United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
                June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
           i         ^w^^
Polychlorinated Biphenyls

-------
                              PCB'S
p. 3-2  Index 1 Values should read:
        typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.1.0; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.54

p. 3-5  Index 4 Values should read:
        typical-at 500 mt/ha = 0.010; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.054

p. 3-6  Index 5 Values should read:
        Animal-typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.21; worst at 500 mt/ha =1.1
        human-typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.37; worst at 500 mt/ha = 2.0

p. 3-8  Index 7 Values should read:
        typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.075; worst at 500 mt/ha =0.40
p. 3-12 should read:
Index 9 Values
Group
Sludge Concentration
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
  0       5       50      500
Toddler


Adult
    Typical
    Worst

    Typical
    Worst
16
16

47
47
110
570

310
1600
960
5500

2600
15000
900
5100

2500
14000
p. 3-14 should read;
Index 10 Values
Group
Sludge Concentration
Sludge Application Rate (rot/ha)
  0       5       50      500
Toddler


Adult
    Typical
    Worst

   - Typical
    Worst
16
16

47
47
590
3300

1200
6700
5600
32000

11000
65000
5200
30000

11000
61000

-------
p. 3-18 should read;
Index 13 Values
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sdudge Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
27
27
47
47
5
3500
20000
7300
42000
50
9000
54000
20000
110000
5UU

9000
51000
19000
11000

-------
                                 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  mor'e 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 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN
      MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 	  2-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  2-1

    Landfilling 	  2-2

    Incineration 	  2-2
    Ocean Disposal 	   2-2

3.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN
      MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 	   3-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	   3-1

         Effect on soil concentration of polychlorinated
           biphenyls (Index 1) 	   3-1
         Effect on soil biota and predators  of soil biota
           (Indices 2-3) 	   3-3
         Effect on plants and plant tissue
           concentration (Indices 4-6) 	   3-4
         Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8)	   3-7
         Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 	   3-10

    Landf illing 	   3-18

         Index of groundwater concentration  resulting
           from landfilled sludge (Index 1)  	   3-18
         Index of human cancer risk resulting  from
           groundwater contamination (Index  2)	   3-25

    Incineration 	   3-27

         Index of air concentration increment  resulting
           from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 	   3-27
         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
                                   11

-------
                            TABLE OP CONTENTS
                               (Continued)
                                                                     Page
         Index of hazard 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 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN
      MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 	  4-1

    Occurrence 	  4-1

         Sludge 	  4-1
         Soil - Unpolluted 	  4-2
         Water - Unpolluted 	  4-2
         Air 	  4-3
         Food 	  4-4

    Human Effects 	  4-6

         Ingestion 	  4-6
         Inhalation 	  4-7

    Plant Effects 	  4-8

         Phytotoxicity 	  4-8
         Uptake 	  4-8

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 	  4-9

         Toxicity 	  4-9
         Uptake 	  4-9

   .Aquatic Life Effects 	  4-10

         Toxicity 	  4-10
         Uptake 	  4-10

    Soil Biota Effects 	  4-11

    Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 	  4-11

5.  REFERENCES	  5-1

APPENDIX.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR  POLY-
    CHLORINATED BIPHENYLS 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.   Polychlorinated  biphenyls  (PCBs) were initially  identi-
fied as  being  of potential concern when  sludge  is landspread (including
distribution and  marketing),  placed in a landfill,  incinerated  or  ocean
disposed.*   This profile  is a  compilation of  information  that  may  be
useful in determining whether PCBs  pose  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 repre-
sent  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.
                                   1-1

-------
                                SECTION 2

          PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
                        IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
     The  following  preliminary  conclusions  have  been  derived  from the
calculation  of  "preliminary hazard  indices",  which  represent conserva-
tive or  "worst  case" analyses  of  hazard.   The  indices and  their basis
and  interpretation  are  explained  in   Section  3.    Their  calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.

  I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

     A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Polychlorinated Biphenyls

          Landspreading of sludge  may result  in  increased  concentrations
          of PCBs in soil (see Index 1).

     B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

          Conclusions for the  effect of landspreading on  soil  biota and
          predators  of  soil  biota  were not  drawn because  index  values
          could not be calculated  due to  lack  of data (see Indices 2 and
          3).

     C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

          Landspreading of sludge  is not  expected  to  result  in soil con-
          centrations of  PCBs  that  are  phytotoxic (see  Index 4).   The
          concentrations  of  PCBs  in plant  tissues may  be  expected  to
          increase due to plant  uptake  of  PCBs from sludge-amended soils
          (see  Index  5).    Conclusion  for  the plant concentration  per-
          mitted  by  phytotoxicity  was   not  drawn   because index  values
          could not be calculated due to lack of  data (see  Index 6).

     D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

          Landspreading of  sludge  is  not  expected to  result in  plant
          tissue concentrations of PCBs  that pose  a  toxic  threat  to her-
          bivorous animals (see  Index  7).  The inadvertent  ingestion  of
          sludge-amended soil is not expected  to  result in  dietary con-
          centrations  of  PCBs   that pose  a  toxic  threat   to  grazing
          animals (see Index  8).

     E.   Effect on Humans

          The consumption  of  crops  grown  on sludge-amended  soils  may
          result in an  increased potential  of  cancer risk to  humans  due
          to PCBs  (see Index  9).    The  consumption  of  animal  products
          derived from animals feeding  on crops  grown in  sludge-amended
          soils  may  result  in  an  increased  potential  of cancer risk  to
          humans due to PCBs (see  Index 10).  The  consumption  of  animal
          products  derived  from   animals  that   inadvertently   ingest
          sludge-amended soil  may  result  in  an increased potential  of

                                   2-1

-------
          cancer  risk  to  human  due   to   PCBs   (see  Index  11).    The
          inadvertent  ingestion of  sludge-amended  soil  by  humans  may
          result in  an increased  potential of cancer  risk due  to  PCBs
          (see  Index  12).   The aggregate  amount of  PCBs in  the  human
          diet due to  landspreading of  sludge  may result in an increased
          potential of cancer risk to humans (see Index 13).

 II. LANDFILLING

     Landfilling of  sludge  may result  in  increased  concentrations  of
     PCBs in  groundwater  at  the  well  (see  Index 1).    Landfilling  of
     sludge  may result  in  an   increased  potential  of   cancer  risk  to
     humans  due to  consumption of  groundwater  contaminated  with  PCBs
     (see Index 2).

III. INCINERATION

     The incineration of sludge may result  in  air concentrations  of  PCBs
     that exceed  background  levels  (see  Index   1).    Incineration  of
     sludge  may  result in -concentrations  of PCBs  in  air  that  increase
     the potential  of cancer risk to humans (see Index  2).

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     Ocean disposal of  sludge may  result  in increased concentrations  of
     PCBs in seawater around the disposal  site  after initial mixing  (see
     Index 1).   The concentration  of  PCBs  in  seawater  around the  dis-
     posal  site may  increase   above  background  levels   over  a  24-hour
     period  (see Index  2).   Ocean  disposal of sludge may  result  in  con-
     centrations of PCBs  in  the tissues of aquatic life  that  jeopardize
     their marketability when high-PCB  sludge is  disposed of  at a  high
     rate at a typical disposal  site.   Where  poor site conditions exist,
     and when  typical   sludge is disposed  of  at  a high  rate,  or  when
     high-PCB  sludge is disposed  of at  high and  low  rates, a threat  to
     aquatic life may exist (see Index  3).   Ocean disposal  of  sludge may
     be expected to  result in  an  increased  potential  of cancer  risk  to
     humans  except  possibly when typical sludge is disposed of at a  typ-
     ical site  with   typical   conditions  and  when  seafood   intake  is
     typical (see Index 4).
                                   2-2

-------
                              SECTION 3

      PRELIMINARY  HAZARD  INDICES FOR POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
                      IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

   A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Polychlorinated Biphenyls

        1.   Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

             a.   Explanation -  Calculates concentrations  in Ug/g  DW
                  of pollutant in sludge-amended  soil.   Calculated for
                  sludges  with   typical  (median,  if  available)  and
                  worst   (95   percentile,   if   available)   pollutant
                  concentrations,   respectively,   for  each   of   four
                  applications.    Loadings (as  dry matter) are  chosen
                  and explained  as follows:

                    0 mt/ha  No  sludge applied.   Shown  for  all indices
                             for  purposes of  comparison,  to  distin-
                             guish hazard posed  by  sludge  from  pre-
                             existing   hazard   posed   by   background
                             levels  or other  sources of  the pollutant.

                    5 mt/ha  Sustainable yearly agronomic  application;
                             i.e.,  loading  typical  of   agricultural
                             practice,  supplying   ^50   kg   available
                             nitrogen per  hectare.

                   50 mt/ha  Higher  single application  as  may be  used
                             on  public  lands,  reclaimed areas or  home
                             gardens.

                  500 mt/ha  Cumulative loading  after   100   years  of
                             application at 5  mt/ha/year.

             b.   Assumptions/Limitations   -   Assumes   pollutant   is
                  incorporated into  the upper 15 cm of  soil  (i.e.,  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    4  ug/g  DW
                       Worst      23  ug/g  DW

                       PCB concentrations  in  sludges of 16 U.S. cities
                       range  from  <0.01   to  23.1  Ug/g  DW  with  a
                                 3-1

-------
          median  of  4  ug/g  DW.    (Purr  et al.,  1976).
          Clevenger et  al.  (1983)  in a  summary  of sludge
          analyses from 74  cities  in   Missouri  reported
          that maximum  and median  PCB concentrations were
          2.9 and  0.99 Ug/g  DW,  respectively.   Although
          manufacturers  phased  out  all  PCB  production
          from  1976  to  1979,  sludge concentration  data
          reported by  Furr  et al.  (1976)  were  selected
          for present  analysis due to the representation
          of  several  U.S.   cities.     (See  Section  4,
          p. 4-1.)

     ii.  Background  concentration  of pollutant   in  soil
          (BS) = 0.01 Ug/g DW

          PCB concentration  in rice-growing soils  of the
          United  States  ranged from  not  detected  (N.D.)
          to  1.13  Ug/g  DW  with   the mean  concentration
          being 0.01  ug/g DW  (Carey et al.,  1980).   Since
          the  data  reported   for  cropland  soils  in  37
          states  (Carey  et  al., 1979a)  and for  5  cities
          of the United States  (Carey et  al.,  1979b)  were
          also  in a   similar   range,  0.01  Ug/g  DW  was
          selected as  the  soil background  concentration.
          The most recent  data available  were used  here
          since  the   production  and  use   of   PCBs   has
          dropped since 1975.   (See Section 4,  p.  4-2.)

     iii. Soil half-life of pollutant  (t^.) = 6  years

          Although most  of the  PCBs  have  <1  year  half-
          life  in  sediments,  it   can be  as high  as  16
          years, depending  on the amount  of chlorine  in
          the PCBs (Fries,  1982).   AIL  the  PCBs  found  in
          the environment  are 42  to  60  percent  chlorine
          (by weight)  (World  Health  Organization  (WHO),
          1976).   Thus,  Aroclor 1254, which has  54  per-
          cent chlorine (by weight),  was  chosen to  repre-
          sent  half-life  for  PCBs.     (See  Section  4,
          p. 4-12.)

d.   Index 1 Values (ug/g DW)

                         Sludge Application Rate  (mt/ha)
         Sludge
     Concentration        0        5         50        500
Typical
Worst
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.067
0.11
0.57
0.18
0.62
     Value  Interpretation  -  Value  equals  the  expected
     concentration in sludge-amended  soil.
                    3-2

-------
     f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Landspreading of sludge may
          result in increased concentrations of PCBs in soil.

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.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Assumes pollutant  form in
          sludge-amended  soil  is   equally  bioavailable  and
          toxic as form used  in study  where toxic effects were
          demonstrated.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

            i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
               soil (Index 1)

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

           ii. Soil concentration toxic  to  soil  biota  (TB) -
               Data not immediately available.

     d.   Index 2  Values  - Values  were  not calculated due  to
          lack of data.

     e.   Value Interpretation  -  Value equals  factor  by  which
          expected soil concentration  exceeds  toxic concentra-
          tion.   Value >1  indicates a toxic hazard may  exist
          for soil biota.

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Conclusion was not  drawn
          because index values could not  be calculated.

2.   Index of Soil Biota Predator  Toxicity (Index 3)

     a.   Explanation   -   Compares   pollutant   concentrations
          expected in  tissues  of  organisms  inhabiting sludge-
          amended  soil  with  food  concentration   shown  to  be
          toxic to a predator on soil organisms.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations   -  Assumes  pollutant   form
          bioconcentrated   by  soil  biota   is   equivalent   in
          toxicity to  form used  to  demonstrate   toxic  effects
          in  predator.    Effect   level   in predator   may  be
          estimated from that in a different species.
                         3-3

-------
     c.   Data Used and Rationale

          i.   Concentration  of  pollutant  in   sludge-amended
               soil (Index 1)

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

          ii.  Uptake factor of  pollutant  in soil biota  (UB)  -
               Data not immediately available.

          iii. Feed  concentration  toxic  to  predator  (TR)   =
               5 ug/g DW

               For  a  39-week,   period,   feed concentration  of
               2 Ug/g  of  PCBs  did  not  have   any  effect  on
               chickens,  whereas   5   Ug/g  reduced   the  egg
               production  in   some   cases  (Stendell,   1976).
               20 Ug/g  feed concentration  caused  effects  on
               chickens dependent on  PCB type.   It  is assumed
               that data are given  in dry weight  basis.   (See
               Sec'tion 4, p.  4-16.)

     d.   Index  3  Values - Values  were  not calculated  due  to
          lack of data.

     e.   Value  Interpretation - Values"  equals  factor  by which
          expected  concentration in  soil   biota exceeds  that
          which  is  toxic  to  predator.   Value  >  1  indicates  a
          toxic hazard may exis't for predators  of soil  biota.

