United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington. OC 20460
Water
June, 1985
IMEFA
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Cadmium
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to: (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
PREFACE l
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR CADMIUM IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling 2-2
Incineration 2-2
Ocean Disposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR CADMIUM IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of cadmium (Index 1) 3-1
Effect on soil bioca and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) 3-2
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration (Indices 4-6) 3-4
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-8
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-11
Landf illing 3-19
Index of groundwater concentration increment resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-19
Index of human toxicity 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) 3-30
Ocean Disposal 3-31
Index of seawater concentration resulting from
initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3-32
Index of seawater concentration representing a
24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 3-35
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Index of toxicity Co aquatic Life (Index 3) 3-36
Index of human toxicity resulting from
seafood consumption (Index 4) 3-38
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR CADMIUM IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-2
Food 4-3
Human Effects 4-4
Ingestion 4-4
Inhalation 4-5
Plant Effects 4-6
Phytotoxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake < 4-6
Aquatic Life Effects 4-6
Toxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-6
Soil Biota Effects 4-7
Toxicity 4-7
Uptake 4-7
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-7
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
CADMIUM 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. Cadmium (Cd) was 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 Cd poses an actual hazard to human health or the environment
when sludge is disposed of by these methods.
The focus of this document is the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge » soil » plant uptake » animal uptake » human toxicity).
The values and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to repre-
sent a reasonable "worst case"; analysis of error or uncertainty has
been conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most cases
is indexed to unity; i.e., values >1 may indicate a potential hazard,
depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on information presented in the "preliminary data profile",
Section 4. Information in Che 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 (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR CADMIUM 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 Cadmium
The concentration of Cd in sludge-amended soil is expected to
increase as the concentration of Cd in sludge and the sludge
application rate increase (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
The toxicity of Cd in sludge-amended soil to soil biota could
not be evaluated due to lack, of data (see Index 2).
Landspreading of sludge may increase the toxic hazard due to
Cd for predators of soil bioca above the pre-existing toxic
hazard due to background concentrations of Cd in soil. This
increase may be substantial when sludge containing a high con-
centration of Cd is applied at a high cumulative rate (see
Index 3).
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
A phytotoxic hazard may exist only when sludges containing the
worst-case Cd concentration are applied to soil at the highest
cumulative rate (500 me/ha) (see Index 4).
Except when 'typical sludge is applied at a low rate (5 mt/ha),
the concentration of Cd in plants consumed by animals and
humans is expected to increase as the concentration of Cd in
sludge and the application rate increase (see Index 5).
The increases in Che concentration of Cd in crop plants which
are expected to occur as a result of amending soil with sludge
are sufficiently low co permit survival of the plants,
although growth may be reduced (see Index 6).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
t
Animals which feed upon plants grown in sludge-amended soil
are not threatened by a toxic hazard due to Cd in plant tis-
sues (see Index 7). A toxic hazard due to Cd is not expected
for grazing animals which incidentally ingest sludge-amended
soil (see Index 8).
2-1
-------
E. Effect on Humans
For toddlers, a health threat due to Cd in crop plants is
expected only when typical sludge is applied to soil at the
highest cumulative rate (500 mt/ha) and when the worst sludge
is applied at SO mt/ha or greater. For adults, Cd in plants
grown in sludge-amended soil is a health threat except when
typical sludge is applied at the lowest rate (see Index 9).
A human health threat due to Cd in animal products derived
from animals which had been fed plants grown on sludge-amended
soil is expected only for adults when sludge is applied at che
highest cumulative rate (500 mt/ha) (see Index 10).
A human health threat due to Cd in animal products derived
from animals which had incidentally ingested sludge-amended
soil is expected only for adults when sludge with a high
concentration of Cd is applied (see Index 11).
A human health threat due to Cd in sludge-amended soil which
is ingested directly is expected only for toddlers when sludge
is applied at a high cumulative rate (500 mt/ha) and when pure
sludge is ingested (see Index 12).
An aggregate threat of Cd toxicity to humans is expected when
sludge with a typical concentration of Cd is applied to soils
at the rate of 50 mt/ha or greater. When sludges with a high
concentration of Cd are applied, a human health threat due to
Cd is expected at all application rates (see Index 13).
II. LANDFILLING
The groundwater concentration of Cd at che well is expected to
increase, especially when the worst-case sludge is landfilled, or
when worst-case conditions prevail in the saturated zone or both
unsaturated and saturated zones (see Index 1). A human health
threat due to Cd in groundwater is expected only when worst-case
conditions prevail for all conditions (see Index 2).
III. INCINERATION
Concentrations of Cd in air are expected Co substantially increase
above the background concentration when sludge is incinerated (see
Index 1). The increased air concentrations of Cd resulting from
sludge incineration are expected to substantially increase the
human cancer risk due to inhalation of Cd above the risk posed by
background urban air concentrations of Cd (see Index 2).
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Increases .in the seawater concentration of Cd occur in all the
scenarios evaluated. The highest increases occur when sludge con-
taining worst concentrations of Cd are dumped at the typical and
worst sites (see Index 1).
2-2
-------
Increases of Cd concentrations occur in all cases with the Largest
increases being evident when sludges containing worst
concentrations are dumped at the worst site (see Index 2).
A toxic condition may not exist for aquatic organisms at the site.
However, incremental increases due to sludge dumping is evident in
all of the scenarios evaluated (see Index 3).
No increase of human health risk is apparent from the typical
intake of seafood residing at the typical and worst sites after
disposal of sludges with typical concentrations of Cd. Moderate
increases of risk were seen only when the site conditions, sludge
concentration, and seafood intake were assigned worst-case values
(see Index 4).
2-3
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR CADMIUM
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Cadmium
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. Explanation - Shows degree of elevation of pollutant
concentration in soil to which sludge is applied.
Calculated for sludges with typical (median if
available) and worst (95th percentile if available)
pollutant concentrations, respectively, for each of
four sludge loadings. Applications (as dry matter)
are chosen and explained as follows:
0 mt/ha No sludge applied. Shown for all indices
for purposes of comparison, to distin-
guish hazard posed by sludge from pre-
existing hazard posed by background
levels or other sources of the pollutant.
5 mt/ha Sustainable yearly agronomic application;
i.e., loading typical of agricultural
practice, supplying ^50 kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
50 mt/ha Higher application as may be used on
public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens.
500 mt/ha Cumulative loading after years of
application.
b. As sumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is dis-
tributed and retained within the upper 15 cm of soil
(i.e., the plow layer), which has an approximate
mass (dry matter) of 2 x 103 mt/ha.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 8.15 yg/g DW
Worst 88.13 Mg/g DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are
the median and 95th percentile values statisti-
cally derived from sludge concentration data
3-1
-------
from a survey of 40 publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) (U.S. EPA, 1982). (See
Section 4, p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.2 yg/g DW
The mean background soil level in 3001 field
samples across the United States was 0.27 ppm,
while the median was 0.20 ppm (Holmgren, 1985).
The value of 0.2 ppm was selected as represen-
tative for this analysis. (See Section 4,
p. 4-1.)
d. Index 1 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Horst
0
1
1
5
1.1
2.1
SO
2.0
12
500
9.0
89
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds background when
sludge is applied. (A value of 2 indicates concen-
tration is doubled; a value of 0.5 indicates
reduction by one-half.)
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The concentration of Cd in
sludge-amended soil is expected to increase as the
concentration of Cd in sludge and the sludge
application rate increase.
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 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. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
3-2
-------
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.2 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ill. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 2 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value >1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
coxic to a predator on soil organisms.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
bioconcentrated by soil biota is equivalent in tox-
icity 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. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3', p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.2 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota (UB) =
13.7 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)'1
The uptake slope is the highest value available
for earthworms and represents the worst case.
The uptake slope was calculated from data in
B'eyer et al. (1982). (See Section 4, p. 4-19.)
3-3
-------
iv. Background concentration in soil biota (BB) =
4.8 yg/g DW
The value selected is the geometric mean based
on whole body analyses of earthworms from four
sices (Beyer et at., 1982). This particular
value was selected because it was obtained for
earthworms from a relatively large sample size
(24 plots) of representative agricultural
soils. (See Section 4, p. 4-19.)
v. Feed concentration toxic to predator (TR) =
3 Ug/g DW
Among soil biota predators, chickens appear to
be one of Che more sensitive species to Cd.
The value selected represents the lowest
concentration at which undesirable effects,
e.g., decreased egg production, occur (Leach et
al., 1979). (See Section 4, p. 4-15.)
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worse
1.6
1.6
1.7
2.6
2.5
11
8.9
82
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expecced concentration in soil biota exceeds chat
which is toxic co predator. Value > 1 indicates a
coxic hazard may exist for predators of soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge may
increase the toxic hazard due Co Cd for predators of
soil biota above Che pre-existing coxic hazard posed
by background concentrations of Cd in soil. This
increase may be subsCancial when sludge containing a
high concentration of Cd is applied at a high
cumulative rate.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with the lowest soil
concentration shown co be toxic for some plant.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
coxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
3-4
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.2 Mg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
2.5 Ug/g DW
This value is the lowest, most conservative,
concentration associated with considerable
reductions in yields for lettuce (40 percent)
and moderate reductions in growth for wheat (21
percent) and soybeans (10 percent) (Haghiri,
1973). (See Section 4, p. 4-8.)
d. Index 4 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.080
0.080
5
0.088
0.17
50
0.16
0.94
500
0.72
7.1
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 may
exist only when sludges containing the worst-case Cd
concentration are applied to soil at the highest
cumulative rate (500 mt/ha).
2. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Caused by Uptake
(Index 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue concentra-
tion increment in plants grown in sludge-amended
soil, using uptake data for the most responsive
plant species in the following categories: (1)
plants included in the U.S. human diet; and (2)
plants serving as animal feed. Plants used vary
according to availability of data.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes a linear uptake
slope. Neglects the effect of time; i.e., cumula-
tive loading over several years is treated equiva-
leric ly to single application of the same amount.
3-5
-------
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. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.2 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Conversion factor between soil concentration
and application rate (CO) = 2 kg/ha (ug/g)~*
Assumes pollutant is distributed and retained
within upper 15 cm of soil (i.e. plow layer)
which has an approximate mass (dry matter) of
2 x 103.
iv. Uptake slope of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
Animal diet:
Field corn 0.14 ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)'1
Human diet:
Swiss chard 0.35 ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)"1
The uptake rate for Swiss chard represents the
plane consumed by humans (Council for Agricul-
tural Science and Technology (CAST), 1980).
The uptake rate for field corn (silage) was
selected because it represents the highest
worst-case value available for a common animal
feed (Telford et al., 1982). Although uptake
slopes one or two orders of magnitude greater
have been calculated (see Section 4, pp. 4-13
and 4-14), they were not selected because they
were obtained for plant parts in a form not
usually fed to animals or had sludge applied
over the growing plant, thus biasing the uptake
rate.
v. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)
Animal diet:
Field corn 0.29 Ug/g DW
Human diet:
Swiss chard 0.87 ug/g DW
3-6
-------
Background concentrations of Cd in Swiss chard
and field corn were reported in the same
studies which provided the uptake slopes. (See
Section 4, pp. 4-13 and 4-14.)
d. Index 5 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (me/ha)
Sludge
Diet Concentration 0 5 50 500
Animal
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
3.1
2.5
18
Human Typical 1.0 1.0 1.4 4.1
Worst 1.0 1.4 5.2 35
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
plant tissue concentration is expected to increase
above background when grown in sludge-amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Except when typical sludge
is applied at a low rate (5 mt/ha), the concentra-
tion of Cd in plants consumed by animals and humans
is expected to increase as the concentration of Cd
in sludge and the application rate increase.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Explanation - Compares maximum plant tissue concen-
tration associated with phytotoxicity with back-
ground concentration in same plant tissue. The
purpose is to determine whether the plant concentra-
tion increments calculated in Index 5 for high
applications are truly realistic, or whether such
increases would be precluded by phytotoxicity.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue con-
centration will be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with pbytotoxicity (PP)
Animal diet:
Corn 78.4 yg/g DW
Human diet:
Swiss chard 153 Ug/g DW
3-7
-------
The concentrations selected for Swiss chard and
corn were associated with at least 25 percent
reductions in growth (Mahler et al., 1980) and
are taken to be the threshold concentrations at
which adverse effects would be observed. (See
Section 4, p. 4-11.)
