Unitod States
i" ce of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
Summary of
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents of
Municipal Sludge:
Methods and Results
-------
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILES AND HAZARD INDICES
FOR CONSTITUENTS OF MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Wastewater Solids Criteria Branch
July 1985
-------
Preface
Section 405 of the Clean Water Act requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to develop and issue regulations
which: (1) identify uses for sludge including disposal; (2)
specify factors to be taken into account in determining the
measures and practices applicable for each use or disposal (in-
cluding costs); and (3) identify concentrations of pollutants
which interfere with each use or disposal. In order to comply
with this statutory mandate, EPA has embarked on a major program
to develop five major technical regulations: distribution and
marketing, land application, landfilling, incineration and ocean
dumping. EPA is also developing regulations which govern the
establishment of State sludge programs to implement both existing
and future technical criteria. Key to the Agency's regulatory
effort is the policy that EPA is actively promoting those munici-
pal sludge management practices that provide for the beneficial
use of sludge while maintaining or improving environmental quality
and protecting public health.
The identification of potential pollutants of concern for
each reuse and disposal option is a critical part of the technical
sludge regulation development process. The purpose of this
document is to describe the data compilation, analyses and con-
clufions of EPA's effort to identify pollutants of potential
concern. The major questions addressed by this document are:
(1) What are the potential pollutants of concern for each reuse
or disposal option?
(2) For such pollutants, which environmental pathways are of
primary concern?; and
(3) What is the degree of hazard associated with each pollutant
for such pathways?
The results of the analyses contained in this document are
intended to facilitate selection of pollutants and to determine
which pollutants and pathways should be studied further. These
further studies may indicate that the pollutant/pathways are not
of sufficient concern to require regulation or they may indicate
that there are additional pollutants/pathways that need to be
studied. Thus, the magnitude of the hazard indices discussed in
this document are not, in and of themselves, an indication of the
absolute risk for a contaminant/exposure pathway. Rather, this
should be viewed only as an initial screening mechanism. For
those pollutants/pathways that EPA decides to regulate, the
regulations may take the form of numeric limits, best management
practices, or other controls and limitations needed to protect
the environment and public health.
-------
This summary document will describe in detail the overall
process to develop the "technical" sludge regulations and will
show how the data profiles/hazard indices fit into the regulatory
framework. The individual environmental profile documents for ,
each pollutant will be available for public inspection at EPA's
Regional Offices. Any questions related to this document may be
directed to:
Elliot Lomnitz
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585)
401 M Street, S.W*
Washington, D.C. 20460
Telephone: (202) 245-3036
James M. Conlon, Acting Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
I. INTRODUCTION 3
II. OWRS WORKPLAN AND STEPS FOR DEVELOPING 5
TECHNICAL REGULATIONS
III. OWRS APPROACH FOR DETERMINING POTENTIAL 9
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
IV. HAZARD INDICES DEVELOPED FOR EACH REUSE/DISPOSAL 11
OPTION
A. LAND APPLICATION 12
B. LANDFILLING 14
C. INCINERATION 15
D. OCEAN DUMPING 15
V- DATA USED IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILES AND HAZARD INDICE 16
CALCULATIONS
VI. RESULTS OF HAZARD INDICES 18
A. LAND APPLICATION 18
B. LANDFILLING 19
C. INCINERATION 31
D. OCEAN DUMPING 35
VI. INTERPRETATION OF HAZARD INDICE RESULTS 40
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERPRETATION APPROACH 40
B. RESULTS OF THE TWO TIER SCREENING APPROACH 41
C. USE OF RESULTS FROM TWO TIER SCREENING APPROACH 64
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: LIST OF OWRS COMMITTEE MEETING EXPERTS A-l
APPENDIX B: LIST OF POLLUTANTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE B-l
DEVELOPMENT
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE C-l
APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF EPA'S METHODOLOGY FOR PRELIMINARY D-l
ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL HAZARDS
APPENDIX E: HAZARD INDEX VALUES FOR ALL CONDITIONS OF E-l
ANALYSIS RELATED TO LANDFILLING
APPENDIX F: SLUDGE CONCENTRATION DATA USED IN THE F-l
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILES AND HAZARD INDICES
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following briefly summarizes some of the key points
contained in this document:
0 The purpose of the environmental profile and hazard indices is
to rapidly screen pollutants so that those most likely to pose
a hazard to human health or the environment can be identified
for further assessment and possible regulatory control. The
results from the calculation of the hazard indices also allow
for the deletion of pollutants from further consideration for
a specific environmental pathway if no environmental or health
hazard is evident even under worst case conditions.
0 A two tier screening system was developed which allows for (a)
the elimination of pollutants which do not present a hazard
for a specific pathway and for (b) the prioritization of those
pollutants that potentially may present a hazard. The first
tier is accomplished by ranking the pollutants based on their
hazard index values for each environmental pathway and deleting
those pollutants with values less than 1 (indicating no
potential problem under assumed worst case scenario). The
second tier is the prioritization of pollutants based on
incremental values; that is, the portion of the hazard index
values solely attributable to sludge. The incremental values
were derived by subtracting the "null" or background levels
from the total hazard values associated with a pollutant for a
specific pathway. The result of this two tier system is a
list of pollutants for each environmental pathway (per reuse/
disposal option) which identifies priorities for further risk
assessment.
0 The outcome of the environmental profile evaluations and the
two tier screening approach is not a definitive list of pollu-
tants that EPA will ultimately regulate. Rather,-the outcome
of this process is an identification of those pollutants of
"potential concern" which require further analysis and evalu-
ation. The numerical magnitude of the hazard indices discussed
in this summary are not in and of themselves an indication of
absolute risk for a contaminant/exposure pathway.
0 Fifty pollutants were identified at the OWRS expert committee
meetings as being of concern to one or more reuse/disposal
options. For each of these pollutants, an environmental
profile document was generated which included the hazard
indices calculated.
0 For land application (including distribution and marketing),
thirty two pollutants were evaluated. For this option,
thirteen hazard indices were developed to evaluate the hazard
associated with each of the major environmental pathways
-------
related to this option. The pathways and effects examined
included: toxicity to soil biota; toxicity to predators of
soil biota; phytotoxicity; plant uptake; toxicity to animals
resulting from plant consumption; toxicity to animals from
sludge ingestion; human toxicity from plant consumption; human
toxicity from animal ingestion; and incidental soil ingestion
by humans.
For landfilling, twenty eight pollutants were evaluated. Two
hazard indices were developed for this option: an index of
groundwater concentration increment resulting from landfilled
sludge and an index of human toxicity resulting from groundwater
contamination.
For incineration, thirty compounds were evaluated. Two hazard
indices were developed for this option: an index of air
concentration increment resulting from incinerator emissions
and an index of human toxicity/cancer risk resulting from
inhalation of incinerator emissions.
For ocean dumping, twenty one compounds were evaluated. Four
hazard indices were developed for this option: (a) an index of
seawater concentration resulting from initial mixing of sludge;
(b) an index of seawater concentration resulting from a 24
hour dumping cycle; (c) an index of toxicity to aquatic life;
and (d) an index of human toxicity resulting from seafood
consumption.
Based on the environmental profiles and the two tier screening
process, 22 pollutants require further analysis for at least
one of the 10 pathways related to land application (Table 11);
16 pollutants for the one pathway related to landfilling (Table
12); 17 pollutants for the one pathway related to incineration
(Table 13); and 10 pollutants for the two pathways related to
ocean dumping (Table 14).
-------
Summary of Environmental Profiles and Hazard Indices for
Constituents of Municipal Sludge
INTRODUCTION
I. '
The need for effective sludge management is continual and
growing. The quantity of municipal sludge produced annually has
almost doubled since 1972 when the Clean Water Act was enacted.
Recognizing the importance of sludge management, Congress enacted
Section 405 of the Clean Water Act which requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to develop and issue regulations
which: (1) identify uses for sludge including disposal; (2)
specify factors to be taken into account in determining the
measures and practices applicable for each use or disposal (in-
cluding costs); and (3) identify concentrations of pollutants
which interfere with each use or disposal. In addition to the
Clean Water Act, EPA has authority to regulate municipal sludge
under other statutes and several regulations have been issued
using such authorities (Table 1). Currently municipalities are
generating approximately 6.5 million dry tons of wastewater sludge
per year with the annual production expected to double by the
year 2000.
In 1982, EPA established a Sludge Task Force which was
responsible for: (1) assessing the magnitude of and management
approaches to municipal sludge reuse and disposal nationwide; (2)
evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of past regulatory act-
ivities; and (3) identifying data and informational needs in
order to direct EPA research in the field. The establishment of
the Task Force was a result of the recognition that the author-
ities and regulations related to municipal sludge were fragmented
as each regulation was developed in isolation from other disposal
options. Thus, the individual regulations did not provide States
and municipalities with adequate guidelines on which to base
sludge management decisions. The Task Force was therefore man-
dated to develop a comprehensive workplan which would: (1)
delineate a framework for improving the Agency's regulatory
program and (2) identify the entities within EPA responsible for
implementing a sludge regulatory program.
In 1983, the Sludge Task Force presented its recommendations
and issued an Agency workplan. One of the main conclusions and
suggestions was the need for a comprehensive regulatory program
with the primary legislative authority being Section 405 of the
Clean Water Act and that sludge regulations should be developed
by the Agency's Office of Water.
Based on the recommendations of the Task Force, EPA is
proceeding with a major regulatory program to develop two sets of
-------
Table 1. Sludge Regulations Issued By The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Coverage
Reference
Application
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs)
40 CFR 761
All sludges containing
more than 50 milligrams
of PCBs per kilogram
Ocean Dumping
40 CFR 220-228
The discharge of sludge
from barges or other
vessels
New Source of
Air Emissions
40 CFR 60
Incineration of sludge
at rates above 1,000
kilograms per day
Mercury
40 CFR 61
Incineration and heat
drying of sludge
Cadmium, PCBs,
Pathogenic
Organisms
40 CFR 257
Land application of
sludge, landfills, and
storage lagoons
Extraction
Procedure Toxicity
40 CFR 261
Defines whether sludges
are hazardous
Source: U.S. EPA, 1984 "Environmental Regulations and Technology:
Use and Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge." 76 pp.
-------
regulations - State Sludge Management Program Regulations to be
developed by the Office of Municipal Pollution Control (OMPC) and
Technical Sludge Regulations to be developed by the Office of
Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS). The technical regulations
are being developed for five major reuse and disposal options:
distribution and marketing, land application to food chain and
non-food chain crops, landfilling, incineration and ocean dumping.
The regulation on ocean dumping will be coordinated with the
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection within the Agency's
Office of Water. The regulation for municipal sludge incineration
will be coordinated with the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Finally, the regulations for land application,
distribution and marketing, and landfilling will be coordinated
with the Office of Solid Waste and the Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.
In November 1983, OWRS developed an internal workplan which
delineated the work elements and steps needed to propose and
issue technical sludge regulations for the various reuse/disposal
options. A description of the workplan and major steps needed
for the development of the technical regulations is contained in
the next section of this document and is highlighted in Figure 1.
This workplan was developed with the underlying principle that
all 5 regulations should be generated concurrently in order to
give an intermedia perspective and to provide States and munici-
palities with the data and information on all the options to
facilitate informed decisionmaking. The work plan also was
developed to ensure that the regulations would be issued in a
timely fashion, with proposed regulations being issued in mid-1986.
II. OWRS WORKPLAN.AND STEPS FOR DEVELOPING TECHNICAL REGULATIONS
Initiating a major regulatory program leading to the con-
current development of five regulations requires concise steps
and work elements in order to ensure that such an effort will be
manageable and timely. The workplan was designed recognizing
EPA's available resources and the magnitude of the effort. The
following will describe the major steps being pursued by OWRS in
the development of these regulations:
0 WORK ELEMENT 1; DETERMINING POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR EACH
DISPOSAL OPTION
The initial focus of this regulatory development process is
the identification of pollutants that may interfere with each
reuse and disposal option because of environmental or health
considerations. Besides identifying the pollutants of concern,
it is also critical to identify the environmental pathways and
the magnitude of the hazard to the target organisms be it plant,
animal or human. The mechanism used for determining the pollu-
-------
FIGURE 1: STEPS FOR DEVELOPING SLUDGE REGULATIONS
en
WORK ELEMENT 1:
IDENTIFY POLLUTANTS
OF OONCEFN
STEPS INCLUDE:
(1) development of
strawman list of
pollutants
(2) expert meetings on
pollutants of concern
(April-May 1984)
(3) development of envir-
onmental profiles and
hazard indices
VJDRK ELEMENT 4:
GENERATE TECHNICAL
SUPPORT DOCUMENT
WORK ELEMENT 2;
DEVELOP RISK
ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGIES
STEPS INCLUDE:
(1) draft risk assess-
ment methodologies
for each reuse/
disposal option
(2) expert review of
draft methods
(3) revisions and
sensitivity
analyses
(4) finalize methods
WORK ELEMENT 5;
DEVELOP AND ISSUE
PROPOSED REGULATIONS
WORK ELEMENT 3;
DERIVE CRITERIA,
APPLICATION RATES
AND MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
STEPS INCLUDE:
(1) determination of key
inputs to models and
methodologies
(2) deliniate if pollutant
can be controlled by
management practices
(3) calculate criteria for
constituents
(4) specify application rates
KORK ELEMENT 6;
ISSUE FINAL
REGULATIONS
STEPS INCLUDE
(1) Work elements 1-3
incorporated into
document
(2) Fate and transport
analyses
(3) Identify site specific
factors
(4) Benefits analysis
(5) Economic Evaluations
(6) Compliance Monitoring
STEPS INCLUDE:
(1) Draft regulations
(2) Regulatory Impact
Analyses
(3) EPA Agency Reviews
(4) Issue in Federal
Register
(5) Public Meetings
STEPS INCLUDE:
(1) Revisions based
on public comment
(2) Agency review
(3) Final issuance in
Federal Register
-------
tants of concern has been the environmental profiles containing
(a) data compilations for a specific contaminant and (b) hazard
indices for each of the major environmental pathways associated
with a reuse/disposal option. The next section of this document
will describe more fully the process for identifying pollutants
and for developing the environmental profiles and hazard indices.
the output of this work element is a list of pollutants of poten-
tial concern per reuse/disposal option and the relative hazard
associated with each of the pathways based on the profiles. This
information will allow EPA to begin more intensive analyses and
assessments on the highest risk pathways for a pollutant.
0 WORK ELEMENT 2; DEVELOPMENT OF RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
Concurrent with the generation of the environmental profiles,
EPA has been developing methods for quantifying the risk of a
particular pollutant for a specific pathway. These methodologies
will ultimately be used to derive maximum permissible contaminant
levels and to identify management practices for municipal sludge.
The generation of these methodologies is complex due to the
number of environmental pathways for which methods are needed.
Figure 2 demonstrates this complexity by showing the environmental
pathways related to the land application option. The development
of these methodologies includes the use of models and will delineate
the assumptions and limitations associated with each model and
methodology. Sensitivity analyses will also be incorporated.
The output of this work element is five final risk assessment
methodologies, one per reuse/disposal option. The outputs from
work element 1 and 2 are then interlinked in work element 3.
0 WORK ELEMENT 3: DERIVATION OF CRITERIA, APPLICATION RATES AND
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The outputs of work element 1, that is, the pollutants of
concern for specific pathways, will be analyzed using the risk
assessment methodologies developed in work element 2. The pollu-
tants will be analyzed for degrees of risk for specific application
rates or input rates by varying the inputs into the models and
methodologies. The outputs of this work element may be either
maximum numeric concentrations (e.g. no sludges may be incinerated
which contain greater than x ug/kg of pollutant y) or management
practices (e.g. incinerators should be operated under certain
conditions) or combinations of practices and numbers (e.g. sludge
containing pollutant x at concentration y should only be applied
twice a year by injection). The reader should clearly understand
that the Agency will not be solely regulating on numeric limits
but will also utilize management practices. Furthermore, site-
specific factors will be considered in the regulatory development
process with EPA providing guidance and/or algorithms to the
States. The utilization of management practices is consistent
with EPA's policy of the beneficial reuse of sludge while main-
-------
Residue On
Equipment
Anirr.al
Consumption
Figure 2 I Land Application Pathways
-------
taining environmental quality and protecting public health. The
output of this work element will form the framework for how each
of the pollutants of concern will be regulated. Based on the
outputs of this element, OWRS will also be able to identify data
gaps and informational needs which will be transmitted to EPA's
Office of Research and Development to initiate tasks to fill the
voids.
0 WORK ELEMENT 4; GENERATION OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
Technical background or support documents are being generated
for each of the five regulations. The purpose of these documents
is to summarize the results of work elements 1-3 as well as
incorporate the following analyses and evaluations:
(1) Fate and Transport of Pollutants - Description and data
related to the fate and effects of pollutants in each medium
(air, water, soil) will be incorporated in the documents. Pro-
cesses such as biodegradation, absorptability, volatilization and
others may affect the availability and toxicity of the compounds
to the target organisms.
(2) Site-Specific Factors - Data related to site-specific factors
such as soil or climatic variability will be incorporated. For
example, certain processes may be viable for certain geographic
locations and not others. Soil conditions may enhance or ameliorate
the toxicity of certain pollutants. The Agency believes that
States should have the flexibility to consider such factors in
their sludge management programs.
(3) Economic Evaluations and Benefit Analyses - Costing data on
the various technologies associated with each option will be
included to provide the States and municipalities with a com-
prehensive picture of the option both from a standpoint of assoc-
iated risk and economics. The benefits of reusing sludge in
terms of cost savings, e.g. fertilizer value for the land ap-
plication option, will also be quantified and incorporated.
(4) Compliance Monitoring Requirements - The regulations as well
as the technical support documents will describe the requirements
for compliance monitoring i.e. frequency of monitoring, methods
of analysis, etc.
(5) Intermedia Analysis - Contained within each document will be
a section that describes the relative risks among each of the
options for specific pollutants. The purpose of this section is
to allow the decisionmakers to quickly assess the implications
"across the board" without having to refer back to the other four
documents. This section will summarize, for example, what the
risks of sludges high in pollutant X are for this option as well
as for the other reuse/disposal options. This section will not
-------
attempt to equ'ate or assign absolute values associated with each
of the options, for example, cases of cancer expected from land
applications as opposed to aquatic toxicity effects from ocean
disposal.
_(6) Description of Data Gaps - An appendix to each of the documents
will describe the voids in data and information related to the
reuse/disposal option. Much of this will be identified during
the course of work elements 1-3 and will also be identified when
developing the fate and transport, site-specific and economic/
benefits sections of the document. EPA will continue its research
in municipal sludge and will focus its program to fill the
identified data gaps.
0 WORK ELEMENT 5; DEVELOPMENT AND ISSUANCE OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS
With the completion of the technical support documents,
drafting of the proposed regulations can commence. The proposed
regulations will clearly delineate the requirements in terms of
management practices and generic or site-specific numeric stan-
dards. The regulations will also contain compliance monitoring
requirements. The technical support document will be available
along with the proposed regulations to allow the public to review
the analyses used as the basis of the proposal during the public
comment period.
° WORK ELEMENT 6; ISSUANCE OF FINAL REGULATIONS
After the public comment period on the proposed regulation
closes, EPA will assess the comments and make appropriate changes.
The projected date for final promulgation of these regulations is
mid-1987-
III. OWRS APPROACH FOR DETERMINING POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
After the generation of the OWRS workplan for developing the
technical regulations, work began on Element 1 - the determination
of potential pollutants of concern. As previously mentioned, the
purpose of this element was to identify pollutants which require
additional analyses and should undergo a rigorous risk assessment.
The lists of pollutants generated from this work element does not
constitute a list of pollutants that EPA will definitively regulate.
Rather, this work element should be viewed as a screening mechanism
which identifies the pollutants needing risk analyses. Subsequent
analysis by the Agency may add or delete pollutants from the lists.
Several steps were initiated to identify the potential pollutants
of concern:
(1) Development of a "Strawman" List of Pollutants - A strawman
list of pollutants of concern was developed based on data readily
-------
available to OWRS. The purpose of developing this list was to
provide a group of experts (Appendix A) with an initial list from
which they could add or delete pollutants. The development of
the strawman list was based on data available on frequency of
occurrence, aquatic toxicity, phytotoxicity, human health effects,
domestic and wildlife effects and plant uptake. Once this straw-
man list was developed, a series of expert meetings were convened.
(2) Expert Meetings on Each of the Reuse/Disposal Options - Four
expert meetings were convened during April and May 1984 to
determine the potential pollutants of concern for the various
options. The options for land application and distribution and
marketing were combined into one meeting as the environmental
pathways related to these options overlap. The other meetings
were: landfilling, incineration and ocean dumping. The experts
for these meetings were selected based on the recommendations of
the Sludge Task Force and were from various sectors including
academia, State government, consultants and EPA personnel.
The experts received the strawman list of pollutants prior to the
meetings and were also presented with several questions for their
consideration prior to the meeting including:
(a) for which pollutants does sufficient data exist which indicated
that such pollutants present a potential hazard if reused or
disposed by the option in question?
(b) for which pollutants does sufficient data exist which indicates
that such pollutants do not present a potential hazard or
problem to human health or the environment?
(c) for which pollutants are there insufficient data to make a
conclusive recommendation concerning potential hazard?
The experts were convened and were advised that an environ-
mental profile would be generated for each pollutant suggested by
the group as being of potential concern. The experts were given
broad latitude in determining the pollutants for evaluation.
They were allowed to add or delete from the strawman list. Based
on the recommendations of the four expert meetings, 7 pathogens
and 50 pollutants (Appendix B) were identified for development of
environmental profiles and, therefore, were selected for further
analysis.
The experts also were responsible for identifying the major
environmental pathways that should be evaluated; that is, which
pathways were the worst as related to a specific reuse/disposal
option. The experts also identified several pathways that the
lack of data precluded an evaluation. For ocean dumping the
pathway of sediment contamination and subsequent food chain
transfer could not be evaluated using hazard indices. Thus, not
all all pathways related to a specific option were analyzed.
10
-------
During the meetings the experts in some cases suggested a re -
presentative of a group of compounds for which a profile would be
generated. If that analysis showed a hazard, other members of the
group would be analyzed. Upon completion of these meetings the ,
development of environmental profiles commenced.
(3) Development of Environmental Profiles - The development of
environmental profiles for 50 pollutants was a major effort for
OWRS and the Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ORD-
Cincinnati) in late 1984 and early 1985. The environmental
profiles each consist of two major portions: (a) a compilation
of data on toxicity, occurrence and fate and effects for the
pollutant and (b) a series of indices for evaluating the hazard
relative to the major environmental pathways for the reuse/
disposal option of concern. Appendix C is an example of an
environmental profile. Drafts of each profile were reviewed by
the experts as well as submitted to an internal EPA review.
Changes and modifications were incorporated into the final pro-
files. The results of these profiles and the hazard indices are
summarized in this document. Once again the reader must recognize
that the primary goal and approach of the data profiles/hazard
indices was to screen out those contaminants that do not pose a
threat to health and the environment and to establish relative
priorities for those that do warrant further investigation. To
do this, worst case conditions for exposure and effect were
assumed. There was no attempt to assess the relative risk of
exposure to contaminants in sludge versus other sources of the
contaminant in the environment. The numerical magnitude of the
hazard indices discussed in this summary are not in and of them-
selves an indication of absolute risk for a contaminant/exposure
pathway. Rather this is a screening technique to identify con-
taminants that will be subjected to a more rigorous examination.
The remainder of this summary document will discuss the various
indices developed for each of the reuse/disposal options, results,
interpretation and conclusions based on the indices for each
pollutant.
IV- HAZARD INDICES DEVELOPED FOR EACH REUSE/DISPOSAL OPTION
As mentioned, the environmental profiles contain two portions:
a compilation of data and a set of hazard indices related to each
reuse/disposal option. These indices are intended to identify or
screen pollutants which have a reasonable possibility of adverse
affects for given exposure scenario from those pollutants that do
not. The calculation of these indices facilitate evaluations and
decision-making by reducing large bodies of data and information
into index values. The hazard indices developed may be separated
into two types, one type showing the expected increase of con-
taminant concentration in an environmental medium ("incremental
index") and the other showing whether adverse effects could
11
-------
result ("effect index"). The incremental indices show the expec-
ted degree of increase of contaminant concentration in water,
soil, air or food resulting from sludge disposal. This type of
index does not by itself indicate hazard, since contamination
alone does not necessarily mean that adverse effects will occur.
However, the incremental index aids in both the calculation and
interpreptation of the "effect" indices. The effect indices
evaluate whether a given increase of contaminant level could be
expected to result in a given adverse impact on health of humans
or otheer organisms. Both types of indices were developed for
each reuse/disposal option. The purpose of the remainder of this
section is to describe the hazard indices developed for each
reuse/disposal option.
0 (A) LAND APPLICATION/DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING
Thirteen indices were developed for land application and
distribution and marketing to address specific environmental
pathways. Each of the indices were calculated for two sludge
pollutant concentrations and for several different cumulative
application rates (i.e. 5 mt/ha, 50 mt/ha or 500 mt/ha) so that
for a single index a determination can be made as to the application
rate at which the pollutant becomes a hazard. The following is a
general description of each of the thirteen indices and shows how
these indices were designed to cover all the pathways associated
with these reuse options.
- INDEX Ir INDEX OF SOIL CONCENTRATION INCREMENT - This index
shows the degree of elevation of the contaminant in soil after
sludge has been applied. This index is calculated for sludges
with normal and high contaminant concentrations. The data used
for this index is the soil background concentration for the
contaminant, the concentration of the contaminant in the sludge
and the sludge application rate.
- INDEX 2; INDEX OF SOIL BIOTA TOXICITY - This index compares the
contaminant concentration in the sludge-amended soil with con-
centrations shown to be toxic for a soil organism (e.g. earth-
worms). This is calculated for sludges with normal and high
concentrations to determine if there is a potential hazard to
soil biota.
- INDEX 3; INDEX OF SOIL BIOTA PREDATOR TOXICITY - This index
compares the concentrations in tissues of organisms inhabiting
sludge-amended soil with food concentrations shown to be toxic to
predators of soil biota. For example, this index assesses the
potential hazard to birds which prey upon earthworms residing in
sludge amended soils.
- INDEX 4; INDEX OF PHYTOTOXICITY - This index compares the con-
taminant concentration in sludge-amended soils with soil con-
12
-------
centrations shown to be toxic to plants. This index determines
the potential hazard to crops for specific applications of sludge
to soils on which the crops are being grown.
- INDEX 5; INDEX OF PLANT CONCENTRATION INCREMENT CAUSED BY UPTAKE
This index calculates the incremental amount of the pollutant
which is taken into the tissues of plants growing in sludge-amended
soils. This index uses data on the uptake in responsive plants.
Two plants were chosen to represent all plants in the human and
animal diets respectively.
- INDEX 6; INDEX OF PLANT CONCENTRATION INCREMENT PERMITTED BY
PHYTOTOXICITY - This index compares the maximum plant tissue
concentration associated with phytotoxicity with the background
concentration in the same plant tissue. This index determines
whether the plant tissue concentration caused by uptake of pollu-
tants from sludge-amended soil may be limited by phytotoxicity.
- INDEX 7: INDEX OF ANIMAL TOXICITY RESULTING FROM PLANT CONSUMPTION
This index evaluates the potential hazard to domestic or wild
animals which consume crops grown on sludge-amended soils. This
index uses data on the dietary concentration toxic to herbivorous
animals and the contaminant concentration in the plant tissue.
This index builds upon Index 5, described earlier.
- INDEX 8: INDEX OF ANIMAL TOXICITY RESULTING FROM SLUDGE INGESTION
This index calculates the amount of contaminant in a grazing
animal's diet resulting from consumption of sludge-amended soil
or sludge adhering to forage and compares this with the dietary
toxic threshold concentration for a grazing animal.
- INDEX 9; INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY/CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM
PLANT CONSUMPTION This index compares the expected dietary intake
of a pollutant from crops grown on sludge-amended soils to the
acceptable daily intake for that constituent, if it is a non-
carcinogen. For carcinogens, the dietary intake is compared to a
daily dietary intake of the pollutant associated with an incre-
mental cancer risk of 10~6. This index builds upon Index 5,
described earlier.
- INDEX 10: INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY/CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM
CONSUMPTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANIMALS FEEDING ON
PLANTS - This index calculates the human dietary intake expected
to result from contaminant uptake by domestic animals given feed
produced from crops grown on sludge-amended soil and compares
this to the acceptable dally intake for that contaminant, if a
noncarcinogen or to a daily dietary intake of the pollutant
associated with an incremental cancer risk of 10~6 if a carcinogen.
This index builds upon Index 7, described previously.
13
-------
- INDEX lit INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY/CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM
CONSUMPTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANIMALS INGESTING~~
SOIL - This index calculates human dietary intake expected to
result from contaminant uptake by grazing animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil or sludge adhering to forage and
compares this to the acceptable daily intake for that contaminant
if a noncarcinogen or to a daily dietary intake associated with
an incremental cancer risk of 10~6 if a carcinogen. This index
builds upon Index 8 described previously.
- INDEX 12; INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY/CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM
SOIL INGESTION - This index calculates the amount of contaminant
ingestion for a child and adult resulting from inadvertant or
intentional 1
-------
- INDEX 2; INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY/CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION - This index calculates the human
health impacts due to groundwater contamination in the landfill
vicinity. This index is determined by comparing the exposure
from the groundwater with the acceptable daily intake values for
non-carcinogens. For carcinogens the comparison is made with the
intake level calculated to result in an increase in cancer risk
of 10-6.
0 (C) INCINERATION
As with landfilling, the analysis for incineration requires
transport modelling. This effort involves delineating assumptions
such as incinerator operation parameters and incinerator plume
dispersion to be used in determining the chemical constituents in
and the size and shape of the plume. Two indices were developed
for incineration to determine the increase in air concentration
of the pollutant and the resultant human health impacts from
inhalation of incinerator emissions. The residual ash is assumed
to be landfilled and is not further considered in this analysis.
The indices developed for incineration are:
- INDEX 1; INDEX OF AIR CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM
INCINERATOR EMISSIONS - This index shows the degree of elevation
of pollutant concentration in the air due to the incineration
of municipal sludge. This index was generated using a model
which examines the thermodynamic and mass balance relationships
appropriate for multiple hearth incinerators and relates the
input sludge characteristics to the stack gas parameters and
chemical constituents. Dilution and dispersion of these stack
releases can then be described and normalized annual ground level
concentration predicted using an algorithm.
- INDEX 2: INDEX OF HUMAN HEALTH OR CANCER RISK FROM INHALATION
OF INCINERATOR EMISSIONS - This index evaluates the incremental
human health impacts due to incinerator emissions. The annual
ground level concentration predicted above is compared to an
exposure criterion for that contaminant. The exposure criterion
is based on a 'maximum permissible intake by inhalation (for
non-carcinogens) or a 10~6 cancer risk-specific intake (for
carcinogens).
0 (D) OCEAN DUMPING
Four indices were developed for the ocean dumping option:
- INDEX 1; INDEX OF SEAWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM INITIAL
MIXING OF SLUDGE - This index estimates the increase in the sea-
water concentration of a contaminant at a dumpsite as a result of
sludge disposal assuming initial mixing. The data inputs into
this index include: the sludge diposal rate, the contaminant
concentration in the sludge, and the disposal site characteristics.
- INDEX 2; INDEX OF SEAWATER CONCENTRATION REPRESENTING A 24-HOUR
DUMPING CYCLE - This index calculates the increased concentrations
of the pollutant in seawater around an ocean disposal site utilizing
a time-weighted average concentration. The time-weighted concen-
tration is that which would be experienced by an organism remaining
stationary (with respect the ocean floor) or moving randomly
within the disposal vicinity during a 24-hour period.
15
-------
- INDEX 3; INDEX OF TOXICITY TO AQUATIC LIFE - This index compares
the resultant water concentration of the contaminant at the
dumpsite with the ambient water quality criterion or with another
value judged protective of marine aquatic life and its market-
ability. This index does not address the possibility of effects
arising from contaminant accumulation in sediments since EPA is
just beginning to derive methodologies for generating sediment
criteria. Once such a methodology is available, EPA can determine
effects of sludge constituents on sediment biota.
- INDEX 4; INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION
This index estimates the expected increase in human intake of the
contaminant due to seafood consumption, taking into account that
fraction which originates from the dumpsite vicinity. This index
compares the total expected contaminant intake with the acceptable
daily intake or, if a carcinogen, with the intake level calculated
to result in an increase of cancer risk of 10~6.
In summary, twenty one indices were generated for the five
reuse/disposal options to cover the major associated environmental
pathways. Once again, the reader should keep in mind that the
selection of pathways was based on the judgment of the experts at
the OWRS committee meetings. Not all possible pathways related
to a specific reuse/disposal option have been evaluated. The
pathways of groundwater and surface water impacts from land
application; plant and soil impacts from deposition of incinerator
particulates; and marine life impacts from sediment contamination
will be evaluated during the risk assessments conducted for each
option. Environmental profiles using these indices were generated
for each of the fifty pollutants selected as pollutants of poten-
tial concern by the experts. The following section describes the
types of data used in developing the environmental profiles and
in calculating the hazard indices.
V. DATA USED IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILES AND HAZARD INDICE CALCULATIONS
In generating the environmental profile documents and cal-
culating the hazard indices, various types of data were gathered
and used for the analyses. The information contained in the
profiles was based on a compilation of the recent literature and
an attempt was made to fill out the profile outline to the greatest
extent possible. The following briefly describes some of the
types of sources of data used in the profiles and hazard indices
calculations.
0 Sludge Concentration Data
Data on sludge contaminant concentrations were derived from
an EPA report, "Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA, 1982), frequently referred to as the
"40-City Study." Whenever the 40-City Study provided insufficient
information, data from another report prepared for the U.S. EPA,
"A Comparison of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludge" was
used (Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1984). The "typical" sludge
concentrations used in the hazard indices calculations represent a
16
-------
median or mean value where the "worst" sludge concentration
represents a 95th percentile value. Appendix F shows the typical
and worst sludge concentrations for each pollutant, which was
used in determining the hazard index values.
0 Plant and Animal Effects Data
In order to assess the effects of municipal sludge on plants
and animal life, several types of data were gathered for the
environmental profiles. Data on plant and animal uptake factors
and slopes were gathered in order to evaluate tissue concentrations
of the polluant. In order to assess the effects on the target
organism from a specific pollutant, toxicity data was gathered
and evaluated. The uptake data and toxicity data was derived
from a literature search and the key data points were extracted
in order to evaluate the effects on plants and animals. The
reader should refer to Appendices C and r in order to fully
understand and appreciate the types of data gathered for these
analyses.
