United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Dimethyl Nitrosamine
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of p eliminary 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 inclui* > landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, Landf illing,
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.
u „
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
EPA West Bldg Room 334Q
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
Repository Material
Permanent Collection
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR DIMETHYL NITROSAMINE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfill ing 2-2
Incineration 2-2
Ocean Disposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR DIMETHYL NITROSAMINE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of dimethyl nitrosamine
(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) 3-4
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-6
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-9
Landfilling 3-15
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-15
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from groundwater contamination (Index 2) 3-22
Incineration 3-23
Ocean Disposal 3-23
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR DIMETHYL NITROSAMINE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-2
Food 4-3
Human Effects 4-4
Ingestion 4-4
Inhalation 4-5
Plant Effect 4-5
Phytotoxicity 4-5
Uptake 4-5
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Aquatic Life Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-7
Soil Biota Effects 4-7
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-7
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
DIMETHYL NITROSAMINE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
111
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This preliminary data profile is one of a series of profiles
dealing with chemical pollutants potentially of concern in municipal
sewage sludges. Dimethyl nitrosamine (DMN) was initially identified as
being of potential concern when sludge is landspread (including
distribution and marketing) or placed in a landfill.* This profile is a
compilation of information that may be useful in determining whether DMN
poses an actual hazard to human health or the environment when sludge is
di-cosed of by these methods.
The focus of this document is the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge •*• soil •* plant uptake -» animal uptake -*• human toxicity).
The values and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to
represent a reasonable "worst case"; analysis of error or uncertainty
has been conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most
cases is indexed to unity; i.e., values >1 may indicate a potential
hazard, depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on information presented in the "preliminary data profile",
Section 4. Information in the profile is based on a compilation of the
recent literature. An attempt has been made to fill out the profile
outline to the greatest extent possible. However, since this is a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has not been exhaustively perused.
The "preliminary conclusions" drawn from each index in Section 3
are summarized in Section 2. The preliminary hazard indices will be
used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants and pathways may
pose a hazard. Where a potential hazard is indicated by interpretation
of these indices, further analysis will include a more detailed exami-
nation of potential risks as well as an examination of 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 and
landfilling practices are included in this profile. The calculation
formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix. The indices are
rounded to two significant figures.
Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR DIMETHYL NITROSAMINE
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 Dimethyl Nitrosaoine
Landspreading of sludge of high DMN concentration may be
expected to result in increased concentrations of DMN in
sludge-amended soil (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
The animal toxicity due to DMN resulting from consumption of
plants grown on sludge-amended soil could not be determined
due to lack of data (see Index 7). The inadvertent ingestion
of sludge-amended soil by grazing animals is not expected to
pose a toxic hazard due to DMN (see Index 8).
E. Effect on Humans
Conclusions were not drawn for the indices of human cancer
risk resulting from consumption of plants grown on sludge-
amended soil, consumption of animal products derived from
animals feeding on plants grown on sludge-amended soil, or
consumption of animal products derived from animals that have
inadvertently ingested sludge-amended soil due to lack of data
(see Indices 9-11). Sludge application is not expected to
increase the potential cancer risk to adults due to
inadvertent ingestion of sludge-amended soil containing DMN.
The potential cancer risk to toddlers may increase due to
inadvertent ingestion of soil amended with sludge containing
high concentrations of DMN (see Index 12). The aggregate
human cancer risk due to DMN resulting from landspreading of
sludge could not be determined due to lack of data (see Index
13).
2-1
-------
II. LANDPILLIHG
Landfilling o sludge containing high concentrations of DMN may
result in increc.jed concentrations of DMN in groundwater at the
well (see Index 1). Landfill ing of sludge containing high
concentrations of DMN may result in increased potential of cancer
risk due to contaminated groundwater in three of the eight disposal
scenarios evaluated (see Index 2).
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being deducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
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.
2-2
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR DIMETHYL NITROSAMINE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LAHDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AMD-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Dimethyl Nitrosamine
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Explanation - Calculates concentrations in Ug/g DW
of pollutant in sludge-amended soil. Calculated for
sludges with typical (median, if available) and
worst (95 percentile, if available) pollutant
concentrations, respectively, for each of four
applications. Loadings (as dry matter) are chosen
and explained as follows:
0 mt/ha No sludge applied. Shown for all indices
for purposes of comparison, to distin-
guish hazard posed by sludge from pre-
existing hazard posed by background
levels or other sources of the pollutant.
5 mt/ha Sustainable yearly agronomic application;
i.e., loading typical of agricultural
practice, supplying •/'SO kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
SO mt/ha Higher single application as may be used
on public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens.
SOO mt/ha Cumulative loading after 100 years of
application at 5 mt/ha/year.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is
incorporated into the upper 15 cm of soil (i.e., the
plow layer), which has an approximate mass (dry
matter) of 2 x 10^ 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)
Worst 2.55 pg/g DW
The only available information on DMN concen-
trations in sludge is from a study by Brewer
et al. (1980) in which DMN was quantified
3-1
-------
in 6 of 16 sludge samples from a single
publicl/-owned treatment works (POTWs). The
valu.' ranged from 0.215 to 0.374 Ug/g WW, with
a mean of 0.272 Ug/g WW. Percent solids was
not specified. (See Section 4, p. 4-1.)
To estimate DW concentration, 4 percent solids
was assumed. If a concentration of 0 Ug/g is
used for those samples where DMM was not
quantified, the resulting mean concentration is
2.SS Ug/g DW.
