United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
Juno, ",985
Environmental Profiles
lunicipai S
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to; (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential "concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
LandfiLling 2-1
Incineration 2-2
Ocean Disposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration 'of trichloroethylene
(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) 3-4
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-6
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-8
Landf iLling 3-13
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from LandfiLLed sludge (Index 1) 3-13
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from groundwater contamination (Index 2) 3-20
Incineration 3-23
Ocean Disposal 3-23
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Paze
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-3
Food 4-3
Human Effects 4-4
Ingestion 4-4
Inhalation 4-5
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 4-7
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-8
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 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. Trichloroethylene (TCE) was initially identified as
being of potential concern when sludge is landspread (including
distribution and marketing) or placed in a landfill.* This profile is a
compilation of information that may be useful in determining whether TCE
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 Cend 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 Che
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 and
landfilling practices are included in this profile. The calculation
formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix. The indices are
rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of "preliminary hazard indices", which represent conserva-
tive or "worst case" analyses of hazard. The indices and their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Trichloroethylene
Landspreading of sludge is expected to produce slight
increases in the soil concentration of TCE. This increase may
be large when sludge containing high concentrations of TCE is
applied at a high rate (500 mt/ha) '(see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to Lack of data.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to Lack of data.
E. Effect on Humans
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to Lack of data.
II. LANDFILLING
Landfilled sludge is expected to increase the concentration of TCE
in groundwater; this increase may be large at a disposal site with
all worst-case conditions (see Index 1). Groundwater contaminated
by landfilled sludge is not expected to increase the cancer risk
from TCE, except when all worst-case conditions prevail at a
disposal site (see Index 2).
2-1
-------
III. INCINERATION
Based on Che 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.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 198.4), 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.
2-2
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Trichloroethylene
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Explanation - Calculates concentrations in Ug/g DW
of pollutant in sludge-amended soil. Calculated for
sludges with typical (median, if available) and
worst (95 percentile, if available) pollutant
concentrations, respectively, for each of four
applications. Loadings (as dry matter) are chosen
and explained as follows:
0 mt/ha No sludge applied. Shown for all indices
for purposes of comparison, to distin-
guish hazard posed by sludge from pre-
existing hazard posed by background
levels or other sources of the pollutant.
5 mt/ha Sustainable yearly agronomic application;
i.e., loading typical' of agricultural
practice, supplying >^50 kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
50 mt/ha Higher single application as may be used
on public lands, reclaimed areas or home
. gardens.
500 mt/ha Cumulative loading after 100 years of
application at 5 mt/ha/year.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is
incorporated into the upper 15 cm of soil (i.e., Che
plow layer), which has an approximate mass (dry
matter) of 2 x 10-^ mt/ha and is then dissipated
through first order processes which can be expressed
as a soil half-life.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.46 Ug/g Dw
Worst 17.85 Ug/g DW
The typical . and worst concentrations were
statistically derived from sludge concentration
3-1
-------
data for TCE (U.S. EPA, 1982) and represent the
50th and 95th percentiles of the cumulative
frequency, respectively. (See Section 4,
p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.00063 ug/g DW
This value is the only background concentration
for TCE in soil that was immediately available
(Battelle, 1977a). It is not possible to
determine whether this value is representative
of the concentration of TCE in soil. (See
Section 4, p. 4-1.)
iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (t^) - Data not
immediately available.
Although data exist for the half-life of TCE in
air. and water (see Section 4, p. 4-8), they
cannot be used to estimate the half-life in
soil. The worst-case condition, that TCE does
not degrade in soil, was assumed for this
analysis .
d. Index 1 Values (ug/g
Sludge Application Race (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.00063
0.00063
0.0018
0.045
0.012
0.44
0.093
3.6
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in sludge-amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge is
expected to produce slight increases in the soil
concentration of TCE. This increase may be large
when sludge containing high concentrations of TCE is
applied at a high rate (500 mt/ha).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil wich soil concentration shown to
be toxic for some soil organism.