0 Human Effects Data
As previously mentioned, the effects indices show whether a
given increase in contaminant level could be expected to result
in a given impact on health of humans or other organisms. For
humans, the type of data used and the benchmarks against which
such data is evaluated is dependent on the pollutant; that is,
whether it is a carcinogen. For carcinogens, EPA considers the
effects to be nonthreshold; that is, any level of exposure to a
carcinogenic contaminant is regarded as posing some risk. Since
no threshold can be identified, a "benchmark" level of incremental
risk was chosen against which to evaluate carcinogen exposure.
The Carcinogen Assessment Group of the U.S. EPA has estimated the
carcinogenic potency (i.e., the slope of risk versus exposure)
for humans exposed to low dose levels of carcinogens. These potency
values indicate the upper 95% confidence limit estimate of incre-
mental cancer risk for individuals experiencing a given exposure
over a 70 year lifetime. These potency values can also be used
to derive the exposure level expected to correspond to a given
level of excess risk. An incremental risk level of 10~6, or one
in a million, was chosen as a benchmark in the hazard indice eval-
uations. For non-carcinogens, EPA considers such effects to have
thresholds. For humans the threshold value chosen was an estab-
lished Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), which is usually chosen to
be below the threshold for chronic toxicity.
The data required to evaluate human health effects varied
according to the reuse/disposal option being evaluated. For land
application of sludge, data was gathered on: (a) the daily human
dietary intake of the pollutant; (b) the daily dietary intake of
affected plant and animal tissues; (c) the uptake factors of the
17
-------
pollutant in plant and animal tissues; and (d) the amount of soil
in the human diet, in order to evaluate the Pica child syndrome.
For landfilling of sludge, data on (a) the average human consumption
of groundwater and (b) the average daily human intake of the
pollutant was gathered and assessed in order to evaluate the
human health effects from groundwater which has been contaminated
due to landfilling. For incineration, data was gathered on the
background concentration of the pollutant in ambient air and an
exposure criteria was developed from cancer potency data for
carcinogens or from threshold limited values for non-carcinogens.
For ocean dumping, data on seafood consumption and bioconcentration
factors were used to assess human health effects from ocean dumping.
Once all the data was gathered and evaluated, the calculation
of hazard indices commenced. The next section of this document
describes the results of the hazard indice calculations for each
of the reuse/disposal options.
VI. RESULTS OF HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS
Based on the development of the environmental profiles and
the calculation of hazard indices for the various environmental
pathways, Tables 2-5 were generated to summarize the results of
the analyses. These tables report the values calculated for each
of the pathways and reuse/disposal options. The following will
briefly describe the results presented in each of the tables.
0 LAND APPLICATION
Three tables were developed to summarize the results of the
analyses conducted for land application (Tables 2a-2c). Table
2a shows the hazard index values for the land application of
sludges at a loading rate of 5 metric tons per hectare dry weight
(mt/ha DU) which represents a sustainable yearly agronomic appli-
cation, i.e. loading typical of agricultural nitrogen requirement.
Table 2b shows the hazard index values for a loading rate of 50
mt/ha DW as may be used on public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens. Table 2c summarizes the values at a loading of 500
mt/ha DW which represents a cumulative loading after 100 years of
application at 5 mt/ha/year. The analyses for land application
were performed for the thirty two pollutants identified at the
OWRS expert committee meetings as being of potential concern for
this reuse/disposal option. Thirteen indices were calculated for
land application as described previously. For Indices 9-13, the
indices were calculated both for adult and toddler ingestion and
are represented in the tables with an "a" indicating values for
adults and a "t" for toddlers. As also can be seen on Tables
2a-c, each index was calculated for a typical sludge concentration
of the pollutant (denoted by "T") and for a worst sludge concen-
tration of the pollutant denoted by "W"). The "null" indicated
18
-------
on the tables are the values or concentrations calculated in the
absence of sludge application. The hazard indices cover a large
array of environmental pathways associated with land application
of sludges. For some of the compounds, the paucity of data
precluded the calculation of some of the indices. For information
on how each of the indices were calculated and the data require-
ments for such calculations, the reader should consult Appendix
D.
As can be seen from Tables 2a-c, Index 2 which evaluates
the toxicity for soil biota was calculated for eleven pollutants.
The range of hazard index values was from 0.000088 for aldrin/dieldrin
to 2.3 for copper. Of these eleven compounds, ten had hazard
indice values of less than 1 for the worst case scenario. Thirteen
compounds had adequate data for calculating Index 3 which evaluates
toxicity to predators of soil biota. Under the worst case con-
ditions, eight compounds had hazard indices less than 1. For
Index 4 values were calculated for nineteen compound in order to
assess phytotoxicity from sludges being land applied. Index 5
determines the plant uptake in ug/g DW. These concentrations are
used in subsequent indices related to land application. The
remainder of the indices contained in these tables deal with the
effects related to animals and humans. Indices 7 and 8 evaluate
toxicity to animals from two routes of exposure - plant consumption
and incidental sludge ingestion while grazing. Indices 9-13 all
deal with the routes of exposure to humans including plant con-
sumption, animal consumption and incidental ingestion. As can be
seen from these tables, many calculations were made to assess the
major pathways related to land application.
0 LANDFILLING
In the analysis of groundwater contamination, predictions of
pollutant movement in soils and groundwater are determined using
parameters related to transport and fate, and boundary or source
conditions. Transport parameters include the interstitial pore
water velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include (1) the degradation/decay coefficient and (2)
the retardation factor which is based on a partition coefficient,
the soil bulk density and the volumetric water content. A com-
puter program was used for this analysis to facilitate computation
of the analytical solution. The program predicted the pollutant
concentration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zones. For more detail on the methods
used in this analysis, the reader should refer to the summary of
methodologies (Appendix D) and to the sample environmental profile
(Appendix C).
The results of the analyses for the groundwater concentration
increment resulting from landfilled sludge (Index 1) and for
human toxicity resulting from groundwater contamination (Index 2)
19
-------
TABLE 2A: LAND APPLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION AND HARHTIHG (APPLICATION RATE * 5 HT/HA)
POLLUTANT INDEI II 2 3 4 51 4 7
9a
101
lOt
111
lit
!2a
12t
i - duethylnitrosaiine, only norst case calculated
I = Indices 1 and 5 are' expressed in units of ug/g DH
Note: Results predicated on sludge concentrations derived from "Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
lit
ALDRIN/DIELDRIN
ARSENIC
6ENZOIA1AHTHRACENE
SENZOIAIPYRENE
BISI2-ETHYL HEINJPHTHALATE
CADMIUH
CHLORDANE
CHRONIUK
COBALT
COPPER
DDT/DDE/DDD
DIHETHYLNITROSAniNE a
FLUORIDE
T=
V-
(NULL)
T=
t-
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
»=
(NULLI
T=
K=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
«=
(NULL)
T=
«=
(NULLI
T=
«=
(NULL)
T=
H-
(NULL)
T=
»=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
0.0012
0.0026
0.00063
1
1
1
0.0071
0.017
0.0054
0.01
0.014
0.01
0.24
1.1
0
I.I
2.1
1
0.008
0.03
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.1
1
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.0064
0
1
1
1
0.000039
0.000039
0.000021
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0029
0.011
0
NC
NC
NC
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.2
0.22
0.19
0.011
0.011
0.011
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.068
0.2
0.047
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.7
2.6
1.6
NC
NC
NC
0.025
0.026
0.025
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.044
0.049
0.042
0.23
0.23
0.23
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.000094
0.00021
0.00005
0.13
0.13
0.13
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.088
0.17
0.08
0.00064
0.0024
0
0.5
0.52
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.26
0.2B
0.25
0.0032
0.0032
0.0032
NC
NC
NC
0.64
0.65
0.64
0.00088
0.002
0.00047
0.99
1.2
1
NC
NC
NC
0.019
0.024
0.018
NC
NC
NC
1
1.4
1
0.018
0.068
0
1
1.5
1
1
1.
0.098
0.099
0.098
NC
NC
NC
1
1
1
NC
NC
NC
20
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
120
NC
NC
NC
13
55
4.B
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
30
0.000023
0.000052
0.000012
0.00037
0.00041
0.00037
NC
NC
NC
0.00011
0.00016
0.00011
NC
NC
NC
0.059
0.07
0.058
0.002
0.0075
0
0.0013
0.0016
0.0013
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.3
0.3
0.29
0.00032
0.00032
0.00031
NC
NC
.1C
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.011
0.04
0
0.00023
0.001
0.0003
NC
NC
NC
0.00013
0.0024
0
NC
NC
NC
0.082
0.88
0.002
0.044
0.24
0
0.0058
0.038
0.0025
0.058
0.2
0.04
0.82
2.8
0.05
0.00011
0.00015
0
0.0026
0
0.11
0.92
0.37
940
1000
900
0.25
0.2S
0.26
NC
NC
NC
170
440
140
NC
NC
NC
0.64
1.7
0.54
BB
320
1.8
0.00068
0.0016
0.00058
NC
NC
NC
0.24
0.24
0.24
19
20
19
NC
NC
NC
0.62
0.63
0.42
140
180
130
0.084
0.092
0.085
NC
NC
NC
55
150
48
NC
NC
NC
0.21
0.4
0.17
31
120
0.25
0.00023
0.00057
0.0002
NC
NC
NC
0.084
O.OB4
0.083
13
13
13
NC
NC
NC
0.21
0.21
0.21
900
910
900
0.24
0.26
0.26
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.54
0.57
0.54
6.7
20
1.8
0.00058
0.00058
0.00058
NC
NC
NC
0.24
0.24
0.24
21
22
19
NC
NC
NC
0.62
0.62
0.62
130
130
130
0.065
O.OB5
0.085
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.17
0.18
0.17
2.7
9.3
0.25
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
NC
NC
NC
0.083
0.083
O.OB3
14
15
13
NC
NC
NC
0.21
0.21
0.21
3500
10000
910
0.26
0.27
0.24
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.74
2.7
0.54
150
550
l.B
0.0005B
0.00058
0.0005B
NC
NC
NC
0.43
0.91
0.25
110
150
43
NC
NC
NC
0.63
0.63
0.63
1400
4400
130
0.085
O.OB7
0.084
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.2
0.54
0.17
70
240
0.25
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
NC
NC
NC
0.12
0.2
O.OB5
57
75
25
NC
NC
NC
0.21
0.21
0.21
900
900
900
24
24
26
NC
NC
NC
150
150
150
NC
NC
NC
0.54
0.54
0.54
l.B
1.8
1.8
0.0006
0.0006
0.0004
NC
NC
NC
0.24
0.24
0.24
19
19
19
740
740
0,63
0.43
0.63
130
130
130
6400
6400
6400
NC
NC
NC
56
56
60
NC
NC
NC
0.19
0.2
0.19
1.2
3.7
0.25
0.0047
0.0048
0.0047
NC
NC
NC
0.092
0.093
0.092
17
17
17
260
250
0.57
0.57
0.57
3500
10000
910
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.85
3.9
0.54
240
890
1.8
0.0007
0.0016
0.0006
NC
NC
NC
0.44
0.92
0.25
110
150
43
NC
NC
NC
0.62
0.63
0.63
1400
4700
130
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.26
1
0.19
100
390
0.25
0.0047
0.0047
0.0047
NC
NC
NC
0.12
0.21
0.094
63
81
29
KC
NC
NC
0.57
0.57
0.57
-------
TABLE 2A: LAND APPLICATION AND DISTINCTION AND MARKETING (APPLICATION RATE = 5 HT/HA)
POLLUTANT
INDEX It
lOa
lla
lit
12t
I3a
Ut
HEPTACHLOR T= 0.0003 0.000091
«= 0.00035 0.00011
(NULL) 0.00013 0.000038
HEXACHLQROBENZENE T= 0.002 NC
H= 0.0064 NC
INULL) 0.001 NC
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE T= 0.0075 NC
H= 0.02 NC
(NULL) 0 NC
IRON T= 1 NC
H= 1 HC
(NULL) 1 NC
LEAD T= 1 0.012
K- 1.2 0.014
(NULL) 1 O.Oli
L1NDAHE T= 0.13 (.0013
H= 0.13 <. 0013
(NULL) 0.13 (.0013
NERCURY T= 1 NC
K= 1.1 NC
(NULL) 1 NC
NETHYLENEBISI2-CHLORO-ANILINE) T= 2.9 NC
K= 3.1 NC
(NULL) 2.9 NC
(IETHYLENE CHLORIDE T= 0.004 NC
11= 0.047 NC
(NULL) 0 NC
HOLYBDENUN T= 1 NC
U- 1 NC
(NULL) 1 NC
NICKEL T= 1 NC
H= 1.1 NC
(NULL) 1 NC
PCB'S T= 0.02 NC
«= 0.067 NC
(NULL) 0.01 NC
PENTACHLOROPHENOL T= 0.00022 5.40E-06
H= 0.076 0.0019
(NULL) 0 0
a = diiethylnitrosanine, only norst case calculated
0.01
0.012
0.0045
0.045
0.15
0.023
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.27
0.29
0.26
0.0027
0.0027
0.0027
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.044
0.05
0.043
NC
NC
NC
0.000027
0.094
0
0.000003
0.000003
0.000001
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.12
0.14
0.11
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.013
0.014
0.012
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.04
0.041
0.04
0.37
0.4
0.37
0.002
0.0067
0.001
NC
NC
NC
0.00022
0.00026
0.000094
0.031
0.1
0.016
NC
NC
NC
1
NC
NC
NC
1
1
1
0
0
0
NC
NC
NC
1
1
1
1.1
2.5
1
0.042
0.14
0.021
0.000076
0.027
0
Note:
NC 0.000022
NC 0.000025
,NC 9.40E-06
NC 0.00049
NC 0.0016
NC 0.00025
NC NC
NC NC
NC NC
6.6 0.077
0.08
0.076
17 0.096
0.096
0.096
NC NC
NC NC
NC NC
15 0.0052
0.0059
0.005
NC 0
NC 0
NC 0
NC NC
NC NC
NC NC
200 0.23
0.25
0.22
17 0.009
0.0098
0.009
NC 0.015
NC 0.05
NC 0.0074
NC 1.20E-06
NC 0.00043
NC 0
0.007
0.009
0
0.019
0.11
0
0.0005
0.013
0
1
2.8
0.71
0.16
0.67
0.0069
0.00011
0.00022
0
0.037
0.15
0.0025
0.0072
0.034
0
NC
NC
NC
0.1
0.4
0.03
0.022
0.33
0.093
0.04
0.23
0
B.BOE-06 0
0.0031
0 0
Results predicated
25
25
24
81
440
5.4
NC
NC
NC
0.5
0.51
0.5
0.16
0.24
0.14
NC
NC
NC
0.25
0.25
0.25
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.09
0.091
0.09
0.12
0.26
0.11
310
1600
47
00048
).0031
00047
5.2
5.3
4.8
30
160
2.7
NC
NC
NC
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.34
0.42
0.32
NC
NC
NC
0.3
0.31
0.3
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.03
,0.03
'0.'03
0.041
0.093
0.039
110
570
16
0.00016
0.0011
0.00016
on sludge
24
24
24
25
120
5.4
NC
NC
NC
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.14
0.14
0.14
NC
NC
NC
0.26
0.28
0.25
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.11
1200
6700
47
NC
NC
NC
5.1
5.1
4.8
12
58
2.7
NC
NC
NC
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.32
0.32
0.32
NC
NC
NC
0.32
0.38
0.3
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.039
0.039
0.039
590
3300
16
NC
NC
NC
concentrations
340
420
24
150
820
5.8
4.8
130
0
0.56
0.67
0.54
0.15
0.2
0.14
160
170
160
1.7
5.8
0.34
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.091
0.093
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.11
5900
34000
63
NC
NC
NC
150
200
5
70
390
2.9
2.3 0.
61 0
0
0.44
0.46
0.44
0.32
0.35
0.32
54
56
54
3.5
13
0.52
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.03
0.031
0.03
0.039
0.039
0.039
2SOO
16000
23
NC 0
NC 0
NC 0
derived from
24
24
24
5.4
5.4
5.4
000016
.00044
0
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.14
0.14
0.14
150
150
150
0.25
0.25
0.25
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.11
47
47
47
.00047 0
.00047 0
.00047 0
"Fate
4.8
4.8
4.6
2.9
3.5
2.8
0.0042
0.11
0
3.3
3.3
3.3
0.7
0.77
0.68
63
63
63
0.47
0.47
0.47
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.034
0.034
0.034
0.065
0.067
0.065
22
37
19
.00016
.00034
.00016
340
430
24
240
1400
5.7
NC
NC
NC
0.57
0.69
0.55
0.18
0.3
0.14
NC
NC
NC
1.7
5.8
0.35
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.091
0.094
0.09
0.12
0.27
0.11
7300
42000
63
NC
NC
NC
150
200
5
110
600
3
NC
NC
NC
T 7
3.3
3.3
0.73
0.9
0.18
NC
NC
NC
3.7
13
0.68
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.034
0.035
0.034
0.067
0.12
0.065
3500
20000
27
NC
NC
NC
of Priority
t = Indices 1 and 5 are expressed in units of ug/g DU
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
TABLE M: LAND APPLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION AND BARKET1NB (APPLICATION RATE = 5 NT/HA)
POLLUTANT INDEI It 2 3 4 51 4 7
N)
9a
91
lOa
lOt
111
lit
I2a
12t
I3a
a = dii°lhylnitrosa«ine, only worst case calculated
I - Indices 1 and 5 are Expressed in units of ug/g DK
I3t
SELENIUH
TOIAPHENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICPC^L PHOSPHATE
ZINC
1=
H=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL!
T=
»=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULLI
T=
H=
(NULL)
1
1.1
1
0.023
0.03
0.003
0.0016
0.045
0.00043
0.017
4.1
0
1
1.3
1
NC
NC
NC
0.0013
0.0018
0.00018
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.041
0.05
0.04
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.9
2.1
1.8
' 0.19
0.2
0.19
0.00075
0.001
0.0001
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.2
0.25
0.2
1.2
1.9
1
0.02
0.024
0.0026
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.1
1.6
1
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
15
0.03*
0.054
0.029
0.0004
0.00053
0.000053
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.087
0.13
0.08
0.0079
0.035
0.0015
0.0079
0.011
0
NC
NC
NC
DC
NC
NC
0.11
0.74
0.0073
0.24
0.32
0.24
110
130
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.39
0.57
0.34'
0.11
0.13
0.1
24
34
5.4
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.17
0.23
0.14
0.28
0.44
0.24
120
140
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.37
0.41
0.34
0.12
0.18
0.1
34
47
5.4
NC
NC
NC
NC
.NC
NC
0.14
0.17
0.14
0.29
0.45
0.25
1400
1900
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.44
0.89
0.34
0.12
0.17
0.1
430
840
5.9
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.18
0.34
0.16 .
0,24
0.24
0.24
55
55
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.1
O.I
0.1
7.4
8
5.8
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.35
0.73
0.25
1500
2000
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.47
I.I
0.36
0.14
0.28
0.11
490
940
4.1
NC
NC
NC
KC
NC
NC
0.2
0.44
0.16
Note: Results predicated on sludge concentrations derived from "Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (CDM,19B4). See Text.
-------
TABLE 2B: LAND APPLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING (APPLICATION RATE •= 50 HT/HA)
POLLUTANT INDEX II 2 3 4 51 6
8 9adult 9toddler lOadult iOtoddler lUdult Htoddlerl2adult 12toddler 13adult 13toddler
K)
U>
ALDRIN/D1ELDRIN
ARSENIC
BENZO (A) ANTHRACENE
BENZOIA1PYRENE
BISI2-ETHYL HEXYDPHTHALATE
CADNIUN
CHLORDANE
CHRONIUN
COBALT
COPPER
DDT/DDE/DDD
DIHETHYLNITROSAHINE
FLUORIDE
a = dUethylnitrosaaine, only
T=
N=
(NULL)
T=
N=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
«=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
»=
(NULL)
T=
«=
(NULL)
T=
N=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
y=
(NULL)
T=
||=
(HULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
norst case
0.006
0.02
0.00063 0
0.99
1.1
r
0.022
0.12
0.0054
0.013
0.057
0.01
2.3
11
0
2
12
1
0.07B
0.29
0
1
1.3
1
1
1.1
1
1.4
2.4
1
0.17
0.18
0.042
0
0.9B
1
1
calculated
0.0002
0.00048
.000021
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.028
0.1
0
NC
NC
NC
0.027
0.029
0.027
0.26
0.45
0.19
0.011
0.012
0.011
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.44
1.5
0.047
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.5
11
1.4
NC
NC
NC
0.024
0.034
0.025
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.061
0.11
0.042
0.24
0.25
0.23
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.00048
0.0062
0.00005
0.13
0.14
0.13
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.16
0.94
0.08
0.0042
0.023
0
0.52
0.67
0.5
0.1
0.11
0.1
0.34
0.59
0.25
0.0034
0.0036
0.0032
NC
NC
NC
0.63
0.67
0.64
Note:
0.0045
0.015
0.00047
0.85
2.5
1
NC
NC
NC
0.023
0.1
0.018
NC
NC
NC
1.4
5.2
1
0.1B
0.67
0
1.5
6
1
1
1.2
1
1.2
1.7
1
0.11
0.11
0.098
NC
NC
NC
0.98
1
1
Results
NC 0.00012 O.OII
NC '0.00041 0.04
NC 0.000012 0
20 0.00033 0.00023
0.00074 0.001
0.00037 0.0003
NC NC NC
NC NC NC
NC NC NC
NC 0.00014 0.00018
NC 0.0006 0.0024
NC 0.00011 0
NC NC NC
NH NC NC
NC NC NC
120 0.069 0.082
0.18 0.88
0.058 0.002
NC 0.02 0.064
NC 0.074 0.24
NC 0 0
13 0.0016 0.005B
0.0041 0.038
0.0013 0.0025
55 0.16 0.058
0.2 0.2
0.16 0.04
4.8 0.32 0.82
0.42 2.B
0.29 0.05
NC 0.00034 0.00011
NC 0.00035 0.00015
NC 0.00031 0
NC NC
NC NC 0.0026
NC NC 0
30 0.13 0.11
0.19 0.92
0.15 0.37
1300
2200
900
0.24
0.45
0.26
NC
NC
NC
340
3000
140
NC
NC
NC
1.6
12
0.54
840
3100
l.B
0.0015
0.011
0.00058
NC
NC
NC
0.25
0.26
0.24
26
30
19
NC
NC
NC
0.6
0.67
0.62
260
610
130
0.078
0.16
O.OB5
NC
NC
NC
120
1100
48
NC
NC
NC
0.55
4.4
0.17
300
1100
0.25
0.00054
0.0038
0.0002
NC
NC
NC
O.OB7
0.097
0.083
16
17
13
NC
NC
NC
0.2
0.22
0.21
920
1000
900
0.26
0.26
0.26
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.56
0.83
0.54
50
182
1.8
0.00058
0.0005B
0.00058
NC
NC
NC
0.25
0.27
0.24
41
53
19
NC
NC
NC
0.62
0.62
0.62
predicated on sludge concentrations
140
1BO
130
O.OB5
O.OB6
0.085
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.17
0.22
0.17
24
89
0.25
0.0002 0.
0.0002 0.
0.0002 0.
NC
NC
NC
0.085
0.088
O.OB3
24
30
13
NC
NC
NC
0.21
0.21
0.21
derived
3500
10000
910
0.26
0.27
0.26
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.74
2.7
0.54
150
550
1.8
00058
00058
00058
NC
NC
NC
0.43
0.91
0.25
110
150
43
NC
NC
NC
0.63
0.63
0.63
from
1400
4600
130
O.OS5
0.087
0.086
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.2
0.54
0.17
70
260
0.25
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
NC
NC
NC
0.12
0.2
0.085
57
75
25
NC
NC
NC
0.21
0.21
0.21
"Fate
900
900
900
25
27
26
NC
NC
NC
150
150
150
NC
NC
NC
0.54
0.54
0.54
1.8
2
l.B
0.0006
0.00061
0.0006
NC
NC
NC
0.24
0.24
0.24
19
19
19
740
740
0.63
0.63
0.63
of Prii
140
170
130
6300
6BOO
6400
NC
NC
NC
59
95
56
NC
NC
NC
0.2
0.35
0.19
9.2
34
0.25
0.0048
0.0062
0.0047
NC
NC
NC
0.095
0.1
0.092
17
17
17
363
250
0.56
0.5B
0.57
aritv
3900
12000
910
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.8
15
0.54
1000
3900
1.8
0.0015
0.011
0.0006
NC
NC
NC
0.46
0.99
0.25
140
190
43
NC
NC
NC
0.6
0.68
0.63
1500
5200
130
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.62
5
0.19
410
1500
0.25
0.0052
0.0099
0.0047
NC
NC
NC
0.13
0.24
0.094
75
100
29
NC
NC
NC
0.56
0.6
0.57
t = Indices 1 and 5 are expressed in units of ug/g DH
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
I ABLE 29: LAND APPLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION AND NARKET1N6 (APPLICATION RATE = 50 NT/HA)
POLLUTANT INDEX II 2 3 4 51
7 8 9adult 9toddler lOadult IDtoddler lladult Iltoddlerl2adult I2toddler I3idult Utoddler
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLDKOBUTADIEHE
IRON
LEAD
LIHDANE
MERCURY
NETHYLENEBIS(2-CHLORO-«II1LINEI
KETHYLENE CHLORIDE
IfOLYBDENUN
NICKEL
PCB'S
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
r=
H=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(HULL)
T,
H=
(HULL)
T=
tf=
(NULL)
T=
«=
(HULL1
T=
H=
(HULL)
T=
H=
(HULL)
T=
»'=
(HULL)
T=
11=
(HULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NOLL)
T=
||=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
0.0018
0.0023
0.00013
0.01
0.054
0.001
0.0073
0.2
0
1
1.1
1
1.5
3.3
1
0.13
0.13
0.13
I.I
2.4
1
3.3
4.9
2.9
0.04
0.46
0
1.1
1.4
1
1
l.B
1
0.11
0.57
0.01
0.0021
0.74
0
0.00055
0.00069
0.000038
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.017
0.037
0.011
(.0013
(.0013
(.0013
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.000053
0.019
0
0.063 0,
0.08 0,
0.0045 0,
0.24
1.2
0.023
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.33
0.56
0.26
0,0027
0.0028
0.0027
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.046
0.1
0.043
NC
NC
NC
0.0026
0.092
0
.000018
.000023
.000001
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.17
0.37
0.11
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.017
0.03
0.012
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.043
0.054
0.04
0.38
0.69
0.37
0.011
0.057
0.001
NC
NC
NC
0.0013
0.0017
0.000094
0.16
0.87
0.016
NC
NC
NC
1
1.2
1
1
1.2
1
NC
NC
NC
I.I
1.4
1
0
0
0
NC
NC
NC
1
1.2
1
1.6
16
1
0.23
1.2
0.021
0.00074
0.26
0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
6.6
17
NC
NC
NC
15
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
200
17
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.00013
0.00017
9.40E-06
0.0026
0.014
0.00025
NC
NC
NC
0.081
0.11
0.076
0.097
0.099
0.096
NC
NC
NC
0.0052
0.014
0.005
0
0
0
NC
NC
NC
0.27
0.5
0.22
0.0093
0.017
0.009
0.079
0.42
0.0074
0.000012
0.0042
0
0.007
0.009
0
0.019
0.11
0
0.0005
0.013
0
1
2.8
0.71
0.16
0.67
0.0069
0.00011
0.00022
0
0.037
0.15
0.0025
0.0072
0.034
0
NC
NC
NC
0.1
0.4
0.03
0.022
0.33
0.0093
0.04
0.23
0
8.20E-06
0.0031
0
36
39
24
740
4300
5.4
NC
NC
NC
0.51
0.63
0.5
0.36
1.1
0.14
NC
NC
NC
0.26
0.3
0.25
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.071
0.095
0.09
0.17
1.6
0.11
2600
15000
47
0.00054
0.026
0.00047
9.2
10
4.8
270
1500
2.7
NC
NC
NC
0.43
0.48
0.43
0.54
1.3
0.32
NC
NC
NC
0.33
0.42
0.3
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.031
0.032
"0.03
0.06
0.57
0.039
960
5500
16
0.00018
0.0094
0.00016
30
31
24
190
1100
5.4
NC
NC
NC
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.14
0.14
0.14
NC
NC
NC
0.33
0.59
0.25
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.091
0.092
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.11
11000
65000
47
NC
NC
NC
7.7
8.5
4.8
96
540
2.7
NC
NC
NC
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.32
0.32
0.32
NC
NC
NC
0.49
1.1
0.3
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.03
0.031
0.03
0.039
0.039
0.039
5600
32000
16
NC
NC
NC
340
420
24
150
820
5.8
4.8
130
0
0.56
0.67
0.54
0.15
0.2
0.14
160
170
160
1.7
5.8
0.34
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.091
0.093
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.11
5900
34000
62
NC
NC
NC
150
200
5
70
390
2.9
2.3
61
0
0.44
0.46
0.44
0.32
0.35
0.32
54
56
54
3.5
13
0.52
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.03
0.031
0.03
0.039
0.039
0.039
2800
16000
23
NC
NC
NC
24
24
24
5.4
5.4
5.4
0.00016
0.0043
0
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.14
0.14
0.14
150
150
150
0.25
0.25
0.25
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.11
47
48
47
0.00047
0.00048
0.00047
5.2
5.1
4. a
3.9
9.3
2.8
0.041
1.1
0
3.3
3.3
3.3
0.87
1.5
0.68
63
64
63
0.52
0.7
0.47
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.034
0.035
0.034
0.066
o.oee
0.065
49
190
19
0.00016
0.0019
0.00016
350
450
24
1100
6200
5.8
NC
NC
NC
0.59
0.81
0.55
0.37
1.2
0.14
NC
NC
NC
1.8
6.2
0.35
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.092
O.I
0.09
0.17
1.6
0.11
20000
110000
63
NC
NC
NC
160
210
5
430
2500
I
NC
NC
NC
3.3
3.6
3.3
1.1
2.6
0.68
NC
NC
NC
4
14
0.68
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.034
0.03B
0.034
0.088
0.62
0.065
9000
54000
27
NC
NC
HC
1 = dl«ethylnitro53«inE, only icorst case calculated
t = Indices 1 and 5 are expressed in units of ug/g DM
Note: Results predicated on sludge concentrations derived from "Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982} or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
TfiELE 2B: LftND ftPPLICftTION flND DISTRIBUTION flND HflRKETINB IflPPLICflTION RATE = 50 HT/Hfl)
POLLUTANT INDEX II 2 3 4 51
Ul
8 9adult 9toddler lOadult lOtoddler lladult Iltoddlerl2adult I2toddler 13adult Utoddler
SELENIUM
TOXflPHEHE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE
ZINC
T=
«=
(NULL)
T=
«=
(NULL)
T=
N=
(NULL)
T=
«=
(NULL)
T=
«=
(NULL)
1.1
1.5
1
0.2
0.27
0.003
0.012
0.44
0.00063
0.17
40
0
1.4
3.5
I
N:
NC
NC
0.012
0.016
0.0019
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.054
O.H
0.04
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.2
4.4
1.8
0.21
0.29
0.19
0.0065
O.OOB9
0.0001
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.27
0.49
0.2
2.7
9.8
1
0.17
0.23
0.0024
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.8
6.5
1
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC 0,
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
15
0.078
0.28
0.029
0.0034
0.0047
.000053
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0,15
0.4
O.Ofl
0.0079
0.035
0.0015
0.0079
0.011
0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.11
0.76
0.0073
0.4
1
0.24
610
820
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.65
2.4
0.36
0.16
0.39
0.1
210
280
5.6
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.26
0.91
0.16
0.62
2.2
0.24
660
880
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.42
O.B2
0.36
0.25
0.84
0.1
300
410
5.6
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.18
0.33
0.16
0.29
0.45
0.25
1400
1900
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.44
0.89
0.36
0.12
0.17
0.1
630
860
5.9
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.18
0.34
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.24
55
55
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.1
0.11
0.1
21
27
5.8
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.82
3.2
0.25
2500
3400
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.79
3.4
0.36
0.32
1.2
0.11
1200
1600
6
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.32
1.3
0.16
a = duethylnitrosaiine, only worst case calculated
I = Indices 1 and 5 are expressed in units of ug/g DM
Note:
s r
-------
TABLE 2C: LAND APPLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION AND KARICETIN6 (APPLICATION RATE = 500 HT/HAI
CTi
POLLUTANT
ALDRIN/DIEtDRIN
ARSENIC
BENIOIAIANTKRACENE
BENIOIAIPYRENE
8ISI2-ETHYL HEKYLIPHTHALATE
CADHIUH
CHLORDANE
CHP.OHIUH
COBALT
COPPER
DDT/DDE/DDD
DINETHYLNITROSAI1INE
FLUORIDE
a = diaethylnitrosaiine, only
1 - Indices 1 and 5 are expre!
INDEI
T=
H=
(NULL!
