United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wa'er
Regulations and Standards
Wasftmgton, DC 20460
Water
June, 198S
Environmental ProfiSes
and Hazard indices
for Constituents
of Municipal Sludge:
Bis(2"€thylhexy!)phthaiate
-------
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 1
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR BIS-2-ETHYLHEXYL PHTHALATE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling. 2~1
Incineration 2-2
Ocean Disposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR BIS-2-ETHYLHEXYL PHTHALATE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of bis-2-ethylhexyl phthalate
(Index 1) • 3-1
Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) 3-2
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration (Indices 4r6) • • 3-4
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-6
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-9
Landfilling 3-14
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilied sludge (Index 1) 3-14
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from groundwater contamination (Index 2) 3-21
Incineration 3-22
Index of air concentration increment resulting
from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 3-22
Index of human cancer risk resulting
from inhalation of incinerator emissions
(Index 2) 3-24
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Ocean Disposal 3-26
Index of seawater concentration resulting
from initial mixing of sludge (Index 1) 3-27
Index of seawater concentration representing a
24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 3-30
Index of toxicity to aquatic life
(Index 3) 3-31
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
seafood consumption (Index 4) 3-33
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR BIS-2-ETHYLHEXYL PHTHALATE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-2
Water - Unpolluted 4-2
Air 4-3
Food 4-4
Human Effects 4-5
Ingestion 4-5
Inhalation 4-6
Plant Effects 4-7
Phytotoxicity 4-7
Uptake 4-7
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-7
Toxicity 4-7
Uptake 4-7
Aquatic Life Effects 4-7
Toxicity 4-7
Uptake 4-8
Soil Biota Effects 4-8
Toxicity 4-8
Uptake 4-8
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-8
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
5. REFERENCES.
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
BIS-2-ETHYLHEXYL PHTHALATE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
IV
-------
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. Bis-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) was initially
identified as being of potential concern when sludge is landspread
(including distribution and marketing), placed in a landfill,
incinerated or ocean disposed.* This profile is a compilation of
information that may be useful in determining whether DEHP 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
represent 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 A. 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 Section 3
are summarized in Section 2. The preliminary hazard indices will be
used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants and pathways may
pose a hazard. Where a potential hazard is indicated by interpretation
of these indices, further analysis will include a more detailed exami-
nation of potential risks as well as an examination of site-specific
factors. These more rigorous evaluations may change the preliminary
conclusions presented in Section 2, which are based on a reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
The preliminary hazard indices for selected exposure routes
pertinent to landspreading and distribution and marketing, landfilling,
incineration, and ocean disposal practices are included in this profile.
The calculation formulae for these indices are shown in the Appendix.
The indices are rounded to two significant figures.
* Listings were determined by a series of expert workshops convened
during March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR BIS-2-ETHYLHEXYL PHTHALATE
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-AMD-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Bis-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate
A moderate increase of DEHP concentrations in soil is expected
from the landspreading of municipal sewage sludge. This
increase is especially evident at the 500 mt/ha cumulative
application rate, since it is assumed that DEHP does not
degrade in soil (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data. .
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
E. Effect on Humans
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated due to lack of data.
II. LANDPILLING
When municipal sewage sludge is disposed of by landfilling, an
increase in the concentration of DEHP in groundwater is expected.
This is particularly true when either the worst-site parameters are
present in the saturated zone or the composite worst scenario for
landfilling is evaluated (see Index 1). The consumption of
groundwater contaminated by landfilled municipal sewage sludge is
generally expected to pose a slight increase in cancer risk due to
DEHP. However, when the composite worst landfill scenario is
projected, a substantial increase in cancer risk seems likely (see
Index 2).
2-1
-------
III. INCINERATION
When municipal sewage sludge is incinerated at typical feed rates,
a moderate increase in DEHP concentration in air is anticipated.
At high (worst) incineration feed rates, the resulting increase of
DEHP in air ranges from 16 to 300 times that normally associated
with urban air (see Index 1). As a result, at typical feed rates
there may be a slight increase in the cancer risk associated with
the inhalation of DEHP. At the worst incineration feed rate, a
moderate increase in cancer risk may be expected. (See Index 2).
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
The incremental increase of DEHP in seawater after initial mixing
is significant in all scenarios evaluated (see Index 1).