DMN was not detected in a study of POTWs in 40
cit 33 (U.S. EPA, 1982); therefore, the Brewer
et ai.. (1980) value will be considered a worst-
case value. However, it cannot be determined
from available information whether the
detection limits of these two studies were
comparable.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0 Ug/g DW
No DMN was detected in 18 crop soil samples
from seven states. Detection limit for the
survey was 0.2 ng/g (West and Day, 1979). (See
Section 4, p. 4-1.)
iii. Soil half-Life of pollutant
-------
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 co
be toxic for some soil organism.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil ia equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 2 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
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 co 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
aoil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
3-3
-------
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota (UB) -
Data not immediacaly available.
ill. Peed concentration toxic to predator (TR) -
Data not immediately available.
Feed concentrations used to assess toxicity to
six species were not reported (Haduagwu and
Bassir, 1980). (See Section 4, p. 4-9.)
d. Index 3 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation Values equals factor by which
expected concentration in soil biota exceeds that
which is toxic to predator. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for predators of soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with the lowest soil
concentration shown to be toxic for some plants.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) - Data
not immediately available.
d. Index 4 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3-4
-------
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue
concentrations, in ug/g DW, in plants grown in
sludge-amended soil, using uptake data for the most
responsive plant species in the following
categories: (1) plants included in the U.S. human
diet; and (2) plants serving as animal feed. Plants
used vary according to availability of data.
bo 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.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
- Data not immediately available.
Dean-Raymond and Alexander (1976) reported that
S.06Z of 14C-labelled DMN applied to soil was
taken up and translocated to the aerial
portions of lettuce. (See Section 4, p. 4-6.)
Soil concentration of DMN was not reported;
therefore, an uptake factor could not be
derived.
d. Index 5 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in tissues of plants grown in sludge-
amended soil. However, any value exceeding the
value of Index 6 for the same or a similar plant
species may be unrealistically high because it would
be precluded by phytoxicity.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3-5
-------
3. Index of Plant Concentration Permitted b? Phytotoxicity
(Index 6)
a. Explanation - The index value is the maximum tissue
concentration, in pg/g DW, associated with
phytotoxicity in the same or similar plant species
used in Index 5. The purpose is to determine
whether the plant tissue concentrations determined
in Index 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 tissi •» by animals is
possible) but above which consumpc on 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 phytoxicity (PP) - Data not immediately
available.
d. Index 6 Values - 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 S.
The lowest of the two indices indicates the maximal
increase that can occur at any given application
rate.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in plant tissues grown in sludge-amended
soil with feed concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not con-
sider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
3-6
-------
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 tozicity 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 S) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 50 Ug/g DW
In prolonged feeding study, cattle were fed a
diet containing 50 ppm of DMN (Koppang, 1974).
After 480 days of exposure and a one-year
depuration period, all animals exhibited
occlusion of small hepatic veins. (See Section
4, p. 4-6.)
d. Index 7 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
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 - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
a grazing animal's diet resulting from sludge
adhesion to forage or from incidental ingestion of
sludge-amended soil and compares this with the
dietary toxic threshold concentration for a grazing
animal.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that sludge is
applied over and adheres to growing forage, or that
sludge constitutes . 5 percent of dry matter in the
grazing animal's diet, and that pollutant form in
sludge is equally bioavailable and toxic as form
used to demonstrate toxic effects. Where no sludge
is applied (i.e., 0 mt/ha), assumes diet is 5 per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.
3-7
-------
Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Worst 2.55 jig/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5Z
Studies of sludge adhesion to growing forage
following applications of liquid or fil:-*r-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 ini-
tial contamination, and since adhesion is not
cumulative yearly because of die-back.
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep during winter
months when forage is reduced (Thornton and
Abrams, 1983). If the soil were sludge-
amended, it is conceivable that up to 5 percent
sludge may be ingested in this manner as well.
Therefore, this value accounts for either of
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
iii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 50 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-7.
3-8
-------
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 SO 500
Worst 0 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected dietary concentration exceeds toxic concen-
tration. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may
exist for grazing animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The inadvertent ingestion
of sludge-amended soil by grazing animals is not
expected to pose a toxic hazard due to DMN.
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.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (DT)
Toddler 74.5 g/day
Adult 205 g/day
The intake value for adults is based on daily
intake of crop foods (excluding fruit) by
vegetarians (Ryan et al., 1982); vegetarians
were chosen to represent the worst case. The
value for toddlers is based on the FDA Revised
Total Diet (Pennington, 1983) and food
3-9
-------
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 0.67 Ug/day
Adult 2.0 Ug/day
Based on limited exposure data, the estimated
average daily dietary human intake (DI) for DMN
is less than 2 ug/day (U.S. EPA, 1980). The
value assumes consumption of 100 g of nitrite-
preserved bacon, plus exposure due to drinking
water. For the purpose of the following cal-
culations, the DI for DMN for adults is assumed
to be 2 ug/day. The toddler value assumes a
33Z intake of adult DI estimate. (See Section
4, p. 4-3.)
iv. Cancer potency =25.9 (mg/kg/day) ~*
A cancer potency value for DMN of
25.9 (mg/kg/day)1 was derived by U.S. EPA
(1980) from a study involving lifetime exposure
of rats to a variety of nitrosamine compounds.
The effect observed in this study was liver
tumors. Uncertainty factors have not been as-
signed to these data. (See Section 4, p. 4-4.)
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.0027 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 ug/mg
Cancer potency
d. Index 9 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. 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 mt/ha indicates the degree to which any hazard is
due to sludge application, as opposed to pre-
existing dietary sources.
3-10
-------
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index /alues could not be calculated.
2. Index of Human Cait^pr Risk Resulting from Consumption of
animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from pollutant uptake by domestic
animals given feed grown on sludge-amended soil
(crop or pasture land) but not directly contaminated
by adhering sludge. Compares expected intake with
RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals receiving all their feed
from sludge-amended soil. Assumes that all animal
products consumed take up the pollutant at the
highest rate observed for muscle of any commonly
consumed species or at the rate observed for beef
liver or dairy products (whichever is higher).
