Environmental Protection
Agency
Regulations and Standards
Wasnmgton, DC 20460
Water
Jum»,
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Lead
-------
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 ri'sk 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
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR LEAD IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling 2-2
Incineration 2-2
Ocean Disposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR LEAD IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of lead (Index 1) 3-1
Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) 3-2
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration (Indices 4-6) 3-5
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-10
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-13
Landf i lling 3-22
Index of groundwater concentration increment resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-22
Index of human toxicity resulting
from groundwater contamination (Index 2) 3-28
Incineration 3-30
Index of air concentration increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3-30
Index of human toxicity resulting
from inhalation of incinerator emissions
(Index 2) 3-23
Ocean Disposal 3-34
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR LEAD IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-2
Food . 4-3
Human Effects 4-4
Ingestion 4-4
Inhalation 4-5
Plant Effects 4-6
Phytotoxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Aquatic Life Effects 4-7
Toxicity 4-7
Uptake 4-7
Soil Biota Effects 4-8
Toxicity 4-8
Uptake 4-8
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport ........ 4-9
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
LEAD IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
111
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This preliminary data profile is one of a series of profiles
dealing with chemical pollutants potentially of concern in municipal
sewage sludges. Lead (Pb) was initially identified as being of
potential concern when sludge is landspread (including distribution and
marketing), placed in a landfill, or incinerated.* This profile is a
compilation of information that may be useful in determining whether Pb
poses an actual hazard to human health or the environment when sludge is
disposed of by these methods.
The focus of this document is the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge * soil * plant uptake » animal uptake * human toxicity).
The values and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to
represent a reasonable "worst case"; analysis of error or uncertainty
has been conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most
cases is indexed to unity; i.e., values >1 may indicate a potential
hazard, depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on information presented in the "preliminary data profile",
Section 4. Information in the profile is based on a compilation of the
recent literature. An attempt has been made to fill out the profile
outline to the greatest extent possible. However, since this is a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has not been exhaustively perused.
The "preliminary conclusions" drawn from each index in Section 3
are summarized in Section 2. The preliminary hazard indices will be
used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants and pathways may
pose a hazard. Where a potential hazard is indicated by interpretation
of these indices, further analysis will include a more detailed exami-
nation of potential risks as well as an examination of site-specific
factors. These more rigorous evaluations may change the preliminary
conclusions presented in Section 2, which are based on a reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
The preliminary hazard indices for selected exposure routes
pertinent to landspreading and distribution and marketing, Landfilling,
and incineration are included in this profile. The calculation formulae
for these indices are shown in the Appendix. The indices are rounded to
two significant figures.
* Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean, disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR LEAD 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 DISTRIBUTTON-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Lead
The landspreading of municipal sewage sludge will result in
increases of Pb concentrations in sludge-amended soils. For
low application rates (5 mt/ha), the increase will be slight.
For moderate application rates (50 mt/ha), the Pb increase is
expected to range from 1.5 to 3.3 times that normally
associated with background levels in soil. And for a 500
mt/ha cumulative application rate, the increase may range from
5.3 to 20 times that of pre-treatment levels (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
The landspreading of sludge is not expected to pose a toxic
hazard to soil biota due to Pb (see Index 2). Generally,
landspreading of sludge should not pose a toxic hazard for
predators of soil biota associated with amended soils.
However , at the 500 mt/ha application rate of worst-Pb
concentration sludge, a toxic hazard may exist (see Index 3).
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Plants generally are not expected to be affected by the
landspreading of municipal sewage sludge. However, a
phytotoxic hazard may exist when sludge containing a high
concentration of Pb is applied at a high cumulative rate (see
Index 4). The landspreading of municipal sewage sludge at the
5 mt/ha and 50 mt/ha application rates may result in slight
increases in plant tissue concentrations of Pb. At the 500
mt/ha application rate, uptake of Pb by plants consumed by
animals is still slight. However, plants consumed by humans
will concentrate moderate levels of Pb (see Index 5). The
predicted increases in plant tissue concentrations of Pb
resulting from landspreading of sludge are not expected to be
precluded by phytotoxicity (see Index 6).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
Sludge application should not pose a toxic hazard to
herbivorous animals because of increased Pb concentrations in
plant tissue (see Index 7). Also, grazing animals which
2-1
-------
incidentally ingest sludge or sludge-amended soil are not
expected to be subjected to toxic levels of Pb (see Index 8).
E. Effect on Humans
Both toddlers and adults may be exposed to health threatening
levels of Pb when they consume plants grown in soil that has
had typical Pb concentration sludge applied at a 500 mt/ha
application rate or when worst Pb concentration sludge has
been applied at 50 mt/ha or 500 mt/ha (see Index 9). Toddlers
and adults are not expected to be exposed to health
threatening levels of Pb when they consume animal products
derived from animals that have grazed on plants grown in
sludge-amended soil (see Index 10) or ingested sludge-amended
soil (see Index 11). Adults are not expected to be subjected
to health threatening levels of Pb if they ingest sludge-
amended soil or pure sludge. However, if toddlers ingest pure
sludge, sludge-amended soil that has had a 500 mt/ha
application rate, or sludge-amended soil that has received
worst Pb concentration sludge at a 50 mt/ha application rate,
then health threatening levels of Pb may be ingested (see
Index 12). The aggregate amount of Pb in the human diet
resulting from landspreading of sludge may pose a health
threat when municipal sewage sludge is applied to soil at or
above the 50 mt/ha application rate (see Index 13).
II. LANDFILLING
Landfilling of municipal sewage sludge is expected to increase the
levels of Pb in groundwater above background concentrations; this
increase may be substantial at a disposal site with all worst-case
conditions (see Index 1). Generally, landfilling is not expected
to pose a human health threat from Pb when groundwater is ingested.
However, health threatening levels of Pb may be found in
groundwater when all worst-case conditions prevail at a disposal
site (see Index 2).
III. INCINERATION
Air concentrations of Pb may slightly increase above background
levels when sludge is incinerated at typical feed rates (2660
kg/hr). At high feed rates (10,000 kg/hr), incineration of sludge
containing a typical concentration of Pb may moderately increase
air concentrations of Pb, while incineration of sludge containing a
high concentration of Pb may substantially increase air
concentrations of Pb (see Index Do Inhalation of emissions from
sludge incineration is not expected to pose a human health threat
due to Pb except when sludge containing a high concentration of Pb
is incinerated at a high feed rate (see Index 2).
2-2
-------
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.
2-3
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR LEAD
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Lead
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 >^50 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 10-^ mt/ha.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concent-ration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 248.2 ug/g DW
Worst 1070.8 ug/g DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are
the median and 95th percentile values
statistically derived from sludge concentration
data from a survey of 40 publicly-owned
3-1
-------
treatment works (POTWs) (U.S. EPA, 1982). (See
Section 4, p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 11 Ug/g DW
The value of 11 Ug/g was selected because it is
the median value for U.S. cropland soils
(Holmgren, 1985). This value agrees well with
other findings (Demayo et al., 1982; Logan and
Miller, 1983; Allaway, 1968). (See Section 4,
p. 4-1.)
d. Index 1 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
1
1
1.0
1.2
1.5
3.3
5.3
20
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds background when
sludge is applied. (A value of 2 indicates concen-
tration is doubled; a value of 0.5 indicates
reduction by one-half.)
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The landspreading of
municipal sewage sludge will result in increases of
Pb concentrations in sludge-amended soils. For low
application rates (5 mt/ha), the increase will be
slight. For moderate application rates (50 mt/ha),
the Pb increase is expected to range from 1.5 to 3.3
times that normally associated with background
levels in soil. And for a 500 mt/ha cumulative
application rate, the increase may range from 5.3 to
20 times that of pre-treatment levels.
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with soil concentration shown to
be toxic for some organism.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
3-2
-------
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) = 11 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) =
1000 Ug/8 DW
The addition of PbCl2 (but not PbSO^, PbC03, or
PbO) at this level resulted in a 22 Co 29
percent inhibition of cellulose decomposing by
microorganisms. Lower concentration levels of
100 and 500 Ug/g DW (PbC^) showed no
significant inhibition. (Khan and Frankland,
1984). (See Section 4, p. 4-22.)
Index 2 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.011
0.011
5
0.012
0.014
50
0.017
0.037
500
0.058
0.22
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 - The landspreading of
sludge is not expected to pose a toxic hazard to
soil biota due to Pb.
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.
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) = 11 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota (UB) =
0.54 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)""1
The highest available slope value was for
earthworms, so this value would represent the
"worst1! reasonable case. The value for the
slope is the mean value for two locations where
Pb content in soil and earthworms were examined
at varying distances from a roadway (Gish and
Christensen, 1973). (See Section 4, p. 4-23.)
iv. Background concentration in soil biota (BB) =
12 ug/g DW
This concentration value corresponds to the
uptake slope recorded for earthworms (see
Section 4, p. 4-23.)
v. Feed concentration toxic to predator (TR) =
46 ug/g DW
It was desired to choose the most sensitive
bird species, using birds as a model earthworm
predator. A daily intake of 8 mg/kg body
weight (BW) as Pb(N(>3)2 was sufficient to bring
about death in ducks in 24 to 41 days. This
represents a "worst" case situation. The 46
Ug/g DW. feed concentration corresponds
to the potency of the contaminated feed
necessary to bring about the lethal 8 mg/kg BW
daily intake dosage in ducks (Coburn et al.,
1951). (See Section 4, p. 4-19.)
