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,

-------