United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, OC 20460
Water
June. 196S
EnvironmentaS Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal
Lindane
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to: (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, Landfill ing,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
C-l
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfill ing 2-2
Incineration 2-2
Ocean Di sposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of lindane (Index 1) 3-1
Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) 3-2
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration (Indices 4-6) 3-5
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-7
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-10
Landfill ing 3-17
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-17
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
groundwater contamination (Index 2) 3-24
Incineration 3-25
Index of air concentration increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3-25
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
inhalation of incinerator emissions (Index 2) 3-29
Ocean Disposal 3-30
Index of seawater concentration resulting from
initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3-31
Index of seawater concentration representing a
24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 3-34
C-2
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Index of toxicity to aquatic life (Index 3) 3-35
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
seafood consumption (Index 4) 3-37
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-3
Food 4-4
Human Effects 4-6
Ingestion 4-6
Inhalation 4-7
Plant Effect 4-7
Phytotoxicity 4-7
Uptake 4-8
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-8
Toxicity 4-8
Uptake 4-8
Aquatic Life Effects . 4-8
Toxicity 4-8
Uptake 4-9
Soil Biota Effects 4-9
Toxicity 4-9
Uptake 4-9
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-10
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
C-3
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This preliminary data profile is one of a series of profiles
dealing with chemical pollutants potentially of concern in municipal
sewage sludges. Lindane was initially identified as being of potential
concern when sludge is landspread (including distribution and market-
ing), placed in a landfill, incinerated or ocean disposed.* This pro-
file is a compilation of information that may be useful in determining
whether lindane poses an actual hazard to human health or the
environment when sludge is disposed of by these methods.
The focus of this document is the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge •* soil •*• plant uptake •» animal uptake •» human toxicity).
The values and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to
represent a reasonable "worst case"; analysis of error or uncertainty
has been conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most
cases is indexed to unity; i.e., values >1 may indicate a potential
hazard, depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on information presented in the "preliminary data profile",
Section 4. Information in the profile is based on a compilation of the
recent literature. An attempt has been made to fill out the profile
outline to the greatest extent possible. However, since this is a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has not been exhaustively perused.
The "preliminary conclusions" drawn from each index in Section 3
are summarized in Section 2. The preliminary hazard indices will be
used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants and pathways may
pose a hazard. Where a potential hazard is indicated by interpretation
of these indices, further analysis will include a more detailed exami-
nation of potential risks as well as an examination of site-specific
factors. These more rigorous evaluations may change the preliminary
conclusions presented in Section 2, which are based on a reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
The preliminary hazard indices for selected exposure routes
pertinent to landspreading and distribution and marketing, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal practices are included in this profile.
The calculation formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix.
The indices are rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
C-4
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of "preliminary hazard indices", which represent conserva-
tive or "worst case" analyses of hazard. The indices and their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AHD-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Lindane
No increase in the concentration of lindane in sludge-amended
soil is expected to occur from ap
-------
sludge containing a high concentration of lindane is expected
to slightly increase the cancer risk due to lindane for humans
who consume animal products derived from animals ingesting
sludge-amended soils (see Index 11). The consumption of
sludge-amended soils that have received application rates of 5
to 50 mt/ha by tqddlers or adults is not expected to increase
the risk of human cancer due to lindane above the pre-existing
risk attributable to other dietary sources of lindane* There
may be an increased risk when soils amended with sludge at a
cumulative rate of SOQ mt/ha are ingested (see Index 12). The
aggregate human cancer risk due to lindane associated with the
landspreading of municipal sewage sludge could not be
determined due to a lack of data (see Index 13).
II. LANDFILLING
The landfilling disposal of municipal sewage sludge is generally
expected to result in slight increases in lindane concentrations in
groundwater. However, when the composite worst-case scenario is
evaluated, a moderate increase in concentration is anticipated (see
Index 1). Accordingly, the landfilling of sludge should not
increase the risk of cancer due to the ingestion of lindane above
that normally associated with consuming groundwater. But when the
worst-case scenario is evaluated, a moderate increase in cancer
risk can be expected when contaminated groundwater is ingested (see
Index 2).
III. INCINERATION
The incineration of municipal sewage sludge at typical sludge feed
rates may moderately increase lindane concentrations in air. At
high rates, the resulting concentration may be substantially higher
than typical urban levels (see Index 1). Inhalation of emissions
from incineration of sludge may slightly increase the human cancer
risk due to lindane, above the risk posed by background urban air
concentrations of lindane (see Index 2).
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Only slight increases of lindane are expected to occur at the
disposal site after sludge dumping and initial mixing (see Index
1). Only slight increases in lindane concentrations are apparent
after a 24-hour dumping cycle (see Index 2). Only slight to
moderate incremental increases in hazard to aquatic life were
determined. No toxic conditions occur via any of the scenarios
evaluated (see Index 3). No increase of risk to human health from
consumption of seafood is expected to occur due to the ocean
disposal of sludge (see Index A).
C-6
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR LINDANE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Lindane
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Explanation - Calculates concentrations in Ug/g DW
of pollutant in sludge-amended soil. Calculated for
sludges with typical (median, if available) and
worst (95 percentile, if available) pollutant
concentrations, respectively, for each of four
applications. Loadings (as dry matter) are chosen
and explained as follows:
0 mt/ha No sludge applied. Shown for all indices
for purposes of comparison, to distin-
• • guish hazard posed by sludge from pre-
existing hazard posed by background
levels or other sources of the pollutant.
5 mt/ha Sustainable yearly agronomic application;
i.e., loading typical of agricultural
practice, supplying •/'SO kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
SO mt/ha Higher single application as may be used
on public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens.
500 mt/ha Cumulative loading after 100 years of
application at 5 mt/ha/year.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is
incorporated into the upper 15 cm of soil (i.e., the
plow layer), which has an approximate mass (dry
matter) of 2 x 10^ mt/ha and is then dissipated
through first order processes which can be expressed
as a soil half-life.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 Ug/g DW
Worst 0.22 Ug/g DW
In a study of lindane in the municipal sludge
of 74 cities in Missouri (Clevenger et al.,
C-7
-------
1983) the mean concentration was 0.11 Ug/g DW
and the maximum concentration was 0.22 Ug/g DW.
These values were used for the typical and
worst concentrations of pollutant in sludge
since they were the only data immediately
available. (See Section 4, p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.13 Ug/g DW
This concentration was derived by taking the
mean value of the most recent soil data avail-
able (Matsumura, 1972a). Although significant
commercial use of purified lindane continues
(U.S. EPA, 1980), this was the most current in-
formation for generating a background concen-
tration value. (See Section 4, p. 4-2.)
iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (t|) = 1.04 years
A soil half-life of 378 days is reported for
sandy loam soils and 56 days in clay loam (U.S.
EPA, 1984a). The value for sandy loam soils
was used because it represents the worst case,
namely, longer persistence. (See Section 4,
p. 4-10.)
d. Index 1 Values (ug/g DW)
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.27
0.27
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in sludge-amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - No increase in the concen-
tration of lindane in sludge-amended soil is
expected to occur from application rates of 5 to
50 mt/ha. A slight increase in lindane concentra-
tion in soil is expected to occur when sludge is
applied at a cumulative rate of 500 mt/ha.
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with soil concentration shown to
be toxic for some soil organism.
C-8
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) -
>100 yg/g DW
There is limited data on soil concentrations
toxic to soil biota. (See Section 4, p.
4-15.) A range of 12.5 to 100 Ug/g was given
for experimental soil concentrations for
bacteria/fungi (Eno and Everett, 1958). The
high value of 100 Ug/g was selected so as to
represent a conservative worst case. The
"greater than" symbol is used to indicate that
this concentration did not actually generate
toxic effects, although a 35Z reduction of
fungi did occur.
d. Index 2 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical <0.0013 <0.0013 <0.0013 <0.0027
Worst <0.0013 <0.0013 <0.0013 <0.0027
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to pose a toxic hazard due to lindane
for soil biota which inhabit sludge-amended soil.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
toxic to a predator on soil organisms.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
bioconcentrated by soil biota is equivalent in
C-9
-------
toxicity to form used Co demonsCrace toxic effects
in predator. Effect level in predaCor 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) =
1.05 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1
The only available uptake factor of lindane in
soil biota is for the earthworm (Yadav et al.,
1976). A range of 0.45 Co 1.05 was given, and
Che high value of 1.05 was used so as to repre-
sent a conservative worst case. (See
Section 4, p. 4-16.)
iii. Peed concentration toxic to predator (TR) =
50 ug/g DW
No data are available for a typical earthworm
predator (e.g., a bird) so Che value of 50 Ug/g
in rats was used. This concentration repre-
sents Che lowest level Chat produced a coxic
effect: hypertrophy of the liver. (See
Section 4, p. 4-13.)
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Race (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.0056
Worst 0.0027 0.0027 0.0028 0.0056
e. Value Interpretation - Values equals factor by which
expected concentration in soil biota exceeds that
which is Coxic to predator. Value > 1 indicates a
coxic hazard may exist for predators of soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The landspreading of muni-
cipal sewage sludge is noc expected to pose a coxic
hazard to predators of soil biota due Co lindane
contamination.
C-10
-------
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 the lowest soil concentra-
tion shown to be toxic for some plants.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
12.5 yg/g DW
This value represents the lowest soil concen-
tration toxic to plant tops when lindane was
applied. At a 12.5 Ug/g DW concentration, a
271 reduction in root weight was observed for
stringless black valentine beans (Eno and
Everett, 1958). BHC values were not considered
since they represent data for a blend of the
isomeric forms of hexachlorocyclohexane and not
just the gamma isoraer, lindane. (See Sec-
tion 4, p. 4-11.)
d. Index 4 Values
Sludge Application Rate (rot/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.010
0.010
5
0.010
0.010
50
0.010
0.010
500
0.021
0.021
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to result in soil concentrations of
lindane which pose a phytotoxic hazard.
Oil
-------
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue concentra-
tions, in Ug/g DW, in plants grown in sludge-amended
soil, using uptake data for the most responsive
plant species in the following categories:
(1) plants included in the U.S. human diet; and
(2) plants serving as animal feed. Plants used vary
according to availability of data.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes an uptake factor
that is constant over all soil concentrations. The
uptake factor chosen for the human diet is assumed
to be representative of all crops (except fruits) in
the human diet. The uptake factor chosen for the
animal diet is assumed to be representative of all
crops in the animal diet. See also Index 6 for
consideration of phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
- Data not immediately available.
The uptake factor of che pollutant in plane
tissue is derived by comparing the plant tissue
concentration with the soil concentration. Due
to the lack of tissue concentrations in the
available literature (see Section 4, pp. 4-11
to 4-12), a UP value could not be determined.
d. Index 5 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in tissues of plants grown in sludge-
amended soil. However, any value exceeding the
value of Index 6 for the same or a similar plant
species may be unrealistically high because ic would
be precluded by phytotoxicity.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
C-12
-------
3. Index of Plant Concentration Permitted by Phytotoxicity
(Index 6)
a* Explanation - The index value is the maximum tissue
concentration, in Ug/g DW, associated with
phytotoxicity in the same or similar plant species
used in Index 5. The purpose is to determine
whether the plant tissue concentrations determined
in Index 5 for high applications are realistic, or
whether such concentrations would be precluded by
phytotoxicity. The maximum concentration should be
the highest at which some plant growth still occurs
(and thus consumption of tissue by animals is
possible) but above which consumption by animals is
unlikely.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue
concentration will be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
' ' with phytotoxicity (PP) - Data not immediately
available.
The tissue concentrations associated with plant
phytotoxicity in Table 4-1, pp. 4-11 to 4-12,
were not reported. Because of this lack of
data, a PP value could not be selected.
d. Index 6 Values - Values were not reported due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum
plant tissue concentration which is permitted by
phytotoxicity. Value is compared with values for
the same or similar plant species given by Index S.
The lowest of the two indices indicates the maximal
increase that can occur at any given application
rate.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in plant tissues grown in sludge-amended
soil with feed concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not
C-13
-------
consider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
taken up by plants is equivalent in toxicity to form
used to demonstrate toxic effects in animal. Uptake
or toxicity in specific plants or animals may be
estimated from other species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 50 Ug/g DW
Data are reported for an inadvertent poisoning
of cows with benzene hexachloride (BHC) which
contained 19.12 lindane (McParland et a!.,
1973). This information was not used because
it cannot be determined what part lindane or
the other 80.91 hexachlorocyclohexane isomers
played in causing the deaths of the animals.
The only available chronic data for lindane
pertain to rats, which exhibited no effects at
25 Ug/g but showed liver hypertrophy after 50
Ug/g lindane was consumed in the diet
for 2 years (NRC, 1982). (See Section 4, p.
4-13.) This value will be assumed to apply to
all herbivorous species.
d. Index 7 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected plant tissue concentration exceeds that
which is toxic to animals. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous animals.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
a grazing animal's diet resulting from sludge
adhesion to forage or from incidental ingestion of
sludge-amended soil and compares this with the
dietary toxic th: ishold concentration for a grazing
animal.
c-14
-------
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 S per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 ug/g DW
Worst 0.22 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 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 (Chancy and Lloyd, 1979; Boswell,
1975). However, this contamination diminishes
gradually with time and growth, and generally
is not detected in the following year's growth.
For example, where pastures amended at 16 and
32 mt/ha were grazed throughout a growing sea-
son (168 days), average sludge content of for-
age was only 2.14 and A.75 percent,
respectively (Bertrand et al., 1981). It seems
reasonable to assume that animals may receive
long-term dietary exposure to 5 percent sludge
if maintained on a forage to which sludge is
regularly applied. This estimate of 5 percent
sludge is used regardless of application rate,
since the above studies did not show a clear
relationship between application rate and ini-
tial contamination, and since adhesion is not
cumulative yearly because of die-back.
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep during winter
months when forage is reduced (Thornton and
Abrams, 1983). If the soil were sludge-
amended, it is conceivable that up to 5 percent
sludge may be ingested in this manner as well.
Therefore, this value accounts for either of
C-15
-------
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
iii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 50 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-8.
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.0
0.0
5
0.00011
0.00022
50
0.00011
0.00022
500
0.00011
0.00022
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected dietary concentration exceeds toxic concen-
tration. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may
exist for grazing animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The incidental ingest ion of
sludge-amended soil by herbivorous animals is not
expected to result in a toxic hazard due to lindane.
B. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant
Consumption (Index 9)
a. Explanation - Calculates dietary intake expected to
result from consumption of crops grown on sludge-
amended soil. Compares dietary intake with the
cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the pollutant.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all crops are
grown on sludge-amended soil and that all those con-
sidered to be affected take up the pollutant at the
same rate. Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories: toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
016
-------
ii. Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (DT)
Toddler 74.5 g/day
Adult 205 g/day
The intake value for adults is based on daily
intake of crop foods (excluding fruit) by vege-
tarians (Ryan et al.t 1982); vegetarians were
chosen to represent the worst case. The value
for toddlers is based on the FDA Revised Total
Diet (Pennington, 1983) and food groupings
' listed by the U.S. EPA (1984b). Dry weights
for individual food groups were estimated from
composition data given by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) (1975). These values
were composited to estimate dry-weight
consumption of all non-fruit crops.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 2.71 Ug/day
Adult 8.21 Ug/day
The DI value for lindane was determined by cal-
culating the daily pollutant intake through
food consumption and adding it to the daily
intake of pollutant through ingestion of water.
Assumptions made are that the average adult
weighs 70 kg, that the average adult consumes
2.0 L of water daily, and that a toddler
consumes 33Z of an adult intake per day.
The average total relative daily intake of lin-
dane from food over a four-year period from
1975 to 1978 was 0.0030 tag/kg body weight/day
(Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1979).
When this value is multiplied by the average
adult weight of 70 kg, the daily intake of
lindane due to food is 0.21 lag/day.
A data point of 4.0 Ug/L was available for
drinking water in Streator, Illinois (U.S. EPA,
1980). (See Section 4, p. 4-3.) By multi-
plying the value of 4.0 ug/L by the consumption
rate of 2.0 L of water/day, the daily intake of
lindane due to water consumption equals
8.0 yg/day.
By adding together the dietary intake and water
intake value, the total daily human dietary
intake of lindane during the period 1975 to
1978 is estimated at 8.21 ug/day for an adult.
C-17
-------
It is assumed that a toddler consumes 332 of
this value or 2.71 ug/day.
iv. Cancer potency =1.33 (mg/kg/day) -1
Because of a Lack, of human data, the value of
1.33 (mg/kg/day)~l was derived from a study of
mice in which oral doses of lindane resulted in
liver tumors (U.S. EPA, 1980). (See Section 4,
p. 4-6.)
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.053 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:
_ 10"6 x 70 kg x 103 ug/mg
Cancer potency
d. Index 9 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value >1 indicates a poten-
tial increase in cancer risk of >10~^ (1 per
1,000,000). Comparison with the null index value at
0 mt/ha indicates the degree to which any hazard is
due to sludge application, as opposed to pre-
existing dietary sources.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from pollutant uptake by domestic
animals given feed grown on sludge-amended soil
(crop or pasture land) but not directly contaminated
by adhering sludge. Compares expected intake with
RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals receiving all their feed
from sludge-amended soil. Assumes that all animal
products consumed take up the pollutant at the
highest rate observed for muscle of any commonly
consumed species or at the rate observed for beef
liver or dairy products (whichever is higher).
