxide-hydrase
Increased epoxide-
hydrase activity

Dose dependent increase
in liver -enzyme


Reference
Ibid.

Ibid.


Krampl et al . ,
1975
Rat (56)
                  Dieldrin
                                   1-25J
                                                          NR
                                                                        NR
             activity  and  increased
             liver  weight;  increased
             microsoraal  protein  at
             0.05 rag/kg

90 days      No  effects  on  physical
             signs  or  biochemical
             parameters  at  1  ug/g;
             increased liver  enzyme
             activity  at 5  ug/g;
             increased liver-to-body
             ratios at 25  ug/g
Walton et al.,
1971 (pp. 82-88)

-------
                                                            TABLE 4-57.  (Continued)
                                                                                                                                  PATHWAY 9
Chemical
Species (N)' Form Fed
Rat (12) Aldrin
Rat (12) Dieldrin
Sheep Dieldrin
Sheep Dieldrin

House Dieldrin
sparrow ( 3 - 7 )
House Dieldrin
sparrow (12)
I'eed Water
Concentration Concentration
(ug/g DU) (mg/1.)
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR

NU NR
NR NR

Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
> 50
> 50
20
15

47.6
4/.6

Duration
of Study Effects
2 yr Reduced growth rate
and survival
2 yr Reduced growth rate
and survival
3-4 days Reduced vigilance
behavior
NR Impaired visual
discrimination

NR U))0
NR LDW

Reference
EPA, 1980a
(p. C-51)
ibid.
Sandier et al . ,
1969 (p. 261)
Pimentel and
Goodman,
1974 (p. 40)
Tucker and
Haegele, 1971
(pp. 57-65)
Hudson et al . ,
1984
'N - Numher  of  experimental animals,  ii reported.
*mg
'NR - Not  reported.

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY 9


4.9.2.2   Cadmium (Cd)

i.      The uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota  (UB) =•  2.3 ug  tissue
        DW (ug/g  soil
        The highest uptake slope for cadmium reported for  soil biota was
        13.7 ug tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1 in a study by Beyer et al.
        (1982) for earthworms raised on sludge-amended soil  (see Table i-
        58)   This value is the average of the mean uptakes  for
        earthworms from four different sites.  The variability in  che
        uptakes, however, causes doubt about the value's reliability and,
        hence, its suitability for criteria generation.

        More consistent results were reported in an earthworm study done
        on sludge-amended soils by Hartenstein et al. (1980b) .  The
        geometric mean of the three uptakes reported for earthworms
        raised on 10, 50, and 100 ug Cd/g soil is 2.3 ug tissue DW  (ug/g
        soil DW)'1 and is used as the most reliable choice  for UB.

ii.     The background concentration of pollutant in soil  (BS) =0.2 ug/g
        DW.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, ix, and Table 4-25.

iii.    The background concentration in soil biota  (BB) =-4.8 ug/g  DW
        No pollutant background tissue concentration was .reported  for
        Hartenstein et al. (1980), the earthworm study used  to derive  the
        uptake slope for Cd.  The value selected, 4.8 ug/g,  is the
        geometric mean based on the whole-body analyses of earthworms
        from four control sites that were not sludge-amended (Beyer et
        al., 1982).  This•particular value was selected because it  was
        the background concentration of cadmium in  soil that was obtained
                                  4-358

-------
TABLE 4-58.  Uptake uf Cadmium by Soil Biota
                                                                           PATHWAY 9
Species/
Tissue
Earthworm

Earthworm


Earthworm



Earthworm


Earthworm

Earthworm

Tissue
Analyzed
Whole

Whole


Whole

Whole
(except gut)
Whole


Whole

Whole
(except gut)
Soil Type Soil pH
Sludge -amended 4.6-6.4
soil
Sludge -amended 6.5
soil
CdO- amended 6.5
S ludge - amended
soils


Soils near 6.9-7.0
highways

Natural soils NR1

Sludge - amended 7.5-7.9
mine spoil
Soil Concentration
Range (N)'
(ug/g DW)
0.06-8.2 (2)

0-21,4 kg/ha (2)"

0-35.8 kg/ha (2)"
0.13-18.8 kg/ha

(2)" (single
application)
0.66-1.59 (15)


0.23-0.80 (6)

0.6-4 (6)

Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
4.8

17

17
5.5

3.3

5.9-8.5


3.1-9. 3

NR

Uptake
Slope"
13.76'1

1.36'

0.64'
2. IT

0.77'

NA'


NA'

1.8

Reference
Beyer et . al . ,
1982 (p. 383)
ibid. pp. 382-
383

Wade et . al . ,
1982 (p. 559)


Gish and Chris-
tensen, 1973
(p. 1,061)
Van Hook, 1974
(p. 310)
Pietz et . al .
1983b (p. 19)

-------
                                                            TABLE 4-58.   (Continued)
                                                                                                                                   PATHWAY 9

Species/
Tissue
Earthworm
Earthworm



Tissue
Analyzed
Whole
(except gut)
Whole



Soil Type Soil pH
Sludge -amended 5.9-8.0
mine spoil
Sludge -amended NR1
soil


Soil Concentration Control Tissue
Range (N)" Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DW) (ug/g DW) Slope" Reference
1.3-5. A (6) NR -0.6
10 NR 3.9 Hartenstein el.
al, 1980b
50 2.04
100 1.44
*N  —  Number  of  soil  concentrations,  including control.
""Uptake  slope — y/x,  where x — soil  concentration,  and  y - tissue  concentration.
'Mean slope  for four  locations.
""Cd application rate.
°Uptake  slope — y/x,  where x — application rate,  and y  - tissue  concentration.
'NA — not applicable.
'NR — not reported.

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 9
        from a relatively large sample size (24 plots) of representative
        agricultural soils (see Table 4-58).

iv.     Threshold feed concentration for the predator (TA) - 6 ug/g DW.
        The lowest concentration of cadmium that causes a toxic effect in
        an earthworm predator is 12 ug/g (see Table 4-42).  This
        concentration caused decreased eggshell thickness in chicken eggs
        (Leach et al.,  1979).  At 3 ug/g, the same investigators observed
        no adverse effects.  The threshold concentration, therefore, is
        the geometric mean between the levels that just do and do not
        cause an effect, or 6 ug/g.
4.9.23   Lead (Pb)

i.      Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota (UB) - 0.82 ug/g tissue
        DW (ug/g soil DW)'1.

        This uptake slope  (see Table 4-59) is the mean of the Pb values
        for earthworms raised in sludge-amended soil (Pietz et al.,  1983)
        and represents the worst-case uptake reported for soil biota.  An
        uptake of 2 (ug/g  soil DW)'1 was reported by the same
        investigation for  sludge-amended mine spoil.  This value was not
        used in the calculations because the high uptake could have been
        caused by the lead-contaminated mine spoil rather than by the
        sludge.

ii.     The background concentration of pollutant in soil (BS) - 11 ug/g
        DW.
        See Section 4.2.2.7, xi, and Table 4-25.
                               4-361

-------
                                                  TABLE 4-59.   Uptake of Lead by Soil Biota
                                                                                                                                   FATIIUAV 9





JN
1
UJ
O\
N)




Species/
Tissue
Wood louse
(Qiijscus
anu ell us) /whole
Earthworm/
whole

Earthworu/
wliole
Ea i L huo rm/who 1 a
Earthworm/whole
(except gut)
Ea r chuo rw/who 1 e
Range (H)' of Soil Control Tissue
Chemical Form Concentrations Concentration Uptake
Applied Soil pll (ug/g DU) (ug/g OU) Stupe"
Smelter fallout NA' 92-656 (3)' 55 0.41"


Sludge -amended 6.5 16-43 (2) 14-24 0.33'
aoll

Soils near 6.9-7.0 14.3-700 (6) 12 0.54'
highways
Natural soils NR' 15-50 4-5.5 0.033
Sludge -amended 7.5-7.9 8.8-27 7.5-7.9 0.01-2
nine spoil
Sludge-amended 21-38 5:9-8.0 0.01-0.82
Reference
Martin et al . , 1976
(p. 314)

Beyer et al. , 1982
(p. 383)

Clsh and Chrlstensen,
1973 (p. 1,061)
Van Hook, 1974 (p. 510)
Pletz et al. , 1983
(p. 23)

*N - Number of soil concentrations, including control.
"Uptake  slope - y/x, where  x -  application  rate  (kg/ha) and y - tissue concentration (ug/g DW).
*NA - Not  applicable.
JPb concentration  In leaf  litter,  rather  than soil.
'Mean values for four  locations.
'Mean values for four  locations.
•NR - Not  reported.

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 9


ill.     The background concentration in soil biota  (BB) - 7.9 ug/g.
        This concentration corresponds to the values listed in Table 4-59
        that were used to calculate the uptake slope for earthworms (see
        i above) (Pietz et al., 1983).

iv.    Threshold feed concentration for the predator (TA) - 39.6 ug/g.
       As shown in Table 4-60, a lead concentration of 3 ug/g DW in the
       form of Pb(N03)2 caused no adverse effects in ducks, but 46 ug/g Pb
       caused deaths irt 24-41 days (Coburn et al.,   1951)   The TA value
       of 39.6 ug/g was calculated at the geometric mean of the levels
       that just cause and just do not cause an adverse toxicological
       effect.
4.9.2.4   Zinc (Zn)

i.      The uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota (UB) - 2.95 ug tissue
        DW (ug/g soil DW)4.
        A study by R.I. Van Hook on zinc uptake by earthworms (1974)
        showed no relationship between soil and biota tissue
        concentrations (see Table 4-61).  The mean of the uptake slopes
        reported in the study was also significantly higher than that
        found for other studies.  For both of these reasons, this study
        was not included in the data used to calculate the uptake of zinc
        in soil biota.  The data for this study are provided in Table 4-
        62.  The uptake slope of 2.95, which was calculated from data
        from a study in which earthworms were raised in sludge-amended
        soils (Beyer et al., 1982), represents an average for four
        locations.   A similar slope of 2.26 was reported by Gish and
        Christensen (1973) for earthworms found in soils near highways.
                                4-363

-------
                                            TABLE 4-60.  Toxicily of Lead l<> Domestic and Wild Animals
                                                                                                                                        PATHWAY 9
Chemical
Species (N)' Form Fed
Chicken (40) Sludge
Chicken (4) PbO

Chicken (16) Pb acetate

Feed
Concentration
(ug/g DU)
2.94
100
1,000
100
1,000
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NR"
NR
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study
56 days
56 days

28 days


Effects Reference
None Cibulka et al.,
1983 (p. 27)
No adverse effect Herraayer et al., 19771*
Decreased weight gain and
feed utilization
No adverse effect Damron et al . , 1969d
Decreased weight gain and
Chicken (10)      Pb acetate
                                     2 ,000
5 ,000
                                    10.000
                                                       NR
              feed utilization

              Decreased growth and
              feed utilization

21 days       Decreased growth and
              feed utilization, 10%
              mortality

              Decreased growth and
              feed utilization, 30%
              mortality,  renal tubular
              necros i s
Simpson et al.,  1970"

-------
                                                                                                    PATHWAY 9
                      TABLE 4-60.  (Continued)
l''u,-.d Daily
Chemical Concentration Intake
Species (N)' Form Fed 00 NR
Bobuhite quail Pb acetate 2,000 NR
Duration
of Study Effects References
35 days Increased i'b in bone Vengris and Mare, 1974'
35 days Increased I'b in blood
and bone
11-30 days 50% mortality
32 days Decreased gain and Stone and Soares, 197V
Same as above, plus
increased number of
soft -slitl led eggs
42 days No adverse ettect Morgan et al . 1975J
35 days Decreased growth and anemia
6 wk No effect on body weight, Dnmron and Wilson, 1975'
                                                  i eecl  i lit tiki: ,  01  o rgau
                                                  wei £hl
UOO
                                                  Depressed  body  wo i glit  and
                                                  i nc fuaijfil  mo i ( d 1 1 l y

-------
TABLE 4-60.   (Continued)
                                                                     PATHWAY 9
Chemical
Species (N)' Form Fed
Duck (6) Pb(N03)2


Hal lard duck NR
Hog Pb acetate




Hog (3) Pb acetate
1-Ved
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
34J
46J
60J
200
180'
370'
550'

1 ,U(Jir
1 ,430'
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
NK
8
12
NK
11
22
33

66
86
Duration
of Study
137 days


"subacu te"
14 days
14 days
90 days

64-90 days
21 days
Effects Reference
No adverse effect Coburn et al., 1951'
Death in 24-41 days
Death in l'J-27 days
Mortality Cish and Christensen, 1973
(p. 1,062)
Mild diarrhea Link and Pensinger, 1966
Mild diarrhea
Decreased growth and
feed intake, muscle
tremors
Mortality
"Hypersens i t i vi ty" Nelson, 1971'

-------
                                                                                                                                      PATHWAY 9
                                                          TABLE 4-60.    (Continued)
Species (N)'
Cattle (5)





Cattle (19)

Cattle
Cattle (2)
Cattle

Feed Daily
Chemical Concentration Intake
Form Fed (ug/g DU) (rag/kg)
PbCOj capsule NR 1.5

3.0

6.0

Pb acetate 125- 150' 5-6
PbCO) or PbS
Pb acetate 150-1/5' 6-7
PbCO, capsule 225' 9
Pb acetate 375' 15

Duration
of Study Effects
NR Increased
49 days
Increased
decreased
Increased
decreased
Reference
blood at Lynch et al., 1976a'

blood Pb and
hemoglobin
blood Pb and
hemoglobin
2 yr No adverse effect Allcroft, 1950'

42-54 days "Toxic"
84 days Decreased
282 days Decreased
feed ut i 1 i

Buck et al. , 196T
gain Lynch et al . , 1976bc
growth and Kelliher et al . 1973'
zat ion
"Number  of  experimental  animals,  if  reported.
bNR  -  not reported.
'Cited in NAS  (1980),  pp.  267-271.
Jtstimated  feed  concentration  based  on  u  daily  food  intakeibody weight ratio of 140 g/80 g tor chicktMis.
"Estimated  feed  concentration  based  on  a  daily  food  intake:body weight ratio of 1.2 kg/20 kg for young  swine.
'Estimated  feed  concentration  based  on  a  daily  food  intake:body weight ratio of 2  kg/5  kg tor  young  cattle

-------
                                                   TABLE 4-61.  Uptake of Zinc by Soil Biota
                                                                                                                                      PATHWAY 9



1
co
ON
00




Species/
Tissue
Earthworm/
whole


Earthworm/
whole
Uood louse
(Oniscus
ansellus) /whole
Earthworm/ whole
(except gut)
Ea r t hwo rm/who 1 e
(except gut)
Range (N)' of Soil
Chemical Form Concentrations
Applied Soil pH (ug/g DU)
Sludge- amended 6.5 0-422 kg/ha
soil
ZnS04 6.5 0-1040 kg/ha
Sludge -amended 6.5 56-132 (2)J
Soils near 6.9-7.0 42.3-179.8 (6)'
highways
Smelter fallout NA' 116-1, 965«

Sludge-amended 40-98 (6)
mine spoil
Sludge -amended 49-130 (6)
soil
Control Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g DU) Slope Reference
442 0.078" Beyer et
(p. 382)
442 0.13"
229J 2.95'-J
223.8 2.265'-' Gish and
1973 (p.
120 0.28' Martin et
(p. 314)
174 1 .77 Pietz et
(p. 18)
264 1.77 ibid.

al. , 1982


Christensen,
1,061)
al.. 1976

al., 1983

"N  —  Number  of soil  concentrations,  including  control.
"Uptake  slope  — y/x,  where  x  - application  rate  (kg/ha)  and y -  tissue concentration (ug/g DU).
'Uptake  slope  - y/x,  where  x  - soil  concentration  (ug/g  DU and y - tissue concentration (ug/g DU).
JMean values for four locations.
'Mean values for two locations.
(Zn concentration  in leaf litter,  rattier  than  soil.
'NA - Not  applicable.

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY 9

                  TABLE 4-62.  Uptake of Zinc by Earthworms
Soil Type*
Bodine
Captina
Claiborne
Emory
Linside
Tarklin

Soil
37
30
40
57
41
50
Zinc Cue)
Earthworm
498
93
502
253
375
178
Uptake Slope
13
3
13
4
9
4
*The six soil series  were  collected from USA EC Reservation in east
 Tennessee.
                                     4-369

-------
                                                                PATHWAY 9
        The uptake of 2.95 thus represents a reasonable worst-case uptake
        associated with application of sludge to soils.

ii.      Background concentration of pollutant in soil (BS) =- 54 ug/g.
        See Section 4.2.2.7,  xi.

iii.     The background concentration in soil biota (BB) - 228 ug/g DW.
        This concentration corresponds to the background levels of zinc
        (see Table 4-61) found in the study by Beyer et al. (1982), which
        was used to determine the uptake slope.

iv.      Threshold feed concentration for the predator (TA) =- 894 ug/g DW.
        As shown in Table 4-48, in a study using Japanese quail, Hamilton
        et al.  (1979) reported that a dietary concentration of 125 ug/g
        ZnC03 produced no adverse effects (Hamilton et al., 1979).
        However,  when  250 ug/g Zn was added to the feed, decreased
        hemoglobin and growth were observed.  The geometric mean of these
        values, 177 ug/g, is lower than the zinc background levels that
        are usually found in soil biota grown on natural soils that have
        not been sludge-amended.   The unusually high sensitivity of this
        species,  therefore, exceeds the "reasonable worst-case"
        assumptions used in choosing data points.

        The zinc concentrations causing adverse effects to other
        predators of soil biota are much higher and very similar.
        Robertson and Schaible (1960) reported that 1,500 ug Zn/ug fed in
        three different salt forms caused decreased growth in chickens.
        Berg and Martinsen (1972) also observed decreased growth  in
        chickens when zinc was fed at concentrations of 800-2,000 ug/g,
        but only when poor diets were used.  Turkeys showed no adverse
        effects when fed levels up to 2,000 ug/g of zinc, but they
        exhibited decreased growth at 4,000 ug/g (Vohra and Kratzer,
                               4-370

-------
                                                        PATHWAY 9


1968).   The National Academy of Science (NAS,  1980),  however,
reported that 1000 ug/g was the maximum tolerable level of zinc
for poultry.  The geometric mean of the highest dose that had no
effect on poultry, the 1,000 ug/g recommended by the NAS, and the
lowest dose thac produced a toxic effect (800 ug/g,  from a study
by Berg and Martinson, 1972) is 894.
                         4-371

-------
                                                                 PATHWAY 10
    4.10  Pathway 10

    The following chemicals  are  of  concern  for pathway 10  (human exposure
through inhalation of particulates  resuspended by  tilling  sludge):

    Aldrin/Dieldrin
    Arsenic
    Cadmium
    Chromium
    DDT/DDE/DDD
    Lead
    Mercury
    Nickel
    PCB
   Preceding page blank
4-373

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY  10
    4.10.1  Pathway Risk Assessment Model and Equations

    Pathway 10 (particulate resuspension) is Che path by which particulates
that have been resuspended by the tilling of dewatered sludge are  inhaled by
humans.  The methodology for assessing risk through this pathway has been
changed from that published in the Risk Assessment for Land Application of
Sludge (EPA 1989)   By that approach, a particulate emission rate  from tilling
was calculated and then the INPUFF model was used to predict concentrations in
the air in the vicinity of the MEI traccor driver.  Model predictions were
used to determine the maximum allowable pollutant concentrations in sludge
that would not result in violations of the occupational health standards
recommended by NIOSH.

    Because the'MEI is a tractor driver tilling the field, the critical
distance from the land surface to the MEI is assumed to be 1 m.  INPUFF
predictions are not accurate for such a short distance; therefore, a new
methodology was needed to estimate the maximum allowable sludge concentrations
that will not exceed the NIOSH health standards.

    The new method is based on the assumption that the farmer will follow the
ACGIH recommendations regarding worker exposure to total dust -- i.e., workers
should not be exposed to total dust concentrations in excess of 10 mg/nr    For
pathway 10, therefore, the MEI is presumably never exposed to more than 10
mg/m3  of  total  dust.   At  dust  levels  at  or above this  level,  the ACGIH
recommends that individuals work within an enclosed cab.

    The maximum allowable pollutant that could be added to the soil  (kg/ha) is
calculated as the product of the 10 mg/m3 total  dust concentration, the NIOSH
or OSHA standard for each contaminant, and  the mass of soil with incorporated
sludge.  The calculations are based on the assumption that sludge  is
                                    4-374

-------
                                                                   PATHWAY 10



incorporated to a depth  of  15  cm and that the sludge and soil are well mixed.
This assumption results  in  the following relation between the allowable
pollutant application  rate  and the  NIOSH and OSHA standard:


                 MDC = NIOSH x TDA x 106                              (39)
    where  MDC   - Max  concentration of pollutant in dust (mg/kg soil)
           NIOSH ^ NIOSH  or  OSHA health standard (mg/m3)
           TDA   = ACGIH  total  dust standard = (1 m3/10 mg soil)
           10°   = conversion factor (mg/kg)
                  R.  = MDC x MS x ID'6                                    (40)
    where  R,,     —  Maximum pollutant application rate (kg/ha)
           MDC    -  Maximum pollutant concentration in dust (mg/kg)
           MS     -  2000  x 103 kg/ha - assumed mass of  soil  in upper  15  cm
           10"°    -  conversion factor (kg/mg)

Following  is an  example  calculation for aldrin/dieldrin:


           15,000 mg/kg soil = .15  mg/m3  x 1 m3        x 10"
                                           10 mg soil
            3xl04 kg/ha  = 15,000 mg/kg x 2,000 x 10J kg/ha x  10* kg/mg
    4.10.2  Data Points and Rationale for Selection
            NIOSH  Recommendations for Occupational Health Standards

            Aldrin/Dieldrin                     150 ug/m3  TWA*
            Arsenic                              2 ug/m3  (15  min)
            Cadmium                              40 ug/m3 TWA
            Chromium                            25 ug/m3 TWA
            DDT                                 500 ug/m3  TWA
            Lead                                50 ug/m3 (8hr) TWA
            Mercury                              50 ug/m3 TWA
                                    4-375

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 10
        Nickel                              15 ug/m3 TWA
        PCBs                                1 ug/m3 TWA
        *TWA in NIOSH recommendations is based on up to a 10-hr exposure
        unless otherwise noted.