Significant incremental concentrations of DEHP occur during a 24-
hour dumping cycle. The index values are particularly significant
for sludges containing "worst" concentrations of DEHP dumped at the
"worst" site at both disposal rates (see Index 2). Potential
toxicity to aquatic life was determined for "worst" concentration
sludges disposed at the "worst" site. Significant incremental
increases were also evident for the other scenarios, except when
the sludge and site characteristics were both typical. In those
cases, the potential toxicity was moderate (see Index 3). Only
slight incremental increases in cancer risk occur in the scenarios
evaluated, except for the case of worst-site and sludge
concentration at the highest disposal rate which posed a moderate
potential increase in risks (see Index 4).
2-2
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR BIS-2-ETHYLHEZYL PHTHALATE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AMD-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Bis-2-Ethylhexyl Phtbalate
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
-------
values statistically derived from sludge
concentration data from 50 publicly-owned
treatment works (POTWs) (U.S. EPA, 1982a).
(See Section 4, p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.0 Mg/g DW
Data is not immediately available for back-
ground concentrations of DEHP in soil. The
value is assumed to be zero so that index
values can be calculated.
iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (t^) - Data not
immediately available.
For purposes of calculating index values, it
was conservatively assumed that DEHP does not
degrade in soil.
d. Index 1 Values (pg/g DW)
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical 0.0 0.24 2.3 19
Worst 0.0 1.1 11 92
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in sludge-amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - A moderate increase of DEHP
concentrations in soil is expected from the
landspreading of municipal sewage sludge. This
increase is especially evident at the 500 mt/ha
cumulative application rate, since it is assumed
that DEHP does not degrade in 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.
3-2
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 2 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack, of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
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
estimated 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. 3-2.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota (UB) -
Data not immediately available.
iii. Peed concentration toxic to predator (TR) =
3000 Ug/g DW
Rats were unaffected by feed concentrations of
1300 ug/g DEHP (2 years exposure; Krauskopf,
1973) and 2000 ug/g DEHP (16 weeks exposure;
Brown et al., 1978), but a statistically
significant increase in tumor incidence was
observed in mice fed DEHP at 3000 Ug/g for 103
weeks (NTP, 1980 in U.S. EPA, 1982b). Rats and
mice may be considered as representative of
3-3
-------
small mammals Chat include soil invertebrates
in their diet. (See Section '4, pp. 4-11 and
4-12.)
d. Index 3 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
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.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
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.
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. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) - Data
not immediately available.
There are limited data for corn that was
exposed to di-n-butyl phthalate (DBF) which is
a phthalate ester, but it is not the same
compound as DEHP. For this reason, data for
DBP exposure were not used. (See Section 4,
p. 4-9.)
d. Index 4 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3-4
-------
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue concentra-
tions, in Ug/g DW, in plants grown in sludge-amended
soil, using uptake data for the most responsive
plant species in the following categories: (1)
plants included in the U.S. human diet; and (2)
plants serving as animal feed. Plants used vary
according to availability of data.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes 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
crops in the animal diet. See also Index 6 for
consideration of phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue (UP)
- Data not immediately available.
d. Index 5 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
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 phytotoxicity.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Permitted by Phytotoxicity
(Index 6)
a. Explanation - The index value is the maximum tissue
concentration, in yg/g DW, associated with
phytotoxicity 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
3-5
-------
(and thus consumption of tissue by animals is
possible) but above which consumption by animals is
unlikely.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue
concentration will be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
1. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with phytotoxicity (PP) - Data not immediately
available.
The only immediately available data (see
Section 4, p. 4-9) pertained to corn plants
exposed to DBF and not DEHP. For this reason,
a value was not available for PP.
d. Index 6 Values - 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.
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.
3-6
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) - Data not immediately available.
In the domestic animal and wildlife toxicity
data immediately available, there was no
typical herbivorous animal exposed to DEHP.
(See Section 4, pp. 4-11 and 4-12.)
d. Index 7 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
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 - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
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
adhesion 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 nit/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 94.28 Ug/g DU
Worst 459.25 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
3-7
-------
ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5Z
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.T 1981). It seems
reasonable to assume that animals may receive
long-term dietary exposure to 5 percent sludge
if maintained on a forage to which sludge is
regularly applied. This estimate of 5 percent
sludge is used regardless of application rate,
since the above studies did not show a clear
relationship between application rate and ini-
tial contamination, and since adhesion is not
cumulative yearly because of die-back.
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep during winter
months when forage is reduced (Thornton and
Abrams, 1983). If the soil were sludge-
amended, it is conceivable that up to 5 percent
sludge may be ingested in this manner as well.
