E-ERA
Untied State!
environmental Protection
Reguteiions arw Standards
Wasningtor, DC 2CK60
June, IMS
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Arsenic
-------
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.
-------
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, landfill ing,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR ARSENIC IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence .. 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-3
Food 4-3
Human Effect s 4-4
Ingestion 4-4
Inhalation 4-6
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 4-10
Toxicity '. . 4-10
Uptake * 4-10
Soil Biota Effects 4-10
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-10
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
ARSENIC IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR ARSENIC IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-3
Food 4-3
Human Effects 4-4
Ingestion 4-4
Inhalation 4-6
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 4-10
Toxicity 4-10
Uptake , 4-10
Soil Biota Effects 4-10
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-10
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
ARSENIC IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR ARSENIC 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 Arsenic
Landspreading of municipal sewage sludge is expected to
slightly increase soil concentrations of As when sludge
containing a high concentration of As is applied at 50 rat/ha
or the cumulative rate of 500 mt/ha (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Landspreading of municipal sewage sludge is not expected to
pose a phytotoxic hazard due to As for plants grown in sludge-
amended soils (see Index 4). Landspreading of sludge contain-
ing typical concentrations of As is not expected to increase
the tissue concentration of As in plants used as animal feed
or included in the human diet. Application of sludge contain-
ing a high concentration of As may result in moderate
increases in concentrations of As for plants consumed by ani-
mals and humans (see Index 5). The predicted increases of As
in the tissue concentrations of plants grown in sludge-amended
soil should not be precluded by phytotoxicity (see Index 6).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
Landspreading of sludge is not expected to pose a toxic hazard
due to As for herbivorous animals that graze on plants grown
in sludge-amended soil (see Index 7). Also, herbivorous ani-
mals ingesting either sludge adhering to forage crops, sludge-
amended soils, or pure sludge are not expected to be subjected
to a toxic hazard due to As (see Index 8).
E. Effect on Humans
Consumption of plants grown in sludge-amended soil is gener-
ally not expected to pose a toxic hazard due to As for either
toddlers or adults. However, when sludge containing a high
(worst) concentration of As is applied at the cumulative rate
2-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR ARSENIC 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. LANDSPREADINC AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Arsenic
Landspreading of municipal sewage sludge is expected to
slightly increase soil concentrations of As when sludge
containing a high concentration of As is applied at 50 mt/ha
or the cumulative rate of 500 mt/ha (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Landspreading of municipal sewage sludge is not expected to
pose a phytotoxic hazard due to As for plants grown in sludge-
amended soils (see Index 4). Landspreading of sludge contain-
ing typical concentrations of As is not expected to increase
the tissue concentration of As in plants used as animal feed
or included in the human diet. Application of sludge contain-
ing a high concentration of As may result in moderate
increases in concentrations of As for plants consumed by ani-
mals and humans (see Index 5). The predicted increases of As
in the tissue concentrations of plants grown in sludge-amended
soil should not be precluded by phytotoxicity (see Index 6).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
Landspreading of sludge is not expected to pose a toxic hazard
due to As for herbivorous animals that graze on plants grown
in sludge-amended soil (see Index 7). Also, herbivorous ani-
mals ingesting either sludgs adhering t« forage crops, sludge-
amended soils, or pure sludge are not expected to be subjected
to a toxic hazard due to As (see Index 8).
E. Effect on Humans
Consumption of plants grown in sludge-amended soil is gener-
ally not expecced Lu pose a tcxic hazard due to AS for either
toddlers or adults. However, when sludge containing a high
(worst) concentration of As is applied at the cumulative rate
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR ARSENIC
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AMD-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Arsenic
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. Explanation - Shows degree of elevation of pollutant
concentration in soil to which sludge is applied.
Calculated for sludges with typical (median if
available) and worst (95th percentile if available)
pollutant concentrations, respectively, for each of
four sludge loadings. Applications (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 -/"SO kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
50 mt/ha Higher application as may be used on
public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens.
500 mt/ha Cumulative loading after years of
application.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is dis-
tributed and retained within the upper 15 cm of soil
(i.e., the plow layer), which has an approximate
mass (dry matter) of 2 x 103 mt/ha.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 4.6 ug/g DW
Worst 20.77 yg/g DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are
the median and 95th percentile values statis-
tically derived from sludge concentration data
3-1
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR ARSENIC
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Arsenic
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. Explanation - Shows degree of elevation of pollutant
concentration in soil to which sludge is applied.
Calculated for sludges with typical (median if
available) and worst (95th percentile if available)
pollutant concentrations, respectively, for each of
four sludge loadings. Applications (as dry matter)
are chosen and explained as follows:
0 rat/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.
S mt/ha Sustainable yearly agronomic application;
i.e., loading typical of agricultural
practice, supplying ^50 kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
SO mt/ha Higher application as may be used on
public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens.
500 mt/ha Cumulative loading after years of
application.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is dis-
tributed and retained within the upper 15 cm of soil
(i.e., the plow layer), which has an approximate
mass (dry matter) of 2 x 103 mt/ha.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 4.6 ug/g DW
Worst 20.77 ug/g DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are
the median and 95th percentile values statis-
tically derived from sludge concentration data
3-1
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 6.0 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 2 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value >1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
toxic to a predator on soil organisms.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
bioconcentrated by soil biota is equivalent in tox-
icity to -form used to demonstrate toxic effects in
predator. Effect level in predator may be estimated
from that in a different species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) - 6.0 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota (UB) -
Data not immediately available.
iv. Background concentration in soil biota (BB) -
Data not immediately available.
3-3
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 6.0 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 2 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value >1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
toxic to a predator on soil organisms.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
bioconcentrated by soil biota is equivalent in tox-
icity to-form used to demonstrate toxic effects in
predator. Effect level in predator may be estimated
from that in a different species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 6.0 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota (UB) -
Data not immediately available.
iv. Background concentration in soil biota (BB) -
Data not immediately available.
3-3
-------
iii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
45 Ug/g DW
Several experimental studies were conducted
which suggest that at concentrations of 40 to
100 Ug/g DW, there are significant yield or
plant growth reductions (i.e., 50 percent or
more). Using bermuda grass as a representative
forage grass, available evidence shows 75 per-
cent growth reduction results from 45 Ug/g DW
of As203 in non-clay soils (Weaver et al.,
1984). This value may be viewed as conserva-
tive for the forage grasses since the availa-
bility of As is greater in non-clay soils.
(See Section 4, p. 4-12.)
d. Index 4 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Worst 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.20
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 municipal
sewage, sludge is not expected to pose a phytotoxic
hazard due to As for plants grown in sludge-amended
soils.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Caused by Uptake
(Index' 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue concentra-
tion increment 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 a linear uptake
slope. Neglects the effect of time; i.e., cumula-
tive loading over several years is treated equiva-
lently to single application of the same amount.
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.
3-5
-------
iii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
45 Ug/g DW
Several experimental studies were conducted
which suggest that at concentrations of 40 to
100 Ug/g DW, there are significant yield or
plant growth reductions (i.e., 50 percent or
more). Using bermuda grass as a representative
forage grass, available evidence shows 75 per-
cent growth reduction results from 45 Ug/g DW
of As203 in non-clay soils (Weaver et al.,
1984). This value may be viewed as conserva-
tive for the forage grasses since the availa-
bility of As is greater in non-clay soils.
(See Section 4, p. 4-12.)
d. Index A Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.20
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 municipal
sewage, sludge is not expected to pose a phytotoxic
hazard due to As for plants grown in sludge-amended
soils.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Caused by Uptake
(Index- 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue concentra-
tion increment 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 a linear uptake
slope. Neglects the effect of time; i.e., cumula-
tive loading over several years is treated equiva-
lently to single application of the same amount.
The uptake factor chosen for the animal diet is
assumed to be representative of all crops in the
animal diet. See also Index 6 £GC considsracicr. of
phytotoxicity.