        The NIOSH values were selected to determine the maximum allowable
        pollutant concentration in sludge.  These concentrations in sludge
        do not result in violations of the occupational health standards.

ii.      Total Dust Exposure                                   10 mg/nr

        ACGIH recommends a limit of 10 mg/m3  as  the total  dust exposure  co
        the worker.   At higher dust levels, it recommends use of an
        enclosed cab to preve pathway has been changed  from that published
                                4-376

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY  11


4.11  PATHWAY 11

    Chemicals of concern for pathway 11 (transfer to humans  or aquatic  life
through surface runoff water) include:

    Aldrin/Dieldrin
    Arsenic
    Benzo(a)pyrene
    Cadmium
    Chlordane
    Chromium
    Copper
    DDT/DDE/DDD
    Diemethyl Nitrosamine
    Heptachlor
    Hexachlorobenzene
    Hexachlorobutadiene
    Lead
    Lindane
    Mercury
    Nickel
    PCBs
    Selenium
    Toxapehene
    Trichloroethylene
    Zinc
                                    4-377

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY 11
    4.11.1  Pathway Risk Assessment Model and Equations

    Pathway 11 (surface runoff) predicts the surface water impact of runoff
from land application areas based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE1)
The USLE was developed for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and is
widely used by USDA and EPA.  The USDA has collected a considerable amount of
field data to support the model.  Nomographs and tables based on field data
have been prepared to facilitate proper selection of model parameters for
site-specific conditions.

    First the model user inputs the total mass of contaminant added to the
site per year and the number of years of application.  Repeated applications
of sludge will result in the gradual elevation of contaminant levels in the
sludge application area.  These concentrations will continue to rise until the
losses from erosion, volatilization, biodegradation, and other transformation
processes equalize the input.  At this point,  a steady-state level of
contaminants will result.

    The Agency's pathway 11 model calculates the average contaminant level in
the sludge application area (mg/ha) for the life of the facility   The loss of
organic chemicals represents degradation processes; the loss of inorganics
represents leaching into ground water (calculated as the concentration in  che
leachate times the recharge rate)

    Once the contaminant level  (mg/ha) is calculated, the long-term average
concentration (mg/kg) can be calculated by dividing the contaminant level  by
the affected mass of soil or sludge.  For surface applications of sludge,  the
affected mass is the bulk density of the sludge times its depth.  For soil
incorporation of sludge, the affected mass  is the average bulk density of  the
sludge and soil mixture multiplied by the incorporation depth.
                                     4-378

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY II


    The model then computes the average annual loss of the contaminant as the
product of the area of land to which sludge is applied, the annual sediment
loss from USLE, and the long-term average concentration.  If a buffer zone is
located at the land application site, a sediment delivery ratio is used to
reduce the input of the contaminant to the receiving water.  The model
calculates the sediment delivery ratio as a function of the length of the
buffer strip normal to the direction of runoff.

    The model then calculates the concentration of the contaminant in che
receiving water using a simple dilution calculation with the total annual flow
volume of the site-specific stream, lake, or estuary.  This simple dilution
calculation assumes complete mixing of the runoff with the receiving water and
assumes no loss of contaminants in the receiving water due to decay,
transformation, or settling processes.  If a more rigorous evaluation is
desired, fate and transport receiving water models can be used.

    The surface runoff model is based on a number of simplifying assumptions.
The primary assumption is that runoff effects can be represented as steady-
state; in fact, they are event-oriented.  Second, it is assumed that loadings
to the receiving water can be calculated as a function of solids loadings.
This assumption causes the model to poorly predict the concentrations of
contaminants with low adsorption to solids, and the effectiveness of sediment
controls will overestimate the control of these contaminants.

    Third, the model considers buffer efficiency to be constant over the life
of the operation.  This assumption underpredicts contaminant loadings because
buffer zones normally lose effectiveness over time as solids and contaminants
accumulate.  Fourth, the model assumes that no enrichment or preferential
transport of solids takes place.  In contrast, during the erosion process,
smaller, less dense particles are more easily transported to the edge of a
field than heavier particles.  Contaminants are more often associated with
these lighter, finer particles, which usually consist of clays and organic

                                      4-379

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY 11


matter.  Thus, the concentration of contaminants is higher in these smaller
particles, causing an apparent "enrichment" over the concentrations observed
in the soils.  The model assumption of no enrichment therefore underestimates
contaminant transport if some form of enrichment occurs.

    Input data for pathway 11 include:

    •  Area of land over which sludge is applied
    •  Sludge application rate
    •  Time period over which application is proposed
    •  First-order decay rates for organics
    •  Bulk density of soil/sludge
    •  Depth of incorporation
    •. Recharge rate
    •  Leachate concentrations of the sludge
    •  Dry-weight concentrations of the sludge
    •  Length of the buffer zone
    •  Width of the buffer zone
    •  Mean annual flow for the receiving water
    •  Average annual precipitation

In addition, slope, soil, and management practice information for the site
must be known to select the appropriate input parameters to the USLE from
nomographs and tables.

    A complete and detailed description of the methodology is given in the
Risk Assessment Methodology (EPA, 1989).  This discussion concentrates on the
                                     4-380

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY 11


algorithms used for the criteria calculation, which have been incorporated in
a computer model.

    The surface runoff risk assessment methodology allows the regulatory
program to consider site-specific characteristics.  The more specific the
analysis,  the more data are required to support it and, therefore, the more
difficult it becomes to implement.  Thus, a tiered approach has been devised
that requires an increasing amount of data as the tiers increase.  A trade-off
exists between data requirement and degree-of restrictiveness.   Figure -t-L
shows the plan and elevation view of a sludge management area.

    The system consists of an application area within a larger watershed area.
A buffer zone intervenes between the application area within a larger
watershed area and the receiving water body, which may be a stream, lake, or
estuary.  Important processes are also indicated in the figure.

    The overall scheme for evaluating concentrations of pollutants in surface
water that are due to surface runoff from sludge management areas  is shown in
Figure 4-2.  This methodology addresses toxic contaminants, not nutrients.
Considerations of species (i.e., nitrate), therefore, deal only with the
health implications, not eutrification.

Level 1.  The assumptions made for Level 1 are intentionally conservative so
Chat risky sites are not waived from further scrutiny   The computation
selected assumes that the runoff pathway is the transport route for physical
removal of a contaminant from the system.  Soil contamination,  therefore, will
increase until a steady state exists at which annual runoff losses equal the
mass of contaminant applied each year.  Hence, the flux F:  of contaminant  in
runoff is described:
                                                                         (41)

                                     4-381

-------
                             PLAN VISA
                                    @
                               RunoH
Rec»vi«g
A alar
Zu-4
                                                                  .Sounear, of
                                                                   Coniamiranft
                                                                    loca'.i'oo"
                           ELEVATION VIEW

                          Precipitation
                  Zone
                              Imponini Procesws
                          Prteioitmon. lnfiltr»tion, RunoH
                          Erwion
                          Contmiinim Se«ei«tion, Pitnwivs
                    2.     Precipitation, InMtrition, RunoH
                          Erosion
                          Stdim«nt«tion
                          Dilution Mntiluition o<

                    3.     Initial Mixing
Figure 4-1.   Schematic of Surface Runoff and Erosion from  a Sludge
               Land Application Area as  Addressed  by the Methodology
                                     4-382

-------
                             CllcuUtt Toll! Mill Of
                                CoAtMtnint |A{I
                                M4M to SM/yt«r
                                                                               Tltr 1
                         tllculltt  Totil Jtnniul Moo |Qr)
                               of  Itet1»tn« Mttrs
                                                              £lH
                            Ttl
                           94t< Ml SHt. Curr«nt/»fooolM
                              SHf miwotaint. ttc.
            CllcuUtt A»«rift
            CofK»«tr4t1ofl  In
            In  SUu S«1VSlii«9t
                     L
^~-^
\
r
Cllculltt *v«ri«*
CaiKtfltritlan In
In Situ Sotl/Sludg*
                                      J.
                           UlcuUti Annul
                               L*fi tM  to (ration
                                    (USU)
                                UkuUtt S«41
                                    tollxry
                               UlcyUtt MSI Inwt
                                to Itct1v1n« Mttr
                            CllcuUtt Conctntrttlan In
                               toc»1*tn4 Mittr Ci
                                                            Eilt
                                                                            Tltr  2
Figure  4-2.    Flow  Chart for Estimating  Long-term  Average Concentrations
                 as Addressed  by the Methodology
                                            4-383

-------
                         Data  For Site Characterization Current/
                              Proposed Management Practices
                              Calculate Event Flows/Volumes
                                    (SCS Curve Not.)
                              Calculate Event Sedlaent  Lots
                                        (NUSLE)
                         Estimate Concentration In Solids/Runoff

                                    Evaluate Effects
                                          of
                                     Suffer Strip
                            Calculate Hiss of Contaminant to
                                    Receiving Mater
                          Calculate  Concentration  In Receiving
                                      Mater (C,)
                                                           Exit
                             Identify Acceptable Hanag«*»nt
                                       Practices
Figure 4-2  (cont).
Flow Chart for Estimating Event Mean  Concentrations as
 Addressed by the  Methodology
                                             4-384

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY 11
   where  F| - annual mass flux of contaminant  (mg/ha-yr)
          NJ — contaminant concentration  in  sludge  (mg/kg)
          As - sludge application rate  (kg/ha-yr)
The total maximum mass of contaminant  (Mj)  lost to surface water is then
defined:
           M,    = F,(SMA) = N; (.As) SMA
   where   M;     = annual mass of contaminant transported (mg/hr)
           F|     - annual mass flux of contaminant (mg/ha-yr)
           SMA   =- area of land to which sludge is applied (ha)"
           Nj     = contaminant concentration in sludge (mg/kg)
           As     — sludge application rate (kg/ha-yr)
The long-term exposure concentrations  in  the  receiving water  are  calculated on
the basis of the volume of water  in which the transported  mass  will  be
assimilated:
           Q
=   M,
                     (1,000 V)
                                                      143)
   where   C,     = long-term exposure concentration mg/L
           M;     = annual mass of contaminanc transported (mg/yr)
           V     — volume of dilution water (nr'/yr)
           1,000  =- conversion factor to equate V to L
Combining the last two equations we  can  describe
           Q     =  N:  (As) SMA
                    1,000 V
                                                       (44)
                                     4-385

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY 11
   The calculated  concentration  (Q)  is compared with the chronic reference
water concentration (RWC) mg/L.  If the concentration is less than  the RWC,
the analysis can be terminated for that contaminant.

Level 2.   Long-term average loadings.  Contaminants are assumed  to  be
transported by surface run-off only;  the issue of interflows and subsurface
flows is not addressed.  Such pathways should not yield significant flows of
contaminants that  interact with soils.  For this analysis, the long-term
average concentration of contaminants  in receiving waters is estimated based
on predictions of  average annual sediment loss.  Furthermore, the life of the
project is emphasized, not year-to-year values.

   One way  to  compute  an average  annual  solids  loading  rate  is  to  use  the
USLE (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978).  The USLE is an empirical formula used co
predict sheet and  rill erosion losses  in cropland.  Through proper  parameter
selection the algorithm could also predict erosion from sludge management
areas.   The algorithm is as follows:

          X.     = 2.24 (R)(K)(LS)(C)(P)                                  (45)
   where  X,     —  average  annual  sediment  loss  (metric  tons/ha-yr)
          R      =  erosivity factor  (yr'1)
          K      -  erodibility  factor  (metric  tons/acre-yr-unit'R1)
          LS     =  topographic  factor  or  slope length (dimensionless)
          G      =  cover  management  factor  (dimensionless)
          P      =  supporting factor (dimensionless)

   A more detailed discussion  of  factors  in USLE is  found in EPA (1979)
      After calculating the annual soil loss, an estimation of contaminant
concentration in in situ sludge and soil is computed.  Repeated  applications
of sludge will result in the gradual elevation of contaminant levels  in  the
sludge management area.  These concentrations will continue to rise until the
                                     4-386

-------
                                                                    PATHWAY 11



losses from the system (i.e., through erosion, volatilization, biodegradation)
equalize the input.  At this point a steady-state level will result.  Under
certain conditions, this steady-state level will not be reached over the life

of the facility.  An appropriate level for long-term loading calculations,
therefore, would be the average level occurring during the life-of-operation
of the facility   An expression for this level is:
            Mc    = K, -   K,   (1-e-V)
                    K,  Kf t
                                                                     (46)
     where
     in -which

            F,
thus
             long-term average contamination level in the SMA (mg/ha)
             elapsed time since the beginning of operation
             (note: t cannot equal zero)
             lumped first-order loss rate of the contaminant
             F;   K,,
             the contaminant loading rate to the SMA (mg/ha-yr)
             a lumped zero-order loss rate of the contaminant  (mg/ha-yr)
             A major factor for zero order losses is infiltration, which
             can be equated to the product of recharge and leachate
             concentrations.
            F,   = (As) N,
                                                                     (47)
     where  As   — sludge  application rate
            N|    =- contaminant concentration in sludge  (ppm)
where  X
       RC
                 = X (RC)
                   concentration of contaminant in the leachate
                   recharge rate
                                                                           (48)
                                      4-387

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY  11
     Several assumptions must be made to use this equation.   First,  any  loss
process (e.g., volatilization, leaching, erosion, degradation)  is  represented
by a zero-order or first-order approximation.  Second, Fj is  assumed to be
greater than KO so that K2 is not negative.  Third, the background  levels are
assumed to be negligible compared with the steady-state  level.

     If no first-order loss term is appropriate or available, .the  above
equation cannot be used.  The solution for multiple application when only a
zero-order loss term is known is:
          Mc = 1_ (F; - K.) t                                              (49)
                2
     To calculate the long-term average contaminant concentration,  the average
amount of contaminant in the soil management area is divided by  the
incorporation depth times the sludge/soil bulk density
            C    =10 Mc/d B
(50)
     where  C    =• long-term average contaminant concentration  in  the  sludge
                  management area
            MC    — long-term average amount of contaminant  in the  sludge
                  management area
            d    =- depth of sludge incorporation
            B    - sludge/soil  bulk  density
     The average annual loss of contaminant  from erosion  (Lo)  is  the  average
annual sediment loss (Xe) times the average  contaminant concentration in the
sludge/soil (c) times the area in the soil management  site  (SMA).
                                     4-388

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY 11
            L0   = 10° Xe C (SMA)
     where  l^   =• annual average  loss  of  contaminant  from erosion (kg/yr)
            Xe  - average annual  sediment loss  (metric  tons/ha-yr)
            C   - long-term average  contaminant concentration in the sludge
                  management.area (kg/ha)
            SMA - area of the  sludge management site  (ha)
     The next step  is  to determine  the  effect  of  a  buffer  zone  on the average
annual loss of contaminant  from  erosion.   It  is scaled by  che  sediment
delivery (Sd)  defined as:
            Sd   = 3.28
                           -0.22
                                                                            (52)
     where  Sd   - sediment delivery ratio
            Lfc   =- distance across buffer zone

     The annual  loss of  contaminant  is  calculated by multiplying the  sediment
ratio times the  average  loss  of  contaminant.
                 = (Sd) L0
(531
     where  L,   - average annual  loss  of  contaminant  considering a buffer
                  zone  (kg/yr)
            LO   - average annual  loss  of  contaminant  from erosion (kg/yr)
            Sd   = sediment  delivery ratio

     The final step  is  to calculate  the receiving water  concentration as  the

ratio of total concentration  delivered each  year  to the  total  annual

volumetric flow of the  receiving  water.
            Q     =    L. 1Q6                                              (54)
                       1,000 V
                                      4-389

-------
                                                                     PATHWAY  11
     where  Ci    = receiving water concentration mg/L
            L,     - average annual loss of contaminant  (kg/yr)
            V     =• volume of dilution water  (m3/yr)
            1,000 - conversion factor to equate V to L
            10"    - conversion factor of mg to kg

     After the receiving water concentration  is calculated,  it  is  compared  to
the fresh chronic criteria or the water and fish ingestion,  whichever  is  the
most limiting.    -                                                  '
     4.11.2  Data Points and Rationale for Selection

     The model scenarios represent major types of land application,  such  as
agricultural use, forest use, land reclamation, dedicated disposal,  and
distribution and marketing.  For this pathway, both D&M and  agricultural  land
use were modeled (the numbers are the same). The computed criteria  represent
probable worst-case scenarios for the individual land use.
     Agricultural Use

      i.     The soil management area  (A) =- 80 ha.
            The site is considered to be an 80-ha  (200-acre)  farm.

      ii.    The sludge/soil bulk density (BD) =1.2  g/m3.
            The bulk density for soil can be as high as 1.6  and for  sludge  as
            low as 0.6; a median value was therefore selected:  1.2 g/cm3

      iii.   The soil concentration surface runoff  curve number  (CN)  - 80.
            Runoff curve numbers are  dependent on  antecedent soil water
            conditions, the relative  permeability  of the  soil and vegetation
                                    4-390

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 11
       cover,  and management factors.   Table 4-63  gives  runoff curve
       numbers for various combinations of the above factors.   The  table
       is used by first determining the hydrologic soil  group.
       Descriptions of each group are  located at the bottom of the  table.
       Within each crop/management scheme is a subrow labeled "Hydrologic
       Condition."  The qualifiers "good," "fair," or "poor"  indicate
       relative management conditions.   For instance,  under the crop
       management scenario "small grains," "contoured a  poor  hydrologic
       condition" would be a poor stand of vegetation with breakthroughs
       in the contours, both of which  characteristics would increase
       surface runoff.

       The intersection of the crop/management/condition row  with the
       hydrologic soil group column is  the curve number  for the area.
       This table, however, is for antecedent soil moisture condition
       (AMC)  II (which is defined in Table 4-64).   To maximize runoff,
       AMC III would be used,  reflecting wet conditions  when  the storm
       event begins.   The multiplication factors for converting AMC II  Co
       AMC III are found in Table 4-64.

iv.    The cover management factor (C)  — 0.3 (dimensionless).
       This factor is a function of vegetative cover,  crop sequence,  crop
       rotation and tilling practices.   The greater the  erodibility of
       the soil,  the higher the C factor that should be  used.   A thorough
       discussion of the selection of  the C factor is given in Wischmeier
       and Smith (1978).

v.     The elapsed time since the beginning of the operation  (DELTAT) =
       30 yr.
       The probable lifetime of the operation was  considered  to be  30 yr.
       So a conservative value for the  elapsed time since the beginning
       of operation was 30 yr.
                                 4-391

-------
          TABLE 4-63.
Runoff Curve Numbers for Hydrologic Soil-Cover
Complexes (for Antecedent Rainfall Condition II)
Land Use or Cover
                      Treatment
                      or Practice
                Hydrologic
                Condition
HydroloEJc Soil. Group3

 ABC     D
Fallow

Row crops
Small grain
Close-seeded legumes
or rotation meadow
Straight row

Straight row
Straight row
Contoured
Contoured
Terraced
Terraced

Straight row
Straight row
Contoured
Contoured
Terraced
Terraced

Straight row
-Straight row
Contoured
Contoured
Terraced
Terraced
                                                         77
                                       86
           91
                                                                         94
Pasture or range
                      Contoured
                      Contoured
                      Contoured
Meadow (permanent)

Woods (farm woodlots)
                 Poor
                 Good
                 Poor
                 Good
                 Poor
                 Good

                 Poor
                 Good
                 Poor
                 Good
                 Poor
                 Good

                 Poor
                 Good
                 Poor
                 Good
                 Poor
                 Good

                 Poor
                 Fair
                 Good
                 Poor
                 Fair
                 Good

                 Good

                 Poor
                 Fair
                 Good
72
67
70
65
66
62
65
63
63
61
61
59
66
58
64
55
63
51
68
49
39
47
25
6
30
45
36
25
81
78
79
75
74
71
76
75
74
73
72
70
77
72
75
69
73
67
79
69
61
67
59
35
58
66
60
55
88
85
84
82
80
78
84
83
82
81
79
78
85
81
83
78
80
76
86
79
74
81
75
70
71
77
73
70
94
89
88
86
82
81
88
87
85
84
82
81
89
85
85
83
83
80
89
84
80
88
83
79
78
83
79
77
                                    4-392

-------
                           TABLE 4-63.  (Continued)
Land Use or Cover
Treatment
or Practice
Hydrologic
Condition
Hydrologic Soil GroupJ

 A    B    C    D
Farmsteads

Roads and right-of-way
(hard surface)
                    NR

                    NR
                 59   74   82   86

                 74   84   90   92
     aA — Lowest Runoff Potential:  Includes deep sands with very little silt
          and clay, also deep, rapidly permeable loess.

      B — Moderately Low Runoff Potential: Mostly sandy soils less deep than
          A, and loess less deep or less aggregated than A, but the group as a
          whole has above-average  infiltration after thorough wetting.

      C - Moderately High Runoff Potential: Comprises shallow soils and soils
          containing considerable  clay and colloids, though less than those of
          group D.  The group has  below-average infiltration after
          presaturation.

      D - Highest Runoff Potential: Includes mostly clays of high swelling
          percent, but the group also includes some shallow soils with nearly
          impermeable subhorizons  near the surface.

