United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
                                  June-, 1985
Environsnenta
of Municipal  Sludge:
             &           •w

-------
                                 PREFACE
     This document is one  of  a  series  of preliminary assessments dealing
with  chemicals  of potential  concern  in municipal  sewage sludge.   The
purpose of  these  documents is to:   (a)  summarize  the  available data for
the  constituents  of  potential  concern,  (b)  identify  the key environ-
mental  pathways  for  each  constituent  related to  a  reuse and disposal
option  (based on  hazard  indices),  and  (c) evaluate  the  conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a  hazard.   Each document provides a sci-
entific basis  for making  an  initial  determination  of  whether  a pollu-
tant, at levels currently  observed in sludges, poses a  likely hazard to
human health  or the  environment  when  sludge  is disposed  of by  any of
several methods.   These  methods include landspreading  on  food  chain or
nonfood chain  crops,  distribution  and marketing  programs,  landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.

     These documents  are intended  to  serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of  pollutants to  those  of  concern.   If a signifi-
cant hazard  is  indicated  by  this  preliminary analysis,  a  more detailed
assessment  will  be  undertaken  to  better quantify  the  risk  from  this
chemical and to derive  criteria if warranted.   If a hazard  is  shown to
be unlikely, no further  assessment will be conducted at  this  time;  how-
ever, a reassessment will be  conducted after  initial  regulations  are
finalized.  In no  case,  however,  will  criteria be derived  solely on the
basis of information presented in this  document.

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                     Page

PREFACE 	    i

1.  INTRODUCTION	  1-1

2.  PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR TOXAPHENE 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 TOXAPHENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	  3-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  3-1

         Effect on soil concentration of toxaphene (Index 1) 	  3-1
         Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
           (Indices 2-3) 	  3-2
         Effect on plants and plant tissue
           concentration (Indices 4-6)	  3-4
         Effect on herbivorous animals  (Indices 7-8) 	  3-8
         Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 	  3-11
                                            *
    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	  3-26

         Index of air concentration increment  resulting
           from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 	  3-26
         Index of human cancer risk resulting  from
           inhalation of incinerator emissions (Index 2)  	  3-28

    Ocean Disposal 	  3-30

         Index of seawater concentration resulting from
           initial mixing of sludge (Index 1)  	  3-30
         Index of seawater concentration representing a
           24-hour dumping cycle  (Index 2) 	  3-34
         Index of hazard to aquatic life (Index 3)  	  3-35
                                   11

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
                               (Continued)
         Index of human cancer risk resulting from
           seafood consumption (Index 4) 	  3-36

4.  PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR TOXAPHENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	  4-1

    Occurrence 	  4-1

         Sludge 	  4-1
         Soil - Unpolluted 	  4-1
         Water - Unpolluted 	  4-3
         Air	  4-4
         Food 	  4-5

    Human Effects 	  4-6

         Ingestion 	  4-6
         Inhalation 	  4-8

    Plant Effects 	  4-9

         Phytotoxicity 	  4-9
         Uptake 	  4-10

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 	  4-11

         Toxicity 	  4-11
         Uptake 	  4-11

    Aquatic Life Effects	  4-11

         Toxicity 	  4-11
         Uptake 	  4-11

    Soil Biota Effects 	  4-11

         Toxicity 	  4-11
         Uptake 	  4-12

    Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate  and Transport  	  4-12

5.  REFERENCES	  5-1

APPENDIX.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
    TOXAPHENE 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.   Toxaphene was  initially identified as  being of poten-
tial concern  when sludge is  landspread  (including  distribution and mar-
keting),  placed   in  a landfill,  incinerated or  ocean  disposed.*   This
profile   is   a  compilation  of  information  that   may   be  useful   in
determining whether  toxaphene poses an actual hazard to  human health  or
the environment when  sludge is disposed of by these methods.
     The  focus  of   this  document  is  the  calculation  of  "preliminary
hazard  indices"   for  selected potential  exposure  pathways, as  shown  in
Section  3.    Each index  illustrates  the hazard  that  could  result  from
movement  of   a  pollutant by  a  given pathway  to  cause  a  given effect
(e.g., sludge •*• soil  •*  plant  uptake •*• animal uptake •*  human  toxicity).
The values and assumptions  employed in these calculations tend to 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",  Sec-
tion 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 TOXAPHENE 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 Tozaphene

          Landspreading of sludge may be  expected  to  result in increased
          concentrations  of  toxaphene  in  soil  above  the  background
          concentration (see Index 1).

     B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators  of Soil Biota

          Landspreading of  sludge is not  expected to result  in  concen-
          trations of  toxaphene  in  soil   that  are toxic  to  soil  biota
          (see Index  2).   The  potential   toxic  hazard for  predators  of
          soil  biota  posed   by  the  increased  soil  concentrations  of
          toxaphene  could  not  be  determined due  to   lack,  of data  (see
          Index 3).

     C.   Effect on Plants and Plant  Tissue Concentration

          Landspreading of  sludge is not  expected to result  in  concen-
          trations of  toxaphene in  soil  that  are  toxic  to  plants  (see
          Index 4).   The tissue  of  plants grown  in  sludge-amended  soil
          may  be  expected  to  have increased concentrations  of  toxaphene
          (see Index 5).   Whether these  increased  tissue  concentrations
          would be  precluded  by  phytotoxicity could  not  be  determined
          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 toxaphene that  pose a  toxic  threat  to
          herbivorous animals  (see Index  7).    Incidental  ingestion  of
          sludge-amended  soil   by  grazing animals is  not  expected  to
          exceed  dietary  concentrations  of  toxaphene which  are  toxic
          (see Index  8).

     E.   Effect on Humans

          Landspreading   of  sludge  may  be  expected  to  result   in  an
          increase in potential  cancer  risk  due  to toxaphene  for  humans
          consuming  plants grown  in  sludge-amended soil  (see Index  9).
          Consumption of animal  products  derived  from animals fed  crops
          grown on sludge-amended soil may increase the potential  cancer
                                   2-1

-------
          risk to humans (see Index  10).   Consumption of animal products
          derived from  animals  that  have  inadvertently  ingested sludge-
          amended soil may  be  expected to increase  the  potential cancer
          risk to humans  (see  Index  11).   The inadvertent  ingestion of
          sludge-amended soil by  toddlers may  result in an  increase in
          potential   cancer  risk  due   to   toxaphene.      Adults   that
          inadvertently ingest  sludge-amended soil  are  not  expected to
          have any  increase in  potential cancer  risk due  to  toxaphene
          (see Index 12).   Landspreading  of  sludge  may be  expected to
          increase the potential risk of  cancer to humans  as  a  result of
          the  aggregate amount  of  toxaphene  in the  human  diet  (see
          Index 13).

 II. LANDFILLING

     Landfilling of  sludge may be expected to  increase concentrations of
     toxaphene in groundwater at the well  (see  Index  1).   Landfilling of
     sludge may  be  expected to increase  the potential  cancer risk  to
     humans  due  to  an  increase   in  concentration of   toxaphene  in
     groundwater (see  Index  2).

III. INCINERATION

     Incineration of sludge  may be  expected  to increase the  concentra-
     tion of toxaphene in air above  background  urban  air concentrations,
     especially  when  sludge is  incinerated  at  a  high  feed  rate  (see
     Index 1).   Inhalation  of  emissions produced by  sludge  incineration
     is  expected to increase  the human  cancer  risk due  to  toxaphene
     above the risk posed by background urban air concentrations.   This
     increase may be  large when  sludge  is  incinerated  at  a high  feed
     rate (see Index 2).

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     Ocean disposal  of sludge may be expected  to  increase  concentrations
     of  toxaphene  in   seawater  around  the  disposal   site  after  initial
     mixing of  sludge  and  seawater  (see  Index  1).    Ocean  disposal  of
     sludge may  be  expected to increase  concentrations  of toxaphene  in
     seawater around the disposal site  over  a 24-hour period (see  Index
     2).   A potential  residue hazard exists for aquatic  life  for  sludges
     disposed at the worst  sites at  a  rate of 1650 mt/day.  The market-
     ability of edible saltwater organisms may be jeopardized by  sludges
     disposed at a  rate of  825  mt/day  containing  both typical and  worst
     concentrations  of  the  pollutant at  the  worst site  (see Index  3).
     Ocean disposal  of sludge may result  in  increased potential in  can-
     cer  risk to humans consuming seafood, except possibly for a  typical
     disposal  site  with  typical sludge concentrations  and  with  typical
     seafood intake  (see Index 4).
                                   2-2

-------
                              SECTION 3

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

   A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Toxaphene

        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.
                        -y
             b.   As sumptions/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

                       Sludge  concentration of  pollutant (SC)
i.
                       Typical      7.88  Ug/g DW
                       Worst       10.79  Ug/g DW

                       The  typical and worst sludge concentrations  are
                       the  weighted  mean and  maximum  concentrations,
                       respectively,  from a  summary of  sludge  data  for
                                 3-1

-------
                    publicly-owned  treatment works  (POTWs)  in the
                    United  States.     Toxaphene  was  detected   in
                    sludges  from  2   of   61  POTWs  sampled   (Camp
                    Dresser and  McKee,  Inc. (CDM),  1984a).   (See
                    Section 4, p. 4-1. )

                ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
                    (BS) = 0.003 ug/g  DW

                    Carey (1979) reported  geometric  means for  toxa-
                    phene concentrations in  agricultural  soils from
                    34 states for the  years  1968  to  1973.  The geo-
                    metric means  ranged from  0.001  to  0.005  Ug/g
                    with an average of  0.003 Ug/g-   Geometric means
                    were selected because  they provide  a  measure of
                    central tendency,  taking into account  the zero
                    values  when   toxaphene  is  not  present  or  is
                    below  the  detectable  level.    (See  Section  4,
                    p. 4-3.)

               iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (t.) = 11  years
                    Reported  soil  half-lives  for  toxaphene  range
                    from  100  days  to  11 years  (U.S. EPA,  1979a).
                    The half-life  of  11 years  was  selected  as  the
                    most  conservative   value,  since  it  represents
                    the  longest  persistence  of  toxaphene  in  the
                    environment.   (See  Section 4,  p.  4-12.)

               Index 1 Values (ug/g DW)

                                   Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
                   Sludge
               Concentration        0         5        50        500
Typical
Worst
0.0030
0.0030
0.023
0.030
0.20
0.27
0.37
0.49
          e.   Value  Interpretation -  Value  equals  the  expected
               concentration in sludge-amended  soil.

          f.   Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of  sludge  may
               be expected to result in increased  concentrations  of
               toxaphene    in    soil     above    the    background
               concentration.

B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators  of Soil Biota

     1.   Index of Soil Biota Toxicity  (Index 2)

          a.   Explanation - Compares   pollutant  concentrations  in
               sludge-amended soil with soil concentration  shown  to
               be toxic for some soil organism.
                              3-2

-------
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) =
          16.8 Ug/g DW

          Hopkins  and   Kirk  (1957)  reported  76  percent
          survival of  adult  red  worms  in  soil  treated
          with  toxaphene at  an  application  rate  of  30
          Ibs/acre.   Although  this  decrease  in  survival
          was not  significant,  no young worms  were  found
          in  the  soil,  possibly  indicating  an effect  on
          reproduction  or on  survival  of  the young  worms.
          Converting  the  application  rate  to  33.6  kg/ha
          and assuming that the  toxaphene was  evenly dis-
          tributed in the top  15  cm  of  soil  having  a mass
          of  2000 mt/ha,  the  soil concentration of  toxa-
          phene was  16.8 Ug/g.    Among  the data  immedi-
          ately available, no  other  toxic effects  to soil
          biota were  reported.    Eno  and Everett  (1958)
          found no  adverse effects  on  fungal counts  or
          C02  evolution  when  soil  concentration  was  as
          high as 100 Ug/g«   (See Section 4,  p. 4-18.)

d.   Index 2 Values

                        Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
         Sludge
     Concentration        0          5       50        500
Typical
Worst
0.00018
0.00018
0.0013
0.0018
0.012
0.016
0.022
0.029
e.   Value Interpretation -  Value  equals factor  by  which
     expected soil concentration exceeds  toxic  concentra-
     tion.  Value >  1  indicates a toxic  hazard may  exist
     for soil biota.

f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Landspreading of sludge  is
     not   expected   to   result   in   concentrations   of
     toxaphene in soil  that  are toxic  to  soil  biota.
                    3-3

-------
     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.

          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 (LTB) -
                    Data not immediately available.

               iii. Peed  concentration  toxic  to  predator  (TR) -
                    Data not immediately available.

          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 exist  for  predators  of  soil biota.

