United States
Environmental Pratsction
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
                           June, 1985
Environmental Profi
and Hazard indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge;
Chlordane

-------
                                 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 CHLORDANE 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 CHLORDANE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	   3-1

    Landspreading and Discribution-and-Marketing 	   3-1

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

    LandfilLing 	   3-18

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

    Incineration 	  3-27

         Index of air concentration increment resulting
           from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 	  3-27
         Index of human cancer risk resulting from
           inhalation of incinerator emissions (Index 2)  	  3-29

    Ocean Disposal  	  3-31

         Index of seawater concentration resulting  from
           initial  mixing of  sludge (Index  1) 	  3-31
         Index of seawater concentration representing a
           24-hour  dumping cycle  (Index  2)  	  3-35
                                   11

-------
                            TABLE OP CONTENTS
                               (Continued)
                                                                     Page
         Index of hazard Co aquatic life (Index 3) 	  3-36
         Index of human cancer risk resulting from
           seafood consumption (Index 4) 	  3-37

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

    Occurrence 	  4-1

         Sludge 	  4-1
         Soil - Unpolluted 	  4-2
         Water - Unpolluted 	  4-4
         Air 	  4-5
         Food 	  4-6

    Human Effects 	  4-7

         Ingestion 	  4-7
         Inhalation 	  4-3

    Plant Effects 	  4-9

         Phytocoxicicy 	  4-9
         Uptake 	  4-9

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 	  4-10

         Toxicity 	  4-10
         Uptake 	  4-10

    Aquatic Life Effects 	•	  4-10

         Toxicity 	  4-10
         Uptake 	  4-11

    Soil Biota Effects 	  4-11

         Toxicity 	.'	  4-11
         Uptake 	  4-11

    Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 	  4-11

5.  REFERENCES	  5-1

APPENDIX.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
    CHLORDANE 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.   Chlordane 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 determin-
ing  whether  chlordane  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",
Section 4.   Information  in  the profile  is based  on a compilation of the
recent  literature.    An  attempt has  been made  to  fill   out  the profile
outline to  the-greatest  extent  possible.  However,  since this is  a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has not been exhaustively perused.
     The  "preliminary conclusions" drawn from each  index in Section  3
are  summarized  in  Section  2.   The  preliminary  hazard   indices  will be
used as a  screening tool to  determine which  pollutants  and  pathways may
pose a hazard.   Where a  potential hazard  is indicated  by interpretation
of  these  indices,  further analysis will include a  more  detailed exami-
nation  of  potential  risks  as  well  as  an  examination  of  sice-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 perti-
nent to landspreading and distribution and  marketing, landfilling,  inci-
neration 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 CHLORDANE 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-MARKETINC

     A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Chlordane

          Landspreading   of    sludge    may    slightly    increase   soil
          concentrations of chlordane (see Index 1).

     B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

          Landspreading of sludge  is not  expected  to  result  in soil con-
          centrations of  chlordane which  pose a  toxic  hazard  for soil
          biota  (see Index 2).   The  toxicity of chlordane  concentrations
          in  tissues  of   organisms  inhabiting  sludge-amended  soil  to
          predators of soil biota could  not  be evaluated 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 soil con-
          centrations of  chlordane which  pose  a  phycotoxic hazard (see
          Index   4).    The  concentrations  of   chlordane  in  tissues  of
          plants in  the  animal  and human  diet  are expected to  increase
          when  sludge   is  Landspread  (see  Index  5).    Whether  these
          increased  tissue  concentrations would be precluded  by  phyco-
          toxicity could  not  be  determined  due   to  Lack of  data  (see
          Index  6).

     D.   Effect on Herbivorous  Animals

          Plants grown  in sludge-amended  soil  are  unlikely  to  concen-
          trate  sufficient amounts of chlordane in  their tissues  to pose
          a toxic hazard  to herbivorous  animals  (see Index 7).   A toxic
          hazard due to  chlordane is unlikely  for grazing animals  that
          incidentally   ingest   sludge   or   sludge-amended   soil   (see
          Index  8).

     E.   Effect on Humans

          Landspreading  of sludge  may  substantially increase the  cancer
          risk due  to  chlordane,  above  the risk  posed  by pre-existing
          dietary  sources,  for  humans   who  consume  plants  grown   in
          sludge-amended  soil  (see Index 9).   Substantial  increases  in
          cancer risk due to chlordane are also expected for humans  who
                                   2-1

-------
          consume animal  products  derived  from animals given  feed  grown
          on sludge-amended soil (see Index  10);  and  who  consume animals
          products derived from grazing animals  chat  incidentally ingest
          sludge or  sludge-amended soil (see  Index 11).    Landspreading
          of  sludge  may  moderately  increase  the cancer  risk  due  to
          chlordane  for  toddlers   who  ingest  sludge-amended  soil.    For
          adults who  ingest  sludge-amended  soil,  an  increase  in cancer
          risk  due  to  chlordane  above the  risk  posed by  pre-existing
          dietary sources is not  expected  to occur except  possibly when
          sludge with  a high  concentration  of  chlordane  is applied  at
          50 mt/ha (see Index 12).  The aggregate  amount  of chlordane in
          the human diet resulting from landspreading of  sludge may sub-
          stantially increase the  cancer risk  due  to  chlordane  above the
          risk posed by pre-existing  dietary  sources (see  Index 13).

 II. LANDFILLING

     Landfilling of  sludge  is expected to  increase  groundwater  concen-
     trations of chlordane at  the  well;  this increase may  be  large at a
     disposal  site  with  all  worst-case .conditions  (see   Index  1).
     Groundwater  contamination  resulting   from  landfilled  sludge  may
     slightly increase the human  cancer  risk due  to  chlordane  above the
     risk posed  by  pre-existing  dietary sources.   This increase may be
     substantial when  all worst-case  conditions  prevail  at a  disposal
     site (see Index 2).

III. INCINERATION

     Incineration of  sludge  is expected to  increase  the air  concentra-
     tion of  chlordane  above background levels  (see  Index 1).   Inhala-
     tion of emissions resulting from incineration of  sludge  is expected
     to increase  the human  cancer risk due  to chiordane above  the risk
     posed  by  background urban air  concentrations of  chlordane.   This
     risk may be substantial when  sludge containing a high  concentration
     of  chlordane  is   incinerated  at  a   high  feed  rate  and  a  large
     fraction of chlordane is emitted through the stack (see Index 2).

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     This  assessment  shows  that  a   slight   incremental   increase  of
     chlordane  occurs  both  at the "typical" and  "worst" disposal  sites
     after  initial mixing.   Even  calculating  the index using  the  worst
     sludge  concentration  results  in  only   a  slight   increase   (see
     Index 1).  This assessment indicates  that  over a 24-hour  period the
     seawater  concentration  of  chlordane does  increase   slightly  (see
     Index 2).

     This analysis  indicates  that pocentially  a  tissue  residue hazard
     may exist  with the  dumping  of  sludges  with "typical" and  "worst"
     concentrations  of   chlordane  at  the   worst  site.      A  hazard
     potentially exists for  sludges  containing "worst"  concentrations of
     chlordane at the typical site (see Index 3).
                                   2-2

-------
This assessment indicates that in aU  scenarios  evaluated,  there is
an  increase  in  the  human  cancer  risk  resulting  from  seafood
consumption.   Significant  risk  -is  apparent in  the evaluation  of
sludges containing  high  concentrations of chlordane at  the "worst"
site (see Index  4).
                              2-3

-------
                              SECTION 3

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

   A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Chlordane

        1.   Index of Soil Concentration (Index I)

             a.   Explanation -  Calculates concentrations  in pg/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.

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

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

             b.   Assumptions/Limitations   -   Assumes   pollutant   is
                  incorporated into the upper  15  cm of  soil  (i.e., the
                  plow  layer),   which  has  an  approximate  mass  (dry
                  matter)  of 2  x  10-3 mt/ha  and  is  then  dissipated
                  through first order  processes which can  be expressed
                  as a soil half-life.

             c.   Data Used and Rationale

                    i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

                       Typical     3.2 Ug/g DW
                       Worst      12.0 ug/g DW

                       The above  values are  the mean and  maximum con-
                       centrations of  chlordane in  sludge  reported in
                                 3-1

-------
                    Che  currently  available  literature,  obtained
                    from  a  survey  of   sludge  from  74  wastewater
                    treatment plants  in  Missouri  (Clevenger et al.,
                    1983).  (See Section 4, p. 4-1.)

                Li. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
                    (BS) =0.0 Ug/g DW

                    A  background  concentration of  zero  is assumed
                    based on  the  suspension of chlordane  for  agri-
                    cultural use  in  1975,  a soil half-life of 14.3
                    months,  and a  pre-1975  mean concentration  in
                    agricultural  soils  of  0.003  yg/g DW  (Carey  et
                    al., 1979b).  (See Section 4,  p. 4-3.)

               iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (t£) =1.19 years
                    The  half-life  of   chlordane   is   14.3  months
                    (Onsager  et  al.,  1970).    If   first  order  of
                    decay is  assumed,  95 percent of  chlordane  will
                    disappear  from  soil   in  approximately  5  years.
                    These values are comparable  co  data  reported by
                    Matsumura (1972).   (See Section 4, p. 4-12.)

          d.   Index 1 Values (Ug/g DW)

                                   Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
                   Sludge
               Concentration        0         5        50        500
Typical
Worst-
0
0
0.0080
0.030
0.078
0.29
0.018
0.068
          e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value  equals  the  expected
               concentration in sludge-amended soil.

          f.   Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading  of  sludge may
               slightly increase soil concentrations of chlordane.

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.

          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.
                              3-2

-------
      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)  =
                2.8 ug/g DW

                Since  soil molds and  bacteria  are  important  for
                soil  fertility,  they are  chosen  as  the   soil
                biota  of interest.   Chlordane  in concentrations
                of 2.8  yg/g  in  fine sandy loam yields a 43  per-
                cent  reduction in soil molds,  although only  a  3
                percent  reduction   in soil  bacteria  occurs at
                this  level.   At approximately  the  same concen-
                tration in  other  soils,  e.g.,  peat,  the impact
                on soil molds is substantially less,  but 19  and
                24  percent   reductions in  soil  bacteria  counts
                occur.    Doubling  the  soil  concentration  of
                chlordane  in fine  sandy  loam  yields  approxi-
                mately  a doubling  of  the effect  on soil  molds.
                Assuming soil molds and  bacteria to  be equally
                important,   the  lowest  concentration  of  chlor-
                dane  in soil at  which  deleterious  effects on
                soil biota begin to occur  is 2.8 Ug/g.  Data on
                this  relationship   between  chlordane  levels in
                soil   biota  counts   are   from  Bollen  et   al.
                (1954).  (See Section 4,  pp.  4-17 and 4-18.)

     d.   Index 2 Values

                             Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0          5       50       500
Typical
Worse
0.0
0.0
0.0028
0.011
0.028
0.10
0.0064
0.024
     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  soil  concentrations  of
          chlordane which  pose a  coxic  hazard for soil biota.

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

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

                        3-3

-------
          b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -   Assumes   pollutant  form
               bioconcencrated  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 (UB) -
                    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 planes.

          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   plants  (TP)  - =
                    12.5 ug/g DW
                              3-4

-------
               Immediately   available   information   on    Che
               phytotoxicity  of  chlordane is  limited  to  the
               research of  Eno  and Everett (1958).  They  found
               that   soil  concentrations   of   chlordane   of
               12.5 ug/g  resulted in a 19 percent reduction  in
               the  weight  of   bean  roots  and  an  11   percent
               reduction  in the weight  of  bean tops.  Quadrup-
               ling   the   soil   concentrations   of  chlordane
               resulted in  less than a doubling  of the effect
               on  roots  and   only  an  additional  3   percent
               reduction  in the  weight  of  bean  tops.   The
               level of 12.5 Ug/g, then,  represents the lowest
               concentration of chlordane  in  soil at  which a
               sufficient degree  of  phytotoxicity begins to  be
               manifested.  (See Section 4, p. 4-13.)

     d.   Index 4 Values

                             Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0         5       50       500
Typical
Worst
0
0
0.00064
0.0024
0.0062
0.023
0.0014
0.0054
     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  resulc  in soil  concentrations  of
          chlordane which  pose  a phytotoxic hazard.