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)
Animal diet:
Corn 0.46 pg/g DW
Human diet:
Swiss chard 1.25 Ug/g DW
The values given were the concentrations
observed in plant tissue for the same set of
experiments (Mahler et al., 1980) from which
the phytotoxic concentrations (PP) were taken.
(See Section 4, p. 4-11.)
d. Index 6 Values
Plant Index Value
Corn 170
Swiss chard 120
e. Value Interpretation - Value gives the maximum
factor of tissue concentration increment (above
background) which is permitted by phytotoxicity.
Value is compared with values for the same or simi-
lar plant tissues given by Index 5. The lowest of
the two indices indicates the maximal increase which
can occur at any given application rate.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The increases in the con-
centration of Cd in crop plants which are expected
to occur as a result of amending soil with sludge
are sufficiently low co permit survival of the
plants, although growth may be reduced.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in plant tissues grown in sludge-amended
soil with food concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not con-
sider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
3-8
-------
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. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index S)
Index 5 values used are those for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
0.29 Ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
Che plant chosen for Che animal diec (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
iii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 5 Ug/g DW
The value given is the lowest available at
which deleterious effects have been seen in
sheep, which are taken to be representative of
herbivores (Doyle et al., 1974; Doyle and
Pfander, 1975). (See Section 4, p. 4-15.)
d. Index 7 Values
Sludge Application Race (mc/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.058
0.058
0.059
0.070
0.069
0.18
0.15
1.0
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 - Animals which feed upon
plants grown in sludge-amended soil are not threat-
ened by a toxic hazard due to Cd in plant tissues.
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 adhe-
sion to forage or from incidental ingestion of
3-9
-------
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 me/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 8.15 Ug/g DW
Worst 88.13 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.2 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. 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.
3-10
-------
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep during winter
months when forage is reduced (Thornton and
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.
iv. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 5 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (me/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 SO 500
Typical
Worst
0.0020
0.0020
0.082
0.88
0.082
0.88
0.082
0.88
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 Cd is
not expected for grazing animals which incidentally
ingest sludge-amended soil.
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Toxicity 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 accept-
able daily intake (ADI) 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 as the most responsive plant(s) (as chosen
in Index D). Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories: toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years old.
3-11
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for a human diet
(see Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
0.87 pg/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for Che human diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
iii. 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 vege-
tarians (Ryan ec al., 1982); vegetarians were
chosen to represent che worse case. The value
for coddlers is based on the FDA Revised Total
Diet (Pennington, 1983) and food groupings
listed by Che U.S. EPA (1984a). Dry weights
for individual food groups were estimated from
composition data given by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) (1975). These values
were composiced co estimated dry-weight
consumption of all non-fruit crops.
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 10.9 Ug/day
Adult 34.3 Ug/day
The values given are che means of che average
levels of Cd consumed during FY75 to FY77 and
FY74 to FY77 by toddlers (FDA, 1980a) and
adults (FDA, 1980b), respectively. (See
Section 4, p. 4-3.)
v. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
64 Ug/day
The Food and Agriculture Organization/World
Health Organization (FAO/WHO) (1972) proposed
the provisional tolerable, total daily intake
of Cd to be in the range of 57 Co 71 Ug/day.
Thus, che value selected is the midpoint of the
3-12
-------
2.
provisional range and represents the value most
likely to be generally applicable. (See
Section 4, p. 4-4.)
d. Index 9 Values
Group
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
3 SO SOO
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.17
0.17
0.21
0.60
0.55
4.4
3.3
35
Adult
Typical
Worst
0.54
0.54
0.64
1.7
1.6
12
9.2
96
f.
Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected intake exceeds ADI. Value > 1 indicates a
possible human health threat. 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 - For toddlers, a health
threat due to Cd in crop plants is expected only
when typical sludge is applied to soil at the high-
est cumulative rate (500 mt/ha} and when the worst
sludge is applied at 50 mt/ha or greater. For
adults, Cd in plants grown in sludge-amended soil is
a health threat except when typical sludge is
applied at the Lowest rate.
Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Planes
(Index 10)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal
products derived from domestic animals given feed
grown on sludge-amended soil (crop or pasture land)
but not directly contaminated by adhering sludge.
Compares expected intake with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals receiving all their feed
from sludge-amended soil. The uptake slope of pol-
lutant in animal tissue (UA) used is assumed to be
representative of all animal tissue comprised by the
daily human dietary intake (DA) used. Divides pos-
sible variations in dietary intake into two categor-
ies: toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
3-13
-------
Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are chose for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
0.29 Ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-6).
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 5.5 yg/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)'1
Data for several animal species show that Cd is
accumulated in tissues of kidney and liver, but
not in muscle to any significant degree (see
Section 4, pp. 4-17 and 4-18). Uptake slopes
for kidney tend to exceed those for liver, but
the kidney values were not used because very
little kidney is consumed in the United States.
Among data for liver, slopes (wet-weight tissue
basis) for cattle and swine were lower with a
range of 0.05 to 0.135 ug/g tissue WW (ug/g
feed DW)~1, and slopes for sheep and chicken
were higher with a range of 0.2 to 1.65 Ug/g
tissue WW (ug/g feed DW)"1. The highest uptake
slope for liver was observed in chicken (Sharma
et al., 1979), and was obtained using a metal
salt (CdCl2), rather than sludge or a sludge-
grown plant, in the diet. However, the high
slope cannot be attributed to the use of metal
salt alone, since studies in sheep gave similar
uptake slopes for liver whether CdCl2 or
sludge-grown corn silage was used. Therefore,
the highest value for liver is considered valid
and will be used co represent all liver in the
human diet. The values in Table 4-4 are
reported on a wet-weight tissue basis; division
by 0.30 gives a dry-weight value of 5.5 Ug/g
tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1.
iv. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
The FDA Revised Total Diet (Pennington, 1983)
lists average daily intake of beef liver fresh-
3-14
-------
weight for various age-sex classes. The 95th
percentile of liver consumption (chosen in
order to be conservative) is assumed to be
approximately 3 times the mean values.
Conversion to dry weight is based on data from
U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975). Thus,
the values above for toddlers and adults were
obtained by multiplying 2.2 and 13.2 g/day FW
by 44 percent, respectively, in order to
convert to dry weight.
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 10.9 lag/day
Adult 34.3 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
64 pg/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
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.22
0.21
0.58
Adult Typical 0.54 0.54 0.56 0.76
Worse 0.54 0.57 0.83 3.0
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - A human health threat due
to Cd in animal products derived from animals which
had been fed plants grown on sludge-amended soil is
expected only for adults when sludge is applied ac
the highest cumulative rate (500 mt/ha).
3. Index of Human Toxicity 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 prod-
ucts derived from grazing animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil. Compares expected
intake with ADI.
3-15
-------
Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes chat: all animal
produces are from animals grazing sludge-amended
soil, and chat all animal products consumed cake up
Che pollutant aC Che highest race 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 Cwo categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over three
years old.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue = Chicken liver
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(3S) = 0.2 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 8.15 Ug/g DW
Worst 88.13 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5%
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
v. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 5.5 ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 10.9 Ug/day
Adult - 34.3 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
3-16
-------
viii. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
64 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
d. Index 11 Values
Group
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.54
0.20
0.54
0.20
0.54
Adult
Typical
Worst
0.54
0.54
0.74
2.7
0.74
2.7
0.74
2.7
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f.
Preliminary Conclusion - A human health threat due
to Cd in animal products derived from animals which
had incidentally ingested sludge-amended soil is
expected only for adults when sludge with a high
concencration of Cd is applied.
4. Index of Human Toxicity 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 wich ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the pica
child consumes an average of 5 g/day of sludge-
amended, soil . If an ADI specific for a child is not
available, this index assumes that che ADI for a
10 kg child is Che same as that for a 70 kg adult.
It is thus assumed that uncertainty factors used in
deriving the ADI provide protection for the child,
taking into account the smaller body size and any
other differences in sensitivity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 8.15 Ug/g DW
Worst 88.13 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-i.
3-17
-------
d.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.2 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iv. 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
worse-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 (1984a).
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
Toddler 10.9 Ug/day
Adult 34.3 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
64 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (me /ha)
Croup
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.19
0.19
0.54
0.54
5
0.19
0.20
0.54
0.54
50
0.20
0.35
0.54
0.54
500
0.31
1.6
0.54
0.54
Pure
Sludge
0.81
7.1
0.54
0.56
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - A human health threat due
co Cd in sludge-amended soil which is ingested
directly is expected for toddlers only when sludge
is applied at a high cumulative race (500 me/ha) and
when pure sludge is ingested.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)
a. Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
3-18
-------
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with ADI.
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 (me/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.19
0.19
0.26
1.0
0.62
5.0
3.5
37
Adult Typical 0.54 0.85 1.8 9.6
Worst 0.54 3.9 15 100
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - An aggregate threat of Cd
toxicitv to humans is expected when sludge with a
typical concentration of Cd is applied to soils at
the rate of 50 me/ha or greater. When sludges with
a high concentration of Cd are applied, a human
health threat due to Cd is expected at all
application rates.
II. LANDPILLING
A. Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment 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 Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
19836). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transport and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port parameters include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
linear, equilibrium partition coefficient representing
3-19
-------
Che ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant
concentrations. This partition coefficient, along with
soil bulk density and volumetric water content, are used
to calculate the retardation factor. A computer program
(in FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of
the analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant
concentration as a function of time and location in both
the unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computa-
tions 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 chat do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; 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
metal transport from landfilled sludge. The
same soil types are also used for nonmetals for
convenience ana consistency of analysis.
3-20
-------
(b) Dry bulk density (Pdry)
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.925 g/mL
Bulk density is the dry mass per unit volume of
the medium (soil), i.e., neglecting the mass of
the water (COM, 1984a).
(c) Volumetric water content (6)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitless)
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
escimaced by infiltration or nee recharge. The
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore water velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from COM, 1984a.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) = 5 years
Sikora et al. (1982) monitored several
Landfills throughout the United States and
estimated time of landfill leaching to be 4 or
5 years. Other types of landfills may leach
for longer periods of time; however, the use of
a value for entrenchment sites is conservative
because it results in a higher leachate
generation rate.
(b) Leachate generation rate (Q)
Typical 0.8 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
complete in 5 years. Landfilled sludge is
assumed to be 20 percent solids by volume, and
depth of sludge in the landfill is 5 m in the
typical case and 10 m in the worst case. Thus,
the initial depth of liquid is 4 and 8 m, and
average yearly leachate generation is 0.8 and
1.6 m, respectively.