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

C.   Effect on Plants and  Plant Tissue Concentration

     1.   Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration  (Index  4)

          a.   Explanation  -  Compares pollutant concentrations  in
               sludge-amended    soil    with   the    lowest    soil
               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.
                              3-4

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

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

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

           ii. Soil  concentration   toxic   to   plants  (TP)  =
               30 ug/g DW

               A soil  concentration  of 30 Mg/g  DW was associ-
               ated with  phytotoxic  effects in  corn,  peas and
               oats (U.S.  EPA,  1979a).  In  corn,  stem length,
               root length and  dry matter content  of  the root
               tip   were  decreased;    in   peas,   the   root
               length/stem  length  ratio  and  respiration  of
               excised root  tips  were decreased;  and  in oats,
               dry  matter   content    of   the   root   tip  was
               decreased.   Because  the  plants  were  grown  in
               sand,  which does  not  possess  any  insecticide
               retention qualities,  the  exposure of the plants
               to toxaphene was considered  to  be extreme (U.S.
               EPA, 1979a) and,  thus, provides  a  conservative
               estimate of the  phytotoxic concentration.   The
               only other  data  indicating   phytotoxicity  were
               reported as application rates rather  than soil
               concentrations.  In a study by Eno  and Everett
               (1958),  soil  concentrations  of   toxaphene  were
               reported; however, beans  were not significantly
               affected by concentrations  of up  to 100  pg/g.
               (See Section 4, pi  4-13.)

     d.   Index 4 Values

                           .  Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0         5        50       500

             Typical         0.00010    0.00075   0.0065    0.012
             Worst            0.00010    0.0010   0.0089    0.016

     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   concentrations   of
          toxaphene in soil that  are  toxic  to plants.

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

     a.   Explanation    -    Calculates     expected     tissue
          concentrations,   in  Ug/g  DW,   in plants  grown  in
          sludge-amended soil, using  uptake  data for  the  most
                         3-5

-------
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.

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.

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:
     Potato    0.88 ug/g  tissue  DW  (ug/g soil  DW)"1

     Human Diet:
     Potato    0.88 Ug/g  tissue  DW  (ug/g soil  DW)~*

     The  uptake  factor  for  toxaphene  in plants  was
     difficult to determine  because all  data  immedi-
     ately available were reported  as  toxaphene  res-
     idues.  These  residue values generally did  not
     distinguish  between  toxaphene adhering  to  the
     Surface  of  plants  after  application  and  that
     taken up by  the  plant.   The value  selected  was
     calculated   from  the residue  in  potatoes grown
     in soil receiving preplanting  treatment of  tox-
     aphene (Muns et  al.,  1960).  The potatoes were
     washed with a spray of  water prior  to  analysis.
     This value  was considered the most representa-
     tive because  the  plants received some washing,
     and  because  toxaphene  was  applied  to  the  soil
     prior  to  planting,  rather  than  being applied
     directly to foliage.  (See Section 4,  p.  4-14.)

     Data for uptake of toxaphene in plants normally
     found in animal diet are not immediately  avail-
     able.   It  is  therefore  assumed that the  uptake
     for   potatoes  is  analogous  to  the uptake   of
     plants normally found in the animal  diet.
               3-6

-------
      d.   Index 5 Values (ug/g DW)

                              Sludge Application Rate  (mt/ha)
               Sludge
 Diet       Concentration       0         5       50       500
Animal
Typical
Worst
0.0026
0.0026
0.020
0.026
0.17
0.23
0.33
0.43
Human         Typical         0.0026    0.020    0.17     0.33
              Worst           0.0026    0.026    0.23     0.43

      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.

      f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  The tissue of'plants  grown
           in  sludge-amended  soil  may  be  expected  to  have
           increased concentrations of toxaphene.

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

      a.   Explanation - The index value is  the maximum tissue
           concentration,    in   Ug/g    DW,    associated   with
           phytotoxicity in  the same  or similar  plant  species
           used  in  Index  5.    The   purpose   is  to  determine
           whether  the plant  tissue  concentrations  determined
           in Index  5  for high  applications are  realistic,  or
           whether  such  concentrations  would  be  precluded  by
           phytotoxicity.  The  maximum concentration  should  be
           the highest at  which some plant  growth  still  occurs
           (and  thus  consumption  of   tissue  by   animals   is
           possible) but above  which consumption by  animals  is
           unlikely.

      b.   Assumptions/Limitations   -   Assumes   that   tissue
           concentration  will  be  a  consistent   indicator   of
           phytotoxicity.

      c.   Data Used and Rationale

           i.   Maximum  plant   tissue  concentration  associated
                with phytotoxicity  (PP)  -  Data not  immediately
                available.

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

      e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value   equals   the  maximum
           plant  tissue  concentration  which, is  permitted   by
                          3-7

-------
               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.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes   pollutant   form
               taken  up  by  plants is  equivalent  in  toxicity to form
               used to demonstrate toxic  effects  in  animal.  Uptake
               or  toxicity   in  specific  plants  or  animals may  be
               estimated from other species.

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

                   The  pollutant  concentration  values  used  are
                    thos.e Index  5 values  for an  animal  diet  (see
                    Section  3,  p.  3-7).
                                                 •r
                ii. Peed concentration  toxic to herbivorous  animal
                    (TA) = 50 Ug/g DW

                   Rats fed 50 Ug/g of toxaphene in  the diet  for 2
                   years  exhibited    slight  liver   changes.     No
                   effects  were observed  in rats  fed 25  Ug/g>  and
                   distinct liver  changes  were observed  in  rats
                   fed  200   Ug/g  (Pollock and Kilgore, 1978).   The
                   value selected was  the  lowest concentration  at
                   which toxic effects in herbivorous  animals  were
                   observed.   Also,  this value  was obtained  from
                   the  most representative  species  for which  data
                   were available.    Dogs,  which  are  carnivores,
                   showed   slight  liver  degeneration  when   fed
                   40 Ug/g   for 2 years.   (See Section 4,  pp.  4-15
                   and 4-16.)
                              3-8

-------
     d.   Index 7 Values

                             Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0         5       50       500

             Typical      0.000053   O.OOOAO  0.0034   0.0065
             Worst        0.000053   0.00053  0.0047   0.0086

     e.   Value Interpretation  -  Value equals  factor  by which
          expected  plant  tissue  concentration  exceeds  that
          which is  toxic to  animals.   Value  > 1  indicates  a
          toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous animals.

    .f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Landspreading of  sludge  is
          not  expected  to  result in  plant tissue  concentra-
          tions  of  toxaphene  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
          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     7.88 ug/g DW
               Worst      10.79  Ug/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
                         3-9

-------
          consists  of  up to  30 percent  sludge  on a  dry-
          weight  basis  (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
          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.

     ill. Feed  concentration  toxic to herbivorous  animal
          (TA). = 50  Ug/g DW

          See Section 3, p.  3-8.

d.   Index 8 Values

                        Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
         Sludge
     Concentration        0         5       50       500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0079
0.011
0.0079
0.011
0.0079
0.011
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  -   Incidental   ingestion  of
     sludge-amended  soil   by   grazing   animals   is   not
     expected   to   exceed   dietary   concentrations   of
     toxaphene which are  toxic.

                    3-10

-------
E.   Effect on Humans

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

          a.   Explanation -  Calculates dietary  intake  expected to
               result from  consumption  of  crops  grown  on  sludge-
               amended  soil.     Compares  dietary intake  with  the
               cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the pollutant.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes  that  all crops  are
               grown on sludge-amended  soil and  that  all those con-
               sidered to be  affected take  up the pollutant  at  the
               same rate.   Divides  possible  variations  in  dietary
               intake into two  categories:   toddlers  (18  months to
               3 years)  and  individuals  over 3 years  old.

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

                    The   pollutant  concentration  values  used  are
                    those Index  5  values  for  a human  diet  (see
                    Section  3, p. 3-7).

                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  (1984).    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     0.346 Ug/day
                    Adult      3.402 Ug/day

                    The  Food  and Drug Administration (FDA) reported
                    daily intakes   of  toxaphene   based   on  annual
                    market  basket  surveys  of  foods  in  the  United
                             3-11

-------
          States  for various  age  groups.    The  relative
          daily   intake   of   toxaphene  by  toddlers   was
          0.0346  Ug/kg body  weight/day.   This value is  an
          average  of the  annual  means  for  fiscal years
          (FY)  1975  to  1977  reported  by  FDA   (1980).
          Assuming  a  toddler  weighs  10   kg,   the daily
          intake  is  estimated  to  be  0.346 ug/day.    For
          adults,  the  relative daily  intake  of toxaphene
          averaged  0.0486 Ug/kg   of  body  weight/day   for
          FY75  to FY78  (FDA,  1979).   Assuming  an adult
          weighs  70  kg,  the  daily  intake is calculated  to
          be 3.402 Ug/day.   (See Section 4, p. 4-5.)

     iv.  Cancer  potency = 1.13 (mg/kg/day)"^-

          The  cancer  potency  was  derived by  U.S.  EPA
          (1980)  based  on   data   from  a  carcinogenicity
          study  by  Litton   Bionetics  (1978  as  cited   in
          U.S.  EPA,  1980).     In  the  Litton  Bionetics
          study,  incidence   of  hepatocellular  carcinomas
          and   neoplastic   nodules   was   significantly
          increased  among male  mice  fed  diets  containing
          50  Ug/g  of  toxaphene   for 18   months.    (See
          Section 4, p.  4-6.  )

      v.  Cancer     risk-specific     intake    (RSI)    =
          0.0619 Ug/day

          The  RSI  is  the  pollutant  intake  value  which
          results  in  an  increase  in  cancer risk  of 10~°
          (1 per  1,000,000).   The  RSI is  calculated from
          the cancer potency using  the following formula:

          RSI =  IP"6 x 70 kg x  1Q3
                     Cancer potency

d.   Index 9 Values

                                  Sludge Application
                                     Rate (mt/ha)
                  Sludge
     Group     Concentration    0      5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
8.8
8.8
30
37
210
290
400
520
     Adult       Typical      64     120    620    1100
                 Worst        64     140    830    1500

     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.

                   3-12

-------
     f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Landspreading of sludge may
          be  expected  to  result  in  an increase  in potential
          cancer  risk  due  to  toxaphene  for  humans consuming
          plants grown in sludge-amended soil.

2.   Index of  Human  Cancer Risk  Resulting  from Consumption of
     Animal  Products Derived  from Animals  Feeding  on Plants
     (Index 10)

     a.   Explanation  -  Calculates   human   dietary   intake
          expected to result  from pollutant  uptake by domestic
          animals  given  feed  grown  on  sludge-amended  soil
          (crop or pasture land)  but  not  directly contaminated
          by  adhering  sludge.   Compares  expected  intake  with
          RSI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes   that  all  animal
          products are  from animals  receiving all  their- feed
          from  sludge-amended  soil.   Assumes  that  all  animal
          products  consumed  take  up  the  pollutant  at  the
          highest  rate   observed  for  muscle  of  any  commonly
          consumed species  or  at  the  rate  observed for  beef
          liver  or  dairy  products   (whichever   is  higher).
          Divides  possible  variations  in  dietary  intake  into
          two categories:  toddlers (18 months  to  3 years)  and
          individuals over 3  years old.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

               The  pollutant   concentration   values  used   are
               those  Index  5  values  for  an  animal diet  (see
               Section  3, p.  3-7).

          iil  Uptake  factor  of  pollutant  in  animal   tissue
               (UA) = 2.5 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1

          ...    The  uptake  factor  selected   was   the   highest
               uptake factor  calculated  from the data  immedi-
               ately  available.   The  factor represents  uptake
               of  toxaphene  in  the  abdominal  fat  of   steers
               (Pollock and Kilgore, 1978).  The uptake  factor
               for subcutaneous  fat from  steers  was slightly
               lower  at  2.02.   For sheep,  uptake   factors  for
               abdominal  and  subcutaneous  fat  were much  lower
               than  those  for  steers,  at   1.03   and  0.53,
               respectively.     The  value  selected  represents
               the most  conservative  choice.   (See Section 4,
               p.  4-17.)   The  uptake factor  of  pollutant in
               animal tissue  (UA) used  is  assumed  to apply to
               all animal fats.
                        3-13

-------
    ill.  Daily  human dietary  intake of  affected animal
          tissue (DA)

          Toddler    43.7 g/day
          Adult      88.5 g/day

          The fat  intake  values  presented, which comprise
          meat,  fish,  poultry,  eggs  and  milk  products,
          are  derived from  the  FDA  Revised Total  Diet
          (Pennington,  1983),   food  groupings  listed  by
          the U.S.  EPA (1984)  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    0.346 Ug/day
          Adult      3.402 Ug/day

          See Section 3,  p.  3-11.

      v.  Cancer    risk-specific     intake   (RSI)     =
          0.0619 Ug/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
1.0
10
41
52
310
420
580
760
     Adult       Typical       64     130     670     1200
                 Worst         64     150     890     1600

     Value Interpretation - Same as  for Index  9.