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
          responsive   plant    species    in   the    following
          categories:    (1)  plants included  in  the  U.S.  human
          diet; and (2)  plants   serving as animal  feed.   Plants
          used vary according to availability of  data.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes an  uptake  factor
          that is constant over all  soil concentrations.   The
          uptake  factor chosen  for  the  human  diet  is  assumed
          to  be representative  of all crops  (except fruits)  in
          the human diet.    The uptake  factor chosen  for  the
          animal  diet is  assumed  to  be  representative of  all
          crops in  the  animal  diet.   See  also Index  6  for
          consideration  of  phytotoxicity.
                        3-5

-------
Diet
Human
        Data Used  and Rationale

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

             See Section 3, p. 3-2.

        ii.  Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)

             Animal Diet:
             Corn  (silage)
                   0.63 ug/g tissue DW  (ug/g  soil  DW)'1

             Human Diet:
             Sugar beets
                   2.28 Ug/g tissue DW  (ug/g  soil  DW)"1

             In view of  the  limited  information  available on
             chlordane  uptake  in plants,   sugar  beets  and
             corn  silage  are  taken  as  representative  of
             plants  in  the  human and  animal diet,  respec-
             tively.   When sugar  beets  are grown  in (loam)
             soils amended with  chlordane at  various appli-
             cation   rates,    che  highest   uptake   factor
             observed in the  root  is 0.29  Ug/g in wet weight
             and ^2.28  Ug/g  in  dry  weight  (Onsager  et  al.,
             1970).   For  corn  (silage)  grown in  chlordane
             treated  soils,   the   highest  uptake  factor  is
             ^0.63   ug/g  DW  (Fairchild,   1976).      (See
             Section 4,  p.  4-14. )
   Sludge
Concentration
Index 5 Values (ug/g

                   Sludge  Application  Race (mc/ha)

                     0          5        50        500
Animal
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0050
0.019
0.049
0.18
0.011
0.043
   Typical
   Worst
                  0.0
                  0.0
0.018
0.068
0.18
0.67
0.041
0.15
        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 che  same or  a similar  plane
        species may be unrealistically  high because  it  would
        be precluded by phytotoxicity.

        Preliminary  Conclusion   -   The   concentrations   of
        chlordane  in  tissues  of  plants  in  the  animal  and
        human  diet  are  expected  to  increase  when sludge  is
        landspread.
                       3-6

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

          a.   Explanation - The  index  value is  the maximum tissue
               concentration,   in   pg/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  (Mg/g   DH)  -  Values   were  not
               calculated due co lack of data.

          e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value  equals   the  maximum
               plant  tissue concentration  which is  permitted  by
               phytotoxicity.   Value  Ls 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  - Conclusions were  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
                              3-7

-------
          used  Co  demonstrate  toxic  effects in animal.  Uptake
          or  toxicity  in  specific  pLanCs 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
                those  Index 5  values  for  an  animal  diet   (see
              •  Section 3, p. 3-6).

           ii.  Peed concentration toxic to  herbivorous animal
                (TA) = 2.5 Ug/g DW

                Information  on  the  dietary  concentration  of
                chlordane  toxic  to herbivorous  animals  is  not
                immediately available.   In  lieu  of  more perti-
                nent data,  the  lowest dietary  concentration at
                which  deleterious  effects  are  observed  in  any
                animal  species is used.   This  Level  is 2.5  Ug/g
                which results in liver damage  in rats (National
                Academy  of   Sciences   (MAS),   1977).      (See
                Section 4,  p. 4-15.)

     d.   Index 7 Values

                             Sludge Application Rate (me/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0         5        50       500
Typical
Worst
0
0
0.002
0.0075
0.020
0.074
0.0046
0.017
     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  -  Plants  grown  in  sludge-
          amended  soil  are  unlikely Co concentrate  sufficient
          amounts  of   chlordane  in  their  tissues  to  pose  a
          toxic hazard 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 co  forage  or   from  incidental ingestion  of
          sludge-amended  soil   and  compares  this   with   the
          dietary  toxic  threshold  concentration  for  a  grazing
          animal.
                         3-8

-------
Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  sludge  is
applied over and  adheres  Co growing  forage,  or chat
sludge constitutes  5  percent  of  dry matter  in  Che
grazing animal's  diet, and Chat  pollutant   form  in
sludge  is  equally  bioavailable  and  toxic  as  form
used Co 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.

Data Used  and Rationale

  i. Sludge concentration  of pollutant (SC)

     Typical     3.2 yg/g DW
     Worst       12.0 pg/g DW

     See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

 ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed  to  be soil (CS)
     = 52.

     Studies of  sludge adhesion  to  growing  forage
     following  applications  of liquid  or filter-cake
     sludge show  that  when 3  co  6  mc/ha of  sludge
     solids  is   applied,  clipped  forage initially
     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 ac   16  and
     32 mc/ha were  grazed  throughout  a  growing  sea-
     son  (168 days), average  sludge  concent  of  for-
     age    was     only    2.14    and   4.75  percent,
     respeccively  (Bertrand  ec  al., 1981).  Ic  seems
     reasonable  co  assume  chat  animals  may   receive
     long-term  dietary  exposure  co 5 percenc  sludge
     Lf maintained  on  a  forage  co which sludge  is
     regularly  applied.  This  escimace of 5   percenc
     sludge is  used  regardless  of application  race,
     since  che   above  studies   did  not show  a  clear
     relationship  between  application  race  and  ini-
     tial  contamination, and  since adhesion  is not
     cumulative  yearly  because  of  die-back.

     Studies  of grazing  animals  indicate  chat  soil
     ingescion,  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  co 5  percenc
     sludge may  be ingesced in  chis  manner  as  well.
     Therefore,   chis value  accouncs  for eicher of
              3-9

-------
                    these scenarios, whether forage  is  harvested or
                    grazed in the field.

               iii.  Feed concentration toxic  to herbivorous  animal
                    (TA) =2.5 Ug/g DW

                    See Section 3,  p.  3-8.

               Index 8 Values

                                  Sludge  Application  Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0
0
5
0.064
0.24
50
0.064
0.24
500
0.064
0.24
          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  -   A   toxic  hazard  due  to
               chlordane  is  unlikely  for  grazing   animals   that
               incidencally ingest  sludge-amended  soil.

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  che
               cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the pollutant.

          b.    Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that  all  crops are
               grown on sluage-amended soil and chat all  those con-
               sidered to be  affected  take  up che pollutant at che
               same  rate.   Divides possible  variations  in  dietary
               intake  into  two  categories:   coadlers  (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.  3-6).
                              3-10

-------
  Li. 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    0.011 Ug/day
      Adult      0.079 Ug/day

      Food and   Drug  Administration  (FDA)  (1980a,b)
      Total Diet  Studies found  levels  of  chlordane
      infrequently.     Total   relative   daily  intake
      (Ug/kg  body weighc/day)  of  chlordane  or  ics
      related  compounds,  trans-nonachlordane  and  oxy-
      chlordane,  are  reported  to range  from  0.0009  to
      0.0014  for the  1975-78 period;  che  median  value
      is   0.00113  Ug/kg  body   weight/day   (FDA,   no
      date).   Assuming adult and toddler  body weights
      of   70  and  10  kg,  respectively,  the  level  of
      intake  is estimated as  0.011  Ug/day for child-
      ren  and   0.079   Ug/day   for   adults.     (See
      Section  4,  p. 4-6.)

 iv.  Cancer  potency = 1.61  (mg/kg/day)"^

      The cancer potency is  estimated by  Che  U.S. EPA
      (1980)  from data relating oral dosage  of chlor-
      dane to  the  occurrence   of  liver carcinomas  in
      mice.   In this  document   it will be  assumed  that
      the persistent metabolites of  chlordane such  as
      oxychlordane  are equally  potent.   This potency
      estimate  will  therefore  be  applied  to   total
      residues  of  chlordane  and its  metabolites  in
      foods.   (See  Section 4, p.  4-7.)

  v.  Cancer     risk-specific     intake    (RSI)    =
      0.0435 Ug/day
               3-11

-------
               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:

                     10"6 x 70 kg x 103 Ug/mg
                          Cancer  potency
     d.    Index 9 Values
                                       Sludge  Application
                                          Rate (mt/ha)
                       Sludge
Group
Toddler
Adult
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.26
0.26
1.8
1.8
31.0
120.0
86.0
320.0
300.0
1100.0
840.0
3100.0
71.0
260.0
200.0
730.0
     e.    Value Interpretation -  Value  > 1 indicates  a  poten-
          tial  increase   in   cancer  risk  of  >  10"^  (1  per
          1,000,000).   Comparison with the null  index  value at
          0 mc/ha indicates the  degree  to which any hazard is
          due  to  sludge  application,  as  opposed   to  pre-
          existing dietary sources.

     f.    Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of  sludge may
          substantially increase the cancer risk due  to  chlor-
          dane, above  the risk  posed  by pre-existing  dietary
          sources,  for  humans  who  consume  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.

                         3-12

-------
 Data Used and Rationale

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

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

 ii.  Uptake  factor  of  pollutant  in  animal  tissue
      (UA) = 0.48 yg/g  tissue  DW (ug/g feed DW)"1

      The uptake factor value  applies  Co  cattle  body
      fat for  total  chlordane  isomers as  determined
      by the experimental  work of  Dorough  and  Hemken
      (1973).   This  value  is  the  highest  available
      for  herbivorous   animals.    (See   Section  4,
      p. 4-16.)

      The uptake factor  of pollutant  in animal  tissue
      (UA)  used  is  assumed  to  apply  to  all  animal
      fats.

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

      Toddler    43.7 g/day
      Adult       88.5 g/day

      The fat intake values presented,  which comprise
      meat,   fish,  poultry,   eggs  and  milk  products,
      are derived  from  the  FDA  Revised  Total  Diet
      (Penningcon,   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    0.011  pg/day
      Adult       0.079  Ug/day

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

-------
           v.  Cancer     risk-specific     intake    (RSI)
               0.0435 ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-11.

     d.   Index 10 Values

                                       Sludge Application
                                          Rate (mt/ha)
                       Sludge
          Group     Concentration    0      5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.25
0.25
2.7
9.3
24.0
89.0
5.7
21.0
          Adult       Typical      1.8     6.7   50.0   13.0
                      Worst        1.8    20.0  182.0   44.0

     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -   Substantial   increases  in
          cancer risk due  to  chlordane  are  expected for humans
          who  consume animals  products  derived   from  animals
          given feed grown on sludge-amended soil.

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  t'he  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 = Beef fat

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

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

      Typical     3.2 ug/g DW
      Worst      12.0 ug/g DW

      See Section 3, p. 3-1.

 iii. Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in  soil
      (BS) = 0 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) = 0.48 ug/g  tissue DW  (ug/g feed DW)"1

      See Section 3, p. 3-13.

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

      Toddler    39.4 g/day
      Adult      82.4 g/day

      The affected  tissue intake  value is  assumed  to
      be  from  che  fat  component  of meat  only (beef,
      pork,    lamb,    veal)    and    milk    products
      (Penningcon,   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 (Penningcon, 1983).

