United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulation and Standards
W -.,,,ngton. DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Aldrin/Dieldrin
-------
ALDRIN/DIELDRIN
p.
p. 3-4
p. 3-5
p. 3-6
3-3: Index 1 Values should read:
mt/ha = 0.0031; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.0098
typical at 500
Index 2 Values
typical at 500
Index 3 Values
typical at 500
Index 4 Values
typical at 500
p. 3-7: Index 5 Values
typical at 500
p. 3-9: Index 7 Values
should read:
mt/ha = 0.0001; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.00033
should read:
mt/ha = 0.23; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.73
should read:
mt/ha = 0.00025; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.00079
(Human) should read:
mt/ha = 0.0023; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.0074
should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.000062; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.0002
p. 3-13 should read:
Index 9 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
130
130
900
900
5
140
180
940
1000
50
260
610
1300
2200
500
190
350
1100
1500
p. 3-15 should read:
Index 10 Values
Group
Sludge Concentration
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
0 5 50 500
Toddler
Adult
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
130
130
900
900
130
130
900
910
140
180
920
1000
140
150
920
950
-------
p. 3-18 Index 12 Values should read:
Toddler-worst concentration at 500 mt/ha = 150
p. 3-19 should read:
Index 13 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
130
130
910
910
5
1400
4700
3500
10000
50
1500
5200
3900
12000
500
1400
4900
3600
11000
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to: (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain c.
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 OP CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR ALDRIN/DIELDRIN IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landf illing 2-2
Incineration 2-2
Ocean Disposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR ALDRIN/DIELDRIN IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of aldrin/dieldrin
(Index 1) 3-1
Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) 3-3
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration (Indices 4-6) 3-5
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-8
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-11
Landf illing 3-19
*
Incineration 3-19
Index of air concentration increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3-19
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
inhalation of incinerator emissions (Index 2) 3-22
Ocean Di sposal 3-24
Index of seawater concentration resulting from
initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3-24
Index of seawater concentration representing a
24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 3-28
Index of hazard to aquatic life (Index 3) 3-29
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
seafood consumption (Index 4) 3-30
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR ALDRIN/DIELDRIN IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-2
Water - Unpolluted 4-6
Air 4-8
Food 4-9
Human Effects 4-11
Ingestion 4-11
Inhalation 4-13
Plant Effects 4-13
Phytotoxicity 4-13
Uptake 4-14
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-15
Toxicity 4-15
Uptake 4-15
Aquatic Life Effects . 4-16
Toxicity 4-16
Uptake 4-17
Soil Biota Effects 4-17
Toxicity 4-17
Uptake 4-17
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-17
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
ALDRIN/DIELDRIN IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
111
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODL TIOH
This preliminary data profile is one of a series of profiles
dealing with chemical pollutants potentially of concern in municipal
sewage sludges. Aldrin/dieldrin was initially identified as being of
potential concern when sludge is landspread (including distribution and
marketing), incinerated or ocean disposed.* This profile is a compila-
tion of information that may be useful in determining whether
aldrin/dieldrin poses an actual hazard to human health or the
environment when sludge is disposed of by these methods.
The focus of this document i the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge * soil * plant uptake + animal uptake * human toxicity).
The values and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to repre-
sent a reasonable "worst case"; analysis of error or uncertainty has
been conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most cases
is indexed to unity; i.e., values >1 may indicate a potential hazard,
depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on information presented in the "preliminary data profile", Sec-
tion 4. Information in the profile is based on a compilation of the
recent literature. An attempt has been made to fill out the profile
outline to the greatest extent possible. However, since this is a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has not been exhaustively perused.
The "preliminary conclusions" drawn from each index in Section 3
are summarized in Section 2. The preliminary hazard indices will be
used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants and pathways may
pose a hazard. Where a potential hazard is indicated by interpretation
of these indices, further analysis will include a more detailed exami-
nation of potential risks as well as an examination of site-specific
factors. These more rigorous evaluations may change the preliminary
conclusions presented in Section 2, which are based on a reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
The preliminary hazard indices for selected exposure routes
pertinent to landspreading and distribution and marketing, incineration
and ocean disposal practices are included in this profile. The calcula-
tion 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 (OWES) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR ALDRIN/DIELDRIN IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of "preliminary hazard indices", which represent conserva-
tive or "worst case" analyses of hazard. The indices and their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Aldrin/Dieldrin
Soil levels of aldrin/dieldrin are expected to increase as
sludge is applied to soil. For the short-term, the increase
is related to both the insecticide's concentration in sludge
and the application rate. Long-term applications (i.e.,
5 rat/ha for 100 years or 500 mt/ha) are also expected to
increase soil concentrations of aldrin/dieldrin, but the maxi-
mum expected concentration should not exceed the short-term
level of high rates of application (i.e., 50 mt/ha). This is
a function of the pesticide's half-life (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
Increases in the soil concentration of aldrin/dieldrin result-
ing from sludge applications are not expected to yield a toxic
hazard to soil biota (see Index 2). A toxic hazard may exist
for predators of soil biota which consume biota living in soil
that has been amended with municipal sewage sludge (see
Index 3). !
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Land application of municipal sewage sludge may slightly
increase soil concentrations of aldrin/dieldrin, but not to
levels which pose a phytotoxic hazard to plants (see Index 4).
The landspreading of municipal sewage sludge is expected to
result in a slight increase of aldrin/dieldrin concentrations
in the tissues of plants grown in amended soils (see Index 5).
Whether these increased plant tissue concentrations would be
precluded by phytotoxicity could not be determined due to lack
of data (see Index 6).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
A toxic hazard from aldrin/dieldrin is not expected to exist
for herbivorous animals feeding on plants grown in sludge-
amended soils (see Index 7). Herbivorous animals that
incidentally ingest sludge or sludge-amended soils are also
not expected to experience a toxic hazard from aldrin/dieldrin
(see Index 8).
2-1
-------
E. Effect on Humans
The consumption of plants grown in s -adge-amended soil is
expected to result in a substantial inci^.'se in cancer risk
for toddlers and adults due to the intake of aldrin/dieldrin
(see Index 9). The human consumption of animal products from
animals consuming plants grown in sludge-amended soils should
result in a moderate increase in cancer risk from ingesting
aldrin/dieldrin, especially at the higher application rates of
SO and 500 mt/ha (see Index 10). A substantial increase in
the cancer risk associated with aldrin/dieldrin is expected to
occur for humans consuming animal products from animals that
have eaten sludge or sludge-amended soils (see Index 11). A
slight increase in cancer risk is expected for toddlers
consuming sludge-amended soils that have received application
rates of 50 mt/ha to 500 mt/ha (see Index 12). Landspreading
of municipal sewage sludge contaminated with aldrin/dieldrin
may pose a substantial increase in aggregate cancer risk for
humans via their diet (see Index 13).
II. LANDPILLINC
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
III. INCINERATION
The incineration of municipal sewage sludge is expected to result
in substantial increases of aldrin/dieldrin concentrations in the
air, especially at high (10,000 kg/hr DW) feed rates (see Index 1).
Sludge incineration is also expected to result in a substantial
increase in the cancer risk associated with inhaling
aldrin/dieldrin, especially at high (10,000 kg/hr DW) feed rates
(see Index 2).
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
The incremental seawater concentration of aldrin/dieldrin increases
after initial mixing with sludge; however, the increase is slight
(see Index 1). The effective increase of aldrin/dieldrin over a
24-hour period is also expected to be slight (see Index 2). A
potential hazard to aquatic life exists where "worst" concentration
sludges are disposed of at a "worst" condition site (see Index 3).
The ocean disposal of "typical" concentration sludges at both the
"typical" and "worst" sites should not result in an incremental
risk to human cancer from seafood consumption. Slight incremental
risk does occur from the disposal of "worst" concentration sludges
at the "typical" and "worst" sites (see Index 4).
2-2
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR ALDRIN/DIELDRIN
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Aldrin/Dieldrin
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Explanation - Calculates concentrations in Mg/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 «T50 kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
50 mt/ha Higher single application as may be used
on public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens.
500 mt/ha Cumulative loading after 100 years of
application at 5 mt/ha/year.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is
incorporated into the upper 15 cm of soil (i.e., the
plow layer), which has an approximate mass (dry
matter) of 2 x 103 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 0.22 Ug/g DW
Worst 0.81 ug/g DW
The typical and worst-case sludge concentra-
tions were statistically derived by Camp
3-1
-------
Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM) (1984a) from
sludge concentration data for public'v-owned
treatment works (POTWs) in the tates of
Michigan and Indiana, the cities of N.-v York,
Galveston, Albuquerque, and Phoenix, and data
from an EPA study of 50 POTWs (U.S. EPA, 1982).
Weighted mean concentrations for aldrin and
dieldrin were 0.15 and 0.07 Ug/g DW, and maxi-
mum concentrations were 0.64 and 0.81,
respectively. For this analysis, mean concen-
trations of aldrin and dieldrin were summed to
yield a mean value of 0.22 Ug/g DW for "total
dieldrin," since aldrin is readily converted to
dieldrin and dieldrin is the more . otent car-
cinogen of the two. The two maximum values
were not summed since it was not assumed that
they were from the same analysis. Instead, the
maximum dieldrin value of 0.81 Ug/g DW was
chosen to represent the worst case. (See
Section 4, p. 4-2.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) - 0.00063 Ug/g DW
Several studies have shown that the geometric
mean concentration of aldrin plus dieldrin in
U.S. agricultural soils in the early 1970s was
approximately 0.010 to 0.011 Ug/g DW (Carey et
al., 1978, 1979b). Since aldrin and dieldrin
were banned in 1974 (except for subsurface
injection for termite control) and since the
soil half-life of dieldrin is 2.8 years (see
below), the present background level is
expected to be much lower. Assuming approxi-
mately 4 half-lives have elapsed, a background
value of 0.00063 Ug/g DW is estimated. (See
Section 4, p. 4-4.)
iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (t£) =2.8 years
The soil half-life of dieldrin is reported to
range between 2.5 and 2.8 years, whereas the
half-life for aldrin is only 3.1 months
(Onsager et al., 1970; Ackerman, 1980). The
higher value is chosen because it provides the
more conservative estimate of long-term
exposure to this insecticide, and because
aldrin is converted to dieldrin. (See Section
4, p. 4-18.)
3-2
-------
d. Index 1 Values (yg/g DW)
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.00063 0.0012 0.0060 0.0054
Worst 0.00063 0.0026 0.020 0.012
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in sludge-amended soil.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Soil levels of
aldrin/dieldrin are expected to increase as sludge
is applied to soil. For the short-term, the
increase is related to both the insecticide's
concentration in sludge and the application rate.
Long-term applications (i.e., 5 mt/ha for 100 years
or 500 mt/ha) are also expected to increase soil
concentrations of aldrin/dieldrin, but the maximum
expected concentration should not exceed the short-
term level for high rates of application (i.e.,
50 mt/ha). This is a function of the pesticide's
half-life.
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.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-3.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) =
30.0 ug/g DW
The earthworm is selected as the representative
of soil biota. Cathey (1982) has shown that
earthworm mortality increases with the level of
aldrin in worm bedding. With aldrin in "soil"
at 30 Ug/g, earthworms experience 37.5 percent
mortality. (See Section 4, p. 4-24.)