     Preliminary  Conclusion   -   Consumption   of   animal
     products  derived  from  animals  fed  crops  grown  on
     sludge-amended   soil   may  increase   the   potential
     cancer risk to  humans.
                   3-14

-------
3.   Index of  Human  Cancer Risk Resulting  from Consumption of
     Animal  Products  Derived   from  Animals  Ingesting  Soil
     (Index 11)

     a.   Explanation  -   Calculates   human   dietary   intake
          expected  to  result   from  consumption   of   animal
          products derived  from  grazing animals  incidentally
          ingesting  sludge-amended  soil.    Compares  expected
          intake with RSI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  all  animal
          products  are  from  animals   grazing  sludge-amended
          soil, and that  all  animal  products consumed  take  up
          the  pollutant   at   the  highest   rate  observed  for
          muscle  of  any   commonly  consumed  species  or  at  the
          rate  observed   for  beef  liver   or  dairy  products
          (whichever is higher).   Divides  possible  variations
          in  dietary  intake  into two  categories:    toddlers
          (18 months  to 3  years)  and individuals over  3  years
          old.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

            i. Animal  tissue  = Abdominal  fat - steer.

               See Section 3,  p.  3-13.

           ii. Sludge concentration of  pollutant (SC)

               Typical      7.88  Ug/g  DW
               Worst       10.79  Ug/g  DW '

               See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

          iii. Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in  soil
               (BS) =  0.003 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) =  2.5  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
                        3-15

-------
               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    0.346 ug/day
               Adult      3.402 ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-11.

         viii. Cancer    risk-specific    intake     (RSI)    =
               0.0619 Ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-12.

     d.   Index 11 Values

                                       Sludge Application
                                          Rate  (mt/ha)
                       Sludge
          Group     Concentration    0      5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
5.8
5.8
630
860
630
860
630
860
          Adult       Typical      55     1400   1400   1400
                      Worst        55     1900   1900   1900

     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Consumption of  animal  pro-
          ducts derived  from animals  that have  inadvertently
          ingested  sludge-amended  soil  may  be  expected  to
          increase the potential cancer risk to humans.

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.   As sumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that   the  pica
          child consumes   an  average  of  5  g/day  of  sludge-
                        3-16

-------
     amended  soil.    If  the RSI  specific for  a  child  is
     not  available,  this  index  assumes  the  RSI  for a
     10 kg  child  is the  same  as  that for a  70 kg  adult.
     It is  thus assumed  that  uncertainty factors used  in
     deriving  the RSI provide protection for  the  child,
     taking  into  account  the  smaller  body  size  and  any
     other differences in sensitivity.

c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-2.

      ii. Assumed amount of soil in human diet (DS)

          Pica child    5    g/day
          Adult         0.02 g/day

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

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

          Toddler    0.346 ug/day
          Adult      3.402 Ug/day

          See Section 3,  p.  3-11.

      iv. Cancer    risk-specific     intake     (RSI)    =
          0.0619 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
5.8
' 5.8
55
55
5
7.4
8.0
55
55
50
21
27
55
55
50
35
45
55
55
     Value Interpretation - Same  as  for  Index  9.
                   3-17

-------
              f.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  The  inadvertent  ingestion
                   of sludge-amended  soil by toddlers may  result in an
                   increase in  potential  cancer risk  due  to toxaphene.
                   Adults that  inadvertently  ingest  sludge-amended soil
                   are not  expected  to have any  increases  in potential
                   cancer risk due to toxaphene.

              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.
                   Index 13 Values
                                                Sludge Application
                                                   Rate (mt/ha)
                   Group
             Sludge
          Concentration
        5
        50
        500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
14
14
690
940
1200
1600
1600
2200
                   Adult
            Typical
            Worst
74
74
1500
2000
2500
3500
3600
4800
              e.

              f.
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
Preliminary Conclusion -  Landspreading  of  sludge may
be expected to increase  the  potential  risk of cancer
to humans  as  a  result  of   the  aggregate  amount  of
toxaphene in the human diet.
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
                                 3-18

-------
     and  groundwater,  parameters regarding transport and  fate,
     and  boundary or source conditions  are evaluated.   Trans-
     port   parameters   include  the  interstitial  pore   water
     velocity  and  dispersion   coefficient.     Pollutant   fate
     parameters  include the degradation/decay coefficient  and
     retardation  factor.   Retardation  is  primarily a  function
     of  the adsorption  process, which  is characterized  by  a
     linear,  equilibrium  partition  coefficient   representing
     the  ratio  of  adsorbed  and  solution  pollutant concentra-
     tions.   This partition coefficient,  along  with  soil  bulk
     density and  volumetric  water content, are  used  to calcu-
     late  the  retardation  factor-    A  computer  program  (in
     FORTRAN) was developed to  facilitate computation  of  the
     analytical solution.  The program predicts pollutant  con-
     .centration as  a function  of time and location in both  the
     unsaturated  and  saturated  zone.    Separate   computations
     and  parameter  estimates are required  for  each zone.    The
     prediction   requires  evaluations  of  four  dimensionless
     input  values  and  subsequent  evaluation  of  the  result,
     through use  of the computer program.

2.   Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively  assumes  that  the
     pollutant  is  100  percent mobilized  in  the  leachate  and
     that  all  leachate leaks  out  of  the  landfill  in a finite
     period and  undiluted  by precipitation.   Assumes  that  all
     soil  and aquifer  properties are  homogeneous and isotropic
     throughout each zone; steady,  uniform flow occurs  only in
     the  vertical direction throughout  the unsaturated  zone,
     and  only  in  the  horizontal  (longitudinal)  plane   in  the
     saturated zone;  pollutant movement is considered  only in
     direction of groundwater  flow  for  the saturated  zone; all
     pollutants exist  in  concentrations  that  do  not  signifi-
     cantly affect  water  movement;  for organic  chemicals, the
     background concentration  in the  soil profile or  aquifer
     prior  to  release  from  the  source  is assumed  to be  zero;
     the pollutant  source  is a pulse  input; no dilution of the
     plume  occurs by  recharge from  outside  the  source  area;
     the  leachate  is  undiluted  by  aquifer   flow  within  the
     saturated  zone;  concentration  in  the  saturated   zone  is
     attenuated only by dispersion.

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
                        3-19

-------
          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 (COM, 1984b).

     (c)  Volumetric water content  (9)

          Typical    0.195 (unitless)
          Worst      0.133 (unitless)

          The volumetric  water content  is  the  volume  of
          water  in  a  given  volume  of  media,  usually
          expressed as a  fraction or  percent.   It depends
          on properties  of  the media  and  the  water  flux
          estimated by infiltration or  net  recharge.   The
          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, 1984b.

     (d)  Fraction of organic carbon (foc)

          Typical    0.005  (unitless)
          Worst      0.0001  (unitless)

          Organic content of  soils  is described  in  terms
          of percent organic carbon, which  is  required  in
          the  estimation  of  partition  coefficient,   K^.
          Values,  obtained   from  R.  Griffin  (1984)   are
          representative values  for  subsurface  soils.

ii.  Site parameters

     (a)  Landfill leaching  time (LT)  =  5 years

          Sikora et  al.   (1982)  monitored  several  sludge
          entrenchment  sites throughout the United  States
          and estimated time of landfill leaching to  be 4
          or 5 years.  Other types  of landfills  may  leach
          for longer periods of time; however,  the  use of
          a  value for  entrenchment  sites is conservative
          because  it   results   in   a   higher   leachate
          generation  rate.

                   3-20

-------
(b)  Leachate generation rate (Q)

     Typical    0.8 m/year
     Worst      1.6 m/year

     It   is  conservatively   assumed   that   sludge
     leachate enters  the unsaturated  zone undiluted
     by  precipitation or  other  recharge, that  the
     total  volume  of  liquid  in  the  sludge  leaches
     out of  the  landfill,  and that  leaching  is  com-
     plete  in 5 years.   Landfilled  sludge is  assumed
     to be  20 percent  solids  by  volume,  and depth of
     sludge  in  the  landfill  is  5m in  the  typical
     case  and  10 m  in the worst case.    Thus,  the
     initial  depth  of  liquid   is   4  and  8 m,  and
     average yearly  leachate  generation  is  0.8  and
     1.6 m, respectively.

(c)  Depth to groundwater (h)

     Typical    5  m
     Worst      0  m

     Eight  landfills  were  monitored throughout  the
     United  States  and depths  to groundwater  below
     them were  listed.   A  typical  depth  to  ground-
     water  of  5 m  was  observed (U.S.  EPA,   1977).
     For the worst  case,  a value of 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.
              3-21

-------
iii. Chemical-specific parameters

     (a)  Sludge concentration of pollutant  (SC)

          Typical     7.88 mg/kg DW
          Worst      10.79 mg/kg DW

          See Section 3, p. 3-1.

     (b)  Soil half-life of pollutant  (t£)  = 4015  days

          See Section 3, p. 3-2.

     (c)  Degradation rate (u) = 0.0001726  day"1

          The unsaturated  zone  can serve as an effective
          medium  for   reducing   pollutant   concentration
          through  a variety  of  chemical   and  biological
          decay  mechanisms  which  transform  or attenuate
          the pollutant.  While these  decay processes are
          usually complex,  they  are approximated  here  by
          a  first-order  rate constant.   The  degradation
          rate is calculated using the following formula:
     (d)  Organic  carbon  partition  coefficient  (Koc)  =
          964 mL/g

          The  organic  carbon  partition  coefficient  is
          multiplied   by  the   percent   organic   carbon
          content  of   soil  (f0c^  to derive  a  partition
          coefficient   (Kj), which  represents  the  ratio of
          absorbed   pollutant   concentration    to    the
          dissolved  (or  solution)  concentration.     The
          equation  (Koc  x   foc)  assumes   that   organic
          carbon  in  the soil  is  the  primary  means  of
          adsorbing organic  compounds  onto  soils.    This
          concept serves to  reduce much of  the  variation
          in  K(j values  for   different  soil  types.    The
          value of Koc is from U.S. EPA,  1982.

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
                   3-22

-------
          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
          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,
                   3-23

-------
          dispersion  is  reduced.    Estimates  of  typical
          and  high   gradient   values  were  provided   by
          Donigian (1985).

     (b)  Distance from well to landfill (Ail)

          Typical    100 m
          Worst       50 m

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

     (c)  Dispersivity coefficient (a)

          Typical    10 m
          Worst       5 m

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

     (e)  Width of landfill  (W)  =  112.8  m

          The  landfill  is  arbitrarily  assumed   to   be
          circular with an  area  of  10,000 m^-

iii. Chemical-specific parameters

     (a)  Degradation rate  (u) =0 day~^

          Degradation  is  assumed  not  to  occur  in  the
          saturated zone.

     (b)  Background    concentration  of   pollutant   in
          groundwater (BC) =  0  Ug/L

          It is assumed  that  no pollutant  exists  in  the
          soil  profile  or  aquifer prior  to release  from
          the source.
                   3-24

-------
     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  be
          expected  to  increase  concentrations   of  toxaphene  in
          groundwater at the well.

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 CRSI) 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. 3-2.

          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)
               = 3.402 Ug/day

               See Section  3,  p. 3-11.

          d.   Cancer potency =1.13  (mg/kg/day)~^

               See Section  3,  p. 3-12.

          e.   Cancer risk-specific  intake (RSI) = 0.0619  Ug/day

               See Section  3,  p. 3-12.

     4.   Index 2  Values -  See  Table  3-1.

     5.   Value Interpretation  -  Value  >1  indicates  a   potential
          increase in cancer  risk of  10~6  (1  in  1,000,000).   The
          null index value  should  be used as a  basis  for comparison
          to  indicate  the  degree  to  which  any  risk  is  due Co
          landfill  disposal,   as  opposed   to   preexisting   dietary
          sources.
                             3-25

-------
          6.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  Landfilling  of  sludge may  be
               expected to  increase  the  potential cancer  risk to humans
               due  to  an  increase   in  concentration  of  toxaphene  in
               groundwater.

