unnea CMates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Uttice ot Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington. DC 20460
Water
June, 1985
Environmental Profiles
and Hazard Indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Heptachlor
-------
HEPTACHLOR
p. 3-3 Index 1 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.0011; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.0013
p. 3-4 Index 2 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.00031; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.00038
p. 3-5 Index 3 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.035; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.044
p. 3-6 Index 4 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.000010; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.000012
p. 3-7 Index 5 Values should read:
human-typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.00075
animal typical at 500 mt/ha 0.000036
human-worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.00093
animal-worst at 500 mt/ha 0.000046
p. 3-9 Index 7 Values should read:
typical at 500 mt/ha = 0.000073; worst at 500 mt/ha = 0.000092
p. 3-13 should read:
Index 9 Values
Group
Sludge Concentration
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
0 5 50 500
Toddler
Adult
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
4.8
4.8
24
24
5.2
5.3
25
25
9.2
10
36
39
7.1
7.8
30
32
p. 3-15 should read:
Index 10 Values
Group
Sludge Concentration
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
0 5 50 500
Toddler
Adult
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
4.8
4.8
24
24
5.1
5.1
24
24
7.7
8.5
30
31
6.3
6.7
27
28
-------
p. 3-19 Index 12 Values should read:
Toddler - typical at 500 mt/ha = 5
Toddler - worst at 500 mt/ha =5.1
p. 3-19 should read:
Index 13 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
5
5
24
24
5
150
200
340
430
50
160
210
350
450
500
160
200
350
440
p. 3-15 Index 10 Values
Preliminary Conclusion - Should read:
A potential increase in cancer risk to humans consuming
animal products derived from animals feeding on plants grown on
sludge-amended soil is not expected at a low application rate (5
mt/ha) for adults and toddlers. A moderate application rate (50
mt/ha) or high application rate (500 mt/ha) for adults and toddlers
may increase potential cancer risk.
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to: (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR HEPTACHLOR IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 2-1
Land spread ing and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling 2-2
Incineration 2-2
Ocean Disposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR HEPTACHLOR IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of heptachlor (Index 1) 3-1
Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) 3-3
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration'(Indices 4-6) ; 3-5
•Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-9
Effect on human? (Indices 9-13) 3-11
Landf illing 3-20
Incineration 3-20
Index of air concentration'increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3-20
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from inhalation of incinerator emissions
(Index 2) 3-22
Ocean Disposal 3-24
Index of seawater concentration resulting from
initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3-24
Index of seawater concentration representing a
24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 3-28
Index of hazard to aquatic life (Index 3) 3-29
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from seafood consumption (Index 4) 3-30
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR HEPTACHLOR IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-2
Water - Unpolluted 4-3
Air ~. 4-4
Food 4-5
Human Effects 4-7
Ingestion 4-7
Inhalation 4-8
Plant Effects .... 4-10
Phytotoxicity 4-10
Uptake 4-10
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-11
Toxicity 4-11
. Uptake * 4-11
Aquatic Life Effects 4-12
Toxicity 4-12
Uptake 4-12
Soil Biota Effects 4-12
Toxicity .- 4-12
Uptake 4-12
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-12
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
HEPTACHLOR 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. Heptachlor was initially identified as being of poten-
tial concern when sludge is landspread (including distribution and
marketing), incinerated or ocean disposed.* This profile is a compila-
tion of information that may be useful in determining whether heptachlor
poses an actual hazard to human health or the environment when sludge is
disposed of by these methods.
The focus of this document is the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge •+• soil •* plant uptake •*• animal uptake •* human toxicity).
The values and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to repre-
sent a reasonable "worst case"; analysis of error or uncertainty has
been conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most cases
is indexed to unity; i.e., values >1 may indicate a potential hazard,
depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on information presented in the "preliminary data profile",
Section 4. Information in the profile is based on a compilation of the
recent literature. An attempt has been made to fill out the profile
outline to the greatest extent possible. However, since this is a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has not been exhaustively'perused.
The- "preliminary conclusions" drawn from each index in Secti-on 3
ate summarized in Section 2. The preliminary hazard indices will be'
used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants and pathways may
pose a hazard. Where a potential hazard is indicated by interpretation
of these indices, further analysis will include a more detailed exami-
nation of potential risks as well as an examination of site-specific
factors. These more rigorous evaluations may change the preliminary
conclusions presented in Section 2, which are based on a reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
The preliminary hazard indices for selected exposure routes
pertinent to landspreading and distribution and marketing, incineration
and ocean disposal practices are included in this profile. The calcula-
tion 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 HEPTACHLOR 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 Heptachlor
Landspreading of sludge may be expected to increase the con-
centration of heptachlor in sludge-amended soil (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
Landspreading of sludge is not expected to increase heptachlor
concentrations in soil to levels toxic to soil biota (see
Index 2). Sludge application is not expected to result in
heptachlor concentrations in soil biota that pose a toxic
threat to predators of soil biota (see Index 3).
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Application of sludge is not expected to increase heptachlor
concentrations in soil' to. phytotoxic levels (see Index 4).
The concentration of heptachlor in plants is expected to
increase when plants are grown in sludge-amended soil (see
Index 5). The index for heptachlor concentration in plant
tissue permitted by phytotoxicity was not calculated due to
lack of data (see Index 6).
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
The consumption of pLantis grown on sludge-amended soil by
herbivorous animals is not expected to pose a toxic hazard
(see Index 7). A toxic hazard is not expected for grazing
animals that inadvertently ingest sludge-amended soil contain-
ing heptachlor (see Index 8).
E. Effect on Humans
When sludge is landspread at a low rate (5 mt/ha), a potential
increase in cancer risk is not expected for toddlers, but a
slight increase may be expected for adults. An increase in
potential cancer risk may be expected for both adults and tod-
dlers at higher application rates (50 and 500 mt/ha) (see
Index 9). A potential increase in cancer risk to humans con-
suming animal products derived from animals feeding on plants
2-1
-------
grown on sludge-amended soil is not expected at a. low applica-
tion rate (5 mt/ha) for adults and toddlers or at a high
application rate (500 mt/ha) for adults. A moderate applica-
tion rate (50 mt/ha) for adults and toddlers, and a high
application rate (500 mt/ha) for toddlers may increase
potential cancer risk (see Index 10).
Application of sludge to land may be expected to increase the
potential risk, of cancer to humans consuming products derived
from animals which have inadvertently ingested sludge-amended
soil (see Index 11). Inadvertent ingestion of sludge-amended
soil by humans is not expected to increase the potential risk
of cancer due to heptachlor (see Index 12). The potential
risk, of cancer to humans may be expected to increase due to
heptachlor in sludge that is applied to land (see Index 13).
II. LANDPILLING
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.
III. INCINERATION
Incineration of sludge may result in an increase in concentration
of heptachlor in air above background concentrations (see Index 1).
Incineration of sludge is not expected to increase potential cancer
risk due to increased concentrations of heptachlor in air (see
Index 2).
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
The incremental seawater concentration of heptachlor increases
slightly after disposal of sludge and initial mixing (see Index 1).
After a 24-hour dumping cycle, the incremental increase of
heptachlor is slight (see Index 2).
The highest increases of incremental hazard to aquatic life were
evident for sludges disposed at the worst site. Moderate increases
were evident for sludges dumped at the typical site (see Index 3).
No increase in index values for human health occurred except in the
scenario of 1650 mt of sludge with worst concentrations of
heptachlor being dumped at the worst site daily (see Index 4).
2-2
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR HEPTACHLOR
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Heptachlor
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Explanation - Calculates concentrations in Ug/g DW
of pollutant in sludge-amended soil. Calculated for
sludges with typical (median, if available) and
worst (95 percentile, if available) pollutant
concentrations, respectively, for each of four
applications. Loadings (as dry matter) are chosen
and explained, as follows:
0 mt/ha No sludge applied. Shown for all indices
' for purposes of comparison, to distin-
guish hazard posed by sludge from pre-
existing hazard posed by background
levels or other sources of the pollutant.
5 mt/ha Sustainable yearly agronomic application;
i.e., loading typical of agricultural
practice, supplying >^50 kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
50 mt/ha Higher single application as may be used
on public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens.
500 mt/ha Cumulative loading after 100 years of
application at 5 mt/ha/year.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is
incorporated into the upper'15 cm of soil (i.e., the
plow layer), which has an approximate mass (dry
matter) of 2 x 10^ mt/ha and is then dissipated
through first order processes which can be expressed
as a soil half-life.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.07 Mg/g DW
Worst 0.09 yg/g DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are
the weighted mean and maximum concentrations,
3-1
-------
respectively, reported in a summary of sludge
analysis data for publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) in the United States (Camp
Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM), 1984a). Hepta-
chlor was detected in sludges from 3 of 61
POTWs. (See Section 4, p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.00013 ug/g DW
The estimated geometric mean for concentrations
of heptachlor in agricultural soils from 37
states was 0.001 Ug/g DW in both 1971 and 1972
(Carey et al., 1978, and Carey et al., 1979a).
Lang et al. (1979) reported a detection limit
of 0.01 Ug/g in soil. In the studies by Carey
et al. (1978 and 1979a), heptachlor was
detected in 57 of 1,483 soil samples at concen-
trations of 0.01 to 0.60 yg/g in 1972 and in 73
of 1,486 samples at 0.01 to 1.37 ug/g in 1971.
Heptachlor epoxide was detected with a
frequency and concentration similar to •hepta-
chlor. These concentrations and detection fre-
quencies represent the presence of heptachlor
prior to suspension of its agricultural and
home use in 1976 by U.S. EPA. Since heptachlor
epoxide (the most persistent metabolite) has a
soil half-life of 3.2 years (see below), the
current soil background concentration (after
about 3 elapsed half-lives) is estimated to be
0.00013 pg/g DW. (See Section 4, pp. 4-2 and
4-3.)
iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (t$) =3.2 years
Beyer and Gish (1980) reported that an initial
soil concentration of heptachlor epoxide was
reduced 50 percent in 3.2 years. One other
study reported 75 to 100 percent disappearance
from soil in 2 years (Kearney et al., 1969 in
Matsumura, 1972), while another reported 95
percent disappearance in 3 to 5 years, averag-
ing 3.5 years (Edwards, 1966 in Matsumura,
1972). The half-life value of 3.2 years is a
conservative estimate since it represents a
longer persistence of the pesticide in the
environment. (See Section 4, p. 4-13.)
3-2
-------
d. Index 1 Values (ug/g DH)
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.00013 0.00030 0.0018 0.0016
Worst 0.00013 0.00035 0.0023 0.0018
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in sludge-amended soil.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge may
be expected to increase the concentration of hepta-
chlor in sludge-amended soil.
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with soil concentration shown to
be toxic for some soil organism.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-3.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) =
3.35 Ug/g DW
The concentration selected was calculated from
data presented by Fox (1967). This value
represents the only concentration from the data
immediately available that could be associated
with toxic effects in soil biota. Fox (1967)
reported that the number of springtails of the
suborder Arthropleona in grassland 'soil was
significantly decreased one year after applica-
tion of heptachlor at a rate of 6 Ibs/acre.