3-3
-------
d. Index 2 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.000021 0.000039 0.00020 0.00018
Worst 0.000021 0.000088 0.00068 0.00040
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.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Increases in the soil con-
centration of aldrin/dieldrin resulting from sludge
applications are not expected to yield a toxic
hazard to 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 with food concentration shown to be
toxic to a predator on soil organisms.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
bioconcentrated by soil biota is equivalent in
toxicity to form used to demonstrate toxic effects
in predator. Effect level in predator may be
estimated from that in a different species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-3.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota (UB) =
74.4 ug/g tissue DW ( pg/g soil DW)"1
Data on uptake of aldrin and dieldrin are
available for a variety of soil invertebrates
including earthworms, slugs, crickets, and
ground beetles. Most values are reported on a
wet weight basis (both soil and tissue). Val-
ues for aldrin range from 0.17 for crickets to
5.8 Ug/g tissue WW (ug/g soil WW)"1 for ground
beetles (Korschgen, 1970). Values for dieldrin
range from 0.88 for crickets to 37.33 for
ground beetles on a wet weight basis
(Korschgen, 1970). The highest factor
observed, however, is a value of 74.4 Ug/g
3-4
-------
tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)~1 for slugs, on a dry
weight basis (Gish, 1970). This value is a
IL in of 3 values (43, 62, and 118 ug/g tissue
DW rjlg/g soil DW]'1) obtained from 3 different
sites, and therefore appears to be valid,
although unusually high. This value is
conservatively chosen as the uptake factor for
soil biota. (See Section 4, p. 4-25.)
iii. Peed concentration toxic to predator (TR) =
1.0 Ug/g DW
Immediately available studies of the toxicity
f aldrin/dieldrin for soil biota predators is
limited. In a summary of such research, it is
reported that a feed concentration of 1 Ug/g of
dieldrin will affect the reproduction of
Hungarian partridges, a typical predator of
soil biota (U.S. EPA, 1976). This is the low-
est feed concentration at which deleterious
effects are found. (See Section 4, p. 4-21.)
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.047
0.047
0.088
0.20
0.44
1.5
0.40
0.90
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.
*
£. Preliminary Conclusion - An aldrin/dieldrin toxic
hazard may exist for soil biota predators which con-
sume soil biota living in soil that has been amended
with municipal sewage sludge.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with the lowest soil
concentration shown to be toxic for some plants.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
3-5
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-3.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
12.5 Ug/g DW
The value for the soil concentration of aldrin
toxic to plants is from the experimental work
of Eno and Everett (1958). It represents the
lowest concentration in soil at which signifi-
cant deleterious effects begin to occur in
plants. (See Section 4, pp. 4-18 to 4-19.)
d. Index 4 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.000050 0.000094 0.00048 0.00043
Worst 0.000050 0.00021 0.0062 0.00097
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Land application of munici-
pal sewage sludge may slightly increase soil concen-
trations of aldrin/dieldrin, but not to levels which
pose a phytotoxic hazard to plants.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue concentra-
tions, in Mg/g DW, in plants grown in sludge-amended
soil, using uptake data for the most responsive
plant species in the following categories:
(1) plants included in the U.S. human diet; and
(2) plants serving as animal feed. Plants used vary
according to availability of data.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes an uptake factor
that is constant over all soil concentrations. The
uptake factor chosen for the human diet is assumed
to be representative of all crops (except fruits) in
the human diet. The uptake factor chosen for the
animal diet is assumed to be representative of all
crops in the animal diet. See also Index 6 for
consideration of phytotoxicity.
3-6
-------
Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of
soil (Index 1)
pollutant in sludge-am 'ded
See Section 3, p. 3-3.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
Animal Diet:
Corn (plant)
0.020 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)'1
Human Diet:
Peanut (meats)
0.75 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)-1
Corn is used as a representative of crops
typically utilized for herbivorous animal feed.
The uptake factor for corn is among the highest
associated with such crops (cf. alfalfa, oats);
the uptake factor applies to dieldrin which is
more persistent in soil and more readily taken
up by plants than aldrin (Harris and Sans,
1969). For human crops, the available data are
limited to root crops, e.g., sugar beets, car-
rots, and peanuts. The selected uptake factor
is the highest available for the edible portion
(i.e., roots versus tops) of such plants (Nash,
1974). Both values have been adjusted for
moisture content and thus represent dry weights
as opposed to the reported wet weights. (See
Section 4, p. 4-20.)
Index 5 Values (ug/g
Sludge
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Diet
Animal
Human
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.000012
0.000012
0.00047
0.00047
5
0.000023
0.000052
0.00088
0.0020
50
0.00012
0.00041
0.0045
0.015
500
0.00011
0.00024
0.0040
0.0090
Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in tissues of plants grown in sludge-
amended soil. However, any value exceeding the
value of Index 6 for the same or a similar plant
species may be unrealistically high because it would
be precluded by phytotoxicity.
3-7
-------
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The landspreading of muni-
cipal sewage sludge is expected Co result in a
slight increase of aldrin/dieldrin concentrations in
rhe tissues of plants grown in amended soils.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Permitted by Phytotozicity
(Index 6)
a. Explanation - The index value is the maximum tissue
concentration, in Ug/g DW, associated with
phytotoxicity in the same or similar plant species
used in Index 5. The purpose is to determine
whether the plant tissue concentrations determined
in Index S for high applications are realistic, or
whether such concentrations would be precluded by
phytotoxicity. The maximum concentration should be
the highest at which some plant growth still occurs
(and thus consumption of tissue by animals is
possible) but above which consumption by animals is
unlikely.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue
concentration will be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with phytotoxicity (PP) - Data not immediately
available.
d. Index 6 Values (ug/g DW) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum
plant tissue concentration which is permitted by
phytotoxicity. Value is compared with values for
the same or similar plant species given by Index 5.
The lowest of the two indices indicates the maximal
increase that can occur at any given application
rate.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in plant tissues grown in sludge-amended
soil with feed concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not
3-8
-------
consider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
taken up by plants is equivalent in toxicity to form
used to demonstrate toxic effects in animal. Uptake
or toxicity in specific plants or animals may be
estimated from other species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5)
The pollutant concentration values used are
those Index 5 values for an animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) =1.0 Ug/g DW
Reproduction has been impaired by dietary
levels of aldrin as low as 1 (Hungarian par-
tridge), 2 (raccoon), and 3 Ug/g DW (mallard)
in partly or wholly herbivorous species (U.S.
EPA, 1976; Menzie, 1972). Duration of exposure
was not stated. In the only available long-
term study of a grazing animal, growth of deer
was slowed by 3 years exposure to dietary
concentrations of 5 to 25 Ug/g DW. Lacking
more complete information, 1 Ug/g DW will be
used .as the toxic concentration for all
herbivorous animals. (See Section 4, p. 4-21.)
d. Index 7 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.000012 0.000023 0.00012 0.00011
Worst 0.000012 0.000052 0.00041 0.00024
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 - A toxic hazard from
aldrin/dieldrin is not expected to exist for
herbivorous animals feeding on plants grown in
sludge-amended soils.
3-9
-------
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
a grazing animal's diet resulting from sludge
adhesion to forage or from incidental ingestion of
sludge-amended soil and compares this with the
dietary toxic threshold concentration for a grazing
animal.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that sludge is
applied over and adheres to growing forage, or that
sludge constitutes 5 percent of dry matter in the
grazing a: imal's diet, and that pollutant form in
sludge is squally bioavailable and toxic as form
used to demonstrate toxic effects. Where no sludge
is applied (i.e., 0 mt/ha), assumes diet is 5 per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.22 Ug/g DW
Worst 0.81 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 51
Studies of sludge adhesion to growing forage
following applications of liquid or filter-cake
sludge show that when 3 to 6 mt/ha of sludge
solids is applied, clipped forage initially
consists of up to 30 percent sludge on a dry-
weight basis (Chaney and Lloyd, 1979; Boswell,
1975). However, this contamination diminishes
gradually with time and growth, and generally
is not detected in the following year's growth.
For example, where pastures amended at 16 and
32 mt/ha were grazed throughout a growing sea-
son (168 days), average sludge content of for-
age was only 2.14 and 4.75 percent,
respectively (Bertrand et al., 1981). It seems
reasonable to assume that animals may receive
long-term dietary exposure to 5 percent sludge
if maintained on a forage to which sludge is
regularly applied. This estimate of 5 percent
sludge is used regardless of application rate,
since the above studies did not show a clear
relationship between application rate and
initial contamination, and since adhesion is
not cumulative yearly because of die-back.
3-10
-------
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep during winter
months when forage is reduced (Thornton and
Abratns, 1983). If the soil were sludge-
amended, it is conceivable that up to 5 percent
sludge may be ingested in this manner as well.
Therefore, this value accounts for either of
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
iii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous" animal
(TA) =1.0 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (rot/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.011
0.040
0.011
0.040
0.011
0.040
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.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Herbivorous animals that
incidentally ingest sludge or sludge-amended soils
are not expected to experience a toxic hazard from
aldrin/dieldrin.
B. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant
Consumption (Index 9)
a. Explanation - Calculates dietary intake expected to
result from consumption of crops grown on sludge-
amended soil. Compares dietary intake with the
cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the pollutant.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all crops are
grown on sludge-amended soil and that all those con-
sidered to be affected take up the pollutant at the
same rate. Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories: toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years old.
3-11
-------
Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of t 'llutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil V-rMex 5)
The pollutant concentration values used are
those Index S values for a human diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (DT)
Toddler 74.5 ?/day
Adult 205
The intake value for adults is based on daily
intake of crop foods (excluding fruit) by
vegetarians (Ryan et al.f 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 0.297 Ug/day ,
Adult 2.079 Ug/day
The values represent the estimated dietary
intake of dieldrin by a 10 kg child and a 70 kg
adult. These estimates are based on the esti-
mated average dietary intake of dieldrin
(yg/kg/day) for the 1975-78 period as deter-
mined by the FDA (no date). This is the most
current data available, and hence, more reflec-
tive of current intake than earlier dietary
levels. Dieldrin intake tends to be much
higher than that for aldrin.
iv. Cancer potency = 30.4 (mg/kg/day)'1
The cancer potency for dieldrin is almost 3
times that for aldrin (i.e., 30.4 versus 11.4)
and thus is more conservative. The value is
derived from the dose-response curve relating
oral ingestion of dieldrin to hepatocellular
carcinoma in mice (U.S. EPA, 1980). It assumes
that the ingested dosage of dieldrin is
absorbed completely. (See Section 4, p. 4-11.)
3-12
-------
Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
2.3 x 10"3 Ug/day
The RSI is the pollutant intake value which
results in an increase in cancer risk of 10~^
(1 per 1,000,000). The RSI is calculated from
the cancer potency using the following formula:
RSI
10"6 x 70 kg x 103 ue/mg
Cancer potency
d. Index 9 Values
Group
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
5 50
500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
140
140
160
190
270
620
260
420
Adult
Typical
Worst
950
950
980
1100
1300
2300
1300
1700
e. Value Interpretation - Value > 1 indicates a poten-
tial increase in cancer risk of > 10~6 (1 per
1,000,000). Comparison with the null index value at
0 mt/ha indicates the degree to which any hazard is
due to sludge application, as opposed to pre-
existing dietary sources.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The consumption of plants
grown in sludge-amended soil is expected to result
in a substantial increase in cancer risk for tod-
dlers and adults due Co the intake of
aldrin/dieldrin.
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
3-13
-------
consumed species or at the rate observed for beef
liver or dairy products (whichever is higher).
Divides possible variations in die*, ry intake into
two categories: toddlers (18 months tv 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5)
The pollutant concentration values used are
those Index 5 values for an animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) = 6.5 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)'1
Aldrin/dieldrin has an affinity for fat tissue.