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  Conclusion  was  not  drawn
          because index values  could not  be calculated.

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
          concentration shown to be  toxic for some plants.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Assumes  pollutant  form  in
          sludge-amended  soil    is  equally  bioavailable  and
          toxic as form used in  study where  toxic effects were
          demonstrated.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

            i. Concentration  of  pollutant  in  sludge-amended
               soil (Index 1)

               See Section 3,  p. 3-2.
                         3-4

-------
           ii. Soil  concentration   toxic   to  plants  (TP)   =
               10 pg/g DW

               Strek et al.  (1981)  reported that growth reduc-
               tion of  soybeans  and beets  was  not significant
               when  PCB  concentration  was 100  Ug/g  in  soil.
               However, Webber  and  Mrozek (1979)  observed  10
               and  27   percent   growth   reduction   in  soybeans
               when PCB  concentrations  were  10  and  100  yg/g,
               respectively.     Strek   et  al.    (1981)   also
               reported significant  growth reduction  for  corn
               plants  at   100   Ug/g.     As  a  conservative
               approach,  TP  is  assumed  to  be  10 Ug/g-   It  is
               assumed   that  data  are   given  in  dry  weight
               basis.   (See Section 4,  p. 4-13.)

     d.   Index 4 Values

                             Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0         5        50       500
Typical
Worst
0.0010
0.0010
0.0020
0.0067
0.011
0.057
0.018
0.062
     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
          PCBs that are phytotoxic.

2.   Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)

     a.   Explanation    -    Calculates     expected     tissue
          concentrations,   in  Mg/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.
                         3-5

-------
     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)

               Animal Diet:
               Corn plant
                    3.7 Ug/g tissue  DW  (ug/g soil DW)"1

               Human Diet:
               Carrot root
                    2.1 ug/g tissue  DW  (ug/g soil DW)'1

               Webber et  al. (1983)  reported that  PCB uptake
               by  corn  plants  grown  in sludge-amended  soils
               ranged from  0.247  to  3.7  Ug/g tissue  DW  (ug/g
               soil DW)'1.   Connor  (1984)  reported  data  from
               various  sources  on   uptake   in   carrot  root.
               Uptake  factors  ranged  from  0.02  to  0.5  Ug/g
               tissue WW  (ug/g soil  WW)"1.    Uptake  decreased
               with increasing degree of  chLorination.   Assum-
               ing, as  Connor  has,   that  soil  dry   weight  is
               approximately one-half of  soil wet weight,  and
               that carrot  is  12%  dry  matter  (USDA.,  1975),
               the carrot  values  should  be  adjusted  by a  fac-
               tor of 0.5/0.12 = 4.2, to  give a  range of 0.083
               to-  2.1  ug/g  tissue  DW (ug/g  soil DW)"1.   The
               higher value for each  plant  tissue was selected
               as  the conservative  estimate.   (See  Section  4,
               p. 4-14.)

     d.   Index 5 Values (ug/g DW)

                             Sludge  Application Rate  (mt/ha)
              Sludge
Diet       Concentration       0         5       50       500
Animal
Typical
Worst
0.037
0.037
0.074
0.25
0.40
2.1
0.68
2.3
Human        Typical         0.021     0.042    0.23     0.38
             Worst           0.021     0.14     1.2      1.3

     e.   Value  Interpretation - Value  equals  the  expected
          concentration in  tissues  of  plants grown  in  sludge-
          amended  soil.     However,  any  value  exceeding  the
          value  of  Index 6  for  the  same  or  a similar  plant
          species may be unrealistically  high  because  it  would
          be precluded by phytotoxicity.
                         3-6

-------
          f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  - The  concentrations  of  PCBs
               in plant  tissues  may be expected  to  increase due  to
               plant uptake of PCBs from sludge-amended soils.

     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  con-
               centration   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.

          d.   Index  6   Values   (jig/g  DW)   -   Values  were   not
               calculated due to  lack of data.

          e.   Value  Interpretation - Value  equals  the   maximum
               plant  tissue  concentration which  is  permitted  by
               phytotoxicity.   Value  is   compared  with  values  for
               the same or  similar plant  species given by Index 5.
               The lowest  of  the  two indices indicates the  maximal
               increase  that  can  occur at   any  given  application
               rate.

          f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  - Conclusion  was  not  drawn
               because index values could not be  calculated.

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  con-
               sider  direct  contamination of  forage  by adhering
               sludge.

                              3-7

-------
          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.

          Data Used and Rationale

            i. Concentration  of  pollutant in  plant  grown  in
               sludge-amended soil  (Index  5)

               The  pollutant   concentration  values  used  are
               those  Index 5  values  for  an  animal  diet   (see
               Section 3, p. 3-6).

           ii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
               (TA) =5.0 ug/g  DW

               No data  were  immediately available  on  PCB   tox-
               icity to grazing animals.   PCB concentration of
               5  Ug/g  reduced  the  egg production  of  chickens
               (Stendell, 1976)  and 2.5 to 5  Ug/g feed concen-
               tration  affected  rhesus   monkeys  (Allen   and
               Norback, 1976).   Due to  lack of  data, the above
               information  was  used  in  developing  .toxicity
               levels    for   herbivorous   animals.       (See
               Section 4, p. 4-16.)
          Index 7 Values
              Sludge
          Concentration
                        Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)

                          0         5       50       500
Typical
Worst
0.0074
0.0074
0.015
0.050
0.079
0.42
0.14
0.46
          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  -  Landspreading of  sludge  is
          not   expected    to    result    in    plant    tissue
          concentrations of  PCBs  that pose  a toxic  threat  to
          herbivorous animals.
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
                         3-8

-------
     sludge-amended  soil   and   compares   this  with  the
     dietary  toxic  threshold concentration  for  a grazing
     animal.

b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  sludge  is
     applied  over and  adheres to growing  forage,  or that
     sludge  constitutes  5  percent  of  dry matter  in  the
     grazing  animal's  diet,  and that  pollutant  form  in
     sludge  is  equally  bioavailable  and  toxic   as  form
     used to  demonstrate  toxic  effects.   Where  no sludge
     is applied  (i.e.,  0 mt/ha), assumes  diet  is  5  per-
     cent soil as a basis for comparison.

c.   Data Used and Rationale

       i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

          Typical    4 Mg/g  DW
          Worst      23  yg/g DW

          See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

      ii. Fraction of animal  diet assumed  to  be  soil  (GS)
          = 5%

          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 bas-is (Chaney  and  Lloyd,  1979;  Boswell,
          1975).  However,  this contamination diminishes
          gradually  with  time and  growth,  and  generally
          is not detected in  the  following  year's  growth.
          For example, where pastures  amended at 16 and
          32 mt/ha were  grazed  throughout  a  growing  sea-
          son (168 days), average  sludge  content  of  for-
          age   was    only    2.14    and    4.75  percent,
          respectively  (Bertrand et  al., 1981).   It  seems
          reasonable to  assume  that  animals  may  receive
          long-term  dietary  exposure  to 5 percent  sludge
          if  maintained  on  a  forage  to which sludge  is
          regularly  applied.  This  estimate of 5  percent
          sludge is used  regardless  of application  rate,
          since  the  above studies  did not  show a  clear
          relationship  between application  rate  and  ini-
          tial contamination, and  since adhesion  is not
          cumulative yearly  because  of die-back.

          Studies  of grazing animals  indicate that  soil
          ingestion,  ordinarily  <10  percent of dry weight
          of diet,  may  reach as  high as  20  percent for
          cattle and 30  percent for  sheep during winter
          months when  forage  is  reduced  (Thornton  and
                    3-9

-------
               Abrams,  1983).     If   the  soil  were   sludge-
               amended, it  is  conceivable that  up to 5  percent
               sludge may  be  ingested in  this  manner as well.
               Therefore,  this  value  accounts  for  either of
               these scenarios,  whether  forage  is harvested or
               grazed in the field.

          iii. Feed  concentration  toxic  to  herbivorous animal
               (TA) =5.0 Ug/g DW

               See Section 3,  p. 3-8.

     d.   Index 8 Values

                             Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0         5       50       500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.040
0.23
0.040
0.23
0.040
0.23
     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   inadvertent  ingestion
          of sludge-amended  soil  is not  expected  to  result  in
          a dietary  concentration of  PCBs  that  poses  a toxic
          threat to grazing animals.

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.
                        3-10

-------
 Data Used and Rationale

   i. Concentration  of  pollutant  in  plant  grown  in
      sludge-amended soil (Index 5)

      The  pollutant  concentration  values  used  are
      those  Index  5  values  for  a  human  diet   (see
      Section 3, p. 3-6).

  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
      vegetarians  (Ryan  et  al.,  1982);  vegetarians
      were chosen  to  represent  the  worst case.   The
      value for  toddlers  is  based on  the FDA Revised
      Total   Diet   (Pennington,   1983)   and   food
      groupings listed  by  the  U.S.  EPA  (1984a).   Dry
      weights   for    individual   food    groups   were
      estimated  from  composition  data  given  by  the
      U.S. Department  of  Agriculture (USDA)  (1975).
      These values  were  composited  to  estimate  dry-
      weight  consumption of all non-fruit crops.

iii.   Average daily human dietary intake of  pollutant
      (DI)

      Toddler    0.2526  Ug/day
      Adult      0.7578  Ug/day

      The 'four-year  average  of  total relative  daily
      PCB  intake  for  fiscal  (FY)  1975  through FY  78
      is  0.0108   ug/g   body  weight/day   (FDA,  1979).
      Since adequate data were not  immediately avail-
      able to determine  daily  dietary intake,  it  was
      conservatively assumed  to be equal  to  the  total
      daily PCB intake.   The adult DI  value  was  esti-
      mated assuming  an average adult  weighs 70  kg.
      DI for toddlers was  assumed  to be  1/3  of  adult
      value.   (See Section 4,  p.  4-4.)

 iv.   Cancer  potency = 4.34 (mg/kg/day)"-'-

      The  potency  value  of  4.34  (mg/kg/day)""-*-  was
      derived   from  data  resulting  from  studies   in
      which rats  ingesting  PCBs  developed hepatocel-
      lular carcinomas  and neoplastic  nodules  (U.S.
      EPA,  1980).   (See  Section 4, p.   4-6.)
               3-11

-------
      v.  Cancer     risk-specific    intake    (RSI)     =
          0.0161 ng/day

          The  RSI  is Che  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
          Ko 1 —       „
                      Cancer potency

d.   Index 9 Values

                                  Sludge Application
                                     Rate (mt/ha)
                  Sludge
     Group     Concentration    0      5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
110
110
210
670
1100
5600
1800
6000
     Adult       Typical       310    580    2900   4900
                 Worst         310   1800   15000  17000

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.

f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  The  consumption  of  crops
     grown  on  sludge-amended   soils  may  result  in  an
     increased potential of  cancer risk to humans due to
     PCBs.

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 upta.ke  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).
                   3-12

-------
 Divides  possible  variations  in dietary  intake into
 two categories:   toddlers  (18  months  to 3 years) and
 individuals over 3 years old.

 Data Used and Rationale

  i.  Concentration  of  pollutant  in  plant grown  in
      sludge-amended soil (index 5)

      The  pollutant  concentration  values  used  are
      those  Index  5 values  for an  animal diet  (see
      Section 3, p. 3-6).

 ii.  Uptake  factor of  pollutant  in  animal  tissue
      (UA) = 5.7 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed  DW)-1

      The uptake factor  in  tissues  of  animals  feeding
      on  plants  was derived  from  data  available  for
      cattle.   The  highest  uptake factors  for  cattle
      are reported  to  be 5.7  in milk  fat (Fries  et
      al., 1973) and 5.5 in body fat  (Connor,  1984).
      (See Section 4, p. 4-18.)  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  PDA Revised  Total  Diet
      (Pennington,   1983),   food  groupings  listed  by
      the U.S.  EPA  (1984a)  and food composition  data
      given  by USDA (1975).   Adult intake  of meats  is
      based  on  males 25  to   30  years  of age and  that
      for milk  products  on  males  14  to  16 years  of
      age, the  age-sex groups  with the  highest  daily
      intake.   Toddler  intake  of  milk  products  is
      actually  based  on  infants,  since  infant  milk
      consumption is the highest among  that age  group
      (Pennington,  1983).

 iv.  Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
      (DI)

      Toddler    0.2526 Ug/day
      Adult       0.7578 Ug/day

      See Section 3,  p. 3-11.
               3-13

-------
           v.  Cancer     risk-specific     intake    (RSI)
               0.0161 yg/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-12.

     d.   Index 10 Values

                                       Sludge Application
                                          Rate (mt/ha)
                       Sludge
          Group     Concentration    0      5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
590
590
1200
3900
6200
33000
10000
35000
          Adult       Typical      1200   2400   12000  21000
                      Worst        1200   7800   66000  72000

     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  The  consumption  of  animal
          products derived from animals  feeding  on crops grown
          in  sludge-amended  soils may  result  in  an increased
          potential of cancer risk, to humans due to PCBs.

