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.
------- |