United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
. _ ^ jp^"
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Malathion
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to: (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION , 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR MALATHION IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfi 11 ing 2-1
Incineration 2-1
Ocean Disposal 2-1
*
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR MALATHION IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Landfilling 3-1
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-1
Index of human toxicity resulting from groundwater
contamination (Index 2) 3-8
Incineration 3-9
Ocean Disposal « 3-9
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR MALATHION IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge ... 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-2
Food 4-3
Human Effects 4-3
Ingestion 4-3
Inhalation 4-5
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Plant Effects 4-6
Phytotoxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Aquatic Life Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-7
Soil Biota Effects 4-7
Toxicity 4-7
Uptake 4-7
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-8
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
MALATHION IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
111
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This preliminary data profile is one of a series of profiles
dealing with chemical pollutants potentially of concern in municipal
sewage sludges. Malathion was initially identified as being of poten-
tial concern when sludge is placed in a landfill.4' This profile is a
compilation of information that may be useful in determining whether
malathion poses an actual hazard to human health or the environment when
sludge is disposed of by this method.
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 •* groundwater •*• human toxicity). The values and assump-
tions 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 landfilling practices are included in this profile. The
calculation formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix. The
indices are rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR MALATHION IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of "preliminary hazard indices", which represent conserva-
tive or "worst case" analyses of hazard. The indices and their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWES meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDPILLING
The maximum groundwater concentrations of malathion produced by
landfilled sludge are expected to be less than one part per trillion
for all scenarios evaluated, except for disposal sites with worst-
case parameters for the unsaturated zone. For these exceptions,
malathion concentrations are expected to be in the part per billion
and part per million range (see Index 1). Disposal of sludge in a
landfill is not expected to pose a health threat to humans due to
malathion contamination of well water (see Index 2).
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OURS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at-this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
2-1
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR MALATHION
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDPILLING
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)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
1983). 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
3-1
-------
the vertical direction throughout the unsaturated zone,
and only in the horizontal (longitudinal) plane in the
saturated zone; pollutant movement is considered only in
direction of groundwater flow for the saturated zone; all
pollutants exist in concentrations that do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; for organic chemicals, the
background concentration in the soil profile or aquifer
prior to release from the source is assumed to be zero;
the pollutant source is a pulse input; no dilution of the
plume occurs by recharge from outside the source area;
the leachate is undiluted by aquifer flow within the
saturated zone; concentration in the saturated zone is
attenuated only by dispersion.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Gerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elements
between soil and a sewage sludge solution
phase. They are used here since these parti-
tioning measurements (i.e., K^ values) are con-
sidered the best available for analysis of
metal transport from landfilled sludge. The
same soil types are also used for nonmetals for
convenience and consistency of analysis.
(b) Dry bulk density (Pdry)
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.925 g/mL
Bulk density is the dry mass per unit volume of
the medium (soil), i.e.-, neglecting the mass of
the water (COM, 1984a).
(c) Volumetric water content (9)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitless)
The volumetric water content is the volume of
water in a given volume of media, usually
expressed as a fraction or percent. It depends
on properties of the media and the water flux
estimated by infiltration or net recharge. The
3-2
-------
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore water velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from COM, 1984a.
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc)
Typical 0.005 (unitless)
Worst 0.0001 (unitless)
Organic content of soils is described in terms
of percent organic carbon, which is required in
the estimation of partition coefficient, 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
3-3
-------
them were listed. A typical depth to ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of 0 m is used to
represent the situation where the bottom of the
landfill is occasionally or regularly below the
water table. The depth to groundwater must be
estimated in order to evaluate the likelihood
that pollutants moving through the unsaturated
soil will reach the groundwater.
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.045 mg/kg DW
. Worst 0.63 mg/kg DW
The worst sludge concentration is the only
reported sludge concentration from a summary of
sludge data for publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) in the United States (COM, 1984b).
Malathion was detected in sludge from only 1 of
14 POTWs sampled. The typical sludge concen-
tration was obtained by calculating the mean
for the 14 POTWs sampled, assuming 0 mg/kg for
the POTWs where malathion was not detected.
Data on the detection limit of malathion in
sludge were not immediately available. (See
Section 4, p. 4-1.)
3-4
-------
(b) Soil half-life of pollutant (tp = 20 days
The half-life for malathion in natural soils
ranges from 0.5 to 20 days (U.S. EPA, 1982).