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

      Toddler    0.011 Ug/day
      Adult      0.079 Ug/day

      See Section 3, p.  3-11.

viii. Cancer    risk-specific     intake     (RSI)     =
      0.0435 Ug/day

      See Section 3, p.  3-11.
               3-15

-------
          Index 11 Values

                                       Sludge Application
                                          Rate (mt/ha)
                       Sludge
          Group     Concentration    0      5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.25
0.25
70.0
260.0
70.0
260.0
70.0
260.0
          Adult       Typical      1.8    150.0  150.0  150.0
                      Worst        1.8    550.0  550.0  550.0

     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -   Substantial  increases  in
          cancer risk due  to  chlordane  are  expected for humans
          who  consume  animal  products  derived  from  grazing
          animals  that  incidentally  ingest  sludge  or  sludge-
          amended soil.

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

     a.   Explanation -  Calculates  the amount  of  pollutant  in
          the diet  of a  child who  ingests  soil  (pica child)
          amended with sludge.  Compares this amount with RSI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes   that   the  pica
          child  consumes  an  average  of  5  g/day  of  sludge-
          amended soil.  If an  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 deriv-
          ing the RSI provide  protection  for the child, taking
          into  account   the  smaller   boay  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.
                         3-16

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

                ToddLer     0.011  Ug/day
                AduLt       0.079  Ug/day
     d.
     See Section 3, p. 3-11.

 iv. Cancer    risk-specific
     0.0435 Ug/day

     See Section 3, p. 3-11.

Index 12 Values
                                           intake
(RSI)
                                         Sludge Application
                                            Rate (mt/ha)
Group 	
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
- Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.25
0.25
1.8
1.8
5
1.2
3.7
1.8
1.8
- 50
9.2
34.0
1.8
2.0
50
2.3
3.0
1.8
1.8
     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion -  Landspreading  of  sludge may
          moderately increase the cancer  risk  due to chlordane
          for  toddlers  who  ingest   sludge-amended  soil.   For
          adults  who  ingest  sludge-amended  soil, an  increase
          in cancer risk due  to  chlordane  above  the  risk posed
          by pre-existing  dietary   sources  is  not expected  to
          occur except  when  sludge  with  a  high  concentration
          of chlordane is applied at 50 me/ha.

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

     a.   Explanation  - Calculates the  aggregate  amount  of
          pollutant in  the  human diet resulting  from  pathways
          described in  Indices 9 to 12.   Compares this  amount
          with  RSI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations -  As described  for  Indices  9
          to 12.

     c.   Data  Used and Rationale - As described  for  Indices  9
          to 12.
                        3-17

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

                                                Sludge Application
                                                   Rate (mt/ha)
                                Sludge
                   Group     Concentration    0      5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.25
0.25
100.0
390.0
410.0
1500.0
150.0
550.0
                   Adult       Typical      1.8   240.0  1000.0   350.0
                               Worst        1.8   890.0  3900.0  1300.0

              e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

              f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -   The  aggregate  amount  of
                   chlordane  in  the  human  diet  resulting   from  land-
                   spreading  of sludge  may  substantially increase  the
                   cancer risk  due  to chlordane  above  the risk posed by
                   pre-existing dietary sources.

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  (BAG)
              model, "Rapid  Assessment  of  Potential  Groundwater Contam-
              ination  Under  Emergency  Response  Conditions"  (U.S.  EPA,
              1983b).  Treats  landfill  leachate  as a pulse input,  i.e.,
              the application  of  a constant  source  concentration  for a
              short time period relative to  the  time frame of the anal-
              ysis.   In order  to  predict  pollutant movement  in  soils
              and groundwater,  parameters  regarding  transport and fate,
              and boundary  or source conditions are  evaluated.   Trans-
              port  parameters  include   the   interstitial  pore  water
              velocity  and  dispersion  coefficient.    Pollutant  fate
              parameters include  the degradation/decay  coefficient  and
              retardation factor.   Retardation  is  primarily a  function
              of  the  adsorption  process,  which  is  characterized  by a
              linear,  equilibrium  partition  coefficient   representing
              the  ratio  of  adsorbed  and  solution  pollutant concentra-
              tions.   This  partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
              density  and  volumetric water concent, are used to calcu-
              late  the  retardation  factor.    A  computer  program   (in
              FORTRAN)  was  developed  to facilitate computation of  the
              analytical solution.   The program predicts  pollutant con-
              centration as  a  function  of time and location  in  both  the
              unsaturated  and  saturated  zone.    Separate  computations
              and  parameter  estimates are required  for  each zone.   The
              prediction  requires  evaluations  of  four  dimensionless
              input  values  and  subsequent   evaluation  of  the  result,
              through  use of  the  computer  program.

                                  3-18

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

3.   Data Used and Rationale

     a.   Unsaturated zone

          i.   Soil type and characteristics

               (a)  Soil type

                    Typical     Sandy  loam
                    Worst      Sandy

                    These two  soil  types  were  used  by  Gerritse  et
                    al.  (1982) to  measure partitioning  of elements
                    between   soil  and   a  sewage  sludge  solution
                    phase.    They are used  here   since  these parti-
                    tioning  measurements (i.e., K

                    Typical     1.53  g/mL
                    Worst      1.925  g/mL

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

               (c)  Volumetric water  content (6)

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

-------
          The  volumetric water  content is  the volume  of
          water   in   a   given  volume   of   media,   usually
          expressed  as  a fraction or percent.   It  depends
          on properties of  the  media  and  the water  flux
          estimated  by  infiltration or net  recharge.   The
          volumetric water  content is  used  in calculating
          the  water  movement through the unsaturated  zone
          (pore   water  velocity)   and  the   retardation
          coefficient.   Values obtained from COM,  1984a.

     (d)  Fraction of organic carbon  (foc)

          Typical    0.005   (unitless)
          Worst       0.0001  (unitless)

          Organic content of soils  is  described  in  terms
          of percent organic carbon, which  is required in
          the  estimation  of  partition  coefficient,   K
-------
     (c)  Depth to groundwater (b)
          Typical    5 m
          Worse      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.

ill. Chemical-specific  parameters

     (a)  Sludge concentration of  pollutant (SC)

          Typical     3.2  mg/kg DW
          Worst       12.0  mg/kg DW

     (b)  Soil half-life  of pollutant (4)  = 434 days

          See Section 3,  p. 3-2.

     (c)  Degradation rate (u) = 0.0016 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
                   3-21

-------
               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)  =
               170,000 mL/g

               The  organic  carbon  partition  coefficient  is
               sultiplied  by  the   percent   organic   carbon
               content  of  soil  (fpc)  Co  derive  a  partition
               coefficient  (Kd), 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  Kd values  for  different  soil  types.   The
               value of Koc is from Hassett et al. (1983).

b.   Saturated zone

     i.   Soil type and characteristics

          (a)  Soil type

               Typical    Silty sand
               Worst      Sand

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

          (b)  Aquifer porosity (0)

               Typical    0.44  (unitLess)
               Worst      0.389 (unitless)

               Porosity is  that portion of  the  total  volume of
               soil  that is  made  up of voids  (air)  and  water.
               Values  corresponding  to  the  above soil types
               are  from  Pettyjohn et al.  (1982)  as  presented
               in U.S. EPA (1983b).
                         3-22

-------
     (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 (unicless)

          Organic   carbon  content, and  therefore  adsorp-
          tion,  is assumed  to  be 0 in the  saturated zone.

ii.  Site parameters

     (a)  Average  hydraulic gradient between landfill  and
          well (i)

          Typical     0.001  (unitless)
          Worst       0.02  (unitless)

          The hydraulic gradient  is  the  slope   of  the
          water  table  in an  unconfined  aquifer,  or  the
          piezometric   surface  for a   confined  aquifer.
          The  hydraulic   gradient  must   be   known   to
          determine   the   magnitude   and   direction   of
          groundwater  flow.   As gradient   increases,  dis-
          persion   is  reduced.   Estimates  of  typical  and
          high gradient  values  were  provided  by  Donigian
          (1985).

     (b)  Distance from well to landfill (Al)

          Typical     100 m
          Worst        50 m

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

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

               Typical     10 m
               Worst       5 m

               These  values are  10 percent  of  the distance
               from well  to landfill (AA),  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 nr.

     iii. Chemical-specific  parameters

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

               Degradation  is   assumed  not   to  occur  in  the
               saturated zone.

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

               It   is assumed  that  no  pollutant  exists  in the
               soil  profile or aquifer  prior co  release from
               the source.

4.   Index Values  - See Table  3-1.

5.   Value Interpretation - Value equals the  maximum  expected
     groundwater  concentration  of pollutant,  in  Ug/L,  at the
     well.

6.   Preliminary   Conclusion   -  Landfilling  of   sludge  is
     expected  to  increase groundwater  concentrations of  chlor-
     dane  at   the  well;  this   increase  may be  large   at  a
     disposal   site with all  worst-case conditions.
                         3-24

-------
B.   Index  of   Human  Cancer   Risk~  Resulting   from  Groundwater
     Contamination (Index 2)

     1.   Explanation  -  Calculates  human   exposure   which  could
          result from groundwater contamination.   Compares exposure
          with cancer risk-specific  intake (RSI) of pollutant.

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Assumes  long-term exposure  to
          maximum concentration at well  at a rate of 2  L/day.

     3.   Data Used and  Rationale

          a.    Index  of  groundwater  concentration  resulting  from
               landfilled sludge (Index  1)

               See Section  3,  p. 3-2.

          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)
               = 0.079 ug/day

               See Section  3,  p. 3-11.

          d.    Cancer potency  =  1.61 (mg/kg/day)"1

               See Section  3,  p.  3-11.

          e.    Cancer risk-specific  intake (RSI) = 0.0435  ug/day

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

                    RSI  =  10~6  x 70  kg x  1Q3  ug/mg
                                 Cancer  potency

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

     5.    Value  Interpretation  - Value   >1  indicates   a   potential
          increase  in cancer  risk  of  10"^  (1  in  1,000,000).   The
          null  index  value  should be used  as a  basis for comparison
          to  indicate Che  degree co  which  any risk is  due to land-
          fill   disposal,    as   opposed    to   pre-existing  dietary
          sources.

     6.    Preliminary  Conclusion   -   Groundwater   contamination
          resulting  from  landfilled  sludge may  slight  increase the
          human  cancer risk due  to  chlordane above  the  risk posed
                             3-25

-------
          TABLE 3-1.  INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION  RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX  1) AND
                      INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING  FROM CROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX  2)
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T W
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
V teristics^
£ Site parameters^ T T
Index 1 Value (pg/L) 0.044 0.17
Index 2 Value 3.8 9.4
Condition of
3 4
T T

W NA

T W

T T

T T
0.055 0.087
4.3 5.8
Analysisa»b»c
5 6
T T

T T

T T

W T

T W
0.20 0.33
11 17
7
W

NA

W

W

U
69
3200
8
N

N

N

N

N
0
1.8
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.

blndex values for  combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae  in the Appendix.

cSee Table A-l in  Appendix for parameter values used.

dDry bulk density  (Pdry)t volumetric water content (6), and fraction  of organic  carbon (foc).

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

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

Sllydraulic gradient  (i), distance from well to landfill (A4),  and dispersivity  coefficient  (a).

-------
               by pre-existing  dietary  sources.   This  increase may  be
               substantial when  all worst-case  conditions  prevail  at  a
               disposal site.

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 (COM, 1984a).   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,
               1979).  The predicted  pollutant concentration  can then be
               compared to a ground  level  concentration used  to  assess
               risk.