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   co   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  for
          muscle  of  any  commonly  consumed   species  or at  Che
          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  = Cattle (milk  fat)

               See Section  3,  p. 3-13.
                        3-14

-------
  ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant  (SC)

      Typical     4 ug/g DW
      Worst      23 Ug/g DW

      See Section 3, p. 3-1.

 iii. Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in soil
      (BS) = 0.01 Ug/g DW

      See Section. 3, p. 3-2.

  iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
      = 5%

      See Section 3, p. 3-9.

   v. Uptake  factor  of  pollutant   in  animal  tissue
      (UA) = 5.7 ug/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    0.2526
      Adult      0.7578 Ug/day

      See Section 3, p. 3-11.

viii. Cancer    risk-specific    intake     (RSI)
      0.0161
      See Section 3,  p.  3-12.
               3-15

-------
     d.   Index 11 Values
                                       Sludge Application
                                          Rate  (mt/ha)
                       Sludge
Group
Toddler
Adult
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
23
23
62
62
5
2800
16000
5900
34000
50
2800
16000
5900
34000
500
2800
16000
5900
34000
     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  The consumption  of  animal
          products  derived  from  animals  that  inadvertently
          ingest   sludge-amended   soiL   may   result   in   an
          increased potential  of cancer risk to  humans  due to
          PCBs.

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
               Adult
5    g/day
0.02 g/day
               The  value  of  5  g/day  for a  pica  child  is  a
               worst-case  estimate  employed  by   U.S.   EPA's
               Exposure  Assessment  Group  (U.S.  EPA,  1983a).
               The  value  of  0.02  g/day  for  an adult  is  an
               estimate from U.S.  EPA,  1984a.
                        3-16

-------
          iii. Average daily  human dietary intake of  pollutant
               (DI)

               Toddler    0.2526 Ug/day
               Adult      0.7578 Ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-11.

           iv. Cancer    risk-specific     intake    (RSI)    =
               0.0161 Ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-12.

     d.   Index 12 Values

                                         Sludge Application
                                            Rate (mt/ha)

Group
Toddler

Adult

Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst

0
19
19
47
47

5
22
37
47
47

50
49
190
47
48

500
72
210
47
48
     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  The inadvertent  ingestion
          of  sludge-amended  soil by  humans may  result  in  an
          increased .potential of cancer risk due to PCBs.

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.
                        3-17

-------
              d.   Index 13 Values

                                                Sludge Application
                                                   Rate (mt/ha)
                                Sludge
                   Group     Concentration    0      5      50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
700
700
4100
21000
10000
54000
15000
58000
                   Adult       Typical      1500    8700   21000  32000
                               Worst        1500   43000  120000 120000

              e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

              f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  The  aggregate  amount  of
                   PCBs  in  the  human  diet  due  to  landspreading  of
                   sludge  may  result  in  an  increased  potential  of
                   cancer risk to humans.

II. LANDFILLING

    A.   Index  of  Groundwater  Concentration  Resulting  from  Landfilled
         Sludge (Index 1)

         1.   Explanation -  Calculates groundwater  contamination  which
              could occur  in a potable  aquifer  in  the  landfill  vicin-
              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,
              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.
                                 3-18

-------
     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.

3.   Data Used and Rationale

     a.   Unsaturated zone

          i.   Soil type and characteristics

               (a)  Soil type

                    Typical     Sandy  loam
                    Worst       Sandy

                    These  two  soil  types were  used  by  Gerritse  et
                    al.  (1982"* to  measure partitioning  of  elements
                    between   soil  and   a  sewage   sludge   solution
                    phase.    They are used here since these  parti-
                    tioning  measurements  (i.e., K^ values)  are  con-
                    sidered   the   best   available   for  analysis  of
                    metal  transport  from  landfilled  sludge.    The
                    same soil types are  also  used  for nonmetals  for
                    convenience  and consistency  of analysis.

               (b)  Dry bulk density  (

                    Typical     1.53   g/mL
                    Worst       1.925  g/mL

                    Bulk density is the dry mass per  unit  volume  of
                    the  medium (soil),  i.e.,  neglecting  the  mass  of
                    the  water (CDM, 1984a).

               (c)  Volumetric  water  content  (9)

                    Typical     0.195  (unitless)
                    Worst       0.133  (unitless)
                             3-19

-------
          The volumetric  water content  is the  volume of
          water  in  a  given  volume  of  media,  usually
          expressed as a  fraction  or  percent.   It depends
          on properties  of the media  and the  water flux
          estimated by infiltration or  net  recharge.  The
          volumetric water content  is  used in  calculating
          the water movement  through  the unsaturated zone
          (pore  water   velocity)   and   the   retardation
          coefficient.  Values obtained from CDM, 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,  Che 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  mVyear
          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.
                   3-20

-------
     (c)  Depth to groundwater (h)

          Typical    5 m
          Worst      0 m

          Eight  landfills  were  monitored  throughout  the
          United  States  and  depths  to  groundwater below
          them were  listed.    A  typical  depth  to ground-
          water  of  5  m  was  observed  (U.S.  EPA,  1977).
          For the  worst  case, a  value  of 0 m  is  used to
          represent the situation where  the  bottom of the
          landfill is  occasionally or  regularly below the
          water table.   The  depth to groundwater  must be
          estimated  in order  to  evaluate  the  likelihood
          that pollutants  moving through  the  unsaturated
          soil will reach the groundwater.

     (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     4 mg/kg  DW
          Worst       23 mg/kg  DW

          See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

     (b)  Soil half-life  of pollutant  (tp = 2190 days

          See Section 3,  p.  3-2.

     (c)  Degradation rate (u) = 0.000316 day'1

          The unsaturated zone can  serve as an  effective
          medium  for  reducing  pollutant  concentration
                   3-21

-------
          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)  =
          320,000 mL/g

          The  organic  carbon  partition  coefficient  is
          multiplied  by  the  percent  organic carbon  con-
          tent of  soil  (fOc)  to derive  a  partition  coef-
          ficient  (Kj),   which  represents  the  ratio  of
          absorbed  pollutant  concentration  to  the  dis-
          solved  (or  solution)  concentration.   The  equa-
          tion (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^
          values for  different  soil  types.   The value  of
          Koc is  from Hassett et al.  (1983).   Among  the
          PCBs for which  Koc  values  are  reported  (Hassett
          et al.,  1983),  only PCB 1248  and  PCB 1260  are
          common in  the  environment  (WHO,  1976).   Choice
          of Koc for PCB  1248  is conservative.

Saturated zone

i.   Soil type and characteristics

     (a)  Soil type

          Typical    Silty sand
          Worst       Sand

          A silty  sand having the  values of aquifer  por-
          osity  and  hydraulic conductivity defined below
          represents a typical  aquifer  material.   A  more
          conductive medium such  as  sand  transports  the
          plume  more readily  and with less dispersion  and
          therefore represents a reasonable worst case.

     (b)  Aquifer porosity (0)

          Typical    0.44  (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
                   3-22

-------
          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).

     (b)  Distance  from  well to landfill (AJL)

          Typical   100 m
          Worst       50 m

          This  distance   is   the  distance   between  a
          landfill  and  any  functioning  public or  private
          water supply or livestock  water supply.
                   3-23

-------
          (c)  Dispersivity coefficient  (a)

               typical    10 m
               Worst       5 m

               These  values  are  10 percent  of  the  distance
               from  well  to  landfill  (AS,),  which  is  100 and
               50 m,   respectively,   for   typical   and  worst
               conditions.
          (d)  Minimum thickness of saturated zone  (B)  =  2
m
               The  minimum  aquifer  thickness   represents  the
               assumed  thickness   due   to  preexisting  flow;
               i.e., in the  absence of  leachate.  It is termed
               the  minimum thickness  because  in  the vicinity
               of  the  site  it  may  be  increased  by leachate
               infiltration  from the site.   A  value  of  2 m
               represents   a   worst   case  assumption   that
               preexisting flow is  very  limited  and therefore
               dilution  of  the plume  entering   the  saturated
               zone is negligible.
          (e)  Width of landfill (W) = 112.8
                                             m
               The  landfill   is   arbitrarily   assumed  to  be
               circular with an area of 10,000 m^-

     iii. Chemical-specific parameters

          (a)  Degradation rate (u) =  0  day"1

               Degradation  is  assumed  not  to  occur  in  che
               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  Ug/L, at  the
     well.

6.   Preliminary Conclusion - Landfilling of sludge  may result
     in increased concentrations  of PCBs  in  groundwater at  the
     well.
                        3-24

-------
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.

          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)
               = 0.7578  Ug/day

               See Section 3,  p. 3-11.

          d.   Cancer potency  =  4.34  (mg/kg/day)"^

               See Section 3,  p. 3-11.

          e.   Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.0161  yg/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 - Landfilling of  sludge may  result
          in an increased potential of  cancer risk to humans  due  to
          consumption of  groundwater  contaminated with  PCBs.
                             3-25

-------
               TABLE 3-1.  INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1)  AND

                           INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
    Site Characteristics
                Condition of Analysisa»"»c

            345
u>
I
    Sludge concentration



    Unsaturated Zone
W
T
W
Soil type and charac- T T W NA
teristics"
Site parameters6 T T T W
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T T T
teri st ics*
Site parameters^ T T T T
Index 1 Value (ug/L) 0.092 0.53 0.099 0.11
Index 2 Value 59 110 59 61
T T NA

T T W

W T W

T W W
0.30 0.33 130
85 88 17000
N

N

N

N
0
47
    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 groundwaler (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).



    ^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer  (K).



    SHydraulic gradient (i), distance  from well  to landfill (Ail),  and dispersivity  coefficient  (a).

-------
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  (Camp  Dresser  and   McKee,  Inc.  (COM),
               1984a).  This  model uses  the  thermodynamic  and mass  bal-
               ance relationships  appropriate for multiple hearth incin-
               erators to relate the input  sludge characteristics to the
               stack  gas  parameters.   Dilution  and  dispersion  of  these
               stack  gas   releases were   described   by  the  U.S.  EPA's
               Industrial   Source  Complex  Long-Term  (ISCLT)  dispersion
               model  from  which normalized  annual  ground  level  concen-
               trations were  predicted  (U.S.  EPA, 1979).   The predicted
               pollutant concentration can  then be  compared  to  a ground
               level concentration used  to assess  risk.

          2.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  The  fluidized  bed  incinerator
               was  not chosen  due  to  a  paucity   of  available  data.
               Gradual plume rise, stack  tip  downwash, and building  wake
               effects  are appropriate  for  describing  plume  behavior.
               Maximum  hourly  impact   values  can   be   translated   into
               annual  average values.

          3.   Data Used and Rationale

               a.   Coefficient to correct for mass and time  units  (C)  =
                    2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x  g/mg

               b.   Sludge feed rate (DS)

                      i. Typical = 2660  kg/hr (dry solids  input)

                        A  feed rate  of  2660  kg/hr DW  represents  an
                        average  dewatered   sludge  feed  rate  into   the
                         furnace.  This  feed  rate would  serve a  commun-
                         ity of approximately 400,000 people.  This  rate
                        was incorporated  into  the  U.S.  EPA-ISCLT model
                        based on the  following  input  data:

                              EP = 360 Ib  H20/mm BTU
                              Combustion  zone  temperature - 1400°F
                              Solids content  - 28%
                              Stack height  -  20  m
                              Exit  gas velocity  -  20  m/s
                              Exit  gas temperature -  356.9°K (183°F)
                              Stack diameter  - 0.60  m
                                  3-27

-------
      ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr  (dry solids  input)

          A  feed rate  of  10,000 kg/hr  DW  represents  a
          higher  feed  rate and  would serve  a  major  U.S.
          city.   This rate was  incorporated into the  U.S.
          EPA-ISCLT   model based on the. following input
          data:

               EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
               Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
               Solids content - 26.6%
               Stack height - 10 m
               Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
               Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (105°F)
               Stack diameter - 0.80 m

c.   Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

     Typical      4 mg/kg DW
     Worst       23 mg/kg DW

     See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

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
     (Farrell, 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
     Worst     16.0

     The  dispersion  parameter  is  derived  from the  U.S.
     EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.

f.   Background concentration of  pollutant  in  urban  air
     (BA) = 0.00741  Mg/m3

     The  BA  value presented here  is  the  average of  ten
     urban air concentrations  reported by  Bidleman  (1981)
     and National Academy  of  Sciences (NAS)  (1979).   If
     the data were  given  as a  range, the average of  the
     minimum and maximum  value was used.    (See  Section 4,
     pp. 4-3 and 4-4.)
                   3-28

-------
     4.   Index 1 Values

                                                   Sludge Feed
          Fraction of                             Rate (kg/hr DW)a
          Pollutant Emitted    Sludge
          Through Stack     Concentration     0      2660   10,000
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.3
2.6
2.2
7.9
5.8
29
          a The typical (3.4 ug/m) and worst (16.0 ug/m)   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.

     6.   Preliminary Conclusion  - The incineration  of  sludge  may
          result  in   air  concentrations  of   PCBs   that   exceed
          background  levels.