Therefore, this value accounts for either of
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
iii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) - Data not immediately available.
d. Index 8 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected dietary concentration exceeds toxic concen-
tration. Value > 1 indicates a toxic thazard may
exist for grazing animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3-8
-------
B. 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.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all crops are
grown on sludge-amended soil and that all those con-
sidered to be affected take up the pollutant at the
same rate. 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) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
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
vegetarians (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 composition 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) - Data not immediately available.
iv. Cancer potency » 1.41 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)~^
Due to the lack of human data, a value of
1.41 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)'1 was statistically
derived from exposure research conducted on
mice (U.S. EPA, 1982b). (See Section 4,
p. 4-5.)
3-9
-------
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =4.97 pg/day
The RSI is the pollutant intake value which
results in an increase in cancer risk of 10~6
(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 - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation * Value > 1 indicates a
potential 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.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
Index of Human Cancer Bisk 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 wthe 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 oldi
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - Data not immediately available.
3-10
-------
iii. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler A3.7 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
(Dl) - Data not immediately available.
v. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =4.97 ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
d. Index 10 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because ipdex values could not be calculated.
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 mus-
cle 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.
3-11
-------
Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue - Data not immediately available.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 94.28 Ug/g DW
Worst 459.25 pg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0.0 Ug/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 52
See Section 3, p. 3-8.
v. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - Data not immediately available.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 39.4 g/day
Adult 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) - Data not immediately available.
viii. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) - 4.97 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
Index 11 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
3-12
-------
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
£. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
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. 3-2.
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, 1983a).
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) - Data not immediately available.
iv. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) =4.97 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
d. Index 12 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3-13
-------
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 - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
II. LANDFILLING
A. -Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting from Landfilled
Sludge (Index 1)
1. Explanation - Calculates groundwater contamination which
could occur in a potable aquifer in the landfill vicin-
ity. Uses U.S. EPA's Exposure Assessment Group (EAG)
model, "Rapid Assessment of Potential Groundwater Contam-
ination Under Emergency Response Conditions" (U.S. EPA,
1983b). Treats landfill leachate as a pulse input, i.e.,
the application of a constant source concentration for a
short time period relative to the time frame of the anal-
ysis. In order to predict pollutant movement in soils
and groundwater, parameters regarding transpo'rt and fate,
and boundary or source conditions are evaluated. Trans-
port parameters include the interstitial pore water
velocity and dispersion coefficient. Pollutant fate
parameters include the degradation/decay coefficient and
retardation factor. Retardation is primarily a function
of the adsorption process, which is characterized by a
linear, equilibrium partition coefficient representing
the ratio of adsorbed and solution pollutant concentra-
tions. This partition coefficient, along with soil bulk
density and volumetric water content, are used to calcu-
late the retardation factor. A computer program- (in
FORTRAN) was developed to facilitate computation of the
analytical solution. The program predicts pollutant con-
centration as a function of time and location in both the
unsaturated and saturated zone. Separate computations
and parameter estimates are required for each zone. The
prediction requires evaluations of four dimensionless
input values and subsequent evaluation of the result,
through use of the computer program.
3-14
-------
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Conservatively assumes that the
pollutant is 100 percent mobilized in the leachate and
that all leachate leaks out of the landfill in a finite
period and undiluted by precipitation. Assumes that all
soil and aquifer properties are homogeneous and isotropic
throughout each zone; steady, uniform flow occurs only in
the vertical direction throughout the unsaturated zone,
and only in the horizontal (longitudinal) plane in the
saturated zone; pollutant movement is considered only in
direction of groundwater flow for the saturated zone; all
pollutants exist in concentrations that do not signifi-
cantly affect water movement; for organic chemicals, the
background concentration in the soil profile or aquifer
prior to release from the source is assumed to be zero;
the pollutant source is a pulse input; no dilution of the
plume occurs by recharge from outside the source area;
the leachate is undiluted by aquifer flow within the
saturated zone; concentration in the saturated zone is
attenuated only by dispersion.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Unsaturated zone
i. Soil type 'and characteristics
(a) Soil type
Typical Sandy loam
Worst Sandy
These two soil types were used by Gerritse et
al. (1982) to measure partitioning of elements
between soil and a sewage sludge solution
phase. They are used here since these parti-
tioning measurements (i.e., Kj values) are con-
sidered the best available for analysis of
v metal transport from landfilled sludge. The
same soil types are also used for nonmetals for
convenience and consistency of analysis.
(b) Dry bulk density
Typical 1.53 g/mL
Worst 1.925 g/mL
Bulk density is the dry mass per unit volume of
the medium (soil), i.e., neglecting the mass of
the water Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM),
1984a).