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

          3.   Data Used and Rationale

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

               b.   Sludge feed rate (DS)

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

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

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

-------
               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     3.2 mg/kg DW
     Worst      12.0 mg/kg DW

     See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

d.   Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (PM)

     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
     Worse     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) = 8.8  x 10~A  yg/m3

     Ambient   urban  air  concentrations of  chlordane  for
     Columbia, SC,  Boston,  and Denver  ranged between  0.04
     and  5.9  ng/m3  for  the  1980-81  period.   Because  of
     Che  skewed  distribution,   the  median   value   of
     0.88 ng/m3  is   used   as  a   first approximation   of
                   3-28

-------
          ambient urban air levels of  chlordane.   The data are
          from  Bidleman  (1981)  and   Billings   and  Bidleman
          (1983).  (See Section 4, p. 4-5.)

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
1.4
2.7
9.09
31.0
     Worst               Typical     .    1.0     2.8    33.0
                         Worst           1.0     7.8   120.0

     a The typical (3.4 ug/m3) and worst (16.0 pg/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   is
     expected co  increase Che  air  concentration  of  chlordane
     above background levels.

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"°.     For  non-
     carcinogens,  levels typically were derived  from  the Amer-
     ican  Conference   of  Government   Industrial   Hygienists
     (ACGIH) threshold limit values  (TLVs)  for the workplace.

2.   Assumptions/Limitations   -   The   exposed  population   is
     assumed  to  reside   within  the   impacted   area  for   24
     hours/day.    A  respiratory volume  of 20 nrVday  is  assumed
     over a 70-year lifetime.
                        3-29

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

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-1.

     b.   Background  concentration of  pollutant in  urban air
          (BA) = 8.8 x  1(T4 Mg/m3

          See Section 3, p. 3-28.

     c.   Cancer potency = 1.61 (mg/kg/day)"*

          This  potency  estimate  was  derived   from  that  for
          ingestion  assuming  100%  absorption  for  both  the
          ingestion  and inhalation  routes.    (See Section  4,
          p. 4-7.)

     d.   Exposure criterion (EC) = 2.17 x 10~^ Ug/m^

          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  CAG 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:
                     1Q~6 x ip3 Ug/mg  x  7Q  kg
               EC =                      .
                    Cancer potency x 20 m-Vday

4.   Index 2 Values

                                              Sludge Feed
     Fraction of                              Rate  (kg/hr DW)a
     Pollutant Emitted    Sludge
     Through Stack     Concentration      0      2660  10,000
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worse
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.59
1.1
1.1
3.2
3.7
13.0
14.0
49.6
     a The typical (3.4 vig/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.
                        3-30

-------
         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  result-
              ing from incineration of sludge  is expected to  increase
              the human  cancer risk  due to  chlordane above  the  risk
              posed by  background urban  air  concentrations  of  chlor-
              dane.   This risk  may  be substantial when sludge  contain-
              ing a high concentration of chlordane  is incinerated  at a
              high  feed  rate  and  a   large fraction  of  chlordane  is
              emitted  through the  stack.

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  \ig/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.
                                 3-31

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

     a.   Disposal conditions

                     Sludge         Sludge Mass        Length
                     Disposal        Dumped by a       of Tanker
                     Rate (SS)    Single Tanker (ST)   Path (L)

          Typical    825 mt DW/day    1600 rat WW         8000 m
          Worst     1650 mt DW/day    3400 rat WW         4000 m


          The typical value  for  the  sludge disposal rate assumes
          that  7.5  x  106  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  3000 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.
                         3-32

-------
          The  assumed  disposal  practice  at  the  model   sice
          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      3.2 mg/kg DW •
          Worst       12.0 mg/kg DW

          See Section  3, p.  3-1.

     c.   Disposal site characteristics

                                          Average
                                          current
                       Depth Co           velocity
                   pycnocline  (D)        ac  sice (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   knr
          Located beyond che concinencal  shelf in the New  York
          Bight.   The pycnocline value of 20 m  chosen  is   the
          average  of   che  10  to  30 m  pycnocline depth  range
          occurring  in che  summer  and  fall;  the  wincer   and
          spring disappearance  or che  pycnocline  is  not  consi-
          dered and  so represents  a conservative  approach in
          evaluacing  annual  or long-term impact.   The  current
          velocity of 11  cm/sec  (9500 m/day)  chosen  LS  based
          on the  average current velocity  in  this  area  (COM,
          1984b).

          Worst-case  values  are representative of a near-shore
          New York  Bight  sits  with  an area  of about 20   km-.
          The pycnocline  value of  5 m chosen is  the  minimum
          value of  the 5  to 23 m depth  range of  the  surface
          mixed  layer  and  is  therefore  a worst-case  value.
          Current  velocities  in   this area   vary  from  0  to
          30 cm/sec.     A   value of  5 cm/sec   (4320  m/day)  is
          arbitrarily  chosen to  represent  a  worst-case  value
          (COM,  1984c).

4.   Factors Considered in Initial Mixing

     When a  load  of  sludge is  dumped from  a  moving  tanker, an
     immediate   mixing  occurs   in  the  turbulent  wake  of  the
     vessel, followed  by  more  gradual  spreading  of  the  plume.
                        3-33

-------
     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  (yg/L)

          Disposal                         Sludge Disposal
          Conditions and                    Rate  (mt DW/day)
          Site Charac-      Sludge
          teristics     Concentration      0      825      1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0064
0.0024
0.0064
0.0024
          Worst          Typical         0.0   0.054    0.054
                         Worst           0.0   0.20     0.20

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

7.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  This  assessment  shows  that  a
     slight  incremental  increase  of  chlordane occurs  both at
     the  "typical" and  "worst" disposal  sites  after  initial
                         3-34

-------
          mixing.     Even  calculating  the  index  using  the  worst
          sludge concentration results  in only a slight  increase.

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  CO 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.  3-32 to 3-33.

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

          See Section 3,  p. 3-35.

     5.   Index 2  Values  (ug/L)

               Disposal                          Sludge Disposal
               Conditions and                   Rate  (me  DW/dav)
               Site Charac-     Sludge
               teristics    Concentration      0      825    1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0017
0.006
0.003
0.013
               Worst           Typical          0.0     0.015     0.030
                              Worst            0.0     0.057     0.11

     6.    Value  Interpretation   -   Value   equals   the   effective
          increase  in  chLordane  concentration  expressed  as  a  TWA
          concentration   in   seawater   around   a   disposal   site
          experienced  by  an  organism over a  24-hour  period.
                             3-35

-------
     7.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  This  assessment  indicates  that
          over  a  24-hour  period  the  seawater  concentration  of
          chLordane does increase slightly.

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

     1.   Explanation - Compares  the  effective  increased concentra-
          tion of  pollutant in  seavater  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 chlordane, 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.  3-35.

          b.  Ambient  water quality  criterion (AWQC) = 0.004  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 chlordane.

              The  0.004 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  chlordane in  edible
              fish  and shellfish  (0.3  mg/kg),   the  geometric  mean
              of  normalized bioconcentration factor  (BCF)   values
              (4702) for aquatic  species  tested and the  16 percent
              lipid  content of marine species.   To  protect against
                             3-36

-------
               acute  toxic effects,  chlordane concentration  should
               not  exceed  0.09  Mg/L at  any time.
     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
0.43
1.6
0.86
3.2
               Worst           Typical          0.0      3.8      7.5
                              Worst            0.0     14.3     29.0

     5.   Value Interpretation -  Value equals  the  factor by  which
          the expected seawater concentration  increase  in chlordane
          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 chlordane
          residue  in tissue hazard  may exist  thus jeopardizing  the
          marketability  of edible saltwater organisms.   The  criter-
          ion value  of  0.004  ug/L  is  probably too high  because  on
          the average,  the  chlordane  tissue  residue  concentration
          in 50 percent  of species  similar to  those  used to  derived
          the  criterion  value  will  exceed   the  FDA  action  level
          (U.S.  EPA,  1980).

     6.   Preliminary Conclusion  - This  analysis  indicates  that
          potentially a  tissue residue  hazard may  exist with  the
          dumping  of sludges  with "typical"  and  "worst" concentra-
          tions of  chlordane  at   the  worst site.   A hazard  poten-
          tially    exists     for    sludges    containing    "worst"
          concentrations of  chlordane  at  the  typical  site.

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.
                             3-37

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

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-35.

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

     b.   Dietary consumption of seafood (QP)

          Typical     14.3 g WW/day
          Worst       41.7 g WW/day

          Typical and  worst-case values are  the  mean  and  the
          95th   percentile,   respectively,   for   all   seafood
          consumption in  the  United  States  (Stanford  Research
          Institute (SRI)  International, 1980).

     c.   Fraction  of  consumed  seafood originating from  the
          disposal site (FS)

          For  a  typical  harvesting  scenario,   it  was  assumed
          that the  total  catch  over a wide region is  mixed  by
          harvesting, marketing and consumption practices,  and
          that  exposure   is  thereby  diluted.    Coastal  areas
          have  been divided  by  the  National  Marine  Fishery
          Service (NMFS)  into reporting  areas  for  reporting  on
          data on seafood  Landings.   Therefore it was  conven-
          ient  to  express  the  total  area  affected  by  sludge
          disposal-  as  a  fraction  of  an  NMFS  reporting  area.
          The area .used to  represent  the disposal impact  area
          should be  an  approximation  of  the  total  ocean  area
          over  which  the  average  concentration defined  by
          Index 2 is roughly  applicable.  The average  rate  of
          plume  spreading  of  1 cm/sec  referred  to   earlier
          amounts to approximately  0.9  km/day.  Therefore,  the
          combined  plume   of   all  sludge   dumped during   one
          working day will  gradually  spread,  both parallel  to
          and  perpendicular  to  current   direction,  as   it  pro-
          ceeds  down-current.     Since   the  concentration  has
          been averaged  over the direction of  current  flow,
          spreading in this dimension will not further  reduce
          average concentration; only spreading in the  perpen-
          dicular dimension will  reduce the average.   If  sta-
          ble conditions are assumed  over a period of  days,  at
          least 9 days would be required to reduce the  average
          concentration by one-half.  At that  time,  the  origi-
          nal plume length of approximately 8  km  (8000  m)  will
          have   doubled    to   approximately   16  km   due    to
          spreading.

                        3-38

-------
      It  is  probably  unnecessary  co  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  che  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  MMFS  areas  612-616  and  621-
      623,   deep-water   area   623    has   an   area   of
      approximately  7200 km2  and  constitutes  approximately
      0.02 percent of  the  total  seafood  landings   for  the
      Bight  (COM,  1984b).   Near-shore area  612 has  an  area
      of    approximately    4300   km2    and    constitutes
      approximately    24 percent   of    the  total   seafood
      landings  (COM,  1984c).    Therefore  Che fraction  of
      all  seafood landings   (F3C)  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)  sice:

          _ AI x 0.02% =                                (2)
      fbt ~ 7200
[10 x 8000 n x 9500 m x  IP"6  km2/m21  x  0.0002             5
                          A                     "" fc • 1  X L\J
                   7200  km2

      For the worst  (near shore)  sice:

      FSc . AI_x_24% m                                  (3)
            4300  km2

  flO x 4000 m x 4320 m  x IP"6 km2/m2]  x  0.24    _  ,    ,n_3
                         -                     = y.o  x iu j
                  4300 km2
                    3-39

-------
     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  = 	^—5- = 0.11                        (4)
           7200 km2

     For  the worst (near shore) site:

     FSU  = 	^-^r = 0.040                        (5)
           4300 km2

d.   Bioconcentration   factor    of   pollutant   (BCF)   =
     14,100 L/kg

     The   value chosen  is  the  weighted average  BCF  of
     chlordane for  the edible portion  of all  freshwater
     and   estuarine  aquatic  organisms  consumed  by  U.S.
     citizens (U.S.  EPA, 1980).  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 chlordane
     induced  by  ingestion  of  contaminated   water  and
     aquatic organisms.  The weighted average  BCF  is cal-
     culated   by   adjusting    the   mean  normalized   BCF
     (steady-state  BCF  corrected  to  i   percent  lipid  con-
     tent)  to  the  3   percent  lipid content  of  consumed
     fish and  shellfish.  It  should be  noted  that  lipids
     of marine species  differ  in both structure and quan-
     tity  from  those  of  freshwater  species.    Although  a
     BCF  value calculated entirely from marine  data would
     be more   appropriate  for  this  assessment,  no  such
     data are presently available.

e.   Average daily  human dietary intake of  pollutant (DI)
     = 0.079 ug/day

     See  Section 3,  p. 3-11.
                    3-40

-------
     f.   Cancer risk-specific intake  (RSI) =  0.043  yg/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-11.