T=
«=
(NULLI
T=
||r
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T =
V--
(NULLI
T=
»--
(NULL)
T=
»=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(HULL)
T=
«=
(NULL)
T=
H-
(NULL)
T=
U-
(NULL)
11
0.0031
0.009B
0.00043
0.95
1.5
1
0.14
0.96
0.0054
0.01
0.015
0.01
19
92
0
9
89
1
0.018
0.048
0
1.3
3.8
1
1.1
1.8
1
4.1
12
1
0.21
0.24
0.14
0.0064
0
0.86
1.3
1
worst case calculated
>sed in units of uq/g
2
0.0001
0.00033
0.000021
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0064
0.024
0
NC
NC
NC
0.029
0.048
0.027
0.78
2.3
0.19
0.014
0.016
0.011
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
DM
3
0.23
0.73
0.047
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
8.9
82
1.6
NC
NC
NC
0.032
0.095
0.025
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.2
0.61
0.042
0.31
0.35
0.23
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
4
0.00025
0.00079
0.00005
0.13
0.2
0.13
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.72
7.1
0.08
0.0014
0.0054
0
0.63
1.9
0.5
0.11
0.18
0.1
.1
3
0.25
0.0034
0.0036
0.0032
NC
NC
NC
0.55
0.84
0.64
Note
51
0.0023
0.0074
0.00047
0.19
14
I
NC
NC
NC
0.019
0.027
0.019
NC
NC
NC
4.1
35
1
0.041
0.15
0
4.8
42
1
1.2
2.8
1
2.5
6.5
1
0.13
0.15
0.098
NC
NC
NC
0.87
1.3
1
4 7 8
NC 0.000062 0.011
NC 0.0002 0.04
NC 0.000012 0
20 0.00007B 0.00023
0.0034 0.001
0.00037 0.0003
NC NC NC
NC NC NC
NC NC NC
NC 0.00011 0.00018
NC 0.00016 0.0024
NC 0.00011 0
NC NC NC
NC NC NC
NC NC NC
120 0.15 0.082
1 0.88
0.058 0.002
NC 0.0046 0.064
NC 0.017 0.24
NC 0 0
13 0.0034 0.0058
0.024 0.0058
0.0013 0.0025
55 0.19 0.058
0.45 0.2
0.16 0.04
4.8 0.57 0.82
1.3 2.8
0.29 0.05
NC 0.00042 0.00011
NC 0.00048 0.00015
NC 0.00031 0
NC NC
NC NC 0.0026
NC NC 0
30 0.012 0.11
0.5 0.92
0.15 0.37
: Results predicated on
9a
1100
1500
900
0.1
1.8
0.26
NC
NC
NC
170
440
140
NC
NC
NC
9.2
96
0.54
200
730
1.8
0.0083
0.083
0.00058
NC
NC
NC
0.32
0.55
0.24
52
70
19
NC
NC
NC
0.44
1
0.62
sludge
9t
190
350
130
0.03
0.66
O.OB5
NC
NC
NC
55
160
48
NC
NC
NC
3.3
35
0.17
71
260
0.25
0.003
0.03
0.0002
NC
NC
NC
0.11
0.19
0.083
25
32
13
NC
NC
NC
0.14
0.36
0.21
lOa
920
950
900
0.25
0.29
0.26
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.76
3
0.54
13
44
1.8
0.00053
0.00058
0.00058
NC
NC
NC
0.3
0.4B
0.24
120
170
19
NC
NC
NC
0.62
0.62
0.62
lot
140
150
130
0.084
0.091
0.085
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.21
0.58
0.17
5.7
21
0.25
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
NC
NC
NC
0.094
0.12
0.083
63
90
13
NC
NC
NC
0.21
0.21
0.21
Ha
3500
10000
910
0.26
0.27
0.26
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.74
2.7
0.54
150
550
1.8
0.00058
0.00058
0.00058
NC
NC
NC
0.43
0.91
0.25
110
150
43
NC
NC
NC
0.63
0.63
0.63
lit
1400
4600
130
O.OB5
0.087
0.086
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.2
0.54
0.17
70
260
0.25
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
NC
NC
NC
0.12
0.2
0.085
57
75
25
NC
NC
NC
0.21
0.21
0.21
12a
900
900
900
24
28
26
NC
NC
NC
150
150
150
NC
NC
NC
0.54
0.54
0.54
1.8
1.9
1.8
0.00061
0.00065
0.0006
NC
NC
NC
0.24
0.24
0.24
19
19
19
740
740
0.63
0.63
0.63
concentrations derived from "Fate of
12t
140
150
130
6100
9500
6400
NC
NC
NC
56
60
56
NC
NC
NC
0.31
1.6
0.19
2.3
B
0.25
13i
3600
11000
910
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
9.6
100
0.54
350
1300
1.8
0.0059 0.0083
0.017
0.0047 0
NC
NC
NC
0.12
0.18
0.092
IB
19
17
260
250
0.52
0.68
0.57
Priority
0.083
.0006
NC
NC
NC
0.62
1.6
0.25
240
360
43
NC
NC
NC
0.44
1
0.63
13t
1400
4900
130
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
3.5
37
0.19
150
550
0.25
0.0087
0.047
0.0047
NC
NC
NC
0.21
0.52
0.094
120
180
29
NC
NC
NC
0.45
0.83
0.57
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
TfiBLE 2C: LAND APPLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION AND NARKETIN6 (APPLICATION RATE = 500 NT/HA)
POLLUTANT
INDEX
9a
lOa
lOt
lla
lit
12a
12t
lla
13t
NJ
HEPTACHLOR
HEXACHLORCBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTAOIENE
IRON
LEAD
LINDANE
KERCURY
NETHYLENEB1S(2-CHLORO-ANILINE>
NETHYLENE CHLORIDE
HOLYBDENUh
NICKEL
PCB'S
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
a = disethylnitrosainine, only
T=
N=
(NULLI
T=
«=
(NULL)
1=
H=
(NULL)
T=
N=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
K=
(NULL)
T=
U-
(NULL)
T=
N=
(NULL)
T=
»=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
»=
(NULL)
T=
N=
(NULL)
Korst case
0.0011 0
0.0013 0
0.00013 0.
0.0072
0.037
0.001
0.06
I.I
0
1.1
1.6
1
5.3
20
1
0.13
0.13
0.13
3.8
12
I
24
25
0
0.32
3.B
2.9
1.6
3.9
1
1.3
7.9
1
0.1
0.54
0.01
0.00022 5
O.OJo
0
calculated
.00031
.00038
000038
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.059
0.22
0.011
<.0013
<.0013
<.0027
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
40E-06
u.0019
0
0.035
0.044
0.0045
0.17
0.84
0.023
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.82
2.7
0.26
0.0027
0.0027
0.0027
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.06?
0.55
0.043
NC
NC
NC
0.000027
0.0094
0
0.00001
0.000012
0.000001
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.58
2.2
0.11
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.047
0.16
0.012
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.062
0.16
0.04
0.48
2.9
0.37
0.01
0.054
0.001
NC
NC
NC
0.00075
0.00093
0.000094
0.12
0.59
0.016
NC
NC
NC
1.3
2.9
1
1.5
3.1
I
NC
NC
NC
1.7
4
I
0
0
0
NC
NC
NC
1.3
2.4
1
5.9
120
1
0.21
1.1
0.021
0.000076
0.027
0
Note: Results
NC 0.000073
NC 0.000092
NC 9.40E-06
NC 0.0018
NC 0.0092
NC 0.00025
NC NC
NC NC
NC NC
6.6 0.11
0.36
0.076
17 0.1
0.12
0.096
NC NC 0
NC NC
NC NC
15 0.023
0.07B
0.005
NC 0
NC 0
NC 0
NC NC
NC NC
NC NC
200 0.66
2.5
0.22
17 0.012
0.076
0.009
NC 0.075
NC 0.4
NC 0.0074
NC 1.20E-068.
NC 0.00043
NC 0
0.007
0.009
0
0.019
0.1!
0
0.0005
0.013
0
1
2.8
0.71
0.16
0.67
0.0069
.00011
0.0022
0
0.037
0.15
0.0025
0.0072
0.034
0
NC
NC
NC
0.1
0.4
0.03
0.022
0.33
0.0093
0.04
0.23
0
20E-06 0.
0.0031 0
0 0.
predicated on sludge
30
32
24
500
2900
5.4
NC
NC
NC
0.64
1.6
0.5
1.9
6
0.14
NC
NC
NC
0.35
0.65
0.25
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.098
0.13
0.09
0.6
12
0.11
2500
14000
47
00048
.0031
00047
7.1
7.8
4.8
180
1000
2.7
NC
NC
NC
0.48
0.81
0.43
2.2
B.5
0.32
NC
NC
NC
0.53
1.3
0.3
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.033
0.45
0.03
0.22
4.4
0.039
900
5100
16
0.00016
0.0011
0.00016
27
28
24
130
740
5.4
NC
NC
NC
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.14
0.14
0.14
NC
NC
NC
0.93
3
0.25
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
'0/094
0.11
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.11
11000
61000
47
NC
NC
NC
concentrations
6.3
6.7
4.8
66
360
2.7
NC
NC
NC
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.32
0.32
0.32
NC
NC
NC
1.9
6.7
0.3
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.031
0.033
0.03
0.039
0.039
0.039
5200
30000
16
NC
NC
NC
derived
340
420
24
150
820
5.8
4.8
130
0
0.56
0.67
0.54
0.15
0.2
0.14
160
170
160
1.7
5.8
0.34
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.091
0.093
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.11
5900
34000
63
NC
NC
NC
from
150
200
5
70
390
2.9
2.3
61
0
0.44
0.46
0.44
0.32
0.35
0.32
55
56
54
3.5
13
0.52
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.03
0.031
0.03
0.039
0.039
0.039
2900
16000
23
NC 0
NC 0
NC 0
"Fate of
24 5
24 5.1
24 4.8
5.4 3.6
5.4 7.2
5.4 2.8
0.0013 0.33
0.036 8.9
0 0
0.51 3.5
0.52 5
0.51 3.3
0.14 2.3
0.15 7.7
0.14 0.6B
150 63
150 63
150 63
0.25 0.93
0.25 2.4
0.25 0.47
NC NC
NC NC
NC NC
NC NC
NC NC
NC NC
0.09 0.036
0.09 0.044
0.09 0.034
0.11 0.073
0.12 0.25
0.11 0.065
47 47
48 180
47 19
.00016 0.00047
.00034 0.00047
.00016 0.00047
Priority
350
440
24
770
4400
5.8
NC
NC
NC
0.71
1.7
0.55
1.9
8.1
0.14
NC
NC
NC
2.4
9
0.35
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.1
0.15
0.09
0.6
12
0.11
19000
110000
63
NC
NC
NC
160
200
5
310
1800
3
NC
NC
NC
3.6
5.4
3.3
4.1
16
0.68
NC
NC
NC
6
22
0.68
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.039
0.062
0.034
0.25
4.6
o.ots
9000
51000
27
NC
NC
NC
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1934). See Text,
-------
TABLE 2C: LAND APPLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION AND HARKETING (APPLICATION RAJE = 500 MT/HAI
POLLUTANT INDEI II 2 3 1 51 4 7
NJ
CD
1i
lOa
lOt
lla
lit
I2a
12t
a * diiethylmtrosaaine, only worst case calculated
I = Indices 1 and 5 ire expressed in units of ug/g DH
lla
131
SELENIUN
TOJAPHENE
TRICHLOROETHVLENE
TRICP.ESVL PHOSPHATE
ZINC
T=
U=
(NULL)
T =
H=
(NULL1
|=
U=
(NULL)
T=
H=
(NULL)
T=
»-
(NULL!
1.9
5.4
1
0.32
0.44
0.003
0.093
3.4
0.00043
,.2
280
0
3.?
22
1
NC
NC
NC
0.02
0.026
0.00018
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.14
0.66
0.04
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
4.8
23
l.S
0.35
1
0.19
0.011
0.015
0.0001
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.76
4.2
0.2
15
73
1
0.29
0.39
0.0026
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
7.3
46
1
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
15
0.43
2.1
0.029
0.0057
0.0078
0.000053
NC
Mi"
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.63
4.4
O.OB
0.0079
0.035
0.0015
0.0079
0.011
0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.11
0.76
0.0073
1.5
6.8
0.24
990
1300
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.7
17
0.3A
0.56
0.25
0.1
350
470
5.6
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1
6.4
0.16
3.3
16
0.24
1000
1400
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.89
4.1
0.36
1.3
6.2
0.1
500
690
5.6
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.36
1.6
0.16
0.29
0.45
0.25
1400
1900
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.44
0.89
0.36
0.12
0.17
0.1
630
660
5.9
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
O.IB
0.34
0.16
0.24
0.24
0.24
55
55
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.11
0.11
O.I
32
41
5.8
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.17
o.:;
0.14
4.6
23
0.25
3300
4500
55
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
:.'
22
0.36
l.B
8.6
0.11
1500
2000
6
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.3
B.I
0.16
Note- Results predicated on sludge concentrations derived from "Fate.of Priority
pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
TABLE 3: LANDFILL HAZARD INDICES
POLLUTANT
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BIS(2-ETHYL HEXYL)PHTHLATE
CADMIUM
CHLORDANE
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
CYANIDE
DDT/DDE/DDD
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID
DIMETHYL NITROSOAMINE
LEAD
LINDANE
MALATHION
MERCURY
— -i nHi /-a<-oo a/^hiial rvwir-fsnt- rft\~ i O
ALL
NULL
1
0*
0*
0*
1
0*
1
1
1
0*
0*
0*
0*
1
0*
0*
1
n<3 in i in
INDEX 1
ALL
TYPICAL
1.1
0.00026*
0.00013*
2.6*
1.2
0.044*
2.0
12
2.1
13*
0.0038*
0.0186*
0.0009*
2.3
0.0014*
2.80E-07*
1.4
/T Note:
ALL
WORST
120
38*
11*
2700*
510
69*
1300
8300
830
16000*
5.4*
41.43*
14.8*
1200
1.3*
3.6*
340
Results predicated
ALL
NULL
0
210
150
0
0.54
1.8
0.00058
NC
0
0
19
0.00032
740
0.14
160
0.0063
0.25
on sludge cone
INDEX 2
ALL
TYPICAL
53
210
150
1
0.54
3.8
0.0007
NC
0.0086
0.0034
19
0.00033 0
740
0.17
160
0.0063
0.25
entrations derived
ALL
WORST
51000
260
3800
1100
0.54
3200
0.157
NC
6.4
4.1
71
.0098
12000
29
200
0.011
3.6
from "Fa
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1932) or "A Comparison
of Studies o? Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED): LANDFILL HAZARD INDICES
POLLUTANT
METHYL ETHYL KETCNE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
PCB
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
SELENIUM
TOXAPHENE
TRI CHLOROETHYLEN E
ZINC
ALL
NULL
NC
0*
1
1
0*
0*
0*
1
0*
0*
1
INDEX 1
ALL
TYPICAL
NC
0.043*
1
1.3
0.092*
0.101*
l.OOOE-16*
1
0.2*
0.013*
2.8
ALL
WORST
NC
110*
24
800
130*
120*
480*
4.5
62*
100*
2700
ALL
NULL
NC
NC
0.09
0.11
47
NC
0
0.24
55
0
0.36
INDEX 2
ALL
TYPICAL
NC
NC
0.09
0.11
59
NC
3.000E-20
0.24
61
0.0068
0.36
ALL
WORST
NC
NC
0.22
2.3
17000
NC
0.14
0.37
2100
56
1.4
NC = Not calculated due to lack of appropriate data
= indicates actual concentrations in ug/L
Note: Results predicated on sludge concentrations derived from "Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
are summarized in Table 3. The analyses related to landfilling
were performed for the twenty eight pollutants identified at the
OWRS expert committee meetings as being of potential concern. In
the table, the columns labelled "all null" reflect the assumed
existing conditions in the absence of sludge disposal. In the
absence of actual concentration data, a value of zero was used
for organics in this analysis. The columns labelled "all typical"
reflect the conditions associated with a typical landfill or
those most frequently encountered in landfill situations. The
"all worst" columns show the results of the analyses when the site
parameters and sludge concentrations used were all worst case.
Intermediate analyses using several worst case parameters with
several typical parameters were also conducted for each pollutant.
Appendix E contains the results of the intermediate analyses
conducted.
As can be seen in Table 3, the index values associated with
human toxicity from ingestion of groundwater contaminated by
leaching from an "all worst" case landfill range from 0.0098 for
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid to 51,000 for arsenic. For four
compounds (cobalt, methyl ethyl ketone, methylene chloride and
phenanthrene) human toxicity index values could not be calculated
due to missing data points. For seven compounds the index values
in the worst case situation are less than 1 indicating that no
human toxicity problem exists for non-carcinogens or that the
risk from cancer is below the 10~6 risk level for carcinogens.
The seven compounds are: cadmium, chromium, 2,4-dichlorophenoxy-
acetic acid, molybdenum, malathion, phenol and selenium.
For groundwater contamination from the "all typical" landfill
situation, the associated human toxicity index values ranged from
3 x 10~20 for phenol to 740 for dimethyl nitrosamine. Indices
for four compounds could not be calculated due to data gaps
(cobalt, methyl ethyl ketone, methylene chloride and phenanthrene)
For the "all typical" scenario, fourteen compounds have indice
values less than 1. These compounds are: cadmium, chromium,
copper, cyanide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, lead, malathion,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, phenol, selenium, trichloroethylene
and zinc.
0 INCINERATION
For the sludge disposal option of incineration, two indices
were calculated. Index 1 shows the degree of elevation of a
pollutant's concentration in air due to the incineration of
sludge. This index was developed by using two models, the BURN
model and the ISCLT dispersion model. The BURN model uses
thermodynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack gas parameters. Fluidized bed
31
-------
incinerators were not evaluated due to a paucity of available
data. The dilution and dispersion of these stack gas releases
were described by the ISCLT dispersion model from which normalized
annual ground level concentrations were predicted.
Index 2 shows the human health impacts expected to result
from the incineration of sludge. The results of Index 1 were
compared to the ground level concentrations used to assess human
health impacts. Ground level concentrations for carcinogens were
developed based upon assessments published by the U.S. EPA Car-
cinogen Assessment Group. These ambient concentrations reflect
a dose level, which for a lifetime exposure, increases the risk
of cancer by 10"~6, por non-carcinogens, levels were derived from
the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists
threshold limit values for the workplace. The reader should
refer to Appendix D for details on the calculation methods.
The results of the analyses related to incineration of
municipal sludge are summarized in Table 4. The analyses related
to incineration were performed for thirty compounds identified at
the OWRS expert committee meetings as being of potential concern.
The analyses were conducted using two sludge feed rates: 2660
kg/hr DW which represents an average dewatered sludge feed rate
into a furnace serving a community of 400,000 people, and 10,000
hg/hr DW which represents a higher feed rate which would serve a
major U.S. city. For each feed rate the analysis was conducted
using both a "typical" concentration of the pollutant in sludge
and a "worst" concentration of the pollutant. Thus the terms
"typical" and "worst" in Table 4 refers to the analyses performed
using the two concentrations of pollutant in sludge. The null
values represent conditions in the absence of sludge incineration.
As can be seen in Table 4 for the disposal of worst case
concentration sludges at a feed rate of 2660 kg/hr (DW) the index
2 values range from 0.00035 for selenium to 380 for chromium.
For the disposal of worst concentration sludges at the higher
feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr six compounds have hazard indices less
than 1 indicating that no human toxicity problem exists (for non-
carcinogens) or that the risk from cancer is below the 10~"6 risk
level (for carcinogens). The six compounds are: Copper, DDT,
heptachlor, lindane, selenium and zinc. For sludges containing
the worst concentration of pollutant incinerated at the lower
feed rate of 2660 kg/hr (DW), ten compounds have hazard indices
less than 1. These compounds are: beryllium, DEHP, copper, DDT,
heptachlor, lead, lindane, mercury, selenium and zinc. For
sludges containing typical concentrations of the pollutant dis-
posed at the higher feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr (DW), ten compounds
have hazard indices less than 1. For sludges containing typical
concentrations disposed at the lower feed rate of 2,660 kg/hr
(DW), thirteen compounds have hazard indices less than 1.
32
-------
TABLE 4: INCINERATION HAZARD INDICES
U)
POLLUTANT
ALDRIN/DIELDRIN
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BEN ZO ( A ) ANTHRACEN E
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BERYLLIUM
DEHP
CADMIUM
INDEX
1
INDEX 2
2660 Kg/hr 10000 Kg/hr
NULL TYPICAL WORST NULL TYPICAL WORST
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 1
CHLORDANE
CHIDROFORM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
DOT/DDE/DDD
DI.OXINS
FUPANS
HRPTACHLOR
DEHP --= Bis-(2-hexyl
1
1
1
1
1
NC
NC
1
1.1
1.4
1
1
1
1
1.9
3
1
1.4
1
1.2
1
1.1
NC
NC
1.1
2.9'
3.5
1
2
2.9
1.4
18
31
1
7.8
1
3.3
1.2
1.5
NC
NC
1.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NC
NC
1
ethyl )£thalate
3.2
8.5
1
1.6
1.6
1.6
16
37
1
9.09
1
4.1
1.8
2.7
NC
NC
2
Note: Results
34
46
1
19
35
7.2
300
520
1
120
1
41
4.6
11
NC
NC
6.3'
predicated on
2660 Kg/hr
NULL TYPICAL WORST
1.9.
36
110
NC
0.62
0.18
0.054
6.7
21
0.41
98
120
0.046
0.083
NC
NC
0.14
2.1
51
110
NC
0.64
0.19
0.1
20
21
0.59
98
140
0.048
0.092
NC
NC
0.15
sludge concentrations
5.4
130
110
NC
1.8
0.25
0.98
200
21
3.2
98
380
0.055
0.13
NC
NC
0.19
derived
10000 Kg/hr
NULL TYPICAL WORST
1.9
36
110
NC
0.62
0.18
0.054
6.7
21
0.41
98
120
0.046
0.083
NC
NC
0.14
from "Fate
6.1 64
300 1600
110 110
NC NC
1 22
0.29 1.3
0.9 16
250 3500
21 22
3.7 49.6
98 99
480 4800
0.082 0.21
0.23 0.89
NC NC
NC NC
0.29 0.91
of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
TABLE 4 (CONTINUED): INCINERATION HAZARD INDICES
INDEX 1
INDEX 2
u>
2660 Kg/hr 10000 Kq/hr
POLLUTANT NULL TYPICAL WORST NULL TYPICAL VJORST
LEAD
LIN DANE
MERCURY
METUYLENE CHLORIDE
NICKEL
PCB
PHENANTHRENE
SELENIUM
Ttn'RACHLOROETHYLENE
TOXAPHENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
ZINC
NC -- Not calculated due
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
to lack
1.1
1.3
1.4
1
1
1.1
8.64
1
1
1.8
1
1.1
1,8
3.2
2.5
1
2.1
2.6
172
1.4
1
5.5
1
4.4
of appropriate
Note: Results
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
data
predicated
2.4
5.9
7.6
1
1.4
2.2
136
1.5
1
16
1
2.8
on sludge
16
40
27
1
21
29
3020
7.2 0.
1
81
1.1
62 0
concentrations
2660 Kg/hr
NULL TYPICAL WORST
0.21
0.019
0.56
1.4
3
9.2
NC
00026
8.3
0.39
220
.0038
derived
0.23
0.024
0.076
1.4
3
9.8
NC
0.00027
8.3
0.71
220
0.0042
from "Fate
0.39
0.061
0.14
1.4
6.2
24
NC
0.00035 0.
8.3
2.1
220
0.017 0
of Priority
10000 Kq/hr
NULL TYPICAL VJORST
0.21
0.019
0.56
1.4
3
9.2
NC
00026
8.3
0.39
220
.0038
0.51 3.4
0.11 0.76
0.42 1.5
1.4 1.4
4.3 61
20 260
NC NC
0.0004 O.OUiy
8.3 8.5
6 31
220 230
0.011 0.24
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
0 OCEAN DUMPING
Four indices were calculated for the disposal option of
ocean dumping. As mentioned previously, Index 1 calculates the
increased concentration of the pollutant in seawater around an
ocean disposal site assuming initial mixing; whereas, Index 2
calculates the increased effective concentration of the pollutant
in seawater around an ocean disposal site utilizing a time weighted
average (TWA) concentration. The TWA concentration is that which
would be experienced by an organism remaining stationary or moving
randomly within the disposal vicinity over a 24-hour period.
Two "effects" indices were calculated for ocean dumping.
Index 3 compares the resultant water concentration of the con-
taminant at the dumpsite with the ambient water quality criterion
or with another value judged protective of marine aquatic life
and its marketability. Index 4 estimates the expected increase
in human intake of the contaminant due to seafood consumption,
taking into account that fraction which originates from the
dumpsite vicinity. This index compares the total expected con-
taminant intake with the acceptable daily intake or, if a car-
cinogen, with the intake level calculated to result in an increase
of cancer risk of 10~6.
The results of the analyses conducted for the four indices
are summarized in Table 5. The analyses related to ocean dumping
were performed for twenty-one compounds identified at the OWRS
expert committee meetings as being of potential concern. Each of
the indices were calculated for two sludge disposal rates, 825 mt
DW/day and 1650 mt DW/day, and for two sludge concentrations - a
"typical" and "worst" concentration of the contaminant in sludge.
For Index 4 an additional variable was added - "worst" case and
"typical" case seafood intake. Thus, in Table 5 the values
associated with typical (T) refer to typical sludge concentrations;
and in the case of Index 4, T refers to the value for both typical
sludge concentrations and typical seafood consumption. The worst
case (W) indicates the values for worst sludge contaminant concen-
trations; and in the case of Index 4, W refers to the value for
worst sludge contaminant concentrations as well as worst case
seafood consumption. The null values represent the index values
in the absence of sludge disposal.
As can be seen in Table 5, Index 3 was calculated for all
the compounds except dioxins, furans and trichlorophenol due to a
paucity of available data. For the disposal of sludge at the 825
mt DW/day rate using "worst" sludges, the range of Index 3 values
was from 0.000011 for benzo(a)pyrene to 14.3 for chlordane. For
the disposal of sludge at the 1650 mt DW/day rate using "worst"
sludges the range of Index 3 values was from 0.000011 for benzo(a)-
pyrene to 29 for chlordane.
35
-------
Index 4 was calculated for all the compounds except dioxins,
furans, benzo(a)anthracene and phenanthrene due to the paucity of
data. For the disposal of worst case sludges at the 825 mt DW/day
disposal rate, and assuming worst case seafood intake, the values
range from 0.00047 for pentachlorophenol to 920 for aldrin/dieldrin.
For the worst case sludges disposed at a 1650 mt DW/day rate, and
assuming worst case seafood intake, the values ranged from 0.00047
for pentachlorophenol to 930 for aldrin/dieldrin. For this
scenario, seven compounds have hazard indices less than 1 indicating
that no human toxicity problem exists for the non-carcinogens or
that the risk from cancer is below the 10~6 risk level for carcin-
ogens .
36
-------
TABLE 5: OCEAN DISPOSAL HAZARD INDICES
POLLUTANT
ALDRIN/DIELDRIN
BENZIDINEb
BEN ZO ( A ) ANTHRACEN E
BENZO(A)PYRENE
DEHP
CADMIUM *
CHLOKDANE
DDT/DUD/UDE;
DLJJP = Bis-(2-ethyl
T=
W=
Null=
rp
W=
Null=
T=
W=
Null=
T=
W=
Null=
T=
W=
Null=
T=
W=
Null=
T=
W=
Null=
T=
W=
Null=
INDEX
825a
0.00044 0.
0.014
0
0.025
0.22
0
0.0014 0
0.082
0
0.00029 0.
0.033
0
0.19
7.8
0
1.8
76
1
0.0064 0
0.2
0
0.0013 0
0.016
0
1 (ug/L) INDEX 2 (uq/L) INDEX 3
1650a
00044 0
0.014
0
0.025
0.22
0
.0014 0
0.082
0
00029 0.
0.033
0
0.19
7.8
0
1.8
76
1
.0064
0.2
0
.0013 0
0.016
0
hexyDphth.late
Note: Results predicated on
825a
.00012
0.0039
0
0.0069
0.061
0
.00037
0.023
0
000078
0.0092
0
0.051
2.2
0
1.2
22
1
0.0017
0.057
0
.00036
0.0044
0
1650a
0.00024
0.0077
0
0.014
0.12 0
0
0.00073 4
0.046
0
0.00016 9
0.018 0
0
0.1
4.4
0
1.4
43
1
0.003
0.11
0
0.00072
0.0089
0
825a
0.063
2
0
0.00001
.000086 0
0
.50E-06 4
0.00027
0
.50E-07 9
.000011 0
0
0.055
2.3
0
0.0042
0.17
0.0023
0.43
14.3
0
0.36
4.4
0
sludge concentrations derived from
1650a
0.12
4.1
0
0.00001
.000086
0
. 50E-06
0.00027
0
. 50E-07
.000011
0
0.055 4
2.3
0
0.0042
0.17
0.0023
0.86
29
0
0.72
8.9
0
"Fate of Prii
INDEX 4
825a
900
920
900
0.00061
30
0
NC
NC
NC
140
170
140
.02E-07 8
0.096
0
0.54
0.61
0.54
1.8
32
1.8
19
21
19
zrity
1650a
900
930
900
0.0012
59
0
NC
NC
NC
140
200
140
. OOE-07
0.19
0
0.54
0.69
0.54
1.8
64
1.8
19
23
19
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
TABLE 5 (CONTINUED); OCEAN DISPOSAL HAZARD INDICES
INDEX 1 (ug/L) INDEX 2 (ug/L) INDEX 3
INDEX 4
U)
00
POLLUTANT
DICHLOROBENZIDINE
DIOXINS
ENDRIN
FURANS
HEPIACHLOR
LINDANE
MERCURY*
PENTACH LORQPH ENOL
PHENANTIlPvENC
T=
W=
Null =
T=
W=
Null=
T=
W=
Null =
T=
W=
Null=
T=
W=
Null =
T=
W=
Null=
T=
W=
Null-
T=
W=
Null =
rp
W=
Null=
825a
0.0033
0.039
0
NC
NC
NC
0.00028
0.0029
0
NC
NC
NC
0.00014
0.0015
0
0.00022
0.0037
0
1.6
21
1
0.00017
0.52
0
0.0074
0.35
0
1650a
0.0033
0.039
0
NC
NC
NC
0.00028 0
0.0029
0
NC
NC
NC
0.00014 0
0.0015
0
0.00022 0
0.0037
0
1.6
21
1
0.00017 0
0.52
0
0.0074
0.35
0
825a
0.00089
0.011
0
NC
NC
NC
.000076
0.00081
0
NC
NC
NC
.000038
0.00043
0
.000059
0.001
0
1.2
6.6
1
.000047
0.14
0
0.002
0.099
0
Note: Results predicated on sludge
1650a
0.0018
0.022
0
NC
NC
NC
0.00015
0.0016
0
NC
NC
NC
0.000076
0.00086
0
0.00012
0.0021
0
1.3
12
1
0.000094 5.
0.29
0
0.004 0.
0.2
0
concentrations
825a
0.0066
0.078
0
NC
NC
NC
0.033
0.35
0
NC
NC
NC
0.011
0.12
0
0.0014
0.023
0
0.23
1.3
0.2
10E-06 5
0.015
0
000025 0
0.0012
0
16503
0.0066 0
0.078
0
NC
NC
NC
0.066
0.71
0
NC
NC
NC
0.021
0.24
0
0.0014
0.023
0
0.26
2.4
0.2
.10E-06
0.015
0
.000025
0.0012
0
derived from "Fate of
825a
.000002 0.
0.14
0
NC
NC
NC
0.014
0.014
0.014
NC
NC
NC
24
24
24
150
150
150
0.25
0.32
0.25
0.00047 0
0.00047 0
O.OOU47 0
NC
NC
NC
Priority
1650a
000004
0.27
0
NC
NC
NC
0.014
0.014
0.014
NC
NC
NC
24
25
24
150
150
150
0.25
0.39
00.25
.00047
.00047
.00047
NC
NC
NC
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA/1932) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1934). See Text.
-------
TABLE 5 (CONTINUED): OCEAN DISPOSAL HAZARD INDICES
POLLUTANT
PCBS
TOXAPHENE
TRICHLOROPHENOL
T=
W=
Null =
T=
W=
Null=
T=
W=
Null=
INDEX
825a
0.008 0
0.39
0
0.016 0
0.18
0
0.0046 0.
0.078 0
0
1 (ug/L)
1650a
.008 0
0.39
0
.016 0
0.18
0
0046 0
.078
0
INDEX
825a
.0022 0.
0.11
0
.0043 0.
0.052
0
.0012 0.
0.022 0
0
2 (ug/L)
1650a
0043
0.22
0
0086
0.1
0
0025
.044
0
INDEX
825a
0.072
3.7
0
0.06
0.73
0
NC
NC
NC
3
16503
0.14
7.3
0
0.12
1.5
0
NC
NC
NC
INDEX 4
825a
47
400
47
55
81
55
1.6E-08
0.0016
0
16503
47
760
47
55
110
55
3.1E-08
0.0031
0
Ul
NC = Not calculated due to lack ot appropriate data
a = metric tons per day discharge rate
b = Reported values all based on worst case sludges
= Index 1 and 2 for Cadmium and Mercury are unitless; all other compounds in ug/L
Note: Results predicated on sludge concentrations derived from "Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (U.S. EPA,1982) or "A Comparison
of Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Sludges" (COM,1984). See Text.
-------
VII. INTERPRETATION OF HAZARD INDICES RESULTS
A. General Description of the Interpretation Approach
In order to facilitate interpretation of the data and results
discussed in the previous section (especially Tables 2-5), a two
step screening procedure was used:
Step 1 - Ranking of Pollutants for Each Environmental Pathway
This step consisted of arraying the pollutants for each of
the indices, in order to determine which pollutants can be
eliminated from further consideration for a specific environmental
pathway. Pollutants were eliminated from consideration if under
the worst case scenario designed for a specific pathway, the
resulting hazard index value is less than 1. Values less than 1
indicate that the compound is not toxic to either man, animal or
plants, depending on the pathway being evaluated. For the pathways
related to man, an index value less than 1 indicates that the
pollutant does not pose a toxic hazard in the case of non-car-
cinogens, or in the case of carcinogens, will not exceed the 10~6
cancer risk level. By using the hazard index value associated
with the worst case scenario for a particular pathway, the analysis
can definitively rule out any pollutants with values less than 1,
as these index values represent the total hazard including the
background concentration in air or water or soil, depending on
the pathway. Pollutants which have been eliminated for a specific
pathway by this step will not be considered for future risk
assessment for that pathway. Pollutants with values equal to or
greater than 1 will undergo Step 2 of the screening procedure.
Step 2 - Incremental Ranking of Pollutants for Each Environmental
Pathway
In Step 1, pollutants with values less than 1 were eliminated
since they prese.nted no potential hazard even when including the
background concentration of the pollutant. All pollutants with
values equal to or greater than 1 underwent Step 2, incremental
ranking. This step evaluated what portion of the hazard associated
with a pollutant for a particular environmental pathway is attrib-
utable to sludge. In order to make such an evaluation, the back-
ground concentration or background hazard of the pollutant must
be discounted. Step 2 discounts the background by subtracting
the "null" hazard index value, or background level, determined for
a specific pollutant from the total hazard index value determined
for that pollutant. The resulting hazard index value is the
increment attributable to sludge. For example, if a compound has
a total index value of 920 for a specific pathway under worst
case conditions and a "null" value of 900, the incremental hazard
index value of 20 is attributable to sludge. Once again, the
40
-------
worst case scenario associated with a pathway was used in this
analysis. Once all the incremental values had been determined, a
ranking of pollutants, from ascending to descending order, was
performed. These pollutants were then "bracketed" into several
groups: those with incremental values greater than 1,000; those
with values from 100 to 1000; those with values from 1 to 100 and
those with values less than 1. Pollutants with incremental
values in the group from 100-1000 would generally be of more
concern than those pollutants found in the grouping from 1-100.