The value for the uptake factor reflects the
potential bioconcentration in sheep body fat.
It is based on a feed concentration of dieldrin
of 25 Ug/g and a tissue concentration of «/"162
Ug/g DW (Fries, 1982). The tissue con-
centration has been statistically derived based
on the average water content of fat in lamb
shoulder, which is 22 percent; the water con-
tent of this tissue is the highest average for
lamb. Higher values available for chicken fat
were not used because the plant uptake value
selected is for the whole corn plant. Corn
grain and other grains that may be fed to
chickens show little or no uptake. (See
Section 4, p. 4-23.) The uptake factor of pol-
lutant 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
(Pennington, 1983), food groupings listed by
the U.S. EPA (1984) and food composition data
given by USDA (1975). Adult intake of meats is
based on males 25 to 30 years of age and that
for milk products on males 14 to 16 years of
age, the age-sex groups with the highest daily
intake. Toddler intake of milk products is
actually based on infants, since infant milk
3-14
-------
consumption is the highest among that age group
(Pennington, 1983).
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.297 Ug/day
Adult 2.079 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
2.3 x 10~3 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
d. Index 10 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
130
130
130
140
140
180
140
160
Adult Typical 910 910 930 930
Worst 910 920 1000 960
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The human consumption of
animal products from animals consuming plants grown
in sludge-amended soils should result in a moderate
increase in cancer risk from ingesting
aldrin/dieldrin. This is especially true at the
higher application rates of 50 and 500 mt/ha.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal
products derived from grazing animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil. Compares expected
intake with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals grazing sludge-amended
soil, and that all animal products consumed take up
the pollutant at the highest rate observed for
muscle of any commonly consumed species or at the
3-15
-------
rate observed for beef liver or dairy products
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variation.
in dietary intake into two categories: toddx rs
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over 3 yeai.
old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue = Sheep (fat)
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.22 ug/g DW
Worst 0.81 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.00063 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5Z
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
v. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) = 6.5 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 39.4 g/day
Adult 82.4 g/day
The affected tissue intake value is assumed to
be from the fat component of meat only (beef,
pork, lamb, veal) and milk products
(Pennington, 1983). This is a slightly more
limited choice than for Index 10. Adult intake
of meats is based on males 25 to 30 years of
age and the intake for milk products on males
14 to 16 years of age, the age-sex groups with
the highest daily intake. Toddler intake of
milk products is actually based on infants,
since infant milk consumption is the highest
among that age group (Pennington, 1983).
3-16
-------
d.
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.297 Ug/day
Adult 2.079 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
viii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
2.3 x 10"3 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
Index 11 Values
Group
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
130
130
1400
4600
1400
4600
1400
4600
Adult
Typical
Worst
910 3500 3500
910 10000 10000
3500
10000
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f.
Preliminary Conclusion - A substantial increase in
the cancer risk associated with aldrin/dieldrin
ingestion is expected to occur for humans consuming
animal products from animals that have eaten sludge
or sludge-amended soils.
4. Index of Hunan Cancer Risk from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
the diet of a child who ingests soil (pica child)
amended with sludge. Compares this amount with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the pica
child consumes an average of 5 g/day of sludge-
amended soil. If the RSI specific for a child is
not available, this index assumes the RSI for a
10 kg child is the same as that for a 70 kg adult.
It is thus assumed that uncertainty factors used in
deriving the RSI provide protection for the child,
taking into account the smaller body size and any
other differences in sensitivity.
3-17
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-3.
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, 1983).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA, 1984.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.297 Ug/day
Adult 2.097 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) -
2.3 x 10"3 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
d. Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
*
0
130
130
900
900
5
130
130
900
900
SO
140
170
900
900
50i
140
160
900
900
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - A slight increase in the
cancer risk associated with the ingestion of
aldrin/dieldrin is expected for toddlers consuming
sludge-amended soils. This is true for soils that
have received sludge application rates of 50 to
500 mt/ha.
3-18
-------
S. Index of Aggregate Hrman Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the auman 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.
d. Index 13 Values
Group
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
150
150
1400
4700
1500
5200
1500
5000
e.
f.
Adult Typical 960 3600 3900 3800
Worst 960 10000 12000 11000
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of municipal
sewage sludge contaminated with aldrin/dieldrin may
pose a substantial increase in aggregate cancer risk
for humans via their diet.
II. LANDFILLING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
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
incineration of sludge. An input sludge with thermal
properties defined by the energy parameter (EP) was
analyzed using the BURN model (CDM, 1984b). This model
uses the thermodynamic and mass balance relationships
appropriate for multiple hearth incinerators to relate
the input sludge characteristics to the stack gas
3-19
-------
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. As suopt ions /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 - 28Z
Stack height - 20 m
Exit gas velocity - 20 m/s
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 - 26.62
Stack height - 10 m
Exif gas velocity - 10 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (105°F)
Stack diameter - 0.80 m
3-20
-------
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.22 rag/kg DW
Worst 0.81 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)
Typical 0.05 (unitless)
Worst 0.20 (unitless)
These values were chospn as best approximations of
the fraction of polluu nt emitted through stacks
(Parrel!, 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 yg/m3
Worst 16.0 Ug/n»3
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.
f. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) « 0.000216 Ug/m3
In this analysis, the ambient atmospheric concentra-
tion of dieldrin in urban air is approximated by the
mean of the average concentration in Columbia, SC,
and Boston in 1978 (Bidleman, 1981); these cities
may be regarded as representative of agriculturally-
and industrially-based cities, respectively. Na-
tionally, the 1970-72 ambient air level of dieldrin
was 1.6 x 10~3 ug/m3 (Ackerman, 1980). However,
while the national level is probably a more
statistically reliable estimate, it is based on
rural air concentrations which tend to be substan-
tially higher than urban air concentrations, and
hence represents a less satisfactory estimate of
urban air levels. In addition, the Bidleman values
are based on more recent measurements. Ambient
urban air levels of dieldrin are higher than those
for aldrin, providing for the more conservative
analysis. (See Section 4, p. 4-9.)
3-21
-------
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
1.1
1.5
3.2
9.3
Worst Typical 1.0 1.5 10
Worst 1.0 2.9 34
a The typical (3.4 Ug/«3) and worst (16.0 pg/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.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected air concentration exceeds background levels due
to incinerator emissions.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The incineration of municipal
sewage sludge is expected to result in substantial
increases of aldrin/dieldrin concentrations in the air,
especially at high (10,000 kg/hr DW) feed rates.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Shows the increase in human intake expected
to result from the incineration of sludge. Ground level
concentrations for carcinogens typically were developed
based upon assessments published by the U.S. EPA Carcino-
gen Assessment Group (CAG). These ambient concentrations
reflect a dose level which, for a lifetime exposure,
increases the risk of cancer by 10~°.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24
hours/day. A respiratory volume of 20 m^/day is assumed
over a 70-year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-22.
3-22
-------
b. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.000216 Ug/m3
See Section 3, p. 3-21.
c. Cancer potency » 30.4 (mg/kg/day)'1
The cancer potency associated with dieldrin is from
the U.S. EPA (1980). It is estimated from the dose-
response research relating dietary dieldrin intake
with the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma in
female mice. It is based on the assumption of 100
percent absorption and the equivalence of ingestion
and inhalation in terms of dose-r* iponse. (See
Section 4, p. 4-13.)
d. Exposure criterion (EC) = 1.151 x 10~4 Ug/m3
A lifetime exposure level which would result in a
10""^ cancer risk was selected as ground level con-
centration against which incinerator emissions are
compared. The risk estimates developed by 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:
__ _ 10"6 x 103 Ug/mg x 70 kg
~ ^
Cancer potency x 20 mj/day
4. Index 2 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.8
6.1
18
Worst Typical 1.9 2.8 19
Worst 1.9 5.4 64
a The typical (3.4 Ug/m3) and worst (16.0 ug/m3) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
to the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr
DW) sludge feed rates.
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 indi-
cates the degree to which any hazard is due to sludge
3-23
-------
incineration, as opposed to background urban air
concentration.
vi. Preliminary Conclusion - Sludge incineration is expected
to result in a substantial increase in the cancer risk
associated with inhaling aldrin/dieldrin, especially at
high (10,000 kg/hr DW) feed rates.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
For the purpose of evaluating pollutant effects upon and/or subse-
quent uptake by marine life as a result of sludge disposal, two
types of mixing were modeled. The initial mixing or dilution
shortly after dumping of a single load of sludge represents a high,
pulse concentration to which organisms may be exposed for short
time periods but which could be repeated frequently; i.e., every
time a recently dumped plume is encountered. A subsequent addi-
tional degree of mixing can be expressed by a further dilution.
This is defined as the average dilution occurring when a day's
worth of sludge is dispersed by 24 hours of current movement and
represents the time-weighted average exposure concentration for
organisms in the disposal area. This dilution accounts for 8 to 12
hours of the high pulse concentration encountered by the organisms
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased concentrations in Ug/L
of pollutant in seawater around an ocean disposal site
assuming initial mixing.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the background
seawater concentration of pollutant is unknown or zero.
The index also assumes that disposal is by tanker and
that the daily amount of sludge disposed is uniformly
distributed along a path transversing the site and per-
pendicular 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 sea-
sonal disappearance of the pycnocline is not considered.
3-24
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Disposal conditions
Sludge Sludge Mass Length
Disposal Dumped by a of Tanker
Rate (SS) Single Tanker (ST) Path (L)
Typical 825 mt DW/day 1600 mt WW 8000 m
Worst 1650 mt DW/day 3400 mt WW 4000 m
The typical value for the sludge disposal rate assumes
that 7.5 x 106 mt WW/year are available for d'-inping
from a metropolitan coastal area. The conversion to
dry weight assumes 4 percent solids by weight. The
worst-case value is an arbitrary doubling of the
typical value to allow for potential future increase.
The assumed disposal practice to be followed at the
model site representative of the typical case is a
modification of that proposed for sludge disposal at
the formally designated 12-mile site in the New York
Bight Apex (City of New York, 1983). Sludge barges
with capacities of 3400 mt WW would be required to
discharge a load in no less than 53 minutes travel-
ing at a minimum speed of 5 nautical miles (9260 m)
per hour. Under these conditions, the barge would
enter the site, discharge the sludge over 8180 m and
exit the site. Sludge barges with capacities of
1600 mt WW would be required to discharge a load in
no less than 32 minutes traveling at a minimum speed
of 8 nautical miles (14,816 m) per hour. Under
these conditions, the barge would enter the site,
discharge the sludge over 7902 m and exit the site.
The mean path length for the large and small tankers
is 8041 m or approximately 8000 m. Path length is
assumed to lie perpendicular to the direction of
prevailing current flow. For the typical disposal
rate (SS) of 825 mt DW/day, it is assumed that this
would be accomplished by a mixture of four 3400 mt
WW and four 1600 mt WW capacity barges. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For the worst-case disposal rate (SS) of
1650 mt DW/day, eight 3400 mt WW and eight 1600 mt
WW capacity barges would be utilized. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For both disposal rate scenarios, there
would be a 12 to 16 hour period at night in which no
sludge would be dumped. It is assumed that under
the above described disposal operation, sludge
dumping would occur every day of the year.
The assumed disposal practice at the model site
representative of the worst case is as stated for
3-25
-------
the typical site, except that barges would dump half
theiz load along a track, then turn around and
dis ose of the balance along the same track in order
to pt^'ent 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 0.22 mg/kg DW
Worst 0.81 mg/kg DW
F
-------
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
= 184 m = approximately 200 m
x 3600 sec/hour x 0.01 m/cm
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.