Divides possible variations in dietary intake into
two categories: toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - Data not immediately available.
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
consumption is the highest among that age group
(Pennington, 1983).
3-11
-------
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.67 ug/day
Adult 2.0 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.0027 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
d. Index 10 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not' drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal
products derived from grazing animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil. Compares expected
intake with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals grazing sludge-amended
soil, and that all animal products consumed take up
the pollutant at the highest rate observed for
muscle of any commonly consumed species or at the
rate observed for beef liver or dairy products
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over 3 years
old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue - Data not immediately available.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Worst 2.55 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
3-12
-------
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5Z
See Section 3, p. 3-8.
v. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - Data not immediately available.
vi. Daily human dieta 7 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).
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.67 Ug/day
Adult 2.0 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
viii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.0027 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
d. Index 11 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3-13
-------
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
the diet of a child who ingests soil (pica child)
amended with sludge. Compares this amount with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the pica
child consumes an average of 5 g/day of sludge-
amended soil. If the RSI specific for a child is
not available, this index assumes the RSI for a 10
kg child is the same as that for a 70 kg adult. It
is thus assumed that uncertainty factors used in
deriving the RSI provide protection for the child,
taking into account the smaller body size and any
other differences in sensitivity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Assumed amount of soil in human diet (DS)
Pica child 5 g/day
A'dult 0.02 g/day
The value of 5 g/day for a pica child is a
worst-case estimate employed by U.S. EPA's
Exposure Assessment Group (U.S. EPA, 1983a).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA, 198A.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.67 ug/day
Adult 2.0 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.0027 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
3-14
-------
d. Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (me/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Worst
Worst
0
250
740
5
260
740
50
363
740
500
260
740
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for 4. idex 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Sludge application is not
expected to increase the potential cancer risk to
adults due to inadvertent ingestion of sludge-
amended soil containing DMN. The potential cancer
risk to toddlers may increase due to inadvertent
ingestion of soil amended with sludge containing
high concentrations of DMN.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
c. Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
d. Index 13 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting from Landfilled
Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates groundwater contamination which
could occur in a potable aquifer in the landfill vicin-
ity. Uses U.S. EPA's Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
3-15
-------
inacion Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
1983b). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transport and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port parameters include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
linear, equilibrium partition coefficient representing
the ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant concentra-
tions. This partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
density and volumetric water content, are used to calcu-
late the retardation factor. A computer program (in
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of the
analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant con-
centration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computations
and parameter estimates are required for each zone. The
prediction requires evaluations of four dimensionless
input values and subsequent evaluation of the result,
through use of the computer program.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively assumes that the
pollutant is 100 percent mobilized in the Leachate and
that all leachate leaks out of the landfill in a finite
period and undiluted by precipitation. Assumes that all
soil and aquifer properties are homogeneous and isotropic
throughout each zone; steady, uniform flow occurs only in
the vertical direction throughout the unsaturated zone,
and only in the horizontal (longitudinal) plane in the
saturated zone; pollutant movement is considered only in
direction of groundwater flow for the saturated zone; all
pollutants exist in concentrations that do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; for organic chemicals, the
background concentration in the soil profile or aquifer
prior to release from the source is assumed to be zero;
the pollutant source is a pulse input; no dilution of che
plume occurs by recharge from outside the source area;
the leachate is undiluted by aquifer flow within the
saturated zone; concentration in the saturated zone is
attenuated only by dispersion.
3-16
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Gerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elf
-------
Values, obtained from R. Griffin (1984) are
representative values for subsurface soils.
ii. Sit4; parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) = 5 years
Sikora et al. (1982) monitored several sludge
entrenchment sites throughout the United States
and estimated time of landfill leaching to be 4
or 5 years. Other types of landfills may leach
for longer periods of time; however, the use of
a value for entrenchment sites is conservative
because it results in a higher leachate
generation rate.
(b) Leachate generation rate (Q)
Typical 0.8 in/year
Worst 1.6 m/year
It is conservatively assumed that sludge
leachate enters the unsaturated zone undiluted
by precipitation or other recharge, that the
total volume of liquid in the sludge leaches
out of the landfill, and that leaching is com-
plete in 5 years. Landfilled sludge is assumed
to be 20 percent solids by volume, and depth of
sludge in the landfill is 5 m in the typical
case and 10 m in the worst case. Thus, the
initial depth of liquid is 4 and 8 m, and
average yearly leachate generation is 0.8 and
•1.6 m, respectively.
(c) Depth to groundwater (h)
Typical 5 m
Worst 0 m
Eight landfills were monitored throughout the
United States and depths to groundwater below
them were listed. A typical depth to ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of 0 m is used to
represent the situation where the bottom of the
landfill is occasionally or regularly below the
water table. The depth to groundwater must be
estimated in order to evaluate the likelihood
that pollutants moving through the unsaturated
soil will reach the groundwater.
3-18
-------
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical O.S m
Worse Not applicable
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater Listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Worst 2.55 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
(b) Soil half-life of pollutant (4) = SO days
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
(c) Degradation rate (u) = 0.014 day'1
The unsaturated zone can serve as an effective
medium for reducing pollutant concentration
through a variety of chemical and biological
decay mechanisms which transform or attenuate
the pollutant. While these decay processes are
usually complex, they are approximated here by
a first-order rate constant. The degradation
rate is calculated using the following formula:
(d) Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) =
0.04 mL/g
The organic carbon partition coefficient is
multiplied by the percent organic carbon
content of soil (foc) to derive a partition
coefficient (Kj), which represents the ratio of
absorbed pollutant concentration to the
3-19
-------
dissolved (or solution) concentration. The
equation d:oc x foc) assumes that organic
carbon L. the soil is the primary means of
adsorbing organic compounds onto soils. This
concept serves to reduce much of the variation
in Kj values for different soil types. The
value of Koc is from Hassett et al. (1983).
b. Saturated zone
i. Soil type and characteristics
(a) Soil t;pe
Typical Silty sand
Worst Sand
A silty sand having the values of aquifer por-
osity and hydraulic conductivity defined below
represents a typical aquifer material. A more
conductive medium such as sand transports the
plume more readily and with less dispersion and
therefore represents a reasonable worst case.