The longest half-life was selected as a
conservative estimate since it represents
longer persistence of the chemical in the
environment. (See Section 4, p. 4-8.)
(c) Degradation rate (u) = 0.03465 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) =
1796 mL/g
The organic carbon partition coefficient is
multiplied by the percent organic carbon
content of soil (fOc^ to derive a partition
coefficient (K
-------
(b) Aquifer porosity (0)
Typical 0.4A (unitless)
Worst 0.389 (unitless)
Porosity is that portion of the total volume of
soil that is made up of voids (air) and water.
Values corresponding to the above soil types
are from Pettyjohn et al. (1982) as presented
in U.S. EPA (1983b).
(c) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K)
Typical 0.86 m/day
Worst 4.04 m/day
The hydraulic conductivity (or permeability) of
the aquifer is needed to estimate flow velocity
based on Darcy's Equation. It is a measure of
the volume of liquid that can flow through a
unit area or media with time; values can range
over nine orders of magnitude depending on the
nature of the media. Heterogenous conditions
produce large spatial variation in hydraulic
conductivity, making estimation of a single
effective value extremely difficult. Values
used are from Freeze and Cherry (1979) as
presented in U.S. EPA (1983b).
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc) =
0.0 (unitless)
Organic carbon content, and therefore adsorp-
tion, is assumed to be 0 in the saturated zone.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worst 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to
determine the magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced. Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
3-6
-------
(b) Distance from well to landfill (A&)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
This distance is the distance between a
landfill and any functioning public or private
water supply or livestock water supply.
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5 m
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well to landfill (AX,), which is 100 and
50 m, respectively, for typical and worst
conditions.
(d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2 m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that
preexisting flow is very limited and therefore
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 m^.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (u) = 0 day"*
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 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.
3-7
-------
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum expected
groundwater concentration of pollutant, in Ug/L, at the
well.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The maximum groundwater
concentrations of malathion produced by landfilled sludge
are expected to be' less than one part per trillion for
all scenarios evaluated, except for disposal sites with
worst-case parameters for the unsaturated zone. For
these exceptions, malathion concentrations are expected
to be in the part per billion and part per million range.
B. Index of Human Toxicity 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. 3-10.
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)
= 10.08 ug/day
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported rel-
ative daily intakes for various pesticides based on
annual market basket surveys. The relative daily
intake of malathion avera'ged 0.1440 Mg/kg body
weight (bw)/day for fiscal year (FY) 75 to FY78
(FDA, 1979). Assuming an adult weighs 70 kg, the
daily intake of malathion is 10.08 Ug« (See Section
4, p. 4-3.)
d. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
1600 Ug/day
The allowable daily intake for malathion was derived
by U.S. EPA (1984). This value is based on a no-
observed-effects-level (NOEL) of 16 mg/day for a
70 kg man (0.23 mg/kg bw/day) for plasma and red
3-8
-------
blood cell cholinesterase inhibition in humans.
This NOEL was based on studies by Rider et al.
(1959) and Moeller and Rider (1962), as cited in
U.S. EPA (1984). An uncertainty factor of 10 was
applied to account for differences in human
sensitivity, giving an ADI of 1.6 mg/day. (See
Section 4, p. 4-4.)
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which pol-
lutant intake exceeds ADI. Value >1 indicates a possible
human health threat. Comparison with the null index
value indicates the degree to which any hazard is due to
landfill disposal, as opposed to preexisting dietary
sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Disposal of sludge in a landfill
is not expected to pose a health threat to humans due to
malathion contamination of well water.
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
3-9
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER 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^
0
Index 1 Value (llg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
2.8xlO"7
6.3xlO"3
2
W
T
T
T
T
3.9x10-6
6.3x10-3
Condition of
3 A
T
W
T
T
T
2.0x10-6
6.3x10-3
T
NA
W
T
T
1.2x10-3
6.3x10-3
Analysis3*^
5
T
T
T
U
T
1.5x10-6
6.3x10-3
6
T
T
T
T
W
l.lxlO-5
6.3x10-3
7 8
U N
NA N
U N
W N
W N
3.6 0.0
l.lxlO-2 6.3x10-3
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 (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).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR MALATHION IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
Malathion is a wide-spectrum, extensively used HAS, 1977
organophosphorus insecticide. Use in 1972 esti- (p. 620)
mated at 3.6 million pounds and estimated to have
increased since then.. It is relatively non-
persistent.