3-2
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 2 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
toxic to a predator on soil organisms.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
bioconcentrated by soil biota is equivalent in
toxicity to form used to demonstrate toxic effects
in predator. Effect level in predator may be
estimated from that in a different species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota (UB) -
Data not immediately available.
iii. Feed concentration toxic to predator (TR)
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 3 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
3-3
-------
e. Value Interpretation - Value3 equals factor by which
expected concentration in soil biota exceeds that
which is toxic to predator. Value > 1 indicates a
coxic hazard may exist for predators of soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with Che lowest soil
concentration shown to be toxic for some plants.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) - Data
not immediately available.
d. Index 4 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack, of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue
concentrations., in Ug/g DW, in plants grown in
sludge-amended soil, using uptake data for the most
responsive plant species in the following
categories: (1) plants included in the U.S. human
diet; and (2) plants serving as animal feed. Plants
used vary according to availability of data.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes an uptake factor
that is constant over all soil concentrations. The
uptake factor chosen for the human diet is assumed
3-4
-------
to be representative of all crops (except fruits) in
the human diet. The uptake factor chosen for the
animal diet is assumed to be representative of all
crops in the animal diet. See also Index 6 for
consideration of phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
- Data not immediately available.
d. Index 5 Values (ug/g DW) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in tissues of plants grown in sludge-
amended soil. However, any value exceeding the
value of Index 6 for the same or a similar plant
species may be unrealistically high because it would
be precluded by phytoxicity.
f.. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Permitted by Phytotoxicity
(Index 6)
a. Explanation - The index value is the maximum tissue
concentration, in Ug/g DW, associated- with
phytotoxicity in the same or similar plant species
used in Index 5. The purpose is to determine
whether the plant tissue concentrations determined
in Index 5 for high applications are realistic, or
whether such concentrations would be precluded by
phytotoxicity. The maximum concentration should be
the highest at which some plant growth still occurs
(and thus consumption of tissue by animals is
possible) but above which consumption by animals is
unlikely.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue
concentration will be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with phytoxicity (PP) - Data not immediately
available.
3-5
-------
d. Index 6 Values (ug/g DW) - Values were not
calculated due to lack, of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum
plant tissue concentration which is permitted by
phytotoxicity. Value is compared with values for
the same or similar plant species given by Index 5.
The lowest of the two indices indicates the maximal
increase that can occur at any given application
rate.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was. not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in plant tissues grown in sludge-amended
soil with feed .concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not 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. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to Lack of data.
ii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) - Data not immediately available.
There are some data concerning TCE animal
toxicity (see Section 4, p. 4-9), but the
animals studied were not herbivorous and feed
concentrations were not supplied.
d. Index 7 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected plant tissue concentration exceeds that
which is toxic to animals. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3-6
-------
Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
a grazing animal's diet resulting from sludge
' adhesion to forage or from incidental ingestion of
sludge-amended soil and compares this with the
dietary toxic 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. Where no sludge
is applied (i.e., 0 mt/ha), assumes diet is 5 per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.46 Ug/g DW
Worst 17.85 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5%
Studies of sludge adhesion Co 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..
3-7
-------
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.
iii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) - Data not immediately available.
d. ' Index 8 Values - Values were noc calculated due to
lack of data.
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 - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
E. Effect on Humans
Index of -Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant
Consumption (Index 9)
a. Explanation - Calculates dietary intake expected to
result from consumption of crops grown on sludge-
amended soil. Compares dietary intake with the
cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the pollutant.
b. Assumptions /Limitations - Assumes that all crops are
grown on sludge-amended soil and that all those con-
sidered to be affected take up the pollutant at the
same rate. Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories: toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludgeamended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (DT)
Toddler 74.5 g/day
Adult 205 g/day
3-8
-------
The intake value for adults is based on daily
intake of crop foods (excluding fruit) by
vegetarians (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 (1984a). Dry
weights for individual food groups were
estimated from composition data given by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1975).
These values were composited to estimate dry-
weight consumption of all non-fruit crops.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
iv. Cancer potency = 1.9 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)"^-
The value given was statistically derived for
human from data obtained for mice which had
developed hepatocellular carcinoma when exposed
to TCE. (See Section 4, p. 4-4.)
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 3.68 Ug/day
The RSI is the pollutant intake value which
results in an increase in cancer risk of 10"^
(1 per 1,000,000). The RSI is calculated from
the cancer potency using the following formula:
= 1Q"6 x 70 kg x LO3 ug/mg
Cancer potency
d. Index 9 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value > 1 indicates a
potential increase in cancer risk of > 10"^ (1 per
1,000,000). Comparison with the null index value at
0 mt/ha indicates the degree to which any hazard is
due to sludge application, as opposed to pre-
existing dietary sources.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from pollutant uptake by domestic
animals given feed grown on sludge-amended soil
(crop or pasture land) but not directly contaminated
3-9
-------
by adhering sludge. Compares expected intake with
RSI.
Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals receiving all their feed
from sludge-amended soil. Assumes that all animal
products consumed take up the pollutant at the
highest rate observed for muscle of any commonly
consumed species or at the rate observed for beef
liver or dairy products (whichever is higher).
