United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profil
and Hazard indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge
-------
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 OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE L
1. INTRODUCTION 1~1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR COPPER IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 2~l
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling 2~2
2-2
Incineration
2-2
Ocean Disposal
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR COPPER IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 3"1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of copper (Index 1) 3-1
Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) 3'2
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration (Indices 4-6) 3-5
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-10
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-13
Landfilling
Index of groundwater concentration increment resulting
from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 3-21
Index of human toxicity resulting from
groundwater contamination (Index 2) 3-27
3-30
Incineration
Index of air concentration increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3-30
Index of human toxicity resulting from
inhalation of incinerator emissions (Index 2) 3-32
3-34
Ocean Di sposal
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR COPPER IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE
11
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-2
Water - Unpolluted 4-3
Air 4-3
Food 4-3
Human Effects 4-4
Ingestion 4-4
Inhalation 4-5
Plant Effects 4-6
Phytotoxicity 4-6
Uptake 4-8
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-9
Toxicity ....'. 4-9
Uptake 4-9
Aquatic Life Effects 4-10
Toxicity . 4-10
Uptake 4-10
Soil Biota Effects 4-11
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-11
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
COPPER 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. Copper (Cu) was initially identified as being of poten-
tial concern when sludge is landspread (including distribution and mar-
keting), placed in a landfill, or incinerated.* This profile is a
compilation of information that may be useful in determining whether Cu
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", Sec-
tion 4. Information in the profile is based on a compilation of the
recent literature. An attempt has been made to fill out the profile
outline to the greatest extent possible. However, since this is a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature h'as 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 perti-
nent to landspreading and distribution and marketing, landfilling, and
incineration 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 COPPER 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 Copper
The landspreading of municipal sewage sludge may slightly
increase soil concentrations of Cu; this increase may be
substantial when sludge containing a high concentration of Cu
is applied at a high rate (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
Landspreading of sludge is not expected to result in soil
concentrations of Cu which pose a toxic hazard for soil biota,
except possibly when sludge containing a high concentration of
Cu is applied at a high rate (see Index 2). Sludge appli-
cation does not appear to pose a Cu hazard to predators of
soil biota. High sludge application (500 mt/ha) with worst Cu
concentrations, however, may eliminate the possibility of
predator toxicity because soil concentrations of Cu under
these conditions may be toxic to soil biota (see Index 3).
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Application of sludge at high rates (500 mt/ha) may pose a
phytotoxic hazard to plants, especially if worst concentration
sludge is applied (see Indices 4 and 6). Accordingly, at high
sludge application rates (500 mt/ha), a substantial increase
in plant tissue concentrations of Cu can be expected in plants
normally consumed by animals or humans (see Index 5).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
Copper may pose a toxic hazard to animals that graze on plants
grown in sludge-amended soils that have received high applica-
tions (500 mt/ha) of worst concentration sludge (see Index 7).
Direct or incidental ingestion of worst Cu concentration
sludge appears to pose a toxic hazard to herbivorous animals
(see Index 8).
E. Effect on Humans
Consumption of plants grown in sludge-amended soils is not
expected to pose a toxic hazard to humans (see Index 9). A Cu
2-1
-------
hazard to humans consuming animal products derived from either
animals Chat are fed pasture crops grown in sludge-amended
soil, or animals that have ingested sludge or sludge-amended
soil, is not expected to occur. Any hazard is likely to be
precluded by Cu toxicity to the animals (see Indices 10 and
11). Direct ingestion of sludge or sludge-amended soil by
humans is not anticipated to result in a Cu toxicity hazard to
either toddlers or adults (see Index 12). Generally, the
landspreading of municipal sewage sludge is not expected to
pose a toxic hazard to humans from the ingestion of Cu. At
the high application rate (500 mt/ha) of worst concentration
sludge, phytotoxic effects on plants and toxic effects on ani-
mals may preclude any toxic hazard for humans (see Index 13).
II. LANDFILLING
Landfill ing of municipal sewage sludge will generally result in
moderate increases in Cu concentrations in groundwater. However,
when the worst-site parameters are associated with Che saturated
zone, or the composite worst-case scenario is evaluated, these
increases in Cu concentrations become substantial (see Index 1).
Generally, the health risk associated with the ingestion of
landfill-contaminated groundwater is expected to be slight.
However, when the worst-case scenario is examined, a human health
threat seems to exist (see Index 2).
III. INCINERATION
When municipal sewage sludge is incinerated at high feed rates
(10,000 kg/hr DW), moderate increases in Cu concentrations in air
are expected. At lower feed rates, the air concentration increases
are slight (see Index 1). The incineration of sludge is not
expected to result in a human health hazard due to the inhalation
of Cu-contaminated emissions (see Index 2).
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
2-2
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR COPPER
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Copper
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 «r50 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. Assumptions/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 409.6 Ug/g DW
Worst 1427 pg/g DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are
the median and 95th percentile values statis-
tically derived from sludge concentration data
from a survey of 40 publicly-owned treatment
3-1
-------
works (POTWs) (U.S. EPA, 1982). (See
Section 4, p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 25 Ug/g DW
Reported data indicate that the soil background
concentrations are mostly in the range of 11 to
37 yg/g DW. (Pierce et al., 1982; Beyer et
al., 1982; Logan and Miller, 1983). Cough et
al. (1979) reported a geometric mean of 18 Mg/g
DW for U.S. soils. A value of 25 Jlg/g DW was
adopted as the soil background concentration in
this study. (See Section 4, p. 4-2.)
d. Index 1 Values
.-Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
1
1
5
1.0
1.1
50
1.4
2.4
500
4.1
12
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 - Landspreading of sludge may
slightly increase soil concentrations of Cu; this
increase may be substantial when sludge containing a
high concentration of Cu is applied at a high rate.
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.
t
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) = 25 Mg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) =
131.0 Ug/g DW
At a soil concentration of 131 Ug/g DW, earth-
worms displayed a significant reduction in
cocoon production and litter breakdown (Ma,
1984). This was the lowest concentration
reported that brought about Cu toxicity to soil
biota, so it was the conservative value to use.
There is one report of a 50 Wg/mL liquid cul-
ture medium inhibiting dentrif ication (Bollag
and Barabasz, 1979) but there was no method
of determining what this concentration would
have been equal to as a soil concentration in
DW. (See Section 4, p. 4-20.)
d. Index 2 Values
Sludge Application Rate (me /ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.22
0.26
0.45
0.78
2.3
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value >1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
. for soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to result in soil concentrations of Cu
which pose a toxic hazard for soil biota, except
possibly when sludge containing a high concentration
of Cu is applied at a high rate.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
toxic to a predator on soil organisms.
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.
3-3
-------
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) = 25 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in soil biota (UB) =
0.61 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)'1
Data are available only for earthworms and an
uptake slope of 0.61 reflects the worst case
observed for earthworms exposed to sludge
(Beyer et al., 1982). (See .Section 4,
p. 4-21.)
iv. Background concentration in soil biota (BB) =
12.5 Ug/g DW
The above concentration is the mean value of
the range of background concentrations that
corresponds to the uptake slope of 0.61 Ug/g
tissue DW (ug/g soil DWT1 for earthworms
(Beyer et al., 1982). (See Section 4,
p. 4-21-.)
v. Feed concentration toxic to predator (TR) =
300 Ug/g DW
Since earthworms were used for the pollutant
uptake slope, a bird was determined to be a
suitable predator. With this in mind, a feed
concentration toxic to chicken/turkey of
300 Ug/g DW was selected because it is stated
as the maximum tolerable level (MAS, 1980).
(See Section 4, p. 4-18.)
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
0
0.042
0.042
5
0.044
0.049
50
0.061
0.11
500
0.20
0.61
Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected concentration in soil biota exceeds that
which is toxic to predator. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for predators of soil biota.
3-4
-------
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Sludge application does not
appear to pose a Cu hazard to predators of soil
biota. High sludge application (500 mt/ha) with
worst Cu concentrations, however, may eliminate the
possibility of predator toxicity because soil con-
centrations of Cu under these conditions may be
toxic to soil biota.
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 to be toxic for some plant.
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.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 25 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
100 Ug/g DW
The lowest concentration level where toxic
effects occur is reported at 46 Ug/g DW in corn
plants (Cunningham, 1975a). However, in
Cunningham, 1975b one can see a decrease in
corn yields only at soil concentrations above
189 Ug/g- In Maclean and Dekker, 1978, experi-
ments were performed with added CuSCfy. There-
fore, the proportion of "available" Cu is
higher than in the sludge-amended soils. Since
above the 100 Ug/g DW range, wheat, rye, and
corn are affected by Cu, it was decided that
this level is the conservative value to use.
(See Section 4, pp. 4-12 to 4-15.)
3-5
-------
d. Index 4 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.28
0.34
0.59
1.0
3.0
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Application of sludge at
high rates (500 mt/ha) may pose a phytotoxic hazard
to plants, especially if worst concentration sludge
is applied.
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-
lently to single application of the same amount.
The uptake factor chosen for the animal diet is
assumed to be representative of all crops in the
animal diet. See also Index 6 for consideration of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 25 Mg/g DU
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Conversion factor between soil concentration
and application rate (CO) = 2 kg/ha (ug/g)"1
Assumes pollutant is distributed and retained
within upper 15 cm of soil (i.e. plow layer)
3-6
-------
which has an approximate mass (dry matter) of
2 x 103.
iv. Uptake slope of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
Animal diet:
Arrowleaf clover forage
0.045 ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)"1
Human diet:
Snap beans
0.04 ug/g tissue DW (kg/ha)'1
Snap beans appear to be the most responsive
plant in the human diet (Latterall et al.,
1978). The uptake slope for this reference was
used because it corresponds to a definite back-
ground concentration in the plant tissue (BP).
Dowdy et al. (1978) quoted a slope for snap
beans of 0.044 pg/g DW (kg/ha)"1, but a BP with
a range of 2.9 to 7.5. The slope of 0.15 for
turnip greens from Miller and Boswell (1979)
was considered suspect because it was not sup-
ported by any other findings, including those
for other leafy vegetables.
Arrowleaf clover forage uptake slope was
derived from the given uptake slope of 0.09 by
using the conversion factor. Arrowleaf was the
forage crop most sensitive to Cu (Sheaffer et
al., 1979).