Thus the groupings would allow for the prioritization of pollutants
for further risk assessment during the regulatory development process,
B- RESULTS OF THE TWO TIER SCREENING APPROACH
0 STEP 1; RESULTS
The results of the ranking of pollutants for each index
(Step 1) are portrayed in Tables 6-9. The pollutants were ranked
using the hazard index values associated with the worst case
scenario. As can be seen in the tables, those pollutants with
index values less than 1 have been eliminated from further con-
sideration for that pathway. The eliminated pollutants therefore
represent those pollutants which will not adversely affect the
environment or human health. Table 10 lists all of the pollutants
per pathway that were eliminated during Step 1. As can be seen
on Tables 6-9, only those indices related to "effects" as defined
previously have undergone a Step 1 analysis since such an analysis
for other indices, such as groundwater contamination, would be
meaningless since these indices relate only to concentrations of
the pollutant in the media and do not imply an effect on the
environment or human health. These indices have been ranked and
placed in these tables simply for reference. The following
describes the results of the Step 1 analysis for each reuse/dis-
posal option:
- Step 1; Land Application
Table 6 shows the results of ranking the pollutants for each
environmental pathway using the values associated with the assumed
worst case scenario. For the "effects" indices (Indices 2,3,4,6,7-
13), pollutants with hazard index values less than 1 were "boxed"
and will not be considered further in this analysis for that path-
way. Table 6 shows that for Index 2, which evaluates toxicity to
soil biota, all compounds except copper have hazard index values
less than 1 indicating no potential problem to soil biota when
"worst" sludges are applied. For Index 3, which evaluates the
toxicity to predators of soil biota, eight compounds have hazard
indices of less than 1 indicating no potential problem. The
eight compounds are: DDT,'copper, nickel, cobalt, chromium,
pentachlorophenol, heptachlor and lindane. For Index 4 which
evaluates phytotoxicity, twelve compounds have indice values less
than 1. For Index 7, which evaluates animal toxicity from consuming
41
-------
TABLE 6: RANKING OF POLLUTANTS FOR LANH APPLICATION
BASED CN HAZARD INDICES USING WORST CASE PARAMETERS
SOIL CONCENTRATION INCREMENT (1-1)
ORGANICS (uq/g/DW)
Pollutant Index Value
Tricresyl phosphate 280
Bis(2 ethyl hexyl) phthalate 92
Methylinebis (2 chloro aniline) 25
Methylene chloride 3.8
Tr i chloroethylene 3.6
Hexachlorobutadiene 1.6
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.96
Pentachlorophenol 0.74
PCB 0.57
Toxaphene 0.49
Chlordane 0.29
DDT 0.24
Lindane 0.13
Dimethyl nitrosamine 0.062
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.057
Hexachlorot>enzene 0.054
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.02
Heptachlor 0.0023
TOXICITY TO SOIL BIOTA (1-2)
Pollutant
Copper
Index Value
2.3
| Zinc
Lead
|Chlordane
Cobalt
|Toxaphene
Pentachlorophenol
|DOT/DDD/DDE
Lindane
|Heptachlor
Aldrin/Dieldrin
0.86
0.22
0.10
0.048
0.029
0.019
0.010
0.0027
0.00069
0.00068
SOIL CONCENTRATION INCREMENT (1-1)
INORGANICS
Pollutant
Cadmium
Zinc
Lead
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Molybdenum
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Arsenic
Fluoride
Index Value
89
22
20
12
12
7.9
5.4
3.9
3.8
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.3
= those pollutants which
would not present a
hazard under assumed
worst case conditions
42
-------
TABLE 6 (CCNT); RANKING OF POLLUTANTS FOR LAND APPLICATION
BASED CN HAZARD INDICES USING ASSUMED WORST CASE PARAMETERS
TOXICITY TO SOIL BIOTA PREDATORS (1-3)
Pollutant Index Value
PHYTOTOXICITY (1-4)
Cadmium
Zinc
Lead
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Hexachlorobenzene
| Copper
Nickel
| DDT/DDD/DDE
Cobalt
I Chromium
Pentachlorophenol
| Heptachlor
Lindane
Pollutant
82
23
2.7
1.5
1.2
0.61
0.55
0.35
0.35
0.095
0.092
0.080
0.0028
Index Value
= those pollutants which would
| not present a hazard under
assumed worst case conditions
Cadmium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Chromium
Selenium
Fluoride
Arsenic
Cobalt
Mercury
Molybdenum
PCB
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Lindane
Aldrin/Dieldrin
DDT/DDD/DDE
Hepjzachlor
7.1
4.2
3.0
2.9
2.2
1.9
1.0
0.84
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.057
0.023
0.016
0.01
0.0062
0.0036
0.000023
43
-------
TftBLE 6 (CCNT); RANKING OF POLLUTftNTS FOR LAND APPLICATION
BASED CN HAZARD INDICES USING ASSUMED WORST CASE PARAMETERS
PLANT UPTAKE (1-5)
ORGANICS (ug/g DW)
ANIMAL TOXICITY RESULTING FROM
PLANT CONSUMPTION (1-7)
Pollutant
PCB
Fluoride
Hexachlorobenzene
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Pentachlorophenol
M^/DDD/DDE
Benzo(a)pyrene
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Heptachlor
MOCA
Index Value
1.2
1.3
0.87
0.67
0.43
0.26
0.15
0.10
0.015
0.0017
0.0
PLANT UPTAKE (1-5)
INORGANICS
Pollutant
Nickel
Selenium
Chrcmium
Cadmium
Arsenic
Zinc
Copper
Mercury
Lead
Iron
Cobalt
Molybdenum
Fluoride
Index Value
120
73
42
35
14
6.5
6.5
4.0
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.4
1.3
Pollutant
Zinc
Molybdenum
Selenium
Copper
Cadmium
Fluoride
Cobalt
PCB
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Chlordane
Chromium
Hexachlorobenzene
Toxaphene
Pentachlorophenol
Arsenic
Benzo(a)pyrene
DDT/DDD/DDE
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Heptachlor
MCCA
Index Value
4.4
2.5
2.1
1.3
1.0
0.92
0.45
0.42
0.36
0.12
0.078
0.076
0.074
0.024
0.013
0.0086
0.0042
0.0010
0.00060
0.00040
0.00041
0.00017
0.0
those pollutants which would
not present a hazard under
assumed worst case conditions
44
-------
TABLE 6 (CONT); RANKING OF POLLUTANTS FOR LAND APPLICATION
BASED ON HAZARD INDICES USING ASSUMED WORST CASE PARAMETERS
ANIMAL TOXICITY RESULTING FRCM
SLUDGE INGESTICN
Pollutant
Copper
Iron
| Fluoride
Cadmium
[zinc
Lead
| Molybdenum
Nickel
|Chlordane
PCB
| Cobalt
Mercury
| Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin/Dieldrin
| Chromium
Selenium
IMOCA
Hexachlorobutad i ene
(Toxaphene
Heptachlor
| Pentachlorophenol
Dimethyl nitrosamim
|Benzo(a)pyrene
Lindane
| Arsenic
DDT/DDD/DDE
(1-8)
Index Value
2.8
2.8
0.92 |
0.88
0.76 |
0.67
0.40 |
0.33
0.24 |
0.23
0.20 |
0.15
0.11 |
0.04
0.038 |
0.035
0.034 |
0.013
0.011 |
0.009
0.0031 |
9 0.0026
0.0024 |
0.0022
0.0010 |
0.00015
HUMAN TQXICITY RESULTING FROM
PLANT CONSUMPTION (1-9)
Pollutant
Index Value
PCB
Hexachlorobenzene
Chlordane
Benzo ( a ) pyrene
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Toxaphene
Cadmium
DDT/DDD/DDE
Heptachlor
Zinc
Nickeel
Lead
Selenium
Arsenic
Iron
Mercury
Fluoride
Copper
Molybdenum
Chromium
Pentachlorophenol
15000
4300
3100
3000
2200
1300
96
70
39
17
125
8.5
6.8
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.0
0.55 |
0.45
0.083|
0.026
| = those pollutants which would
not present a hazard under
I worst case conditions
45
-------
TABLE 6 (CCNT): RANKING OF POLLUTANTS FOR LAND APPLICATION BASED ON
HAZARD INDICES USING ASSUMED WORST CASE PARAMETERS
HUMAN TQXICITY RESULTING FROM
HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM
ANIMAL PRODUCTS c
Pollutant
PCB
Toxaphene
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT/DDD/DDE
Heptachlor
Selenium
Zinc
Cadmium
Mercury
Fluoride
Iron
Copper
Arsenic
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Chromium
Ml-10)
Index Value
65000
1400
1100
1000
182
170
31
16
4.1
3.0
3.0
0.62
0.50
0.48
0.29
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.00058
ANIMAL PRODUCTS D(I-11)
Pollutant
PCB
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Toxaphene
Hexachlorobenzene
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Lindane
DDT/DDD/DDE
Hexachlorobutadiene
Mercury
Cadmium
| Copper
Zinc
| Fluoride
Selenium
| Arsenic
Lead
| Nickel
Molybdenum
| Chromium
Value
34000
10000
1900
820
550
420
170
150
130
13
2.7
0.91
0.89
0.67
0.45
0.27
0.20
0.12
0.093
0.0005
a = Index 10 is for animal products derived from animals feeding on plants
b = Index 11 is for animal products derived from animals incidentally ingesting
sludge-amended soil
= those pollutants which would not
present a hazard under worst
case conditions
46
-------
TABLE 6 (CONT) t RANKING OF POLLUTANTS FOR LAND APPLICATION BASED ON
HAZARD INDICES USING ASSUMED WORST CASE PARAMETERS
HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM
SOIL INGESTICN (1-12)
INDEX OF HUMAN AGGREGATE
Pollutant
TOXICTTY (1-13)
Index Value
Pollutant
Index Value
Arsenic
Aldrin/Dieldrin
PCB
Benzo(a)pyrene
Lindane
Toxaphene
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Lead
Iron
Mercury
Cadmium
Fluoride
Zinc
Nickel
Copper
Selenium
Molybdenum
Chromium
Pentachlorop_henol
9500
900
190
150
150
55
34
24
9.3
8.9
7.7
5.0
2.4
1.6
0.68
0.36
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.090
0.017
0.0019
PCB
Aldrin
Hexachlorobenzene
Toxaphene
Chlordane
Heptachlor
DDT/PDD/DDE
Cadmium
Selenium
Mercury
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Iron
Copper
Fluoride
110000
12000
6200
4500
3900
450
360
100
23
22
22
16
12
5.4
1.6
1.0
|Molybdenum
= those pollutants which would
not present a hazard under
worst case conditions
47
-------
plants grown on sludge-amended soils, nineteen compounds have
hazard indices less than 1 and thus will not be considered further
in this analysis. Analysis of Index 8 which evaluates animal
toxicity from incidental sludge ingestion shows that all compounds,
except copper and iron, have index values less than 1. Human
toxicity resulting from consuming plants grown on sludge-amended
soils was evaluated by Index 9. The Step 1 ranking shows that
four compounds (copper, molybdenum, chromium and pentachlorophenol)
have index values less than 1 and thus will not be considered
further in this analysis for that pathway.
For Indices 10-13 which are all human health related, the
ranking was conducted using the highest index value related to
the worst case scenario. Thus if the hazard value associated
with pollutant x for Index 10 was higher for adults than toddlers
such a value was used. If for pollutant y, the toddler value was
higher than the adult value then the toddler value was used. The
rationale for this is that the screening must account for the
absolute worst values with respect to age differences in order to
definitively eliminate pollutants from further consideration;
thus by "lumping" the adult and toddler values and choosing the
highest, this is accomplished.
For Index 10, which evaluates human toxicity resulting from
consuming animal products derived from animals feeding on plants,
eight compounds (fluoride, iron, copper, arsenic, lead, molybdenum,
nickel and chromium) have index values less than 1 and thus will
not be considered further for this pathway- For Index 11, which
evaluates human toxicity resulting from consuming animal products
from animals incidentally ingesting sludge-amended soils, or
sludge adhering to forage, nine compounds have index values less
than 1. For Index 12, which evaluates human toxicity from soil
ingestion, eight compounds had index values less than 1 and for
Index 13 which aggregates the human toxicity indices, only 1
compound has a value less than 1. All compounds with values
equal to or greater than 1 underwent a Step 2 incremental analysis
for the appropriate environmental pathway. All other chemicals
having index values of less than 1 were not considered further in
this analysis and will not be considered in subsequent risk
assessments for that pathway.
- Step 1: Landfilling
Table 7 shows that for Index 2, which evaluates human toxicity/
cancer risk resulting from groundwater contamination, seven
compounds have hazard index values less than 1 indicating no
potential toxicity problem for noncarcinogens or for carcinogens
a risk less than the 10~6 level. The seven compounds (cadmium,
selenium, molybdenum, chromium, phenol, malathion, and 2,4-dichloro-
phenoxyacetic acid) therefore will not be considered further in
this analysis and in subsequent risk assessments performed during
48
-------
TABLE 7: RANKING OF POLLUTANTS FOR LANDFILLING BASED CN HAZARD INDICES USING ASSUMED WDRST CASE PARAMETERS
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF
ORGANICS (1-1)
Pollutant
Cyanide
Bis (2 ethyl hexyl
phthalate
PCS
Phenanthrene
Methylene
Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Chlordane
Toxaphene
2,4 D
Benzene
Dimethyl
Nitrosamine
Benzo(a)pyrene
DDT/DDD/DDE
Malathion
Lindane
*
Index Value
16,000
2,700
130
120
110
100
69
62
41.4
38
14.8
11
5.4
3.6
1.3
INORGANICS
Pollutant
Cobalt
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Cadmium
Mercury
Arsenic
Molybdenum
Selenium
(1-1)
Index Value
8,300
2,700
1,300
830
800
510
340
120
24
4.5
GROUNDWATER C
Pollutant
Arsenic
PCS
Dimethyl
Nitrosamine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Benzene
Lindane
DDT/DDD/DDE
Trichloroethylene
Lead
Copper
Cyanide
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
| Cadmium
Selenium
| Molybdenum
Chromium
| Phenol
Malathion
| 2,4 D
1-2)
Index Value
51,000
17,000
12,000
3,800
3,200
2,100
1,100
260
200
71
56
29
6.4
4.1
3.6
2.3
1.4
0.54
0.37
0.22
0.157
0.14
0.011
0.0098
* = for organics, 1-1 is actual
concentrations in ug/1
= those pollutants which would not present a
hazard under assumed worst case conditions
-------
the regulatory development process for this pathway. Table 7
also shows that the compounds with the highest total index values
(which includes the background hazard) are arsenic, PCBs and
dimethyl nitrosamine. All the compounds, with the exception of
the seven compounds with index values less than one, were incre-
mentally ranked in Step 2.
- Step 1; Incineration
Table 8 shows that for Index 2, which evaluates human
toxicity/cancer risk resulting from the inhalation of incinerator
emissions, six compounds have hazard index values less than 1
indicating no potential toxicity problem for noncarcinogens or
for carcinogens, a risk less than the 10~6 level. The six
compounds (heptachlor, DDT, lindane, zinc, copper and selenium)
therefore will not be considered further in this analysis and in
subsequent risk assessments performed during the regulatory
development process for this pathway. Table 8 also shows that
the compounds with the highest total index values (which includes
the background hazard) are chromium, cadmium and arsenic. All
the compounds, with the exception of the six with index values
less than one, were incrementally ranked in Step 2.
- Step 1; Ocean Dumping
Table 9 shows the ranking for two effects indices: Index 3
which evaluates aquatic life effects and Index 4 which evaluates
human health effects from seafood consumption. For Index 3, ten
compounds have hazard index values less than 1 indicating no
aquatic toxicity hazards. The ten compounds are: endrin,
heptachlor, cadmium, dichlorobenzidine, lindane, pentachlorophenol,
phenanthrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzidine, and benzo(a)pyrene-
These compounds will not be considered further in this analysis
and in subsequent risk assessments conducted during the regulatory
development process for this pathway. All the remaining compounds
were incrementally ranked by Step 2. For Index 4, which evaluates
human health effects from seafood consumption, seven compounds
have hazard index values less than 1 and will not be considered
further in this analysis. The seven compounds are: cadmium,
mercury, dichlorobenzidine, bis(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate, endrin,
trichlorophenol, and pentachlorophenol. The highest index values
for this pathway were for aldrin/dieldrin, PCBs and benzo(a)pyrene.
All compounds, with the exception of the seven with values less
than 1, underwent Step 2 incremental ranking.
- STEP 1; Summary
Table 10 summarizes the results from the Step 1 analysis by
deliniating for each environmental pathway, which compounds are
not of concern and thus were not included in the Step 2 analysis.
These compounds will not be considered in future risk assessments
for that specific environmental pathway. Thus Step 1 screened
out many pollutants for each specific environmental pathway.
50
-------
TABLE 8: RANKING OF POLLUTANTS FOR INCINERATION BASED ON HAZARD INDICES USING ASSUMED WORST CASE PARAMETERS
AIR CONCENTRATION INCREMENT (1-1)
Pollutant Index Value
HUMAN INHALATION (1-2)
Pollutant Index Value
Phenanthrene
Cadmium
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Zinc
Arsenic
Chromium
Lindane
Benzo(a)pyrene
Aldrin/Dieldrin
PCB
Mercury
Nickel
Benzo(a)anthracene
Lead
Selenium
Beryllium
Heptachlor
Copper
DDT/DDE/DDD
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
3020
520
300
120
81
62
46
41
40
35
34
29
27
21
19
16
7.2
2
6.3
4.6
2.
7
.7
1.1
1
1
1
1
1
Chromium
Cadmium
Arsenic
PCB
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Chloroform
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Nickel
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Lead
Mercury
Methylene Chloride
Beryllium
4800
3500
1600
260
230
110
99
64
61
49.6
31
22
22
16
8.5
3.4
1.5
1.4
1.3
| Heptachlor
DDT/DDE/DDD
| Lindane
Zinc
| Copper
Selenium
0.91
0.89
0.76
0.24
0.21
0.0019
= those pollutants which would not present a
hazard under assumed worst case conditions
-------
TABLE 9: RANKING OF POLLUTANTS FOR OCEAN DUMPING BASED ON HAZARD INDICES USING ASSUMED WDRST CASE PARAMETERS
INITIAL MIXING SEAWATER
CONCENTRATION (1-1)
ORGANICS (ug/1)
Pollutant
Index Value
24 HOUR CYCLE CONCENTRATION (1-2)
ORGANICS (ug/1)
Pollutant
Index Value
AOUATIC LIFE EFFECTS (1-3)
Pollutant
Index Value
HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS (1-41
Pollutant
Index Value
Bis(2 ethyl
hexyl)
phthalate 7.8
Pentachloro-
phenol 0.52
Pnenanthrene 0.35
Benzidine 0.22
Chlordane 0.20
Toxaphene 0.18
Benzo(a)
anthracene 0.082
^Trichlorcphenol 0.078
r-oDichlorobenzidine 0.039
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.033
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.014
Lindane 0.0037
Endrin 0.0029
Heptachlor 0.0015
Bis(2 ethyl hexyl)-
phthalate 4.4
Pentachlorophenol 0.29
PCB 0.22
Penanthrene 0.20
Benzidine 0.12
Chlordane 0.11
Toxaphene 0.10
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.046
Trichlorophenol 0.044
Dichlorobenzidine 0.022
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.018
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.0077
Lindane 0.0021
Endrin 0.0016
Heptachlor 0.00086
Chlordane
DDT/DDD/DDE
PCB
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Mercury
Bis (2 ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Toxaphene
Endrin
Heptachlor
Cadmium
Dichlorobenzidine
Lindane
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Benzo ( a ) anthracene
Benzo(a)p_yrene
29
8.
7.
4.
2.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9
3
1
4
3
5
71 |
24
17 |
078
023
015
0012
00027
000011
Aldrin/Dieldrin
PCB
Benzo(a)pyrene
Lindane
Toxaphene
Chlordane
Benzidine
Heptachlor
DDT/DDD/DDE
| Cadmium
Mercury
Dichlorobenzidine
Bis (2 ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Endrin
| Tr i ch lorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
930
760
200
150
110
64
59
25
23
0.69
0.39
0.27
0.19
0.014
0.003
0.00047
INITIAL MIXING SEAWATER
CONCENTRATION (1-1)
Pollutant
Cadmium
Mercury
Index Value
76
21
24-HOUR CYCLE CONCENTRATION (1-2)
INORGANICS
Pollutant
Cadmium
Mercury
Index Value
43
12
those pollutants which
would not present a
hazard under assumed
worst case conditions
-------
TABLE 10; POLLUTANTS WHICH UNDER WORST CASE CONDITIONS DO NOT PRESENT
A HAZARD FOR A SPECIFIC PATHWAY (SEE TEXT FOR EXPLANATIONT
° LAND APPLICATION
~ Toxicity to Soil Biota (Index 2); Zinc, Lead, Chlordane, Cobalt,
Toxaphene, Pentachlorophenol, Lindane, Heptachlor, Aldrin/Dieldrin,
DDT
~ Toxicity to Soil Biota Predators (Index 3); Copper, Nickel, Cobalt,
Chromium, Pentachlorophenol, Heptachlor, Lindane, DDT
~ Phytotoxicity (Index 4); Fluoride, Arsenic, Cobalt, Molybdenum, Mercury,
Chlordane, Lindane, Toxaphene, Heptachlor, Aldrin/Dieldrin, PCB, DDT
- Animal Ingestion of Plants Grown on Sludge-Amended Soil (Index 7);
see Table 6 "boxed" compounds.
Animal Incidental Ingestion (Index 8): see Table 6 "boxed" compounds.
Human Ingestion of Plants Grown on Sludge-Amended Soil (Index 9); Copper,
Molybdenum, Chromium, Pentachlorophenol
- Human Ingestion of Animals Ingesting Plants Grown on Sludge-Amended
Soil (Index 10); Fluoride, Iron, Copper, Arsenic, Lead, Molybdenum,
Nickel, Chromium
Human Ingestion of Animals Ingesting Sludge-Amended Soil (Index 11);
Copper, Zinc, Fluoride, Selenium, Arsenic, Lead, Nickel, Molybdenum,
Chromium
- Incidental Ingestion (Index 12); Fluoride, Zinc, Nickel, Copper,
Selenium, Molybdenum, Chromium, Pentachlorophenol.
0 LANDFILLING
- Human Consumption of Contaminated Groundwater (Index 2); Cadmium,
Selenium, Molybdenum, Chromium, Phenol, Malathion, 2,4 D
0 INCINERATION
Human Inhalation of Incinerator Emissions (Index 2); Heptachlor, DDT,
Lindane, Zinc, Copper, Selenium
0 OCEAN DUMPING
Aquatic Life Effects (Index 3); Endrin, Heptachlor, Cadmium, Dichloro-
benzidine, Lindane, Pentachlorophenol, Phenanthrene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzidine, Benzo(a)pyrene
Human Health Effects (Index 4); Cadmium, Mercury, Dichlorobenzidine,
Endrin, Trichlorophenol, Pentachlorophenol, Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)phthalate
53
-------
0 STEP 2 - RESULTS
The compounds which were not eliminated by Step 1 underwent
the Step 2 incremental ranking. As previously mentioned, the
purpose of Step 2 was to evaluate what portion of the total hazard
associated with a pollutant for a particular pathway is attributable
to sludge. In order to make such an evaluation, a discounting of
the background hazard was necessary. Tables 11-14 show the
results of ranking and bracketing the pollutants based on their
incremental value- The incremental value was determined by
subtracting the null or background value, for the worst case
scenario from the total hazard index value for the worst case
scenario. The values recorded in Tables 11-14 are the incremental
values after the discounting was accomplished. The bracketing on
these tables are for purposes of grouping pollutants. The
following describes the results of the Step 2 analysis for each
reuse/disposal option.
- Step 2; Land Application
Table 11 shows the incremental ranking and incremental values
for the ten "effects" indices related to land application. For
Index 2 which evaluates soil biota toxicity only one compound was
incrementally ranked (copper). Index 3 which evaluates toxicity
to predators of soil biota had 4 compounds incrementally ranked,
all found in the 1-100 grouping. All compounds incrementally
ranked for Index 4 were found in the grouping from 1-100 with
cadmium having the highest incremental values of 7.1. For Index
7 which evaluates animal toxicity from plant consumption, all
compounds were found in the 1-100 grouping. Only two compounds
were incrementally ranked for Index 8 - copper with a value of
2.8 and iron with a value of 2.1. For Index 9, six compounds
were found in the >1000 grouping, with PCBs having the highest
value. No compounds were found in the grouping from 100-1000;
however, ten compounds did have incremental values between 1 and
100. For Index 10 and Index 11, pollutants were found in all the
groupings except the grouping of <1. For both these indices, the
highest incremental value was for the same compound - PCB. For
Index 12 which evaluates human toxicity from soil ingestion, the
highest incremental values were for arsenic and PCB. For Index
13, the highest incremental values were for PCB, aldrin/dieldrin,
and hexachlorobenzene.
- Step 2: Landfilling
Table 12 shows the incremental ranking and values for each
of the compounds evaluated in Index 2, the index of human toxicity/
cancer risk resulting from groundwater contamination. As can be
seen, seven compounds have incremental values greater than 1000 and
nine compounds have incremental values between 1 and 100. No
compounds were found in the grouping of 100-1000 or the grouping
of less than 1. The highest incremental values were for arsenic,
PCB and dimethyl nitrosamine. The lowest incremental values were
Eor nickel, mercury, cyanide and copper.
54
-------
- Step 2; Incineration
Table 13 shows the incremental ranking and values evaluated
in index 2, the index of human toxicity/cancer risk resulting
from the inhalation of incineration emissions. As can be seen,
three compounds (chromium, cadmium and arsenic) have incremental
values greater than 1000. PCS was the only compound in the 100-
1000 grouping. Eleven compounds fall into the grouping from 1-
100 whereas four compounds fell into the grouping of less than 1.
For two compounds, methylene chloride and benzene, no incremental
hazard is attributable to sludge.
- Step 2; Ocean Dumping
For ocean dumping, two incremental rankings were performed
and are shown in Table 14. For Index 3, the index of toxicity
to aquatic life, no compounds were found in the groupings of
>1000; 100-1000; and <1. Seven compounds were found to have
incremental values between 1 and 100. For Index 4 which evaluates
human health effects from seafood consumption, no pollutants were
found in the grouping of greater than 1000 and only one compound
(PCB) was found in the grouping from 100-1000. Seven compounds
were found in the grouping of 1-100. Lindane was found to have
no incremental hazard attributable to sludge.
55
-------
TABLE 11; INCREMENTAL RANKING FOR LAND APPLICATION (See Text)
0 For land application, ten effects indices were calculated.
This table contains the incremental ranking for each of the
effects indices.
INDEX 2: SOIL BIOTA TQXICITY
INDEX 3: TQXICITY TO SOIL BIOTA PREDATORS
> 1000
COMPOUND INCREMENTAL VALUE
NO POLLUTANTS
100-1000
NO POLLUTANTS
1-100
Copper
2.1
<1
NO POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
>1000
100-1000
1-100
<1
NO POLLUTANTS
NO POLLUTANTS
Cadmium 81.4
Zinc 21.2
Lead 2.4
Aldrin/Dieldrin 1.5
NO POLLUTANTS
56
-------
TABLE 11 (CONT)t INCREMENTAL RANKING FOR LAND APPLICATION (see Text)
INDEX 4; PHYTOTOXICITY
INDEX 7: ANIMAL TOXICITY FROM PLANT CONSUMPTION
> 1000
100-1000
L-100
<1
COMPOUND INCREMENTAL VALUE
NO POLLUTANTS
NO POLLUTANTS
Cadmium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Chrctnium
Selenium
7.1
4.0
2.75
2.5
2.1
1.4
0.8
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
>1000
100-1000
1-100
<1
NO POLLUTANTS
NO POLLUTANTS
Zinc
Molybdenum
Selenium
Copper
Cadmium
NO POLLUTANTS
4.4
2.3
2.1
1.0
1.0
57
-------
TABLE 11 (CCNT); INCREMENTAL RANKING FOR LAND APPLICATION
INDEX 8: ANIMAL TOXICITY FROM SLUDGE INGESTICN INDEX 9; HUMAN TOXICITY FROM PLANT CONSUMPTION
> 1000
100-1000
1-100
<1
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
NO POLLUTANTS
NO POLLUTANTS
Copper
Iron
2.8
2.1
NO POLLUTANTS
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
>1000
100-1000
1-100
<1
PCB
Hexachlorobenzene
Chlordane
Benzo(a)pyrene
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Toxaphene
NO POLLUTANTS
Cadmium
DDT
Zinc
Heptachlor
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Arsenic
Iron
Mercury
Fluoride
14953
4295
3100
2860
1300
1245
95
51
16.4
15
11.9
8.2
6.6
1.5
1.1
1.0
0.4
58
-------
TABLE 11 (CONT); INCREMENTAL RANKING FOR LAND APPLICATION (see Text)
INDEX 10; HUMAN TOXICITY FROM ANIMAL PRODUCTS9 INDEX 11: HUMAN TOXICITY FROM ANIMAL PRODUCTS13
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
> 1000
PCB 64953
Toxaphene 1345
Hexachlorobenzene 1095
100-1000
Chlordane
DDT
Aldrin/Dieldrin
1-100
Selenium
Heptachlor
Zinc
Mercury
Cadmium
<1
NO POLLUTANTS
180
151
100
15.7
7.0
3.7
2.75
2.5
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
>1000
100-1000
PCB 33947
Aldrin/Dieldrin 9090
Toxaphene 1845
Hexachlorobenzene 814
Chlordane 448
Heptachlor 396
Hexachlorobutadiene 130
DDT 117
1-100
Mercury
Lindane
Cadmium
12.5
10
2.2
<1
NO POLLUTANTS
a = Index 10 is for animal products derived from animals fed on plants.
b = Index 11 is for animal products derived from animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil.
59
-------
TABLE 11 (CONT); INCREMENTAL RANKING FOR LAND APPLICATION (see Text)
INDEX 12: TOXICITY RESULTING FROM SOIL INGESTICN
INDEX 13: INDEX OF HUMAN AGGREGATE TOXICITY
COMPOUND INCREMENTAL VALUE
> 1000
Arsenic
100-1000
PCB
1-100
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Lead
Hexachlorobenzene
DDT
Mercury
Cadmium
Iron
<1
Heptachlor
Lindane
3100
171
40
39
33
21
8.9
7.1
6.5
2.0
1.9
1.4
1.2
0.9
0
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
>1000
100-1000
1-100
PCB
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Hexachlorobenzene
Toxaphene
Chlordane
Heptachlor
DDT
Cadmium
Selenium
Mercury
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Iron
Copper
109937
11090
6200
4445
3900
425
317
100
22.8
21.4
21.4
15.3
11.9
2.2
1.3
<1
Fluoride
0.4
60
-------
TABLE 12; INCREMENTAL RANKING FOR LANDFILLING (See Text)
For landfilling, the only effects index was Index 2: Index of
Human Toxicity/Cancer Risk Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination. This table shows the incremental ranking for
this index.
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
> 1000
Arsenic
PCBs
Dimethyl nitrosamine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
51,000
16,941
11,260
3,650
3,198
2,045
1,100
100-1000
NO POLLUTANTS
1-100
Trichloroethylene
DDT
Benzene
Lindane
Lead
Copper
Cyanide
Mercury
Nickel
56
52
50
40
29
6.4
4.1
3.3
2.2
< 1
NO POLLUTANTS
61
-------
TABLE 13; INCREMENTAL RANKING FOR INCINERATION (See Text)
For incineration, the only effects index is Index 2:
Index of Human Health/Cancer Risk from Inhalation of
Incineration Emissions. This table shows the incremental
ranking for this index.
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
> 1000
Chromium
Cadmium
Arsenic
4,860
3,493
1,564
100-1000
PCB
251
1-100
Aldrin/Dieldrin 62.1
Nickel 58.0
Chlordane 49.2
Toxaphene 30.6
Benzo(a)pyrene 21.4
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate) 15.9
Vinyl Chloride 10.0
Lead 3.2
Beryllium 1.1
Chloroform 1.0
Carbon Tetrachloride 1.0
< 1
Mercury
Tetrachloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Benzene
0.9
0.2
0
0
62
-------
TABLE 14: INCREMENTAL RANKING FOR OCEAN DUMPING (See Text)
0 For ocean dumping, two effects indices were calculated:
Index 3: Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life
Index 4: Index of Human Toxicity/Cancer Risk Resulting from
Seafood Consumption. The following is the incremental ranking
for these two indices.
INDEX 3
INDEX 4
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
> 1000
NO POLLUTANTS
100-1000
NO POLLUTANTS
1-100
Chlordane
DDT
PCB
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Mercury
Toxaphene
<1
NO POLLUTANTS
29
8.9
7.3
4.1
2.3
2.2
1.5
COMPOUND
INCREMENTAL VALUE
>1000
NO POLLUTANTS
100-1000
PCB
713
1-100
Chlordane
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzidine
Toxaphene
Aldrin/Dieldrin
DDT
Heptachlor
62
60
59
45
30
4
1
<1
Lindane
63
-------
C. Use of Results from Two-Tier Screening Approach
As can be seen from the previous sections, the two tier
screening approach accomplishes two objectives: (1) it eliminates
those pollutants which under assumed worst case conditions do not
pose a hazard for a specific pathway and (2) prioritizes the
remaining pollutants based on the incremental hazard attributable
to sludge for that pathway. EPA, in conducting such assessments
on each environmental pathway, will use the outcome of the Step 2
analysis as the basis for establishing priorities for further
analysis and potential regulatory development. Thus pollutants
in the grouping of >1000 for a specific pathway will be examined
first, with subsequent analyses being done on the grouping of 100-
1000, then for the grouping of 1-100 and finally for the grouping
of <1. By using this two tier system, EPA can place its resources
and emphasis on those pollutants which potentially may present a
hazard to human health and the environment. As subsequent more
intensive risk assessments are performed, additional pollutants
may be found to be of no concern. The key to this whole environ-
mental profile effort has been to recognize that the hazard
indices is a screening device which allows EPA to eliminate those
pollutants which would not present a health or environmental
problem and that the two tier screen would provide a prioritization
mechanism for the remaining pollutants.