Divides possible variations in dietary intake into
two categories: toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - Data not immediately available.
iii. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 43.7 g/day
Adult 88.5 g/day
The fat intake values presented, which comprise
meat, fish, poultry, eggs and milk products,
are derived from the FDA Revised Total Diet
(Pennington, 1983), food groupings listed by
the U.S. EPA (1984a) and food composition data
given by USDA (1975). Adult intake of meats, is
based on males 25 to 30 years of age and that
for milk products on males 14 to 16 years of
age, the age-sex groups with the highest daily
intake. Toddler intake of milk products is
actually based on infants, since infant milk
consumption is the highest among that age group
(Pennington, 1983).
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 3.68 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
Index 10 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
3-10
-------
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk. Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal
products derived from grazing animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil. Compares expected
intake with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals grazing sludge-amended
soil, and that all animal products consumed take up
the pollutant at Che highest rate observed for
muscle of any commonly consumed species or at the
rate observed for beef liver or dairy products
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over 3 years
old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue - Data not immediately available.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.46 Ug/g DW
Worst 17.85 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.00063 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5%
See Section 3, p. 3-7.
v. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - Data not immediately available.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 39.4 g/day
Adult 82.4 g/day
3-11
-------
ii. Assumed amount: of soil in human diet (DS)
Pica child . 5 g/day
Adult 0.02 g/day
The value of 5 g/day for a pica child is a
worst-case estimate employed by U.S. EPA's
Exposure Assessment Group (U.S. EPA, 1983a).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA, 1984a.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 3.68 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
d. Index 12 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could.not be calculated.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
c. Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
J A
d. Index 13 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
II. LANDFILLING
A. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting from Landfilled
Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates groundwater contamination which
could occur in a potable aquifer in the landfill vicin-
3-13
-------
icy. Uses U.S. EPA's Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
1983b). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transport and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port parameters include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
.linear, equilibrium partition coefficient representing
the ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant concentra-
tions. This partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
density and volumetric water content, are used to calcu-
late the retardation factor. A computer program (in
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of the
analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant con-
centration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computations
and parameter estimates are required for each zone. The
prediction requires evaluations of four dimensionless
input values and subsequent evaluation of the result,
through use of the computer program.
Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively assumes that the
pollutant is 100 percent mobilized in the leachate and
that all leachate leaks out of the landfill in a finite
period and undiluted by precipitation. Assumes that all
soil and aquifer properties are homogeneous and isotropic
throughout each zone; steady, uniform flow occurs only in
the vertical direction throughout the unsaturated zone,
and only in the horizontal (longitudinal) plane in the
saturated zone; pollutant movement is considered only in
direction of groundwater flow for the saturated zone; all
pollutants exist in concentrations that do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; for organic chemicals, the
background concentration in the soil profile or aquifer
prior to release from the source is assumed to be zero;
the pollutant source is a pulse input; no dilution of the
plume occurs by recharge from outside the source area;
the leachate is undiluted by aquifer flow within the
saturated zone; concentration in the saturated zone is
attenuated only by dispersion.
3-14
-------
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, obtained from R. Griffin (1984) are
representative values for subsurface soils.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) = 5 years
Sikora et al. (1982) monitored several sludge
entrenchment sites throughout the United States
and estimated time of landfill leaching to be 4
or 5 years. Other types of landfills may leach
for longer periods of time; however, the use of
a value for entrenchment sites is conservative
because it results in a higher leachate
generation rate.
(b) Leachate generation rate (Q)
Typical 0.8 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 com-
plete in 5 years. Landfilled sludge is assumed
to be 20 percent solids by volume, and depth of
sludge in the landfill is 5 m in the typical
case and 10 m in the worst case. Thus, the
initial depth of liquid is 4 and 8 m, and
average yearly leachate generation is 0.8 and
1.6 m, respectively.
(c) Depth to groundwater (h)
Typical 5 m
Worst 0 m
Eight landfills were monitored throughout the
United States and depths to groundwater below
them were listed. A typical depth to ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of 0 m is used to
represent the situation where the bottom of the
landfill is occasionally or regularly below the
water table. The depth to groundwater must be
estimated in order to evaluate the likelihood
that pollutants moving through the unsaturated
soil will reach the groundwater.
3-16
-------
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of- thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.46 mg/kg DW
Worst 17.85 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
(b) Soil half-life of pollutant (t-p - Data not
immediately available-.
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
(c) Degradation rate (u) = 0 day"1
The unsaturated zone can serve as an effective
medium for reducing pollutant concentration
through a variety of chemical and biological
decay mechanisms which transform or attenuate
the pollutant. While these decay processes are
usually complex, they are approximated here by
a first-order rate constant. The degradation
rate is calculated using Che following formula:
Since a soil half-life value was not
immediately available, the degradation rate was
assumed to be zero, which represents the worst-
case condition.