Index 1 Values (yg/L)
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)
825
16SO
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.00044
0.0016
0.00044
0.0016
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0 0.0037
0.0 0.014
0.0037
0.014
Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
in aldrin/dieldrin concentration in seawater around a
disposal site as a result of sludge disposal after
initial mixing.
Preliminary Conclusion - This assessment shows that the
incremental seawater concentration of aldrin/dieldrin
increases after mixing with the sludge; however, the
increase is slight in all scenarios evaluated.
3-27
-------
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calcul&^ss 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 p^ -pendicular to the tanker path over 24
hours.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Incorporates all of the assump-
tions used to calculate Index 1. In addition, it is
assumed that organisms would experience high-pulsed
sludge concentrations for 8 to 12 hours per day and then
experience recovery (no exposure to sludge) for 12 to 16
hours per day. This situation can be expressed by the
use of a TWA concentration of sludge constituent.
3. Data Used and Rationale
See Section 3, pp. 3-25 to 3-26.
4. Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, p. 3-28.
5. Index 2 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical Typical 0.0 0.00012 0.00024
Worst 0.0 0.00044 0.00088
Worst Typical 0.0 0.0010 0.0021
Worst 0.0 0.0039 0.0077
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the effective
increase in aldrin/dieldrin concentration expressed as a
TWA concentration in seawater around a disposal site
experienced by an organism over a 24-hour period.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - The effective increase of
aldrin/dieldrin over a 24-hour period is expected to be
slight.
3-28
-------
C. Index of Hazard Co Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Explanation - Compares the effective increased concentra-
tion of pollutant in seawater around the disposal site
(Index 2) expressed as a 24-hour TWA concentration with
the marine ambient water quality criterion of the pollut-
ant, or with another value judged protective of marine
aquatic life* For aldrin/dieldrin, 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. 3-28.
b. Ambient water quality criterion (AVfQC) = 0.0019 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 aldrin/dieldrin.
The 0.0019 Mg/L value chosen as the criterion to
protect saltwater organisms is expressed as a 24-
hour average concentration (U.S. EPA, 1980). This
concentration, the saltwater final residue value,
was derived by using the FDA action level for mar-
ketability for human consumption of aldrin/dieldrin
in edible fish and shellfish products (fish oil)
(0.3 mg/kg), the geometric mean of normalized bio-
concentration factor (BCF) values (1,557) for
aquatic species tested and the 100 percent lipid
content of marine fish oil. To protect against
acute toxic effects, aldrin/dieldrin concentration
should not exceed 0.71 Ug/L at any time. (See
Section 4, p. 4-17.)
3-29
-------
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
0.063
0.23
0.12
0.46
Worst Typical 0.0 0.55 1.1
Worst 0.0 2.0 4.1
*"
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the factor by which
the expected seawater concentration increase in
aldrin/dieldrin exceeds the marine water quality criter-
ion. A value >1 indicates that a tissue residue hazard
may exist for aquatic life. Even for values approaching
1, an aldrin/dieldrin residue in tissue hazard may exist
thus jeopardizing the marketability of edible seawater
organism products (fish oil). The criterion value of
0.0019 Ug/L is probably too high because on the average,
the aldrin/dieldrin residue in 50 percent of aquatic spe-
cies similar to those used to derive the AWQC will exceed
the FDA action level for aldrin/dieldrin (U.S. EPA,
1980).
6. Preliminary Conclusion - This assessment shows that a
potential hazard to aquatic life exists where "worst"
concentration sludges are disposed at the "worst" site.
All scenarios evaluated showed increases in index values.-
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.
3-30
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 2)
See Section 3, p. 3-28.
Since bioconcentration is a dynamic and reversible
process, it is expected that uptake of sludge
pollutants by marine organisms at the disposal site
will reflect TWA concentrations, as quantified by
Index 2, rather than pulse concentrations.
b. Dietary consumption of seafood (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 (PS)
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.
3-31
-------
It is probably unnecessary to follow the plume
further since storms, which would resul: in much
more rapid dispersion of pollutants t 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 aooroach, plume
dilution due to spreading in the perpendicular
direction to current flow is disregarded. More
likely, organisms exposed to the plume in the area
defined by equation 1 would experience a TWA concen-
tration lower than the concentration expressed by
Index 2.
Next, the value of AI must be expressed as a
fraction of an NMFS reporting area. In the New York
Bight, which includes NMFS areas 612-616 and 621-
623, deep-water area 623 has an area of
approximately 7200 km2 and constitutes approximately
0.02 percent of the total seafood landings for the
Bight (CDM, 1984c). Near-shore area 612 has an area
of approximately 4300 km2 and constitutes
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (CDM, 1984d). Therefore the fraction of
all seafood landings (FSt) from the Bight which
could originate from the area of impact of either
the typical (deep-water) or worst (near-shore) site
can be calculated for this typical harvesting
scenario as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
FSt = AI * °-02* = (2)
7200 km2
[10 x 8000 m x 9500 m x 10"6 km2/m2] x 0.0002 5
M """ ^ i X A w
7200 km2
For the worst (near shore) site:
PSt = ALJLJ4Z =
4300 km2
[10 x 4000 m x 4320 m x IP"6 km2/m2! x 0.24 _ fi 1Q_3
4300 km2
3-32
-------
To construct a worst-case harvesting scenario, it
was assumed that the total seafood consumption for
an individual could originate from an area more
limited than the entire New York Bight. For
example, a particular fisherman providing the entire
seafood diet for himself or others could fish
habitually within a single NMFS reporting area. Or,
an individual could have a preference for a
particular species which is taken only over a more
limited area, here assumed arbitrarily to equal an
NMFS reporting area. The fraction of consumed
seafood (FSW) that could originate from the area of
impact under this worst-case scenario is calculated
as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
FSW = AI 0 = 0.11 (4)
7200 km2
For the worst (near shore) site:
FSW = -7 = 0.040 (5)
4300 km2
d. Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (BCP) =
4670 L/kg
The value chosen is the weighted average BCF of
aldrin/dieldrin for the edible portion of all fresh-
water and estuarine aquatic organisms consumed by
U.S. citizens (U.S. EPA, 1980). The weighted aver-
age BCF is derived as part of the water quality cri-
teria developed by the U.S. EPA to protect human
health from the potential carcinogenic effects of
aldrin/dieldrin induced by ingestion of contaminated
water and aquatic organisms. The weighted average
BCF is calculated by adjusting the mean normalized
BCF (steady-state BCF corrected to 1 percent lipid
content) to the 3 percent lipid content of consumed
fish and 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. (See Section 4,
p. 4-17.)
e. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
= 2.079 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
3-33
-------
f. Cancer potency = 30.4 (mg/kg/day)"1
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
g. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
2.3 x 11 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the null
index value at 0 mt/day indicates the degree to which any
hazard is due to sludge disposal, as opposed to
preexisting dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - This assessment shows that the
disposal of "typical" concentration sludges at both the
"worst" and "typical" sites will not result in an incre-
mental risk of human cancer from seafood consumption.
Slight incremental risk does occur from "worst" concen-
tration sludges disposed at the "typical" and "worst"
sites.
3-34
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROPILi FOR IN ALDRIN/DIELDRIN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
Aldrin was used extensively for agriculture NRC, 1982
for over 20 years until its use was suspended (p. 23)
by EPA in 1974. Its use for termite control
has been retained. Aldrin is readily converted
to dieldrin which is regarded as one of the
most persistert pesticides.
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
Aldrin/dieldrin was detected in
2 percent of sludges from 50 POTWs
2. Concentration
Aldrin/dieldrin (ug/g DW) in sludges
of 74 Missouri wastewater treatment
plants (date NS):
COM; 1984a
(p. 15)
Clevenger
et al., 1983
(p. 1471)
Min. Max. Mean Median
Aldrin 0.05 0.64 0.13 0.08
Dieldrin 0.05 0.81 0.14 0.11
In municipal sludges from 14 U.S.
cities (1972-1973):
Dieldrin - Range <0.03 to 2.2 (ug/g
Mean 0.31
Median 0.13
Median concentration of dieldrin
residues (ug/g) in Metro Denver
sewage sludges (1975-76)
Furr et al.,
1976 (p. 684)
Baxter et al.,
1983a (p. 315)
Digested
Waste Activated
0.101
0.505
0.035 (Ug/g WW)
0.175 (Ug/g DW)
4-1
-------
Five sludges sources in Chicago Jones and Lee,
averaged <10 yg/L of both aldrin 1977 (p. 52)
and dieldrin
Aldrin/dieldrin (rag/kg DW) in sludges COM, 1984a
of 63 POTWs (EPA study, New York (p. 8)
City, Galveston, Albuquerque,
Phoenix, Indiana, and Michigan)
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Min.
0.01
0.0006
Max.
0.64
0.81
Wt.
Mean
0.15
0.07
B. Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
In 99 soil samples from rice-growing Carey et a!.,
areas in 5 states, 39 samples (39.AZ) 1980 (p. 25)
contained aldrin and 84 samples
(84.82) contained dieldrin (1972
data).
In 380 urban soil samples from 5 Carey et al.,
cities, dieldrin was present in 61 1980 (p. 19)
samples from 5 cities, and aldrin was
present in 8 samples from 2 cities
(1971 data).
Dieldrin - Z positive samples from 6 Lang et al.,
Air Force Installations 1979 (p. 231)
Z of Samples
Land Use Year With Dieldrin
Residential
Residential
Non-use
Non-use
Golf Course
Golf Course
1975
1976
1975
1976
1975
1976
55.0
47.6
17.4
24.0
23.5
23.5
4-2
-------
2 occurrence of aldrin and dieldrin
in U.S. agriculturr1 soils, 1968-73
Year
Aldrin
Dieldrin
1968
1969
1971
1972
1973
13.4
14.2
10.2
9.4
3.8
32.0
32.3
28.8
28.1
25.7
Carey, 1979
(p. 25)
In 90 samples from hayfield soils in
9 states, 5.62 contained dieldrin
residues (1971).
In 1,486 samples from U.S. cropland
soils (37 states) in 1971, aldrin was
detected in 144 samples (9.72);
dieldrin was detected in 408 samples
(27.52)
In 1,483 samples from U.S. cropland
soils (37 states) in 1972: aldrin
was detected in 129 samples (8.71);
dieldrin was detected in 403 samples
(27.22).
2. Concentration
Trace levels of dieldrin (<0.010
Ug/g) detected in both control
sludge-applied and control soils
Dieldrin - (ug/g DW) in U.S. soils
Gowen et al.,
1976 (p. 115)
Carey et al.,
1978 (p. 120)
Carey et al.,
1979b (p. 212)
Baxter et al.,
1983a (p. 315)
Edwards, 1973
(p. 416 to 417)
Land Type
Max.
Mean
Pasture/grassland
227 sites (1965) 2.20
Non-cropland
13 sites (1971)
Desert, none found
5 sites (1966)
0.03
0.0013 0.0003
4-3
-------
Dieldrin - 3 out of 34 soil sam- Requejo et al.,
pies in and around Everglades Nat. 1979 (p. 934)
Park contained >1.0 ng/g dieldrin as
follows: 2.Of 16, and 238 ng/g.
Aldrin - one out of 34 soils samples
in and around Everglades Nat. Park
contained 11 ng/g (1976 data).