3-4
-------
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.26
0.26
5
0.27
0.29
50
0.33
0.56
500
0.82
2.7
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected concentration in soil biota exceeds that
which is toxic to predator. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for predators of soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Generally, landspreading of
sludge should not pose a toxic hazard for predators
of soil biota associated with amended soils.
However, at the 500 mt/ha application rate of
worst-Pb concentration sludge, a toxic hazard may
exist.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with the lowest soil
concentration shown to be toxic for some plant.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 11 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
100 pg/g DW
Karamanos et al. (1976) raised alfalfa in soil
amended with PbCl2 and found that there was a
yield reduction of 25 percent when the experi-
mental soil concentration was 100 Vg/g DW. The
3-5
-------
choice of 100 Ug/g is therefore conservative
and represents the "worst" case. (See Section
4, p. 4-10.)
d. Index A Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.14
0.17
0.37
0.58
2.2
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard .may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Plants generally are not
expected to be affected by the landspreading of
municipal sewage sludge. However, a phytotoxic
hazard may exist when sludge containing a high
concentration of Pb is applied at a high cumulative
rate.
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.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
3-6
-------
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 11 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Conversion factor between soil concentration
and application rate (CO) = 2 kg/ha (ug/g)-i
Assumes pollutant is distributed and retained
within upper 15 cm of soil (i.e. plow layer)
which has an approximate mass (dry matter) of
2 x 103.
iv. Uptake slope of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
Animal diet:
Corn/forage
0.005 Ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)"1
Human diet:
Turnip/green
0.039 Ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)-1
The slope for corn forage is from a field study
in which sludge compost was applied to soil of
pH 4.9 to 5.6 (Giordano et al., 1975). The
slope for turnip greens was derived from a
field study where two sludge application rates
were used on a soil of pH 5.6 (Miller and
Boswell, 1979).
These slopes, for crops consumed by humans and
domestic animals, respectively, were the
highest observed in field studies using sludge.
Higher slopes were occasionally observed in pot
or field studies using lead salts, h.ut the data
base for uptake from sludge was considered
adequate and the other studies were not used.
(See Section 4, pp. 4-14 to 4-17.)
v. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)
Animal diet:
Corn/forage 7.7 ug/g DW
Human diet:
Turnip/green 7.8 Ug/g DW
Values correspond to plants selected for their
UP values. (See Section 4, pp. 4-14 to 4-17.)
3-7
-------
d. Index 5 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Diet Concentration 0 5 50 500
Animal
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
Human Typical 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5
Worst 1.0 1.0 1.2 3.1
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 - The landspreading of
municipal sewage sludge at the 5 mt/ha and 50 mt/ha
application rates may result in slight increases in
plant tissue concentrations of Pb. At the 500 mt/ha
application rate, uptake of Pb by plants consumed by
animals in still slight. However, plants consumed
by humans will concentrate moderate levels of Pb.
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.
y
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue con-
centration will be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
3-8
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with phytotoxicity (PP)
Animal diet:
Corn/plant >38 Ug/g DW
Human diet:
Lettuce 200 ug/g DW
No plants that serve as animal feed were
reported to have phytotoxic effects due to Pb.
The corn/plant was therefore chosen because it
showed the highest level of Pb tissue
concentration with no adverse effects. It is
therefore assumed that phytotoxic effects due
to Pb would only be observed at levels above
38 ug/g DW (Baumhardt and Welch, 1972).
The observation of 54 to 224 Ug/g was asso-
ciated with 17 to 36 percent yield reduction in
lettuce (John and Van Laerhoven, 1972).
However, control values from that study were
unusually high (43 to 57 Ug/g) because of low
soil pH (3.8 to 5.2). Thus, the next highest
observed control level for lettuce, 12 Ug/g>
was chosen as the background level (Spittler
and Feder, 1979). The lettuce value is
reported for comparison with the predicted
increment for turnip greens in Index 5, since
phytotoxicity data for turnip greens were not
found. (See Section 4, pp. 4-10, 4-12 and 4-
17.)
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)
Animal diet:
Corn/plant 2.4 ug/g DW
Human diet:
Lettuce 12 ug/g DW
Values correspond to plants selected for their
PP values. (See Section 4, pp. 4-12 and 4-17.)
d. Index 6 Values
Plant Index VaLue
Corn/Plant >16
Lettuce 17
3-9
-------
e. Value Interpretation - Value gives the maximum
factor of tissue concentration increment (above
background) which is permitted by phytotoxicity.
Value is compared with values for the same or simi-
lar plant tissues given by Index 5. The lowest of
the two indices indicates the maximal increase which
can occur at any given application rate.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The predicted increases in
plant tissue concentrations of Pb resulting from
landspreading of sludge are not expected to be
precluded by phytotoxicity.
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. 3-8).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
7.7 Mg/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-7).
3-10
-------
ill. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 80 ug/g DW
The value of 80 Ug/g (DW) corresponds to a
horse. The horse was the most sensitive
grazing animal reportedly succumbing to an
intake of 1.7 mg/kg BW (Aronson, 1972). This
corresponds to roughly 80 Ug/g DW in forage
feeds. (See Section 4, p. 4-20.)
d. Index 7 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typi.cal
Worst
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.097
0.099
0.10
0.12
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected plant tissue concentration exceeds that
which is toxic to animals. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Sludge application should
not pose a toxic hazard to herbivorous animals
because of increased Pb concentrations in plant
tissue.
Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
a grazing animal's diet resulting from sludge adhe-
sion to forage or from incidental ingestion of
sludge-amended soil and compares this with the
dietary toxic threshold concentration for a grazing
animal.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that sludge is
applied over and adheres to growing forage, or that
sludge constitutes 5 percent of dry matter in the
grazing animal's diet, and that pollutant form in
sludge is equally bioavailable and toxic as form
used to demonstrate toxic effects. Hhere no sludge
is applied (i.e., 0 mt/ha), assumes diet is 5 per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.
3-11
-------
Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 248.2 Ug/g DW
Worst 1070.8 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 11 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.
3-12
-------
iv. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 80 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.0069
0.0069
5
0.16
0.67
50
0.16
0.67
500
0.16
0.67
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected dietary concentration exceeds toxic concen-
tration. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may
exist for grazing animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Grazing animals which
incidentally ingest sludge or sludge-amended soil
are not expected to be subjected to toxic levels of
Pb.
E. Effect on Humans
Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Explanation - Calculates dietary intake expected to
result from consumption of crops grown on sludge-
amended soil. Compares dietary intake with accept-
able daily intake (ADI) of the pollutant.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all crops are
grown on sludge-amended soil and that all those con-
sidered to be affected take up the pollutant at the
same rate as the most responsive plant(s) (as chosen
in Index 5). Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories: toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index o£ plant concentration incrssent caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for a human diet
(see Section 3, p. 3-8).
3-13
-------
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
7.8 Ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the human diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-7).
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 47.3 Ug/day
Adult 60.2 Ug/day
These intake values are averages for total Pb
intake, including foods, water, ingested dust,
and inhaled air. They are from U.S. EPA, 1984
and are based in part on a U.S. EPA analysis of
preliminary results for Pb analysis from an FDA
1982 market basket survey. (See Section 4,
p. 4-9.)
v. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI)
Toddler 150 ug/day
Adult 430 Ug/day
The toddler value was derived by Mahaffey
(1977) and is that used by the FDA. The adult
ADI was derived from a provisional tolerable
weekly intake established by the Food and
Agricultural Organization/World Health Organi-
zation (FAO/WHO), 1972. The FAO/WHO pro-
visional tolerable intake of 3 mg/week was
divided by 7 to obtain the ADI of 430 ug/day.
(See Section 4, p. 4-4.)
3-14
-------
Index 9 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.42
0.54
1.3
2.2
8.5
Adult Typical 0.14 0.16 0.36 1.9
Worst 0.14 0.24 1.1 8.0
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected intake exceeds ADI. Value > 1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison .with the
null index value at 0 mt/ha indicates the degree to
which any hazard is due to sludge application, as
opposed to pre-existing dietary sources.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Both toddlers and adults
may be exposed to health threatening levels of Pb
when they consume plants grown in soil that has had
typical Pb concentration sludge applied at a 500
mt/ha application rate or when worst Pb
concentration sludge has been applied at 50 mt/ha or
500 mt/ha.
Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal
products derived from domestic animals given feed
grown on sludge-amended soil (crop or pasture land)
but not directly contaminated by adhering sludge.
Compares expected intake with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals receiving all their feed
from sludge-amended soil. The uptake slope of pol-
lutant in animal tissue (UA) used is assumed to be
represent? ri,vp o£ all animal tissue comprised by the
daily human dietary intake (DA) used. Divides pos-
sible variations in dietary intake into two categor-
ies: toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
3-15
-------
Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are chose for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-8).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
7.7 Ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-7).
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 0.09 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1
Of animal products consumed by humans, beef
liver was most responsive in terms of Pb uptake
(Boyer et al.t 1981; Johnson et al., 1981),
except kidney, which was regarded as comprising
too small a portion of the U.S. diet. Chickens
displayed a high uptake slope (Cibulka et al. ,
1983) but were not selected because while Pb
uptake may occur to a limited degree in
vegetative parts of plants, it is usually not
detectable in grain (e.g., Giordano et al.,
1975) as would be consumed by chickens. The
slope used was derived from a study in which
cattle were given sludge-amended feed (Boyer et
al., 1981). The value was reported by Boyer et
al. in wet weight (0.027 Ug/g WW) and was
converted to dry weight for use as the UA by
assuming a moisture content of 70% for beef
liver. (See Section 4, p. 4-21.)
iv. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
Pennington (1983) lists the average daily
intake of beef liver 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 USDA (1975).