     Source:  Schwab et al., 1966
                                      4-393

-------
         TABLE 4-64.   Antecedent Rainfall Conditions and Curve Numbers
                        Factor to Convert Curve Number for Condition II  to
 Curve Number of
 Condition II
                        Condition I
Condition III
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
0
0.
0.
1.
,40
,45
,50
.55
.62
.67
73
.79
,87
,00
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.22
.85
.67
.50
.40
.30
.21
.14
.07
.00
                                               5-Day Antecedent
                                               Rainfall in Inches
Condition   General Description
                                 Dormant
                                 Season
      Growing
      Season
 II
Optimum soil condition from      <0.5
about lower plastic limit to
wilting point

Average value for annual         0.5-1.1
floods
      1.4-2.1
III
Heavy rainfall or light
rainfall and low temperature
within 5 days before the
given storm
*Source:  Schwab et al.,  1966
                                4-394

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 11
vi.    The incorporation depth (DX)  - 15 cm.
       The depth of incorporation for all other pathways  was  assumed to
       be 15 cm,  or approximately 6  in.   For  consistency,  15  cm is  also
       used for the runoff pathway.

vii.   The soil erodibility factor (KX)  - 0.33.
       A 0.33 value was selected for a sandy  loam with an organic matter
       content of 4%.

viii.                    KZERO= 0 kg/ha-yr

       The zero order pollutant loss rate is  0 kg/ha-yr.

ix.    The buffer zone length (LB) - 1,000 cm.
       A buffer zone strip with a width of 10 m was assumed between the
       application site and a body of surface water.

x.     The topographic factor (LS) - 1.70.
       The topographic factor value  is a result of a combination of slope
       and steepness.   The value selected represents a 5% slope with a
       slope length of 1,000 ft.

xi.    The sludge application rate (MO)  = 5,000 kg/ha.

xii.   The total snow melt depth (MT) = 0.

xiii.  The supporting practice factor (P) - 0.5.
       The supporting practice factor is dependent on agricultural
       techniques such as contouring and terracing.  A median value of
       0.5 was assumed.
                               4-395

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 11
xiv.   The rainfall erosion index (R)  - 450 ft-ton-in/acre/yr.
       This index expresses erosion potential for average annual rainfall
       at a location.   Wischmeier and Smith (1978)  provide a contour map
       of the United States with the average annual values of the
       Rainfall Erosion Index.   To choose a reasonable worst case,  a site
       of interest was picked in the southeast United States.  The  R
       values in this  area ranged from  200-550  yr'1   A value of 450 was
       assumed for this calculation.

xv.    The total recharge (R+IR)  (RC)  - 25 (cm/yr).
       Obtained from local weather station data on agricultural extension
       offices as the  sum of natural recharge and irrigation less
       evapotransportation.

xvi.   The total storm rainfall depth (RT) - 1 cm.

xvii.  The duration of storm event (TR) - 1 hr.
       These parameters are not used in calculations for the long-term
       event.  A value of 1 is  given simply to avoid program errors
       because the model can't  handle a value of zero in the input.

xviii. The available soil water (Theta) - 0.15.
       Available water in the soil is defined as the difference between
       the water content at field capacity (Ofc)  and wilting point (Owp) .
       Field capacity is the condition at which the forces that hold
       water in the soil are balanced by the force on the soil water due
       to gravity.  This condition is usually taken to correspond to a
       tension in the  soil of -0.33 bar.  Wilting point is the water
       content at which the forces that hold water in the soil equal the
       force that plants can exert to extract it.  This condition is
       usually•taken to be at a tension of -15.0 bar.
                               4-396

-------
                                                               PATHWAY 11
       Sludge additions to the soil affect both Ofc  and  0^ by increasing
       them.   Kladivco and Nelson (1979)  and Gupta  et al.  (1977)  found
       that,  although Ofc  and  0^ increased with sludge additions,  the
       effect on their difference was negligible.   Epstein et al.  (1976)
       reported only a slight increase in available water.  In their
       review of the available literature on the effects of organic waste
       applications on soils, Khaleel et  al.  (1981) concluded that the
       addition would have minor effects  on available water   Therefore,
       no adjustment for available water  for sludge additions is
       suggested.

       To obtain a value for  the soil(s)  of interest, the data analysis
       done by Rawls et al. (1983) can be used.  Figures 4-3 and  4-4,
       which are reproduced from that study,  give the water content at
       field capacity (1/3 bar) and wilting point (15 bar)   The
       available water content is computed as the difference between
       these two.   (The textural classification of  the soil (% sand,
       % silt,  % clay) is needed to utilize the graphs).  The value of
       0.15 was selected at the experts'  meeting as being a conservative
       representative value.

xix.   The single- or multiple-application scenario (SAS) = 2.
       For agricultural use of sludge, multiple applications are  assumed
       to be represented by 2 and single  applications by 1.

xx.    The receiving water flow site (VE) =• 1 m3/sec.

                 V = 1 mVsec
                               4-397

-------
             100
u>
VD
CO
                                   0.40
                                        0.35
 0.5% Organic matter
0.0% Porosity change
                                               0.30
                                                    0.25
                        10     20    30     40    50     60
                                                           0.20
                                                                  0.15
                                                                       0.10
                                                                               0.05
70    80     90    100
                                            Sand (%)
                 Figure 4-3.  Field Capacity Water Content for Soils of Various Textures

-------
100-
 90-
                 0.55
                       0.50
                             0.45
                                             0.5% Organic matter
                                            0.0% Porosity chang*
                                  0.40
                                       0.35
          10     20    30    40    50    60     70    BO    90    100
                                           0.30
                                                 0.25
                                                      0.20
                                                           0.15
                                                                 0.10
                               Sand  (%)
Figure 4-4. Wilting Point Water Content for Soils of Various Textures
Rawls e L al
                   'JS'i

-------
                                                        PATHWAY 11
To maximize the impact of contaminants for both long-term and
single-event scenarios, the receiving water flows were set at 1
m3/sec  (36  cfs), a value  that  is  exceeded  by  streams  carrying 95%
of all surface water flow in the United States.
                         4-400

-------
                                                             PATHWAY  12


4.12  PATHWAY 12

     The chemicals of concern for pathway 12 (human exposure  to  chemicals
leaching to ground water and chemicals carried downwind by the  atmosphere)
include:

For ground water:

     Arsenic
     Cadmium
     Chromium
     Copper
     Lead
     Mercury
     Nickel
     Zinc
     Benzene
     Bemzo(a)pyrene
     Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
     Chlordane
     DDT/DDE/DDD
     DimethyInitrosamine
     Lindane
     PCBs
     Trichloroethylene
     Toxaphene

                                       4-401

-------
                                                             PATHWAY 12





For vapor concentrations downwind of the application site:







     Benzo(a)pyrene




     Chlordane




     DDT/DDD/DDE




     DimethyInitrosamine




     PCBs
                                    4-402

-------
                                                             PATHWAY 12

     4.12.1  Pathway Model and Equations

     The algorithms used for this pathway account for two routes of chemical
transport.  One set of algorithms estimates concentrations at the saturated
zone after chemical infiltration through an unsaturated zone.  The second set
of algorithms estimates concentrations due to airborne transport downwind of
the application site.  The methods used to assess pollutant movement by this
pathway following land application of  sludge are similar to those used for
landfilling; this section, therefore,  addresses only the variances from that
methodolo'gy.
     4.12.1.1  Ground Water

     Generation of leachate from sludge applied to land and its subsequent
migration to and contamination of ground water is of potential concern.  The
approach taken here  is based on predicting risks to human health through
drinking water.  The method used simulates the movement of a contaminant from
the application area through the unsaturated soil column to the aquifer.  The
point of entrance to the aquifer was selected as the point of compliance
because drinking water wells could be constructed within the boundaries of an
agricultural area.  The contaminant concentration at the entrance point of the
aquifer is compared  to a reference water concentration (RWC) that identifies
the allowable level  for groundwater contamination.  The RWC is derived from
MCL or the RfD and q!*,  whichever  is  applicable.

     In determining  the criterion for a reference water concentration, several
assumptions were made.   The MET is an adult residing within the boundary of
the land application site who drinks 2 L of the ground water every day of a
70-yr life span.  The MCLs established by EPA's Office of Drinking Water are
used as the drinking water criteria for the ground water contamination route.
Pollutants that don't have a proposed MCL are regulated using the carcinogenic
                                      4-403

-------
                                                             PATHWAY  12

potency values (qt*)  associated with risk levels at 1 x 10"* or  the risk
reference dose for noncarcinogens (RfD).

     The groundwater model consists of  two sequential modules: a  leachate
pulse time calculation and an unsaturated zone  fate  and transport model.  The
model initially calculates the  length of the pulse time when leachate  is
adding contaminants to the unsaturated  zone.  This pulse time  is used  as input
to the next module, which calculates contaminant concentrations in  the
unsaturated zone.

     The unsaturated zone consists  of the layers of  soil between  the
application surface and the uppermost aquifer.  To determine the concentration
of a contaminant at the base of the unsaturated zone, the  time of travel must
be calculated.  The time of travel  is the length of  time it takes the  leachate
to travel through the unsaturated zone; it is determined using the  depth to
ground water and the net recharge rate.  There  are two basic approaches to
determining travel times in the unsaturated zone:  1) analytical solutions or
2) unsaturated flow models.  Both approaches are based on  the  same  fundamental
equations but differ in the simplifying assumptions  made to solve the
equations.

     Analytical solutions take  significantly less  time, are computationally
easier, and require much less data.  As a result,  the Agency selected  an
analytical model rather than an unsaturated flow model to  predict unsaturated
zone concentrations of contaminants.  The use of an  analytical model  requires
the assumption of steady-state  conditions.  Consequently,  the  model prediccs a
constant contribution of leachate over  time rather than the periodic  storm
event contributions that actually occur.  This  simplifying assumption
generally overpredicts velocity, underpredicts  time  of travel  and degradation,
and overpredicts concentrations in  the  unsaturated zone.
                                       4-404

-------
                                                             PATHWAY 12

     CHAIN is the analytical model used to solve the one-dimensional
convective-dispersive transport equation for the unsaturated zone (Van
Genuchten, 1985).  CHAIN predicts the way dispersion elongates the leachate
pulse as it moves through the unsaturated zone, resulting in decreasing
contaminant concentrations.  CHAIN also predicts the decay and retardation of
chemicals.  Decay rates provided in the Agency's model include hydrolysis and
aerobic biodegradation rates.  Retardation is a measure of how much more
slowly a contaminant moves through the unsaturated zone than the bulk
leachate.  The retardation factor is calculated from model input data on:

     •  The bulk density of the unsaturated zone material
     •  The partition coefficient of the contaminant
     •  Hydraulic conductivity
     •  Effective porosity
     •  Effective bulk density
     •  Slope of the matrix potential versus moisture content curve
     •  The saturated moisture content for the unsaturated zone material

     The Agency's groundwater model first uses CHAIN to determine contaminant
concentrations at a depth equal to the depth to ground water for a period
equal to several contaminant travel times.  The concentrations of metals are
then adjusted to account for any precipitation of metal compounds that exceeds
solubility limits.  This adjustment is based on the calculations of the
chemical model MINTEQ (Feleny et al.,  1984).

     MINTEQ models the mass distribution of a dissolved metal between various
uncomplexed and complexed aqueous species and calculates the precipitation and
dissolution of these species.  MINTEQ was run for a wide range of conditions
and the results of these runs were programmed for the Agency's groundwater
model.  When the model user knows the pH and electromotive potential (Eh) of
the ground water, the model can automatically adjust metal concentrations at
                                     4-A05

-------
                                                             PATHWAY 12

the base of the unsaturated zone using the MINTEQ calculations for those
conditions.  After these adjustments are made, the model compares the maximum
concentrations of metals and organic contaminants to the drinking water
criteria.  Each pollutant must be less than or equal to the criteria if land
application of sludge is to be allowed.
     4.12.1.2  Vapor Concentrations Downwind from Application Sites

     Six chemicals in sludge were considered highly volatile and of concern as
an inhalation hazard downwind from the land application area.  To account for
the contribution of such vapor concentrations to the overall concentration at
a downgradient point of interest, an analytical model developed to evaluate
contaminant vapors from hazardous sites was used (ESE, 1985).

     Major assumptions made for this pathway were as follows.  The MEI is
defined as an adult residing within the application site 24 hr a day for a
70-yr lifespan.  The vapor concentrations are calculated in mg/m3  of  air.   To
convert to equivalent liquid concentrations, several assumptions have to be
made.  According to EPA, a 70-kg person breathes 20 m3 of air per  day and
drinks 2 L of water per day.  So, if the air contains 1 mg/m3 of a chemical,
the person is breathing 20 mg of the chemical per day.  Given the MEI's water
consumption,  20 mg inhaled daily is equivalent to drinking water containing 10
mg per liter concentration.  The conversion factor to go from milligrams per
cubic meter to milligrams per liter is 10.

     The rate at which these chemicals evaporate from the application area is
estimated by assuming that the total amount of these chemicals deposited each
year evaporate annually.  So the atmospheric flux is given by:
                                      4-406

-------
                                                              PATHWAY  12
           Flux       = Ap (Cs)/31,500,000                            (55)
     where Flux       - atmospheric flux  (mg/m3/sec)
           Ap         - sludge application  rate
           Cs         = pollutant dry weight  concentration  (rag/kg)
           31,500,000 - number of .seconds in  a year
A 1-m-high mixing zone is assumed  in  the equation,  giving  m3 instead of m:

This yields higher concentrations  than would probably  occur  because  not  all

the volatile chemicals applied annually evaporate  and  the  vertical mixing

exceeds 1 m.

                                                   »
     The final atmospheric concentration is obtained by  multiplying  the

atmospheric flux by the source receptor ratio:
           C  = (Flux) Srr
     where C   — atmospheric  concentration  of  pollutant
           Srr - source  receptor  rate
(56)
     The source receptor  ratio  is  calculated  as:


           Srr     = (2.032) X«2 /(Dist(Xy)(Vel) sigma)                    (57)
     where 2.032  -   conversion  factor
           X,2     -   area  of  application site
           Dist   -   distance  of application area  to  point of compliance
           Xy     -   lateral virtual  distance
           Vel    -   surface wind velocity  (m/s)
           Sigma  -   standard  derivation of the vertical  concentration
                      distribution
     The "lateral virtual distance"  (X,,) is given by
                                     4-407

-------
                                                              PATHWAY 12

           X,     =  X
-------
                                                                   PATHWAY 12
                TABLE 4-65.
Parameters Used to Calculate Sigma
Sigma =  a*X*
Pasquil
Stability

Category X (km)
Stable 0.10
0.21
0.71
1.01
2.01
3.01
7.01
15.01
30.01
60.01
0.20
0.70
1.00
2.00
3.00
7 00
15 00
30.00
60.00
-

a
15.209
14.157
13.953
13.953
14.823
16.187
17.836
22.651
27.084
34.219

b
0.81558
0.78407
0.68465
0.63227
0.54503
0.46490
0 41507
0.32681
0.27436
0.21716-
Source:   ESE,  1985.
                                    4-409

-------
                                                                  PATHWAY 12



    TABLE 4-66.  Water Content of Sludges from Various Treatment Processes*




     Sludge Type                    Water Content  (%)


Primary sludge                             95

Digested primary sludge                    94

Trickling filter                           92

Chemical precipitation                     92

Primary and activated sludge               96

Digested primary and activated sludge      94

Activated sludge                           98.5

Septic tank-digested activated sludge      90

Imhoff tank-digested activated sludge      85
                                                       \	

*Source: EPA,  1978.
                                    4-410

-------
                                                        PATHWAY 12


ill.   The sludge moisture content =0.95 kg/kg.
      As shown on Table 4-66, sludge typically contains 93 to 99.5%
      water.  The value of 0.95 was selected as a conservative work case
      (EPA, 1978).

iv.   The sludge storage capacity - 0.9 kg/kg.
      Storage capacity for water in sludge is defined as the "dry" water
      content for the sludge under normal atmospheric conditions per
      square meter.  In other words, it is the moisture content of the
      sludge when completely drained.

      The storage capacity was set equal to .the moisture content for
      gravity-thickened sludge.  A high storage capacity is more
      conservative because the greater the capacity, the greater the
      amount of water that is available to move through the overburden
      into  the ground water and the faster and more likely that
      pollutants will reach the ground water.

v.    The sludge density =• 0.9944 kg/m3
      The density of a substance is defined as the mass per unit volume.
      For sludge, density refers to what might be called the effective
      density.  This term takes into consideration the physical state
      (particle size, amount of bound water, degree of flocculation,
      etc.) and chemical composition of the sludge particle as it exists
      in a  discrete sense in a sludge mixture.  As the solids content ot
      a sludge increases, the density is better described as a bulk
      density, a term which implies that the entire sludge mixture has
      been  taken into consideration when the density was calculated.

      The ratio of the density of a substance to the density of a
      standard substance is known as the specific gravity.  The standard
                                4-411

-------
                                                  PATHWAY 12

substance in this case is water with a density of 1,000 g/L under
standard conditions of temperature and pressure.  At low solids
concentrations in a sludge, the density and subsequently the
specific gravity is close to 1.   As the solids content increases in
a constant volume sample, the density increases due to the
displacement of water with solid material of a relatively higher
particle density than water.  The density can decrease if the
displacement of water is by solid material with a relatively lower
particle density than water.

The specific gravity of a sludge is readily determinable by simple
procedures such as those presented in Standard Methods for
Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public Health
Association, 1971)   This method involves a determination of the
weight of a given volume of sludge versus the weight of an equal
volume of distilled water.  As noted in Standard Methods, it is
important to consider the difference between free and nonfree
flowing sludges due to the difference in density that these
conditions bring about.

Sludge-specific gravities range over a relatively wide spectrum,
depending on the state of the sludge (settled, thickened,
dewatered, dried, etc.)   The specific gravity should always be
stated relative to some specified set of conditions under which the
sample was taken, and the analytical characterization methods for
solids content should be included.

Alternatively, the specific gravity of the dry solids that make up
the overall sludge sample can be equated against the weight
percentage of these dry solids in the sludge mixture to obtain  the
over all sludge specific gravity.
                          4-412

-------
                                                        PATHWAY 12
           i  =   rwp^i    +   (WP
          SG5   SGmur        SG,^
             =  ,95  +   .05    =  0.9944
                  1.0    1.125

      where SG,  — sludge specific gravity
            WP   - weight percent

      Source:  Eckenfelder and Santhanam, 1981


4.12.2.2  Site Data

i.    The net recharge is 0.25 m/yr.
      This value refers to the sura of the natural recharge and irrigation
      less evapotranspiration.  These data can be obtained from local
      weather station data or agricultural extension offices.  The value
      used in this calculation was an estimate provided by an experts'
      committee  convened at ORD in January 1986.

ii.   The distance to the monitoring location- 1 M.
      This distance, which is required for the vapor pathway, is the
      distance between the MEI and the application site.  For consistency
      between this pathway and the particulate pathway 10,  the value
      selected was 1 M.

iii.   The site width - 400 M.

iv.   The site length - 2,000 M.
                                4-413

-------
                                                        PATHWAY 12

      The site width and length were selected to give a field size of 80
      ha, which is consistent with the field size used for the surface
      runoff pathway.
4.12.23  Unsaturated Zone Data

i.    The matrix (material) is sandy loam.
      Even though farming can take place in sand, it was assumed that che
      farmer adds conditioners to the sand to make a sandy loam.  Values
      for sand represent an extreme worst case, and using them would have
      resulted in excessively restrictive criteria.