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 (CDM, 1984b).  This model  uses  the thermo-
               dynamic  and  mass  balance  relationships  appropriate  for
               multiple hearth  incinerators  to  relate  the input  sludge
               characteristics   to  the stack  gas  parameters.    Dilution
               and dispersion of these stack gas releases  were described
               by  the   U.S.  EPA's  Industrial  Source  Complex  Long-Term
               (ISCLT)   dispersion  model  from  which  normalized  annual
               ground  level concentrations  were  predicted  (U.S.   EPA,
               1979b).   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
                                  3-26

-------
               Exit gas  temperature  -  356. 9°K (183°F)
               Stack diameter - 0.60 m

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

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

               EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
               Combustion zone temperature -  1400° F
               Solids content - 26.6%
               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     7.88 mg/kg DW
     Worst      10.79 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 Ug/m3
     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) = 0.0012 Ug/m3

     Reported  ambient  air  concentrations   of  toxaphene
     vary from 0.00004  to  2.52 Ug/m3 depending on  season
     and proximity of application.   In a study of  pesti-
     cide  concentrations   in  9  urban  and  rural   sites
     (Stanley et  al., 1971),  toxaphene was  detected at  3
                   3-27

-------
               sites.   Only  maximum concentrations  were  reported;
               these  were 0.068,  1.34  and 2.52  jag/m-^.    Assuming
               that  concentrations  at the  other 6  sites  were  one-
               half  the  detection limit  of 0.0001  jag/m-*,  a  geome-
               tric  mean  concentration  of  0.0012  Ug/m-3  is  calcu-
               lated for all  9  sites.   (See Section  4,  p.  4-4.)

          Index 1 Values

                                                   Sludge Feed
          Fraction of                             Rate (kg/hr DW)a
          Pollutant Emitted    Sludge
          Through Stack     Concentration      0     2660   10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.8
2.1
16
21
          Worst               Typical         1.0     4.3     59
                              Worst           1.0     5.5     81

          a The typical (3.4 yg/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  -  Incineration of  sludge may  be
          expected  to  increase  the  concentration  of  toxaphene  in
          air above background urban air  concentrations,  especially
          when sludge is incinerated  at a  high feed rate.

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

     1.   Explanation - Shows the  increase  in human  intake  expected
          to result from  the  incineration of sludge.  Ground  level
          concentrations  for  carcinogens   typically  were  developed
          based upon assessments published  by the  U.S. EPA  Carcino-
          gen Assessment Group (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.
                             3-28

-------
3.   Data Used and Rationale

     a.   Index of air concentration increment resulting  from
          incinerator emissions (Index 1)

          See Section 3, p. 3-28.

     b.   Background  concentration of  pollutant in  urban air
          (BA) = 0.0012 ug/m3

          See Section 3, p. 3-27.

     c.   Cancer potency = 1.13 (mg/kg/day)"^-

          The cancer  potency for  inhalation was  derived from
          the cancer  potency  for ingestion, assuming  100 per-
          cent  absorption  for  both  ingestion   and  inhalation
          routes of exposure.   Data used to derive  this  value
          are from a  study in  which mice fed toxaphene  in the
          diet  developed   hepatocellular  carcinomas  and  neo-
          plastic nodules  (U.S.  EPA,  1980).   (See  Section  4,
          p. 4-8.)

     d.   Exposure criterion (EC) = 0.0031 Ug/m3

          A  lifetime  exposure  level  which   would  result   in  a
          10~° 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 103 ug/mg  x 70 kg
               fcC -  	  	 	r-
                    Cancer  potency x 20 mj/day

4.   Index 2 Values

                                              Sludge  Feed
     Fraction of                             Rate  (kg/hr  DW)a
     Pollutant Emitted    Sludge
     Through Stack     Concentration      0     2660   10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.39
0.39
0.71
0.82
6.0
8.1
     Worst               Typical         0.39     1.7      23
                         Worst          0.39     2.1      31

     a The typical  (3.4 ug/m3) and worst (16.0 ug/m3)   disper-
       sion parameters  will  always  correspond,  respectively,
       to the typical  (2660  kg/hr DW)  and worst  (10,000 kg/hr
       DW) sludge feed  rates.
                        3-29

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

         6.   Preliminary Conclusion - Inhalation  of  emissions produced
              by sludge incineration  is  expected  to  increase the human
              cancer  risk due  to toxaphene  above  the  risk posed  by
              background  urban  air  concentrations.   This increase  may
              be large when sludge is incinerated  at a high  feed rate.

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,
    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.
                                 3-30

-------
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 rat DW/day    1600 mt WW         8000 m
     Worst      1650 mt DW/day    3400 mt WW         4000 m

     The  typical  value  for  the  sludge  disposal  rate
     assumes that  7.5  x 10^ mt WW/year  are  available for
     dumping  from  a  metropolitan  coastal  area.    The
     conversion to dry weight  assumes  4  percent solids by
     weight.    The  worst-case   value   is   an  arbitrary
     doubling of the typical value  to  allow for potential
     future increase.

     The assumed disposal  practice  to be followed  at  the
     model  site  representative of  the  typical case  is  a
     modification of that proposed  for  sludge  disposal at
     the formally designated 12-mile site in the  New York.
     Bight Apex  (City  of  New York,  1983).   Sludge barges
     with capacities of  3400 mt  WW would be  required to
     discharge a load  in  no less  than 53 minutes  travel-
     ing at a minimum  speed of 5  nautical miles  (9260 m)
     per  hour.  Under  these conditions,  the   barge  would
     enter the site, discharge the  sludge over 8180  m  and
     exit  the  site.   Sludge  barges  with  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.
                   3-31

-------
          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     7.88 mg/kg DW
          Worst      10.79 mg/kg DW

          See Section 3, p. 3-1.

     c.   Disposal site characteristics

                                          Average
                                          current
                       Depth  to           velocity
                   pycnocline (D)        at  site (V)
          Typical      20 m             9500 m/day
          Worst         5 m             4320 m/day
          Typical  site  values are  representative of  a  large,
          deep-water  site  with   an  area   of  about  1500  km^
          located beyond  the  continental  shelf  in the New York
          Bight.   The pycnocline value  of 20 m  chosen  is  the
          average  of the  10  to  30 m  pycnocline depth  range
          occurring  in  the  summer  and  fall;  the winter  and
          spring disappearance of the  pycnocline  is  not  consi-
          dered  and. so represents  a conservative approach  in
          evaluating  annual  or long-term  impact.  The  current
          velocity  of 11  cm/sec  (9500 m/day)  chosen  is  based
          on  the average  current velocity in this area  (CDM,
          1984c).

          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
          (CDM,  1984d).

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
                        3-32

-------
     vessel, followed  by more gradual  spreading  of the  plume.
     The  entire plume,  which initially  constitutes  a  narrow
     band the length of  the  tanker path,  moves more-or-less as
     a  unit with  the  prevailing  surface  current  and,  under
     calm conditions,  is not further dispersed  by the current
     itself.  However,  the current acts to separate successive
     tanker  loads,  moving each  out  of the  immediate disposal
     path before the next load is dumped.

     Immediate   mixing   volume    after   barge   disposal   is
     approximately  equal to   the length  of  the  dumping  track
     with a  cross-sectional  area about  four  times that defined
     by  the  draft   and  width   of   the  discharging  vessel
     (Csanady,   1981,  as cited in  NOAA, 1983).   The resulting
     .plume  is  initially 10 m deep by 40 m wide  (O'Connor  and
     Park,   1982,   as   cited  in  NOAA,   1983).     Subsequent
     spreading  of  plume band width  occurs at an  average rate
     of approximately  1  cm/sec (Csanady et al.,  1979,  as  cited
     in NOAA, 1983).   Vertical  mixing  is  limited  by the  depth
     of the  pycnocline  or ocean  floor,  whichever  is shallower.
     Four hours after  disposal,  therefore,  average  plume  width
     (W) may be computed as  follows:

     W = 40 m + 1 cm/sec x 4 hours x 3600 sec/hour  x 0.01 m/cm
     = 184 m = approximately  200  m

     Thus  the   volume  of  initial  mixing  is  defined  by  the
     tanker  path,  a 200 m width,  and  a  depth appropriate  to
     the site.  For  the typical  (deep  water)  site,  this  depth
     is chosen as the  pycnocline value  of  20 m.   For the  worst
     (shallow water)  site,   a  value   of  10 m was  chosen.   At
     times the  pycnocline may be as  shallow as 5 m,  but  since
     the barge  wake causes  initial  mixing  to  at  least  10  m,
     the greater value was used.

5.   Index 1 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
0.016
0.022
0.016
0.022
          Worst          Typical          0.0     0.13      0.13
                         Worst            0.0     0.18      0.18

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

7.   Preliminary Conclusion - Ocean  disposal  of sludge may be
     expected  to   result   in   increased   concentrations  of
                        3-33

-------
          toxaphene  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.

     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 3-32.

     4.   Factors Considered  in Determining Subsequent  Additional
          Degree  of Mixing  (Determination of  TWA  Concentrations)

          See Section 3,'p.  3-34.

     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         0.0    0.0043   0.0086
                              Worst           0.0    0.0059   0.012

              Worst           Typical         0.0    0.038     0.075
                              Worst           0.0    0.052     0.10

     6.   Value   Interpretation  -  Value   equals  the   effective
          increase in  toxaphene  concentration  expressed as  a  TWA
          concentration  in   seawater   around   a   disposal  site
          experienced by  an  organism over a 24-hour period.
                             3-34

-------
     7-   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Ocean disposal  of  sludge may  be
          expected   to   result   in   increased   concentrations   of
          toxaphene in seawater around  the  disposal site 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  toxaphene,  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
          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.  3-34.

          b.   Ambient water quality  criterion  (AWQC) = 0.071 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 toxaphene.

               The 0.071  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 toxaphene in  edible
               fish  and shellfish (5  mg/kg),  the  geometric  mean of
               normalized   bioconcentration  factor  (BCF)   values
               (4,372) for   aquatic   species   tested,  and   the  16
                             3-35

-------
               percent lipid content  of  marine species.  This  value
               will also protect against acute toxic effects.
     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
0.060
0.082
0.12
0.16
               Worst          Typical         0.0    0.53     1.1
                              Worst           0.0    0.73     1.5

     5.   Value Interpretation  - Value  equals  the factor  by which
          the expected seawater  concentration  increase in toxaphene
          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 toxaphene
          residue  in  tissue hazard may exist  thus  jeopardizing the
          marketability  of edible  saltwater  organisms.  The criter-
          ion value  of  0.071  Ug/L  is  probably too high  because on
          the average,  the  concentration  in  50 percent  of  species
          similar  to those used  to  derive  the  value will  exceed the
          FDA action level (U.S. EPA, 1980).

     6.   Preliminary  Conclusion   -  A   potential  residue  hazard
          exists for aquatic life  for sludges  disposed a-t  the worst
          sites at  a rate  of  1650 mt/day.   The  marketability of
          edible saltwater organisms  may be jeopardized  by  sludges
          containing both typical  and worst  concentrations  of toxa-
          phene disposed 'at  the  worst site at a rate of 825  mt/day.

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.
                             3-36

-------
3.   Data Used and Rationale

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-34.

          Since bioconcentration  is  a  dynamic  and  reversible
          process,  it  is  expected  that   uptake  of  sludge
          pollutants by marine  organisms  at  the  disposal  site
          will  reflect  TWA  concentrations,  as  quantified  by
          Index 2, rather  than pulse concentrations.

     b.   Dietary consumption of seafood (QF)

          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.