3-16
-------
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 47.3 Ug/day
Adult 60.2 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
Toddler 150 Ug/day
Adult 430 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
d. Index 10 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Adult
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.32
0.32
0.14
0.14
0.32
0.32
0.14
0.14
0.32
0.32
0.14
0,14
0.32
0.32
0.14
0.14
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Toddlers and adults are not
expected to be exposed to health threatening levels
of Pb when they consume animal products derived from
animals that have grazed on plants grown in sludge-
amended soils.
3. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal prod-
ucts derived from grazing animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil. Compares expected
intake with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals grazing sludge-amended
soil, and that all animal products consumed take up
the pollutant at the highest rate observed for
3-17
-------
muscle of any commonly consumed species or at the
rate observed for beef liver or dairy products
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over three
years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue = Beef liver
See Section 3, p. 3-16.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 11 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 248.2 ug/g DW
Worst 1070.8 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 52
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
v. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 0.09 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)'1
See Section 3, p. 3-16.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
See Section 3, p. 3-16.
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 47.3 Ug/day
Adult 60.2 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
3-18
-------
viii. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
Toddler
Adult
150 yg/day
430 Ug/day
d.
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
Index 11 Values
Sludge
Group Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
5 50 500
Toddler
Adult
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.32
0.32
0.14
0.14
0.32
0.35
0.15
0.20
0.32
0.35
0.15
0.20
0.32
0.35
0.15
0.20
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Toddlers or adults are not
expected to be exposed to health threatening levels
of Pb when they consume animal products derived
from animals that have ingested sludge-amended soil.
4. Index of Human Toxicity from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
the diet of a child who ingests soil (pica child)
amended with sludge. Compares this amount with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the pica
child consumes an average of 5 g/day of sludge-
amended soil. If an ADI specific for a child is not
available, this index assumes that the ADI for a 10
kg child is the same as that for a 70 kg adult. It
is thus assumed that uncertainty factors used in
deriving the ADI provide protection for the child,
taking into account the smaller body size and any
other differences in sensitivity.
e. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3=2.
3-19
-------
d.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 248.2 yg/g DW
Worst 1070.8 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil.
(BS) = 11 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
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, 1983c).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA (1984).
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 47.3 Ug/day
Adult 60.2 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
Toddler 150 ug/day
Adult 430 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.68
0.68
0.14
0.14
5
0.70
0.77
0.14
0.14
50
0.87
1.5
0.14
0.14
500
2.3
7.7
0.14
0.15
Pure
Sludge
8.6
36
0.15
0.19
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
3-20
-------
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Adults are not expected to
be subjected to health threatening levels of Pb if
they ingest sludge-amended soil or pure sludge.
However, if toddlers ingest pure sludge, sludge-
amended soil that has had a 500 mt/ha application
rate, or sludge-amended soil that has received worst
Pb concentration sludge at a 50 mt/ha application
rate, health threatening levels of Pb may be
ingested.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Tozicity (Index 13)
a. Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
c. Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
d. Index 13 Values
Group
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.68
0.68
0.73
0.90
1.1
2.6
4.1
16
Typical
Worst
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.30
0.37
1.2
1.9
8.1
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The aggregate amount of Pb
in the human diet resulting from landspreading of
sludge may pose a health threat when municipal
sewage sludge is applied to soil at or above the 50
mt/ha application rate.
3-21
-------
I. 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 (EAG)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
1983d). 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
by aquifer flow within the saturated zone; concentration
in the saturated zone is attenuated only by dispersion.
3-22
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Gerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elements
between soil and a sewage sludge solution
phase. They are used here since these parti-
tioning measurements (i.e., K^ values) are con-
sidered the best available for analysis of
metal transport from landfilled sludge. The
same soil types are also used for nonmetals for
convenience and consistency of analysis.
(b) Dry bulk density
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.925 g/mL
Bulk density is the dry mass per unit volume of
the medium .(soil), i.e., neglecting the mass of
the water (Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM),
1984).
(c) Volumetric water content (6)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitless)
The volumetric water content is the volume of
water in a given volume of media, usually
expressed as a fraction or percent. It depends
on properties of the media and the water flux
estimated by infiltration or net recharge. The
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore water velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from CDM, 1984.
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, che use of
3-23
-------
a value for entrenchment sites is conservative
because it results in a higher leachate
generation rate.
(b) Leachate generation rate (Q)
Typical 0.8 in/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 A 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
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
3-24
-------
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 248.2 mg/kg DW
Worst 1070.8 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
(b) Degradation rate (u) = 0 day"1
The degradation rate in the unsaturated zone is
assumed to be zero for all inorganic chemicals
(c) Soil sorption coefficient (K
-------
Values corresponding to the above soil types
are from Pettyjohn et al. (1982) as presented
. in U.S. EPA (1983d).
(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 (1983d).
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 (Ai)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
This distance is the distance between a
landfill and any functioning .public or private
water supply or livestock water supply.
3-26
-------
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5 m
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well to landfill (AS,), which is 100 and
50 m, respectively, for typical and worst
conditions.
(d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2 m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that
preexisting flow is very limited and therefore
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 m^.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (u) = 0 day~^
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 5 Ug/L
Most natural groundwaters have concentrations
ranging from 1 to 10 Ug/L (U.S. EPA, 1980).
Thus, a value of 5 Ug/L was used in the present
analysis. (See Section 4, p. 4-2.)
(c) Soil sorption coefficient (K^) = 0 mL/g
Adsorption is assumed to be zero in the
saturated zone.
4. 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 o£ l.C
3-27
-------
6. Preliminary Conclusion - LandfilLing of municipal sewage
sludge is expected to increase the levels of Pb in
groundwater above background concentrations; this
increase may be substantial at a disposal site with all
worst-case conditions.
B. Index of Human Tozicity Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with acceptable daily intake (ADI) 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) = 5 Ug/L
See Section 3, p. 3-27.
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)
= 60.2 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
e. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
430 Wg/day
Only the ADI for adults is being used in the
calculation of indices associated with landfilling.
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.
3-28
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- . T
terist ics"
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
i Site parameters^ T
N>
Index 1 Value 2.3
Index 2 Value 0.17
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
6.8 2.4 2.4 7.4 13
0.28 0.17 0.17 0.29 0.42
7
W
NA
W
W
W
1200
29
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0.14
aT = Typical values usud; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis fcir comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density U'dry) ar>d volumetric water content (9).
eLeachat(J generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (d).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
SHydraultc gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AS,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
pollutant intake exceeds ADI. Value >1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the null
index value indicates the degree to which any hazard is
due to landfill disposal, as opposed to preexisting
dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Generally, the landfilling of
municipal sewage sludge is not expected to pose a human
health threat from Pb when groundwater is ingested.
However, health threatening levels of Pb may be found in
groundwater when all worst-case conditions prevail at a
disposal site.
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from
Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Shows the degree of elevation of the
pollutant concentration in the air due to the incinera-
tion of sludge. An input sludge with thermal properties
defined by the energy parameter (EP) was analyzed using
the BURN model (COM, 1984). This model uses the thermo-
dynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack, gas parameters. Dilution
and dispersion of these stack gas releases were described
by the U.S. EPA's Industrial Source Complex Long-Term
(ISCLT) dispersion model from which normalized annual
ground level concentrations were predicted (U.S. EPA,
1979b). The predicted pollutant concentration can Chen
be compared to a ground level concentration used to
assess risk.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The fluidized bed incinerator
was not chosen due to a paucity of available data.
Gradual plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly impact values can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C) =
2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg
3-30
-------
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a commun-
ity of approximately 400,000 people. This rate
was incorporated into the U.S. EPA-ISCLT model
based on the following input data:
EP = 360 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 282
Stack height - 20 m
Exit gas velocity - 20 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 356.9°K (183°F)
Stack diameter - 0.60 m
ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW represents a
higher feed rate and would serve a major U.S.
city. This rate was incorporated into the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT model based on the following input
data:
EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 26.6%
Stack height - 10 m
Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (105°F)
Stack diameter - 0.80 m
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 248.2 mg/kg DW
Worst 1070.8 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)
Typical 0.04 (unitless)
Worst 0.10 (unicless)
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). Where data were not available from the
EPA study, a more recent report which thoroughly
researched heavy metal emissions was utilized (COM,
1983).
3-31
-------
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a commun-
ity of approximately 400,000 people. This rate
was incorporated into the U.S. EPA-ISCLT model
based on the following input data:
EP = 360 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 28%
Stack height - 20 m
Exit gas velocity - 20 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 356.9°K (183°F)
Stack diameter - 0.60 m
ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW represents a
higher feed rate and would serve a major U.S.
city. This rate was incorporated into the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT model based on the following input
data:
EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 26.6%
Stack height - 10 m
Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (105°F)
.Stack diameter - 0.80 m
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 248.2 rag/kg DW
Worst 1070.8 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)
Typical 0.04 (unitless)
Worst 0.10 (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). Where data were not available from the
EPA study, a more recent report which thoroughly
researched heavy metal emissions was utilized (COM,
1983).