3-5
-------
d. Index 5 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Diet Concentration 05 50 500
Animal
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
0.99
1.1
0.90
2.0
0.21
9.3
Human Typical 1.0 0.99 0.85 -0.19
Worst 1.0 1.2 2.5 14
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
plant tissue concentration is expected to increase
above background when grown in sludge-amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge
containing typical concentrations of As is not
expected to increase the tissue concentration of As
in plants used as animal feed or included in the
human diet. The tissue concentrations resulting
from landspreading of sludge may actually be lower
than background tissue concentrations because the
typical sludge concentration is less than the back-
ground soil concentration and therefore landspread-
ing of sludge is diluting concentrations normally
present in soil. Application of sludge containing a
high concentration of As may result in moderate
increases in tissue concentration of As for plants
consumed by animals and humans.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Explanation - Compares maximum plant tissue concen-
tration associated with phytotoxicity with back-
ground concentration in same plant tissue. The
purpose is to determine whether the plant concentra-
tion increments calculated in • Index 5 for high
applications are truly realistic, or whether such
increases would be precluded by -phytotoxicity.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue con-
centration will be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
plant tissue concentration associated
with phytotoxicity (PP)
Animal diet:
Bermuda grass 45 Ug/g DW
3-7
-------
d. Index 5 Values
Sludge-Application
Rate (rot/ha)
Sludge
Diet Concentration 05 50 500
Animal
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
0.99
1.1
0.90
2.0
0.21
9.3
Human Typical 1.0 0.99 0.85 -0.19
Worst 1.0 1.2 2.5 14
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
plant tissue concentration is expected to increase
above background when grown in sludge-amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge
containing typical concentrations of As is not
expected to increase the tissue concentration of As
in plants used as animal feed or included in the
human diet. The tissue concentrations resulting
from landspreading of sludge may actually be lower
than background tissue concentrations because the
typical sludge concentration is less than the back-
ground soil concentration and therefore landspread-
ing of sludge is diluting concentrations normally
present in soil. Application of sludge containing a
high concentration of As may result in moderate
increases in tissue concentration of As for plants
consumed by animals and humans.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Explanation - Compares maximum plant tissue concen-
tration associated with phytotoxicity with back-
ground concentration in same plant tissue. The
purpose is to determine whether the plant concentra-
tion increments calculated in • Index 5 for high
applications are truly realistic, or whether such
increases would be precluded by phytotoxicity.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue con-
centration "ill be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with phytotoxicity (PP)
Animal diet:
Bermuda grass 45 Ug/g DW
3-7
-------
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The index values for plant
concentration increment permitted by phytotoxicity
indicate that the Index 5 values are not precluded
by a phytotoxic hazard.
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 food concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not con-
sider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
taken up by plants is equivalent in toxicity to form
used to demonstrate toxic effects in animal. Uptake
or toxicity in specific plants or animals may be
estimated from other species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
0.37 ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
iii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 1000 Ug/g DW
Information on feed concentrations toxic to
smaller . herbivorous (and other) animals
suggests that a daily intake of SO Ug/g DW of
inorganic As and 100 Ug/g DW of organic As is
the maximum tolerable level (National Academy
of Sciences (MAS), 1980). However, for large
domestic animals such as swine, As (in the form
of sodium arsenite or arsenillic/sodium
arsenite) feed concentrations of under 1000
Ug/g DW have not been associated with
deleterious effects like severe poisoning and
death in the immediately available studies
(Buck, 1978; Ledet and Buck, 1978). In the
3-9
-------
£. Preliminary Conclusion - The index values for plant
concentration increment permitted by phytotoxicity
indicate that the Index 5 values are not precluded
by a phytotoxic hazard.
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 food concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not con-
sider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
taken up by plants is equivalent in toxicity to form
used to demonstrate toxic effects in animal. Uptake
or toxicity in specific plants or animals may be
estimated from other species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
0.37 ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
iii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 1000 Ug/g DW
Information on feed concentrations toxic to
smaller , herbivorous (and other) animals
suggests that a daily intake of 50 Ug/g DW of
inorganic As and 100 Ug/g ^w of organic As is
the maximum tolerable level (National Academy
of Sciences (NAS), 1980). However, for large
domestic animals such as swine, As (in the form
of sodium arsenite or arsenillic/sodium
arsenite) feed concentrations of under 1000
Ug/g DW have not been associated with
deleterious effects like severs poisoning and
death in the immediately available studies
(Buck, 1978; Ledet and Buck, 1978). In the
3-9
-------
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 6.0 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 52
Studies of sludge adhesion to growing forage
following applications of liquid or filter-cake
sludge show that when 3 to 6 mt/ha of sludge
solids is applied, clipped forage initially
consists of up to 30 percent sludge on a dry-
weight basis (Chaney and Lloyd, 1979; Boswell,
1975). However, this contamination diminishes
gradually with time and growth, and generally
is not detected in the following year's growth.
For example, where pastures amended at 16 and
32 mt/ha were grazed throughout a growing sea-
son (168 days), average sludge content of for-
age was only 2.14 ' and 4.75 percent,
respectively (Bertrand et al., 1981). It seems
reasonable to assume that animals may receive
long-term dietary exposure to 5 percent sludge
if maintained on a forage to which sludge is
regularly applied. This estimate of 5 percent
sludge is used regardless of application rate,
since the above studies did not show a clear
relationship between application rate and ini-
tial contamination, and since adhesion is not
cumulative yearly because of die-back.
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep during winter
months when forage is reduced (Thornton and
Abrams, 1983). If the soil were sludge-
amended, it is conceivable that up to 5 percent
sludge may be ingested in this manner as well.
Therefore, this value accounts for either of
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
iv. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 1000 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p.3-9.
3-11
-------
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 6.0 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 52
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 A.75 percent,
respectively (Bertrand et al., 1981). It seems
reasonable to assume that animals nay receive
long-term dietary exposure to 5 percent sludge
if maintained on a forage to which sludge is
regularly applied. This estimate of 5 percent
sludge is used regardless of application rate,
since the above studies did not show a clear
relationship between application rate and Ini-
tial contamination, and since adhesion is not
cumulative yearly because of die-back.
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep during winter
months when forage is reduced (Thornton and
Abrams, 1983). If the soil were sludge-
amended, it is conceivable that up to 5 percent
sludge may be ingested in this manner as well.
Therefore, this value accounts for either of
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
£v. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 1000 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p.3-9.
3-11
-------
ill. 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 (198A). 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 estimated dry-weight
consumption of all non-fruit crops.
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 22.1 ug/day
Adult 66.5 ug/day
The average total intake of As for adults is
estimated to range between 59.1 and 71.6 ug/day
for the 1976-78 period (FDA, no date). The
value chosen for adults represents the median
intake for this period. The average daily
intake of As for toddlers is assumed to be one-
third that of an adult. (See Section 4, p. 4-
3.)
v. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
260 ug/day
Although inorganic As has been shown to cause
skin cancer in humans when ingested in drinking
water (U.S. EPA, 1980), organic forms of As,
which predominate in food, have not been found
to be carcinogenic. In a study of vegetables
grown in soil treated with arsenic acid, Pyles
and Woolson (1982) found that arsenite (the
trivalent inorganic form) was not detectable.
Arsenate (the pentavalent inorganic form) was
present, probably due to soil contamination,
but most of the As (i.e., 84-97%) was present
as organic forms. Although there remains some
ambiguity as to which form of As may be carcin-
ogenic, it will be assumed in this document
that As transferred via the food chain is non-
carcinogenic and that hazard to humans should
be assessed using an ADI based on the systemic
toxicant properties of As.
3-13
-------
iii. 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 (1984). 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 estimated dry— weight
consumption of all non-fruit crops.