3-17
-------
(d) Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) =
198 mL/g
The organic carbon partition coefficient is
multiplied by the percent organic carbon
content of soil (foc) to derive a partition
coefficient (K,j), which represents the ratio of
absorbed pollutant concentration to the
dissolved (or solution) concentration. The
equation (Koc x fOc^ assumes that organic
carbon in the soil is the primary means of
adsorbing organic compounds onto soils. This
concept serves to reduce much of the variation
in K
-------
nature of the media. Heterogenous conditions
produce large spatial variation in hydraulic
conductivity, making estimation of a single
effective value extremely difficult. Values
used are from Freeze and Cherry (1979) as
presented in U.S. EPA (1983b).
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc) =
0.0 (unitless)
Organic carbon content, and therefore adsorp-
tion, is assumed to be 0 in the saturated zone.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worst 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to
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 (AA)
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.
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5m . .
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well to landfill (A&), which is 100 and
50 m, respectively, for typical and worst
conditions.
3-19
-------
(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'1
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 0 Ug/L
It is assumed that no pollutant exists in che
soil profile or aquifer prior to release from
the source.
4. Index Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum expected
groundwater concentration of pollutant, in Ug/L, at che
well.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Landfilled sludge is expected to
increase the concentration of TCE in ^groundwater; this
increase may be large at a disposal site with all worst-
case conditions.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which 'could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes long-term exposure to
maximum concentration at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3-20
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration resulting from
landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-22.
b. Average human consumption of drinking water (AC) =
2 L/day
The value of 2 L/day is a standard value used by
U.S. EPA in most risk, assessment studies.
c. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
- Data not immediately available.
d. Cancer potency = 1.9 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)~^
See Section 3, p. 3-9..
e. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =3.68 Ug/day
The RSI is the pollutant intake value which results
in an increase in cancer risk of 10"^ (1 per
1,000,000). The RSI is calculated from the cancer
potency using the following formula:
RSI = IP"6 x 70 kg x 103 ug/mg
Cancer potency
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value >1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of 10~6 (1 in 1,000,000) due only
to groundwater contaminated by landfill. The value does
not account for the possible increase in risk resulting
from daily dietary intake of pollutant since DI data were
not immediately available.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Groundwater contaminated by
landfilled sludge is not expected to increase the cancer
risk from TCE, except when all worst-case conditions
prevail at a disposal site.
3-21
-------
TABLE 3-1 -. INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
CO
I
N)
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
Condition of Analyaisa»k»c
123456
T W T T T T
T T W NA T T
T . T T W T T
T T T T W T
T T T T T W
0.013 0.49 0.013 0.013 0.066 0.50
0.0068 0.26 0.0068 0.0068 0.036 0.27
7
W
NA
U
W
W
100
56
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA - not applicable for this condition.
blndex values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (Pdry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Ad), and dispersivity coefficient (Ot).
-------
III. INCINERATION
Based on Che 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.
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.
3-23
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
1. Frequency, of Detection
Observed in 10 of 20 sludges
Observed in 232 of 432 samples (54%)
from 40 publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs)
Observed in 30- of 41 samples (73%)
from 10 POTWs
2. Concentration
Municipal sewage sludge
50th percentile: 0.460 Ug/g (DW)
95th percentile: 17.85 Ug/g (DW)
Median 57 ug/L (WW); range 2 to
1,927 Ug/L for 10 treatment plants.
Median 0.98 ug/g (DW); range 0.048 to
44 ug/g (DW) for 210 treatment plants.
1 to 32,700 ug/L from 40 POTWs
2 to 299 Ug/L from 10 POTWs
B. Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
0.63 ng/g (DW) from control site in
Arkansas
Naylor and Loehr,
1982 (p. 20)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 49)
Values statis-
tically derived
from sludge con-
centration data
presented in
U.S. EPA, 1982
Naylor and Loehr,
1982 (p. 10)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 49)
Battelle, 1977a
(p. 5-35)
4-1
-------
Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Observed in 4 of 112 drinking waters,
1976
Observed in 28 of 113 cities, 1976
Observed in 19 of 105 cities, 1977
72 of 179 surface water samples had
>1 ug/L of TCE (ca 1977)
2. Concent rat i on
a. Freshwater
<5 Ug/L mean, <1 to 29 Ug/L range
from major surface water systems
in United States.