Divides possible variations in dietary intake into
C-18
-------
two categories: toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) = 0.65 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)'1
Uptake factors for lindane in beef fat varied
from 0.35 to 0.65 Ug/g tissue (ug/g diet)"1 for
feed concentrations of 10 and 100 Ug/g
(Claborn, 1960, cited in Kenaga, 1980). As a
conservative approach, the higher value is used
to represent the uptake factor for lindane in
all animal fats in the human diet. (See
Section 4, p. 4-14.) The uptake factor of
pollutant in animal tissue (UA) used is assumed
to apply to all animal fats.
iii. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler . 43.7 g/day
Adult 88.5 g/day
The fat intake values presented, which comprise
meat, fish, poultry, eggs and milk products,
are derived from the FDA Revised Total Diet
(Pennington, 1983), food groupings listed by
the U.S. EPA (1984b) and food composition data
given by USDA (1975). Adult intake of meats is
based on males 25 to 30 years of age and that
for milk products on males 14 to 16 years of
age, the age-sex groups with the highest daily
intake. Toddler intake of milk products is
actually based on infants, since infant milk
consumption is the highest among that age group
(Pennington, 1983).
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 2.71
Adult 8.21 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
C-19
-------
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.053 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
d. Index 10 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal
products derived from grazing animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil. Compares expected
intake with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals grazing sludge-amended
soil, and that all animal products consumed take up
the pollutant at the highest rate observed tor
muscle of any commonly consumed species or at the
rate observed for beef liver or dairy products
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over 3 years
old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue = Beef fat
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 ug/g DW
Worst 0.22 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.13 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
C-20
-------
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5Z
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
v. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) = 0.65 pg/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)~1
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 39.4 g/day
Adult 82.4 g/day
The affected tissue intake value is assumed to
be from the fat component of meat only (beef,
pork, lamb, veal) and milk products
(Pennington, 1983). This is a slightly more
limited choice than for Index 10. Adult intake
-of meats is based on males 25 to 30 years of
age and the intake for milk products on males
14 to 16 years of age, the age-sex groups with
the highest daily intake. Toddler intake of
milk products is actually based on infants,
since infant milk consumption is the highest
among that age group (Pennington, 1983).
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 2.71 pg/day
Adult 8.21 pg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
viii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.053 pg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
d. Index ll Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Adult
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
54
54
160
160
54
56
160
170
54
56
160
170
54
56
160
170
C-21
-------
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The landspreading of sludge
containing a high concentration of lindane is
expected to slightly increase the cancer risk due to
lindane for humans who consume animal products
derived from animals ingesting sludge-amended soils.
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
the diet of a child who ingests soil (pica child)
amended with sludge. Compares this amount with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the pica
child consumes an average of 5 g/day of sludge-
amended soil. If the RSI specific for a child is
not available, this index assumes the RSI for a
10 kg child is the same as that for a 70 kg adult.
It is thus assumed that uncertainty factors used in
deriving the RSI provide protection for the child,
taking into account the smaller body size and any
other differences in sensitivity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Assumed amount of soil in human diet (DS)
Pica child 5 g/day
Adult 0.02 g/day
The value of 5 g/day for a pica child is a
worst-case estimate employed by U.S. EPA's
Exposure Assessment Group (U.S. EPA, 1983a).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA, 1984b.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 2.71 ug/day
Adult 8.21 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.053 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
C-22
-------
d. Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
63
63
150
150
5
63
63
150
150
50
63
64
150
150
50
76
76
160
160
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The consumption of sludge-
amended soils that have received application rates
of 5 to 50 mt/ha by toddlers or adults is not
expected to increase the risk of human cancer due to
lindane above the pre-existing risk attributable to
other dietary sources of lindane. There may be an
increase of cancer risk for both toddler and adults
when soils amended with sludge at a cumulative rate
of 500 mt/ha are ingested.
5* Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
c. Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
d. Index 13 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
II. LAHDPILLIHG
A. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting from Landfilled
Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates groundwater contamination which
could occur in a potable aquifer in the landfill vicin-
ity. Uses U.S. EPA's Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
C-23
-------
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
1983b). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transport and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port parameters include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
linear, equilibrium partition coefficient representing
the ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant concentra-
tions. This partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
density and volumetric water content, are used to calcu-
late the retardation factor. A computer program (in
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of the
analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant con-
centration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computations
and parameter estimates are required for each zone. The
prediction requires evaluations of four dimensionless
input values and subsequent evaluation of the result,
through use of the computer program.
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; for organic chemicals, the
background concentration in the soil profile or aquifer
prior to release from the source is assumed to be zero;
the pollutant source is a pulse input; no dilution of the
plume occurs by recharge from outside the source area;
the leachate is undiluted by aquifer flow within the
saturated zone; concentration in the saturated zone is
attenuated only by dispersion.
C-24
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Gerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elements
between soil and a sewage sludge solution
phase. They are used here since these parti-
tioning measurements (i.e., 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 m/year
Worst • 1.6 m/year
It is conservatively assumed that sludge
leachate enters the unsaturated zone undiluted
by precipitation or other recharge, that the
total volume of liquid in the sludge leaches
out of the landfill, and that leaching is com-
plete in 5 years. Landfilled sludge is assumed
to be 20 percent solids by volume, and depth of
sludge in the landfill is 5 m in the typical
case and 10 m in the worst case. Thus, the
initial depth of liquid is 4 and 8 m, and
average yearly leachate generation is 0.8 and
1.6 m, respectively.
(c) Depth to groundwater (h)
Typical 5 m
Worst 0 m
Eight landfills were monitored throughout the
United States and depths to groundwater below
them were listed. A typical depth to ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of Om is used to
represent the situation where the bottom of the
landfill is occasionally or regularly below the
water table. The depth to groundwater must be
estimated in order to evaluate the likelihood
that pollutants moving through the unsaturated
soil will reach the groundwater.
C-26
-------
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
ill. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 mg/kg DW
Worst 0.22 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
(b) Soil half-life of pollutant (tp = 378 days
See Section 3, p. -3-2.
(c) Degradation rate (u) = 0.0018 day'1
The unsaturated zone can serve as an effective
medium for reducing pollutant concentration
through a variety of chemical and biological
decay mechanisms which transform or attenuate
the pollutant. While these decay processes are
usually complex, they are approximated here by
a first-order rate constant. The degradation
rate is calculated using the following formula:
(d) Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) =
1080 mL/g
The organic carbon partition coefficient is
multiplied by the percent organic carbon
content of soil (foc^ to derive a partition
coefficient (K^), which represents the ratio of
C-27
-------
absorbed pollutant concentration to the
dissolved (or solution) concentration. The
equation (Koc x foc) assumes that organic
carbon in the soil is the primary means of
adsorbing organic compounds onto soils. This
concept serves to reduce much of the variation
in K
-------
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc) =
0.0 (unitless)
Organic carbon content, and therefore adsorp-
tion, is assumed to be 0 in the saturated zone.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worst 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to deter-
mine the magnitude and direction of groundwater
flow. As gradient increases, dispersion is
reduced. Estimates of typical and high
gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
(b) Distance from well to landfill (AA)
Typical 100 m
Worst SO m
This distance is the distance between a land-
fill and any functioning public or private
water supply or livestock water supply.
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5 m
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well to landfill (AH), which is 100 and
SO m, respectively, for typical and worst
conditions.
(d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2 m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that pre-
existing flow is very limited and therefore
C-29
-------
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
(e) Width of landfill (U) = 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) = 0 Ug/L
It is assumed that no pollutant exists in the
soil profile or aquifer prior to release from
the source.
4. Index Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum expected
groundwater concentration of pollutant, in Mg/L, at the
well.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The landfill disposal of munici-
pal sewage sludge is generally expected to result in
slight increases in lindane concentrations in ground-
water. When the composite worst-case scenario is evalu-
ated, a moderate increase in concentration is
anticipated.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes long-term exposure to
maximum concentration at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration resulting from
landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-26.
C-30
-------
b. Average human consumption of drinking water (AC) =
2 L/day
The value of 2 L/day is a standard value used by
U.S. EPA in most risk assessment studies.
c. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
= 8,21 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
d. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.053 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value >1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of 10~6 (1 in 1,000,000). The
null index value should be used as a basis for comparison
to indicate the degree to which any risk is due to land-
fill disposal, as opposed to preexisting dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Generally, the landfill disposal
of municipal sewage sludge should not increase the risk
of cancer due to the ingestion of lindane above that nor-
mally associated with consuming groundwater. When the
worst-case scenario is evaluated, a moderate increase in
cancer risk can be expected when contaminated groundwater
is ingested.
III. INCINERATION
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, 1984a). This model uses the thermo-
dynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack gas parameters. Dilution
and dispersion of these stack gas releases were described
by the U.S. EPA13 Industrial Source Complex Long-Term
(ISCLT) dispersion model from which normalized annual
ground level concentrations were predicted (U.S. EPA,
1979). The predicted pollutant concentration can then" be
compared to a ground level concentration used to assess
risk.
C-31
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OP GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING PROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
o
ui
10
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics*1
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics*
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
0.0014
160
2
W
T
T
T
T
0.0028
160
3
T
W
T
T
T
0.0018
160
Condition of
4
T
NA
U
T
T
0.0030
160
Analysisa»b»c
S
T
T
T
W
T
0.0075
160
6
T
T
T
T
U
0.057
160
7
W
NA
W
U
U
1.3
200
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
160
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
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 (?dry^» volumetric water content (0), 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 (At,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The fluidized bed incinerator
was not chosen due to a paucity of available data.
Gradual plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly impact values can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C) -
2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a commun-
ity of approximately 400,000 people. This rate
was incorporated into the U.S. EPA-ISCLT model
based on the following input data:
EP » 360 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 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 - 26.62
Stack height - 10 m
Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (105°F)
Stack diameter - 0.80 m
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 mg/kg DW
Worst 0.22 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
C-33
-------
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)
Typical 0.05 (unitLess)
Worst 0.20 (unitLess)
These values were chosen as best approximations of
the fraction of pollutant emitted through stacks
(FarreLI, 1984). No data was available to validate
these values; however, U.S. EPA is currently testing
incinerators for organic emissions*
e. Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical 3.4 yg/m3
Worst 16.0 yg/m3
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.
f. Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (BA) = 0.00005 ug/m3
Since lindane was only infrequently detected in air
samples from 9 U.S. cities (Stanley et aL., 1971), a
value of one-haLf the detection limit of 0.1 ng/m3,
or 0.00005 yg/m3, will be used to represent a typi-
cal urban background concentration. (See Section 4,
p. 4-3.)
4. Index 1 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of ' Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.6
5.9
11
Worst Typical 1.0 2.1 20
Worst 1.0 3.2 40
a The typical (3.4 yg/m3) and worst (16.0 yg/m3) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
to the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr
DW) sludge feed rates.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected air concentration exceeds background levels due
to incinerator emissions.
C-34
-------
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The incineration of municipal
sewage sludge at typical sludge feed rates may moderately
increase lindane concentrations in air. At high feed
rates, the resulting concentration may be substantially
higher than typical urban levels.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Shows the increase in human intake expected
to result from the incineration of sludge. Ground level
concentrations for carcinogens typically were developed
based upon assessments published by the U.S. EPA Carcino-
gen Assessment Group (GAG). These ambient concentrations
reflect a dose Level which, for a lifetime exposure,
increases the risk, of cancer by 10"^.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24 hours/
day. A respiratory volume of 20 m-Vday is assumed over a
70-year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-28.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.00005 pg/m3
See Section 3, p. 3-28.
c. Cancer potency = 1.33 (mg/kg/day)~*
This potency estimate has been derived from that for
ingestion, assuming 100Z absorption for both inges-
tion and inhalation routes (see Section 3, p. 3-12).
d. Exposure criterion (EC) = 0.00263 Ug/m3
A lifetime exposure level which would result in a
10~6 cancer risk was selected as ground level con-
centration against which incinerator emissions are
compared. The risk estimates developed by CAG are
defined as the lifetime incremental cancer risk in a
hypothetical population exposed continuously
throughout their lifetime to the stated concentra-
tion of the carcinogenic agent. The exposure
criterion is calculated using the following formula:
C-35
-------
10'6 x lO^ ug/mg x 70 kg
Cancer potency x 20 m^/day
4. Index 2 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.019
0.019
0.024
0.030
0.11
0.20
Worst Typical 0.019 0.040 0.39
Worst 0.019 0.061 0.76
a The typical (3.4 yg/m3) and worst (16.0 Mg/ra3) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
to the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr
OW) sludge'feed rates.
5. Value Interpretation - Value > 1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of > 10~6 (1 per 1,000,000).
Comparison with the null index value at 0 kg/hr DW indi-
cates the degree to which any hazard is due to sludge
incineration, as opposed to background urban air
concentration.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Inhalation of emissions from
incineration of sludge may slightly increase the human
cancer risk due to lindane, above the risk posed by
background urban air concentrations of lindane.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
For che purpose of evaluating pollutant effects upon and/or
subsequent uptake by marine life as a result of sludge disposal,
two types of mixing were modeled. The initial mixing or dilution
shortly after dumping of a single load of sludge represents a high,
pulse concentration to which organisms may be exposed for short
time periods but which could be repeated frequently; i.e., every
time a recently dumped plume is encountered. A subsequent addi-
tional degree of mixing can be expressed by a further dilution.
This is defined as the average dilution occurring when a day's
worth of sludge is dispersed by 24 hours of current movement and
represents the time-weighted average exposure concentration for
organisms in the disposal area. This dilution accounts for 8 to 12
hours of the high pulse concentration encountered by the organisms
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
C-36
-------
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased concentrations in ug/L
of pollutant in seawater around an ocean disposal site
assuming initial mixing.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the background
seawater concentration of pollutant is unknown or zero.
The index also assumes that disposal is by tanker and
that the daily amount of sludge disposed is uniformly
distributed along a path transversing the site and
perpendicular to the current vector. The initial
dilution volume is assumed to be determined by path
length, depth to the pycnocline (a layer separating
surface and deeper water masses), and an initial plume
width defined as the width of tue plume four hours after
dumping. The seasonal disappearance of the pycnocline is
not considered.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Disposal conditions
Sludge Sludge Mass Length
Disposal Dumped by a of Tanker
Rate (SS) Single Tanker (ST) Path (L)
Typical 825 mt DW/day 1600 mt WW 8000 m
Worst 1650 mt DW/day 3400 mt WW 4000 m
The typical value for the sludge disposal rate assumes
that 7.5 x 10° mt WW/year are available for dumping
from a metropolitan coastal area. The conversion to
dry weight assumes 4 percent solids by weight. The
worst-case value is an arbitrary doubling of the
typical value to allow for potential future increase.
The assumed disposal practice to be followed at the
model site representative of the typical case is a
modification of that proposed for sludge disposal at
the formally designated 12-mile site in the New York
Bight Apex (City of New York, 1983). Sludge barges
with capacities of 3400 mt WW would be required to
discharge a load in no less than 53 minutes travel-
ing at a minimum speed of 5 nautical miles (9260 m)
per hour. Under these conditions, the barge would
enter the site, discharge the sludge over 8180 m and
exit the site. Sludge barges with capa'cities of
1600 mt WW would be required to discharge a load in
no less than 32 minutes traveling at a minimum speed
of 8 nautical miles (14,816 m) per hour. Under
these conditions, the barge would enter the site,
C-37
-------
discharge che sludge over 7902 m and exic Che sice.
The mean pach lengch for che Large and small Cankers
is 8041 m or approximately 8000 m. PaCh lengch is
assumed Co Lie perpendicular Co che direction of
prevailing current flow. For che cypical disposal
rate (SS) of 825 me DW/day, it is assumed that this
would be accomplished by a mixture of four 3400 mt
WW and four 1600 mt WW capacity barges. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For the worse-case disposal rate (SS) of
1650 me DW/day, eight 3400 me WW and eight 1600 me
WW capacity barges would be utilized. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For both disposal rate scenarios, there
would be a 12 to 16 hour period at night in which no
sludge would be dumped. It is assumed that under
che above described disposal operation, sludge
dumping would occur every day of che year.
The assumed disposal practice at the model site
representative of the worst case is as stated for
the typical site, except that barges would dump half
their load along a track, then turn around and
dispose of the balance along the same track in order
to prevent a barge from dumping outside of the site.
This practice would effectively halve the path
lengch compared to the typical sice.
b. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.11 mg/kg DW
Worst 0.22 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
c. Disposal site characteristics
Average
current
Depth to velocity
pycnocline (D) at site (V)
Typical 20 m 9500 m/day
Worst 5 m 4320 m/day
Typical site values are representative of a large,
deep-water site with an area of about 1500 km^
located beyond the continental shelf in the New York
Bight. The pycnocline value of 20 m chosen is the
average of the 10 to 30 m pycnocline depth range
occurring in the summer and fall; the winter and
spring disappearance of the pycnocline is not consi-
dered and so represents a conservative approach in
evaluating annual or long-term impact. The current
C-38
-------
velocity of 11 cm/sec (9500 m/day) chosen is based
on the average current velocity in this area (COM,
1984b).
Worst-case values are representative of a near-shore
New York Bight site with an area of about 20 km2.