3-15
-------
(c) Volumetric water content (0)
Typical 0.195 (unitless)
Worst 0.133 (unitless)
The volumetric water content is the volume of
water in a given volume of media, usually
expressed as a fraction or percent. It depends
on properties of the media and the water flux
estimated by infiltration or net recharge. The
volumetric water content is used in calculating
the water movement through the unsaturated zone
(pore water velocity) and the retardation
coefficient. Values obtained from COM, 1984a.
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc)
Typical 0.005 (unitless)
Worst 0.0001 (unitless)
Organic content of soils is described in terms
of percent organic carbon, which is required in
the estimation of partition coefficient, Kj.
Values, obtained from R. Griffin (1984) are
representative values for subsurface soils.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Landfill leaching time (LT) - 5 years
Sikora et al. (1982) monitored several sludge
entrenchment sites throughout the United States
and estimated time of landfill leaching to be 4
or 5. years. Other types of landfills may leach
for longer periods of time; however, the use of
a value for entrenchment sites is conservative
because it results in a higher leachate
generation rate.
(b) Leachate generation rate (Q)
Typical 0.8 m/year
Worst 1.6 m/year
It is conservatively assumed that sludge
leachate enters the unsaturated zone undiluted
by precipitation or other recharge, that the
total volume of liquid in the sludge leaches
out' of the landfill, and that leaching is com-
plete in 5 years. Landfilled sludge is assumed
to be 20 percent solids by volume, and depth of
sludge in the landfill is 5m in the typical
case and 10 m in the worst case. Thus, the
initial depth of liquid is 4 and 8 m, and
3-16
-------
average yearly leachate generation is 0.8 and
1.6 m, respectively.
(c) Depth to groundwater (h)
Typical 5 m
Worst 0 m
Eight landfills were monitored throughout the
United States and depths to groundwater below
them were listed. A typical depth to ground-
water of 5 m was observed (U.S. EPA, 1977).
For the worst case, a value of 0 m is used to
represent the situation where the bottom of the
landfill is occasionally or regularly below the
water table. The depth to groundwater must be
estimated in order to evaluate the likelihood
that pollutants moving through the unsaturated
soil will reach the groundwater.
(d) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 0.5 m
Worst Not applicable
The dispersion process is exceedingly complex
and difficult to quantify, especially for the
unsaturated zone. It is sometimes ignored in
the unsaturated zone, with the reasoning that
pore water velocities are usually large enough
so that pollutant transport by convection,
i.e., water movement, is paramount. As a rule
of thumb, dispersivity may be set equal to
10 percent of the distance measurement of the
analysis (Gelhar and Axness, 1981). Thus,
based on depth to groundwater listed above, the
value for the typical case is 0.5 and that for
the worst case does not apply since leachate
moves directly to the unsaturated zone.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 94,28 mg/kg DW
Worst 459.25 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
(b) Soil half-life of pollutant (tp - Data not
immediately available.
3-17
-------
(c) Degradation rate (y) =0.0 day'1
The unsaturaced zone can serve as an effective
medium for reducing pollutant concentration
through a variety of chemical and biological
decay mechanisms which transform or attenuate
the pollutant. While these decay processes are
usually complex, they are approximated here by
a first-order rate constant. The degradation
rate is calculated using the following formula:
Due to lack of data for soil half-life, the
degradation rate could not be calculated. It
is assumed that no degradation takes place so
as to pose a worst-case situation.
(d) Organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) =
7,244 mL/g
The organic carbon partition coefficient is
multiplied by the percent organic carbon
content of soil (foc) to derive a partition
coefficient (K
-------
(b) Aquifer porosity (0)
Typical 0.44 (unitless)
Worst 0.389 (unitless)
Porosity is that portion of the total volume of
soil that is made up of voids (air) and water.
Values corresponding to the above soil types
are from Pettyjohn et al. (1982) as presented
in U.S. EPA (1983b).
(c) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K)
Typical 0.86 m/day
Worst 4.04 m/day
The hydraulic conductivity (or permeability) of
the aquifer is needed to estimate flow velocity
based on Darcy's Equation. It is a measure of
the volume of liquid that can flow through a
unit area or media with time; values can range
over nine orders of magnitude depending on the
nature of the media. Heterogenous conditions
produce large spatial variation in hydraulic
conductivity, making estimation of a single
effective value extremely difficult. Values
used are from Freeze and Cherry (1979) as
presented in U.S. EPA (1983b).