      Table 4-67 shows the default values for some of the material
      characteristics.

ii.   The hydraulic conductivity - 100 m/day.
      The model provides a representative value for the saturated
      hydraulic conductivity (m/day) of the unsaturated zone material
      selected.  Representative values of hydraulic conductivity for 12
      material types  are shown in Table 4-67.

iii.   "B" (slope of  metric potential vs. moisture content curve) =6.3.
      The program provides a representative "B" value for the unsaturaced
      zone material type selected.  Representative "B" values for 12
      material types  are shown in Table 4-67.

iv.   The effective porosity - 0.36.
      The program provides a representative value for the effective
      porosity of the unsaturated zone material type selected.
      Representative  values of effective porosity for the 12 material
      types simulated are shown in Table 4-67.
                                  4-414

-------
                                                             PATHWAY  12
TABLE 4-67.  Default Values for Some of the Material Characteristics
Material Type
Clay
Silty Clay
Silty Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Sandy Clay Loam
Sandy Silt Loam
Silty Loam
Sandy Loam
Loamy Sand
Sand
Fractured Sandstone
Limestone
Hydraulic
Conductivities
(m/day)
0.032
0.32
3.2
1.0
3.2
32.0
32.0
100.0
320.0
3200.0
1.0
10.0
'B'
11.7
9.9
7.5
8.5
7.5
5.4
4.8
6.3
5.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
Effective
Porosity
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.30
0.25
Effective
Bulk
Density
1800
1700
1600
1600
1500
1500
1600
1500
1500
1400
2620
2390
                                  4-415

-------
                                                         PATHWAY  12
v.    The effective bulk density - 1,700.
      The program provides a representative value  for  the  effective  bulk
      density of the unsaturated zone material selected. Representative
      values of effective bulk density are shown in Table  4-67.

vi.   The unsaturated zone thickness — 5 M.
      Only one layer is assumed as the reasonable  worst  case.  Therefore,
      the thickness of the layer and the depth to  ground water are the
      same.
4.12.4  Chemical-Specific Factors

     See Table 4-68.

i.    Sludge  concentration in mg/kg.
      Values  were  taken  from the 90th percentile values of the 40-City
      Study (EPA,  1982a).

ii.   The  distribution coefficient (KD)  in L/kg.
      Contaminant  transport in soil systems is directly related to
      contaminant/soil interactions.   The affinity that soil particles
      have  for contaminants may result from exchange on charged sites or
      adsorption due to  surface forces.   Once that capacity is exceeded,
      soluble contaminants will move through the soil at the same
      velocity as  the bulk leachate.   The affinity between a soil and a
      contaminant  -- and therefore a soil's capacity for a contaminant --
      is characterized by the distribution coefficient K
-------
TABLE 4-68.  Chemical-Specific Factors
                                                         PATHWAY 12
Sludge
Concentration
Pollutant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
I Benzo(a)pyrene
£ Bis(2ethyl hexyl)phthlate
Chlordane
DDT/DDD/DDE
Dime thy Initrosamine
Lindane
PCBs
Trichloroethylene
Toxaphene
(mg/kg)
1.98 x
8.41 x
1.22 x
1.19 x
9.27 x
6.27
3.65 x
4.20 x
5.05 x
3.30 x
8.88 x
2.48 x
0
8.88 x
8.88 x
1.40 x
8.88 x
10'
10'
103
103
102

102
103
10'
102
10'2
10'

102
10'2
10'
102
KD

(L/kg)
1
4
9
5
5.
5,
5.
9.
2,
1.
8,
2.
2.
5.
1.
9
4.
.94 x
.25 x
.22 x
.65 x
.97 x
.80 x
.86 x
.39 x
,75 x
.00 x
.50 x
,50 x
.00 x
.40
.60 x
90 x
.80
101
102
101
10'
102
102
101
102
104
107
102
104
10"

103
ID-'

Decay
Rate
d/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.65
0
0.584
0.0198
5.11
0.657
0.1153
0
0.063
Background
Concentration
Health
Effects
Level
(mg/L)
4.00 x
1.00 x
1.00 x
1.40 x
1.00 x
3.00 x
2.70 x
2.00 x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
104
103
10'2
lO'3
103
10"
103
10'2









5
1
1
5
5
2
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
4
4
5.
5.
(mg/L)
.00 x
.00 x
.30
.00 x
.00 x
.00 x
.75
.65 x
.00 x
.48 x
.69 x
.02 x
.00 x
.00 x
.54 x
.00 x
.00 x
10'2
102

102
102
103

10'
lO'4
10'
103
102
104
10 3
104
103
103

-------
                                                        PATHWAY  12

     When a  soil's  capacity for  a contaminant is exhausted,  the
     contaminant  can be  considered to  have a K,,  of 0 and will move
     unimpeded with the  leachate until it reaches soil with  residual
     capacity.  Hence,  it  is necessary to compare the  capacity of the
     soil column  (SC) between the sludge  application surface and the
     point of- compliance to the  total  contaminant available  in the
     sludge  (M).   If M > SC,  then the  risk calculations must be  made
     with K,j — 0;  if M < SC, the  literature of measured value of Kd
     should  be applied.

iii. Decay rates  (1/yr)
     Decay rates  for the organic pollutants were determined  by the
     Athens  laboratory.

iv.  Background concentrations in mg/L.
     Background concentrations were taken from Hen (1985).   Where
     explicit values were  not given, values were estimated from  the
     text.   Because metals are ubiquitous, they can be expected  to  be in
     ground  waters.   Organics, however,  are not expected to  be in
     uncontaminated ground waters.

v.   Health  effects levels in mg/L.
     The health effects  levels are MCLs,  where they exist.   If final
     MCLs were not  available,  proposed MCLs were used.  In the absence
     of either, the RfD  or q!* values were  used  to calculate either  a
     threshold value for noncarcinogens or a maximum allowable dose for
     carcinogens  at the  1CT* level.

     Other categories of stability range from very unstable  to stable,
     but the values for  stable atmospheric conditions yield the highest
     concentrations.  These values, therefore, are the most  conservative
     and are used in the methodology.
                                4-418

-------
                                SECTION FIVE
                           SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
   OWRS  conducted sensitivity  analyses  that  evaluated  the effect of using
different scenarios under varying assumptions concerning the Most Exposed
Individual (MEI) for pathways 1, 2F, 3, and 4 in an agricultural setting.
(The "F" indicates that a "future" conversion to residential use 5  yr after
sludge application was assumed.)

   Adequate  data were  not  available to  perform  sensitivity  analysis on  the
MEI's diet for pathway 1 (sludge-soil-plant-human toxicity)  on agricultural
lands.  Thus evaluating various MEI scenarios for pathway IF (sludge-soil-
plant-human toxicity) required the assumption of high,  medium,  and low
percentages of the home gardener's daily diet coming from former
sludge-amended cropland.  A 25- to 30-yr-old male was selected as the MEI
because this group has the highest total daily consumption of vegetables for
all the ages and sexes represented.  (See EPA 1989a for further information
concerning the data used in the sensitivity analyses unless  other technical
studies are cited.)  As a result of the sensitivity analysis,  the high-
percentage diet was selected for criteria derivation to provide the greatest
protection for the MEI.  The diet percentages were obtained from the technical
literature (see Table 5-1).

   For  Pathway  2F (sludge-soil-human  toxicity),  high,  medium,  and  low
ingestion rates of sludge soil mixture by children 6 yr old and younger  were
assumed.  As a result of the analysis, the low ingestion rate was selected  for
deriving sludge criteria because it provided adequate protection without being
unrealistically high.  The soil ingestion rates were obtained from the
literature and are as follows:   high, 5; medium, 0.5; and low,  0.1.

   For pathways  3  and  4  (sludge-soil-plant-animal-human  toxicity and sludge-
animal (direct ingestion)-human-toxicity),  high, medium,  and low values  were
assumed for the percentages of a 25- to 30-yr-old male's daily diet that come
                                    5-1

-------
   TABLE 5-1. Percentage of 25- to 30-Yr-Old Male Home Gardener's
                     Dietary Intake of Sludge-Applied Crops
Crop Fo_od Group        High           Medium          Low
Potatoes                45              15             1
Leafy vegetables        60              27             5
Root crops              60              27             5
Garden fruits           60              27             5
Nondried legumes        60              27             5
Grains and cereals      60              27             5
Dried legumes           17               7 ,            3
                              5-2

-------
from animals raised on feed crops or pasture chat received sludge
applications.  As a result of these analyses, the high-percentage diet was
selected for criteria derivation to provide the greatest protection.  The diet
percentages were obtained from the technical literature (see Table 5-2)

     The MEI sensitivity analyses affected concentrations and application
rates for the following pollutants: cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium, zinc,
aldrin/dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene,
hexachlorobutadiene, lindane, PCBs, and toxaphene.  The metals are discussed
first.
    5.1  Effect on Metals

    Cadmium

    Pathway 2F is the limiting pathway for the cadmium application rate
(kg/ha) if a high sludge-ingestion rate  is used for the MEI child.  The
criteria in the  regulation,  in contrast,  are based on a low ingestion rate.
With a medium or low ingestion rate,  Pathway  5 (sludge-soil-plant-animal
toxicity) becomes the limiting pathway for application rate, but  the allowable
application rate does not vary significantly  from the value derived based on
Pathway 2F.

    Pathway 4  is the limiting pathway for the  cadmium concentration in  sludge
(mg/kg dry weight of sludge)  whether  a high-, medium-, or low-percentage
sludge-contaminated  diet was  assumed.  Compared to the regulation's criteria
values that were derived based on a high-percentage diet, the medium-
percentage diet  caused an order-of-magnitude  increase in allowable cadmium
concentrations and the low-percentage diet caused a two-order-bf-magnitude
increase in allowable concentrations.
                                    5-3

-------
         TABLE 5-2.  Percentage of 25- to 30-Yr-Old Male's Dietary Intake
                      of Products  from Animals Raised on  Sludge-Applied
                      Pasture or Feed  Crops
Food
Group
      Pathway 3
High
Medium
Low
                               Pathway 4
High
Medium
 Low
Beef
Beef liver
Lamb
Pork
Poultry
Dairy
 products
Eggs
 44
 44
 44
 44
 34
 40

 48
   6
   6
   6
   6
  12
   4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
3
0.04

0.6
44
44
44
 0
 0
 4

 0
  6
  6
  6
  0
  0
  4
0.8
0.8
0.8
  0
  0
0.04

  0
                                    5-4

-------
    Lead
    Pathway 2F is  the limiting pathway for the lead application rate,  if  a
high or medium ingestion rate  is assumed.  The medium ingestion rate used to
derive the criteria  causes a  two-order-of-magnitude increase over the maximum
allowable  sludge concentrations of lead calculated using the high ingestion
rate.  If  a low ingestion rate is used, pathway 9  (sludge-soil-soil biota-
predator toxicity) controls the lead  application rate and the maximum
allowable  lead concentrations  increase by a factor of two over those
calculated for the rule using  the medium  ingestion rate.
    Mercury

    Pathway 4 controls the allowable sludge concentrations for mercury,
whether a high-, medium-, or  low-percentage sludge-contaminated diet was
assumed.  Compared to  the regulation's criteria values, which are based on a
high-percentage diet,  the medium-percentage diet causes an order-of-magnitude
increase in  allowable  sludge  concentrations of mercury    The  low-percentage
diet, on the other hand,  causes a  two-order-of-magnitude  increase in allowable
sludge concentrations  of  mercury.
    Selenium

    Pathway 3  controls the application rate of selenium,  if a high-percentage
sludge-contaminated diet  is assumed.   Pathway  5, however,  controls the
application rate  if a medium-  or  low-percentage diet  is used.  When pathway 5
controls the application  rate,  the allowable application rate is increased by
a factor of two over  the  rate  when pathway  3 is the limiting pathway.
                                   5-5

-------
   Zinc
   Pathway  3  controls  the  application  rate  of  zinc,  if a high-percentage
sludge-contaminated diet is assumed, whereas pathway 7  (sludge-soil-plant
toxicity) controls the application rate if a medium- or  low-percentage diet is
assumed.  When pathway 7 controls the application rate,  the allowable
application rate is increased by a factor of two over  that when pathway 3 is
the limiting pathway.
    5.2  Effect on Organic Chemicals

    The  sensitivity  analysis  results  for  organic  contaminants,  in contrast  to
those for metals,  show more consistent patterns.   The results for chlordane,
DDT, PCBs, and toxaphene, for example, all follow the same pattern.  The
results of the sensitivity analyses for organics are discussed in the
following subsections.
    Chlordane, DDT, PCBs, and Toxaphene

    Pathway  3  controls  the  application rate  for  chlordane,  DDT,  PCBs  and
toxaphene sludge contaminants whether a high-,  medium-, or low-percentage
sludge-contaminated diet is assumed for the MET.  Compared to criteria values
derived based on a high-percentage diet, the medium-percentage diet causes an
order-of-magnitude increase, and the  low-percentage diet causes a two-order-
of-magnitude increase in the allowable application rate.  Pathway 4 controls
the concentration of these contaminants in sludge, whether a high-, medium-,
or low-percentage sludge-contaminated diet is assumed.  Compared to the
criteria values derived based on a. high-percentage diet, the allowable sludge
contaminant concentrations show an order-of-magnitude  increase with a medium-
percentage diet, and the low-percentage diet causes a  two-order-of-magnitude
increase in the allowable sludge contaminant concentrations.
                                    5-6

-------
    Hexachlorobutadiene and Lindane

    For  hexachlorobutadiene and lindane,  pathway 4 controls  both the  appli
cation rates and the sludge concentrations of the contaminants, whether a
high-, medium-, or low-percentage sludge-contaminated diet  is assumed.
Compared to the criteria values derived based on a high-percentage diet, the
allowable application rate and sludge concentration of these contaminants
increase by an order of magnitude with the medium-percentage diet, while the
low-percentage diet causes a two-order-of-magnitude increase in the allowable
sludge concentration and application rate of hexachlorobutadiene and  lindane.
    Aldrin/D ieldrin

    Pathway 4 controls the application rate of aldrin/dieldrin if a high-  or
medium-percentage sludge-contaminated  diet  is assumed for the MEI;  if a low-
percentage diet  is assumed, Pathway 9  controls the application rate.  Compared
to  the criteria  values derived based on a high-percentage diet, the medium-
percentage diet  with  pathway 9 controlling  the application rate causes an
order-of magnitude increase in the application rate for aldrin/dieldrin.

    Pathway 4 controls the allowable  sludge concentration  of  aldrin/dieldrin,
whether a high-, medium-, or low-percentage sludge-contaminated diet is
assumed for  the  MEI.  Compared to the  criteria values derived based on a high-
percentage diet, the  allowable concentration of aldrin/dieldrin increases by a
factor of five with the medium-percentage diet, whereas the  low-percentage
diet causes  an order-of-magnitude increase  in the allowable  concentration of
aldrin/dieldrin.
    Heptachlor

    Pathway 4 controls the application rate for heptachlor if a high-  or
medium-percentage sludge-contaminated  diet  is  assumed  for  the  MEI.  If  a  low-
                                    5-7

-------
percentage diet is assumed, pathway 1 controls the application rate.  Compared
to the criteria values based on a high-percentage diet, the allowable
concentration of heptachlor increases by an order of magnitude with the
medium-percentage diet, and allowing pathway 1 to control application rate
causes a two-order of magnitude increase.

    Pathway 4  controls  the  allowable  sludge  concentration  of heptachlor,
whether a high-,  medium-,  or low-percentage sludge-contaminated diet is
assumed for the MEI.   Compared to the criteria values derived based on a high-
percentage diet,  the allowable sludge concentration of heptachlor increases by
an order of-magnitude with a medium-percentage diet, whereas the low-
percentage diet causes a two-order-of-magnitude increase in the allowable
sludge concentration of heptachlor.
    Hexachloro benzene

    Pathways  3  and  IF  control  the  application  rate  of hexachlorobenzene  if  a
high-percentage sludge-contaminated diet is assumed.  Pathway IF controls the
application rate if a medium-percentage diet is assumed, and pathway 1
controls the application rate if a low-percentage diet is assumed.  Compared
to the criteria values derived based on a high-percentage diet, the pathway IF
medium-percentage diet and the pathway 1 low-percentage diet cause an order-
of-magnitude increase in the allowable application rate of hexachlorobenzene.
Pathway 4 controls the allowable sludge concentration of hexachlorobenzene
whether a high-,  medium-,  or low-percentage diet is assumed.  In comparison
with the criteria values derived based on a high-percentage diet, the medium-
percentage diet causes a two-order-of-magnitude increase in the allowable
concentrations of hexachlorobenzene in sludge.

    These sensitivity  analyses examined the  effect  of plant  uptake rates,
animal bioaccumulation rates, and soil background concentrations of
contaminants on contaminant application rates and allowable pollutant
concentrations in sludge.   These analyses demonstrated that plant uptake rates
and animal bioaccumulation rates can cause differences of up to three orders
                                    5-8

-------
of magnitude in maximum allowable sludge concentrations and pollutant
application rates.  They also revealed that soil background concentrations of
contaminants only affect metals limited by pathways 7 (plant toxicity),  8
(soil biota toxicity), or 9 (soil biota predator toxicity).  The derivation of
criteria for organic contaminants is not affected by soil background
concentrations, because the methodology is designed to calculate incremental
cancer risk and, therefore, always assumes zero background concentrations for
carcinogenic organics.

     No sensitivity analyses were performed on the rule's application rates
because data were not available to define high, medium, and low values for
plant, animal, and soil biota toxicity levels.  Sensitivity analyses indicate
that soil background concentrations of metals can cause allowable application
rates to vary by an order of magnitude when application rates are limited by
pathways 7,  8, or 9.

     The sensitivity analysis for D&M sludge and sludge products evaluated the
effect of the MEI for pathways 1 and 2 on the maximum allowable pollutant
application rates.  The pathway 1 sensitivity analysis investigated the
effects of assuming that a high, medium, or low percentage of the home
gardener's diet consists of fruits and vegetables grown in sludge-amended
soil.  The pathway 2 sensitivity analysis examined the effects of assuming
that the MEI child consumes sludge-amended soil in the home garden at high,
medium, or low ingestion rates.  The diet percentages for the pathway L MEI
and the ingestion rates for the pathway 2 MEI child were obtained from the
scientific literature.  As a result of these sensitivity analyses, the Agency
used the high-percentage diet for the pathway 1 MEI to provide adequate
protection for home gardeners.  For pathway 2, however, the Agency decided
that the high and medium sludge-soil ingestion rates were unrealistic and
represented an unreasonable worst case for inadvertent ingestion. The low
ingestion rate was therefore used in the proposed rule.
                                      5-9

-------
                                 SECTION SIX

                            CRITERIA DERIVATION
      The criteria derivation process for land application begins  by defining
the intended sludge end use and the potential for human or animal  exposure.
The three categories of land application sludge use are agricultural,  non-
agricultural, and distribution and marketing (D&M) (see Section 2).   When the
end use has been defined, risk assessments can be performed that evalu-
ate the elements of exposure and health assessments for each chemical.
Procedures for health assessment comprise methods for estimating human tox-
icity thresholds or cancer potencies based on Agency-approved values that are
intended to protect sensitive individuals.  As explained in Section 3.3,
exposure is quantified for the most exposed individual (MEI) using reasonable
worst-case assumptions for each exposure scenario evaluated.

      Risk assessments ordinarily are performed starting at the source and
ending with the receptor.  In other words, the source or disposal/reuse
practice is characterized first, and contaminant movement away from the source
is then modeled to estimate the degree of exposure to the receptor,  or MEI.
To calculate criteria, however, this process must be reversed.  First,  an
allowable exposure, or an exposure corresponding to a given acceptable level
of risk, is defined based on health effects data.  The pollutant transport
calculations are then operated in reverse to determine the corresponding
source-term definition, which in this case is the concentration of pollutant
in sludge and/or an application rate of a pollutant.  Changes in required
management practices can affect these sludge criteria by mitigating transfer
of pollutants through environmental compartments and therefore allowing
desired health or environmental protection goals to be met at higher sludge
pollutant concentrations.
                                      6-1

-------
      Models were used to generate numeric standards that are applicable
nationally.  To calculate these national criteria, data input choices must be
relatively conservative so the criteria are reasonably protective for all
projected conditions nationwide.

      For agricultural uses of sludge, the appropriate pathways were modeled
using the data inputs described in Section 4.  These pathways were not modeled
for nonagricultural land application uses such as silviculture, land
reclamation, or dedicated land.  Sludge for these uses is regulated by the
98th percentile values from the EPA 40-City Study (EPA, 1982a).

      For agricultural and D&M uses, criteria were derived by running the
model for all 13 pathways while assuming a 10~* risk level.   The model also
calculated the criteria assuming that agricultural lands were converted to
residential use after 5 yr,  as well as with the assumption that sludge was
applied by a home gardener to residential land for 20 yr.   These assumptions
allow a higher concentration of organic pollutants in sludge, because a decay
rate operating for a conversion period of 5 yr is factored into the model.

      The results of this last analysis are presented in the following tables.
Table 6-1 lists the results of the pathway-by-pathway analysis for D&M use,
including the maximum allowable concentrations of pollutants for each pathway
The maximum application rates are determined, in the case of organics, by
whichever pathway is the most restrictive.  That value establishes the annual
limiting application rate or numeric standard.  For metals, the surface runoff
pathway, based on an annual recharge rate, determines the annual limit. The
limiting cumulative rate for a particular chemical, in contrast, is determined
by whichever of the remaining pathways is the most limiting.

      Table 6-2 lists the numerical concentrations of sludge pollutants that
may not be exceeded in sludge that is distributed and marketed.  This table is
developed from the limiting pollutant loading rates listed in Table 6-1.
                                     6-2

-------
TABLE 6-1.  Distribution and Marketing






A/0
AS
BAP
CD
CLD
at
cu
DDT
DMI
HEPC
MXB£
yw i
UfMU
PB
LIN
MG
HI
PCS
SE
rax
TCE
2H
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
8
9.
11.

Pathuay Pattivay 2 Pathway Pathway Pathway
1 Pica Child 7 fl 9
0 00 Day 0 Day O Day
Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion
Period Period Period Period period
6.AIE-02 6-WC-OO 1.646-02
3.621*02 I.40E+01
7.701-02 2.J9C+01
I.JWEUJI i. ret 1-02
9.60F4-01
S.3CE+02
4.ME+OI 2-2*E*Q2
4.&2E 02 9.I5E+00

7.ME-02
4.J7E-02 2.60E+OI
1.95EK12 J.78f*02 1.25E+02

1.10E*4)2 3.9«£«-
Kate
K9/ha


1.40E+OI

1 04t+C!

i.JOt+02
X.&OEWli




1.251+02

5 «tt*OI
7.60C+OI

J.62E*02


l./2t+02









-------
                                  TABLE 6-2.   Distribution and Marketing  Pollutant Limits
a\
•a-
                           Polluter*
       S«ttage Sluag* Concentration
(•i Lligrms per kilogram - dry
                                                                                                      basis)
AldriiVDieldrin
Arsenic
Ben20e/DDO*
HeptacJilor
Hexacmorobenrene-
Hexichlorotxjtadiene
Lead
lindane
Mercury
Nickel
PCS
Selenlu*
loMftiene
Zinc
16
700
80
VOO
12200
26500
2300
46
79
46
41000
6000
917000
9994
3900
49
6106
117
8600
5.5
230
26
ill)
10700
8800
770
15
26
15
14000
2100
305700
660
1100
49
27C2
39
290C
3.3
140
15
16O
64 OO
5100
46O
9.2
16
9.1
8200
1300
183400
400
780
30
1600
23
1700
1.6
70
7.7
90
1200
2700
230
4.6
7.»
4.6
4100
600
917DO
199
394
15
eio
12
060
1.1
47
5.1
61
2100
1770
ISO
3.1
$.3
3
2700
400
61140
133
260
10
540
7.8
570
0-B2
35
3.8
46
1600
1330
120
2.1
3.9
2.3
2100
310
45050
100
200
7
410
5.8
430
0.66
2C
3.1
17
1290
1060
92
1.8
3.2
1.0
1600
250
J668C
60
160
6
120
4.7
340
0.55
21
2.6
31
1070
sac
77
1.5
2.6
1.5
1400
210
10564
66
130
5
270
1.9
290
0.47
20
2.2
26
920
760
66
1.1
2.1
1.3
1200
160
26200
57
no
4
230
3-1
250
»41
18
1.»
23
810
660
SB
1.2
2
1.14
1000
160
22950
50
96
4
200
2.9
220
0.16
16
1.7
20
720
WO
51
1
1.8
1.01
910
UO
2O40D
44
07
3
100
2.6
190
0.33
14
i.5
ia
640
530
46
0.92
1.6
0.91
820
130
10340
40
78
3
U£
2.3
170
                                                                         10
                                                                                         20
                                                                                                                           40
                                                                                                                                           50
                                                                    Armat Utiol« Sludge Affliction Rate
                                                                    (netric torn per hectare)
                                                          *DOt -  2.2-Bis<4-ctilorophenyl]-l. 1, ]-trichjoroethane
                                                           DOE -  2,2-Bis<4-chlcw-ophMTyl }-l. 1-dirriloroetheoc
                                                           DOC -  2,

-------
      For D&M uses -- which involve the application of sludge to home gardens
and to lawns as fertilizer and thus result in the highest potential for human
exposure -- pathways 1, 2, 7, 8, 9. and 11 were evaluated.  The animal
toxicity routes of exposure -- pathways 3,4, 5 and 6 -- were not evaluated
because grazing animals that are exposed to sludge pollutants by ingesting
plants grown on sludge-amended soil or by directly ingesting sludge/soil
mixtures are not usually found, in residential settings.