The pycnocline value of 5 m chosen is the minimum
value of the 5 to 23 m depth range of the surface
mixed layer and is therefore a worst-case value.
Current velocities in this area vary from 0 to
30 cm/sec. A value of 5 cm/sec (4320 m/day) is
arbitrarily chosen to represent a worst-case value
(COM, 1984c).
4. Factors Considered in Initial Mixing
When a load of sludge is dumped from a moving tanker, an
immediate mixing occurs in the turbulent wake of the
vessel, followed by more gradual spreading of the plume.
The entire plume, which initially constitutes a narrow
band the length of the tanker path, moves more-or-less as
a unit with the prevailing surface current and, under
calm conditions, is not further dispersed by the current
itself. However, the current acts to separate successive
tanker loads, moving each out of the immediate disposal
path before the next load is dumped.
Immediate mixing volume after barge disposal is
approximately equal to the length of the dumping track
with a cross-sectional area about four times that defined
by the draft and width of the discharging vessel
(Csanady, 1981, as cited in NOAA, 1983). The resulting
plume is initially 10 m deep by 40 m wide (O'Connor and
Park, 1982, as cited in NOAA, 1983). Subsequent
spreading of plume band width occurs at an average rate
of approximately 1 cm/sec (Csanady et al., 1979, as cited
in NOAA, 1983). Vertical mixing is limited by the depth
of the pycnocline or ocean floor, whichever is shallower.
Four hours after disposal, therefore, average plume width
(W) may be computed as follows:
W = 40 m + 1 cm/sec x 4 hours x 3600 sec/hour x 0.01 m/cm
= 184 m = approximately 200 m
Thus the volume of initial mixing is defined by the
tanker path, a 200 m width, and a depth appropriate to
the site. For the typical (deep water) site, this depth
is chosen as the pycnocline value of 20 m. For the worst
(shallow water) site, a value of 10 m was chosen. At
times the pycnocline may be as shallow as 5 m, but since
che barge wake causes initial mixing to at least 10 m,
the greater value was used.
C-39
-------
5. Index 1 Values
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)
825
1650
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0 0.00022 0.00022
0.0 0.00044 0.00044
0.0 0.0019
0.0 0,0037
0.0019
0.0037
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
in lindane concentration in seawater around a disposal
site as a result of sludge disposal after initial mixing.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Only slight increases of lindane
occur at the disposal site after sludge dumping and
initial mixing.
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased effective concentra-
tions in ug/L of pollutant in seawater around an ocean
disposal site utilizing a time weighted average (TWA)
concentration. The TWA concentration is that which would
be experienced by an organism remaining stationary (with
respect to the ocean floor) or moving randomly within the
disposal vicinity. The dilution volume is determined by
the tanker path length and depth to pycnocline or, for
the shallow water site, the 10 m effective mixing depth,
as before, but the effective width is now determined by
current movement perpendicular to the tanker path over 24
hours.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Incorporates all of the assump-
tions used to calculate Index 1. In addition, it is
assumed that organisms would experience high-pulsed
sludge concentrations for 8 to 12 hours per day and then
experience recovery (no exposure to sludge) for 12 to 16
hours per day. This situation can be expressed by the
use of a TWA concentration of sludge constituent.
3. Data Used and Rationale
See Section 3, pp. 3-31 to 3-33.
4. Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, p. 3-34.
C-40
-------
S. Index 2 Values (ug/L)
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical Typical 0.0 0.000059 0.00012
Worst 0.0 0.00012 0.00024
Worst Typical 0.0 0.00052 0.0010
Worst . 0.0 0.0010 0.0021
•6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the effective
increase in lindane concentration expressed as a TWA con-
centration in seawater around a disposal site experienced
by an organism over a 24-hour period.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Only slight increases in lindane
concentrations are apparent after 24-hour dumping cycle.
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Explanation - Compares the effective increased concentra-
tion of pollutant in seawater around the disposal site
resulting from the initial mixing of sludge (Index 1)
with the marine ambient water quality criterion of the
pollutant, or with another value judged protective of
marine aquatic life. For lindane, this value is the
criterion that will protect marine aquatic organisms from
both acute and chronic toxic effects.
Wherever a short-term, "pulse" exposure may occur as it
would from initial mixing, it is usually evaluated using
the "maximum" criteria values of EPA's ambient water
quality criteria methodology. However, under this scena-
rio, because the pulse is repeated several times daily on
a long-term basis, potentially resulting in an accumula-
tion of injury, it seems more appropriate to use values
designed to be protective against chronic toxicity.
Therefore, to evaluate the potential for adverse effects
on marine life resulting from initial mixing concentra-
tions, as quantified by Index 1, the chronically derived
criteria values are used.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
stated for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that all of the
released pollutant is available in the water column to
move through predicted pathways (i.e., sludge to seawater
to aquatic organism to man). The possibility of effects
arising from accumulation in the sediments is neglected
since the U.S. EPA presently lacks a satisfactory method
for deriving sediment criteria.
c-41
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-34.
b. Ambient water quality criterion (AHQC) = 0.16 yg/L
Water quality criteria for the toxic pollutants
listed under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 were developed by the U.S. EPA under
Section 304(a)(l) of the Act. These criteria were
derived by utilization of data reflecting the resul-
tant environmental impacts and human health effects
of these pollutants if present in any body of water.
The criteria values presented in this assessment are
excerpted from the ambient water quality criteria
document for hexachlorocyclohexane.
The 0.16 Ug/L value chosen as the criterion to pro-
tect saltwater organisms is based on acute toxicity
data for marine fish and invertebrate species
exposed to lindane. No data for the chronic effects
of lindane on marine organisms are presently avail-
able (U.S. EPA, 1980), (See Section 4, p. 4-9.)
4. Index 3 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0014
0.0028
0.0014
0.0028
Worst Typical 0.0 0.012 0.012
Worst 0.0 0.023 0.023
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the factor by which
the expected seawater concentration increase in lindane
exceeds the protective value. A value >1 indicates that
acute or chronic toxic conditions may exist for organisms
at the site.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Only slight to moderate incre-
mental increases in hazard to aquatic life were deter-
mined via this assessment. No toxic conditions occur via
any of the scenarios evaluated.
C-42
-------
D. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Explanation - Estimates the expected increase in human
pollutant intake associated with the consumption of
seafood, a fraction of which originates from the disposal
site vicinity, and compares the total expected pollutant
intake with the cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the
pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
listed for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that the seafood
tissue concentration increase can be estimated from the
increased water concentration by a bioconcentration
factor. It also assumes that, over the long term, the
seafood catch from the disposal site vicinity will be
diluted to some extent by Che catch from uncontaminated
areas.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 2)
See Section 3, p. 3-3S.
Since bioconcentration is a dynamic and reversible
process, it is expected that uptake of sludge
pollutants by marine organisms at the disposal site
will reflect TWA concentrations, as quantified by
Index 2, rather than pulse concentrations.
b. Dietary consumption of seafood (QP)
Typical 14.3 g WW/day
Worst 41.7 g WW/day
Typical and worst-case values are the mean and the
95th percentile, respectively, for all seafood
consumption in the United States (Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) International, 1980).
c. Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (PS)
For a typical harvesting scenario, it was assumed
that the total catch over a wide region is mixed by
harvesting, marketing and consumption practices, and
that exposure is thereby diluted. Coastal areas
have been divided by the National Marine Fishery
Service (NMFS) into reporting areas for reporting on
data on seafood landings. Therefore ic was conven-
ient to express the total area affected by sludge
disposal as a fraction of an NMFS reporting area.
C-43
-------
The area used Co represent Che disposal impact area
should be an approximation of Che total ocean area
over which Che average concentration defined by
Index 2 is roughly applicable. The average rate of
plume spreading of 1 cm/sec referred to earlier
amounts Co approximately 0.9 km/day. Therefore, the
combined plume of all sludge dumped during one
working day will gradually spread, both parallel to
and perpendicular to current direction, as it pro-
ceeds down-current. Since Che concentration has
been averaged over the direction of current flow,
spreading in this dimension will not further reduce
average concentration; only spreading in the perpen-
dicular dimension will reduce the average. If sta-
ble conditions are assumed over a period of days, at
least 9 days would be required to reduce the average
concentration by one-half. Ac that time, the origi-
nal plume length of approximately 8 km (8000 n) will
have doubled Co approximately 16 km due to
spreading.
It is probably unnecessary Co follow the plume
further since storms, which would result in much
more rapid dispersion of pollutants to background
concentracions are expected on at least a 10-day
frequency (NOAA, 1983). Therefore, the area
impacted by sludge disposal (AI, in km2) at each
disposal site will be considered to be defined by
the Canker path length (L) times Che distance of
current movement (V) during 10 days, and is computed
as follows:
AI-lOxLxVx 10"6 km2/m2 (1)
To be consistent with a conservative approach, plume
dilution due to spreading in the perpendicular
direction to current flow is disregarded. More
likely, organisms exposed to the plume in the area
defined by equation 1 would experience a TWA concen-
tration lower than the concentration expressed by
Index 2.
Next, Che value of AI muse be expressed as a
fraccion of an NMFS reporting area. In the New York
Bight, which includes NMFS areas 612-616 and 621-
623, deep-water area 623 has an area of
approximately 7200 km2 and constitutes approximately
0.02 percent of the total seafood landings for the
Bight (CDM, 1984b). Near-shore area 612 has an area
of approximately 4300 km2 and constitutes
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (CDM, 1984c). Therefore the fraction of
all seafood landings (FSt) from the Bight which
could originate from the area of impact of either
r-44
-------
the typical (deep-water) or worst (near-shore) site
can be calculated for this typical harvesting
scenario as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
_, AI x 0.021 - (2)
FS* 7200
[10 x 8000 m x 9500 m x 10"6 Vat/m2] x 0.0002 3 2 1 x 10~5
7200 km2
For the worst (near shore) site: •
FSt a AI_x_24Z . (3)
4300 lun2
flO x 4000 m x 4320 m x HT6 km2/m2] x 0.24 . , 1n_3
- _ y.a x ^u •*
4300 km2
To construct a worst-case harvesting scenario, it
was assumed that the total seafood consumption for
an individual could originate from an area more
limited than the entire New York Bight. For
example* a particular fisherman providing the entire
seafood diet for himself or others could fish
habitually within a single NMFS reporting area. Or,
. an individual could have a preference for a
particular species which is taken only over a more
limited area, here assumed arbitrarily to equal an
NMFS. reporting area. The fraction of consumed
seafood (FSW) that could originate from the area of
impact under this worst-case scenario is calculated
as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:.
AI
,
7200 km2
0.11 (4)
For the worst (near shore) site:
AI
4300 km2
FSW » .. *A „ = 0.040 (5)
d. Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (BCP) =
130 L/kg
The value chosen is the weighted average BCF of
technical grade BHC (39Z lindane) for the edible
portion of all freshwater and estuarine aquatic
organisms consumed by U.S. citizens (U.S. EPA,
1980). No lindane-specific BCF is presently
available. The weighted average BCF is derived as
C-45
-------
pare of Che water quality criteria developed by the
U.S. EPA to protect human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of lindane induced by ingestion
of contaminated water and aquatic organisms.
Although no measured steady-state BCF is available
for Lindane or any of its isotners, the BCF of lin-
dane for aquatic organisms containing about 7.6 per-
cent lipids can be estimated from the octanol-water
partition coefficient. The weighted average BCF is
derived by application of an adjustment factor to
correct for the 3 percent lipids content of consumed
fish and shellfish (U.S. EPA, 1980). It should be
noted that lipids of marine species differ in both
Structure and quantity from those of freshwater spe-
cies. Although a BCF value calculated entirely from
marine data would be more appropriate for this
assessment, no such data are presently available.
e. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
• 8.21 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-11.
f. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) s 0.053 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
•4. Index 4 Values
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge Seafood
teristics Concentration4 Intake* »b
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Sludge Disposal
Rate (me DW/dav)
0
ISO
ISO
150
ISO
825
150
150
150
150
1650
150
150
150
150
* All possible combinations of these values are not
presented. Additional combinations may be calculated
using the formulae in the Appendix.
D Refers to both the dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
and the fraction of consumed seafood originating from
the disposal site (FS). "Typical" indicates the use of
the typical-case values for both of these parameters;
"worst" indicates the use of the worst-case values for
both.
046
-------
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which the
expected intake exceeds the RSI. A value >1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the null
index value at 0 mt/day indicates the degree to which any
hazard is due to sludge disposal, as opposed to preexist-
ing dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - No increase of risk to human
health from consumption of seafood is expected to occur
due to the ocean disposal of sludge.
C-47
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR LINDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
Hexachlorocyclohexane is a broad spectrum
insecticide of the group of cyclic chlorinated
hydrocarbons called organochlorine insecticides.
Lindane is the common name approved by the
International Standards Organization for the
Y-isomers of 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane.
BHC is the common name for the mixed configura-
tional isomers of 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclo-
hexane, although the terms BHC and benzene
hexachloride are misnomers for this aliphatic
compound and should not be confused with aromatic
compounds of similar structure, such as the
aromatic compound hexachlorobenzene.
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
In samples from 40 waste treatment
plants, lindane occurred in influent
and effluent but not in sludges (438
samples)
2. Concentration
Lindane not found in Denver-metro
sludge
Alpha-BHC occurred at 20 ng/g (WW) in
waste-activated sludge
<500 Ug/L in Chicago sludge
Summary of lindane in sludge of 74
cities in Missouri (ug/g DW)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. A-l, A-2)
Median
0.11
Min. Max.
0.05 0.22
B. Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
0.9Z positive detection in Florida
soils, 1969
C-48
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 36, 39, 41)
Baxter et al.,
1983a (p. 315)
Jones and Lee,
1977 (p. 52)
Clevenger
et al., 1983
(p. 1471)
Mattraw, 1975
(p. 109)
-------
Not detected in cropland soil from
37 states, 1973
1 detection out of 1,483 samples for
benzene hexachloride
2. Concentration
Concentration of gamma-BHC (lindane)
in various soils (data 1971 or earlier)
Mean Maximum
(yg/g) (ug/g)
Carey et al.,
1979 (p. 212)
Orchard
Horticultural
Agricultural
Pasture
Noncropland
Desert
o.os
0.001
0.26
0.04
-
0.20
0.06
O.OS
0.60
1.40
-
0.30
Trace to 0.26 Ug/g lindane in U.S. soils
Lindane was not detected in soil
samples from Everglades National Park
and adjacent areas
C. Hater - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
a. Freshwater
Trace to 0.7 ug/L lindane in U.S.
waters (data 1965-1971)
Detectable but not quantifiable
amounts of lindane were found in
the Creat Lakes.
Trace to 0.28 Wg/L gamma-BHC in U.S.
water systems (1965-67 data)
b. Seawater
Data not available for seawater
concentrations
Edwards, 1973
(p. 417)
Matsumura, 1972a
(p. 47)
Requejo et al.,
1979, (p. 934)
Edwards, 1973
(p. 441)
Glooschenko
et al., 1976
(p. 63)
Matsumura
1972a (p. 42)
C-49
-------
c. Drinking Water •
0.01 Ug/L highest Level observed
in finished water
4.0 Ug/L criteria for domestic
water supply (health)
56 Wg/L permissible criteria
for lindane in public water
supplies
Finished water in Streator, IL
found to contain 4 Ug/L of lindane
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
Not detected in air of 6 agriculutral,
1 city, and 1 suburban sites
Lindane occurrence in 9 U.S. cities
(detection limit * 0.1 ng/m3):
4 of 123 samples, Baltimore, MD
0 of 57 samples, Buffalo, NY
0 of 90 samples, Dothan, AL
0 of 120 samples, Fresno, CA
1 of 94 samples, Iowa City, IA
0 of 99 samples, Orlando, PL
0 of 94 samples, Riverside, CA
24 of 100 samples, Salt Lake City, UT
0 of 98 samples, Stoneville, MS
2. Concentration
NAS, 1977
'(p. 794)
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. 157)
Edwards, 1973
(p. 449)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-5)
Edwards, 1971
(p. 18)
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
Urban
Maximum pesticide levels in 3
U.S. cities:
2.6 ng/m^, Baltimore
0.1 ng/m^, Iowa City
7.0 ng/nr3, Sale Lake City
b. Rural
alpha-BHC 0.25 ng/m3 mean,
0.075 to 0.57 ng/m3 at Enewetak
Atoll
gamma-BBC 0.015 ng/m3 mean,
0.006 to 0.021 ng/m^ range
at Enewetak Atoll
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
Atlas and Giam,
1980 (p.163)
C-50
-------
B. Pood
1. Total Average Intake
10 ug/kg body weight/day acceptable
PAD/WHO intake
Total relative daily intake ug/kg
body weight/day
FY75
FY76
FY77
FY78
0.0031 0.0026 0.0038 0.0024
FDA, 1979
FDA, 1979
2. Frequency of Detection and Concentration
Frequency and range of lindane in
food1 groups (number of occurrence
out of 20 composites)
Food Group
Occurrence
Dairy
Meat/fish
Grain & cereals
Potatoes
Leafy vegetables
Legumes
Root vegetables
Garden fruit
Fruit
Oils/fats
Sugars
Range
1
3
1
T*-0.005 Ug/g
* T » Trace
Lindane residues in milk and milk
products (1,169 samples) in Illinois
1971-1976:
Number of positive: 857
Z positive: 73
Mean: 0.01 Ug/g
Range: 0.00 to <0.20 Ug/g
Out of 360 composite market basket
samples (1972-3), 39 contained
lindane. Thirteen contained trace
levels and 26 contained levels ranging
from 0.0003 to 0.006 Ug/g. Occurrences
by food class were as follows:
FDA, 1979
Wedberg et al.,
1978 (p. 164)
Johnson and
Manske, 1976
(p. 160-166)
C-51
-------
No. Positive Range
Samples (ug/g)
Dairy produces 7 out of 30 T-0.0006
Meat, fish, &
poultry 16 out of 30 T-0.003
Garden fruits
Sugars and
adjuncts
Potatoes.