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 22.1 ug/day
Adult 66.5 Ug/day
The average total intake of As for adults is
estimated to range between 59.1 and 71.6 ug/day
for the 1976-78 period (FDA, no date). The
value chosen for adults represents the median
intake for this period. The average daily
intake of As for toddlers is assumed to be one-
third that of an adult. (See Section 4, p. 4-
3.)
v. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
260
Although inorganic As has been shown to cause
skin cancer in humans when ingested in drinking
water (U.S. EPA, 1980), organic forms of As,
which predominate in food, have not been found
to be carcinogenic. In a study of vegetables
grown in soil treated with arsenic acid, Pyles
and Uoolson (1982) found that arsenite (the
trivaient inorganic form) was not detectable*
Arsenate (the pentavalent inorganic form) was
present, probably due to soil contamination,
but most of the As (i.e., 84-97Z) was present
as organic forms. Although there remains some
ambiguity as to which form of As may be carcin-
ogenic, it will be assumed in this document
that As transferred via the food chair, is r.cr.-
carcinogenic and that hazard to humans should
be assessed using an ADI based on the systemic
toxicant properties of As.
3-13
-------
pollutant in animal tissue (UA) used is assumed to
be representative of all animal tissue comprised by
the daily human dietary intake (DA) used. Divides
possible variations in dietary intake into two
categories: toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
Data Used and Rationale
1. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) -
0.37 ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 0.56 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1
Uptake slopes for As in animal tissues consumed
by humans were available for kidney, liver and
muscle of swine (Ledet and Buck, 1978) and
chicken (NAS, 1977). Slopes for organ tissues
were higher than those for muscle by an order
of magnitude. The highest slope was that for
chicken liver. This value was chosen to repre-
sent all organ meats consumed by humans, not
only because it is the highest value but also
because chicken liver is commonly consumed.
Also, the slopes for swine were derived from
toxic feed concentrations of arsanillic acid,
whereas those for chicken were from non-toxic
concentrations of 3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenyl-
arsenic acid. (See Section 4, p. 4-16.)
iv. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
The FDA Revised' Total Diet (Pennington, 1983)
lists average daily intake of beef liver (fresh
weight) for various age-sex classes. The 95th
percentile of liver consumption (chosen in
order to be conservative) is assumed to be
approximately 3 times the mean values.
Conversion to dry weight is based on data from
3-15
-------
pollutant in animal tissue (UA) used is assumed to
be representative of all animal tissue comprised by
the daily human dietary intake (DA) used. Divides
possible variations in dietary intake into two
categories: toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
0.37 ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 0.56 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1
Uptake slopes for As in animal tissues consumed
by humans were available for kidney, liver and
muscle of swine (Ledet and Buck, 1978) and
chicken (NAS, 1977). Slopes for organ tissues
were higher than those for muscle by an order
of magnitude. The highest slope was that for
chicken liver. This value was chosen to repre-
sent all organ meats consumed by humans, not
only because it is the highest value but also
because chicken liver is commonly consumed.
Also, the slopes for swine were derived from
toxic feed concentrations of arsanillic acid,
whereas those for chicken were from non-toxic
concentrations of 3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenyl-
arsenic acid. (See Section 4, p. 4-16.)
iv. Daily humaa dietary intake of affected anisial
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
The PDA Revised Total Diet (Pennington, 1983)
lists average daily intake of beef liver (fresh
weight) for various age-sex classes. The 95th
percentile of liver consumption (chosen in
order to be conservative) is assumed to be
approximately 3 times the mean values.
Conversion to dry weight is based on data from
3-15
-------
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over three
years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue = Chicken liver
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 6.0 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 4.6 ug/g DW
Worst 20.77 ug/g.DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (CS)
= 5%
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
v. Uptake slope of pollutant in 'animal tissue (UA)
= 0.56 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)'1
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 21.1 ug/day
Adult 66.5 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
viii. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) -
260 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
3-17
-------
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over three
years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue = Chicken liver
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 6.0 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 4.6 ug/g DW
Worst 20.77 ug/g.DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (CS)
= 5Z
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
v. Uptake slope of pollutant in "animal tissue (UA)
= 0.56 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)-1
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
See Section 3, p. 3-15.
vii. Average daily husan dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 21.1 Ug/day
Adult 66.5 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
viii. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
260 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-13=
3-17
-------
iv. 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 (1984a).
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.0 ug/day
Adult 0.0 ug/day
Since this index evaluates the potential cancer
risk associated with direct ingestion of inor-
ganic forms of As in sludge, the As typically
ingested in food (which is primarily organic As
and is not considered carcinogenic) is not used
in the calculation. Instead, a value of zero
is substituted.
vi. Cancer potency = 15.0 (mg/kg/day)"1
The cancer potency was derived based on
observation of human skin cancer when As in
drinking water was ingested (U.S. EPA, 1984b).
An ADI is used to assess food chain exposures
to As (see Section 3, p. 3-13) but cancer
potency is used for direct ingestion of sludge
because carcinogenic inorganic forms of As may
be prevalent. (See Section 4, p. 4-4.)
vii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
4.7 x 10~3 Ug/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:
RSI - 10"6 x 70 kg x 103 ug/mg
Cancer potency
3-19
-------
iv. 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 (1984a).
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.0 Ug/day
Adult 0.0 Ug/day
Since this index evaluates the potential cancer
risk associated with direct ingestion of inor-
ganic forms of As in sludge, the As typically
ingested in food (which is primarily organic As
and is not considered carcinogenic) is not used
in the calculation. Instead, a value of zero
is substituted.
vi. Cancer potency = 15.0 (mg/kg/day)~^
The cancer potency was derived based on
observation of human skin cancer when As in
drinking water was ingested (U.S. EPA, 1984b).
An ADI is used to assess food chain exposures
to As (see Section 3, p, 3-13) but cancer
potency is used for direct ingestion of sludge
because carcinogenic inorganic forms of As may
be prevalent. (See Section 4, p. 4-4.)
vii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
4.7 x 10~3 Ug/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:
RSI _ IS"6 s 70 kg x 103 ug/me
Cancer potency
3-19
-------
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment 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 Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contara-
.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.
2. 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; the pollutant source is a
pulse input; no dilution of the plume occurs by recharge
from outside the source area; the leachate is undiluted
3-21
-------
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 Increment 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 Exposure Assessment Group (BAG)
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. ~*
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively assumes that the
pollutant is 1QO 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 arc honiCigsnccus and isotropi r.
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:; che pullutant source Is a
pulse input; no dilution of the plume occurs by recharge
from outside the source area; the leachate is undiluted
3-21
-------
ii. Site parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) = 5 years
Sikora et al. (1982) monitored several
landfills 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
complete 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 of 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.
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
3-23
-------
ii. Site parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) = 5 years
Sikora et al. (1982) monitored several
landfills 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
complete 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 of ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of Om 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.
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
ai 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
3-23
-------
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).
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
determine the magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced. Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
(b) Distance from well to.landfill (A&)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
3-25
-------
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. Ueterogenous 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).
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
determine the magnitude snd direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced. Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
(b) Distance from well to. landfill (AS,)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
3-25
-------
A. Index Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected groundwater concentration of pollutant at well
exceeds the background concentration (a value of 2.0
indicates the concentration is doubled, a value of 1.0
indicates no change).
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Landfill ing of sludge will gen-
erally result in moderate increases in As concentrations
in groundwater. However, when the worst landfilling
scenario is evaluated, a substantial increase in As
contamination may occur.
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. Index of groundwater concentration increment result-
ing from landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-29.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in groundwater
(BC) =1.0 ug/L
See Section 3, p. 3-26.
c. 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.
d. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
Daily ingestion of As in food is estimated to aver-
age 66.5 ug/day (see Section 3, p. 3-13). However,
this As is primarily in organic form and is not con-
sidered carcinogenic, whereas the inorganic forms
which could enter drinking water may be carcino-
genic. Therefore, dietary As is not included" in the
calculation.
3-27
-------
A. Index Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected groundwater concentration of pollutant at well
exceeds the background concentration (a value of 2.0
indicates the concentration is doubled, a value of 1.0
indicates no change).
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Landfill ing of sludge will gen-
erally result in moderate increases in As concentrations
in groundwater. However, when the worst landfilling
scenario is evaluated, a substantial increase in As
contamination may occur.
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. Index of groundwater concentration increment result-
ing from landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-29.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in groundwater
(BC) = 1.0 Ug/L
See Section 3, p. 3-26.
c. 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.
d. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
Daily ingestion of As in food is estimated to aver-
age 66.5 Ug/day (see Section 3, p. 3-13). However,
this As is primarily in organic form and is not con-
sidered carcinogenic, whereas the inorganic forms
which could enter drinking water may be carcino-
genic. Therefore, dietary As is not included" in the
calculation.