4.   Index 4 Values

     Disposal                                  Sludge Disposal
     Conditions and                            Rate  (mt DW/day)
     Site Charac-      Sludge      Seafood
     teristics     Concentration3  Intake3'**    0    825   1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
1.8
1.8
1.3
12
1.8
21
     Worst         Typical       Typical   1.8     1.8    1.8
                   Worst         Worst     1.8    33     64

     3 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
     expected intake exceeds  the RSI.   A value  >1  indicates  a
     possible human  health threat.   Comparison with  the null
     index value at 0 me/day  indicates  the  degree  to which  any
     hazard   is   due   to   sludge   disposal,   as  opposed   to
     preexisting dietary sources.

6.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  This assessment  indicates  that
     in all  scenarios  evaluated, there is  an increase  in  the
     human  cancer  risk   resulting  from  seafood  consumption.
     Significant risk is apparent in the  evaluation  of sludges
     containing   high  concentrations   of  chlordane   at   the
     "worst" site.
                        3-41

-------
                              SECTION 4

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

   The use and production of chlordane has decreased
   extensively since the U.S. EPA registration
   suspension notice in 1975.  Significant
   termite control usage continues.

   A.  Sludge

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           Chlordane observed in the influent/
           effluent of 40 POTWs but not in the
           sludges.

           Chlordane not observed in influent/
           effluent and sludges of 10 POTWs.

       2.  Concentration

           Composite sludge samples - Metro
           Denver:

           Digested:  1345 ng/g WW
           Waste-activated:  636 ng/g WW

           Sludge from 88 POTWs (yg/g DW):
                                U.S.  EPA, 1982
                                (p. 36-42)
                                U.S. EPA, 1982
                                (p. 45-50)
                                Baxter et al.,
                                1983 (p. 315)
                                CDM, 1984d
                                (p.  8)
            Min
       Max
           0.017
        12
           Sludge from 74 cities (ug/g
            Min
Max
Mean
           0.46
 12
 3.2
        Wt.  Mean
          3.01
                       Median
                                              2.75
                                Clevenger
                                et al., 1983
                                (p. 1471)
           <10 Ug/L  in  sludges  from  five  sludge
           sources in Chicago
                                Jones and Lee,
                                1977 (p. 52)

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

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        69 out of 356 urban soil samples (19%)
        from 14 U.S. cities contained chlordane
        in 1970.  Detected in all cities.

        105 out of 380 urban soil samples
        (28%) from 5 U.S. cities contained
        chlordane in 1971.  Detected in all
        cities.

        22 out of 37 states and 119 out of
        1,468 cropland soil samples (8%)
        contained chlordane in 1971.

        24 out of 37 states and 117 out of
        1,483 cropland soil samples (7.9%)
        contained chlordane in 1972.

        1.1% of 90 hayfield soil samples from
        9 states contained chlordane in 1971.

        21 out of 99 soil samples (21.2%)
        from rice growing areas in 5 states
        contained chlordane.  The 21 samples
        were all from 2 out of the 5 states
        in 1972.

        Residues in soil from randomly selected
        sites on six U.S. Air Force bases
        wich histories of pesticide use:
               Carey et  al.,
               1976  (p.  56-58)
               Carey et  al.,
               1979a (p.  19)
               Carey et al.,
               1978 (p. 120-8)
               Carey et al.,
               1979b (p.214-20)
               Gowen et al.,
               1976 (p. 115)

               Carey et al.,
               1980 (p. 25)
               Lang et al.,
               1979 (p. 231)
              Soil Use
% Pos. Sices
1975    1976
Residential Soils -
Non-use Soils -
Golf Course Soils -
65
24
58.8
9.5
14
35.3
    2.  Concentration

        Control and sludge-applied soils:
        <125 ng/g

        Range of geometric means  in urban soil
        samples from 14 U.S. cities (1970):
        0.0015 to 0.0705 ug/g
               Baxter et al.,
               1983 (p. 315)

               Carey et al.,
               1976 (p. 56-58)
                               4-2

-------
                              Mean of       Mean of
             Total Range     Arithmetic    Geometric
               (yg/g)      Means (yg/g)  Means  
-------
C.  Hater - Unpolluted

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        % occurrence in surface water
        1966
1967
1968
        5%
2.5%
2.5%
        No chlordane found in samples from
        33 sites in the Upper Great Lakes
        in 1974 (D.L. = 0.01 yg/L).

        20% of 500 samples of drinking and
        river water from the Mississippi and
        Missouri Rivers in 1968 contained
        chlordane.

    2.  Concentration

        a.  Freshwater

            0.1 ng/L (mean) 76.0 ng/L (max)
            for major U.S. rivers (1967)
            7.0 ng/L (mean), 13.0 ng/L (max)
            for drinking water (Hawaii, 1971).

        b.  Seawater

            Data not immediately available.

        c.  Drinking Water

            20% of 500 samples of drinking
            and river water from the
            Mississippi and Missouri Rivers
            containing chlordane at up to
            0.5 Ug/L (1968)

            Suggested standard limit for
            drinking water: 52 Ug/L

            Highest observed concentration
            in finished water: 0.1 Ug/L

            In a chlordane contamination
            incident, uncontaminated water
            levels of chlordane ranged from
            0.1 to 4.6 yg/L.
                                 Matsumura, 1972
                                 (p. 59)
                                 Glooschenko
                                 et al., 1976
                                 NAS, 1977
                                 (p. 557-8)
                                 Edwards, 1973
                                 (p. 440-1)
                                 NAS, 1977
                                 (p. 557-558)
                                 NAS, 1977
                                 (p. 794)

                                 NAS, 1977
                                 (p. 794)

                                 Harrington
                                 et al., 1978
                                 (p. 157)
                              4-4

-------
D.  Air
1.  Frequency of Detection

    In 880 samples from 9 localities in
    the U.S.  in 1968, no samples
    contained chlordane.

    Only 2 out of 2,479 samples collected
    at 45 sites in 16 states contained
    chlordane.

2.  Concentration

    a.  Urban

        Mean Concentrations (ng/m3) in
         Urban Air Samples
                                                   Stanley et al.,
                                                   1971 (p. 434)
                                                   U.S. EPA, 1980
                                                   (p. C-4)
                                                   Billings and
                                                   Bidleman, 1983
                                                   (p. 388-89)
        Location
        b.  Rural
                         1980
1981
Boston, MA
Columbia, SC
Denver, CO
0.72
5.9
•••
—
1.04
0.04
Bidleman, 1981
(p. 623)
    Florida
                    Range of Concentrations
                       (ng/m3)
            Two out of  2,479  samples collected
            at 45  sites  in  16 states contained
            chlordane with  concentrations  of
            84 and 204  ng/m3.
            Wheatley, 1973
            (p. 391)
6 small communities Ln
usage area
1 rural area during
usage
0.1-6
1-31
                                               U.S.  EPA,  1980
                                               (p. C-4)
                               4-5

-------
            Chlordane levels in air samples        Atlas and Giam,
            collected in 1979:                     1980 (p. 164)
            Location	Concentration (ng/m^)
            Enewtak Atoll            0.012
            (North Pacific)

            North Atlantic           0.03

            College Station, TX      1.26


E.  Pood

    1.  Total Average Intake

        FDA Total Diet Studies - FY75-FY78         FDA, No date,
                                                   (Attachment G)
                               Total Relative
        Fiscal                  Daily Intake
         Year                  (yg/kg body wt/day)
FY75
FY76
FY77
FY78
N.D.
0.0009
0.0011
0.0014
    2.  Concentration

        Chlordane occurred in one out of 20        FDA, No date,
        potato samples and one out of 20 leafy     (Attachment E)
        vegetable samples in 1978.  The residue
        range for both samples together was
        0.0009 to 0.010 Ug/g.

        Out of 420 composite samples representing  Manske and
        35 market baskets from 32 cities, one      Johnson, 1975
        grain and cereal samples contained         (p.  99)
        Chlordane at a level of 0.05 yg/g
        (1971-1972).

        Out of 360 composite samples representing  Johnson and
        30 market baskets from 30 cities, one      Manske, 1976
        garden fruits sample contained a trace     (p.  165)
        level of chlordane.
                              4-6

-------
            Chlordane in cow's  milk (yg/g) -           Wedberg  et  al.,
            Illinois, 1971-76,  Summary (1,169           1978  (p.  164)
            samples):
            % Pos.     Avg.     % Samples    % Samples
            Samples    Ug/g     0.01-0.10     0.11-0.10

              69        0.03       94             6
II. HUMAN EFFECTS

    A.  Ingestion

        1.  Carcinogenicity

            a.  Qualitative Assessment

                Chlordane is suspected of being a      U.S. EPA, 1980
                human carcinogen.                      (?• C-20)

            b.  Potency

                Daily intake resulting in estimated    U.S. EPA, 1980
                upper-bound cancer risk of 10~° =      (p. C-31)
                4.35 x 10~2 Mg/day

                Cancer potency  is  1.61  (mg/kg/day)'1   U.S. EPA, 1980
                                                       (p. C-31)

            c.  Effects

                Liver tumors in mice                   U.S. EPA, 1980
                                                       (p. C-15)

        2.  Chronic Toxicity

            a.  ADI

                70 ug chlordane/day:                   FAO/WHO, 1968,
                Based on FAO and WHO values of         in  U.S.  EPA,
                0.001 mg chlordane/kg body weight      1980 (p. C-19)

            b.  Effects

                Seizures, electroencephalographic      U.S. EPA, 1980
                dysrhythmia, convulsions and           (p.. C-8)
                twitching
                                   4-7

-------
         3.  Absorption Factor

             10 co 152 absorption for small daily       U.S. EPA,  1980
             doses                                      (p. C-5)

         4.  Existing Regulations

             Ambient Water Quality Criteria             U.S. EPA,  1980
                                                        (p. C-21)
                               Risk Levels
                       and  Corresponding  Criteria  (ng/L)

Exposure Assumptions
     (per day)            0      10"7   10~6    10'5

2 liters of drinking      0     0.046   0.46    4.6
water and consumption
of 6.5 g fish and
shellfish

Consumption of fish and   0     0.048   0.48    4.8
shellfish only
             U.S. EPA drinking water regulations, Che   U.S. EPA, 1980
             Canadian standards and National Technical  (p. C-19)
             Advisory Committee suggest 3 Mg/L
             for drinking water.

     B.  Inhalation

         1.   Carcinogenicity

             A cancer potency of 1.61  (mg/kg/day)"1     U.S. EPA, 1980
             is used and is derived from that for
             ingestion,  assuming equivalent absorp-
             tion for both inhalation and ingestion
             routes.

         2.   Chronic Toxicity

             Data not assessed since evaluation based
             on carcinogenicity.

         3.   Absorption  Factor

             Data not immediately available.

         4.   Existing Regulations

             Time weighted average  of chlordane in  air  U.S. EPA, 1980
             should not  exceed 0.5  mg/m-*.   Short-term   (p.  C-18)
             (15 min.) exposure limic = 2 mg/m^.
                                   4-8

-------
III. PLANT EFFECTS

     A.  Phytotoxicity

         See Table 4-1.