3-21
-------
(c) Depth co groundwater (b)
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 of 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
unsatarated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 8.15 mg/kg DW
Worst 88.13 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
(b) Degradation rate (y) = 0 day"1
The degradation rate in the unsaturated zone is
assumed to be zero for all inorganic chemicals
3-22
-------
(c) Soil sorption coefficient
Typical 423 mL/g
Worst 14.9 mL/g
K
-------
used are from Freeze and Cherry (1979) as
presented in U.S. EPA (1983b).
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worst 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to
determine the magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced. Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
(b) Distance from well to landfill (Ail)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
This distance is the distance between a
landfill and any functioning public or private
water supply or livestock water supply.
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5 m
These values are 10 percent of Che distance
from well to landfill (AH), which is 100 and
50 m, respectively, for typical and worst
conditions.
(d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2 m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that
preexisting flow is very limited and therefore
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
3-24
-------
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 m^.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (u) = 0 day"1
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 1 Ug/L
This value was selected from available surface
water data in lieu of groundwater data which
not available. Of the data available, the
_
value chosen was che Lowest, most conservative,
specific value (MAS, 1977). (See Section 4, p.
4-2.)
(c) Soil sorption coefficient (Kd) = 0 mL/g
Adsorption is assumed to be zero in the
saturated zone.
4. Index Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected groundwater concentration of pollutant at well
exceeds the background concentration (a value of 2.0
indicates the concentration is doubled, a value of 1.0
indicates no change).
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The groundwater concentration of
Cd at the well is expected to increase, especially when
the worst-case sludge is Landf ilLed, or when worst-case
conditions prevail in the saturated zone or both
unsaturated and saturated zones.
-*
B. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with acceptable daily intake (ADI) of pollutant.
2. Assumptions /Limitations - Assumes long-term exposure to
maximum concentration at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3-25
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OF GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
10
I
ro
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics'1
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
1.2
0.54
2
W
T
T
T
T
3.4
0.61
3
T
W
T
T
T
1.2
0.54
Condition of
4
T
NA
W
T
T
1.2
0.54
Analysisa»b»c
5
T
T
T
W
T
2.1
0.57
6
T
T
T
T
W
3.8
0.62
7 8
W N
NA N
U N
U N
W N
510 0
16.5 0.54
aT - Typical values used; U = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
blndex values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (Pdry) and volumetric water content (8).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
fAquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
BHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (Aft), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration increment result-
ing from landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-26.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in groundwater
(BC) = 1 pg/L
See Section 3, p. 3-25.
c. 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.
d. Average daily human dietary~intake of pollutant (DI)
= 34.3 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
e. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
64 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which pol-
lutant intake exceeds ADI. Value >1 indicates a possible
human health threat. Comparison with the null index val-
ue indicates the degree to which any hazard is due to
landfill disposal, as opposed to preexisting dietary
sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - A human health threat due to Cd
in groundwater is expected only when worst-case
conditions prevail for all conditions.
III. INCINERATION
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 wiph thermal properties
defined by the energy parameter (EP) was analyzed using
the BURN model (COM, 1984a). This model uses the thermo-
dynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack gas parameters. Dilution
3-27
-------
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,
1979a). 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 cue to a paucity of available data.
Gradual plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly impact values can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C) =
2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DU 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 en the following input data:
EP = 360 Ib H20/mni BTU
Combustion zone temperature - L400°F
Solids content - 28%
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 DU 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
3-28
-------
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 8.15 mg/kg DW
Worst 88.13 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (PH)
Typical 0.30 (unitless)
Worst 0.40 (unitless)
Emission estimates may vary considerably between
sources; therefore, the values used are based on a
U.S. EPA 10-cicy incineration study (Farrell and
Wall, 1981). Where data were not available from the
EPA study, a more recent report which thoroughly
researched heavy metal emissions was utilized (CDM,
1983).
e. Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical 3.4 ug/m3
Worse 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) = 3 x 10"3 Ug/m3
The median background concentration for urban air is
less than 6 x 10~3 Ug/m3, which is the detection
limit for Cd (see Section 4, p. 4-2). Therefore,
the background concentration selected was conserva-
tively taken to be 1/2 of che detection limit.
+
4. Index 1 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted
Through Stack
Typical
Worst
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2660
3.0
23
3.7
31
10,000
37
393
49
520
aThe typical (3.4 ug/m3) and worst (16.0 ug/m3) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively, to
3-29
-------
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 - Concentrations of Cd in air are
expected to substantially increase above the background
concentration when sludge is incinerated.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Shows the increase in human intake expected
to result from the incineration of sludge. Ground level
concentrations for carcinogens typically were developed
based upon assessments published by the U.S. EPA Carcino-
gen Assessment Group (CAG). These ambient concencrations
reflect a dose level which, for a lifetime exposure,
increases the risk of cancer by 10~*. For non-
carcinogens, levels typically were derived from the Amer-
ican Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygieniscs
(ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs) for the workplace.
Assumptions/Limitations - The exposed population
assumed to reside within the impacted area for
hours/day. A respiratory volume of 20 m^/day is assumed
over a 70-year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-29.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 3 x 10~3 Ug/m3
See Section 3, p. 3-29.
c. Cancer potency =7.8 (mg/kg/day)~^
The cancer potency given is estimated for inhalation
of Cd by U.S. EPA (1984b). (See Section 4, p. 4-5.)
d. Exposure criterion (EC) = 0.45 x 10~3 yg/m3
A lifetime exposure level which would result in a
10~6 cancer risk was selected as ground level con-
centration against which incinerator emissions are
compared. The risk estimates developed by CAC are
defined as the lifetime incremental cancer risk in a
3-30
-------
hypothetical population exposed continuously
throughout their lifetime to the stated concentra-
tion of the carcinogenic agent. The exposure
criterion is calculated using the following formula:
10"6 x 103 Ug/mg x 70 kg
Cancer potency x 20 m^/day
4. Index 2 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
' Typical
Worst
6.7
6.7
20
ISO
250
2600
Worst Typical 6.7 25 330
Worst 6.7 200 3500
aThe typical (3.4 )jg/m^) and worst (16.0 yg/m^) dis-
persion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
co 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 co which any hazard is due to sludge
incineration, as opposed to background urban air
concentration.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The increased air concentrations
of Cd resulting from sludge incineration are expected to
substantially increase the human cancer risk due to inha-
lation of Cd above the risk pose by background urban air
concentrations of Cd.
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
3-31
-------
hours of the high pulse concentration encountered by the organisms
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates relative concentrations
(compared to the background concentration of the
pollutant) (unitless) of pollutant in seawater around an
ocean disposal site assuming initial mixing.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the background
seawater concentration of pollutant is finite and known.
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 10^ mt WW/year are available for
"dumping from a metropolitan coastal area. The
conversion to dry weight assumes 4 percent solids by
weight. The worst-case value is an arbitrary
doubling of Che typical value to allow for potential
future increase.
The assumed disposal practice to be followed at the
model site representative of the typical case is a
modification of that proposed for sludge disposal at
the formally designated 12-mile site in the New York
Bight Apex (City of New York, 1983). Sludge barges
with capacities of 3400 mt WW would be required to
discharge a load in no less than 53 minutes travel-
ing at a minimum speed of 5 nautical miles (9260 m)
per hour. Under these conditions, the barge would
3-32
-------
encer the sice, discharge Che sludge over 8180 m and
exic Che sice. Sludge barges with capacities of
1600 me WW would be required Co discharge a load in
no less Chan 32 minutes traveling at a minimum speed
of 8 naucical miles (14,816 m) per hour. Under
Chese conditions, the barge would enter the sice,
discharge Che sludge over 7902 m and exic the sice.
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 Che direction of
prevailing currenc flow. For the cypicaL disposal
race (SS) of 82S me DW/day, it is assumed that this
would be accomplished by a mixture of four 3400 me
WW and four 1600 mt WW capacity barges. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 Co 12
hours. For che worse-case disposal race (SS) of
1650 me DW/day, eight 3400 me WW and eight 1600 me
WW capacity barges would be utilized. The overall
daily disposal operacion would last from 8 co 12
hours. For both disposal race scenarios, there
would be a 12 to 16 hour period at night in which no
sludge would be dumped. It is assumed thaC under
che above described disposal operacion, sludge
dumping would occur every day of che year.
The assumed disposal practice at the model site
representative of the worst case is as seated for
the typical site, except that barges would dump half
their load along a crack, Chen turn around and
dispose of che balance along che same Crack in order
co prevent a barge from dumping outside of the sice.
This praccice would effeccively halve che pach
lengch compared co che typical sice.
b. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 8.15 mg/kg DW
Worst 88.13 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
c. Disposal site characteristics
Average
current
Depch co velocicy
pycnocline (D) ac sice (V)
Typical 20 m 9500 m/day
Worse 5 m 4320 m/day
Typical sice values are represencacive of a large,
deep-water site with an area of about 1500 knr
3-33
-------
located beyond Che 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
considered and so represents a conservative approach
in evaluating annual or long-term impact. The
current velocity of 11 cm/sec (9500 m/day) chosen is
based on the average current velocity in this area
(COM, 1984b).
Worst-case values are representative of a near-shore
New York. Bight site with an area of about 20 km2.
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, 19S4c).
d. Ambient water concentration of pollutant (CA) =
0.02 ug/L
This value was reported by Bruland and Franks (1983)
and Boyle and Hueseed (1983) for- unpolluted sea-
water. The implication of an unpolluted background
concentration is that it amplifies the relative
impact of sludge disposal.
4. Factors Considered in Initial Mixing
When a load of sludge is dumped from a moving tanker, an
immediate nixing 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-less as
a unit with the prevailing surface current and, under
calm conditions, is not further dispersed by the current
itself. However, the current acts to separate successive
tanker Loads, moving each out of the immediate disposal
path before the next Load is dumped.
Immediate mixing volume after barge disposal is
approximately equal to the length of the dumping track
with a cross-sectional area about four times that defined
by the draft and width of the discharging vessel
(Csanady, 1981, as cited in National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (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
3-34
-------
of the pycnocline or ocean floor, whichever is shallower.
Four hours after disposal, therefore, average plume width
(W) may be computed as follows:
W = 40 m + 1 cm/sec x 4 hours x 3600 sec/hour x 0.01 m/cm
= 184 m = approximately 200 m
Thus the volume of initial mixing is defined by the
tanker path, a 200 m width, and a depth appropriate to
the site. For the typical (deep water) site, this depth
is chosen as the pycnocline value of 20 m. For the worst
(shallow water) site, a value of 10 m was chosen. At
times the pycnocline may be as shallow as 5 m, but since
the barge wake causes initial mixing to at least 10 m,
the greater value was used.
5. Index 1 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.8
9.8
1.8
9.8
Worst Typical 1.0 7.9 7.9
Worst 1.0 76 76
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the relative pollu-
tant concentration increase in seawater around a disposal
site as a result of sludge disposal after initial mixing
compared to the background concentration of the
pollutant. The null index value at 0 mt DW/day equals 1.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Increases in the seawater con-
centration of Cd occur in all the scenarios evaluated.
The highest increases occur when sludges containing worst
concentrations of Cd are dumped at the typical and worst
sites.
Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24- Hour
Dumping Cycle (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates relative effective concentra-
tions (compared to the background concentration of the
pollutant) (unitless) of pollutant in seawater around an
ocean disposal site utilizing a time weighted average
(TWA) concentration. The TWA concentration is that which
would be experienced by an organism remaining stationary
(with respect to the ocean floor) or moving randomly
within the disposal vicinity. The dilution volume is
determined by the tanker path length and depth to pycno-
cline or, for the shallow water site, the 10 m effective
3-35
-------
mixing depth, as before, but Che 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. 3-22 to 3-34.
4. Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, p. 3-36.