Rye grass had a substantial uptake slope,
0.11 ug/g DW (Kelling, 1977), but was not used
since this value represents the entire plant,
roots included, and animals normally are not
fed the root systems in forage. (See
Section 4, pp. 4-16 and 4-17.)
v. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)
Animal diet:
Arrowleaf clover forage 7.3 ug/g DW
Human diet:
Snap beans 4.1 ug/g DW
These values were given in the studies from
which uptake slopes were selected (Latterall et
al., 1978; Scheaffer et al., 1979). (See
Section 4, pp. 4-16 and 4-17.)
3-7
-------
d. Index S Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Diet Concentration. 0 5 50 500
Animal
Typical
Worst
1
1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.9
4.4
Human Typical 1 1.0 1.2 2.5
Worst 1 1.1 1-7 6.5*
aValue exceeds comparable value of Index 6; therefore may
be precluded by phytotoxicity.
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 - When sludge is applied to
soil at high application rates (500 mt/ha), a sub-
stantial increase in plant tissue concentrations of
Cu can be expected for plants normally consumed by
animals or humans.
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 phytotoxicity (PP)
Animal diet:
Corn plant 22.2 ug/g DW
Human diet:
Snap bean plant 40.0 ug/g DW
3-8
-------
Data were selected from Table 4-1, pp. 4-12 to
4-15, to indicate the highest tissue concentra-
tion increment likely to be observed in the
plants selected for Index 5.
Data for arrowleaf clover forage were not
available. However, Cunningham et al. (1975b)
reported reduced yield of corn plant at concen-
trations of 17.0 to 22.2 ug/g. Other studies
reporting high tissue concentrations did not
include comparable background concentrations.
Walsh et al. (1972) reported reduced yield of
snap beans at whole-plant concentrations of 20
to 30 Ug/g, and severe toxicity at levels
>40 Ug/g- A value of 40 ug/g will therefore be
taken as the maximum concentration for snap
beans.
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)
Animal diet:
Corn plant 4.4 ug/g DW
Human diet:
Snap bean plant 8.3 ug/g DW
Values are from studies identified for each
plant. Control tissue concentrations for snap
bean plant ranged from 8.3 to 24.7 (Walsh et
al., 1972). The lower value was used to maxi-
mize the increment, in keeping with a conserva-
tive approach. (See Section 4, pp. 4-12 to
4-15.)
d. Index 6 Values
Plant Index Value
Corn plant 5.0
Snap bean plant 4.8
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 index value for the
corn plant indicates a moderate tolerance for Cu by
plants ingested by animals and does not indicate any
phytotoxic hazard when compared to values found in
3-9
-------
Index 5. The snap bean plane is slightly less
tolerable of Cu and, when compared to Index 5, shows
that at high application rates (500 mt/ha) of worst
concentration sludge, a phytotoxic hazard may exist
for plants ingested by humans.
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.
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 5)
Index 5 values used are those for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-8).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
7.3 ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-8).
iii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 25 Mg/g DW
Sheep were selected since they are the most
sensitive grazing animals with respect to Cu
ingestion. Demayo et al. (1982) reported that
the natural forage and food containing CuCl2
were toxic to sheep when Cu Levels in the
respective feeds were 50 to 60 and 20 to 100
Ug/g DW. MAS (1980) suggested a
maximum tolerable level in sheep of 25 Ug/g of
diet. It is assumed that the data are reported
in DW basis. (See Section 4, p. 4-18.)
3-10
-------
d. Index 7 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.42
0.57
1.3
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 - Copper may pose a toxic
hazard to animals that graze on plants grown in
sludge-amended soils that have received high appli-
cation (500 mt/ha) of worst concentration sludge.
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
sludge-amended soil and compares this with the
dietary toxic threshold concentration for a grazing
animal.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that sludge is
applied over and adheres to growing forage, or that
sludge constitutes 5 percent of dry matter in the
grazing animal's diet, and that pollutant form in
sludge is equally bioavailable and toxic as form
used to demonstrate toxic effects. Where no sludge
is applied (i.e., 0 mt/ha), assumes diet is 5 per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 409.6 pg/g DW
Worst 1427 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 25 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
3-11
-------
iii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (CS)
= 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.
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. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 25 ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.05
0.05
0.82
2.8
0.82
2.8
0.82
2.8
3-12
-------
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 - Direct or incidental inges-
tion of worst Cu concentration sludge appears to
pose a toxic hazard to herbivorous animals.
B. 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 5). Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories: toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for a human diet
(see Section 3, p. 3-8).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
4.1 Ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the human diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-8).
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 et al., 1982); vegetarians were
chosen to represent the worst case. The value
for toddlers is based on the FDA Revised Total
Diet (Pennington, 1983) and food groupings
3-13
-------
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 composited to estimated dry-weight
consumption of all non-fruit crops.
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 1250 yg/day
Adult 3600 yg/day
According to NAS (1980), recommended daily
allowance of Cu for 1 to 3 year old children is
1 to 1.5 mg/day. Thus a value of 1250 yg/day
is assumed for the mean DI for toddlers (see
Section 4, p. 4-4). The normal human intake of
Cu reported by the U.S. EPA (1980) is 3.2 to
4.0 mg/day (see Section 4, p. 4-3). The mean
value of this range (3.6 mg/day) was used for
the adult DI.
v. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
15000 ug/day
No ADI based on chronic effects has been estab-
lished for Cu. Cu is required in the human
diet; the recommended daily allowance (RDA) is
1.5 to 2.5 mg/day for children (0 to 10 years)
and 2.0 to 3.0 mg/day for adults (Ml years)
(U.S. EPA, 1984c). Ingestion of as little as
5.3 mg in water or beverages has caused acute
effects (i.e., nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) in
humans. However, greater amounts (i.e.,
>10 mg/day) are probably routinely ingested in
the diet without effects (U.S. EPA, 1984c).
Information is lacking on long-term effects of
elevated dietary Cu levels in humans. Only a
few studies using nonruminanc animals are
available. A dietary level of 250 yg/g CuSC*4
(approximately 3.2 mg/kg body weight) was
determined to be a no-observed-effect level
(NOAEL) in an 88-day feeding study with pigs
(Kline et al., 1971, cited in U.S. EPA, 1984b).
Assuming a human body weight of 70 kg, a human-
equivalent NOAEL of 220 mg Cu/day is derived.
However, it is difficult to determine an appro-
priate uncertainty factor to apply in order to
derive an ADI, since the normal use of multiple
10-fold factors to account for subchronic study
duration, interspecies extrapolation and intra-
species (human) variability would give a value
well below the RDA. Taking the (geometric)
3-14
-------
midpoint of the range of human-equivalent NOAEL
and the RDA of 3.0 mg/day, as suggested by U.S.
EPA (FR 45 79356), would yield a value of
26 mg/day. However, as stated by U.S. EPA
(1980), "It has been suggested that intakes of
above 15 mg of copper per day may produce
observable effects." Although supporting data
for this statement are lacking, the value of
15 mg/day (or 15000 yg/day) will be used as an
ADI for Cu in food, for purposes of this
document. (See Section 4, pp. 4-4 and 4-18.)
d. Index 9 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group
Toddler
Adult
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst.
0.083
0.083
0.24
0.24
0.084
0.086
0.24
0.25
0.090
0.11
0.26
0.31
0.14
0.28
0.39
0.78a
aValue may be precluded by phytotoxicity; see
Indices 5 and 6.
e. 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.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Consumption of plants grown
on sludge-amended soils is not expected to pose a
toxic hazard to humans.
2. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal pro-
ducts 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
3-15
-------
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.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Index of plant concentration increment caused
by uptake (Index 5)
Index 5 values used are those for an animal
diet (see Section 3, p. 3-8).
ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP) =
7.3 ug/g DW
The background concentration value used is for
the plant chosen for the animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-8).
iii. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 24.5 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1
Ruminants have a high capacity for hepatic
storage of Cu (Demayo et al., 1982). Since
data are not available for cattle, values for
rams are used in estimating this index. (See
Section 4, p. 4-19.)
iv. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
Pennington (1983) lists the average daily
intake of beef liver for various age-sex
classes. The 95th percentile of liver
consumption (chosen in order to be conserva-
tive) 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).
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 1250 ug/day
Adult 3600 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
3-16
-------
vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI)
15000 Mg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
Index 10 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group
Toddler
Adult
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.083
0.083
0.24
0.24
5
0.083
0.084
0.24
0.24
SO
0.084
0.086
0.24
0.26
SOO
0.089
0.10a
0.28
0.37*
aValue may be precluded by phytotoxicity; see
Indices 5 and 6.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - A Cu hazard to humans con-
suming animal products derived from animals feeding
on sludge-amended pasture crops is not expected to
occur. Any hazard is likely to be precluded by Cu
toxicity to the animal.
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.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals grazing sludge-amended
" soil, and that all animal products consumed take up
the pollutant at the highest rate observed for
muscle of any commonly consumed species or at the
rate observed for beef liver or dairy products
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over three
years old.
3-17
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue = Rams (sheep) liver
See Section 3, p. 3-16.
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 25 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 409.6 ug/g DW
Worst 1427 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (CS)
= 5Z
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
v. Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue (UA)
= 24.5 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)"1
See Section 3, p. 3-16.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 0.97 g/day
Adult 5.76 g/day
See Section 3, p. 3-16.
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 1250 Ug/day
Adult 3600 pig/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
viii. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
15000 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
3-18
-------
d. Index 11 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Adult
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.085
0.085
0.25
0.25
0.12
0.20
0.43
0.91
0.12
0.20
0.43
0.91
0.12
0.20
0.43
0.91
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - A Cu hazard to humans con-
suming products derived from animals that have
ingested sludge-amended soil is not expected to
occur. Any hazard is likely to be precluded by Cu
toxicity to the animals.
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 with 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 the ADI for a
10 kg child is the same as that for a 70 kg adult.
It is thus assumed that uncertainty factors used in
deriving. the 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 409.6 pg/g DW
Worst 1427 Ug/g DM
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 25 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
3-19
-------
d.