A. Sludge
I. Frequency of Detection
Detected in sludge from 1 of 14 POTWs.
Data are from a summary of several
surveys of POTWs in the United States.
2. Concentration
0.63 mg/kg DW in 1 sample, not detected
in 13 samples from POTWs in the United
States. Mean = 0.045 mg/kg DW (assuming
0 mg/kg for POTWs where malathion was not
detected).
B. Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Less than 3% of the soils analyzed
contained malathion
In 33 soil samples from Everglades
National Park and adjacent agricul-
tural areas, no malathion was detected
(1975 data).
Out of 1,246 soil samples from agricul-
tural sites in 37 states, 2 samples
contained malathion (0.2%) (1972).
2. Concentration
0.01 Ug/g average concentration
Out of 1,246 soil samples in 1972 from
agricultural sites in 37 states, 2
samples contained malathion:
COM, 1984b
(p. 8)
CDM, 1984b
(p. 8)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 5-4)
Requejo et al.,
1979 (p. 934)
Carey et al.,
1979 (p. 212)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 5-4)
Carey et al.,
1979 (p. 214,
219)
4-1
-------
0.08 yg/g (DW)
0.13 pg/g (DW)
South Dakota sample
California sample
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
It is quite likely that malathion could
appear as a contaminant in drinking
water; although there are no reports of
its being found yet.
In samples from 34 sites in the upper
Great Lakes in 1974, no malathion was
detected.
In agricultural areas of California in
1969 and 1970, no malathion was detected
in 14 to 18 samples of surface water and
41 to 60 samples of subsurface drain
effluents.
NAS, 1977
(p. 625)
Glooshenko et
al., 1976
(p. 61)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 6-8)
2. Concentration
Virtually no information exists on levels U.S. EPA, 1982
of malathion in U.S. waters (p. xv)
As part of the Medfly eradication pro-
gram in California during 1981, mala-
thion accumulation in water bodies was
measured. The cumulative average level
in reservoirs and natural waters within
the spray area was approximately 0.5 ppb
for malathion.
Oshima et al.,
1982
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
Out of 880 composite samples from 9 U.S.
locations in both urban and agricultural
areas, 4 samples from Orlando (agricul-
tural area) contained detectable levels
of malathion (0.4Z).
Only trace amounts have been found in the
ambient air.
2. Concentration
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. xv)
Out of 880 composite samples from 9 U.S.
locations, 4 from Orlando (agricultural
area) contained malathion.
Maximum level: 2 ng/m^.
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
4-2
-------
Samples before, during and after fogging
for mosquito control (ng/m^):
Location
Before During
Wheatley, 1973
(p. 391)
After
Chesapeake Bay Township 0.2 8 to 22 0.2 to 2.3
Atlantic Coast resort NR 1 to 30 <0.1 to 1
In 202 air samples from 7 sites in New
York, Texas, and Florida, the concen-
tration range for malathion was 0.06 to
3.53 ng/m3.
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 6-1)
E. Food
1. Frequency of Detection
In 1978, malathion was detected in 39 out
of 240 composite samples from 12 food
groups in a range of 0.08-0.054 Ug/g«
20 of the grain and cereal samples
(1002) and 11 of the oils and fats
samples (50%) contained malathion.
2. Total Average Intake
Total Relative Daily Intakes
(jjg/kg bw/day)
FDA, 1979
(Attachment E)
FDA, 1979
(Attachment G)
FY75
FY76
FY77
FY78
0.1517 0.1278 0.1540 0.1423
Mean = 0.1440 for FY75 to FY78; assuming
a 70 kg adult, daily intake = 10.08 yg/day.
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
Animal studies have indicated that
malathion is not carcinogenic.
b. Potency
Not relevant since malathion is not
considered a carcinogen.
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. xvi)
4-3
-------
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
WHO/FAO ADI = 20 pg/kg bw/day Vettorazzi, 1975
in U.S. EPA,
1984 (p. 52)
An ADI of 0.023 mg/kg/day or U.S. EPA, 1984
1.6 mg/day was derived for a 70 kg (p. 55)
man, based on a NOEL of 16 mg/day
(0.23 mg/kg/day) for plasma and red
blood cell cholinesterase inhibition in
humans (Rider et al., 1959, and Moeller
and Rider, 1962, both as cited in U.S.