(d) Fraction of organic carbon (foc) =
0.0 (unitless)
Organic carbon content, and therefore adsorp-
tion, is assumed to be 0 in the saturated zone.
ii. Site parameters
(a) Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and
well (i)
Typical 0.001 (unitless)
Worst 0.02 (unitless)
The hydraulic gradient is the slope of the
water table in an unconfined aquifer, or the
piezometric surface for a confined aquifer.
The hydraulic gradient must be known to
determine the magnitude and direction of
groundwater flow. As gradient increases, dis-
persion is reduced* Estimates of typical and
high gradient values were provided by Donigian
(1985).
3-19
-------
(b) Distance from well to landfill (AZ)
Typical 100 m
Worst 50 m
This distance is the distance between a
landfill and any functioning public or private
water supply or livestock, water supply.
(c) Dispersivity coefficient (a)
Typical 10 m
Worst 5 m
These values are 10 percent of the distance
from well to landfill (AS,), which is 100 and
50 m, respectively, for typical and worst
conditions.
. (d) Minimum thickness of saturated zone (B) = 2 m
The minimum aquifer thickness represents the
assumed thickness due to preexisting flow;
i.e., in the absence of leachate. It is termed
the minimum thickness because in the vicinity
of the site it may be increased by leachate
infiltration from the site. A value of 2 m
represents a worst case assumption that
preexisting flow is very limited and therefore
dilution of the plume entering the saturated
zone is negligible.
(e) Width of landfill (W) = 112.8 m
The landfill is arbitrarily assumed to be
circular with an area of 10,000 m^.
iii. Chemical-specific parameters
(a) Degradation rate (jl) = 0 day'*
Degradation is assumed not to occur in the
saturated zone.
(b) Background concentration of pollutant in
groundwater (BC) » 0 ug/L
It is assumed that no pollutant exists in the
soil profile or aquifer prior to release from
the source*
4. Index Values - See Table 3-1.
3-20
-------
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum expected
groundwater concentration of pollutant, in Ug/L, at the
well.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - When municipal sewage sludge is
disposed of by landfilling, an increase in the
concentration of DEHP in groundwater is expected. This
is particularly true when either the worst-site
parameters are present in the saturated zone or the
composite worst scenario for landfilling is evaluated.
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Groundwater
Contamination (Index 2)
1. Explanation - Calculates human exposure which could
result from groundwater contamination. Compares exposure
with cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) of pollutant.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes long-term exposure to
maximum concentration at well at a rate of 2 L/day.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of groundwater concentration resulting from
landfilled sludge (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-38.
b. Average human consumption of drinking water (AC) -
2 L/day
The value of 2 L/day is a standard value used by
U.S. EPA in most risk assessment studies.
c. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
d. Cancer potency = 1.41 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)"1
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
e. Cancer risk-specific intake (RSI) - 4.97 lag/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
4. Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.
3-21
-------
5. Value Interpretation - Value >1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of 10~^ (1 in 1,000,000) due only
to groundwater contaminated by landfill. The value does
not account for the possible increase in risk resulting
from daily dietary intake of pollutant since DI data were
not immediately available.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The consumption of groundwater
contaminated by landfilled municipal sewage sludge is
generally expected to pose a slight increase in cancer
risk due to DEHP. However, when the composite worst
landfill scenario is projected, a substantial increase in
cancer risk seems likely.
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 (COM, 1984a). This model uses the thermo-
dynamic and mass balance relationships appropriate for
multiple hearth incinerators to relate the input sludge
characteristics to the stack gas parameters. Dilution
and dispersion of these stack gas releases were described
by the U.S. EPA's Industrial Source Complex Long-Term
(ISCLT) dispersion model from which normalized annual
ground level concentrations were predicted (U.S. EPA,
1979). The predicted pollutant concentration can then be
compared to a ground level concentration used to assess
risk.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The fluidized bed incinerator
was not' chosen due to a paucity of available data.
Gradual plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake
effects are appropriate for describing plume behavior.
Maximum hourly impact values can be translated into
annual average values.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Coefficient to correct for mass and time units (C) =
2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg
b. Sludge feed rate (DS)
i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 2660 kg/hr DW represents an
average dewatered sludge feed rate into the
furnace. This feed rate would serve a
3-22
-------
community of approximately --00,000 people.