     B.  Uptake

         1.  Normal range of concentrations in edible tissue
             Residue in crops,  1972
                    Carey et al.,
                    1979b
                    (pp. 222 to 225)
Crop
Alfalfa
Clover
Field corn kernels
Grass hay
Mixed hay
Rye
Soybeans
Range
(Ug/g DW)
0.04-0.24
0.07-0.10
0.01-0.15
0.09
0.05-0.44
0.08
0.07
Arithmetic
Mean
0.02
0.02
<0.01
0.01
0.03
0.08
<0.01
Geometric
Mean
0.005
0.008
<0.001
0.003
0.008
—

         2.   Concentration factor for edible tissue  concentration  versus
             application rate to  soil

             See  Table  4-2.

             Sugar  beets:   residues  in  tissue averaged   Edwards,  1973
             9.6% of  the amount in  the  soil  in  which     (p.   420)
             they were  grown
             0.12  Ug/g in sugar beets following soil
             application  of  11.2  kg/ha
             Chlordane  residues  in  fresh  cut  alfalfa
             21  days  after  field  treatment:
                    Finlayson and
                    MacCarthy, 1973
                    (p. 63)

                    Dorough et al.,
                    1972 (p. 46)
             Treatment  Level
Residue (ug/g DW)
               1  Ib/acre
               2  Ib/acre
  2.4+0.60
  4.02+1.07
                                  4-9

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

    A.  Toxicity

        See Table 4-3.

    B.  Uptake

        See Table 4-4.

        Residues in 168 bald eagles from 29 states:
        1975-77
Carcass (ug/g WW)
Year
1975
1976
1977
Median
0.32
0.24
0.22
Range
0.11-4.5
0.05-1.7
0.07-2.2
Brain (ug/g WW)
Median
0.19
0.09
0.19
Range
0.07-1.3
0.05-1.2
0.06-6.4
        Residues  of  chlordane  in livestock and
        poultry  fat  tissue:   1967-1974
Kaiser  et  al.,
1980  (p.  147)
Fairchild,  1976
(p. 61)
Ho. of
Number Samples
of
With
Year Samples Residues
Livestock
1967 2785
1970 3500
1973 1070
1974 2256
Poultry
1967 Mo Report
1970 2972
1973 1142
1974 1916

11
2
7
398


0
7
38
% of
Samples
With
Residues

0.4
•0.06
0.7
17.7


0
0.6
2.8


Residue
0.01-0.10 0.

2
0
4
393


0
0
38


Range


(UK/g)
11-0.50 0.51-1.50

8
0
2
2


0
7
0

0
2
1
1


0
0
0



>1.50

1
0
0
2


0
0
0
 V. AQUATIC LIFE  EFFECTS

   A.  Toxicity

       1.  Freshwater
           Criterion to protect  freshwater aquatic
           organisms is 0.0043 Ug/L as  a  24-hour
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-7)
                                 4-10

-------
             average concentration, not to exceed
             2.4 Ug/L at any time.

         2.  Saltwater

             Criterion to protect saltwater aquatic     U.S. EPA, 1980
             organisms is 0.0040 Ug/L as a 24-hour      (p. B-8)
             average concentration, not to exceed
             0.09 Ug/L at any time.
     B.  Uptake
         Average weighted BCF for the edible portion    U.S. EPA, 1980
         of all freshwater and estuarine aquatic        (p. C-3)
         organisms consumed by U.S. citizens is
         14,100 L/kg.

 VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS

     A.  Tozicity

         See Table 4-5.

         Chlordane is reported to be  "very toxic"      Edwards, 1973
         to earthworms relative to other pesticides.    (p. 430)

     B.  Uptake

         Data not immediately available.

VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT

     Molecular weight:  410                             NRC, 1982
     Physical state:  Colorless, odorless,              (p. 51)
       viscous fluid
     Specific gravity:  1.57 to 1.67
     Soluble in many organic solvents
     Solubility in water:  9 Ug/L at 25"C
     Chemical name:  1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-Octachloro-4,7-
       methano-3a,4.7,7a-tetrahydroindane
     Chemical formula:  CigHgCls
     Vapor pressure:  0.00001 mm Hg at 20"C  .67
     Organic carbon partition coefficient:  170,000 mL/g

     Water solubility at 20 to 30"C:  0.1 mg/L          Edwards, 1973
                                                        (p. 447)

     "Relatively immobile" in soil                      Lawless et al.,
     Rf (Relative to fructose) = 0.09 to 0.00           1975 (p. 51)

     Persistence in soil = 5 years                      Lawless et al.,
                                                        1975 (p. 52)
                                   4-11

-------
Vapor pressure = 1 x  10~5 mm Hg at 25°C
Half-life of chlordane in soil = 14.3 months
95% disappearance of chlordane from the soil
requires 3 to 5 years
Finlayson and
MacCarthy, 1973
(p. 67)

Onsager et al.t
1970 (p. 1145)

Matsumura, 1972
(p. 39)
                              4-12

-------
                                                      TABLE 4-1.   PIIYTOTOXICITV OF CHLORDAME
Plant/Tissue
Black valentine
bean/seed
Black valentine
bean/seed
Black valentine
bean/seed
Black valentine
bean/root
Black valentine
bean/root
Black valentine
bean/ root
Black valentine
bean/top
Black valentine
bean/top
Black valentine
bean/ root
Chemical
Form Applied
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
Growth
Medium
loamy
sand
(pot)
loamy
sand
(pot)
loamy
sand
(pot)
loamy
sand
(pot)
loamy
sand
(pot)
loamy
sand
(pot)
loamy
sand
lonmy
sand
(pot)
loamy
sand
(pot)
Experimental
Control Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
(|lg/B DW) (pg/g DW) (kg/ha) ((ig/g DW) bltncts
NKa 12.5 NAb NR 4Z increased
germination
MR 50 NA NR 4Z increased
germination
NR 100 NA NR 8Z increased
germination
NR 12.5 NA NR 19Z reduced weight
NR so NA NR 30Z reduced weight
NR 100 NA NR 19Z reduced weight
MR 12.5 NA NH HZ reduced weight
NR jo NA NR 14Z reduced weight
NH 100 NA NR 12Z reduced weight
References
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
a NR = Not reported.
D NA = Not available.

-------
                                                  TABLE 4-2.  UPTAKE OP CtlLORDANE  BY  PLANTS
Plant
Corn
Corn

Corn

Corn

Soybean
Sugar beet

Sweet potato

Sugar beet

Sugar beet

Sugar beet

Sugar beet

Sugar beet

Sugar beet

Tissue
plant
silage

grain
,
stalk

plant
plant

plant

root

root

root

root

root

root

Soil
Type
agricultural
agricultural

agricultural

agricultural

agricultural
agricultural

agricultural

loam
(field)
loam
(field)
loam
(field)
loam
(field)
loam
(field)
loam
(field)
Chemical Porm Soil
Applied
chlordane
chlordane
(alpha and gamma)
chlordane
(alpha and gamma)
chlordane
(alpha and gamma)
chlordane
(alpha and gamma)
chlordane
(alpha and gamma)
chlordane
(alpha and gamma)
chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

chlordane

Concentration
(pg/g)
0,
0,

0

0

0
1

0

0

0

1

2

4

4

.053
.18

.17

.17

.02
.233

.28

.18

.67

.28

.90

.42

.14

Control
Tissue
Concentration
(M8/8)
<0.008
0.034
0.116b
0.008

0.020

<0.0001
<0.0003b
0.224

0.001

0.02
0.16b
0.08
0.63b
0.37
2.91b
0.61
4.80b
0.73
5.75b
1.12
8.82b
Uptake
Factor* References
<0.15
0.19
0.63
0.05

0.12

<0.01
<0.015
0.18

<0.01

0.11
0.89
0.12
0.94
0.29
2.28
0.21
1.66
0.17
1.30
0.27
2.13
Pairchild,
Pairchild,

Pairchild,

Pairchild,

Pairchild,
Pairchild,

Pairchild,

Onsager et

Onsager et

Onsager et

Onsager et

Onsager et

Onsager et

1976
1976

1976

1976

1976
1976

1976

al..

al.,

al.,

al.,

al.,

al.,

(p. 58)
(p. 58)

(p. 58)

(p. 58)

(p. 58)
(p. 58)

(p. 58)

1970 (p.

1970 (p.

1970 (p.

1970 (p.

1970 (p.

1970 (p.













1144)

1144)

1144)

1144)

1144)

1144)

a Uptake factor =  tissue concentration/soil concentration.

b Tissue concentration  in DU; adjustment assumes the raw sugar beet has the same water content as  raw common red beets which is 87.32,  while
  corn silage is taken  as 701 water (Barnes, 1976), raw soybeans (immature) are 69.2Z water  (USDA,  1963).

-------
                                         TABLE  4-3.   TOX1CITY  OF CIII.ORDANE TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND UILDL1FE
Species (N)a
Mallard
Hal
Rat
MicgJSS)
Nice (52)
Chemical Form
Fed
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
Feed
Concentration
NRb
NR
2.5
5
25
Mater
Concent rdL ion
(mg/l.)
NK
NK
NK
NK
NK
Dally Intake Duration
(mg/kg) of Study
1,200 8 days
281 NR
NR NR
Nil 80 weeks
NR 80 weeks
Effects
LD50
LD50
Slight liver damage
No effect
64-79X increase in cancer
rate
References
Tucker and
Crabtree, 1970
(p. 35)
Lawless ec al.t
1975 (p. 37)
NAS, 1977
(p. 564)
U.S. EPA. I960
(p. C-14)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-14)
a N = Number of animals per treatment group.
b NH - Not reported.

-------
                                          TABLE 4-4.   UflAKI- OK  CHLOKUANt BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS  AND WILDLIFE

Spec les
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Rat

Chemical
Form Fed
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
Range 
-------
TABLE 4-5.  TOXICITY  OF  CHLOKDANE TO SOIL BIOTA
Chemical
Species Form Applied
Soil bacteria chlordane
Soil bacteria chlordane
Soil bacteria chlordane
Soil mold chlordane
£~
i Soil mold chlordane
— i
-j
Soil mold chlordane
Soil mold chlordane
Soil mold chlordane
Soil mold chlordane
Soil mold chlordane
Control Tissue
Soil Concentration
Type  Effects
2.8 5.6 NH 3Z reduction total
count
5.6 11.2 NR 24Z reduction total
count
11.2 22.4 NR 6Z reduction total
count
2.8 5.6 NR 43Z reduction total
count
5.6 11.2 NR 81Z reduction total
count
11.2 22.4 NR 48Z reduction total
count
5.6 11.2 NR 55Z reduction total
count
5.6 11.2 NR 36Z reduction total
count
2.25 4.5 NR 3Z reduction total
count
3.35 6.7 NR 2Z reduction total
count
References
Bollen et al . ,
(p. 303)
Bollen et al.,
(p. 303)
Bollen et al . ,
(p. 303)
Bollen et al.,
(p. 303)
Bollen et al . ,
(p. 303)
Bollen et al . ,
(p. 303)
Bollen et al. ,
(p. 303)
Bollen et al.,
(p. 303)
Bollen et al. ,
(p. 303)
Bollen et al.,
(p. 304)

1954
1954
1954
1954
1954
1954
1954
1954
1954
1954

-------
TABLE 4-5.   (continued)
Species
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
4S
oo Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
bacteria
bacteria
fungus
fungus
fungus
bacteria
bacteria
bacteria
Chemical
Form Applied
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
Soil
Type
peat soil
peat soil
loamy sand
loamy sand
loamy sand
sandy clay
loam
sandy clay
loam
sandy loam
Control Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/8>
NK
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Soil
Concentration
"
2. 25
3.35
12.5
50
100
11.2, 5.6
for 2 years
16. B, 5.6
for 3 years
22.4, 5.6
for 4 years
Appl icat ion
Rate
(kg/ha)
4.5
6.7
NAC
NA
NA
33.6, 11.2
for 2 years
33.6. 11.23
for 3 years
44.8, 11.2
for 4 years
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration

-------
                                                           TABLE 4-5.  (continued)
•P-
 I
Species
Fungi
Fungi
Fungi
'Fungi
Control Tissue
Chemical Soil 
-------
                                SECTION 5

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

Atlas, E.,  and C.  Giam.   1980   Global Transport of  Organic Pollutants:
     Ambient  Concentrations  in  the  Remote Marine  Atmosphere.   Science
     211:163-65.