B.   Index  of  Hunan  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 (CAG).  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.  3-29.

          b.   Background concentration of  pollutant in urban  air
               (BA) = 0.00741  ug/m3

               See Section 3,  p. 3-28.
                             3-29

-------
              c.   Cancer potency = 4.34 (mg/kg/day)"^-

                   See Section 3, p. 3-11.

              d.   Exposure criterion  (EC)  =  0.000806
                   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  GAG 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:

                           _  10~6 x 1Q3  ug/mg  x  70 kg
                        to —                      .,   —
                             Cancer potency x 20 m^/day
         4.   Index 2 Values
              Fraction of
              Pollutant Emitted    Sludge
              Through Stack     Concentration
                                              Sludge Feed
                                              Rate  (kg/hr DW)a

                                                2660  10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
9.2
9.2
9.8
13
20
73
              Worst
                         Typical
                         Worst
9.2
9.2
12
24
 53
260
5.
6.
              a The typical (3.4 ug/m3) and worst (16.0 ug/m^)   disper-
                sion  parameters  will  always  correspond,  respectively,
                to the typical  (2660  kg/hr DW)  and worst  (10,000  kg/hr
                DW) sludge feed rates.

              Value  Interpretation  -  Value  >1  indicates  a  potential
              increase in cancer risk of >10~6 (1  per  1,000,000).   Com-
              parison with the null index  value at 0 kg/hr  DW indicates
              the degree to which any hazard  is .due to  sludge incinera-
              tion, as opposed to background urban  air  concentration.

              Preliminary  Conclusion  -   Incineration  of   sludge   may
              result in concentrations of  PCBs in air  that  increase  the
              potential of cancer risk to humans.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

    For  the  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,
                                 3-30

-------
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.

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 the  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
                             3-31

-------
     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  capacities  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,
     discharge the sludge  over  7902 m  and  exit  the site.
     The mean path length  for  the large and small tankers
     is 8041  m  or  approximately  8000  m.   Path  length  is
     assumed  to   lie  perpendicular  to  the  direction   of
     prevailing  current flow.  For  the  typical  disposal
     rate  (SS) of  825 mt 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  worst-case  disposal  rate (SS)  of
     1650 mt  DW/day,  eight  3400 mt  WW and eight  1600 mt
     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
     the   above   described  disposal   operation,   sludge
     dumping would occur every day of the 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
     length compared to  the typical site.

b.   Sludge concentration of pollutant  (SC)

     Typical     4 mg/kg DW
     Worst      23 mg/kg DW

     See Section  3, p. 3-1.
                   3-32

-------
     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
          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  km^.
          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.1 Connor  and
     Park,  1982,  as  cited   in  NOAA,   1983).    Subsequent
     spreading  of  plume  band width  occurs  at  an average  rate
                        3-33

-------
          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
          the barge wake causes  initial  mixing  to at  least  10 m,
          the greater value was  used.

     5.   Index 1 Values (pg/L)

               Disposal                         Sludge Disposal
               Conditions and                    Rate (mt DW/day)
               Site Charac-     Sludge
               teristics    Concentration      0      825     1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0080
0.046
0.0080
0.046
               Worst          Typical         0.0   0.068    0.068
                              Worst           0.0   0.39     0.39

     6.   Value Interpretation - Value  equals  the  expected increase
          in PCBs  concentration  in seawater around a  disposal  site
          as a result of sludge disposal after initial  mixing.

     7.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Ocean  disposal  of  sludge  may
          result  in  increased  concentrations  of  PCBs  in  seawater
          around the disposal site  after 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.
                             3-34

-------
     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. 3-35.

     5.   Index 2 Values (ug/L)

               Disposal                          Sludge Disposal
               Conditions  and                    Rate (mt DW/day)
               Site Charac-    Sludge
               teristics    Concentration      0       825      1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0022
0.012
0.0043
0.025
               Worst          Typical         0.0   0.019    0.038
                              Worst           0.0   0.11     0.22

     6.   Value   Interpretation   -  Value   equals   the   effective
          increase in PCBs concentration expressed  as  a TWA concen-
          tration in seawater around a disposal  site experienced by
          an organism over a  24-hour period.

     7.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  The   concentration  of  PCBs  in
          seawater  around the  disposal  site  may  increase  above
          background levels over  a 24-hour period.

C.   Index of Hazard to Aquatic Life (Index 3)

     1.   Explanation - Compares   the effective  increased concentra-
          tion of  pollutant   in  seawater  around  the  disposal  site
          (Index 2)  expressed as  a  24-hour  TWA concentration  with
          the marine ambient  water  quality criterion  of  the  pollu-
          tant, or  with  another   value judged protective of  marine
          aquatic life.  For   PCBs, this value is the criterion  that
          will protect  the marketability of  edible marine  aquatic
          organisms.

     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
                             3-35

-------
     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.

3.   Data Used and Rationale

     a.   Concentration  of  pollutant  in  seawater  around  a
          disposal site (Index 2)

          See Section 3, p. 3-35.

     b.   Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) = 0.030 ug/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
          resultant  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 PCBs.

          The 0.030 Ug/L value chosen  as  the criterion to  pro-
          tect  saltwater  organisms  is  expressed  as a  24-hour
          average concentration  (U.S.   EPA,  1980).   This  con-
          centration, the  saltwater final  residue  value,  was
          derived by  using the  FDA action level  for  marketa-
          bility for human  consumption of PCBs in  edible  fish
          and shellfish  (5  mg/kg),  the geometric mean  of  nor-
          malized   bioconcentration    factor    (BCF)    values
          (10,400) for aquatic species  tested,  and  the  16  per-
          cent  liprd  content  of  marine species.    This  value
          will also  protect against acute toxic  effects  which
          occur only at  concentrations  of  PCBs above  10  Ug/L.
          Chronic toxicity  effects  were observed  among marine
          fish  species  at   PCB  concentrations   as   low   as
          0.14 Ug/L.

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
0.072
0.42
0.14
0.83
          Worst          Typical          0.0     0.64     1.3
                         Worst            0.0     3.7       7.3
                        3-36

-------
     5.   Value  Interpretation  - Value  equals  the  factor  by which
          the  expected  seawater  concentration  increase  in  PCBs
          exceeds  the  marine water quality  criterion.   A  value >1
          indicates  that  a  tissue  residue  hazard  may exist  for
          aquatic  life.  Even for values  approaching 1,  a PCB resi-
          due  in  tissue  hazard may  exist,  thus  jeopardizing  the
          marketability of edible saltwater  organisms.   The criter-
          ion value  of 0.030 Ug/L  is  probably too  high because it
          is based  on  bioconcentration factors measured in labora-
          tory   studies,   but   field  studies  apparently   produce
          factors  at  least  10  times  higher  for  fish  (U.S.  EPA,
          1980).

     6.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  Ocean  disposal  of  sludge  may
          result in  concentrations of PCBs  in  the tissue of aquatic
          life  that jeopardize  their marketability when  high-PCB
          sludge is  disposed of at  a  high  rate  at a typical  dis-
      	 posal  site.   Where poor  site  conditions exist,  and  when
          typical  sludge  is  disposed  of at  a high  rate,  or  when
          high-PCB  sludge  is  disposed  of at  high and low  rates,  a
          threat to aquatic life may exist.

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 the  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.  3-35.

               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.
                             3-37

-------
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 (FS)

     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  it was  conven-
     ient to  express  the  total area  affected   by  sludge
     disposal  as  a  fraction  of an  NMFS  reporting  area.
     The area  used  to  represent the disposal impact  area
     should be  an approximation of the  total  ocean  area
     over  which  the  average  concentration defined  by
     Index 2 is roughly applicable.   The average  rate of
     plume  spreading  of  1 cm/sec referred to  earlier
     amounts to 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  the  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.  At that time,  the  origi-
     nal plume length of approximately 8 km  (8000 m)  will
     have   doubled   to   approximately   16 km    due    to
     spreading.

     It   is   probably  unnecessary   to  follow   the  plume
     further since   storms,  which  would  result  in  much
     more rapid  dispersion of pollutants  to  background
     concentrations   are  expected   on   at  least   a  10-day
     frequency   (NOAA,   1983).     Therefore,    the   area
     impacted  by  sludge disposal  (AI,  in  km^)  at  each
     disposal   site  will be considered to  be  defined  by
     the  tanker  path  length  (L)   times  the  distance  of
     current movement (V) during 10 days, and is computed
     as  follows:
                   3-38

-------
           AI = 10 x L x V x 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,  the  value  of   AI  must  be  expressed  as  a
      fraction 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 (COM, 1984b).  Near-shore  area  612  has an  area
      of   approximately   4300    km2    and    constitutes
      approximately  24  percent   of   the  total   seafood
      landings  (COM,  1984c).    Therefore  the fraction  of
      all  seafood  landings  (FSt)   from  the  Bight  which
      could originate  from  the  area  of  impact  of  either
      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 0.02% =                                (2)
      FSt ~ 7200 km*

[10 x 8000  m x  9500 m  x  1Q~6 km2/m2]  x 0.0002            5
                          _                     ~  Z * 1 X  i U
                   7200 km2

      For the worst  (near shore)  site:

      FSt = ^^ =                                  (3)
            4300 km2

  [10 x 4000 m  x 4320  m  x 1Q~6 km2/m2] x  0.24     fi x*1Q-3
                  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
                    3-39

-------
     impact  under  this worst-case  scenario is  calculated
     as follows:

     For the typical (deep water) site:

     FSW = 	AI  ,  = 0.11                        (4)
           7200 km2

     For the worst (near shore) site:
              AI
           4300 km2
FSW =        „ = 0.040                       (5)
d.   Bioconcentration   factor   of   pollutant    (BCF)   =
     31,200 L/kg

     The value chosen  is  the  weighted average BCF of PCBs
     for the  edible  portion of all  freshwater  and estua-
     rine  aquatic  organisms   consumed  by  U.S.  citizens
     (U.S.   EPA,   1980).     The weighted  average  BCF  is
     derived as part of  the water  quality criteria devel-
     oped  by  the U.S.  EPA to  protect  human health  from
     the potential  carcinogenic effects  of  PCBs  induced
     by  ingestion  of   contaminated   water  and  aquatic
     organisms.   The weighted  average  BCF  is  calculated
     by  adjusting  the mean normalized BCF (steady-state
     BCF corrected  to  1  percent  lipid  content)  to  the
     3 percent lipid content  of consumed fish  and shell-
     fish.   It should  be  noted that  lipids  of marine spe-
     cies  differ  in   both structure  and  quantity  from
     those  of  freshwater  species.    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)
     = 0.7578 Ug/day

     See Section  3,  p.  3-11.

f.   Cancer potency = 4.34 (mg/kg/day)"^-

     See Section  3,  p.  3-11.

g.   Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.0161 Ug/day

     See section  3,  p.  3-12.
                   3-40

-------
Index A Values

Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac-      Sludge      Seafood
teristics     Concentration3  Intake3**3
                         Sludge Disposal
                         Rate (mt DW/day)
                          0
                 825    1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
47
47
47
160
47
270
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
47
47
 52
400
 57
760
3 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.

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  pre-
existing dietary sources.

Preliminary Conclusion -  Ocean  disposal of  sludge  may  be
expected to  result  in  an  increased  potential   of  cancer
risk  to  humans,  except  possibLy  when  typical   sludge  is
disposed of  at a  typical  site  with typical  conditions,
and when seafood intake is typical.
                   3-41

-------
                              SECTION 4

       PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR  POLYCHLORINATED  BIPHENYLS
                      IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE  SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE

   Manufacturers phased out all PCB production from
   1976 to 1979, with diminished use since 1971.
   Use of PCBs still continues, however, under
   restricted conditions.
   A.   Sludge
       1.  Frequency of Detection

           PCBs observed in influent and effluent
           from 40 POTWs,  but  not in sludge

           PCBs not observed in influents,
           effluents,  or sludge of 10 POTWs

           The analysis for PCBs done in EPA's  sur-
           vey of 50 POTWs  is  questionable  due  to
           detection limits used.
                           U.S. EPA,  1982a
                           (pp. 38 to 42)

                           U.S. EPA,  1982b
                           (p. 5-50)

                           Clarkson et al.,
                           1985
       2.   Coneent rat i on

           2570 ng/g (WW)  AR-1254  in  digested
           sludge from  Denver.   751 ng/g  (WW)
           AR-1254 in waste-activated sludge from
           Denver

           Summary of PCB  sludge analysis  from  74
           cities in Missouri  (ug/g DW):
Min.
                   Max.
Mean
Median
0.11
                   2.9
 1.1
  0.99
           <0.01  to  23.1  Ug/g (DW) (median
           4  ppm)  in  sludges  of  16  U.S.  cities
           Arochlor  1254 not found  in Chicago
           municipal  sludge; mean levels of  PCBs  in
           4  Ontario  treatment plants ranged from
           74 to  1122  Ug/L  using  iron,  lime, or
           alum treatments.