EPA, 1984). Uncertainty factor of
10 was applied to account for
differences in human sensitivity.
b. Effects
Five human subjects receiving daily Rider et al.,
oral doses of 16 mg of malathion for 1959 in U.S.
88 days showed no decrease in red EPA, 1984
blood cells or plasma cholinesterase (p. 32)
activity. Additional treatment con-
sisting of 16 mg/day of malathion and
6 mg/day of ethyl-p-nitrophenyl thiono-
benzenephosphonate for 42 days resulted
in slight depression of red blood cells
and plasma cholinesterase activities,
but no symptoms of toxicity were noted.
In 5 male subjects receiving daily Moeller and
oral doses of 24 mg/day for 56 days, Rider, 1962 in
plasma cholinesterase activity was U.S. EPA, 1984
depressed starting at 2 weeks of (p. 32, 33)
treatment, with maximum depression
of 25 percent occurring 3 weeks after
cesation of treatment. Erythrocyte
cholinesterase activity was also
depressed during last few days of
treatment and during post-treatment
period. Maximum depression occurred
at about 3 weeks post-treatment and
was of similar magnitude to plasma
cholinesterase depression. No clini-
cal signs of toxicity, no change in
blood count or urinanalysis observed.
4-4
-------
3. Absorption,Factor
Malathion was rapidly absorbed, with
88.8 percent of administered dose
absorbed within 1 hour.
4. Existing Regulations
U.S. EPA residue tolerances for raw
argicultural commodities and for food
range from 0.1 to 12 Ug/g (40 CFR
180.11, 21 CFR 193.260)
WHO/FAO ADI - 20 Ug/kg bw/day
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIH
American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
Threshold Limit Value (TLV) - 10 mg/m3
b. Effects
Prolonged exposure to low, but
undetermined, levels of organo-
phosphates (chiefly fenithion, but
also malathion) caused symptoms in
38 agricultural college employees.
Exposures resulted from spraying
vegetable gardens, vineyards, and
fruit orchards. Symptoms - diarrhea,
decreased plasma cholinesterase.
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
TLV - 10 mg/m3
U.S. EPA, 1984
(p. 13)
U.S. .EPA, 1984
(p. 52)
Vettorazzi, 1975
in U.S. EPA,
1984 (p. 52)
ACGIH, 1983
(p. 24)
Perold and
Bezuidenhout,
1980 in U.S.
EPA, 1984
ACGIH, 1983
4-5
-------
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
Data not immediately available on soil or
tissue concentrations causing phytotoxicity.
Some data available on spray levels causing
phytotoxicity.
The normal application concentration of 0.5%
malathion has been found to be effective
against target organisms and in most cases
safe to plants. However, at half this con-
centration or less, some ornamentals, vege-
tables, and trees may be damaged.
B. Uptake
Malathion is relatively non-persistent. No
uptake data is available. There are data on
residues from spraying which indicate that
malathion is rapidly lost. This suggests a
considerable degree of safety to consumers in
view of the tolerance limit of 8 pg/g.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-1.
Malathion has a low acute toxicity compared
to other organophosphorus insecticides.
Chronic effects to domestic animals are
unlikely.
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
a. Acute
96-hour LC5Q values for sensitive
species (salmon, trout, sunfish,
bass) 0.062 to 0.285 mg/L
U.S. EPA, 1982
Narain et al.,
1981 (p. 79)
MAS, 1977
(p. 625)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. xv)
U.S. EPA, 1984
(p. 38)
4-6
-------
96-hour LC5Q values for resistant U.S. EPA, 1984
species (carp, fathead minnow, (p. 38)
catfish, goldfish, and bullheads)
6.59 to 12.90 mg/L
b. Chronic
Levels between 0.07 and 0.20 mg/L Mount and
would allow survival and reproduction Stephan, 1967 in
based on a 10 month study with U.S. EPA, 1984
fathead minnows exposed to 0.58, (p. 44)
0.20, 0.07, and 0.03 mg/L.
Water Quality Criterion - 0.1 Ug/L U.S. EPA, 1976
for freshwater and marine aquatic (p. 160)
life
2. Saltwater
a. Acute
Toxicity in marine fish similar to U.S. EPA, 1984
that for freshwater; for various (p. 34, 44)
species LC5Q values ranged from
0.027 to 3.25 mg/L
b. Chronic
Water Quality Criterion - 0.1 pg/L U.S. EPA, 1976
for freshwater and marine aqua-tic (p. 160)
life
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-2.