Converting this application rate to 6.7 kg/ha
and assuming that the heptachlor was distrib-
uted evenly in 2,000 mt of soil in the top 15
cm (see Section 3, p. 3-1), the soil concentra-
tion was calculated to be 3.35 Ug/g. Fox
(1967) also found that numbers of mites and
3-3
-------
springtaiLs of the suborder \ SytnphypLeona were
not significantly affected. No other studies
indicated significant effects on soil biota,
even when higher soil concentrations were
present. Eno and Everett (1958) found no sig-
nificant reduction in soil fungi counts at con-
centrations of 12.5 to 100 Ug/g» although exam-
ination of the data showed slight decreases.
(See Section 4, p. 4-18.)
d. Index 2 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.000039 0.000091 0.00055 0.00047
Worst 0.000039 0.00011 0.00069 0.00054
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.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of sludge is
not expected to increase heptachlor concentrations
in soil to levels toxic to soil biota.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
toxic to a predator on soil organisms.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
bioconcentrated by soil biota is equivalent in
toxicity to form used to demonstrate toxic effects
in predator. Effect level in predator may be esti-
mated from that in a different species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-3.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota (UB) =
17.2 yg/g tissue DW ( yg/g soil DW)"1
An uptake factor of 17.2 Wg/g tissue DW (Ug/g
soil DW)~1 was selected to represent the
highest and, thus, worst-case uptake for
3-4
-------
heptachlor. Uptake factors were calculated
from data presented by Gish (1970) for levels
of heptachlor in earthworms. Uptake factors
ranged from 0.5 to 17.2 for earthworms from
various soil types sampled. (See Section 4,
p. 4-19.)
iii. Feed concentration toxic to predator (TR) =
0.5 Ug/g DW
The feed concentration toxic to a predator of
soil biota was taken from a study in which rats
were fed diets containing heptachlor epoxide
for 2 years (NAS, 1977). An increased inci-
dence of tumors was observed in rats fed diets
containing 0.5 Ug/g of heptachlor epoxide.
Rats were considered as representative of small
mammals that include soil invertebrates in
their diet. Data were also available for mice;
however, the concentration producing effects
(13.8 Ug/g causing increased incidence of
heptocellular carcinoma) was higher than .that
for rats. (See Section 4, p. 4-16.)
d. Index 3 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 50.0.
Typical
Worst
0.0045
0.0045
0.010
0.012
0.063
0.080
0.054
0.063
e. Value Interpretation - Values equals factor by which
expected concentration in soil biota exceeds that
which is toxic to predator. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for predators of soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Sludge application is not
expected to result in heptachlor concentrations in
soil biota that pose a toxic threat to predators of
soil biota.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with the lowest soil
concentration shown to be toxic for some plants.
3-5
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-3.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) =
100 Ug/g DW
The soil concentration of 100 Ug/g was chosen
to represent the lowest soil concentration pro-
ducing significant toxic effects in plants (26
percent decreased weight) (Eno and Everett,
1958). (See Section 4, p. 4-14.)
d. Index 4 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.000001 0.000003 0.000018 0.000015
• Worst . . 0.000001 0.000003 0.000023 0.000018
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Application of sludge is
not expected to increase heptachlor concentrations
in soil to phytotoxic levels.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue con-
centrations, in Ug/g DW, in plants grown in sludge-
amended soil, using uptake data for the most
responsive plant species in the following cate-
gories: (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 an uptake factor
that is constant over all soil concentrations. The
uptake factor chosen for the human diet is assumed
to be representative of all crops (except fruits) in
the human diet. The uptake factor chosen for the
animal diet is assumed to be representative of all
3-6
-------
crops in the animal diet. See also Index 6 for
consideration of phytotoxicity.
Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-3.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
Animal Diet:
Alfalfa
0.036 Ug/g tissue DW (Ug/g soil DW)"1
Human Diet:
Carrot (root)
0.73 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g soil DW)"1
Alfalfa was selected to represent crops con-
sumed by herbivorous animals. Of the plants
for which uptake factors could be calculated,
alfalfa was the only one commonly fed to
animals. Since the tissue concentration of
heptachlor was 0.028 Ug/g in alfalfa grown in
soil containing 0.78 Ug/g of heptachlor
(Edwards, 1979), the uptake factor is 0.036
Ug/g tissue (Ug/g soil)"*.
Carrots were selected to represent plants
consumed by humans. Of the plants for which
data were available, carrots had the highest
uptake factor, and, therefore, were the most
conservative choice. Edwards (1970) reported
tissue concentrations of 0.36 Ug/g in carrots
grown in soil containing 0.49 Ug/g» giving an
uptake factor of 0.73 Ug/g tissue DW
(Ug/g soil DW)"1. (See Section 4, p. 4-15.)
d. Index 5 Values (ug/g
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Diet
Animal
Human
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0
0
0
0
.000004
.000004
.000094
.000094
0
0
0
0
5
.000010
.000012
.00022
.00026
0
0
0
0
50
.000066
.000083
.0013
.0017
0
0
0
0
500
.000056
.000065
.0011
.0013
3-7
-------
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in tissues of plants grown in sludge-
amended soil. However, any value exceeding the
value of Index 6 for the same or a similar plant
species may be unrealistically high because it would
be precluded by phytoxicity.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The concentration of
heptachlor in plants is expected to increase when
plants are grown in sludge-amended soil.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Permitted by Phytotoxicity
(Index 6)
a. Explanation - The index value is the maximum tissue
concentration, in Ug/g DW, associated with phytotox-
icity in the same or similar plant species used in
Index 5. The purpose is to determine whether the
plant tissue concentrations determined in Index 5
for high applications are realistic, or whether such
concentrations would be precluded by phytotoxicity.
The maximum concentration should be the highest at
which some plant growth still occurs (and thus con-
sumption of tissue by animals is possible) but above
which consumption by animals is unlikely.
b. As sumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue
concentration will' be a consistent indicator of phy-
totoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with phytoxicity (PP) - Data not immediately
available.
d. Index 6 Values (ug/g DW) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
e* Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum
plant tissue concentration which is permitted by
phytotoxicity. Value is compared with values for
the same or similar plant species given by Index 5.
The lowest of the two indices indicates the maximal
increase that can occur at any given application
rate.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3-8
-------
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 feed concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not con-
sider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
taken up by plants is equivalent in toxicity to form
used to demonstrate toxic effects in animal. Uptake
or toxicity in specific plants or animals may be
estimated from other species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5)
The pollutant concentration values us.ed are
those Index 5 values for an animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) = 0.5 Ug/g DW
A dietary concentration of 0.5 UgVg DW of hep-
tachlor epoxide was associated with increased
incidence of tumors in rats fed this diet for 2
years (NAS, 1977). This value represents a
worst-case estimate since it was the lowest
dietary concentration associated with adverse
effects among the data immediately available.
Dietary concentrations of heptachlor epoxide as
high at 50 yg/g fed to cattle for 84 days were
not associated with adverse effects. (Bruce et
al., 1965). Although cattle are more represen-
tative of grazing animals, the value for rats
was selected as the more conservative choice.
Also, the value chosen represents the toxic
concentration for chronic exposure. (See
Section 4, p. 4-16.)
d. Index 7 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.0000094 0.000022 0.00013 0.00011
Worst 0.0000094 0.000025 0.00017 0.00013
3-9
-------
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 - The consumption of plants
grown on sludge-amended soil by herbivorous animals
is not expected to pose a toxic hazard.
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 rat/ha), assumes diet is 5 per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.'
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.07 Ug/g DW
Worst 0.09 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (CS)
= 52
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
3-10
-------
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.
ill. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) =0.5 Ug/g-DW
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
d. Index 8 Values
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.009
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected dietary concentration exceeds toxic concen-
tration. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may
exist for grazing animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - A toxic hazard is not
expected for grazing animals that inadvertently
ingest sludge-amended soil containing heptachlor.
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant
Consumption (Index 9)
a. Explanation - Calculates dietary intake expected to
result from consumption of crops grown on sludge-
amended soil. Compares dietary intake with the
cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the pollutant.
3-11
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes chat all crops are
grown on sludge-amended soil and that all those con-
sidered to be affected take up the pollutant at the
same rate. Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories: toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5)
The pollutant concentration values used are
those Index -5 values for a human diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (DT)
Toddler 74.5 g/day
Adult 205 g/day
The intake value for adults is based on daily
intake of crop foods (excluding fruit) by 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
listed by the U.S. EPA (1984). Dry weights for
individual food groups were estimated from com-
position data given by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) (1975). These values were
composited to estimate dry-weight consumption
of all non-fruit crops.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.099 Ug/day
Adult 0.490 pg/day
The average daily intake of heptachlor
compounds is based on data from the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) Total Diet Studies.
For toddlers, the relative daily intake of
heptachlor epoxide averaged 0.0099 Ug/kg body
weight/day. This value represents the mean
calculated from data for fiscal year (FY) 1975
to FY77 (FDA, 1980). To calculate actual daily
intake, it was assumed that a toddler weighs
10 kg, yielding a daily intake of 0.099 Jig/day-
For adults, the relative daily intake of
heptachlor epoxide averaged 0.0070 Ug/kg body
weight/day. This value represents the mean
3-12
-------
calculated from data for FY75 to FY78 (FDA,
1979). Assuming a body weight of 70 kg for
adults, the actual daily intake was 0.490
yg/day. The values for daily intake
are for heptachlar epoxide rather than hepta-
chlor itself. No data were reported for adult
intake of heptachlor, and heptachlor was not
detected in the diets of toddlers (FDA, 1979
and 1980). (See Section 4, p. 4-6.)
iv. Cancer potency =3.37 (mg/kg/day)"1
The cancer potency for heptachlor is 3.37
(mg/kg/day)"1-. This value is based on a study
which found that heptachlor fed to B6C3F^ mice
for nearly a lifetime induced hepatocellular
carcinomas with high frequency in both sexes at
two doses (NCI, 1977 as cited in U.S. EPA,
1980). These data were used by U.S. EPA (1980)
to derive the carcinogenic potency for humans.
(See Section 4, p. 4-7.)
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.0208 ug/day
The RSI is the pollutant intake value which
results in an increase in cancer risk of 10"°
(1 per 1,000,000). The RSI is calculated from
the cancer potency using the following formula:
RSI = 10"6 x 70 kg x 103 Ug/mg
Cancer potency
d. Index 9 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
5.1
5.1
5.6
5.7
9.6
11
8.8
9.5
Adult Typical 24 26 37 35
Worst 24 26 40 37
Value Interpretation - Value > 1 indicates a poten-
tial increase in cancer risk of > 10~° (1 per
1,000,000). Comparison with the null index value at
0 mt/ha indicates the degree to which any hazard is
due to sludge application, as opposed to pre-
existing dietary sources.
3-13
-------
£. Preliminary Conclusion - When sludge is landspread
at a low rate (5 mt/ha), a potential increase in
cancer risk is not expected for toddlers, but a
slight increase may be expected for adults. An
increase in potential cancer risk may be expected
for both adults and toddlers at higher application
rates (50 and 500 mt/ha).