3-31
-------
Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical 3.4
Worst 16.0 Ug/m3
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT short-stack, model.
f . Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (BA) = 0.32 Ug/m3
Mean Pb level in U.S. urban air was reported to drop
from 0.85 to 0.32 Ug/m3 during the period of 1970 to
1980 (U.S. EPA, 1983a). (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
1.1
1.3
2.4
7.0
Worst Typical 1.0 1.2 4.4
Worst 1.0 1.8 16
aThe typical (3.4 ug/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.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected air concentration exceeds background levels due
to incinerator emissions.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Air concentrations of Pb may
slightly increase above background levels when sludge is
incinerated at typical feed rates (2660 kg/hr). At high
feed rates (10,000 kg/hr), incineration of sludge
containing a typical concentration of Pb -.ay moderately
increase air concentrations of Pb, while incineration of
sludge containing a high concentration of Pb may
substantially increase air concentrations of Pb.
3-32
-------
B. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Inhalation
of Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Shows the increase in human intake expected
to result from the incineration of sludge. For non-
carcinogens, levels typically were derived from the Amer-
ican Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs) for the workplace.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24
hours/day. A respiratory volume of 20 m3/day is assumed
over a 70-year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-32.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.32 Ug/m3
See Section 3, p. 3-32.
c. Exposure criterion (EC) = 1.5 Ug/m3
The value used, 1.5 Ug/m3, is the current National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Pb (U.S. EPA,
1984). (See Section 4, p. 4-6.)
4. Index 2 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted
Through Stack
Typical
Worst
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
2660
0.23
0.28
0.25
0.39
10,000
0.51
1.5
0.95
3.4
aThe typical (3.4 ug/m3) and worst (16.0 Ug/m3) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively, to
the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr DW)
sludge feed rates.
3-33
-------
5. Value Interpretation - Value > 1 indicates a possible
human health threat. 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 - Inhalation of emissions from
sludge incineration is not expected to pose a human
health threat due to Pb except when sludge containing a
high concentration of Pb is incinerated at a high feed
rate.
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.
3-34
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR LEAD IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
99 to 100Z
2. Concentration
Minimum
Median
Mean
90th percentile
95th percentile
Maximum
4 Ug/g
248.2 Ug/g_
541 ug/g
970 ug/g
1070.8 ug/g
10,800 ug/g
B. Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Virtually 1002
2. Concentration
"Normal" mean
Range
10 ug/g
2 to 200 Ug/g
Agricultural soil
"Normal" mean 16 Ug/g
Range
Soluble Pb
Ohio farm soil
Mean
Range
2- to 200 Ug/g
0.05 to 5 Ug/g
19 Ug/g
9 to 39 Ug/g
U.S. cropland soil
Mean (+SD) 17.7 (+93.3) ug/g
Median" 11 Ug/g
Range
0.2 to 3503 Ug/g
Baltimore, MD garden soils
Mean (+SD) 354 (+870) Ug/g
Median" 100 Ug/g
Range 1.0 to 10,900 ug/g
U.S. EPA, 1982
(pp. 41 and 49)
U.S. EPA, 1982
Allaway, 1968
Demayo
et al., 1982
(p. 288)
Logan and
Miller, 1983
(p. 14)
Holmgren, 1985
Mielke et al.,
1983
4-1
-------
C. Hater - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
a. Freshwater
Rivers
Median
4.0 ug/L
749 Surface waters
Mean 3.9 Ug/L
Range 1 to 55 Ug/L
Remote streams
Range 0.006 to 0.05 Ug/L
Groundwaters
Range 1 to 10 Ug/L
b. Seawater
Coastal (California)
Range 0.08 to 0.04
Non-coastal
Mean 0.03 to 0.07 Ug/L
c. Drinking Water
Median 3.7 Ug/L
99th percentile 50 Ug/L
Maximum
^1000 ug/L
(in Pb pipes)
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
a. Urban
90 to 100Z
b. Rural
10 to 70%
Hem, 1970
(p. 206)
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(p. 7-32)
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(p. 7-33)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-2)
WHO, 1977
(p. 31)
WHO, 1977
(p. 31)
Hem, 1970
(p. 206)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-4)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-3)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 21)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 25)
4-2
-------
2. Concentration
a. Urban
U.S. 1970-1976
Median 0.74 ug/m3
Mean 0.85 Ug/m3
Range <0.1 to 6.88 Ug/m3
U.S. 1980
Median 0.30 ug/m3
Mean 0.32 Ug/m3
Range NR to 1.06 Ug/m3
b. Rural
U.S. 1970-1976
Median £0.1 ug/m3
Mean <0.1 to 0.14 ug/m3
Range <0.1 to 1.47 Ug/m3
Pood
1. Average Daily Intake
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
FDA Total Diet Studies, 1974-1977
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 21)
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(p. 7-7)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 25)
FDA, 1980a
(p. 10)
FDA, 1980b
(p. 10)
Daily Dietary Pb Intake (ug/day)
Age Group Yearly Means Overall Mean
Infants
Toddlers
Adults
20.8-26.9
25.6-30.1
67.2-90.2
23.3
27.8
77.0
FDA Revised Total Diet Study, Prelimi-
nary Results for 1982, and EPA Multimedia
Exposure Analysis (External Review Draft
of Air Quality Criteria for Lead) (See
Table 4-1.)
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(pp. 7-41,
7-47, 7-55, and
7-56)
4-3
-------
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogen!city
a. Qualitative Assessment
IARC scheme rating: Group 3 -
"cannot be classified as to
its carcinogenicity to humans"
Q
b. Potency
Not quantified; relatively low.
Tumors observed in rats at dietary
levels ^500 Ug/g
c. Effects
Renal tumors
International
Agency for Research
on Cancer
(IARC), 1982
(p. 149)
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(p. 12-181)
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(p. 12-181)
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
Maximal permissible intake
from all sources:
Infant 100 yg/day
Toddler 150 ug/day
Provisional tolerable weekly intake
for adults: 3 mg/week
b. Effects
Hemoglobin depletion, cognitive
deficits in children, peripheral
neuropathies
Mahaffey, 1977
FAO/WHO, 1972
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(pp. 13-30 and
13-32)
3. Absorption Factor
Adults 8 percent
. Children 50 percent
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-16)
4-4
-------
4. Existing Regulations
Ambient Water Quality Criteria =
50 wg/L
Drinking Water Standard = 50 yg/L
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-79)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-79)
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
. IARC scheme rating: Group 3 -
"cannot be classified as to its
carcinogenicity to humans"
b. Potency
None conclusively demonstrated for
inhalation route
IARC, 1982
(p. 149)
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(p. 12-194)
Chronic Tozicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIH
7 to 14 Ug/m^ is level required
to elevate average blood-Pb
concentration of 13 Ug/dL to adverse
effect threshold of 30 Ug/dL, based
on blood-air response slopes from
various studies.
b. Effects
Same as by ingestion
Absorption Factor
Numerous data are available on the
absorption factor for Pb.
U.S. EPA, 1983a
(p. 13-19)
U.S. EPA, 1983a
4-5
-------
4. Existing Regulations
National Ambient Air Quality Standard =
1.5
ACGIH TLV-TWA = 150 Mg/m3
STEL = 450 Ug/m3
OSHA Standard (8-hour TWA) =
50 ug/m3
NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit =
<100 Ug/m3
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
See Table 4-2.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-3.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-4.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-5.
30 ug Pb/g diet (DW) is the Maximum Toler-
able Level for cattle, sheep, swine, and
poultry, based on human food residue consi-
derations.
U.S. EPA, 1984
(p. 1-7)
ACGIH, 1981
(p. 21)
Centers for
Disease Control,
1983 (p. 17S)
NAS, 1980
(pp. 5-7, 265)
4-6
-------
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Concentration
a. Freshwater
Freshwater aquatic organisms should U.S. EPA, 1985
not be affected unacceptably if at
water hardnesses of 50, 100, and
200 mg/L as CaCC>3 the four-day
average concentrations of acid-
soluble Pb are 1.3, 3.2, and
7.7 Ug/L, respectively. The
one-hour average concentrations are
34, 83, and 200 Ug/L, respectively.
b. Saltwater
Saltwater aquatic organisms should U.S. EPA, 1985
not be affected unacceptably if the
four-day average concentration of
acid-soluble Pb does not exceed
5.6 Ug/L more than once every three
years on the average and if the one-
hour average concentration does not
exceed 140 Ug/L more than once every
three years on the average.
B. Uptake
Bioconcentration Factor
Fish, whole: U.S. EPA, 1983b
range 42 to 45 (pp. 26 to 28)
mean 43.5
Bivalve molluscs, soft parts: U.S. EPA, 1983b
range 17.5 to 2576' - (pp. 26 to 28)
mean 375
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Tozicity
See Table 4-6.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-7.
4-7
-------
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT
Atomic weight: 207.2 Merck Index,
Melting point: 237.4°C 1983 (p. 776)
Boiling point: 1740°C
Vapour pressure at 1000°C: 1.77 mm Hg
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-1. LEAD CONSUMPTION FROM ALL SOURCES3
2-Year Old
Dairy
Meat, eggs
Crop foods
Canned foods
All foodu
Water and
beverages
Ingested dust
Inhaled air
Total
Pb Concentration
(pg/g WW)
0.013
0.036
0.022
0.24
0.014
200
g/day
381
110
260
58
812
647
0.1
Pg/day
5.0
4.1
5.7
13.9
28.7
11.5
21.0
0.5
61.4
Percent
Total Pb
8.1
6.7
9.3
22.6
46.7
18.7
34.2
0.8
100
g/day
237
169
350
68
824
1286
0.02
Adult Female
pg/day
3.1
6.1
7.7
16.3
33.2
17.9
4.5
1.0
56.6
Percent
Total Pb
5.5
10.8
13.6
28.8
58.7
31.6
8.0
1.8
100
g/day
344
288
505
82
1219
1804
0.02
Adult Hale
pg/day
4.5
10.4
11.1
19.7
45.7
25.1
4.5
1.0
76.3
Percent
Total Pb
5.9
13.6
14.6
25.8
59.9
32.9
5.9
1.3
100
Source: Air Quality Criteria for Lead, External Review Draft. U.S. EPA, I983a (p. 7-41, 7-47, 7-55, 7-56). Note: These values have been
revised in a subsequent draft (U.S. EPA, 1984). The revisions are not reflected here.