Researchers have reported no disruptive U.S. EPA, 1982
effects on fungi or bacteria. (p. xv)
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
4-7
-------
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
Vapor pressure: 4 x 10~5 mm Hg at 20°C U.S. EPA, 1982
Estimated median vapor loss from treated areas: (p. 5-7)
1.8 Ib/acre/yr.
Solubility in water: 145 mg/L at 25°C (p. 5-8)
Persistence: half-life in the environment (p. 5-13)
averages one week; neutral pH values and low
temperatures will increase half-life
Molecular wt: 330.4 U.S. EPA, 1982
Boiling pt: 156°C at 7 mm Hg (p. 2-2, 2-3)
Melting pt: 6.1°C
Density: 1.2 kg/L
Completely soluble in most alcohols, esters,
solvents
Half-life in raw river water is less than 1 week NAS, 1977
Malathion stable in distilled water (p. 621)
Malathion is degraded in water more rapidly than
other organophosphorus insecticides
Half-life of 1 to 15 days in fresh water U.S. EPA, 1982
Half-life of 0.5 to 4 days in estuarine and (p. xiv)
natural sea water
Half-life of 0.5 to 20 days in natural soils
Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) = Rao and
1796 mL/g Davidson, 1980
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-1. TOXICITY OF MALATHION TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIPE
Species
Mallards
Red-winged
blackbird
Rats
Rats
Water Buffalo
Chickens
Hens (laying)
Chicks
Bobwhite quail
Pheasant
Quail
Chemical Form
Fed
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Feed
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
NRa
NR
100
NR
NR
NR
15
500
100
NR
NR
NR
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily Intake
(rag/kg bw/day)
1485
400
. NR
1400-1900
0.5
1.0-1.5
100
NR
NR
NR
400
1600
20
Duration
of Study
NR
NR
8 weeks
1 year
1 year
1 year
7 weeks
22 weeks
6.5 days
NR
NR
21 days
Effects
LD50
LD50
No effect
LD50
No effect level
29-47Z reduction in
cholinesterase activity
Lowest neurotonic dose
No effect
6-7% reduction food
consumption/egg production
No effect
LD50
LD50
Inhibited self-righting
ability
References
Tucker and
Crabtree, 1970
(p. 76)
Schafer et al.,
1983 (p. 364)
HAS, 1977
(p. 626)
Lawless et al.,
1975 (p. 38)
NAS, 1977
(p. 9-2)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 9-3)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 9-4)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 10-13)
•
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 10-14)
8 NR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-2. TOXICITY OP HALATHION TO SOIL BIOTA
Species
English red worms
Aerobic bacteria
*" Centipedes
O
Millipedes
Mites
Carabid beetles
Collembola
Chemical Form
Applied
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Soil
Type
sandy loam
marsh
forest soil
forest soil
forest soil
forest soil
forest soil
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
NR*
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
8.4
0.420-4.20
3
3
2.24
1.68
1.68
Effects
10Z mortality of
adults
No adverse effects
No effect on popula-
tion
Slight reduction in
population
No effect
No adverse effect,
increased population
No effect
References
Hopkins and Kirk,
19S7 (p. 699)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 7-2)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 10-4)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 10-4)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 10-4)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 10-9)
a NR = Not reported.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. , 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 1983. TLVs.
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents
in the Work Environment with Intended Changes for 1983-84.
Cincinnati, OH.
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. A Comparison of Studies of Toxic
Substances in POTW Sludges. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. August.
Carey, A., J. A. Gowen, H. Tai, W. G. Mitchell, and G. B. Wiersma.
1979. Pesticide Residues in Soils and Crops from 37 States, 1972 -
National Soils Monitoring Program (IV). Pest. Monit. J.
12(4):209-229.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA, May.
Food a'nd 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 Macro-
dispersion 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.
Glooshenko, W., W. M. Strachan, and R. C. Sampson. 1976. Distribution
of Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Water, Sediments,
and Seston of the Upper Great Lakes - 1974. Pest. Monit. J.
10(2):61-67.
Griffin, R. A. 1984. Personal Communication to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ECAO - Cincinnati, OH. Illinois State
Geological Survey.