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from pollutant uptake by domestic
animals given feed grown on sludge-amended soil
(crop or pasture land) but not directly contaminated
by adhering sludge. Compares expected intake with
RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals receiving all their feed
from sludge-amended soil. Assumes that all animal
products consumed take up the pollutant at the
highest rate observed for muscle of any commonly
consumed species or at the rate observed for beef
liver or dairy products (whichever is higher).
Divides possible variations in dietary intake into
two categories: toddlers (18' months to 3'years) and
individuals .over 3 years old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5)
The pollutant concentration values used are
those Index 5 values for an animal diet (see
Section 3, p. 3-7).
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - 22.5 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DWT1
An uptake factor of 22.5 Ug/g tissue DW
(yg/g feed DW)~^ was calculated for milk fat
from cows fed a diet containing 0.5 Ug/g of
heptachlor epoxide (Bruce et al., 1965). This
was the highest uptake value reported. (See
Section A, p. 4-17.) The uptake factor of
pollutant in animal tissue (UA) used is assumed
to apply to all animal fats.
3-14
-------
iii. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 43.7 g/day
Adult 88.5 g/day
The fat intake values presented, which comprise
meat, fish, poultry, eggs and milk products,
are derived from the FDA Revised Total Diet
(Pennington, 1983)>^food groupings listed by
the U.S. EPA (1984) "and food composition data
given by USDA (1975). Adult intake of meats is
based on males 25 to 30 years of age and that
for milk products on males 14 to 16 years of
age, the age-sex groups with the highest daily
intake. Toddler intake of milk products is
actually based on infants, since infant milk
consumption is the highest among that age group
(Pennington, 1983).
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.099 Ug/day
Adult 0.490
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =
0.0208 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
d. Index 10 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Group Concentration 0 5 50 500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
5.0
5.0
5.3
5.4
7.9
8.7
7.4
7.9
Adult Typical 24 25 30 24
Worst 24 25 32 24
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
Preliminary Conclusion - A .potential increase in
cancer risk to humans consuming animal products
derived from animals feeding on plants grown on
sludge-amended soil is not expected at a low appli-
cation rate (5 mt/ha) for adults and toddlers or at
a high application rate (500 mt/ha) for adults. A
3-15
-------
moderate application rate (50 mt/ha) for adults and
toddlers and high application rates (500 mt/ha) for
toddlers may increase potential cancer risk.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from .consumption of animal
products derived from grazing animals incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil. Compares expected
intake with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals grazing sludge-amended
soil, and that all animal products consumed take up
the pollutant at the highest rate observed for
muscle of any commonly consumed species or at - the
rate observed for beef liver or dairy products
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over 3 years
old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue = Cow's milk fat.
Cow's milk fat is an. animal product that is
normally consumed by humans and the uptake of
heptachlor in milk fat is considered analogous
to uptake in other animal tissues.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical ' 0.07 ug/g DW
Worst 0.09 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.00013 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5%
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
3-16
-------
v. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) = 22.5 Ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)'1
See Section 3, p. 3-14.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler
Adult
39.4 g/day
82.4 g/day
The affected tissue intake value is assumed to
be from the fat component of meat only (beef,
pork, lamb, veal) and milk products
(Pennington, 1983). This is a slightly more
limited choice than for Index 10. Adult intake
of meats is based on males 25 to 30 years of
age and the intake for milk products on males
14 to 16 years of age, the age-sex groups with
the highest daily intake. Toddler intake of
milk products is actually based on infants,
since infant milk consumption is the highest
among that age group (Pennington, 1983).
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.099 Ug/day
Adult 0.490 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
viii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI)
Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
Index 11 Values
= 0.0208
e.
f.
Group
Sludge
Concentration
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
5 50 500
Toddler
Adult
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
5.0
5.0
24
24
150
200
340
420
150
200
340
420
150
200
340
420
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
Preliminary Conclusion - Application of sludge to
land may be expected to increase the potential risk
3-17
-------
of cancer to humans consuming products derived from
animals which have inadvertently ingested sludge-
amended soil.
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)
a. ' Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
the diet of a child who ingests soil (pica child)
amended with sludge. Compares this amount with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the pica
child consumes an average of 5 g/day of sludge-
amended soil. If the RSI specific for a child is
not available, this index assumes the RSI for a 10
kg child is the same as that for a 70 kg adult. It
is thus assumed that uncertainty factors used in
deriving the RSI provide protection for the child,
taking into account the smaller body size and any
other differences in sensitivity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-3.
ii. Assumed amount of soil in human diet (DS)
Pica child 5 g/day
Adult 0.02 g/day
The value of 5 g/day for a pica child is a
worst-case estimate employed by U.S. EPA's
Exposure Assessment Group (U.S. EPA, 1983).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA, 1984.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI)
Toddler 0.099 Ug/day
Adult 0.490 |j;g/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.0208
Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
3-18
-------
d. Index 12 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
4.8
4.3
24
24
5
4.8
4.8
24
24
50
5.2
5.3
24
24
500
5.1
5.2
24
24
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Inadvertent ingest ion of
sludge-amended soil by humans is not expected to
increase the potential risk of cancer due to
heptachlor.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with RSI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - As described for Indices 9
to 12«
c. Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
d. Index 13 Values
Sludge Application
Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
5.6
5.6
26
26
5
160
200
340
430
50
160
210
360
450
500
160
200
350
440
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - The potential risk of
cancer to humans may be expected to increase due to
heptachlor in sludge that is applied to land.
3-19
-------
II. LANDFILLING
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.
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, 1984b). This model uses the thermo-
dynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack gas parameters. Dilution
and dispersion of these stack gas releases were described
by the U.S. EPA's Industrial Source Complex Long-Term
(ISCLT) dispersion model from which normalized annual
ground level concentrations were predicted (U.S. EPA,
1979). The predicted pollutant concentration can then be
compared to a ground level concentration used to assess
risk.
2.' Assumptions/Limitations - The fluidized bed incinerator
was hot chosen due to a paucity of available data.
Gradual plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly impact values can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C) =
2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a commun-
ity of approximately 400,000 people. This rate
was incorporated into the U.S. EPA-ISCLT model
based on the following input data:
EP = 360 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 28%
3-20
-------
Stack height - 20 m
Exit gas velocity - 20 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 356. 9°K (183°F)
Stack diameter - 0.60 m
ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW represents a
higher feed rate and would serve a major U.S.
city. This rate was incorporated into the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT model based on the following input
data:
EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 26.6%
Stack height - 10 m
Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 313. 8°K (105°F)
Stack diameter - 0..80 m
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 0.07 mg/kg DW
Worst 0.09 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)
Typical 0.05 (unitless)
Worst 0.20 (unitless)
These values were chosen as best approximations of
the fraction of pollutant emitted through stacks
(Farrell, 1984). No data was available to validate
these values; however, U.S. EPA is currently testing
incinerators for organic emissions.
e. Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
ground level concentration (DP)
Typical 3.4 Ug/m3
Worst 16.0
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.
£. Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (BA) = 0.00015 Ug/m3
In a survey of 9 localities across the United
States, heptachlor was detected in. the air of 2
localities, both of which were rural (Stanley et
3-21
-------
al«, 1971). Only maximum values were reported. The
maximum concentration was 0.0192 Ug/m-* in air
samples from a site near Iowa City. Heptachlor was
detected in 37 samples at this Location. Heptachlor
was also found in 7 air samples from Orlando,
Florida,< with a maximum concentration of
0.0023 ug/m-3. To estimate a mean value for these
sites, the concentration at the 7 sites where hepta-
chlor was not detected was assumed to be one-half
the reported detection limit of 0.0001 yg/m3. The
geometric mean of all 9 sites was calculated to be
0.00015 ug/m-3. This concentration is considered a
conservative value because the samples were taken in
1971, prior to the suspension of heptachlor for
agricultural or home uses. (See Section 4, p, 4-5.)
4. Index 1 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
2.0
2.3
Worst Typical 1.0 . 1.2 5.2
Worst 1.0 1.3 6.3
a The typical (3.4 ug/m-*) and worst (16.0 Ug/m^) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
to the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) and worst (10,000 kg/hr
DW) sludge feed rates.
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected air concentration exceeds background levels due
to incinerator emissions.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Incineration of sludge may
result in an increase in concentration of heptachlor in
air above background concentrations.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Shows the increase in human intake expected
to result from the incineration of sludge. Ground level
concentrations for carcinogens typically were developed
based upon assessments published by the U.S. EPA Carcino-
gen Assessment Group (CAG). These ambient concentrations
reflect a dose level which, for a lifetime exposure,
increases the risk of cancer by 10~".
3-22
-------
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24
hours/day. A respiratory volume of 20 m3/day is assumed
over a 70-year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-22.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.00015 Ug/m3
See Section 3, p. 3-21.
c. Cancer potency = 3.37 (mg/kg/day)~^
The cancer potency for inhalation was derived from
that for ingestion, assuming 100 percent absorption
for both ingestion and inhalation routes (see
Section 3, p. 3-13.)
d. Exposure criterion (EC) = 0.00104 yg/m3
A lifetime exposure level which would result in a
10"^ cancer risk was selected- as ground level con-
centration against which incinerator emissions are
compared. The risk estimates developed by GAG are
defined as the lifetime incremental cancer risk in a
hypothetical population exposed continuously
throughout their lifetime to the stated concentra-
tion of the carcinogenic agent. The exposure cri-
terion is calculated using the following formula:
EC =
10"6 x 103 Ug/mg x 70 kg
Cancer potency x 20 m3/day
A. Index 2 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted
Through Stack
Typical
Worst
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
2660
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.19
10,000
0.29
0.34
0.74
0.91
a The typical (3.4 Ug/m3) and worst (16.0 Ug/m3) disper-
sion parameters will always correspond, respectively,
3-23
-------
to the typical (2660 kg/hr DW) .and worst (10,000 kg/hr
DW) sludge feed rates.
5. Value Interpretation - Value > 1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of > 10"6 (1 per 1,000,000).
Comparison with the null index value at 0 .kg/hr DW indi-
cates the degree to which any hazard is due to sludge
incineration, as opposed to background urban air concen-
tratipn.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Incineration of sludge is not.
expected to increase potential cancer risk due to
increased concentrations of heptachlor in air.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
For the purpose of evaluating pollutant effects upon and/or
subsequent uptake by marine life as a result of sludge disposal,
two types of nixing were modeled. The initial mixing or dilution
shortly after dumping of a single load of sludge represents a high,
pulse concentration to which organisms may be exposed for short
time periods but which could be repeated frequently; i.e., every
time a recently dumped plume is encountered. A subsequent addi-
tional degree of mixing can be expressed by a further dilution.
This is defined as the average dilution occurring when a day's
worth of sludge is dispersed by 24 hours of current movement and
represents the time-weighted average exposure concentration for
organisms in the disposal area. This dilution accounts for 8 to 12
hours of the high pulse concentration encountered by the organisms
during daylight disposal operations and 12 to 16 hours of recovery
(ambient water concentration) during the night when disposal
operations are suspended.
