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
Analysisabc
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 - L400F
                    Solids content  - 28%
                    Stack height  -  20 m
                    Exit  gas velocity -  20 m/s
                    Exit  gas temperature - 356.9K (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 - 1400F
                    Solids content  - 26.6%
                    Stack height  -  10 m
                    Exit  gas velocity -  10 m/s
                    Exit  gas temperature - 313.8K (105F)
                    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  Intakeab    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  (20C):   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 (25C):  4.047
      Solubility (g/mL)
        water (20C):  1.4
        water (100C):   1.5

    Cadmium Carbonate (CdCC^)

      Molecular wt.:  172.41
      Specific gravicy (4C):  4.258
      Solubility (water):  insoluble

    Cadmium Sulfide (greenockite,  CdS)

      Molecular  wt.:  144.46
      Specific  gravity (20C):  4.82
      Solubility  (g/mL)
        water  (18C):  1.3 x 10~6

    Cadmium Sulfate  (CdSO^

      Molecular wt.:   208.46
      Specific gravity
        (at 20C  relative to water 4C):  4.691
      Solubility  (g/mL)
        water (0C):   0.755
        water (100C):  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
13.7bc

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
     Ulo/               , .    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(xO 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.

-------