5. Index 2 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Condicions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
Ceristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.2
3.4
1.4
5.8
Worst Typical 1.0 2.9 4.9
Worst 1.0 22 43
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the relative
effective pollutant concentration expressed as a TWA
concentration in seawater around a disposal site
experienced by an organism over a 24-hour period compared
to the background concentration of the pollucan£. The
null index value at 0 mt DW/day equals 1.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Increases of Cd concentrations
occur in all cases with the largest increases being
evident when sludges containing worst concentrations are
dumped at the worst site.
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
Explanation - Compares the relative effective concentra-
tion (compared to the background concentration of the
pollutant) of pollutant in seawater around the disposal
site resulting from the initial mixing of sludge
(Index 1) with the marine ambient water quality criterion
of the pollutant, or with another value judged protective
3-36
-------
of marine aquatic life. For Cd, chis value is Che
criterion chat will protect marine aquatic organisms from
both acute and chronic toxic effects.
Wherever a short-term, "pulse" exposure may occur as it
would from initial mixing, it is usually evaluated using
the "maximum" criteria values of EPA's ambient water
quality criteria methodology. However, under this
scenario, because the pulse is repeated several times
daily on a long-term basis, potentially resulting in an
accumulation of injury, it seems more appropriate to use
values designed to be protective against chronic
toxicity. Therefore, to evaluate the potential for
adverse effects on marine life resulting from initial
mixing concentrations, as quantified by Index 1, the
chronically derived criteria values are used.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
stated for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that all of the
released pollutant is available in the water column to
move through predicted pathways (i.e., sludge to seawater
to aquatic organism to man). The possibility of effects
arising from accumulation in the sediments is neglected
since the U.S. EPA presently Lacks a satisfactory method
for deriving sediment criteria.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-35.
b. Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) =8.7 ug/L
Water quality criteria for the toxic pollutants
listed under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 were developed by the U.S. EPA under
Section 304(a)(l) of the Act. These criteria were
derived by utilization of data reflecting the
resultant environmental impacts and human health
effects of these pollutants if present in any body
of water. The criteria values presented in this
assessment are excerpted from the ambient water
quality criteria document for Cd.
The 8.7 ug/L value chosen as the value to protect
saltwater organisms from acute and chronic toxic
effects is expressed as an average concentration
(U.S. EPA, 1985).
3-37
-------
4.
c. Ambient water concentration of pollutant (CA)
0.02 ug/L
See Section 3, p. 3-34.
Index 3 Values
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)
825
1650
Typical
Worst
Typical 0.0023 0.0042 0.0042
Worst 0.0023 0.023 0.023
Typical 0.0023 0.018 0.018
Worst 0.0023 0.17 0.17
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals che factor by which
the relative effective seawater concentration of Cd
exceeds the protective value. A value >1 indicates that
acute or chronic toxic conditions may exist for organisms
at the site.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The index values indicate that a
toxic condition may not exist for aquatic organisms at
che site. However, incremental increases due co sludge
dumping is evident in all of the scenarios evaluated.
0. Index of Human Toxicity 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 che acceptable daily incake (ADI) of che
pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
listed for Indices 1 and 2, assumes chac the seafood
tissue concentration will increase proportionally to the
water concentration increase. It also assumes Chat, over
che long cerm, che seafood catch from che disposal sice
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. 3-36.
3-38
-------
Since bioconcencration is a dynamic and reversible
process, it is expected chat 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. Background concentration of pollutant in seafood
(CP) = 0.138 Ug/g WW
The background concentration of Cd is the average
concentration in 50 varieties of seafood weighted
according to mean consumption (Meaburn et al., 1981;
Stanford Research Institute (SRI) International,
1980).
c. Dietary consumption of seafood (QP)
Typical 14.3 g WW/day
Worst 41.7 g WW/day
Typical and worst-case values are che mean and the
95th percentile, respectively, for all seafood
consumption in the United States (SRI International,
1980).
d. 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
chat 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 ic was conven-
ient to express the total area affected by sludge
disposal as a fraction of an NMFS reporting area.
The area used to represent the disposal impact area
should be an approximation of the total ocean area
over which the average concentration defined by
Index 2 is roughly applicable. The average rate of
plume spreading of 1 cm/sec referred to earlier
amounts to approximately 0.9 km/day. Therefore, the
combined plume of all sludge dumped during one
working day will gradually spread, both parallel to
and perpendicular to current direction, as it pro-
ceeds down-current. Since the concentration has
been averaged over the direction of current flow,
spreading in this dimension will not further reduce
average concentration; only spreading in the perpen-
dicular dimension will reduce the average. If sta-
ble conditions are assumed over a period of days, at
least 9 days would be required to reduce the average
concentration by one-half. At that time, the
3-39
-------
original 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
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, 1984b). Near-shore area 612 has an area
of approximately 6300 km2 and constitutes
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (COM, 1984c). 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)
FSc ~ 7200 km^
[IP x 8000 m x 9500 m x 10"6 km2/m2] x 0.0002 = 2 10_5
7200 km2
3-40
-------
For che worse (near shore) site:
AI x
4300 km2
[10 x 4000 m x 4320 m x IP"6 \sm2/m2} x 0.24 _ _ , ...3
- - y.o x in
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
limited than the entire New York Bight. For
example, a particular fisherman providing the entire
seafood diet for himself or others could fish
habitually within a single NMFS reporting area. Or,
an individual could have a preference for a
particular s'pecies which is taken only over a more
limited area, here assumed arbitrarily to equal an
NMFS reporting area. The fraction of consumed
seafood (FSU) that could originate from the area of
impacc under this worst-case scenario is calculated
as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
FSW = - =- = 0.11 (4)
7200 km2
For the worst (near shore) site:
FSW = - ^r = 0.040 (5)
4300 km2
e. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
=34.3 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
f. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
64 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
3-41
-------
4. Index 4 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge Seafood
teristics Concentration3 Intakea»b 0 825 1650
Typical Typical Typical 0.54 0.54 0.54
Worst Worst 0.54 0.56 0.58
Worst Typical Typical 0.54 0.54 0.54
Worst Worst 0.54 0.61 0.69
a All possible combinations of these values are not
presented. Additional combinations may be calculated
using the formulae in the Appendix.
b Refers to both the dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
and the fraction of consumed seafood originating from
the disposal site (FS). "Typical" indicates the use of
the typical-case values for both of chese parameters;
"worst" indicates the use of the worst-case values for
both.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which the
expected pollutant intake exceeds the ADI. A value >1
indicates a possible human health threat. Comparison
with the null index value at 0 nit/day indicates the
degree to which any hazard is due to sludge disposal, as
opposed to preexisting dietary sources.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - No increase of human health risk
is apparent from the typical intake of seafood residing
at the typical and worst sites after disposal of sludges
with typical concentrations of Cd. Moderate increases of
risk were seen only when the site conditions, sludge
concentration and seafood intake were assigned worst-case
values.
3-42
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR CADMIUM IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
84 to 87 percent
2. Concentration
Minimum
Median
Mean
90th percentile
95th percenciLe
Maximum
B. Soil - Unpolluted
0 Ug/g DW
8.15 Ug/g DW
46 ug/g DW
85 Ug/g DW
88.13 Ug/g DW
1320 Ug/g DW
1. Frequency of Detection
Virtually 100 percent
2. Concentration
"Normal11 mean 0.09 to 0.18 ug/g DW
"Normal" range 0.06 to 0.5 Ug/g DW
Range 0.01 to 22 ug/g DW
The mean background soil level in 3001
field samples across the U.S. was
0.27 ppm DW, while the median was
0.20 ppm.
Ohio farm soils
Mean 0.2 ug/g DW
Range <0.1 to 2.9 Ug/g DW
Minnesota soils
Mean (+SD) 0.39(+0.17) ug/g DW
U.S. EPA, 1982
(pp. 41 and 49)
Statistically
derived from
sludge concen-
tration data
presented in
U.S. EPA, 1982
Beyer et al.,
1982 (p. 383)
Ryan et al.,
1982 (p. 280)
Holmgren, 1985
Logan and
Miller, 1983
(p. 14)
Pierce
et al., 1982
(p. 418)
4-1
-------
Baltimore, MD garden soils
Mean 1.2 Ug/g DW
Median 0.56 ug/g DW
Range 0.02 co 13.6 Ug/g DW
C. Hater - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
a. Freshwater
1 Ug/L
"Rarely above 10 Ug/L"
"Usually <1 Ug/L
b. Seavater
Range 0.10 co 0.15 Ug/L
c. Drinking Water
Mean 1.3 Ug/L
Maximum 110 Ug/L, 0.15%
exceed 10 Ug/L
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
<30 percent
2. Concentration
a. Urban
Median <6 ng/m3
Range <6 to 200 ng/m3
(detection limit = 6 ng/m3)
b. Rural
Median <6 ng/m3
Range <6 co 38 ng/m3
(detection Limit = 6 ng/m3)
Mielke
et al., 1983
NAS, 1977
Hem, 1970
(p. 204)
Booz Allen and
Hamilton, Inc.
1983 (p. 8)
Ryan et al.,
1982 (p. 255)
Ryan et al.,
1982 (p. 255)
U.S. EPA, 1979b
(pp. 19 and 23)
U.S. EPA, 1979b
U.S. EPA, 1979b
4-2
-------
B. Pood
1. Total Average Intake
Infancs: Mean 7.8 yg/day FDA, 1980a
(FY75 to FY77) (p. 10)
Toddlers: Mean 10.9 yg/day FDA, 1980a
(FY75 to FY77) (p. 10)
Adults (15 to 20 years old, male):
Mean 34.3 yg/day FDA, 1980b
(FY74 to 77) (p. 14)
Contribution of Food Groups to Total FDA, 1980b
Daily Adult Intake (p. 14)
Food Group
Dairy products
Meat, fish
and poultry
Grain and cereal
Potatoes
Leafy vegetables
Legume vegetables
Root vegetables
Garden fruits
Fruits
.Oils and fats
Sugars and adjuncts
Beverages
Total
yg Cd/day
1.87
0.75
8.36
7.04
2.52
0.39
12.2
.03
.12
0.81
0.49
0.32
36.9
% Total
Cd Intake
5.1
2.0
22.7
19.1
6.8
1.1
33.0
2.8
3.0
2.2
1.3
0.9
100
2. Concentration
Mean 12.5 ng/g WW
50 ng/g DW
Range 3 to 48 ng/g WW
Organ meats 100 Co 1400 ng/g WU
Ryan ec al.,
1982 (p. 280)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-4)
Dorn, 1979
(pp. 332 to 335)
4-3
-------
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenic!ty
a. Qualitative Assessment
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(pp. 3 and 4)
IARC Scheme Group 2A: "probably carcin-
ogenic to humans" based on inhalation
exposures.
b. Potency
None demonstrated for ingestion route.
c. Effects
None demonstrated for ingestion route.
2. Chronic Tozicity
a. ADI
FAO/HHO provisionally tolerable
daily intake (from all sources):
57 to 71 ug/day (i.e., 400 to 500
Ug/week)
Threshold effect level:
12 ug absorbed Cd/day corres-
ponds to 200 ug ingested Cd/
day for non-smokers, or 170 yg
ingested Cd/day for smokers
b. Effects
Renal tubular damage
3. Absorption Factor
5 to 10 percent
4. Existing Regulations
Ambient Water Quality Criteria =
10 pg/L
Drinking water standard = 10 ug/L
FAO/WHO, 1972
in FDA, 1980a
(p. 10)
Comm. Eur.
