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.
------- |