      Pathway 10, exposure to humans from particulate resuspension, was not
evaluated because the amount of tilling required to maintain home gardens
causes negligible amounts of particulate resuspension.  Pathway 12,
contamination of ground water with subsequent exposure zo humans, was noc
evaluated because of the relatively small size of garden plots.  This pathway
should not be a significant means of exposure.  The small size of a typical
homeowner's garden should cause, at most, a negligible transfer of sludge
pollutants to ground water.

      Table 6-3 describes the results of the pathway-by-pathway analysis for
all the pollutants found in sludges employed for agricultural use.  Each
pathway lists the limiting application rates for each contaminant.  For
organics, the most restrictive pathway value becomes the maximum annual
application rate, or numeric standard, for that pollutant.  For inorgani.-
the most restrictive pathway determines the cumulative application races
These standards for agricultural sludge use are given in Table 6-4   Assuming
a yearly application rate of 5-50 mt of sludge gives the maximum allowable
concentrations of organic pollutant in the whole sludge described in
Table 6-5.

      Nonagricultural land application sludge uses with little potential for
human exposure include all landspreading sludge uses besides pasture
production, food and feed crop production, and D&M residential application for
growing fruit and vegetables and use on lawns.  For example, these uses
include, but are not limited to, silviculture, dedicated  land disposal,
highway landscaping, reclamation, parks, cemeteries, golf courses  and  turf
                                      6-5

-------
TABLE 6-3.  Agriculture
(NIOSH)
Pathway Pathway Pathway 2F Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway Pathway
1 1F Pica Child 3456789 10
30 Day 5 Year 5 Year 30 Day 30 Day 0 Day 0 Day 0 Day 0 Day 0 Day Paniculate
Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion Conversion Suspension
Period Period Period Period Period Period Period Period Period Period
A/D 7.77E-01 2.17E+00 2.64E+02 1.52E-01 4.41E-02 1.64E-02 3.00E+04
AS 6.96E+03 3.82E+02 1.40E+01 4.00E+02
BAP 8.30E-01 6.49E+06 2.01E+09
CD 3.09E+02 1.84E+01 5.80E+03 2.60E*04 4.91E+01 1.78E+02 8.00E+03
CLD 1.77E+03 2.25E+00 1.59E+01
CR 5.30E+02 5.00E+03
CU 1.53E+02 4.58E+02 4.60E+01 2.24E+02
DDT 2.74E-01 4.62E-02 9.35E+00 5.47E-03 4.60E-02 1.00E*05
DNI
HEPC 9.79E-01 2.51E+00 1.49E-01 7.30E-02
HXBE 3.68E-01 1.04E-01 5.94E+01 3.84E-02 1.73E-01
HXBU 4.10E+01 3.39E-01
PB 1.19E+03 1.95E+02 3.78E+02 1.25E+02 1.00E+04
LIN ' 4.61E+00
HG 2.00E+03 1.10E+02 3.98E+01 1.49E+01 1.00E+03 1.00E+04
HO 5.07E+00
Nl 5.34E*03 2.06E+02 7.80E+01 3.00E*03
PCB 4.14E+00 2.64E-01 7.30E+00 5.64E-03 1.92E-02 2.00E+02
SE 1.31E+03 1.62E+02 4.66E+01 3.24E+01
TOX 1.37E+00 1.60E-01 2.17E+01 4.92E-02 7.47E-01
ICE
ZN 8.20E+04 5.87E+03 3.00E+04 4.72E+03 1.72E«02 4.52E»02
1. SLUDGE -- SOIL--PLANT--HUMAM IOXICITY
1F. SLUDGE -- SOIL- -PLANT- -HUMAN TOXICITY
2F. SLUDGE--HUMAN TOXICITY (PICA)
3. SLUDGE -- S01L--PLANT--ANIHAL -HUMAN TOXICITY
4. SLUDGE -- ANIMAL (DIRECT INGESTION) --HUMAN IUXILIIY
5. SLUDGE -- SOIL--PIANT-- ANIMAL TOXICITY
6. SLUDGE -- ANIMAL TOXICITY (DIRECT INGESIION)
7. SLUDGE -- SOIL--PLANF TOXICI1Y
8. SLUDGE -- SOIL BIOTA TOXICITY
9. SLUDGE -- SOIL BIOIA--SOII BIOTA IOXIC11Y
10. PARTICULAR RESObl'ENSION
11. SURFACE RUNOIf
\d. OROUNDUAIfck, VAPORI2ATIOU

Pathway
11
Surface
Runoff

4.02E+00

1.99E+02

2.40E+00
5.80E+03

5.30E-01
4.84E+04
2.15E+00
3.89E+01
4.93E+03

4.59E+01



4.22E+00

1.10E-01
1.61E+05















Pathway
12
Ground
Water


7.90E-01
1.30E-01
1.33E+00
1.20E+00
5.00E+02
1.44E+02
4.34E+00
3.90E-02



1.B2E+01
7.32E+01
3.45E-01

3.58E+OI
2.03E-01

4.84E-02
1.27E-02
5.00E+02














-------
TABLE 6-4.  Standards for Agricultural Sludge Application

Chemicals

Aldrin/Dieldrin
Arsenic
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
DDT/DDE/DOD
Dimethyl nitrosarnine
a\ Heptachlor
~j Hexachtorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Lead
L i ndane
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
PCB
Selenium
Toxaphene
T r i ch I oroe thy I ene
Zinc
Maximum Annual
Appl ication Rate
(kg/ha)
1.64E-02

1.30E-01

1.20E+00


5.47E-03
3.90E-02
7.30E-02
3.8AE-02
3.39E-01

A.61E+00



5.64E-03

4.84E-02
1.27E-02

Maximum Cumulative
Appl ication Rate
(kg/ha)

1.40E+01

1.84E+01

5.30E+02
4.60E+01





1.25E+02

1.A9E+01
5.07E+00
7.80E+01

3.2AE+01


1.72E+02

-------
cr>
I
oo
                                    TABLE 6-5.  Maximum Sewage Sludge Concentration
                                                     (mg/kg - dry weight basis)
Pollutant

Aldrin/Dieldrin
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlordane
DDT/DDE/DDD *
Dimethyl nitrosamine
Heptachlor
Hexach I orobenzene
Hexach 1 orobut ad i ene
L i ndane
PCS
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene


(mg/kg) (
16
130
1200
5.5
39
73
38
340
4600
5.64
AS
13
1

:n)g/kg) «
5.5
43
400
1.8
13
24
13
110
1500
1.88
16
4.2
3

:mg/kg) I
3.3
26
240
1.1
7.8
15
7.7
68
920
1.13
9.7
2.5
5

!iJ>g/kg) (
1.6
13
120
0.55
3.9
7.3
3.8
34
460
0.56
4.8
1.3
10

img/kg) (
1.1
8.7
80
0.36
2.6
4.9
2.6
23
310
0.38
3.2
0.85
15

:mg/kg) (
0.82
6.5
60
0.27
1.9
3.7
1.9
17
230
0.28
2.4
0.64
20

:mg/kg) 1
0.66
5.2
48
0.22
1.6
2.9
1.5
14
180
0.23
1.9
0.51
25

[mg/kg) (
0.55
4.3
40
0.18
1.3
2.4
1.3
11
150
0.19
1.6
0.42
30

[mg/kg) (
0.47
3.7
34
0.16
1.1
2.1
1.1
9.7
130
0.16
1.4
0.36
35

:
-------
farms, and nonresidential lawns.  For these uses,, sludge pollutant
concentrations are limited to the less stringent of the following:  the 98th
percentile concentrations reported in the U.S. EPA 40-City Study  (EPA, 1982a)
or the pollutant concentrations derived from agricultural risk assessments
assuming whole sludge application rates of 50 mt/yr for 10 yr (see Table 6-6)
                                     6-9

-------
                TABLE 6-6.  Nonagricultural Land Pollutant Limits
      Pollutant
                             Maximum Sewage Sludge Concentration3
                                           (mg/kg)
Aldrin/dieldrin
Arsenic
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
DDT/DDE/DDD (total)"
Dimethyl nitrosamine
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Selenium
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Zinc
                                             0.33
                                            36
                                             6.9
                                           390
                                            24
                                         3,100
                                         3,300
                                             0.11
                                             1.5
                                             1.5
                                             2.8
                                             6.8
                                         1,600
                                            92
                                            17
                                           230
                                           990
                                             0.11
                                            27
                                             0.97
                                           180
                                         8,600
aDry-weight basis.
"DDT - Bis 1,1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-tricloroethane.
 DDE   Bis l,l-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethane.
 ODD
Bis 1,1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethane.
                                   6-10

-------
                                 REFERENCES


ABC (American Biogenics Corporation).  1986.  Ninety-day gavage study in
    albino rats using nickel.  Draft final report (Study 10-2520) by American
    Biogenics Corporation  (1800  Pershing Road, Decatur, IL 62526) submitted to
    Research Training Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Allaway, W.H.  1968.  Agronomic  controls over the environmental cycling of
    trace elements.  In A.G. Normal  (ed.), Advances in agronomy.  Vol. 20
    New York:  Academic Press.

Allen, G.S.  1968.  An outbreak  of zinc poisoning in cattle.   Vet. Rec.  83:8.
    (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Allcrof-., R.  1950.  Lead  as a nutritional hazard to farm livestock.  In:
    Distribution of  lead in the  tissues of bovines after ingestion of various
    lead compounds.  J. Comp. Pathol.  60:190.

Ambrose, P., P.S. Larson,  J.F. Borzelleca and G.R. Henningar, Jr   1976.
    Long-term toxicological assessment of nickel in rats and dogs.  J  Food
    Sci. Technol. 13:181.

American Public Health Association.  1971.   Standard methods for  the
    examination of water and wastewater.  13th ed.  American Public Health
    Association.

Andujar, M.A. , G. Varela and M.P. Navarro.   1978.  Dieldrin,  Ca,  and P balance
    and characteristics of the egg in  the quail  (Coturnix coturnix Japonica)
    Poult. Sci. 57:526-602.

Anwar, R.A., R.F. Langhorn, C.A. Hoppert, B.V. Alpadson and R.U.  Byerrum.
    1961.  Chronic  toxicity studies.   II.  Chronic toxicity of cadmium and
    chromium in dogs.  Arch. Environ.  Health. 3:92.  (As cited in NAS, 1980)

Arthur, M.F., T.C. Zwick,  D.A. Tolle and P.  Van Voris.   1984.  Effects of fly
    ash on microbial C02 evolution from an agricultural soil.   Wat.,  Air,  Soil
    Pollut. 22:209-216.

Auerlich, R.J , R.K. Ringer and  S. Iwamoto.  1974.  Effects of dietary mercury
    on mink.  Arch.  Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2:43.

Aughey, E., L. Grant, B.L. Furmann and W.F   Dryden.  1977.  The effects of
    oral zinc supplementation on the mouse.  J. Comp.  Pathol. 87:1.

Bache, C.A., George G. Gyrisco,  S.N. Ferty,  E.W. Huddleston et al.  1960.  J
    Agr. Food. Chem. 8:408-409.  (As  cited in Bruce et  al., 1965.)

Barnes, R.  1976.  Mechanization of  forage harvesting  and storage.  Chapter 48
    in:  Health, M., D.S.  Metcalfe and R. Barnes (eds.), Forages:  The science
    of grassland agriculture (3rd ed.).
                                      7-1

-------
Baron,  R.L.,  F. Copeland andM.F. Walton.   1975.   P.  855 in: F. Coulston and
    F.  Horte  (eds.).  Environmental quality and safety supplement. Vol. III.
    Stuttgart,  Germany:  G. Thieme Publishers. (As cited in Geyer et al.,
    1980.)

Baumhardt, G.R. and L.F. Welch.  1972.   Lead uptake and corn growth with soil
    applied lead.   J   Environ. Qual.  1:92.

Baxter, J.C.,  M. Aquilar and K. Brown.   1983.   Heavy metals and persistent
    organics  at a sewage sludge disposal site.  J. Environ. Qual. 12(3):  311
    316.

Beall,  M.L.,  Jr.  1976.  Persistence of aerially supplied hexachlorobenzene on
    grass and soil.  J. Environ. Qual.  5(4):367-369.

Beardmore, C.J. and R.J. Robel.  1976.   Weight and body fat recovery by
    dieldrin-dosed, underweight bobwhites.  J. Wildl. Manage.  40(1):113-121.

Beckett, P.H.T. and R. Davis.  1977.   Upper critical levels of toxic elements
    in plants.   New Phytol. 79:95-106.

Bellward, G.D., R. Dawson and M. Ottan.  1975.  The effect of dieldrin-
    contaminated feed on rat hepatic microsome epoxide hydrase and aryl
    hydrocarbon hydroxylase.  Res. Comm. Chem. Pathol. Pharmacol. 12(4):669-
    684.

Berg,  L.R. and R.D. Martinson.  1972.  Effect of diet composition on the
    toxicity of zinc  for the chick.  Poult. Sci.  51:1690.

Bertrand, J.E., M.C.  Lutrick, G.T. Edds and R.L.  West.  1981.   Metal residues
    in tissues animal performance and carcass quality with beef steers grazing
    Pensacola bahiagrass pastures treated with liquid digested sludge.  J
    Anim. Sci.  53:1.

Bevenue, A.   1976.  The "bioconcentration" aspects of DDT in the environment.
    Residue Rev  61:37-112.

Beyer,  K.W.,  J.W.  Jones, S.K. Linscott et al.   1981.   Trace element levels in
    tissues from cattle fed a sewage sludge-amended diet.  J  Toxicol.
    Environ.  Health 8:281-295.

Beyer,  W.N.,  R.L.  Chaney, and B.M. Mulkern.  1982.  Heavy metal concentrations
    in earthworms from soil amended with sewage sludge.  J. Environ. Qual.
    ll(3):381-385.

Binder, S.D.  Sokal and D. Maugham.  1985.   Estimating the amount of soil
    ingested by young children through trace elements.  Draft.  Atlanta, GA:
    Special Studies Branch, Center for Environmental Health, Centers for
    Disease Control.
                                       7-2

-------
Bingham, F.T., A.L. Page, R.J. Mahler and T.J  Ganje.  1975.  Growth and
    cadmium accumulation of plants grown on a soil treated with a cadmium
    enriched sewage sludge.  J  Environ. Qual. 4(2):207-211.

Bingham, F.T.  1979.  Bioavailability of Cd to food crops in relation to heavy
    metal content of sludge-amended soil.  Environ. Health Perspect. 28:39-43

Bingham, F.T., A.L. Page, G.A. Mitchell and J.E. String.  1979  Effects of
    liming an acid soil amended with sewage sludge enriched with Cd, Cu, Ni,
    and Zn on yield and Cd content of wheat grain.  J. Environ. Qual.
    8(2):202-207.

Bjorn-Rasmussen, E. et al.  1974.  Food iron absorption in man: applications
    of the two-pool extrinsic  tag method to measure heme and nonheme iron
    absorption from the whole  diet.  J. Clin. Invest. 53:247   (As cited in
    TDI, 1981.)

Bollag, J.M. and W. Barabasz.  1979   Effects of heavy metals on the
    denutrification process in soil.  J  Environ. Qual. 8(2):196-201.

Bolton, J.  1975.  Liming effects on the toxicity to perennial ryegrass of  a
    sewage sludge contaminated with zinc, nickel, copper and chromium.
    Environ.  Pollut. 9:295-304.

Booth, N. and J. McDowell.  1975.  Toxicity of hexachlorobenzene and
    associated residues in edible animal tissues.  JAVMA 166(6):591-595.

Boswell, F.C.  1975.  Municipal sewage sludge and selected  element
    applications to soil:  Effect on soil and fescue.  J  Environ. Qual.
    4(2):267-273.

Bothwell, T.H. et al.  1964.   Iron overload in Bantu subjects: studies on the
    availability of iron in Bantu beer. Am.  J  Clin. Nutr.  14:47    (As cited
    in TDI, 1981.)

Bovard, K.P., J.P. Fontenot and B.M. Priode.  1971.  Accumulation and
    dissipation of heptachlor  residues in fattening  steers. J  Anim. Sci.
    33:127-132.

Boyd, J.N., G.S. Stoewsand, J.G. Babish, J.N. Telford, and  D. Lisk.  1982.
    Safety evaluation of vegetables cultured on municipal sludge-amended soil.
    Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol.  11:399-405.

Boyden, R., V.R. Potter and C.A. Eloehjam.  1938.  Effect of feeding high
    levels of copper to albino rate.  J. Nutr..  15:397.

Boyer, K.W., J.W. Jones, S.K.  Linscott, W. Wright, W. Stroube and W.
    Cunningham.  1981.  Trace  element levels in tissues from cattle  fed a
    sewage sludge-amended diet.  J. Toxicol. Environ. Health.  8:281-295.
                                        7-3

-------
Bradford, G.J., A.L. Page, L.J. Lund and W. Holmsted.  1975.  Trace element
    concentrations of sewage treatment plant effluents and sludges:  their
    interactions with soils and uptake by plants.  J. Environ. Qual.
    4(1):123-127.

Bray, B.J., R.D. Goodrich, R.H. Dowdy and J.C. Meishe.  1981.  Performance and
    tissue mineral contents of lambs fed corn silage grown on sludge-amended
    soils.  Abstract.  J. Anim. Sci.  53:384-385.

Brink, M. F.,  D.E. Becker, S.W. Terrill and A.H. Jensen.  1959   Zinc toxicity
    in the weanling pig.  J. Anim. Sci.  18:836. (As cited in NAS,  1980.)

Brower, B.  1983.  Computer data file of analytical results in public water
    supplies samples in the Rural Water Survey. Ithaca,  NY: Department of
    Rural Sociology, Cornell University.

Bruce, W.N., R.P  Link and G.C. Decker.  1965.  Storage of heptachlor epoxide
    in the body fat and its excretion in milk of dairy cows fed heptachlor in
    their diets.  J. Agric. Food Chem. 13(l):63-67.

Bruce, W.N., A.C. Decker and J.G. Wilson.  1966.  The relationship of the
    levels of insecticide contamination of crop seeds to their fat content and
    soil concentration of aldrin, heptachlor, and their epoxides.   J.  Econ.
    Ent.  59(1):179-181.

Buck, A.B.  1978.  Toxicity of inorganic and aliphatic organic arsenicals.
    In: F.W. Oehme  (ed.), Toxicity of heavy metals in the environment.  New
    York:  Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Buck, W.B., L.F  James and W. Binns.  1961.  Changes in serum transaminase
    activities associated with plant and mineral toxicity in sheep and cattle.
    Cornell Vet.  51:568.

Bull, K.R., E.D. Roberts, M.J. Inski andG.T. Goodman.  1977.  Mercury
    concentrations in soil, grass, earthworms and small mammals near an
    industrial emission source.  Environ. Poll. 12:135.

Cain, B.W., L. Sileo, J.C. Fronson and J. Moore.  1983.   Effects of dietary
    cadmium on mallard ducklings.  Environ.  Res. 32:286-297.

Call, D.J  and J.K.J. Call.  1974   Blood chemistries of Japanese quail fed
    dieldrin.   Poult. Sci.  53:54-56.

Campbell, A.G., M.R. Coup, W.H. Bishop, and D.E. Wright.  1974.  Effect of
    elevated iron uptake on the copper status of grazing cattle.  N.Z. J.
    Agric. Res. 17:393-399.

Campbell, J.K. and C.F. Mills.  1979.  The toxicity of zinc to pregnant sheep.
    Environ. Res. 20:1.
                                       7-4

-------
Cappon, C.J.  1981.  Mercury and selenium content and chemical form in
    vegetable crops grown on sludge-amended soil.  Arch. Environ.  Contam.
    Toxicol.  10:673-689.

Cappon, C.J.  1984.  Content and chemical forms of mercury and selenium in
    soil, sludge, and fertilizer materials.  Wate .  Air, Soil Pollut.  22:95.

CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology).  1976.  Application of
    sewage sludge to cropland: appraisal of potential hazards of the heavy
    metals to plants and animals.  Rept. No. EPA-430/9-76-013.

CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology).  1980.  Effects of
    sewage sludge on the cadmium and zinc content of crops.  CAST Rept. No.
    83.  Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory   EPA-600/8-81-003
    Cincinnati, OH:  EPA.

Chaney, R.L. and C.A. Lloyd.  1979.  Adherence of spray-applied liquid
    digested sewage sludge  to tall fescue.  J  Environ. Qual.  8(3):407-411.

Chaney, R.L., S.B. Sterrot, M.C. Morella, and C.A. Lloyd.  1982.  Effect of
    sludge quality and rate soil pH and time on heavy metal  residues in leafy
    vegetables.  In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Madison Conference on
    Applied Research and Practice on Municipal Industrial Waste, Madison,  WI.
    22-24 Sept. 1982.  University of Wisconsin   Extension,  Madison,  WI.

Chang, A.C., A.L. Page, L.J. Lund, P.P. Pratt and G.R. Bradford.  1978.  Land
    application of sewage sludge:  a field demonstration.  Final report.
    Regional wastewater solids management program, Los Angeles/Orange County
    metropolitan area, University of California, Riverside.   (As cited in Rvan
    et al.,  1982.)

Chang, A.C., A.L. Page, K.W. Foster and T.W. Jones.   1982.   A comparison of
    cadmium and zinc accumulation by four cultures of barley grown in
    sludge-amended soil.  J. Environ. Qual. 11(3):409-412.

Chang, A.C., A.L. Page, J.E. Warneke, M.R. Rresketo andT.E. Jones.  1983.
    Accumulation of cadmium and zinc in barley grown on sludge-treated soils:
    a long-term field study. J. Environ. Qual.  12(3):391.

Chisholm, D.  1972.  Lead,  arsenic, and copper content of crops grown on lead
    arsenate-treated and untreated soils.  Can. J  Plant Sci.  52:583-588.

Cibulka, J., Z. Sova and V. Muzikar.  1983   Lead and cadmium in the tissues
    of broilers fed a diet with added dried activated sewage sludge.   Environ.
    Technol. Lett.  4:123-128.

Claborn, H.V..  1960.  Pesticide residues in meat and milk.   U.S. Department of
    Agriculture.  ARS-33-63  (As cited in Kenaga, 1980.)

Coburn, D.R., D.W. Metzler and R. Treichler.  1951.   A study of absorption and
    retention of lead in wild water fowl in relation to clinical evidence of
    lead poisoning. J. Wildl. Manage. 15:186.


                                      7-5

-------
Cools, A., et al.   1976.  Biochemical response of male volunteers injesting
    inorganic lead for 49 days.  Inc. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 38:129-139

Connor, M.S.  1984.  Monitoring sludge-amended agricultural soils. Biocycle.
    January/February 1984:47-51.

Cousins, R.J., A.K. Barber and J.R. Trout.  1973.  Cadmium toxicity in growing
    swine.  J. Nutr. 103:964   (As cited in NAS,  1980.)

Cox, D.H. and O.M. Hale.  1962.  Liver iron depletion without copper loss in
    swine fed excess zinc.  J. Nutr.  77:225.

Cunningham, J.D.,  D.R. Keeney and J.A. Ryan.  1975a.  Phytotoxicity in and
    metal uptake from soil treated with metal-amended sewage sludge.  J
    Environ. Qual. 4:455-460.

Cunningham, J.D.,  D.R. Keeney, and J.A.  Ryan.  1975b.  Yield and metal
    composition of corn and rye grown on sewage sludge-amended soil.  J.
    Environ. Qual. 4(4):448-454.

Damron, B.L., C.F. Simpson and R.H. Harms.  1969.  The effect of feeding
    various levels of lead on the performance of broilers.  Poult. Sci.
    48:1507.

Damron, B.L. and H.R. Wilson.  1975.  Lead toxicity of bobwhite quail.  Bull.
    Environ. Contam. Toxicol.  14:489-496.

Davies, N.T., H.S. Soliman, W. Corrigal and A. Flett.  1977.  Susceptibility
    of suckling lambs to zinc toxicity.   Br. J  Nutr.  38:153.  (As cited in
    NAS, 1980.)

Davis, K.J.  1965.  Pathology report on mice fed dieldrin, aldrin, heptachlor,
    or heptachlor epoxide for two years.   Internal FDA memorandum on
    Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) to Dr. A.J. Lehrman (July 19,
    1965).

Demayo, A., M.C. Taylor, K.W. Taylor and P.V. Hodson.  1982.  Toxic effects of
    lead and lead compounds on human health, aquatic life, wildlife, plants
    and livestock.  CRC Grit. Rev. Environ. Control. 12(4):257.

Dorough, H. and R. Hemken.  1973.  Chlordane residues in milk and fat of cows
    fed HCS3260 (high-purity chlordane)  in the diet.  Bull. Environ. Contam.
    Tox. 10(4):208-16.

Dowdy, R.H. and W.E. Larson.   1975.  The availability of sludge-borne metals
    to various vegetable crops.  J. Environ. Qual. 4:278-282.

Dowdy, R.H., W.E.  Larson, J.M. Tetrud and J.J. Letterall.  1978.  Growth and
    metal uptake of snap beans grown on sewage sludge-amended soil:  a four-
    year field study.  J. Environ. Qual.  7(2):252-257.
                                      7-6

-------
Doyle, J.J., W.H. Pfander, S.E. Grebing and J.O. Pierce.  1974.   Effects of
    dietary cadmium on growth, cadmium absorption and cadmium tissue levels in
    growing lambs.  J. Nutr. 104:160  (As cited in NAS,  1980.)

Doyle, J.J. and W.H. Pfander.  1975.  Interaction of cadmium with copper,
    iron, zinc, and manganese  in ovine tissues.  J. Nutr.  105:599-606.

Duncomb, D.R., W.E. Larson, C.E. Clapp, R.H. Dowdy, D.R. Linden and W.K.
    Johnson.   1982.  Effect of liquid wastewater sludge application on crop
    yield and  water quality.   Process Design.  Pp. 1,185-1,193

Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr. and Santhanam, C.J.  1981.  Sludge treatment.  New
    York: Marcel  Dekker,  Inc.
Edwards, C.A.
    CRC Press.
1970.   Persistent pesticides in the environment.   Cleveland:
Elfving, D.C., W.M. Haochek and R.A. Stehn.  1978.  Heavy metal residue in
    plants cultivated on and in small mammals indigenous to old orchard soils.
    Arch. Environ. Health.  March/April:95-99 .

Ellis, T.M., H.G. Masters and C. Mayberry.  1984.  Examination of the
    susceptability of different breeds  of  sheep  to zinc intoxication.
    Australian Vet. J   61(9): 296-298.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1976.  Quality criteria for
    water.  Washington, DC:  EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1978a.  Reviews of the
    environmental effects of pollutants. IV: cadmium.  Rept. No. EPA-600/1 78-
    026.  Cincinnati, OH: EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1978b.  Reviews of the
    environmental effects of pollutants.   Ill: chromium.  Rept. No. EPA.
    600/1 78-023. Cincinnati, OH.  Also available as ORNL/EIS-30 from Oak
    Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,  TN.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1978c.  Process design manual.
    Municipal sludge landfills.  Rept.  No. EPA-625/1-78-010.  SW-705.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)   1979   Reviews of  the
    environmental effects of pollutants. IX: toxaphene.  Rept. No. EPA-600/1-
    79-044.  Cincinnati, OH.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)   1980a.  Ambient water quality
    criteria for aldrin/dieldrin.  Rept. No. EPA-440/5-80-019.  Washington,
    DC.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1980b.  Ambient water quality
    criteria for arsenic.  Rept. No. EPA-440/5-80-021.  Washington, DC: EPA
    Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
                                       7-7

-------
EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1980c.   Ambient water quality
    criteria for cadmium.   Kept.  No.  EPA-440/5-80-025.   Washington, DC.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1980d.   Ambient water quality
    criteria for chlordane.  Rept. No.  EPA-440/5-80-035.   Washington, DC.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1980e.   Ambient water quality
    criterion for chlorinated benzenes.   Rept.  No.  EPA-440/5-80-025.
    Washington,  DC.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1980f.   Ambient water quality
    criteria for hexachlorobutadiene.   EPA-440/5-80-053.  Washington,  DC.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).  1980g.   Ambient water quality
    criteria for hexachlorocyclohexane.   Rept.  No.  EPA-440/4-80-054
    Washington,  DC.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency)   1980h.   Ambient water quality
    criteria for nickel.  Rept. No. EPA-440/5-80-060.  Washington, DC: Office
    of Water Regulations and Standards.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1980i.   Ambient water quality
    criteria for polychlorinated biphenyls.   Rept.  No.  EPA-440/5-80-068.
    Washington,  DC.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1980J.   Ambient water quality
    criteria for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.  Rept. No. EPA-
    440/5-80-069.  Washington, DC.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency)   1980k.   Ambient water quality
    criteria for toxaphene.  Rept. No.  EPA-440/5-80-076.   Washington, DC.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1982a.   Fate of priority
    pollutants in publicly owned treatment works.  Final report.  Vol.  1.
    Report No. EPA-440/1-82-303.   Washington, DC:  EPA Effluent Guidelines
    Division.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1982b.   Pesticide assessment
    guidelines.   Subdivision 0:  residue chemistry.   Report No. EPA-540/9-
    82-823.  Washington, DC:  EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1983a.   Air quality criteria for
    lead.   External review draft.  Report No. EPA-600/8-83-028A.  Research
    Triangle Park, NC: EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office.

EPA (U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency).   1983b.   Assessment of human
    exposure to arsenic; Tacoma,  Washington.  Internal Document.
    OHEA-E-075-U.  Washington, DC: EPA Office of Health and Environmental
    Assessment.
                                      7-8

-------
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1983c. Selenium: occurrence in
    drinking water, food and air.  Washington, DC: EPA Office of Drinking
    Water.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1984a.  Air quality criteria for
    lead.  External review draft.  Report No. EPA-600/8-83-028B.  Research
    Triangle Park, NC: EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1984b.  Drinking water criteria
    document for copper.  Program Office Draft.  ECAO-CIN-417   Cincinnati,
    OH.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)  1984c. Ground-water protection
    strategy.  Washington, DC: EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1984d.  Health.effects assessmenc
    for copper.  Program Office Draft.  ECAO-CIN-H025   Cincinnati.OH: EPA
    Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1984d.  Mercury health effects
    update.  Report No. EPA-600/8-84-019F.  Washington, DC.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1984e.  Occurrence of arsenic in
    drinking water, food, and air   Washington, DC: EPA Office of Drinking
    Water.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1984f.  Occurrence of cadmium in
    drinking water, food and air.  Washington, DC: EPA Office of Drinking
    Water.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)   1984g.  Occurrence of mercury in
    drinking water, food and air.  Washington, DC: EPA Office of Drinking
    Water.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1985a.  The carcinogen assessment
    group's evaluation of the carcinogenicity of dicofol (ke1thane),  DDT, DDE,
    and ODD (TDE).  Internal document.  Report No. EPA-600/6-85-002X.
    Washington, DC: EPA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)   1985b.  Drinking water criteria
    document for nickel.  ECAO-CIN-443.  Cincinnati, OH: EPA Office of Healtn
    and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment
    Office. Prepared for the EPA Office of Drinking Water, Washington, DC.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1985c.  Environmental profiles
    and hazard indices for constituents of municipal sludge.  Washington, DC.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)  1985d.  EPA chemical index file:
    active ingredients.  [Current file; updated as needed.]  Washington, DC:
    EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.
                                       7-9

-------
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1985e.  Health assessment
    document for chlorinated benzenes.  Final report.  Report No. EPA-
    600/6-85-015F.  Cincinnati, OH: EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment
    Office.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1985f.  Summary of environmental
    profiles and hazard indices for constituents of municipal sludge: methods
    and results.  Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water Regulations and
    Standards.

EPA (U..S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986a.  Development of a
    qualitative pathogen risk assessment methodology for municipal sludge
    landfilling.  Washington, DC: EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment
    Office, Office of Research and Development.

EPA (U'. S . Environmental Protection Agency).  198&b.  Reducing lead in drinking
    water: a benefits analysis.  Draft final report.  EPA Office of Policy,
    Planning and Evaluation.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1986c.  Review of technical
    documents supporting proposed EPA regulations for the disposal/reuse of
    sewage sludge under Section 495(d) -of the Clean Water Act.  Science
    Advisory Board.  Washington, DC:  Environmental Engineering Committee.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1986d.  Test methods for
    evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods (SW-846).  Washington,
    DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1987a.  Drinking water criteria
    document for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  ECAO-CIN-414.  Cincinnati,
    OH: EPA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental
    Criteria and Assessment Office. Prepared for the EPA Office of Drinking
    Water, Washington, DC.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)   1987b.  The effects of municipal
    wastewater sludge on leachates and gas production from sludge-refuse
    landfills and sludge monofills.  Cincinnati, OH: EPA Water Engineering
    Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1987c.  State requirements for
    sludge management. Prepared by Roy F. Weston for EPA.  Washington, DC: EPA
    Office of Municipal Pollution Control and Office of Water Enforcement and
    Permits.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1987d.  Task report: cyanide
    levels in municipal sewage sludge.   In: Water Engineering Research
    Laboratory Monthly Report. Cincinnati, OH: EPA Office of Research and
    Development.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1988a.  Guidelines  for ground-
    water classification under the EPA ground-water protection strategy.
    Washington, DC:  EPA Office of Groundwater Protection.
                                      7-10

-------
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)   1988c.  Location restrictions
    (subpart B):  criteria for municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR Part
    258). Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
    Washington, DC: EPA Office of Solid Waste.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  1988d.  Operating criteria
    (subpart C):  criteria for municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR Part
    258). Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
    Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)   1988e.  Review of the national
    ambient air quality standards for lead: exposure analysis methodology and
    validation.  Draft.  Washington, DC.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988f. Technical support document:
    for  landfilling of sewage sludge.  Draft.  Washington, DC: EPA Office of
    Water Regulations and Standards.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)   1989   Development of risk
    assessment methodology for land application and distribution and marketing
    of municipal sludge.  Final draft.  ECAO-CIN-489.   Cincinnati, OH: EPA
    Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.

Epstein, E., J.M. Taylor and R.L. Chaney.   1976.   Effects of sewage sludge
    compost applied to soil on some physical and chemical properties.  J
    Environ. Qual. 5(4):422-426.

ESE (Environmental Science and Engineering)   1985.  Exposure to airborne
    contaminants released from land disposal facilities   a proposed
    methodology.   EPA.

Ewan, R.C.  1978.  Toxicology and adverse  effects  of mineral imbalance with
    emphasis on selenium and other minerals.  In R.W.  Oehme  (ed.), Toxicities
    of heavy metals in the environment.  New York:  Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Fairchild, H.  1976.  Chlordane and heptachlor in  relation to man.  1972-1975.
    Rept. No. EPA-540/4-76-005.

FAO/WHO  (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization)   1972.
    Sixteenth report of joint FAO/WHO expert committee on food additives.  VHO
    Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 505.  FAO Nutr. Rep. Ser.  No.  51.  Geneva,
    Switzerland:  FAO/WHO.

FDA (Food and Drug Administration).  1982.  Documentation of the Revised Total
    Diet Study.  Food List and Diets.  NTIS PB 82  192/54   Springfield, VA.

FDA (Food and Drug Administration).  1980a.  Compliance program report of
    findings: FY77' total diet studies - adult (7320.73).  Washington, DC: FDA
    Bureau of Foods.
                                      7-11

-------
FDA (Food and Drug Administration).   1980s.  Compliance program report of
    findings: FY77 total diet studies   adult (7320.73).  Washington, DC: FDA
    Bureau of Foods.

FDA (Food and Drug Administration).   1980b.  Compliance program report of
    findings: FY77 total diet studies -- infants and toddlers (7320.74).
    Washington, DC: FDA Bureau of Foods.

FDA (Food and Drug Administration).   1979.   Compliance program report of
    findings: FY78 total diet studies   adult (7305.003). Washington, DC: FDA
    Bureau of Foods.

Federal Register.  Volume 45, No. 231.  Nov. 28,  1980.  P. 79318. 40 CFR Part
    257. p. 53451.  September 13, 1979.-

Federal Register.  Volume 50, No. 219.   Nov. 13, 1985.  National primary
    drinking water regulations; volatile synthetic organic chemicals; proposed
    rule.

Feleny, A.R., D.C. Girvin, and E.A.  Genne.   1984.  MINTEQ--a computer program
    for calculating aqueous geochemical equilibria.  Rept. No. EPA-600/3-84-
    032.

Felsman, R.J., M.B. Wise, R.W. Harvey and E.R.  Barrich.  1973   Effect of
    added dietary levels of copper sulfate and an antibiotic on performance
    and certain blood constituents of calves.  J  Anim. Sci.  36:157.

Finley, M.T. and R.C. Stendell.  1978.   Survival and reproductive success of
    black ducks fed methyl mercury.   Environ. Pollut. 16:51.

Flynn, M.P.  1981.  Food consumption data (teenage male diet) used in FDA's
    Total Diet Studies; current dietary levels of cadmium.  Memorandum, EPA
    Office of Solid Waste (February 24).

Fox, M.R.S., B.E. Fry, Jr., B.F. Harland, M.E.  Schertel and C.E. Weeks.  1971.
    Effect of ascorbic acid on cadmium toxicity in the young coturnix.  J.
    Nutr.  101:1295.  (As cited in NAS,  1980.)

Freeland,  J.H. and R.J. Cousins.  1973.  Effect of dietary cadmium on anemia,
    iron absorption,  and cadmium binding in the chick.  Nutr. Rept. Int.
    8:337. (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Friberg, L. et. al.  1975.  Molybdenum - A toxicological appraisal.  EPA-
    600/1-75-004.  Research Triangle Park,  NC:   EPA. OFFICE

Fries, G.F., G.S. Marrow and C.H. Gordon.  1973.  Long-term studies of residue
    retention and excretion by cows fed a polychlorinated biphenyl (Aroclor
    1254).  J. Agric. Food Chem. 21(1):117-121.

Fries, G.   1982.  Potential polychlorinated biphenyl residues in animal
    products from application of contaminated sewage sludge to land.  J.
    Environ. Qual.  11(1):14-20.
                                      7-12

-------
Fries, G. and G'. Marrow.  1975.  Hexachlorobenzene retention and excretion by
    dairy cows.  J. Dairy Sci. 59(3):475-480.

Fries, G.F. and G.S. Marrow.  1981.  Chlorobiphenyl movement from soil to
    soybean plant.  J. Agric. Food Chem.  29(4):757-579.

Fuller, W.H. and K. Lanspa.  1975.  Uptake of iron and copper by sorghum from
    mine tailings.  J. Environ. Qual.  4(3):417-422.

Furr, A.K., A.W. Lawrence, S.S. Tong et al.   1976a.  Multi-element and
    chlorinated hydrocarbon  analysis of municipal sewage sludges of American
    cities.  Environ. Sci. Technol.  10(7):  683-687.

Furr, A.K. , G.S. Stoewsand,  C.A. Booker and D.J.  Lisk.  1976b.  Study of
    guinea pigs fed swiss chard grown on municipal sludge amended soil.   Arch.
    Environ. Health. 28:87.

Furr, A.K. , T.F. Parkinson,  T. Wachs et al.   1979.  Metal element analysis of
    municipal sewage sludge  ash.  Absorption of elements by cabbage grown in
    sludge ash soil mixture.  Environ. Sci.  Technol.  13:1503-1506.

Furr, A.K., T.F. Parkinson,  D.C. Elfving et al.  1981.  Element content of
    vegetable and  apple  trees grown on Syracuse sludge-amended soils.  J
    Agric. Food Chem.  29:156-160.

Gasaway, W.C. and  1.0. Buss.  1972.  Zinc toxicity in the mallard duck.   J.
    Wildl. Manage.  36:1107.

Gesell, G., G. Robel, A.D. Dayton and J  Frieman.  1979   Effects of dieldrin
    on operant behavior  of bobwhites.  J. Environ. Sci. Health  14B  (2): 153-
    170.

Geyer, H., A.G. Kraus, W. Klein, E. Richter and F. Korte.  1980.
    Relationships  between water solubility and bioaccumulation potential of
    organic chemicals in rats.  Chemosphere 9:277-291.

Gile, J., J.C. Collins and J.W. Gillett.  1982.  Fate and impact of wood
    preservatives  in a terrestrial microcosm.  J. Agric. Food Chem.
    30(2):295-301.

Giordano, P.M., J.J. Mortvedt and D.A. Mays.  1975.  Effect of municipal waste
    on crop yields and uptake of heavy metals. J. Environ. Qual. 4:394-399

Giordano, P.M. and D.A.  Mays.  1977   Effect of land disposal applications of
    municipal wastes on  crop yields and heavy metal uptake.  Report No.  EPA-
    600/2-77-014.  Cincinnati, OH:  EPA.  (As cited in Ryan et al. 1982.)

Giordano, P.M., D.A. Mays and A.D. Behel, Jr.  1979.  Soil temperature effects
    on uptake of cadmium and zinc by vegetables grown on sludge-amended soil.
    J. Environ. Qual. 8(2) : 233-236.
                                       7-13

-------
Gish, C.  1970.  Organochlorine insecticide residues in soils and soil
    .invertebrates from agricultural lands.  Pest. Monic. J.  3(4):241-252.

Gish, C.D. and R.E. Christensen.  1973.  Cadmium, nickel, lead, and zinc  in
    earthworms from roadside soil.  Environ. Sci. Technol.  7(11):1060-1062 .

Click, E.  1984.  EPA Office of Drinking Water, Technical Support Division,
    Cincinnati, OH.  Personal communication to F. Letkiewicz, SAIC.