                        3-37

-------
      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  km2)  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:

           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  (CDM, 1984c).  Near-shore area  612 has an  area
      of   approximately   4300   km2   and    constitutes
      approximately   24  percent   of    the   total   seafood
      landings  (CDM,  1984d).    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:

      CQ    AI x 0.02% =                               (2)
      ebt " 7200
[10 x 8000 m x 9500 m x  10"6  km2/m2]  x  0.0002  _           5
                          y*                     ~  ^ • 1  X  .L U
                   7200  km2

      For the worst  (near shore)  site:

      FSt = AI X 24% =                                 (3)
            4300  km2

  [10 x 4000 m x 4320 m  x IP"6 km2/m2]  x 0.24          1Q_3
                  4300  km2
                    3-38

-------
     To  construct  a worst-case  harvesting  scenario,  it
     was  assumed that  the  total  seafood  consumption  for
     an  individual  could  originate  from  an  area  more
     limited  than   the  entire  New  York  Bight.     For
     example, a  particular  fisherman providing  the  entire
     seafood  diet   for  himself   or  others  could   fish
     habitually within  a  single NMFS reporting area.   Or,
     an   individual  could   have   a  preference   for   a
     particular  species which  is  taken  only  over a  more
     limited  area,  here  assumed  arbitrarily  to  equal an
     NMFS  reporting  area.    The  fraction   of   consumed
     seafood  (FSW)  that could originate from  the  area of
     impact  under  this  worst-case  scenario  is calculated
     as follows:

     For the typical (deep water) site:

     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)   =
     18,450 L/kg

     The value chosen is  the  weighted  average  BCF  of tox-
     aphene for  the  edible portion of all  freshwater and
     estuarine aquatic  organisms consumed  by U.S.  citi-
     zens  (U.S.  EPA,  1980 as  revised  by  Stephan,  1981).
     The weighted  average BCF is derived  as part  of the
     water quality criteria  developed  by the U.S.  EPA to
     protect human health  from the  potential carcinogenic
     effects of toxaphene  induced by ingestion  of  contam-
     inated water  and  aquatic  organisms.   The  weighted
     average BCF is calculated by adjusting  the  mean nor-
     malized BCF (steady-state BCF  corrected  to  1  percent
     lipid  content)  to  the   3  percent  lipid  content  of
     consumed   fish  and  shellfish.    It   should  be  noted
     that lipids of  marine species  differ in both  struc-
     ture 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)
     = 3.402 Ug/day

     See Section  3, p.  3-11.
                   3-39

-------
     f.   Cancer potency =1.13  (mg/kg/day)"1

          See Section 3, p. 3-12.

     g.   Cancer risk-specific intake  (RSI)  =  0.0619 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-12.

4.   Index 4 Values

     Disposal                                  Sludge Disposal
     Conditions and                            Rate  (mt DW/day)
     Site Charac-      Sludge      Seafood
     teristics     Concentration2  Intakea»b    0    825    1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
55
55
55
63
55
71
     Worst         Typical       Typical       55     56    58
                   Worst         Worst         55     81   110

     a All  possible  combinations  of  these  values  are  not
       presented.   Additional  combinations  may  be calculated
       using the formulae in the Appendix.

     b 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.

5.   Value  Interpretation - Value equals factor by which the
     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
     preexisting dietary sources.

6.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  Ocean   disposal  of  sludge  may
     result  in  increased potential  in cancer  risk to  humans
     consuming seafood except  possibly for a  typical  disposal
     site with  typical  sludge  concentration  and with  typical
     seafood intake.
                        3-40

-------
                TABLE 3-1.  INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING  FROM  UANDFILUED  SLUDGE  CINTJEX  \) AND
                            INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION  (INDEX  2)
     Site Characteristics
    Condition of Analysis3'"'0
3           A           5
i
-P-
Sludge concentration

Unsaturated Zone
                                             W
                                                W
N
Soil type and charac-
teristics0'
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parametersS
Index 1 Value (jag/L)
Index 2 Value
T

T

T

T
0.20
61
T

T

T

T
0.27
6A
W

T

T

T
0.20
62
NA

W

T

T
0.21
62
T

T

W

T
1.1
89
T NA

T W

T W

W W
8.0 62
310 2100
N

N

N

N
0.0
55
     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 (P(jry), volumetric water content (6), and  fraction of organic carbon  (for).

     eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and. dispersivity coefficient (a).

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

     ^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AS,),  and  dispersivity  coefficient  (a).

-------
                              SECTION 4

  PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR TOXAPHENE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE  SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE

   Toxaphene is currently (1980) the most heavily
   used chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide in the
   United States.  Annual production of toxaphene
   exceeds 100 million pounds, with primary usage in
   agricultural crop application, mainly cotton.

   A.  Sludge

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           Toxaphene was detected in sludges from 2
           of 61 POTWs analyzed (3%).   Data were
           obtained from several surveys of POTWs
           in the United States
                              U.S.  EPA,  1980
                              (p. A-l)
                             COM,  1984a
                             (p. 8)
       2.   Concentration

             Weighted mean
             Maximum
             Minimum
    7.88 mg/kg DW
   10.79 mg/kg DW
    4.69 mg/kg DW
           <10 yg/L in Chicago Metropolitan sludge
   B.   Soil - Unpolluted

       1.   Frequency of Detection

           Toxaphene use is  limited  to  a  few
           crops  and is not  a widespread
           contaminant  as are other  chlorinated
           hydrocarbons.  Toxaphene  is  rarely
           detected in  soil",  water,  or  sediment
           samples  that have  not  received
           direct or nearby  applications.

           Occurrence (percent) of toxaphene in
           agricultural soils of  34  states:

                         Year
                      COM, 1984a
                      (p. 8)
                             Jones and Lee,
                             1977 (p. 52)
                             U.S. EPA, 1979a
                             (pp. 1-3 and
                             1-4)
                             Carey, 1979
                             (p. 25)
           1968    1969   1971   1972   1973
           4.8     2.0
6.6
5.4
2.7
                                4-1

-------
 Frequency of detection of toxaphene in
 soils from 14 U.S. cities, 1970:
 Not detected in 27 samples from
 Augusta, ME
 Not detected in 27 samples from
 Charleston, SC
 Not detected in 19 samples from
 Cheyene, WY
 Not detected in 23 samples from
 Grand Rapids, MI
 Detected in 3 of 28 samples from
 Greenville, MS
 Not detected in 21 samples from
 Honolulu, HI
 Not detected in 28 samples from
 Memphis, TN
 Not detected in 29 samples from
 Mobile, AL
 Not detected in 26 samples from
 Philadelphia, PA
 Not detected in 25 samples from
 Portland, OR
 Not detected in 27 samples from
 Richmond, VA
 Detected in 1 of 27 samples from
 Sikeston, MO
 Not detected in 23 samples from
 Sioux City, 10
 Not detected in 27 samples from
 Wilmington, DE

 Frequency of detection of toxaphene in
 soils from 5 U.S.  cities, 1971:
 Not detected in 156 samples from
 Baltimore,  MD
 Not detected in 55 samples from
'Gadsen, AL
 Not detected in 48 samples from
 Hartford, CT
 Detected in 11 of  43  samples  from
 Macon,  GA
 Not detected in 78 samples from
 Newport News, VA

 5.1% (76 of 1,483  samples) frequency of
 detection of toxaphene in agricultural
 soils from 37 states,  1972.

 Toxaphene was not  detected in  agricul-
 tural soils adjacent  to or within soils
 of  Everglades National Park.
 Carey et al.,
 1976 (pp. 55 to
 57)
Carey et al.,
1979a (p. 19)
Carey et al.,
1979b (p. 2.12)
Requejo et al.,
1979 (p. 934)
                      4-2

-------
                                          •Carey,  1979
                                           (p. 25)
2.  Concentration

    Geometric mean (ug/g DW) of toxaphene  in
    agricultural soils in 34 states:

    1968   1969   1971   1972   1973

    0.003  0.001  0.005  0.004  0.002
    Mean for 1968 to  1973 = 0.003


    1.94 Ug/g (DW) arithmetic mean, range  of
    7.73 to 33.40 ug/g for 28 samples from
    Greenville,  MS

    0.24'yg/g (DW) arithmetic mean, range  of
    0.23 to 4.95 Ug/g in 11 samples from
    Macon, GA (1971)

    0.24 Ug/g (DW) arithmetic mean
    0.003 Ug/g geometric mean
    0.22 to 46.58 Ug/g range for 76 of
    1,483 cropland soil samples from 37
    states, 1972

Water - Unpolluted

1.  Frequency of Detection

    Not detected in U.S.  surface waters prior  U.S. EPA, 1980
    to 1975 except in contaminated areas       (p. C-l)

2.  Concentration
                                           Carey et al.,
                                           1976 (p. 56)
                                           Carey et al.,
                                           1979a (p. 19)
                                           Carey et al.,
                                           1979b (p. 212)
a.  Freshwater

    0.02 ug/L (0 to 32 ug/L) in U.S.
    lake

b.  Seawater

    Data not immediately available.

c.  Drinking water

    No detectable levels found  in  58
                                               Edwards,  1970
                                               (p.  22)
                                               U.S.  EPA,  1980
    samples in 1975-6 (limit  of detection  (p.  C-3)
    was 0.05 Ug/D
                      4-3

-------
                                        Stanley  et  al.,
                                        1971  (p.  435)
D.  Air

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        Toxaphene observed in 75 of 880 total air
        samples (1970 data) from rural areas; not
        detected in urban areas.

    2.  Concentration

        a.  Urban

            Toxaphene not observed in samples
            collected in urban areas of
            Baltimore, MD; Fresno, CA; Riverside,
            CA; or Salt Lake City, UT.

        b.  Rural
Maximum toxaphene concentrations       Stanley et al . ,
(number of positive detections):       1971 (p. 435)
Dothan, AL (rural)        68 ng/m3  (11)
Orlando, FL (rural)     2520 ng/m3  (9)
Stoneville, MS (rural)  1340 ng/m3  (55)
Toxaphene was not detected in air
samples from rural areas near
Buffalo, NY, or Iowa City, IA.
                                       Stanley et al . ,
                                       1971 (p. 435)
Mean monthly air concentration in
Stoneville, MS over 3 year sampling
period (1972-1974) = 167 ng/m3.

Highest concentrations were reported
in August:  1,540.0 ng/m3 (1972),
268.8 ng/m3 (1973), 903.6 ng/m3
(1974).

Lowest concentrations were reported
in January:  0.0 ng/m3 (1972),
0.0 ng/m3 (1973), 10.9 ng/m3 (1974).

Mississippi Delta
258 ng/m3, 1972
 82 ng/m3, 1973
160 ng/m3, 1974

11.1 ng/m3 Univ. South Carolina,
Columbia, SC (1978 data)

Sapelo Island, GA x = 2.8 ng/m3
Bermuda x =_0.79 ng/m3
Open ocean x = 0.53 ng/m3
                                                   Arthur et al.,
                                                   1976 in U.S.
                                                   EPA, 1980
                                                   Pollock and
                                                   Kilgore,  1978
                                                   (p.  115)
                                                   Bidleman,  1981
                                                   (p.  623)

                                                   U.S.  EPA,  1980
                                                   (p.  013)
                  4-4

-------
                 Toxaphene residues in air samples at   U.S.  EPA,  1980
                 five North American sites:             (p. C-14)

                                Number of    Range
Location and Date                  Samples   (ng/m^)

Kingston, RI, 1975                 6      0.04-0.4
Sapelo Island, GA, 1976            6      1.7-5.2
Organ Pipe Cactus National
  Park, AZ, 1974                   6      2.7-7.0
Hays, KS, 1974                     3      0.083-2.6
Northwest Territories, Canada,
  1974                             3      0.04-0.23


     B.  Pood

         1.  Frequency of Detection

             Frequency out of 20 composite samples      FDA, 1979
             and range of toxaphene residues             (Attachment E)
             in food groups (1978 data):

             Food Group             Frequency
             Dairy                      - .
             Meat and Fish              2
             Grains and Cereals
             Potatoes
             Leafy vegetables
             Legumes
             Root vegetables
             Garden fruit               1
             Fruit
             Oil and Fats               1
             Sugars
             Beverages
             Range
             (positive samples)  0.030-0.469  Ug/g
         2.   Total Average Intake

                 Relative Daily Intake in the  Diet
                   (Ug/kg body weight  (bw)/day)
Toddlers
Adults
FY75
0.0467
0.0072
FY76
0.0127
not
detected
FY77
0.0443
0.0802
FY78
N/A*
0.1071
                                                               FDA,  1980
                                                               (p.  8)
                                                               FDA,  1979
                                                               (Attach-
                                                               ment  G)
             -"Not  available
                                  4-5

-------
            Mean for toddlers - 0.0346 Ug/kg  bw/day
            for FY75 to FY77, assuming toddler weighs
            10 kg, daily intake = 0.346 jag/day.

            Mean for adults - 0.0486 ug/kg bw/day
            for FY 75 to FY78, assuming adult weighs
            70 kg, daily intake = 3.402 ug/day.

