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.
------- |