Aldrin - 99 samples from rice-growing Carey et al.,
areas in 5 states 1980 (p. 25)
Range: 0.01 to 0.25 (ug/g DW)
Mean: 0.01
Dieldrin - 99 samples from rice-
growing area in 5 states
Range: 0.01 to 0.27 ug/g
Mean: 0.04 ug/g (1972 data)
Dieldrin - 61 urban samples from 5 Carey et al.,
cities 1979a (p. 19)
Range: 0.01 to 6.02 ug/g DW;
Geometric mean: 0.004 ug/g DW
(380 samples)
Aldrin - 8 urban samples from 2
cities
Range: 0.01 to 2.04 Ug/g DW;
Geometric mean: 0.002 ug/g DW
(204 samples)
Dieldrin - residues from 6 Air Force Lang et al.,
Installations, 1975-76 1979 (p. 231)
Land Use Range Avg. Year
Residential
Residential
Non-use
Non-use
Golf Course
Golf Course
ND-0.04
ND-0.02
ND-0.31
ND-0.10
ND-0.05
ND-0.03
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
1975
1976
1975
1976
1975
1976
Dieldrin residues in hayfield soils Gowen et al.,
from nine states, 1971 1976 (p. 115)
max.: 0.12 ug/g (DW)
arithmetic mean: <0.01 Ug/g
4-4
-------
In 1,486 samples from U.S. cropland
soils (37 states) in 1971:
Carey et al.,
1978 (p. 120)
Min. Arith. Geom.
Pesticide (ug/g DW) Max. Mean Mean
Aldrin
Dieldrin
0.01
0.01
1.88
9.83
0.02
0.05
0.002
0.009
In 1,483 samples from U.S. cropland
soils (37 states) in 1972:
Carey et al.,
1979b (p. 212)
Min. Arith. Geom.
Pesticide (pg/g DW) Max. Mean Mean
Aldrin
Dieldrin
0.01
0.01
13.28
6.18
0.03
0.04
0.002
0.008
Dieldrin residues in soil in 6 U.S.
cities (1970)
Carey et al.,
1976 (pp. 56 to
58)
City
Greenville, MS
Memphis, TN
Mobile, AL
Portland, OR
Richmond, VA
Sikeston, MO
Positive
Percent
3.6
57.1
10.3
8.0
14.8
3.7
Site
No.
1
16
3
2
4
1
Residue
Range
0.41
0.02-12.80
0.04-0.36
0.08-1.19
0.07-2.99
0.33
PPM
Arith.
Mean
0.02
1.07
0.02
0.05
0.14
0.01
Geom.
Mean
«.
0.0525
0.0035
0.0032
0.0075
4-5
-------
Soil Residues in U.S. Agricultural
Areas (data 1965-1972)
Edwards, 1973
(pp. 416 to 417)
Pesticide/Site
Ug/g
Max.
Mean
Dieldrin:
30 U.S. orchard sites
12 carrot fields
6 cranberry fields
27 soybean fields
41 vegetable fields
25 potato fields
92 sweet potato fields
71 onion fields
35 corn fields
5 peanut fields
Aldrin:
2.84
1.47
3.15
0.31
0.77
0.20
2.18
16.72
1.22
0.20
1.41
0.67
2.08
0.08
0.06
0.10
0.17
0.79
0.50
0.15
27 soybean fields
41 vegetable fields
92 sweet potato fields
71 onion fields
11 grain fields
0.18
0.28
0.11
0.96
0.61
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.23
C. Hater - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
No dieldrin residues observed in 1974 GLooshenko
upper Great Lakes water study
et al., 1976
(p. 63)
In a 1964-68 survey of pesticides in Ackerman, 1980
water, dieldrin dominated pesticide (p. 65)
occurrences in all regions. It
appeared in 391 of the samples.
Dieldrin in surface water in southern Mattraw, 1975
Florida 1968-72 (p. 109)
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
Z
Positive
Samples 22 0 0 10 15
4-6
-------
Concentration
Dieldrin found in 117 of 715 samples
of U.S. drinking and raw water (1975
data)
Freshwater
U.S. u^A, 1980
(p. C-5,
Edwards, 1973
(pp. 440 to 441)
Aldrin (ng/L)
Water Type Max. Mean
97 major river basins (1965) 85.0
Miss. River delta (1966) 30.0
99 major river basins (1967)
11 major rivers (western)
(1967) 5.0
109 major rivers (1967)
20 streams (western) (1969) 40.0
110 surface waters (1967)
114 surface water (1968)
6 Iowa rivers (1968)
10 Iowa rivers (1969)
10 Iowa rivers (1970)
101 river and drinking water
(Hawaii) (1971)
0.9
5.0
0.2
0.6
-
Dieldrin
Max.
118.0
60.0
68.0
15.0
167.0
70.0
87.0
407.0
10.0
63.0
65.0
19.0
(ng/L,
Mean
7.5
10.0
6.9
2.3
5.9
1.1
5.0
8.2
1.8
8.5
8.7
9.4
"Dieldrin remained as the most
serious pollutant in the surface
waters of the United States"
Mean monthly dieldrin concentrations
(ng/L) in the Des Moines River
(1971-73)
Matsumura, 1972
(p. 43)
Kellogg and
Bulkley, 1976
(p. 189)
Month
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Mean
1971
10
50
40
30
30
32
1972 1973
<10 8
24 10
23 12
<10 6
<10 4
<15 8
Dieldrin found at 1 to 2 ng/L in
drinking water of Miami, Seattle,
NAS, 1977
(pp. 558 to 559)
4-7
-------
Ottumwa (Iowa) and Cincinnati and
at 50 to 70 ng/L in New Orleans
Mean concentrations of dieldrin in
U.S. water systems (data ca 1966)
Matsumura, 1972
(p. 42)
Major River Basins
Mississippi Delta
Western Streams
No. Sites
Sampled
99
97
109
10
11
Mean
(ng/L)
6.9
7.5
5.9
10.0
2.3
Lake Michigan water 1 to 3 ng/L
dieldrin
b. Seawater
Data not immediately available.
c* Drinking water
1 to 50 ng/L, 1975 data
In 500 samples of finished drink-
ing water and raw water from the
Mississippi and Missouri rivers,
only one sample contained >0.017
mg/L dieldrin (the suggested per-
missible criteria). 1969. How-
ever, dieldrin was present in 40%
of the samples.
Recommended drinking water
standards in 1968:
Aldrin - 17 yg/L
Dieldrin - 17 Mg/L
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
Dieldrin was present in 942 of 2,479
samples taken nationwide (1970 to
1972 data).
Aldrin occurred in 1 out of 875
samples collected from 9 U.S.A.
cities (1969 data).
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. 129)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-5)
Edwards, 1973
(p. 449)
Ackerman, 1980
(p. 65)
MAS, 1977
(p. 559)
Ackerman, 1980
(p. 65)
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
4-8
-------
Dieldrin occurred in 50 out of 875
samples of U.S.A. cities (1969 data)
2. Concentration
0.40 ng/m3 in Columbia, SC;
0.033 ng/m3 in Boston, MA
(1978 data)
0.010 ng/m3 (0.006 to 0.018) from
Enewetak Atoll
2,479 air samples collection nation-
wide from 1970 to 1972 had a mean
concentration of dieldrin equal to
1.6 ng/m3.
Ambient air levels of 20 ng/m3
(dieldrin) have been recorded in
agricultural areas.
One air sample from Iowa City in
1969 contained aldrin at a level of
8.0 ng/m3.
In 99 samples from Orlando in 1969,
50 contained dieldrin, and the
maximum level was 29.7 ng/m3.
Bidleman, 1981
(p. 632)
Atlas and Giam,
1981 (p. 163)
Ackerman, 1980
(p. 65)
Ackerman, 1980
(p. 68)
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
B. Food
1. Total Average Intake
1978 is most recent data available
from FDA
Relative daily intakes of aldrin and
dieldrin (ug/kg body weight/day)
FDA, no date
(Attachment G)
FY75
FY76
FY77
Average
FY78 FY75-78
Total 0.0409 0.0405 0.0226 0.0170 0.03025
Aldrin 0.0022 ND ND ND 0.0022
Dieldrin 0.0387 0.0405 0.0226 0.0170 0.0297
4-9
-------
Daily dietary Intake, mg
Pesticide 1965 1966 19b. 1968 1969
1970
Aldrin 0.001 0.002 0.001 T T 0.001
Dieldrin 0.005 0.007 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.005
2. Concentration
Levels o£"dieldrin found by food
class - summary of 5 regions in
U.S., Ju*;e 1971 to July 1972
NAS, 1977
(p. 558)
Manske and
Johnson, 1975
(pp. 96 to 102)
Food
Dairy products
Meat, fish, poultry
Potatoes
Leafy vegetables
Legume vegetables
Garden fruit
Fruit
Oils, fats, shortening
Fraction of
positive
composites
26/30
29/30
11/30
5/30
2/30
22/30
1/30
8/30
Average
(vg/g)
0.002
0.004
0.001
T
T
0.003
T
T
Range
(vg/g)
T-0.005
0.001-0.010
T-0.007
T
T
T-0.012
T
T-0.004
Dieldrin Content (ug/g) of
Products (ca 1972 data):
Whole milk. - 0.034 + 0.004
Skim milk - 0.005 +~0.001
Butter - 0.714 * O7l25
Cream - 0.445 +~0.011
Milk
Ang and Dugan,
1973 (p. 791)
Dieldrin residues in milk products
(llg/g) in Illinois
Wedberg et al.,
1978 (p. 164)
Summary
1971-76
(1,169
samples)
Avg.
No. Pos. Z Pos. ppm
1126 96 0.09
Z Samples
0.01-0.10
69
Z Samples
0.11-0.20
29
Z Samples
0.21-0.3
2
4-10
-------
Dieldrin has the highest retention HAS, 1977
time of all pesticides in milk, (p. 559)
approximately 100 days
Occurrence of dieldrin by food class FDA, no date
- FY 78 (Attachment E)
Fraction of
Food Class Positive Composites
Dairy 10/20
Meat, fish, poultry 17/20
Potatoes 3/20
Leafy vegetables 1/20
Garden fruit 14/20
Fruit 2/20
Oils, fats, shortening 5/20
Total t Residues: 52
Total Range: T-0.008 ug/g
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
Aldrin/dieldrin has been shown NAS, 1977
to cause tumors in laboratory (p. 565)
animals.
In mice, the effects range from U.S. EPA, 1980
benign liver tumors to hepato- (p. C-45)
carcinomas.
The induction of liver tumors in U.S. EPA, 1980
mice of both sexes by aldrin and (p. C-82)
dieldrin is sufficient evidence
that they are likely to be human
carcinogens.
b. Potency
Cancer potency (mg/kg/day)~1 U.S. EPA, 1980
Aldrin 11.5 (pp. C-83, C-86)
Dieldrin 30.4
4-11
-------
c. Effects
Both aldrin and d'^ldrin have
induced hepatocellu' -:r carcino-
mas in mice
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
For aldrin and dieldrin =
0.0001 mg/kg/day
b. Effects
Shortened life span, increased
liver-to-body weight ratio,
various changes in liver histol-
ogy and induction of hepatic
enzymes.
3. Absorption Factor
Absorption is reported to vary with
the solvent used. No information is
available on the absorption factor.