-------
TABLE 4-2. PHYTOTOXICITY OF LEAD
Plant/tissue
Lettuc e/lcaf
Oat/t >ps
Oat/roots
4>
i
£j Oats, Red clover
Beanu
Peanjt/plant
Corn/plant
Alfclfa/tops
Alf/ilfa.'tops
Alfalfa/tops
Chemical
Porn
Apjtlied
PbCl2
PbC03
Pb(N03):,
PbCl2
PbC03
Pb(N03)2
PbCl2
PbC03
Pb(N03}2
NRe
NR
NR
NR
PbCl2
PbCl2
PbCl2
Control
Tissue
Soil Concentration
pll (Mg/g DU)
3.8-5.2
3.8-5.2
3.8-5.2
3.8-5.2
3.8-5.2
3.8-5.2
3.8-5.2
3.8-5.2
3.8-5.2
NR
NR
NR
NR
6.6
7.7
6.3
43-57
43-57
43-57
3.2-5.6
3.2-5.6
3.2-5.6
19-21
19-21
19-21
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Experimental Experimental
Soil Application
Concentration Rate
(Mg/g DU) (kg/ha)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
>50
820
820
>125
100
100
100
NAf
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(jlg/g DU) Effect
54-224
54-198
65-216
17-57
12-45
17-54
45-73
44-74
48-69
NR
NR
NR
NR
11.8
10.8
8.1
Yield reduced 36Z
Yield reduced 17Z
Yield reduced 25Z
No yield reduction
No yield reduction
No yield reduction
No yield reduction
No yield reduction
No yield reduction
Yield reduction
Yield reduction,
discoloration
No adverse effect
Decreased uptake
of Ca, Hg, K, P
and decreased growth
Yield not signi-
ficantly reduced
Yield reduced 25Z
Yield not signi-
ficantly reduced
References
John and Van
Laerhoven, 1972
(p. 170)
Demayo et al.,
1982 (p. 293)
Demayo et al . ,
1982 (p. 293)
Demayo et al .,
1982 (p. 293)
Demayo et al.,
1982 (p. 293)
Karamanos et al.,
1976 (p. 488)
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
Control Experimental Experimental
Chemical Tissue Soil Application
Form Soil Concentration Concentration Rate
Plant/tissue Applied pH (ug/g DU) (pg/g DW) (kg/ha)
Bromegrasfl/tops PbClj 6.3-7.7 NR 100 NA
Oat /roots PbCl2 NR NR 100 NA
PbCl2 NR NR SOO NA
PbCl2 NR NR 1000 NA
*" Wheat/roots PbClj NR NR 500 NA
(-
M
PbClj NR NR 1000 NA
PbSO
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
Chemical
Form
Plant/tissue Applied
Radish /roots PbCl2 ard
PbO ( 1 i 1 )
PbClo andJ
PbO (1:1!)
Corn/ >l an; Pb acet.iCe
Corn sludge
4>
l
M
NJ
Fescue sludge
Barley sludge
Barley sludge
Card Jn/vegetablea sludge
(13 varieties)
Corn/forage sludge
compost
Control Experimental Experimental
Tissue Soil Application
Soil Concentration Concentration Rate
pH (ug/g DU) (ug/g DW) (kg/ha)
m m 500 NA
1.
NR 1000 NA
5.9 2.4-4.2 NA 3200
7.6 NR NA 132a
6.2 14 NA 54°
6.0 NR 113
5.8-7.2 NR 624C
6.0-6.7 NR 119
5.6 3.4-10.5 186 624
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(llg/g DW)
NR
NR
20-38
NR
550°
NR
NR
NR
11.3
Effect
Root biomasa not
significantly
reduced
19.81 reduced root
biomass
No effect on
emergence, height
or grain yield
No signs of
phytotoxicity
No signs of
phytotoxicity
No significant
reduction of
height, weight
No apparent inhi-
bition of growth
Yields generally
higher with
sludge
Yield increased
by sludge
addition
References
Baumhardt and
Welch,
1972 (p. 93)
Webber and
Beauchamp, 1979
(pp. 465 to 466)
Boswell, 1975
(p. 271)
Chang et al., 1982
(pp. 410 and 411)
Chang et al., 1983
(pp. 392 to 394)
Giordano et al,,
1979 (p. 235)
Giordano et al.,
1975 (pp. 395
and 396)
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
Plant/tissue
Corn/grain
Control Experimental Experimental
Chemical Tissue Soil Application
'Form Soil Concentration Concentration Rate
Applied pH (pg/g DW) (pg/g DU) (kg/ha)
sludge 5.6 0.9-2.7 186 624
compost
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW) Effect
1.6 Forage yield
increased by
sludge addition
References
Giordano et al.,
1975 (pp. 395
and 396)
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
sludge
sludge
NR
NR
1.5
0.14
1275<1
1275d
0.7 Grain yield .
increased by
sludge addition
0.14 Grain yield
increased by
sludge addition
CAST, 1976 (p. 46)
CAST, 1976 (p. 46)
" Cumulative application during 3 years.
" Sludge applied over growing fescue (tissue rinsed before analysis).
c Cumulative application during 6 years.
Cumulative application during 4 years.
e NR = Not reported.
1 NA = Not applicable.
-------
TABLE 4-3. UPTAKE OF LEAD BY PUNTS
Plant: /tissue
Lettuce/ leaf
Oate/tops
Beer. /tops
Beet/edible root
Beet/edible root
Onion/top
Onion/bulb
Swiss chard/tops
Corn/si over
Coin/forage
Chemical Form
Applied
PbCl2
PbC03
Pb(N03)2
PbCl2
PbC03
Pb(NO})2
PbCl2
PbC03
Pb(N03)2
PbCl2
PbCOj
Pb(N03)2
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb acetate
sludge compost
Soil
pit
3.8
3.8
3.8
5.2
5.2
5.2
3.8
3.8
3.8
5.2
5.2
5.2
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
5.9
4.9-5.6
Range of
Appl ication
Rates (N)«
(Mg/g)
0-2000 (2)°
0-2000 (2)c
0-2000 (2)c
0-2000 (2)c
0-2000 (2)c
0-2000 (2)°
0-2000 (2)c
0-2000 (2)c
0-2000 (2)c
0-2000 (2)c
0-2000 (2)c
0-2000 (2)c
0-1400 (2)c
0-1400 (2)c
0-310 (2)«
0-1400 (2)d
0-1400 (2)<1
0-1400 (2)d
0-3200 (8)
0-624 (4)
Control Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
57.3
57.3
57.3
42.6
42.6
42.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
5.6
5.6
5.6
8.41
2.68
2.31
6.15
1.00
5.43
4.2
7.7
Uptake*1
Slope References
0.083C John and Van Laerhoven,
0.070<= 1972, (p. 170)
0.079C
0.006C
0.006°
0.027°
0.021°
0.036°
0.006°
0.003°
0.006°
0.009 Chisholm, 1972 (p. 585)
0.009
0.007
0.001
0.003
0.0007
0.005
0.005 Giordano et al., 1975
(pp. 395 and 396)
-------
TABLE 4-3. (continued)
Plane/tissue
Corn/grain
Turnip/green
Corn/leaf
Corn/grain
Lettuce/leaf
i Broccoli/edible
H*
Potato/edible
Tomato/edible
Cucumber /edible
Lettuce/tops
Green beans/bean
Green beans/bean
Carrots/tuber
Carrots/tuber
Corn/kernel
Corn/kernel
Turnips/root pulp
Chemical Form
Applied
sludge compost
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Soil
pH
4.9-5.6
5.6
NRh
NR
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
Range of
Application
Rates (N)»
(Ug/g)
0-624 (4)
0-114 (3)
0-1275 (4)f
0-1275 (4)f
0-119 (2)
0-119 (2)
0-119 (2)
0-119 (2)
0-119 (2)
0-1400 (2)d
0-1400 (2)d
0-310 (2)e
0-1400 (2)d
0-310 (2)e
0-1400 (2)d
0-310 (2)e
0-310 (2)e
Control Tissue
Concentration Uptake''
(Ug/g DW) Slope
2.0
7.8
1.5
0.14
2.4
2.4
1.3
1.6
2.6
1.73
1.97
0.68
1.60
1.61
4.45
4.56
1.25
NS8
0.039
NS
NS
0.006
0.002
0.0008
0.0008
NS
0.003
0.0007
0.0009
0.004
0.012
0.008
0.044
0.002
References
Giordano et al.
(p. 395, 396)
., 1975
Miller and Boswell, 1979
(p. 1362)
CAST, 1976 (p.
CAST, 1976 (p.
CAST, 1976 (p.
CAST, 1976 (p.
CAST, 1976 (p.
CAST, 1976 (p.
CAST, 1976 (p.