           200 to  1700 ug/g (DW)  in Indiana  sludge
                           Baxter et al.,
                           1983a (p. 315)
                           Clevenger
                           et al., 1983
                           (p. 1471)
                           Furr et al.,
                           1976 (pp. 684
                           and 686)

                           Jones and Lee,
                           1977 (p. 52)
                           Pal et al.,
                           1980 (p.  50)
                                4-1

-------
B.  Soil - Unpolluted

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        1.1% detection in rice growing soils of
        U.S. (1972 data)

        0.1% detection of PCBs in 1483 cropland
        soil samples from 37 states (1972 data)

        N.D. to 3.9% detection in 380 samples
        from soils from 5 U.S. cities, 1971

        0 to 5.9% detection in 5 USAF base soils


    2.  Concentration

        <625 ng/g PCBs in control and sludge
        amended soil

        N.D. to 1.13 Ug/g (DW) in rice growing
        soils of U.S.

        0.80 to 1.49 Ug/g (DW) PCBs for the 2
        detected samples in 1483 cropland soil
        samples from 37 states

        N.D. to 3.30 ug/g (DW) range from 380
        samples from 5 U.S. cities, 1971

        PCBs not detected in residential  and non-
        use area soils from six USAF bases

        N.D. to 4.33 ug/g (DW) (mean 0.29 Ug/g)
        in soils from golf course (1976 data)

        2 x 10~7 to 2  x  10~3  ug/g  in  top  1  cm
        of soil

        <0.1 to 43 ng/g (DW) PCBs in agricul-
        tural soils in southern Florida

        <1 to 33 ng/g (DW) PCBs in soils  of
        Everglades National Park.

C.  Water - Unpolluted

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        0 to 7.7% in major U.S. drainage  basins
        (1974 data)
Carey  et  al.,
1980 (p.  25)

Carey  et  al.,
1979a  (p. 212)

Carey  et  al.,
1979b  (p. 19)

Lang et al.,
1979 (p.  231)
Baxter et al.,
1983a (p. 315)

Carey et al.,
1980 (p. 25)

Carey et al.,
1979a (p. 212)
Carey et al.,
1979b (p. 19)

Lang et al.,
1979 (p. 231)
NAS, 1979
(p. 56)

Requejo et al.,
1979 (p. 933)
Dennis, 1976
(p. 188)
                              4-2

-------
        Concentration
D.  Air
                                                   Glooschenko
                                                   et al., 1976
                                                   (p. 63)

                                                   NAS, 1979
                                                   (p. 28)
a.  Freshwater

    No PCBs detected in filtered water
    samples of the upper Great Lakes,
    1974 (detection limit = 0.1 Ug/L)

    0.1 Ug/L to 3.0 Ug/L median residue
    levels in major U.S. river basins
    (1971 to 1974 data)

    0.8 to 5.0 ng/L in Lake Superior
      from 1972 to 1976
    9 to 31 ng/L in Lake Michigan
    1.0 to 3.0 ng/L in Lake Ontario
    5.0 to 7.0 ng/L in Lake Huron
    27.0 ng/L in Lake Erie

    N.D. to 0.7 Ug/L in the major drain-
    age basins of the U.S.  (1974 data)

b.  Seawater

    <0.9 to 3.6 ng/L in Sargasso Sea
    1.8 ng/L in Gulf of Mexico
    0.3 to 0.5 ng/L in California  Current
    0.8 ng/L in New England continental
      shelf
    1.1 to 5.9 ng/L in California  coastal
      waters

c.  Drinking Water
            3.0 Ug/L PCBs in Winnebago, IL water   NAS,  1977
                                                   Dennis, 1976
                                                   (p. 188)
                                                   NAS, 1979
                                                   (p. 46-47)
            supply
            0.1 Ug/L PCBs in Sellersberg, IN
            water supply
                                           (p.  756)
    1.  Frequency of Detection

        100% at suburban locations  in FL,  MS,  CO
        (1975 data)

    2.  Concentration

        a.  Urban

            4.4 ng/nr* Columbia,  NC
            7.1 ng/m3 Boston,  MA (1978 data)
                                           Kutz  and Yang,
                                           1976  (p. 182)
                                           Bidleman,  1981
                                           (p.  623)
                              4-3

-------
        Kingston, RI, 1973 to 1975  1 to       NAS, 1979
          15 ng/m3                             (p. 20)
        La Jolla, CA, 1974  0.5 to  14 ng/m3
        Vineyard Sound, MA, 1973  4 to
          5 ng/m3
        Univ., RI,  1973   2.1  to 5.8 ng/m3
        Providence, RI, 1973  9.4 ng/m3
        Chicago, IL, 1975 to 1976  3.6 to
          11.0 ng/m3
        Jacksonville, FL, 1976  3 to 36 ng/m3
        Milwaukee, WI, 1978  2.7 ng/m3

        100 ng/m3 average for 3 suburban       Kutz and Yang,
        locations (1975 data)                  1976 (p. 182)

    b.  Rural

        Organ Pipe National Park,  1974         NAS, 1979
          0.02 to 0.41 ng/m3                   (p. 20)
        Hayes, KS, 1974  0.03 ng/m3
        Lake Michigan, 1976 to 1978  0.57 to
          1.6 ng/m3
        Northwest Territories, 1974  0.002 to
          0.07 ng/m3

Food

1.  Total Average Intake

    Total relative daily intakes               FDA, 1979
    (Ug/kg body weight/day)                    (Attachment G)

     FY75     FY76      FY77     FY78
    0.0000   0.0000   0.0164  0.0269

    Concentration

    No PCBs detected in food crops from        Carey et al.,
    1483 sites in 37 states, 1972              1979a (p. 221)
                          4-4

-------
Frequency and range of PCBs in food
groups based on 20 composite groups
sampled detection limit (0.005 Ug/g)
(FY78 data)
Food Group
   Frequency
Dairy
Meat and fish           6/20
Grains and cereals
Potatoes
Leafy vegetables
Legumes                 2/20
Root vegetables
Garden fruit              —
Fruit
Oils and fats           2/20
Sugars
Beverages
                       FDA, 1979
                       (Attachment E)
Range of concentrations:  0.006 to
0.050 ug/g

Comparisons of PCBs as Arochlor 1254 in
health and traditional foods (ug/g)
Food Product
Health  Traditional
 Food      Food
Milk
Cashews
Whole wheat cereal
Pecans
Pancake mix
Almonds
Rice cereal
Brazil nut
0.00
5.00
1.50
4.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
N.D. to 4.99 Ug/g in milk fat from Ohio
farms, 1973

Trace to 1.78 Ug/g in milk fat from Ohio
farms, 1974
                       Appledorf et
                       al.,  1973
                       (p.  243)
                       Willet,  1980
                       (p.  1963)
                      4-5

-------
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
    A.  Ingestion

        1.  Carcinogenicity

            a.  Qualitative Assessment

                PCBs are reported to be animal car-
                cinogens and are probable human
                carcinogens.
                11 out of 33 deaths among "Yusho"
                (contaminated rice oil) patients who
                had died by 1979 resulted from
                malignancies involving various body
                sites.

            b.  Potency

                Cancer potency:   4.34  (mg/kg/day)~l

                The potency value of
                4.34 (mg/kg/day)"-'- was derived from
                studies in which rats  ingesting PCBs
                developed hepa£ocellular carcinomas
                and neoplastic nodules.

            c.  Effects

                Hepatocellular carcinomas and
                neoplastic nodules in  mice and rats


                Malignant neoplasms in "Yusho"
                patients ingesting Kanechlor  400.

            Chronic Toxicity

            a.  ADI

                Studies of chronic duration involving
                oral levels sufficiently low  to gen-
                erate reliable no-observed-adverse-
                effect levels  (NOAEL)  or lowest-
                observed-adverse-effect level
                (LOAEL) were not found in the liter-
                ature;  hence,  estimating a maximum
                oral dose tolerable for chronic
                exposure is not  possible.
U.S. EPA,  1984b
(pp. 31 to 45)
U.S. EPA,  1980
(p. C-62 to
C-86)

U.S. EPA,  1984b
(p. 31)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-117)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-64 and
C-67)

U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-72)

     \
U.S. EPA,
(p. 42)
1984b
                                 4-6

-------
            Insufficient Low-exposure data for     U.S.  EPA,  1984b
            the more toxic Aroclors precluded      (p. 41)
            estimation of a maximum tolerated
            dose for subchronic oral exposure
            to PCBs.

        b.  Effects

            Symptoms observed in "Yusho" patients  U.S.  EPA,  1980
            included increased eye discharge, and  (p. C-48)
            swelling of upper eyelids, acneform
            eruptions and follicular accentua-
            tion, and pigmentation of the skin.
            Other symptoms included dermatologic
            problems, swelling, jaundice, numb-
            ness of limbs, spasms, hearing and
            vision problems, and gastrointestinal
            disturbances.

    3.  Absorption Factor

        Chlorobiphenyl isomers administered        WHO,  1976
        orally to rodents at levels up to          (p. 44)
        100 mg/kg of body weight for lower
        chlorinated compounds and up to 5 mg/kg
        for the higher chlorinated compounds
        were rapidly adsorbed.  Absorption up
        to 90% was reported.

    4.  Existing Regulations

        The ambient water quality criteria for     U.S. EPA, 1980
        PCBs for the protection of humans from     (p. C-117)
        increased risk of cancer over the life-
        time is 0.079 ng/L at  the  10~6  level.

B.  Inhalation

    1.  Carcinogenicity

        a.  Qualitative Assessment

            No studies of carcinogenicity of PCBs  U.S. EPA, 1984b
            related to inhalation exposure have    (p. 43)
            been found in the available
            literature.

        b.  Potency

            Cancer potency 4.34 (mg/kg/day)"1.
            This estimate has been calculated
            from the data reported for ingestion
            assuming 100% absorption for both the
            ingestion and inhalation route.
                              4-7

-------
             c.  Effects

                 Data not immediately available.

         2.  Chronic Toxicity

             a.  Inhalation Threshold or MPIH

                 Occupational exposure limits recom-
                 mended by the American Conference of
                 Governmental and Industrial Hygien-
                 ists (ACGIH) for Aroclor 1254 are a
                 threshold limit value (TLV) of
                 0.5 mg/m^ and a short-term exposure
                 limit (STEL) of 1 mg/m3.  For
                 Aroclor 1242, the recommended TLV is
                 1, and the STEL is 2 mg/rn^.

             b.  Effects

                 Studies on the effect of PCB inhala-
                 tion are scarce.  In one study, rats,
                 mice, rabbits, and guinea pigs were
                 exposed to Aroclor 1242 or 1254
                 vapors for 5 days a week for several
                 weeks at concentrations ranging from
                 1.5 to 8.6 mg/m3.  At these
                 concentrations, Aroclor 1254
                 produced liver enlargement in rats.

         3.  Absorption Factor

             Very high absorption from inhalation
             exposure has been reported, but absorp-
             tion factors were not quantitated.

         4.  Existing Regulations

             The National Institute for Occupational
             Safety and Health (NIOSH) criterion is
             1.0 lig/m3 for 10 hours/day,
             40 hours/week exposure.

III.  PLANT EFFECTS

     A.   Phytotoxicity

         See Table 4-1.

     B.   Uptake

         See Table 4-2.

         0.002  to 0.040  Ug/g in plants


                                   4-8
U.S. EPA,  1984b
(p. 38)
WHO, 1976
(p. 53)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 7)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 38)
NAS, 1979
(p. 56)

-------
 IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS

     A.  Toxicity

         See Table 4-3.

     B.  Uptake

         0.02 to 0.4 Ug/g in wildlife                   WAS, 1979
         0.002 to 0.1 ug/g in livestock                 (p. 56)

         Aroclor 1260 levels in feedlot steers          Osheim et al.,
         exposed to PCBs in backrub oil:                 1982 (p. 717)

             3.0 to 36.0 Ug/g, liver
             1.8 to 7.5 Ug/g, kidney
             1.3 to 8.6 Ug/g, spleen
             2.0 to 26.0 Ug/g» heart
             1.4 to 26.0 Ug/g, muscle
             1.9 to 8.5 Ug/g, lung
             170 to 1900 Ug/g, fat

         See Table 4-5.

         500 ng/g (WW) AR-1254 in fat of  cattle on      Baxter et al.,
         control and sludge-amended plots,  sludge-      1983a (p. 316)
         amended and control soils <625 ng/g PCB        1983b (p. 318)

         PCB concentrations in fatty tissues of sows     Hansen et al. ,
         overwintered for two seasons on  sludge-        1981 (p. 1015)
         amended plots.

Estimated PCB Residues in
  the Soils Amended for            Eight-Year         Fat  Concentration
8 Years with Sewage Sludge   Sludge Application Rate   (ng/g fat basis)

1.62 + 0.29 ug/g DW                  Control                39+9
1.88 + 0.27 ug/g DW                 126 mt/ha             106 + 64
2.13 + 0.51 ug/g DW                 252 mt/ha             191 + 97
2.81 + 0.25 ug/g DW                504 mt/ha             389 + 118
                                  4-9

-------
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS

   A.  Toxicity

       1.  Freshwater

           a.  Acute

               Acute toxicity values for inverts-     U.S. EPA, 1980
               brate and fish species range from      (p. B-14)
               2.0 Ug/L to 2400 Ug/L.

           b.  Chronic

               Chronic toxicity values for inverte-   U.S. EPA, 1980
               brate and fish species range from      (p. B-16)
             •  0.2 ug/L to 15 Ug/L.

