United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agt.tcy
Office of Water
Haguta'.ions and
Washington, 'DC 20460
W-iler
                          June. 1S85
Environmenta! Profs
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
DDT/DDE/DDD

-------
                                DDT
p.  3-2   Index  1  Values  should  read:
         typical  at  500  mt/ha = 0.21; worst  at  500 mt/ha  =0.24

p.  3-3   Index  2  Values  should  read:
         typical  at  500  mt/ha = 0.014;  worst at 500 mt/ha =  0.016

p.  3-4   Index  3  Values  should  read:
         typical  at  500  mt/ha = 0.31; worst  at  500 mt/ha  = 0.35

p.  3-5   Index  4  Values  should  read:
         typical  at  500  mtha =  .0034; worst  at  500 mt/ha  = .0036

p.  3-6   Index  5  Values  should  read:
         human  and animal-typical at 500 mt/ha  =0.13
         human  and animal-worst at  500  mt/ha =  0.15

p.  3-8   Index  7  Values  should  read:
         typical  at  500  mt/ha = 0.00042; worst  at 500 mt/ha  =  0.00048

p.  3-12  should read:
Index 9 Values
Group
Sludge Concentration
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
  0       5       50      500
Toddler


Adult
    Typical
    Worst

    Typical
    Worst
13
13

19
19
13
13

19
20
16
17

26
30
25
32

52
70
p. 3-14 should read;
d.  Index 10 Values
Group
Sludge Concentration
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
  0       5       50      500
Toddler


Adult
    Typical
    Worst

    Typical
    Worst
13
13

19
19
14
15

21
22
24
30

41
53
63
90

120
170

-------
p.  3-16 should read:
Index 11 Values
Group
Toddler
Adult
p. 3-17
Index 12
Group
Toddler
Adult
p. 3-18
Index 13
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
worst
should read:
Values
Sludge Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
should read:
Values
Sludge Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Sludge
0
25
25
43
43

Sludge
0
17
17
19
19

Sludge
0
29
29
43
43
Application Rate
5 50
57 57
75 75
110 110
150 150

Application Rate
5 50
17 17
17 17
19 19
19 19

Application Rate
5 50
63 75
81 100
110 140
150 190
(mt/ha)
500
57
75
110
150

(mt/ha)
500
18
19
19
19

(mt/ha)
500
120
180
240
360

-------
p. 3-4  Index 3 Values

     Preliminary Conclusion - should read:

     No toxic hazard due to total DDT in sludge-amended soil is
expected for predators of soil biota from application of sludge
containing DDT.

p. 3-7  Index 7 Values

     Preliminary Conclusion - should read:

     Landspreading of sludge is expected to slightly increase the
concentration of total DDT in tissues of plants when applied at
any application rate (5 to 500 mt/ha).


p. 3-12  Index 9 Values

     Preliminary Conclusion - should read:

     Landspreading of sludge is expected to slightly increase the
cancer risk due to DDT/DDE/DDD, above the risk posed by pre-
existing dietary sources, for toddlers who consume plants grown
in soil amended with sludge at 50 mt/ha.  A slight increase in
cancer risk is also expected for adults who consume plants grown
in soil amended 5 and 50 mt/ha with sludge containing a high
concentration of DDT/DDE/DDD or at 50 mt/ha with soil containing
a typical concentration.  When sludge is applied at a high
cumulative rate (500 mt/ha), a substantial increase in cancer
risk due to DDT/DDE/DDD is expected for both toddlers and adults.

p. 3-14  Index 10 Values

     Preliminary Conclusion - should read:

     The cancer risk due to DDT/DDE/DDD is expected to slightly
increase above the risk posed by pre-existing dietary sources for
humans who consume animal products derived from animals given
feed grown on soil amended with sludge at 5 mt/ha, moderately
increase at 50 mt/ha and significantly increase at 500 mt/ha.

p. 3-17  Index 12 Values

     Preliminary Conclusion - should read:

     The cancef risk due to DDT/DDE/DDD is not expected to
increase, above the risk posed by pre-existing dietary sources,
for humans who consume sludge-amended soil.

-------
                                       PREPACE
   _
 V-
 d*~ ~
           This  document  is  one  of  a  series  of  preliminary  assessments dealing
       with  chemicals of  potential  concern  in  municipal  sewage  sludge.   The
       purpose  of these  documents is to:   (a) summarize the available data for
       the  constituents  of  potential  concern,  (b)  identify  the  key environ-
       mental  pathways for  each  constituent  related  to  a  reuse  and disposal
       option  (based  on  hazard indices),  and (c) evaluate the conditions under
       which such a pollutant  may pose a  hazard.  Each  document provides a sci-
       entific  basis  for  making  an  initial determination of  whether a pollu-
       tant, at levels currently  observed in sludges,  poses  a likely hazard to
       human  health  or  the  environment  when  sludge is disposed of  by  any of
       several  methods.   These methods include  landspreading  on  food chain or
       nonfood  chain  crops,  distribution  and  marketing programs,  landfilling,
       incineration and ocean disposal.

           These documents  are intended  to serve  as a rapid screening tool to
       narrow  an  initial list  of  pollutants to those of concern.  If  a signifi-
       cant  hazard is indicated  by  this  preliminary analysis,  a more detailed
       assessment will-  be  undertaken  to  better quantify  the risk  from  this
       chemical  and  to derive criteria if warranted.   If  a  hazard is shown to
       be  unlikely, no further assessment will be  conducted  at this  time;  how-
       ever,  a  reassessment  will be  conducted  after   initial  regulations  are
       finalized.   In no case, however,  will criteria  be derived solely on the
       basis of  information presented in this document.

 4.
 xJ>

i?                                  US  EPA
w                       Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
P                          EPA  West  Bldg Room 3340
1^                               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 DDT/DDE/DDD IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	  2-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  2-1

    Landfilling 	  2-2

    Incineration 	  2-2

    Ocean Disposal	  2-3

3.   PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR DDT/DDE/DDD IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	  3-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing	  3-1

         Effect on soil concentration of DDT/DDE/DDD
           (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) 	  3-7
         Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 	  3-10

    Landf illing	  3-18

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

    Incineration	  3-27

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

    Ocean Disposal 	  3-31

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

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

4.  PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR DDT/DDE/DDD IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	   4-1

    Occurrence	   4-1

         Sludge 	   4-1
         Soil - Unpolluted 	   4-2
         Water - Unpolluted 	   4-2
         Air	   4-3
         Food 	   4-4

    Human Effects 	   4-6

         Ingestion	   4-6
         Inhalation 	   4-7

    Plant Effects 	   4-7

         Phytotoxicity	   4-7
         Uptake 	   4-7

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 	   4-7

         Toxicity 	   4-7
         Uptake 	   4-7

    Aquatic Life Effects 	   4-7

         Toxicity	   4-7
         Uptake 	   4-8

    Soil Biota Effects 	   4-8

         Toxicity 	   4-8
         Uptake 	   4-8

    Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 	   4-9

5.  REFERENCES	   5-1

APPENDIX.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
    DDT/DDE/DDD 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.   DDT/DDE/DDD  were  initially  identified  as  being  of
potential concern  when  sludge is landspread  (including  distribution and
marketing),  placed in a landfill, incinerated or  ocean  disposed.*  This
profile  is a compilation of  information that  may  be  useful  in determin-
ing whether  DDT/DDE/DDD  pose  an actual  hazard to  human health  or the
environment when sludge is disposed of by these methods.
     The  focus   of  this  document  is  the  calculation   of  "preliminary
hazard  indices" for  selected  potential exposure  pathways,  as  shown  in
Section  3.    Each  index  illustrates  the hazard  that could  result from
movement  of   a  pollutant by  a  given pathway  to   cause  a  given  effect
(e.g., sludge •+ soil •+  plant  uptake * animal  uptake •*  human  toxicity).
The values and  assumptions employed  in  these  calculations tend to repre-
sent  a  reasonable "worst case"; analysis  of  error  or  uncertainty has
been  conducted  to  a  limited degree.  The resulting  value  in  most cases
is  indexed  to  unity; i.e.,  values >1  may indicate  a  potential  hazard,
depending upon  the assumptions of the calculation.
     The data used for  index  calculation have been selected or estimated
based  on  information  presented  in  the  "preliminary  data  profile",
Section  4.   Information in  the profile  is based on a compilation of the
recent  literature.   An attempt  has  been  made  to  fill   out  the  profile
outline  to the  greatest extent possible.  However,  since this  is a pre-
liminary analysis, the  literature has not been exhaustively perused.
     The  "preliminary  conclusions" drawn  from each  index  in  Section  3
are summarized  in Section  2.   The  preliminary hazard   indices  will  be
used  as  a  screening  tool to determine which  pollutants  and  pathways may
pose  a hazard.   Where a  potential hazard  is  indicated  by interpretation
of  these  indices,  further analysis will  include a more  detailed exami-
nation  of  potential  risks  as well  as   an  examination  of  site-specific
factors.   These  more  rigorous  evaluations   may  change   the preliminary
conclusions  presented   in  Section 2,  which  are based  on  a  reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
     The  preliminary   hazard  indices   for   selected   exposure   routes
pertinent to landspreading  and distribution  and marketing,  landfilling,
incineration  and ocean  disposal  practices are included  in  this profile.
The calculation formulae for  these  indices  are  shown  in  the  Appendix.
The indices are rounded  to two significant figures.
* Listings  were determined  by  a  series  of  expert  workshops  convened
  during  March-May,  1984  by   the  Office   of   Water   Regulations  and
  Standards (OWES)  to  discuss landspreading,  landfilling,  incineration,
  and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal  sewage  sludge.
                                   1-1

-------
                                SECTION 2

   PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR DDT/DDE/ODD 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 DDT/DDE/DDD

          The  concentration  of  total  DDT  in  sludge-amended  soil  is
          expected to  increase  when  either  typical  or worst  sludge  is
          applied at 50 mt/ha or greater (see Index 1).

     B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

          Landspreading of sludge  is not  expected  to  pose  a toxic hazard
          due to  DDT or  its  degradation  products for soil biota  (see
          Index 2).   A toxic  hazard due to  total  DDT  in  sludge-amended
          soil is expected  for predators of  soil  biota only  when sludge
          is applied at a high cumulative rate (see Index 3).

     C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

          A  phytotoxic  hazard due  to  DDT or  its  degradation  products,
          DDE  and ODD,   in  sludge-amended  soil  is  not  expected  (see
          Index 4).    Landspreading  of  sludge  is  expected  to  slightly
          increase the  concentration  of total DDT in  tissues  of  plants
          when  sludge  is  applied  at  low  rates  (5  to  50 mt/ha),  and
          moderately increase  plant tissue concentrations  when  sludge  is
          applied at  high  rates  (500  mt/ha)  (see Index  5).    Whether
          these increased plant  tissue concentrations of  total  DDT would
          be precluded  by phytotoxicity could not be  determined  due  to
          lack of data (see Index 6).

     D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

          Landspreading of sludge  is not expected  to  pose  a toxic hazard
          due  to  DDT  and  its  degradation  products   for  herbivorous
          animals which feed on  plants grown in  sludge-amended  soil  (see
          Index  7).    A  toxic hazard  due to  DDT and its  degradation
          products   is    not    expected    for   grazing   animals   which
          incidentally ingest sludge-amended  soil (see Index 8).

     E.   Effect on Humans

          Landspreading of  sludge is  expected to   slightly increase  the
          cancer risk due to DDT/DDE/DDD, above  the  risk posed  by  pre-
          existing  dietary  sources,   for  toddlers  who  consume  plants
                                   2-1

-------
          grown  in  soil  amended  with  sludge  at  low  rates  (5  to  50
          mt/ha).  A slight increase  in  cancer  risk is also expected for
          adults who  consume  plants  grown in  soil  amended at  50  mt/ha
          with  sludge  containing  a high  concentration of  DDT/DDE/DDD.
          When sludge  is  applied  at a high cumulative  rate  (500 mt/ha),
          a substantial  increase  in  cancer risk  due to  DDT/DDE/DDD  is
          expected for both toddlers and adults  (see Index 9).

          The  cancer  risk  due  to  DDT/DDE/DDD  is  expected  to  slightly
          increase above  the  risk posed by pre-existing  dietary sources
          for  humans  who consume animal  products  derived  from animals
          given  feed grown  on soil amended with  sludge at  low  rates  (5
          to 50  mt/ha).   A  substantial increae in  human  cancer  risk may
          occur when sludge is landspread  at high  rates  (500 mt/ha)  (see
          Index 10).

          Landspreading of sludge  is  expected to  moderately increase the
          cancer risk  due to  DDT/DDE/DDD,  above  the  risk posed  by  pre-
          existing  dietary   sources,  for  humans  who   consume  animal
          products  derived   from  grazing  animals  which  incidentally
          ingest  sludge-amended   soil  (see Index  11).   For humans  who
          ingest sludge-amended soil,  the  cancer  risk due  to DDT/DDE/DDD
          is  not  expected  to  increase  above  the  risk  posed  by  pre-
          existing dietary  sources,  except possibly  for toddlers  when
          sludge is  applied  at  a  high cumulative rate (500  mt/ha)  (see
          Index 12).

          The  aggregate  amount   of   DDT/DDE/DDD  in  the   human   diet
          resulting from  landspreading of  sludge  is expected to increase
          the  cancer  risk  due  to  DDT/DDE/DDD  above  the  risk  posed  by
          pre-existing   dietary    sources.      This   increase   may   be
          substantial  when  sludge  is  Landspread   at  a  high rate  (see
          Index 13).

 II. LANDFILLING

     The  concentration  of  total  DDT  in  groundwater at   the  well  is
     expected  to  substantially  increase  when  sludge  is  landfilled;  this
     increase may  be substantial  at a disposal site  with  all worst-case
     conditions  (see Index  1).   Groundwater contamination  resulting  from
     landfilling of sludge is expected to  increase  the human cancer  risk
     due  to  DDT/DDE/DDD, above  the risk  posed by pre-existing dietary
     sources, only when  all  worst-case conditions  prevail at  a  disposal
     site (see Index 2).

III. INCINERATION

     The concentration of total DDT in urban air  is expected to  slightly
     increase above background levels  when sludge  is  incinerated at low
     feed rates,  and  moderately   increase  when  sludge is  incinerated  at
     high feed rates (see Index  1).   The  increased  air concentrations  of
     DDT/DDE/DDD resulting  from  incineration  of sludge are  not  expected
     to pose a human cancer  risk  due to DDT/DDE/DDD (see Index 2).
                                   2-2

-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

    Ocean disposal of  sludge  is expected to result  in  slight  to moder-
    ate  increases  in  the  concentrations  of  DDT  and   its  metabolites
    after initial mixing  in the seawater surrounding the disposal sites
    (see Index 1).

    Ocean  disposal  of   sludge  is   expected   to  result  in  slightly
    increased  concentrations  of  DDT  and  its  metabolites  to which  an
    organism around a disposal  site is exposed  in a 24-hour period (see
    Index 2).