Barnes, R.  Chapter 48:   Mechanization  of  Forage  Harvesting and Storage.
     In:   Heath, M.,  D.  S. Metcalfe and R. Barnes  (eds.),  Forages:   The
     Science of Grassland Agriculture.  3rd Edition.

Baxter,  J.  C.,  M. Aquilar,  and  K.  Brown.    1983.    Heavy  Metals  and
     Persistent Organics  at  a  Sewage  Sludge Disposal Site.   J. Environ.
     Qual. 12(3):311-315.

Bertrand,  J.  E.,  M.  C.  Lutrick,  G.  T.  adds, and  R.   L.  West.   1981.
     Metal  Residues  in  Tissue,  Animal Performance  and Carcass  Quality
     with Beef Steers Grazing Pensacola Bahiagrass  Pastures Treated with
     Liquid Digested Sludge.   J. Ani.  Sci.  53:1.

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

Billings,  W.,  ana T.   Bidleman.    1983.     High  Volume  Collection  of
     Chlorinated   Hydrocarbons   in   Urban   Air    Using  Three   Solids
     Absorbents.  Atmos. Env. 17(2):383-391.

Bollen, W.  B., H,   E.  Morrison, and  H.  H. Crowell.   1954.   Effects  of
     Field   Treatments    of    Insecticides  on   Numbers   of   3.acteria
     Streptomvces and  Molds -in the  Soil.  J. Econ. Ent.  47(2):302-306.

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

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

Camp Dresser  and McKee,  Inc.   1984b.   Technical  Review of  the 106-Mile
     Ocean  Disposal  Site.     Prepared  for   U.S.   EPA  under  Contract
     No.  68-01-6403.  Annandale, VA.  January.

Camp Dresser  and  McKee,  Inc.   1984c.  Technical  Review of  the  12-Mile
     Sewage Sludge  Disposal  Site.   Prepared for U.S. EPA  under Contract
     No.  68-01-6403.  Annandale, VA.  May.
                                   5-1

-------
Camp  Dresser and McKee,  Inc.   1984d.  A  Comparison  of Studies of  Toxic
      Substances  in POTW  Sludges.   Prepared for  U.S.  EPA under Contract
      No. 68-01-6403.  Annandale, VA.  January.

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

Carey,  A.,  J.  A. Gowen, H. Tai, et  al.   1978.   Pesticide Residue Levels
      in  Crops,   1971  -  National Soils  Monitoring Program  (III).    Pest.
      Monit. J. 12(3):117-136.

Carey,  A.   1979.  Monitoring  Pesticides in Agricultural and Urban  Soils
      of the U.S.  Pest. Monit.  J. 13(l):23-27.

Carey,  A.,   R.   Douglas,  H.  Tai,   et  al.    1979a.    Pesticide  Residue
      Concentrations  in  Soils  of Five United States Cities,  1971  -  Urban
      Soils Monitoring Program.  Pest. Monit. J. 13(l):17-22.
Carey, A., J. A. Gowen,  H.  Tai,  et  al.   1979b.  Pesticide Residue Levels
     in  Soils  and  Crops  from  37  States,  1972.    Pest.  Monit.  J.
     12(4):209-229

Carey,  A.,  H.   S.  Yang,  G.   B.   Wiersma,   et  al.    1980.    Residual
     Concentrations  of  Propanil,   TCAB  and  Other  Pesticides  in  Rice-
     Growing  Soils  in   the  United  States,  1972.    Pest.  Monit.  J.
     13(l):23-25.

Chaney,  R.  L.,  and C.  A.  Lloyd.    1979.    Adherence of  Spray-Applied
     Liquid Digested  Sewage Sludge  to  Tall  Fescue.   J.  Environ.  Qual.
     8(3):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.
                            *
Clevenger, T. E.,  D. D.  Hemphill,  K. Roberts, and  W.  A.  Mullins.   1983.
     Chemical  Composition   and  Possible   Mutagenicity  of   Municipal
     Sludges.  Journal  WPCF 55(12):1470-1475.
                           »
Donigian, A.  S.  1985.   Personal Communication.  Anderson-Nichols  &  Co.,
     Inc., Palo Alto, CA.  May.

Dorough,  H.,  R.  F.  Skrencny, and  B. C.  Pass.  1972.   Residue  in Alfalfa
     and   Soils  Following  Treatment  with  Technical  Chlordane  and  High
     Purity Chlordane  for Alfalfa  Weevil Control.   J. Agri.  Food  Chem.
     20(l):42-47.

Dorough,  H.,  and  R.  Hemken.  1973.   Chlordane Residues in Milk and  Fat
     of  Cows  Fed  HCS3260  (High  Purity Chlordane)  in  the  Diet.  Bull.
     Env.  Contain.  & Tox. 10(4):208-16.
                                   5-2

-------
Edwards,  C.  A.    1973.    Pesticide  Residues  in  Soil  and  Water.   In:
     Edwards,  C.  A.   (ed.),   Environmental   Pollution  by  Pesticides.
     Plenum Press, New York, NY.

Eno, C.  P.,  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. Amer.
     Proc. 22:235-238.

Fairchild,  H.    1976.   Chlordane  and  Heptachlor  in  Relation  to  Man.
     1972-1975.  EPA 540/4-76/005.

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

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

Food and  Drug Administration.   1980a.   FY77 Total Diet  Studies - Infants
     and  Toddlers  (7320.74).    FDA;  Bureau of  Foods.   Washington,  D.C.
     October.

Food and  Drug  Administration.    1980b.   FY77  Total Diet Studies  - Adult
     (7320.73).  FDA; Bureau of Foods.  Washington, D.C.  December 11.

Food and  Drug  Administration.   No  dace.   FY78 Total Diet  Studies Adult
     (7205.003).

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

CeLhar,  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, MM.

Gerricse, R. G.,  R.  Vriesema,  J. W. Dalenberg, and H.w  P. DeRoos.  1982.
     Effect  of  Sewage Sludge  on Trace  Element  Mobility in  Soils.   J.
     Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.

Glooshenko, W., W. M. Strachan,  and R.  C. Sampson.   1976.   Distribution
     of  Pesticides  and  Pol/chlorinated Biphenyls  in Water,  Sediments,
     and Seston.   Pest.  Monit.  J.  10(2):61-67.

Cowen,  J., C. B.  Wiersma,  H. Tai, and W. C. Mitchell.  1976.   Pesticide
     Levels  in Hay and  Soil  from  Nine  States,   1971.   Pest.  Monit.  J.
Griffin,  R.  A.    1984.    Personal  Communication  to  U.S.  Environmental
     Protection  Agency,   ECAO  -  Cincinnati,   OH.      Illinois   State
     Geological Survey.
                                   5-3

-------
Harrington, J.,  E.  L.  Baker,  D. S.  Folland,  et  al.   1978.   Chlordane
     Contamination of a Municipal Water System.  Env. Res. 15:155-159.

Hassett, J. J., W. L. Banwart, and  R.  A.  Griffin.   1983.   Correlation of
     Compound  Properties  with  Sorption  Characteristics  of  Non-Polar
     Compounds  by  Soils  and  Sediments:    Concepts  and  Limitations.
     Chapter 15.  In;   The  Environment and Solid Waste Characterization,
     Treatment and  Disposal -  Proc.   4th  Oak  Ridge  National  Laboratory
     Life Science Symposium, October 4,  1981,  Gatlinburg,  TN.   Ann Arbor
     Science Pub.

Johnson, R.,  and D.  Manske.   1976.    Pesticide  Residues  in  Total  Diet
     Samples (IX).  Pest. Monit.  J.  9(4):157-169.

Jones,  R.  and  G.  Lee.   1977.     Chemical  Agents  of  Potential  Health
     Significance for  Land  Disposal   of  Municipal  Wastewater  Effluents
    .and Sludges,  pp.  27-60.  In;  Sagik,  B.  and  C. Sorber  (eds.),  Risk
     Assessment  and   Health  Effects  of  Land  Application  of  Municipal
     Wastewater and  Sludges.  University of Texas,  San AntorrroT TX.~

Kaiser, T., W.  L. Reichel,  L.  N.  Locke,  et al.   1980.   Organochlorine
     Pesticide, PCB,  and  PBB  Residues  and Necropsy  Data  for  Bald Eagles
     from 29 States  - 1975-77.  Pest.  Monit. J. 13(4):145-149.

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

Lawless, E., T.  C.  Ferguson, and A. F.  Meiners.   1975.   Guidelines  for
     the   Disposal    of   Small    Quantities   of    Unused   Pesticides.
     EPA-670/2-75-057.    EPA  National  Environmental  Research   Center,
     Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,  OH.

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

Martin, J.  P., R. B.  Harding,  G. H. Gaunell, 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.

Matsumura,  F.  1972.   Current Pesticide Situation in the  United  States.
     In;   F.  Matsumura,  (ed.),  Environmental  Toxicology of  Pesticides.
     Academic Press,  New York, NY.

National Academy  of  Sciences.    1977.    Drinking  Water and Health.   NAS;
     National  Review Council Safe Drinking  Water Committee.   Washington,
     D.C.
                                                                  p
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.
                                   5-4

-------
National  Research  Council.   1982.  An Assessment  of  the Health Risks of
     Seven Pesticides Used for Termite Control.  Rept. P 901.

Onsager,  J.  A.,  H.  W.  Rusk,  and L.  I.  Butler.    1970.    Residues of
     Aldrin, Dieldrin,  Chlordane  and  DDT  in  Soil  and Sugar  Beets.   J.
     Econ. Ent.  63(4):1143-1146.

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

Pettyjohn, W.  A.,  D.  C. Kent, T.  A.  Prickect, 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.

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

Sikora,  L.  J., W.  D.  Burge,  and  J.  E.  Jones.   1982.  Monitoring  of a
     Municipal   Sludge Entrenchment  Site.    J.  Environ. Qual.  2(2):321-
     325.

Stanford  Research  Institute International.   1980.   Seafood  Consumption
     Data Analysis.   Final Report, Task  II.   Prepared for  U.S. EPA under
     Contract No. 68-01-3887.   Menlo Park,  CA.  September.

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

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.

Tucker, R., and  D.  Crabtree.   1970.    Handbook of  Toxicity  of Pesticides
     to  Wildlife.    Bureau  of   Sport  Fisheries  and  Wildlife,  Denver
     Wildlife Research Center,  Resource Pub.  No.  84.

U.S.  Department   of   Agriculture.    1975.     Composition   of   Foods.
     Agricultural Handbook No.  8.

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.   1978.  Environmental  Assessment
     of  Subsurface  Disposal   of  Municipal   Sludge:     Interim  Report.
     EPA/530/SW-547.    Municipal  Environmental   Research   Laboratory,
     Cincinnati,  OH.
                                   5-5

-------
U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1979.   Industrial  Source Complex
      (ISC)  Dispersion  Model  User  Guide.   EPA  450/4-79-30.    Vol.  I.
     Office  of Air  Quality Planning  and  Standards, Research  Triangle
     Park, NC.  December.

U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency.    1980.    Ambient  Water  Quality
     Criteria for Chlordane.  EPA 440/5-80-027.