Chisholm, 1972
46)
46)
48)
48)
48)
48)
48)
(p. 585)
-------
TABLE 4-3. (continued)
Plant/tissue
Turnips/ioot peel
Parsnips/ root
Alfalfa/lops
Corn/whole plant
Corn/leaf
Eggplant/edible
Stringbean/edible
Carrots/root
Radi sh/root
Potcito/r.uber
Pea/fruit
Tomato/fruit
Corn/grain
Chemical Form
Applied
Pb arsenate
Pb arsenate
Pb acetate
Pb acetate
Pb acetate
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
Soil
pll
Range of
Application
Rates (N)«
(M8/8>
sandy loam 0-310 (2)e
sandy loam 0-310 (2)e
5.9
5.9
5.9
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
40-200 (2)c
0-3200 (8)
0-3200 (8)
0-119 (2)
0-119 (2)
0-232 (4)
0-232 (4)
0-232 (4)
0-232 (4)
0-232 (4)
0-232 (4)
Control Tissue
Concentration Uptake"
(pg/g DU) Slope
2.81
0.70
1.7-2.3
2.4
3.6
1.2
2.5
<0.4
0.5
<0.4
0.3
<0.4
<0.2
0.007
0.020
0.030-0.048
0.011
0.008
0.0008
0.002
0.003
0.001
NS
NS
NS
NS
References
Karamanos et al.,
(p. 488)
1976
Baumhardt and Welch, 1972
(p. 93)
CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
Dowdy and Larson,
(p. 280)
Dowdy and Larson,
(p. 280)
Dowdy and Larson,
(p. 280)
Dowdy and Larson,
(p. 280)
Dowdy and Larson,
(p. 280)
Dowdy and Larson,
(p. 280)
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
-------
TABLE 4-3. (continued)
Plant/tissue
Lettuce/leaf
Corn/leaf
Lettuce/leaf
Radish/root
-O
i Leafy vegetable*
t^ (various)
Chemical Form
Applied
sludge
sludge
urban garden soil
urban garden soil
urban garden soil
Range of
Application
Suit Rates (N)a
pH (pg/g)
6.5 0-232 (4)
6.5 0-232 (4)
NR 200-3300 (7)c
NR 200-3300 (B)c
NR 300-4400 (2)c
Control Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
1.1
3.5
12
10
6
Uptakeb
Slope
NS
NS
0.034C
0.007C
0.002C
Dowdy and
(p. 280)
Dowdy and
(p. 280)
Spittler
(p. 1206)
Spittler
(p. 1206)
Preer et
References
Larson, 1975
Larson, 1975
and Feder, 1979
and Peder, 1979
al., 1980 (p. 99)
a H = Number of application rates, including control.
b Slope = y/Kt x = kg Pb applied/ha; y = Pg/g plant tissue (dry weight).
c Application rate estimated from soil concentration based on assumption of 1 Mg/g soil - 2 kg/ha.
d Cumulative application during 5 years. Measured soil concentration was 277 Mg/g DW.
e Single application. Measured soil concentration was 145 pg/g DW.
' Cumulative application during 4 years.
B NS - Tissue concentration not significantly increased by Pb application.
n NR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-4. TOXICITY OP LEAD TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Feed
Chemical Form Concentration Daily Intake
Species (N)a Fed
-------
TABLE 4-4. (continued)
Feed .
Chemical Form Concentration
Species (N)a Fed
-------
TABLE It-It, (continued)
Specieg (N)a
Cattle (NR)
Cattle (V.)
Cattle (NR)
Sheep (NR)
Horse (NR)
Home (1.7)
Home ('))
Horse (20)
Horse (6)
Chemical Form
Fed
Pb acetate
PhCOj (capsule)
Pb acetate
Pt> acetate
grazing near
smeller
PbC03
Pb-contaminated
pasture
Contaminated
Feed
Concentration Daily Intake
(MB/B DW) (mg/kg DW)
150-175f 6-7
225f 9
375f 15
10-1,000
80 1.7
0.5-30
BOO
325
£264
Duration
of Study
42-54 days
84 days
282 days
85 days
NR
105 days
182-196 days
300-540 days
NR
Effect
"Toxic"
Decreased gain
Decreased growth and food
utilization
No adverse effect on
performance
"toxic"
No adverse effect
Pharyngeal and laryngeal
paralysis
Anorexia; weight loss;
weakness; laryngeal
hemiplegia; mortality
Toxicosis
References
Buck et al., 1961b
Lynch et al . , 1976bb
Kclliher et al.. 1973b
Fick et al., 1976°
Aronaon, 1972°
Uilloughby et al.,
1972
Uilloughby et al.,
1972
Knight and Burau,
1973b
Schmitt et al., 1971
N = Number of animals |
-------
TABLE 4-5. UPTAKE OP LEAD BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Range (N)a
of Feed Tissue
Chemical Concentration
Species (N)a Form Fed (pg/g DW)
Cattle (6) sludge 2. 87-47. 5
Cattle (6) sludge 0.86-56.6
Calves NRe 0-100 (2)
is
I
t_. Sheep Pb acetate 0-1,000 (4)
Sheep Paper from magazines 1-138 (2)
and newsprint
Chickens (60) sludge 1.7A-2.93 (4)
Chickens (60) sludge 1.60-2.32 (4)
Tissue
Analyzed
kidney
liver
muscle
kidney
1 i ver
muscle
kidney
liver
kidney
liver
muscle
heart
kidney
kidney
1 i ver
muscle
kidney
1 i ver
muscle
Control Tissue
Concentration'1
(pg/g WU)
0.33
0.23
0.06
0.24
0.10
<0.002
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.07
0.03
0.20
0.30
0.34
0.16
0.30
0.36
0.16
Uptakeb»c
Slope References
0.038 Boyer et al., 1981 (pp. 286 to 289)
0.027
0.002
0.044 Johnson et al., 1981 (p. 112)
0.023
NSd
0.045 Dinius et al., 1973, in HAS, 1980
0.021
0.051 Fick et al., 1976, in HAS, 1980
0.005
0.0001
0.0002
0.011 Heffron et al., 1977, in Demayo
et al., 1982 (p. 285)
0.34 Cibulka et al., 1983 (p. 125)
0.38
0.20
0.34 Cibulka et al., 1983 (p. 125)
0.24
NS
a N = Number of animals per treatment group, or number of feed concentrations (including control), when reported.
b When tissue values were reported as dry weight, unless otherwise indicated a moisture content of 77Z was assumed for kidney, 70Z for liver and 72Z
for muscle (cattle, sheep, swine). When reported on fat-free dry weight basis, moisture plus fat content were assumed as follows: kidney, 81Z,
chicken breast muscle, 76Z.
c Slope = y/x: x = pg/g feed (DW); y = Ug/g tissue (WH).
d NS = Tissue concentration not significantly increased.
e NR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-6. TOX1CITY OF LEAD TO SOIL BIOTA
Chemical Soil
Form Concentration
Species Applied Soil pH (M8/B UW)
Soil cellulose PbCI2 Nil8 100, 500
deccimpoiiing
microorganisms
PbClj NR 1,000
i
ro PbSO^, NR 1,000
PbCOj or
PbO
Duration Effects References
30 days No significant inhibi- Khan and Frankland, 1984 (p. 69)
tion of cellulose
decomposition
30 days 22-292 inhibition of
cellulose decomposition
30 days No significant inhibi-
tion of cellulose
decomposition
MR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-7. UPTAKE OF LEAD BY SOIL BIOTA
1
N)
IA>
Species
Woodlouse,
Oniacus asellua
Earthworms
Earthworms
Earthworms
* N = Number of
b slope - y/x:
Chemical Form
smelter fallout
sludge-amended soil .
soils near highways
natural soila
Soil
Concentration Control Tissue
Range (N)a Tissue Concentration Uptake
(Mg/g t>W) Analyzed (l»8/g DW) Slopeb References
92-656 (3)c whole body 55 0.41C Hartin et al., 1976 (p. 314)
16-43 (2) ' whole body 14-24 0.33d Beyer et al., 1982 (p. 383)
14.3-700 (6) whole body 12 0.54e Cish and Christensen, 1973 (p. 1061)
15-50 whole body 4-5.5 NAf Van Hook, 1974 (p. 510)
soil concentrations, including control.
x = soil concentration; y = tissue concenlrat ion.
d Hean slope for four locations.
e Hean slope for two Ipcationa.
* NA * Not applicable.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook, of Mathematical
Functions. .Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Allaway, W. H. 1968. Agronomic Controls over the Environmental Cycling
of Trace Elements. In; Advances in Agronomy, Norman, A. G. (ed.),
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Allcroft, R. 1950. Lead as a Nutritional Hazard to Farm Livestock.
IV. Distribution of Lead in the Tissues of Bovines after Ingestion
of Various Lead Compounds. J. Comp. Pathol. 60:190.
American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists. 1981.
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents
in the Working Environment with Intended Changes for 1981.
Cincinnati, OH.
Aronson, A. L. 1972. Lead Poisoning in Cattle and Horses Following
Long-term Exposure to Lead. Am. J. Vet. Res. 33:627.
Baumhardt, G. R. and L. F. Welch. 1972. Lead Uptake and Corn Growth
with Soil Applied Lead. J. Environ. Qual. 1:92.
Bertrand, J. E., M. C. Lutrick, G. T. Edds, and R. L. West. 1981.
Metal Residues in Tissues, Animal Performance and Carcass Quality
with Beef Steers Grazing Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures Treated with
Liquid Digested Sludge. J. Ani. Sci. 53:1.
Beyer, W. N., R. L. Chaney, and B. M. Mulker. 1982. Heavy Metal
Concentrations in Earthworms from Soil Amended with Sewage Sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. 11:381.
Boswell, F. C. 1975. Municipal Sewage Sludge and Selected Element
Applications to Soil: Effect on Soil and Fescue. J. Environ.
Qual. 4(2):267-273.