(b) Aquifer porosity (0)
Typical 0.44 (unitless)
Worst 0.389 (unitless)
Porosity is that portion of the total volume of
soil that is made up of voids (air) and water.
Values corresponding to the above soil types
are from Pettyjohn et al. (1982) as presented
in U.S. EPA (1983b).
(c) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K)
Typical 0.86 in/day
Worst 4.04 m/day
The hydraulic conductivity (or permeability) of
the aquifer is needed to estimate flow velocity
based on Darcy's Equation. It is a measure of
the volume of liquid that can flow through a
unit area or media with time; values can range
over nine orders of magnitude depending on the
nature of the media. Heterogenous conditions
produce large spatial variation in hydraulic
conductivity, making estimation of a single
effective value extremely difficult. Values
used are from Freeze and Cherry (1979) as
presented in U.S. EPA (1983b).
3-20
-------
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (fOc) =
0.0 (unitless)
Organic carbon content, and therefore adsorp-
tion, is assumed to be 0 in the saturated zone.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between Landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worst 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to
determine the -magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced. Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
(b) Distance from well to landfill (A&)
Typical 100 m
Worst SO m
This distance is the distance between a
landfill and any functioning public or private
water supply or livestock water supply.
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5 m
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well to landfill (AJJ, which is 100 and
50 m, respectively, for typical and worse
conditions.
(d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2 m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that
preexisting flow is very limited and therefore
3-21
-------
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 m2.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (u) = 0 day"1
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 0 ug/L
It is assumed that no pollutant exists in the
soil profile or aquifer prior to release from
the source.
4. Index Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum expected
groundwater concentration of pollutant, in Ug/L, at the
well.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Landfilling of sludge containing
high concentrations of DMN may result in increased
concentrations of DMN in groundwater at the well.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes long-term exposure to
maximum concentration at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration resulting from
landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-24.
3-22
-------
b. Average human consumption of drinking water (AC) =
2 L/day
The value of 2 L/day is a standard value used by
U.S. EPA in most risk assessment studies.
c. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
= 2.0 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
d. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.00?? Mg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value >1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of 10~6 (1 in 1,000,000). The
null index value should be used as a basis for comparison
to indicate the degree to which any risk is due to
landfill disposal, as opposed to preexisting dietary
sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - LandfiLling of sludge containing
high concentrations of DMN may result in increased
potential of cancer risk due to contaminated groundwater
in three of the eight disposal scenarios evaluated.
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment fo 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.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment fo 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.
3-23
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
(INDEX 2)
V
ro
Sice Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics'*
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
9.0x10"*
740
2
U
T
T
T
T
9.0xl»c
345
T
W
T
T
T
2.8x10-3
740
T
NA
W
T
T
6.9xlO-2
790
T
T
T
W
T
4.8xlO-3
740
6
T
T
T
T
W
3.6xlO-2
770
7 8
W N
NA N
W N
W N
W N
14.8 0
12000 740
aT - Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N - null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
D Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
c See Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
d Dry bulk density (P
-------
SECTION t>
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE PO^ DIMETHYL NITROSAMINE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGc. SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
The principal sources of preformed nitrosamines NAS, 1978
appear to be diet and tobacco smoke, but urban (p. 443)
and industrial air may prove to contribute much
to the exposure to preformed nitrosamines.
Insufficient data exist to quant'fy the
importance of in vivo nitrosatioi. to secondary
and tertiary amines ingested from air, soil,
water, and food, but the greatest potential for
the formation of N-nitroso compounds and exposure
to them appears to be in food. In vivo formation
of nitrosamines could be the largest contribution
to body burden for the general population.
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
Detected in 8 out of 16 and Brewer et al.,
quantified in 6 out of 16 municipal 1980 (p. 37)
sludge samples from a single POTW.
DMN was not identified in municipal Naylor and
sludge samples from 13 sites in Loehr, 1982
a 1980 study. No occurrence of nitroso (pp. 18 to 21)
compounds was mentioned.
DMN not found in sludges from 50 POTUs U.S. EPA, 1982
2. Concentration
0.272 Ug/g mean (WW) in 6 out of Brewer et al.,
16 municipal sludge samples 1980 (p. 37)
B. Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
No DMN found in 18 crop soil samples West and Day,
from seven states (D.L. = 0.2 ng/g) 1979 (p. 1078)
2. Concentration
Data not immediately available.
4-1
-------
C. Hater - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
No DMN found in Patapsco River
downstream from contamination site
No DMN found in six river and pond
samples from five states (1977)
2. Concentration
a. Freshwater
Data not immediately available.
b. Seawater
Data not immediately available.
c. Drinking Hater
No DMN found in Baltimore drinking
water in 1975
No DMN found in drinking water
samples from Boston and Waltham,
MA; New Orleans, Metairie and
Mererro, LA, in 1975 at levels
down to 10 Ug/L.
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
No DMN found in air samples from
Waltham, MA; Philadelphia, PA; and
Wilmington, DE, at the part-pet—
trillion level (1975) - 14 samples.
2. Concentration
DMN levels in downtown Baltimore
averaged 100 ng/m3 in November-
December, 1975.