Gough, L.P., H.T. Shacklette and A.A. Case.  1979.  Element concentrations
    toxic to plants, animals, and man.  Geological Survey Bulletins 1466.
    Washington, DC:  U.S. GPO.

Grimmett, R.E.R., I.G. Mclntosh, E.M. Wall andC.S.M. Hopkirk.  1937.  Chronic
    zinc poisoning of pigs; results of experimental feeding of pure zinc
    lactate.  N.Z. J  Agric.  59:216.

Gruenwald, P.  1958.  Malformations caused by necrosis in the embryo.
    Illustrated by the effect of selenium compounds on chick embryos.  Am. J
    Pathol.  34:77  (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Gupta, S.C., R.H. Dowdy and W.E. Larson.  1977.  Hydraulic and thermal
    properties of a sandy soil as influenced by incorporation of sewage
    sludge.  J. Soil.  Sci. Soc. Am. 41:601-605.

Hadjimarkos, D.M.  1970.  Toxic effects of dietary selenium in hamsters.
    Nutr. Rep. Inc.  1:175.  (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Hafner, M.  1982.  Examination of the contamination of garden and agriculture
    soils by hexachlorobenzene and pentachlorinitrobenzene. Pp. 39-54 in: M.R.
    Overcash (ed.).  Decomposition of toxic and nontoxic organic compounds in
    soil.  Ann Arbor,  MI: Ann Arbor Science. (As cited in Connor, 1984).

Haghiri, F.  1973.  Cadmium uptake by plants.  J. Environ. Qual.  2(l):93-96.

Haegele, M.A. and R.K. Tucker.   1974.  Effects of fifteen common environmental
    pollutants on eggshell thickness in mallards and conturnix.  Bull.
    Environ. Contain. Tox. 11:98-100.

Hall, J.E., J.A. Greichus and K.E. Severson.  1971.  Effects of aldrin on
    young pen-reared pheasants.  J. Wildl. Manage.  35(3):429-434.

Hamilton, R.P., M.R.S. Fox, B.E. Fry, Jr., A.O.L. Jones and R.M. Jacobs.
1979.    Zinc interference with copper, iron, and manganese in young Japanese
         quail.  J. Food Sci. 44:738.  (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Haney, A., and R.L. Lipsey.  1973.  Accumulation and effects of methyl mercury
    hydroxide in a terrestrial food chain under laboratory conditions.
    Environ. Pollut. 5:305.

Hansen, K.G. and T.D.  Hinesly.   Cadmium from soil amended with sewage sludge:
    effects of residues in swine.  Environ. Health Perspect.  28:51-57
                                       7-14

-------
Harr, J.R. and O.H. Muth.  1972.  Selenium poisoning in domestic animals and
    its relationship to man.  Clin.  Toxicol.  5:175.

Harr, J.R.., J.H. Exon, P.H. Heswig and P.O. Whanger.  1978.  The relationship
    of dietary selenium concentration, chemical cancer induction and tissue
    concentration of selenium in rats.  In: F.W. Oehme (ed.),  Toxicity of
    heavy metals in the environment.  New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Harris, C.R. and W.W. Sans.  1969.  Absorption of organochlorine insecticide
    residues from agricultural  soils by crops used for animal feed.  Pest.
    Monit. J  3(3): 182-185

Hartenstein, R. , E.F. Neuhauser and J. Collier.  1980a.  Accumulation of heavy
    metals in the earthworm Eisenia foetida.  J. Environ. Qual.   9:23-26.

Hartenstein, R., E.F  -Neuhauser and D.L. Kaplan.  1980b.  Reproductive
    potential of the earthworm  Eisenia foetida.  Oecologia 43:229-340.

Hayes, W.J.  1974.  Distribution of dieldrin following a single oral dose.
    Toxicol. Appl. Pharm.  28:485-492.

Heffron, D.L., J.T. Reid,  D.C.  Elfving et al.  1980.  Cadmium and  zinc in
    growing sheep fed silage corn grown on municipal sludge-amended soil.  J
    Agric. Food Chem. 28:58-61.

Hen, J.D.  Significance of properties and constituents reported in water
    analysis.  In: Study  and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of
    natural water.  3rd ed. Water-Supply Paper 1473.  Reston, VA:  USGS Dept.
    of Interior.

Herbes, S.E. and L.R. Schwall.  1978   Microbial transforming of polycyclic
    aromatic hydrocarbons  in pristine and petroleum-contaminated sediments.
    Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 35:306.

Herigstad, R.R., C.K. Whitehar  and O.E. Olson.  1973.  Inorganic and organic
    selenium toxicosis in young swine: comparison of pathologic changes with
    those in swine with vitamin E-selenium deficiency   Am. J. Vet. Res.
    34:1227. (As cited in NAS,  1980.)

Hermayer, K.L., P.E. Stake and  R.L. Shippe.  1977.   Evaluation of  dietary
    zinc, cadmium, tin, lead, bismuth and arsenic toxicity  in hens.  Poult.
    Sci. 56:1721.

Hill, C.H.  1974.  Reversal of  selenium toxicity in  chicks bymercury and
    cadmium.  J. Nutr. 104:593.   (As cited in NAS,  1980.)

Hill, C.H.  1979.  The effects  of dietary protein levels on mineral toxicity
    in chicks.  J. Nutr.  109:501.   (As cited in NAS, 1980.)
                                     7-15

-------
Hill, E.F., J.W. Spann and J.D. Williams.  1977.  Responsiveness of 6 Co 14
    generations of birds to dietary dieldrin toxicity.  Toxicol. Appl. Pharm.
    42:425-431.

Hinesly, T.D., D.E. Alexander, K.E. Redborg and E.L. Ziegler.  1982.
    Differential accumulation of cadmium and zinc by corn hybrids grown on
    soil amended with sewage sludge.  Agron. J. 74:469-474.

Hogg, T.J., J.R. Bettany and J.W. Stewart.   1978.  The uptake of ^Hq- Labeled
    mercury compounds by bromegrass from irrigated undisturbed soil columns.
    J. Environ. Qua!. 7:445.

Holmgren, G.G.S.  1984.  Lead, copper and other trace elements in U.S. soils
    and crops.  National Soil Survey Laboratory, Soil Conservation Service.
    Draft.  Lincoln, NE:  U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Holmgren, G.G.S., M.W. Meyer, R.B. Daniels, R.L. Chaney and J. Hubota.  1985.
    Cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, and nickel in agricultural soils of the U.S.
    Unpublished draft.

Holmgren, G. 1985.  Personal communication to Randy Bruins, EPA Office of
    Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

Hudson, R.H. ,  R.K. Tucker and M.A. Haegele.  1984.  Handbook of toxicity of
    pesticides to wildlife. 2nd ed. Resource Publication 153.  Washington,  DC.

IGF, Incorporated.  1988.  Memorandum from J. Karam, P. Linquiti, M. Carter
    and A. Karnovitz to Carey Carpenter, Office of Ground- Water Protection,
    and Al Rubin, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.  Washington,  DC.
    April 15,  1988.

ICRP (International Committee on Radiation Protection.  1977.  Report of the
    Task Force on Reference Man.  Recommendation of the ICRP.  Pub. No.  26.
    Adopted January 17, 1977.  Oxford, England: Pergammon Press.

Jacobs, R.M. ,  M.R.S. Fox and M.H. Aldridge .  1969.  Changes in plasma proteins
    associated with the anemia produced by dietary cadmium in Japanese quail.
    J. Nutr. 99:119  (As cited in NAS , 1980.)

Jacobs, A., M. Blangetti and E. Hellmund.  1974.  VomWasser.  43:259-273.
    (As cited in Geyer et al., 1980.)

Jefferies, D.J. and M.C. French.  1972.  Changes induced in the pigeon thyroid
    by p,p'-DDE and dieldrin.  J  Wildl. Manage.  36(1): 24- 30.

John, M.K. and C.V. van Laerhoven.  1972.  Lead uptake by lettuce and oats as
    affected by lime nitrogen and sources of lead.  J. Environ. Qual .
John, M.K.  1973.  Cadmium uptake by eight food crops as influenced by various
    soil levels of cadmium.  Environ. Pollut. 4:7-15.
                                      7-16

-------
Johnson, D.E., E.W. Kienholb, J.C. Baxter, E. Spangler andG.M. Wood.   1981.
    Heavy metal retention in tissues of cattle fed high cadmium sewage sludge.
    J. Anim. Sci. 52:108.

Karamanos, R.E., J.R. Bettany and J.W.B. Steward.  1976.  The uptake of native
    and applied lead by-alfalfa and brome grass from soil.  Can. J.  Soil.  Sci.
    56:485.

Kelliher, D.J., E.P. Milliard, D.B.R. Poole and J.D. Collins.  1973.  Chronic
    lead intoxication in cattle: preliminary observations on its effect on the
    erythrocyte and on porphyrin metabolism.  Irish J. Agric. Res. 12:61.

Kelling, K.A., D.R. Keeney, L.M. Walsh and J.A. Ryan.  1977.  A field study of
    the agricultural use of sewage sludge.  Ill: effect on uptake and
    extractability of sludge-borne metals.  J  Environ. Qual. 6(5) : 352-358.

Kenaga, E.E.   1980.  Correlation of bioconcentration factors of chemicals in
    aquatic and terrestrial organisms with their physical and chemical
    properties.  Environ. Sci. Technol.  14:553-556.

Khaleel, R., K.R. Reddy and M.R. Overcash.  1981.  Changes in soil properties
    due to organic waste applications: a review.  J. Environ. Qual.  10(2):
    133-141.

Khan, D.H. and B. Frankland.  1984.  Cellulolytic activity and root biomass
    production in some metal-contaminated soils. Environ. Pollut. (Series A)
    33:63.

King, L.D., L.A. Rudgers and L.R. Webber.  1974.  Application of municipal
    refuse and liquid sewage sludge to agriculture land.  I:  field study   J.
    Environ. Qual. 3(4):361-366.

Kladivco, E.J. and N.W. Nelson.  1979   Changes in soil properties from
    application of anaerobic sludge.  J. Wat. Pollut. Contr. Fed. 51(2): 325-
    332.

Konz, J.  1979.  A preliminary assessment of selenium in  drinking water
    Prepared by MITRE Corporation for EPA Office of Drinking Water,
    Washington, DC.  Rept. No. EPA-570/9-79-012.

Koong, L.J., M.B. Wise and E.R. Barrick.  1970.  Effect of elevated dietary
    levels of  iron on the performance and blood constituents of calves.  J
    Anim. Sci. 31:422.

Korcak, R.F.,  F.R. Gowen and D.S. Fanning.  1979.  Metal  component of plants
    and soils  in a tree nursery treated with composted sludge.  J. Environ.
    Qual. 8(l):63-68.

Korschgen, L.  1970.  Soil-food-chain-pesticide wildlife  relationships in
    aldrin-treated fields.  J. Wildl. Manage.  34(1):186-199.
                                        7-17

-------
Krampl, V. and A. Hladka.  1975.  Dose-dependent extent of microsomal ensyme
    induction by aldrin and dieldrin in rats.  Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
    14(5):571-578.

Kreitzer, J.F. and G.H. Heinz.  1974.  The effect of sublethal dosages of five
    pesticides and a polychlorinated biphenyl on the avoidance response of
    coturnix'quail chicks.  Environ. Pollut. 6:21-29.

Latterell, J.J., R.H. Dowd and W.E. Larson.  1978.   Correlation of extractable
    metals and metal uptake of snap beans grown on soil amended with sewage
    sludge.  J  Environ. Qual.  7(3): 435-440.

Lawless, E.W., T.L. Ferguson and A.F. Meiners.   1975.  Guidelines for the
    disposal of small quantities of unused pesticides.   Rept. No. EPA-670/2-
    75-057.  Cincinnati, OH: U.S.  EPA National Environmental Research Center,
    Office of Research and Development.

Leach, R.M.,  Jr., K.W.L. Wang and D.E. Baker.  1979   Cadmium and the food
    chain:  the effect of dietary cadmium on tissue composition in chicks and
    laying hens.  J. Nutr. 109:437. (As  cited in NAS, 1980.)

Lepow, M.L.,  L. Bruckman, M. Gillette, S. Markowitz, R. Rabins and J. Kapish.
    1975.  Investigations into sources of lead in the environment of urban
    children.  Environ. Res. 10:415-426.

Lichtenstein, E.P., G.R. Myrdal and K.R.  Schulz.   1965.  Absorption of
    insecticidal residues from contaminated soils into five carrot varieties
    J. Agricul. Food Chem. 13(2):126-131.

Link,  L.P. and R.R. Pensinger.  1966.  Lead toxicosis in swine.  Am. J. Vet.
    Res. 27:759.

Lisk,  D.J., R.D. Boyd, J.M. Telford, et al.  1982.  Toxicological studies with
    swine fed corn grown on municipal sewage sludge-amended soil.  J  Anim.
    Sci. 55(3):613-619.

Loew,  F.M., E.D. Olfert and B. Schiefer.   1975.  Chronic selenium toxicosis in
    cynomologus monkeys.  Lab. Primate Newsl. 14:7.  (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Logan, T.J. and R.L. Chaney.  1983.  Utilization of municipal wastewater and
    sludge on land -- metals.  In:  Proceedings of the 1983 Workshop on
    Utilization of Municipal Wastewater and Sludge on Land.  University of
    California, Riverside, CA.

Lynch, G.P.,  E.D. Jackson, C.A. Kiddy and D.F.  Smith.  1976a.  Responses of
    young calves to low doses of lead.  J. Diary Sci.  59:1,490.

Lynch, G.P.,  D.F. Smith, M. Fisher, T.L.  Pike and B.T.  Weinland.  1976b.
    Physiological responses of calves to cadmium and lead.  J. Anim. Sci.
    42:410.
                                       7-18

-------
Ma, W.  1984.  Sublethal toxic effects of copper on growth, reproduction, and
    litter breakdown activity in the earthworm Lumbricus rubellus.  with
    observations on the influence of temperature and soil pH.   Environ
    Pollut.  (Series A) 33:207-219.

MacLean, A.J.  1974.  Mercury in plants and retention of mercury by soils in
    relation to properties and added sulfur.  Am. J  Soil Sci.  54:287

MacLean, A.J. and A.J. Dekker.  1978.  Availability of zinc, copper, and
    nickel to plants grown in sewage-treated soils. Can. J. Soil Sci.
    58:381-389.

Mahaffey, K.R.  1977.  Relation between quantities of lead  ingested and health
    effects  of lead in humans.  Pediatrics 59(3):448-456.

Mahler, R.J.,'F.T. Bingham, G. Sposito andA.L.  Page.  1980.  Cadmium-enriched
    sewage sludge application to acid and calcareous soils:  relations between
    treatment, cadmium in saturation extracts and cadmium uptake.  J  Environ.
    Qual. 9(3):359-364.

Malecki, M.R., E.F. Newhauser and R.C. Loehr.  1982.  The effect of metals on
    the growth and reproduction of  Eisenia foetida (Oligochaeta Lumb ."icidae)
    Pedobiologia 24:129-137.

Martin, M.H., P.J. Coughtrey and E.W. Young.  1976.  Observations on the
    availability of lead, zinc, cadmium,, and copper in woodland litter and
    the uptake of lead, zinc, and cadmium by the woodlouse, Oniscus asellus.
    Chemosphere 5:313-318.

Matsumura, F.  1972a.  Current pesticide situation in the United States.  In:
    F. Matsumura (ed.), Environmental toxicology of pesticides.  New York:
    Academic Press.

Matsumura, F.  1972b.  Biological effects of toxic pesticidal contaminants and
    terminal residues.  In: F. Matsumura (ed.),  Environmental toxicology of
    pesticides.  New York: Academic Press.

McArthur, M.L.B., G.A. Fox, D.B. Peakall andB.J. Philogene.  1983.
    Ecological significance of behavioral and hormonal abnormalities in
    breeding ring doves fed an organochloride chemical mixture.  Arch.
    Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 12:343-240.

McCabe, L.J., Symons, J.M., Lee, R.D. and Pobeck, G.G.   1970.  Survey of
    community water supply systems.  J. Am. Wat. Work Assoc. 62(9):670-687

McGhee, F. ,  C.R. Greger and J.R. Couch.  1965.   Copper and  iron toxicity
    Poult. Sci. 44:310..

Melsted, S.W.  1973.  Soil-plant relationship  (some practical considerations
    in waste management).  Pp. 121-128.  In: Recycling municipal sludges and
    effluents on land.  Washington, DC: National Association of State
                                        7-19

-------
    Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. (As cited in Cunningham et al.,
    1975b.)

Mendenhall, V.M., E.E. Klaas and M.A. MeLane.  1983.  Breeding success  of barn
    owls (Tyto alba) fed low levels of DDE and dieldrin.  Arch. Environ.
    Contain. Toxicol. 12:235-40.

Miller, W.T. and H.W. Schoening.  1938.  Toxicity of selenium fed to swine in
    the form of sodium selenite.  J. Agric.  Res. 56:31. (As cited in NAS,
    1980.)

Miller, W.T. and K.T. Williams.  1940.  Effect of feeding repeated small doses
    of selenium as sodium selenite.  J  Agric. Res.  61:353.  (As cited  in NAS,
    1980.)

Miller, W.J ,  D.M. Blackman, R.P  Gentry and P.M. Pate.  1970.  Effects of
    high but nontoxic levels of zinc in practical diets on ^Zn and zinc
    metabolism in Holstein calves.  J  Nutr. 100:893.   (As cited in NAS,
    1980.)

Miller, J. and F.C. Boswell.  1979   Mineral contend of selected tissues and
    feces of rats fed turnip greens grown on soil treated with sewage sludge.
    J  Agric.  Food Chem. 27 (6):1,361-1,365.

Mills, C.F. and A.C. Dalgarno.  1972.  Copper and zinc status of ewes and
    lambs receiving increased dietary concentrations of cadmium.  Nature
    239:171.

Mitchell, G.A.,  F.T. Bingham and A.L. Page.   1978.  Yield and metal
    composition of lettuce and wheat grown on soils amended with sewage sludge
    enriched with cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc.  J. Environ.  Qual.
    7:165-171.

Miyamoto, J.  1977   The implication of recent long-term toxicological  studies
    of fenitrothion on birds.  Proceedings of a Symposium on Fenitrothion:The
    Long-Term Effects of Its Use,  Ontario, Canada.

Morgan, G.W.,  F.W. Edens, P. Thaxton and C.R. Parkhurst.  1975.  Toxicity of
    dietary lead in Japanese quail.  Poult.  Sci. 54:1,636.

Mortvedt, J.J  and P.M. Giordano.   1975.  Response of corn to zinc and
    chromium in municipal wastes applied to soil. J. Environ. Qual. 4:170-174.

Moxon, A.L.  1937.  Alkali disease of selenium poisoning.  S. Dakota Agric.
    Exp. Stn.  Bull. No. 311.  South Dakota State College of Agriculture and
    Mechanical Arts.  Brookings, SD: Agricultural Experimental Station.  (As
    cited in'NAS, 1980.)

Muller, H.D. and D.C. Lockman.  1973.  The influence of dieldrin on tibial
    bone calcium deposition in domestic chicks.  Bull. Environ. Contain.
    Toxicol.  9(6):351-355.
                                       7-20

-------
Muns, R.P., M.W. Stone and F. Foley.  1960.  Residues in vegetable crops
    following soil applications of insecticides.  J. Econ. Ent. 53(5):  832-
    834.

Munshower, F.F.  1977.  Cadmium accumulation in plants and animals of polluted
    and nonpolluted grasslands.  J. Environ. Qual.   6(4):411-413.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences).  1971.  Atlas of nutritional data on U.S.
    and Canadian feeds.  Washington, DC.

NAS (National Academy of Sciences).  1974.  Chromium.  Washington, DC:
    National Research Council Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of
    Atmospheric Pollutants.

NAS (National Academy of Sciences).  1977.  Drinking water and health.
    Washington, DC: National Review Council Safe Drinking Water Committee.

NAS (National Academy of Sciences)   1980.  Mineral tolerances of domestic
    animals.  NAS Subcommittee on Mineral Toxicity  in Animals.  Washington,
    DC.

Nash, R.G. and E.A. Woolson.  1967.  Persistence of chlorinated hydrocarbon
    insecticides in soils.  Science 157:924-927.

Nash, R.G.  1974.  Plant uptake of insecticides, fungicides and fumigants from
    soils.  In: W.D. Guenzi et al. (eds.), Pesticides in soil and water.
    Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.

Naylor, L.M.  1983.  Personal communication to David Taylor, Madison
    Metropolitan Sewerage District, 1610 Moorland Rd., Madison, WI.

NCI (National Cancer Institute)   1978.  Bioassay of aldrin and dieldrin for
    possible carcinogenicity.  DREW Publication No. (NIH) 78-821.   NCI
    Carcinogenesis Tech. Rep. Ser. No.  21, NCI-C6-TR-21.  (As cited in EPA
    IRIS,  1988b.)

NCI (National Cancer Institute).  1977a.  Bioassay  of chlordane for possible
    carcinogenicity.  NCI Carcinogenesis Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 8.

NCI (National Cancer Institute).  1977b.  Bioassay  of heptachlor for possible
    carcinogenicity   Rep. No. 77-809 Washington, DC: National Institute of
    Health. (As cited in EPA, 1980e.)

Neal, J. and R.H. Rigdon.  1967   Gastric tumors in mice fed benzo(a)pyrene: a
    quantitative study.  Tex. Rep. Biol. Med.  25:553. (As cited in EPA,
    1980e.)

Nelson, H.A.  1971.  Lead poisoning.  J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 158:258.

Nielson, R.L.  1951.  Effect of soil minerals  on earthworms.  N.Z. J. Agric.
    83:433-435.
                                        7-21

-------
Norbeck, D.H. and R.H. Weltman.  1985.  Polychlorinated biphenyl induction of
    hepatocellular carcinomas in the Sprague-Dawley rat.  Environ. Health
    Perspect.  '60:97-105.