        3.  Concentration

            <0.03 ug/g mean, N.D. to 0.34 ug/g
            range in sugar beet pulp
            Toxaphene not detected in molasses,
            soybean oil, or tallow (1971 data)

            0.45 Ug/g toxaphene in processed food
            0.18 Ug/g toxaphene in vegetables
            (1967 data)

            Out of 1,120 samples of  food composites
            from 32 cities (1971-72) toxaphene was
            found in only 1 sample of leafy
            vegetables with 0.1 Ug/g residue

II. HUMAN EFFECTS

    A.  Ingestion

        1.  Carcinogenicity

            a.  Qualitative Assessment

                Carcinogenic responses  have  been
                induced in mice and  rats  by
                toxaphene.   Toxaphene was  also
                mutagenic for Salmonella  typhimurium
                strains TA98 and TA100  without
                metabolic activation.  The carcino-
                genic responses, together  with the
                positive mutagenic response,  consti-
                tute substantial evidence  that
                toxaphene is likely  to  be  a human
                carcinogen.

            b.  Potency

                Cancer potency = 1.13 (mg/kg/day)"^-
                The  cancer  potency was  derived  from
                carcinogenicity data  presented  by
                Litton  Bionetics (1978  as  cited in
                U.S.  EPA,  1980a).   A  dose-related
                increase  in incidence of hepatocellu-
                lar  carcinomas  and neoplastic nodules
 Yang  et  al.,
 1976  (p.  43)
 Pollock  and
 Kilgore,  1978
 (p.  Ill)

 Manske and
 Johnson,  1975
 (p.  100)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-74)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-76)

U.S. EPA, 1980
(pp. C-43 to
C-46, and C-76)
                                  4-6

-------
        occurred in male B6C3F^ mice  fed  7,
        20 or 50 Vg/g  of toxaphene in the
        diet (0.91, 2.6 or 6.5 mg/kg  bw/day,
        respectively)  for 18 months.   The
        following incidences were  used to
        calculated the cancer potency:
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
0.0
0.91
2.6
6.5
Incidence
(number responding/number tested
10/53
11/54
12/53
18/51
2.  Chronic Toxicity

    a.  ADI

        1.25 ug/kg/day                         NAS, 1977
                                               (p. 603)

    b.  Effects

        Long-term exposure to dietary          U.S. EPA, 1980
        concentrations ranging from 25 to      (p. C-49)
        200 Ug/g resulted in liver
        pathology and degeneration in rats
        and dogs.

3.  Absorption Factor

    Elevated toxaphene blood levels in an      U.S. EPA, 1980
    individual due to consumption of           (p. C-15)
    toxaphene-contaminated fish indicated
    significant absorption after oral
    exposure.

    No direct  information available on         U.S. EPA, 1979a
    absorption of toxaphene.  Absorption       (p. 6-4)
    across alimentary tract, skin and
    respiratory tract is indicated by the
    adverse effects elicited by toxaphene
    following  oral, dermal,  and inhalation
    exposures  in animals.  Vehicle used in
    administration of toxaphene has a marked
    influence  on lethality,  which is probably
    attributable to differences in extent
    and/or rate of absorption.   Oral LD5Q
    much lower when administered in readily
    absorbed vehicle such as corn oil.
                          4-7

-------
    4.  Existing Regulations

        National interim primary drinking water     U.S.  EPA,  1980
        standard for toxaphene 5 JJg/L               (p. C-48)

        ADI recommended by NAS                      WAS,  1977
        1.25 Ug/kg bw/day                           (p. 603)

        FDA tolerances for toxaphene residues       U.S.  EPA,  1980
        range from 0.1 mg/kg in sunflower           (p. C-50)
        seeds to 7 mg/kg in various meat fats,
        nuts and vegetables

        Tolerance for toxaphene in citrus fruits    U.S.  EPA,  1980
        in Canada is 7.0 mg/kg.  The Netherlands'   (p. C-49)
        and Wes't Germany's corresponding standard
        is 0.4 mg/kg.

B.  Inhalation

    1.  Carcinogenicity

        a.  Qualitative Assessment

            Data not immediately available;
            however,  it is assumed that toxaphene
            is carcinogenic when inhaled based on
            effects observed following  ingestion.

        b.  Potency

            Cancer potency = 1.13 (mg/kg/day)"1    U.S. EPA,  1980
                                                   (p. C-76)

            The cancer potency was  derived  from
            that for ingestion, assuming 100
            percent absorption for  both inges-
            tion and inhalation.   This  slope is
      y     based on incidence of  hepatocellular
            carcinomas  and neoplastic nodules in
            mice following chronic  feeding  stud-
            ies (see Section 4, p.  4-6).

    2.  Chronic Toxicity

        a.  Inhalation Threshold or MPIH

            American  Conference of  Governmental    ACGIH, 1983
            and Industrial  Hygienists (ACGIH)
            Threshold Limit Values  (TLVs) for
                             4-8

-------
                 toxaphene in the working environment:
                 Time-weighted average (TWA) -
                 500 Ug/m3
                 Short-term exposure limit (STEL) -
                 1,000
             b.  Effects
                 Humans exposed to toxaphene mists of
                 500,000 Ug/m3 in air for 30
                 minutes daily for 10 days,  followed
                 by 3 daily exposures, 3 weeks later
                 showed no adverse effects based on
                 physical examination and blood and
                 urine tests.

                 Two cases of acute bronchitis with
                 miliary lung shadows attributed to
                 inhalation of toxaphene during
                 applications of  toxaphene formula-
                 tion spray.  Carriers for toxaphene
                 during spraying  not specified.
                 Pulmonary insufficiency and lung
                 lesions resulted but were reversible
                 within 3 months.

             3.  Absorption Factor

                 Qualitative information on  absorption
                 was not immediately available.
                 Absorption across respiratory tract
                 is indicated by  adverse effects
                 elicited by toxaphene following inhala-
                 tion exposure.

             4.  Existing Regulations

                 ACGIH TLVs
                   TWA  -   500  Ug/m3
                   STEL - 1,000 Ug/m3
 Shelanski,
 1974  in
 U.S.  EPA,  1980
 (p. C27)
 Warraki,  1963
 in  U.S.  EPA,
 1980  (p.  C-27)
U.S. EPA,
(p. 6-4)
1979a
ACGIH, 1983
III. PLANT EFFECTS
     A.   Phytotoxicity
         Toxaphene is not phytotoxic  to  most  crop
         plants at concentrations  recommended to
         kill  insects (15-20 kg/ha).

         See Table 4-1.

         0.04  to 462.3 Ug/g toxaphene in plants with
         no  reported effects.
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-1)
Carey et al.,
1979b (pp. 222-
225)
                                  4-9

-------
    No data immediately available on tissue
    concentrations causing toxicity.

    Toxaphene concentrations in standing agri-
    cultural crops, 1972 (ug/g
             Crop
Arithmetic  Geometric
   Mean        Mean
                           Carey et al.,
                           1979b (pp.  222
                           to 225)
Range
Alfalfa
Corn stalks
Cotton stalks
Cotton seed
Grass hay
Milo
Pasture forage
Peanuts
Soybeans
0.01
0.04
25.44
0.49
0.15
0.04
0.15
0.25
0.01
0.002
0.002
1.078
0.082
0.020
-
0.014
0.100
0.002
0.17-0.19
0.19-4.14
0.66-462.30
0.20-3.71
0.30-1.19
0.04
0.59-0.86
0.17-0.65
0.14-0.38
B.  Uptake
    The uptake and metabolism of toxaphene by
    plants has not received much investigation
                           U.S.  EPA, 1979a
                           (p.  1-6)
    Toxaphene residues in crops following appli-   Muns et al.,
    cation of 3 pounds toxaphene per acre          1960
    (3.36 kg/ha)
                  Crop
             Concentration in Ug/g WW*
        Pre-planting soil treatment
          Sugar beet root
          Table beet root
          Potato
        On-surface treatment at
        seedling stage
          Potato
          Table beet root
          Sugar beet root
          Radish
                     N.D.
                     N.D.
                     0.3  (1.48)
                     0.3  (1.48)
                     N.D.
                     0.3  (2.36)
                     0.4  (7.27)
        N.D.  = Not  Detectable

        * Values in parentheses are the  concentrations  converted  to
        dry  weight  using  percent  water  for  foods  given  in  USDA
        (1975).  Water content  for  potatoes,  beets  (common  red),
        and radishes  are  79.8,  87.3 and 94.5  percent, respectively.

        See Table 4-2.
                             4-10

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

    A.  Toxicity

        See Table 4-3.

    B.  Uptake

        1.0 Ug/g toxaphene  in  fat  of  swine  feeding     Pollock and
        in field sprayed with  16 Ib/acre of toxaphene  Kilgore,  1978
                                                       (p.  110)
        32.2 (10.3-88.9) Ug/g  in  tissues of quail
        living in field sprayed with toxaphene
        See Table 4-4.

 V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS

    A.  Toxicity

        1.  Freshwater

            0.013 Ug/L as a 24-hour average
            concentration, not to exceed 1.6 ug/L
            at any time.

        2.  Saltwater

            Concentration should not exceed
            0.071 Ug/L at any time.  No data
            available regarding chronic toxicity.

    B.  Uptake

        For the edible portion of all freshwater and
        estuarine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S.
        citizens, BCF is 18,450.


VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS

    A.  Toxicity

        See Table 4-5.

        Toxaphene is  not toxic to soil  bacteria
        and fungi or  to the microbiological process
        important to  soil fertility at  concen-
        trations even higher than those used for
        controlling insects.
 Pollock and
 Kilgore,  1978
 (p.  112)
U.S. EPA,  1980
(p. B-8)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-8)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-ll)
as revised by
Stephan, 1981
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 1-5)
                                 4-11

-------
     B.  Uptake

         Data not immediately available.

VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT

     Chemical name of toxaphene:  chlorinated camphene
                                  containing 67-69%
                                  chlorine
     Molecular weight:  414
     Melting point:  65-90°C
     Density:  1.64 at 25°C
     Partition coefficient:  3,300
     Solubility in 1^0:  0.4 to 3.0 mg/L

     Solubility of toxaphene:   3 mg/L at room temp.
     Vapor pressure:   0.2 to 0.4 ppm at 25°C
     Toxaphene is immobile in soils Rf = 0.00-0.09
     Toxaphene most persistent of 9 insecticides
     tested with a half-life of 11 years
     Reported half-lives range from 100 days  to
     11 years (maximum -value).

     Organic carbon partition  coefficient
     (Koc)  = 964 mL/g
U.S. EPA,  1980
(p. A-l)
Finlayson and
MacCarthy, 1973
(p. 67)

Lawless et al.,
1975 (p. 51)

Nash and
Woolson, 1967
in Pollock
and Kilgore,
1978 (p. 116)

U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 1-5)

U.S. EPA, 1982
                                  4-12

-------
                                                       TABLE 4-1.  PHYTOTOXICITY OF TOXAPHENE
Plant/Tissue
Black valentine
beans



Table beets,
potatoes,
cucumbers

Cotton/plant

Cotton/plant

Corn/stem

Corn/root

Peas/stem

Peas/root

Peas/root and
stem


Oats/root

Cucumber/root

Cauliflower/
seedling
Tomato/seedl ing

Cabbage/seedl ing

Chemical
Form Applied
Toxaphene




Toxaphene



Toxaphene
emulsion
Toxaphene
powder
Toxaphene

Toxaphene

Toxaphene

Toxaphene

Toxaphene



Toxaphene

Toxaphene

Toxaphene

Toxaphene

Toxaphene

Control Tissue
Soil Concentration
Type (Mg/g DU)
fine sand




sandy clay
loam


sandy

sandy

sandy

sandy

sandy

sandy

sandy



sandy

sandy

NR

NH

NH

NRa




NR



NR

NR

NR

NK

NR

NR

NR



NH

NH

NH

NH

NR

Experimental
Soil Application Tissue
Concentration Rate Concentration
. (pg/g DW) (kg/ha DW) (ug/g DW) Effects
12.5-100 NR




NR 22.4°



NR 72.3

NR 101.5

30 NR

30 NR

30 NR

30 NR

30 NR



30 NR

30 NK

NH 1.57

NH 1.57

NH 1.57

NR No significant change
in germination rate,
root weight or top
weight from the con-
trols
NR Injury to table beets,
serious injury to
potatoes and cucum-
bers
NR "Some toxicity" to
growth
NR No effect

NR Length 881 of control

NR Length 87Z of control

NR Length 114Z of control

NR Dry matter 88Z of
control
NR Slight reduction over
control in root
length: Stem/length
ratio = 0.63
NR Dry matter 88Z of
control
NH Dry matter 104Z of
control
NR No effect

NR No effect

NR Significant reduction
in size of seedlings
References
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)


Martin et al.,
1959 (p. 337)


U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-17)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-21)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-21)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-21)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-21)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-21)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-20)


U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-21)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-21)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-20)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-20)
U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 4-20)
a NR = Not reported.
" Annual applications applied lor 5 years prior to |>l anl > ng.