3-27
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
N)
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 parameters^ T
Index 1 Value 1.1
Index 2 Value 53
Condition of Analysisa»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
1.6 1.1 1.1 1.7 6.0
240 53 53 280 2100
7
W
NA
U
W
U
120
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 (P
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OP CJROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX l) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Condition of Analysisa»k»c
Site Characteristics 12345678
U>
K>
vO
Sludge concentration T W T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T U
teristics^
Site parameters6 T T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T T
teristica*
Site parameters^ T T T
Index 1 Value 1.1 1.6 1.1
Index 2 Vnlui; 53 240 53
T T T W N
NA T T NA N
W T T UN
t
T W T W N
T T U U N
1.1 1.7 6.0 120 0
53 280 2100 51000 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) end volumetric water content (6).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
fAquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
BHydraulic g.radient (i), distance from well to landfill (AA), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)
Typical
Worst
0.30 (unitless)
O.AO (unitless)
Emission estimates may vary considerably between
sources; therefore, the values used are based on a
U.S. EPA 10-city incineration study (Farrell and
Wall, 1981).
Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical
Worst
3.4 Ug/m3
16.0 Ug/m3
f.
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.
Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (BA) = 8.2 x 10~3 Ug/m3
The background concentration value reflects the As
level in New York City (U.S. EPA, 1983a). Data from
the National Air Sampling Network for ambient air
levels of As nationally show the median value for
1979 is 5 x 10~3 ug/m3 and 6 x 10'3 ug/m3 for 1978
(U.S. EPA, 1983c). The mean concentrations of As
ranged between 2.6 x 10"3 and 10.9 x 10~3 Ug/m3 for
1977-78. (See Section 4, p. 4-3.)
Index 1 Values
Fraction of
Pollutant Emitted
Through Stack
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Feed
Rate (kg/hr DW)a
2660 10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.4 '
1.6
8.5
11
Worst
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
2.9
3.5
35
46
aThe typical (3.4 ug/"»3) and worst (16.0 Ug/m3) dis-
persion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
to the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr
DW) sludge feed rates.
Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected air concentration exceeds background levels due
to incinerator emissions.
3-31
-------
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (PM)
Typical 0.30 (unitless)
Worst 0.40 (unitless)
Emission estimates may vary considerably between
sources; therefore, the values used are based on a
U.S. EPA 10-city incineration study (Farrell and
Wall, 1981).
e* Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical 3.4
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) = 8.2 x 10"3 Ug/m3
The background concentration value reflects the As
level in Mew York City (U.S. EPA, 1983a). Data from
the National Air Sampling Network for ambient air
levels of As nationally show the median value for
1979 is 5 x 10"3 Ug/m3 and 6 x 10~3 ug/m3 for 1978
(U.S. EPA, 1983c). The mean concentrations of As
ranged between 2.6 x 10~3 and 10.9 x 10~3 Ug/m3 for
1977-78. (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
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.4 '
1.6
8.5
11
Worse Typical 1.0 2.9 35
Worst 1.0 3.5 46
aThe typical (3.4 ug/m3) and worse (16.C ug/rn3) dis-
persion 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.
3-31
-------
5.
throughout their lifetime to the stated concentra-
tion of the carcinogenic agent. The exposure
criterion is calculated using the following formula:
EC
10~6 x IP3 ug/mg x 70 kg
Cancer potency x 20 m3/day
4. Index 2 Values
Fraction of
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration
Sludge Feed
Rate (kg/hr DW)a
2660 10,000
typical
Typical
Worst
36
36
51
56
300
390
Worst
Typical
Worst
36
36
100
130
1200
1600
aThe typical (3.4 yg/m3) and worst (16.0 ug/m3) dis-
persion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
to the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr
DW) sludge feed rates.
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
indicates the degree to which any hazard is due to sludge
incineration, as opposed to background urban air
concentration.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Incineration of sludge is
expected to substantially increase the cancer risk due to
inhalation of As above the risk posed by background urban
air concentrations of As. This increase is particularly
evident at the high feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
^
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
3-33
-------
throughout their Lifetime to the stated concentra-
tion of the carcinogenic agent. The exposure
criterion is calculated using the following formula:
EC
10~6 x 103 Ug/mg x 70 kg
Cancer potency x 20 m^/day
4. Index 2 Values
Fraction of
Pollutant Emitted
Through Stack
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Feed
Rate (kg/hr DW)a
2660 10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
36
36
51
56
300
390
Worst
Typical
Worst
36
36
100
130
1200
1600
aThe typical (3.4 ug/mj) and worst (16.0 ug/m-*) dis-
persion 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
indicates the degree to which any hazard is due to sludge
incineration, as opposed to background urban air
concentration.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Incineration of sludge is
expected to substantially increase the cancer risk due to
inhalation of As above the risk posed by background urban
air concentrations of As. This increase is particularly
evident at the high feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment; for this option in the future^
3-33
-------
2. Concentration
"normal" 0.5 to 14.0 ug/g
"treated areas" 1.8 to 830 ug/g
"normal" <2.0 Ug/g (WW)
"normal" 6 ug/g
range 0.1 to 40 Ug/g
Background levels range from <1 to
40 ppm, the latter reflecting agricul-
tural practices as well as air fallout.
C. Hater - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
5.52 occurrence in 1,577 U.S. surface
waters (detection limit = 0.100 ug/L)
2. Concentration
a. Fresh water
0.005 to 0.336 mg/L range
0.064 mg/L for 87 U.S. surface
waters
0.004 mg/L mean value for river
water
b. Seawater
0.006 to 0.03 mg/L
0.002 to 0.005 mg/L
c. Drinking water
0.01 to 0.1 mg/L
d. Groundwater
<0.001 mg/L for groundwater
Ratsch, 1974
(p. 6)
Weaver et al.,
1984 (p. 133)
Allaway, 1978
(p. 240)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 3-20)
Baxter et al.,
1983c (p. 25)
Baxter et al.,
1983c (p. 25)
Jenkins, 1980a
(p. 18)
MAS, 1980
(p. 42)
Jenkins, 1980a
(p. 18)
Oak Ridge
National Labora-
tory, 1976
(p. 449)
4-2
-------
2. Concentration
"normal" 0.5 to 14.0 ug/g
"treated areas" 1.8 to 830 ug/g
"normal" <2.0 ug/g (WW)
"normal" 6 ug/g
range 0.1 to 40 Ug/g
Background levels range from <1 to
40 ppm, the latter reflecting agricul-
tural practices as well as air fallout.