    A significant incremental  risk, increase  to aquatic  life due  to  DDT
    in sludge is apparent in the scenarios evaluated (see Index 3).

    Ocean disposal of  sludge  is  expected to result  in an  increase  in
    cancer risk  when  worst-case  conditions  occur for both  the  concen-
    tration  of  total   DDT   in  sludge   and  seafood   intake.     This
    expectation holds  at the typical and  worst  sites (see Index 4).
                                  2-3

-------
                              SECTION 3

             PRELIMINARY HAZARD  INDICES  FOR  DDT/DDE/DDD
                      IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LAHDSPREADIHG AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

   A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of DDT/DDE/DDD

        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 rot/ha  No sludge applied.  Shown  for  all  indices
                             for  purposes  of  comparison,  to  distin-
                             guish hazard  posed  by  sludge  from  pre-
                             existing   hazard   posed   by   background
                             levels  or other  sources of  the pollutant.

                    5 mt/ha  Sustainable yearly agronomic  application;
                             i.e.,  loading  typical  of   agricultural
                             practice,  supplying   ^50   kg   available
                             nitrogen per  hectare.

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

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

             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

                    1. Sludge concentration of  pollutant (SC)

                       Typical    0.66 Ug/g DW
                       Worst      0.93 ug/g DW

                       The values selected for  the typical and worst-
                       case sludge concentrations  are  derived  from a
                                 3-1

-------
          review of  surveys  that  included  76  publicly-
          owned  treatment  plants   (POTWs)  (Camp  Dresser
          and McKee, Inc.  (COM),  1984a).  Sludge  concen-
          trations  were  taken  from this  particular  study
          because it incorporated data from many  areas  of
          the country; thus,  these values are assumed  to
          be less  biased than  those  reported in  studies
          which only examined  sludge  from one metropoli-
          tan area  or  state.   The typical  value is  the
          sum of the means for  DDT, DDE, and DDD.   These
          will   be   considered  together   as   "total   DDT"
          because  they  are  all  similar in  carcinogenic
          potency  (U.S.  EPA,  1985).   The worst  value  is
          the maximum  single  value;   these  numbers  were
          not summed because  it was not  assumed  that  all
          of the  maximum  values   occurred  in  the  same
          sludge.  (See Section 4, p.  4-1.)

      ii. Background concentration of  pollutant in soil
          (BS)  = 0.16 ug/g DW

          The  concentration  presented  is the  1972  mean
          for DDT  in cropland soil  sampled from  37 states
          (Carey et al., 1979).   Although higher  mean DDT
          concentrations in soil  have  been reported,  they
          were  calculated  from  smaller  sample sizes  and,
          thus,  may be biased by  conditions unique to the
          sites samples.   (See Section 4, p.  4-2.)

     iii. Soil  half-life of pollutant (tp = 35 years

          The  value given is  the  longest   (worst-case)
          half-life reported  for  DDT  which degrades  at  a
          rate   dependent  upon  soil  type,  acidity,  and
          application  rate  (Nash  and   Woolson,   1967).
          (See  Section 4, p.  4-9.)

d.   Index 1 Values (yg/g DW)

                         Sludge Application  Rate  (mt/ha)
         Sludge
     Concentration         0        5        50       500
Typical
Worst
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.18
7.1
7.1
e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value  equals  the  expected
     concentration in sludge-amended soil.

f.   Preliminary Conclusion -  The concentration  of  total
     DDT  in  sludge-amended soil  is  expected to  increase
     when either  typical  or  worst sludge  is applied  at
     50 mt/ha or greater.
                    3-2

-------
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.  3-2.

                ii. Soil concentration  toxic  to  soil  biota  (TB)  =
                    15 ug/g DW

                    The soil concentration  given was  the  lowest  at
                    which ODE caused  a significant  increase  in mor-
                    tality  of   earthworms  (Cathey,  1982).     This
                    analysis assumes  that  DDT,  DDE,  and  DDD  are
                    equally toxic  to  soil  biota.    (See  Section  4,
                    p. 4-15.)

          d.   Index 2 Values

                                  Sludge  Application Rate  (mt/ha)
                   Sludge
               Concentration        0          5        50        500

                  Typical         0.011      0.011    0.011     0.4-7
                  Worst           0.011      0.011    0.012     0.47

          e.   Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by  which
               expected soil concentration exceeds  toxic concentra-
               tion.    Value  >1 indicates a toxic hazard may  exist
               for soil biota.

          f.   Preliminary Conclusion -  Landspreading  of  sludge is
               not expected  to  pose  a toxic  hazard due to  DDT or
               its degradation  products for  soil  biota.

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

          a.   Explanation   -  Compares   pollutant  concentrations
               expected in tissues of  organisms inhabiting  sludge-
               amended  soil  with  food  concentration  shown  to be
               toxic  to a predator  on  soil organisms.
                             3-3

-------
b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -   Assumes   pollutant  form
     bioconcentrated  by   soil   biota  is  equivalent  in
     toxicity  to  form used  to  demonstrate  toxic  effects
     in  predator.    Effect  level  in  predator  may  be
     estimated from that in a different species.

c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-2.

     ii.  Uptake factor of pollutant  in soil  biota (UB) =
          14.2 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g  soil  DW)-1

          The  value  selected is  the  highest  (worst-case)
          uptake  factor  reported which  was  based  on  dry
          weight concentrations  (Thompson,  1973).   Kenaga
          (1972) reported an uptake value  of  73 Ug/g tis-
          sue  body weight,  but  this  is for  a  complex
          mixture.  (See Section 4, p. 4-16.)

     iii. Feed  concentration toxic   to  predator  (TR)  =
          10 Ug/g DW

          The  concentration  selected  is  the  lowest  at
          which DDE  caused  a  significant adverse effect
          (eggshell  thinning)   in  a  natural  predator  of
          soil  biota  (Wiemeyer  and  Porter,  1970).   This'
          analysis  assumes  that  DDT,  DDE,   and   ODD  are
          equally toxic to predators  of soil  biota.   (See
          Section 4, p. 4-12.)

d.   Index 3 Values

                        Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
         Sludge
     Concentration        0         5       50       500
Typical
Worst
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.25
10
10
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 - A  toxic  hazard  due to total
     DDT in  sludge-amended soil  is  expected  for predators
     of soil biota  only  when  sludge is applied  at  a high
     cumulative rate (500 mt/ha).
                    3-4

-------
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)   =
                    50 Ug/g DW

                    A  substantial  reduction  (37%)  in  growth  was
                    noted for bean planes when  exposed  to the soil
                    concentration  of  DDT  given   above  (Eno  and
                    Everett, 1958).   Of  the three  soil  concentra-
                    tions  tested  by  Eno  and  Everett   (1958),  the
                    selected  concentration  produced  the  greatest
                    adverse effects.  (See Section 4, p. 4-10.)

          d.   Index 4 Values

                                  Sludge Application Rate_(mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.0032
0.0032
5
0.0032
0.0032
50
0.0034
0.0036
500
0.14
0.14
          e.   Value Interpretation  -  Value equals factor  by which
               soil concentration  exceeds  phytotoxic  concentration.
               Value >1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.

          f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  A phytotoxic hazard  due  to
               DDT  or  its  degradation  products,  DDE  and  ODD,  in
               sludge-amended soil is not expected.

     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
                              3-5

-------
   d.
Diet
Human
categories;   (1) plants  included  in the  U.S.  human
diet; and  (2) plants  serving  as  animal  feed.   Plants
used vary according to availability of data.

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

Data Used and Rationale

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

     See Section 3, p. 3-2.

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

     Animal Diet:
     Corn    0.61  yg/g  tissue DW (yg/g  soil DW)'1

     Human Diet:
     Corn    0.61  yg/g  tissue DW (yg/g  soil DW)""1

     The uptake  factor  given for total  DDT is  based
     on  0.52  yg/g. tissue  WW  (ug/g  soil  DW)'1  which
     is  the  highest  (worst-case)   reported  (Harris
     and  Sans,   1969)  in  the immediately  available
     literature  (see Section 4,  p.  4-11).    To  con-
     vert  tissue wet  weight  to tissue dry  weight, it
     was  assumed  that  corn  is   13.8  percent  water
     (USDA, 1975).

Index 5 Values (yg/g  DW)

                   Sludge Application Rate  (mt/ha)
    Sludge
 Concentration       0         5        50       500
Animal
Typical
Worst
0.098
0.098
0.098
0.099
0.11
0.11
4.3
4.3
   Typical
   Worst
0.098
0.098
0.098
0.099
0.11
0.11
4.3
4.3
        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.

                       3-6

-------
          f.    Preliminary  Conclusion -  Landspreading of  sludge  is
               expected  Co  slightly  increase  the  concentration  of
               total  DDT   in   tissues   of   plants  when  sludge  is
               applied at  low rates (5 to 50 mt/ha),  and  moderately
               increase  plant tissue  concentrations  when  sludge  is
               applied at high  rates  (500 mt/ha).

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

          a.    Explanation  - The index  value  is the  maximum  tissue
               concentration,    in    Ug/g   DW,   associated    with
               phytotoxicity in  the  same or  similar plant  species
               used   in  Index  5.    The  purpose  is  to   determine
               whether  the  plant  tissue concentrations  determined
               in Index 5  for  high  applications  are realistic,  or
               whether  such  concentrations would  be  precluded  by
               phytotoxicity.   The maximum concentration  should  be
               the  highest  at which  some plant growth  still  occurs
               (and   thus   consumption  of  tissue   by  animals   is
               possible)  but above which consumption by  animals  is
               unlikely.

          b.    Assumptions/Limitations   -   Assumes    that   tissue
               concentration will  be  a  consistent  indicator  of
               phytotoxicity.

          c.    Data Used and Rationale

               i.  Maximum  plant  tissue  concentration  associated
                   with  phytotoxicity  (PP) -  Data  not  immediately
                   available.

          d.    Index  6 Values  - 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
                              3-7

-------
     soil with  feed concentration  shown  to  be  toxic  to
     wild or domestic herbivorous animals.   Does  not con-
     sider  direct   contamination  of  forage  by  adhering
     sludge.

b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes   pollutant   form
     taken up by plants is  equivalent  in  toxicity to form
     used to demonstrate toxic effects  in  animal.  Uptake
     or  toxicity  in  specific plants  or  animals may  be
     estimated from other  species.

c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

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

      ii. Peed concentration  toxic  to  herbivorous  animal
          (TA) = 310 Ug/g DW

          The value  selected  is  the lowest  concentration
          of  DDT  (worst-case) for  which  adverse effects
          (e.g., reduced egg  production) were  noted  for a
          domestic  herbivorous  animal   (hen)  (Stickel,
          1973).   It is assumed  to be  representative  of
          larger grazing herbivorous animals.   Although a
          lower concentration (i.e., 5  Ug/g)  was  noted  to
          cause "hepatic alteration"  in rats,  this  value
          was  not   selected  because   of   the  anecdotal
          nature of the report.    This analysis  assumes
          DDT, DDE, and ODD  are equally toxic to  herbivo-
          rous' animals.  (See Section 4, p. 4-12.)

d.   Index 7 Values

                        Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
         Sludge
     Concentration        0         5       50       500

        Typical        0.00031   0.00032  0.00034  0.014
        Worst          0.00031   0.00032  0.00035  0.014

e.   Value  Interpretation - Value  equals  factor  by  which
     expected  plant  tissue  concentration  exceeds   that
     which  is toxic  to animals.   Value  >1  indicates  a
     toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous animals.

f.   Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of  sludge  is
     not  expected  to pose  a  toxic  hazard  due to DDT and
     its  degradation  products  for  herbivorous  animals
     which feed on plants  grown in sludge-amended soil.
                    3-8

-------
2.   Index of  Animal  Toxicity Resulting  from Sludge Ingestion
     (Index 8)

     a.   Explanation -  Calculates  the amount  of  pollutant in
          a  grazing  animal's   diet  resulting   from  sludge
          adhesion  Co  forage or  from incidental  ingestion of
          sludge-amended  soil  and   compares   this   with  the
          dietary toxic  threshold concentration for  a grazing
          animal.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  sludge  is
          applied over and  adheres  to growing  forage,  or that
          sludge  constitutes  5  percent  of  dry matter  in  the
          grazing animal's  diet, and that  pollutant  form in
          sludge  is equally  bioavailable  and toxic   as  form
          used to demonstrate toxic  effects.   Where  no sludge
          is applied  (i.e.,  0 mt/ha), assumes diet  is  5  per-
          cent soil  as a basis for comparison.

     c.   Data Used  and Rationale

            i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

               Typical    0.66 ug/g DW
               Worst      0.93 Ug/g DW

               See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

           ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to  be  soil (GS)
               = 5%

               Studies of  sludge  adhesion  to growing  forage
               following  applications of  liquid or filter-cake
               sludge  show  that  when  3  to  6  mt/ha  of  sludge
               solids   is  applied,   clipped  forage   initially
               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.
                         3-9

-------
                    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) = 310 Ug/g DW

                    See Section 3, p.  3-8.

          d.   Index 8 Values

                                  Sludge Application  Rate (mt/ha)
                   Sludge
               Concentration        0          5       50       500

                  Typical          0.0    0.00011  0.00011  0.00011
                  Worst            0.0    0.00015  0.00015  0.00015

          e.   Value Interpretation -  Value equals factor  by  which
               expected dietary concentration  exceeds  toxic concen-
               tration.    Value >1  indicates  a  toxic  hazard  may
               exist for grazing animals.

          f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  A  toxic  hazard due to  DDT
               and  its degradation  products   is  not  expected  for
               grazing  animals  which  incidentally  ingest  sludge-
               amended soil.

E.   Effect on Humans

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

          a.   Explanation -  Calculates  dietary  intake  expected  to
               result  from consumption  of  crops  grown on  sludge-
               amended  soil.    Compares  dietary  intake  with  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.
                             3-10

-------
 Data Used and Rationale

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

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

  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 Food  and
      Drug  Administration   (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  consump-
      tion of all non-fruit crops.

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

      Toddler    2.69 Ug/day
      Adult      3.86 ug/day

      The value  presented  for  toddlers  is  the  calcu-
      lated  average daily  intake  of DDE  for  FY75,
      FY76,  and  FY77  based   upon  an  average   body
      weight  of  13.7  kg (FDA,  1980).   The value  for
      adults  is  the calculated  average  daily  intake
      of  DDE for  FY75, FY76,  FY77,  and  FY78  based
      upon an   average  body  weight  of  70  kg  (FDA,
      1979).    The  average  daily  intake  of  DDE was
      selected   for  toddlers  and adults  because,  in
      both cases,  it was  higher than the intake  of
      DDT.  (See Section 4,  p.  4-4.)

 iv.  Cancer potency = 0.34 (mg/kg/day)'*

      The potency  value presented  applied to avail-
      able DDT,  DDE, and DDD residues  and  is based  on
      data from  tests  on  mice.   A recent  evaluation
      by  the U.S.  EPA  Carcinogen  Assessment  Group
      (U.S.  EPA,  1985)  indicates that DDT, DDE, and
      DDD are similar in potency.