NRG (National Research Council).  1979.  Iron.  Baltimore, MD: University Park
    Press.

NRC (National Research Council).  1980.  Food and Nutrition Board.  Revised
    edition of Recommended daily allowances of foods   iron.  Washington, DC:
    National Academy of Sciences. (As cited in TDI,  1981.)

Nusz,  W.A.,  R.J  Robel, A.D. Dayton and T.L. Hopkins.   1976.  Residue levels
    and weights of bobwhites given dieldrin.  J.  Wildl. Manage. 40(1):111 117

O'Donovan, P.B., R.A. Pickett, M.P.  Plumlee and W.M. Beeson.  1963.  Iron
    toxicity in the young pig.  J. Anim. Sci.  22:1075.

Onsager, J.A., H.W. Rusk and L.I. Bitter.  1970.   Residues of aldrin,
    dieldrin, chlordane, and DDT in s.oil and sugar beets. J  Econ. Ent.
    63(4):1,143-1,146.

Ort, J.F. and J.D. Latshaw.  1978.  The toxic level of sodium selenite in the
    diet of laying chickens.  J. Nutr. 104:306.  (As cited in NAS,  1980.)

Osuna, 0., G.T. Edds and J.A. Popp.   1981.  Comparative toxicity of feeding
    dried urban sludge and an equivalent amount of cadmium to swine.  Am. J.
    Vet. Res. 42:1,542-1,546.

Ott, E.A., W.H. Smith, R.B. Harrington and W.M.  Beeson.  1966a.  Zinc toxicity
    in ruminants.  II: effect of high levels of dietary zinc on gains, feed
    consumption, and feed efficiency of beef cattle.  J. Anim. Sci. 25:319.
    (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Ott, E.A., W:H. Smith, R.B. Harrington and W.M.  Beeson.  1966b.  Zinc toxicity
    in ruminants.  IV: physiological changes in tissues of beef cattle.   J
    Anim. Sci. 25:432.  (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Page,  A.L.  1974.  Fate and effects of trace elements in sewage sludge when
    applied to agriculatural lands.   Rept. No. EPA-570/2-74-005.   Washington,
    DC: EPA.

Page,  A.L.,  T.G. Logan and J.A. Ryan.  1987.  Land application of sludge.
    Chelsea: MI: Lewis Publishers.

Pal, D., J.B. Webber and M.R. Overcash.  1980.  Fate of polychlorinated
    biphenyls in soil-plant systems.  Res. Rev.  74:45-98.

Pennington,  J.A.T.  1983.  Revision of the total diet study food lists and
    diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
                                      7-22

-------
Pepper, I.L., D.F. Bezdicek, A.S. Baker and J.M. Sims.  1983.   Silage corn
    uptake of sludge-applied zinc and cadmium as affected by soil pH.  J
    Environ. Qual. 12(2):270-275.

Perry. H.J., Jr., M. Erlanger and E.F. Perry.  1977.  Elevated systolic'
    pressure following chronic low-level cadmium feeding.  Am. J  Physiol.
    232:H114.   (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Peterson, A.E.  and R.B. Corey, 1985.  Effect of sewage sludge on red clay
    soil, crops and groundwater.  Presented at the Eighth Annual Madison Waste
    Conference,   Sept. 18-19, 1985.  Dept. of Engineering, University of
    Wisconsin - Madison.

PHS (U.S. Public  Health Service).  1970.  Community water supply study
    Environmental Health Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Pierce, J.J. and  S. Bailey.  1982.  Current municipal sludge utilization and
    disposal.   Proc. Am. Soc. Civ  Eng.  108 (EES): 1,070-1,073.

Pietz, R.I., J.R. Peterson, J.E. Prater and D.R. Zeng.  1983.  The effect of
    sewage sludge applications on earthworm populations, biomass, and metal
    accumulation.  The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
    Chicago, IL:  Research and Development Department.

Piraentel, D. and  N.J. Goodman.   1974.  Environmental  impact of pesticides.
    In: Mkhan and Bederka (eds.), Survival in toxic environments.  New York:
    Academic Press.

Pirkle, J.L. et al.  1985.  The  relationship between blood lead levels and
    blood pressure and its cardiovascular risk implications.  Am. J
    Epidemiol.  121(2).

Pollock, G.A. and W.W. Kilgore.  1978.  Toxaphene.  Residue Rev. 88:140.

Porter, K.G., D.  McMaster, M.E.  Elmes and A.H.G. Love.  1977.   Anemia and low
    serum - copper during zinc therapy.  Lancet, p. 774.

Prasad, A.S., G.J. Brewer, E.B.  Schoomaker and P. Rabbani.  1978.
    Hypocupremis  induced by zinc therapy in adults.  J  Am. Med. Assoc.
    240:2166-2168.

Preer, J.R., H.S. Sekhon, B.R. Stephens and M.S. Collins.  1980.  Factors
    affecting heavy metal content of garden vegetables.  Environ. Pollut. Ser
    B. pp. 95-104.

Pyles, R.A. and E.A. Woolson.  1982.  Quantification and characterization of
    arsenic compounds in vegetables grown in arsenic acid treated soil.  J
    Agr. Food Chem. 30:866-870.

Ratsch, H.C.  1974.  Heavy metal accumulation in soil and vegetation from
    smelter emissions.  Rept. No. EPA-660/3-74-012.  Corvallis, OR: EPA Office
    of Research and Development.
                                       7-23

-------
Rawls,  W.J., D.L. Brakensiek and B. Soni.  1983.  Agricultural management
    effects on soil water processes.  I: soil water retention and green ampt
    infiltration parameters.  Trans. Am. Soc. Ag. Engrs.  26(6): 1,742-1,752.

Reubwe,  M.D.  (1977).  Histopathology of carcinomas of the liver in mice
    ingesting heptachlor or heptachlor epoxide.   Exp.  Gel. Biol. 45:147-157

RIASBT (Research Institute for Animal Science in Biochemistry and Toxicology)
    Technical chlordane feeding study in rats.  Unpublished report for the
    Veroicol Chemical Corporation. Japan, December 1983.

Robertson, R.H.  and P.J. Schaible.  1960.  The tolerance of growing chicks for
    high levels of different forms of zinc.  Poult. Sci.  39:893.

Rozman,  K., W.F. Mueler, F. Coulston and F. Korte.   1978.   Chronic low dose
    exposure of Rhesus monkeys to hexachlorobenzene.   Chemosphere 2:177-184.

Rudolf,  R.W.,  D.W. Anderson and R.W. Resborough.  1983.  Kestrel predatory
    behavior under chronic low-level exposure to DDE.   J.  Environ.  Pollut.
    (Ser. A) 32:121-126.

Ryan, J.A., J.R. Pahren and J.B. Lucas.   1982.  Controlling cadmium in the
    human food chain:  a review and rationale based on health effects.
    Environ. Res.  28:251-302.

Sabey,  B.R. and W.E. Hart.  1975.  Land application of sewage sludge,  I:
    effect on growth and chemical corporation of plants.   J.  Environ.  Qual.
    4(2):278-282.

Sandier,  R.E., G.A. Van Gelder, D. Elsberry et al.  1969   Dieldrin exposure
    and vigilance behavior in sheep.  Psychon. Sci. 15(5):261-262.

Schoening, H.W.  1936.  Production of so-called alkali disease in hogs by
    feeding corn grown in affected area.  N. Am. Vet.  17:22.  (As cited in NAS,
    1980.)

Schroeder, H.A., J.J. Balassa and W.H. Vinton.  1965.   Chromium, cadmium, and
    lead in rats.  Effects on life span, tumors, and tissue levels.  J. Nutr.
    86:51-66.

Schroeder, H.A.  and M. Mitchener.  1971.  Toxic effects of trace elements on
    the reproduction of mice and rats.  Arch. Environ. Health. 23:102.   (As
    cited in NAS, 1980.)

Schroeder, H.A.  and M. Mitchener.  1972.  Selenium and tellerium in mice.
    Arch. Environ. Health.  24:66-71.

Schwab,  G.O.,  F.R. Frevert, T.W. Edminster and K.K. Barnes.  1966.  Soil  and
    water conservation engineering.  2nd ed.  New York: John Wiley and Sons.
                                       7-24

-------
Shaeaffer, C.C., A.M. Decker, R.L. Chaney and L.W.  Douglass.   1979.   Soil
    temperature and sewage sludge effects on metals in crop tissue and soils.
    J. Environ. Qual.  8(4):455-459.

Shammas,  A.T.  1979.  Bioavailability of cadmium in sewage sludge. Disk.  Abst.
    Int.  40(7):2940-B. Order No.  791983, 1980.  Abstract.

Sharma, R.P., J.C. Street, M.P. VermaandJ.L. Shupe.   1979.  Cadmium uptake
    from feed and its distribution of food products of livestock.  Environ.
    Health Perspect.  28:59-66.

Shellenberger, I.E.  1978.  A multigeneration toxicity evaluation of p,p'-DDT
    and dieldrin with Japanese quail.  2. Tissue residue analyses.  Drug Chem.
    Toxicol.   1(2):147-161.

Sherlock, J. et al.  1982.  Assessment of lead intakes and dose-responses for
    a population in Ayr exposed to a plumbsolent water supply   Am.  Toxicol.
    1:115-122.

Simpson,  D.F., B.L. Damron and R.H. Harms.  1970.  Abnormalities of
    erythrocytes and renal tubules of chicks poisoned with lead.  Am.  J.  Vet.
    Res.  31:515.

Singh, S.S.  1981.  Uptake of cadmium by lettuce (Lactuca saciva)  as
    influenced by its addition to a soil as inorganic forms or in sewage
    sludge.  Can. J. Soil Sci. 61:19-28.

Smelt, J.H.  1984.  Behavior of quintozene and hexachlorobenzene in the soil
    and their absorption in crops.  Pp. 1-13 in: M.R.  Cash (ed.)
    Decomposition of toxic and non-toxic organic compounds in soil.  Ann Arbor,
    MI: Ann Arbor Science. (As cited in Connor, 1984.)

Sollman,  T.M.  1957.  A manual of pharmacology.  8th ed. Philadelphia: W.B.
    Saunders Co.

Soon,  Y.K. and T.E. Bates.  1981.  Land disposal of sewage sludge, a summary
    of research results, 1972-1980.  Ontario, Canada:  Dept. of Land Resources
    Sci., Univ. of Guelph. (As cited in Page et al., 1987.)

Spector,  W.S.  1956.  Handbook of biological data.   Division of Biology and
    Agriculture, National Academy of Sciences, The National Research Council.
    U.S.  Department of Agriculture.

Spittler, T.M. and W.A. Feder.  1979.  A study of  soil contamination and plant
    lead uptake in Boston urban gardens.  Commun.  Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 10(9):
    1195-1210.

Standish, J.F., C.B. Ammerman, C.F. Simpson, F.C.  Neal andA.Z. Palmer.  1969.
    Influence of graded levels of dietary iron, as ferrous sulfate, on
    performance and tissue mineral composition of  steers.  J. Anim. Sci.
    29:496.
                                      7-25

-------
Stickel, W.H., W.E. Dodge, W.G. Sheldon, J.B. Dewitt and L.F.  Stickel.  1965.
    Body condition and response to pesticides in woodcocks.   J. Wildl. Manage.
    29:147.

Stone, C. and J.H. Scares, Jr. 1974.  Studies on the metabolism of lead in
    Japanese quail.  Poult. Sci.   53:1982. (Abstr.)

Stowe, H.D., M. Wilson and R.A. Goyer.  1972.  Clinical and morphologic
    effects of oral cadmium toxicity in rabbits.  Arch. Path.  94:389.  (As
    cited in HAS, 1980.)

Strek, H.J. and J.B. Weber. 1980.  Absorption and translocation of
    polychlorinated biphenyls. Proc. South Weed, Sci. Soc. 33:226-232.

Strek, H.J. et al. 1981.  Reduction of polychlorinated biphenyl toxicity and
    uptake of carbon-14 activity by plants through the use of activated
    carbon.  J. Agric.  Food Chem. 29:  288-293.

Taylor, David. 1988.  Results of PCB research conducted by Madison
    Metropolitan Sewerage District (Madison,  WI).   Personal communication to
    Alan Rubin, EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

TDI, Inc.  1981.  Multimedia Criteria for Iron and Compounds.  Draft Prepared
    for EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,  OH.

Telford, J.N., M.L. Thonney, D.E. Hogue, et al.  1982.  Toxicological studies
    in growing sheep fed silage corn cultured on municipal sludge-amended acid
    subsoil.  J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 10:73-85.

Thapar, N.T., E. Guenthner, C.W.  Carlson and O.E.  Olson.  1969.  Dietary
    selenium and arsenic additions to diets for chickens over a half cycle.
    Poult. Sci. 48:1988.  (As cited in NAS,  1980.)

Thompson, A. 1973.  Pesticide residues in soil invertebrates.   Pp.  87-133 in:
    C.A. Edwards  (ed.), Environmental pollution by pesticides.   New York:
    Plenum Press.

Thornton, I.V. and P. Abrams.  1983.  Soil ingestion - a major pathway of
    heavy metals into livestock grazing contaminated land.  Sci. Total
    Environ.  28:287-294.

Tucker, R.K. and M.A. Haegele.  1971.   Comparative acute oral toxicity of
    pesticides to six species of birds.  Toxicol.  Appl. Pharm.  20:57-65.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture).  1963.  Composition of foods.
    Agriculture Handbook No. 8.  B.K.  Watt and A.L. Merrill (eds.).
    Washington, DC: Agricultural Research Service.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture).  1966.  Household food consumption
    survey, 1965-1966.  Report 12: Food consumption of households in  the United
    States, seasons and year 1965-1966.  Washington, DC: Government  Printing
    Office.
                                       7-26

-------
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture).  1975.  Composition of foods.
    Agriculture Handbook No. 8.  Washington, DC.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1979.  Handbook of the nutritional
    content of foods.  1979.  B.K. Watt and A.L. Merrill (eds.)  New York:
    Dover Publications.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  See EPA.

U.S. Geological Survey.  1970.  Mercury in the environment.   Geological Survey
    Professional Paper 713.  Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey.

Valderas, J.M.A.S., M. Gal, U. Mingelgrin and A.L. Page.  1983   Some heavy
    metals in soils treated with sewage sludge, their effects on yield, and
    their uptake by plants.  J. Environ. Qual. 12:49-57

Van der Veen, N.G. and K. Vreman.  1986.  Transfer of cadmium, lead,  mercury
    and arsenic from feed into various organs and tissues of fattening lambs.
    Neth. J. Agri. Sci. 34:145-153.

Van Genuchten, M. Th. 1985.  Convective-dispersive transport of solutes
    involved in sequential first-order decay reaction.  Comput. Geosci.
    11(2):129-147.

Van Hook, R.I.  1974   Cadmium, lead, and zinc distributions between
    earthworms and soils:  potentials for biological accumulation. Bull.
    Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 12(4):509-512. Versiocol Chemical Corporation.
    1973.  Available from EPA. Write  to EPA Freedom of Information Office,
    Washington, DC  20460.

Van Rhee, J.A. 1975.  Copper contamination effects on earthworms by disposal
    of pig wastes in pastures.  Pp.  451-456 in: J. Vanek (ed.), Progress  in
    soil zoology   Proc. 5th Int.  Colloquium on Soil Zoology, Prague,
    September 17-22, 1973.  The Hague, The Netherlands: Dr.  W. Junk,  B.V
    Publishers. (As cited in Beyer,  1982.)

Van Rhee, J.A.   1977.  Effects of soil pollution on earthworms.  Pedobiologia
    17:201-208.

Vengris, V.E. and C.J. Mare.  1974.   Lead poisoning in chickens and the. effect
    of lead on interferon and antibody production.  Can. J  Comp.  Med. 38:328.

Vlamis, J., D.E. Williams, J.E. Corey, A.L. Page and T.J  Ganje. 1985.  Zinc
    and cadmium uptake by barley in  field plots fertilized seven years with
    urban and suburban sludge.  Soil  Sci. 139:81-87.

Vohra,  P. and F.H. Kratzer.  1968.   Zinc, copper and manganese toxicities in
    turkey poults and their alleviation.by EDTA.  Poult. Sci.  47:699.
                                        7-27

-------
Vreman, K., N.G. Van der Veen, E.J. Van der Molen and W.G. de Ruig.  1986.
    Transfer of cadmium, lead, mercury, and arsenic from feed into milk and
    various tissues of dairy cows: chemical and pathological data.  Neth. J
    Agri.  Sci.  34:129-144.

Wade, S.E., C.A. Bache and D.J. Lisk.  1982.  Cadmium accumulation by
    earthworms inhabiting municipal-sludge amended soil.  Bull. Environ.
    Contain. Toxicol.  28:557-560.

Wagstaff,  D.J., J.R. McDowell andH.J. Paulin.  1980.  Heptachlor residue
    accumulation and depletion in broiler chickens.  Am. J. Vet. Res.
    41(5):765-768.

Wahlstrom, R.C. and O.E. Olso.n.  1959.  The effect of selenium on reproduction
    in swine.  J. Anim. Sci.  18:141.  (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Wahlstrom, R.C., L.D. Kamstra and O.E. Olson.  1956.  Preventing selenium
    poisoning in growing and fattening pigs.  S. Dakota Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull.
    No. 456.  Brookings, SD: South Dakota State College, Agricultural
    Experiment Station.  (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Walker, A.I.T., C.H. Neill, D.E. Stevenson and J. Robinson.  1969.  The
    toxicity of dieldrin to Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica)
    Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 15:59-73.

Wallnofer, P.M., P.M. Koniger and G. Engelhardt. 1984.  The behavior of
    xenobiotic chlorinated hydrocarbons (HCB and PCBs) in cultivated plants
    and soils.  Pp. 99-109 in: M.R. Overcash (ed.).  Decomposition of toxic
    and non-toxic organic compounds in soil. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science.
    (As cited in Connor, .1984.)

Walsh, L.M., W.H. Erhardt and H.D. Seibel.  1972.  Copper toxicity in
    snapbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.).  J. Environ. Qual.  1(2):197-200.

Walton, M.S., V.B. Bastone and K.L. Baron.  1971.  Subchronictoxicity of
    photodieldrin: a photodecomposition product of dieldrin.  Toxicol. Appl.
    Pharmacol. 20:82-88.

Weaver, R.W., J.R. Melton, W. DeShin and R.L. Duble.  1984.  Uptake of arsenic
    and mercury from soil by Bermuda grass.  Environ. Pollut. (Series A)
    33:133.

Webber J.  1972.  Effects of toxic-metals in sewage on crops. Wat. Pollut.
    Control 71:404-410.

Webber, L.R. and E.G. Beauchamp.  1979.  Cadmium concentration and
    distribution in corn (Zea mays L.) grown on a calcareous soil for three
    years  after three annual sludge applications.  J. Environ. Sci. Health.
    B14(5):459-474.
                                       7-28

-------
Webber, M.D., H.D. Montieth and D.G. Corneau. 1983.  Assessment of heavy
    metals and PCBs at sludge application sites. Wat. Pollut. Control
    55(2):187-195.

Weisgerber,  I.  1974. _ Fate of aldrin-HC in maize, wheat and soils under
    outdoor  conditions.  J. Agric. Food Chem.  22(4):609-612.

Weiss, E. and P. Bauer.  1968.  Experimental studies on chronic copper
    poisoning in the calf.  Zentralbl. Veterinaermed. 15:156.

White, D.H., M.T. Finley and J.F. Ferrell.  1978.  Histopathological effects
    of dietary cadmium on kidneys and testes of mallard ducks.  Toxicol.
    Environ. Health 4:551-558.

WHO (World Health Organization)    1976a.  Environmental health criteria,
    mercury.  Geneva.  (As cited  in EPA, 1980.)

WHO (World Health Organization)    1976b.  Environmental health criteria,
    polychlorinated biphenyls and terphenyls.   Geneva.

Willoughby,  R.A., E. MacDonald,  B.J. McSherry and G.J  Brown.  1972.  Lead and
    zinc poisoning and the interaction between Pb and Zn poisoning in the
    foal.  Can. J. Comp. Med.  36:348.  (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Wischmeier,  W. and D. Smith.  1978.  Predicting rainfall erosion losses  -- a
    guide to conservation planning.  USDA Agricultural Handbook N. 537
    Washington, DC: USDA.

Wolfe, N.L,  R.G. Zepp, D.F. Paris, G.L. Baughman, and R.C. Hollis.  1977
    Methocychlor and DDT degradation in water: rates and products.  Environ.
    Sci. Technol. 11(2):1,077-1,081.

Wolnik, K.A., F.L. Fricke, A.G.  Capar et al.  1983.  Elements in major raw
    agricultural crops in the United States.  2: other elements in lettuce,
    peanuts, potatoes, soybeans,  sweet corn, and wheat.  J. Agric. Food Chem.
    31(6):1244-1249.

Wright, F.C., J.S. Palmer, J.C.  Riner, M. Haufler, J.A. Miller and C.A.
    McBeth.  1977.  Effects of dietary feeding of organic cadmium to cattle
    and sheep.  J. Agric. Food Chem.  25:293-297.   (As cited in NAS, 1980.)

Yang, G., S. Wang, R. Zhow and S. Sun.  1983.  Endemic selenium intoxication
    of humans in China.  Am. J.  Clin. Nutr.  37:872-881.

Yopp, J.H.,  W.F. Schmid and R.W.  Hoist.  1974.  Determination of maximum
    permissible levels of selected chemicals that exert toxic effects on
    plants of economic importance in Illinois.  PB-237 654.  U.S. Department
    of Commerce.  National Technical Information Service.
                                       7-29

-------