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

-------