64
-------
APPENDIX A:
LIST OF OWRS COMMITTEE MEETING
EXPERTS FOR DEVELOPING LIST OF
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
-------
OWRS COMMITTEES ON
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
I. Land Application/Distribution and Marketing - March 27, 28f 1 § 8 4
- Rufus Chaney, U.S.D.A.
Biological Waste Management and Organic Resources Lab
Building 008 Bare-West
Beltsville, Maryland 20705
- Terry Logan, Ohio State University
Agronomy Department
412C Kottman Hall
2021 Coffey Road
Columbus, Ohio 43210
- Dale Baker, Pennsylvania State University
Agronomy Dept.
221 Tyson Bldg.
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
- Dan O'Neill, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
Groundwater Ouality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
- Mike Overcash, North Carolina State University at Raleigh
Chemical Engineering
113 Riddich
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7905
- Norm Kowal, U.S. EPA
Health Effects Research Lab
26 West St. Clair
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
- Greg Diachenko, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Division Chemical Technology (HFF-424)
200 C St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20204
A-l
-------
OWRS COMMITTEES ON
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
II. Landfill - April 10,11, 1984
- Chuck Sorber, University of Texas at Austin
College of Engineering
Office of the Dean
Austin, Texas 78712-1080
- Wallace Fuller, University of Arizona
Dept. of Soils, Water and Engineering
Tuscon, Arizona 85721
- Kirk Brown, Texas ASM
Soil and Crop Sciences
College Station, Texas 77843
- Jim Ryan, U.S. EPA
Municipal Environmental Research Lab
26 West St. Clair
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
- Dirk Brunner
B.C. Jordan Company
P.O. Box 7050
Portland, Maine 04112
A-2
-------
OWRS COMMITTEES ON
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
III. Incineration - May 8,9, 1984
- Walter Niessen, Camp Dresser and McKee
Boston, Massachusetts
- P. Aarne Vesilind
Department of Civil Engineering
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina 27706
- Joe Farrell, U.S. EPA
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
26 West St. Clair
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
- Jim Smith, U.S. EPA
MERL Information Transfer
26 West St. Clair
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
- Bob Dykes
Radian Corporation
Progress Center
3200 East Chapel Hill Rd.
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
- Tim Opelt, U.S. EPA
Industrial Environmental Research Lab
26 West St. Clair
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
A-3
-------
OURS COMMITTEES ON
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
IV. Ocean Dumping - May 22, 23 , lyfc4
- Tudor Davies, U.S. EPA
Office of Water - Headquarters
- Jack Gentile, U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Lab
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
- Thomas O'Conner, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Admin.
National Marine Pollution Program Office
N/OMS 32
Rockwall Bldg. Rm. 652
Rockville, MD 20852
- Mike Conner, U.S. EPA
Region I
John F. Kennedy Bldg.
Planning and Standards
Boston,~MA 02203
- Peter Anderson, U.S. EPA
Region II, 26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
- David Young
Dames and Moore
445 South Figueroa Street
Suite 3500
Los Angeles, California 90071
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B:
LIST OF POLLUTANTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROFILE DEVELOPMENT
-------
CHEMICALS FOR SLUDGE ENVIR3NMENTAL PROFILE DEVELOPMENT
Landspreading/ ^
Distribution
Compound and Ocean
Name Marketing LandfUUng Inclnceratlon Disposal
Fluoride
Iron
Molybdenum
Selenium
Arsenic
Copper
Lead
Cadmlun
Beryl HUM
Nickel
Zinc
Cobalt
Mercury
Cyanide
Chronlum
A!dr1n/D1eldr1n
•
•
•
HepUchlor • » •
Chloroform »
Carbon Tetrachlortde •
Tetrachloroethylene t
Vinyl Chloride •
2.4,6-Trlchlorophenol •
Pentachlorophenol • t
3,3'-d1chlorobentld1ne
Htxtchlorobeniene
Htxtchlorobutadlene
8tn/o(a)anthracene
Tttrtchloro-dlbenio-dloxlns
Tttrachloro-dlbtnio-furans
Nithyleneblt (2-chloro-antllne)
Trlcrtiyl Phoiphatt
Endrln
Chlordan*
Ma lath Ion
2,4>01ch1oropheno(yacetlc Acid
Toiaphene
Ltndint
Polychlorlnated Blphenyli
M«thyl*flt Chloride
OOT/DOE/000
Tr1chloro4thyltne
Btnztn*
Methyl Ethyl Ketont
OlMthyl Nltroianlne
Phenol
Ilt(2-*thy1heiyl) phthai ate
8enio(a)pyrene
Phcninthrcne
B-l
-------
APPENDIX C:
SAMPLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILE
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Lindane
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to: (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
C-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling 2-2
Incineration • 2-2
Ocean Disposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of lindane (Index 1) 3-1
Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) 3-2
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration (Indices 4-6) 3-5
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-7
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-10
Landf illing 3-17
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-17
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
groundwater contamination (Index 2) 3-24
Incineration 3-25
Index of air concentration increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3-25
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
inhalation of incinerator emissions (Index 2) 3-29
Ocean Disposal 3-30
Index of seawater concentration resulting from
initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3-31
Index of seawater concentration representing a
24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 3-34
C-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Index of toxicity to aquatic life (Index 3) 3-35
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
seafood consumption (Index 4) 3-37
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-3
Food 4-4
Human Effects 4-6
Ingestion 4-6
Inhalation 4-7
Plant Effects 4-7
Phytotoxicity 4-7
Uptake 4-8
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-8
Toxicity 4-8
Uptake 4-8
Aquatic Life Effects 4-8
Toxicity 4-8
Uptake 4-9
Soil Biota Effects 4-9
Toxicity 4-9
Uptake 4-9
Physicdchemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-10
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
C-3
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This preliminary data profile is one of a series of profiles
dealing with chemical pollutants potentially of concern in municipal
sewage sludges. Lindane was initially identified as being of potential
concern when sludge is landspread (including distribution and market-
ing), placed in a landfill, incinerated or ocean disposed.* This pro-
file is a compilation of information that may be useful in determining
whether lindane poses an actual hazard to human health or the
environment when sludge is disposed of by these methods.
The focus of this document is the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge ->• soil •* plant uptake •*• animal uptake •> human toxicity).
The values and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to
represent a reasonable "worst case"; analysis of error or uncertainty
has been conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most
cases is indexed to unity; i.e., values >1 may indicate a potential
hazard, depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on information presented in the "preliminary data profile",
Section 4. Information in the profile is based on a compilation of the
recent literature. An attempt has been made to fill out the profile
outline to the greatest extent possible. However, since this is a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has not been exhaustively perused.
The "preliminary conclusions" drawn from each index in Section 3
are summarized in Section 2. The preliminary hazard indices will be
used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants and pathways may
pose a hazard. Where a potential hazard is indicated by interpretation
of these indices, further analysis will include a more detailed exami-
nation of potential risks as well as an examination of site-specific
factors. These more rigorous evaluations may change the preliminary
conclusions presented in Section 2, which are based on a reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
The preliminary hazard indices for selected exposure routes
pertinent to landspreading and distribution and marketing, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal practices are included in this profile.
The calculation formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix.
The indices are rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
C-4
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of "preliminary hazard indices", which represent conserva-
tive or "worst case" analyses of hazard. The indices and their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Lindane
No increase in the concentration of lindane in sludge-amended
soil is expected to occur from ap uication rates of 5 to
50 mt/ha. A slight increase in lindane concentration in soil
is expected to occur when sludge is applied at a cumulative
rate of 500 mt/ha (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
Landspreading of sludge is not expected to pose a toxic hazard
due to lindane for soil biota which inhabit sludge-amended
soil (see Index 2). Accordingly, the landspreading of
municipal sewage sludge is not expected to pose a toxic hazard
to predators of soil biota due to lindane contamination (see
Index 3).
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Landspreading of sludge is not expected to result in soil
concentrations of lindane which pose a phytotoxic hazard (see
Index A). The tissue concentrations of lindane in plants
grown in sludge-amended soil, and the phytotoxic tissue
concentrations of lindane for the same plants could not be
determined due to lack of data (see Indices 5 and 6).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
The effects of lindane on herbivorous animals consuming plants
grown in sludge-amended soil could not be determined due to
lack of data (see Index 7). However, the incidental ingestion
of sludge-amended soil by herbivorous animals is not expected
to result in a toxic hazard due to lindane (see Index 8).
E. Effect on Humans
The potential cancer risk due to lindane for humans who
consume plants grown in sludge-amended soil or who consume
animal products derived from animals that grazed on plants
grown in sludge-amended soils could not be evaluated due to
lack of data (see Indices 9 and 10). The landspreading of
C-5
-------
sludge containing a high concentration of lindane is expected
to slightly increase the cancer risk due to lindane for humans
who consume animal products derived from animals ingesting
sludge-amended soils (see Index 11). The consumption of
sludge-amended soils that have received application rates of 5
to 50 mt/ha by toddlers or adults is not expected to increase
the risk of human cancer due to lindane above the pre-existing
risk attributable to other dietary sources of lindane. There
may be an increased risk when soils amended with sludge at a
cumulative rate of 500 mt/ha are ingested (see Index 12). The
aggregate human cancer risk due to lindane associated with the
landspreading of municipal sewage sludge could not be
determined due to a lack of data (see Index 13).
II. LANDPILLING
The landfilling disposal of municipal sewage sludge is generally
expected to result in slight increases in lindane concentrations in
groundwater. However, when the composite worst-case scenario is
evaluated, a moderate increase in concentration is anticipated (see
Index 1). Accordingly, the landfilling of sludge should not
increase the risk of cancer due to the ingestion of lindane above
that normally associated with consuming groundwater. But when the
worst-case scenario is evaluated, a moderate increase in cancer
risk can be expected when contaminated groundwater is ingested (see
Index 2).
III. INCINERATION
The incineration of municipal sewage sludge at typical sludge feed
rates may moderately increase lindane concentrations in air. At
high rates, the resulting concentration may be substantially higher
than typical urban levels (see Index 1). Inhalation of emissions
from incineration of sludge may slightly increase the human cancer
risk due to lindane, above the risk posed by background urban air
concentrations of lindane (see Index 2).
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Only slight increases of lindane are expected to occur at the
disposal site after sludge dumping and initial mixing (see Index
1). Only slight increases in lindane concentrations are apparent
after a 24-hour dumping cycle (see Index 2). Only slight to
moderate incremental increases in hazard to aquatic life were
determined. No toxic conditions occur via any of the scenarios
evaluated (see Index 3). No increase of risk to human health from
consumption of seafood is expected to occur due to the ocean
disposal of sludge (see Index 4).
C-6
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR LINDANE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Lindane
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Explanation - Calculates concentrations in Ug/g DW
of pollutant in sludge-amended soil. Calculated for
sludges with typical (median, if available) and
worst (95 percentile, if available) pollutant
concentrations, respectively, for each of four
applications. Loadings (as dry matter) are chosen
and explained as follows:
0 mt/ha No sludge applied. Shown for all indices
for purposes of comparison, to distin-
guish hazard posed by sludge from pre-
existing hazard posed by background
levels or other sources of the pollutant.
5 mt/ha Sustainable yearly agronomic application;
i.e., loading typical of agricultural
practice, supplying S5Q kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
50 mt/ha Higher single application as may be used
on public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens.
500 mt/ha Cumulative loading after 100 years of
application at 5 mt/ha/year.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is
incorporated into the upper 15 cm of soil (i.e., the
plow layer), which has an approximate mass (dry
matter) of 2 x 10-* mt/ha and is then dissipated
through first order processes which can be expressed
as a soil half-life.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 Ug/g DW
Worst 0.22 Ug/g DW
In a study of lindane in the municipal sludge
of 74 cities in Missouri (Clevenger et al.,
C-7
-------
1983) the mean concentration was 0.11 ug/g DW
and the maximum concentration was 0.22 Ug/g DW.
These values were used for the typical and
worst concentrations of pollutant in sludge
since they were the only data immediately
available. (See Section 4, p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.13 Ug/g DW
This concentration was derived by taking the
mean value of the most recent soil data avail-
able (Matsumura, 1972a). Although significant
commercial use of purified lindane continues
(U.S. EPA, 1980), this was the most current in-
formation for generating a background concen-
tration value. (See Section 4, p. 4-2.)
iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (tp =1.04 years
A soil half-life of 378 days is reported for
sandy loam soils and 56 days in clay loam (U.S.
EPA, 1984a). The value for sandy loam soils
was used because it represents the worst case,
namely, longer persistence. (See Section 4,
p. 4-10.)
d. Index 1 Values (yg/g DW)
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.27
0.27
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in sludge-amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - No increase in the concen-
tration of lindane in sludge-amended soil is
expected to occur from application rates of 5 to
50 mt/ha. A slight increase in lindane concentra-
tion in soil is expected to occur when sludge is
applied at a cumulative rate of 500 mt/ha.
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with soil concentration shown to
be toxic for some soil organism.
C-8
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) =
>100 yg/g DW
There is limited data on soil concentrations
toxic to soil biota. (See Section 4, p.
4-15.) A range of 12.5 to 100 Mg/g was given
for experimental soil concentrations for
bacteria/fungi (Eno and Everett, 1958). The
high value of 100 yg/g was selected so as to
represent a conservative worst case. The
"greater than" symbol is used to indicate that
this concentration did not actually generate
toxic effects, although a 35% reduction of
fungi did occur.
d. Index 2 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical <0.0013 <0.0013 <0.0013 <0.0027
Worst <0.0013 <0.0013 <0.0013 <0.0027
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to pose a toxic hazard due to lindane
for soil biota which inhabit sludge-amended soil.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
toxic to a predator on soil organisms.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
bioconcentrated by soil biota is equivalent in
C-9
-------
toxicity to form used to demonstrate toxic effects
in predator. Effect level in predator may be
estimated from that in a different species.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota (UB) =
1.05 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DWT1
The only available uptake factor of lindane in
soil biota is for the earthworm (Yadav et al.,
1976). A range of 0.45 to 1.05 was given, and
the high value of 1.05 was used so as to repre-
sent a conservative worst case. (See
Section 4, p. 4-16.)
iii. Peed concentration toxic to predator (TR) =
50 ug/g DW
No data are available for a typical earthworm
predator (e.g., a bird) so the value of 50 Ug/g
in rats was used. This concentration repre-
sents the lowest level that produced a toxic
effect: hypertrophy of the liver. (See
Section 4, p. 4-13.)
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0056
Worst 0.0027 0.0027 0.0028 0.0056
e. Value Interpretation - Values equals factor by which
expected concentration in soil biota exceeds that
which is toxic to predator. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for predators of soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The landspreading of muni-
cipal sewage sludge is not expected to pose a toxic
hazard to predators of soil biota due to lindane
contamination.
C-10
-------
Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with the lowest soil concentra-
tion shown to be toxic for some plants.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
12.5 pg/g DW
This value represents the lowest soil concen-
tration toxic to plant tops when lindane was
applied. At a 12.5 yg/g DW concentration, a
27% reduction in root weight was observed for
stringless black valentine beans (Eno and
Everett, 1958). BHC values were not considered
since they represent data for a blend of the
isomeric forms of hexachlorocyclohexane and not
just the gamma isomer, lindane. (See Sec-
tion 4, p. 4-11.)
d. Index 4 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.021
0.021
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to result in soil concentrations of
lindane which pose a phytotoxic hazard.
C-ll
-------
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue concentra-
tions, in Ug/g DW, in plants grown in sludge-amended
soil, using uptake data for the most responsive
plant species in the following categories:
(1) plants included in the U.S. human diet; and
(2) plants serving as animal feed. Plants used vary
according to availability of data.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes an uptake factor
that is constant over all soil concentrations. The
uptake factor chosen for the human diet is assumed
to be representative of all crops (except fruits) in
the human diet. The uptake factor chosen for the
animal diet is assumed to be representative of all
crops in the animal diet. See also Index 6 for
consideration of phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
- Data not immediately available.
The uptake factor of the pollutant in plant
tissue is derived by comparing the plant tissue
concentration with the soil concentration. Due
to the lack of tissue concentrations in the
available literature (see Section 4, pp. 4-11
to 4-12), a UP value could not be determined.
d. Index 5 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in tissues of plants grown in sludge-
amended soil. However, any value exceeding the
value of Index 6 for the same or a similar plant
species may be unrealistically high because it would
be precluded by phytotoxicity.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
C-12
-------
3. Index of Plant Concentration Permitted by Phytotoxicity
(Index 6)
a. Explanation - The index value is the maximum tissue
concentration, in Ug/g DW, associated with
phytotoxicity in the same or similar plant species
used in Index 5. The purpose is to determine
whether the plant tissue concentrations determined
in Index 5 for high applications are realistic, or
whether such concentrations would be precluded by
phytotoxicity. The maximum concentration should be
the highest at which some plant growth still occurs
(and thus consumption of tissue by animals is
possible) but above which consumption by animals is
unlikely.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue
concentration will be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with phytotoxicity (PP) - Data not immediately
available.
The tissue concentrations associated with plant
phytotoxicity in Table 4-1, pp. 4-11 to 4-12,
were not reported. Because of this lack of
data, a PP value could not be selected.
d. Index 6 Values - Values were not reported due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum
plant tissue concentration which is permitted by
phytotoxicity. Value is compared with values for
the same or similar plant species given by Index 5.
The lowest of the two indices indicates the maximal
increase that can occur at any given application
rate.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in plant tissues grown in sludge-amended
soil with feed concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not
C-13
-------
consider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
taken up by plants is equivalent in toxicity to form
used to demonstrate toxic effects in animal. Uptake
or toxicity in specific plants or animals may be
estimated from other species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 50 yg/g DW
Data are reported for an inadvertent poisoning
of cows with benzene hexachloride (BHC) which
contained 19.1% lindane (McParLand et al. ,
1973). This information was not used because
it cannot be determined what part lindane or
the other 80.9% hexachlorocyclohexane isomers
played in causing the deaths of the animals.
The only available chronic data for lindane
pertain to rats, which exhibited no effects at
25 Mg/g but showed liver hypertrophy after 50
Mg/g lindane was consumed in the diet
for 2 years (NRC, 1982). (See Section 4, p.
4-13.) This value will be assumed to apply to
all herbivorous species.
d. Index 7 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected plant tissue concentration exceeds that
which is toxic to animals. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
a grazing animal's diet resulting from sludge
adhesion to forage or from incidental ingestion of
sludge-amended soil and compares this with the
dietary toxic thi ishold concentration for a grazing
animal.
c-14
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that sludge is
applied over and adheres to growing forage, or that
sludge constitutes 5 percent of dry matter in the
grazing animal's diet, and that pollutant form in
sludge is equally bioavailable and toxic as form
used to demonstrate toxic effects. Where no sludge
is applied (i.e., 0 mt/ha), assumes diet is 5 per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 ug/g DW
Worst 0.22 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5%
Studies of sludge adhesion to growing forage
following applications of liquid or filter-cake
sludge show that when 3 to 6 mt/ha of sludge
solids is applied, clipped forage initially
consists of up to 30 percent sludge on a dry-
weight basis (Chaney and Lloyd, 1979; Boswell,
1975). However, this contamination diminishes
gradually with time and growth, and generally
is not detected in the following year's growth.
For example, where pastures amended at 16 and
32 mt/ha were grazed throughout a growing sea-
son (168 days), average sludge content of for-
age was only 2.14 and 4.75 percent,
respectively (Bertrand et al., 1981). It seems
reasonable to assume that animals may receive
long-term dietary exposure to 5 percent sludge
if maintained on a forage to which sludge is
regularly applied. This estimate of 5 percent
sludge is used regardless of application rate,
since the above studies did not show a clear
relationship between application rate and ini-
tial contamination, and since adhesion is not
cumulative yearly because of die-back.
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep during winter
months when forage is reduced (Thornton and
Abrams, 1983). If the soil were sludge-
amended, it is conceivable that up to 5 percent
sludge may be ingested in this manner as well.
Therefore, this value accounts for either of
C-15
-------
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
iii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 50 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-8.
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.0 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011
Worst 0.0 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected dietary concentration exceeds toxic concen-
tration. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may
exist for grazing animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The incidental ingestion of
sludge-amended soil by herbivorous animals is not
expected to result in a toxic hazard due to lindane.
Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant
Consumption (Index 9)
a. Explanation - Calculates dietary intake expected to
result from consumption of crops grown on sludge-
amended soil. Compares dietary intake with the
cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the pollutant.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all crops are
grown on sludge-amended soil and that all those con-
sidered to be affected take up the pollutant at the
same rate. Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories: toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
C-16
-------
ii. Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (DT)
Toddler 74.5 g/day
Adult 205 g/day
The intake value for adults is based on daily
intake of crop foods (excluding fruit) by vege-
tarians (Ryan et al., 1982); vegetarians were
chosen to represent the worst case. The value
for toddlers is based on the FDA Revised Total
Diet (Pennington, 1983) and food groupings
listed by the U.S. EPA (1984b). Dry weights
for individual food groups were estimated from
composition data given by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) (1975). These values
were composited to estimate dry-weight
consumption of all non-fruit crops.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 2.71
Adult 8.21 ug/day
The DI value for lindane was determined by cal-
culating the daily pollutant intake through
food consumption and adding it to the daily
intake of pollutant through ingestion of water-
Assumptions made are that the average adult
weighs 70 kg, that the average adult consumes
2.0 L of water daily, and that a toddler
consumes 33% of an adult intake per day.
The average total relative daily intake of lin-
dane from food over a four-year period from
1975 to 1978 was 0.0030 yg/kg body weight/day
(Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1979).
When this value is multiplied by the average
adult weight of 70 kg, the daily intake of
lindane due to food is 0.21 Ug/day.
A data point of 4.0 Mg/L was available for
drinking water in Streator, Illinois (U.S. EPA,
1980). (See Section 4, p. 4-3.) By multi-
plying the value of 4.0 Ug/L by the consumption
rate of 2.0 L of water/day, the daily intake of
lindane due to water consumption equals
8.0 ug/day.
By adding together the dietary intake and water
intake value, the total daily human dietary
intake of lindane during the period 1975 to
1978 is estimated at 8.21 Ug/day for an adult.
C-17
-------
It is assumed that a toddler consumes 33% of
this value or 2.71 Ug/day.
iv. Cancer potency = 1.33 (mg/kg/day) ~~1
Because of a lack of human data, the value of
1.33 (mg/kg/day)~l was derived from a study of
mice in which oral doses of lindane resulted in
liver tumors (U.S. EPA, 1980). (See Section 4,
p. 4-6.)
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.053 yg/day
The RSI is the pollutant intake value which
results in an increase in cancer risk of 10~"
(1 per 1,000,000). The RSI is calculated from
the cancer potency using the following formula:
_ 1Q~6 x 70 kg x 103 yg/mg
Kb 1 — _
Cancer potency
d. Index 9 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value >1 indicates a poten-
tial increase in cancer risk of >10~° (1 per
1,000,000). Comparison with the null index value at
0 mt/ha indicates the degree to which any hazard is
due to sludge application, as opposed to pre-
existing dietary sources.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from pollutant uptake by domestic
animals given feed grown on sludge-amended soil
(crop or pasture land) but not directly contaminated
by adhering sludge. Compares expected intake with
RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals receiving all their feed
from sludge-amended soil. Assumes that all animal
products consumed take up the pollutant at the
highest rate observed for muscle of any commonly
consumed species or at the rate observed for beef
liver or dairy products (whichever is higher).
Divides possible variations in dietary intake into
C-18
-------
two categories: toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) = 0.65 yg/g tissue DW (yg/g feed DW)"1
Uptake factors for lindane in beef fat varied
from 0.35 to 0.65 yg/g tissue (yg/g diet)"* for
feed concentrations of 10 and 100 yg/g
(Claborn, 1960, cited in Kenaga, 1980). As a
conservative approach, the higher value is used
to represent the uptake factor for lindane in
all animal fats in the human diet. (See
Section 4, p. 4-14.) The uptake factor of
pollutant in animal tissue (UA) used is assumed
to apply to all animal fats.
iii. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 43.7 g/day
Adult 88.5 g/day
The fat intake values presented, which comprise
meat, fish, poultry, eggs and milk products,
are derived from the FDA Revised Total Diet
(Pennington, 1983), food groupings listed by
the U.S. EPA (1984b) and food composition data
given by USDA (1975). Adult intake of meats is
based on males 25 to 30 years of age and that
for milk products on males 14 to 16 years of
age, the age-sex groups with the highest daily
intake. Toddler intake of milk products is
actually based on infants, since infant milk
consumption is the highest among that age group
(Pennington, 1983).
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 2.71 yg/day
Adult 8.21 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
C-19
-------
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.053 JJg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
d. Index 10 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal
products derived from grazing animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil. Compares expected
intake with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals grazing sludge-amended
soil, and that all animal products consumed take up
the pollutant at the highest rate observed for
muscle of any commonly consumed species or at the
rate observed for beef liver or dairy products
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over 3 years
old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue = Beef fat
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 yg/g DW
Worst 0.22 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.13 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
C-20
-------
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5%
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
v. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) = 0.65 yg/g tissue DW (yg/g feed DW)"1
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 39.4 g/day
Adult 82.4 g/day
The affected tissue intake value is assumed to
be from the fat component of meat only (beef,
pork, lamb, veal) and milk products
(Pennington, 1983). This is a slightly more
limited choice than for Index 10. Adult intake
of meats is based on males 25 to 30 years of
age and the intake for milk products on males
14 to 16 years of age, the age-sex groups with
the highest daily intake. Toddler intake of
milk products is actually based on infants,
since infant milk consumption is the highest
among that age group (Pennington, 1983).
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 2.71 Ug/day
Adult 8.21 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
viii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.053 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
Index 11 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
54
54
54
56
54
56
54
56
Adult Typical 160 160 160 160
Worst 160 170 170 170
C-21
-------
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The landspreading of sludge
containing a high concentration of lindane is
expected to slightly increase the cancer risk due to
lindane for humans who consume animal products
derived from animals ingesting sludge-amended soils.
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
the diet of a child who ingests soil (pica child)
amended with sludge. Compares this amount with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the pica
child consumes an average of 5 g/day of sludge-
amended soil. If the RSI specific for a child is
not available, this index assumes the RSI for a
10 kg child is the same as that for a 70 kg adult.
It is thus assumed that uncertainty factors used in
deriving the RSI provide protection for the child,
taking into account the smaller body size and any
other differences in sensitivity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Assumed amount of soil in human diet (DS)
Pica child 5 g/day
Adult 0.02 g/day
The value of 5 g/day for a pica child is a
worst-case estimate employed by U.S. EPA's
Exposure Assessment Group (U.S. EPA, 1983a).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA, 1984b.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 2.71 ug/day
Adult 8.21 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI)
0.053 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
C-22
-------
d. Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
63
63
150
150
5
63
63
150
150
50
63
64
150
150
50
76
76
160
160
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The consumption of sludge-
amended soils that have received application rates
of 5 to 50 mt/ha by toddlers or adults is not
expected to increase the risk of human cancer due to
lindane above the pre-existing risk attributable to
other dietary sources of lindane. There may be an
increase of cancer risk for both toddler and adults
when soils amended with sludge at a cumulative rate
of 500 mt/ha are ingested.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
c. Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
d. Index 13 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
II. LANDFILLING
A. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting from Landfilled
Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates groundwater contamination which
could occur in a potable aquifer in the landfill vicin-
ity. Uses U.S. EPA's Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
C-23
-------
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
1983b). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transport and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port parameters include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
linear, equilibrium partition coefficient representing
the ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant concentra-
tions. This partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
density and volumetric water content, are used to calcu-
late the retardation factor- A computer program (in
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of the
analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant con-
centration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computations
and parameter estimates are required for each zone. The
prediction requires evaluations of four dimensionless
input values and subsequent evaluation of the result,
through use of the computer program.
Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively assumes that the
pollutant is 100 percent mobilized in the leachate and
that all leachate leaks out of the landfill in a finite
period and undiluted by precipitation. Assumes that all
soil and aquifer properties are homogeneous and isotropic
throughout each zone; steady, uniform flow occurs only in
the vertical direction throughout the unsaturated zone,
and only in the horizontal (longitudinal) plane in the
saturated zone; pollutant movement is considered only in
direction of groundwater flow for the saturated zone; all
pollutants exist in concentrations that do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; for organic chemicals, the
background concentration in the soil profile or aquifer
prior to release from the source is assumed to be zero;
the pollutant source is a pulse input; no dilution of the
plume occurs by recharge from outside the source area;
the leachate is undiluted by aquifer flow within the
saturated zone; concentration in the saturated zone is
attenuated only by dispersion.
C-24
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Gerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elements
between soil and a sewage sludge solution
phase. They are used here since these parti-
tioning measurements (i.e., Kj values) are con-
sidered the best available for analysis of
metal transport from landfilled sludge. The
same soil types are also used for nonmetals for
convenience and consistency of analysis.
(b) Dry bulk density
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.925 g/mL
Bulk density is the dry mass per unit volume of
the medium (soil), i.e., neglecting the mass of
the water (COM, 1984a).
(c) Volumetric water content (6)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitless)
The volumetric water content is the volume of
water in a given volume of media, usually
expressed as a fraction or percent. It depends
on properties of the media and the water flux
estimated by infiltration or net recharge. The
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore water velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from CDM, 1984a.
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc)
Typical 0.005 (unitless)
Worst 0.0001 (unitless)
Organic content of soils is described in terms
of percent organic carbon, which is required in
the estimation of partition coefficient, K(j.
C-25
-------
Values, obtained from R. Griffin (1984) are
representative values for subsurface soils.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) = 5 years
Sikora et al. (1982) monitored several sludge
entrenchment sites throughout the United States
and estimated time of landfill leaching to be 4
or 5 years. Other types of landfills may leach
for longer periods of time; however, the use of
a value for entrenchment sites is conservative
because it results in a higher leachate
generation rate.
(b) Leachate generation rate (Q)
Typical 0.8 m/year
Worst 1.6 m/year
It is conservatively assumed that sludge
leachate enters the unsaturated zone undiluted
by precipitation or other recharge, that the
total volume of liquid in the sludge leaches
out of the landfill, and that leaching is com-
plete in 5 years. Landfilled sludge is assumed
to be 20 percent solids by volume, and depth of
sludge in the landfill is 5 m in the typical
case and 10 m in the worst case. Thus, the
initial depth of liquid is 4 and 8 m, and
average yearly leachate generation is 0.8 and
1.6 m, respectively.
(c) Depth to groundwater (h)
Typical 5 m
Worst 0 m
Eight landfills were monitored throughout the
United States and depths to groundwater below
them were listed. A typical depth to ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of 0 m is used to
represent the situation where the bottom of the
landfill is occasionally or regularly below the
water table. The depth to groundwater must be
estimated in order to evaluate the likelihood
that pollutants moving through the unsaturated
soil will reach the groundwater.
C-26
-------
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 mg/kg DW
Worst 0.22 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
(b) Soil half-life of pollutant (t-p = 378 days
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
(c) Degradation rate (u) = 0.0018 day"1
The unsaturated zone can serve as an effective
medium for reducing pollutant concentration
through a variety of chemical and biological
decay mechanisms which transform or attenuate
the pollutant. While these decay processes are
usually complex, they are approximated here by
a first-order rate constant. The degradation
rate is calculated using the following formula:
- 0-693
(d) Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) =
1080 mL/g
The organic carbon partition coefficient is
multiplied by the percent organic carbon
content of soil (f0c^ to derive a partition
coefficient (Kj), which represents the ratio of
C-27
-------
absorbed pollutant concentration to the
dissolved (or solution) concentration. The
equation (Koc x foc) assumes that organic
carbon in the soil is the primary means of
adsorbing organic compounds onto soils. This
concept serves to reduce much of the variation
in Kj values for different soil types. The
value of Koc is from Hassett et al. (1983).
b. Saturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Silty sand
Worst Sand
A silty sand having the values of aquifer por-
osity and hydraulic conductivity defined below
represents a typical aquifer material. A more
conductive medium such as sand transports the
plume more readily and with less dispersion and
therefore represents a reasonable worst case.
(b) Aquifer porosity (0)
Typical 0.44 (unitless)
Worst 0.389 (unitless)
Porosity is that portion of the total volume of
soil that is made up of voids (air) and water.
Values corresponding to the above soil types
are from Pettyjohn et al. (1982) as presented
in U.S. EPA (1983b).
(c) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K)
Typical 0.86 m/day
Worst 4.04 m/day
The hydraulic conductivity (or permeability) of
the aquifer is needed to estimate flow velocity
based on Darcy's Equation. It is a measure of
the volume of liquid that can flow through a
unit area or media with time; values can range
over nine orders of magnitude depending on the
nature of the media. Heterogenous conditions
produce large spatial variation in hydraulic
conductivity, making estimation of a single
effective value extremely difficult. Values
used are from Freeze and Cherry (1979) as
presented in U.S. EPA (1983b).
C-28
-------
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc) =
0.0 (unitless)
Organic carbon content, and therefore adsorp-
tion, is assumed to be 0 in the saturated zone.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worst 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to deter-
mine the magnitude and direction of groundwater
flow. As gradient increases, dispersion is
reduced. Estimates of typical and high
gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
(b) Distance from well to landfill (AH)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
This distance is the distance between a land-
fill and any functioning public or private
water supply or livestock water supply.
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5 m
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well to landfill (AH), which is 100 and
50 m, respectively, for typical and worst
conditions.
(d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2 m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that pre-
existing flow is very limited and therefore
C-29
-------
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 m^.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (y) = 0 day"-*-
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 0 Ug/L
It is assumed that no pollutant exists in the
soil profile or aquifer prior to release from
the source.
4. Index Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum expected
groundwater concentration of pollutant, in Mg/L, at the
well.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The landfill disposal of munici-
pal sewage sludge is generally expected to result in
slight increases in lindane concentrations in ground-
water. When the composite worst-case scenario is evalu-
ated, a moderate increase in concentration is
anticipated.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes long-term exposure to
maximum concentration at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Tndex of groundwater concentration resulting from
landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-26.
C-30
-------
b. Average human consumption of drinking water (AC) =
2 L/day
The value of 2 L/day is a standard value used by
U.S. EPA in most risk assessment studies.
c. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
= 8.21 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
d. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.053 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value >1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of 10~6 (1 in 1,000,000). The
null index value should be used as a basis for comparison
to indicate the degree to which any risk is due to land-
fill disposal, as opposed to preexisting dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Generally, the landfill disposal
of municipal sewage sludge should not increase the risk
of cancer due to the ingestion of lindane above that nor-
mally associated with consuming groundwater. When the
worst-case scenario is evaluated, a moderate increase in
cancer risk can be expected when contaminated groundwater
is ingested.