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
worst-case estimate employed by U.S. EPA's
Exposure Assessment Group (U.S. EPA, 1983a).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA (1984a).
v. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 1250 yg/day
Adult 3600 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
15000 yg/day
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.092
0.092
0.24
0.24
5
0.092
0.093
0.24
0.24
50
0.095
0.10
0.24
0.24
500
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.24
Pure
Sludg
0.22
0.56
0.24
0.24
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Direct ingestion of sludge
or sludge-amended soil by humans is not anticipated
to result in a Cu toxicity hazard to either toddlers
or adults.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)
a.
Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
3-20
-------
Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
d. Index 13 Values
Group
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (rot/ha)
5 50 500
Toddler
Adult
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.094
0.094
0.25
0.25
0.12
0.21
0.44
0.92
0.13
0.24
0.46
0.99
0.21
0.523
0.62
1.6a
e.
f.
*Value may be partially precluded by phytotoxicity;
see Indices 9 and 10.
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
Preliminary Conclusion - Generally, the landspread-
ing of municipal sewage sludge is not expected to
pose a toxic hazard to humans from the ingestion of
Cu. At the high cumulative application rate of
500 mt/ha of worst concentration sludge, phytotoxic
effects on plants and toxic effects on animals may
preclude any toxic hazards for humans.
II. LANDFILLING
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,
1983b). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transport and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port parameters include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
linear, equilibrium partition coefficient representing
the ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant concentra-
tions. This partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
3-21
-------
density and volumetric water content, are used to calcu-
late the retardation factor. A computer program (in
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of the
analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant con-
centration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computations
and parameter estimates are required for each zone. The
prediction requires evaluations of four dimensionless
input values and subsequent evaluation of the result,
through use of the computer program.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively assumes that the
pollutant is 100 percent mobilized in the leachate and
that all leachate leaks out of the landfill in a finite
period and undiluted by precipitation. Assumes that all
soil and aquifer properties are homogeneous and isotropic
throughout each zone; steady, uniform flow occurs only in
the vertical direction throughout the unsaturated zone,
and only in the horizontal (longitudinal) plane in the
saturated zone? pollutant movement is considered only in
direction of groundwater flow for the saturated zone; all
pollutants exist in concentrations that do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; 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 and consistency of analysis.
(b) Dry bulk density (P
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.925 g/mL
3-22
-------
Bulk density is the dry mass per unit volume of
the medium (soil), i.e., neglecting the mass of
the water (Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM),
1984).
(c) Volumetric water content (8)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitless)
The volumetric water content is the volume of
water in a given volume of media, usually
expressed as a fraction or percent. It depends
on properties of the media and the water flux
estimated by infiltration or net recharge. The
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore water velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from CDM, 1984.
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.
3-23
-------
(c) Depth to groundwater (h)
Typical 5 m
Worst 0 m
Eight landfills were monitored throughout the
United States and depths to groundwater below
them were listed. A typical depth 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
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10'percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 409.6 rag/kg DW
Worst 1427 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.
3-24
-------
(c) Soil sorption coefficient
Typical 92'.2 mL/g
Worst 41.9 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 (Afc)
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 the distance
from well to landfill (Afc), 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.
3-26
-------
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 m2.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (u) = 0 day'1
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) = 10 Ug/L
No data are available for the background con-
centration of Cu in groundwater. Cu concentra-
tions in surface water have been estimated at
0.006 to 0.4 mg/L with a median value of
0.01 mg/L (Demayo et al., 1982). Thus, the
same median value was assumed as groundwater
background concentration. (See Section 4,
p. 4-3.)
(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 - Landfilling of municipal sewage
sludge will generally result in moderate increases in Cu
concentrations in groundwater. However, when the worst-
site parameters are associated with the saturated zone,
or the composite worst-case scenario is evaluated, these
increases in Cu concentrations become substantial.
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.
3-27
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration increment result-
ing from landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-30.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in groundwater
(BC) = 10 Ug/L
See Section 3,. p. 3-27.
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)
= 0.0 ug/day
Normal human intake of Cu is reported to be 3.2 to
4.0 mg/day (U.S. EPA, 1980) and 2 to 5 mg/day (Cough
et al.f 1979). The majority of this Cu is ingested
in food. However, since the ADI described below
relates strictly to Cu in drinking water, a DI value
of 0 ug/day is appropriate for calculation of this
index.
e. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) =
2600 Ug/day
No ADI based on chronic effects has been established
for Cu. An ambient water quality criterion of
1 mg/L was established based on organoleptic
effects, not toxicity (U.S. EPA, 1980). Quantities
as little as 3.3 mg, when ingested in water or bev-
erages, have resulted in acute gastrointestinal
effects. Based on this finding, assuming daily
ingestion of 2 L of drinking water, and applying an
uncertainty factor of 2, U.S. EPA (1984c) has recom-
mended 1.3 mg/L as a level protective against acute
toxic effects and not overly restrictive of required
Cu intake. Thus, a value of 2600 ug/day (= 1.3 mg/L
x 2 L/day) will be used as an ADI for Cu in water,
for purposes of this document.
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
value indicates the degree to which any hazard is due to
landfill disposal, as opposed to preexisting dietary
sources.
3-28
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OP GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OP HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING PROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
Site Characteristics 1 2
Sludge concentration T U
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parameters6 T T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T T
teristics^
Site parameter 38 T T
Index 1 Value 2.1 4.9
Index 2 Value 0.0086 0.030
Condition
3 4
T T
of Analysisa»b»c
5
T
U NA T
T U
T T
T T
2.1 2.
0.0086 0.
T
U
T
1 6.9
0086 0.045
6
T
T
T
T
U
40
0.30
7
U
NA
U
U
U
830
6.4
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT - Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
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 (Pjry) and volumetric water content (6).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
BHydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AA), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Generally, the health risk asso-
ciated with the ingestion of landfill-contaminated
groundwater is expected to be slight. However, when the
worst-case scenario is examined, a human health threat
seems to exist.
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from
Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Shows the degree of elevation of the
pollutant concentration in the air due to the incinera-
tion of sludge. An input sludge with thermal properties
defined by the energy parameter (EP) was analyzed using
the BURN model (CDM, 1984). This model uses the thermo-
dynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack gas parameters. Dilution
and dispersion of these stack gas releases were described
by the U.S. EPA's Industrial Source Complex Long-Term
(ISCLT) dispersion model from which normalized annual
ground level concentrations were predicted (U.S. EPA,
1979). The predicted pollutant concentration can then be
compared to a ground level concentration used to assess
risk.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The fluidized bed incinerator
was not chosen due to a paucity of available data.
Gradual plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly impact values can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C)
2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a commun-
ity of approximately 400,000 people. This rate
was incorporated into the U.S. EPA-ISCLT model
based on the following input data:
EP = 360 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 28%
Stack height - 20 m
3-30
-------
Exit gas velocity - 20 ra/s
Exit gas temperature - 356.9°K (183°F)
Stack diameter - 0.60 m
ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW represents a
higher feed rate and would serve a major U.S.
city. This rate was incorporated into the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT model based on the following input
data:
EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 26.6%
Stack height - 10 m
Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (1058F)
Stack diameter - 0.80 m
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 409.6 mg/kg DW
Worst 1427 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)
Typical 0.007 (unitless)
Worst 0.009 (unitless)
Emission estimates may vary considerably between
sources; therefore, the values used are based on a
U.S. EPA 10-city 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
Worst 16.0 Ug/m3
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.
f. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.16 Ug/m3
Stern et al. (1973) reported an urban air Cu concen-
tration of 0.16 ug/m3. Of the data available, the
3-31
-------
use of this value will project the conservative
worst case. (See Section 4, p. 4-3.)
4. Index 1 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
1
1
1
1
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.8
2.0
3.8
4.6
aThe typical (3.4 ug/m3) and worst (16.0 ug/m3) disper-
sion 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 equals factor by which
expected air concentration exceeds background levels due
to incinerator emissions.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - When municipal sewage sludge is
incinerated at high (10,000 kg/hr DW) feed rates, moder-
ate increases in Cu concentration in air are expected.
At lower feed rates, the air concentration increases are
slight.
B. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Shows the increase in human intake expected
to result from the incineration of sludge. For non-
carcinogens, levels typically were derived from the Amer-
ican Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs) for the workplace.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24
hours/day. A respiratory volume of 20 m-Vday is assumed
over a 70-year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-32.
3-32
-------
b. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.16 3
See Section 3, p. 3-31.
c. Maximum permissible intake of pollutant by
inhalation (MPIH) = 70 Ug/day
This value was derived from an ACGIH time-weighted
average TLV for Cu fumes. (See Section 4, p. 4-5.)
d. Exposure criterion (EC) = 3.5 Ug/m3
The exposure criterion is the level at which the
inhalation of the pollutant is expected to exceed
the acceptable daily intake level for inhalation.
The exposure criterion is calculated using the
following formula:
MPIH _ _
EC =
20 m3/day
4. Index 2 Values
Sludge Feed
. nf Rate (ke/hr DW)a
Fraction of "
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through'Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.046
0.048
0.048
0.053
0.055
0.082
0.092
0.17
0.21
*The typical (3.4 ug/m3) and worst (16.0 ug/m3) disper-
sion parameters will always "rre.pond, re.pjctiv«ly, to
the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr DW)
sludge feed rates.
Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected intake exceeds MPIH. Value > 1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the null
index value at 0 kg/hr DW indicates the degree to which
any hazard is due to sludge incineration, as opposed to
background urban air concentration.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The incineration of mut"clP^
sewage sludge is not expected to result in a human health
threat due to the inhalation of Cu-contaminated
emissions.