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased concentrations in Ug/L
of pollutant in seawater around an ocean disposal site
assuming initial mixing.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the background
seawater concentration of pollutant is unknown or zero.
The index also assumes that disposal is by tanker and
that the daily amount of sludge disposed is -uniformly
distributed along a path transversing the site and
perpendicular to the current vector. The initial dilu-
tion volume is assumed to be determined by path length,
depth to the pycnocline (a layer separating surface and
deeper water masses), and an initial plume width defined
as the width of the plume four hours after dumping. The
seasonal disappearance of the pycnocline is not
considered.
3-24
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Disposal conditions
Sludge Sludge Mass Length
Disposal Dumped by a of Tanker
Rate (SS) Single Tanker (ST) Path (L)
Typical 825 mt DW/day 1600 mt WW 8000 m
Worst 1650 mt DW/day 3400 mt WW 4000 m
The typical value for the sludge disposal rate assumes
that 7.5 x 10" mt WW/year are available for dumping
from a metropolitan coastal area. The conversion to
dry weight assumes 4 percent solids by weight. The
worst-case value is an arbitrary doubling of the
typical value to allow for potential future increase.
The assumed disposal practice to be followed at the
model site representative of the typical case is a
modification of that proposed for sludge disposal at
the formally designated 12-mile site in the New York
Bight Apex (City of New York, 1983). Sludge barges
with capacities of 3400 mt WW would be required to
discharge a load in no less than 53 minutes travel-
ing at a minimum speed of 5 nautical miles (9260 m)
per hour. Under these conditions, the barge would
enter the site, discharge the sludge over 8180 m and
•exit the site. Sludge .barges with capacities of
1600 mt WW would be required to discharge a load in
no less than 32 minutes traveling at a minimum speed
of 8 nautical miles (14,816 m) per hour. Under
.these conditions, the barge would enter the site,
discharge the sludge over 7902 m and exit the site.
The mean path length for the large and small tankers
is 8041 m or approximately 8000 m. Path length is
assumed to lie perpendicular to the direction of
prevailing current flow. For the typical disposal
rate (SS) of 825 mt DW/day, .it is assumed that this
would be accomplished by a mixture of four 3400 mt
WW and four 1600 mt WW capacity barges. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For the worst-case disposal rate (SS) of
1650 mt DW/day, eight 3400 mt WW and eight 1600 mt
WW capacity barges would be utilized. The overall
daily disposal operation would last from 8 to 12
hours. For both disposal rate scenarios, there
would be a 12 to 16 hour period at night in which no
sludge would be dumped. It is assumed that under
the above described disposal operation, sludge
dumping would occur every day of the year.
3-25
-------
The assumed disposal practice at the model site
representative of the worst case is as stated for
the typical s.ite, except that barge* would dump half
their load along a tracliYx^then turn around and
dispose of the balance along the same track in order
to prevent a barge from dumping outside of the site.
This practice would effectively halve the path
length compared to the typical site.
b. Sludge-concentration of pollutant (SC)
\
Typical 0.07 mg/kg DW
Worst 0.09 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
c. Disposal site characteristics
Average
current
Depth to velocity
pycnocline (D) at site (V)
Typical 20 m . 9500 m/day
Worst 5 m 4320 m/day
Typical site values are representative of a large.
deep-water site with an area of about 1500 km^
located beyond the continental shelf in the New York
Bight. The pycnocline value of 20 m •chosen- is' the
average of the 10 to 30 m pycnocline depth range
occurring in the summer and fall; the winter and
spring disappearance of the pycnocline is not consi-
dered and so represents a conservative approach in
evaluating annual or long-term impact. The current
velocity of 11 cm/sec (9500 m/day) chosen is based
on the average current velocity in this area (COM,
1984c).
Worst-case values are representative of a near-shore
New York Bight site with an area of about 20 km2.
The pycnocline value of 5 m chosen is the minimum
value of the 5 to 23 m depth range of the surface
mixed layer and is therefore a worst-case value.
Current velocities in this area vary from 0 to
30 cm/sec. A value of 5 cm/sec (4320 m/day) is
arbitrarily chosen to represent a worst-case value
(COM, 1984d).
4. Factors Considered in Initial Mixing
When a load of sludge is dumped from a moving tanker, an
immediate mixing occurs in the turbulent wake of the
vessel, followed by more gradual spreading of the plume.
3-26
-------
The entire plume, which initially constitutes a narrow
band the length of .the tanker path, moves more-or-less as
a unit with the prevailing surface current and, under
calm conditions, is not further dispersed by the current
itself. However, the current acts to separate successive
tanker loads, moving each out of the immediate disposal
path before the next load is dumped.
Immediate mixing volume after barge disposal is
approximately equal to the length of the dumping track
with a cross-sectional area about four times that defined
by the draft and width of the discharging vessel
(Csanady, 1981, as cited in NOAA, 1983). The resulting
plume is initially 10 m deep by 40 m wide (O'Connor and
Park, 1982, as cited in NOAA, 1983). Subsequent spread-
ing of plume band width occurs at an average rate of
approximately 1 cm/sec (Csanady et al., 1979, as cited in
NOAA, 1983). Vertical mixing is limited by the depth of
the pycnocline or ocean floor, whichever is shallower.
Four hours after disposal, therefore, average plume width
(W) may be computed as follows:
W = 40 m * 1 cm/sec x 4 hours x 3600 sec/hour x 0.01 m/cm
= 184 m = approximately 200 m
Thus the volume of initial mixing is defined by the
tanker path, a 200 m width, and a depth appropriate to
the site. For the typical (deep water) site, this depth
is chosen as the pycnocline value of 20 m. ,For' the worst
(shallow water) site, a value of 10 m was chosen; At
times the pycnocline may be as shallow as 5 m, but since
the barge wake causes initial mixing to at least 10 m,
the greater value was used.
5. Index 1 Values (ug/L)
Disposal _ Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical Typical 0 0.00014 0.00014
Worst 0 0.00018 0.00018
Worst Typical 0 0.0012 0.0012
Worst 0 0.0015 0.0015
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
in heptachlor concentration in seawater around a disposal
site as a result of sludge disposal after initial mixing.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - The incremental seawater
concentration of heptachlor increases slightly after
disposal of sludge and initial mixing.
3-27
-------
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates increased effective concentra-
tions in Ug/L of pollutant in seawater around an ocean
disposal site utilizing a time weighted average (TWA)
concentration. The TWA concentration is that which would
be experienced by ari organism remaining stationary (with
respect to the ocean floor) or moving randomly within the
disposal vicinity. The dilution volume is determined by
the tanker path length and depth to pycnocline or, for
the shallow water site, the 10 m effective mixing depth,
as before, but the effective width is now determined by
current movement perpendicular to the tanker path over 24
hours.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Incorporates all of the assump-
tions used to calculate Index 1. In addition, it is
assumed that organisms would experience high-pulsed
sludge concentrations for 8 to 12 hours per day and then
experience recovery (no exposure to sludge) for 12 to 16
hours per day. This situation can be expressed by the
use of a TWA concentration of sludge constituent.
3. Data Used and Rationale
4.
5.
6.
7.
See Section 3, pp. 3-25 to 3-26.
Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, p. 3-28.
Index 2 Values (|ag/L)
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)
0 825 1650
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0.0 0.000038 0.000076
0.0 0.000049 0.000098
0.0 0.00033
0.0 0.00043
0.00067
0.00086
Value Interpretation - Value equals the effective
increase in heptachlor concentration expressed as a TWA
concentration in seawater around a disposal site
experienced by an organism over a 24-hour period.
Preliminary Conclusion - After a 24-hour dumping cycle,
the incremental increase of heptachlor is slight.
3-28
-------
C. Index of Hazard Co Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Explanation - Compares the effective increased concentra-
tion of pollutant in seawater around the disposal site
(Index 2) expressed as a 24-hour TWA concentration with
the marine ambient water quality criterion of the pollu-
tant, or with another value judged protective of marine
aquatic life. For heptachlor, this value is the cri-
terion that will protect the marketability of edible
marine aquatic organisms.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
stated for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that all of the
released pollutant is available in the water column to
move through predicted pathways (i.e., sludge to seawater
to aquatic organism to man). The possibility of effects
arising from accumulation in the sediments is neglected
since the U.S. EPA presently lacks a satisfactory method
for deriving sediment criteria.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 2)
*
See Section 3, p. 3-28.
b. Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) = 0.0036 Ug/L
Water quality criteria for the toxic pollutants
listed under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 were developed by the U.S. EPA under
Section 30A(a)(l) of the Act. These criteria were
derived by utilization of data reflecting the
resultant environmental impacts and human health
effects of these pollutants if present in any body
of water. The criteria values presented in this
assessment are excerpted from the ambient water
quality criteria document for heptachlor.
The 0.0036 pg/L value chosen as the criterion to
protect saltwater organisms is expressed as a 24-
hour average concentration (U.S. EPA, 1980). This
concentration, the saltwater final residue value,
was derived by using -the FDA action level for
marketability for human consumption of heptachlor in
edible fish and shellfish (0.3 mg/kg), the geometric
mean of normalized bioconcentration factor (BCF)
values (5,222) for aquatic species tested and the 16
percent lipid content of marine species. To protect
against acute toxic effects, heptachlor concen-
tration should not exceed 0.053 Ug/L at any time.
(See Section 4, p. 4-12.)
3-29
-------
4. Index 3 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.011
0.014
0.021
0.027
Worst Typical 0.0 0.093 0.19
Worst 0.0 0.12 0.24
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the factor by which
the expected seawater concentration increase in hepta-
chlor exceeds the marine water quality criterion. A
value > 1 indicates that a tissue residue hazard may
exist for aquatic life. Even for values approaching 1, a
heptachlor residue in tissue hazard may exist thus
jeopardizing the marketability of edible saltwater
organisms. The criterion value of 0.0036 Ug/L is
probably too high because the average concentration of
heptachlor in a high lipid aquatic species will be at or
above the FDA action level (U.S. EPA, 1980).
6* Preliminary Conclusion — The highest increases of
incremental hazard to aquatic life were evident for
sludges disposed at the worst site. Moderate increases
were evident for sludges dumped at the typical site.
D. Index of'Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Explanation - Estimates the expected increase in human
pollutant intake associated with the consumption of sea-
food, a fraction of which originates from the disposal
site vicinity, and compares the total expected pollutant
intake with the cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of the
pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
listed for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that the seafood tis-
sue concentration increase can be estimated from the
increased water concentration by a bioconcentration fac-
tor. It also assumes that, over the long term, the sea-
food catch from the disposal site vicinity will be
diluted to some extent by the catch from uncontaminated
areas.
3-30
-------
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 2)
See Section 3, p. 3-28.