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
5.52 occurrence in 1,577 U.S. surface
waters (detection limit = 0.100 Ug/D
2. Concentration
a. Fresh water
0.005 to 0.336 mg/L range
0.064 mg/L for 87 U.S. surface
waters
0.004 mg/L mean value for river
water
b. Seawater
0.006 to 0.03 mg/L
0.002 to 0.005 mg/L
c. Drinking water
0.01 to 0.1 mg/L
d. Groundwater
<0.001 mg/L-for groundwater
Ratsch, 1974
(p. 6)
Weaver et al.,
1984 (p. 133)
Allaway, 1978
(p. 240)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 3-20)
Baxter et al.,
1983c (p. 25)
Baxter et al.,
1983c (p. 25)
Jenkins, 1980s
(p. 18)
NAS, 1980
(p. 42)
Jenkins, 1980a
(r* 1 81
Oak Ridge
National Labora-
tory, 1976
4-2
-------
0.1 to 0.370 pg/g in 1978 total
diet study
Arsenic Content of Vegetables (ppm of
As, Dry Weight):
FDA, no date
(Attachment F)
Pyles and
Woolson, 1982
(p. 868)
Vegetable
Normal Levels
broccoli
beet
cabbage
corn
green been
lettuce
potato flesh
potato peel
Swiss chard
tomato
0.34
<0.1-0.4
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.40
0.12
0.01-0.2
0.02-2.4
0.01
0.01
0.01-0.08
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity (Inorganic Arsenic)
a. Qualitative Assessment
Skin cancer and lung cancer have
been shown by numerous epidemio-
logic studies to have an associa-
tion with arsenic exposure. As
has not definitely been found to
be a carcinogen in animal studies,
however, under the I ARC scheme, As
would receive a rating of Group 1
indicating sufficient evidence of
carcinogens in humans,
b. Potency
Unit risk (at 1 Wg As/L) =
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 7-148)
4.3 x 10
Cancer potency
Effects
Skin tumors
15 (mg/kg/day)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 7-149)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
4-4
-------
0.1 to 0.370 ug/g in 1978 total
diet study
Arsenic Content of Vegetables (ppm of
As, Dry Weight):
FDA, no date
(Attachment F)
Pyles and
Woolson, 1982
(p. 868)
Vegetable
Normal Levels
broccoli
beet
cabbage
corn
green been
lettuce
potato flesh
potato peel
Swiss chard
tomato
0.34
<0.1-0.4
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.40
0.12
0.01-0.2
0.02-2.4
0.01
0.01
0.01-0.08
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity (Inorganic Arsenic)
a. Qualitative Assessment
Skin cancer and lung cancer have
been shown by numerous epidemio-
logic studies to have an associa-
tion with arsenic exposure. As
has not definitely been found to
be a carcinogen in animal studies,
however, under the IARC scheme, As
would receive a rating of Group 1
indicating sufficient evidence of
carcinogens in humans,
b. Potency
Unit risk (at 1 Ug As/L) =
4.3 x ID"*
Cancer potency = 15 (mg/kg/day)"1
c. Effects
Skin tumors
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 7-148)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 7-149)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
4-4
-------
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenic! ty (Inorganic Arsenic)
a. Qualitative Assessment
There is considerable evidence
that inhalation of As is
carcinogenic.
b. Potency
Cancer potency (for absorbed
dose) = 50.1 (mg/kg/day)'1
Unit risk (at 1 Ug As/m3) =
4.29 x 10~3
c. Effects
Lung cancer in humans
2. Chronic Toxic ity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIH
See below "Existing Regulations"
b. Effects
Peripheral nervous system effects
have been cited in occupationally
exposed workers.
3. Absorption Factor
Net absorption of 30Z or greater
4. Existing Regulations
10 mg/m3 (TWA) OSHA
2 mg/m3 ceiling (15 min.) NIOSH
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-80)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 7-149)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 9-5)
0.05 mg/m3 (TWA)
U.S. EPA, 1983c
(p. 2-19)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 2-6, 7-133)
Center for
Disease Control,
1983 (p. 7-S)
ACGIH, 1977
4-6
-------
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity (Inorganic Arsenic)
a. Qualitative Assessment
There is considerable evidence
Chat inhalation of As is
carcinogenic.
b. Potency
Cancer potency (for absorbed
dose) = 50.1 (mg/kg/day)"1
Unit risk (at 1 ug As/m3) =
4.29 x 10~3
c. Effects
Lung cancer in humans
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIH
See below "Existing Regulations"
b. Effects
Peripheral nervous system effects
have been cited in occupationally
exposed workers.
3. Absorption Factor
Net absorption of 30Z or greater
4. Existing Regulations
10 mg/m3 (TWA) OSHA
2 mg/m3 ceiling (15 min. ) NIOSH
0.05 mg/m3 (TWA)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-80)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 7-149)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 9-5)
U.S. EPA, 1983c
(p. 2-19)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 2-6, 7-133)
Center for
Disease Control,
1983 (p. 7-S)
ACGIH, 1977
4-6
-------
Root growth of lemon plants grown in
solution culture was enhanced by 1 ppm
As as arsenate or arsenite; 5 ppm of
either form of As was toxic and
adversely affected both top and root
growth.
See Table 4-1.
Tissue concentration causing phytotoxicity
Liebig et al.,
1959, in Walsh
and Keeney, 1975
30-140 Ug/g As (DW-) in bermuda grass
roots associated with yield reduction
50 Ug/g As (DW) in bermuda grass
'leaves and stems
>4.4 Ug/g (DW) in cotton, yield
limiting concentration
>1 Ug/g (DW) in soybeans, yield
limiting concentration
2.1-8.2 Ug/g in peach tree
leaves exhibiting As injury symptoms
(0.9-1.1 Ug/g normal concentration
See Table 4-1.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-2.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-3.
B. Uptake
1. Normal range of tissue concentrations
Normal animals usually have a back-
ground As concentration in kidney and
liver tissues of <0.5 Ug/g«
Osprey, Ug/g (WW)
liver - <1.5
Chickens, Ug/g (WW) control diet
liver - 0.10 average
kidney - 0.05 average
Weaver et al.,
1984 (p. 137)
Weaver et al.,
1984 (p. 138)
Deuel and
Swoboda, 1972
(p. 317)
Lindner and
Reeves, 1942,
in NAS, 1977
(p. 121)
Buck, 1978
(p. 366)
Wiemeyer et
al., 1980
(p. 164)
4-8
-------
Root growth of lemon plants grown in
solution culture was enhanced by 1 ppm
As as arsenate or arsenite; 5 ppm of
either form of As was toxic and
adversely affected both top and root
growth.
See Table 4-1.
2. Tissue concentration causing phytotozicity
Liebig et al.,
1959, in Walsh
and Keeney, 1975
30-140 Ug/g As (DW-) in bermuda grass
roots associated with yield reduction
50 Ug/g As (DW) in bermuda grass
'leaves and stems
>4.4 ug/g (DW) in cotton, yield
limiting concentration
>1 Ug/g (DW) in soybeans, yield
limiting concentration
2.1-8.2 Ug/g in peach tree
leaves exhibiting As injury symptoms
(0.9-1.1 Ug/g normal concentration
See Table 4-1.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-2.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-3.
B. Uptake
1. Normal range of tissue concentrations
Normal animals usually have s back-
ground As concentration in kidney and
liver tissues of <0.5 Ug/g.
Osprey, Ug/g (WW)
liver - <1.5
Chickens, Ug/g (WW) control diet
liver - G.iO average
kidney - 0,05 average
Weaver et al.,
1984 (p. 137)
Weaver et al.,
1984 (p. 138)
Deuel and
Swoboda, 1972
(p. 317)
Lindner and
Reeves, 1942,
in NAS, 1977
(p. 121)
Brick, 1978
(p. 366)
Wiemeyer et
al., 1980
(p. 164)
4-8
-------
27 ug/g (DW) in liver of cattle fed NAS, 1980
30 mg As per day for 7 days (p. 45)
3. Bioconcentration factor for tissue concentration versus
feed concentration
See Table 4-4.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Tozicity
1. Freshwater
Data not immediately available.
2. Saltwater
Four-day average concentration should
not exceed 36 Ug/L more than once every
three years on the average.
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
Data not immediately available.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA
Atomic weight = 74.92 g/mole Handbook of
Melting point = 817°C at 28 mm Hg Chemistry and
Boiling point = Sublimes-at 6138C Physics, 1976
(p. B-91)
Essentially insoluble in water.
4-10
-------
27 ug/g (DW) in Liver of cattle fed NAS, 1980
30 mg As per day for 7 days (p. 45)
3. Bioconcentration factor for tissue concentration versus
feed concentration
See Table 4-4.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Tozicity
1. Freshwater
Data not immediately available.
2. Saltwater
Four-day average concentration should
not exceed 36 ug/L more than once every
three years on the average.
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
Data not immediately available.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA
Atomic weight = 74.92 g/mole Handbook of
Melting point = S17°C at 28 mm Hg Chemistry and
Boiling point = Sublimes- at 613°C Physics, 1976
(p. B-91)
Essentially insoluble in water.