3-33
-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendation of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
3-34
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR COPPER IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
Occurred in 100% of sludges of 16 Purr et al.,
cities studied 1976 (p. 684)
Occurred in 972 of 436 samples from U.S. EPA, 1982
40 POTWs (p. 41)
Occurred in 100% of 60 samples from U.S. EPA, 1982
10 POTWs (p. 45)
2. Concentration
961 Ug/g (DW) in anaerobic sludge Baxter et al.,
703 Mg/g (DW) in waste-activated 1983a (p. 313)
sludge
1024 ug/g (DW) mean Page, 1974
700 pg/g median (p. 11)
84 to 10400 Ug/g range (sewage
sludges from 57 locations in Michigan)
Cu in sewage sludges at various Page, 1974
locations in U.S. (p. 15)
Cu Concentration
Location (Ug/g)
Athens, GA 350-530
Columbus, OH 282-728
Dayton, OH 6020
Cincinnati, OH 4200
Chicago, IL 385-1225
Milwaukee, WI 435
Des Moines, IA 315
Houston, TX 1035
Rochester, NY 1980
Maryland 100-490
Connecticut 465-1025
Southern California 136-800
Oklahoma 800-6000
Indiana 300-11700
4-1
-------
22 to 5600 ug/g (DW) range
760 ug/g mean
580 ug/g median
(224 sewage sludges in Michigan)
93 to 5125 Ug/g (DW) range
438 Ug/g mean
300 Ug/g median
(44 sewage sludges in Iowa)
458 to 2890 Ug/g (DW) in sludges from
16 U.S. cities
100 to 180,000 Ug/L for 40 POTWs
11 to 1090 ug/L for 10 POTWs
B. Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Common: 20 ug/g dry soil, 55 Ug/g
igneous rock
2. Concentration
(mean + SE) 23+4 ug/g (DW) surface
soils;~range 16~to 29 Ug/g (DW)
surface, subsoil, and parent materials
in Minnesota
"control", 11 to 17 ug/g
Marsh sediment, 5.1 to 13.4 Ug/g
Marsh sediment, 12 to 38 ug/g
"normal", 18 ug/g geometric mean,
range <1 to 300 ug/g
11 to 37 ug/g range, 19 Ug/g mean in
Ohio farm soils
Jacobs et al.,
1981 (p. 21)
Tabatobai and
Frankenberger,
1981 (p. 940)
Furr et al.,
1976 (p. 684)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 45)
Jenkins, 1980
(p. 27)
Pierce et al.,
1982 (p. 418)
Beyer et al.,
1982 (p. 383)
Lindau and
Hossner, 1982
(p. 540)
Murdoch, 1980
(p. 341)
Gough et al.,
1979 (p. 23)
Logan and
Miller, 1983
(p. 12)
4-2
-------
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
74.4% frequency of detection in 1173
out of 1577 surface waters in U.S.
(detection limit = 0.010 mg/L)
2.
Air
Concentration
Freshwater
a
b.
0.015 yg/L mean
0.001 to 0.280 mg/L range
(from 1173 U.S. surface waters)
0.01 mg/L median
0.006 to 0.4 mg/L range
(in river water)
Seawater
0.0005 to 0.003 mg/L
Drinking Hater
Data not immediately available.
1. Frequency of Detection
0.15 Co 0.36% in urban air
0.019 to 0.28% in rural air
2. Concentration
0.16 Ug/m^ in urban air
0.060 to 0.078 ug/m3 in rural air
Page, 1974
(p. 25)
Page, 1974
(p. 25)
Demayo et al.,
1982 (p. 184)
Demayo et al.,
1982 (p. 184)
Stern et al.,
1973 (Table 7-3)
Stern et al.,
1973 (Table 7-3)
0.01 Ug/m3 in rural air
0.257 Ug/m3 in urban air
Pood
1. Total Average Intake
Normal human intake of Cu is reported
to be 3.2 to 4.0 mg/day
and 2 to 5 mg/day.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-19)
U.S. EPA, 1980
Gough et al.,
1979
4-3
-------
Cu intake for babies is 0.065 to
0.1 mg/kg/day. A recommended daily
allowance for Cu for 1- to 3- year-old
children is 1 to 1.5 mg/day.
Recommended Daily Allowance:
1.5 to 2.5 mg/day Children 0 to 10 years
2.0 to 3.0 mg/day Adults >_11 years
Thus, a DI value of 1250 Ug/day
is assumed.
2. Concentration
Cu in major raw agricultural crpps
Cu Concentration
(Ug/g WW)
U.S. EPA, 1980
Drop
Lettuce
Peanut
Potato
Soybean
Sweet corn
Wheat
Mean
0.26
7.6
0.96
12.0
0.45
4.4
Range
0.065- 0.76
0.80 -19.0
0.14 - 2.7
3.5 -29.0
0.19 - 0.92
2.2 - 8.7
U.S. EPA, 1984c
(p. VI-1)
MAS, 1980
Wolnik et al.,
1983 (p. 1245
to 1248)
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
There is very li-ttle evidence to
suggest that Cu has a Carcinogenic
effect in humans.
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
No ADI based on chronic effects
has been established.
b. Effects
Dietary intake above 15 mg/day
may produce observable effects.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-39)
U.S. EPA, 1984c
(p. VIII-12)
U.S. EPA, 1980
4-4
-------
3.
Ingestion of amounts >.5.3 mg in
water or beverages has resulted
in gastrointestinal disorders,
vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea.
Absorption Factor
«/*50% from food
U.S. EPA, 1984c
(p. VIII-8)
4. Existing Regulations
1.0 mg/L in drinking water
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Tozicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or HPIH
70 Ug/day as fume
36 ug/day as dust
Derived based on ACGIH Threshold
Limit Values for Cu (see below: .
"Existing Regulations")
b. Effects
Causes some lung irritation.
Overexposure to Cu in any form
may cause a 24- to 28-hour illness
with chills, fever, aching muscles
and headache.
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
Threshold Limit Values:
0.2 mg/m^ time-weighted average
(TWA) as Cu fumes
1.0 mg/rn^ time-weighted average
(TWA) as Cu dust
Jenkins, 1980
(p. 11)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-4)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-18)
ACGIH, 1983
4-5
-------
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
1. Soil Concentration Causing Phytotoxicity
Cu is highly toxic to roots. Bennet, 1972 in
Cough et al.,
1979 (p. 22)
Toxicicy is usually manifested by Cough et al.,
chlorosis of foliage caused by Cu 1979 (p. 23)
interference with Fe.
Cu, although essential to plants, can CAST, 1976
be toxic at high concentrations. (p. 3)
Sludges often contain appreciable
amounts of Cu, but applications of
sludges to soils result in only
slight to moderate increases in the Cu
content of plants.
In substrates for plants, Cu activities Baker, 1974
greater than 0.1 to 0.3 ug/g damage (p. 1181)
and usually kill the roots. The
recommended activity of Cu in a sub-
strate for plants should be within the
range of 0.02 to 0.04 Ug/g. A toxic-
ity of Cu to some plants on some soils
can be expected when Cu added over a
period of time exceeds 150 to 400 ppm.
Sludges used on agricultural land Bolton, 1973
should be adjusted to pH 7 before (p. 295)
spreading, so as to minimize any
possible heavy metal toxicities to
crops.
V
In pot experiments with Cu added as MacLean and
CuSC-4 at 60 to 480 Ug/g, the addition Oekker, 1978
of sewage sludge eliminated toxic (p. 381)
effects of the added Cu.
Based on visual observations, growth Sheaffer et al.,
of wheat, oats, and rye was greater on 1979 (p. 458)
sludge-amended plots (56 and 112 metric
ton/ha sludge) than control plots.
Larger plants were observed for crim-
son and arrowleaf clover on control
plots; however, Cu concentrations in
sludge were not provided.
Seeding of sorghum immediately follow- Sabey and Hart,
ing sludge application at 25 to 1975 (p. 252)
4-6
-------
125 metric ton/ha resulted in severe
inhibition of seed germination. No
seed germination inhibition occurred
when seeding was performed 3 months
after sludge application.
Laboratory studies indicated that
factors causing inhibition were
destroyed by combustion at 52S°C
and thus not caused by salts.
Sludge application rates below 125
metric tons/ha (11 kg/ha of Cu) caused
no significant yield decrease in
wheat. 25 and 50 metric tons/ha of
sludge (2.2 and 8.8 kg/ha of Cu)
increased yield significantly. 25
metric ton*/-ha--of sludge significantly
increased yields of sudangrass.
0.9 to 20 Ug/g Cu in soil from sludge
did not affect plants.
26 to 37 Ug/g Cu added to soil from
sludge did not appreciably affect yield
or Cu content of the fruit, root, leaf
for bean, okra, peppers, tomatoes,
squash, turnips, radishes, kale,
lettuce, or spinach.
30 Ug/g Cu added to soil as sludge
increased Cu content but not yield of
peas (Cu content increased 4.5 to
11.1 Ug/g)» potatoes (Cu content
increased 8.6 to 19 Ug/g)» and lettuce
(Cu content increased 1.6 to 11.9 Ug/g)
<1% of total Cu in polluted soil
available to plants
3.1 to 13.6 ug/g CuS04 in solution
upper critical limit for barley
Sabey and Hart,
1975 (p. 255)
Sabey and Hart,
1975 (p. 255 to
256)
Garrigan, 1977
in Demayo et
al., 1982
(p. 236)
Giordano and
Mays, 1977 in
Demayo et al.,
1982 (p. 236)
Dowdy and
Larson, 1975b
in Demayo et
al., 1982
(p. 236)
Martin et al.,
1982 (p. 151)
Beckett and
Davis, 1977
(p. 98)
Upper critical,limits of CuS04 in Davis and
solution were 2.1 to 17.7 ug/g for Beckett, 1979
barley, 1.1 to 4.1 ug/g for lettuce, (p. 29)
0.3 to 2.8 Ug/g f°r rape, and 1.3 ug/g
for wheat.
4-7
-------
2. Plant Tissue Concentration Exhibiting Toxicity
Cu required at 2 to 4 Ug/g
4 to 15 Ug/g normal range
>20 Ug/g toxic to plants
Allaway,
(p 241)
1968
B.
18.2 to 20.3 Ug/g (DW) "upper critical
limit" for barley; median 19.1;
normal 11
30 ppm upper critical limit for most
plant species
37 Ug/g in oat leaves exhibiting
toxicity
40 ug/g Cu in rye grass from sludge-
amended soils affected yield of rye
grass.