Since bioconcentration is a dynamic and reversible
process, it is expected that uptake of sludge pollu-
tants by marine organisms at the disposal site will
reflect TWA concentrations, as quantified by Index
2, rather than pulse concentrations.
b. Dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
Typical 14.3 g WW/day
Worst 41.7 g WW/day
Typical and worst-case values are the mean and the
95th percentiie, respectively, for all seafood con-
sumption in the United States (Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) International, 1980).
c. Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (FS)
For a typical harvesting scenario, it was assumed
that the total catch over a wide .region is mixed by
harvesting, marketing and consumption practices, and
that exposure is thereby diluted. . Coastal areas
have been divided by the National Marine Fishery
Service (NMFS) into reporting areas for reporting on
data on seafood landings. Therefore it was conven-
ient to express the total area affected by sludge
disposal as a fraction of an NMFS reporting area.
The area used to represent the disposal impact area
should be an approximation of the total ocean area
over which the average concentration defined by
Index 2 is roughly applicable. The average rate of
plume spreading of 1 cm/sec referred to earlier
amounts to approximately 0.9 km/day. Therefore, the
combined plume of all sludge dumped during one.work-
ing day will gradually spread, both parallel to and
perpendicular to current direction, as it proceeds
down-current. .Since the concentration has been
averaged over the direction of current flow, spread-
ing in this dimension will not further reduce
average concentration; only spreading in the perpen-
dicular dimension will reduce the average. If sta-
ble conditions are assumed over a period of days, at
least 9 days would be required,to reduce the average
concentration by one-half. At that time, the origi-
nal plume length of approximately 8 km (8000 n) will
3-31
-------
have doubled to approximately 16 km due to
spreading.
It is probably unnecessary to follow the plume
further since storms, which would result in much
more rapid dispersion of pollutants to background
concentrations are expected on at least a 10-day
frequency (NOAA, 1983). Therefore, the area
impacted by sludge disposal (AI, in km2) at each
disposal site will be considered to be defined by
the tanker path length (L) times the distance of
current movement (V) during 10 days, and is computed
as follows:
AI = 10 x L x V x 10~6 km2/m2 (1)
To be consistent with a conservative approach, plume
dilution due to spreading in the perpendicular
direction to current flow is disregarded. More
likely, organisms exposed to the plume in the area
defined by equation 1 would experience a TWA concen-
tration lower than the concentration expressed by
Index 2.
Next, the value of AI must be expressed as a
fraction of an NMFS reporting area. In the New York
Bight, which includes NMFS areas 612-616 and 621-
623, deep-water area 623 has an area of
approximately 7200 km2 and constitutes approximately
0.02 percent of the total seafood landings for the
Bight (CDM, 1984c). Near-shore area 612 has an-area
of approximately 4300 km2 and constitutes
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (CDM,. 1984d). Therefore the fraction, of
all seafood landings (FSt) from the Bight which
could originate from the area of impact of either
the typical (deep-water) or worst (near-shore) site
can be calculated for this typical harvesting
scenario as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
AI x 0.022 = (2)
FSt " 7200 km*
flO x 8000 m x 95QQ m x 10"6 km2/m21 x 0.0002 = ^ x 1Q-5
7200 km2
3-32
-------
For the worst (near shore) site:
FSC = AI * = (3)
4300 km2
[10 x 40QQ m x 4320 m x 10"6 km2/m21 x 0.24 3
« ~ y * o x i u
4300 km2
To construct a worst-case harvesting scenario, it
was assumed that the total seafood consumption-^ or
an individual could originate from an area more
limited than the entire New York Bight. For
example, a particular fisherman providing the entire
seafood diet for himself or others could fish
habitually within a single NMFS reporting area. Or,
an individual could have a preference for a particu-
lar species which is taken only over a more limited
area, here assumed arbitrarily to equal an NMFS
reporting area. The fraction of consumed seafood
(FSW) that could originate from the area of impact
under this worst-case scenario is calculated as
follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
FSW = - AI . = 0.11 (4)
7200 km2
For the worst (near shore) site:
Fsw = - T = 0-0*0 (5)
4300 km2
d. Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (BCF) =
15,700 L/kg
The value chosen is the weighted average BCF of
heptachlor for the edible portion of all freshwater
and estuarine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S.
citizens (U.S. EPA, 1980). The weighted average BCF
is derived as part of the water quality criteria
developed by the U.S. EPA to protect human health
from the potential carcinogenic effects of hepta-
chlor induced by ingestion of contaminated water and
aquatic organisms. The weighted average BCF is cal-
culated by adjusting the mean normalized BCF
(steady-state BCF corrected to 1 percent lipid con-
tent) to the 3 percent lipid content of consumed
fish and shellfish. It should be noted that lipids
of marine, species differ in both structure and
quantity from those of freshwater species. Although
a BCF value calculated entirely from marine data
would be more appropriate for this assessment,
3-33
-------
no such data are presently available. (See Section
4, p. 4-12.)
e. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
= O.A90 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-12.
f. Cancer potency = 3.37 (mg/kg/day)"1
See Section 3, p. 3-13.
g. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) = 0.0208 Ug/day
The RSI is the pollutant intake value which results
in an increase in cancer risk of 10~" (1 per
1,000,000). The RSI is calculated from the cancer
potency using the following formula:
RSI = 10"6 x 70 kg x 103 Ug/mg
Cancer potency
A. Index 4 Values
Disposal .Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge Seafood
teristics Concentration3 Intakea»b 0 825 1650
Typical
Typical .
Worst
Typical
Worst
24
24
24
24
• 24
24
Worst Typical Typical 24 24 24
Worst Worst 24 24 25
a All possible combinations of these values are not
presented. Additional combinations may be calculated
using the formulae in the Appendix.
D Refers to both the dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
and the fraction of consumed seafood originating from
the disposal site (FS). "Typical" indicates the use of
the typical-case values for both of these parameters;
"worst" indicates the use of the worst-case values for
both.
Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which the
expected intake exceeds the RSI. A value >1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the null
index value at 0 mt/day indicates the degree to which any
hazard is due to sludge disposal, as opposed to preexist-
ing dietary sources.
3-34
-------
Preliminary Conclusion - No increase in index values for
human health occurred except in the scenario of 1650 mt
of sludge with worst concentrations of heptachlor being
dumped at the worst site daily.
3-35
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR HEPTACHLOR IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
The U.S. EPA issued a registration suspension
notice for agricultural and home use
of heptachlor in 1976. Significant use of
heptachLor for termite control or on non-food
plants continues.
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
Heptachlor was found in the influent
and effluent, but not in the sludges,
from 50 POTWs
Heptachlor was detected in sludges
from 3 out of 61 POTWs sampled. These
data were compiled from several surveys
of POTWs in the United States.
2. Concentration
Location .' Heptachlor
Heptachlor Study
Epoxide Date
Denver, CO Not Found Not Found
1982
Chicago, IL <200 Ug/L <200 Ug/L 1982
Heptachlor concentration in sludge
(Ug/g DW):
Weighted Mean 0.07
Minimum 0.02
Maximum 0.09
(Detected in only 3 of 61 POTWs
samples. Data were compiled from
several surveys of POTWs in the
United States.)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 37-42)
COM, 1984a
(p. 8)
Baxter et al.,
1983 (p. 315)
Jones and Lee,
1977 (p, 52)
COM, 1984a
(p. 8)
4-1
-------
B. Soil - Unpolluted
1. Frequency o£ Detection
No. of
No. of Positive
Pesticide Samples Detections Date
Source
Heptachlor 1486 73 (4,9)* 1971
Heptachlor 1486 103 (6.9) 1971
Epoxide
Heptachlor 1483 57 (3.9) 1972
Heptachlor 1483 97 (6.9) 1972
Epoxide
Heptachlor 134
Heptachlor 134 20
Epoxide
1975, 1976
1975, 1976
Carey et al.,
1978 (p. 120)
Carey et al.,
1978 (p. 120)
Carey et al.,
1979a (p. 212)
Carey et al.,
1979a (p. 212)
Lang et al., 1979
(p. 231)
Lang et al., 1979
(p. 231)
^Percent of samples with positive detection given in
parentheses.
2. .Concentration
Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Cropland Soils from 37 States
Arithmetic
Mean
Year (ug/g DW)
Estimated
Geometric
Mean
(ug/g DW)
Range of
Detected
Values
(Ug/g DW)
Source
Heptachlor 1971 0.01
Heptachlor 1971 <0.01
Epoxide
Heptachlor 1972 <0.01
Heptachlor 1971 <0.01
Epoxide
0.001 0.01-1.37
0.001 0.01-0.43
0.001 0.01-1.60
0.001 0.01-0.72
Carey et al.,
1978 (p. 120)
Carey et al.,
1978 (p. 120)
Carey et al.,
1979a (p. 212)
Carey et al.,
1979a (p. 212)
4-2
-------
HeptachLor and heptachlor epoxide in
soil of 5 USAF bases (ug/g) (1975-76
data):
Lang et al.,
1979 (p. 231)
Residential
Open Golf
Areas Course
Heptachlor
^eptachlor
Epoxide
ND-0.16 ND-0.01
ND-0.03 ND-0.06 ND-0.02
ND to 0.13 Ug/g heptachlor in soils of
5 U.S. cities
0.01 to 1.95 JJg/g heptachlor epoxide
in soils of 5 U.S. cities (1971 data)
Residues in agricultural soil (yg/g)
Heptachlor and
Heptachlor Epoxide
Carey et al.,
1979b (p. 19)
Edwards, 1973
(pp. 416-417)
Soil
Cropping
Carrots
Soybeans
Vegetables
Potatoes
Sweet potatoes
Onions
Forage
Grain
Cereal and
legume
Roots
Max,
0.26
0.16
trace
0.10
0.39
2.24
0.07
N/A
0.005
0.73
Mean
0.16
0.02
trace
0.08
0.02
0.09
0.05
0.02
trace
0.04
Date
<1967
<1968
<1971
<1967
<1972
<1972
<1971
<1971
<1968
<1967
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
4-3
-------
2. Concentration
Freshwater
Concentration of
Heptachlor Epoxide
Location
USA-Rainwater
Major River
Basins
Major Rivers
Mississippi
River Delta
Lakes Huron &
Superior
Rivers of the
U.S.
Major Western
Rivers
Major Rivers
Western Streams
.Virginia Ponds
and Heptachlor
Max, Min.
.115
.019
.01
-
.008 0.001
0.09
0.019
0.06
15,8
(UR/L)
Ave.
40
.0063
.0001
.002
.005
-
0.003
0.0001
0,001
NA
Number
of
Sites Date
3
99
109
10
27
-
-
109
20
35
1974
<1967
<1967
<1967
<1967
<1967
Source
Edwards, 1970
(p. 21)
(p. 21)
(p. 21)
Glooschenko
et al., 1976
NAS, 1977
Edwards, 1973
(p. 440-441)
(p. 440-441)
(p. 440-441)
(p. 440-441)
b. Seawater
Data not immediately available,
c. Drinking Water
Data not immediately available,
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
Out of 193 samples in 1969 in Iowa
City and Orlando, 44 samples contained
heptachlor (23%) at up to 19.2 ng/m3
Heptachlor was not detected in 7 other
cities sampled.