1 out of 30
0.006
11 out of 30 T-0.002
1 out of 30 0.001
Llndane residues (Ug/g) in four market
basket samples:
Ice cream
Cheese
Roast beef
Ground beef
Pish
Lunch meat
Frankfurters
Ham
Lamb
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.004
0.027
T-0.002
0.003
T
T
Johnson and
Manske, 1976
(p. 168-9)
Out of 420 composite market basket
samples (1971-2), 17 contained lindane.
Eleven contained trace levels and 6
contained levels ranging from 0.001 to
0.005 Ug/g. Occurrences by food class
were as follows:
Manske and
Johnson, 1975
No. Positive
Samples
Range
(Ug/g)
Meat, fish, &
poultry
Grain & cereal
Root vegetables
Garden fruits
Sugars &
adjuncts
5 out of 35
3 out of 35
1 out of 35
1 out of 35
T-0.001
T-0.002
T
T
6 out of 35 T-0.007
C-52
-------
II. HUMAH EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1 . Care inogeni city
a. Qualitative Asses
No epideaioiogical studies of cancer
in humans associated with exposure
to lindane have been reported.
However, Liver tumors have been
observed in mice given oral doses
of 52 mg/Icg/day. In order to
report the most conservative case,
lindane has been assumed to be a
possible carcinogen to humans.
b. Potency
Cancer potency * 1.33 (mg/kg/day)~*
Derived from mice research in which
oral doses of lindane resulted in
liver tumors.
2. Chronic Toxicity
The recommended long-term ADI is equal
to 0.023 mg/day. This value is based on
a NOAEL of 4 ppm dietary lindane given
to rats for 84 consecutive days.
3. Absorption Factor
absorption in rats
4. Existing Regulations
Water quality criteria for human health
have been developed.
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. 16)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-62)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p, C-62)
U.S. EPA, 1985
(p. 1-4)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. 3)
U.S. EPA, 1980
C-53
-------
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenic!ty
a. Qualitative Assessment
Based on mice studies where car-
cinogenic effects were observed,
lindane has been assumed to be
a possible human carcinogen so
as to project a conservative case.
b. Potency
Cancer potency » 1.33 (mg/kg/day)""1
This potency estimate has been
derived from that for ingestion,
assuming 100Z absorption for both
ingestion and inhalation routes.
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Tozicity
Data not evaluated since assessment
based on carcinogenicity.
3* Absorption Factor
Pertinent data regarding absorption of
lindane following inhalation exposure
could not be located in the available
literature.
4. Existing Regulations
American Conference of Governmental and
Industrial Hygienists have set a time
weighted average - threshold limit value
at 0.5 mg/m^, and a short-term exposure
limit of 1.5
III. PLAHT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
See Table 4-1.
From- data pre-
sented in U.S.
EPA, 1980
(p. C-62)
Values derived
from data pre-
sented in U.S.
EPA, 1980
(p. C-62)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. 3)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p. 23)
C-54
-------
B. Uptake
0.6 Ug/g. lindane in maize,, 3 crop periods Finlayson and
following 2.3 kg/ha application to soil MacCarthy, 1973
(p. 63)
IV. DOMESTIC AMIMAL AMD WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-2.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-3.
Uptake data for pure lindane were not found in
the available literature.
Concentration of lindane in fatty tissue of Uansen et al.,
cows overwintered two seasons on sludge- 1981 (p. 1015)
amended plots:
Pat Concentration
Sludge Application Rate (Ug/g
Control 3+2
126 t/ha 2 * 1
252 t/ha ~<1
504 t/ha <1
0.010 ug/g (WW) alpha-BHC in fat of cattle Baxter et al.,
feeding on sludge-amended plots with 1983b (p. 318)
0.020 Ug/g alpha-BHC in sludge
0.030 Ug/kg alpha-BHC in control cattle
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
a. Acute
Acute" toxicity has been observed U.S. EPA, 1980
over a range of 2 Wg/L to 141 ug/L (p. B-2)
for brown crout and goldfish,
respectively.
C-55
-------
b. Chronic
Freshwater invertebrates displayed U.S. EPA, 1980
a range of chronic toxicity of (p. B-4)
of 3.3 Ug/L to 14. 5 yg/L.
A freshwater vertebrate (fathead U.S. EPA, 1980
minnow) had a chronic value of (p. B-5)
14.6 Ug/L.
2. Saltwater " <
a. Acute
Ambient saltwater quality criteria U.S. EPA, 1980
-for lindane is 0.16 Ug/L (p. vi)
Saltwater invertebrates display a U.S. EPA, 1980
range of acute toxicity from (p. B-3)
. 0.17 Ug/L to 3,680 Ug/L.
LC5Q value for pinfish and sheephead U.S. EPA, '1980
minnows are 30.6 Ug/L and (p. B-4)
103.9 Ug/L, respectively.
b. Chronic
Data not immediately available.
B. Uptake
The bioconcentration factor for freshwater U.S. EPA, 1980
species ranges from 35 to 486. (p. B-22)
The weighted average bioconcencration factor U.S. EPA,
for the edible portion of all freshwater and (p. C-6, C-7)
estuarine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S.
citizens was generated using technical grade
BHC which contained 39. OZ lindane. The
resulting value is 130.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See 'Table 4-4.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-5.
C-56
-------
VII. PHYSIOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT
Chemical name: gamma-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, -
hexachlorocyclohexane
Vapor pressure of lindane (ganma-BHC) at 20°C
(on Hg): 9.4 z 10'6
lindane described as volatile
Water solubility of lindane at 20 to 30°C:
10 rng/L
Lindane is immobile to slightly mobile in
soils (Rf » 0.09 to 0.00)
36-month persistence in soils
Half-life in soil: 56 days in clay loam,
378 days in sandy loam
General persistence of lindane in soils:
95Z disappearance * 6.5 years
75-100Z disappearance * 3 years
Melting point * 65*C
Molecular weight » 290.0
Ganma-BHC (lindane) is the actual insecti-
cidal principle of BHC. Aside from gamma-BHC,
perhaps the most important terminal residue
arising from the use of BHC is beta-BHC. This
isomer appears to be the most stable one, among
others, and is the factor causing the eventual
increase of beta-BHC in the environment, in
comparison to other sources.
In a micro agro ecosystem study, lindane was
applied to the soil (65.4 mg) and after 11
days, 51.2 mg (78.32) had volatilized and
8.51 mg (13Z) remained on the soil surface.
Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc):
1,080 mL/g
Edwards, 1973
(p. 433)
Edwards, 1973
(p. 447)
Lawless et al.,
1975 (p. 57)
Lawless et al.,
1975 (p'. 52)
U.S. EPA, 1984a
(p.l)
Matsumura,
1972a (p. 39)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. A-l)
Matsumura,
1972b (p. 527)
Nash, 1983
(p. 214)
Hassett et al.,
1983
057
-------
TABLE 4-1. PHVTOTOXICITY Of LINDANE
Chemical
Plant/Tittue For* Applied
Stringiest black Lindane
valentine beans/
seed
Stringiest black Lindane
valentine bean/
root
Stnngleit black Lindane
valentine bean/
root
Stringiest black Lindane
valentine bean/
root
Stringiest black Lindane
1* valentine bean/
Ui top
Stringlett black Lindane
valentine bean/
top
Stringlett black Lindane
valentine bean
top
Stringiest black BHCb
valentine bean/
root
Stringiest black BHC
valentine bean/
root
Stringiest black BHC
valentine bean/
root
Stringiest black BHC
valentine bean/
top
Control Tissue Boil
Concentration Concentration
Sotl Type (pg/g DU) (jlg/g DU)
loatjy sand NR* 12.5-100
loaaiy aand NR 12.5
loaaiy aand NR 50
loaaiy aand NR 100
loamy sand NR 12.5
loaaiy aand NR 50
loaaiy aand NR 100
loaaiy sand NR 12.)
loaaiy sand NR 50
loaaiy aand NH 100
loa*y sand NH 12.5
Application
•ate
(kg/ha)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
fUperiswntal
Tissue
Concentration
(MB/8 DU) Effects
NR No significant effect
on gemination
NR 2TX reduced weight
NR 47X reduced weight
NR 72X reduced weight
NR No effect
NR 13X reduced weight
NR 37X reduced weight
NR 46X reduced weight
NR • 68X reduced weight
NR B4Z reduced weight
NR lit reduced weight
References
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Bno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Bno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett. 1958
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Bno and
Everett, 1956
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
-------
TABU 4-1. (continue*)
Ul
Control Tissue
PI ant /Tissue
Stringless black
valentine bean/
top
Stringless black
valentine bean/
top
Sugarcane roots
Sugarcane roots
Cheaucal
form Applied
BHC
BHC
BHC
BHC
Soil Type
louy sand
loamy sand
MB
MB
Concentration
(MI/I w)
MB
MB
MB
MB
Soil
Concentration
(MI/I W)
SO
100
10 •
11-400
Application
Bate
(kg/ha)
NB
NB
NB
NB
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(MI/I »0
NB
NB
NB
MB
Effects
J7X reduced weight
70Z reduced weight
No effect
Increasingly shorter
and fewer roots
Beferences
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 2)6)
Eno and
Everett, |958
(p. 236)
MAS. 1968
(p. 19)
MAS, 1961
(p. 19)
• NB « Mot reported
b BHC • Benzene hexachlonde, a trade nasw for the insecticide, hexachlorocyclohe*ane.
-------
TABLE 4-2. TOXICITY OP LINDANB TO DOMESTIC ANIHALS AMD WILDLIFE
Specie* (H)*
Ha I lard
Dog
Rat
Bat
Cow
Cow
Nice
0 Bat*
ff>
O Guinea pigs
Rabbits
Rat* (50)
Bat* (50)
Rat* (30)
Cheat ca I
Fora Fed
BHC-25X g.i.b
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
BHCd - gamma
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Lindane
Feed
Concentration
(Mf/S W)
NR
IS
100
<40
NR
MH
MB
MR
MR
MR
25
SO
100
Uater
Concentration
2,000
0.3
NR
*
NR
200
140-22S
86
125-230
100-127
60-200
NR
NR
.
NR
Duration
of Study
NR
NR
2 yr
2 yr
1 day
1 day
NR
NR
NR
NR
2 yr
2 yr
2 yr
Effect*
U>50
No effect
•
Liver change
Mo effect
Lethal
Fatal doae
LDjo
U>50
LD$0
LD50
No effect
Hypertrophy* of liver
Hypertrophy of liver
and fatty ti**ue
degeneration
Reference*
Tucker and
Crabtree, 1970
(p. 76)
U.S., EPA, 1976
(p. 1S7)
MAS, 1977
(p. 587)
MAS, 1977
(p. 587)
Hcfarland et al.,
1971 (p. 370)
Mcrarland et al..
1973 (p. 370)
NHC, 1982
(p. 30)
MRC, 1982
(p. 30)
NRC, 1982
(p. 30)
MRC, 1982
(p. 30)
NRC, 1982
(p.' 30)
NRC, 1982
(p. 30)
NRC, 1982
(p. 30)
• N • Number of experimental aniaala.
*> g.l. • gamma noroer.
c NR - Not reported.
d BHC * Benzenehexachloride, a trade name tor the iniecucide heiachlorocyclohesane.
-------
TABLE 4-). UPTAKE OF LINDANB IV DQNBSTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
O
Species
Cow
Bat
Bat
Feed
Chearical Concentration!
Fora Fed
-------
TABLE 4-4. TOXICITY OF LINDANE TO SOIL BIOTA
10
Specie*
Bacteria/fungi
Bacteria/fungi
Soil me robe*
Red worm
Red war**
Red wora*
Soil Microbe*
CheMical
For*
Applied
Lindane
BHCb
BUG (BOMJM)
t
BHC-H g.i.c
BIIC-3J g.i.
BHC-JI g.i.
Ltndane
Control Ti**u«
Concentration
Soil Type (pg/g W)
fin* *and MR*
fin* *«nd MR
t
• ilty IOM MR
.
•andy IOOM MR
•andy loo*) NR
••ndy IOM NR
••ndy loam NR
Soil
Concentration
(Mg/g OW)
12.5- 100
12.S-100
MR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Application
Rate
(kg/lu)
NR'
.
NR
0.28-22.4
35, B
71.7
141.4
1.12
Enperiaental
Ti**ue
Concentration
(Mg/» W)
MR
MR
MR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Effect*
Ho effect on nuaber*
of bacteria and fungi
12X reduction of fungi
at 50.0 pg/g
15S reduction of fungi
•t 100 pg/g
Holdat no •ignificant
or con*i*tent effect
but *o«e depre**ion
of number*
Bacterial no aignifi-
cant effect except for
• 501 reduction in
•treptoaycete* at 22.4
kg/h*
No Mortality
Wl Mrtality
100X Mortality
Mo •ignificant effect
R*f*r*nce*
Eno and
Everett, 195g
(p. 2J5)
Baa *nd
Bv*r*tt, 19S0
(p. 215)
Ballen *t *l.t
19S4 (p. 30))
Napkin* et •!.,
1957
Martin et al.,
1959 (p. 937)
• NR * Not reported.
" BHC = Benxenehexichluride, a trade ntme far the insecticide he>achlorocyclohe>ane.
c g.i. * gamma tsonter.
-------
TABLE 4-5. UPTAKE OP LINDANB IV SOIL BIOTA
a\
U)
Species
Earthworks
• MB » Not repc
Cheat cat farm
Applied
Lindane
irted.
Soil
Type
MB*
Soil Concentration Range of Tissue
(pf/f) Concentration (MK/g)
I 0.45-1.05
Uptake
factor
0.45-1.05
•efarancas
Vadav at al.,
(p. S42)
1916
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Atlasf 8., and C. S. Giam. 1980. Global Transport of Organic
Pollutants in the Remote Marine Atmosphere. Science. 211:163-165.
Baron R. L., F. Copeland, and M. F. Walton. 1975. In; Environmental
Quality and Safety, Supplement Vol. III. F. Coulston and F. Korte
(eds.), G. Thieme Publishers, Stuttgart, p. 355. (Cited in Geyer
et al., 1980.)
Baxter, J. C.,. M. Aquilar, and K. Brown. 1983a. Heavy Metals and
Persistent Organics at a Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. J. Environ.
Qual. 12(3):311-315.
Baxter, J. C., D. E. Johnson, and E. W. Kienholz. 1983b. Heavy Metals
and Persistent Organics Content in Cattle Exposed to Sewage Sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. 12<3):311-319.
Bertrand, J. E., M. C. Lutrick, G. T. Edds> -and R. L. West. 1981.
Metal Residues in Tissues, Animal Performance and Carcass Quality
with Beef Steers Grazing Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures Treated with
Liquid Digested Sludge. J. Ani. Sci. 53:1.
Bollen, W., H. E. Morrison, and H. H. Crowell. 1954. Effect of Field
Treatments of Insecticides on Numbers of Bacteria, Streptomyces,
and Molds in the Soil. J. Econ. Ent. 47(2):302-306.
Boswell, F. C. 1975. Municipal Sewage Sludge and Selected Element
Application to Soil: Effect on Soil and Fescue. J. Environ. Qual.
4(2):267-273.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984a. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984b. Technical Review of the 106-Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract No.
68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. January.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984c. Technical Review of the 12-Mile
Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. May.
Carey, A. E., J. A. Gowen, H. Tai, et al. 1979. Pesticide Residue in
Soils and Crops from 37 States, 1972 - National Soils Monitoring
Program (IV). Pest. Monit. J. 12(4) :209-229.
C-64
-------
Chancy, R. L., and C. A. Lloyd. 1979. Adherence of Spray-Applied
Liquid Digested Sewage Sludge Co Tall Fescue. J. Environ. Qual.
8(3):407-411.
City of Mew York Department of' Environmental Protection. 1983. A
Special Permit Application for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge from
Twelve Mew York City Water Pollution Control Plants at the 12-Mile
Site. Mew York, MY. December.
Claborn, H. V. 1960. Pesticide Residues in Meat and Milk. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. ARS-33-63. (Cited in Kenaga, 1980.)
*
Clevenger, T. E., D. D. Hemphill, K. Roberts, and W. A. Mullins. 1.983.
Chemical Composition and Possible Jiutagenicity of Municipal
Sludges. J. WPCF. 55(12):1470-1475.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Edwards, C. A. 1971. Persistent Pesticides in the Environment. CRC
Press, Cleveland, OH.
Edwards, C.' A. 1973. Pesticide Residues in Soil and Water. In;
Edwards, C. A. (ed.), Environmental Pollution by Pesticides.
Academic Press, Mew York, MY.
Eno, C., and P. Everett. 1958. Effects of Soil Applications of 10
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides on Soil Microorganisms and the
Growth of Stringless Black Valentine Beans. Soil Sci. Soc. Proc.