Upper critical limits:
13.7 to 24.8 ug/g (DW) for barley
(11 ug/g normal); 16.6 to 20.9 ug/g
(DW) for lettuce (10 ug/g normal);
14.9 to 22.1 ug/g (DW) for rape
(9 Ug/g normal); 17.8 Ug/g (DW) for
wheat (11 Ug/g normal); and 21 Ug/g
for ryegrass (11 Ug/g normal)
>21 ug/g (DW) Cu in oacs associated
with depression of yield
220 Ug/g (DW) Cu in soybeans associ-
ated with depression of yield
Uptake
See Table 4-1.
Sludge-applied Cu was not absorbed by barley
from either acid (pH 5.9) or calcareous
(pH 7.9) soil, even though the sludge con-
tained 610 ppm Cu, an application of
830 ug/100 g soil. This agrees with
observations by others that showed soil
additions of 134 ton/ha sludge had no
effect on Cu uptake by oat plants at pH 5.3
or 6.8.
Beckett and
Davis, 1977
(pp. 98 and 104)
Leeper, 1972 in
Beckett and
Davis, 1977
(p. 104)
Hunter and
Vergnano,
1953 in
Bolton, 1975
(pp. 300 to 302)
Bolton, 1975
(pp. 300 to 302)
Davis and
Beckett, 1978
(pp. 29 and 30)
Roth et al.,
1971 (p. 339)
Dowdy and
Larson, 1975
(p. 232)
4-8
-------
Uptake of Cu in sludge-amended soil (ug/g): Demayo et al.,
1982 (p. 235)
Soil
Corn Grain
Tomato Fruit
Control
Sludge
17.5
325
2
2
26
30
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-3.
In general, animal diets are deficient in
Cu; hence, slightly elevated concentrations
in animal feedings could be advantageous.
Under good management practices, Cu in
sludges will seldom be toxic to plants and
should not present a hazard to the food
supply. Cu toxicity in animals would be
expected to occur only when Cu toxicity is
severe in the plants used as feed.
Cu, however, was listed in the CAST 1976
report as an element "posing a potentially
serious hazard".
Cu toxicity for most mammals and birds is
of little significance due to barriers to
Cu absorption.
Required in animal diets at 1 to 10 ppm;
dependent on Mo; low toxicity
B. Uptake
Cu concentrations in soil and swine tissue
for swine overwintered two seasons on
sludge-amended plots:
Cu
Sludge Soil
Application Cone.
Rate (t/ha) (ug/g DW)
Swine Tissue Cone.
(Ug/g WW)
Kidney Liver Muscle
CAST, 1976
(p. 3)
CAST, 1976
(pp. 29 and 32)
Gough et al.,
1979 (p. 24)
Allaway, 1968
(p. 241)
Hansen et al.,
1981 (pp. 1013
to 1014)
0
126
252
504
18
41
72
122
5.3
3.7
5.5
6.4
6.2
13.2
3.5
5.4
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
4-9
-------
Cu concentration (ug/g DW) in soil, forage, Baxter et al.,
and cattle tissue from control (C) and 1983a (pp. 312
sludge-amended (S) plots (sludge application to 318)
rates not reported):
Sludge
C
Soil
S
C
Forage
S
703-961 6.75-18.8 6.0-82.5 2.3 3.8-22.0
Cattle Tissue
Kidney
Liver
Bone
Muscle
16.3 16.1
19.0 4.6 0.5 1.3 2.9 2.5
See Table 4-4.
AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
Freshwater organisms should not be
affected unaccepcably if at freshwater
hardness levels corresponding co 50,
100, and 200 mg/L as CaC03 the four-
day average concentrations of acid-
soluble Cu are- 6.5, 12, and 21 Ug/L,
respectively, and the one-hour average
concentrations are 9.8, 18, and 34 Ug/L.
2. Saltwater
Saltwater organisms should not be
affected unacceptably if the one-hour
average concentration of acid-soluble
Cu does not exceed 2.9 Mg/L more than
once every three years on the average.
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
U.S. EPA, 1985
U.S. EPA, 1985
4-10
-------
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
50 Ug/mL Cu inhibited dentrifying activity Bollag and
in soil (liquid culture medium). Barabasz, 1979
(p. 196)
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT
Copper: Reddish, lustrous, ductile, U.S. EPA, 1980
malleable metal (p. A-l)
Boiling point: 259S°C
Melting point: 1083°C
Solubility: Insoluble in water
Specific gravity: 8.90 g/cc
Molecular wt: 63.54 g/mole
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-1. PHYTOTOXICITY OF COPPER
Plant/Tissue
Corn/plant
Rye/plant
Corn/plant
Barley/plant
Barley/plant
Snap beans
f
Is-5 Snap beans
Pearl millet/leaf
Corn/plant
Corn/plant
Corn/plant
Corn/plant
Corn/plant
Corn/plant
Corn/plant
Corn/plant
Chemical
Porn
Applied
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
CuSO^
CuS04
CuSO^
CuSO^/Sludge
CuS04/Sludge
CuSO^/Sludge
CuS04/Sludge
CuSO^/Sludge
Control Experimental Experimental
Tissue Soil Application
Soil Concentration Concentration Rate
pll (Mg/g DW) (MB/B DW) (kg/ha)
6.8
6.8
6.8
7.9
5.9
5.3-6.5
5.3-6.5
5.5-6.9
6.3
6.3
6.3
5.9
5.9
5.9
6.5 (limed)
6.5 (limed)
4.4
7.5
10.4
NRD
NH
2.9-5.8
4.5-7.5
5.2-6.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
3.5
3.5
46
46
46
NR
NR
NR
NR
NK
60
60
240
72
252
492
72
252
NA»
NA
NA
0.83
0.83
0.855
0.266
0.232
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(lig/g DW)
6.5
12.1
24.3
NR
NR
4.2-11.3
8.5-12.0
7.2-10.3
5.7
6.0
8.6
5.2
4.5
5.5
3.2
3.1
Effect
Increased yield
Increased yield
Decreased yield.
tissue above 20 ppm
toxic limit
Increased yield
Increased yield
Increased yield
Increased yield
No effect
23Z reduction
in yield
32Z reduction
in yield
50Z reduction
in yield
14Z increased yield
with sludge
30Z increased yield
with sludge
48Z increased yield
6Z reduction in
yield with sludge
9Z increased yield
with sludge
References
Cunningham et al.,
1975a (p. 461-462)
Dowdy and Laraon,
197Sa (p. 230)
Dowdy et al., 1978
(p. 255)
Korcak et al.,
1979 (p. 65-67)
Mac Lean and
Dekker, 1978
(p. 383)
-------
TABLK 4-1. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Corn/plant
Corn/plant
Corn/plant
Rye/plant
Corn/plant
Corn/plant
Rye/plant
Lettuce /shoot
Wheat /leaf
Wheat/grain
Lettuce/shoot
Wheat/leaf
Wheat /grain
Snap bean/plant
Snap bean/plant
Red beet/lops
Red beet/tops
Red beet /whole
Chemical
Porn
Appl led
CuSO^/Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge/CuClj
Sludge/CuCl2
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
CuSO^
CuS04
Sludge
Sludge
Soil
pH
6.5
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
7.5
7.5
7.5
5.7
5.7
5.7
6.7
6.7
NR
NR
Control
Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
(limed) 3.5
4.4
4.4
7.5
4.4
NR
NH
6.2
11.5
7.5
7.0
10.5
7.7
8.3-24.7
8.3-24.7
NR
NR
Experimental
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
492
170
109-J4J
16-189
16-189
120
194
160
320
320
320
160
160
NR
NH
80
BO
Experimental
Appl icat ion
Rate
(kg/ha)
NA
424
300-944
38-472
38-472
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
486
162
200
200
187
(over 3 yrs)
500
1,000
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
5.4
19.1
17.0-22.2
14.4-19.1
7.4-15.8
56.1
30.9
8.2
15.4
9.1
10.7
11.8
11.0
>40
20-30
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Effect
4Z reduction in
yield with sludge
Reduced yield
Reduced yield
Increased yield
Increased yield
Decreased yield
Decreased yield
Signif. yield
reduction
Signif. yield
reduction
Signif. yield
reduction
Signif. yield
reduction
Signif. yield
reduction
Signif. yield
reduction
Severe toxicity
Reduced yield
27Z yield reduction
73Z yield reduction
19Z yield
reduction, NSC
25Z yield reduction
72Z yield reduction
References
Cunningham et al.,
1975b (p. 449-453)
Cunningham et al . ,
1975c (p. 456-458)'
Mitchell et al . ,
1978 (p. 168)
,
Walsh et al.,
1972 (p. 197)
Webber, 1972
(p. 405)
Webber, 1972
(p. 407)
-------
TAULB 4-1. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Celery/
marketable
Lettuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
Let Cuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
*
1
M Lettuce/plant
*-
Lettuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
Lettuce/plant
Chemical
Form
Applied
Sludge
CuSO^/Sludge
CuSO^/Sludge
CuSO^/Sludge
CuSOA /Sludge
CuSO^/Studge
CuS04/Sludge
CuS04/Sludge
CuSO^ /Sludge
CuSO^/Sludge
CuS04/Sludge
CuSO/; /Sludge
CuSO^/Sludge
CuSO^/Sludge
CuSO^/Sludge
CuSOt, /Sludge
Control
Tissue
Soil Concentration
pit (MK/B uw)
HK
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3 '
6.3
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
6.3 (limed)
6.5 (limed)
6.5 (limed)
6.5 (limed)
6.5 (limed)
NR
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
Experimental Experimental
Soil Application
Concuntrdlion Rate
(ug/g DU) (kg/ha)
42
72
132
252
492
42
72
132
252
492
42
72
132
252
492
187
(over 3 yrs)
1,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DW) Effect References
NR
NR
13.8
18.7
20. Oa
21.4"
22. Oa
11.5
11.3
14.3
13.0
15.7
11.0
12.7
12.5
12.9
12.7
131 yield Webber, 1972
reduction, NS (p. 407)
No yield reduction
21Z reduction in Mac Lean and
yield Dekker, 1978
43Z reduction in (p. 384)
yield
47Z reduction in
yield
59Z reduction in
yield
52Z reduction in
yield
4Z reduction in
yield
9Z reduction in
yield
2Z reduction in
yield
9Z reduction in
yield
5Z reduction in
yield
2Z reduction in
yield
2Z reduction in
yield
92 reduction in
yield
8Z reduction in
yield
3Z reduction in
yield
Rye gras!>/plant
Sludge
7.6
59
15.7
Increased yield
King et al., 1974
(p. 363)
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Plant /Tissue
Wheat/grain
Wheat/grain
Wheat/grain
Wheat/grain
Planes in
general
Rye grass/plant
Red beet/
marketable
Lettuce/
Control
Chemical Tissue
Form Soil Concentration
Applied pll (pg/B DW)
CuSO4 -5.2 NR
CuS04 5.2 NR
CuS04 6.7 NR
CuSOA 6.7 NR
Cu NR 11
Sludge 4.3-6.8 10.5
Sludge NR NR
Sludge NR NR
Experimental Experimental
Soil Application
Concentration Hate
(MB/B DW) (kg/ha)
100 NA
200 NA
100 NA
200 NA
NH NA
98.1
250
(over 2 yrs)
500
1,000
250
(over 2 yrs)
500
1,000
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(MB/g DW)
NR
NR
NR
NR
18.2-20.3
40
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Effect
14Z reduction in
yield
26Z reduction in
yield
4Z increase in yield
9Z reduction in yield
Upper critical
limit
Reduced yield,
40 MB/g toxic
limit
52Z yield reduction
63Z yield reduction
95Z yield reduction
No yield reduction
43Z yield reduction
41Z yield reduction
References
Bingham et al .,
1979 (p. 203)
Beckett and Davis,
1977 (p. 104)
Bolton, 1975
(p. 295)
Webber, 1972
(p. 409)
a NA = Not available.