5-1
-------
Hopkins, A., and V. M. Kirk. 1957. Effect of Several Insecticides on
the English Red Worm. J. Econ. Ent. 50(5):699-700.
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. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH.
Moeller, H. C., and J. A. Rider. 1962. Plasma and Red Blood Cell
Cholinesterase Activity as Indications of the Threshold of
Incipient Toxicity of Ethyl-p-nitrophenyl Thionobenzenephosphonate
(EPN) and Malathion in Human Beings. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
4:123-130 (as cited in U.S. EPA, 1984).
Mount, D. I., and C. E. Stephan. 1967. A Method for Establishing
Acceptable Toxicant Limits for Fish — Malathion and the Butoxy-
ethanol Ester of 2,4-D. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 92(2):185-193 (as
cited in U.S. EPA, 1984).
Narain, N., C. C. Lewis, and M. A. Latheef. 1981. Gas Chromatographic
Estimation of Malathion in Seven Vegetables. J. Env. Sci. Health
B16(l):75-81.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Drinking Water and Health. NAS,
National Review Council Safe Drinking Water Committee. Washington,
D.C.
Oshima, R. J., L. A. Heher, T. M. Mischke, D. J. Weaver, and 0. S.
Leifson. 1982. Environmental Hazard Assessments Program,
California Department of Food and Agriculture. April.
Perold, J. G., and D. J. J. Bezuidenhout. 1980. Chronic
Organophosphate Poisoning. S. Afr. Med. J. 57(l):7-9 (as cited in
U.S. EPA, 1984).
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.
Rao, S. C. and J. M. Davidson. 1980. Estimation of Pesticide Retention
and Transformation Parameters Required in Nonpoint Source Pollution
Models. In; Environmental Impact of Nonpoint Source Pollution.
Ann Arbor, MI.
Requejo, A., R. H. West, P. G. Hatcher, and P. A. McGillivary. 1979.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Chlorinated Pesticides in Soils of
the Everglades National Park and Adjacent Agricultural Areas. Env..
Sci. Tech. 13(8):931-935.
Rider, J. A., H. C. Moeller, J. Swader, and R. G. Devereaux. 1959. A
Study of the Anticholinesterase Properties of EPN and Malathion in
Human Volunteers. Clin. Res. 1:81 (as cited in U.S. EPA, 1984).
5-2
-------
Schafer, E., W. A. Bowles, and J. Hurlbut. 1983. The Acute Oral
Toxicity, Repellency, and Hazard Potential of 998 Chemical to One
or More Species of Wild and Domestic Birds. Arch. Env. Contain.
Tox. 12:355-382.
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Burge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual.
2(2):321-325.
Stanley, C., J. E. Barney, M. R. Helton, and A. R. Tobs. 1971.
Measurement of Atmospheric Levels of Pesticides. Env. Sci. and
Tech. 5(5):430-435.
Tucker, R., and D. Crabtree. 1970. Handbook of Toxicity of Pesticides
to Wildlife. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Publ. #84.
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
of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewa.ter Sludge: Interim
Report. EPA/530/SW-547. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Malathion - Multimedia
Document. Prepared by Biospherics, Inc., Rockville, MD for
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983, Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Health and Environmental
Effects Profile for Malathion. Final Draft. ECAO-CIN-P101
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.
September.
Vettorazzi, G. 1975. Toxicological Decisions and Recommendation
Resulting from the Safety Assessment of Pesticide Residues in Food.
CRC Grit. Rev. Toxicol. 4(2):125-183 (as cited in U.S. EPA, 1984).
Wheatley, G. 1973. Pesticides in the Atmosphere. In: Edwards, C. A.
(ed.), Environmental Pollution by Pesticides. New York: Plenum
Press.
5-3
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR MALATHION
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/CO for the unsaturated
zone are calculated corresponding to increasing values of t
until equilibrium is reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse input
from the landfill, Equation 3 is employed to estimate the con-
centration vs. time data at the water table. The concentration
vs. time curve is then transformed into a square pulse having a
constant concentration equal to the peak concentration, Cu,
from the unsaturated zone, and a duration, to, chosen so that
the total areas under the curve and the pulse are equal, as
illustrated in Equation 3. This square pulse is then used as
the input to the linkage assessment, Equation 2, which 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, Cmax, is used to calculate the index values given in
Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
C(y,t) =i [exp(A^) erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) erf"c(B2)]
Co
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of the result. Exp(A^) denotes the
exponential of Aj, e , where erfc(A2) denotes the
complimentary error function of A2. Erfc(A2) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1972).
where:
A. = X_ [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x
Al 2D*
A-l
-------
_ Y - t (V*2 + 4D* x
A2 ~ (4D* x t)?