               3-11

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

               The  RSI  is  the pollutant  intake  value  which
               results  in  an  increase in cancer  risk of  10~6
               (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
          Group
                  Sludge
               Concentration
                                       Sludge  Application
                                          Rate (mt/ha)

                                            5      50
                      500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
48
48
49
49
51
52
1600
1600
          Adult
                 Typical
                 Worst
120
120
120
120
120
130
4300
4300
2.
e.   Value Interpretation  - Value  >1  indicates  a  poten-
     tial  increase  in  cancer  risk  of  >  10~"  (1  per
     1,000,000).  Comparison with  the null  index value at
     0 mt/ha  indicates  the degree to which  any  hazard is
     due  to  sludge   application,  as   opposed   to   pre-
     existing dietary sources.

£.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Landspreading of  sludge is
     expected to slightly  increase  the  cancer  risk due to
     DDT/DDE/DDD,  above the  risk  posed by  pre-existing
     dietary  sources,  for  toddlers  who. consume  plants
     grown in soil amended with  sludge  at  low  rates  (5 to
     50 mt/ha).  A slight  increase  in  cancer risk is also
     expected for adults who consume plants  grown in soil
     amended  at 50  mt/ha  with  sludge  containing a high
     concentration   of   DDT/DDE/DDD.     When   sludge  is
     applied  at a  high cumulative  rate  (500  mt/ha),  a
     substantial   increase   in    cancer'  risk   due   to
     DDT/DDE/DDD   is   expected  for  both   toddlers  and
     adults. .

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.
                         3-12

-------
b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  all  animal
     products  are  from animals  receiving all  their  feed
     from  sludge-amended  soil.   Assumes that  all  animal
     products  consumed  take  up  the  pollutant  at  the
     highest  rate  observed  for  muscle  of  any  commonly
     consumed  species  or at  the  rate  observed  for  beef
     liver  or  dairy   products   (whichever   is  higher).
     Divides  possible  variations  in  dietary  intake  into
     two categories:   toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
     individuals over 3 years old.

c.   Data Used and Rationale

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

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

     ii.  Uptake  factor of  pollutant  in  animal  tissue
          (UA) = 7  pg/g tissue DW  (yg/g  feed DW)'1

          The uptake  factor given for  DDE is  the  highest
          value reported for  an  animal  product which  is
          commonly  consumed  by   humans,  i.e.,  milk  fat
          (Fries,  1982).  (See Section  4, p. 4-14.)   The
          uptake factor of  pollutant  in  animal  tissue
          (UA)  used  is assumed   to  apply to  all  animal
          fats.

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

          Toddler     43.7 g/day
          Adult      88.5 g/day

          The  fat  intake values presented, which  comprise
          meat, fish,  poultry,  eggs  and  milk products,
          are   derived  from  the   FDA  Revised  Total  Diet
          (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).
                   3-13

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

          Toddler    2.69 Ug/day
          Adult      3.86 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-11.

      v.  Cancer    risk-specific     intake    (RSI)    =
          0.206 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-12.

d.   Index 10 Values

                                  Sludge Application
                                     Rate (mt/ha)
                  Sludge
     Group     Concentration    0      5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
160
160
160
160
170
180
6400
6500
     Adult       Typical      310    310    330    13,000
                 Worst        310    320    350    13,000

e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -   The  cancer  risk  due  to
     DDT/DDE/DDD  is  expected to  slightly increase  above
     the  risk  posed by  pre-existing  dietary  sources  for
     humans  who  consume  animal  products  derived  from
     animals given feed grown on  soil  amended  with sludge
     at  low  rates  (5  to  50   mt/ha).    A  substantial
     increase in  human  cancer risk may occur  when sludge
     is landspread at high rates (500  mt/ha).

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
                   3-14

-------
in  dietary  intake  into  two  categories:    toddlers
(18 months to  3  years) and  individuals  over  3 years
old.

Data Used and Rationale

  i. Animal tissue = Milk fat

     Milk  fat  was  reported  to  have  the  highest
     uptake factor for DDE  among  the  animal products
     commonly consumed by humans  for  which data were
     immediately  available  (Fries,   1982).     (See
     Section 4, p. 4-14.)

 ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

     Typical    0,66 Ug/g DW
     Worst      0.93 ug/g DW

     See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

iii. Background  concentration  of  pollutant in  soil
     (BS) = 0.16 ug/g DW

     See Section 3,  p.  3-2.

 iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed  to  be soil (CS)
     = 5Z

     See Section 3,  p.  3-9.

  v. Uptake  factor  of  pollutant  in  animal   tissue
     (UA) = 7 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed  DW)"1

     See Section 3,  p.  3-13.

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

     Toddler    39.4  g/day
     Adult      82.4  g/day

     The affected tissue intake  value is  assumed  to
     be from  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).
              3-15

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

          Toddler    2.69 ug/day
          Adult      3.86 Ug/day
          See Section 3, p. 3-11.
risk-specific    intake
    viii. Cancer
          0.206
          See Section 3, p. 3-12.

d.   Index 11 Values
                                                     (RSI)
     Group
                       Sludge
                    Concentration
              Sludge Application
                 Rate (mt/ha)

                   5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
24
24
57
75
57
75
57
75
     Adult
                      Typical
                      Worst
          41
          41
110
150
110
150
110
150
     Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
          Preliminary Conclusion  -  Landspreading of  sludge is
          expected to moderately  increase the cancer  risk due
          to DDT/DDE/DDD, above Che  risk  posed  by pre-existing
          dietary  sources,  for  humans   who   consume  animal
          products   derived   from   grazing   animals   which
          incidentally ingest sludge-amended soil.

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

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

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -   Assumes  that   the  pica
          child  consumes an  average  of  5  g/day  of  sludge-
          amended  soil.   If 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.
                    3-16

-------
     Data Used and Rationale

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-2.

      ii. Assumed amount of soil in human diet (DS)

          Pica child    5    g/day
          Adult         0.02 g/day

          The  value  of  5   g/day  for  a  pica  child  is  a
          worst-case  estimate  employed   by   U.S.   EPA's
          Exposure  Assessment   Group  (U.S.  EPA,  1983a).
          The  value  of  0.02  g/day  for  an  adult  is  an
          estimate from U.S. EPA,  1984.

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

          Toddler    2.69 Ug/day
          Adult      3.86 ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-11.

      iv. Cancer    risk-specific    intake     (RSI)     =
          0.206 ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-12.

     Index 12 Values

                                    Sludge  Application
                                       Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler

Adult •

Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
17
17
19
19
5
17
17
19
19
50
17
17
19
19
50
190
190
19
19
e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  The  cancer  risk  due  to
     DDT/DDE/DDD  is  not  expected  to  increase, above  the
     risk  posed  by  pre-existing  dietary  sources,   for
     humans  who   consume   sludge-amended   soil,   except
     possibly for toddlers when  sludge is  applied at  a
     high cumulative rate (500 mt/ha).
                   3-17

-------
         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

                                                Sludge Application
                                                   Rate (mt/ha)
                                Sludge
                   Group     Concentration     0       5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
210
210
240
260
260
280
8200
8300
                   Adult        Typical       430     500    530     17,000
                               Worst        430     540    590     18,000

                   Value  Interpretation - Same as  for Index 9.

                   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  The  aggregate  amount  of
                   DDT/DDE/DDD  in   the  human   diet  resulting   from
                   landspreading of sludge  is expected to  increase  the
                   cancer risk due  to  DDT/DDE/DDD above the risk  posed
                   by pre-existing  dietary  sources.   This  increase  may
                   be substantial  when  sludge  is  landspread  at a  high
                   rate.
II. LANDFILLING
    A.   Index of  Groundwater Concentration  Resulting from  Landfilled
         Sludge (Index 1)

         1.   Explanation -  Calculates  groundwater contamination  which
              could occur in  a potable aquifer  in the landfill  vicin-
              ity.    Uses U.S.  EPA's  Exposure Assessment  Group  (EAG)
              model,  "Rapid  Assessment of Potential Groundwater  Contam-
              ination Under  Emergency Response  Conditions"  (U.S.  EPA,
              1983b).  Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input,  i.e.,
              the  application of a  constant  source concentration  for  a
              short time period relative to the time frame of  the  anal-
              ysis.   In order to  predict pollutant movement  in  soils
              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
                                 3-18

-------
          parameters  include  the degradation/decay  coefficient and
          retardation factor.   Retardation is  primarily  a function
          of  the  adsorption  process,  which  is characterized  by a
          linear,  equilibrium  partition  coefficient  representing
          the  ratio  of adsorbed  and solution  pollutant  concentra-
          tions.  This  partition coefficient,  along  with soil bulk
          density and volumetric  water content, are  used to calcu-
          late  the   retardation  factor.    A  computer  program (in
          FORTRAN) was  developed to  facilitate computation  of the
          analytical solution.  The  program predicts pollutant con-
          centration as a function of  time  and location in both the
          unsaturated  and saturated  zone.     Separate  computations
          and  parameter estimates are  required for  each  zone.   The
          prediction  requires  evaluations   of  four  dimensionless
          input  values  and  subsequent  evaluation  of  the  result,
          through use of the computer program.

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

3.   Data Used and Rationale

     a.   Unsaturated zone

          i.   Soil  type and characteristics

               (a)  Soil type

                    Typical    Sandy loam
                    Worst       Sandy

                    These  two  soil  types  were  used  by Gerritse  et
                    al.  (1982) to measure partitioning of  elements
                    between  soil  and  a   sewage  sludge  solution
                    phase.  They  are used  here since  these  parti-
                    tioning measurements  (i.e., Kj values)  are  con-
                    sidered  the   best  available   for  analysis  of
                             3-19

-------
          metal  transport  from landfilled  sludge.   The
          same soil  types  are  also used for nonmetals for
          convenience and consistency of analysis.

     (b)  Dry bulk density

          Typical    1.53  g/mL
          Worst      1.925 g/mL

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

     (c)  Volumetric water content  (0)

          Typical    0.195 (unitless)
          Worst      0.133 (unitless)

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

     (d)  Fraction of organic carbon (foc)

          Typical    0.005  (unitless)
          Worst      0.0001 (unitless)

          Organic content  of  soils is  described  in terms
          of percent organic carbon, which is  required in
          the  estimation   of  partition  coefficient,   K
-------
(b)  Leachate generation rate (Q)

     Typical    0.8 m/year
     Worst      1.6 m/year

     It   is   conservatively   assumed   that   sludge
     leachate enters  the unsaturated  zone  undiluted
     by  precipitation  or  other  recharge,  that  the
     total volume  of  liquid  in  the  sludge  leaches
     out of  the  landfill,  and that  leaching  is  com-
     plete in 5 years.   Landfilled  sludge is  assumed
     to be 20 percent  solids  by  volume,  and depth of
     sludge  in  the  landfill  is  5 m in  the  typical
     case  and  10 m  in  the  worst case.    Thus,  the
     initial  depth  of  liquid   is   A  and  8 m,  and
     average yearly  leachate generation is  0.8  and
     1.6 m, respectively.

(c)  Depth to groundwater (h)

     Typical    5 m
     Worst      0 m

     Eight  landfills  were  monitored  throughout  the
     United  States  and  depths  to groundwater  below
     them were  listed.  A  typical  depth to  ground-
     water  of  5 m  was  observed (U.S.  EPA,  1977).
     For the worst  case, a value of 0 m is  used to
     represent the situation  where the  bottom of  the
     landfill is occasionally or  regularly  below  the
     water table.   The depth to  groundwater  must be
     estimated in  order to  evaluate  the  likelihood
     that pollutants  moving through  the unsaturated
     soil will reach the groundwater.

(d)  Dispersivity coefficient (a)

     Typical    0.5 m
     Worst      Not applicable

     The  dispersion  process  is  exceedingly  complex
     and  difficult  to quantify,  especially  for  the
     unsaturated zone.   It  is  sometimes ignored  in
     the  unsaturated  zone,  with  the  reasoning  that
     pore water  velocities  are usually  large enough
     so  that  pollutant  transport   by  convection,
     i.e., water movement,  is paramount.   As a  rule
     of  thumb,   dispersivity  may  be  set  equal   to
     10 percent  of  the  distance  measurement  of  the
     analysis  (Gelhar  and   Axness,   1981).    Thus,
     based on depth  to groundwater listed above,  the
     value for the  typical  case  is  0.5  and that  for
     the  worst  case does  not  apply since  leachate
     moves directly to the  unsaturated zone.
              3-21

-------
     iii.  Chemical-specific parameters

          (a)   Sludge concentration of  pollutant (SC)

               Typical     0.66  mg/kg DW
               Worst       0.93  mg/kg DW

               See  Section 3, p.  3-1.

          (b)   Soil half-life  of  pollutant (tp  -  12,775  days
               (35  years)

               See  Section 3, p.  3-2.

          (c)   Degradation rate (u) = 5.42 x 10~5 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)  =
               5 x 106 mL/g

               The  organic  carbon  partition  coefficient  is
               multiplied  by  the  percent  organic  carbon  con-
               tent of  soil  (foc) to derive  a  partition coef-
               ficient  (K,j),   which  represents   the  ratio  of
               absorbed  pollutant concentration   to  the  dis-
               solved  (or  solution)  concentration.   The equa-
               tion (Koc x foc)  assumes  that  organic  carbon in
               the  soil  is   the  primary  means  of  adsorbing
               organic  compounds  onto   soils.    This  concept
               serves  to  reduce  much  of the variation in  K^
               values for  different  soil  types.   The  value  of
               Koc  is  from  Hassett  et  al.  (1983).    (See
               Section 4, p.  4-9.)

b.   Saturated zone

     i.   Soil type and characteristics

          (a)  Soil type

               Typical    Silty sand
               Worst      Sand
                         3-22

-------
          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 m/day
          Worst      4.04 m/day

          The hydraulic  conductivity (or permeability)  of
          the aquifer is needed to estimate flow velocity
          based on Darcy's  Equation.   It  is a  measure  of
          the  volume of liquid  that  can  flow  through  a
          unit area  or  media with time; values  can  range
          over nine  orders  of magnitude depending o'n  the
          nature  of  the media.   Heterogenous  conditions
          produce  large spatial  variation  in  hydraulic
          conductivity,   making  estimation of  a single
          effective  value   extremely  difficult.   Values
          used  are  from  Freeze   and   Cherry  (1979)   as
          presented in U.S.  EPA (1983b).

     (d)  Fraction of organic carbon  (f0c)  =
          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
                   3-23

-------
          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 (Ait,)

          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  (AS,), which  is  100  and
          50 m,   respectively,   for  typical  and   worst
          conditions.