b NR = Not reported.
c NS = Not a statistically significant reduction.
-------
TABLE 4-2. UPTAKE OP COPPER BV PLANTS
Plant/Tissue
Corn/plant
Rye/plant
Corn/plane
Barley/plant
Barley/plant
Snap bean/edible
Corn/grain
Oats/forage
Wheat/forage
Crimson clover forage
Rye/forage
Arrouleaf clover forage
Snap bean/edible
Wheat/grain
Fodder rape/plant
Lettuce/leaf
Broccoli/fruit
Potato/tuber
Tomaco/f ruit
Cucumber/fruit
Eggplant/fruit
Siring bean/fruic
Cantaloupe/leaf
Sorghum/plant
Sorghum/ plane
Sorghum/plant
Corn/leaf
Bean/edible
Cabbage/edible
Cabbage/edible
Cabbage/edible
Chemical
Form
Appl ied
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Soil pll
6.8
6.8
6.8
7.9
5.9
5.3-6.5
5.0-6.3
5.3-6.3
5.3-6.3
5.3-6.3
5.3-6.3
5.3-6.3
5.3
sandy, loam
NR
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.0
6.6
6.9
NK
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
Range (and N)a
of Application
Races (kg/ha)
+46 Mg/g to soil
+46 Mg/g to soil
+46 Mg/g to soil
0-0.83 (2)
0-0.83 (2)
0-266 (7)
0.6-58 pg/g to soil
. 0.6-58 Mg/g to soil
0.6-58 pg/g to soil
0.6-58 pg/g to soil
0.5-58 Mg/g to soil
0.6-58 pg/g to soil
0-266 (6)
0-8. 8
0-206 (2)
0-164 (2)
0-164 (2)
0-164 (2)
0-164 (2)
0-164 (2)
0-164 (2)
0-164 (2)
0-164 (2)
0-7.3 (3)
0-7.3 (3)
0-7.3 (3)
50.4 average
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
Control Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
4.4
7.5
10.4
NR««
NR
2.9-7.5
1.5
1.5
2.1
7.1
4.5
7.3
4.1
3.5
3.9
5.2
7.5
7.8
5.0
7.7
25.1
8.1
9.2
5.7
5.2
5.9
8.1
3.2
3.0
0.6
2.0
Uptakeb
Slope
0.045C
0.1QC
0.30'
0
0
0.044
0.01C
0.02C
0.3C
0.04C
0.05=
0.09C
0.04
0.013
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.005
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.005
0.06
0
0
-0.06
0.004
0.003
0
0.008
0
References
Cunningham et al., 1975a (p. 461-62)
Cunningham et al., 1975a (p. 461-62)
Cunningham et al., 1975a (p. 461-62)
Dowdy and Larson, 197ia (p. 232)
Dowdy and Larson, 1975a (p. 232)
Dowdy et al.. 1978 (p. 255)
Sheaffer et al. 1979 (p. 457)
Sheaf fer et al. 1979 (p. 458)
Sheaffer et al. 1979 (p. 458)
Sheaffer et al. 1979 (p. 458)
Sheaffer et al. 1979 (p. 458)
Sheaffer et al . 1979 (p. 458)
Latterell et al , 1978 (p. 255)
Sabey and Hart, 1975 (p. 255)
Baiter et al., 1983b (p. 45)
CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
CAST, 1976 (p. 48)
CAST, 1976 (p. 60)
CAST, 1976 (p. 60)
CAST, 1976 (p. 60)
Webber et al., 1983 (p. 190-3)
Furr et al., 1976 (p. 891)
Furr et al., 1976 (p. 891)
Furr et al., 1976 (p. 891)
Furr et al., 1976 (p. 891)
-------
TABLE 4-2. (continued)
Plant/Tissue
Millet/edible
Onions/edible
Potatoes/edible
Tomatoes /edible
Rye grass/plant
Sorghum/plant
turnip/green
Chemical
Form
Applied
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Soil pH
6.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.0-6.0
5.0-6.0
5.6
Range (and N)a
of Appl icaLion
Rates (kg/ha)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-145 (2)
0-B6 (6)
0-86 (6)
0-11.5 U)
Control Tissue
Concentration
(ug/6 DU)
2.4
3.4
3.1
2.2
3.9
6.1
7.7
Uptake0
Slope
0.001
-0.015
0.010
-0.003
0.11
0.04
0.15
References
Furr et al., 1976 (p. 891)
Furr ec al., 1976 (p. 891)
Purr et al., 1976 (p. 891)
Purr et al., 1976 (p. 891)
(Celling et al., 1977 (p. 353)
(Celling ec al., 1977 (p. 353)
Miller and Bos well, 1979 (p. 1362)
a H = number of application rates.
D Slope = y/<: y = tissue concentration (pg/g); x
c Slope = y/x: y = tissue concentration (pg/g); x
divide given slope by 2.
d NR = Hot reported.
application rale of Cu at kg/ha.
soil concentration (pg/g). To convert soil concentration to application rate of Cu ac kg/ha,
-------
TABLE 4-3. TOX1CITY OF COPPER TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
oo
Species 4
(25Z Cu)
127 as Cu
6.4 NR
Depressed weight gain,
hemoglobin and hematocrit
SAOIC A s dbovc
a N - Number of experimental animals.
0 NR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-4. UPTAKE OP COPPER BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species
Rams
Vole
Vole
Vole
Chemical
Porn Ped
CuS04
synthet ic/herbage
synthetic /herbage
aynthet I c/herbdge
Range of Feed
Concentration
-------
TABLE 4-5. TOXICITY OP COPPER TO SOIL BIOTA
p-
to
O
Species
Soil bacteria
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Chemical Form
Applied
Cu(N03)2
CuSOA
CuS04
CuCl2
CuCl2
Soil pll
7.1-8.4
MR"
NR
Sandy loam
UK
Soil Application
Concentration Rate
(lig/g DM) (kg/ha)
SO ug/mL
liquid culture
med i urn
150
260
1.000
500-2,000
Duration
4 days
NR
NR
6 weeks
NR
Effects
Inhibition of denitrif ication
Population reduced SOZ
Total population reduction
l-C50
Inhibition of growth and
References
Bollag and Barabasz, 1979
(p. 196)
Ha,
Ma,
Hd,
Ma,
1984 (p. 208)
1984 (p. 208)
1984 (p. 208)
1984 (p. 208)
Earthworm
Earthworm
CuCl 2
CuCl 2
4.8
1J1
4.8
372
cocoon production
6 weeks Significant reduction in
cocoon production and litter
bredkdown, increasing soil
pH to 6.0 and 7.1 reduced
toxic eflects of high Cu
soil concentration
6 weeks 17.55 mortality
Ma, 1984 (p. 211)
NR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-6. UPTAKE OF COPPER BY SOIL BIOTA
Species
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Earthworm
Chemical
Form
sludge
CuS04
sludge
sludge
Range (and N)a
of Soil
Concentrations
(Ug/g DW)
0-84 kg/ha (4)
0-432 kg/ha (2)d
11-46 Ug/g
0-120 kg/ha (2)d
Tissue Analyzed
whole body
whole body
whole body
whole body
Control Tissue
Concentrat ion
(MB/g DM)
8.8-9.5
11
12-13
11
Uptake0
Slope
0.20C
0.097C
0.61
0.30C
References
Helmke et al., 1979 (p.
Beyer et al., 1982 (p.
Beyer et al., 1982 (p.
Beyer et al., 1982 (p.
325)
382)
383)
382)
iJa N = Number of application rates.
I-1 D Slope = y/*i y = tissue concentration; x - soil conceniraiion.
c Soil concentration estimated from application rate assuming 2 kg/ha
d Cumulative application during 8 years.
1 M8/6-
-------
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. 1983.
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents
in the Work Environment with Intended Changes for 1983-84.
Allaway, W. H. 1968. Argonomic Controls over the Environmental Cycling
of Trace Elements. In: Norman, A.G. (ed.), Advances in Agronomy,
Vol. 20. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Baker, D. E. 1974. Copper. Soil, Water, Plant Relationships. Fed.
Proc. 33:1188-1193.
Baxter, J. C., D. E. Johnson, and E. W. Kienholz. 1983a. Heavy Metals
and Persistent Organics Content in Cattle Exposed to Sewage Sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. 12(3):316-319.
Baxter, J. C., D. E. Johnson, and E. W. Kienholz. 1983b. Effects on
Cattle from Exposure to Sewage Sludge. EPA 600/2-83-012. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Beckett, P. H. T.f and R. Davis. 1977. Upper Critical Levels of Toxic
Elements in Plants. New Phytol. 79:95-106.
Bertrand, J. E., M. C. Lutrick, G. T. Edds, and R. L. West. 1981.