               Final residue value is 0.014 Ug/L      U.S. EPA, 1980
               based on the lowest maximum permis-    (p. B-10)
               sible tissue concentration (0.64 mg/kg)
               while the geometric mean of whole-
               body and BCFs for salmonids is
               45,000.

       2.  Saltwater

           a.  Acute

               Acute toxicity values for inverte-     U.S. EPA, 1980
               brate species range from 10.2 to       (p. B-3)
               60 Ug/L.

           b.  Chronic

               Chronic toxicity occurred among fish    U.S.  EPA,  1980
               species at  concentrations as low as    (p. B-5)
               0.14 Ug/L.

               Final saltwater residue value is       U.S. EPA, 1980
               0.030 ug/L based on FDA action         (p.' B-9)
               level of 5.0 mg/kg  for marketability
               for human consumption of PCBs in
               edible fish and shellfish,  the geo-
               metric mean of normalized BCF values
               (400), and  the 16%  lipid content of
               saltwater species.

   B.  Uptake

       The' weighted average BCF for the edible por-   U.S. EPA, 1980
       tion of all freshwater and  estuarine aquatic   (p. C-12)
       organisms  consumed  by U.S.  citizens  is  31,200.
                                4-10

-------
 VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS

     Data not immediately available.

VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
     Composition of chlorinated biphenyls
                              MAS, 1979
                              (p. 146)
Empirical
Formula
C12H10
C12HgCl
C12H8C12
C12H7C13
C12H6C14
C12H5C15
C12H4C16
C12H3C17
C12H2C18
C12HC19
C12C110
Molecular
Weight
154
188.5
223
257.5
292
326.5
361
395.5
430
464.5
499
Percent
Chlorine
0
19
32
41
49
54
59
63
66
69
71
No. of
Isomers
1
3
12
24
42
46
42
24
12
3
1
     Solubility of PCBs dependent on isomer
     Monochorobiphenyl
     Dichlorobiphenyl
     Trichlorobiphenyl
     Tetrachlorobiphenyl
     Pentachlorobiphenyl
     Hexachlorobiphenyl
     Octachlorobiphenyl
     Decachlorobiphenyl
     ArOclor 1242
     Aroclor 1248
     Aroclor 1254
     Aroclor 1260
            1.19 to 5.90 mg/L
            0.08 to 1.88 mg/L
 7.8xlO"2 to 8.5xlO"2 mg/L
3.4xlO~2 to 1.8xlO"3 mg/L
 2.2xlO~2 to 3.1xlO~2 mg/L
             8.8xlO~2 mg/L
             0.7xlO~2 mg/L
             1.5xlO~2 mg/L
                 0.24 mg/L
            5.40xlO~2 mg/L
            1.20xlO~2 mg/L
            0.30xlO~2 mg/L
                              MAS,  1979
                              (p.  154)
     Vapor pressure of Aroclors:
                              NAS,  1979
                              (p.  155)
Aroclor
1242
1248
1254
1260
VP to 20°C, mm/Hg
9.0 x ID'4
8.3 x 10~4
1.8 x ID"4
0.9 x ID"4
                                  4-11

-------
     0.01 to 0.08 ppm water solubility
     10~3 to 10~*> mm Hg at 25°C vapor pressure
     Entry of PCBs into the environment
                                        Webber and
                                        Mrozek, 1979
                                        (p.  412)

                                        WHO,  1976
                                        (p.  28)
Route
                          Percentage of
                             Annual
                          Production
   PCB type
(% chlorination)
Vaporization from plasticizers
Vaporization during incineration
Leaks and disposal of industrial fluids
Destruction by incineration
Disposal in dumps and landfills
Net increase in current usage
4.5
1
13
9
52.5
20
48-60
42
42-60
mainly 42
42-60
42-54
     Organic carbon partition coefficient
     PCB 1221
     PCB 1248
     PCB 1260
     PCB 1016
   6,600  mL/g
 320,000  mL/g
,700,000  mL/g
 210,000  mL/g
                                        Hassett  et  al. ,
                                        1983
     Long-term studies on the half-life of PCBs in
     field soils are not available.

     Most PCBs have half-life of <1 year  in  sediments
     Aroclor 1254 has half-life of  6 years
     Trichlorobiphenyl = 16 years
     Pentachlorobiphenyl = 11 years
                                        Fries,  1982
                                        (p.  18)
                                  4-12

-------
                                              TABLE 4-1.   PHYTOTOXICITY OF POLYCHOLORINATED BIPHENYLS
Chemical
Plant/tissue Form Applied
Soybean/whole PCB
Soybean/whole PCB

4>- Corn/plant PCB
1
i — »
Lit
Soybeans, beets/ PCB
plant
Fescue/plant PCB
Soybean/plant PCB

Control Tissue
Soil Concentration
Type (pg/g DW)
lakeland NRa
sand
lakeland NK
sand

lakeland NR
sand
lakeland NR
sand
lakeland NR
sand
sandy loam NR

Experimental
Soil Application Tissue
Concentration Rate Concentration
(pg/g DW) (kg/ha) (pg/g DW)
10 NAb NR
100 NA NR

100 NA NR
0-1,000 NA NR
1,000 NA NR
2-3 NA NR

Effects
10% growth reduction
Up to 27Z growth
reduction
root growth reduction
significant
Significant growth
reduction
Significant growth
reduction at 1,000
pg/g; NSC at 100
l»g/g
162 growth reduction
Growth reduction NS

References
Webber and
Mrozek, 1979
(pp. 414 and
415)


Strek et al . ,
1981 (p. 291)
Strek et al. ,
1981 (p. 290)
Webber and
Mrozek, 1979
(p. 414)
Fries and
Marrow, 1981
(p. 757)
8 NR = Not reported.
fc NA = Not applicable.
c NS = Not significant.

-------
TABLE 4-2.  UPTAKE OF  POLYCIILORI HATED BIPIIENYLS BY PLANTS
Plant/tissue
Carrot/root
Carrot/root
Carrot/root
Carrot/root
Carrot/root
Lettuce/head
Soybean/plane
^ Oats/plant
1
H^
•P-
Corn/plant
Beet/top
Sorghum/Cop
Peanut/top
Corn/top
Corn/leaves
Carrot/root
Soil
Type
NRb
NR
Nft
NR
NR
NR
NR
clay loam
varied
lakeland
sand
lakeland
sand
lakeland
sand
lakeland
sand
agric.
agric.
Chemical Form
Applied
2-PCB
4-PCB
6-PCB
Light PCB
Heavy PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB-sludge
PCB-sludgn
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
Range of
Soil Concentration (pg/g)
NR
NR
NH
NR
NR
NR
NK
0.013
0.009-0.215
20
20
20
20
92-144 MB/L
in sludge
100
Range of
Tissue
Concentration (pg/g)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.026
0.033-0.053
0.815
0.068
0.473
0.002
0.045-0.081
7-16
Uptake*
Factor References
0.19d Connor, 1984 (p. 48)
0.06-0.12d
0.02-0.12d
0.3-0.5d
0.03-0.04d
<0.03d
O.01-O.lld
2.0 Webber et al . , 1983 (pp. 191
to 193)
0.247-3.67
0.041C Strek et al . , 1981 (p. 292)
0.003C
0.024C
0.001C
<1 Pal et al., 1980 (p. 80)
0.16 or Pal et al . , 1980 (p. 79)
                                                          less

-------
                                                             TABLE 4-2.   (continued)
Plant/tissue
Carrot/plant
Carrot/plant
Radish/plant
Radish/root

Radish/plant
-C- Sugarbeet/leaf
|__«
In .ougarbeel/root
Sugar beet /pi ant
Soybean/sprout
Soybean/plant
Soil
Type
acid
acid
acid
brown
sand
acid
agric.
agric.
brown
sandy
sandy
loam
Chemical Form
Applied
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB •

PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
Range of
Soil Concentration (pg/g)
0.05-0.5
5
0.05-0.5
0.2
4
5
0.24
0.24
0.3
100
0-3
Range of
Tissue
Concentration (pg/g)
0
0.081
0
0.01

0.025
.007
.004
0.01-0.15
0.15
NR
Uptake8
Factor References
0 Pal et al., 1980 (p. 79)
0.16
0
0.02

0.005
0.03
0.07
0.01-0.5 Pal et al., 1980 (p. 80)
0.002
0 Fries and Narrow, 1981 (p. 757)
a Tissue concentration/soil concentration; dry weight/dry weight unless otherwise specified.
b NR = Not reported.
c Fresh weight/dry weight.
** Fresh weight/fresh weight.

-------
TABLE 4-3.  TOXICITY OF POLYCHLOR1NATED BIPHENYLS TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Feed
Chemical Form Concentration
Species (N)a Fed 
Chicken PCBs 5
Chicken PCBs 50
Mink PCBsc 10-30
Mink PCBsc 1
Mink PCBsc 3.57
Mink PCBsc 0.64
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NRb
NR
NK
NR
NR
NR
NH
NR
NH
NH
NR
NR
Daily Intake Duration
(mg/kg) of Study Effects
NR NR Liver change
NR NR Liver change; minimal
reproductive changes
NR NR Liver change, reduced
growth
References
NAS, 1979 (p. 123)


NR 2-4 months Skin changes; lethal Allen and Norbak,
to nursing young; 1976 (p. 43)
reproductive dysfunctions
NR 9-39 weeks No adverse effect
NR 9 weeks Effect dependent on
PCB type
NR 39 weeks Reduced egg
production
NR 39 weeks Lethal
NR NK Lethal
NR NR Reduced reproductive
success
NR NR No reproduction,
breeders died
NR NR Some death, no young
Stendell, 1976
(p. 263)


Stendell, 1976
(p. 265)
Stendell, 1976
(p. 263)
Stendell, 1976
(p. 265)


                                                                       survival

-------
                                                              TABLE 4-3.  (continued)
Chemical Form
Species (N)a " Fed
Pheasant PCBs
Rat PCBs

Rat PCBs



Rats (20) PCBs

Rats (20) PCBs
Rat PCB 1242

1
Feed
Concentration

NR
100

1,000



500

20-100
100


Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR

NR



NK

NR
NR


Daily Intake
(mg/kg)
50-200
NR

NR



NR

NR
3.9-6.6


Duration
of Study
NR
1 year

6-8 weeks



8 months

8 months
10 months


Effects
Reduced egg production
Survived

Lethal to study
population due to
widespread hepatic
degeneration
15Z mortality

No mortal ity
No signs of overt
toxif ication; hepatic
changes were noted
References
HAS, 1979 (p. 172)
Allen and Norback,
1976 (p. 43)




U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-33)

U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-38)

-^j
8 N = Number of animals tested.
b NH = Not reported.
c From contaminated meat.

-------
                                  TABLE 4-4.  UPTAKE OF POLYCIILORINATED BIPHENYLS BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Ring dove
Cow
Cow
Range of Feed
Chemical Concentrations (N)a
Form Fed (pg/g DW)
PCB NRC
PCB 1254 NR
PCB 1254 0.22-12.4 (4)
PCB 0-28 (3)
PCB 12.4 (9)
PCB 12.4 (9)
Range of Tissue
Tissue Concentration
Analyzed (Mg/g DU)
Milk fat NR
Body fat NR
Milk fat 1.0-60.9
Body fat 0-1632
Milk fat 56.6-70.6
Body fat 25.3-60.2
Uptake Factor*3 References
4.5-4.9 Connor, 1984 (p.
3.5-5.5
4.2-4.9 Fries, 1982 (p.
55.2-92.1 McArthur et al.,
1983 (p. 345)

48)

15)

4.6-5.7 Fries et al . , 1973
(p. 118-119)
2.04^4.9

a N = Number of feed rates.
b Uptake factor = Tissue concentration/feed concentration.
c NR = Not reported.

-------
                                SECTION 5

                                REFERENCES
Abramowitz,  M., and  I.  A.  Stegun.    1972.    Handbook  of  Mathematical
     Functions.  Dover Publications, New York, NY.

Allen,  J.  R.,  and D.  H. Norback.    1976.    Pathological  Responses  of
     Primates  to  Polychlorinated  Biphenyl  Exposure.    In;    Conference
     Proceedings, National Conference on Polychlorinated Biphenyls.

Appledorf, H.,  W.  B.  Wheller,  and J.  A.  Koburger.  1973.   Health Foods
     Versus  Traditional  Foods:   A  Comparison.    J.  Milk Food  Technol.
     36(4):242-244.

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):311-316.

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):316-319.

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.

Bidleman, T.F.   1981.   Interlaboratory Analyses  of High Molecular Weight
     Organochlorines in Ambient Air.   Atmospheric Environ.  15:619-624.

Boswell,  F-  C.    1975.   Municipal  Sewage Sludge and  Selected  Element
     Applications  to  Soil:   Effect on  Soil  and Fescue.   J.  Environ.
     Qual.  4(2):267-273.

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.
     EPA,' 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.,  P.  Douglas, H.  Tai,  W.  G.  Mitchell,  and  G.  B.  Wiersma.
     1979a.   Pesticide Residue  Concentrations in Soils  of  Five  United
     States Cities, 1971 - Urban Soils Monitoring  Program.   Pest.  Monit.
     J.
                                   5-1

-------
Carey,  A.,  J.  A.  Gowen,  H. Tai,  W.  G.  Mitchell,  and G.  B. Wiersma.
     1979b.  Pesticide Residue  Levels  in Soils  and Crops from  37  States,
     1972.  Pest. Monit. J.  12(4):209-229.