4-10
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Chemical
Form
Applied
Soil
PH
Control
Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DU)
Experimental
Soil
Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
Experimental
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW) Effect
References
Green bean,
lima bean, spin-
ach, cabbage,
tomatoes, rad-
ishes
Apple/seedling
Apple/seedling
Apple/seedling
Cotton/plant
Cotton/root
Bermuda grass/
plant
NajHAsO^
6.2
NR
500
NR
Na2IIAs04
Na2HAs(>4
Asj<>3 culture solution NR
NH
NH
NR
NR
NR
NR
50-100
100-150
>150 .
B
AajOj culture solution
As203
A. 7-7. 7
NR
2.7
NR
NR
NR
81
352
90
No growth at 10,
50, 100 Mg/g, at
500 Mg/g growth
inversely propor-
tional to soil
cone.; As less
phytotoxic at soil
pll 5.S
Growth reduced 502
Little growth
Killed seedlings
Wilted leaf/curly
margins
Stubby roots/brown
tips
Prevented growth
HAS, 1977 (p. 122)
Ratsch, 1974 (p. 6)
Narcus-Wyner and
Rains, 1982 (p. 716)
Weaver et al.,
(p. 135)
1984
Bermuda grass /root
Bermuda grass/root
Bermuda grass/stem
Bermuda grass/leaf
As203
As203
As20j
As20j
4.7-7.7
4.7-7.7
4.7-7.7
4.7-7.7
2.7
2.7
3
2
45
10
45
45
440
140
20-45
20
751 growth
No effect
75Z growth
reduction
Growth reduction
°NR=Not reported.
''Water soluble as in parts per million in soil.
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Green bean,
lima bean, spin-
ach, cabbage.
tomatoes, rad-
ishes
Apple/seed! ing
Apple/seedling,
Apple/seedling
Cotton/plant
Cotton/ root
Bermuda grass/
plant
Bermuda grass/root
Bermuda grass /root
Bermuda grass/stem
Bermuda grass/lee f
Chemical
Form
Applied
Na2IIAsOA
Na2IIAsO^
Na2HAsO^
Na2HAsO^
As20j
As20j
AB203
Aa20j
As203
As203
As20j
Control
Tissue
Soil Concentration
pH (pg/g DW)
i>.2 NR
NH NR
NH NR
NR NR
culture solution NR
culture solution NR
4.7-7.7 2.7
4.7-7.7 2.7
4.7-7.J 2.7
4.7-7.) 3
4.7-7.)' 2
Experimental
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
500
. 50-100
100-150
>150
8
a
90
45
10
45
45
Experimental Experimental
Application Tissue
Rate Concentration
(kg/ha) (pg/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
81
352
—
440
140
20-45
20
Effect
No growth at 10,
50, 100 pg/g, at
500 pg/g growth
inversely propor-
tional to soil
cone. 5 As less
phytotoxic at soil
pll 5.S
Growth reduced 50Z
Little growth
Killed seedlings
Wilted leaf/curly
margins
Stubby roots/brown
tips
Prevented growth
75Z growth
No effect
75Z growth
reduction
Growth reduction
References
HAS, 1977 (p. 122)
Ratsch, 1974 (p. 6)
Marcus-Wyner and
Rains, 1982 (p. 716)
Weaver et al., 1984
(p. 135)
aNR=tlot reported.
soluble a: in parts per million in soil
-------
Table A-3. TOX1CITY OP ARSENIC TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)<>
Most animals
Host animals
Most animal
species
Swine
Swine
Dog
Dog
Dog
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Chicken
Swine/Poultry
Swine
Feed
Chemical Form Concentration
Fed (pg/g)
Inorganic As
Organic As
Sodium arsenite
Sodium arsenite
Sodium arsenite
Sodium
thiacetarsamide
Sod i urn
thiacetarsamide
As
MSMAC
MSMA
DSMA
DSMA
MSMA
MSMA
DSHA
DSMA
MSMA/DSMA
Arsanilic acid/
sodium arsanilite
Arsanilic acid/
sodium arsanil ite
50
100
—
500
--
—
27
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
50-100
1,000
Water Daily
Concentration Intake
(mg/L) (mg/kg)
—
— —
1-25
—
1,000 100-200
1.6
0.9
1.8
5
10
10
25
25
50
10
25
250
—
—
Duration
Daily
Daily
NRD
2 weeks
few hours
2 days
1 day
5 days
10 days
5 days
10 days
5 days
10 days
6 days
10 days
6 dyas
10 days
lifetime
18 days
Effects
Maximum tolerable level
Maximum tolerable level
LD50
No sign of acute arsenic
poisoning
Death/severe poisoning
Used to treat heartworma
No effect
Lethal
No effect
Lethal
No effect
Lethal
No effect
Lethal
No effect
Lethal
No effect
Recommended for increased
feed efficiency
Severe poisoning
References
NAS, 1980 (p. 46)
Buck, 1978 (p. 359)
Buck, 1978 (p. 360)
Buck, 1978 (p. 361)
Ledet and Buck, 1978
(p. 376)
Ledet and Buck, 1978
(p. 379)
-------
Table A-3. TOX1CITY OF ARSENIC TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)a
Most animals
Most animals
Most animal
species
Swine
Swine
Dog
Dog
Dog
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Chicken
Swine/Poultry
Swine
Feed
Chemical Form Concentration
Fed (|)g/g)
Inorganic As
Organic As
Sodium arsenite
Sodium arsenite
Sodium arsenite
Sodium
thiacetarsamid :
Sod i ura
thiacetaraamide
As
MSNAC
MSMA
DSMA
DSMA
MSMA
MSMA
DSMA
DSMA
MSMA /DSMA
Arsanilic acid/
sodium arsanil it e
Arsanilic acid/
:>o
100
500
--
—
27
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
...
50-100
1,000
Water Daily
Concentration Intake
(mg/L) (mg/kg)
—
--. --
1-25
—
1,000 100-200
1.6
0.9
1.8
5
10
10
25
25
50
10
25
250
._
—
Duration
Daily
Daily
NRb
2 weeks
few hours
2 days
1 day
5 days
10 days
5 days
10 days
5 days
10 days
6 days
10 days
6 dyas
10 days
lifetime
18 days
Effects
Maximum tolerable level
Maximum tolerable level
LD50
No sign of acute arsenic
poisoning
Death/severe poisoning
Used to treat heartworms
No effect
Lethal
No effect
Lethal
No effect
Lethal
No effect
Lethal
No effect
Lethal
No effect
Recommended for increased
feed efficiency
Severe poisoning
References
MAS, 1980 (p. 46)
Buck, 1978 (p. 359)
Buck, 1978 (p. 360)
Buck, 1978 (p. 361)
Ledet and Buck, 1978
(p. 376)
Ledet and Buck, 1978
sodium arsanil il.e
(p. 179)
-------
TABLE 4-4. UPTAKE OF ARSENIC BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species
Guinea Pig
Guinea Pig
Guinea Pig
Swine (3)
Swine (3)
Suine (3)
Chicken
Chicken
Chicken
Cowbird (2)
(N)«
(6) Swiss
(6) Swiss
(6) Swiss
Chemical
Form Fed
chard grown on
chard grown on
chard grown on
Arsanilic acid
Arsanilic acid
Arsanilic acid
3-Nitro-4-llydroxy-Phenyl arson ic
3-Nitro-4-Hydroxy-Phenylar sonic
3-N i t ro-4-Hyd rox-y-Pheny I arsenic
Range (and N)«
of Feed Concentration Tissue
(Mg/g DW) Analyzed
sludge
sludge
sludge
(35Z As)
(35Z As)
(35Z As)
acid (28Z As)
acid (28Z As)
acid (28Z As)
Copper aceto arsenile
0.47-0.66 (2)
0.47-0.66 (2)
0.47-0.66 (2)
350 (2)
350 (2)
350 (2)
0-14 (2)
0-14 (2)
0-14 (2)
25-225
liver
' kidney
muscle
kidney
liver
muscle
kidney
liver
muscle
liver
Control
Tissue
Concentration Uptake"
(ug/g DU) Slope
0
0
0
<•
0
0
0
.06
.01
.06
087°
067C
071C
.22C
.27C
.071°
NRd
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.37
.16
.32
.20C
,10C
.012C
.27C
.56C
.013C
.19
References
Purr et al
(p. 87-88)
Ledet and
(p. 382)
HAS, 1977
., 1976a
Buck, 1978
(p. 156)
Uiemeyer et al., 1980
(p. 164)
8 N = Number of feed rates or animals studied, when reported.
b Slope " y/xl y • tissue concentration (pg/g); x « feed concentration (|jg/g).