22:235-238.
Parrel1, J. B. 1984. Personal Communication. Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. December.
Finlayson, D. G., and H. R. MacCarthy. 1973. Pesticide Residues in
Plants. In; Edwards, C.A. (ed.), Environmental Pollution by
Pesticides. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Food and Drug Administration. 1979. Compliance Program Report of
Findings. FY78 Total Diet Studies - Adult (7305.003).
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L. W., and G. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogenous Aquifers. Report
No. H-"8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, NM.
Gerritse, R. G., R. Vriesema, J. W. Dalenberg, and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.
C-65
-------
£eyer, H.f A. G. Kraus, W. Klein, E. Richter, and P. Korte. 1980.
. Relationship .Between Water Solubility and Bioaccumulation Potential
of Organic Chemicals in Rats. Chemosphere 9:277-291.
Glooachenko, W. A., W. H. Strachan, and R. C. Sampson. 1976.
Distribution of Pesticides and Pol/chlorinated Biphenyls in Water,
Sediments, and Seston of the Upper Great Lakes - 1974. Pest.
Honit. J. 10(2):61-67.
Griffin, R. A. 1984. Personal Communication to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ECAO - Cincinnati, OH. Illinois State
Geological Survey.
Hansen, L. G., P. W. Wa.shko, L. G. Tuinstra, S. B. Dorn, and T. D.
HinesLy. 1981. Pol/chlorinated Biphenyl, Pesticide, and Heavy
Metal Resides in Swine Foraging on Sewage Sludge Amended Soils. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 29:1012-1017.
Uassett, J. J., W. L. Banwart, and R. A. Griffin. 1983. Correlation of
Compound Properties * with Sorption Characteristics of Non-Polar
Compounds by Soils and Sediments: Concepts and Limitations.
Chapter IS. In; The Environment and Solid Waste Characterization,
Treatment and Disposal - Proc. 4th Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Life Science Symposium, October 4, 1981, Gatlinburg, TN., C. W.
Francis and I. Auerbach (eds.), Ann Arbor Science Pub.
Hopkins, A., and V. Kirk. 19S7. Effect of Several Insecticides on the
English Red Worm. J. Econ. Ent. 50(5):699-700.
Jacobs,- A., M. Blangetti, and E. Hellmund. 1974. Vom Wasser 43:259-
273. (Cited in Geyer et al., 1980.)
Johnson, R., and D. Manske. 1976. Pesticide Residues in Total Diet
Samples (IX). Pest Honit. J. 9(4):157-169.
Jones, R. A., and G. F. Lee. 1977. Chemical Agents of Potential Health
Significance for Land Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Effluents
and Sludges. In: Sagik, B.P., and C.A. Sorber (eds.), Risk
Assessment and Health Effects of Land Application of Municipal
Wastewater and Sludges. University of Texas, Center for Applied
Research and Technology, San Antonio, TX.
Kenaga, E. E. 1980. Correlation of Bioconcentration Factors of
Chemicals in Aquatic and Terrestrial Organisms with Their Physical
and Chemical Properties. Environ. Sci. Technol. 14:553-556.
Lawless, E. W., T. L. Ferguson, and A. F. Meiners. 1975. Guidelines
for the Disposal of Small Quantities of Unused Pesticides. EPA-
670/2-75-057. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH.
Manske, D., and R. Johnson. 1975. Pesticide Residues in the Total Diet
Samples (VIII). Pest. Monit. J. 9(2):94-105.
066
-------
Martin, J., R. B. Harding, G. H. Cannell, and L. D. Anderson. 1959.
Influence of Five Annual Field Applications of Organic Insecticides
on Soil Biological and Physical Properties. Soil Sci. 87:334-338.
Matsumura, F. 1972a. Current Pesticide Situation in the United States.
In: Matsumura, F. (ed.), Environmental Toxicology of Pesticides.
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Matsumura, F. 1972b. Biological Effects of Toxic Pesticidal
Contaminants and Terminal Residues. In: Matsumura, F. (ed.),
Environmental Toxicology of Pesticides. Academic Press, New York,
NY.
Mattraw, H. C. 1975. Occurrence of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Insecticides, Southern Florida, 1968-1972. Pest. Monit. J.
9<2):106-114.
McParland, P. J., R. M. McCracken, M. B. O'Hare, and A. M. Raven. 1973.
Benzene Hexachloride Poisoning in Cattle. Vet. Record. 369-371.
Nash, R. 1983. Comparative Volatilization and Dissipation Rates of
Several Pesticides from Soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 31:210-217.
National Academy of Sciences. 1968. Effects of Pesticides on Fruit and
Vegetable Physiology. Publication 1698.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Drinking Water and Health.
Washington, D.C. NAS, National Review Council Safe Drinking Water
Committee.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1983. Northeast
Monitoring Program 106-Mile Site Characterization .Update. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-26. U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. August.
Pennington, J.A.T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Requejo, A. G., R. H. West, P. G. Hatcher, and McGillivary. 1979.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Chlorinated Pesticides in Soils of
the Everglades National Park and Adjacent Areas. Environ. Sci. &
Tech. 13(8):931-935.
Ryan, J. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Food Chain: A Review and Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251-302.
C-67
-------
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Surge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual. 2(2): 321-
325.
Stanford Research Institute International. 1980. Seafood Consumption
Data Analysis. Final Report, Task II. Prepared for U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68-01-3887. Henlo Park, CA. September.
Stanley, C. W., J. E. Barney, M. R. Helton, and A. R. Yobs. 1971.
Measurement of Atmosphere Levels of Pesticides. Env. Sci.
Technol. 5(5):430-435.
Thornton, I., and P. Abrams. 1983. Soil Ingestion - A Major Pathway of
Heavy Metals into Livestock Grazing Contaminated Land. Sci. Total
Environ. 28:287-294.
Tucker, R., and D. Crabtree. 1970. Handbook of Toxicity of Pesticides
to Wildlife. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Res. Pub.
Ho. 84., p. 75-76.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for
Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental Assessment
o'f Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge. Interim
Report. EPA/530/SW-547. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) Dispersion Model User Guide. EPA 450/4-79-30. Vol. 1.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Hexachlorocyclohexane. EPA 440/4-80-054. October.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. Final Report.
Vol. I. EPA 440/1-82-303. Effluent Guidelines Division,
Washington, D.C. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Assessment of Human
Exposure to Arsenic: Tacoma, Washington. Internal Document.
OHEA-E-075-U. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C. July 19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
C-68
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a. Health Effects Assessment
for Lindane. Final Draft. ECAO-CIN-H056. Prepared for Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response by the Environmental Criteria
Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. EPA 600/8-83-028B. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office. Research Triangle Park, NC.
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Drinking Water Criteria
Document for Lindane. EPA-CIN-402. Final Draft. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. January.
U.S. National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of the Health
Risks of Seven Pesticides Used for Termite Control. Committee on
Toxicology. NTIS: PB83-136374.
Wedberg, J. L., S. Moore, F. J. Amore, and H. McAvoy. 1978.
Organochlorine Insecticide Residues in Bovine Milk and Manufactured
Milk Products in Illinois, 1971-1976. Pest. Monit. J. 161-164.
Yadav, D. V., M. K. Pillai, and H. C. Agarvol. 1976. Uptake and
Metabolism of DDT and Lindane by the Earthworm Pheretina posthuma.
Bull. Env. Cont. Toxicol. 16(S):S41-S4S.
C-69
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR LINDANE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWACE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADINC AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETIHC
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Lindane
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
•
a. Formula
m (SC « AR) + (BS « MS)
9 AR + MS
CSr - CSg [1 + 0.5<1/c*> * 0
where:
CSS 3 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 t 1 years (ug/g OW)
SC » Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
AR * Sludge application rate (mt/ha)
MS * 2000 mt ha/OW * assumed mass of soil in
upper IS 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 SO mt/ha only
n ,,QQcn „„/. nu , (0.11 Ug/g DW * 5 «t/h«) * (0.13 Ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
0.129950 Ug/g DW - (5 fflc/ha DW ^ 200(J fflc/ha DH)
CSr is calculated for AR = 5 mt/ha applied for 100 years
0.267117 ug/g DW » 0.129950 ug/g DW [1 * 0.5(1/1*°4) +
0.3(2/l-04) * ... * 0.5(99/l-04)]
C-70
-------
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Porsula
Index 2 - —
where:
I I » Index 1 • Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TB * Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(Ug/g DW)
b. Saaple calculation
< «•-»«• -
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Ponula
!„«,« 3 -
where :
II * Index 1 * Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
UB * Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]"1)
TR * Feed concentration toxic to predator (jug/g
DW)
b. Saaple calculation
0.129950 ilg/g DW x 1.05 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)'1
n
0. 50 ug/g DW
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Formula
Index 4 = -
C-71
-------
where:
11 » Index I = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
IP * Soil concentration toxic co plants (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
0 010396 - 0.129950 Ug/g DW
0.010396 - u>5
2. Index of Plane Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index S)
a. Formula
Index 5 = IL x UP
where:
I]. = Index 1 3 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]~l)
b. Sample Calculation - Index values were not calculated
due to lack of data.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Formula
Index 6 « PP
where:
PP a Maximum plant tissue concentration associ-
ated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Index values were not calculated
due to lack of data.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
Index 7 = -
C-72
-------
where:
15 * Index 5 * Concentration of pollutant in
plane grown in sludge-amended soil (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.
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Formula
If AR « 0; Index 8-0
If AR ?* 0; Index 8 «
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 OW)
b. Sample calculation
If Afi - 0; Index 8" » 0
' °'05
..oooii
B. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
Formula
-------
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
(IS x UA x DA) •»- DI
Index 10 • ——
where:
Ij " 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)
DL » Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI » Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil (Index
11)
a. Formula
If AR - 0; Index 11 - (BS « GS xJJA « DA) * DI
If AR * 0; Index 11 -
-------
DI » Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI * Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
S3.78971 • [(0.11 Ug/g DW x 0.05 z 0.65 ug/g tissue OW
[Ug/g feed OH]'1 x 39.4 g/day OW) * 2.71 Ug/day]
t 0.053 Ug/day
4; Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting frost Soil Ingestion
(Index 12) -
a* Formula
(Ii x OS) * DI
Index 12 - RSI
.where:
!]_ » Index 1 * Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g OH)
DS « Assumed amount of soil in human diet (g/day)
01 * Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI * Cancer risk-specific intake .(ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
., ..... . (0.-129950 ug/g DW x 5 g/*dav) * 2.71 u« day
63.39152 • 0<053 ug/day
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 - Ig * I10 * In * Ii2 - (^)
where:
Ig " Index 9 * Index of human cancer risk
resulting from plant consumption (unitless)
110 " Index 10 « Index of human cancer risk
resulting from- consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unities?)
• Index 11 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from. consumption of animal
products derived irom animals ingesting soil
(unitless}
C-75
-------
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 to lack of data.
IX. LABFILLXTC
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/C0 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 esti-
mates initial dilution in the aquifer to give the initial con-
centration* Co* 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, CBUI, is used to calculate the index values given in
Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Asses
C(y.t) »* (exp(Ai) erfc(A2) * exp(Bx) erfc(B2)J
Co
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of. the result. Exp(Aj) denotes the
exponential of Aj, e 1, 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:
AI » *- [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x u*)i]
Y - t (V*2 * 4D* »
A2 * (4D* x t)»
C-76
-------
B, . *— [V* + (V*2 * 4D* x
i 2D*
y + t (y*2 » 4D* x
82
(4D* z
and where for the unaaturated zone:
C0 * SC x CP « Initial leachate concentration (ug/L)
SC * Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
CF * 250 kg sludge solids/m3 leachate a
PS x 103
1 - PS
PS » Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge =
201
t 3 Time (years)
X a h * "Depth to groundwater (m)
D* » a x V* (m2/year)
a * Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* m Q (m/year)
Q x R
Q * Leachate generation rate (in/year)
0 » Volumetric water content (unitless)
R » 1 + Jill x Kd » Retardation factor (unitless)
0 .
Dry bulk density (g/mL)
foc x Koc (mL/g)
foc a Fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
Koc * Organic carbon partition coefficient (mL/g)
u* , 36LjUi (yearg)-l
U = Degradation rate (day~*)
and where for the saturated zone:
C0 » Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (ug/L)
t = Time (years)
X * AZ » Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* « o x V* (m2/year)
a =» Dispersivity coefficient (m)
7* - K x x (m/year)
8 x R
K » Hydraulic conductivity of cne aquifer (m/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
R = 1 * drl x Kd = Retardation factor = 1 (unicless)
v
since K^ = foc x Koc and foc is assumed co be zero
for the saturated zone.
C-77
-------
C. Equation 2. Linkage Assessment
Q x W
C° ^ * 365 [(K x i) t 0] x B
where:
o « Initial concentration of pollutant in the saturated
sone as determined by Equation 1 (ug/L)
U * Maximum pulse concentration from the unsaturated
zone (ug/L)
Q • Leachate generation rate Cm/year)
W - Width of landfill (m)
K * Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
i • Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unit less)
0 • Aquifer porosity (unitless)
B * Thickness of saturated zone (m) where:
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
CE - P(x,t) for 0 < t < t0
" "
c
co
where:
for
to (for unsaturated zone) * LT * Landfill leaching time
(years)
t0 (for saturated zone) * Pulse duration at the water
table (x * h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 - [ Q/*C dt] + Cu
C(Y t)
P(X»t) » ^ as determined by Equation 1
uo
B. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting
frost Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. ' Formula
Index 1 «
where:
» Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
maximum of C(A4,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Ug/L)
C-78
-------
2, Sample Calculation
0.00142 ug/L = 0.00142 Mg/L
F. Equation 5. Index of Human Cancer - Risk Resulting from
Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
(Ii x AC) + DI
Index2, —
where:
ll = Index 1 a Index of groundwater concentration
resulting from landfilled sludge (ug/L)
AC 3 Average human consumption of drinking water
U/day)
DI * Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI » Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
(0.00142 ug/L x 2 L/day) + 8.21 tig/day
0.053 ug/day
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from
Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)
1. Formula
T . , (C x PS x SC x FM x DP) * BA
Index 1 a TT
where:
C * Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
(hr/sec x g/mg)
OS - Sludge feed rate (kg/hr DW)
SC » Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
FM 3 Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (unitless)
DP s Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum
annual ground level concentration (ug/m-3)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (ug/m^)
C-79
-------
2. Sample Calculation
1.276565 - [(2.78 x 10'7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW
x 0.11 mg/kg DW x 0.05 x 3.4 ug/m3) * 0.00005ug/m3]
t O.OOOOSyg/m3
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formal*
[(Ii - 1) x BA] + BA
Index 2 , _i - __ -
where:
II » Index 1 * Index of air concentration increment
resulting from incinerator emissions
(unitless)
BA * Background concentration of pollutant in
urban air (ug/m )
EC » Exposure criterion
2. Sample Calculation
f (1-276565 - 1) x 0.00005 Ug/mSl + 0.00005 ug/n»3
0 024269
0.00263 ug/m3
17. OCEAM DISPOSAL
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting froa Initial Nixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1 . Formula
SC x ST x PS
Index 1
W x 0 x L
where:
SC » Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
ST » Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
PS - Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
W * Width of initial plume dilution (m)
D =» Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of mixing
for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation
0 00022 /L = 0.11 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x 103 Ug/mg
200 m x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
C-80
-------
B. Index of Seawater -Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Porsnla
88 z SC
Index 2
V z D z L
where:
SS » Daily sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
SC • Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
V » Average current velocity at site (m/day)
D • Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of
mixing for shallow water site (m)
L » Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation
825000 kg DW/day x 0.11 mg/kg DW x lp3 Ug/mg
„ /T
Ug/L •» ,
9500 m/day z 20 m z 8000 m z 103 L/m3
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Formula
where:
II * Index 1 • Index of seawater concentration
resulting from initial mixing after sludge
disposal (yg/L)
AWQC " Criterion or other value ezpressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from
acute and chronic toxic effects (jag/L)
2. Savple Calculation
0.16 yg/L
D. Index of Huaan Cancer Risk Resulting frost Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Poi
(12 x BCF x 10~3 kg/g x FS x QF) + DI
Index 4- ; —
c-81
-------
•where:
12 * Index 2 = Index of seawater concencracion
representing a 24-hour dumping cycle (ug/L)
QF = Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
PS * Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unitless)
BCF * Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (L/kg)
DI * Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI * Cancer risk-specific intake (Ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
150 -
(0.000059 Ug/L x 130 L/kg x 10"3 kg/g x 0.000021 x 14.3 g WW/day) '* 8.21 ug/dav
0.053 ug/day
C-82
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VABV1NC IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOB EACH CONDITION
O
00
Ul
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, 8C (|lg/( DU)
Unaaturated cone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, t^Ty (g/ari.)
Volua>etric water content, 0 (unitleaa)
Fraction ot organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site paraswtera
Leachate generation rate, Q (ai/year)
Depth to groundwater, b (•)
Diapersivity coefficient, O (si)
Saturated xone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, t (unitleaa)
Hydraulic conductivity of cbe aquifer,
K (Wday)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitleaa)
Distance frosi well to landfill. Aft (•)
Dispersivily coefficient, a (•)
1
0.11
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.)