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
4-4
-------
2. Concentration
Compound Location
Concentration
Heptachlor
HeptachLor
Iowa City
Orlando
19.2 (37)*
2.3 (7)*
* Number of samples with positive
detections.
Interim guideline for airborne
heptachlor limit: 2 Ug/m^
E. Food
1. Frequency of Detection
Occurrence of heptachlor epoxide in
food composites out of 20 samples
Food
Composite
Frequency of
of Detection
Dairy 9/20
Meat 16/20
Potatoes 3/20
range = 0.0003-0.005 Ug/g
2. Total Average Intake
Estimated daily dietary intake -
1965-1970 (ug/kg/day)
Range Mean
Heptachlor Trace Trace
Heptachlor epoxide 1.0-3.0 2.0
Stanley et al.,
1971 (p. 435)
NRC, 1982 (p. 7)
FDA, 1979
(Attachment E)
NAS, 1977
(p. 558)
4-5
-------
Total relative daily intakes -
(Ug/kg/day)
FY75 FY76 FY77 FY78
Adults
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.0072 0.0055 0.0074 0.0077
Toddlers
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.0057 0.0057 0.0182 N/A
Heptachlor
ND
ND
ND
N/A
N/A = Not available
FDA, 1979
(Attachment G)
FDA, 1980
Food
Mean for adult total relative daily
intake of heptachlor epoxide (FY75 to
FY78) = 0.0070 (ug/kg/day)
(calculated from data in FDA, 1979 -
see above).
Mean for toddler total relative daily
intake of heptachlor epoxide (FY75 to
FY77) = 0.0099 (ug/kg/day)
(calculated from data.in FDA, 1980 -
see above).
3. Concentration
Food concentrations of heptachlor and
heptachlor epoxide
Range (ug/g)
Heptachlor
Heptachlbr Epoxide
Study
Date
Potato, Poultry
Dairy, Meat, Fish
Cow milk
.03-.05
.0003-.005 1978
1971-1973
FDA, 1979
(Attachment E)
NAS, 1977
(p. 560)
4-6
-------
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
U.S. EPA (1980) reviewed the U.S. EPA, 1980
studies of the carcinogenicity (p. C-45)
of heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide and concluded that,
although not all studies showed
positive results, the weight of
evidence for carcinogenicity was
sufficient to consider heptachlor
a likely human carcinogen.
Potency
Cancer potency = 3.37 (mg/kg/day)"1 U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-60J
Heptachlor fed to B6C3F^ mice for
nearly a lifetime induced
hepatocellular carcinomas with
high frequency in both sexes at
two doses (NCI, 1977 as cited in
U.S. EPA, 1980). U.S. EPA (1980)
calculated the cancer potency
using the data for male mice
shown below:
Dose Incidence
(mg/kg/day) (No. Responding/No. Tested)
0.0 5/19 NCI, 1977 in
0.79 11/46 U.S. EPA, 1980
1.79 34/47 (p. C-60).
In this assessment, heptachlor
epoxide will be treated as equivalent
in potency to heptachlor.
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
4-7
-------
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
Acceptable daily intake (World U.S. EPA, 1980
Health Organization (WHO)) = (p. C-42)
0.5 Ug/kg/day
b. Effects
Heptachlor is generally classified U.S. EPA, 1980
as a neurotoxin because it pro- (p. C-44)
duces abnormal stimulation of the
central nervous system when animals
are exposed to high doses.
3. Absorption Factor
Heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide are U.S. EPA, 1980
both readily absorbed from the gas- (p. C-10)
trointestinal tract.
4. Existing Regulations
Source Published Standard NAS, 1977
WHO 0.5 pg/kg/day acceptable
daily intake in diet
U.S. Public Recommended Drinking Water NAS, 1977
Health Service standard (1968)
Advisory Committee 18 Ug/L heptachlor
18 Ug/L heptachlor epoxide
U.S. EPA Recommended water quality U.S. EPA,
criterion - 2.78 ng/L, 1980
0.28 ng/L and 0.028 ng/L for (p.vi)
ingestion of water and aquatic
organisms for incremental
increase of cancer risk at
10~5, 10~6 and 10~7,
respectively.
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
Data not immediately avialable.
4-8
-------
b. Potency
Cancer potency = 3.37 (mg/kg/day)"1
This potency estimate has been
derived from that for ingestion,
assuming 100Z absorption for both
ingestion and inhalation routes.
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIH
500 yg/m3 Threshold Limit Value
(TLV) for time-weighted average
(TWA) concentration for an
8-hour workday
b. Effects
Data not assessed since evaluation
was based on carcinogenicity.
3. Absorption Factor-
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
Source Published Standard
Occupational Safety 500 yg/m3 TWA
Health Administration
ACGIH
TLV-TWA = 500 yg/m3
TLV-STEL* = 2,000 yg/m3
U.S. EPA,
1980
(p. C-60)
American
Conference of
Governmental
Industrial
Hygienists
(ACGIH), 1983
National
Institute for
Occupational
Safety and
Health, 1977
in U.S. EPA,
1980 (p. C-43)
ACGIH, 1983
*STEL - Short-term exposure limit
4-9
-------
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
No phytotoxic influence of heptachlor
on beans or alfalfa has been found.
See Table 4-1.
<0,01 Co 0.36 ppm in planes wich no
reported effects
B. Uptake
See Table 4-2.
Pick., 1977
(p. 445)
Edwards, 1970
(p. 34)
Concentration
Plant
Corn
Soybeans
Wheat
Rutabaga roots
Cucumbers
Carrot roots
Potato tuber
Heptachlor
<0.01
<0.01
0.015
0.024
0.091
0.036
0.05
Heptachlor
epoxide
<0.01
<0.01
Study
Date
1972
1972
<1970
<1970
<1970
<1970
<1970
Source
Carey et al.,
1979a
(p. 223-225)
Edwards, 1970
(p. 34)
Residues in crops at various
application rates to soil
Finlayson, 1973
(p. 63)
Crop
Heptachlor
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
Crop Residue
Heptachlor &
Heptachlor Epoxide
(ppm)
Soybean
Pumpkin
Rutabaga
Alfalfa
Carrot
Soybean oil
Soybean oil
5.6
27.4
6.6
1.1
28.0
3.4
6.7
0.038
0.036
0.04
0.111
0.223
0.38
0.81
4-10
-------
Residues in alfalfa
Dorough et al.,
1972 (p. 46)
Concentration
Applied to
Soil (kg/ha)
Parent
Compound
Concentration
in Tissue (ppm)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epoxide
Chlordane
Chlordane
1.1
2.2
<0.001
<0.001
0.09 + 0.02
0.16 + 0.08
Seeds such as soybeans and peanuts with
high oil content have greater residues of
heptachlor than do seeds with lower oil
content such as oats, barley and corn,
when grown in the same soil concentrations.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
Heptachlor is approximately 3 times as
carcinogenic as aldrin/dieldrin and 5
times as carcinogenic as Chlordane.
See Table 4-3.
B. Uptake
Yearling steers fed for 523 days on a
diet free of heptachlor residues still
showed combined residues (heptachlor
and heptachlor epoxide) ranging from
0.70 to 1.11 pg/g in their fat tissue.
Residues in Vertebrates (ug/g)
Heptachlor and
Heptachlor epoxide
Bruce et al.,
1966 (p. 180)
NRG, 1982 (p. 6)
Bovard et al.,
1971 (p. 132)
Animal
Various small
mammals
Bald eagles
Study Date
1960-1970
1969-1977
Tissue Residues (ug/g)
0.09-33.5
0.04-2.8
Source
Edwards, 1970
(p. 40)
Kaiser et al . ,
1980, (p. 147)
See Table 4-4.
4-11
-------
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. Freshwater
0.0038 Ug/L as a 24 hour average
concentration, not to exceed
0.52 Ug/L at any time.
2. Saltwater
0.0036 ug/L as a 24 hour
concentration, not to exceed
0.053 Ug/L at any time.
B. Uptake
BCF of 15,700 for the edible portion
of all freshwater and estuarine
aquatic organisms consumed by
U.S. citizens
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-5.
B. Uptake
Trace to 49 Ug/g in tissues of
earthworms
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-15) '
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. B-15)
Stephan, 1981
Thompson, 1973
(p. 104)
See Table 4-6.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AMD TRANSPORT
Molecular weight: 373.32
Boiling point: 175°C (at 2 mm Hg)
Vapor pressure: 0.0003 mm Hg (at 20°C)
Specific gravity: 1.57-1.59
Soluble in xylene and alcohol
Insoluble in water
General Persistence of Heptachlor in Soils:
As the pH of the soil decreases, the half-life
of heptachlor increases.
NRC, 1982
(p. 52)
Chapman and
Cole, 1982
(p. 493)
4-12
-------
95% 75-1002
Disappearance3 Disappearance'3
Years Average Years
3-5 3.5 2 Matsumura, 1972
a£rom Edwards, 1966
bfrom Kearney et al., 1965
Time for reduction by 50 percent of initial Beyer and Gish,
soil concentration of heptachlor epoxide 1980 (p. 295)
is 3.2 years.
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-1. PHYTOTOXICITY OF HEPTACHLOR
Plant/Tissue
Black valentine
bean/ seed
Black valentine
bean/seed
Black valentine
bean/seed
Black valentine
bean/root
Black valentine
bean/root
Black valentine
bean/root
Black valentine
bean/top
Black valentine
bean/top
Black valentine
bean/top
Chemical
Form
Applied
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Control
Tissue Soil • Application
Growth Concentration Concentration Rate
Medium (ug/g DW) (pg/g DW) (kg/ha)
loamy NR* 12. 5
sand
loamy NR 50
sand
loamy NR 100
sand
loamy NR 12. 5
sand
loamy NR 50 -
sand
loamy NR 100
• and
loamy NR 12. 5
Band
loamy NR 50 -
sand
loamy NR 100
sand
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g DW) Effects
NR 82 increased
germination (NSD)
NR 42 increased
germination (NS)
NR 4Z increased
germination (NS)
NR 91 increased
weight (NS)
NR 81 increased
weight (NS)
NR 10Z decreased
weight (NS)
NR 8Z increased
weight (NS)
NR 32 decreased
weight (NS)
NR 26Z decreased
weight (NS)
References
Eno and Evverett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 236)
•NR » Not reported.
bNS - Not statistically significant.
-------
TABLE 4-2. UPTAKE OF HEPTACHLOR BY PLANTS
Plant/Tissue
Rutabaga/root
Cucumber/ fruit
Alfalfa/plant
Carrot/root
Potato/tuber
Chemical Form
Applied
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Growth
Medium
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g DW)
0.32
3.8
0.78
0.49
0.49
Tissue Concentration Uptake
((ig/g DW)
0.024
0.091
0.028
0.36
0.05
Factor"
0.075
0.024
0.036
0.73
0.10
References
Edwards,
Edwards,
Edwards,
Edwards,
Edwards ,
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
(p. 34)
(p. 34)
(p. 34)
(p. 34)
(p. 34)
a Uptake factor » y/x: x - pg/g/soil DW, y - pg/g tissue DW.