     (d)  Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) -2m

          The  minimum  aquifer   thickness  represents  the
          assumed  thickness  due   to   preexisting  flow;
          i.e., in the absence  of leachate.   It  is termed
          the  minimum thickness because  in the  vicinity
          of  the site  it  may  be  increased  by  leachate
          infiltration  from the  site.    A  value  of  2 m
          represents   a   worst  case   assumption   that
          preexisting flow  is  very limited  and  therefore
          dilution  of the  plume entering  the  saturated
          zone is negligible.

     (e)  Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m

          The  landfill   is  arbitrarily  assumed   to   be
          circular with an area of 10,000 m2.

iii. Chemical-specific parameters

     (a)  Degradation rate (u)  - 0  day'1

          Degradation  is   assumed   not  to  occur  in  the
          saturated zone.
                   3-24

-------
               (b)  Background   concentration   of   pollutant   in
                    groundwater (BC) = 0 Mg/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.

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

     6.   Preliminary  Conclusion  - The concentration  of  total DDT
          in groundwater at the well  is  expected  to  increase  when
          sludge is landfilled; this increase  may be substantial  at
          a disposal site with all worst-case conditions.

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. 3-26.

          b.   Average  human  consumption  of  drinking  water  (AC)  =
               2 L/day

               The  value  of  2  L/day  is  a  standard value  used  by
               U.S. EPA in  most risk assessment studies.

          c.   Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant  (DI)
               = 3.86
               See Section 3, p. 3-11.

          d.   Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.206 ug/day

               See Section 3, p. 3-12.
                             3-25

-------
          TABLE 3-1.  INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
                      INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM GHOUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1
Sludge concentration T
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics*
co Site parameters^ T
to
°* Index 1 Value (ug/L) 0.0038
Index 2 Value 19
Condition of
234
W T T
T W NA
T T W
T T T
T T T
0.0053 0.018 0.018
19 19 19
Analysisa»k»c
5 6 78
T T W N
T T NA N
T T W N
U T W N
T W W N
0.0038 0.0038 5.4 0.0
19 19 71 19
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.

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

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

^Dry bulk density (Pdry)» volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic  carbon (foc).

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

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

BHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Ad), and dispersivity coefficient (a).

-------
          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   -   Groundwater    contamination
               resulting  from  landfilling  of  sludge  is  expected  to
               increase the  human cancer  risk, due  to total DDT,  above
               the  risk,  posed  by  pre-existing  dietary sources,  only
               when  all  worst-cased  conditions  prevail   at  a  disposal
               site.

III. INCINERATION

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

          1.   Explanation  -  Shows  the  degree  of  elevation  of  the
               pollutant concentration  in  the  air due to the  incinera-
               tion of sludge.   An input sludge  with  thermal  properties
               defined by the energy parameter  (EP) was  analyzed  using
               the BURN model (COM, 1984b).   This  model uses  the thermo-
               dynamic and  mass  balance relationships  appropriate  for
               multiple hearth  incinerators  to  relate the  input  sludge
               characteristics to  the  stack  gas  parameters.    Dilution
               and dispersion of  these stack  gas  releases were  described
               by  the U.S.  EPA's  Industrial  Source  Complex  Long-Term
               (ISCLT)  dispersion model  from  which  normalized  annual
               ground  level   concentrations  were  predicted  (U.S.  EPA,
               1979).  The predicted pollutant  concentration  can  then  be
               compared to a ground level concentration  used  to  assess
               risk.

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

          3.   Data Used and Rationale

               a.   Coefficient to correct for mass and time  units  (C)  =
                    2.78  x 10~7 hr/sec  x  g/mg
                                  3-27

-------
 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 - 26.6%
               Stack height  - 10 m
               Exit gas velocity -  10 m/s
               Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (105°F)
               Stack diameter - 0.80 m

c.   Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

     Typical    0.66 mg/kg DW
     Worst      0.93 mg/kg DW

     See Section  3, p.  3-1.

d.   Fraction of  pollutant emitted through stack (FM)

     Typical    0.05  (unitless)
     Worst      0.20  (unitless)

     These values  were  chosen  as  best approximations  of
     the  fraction  of  pollutant  emitted  through  stacks
     (Farrell,  1984).  No data  was available  to  validate
     these values;  however,  U.S. EPA is  currently  testing
     incinerators for organic emissions.
                   3-28

-------
           e.   Dispersion parameter  for estimating maximum annual
               ground  level concentration  (DP)

               Typical    3.4  Ug/ra3
               Worst      16.0  Ug/m3

               The  dispersion   parameter  is  derived  from  the U.S.
               EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.

           f.   Background concentration of pollutant in urban
               air  (BA) = 8.6 x 10~4 ug/m3

               The  total  concentration of DDT, DDE,  and  ODD  (p,p'~
               isomers) in urban  air given above  is the average for
               summer  1978  over  Columbia,  SC  (Bidleman,   1981).
               This value was  selected because it  was  recorded for
               an  inland  city  after the  1972 ban on DDT,  DDE, and
               DDD.  (See Section 4, p. 4-4.)

     4.    Index 1 Values

                                                   Sludge Feed
           Fraction of                             Rate (kg/hr DW)a
           Pollutant Emitted    Sludge
           Through Stack     Concentration      0     2660  10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
2.7
3.4
          Worst               Typical        1.0     1.4      7.8
                              Worse          1.0     1.5     11

          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  equals  factor  by  which
          expected  air  concentration  exceeds background  levels  due
          to incinerator emissions.

     6.   Preliminary Conclusion - The  concentration  of  total  DDT
          in  urban  air  is expected  to  slightly  increase  above
          background levels when sludge  is incinerated at  low feed
          rates,  and moderately  increase when  sludge  is incinerated
          at high 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
                             3-29

-------
     based upon assessments published  by  the  U.S.  EPA Carcino-
     gen Assessment Group  (CAG).   These ambient concentrations
     reflect  a dose  level  which,  for  a  lifetime  exposure,
     increases the risk of cancer by 10~^.

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

3.   Data Used and Rationale

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

          See Section 3,  p. 3-29.

     b.   Background concentration  of pollutant  in  urban  air
          (BA) = 8.6 x ID'* ug/m3

          See Section 3,  p. 3-29.

     c.   Cancer potency = 0.34  (mg/kg/day)'1-

          Data on the cancer potency  for  inhalation route were
          not  immediately  available.    The  cancer  potency  was
          assumed   to  be  the  same  as for   ingestion.    (See
          Section  3, p.  3-11.)

     d.   Exposure criterion (EC)  .= 0.0103 Ug/m^

          A  Lifetime  exposure  level  which  would  result in  a
          10"^ cancer risk  was  selected  as  ground  level  con-
          centration against  which  incinerator emissions  are
          compared.'  The  risk  estimates  developed by  CAG  are
          defined  as the lifetime incremental cancer  risk in  a
          hypothetical     population    exposed     continuously
          throughout their  lifetime to  the   stated  concentra-
          tion  of  the  carcinogenic  agent.     The  exposure
          criterion  is  calculated  using the  following formula:

               pr  _  10"6 x 103  tig/me  x 70 kg
               fiU  —                      ,
                    Cancer  potency x 20 m-Vday
                        3-30

-------
        4.    Index  2 Values

                                                       Sludge  Feed
              Fraction  of                              Rate  (kg/hr  DW)a
              Pollutant Emitted     Sludge
              Through Stack      Concentration      0      2660   10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.083
0.083
0.092
0.095
0.23
0.28
              Worst                Typical         0.083    0.12     0.65
                                  Worst           0.083    0.13     0.89

              a The  typical  (3.4  pg/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  co  sludge
              incineration,   as   opposed   to   background   urban   air
              concentration.

         6.    Preliminary Conclusion  - The  increased air concentrations
              of DDT/DDE/DDD resulting  from incineration of  sludge  are
              not  expected  to   pose   a   human  cancer  risk   due   to
              DDT/DDE/DDD.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
    For  the  purpose  of  evaluating  pollutant   effects   upon   and/or
    subsequent uptake  by  marine life  as  a  result of sludge  disposal,
    two types of  mixing  were modeled.  The initial mixing  or  dilution
    shortly after dumping of a single  load  of  sludge  represents  a high,
    pulse  concentration  to  which  organisms may   be  exposed for  short
    time periods  but which  could  be  repeated  frequently;   i.e.,  every
    time a  recently dumped  plume  is  encountered.   A subsequent  addi-
    tional   degree  of mixing  can be  expressed by a  further  dilution.
    This is defined  as  the  average  dilution  occurring when  a  day's
    worth  of  sludge is dispersed  by 24 hours  of current movement  and
    represents  the  time-weighted  average  exposure  concentration  for
    organisms in the disposal area.  This dilution accounts  for  8 to 12
    hours of  the  high  pulse concentration encountered by the  organisms
    during   daylight  disposal operations and 12 to  16 hours  of  recovery
    (ambient  water  concentration)  during  the   night   when   disposal
    operations are suspended.
                                 3-31

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

1.   Explanation - Calculates  increased  concentrations  in Ug/L
     of  pollutant  in  seawater around an  ocean  disposal  site
     assuming initial mixing.

2.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  the  background
     seawater concentration  of pollutant  is unknown  or zero.
     The  index  also  assumes  that  disposal  is  by  tanker  and
     that  the daily  amount  of sludge  disposed  is uniformly
     distributed  along  a   path   transversing   the  site  and
     perpendicular   to   the   current  vector.     The   initial
     dilution  volume  is  assumed   to be   determined   by  path
     Length,  depth  to  the  pycnocline  (a  layer  separating
     surface  and  deeper water masses), and an  initial plume
     width defined as  the  width of  the  plume four hours after
     dumping.  The seasonal  disappearance  of the pycnocline is
     not considered.

3.   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
          dumping  from a metropolitan coastal  area.  The con-
          version  to dry  weight  assumes  4  percent  solids by
          weight.  The  worst-case  value is an arbitrary doubl-
          ing  of  the  typical value  to  allow  for potential
          future increase.               v

          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,
                         3-32

-------
     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  82-5  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
     the typical site,  except  that  barges  would  dump half
     their  load   along   a  track,  then  turn  around  and
     dispose of the balance  along the  same  track in order
     to prevent a barge  from dumping outside  of  the site.
     This  practice  would   effectively  halve  the  path
     length  compared to the typical  site.

b.   Sludge  concentration of  pollutant  (SC)

     Typical    0.66 mg/kg  DW
     Worst      0.93 mg/kg  DW

     See Section 3,  p.  3-1.

c.   Disposal site characteristics

                                     Average
                                     current
                  Depth to            velocity
              pycnocline (D)        at  site  (V)

     Typical      20 m              9500 m/day
     Worst         5 m              4320 m/day

     Typical site  values are  representative  of   a  large.
     deep-water  site  with  an  area  of  about  1500  km^
     located beyond the continental  shelf in  the New York
     Bight.   The  pycnocline  value  of  20 m chosen  is  the
     average of  the 10  to  30 m pycnocline  depth  range
     occurring  in  the  summer   and  fall; the  winter  and
     spring  disappearance of  the pycnocline  is not consi-
     dered and  so  represents  a conservative approach  in
     evaluating annual  or  long-term impact.   The current
                   3-33

-------
          velocity of  11 cm/sec  (9500  m/day)  chosen  is  based
          on the  average current velocity  in  this  area  (CDM,
          1984c).

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

4.   Factors Considered in Initial Mixing

     When a  load  of  sludge  is dumped from a moving tanker,  an
     immediate  mixing  occurs  in  the  turbulent  wake  of  the
     vessel, followed  by more gradual spreading of the plume.
     The  entire plume,  which initially  constitutes a  narrow
     band the length of  the tanker path,  moves more-or-Iess  as
     a  unit with  the  prevailing  surface  current  and,  under
     calm conditions,  is not  further dispersed by  the  current
     itself.  However,  the current acts to  separate successive
     tanker  loads,  moving each  out  of  the immediate  disposal
     path before the next load is dumped.

     Immediate  mixing   volume   after   barge   disposal   is
     approximately equal to   the length  of  the  dumping  track
     with a  cross-sectional area  about  four times  that defined
     by   the  draft  and  width   of  the   discharging   vessel
     (Csanady,  1981, as  cited in NOAA,  1983).   The resulting
     plume  is  initially   10 m  deep  by 40  m wide (O'Connor  and
     Park,   1982,   as  cited   in  NOAA,  1983).     Subsequent
     spreading  of  plume  band  width  occurs  at  an  average  rate
     of approximately  1  cm/sec (Csanady et  al.,  1979,  as  cited
     in NOAA, 1983).   Vertical mixing is  limited by the  depth
     of the  pycnocline or ocean  floor,  whichever  is shallower.
     Four hours after  disposal,  therefore,  average  plume  width
     (W) may be  computed  as  follows:

     W = 40 m +• 1 cm/sec x 4  hours x 3600 sec/hour  x 0.01 m/cm
     = 184 m = approximately  200  m

     Thus  the  volume  of  initial  mixing  is  defined  by  the
     tanker  path,  a 200 m width, and  a  depth appropriate  to
     the  site.  For  the  typical  (deep water) site, this  depth
     is chosen as  the  pycnocline  value  of 20 m.  For the  worst
     (shallow water)  site,  a  value  of  10  m  was  chosen.    At
     times  the  pycnocline may be as  shallow as 5 m,  but  since
     the  barge  wake causes initial  mixing to  at   least  10  m,
     the greater value  was used.
                        3-34

-------
     5.    Index 1 Values (llg/L)
               Disposal                          Sludge Disposal
               Conditions and                   Rate (rot DW/day)
               Site Charac-     Sludge
               teristics    Concentration      0      825     1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.0013
0.0019
0.0013
0.0019
               Worst          Typical          0.0   0.011    0.011
                              Worst           0.0   0.016    0.016

     6.   Value Interpretation - Value equals  the  expected increase
          in DDT/DDE/DDD  concentration  in  seawater  around a  dis-
          posal site  as  a result  of  sludge disposal  after initial
          mixing.

     7.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Ocean  disposal  of  sludge  is
          expected to result  in  slight to moderate increases in the
          concentrations  of  DDT and  its metabolites  after initial
          mixing in the seawater surrounding the disposal sites.

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

     1.   Explanation  -   Calculates  increased  effective  concentra-
          tions in  Ug/L  of  pollutant  in  seawater around  an  ocean
          disposal  site  utilizing  a  time weighted  average  (TWA)
          concentration.  The TWA  concentration is that which would
          be experienced  by  an-  organism remaining stationary (with
          respect to  the  ocean  floor)  or moving randomly within the
          disposal vicinity.   The  dilution volume  is  determined by
          Che  tanker  path length  and  depth  to pycnocline  or,  for
          the shallow water  site,  the 10 m effective  mixing depth,
          as before,  but  the effective  width  is  now  determined by
          current movement perpendicular to the tanker path over 24
          hours.