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
2
0.22
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
3
0.11
1.925
0.133
0.0001
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4 5
0.11 0.11
NA» 1.53
NA 0.195
NA 0.005
1.6 ' 0.8
0 5
NA 0.5
0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04
0.001 0.001
100 100
10 10
6
0.11
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.02
50
S
1
0.22
NA
NA
NA
1.6
0
"A
0.389
4.04
0.02
SO
S
8
N*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
II
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
n
CO
Condition of Analyst*
Results
Unsaturated son* assessment (Equation* 1 «nd 3)
Initial leachate concentration, Co (MI/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Pulse duration, to (yeara)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (•)
Initial concentration in saturated cone, Co
(pg/L)
1
21.)
1.64
39.9
126
1.64
2
55.0
3.21
39.9
126
3.27
3
27.5
16.3
5.02
126
16.3
4
27.5
27.5
5.00
253
27.5
S
27,5
1.64
39.*
23.8
1.64
6
27. S
1.64
39.9
6.32
1.64
7
55.0
55.0
5.00
2.38
55.0
8
.*
H
H
M
N
Saturated zone assessment (Equation* 1 and 3)
Ma iii BUM well concentration, C^, (pg/L)
Index of groundwater concent ration resulting
from landfllled sludge, Indem 1 (pg/L)
(Equation 4)
Index of human cancer risk resulting frosi
groundwater contamination, Index 2
(unities*) (Equation 5)
0.00142 0.00284
0.00142 0.00284
0.00178 0.00299 0.06754
0.00178 0.00299 0.00754
0.0569 1.27 N
0.0569 1.27 0
155
155
155
155
157
' 203 155
•N = Mull condition, where no landfill exists; no value i* used.
bNA « Mot applicable tor this condition.
-------
LIN DANE
p. 3-2 Index 1 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.13; worst at 500 mt/na - 0.13
Preliminary Conclusion - should read:
No increase in the concentration of lindane in sludge-amended soil is
expected to occur at any application rate.
p. 3-3 Index 2 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = <.0013; worst at 500 mt/ha <.0013
p. 3-4 Index 3 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.0027; worst at 500 mt/ha - 0.0027
p. 3-5 Index 4 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.01; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.01
p. 3-17 Index 12 Values should read:
adult-typical at 500 mt/ha' =* 150; worst at 500 mt/ha = 150
toddler-typical at 500 mt/ha = 63; worst at 500 mt/ha = 63
Preliminary Conclusion - should read:
The consumption of sludge-amended soils by toddlers or adults
not expected to increase the risk of human cancer due to lindane
above the pre-existing risk attributable to other dietary
source of lindane
C-85
-------
APPENDIX D:
HAZARD INDEX METHODOLOGIES
-------
APPENDIX P: SUMMARY OF ERA'S METHODOLOGY FOR PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
Of CHEMICAL HAZARDS RESULTING FROM VARIOUS SLUDGE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
This appendix contains a short synopsis of the draft "Methodology for
Preliminary Assessment of Chemical Hazards Resulting from Various Sewage
Sludge Disposal Practices' developed by EPA's Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office (ECAO-C1nc1nnat1). This methodology was developed to
conduct preliminary assessments of chemical hazards resulting from the
utilization or disposal of municipal sewage sludges. The methodology
enables the Agency to rapidly screen a 11st of chemicals so that those most
Ulcely to pose a hazard to human health or the environment can be Identified
for further assessment and possible regulatory control. Four different
sludge utilization or disposal practices were considered: land application
(Including distribution and marketing), Iandf1ll1ng, Incineration and ocean
disposal.
The goal of this methodology Is to approximate the degree of contamina-
tion that could occur as a result of each disposal practice, and then to
compare the potential exposures that -could result from such contamination
with the maximum levels considered safe, or with those levels expected to
cause adverse effects to humans or other organisms. The methodology has
been kept as simple as possible to enable rapid preliminary screening of the
chemicals. Estimating potential exposures Is extremely complex, and often
requires the use of assumptions. Unfortunately, modifying the assumptions
used may cause the results to vary substantially. Therefore, the assump-
tions used tend to be conservative to prevent falsely negative determina-
tions of hazard. This 1s of critical Importance In a screening exercise.
0-1
-------
However, to preserve the utility of the method, an effort has been made to
ensure.that the conservative assumptions are nevertheless realistic, or have
a reasonable probability of 'occurring under unregulated or uncontrolled
conditions.
The simplicity and conservatism that make this methodology appropriate
for screening of chemicals make 1t Inappropriate for estimating regulatory
criteria or standards. The latter require more detailed analyses so that
the resulting levels are adequately protective, yet no more stringent than
necessary based on the best available scientific Information and risk
assessment procedures.
IDENTIFICATION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Each disposal practice may result 1n the release of sludge-borne con-
taminants by several different environmental pathways, which vary 1n their
potential for causing exposures that may lead to adverse effects. For each
practice, this methodology attempts to Identify and assess only the most
overriding pathway(s). If a chemical does not pose a hazard 1n the over-
riding pathway(s), 1t 1s unlikely to do so by a minor pathway.
CALCULATION OF CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT
Methods for estimating contaminant transport have been kept as simple as
possible, so that the screening procedure could be carried out rapidly.
Thus, 1n some cases, a simple volumetric dilution of the sludge by an
environmental medium (e.g., soil, seawater) Is assumed, followed by the use
of simple biological uptake relationships. Computerized models were used to
estimate groundwater transport, Incinerator operation and aerial dispersion.
The Identification of parameter values used as Inputs to the equations
was a task of major Importance. Parameters can be divided Into two types:
those having values that are Independent of the Identity of the chemical
D-2
-------
being assessed (such as rate of sludge application to land, depth of the
water table, or amount of seafood consumed per day) and those specific to
the chemical (such as Us rate of uptake by plants, adsorption to soil or
tox1c1ty).
In an attempt to show the variability of possible exposures, two values
were ordinarily chosen for chemical-Independent parameters; these are Iden-
tified as "typical" and "worst-case." The typical value represents the
situation most frequently encountered; 1f known, a median or mean value has
been used. The worst-case value represents the "reasonable worst-case;" 1f
known, a 95th percentlle value has been used.
For chemical-specific parameters, a single value was ordinarily chosen
because of the effort required to make two determinations for each chemical,
and because of the paucity of Information available. In each case, the
value that gave the more conservative result was chosen.
An exception to-the single value was the selection of typical and worst-
case values for contaminant concentrations 1n sludge. Sludge concentration
may be viewed as the starting point for each method. A valid estimate of
the level of contamination Is essential to determine 1f a hazard exists.
Without 1t, none of the Indices can be calculated. For a given chemical,
the majority of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) have relatively low
sludge concentration levels, but a few have much higher concentrations.
Because of the Importance of contaminant concentrations In sludge for each
of the Indices, a typical and worst-case value have been chosen for this
parameter.
Data on sludge contaminant concentrations were derived from an EPA
report, "Fate of Priority Pollutants In Publicly Owned Treatment Works"
(U.S. EPA, 1982), frequently referred to -as the "40-C1ty Study". Wherever
0-3
-------
the 40-CHy Study provided Insufficient Information, data from another
report prepared for the U.S. EPA, "A Comparison of Studies of Toxic Sub-
stances 1n POTU Sludges' was used (Camp, Dresser & McKee, 1984).
CALCULATION OF HAZARD INDICES
After contaminant transport has been estimated, a series of "hazard
Indices" are calculated for each chemical. Each hazard Index Is a ratio
that Is Interpreted according to whether 1t 1s greater or less than one, as
further explained below. The purpose for calculating these Indices Is to
reduce a large and complex body of data to terms that facilitate evaluation
and decision-making. Careful Interpretation of these Indices Indicates
whether a more detailed analysis of a chemical should be undertaken or
whether the chemical can be "screened out" at this stage. The hazard
Indices may be separated Into two types, one type showing the expected
Increase of contaminant concentration 1n an environmental medium ("Incre-
mental Index") and the other showing whether adverse effects could result
("effect Index").
Incremental Indices and Their Interpretation
Incremental Indices show the expected degree of Increase of contaminant
concentration 1n water, soil, air or food resulting from sludge disposal.
The Incremental Index does not by Itself Indicate hazard, since contamina-
tion alone does not necessarily mean that adverse effects will occur.
However, the Incremental Index aids 1n both the calculation and Interpreta-
tion of the subsequent effect Indices. For Inorganic chemicals, the Incre-
mental Index (1) 1s calculated as follows:
-------
where A Is the expected concentration of the chemical that 1s due to sludge
disposal, from the transport estimation method, and 6 1s the background
concentration 1n the medium. The Index 1s thus a simple, dlmenslonless
ratio of expected total concentration to background concentration. Its
Interpretation 1s equally simple. A value of 2.0 would Indicate that sludge
application doubles the background concentration; a value of 1.0 would
Indicate that the concentration Is unchanged.* In addition, for the null
case, where no sludge Is applied, A « 0 and therefore 1^ » 1.0.
Consideration of background levels 1s Important since concentration
Increase resulting from sludge may be quite small relative to the back-
ground. In some Instances, sludge use could even result 1n a decrease of
contaminant concentration. Failure to recognize this fact may cause a
loss of perspective on the Importance of a particular concentration level.
On the other hand, this calculation falls to distinguish between the chemi-
cal form or availability of the contaminant present as background and that
added by sludge disposal.
The above equation assumes that the background concentration 1n the
medium of concern 1s known and 1s not zero, as Is usually the case for
Inorganic chemicals. For organic chemicals, this assumption often does not
hold. Since 1n these cases 1t 1s Impossible to express the Increase as a
ratio, the Index then becomes the following:
I - A
*In most cases, A will be finite and positive, and thus I>1. However, since
the Index values are not carried to more than two significant figures, If
B 1s far greater than A, then I will be given as 1.0.
*For example, If soil Is amended with sludge having a contaminant con-
centration lower than the soil background, then I<1.0.
D-5
-------
Therefore, when the background concentration for organic chemicals 1s
unknown, or assumed to be zero, the Incremental Indices show the absolute
Increase, 1n units of concentration. Note that these do not fit the form of
the other Indices and that for the null case, I. * 0 for organic chemicals.
Effect Indices and Their Interpretation
Effect Indices show whether a given Increase In contaminant level could
be expected to result 1n a given adverse Impact on health of humans or other
organisms. For both Inorganic and organic chemicals, the effect Index
(I ) Is calculated as follows:
where C Is the Increase In exposure that Is due to sludge disposal, usually
calculated from I.; 0 1s the background exposure; and t Is the exposure
value used to evaluate the potential for adverse effects, such as a toxldty
threshold. Units of all exposures are the same (I.e., they are expressed
either as concentration or as dally Intake),, and therefore the Index value
1s d1mens1onless.
The Interpretation of I varies according to whether E refers to a
threshold or nonthreshold effect. Threshold effects are those for which a
safe level of contaminant exposure can be defined. EPA considers all non-
carcinogenic effects to have thresholds. For effects on nonhuman organisms,.
the value chosen for E 1s usually the lowest level showing some adverse
effect 1n long-term exposures, and thus Is slightly above the chronic-
response threshold. For humans, the value chosen 1s generally an estab-
lished Acceptable Dally Intake (AOI), which usually 1s designed to be below
the threshold for chronic toxldty. In either case. If I <1 the adverse
effect 1s considered unlikely to occur, whereas 1f I >1 the effect cannot
e
0-6
-------
be ruled out. Values of Ig close to 1 may be somewhat amoiguous and
require careful Interpretation.
EPA considers carcinogenic effects to be nonthreshold; that 1s, any
level of exposure to a carcinogenic contaminant 1s regarded as posing some
risk. Since no threshold can be Identified, a "benchmark* level cf risk was
chosen against which to evaluate carcinogen exposures. The Carcinogen
Assessment Group of the U.S. EPA has estimated the carcinogenic potency
(I.e., the slope of risk versus exposure) for humans exposed to low dose
levels of carcinogens. These potency values Indicate the upper 95% confi-
dence limit estimate of excess cancer risk for Individuals experiencing a
given exposure over a 70-year lifetime. They can also be used to derive the
exposure level expected to correspond to a given level of excess risk. A
risk level of 10'*, or one 1n one million, has been chosen as an arbitrary
benchmark. Therefore, for nonthreshold effects, 1f I >1 then the cancer
risk resulting from the disposal practice may exceed 10"*. Effect Indices
based on nonthreshold effects must be clearly differentiated from those
based on threshold effects, since their Interpretation 1s fundamentally
different. Subthreshold exposures are normally considered acceptable.
whereas the acceptability of a given low level of risk 1s less clear.
LIMITATIONS OF THE APPROACH
The approach summarized 1n this -appendix- Involves many assumotlons and
has many limitations that must be recognized, a few of which are discussed
here.
In the null case, where no sludge 1s applied, the Increase 1n exposure
from sludge disposal (C) 1s zero. Therefore, the effect Index, I ,
reduces to the background exposure level divided by the level associated
with adverse effects, or 0/E. If E refers to a threshold effect, then It
0-7
-------
should be the case that Ig <1. If Instead Ig >1 then one of the follow-
ing must be true. Either a background condition 1s causing adverse effects
(an unlikely situation); 0 or E has been Incorrectly chosen; or 0 and E each
may have been correctly chosen per se, but are based on two different forms
of the contaminant.
For example, perhaps a pure form of the contaminant caused toxldty to a
bird species at a dietary concentration (E) of 100 yg/g, but the back-
ground concentration (0) measured 1n earthworms, which the bird consumes, 1s
200 yg/g. The value for the null case of Land Application Index 3, the
Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxldty, would then be 200/100 or I .2.
Such an Index value 1s clearly unrealistic, since earthworms are not ordi-
narily toxic to birds. It may be Impossible to correct the value within the
limited scope of this analysis; that 1s, without detailed study of the
speclatlon or complexatlon of the contaminant In soil and earthworm tissues.
Therefore, proper Interpretation of the Index may require comparison of all
values to the null value rather than to 1.0. For example, 1f the null value
of I 1s 2.0 and the value under the worst sludge disposal scenario 1s
2.1, the best Interpretation 1s that there Is little cause for concern. If
on the other hand the worst scenario resulted 1n a value of 10, there prob-
ably 1s cause for concern. In situations Intermediate to these two cases,
judgment should be used following careful examination of the data on which
C, 0 and E are based.
If E refers to a nonthreshold effect, I.e., cardnogenesls, a null-case
value of I >1 1s still more difficult to Interpret. If 0 and E are
chosen correctly,, the straightforward Interpretation Is that current back-
ground exposure levels are associated with an upper-bound lifetime cancer
risk of >10~*. This risk estimate may be accurate 1n some Instances since
D-8
-------
there 1s a background risk of cancer 1n the U.S. population, some of which
may be attributable to pollutant exposures. However, the Interpretation 1s
probably Impossible to verify because the model used to estimate the cancer
potency has extrapolated from observable Incidences 1n the high-dose range
to low doses where Incidences are not observable.
< In addition to uncertainties about the accuracy of the low-dose extrapo-
lation the same Issues of chemical form discussed earlier arise here as
well. The chemical forms assessed 1n cancer bloassays or epidemiology
studies may be significantly different tox1colog1cally than either back-
ground forms or forms released due to sludge disposal practices.
Although the hazard Indices presented below are geared toward rapid and
simplified decision-making (I.e., screening), they cannot be Interpreted
blindly. Their Interpretation requires a familiarity with the fundamental
principles underlying the generation and selection of the data on which they
are based, and the exercise of careful judgment on a case-by-case basis.
As stated earlier,- the preceding has been summarized from the draft
document entitled 'Methodology for Preliminary Assessment of Chemical
Hazards Resulting from Various Sewage Sludge Disposal Practices". The
latter document has undergone peer review within the Agency and by outside
scientists. Comments effecting revision of the methodology are appropri-
ately reflected In this summary. The final document will soon be available
In final form.
0-9
-------
HAZARD INDICES
The following outline Illustrates how each hazard Index was derived.
Including the types of data needed and the calculation formulae employed.
However, the guidelines and assumptions that were used In selecting the
numerical values for each parameter are not Included In this brief summary.
For more Information, the reader 1s referred to the draft report, "Method-
ology for Preliminary Assessment of Chemical Hazards Resulting from Various
Sewage Sludge Disposal Practices (ECAO-CIN-452)," which will be available In
final form from ECAO-C1ndnnat1.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-ANO-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
. . „ , (SC x AR) * (BS x US)
IndeX ] ' BS(AR*MS)
where:
SC"« Sludge concentration of pollutant (vg/g DW)
AR > Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS « Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
(»g/g ow)
MS • 2000 mt DW/ha » Assumed mass of soil 1n upper 15 cm
b. For Organic Chemicals
index 1 . CSS .