-------
                                                         TABLE 4-2.  UPTAKE OF TOXAPHENE BY PLANTS
Plant/tissue
Potato/tuber
Chemical
Form Applied Soil type
Toxaphene (pre- sandy loam
planting treatment)
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
1.68b
Application Rate
(kg/ha)
3.36C
Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
1.48 (0.3)d
Uptake
Factor"
0.88
References
Nuns et
al., 1960
.   a  Uptake  factor  =  y/x:  y  =  pg/g plant  tissue  DM;  x  =  pg/g soil  DW.
i   b  Soil  concentration was  calculated from the application rate of 3.36 kg/ha assuming toxaphene was  evenly  distributed  in  2000 mt soil/ha in the top
£    15  cm.
    c  Converted  from Ibs/acre to  kg/ha  using  a  factor of  1.1209.
    d  Value in parentheses  is wet weight concentration  (pg/g) reported by original author.   Dry weight calculated assuming potatoes contain 79.8 percent
      water (USDA,  1975).

-------
TABLE 4-3.  TOXICITY OF TOXAPHENE TO DOMESTIC  ANIMALS  AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)a
Dog
Dog
Dog (4)
Pheasant
Rat
Rat
Rat
Monkey
Peed Water
Chemical Form Concentration Concentration Daily Intake Duration
Fed (pg/g) (mg/L) (mg/kg) of Study
Toxaphene 10 NRb 1.7 NR
Toxaphene 40-200 NR NR 2 years
Toxaphene 160 NR 4.0 44 days
Toxaphene 100-300 • NR NR NR
Toxaphene 50 NR NR 2 years
Toxaphene 200 NR NR 2 years
Toxaphene 25 NR NR 2 years
Toxaphene NR NR 0.7 NR
Effects
No effect dosage
Slight degeneration
of liver at 40 pg/g
Moderate degeneration of
liver at 200 pg/g
Degenerative changes in
kidney tubules and liver
parenchyma
Increased mortality
of hatched young
Slight liver change
in 25Z of rats
Distinct liver change
in 502 of rats
No effect level
No effect level
References
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. 175)
HAS, 1977
(p. 175)
NAS, 1977
(p. 603)
Pollock and
Kilgore, 1978
(p. 96)
Pollock and
Kilgore, 1978
(p. 97)
Pollock and
Kilgore, 1978
(p. 97)
Pollock and
Kilgore, 1978
(p. 98)
Pollock and
Kilgore, 1978
(p. 98)

-------
                                                                   TABLE 4-3. (continued)
Species (N)a
Dog
Rat
Rat
Pelican (5)
Pelican (5)
Chemical Form
Fed
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Peed
Concentration
(P8/E>
20
NR
NR
10
50
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily Intake
(mg/kg)
NR
25
100
NR
NR
Duration
of Study
2 years
1 ifet ime
1 i fetime
3 months
29-48 days
Effects References
No effect level Pollock and
Kilgore, 1978
(p. 98)
No effect level U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-29)
Liver pathology U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-29)
No effect U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 5-123)
Lethal U.S. EPA, 1979a
(p. 5-123)
 ,   a N = Number of  experimental  animals when reported.
(-•  b NR = Not  reported.

-------
                                          TABLE 4-4.  UPTAKE OF TOXAIMIENE  BY  DOMESTIC  ANIMALS  AND WILDLIFE
Species
Steer
Steer
Steer
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Cow
Mammal s
Dairy cow
Dairy cow
Cow
Cow
Feed Tissue
Chemical Concentration (N)a Tissue Concentration
Form Fed (Mg/g DW) Analyzed 
-------
                                                    TABLE 4-5.  TOXICITY OF TOXAPHENE TO SOIL BIOTA


Species

Chemical Form
Applied
Soil Application
Soil Concentration Rate
Type (MB/g DW) (kg/ha) Effects


References
    Soil  microbes
    Soil microbes
toxaphene
toxaphene
 I
(-•
oo
                                          fine  aand
silly loam
                                          peal
                                    12.5-100
                                                               NR
                                                               NR
                                     NRa
                                                                              11.2
                                                                              11.2
             Slight  increase  in
             numbers  of  fungi, evolu-
             tion  of  carbon dioxide
             and nitrate/  nitrogen
             production

             42Z increase  in  number
             of mo1ds

             27Z increase  in  number
             of bacteria

             62Z increase  in  number
             of molds

             201 decrease  in  number
             of bacteria
Eno and Everett, 1958 (p. 237)
Bollen et al., 1954 (p. 304)
                                                                              22.4
                                                                   82 decrease in number
                                                                   of molds
    Red worm
    Soil microbes
toxaphene
toxaphene
sandy loam
sandy clay
                                                              16.8b
                                                               NR
             50Z decrease in number
             of bacteria

33.6C        76Z survival of adults,
             no young worms found two
             months after treatment

22.4         After 5 annual applica-
             tions, no significant
             difference from control
             in numbers of fungi or
             bacteria
Hopkins and Kirk, 1957
(p. 699)
Martin et al., 1959 (p. 335)
    a NR = Not reported.
    b Calculated from application rate assuming toxaphene was evenly distributed in the top 15 cm of soil with a mass of 2000 mt/ha.
    c Converted from 30 Ibs/acre to 33.6 kg/ha usng a conversion factor of 1.1209.

-------
                                SECTION 5

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

American  Conference  of  Governmental  and  Industrial  Hygienists.    1983.
     Threshold Limit  Values  for Chemical  Substances  and  Physical Agents
     in  the  Work  Environment  with  Intended  Changes  for  1983-1984.
     ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH.

Arthur, R.  D., J. D.  Cain,  and  B. F.  Barrentine.   1976.   Atmospheric
     Levels  of Pesticides  in  the Mississippi  Delta.    Bull.  Environ.
     Contain. Toxicol.  15:129-134.  (As cited in U.S.  EPA, 1980.)

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.

Bollen, W., H. E.  Morrison,  and H. H.  Crowell.   1954.    Effect  of Field
     Treatments of Insecticides  on Numbers  of  Bacteria,  Str.eptomyces,
     and Molds in  the Soil.  J. Econ.  Ent.   47(2):302-6.

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.    A Comparison  of Studies  of Toxic
     Substances in POTW  Sludges.    Prepared  for  U.S.  EPA under  Contract
     No. 68-01-6403.   Annandale, VA.  August.

Camp Dresser  and McKee,  Inc.    1984b.   Development of  Methodologies for
     Evaluating Permissible  Contaminant  Levels  in Municipal  Wastewater
     Sludges.   Draft.   Office  of  Water  Regulations  and  Standards,  U.S.
     Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Washington, D.C.

Camp Dresser  and McKee,  Inc.    1984c.    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.   1984d.    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.    1979.   Monitoring  Pesticides  in Agricultural  and  Urban
     Soils of the  United  States.  Pest. Monit.  J.  13(l):23-27.
                                   5-1

-------
Carey, A. E.,  G.  B. Wiersma, and  H.  Tai.  1976.   Pesticide Residues  in
     Urban  Soil  from  14  United States  Cities,  1970.    Pest.  Monit.  J.
     10(2):54-60.

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

Chaney,  R.  L., and C.  A.  Lloyd.    1979.    Adherence  of  Spray-Applied
     Liquid Digested  Sewage  Sludge  to Tall  Fescue.   J.  Environ.  Qual.
     8(3):407-411.

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.

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

Edwards,  C. A.    1970.   Persistent Pesticides  in  the Environment.   CRC
     Press, Cleveland,  OH.

Eno, C.  F., and P. H.  Everett.    1958.   Effects of  Soil  Applications  of
     10 Chlorinated  Hydrocarbon  Insecticides  on Soil Microorganisms  and
     the  Growth of Stringless Black Valentine Beans.   Soil  Sci.  Soc.  Am.
     Proc.   22:235-238.

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

Finlayson,  D.  G., and H.  R. MacCarthy.   1973.   Pesticide  Residues  in
     Plants.    In:    Edwards,  C.A. (ed,),  Environmental  Pollution  by
     Pesticides.   Plenum  Press, New York, NY.

Food  and Drug  Administration.     1979.   Compliance Program Report  of
     Findings.   FY78 Total  Diet Studies - Adult  (7305.003).

Food  and Drug  Administration.     1980.   Compliance Program Report  of
     Findings.      FY77   Total  Diet  Studies   -  Infants   and  Toddlers
     (7320.74). FDA Bureau of Foods.   October 22.

Freeze, R.  A.,  and J. A.  Cherry.  1979.   Groundwater.   Prentice-Hall,
     Inc.,  Englewood Cliffs,  NJ.
                                   5-2

-------
Gelhar,  L.  W.  and  G.  J.  Axness.    1981.     Stochastic   Analysis  of
     Macrodispersion  in 3-Dimensionally Heterogeneous  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.

Griffin,  R.  A.    1984.    Personal   Communication to U.S.  Environmental
     Protection   Agency,   ECAO  -   Cincinnati,   OH.     Illinois  State
     Geological Survey.

Hopkins, A.,  and  V.  M. Kirk.   1957.  Effect of  Several  Insecticides  on
     the English Redworm.  J. Econ. Ent.  50(5):699-700.

Jones, R. A.,  and  G.  F.  Lee.   1977.   Chemical  Agents of Potential Health
     Significance  for Land  Disposal of  Municipal  Wastewater Effluents
     and  Sludges.    In:    Sagik,  B.  P-  and Sorber,  C.  A.  (eds.),  Risk
     Assessment  and   Health  Effects  of  Land  Application  of  Municipal
     Wastewater and  Sludges.   University  of  Texas  Center  for  Applied
     Research and Technology, San Antonio, TX.

Lawless, E.  W.,  T. L.  Ferguson,  and A.  F.  Meiners.  1975.   Guidelines
     for  the  Disposal  of  Small Quantities  of Unused  Pesticides.   EPA
     670/2-75-057.    U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Cincinnati,
     OH.

Manske,  D.  D. and R.  D.  Johnson.   1975.   Pesticide Residues  in Total
     Diet Samples  - VIII.  Pest. Monit. J.  9(2):94-105.

Martin, J. P., R.  B.  Harding, G.  H.  Cannell, and  L.  D. Anderson.   1959.
     Influence of.Five  Annual  Field  Applications  of  Organic  Insecticides
     on Soil Biological and Physical  Properties.   Soil Sci.   87:334-338.

Muns,  R.  P.,  M.  W.  Stone,  and F.  Foley.   1960.   Residues  in Vegetable
     Crops Following  Soil  Application  of Insecticides.   J.  Econ.  Ent.
     58:832-834.
                                •y
Nash,  R.  G.,  and E.  A.  Woolson.    1967.   Persistence  of  Chlorinated
     Hydrocarbon Insecticides  in  Soils.   Science.   157:924.   (As  cited
     in Pollock and Kilgore, 1978.)

National  Academy   of  Sciences.    1977.    Drinking  Water  and  Health.
     National  Review   Council   Safe  Drinking   Water  Committee,   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.

Pennington,  J. A.  T.   1983.   Revision of  the Total Diet Study Food Lists
     and Diets.  J. Am.  Diet.  Assoc.   82:166-173.
                                   5-3

-------
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.

Pollock,  G.  A., and  W. W.  Kilgore.    1978.   Toxaphene.   Residue  Rev.
     88:140.

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.   Env.
     Sci. & Tech. 13(8):931-935.

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

Shelanski, H.  A.   1974.   Report  to  Hercules, Inc. (Unpublished).   (As
     cited in U.S.  EPA, 1980.)

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.  September.

Stanley,  C.  W., J.  E.  Barney,  M. R.  Helton, and  A.  R.  Yobs.   1971.
     Measurement of Atmospheric Levels of Pesticides.   Env.  Sci.  & Tech.
     5(5):430-435.

Stephan, C.E.  1981.   Memorandum to J.F.  Stara.  May 26.

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.

U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.    1976.    Quality  Criteria  for
     Water.  U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency, Washington,  D.C.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1977.   Environmental  Assessment
     of  Subsurface  Disposal  of Municipal  Wastewater   Sludge:    Interim
     Report.      EPA/530/SW-547.     Municipal   Environmental   Research
     Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency.      1979a.     Reviews   of   the
     Environmental  Effects  of  Pollutants:   IX.   Toxaphene.    EP~A 600/1-
     79-044.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Cincinnati, OH.
                                   5-4

-------
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  1979b.   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  Toxaphene.    EPA  440/5-80-076.   U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1982.  Aquatic  Fate  Process Data
     for Organic  Priority  Pollutants.   Final Report.   EPA 440/4-81-014.
     Office of Water Regulations and Standards,  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  Environmental   Assessment,
     Washington, D.C.  July 19.

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

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1984.   Air Quality  Criteria  for
     Lead.   External Review  Draft.    EPA 600/8-83-028B.   Environmental
     Criteria  and   Assessment   Office,   Research  Triangle   Park.,   NC.
     September.

Warraki, S.   1963.   Respiratory Hazards of Chlorinated  Camphene.   Arch.
     Environ. Health.  7:253.   (As cited in U.S.  EPA,  1980.)