III. INCINERATION
Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from
Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Shows the degree of elevation of the
pollutant concentration in the air due to the incinera-
tion of sludge. An input sludge with thermal properties
defined by the energy parameter (EP) was analyzed using
the BURN model (COM, 1984a). This model uses the thermo-
dynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack gas parameters. Dilution
and dispersion of these stack gas releases were described
by the U.S. EPA's Industrial Source Complex Long-Term
(ISCLT) dispersion model from which normalized annual
ground level concentrations were predicted (U.S. EPA,
1979). The predicted pollutant concentration can then be
compared to a ground level concentration used to assess
risk.
C-31
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
o
i
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teri st i cs^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teri st ics^-
Site parametersS
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
0.0014
160
2
W
T
T
T
T
0.0028
160
3
T
W
T
T
T
0.0018
160
Condition of
4
T
NA
W
T
T
0.0030
160
Analysis8'"'0
5
T
T
T
W
T
0.0075
160
6
T
T
T
T
W
0.057
160
7 8
W N
NA N
W N
W N
W N
1.3 0
200 160
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison? NA = not applicable for this condition.
°Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
"Dry bulk density (Pdry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The fluidized bed incinerator
was not chosen due to a paucity of available data.
Gradual plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly impact values can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C) =
2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a commun-
ity of approximately 400,000 people. This rate
was incorporated into the U.S. EPA-ISCLT model
based on the following input data:
EP = 360 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 28%
Stack height - 20 m
Exit gas velocity - 20 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 356.9°K (183°F)
Stack diameter - 0.60 m
ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW represents a
higher feed rate and would serve a major U.S.
city. This rate was incorporated into the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT model based on the following input
data:
EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 26.6%
Stack height - 10 m
Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (105°F)
Stack diameter - 0.80 m
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 mg/kg DW
Worst 0.22 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
C-33
-------
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)
Typical 0.05 (unitless)
Worst 0.20 (unitless)
These values were chosen as best approximations of
the fraction of pollutant emitted through stacks
(Farrell, 1984). No data was available to validate
these values; however, U.S. EPA is currently testing
incinerators for organic emissions.
e. Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical 3.4 Ug/m3
Worst 16.0
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.
f. Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (BA) = 0.00005 Mg/m3
Since lindane was only infrequently detected in air
samples from 9 U.S. cities (Stanley et al . , 1971), a
value of one-half the detection limit of 0.1 ng/m3,
or 0.00005 ug/m3, will be used to represent a typi-
cal urban background concentration. (See Section 4,
p. 4-3.)
4. Index 1 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.6
2.1
3.2
5.9
11
20
40
a The typical (3.4 yg/m3) and worst (16.0 yg/m3) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
to the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr
DW) sludge feed rates.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected air concentration exceeds background levels due
to incinerator emissions.
C-34
-------
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The incineration of municipal
sewage sludge at typical sludge feed rates may moderately
increase lindane concentrations in air- At high feed
rates, the resulting concentration may be substantially
higher than typical urban levels.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Shows the increase in human intake expected
to result from the incineration of sludge. Ground level
concentrations for carcinogens typically were developed
based upon assessments published by the U.S. EPA Carcino-
gen Assessment Group (CAG). These ambient concentrations
reflect a dose level which, for a lifetime exposure,
increases the risk of cancer by 10"^.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24 hours/
day. A respiratory volume of 20 m3/day is assumed over a
70-year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-28.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.00005 Ug/m3
See Section 3, p. 3-28.
c. Cancer potency = 1.33 (mg/kg/day)~^
This potency estimate has been derived from that for
ingestion, assuming 100% absorption for both inges-
tion and inhalation routes (see Section 3, p. 3-12).
d. Exposure criterion (EC) = 0.00263 ug/m3
A lifetime exposure level which would result in a
10~° cancer risk was selected as ground level con-
centration against which incinerator emissions are
compared. The risk estimates developed by CAG are
defined as the lifetime incremental cancer risk in a
hypothetical population exposed continuously
throughout their lifetime to the stated concentra-
tion of the carcinogenic agent. The exposure
criterion is calculated using the following formula:
C-35
-------
EC = 10"6 x 103 Ug/mg x 70 kg
Cancer potency x 20 m-Vday
A. Index 2 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.019
0.019
0.02A
0.030
0.11
0.20
Worst Typical 0.019 0.040 0.39
Worst 0.019 0.061 0.76
a The typical (3.4 ug/m^) and worst (16.0 Ug/m-*) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
to the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr
DW) sludge feed rates.
5. Value Interpretation - Value > 1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of > 10~6 (1 per 1,000,000).
Comparison with the null index value at 0 kg/hr DW indi-
cates the degree to which any hazard is due to sludge
incineration, as opposed to background urban air
concentration.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Inhalation of emissions from
incineration of sludge may slightly increase the human
cancer risk due to lindane, above the risk posed by
background urban air concentrations of lindane.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
For the purpose of evaluating pollutant effects upon and/or
subsequent uptake by marine life as a result of sludge disposal,
two types of mixing were modeled. The initial mixing or dilution
shortly after dumping of a single load of sludge represents a high,
pulse concentration to which organisms may be exposed for short
time periods but which could be repeated frequently; i.e., every
time a recently dumped plume is encountered. A subsequent addi-
tional degree of mixing can be expressed by a further dilution.
This is defined as the average dilution occurring when a day's
worth of sludge is dispersed by 24 hours of current movement and
represents the time-weighted average exposure concentration for
organisms in the disposal area. This dilution accounts for 8 to 12
hours of the high pulse concentration encountered by the organisms
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
C-36
-------
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased concentrations in ug/L
of pollutant in seawater around an ocean disposal site
assuming initial mixing.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the background
seawater concentration of pollutant is unknown or zero.
The index also assumes that disposal is by tanker and
that the daily amount of sludge disposed is uniformly
distributed along a path transversing the site and
perpendicular to the current vector. The initial
dilution volume is assumed to be determined by path
length, depth to the pycnocline (a layer separating
surface and deeper water masses), and an initial plume
width defined as the width of tva plume four hours after
dumping. The seasonal disappearance of the pycnocline is
not considered.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Disposal conditions
Sludge Sludge Mass Length
Disposal Dumped by a of Tanker
Rate (SS) Single Tanker (ST) Path (L)
Typical 825 mt DW/day 1600 mt WW 8000 m
Worst 1650 mt DW/day 3400 mt WW 4000 m
The typical value for the sludge disposal rate assumes
that 7.5 x 10° mt WW/year are available for dumping
from a metropolitan coastal area. The conversion to
dry weight assumes 4 percent solids by weight. The
worst-case value is an arbitrary doubling of the
typical value to allow for potential future increase.
The assumed disposal practice to be followed at the
model site representative of the typical case is a
modification of that proposed for sludge disposal at
the formally designated 12-mile site in the New York
Bight Apex (City of New York, 1983). Sludge barges
with capacities of 3400 mt WW would be required to
discharge a load in no less than 53 minutes travel-
ing at a minimum speed of 5 nautical miles (9260 m)
per hour. Under these conditions, the barge would
enter the site, discharge the sludge over 8180 m and
exit the site. Sludge barges with capacities of
1600 mt WW would be required to discharge a load in
no less than 32 minutes traveling at a minimum speed
of 8 nautical miles (14,816 m) per hour. Under
these conditions, the barge would enter the site,
C-37
-------
discharge Che sludge over 7902 m and exit the site.
The mean path length for the Large and small tankers
is 8041 m or approximately 8000 m. Path length is
assumed to lie perpendicular to the direction of
prevailing current flow. For the typical disposal
rate (SS) of 825 mt DW/day, it is assumed that this
would be accomplished by a mixture of four 3400 mt
WW and four 1600 mt WW capacity barges. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For the worst-case disposal rate (SS) of
1650 mt DW/day, eight 3400 mt WW and eight 1600 mt
WW capacity barges would be utilized. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For both disposal rate scenarios, there
would be a 12 to 16 hour period at night in which no
sludge would be dumped. It is assumed that under
the above dss-.ribed disposal operation, sludge
dumping would occur every day of the year.
The assumed disposal practice at the model site
representative of the worst case is as stated for
the typical site, except that barges would dump half
their load along a track, then turn around and
dispose of the balance along the same track in order
to prevent a barge from dumping outside of the site.
This practice would effectively halve the path
length compared to the typical site.
b. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 mg/kg DW
Worst 0.22 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
c. Disposal site characteristics
Average
current
Depth to velocity
pycnocline (D) at site (V)
Typical 20 m 9500 m/day
Worst 5 m 4320 m/day
Typical site values are representative of a large.
deep-water site with an area of about 1500 km^
located beyond the continental shelf in the New York
Bight. The pycnocline value of 20 m chosen is the
average of the 10 to 30 m pycnocline depth range
occurring in the summer and fall; the winter and
spring disappearance of the pycnocline is not consi-
dered and so represents a conservative approach in
evaluating annual or long-term impact. The current
C-38
-------
velocity of 11 cm/sec (9500 m/day) chosen is based
on the average current velocity in this area (COM,
1984b).
Worst-case values are representative of a near-shore
New York Bight site with an area of about 20 km^.
The pycnocline value of 5 m chosen is the minimum
value of the 5 to 23 m depth range of the surface
mixed layer and is therefore a worst-case value.
Current velocities in this area vary from 0 to
30 cm/sec. A value of 5 cm/sec (4320 m/day) is
arbitrarily chosen to represent a worst-case value
(COM, 1984c).
4. Factors Considered in Initial Mixing
When a load of sludge is dumped from a moving tanker, an
immediate mixing occurs in the turbulent wake of the
vessel, followed by more gradual spreading of the plume.
The entire plume, which initially constitutes a narrow
band the length of the tanker path, moves more-or-less as
a unit with the prevailing surface current and, under
calm conditions, is not further dispersed by the current
itself. However, the current acts to separate successive
tanker loads, moving each out of the immediate disposal
path before the next load is dumped.
Immediate mixing volume after barge disposal is
approximately equal to the length of the dumping track
with a cross-sectional area about four times that defined
by the draft and width of the discharging vessel
(Csanady, 1981, as cited in NOAA, 1983). The resulting
plume is initially 10 m deep by 40 m wide (O'Connor and
Park, 1982, as cited in NOAA, 1983). Subsequent
spreading of plume band width occurs at an average rate
of approximately 1 cm/sec (Csanady et al., 1979, as cited
in NOAA, 1983). Vertical mixing is limited by the depth
of the pycnocline or ocean floor, whichever is shallower.
Four hours after disposal, therefore, average plume width
(W) may be computed as follows:
W = 40 m + 1 cm/sec x 4 hours x 3600 sec/hour x 0.01 m/cm
= 184 m = approximately 200 m
Thus the volume of initial mixing is defined by the
tanker path, a 200 m width, and a depth appropriate to
the site. For the typical (deep water) site, this depth
is chosen as the pycnocline value of 20 m. For the worst
(shallow water) site, a value of 10 m was chosen. At
times the pycnocline may be as shallow as 5 m, but since
the barge wake causes initial mixing to at least 10 m,
the greater value was used.
C-39
-------
5. Index 1 Values (ug/L)
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical Typical 0.0 0.00022 0.00022
Worst 0.0 0.00044 0.00044
Worst Typical 0.0 0.0019 0.0019
Worst 0.0 0.0037 0.0037
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
in lindane concentration in seawater around a disposal
site as a result of sludge disposal after initial mixing.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Only slight increases of lindane
occur at the disposal site after sludge dumping and
initial mixing.
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased effective concentra-
tions in Ug/L of pollutant in seawater around an ocean
disposal site utilizing a time weighted average (TWA)
concentration. The TWA concentration is that which would
be experienced by an organism remaining stationary (with
respect to the ocean floor) or moving randomly within the
disposal vicinity. The dilution volume is determined by
the tanker path length and depth to pycnocline or, for
the shallow water site, the 10 m effective mixing depth,
as before, but the effective width is now determined by
current movement perpendicular to the tanker path over 24
hours.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Incorporates all of the assump-
tions used to calculate Index 1. In addition, it is
assumed that organisms would experience high-pulsed
sludge concentrations for 8 to 12 hours per day and then
experience recovery (no exposure to sludge) for 12 to 16
hours per day. This situation can be expressed by the
use of a TWA concentration of sludge constituent.
3. Data Used and Rationale
See Section 3, pp. 3-31 to 3-33.
4. Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, p. 3-34.
C-40
-------
5. Index 2 Values (jJg/L)
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)
0
825
1650
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0 0.000059 0.00012
0.0 0.00012 0.00024
0.0 0.00052
0.0 0.0010
0.0010
0.0021
.6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the effective
increase in lindane concentration expressed as a TWA con-
centration in seawater around a disposal site experienced
by an organism over a 24-hour period.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Only slight increases in lindane
concentrations are apparent after 24-hour dumping cycle.
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Explanation - Compares the effective increased concentra-
tion of pollutant in seawater around the disposal site
resulting from the initial mixing of sludge (Index 1)
with the marine ambient water quality criterion of the
pollutant, or with another value judged protective of
marine aquatic life. For lindane, this value is the
criterion that will protect marine aquatic organisms from
both acute and chronic toxic effects.
Wherever a short-term, "pulse" exposure may occur as it
would from initial mixing, it is usually evaluated using
the "maximum" criteria values of EPA's ambient water
quality criteria methodology. However, under this scena-
rio, because the pulse is repeated several times daily on
a long-term basis, potentially resulting in an accumula-
tion of injury, it seems more appropriate to use values
designed to be protective against chronic toxicity.
Therefore, to evaluate the potential for adverse effects
on marine life resulting from initial mixing concentra-
tions, as quantified by Index 1, the chronically derived
criteria values are used.
Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
stated for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that all of the
released pollutant is available in the water column to
move through predicted pathways (i.e., sludge to seawater
to aquatic organism to man). The possibility of effects
arising from accumulation in the sediments is neglected
since the U.S. EPA presently lacks a satisfactory method
for deriving sediment criteria.
2.
C-41
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-34.
b. Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) =0.16 yg/L
Water quality criteria for the toxic pollutants
listed under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 were developed by the U.S. EPA under
Section 30A(a)(l) of the Act. These criteria were
derived by utilization of data reflecting the resul-
tant environmental impacts and human health effects
of these pollutants if present in any body of water.
The criteria values presented in this assessment are
excerpted from the ambient water quality criteria
document for hexachlorocyclohexane.
The 0.16 yg/L value chosen as the criterion to pro-
tect saltwater organisms is based on acute toxicity
data for marine fish and invertebrate species
exposed to lindane. No data for the chronic effects
of lindane on marine organisms are presently avail-
able (U.S. EPA, 1980). (See Section 4, p. 4-9.)
4. Index 3 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0014
0.0028
0.0014
0.0028
Worst Typical 0.0 0.012 0.012
Worst 0.0 0.023 0.023
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the factor by which
the expected seawater concentration increase in lindane
exceeds the protective value. A value >1 indicates that
acute or chronic toxic conditions may exist for organisms
at the site.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Only slight to moderate incre-
mental increases in hazard to aquatic life were deter-
mined via this assessment. No toxic conditions occur via
any of the scenarios evaluated.
C-42
-------
D. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Explanation - Estimates the expected increase in human
pollutant intake associated with the consumption of
seafood, a fraction of which originates from the disposal
site vicinity, and compares the total expected pollutant
intake with the cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the
pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
listed for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that the seafood
tissue concentration increase can be estimated from the
increased water concentration by a bioconcentration
factor. It also assumes that, over the long term, the
seafood catch from the disposal site vicinity will be
diluted to some extent by the catch from uncontaminated
areas.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 2)
See Section 3, p. 3-35.
Since bioconcentration is a dynamic and reversible
process, it is expected that uptake of sludge
pollutants by marine organisms at the disposal site
will reflect TWA concentrations, as quantified by
Index 2, rather than pulse concentrations.
b. Dietary consumption of seafood (QP)
Typical 14.3 g WW/day
Worst 41.7 g WW/day
Typical and worst-case values are the mean and the
95th percentile, respectively, for all seafood
consumption in the United States (Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) International, 1980).
c. Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (FS)
For a typical harvesting scenario, it was assumed
that the total catch over a wide region is mixed by
harvesting, marketing and consumption practices, and
that exposure is thereby diluted. Coastal areas
have been divided by the National Marine Fishery
Service (NMFS) into reporting areas for reporting on
data on seafood landings. Therefore it was conven-
ient to express the total area affected by sludge
disposal as a fraction of an NMFS reporting area.
C-43
-------
The area used to represent the disposal impact area
should be an approximation of the total ocean area
over which the average concentration defined by
Index 2 is roughly applicable. The average rate of
plume spreading of 1 cm/sec referred to earlier
amounts to approximately 0.9 km/day. Therefore, the
combined plume of all sludge dumped during one
working day will gradually spread, both parallel to
and perpendicular to current direction, as it pro-
ceeds down-current. Since the concentration has
been averaged over the direction of current flow,
spreading in this dimension will not further reduce
average concentration; only spreading in the perpen-
dicular dimension will reduce the average. If sta-
ble conditions are assumed over a period of days, at
least 9 days would be required to reduce the average
concentration by one-half. At that time, the origi-
nal plume length of approximately 8 km (8000 m) will
have doubled to approximately 16 km due to
spreading.
It is probably unnecessary to follow the plume
further since storms, which would result in much
more rapid dispersion of pollutants to background
concentrations are expected on at least a 10-day
frequency (NOAA, 1983). Therefore, the area
impacted by sludge disposal (AI, in km2) at each
disposal site will be considered to be defined by
the tanker path length (L) times the distance of
current movement (V) during 10 days, and is computed
as follows:
AI = 10 x L x V x 10~6 km2/m2 (1)
To be consistent with a conservative approach, plume
dilution due to spreading in the perpendicular
direction to current flow is disregarded. More
likely, organisms exposed to the plume in the area
defined by equation 1 would experience a TWA concen-
tration lower than the concentration expressed by
Index 2.
Next, the value of AI must be expressed as a
fraction of an NMFS reporting area. In the New York
Bight, which includes NMFS areas 612-616 and 621-
623, deep-water area 623 has an area of
approximately 7200 km2 and constitutes approximately
0.02 percent of the total seafood landings for the
Bight (CDM, 1984b). Near-shore area 612 has an area
of approximately 4300 km2 and constitutes
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (CDM, 1984c). Therefore the fraction of
all seafood landings (FSt) from the Bight which
could originate from the area of impact of either
r-44
-------
the typical (deep-water) or worst (near-shore) site
can be calculated for this typical harvesting
scenario as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
AI x 0.02% = (2)
St = 7200 km^
[10 x 8000 m x 9500 m x 10"6 km2/m2] x 0.0002 5
2*"" £. • J. X !• U
,^UU ruu
For the worst (near shore) site:
FSt - - = (3)
4300 km2
[10 x 4000 m x 4320 m x 10~6 km2/m2] x 0.24 _ n_3
- — y • o x i u
4300 km2
To construct a worst-case harvesting scenario, it
was assumed that the total seafood consumption for
an individual could originate from an area more
limited than the entire New York Bight. For
example, a particular fisherman providing the entire
seafood diet for himself or others could fish
habitually within a single NMFS reporting area. Or,
an individual could have a preference for a
particular species which is taken only over a more
limited area, here assumed arbitrarily to equal an
NMFS reporting area. The fraction of consumed
seafood (FSW) that could originate from the area of
impact under this worst-case scenario is calculated
as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
AT
FSW = = 0.11 (4)
7200 km2
For the worst (near shore) site:
AT
FSW = ^^r = 0.040 (5)
4300 km2
d. Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (BCF) =
130 L/kg
The value chosen is the weighted average BCF of
technical grade BHC (39% lindane) for the edible
portion of all freshwater and estuarine aquatic
organisms consumed by U.S. citizens (U.S. EPA,
1980). No lindane-specific BCF is presently
available. The weighted average BCF is derived as
C-45
-------
part of the water quality criteria developed by the
U.S. EPA to protect human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of lindane induced by ingestion
of contaminated water and aquatic organisms.
Although no measured steady-state BCF is available
for lindane or any of its isomers, the BCF of lin-
dane for aquatic organisms containing about 7.6 per-
cent lipids can be estimated from the octanol-water
partition coefficient. The weighted average BCF is
derived by application of an adjustment factor to
correct for the 3 percent lipids content of consumed
fish and shellfish (U.S. EPA, 1980). It should be
noted that lipids of marine species differ in both
structure and quantity from those of freshwater spe-
cies. Although a BCF value calculated entirely from
marine data would be more appropriate for this
assessment, no such data are presently available.
e. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
= 8.21 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
f. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.053 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
Index 4 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge Seafood
teristics Concentration3 Intakea'b 0 825 1650
Typical Typical Typical 150 150 150
Worst Worst 150 150 150
Worst Typical Typical 150 150 150
Worst Worst 150 150 150
a All possible combinations of these values are not
presented. Additional combinations may be calculated
using the formulae in the Appendix.
b Refers to both the dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
and the fraction of consumed seafood originating from
the disposal site (FS). "Typical" indicates the use of
the typical-case values for both of these parameters;
"worst" indicates the use of the worst-case values for
both.
C-46
-------
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which the
expected intake exceeds the RSI. A value >1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the null
index value at 0 mt/day indicates the degree to which any
hazard is due to sludge disposal, as opposed to preexist-
ing dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - No increase of risk to human
health from consumption of seafood is expected to occur
due to the ocean disposal of sludge.
C-47
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
Hexachlorocyclohexane is a broad spectrum
insecticide of the group of cyclic chlorinated
hydrocarbons called organochlorine insecticides.
Lindane is the common name approved by the
International Standards Organization for the
y-isomers of 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane.
BHC is the common name for the mixed configura-
tional isomers of 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclo-
hexane, although the terms BHC and benzene
hexachloride are misnomers for this aliphatic
compound and should not be confused with aromatic
compounds of similar structure, such as the
aromatic compound hexachlorobenzene.
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
In samples from 40 waste treatment
plants, lindane occurred in influent
and effluent but not in sludges (438
samples)
2. Concentration
Lindane not found in Denver-metro
sludge
Alpha-BHC occurred at 20 ng/g (WW) in
waste-activated sludge
<500 Mg/L in Chicago sludge
Summary of lindane in sludge of 74
cities in Missouri (ng/g DW)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. A-l, A-2)
B.
Max.
Mean
0.11
0.22
Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
0.9% positive detection in Florida
soils, 1969
C-48
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 36, 39, 41)
Baxter et al.,
1983a (p. 315)
Jones and Lee,
1977 (p. 52)
Clevenger
et al., 1983
(p. 1471)
Mattraw, 1975
(p. 109)
-------
Not detected in cropland soil from
37 states, 1973
1 detection out of 1,483 samples for
benzene hexachloride
2. Concentration
Concentration of gamma-BHC (lindane)
in various soils (data 1971 or earlier)
Mean Maximum
(pg/g) (Ug/g)
Carey et al.,
1979 (p. 212)
Orchard
Horticultural
Agricultural
Pasture
Noncropland
Desert
0.05
0.001
0.26
0.04
-
0.20
0.06
0.05
0.60
1.40
-
0.30
Trace to 0.26 Ug/g lindane in U.S. soils
Lindane was not detected in soil
samples from Everglades National Park
and adjacent areas
Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
a. Freshwater
Trace to 0.7 Ug/L lindane in U.S.
waters (data 1965-1971)
Detectable but not quantifiable
amounts of lindane were found in
the Great Lakes.
Trace to 0.28 Mg/L gamma-BHC in U.S.
water systems (1965-67 data)
b. Seawater
Data not available for seawater
concentrations
Edwards, 1973
(p. 417)
Matsumura, 1972a
(p. 47)
Requejo et al.,
1979, (p. 934)
Edwards, 1973
(p. 441)
Glooschenko
et al., 1976
(p. 63)
Matsumura
1972a (p. 42)
C-49
-------
c. Drinking Water
0.01 yg/L highest level observed
in finished water
4.0 yg/L criteria for domestic
water supply (health)
56 yg/L permissible criteria
for lindane in public water
supplies
Finished water in Streator, IL
found to contain 4 yg/L of lindane
Air
1. Frequency of Detection
Not detected in air of 6 agriculutral,
1 city, and 1 suburban sites
Lindane occurrence in 9 U.S. cities
(detection limit = 0.1 ng/m3):
4 of 123 samples, Baltimore, MD
0 of 57 samples, Buffalo, NY
0 of 90 samples, Dothan, AL
0 of 120 samples, Fresno, CA
1 of 94 samples, Iowa City, IA
0 of 99 samples, Orlando, FL
0 of 94 samples, Riverside, CA
24 of 100 samples, Salt Lake City, UT
0 of 98 samples, Stoneville, MS
2. Concentration
HAS, 1977
(p. 794)
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. 157)
Edwards, 1973
(p. 449)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-5)
Edwards, 1971
(p. 18)
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
a. Urban
Maximum pesticide levels in 3
U.S. cities:
2.6 ng/m3, Baltimore
0.1 ng/m3, Iowa City
7.0 ng/m3, Salt Lake City
b. Rural
alpha-BHC 0.25 ng/m3 mean,
0.075 to 0.57 ng/m3 at Enewetak
Atoll
gamma-BHC 0.015 ng/m3 mean,
0.006 to 0.021 ng/m3 range
at Enewetak Atoll
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
Atlas and Giam,
1980 (p.163)
C-50
-------
E. Food
1. Total Average Intake
10 ug/kg body weight/day acceptable
FAO/WHO intake
Total relative daily intake ug/kg
body weight/day
FY75
FY76
FY77
FY78
0.0031 0.0026 0.0038 0.0024
FDA, 1979
FDA, 1979
2. Frequency of Detection and Concentration
Frequency and range of lindane in
food groups (number of occurrence
out of 20 composites)
Food Group
Occurrence
Dairy
Meat/fish
Grain & cereals
Potatoes
Leafy vegetables
Legumes
Root vegetables
Garden fruit
Fruit
Oils/fats
Sugars
Range
T*-0.005 ug/g
* T = Trace
Lindane residues in milk and milk
products (1,169 samples) in Illinois
1971-1976:
Number of positive: 857
% positive: 73
Mean: 0.01 Ug/g
Range: 0.00 to <0.20 ug/g
Out of 360 composite market basket
samples (1972-3), 39 contained
lindane. Thirteen contained trace
levels and 26 contained levels ranging
from 0.0003 to 0.006 Mg/g. Occurrences
by food class were as follows:
FDA, 1979
Wedberg et al.,
1978 (p. 164)
Johnson and
Manske, 1976
(p. 160-166)
051
-------
No. Positive Range
Samples
-------
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
No epidemiological studies of cancer
in humans associated with exposure
to lindane have been reported.
However, liver tumors have been
observed in mice given oral doses
of 52 mg/kg/day. In order to
report the most conservative case,
lindane has been assumed to be a
possible carcinogen to humans.
b. Potency
Cancer potency = 1.33 (mg/kg/day)"*
Derived from mice research in which
oral doses of lindane resulted in
liver tumors.
2. Chronic Tozicity
The recommended long-term ADI is equal
to 0.023 mg/day. This value is based on
a NOAEL of 4 ppm dietary lindane given
to rats for 84 consecutive days.
3. Absorption Factor
absorption in rats
4. Existing Regulations
Water quality criteria for human health
have been developed.
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. 16)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-62)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-62)
U.S. EPA, 1985
(p. 1-4)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. 3)
U.S. EPA, 1980
053
-------
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
Based on mice studies where car-
cinogenic effects were observed,
lindane has been assumed to be
a possible human carcinogen so
as to project a conservative case.
b. Potency
Cancer potency = 1.33 (mg/kg/day)"-'-
This potency estimate has been
derived from that for ingestion,
assuming 100% absorption for both
ingestion and inhalation routes.
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Toxicity
Data not evaluated since assessment
based on carcinogenicity.
3. Absorption Factor
Pertinent data regarding absorption of
lindane following inhalation exposure
could not be located in the available
literature.
4. Existing Regulations
American Conference of Governmental and
Industrial Hygienists have set a time
weighted average - threshold limit value
at 0.5 mg/irH, and a short-term exposure
limit of 1.5 mg/m^.
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
See Table 4-1.
From data pre-
sented in U.S.
EPA, 1980
(p. C-62)
Values derived
from data pre-
sented in U.S.
EPA, 1980
(p. C-62)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. 3)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. 23)
C-54
-------
B. Uptake
0.6 Ug/g lindane in maize, 3 crop periods Finlayson and
following 2.8 kg/ha application to soil MacCarthy, 1973
(p. 63)
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-2.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-3.
Uptake data for pure lindane were not found in
the available literature.
Concentration of lindane in fatty tissue of Hansen et al.,
cows overwintered two seasons on sludge- 1981 (p. 1015)
amended plots:
Fat Concentration
Sludge Application Rate (Ug/g WW)
Control 3 + 2
126 t/ha 2 + 1
252 t/ha <1
504 t/ha <1
0.010 Ug/g (WW) alpha-BHC in fat of cattle Baxter et al.,
feeding on sludge-amended plots with 1983b (p. 318)
0.020 Ug/g alpha-BHC in sludge
0.030 Ug/kg alpha-BHC in control cattle
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
a. Acute
Acute toxicity has been observed U.S. EPA, 1980
over a range of 2 Ug/L to 141 ug/L (p. B-2)
for brown trout and goldfish,
respectively.
C-55
-------
b. Chronic
Freshwater invertebrates displayed U.S. EPA, 1980
a range of chronic toxicity of (p. B-4)
of 3.3 Ug/L to 14.5 Ug/L.
A freshwater vertebrate (fathead U.S. EPA, 1980
minnow) had a chronic value of (p. B-5)
14.6 Ug/L.
2. Saltwater
a. Acute
Ambient saltwater quality criteria U.S. EPA, 1980
for lindane is 0.16 Ug/L (p. vi)
Saltwater invertebrates display a U.S. EPA, 1980
range of acute toxicity from (p. B-3)
0.17 ug/L to 3,680 Ug/L.
LC5o value for pinfish and sheephead U.S. EPA, 1980
minnows are 30.6 Ug/L and (p. B-4)
103.9 Ug/L, respectively.
b. Chronic
Data not immediately available.
B. Uptake
The bioconcentration factor for freshwater U.S. EPA, 1980
species ranges from 35 to 486. (p. B-22)
The weighted average bioconcentration factor U.S. EPA, 1980
for the edible portion of all freshwater and (p. C-6, C-7)
estuarine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S.
citizens was generated using technical grade
BHC which contained 39.0% lindane. The
resulting value is 130.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-4.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-5.
C-56
-------
VII. PHYSIOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
Chemical name: gamma-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, -
hexachlorocyclohexane
Vapor pressure of lindane (gamma-BHC) at 20°C
(mm Hg): 9.4 x 10~6
Lindane described as volatile
Water solubility of lindane at 20 to 30°C:
10 mg/L
Lindane is immobile to slightly mobile in
soils (Rf = 0.09 to 0.00)
36-month persistence in soils
Half-life in soil: 56 days in clay loam,
378 days in sandy loam
General persistence of lindane in soils:
95% disappearance = 6.5 years
75-100% disappearance = 3 years
Melting point = 65°C
Molecular weight = 290.0
Gamma-BHC (lindane) is the actual insecti-
cidal principle of BHC. Aside from gamma-BHC,
perhaps the most important terminal residue
arising from the use of BHC is beta-BHC. This
isomer appears to be the most stable one, among
others, and is the factor causing the eventual
increase of beta-BHC in the environment, in
comparison to other sources.
In a micro agro ecosystem study, lindane was
applied to the soil (65.4 mg) and after 11
days, 51.2 mg (78.3%) had volatilized and
8.51 mg (13%) remained on the soil surface.
Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc):
1,080 mL/g
Edwards, 1973
(p. 433)
Edwards, 1973
(p. 447)
Lawless et al.,
1975 (p. 57)
Lawless et al.,
1975 (p. 52)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p.l)
Matsumura,
1972a (p. 39)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. A-l)
Matsumura,
1972b (p. 527)
Nash, 1983
(p. 214)
Hassett et al. ,
1983
C-57
-------
TABLE 4-1. PHYTOTOXICITY OF LINDANE
Plant/Tissue
Stringless black
valentine beans/
seed
Stringless black
valentine bean/
root
St r ingl ess bl ack
valentine bean/
root
Stringless black
valentine bean/
root
Stringless black
Y valentine bean/
Ln top
03 Stringless black
valentine bean/
top
Stringless black
valentine bean
top
Stringless black
valentine bean/
root
Stringless black
valentine bean/
root
Stringless black
valentine bean/
root
Stringless black
valentine bean/
top
Chemi cal
Form Appl led
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Li ndane
Lindane
Lindane
BHCb
BHC
BHC
BHC
Control Tissue
Concentration
Soil Type (pg/g DW)
loamy sand NRa
loamy sand NR
loamy sand NK
loamy sand NR
loamy sand NR
loamy sand NR
loamy sand NR
loamy sand NR
loamy sand NR
loamy sand NR
loamy sand NK
Experimental
Soil Application Tissue
Concentration Rate Concentration
(pg/g DW) (kg/ha) (pg/g DW)
Effects
12.5-100 NR NR No significant effect
on germination
12.5 NR NR 272
50 NR NR 472
100 NR NR 72Z
reduced
reduced
reduced
weight
weight
weight
12.5 NR NR No effect
50 NR NR 132
100 NR NR 372
12.5 NR NR 462
50 NR NR 682
100 NR NR 842
12.5 NR NR 112
reduced
reduced
reduced
reduced
reduced
reduced
weight
weight
weight
weight
weight
weight
References
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett,
(p. 236)
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1958
1938
1958
1958
1958
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Control Tissue
n
Ln
ID
Plant/Tissue
Stringless black
valentine bean/
top
Stringless black.
valentine bean/
top
Sugarcane roots
Sugarcane roots
Chemical
Form Applied
BHC
BHC
BHC
BUC
Soil Type
loamy sand
loamy sand
NR
NR
Concentration
(Ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Soil
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
50
100
10
11-400
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(Ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Effects
572 reduced weight
70Z reduced weight
No effect
Increasingly shorter
and fewer roots
References
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
HAS, 1968
(p. 19)
NAS, 1968
(p. 19)
a NR = Not reported
b BHC = Benzene hexachloride, a trade name for the insecticide, hexachlorocyclohexane.