5 AR * MS
or
Index 1 • CSr «
(CS$-BS) [1 * 0.5(1/tV2» , 0.5(2/tl/2> * ... * 0.5{n/t1/2}] * BS
(CSS 1s calculated for AR « 0, 5 and 50 mt/ha only;
CSr Is calculated for AR a 500 mt/ha, based on 5 mt/ha
applied annually for 100 years)
D-10
-------
where:
CSS » Soil concentration of pollutant after a single
year's application of sludge (yg/g DW)
CSr « Soil concentration of pollutant after the yearly
application of sludge has been repeated for n + 1
years (yg/g DW)
SC • Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DU)
AR - Sludge application rate (mt/ha)
MS « 2000 mt OU/ha * assumed mass of soil 1n upper 15 cm
BS * Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
(vg/g DW)
*l/2 " So11 half-life of pollutant (years)
n • 99 years
B. Effect on Soil Biota .and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Tox1c1ty (Index 2)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
II x BS
Index 2 » — -
TB
where:
I-j « Index 1 • Index of soil concentration Increment
(unltless)
BS • Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
(ug/g DW)
TB » Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (yg/g DW)
b. For Organic Chemicals
index 2 . £
where:
I] « Index 1 . Concentration of pollutant In sludge-
amended soil (yg/g DU)
TB • Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (yg/g DW)
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxldty (Index 3)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
- D(BS x U8) * BB
T * ,
Index 3 -
TR
0-11
-------
where:
II « Index 1 * Index of soil concentration Increment
- (unUless)
BS « Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
Ug/g OH)
UB » Uptake slope of pollutant 1n soil biota (yg/g
tissue DW [yg/g soil OH]'1)
BB • Background concentration 1n soil biota (yg/g DW)
TR > Feed concentration toxic to predator (yg/g OU)
b. For Organic Chemicals
I] x UB
Index 3 . -
TR
where:
I-j • Index 1 « Concentration of pollutant 1n sludge-
amended soil (yg/g OU)
UB • Uptake factor of pollutant 1n soil biota (yg/g
tissue OU [yg/g soil OU]'1)
TR • Feed concentration toxic to predator (yg/g OU)
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotox1c1ty (Index 4)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
t A * IT * BS
Index 4 * —s-—
TP
where:
I] > Index 1 * Index of soil concentration Increment
(unltless)
BS " Background concentration of pollutant In soil
(yg/g ou)
TP • Soil concentration toxic to plants (yg/g OU)
b. For Organic Chemicals
Index 4 « —
TP
where:
!•) - Index 1 » Concentration of pollutant 1n sludge-
amended soil (yg/g DU)
TP « Soil concentration toxic to plants (yg/g OU)
0-12
-------
2. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Caused by Uptake
(Index 5)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
(Ii - 1) x BS.
Index 5 - ~ - x CO x UP * 1
BP
where:
I] • Index 1 = Index of soil concentration Increment
(unltless)
BS » Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
(wg/g OW)
CO » 2 kg/ha (wg/g)"1 - Conversion factor between soil
concentration and application rate
UP • Uptake slope of pollutant 1n plant tissue (yg/g
tissue OW [kg/ha]"*)
BP « Background concentration 1n plant tissue (yg/g OW)
b. For Organic Chemicals
Index 5 • I] x UP
where:
II » Index 1 « Concentration of pollutant 1n sludge-
amended soil (yg/g OW)
UP » Uptake factor of pollutant In plant tissue (yg/g
tissue OW [yg/g soil OW]'1)
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by Phyto-
toxlclty (Index 6)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
pp
Index 6 . —
BP
where:
PP » Maximum plant tissue concentration associated with
phytotoxldty (yg/g OW)
BP » Background concentration 1n plant tissue (yg/g DW)
b. For Organic Chemicals
Index 6 » PP
where:
PP - Maximum plant tissue concentration associated with
phytotoxldty (yg/g DW)
D-13
-------
C. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxldty Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
I5 x BP
Index 7 . — -
I i\
where:
15 - Index 5 - Index of plant concentration Increment
caused by uptake (unities*)
BP » Background concentration 1n plant tissue (wg/g OW)
TA - Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
b. For Organic Chemicals
Index 7 » —
TA
where:
15 - Index 5 « Concentration of pollutant 1n plant
grown In sludge-amended soil (wg/g DU)
TA • Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(wg/g DU)
2. Index of Animal Toxldty Resulting from Sludge Ingestlon
(Index 8)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
If AR .0, I8 -
I *
if AR *o. i8 - Sfi-
where:
AR m Sludge application rate (mt OU/ha)
SC » Sludge concentration of pollutant (wg/g DU)
BS » Background concentration of pollutant 1n soil
(wg/g DU)
GS • Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(unltless)
TA * Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(vg/g DU)
0-14
-------
b. For Organic Chemicals
If AR . 0, Index 8.0
If AR i 0. I8 - SC x 6S
I H
where:
AR • Sludge application rate (mt DU/ha)
SC • Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DU)
GS > Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
TA « Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(yg/g DU)
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Tox1city/Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant
Consumption (Index 9}
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
X
. „ a [(Is - 1) BP x DT] * DI
\ Index 9 • —
\
s
xwhere:
. V
I§ » Index 5 » Index of plant concentration Increment
caused by uptake (unltless)-
BP • Background concentration 1n plant tissue (yg/g OU)
OT . Daily human dietary Intake of affected plant tissue
(g/day DU)
DI - Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(wg/day)
ADI « Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI > Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
b. For Organic Chemicals
[d5 - BS x UP) x OT] + DI
Index 9 » — —-
ADI or RSI
where:
15 * Index 5 • Concentration of pollutant 1n plant
grown In sludge-amended soil (yg/g DU)
DT * Dally human dietary Intake of affected plant tissue
(g/day DU)
DI « Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
ADI = Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI » Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
D-15
-------
2. Index of Human Tox1c1ty/Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption
of Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
Indw 10 .
ADI or RSI
where:
15 • Index 5 - Index of plant concentration Increment
caused by uptake (unHless)
BP » Background concentration 1n plant tissue (yg/g DU)
UA » Uptake slope of pollutant 1n animal tissue (yg/g
tissue DW [yg/g feed OW]"1)
DA • Dally human dietary Intake of affected animal
tissue (g/day DW)
DI « Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
Ug/day)
ADI e Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI « Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
b. For Organic Chemicals
[(IS - BS x UP) x UA x DA] + DI
Index 10 • - —- - -— -
ADI or RSI
where:
15 • Index 5 « Concentration of pollutant 1n plant
grown In sludge-amended soil (yg/g DM)
UA • Uptake factor of pollutant 1n animal tissue (yg/g
tissue DW [yg/g feed DW]~M
DA > Dally human dietary Intake of affected animal
tissue (g/day DW)
DI • Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
ADI • Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI « Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
3. Index of Human Toxic Hy/Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption
of Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. For Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
x GS x UA x DA) » DI
If AR - 0, Index 11 -
ADI or RSI
If AR 4 0. index 11 - * DI
ADI or RSI
D-16
-------
where:
AR > Sludge application rate (mt OW/ha)
8S • Background concentration of pollutant In soil
(yg/g OW)
SC • Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g OH)
GS « Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(unltless)
UA * Uptake slope (Inorganics) or uptake factor
(organlcs) of pollutant 1n animal tissue (yg/g
tissue DM [yg/g feed OW1])
DA » Average dally human dietary Intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW)
01 > Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
ADI * Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI • Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
4. Index of Human ToxicUy/Cancer Risk Resulting from Soil
Ingestlon (Index 12)
a. For Inorganic Chemicals
(I] x BS x OS) + 01
Index 12
ADI or RSI
(SC x OS) * 01
Pure sludge Ingestlon: Index 12
ADI or RSI
where:
II » Index 1 » Index of soil concentration Increment
(unltless)
SC > Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DW)
BS « Background concentration of pollutant In soil
(yg/g DW)
OS > Assumed amount of soil 1n human diet (g/day)
01 > Average dally .dietary Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
ADI - Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI « Cancer'risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
b. For Organic Chemicals
x DS) + DI
Index 12
ADI or RSI
(SC x DS) » 01
Pure sludge Ingestlon: Index 12
* AOI or RSI
0-17
-------
where:
I] » Index 1 » Concentration of pollutant In sludge-
amended soil (yg/g OH)
SC » Sludge concentration of pollutant (yg/g DW)
OS • Assumed amount of soil 1n human diet (g/day)
DI > Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
ADI * Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI • Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
5. Index of Aggregate Human Tox1city/Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. For Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
index ,3 . I, . I10 * I,, . I12 -
where:
Ig • Index 9 - Index of human toxldty/cancer risk
resulting from plant consumption (unities*)
IIQ « Index 10 • Index of human toxldty/cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal products
derived from animals feeding on plants (unHless)
I]l « Index 11 « Index of human toxldty/cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal products
derived from animals Ingesting soil (unltless)
I-|2 « Index 12 » Index of human toxldty/cancer risk
resulting from soil 1ngest1on (unltless)
01 « Average dally dietary Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
AOI • Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI » Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
0-18
-------
II. LANDFILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/C0 for the unsaturated zone
are calculated corresponding to Increasing values of t until equi-
librium 1s reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse Input from the land-
fill. Equation 3 1s employed to estimate the concentration vs. time
data at the water table. The concentration vs. time curve 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 1n Equation 3. This
square pulse 1s then used as the Input to the linkage assessment,
Equation 2, which estimates Initial dilution 1n the aquifer to give
the Initial concentration, C0, for the saturated zone assessment.
(Conditions for B, thickness of unsaturated zone, have been set
such that dilution 1s actually negligible.) The saturated zone
assessment procedure 1s nearly Identical to that for the unsatu-
rated zone except for the definition of certain parameters and
choice of parameters values. The maximum concentration at the
well, Cmax, Is used to calculate the Index values given 1n
Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
. 1/2 [exp(Ai) erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) erfc(B2)] - P(x,t)
Requires evaluations of four dlmenslonless Input values and subse-
quent evaluation of the result. Exp(A]) denotes the exponential
of A-j, e^l, and erfc(A2) denotes the complimentary error
function of A2. Erfc(A2) produces values between 0.0 and 2.0
(Abramowltz and Stegun, 1972).
where:
[V* - (V*2 * 40* x y*)1/2]
Al
20*
i - t (V*2 * 40* x u*)1/2
2 " (40* x t)l/2
Bl _X_ [V* * (V*2 + 40* X v*)1/2]
1 * 20*
p, » * t (V*2 * 40* x u*)1/2
2 " (40* x t)l/2
0-19
-------
0. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
- P(x.t) for 0 < t < t0
co
P(x,t) - P(x,t - t0) for t > t0
Co
where:
t0 (for unsaturated zone) • LT « Landfill leaching time (years)
t0 (for saturated zone) • Pulse duration at the water table
(x • h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 • to'* C dt] * Cu
P(x,t) « ' as determined by Equation 1
co
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment Resulting
from Landfllled Sludge (Index 1)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
Index 1 «
BC
where:
" Maximum concentration of pollutant at well
Maximum of C(Ai,t) calculated 1n Equation 1
BC « Background concentration of pollutant 1n groundwater
2. For Organic Chemicals
Index 1 «
where:
" Maximum concentration of pollutant at well
Maximum of C(Ai,t) calculated 1n Equation 1
0-22
-------
F. Equation 5. Index of Human ToxIcUy/Cancer Risk Resulting from
Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
T „ , [ AC • Average human consumption of drinking water (I/day)
01 « Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
lug/day)
ADI « Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI • Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
/
2. For Organic Chemicals
T „ o dl * AC) * 01
Ind" 2 ' ADI or RSI
where:
I] » Index 1 * Groundwater concentration resulting from
landfllled sludge
AC » Average human consumption of drinking water (I/day)
01 - Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
dig/day)
AOI « Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (yg/day)
RSI « Cancer risk-specific Intake (yg/day)
D-23
-------
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of A1r Concentration Increment Resulting from Incinerator
Emissions (Index 1)
1. For Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
Index } . (C x OS x SC x FH x DP) + BA
BA
where:
C • Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
(hr/sec x g/mg)
OS . Sludge feed rate (kg/hr DW)
SC » Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
FN • Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (unltless)
OP • Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (yg/m* [g/sec]'1)
BA • Background concentration of pollutant 1n urban air
B. Index of Human Toxic 1ty/Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. For Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
[(IT - 1) x BA] » BA
Index 2 • -
EC
where:
II • Index 1 • Index of air concentration Increment
resulting from Incinerator emissions (unltless)
BA • Background concentration of pollutant In urban air
EC • Exposure clrterlon (yg/m»)
0-24
-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing of
Sludge (Index 1)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
Index 1
SC x ST x PS
W x D x L x CA
where:
SC
ST
PS
U
0
L
CA
Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg OW)
Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
Percent solids. 1n sludge (kg OH/kg WU)
Width of Initial plume dilution (m)
Depth to pycnocllne or effective depth of mixing for
shallow water site (m)
Length of tanker path (m)
Ambient water concentration of pollutant
2. For Organic Chemicals
SC x ST x PS
Index 1 »
U x 0 x L
where:
SC
ST
PS
U
0
Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg OW)
Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
Percent solids 1n sludge (kg OW/kg WW)
Width of Initial plume dilution (m)
Depth to pycnocllne or effective depth of mixing for
shallow water site (m)
Length of tanker path (m)
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping Cycle
(Index 2)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
SS x SC
Index 2
where:
SS
SC
V
0
L
CA
V x D x L x CA
Dally sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
Average current velocity at site (m/day)
Depth to pycnocllne or effective depth of mixing for
shallow water site (m)
Length of tanker path (m)
Ambient water concentration of pollutant (yg/i)
D-25
-------
2. For Organic Chemicals
V x D x L
where:
SS • Dally sludge disposal rate (kg DU/day)
SC • Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg OH)
V • Average current velocity at site (m/day)
D » Depth to pycnocllne or effective depth of mixing for
shallow water site (m)
L • Length of tanker path (m)
C. Index of ToxIcUy to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
IT or Ip x CA
where:
II « Index 1 > Index of seawater concentration resulting
from Initial nixing after sludge disposal
AWQC » Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from acute
and chronic toxic effects Ug/i)
\2 « Index 2 > Index of seawater concentration repre-
senting a 24-hour dumping cycle
AWQC « Criterion expressed as an average concentration to
protect the marketability of edible marine organisms
CA « Ambient water concentration of pollutant (yg/i)
2. For Organic Chemicals
IT or Io
D-26
-------
where:
I? » Index 1 » Index of sea water concentration resulting
from Initial mixing after sludge disposal (ng/i)
AWQC > Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from acute
and chronic toxic effects (yg/i)
I 2 * Index 2 • Index of seawater concentration repre-
senting a 24-hour dumping cycle
AWQC » Criterion expressed as an average concentration to
protect the marketability of edible marine organisms
0. Index of Human Tox1 city/Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consump-
tion (Index 4)
1. For Inorganic Chemicals
[(I? - 1) x CF x FS x QFJ + 01
where:
12 » Index 2 - Index of seawater concentration represent-
ing a 24-hour dumping cycle
QF • Dietary consumption of seafood (g UU/day)
FS • Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unltless)
CF • Background concentration of pollutant 1n seafood Ug/g)
01 » Average dally human dietary Intake of pollutant
(vg/day)
AOI « Acceptable dally Intake of pollutant (vg/day)
RSI • Cancer risk-specific Intake (vg/day)
2. For Organic Chemicals
(12 x BCF x 1
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984. A Comparison of Studies of Toxic
Substances In POTW Sludges. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract No.
68-01-6403. Camp, Dresser and McKee, Annandale, VA. August.
U.S. EPA. 1982. Fate of Priority Pollutants 1n Pullcly-Owned Treatment
Works. Final Report. Vol. I. EPA 440/1-82-303. Effluent Guidelines
Division, Washington, DC. September.
0-28
-------
APPENDIX E:
HAZARD INDEX VALUES FOR ALL
CONDITIONS OF ANALYSIS
RELATED TO LANDFILLING
-------
ARSENIC
INDBX OP CROUNDUATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING PROM LANDRILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING PROM GROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T U
Unsaturaied Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristicsd
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristicsf
Site parameters^ T T
Index 1 Value 1.1 1.6
Index 2 Value 53 240
Condition of
3 4
T T
U NA
T W
T T
T T
1-1 1.1
53 53
••^••* •
Analysis****^
5 6
T * T
T . T
T T
W T
T W
1.7 6.0
280 2100
7
U
NA
U
W
U
120
51000
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
AT = Typical values used; W * worst-case values used; N « null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
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.
dDry bulk density (P,jry) and volumetric water content (8).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
\
fAquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
Bllydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Aft), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
K>
BENZENE
INDEX OP GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROH LANDFILLE2 SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUHAN CANCER RISK RESULTING PROM CROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Condition of Analysis***1*6
Site Characteristics 1 2 3 4 S 6
Sludge concentration T W T T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T U NA
terist ics^
Site parameters6 T T T W
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T T T
terist ics^
Site parameters^ T T T T
Index 1 Value
-------
BENZO(A)PYRENE +• m
INDEX OP CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING PROH LANDPILLBD SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP CANCER RISK RESULTING PROH GROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site
Sludf
Characteristics
je concentration
1
T
2
U
3
T
Condition of
4
T
Analysis*****6
5
T
6
T
7
u -
8
N
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (Mg/L) 1
Index 2 Value
T
T
T
T
.3x10-*
150
T
T
T
T
1.8x10-3
150
U
T
T
T
3.3x10-*
150
NA
W
T
T
3.9x10-3
150
T
T
U
T
4.3x10-*
150
T
T
T
U
4.6x10-*
150
NA
U
W
W
11
3800
N
N
N
N
0
150
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N » null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
''Dry bulk density (Pdry)» volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficit.... (a).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
Kllydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AS.), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
BIS(2-ETHYL HEXL)PHTHALATE
INDEX OP CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLBD SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING PROM CROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
M
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^
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value (pg/L) 2.6
Index 2 Value 1.0
2
U
T
T
T
T
12
5.0
Condition of
3 4
T T
U MA
T t*
T T
T T
2.6 2.6
1.0 1.0
Analysis*»b»c
5
T
T
T
U
T
14
5.5
6
T
T
T
T
' W
100
40
7
U
NA
U
U
W
2700
1100
8
N'
N
N
N
N
0
0
*T » Typical values used| U » worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
bagis for comparison; NA * not applicable for this condition.