Carey,  A.,  H.  S. Yang,  G. B.  Wiersma,  H. Tai,  R.  A. Maxey,  and A. E.
     Dupry.  1980.   Residual Concentrations of  Propanil,  TCAB and Other
     Pesticides in Rice-Growing  Soils  in the  United States, 1972.  Pest.
     Monit. J.  13(0:23-25.

Chaney,  R.  L.,  and  C.  A.  Lloyd.    1979.   Adherence  of  Spray-Applied
     Liquid Digested  Sewage Sludge  to Tall Fescue.   J.  Environ. Qual.
     8:3.

City  of New  York. Department  of  Environmental  Protection.    1983.    A
     Special Permit  Application for  the  Disposal of  Sewage  Sludge from
     Twelve New York City  Water Pollution Control  Plants  at  the  12-Mile
     Site.  New York, NY.  December.
Clarkson,  C.,  G.   Fricke,   E.   Lomnitz,  and  T.   O'Farrell.     1985.
     Comparative   Analysis    of    Municipal    Sludges.       BioCycle.
     January/February, 1985.

Clevenger, T. E., D.  D.  Hemphill,  K. Roberts, and W. A.  Mullins.   1983.
     Chemical   Composition   and   Possible   Mutagenicity   of   Municipal
     Sludges.  Journal Water Poll.  Control Fed.  55(12):1470-1475.

Connor,  M.   S.    1984.    Monitoring  Sludge-Amended  Agricultural  Soils.
     BioCycle.  January/February:47-51.

Dennis,  D.  S.  1976.   Polychlorinated  Biphenyls  in -the  Surface  Waters
     and  Bottom Sediments  of  the  -Major  Drainage  Basins  of  the  United
     States.    In:     Conference  Proceedings,   National  Conference  on
     Polychlorinated Biphenyls.

Donigian, A.  S.   1985.   Personal Communication.  Anderson-Nichols  & Co.,
     Inc. Palo Alto,  CA.   May.

Farrell,  J.   B.    1984.     Personal   Communication.    Water  Engineering
     Research   Laboratory,    U.S.    Environmental    Protection   Agency,
     Cincinnati, OH.   December.

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.

Fries,  G.' F.   1982.    Potential  Polychlorinated  Biphenyl Residues  in'
     Animal   Products  from Application of  Contaminated  Sewage  Sludge  to
     Land. >J. Environ. Qual.  11(1):14-20.

Fries,  G. F., and G.  S. Marrow.    1981.   Chlorobiphenyl  Movement  from
     Soil to Soybean  Plant.   J. Agric. Food Chem.   29(4):757-579.
                                   5-2

-------
Fries, G. P.,  G.  S.  Marrow, and C. H. Gordon.   1973.   Long-Term Studies
     of Residue  Retention  and  Excretion by  Cows Fed  a Polychlorinated
     Biphenyl  (Aroclor 1254).  J. Agric. Food Chem.  21(1):117-121.

Furr, A. K.,  A.  W. Lawrence, and  S.  S.  long.   1976.   Multi-Element and
     Chlorinated  Hydrocarbon Analysis  of  Municipal  Sewage  Sludges  of
     American  Cities.  Environ.  Sci. Technol.  10(7):683-687.

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.

Glooshenko,  W., W. M.  Strachan,  and R.  C. J.   Sampson.   1976.   Residues
     in Water.  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.

Hansen, L.  G. et al.   1981.   Polychlorinated  Biphenyl Pesticide  and
     Heavy   Metal  Residues  in Swine  Foraging  on Sewage  Sludge-Amended
     Soils.   J. Agric.  Food Chem.  19(5):1012-1013.

Hassett, J.  J.,  W.  L.   Banwart,   W.  L.,  and  R.  A.  Griffin.    1983.
     Correlation of Compound Properties with  Sorption  Characteristics  of
     Non-Polar  Compounds   by  Soils  and   Sediments:     Concepts   and
     Limitations.    Chapter  15.   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.

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  and Sorber  (eds.),  Risk Assessment  and
     Health  Effects  of  Land  Application of  Municipal  Wastewater  and
     Sludges.   San  Antonio,  TX.    Center  for  Applied  Research  and
     Technology,  Univ.  of Texas.

Kutz,  F.  W.,  and  S.  C.   Yang.     1976.    A Note on  Polychlorinated
     Biphenyls in Air.  In:   Conference  Proceedings, National  Conference
     on Polychlorinated Biphenyls.

Lang,  J.   T., L.   C.  Rodringuez,  and  J.   M.   Livingston.     1979.
     Organochlorine Pesticide Residues in  Soils from Six U.S.  Air  Force
     Bases,  1975-76.   Pest.  Monit.  J.  12(4):230-233.
                                   5-3

-------
McArthur,  M.  C.  B.,  G.  A. Fox,  D.  B.  Peakall,  and  B.  J. Philogene.
     1983.     Ecological   Significance  of   Behavioral   and  Hormonal
     Abnormalities  in Breeding  Ring Doves  Fed  an  Organocline  Chemical
     Mixture.  Arch.  Environ. Cont. Toxicol.  12:343-353.

National  Academy  of   Sciences.     1977.    Drinking  Water   and  Health.
     National  Review  Council  Safe  Drinking  Water  Committee.    NAS,
     Washington, D.C.

National  Academy  of  Sciences.     1979.     Polychlorinated  Biphenyls.
     National   Review   Council   Committee   on   the   Assessment   of
     Polychlorinated  Biphenyls  in   the  Environment.   NAS,  Washington,
     D.C.

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.

Osheim, D.  L.,  P. F.  Ross,  and H.  A.  Nelson.   1982.   PCB  Residues  in
     Feedlot Steers:  II.   Tissue Levels.   Bull.  Environ.  Cont.  Toxicol.
     28:716-717.

Pal,  D.,  J.   B.   Webber,   and   M.   R.  Overcash.    1980.     Fate  of
     Polychlorinated  Biphenyls  (PCBs)  in  Soil Plant  Systems.   Residue
     Review.  74:45-98.

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 P.  A.  McGillivary.   1979.
     Polychlorinated  Biphenyls  and  Chlorinated  Pesticides  in Soils  of
     the  Everglades  National   Park  and  Adjacent  Agricultural   Areas.
     Environ.  Sci. Technol. 13(8) :931-935.                   v

Ryan, J. A., H.  R.  Pahren,  and J.  B. Lucas.   1982.   Controlling  Cadmium
     in the  Human Food Chain:   A Review and Rationale  Based on  Health
     Effects.  Environ. Res.  28:251-302.

Sikora, L.  J.,  W. D.  Burge,  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 11.   Prepared for  U.S.  EPA under
     Contract No. 68-01-3887.  Menlo  Park,  CA.

Stendell, R. C.   1976.   Summary of  Recent  Information Regarding  Effects
     of PCBs on Bird and Mammals.  In:   Conference  Proceedings,  National
     Conference on Polychlorinated Biphenyls.

                                  5-4

-------
Strek,  H.   J.  et  al.    1981.    Reduction  of  Polychlorinated  Biphenyl
     Toxicity  and  Uptake  of  Carbon-14 Activitiy  by  Plants  Through  the
     Use of Activated Carbon.  J. Agric. Food Chem.  29:288-293.

Thornton, I., and  P.  Abrams.   1983.   Soil  Ingestion - A Major  Pathway  of
     Heavy Metals  into  Livestock Grazing Contaminated  Land.    Sci. Total
     Environ. 28:287-294.

U.S.  Department   of  Agriculture.     1975.    Composition   of  Foods.
     Agricultural Handbook No. 8.  Washington, D.C.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1977.   Environmental  Assessment
     of  Subsurface Disposal  of Municipal  Wastewater  Treatment  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  Polychlorinated Biphenyls.    EPA  440/5-80-068.   U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency.     1982a.     Fate  of  Priority
     Pollutants  in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works.    EPA 440/1-82/303.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,  D.C.

U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency.     1982b.     Test  Methods   for
     Evaluating Solid Waste  -  Physical/Chemical Methods.  SW-846.   U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1983a.   Assessment  of  Human
     Exposure  to  Arsenic:    Tacoma,  Washington.    Internal  Document.
     OHEA-E-075-U.    Office   of  Health  and   Environment   Assessment,
     Washington,  D.C  July 19.

U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.    1983b.   Rapid  Assessment  of
     Potential    Groundwater   Contamination   Under  Emergency   Response
     Conditions.   EPA/600-8-83-030.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   1984a.   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.   1984b.   Health  Effect Assessment
     for Polychlorinated  Biphenyls.   Final  Draft.   ECAO-CIN-H004.   U.S.'
     Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

Webber,   J.   B.,  and  E.  Mrozek.     1979.     Polychlorinated  Biphenyls,
     Phytotoxicity,   Absorption,   and  Translocation   by  Plants,   and
     Inactivation by  Activated  Carbon.   Bull. Environ.  Contam. Toxicol.
     23:412-417.

                                   5-5

-------
Webber, M. D.,  H.  D.  Monteith,  and D. G. M. Corneau.   1983.   Assessment
     of Heavy  Metals and  PCBs  at  Sludge Application  Sites.    J.  WPCF.
     55(2):187-195.

Willet,  L.   B.     1980.    Polychlorinated  Biphenyls  from  Dairy  Farms:
     Consequences in Market Milk.   J. Dairy Sci. 63:1961-1965.

World  Health   Organization.    1976.     Polychlorinated   Biphenyls   and
     TerphenylsS  Environmental  Health Criteria.  Geneva.
                                   5-6

-------
                               APPENDIX

 PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
                      IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE  SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AMD-MARKETING

   A.  Effect on Soil Concentration of Polychlorinated Biphenyls

       1.  Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

           a.  Formula

                   - (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
               Cl3s          AR + MS

               CSr = CSg  [1 +  O.S^/t?)  +  0.5(2/t*>  + ...  + 0.5(n/ti)j

               where:

                    CSS = Soil  concentration  of  pollutant   after  a
                          single    year's    application    of    sludge
                          (Ug/g DW)
                    CSr = Soil  concentration of  pollutant  after  the
                          yearly   application   of   sludge  has   been
                          repeated for n + 1 years (ug/g DW)
                    SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
                    AR  = Sludge application rate (mt/ha)
                    MS  = 2000  mt   ha/DW  =  assumed   mass   of  soil  in
                          upper 15 cm
                    BS  = Background  concentration   of  pollutant   in
                          soil (Ug/g DW)
                    ti  = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
                    n   =99 years

           b.  Sample calculation

               CSS is calculated for AR = 0, 5,  and 50 mt/ha only

           n non   /  nri   (4 ue/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (O.Q1 ug/g  DW x  2000 mt/ha)
           0.020 Ug/g DW =            (5 mt/ha DW + 2QOO mt/ha DW)

               CSr is calculated for AR = 5 mt/ha applied for  100 years

               0.18 Ug/g DW = 0.020 Ug/g DW [1 + 0.5(1/6) + 0.5(2/6)

                      «• ...  .0.5(99/6)]
                                 A-l

-------
B.  Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

    1.  Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)

        a.  Formula

                      II
            Index 2 = —
                      ID

            where:

                 1}  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                 TB  = Soil  concentration   toxic   to   soil   biota
                       (Ug/g DW)

        b.  Sample calculation  -  Values  were not calculated  due to
            lack of data.

    2.  Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)

        a.  Formula

            _ .    ,   Tl x UB
            Index 3 = —~	


            where:

                 II  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                 LIB  = Uptake  factor  of  pollutant  in  soil  biota
                       (Ug/g tissue DW [Ug/g  soil DW]"1)
                 TR  = Feed .concentration  toxic to  predator  (ug/g
                       DW)

        b.  Sample calculation  -  Values  were not calculated  due to
            lack of data.

C.  Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

    1.  Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)

        a.  Formula


            Index 4 = —
            where:
                 II  - Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                 TP  = Soil  concentration toxic to plants  (ug/g DW)
                              A-2

-------
        b.  Sample calculation

            »••<«• • "
    2.  Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)

        a.  Formula

            Index 5 = Ij_ x UP

            where:

               II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                   sludge - amended soil (ug/g DW)
               UP = Uptake factor of pollutant in plant  tissue
                     (Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g  soil  DW]"1)

        b.  Sample Calculation

            0.074 ug/g DW = 0.020 ug/g  DW x

                   3.7 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g  soil DW)"1

    3.  Index   of   Plant  Concentration   Increment  Permitted   by
      •  Phytotoxicity (index 6)

        a.  Formula

            Index 6 = PP

            where:

                 PP  = Maximum  plant  tissue  concentration  associ-
                       ated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)

        b.  Sample calculation  -  Values were not calculated  due  to
            lack of data.