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

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

Wedberg,  J.,   S.   Moore,  F.   J.  Amore,  and   H.   McAvory.     1978.
     Organochlorine Insecticide Residues  in  Bovine  Milk  and  Manufactured
     Milk Products in Illinois,  1971-76.   Pest. Monit. J. 11(4):161-164.

Wheat Ley, G.   1973.   Pesticides in the Atmosphere.   In:  C.  A.  Edwards
     (ed.),   Environmental  Pollution by  Pesticides.   Plenum Press,  New
     York, NY.
                                   5-6

-------
                              APPENDIX

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

   A.  Effect on Soil Concentration of Chlordane

       1.  Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

           a.  Formula

                     (SC x AR) * (BS x MS)
               CSs =        AR + MS

               CSr = CSS  [1  *  0.5 * ... + 0.5]

               where:

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

        « „„,„„„    ,  nu    (3.2 Ug/g DW  x 5  mt/ha)  *  (0 Ug/g  DW x 2000 mt/ha)
        0.007980 ug/g DW	(5  mt/ha DW + 2000  mt/ha  DW)

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

               0.018 ug/g DW = 0.007980  ug/g DW  [1  + 0.5(1 1<19  +

                    0.5(2/l'l9) +  ...  *0.5(99/l-19)]
                                 A-l

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

    1.  Index of  Soil  Biota Toxicity  (Index  2)

        a.  Formula
            Index 2 = —
            where:
                 Ij  = Index !• = Concentration of pollutant  in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g  DW)
                 TB  = Soil   concentration  toxic  to   soil  biota
                             DW)
        b.  Sample calculation


                       ""0980
            0.002850 =
                         2.8   ug/g  DW

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

        a.  Formula

                      I 1  ... [ID
            Index 3 =   T* UB


            where:

                 II  = 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 Phytocoxic Soil  Concentration (Index 4)

        a.  Formula


            Index 4 = —


            where:

                 I],  = 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

                       Q.QQ7980  Ug/g  DH
           °-000638 =    12.5 yg/g  DW

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

       a.  Formula

           Index 5 = Ii  x UP

           where:

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

       b.  Sample Calculation

           0.005027  yg/g DW =  0.007980  yg/g DW  x

               0.63  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 phytotoxicicy (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

                       15
            Index 7 =
            where:
                 15  = Index  5  =  Concentration  of  pollutant  in
                       plant grown  in  sludge-amended  soil  (yg/g DW)
                 TA  = Feed   concentration  toxic   to  herbivorous
                       animal (yg/g DW)
                              A-3

-------
        b.  Sample calculation
    2.  Index  of Animal  Tozicity  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 race (mt DW/ha)
                 SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
                 GS  = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
                 TA  = Feed   concentration   toxic   to   herbivorous
                       animal (ug/g DW)

        b.  Sample calculation

            If AR = 0; Index 8=0

            If AR * 0; 0.064 =  3.2  US/a DWx  0.05
                                     2.5 ug/g DW

E.  Effect on Humans

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

        a.  Formula

                      (Is  x  DT)   * DI
            Index 9 . _!__	


            where:

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

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

        ,. ..    (0.018194 ug/g DW x 74.5 g/day) + 0.011 Ug/day
                            0.0435 Ug/day

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

    a.  Formula

                    (Is  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 DWP1)
             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)

        2.68 = [(0.005027 Ug/g DW x 0.48 Ug/g tissue DW

               [Ug/g feed DW]'1 x 43.7 g/day DW) + 0.011 Ug/day) *

               0.0435 Ug/day

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

    a.  Formula

        If .AR = 0; Index 11 =     (BS x GS x^UA x DA) + DI


        If AR # 0; Index 11 =     (SC ^S x UA x DA) + DI


        where:

             AR  = Sludge  application  rate  (me 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  [yg/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 (yg/day)

    b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

        69.81 = [(3.2 yg/g DW x 0.05 x 0.48 yg/g tissue DW

               [yg/g feed  DWJ-1 x 39.4 g/day DW) +  0.011 yg/day]

               t 0.0435 yg/day

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

    a.  Formula

                   (Ii x DS) + DI
        Index 12 = —-

        where:

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

    b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

                (O.OQ7980 ug/g DW x 5 g/day) * 0.011 ug/dav
         lmi1 =             0.0435 yg/day

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

    a.  Formula

        Index 13 = Ig + IIQ  + In  + Ij2 ~ ("ocr^

        where:

             Ig  = Index   9 =   Index  of  human   cancer   risk
                   resulting from plant consumption (unitless)
             110 = Index   10 =   Index  of  human   cancer   risk
                   resulting  from  consumption of  animal  pro-
                   ducts derived from  animals  feeding  on  plants
                   (unitless)
                          A-6

-------
                         = Index 11  =   Index   of  human   cancer   risk
                           resulting  from consumption  of  animal  pro-
                           ducts  derived from  animals  ingesting  soil
                           (unitless)
                     1 12 = Index 12 =  Index   of   human    cancer   risk
                           resulting from soil  ingestion (unitless)
                     DI  = Average   daily  human   dietary   intake   of
                           pollutant (ug/day)
                     RSI = Cancer risk-specific  intake (ug/day)

            b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

          104.3164 = (31.41 + 2.68 + 69.81 +  1.17) - ( 3
II. LANDFILLING

    A.  Procedure

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

    B.  Equation 1: Transport Assessment


                             erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) erfc(B2)]
         Requires  evaluations  of four  dimensionless  input  values  and
         subsequent   evaluation  of. the  result.    Exp(Ai)  denotes  the
         exponential   of    A^,   el,   where   erfc(A2)   denotes   the
         complimentary error function  of  A2-   Erfc(A2)  produces  values
         between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramowitz and Stegun,  1972).
                                  A-7

-------
where:
     AI = X-  [V*  -  (V*2  +  4D*  x  y*)*]


          Y - t (V*2 + 4D* x u*)*
     A2 ~       (4D* x t)±

     B. a X— [V* + (V*2 + 4D* x u*)*]
     Dl   2D*

          y + t (y*2 + 4D* x U*)?
     82 "       (AD* x t)*
and where for the unsaturated zone:

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

          PS x 103
          1 - PS

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

     V* a — 2 — (ra/year)
          0 x R
      Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
      Q = Volumetric water content (unitless)

      R = 1 +  dr? x Krf = 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)
              LJt  (years)-i
      U = Degradation rate (day"1)

and where for the saturated zone:

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

-------
          V* s K x i (m/year)
          V     = Aquifer porosity (unitless)

           R = 1 + Pdt"y x Kd = Retardation factor = 1 (unitless)
                     0
               since Kj  =  foc x Koc  and foc is assumed  to be zero
               for the saturated zone.

C.  Equation 2.  Linkage Assessment
                          Q x W	
          C0 = Cu x —


     where:

          C0 = Initial  concentration  of pollutant  in  the saturated
               zone as determined by Equation 1 (yg/L)
          Cu = Maximum  pulse  concentration  from  the  unsaturated
               zone (ug/D
           Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
           W = Width of landfill (m)
           K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
           i = Average hydraulic gradient  between landfill" and well
               (unitless)
           0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
           B = Thickness of saturated zone (m) where:

                        Q x W x 0        , _ .  -
               B > ——^	rrr	  and B > 2
                 —  K  x i  x 365             —

D.  Equation 3.  Pulse Assessment
              — = P(x,t)  for  0  <  t < t
                 = P(x,c)  -  P(x,t - t0) for t > 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:
          P(X»t) =    *T    as determined by Equation 1
                              A-9

-------
     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/L)

          2.   Sample Calculation

              ' 0.044156733 Ug/L = 0.044156733 Ug/L

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

          1.   Formula

                          (II x AC) +  DI
               Index 2 =  	—	


               where:

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

          2.   Sample Calculation

                           (0.044156733 ug/L x 2 L/day) + 0.079 ug/day
                         -            n nt te   I j
                                      0.0435 Ug/day

III. INCINERATION

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

          1.   Formula

               _  .    .    (C x PS x  SC x FM x DP) * BA
               Index 1	gj	


          where:

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

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

         2.   Sample Calculation

              1.457133  = [(2.78 x 10"7 hr/sec  x g/mg x 2660  kg/hr DW x  3.2 mg/kg DW

                        x 0.05 x  3.4  ug/m3)  +  8.8  x 10'* ug/m3]  t 8.8  x  10'*  ug/m3

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

        1.  Formula

                       [(Ii - 1) x BA] + BA
            Index 2 = 	ft	


         where:

              II = Index 1 = Index of air concentration increment
                   resulting from incinerator  emissions
                   (unitless)
              BA = Background  concentration of pollutant  in
                   urban air (ug/m3)
              EC = Exposure  criterion (ug/m3)
        2.  Sample Calculation

                               x 8
                                   2.17  x 10~3 pg/m:
_ .-„..    f(l.457133 - 1) x 8.8 x 10"* Ug/m31  +  8.8  x 10"* Ug/m3
0.590911  -                     ...       3   ,3
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

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

        1.  Formula

            T .   ,     SC x ST x PS
            Index X =   W x D x L	
            where:
                SC =   Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
                ST =   Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
                PS =   Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
                W  =   Width of initial plume dilution (m)
                                  A-ll

-------
            D  =   Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of mixing
                   for shallow water site (m)
            L  =   Length of tanker path (m)

    2.  Sample Calculation

       3.2 me/kg  DW  x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW  x  1Q3  Ug/mg
    —                                         1,1
                   200  m x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/mJ

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

     1.   Formula

          T j   o    SS  x  SC
          Index 2 * VxDxL

          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

     0 001736 ug/L =   825000  kg DW/dav x 3.2 mg/kg DW x  IP3 Ug/mg
                            9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x  103 L/m3

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

     1.   Formula

                      12
          Index 3 = AWQC~

          where:

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

     2.   Sample Calculation

                     0.001736 Ug/L
                      0.004
                              A-12

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

                 1.   Formula

                                 (12 x BCF x IP"3 kg/g x  FS  x QF) + PI
                      Index 4 =


                      where:

                      I2 =  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
                            (yg/day)
                      RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)

                 2.  Sample Calculation

                      1.84 =

(0.001736 ue/L x 14.100  L/kg  x  IP"3 kg/g  x  0.000021  x 14.3 g WW/day) * 0.079  ug/day
                                       0.0435 Ug/day
                                         A-13

-------
TABLE A-l.   INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (lig/g DU)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, Pjry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 6 (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (in/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
Saturated zone
Soil type and character! bt ics
Aquifer porosity, 0 (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K ( in/day )
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landfill, Aft (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
1
3.2


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
2
12.0


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
3
3.2


1.925
0.133
0.0001

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
4 5
3.2 3.2


NA» 1.53
NA 0.195
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
3.2


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.02
50
5
7 8
12.0 N"


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, CQ (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu ((ig/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquiter thickness, D (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, C0
(ug/L)
1

800
0.331
6200

126

0.331
2

3000
1.24
6200

126

1.24
3

800
IS. 3
164

126

IS. 3
4

BOO
. BOO
S.OO

253

800
5

800
0.331
6200

23.8

0.331
6

800
0.331
6200

6.32

0.331
7

3000
3000
S.OO

2.38

3000
8

N
N
M

N

N
       Saturated zone assessment  (Equations  1  and  3)

         Maximum well concentration,  Craa)l  (pg/L)

       Index of groundwater concentration  resulting
         from landftiled sludge,  Index  1  ((ig/L)
         (Equation 4)

       Index of human cancer risk resulting  from
         groundwater contamination,  Index  2
         (unitless) (Equation 5)
0.0442       0.166
0.0442       0.166
3.85
9.43
                         0.0547
                         O.OS47
                         4.33
                                       0.0870        0.204         0.331       69.4
                          0.0870        0.204         0.331       69.4
                                       5.82          11.2          17.0      3190     1.82
       aN  - Null condition, where no landfill  exists;  no value  is  used.
       DNA = Not applicable for this condition.

-------