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations - Incorporates all  of the assump-
          tions  used  to  calculate Index  1.    In  addition,  it is
          assumed   that • organisms  would  experience  high-pulsed
          sludge concentrations  for  8  to 12 hours  per  day and  then
          experience  recovery (no  exposure to  sludge)  for 12  to 16
          hours per  day.   This situation  can be   expressed  by the
          use of a TWA concentration of sludge  constituent.

     3.   Data Used and Rationale

          See Section 3,  pp.   3-32 to 3-33.
                              3-35

-------
4.   Factors  Considered in  Determining  Subsequent  Additional
     Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
5.
See Section 3, p. 3-35.

Index 2 Values (jig/D

     Disposal
     Conditions and
     Site Charac-    Sludge
     teristics    Concentration
                                           Sludge Disposal
                                           Rate (mt DW/day)
                                                 825
                                                              1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.00036
0.00050
0.00072
0.0010
          Worst
                              Typical
                              Worst
                                    0.0
                                    0.0
0.0032
0.0044
0.0063
0.0089
6.
          Value   Interpretation   -  Value   equals   the   effective
          increase in  DDT/DDE/DDD  concentration expressed as  a TWA
          concentration   in   seawater   around   a   disposal   site
          experienced by an organism over a 24-hour period.

     7.   Preliminary  Conclusion  - Ocean  disposal  of  sludge  is
          expected to  result in  slightly  increased  concentrations
          of DDT  and  its  metabolites  to which an  organism around a
          disposal site is exposed in a 24-hour period.

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

     1.   Explanation - Compares the effective increased  concentra-
          tion of pollutant  in  seawater around  the disposal  site
          (Index  2)  expressed  as  a  24-hour TWA  concentration  with
          the marine ambient water quality criterion of  the  pollu-
          tant,  or with another value  judged protective  of  marine
          aquatic life.  For DDT/DDE/DDD, this value  is  the  criter-
          ion that will protect a  sensitive  marine  avian  species,
          the brown  pelican, from reproductive  effects  caused  by
          consumption of marine aquatic  organisms  contaminated  with
          DDT/DDE/DDD.

     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.
                        3-36

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

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

          See Section 3, p. 3-35.

     b.   Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) = 0.0010 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 resul-
          tant 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 DDT/DDE/DDD (U.S. EPA, 1980a).

          The 0.0010 Ug/L  value  chosen  for  DDT  and its metabo-
          lites as  the criterion  to  protect marine organisms
          is for  a  24-hour average concentration;  the concen-
          tration should not  exceed 0.13 Ug/L  at any time to
          protect  against   acute  toxicity  (U.S.   EPA,  1980a).
          The 0.0010 Ug/L  value  is  the  saltwater final residue
          value and  was derived using  the  maximum permissible
          tissue  concentration  (0.15  mg/kg,  based  on reduced
          productivity  of   the  brown   pelican),  the  geometric
          mean    of    normalized   bioconcentration   factors
          (17,870),  and  an 8  percent  lipid  value.   This  resi-
          due value  may be  too high as  it  is based on an esti-
          mate  of the  lipid  content  of  the  brown  pelican's
          diet, rather than on an actual value.

          The acute  value  of  0.13 Ug/L was  derived  from tests
          for  DDT on  17  species of  marine  fish  and  inverte-
          brates; values ranged  from  0.14  to  89  Ug/L.   Acute
          toxicity for  DDT metabolites occurred  at  concentra-
          tions as low  as  3.6 ug/L  (TDE) and 14 ug/L (DDE) and
          would  occur  at   lower  concentrations  if  tested  on
          more  sensitive  organisms.     No  chronic  data  for
          marine  organisms  are  presently available  for  DDT or
          its metabolites.
                         3-37

-------
     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
0.36
0.50
0.72
1.0
               Worst          Typical         0.0    3.2      6.3
                              Worst           0.0    4.4      8.9

     5.   Value Interpretation  - Value  equals  the factor  by which
          the   expected    seawater    concentration    increase   in
          DDT/DDD/DDE  exceeds  the marine  water  quality  criterion.
          A value >1  indicates  that  a  reproductive hazard may exist
          for a sensitive  marine avian species as a  rejsult  of con-
          suming   marine   aquatic   organisms   contaminated   with
          DDT/DDD/DDE.   Even  for values approaching  1,  a reproduc-
          tive  hazard  may  still  exist  because  the  calculation  of
          the AWQC  is  based upon an  estimated lipid  content  of  the
          brown pelican's diet rather than an actual value.

     6.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  A  significant  incremental  risk
          increase to aquatic life due  to  DDT  in  sludge is apparent
          in the scenarios evaluated.

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.   Data Used and Rationale

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

               See Section 3,  p.  3-35.
                             3-38

-------
     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  tun/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.

     It  is  probably  unnecessary   to  follow  the  plume
     further   since   storms,  which would  result   in  much
     more  rapid  dispersion  of pollutants  to  background
     concentrations   are  expected  on  at  least  a  10-day
     frequency  (NOAA,   1983).      Therefore,   the   area
                   3-39

-------
      impacted by  sludge  disposal   (AI,  in  km2)  at  each
      disposal site  will be  considered to  be defined  by
      the tanker  path  length  (L)  times  the distance  of
      current movement (V) during 10  days,  and is  computed
      as follows:

          AI = 10  x L x V x 10~6 km2/m2          (1)

      To be  consistent with a  conservative  approach,  plume
      dilution  due  to  spreading   in   the  perpendicular
      direction to  current  flow  is  disregarded.    More
      likely, organisms  exposed to  the  plume in the  area
      defined by equation 1 would experience  a TWA  concen-
      tration  lower  than  the  concentration  expressed  by
      Index  2.

      Next,   the  value  of  AI  must  be  expressed   as   a
      fraction of  an NMFS reporting area.   In the New York
      Bight,  which  includes NMFS  areas 612-616  and  621-
      623,    deep-water   area   623    has    an   area   of
      approximately 7200 km2 and constitutes  approximately
      0.02 percent  of  the  total seafood  landings  for  the
      Bight  (COM,  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:

      __    AI x 0.02% =                                (2)
      FSt "  7200 km^

[10 x 8000 m x 9500  m  x  10"6  km2/m2]  x Q.0002         . n-5
                   ^HV.VBMM^^__ _ ^ • X  X L\J
                   7200 km2

      For the worst (near shore) site:

      FSC =  AI * 24Z =                                  (3)
            4300 km2
  [IP x 4000 m x 4320  m  x  10"6 km2/m2]  x 0.24           .3
  ^^^^»j -- -^^^^— _ y^o  x iU
                 4300 km2

      To construct  a  worst-case  harvesting  scenario,  it
      was assumed  that the total seafood  consumption  for
      an individual could originate  from an area more  lim-
      ited than the entire New York Bight.  For example,  a
      particular  fisherman  providing  the  entire  seafood
      diet   for  himself  or others  could  fish habitually
                    3-40

-------
     within a single NMFS reporting area.   Or,  an indivi-
     dual could have  a preference  for a particular  spe-
     cies which is  taken  only over  a more  limited  area,
     here assumed arbitrarily  to equal an  NMFS  reporting
     area.    The  fraction of  consumed seafood  (FSW)  that
     could  originate  from  the area  of impact under  this
     worst-case scenario is  calculated as  follows:

     For the typical (deep  water) site:

     FSW =  	AI  ,   = 0.11                       . <4)
           7200 km2

     For the worst (near shore) site:

     FSW =  	^-^r = O.OAO                       (5)
           4300 km2

d.   Bioconcentration   factor   of    pollutant    (BCF)   =
     53,600 L/kg

     The value chosen  is   the  weighted  average BCF  of
     DDT/DDE/DDD for the edible  portion of  all  freshwater
     and estuarine   aquatic   organisms  consumed  by  U.S.
     citizens  (U.S.  EPA,   1980a).    The  weighted average
     BCF is derived as  part of the  water  quality criteria
     developed by  the  U.S.  EPA to  protect human  health
     from   the   potential    carcinogenic    effects    of
     DDT/DDE/DDD  induced   by  ingestion   of  contaminated
     water  and  aquatic organisms.   The  weighted average
     BCF is  calculated by  adjusting  the   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.

e.   Average daily human dietary intake of  pollutant  (Dl)
     = 3.86 Ug/day

     See Section 3,  p. 3-11.

f.   Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.206 Ug/day

     See Section 3,  p. 3-12.
                   3-41

-------
4.   Index 4 Values

     Disposal                                  Sludge Disposal
     Conditions and                            Rate (rot DW/day)
     Site Charac-      Sludge      Seafood
     teristics     Concentration3  Intakea»D    0    825   1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
19
19
19
19
19
20
     Worst         Typical       Typical       19     19    19
                   Worst         Worst         19     21    23

     a All possible  combinations  of these values  are  not pre-
       sented.    Additional  combinations  may  be  calculated
       using the formulae in the Appendix.

     D Refers to  both  the dietary  consumption  of  seafood (QF)
       and  the  fraction  of  consumed seafood  originating from
       the disposal  site  (FS).  "Typical" indicates the use of
       the  typical-case  values for  both of  these parameters;
       "worst" indicates  the use  of the  worst-case values for
       both.

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

     Preliminary  Conclusion  - Ocean   disposal  of  sludge  is
     expected  to  result  in an  increase in  cancer  risk when
     worst-case conditions  occur  for both the concentration of
     total DDT in sludge  and seafood intake.   This expectation
     holds at the typical and worst  sites.
                         3-42

-------
                              SECTION 4

 PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR DDT/DDE/DDD IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE


I. OCCURRENCE

   The general use of DDT was banned in the United    U.S.  EPA,  1980a
   States in 1972.                                    (p. A-l)

   A.  Sludge

       1.  Frequency of Detection

           DDE reported to occur in 1 of 443 samples   U.S.  EPA,  1982
           (0.2Z) from 40 POTWs                       (p. 42)

           4,4'-DDT found at 16 of  76 (21%) POTWs      CDM,  1984a
           surveyed                                   (p. 8)

           4,4'-DDE found at 8 of 78 (102)  POTWs
           surveyed

           4,4'-ODD found at 5 of 888 (6Z)  POTWs
           surveyed

       2.  Concentration
Residue
4, 4 '-DDT
4, 4 '-DDE
4, 4 '-ODD
No. POTWs
Surveyed
76
78
88
Weighted Mean
(mg/kj? DW)
0.28
0.17
0.21
Maximum
(mg/kg DW)
0.93
0.47
0.50
CDM, 1984a
(p. 8)
           In  a  survey  of  40  POTWs,  DDE was  detected   U.S.  EPA,  1982
           in  1  sample  at  10  Ug/L                     (p. 42)

           In  a  survey  of  5 POTWs  in Chicago,  DDT      Jones  and  Lee,
           detected at  levels  <100 yg/L               1977  (p. 52)

           In  a  survey  of  74  POTWs in Missouri,        Clevenger  et
           DDT occurred at mean  concentration  =        al.,  1983
           0.10  ug/g  DW and maximum =0.14  ug/g  DW    (p. 1471)

           Mean  concentration  of residues in           Baxter et  al.,
           3 sludge samples from Denver:               1983  (p. 315)

                     Anaerobically   Waste-activated
                    digested  sludge  sludge (aerobic)
           Residues      (ug/g WW)         (ug/g WW)
p,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
not found
0.051
0.011
0.202
0.094
0.065
                                4-1

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

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        21.3 to 28.9Z positive detection of DDT-T  Carey, 1979
        (DDT + DDE) in agricultural soil of 34     (p. 25)
        states, 1968 to 1973

        21.22 positive detection of DDT-T          Carey et al.,
        in cropland soil of 37 states, 1972        1979 (p. 212)

        48 to 802 detection of DDT-T in residen-   Lang et al.
        tial, golf course, and non-use soils       1979 (p. 231)
        pooled from six USAF bases

    2.  Concentration

        0.015 to 0.069 Ug/g (DW) of DDT-T in       Carey, 1979
        urban soil (geometric means for 1973       (p. 26)
        data)

        0.006 to 0.087 yg/g (DW) of DDT-T in
        agricultural soil (geometric means for
        1973 data)

        0.16 yg/g  (DU) of DDT in cropland          Carey et al.,
        soil (1972 mean for 37 states)             1979 (p. 212)

        0.05 Ug/g  (DW) of DDE in cropland
        soil (1972 mean for 37 states)

        0.86 yg/g  (DW) of DDT-T in residen-        Lang et al.,
        tial soils (mean for 6 USAF bases)         1979 (p. 231)

        0.19 yg/g  (DW) of DDT-T in golf
        course soils (mean for 6 USAF bases)

        0.06 yg/g  (DW) of DDT-T in non-use
        area soils (mean for 6 USAF bases)

        4.5 Ug/g DDT-R (DDT + DDE + ODD) in soils  Owen et al.,
        12 years following application of DDT      1977 (p. 359)
        at 1.12 kg/ha for 3 years (1976 data)

        9.0 Ug/g DDT-R in agricultural  soil with   Rudd et al.,
        no DDT application for "many years".       1981 (p. 222)

C.  Water - Unpolluted

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        100% for DDT-R in U.S. rivers between      National Academy
        1958 and 1965                              of Sciences
                                                   (NAS), 1977
                              4-2

-------
    2.  Concentration

        a.  Freshwater

            10 ng/L DDT-R typical value
            0.62 to 112 ng/L mean DDT-R  in U.S.
            streams prior to 1967

        b.  Seawater

            1 ng/L DDT-R typical value
            0.30 to 60 ng/L DDT in Pacific Ocean
            coastal waters (1973, 1974 and 1975
            data)

        c.  Drinking Water

            Not detected to 68 ng/L DDT (1975
            data)
D.  Air
    1*.  Frequency of Detection

Study site
location (1967-68)
urban
rural
overall
Percent of samples-
with residue
P,P'-DDT P,D'-DDE
68 3
87 34
78 18

Number
of samples
437
438
875
    2.  Concentration
            Urban
            8.6 to 24.4 ng/m^ range of maximum
            levels of p,p'-DDT observed in air
            above four cities (1967 and 1968)
            2.4 to 11.3 ng/nr* range of maximum
            levels of p,p'-DDE observed in air
            during 1967 and 1968 above 3 cities
            (none detected at fourth site)
 Kenaga,  1972
 (pp.  198 and
 199)

 Matsumura,  1972
 (p. 42)
Kenaga,  1972
(pp. 198 and
199)

U.S. EPA,  1980a
(p. C-4)
NAS, 1977
(p. 569)
                                                   Stanley et al.,
                                                   1971 (p. 435)
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
                              4-3