Up to 403 Ug/L measured in some
surface waters
b. Seawater
Data not immediately'available.
c. Drinking Water
22 Ug/L in tap water from Arkansas
Present but not quantifiable in
Miami drinking water
Not detected to 0.5 Ug/L in
drinking water from 5 U.S. cities
11 ug/L (1976), 4 cities
2.1-ug/L (1976), 28 cities
1.3 Ug/L (1977), 19 cities
806 Ug/L .protective ambient
water level
0.1 to 0.5 ug/L in 5 samples from
10-city survey (ca 1975)
1 to 32 Ug/L range in U.S. drinking
water
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-l)
U.S. EPA, 1983c
(p. 3-14)
Battelle, 1977b
(p. 2-18) .
U.S. EPA, 1983c
(p. 3-22)
Battelle, 1977a
(p. 5-35)
Battelle, L977b
(p. 2-19)
Battelle, 1977b
(p. 2-20)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-l)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-32)
National Academy
of Sciences
(NAS), 1977
(p. 777)
U.S. EPA, 1983c
(p. 1-1)
4-2
-------
Air
BozzeLLi and
Kebbekus , 1982
(p. 700-704)
Bozzelli and
Kebbekus, 1982
(p. 700-704)
1. Frequency of Detection
TCE observed in 290 of 480 samples (60%)
for industrial and urban areas of New
Jersey
2. Concentration
a. Urban
1.84 to 3.29 Ug/m3 range of means,
4.8 to 14.59 Ug/m3 range of high
values for urban suburban areas
of New Jersey
5.13 to 15.13 Ug/m-3 range of means,
32.97 to 170 Ug/m3 range of high
values for industrial areas of New
Jersey
1.69 Ug/m3 mean, 0.13 to 9.73 Ug/m3 Bozzelli and
range for Los Angeles Kebbekus, 1982
1.03 Ug/m3 mean, <0.27 to 3.41 ug/m3 (p. 706)
for Wilmington, Ohio
Battelle, 1977a
(p. 5-5, 5-6,
5-11, and 5-12)
Bozzelli and
Kebbekus, 1982
(p. 706)
<5.4 to 1,459 Ug/m near chemical
manufacturing plants
Rural
0.27 to 1.89 Ug/m-3 in rural
locations through the United States
B. Pood
Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
Concentration
There is no information available on
occurrence of TCE in U.S. foodstuffs.
Data from England shows <10 ng/g TCE
in meats, and <5 ng/g in fruits,
vegetables, and beverages
TCE was used as a solvent for food
extractions (e.g., caffeine). Current
maximum.allowable concentrations in
food are 10 Ug/g in instant coffee;
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-l)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-l)
4-3
-------
25 Ug/g in ground coffee, and 30 Ug/g
in spice extracts (21 CFR 121:1041; FDA)
Average daily human dietary intake
data is not immediately, available.
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogen!city
a. Qualitative Assessment
U.S. EPA's Carcinogen Assessment
Group ranks TCE as an IARC Group 2B
compound but recognized scientific
sentiment for ranking as Group 3,
the difference depending on the view
taken about mouse liver tumor response.
b. Potency
Cancer potency is U.S. EPA, 1983c
1.9 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)"1. (p. 8-96)
This value was statistically derived
for humans from data associated with
a 1000 to 2339 mg/kg/day exposure
level for mice that resulted in
hepatocellular carcinoma.
However, the U.S. EPA's Science
Advisory Board has recently disputed
the judgment of the Carcinogen Assess-
ment group that TCE should be regarded
as a potential human carcinogen
because of impurities in the test
materials.
c. Effects
Heptocellular carcinoma in mice U.S. EPA, 1983c
(p. 8-96)
2. Chronic toxicity
a. ADI
Data not immediately available.
4-4
-------
b. Effects
Rats administered TCE by gavage for
78 weeks displayed decreased body
weight and survival times as well
as slight to moderate degenerative
and regenerative alterations of
renal tubules.
3. Absorption Factor
No data for humans but rats absorbed 80
to 100% of ingested TCE.
4. Existing Regulations
A health advisory for TCE' in
drinking water has been established.
One-day, ten-day, and long-term
suggested levels are 2.0 mg/L,
0.20 mg/L, and 0.75 mg/L, respectively.
105 mg/L suggested 24-hour no adverse
response level for humans
15 mg/L suggested seven-day no
adverse response level for humans.
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitive Assessment
U.S. EPA's Carcinogen Assessment
Group ranks TCE as an IARC Group 2B
compound, but recognized scientific
sentiment for ranking TCE as Group 3,
the difference depending upon the
view taken about mouse Liver tumor
response.
b. Potency
Cancer potency is
6.5 x 10~3 (mg/kg/day)'1, based
on lung tumor response in mice.