Boyer, K. W., J. W. Jones, S. K. Linscott, W. Wright, W. Strobe, and
W. Cunningham. 1981. Trace Element Levels in Tissues from Cattle
Fed a Sewage Sludge-Amended Diet. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health.
8:281-295.
Buck, W. B., L. F. James, and W. Binns. 1961. Changes in Serum
Transaminase Associated with Plane and Mineral Tosicity in Sheep
and Cattle. Cornell Vet. 51:568.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1983. New York City Special Permit
Application - Ocean Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Prepared for City
of New York Department of Environmental Protection.
5-1
-------
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
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.
Centers for Disease Control. 1983. NIOSH Recommendations for
Occupational Health Standards. Morbid. Mortal. Weekly Rep. 32:75.
Chang, A. C., A. L. Page, K. W. Foster, and T. E. Jones. 1982. A
Comparison of Cadmium and Zinc Accumulation by Four Cultures of
Barley Grown in Sludge-amended Soils. J. Environ. Qual.
11(3):409.
Chang, A. C., A. L. Page, J. E. Warneke, M. R. Rresketo, and
T. E. Jones. 1983. Accumulation of Cadmium and Zinc in Barley
Grown on Sludge-Treated Soils: A Long-term Field Study. J.
Environ. Qual. 12(3):391.
Chisholm, D. 1972. Lead, Arsenic, and Copper Content of Crops Grown on
Lead Arsenate Treated and Untreated Soils. Can. J. Plant Sci.
52:583.
Cibulka, D., Z. Sova, and V. Mizikar. 1983. Lead and Cadmium in the
Tissues of Broilers Fed a Diet with Added Dried Activated Sewage
Sludge. Environ. Technol. Lett. 4:123-128.
Coburn, D. R., D. W. Metzler, and R. Treichler. 1951. A Study of
Absorption and Retention of Lead in Wild Water Fowl in Relation to
Clinical Evidence of Lead Poisoning. J. Wildl. Manage. 15:186.
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. EPA 430/9-76-013.
Damron, B. L., C. F. Simpson, and R. H. Harms. 1969. The Effect of
Feeding Various Levels of Lead on the Performance of Broilers.
Poult. Sci. 48:1507.
Damron, B. L., and H. R. Wilson. 1975. Lead Toxicity of Bobwhite
Quail. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14:489.
Demayo, A., M. C. Taylor, K. W. Taylor, and P. V. Hodson. 1982. Toxic
Effects of Lead and Lead Compounds on Human Health, Aquatic Life,
Wildlife, Plants and Livestock. CRC Crit. Rev. Environ. Control.
12(4):257.
Dinius, D. A., T. H. Brinsfield, and E. E. Williams. 1973. Effect of
Subclinical Lead Intake on Calves. J. Ani. Sci. 37:169.
5-2
-------
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Dowdy, R. H., and W. E. Larson. 1975. The Availability of Sludge-borne
Metals to Various Vegetable Crops. J. Environ. Qual. 4(2):278.
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.
Pick, K. R., C. B. Amraerman, S. M. Miller, C. F. Simpson, and P. E.
Loggins, 1976. Effect of Dietary Lead on Performance, Tissue
Mineral Composition and Lead Absorption in Sheep. J. Ani. Sci.
42:515.
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization. 1972.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food
Additives. WHO Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 505. FAO Nutr. Rep. Ser. No.
51.
Food and Drug Administration. 1980a. FY77 Diet Studies - Infants and
Toddlers (7320.74). FDA Bureau of Foods. October 22.
Food and Drug Administration. 1980b. FY77 Total Diet Studies -Adult
(7320.73). FDA Bureau of Foods. December 11.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L. W., and C. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogenous Aquifers. Report
No. H-8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, NM.
Gerritse, R. G., R. Vriesema, J. W. Dalenberg, and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.
Giordano, P. M., J. J. Mortvedt, and D. A. Mays. 1975. Effect of
Municipal Wastes on Crop Yields and Uptake of Heavy Metals. J.
Environ. Qual. 4:394.
Giordano, P. M., D. A. Mays, and A. D. Behel, Jr. 1979. Soil
Temperature Effects on Uptake of Cadmium and Zinc by Vegetables
Grown on Sludge-amended Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 8:233.
Gish, C. D., and R. E. Christensen. 1973. Cadmium, nickel, Lead, and
Zinc in Earthworms from Roadside Soil. Environ. Sci. Technol.
7:1060.
Heffron, C. L., J. T. Reid, and A. K. Furr et al. 1977. Lead and Other
Elements in Sheep Fed Colored Magazines and Newsprint. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 25:657.
5-3
-------
Hem, J. D. 1970. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Character-
istics of Natural Water. Geological Survey Water Supply. Paper
1473. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Hermayer, K. L., P. E. Stake and R. L. Shippe. 1977. Evaluation of
Dietary Zinc, Cadmium, Tin, Lead, Bismuth and Arsenic Toxicity in
Hens. Poult. Sci. 56:1721.
Holmgren, G. 1985. Personal Communication. National Soil Survey
Laboratory. Soil Conservation Service. USDA, Lincoln, NE.
Hsu, F. S., L. Krook, W. G. Pond, and J. R. Duncan. 1975. Interactions
of Dietary Calcium with Toxic Levels of Lead and Zinc in Pigs. J.
Nutr. 105:112.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1982. Chemicals,
Industrial Processes and Industries Associated with Cancer in
Humans. IARC Monographs Supplement 4 (Vol. 1-29). Lyon, France.
John,- M. K., and C. Van Laerhoven. 1972. Lead Uptake by Lettuce and
Oats as Affected by Lime, Nitrogen, and Sources of Lead. J.
Environ. Qual. 1:169.
Johnson, D. E., E. W. Kienholb, J. C. Baxter, E. Spangler, and G. M.
Ward. 1981. Heavy Metal Retention in Tissues of Cattle Fed High
Cadmium Sewage Sludge. J. Ani. Sci. 52:108.
Karamanos, R. E., J. R. Bettany, and J. W. B. Steward. 1976. The
Uptake of Native and Applied Lead by Alfalfa and Brome Grass from
Soil. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 56:485.
Kelliher, D. J., E. P. Hilliard, D. B. R. Poole, and J. D. Collins.
1973. Chronic Lead Intoxication in Cattle: Preliminary
Observations on Its Effect on the Erythrocyte and on Porphytin
Metabolism. Irish J. Agric. Res. 12:61.
Khan, D. H., and B. Frankland. 1984. Cellutolytic Activity and Root
Biomass Production in Some Metal Contaminated Soils. Environ.
Pollut. (Series A). 33:63.
Knight, H. D., and R. G. Burau. 1973. Chronic Lead Poisoning in
Horses. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 162:781.
Link, L. P., and R. R. Pensinger. 1966. Lead Toxicosis in Swine. Am.
J. Vet. Res. 27:759.
Logan, T. J., and R. H. Miller. 1983. Background Levels of Heavy
Metals in Ohio Farm Soils. Research Circular 275. The Ohio State
Univ., Ohio Agric. Res. and Development Center, Wooster, OH.
Lynch, G. P., E. D. Jackson, C. A. Kiddy, and D. F. Smith. 1976a.
Responses of Young Calves to Low Doses of Lead. J. Dairy Sci.
59:1490.
5-4
-------
Lynch, G. P., D. F. Smith, M. Fisher, T. L. Pike, and B. T. Weinland.
1976b. Physiological Responses of Calves to Cadmium and Lead.
J. Ani. Sci. 42:410.
Mahaffey, K. R. 1977. Relation Between Quantities of Lead Ingested and
Health Effects of Lead in Humans. Pediatrics 59(3):448-456.
Martin, M. H., P. J. Coughtrey, and E. W. Young. 1976. Observations on
the Availability of Lead, Zinc, Cadmium and Copper in Woodland
Litter and the Uptake of Lead, Zinc and Cadmium by the Woodlouse,
Oniscus asellus. Chemosphere. 5:313.
Merck Index. 1983. Tenth Edition. Merck and Co., Inc. Rahway, NJ.
Mielke, H. W., J. C. Anderson, K. J. Berry, P. W. Mielke, R. L. Chaney,
and M. Leech. 1983. Lead Concentration in Inner-City Soils as a
Factor in the Child Lead Problem. Amer. J. Pub. Health.
73(12):1366-1369.
Miller, J. and F. C. Boswell. 1979. Mineral Content of Selected
Tissues and Feces of Rats Fed Turnip Greens Grown on Soil Treated
with Sewage Sludge. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27(6):1361-1365.
Morgan, G. W., F. W. Edens, P. Thaxton, and C. R. Parkhurst. 1975.
Toxicity of Dietary Lead in Japanese Quail. Poult. Sci. 54:1636.
National Academy of Sciences. 1980, Mineral Tolerances of Domestic
Animals. NAS Subcommittee on Mineral Toxicity in Animals,
Washington, D.C.
Nelson, H. A. 1971. Lead Poisoning. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 158:258.
Pennington, J. A. T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Preer, J. R., H. S. Sekhon, B. R. Stephens, and M. S. Collins. 1980.
Factors Affecting Heavy Metal Content of Garden Vegetables.
Environ. Pollut. Ser. B. pp. 95-104.
Ryan, J. A., Ho 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.
Schmitt, G., G. Brown, E. L. Devlin, A. A. Larsen, E. D. McCausland, and
J. M. Savile. 1971. Lead Poisoning in Horses. Arch. Environ.
Health. 23:185.
5-5
-------
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.