c When tissue values were reported as wet weight, unless otherwise indicated a moisture content of 77Z was assumed for kidney, 70Z for liver, and
72Z for muscle.
d HR "= not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-4. UPTAKE OP ARSENIC BV DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Range (and N)a
Chemical of Feed Concentration Tissue
Species (N)a Form Fed (pg/g DU) Analyzed
Guinea Pig (6)
Guinea Pig (6)
Guinea Pig (6)
Swine C3)
Swine (3)
Swine (3)
Chicken
Chicken
Chicken
Cowbird (2)
Swiss chard grown cm sludge
Swiss chard grown on sludge
Swiss chard grown on sludge
Arsariilic acid (35Z As)
Arsanilic acid (35Z As)
Arsariilic acid (35Z As)
3-Nil ro-4-llydroxy-Phenylarsonic acid (28Z As)
3-Nilr.ro-4-Hydroxy-Phenytarsonic acid (2BZ As)
3-Nir.ro-4-Hydrox-y-Phenylarsonic acid (28Z As)
Copper aceto atrsenile
0.47-0.66 (2)
0.47-0.66 (2)
0.47-0.66 (2)
350 (2)
350 (2)
350 (2)
0-14 (2)
0-14 (2)
0-14 (2)
25-225
liver
' kidney
muscle
kidney
liver
muscle
kidney
liver
muscle
liver
Control
Tissue
Concentration Uptake0
(pg/g DU) Slope
0.06
0.01
0.06
<.087C
<.067C
<.071C
0.22C
0.27C
0.071C
NRd
0.37
0.16
0.32
0.20C
0.10C
0.012C
0.27C
0.56C
0.013C
0.19
References
Purr et al
(p. 87-88)
Ledet and
(p. 382)
HAS, 1977
., 1976a
Buck, 1978
(p. 156)
Wiemeyer et al., 1980
(p. 164)
• N = Number of teed rates or animalJ studied, when reported.
D Slope = y/xl y = tissue concentration (p|:/g)| x • feed concentration (pg/g).
c When tissue values were reported as wet weight, unless otherwise indicated a moisture content of 77Z was assumed for kidney, 70Z for liver, and
• 72Z for muscle.
d NR = not reported.
-------
Center for Disease Control. 1983. NIOSH Recommendations for
Occupational Health Standards. Morb. Mort. Weekly Rep. 32:7S-22S.
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.
Chisholra, D. 1972. Lead, Arsenic, and Copper Content of Crops Crown on
Lead Arsenate Treated and Untreated Soils. Can. J. Plant Sci.
52:583.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1976. Application of
Sewage Sludge to Cropland. Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the
Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals. Ames, IA.
Deuel, L. E. and A. R. Swoboda. 1972. Arsenic Toxicity to Cotton and
Soybeans. J. Envir. Qual. 1:317.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Elfving, D. C., W. M. Haschek, and R. A. Stehn. 1978. Heavy Metal
Residues in Plants Cultivated on and in Small Mammals Indigenous to
Old Orchard Soils. Arch, of Environ. Health, March/April: 95.
Farrell, J. B., and H. Wall. 1981. Air Pollutional Discharges from Ten
Sewage Sludge Incinerators. Draft Review Copy. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. February.
Food and Drug Administration. No date. Compliance Program Report of
Findings. FY78 Total Diet Studies - Adult (7305.003). October.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Furr, A. K., G. S. Stoewsand, C. A. Bache, and D. J. Lisk. 1976a.
Study of Guinea Pigs Fed Swiss Chard Grown on Municipal Sludge-
Amended Soil. Arch, of Environ. Health 28:87.
Furr, A. K., A. W. Lawrence, and S. S. Tong. 1976b. Multielement and
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Analysis of Municipal Sewage Sludges of
American Cities. Env. Sci. & Technol. 10:683.
Gelhar, L. W., and C. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogeneous 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.
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 1976. 57th Edition. Published by
CRC Press, Cleveland, OH.
5-2
-------
Center for Disease Control. 1983. NIOSH Recommendations for
Occupational Health Standards. Morb. Mort. Weekly Rep. 32:7S-22S.
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.
Chisholm, D. 1972. Lead, Arsenic, and Copper Content of Crops Grown on
Lead Arsenate Treated and Untreated Soils. Can. J. Plant Sci.
52:583.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1976. Application of
Sewage Sludge to Cropland. Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the
Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals. Ames, IA.
Deuel, L. E. and A. R. Swoboda. 1972. Arsenic Toxicity to Cotton and
Soybeans. J. Envir. Qual. 1:317.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
ELfving, D. C., W. M. Haschek, and R. A. Stehn. 1978. Heavy Metal
Residues in Plants Cultivated on and in Small Mammals Indigenous to
Old Orchard Soils. Arch, of Environ. Health, March/April: 95.
Farrell, J. B., and H. Wall. 1981. Air Pollutional Discharges from Ten
Sewage Sludge Incinerators. Draft Review Copy. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. February.
Food and Drug Administration. No date. Compliance Program Report of
Findings. FY78 Total Diet Studies - Adult (7305.003). October.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Furr, A. K., G. S. Stoewsand, C. A. Bache, and D. J. Lisk. 1976a.
Study of Guinea Pigs Fed Swiss Chard Grown on Municipal Sludge-
Amended Soil. Arch, of Environ. Health 28:87.
Furr, A. K., A. W. Lawrence, and S. S. Tong. 1976b. Multielement and
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Analysis of Municipal Sewage Sludges of
American Cities. Env* Sci= * Technol- 10:683.
Gelhar, L. W., and C. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in J-Dimensionaiiy Heterogeneous nquilcta. 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.
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 1976. 57th Edition. Published by
CRC Press, Cleveland, OH.
5-2
-------
Ratsch, H. C. 1974. Heavy Metal Accumulation in Soil and Vegetation
from Smelter Emissions. ROAP/TUSK 21 BCI-01 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Corvallis,
OR.
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.
Sabey, B. R. and W. E. Hart. 1975. Land Application of Sewage Sludge:
I. Effect on Growth and Chemical Composition of Plants. J.
Environ. Qual. 4:252.
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Burge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual. 2(2):321-
325.
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.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
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 Arsenic. EPA 440/5-80-021. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C. October.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. Volume I. EPA
440/1-82/303. Washington, D.C.
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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983c. Preliminary Draft.
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Resource Recovery
Facility at the Brooklyn Navy Yard*
5-4-
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a. 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. 1984b. Health Assessment
Document for Inorganic Arsenic. Final Report. EPA 600/8-83-021F.
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle
Park, NC. March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Water Quality Criteria
Document for Arsenic. Office of Drinking Water, Washington, D.C.
Walsh, L. M., and D. R. Keeney. 1975. Behavior and .Phytotoxicity of
Inorganic Arsenicals in Soils. In; E. W. Woolson (ed.), Arsenical
Pesticides. ACS Symposium Series #7. American Chemical Society,
Washington, D.C.
Weaver, R. W., J. R. Melton, W. DeShin, and R. L. Duble. 1984. Uptake
of Arsenic and Mercury from Soil by Bermuda Grass. Environmental
Pollution (Series A). 33:133.
Wiemeyer, S. N., T. G. Lament, and L. N. Lock. 1980. Residues of
Environmental Pollutants and Necropsy Data for Eastern United
States Ospreys, 1964-1973. Estuaries. 3:155.
Woolson, E. A., J. H. Axley, and P. C. Kearney. 1971. The Chemistry
and Phytotoxicity of Arsenic in Soils: I. Contaminated Field
Soils. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 35:938-943.