-------
Residue

p,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDE
 Average concentration
      in air over
 Columbia, SC during
     Summer, 1978
 	(ng/rn^)	
                                 Average concentration
                                       in air over
                                    Boston, MA during
                                      October, 1978
                                     Bidleman, 1981
                                     (p. 623)
          0.27
          0.29
           0.30

    b.  Rural
                   0.025
                   not detected
                   <0.06
                 2.7 to 1560 ng/m3 p,p'-DDT range
                 of maximum levels observed in air at
                 5 rural localities (1967 and 1968);
                 3.7 to 131 ng/m3 p,p'-DDE range
                 of maximum levels observed at
                 4 rural localities 1967 and 1968
                 (none detected at fifth site)
                                               Stanley et al.,
                                               1971 (p. 435)
     B.  Pood
         1.  Total Average Intake
Residue   FY75
                Total Relative Daily Intakes-Adult
                             body wt/day)
DDE
DDT
0.0659
0.0152
 FY76      FY77      FY78      Mean  FDA, 1979
                                     (attachment G)
0.0545    0.0394    0.0607    0.0551
0.0074    0.0057    0.0084    0.0092
Residue

DDE
DDT
Average body weight of an adult = 70 kg,
Total Average Daily Intake per Adult:
DDE:  70 kg x 0.0551 Ug/kg/day = 3.86 Ug/day
DDT:  70 kg x 0.0092. Ug/kg/day = 0.644  Ug/day

Total Relative Daily Intakes-Toddler
        (Ug/kg body wt/day)
 FY75      FY76      FY77      Mean
                                                        FDA,  1980
                                                        (pp.  6 and 8)
0.1598
0.0064
0.0985
0.0046
0.3316
0.0481
0.1966
0.0197
         Average body weight of a toddler = 13.7 kg
         Total Average Daily Intake per Toddler:
         DDE:   13.7 kg x 0.1966 = 2.69 Ug/day
         DDT:   13.7 kg x 0.0197 = 0.27 Ug/day
                                   4-4

-------
2.   Concentration
   Mean Concentration
Food
(year)
Corn-kernel
(1971)
Rice
(1971)
Soybeans
(1971)
Corn-kernel
(1972)
Peanuts
(1972)
Soybeans
(1972)
(llg/R DW)
p,p'-DDT p,p'-DDE
<0.01 <0.01 1

0.15 0.02 1

<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 — 1

<0.01

<0.01
    Range
(Ug/g DW)
                       .p'-DDT    p,p'-DDE

                       1-0.26    0.01-0.03

                    0.03-0.27    0.01-0.03

                    0.01-0.05

                    0.03-0.07

                              ~  0.02-0.02

                    0.01-0.07
1971 data from
Carey et al.,
1978 (pp. 133 to
136); 1972 data
from Carey
et al., 1979
(p. 222 to 225)
       0.01-0.02
     Frequency of detection and range  of  DDE
     and  DDT in food groups (FY78)

                   Total  Observations  Out
                     of  20 Composites
                    FDA,  1979
                    (attachment  E)

Dairy
Meat and poultry
Grains and cereal
Potatoes
Leafy vegetables
Legumes
Root vegetables
Garden fruit
Fruit
Oils and fats
Sugars
Beverages
Range (ng/g)
DDE
10
20
2
10
1
2
1
0.4-6
DDT
3
—
2
1
1
0.5-140
     Concentration  of  DDT-R  in  Illinois
     milk  (1971  to  1976):
     Mean:    10  ng/g
     Range:   10  to  50  ng/g
                   Wedberg et al.,
                   1978 (p.  164)
                        4-5

-------
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
    A.   Ingestion
         1.    Carcinogenicity

              a.    Qualitative Assessment

                   No  evidence of carcinogenicity
                   for DDT,  DDE,  ODD in humans;  how-
                   ever,  all forms have produced
                   tumors in experimental animals.
                   Under  the IARC classification
                   scheme, DDT is placed in  Group 2B,
                   "probably carcinogenic to humans".

              b.    Potency

                   Cancer potency =
                   0.34 mg/kg/day)"1.   Derived for
                   humans with data obtained from
                   tests  on  mice.  This potency
                   value  applies  to DDT,  DDE, and
                   ODD.
                                         U.S.  EPA,  1980b
                                         (pp.  4  and 5),
                                         1980c (p.  3),
                                         1980d (pp.  2 and
                                         3), 1985  (p. 2)
                                         U.S. EPA,  1985
                                         (p. 5)
        2.
c.   Effects

     DDT:  hepatomas, leukemias, and
     pulmonary carcinomas observed in
     mice fed technical grade DDT

     DDE:  liver tumors, hepatocellu-
     lar carcinomas, observed in mice
     fed p,p'-DDE

     ODD:  liver tumors in males,
     only; lung adenomas in both sexes
     of mice fed ODD.  Rats dosed with
     p,p'-DDD developed follicular
     cell adenomas in males, only.

Chronic Tozicity

a.   ADI

     FAO/WHO:   5 yg/kg/day
             b.   Effects

                  No evidence of chronic toxicity
                  observed in man; however, in
                  experimental animals, an increase
                  in the size of liver, kidneys and
                                                       U.S.  EPA,  1980b
                                                       (p. 4);  U.S.
                                                       EPA,  1985

                                                       U.S.  EPA,  1980c
                                                       (p. 3);  U.S.
                                                       EPA,  1985

                                                       U.S.  EPA,  1980d
                                                       (pp.  2 and 3);
                                                       U.S.  EPA,  1985
                                                      NAS, 1977
                                                      (p. 575)
                                         U.S.  EPA,  1980a
                                         (p.  C-32)
                                 4-6

-------
                                         U.S. EPA, 1980c
                                         (p. C-14)
                                         U.S. EPA, 1980a
                                         (p. C-14)

                                         U.S. EPA, 1980a
                                         (p. C-14)
                    spleen,  extensive degenerative
                    changes  in the liver and an
                    increased mortality rate have been
                    observed.

          3.   Absorption Factor

               One subject absorbed up to about 852
               of ingested technical grade DDT.

          4.   Existing Regulations

               U.S. EPA water quality criterion set
               at 0.001 ug/L in 1976

               U.S. EPA (40  FR 17116) criteria for
               protection of freshwater life:
               Final acute value    0.41 ug/L
               Final chronic value  0.00023 Ug/L

     B.   Inhalation

          Data for the inhalation route were assumed
          to be the same as  for the ingestion route.

III. PLANT EFFECTS

     A.   Phytotoxicity

          See Table 4-1.

     B.   Uptake

          See Table 4-2.

 IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS

     A.   Tozicity

          See Table 4-3.

     B.   Uptake

          See Table 4-4.

  V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS

     A.   Toxicity

          1.   Freshwater
Acute toxicity data for DDT are avail-   U.S. EPA, 1980a
able for 18 invertebrate and 24 fish     (p. B-ll)
species; values ranged from 0.18 to
                    4-7

-------
              1800  Ug/L.   A final acute value of
              1.1  Ug/L was obtained from the above
              acute data.
              A final  residue  value  of  0.0010
              is based on the  maximum permissible
              tissue concentration  (0.15  mg/kg), the
              geometric mean of  normalized  BCFs
              (17,870) and a percent lipid  value of
              8.

              Acute toxicity for IDE (ODD)  occurs  at
              concentrations as  low  as  0.6  Ug/L.

              Acute toxicity for DDE occurs at
              concentrations as  low  as  1050 Ug/L.

              No chronic toxicity data  are  available
              for DDT  or its metabolites.

         2.    Saltwater

              Acute toxicity data for DDT are  avail-
              able for 17 invertebrate  and  fish  spe-
              cies; values ranged from  0.4  to
              89 Ug/L.  A final  acute value of
              0.13 ug/L was obtained from the above
              acute data.

              A final  residue  value  is  0.0010  Ug/L.
              (See Section 4,  p. 4-8.)

              Acute toxicity  for TDE (ODD)  occurs  at
              concentrations as  low as  3.6  ug/L.
              Acute toxicity for DDE occurs at
              concentrations as low as 14 Ug/L.
    B.   Uptake
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. B-12)
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. B-13)

U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. B-13)
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(pp. B-32 to
B-34)
         The BCF of DDT for the edible portion of all
         freshwater and estuarine aquatic organisms
         consumed by U.S. citizens is 53,600.
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. B-10)

U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. B-13)

U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. B-13)
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(pp. C-8,9)
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS

    A.   Toxicity

         See Table 4-5.

    B.   Uptake

         See Table 4-6.
                                  4-8

-------
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AMD TRANSPORT

                                 354.49
Molecular weight (DDT):


Melting point (p,p'-DDT):
                                 108.5 to 109.0°C
     Vapor pressure (p,p'-DDT):
          1.9 x 10~7 torr at 25°C
          1.5 x 10~7 torr at 20°C

     Solubility in water at 25°C
          p,p'-DDT:    <1.2 to 25 Ug/L
          o,p'-DDT:     26 to 85
     Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc)

          DDT:     2.43 x 106 mL/g
          DDE:     5.00 x 106 raL/g
          ODD:     8.90 x 105 raL/g

     Half-life  in soils (DDT)
          Mean:     10.5 years
          Range:   2.5 to 35 years
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. A-3)

U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. A-3)

U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. A-3)
                                                   U.S.. EPA, 1980a
                                                   (p. A-3)
                                                   Hassett et al.,
                                                   1983
                                                   Nash and
                                                   Woolson, 1967
                                                   (p. 926)
                                   4-9

-------
                                                      TABLE 4-1.  PHYTOTOXICITY OF DDT/DDE/DDD
Chemical
Plant Form Applied
Beets DDT
Tomato DDT
Cucumber, strawberry, DDT
carrot
*>
i
££ . Black, valentine DDT
bean
Black valentine . DDT
bean
Black valentine DDT
bean
Black valentine DDT
bean
Control Tissue Soil Application
Soil Concentration Concentration Rate
Type (Ug/g DW) (pg/g DW) (kg/ha)
NHa NR NR 22.4
Pot culture NR NR 22.4
Pot culture NR NR 112.1
loamy fine NR 12.5-100
sand
loamy fine NR 12.5
sand
loamy fine NR 50
sand
loamy fine NR 100
sand
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(Ug/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Effects
Reduced growth
Reduced growth
Positive or no effect
Increased seed
germination
35Z reduction in root
weight, HZ reduction
in top weight
54Z reduction in root
weight, 37Z reduction
in top weight
50Z reduction in root
weight, 30Z reduction
in top weight
References
Edwards, 1973
(p. 432)
Dennis and
Edwards, 1964
(p. 175)
Dennis and
Edwards, 1964
(p. 175)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
Eno and
Everett, 1958
(p. 236)
a NR = Not reported.

-------
                                                   TABLE 4-2.  UPTAKE OF DDT/DDE/DDD BY PLANTS
Plant
Carrot
Potato
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Corn
Corn
Corn
Oats
Data
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Tissue
root
tuber
aerial
aerial
aerial
aerial
aerial
aerial
aerial
root
root
root
root
' root
root
root
root
Soil
Type
sandy loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
clay
sandy loam
clay
muck
clay
muck
clay
muck
agricultural
agricultural
agricultural
agricultural
agricultural
agricultural
Chemical Form
Applied
DDT
DDT
DDT-RC
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-B
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
Soil Concentration*
(Mg/g DW)
24
24
0
0
0
0
17
0
17
0
17
0
0
1
2
4
5
.8
.8
.23
.60
.23
.60
.58
.60
.58
.60
.58
.45
.76
.10
.36
.42
.32
Tissue
Concentration8
(Mg/g W)
3.17
1.63
0.02
0.01
0.12
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.04
o.oa
0.20
0.35
0.33
Bioconcent ration''
Factor
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0
0
<0
0
<0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.07
.09
.02
.52
.07
.001
.05
.01
.05
.001
.04
.05
.07
.08
.08
.06
References

Edwards, 1970 (p. 35)
Edwards, 1970 (p. 35)
Harris and
Harris and
Harris and
Harris and
Harris and
Harris and
Harris and
Harris and
Harris and
Onsager et
Onsager et
Onsager et
Onsager et
Onsager et
Onsager et
Sana, 1969
Sans, 1969
Sans, 1969
Sans, 1969
Sans, 1969
Sans, 1969
Sand, 1969
Sans, 1969
Sans, 1969
al., 1970
al., 1970
al., 1970
al., 1970
al., 1970
al., 1970
(p. 184)
(p. 184)
(p. 184)
(p. 184)
(p. 184)
(p. 184)
(p. 184)
(p. 184)
(p. 184)
(p. 1114)
(p. 1114)
(p. 1114)
(p. 1114)
(p. 1114)
(p. 1114}
* Edwards (1970) and Onsager et al. (1970) did not specify
  Harris and Sans (1969) calculated concentrations tor dry
b BCF = tissue concentration/soil concentration.
c DDT-R = DDT + DDE «• ODD for Harris and bans (1969) data.
whether their calculations of concentrations  were based on dry or fresh weights.
weight ol soil and fresh weight of crop.

 DDT-K = p.p'DDT + o.'p'DDT+BDE for Onsager et al. (1970) data.

-------
TABLE 4-3.  TOX1C1TY OF DDT/DDE/DDD TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS  AHD WILDLIFE
Chemical Form
Species (N)a Fed
Kestrels (19) DDE
Barn owls DDE
Hens DDT
^ Hens DDT
KJ
Hens DDT
Hens DDT
Rat DDT
Rat DUE
Dog DOT
Mice DDT
Rat~ DDT
Rat DDT
Peed
Concentration
(Mg/g DU)
10
2.83C
20
310
1000
2500
NR
NR
NR
NR
5
600-800
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NRb
NK
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NK
NR
NH
MR
Daily Intake
(mg/kg DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
100-400
380-1,240
60-75
200
NR
NR
Duration
of Study Effects
7 weeks-1 year Reduced eggshell thickness
2 years Reduced eggshell thickness
10 weeks No effect
NH Lowered egg production
10 weeks Toxic syrap corns, reduced
reproductive success
NR Lethal
NR LD50
NR LDjo
NR LDso
NR LD50
NR Hepatic alteration
NR Significant changes in
weight and mortality
References
Wiemeyer and
Porter, 1970
(p. 738)
Mendenhall
et al.. 1983
(p. 237)
Stickel, 1973
(p. 287)
Stickel. 1973
(p. 287)
Stickel, 1973
(p. 287)
Stickel, 1973
(p. 287)
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. C-31)
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. C-31)
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. C-31)
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. C-31)
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. C-32)
U.S. EPA, 1980a
(p. C-32)

-------
                                                               TABLE 4-3.   (continued)

Chemical Form
Species (N)a Fed
Nice DDT
Rhesus monkey ' DDT
Feed Water
Concentration Concentration Daily Intake Duration
(pg/g DM) (rog/L) (mg/kg DW) of Study Effects
>100 m NR NR Significant increase in
mortality
200 NR NR NR No effect


References
U.S.