D.  Effect on Herbivorous Animals

    1.  Index of  Animal Toxicity Resulting  from Plant  Consumption
        (Index 7)

        a.  Formula


            Index 7 = —
            where:
                 15  = Index  5  =  Concentration  of  pollutant  in
                       plant grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g
                              A-3

-------
             TA  = Feed   concentration  toxic   to  herbivorous
                   animal (ug/g  DW)

    b.  Sample calculation

        n ms - 0-074 ug/g DW
        °'°15 ~   5 ug/g  DW

2.  Index  of Animal  Toxicity Resulting  from  Sludge  Ingestion
    (Index 8)

    a.  Formula

        If AR = 0; Index 8=0
        If AR t 0;  Index  8  =  SC x GS
                               TA
        where:

             AR  = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
             SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
             GS  = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
             TA  = Feed   concentration   toxic   to   herbivorous
                   animal (ug/g DW)

    b.  Sample calculation

        If AR = 0; Index 8=0

        If AR # 0;     ..... _ 4 ug/g DW x 0.05
                     U»UfU~~r   r    /  r\r T
                               5  Ug/g DW

Effect on Humans

1.  Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting  from Plant Consumption
    (Index 9)

    a.  Formula

                  (I5  x  DT)   + DI
        Index 9 =
        where:

             15  = Index  5  =  Concentration  of  pollutant  in
                   plant grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
             DT  = Daily human dietary intake  of  affected plant
                   tissue (g/day DW)
             DI  = Average daily human dietary intake of
                   pollutant (ug/day)
             RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
                          A-4

-------
    b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

                          DW x 74.5
                          0.0161 Ug/day
210 _ (0.042 ue/g DW x 74.5 g/day) + 0.2526 Ug/day
2.  Index  of Human  Cancer Risk  Resulting  from  Consumption of
    Animal  Products  Derived  from Animals  Feeding  on  Plants
    (Index 10)

    a.  Formula

                    (15  x UA x DA) + DI
        Index 10 =  _5	_	


        where:

             15  = Index  5  =  Concentration  of  pollutant  in
                   plant grown in sludge-amended soil  (ug/g DW)
             UA  = Uptake  factor  'of pollutant   in  animal  tissue
                   (Ug/g tissue DW  [ug/g  feed  DW]"1)
             DA  = Daily   human   dietary   intake   of   affected
                   animal  tissue  (g/day  DW)  (milk  products and
                   meat, poultry, eggs, fish)
             DI  = Average daily human dietary  intake  of
                   pollutant (ug/day)
             RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake  (ug/day)

    b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

        1200 = [(0.074 ug/g DW x  5.7 ug/g tissue DW

               [Ug/g  feed  DW]"1 x 43.7 g/day DW) +

               0.2526 Ug/day] t 0.0161 Ug/day

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  = -            Rgl
              j. n  T j    11
        If AR t 0; Index  11 =
                          (BS x GS x UA x DA) + DI
                                  RSI

                          (SC x GS x UA x DA) + DI
        where:
             AR  = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
             BS  = Background  concentration  of   pollutant   in
                   soil (ug/g DW)
             SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
             GS  = Fraction of animal diet assumed to  be soil
                          A-5

-------
             UA  = Uptake  factor  of pollutant  in  animal tissue
                   (Ug/g  tissue DW  [ug/g  feed DWp1)
             DA  = Daily   human   dietary  intake   of  affected
                   animal  tissue  (g/day DW)  (milk  products and
                   meat only)
             DI  = Average daily human dietary intake of
                   pollutant (ug/day)
             RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)

    b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

        2800 = [(4 ug/g DW x 0.05 x 5.7 ug/g  tissue DW

               [Ug/g feed  DW]'1 x 39.4 g/day  DW) +

               0.2526 Ug/day] t 0.0161 ug/day

4.  Index  of Human  Cancer  Risk  Resulting  from Soil  Ingestion
    (Index 12)

    a.  Formula

                   (I 1 x  DS) + DI
        Index 12 = 	_	


        where:

             II  = Index 1 = Concentration   of   pollutant    in
                   sludge-amended  soil (ug/g  DW)
             DS  = Assumed amount  of soil  in human diet  (g/day)
             DI  = Average daily  human dietary intake  -of
                   pollutant (ug/day)
             RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)

    b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

             (0.020 ug/g DW x 5 g/day) + 0.2526 ug/day
                        0.0161  ug/day


5.  Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)

    a.  Formula


        Index 13 = Ig + IIQ  + 111 + *12 ~

        where:

             Ig  = Index   9 =  Index   of  human   cancer   risk
                   resulting from  plant consumption  (unitless)
                 = Index   10 =  Index   of  human   cancer   risk
                   resulting   from    consumption   of    animal
                   products  derived  from  animals   feeding  on
                   plants (unitless)

                          A-6

-------
                     Ill = Index 11  =   Index  of  human   cancer  risk
                           resulting   from    consumption    of   animal
                           products derived from  animals  ingesting soil
                           (unitless)
                     Il2 = Index 12 =  Index   of   human    cancer   risk.
                           resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
                     DI  = Average   daily   human   dietary   intake   of
                           pollutant (yg/day)
                     RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (]ag/day)

            b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

            4100 = (210 + 1200 + 2800 + 22) -   (3 x *'2526
                                                  n    ,
                                                  0.0161  yg/day

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  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,  C0, for the saturated zone assessment.   (Conditions
        for  B,  minimum  thickness  of  unsaturated  zone,   have  been  set
        such that dilution is actually negligible.)   The  saturated  zone
        assessment  procedure  is nearly identical to that  for the unsat-
        urated zone except for the definition  of certain  parameters  and
       .choice of parameter  values.    The maximum  concentration at  the
        well,  Cmax,  is  used  to  calculate  the  index values  given  in
        Equations  4  and 5.

    B.  Equation 1:  Transport Assessment
     C(y,t) = £ [exp(Ai)  erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) erfc(B2)] = P(Xft)
      Co

         Requires  evaluations  of  four  dimensionless  input  values  and
         subsequent   evaluation   of . the  result.    Exp(A^)  denotes  the
         exponential    of   AI ,   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).
                                  A-7

-------
where:
     Al = X- [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x
     Al   2D*
          y  -  t  (V*2  * AD* x u*)?
     A2 ~        (4D*  x t)2
     B  _  — [V* + (V*2 + 4D* x U*
     "1
        _
     82 "
2D*

Y + t  (V*2 + 4D*  x  u-
       (4D* x t)?
and where for the unsaturated zone:

     C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration  (yg/L)
     SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
     CF = 250 kg sludge solids/m3 leachate =

          PS x 103
          1 - PS

     PS = Percent  solids   (by  weight)  of  landfilled  sludge =
          20%
      t = Time (years)
     X  = h = Depth to  groundwater  (m)
     D* = a x V*  (m2/year)
      a = Dispersivity  coefficient  (m)

     V* = —Q— (m/year)
          0 x R
      Q = Leachate generation rate  (m/year)
      0 = Volumetric water content  (unitless)

      R = 1 +  dry x Kd =  Retardation  factor  (unitless)

   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)

          365 x  u  f      ^-i
     U* = —	=• (years)
      U = Degradation rate (day"1)

and where for the saturated zone:

     C0 = Initial  concentration  of  pollutant  in aquifer  as
          determined by Equation 2  (yg/L)
      t = Time (years)
      X = AS,  =  Distance from well  to landfill (m)
     D* = a  x  V* (m2/year)
      a = Dispersivity  coefficient  (m)
                          A-8

-------
          w* = K x i (m/year)
                — — *r - TTT -  and B > 2
                 —  K  x  L  x 365             —

D.  Equation 3.  Pulse Assessment


          C(x?t) = P(x,t)  for  0 <  t < t0
             Co
              ?t) = P(x,t)  -  P(X,t - t0) for t > t
             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 = [  o/°° C dt]  t  Cu

                   C( Y  t )
          p(X,t) =   ^1    as determined by Equation 1
                     co
                              A-9

-------
          Equation 4.   Index  of Groundwater Concentration  Resulting
          from Landfilled Sludge  (Index  1)
          1.   Formula

               Index  1  =  Cmax

               where:

                    cmax  = Maximum  concentration  of poLLutant at  well =
                           maximum  of  C(A4,t)  calculated in  Equation 1
                           (Ug/L)

          2.   Sample Calculation

               0.53 Mg/L  = 0.53  yg/L

     F.   Equation  5.    Index  of  Human  Cancer  Risk  Resulting  from
          Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)

          1.   Formula

                          (I i x  AC) +  DI
               Index2=  _J__	


               where:

                    II =  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
                          (pg/day)
                   RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
               Sample Calculation


                                  0.0161 Ug/day
113 _ (0.53 ug/L x 2 L/day) + 0.7578 ug/dav
III. INCINERATION

     A.  Index of Air Concentration  Increment Resulting  from  Incinerator
         Emissions (Index 1)

         1.  Formula

             _ ,    .    (C x PS x SC x FM x DP)  + BA
             Index 1 =	—	
                                   Dn

         where:

             C =  Coefficient to  correct  for  mass  and  time units
                 (hr/sec  x  g/mg)
                                  A-10

-------
           DS = Sludge feed rate (kg/hr DW)
           SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
           FM = Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (unitless)
           DP = Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum
                annual ground level concentration (ug/m3)
           BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
                air (ug/m3)

         2.   Sample Calculation

              1.067 = [(2.78 x 10"7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x

                   4 mg/kg DW x 0.05 x 3.4 ug/m3) + 0.00741 ug/m3]

                   * 0.00741 ug/m3

    B.  Index  of  Human   Cancer   Risk   Resulting   from  Inhalation  of
        Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)

        1.  Formula

                        II - 1) x  BA] + BA
            Index 2 =
                                EC

            where:

              !]_ = Index 1 = Index of air concentration increment
                   resulting from incinerator emissions
                   (unitless)
              BA = Background concentration of pollutant  in
                   urban air -(ug/m3)
              EC = Exposure criterion (ug/m3)

        2.  Sample Calculation

            9 3   [(1.067 - 1) x Q.00741 Ug/m31 + 0.00741  ug/m3
                                      0.000806  Ug/m3

IV.  OCEAN DISPOSAL

    A.    Index of Seawater  Concentration Resulting from Initial  Mixing
       .  of Sludge (Index 1)

         1.   Formula

                         SC x ST x PS
              Index 1 =
                          W x D 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)
                                 A-ll

-------
                    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 0080 Ug/L =  4 "ig/kg DW x  1600000  kg WW x  0.04  kg DW/kg  WW x 1Q3 ug/mg
                    200 m x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3

     B.   Index of Seawater  Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
          Cycle (Index 2)

          1.   Formula

                          SS x SC
               Index 2 =
                         V x D x 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)

               Sample Calculation

                               825QQO kg DW/dav  x 4  mg/kg  DW x 103  ug/mg
                            =  -                         ,    ,
                                  9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 10J L/mJ

     C.   Index of Hazard to Aquatic Life (Index 3)

          1.   Formula


               Index 3 = AWQC

               where:

                 12 =  Index   2   =   Index   of   seawater   concentration
                       representing a 24-hour dumping cycle (ug/L)
               AWQC =  Criterion  expressed  as  an average1 concentration
                       to  protect  the   marketability  of  edible  marine
                       organisms (ug/L)

          2.   Sample Calculation

           '   0 Q72 - 0.00217
               °'°72 ~
                        0.030 ug/L
                                   A-12

-------
          D.   Index of Human  Cancer Risk Resulting from  Seafood  Consumption
               (Index 4)

               1.   Formula

                               (12 x BCF x 10~3  kg/g x  FS  x QF) + DI
                    Index 4=  	—	


                    where:

                    12 =  Index   2  =   Index   of   seawater   concentration
                          representing  a 24-hour dumping cycle (]ig/L)
                    QF =  Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
                    FS =  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

                    47.1 =

(0.0022 ug/L x 31200  L/kg  x  10~3 kg/g  x 0.000021 x  14.3 g  WW/day) +  0.7578  Ug/day
                                        0.0161 ug/day
                                       A-13

-------
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, PL)
Volumetric water content, 6 (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (m/year)
Depth to groundwater, 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 (unilless)
Distance from well to landfill, AS, (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
1
4


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
2
23


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
3 4
4 4


1.925 NAb
0.133 NA
0.0001 NA

0.8 1.6
5 0
0.5 NA


0.44 0.44
0.86 0.86

0.001 0.001
100 100
10 10
5
4


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.389
4.04

0.001
100
10
6
4


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.02
50
5
7 8
23 Nfl


NA N
NA N
NA N

1.6 N
0 N
NA N


0.389 N
4.04 N

0.02 N
50 N
5 N

-------
                                                                   TABLE  A-l.   (continued)
Ui
Condition of Analysis
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Pulse duration, tn (years)
1

1000
0.328
13300
2

5750
1.89
13300
3

1000
13.5
338
4

1000
1000
5.00
5

1000
0.328
13300
6

1000
0.328
13300
7

5750
5750
5.00
8

N
N
N
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)

  Aquifer thickness, B (m)
  Initial concentration in saturated zone, Co
    (pg/L)

Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)

  Maximum well concentration, Cmax (pg/L)

Index of groundwater concentration resulting
  from landfilled sludge, Index 1 (pg/L)
  (Equation 4)

Index of human cancer risk resulting from
  groundwater contamination, Index 2
  (unitless)  (Equation 5)
126          126         126

  0.328        1.89       13.5



  0.0918       0.528       0.0989



  0.0918       0.528       0.0989
                                                              58.5
             113
                                                                                       59.4
 253            23.8          6.32        2.38    N

1000             0.328         0.328     5750        N



   0.109         0.302         0.328      133        N



   0.109         0.302         0.328      133        0



  60.6           84.6         87.9      16600     47.1
      aN  = Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
      fyjA = Not applicable for this condition.

-------