5-5
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR ARSENIC
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTE ON- AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Arsenic
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. Formula
T . , (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
IndeX l -- BS (AR * MS) -
where :
SC. = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS - Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
MS - 2000 mt DW/ha = Assumed mass of soil in
upper 15 cm
b. Sample calculation
(4.6 ug/g DW x 5 tnt/ha) + (6.0 ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
mt/ha)
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Formula
x BS
Index 2 =
where:
Ij = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due
to lack of data.
A-l
-------
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a . Formula
(!]_ - 1)(BS x UB) + BB
Index 3 = - s -
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
UB = Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota
(Ug/8 tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]'1)
BB = Background concentration in soil biota
(Ug/g DW)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due
to lack of data.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)
a. Formula
x BS
Index 4 =
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
0 1332557495 = 0-999418 * 6.0 ug/^r DW
0.1332557495
A-2
-------
2. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Caused by Uptake
(Index 5)
a. Formula
(Ii - 1) x BS
Index 5 = —= x CO x UP + 1
BP
where:
I± = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
CO = 2 kg/ha (ug/g)~^ = Conversion factor
between soil concentration and application
rate
UP = Uptake slope of pollutant in plant tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [kg/ha]'1)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
n flo^o (0.999*18-1) x 6.0 ue/g DW 2 kg/ha
0.985162 - Qa6
0.34 ug/g tissue .
X kg/ha L
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Formula
PP
Index 6 =
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration
associated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
DH
20 =
* 0.05 Ug/g
A-3
-------
C. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
Formula
I x BP
Index 7
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
TA - Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g
b. Sample calculation
0 000166 - 0-985162 x 0.37 ug/g DW
0.000366 - 1QOO ug/g DW
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
Formula
If AR = 0,
Tt AD ± n
, BS x GS
s TA
T .. SC x GS
where :
AR - Sludge application rate (me DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
G5 = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(unitless)
TA = Feed concentration toxic Co herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
If«... 0.0,03
--._, ....... _ A. 6 ug/g DW x 0.05
it AK r u, u.uuu^ -- 1000 ug7g~DW
A-4
-------
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
[(I5 - 1) BP x DT] + DI
Index 9 = - 2 -
ADI
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
DT = Daily human dietary intake of affected
plant tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
n nfl/,1Q _ [(0. 985162 - 1) x 0.16 ug/g DW x 74.5 g/davl + 22.1 Ug/day
0.084319 - ug/day
2. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
[(15 - 1) BP x UA x DA] + DI
Index 10 =
where :
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
UA = Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DWp1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW)
DI - Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
A-5
-------
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.084992 =
:o.985162-1) x 0.37 ug/g DW x 0.56 ug/g tissuefug/g feed]"1 x 0.97 g/davl * 22.1 ug/day
260 yg/day
3. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Formula
re AH J. n T j n (SC x GS x UA x DA) + PI
If AR ? 0, Index 11 = -
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (me 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
(unitless)
UA = Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW"1]
DA = Average daily human dietary intake of
affected animal tissue (g/day DW)
DI - Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.08S480 -
(4.6 ug/g DW x 0.05 x 0.56 ug/g tissue [Ug/g feed]"1 x 0.97 g/day DW) + 22.1 ue/dav
260 Ug/day
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(index 12}
a. Formula
x BS x DS) + DI
Index 12 =
RSI
Pure sludge ingestion: Index 12 = —r-rr
Kal
A-6
-------
where:
II - Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet
(g/day)
DI = Average daily dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
_ (0.999418 x 6.0 ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day)
0.0047 Ug/day
. Pure sludge:
/OQ-J e.t-i (4.6 US/g DW x 5 g soil/day)
4893.617 = JT" " -, / . —
0.0047 ug/day
S. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity or Cancer Risk (Index
13)
a. Formula
Index 13 = I9 + I10 + IU f -I12 - "^j Qr RSI
where:
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from plant consumption
(unitless)
Index 10 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
Index 11 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals ingesting
soil (unitless)
Index 12 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
DI = Average daily dietary intake • of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
A-7
-------
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not calculated
because of the combination of ADI and RSI usage earlier
in the text.
II. LANDPILLING
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 estimates initial dilution in 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 is actually negligible.) The
saturated zone assessment procedure is nearly identical to
that for the unsaturated zone except for- the definition of
certain parameters and choice of parameter values. The maxi-
mum concentration at the well, Cmax, is used to calculate the
index values given in Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
C(y.t) = i [exp(Aj) erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) erfc(B2)] = P(x,t)
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of . the result. Exp(A^) denotes the
exponential of Aj, 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 - 1_ [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x M
Al 2D*
y - t (V*2 + 4D* x u*)^
A2 = (4D* x t)*
[V* + (V*2 + 4D* x
R _ y •* t (V-2 + 4D^ K u*)^
82 " (4D* x t)*
A-8
-------
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)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = —3— (m/year)
0 x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 •»• dry x K
-------
where :
Co = Initial concentration of pollutant in the saturated
zone as determined by Equation 1 (yg/L)
Cu = Maximum pulse concentration from the unsaturated
zone (ug/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)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
B = Thickness of saturated zone (m) where:
_ Q x W x 0 _ , „ ^ _
B > - r~* — : - rr-= - and B > 2
— K x i x 365 —
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C(XTt) = P(X,O for 0 < t < t0
GO
C(X?t) = P(X,C) - P(X,t - t0) for t > tc
Co
where :
t0 (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
to (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = n) as determined by the following equation:
t0 = [ J * C dt] * Cu
C( Y t )
P(X»t) = ^' — as determined by Equation 1
co
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment
Resulting from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
r ^ , cmax * BC
Index 1 =
where:
= Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
Maximum of C(A£,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Ug/D
5C = Background conr?nt"ration of pollutant in
groundwater (ug/L)
A-10
-------
2. Sample Calculation
1.1250807 = 0.12508066 /L +1.0
1.0 Ug/L
F. Equation 5. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from
Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
[(I i - 1) BC x AC] * DI
Index 2 = - — -
where :
II - Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration
increment resulting from Landfilled sludge
BC = Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (ug/L)
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake ( Ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation (when DI is not known)
,, ,0cai, •_ [(1.1250807 - 1) x 1.0 ug/L x 2 L/davl
53.225812 - Q^Q^7 ug/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 = - gj -
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 (yg/m^)
A-ll
-------
2. Sample Calculation
1.423126 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x
4.6 mg/kg DW x 0.30 x 3.4 ug/m3) * 0.0082 ug/m3] *
0.0082 ug/m3
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formula
[di - 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 (ug/m3)
EC = Exposure criterion (ug/m3)
2. Sample Calculation
50 7375659 = f(1-*23126 " 1> x Q-°°82 Ug/m31 * 0.0082 ug/m3
0.00023 Ug/m3
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWES meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
A-12
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT COR EACH CONDITION
T
C
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (pg/g DU)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, P,try (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 8 (unitless)
Soil sorption coefficient, Kj (mL/g)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (ml year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
Disperaivity 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, Al (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
1
4.6
1.53
0.195
19.4
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86-
0.001
100
10
2
20.77
1.53
0.195
19.4
O.B
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
3
4.6
1.925
0.133
5.86
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4 5
4.6 4.6
NAb 1.53
NA 0.195
NA 19.4
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
4.6
1.53
0.195
19.4
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.02
50
5
7 8
20.77 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)
Condition of Analysis
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial le senate concentration, Co (ug/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (ug/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, Co
(Mg/L)
1
USD
34.3
168
126
34.3
2
5190
155
168
126
155
3
1150
89.7
64.1
126
89.7
4
1150
1150
5.00
253
1150
5
1150
34.3
168
23.8
34.3
6
1150
34.3
168
6.32
34.3
7
5190
5190
5.00
2.38
5190
a
N
N
N
M
N
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Minimum well concentration, Cma>1 (pg/L)
Index of gruunduater concentration increment
resulting from landfilled sludge,
Index 1 (unit less) (Equation 4)
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
groundwater contamination, Indei 2
(unitlesa) (Equation 5)
0.125
1.12
53.2
0.565
1.57
240
0.125
1.12
53.2
0.125
1.12
53.2
0.665
1.66
283
4.95 120
5.95 121
2110 51100
aN = Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
bNA * Not applicable for this condition,
------- |