-------
                                       TABLE 4-4.  UPTAKE OF DDT/DDE/DDD BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS  AND WILDLIFE
Species
Cattle
Pheasant
Dove
Dove
Kestrel
Kestrel
Hens
Owls
Cow
Cow
Cow
Cow
Sheep
Sheep
Chemical
Form Fed
DDE
DDT-Rd
DDE
DDE
DDE
DDE
DDT
DDE
DDE
DDE
DDE
DDT
DDE
DDT
Feed
Concentration8
NRC
NR
1.67
4.61
6.0
5.0
0.05
3.0
0.31
1.56
1.40
1.40
0.068
0.63
Tissue
Analyzed
fat
body
fat
fat
carcass
fat
1 iver
carcass
milk fat
milk fat
milk fat
milk fat
fat
fat
Tissue
Concentration*
(Mg/g DW)
NR
NR
120
232.0
35.3
489.7
0.25
112.0
2.13
10.4
6.76
1.21
0.36
1.08
Bioconcentration
Factorb
2.2-9.5
2.91
71.9
50.3
5.9
81.6
5.0
37.3
7.0
6.7
4.8
0.9
5.7
1.7
References
Connor, 1984 (p. 50)
Kenaga, 1972 (p. 201)
McArthur et al., 1983 (p
McArthur et al., 1983 (p
Rudolf et al., 1983 (p.
Rudolf et al., 1983 (p.
Bevenue, 1976 (p. 87)
Mendenhall et al., 1983
and 238)
Fries, 1982 (p. 15)
Fries, 1982 (p. 15)
Fries, 1982 (p. 15)
Fries, 1982 (p. 15)
Fries, 1982 (p. 15)
Fries, 1982 (p. 15)



. 345)
. 345)
128)
128)

(pp. 237






8 The concentrations were calculated on a DW or UW basis as follows:   Connor (1984) feed-DW,  tissue -  not  specified,  Kenaga  (1972)  not
  specified, McArthur et al. (1983) feed-DW, tissue-WU,  Rudolf  and Anderson (1983) feed-WW,  tissue-WW, Bevenue  (1976) not  specified,  Mendenhall
  et al. (1983) feed-WW, tissue-WW, Fries (1982) feed-DW (cous) -  not  specified (sheep),  tissue-DM (cows)  -  not  specified  (sheep).
b BCF - Tissue concentration/feed concentration.
c NR = Not reported.
d DDT-R = DDT * DDE * DDD.

-------
                                                TABLE 4-5.   TOX1CITY  OF  DDT/DDE/DDD TO SOIL  BIOTA
Experimental
Soil
Chemical Form Soil Concentration
Biota/tissue Applied Type (Mg/g DU)
Earthworm/ whole



Earthworm/ whole
Earthworm/whole
Earthworm/whole
. Earthworm/whole
i
£jj Earthworm

Soil microorganisms


Soil microorganisms


Soil fungus
Soil fungus


Soil fungus


DDE



DDE
DDE
DDE
DDE

DDT

DDT


DDT


DDT
DDT


DDT


bedding 1.5-6.0



bedding 15
bedding 30
bedding 60
bedding 150

agricultural NR

agricultural NR


agricultural NR


loamy sand 12.5
loamy sand 50


loamy sand 100


Application
Rate
(kg/ha) Effects
NRa Mortality rate not
significant; signifi-
cant changes to
epidermis
NR 22.52 mortality
NR 32.52 mortality
NR 57.52 mortality
NR 86.22 mortality

5.6 32.92 reduction in
biomasa
up to "negative results"
several
1000 kg/ha
22.4 102 reduction
bacteria, 42 increase
in fungi
NR No effect
NR 302 increase in
fungus in gram of
soil
NR 332 increase in
fungus in gram of
sui 1
References
Cathey,



Cathey,
Cathey,
Cathey,
Cathey,

Thompson

Hartin,


Martin,


Eno and
Eno and


Eno and


1982 (p.



1982 (p.
1982 (p.
1982 (p.
1982 (p.

, 1971 (p

1972 (p.


1972 (p.


Everett,
Everett,


Everett,


75)



76)
76)
76)
76)










. 580-581)

733)


745)


1958
1958


1958









(p. 237)
(p. 237)


(p. 237)


* NR = Not reported.

-------
                                                TABLE 4-6.   UPTAKE OF DDT/DDE/DDD BY  SOIL  BIOTA
Biota/tissue
Earthworm/ whole
Beetle
Slug
Earthworm/whole
Earthworm/whole
Chemical Form
Applied
DDT-HD
DDT-B
DDT-R
DDT-R
DDT-R
Soil
Type
NRC
old field
old field
NR
agricultural
Soil Concentration
(pg/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
9.9
1.36
Tissue
Concentration
(UK/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
140.6
12.3
Bioconcent ration*
Factor
0.67-73.0
0.31-2.81
2.33-3.70
14.20
9.0
References
Kenaga, 1972 (p. 201)
Kenaga, 1972 (p. 201)
Kenaga, 1972 (p. 201)
Thompson, 1973 (p. 95)
Cish, 1970 (p. 251)
• BCF - Tissue concentration/soil concentration.
b DDT-H = DDT * DDE » ODD.
c NR = Not reported.

-------
                                  SECTION 5

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

  Baxter,  J.  C.,  M. Aquiler,  and  K.  Brown.    1983.    Heavy Metals  and
       Persistent Organics  at a  Sewage  Sludge Disposal Site.  J.  Environ.
       Qual.  12(3):311-316.

  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.

  Bevenue,  A.    1976.     The  "Bioconcentration"  Aspects  of  DDT in   the
       Environment.   Residues Review  61:37-112.

  Bidleman,  T.  F.    1981.   Interlaboratory Analysis  of  High  Molecular
      Weight  Organochlorines  in  Ambient  Air.    Atmospheric  Environment.
       15:619-624.

 Boswell,  F.  C.   1975.    Municipal  Sewage  Sludge and  Selected  Element
      Applications  to   Soil:   Effect  on  Soil  and  Fescue.    J.  Environ.
      Qual. 4:2.

 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.
      EPA,  Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

Carey, A.  E.,  J. A. Gowen, H.  Tai,  W.  G. Mitchell, and G. B.  Wiersma.
     1978.  Pesticide Residue  Levels in Soils and  Crops.   1971-National
     Soils Monitoring Program.   III.   Pest. Monit. J.  12(3):117-136.
                                   5-1

-------
Carey,  A. E.,  J.  A. Gowen,  H.  Tai, W. G.  Mitchell,  and G.  B.  Wiersma.
     1979.   Pesticide Residue  Levels  in Soils and Crops  from 37 States,
     1972-National  Soils  Monitoring  Program.    IV.    Pest.  Monit.  J.
     12(4):209-229.

Cathey,  B.   1982.   Comparative Toxicities of  Five  Insecticides  to the
     Earthworm, Lumbricus  terrestris.   Agric.  Environ.  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.  J.  Water Pollut. Control Fed. 55(12):1470-1475.

Connor,  M.  S.    1984.   Monitoring  Sludge Amended  Agricultural  Soils.
     BioCycle.  January/February:47-51.

Dennis,  E. B., and  C.  A.  Edwards.   1964.   Phytotoxicity  of  Insecticides
     and Acaricides.   III.   Soil Application.   Plant  Pathology 13:173-
     177.

Donigian,  A. S.   1985.  Personal Communication.   Anderson-Nichols  & Co.,
     Inc.,  Palo Alto, CA.   May.

Edwards,  C.  A.    1970.  Persistent  Pesticides in  the  Environment.   CRC
     Press,  Cleveland, OH.

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

Eno, C.  F.,  and  P.  H. Everett.  1958.   Effects  of Soil  Applications  of
     10  Chlorinated  Hydrocarbon  Insecticides  on  Soil Microorganisms and
     Growth  of Stringless  Black Valentine   Beans.   Proc.  Soil Sci.  Soc.
     Am.  22:235-238.

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

Food and  Drug  Administration.   1979.    Compliance  Program  Report  of
     Findings  FY78  Total  Diet  Studies -  Adult  (7305.003).   Bureau  of
     Foods,  FDA,  Washington,  D.C.

Food and  Drug  Administration.   1980.    Compliance  Program  Report  of
     Findings FY77 Total Diet  Studies  - Infants and Toddlers  (7320.74).
     Bureau  of Foods, FDA,  Washington,  D.C.
                                   5-2

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

 Fries,  G. F.    1982.    Potential  Polychlorinated  Biphenyl  Residues in
      Animal  Products  from  Application  of Contaminated Sewage  Sludge to
      Land. J. Environ. Qual.  11(1):14-20.

 Gelhar,  L.  W.,  and   G.  J.  Axness.    1981.    Stochastic   Analysis  of
      Macrodispersion  in  3-Dimensionally  Heterogenous  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.

 Gish,  C.  D.    1970.    Organochlorine Insecticide Residues in  Soils  and
      Soil  Invertebrates   from  Agricultural  Lands.    Pest.  Monit.   J.
      3(4):241-252.

 Griffin,   R.  A.    1984.   Personal  Communication to  U.S.  Environmental
      Protection  Agency,  ECAO   -  Cincinnati,   OH.     Illinois   State
      Geological Survey.

 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.

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

Jones,  R.  A., and G.  F. Lee.  1977.  Chemical Agents of Potential Health
      Significance  for   Land  Disposal of Municipal  Wastewater Effluents.
      In:   Sagik, B. P.,  and  C.  A.  Sorber (Eds.).  Risk  Assessment and
      Health  Effects  of  Land  Application  of  Municipal  Wastewater  and
      Sludges.     Univ.   of  Texas  Center   for   Applied   Research  and
      Technology.  San Antonio, TX.

Kenaga,  E.  E.     1972.    Chlorinated  Hydrocarbon  Insecticides  in  the
      Environment.   In:    Matsumura,  F.  (Ed.).   Environmental Toxicology
     of Pesticides.  Academic  Press, New York, NY.

Lang,   J.   T.,    L.  C.   Rodriquez,  and   J.  M.   Livingston.     1979.
     Organochloride Pesticide  Residues  in  Soils from Six U.S. Air  Force
     Bases, 1975-1976.   Pest. Monit. J.  12(4):230-233.
                                   5-3

-------
Martin,  J.   P.    1972.    Side  Effects  of  Organic  Chemicals  on  Soil
     Properties and Plant Growth.  In;  Goring,  C.  A.,  and J. W. Uamaker
     (Eds.).  Organic Chemicals  in the  Soil  Environment.   Marcel 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.

McArthur, M.  L.  B.,  G.  A.  Fox,  D.  B.  Peakall,   and  B.   J.  Philogene.
     1983.     Ecological   Significance  of   Behavioral    and   Hormonal
     Abnormalities in Breeding Ring Doves Fed  an Organochloride Chemical
     Mixture.  Arch. Environ. Contam.  Toxicol.  12:343-353.

Mendenhall,   V.  M.,  E.  E. Klaas,  and M.  A.  McLanes.   1983.   Breeding
     Success  of  Barn  Owls   (Tyto  alba) Fed   Low Levels  of  DDE  and
     Dieldrin.  Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12:235-240.

Nash,  R. G.,  and  E.  A. Woolson.    1967.    Persistence   of  Chlorinated
     Hydrocarbon Insecticides in Soils.   Science 157:924-927.

National  Academy  of  Sciences.    1977.    Drinking  Water  and  Health.
     National  Review   Council  Safe   Drinking  Water  Committee,   NAS,
     Washington, D.C.

National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration.    1983.    Northeast
     Monitoring  Program  106-Mile  Site  Characterization   Update.    NOAA
     Technical  Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-26.   U.S.  Department  of  Commerce
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration.   August.

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

Owen,  R.  B.,  J.  B.  Diamond,   and   A.  S.  Getchell.    1977.    DDT:
     Persistence in Northern Spodosols.   J. Environ. Qual.  6(4):359-360.

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.  Pricket, 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.

Rudd,  R.  L.,  R.  L.   Craig, and  W.  S.  Williams.    1981.    Trophic
     Accumulation of DDT in' a Terrestrial Food  Web. J. Environ. Pollut.
     (Ser. A) 25:219-228.

Rudolf,  R.  W., D.  W.  Anderson,  and  R. W. Resborough.    1983.   Kestrel
     Predatory  Behavior under Chronic  Low-Level  Exposure  to  DDE.   J.
     Environ. Pollut. (Ser. A) 32:121-126.
                                   5-4

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

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

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

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

Stickel, L. F.   1973.   Pesticide Residues  in Birds  and  Mammals.   In;
     Edwards,   C.   A.   (Ed.).    Environmental  Pollution  By  Pesticides.
     Plenum Press,  New York, NY.

Thompson,  A. R.  1971.   Effects of  Nine Insecticides  on the  Numbers and
     Biomass of Earthworms  in  Pasture.   Bull.  Environ.  Contam. Toxicol.
     5(6):577-586.

Thompson,  A. R'.   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.  Washington,  D.C.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1977.   Environmental  Assessment
     of Subsurface  Disposal  of Municipal  Wastewater  Sludge:    Interim
     Report.     EPA/530/SW-547.      Municipal   Environmental   Research
     Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.   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.   1980a.   Ambient  Water  Quality
     Criteria  for  DDT.   EPA/440/5-80-038.   Office  of  Water  Regulations
     and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division,  Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1980b.   DDT:   Hazard  Profile.
     Prepared   by  Center   for  Chemical   Hazard  Assessment,   Syracuse
     Research  Corp.,  Syracuse, NY.   Revised  by  Environmental  Criteria
     and Assessment Office,  Cincinnati, OH.  April.
                                   5-5

-------
 U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.    1980c.    DDE:    Hazard Profile.
      Prepared   by   Center  for  Chemical   Hazard   Assessment,  Syracuse
      Research  Corp.,  Syracuse,  MY.    Revised by  Environmental Criteria
      and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.  April.

 U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.    1980d.    ODD:    Hazard Profile.
      Prepared   by   Center  for  Chemical   Hazard   Assessment,  Syracuse
      Research  Corp.,  Syracuse,  NY.   Revised by  Environmental Criteria
      and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.  April.

 U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency.     1982.    Fate   of  Priority
      Pollutants  in   Publicly-Owned  Treatment   Works.     Final  Report.
      Vol. I.     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.

 U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1985.   The  Carcinogen  Assessment
      Group's  Evaluation   of  the  Carcinogenicity  of  Dicofol   (Kelthane),
      DDT,  DDE,   and  ODD  (IDE).   Internal  Document.   EPA 600/6-85-002X.
      Office  of  Health  and  Environmental  Assessment,   Washington,  D.C.
      January.

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.   J.  Environ.  Qual.  11(0:161-
      164.