This rate was incorporated into the U.S. EPA-
ISCLT model based on the following input data:
EP = 360 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 282
Stack height - 20 m
Exit gas velocity - 20 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 356.9°K (183°F)
Stack diameter - 0.60 m
ii. Worst = 10,000 kg/hr (dry solids input)
A feed rate of 10,000 kg/hr DW represents a
higher feed rate and would serve a major U.S.
city. This rate was incorporated into the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT model based on the following input
data:
EP - 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
Solids content - 26.63!
Stack height - 10 m
Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (105°F)
Stack diameter - 0.80 m
c. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 94.28 mg/kg DW
Worst 459.25 mg/kg DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
d. Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (PM)
Typical 0.05 (unitless)
Worst 0.20 (unitless)
These values were chosen as best approximations of
the fraction of pollutant emitted through stacks
(FarreLI, 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/™3
Worst 16.0 Ug/m3
The dispersion parameter is derived from the U.S.
EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.
3-23
-------
f. Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (BA) = 0.0135 ug/m3
The only urban air concentration values available
are a range of 10.20 ng/m3 to 16.79 ng/m3 reported
by Bove et al. (1978) for New York City (see
Section 4, p. 4-4). The mean value of the range,
13.5 ng/m3, was used since this concentration is
more representative of the actual pollutant level
than the high or low values of the range. The ng/m3
values were converted to Ug/m3.
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
1.9
5.3
16
77
Worst Typical 1.0 4.5 63
Worst 1.0 IS 300
a The typical (3.4 pg/m3) and worst (16.0 yg/m3) 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 - When municipal sewage sludge is
incinerated at typical feed rates, a moderate increase in
DEHP concentrations in air is anticipated. At high
(worst) incineration feed rates, the resulting increase
of DEHP in air ranges from 16 to 300 times that normally
associated with urban air.
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~*.
3-24
-------
2. Assumptions/Limitations - The exposed population is
assumed to reside within the impacted area for 24
hours/day. A respiratory volume of 20 m-Vday is assumed
over a 70-year lifetime.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Index of air concentration increment resulting from
incinerator emissions (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-24.
b. Background concentration of pollutant in urban air
(BA) = 0.0135 Ug/m3
See Section 3, p. 3-24.
c. Cancer potency = 1.41 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)"^-
This potency estimate has been derived 'from that for
ingestion, assuming 100% absorption for both
ingestion and inhalation routes. (See Section 4,
p. 4-6.)
d. Exposure criterion (EC) = 0.24823 Ug/m3
A lifetime exposure level which would result in a
10~6 cancer risk was selected as ground level con-
centration against which incinerator emissions are
compared. The risk estimates developed by 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
criterion is calculated using the following formula:
10"6 x 1Q3 Ug/mg x 70 kg
Cancer potency x 20 m3/day
3-25
-------
4. Index 2 Values
Sludge Feed
Fraction of Rate (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted Sludge
Through Stack Concentration 0 2660 10,000
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.054
0.054
0.10
0.29
0.90
4.2
Worst Typical 0.054 0.24 3.4
Worst 0.054 0.98 16
a The typical (3.4 ug/nv*) and worst (16.0 yg/m3) 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 > 1 indicates a potential
increase in cancer risk of > 10"*> (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
concentration.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - The incineration of municipal
sewage sludge at typical feed rates may result in a
slight increase in the cancer risk associated with the
inhalation of DEHP. At the worst incineration feed rate,
a moderate increase in cancer risk may be expected.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
For the purpose of evaluating pollutant effects upon and/or
subsequent uptake by marine life as a result of sludge disposal,
two types of mixing were modeled. The initial mixing or dilution
shortly after dumping of a single load of sludge represents a high,
pulse concentration to which organisms may be exposed for short
time periods but which could be repeated frequently; i.e., every
time a recently dumped plume is encountered. A subsequent addi-
tional degree of mixing can be expressed by a further dilution.
This is defined as the average dilution occurring when a day's
worth of sludge is dispersed by 24 hours of current movement and
represents the time-weighted average exposure concentration for
organisms in the disposal area. This dilution accounts for 8 to 12
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.
3-26
-------
Index of Scawatcr Concentration Resulting from Initial Mining
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
sealer concentration of pollutant is unknown or zero.
?he index also assumes that disposal is by tanker and
Sat the daily amount of sludge disposed is uniformly
fil ributed along a path transversing ^he site and
oerpendicular to the current vector. The initial
dilution volume is assumed to be determined by path
length? depth to the pycnocline (a layer separating
Surface and deeper water masses), and an initial plume
w?dth defTnedas the width of the plume four hours after
dumping The seasonal disappearance of the-pycnocline is
not considered.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Disposal conditions
Sludge - Sludge Mass Length
Disposal Dumped by a of Tanker
Race (ss) Single Tanker (ST) Path (L)
Typical 825 mt DW/day 1600 me 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 106 mt WW/year are available for
dumping from a metropolitan coastal area. The con-
version to dry weight assumes 4 percent solids by
weight. The worst-case value is an arbitrary doub-
ling 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 «««« 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,
3-27
-------
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.
