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.
------- |