-------
TABLE 4-2. TOXICITY OF LINDANE TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)a
Mallard
Dog
Rat
Rat
Cow
Cow
Mice
O Rats
CT*
O Guinea pigs
Rabbits
Rats (50)
Rats (50)
Rats (50)
Chemical
Form Fed
BHC-25Z g.i.b
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
BHCd - gamma
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Feed
Concentration
(Ug/g DW)
NR
15
100
<50
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NK
25
50
100
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NRC
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NK
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily Intake
(mg/kg)
>2,000
0.3
NR
NR
200
140-225
86
125-230
100-127
60-200
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study
NR
NR
2 yr
2 yr
1 day
1 day
NR
NR
NR
NR
2 yr
2 yr
2 yr
Effects
LD50
No effect
Liver change
No effect
Lethal
Fatal dose
LD50
LD50
LD50
LD50
No effect
Hypertrophy of liver
Hypertrophy of liver
and fatty tissue
degeneration
References
Tucker and
Crabtree, 1970
(p. 76)
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. 157)
NAS, 1977
(p. 587)
NAS, 1977
(p. 587)
McParland et al . ,
1973 (p. 370)
McParland et al . ,
1973 (p. 370)
NRC, 1982
(p. 30)
NRC, 1982
(p. 30)
NRC, 1982
(p. 30)
NRC, 1982
(p. 30)
NRC, 1982
(p. 30)
NRC, 1982
(p. 30)
NRC, 1982
(p. 30)
a N = Number of experimental animals.
b
g.i. = gamma isomer.
c NR = Not reported.
BHC = Benzenehexachloride, a trade name for the insecticide hexachlorocyclohexane.
-------
TABLE 4-3. UPTAKE OF LINDANE BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
O
Species
Cow
Rat
Rat
Feed
Chemical Concentrations
Form Fed (Ug/g)
Lindane 10
100
Lindane NRD
Lindane NR
Tissue
Tissue Concentration
Analyzed (pg/g)
Fat 3.5
65
Fat NR
Fat NR
Uptake Factor8 References
0.35 Claborn et al.,
0.65 1960 in Kenaga,
1980 (p. 554)
0.4 Jacobs et al.,
1974 in Geyer et.
al., 1980
(p. 282)
1.4 Baron et al.,
1975 in Geyer et
al., 1980
(p. 282)
a Uptake factor = y/x: y = tissue concentration; x = feed concentration.
D NR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-4. TOXICITY OF LINDANE TO SOIL BIOTA
O
CTi
NJ
Species
Bacteria/fungi
Bacteria/ fungi
Soil microbes
Red worms
Red worms
Red worms
Soil microbes
Chemical Control Tissue Soil Application
Form Concentration Concentration Rate
Applied Soil Type (pg/g DW) (pg/g DW) (kg/ha)
Lindane fine sand NRa 12.5-100 NR
BHCb fine sand NR 12.5-100 NR
BHC (gamma) silty loam NR NR 0.28-22.4
BHC-3Z g.i.c sandy loam NR NR 35.8
BHC-3Z g.i. sandy loam NR NR 71.7
BHC-3Z g.i. sandy loam NR NR 143.4
Lindane sandy loam NR NR 1.12
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Effects
No effect on numbers
of bacteria and fungi
122 reduction of fungi
at 50.0 pg/g
35Z reduction of fungi
at 100 pg/g
Molds: no significant
or consistent effect
but some depression
of numbers
Bacteria: no signifi-
cant effect except for
a 50% reduction in
streptomycetes at 22.4
kg /ha
No mortality
60Z mortality
100Z mortality
No significant effect
References
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 235)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 235)
Bollen et al.,
1954 (p. 303)
Hopkins ec al.,
1957
Martin et al.,
1959 (p. 337)
a NR = Not reported.
' BHC = Benzenehexachloride, a trade name for the insecticide hexachlorocyclohexane.
c g.i. = gamma isomer.
-------
TABLE 4-5. UPTAKE OF LINDANE BY SOIL BIOTA
n
i
Species
Earthworms
Chemical Form
Applied
Lindane
Soil
Type
NRa
Soil Concentration
(Mg/g)
1
Range of Tissue
Concentration ((lg/g)
0.45-1.05
Uptake
Factor
0.45-1.05
References
Yadav et al.,
(p. 542)
1976
UJ a NR = Not reported.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M. , and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Atlas, E., and C. S. Giam. 1980. Global Transport of Organic
Pollutants in the Remote Marine Atmosphere. Science. 211:163-165.
Baron R. L. , F. Copeland, and M. F. Walton. 1975. In; Environmental
Quality and Safety, Supplement Vol. III. F. Coulston and F. Korte
(eds.), G. Thieme Publishers, Stuttgart, p. 855. (Cited in Geyer
et al., 1980.)
Baxter, J. C., M. Aquilar, and K. Brown. 1983a. Heavy Metals and
Persistent Organics at a Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. J. Environ.
Qual. 12(3):311-315.
Baxter, J. C., D. E. Johnson, and E. W. Kienholz. 1983b. Heavy Metals
and Persistent Organics Content in Cattle Exposed to Sewage Sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. 12(3) :311-319.
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. Ani. Sci. 53:1.
Bollen, W., H. E. Morrison, and H. H. Crowell. 1954. Effect of Field
Treatments of Insecticides on Numbers of Bacteria, Streptomyces,
and Molds in the Soil. J. Econ. Ent. 47(2) :302-306.
Boswell, F. C. 1975. Municipal Sewage Sludge and Selected Element
Application to Soil: Effect on Soil and Fescue. J. Environ. Qual.
4(2):267-273.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984a. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984b. Technical Review of the 106-Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract No.
68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. January.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984c. Technical Review of the 12-Mile
Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. May.
Carey, A. E., J. A. Gowen, H. Tai, et al. 1979. Pesticide Residue in
Soils and Crops from 37 States, 1972 - National Soils Monitoring
Program (IV). Pest. Monit. J. 12(4) :209-229.
C-64
-------
Chaney, R. L., and C. A. Lloyd. 1979. Adherence of Spray-Applied
Liquid Digested Sewage Sludge to Tall Fescue. J. Environ. Qual.
8(3):407-411.
City of New York Department of Environmental Protection. 1983. A
Special Permit Application for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge from
Twelve New York City Water Pollution Control Plants at the 12-Mile
Site. New York, NY. December.
Claborn, H. V. 1960. Pesticide Residues in Meat and Milk. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. ARS-33-63. (Cited in Kenaga, 1980.)
Clevenger, T. E., D. D. Hemphill, K. Roberts, and W. A. Mullins. 1983.
Chemical Composition and Possible Mutagenicity of Municipal
Sludges. J. WPCF. 55(12):1470-1475.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Edwards, C. A. 1971. Persistent Pesticides in the Environment. CRC
Press, Cleveland, OH.
Edwards, C. A. 1973. Pesticide Residues in Soil and Water. In;
Edwards, C. A. (ed.), Environmental Pollution by Pesticides.
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Eno, C., and P- Everett. 1958. Effects of Soil Applications of 10
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides on Soil Microorganisms and the
Growth of Stringless Black Valentine Beans. Soil Sci. Soc. Proc.
22:235-238.
Farrell, J. B. 1984. Personal Communication. Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. December.
Finlayson, D. G., and H. R. MacCarthy. 1973. Pesticide Residues in
Plants. In; Edwards, C.A. (ed.), Environmental Pollution by
Pesticides. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Food and Drug Administration. 1979. Compliance Program Report of
Findings. FY78 Total Diet Studies - Adult (7305.003).
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater- Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L. W., and G. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogenous Aquifers. Report
No. H-8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, NM.
Gerritse, R. G., R. Vriesema, J. W. Dalenberg, and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.
C-65
-------
Geyer, H., A. G. Kraus, W. Klein, E. Richter, and F. Korte. 1980.
Relationship Between Water Solubility and Bioaccumulation Potential
of Organic Chemicals in Rats. Chemosphere 9:277-291.
Glooschenko, W. A., W. M. Strachan, and R. C. Sampson. 1976.
Distribution of Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Water,
Sediments, and Seston of the Upper Great Lakes - 1974. Pest.
Monit. J. 10(2):61-67.
Griffin, R. A. 1984. Personal Communication to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ECAO - Cincinnati, OH. Illinois State
Geological Survey.
Hansen, L. G., P. W. Washko, L. G. Tuinstra, S. B. Dorn, and T. D.
Hinesly. 1981. Polychlorinated Biphenyl, Pesticide, and Heavy
Metal Resides in Swine Foraging on Sewage Sludge Amended Soils. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 29:1012-1017.
Hassett, J. J., W. L. Banwart, and R. A. Griffin. 1983. Correlation of
Compound Properties with Sorption Characteristics of Non-Polar
Compounds by Soils and Sediments: Concepts and Limitations.
Chapter 15. In; The Environment and Solid Waste Characterization,
Treatment and Disposal - Proc. 4th Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Life Science Symposium, October 4, 1981, Gatlinburg, TN., C. W.
Francis and I. Auerbach (eds.), Ann Arbor Science Pub.
Hopkins, A., and V. Kirk. 1957- Effect of Several Insecticides on the
English Red Worm. J. Econ. Ent. 50(5):699~700.
Jacobs, A., M. Blangetti, and E. Hellmund. 1974. Vom Wasser 43:259-
273. (Cited in Geyer et al., 1980.)
Johnson, R., and D. Manske. 1976. Pesticide Residues in Total Diet
Samples (IX). Pest Monit. J. 9(4):157-169.
Jones, R. A., and G. F. Lee. 1977. Chemical Agents of Potential Health
Significance for Land Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Effluents
and Sludges. In; Sagik, B.P., and C.A. Sorber (eds.). Risk
Assessment and Health Effects of Land Application of Municipal
Wastewater and Sludges. University of Texas, Center for Applied
Research and Technology, San Antonio, TX.
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.
Lawless, E. W., T. L. Ferguson, and A. F. Meiners. 1975. Guidelines
for the Disposal of Small Quantities of Unused Pesticides. EPA-
670/2-75-057. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH.
Manske, D., and R. Johnson. 1975. Pesticide Residues in the Total Diet
Samples (VIII). Pest. Monit. J. 9(2):94-105.
C-66
-------
Martin, J., R. B. Harding, G. H. Cannell, and L. D. Anderson. 1959.
Influence of Five Annual Field Applications of Organic Insecticides
on Soil Biological and Physical Properties. Soil Sci. 87:334-338.
Matsumura, F. 1972a. Current Pesticide Situation in the United States.
In; Matsumura, F. (ed.), Environmental Toxicology of Pesticides.
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Matsumura, F. 1972b. Biological Effects of Toxic Pesticidal
Contaminants and Terminal Residues. In; Matsumura, F. (ed.),
Environmental Toxicology of Pesticides. Academic Press, New York,
NY.
Mattraw, H. C. 1975. Occurrence of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Insecticides, Southern Florida, 1968-1972. Pest. Monit. J.
9(2):106-114.
McParland, P. J., R. M. McCracken, M. B. O'Hare, and A. M. Raven. 1973.
Benzene Hexachloride Poisoning in Cattle. Vet. Record. 369-371.
Nash, R. 1983. Comparative Volatilization and Dissipation Rates of
Several Pesticides from Soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 31:210-217.
National Academy of Sciences. 1968. Effects of Pesticides on Fruit and
Vegetable Physiology. Publication 1698.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Drinking Water and Health.
Washington, D.C. NAS, National Review Council Safe Drinking Water
Committee.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1983. Northeast
Monitoring Program 106-Mile Site Characterization Update. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-26. U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. August.
Pennington, J.A.T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am* Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Requejo, A. G., R. H. West, P. G. Hatcher, and McGillivary. 1979.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Chlorinated Pesticides in Soils of
the Everglades National Park and Adjacent Areas. Environ. Sci. &
Tech. 13(8):931-935.
Ryan, J. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Food Chain: A Review and Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251-302.
C-67
-------
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Surge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual. 2(2): 321-
325.
Stanford Research Institute International. 1980. Seafood Consumption
Data Analysis. Final Report, Task II. Prepared for U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68-01-3887- Menlo Park, CA. September.
Stanley, C. W., J. E. Barney, M. R. Helton, and A. R. Yobs. 1971.
Measurement of Atmosphere Levels of Pesticides. Env. Sci.
Technol. 5(5):430-435.
Thornton, I., 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., and D. Crabtree. 1970. Handbook of Toxicity of Pesticides
to Wildlife. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Res. Pub.
No. 84., p. 75-76.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for
Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental Assessment
of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge. Interim
Report. EPA/530/SW-547- Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) Dispersion Model User Guide. EPA 450/4-79-30. Vol. 1.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Hexachlorocyclohexane. EPA 440/4-80-054. October.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. Final Report.
Vol. I. EPA 440/1-82-303. Effluent Guidelines Division,
Washington, D.C. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Assessment of Human
Exposure to Arsenic: Tacoma, Washington. Internal Document.
OHEA-E-075-U. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C. July 19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
C-68
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a. Health Effects Assessment
for Lindane. Final Draft. ECAO-CIN-H056. Prepared for Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response by the Environmental Criteria
Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. EPA 600/8-83-028B. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office. Research Triangle Park, NC.
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Drinking Water Criteria
Document for Lindane. EPA-CIN-402. Final Draft. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. January.
U.S. National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of the Health
Risks of Seven Pesticides Used for Termite Control. Committee on
Toxicology. NTIS: PB83-136374.
Wedberg, J. L., S. Moore, F. J. Amore, and H. McAvoy. 1978.
Organochlorine Insecticide Residues in Bovine Milk and Manufactured
Milk Products in Illinois, 1971-1976. Pest. Monit. J. 161-164.
Yadav, D. V., M. K. Pillai, and H. C. Agarwol. 1976. Uptake and
Metabolism of DDT and Lindane by the Earthworm Pheretina posthuma.
Bull. Env. Cont. Toxicol. 16(5):541-545.
C-69
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR LINDANE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Lindane
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Formula
(SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
CSs AR + MS
CSr = CSS [1+0
where:
CSg = Soil concentration of pollutant after a
single year's application of sludge
(Ug/g DW)
CSr = Soil concentration of pollutant after the
yearly application of sludge has been
repeated for n + 1 years (ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (mt/ha)
MS = 2000 mt ha/DW = assumed mass of soil in
upper 15 cm
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
t^. = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
n =99 years
b. Sample calculation
CSS is calculated for AR = 0, 5, and 50 mt/ha only
DW _ (0.11 yg/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (0.13 ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
CSr is calculated for AR = 5 mt/ha applied for 100 years
0.267117 ug/g DW = 0.129950 Ug/g DW [1 + 0.5(1/1*°A) +
0>5(2/1.04) + + Q 5(99/1.04)
C-70
-------
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Formula
II
Index 2 = ~
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(yg/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
< 0.00129950 = °-";;50 HE'*DW
>100 ug/g DW
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
T j •> II x UB
Index 3 = —p-
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
UB = Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]"1)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
n nn97->a - 0-129950 UK/g DW x 1.05 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1
\1 m\J\Jf. I f.O — r n I fvr t
50 yg/g DW
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Formula
Index 4 = —
C-71
-------
where :
T! = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
°-129950
n 010396 -
0.010396 -
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Formula
Index 5 = Ii x UP
where:
ll = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge - amended soil (ug/g DW)
UP = Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue
(pg/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]"1)
b. Sample Calculation - Index values were not calculated
due to lack of data.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (index 6)
a. Formula
Index 6 = PP
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration associ-
ated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Index values were not calculated
due to lack of data.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
Index 7 =
C-72
-------
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (yg/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Formula
If AR = 0; Index 8=0
If AR ± 0; Index 8 = SC *GS
X A
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (yg/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
If AR = 0; Index 8=0
„ „ , o, 0.00011 -"-
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
(I5 x DT) + DI
Index 9 = - — -
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
DT = Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (g/day DW)
C-73
-------
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
(15 x UA x DA) + DI
Index 10 =
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
UA = Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW]'1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products and
meat, poultry, eggs, fish)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil (Index
11)
a. Formula
If AR = 0; index 11 = (BS * GS * "A * DA) * DI
RSI
If AR * 0; Index 11 - (SC * GS ' "A * DA) * DI
RS 1
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
UA = Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW]'1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products and
meat only)
C-74
-------
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (vig/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
53.78971 = [(0.11 ug/g DW x 0.05 x 0.65 ug/g tissue DW
[Ug/g feed OH]'1 x 39.4 g/day DW) + 2.71 Ug/day]
t 0.053 yg/day
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(Index 12)
a. Formula
(Ii x DS) + DI
Index i2 . - _ -
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet (g/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
,., ,„,„ _ (0.129950 ug/g DW x 5 g/day) + 2.71 pg. day
63.39152 -
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 = Ig + IIQ + 111 + Il2 ~
where :
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from plant consumption (unitless)
IIQ = Index 10 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
= Index 11 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals ingesting soil
(unitless)
C-75
-------
112 = Index 12 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
II. LANDFILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/CO for the unsaturated
zone are calculated corresponding to increasing values of t
until equilibrium is reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse input
from the landfill, Equation 3 is employed to estimate the con-
centration vs. time data at the water table. The concentration
vs. time curve is then transformed into a square pulse having a
constant concentration equal to the peak concentration, Cu,
from the unsaturated zone, and a duration, to, chosen so that
the total areas under the curve and the pulse are equal, as
illustrated in Equation 3. This square pulse is then used as
the input to the linkage assessment, Equation 2, which esti-
mates initial dilution in the aquifer to give the initial con-
centration, C0, for the saturated zone assessment. (Conditions
for B, minimum thickness of unsaturated zone, have been set
such that dilution is actually negligible.) The saturated zone
assessment procedure is nearly identical to that for the unsat-
urated zone except for the definition of certain parameters and
choice of parameter values. The maximum concentration at the
well, Cmax, is used to calculate the index values given in
Equations A and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
C(y.t) =i [expUx) erfc(A2) + exp^) erfc(B2)] = P(x»t)
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of the result. Exp(A^) denotes the
exponential of A]_, e *, where erfc(A2) denotes the
complimentary error function of A2. Erfc(A2) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1972).
where;
Al = X- [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x y*)±]
1 2D*
y - t (V*2 + 4D* x u-')^
A2 - (4D* x t)*
C-76
-------
R. = X [V* + (V*2 + 4D* x U*
•L 2D*
_ y + t (V*2 + 4D* x U*)*
(4D* x
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration (yg/L)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
CF = 250 kg sludge solids/m3 leachate =
PS x 103
1 - PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge
20%
t = Time (years)
X = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
Ot = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = —2— (m/year)
0 x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 + dry x Kjj = Retardation factor (unitless)
P(jry = Dry bulk density (g/mL)
Kd = foc x Koc (mL/g)
foc = Fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
Koc = Organic carbon partition coefficient (mL/g)
-^ (years)~l
y = Degradation rate (day *)
and where for the saturated zone:
Co = Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (yg/L)
t = Time (years)
X = AJ, = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
v* = K x 1 (m/year)
0 x R
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
R = 1 + dry x Kd = Retardation factor = 1 (unitless)
0
since Kd = foc x Koc and foc is assumed to be zfero
for the saturated zone.
C-77
-------
C. Equation 2. Linkage Assessment
Q x W
Co = C,, x
o uu x 365 [(K x i) t 0] x B
where:
C0 = Initial concentration of pollutant in the saturated
zone as determined by Equation 1 (yg/L)
Cu = Maximum pulse concentration from the unsaturated
zone (yg/L)
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
W = Width of landfill (m)
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
——Q.X W * 0 and B > 2
— K x i x 365 —
Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C(x>t) = P(x,t) for 0 < t < t0
Co
= P(X,t) - P(X,t - t0) for t > t
where :
t0 (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
to (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
°°
= [ / c dt] * cu
o
C( Y t )
P(X,t) = — Jr1 — as determined by Equation 1
°o
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting
from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
Index 1 = Cmax
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
maximum of C(A2,,t) calculated in Equation 1
(yg/D
C-78
-------
2. Sample Calculation
0.00142 yg/L = 0.00142 yg/L
P. Equation 5. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from
Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
(I I x AC) + DI
Index 2 = _
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration
resulting from landfilled sludge (yg/L)
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)
2. Sample Calculation
_ (0.00142 yg/L x 2 L/day) + 8.21 yg/day
0.053 yg/day
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from
Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)
1. Formula
_ , . (C x PS x SC x FM x DP) + BA
Index 1 = —
where:
C = Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
(hr/sec x g/mg)
DS = Sludge feed rate (kg/hr DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
FM = Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (unitless)
DP = Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum
annual ground level concentration (ug/m-*)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air
C-79
-------
2. Sample Calculation
1.276565 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW
x 0.11 mg/kg DW x 0.05 x 3.4 yg/m3) + 0.00005yg/m3]
* 0.00005yg/m3
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formula
[(II - 1) x BA] + BA
Index 2 =
EC
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of air concentration increment
resulting from incinerator emissions
(unitless)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in
urban air (yg/m3)
EC = Exposure criterion (yg/m3)
2. Sample Calculation
f(l.276565 - 1) x 0.00005 yg/m3! + 0.00005 Ug/m3
f*
0.00263 yg/m3
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
SC x ST x PS
Index 1 =
W x D x L
where!
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
ST = Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
PS = Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
W = Width of initial plume dilution (m)
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of mixing
for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation
0 00022 Ug/L = 0'U mg/b-g DH x 16000QO kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x 103 ug/mg
200 m x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
C-80
-------
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Formula
SS x SC
Index 2
V x D x L
where :
SS = Daily sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
V = Average current velocity at site (m/day)
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of
mixing for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation
0.000059 yg/L = 82500° k« DW/day x 0.11 mg/kg DW x 103 ug/mg
9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1 . Formula
Index 3 = AWQC"
where :
Ij = Index 1 = Index of seawater concentration
resulting from initial mixing after sludge
disposal (yg/L)
AWQC - Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from
acute and chronic toxic effects (pg/L)
2. Sample Calculation
0.0014 = 0.00022
0.16 Ug/L
D. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1 . Formula
(1 2 x BCF x 10'3 kg/g x FS x QF) + DI
Index 4 =
RSI
c-81
-------
where:
12 = Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration
representing a 24-hour dumping cycle (pg/L)
QF = Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
FS = Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unitless)
BCF = Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (L/kg)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)
2. Sample Calculation
150 =
(O.Q00059 UK/L x 130 L/kg x 10~3 kg/g x 0.000021 x 14.3 g WW/day) + 8.21 Ug/day
0.053 Mg/day
C-82
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
O
00
CO
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (lig/g DW)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, f^ry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 6 (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (m/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
Saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, 0 (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landfill, AH (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
1
0.11
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
2
0.22
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
3
0.11
1.925
0.133
0.0001
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4 5
0.11 0.11
NAD 1.53
NA 0.195
NA 0.005
1.6 0.8
0 5
NA 0.5
0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04
0.001 0.001
100 100
10 10
6
0.11
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.02
50
5
7 8
0.22 Na
NA N
NA N
NA N
1.6 N
0 N
NA N
0.389 N
4.04 N
0.02 N
50 N
5 N
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
o
00
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, C0 (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Pulse duration, tQ (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, Co
(pg/L)
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Cmax (pg/L)
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge, Index 1 (pg/L)
(Equation 4)
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
groundwater contamination, Index 2
(unitless) (Equation 5)
Condition of Analysis
12 345678
27.5 55.0 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 55.0 N
1.64 3.27 16.3 27.5 1.64 1.64 55.0 N
39.9 39.9 5.02 5.00 39.9 39.9 5.00 N
126 126 126 253 23.8 6.32 2.38 N
1.64 3.27 16.3 27.5 1.64 1.64 55.0 N
0.00142 0.00284 0.00178 0.00299 0.00754 0.0569 1.27 N
0.00142 0.00284 0.00178 0.00299 0.00754 0.0569 1.27 0
155 155 155 155 155 157 203 155
aN = Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
bNA = Not applicable for this condition.
-------
LINDANE
p. 3-2 Index 1 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.13; worst at 500 mt/na - 0.13
Preliminary Conclusion - should read:
No increase in the concentration of lindane in sludge-amended soil is
expected to occur at any application rate.
p. 3-3 Index 2 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = <.0013; worst at 500 mt/ha <.0013
p. 3-4 Index 3 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.0027; worst at 500 mt/ha - 0.0027
p. 3-5 Index 4 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.01; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.01
p. 3-17 Index 12 Values should read:
adult-typical at 500 mt/ha = 150; worst at 500 mt/ha = 150
toddler-typical at 500 mt/ha = 63; worst at 500 mt/ha = 63
Preliminary Conclusion - should read:
The consumption of sludge-amended soils by toddlers or adults
not expected to increase the risk of human cancer due to lindane
above the pre-existing risk attributable to other dietary
source of lindane
C-85
-------
APPENDIX D:
HAZARD INDEX METHODOLOGIES
-------
APPENDIX D; SUMMARY OF ERA'S METHODOLOGY FOR PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
OF CHEMICAL HAZARDS RESULTING FROM VARIOUS SLUDGE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
This appendix contains a short synopsis of the draft "Methodology for
Preliminary Assessment of Chemical Hazards Resulting from Various Sewage
Sludge Disposal Practices" developed by EPA's Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office (ECAO-C1nc1nnat1}. This methodology was developed to
conduct preliminary assessments of chemical hazards resulting from the
utilization or disposal of municipal sewage sludges. The methodology
enables the Agency to rapidly screen a 11st of chemicals so that those most
likely to pose a hazard to human health or the environment can be Identified
for further assessment and possible regulatory control. Four different
sludge utilization or disposal practices were considered: land application
(Including distribution and marketing). landfllUng, Incineration and ocean
disposal.
The goal of this methodology 1s to approximate the degree of contamina-
tion that could occur as a result of each disposal practice, and then to
compare the potential exposures that could result from such contamination
with the maximum levels considered safe, or with those levels expected to
cause adverse effects to humans or other organisms. The methodology has
been kept as simple as possible to enable rapid preliminary screening of the
chemicals. Estimating potential exposures 1s extremely complex, and often
requires the use of assumptions. Unfortunately, modifying the assumptions
used may cause the results to vary substantially. Therefore, the assump-
tions used tend to be conservative to prevent falsely negative determina-
tions of hazard. This 1s of critical Importance 1n a screening exercise.
D-l
-------
However, to preserve the utility of the method, an effort has been made to
ensure that the conservative assumptions are nevertheless realistic, or have
a reasonable probability of occurring under unregulated or uncontrolled
conditions.
The simplicity and conservatism that make this methodology appropriate
for screening of chemicals make It Inappropriate for estimating regulatory
criteria or standards. The latter require more detailed analysis so that
the resulting levels are adequately protective, yet no more stringent than
necessary based on the best available scientific Information and risk
assessment procedures.
IDENTIFICATION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Each disposal practice may result 1n the release of sludge-borne con-
taminants by several different environmental pathways, which vary In their
potential for causing exposures that may lead to adverse effects. For each
practice, this methodology attempts to Identify and assess only the most
overriding pathway(s). If a chemical does not pose a hazard 1n the over-
riding pathway(s), H 1s unlikely to do so by a minor pathway.
CALCULATION OF CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT
Methods for estimating contaminant transport have been kept as simple as
possible, so that the screening procedure could be carried out rapidly.
Thus, 1n some cases, a simple volumetric dilution of the sludge by an
environmental medium (e.g., soil, seawater) 1s assumed, followed by the use
of simple biological uptake relationships. Computerized models were used to
estimate groundwater transport. Incinerator operation and aerial dispersion.
The Identification of parameter values used as Inputs to the equations
was a task of major Importance. Parameters can be divided Into two types:
those having values that are Independent of the Identity of the chemical
D-2
-------
being assessed (such as rate of sludge application to land, depth of the
water table, or amount of seafood consumed per day) and those specific to
the chemical (such as Its rate of uptake by plants, adsorption to soil or
toxldty).
In an attempt to show the variability of possible exposures, two values
were ordinarily chosen for chemical-Independent parameters; these are Iden-
tified as "typical" and "worst-case." The typical value represents the
situation most frequently encountered; If known, a median or mean value has
been used. The worst-case value represents the "reasonable worst-case;" 1f
known, a 95th percentlle value has been used.
For chemical-specific parameters, a single value was ordinarily chosen
because of the effort required to make two determinations for each chemical,
and because of the paucity of Information available. In each case, the
value that gave the more conservative result was chosen.
An exception to the single value was the selection of typical and worst-
case values for contaminant concentrations 1n sludge. Sludge concentration
may be viewed as the starting point for each method. A valid estimate of
the level of contamination Is essential to determine If a hazard exists.
Without 1t, none of the Indices can be calculated. For a given chemical,
the majority of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) have relatively low
sludge concentration levels, but a few have much higher concentrations.
Because of the Importance of contaminant concentrations In sludge for each
of the Indices, a typical and worst-case value have been chosen for this
parameter.
Data on sludge contaminant concentrations were derived from an EPA
report, "Fate of Priority Pollutants 1n Publicly Owned Treatment Works"
(U.S. EPA, 1982), frequently referred to as the "40-CHy Study". Wherever
D-3
-------
the 40-CHy Study provided Insufficient Information, data from another
report prepared for the U.S. EPA, "A Comparison of Studies of Toxic Sub-
stances 1n POTW Sludges" was used (Camp, Dresser & McKee, 1984).
CALCULATION OF HAZARD INDICES
After contaminant transport has been estimated, a series of "hazard
Indices" are calculated for each chemical. Each hazard Index 1s a ratio
that Is Interpreted according to whether 1t Is greater or less than one, as
further explained below. The purpose for calculating these Indices Is to
reduce a large and complex body of data to terms that facilitate evaluation
and decision-making. Careful Interpretation of these Indices Indicates
whether a more detailed analysis of a chemical should be undertaken or
whether the chemical can be "screened out" at this stage. The hazard
Indices may be separated Into two types, one type showing the expected
Increase of contaminant concentration 1n an environmental medium {"Incre-
mental Index") and the other showing whether adverse effects could result
("effect Index").
Incremental Indices and Their Interpretation
Incremental Indices show the expected degree of Increase of contaminant
concentration 1n water, soil, air or food resulting from sludge disposal.
The Incremental Index does not by Itself Indicate hazard, since contamina-
tion alone does not necessarily mean that adverse effects will occur.
However, the Incremental Index aids 1n both the calculation and Interpreta-
tion of the subsequent effect Indices. For Inorganic chemicals, the Incre-
mental Index (I.) 1s calculated as follows:
T A * B
11 =~T
D-4
-------
where A 1s the expected concentration of the chemical that Is due to sludge
disposal, from the transport estimation method, and B 1s the background
concentration In the medium. The Index Is thus a simple, dlmenslonless
ratio of expected total concentration to background concentration. Its
Interpretation 1s equally simple. A value of 2.0 would Indicate that sludge
application doubles the background concentration; a value of 1.0 would
Indicate that the concentration 1s unchanged.* In addition, for the null
case, where no sludge 1s applied, A = 0 and therefore I. = 1.0.
Consideration of background levels 1s Important since concentration
Increase resulting from sludge may be quite small relative to the back-
ground. In some Instances, sludge use could even result 1n a decrease of
contaminant concentration. Failure to recognize this fact may cause a
loss of perspective on the Importance of a particular concentration level.
On the other hand, this calculation falls to distinguish between the chemi-
cal form or availability of the contaminant present as background and that
added by sludge disposal.
The above equation assumes that the background concentration In the
medium of concern 1s known and 1s not zero, as 1s usually the case for
Inorganic chemicals. For organic chemicals, this assumption often does not
hold. Since 1n these cases H 1s Impossible to express the Increase as a
ratio, the Index then becomes the following:
*In most cases, A will be finite and positive, and thus I>1. However, since
the Index values are not carried to more than two significant figures, 1f
B Is far greater than A, then I will be given as 1.0.
+For example, If soil Is amended with sludge having a contaminant con-
centration lower than the soil background, then I<1.0.
D-5
-------
Therefore, when the background concentration for organic chemicals 1s
unknown, or assumed to be zero, the Incremental Indices show the absolute
Increase, 1n units of concentration. Note that these do not fH the form of
the other Indices and that for the null case, I, = 0 for organic chemicals.
Effect Indices and Their Interpretation
Effect Indices show whether a given Increase 1n contaminant level could
be expected to result 1n a given adverse Impact on health of humans or other
organisms. For both Inorganic and organic chemicals, the effect Index
(I ) 1s calculated as follows:
C + D
where C 1s the Increase 1n exposure that 1s due to sludge disposal, usually
calculated from I,; 0 1s the background exposure; and E 1s the exposure
value used to evaluate the potential for adverse effects, such as a toxldty
threshold. Units of all exposures are the same (I.e., they are expressed
either as concentration or as dally Intake), and therefore the Index value
1s dimenslonless.
The Interpretation of I varies according to whether E refers to a
threshold or nonthreshold effect. Threshold effects are those for which a
safe level of contaminant exposure can be defined. EPA considers all non-
carcinogenic effects to have thresholds. For effects on nonhuman organisms,
the value chosen for E Is usually the lowest level showing some adverse
effect 1n long-term exposures, and thus 1s slightly above the chronic-
response threshold. For humans, the value chosen 1s generally an estab-
lished Acceptable Dally Intake (ADI), which usually 1s designed to be below
the threshold for chronic toxldty. In either case, 1f I <1 the adverse
effect 1s considered unlikely to occur, whereas 1f I >1 the effect cannot
D-6
-------
be ruled out. Values of I close to 1 may be somewhat ambiguous and
require careful Interpretation.
EPA considers carcinogenic effects to be nonthreshold; that Is, any
level of exposure to a carcinogenic contaminant 1s regarded as posing some
risk. Since no threshold can be Identified, a "benchmark" level of risk was
chosen against which to evaluate carcinogen exposures. The Carcinogen
Assessment Group of the U.S. EPA has estimated the carcinogenic potency
(I.e., the slope of risk versus exposure) for humans exposed to low dose
levels of carcinogens. These potency values Indicate the upper 95% confi-
dence limit estimate of excess cancer risk for Individuals experiencing a
given exposure over a 70-year lifetime. They can also be used to derive the
exposure level expected to correspond to a given level of excess risk. A
risk level of 10~6, or one 1n one million, has been chosen as an arbitrary
benchmark. Therefore, for nonthreshold effects, 1f I >1 then the cancer
C
risk resulting from the disposal practice may exceed 10~6- Effect Indices
based on nonthreshold effects must be clearly differentiated from those
based on threshold effects, since their Interpretation Is fundamentally
different. Subthreshold exposures are normally considered acceptable,
whereas the acceptability of a given low level of risk 1s less clear.