Communities,
1978 in
U.S. EPA,
1980 (p. C-65)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(pp. C-67
and C-68)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-66)
4-4
-------
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
IARC Scheme Group 2A and EPA Scheme
IB: "probably carcinogenic to
humans"
b. Potency
Cancer potency =7.8
(mg/kg/day)~l (as Cd fume)
c. Effects
Respiratory cancer and possibly
prostate cancer
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIH
A threshold effect level of 12 Ug
absorbed Cd/day corresponds .
to 48 ug inhaled Cd/day for non-
smokers (2 Ug/ in ambient air)
40.4 ug inhaled Cd/.day for smokers
(1.7 Ug/3 in ambient air)
b. Effects
Renal tubular damage, emphysema
3. Absorption Factor
25 to SO percent (normally 252)
4. Existing Regulations
ACGIH TLV-TWA =0.05 mg/m3
OSHA Standard (8-hour TWA) =
0.1 mg/m3, fume; 0.2 mg/m3, dust
NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit
(TWA) = 0.04 mg/m3
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(pp. 68 and 162)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 155)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 155)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(pp. C-65
and C-67)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-67)
ACGIH, 1981
(p. ID
Centers for
Disease Control,
1983 (p. 85)
4-5
-------
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
See Table 4-1.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-2.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-3.
0.5 ppm Cd in diet is maximum tolerable Level NAS, 1980
for cactle, sheep, swine and poultry based on (pp. 5-7 and
human food residue considerations. 107)
B. Uptake
See Table 4-4.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Tozicity
1. Freshwater
Concentrations exceeding criteria:
Hardness Criterion
(mg/L as CaCoi) (96-hour avg.) U.S. EPA, 1985
50 " 0.66 Ug/L
100 1.1 Ug/L
200 2.0 Ug/L
2. Saltwater
8.7 Ug/L as a 96-hour average U.S. EPA, 1985
concentration; should not exceeed
one-hour average of 40 Ug/L.
B. Uptake
Bioconcentration Factor
Mean Range
Fish muscle 16 3 to 151
Whole fish 525 33 to 2200
Edible shellfish 165 5 to 2600
4-6
-------
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
Data not immediately available.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-5.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT
Cadmium (Cd)
Molecular wt.: 112.41 Weast, 1976
Specific gravity (20°C): 8.642
Solubility (water): insoluble
Distribution constant (Kd) Gerritse et al.,
Sandy soil 1982
range (mL/g): 7.09-31.3
mean (mL/g): 14.9
Sandy loam soil
range (mL/g): 104.7-1710
mean (mL/g): 423
Cadmium Chloride (CdC^)
Molecular wt.: 183.32 Weast, 1976
Specific gravity (25°C): 4.047
Solubility (g/mL)
water (20°C): 1.4
water (100°C): 1.5
Cadmium Carbonate (CdCC^)
Molecular wt.: 172.41
Specific gravicy (4°C): 4.258
Solubility (water): insoluble
Cadmium Sulfide (greenockite, CdS)
Molecular wt.: 144.46
Specific gravity (20°C): 4.82
Solubility (g/mL)
water (18°C): 1.3 x 10~6
Cadmium Sulfate (CdSO^
Molecular wt.: 208.46
Specific gravity
(at 20°C relative to water 4°C): 4.691
Solubility (g/mL)
water (0°C): 0.755
water (100°C): 0.608
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-1. PIIYTOTOXICITY OP CADMIUM
Chemical
Form
Plane /Tissue Applied
Soybean/tops CdClj
Wheat/tops CdCl?
M Lettuce CdCl2
** Oat/roots CdCl2
00
Wheat/roots CdClj
CdCl2
CdSO4
CdC03
CdO
Radish/roota CdCl2 and
CdO (1:1)
CdClj and
CdO (1:1)
j Lettuce/leaves CdCl2
(roots)
Control
Tissue Soil
Soil Concentration Concentration
pll (pg/g DU) (Mg/B DM)
6.7 2 2.5
30
6.7 1 2.5
100
6.7 2.8 2.5
10
NR NR 10
100
NR NR 50
NR 100
NR 100
NR 100
NR 100
NR 50
100
S.I 12.2 (8.5) 40
200
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
NR"
MR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NH
NR
NR
NH
NR
NR
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(pg/8 DU)
7
20
3
20
11.5
27.1
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NH
NR
NR
NR
SI (295)
668 (1628)
Effect References
10Z reduced yield, Haghiri, 1973
discoloration (p. 94)
70Z decreased
yield, chlorosis
21Z decreased yield
70Z decreased yield
40Z decreased yield
5BZ decreased yeild
24. SZ decreased Khan and Prankland,
root biomass 1984 (p. 70)
76.71 decreased
root biomass
61.31 decreased
root biomass
67. 7Z decreased
root bionaaa
67.71 decreased
root biomass
13.8Z decreased
root biomass
47. 5! decreased
biomass
31.91 decreased
root biomass
42. 6Z decreased
root biomass
No effect on yield John, 1973
Yield reduced 91Z (pp. 10 and 11)
(60Z)
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Plane/Tissue
Spinach/leaves
(roots)
Broccol i/leaves
(roots)
Caul i flower/Leaves
(roots)
Radish/tops (tubers)
*
I
\o
Carrots/tops
-- (tubers)
Peas/seeds (pods)
Oats/grain (leaves)
Spinach/leaf
Control
Chemical Tissue Soil
Form Soil Concentration Concentration
Applied pll (fg/g n«> (pg/B DM)
CdCI2 S.I 12.2 (B.S)
CdCl2 5.1 2.7 (6.i)
CJC12 5.1 4.8 (1.8)
CdCl2 S.I 9.8 (3.6)
CdCl2 S.I 6.6 (2.4)
CdCl2 S.I S.4 (S.7)
CdCl2 S.I 3.9 (3.9)
CdS04 7.S 3.6
enriched
sludge
40
40
200
40
40
200
40
200
40
200
40
200
4
Appl icalion
Hate
(kg/ha)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NU
NR
NR
NR
NH
NR
NR
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
Yield reduced 571
(NS)
Yield reduced 2SZ Binghatn et al.t
197S (pp. 208 and
210) and
Bingham, 1979
(p. 40)
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Soybean/seed (leaf)
Curlycreas/leaf
Lettuce/hand (leaf)
Sweet corn/kernel
(leaf)
^ Carrot/tuber (leaf)
i
g V/ Turnip/tuber (leaf)
Field bean/aeed
(leaf)
Wheat/grain (leaf)
Radish/tuber (leaf)
Tomato/fruit (leaf)
Zucchini /fruit
(leaf)
Cabbage/head (leat)
Swiss chard/leaf
Chemical
Form
Applied
CdS04-
enriched
sludge
same as above
same as above
same as above
same as above
same aa above
same as above
same as above
same as above
same as above
same aa above
same as above
same as above
Soil
pll
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
Cont'rol
Tissue Soil
Concentration Concentration
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Rice/grain (leaf)
i/ Lettuce/tops
Corn/shoots
Tomato/shoot
Swiss chard/shoots
Lettuce
Broccol i
Eggplant
Tomato
Potato
Squash
Pepper
Chemical
Form
Appl ied
same as above
sludge
var ioua
inorganic
forms
CdS04-
enriched
sludge
same as above
same as above
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
Control
Tissue Soil
Soil Concentration Concentration
pli 25Z 1980 (p. 360)
growth reduction
Same as above
Same as above
Yield generally Giordano et al.,
higher with sludge 1979 (p. 235)
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Yields generally Giordano et al.,
higher with sludge 1979 (p. 235)
Same as above
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Bean/seeda (poda)
Cabbage
Carrot
Cantaloupe
Corn/grain (leaf)
Cum/grain (atover)
.p-
i
j_j
N> Corn/grain (stover)
Barley grain
Fescue/above
ground portion
Corn seedlings
-
Chemical
Form
Applied
sludge
sludge
sludge
aludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
aludge
sludge
=^^==
Soil
pH
6.0-6.7
6.0-6.7
6.0-6.7
6.0-6.7
6.0-6.7
7.6
5.5
6.0
6.2
NR
Control
Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DM)
0.07 (0.14)
0.19
0.96
0.21
0.10 (0.29)
0.01 (0.20)
0.08 (1.2)
0.06 (0.12)
it
NR
Soil
Concentration
(Mg/B DW)
NR
NK
NR
NR
5.23 (H)c
30.1 (M)
5.57 (M)
NR
NR
NR
=
Appl ication
Race
(kg/ha)
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
19.2
170 (during
11 years)
22.5
3.2
74
-
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(Ug/g DW)
0.32(0.49)
0.35
2.29
0.88
1.83(19.1)
0.12(2.05)
1.83(44.4)
1.27(4.57)
72"
13
Effect
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
No signs of
phytotoxicity
No phytotoxicity
or Cd-related
yield reduction
No significant
reduction of
weight
No effect on
production
No effect on
growth
====^=
References
Giordano et at. ,
1979 (p. 235)
Webber and
Beauchamp, 1979
(pp. 465 and 466)
Hinesly et al..
1982 (p. 473)
Chang et al., 1982
(pp. 410 and 411)
Bos well, 1975
(p. 271)
Shammas, 1979
NR = Not reported.
b NS = Not significant.
c M = Measured.
d Sludge applied over growing fescue (tissue rinsed belore analysis).
-------
TABLE 4-2. UPTAKE OF CADMIUM BY PLANTS
Plant/Tissue
Tomato/fruit
Lettuce/leaf
SwibS chard/leaf
Turnip/greens
Carroi/tuber
Radish/tuber
Potato/tuber
Sweet corn/grain
String bean/bean
Wheat/grain
Oats/grain
Field corn/grain
Chemical Form
Applied ,,
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
s 1 udge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
s 1 udge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
Soil
pll
6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
5.5-5.7
6.1-6.4
5.5-5.7
6.1-6.4
NRd
5.6
6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
NRd
6.2-6.5
6.2-6.5
5.0-5.5
5.0-5.5
NRd
6.1-6.4
5.5-5.7
4.9-5.4
5.8-6.4
6.5
Range (N)a Control
of Application Rates Tissue Concentration Uptake"
(kg/ha) (|ig/g DW) Slope
0.05
0.60
0.42
Q.15
0.87 0.85
0.43
0.51
0-5.1 (3) 1.0 0.67
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.009
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.001
0.001
0-38.7 (2) 0.004
References
Dowdy and Larson, 1975C
Dowdy and Larson, 1975C
CAST, 1980 (Table 15)c
CAST, 1980 (Table 15)c
CAST, 1980 (Table 15 )c
CAST, 1980 (Table 15)c
Chang et al., 1976C
Miller and Boswell, 1979
(p. 1362)
Dowdy and Larson, 1975C
Dowdy and Larson, 1975C
Chang et al., 1978C
Dowdy and Larson, 1975C
Dowdy and Larson, 1975C
Giordano and Nays, 1977C
Giordano and Nays, 1977C
Sabey and Hart, 1975C
CAST, 1980 (Table 15 )c
CAST, 1980 (Table 15 )c
CAST, 1980 (Table 17)c
CAST. 1890 (Table 17)c
Lisk et al., 1982 (p. 617)
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
I
I*
^
Plant /Tissue
Field corn/leaf
Field corn/silage
Chemical Form
Appl ied
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
sludge
Soil
pll
6.5C
4.6°
6.5*
4.6f
7.0
5.4
Range (N)a
of Application Rates
(kg/ha)
0-3.0 (4)
0-3.0 (4)
0-3.0 (4)
0-3.0 (4)
0-21.6 (2)
0-25.3 (2)
Control
Tissue Concentration Uptake'*
(MB/g DM)
0.83
1.01
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.29
Slope
3.4
3.4
1.5
0.83
0.077
0.14
References
Pepper et al.