However, the (J.S. EPA's Science
Advisory Board has recently disputed
the judgment of the Carcinogen
Assessment Group that TCE should
be regarded as a potential human
carcinogen.
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 5)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 2)
U.S. EPA, 1985
MAS, 1980
(p. 165)
U.S. EPA,
(p. 18)
1984b
4-5
-------
2. Chronic Toxicity
Data not evaluated since assessment
based on carcinogenicity.
3. Absorption Factor
Absorption of TCE through the Lungs is
rapid and reaches equilibrium in
approximately 2 hours.
4. Existing Regulations
American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has
set the time weighted average (TWA)-
threshold limit value (TLV) at
270 mg/m^. The short-term exposure
limit (STEL) is 560
III. PLANT EFFECTS
Phyt o t oxi city
Data not immediately available.
Uptake
Data not immediately available.
"There is no direct evidence of bioaccumu-
lation of TCE in the food chain. Few
studies have been made of the ecological
consequences of TCE in the environment."
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 2)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 16)
U.S. EPA, 1983c
(p. 1-1)
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-1.
B. Uptake
"There is no direct evidence of bioaccumu-
lation.of TCE in the food chain."
U.S. EPA, 1983c
(p. 1-D
4-6
-------
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
a. Acute
Daphnia magna acute toxicity at U.S. EPA, 1980
64,000 Ug/L (p. B-3)
Daphnia pulex acute toxicity at
45,000 ug/L
Fathead minnow acute toxicity at
40,700 ug/L
BLuegill acute toxicity at
66,800 ug/L
b. Chronic
No chronic tests have been conducted U.S. EPA, 1980
with any freshwater species. (p. B-2)
2. Saltwater
a. Acute
Grass shrimp showed signs of erratic U.S. EPA, 1980
swimming, uncontrolled movement, (p. B-3)
and loss of equilibrium after
several minutes exposure to
2,000 ug/L.. Same conditions
displayed by sheepshead minnows at
20,000 Ug/L.
b. Chronic
No chronic tests have been conducted U.S. EPA, 1980
with any saltwater species. (p. 8-2)
B. Uptake
Bioconcentration factor for bluegill was 17 U.S. EPA, 1980
with a tissue half-life of less chan (p. B-3)
one day.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
' Data not immediately available.
4-7
-------
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT OF POLLUTANT
Chemical formula: C2HC13
Molecular weight: 132 g/mol
Density: 1.46 g/mL
Boiling point: 87°C
Solubility: 1,000 to 1,100 mg/L in water
Vapor pressure: 74 mm Hg
Henry's Law constant: 0.48-0.49
Octanol/water partition coefficient: 195
Love and Eilers,
1980 (p. 414)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 1)
Soil mobility: 1.6
(predicted as retardation factor for soil depth
of 140 cm and organic carbon content of 0.087%)
Half-life in air: 3.7 days
Half-lives in water: 1 to 4 days and
3 to 90 days
Half-life in soil: Data not immediately available.
Organic carbon partition coefficient: Lyman, 1982
198 mL/g
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-1. TOX1CITY OF TUICIILOROETHYENE TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species
Rat
-P- Rat
vo
Mice
Mice
Rat
Chemical
Form Fed
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE (gavage)
TCE (gavage)
Feed
Concentration
NRU
NR
Ntt
NU
NU
Water
Concentration
(rog/L)
NU
NU
Ntt
NU
NU
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
4,920
1,780
3,160
1,000-2,339
500-1.000
Duration
of Study
NU
8 weeks
8 weeks
103 weeks
103 ueeks
Effects
LD50
Highest no effect level
Highest no effect level
llepatocel lular carcinomas
Uenal adenocarcinomaa
References
NAS, 1977 (p. 778)
NAS, 1980 (p. 160)
NAS, 1980 (p. 160)
U.S. EPA, 1983c
(p. 8-2)
U.S. EPA, 1983c
(p. 8-2)
aNU = Not reported.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. 1977a. Environmental Monitoring Near
Industrial Sites: Trichloroethylene. Prepared for U.S. EPA.
Battelle, Columbus, OH.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. 1977b. Multimedia Levels
Trichlorethylene. Prepared for U.S. EPA. Battelle, Columbus, OH.
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.
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.
Bozzelli, J. W., and B. B. Kebbekus. 1982. A Study of Some Aromatic
and Halocarbon Vapors in the Ambient Atmosphere of New Jersey. J.
Environ.. Sci. Health. 17(5): 693-711.