LIMITATIONS OF THE APPROACH
The approach summarized 1n this appendix Involves many assumptions and
has many limitations that must be recognized, a few of which are discussed
here.
In the null case, where no sludge 1s applied, the Increase In exposure
from sludge disposal (C) 1s zero. Therefore, the effect Index, Ie,
reduces to the background exposure level divided by the level associated
with adverse effects, or D/E. If E refers to a threshold effect, then It
D-7
-------
should be the case that Ig <1. If Instead I >1 then one of the follow-
ing must be true. Either a background condition 1s causing adverse effects
(an unlikely situation); D or E has been Incorrectly chosen; or D and E each
may have been correctly chosen per se, but are based on two different forms
of the contaminant.
For example, perhaps a pure form of the contaminant caused toxldty to a
bird species at a dietary concentration (E) of 100 ^g/g, but the back-
ground concentration (D) measured 1n earthworms, which the bird consumes, Is
200 yg/g. The value for the null case of Land Application Index 3, the
Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxldty, would then be 200/100 or I =2.
Such an Index value 1s clearly unrealistic, since earthworms are not ordi-
narily toxic to birds. It may be Impossible to correct the value within the
limited scope of this analysis; that 1s, without detailed study of the
spedatlon or complexatlon of the contaminant 1n soil and earthworm tissues.
Therefore, proper Interpretation of the Index may require comparison of all
values to the null value rather than to 1.0. For example, 1f the null value
of I 1s 2.0 and the value under the worst sludge disposal scenario 1s
2.1, the best Interpretation 1s that there 1s little cause for concern. If
on the other hand the worst scenario resulted 1n a value of 10, there prob-
ably 1s cause for concern. In situations Intermediate to these two cases,
Judgment should be used following careful examination of the data on which
C, D and E are based.
If E refers to a nonthreshold effect, I.e., cardnogenesls, a null-case
value of I >1 1s still more difficult to Interpret. If D and E are
chosen correctly, the straightforward Interpretation 1s that current back-
ground exposure levels are associated with an upper-bound lifetime cancer
risk of >10~6. This risk estimate may be accurate 1n some Instances since
D-8
-------
there 1s a background risk of cancer 1n the U.S. population, some of which
may be attributable to pollutant exposures. However, the Interpretation 1s
probably Impossible to verify because the model used to estimate the cancer
potency has extrapolated from observable Incidences 1n the high-dose range
to low doses where Incidences are not observable.
In addition to uncertainties about the accuracy of the low-dose extrapo-
lation the same Issues of chemical form discussed earlier arise here as
well. The chemical forms assessed In cancer bloassays or epidemiology
studies may be significantly different toxlcologlcally than either back-
ground forms or forms released due to sludge disposal practices.
Although the hazard Indices presented below are geared toward rapid and
simplified decision-making (I.e., screening), they cannot be Interpreted
blindly. Their Interpretation requires a familiarity with the fundamental
principles underlying the generation and selection of the data on which they
are based, and the exercise of careful Judgment on a case-by-case basis.
As stated earlier, the preceding has been summarized from the draft
document entitled "Methodology for Preliminary Assessment of Chemical
Hazards Resulting from Various Sewage Sludge Disposal Practices". The
latter document has undergone peer review within the Agency and by outside
scientists. Comments effecting revision of the methodology are appropri-
ately reflected 1n this summary. The final document will soon be available
In final form.
D-9
-------
HAZARD INDICES
The following outline Illustrates how each hazard Index was derived,
Including the types of data needed and the calculation formulae employed.
the guidelines and assumptions that were used In selecting the
values for each parameter are not Included 1n this brief summary.
Information, the reader 1s referred to the draft report, "Method-
Preliminary Assessment of Chemical Hazards Resulting from Various
However,
numerical
For more
ology for
Sewage Sludge Disposal Practices (ECAO-CIN-452) ," which will be available 1n
final form from ECAO-C1nc1nnat1 .
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
Index !
(SC x AR) * (BS x MS)
BS (AR t MS)
where:
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
MS = 2000 mt DW/ha = Assumed mass of soil 1n upper 15 cm
b. For Organic Chemicals
*
-------
where:
CSS = Soil concentration of pollutant after a single
year's application of sludge (vg/g DW)
CSr = Soil concentration of pollutant after the yearly
application of sludge has been repeated for n + 1
years (vg/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (vg/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (mt/ha)
MS = 2000 mt DW/ha = assumed mass of soil In upper 15 cm
BS = Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
(vg/g DW)
t1/2 = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
n = 99 years
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Tox1c1ty (Index 2)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
Ii x BS
Index 2 = —
TB
where:
I-| = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration Increment
(unltless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant In soil
(vg/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (vg/g DW)
b. For Organic Chemicals
Index 2 . il
where:
I-j = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant 1n sludge-
amended soil (yg/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (yg/g DW)
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxlclty (Index 3)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
(Ii - 1)(BS x UB) + BB
,„„., 3 .
D-ll
-------
where:
I] = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration Increment
(unltless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant In soil
(yg/g DW)
UB = Uptake slope of pollutant 1n soil biota (yg/g
tissue DW [yg/g soil DW]'1}
BB = Background concentration In soil biota (yg/g DW)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator (yg/g DW)
b. For Organic Chemicals
Ii x UB
Index 3 . __
where:
I] = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant 1n sludge-
amended soil (yg/g DW)
UB = Uptake factor of pollutant 1n soil biota (yg/g
tissue DW [yg/g soil DW]'1)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator (yg/g DW)
Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotox1c1ty (Index 4)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
I-l x BS
Index 4 = -
TP
where:
I] = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration Increment
(unHless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
(yg/9 DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (yg/g DW)
b. For Organic Chemicals
Index 4 = —
TP
where:
I] = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant 1n sludge
amended soil (yg/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (yg/g DW)
D-12
-------
2. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Caused by Uptake
(Index 5)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
(Ii - 1) x BS
Index 5 = —! x CO x UP + 1
BP
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration Increment
(unltless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant In soil
(vg/g DM)
CO = 2 kg/ha (yg/g) 1 = Conversion factor between soil
concentration and application rate
UP = Uptake slope of pollutant In plant tissue (yg/g
tissue DW [kg/ha]"1)
BP = Background concentration 1n plant tissue (yg/g DW)
b. For Organic Chemicals
Index 5 = I-, x UP
where:
I-j = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant 1n sludge-
amended soil (yg/g DW)
UP = Uptake factor of pollutant 1n plant tissue (yg/g
tissue DW [yg/g soil DW]"1)
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by Phyto-
toxlclty (Index 6)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
pp
Index 6 = —
BP
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration associated with
phytotoxlclty (yg/g DW)
BP = Background concentration 1n plant tissue (yg/g DW)
b. For Organic Chemicals
Index 6 = PP
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration associated with
phytotoxlclty (yg/g DW)
D-13
-------
C. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxlclty Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
I5 x BP
Index 7 =
TA
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration Increment
caused by uptake (unltless)
BP = Background concentration 1n plant tissue (yg/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(yg/g DW)
b. For Organic Chemicals
Index 7 = —
TA
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant 1n plant
grown 1n sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(yg/g DW)
2. Index of Animal Toxldty Resulting from Sludge Ingestlon
(Index 8)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
BS x GS
If AR =0, I8 =
If AR 4 Q, I8 =
TA
SC x GS
TA
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
(yg/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(unltless)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(yg/g DW)
D-14
-------
b. For Organic Chemicals
If AR = 0, Index 8=0
If AR 4 0. I8 -
TA
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (vg/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(v9/g DW)
E. Effect on Humans
Index of Human Tox1c1ty/Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant
Consumption (Index 9)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
T [(I5 - 1) BP x DT] + DI
Index 9 = - - -
ADI or RSI
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration Increment
caused by uptake (unltless)
BP = Background concentration 1n plant tissue (yg/g DW)
DT = Dally human dietary Intake of affected plant tissue
(g/day DW)
DI = Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(vg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (vg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (vg/day)
b. For Organic Chemicals
[{I5 - BS x UP) x DT] + DI
Index 9 =
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant 1n plant
grown 1n sludge-amended soil (vg/g DW)
DT = Dally human dietary Intake of affected plant tissue
(g/day DW)
DI = Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(vg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (vg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (vg/day)
D-15
-------
2. Index of Human Toxldty/Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption
of Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
[(I5 - 1) BP x UA x DA] + DI
10 ' —
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration Increment
caused by uptake (unltless)
BP = Background concentration 1n plant tissue (yg/g DW)
UA = Uptake slope of pollutant 1n animal tissue (yg/g
tissue DW [yg/g feed DW]'1)
DA = Dally human dietary Intake of affected animal
tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
b. For Organic Chemicals
[(I5 - BS x UP) x UA x DA] + DI
Index 10 = - - -
ADI or RSI
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant 1n plant
grown 1n sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
UA = Uptake factor of pollutant 1n animal tissue (yg/g
tissue DW [yg/g feed DW]"1)
DA = Dally human dietary Intake of affected animal
tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
3. Index of Human Tox1c1ty/Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption
of Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. For Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
If AR . 0. Index 11 = (BS x GS x UA x DA) + DI
ADI or RSI
If AR 4 0, Index 11 . * DI
ADI or RSI
D-16
-------
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
(yg/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(unltless)
UA = Uptake slope (Inorganics) or uptake factor
(organlcs) of pollutant 1n animal tissue (yg/g
tissue DW [vg/g feed DW'1])
DA = Average dally human dietary Intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
4. Index of Human ToxIcHy/Cancer Risk Resulting from Soil
Ingestlon (Index 12)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
x BS x DS) + DI
Index 12 =
ADI or RSI
(SC x DS) + DI
Pure sludge Ingestlon: Index 12
ADI or RSI
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration Increment
(unltless)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
(yg/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil In human diet (g/day)
DI = Average dally dietary Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
b. For Organic Chemicals
dl x DS) + DI
Index 12 =
ADI or RSI
, . , ., T . ,. (SC x DS) + DI
Pure sludge Ingestlon: Index 12 = J L———
D-17
-------
where:
I] = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant 1n sludge-
amended soil (yg/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DW)
OS = Assumed amount of soil 1n human diet (g/day)
DI = Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
Index of Aggregate Human Toxlclty/Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. For Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
T .1 ,0 T T T 3DI
Index 13 = Ig •»• Iin + 111 * -H2 -
ADI or RSI
where:
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human toxldty/cancer risk
resulting from plant consumption (unltless)
I-)0 = Index 10 = Index of human toxldty/cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal products
derived from animals feeding on plants (unltless)
III = Index 11 = Index of human toxldty/cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal products
derived from animals Ingesting soil (unltless)
I]2 = Index 12 = Index of human toxldty/cancer risk
resulting from soil Ingestlon (unltless)
DI = Average dally dietary Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
D-18
-------
II. LANDFILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/C0 for the unsaturated zone
are calculated corresponding to Increasing values of t until equi-
librium 1s reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse Input from the land-
fill, Equation 3 1s employed to estimate the concentration vs. time
data at the water table. The concentration vs. time curve 1s then
transformed Into a square pulse having a constant concentration
equal to the peak concentration, Cu, from the unsaturated zone,
and a duration, t0, chosen so that the total areas under the
curve and the pulse are equal, as Illustrated 1n Equation 3. This
square pulse 1s then used as the Input to the linkage assessment,
Equation 2, which estimates Initial dilution 1n the aquifer to give
the Initial concentration, C0, for the saturated zone assessment.
(Conditions for B, thickness of unsaturated zone, have been set
such that dilution 1s actually negligible.) The saturated zone
assessment procedure Is nearly Identical to that for the unsatu-
rated zone except for the definition of certain parameters and
choice of parameters values. The maximum concentration at the
well, Cmax, 1s used to calculate the Index values given In
Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
C(*tt} = 1/2 [exp(Ai) erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) erfc(B2)] = P(x,t)
C0
Requires evaluations of four dlmenslonless Input values and subse-
quent evaluation of the result. Exp(A-|) denotes the exponential
of A], eAl, and erfc(A2) denotes the complimentary error
function of A2. Erfc(A2) produces values between 0.0 and 2.0
(AbramowHz and Stegun, 1972).
where:
A _ -L- [V* - (V*2 + 40* x y*)1/2]
1 = 20*
. x - t (V*2 + 40* x u*)1/2
2 = (40* x t)l/2
D _i_ [V* + (V*2 +• 40* x v*)1/2]
1 = 20*
B _ x * t (V*2 * 40* x u*)1/2
2 = (40* x t)1/2
0-19
-------
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration (vg/8,)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
PS x 108
CF = 250 kg sludge sol1ds/m3 leachate = — —-
I — r o
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfllled sludge = 20%
t = Time (years)
x = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = a x V* (mVyear)
a = D1spers1v1ty coefficient (m)
V* = —*— (m/year)
e x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
e = Volumetric water content (unltless)
pdrv
R = 1 + -^-^ x Kd = Retardation factor (unltless)
e
P
-------
x = Aft = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = a x V* (mVyear)
a - D1spers1v1ty coefficient (m)
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
1 = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unHless)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unHless)
R = l + - x Kd = Retardation factor = 1 (unHless)
0
since K(j 1s assumed to be zero for the saturated zone.
C. Equation 2. Linkage Assessment
r r Y _ Q x W _
Ln = Uii X
° u 365 [(K x 1) * 0] x B
where:
C0 = Initial concentration of pollutant 1n the saturated
zone as determined by Equation 1 (jjg/B.)
Cu = Maximum pulse concentration from the unsaturated zone
0 = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
W = Width of landfill (m)
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
1 = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unHless)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unHless)
B = Thickness of saturated zone (m) where:
QxWx0 >
- K x 1 x 365
D-21
-------
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
^-^ = P(x,t) for 0 < t < t0
co
= P(x,t) - P(x.t - t0) for t > t
where:
t0 (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time (years)
t0 (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water table
(x = h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 = to'09 C dt] * Cu
P(x,t) = C^Xtt* as determined by Equation 1
C0
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment Resulting
from Landfllled Sludge (Index 1)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
Cm^ + BC
Index 1 = Jn^ -
BC
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
Maximum of C(AB.,t) calculated 1n Equation 1 (vg/8.)
BC = Background concentration of pollutant 1n groundwater
2. For Organic Chemicals
Index 1 = Cmax
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well
Maximum of C(ai,t) calculated 1n Equation 1
D-22
-------
F. Equation 5. Index of Human ToxUHy/Cancer Risk Resulting from
Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
[{Ii - 1) BC x AC] * DI
Index 2 = - ! -
ADI or RSI
where:
I] = Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration Increment
resulting from landfllled sludge
BC = Background concentration of pollutant In groundwater
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water (a/day)
DI = Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(vg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (vg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (vg/day)
2. For Organic Chemicals
(In x AC) + DI
Index 2 = — ! - - -
ADI or RSI
where:
I] = Index 1 = Groundwater concentration resulting from
landfllled sludge
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water (8,/day)
Dl = Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(vg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (vg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (vg/day)
D-23
-------
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of A1r Concentration Increment Resulting from Incinerator
Emissions (Index 1)
1. For Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
T ^ , (C x PS x SC x FH x DP) + BA
Index 1 = J '
BA
where:
C = Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
(hr/sec x g/mg)
OS = Sludge feed rate (kg/hr DW)
SC s Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
FH = Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (unltless)
DP = Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (pg/m» [g/sec]"1)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant 1n urban air
(yg/m8)
B. Index of Human Tox1c1ty/Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. For Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
[(Ii - 1) x BA] + BA
Index 2 =
EC
where:
I] = Index 1 = Index of air concentration Increment
resulting from Incinerator emissions (unltless)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant 1n urban air
(vg/m9)
EC = Exposure drterlon (vg/m8)
D-24
-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing of
Sludge (Index 1)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
SC x ST x PS
Index
W x D x L x CA
where:
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
ST = Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
PS = Percent, solids In sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
W = Width of Initial plume dilution (m)
D = Depth to pycnocllne or effective depth of mixing for
shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
CA = Ambient water concentration of pollutant (yg/a)
2. For Organic Chemicals
Index , . SC x ST x PS
W x D x L
where:
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
ST = Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
PS = Percent solids In sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
W = Width of Initial plume dilution (m)
D = Depth to pycnocllne or effective depth of mixing for
shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping Cycle
(Index 2)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
SS x SC
Index 2 =
V x D x L x CA
where:
SS = Dally sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
V = Average current velocity at site (m/day)
D = Depth to pycnocllne or effective depth of mixing for
shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
CA = Ambient water concentration of pollutant
D-25
-------
2. For Organic Chemicals
T A O SS X SC
Index 2 =
V x D x L
where:
SS = Dally sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
V = Average current velocity at site (m/day)
D = Depth to pycnocllne or effective depth of mixing for
shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
C. Index of Toxldty to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
In or I? x CA
Index 3 = —
AWQC
where:
I-| = Index 1 = Index of seawater concentration resulting
from Initial mixing after sludge disposal
AWQC = Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from acute
and chronic toxic effects (vg/l)
\2 = Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration repre-
senting a 24-hour dumping cycle
AWQC = Criterion expressed as an average concentration to
protect the marketability of edible marine organisms
(AWQC)
CA = Ambient water concentration of pollutant
2. For Organic Chemicals
IT or Io
Index 3 = —
AWQC
D-26
-------
where:
I]
Index 1 = Index of seawater concentration resulting
from Initial mixing after sludge disposal
AWQC = Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from acute
and chronic toxic effects
= Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration repre-
senting a 24-hour dumping cycle
0.
AWQC = Criterion expressed as an average concentration to
protect the marketability of edible marine organisms
Index of Human Toxlclty/Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consump-
tion (Index 4)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
[d2 - D x CF x FS x QF]
T , ,
Index 4
DI
RSI or ADI
where:
2.
QF
FS
CF
DI
Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration represent-
ing a 24-hour dumping cycle
Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unltless)
Background concentration of pollutant 1n seafood (v9/g)
Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(vg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (vg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
For Organic Chemicals
(I2 x BCF x 10"3 kg/g x FS x QF) + DI
Index 4 =
where:
QF
FS
BCF
Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration represent-
ing a 24-hour dumping cycle (v9/l)
Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unltless)
Bloconcentratlon factor of pollutant (I/kg)
DI = Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(vg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant { vg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific Intake (vg/day)
D-27
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984. A Comparison of Studies of Toxic
Substances 1n POTW Sludges. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract No.
68-01-6403. Camp, Dresser and McKee, Annandale. VA. August.
U.S. EPA. 1982. Fate of Priority Pollutants 1n Pullcly-Owned Treatment
Works. Final Report. Vol. I. EPA 440/1-82-303. Effluent Guidelines
Division, Washington, DC. September.
D-28
-------
APPENDIX E:
HAZARD INDEX VALUES FOR ALL
CONDITIONS OF ANALYSIS
RELATED TO LANDFILLING
-------
ARSENIC
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T W
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristicsd
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parametersS T T
Index 1 Value 1.1 1.6
Index 2 Value 53 240
Condition of Analysis3*"*
3 4 5
T T T
W NA T
T W T
T T W
T T T
1-1 1.1 1.7
53 53 280
6 7
T U
T NA
T W
T W
W W
6.0 120
2100 51000
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for-parameter values used.
<*Dry bulk density (Prfry) ant^ volumetric water content (9).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
BHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AS,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
W
NJ
BENZENE
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLEC SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teri sties'^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
terist ics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
2.6 x 10~A
210
2
W
T
T
T
T
5.3 x ID'3
210
Condit
3
T
W
T
T
T
6.7 x 10~4 8.
210
ion of Analysis3'"'0
4 5
T T
NA T
W T
T W
T T
9 x 10~3 !,4 x 10~3
210 210
6
T
T
T
T
W
1.0 x ID'2
210
7
W
NA
W
W
W
38
260
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
210
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
°Dry bulk density (Pdry)> volumetric water content (9), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
SHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Ail), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
fd
U)
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
Site parametersS T
Index 1 Value (pg/L) 1.3x10"*
Index 2 Value 150
Condition of Analysisa»')»c
234567
W T T T T W
T W NA T T NA
T T W T T W
T T T W T W
T T T T W W
1.8xl(T3 3.3x10-4 3.9x10-3 4.3x10-* 4.6x10-* 11
150 150 150 150 150 3800
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
150
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
<*Dry bulk density (Pdry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coef f icit.-.i. (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (A2,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
BIS(2-ETHYL HEXL)PHTHALATE
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
w
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teri st icsd
Site parameters8 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value (Mg/L) 2.6
Index 2 Value 1.0
2
W
T
T
T
T
12
5.0
Condition of Analysisa»"»c
345
T T T
W NA T
T W T
T T W
T T T
2.6 2.6 14
1.0 1.0 5.5
6
T
T
T
T
W
100
40
7
U
NA
W
W
W
2700
1100
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
"Dry bulk density (?dry^» volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
SHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AS,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
CADMIUM
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Condition of Analysisa»b»c
3456
M
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
W
Soil type and charac-
teristics'*
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value
Index 2 Value
T
T
T
T
1.2
0.54
T
T
T
T
3.4
0.61
W
T
T
T
1.2
0.54
NA
W
T
T
1.2
0.54
T
T
W
T
2.1
0.57
T
T
T
W
3.8
0.62
NA N
W N
W N
W N
510 0
16.5 0.54
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = »--»t applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
**Dry bulk density (Prfry) an(* volumetric water content (8).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (1C).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
CHLORDANE
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
w
i
CTi
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T W
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
terist ics^
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teri st ics^
Site parameters^ T T
Index 1 Value (\ig/L) 0.044 0.17
Index 2 Value 3.8 9.4
Condition of
3 4
T T
W NA
T W
T T
T T
0.055 0.087
4.3 5.8
Analysisa»b»c
5 6
T T
T T
T T
W T
T W
0.20 0.33
11 17
7 8
W N
NA N
W N
W N
W N
69 0
3200 1.8
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (Pdry)» volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (A8,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
CHROMIUM
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Condition of Analysis3'''*0
3456
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
W
W
N
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parametersS
Index 1 Value
Index 2 Value
T
T
T
T
2.0
0.00070
T
T
T
T
7.3
0.0013
W
T
T
T
2.0
0.00070
NA
W
T
T
2.0
0.00070
T
T
W
T
6.1
0=0012
T
T
T
W
37
0.0048
NA
W
W
W
1300
0.157
N
N
N
N
0
0.00058
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N - null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (P(jry) and volumetric water content (9).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
SHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AJl), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
COBALT
INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM..LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
M
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teri sties1'
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Condition of Analysisa»b»c
2345678
W T T T T W N
T W NA T T NA N
T T W T T W N
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value
Index 2 Value
T
T
12
T
T
40
T
T
12
T
T
12
U
T
60
T
W
280
W
W
8300
N
N
0.0
Values were not calculated due to lack of data.
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
<*Dry bulk density (Pjry) and volumetric water content (9).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
BHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
COPPER
«
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T W
'Jnsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parametersS T T
Index 1 Value 2.1 4.9
Index 2 Value 0.0086 0.030
Condition of
3 4
T T
W NA
T W
T T
T T
2.1 2.1
0.0086 0.0086
Analysisa»b»c
5
T
T
T
W
T
6.9
0.045
6
T
T
T
T
W
40
0.30
7
W
NA
W
W
W
830
6.4
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the cf>r',:jlae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (P(jry) and volumetric water content (9).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
CYANIDE
INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXIC1TY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
w
I
Condition of Analysis3'*5*0
Site Characteristics 1 2 3 A 5
Sludge concentration T W T T T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T W NA T
teri st ics^
Site parameters6 T T T W T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T T T W
terist ics^
Site parameters^ T T T T T
Index 1 Value (yg/L) 13 73 13 13 69
Index 2 Value 3.4xlO~3 1.9xl(T2 3.4xlO~3 3.4xlO~3 l.BxKT2
6 7 8
T W N
T NA N
T W N
T W N
W W N
520 16000 0
0.14 4.1 0
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (Pdry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc)'
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
§Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
2,4-D
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristic^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
0.0186
3.3x10-4
2
W
T
T
T
T
0.0287
3.3x10-4
3
T
W
T
T
T
0.0321
3.3x10-4
Condition of
4
T
NA
W
T
T
0.1261
3.5x10-4
Analysis*
5
T
T
T
W
T
0.0987
3.4x10-4
,b,c
6
T
T
T
T
U
0.7435
4.9x10-4
7
W
NA
W
W
U
41.43
9.8xlO-3
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
3.2x10-4
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
"Dry bulk density (Pdry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
fAquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Afi,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
Site Characteristics
DDT/DDD/DDE
INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Condition of Analysis3»
3 A 5
Sludge concentration T W T T T T WN
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T W NA T T NA N
teri sties"
Site parameters6 TTTWTTWN
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- TTTTWTWN
teristics^
Site parameters^ T T T T T W WN
Index 1 Value (pg/L) 0.0038 0.0053 0.018 0.018 0.0038 0.0038 5.4 0.0
Index 2 Value 19 19 19 19 19 19 71 19
aT - Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
°Dry bulk density (P,jry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic ca.L/on (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
SHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AJl), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
DIMETHYL NITROSAMINE
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
(INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Condition of Analysisa»b»c
3 A 5 6
td
i
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
T
T
W
T
T
W
T
NA
W
T
T
W
NA
W
N
N
N
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
T
T
9.0x10-4
740
T
T
9.0x10-4
740
T
T
2.8xlO-3
740
T
T
6.9xlO-2
790
W
T
4.8xlO-3
740
T
W
3.6xlO-2
770
W
W
14.8
12000
N
N
0
740
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
D Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
c See Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
d Dry bulk density (Pdry)i volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
e Leachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
f Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
8 Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AK,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
LEAD
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
I
H
ifc.
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturaled Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teri st ics^
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
terist ics^
Site parameters** T
Index 1 Value 2.3
Index 2 Value 0.17
Condition of Analysis3'**'0
2 3 A 5 6
W T T T T
T W NA T T
T T W T T
T T T W T
T T T T W
6.8 2.4 2.4 7.4 13
0.28 0.17 0.17 0.29 0.42
7
W
NA
W
U
W
1200
29
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0.14
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (P(jry) and volumetric water content (9).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
LINDANE
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
H
I-1
Ui
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
ter! stics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters*?
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
0.0014
160
2
W
T
T
T
T
0.0028
160
3
T
U
T
T
T
0.0018
160
Condition of
4
T
NA
W
T
T
0.0030
160
Analysisa»b»c
5
T
T
T
W
T
0.0075
160
6
T
T
T
T
W
0.057
160
7 8
W N
NA N
W N
W N
W N
1.3 0
200 160
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (Pdry)> volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (All), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
MALATHION
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
w
i-1
en
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
terist ics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters§
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
2.8xlO-7
6.3x10-3
2
W
T
T
T
T
3.9xlO~6
6.3x10-3
3
T
W
T
T
T
2.0xlO-6
6.3x10-3
Condition of Analysis3'"
4 5
T T
NA T
W T
T W
T T
1.2xlO"3 1.5xlO"6
6.3x10-3 6.3x10-3
6
T
T
T
T
W
l.lxlO-5
6.3x10-3
7 8
W N
NA N
W N
W N
W N
3.6 0.0
l.lxlO-2 6.3x10-3
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (P
-------
MERCURY
INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
I
H
-J
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics1*
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
Site parametersS T
Index 1 Value 1.4
Index 2 Value 0.25
Condition of
234
W T T
T W NA
T T W
T T T
T T T
2.6 1.4 1.4
0.27 0.25 0.25
Analysis3 »b»c
5 6 78
T T W N
T T NA N
T T W N
W T W N
T W W N
2.9 4.0 340 0
0.27 0.28 3.6 0.21
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (Pdry) and volumetric water content (0).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
gHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AS,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
w
i
oo
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
ter! st ics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
ter! st ics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (Ug/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
0.043
NCh
2
W
T
T
T
T
0.52
NC
3
T
W
T
T
T
0.043
NC
Condition of
4
T
NA
W
T
T
0.043
NC
Analysi sa » ">c
5 6
T T
T T
T T
W T
T W
0.23 1.7
NC NC
7
W
NA
W
U
W
110
NC
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
NC
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (Pdry)» volumetric water content (9), and fraction of organic a*-;' -/n (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of che aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AS,), and dispersivity coefficient (ex).
^ Not calculated due to lack of data.
-------
M
MOLYBDENUM
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Condition of Analysisa»k»c
Site Characteristics 1 2 3 A 5 6 7
Sludge concentration T W T T T T W
Unsalurated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teri st ics^
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parametersS 1 T
Index 1 Value 1.0 1.1
Index 2 Value 0.090 0.091
W NA T T NA
T W T T W
T T W T W
T T T W W
1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 24
0.090 0.090 0.091 0.096 0.22
N
N
N
N
0
0.090
aT - Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (Pjry) and volumetric water content (6).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i),- distance from well to landfill (AU, and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
NICKEL
M
1
to
o
INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
terist ics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
1.3
0.11
2
W
T
T
T
T
4.8
0.12
Condition of Analysis3**3*0
3 A 5 6 7 8
T T T T W N
W NA T T NA N
T W T T W N
T T W T W N
T T T W W N
1.3 1.3 2.3 11 800 0
0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 2.3 0.11
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (Pjry) and volumetric water content (0).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AJl), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
Site Characteristics
PHENANTHRENE
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
(INDEX 2)
Condition of Analysis3*''*0
3456
M
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
W
W
N
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
T
T
T
T
0.101
NCh
T
T
T
T
0.563
NC
W
T
T
T
0.101
NC
NA
W
T
T
0.101
NC
T
T
W
T
0.532
NC
T
T
T
W
3.29
NC
NA
W
W
W
120.0
NC
N
N
N
N
0
NC
aT - Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (P,jry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
SHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AS,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
hNC = Not calculated due to lack of data.
-------
PCB
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
w
1
NJ
NJ
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T W
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
terist ics^
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parameters^ T T
Index 1 Value (yg/L) 0.092 0.53
Index 2 Value 59 110
Condition of Analysisa»b»c
3 A 5 6 78
T T T T W N
W NA T T NA N
T W T T W N
T T W T W N
T T T W W N
0.099 0.11 0.30 0.33 130 0
59 61 85 88 17000 47
aT - Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (Pdry)» volumetric water content (9), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
SHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (A2,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
PHENOL
W
to
OJ
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
(INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
ter! stics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters**
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
Condition of Analysisa»k»c
1 2 3 A 5 6 7
T W T T
T T W NA
T T T W
T T T T
T T T T
1.0xlO~16 l.SxlO-15 9.5xlQ-14 0.13
3.0x10-2° S.OxlO-19 2.7xlO-17 3.8xlQ-5
T T W
T T NA
T T W
W T W
T W W
S.exlO'ifc A^xlO-1^ A80
l.exlO-1^ 1.2xlO~18 0.1A
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
^Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (P(jry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
SHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AJl), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATIO^L?NCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX l) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOX1CITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Condition of
34
W
to
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics"
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics*
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value 1.0
Index 2 Value 0.24
T
T
T
T
1.0
0.24
W
T
T
T
1.0
0.24
NA
W
T
T
1.0
0.24
T
T
W
T
1.0
0.24
T
T
T
W
1.2
0.25
W
NA
W
N
N
W N
W N
4.5 0
0.37 0.24
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (Pdry) and volumetric water content (8).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
to
ui
TOXAPHENE
INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Condition of Analysis3*''*0
Site Characteristics 1234567
Sludge concentration T W T T T T W
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parametersS
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
T
T
T
T
0.20
61
T
T
T
T
0.27
64
W
T
T
T
0.20
62
NA
W
T
T
0.21
62
T
T
W
T
1.1
89
T NA
T W
T W
W U
8.0 62
310 2100
N
N
N
N
0.0
55
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
°Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
°Dry bulk density (Pdry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AJl), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
TRICHLOROETHYLENE . .
INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
w
i
K)
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge cone tut rat i on T
Unsalu rated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
ter i s t i cs"
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value (pg/L) 0.013
Index 2 Value 0.0068
Condition of Analys i sa > b»c
23456
W T T T T
T W NA T T
T T W T T
T T T W T
T T T T W
0.49 0.013 0.013 0.066 0.50
0.26 0.0068 0.0068 0.036 0.27
7
W
NA
W
W
W
100
56
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Ury bulk density (^dry) , volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
Kllydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Afc), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
ZINC
M
M
-J
INDEX OF
INDEX OF
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics"
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value
Index 2 Value
GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Condition of Analysisa»b»c
12345678
TWTTTTWN
T T W NA T T NA N
TTTWTTWN
TTTTWTWN
TTTTTWWN
2.8 13 2.8 2.8 8.7 12 2700 0
0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 1.4 0.36
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"'Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for .parameter values used.
^Dry bulls, density (Prf™) and volumetric water content (9).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
SHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well Co landfill (AS,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
APPENDIX F; SLUDGE CONCENTRATION DATA
USED IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILES AND HAZARD INDICES
-------
Typical and Worst Sludge Pollutant Concentrations in Environmental Profiles
Pollutant Typical Worst
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Arseni c
Benzene
Benz idi ne
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryl 1ium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cadmi um
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chi oro-f orm
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyani de
DDT/DDE/DDD
3,3-Di chlorobenzidine
Di chloromethane
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
Dimethyl Nitrosamine
Endri n
Fluori de
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenz i ne
Hexachlorobutadi ene
Iron
Lead
Li ndane
MDCA
Maiathi on
Mercury
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Molybdenum
Nickel
PCB's
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Seleni um
TCDD
TCDF
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Tri chloroethylene
2,4,6-Tri chlorophenol
Tricresyl Phosphate
Vinyl Chloride
Zi nc
F-l
O.O7
4.6
0.326
0.68
0. 14
0.313
94.28
8. 15
0.048
3.2
0.049
230. 1
11.6
409.6
476.2
0.28
1.64
1.6
4.64
0. 14
86.4
0.07
0. 38
0 . 3
28000
248.2
0.11
IB
0.045
1.49
Data not
9.8
44.7
0.99
0.0865
3.71
4.884
1.11
Data not
Data not
0. 181
7.88
0.46
2. 3
6.85
0.43
677.6
0.81
20.77
6.58
12.7
4.8
1.94
1. 168
459.25
88. 13
8.006
12
1. 177
• 1499-7
40
1427
2686.6
0.93
2.29
19
7- 16
2.55
0. 17
738 . 7
0 . 09
2. 18
8
78700
1070. B
0.22
B6
0.63
5.84
avai 1 abl e
40
662.7
2. 9
30.434
20 . 69
82.06
4.848
avai 1 abl e
avai 1 able
13.707
10.79
17.85
4.6
1650
311.942
4580
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1985 0-528-652/30789
------- |