Pepper et al.
Pepper et al .
Pepper et al.
Heffron el al
Tel ford et al
, 1983 (p. 272)
, 1983 (p. 272)
, 1983 (p. 272)
, 1983 (p. 272)
., 1980 (p. 59)
., 1982 (p. 79)
a M = Number of application rales, including control (i.e., iuro).
D Slope - y/x; x = kg/ha applied; y - pg/g plant tissue DW.
c As reported in Ryan, el al., 1982 (p. 28J).
d Assumed to be >pll 7.
e Sill loam soil, limed or unlimed.
f Sandy loam soil, limed or unlimed.
-------
TABLE 4-3. TOXIC1TY OP CADMIUM TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)a
Peed Water Daily
Chemical Form Concentration Concentration Intake Duration
Fed
-------
TABLE 4-3. (continued)
Species (N)"
Chicken (15)
Chicken (12-15)
Japanese
quail (80)
Mallard
Rabbit
Dog (2)
Rat (46)
Rat (100)
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Peed Uater Dally
Chemical Form Concentration Concentration Intake Duration
Fed (MB/g) WD (rag/kg) of Study
3 *B weeks
12,48 4B weeks
CdCl2 75 28 °"ys
HK 200 90 day"
CdCl 16° 2°° daya
CdCl2 0.5, 2.5 « years
5, 10
Cd acetate »-2S 30 uonlhs
50
Cd acetate 5 lifetime
31 7 months
45 6 months
soluble Cd 10 2 generations
Effects
No adverse effect
Decreased eggshell
thickness
Decreased body weight,
hematocrit, total plasma
proteins and albumin,
increased transferring and
mortality
Kidney tubule degeneration
Decreased growth
Ho adverse effects
Some fat droplets in
glomeruli; some tubular
atrophy and inflammatory
cells
Increased blood pressure
Decreased weight gain
Increased mortality,
hypertension, kidney
damage, heart damage,
neurological disease
Anemia
Slight toxic symptoms
Dead, litters, young
deaths, runts, decreased
number of offspring.
failure to breed
References
Leach et al., 1979
Leach et al., 1979
Jacobs et al., 1969; Pox
et al., 1971
U.S. EPA. 1980 (pp. 8 to 44)
Stowe et al., 1972
Anwar et al., 1961
Perry et al., 1977
Schroeder et al., 1965
(p. 63)
U.S. EPA, 1978 (p. 143)
Cough et al., 1979 (p. 16)
Schroeder and Kitchener,
1971
=======
a M = Number of animals per treatment group.
-------
TABLE 4-4. UPTAKE OP CADMIUM BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)a
Cattle (6)
Cattle (6)
Cattle (9-13)
Swine (6-14)
Swine (28)
Swine (3)
Sheep (6)
Sheep (6)
Sheep (10)
Sheep (5-9)
Chemical
Form Fed
sludge
sludge
grass, alfalfa grown
near smelter
barley grown near
smelter
sludge-grown corn
grain
sludge-grown corn
grain
CdCl2
CdCl2
sludge-grown corn
silage
sludge-grown corn
silage
Range (and N)b
of Peed Tissue
Concentrations Tissue
(MB/8 DW> Analyzed
0.77-12.2 (2) kidney
liver
muscle
0.14-10.6 (2) kidney
1 iver
muscle
0-07-1.72 (2) kidney
1 iver
0.08-0.65 (2) kidney
liver
0.08-0.24 (2) kidney
1 iver
muscle
0.10-0.47 (2) kidney
1 iver
0.2-15 (3) kidney
liver
muscle
0.7-12.3 (4) liver
t
0.26-3.14 (2) kidney
1 iver
muscle
0.072-1.39 (2) kidney
1 iver
muscle
Control Tissue
Concentration
(|lg/g WW)C
0.31
0.08
0.02
0.27
0.057
<0.002
0.05
0.018
0.09
0.42
0.15
0.04
0.006
0.15
0.06
1.0
0.5
0.025
0.29
0.67
0.09
0.006
1.24
0.35
0.001
Uptaked
Slope References
0.15 Beyer et al., 1981 (p. 286)
0.12
NS
0.27 Johnson et al., 1981 (p. 112)
0.135
0.0006
0.20e Munshower, 1977 (p. 412)
0.05e
0.24e
0.054e
1.24 l.isk et al . , 1982 (p. 617)
0.15
NS
0.45 Hanaen and Ilinesly, 1979 (p. 52)
0.11
2.8 Sharma et al . , 1979
1.0
0.004
0.20 Hills and Dal gar no, 1972
1.19 Telford et al.. 1982 (p. 79)
0.30
NS
2.28 Heffron et al., 1980 (p. 60)
1.04
0.0013
-------
TABLE 4-4. (continued)
I
I"
00
Species (Mi*
Chicken (IS)
Chicken
Chemical
Form Fed
CdS04
CdCl2
Bange (and N)b
of Peed Tissue
Concentrations
(pg/g DU)
0.22-12.22 (3)
0.32-13.06 (3)
Tissue
Analyzed
kidney
1 iver
Muscle
kidney
liver
muscle
Control Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g UU)C
3.2
0.7
0.029
3
0.2
0.063
Uptake*1
Slope
13
1.0
0.017
15
l.bi
0.019
References
Leach et al., 1979
Sharma et at., 1979
* H = Number of animal a per treatment group.
b N = Number of feed concentrations, including control.
c Uhen tissue values were reported as dry weight, unless otherwise indicated a moisture content of 77Z was assumed for kidney, 70Z for liver, and
72Z for muscle (cattle, sheep, swine). Uhen reported on fat-free dry weight basis, moisture plus fat content were assumed as follows: kidney,
81Z; chicken breast muscle, 761.
d Uptake slope y/»; x = pg/g feed (DW); y = pg/g tissue (WU).
e Slope may actually be higher than shown since the diet also contained feed supplements which would have lowered the total Cd concentration of the
contaminated diet.
' NS = No significant increase in tissue Cd.
-------
TABLE 4-5. UPTAKE OF CADMIUM BY SOIL BIOTA
Species Soil Type
Earthworms sludge-amended
soil
Earthworms sludge-amended
soil
CdO-amended
soi 1
Earthworms sludge-amended
soils
I
» «
*° Earthworms soils near
highways
'Earthworms natural soils
Soil Concentration
Range (and N)a
Soil pll (pg/g DU)
4.6-6.4 0.06-8.2 (2)
6.5 0-21.4 kg/ha (2)d
(over 8 years)
6.5 0-35.8 kg/ha (2)d
(over 8 years)
0.13-18.8 kg/ha (2)d
(single application)
6.9-7.0 0.66-1.59 (15)
NRB 0.23-0.80 (b)
Tissue
Analyzed
whole body
whole body
whole body
whole body
whole body
minus gut
whole body
whole body
Control Tissue
Concentration
(Ug/g DU)
4.8
17
17
5.5
3.3
5.9-8.5
3.1-9.3
=====
Uptake
Slope
13.7b«c
1.36e
0.64e
2.77e
0.77e
NA<
NA
=====
==============
References
Beyer et al., 1982
(p. 383)
Beyer el al., 1982
(pp. 382 and 383)
Wade et al., 1982 (p.
Cish and Christensen,
(p. 1061)
559)
1973
Van Hook, 1974 (p. 510)
=
aN = Number of soil concentrations (including control).
bSlope = y/x: x = soil concentration; y = tissue concentration.
cHean slope for four locations.
°Cd application rale.
eSlope = y/x: x = application ralej y = lissue concenlration.
fNA = Not applicable.
BNR = Not reported.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publications, New York, NY.
American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists. 1981.
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents
in the Working Environment with Intended Changes for 1981.
Cincinnati, OH.
Anwar, R. A., R. F. Langham, C. A. Hoppert, B. V. Alfredson, and R. U.
Byerrum. 1961. Chronic Toxicity Studies. II. Chronic Toxicity
of Cadmium and Chromium in Dogs. Arch. Environ. Health. 3:92.
(Cited in MAS, 1980).
Bert rand, J. E., M. C. Lucrick, 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.
Beyer, K. W., J. W. Jones, S. K. Linscott, W. Wright, W. Stroube, and
W. Cunningham. 1981. Trace Element Levels in Tissues from Cattle
Fed a Sewage Sludge-Amended Diet. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health.
8:281-295.
Beyer, W. N., R. L. Chaney, and B. M. Mulkern. 1982. Heavy Metal
Concentrations in Earthworms from Soil Amended with Sewage Sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. 11(3):381-385.
Bingham, F. T. 1979. BioavailabiLity of Cd to Food Crops in Relation
to Heavy Metal Content of Sludge-Amended Soil. Environ. Health
Perspect. 28:39-63.
Bingham, F. T., A. L. Page, R. J. Mahler, and T. J. Ganje. 1975.
Growth and Cadmium Accumulation of Plants Grown on a Soil Treated
with a Cadmium Enriched Sewage Sludge. J. Environ. QuaL.
(4)2:207-211.
Booz Allen and Hamilton, Inc. 1983. A Background Document on Cadmium
in Municipal Sewage Sludge. Revised Draft. Prepared for U.S. EPA
Sludge Task Force. April 29.
Boswell, F. C. 1975. Municipal Sewage Sludge and Selected Element
Applications to Soil: Effect on Soil and Fescue. J. Environ.
Qual. 4(2):267-273.
Boyle, E., and S. Huested. 1983. Aspects of the Surface Distributions
of Copper, Nickel, Cadmium, and Lead in the North Atlantic and
North Pacific. In; Trace Metals in Sea Water. C. S. Wong et al.,
eds., 1983. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
5-1
-------
Bruland, K. W., and R. P. Pranks. 1983. Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, and Cd in the
Western North Atlantic. In! Trace Metals in Sea Water. C. S.
Wong et al. (eds.), 1983. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1983. New York City Special Permit
Application - Ocean Disposal of Sewage Sludge. Prepared for the
City of New York Department of Environmental Protection.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984a. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984b. Technical Review of the 106-Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract No. 68-
01-6403. Annandale, VA. January.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984c. Technical Review of the 12-Mile
Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. May.
Centers for Disease Control. 1983. NIOSH Recommendations for
Occupational Health Standard. Morbid. Mortal. Weekly Rep.
32:7S-22S.
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.
Chang, A. C., A. L. Page, L. J. Lund, P. E. Pratt, and G. R. Bradford.
1978. Land Application of Sewage Sludge: A Field Demonstration.
Final Report. Regional Wastewater Solids Management Program, Los
Angeles/Orange County Metropolitan Area. Univ. of California,
Riverside, CA. (Cited in Ryan et al., 1932).
Chang, A. C., A. L. Page, K. W. Foster, and T. W. Jones. 1982. A
Comparison of Cadmium and Zinc Accumulation by Four Cultures of
Barley Grown in Sludge-Amended Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 11(3):409-
412.
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.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1980. Effects of
Sewage Sludge on the Cadmium and Zinc Content of Crops. Rep. No.
83. Ames, IA.
r
Cousins, R. J., A. K. Barber, and J. R. Trout. 1973. Cadmium Toxicity
in Growing Swine. J. Nutr. 103:964. (Cited in NAS, 1980).
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
5-2
-------
Dorn, C. R. 1979. Cadmium and the Food Chain. Cornel Vet. 69:323-
343.
Dowdy, R. H., and W. E. Larson. 1975. The Availability of Sludge-Borne
Mecals co Various Vegetable Crops. J. Environ. Qual 4(2):278-282.