*
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.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood' Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L. W., and G. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogeneous Aquifers. Report
No. H-8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, MM.
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.
5-1
-------
Griffin, R. A. 1984. Personal Communication to U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ECAO - Cincinnati, OH. Illinois State
Geological Survey.
Love, 0. T., and R. G. Eilers. 1980. Treatment of Drinking Water
Containing Trichloroethylene and Related Industrial Solvents. J.
Amer. Water Works Assoc. August. 413-425.
Lyman, W. J. 1982. Adsorption Coefficients for Soils and Sediments.
Chapter 4. In: Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Drinking Water and Health. MAS:
National Research Council Safe Drinking Water Committee,
Washington, D.C.
National Academy of Sciences. 1980. Drinking Water and Health.
Vol. 3. NAS: National Research Council Safe Drinking Water
Committee, Washington, D.C.
Naylor, L. M., and R. C. Loehr. 1982. Priority Pollutants in Municipal
Sewage Sludge. Biocycle. July/Aug: 19-22.
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 amd Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Ryan, J. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Food Chain: A Review and Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251-302.
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Surge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual.
2(2):321-325.
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. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Trichloroethylene. EPA 440/5-80-077. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
5-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Final
Report. Vol. I. EPA 440/1-82-303. Effluent Guidelines Division,
Washington, D.C. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Assessment of Human
Exposure to Arsenic: Tacoma, Washington. Internal Document.
OHEA-E-075-U. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C. July 19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983c. Health Assessment
Document for Trichloroethylene. External Review Draft. PB84-
162882. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. EPA 600/8-83-0288. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Health Effects Assessment
for Trichloroethylene. ECAO-CIN-H046. Prepared for the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response by Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Memorandum from Office of
Drinking Water to E. Lomnitz. April 16.
5-3
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Trichloroethylene
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Formula
(SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
Cbs ~ AR f MS
CSr = CSS [1 - 0.
where:
CSS = Soil concentration of pollutant after a
single year's application of sludge
(Ug/g DW)
CSr = Soil concentration of pollutant after the
yearly application of sludge has been
repeated for n + 1 years (ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (mt/ha)
MS = 2000 mt ha/DW = assumed mass of soil in
upper 15 cm
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
t^. = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
n =99 years
b. Sample calculation
CSS is calculated for AR = 0, 5, and 50 mt/ha only
. -rt.a , nu (0.46 ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (O.OQQ63 ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
0.0018 Ug/g DW = - (5 mt/ha DW + 2000 mt/ha DW) -
CSr is calculated for AR = 500 mt/ha
n rm<><; , / nu (0.46 Ug/g DW x 500 mt/ha) + (0.00063 Ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
0.0925 Ug/g DW - - - - (500 mt/ha DW * 2000 mt/ha DW) -
A-l
-------
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Formula
II
Index 2 = ~
where:
!]_ = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil bioca
(Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
, II x UB
Index 3 =
where:
!]_ = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
UB = Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota
(Ug/g tissue DW [yg/g soil DW]"1)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Formula
Index 4 =
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (ug/g DW)
A-2
-------
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due Co
lack of data.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Formula
Index 5 = Ii x UP
where:
II Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge - amended soil (ug/g DW)
UP = Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]"1)
b. Sample Calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Formula
Index 6 = PP
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration associ-
ated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
f*
Index 7 = ^|
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soib (ug/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
A-3
-------
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Formula
If AR = 0; Index 8=0
If AR * 0; Index 8 = SC *S
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
(1 5 x DT) + DI
Index 9 = - _ -
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (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)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
(1 5 x UA x DA) * DI
Index 10 =
RSI
A-4
-------
where: N
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
UA = Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [Ug/g feed DW]"1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk, products and
meat, poultry, eggs, fish)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Formula
re AD n T j ti (BS x GS x UA x DA) + DI
If AR = 0; Index 11 = r^r
Kol
_-._,- _ . ' (SC x GS x UA x DA) * DI
If AR f 0; Index 11 = rrr
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 = F.raction of animal diet assumed to be soil
UA = Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW]'1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products and
meat only)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(Index 12)
Formula
(:
[]_ x DS) * DI
A-5
-------
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (u.g/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet (g/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 = I9 + I10 f IU * I12 -
where:
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from plant consumption (unitless)
I]_0 = Index 10 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
- Index 11 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from consumption of ' animal
products derived from animals ingesting soil
(unitless)
I].2 = Index 12 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b.. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due Co lack of data.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/CO for the unsaturated
zone are calculated corresponding to increasing values of t
until equilibrium is reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse input
from the landfill, Equation 3 is employed to estimate the con-
centration vs. time data at the water table. The concentration
vs. time curve is then transformed into a square pulse having a
constant concentration equal to the peak concentration, Cu,
from the unsaturated zone, and a duration, to, chosen so that
the total areas under the curve and the pulse are equal, as
illustrated in Equation 3. This square pulse is then used as
A-6
-------
the input to the linkage assessment, Equation 2, which esti-
mates initial dilution in the aquifer to give the initial con-
centration, C0, for the saturated zone assessment. (Conditions
for B, minimum thickness of unsaturated zone, have been set
such that dilution is actually negligible.) The saturated zone
assessment procedure is nearly identical to that for the unsat-
urated zone except for the definition of certain parameters and
choice of parameter values. The maximum concentration at the
well, Cmax, is used to calculate the index values given in
Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
C(y,t) = 7 [exp(A^) erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) erfc(B2)] = P(x,t)
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of the result. Exp(A^) denotes the
exponential of A]_, e ^, where erfc(A2) denotes the
complimentary error function of A2. Erfc(A2) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1972).