4. Existing Regulations
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-83, 86)
NAS, 1977
(p. 559)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-34)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-ll)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-64)
Exposure Assumptions
2 liters of drinking water
and consumption of 6.5 grams
of fish and shellfish (2)
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Consumption of fish
and shellfish only
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Risk
0
ng/L
0
0
0
0
Levels and
10-7
ng/L
0.0074
0.0071
0.0079
0.0076
Corresponding Criteria
10~6
ng/L
0.074
0.071
0.079
0.076
' 10-5
ng/L
0.74
0.71
0.79
0.76
4-12
-------
Drinking water standards (1968) NAS, 1977
Aldrin 17 ppb (p. 559)
Dieldrin 17 ppb
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
Not tested for carcinogenicity
via the inhalation route. Pre-
sumption of potential carcino-
genicity based on ingestion
studies.
b. Potency
Cancer potency (mg/kg/day)"1: U.S. EPA, 1980
Aldrin 11.5 (p. C-83, 86)
Dieldrin 30.4
Values based on ingestion
potency, assuming 100% absorp-
tion by both routes.
c. Effects
Not tested via inhalation route.
2. Chronic toxicity
See below, "Existing Regulations."
3. Absorption Factor
Assumption of 1001 absorption.
4. Existing Regulations
Aldrin/Dieldrin - 0.25 mg/m3 TWA ACGIH, 1982
(p. 9)
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
See Table 4-1.
4-13
-------
B. Uptake
Carrots
Peanuts
0.41 yg/g aldrin
1.27 ug/g dieldrin
DieLdrin residues (Ug/g DW) in crops
from 37 states (1971 data)
Finlayson and
MacCarthy, 1973
(pp. 72 to 73)
Carey et al.,
1978 (pp. 133 to
136)
Crop
Alfalfa
Field corn kernels
Milo
Peanuts
Sorghum
Soybeans
Range
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.07
0.11
0.02-0.03
0.01-0.28
0.01-0.05
Arithmetic
Mean
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.01
0.02
<0.01
Geometric
Mean
O.Ov,?
0.001
-
0.004
0.004
0.003
Dieldrin residues (ug/g DW) in crops
from 37 states (1972 data)
Carey et al.,
1979b (pp. 222
to 225)
Crop
Alfalfa
Field corn kernels
Sorghum
Soybeans
Range
0.01-0.09
0.01-0.21
0.01
0.01-0.04
Arithmetic
Mean
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Geometric
Mean
0.007
0.001
0.001
0.002
Dieldrin residues (jig/g) in sugar Yang, 1976
beet pulp and soybean oil (1971) from (p. 43)
16 states
Range
Mean
Sugarbeet pulp
Soybean oil
ND - 0.01
MD - 0.05
<0.01
0.02
4-14
-------
See Table 4-2.
Residues in crops following appli-
cation of aldrin/dieldrin to soil
Muns et al.,
1960 (p. 833)
Crop
Application Rate
Residues
(ug/g)
Lima beans
Sweet potatoes
L't-'gar beets
Radishes
4 Ibs/acre-aldrin
4 Ibs/acre-aldrin
4 Ibs/acre-dieldrin
4 Ibs/acre-dieldrin
ND
Aldrin:0.03
Dieldrin:0.03
0.11
T
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Tozicity
See Table 4-3.
Aldrin and dieldrin at "very low" dosages
affect the central nervous system
producing encephalographic changes and
altering behavior. The "no-adverse-
effect dosage" has never been determined.
B. Uptake
1. Observed range of tissue concentrations
Dieldrin residues, in carcasses of
168 bald eagles from 29 states,
1975-77 (Ug/g)
NAS, 1977
(p. 565)
Kaiser, 1980
(p. 147)
Year
1975
1976
1977
# Specimens
44
40
53
Median
0.60
0.66
0.22
Range
0.06-12.0
0.05-12.0
0.05- 4.0
Dieldrin in swine raised for 2 years
in sludge-amended soil
Back fat: 11+8 ng/g fresh wt.
dieldrin
Marrow: 6+4 ng/g fresh wt. dieldrin
Hansen et al.,
1981 (p. 1015)
4-15
-------
Selected dieldrin residues in wild Stickel, 1973
mammals:
-------
Dieldrin - 0.0019 yg/L as 24 hour
avenge, not to exceed 0.71 yg/L
a any time.
B. Uptake
Weighted average dieldrin BCF of 4670
for edible portion of all freshwater
and estuarine aquatic organisms
consumed by U.S. citizens
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxif.ity
See Table 4-5.
Aldrin and dieldrin may kill or reduce
numbers of soil saprophagus mites, and
dipterous and coleopterous larvae in
soil, while nematodes, earthworms, and
other soil animals are not harmed.
"The most important sublethal effect of
organochlorine insecticides on soil
invertebrates is the development of
resistance to organochlorine insecticides
by exposed species."
0.1 yg/g aldrin in soil, lowest concen-
tration exhibiting bioactivity to cricket
larvae
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-12)
U.S. EPA,
1980 (p. B-8)
Martin, 1972
(p. 744)
Edwards, 1973
(p. 431)
Harris, 1970
(p. 784)
B. Uptake
See Table 4-6.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
Aldrin;
Chemical name: l,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-
l,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-endo 1,4-5,8-
dimethanonapthalene
Molecular weight: 364.93
Molecular formula: G^gGle
Dieldrin:
Chemical name: 6,7-epoxy aldrin
4-17
-------
Molecular weight: 380.93
Molecular formula:
Vapor pressure of aldrin and dieldrin at
20°C (mm Hg)
aldrin: 2.3 x 10~5 (volatile)
dieldrin: 1.8 x 10~7 (slightly volatile)
Edwards, 1973
(p. 433)
Insecticide
Water Solubility
at 20-30°C (ppm)
Aldrin
Dieldrin
0.027
0.186
Dieldrin is lipophilic.
Half-life of dieldrin residues in soil is
2.8 years or 8 years for 95Z disappearance.
Aldrin is immobile in soils
(Rf = 0.09-0.00)
Half-lives:
aldrin - 3.1 months
aldrin and dieldrin - 8.5 months
dieldrin - 29.7 months (
-------
TABLE 4-1. PHYTOTOXICITY OP ALDRIN/DIELDRIN
Plant/Tissue
Cucumber, tomato
beans, beets,
cereals
Lima bean, sweet
potato, sugar
beet, radish
Sugar beet
Tomato, cucumber
Carrot
Strawberry
I
M
to
Black Valentine
bean/ seed
bean/seed
bean/seed
bean/ root
bean/root
bean/root
Chemical
Form Applied
(study type)
Aldrin
(field)
Aldrin/
dieldrin
(field)
Aldrin/
dieldrin
(field)
Aldrin/
dieldrin
(field)
Aldrin
(pot)
Aldrin
(pot)
Aldrin
(pot)
Aldrin
(pot)
Aldrin
(pot)
Aldrin
(pot)
Aldrin
(pot)
Aldrin
(pot)
Experimental Experimental Experimental
Control Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
Soil Type (pg/g DU) (pg/g DU) (kg/ha) (pg/g DU) Effects
agricultural
sandy
loam
loam
compost
compost
compost
loamy
sand
loamy
sand
loamy
sand
loamy
sand
loamy
sand
loamy
sand
NRb
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4.45-8.95c 8.9-17.9
2.25C 4.5
5.5C 11
11. 2C 22.4
56C 112
56C 112
12.5 NR
50 NR
100 NR
12.5 NR
50 NR
100 NR
NR "Damage"
NR No effect
NR No effect
NR Reduced - wth 10-24Z
NR 27Z reduced growth
NR No effect
NR 6Z increased
germination
NR 3Z increased
germination
NR 5Z decreased
germination
NR 24Z decreased
growth
NR 30Z decreased
growth
NR 48Z decreased
growth
References
Edwards, 1973
(p. 432)
Muns et al.,
1960 (p. 833)
On sage r et
al., 1966
(p. 1114)
Dennis and
Edwards, 196'
(p. 173-77)
Dennis an
Edwards, i964
(p. 173-77)
Dennis and
Edwards, 1964
(p. 173-77)
Eno and
Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Bno 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)
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
NJ
O
Plant/Tissue
bean/top
bean/top
bean/top
Chemical Control Tissue
Form Applied Concentration
(study type) Soil Type (pg/g DW)
Aldrin
(pot)
Aldrin
(pot)
Aldrin
(pot)
loamy NR
sand
loamy NR
sand
loamy NR
sand
Experimental Experimental Experimental
Soil Application Tissue
Concentration Rate Concentration
(Mg/g DW) (kg/ha) (pg/g DW) . Effects
12.5 - NR 10Z decreased
growth
SO - NR 6Z decreased
growth
100 - NR 16Z decreased
growth
References
Eno and
Everett,
1958 (p.
Eno and
Everett,
19S8 (p.
Eno and
Everett,
1958 (p.
236)
236)
236)
N « Number of application rates (if applicable).
h NR » Not reported.
c Estimated soil concentration assuming the insecticide is incorporated into the upper IS cm of soil which has an approximate (dry matter) mass of
2 x 103 ml/ha.
-------
TABLE 4-2. UPTAKE OP ALDBIN/DIELDRIN BY PLANTS
10
Plant
Wheat
Corn
Wheat
Corn
Corn
Oats
Peanuts
Sugar beet
Alfalfa
Oats
Corn
Sugar beet
Potato
Carrot
Sugar beet
Alfalfa, oats
corn, beet,
potato, carrot
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Carrot
Carrot
Carrot
Peanut
Tissue
grain
grain
grain
grain
seed
seed
seed
plant
plant
plant
plant
top
plant
plant
root
as above
plant
plant
plant
plant
NR
meats
Soil
Type
loess
loess
loess
loess
clay loan
clay loan
clay loan
loam
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
clay
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
NR
NR
Chemical Porm
Applied
(Study Type)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Aldrin (field)
Aldrin (field)
Aldrin/
dieldrin (field)
Aldrin/
dieldrin (field)
Aldrin/
dieldrin (field)
Aldrin/
dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Aldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Aldrin (field)
Dieldrin (field)
Aldrin (field)
Aldrin/dieldrin
Aldrin/dieldrin
Soil Concentration
(Mg/g)
0.52
0.55
1.09
0.78
0.4-3.0
0.4-3.0
0.4-3.0
0.01-0.97
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.14-0.37
0.57
0.06
0.57
0.06
(field) 0.05-0.26
(field) 0.08-0.20
Range of
Tissue (WW)
Concentration
(Mg/g)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.003-0.008
0.005-0.09
0.1-1.0
<0. 01-0. 96
0.02
0.02
0.023°
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.55°
<0.01
<0.01
0
0.03
0
0.01-0.14
0.08-0.13
Uptake
Factor4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01-0.03
0.25-0.33
0.33-<1.0
0.02
0.02
0.020
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.46
0
0
0
0.05
0
0.48C
0.75=
References
Weisgerber, 1974 (p. 610)
Weisgerber, 1974 (p. 610)
Weisgerber, 1974 (p. 610)
Weisgerber, 1974 (p. 610)
Bruce et al., 1966 (p. 180)
Bruce et al., 1966 (p. 180)
Bruce et al., 1966 (p. 180)
Onsager et al., 1966 (p. 1144)
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184)
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184)
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184)
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184)
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184)
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184)
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184)
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184)
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184)
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184*
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184 >
Harris and Sans, 1969 (p. 184)
Nash, 1974 (p. 272)
UP * tissue cone./soil cone.
D Tissue concentration in dry weight; conversion based on an assumed water content of 87.3 percent for sugar beets which holds for the root of
the common red beet, and 13.8 percent for corn (kernels) which is taken as typical of the entire plant.
c Based on midpoint of soil and tissue concentration ranges.