Doyle, J. J., and W. H. Pfander. 1975. Interaction of Cadmium with
Copper, Iron, Zinc, and Manganese in Ovine Tissues. J. Nutr.
105:599-606.
Doyle, J. J., W. H. Pfander, S. E. Grebing, and J. 0. Pierce. 1974.
Effects of Dietary Cadmium on Growth, Cadmium Absorption, and
Cadmium Tissue Levels in Growing Lambs. J. Nutr. 104:160. (Cited
in MAS, 1980).
Farrell, J. B., and H. Wall. 1981. Air Pollutional Discharges from Ten
Sewage Sludge Incinerators. Draft Review Copy. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. February.
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization. 1972.
Sixteenth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food
Additives. WHO Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 505. FAO Nutr. Rep. Ser. No.
51.
Food and Drug Administration. 1980a. FY77 Diet Studies - Infants and
Toddlers (7320.74). FDA Bureau of Foods. October 22.
Food and Drug Administration. 1980b. FY77 Total Diet Studies - Adult
(7320.73). FDA Bureau of Foods. December 11.
Fox. M. R. S., B. E. Fry, Jr., B. F. Harland, M. E. ScherteL, and C. E.
Weeks. 1971. Effect of Ascorbic Acid on Cadmium Toxicity. J.
Nutr. 101:1295. (Cited in NAS, 1980).
Freeland, J. H., and R. J. Cousins. 1973. Effect of Dietary Cadmium on
Anemia, Iron Absorption, and Cadmium Binding Protein in the Chick.
Nutr. Rep. Int. 8:337. (Cited in NAS, 1980).
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L. W., and C. 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, MM.
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. ll(3):359-364.
Giordano, P. M., and D. A. Mays. 1977. Effect of Land Disposal
Applications of Municipal Wastes on Crop Yields and Heavy Metal
Uptake. EPA 600/2-77-014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. (Cited in Ryan et al., 1982).
5-3
-------
Giordano, P. M., D. A. Mays, and A. D. Behel, Jr. 1979. Soil
Temperature Effects on Uptake of Cadmium and Zinc by Vegetables
Grown on Sludge-Amended Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 8(2):233-236.
Gish, C. D., and R. E. Christensen. 1973. Cadmium, Nickel, Lead, and
Zinc in Earthworms from Roadside Soil. Environ. Sci. Techno1.
7(11):1060-1062.
Cough, L. P., H. T. Schacklette, and A. A. Case. 1979. Element
Concentrations Toxic to Plants, Animals, and Man. Geologic Survey
Bulletin 1A66. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Haghiri, F. 1973. Cadmium Uptake by Plants. J. Environ. Qual.
2(l):93-96.
Hansen, L. G., and T. D. Hinesly. 1979. Cadmium from Soil Amended with
Sewagg Sludge: Effects of Residues in Swine. Environ. Health
Perspect. 28:51-57.
Heffron, C. L., J. T. Reid, D. C. Elfving, et al. 1980. Cadmium and
Zinc in Growing Sheep Fed Silage Corn Grown on Municipal Sludge
Amended Soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 28:58-61.
Hem, J. D. 1970. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical
Characteristics of Natural Water. Geological Survey Water Supply
Paper 1473. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Hinesly, T. D., D. E. Alexander, K. E. Redborg, and E. L. Ziegler.
1982. Differential Accumulation of Cadmium and Zinc by Corn
Hybrids Grown on Soil Amended with Sewage Sludge. Agron. J.
74:469-474.
Holmgren, G. 1985. Personal Communication. National Soil Survey
Laboratory. Soil Conservation Service. USDA, Lincoln, NE.
Jacobs, R. M., M.R.S. Fox, and M. H. Aldridge. 1969. Changes in Plasma
Proteins Associated with the Anemia Produced by Dietary Cadmium in
Japanese Quail. J. Nutr. 99:119. (Cited in NAS, 1930).
John, M. K. 1973. Cadmium Uptake by Eight Food Crops as Influenced by
Various Soil Levels of Cadmium. Environ. Pollut. 4:7-15.
Johnson, D. E., E. W. Kienholb, J. C. Baxter, E. Spangler, and G. M.
Wood. 1981. Heavy Metal Retention in Tissues of Cattle Fed High
Cadmium Sewage Sludge. J. Anim. Sci. 52:108.
Khan, D. H., and B. Frankland. 1984. Cellutolytic Activitiy and Root
Biomass Production in Some Metal Contaminated Soils. Environ.
Pollut. (Series A). 33:63-74.
Leach, R. M., Jr., K. W. L. Wang, and D. E. Baker. 1979. Cadmium and
the Food Chain: The Effect of Dietary Cadmium on Tissue
Composition in Chicks and Laying Hens. J. Nutr. 109:437. (Cited
in NAS, 1980).
5-4
-------
Lisk, D. J., R. D. Boyd, J. N. TeLford, ec al. 1982. Toxicological
Studies with Swine Fed Corn Grown on Municipal Sewage Sludge-
Amended Soil. J. Ani. Sci. 55(3):613-619.
Logan, T. J., and R. H. Miller. 1983. Background Levels of Heavy
Metals in Ohio Farm Soils. Research Circular 275. Ohio State
Univ., Ohio Agric. Res. and Development Center, Wooster, OH.
Mahler, R. J., F. T. Bingham, G. Sposito, and A. L. Page. 1980.
Cadmium-Enriched Sewage Sludge Application to Acid and Calcareous
Soils: Relations Between Treatment, Cadmium in Saturation Extracts
and Cadmium Uptake. J. Environ. Qual. 9(3):359-364.
Meaburn, G. M., K. B. Bolton, H. L. Seagran, T. S. Siewicki, S. M.
Bingham, and P. J. Eldridge. 1981. Application of a Computer
Simulation Model to Estimate Dietary Intake of Cadmium from Seafood
by U.S. Consumers. NOAA Tech. Memorandum NMFS SEFC-74. 31 pp.
Mielke, H. W., J. C. Anderson, K. J. Berry, P. W. Mielke, R. L. Chaney,
and M. Leech. 1983. Lead Concentration in Inner-City Soils as a
Factor in the Child Lead Problem. Amer. J. Pub. Health.
73(12):1366-1369.
Miller, J., and F. C. Boswell. 1979. Mineral Content of Selected
Tissues and Feces of Rats Fed Turnip Greens Grown on Soil Treated
with Sewage Sludge. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27(6):136101365 .
Mills, C. F., and A. C. Dalgarno. 1972. Copper and Zinc Status of Ewes
and Lambs Receiving Increased Dietary Concentracions of Cadmium.
Nature. 239:171.
Munshower, F. F. 1977. Cadmium Accumulation in Plants and Animals of
Polluted and Nonpolluted Grasslands. J. Environ. Qual. 6(4):411-
413.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Drinking Water and Health, NAS
Safe Drinking Water Committee Report.
National Academy of Sciences. 1980. Mineral Tolerances of Domestic
Animals. NAS: Subcommittee on Mineral Toxicity in Animals.
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.
Osuna, 0., G. T. Edds, and J. A. Popp. 1981. Comparative Toxicity of
Feeding Dried Urban Sludge and an Equivalent Amount of Cadmium to
Swine. Am. J. Vet. Res. 42:1541-1546.
Pennington, J. A. T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 82:166-173.
5-5
-------
Pepper, I. L., D. E. Bezdicek, A. S. Baker, and J. M. Sims. 1983.
Silage Corn Upcake of Sludge-Applied Zinc and Cadmium as Affected
by Soil pH. J. Environ. Qual. 12(2):270-275.
Perry, H. J., Jr., M. Erlanger, and E. F. Perry. 1977. Elevated
Systolic Pressure Following Chronic Low-Level Cadmium Feeding. Am.
J. Physiol. 232:H1U. (Cited in MAS, 1980).
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Pierce, F. J., R. H. Dowdy, and D. F. Grigal. 1982. Concentrations of
Six Trace Metals in Some Major Minnesota Soils Series. J. Environ.
Qual. 11(3):416-A22.
Ryan, J. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Food Chain: A Review and Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251-302.
Sabey, B. R., and W. E. Hart. 1975. Land Application of Sewage Sludge:
I. Effect on Growth and Chemical Composition of Plants. J.
Environ. Qual. 4(2):252-256.
Schroeder, H. A., J. J. Balasa, and W. H. Vinton. 1965. Chromium,
Cadmium, and Lead in Rats: Effects on Life Span, Tumors, and
Tissue Levels. J. Mutr. 86:51-66.
Schroeder, J. A., and M. Mitchener. 1971. Toxic Effects of Trace
Elements on the Reproduction of Mice and Rats. Arch. Environ.
Health. 23:102. (Cited in HAS, 1980).
Shammas, A. T. 1979. Bioavailability of Cadmium in Sewage Sludge.
Diss. Absc. Int. *0(7):2940-B. Order No. 7919813, 1980. Abstract.
Sharma, R. P., J. C. Street, M. P. Verma, and J. L. Shupe. 1979.
Cadmium Uptake from Feed and its Distribution of Food Produces of
Livestock. Environ. Health Perspecc. 28:59-66.
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.
Singh, S. S. 1981. Uptake of Cadmium by Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) as
Influenced by Its Addition to a Soil as Inorganic Forms or in
Sewage Sludge. Can. J. Soil Sci. 61:19-28.
Stanford Research Institute International. 1980. Seafood Consumption
Data Analysis. Final Report, Task 11. Prepared for U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68-01-3887. Menlo Park, CA. September.
Stowe, H. D., M. Wilson, and R. A. Coyer. 1972. Clinical and
Morphologic Effects of Oral Cadmium Toxicity in Rabbits. Arch.
Pathol. 94:389. (Cited in NAS, 1980).
5-6 '
-------
Telford, J. N., M. L. Thonney, D. E. Hogue, et al. 1982. Toxicological
Studies in Growing Sheep Fed Silage Corn Cultured on Municipal
Sludge-Amended Acid Subsoil. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 10:73-
85.
Thornton, I. and P. Abrams. 1983. Soil Ingestion - A Major Pathway of
Heavy Metals into Livestock Grazing Contaminated Land. Sci. Total
Environ. 28:287-294.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental Assessment
of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Sludge:
Interim Report. EPA 530/SW-547. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Reviews of the
Environmental Effects of Pollutants: IV. Cadmium. EPA 600/1-78-
026. Health Effects Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. 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. 1979b. Air Quality Data for
Metals 1976 from the National Air Surveillance Networks. EPA
600/4-79-054. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambienc Water Quality
Criteria for Cadmium. EPA 440/5-80-025. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. . EPA 440/1-82/303.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Assessment of Human
Exposure to Arsenic: Tacoma, Washington. Internal Document.
OHEA-E-075-U. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C. July 19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a. 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. 1984b. Updated Mutagenicity and
Carcinogenicity Assessment of Cadmium. External Review Draft. EPA
600/8-83-025B.
5-7
-------
UtS. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Water Quality Criteria for
Cadmium. (Unpublished).
Van Hook, R. I. 1974. Cadmium, Lead, and Zinc Distributions Between
Earthworms and Soils: Potentials for Biological Accumulation.
Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 12(4):509-512.
Wade, S. E., C. A. Bache, and D. J. Lisk. 1982. Cadmium Accumulation
by Earthworms Inhabiting Municipal Sludge-Amended Soil. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:557-560.
Weast, R. C. (Ed.). 1976. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 57th ed.
CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland, OH.
Webber, L. R., and E. G. Beauchamp. 1979. Cadmium Concentration and
Distribution in Corn (Zea mays L.) Grown on a Calcareous Soil for
Three Years after Three Annual Sludge Application's. J. Environ.