-------
TABLE 4-3. TOXICITY OF IIEPTACHLOR TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)»
Mallard
Dog (4)
Mice
Mice
Rat
Rat
Sheep, pig
Steer
Dairy cow (2)
Chemical
Form Fed
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Ueptachlor
' Heptachlor
Ueptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
epoxide
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
epoxide
Ueptachlor
epoxide
Feed
Concentration
(Ug/g)
NAb
NA
NA
13.8
NA
NA
NA
0.5-10.0
NA
0.19
50
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NA
NA
NA
NRC-
NA
NA
NA
NR
NA
NR
NA
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg)
>2,000
1
5
NA
0.79
1.79
100
NA
2.5
NA
NA
Duration
(days)
NA
264-424
21-22
NR
lifetime
lifetime
NA
2 years
78-86
523
B4
Effects
LD50
Lethal (3 of 4)
Lethal
70. 2Z hepatocellular
carcinoma rate
Hepatocellular carcinomas
in 11 of 46 mice
Hepatocellular carcinomas
in 34 of 47 mice
LD50
62. 51 incidence of
tumors at 0.5 Mg/g
Hepatic necrosis
No effect
No effects observed**
References
Tucker and Crabtree,
1970 (p. 70)
NAS, 1977 (p.
NAS, 1977 (p.
NAS, 1977 (p.
NCI, 1977
in U.S. EPA,
NRC, 1982 (p.
NAS, 1977 (p.
NRC, 1982 (p.
Bovard et al .
(p. 128)
Bruce et al . ,
(p. 67)
564-65)
564-65)
565)
1980
19)
565)
20)
, 1971
1965
*N - Number of animals per treatment group.
bNA - Not applicable.
CNR = Not reported.
dOne cow was pregnant during treatment and delivered normally; however, the calf died a few days after birth. It was not known if the exposure of
the mother to heptachlor was responsible for the death.
-------
TABLE 4-4. UPTAKE OP HEPTACHLOR BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Chemical
Species (N)« Form Fed
Dairy cow (2) Heptachlor
epoxide
Dairy cow (2) Heptachlor
epoxide
Woodcock Heptachlor
epoxide
£. Steer Heptachlor
1 epoxide
vj
Cattle Heptachlor
Feed Concentration
(pg/g DU)
0.2
0.5
1.5
10
50
0.5
1.5
10
50
0.65
2.86
0.19
NRC
Tissue
Tissue Concentrations
Analyzed (ug/g DW)
milk fat 4.25
11.25
21.7
119.7
460
body fat 7.1
14.7
83.5
293.4
body fat 1.7
13.0
"body fat 0.6-1.2
body fat NR
Uptake Factor0
21.25
22.5
14.5
11.9
9.2
14.2
9.8
8.4
5.9
2.6
4.5
0.65-6.3
3.8
References
Bruce et al., 1965 (p. 64)
Bruce et al., 1965 (p. 64)
Edwards, 1970 (p. 45)
Bovard et al., 1971 (p. 29)
Connor, 1984 (p. 48)
* N » Number of animals per feed concentration group.
b Uptake factor = y/x: x - pg/g feed (DW), y » pg/g tissue (DU).
c NR - Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-5.
TOXICITr OF- UEPTACHLOK TO SOIL BIOTA
Species
Springtails
(suborder Symphypleona)
Springtails
(suborder Arthropleona)
Mites
Soil bacteria
Soil bacteria
Soil bacteria
X> Soil bacteria
1
1— i
03 Soil fungi
Soil fungi
Soil fungi
Soil fungi
Soil fungi
Soil fungi
Soil fungi
Chemical Form
Applied
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Soil
Type
grassland
grassland
grassland
sandy loam
sandy loan .
clay laom
clay loam
sandy loam
sandy loam
clay loam
clay loam
loamy sand
loamy sand
loamy sand
Soil
Concentration
(Mg/g)
3.35*
3.35«
3.35*
NRe
NH
NR
NR
NR
MR
NR
NR
12.5
50
100
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
6.7°
6.7°
6.7°
11.2, 5.6
for 2 yr.
16.8, 5.6
for 3 yr.
'
16.8, 5.6
for 3 yr.
22.4, 5.6
for 3 yr.
11.2, 5.6
for 2 yr.
16.8, 5.6
for 3 yr.
16.8, 5.6
for 3 yr.
22.4, 5.6
for It yr.
—
—
—
Effect
91 reduction in mean numbers at
1 year after application (NSC);
17Z increase after 6 years (NS)
21Z reduction in mean numbers
mean numbers at 1 year after
application"3!
44Z reduction at 2 years (NS);
15Z reduction at 6 years (NS)
15Z reduction in mean numbers at
1 year after application (NS);
91Z increase at 2 years (NS);
32 reduction at 6 years (NS)
No effect 11 month after
2nd application
18Z reduction in total
numbers 2 weeks following
3rd application (NS)
4Z reduction in numbers 11
months following 3rd
application (NS)
No reduction 2 weeks following
4th application
No effect 11 months after 2nd
appl ication
28Z reduction 2 weeks following
3rd application (NS)
7.5Z reduction 11 months
following 3rd application (NS)
12Z reduction 2 weeks following
4th application (NS)
9.5Z reduction in fungus
count (NS)
15Z reduction in fungus
count (NS)
23Z reduction in fungus
count (NS)
References
Fox, 1967 (p. 78)
Fox, 1967, (p. 78)
Fox, 1967 (p. 78)
Hartin et al., 1959
(p. 335)
Martin et al., 1959
(p. 335)
Hartin et al., 1959
(p. 335)
Hartin et al., 1959
(p. 335)
Hartin et al . , 1959
(p. 335)
Martin et al., 1959
(p. 335)
Hartin et al., 1959
(p. 335)
Martin et al. , 1959
(p. 335)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 237)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 237)
Eno and Everett,
1958 (p. 237)
- —— -.. w..*. uu»v-.«fb m. w»i0 ua^w *!• 1,111. o uw,uuiciiu ui. xuwu mi 9ui i / lift 11) Luc L u p 1J COT £llQ U • UU 1 }Jg/ E DaClCgrOUnO 81
Authors reported appliation rate as 6 Ibs/acre. Rate was converted to kg/ha using a factor of 1.1209 kg/ha [Ibs/acre]"1.
CNS = Not statistically significant.
Statistically significant (p = 0.05).
eNR » Not reno'-red.
-------
TABLE 4-6. UPTAKE OF HEPTACHL08 BY SOIL BIOTA
Chemical Form Soil
Species/Tissue Applied Type
Earthworm/whole Heptachlor agricultural
epoxide
Earthworm/whole Heptachlor silty clay
epoxide
Earthworm/whole Heptachlor loam
epoxide
Earthworm/whole Heptachlor pasture
epoxide
Earthworm/whole Heptachlor pasture
epoxide
p.
I Earthworm/whole Heptachlor pasture
£ epoxide
Earthworm/whole Heptachlor pasture
epoxide
Tissue
Soil Concentration Concentration
(tlg/g DW) (pg/g DW) Uptake Factor* / References
NRb NR 5.5 (average) Thompson, 1973
0.011 0.059 5.9 Cish, 1970 (p.
0-018 0.20 11.1 Cish, 1970 (p.
0-12 0.063 0.5 Gish, 1970 (p.
0.0043 0.074 17.2 Gish, 1970 (p.
0-029 0.14 4.8 Cish, 1970 (p.
0.0031 0.022 7.1 Cish, 1970 (p.
(p. Ill)
248)
248)
248)
248)
249)
249)
fUptake Factor = y/x: x = pg/g soil (DW), y = pg/g tissue (DW)
DNR = Not reported.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
1983. TLVs. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Work. Environment with Intended Changes for
1983-84. ACGIH. Cincinnati, OH.
Baxter, J. C., M. Aguilar, and K. Brown. 1983. Heavy Metals and
Persistent Organics ac a Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. J. Environ.
Qual. 12:311-316.
Bertrand, J. E., M. C. Lutrick, G. T. Edds, and R. L. West. 1981.
Metal Residue 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., and C. D. Gish. 1980. Persistence in Earthworms and
Potential Hazards to Birds of Soil-Applied DDT, Dieldrin and
Heptachlor. J. Appl. Ecol. 17:295-307.
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.
Bovard, K. P., J. P. Fontenot, and B. M. Priode. 1971. Accumulation
and Dissipation of Heptachlor Residues in Fattening Steers. J.
Ani. Sci. 33:127-132. .
Bruce, W. N., R. P. Link, and G. C. Decker. 1965. Storage of
Heptachlor Epoxide in the Body Fat and Its Excretion in Milk of
Dairy Cows Fed Heptachlor in Their Diets. J. Agric. Food Chem.
13(l):63-67.
Bruce, W. N., G. C. Decker, and J. G. Wilson. 1966. The Relationship
of the Levels of Insecticide Contamination of Crop Seeds to Their
Fat Content and Soil Concentration of Aldrin, Heptachlor, and Their
Epoxides. J. Econ. Ent. 59:179-181.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984a. A Comparison of Studies of Toxic
Substances in POTW Sludges. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. August.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984b. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984c. Technical Review of the 106-Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract No. 68-
01-6403. Annandale, VA. January.
5-1
-------
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984d. Technical Review of the 12-Mile
Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. May.
Carey, A. E., J. A. Gowen, H. Tai, W. G. Mitchell, and G. B. Wiersma.
1978. Pesticide Residue in Soils and Crops, 1971 - National Soils
Monitoring Program (III). Pest. Monit. J. 12(3):117-136.
Carey, A. E., J. A. Gowen, H. Tai, W. G. Mitchell, and G. B. Wiersma.
1979a. Pesticide Residue Levels in Soils and Crops From 37 States,
1972 - National Soils Monitoring Program (IV). Pest. Monit. J.
12(4):209-229.
Carey, A. E., P. Douglas, H. Tai, W. G. Mitchell, and G. B. Wiersma.
1979b. Pesticide Residue Concentrations in Soils of Five United
States Cities, 1971 - Urban Soils Monitoring Program. Pest. Monit.
J. 13(l):17-22.
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.
Chapman, R. A., and C. M. Cole. 1982. Observations on the Influence of
Water and Soil pH on the Persistence of Insecticides. J. Environ.
Sci. Health. B17(5):487-504.
City of New York Department of Environmental Protection. 1983. A
Special Permit Application for the Disposal of'Sewage Sludge from
Twelve New York City Water Pollution Control Plants at the 12-Mile
Site. New York, NY. December.
Connor, M. S. 1984. Monitoring Sludge-Amended Agricultural Soils. Bio
Cycle. January/February 1984:47-51.
Dorough, H. W., R. F. Skrentny, and B. C. Pass. 1972. Residues in
Alfalfa and Soils Following Treatment with Technical Chlordane and
High Purity Chlordane (HCS 3260) for Alfalfa Weevil Control. J.
Agr. Food Chem. 20(l):42-47.
Edwards, C. A. 1970. Persistent Pesticides in the Environment. CRC
Press, Cleveland, OH.