Metal Residues in Tissues, Animal Performance and Carcass Quality
with Beef Steers Grazing Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures Treated with
Liquid Digested Sludge. J. Ani. Sci. 53:1.
Beyer, W. N., Chaney, R. L., and B. M. Molhern. 1982. Heavy Metal
Concentrations in Earthworms from Soil Amended with Sewage Sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. ll(3):381-385.
Bingham, F. T., A. L. Page, G. A. Mitchell, and J. E. Strong. 1979.
Effects of Liming an Acid Soil Amended with Sewage Sludge Enriched
with Cd, Cu, Ni, and Zn on Yield and Cd Content of Wheat Grain. J.
Environ. Qual. 8(2):202-207.
Bollag, J. M., and W. Barabasz. 1979. Effects of Heavy Metals on the
Denitrification Process in Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 8(2):196-201.
Bolton, J. 1975. Liming Effects on the Toxicity to Perennial Ryegrass
of a Sewage Sludge Contaminated with Zinc, Nickel, Copper and
-Chromium. Environ. Pollut. 9:295-304.
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.
5-1
-------
Boyden, R., V. R. Potter, and C. A. Eloehjem. 1938. Effect of Feeding
High Levels of Copper to Albino Rats. J. Nutr. 15:397.
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. 1984. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Chaney, R. L., and C. A. Lloyd. 1979. Adherence of Spray-Applied
Liquid Digested Sewage Sludge to Tall Fescue. J. Environ. Qual.
8(3):407-411.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1976. Application of
Sewage Sludge to Cropland. Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the
Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals. CAST Report No. 64, Ames, IA.
Cunningham, J. D., D. R. Keeney, and J. A. Ryan. 1975a. Phytotoxicity
and Uptake of Metals Added to Soils as Inorganic Salts or as Sewage
Sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 4(4):460-462.
Cunningham, J. D., D. R. Keeney, and J. A. Ryan. 1975b. Yield and
Metal Composition of Corn and Rye Grown on Sewage-Sludge-Amended
Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 4(4):448-454.
Cunningham, J. D., J. A. Ryan, and D. R. Keeney. 1975c. Phycocoxicity
in and Metal Uptake from Soil Treated with Mecals Amended Sewage
Sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 4(4):455-460.
Davis, R. D., and P. H. T. Beckett. 1978. Upper Critical Levels of
Toxic Elements in Plants. II. Critical Levels of Copper in Young
Barley, Wheat, Rape, and Lettuce and Ryegrass, and of Nickel and
Zinc in Young Barley and Ryegrass. New PhytoL. 80:23-32.
Demayo, A., M. C. Taylor, and K. H. Taylor. 1982. Effects of Copper on
Humans, Laboratory and Farm Animals, Terrestrial Planes, and
Aquatic Life. CRC Critical Review in Environmental Control.
August, 183-255.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
Dowdy, R. H., and W. E. Larson. 1975a. Metal Uptake by Barley
Seedlings Grown on Soils Amended with Sewage Sludge. J. Environ.
Qual. 4(2):229-233.
Dowdy, R. H., and W. E. Larson. 1975b. The Availability of Sludge-
Borne Metals to Various Vegetable Crops. J. Environ. Qual. 4:278-
282.
5-2
-------
Dowdy, R. H., W. E. Larson, J. M. Titrud, and J. J. Latterell. 1978.
Growth and Metal Uptake of Snap Beans Grown on Sewage Sludge
Amended Soil: A Four-Year Field Study. J. Environ. Qual.
7(2):252-257.
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.
Felsman, R. J., M. B. Wise, R. W. Harvey, and E. R. Barrick. 1973.
Effect of Added Dietary Levels of Copper Sulfate and an Antibiotic
on Performance and Certain Blood Constituents of Calves. J. Anim.
Sci. 36:157.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Furr, A. K., W. C. Kelley, C. A. Bache, et .1. 1976. Multi-Element
Absorption by Crops Grown in Pots on Municipal Sludge-Amended Soil.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 24(4):889-892.
Garrigan, G. A. 1977. Land Application Guidelines for Sludges with
Toxic Elements. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 49:2380.
Gelhar, L. W., and C. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogeneous Aquifers. Report
No. 8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of Mining
and Technology, Soccorro, NM.
Gerritse, R. G., R. Vriesema, J. W. Dalenberg, and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.
Giordano, P. M., and D. A. Mays. 1977. Yield and Heavy Metal Content
of Several Vegetable Species Grown in Soil Amended with Sewage
Sludge. In: Biological Implications of Metals in the Environment.
Energy Res. Develop. Admin. Symp. Series 42.
Gough, L. P., H. T. Schacklette, and A. A. Case. 1979. Elemental
Concentrations Toxic to Plants, Animals, and Man. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1466. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
Hansen, L. G., P. W. Washko, L. Tuinstra, S. B. Dorn, «d T. D. Hin«;sjy-
1981. Polychlorinated Biphenyl, Pesticide, and Heavy Metal
Residues in Swine Foraging on Sewage Sludge-Amended Soils. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 29:1012-1017.
Helmke, P. A., W. P. Robarge, R. L. Korotev, and P. J. Schomberg. 1979.
Effects of Soil-Applied Sewage Sludge on Concentrations of Elements
in Earthworms. J. Environ. Qual. 8(3):322-327.
Hunter, J.G., and 0. Vergnano. 1953. Trace-Element Toxicities in Oat
Plants. Ann. Appl. Biol. 40:761-77.
5-3
-------
Jacobs, L. W., M. J. Zubik, and J. H. Phillips. 1981. Concentrations
of Selected Hazardous Chemicals in Michigan Sewage Sludges and
Their Impact on Land Application. Final Report to Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.
Jenkins, D. W. 1980. Biological Monitoring of Toxic Trace Metals.
Vol. 1. Biological Monitoring and Surveillance. EPA 600/3-80-089.
Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV.
(Celling, K. A., D. R. Keeney, L. M. Walsh, and J. A. Ryan. 1977. A
Field Study of the Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge: III. Effect
on Uptake and Extractability of Sludge-Borne Metals. J. Environ.
Qual. 6(S):3S2-3S8.
King, L. D., L. A. Rudgers, and L. R. Webber. 1974. Application of
Municipal Refuse and Liquid Sewage Sludge to Agricultural Land: I.
Field Study. J. Environ. Qual. 3(4):361-366.
Korcak, R. F., F. R. Gowen, and D. S. Fanning. 1979. Metal Content of
Plants and Soils in a Tree Nursery Treated with Composted Sludge.
J. Environ. Qual. 8(l):63-68.
Latterell, J. J., R. H. Dowd, and W. E. Larson. 1978. Correlation of
Extractable Metals and Metal Uptake of Snap Beans Grown on Soil
Amended with Sewage Sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 7(3):435-440.
Leeper, G. W. 1972. Reactions of Heavy Metals with Soils with Special
Regard to Their Application in Sewage Wastes. Report for U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers under Contract No. DACW 73-73-C-0026.
Lindau, C. W., and L. R. Hossner. 1982. Sediment Fractionation of Cu,
Ni, Zn, Cr, Mn, and Fe in One Experimental and Three Natural
Marshes. J. Environ. Qual. 11(3):540-545.
Logan, T. J., and R. H. Miller. 1983. Background Levels of Heavy
Metals in Ohio Farm Soils. Res. Circ. 275. The Ohio State
University, GARDC, Wooster, OH.
Ma, W. 1984. Sublethal Toxic Effects of Copper on Growth, Reproduction,
and Litter Breakdown Activity in the Earthworm Lumbricus rube11us.
with Observations on the Influence of Temperature and Soil pH.
Environ. Pollut. (Ser. A) 33:207-219.
MacLean, A. J., and A. J. Dekker. 1978. Availability of Zinc, Copper,
and Nickel to Plants Grown in Sewage-Treated Soils. Can. J. Soil
Sci. 58:381-389.
Martin, M. H., E. M. Duncan, and P. J. Coughtrey. 1982. The
Distribution of Heavy Metals in a Contaminated Woodland Ecosystem.
Environ. Pollut. (Series B) 3:147-157.
Miller, J., and F. C. Boswell. 1979. Mineral Content of Selected
Tissues with Feces of Rats Fed Turnip Greens Crown on Soil Treated
with Sewage Sludge. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27(6):1361-1365.
5-4
-------
Mitchell, G. A., F. T. Bingham, and A. L. Page. 1978. Yield and Metal
Composition of Lettuce and Wheat Grown on Soils Amended with Sewage
Sludge Enriched with Cadmium, Copper, Nickel and Zinc. J. Environ.
Qual. 7:165-171.
Murdoch, A. 1980. Biogeochemical Investigation of Big Creek Marsh,
Lake Erie, Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 6(4):338-347.
National Academy of Sciences. 1980. Mineral Tolerances of Domestic
Animals. National Review Council Subcommittee on Mineral Toxicity
in Animals, Washington, D.C.
Page, A. L. 1974. Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in Sewage Sludge
When Applied to Agricultural Lands: A Literature Review Study.
EPA 670/2-74-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH.
Pennington, J. A. T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 82:166-173.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Pierce, F. J., R. H. Dowdy, and D. F. Grigal. 1982. Concentrations of
Six Trace Metals in Some Major Minnesota Soil Series. J. Environ.
QuaL. ll(3):416-422.
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.
Roth, J. A., E. F. WaLLihan, and R. G. Sharpless. 1971. Uptake by Oacs
and Soybeans of Copper and Nickel Added to a Peat Soil. Soil
Science. 112(5):338-342.
Sabey, B. R., and Hart, W. E. 1975. Land Application of Sewage Sludge:
I. Effect on Growth and Chemical Composition of Plants. J.
Environ. Qual. 4(2):252-256.
Sheaffer, C. C., A. M. Decker, R. L. Chaney, and L. W. Douglass. 1979.
Soil Temperature and Sewage Sludge Effects on Metals in Crop Tissue
and Soils. J. Environ. Qual. 8(4):455-459.
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.
Stern, A. C., H. C. WohLers, R. W. Baribel, and W. P. Lowry. 1973.
Fundamentals of Air Pollution. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Tabatobai, M. A., and W. T. Frankenberger, Jr. 1979. Chemical
Composition of Sewage Sludges in Iowa. Res. Bull. 586. Iowa State
University, Ames, IA. pp. 933-944.