Sci. Health. B14(5):459-474.
Wright, F. C., J. S. Palmer, J. C. Riner, M. Houfler, J. A. Miller, and
C. A. McBeth. 1977. Effects of Dietary Feeding of Organocadmium
to Cattle and Sheep. J. Agr. Food. 25(2) :293-297.
5-8
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR CADMIUM
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETINC
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Cadmium
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. Formula
T^O i - (SC x AR) * (BS x MS)
Index 1 BS (AR + MS)
where:
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(pg/g DW)
AR = Sludge applicacion rate (me DW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
MS = 2000 mt DW/ha = Assumed mass of soil in
upper 15 cm
b. Sample calculation
, , _ (8.15 ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (0.2 ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
~ 0.2 ug/g DW (5 mt/ha * 2000 mt/ha)
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Formula
Ii x BS
Index 2 = -YS
where:
I^ = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due
to lack of data.
A-l
-------
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
(Ii - 1)(BS x UB) + BB
index 3 = _i - - -
where:
T! = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
UB = Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]'1)
BB = Background concentration in soil biota
(Ug/g DW)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator- (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
1.69 = [(1.1 -1) (0.2 Ug/g DW x 13.7 ug/g DW [ug/g soil DW]~1)
+ 4.8 Ug/g DW] * 3 Ug/g DW
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)
a. Formula
x BS
Index 4 =
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration ' toxic to plants (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
n naa - 1'1 * °'2 US/E DW
°-°88 - 2.5 ug/g DW
A-2
-------
2. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Caused by Uptake
(Index 5)
a. Formula
(Ii - 1) x BS
Index 5 = = - x CO x UP + 1
BP
where:
!]_ = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
CO = 2 kg/ha (ug/g)~* = Conversion factor
between soil concentration and application
rate
UP = Uptake slope of pollutant in plant tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [kg/ha]'1)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
, 0, _ (1.1 - 1) x 0.2 ug/g DW 2 kg/ha
" 0.29 ug/g DW ug/g soil
0.14 ug/g tissue .
X kg/ha i
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6}
a. Formula
pp
Index 6 =
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration
associated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
78.4 Ug/g DW
0.46 ug/g DW
A-3
-------
C. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
I5 x BP
Index 7 = -
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unit Less)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (yg/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Formula
BS x GS
If AR = 0, I8 =
If AR i 0, I8 =
TA
SC x GS
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DU/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(pg/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(unitless)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
UU.O. 0.0020
If IE *0. 0.0815
A-4
-------
B. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
[(I5 - 1) BP x DT] + DI
Index 9 = -
ADI
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plane concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
DT = Daily human dietary intake of affected
plant tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
n ,,, _ [(1.02 - 1) x 0.87 ug/g DW x 74.5 g/davl + 10.9 Ug/dav
U ^ 11 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^"" ""^^^"xT"" / i ^^"^""^ ^"~^""^
64 Ug/day
2. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
[(I5 - 1) BP x UA x DA] + DI
index 10 = ^ -.
where:
15 = Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(ug/g DW)
UA = Uptake slope 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)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of poL.Lutant
(Ug/day)
A-5
-------
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
f(1.04-l) x 0.29 Ug/g PW x 5.5 ug/g tissuefug/g feed]"1 x 0.97 g/dayl * 10.9 Ug/day
64 ug/day
3. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Formula
rr . r -.' 11 (BS X GS X UA X PA) + PI
If AR = 0, Index 11 = jjjjj
, T _, .. (SC x GS x UA x PA) + PI
If AR ^ 0, Index 11 =
where:
AR - Sludge applicacion rate (mt PW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
(unitless)
UA = Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue PW [Ug/g feed PW'1]
PA = Average daily human diecary intake of
affected animal tissue (g/day PW)
PI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
API = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
(8.15ue/g PW x 0.05 x 5.5 ug/g tissue Fua/g feedl"1 x 0.97 g/dav PW) + 10.9 ue/da-y
°'204 = 64 ug/day
4. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(Index 12)
a. Formula
(Ii x BS x PS) + PI
Index 12 =
API
T j 11 (SC x PS) + PI
Pure sludge ingestion: Index 12 =
A-6
-------
where:
II = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet
(g/day)
DI = Average daily dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
n 1H7 _ (1.1 x 0.2 Ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day) + 10.9 Ug/day
U«lo/ , . i . .^^^^^
64 ug/day
Pure sludge:
n an? - (8*15 Ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day) + 10.9 Ug/dav
U.OU/ - r, I j
64 Ug/day
5. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 - I9 * I10 + In * 112 - JJJJ
where:
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from plant consumption
(unitless)
= Index 10 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
= Index 11 = Index of human coxicity
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals ingesting
soil (unitless)
Il2 = Index 12 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
DI = Average daily dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
A-7
-------
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
3 *
0.262 = (0.211 + 0.171 + 0.204 + 0.187) - (
64 ug/day
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 estimates initial dilution in the aquifer to
give the initial concentration, Co, for the saturated zone
assessment. (Conditions for B, thickness of unsaturated zone,
have been set such that dilution is actually negligible.) The
saturated zone assessment procedure is nearly identical to
that for the unsaturated zone except for the definition of
certain parameters and choice of parameter values. The maxi-
mum concentration at the well, Cmax, is used to calculate the
index values given in Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1: Transport Assessment
C(y,t) = 7 [exp(Ai) erfc(A2) + exp(Bi) erfc(B2)] = P(x,t)
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of the result. Exp(A^) denotes the
exponential of AI, e *, where erfc(A2) denotes the
complimentary error function o£ A2. Erfc(A2) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1972).
where:
A 1_ [v* - (V*2 - 4D* x u*)^]
Al 2D*
y - t (V*2 + 4D* x u*)^
A2 = (4D* x c>*
B, _ X [V* + (V*2 * 40* x
Bl - 2D*
_ V * t (V*2 *
32 ' (4D* x
A-8
-------
and where for che 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
20Z
t = Time (years)
X = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = 9 (m/year)
9 x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
0 = Volumetric water content (unicless)
R = 1 * dry x KJ = Retardation factor (unitless)
0
pdry = Dry bulk density (g/mL)
K
-------
where:
C0 = Initial concentration of pollutant in the saturated
zone as determined by Equation 1 (yg/L)
Cu = Maximum pulse concentration from the unsaturated
zone (ug/L)
Q = Leachate generation rate (in/year)
W = Width of landfill (m)
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
d = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
B = Thickness of saturated zone (m) where:
B > 9 * " Vf and B > 2
K x i x 365
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
= P(x»O for 0 < t _< t
P t
where:
t0 (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill Leaching time
(years)
t0 (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
/ 00
C0 = [ C dt] t Cu
P(X,t) = %T as determined by Equation 1
co
E. Equation 4. Index of Ground water Concentration Increment
Resulting from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
T ., ,
Index 1 =
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
Maximum of C(A2.,t) calculated in Equation 1
(pg/L)
BC = Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (ug/L)
A-10
-------
2. Sample Calculation
, , _ 0.221 Ug/L * 1 Ug/L'
1>221 " 1 Ug/L
P. Equation 5. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting
from Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1. Formula
[(I ! - 1) BC x AC] + DI
Index 2 =
where:
ll = Index 1 - Index of groundwater concentration
increment resulting from Landfilled sludge
BC = Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (ug/L)
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
. [(1.221 - 1) x I Ug/L x 2 L/day] * 34.3 ug/day
64 Ug/day
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from Incinerator
Emissions (Index 1)
1. Formula
, , ,
-------
2. Sample Calculation
3.049 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x 8.15 mg/kg DW x 0.30 x 3.4 ug/m3)
3 x 10'3 ug/m3] t 3 x 10"3 ug/m3
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formula
[(Ii - 1) x BA] + BA
Index 2 =
EC
where:
Ii = Index 1 = Index of air concentration increment
resulting from incinerator emissions
(unitless)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in
urban air (ug/m3)
EC = Exposure criterion (ug/m3)
2. Sample Calculation
2Q 33 = [(3.049 - 1) x 3 x 1Q"3 yg/m3! + 3 x IP"3 Ug/m3
0.45 x 10'3 Ug/m3
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
r j i SC x ST x PS .
Index 1 = - - : + 1
W x D x L x CA
where:
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
ST = Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
PS = Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
W = Width of initial plume dilution (m)
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of
mixing for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
CA = Ambient water concentration of pollutant (ug/L)
A-12
-------
2. Sample Calculation
. _ 8.15 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x 103 Ug/mg + .
200 m x 20 m x 8000 m x 0.02 Ug/L x 103 L/m3
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Formula
T j i SS x SC .
Index 2 = - - - - : - + 1
V x D x L x CA
where:
SS = Daily sludge disposal race (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)
CA = Ambient water concentration of pollutant (ug/L)
2. Sample Calculation
L 22 __ 825000 kg DW/dav x 8.15 mg/kg DW x id3 Ug/mg + L
9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 0.02 ug/L x 103 L/m3
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Formula
1 1 'X CA
IndeX 3 = "~AWQC~
where:
1^ = Index 1 = Index of seawater concentration
resulting from initial mixing after sludge
disposal
AWQC = Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from
acute and chronic toxic effects (ug/L)
CA = Ambient water concentration of pollutant (ug/L)
2. Sample Calculation
0.00417 . 1.815 u,/L x 0.02 UP./L
8.7
A-13
-------
Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Formula
Index 4 =
[(I2-D x CF x FS x QF] + DI
ADI
where:
12 = Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration
representing a 24-hour dumping cycle
QF = Dietary consumption of seafood (g WU/day)
FS = Fraction of consumed seafood originating from
the disposal site (unitless)
CF = Background concentration of pollutant in
seafood (ug/g)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
0.536 =
f(1.22 -1) x 0.138 ug/e x 0.000021 x 14.3 g HW/dav) * 34.3 lie/day
64 yg/day
A-14
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOB EACH CONDITION
I
>-"
In
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (pg/g DU)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, P,jrtf (g/mL)
Voluoelric water content, 6 (unitless)
Soil sorption coefficient, Kj (mL/g)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (at/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (n>)
Saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, 0 (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (in/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unit. less)
Distance from well to landfill, At (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, d (m)
1
B.1S
1.53
0.195
423
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
2
88.13
1.53
0.195
423
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
3
8. IS
1.925
0.133
14.9
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4 5
8.15 8.15
NAb 1.53
NA 0.195
NA 423
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
8.15
1.53
0.195
423
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.02
50
5
7 8
88.13 N«
NA N
NA N
NA H
_
1.6 N
0 H
NA N
0.389 N
4.04 N
0.02 N
50 N
5 N
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Condition of Analysis
Results
Unsalurated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, C0 (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (|lg/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, C0
(pg/L)
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Craax (pg/l.)
Index ot groundwaler concentration increment
resulting from landfilled sludge,
Index 1 (unitless) (Equation 4)
Index of human toxicity resulting
from groundwater contamination. Index 2
(unitless) (Equation 5)
1 2 3
2040 22000 2040
2. BO 30.3 63.0
3640 3640 162
126 126 126
2.80 30.3 63.0
0.221 2.39 0.222
1.22 J.39 1.22
0.543 0.611 0.543
4
2040
2040
5.00
2S3
2040
0.222
1.22
0.543
5
2040
2.80
3640
23.8
2. BO
1.11
2.11
0.571
6
2040
2.80
3640
6.32
2.80
2.80
3. BO
0.623
7 8
22000 H
22000 H
S.OO H
2.38 H
22000 H
S10 H
511 0
16.5 0.536
N = Null condition, where no landtill exists; no value is used.
"NA = Not applicable for this condition.
------- |