Yang,  H.   S.   C.,   G.   B.   Wiersma,   and  W.   G.   Mitchell.     1976.
     Organochlorine   Pesticide  Residues  in Sugar  Beet Pulp  and  Molasses
     from 16 States, 1971.  Pest.  Monit.  J.  10(2):41-43.
                                   5-5

-------
                               APPENDIX

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

   A.  Effect on Soil Concentration of Tozaphene

       1.  Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

           a.  Formula

                     (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
                 s          AR + MS

               CSr = CSS  [1 +  0

               where:

                    CSg = Soil  concentration  of   pollutant   after  a
                          single    year's    application   of    sludge
                          (yg/g DW)
                    CSr = Soil  concentration of  pollutant  after  the
                          yearly   application   of   sludge   has   been
                          repeated for n + 1 years (yg/g DW)
                    SC  = .Sludge concentration of pollutant  (yg/g 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 (yg/g DW)
                    t^  = 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 „,    ,  nu   (7.88 yg/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (0.003 ug/g DW x  2000 mt/ha)
       0.023 yg/g DW =                (5
               CSr is calculated for AR = 5  mt/ha applied  for 100 years

               0.37 yg/g DW = 0.023 yg/g DW [1 +  0.5(1/11) +  0.5(2/11)

                        * ... * 0.5(99/11)]
                                 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 = —

            where:

                 II  = 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

            0 0013 - 0.023 Ug/g DW
            °'0013   16.8 Ug/g DW

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

        a.  Formula

            _ ,   .   zl x UB
            Index 3 = ——	

            where:

                 !]_  = Index 1  = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                 UB  = Uptake  factor of  pollutant  in  soil  biota
                       (Ug/g tissue DW [Ug/g  soil DW]'1)
                 TR  = Feed concentration  toxic  to  predator  (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 A =
            where:
                 l±  = 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

            0.00075 = °°23
                        n
                       30  yg/g  DW

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

        a.  Formula

            Index 5 = !]_ 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 [yg/g soil  DW]"1)

        b.  Sample Calculation

            0.020 yg/g DW =

            0.023 ug/g DW x 0.88  yg/g  tissue  DW  (yg/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 (yg/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 (yg/g DW)
                              A-3

-------
                 TA  = Feed   concentration  toxic   to  herbivorous
                       animal (ug/g DW)
        b.  Sample calculation

            0.00040 = °°20
                       50 Ug/g DW

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

        a.  Formula

            If AR = 0; Index 8=0


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

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

        b.  Sample calculation

            If AR = 0; Index 8=0

            If AR * 0-  0 0079 = 7'88  ufi/  DW x  Q.05
            If AR 5* 0,  0.0079
E.  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 (yg/g DW)
                 DT  = Daily human dietary intake  of  affected  plant
                       tissue (g/day DW)
                 DI  = Average daily human dietary intake of
                       pollutant  (yg/day)
                 RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)
                              A-4

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

        30 _ (0.020 ue/g DW x 74.5 g/dav) * 0.346 ug/day
                   0.0619 Ug/day
2.  Index  of Human  Cancer Risk  Resulting from  Consumption of
    Animal  Products  Derived  from Animals  Feeding  on  Plants
    (Index 10)

    a.  Formula

                    (I5  x UA x DA) + DI
        Index 10 =  	_	


        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)

        41 = [(0.020 ug/g DW x 2.5 ug/g tissue DW  [ug/g feed DW]"1

             x 43.7 g/day DW) + 0.346  Ug/day] * 0.0619 Ug/day


3.  Index  of Human  Cancer Risk  Resulting  from Consumption  of
    Animal Products  Derived  from Animals Ingesting Soil  (Index
    11)

    a.' Formula
                „   T J    ,,       (BS  x GS x  UA x DA) + DI
        If AR = 0;  Index  11  =  	^	

               , „   T  .    ,,       (SC  x GS x  UA x DA) + DI
        If AR ^ 0;  Index  11  =	


        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
                   (yg/g tissue DW  [Ug/g  feed  DW]'1)
             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 (yg/day)
             RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake ()Jg/day)

    b.  Sample calculation (toddler)


        630 = [(7.88 ug/g DW x 0.05 x 2.5 yg/g tissue DW

               [Ug/g feed  DW]'1 x 39.4 g/day DW) + 0.346 Ug/day]

               * 0.0619 Ug/day


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

    a.  Formula

                   (Ii  x DS) + DI
        Index 12 = 	_	


        where:

             !]_  = 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  (yg/day)

    b.  Sample calculation  (toddler)


              (0.023 ug/g DW x  5 g/day)  +  0.346 ug/day
            "           0.0619  ug/day


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

    a.  Formula
        Index 13 = Ig + IIQ * 111 *  Il2 ~  ("RST

        where:

             Ig  = Index   9 =  Index   of   human  cancer   risk
                   resulting  from  plant  consumption  (unitless)
                          A-6

-------
                         - Index   10  =   Index  of   human  cancer  risk.
                           resulting    from    consumption   of   animal
                           products  derived  from  animals  feeding  on
                           plants (unitless)
                         = Index 11   =   Index  of   human  cancer  risk
                           resulting    from    consumption   of   animal
                           products derived  from  animals  ingesting soil
                           (unitless)
                     1^2 = 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 (yg/day)

            b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

                690 = (30 * 41 * 630 . 7.4) - (
II. LAHDFILLING

    A.  Procedure

        Using  Equation  1,  several  values  of  C/C0  for  the  unsaturated
        zone  are  calculated  corresponding to  increasing  values  of  t
        until  equilibrium is reached.   Assuming a  5-year pulse  input
        from the landfill,  Equation  3 is employed to estimate  the  con-
        centration vs. time data at  the  water  table.   The concentration
        vs.  time curve is then  transformed into a square  pulse  having a
        constant  concentration  equal  to  the  peak  concentration,   Cu,
        from the unsaturated  zone,  and  a  duration,  t0,  chosen  so  that
        the   total  areas   under  the  curve  and  the pulse  are equal,  as
        illustrated in Equation 3.   This  square  pulse  is then  used  as
        the   input  to  the  linkage  assessment,  Equation  2, which esti-
        mates initial dilution  in the aquifer  to give the  initial  con-
        centration,  Co, for the saturated  zone assessment.   (Conditions
        for   B,  minimum  thickness  of  unsaturated  zone,   have  been  set
        such that dilution  is actually negligible.)  The  saturated  zone
        assessment procedure is nearly identical to that  for  the unsat-
        urated zone except  for  the definition of certain  parameters  and
        choice of parameter values.    The  maximum  concentration at  the
        well,  Cmax,  is  used  to  calculate the  index values  given  in
        Equations  4  and 5.

    B.  Equation 1:   Transport Assessment
     C(y,t) = i [exp(Ax) erfc(A2) + exp^) erfc(B2)] =
      Co
         Requires evaluations  of  four  dimensionless  input  values  and
         subsequent   evaluation   of  the  result.    Exp(A^)  denotes  the
         exponential    of   AI ,   e   ,   where   erfc(A£)   denotes   the
                                  A-7

-------
complimentary  error function of  A2«   Erfc(A£) produces  values
between 0.0 and 2.0  (Abramowitz and Stegun,  1972).

where:
     A, = X-  [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x
     Al   2D*

        _ x -  t  (V*2 + 4D* x
     A2 "        (4D* x t)'
     B  = X— [V* + (V*2 + 4D* x U*)^l
      l   9 n*
          2D*
     n     X  +  t  (V--2  +  4D* x u*)i
     82 ~        (4D*
                     x
and where for the unsaturated zone:

     C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration  (ug/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* = — 2 — (m/year)
          0 x R
      Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
      0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)

      R = 1 +  dfy x Kj = 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)

                 i  (years)-l
          Degradation rate
and where for the saturated zone:
     C0 = Initial  concentration  of   pollutant  in  aquifer  as
          determined by Equation 2 (ug/L)
      t = Time (years)
      X = A! = Distance from well to  landfill (m)
     D* = a x V*  (m2/year)
                         A-8

-------
           a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)

          v* = K x i (m/year)
               0 x R
           K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
           i = Average hydraulic gradient  between landfill and well
               (unitless)
           0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)

           R = 1 + _   _   Q.*W*0 -  and  B > 2
                 —   K  x  i  x  365             —

D.  Equation 3.  Pulse Assessment


          C(y?t:) = P t
     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:
                              A-9

-------
                     t0  = [   /* c dt] * cu
                             <

                       = —  —
                                as determined by Equation  1
     E.   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(A&,t)  calculated in  Equation 1
                           (Ug/D

           2.   Sample Calculation

               0.20 Ug/L = 0.20  ug/L

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

           1.   Formula

                          (I I  x  AC)  + DI
               Index 2 =  	_	


               where:

                    l± -  Index  1 =  Index  of  groundwater  concentration
                          resulting from landfilled sludge (ug/L)
                    AC = Average  human  consumption  of  drinking  water
                          (L/day)
                    DI = Average daily human dietary  intake  of  pollutant
                          (Ug/day)
                   RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (Ug/day)

          2.   Sample Calculation

               ,.  _ (0.20 ug/L x 2 L/day)  * 3.402 Ug/day
               °  ~              0.0619 Ug/day

III. INCINERATION

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

          1.   Formula

               T  j   i     (C x PS x SC x FM x DP)  + BA
               Index 1 = 	r-r	
                                  A-10

-------
         where:

            C = Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
                (hr/sec x g/mg)
           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 (yg/m3)
           BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
                air (yg/m3)

         2.   Sample Calculation

              .1.8 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x 7.88 mg/kg DW  x

                   0.05 x 3.4 yg/m3) + 0.0012 yg/m3] t 0.0012  yg/m3

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

        1.  Formula

                       [di - 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 (yg/m3)
              EC = Exposure criterion (yg/m3)

        2.  Sample Calculation

                 _F(1.8 -  1) x 0.0012  Ug/m31  +  0.0012  ug/m3
                                 0.0031  Ug/m3

IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

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

        1.  Formula

            T J    i     SC x ST x  PS
            Index : =   W x D x L
                                 A-ll

-------
             where:
                 SC =   Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
                 ST =   Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker  (kg WW)
                 PS =   Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
                 W  =   Width of initial plume dilution (m)
                 D  =   Depth to pycnocline  or  effective  depth of mixing
                    for shallow water site (m)
                 L  =   Length of tanker path (m)
         2.  Sample Calculation
_ .,, ,  /T    7.88 mg/kgDW  x  1600000  kg WW x Q.Q4 kg DW/kg WW  x  1Q3  Ug/mg
0.016 Ug/L =  	=—B	°	f"	—°	"—=•
                         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)

          2.   Sample Calculation

          n „„,.,    /,    825000 kg  DW/day  x  7.88 mg/kg DW x 103
          0.0043 Ug/L =  - a - ' - ° — B - ^ - ,  .,
                           9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3

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

          1.   Formula


               Index 3 =
               where:

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

-------
               2.   Sample Calculation

                    n nftn - 0-0043 ug/L
                    °'°60 -  0.071 ug/L

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

               1.   Formula

                               (I2 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 (ug/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

                    55 =

(0.0043 Ug/L x 18450 L/kg x 10"3  kg/g x  0.000021  x  14.3  g WW/day) + 3.4Q2 Us/day
                                        0.0619 Ug/day
                                       A-13

-------
TABLE A-l.  INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR BACH CONDITION
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (pg/g DW)
Unaaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, Pjry (g/m1-)
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 (unitleas)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unilless)
Distance from well to landfill, AH (m)
Di spersi viiy coefficient, a (m)
1
7.88


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.66

0.001
100
10
2
10.79


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
3
7.88


1.925
0.133
0.0001

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.66

0.001
100
10
4 5
7.88 7.88


NAb 1.53
NA 0.19S
NA 0.005

1.6 0.8
0 5
NA 0.5


0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04

0.001 0.001
100 100
10 10
6
7.88


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.02
50
5
7 8
10.79 Na


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)
Condition of Analysis
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, Co (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, Co
f (Mg/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)
1 2 3

1970 2700 1970
217 298 1860
42.0 42 5.02

126 126 126

217 298 1860

0.198 0.272 0.203


0.198 0.272 0.203


61.4 63.7 61.5
4

1970
1970
5.00

253

1970

0.214


0.214


61.9
5

1970
217
42.0

23.8

217

1.05


1.05


89.0
6

1970
217
42.0

6.32

217

7.95


7.95


312
7

2700
2700
5.00

2.38

2700

62.4


62.4


2070
8

N
N
N

N

N

N


0


55.0
aN  = Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
t>NA = Not applicable for this condition.

-------