Simpson, D. F., B. L. Damron, and R. H. Harms. 1970. Abnormalities of
Erythrocytes and Renal Tubules of Chicks Poisoned with Lead. Am.
J. Vet. Res. 31:515.
Spittler, T. M., and W. A. Feder. 1979. A Study of Soil Contamination
and Plant Lead Uptake in Boston Urban Gardens. Commun. Soil Sci.
Plant Anal. 10:1195.
Stone, C., and J. H. Soares Jr. 1974. Studies on the Metabolism of
Lead in Japanese Quail. Poult. Sci. 53:1982. (Abstract).
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. 1978. Reviews of the
Environmental Effects of Pollutants: IV. Lead. EPA 600/1-78-029.
Health Effects Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Air Quality Data for
Metals 1976 from the National Air Surveillance Networks. EPA
600/4-79-054. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979b. 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 Lead. EPA 440/5-5-80-057. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority Pollu-
tants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. Final Report. Vol. I..
EPA 440/1-82-303. Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C.
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. EPA 600/8-83-028A. External Review Draft. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
5-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Revised Section B of
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Lead. Aquatic Toxicology.
Draft. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN. April 8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983c. 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. 1983d. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. EPA 600/8-83-028B. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Water Quality Criteria for
Lead. Unpublished.
Van Hook, R. I. 1974. Cadmium, Lead, and Zinc Distributions Between
Earthworms and Soils: Potentials for Biological Accumulation.
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12:509.
Vengris, V. E., and C. J. Mare. 1974. Lead Poisoning in Chickens and
the Effect of Lead on Interferon and Antibody Production. Can. J.
Comp. Med. 38:328.
Webber, L. R., and E. G. Beauchamp. 1979. Cadmium Concentration and
Distribution in Corn (Zea mays L.) Grown on a Calcareous Soil for
Three Years after Three Annual Sludge Applications. J. Environ.
Sci. Health. 14:459.
World Health Organization. 1977. Environmental Health Criteria. 3.
Lead. Geneva.
Willoughby, R. A., T. Thirapatsakum, and B. J. KcSheery. 1972.
Influence of Rations Low in Calcium and Phosphorus on Bloo3 and
Tissue Lead Concentration in the Horse. Am. J. Vet. Res. 33:1165.
5-7
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR LEAD
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION- AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Lead
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. Formula
T A i (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
(248.2 Ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) * (11 ug/g DW x 200Q mt/ha)
- mt/ha)
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Formula
Ii x BS
Index 2 = -~ -
where :
I\ - 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)
A-l
-------
b. Sample calculation
0 niiSQl - 1.053774 x 11 ug/g DW
0.011591.-
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
(IL - 1)(BS x UB) + BB
Index 3 = - -
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/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]~^)
BB = Background concentration in soil biota
(Ug/g DW)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
0.267813 = [(1.053774 -1) (11 ug/g DW x
0.54 ug/g DW [Ug/g soil DW]"1) » 12.0 ug/g DW] *
46.0 ug/g DW
Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)
a. Formula
I x BS
Index 4 =
where:
Ii^ = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unit Less)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (ug/g
DW)
A-2
-------
b. Sample calculation
n IISOT; - 1*053774 x 11 ue/g DW
0.115915 -
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 :
II = 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
i nn
-------
b. Sample calculation
16.66666 , 200 uq/s DW
12 Ug/g DW
C. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
I5 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 DW)
b. Sample calculation
Q nog,,"? - 1-000768 x 7.7 Ug/g DW
0.096323 - 8Q ug/g DW
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Formula
BS x GS
If AR = 0, I8 -
If AR t 0, I8 =
TA
SC x GS
where :
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction or animal ciiet assumed to be soil
(unitless)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (yg/g DW)
A-4
-------
b. Sample calculation
If«.G. 0.006875 .
If AR*0, 0.155125
B. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
[(Is - 1) BP x DT] + DI
Index 9 =
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
(yg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
n Tjpo/a - Kl.005915 - 1) x 7.8 Ug/g DW x 7A.5 a/day] * 47.3 Ug/day
U.JJO/HO n ,
150 ug/day
2. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
[(Is - 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)
A-5
-------
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.315336 =
(1.000768-1) x 7.7 Ug/g DW x 0.09 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1 x 0.97 g/dayl + A7.3 ug/day
150 Ug/day
3. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Formula
rr *n n T j 11 CBS X GS. X UA X DA) + DI
If AR = 0, Index 11 = - -
rr AD J. n T j n ( SC X GS X UA X DA) + ' DI
If AR f 0, Index 11 = - -rr= -
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(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)
0.322555 =
Ug/g DW x O.Q5 x 0.09 Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DWT1 x Q.97 g/day) + 47.3 Ug/day
150 Ug/ "s>"
A-6
-------
A. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(Index 12)
a. Formula
(II x BS x DS) + DI
Index 12 =
ADI
_ . , . _ . ,, (SC x DS) + DI
Pure sludge ingestion: Index 12 =
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)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
n -mi-M-7 - (1.053774 x 11 Ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day) * 47.3 Ug/day
U»/UX/1/""" , F /* /.
150 Ug/day
Pure sludge:
(248.2 ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day) + 47.3 Ug/day
-------
products derived from animals ingesting
soil (unitless)
Index 12 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
DI = Average daily dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.731858 = (0.338248 « 0.315336 + 0.322555 + 0.701717) - (3 x
150 Ug/day
II . LANDFILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/CO for the unsaturated
zone are calculated corresponding to increasing values of t
until equilibrium is reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse input
from the landfill, Equation 3 is employed to estimate the con-
centration vs. time data at the water table. The
concentration vs. time curve is then transformed into a square
pulse having a constant concentration equal to the peak
concentration, Cu, from the unsaturated zone, and a duration,
t0, 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, Co, 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(Ai) erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) erfc(B2)] »
Co
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
suosequenL evalusticr. cf 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).
A-8
-------
where:
A. = X_ [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x
Al 2D*
_ Y ~ t (V*2 + 4D* x U*)?
A2 ~ (4D* x t)*
Bl = [V* t- (V*2 + 4D* x
1 2D*
Y + t (V*2 + 4D* x u*)
82 " (4D* x t)*
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C0 = SC.x CF = Initial leachate concentration (ug/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* = d x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = 2 (in/year)
0 x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 + d1"? x. Kjj = Retardation factor (unitless)
= ^ry bulk density (g/mL)
= Soil sorption coefficient (mL/g)
* = -2L_M (years)-l
U = Degradation rate
and where for the saturated zone:
C0 = Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (ug/L)
t = Time (years)
X = Afc = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
w* = K x i (m/year)
<& x R
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
A-9
-------
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
2
- K x i x 365
Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C(*Tt) = P(x,t) for 0 < t < t<
^ = P(x,t) - P(x,t - t0) for t > t0
where:
t0 (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
to (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (Y = h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 = [ / " C dt] * Cu
P
-------
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment
Resulting from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
T ., i Cmax * BC
Index 1 =
BC
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
Maximum of C(A£,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Ug/L)
BC = Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (ug/L)
2. Sample Calculation
9 -U - 6.71 ug/L + 5 Ug/L
5 Ug/L
Equation 5. Index of Human Toxicity 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)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
f(2.34 - 1) x 5 ug/L x 2 L/davl + 60.2 Ug/day
430 ug/day
A-ll
-------
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from Incinerator
Emissions (Index 1)
1. Formula
(C x PS x SC x FM x PP) + BA
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 (nig/kg DW)
FM = Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack
(unitless)
DP = Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum
annual ground level concentration (ug/m3)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (ug/m3)
2. Sample Calculation
1.078004 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x 248.2 mg/kg DW x 0.04 x 3.4 ug/m3)
+ 0.32 ug/m3] * 0.32 ug/m3
B. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formula
[(Ii - 1) x BA] + BA
Index 2 =
EC
where:
I± = 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 (-^g/rr.3)
2. Sample Calculation
- Kl.078004 - 1) x 0.32 ug/m3] * 0.32 ug/m3
~ o
1.5 ug/m3
A-12
-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meeting
(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-13
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VAHYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
i
i-1
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (pg/g t)W)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, Pdry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 6 (unitless)
Soil sorption coefficient, Kj (mL/g)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (m/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
Satuiated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, III (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landfill, At (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
1
248.2
1.53
0.195
597
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
2
1070.8
1.53
0.195
597
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
3
248.2
1.925
0.133
234
,
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4 5
248.2 248.2
NAb 1.53
NA 0.195
NA 597
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 7
248.2 1070.8
1.53 NA
0.195 NA
597 NA
0.8 1.6
5 0
0.5 NA
0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04
0.02 0.02
50 50
5 5
8
N«
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
i
t->
Ui
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, C0 (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Pulse duration, t0 (years)
Linkage asseaanent (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, Co
(UB/U
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, CmaK (pg/L)
Index of grounduater concentration increment
resulting from landfilled aludge,
Index 1 (unitless) (Equation 4)
Index of human toxicity resulting
from grounduater contamination, Index 2
(unitless) (Equation 5)
Condition of Analysis
12 345678
62100 268000 62100 62000 62100 62100 268000 N
60.4 261 122 62000 60.4 60.4 268000 N
5130 5130 2S30 5.00 5130 5130 5.00 N
126 126 126 253 23.8 6.32 2.38 N
60. 5 261 123 62100 60.5 60.5 268000 N
6.71 28.9 6.76 6.75 32.3 60.4 6200 N
2.34 6.79 2.35 2.35 7.45 13.1 1240 0
0.171 0.275 0.171 0.171 0.290 0.421 29.0 0.140
*N = Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
t>NA = Not applicable for this condition.
------- |