The assumed disposal practice at the model site
representative of the worst case is as stated for
the typical site, except that barges would dump half
their load along a track, 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 (SO)
Typical 94.28 mg/kg DW
Worst 459.25 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
3-28
-------
velocity of 11 cm/sec (9500 m/day) chosen is based
on the average current velocity in this area (CDM,
1984b).
Worst-case values are representative of a near-shore
New York Bight site with an area of about 20 km^.
The pycnocline value of 5 m chosen is the minimum
value of the 5 to 23 ra 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
(CDM, 1984c).
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.
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
spreading of plume band width occurs at an average rate
of approximately 1 cm/sec (Csanady et al., 1979, as cited
in NOAA, 1983). Vertical mixing is limited by the depth
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.
3-29
-------
5. Index 1 Values (jlg/D
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.19
0.92
0.19
0.92
Worst Typical 0.0 1.6 1.6
Worst 0.0 7.8 7.8
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected increase
in DEHP concentration in seawater around a disposal site
as a result of sludge disposal after initial mixing.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - The incremental increase of DEHP
in seawater after initial mixing is significant in all
scenarios evaluated.
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 art 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
See Section 3, pp. 3-27 to 3-29.
4. Factors Considered in Determining Subsequent Additional
Degree of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)
See Section 3, p. 3-30.
3-30
-------
5. Index 2 Values (ug/L)
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and Rate (mt DW/day)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.051
0.25
0.10
0.50
Worst Typical 0.0 0.45 0.90
Worst 0.0 2.2 4.4
6. Value Interpretation - Value equals the effective
increase in DEHP concentration expressed as a TWA concen-
tration in seawater around a disposal site experienced by
an organism over a 24-hour period.
7. Preliminary Conclusion - Significant incremental concen-
trations of DEHP occur during a 24-hour dumping cycle.
The index values are particularly significant for sludges
containing "worst" concentrations of DEHP dumped at the
"worst" site at both disposal rates.
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Explanation - Compares the effective increased concentra-
tion of pollutant in seawater around the disposal site
resulting from the initial mixing of sludge (Index 1)
with the marine ambient water quality criterion of the
pollutant, or with another value judged protective of
marine aquatic life. For DEUP, this value is the cri-
terion that will protect marine aquatic organisms from
both acute and chronic toxic effects.
Wherever a short-term "pulse" exposure may occur as it
would from initial mixing, it is usually evaluated using
the "maximum" criteria values of EPA's ambient water
quality criteria methodology. However, under this sce-
nario, because the pulse is repeated several times daily
on a long-term basis, potentially resulting in an accumu-
lation of injury, it seems more appropriate to use values
designed to be protective against chronic toxicity.
Therefore, to evaluate the potential for adverse effects
on marine life resulting from initial mixing concentra-
tions, as quantified by Index 1, the chronically derived
criteria values are used.
2. Assumptions/Limitations - In addition to the assumptions
stated for Indices 1 and 2, assumes that all of the
released pollutant is available in the water column to
move through predicted pathways (i.e., sludge to seawater
to aquatic organism to man). The possibility of effects
3-31
-------
arising from accumulation in the sediments is neglected
since the U.S. EPA presently lacks a satisfactory method
for deriving sediment criteria.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-30.
b. Ambient water quality criterion (AHQC) = 3.4 yg/L
Water quality criteria for the toxic pollutants
listed under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 were developed by the U.S. EPA under
Section 304(a)(l) of the Act. These criteria were
derived by utilization of data reflecting the
resultant environmental impacts and human health
effects of these pollutants if present in any body
of water. The criteria values presented in this
assessment are excerpted from the ambient water
quality criteria document for phthalate esters.
The 3.4 Ug/L criterion value chosen represents
worst-case data on the effects of various phthalate
esters (diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, di-n-
butyl phthalate, di-n-propyl phthalate, and butyl-
benzyl phthalate) on a marine algae species (U.S.
EPA, 1980). No chronic toxicity data for phthalate
esters are immediately available for marine fish or
invertebrate species. Acute effects of three phtha-
late esters (butylbenzyl phthalate, diethyl phtha-
late and dimethyl phthalate) have been reported for
marine fish and crustacean species; the lowest
reported mean acute toxicity value is 2944 Ug/L.