Edwards, C. A. 1973. Pesticide Residues in Soil and Water, p. 49-458.
In! Edwards, C.A. (ed.), Environmental Pollution by Pesticides,
Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Eno, C. F., and P. H, Everett. 1958. Effects of Soil Applications of
10 Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides on Soil Microorganisms and
the Growth of Stringless Black Valentine Beans. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 22:235-238.
Farrell, J. B. 1984. Personal Communication. Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. December.
5-2
-------
Pick, G. W. 1977. Methods for Evaluating Insecticide Effects on
Alfalfa Growth. J. Environ. Qual. 6(4) :443-445.
Finlayson, D. G., and H. P. MacCarthy. 1973. . Pesticide Residues in
Plants. In; Edwards, C. A. (ed.), Environmental Pollution by
Pesticides. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Food and Drug Administration. 1979. Compliance Program Report of
Findings. FY 78 Total Diet Studies - Adult (F305.003).
Food and Drug Administration. 1980. FY 77 Total Diet Studies —Infants
and Toddlers (7320.74). FDA, Bureau of Foods, Washington, D.C.
October 22.
Fox, C. J. S. 1967. Effects of Several Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Insecticides on the Springtails and Mites of Grassland Soil. J.
Econ. Ent. 60(l):77-79.
Gish, C. D. 1970. Organochlorine Insecticide Residues in Soils and
Soil Invertebrates From Agricultural Lands. Pest. Monit. J.
3(4):241-252.
Glooschenko, W. A., H. M. Strachan, and R. C. Sampson. 1976.
Distribution of Pesticides and Polychlorinat.ed Biphenyls in Water
Sediments and Seston - 1974. Pest. Monit. J. 10(2);61-67.
Jones and Lee. 1977. In; B. Sagik and C. Sorber (eds.). Proceedings
of the Conference on Risk Assessment and Health Effects of Land
Application of Municipal Wastewater and Sludges. Center for
Applied Res. and Tech., University of Texas at San Antonio. p. 52.
Kaiser, T. E., W. L. Reichel, L. N. Locke, E. Cromartie, A. J.
Krynitsky, T. G. Lament, B. M. Mulhern, R. M. Prouty, C. J.
Stafford, and D. M. Swineford. 1980. Organochlorine Pesticide,
PCB, and PBB Residues and Necropsy Data for Bald Eagles From 29
States -- 1975-1977. Pest. Monit. J. 13(4):145-149.
Lang, J. T., L. L. Rodriguez, and J. M. Livingston. 1979.
Organochlorine Pesticide Residues in Soils From Six U.S. Air Force
Bases, 1975-76. Pest. Monit. J. 12(4):230-233.
t
Martin, J. P., R. B. Harding, G. H. Cannel, and L. D. Anderson. 1959.
Influence of Five Annual Field Applications of Inorganic
Insecticides on Soil Biological and Physical Properties. J. Soil
Sci. 87:334-338.
Matsumura, F. 1972. Current Pesticide Situation in the United States.
In; Matsumura, F. (ed.), Environmental Toxicology of Pesticides,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
National Academy of Science. 1977. Drinking Water and Health.
Washington, D.C.
5-3
-------
National Cancer Institute. 1977. Bioassay of Heptachlor for Possible
Carcinogenicity. NIH - Rep. No. 77-809 (As cited in U.S. EPA,
1980.)
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1977.
Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides: A Subfile of the Registry of
Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (As cited in U.S. EPA, 1980).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1983. Northeast
Monitoring Program 106-Mile Site Characterization Update. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-26. U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. August.
National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of the Health Risks of
Seven Pesticides Used for Termite Control. Committee on
Toxicology. NTIS PB 83-136374.
Pennington, J. A. T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food
Lists and Diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Ryan, J. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Health Chain: A Review and Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251-302.
Stanford Research Institute. International. 1980. Seafood Consumption
Data Analysis. Final Report, Task II. Prepared for U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68-01-3887. Menlo Park, CA. September.
Stanley, C. W., J. E. Barney. II, M. R. Helton, and A. R. Yobs. 1971.
Measurement, of Atmospheric Levels of Pesticides. Env. Sci. Tech.
5(5):430-435.
Stephan, C. E. 1981. Memo to J. F. Stara. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Environmental Research Laboratory. Duluth, MN.
May 26.
Thompson, A. 1973. Pesticide Residues in Soil Invertebrates. In:
C. A. Edwards (ed.), Environmental Pollution by Pesticides, Plenum
Press, New York, NY. p. 87-133.
Thornton, I., and P. Abrams. 1983. Soil Ingestion-A Major Pathway of
Heavy Metal into Livestock Grazing Contaminated Land. Sci. Total
Environ. 28:287-294.
Tucker, R. K., and D. G. Crabtree. 1970. Handbook of Toxicity of
Pesticides to Wildlife. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Denver Wildlife Research Center, Res. Pub. 84.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
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.
5-4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Heptachlor. EPA 440/5-80-052.
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. 1983. Assessment of Human
Exposure to Arsenic: Tacoma, Washington. Internal Document. OHEA-
E-075-U. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C. July 19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. EPA 600/3-83-028B. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September.
5-5
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR HEPTACHLOR
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Heptachlor
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Formula
_ (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
3 AR + MS
CSr = CSS [1 + 0.5<1/t^> + 0.5(2/t±> + ... + 0.52) + ...
* 0.5(99/3-2)]
A-l
-------
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (index 2)
a. Formula
Index 2 = ~
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil Cug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
°-Q°°3°
0.000091 =
3.35 yg/g DW
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (index 3)
a. Formula
_ , ., Ii x UB
Index 3 = — — -
where:
I± = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (pg/g DW)
UB = Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g soil DW]~1)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator ('Ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation
0.00030 Ug/g DW x 17.2 Ug/g tissue DW (pg/g soil DW)"1
°'01° = 0.5 pg/g DW
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Formula
Index 4 = —
A-2
-------
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in .
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
2. Index o£ Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Formula
Index 5 = I], x UP
where:
Ij_ = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (pg/g DW)
UP = Uptake, factor of pollutant in plant tissue
(pg/g tissue DW [yg/g soil DW]"1)
b. Sample Calculation
0.000010 yg/gDW = 0.00030 JJg/gDW x 0.036 ug/g tissue DW (pg/g soil DW)"1
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Formula
Index 6 = PP
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration associ-
ated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
A-3
-------
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
Index 7 = —
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (yg/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
0.000022 , o.ooooio UR/S DW
0.5 Ug/g DW
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Formula
If AR = 0; Index 8=0
TA
If AR * 0; Index 8 =
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (yg/g DW)
b. Sample calculation
If AR = 0; Index 8=0
If AR * 0- 0 007 = 0.07 Vfi/fi DW x 0.05
If AR t 0, 0.007
A-4
-------
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Formula
(I5 x DT) -i- DI
Index 9 =
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
DT = Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
(0.00022 Ug/S DW x 74. 5 g/day) + 0.099 Ug/day
= 0.0208 Ug/day
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
(I5 x UA x DA) + DI
Index 10 =
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (Ug/g DW)
UA = Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DWp1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products and
meat, poultry, eggs, fish)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)
A-5
-------
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
5.3 = [(0.000010 ug/g DW x 22.5 ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed
DW]-1 x 43.7 g/day DW) + 0.099 Ug/day] t
0.0208 Ug/day
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil (Index
11)
a. Formula
rr AO * T .4 11 (BS X GS X UA X DA) + PI
If AR = 0; Index 11 = rrr
Kol
Tr An , . _ . .. (SC x GS x UA x DA) + PI
If AR t 0; Index 11 = —
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt PW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
UA ='Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue PW [ug/g feed DW]"1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products and
meat only)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (jag/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
150 = [(0.07 Ug/g DW x 0.05 x 22.5 Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g
feed DW] -1 x 39.4 g/day DW) + 0.099 ug/day] *
0.0208 Ug/day
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(Index 12)
a. Formula
(I x DS) + DI
Index 12 =
RSI
A-6
-------
where:
1^ = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet (g/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (pg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
_ (0.00030 yg/g DW x 5 g/day) + 0.099 ug/day
0.0208 ug/day
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Formula
3DI
Index 13 = Ig + IIQ + In + Iu - ( RSI
where:
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from plant consumption (unitless)
= Index 10 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from consumption of- animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
= Index 11 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals ingesting soil
(unitless)
= Index 12 = Index of human cancer risk
resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI - Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler)
ifin - (*> h + s 1 + isn + i ft} - ( 3 x 0.099 Ug/day.
160 - (5.6 + 5.3 + 150 + 4.8) ( 0<0208ug/day )
A-7
-------
II. LANDPILLING
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.
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from Incinerator
Emissions (Index 1)
1. Formula
T j , (C x PS x SC x FM x DP) •*• BA
Index 1 = ^
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
1.1 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x 0.07 mg/kg DW x
0.05 x 3.4 ug/m3) + 0.00015 ug/m3] t 0.00015 ug/m3
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk. Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1. Formula
[dl - 1) x BA] + BA
Index 2 =
EC
where:
1^ = 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 (yg/m3)
A-8
-------
2. Sample Calculation
r(l7l>T 1) x 0.00015 Ug/m31 * 0.00015
0.00104 Ug/m3
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Mixing
of Sludge (Index 1)
1. Formula
SC x ST x PS
Index 1 =
W x D x L
where:
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
ST = Sludge mass dumped by a single tanker (kg WW)
PS = Percent solids in sludge (kg DW/kg WW)
W = Width of initial plume dilution (m)
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of mixing
for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation
0.00014 Ug/L = ' .
Q.07 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x Q.04 kg DW/kg WW x 103 Ug/mg
200 m x 20 m x 8000 m x 10J L/m-5
B. Index of Seawater Concentration Representing a 24-Hour Dumping
Cycle (Index 2)
1. Formula
SS x SC
Index 2 =
V x D x L
where:
SS = Daily sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
V = Average current velocity at site (m/day)
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of
mixing for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
A-9
-------
2. Sample Calculation
0 000038 /L = 825000 kg DH/day x 0.07 mg/kg DW x 1Q3 Ug/mg
9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
Index of Hazard to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Formula
I2
IndeX 3 = AWQC"
where:
12 = Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration
representing a 24-hour dumping cycle (yg/L)
AWQC = Criterion expressed as an average concentration
to protect the marketability of edible marine
organisms (ug/L)
2. Sample Calculation
_ 0.000038
U'Uii
0.0036 ug/L
D. Index of Human Cancer Risk. Resulting from Seafood Consumption
(Index 4)
1. Formula . • •
(1 2 x BCF x 10~3 kg/g x FS x QF) + DI
Index 4 = - — -
where:
J-2 = Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration
representing a 24-hour dumping cycle (ug/L)
QF = Dietary consumption of seafood (g WW/day)
FS = Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (unitless)
BCF = Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (L/kg)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
2. Sample Calculation
24 =
(0.000038 Ug/L x 15700 L/kg x 10~3 kg/g x O.OOQ021 x 14.3 g WW/day) + 0.490 Ug/day
0.0208 Ug/day
A-10
------- |