DMN levels in Baltimore in August,
1975, averaged 670 ng/m-*; range:
ND to 2,908.66 ng/m3
DMN levels in Belle, WV, in August
1975, averaged 59 ng/m3; range:
trace to ISA.5 ng/m3
Fine et al.,
1977 (p. 582)
West and Day,
1979 (p. 1077)
Fine et al.,
1977 (p. 582)
Fine et al.,
1975 (p. 406)
Fine et al.,
1976 (p. 1328)
Fine et al.,
1976 (p. 582)
Fine et al.,
1976 (p. 1328)
Fine et al.,
1976 (p. 1328)
4-2
-------
E. Pood
1. Total Average Intake
"The principal sources of preformed
nitrosamines appear Co be diet and
tobacco smoke."
On the basis of one experiment, an
average human dose rate for a 70 kg
adult is 0.06 Ug/kg body weight
representing an average exposure
equivalent to approximately 2.2 ng/g
of total nitrosamines assuming 2 kg/
-------
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenic!ty
a. Qualitative Assessment
Epidemiclogical studies have failed U.S. EPA, 1980
to establish a direct relationship (pp- C-43 to
between exposure to N-nitroso C-46)
compounds and the development of
human cancer. However, the demon-
strated ability of N-nitroso
compounds to produce cancer in a
wide range of experimental animals,
combined with the capacity of
human liver tissue to metabolize
N-nitroso compounds to aikylating
and mutagenic forms, strongly suggest
that these compounds may be human
carcinogens. Guidelines for human
exposure to N-nitrosamines are based
on the assumption that these com-
pounds are human carcinogens.
b. Potency
Cancer potency of U.S. EPA, 1980
25.88 (mg/kg/day)'1 has been (C-6A)
estimated for DMN. The value is
based on lifetime exposure of
rats to N-nitrosamine compounds.
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
Not applicable for this assessment.
b. Effects
One man exposed to DMN contained in U.S. EPA, 1980
an industrial solvent exhibited (p. C-20)
signs of liver damage. Two of three
men exposed to DMN while employed in
an industrial research laboratory for
10 months showed signs of liver
injury. The exact route of exposure
of above individuals is not reported.
4-4
-------
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
An interim target risk level of 10"^
(a probability of one additional case
of cancer for every 1,000,000 people
exposed) for DMN has been set for
drinking water: 0.0014 Ug/L
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
See Section 4, 4-4.
2. Chronic Tozicity
See Section 4, 4-4.
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotozicity
Data not immediately available.
B. Uptake
"Nitrosamines adsorbed by plants disappear
rapidly."
No detectable radioactivity in stems,
leaves and beans from soybean plants
frown in soil containing 0.1 Mg/g of
4C DMN
U.S. EPA, 1980
(C-48)
West and Day,
1979 (p. 1080)
West and Day,
1979 (p. 1080)
4-5
-------
Uptake cf DMN by spinach and lettuce:
Dean-Raymond
and Alexander,
1976 (p. 395)
Plant
Lettuce
Lettuce
Spinach
Lettuce
14C-DMN Length of
Growth Supplied Exposure
Medium (ugCi) (days)
Sand 0.057
0.57
Soil 0.57
Water 0.057
0.57
Sand 0.57
2
2
2
2
2
4
9
15
DMN Z DMN
Taken Up* Taken Up
(ug/g DW) By Plant*
1.38
14.38
106.0
0.54
5.60
7.04
1.40
0.07
3.20
3.25
5.06
0.38
0.27
1.56
0.21
0.02
*Each figure represents the average of four replicates.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-1.
Toxic levels of DMN in pigs and poultry
are at least ten times greater than in
cows, sheep, and mink.
Cows fed a diet amended with pure DMN
in a concentration of 50 ppm for 480
days showed occlusion of some hepatic
veins and neoformation of others.
B. Uptake
"DMN accumulated (in cows) when the dosage
in diet exceeded 0.1 mg/kg body weight."
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
a. Acute
Available data is limited to acute
values for Daphnia magna and blue
Koppang, 1974
(p. 526)
Koppang, 1974
(p. 524-525)
Koppang, 1974
(p. 523)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-l)
4-6
-------
gill exposed to N-nitrosodiphenyla-
raine. These values indicate that
toxicity due to N-nitroso compounds
may be as low as 5,850 Ug/L.
b. Chronic
Data not immediately available.
2. Saltwater
a. Acute
Acute 96 hour LC5Q for N-nitroso- U.S. EPA, 1980
diphenylamine to the mummichog is (p. B-l)
3,300,000 pg/L.
b. Chronic
Data not immediately available.
B. Uptake
Bioconcentration factor for N-nitrosodi- U.S. EPA, 1980
phenylamine by blue gill was 217. The (p. B-l)
half-life of the compound was estimated
to be less than one day.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
Bacteria are not capable of activating N- NAS, 1978
nitroso compounds without supplementation (p. 454)
with animal-derived enzymes.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT
DMN appears when soils and waters are amended Mills and
with nitrate or nitrite and either dimethyl- Alexander,
mine (DMNA) or trimethylamine. Nitrosation 1976
is enhanced by acidic conditions. (p. 437, 440)
Recovery efficiencies for DMN are substan- West and Day,
tially lower than for the higher molecular 1979 (p. 1077)
weight nitrosamines.
Nitrosamines undergo rapid degradation and in West and Day,
lab soil studies have a half-life of 2 to 3 1979 (p. 1080)
weeks, primarily due to rapid volatilization.
Molecular weight: 74.08 Weast, 1980
Boiling point: 154°C (p. C-107)
Soluble in water, alcohol and ether
4-7
-------
Organic carbon partition coefficient: 0.04 mL/g Hr.ssett et al.,
198:
Persistence:
- Nitrosamines were most stable in lake Tate and
water—no degradation or loss for 3.5 Alexander,
months. 1975
- Slow disappearance in soil after a lag (pp. 328 and
of several weeks. 329)
- Loss more rapid in sewage, but half of
the nitrosamines remained after two
weeks.