-------
TABLE 4-3. TOXICITV OP ALDRIN/DIELDRIN TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)«
Sheep
Sheep
Deer
Rat
Rat
Raccoon
t
£* Hungarian
Partridge
Mallard
Mice
Mice
Mice
Mallard
Chemical Form
Fed
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Peed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
NRb
NR
5-25
40-60
40
2
1
NR
2.5
5.0
10
3
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily Intake Duration
(rag/kg DW) of Study
20 3-4 days
IS NR
NR 3 years
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
1.25 30 days
NR 23 months
NR 10 months
NR 9 months
NR NR
Effects
Reduced vigilence behavior
Impaired visual
discrimination
Slow growth
LD50
LD50
Impaired reproduction
Affected reproduction
Chronic lethal dose
Tumor appearance
Tumor appearance
Tumor appearance
Slight eggshell thinning
References
Sandier et al.,
1969 (p. 261)
Pimentel, 1974
(p. 40)
Pimentel, 1974
(p. 37)
Lawless et al.,
1975 (p. 37)
Lawless et al.,
1975 (p. 37)
Menzie, 1972
(p. 488)
U.S. EPA, 1976
Matsumura, 1972
(p. 536)
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. 128)
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. 128)
U.S. EPA , 1976
(p. 128)
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. 130)
-------
TABLE 4-3. (continued)
Speciei (N)«
Mice
Nice
Rats (12)
Rats (12)
Dogs .(10)
Rhesus
monkeys (30)
Raccoon
*-
OJ
Chemical Form
Fed
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Peed
Concentration
(ug/g DW)
10
10
NR
NR
MR
NR
2-6
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily Intake
(rag/kg DW)
NR
NR
>50
>50
0.005-0.05
0-5.0
NR
Duration
of Study
2 years
2 years
2 years
2 years
2 years
6 years
NR
Effects
Lifespan shortened by
2 months
Lifespan shortened by
2 months
Reduced growth rate and
survival
Reduced growth rate and
survival
Mo effect
0.1, 1.0, and 5.0 mg/kg
proved lethal to 4 animals
Affected reproduction
References
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. C-45)
U.S. EPA, 1976
(p. C-45)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-51)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-51)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-57)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-58)
NAS, 1977
(p. 567)
N * Number of experimental animals when reported.
b NR » Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-4. UPTAKE OP ALDRIN/DIELDRIN BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
1
to
.p-
Species
Cattle
Cattle
Sheep
Pheasant
Barn owl
Rat
Hen
Steer
Hog
Lamb
Chickens
Rat
Chemical Range of Peed Tissue
Porn Fed Concentrations (N)a(|ig/g) Analyzed
Dieldrin
Aldrin
Dieldrin
3.25 (1)
50 (1)
25-50 (1)
Milk fat
Body fat
Body fat
Range of
Tissue Uptakeb
Concentrations (Mg/g) Factor
18.0
31.0
36.99C
126-191
162-245°
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
SO
0.5
10.0
0.25-0.75 (2)
0.25-2.25 (3)
0.25-2.25 (3)
0.25-2.25 (3)
0.1-0.75 (2)
0-10
Muscle
Carcass
Fat
Fat
Pat
Fat
Fat
Fat
Pat
9.
10
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
0.
2.7
2-9.6
15.85
.2-35.7
8-8.7
96-10.4c
4-4.3
46-4. 91C
4-1.7
51-2. 18C
1-35.7
0059-1.476
5.54
0.62
0.74
4.78-5.04
4.9-6.48
0.05
18.4-19.2
1.6
40.8-47.6
3.2-4.7
1.6-3.7
0.91-3.84
0.7-1.6
0.96-2.04
41-47.6
0.26-8.9
References
Pries, 1982 (p. 15)
Pries, 1982 (p. 15)
Fries, 1982 (p. 15)
Edwards,
1970
H-.;uenhall et
Edwards,
Edwards ,
Edwards,
Edwards,
Edwards,
MAS, 1977
U.S. EPA,
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
(p.
(P.
1.,
-------
TABLE 4-5. TOXICITY OP ALDRIN/DIBLDRIN TO SOIL BIOTA
Biota/Tissue
Soil fungi
Soil fungi
Soil fungi
Soil bacteria
Soil fungi
Barthworn
^~
4»^
ro
tn Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Cricket larvae
Control Experimental Experimental Experimental
Tissue Soil Application Tissue
Chen. Form Soil Concentration Concentration Rate Concentration
Applied Type (ug/g) (ug/g) (kg/ha) (|ig/g) Effect
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
loamy MR*
and
loamy MR
and
loamy NR
and
sandy NR
and
sandy NR
laom
bedding NR
bedding NR
bedding NR
bedding NR
bedding NR
bedding NR
12- 5 MR NR 12X increase in
fungus weight
50 NR NR 161 increase in
fungus weight
100 MR NR 221 increase in
fungus weight
NR 11.2 NR 21X decraie in
total count
NR 11.2 NR BZ increase in
total count
IS NR NR 202 mortality
after 6 week*
30 NR NR 37. SZ mortality
after 6 weeks
60 NR NR 47. SZ mortality
after 6 weeks
ISO NR NR 90. OZ mortality
after 6 weeks
3 NR NR "skin blisters"
0-1 MR NR "bioactivity"
threshold
References
Eno and Everett,
(p. 328)
Eno and Everett,
(p. 328)
Eno and Everett.
(p. 328)
Martin,
Martin,
Cat hey,
Cathey,
Cathey,
Cathey,
Cathey,
Harris,
1972
1972
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1970
(P.
-------
TABLE 4-6. UPTAKE OP ALDRIN/DIELDRIN BY SOIL BIOTA
Biota/Tissue
Earthworm/ whole
Ground beetle
(Harpalus)/whole
Cricket/whole
Ground beetle
(Poecilus)/whole
Cricket/whole
Snail /whole
Earthworm/whole
Earthworm/whole
1
£* Cricket/whole
Ground beetle
(Harpalus)/whole
Earthworm/whole
Earthworm/whole
Ground beetle
(Poecil us) /whole
Slug
Chemical Form
Applied
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Aldrin plus
dieldrin
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Range of Range of
Soil Concentrations Tissue
Soil Type (pg/g WW) Concentration (pg/g WW)
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.13-1.46
0.13-1.46
0.10C
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.13-1.46
0.31
0.25
0. 0034-0. 024C
0.07
0.11
0.01
0.34
0.63-11.79
0.79-7.53
0.99C
1.42
0.22
0.99
3.7
0.56-5.65
9.33
0.21-2.84C
Uptake***1
Factor
1.2
1.8
0.17
5.80
12.0
10.4
9.9
5.7
0.88
3.9
9.2b
4.8
37.33
74. 4d
References
Korachgen, 1970 (p. 190-192)
Korschgen, 1970 (p. 190-192)
Korschgen, 1970 (p. 190-192)
Korschgen, 1970 (p. 190-192)
Gile et al., 1982 (p. 298-299)
Cile et al., 1982 (p. 298-299)
Cish, 1970 (p. 241-252)
Korichgen, 1970 (p. 190-192)
..rschgen, 1970 (p. 190-192)
Korschgen, 1970 (p. 190-192
Cile et al., 1982 (p. 298)
Thompson, 1973 (p. 101)
Korschgen, 1970 (p. 190-192)
Cish, 1970 (p. 249-250)
a UP « tissue cone./soil cone.
D Based on a weighted average of the soil concentration in a 38 x 50 x 10 cm area, i.e., 0.40 (ig/g.
c Dry weight.
d Based on arithmetic means for biota and soil concentrations.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Ackerman, C. B. 1980. Overview of Human Exposure to Dieldrin Residues
in the Environment and Current Trends of Residue Levels in Tissue.
Pest. Monit. J. 14(2):64-69.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 1982.
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents
in the Work Environment with Intended Changes for 1983-84.
Cincinnati, OH.
Ang, C., and L. R. Dugan. 1973. Distribution of Dieldrin in Milk
Fractions. J. Food Sci. 38:791-795.
Atlas, E., and C. S. Giam. 1981. Global Transport of Organic
Pollutants: Ambient Concentrations in the Remote Marine
Atmosphere. Science 211:163-165.
Baxter, J. C., M. Aguilar, and K. Brown. 1983a. Heavy Metals and
Persistent Organics at a Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. J. Environ.
Qual. 12(3):311-315.
Baxter, J. C., D. E. Johnson, and E. W. Kienholz. 1983b. Heavy Metals
and Persistent Organics Content in Cattle Exposed to Sewage Sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. 12(3):316-319.
Bertrand, J. E., M. C. Lutrick, G. T. Edds, and R. L. West. 1981.
Metal Residues in Tissues, Animal Performance -and Carcass Quality
with Beef Steers Grazing Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures Treated with
Liquid Digested Sludge. J. Ani. Sci. 53:1.
Bidleman, T. F* 1981. Interlaboratory Analysis of High Molecular
Weight Organochlorines in Ambient Air. Atmos. Environ. 15:612-624.
Boswell, F. C. 1975. Municipal Sewage Sludge and Selected Element
Applications to Soil: Effect on Soil and Fescue. J. Environ.
Qual. 4(2):267-273.
Bruce, W. N., A. C. Decker, and J. G. Wilson. 1966. The Relationship
of the Levels of Insecticide Contamination of Crop Seeds to Their
Fat Content and Soil Concentration of Aldrin, Heptachlor, and Their
Epoxides. J. Econ. Ent. 59(l):179-181.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984a. A Comparison of Studies of Toxic
Substances in POTW Sludges. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. August.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984b. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
5-1
-------
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984c. Technical Review of the 106-Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract No.
68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. January.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984d. Technical Review of the 12-Mile
Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. May.
Carey, A., J. A. Gowen, H. Tai et al. 1978. Pesticide Residue Levels
in Soils and 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., P. 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(1)23-
25.
Cathey, B. 1982. Comparative Toxicities of Five Insecticides to the
Earthworm, Lumbricus tenestris. Agric. and Env. 7:73-81.
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.
Dennis, E., and C. Edwards. 1964. Phytotoxicity of Insecticides and
Acaricides. III. Soil Applications. Plant Path. 13:173-177.
Edwards, C. 1970. Persistent Pesticides in the Environment. CRC
Press. Cleveland, OH.
Edwards C. A. 1973. Pesticide Residues in Soil and Water. In:
Edwards, C. A., ed., Environmental Pollution by Pesticides. Plenum
Press, New York, NY.
5-2
-------
Eno, C. P., and P. H. Everett. 1958. Effects of Soil Applications of
10 Chlorinated Hydrocarbo*. Insecticides on Soil Microorganisms and
the Growth of Stringier Black Valentine Beans. Soil Sci. Amer.
Proc. 22:235-238.
Farrell, J. B. 1984. Personal Communication. Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. December.
Finlayson, D. G., and H. R. MacCarthy. 1973. Pesticide Residues in
Plants. In; Edwards, C. A., ed., Environmental Pollution by
Pesticides. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Food and Drug Administration. No date. FY78 Total Diet Studies - Adult
(7205.003).
Fries, G. 1982. Potential Polychlorinated Biphenyl Residues in Animal
Products from Application of Contaminated Sewage Sludge to Land.
J. Envirn. Qual. 11(1): 14-20.
Furr, A. K., A. W. Lawrence, S. S. long, et al. 1976. Multielement and
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Analysis of Municipal Sewage Sludges of
American Cities. 1976. Env. Sci. & Tech. 10(7):683-687.
Gile, J., J. C. Collins, and J. W. Gillett. 1982. Fate and Impact of
Hood Preservatives in a Terrestrial Microcosm. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 30(2): 295-301.
