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 Analysisabc
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 - 1400F
                              Solids content - 28%
                              Stack height - 20 m
                                   3-30

-------
               Exit gas velocity - 20 ra/s
               Exit gas temperature - 356.9K (183F)
               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 - 1400F
               Solids content - 26.6%
               Stack height - 10 m
               Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
               Exit gas temperature - 313.8K (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.pjctivly,  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 52SC
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  fr 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:    259SC
     Melting point:    1083C
     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 (y2 ^
     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.

-------