- Experiments with sterilized sewage
indicate that nonbiologic factors are
largely or entirely responsible for
nitrosamine disappearance.
- Approximately 50 percent of initial dose
of 25 ppm DMN persisted in Williamson
silt loam 50 days after initial
application.
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-1. TOXICITY OP DIHETHYLNITROSANINE TO DOMESTIC AMIHALS AND WILDLIFE
Chemical Form
Species (N)a Fed
Rat (10)
Guinea pig
Li card (10)
Cat (6)
Monkey (6)
Duck (6)
Rat (10)
Guinea pig (10)
Lizard (10)
Cat (6)
Monkey (6)
Duck (6)
Rat (10)
Guinea pig (10)
Lizard (10)
DMN
DMN
DMN
DMN
DHN
DMN
DMN
DMN
DMN
DMN
DMN
DMN
DMN
DMN
DMN
Feed
Concentration
(mg/g)
NRD
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Water
Concentration
(ng/L)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily Intake Duration
(mg/kg) of Study
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
SO
S
s
s
s
s
s
1
1
1
single dose
single dose
single dose
•ingle dose
single dose
•ingle dose
11 days
11 days
11 days
11 days
11 days
11 days
30 days
30 days
30 days
Effects
Liver damage, impaired
breathing, hemorrhage,
death at 9 days
Liver damage, impaired
breathing, hemorrhage,
death at S days
No apparent effect
Acute liver damage
Liver damage
No apparent effect
Liver damage
30Z mortality
Liver damage
40Z mortality
No apparent effect
Severe liver damage
66Z mortality
Severe liver damage
SOZ mortality
No apparent effect
Low weight gain
Low weight gain
Low weight gain
Reference -.
Haduagwu and
Bassir, 1980
(p. 213-14)
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Chemical Form
Species (N)a Fed
Cat (10)
Honkey (10)
Duck (10)
Chinese hamster
(106)
Chinese hamster
Chinese hamster
** Hink
M
O
Bat
Bat (23)
Bat (12)
Cattle (23)
Cattle (23)
DNN
DHN
DNN
DMM
DNN
DNN
DNN
DNN
DNN
DNN
DNN
DNN
Peed
Concentration
(mg/g)
NR
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NR
NB
Uater
Concentration
(rag/L)
NR
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NB
Daily Intake Duration
(mg/kg) of Study Effects
1 30 days Weight loss
SOX mortality
1 30 days No apparent effect
1 30 days No apparent effect
O.S1 6-20 months 6SZ reduction in survival
time
0.2S 6-20 months 64Z reduction in survival
time
0.13 6-20 months S7X reduction in survival
time. Liver tumor incidence
was 80-100Z at low and high
dosages
O.OSO twice per week Halignant tumors
40 twice per week LDjg
1.2 twice per week 65Z tumor incidence
6.0 twice per week 83Z tumor incidence
<0.1 7-70 weeks No clinical toxic effect
even if total intake
>40-58 mg/kg
>0.2 7-70 weeks Total intake of 12-26 mg/kg
caused serious disease and
death
References
Reznik et
1976 (p.
al..
412)
HAS, 197B
(p. 458)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-21)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-34)
U.S. EPA,
(p. C-34)
Koppang,
(p. 526)
1980
1980
1980
1974
• N = Number of experimental animals when reported.
b NH = Not reported.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Bert rand, J. E., H. 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.
Boswell, P. C. '975. Municipal Sewage Sludge and Selected Element
Applications to Soil: Effect on Soil and Pescue. J. Environ.
Qual. 4(2):267-273.
Brewer, W., W. S. Draper, and S. S. Wey. 1980. The Detection of
Diraethylnitrosamine and Diethylnitrosamine in Municipal Sewage
Sludge Applied to Agricultural Soils. Env. Pollut. (Series B).
1:37-43.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984. 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.
Chaney, R. L., and C. A. Lloyd. 1979. Adherence of Spray-Applied
Liquid Digested Sewage Sludge to Tall Pescue. J. Environ. Qual.
8(3):407-411.
Dean-Raymond, D., and M. Alexander. 1976. Plant Uptake and Leaching of
Dimethylnitrosamine. Nature. 262:394-396.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Fiddler, W., J. Feinberg, J. W. Pensabene et al. 1975. Dimethyl-
Nitrosamine in Souse and Similar Jellied Cured-Meat Products. Fd.
Cosmet. Toxiol. 13:653-654.
Fine, E., D. P. Rounbehler, F. Huffman et al. 1975. Analysis of
Volatile N-nitroso Compounds in Drinking Water at the Part Per
Trillion Level. Bull Env. Contam. Tox. 14(4):404-408.
Fine, E., D. P. Rounbehler, N. M. Belcher, and S. S. Epstein. 1976. N-
nitroso Compounds: Detection in Ambient Air. Science 192:1328-
1330.
5-1
-------
Fine, E., D. P. Rounbehler, A. Rounbehler et aL. 1977. Determination
of Dimethylnitrosamine in Air, Water, and Soil by Thermal Energy
Analysis: Measurements in Baltimore, Maryland. Env. Sci. Tech.
ll(6):581-584.
Gelhar, L. W., and G. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogeneous Aquifers. Report
No. H-8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, NM.
Gerritse, R. G., R. Vriesema, J. W. Dalenberg and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.
Griffin, R. A. 1984. Personal Communication to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ECAO - Cincinnati, OH. Illinois State
Geological Survey.
Hassett, J. J., W. L. Banwart, and R. A. Griffin. 1983. Correlation of
Compound Properties with Sorption Characteristics of Non-polar
Compounds by Soils and Sediments: Concepts and Limitations.