R. = A— [V* + (V*2 + 4D* x
Bl 2D*
Y + t (V*2 * 4D* x
82 ~ (AD* x t)*
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration (pg/L)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
.CF = 250 kg sludge solids/m3 leachate =
PS x 103
1 - PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge =
202
t = Time (years)
X = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
w* = —2— (m/year)
0 x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 + drv x KJ = Retardation factor (unitless)
0 •
pdry = Dry bulk density (g/mL)
Kd = foc x Koc (mL/g)
foc = Fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
Koc = Organic carbon partition coefficient (mL/g)
u* = 365R x M (years)-l
y = Degradation rate
and where for the saturated zone:
C0 = Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (ug/L)
t = Time (years)
X = Afl, = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
w* - K x i (m/year)
0 x R
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
A-2
-------
= 1 + drY x-Kj = Retardation factor = 1 (unitless)
since K] x B
where:
Co = Initial concentration of pollutant in the saturated
zone as determined by Equation 1 (pg/L)
Cu = Maximum pulse concentration from the unsaturated
zone (pg/L)
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
W = Width of landfill (m)
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless )
<& = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
B = Thickness of saturated zone (m) where:
2
.
— K x i x 365
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C(x>t) = P(x,t) for 0 < t < t0
Co
1 = P(x,t) - P(X,t - t0) for t > t
where:
to (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
to (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 = [ 0/°° C dt] t C
C( Y t )
= - '
as determined by Equation 1
o
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting
from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
Index 1 = Cmax
A-3
-------
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
maximum of C(A£,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Wg/L)
2. Sample Calculation
2.794 x 10~7 ug/L = 2.794 x 1CT7 ug/L
P. Equation 5. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from
Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
(Ii x AC) -«• DI
Index2= _
where:
f
Ij = Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration
resulting from landfilled sludge (ug/L)
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (yg/day)
2. Sample Calculation
, 7nn in-3 _ (2.794 x 10"7ug/L x 2 L/day) + 10.08 ue/dav
6.300 x 10 - 160() ug/day
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conducted such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conducted such an assessment for this option in the future.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (pg/g DW)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, Pdry (g/raL)
Volumetric water content, 0 (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (m/year)
Depth to grounduater, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
Saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, 0 (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landfill, At, (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
1
0.045
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.389
4.04
0.02
100
10
2
0.63
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.389
4.04
0.02
100
10
3
0.045
1.925
0.133
0.0001
0.8
5
0.5
0.389
4.04
0.02
100
10
4 5
0.045 0.045
NAb 1.53
NA 0.195
NA 0.005
1.6 0.8
0 5
NA 0.5
0.389 0.371
4.04 3.29
0.02 0.02
100 100
10 10
6
0.045
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.369
4.04
0.0005
50
5-
7 8
0.63 N*
NA N
NA N
NA N
1.6 N
0 N
NA N
0.371 N
3.29 N
0.0005 N
50 N
5 N
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Condition of Analysis
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, Co (llg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (ug/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, Co
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Cmax (pg/L)
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge, Index 1 (M8/L)
(Equation 4)
Index of human toxicity resulting
from groundwater contamination, Index 2
(unitless) (Equation S)
11.3 158 11.3 11.25
6.166x10-4 8.633xlO-3 LBSSxlO"2 11.25
20.84 20.84 5.000 5.000
126 126 ' 126 253
6.17x10-* 8.63x10-3 1.86x10-2 11.3
11.3 11.3 157.5 H
6.166x10-* 6.166x10'* 157.5 N
20.84 20.84 5.000 N
23.8 6.32 2.38 N
6.17x10-* 6.17x10-* 158 N
2.794xlO-? 3.912xlO"6 2.017xlO~6 1.223xlO~3 1.485xlO"6 1.119xlO~5 3.645 N
2.794x10-^ 3.912xlO-6 2.017xlO~6 1.223x10-3 1.485xlfl-6 1.119x10-5 3.645 . 0
0.0063 0.0063 0.0063
0.006302 0.0063 0.0063 0.01086 0.0063
aN - Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
bNA = Not applicable for this condition.
------- |