where:
Al - I_ [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x u*
Al 2D*
Y - t (V*2 -* 4D* x u*)^
2 (4D* x t)t
Bl = X [V* -( (V*2 + 4D* x
1 2D*
Y -i- t (V^2 + 4D* x u*)?
82 = (40* 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 sol ids/m-^ leachate =
PS x 103
1 - PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge
20Z
t = Time (years)
X = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = 2 (ra/year)
0 x R
A-7
-------
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
9 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 » dry x KJ = Retardation factor (unitless)
9
Pjry = Dry bulk density (g/raL)
Kd = foc x Koc (mL/g)
foc = Fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
Koc = Organic carbon partition coefficient (mL/g)
. 365 x u , ,_i
U* = 5 tt (years) L
i
U = Degradation rate (day"*)
and where for the saturated zone:
Co = Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (|lg/L)
t = Time (years)
X = AH = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = K x i (m/year)
q. X " * B - and B > 2
K x i x 365
A-8
-------
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C(Xrt) = P(x,t) for 0 < t < t0
co
= P(X,t) - P(X,C - t0) for t > C
co
where:
to (for unsacurated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
't0 (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 = [ /" C dt] * Cu
C( Y t )
P(X»t) = £* as determined by Equation 1
co
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting
from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
Index 1 = Cmax
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
maximum of C(A&,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Ug/D
2. Sample Calculation
0.0125 ug/L = 0.0125 Ug/L
P. Equation 5. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting
from Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
(I x AC) + DI
Index 2 =
A-9
-------
where:
\
IL = Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration
resulting from landfilled sludge (ug/L)
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake ( Ug/day)
Sample Calculation (when DI is unknown)
n
°'
- (Q-Q125 ug/L x 2 L/day)
3.68 Ug/day
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWES meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
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.
A-10
-------
TAULE A-l. INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOU EACH CONDITION
Condition of Analysis
Input Dala
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (pg/g DM)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, t'jry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 6 (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (in/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (in)
Saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, I) (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (in/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landfill, AH (m)
Dispersiuity coefficient, a (m)
1
0.46
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.66
0.001
100
10
2
17.85
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
. 0.001
100
10
3
0.46
1.925
0.133
0.0001
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4 5
0.46 0.46
NAb 1.53
MA 0.195
NA 0.005
1.6 0.8
0 5
NA 0.5
0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04
0.001 0.001
100 100
10 10
6
0.46
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.02
50
5
7 8
17.85 Na
NA N
NA N
NA N
1.6 N
0 N
NA N
0.389 N
4.04 N
0.02 N
50 N
5 N
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Condition of Analysis-
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, Cu (|ig/L)
Peak concentration, C^ (pg/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, Co
(Mg/L)
1
115
55.2
10. A
126
55.2
2
4460
2140
10.4
126
2140
3
115
115
5.00
126
115
4
115
115
5.00
253
115
.5
115
55.2
10.4
23.8
55.2
6
115
55.2
10.4
6.32
55.2
7
4460
4460
5.00
2. 38
4460
8
H
N
N
N
N
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Cmax (pg/l.)
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge, Index 1 (pg/L)
(Equation 4)
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from grounduater contamination, Index 2
(unitless) (Equation 5)
0.0125
0.0125
0.00680
0.4.85 0.0125 0.0125 0.0664 0.501 103 H
0.485 0.0125 0.0125 0.0664 0.501 103 0
0.264 0.00680 0.00680 0.0361 0.272 56.1 0
UN = Null condition, where no landfill exists) no value is used.
t>NA = Not applicable for this condition.
------- |