Chapter IS. In: The Environment and Soil Waste Characterization,
Treatment, and Disposal. C. W. Francis and I. Auerbach, eds. Ann
Arbor Science Pub. Proc. 4th Oak Ridge National Laboratory Life
Science Symposium. October 4. Gatlinburg, TN.
Havery, D., D. A. Kline, E. M. Miletta et al. 1976. Survey of Food
Products for Volatile N-nitrosamines. Journal of the A.O.A.C.
59(3):540-546.
Koppang, N. 1974. Toxic Effects of Dimethylnitrosamine in Cows. J.
Nat. Cancer Inst. 52(2):523-528.
Maduagwu, E., and 0. Bassir. 1980. A Comparative Assessment of Toxic
Effects of Dimethylnitrosamine in Six Different Species. Tox.
Appl. Pharm. 53:211-219.
Mills, A. L., and M. Alexander. 1976. Factors Affecting
Dimethylnitrosamine Formation in Samples of Soil and Water. J.
Environ. Qual. 5(4):437-440.
National Academy of Sciences. 1978. Nitrates: An Environmental
Assessment. National Research Council Panel on Nitrates.
Washington, D.C.
Naylor, L., and R. Loehr. 1982. Priority Pollutants in Municipal
Sewage Sludge. BioCycle. July/Aug, 18-22.
Pennington, J.A.T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
5-2
-------
Reznik, G., U. Mohr, and N. Knoch. 1976. Carcinogenic Effects of
Different Nitroso-compouna* in Chinese Hamsters. I.
Dimethylnitrosamine and '-Diethylnitrosamine. Br. J. Cancer.
33:411-418.
Ryan, J. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Food Chain: A Review and Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251-302.
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Burge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual. 2(2): 321-
325.
Tate, R., and M. Alexander. -1975. Stability of Nitrosamines in Lake
Water, Soil, and Sewage. Mat. Cancer Inst. 54(2):327-330.
Thornton, I., and P. Abrams. 1983. Soil Ingestion - A Major Pathway of
Heavy Metals into Livestock Crazing 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. 1977. Environmental Assessment
of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge: Interim
Report. EPA/530/SU-547. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Nitrosamines. EPA 440/5-80-064. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. Final Report.
Vol. 1. EPA 440/1-82-303. Effluent Guidelines Division,
Washington, D.C. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Assessment of Human
Exposure to Arsenic: Tacoma, Washington. Internal Document.
OHEA-E-075-U. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C. July 19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. EPA 600/8-83-028B. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September.
Weast, R. 1980. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. CRC Press,
Cleveland, OH.
5-3
-------
West, S., and E. Day. 1979. Determination of Volatile Nitrosamines in
Crops and Soils Treated with Dinitroaniline Herbicides. J. Agric.
Food Chera. 27(5):1075-1080.
5-4
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS PO* DIMETHYL MITROSAMINE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGti
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Dimethyl Nitrosamine
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Formula
(SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
C5S " AR + MS
CSr = CSg [1 + 0.5 + ... +
where:
CSg = Soil concentration of pollutant after a
single year's application of sludge
(Ug/g DU)
CSr = Soil concentration of pollutant after the
yearly application of sludge has been
repeated for n + 1 years (ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (rat/ha)
MS = 2000 mt ha/DW = assumed mass of soil in
upper 15 cm
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
t| = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
n =99 years
b. Sample calculation
CSS is calculated for AR = 0, 5, and SO mt/ha only
n nn*A „ / nu - (2.55 Ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (0 Ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
0.0064 ug/g DW - (5 mt/ha DW + 2000 mt/ha DW)
CSr is calculated for AR = 5 mt/ha applied for 100 years
0.0064 ug/g DW = 0.0064 ug/g DW [1 + 0.5(1/0>14) + 0.5(2/0<14> + ... +
Qt5(99/0.14)]
A-l
-------
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Formula
II
Index 2 = —
where:
1} = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(Ug/g DU)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (index 3)
a. Formula
in,., 3 = i^JE
where:
1} = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DU)
UB = Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota
(pg/g tissue DW [yg/g soil DW]"1)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator (pg/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Formula
Index 4 = —
where:
1} = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (pg/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (pg/g DW)
A-2
-------
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Formula
Index 5 = Ij x UP
where:
1} = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge - amended soil (ug/g DW)
UP = Uptake factor of pollutant in piant tissue
(llg/g tissue DW [llg/g soil DW]'1)
b. Sample Calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
3. Index of Plant Concentration 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
index 7 = ^
where!