Wiemeyer,  S.  N.,  and  R.  D.  Porter.   1970.    DDE  Thins Eggshells  of
     Captive American Kestrels.  Nature 227:737-738.
                                   5-6

-------
                               APPENDIX

        PRELIMINARY HAZARD  INDEX  CALCULATIONS  FOR  DDT/DDE/DDD
                      IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

   A.  Effect on Soil Concentration of DDT/DDE/DDD

       1.  Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)

           a.  Formula

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

               CSr = CSS [1 + 0.5<1/c*> +  0.5<2/c*>  +  ...  + O.S

               where:

                    CSg  = Soil  concentration  of  pollutant  after   a
                          single   year's    application    of    sludge
                          (Ug/g  DW)
                    CSr  = Soil  concentration  of  pollutant  after  the
                          yearly  application   of   sludge   has    been
                          repeated  for  n *  1  years  (ug/g  DW)
                    SC   = Sludge concentration of  pollutant  (ug/g DW)
                    AR   = Sludge application  rate  (mt/ha)
                    MS   = 2000  mt  ha/DW  =  assumed  mass  of soil  in
                         upper  15  cm
                    BS   = Background   concentration   of  pollutant   in
                         soil (ug/g DW)
                    t-j.   = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
                    n    = 99 years

          b.  Sample calculation

              CSS is calculated for AR = 0, 5,  and 50 mt/ha only

                        (Q.66  Ug/g  DM * * mt/ha) + (0.16 Ug/g DW  x 2000 mt/ha)
      0.1612 ug/g DW = 	   	(5 mt/ha DW + 2000 mt/ha DW)

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

              7.088  yg/g DW = 0.1612 Ug/g DW [1  +  0.5       +
                          (2/35)        „  J99/35),
                       0.5U     *  •••  + °'5        ]
                               A-l

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

    1.  Index of Soil Biota Toxic ity (Index 2)

        a.  Formula
            Index 2 = ~
            where:
                 I±  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                 TB  = Soil   concentration   toxic   to   soil   biota
                       (Ug/g DW)
        b.  Sample calculation
    2.  Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxic ity (Index 3)

        a.  Formula

            _  .   -   Jl x UB
            Index 3 = — -

            where:

                 !]_  = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
                       sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
                 UB  = Uptake  factor  of  pollutant   in   soil  biota
                       (Ug/g tissue  DW  [Ug/g soil  DW]"1)
                 TR  = Feed  concentration toxic  to   predator  (ug/g
                       DW)

        b.  Sample calculation

            .     _0.1612 ug/g  DW  x  14.2 Ug/g tissue DW  (ug/g soil  DW)"1
            °*229 ~                       10 Ug/g DW

C.  Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

    1.  Index of Phy to toxic Soil Concentration (Index 4}

        a.  Formula

            Index 4 =
                              A-2

-------
          where:

               Ij  = Index 1  = Concentration of  pollutant  in
                     sludge-amended  soil  (ug/g DW)
               TP  = Soil  concentration toxic to plants  (pg/g  DW)

     b.   Sample calculation


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

     a.  Formula

         Index 5 = Ii x UP

         where:

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

    b.   Sample  Calculation

         0.0983  Ug/g  DW = 0.1612  Mg/g  DW x

                0.61 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.
                        A-3

-------
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  (ug/g DW)
                 TA  = Feed   concentration   toxic   to   herbivorous
                       animal (jlg/g DW)

        b.  Sample calculation

                       0-0983   /  DW
            0.000317
                        310 Ug/g DW

    2.  Index  of  Animal  Toxicity Resulting  from  Sludge  Ingestion
        (Index 8)

        a.  Formula

            If AR * 0; Index 8=0


            If AR * 0; Index 8  =  SC  X  GS
                                     TA
            where:
                 AR  = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
                 SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g
                 CS  - 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


            « « "»  0.000106 - °'6
                              A-4

-------
Effect on Humans

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

    a.  Formula

                  (15  x  DT)   + DI
        Index 9 = 	—	


        where:

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

    b.  Sample  calculation (toddler)

               (0.0983 ug/g PW x 74.5 g/day) * 2.69 Ug/day
        *a'& "           0.206 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 . _J	__	


        where:

             15  = Index  5   =  Concentration  of   pollutant  in
                   plant  grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
             UA  = Uptake factor of pollutant  in animal  tissue
                   (Ug/g tissue DW  [Ug/g feed DW]"1)
             DA  = Daily  human  dietary   intake  of   affected
                   animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products  and
                   meat,  poultry,  eggs,  fish)
             DI  = Average daily human dietary intake of
                   pollutant  (ug/day)
             RSI = Cancer risk-specific  intake  (ug/day)

    b.  Sample  calculation (toddler)

        159 - [(0.0983 Ug/g DW x 7  yg/g tissue DW

               [Ug/g  feed DW]"1 x 43.7 g/day DW) * 2.69 Ug/day]

               * 0.206 ug/day
                          A-5

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

    a.  Formula

        Tr ,0   A  T  ,    ,,       (BS x GS  x UA x  DA)  * PI
        If AR = 0; Index  11  = 	i	rrr	'	
                                           Kol

        Tr AD J, n. T  A    11       (SC x GS  x UA x  DA)  * PI
        If AR f 0; Index  11  =


        where:

             AR  = Sludge application rate (mt PW/ha)
             BS  = Background  concentration   of   pollutant  in
                   soil (ug/g PW)
             SC  = Sludge concentration of pollutant 
-------
            b.  Sample calculation (toddler)

                lft q _ (0.1612 ug/g DW x 5 g/day) + 2.69 ug/dav
                   3 "             0.206 ug/day

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

            a.  Formula
                Index 13 = Ig +  I^g  *  *11  * J12 ~

                where:

                     Ig  = Index   9 -   Index  of  human   cancer  risk
                           resulting from plant consumption (unitless)
                         = Index   10 =   Index  of  human   cancer  risk
                           resulting   from    consumption    of   animal
                           products  derived  from  animals  feeding  on
                           plants (unitless)
                         = Index 11  =   Index  of  human   cancer  risk
                           resulting   from    consumption    of   animal
                           products derived from  animals  ingesting soil
                           (unitless)
                     Ij_2 ~ Index 12 =  Index   of   human   cancer   risk
                           resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
                     DI  = Average   daily   human   dietary  intake   of
                           pollutant (ug/day)
                     RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)

            b.  Sample calculation (toddler)


                242 = (48.6 * 159 + 57.2  +  16.9) - ( g^'

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
                                  A-7

-------
    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 A and 5.

B.  Equation 1:  Transport Assessment

 C(y,t) =i (exp(A1) erfc(A2) + expCBj)  erfc(B2)] =  P(x»t)
     Requires  evaluations  of  four dimensionless  input values  and
     subsequent  evaluation  of  the  result.    Exp(A^)  denotes  the
     exponential   of   A},   e  S   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:
          A, = X_  [V*  - (V*2 +  4D* x
           1     *
2D*

Y - t (V*2 + 4D* x
 - (4D* x t)*
          A2
          Bl  «  —  [V*  +  (V*2  +  4D*  x  u
           1
               2D*

               y +• t (V*2 •*• 4D* x
          B2
     and where for the unsaturated zone:

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

               PS x 103
               1 - PS

          PS = Percent  solids  (by  weight)  of  landfiLLed  sludge
               202
           t = Time (years)
          X  s h = Depth to groundwater (m)
          D* = a x V*  (m2/year)
           a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)

          V* » —2— (m/year)
               0 x R
           Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
           0 a Volumetric water content (unitless)
           R » 1 + _d£2 x Kd * Retardation factor (unitless)
                     0
        Pdry = Dry bulk density (g/mL)
                              A-8

-------
          Kd =  £oc  x  Koc  (mL/g)
          foc =  Fraction of organic carbon  (unitless)
          Koc =  Organic carbon partition  coefficient (mL/g)

            +    365  x  u /      x-i
          U* =  —jj	* (years)  A
            y =  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 =  AA = Distance  from  well  to  landfill  (m)
          D* =  a  x  V* (m2/year)
          .a =  Dispersivity coefficient  (m)

          y* „  K  x  i  (m/year)
                0  x  R
            K =  Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
            i =  Average hydraulic gradient  between landfill and well
                (unitless)
            0 =  Aquifer porosity  (unitless)

            R =  1  +  _l£Z x Kd = Retardation factor = 1 (unitless)

                since  £4  = foc x Koc and 'foc is  assumed  to be zero
                for  the saturated zone.

C.  Equation 2.   Linkage Assessment

          „  .  „  ..      Q x w	
                     365  [(K  x  i)  * 0]  x B
     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 (ug/L)  "
           Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
           W » Width of landfill (m)
           K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
           i a Average hydraulic gradient  between  landfill  and well
               (unitless)
           0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
           B = Thickness of saturated zone (m) where:

               B >      q.'"** -  and B > 2
                 —  K  x  i  x 365             —
D.  Equation 3.  Pulse Assessment


          C(y?t) = P(X,O  for 0  <  t  < t0
             co
                              A-9

-------
             co

     where:
                   P(X,t)  -  P(X,t - t0) for t > t
          t0  (for  unsaturated zone) =  LT = Landfill  leaching time
          (years)

          t0  (for  saturated  zone)  =  Pulse duration  at  the  water
          table (x ~ n) as determined by the following equation:

               t0 = [  o/°° C  dt]  *  Cu
                   C(. Y  t )
          P(X»t) =   *.'    as  determined by Equation 1
                     co
E.   Equation 4.  Index of Groundwater Concentration  Resulting
     from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)

     1.   Formula

          Index 1 = Cmax

          where :

               Cmax - Maximum concentration  of  pollutant at well  =
                      maximum of  C(Ai,t)  calculated  in Equation  1
                      (Ug/L)

     2.   Sample Calculation

          0.00378 ug/L = 0.00378 Mg/L

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

     1.   Formula

                     (Ii x AC) +  DI
          Index2s  ^_. -


          where:

               I\ = Index  1  =  Index of  groundwater  concentration
                    resulting  from landfilled sludge (ug/L)
               AC = Average  human  consumption   of   drinking   water
                    U/day)
               DI = Average daily human dietary  intake of  pollutant
                    (jig/day)
              RSI = Cancer risk-specific-intake  (ug/day)
                             A-10

-------
          2.   Sample Calculation

               1« a - (0*00378 Ug/L x 2 L/day) * 3.86 Ug/day
               ia*8 "                 0.206 ug/day

III. INCINERATION

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

         1 .  Formula

             _ .    .    (C x PS x SC x FM x DP) + BA
             Index 1 = - rr -


         where :

             C =  Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
                 (hr/sec  x g/mg)
            DS =  Sludge  feed rate (kg/hr DW)
            SC =  Sludge  concentration  of pollutant  (mg/kg DW)
            FM =  Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (unitless)
            DP =  Dispersion parameter  for estimating maximum
                 annual  ground level  concentration  (yg/m3)
            BA =  Background concentration of pollutant in urban
                 air (yg/m3)

          2.   Sample Calculation

               1.096 = [(2.78 x 10"7  hr/sec x g/mg  x 2660 kg/hr DW x

                         0.66 mg/kg DW x 0.05 x 3.4 wg/m3) +

                         0.00086 ug/m3] t 0.00086 ug/m3

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

         1 .  Formula

                       [
-------
            2.  Sample Calculation

                n nQ1(.    [(1.096  - 1)  x 0.00086 Ug/m31 + 0.00086 Ug/m3
                u • u y x j *"                         -
                                     0.0103 ug/m3

    IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

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

             1.   Formula

                             SC x ST x PS
                  Index 1 =
                              W x D x L

                  where:

                       SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (rag/kg DW)
                       ST = Sludge mass dumped by a single Canker (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

0.00132 yg/L =  0.66 mg/kg  DW x  1600000  kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW  x 103 ue/mg
                    200 m x 20 m x 8000 m  x  103  L/m3

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

             1.   Formula

                             SS x SC
                  Index 2
                            V x D x L

                  where:

                       SS = Daily sludge disposal  rate  (kg  DW/day)
                       SC = Sludge concentration of  pollutant  (mg/kg DW)
                       V   = Average current  velocity at  site  (m/day)
                       D   = Depth  to  pycnocline   or  effective   depth   of
                            mixing for shallow water site (m)
                       L   = Length of tanker path  (m)

             2.   'Sample  Calculation

                    825000 kg  DW/day x  0.66 mg/kg DW x 103 ug/mg
                            ,        	 	  	S	'—,   	m
                      9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 103  L/m3
                                     A-12

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

               1.   Formula


                    Index 3 s


                    where:

                      12 =  Index  2   =  Index   of  seawater   concentration
                            representing a 24-hour dumping  cycle (ug/L)
                    AWQC =  Criterion expressed  as  an  average  concentration
                            to protect sensitive marine avian  species  against
                            reproductive effects caused by the  consumption of
                            marine organisms  contaminated with  DDT/DDD/DDE.

               2.   Sample Calculation

                    . ,,. _ 0.000358  ug/L
                    °'358 "  0.0010 ug/L

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

               1.   Formula

                               (12 x BCF x 10~3 kg/g x  FS  x  QF) + DI
                    Index 4 =  	—	


                    where:

                    12 =  Index   2   =   Index   of   seawater    concentration
                          representing  a 24-hour dumping cycle  (ug/L)
                    QF =  Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
                    FS =  Fraction -of  consumed  seafood originating  from  the
                          disposal site  (unitless)'
                    BCF = Bioconcentration  factor  of  pollutant  (L/kg)
                    DI =  Average  daily  human  dietary  intake  of   pollutant
                          (Ug/day)
                    RSI = Cancer  risk-specific intake (ug/day)

               2.  Sample Calculation

                    18.76 =

(0.000358 Ug/L x 53.600 L/kg x IP"3 kg/g x 0.000021 x 14.3  g. WW/dav) + 3.86 ug/dav
                                        0.206  Ug/day
                                       A-13

-------
TABLE A-l.  INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH  CONDITION

Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (lig/g DU)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, P,jry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 8 (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (m/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
Saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, 4 (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landfill, At (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
1
0.66


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
2
0.93


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
3
0.66


1.925
0.133
0.0001

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
4 5
0.66 0.66


NA° 1.53
NA 0.195
NA 0.005

1.6 0.8
0 5
NA 0.5


0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04

0.001 0.001
100 100
10 10
6
0.66


1.53
0.195
0.005

0.8
S
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.02
50
5
7 8
0.93 N"


NA N
NA N
NA N

1.6 N
0 N
NA N


0.389 N
4.04 N

0.02 N
50 N
5 N

-------
                                                                  TABLE A-l.  (continued)
Condition of Analysis
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, C0 (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, 8 (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, Co
(pg/L)
1

165
0.00378
213000

126
0.00378
2

233
0.00532
213000

126
0.00532
3

165
0.151
5380

126
0.151
A 5

165 165
165 0.00378
5.00 213000

253 23.8
165 0.00378
6

165
0.00378
213000

6.32
0.00378
7

233
233
5.00

2.38
233
8

N
H
N

N
N
Ui   Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Max i nun well concentration,
                                        (pg/L)
      Index of grounduater concentration resulting
        fron  landfilled sludge, Index 1 (pg/L)
        (Equation 4)

      Index of human cancer  risk resulting
        from  grounduater contamination, Index 2
        (unitless)  (Equation 5)
0.00378      0.00532        0.0175        0.0179     0.00378      0.00378        5.38      N
                                                   0.00378      0.00532         0.0175        0.0179     0.00378      0.00378        5.38     0
                                                   18.8          18.8          18.9           18.9        18.8          18.8           71.0   18.7
     aM   = Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
     bNA  = Hot applicable for this condition.

-------