5-5
-------
Thornton, I. V., 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 Sludge: Interim
Report. EPA/530/SW-547. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) Dispersion Model User Guide. EPA 450/4-79-30. Vol. 1.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Copper. EPA 440/5-80-06.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. EPA 440/1-82/303.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Assessment of Human
Exposure of 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, Reearch Triangle Park, NC.
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Health Effects Assessment
for Copper. Program Office Draft. ECAO-CIN-H025. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984c. Drinking Water Criteria
Document for Copper. Program Office Draft. ECAO-CIN-417.
Cincinnati, OH. August.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Water Quality Criteria for
Copper. Unpublished.
Walsh, L. M., W. H. Erhardt, and H. D. Seibel. 1972. Copper Toxicity
in Snapbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Environ. Quality
1(2):197-200.
5-6
-------
Webber, J. 1972. Effects of Toxic Metals in Sewage on Crops. Wat.
PoLLut. Control. 71:404-410.
Webber, M. D., H. D. Montieth, and D. G. Corneau. 1983. Assessment of
Heavy Metals and PCBs at Sludge Application Sites. Wat. Pollut.
Control. 55(2):187-195.
Weiss, E., and P. Bauer. 1968. Experimental Studies on Chronic Copper
Poisoning in the Calf. Zentralbl. Veterinaermed. 15:156.
Williams, P. H., J. 0. Shenk, and D. E. Baker. 1978. Cadmium
Accumulation by Meadow Voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) from Crops
Grown on Sludge-Treated Soil. J. Environ. Qua!. 7(3) :450-454.
Wolnik, K. A., P. L. Fricke, A. G. Capar, et al. 1983. Elements in
Major Raw Agricultural Crops in the United States. 2. Other
Elements in Lettuce, Peanuts, Potatoes, Soybeans, Sweet Corn, and
Wheat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 31(6):1244-1249.
5-7
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR COPPER
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Copper
1. Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)
a. Formula
T . . (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
Index l = BS (AR + MS)
where:
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (mt OW/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
(609.6 ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (25 ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
- 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 = - -
where:
Ij_ = 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)
A-l
-------
b. Sample calculation
n looiAi - 1.038364 x 25 Ug/g DW
0.198161 - pg/g DW
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
(II - 1)(BS x UB) + BB
Index 3 = - ^ -
where:
1} = 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 coxic to predator (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
0.04361684 = [(1.038364 -1) (25 Ug/g DW x
0.61 Ug/g DW (ug/g soil DWpl) + 12.5 Ug/g DW]
* 300 ug/g DW
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)
a. Formula
IT 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)
A-2
-------
b. Sample calculation
0 2595910224 = 1.038364 x 25 Ug/e DW
0.2595910224 -
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 :
II = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (uni class)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
CO = 2 kg/ha (ug/g)'1 = 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
1.0118245482 = (1-
7
7.3 yg/g DW ng/g soil
0.045 Ug/g tissue . .
X kg/ha l
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Formula
Index 6 =
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration
associated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
A-3
-------
b. Sample calculation
4 81Q277 = *° Ug/g DW
4.819277 - g>3 yg/g DW
C. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
x BP
Index 7 =
where:
15 =. Index 5 = Index of plant concentration
increment caused by uptake (unitless)
BP = Background concentration in plant tissue
(Ug/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
1.011824548; S , 7.3 / DW
0>295452 .
25 Ug/g DW
Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Formula
BS x CS
If AR = 0, I8 =
If AR jl 0, I8 =
TA
SC x GS
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(Ug/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)
A-4
-------
b. Sample calculation
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
[(Is - 1) BP x DTI * 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)
_ _B/ftll Kl. 0118245482 - 1) x 4.1 ug/g DW x 74.5 g/dayl * 1250 Ug/day
°-084011 = . 15000 ug/day
2. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
[U5 - 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)
A-5
-------
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant dig/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(pg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.083410 =
il.0118245482-1) x 7.3 ug/g D» x 24.5 ug/g tissue[ug/g feed]"1 x 0.97 g/davl * 1250 ug/dav
15000 Ug/day
3. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Formula
If AR = 0, Index 11 = (BS * GS * U^ DA) * DI
If AR * 0, Index 11 = (SC * GS * " DA> * DI
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/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
(unicless)
UA = Uptake slope of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW"1]
DA = Average 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 pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.115780 =
(409.6 ug/g DW x 0.05 x 24.5 qg/g tissue [ug/g feed]"1 x 0.97 g/day DW) + 125Q ug/day
15000 ug/day
A-6
-------
4. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(Index.12)
a. Formula
(Ii x BS x PS) + PI
Index 12 = jjjj
(SC x PS) * PI
Pure sludge ingestion: Index 12 = ADI
where:
l! = Index 1 = Index of soil concentration
increment (unitless)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant
(ug/g PW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g PW)
PS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet
(g/day)
PI = Average daily dietary intake of pollutant
(ug/day)
API = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
f1.038364 x 25.0 Ug/g PW x 5 e soil/day) * 1250 Ug/day
0.09198636 = 15000 ug/day
Pure sludge:
(409.6 Ug/g PW x 5 g soil/dav) * 1250 Ug/day
0-21987 15000 ug/day
5. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)
a. Formula
301
Index 13 = Ig + IIQ * *11 * J12 ~ API
where:
la = Index 9 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from plant consumption
(unitless)
IlO = Index 10 = Index of human toxicity
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
A-7
-------
- Index 11 = Index of human toxicicy
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals ingesting
soil (unitless)
= 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)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
0.125188 = (0.084011 + 0.083410 + 0.115780 + 0.09198636) -
,3 x 1250 ug/day v
1 15000 ug/day '
II. LANDFILLING
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) =i [exp(A!) erfc(A2) + exp(B].) erfc(B2)] = P(x.t)
Co
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of the result. Exp(A^) denotes the
exponential of AI, e ^, where erfc(A2) denotes the
complimentary error function of A2. Erfc(A2) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1972).
A-8
-------
where:
Al = I- [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x
Al 2D*
y - t (V*2 + 4D* x
A2 = (4D* x t)*
Bl = X [V* + (V*2 + 4D* x
Bl 2D*
y » t (y«2 ^
B2 = (4D* x
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C0 = SC x CF = Initial Leachate concentration (yg/L)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DU)
CF = 250 kg sludge solids/in-* Leachate =
PS x 103
1 - PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge
20%
t = Time (years)
X = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (m)
V* = Q (m/year)
0 x R
Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 + ^fy x Kj = Retardation factor (unitless)
9
pdry = ^ry bulk density (g/mL)
K,j = Soil sorption coefficient (mL/g)
1
y = Degradation rate (day'1)
and where for the saturated zone:
C0 = Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (ug/L)
t = Time (years)
X = AH = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
a = Dispersivity coefficient (ra)
7* = (m/year)
x i
x R
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
A-9
-------
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unit Less)
<& = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
R = 1 + PdtT x Kd = Retardation factor = 1 (unitless)
0
since K 9 x. " * - and B > 2
K x i x 365 -
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
0 1 c 1 co
= P(X,t) - P(X,t - t0) for t' > C
co
where:
tQ (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
C0 (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
C0 - [ / * C dt] t Cu
»t) = £' as determined by Equation 1
A-10
-------
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Increment
Resulting from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
T j i cmax * BC
Index 1 =
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
Maximum of C(A£,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Ug/L)
BC = Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (ug/L)
2. Sample Calculation
. _ 11.1 Ug/L * 10.0 Ug/L
2
-------
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from
Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)
1. Formula
Index 1 = (C x DS x SC x FM x DP) * BA
where:
C = Coefficient to correct for mass and time units
(hr/sec x g/mg)
DS = Sludge feed rate (kg/hr DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
FM = Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack
(unitless)
DP = Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum
annual ground level concentration (ug/m3)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (ug/m3)
2. Sample Calculation
1.045055 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x
409.6 mg/kg DW x 0.007 x 3.4 ug/m3) +
0.16 jg/m3] - 0.16 ug/m3
B. Index of Human Toxicity 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)
Sample Calculation
0 04777394 = [(1-0*5055 ~ 1? » 0-16 Ue/m31 + 0.16 ue/m3
3.5 ug/m3
A-12
-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
A-13
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VAKYINC IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
I
I1
*>
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (M8/6 DW)
Un saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, P,jry (B/mL)
Volumetric water content, 6 (uniiless)
Soil sorption coefficient, Kj (mL/g)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (ra/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
'Saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquiler porosity, 0 (uniiless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, I (uniiless)
Distance from well to landfill, Ad (m)
Uispersivity coeificient, a (m)
1
409.6
1.53
0.195
92.2
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
O.Bb
0.001
100
10
2
1427.0
1.53
0.195
92.2
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
O.B6
0.001
100
10
3 4
409.6
1.925
0.133
41.9
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
5
409.6 409.6
NAb
NA
NA
1.6
0
NA
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
1.53
0.195
92.2
0.8
5
0.5
0.389
4.04
0.001
100
10
6 7
409.6 1427.0
1.53 NA
0.195 NA
92.2 NA
0.8 1.6
5 0
0.5 NA
0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04
0.02 0.02
50 50
5 5
8
N"
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-------
TABI.KA-1. (continued)
Condition of Analysis
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, Co (pg/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (pg/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated ione, Co
(ua/L)
1
102000
645
793
126
645
2
357000
2250
793
126
2250
3
102000
1130
454
126
1130
4
102000
102000
5.00
253
102000
5
102000
645
793
23.8
645
6
102000
645
793
6.32
645
7
357000
357000
5.00
2.38
357000
a
N
N
N
N
N
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Craax (pg/L)
Index of groundwater concentration increment
resulting from landfilled sludge,
' Index 1 (unitless) (Equation 4)
Index oi human toxicity resulting from
groundwater contamination, Index 2
(uniiless) (Equation 5) .
11.1
2.11
38.8
4.88
11.1
2.11
11.1
2.11
59.0
6.90
387
8260 N
39.7 827 0
0.00858 0.0299 0.00857 0.00856 0.0454 0.298 6.35 0
aN = Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
bjlA = Not applicable for this condition.
------- |