Gish, C. 1970. Organochlorine Insecticide Residues in Soils and Soil
Invertebrates from Agricultural Lands. Pest. Monit. J. 3(4): 241-
252.
Glooshenko, W., W. M. Strachan, and R. C. Sampson. 1976. Distribution
of Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Water, Sediments,
and Seston of the Upper Great Lakes - 1974. Pest. Monit. J.
10(2):61-67.
Gowen, J., G. B. Wiersma, H. Tai, and W. G. Mitchell. 1976. Pesticide
Levels in Hay and Soil from Nine States, 1971. Pest. Monit. J.
Hansen, L. G., P. W. Washko, L. G. Tuinstra, et al. 1981.
Polychlorinated Biphyenyl, Pesticide and Heavy Metal Residues in
Swine Foraging on Sewage Sludge Amended Soils. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 29(5):1012-1017.
Harris, C. R. 1970. Laboratory Evaluation of Candidate Materials as
Potential Soil Insecticides. III. J. Econ. Ent. 63(3):782-787.
Harris, C. R., and W. W. Sans. 1969. Absorption of Organochlorine
Insecticide Residues from Agricultural Soils by Crops Used for
Animal Feed. Pest. Monit. J. 3(3):182-185 .
5-3
-------
Jones, R., and G. Lee. 1977. Chemical Agents of Potential Health
Significance for Land Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Effluents
and Sludges. In: Sagik, B., and C. Sorber, eds., Risk Assessment
and Health Effects of Land Application of Municipal Wastewater and
Sludges. San Antonio, Texas. University of Texas. Center for
Applied Research and Technology.
Kaiser, T. 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.
Kellogg, R., and R. Bulkley. 1976. Seasonal Concentrations of Dieldrin
in Hater, Channel Catfish, and Catfish - Food Organisms, Des Moines
River, Iowa - 1971-73. Pest. Monit. J. 9(4):186-194.
Korschgen, L. 1970. Soil-Food-Chain-Pesticide Wildlife Relationships
in Aldrin-Treated Fields. J. Wild. Manag. 34(0:186-199.
Lang, J., L. C. 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. W., T. L. Ferguson, and A. F. Meiners. 1975. Guidelines
for the Disposal of Small Quantities of Unused Pesticides. EPA
670/2-75-057. U.S. 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. 1972. Side Effects of Organic Chemicals on Soil
Properties and Plant Growth. In: Goring, C. A., and J. W.
Hamaker, eds., Organic Chemicals on the Environment. Marcell
Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.
Matsumura, F. 1972. Current Pesticide Situation in the United States.
In: Matsumura, F., ed., Environmental Toxicology of Pesticides.
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Matsumura, F. 1972. Biological Effects of Toxic Pesticidal
Contaminants and Terminal Residues. In: Matsumura, F., ed.,
Environmental Toxicology of Pesticides. Academic Press, New York,
NY.
Mattraw, H. 1975. Occurrence of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides,
Southern Florida - 1968-72. Pest. Monit. J. 9(2):106-114.
Mendenhall, V. M., E. E. Klaas, and M. A. McLane. 1983. Breeding
Success of Barn Owls Fed Low Levels of DDE and Dieldrin. Arch.
Environ. Contain, and Tox. 12:235-40.
Menzie, C. 1972. Effects of Pesticides on Fish and Wildlife. In:
Matsumura, F., ed., Environmental Toxicology of Pesticxdes.
Academic Press, New York, NY.
5-4
-------
Muns, R. P., M. W. Stone, and F. Foley. 1960. Residues in Vegetable
Crops Following Soil Applications of Insecticides. J. Econ. Ent.
53(5):832-834.
Mash, R. G. 1974. Plant Uptake of Insecticides, Fungicides, and
Fumigants from Soils. In: W. D. Guenzi et al., eds., Pesticides
in Soil and Water. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Drinking Water and Health.
National Review Council Safe Drinking Water Committee. Washington,
D.C.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1983. Northeast
Monitoring Program 106-Mile Site Characterization Update. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-26. U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. August.
National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of the Health Risk of
Seven Pesticides Used for Termite Control. Prepared for the
Department of the Navy. Washington, D.C.
Onsager, J. A., H. W. Rusk, and L. I. Bitter. 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.
Pimentel, D., and N. J. Goodman. 1974. Environmental Impact of
Pesticides. In; Mkhan . and Bederka, eds., Survival in Toxic
Environments. Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY.
!
Requejo, A. G., R. H. West, P. G. Hatcher, and P. A. McGillivary. 1979.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Chlorinated Pesticides in Soils of
the Everglades National Park and Adjacent Agricultural Areas. Env.
Sci. & Tech. 13(8):931-935.
Ryan, J. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Food Chain: A Review and Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251-302.
Sandier, B. E., G. A. Van Gelder, D. Elsberry, et al. 1969. Dieldrin
Exposure and Vigilance Behavior in Sheep. Psychon. Sci.
15(5)261-2.
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. W., J. E. Barney, M. R. Helton, and A. R. Yobs. 1971.
Measurement of Atmospheric Levels of Pesticides. Env. Sci. and
Tech. 5(5):430-435.
5-5
-------
Stickel, L. 1973. Pesticide Residues in Birds and Mammals. In;
Edwards, C. A., ed., Environmental Pollution by Pesticides. Plenum
Press, New York, NY.
Thompson, A. 1973. Pesticide Residues in Soil Invertebrates. In;
Edwards, C. A., ed., Environmental Pollution by Pesticides. Plenum
Press, New York, NY.
Thornton, I., and P. Abrams. 1983. Soil Ingestion - A Major Pathway of
Heavy Metals into Livestock Grazing Contaminated Land. Sci. Total
Environ. 28:287-294.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for
Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) Dispersion Model User Guide. EPA 450/4-79-30. Vol. 1.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Aldrin/Dieldrin. EPA 440/5-80-019. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. Vol. 1. EPA 440/1-
82/303. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. 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. 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. L., S. Moore, F. J. Amore, and H. McAvoy. 1978.
Organochlorine Insecticide Residues in Bovine Milk and Manufactured
Milk Products in Illinois, 1971-76. Pest. Monit. J. 11(4>:161-164.
Weisgerber, I. 1974. Fate of Aldrin"14C in Maize, Wheat, and Soils
Under Outdoor Conditions. J. Agr. Food Chem. 22(4):609-12.
Yang, H. 1976. Organochlorine Residues in Sugar Beet Pulps and
Molasses from 16 States, 1971. Pest. Monit. J. 10(2):41-43.
5-6
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR ALDEL '/D1ELDRIN
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LAMDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-NARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Aldrin/Dieldrin
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Formula
(SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
C5s ~ AR + MS
CSr = CSS [1 + 0.5
-------
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Formula
Index 2 =
where:
II - Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (pg/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
» II * UB
Index 3 = -55 -
where :
I± ~ Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
UB = Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota
(yg/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]'1)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator 0 u/ DW
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Formula
II
Index 4 -
A-2
-------
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
n nnnnn/ 0.001177 Ug/g DW
°-000094 = 12.5 Ug/g DW
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Formula
Index 5 = Ii x UP
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge - amended soil (ug/g DW)
UP » Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [Ug/g soil DW]"1)
b. Sample Calculation
0.000023 Ug/g DW = 0.001177 Ug/g DW x 0.02 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Formula
Index 6 = PP
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration associ-
ated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
15
Index 7 = -
A-3
-------
where :
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge- amended soil (ug/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
0.000023 U/ DW
0.000023 =
1 Ug/g DW
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
x 8)
a. Formula
If AR = 0; Index 8=0
If AR # 0; Index 8 = SC * CS
TA
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (rat 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
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
(I; 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)
A-4
-------
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
(0.000882 Ug/g DW x 74.5 g/dav) + 0.297 yg/day
157.7252 = 0.0023 Ug/day
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
(15 x UA x DA) + DI
Index 10 = - £sl -
where :
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
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, poultry, eggs, fish)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
132.0377 - [(0.000023 yg/g DW x 6.5 yg/g tissue'DW
[yg/g feed DW]'1 x 43.7 g/day DW) + 0.297 Ug/day]
0.0023 yg/day
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil (Index
11)
a. Formula
(BS x GS x UA x DA) + DI
If AR = 0; Index 11 = -
(SC x GS x UA x DA) * DI
If AR # 0; Index 11 = -
A-5
-------
where:
AR - Slu 3e application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS = Backgxennd 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
UA = Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW]~1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products and
meat only)
DI - Average daily human dietary intake of
pi lutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
1353.956 = [(0.22 ug/g DW x 0.05 x 6.5 ug/g tissue DW
[Ug/g feed DW]'1 x 39.4 g/day DW) + 0.297 Ug/day] *
0.0023 Ug/day
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(Index 12)
a. Formula
(Ii x DS) + DI
Index 12 =
where:
Ij * Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet (g/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
(0.001177 ue/g DW x 5 g/day) * 0.297 ug/day
131.6892 = 0.0023 yg/day
A-6
-------
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 = I9 + I10 + IU + I12 - ()
where:
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human toxicity/cancer
risk. resulting from plant consumption
(unitless)
IIQ = Index 10 = Index of human toxicity/cancer
risk resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
~ Index 11 = Index of human toxicity/cancer
risk resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals ingesting soil
(unitless)
= Index 12 - Index of human toxicity/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)
1388.017 = (157.7252 + 132.0377 + 1353.956 + 131.6892) - ( 3
II. LANDFILLING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
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 =
A-7
-------
where:
C = Coefficient to correct for L..SS and time units
(hr/sec x g/mg)
DS * Sludge feed rate (kg/hr DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
FM = Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (unitless)
DP = Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum
annual ground level concentration (yg/m3)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (yg/m3)
2. Sample Calculation
1.127743 = [(2.78 x 10"7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x 0.22 mg/kg DW x 0.05
x 3.4 yg/m3) + 0.000216 yg/m3] * 0.000216 yg/m3
B. Index pf Hunan Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formula
[(l! - 1) x BA] + BA
Index 2 =
where:
Ii = Index 1 = Index of air concentration increment
resulting from incinerator emissions
(unitless)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in
urban air (yg/m3)
EC * Exposure criterion (yg/m3)
2. Sample Calculation
[(1.127743 - 1) x 0.000216 ue/m31 + 0.000216 ug/m3
2'121255 = 0.000115
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
SC x ST x PS
Inde* l " W x D x L
A-8
-------
where:
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
ST - Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
PS = Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
W = Width of initial plume dilution (m)
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of mixing
for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation
nnnt, ,r 0.22 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x 103 Ug/mg
0.00044 Ug/L = a B - B - ,° . ^ B - M B
200 m x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Formula
SS x SC
Index 2
V x D x L
where:
SS = Daily sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (rag/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
0.60011* Ug/L = , ;,K: f
9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 10-1 L/m-5
C. Index of Hazard to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Formula
*
Index 3 =
where :
Io = 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)
A-9
-------
2. Sample Calculation
0-000119 yg/L
n
°- ~ 0.0019 pg/L
D. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Formula
(1 2 x BCF x 10"3 kg/g x FS x QF) + DI
Index 4 = - -
where :
I 2 = Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration
representing a 24-hour dumping cycle (ug/L)
QF = Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
FS = Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unitless)
BCF = Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (L/kg)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake ( lag/day)
2. Sample Calculation
903.9131 =
(0.000119 Ug/L x 4670 L/kg x 10~3 kg/g x 0.000021 x 14.3 g WW/day) + 2.079 UK/day
0.0023 Ug/day
A-10
------- |