DIndex 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).
c gradient (i), distance from well to landfy^(Al), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
CADMIUM
INDEX OP GROUNDUATBR CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING PROM LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING PROM GROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
w
en
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics''
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index i Value
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
1.2
0.54
2
W
T
T
T
T
3.4
0.61
Condition of Analysis***1*6
3 4 5 6 78
T
U
T
T
T
1.2
0.54
T T T W N
NA T T NA N
W T TUN
T W T UN
T T U UN
1.2 2.1 3.8 510 0
0.54 0.57 0.62 16.5 0.54
*T = Typical values used; U » worst-case values used; N • null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA » *"*t 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.
dDry bulk density (Pjry) *nd volumetric water content (6).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and disperaivtty coefficient (a).
*Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (A8.), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
CHLORDANE
INDEX OP CROUHDUATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROH LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
M
a\
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics**
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
terislicsf
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value (pg/D 0.044
Index 2 Value 3.6
Condition of
234
U T T
T U NA
T T W
*
T T T
T T T
0.17 0.055 0.087
9.4 4.3 5.8
Analysis«»b»c
5
T
T
T
U
T
0.20
11
6
T
T
T
T
U
0.33
17
7
U
NA
U
W
W
69
3200
a
N
N
N
N
N
0
1.8
aT = Typical values used; U s worst-case values used; N - null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
**Dry bulk density (P^ry)* volumetric water content (8), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
fAquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
M
CHROMIUM
INDEX OF CROUNDUATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROH LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM CROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics*'
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index I Value
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
2.0
0.00070
2
U
T
T
T
T
7.3
0.0013
3
T
W
T
T
T
2.0
Condition of
A
T
NA
W
T
T
2.0
0.00070 0.00070
Analysis**'**6
5
T
T
T
U
T
6.1
0.0012
6
T
T
T
\
\
T
W
37
0.0048
7
U
NA
U
U
U
1300
0.157
8
H
H
N
N
N
0
0.00058
aT « Typical values used} W * worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (Prfry) and volumetric water content (6).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
BHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Aft), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
COBALT
INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROK.LANDFILLBD SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING PROH GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Condition of Analysis*****0
3 4 5 6
8
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics''
Site parameters6
T
T
T
W
T
T
T .
•
U
T
T
NA
U
T
T
T
!
T
T
T
U .
NA
U
N
N
N
7.
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value
Index 2 Value
T
T
12
T
T
40
T
T
12
T
T
12
U
T
60
T
U
280
U
U
8300
N
N
0.0
Values were not calculated due to lack of data.
•T » Typical values used; U « 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.
dDry bulk density (P
-------
COPPER
INDEX OP GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T U
Unsalurated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristicsd
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parameters^ T T
Index 1 Value 2.1 4.9
Index 2 Value 0.0086 0.030
3
T
U
T
T
T
2.
0.
Condition
4
T
of Analysis**0*6
5
T
NA T
U
T
T
1 2.
0086 0.
T
U
T
1 6.9
0086 0.045
6
T
T
T
T
U
40
0.30
7
U
NA
U
U
U
830
6.4
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT = Typical values used; U - worst-case values used} N « null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA » not applicable for this condition.
DIndex values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the *oi~. jlae in the Appendix.
cSee*Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
**Dry bulk density (Pjry) and volumetric water content (6).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
Sllydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (At), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
CYANIDE
t
INDEX OP CHOUNDUATEK CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROH LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AMD
INDEX OP HUMAN TOX1C1TY RESULTING FROM GROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
I
H«
O
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
terisiicsd
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristicsf
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value (iig/L) 13
Index 2 Value 3.4xlO~3
2
U
T
T
T
T
73
1.9xlO-2
BM_^^B«M».««a^^^B_«M^^^
Condition of Analysis*»D»c
345
T T
U NA
.
T U
T T
T T
13 13
3.4x10*3 3.4x10-3
^^•••••^••^^••^••••^•^•^^^••^^^^•i^vHiM^^H^^HMiHa^BH^AH
T
T
T
U
T
69
1.8xlO-2
«_OM«M^H^^MM«^BBIB^M^H»
6 78
T UN
T NA N
T UN
T UN
U UN
520 16000 0
0.14 4.1 0
aT = Typical values used; U = worst-case values used; N - null condition, where no Landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be*calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (Pdry), volumetric water content (8), 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).
Ellydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Afi,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
2.4-D
INDbX OP CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLBD SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
1
T
2
W
3
T
Condition of
4
T
Analysisa»b»c
5
T
6
T
7
W
8
N
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics'1
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
T
T
Soil type and charac- T
teristicsf
Site parameters^
T
T
T
T
Index 1 Value (pg/L) 0.0186 0.0287
Index 2 Value 3.3x10'* 3.3x10'*
U
T
T
T
0.0321
3.3x10'*
NA
W
T
T
0.1261
3.5x10'*
T
T
W
T
0.0987
3.4xlO~*
T
T
T
U
0.743S
4.9x10'*
NA
U
U
U
41.43
N
N
N
N
0
9.8xlO-3 3.2x10-*
*T = Typical values used; U • worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA a not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (P
-------
to
DDT/DDP/DDE
INDEX OP GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUNAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROH GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristicsf
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value (pg/L) 0.0038
Index 2 Value 19
Condition of
234
W T T
T W NA
T T W
T T T
T T T
0.0053 0.018 0.018
19 19 19
Analyst «atb,c
5 6 78
T T UN
T T NA N
T T UN
U T UN
T U UN
0.0038 0.0038 5.4 0.0
19 19 71 19
AT B Typical values used; U * worst-case values used} N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA « not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (P,jry). volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic ca.uon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to grcymdwater in), and dispersivity coefficient (o).
^^
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfil^Al), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
DIMETHYL NITROSAMINE
INDEX OP CROUNDUATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING PROH LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AMD
INDEX OF HUHAN CANCER RISK RESULTING PROH CROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION
(INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Condition of Analysis**'1*0
3456
8
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
N
Soil type and charac-
teristics*'
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
T
T
T
T
9.0x10'*
740
T
T
T
T
9.0x10'*
740
W
T
T
T
2.8X10'3
740
NA
U
T
T
6.9x10-2
790
T
T
W
T
4.8xlO-3
740
T
T
T
W
3.6x10-2
770
NA
W
U
U
14.8
12000
N
N
N
N
0
740
aT = Typical values used; U = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used aa
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
" Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
c Sec Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
d Dry bulk density (P,jry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
e Leachale generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
* Aquifer porosity (t) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
8 Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (At,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
LEAD
INDEX OP GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics**
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristicsf
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value 2.3
Index 2 Value 0.17
Condition of Analysis" »"»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 0.1? 0.17 0.29 0.42
7
U
NA
U
U
U
1200
29
8
N
M
M
N
N
0
0.14
*T B Typical values used; U * 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.
dDry bulk density (Vdry) and volumetric water content (6).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
fAquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Al), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
LINDANE
INDEX OP CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING PROM LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING PROH CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
n
*-•
in
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated 7:me
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parametersS
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
0.0014
160
Condition of Analysisa»°»c
2345
U T
T W
T T
T T
T T
0.0028 0.0018
160 160
T
NA
U
T
T
0.0030
160
T
T
T
W
T
0.0075
160
6
T
T
T
T
U
0.057
160
7 8
U N
NA N
U N
U N
U N
1.3 0
200 160
aT = Typical values used} U B worst-case values used; N a null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than -those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (P,jry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachaie 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 (Al), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
MALATHION
INDEX OP CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING PROM LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING PROM CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
n
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsattirated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teri sties'*
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
2.8xlO-7
6.3x10-3
2
U
T
T
T
T
3.9x10-6
6.3x10-3
Condition of
3 4
T
U
T
T
T
2.0x10-6
6.3x10-3
T
NA
U
T
T
1.2x10-3
6.3x10-3
Analysisa»b»c
5 6
T T
T T
T T
W T
T U
1.5x10-6 l.lxlO-5
6.3x10-3 6.3x10-3
7 8
W N
NA N
U N
W N
U N
3.6 0.0
1.1x10-2 6.3x10-3
*T 8 Typical values used; W « worst-case values used; N « null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison} NA * not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
•"Dry bulk density (Pjry), volumetric water content (8), 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 landf il^ (Afc), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
MERCURY
INDEX OP GROUNDUATBR CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING PROM LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
I
I-1
^1
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T U
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristicsd
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics*
Site parameters^ T T
Index 1 Value 1.4 2.6
Index 2 Value 0.25 0.27
Condition of
3 4
T T
•
U • NA
T U
T T
T T
1.4 1.4
0.25 . 0.25
Analysisa»b»c
5 6~
T T
\
T T
T T
U T
T U
2.9 4.0
0.27 0.28
7
U
•
NA
W
U
U
340
3.6
8
N
N
M
N
N
0
0.25
*T = Typical values used; U = worst-case values used} N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (Pjry) and volumetric water content (6).
eLeachaie generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
Bllydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (At,), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
INDEX OP GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING PROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING PROM CROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
t->
CD
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
1
T
T
T
T
T
0.043
NCn
2
W
T
T
T
T
0.52
NC
3
T
U
T
T
T
0.043
NC
Condition of An
4
T
NA
W
T
T
0.043
NC
alysisa»b»c
5
T
T
T
U
T
0.23
NC
6
T
T
T
T
U
1.7
NC
7
W
NA
W
U
W
110
NC
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
NC
aT - Typical values used; W a worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA * not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (P
-------
PI
t->
\o
MOLYBDENUM
INDEX OP CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDRILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1 2
Siudge concentration T U
Unsalurated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teri st icsd
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristicgf
Site parameters^ 'i T
Index 1 Value 1.0 1.1
Index 2 Value 0.090 0.091
Condition of Analysis**^*6
345
T T T
U NA T
TUT
T T W
T T T
1.0 1.0 1.1
0.090 0.090 0.091
6 7
T U
T NA
T U
T U
U U
2.0 24
0.096 0.22
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0.090
aT » Typical values used; U » worst-case values used} N « null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (P^ry) and volumetric water content (6).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i); distance from well to landfill (Aft.), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
10
o
NICKEL
INDEX OP CROUNDUATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDRILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN TOXIC1TY RESULTING PRON CROUNUWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics1'
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
1.3
0.11
2
U
T
T
T
T
4.8
0.12
Condition of
3 4
T T
U NA
.
T W
T T
T T
1.3 1.3
0.11 0.11
Analysis***1*6
5
T
T
T .
U
T
2.3
0.12
6
T
T
T
T
U
11
0.14
7 a
U N
MA N
U N
U N
U N
800 0
2.3 0.11
*T = Typical values used} W » worst-case values used; N » null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA » not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
^Dry bulk density (P,jry) and volumetric water content (6).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
c gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (At.), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
w
K)
INDEX OP CROUNDUATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROH LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROH CROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION
(INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T H
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parameters^ T T
Index 1 Value (pg/L) 0.101 O.S63
Index 2 Value NCh NC
Condition of Analysisa»b»c
345
T
t
U
T
T
T
0.101
NC
T T
NA T
W T
T U
T T
0.101 0.532
NC NC
6
T
T .
T
T
U
3.29
NC
7 8
U N
NA N
U N
U N
U N
120.0 0
NC NC
*T * Typical values used; U = 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 nay be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
s.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (P
-------
W
K>
to
PCB
INDEX OP GROUNDUATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING PROH LANDPILLBD SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING PROH CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics**
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics*
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value (pg/L) 0.092
Index 2 Value 59
Condition of
2 .3 4
U T T
T W MA
T T U
T . T T
T T T
0.53 0.099 0.11
110 59 61
HHH«M_^^^^^^BMBB^BBBVW^HBHM^WiWi^BM«*^—
Analysisa»b»c
5 6
T T
T T
T T
W T
\
T U
0.30 0.33
85 88
7
U
NA
W
U
U
130
17000
8
N
N
N
N
M
0
47
*T * Typical values used; U » worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (Pjry)» 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).
ic gradient (i), distance from well to landAkl (Ad), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
M
K>
CJ
INDEX OP CROUNDUATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING PROH LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROH GROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION
(INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics*'
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristicsf
Site parameters*
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
1.0x10-16 |
3.0x10-20 ;
Condition of Analysis*****0
2345
U T T
T U NA
T T W
T T T
T T T
1.8x10-15 9.5x10-1* 0.13
1. 0x10-19 2.7xlO-U 3.8x10-5
T
T
T
U
T
5.6x10-16
1.6x10-19
6 7
T U
T NA
T U
T W
U W
4.2x10-15 480
1. 2xlO-l8 0>1A
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT » Typical values used; U = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA - not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
"Dry bulk density (Pjry), volumetric water content (9), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachaie 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 (AJO, and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
c\f**T FNTUM
INDEX OF CHOUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING PROH LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXIC1TY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value 1.0
Index 2 Value 0.24
Condition of Analysis8*'**0
23456
W T T T T
T W . NA T T
T T U T T
T T T W T
T T T T W
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2
0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25
7 8
U N
NA N
U N
W N
U N
4.5 0
0.37 0.24
•T = Typical values used; W » worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (Pjry) and volumetric water content (9).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
fAquifer porosity (ft) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
BHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
TOXAPHENE
INDEX OP GROUNDUATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING PROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
M
to
tn
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics1*
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristicsf
Site parameters^ T
Index I Value (}ig/L) 0.20
Index 2 Value 61
2
U
T
T
T
T
0.27
64
Condition of Analysis8*11'1*
3436
T
U
T
T
T
0.20
62
T
NA
U
T
T
0.21
62
T T
-
T T
T T
U T
T W
1.1 8.0
89 310
7 8
U N
NA N
U N
U N
U N
62 0.0
2100 55
*T « Typical values used; U « worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition*
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (Pdry), volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
fAquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Aft), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
INDEX OP CROUNDUATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING PROM LANDPILLED SLUDCE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM CROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
n
K)
Site Character! si ics
Sludge concent ration
Unsal urat ed Zone
Soil type and charac-
terist ics<*
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
0.013
0.0068
Condition
234
U T T
of Analysisa»b»c
5 6
T T
T VI NA T T
T T W
T T T
T T T
0.49 • 0.013 0.
0.26 0.0068 0.
T T
U T
T U
013 0.066 0.50
0068 0.036 0.27
7
W
NA
U
U
U
100
56
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT = Typical values used; U = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, uaed as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
GSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values uaed.
dDry bulk density (P^y), volumetric water content (8), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
ZINC
INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDPILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
71
K)
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T W
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teri st ics**
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- ' T T
teristics^
Site parameters^ T T
Index 1 Value 2.8 13
Index 2 Value 0.36 0.36
Condition of
J 4
T T
U NA
T U
T T
T T
2.8 2.8
0.36 0.36
Analysisa»b»C
5 , 6
T t
T T
T T
U T
•
T W
8.7 12
0.36 0.36
7 ' 8
U N
NA N
U N
W N
U N
2700 0
1.4 0.36
aT s Typical values used; U = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
''Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
**Dry bulj^ density (Pjry) and volumetric water content (6).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
'Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well fo landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
APPENDIX F; SLUDGE CONCENTRATION DATA
USED IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILES AND HAZARD INDICES
-------
Typical and Worst Sludge Pollutant Concentrations in Environmen-tal Pro-files
Pollutant Typical Worst
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benz o ( a ) pyr ene
Beryllium
Bis (2-ethyihexyl.) phthal ate
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloroform
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
DDT/DDE/DDD
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Di chl oromethane
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
Dimethyl Nitrosamine
Endrin
Fluoride
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzine
Hexachlorobutadiene
Iron
Lead
Lindane
MOCA
Malathion
Mercury
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Molybdenum
Nickel
PCB's
Pent ach 1 orophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Selenium
TCDD
TCDF
Tetr ach 1 oroethy 1 ene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
2, 4, 6-Tri chl orophenol
Tricresyl Phosphate
Vinyl Chloride
Zinc
0.07
4.6
0.326
0.68
0.14
0.313
94.28
8.15
0.048
3.2
O.049
230. 1
11.6
409.6
476.2
0.28
1.64
1.6
4.64
0.14
86.4
0.07
0.38
0.3
28000
248.2
0. 11
18
0.045
1.49
Data not
9.8
44.7
0.99
0.0865
3.71
4.884
1.11
Data not
Data not
0. 181
7.88
0.46
2.3
6.85
0.43
677.6
0.81
20.77
6.58
12.7
4.8
1.94
1.168
459.25
88.13
8.006
12
1.177
1499.7
40
1427
2686.6
0.93
2.29
19
7.16.
2.55
0. 17
738.7
0.09
2. 18
8
78700
1070.8
0.22
86
0.63
5.84
available
40
662.7
2.9
30.434
20.69
82.06
4.848
aval lable
aval 1 abl e
13.707
10.79
17.85
4.6
1650
311.942
4580
p-1
•U.3* QOVnUMBR PRXJRXXB OTTId t 1965
------- |