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (pg/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
A-3
-------
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a* Formula
If AR - 0; Index 8=0
If AR * 0; Index 8 - SC x GS
TA
where :
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g OW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal
-------
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption c«T
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Pit-its
(Index 10)
a. Formula
(15 x UA x DA) -i- DI
Index 10 =
where:
Is = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g W)
UA - Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tis'sue
(yg/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW]'1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products and
meat, poultry, eggs, fish)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (pg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil (Index
11)
a. Formula
n (BS x GS x UA x DA) + DI
If AR = 0; Index 11 = jjgj '
, „ T J „ (SC x CS x UA x DA) + DI
If AR # 0; Index 11 =
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (yg/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
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI » Cancer risk-specific intake (lag/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
A-5
-------
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(Index
a • Formula
(Ii x DS) * DI
Index 12 . _i_ -
where :
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
OS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet (g/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake dig/day )
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
,,n _ (0.0064 ue/g DW x 5 g/day) * 0.67 ug/day
0.0027 yg/day
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 = I9 * I10 * In * J12 - <>-
where :
Ig = Index 9 = Index of cancer risk resulting
from plant consumption (unitless)
IIQ = Index 10 = Index of cancer risk resulting
from consumption of animal products derived
from animals feeding on plants (unitless)
111 = Index 11 = Index of cancer risk resulting
from consumption of animal products derived
from animals ingesting soil (unitless)
Il2 = Index 12 = Index of 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) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
A-6
-------
II . LANDPILLING
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/C0 for the unsaturated
zone are calculated corresponding to increasing values of t
until equilibrium is reached. Assuming a 5-year pulse input
from the landfill, Equation 3 is employed to estimate the con-
centration vs. time data at the water table. The concentration
vs. time curve is then transformed into a square pulse having a
constant concentration equal to the peak concentration, Cu,
from the unsaturated zone, and a duration, t0, chosen so that
the total areas under the curve and the pulse are equal, as
illustrated in Equation 3. This square pulse is then used as
the input to the linkage assessment, Equation 2, which esti-
mates initial dilution in the aquifer to give the initial con-
centration, C0, for the saturated zone assessment. (Conditions
for B, minimum thickness of unsaturated zone, have been set
such that dilution is actually negligible.) The saturated zone
assessment procedure is nearly identical to that for the unsat-
urated zone except for the definition of certain parameters and
choice of parameter values. The maximum concentration at the
well, Cmax, is used to calculate the index values given in
Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
C(y.t) =i [exp(Ai) erfc(A2) + exp^) erfc(B2)]
Co
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of . the result. Exp(A^) denotes the
exponential of AI, e *, where erfc(A2) denotes the
complimentary error function of A2. Erfc(A2) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1972).
where:
Al „ *_ [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x u
Al 20*
y - t (V*2 * 4D* x u*)*
(AD* x
Bl - X — [V* + (V*2 + 4D* x
1
B2
2D*
y + t (V*2 * 4D* x
(4D* x t)i
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration (ug/L)
A-7
-------
SC = Sludge concentre-ion of pollutant (mg/kg DU)
CF = 250 kg sludge .-olids/m3 leachate =
PS x 1Q3
1 - PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge =
20Z
t - Time (years)
X = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = o x V* (m2/year)
a - Dispersivity coefficient (m)
y* = —2__ (m/yea?;'>
6 x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
6 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 + _dŁY. x Kd = Retardation factor (unitless)
0
pdry = Dry bulk density (g/mL)
Kd = foc x Koc (mL/g)
foc = Fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
Koc = Organic carbon partition coefficient (mL/g)
U* = 2SLJLJI (years)-l
U = Degradation rate (day"1)
and where for the saturated zone:
C0 = Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (ug/L)
t = Time (years)
X = AŁ = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = K * * (m/year)
0 x R
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
R = i + fdrjr x Kd = Retardation factor = 1 (unitless)
0
since Kd = foc x Koc and foc is assumed to be zero
for the saturated zone.
C. Equation 2. Linkage Assessment
Q x W
C0 = Cu x
365 [(K x i) * 0] x B
A-8
-------
where:
C0 = Initial concentration of pollutant in the saturated
zone as determined by Equation 1 (ug/L)
Cu = Maximum pulse concentration from the unsaturated
zone (pg/L)
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
H = Width of landfill (m)
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
B = Thickness of saturated zone (m) where:
B ^ K xVxW36V - and B ^ 2
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C(X'° = P(Xit) for 0 < t < t0
co
* = P(X,C) - P(x,t - t0) for t > t0
co
where :
C0 (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
to (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 = [ Q/* C dt] * Cu
C(Y t )
P(X»t) = — *Ł* — as determined by Equation 1
uo
B. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting
from LandfiLled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
Index 1 = Cmax
where:
Cgigx = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
maximum of C(AH,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Mg/L)
2. Sample Calculation
9.02xlO~4 Ug/L = 9.02xlO~4 ug/L
A-9
-------
P. Equation S. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting
from Groundwater Contamination (Index
1. Formula
Ul x AC) + DI
Ind«2= -4s!
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of groundwater concentration
resulting from landfilled sludge (ug/L)
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(pg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
(9.02x10"* ug/L x 2 L/dav) +2.0 Ue/day
741 0.0027 Ug/day
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meeetings
(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.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
i
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meeetings
(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.
A-10
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (mg/g DW)
Unsaturated tone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, Pdry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 8 (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (m/year)
Depth to grounduater, h (m)
•^ Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
*"* Saturated eone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, t (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landfill, Afi (o)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
1
IT)
2.55
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
2
I"!
2.55
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
3
IT]
2.55
1.925
0.133
0.0001
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4
IT]
2.55
NAb
MA
NA
1.6
0
MA
0.44
0.86
0.001
JOO
10
5
IT]
2.55
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.389
4.04
0.001
100
10
6
IT]
2.55
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.02
SO
5
7
IK]
2.SS
NA
NA
NA
1.6
0
NA
0.389
4.04
0.02
50
S
8
N*
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
H
N
N
N
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
10
Condition of Analysis
Results
Unsaturated cone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, C0 (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated cone, C0
(pg/L)
Saturated cone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Ł„&* (MS/D
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge. Index 1 (pg/L)
(Equation 4)
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from groundwater contamination, Index 2
(unitless) (Equation 5)
1
638
8.29
5.00
126
8.29
9.02x10-*
9.02x10-4
741
2
638
8.29
S.OO
126
8.29
9.2x10-4
9.0x10*4
741
3
638
25.6
5.00
126
25.6
2.78x10-3
2.78x10-3
743
4
638
638
5.00
253
638
6.93x10-2
6.93x10-2
792
5
638
8.29
S.OO
23.8
8.29
4.79x10-3
4.79x10-3
744
6
638
8.29
5.00
6.32
8.29
3.61x10-2
3.61x10-2
767
7
638
638
5.00
2.38
6.38
14.8
14.8
11700
8
N
N
H
H
H
N
0
(Mil
•N - Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
bNA = Not applicable for this condition.
------- |