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 -  1400F
                              Solids content - 28%
                                  3-20

-------
               Stack height - 20 m
               Exit gas velocity -  20 m/s
               Exit gas temperature - 356. 9K  (183F)
               Stack diameter - 0.60 m

      ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids  input)

          A  feed rate  of  10,000   kg/hr  DW  represents  a
          higher  feed  rate and  would  serve a major U.S.
          city.   This  rate was  incorporated into the U.S.
          EPA-ISCLT   model based  on the  following input
          data:

               EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
               Combustion zone temperature  - 1400F
               Solids content - 26.6%
               Stack height - 10 m
               Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
               Exit gas temperature - 313. 8K  (105F)
               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  Intakeab    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:   175C (at 2 mm Hg)
     Vapor pressure:   0.0003 mm Hg (at 20C)
     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
arom 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..*. uuv-.fb m. wi0  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


                       -Q3
            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

-------