4. Index 3 Values
Disposal Sludge Disposal
Conditions and • Rate (mt DW/dav)
Site Charac- Sludge
teristics Concentration 0 825 1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.055
0.27
0.055
0.27
Worst Typical 0.0 0.47 0.47
Worst 0.0 2.3 2.3
5. Value Interpretation - Value equals the factor by which
the expected seawater concentration increase in DEHP
exceeds the protective value. A value >1 indicates that
3-32
-------
acute or chronic toxic conditions may exist for organisms
at the site.
6. Preliminary Conclusion - Potential toxicity to aquatic
Life was determined for "worst" concentration sludges
disposed at the "worst" site. Significant incremental
increases were also evident for the other scenarios,
except when the sludge and site characteristics were both
typical. In those cases, the potential toxicity was
moderate.
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
seafood, 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
tissue concentration increase can be estimated from the
increased water concentration by a bioconcentration
factor. It also assumes that, over the long term, the
seafood catch from the disposal site vicinity will be
diluted to some extent by the catch from uncontaminated
areas.
3. Data Used and Rationale
a. Concentration of pollutant in seawater around a
disposal site (Index 2)
See Section 3, p. 3-31.
Since bioconcentration is a dynamic and- reversible
process, it is expected that uptake of sludge
pollutants by marine organisms at the disposal site
will reflect TWA concentrations, as quantified by
Index 2, rather than pulse concentrations.
b. Dietary consumption of seafood (QP)
Typical 14.3 g WW/day
Worst 41.7 g WW/day
Typical and worst-case values are the mean and the
95th percentile, respectively, for all seafood
consumption in the United States (Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) International, 1980).
3-33
-------
Fraction of consumed seafood originating from the
disposal site (PS)
For a typical harvesting scenario, it was assumed
that the total catch over a wide region is mixed by
harvesting, marketing and consumption practices, and
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
working day will gradually spread, both parallel to
and perpendicular to current direction, as it pro-
ceeds down-current. Since the concentration has
been averaged over the direction of current flow,
spreading in this dimension will not further reduce
average concentration; only spreading in the perpen-
dicular dimension will reduce the average. If sta-
ble conditions are assumed over a period of days, at
least 9 days would be required to reduce the average
concentration by one-half. At that time, the origi-
nal plume length of approximately 8 km (8000 m) will
have doubled to approximately 16 km due to
spreading.
It is probably unnecessary to follow the plume
further since storms, which would result in much
more rapid dispersion of pollutants to background
concentrations are expected on at least a 10-day
frequency (NOAA, 1983). Therefore, the area
impacted by sludge disposal^ (AI, in km2) at each
disposal site will be considered to be defined by
the tanker path length (L) times the distance of
current movement (V) during 10 days, and is computed
as follows:
AI - 10 x L x V x 10~6 km2/m2 (1)
To be consistent with a conservative approach, plume
dilution due to spreading in the perpendicular
direction to current flow is disregarded. More
likely, organisms exposed to the plume in the area
defined by equation 1 would experience a TWA concen-
tration lower than the concentration expressed by
Index 2.
3-34
-------
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, 1984b). Near-shore area 612 has an area
of approximately 4300 km2 and constitutes
approximately 24 percent of the total seafood
landings (CDM, 1984c). Therefore the fraction of
all seafood landings (FSt) from the Bight which
could originate from the area of impact of either
the typical (deep-water) or worst (near-shore) site
can be calculated for this typical harvesting
scenario as follows:
For the typical (deep water) site:
AI x 0.02% = (2)
FSt - 7200 km^
flO x 8000 m x 9500 m x IP"6 km2/m21 x 0.0002 , 2.1 x 10"5
7200 km2
For the worst (near shore) site:
PSt = AI * 24* = (3)
4300 km2
FIG x 4000 m x 4320 m x 10"6 km2/m21 x 0.24 _ g^ x 1Q-3
4300 km2
To construct a worst-case harvesting scenario, it
was assumed that the total seafood consumption for
an individual could originate from an area more
limited than the entire New York Bight. For
example, a particular fisherman providing the entire
seafood diet for himself or others could fish
habitually within a single NMFS reporting area. Or,
an individual could have a preference for a
particular 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:
- ^— r
7200 km2
FSW = - — r- = 0.11
3-35
-------
For the worst (near shore) site:
AT
FSW = £±—-r « 0.040 (5)
4300 km2
d. Bioconcentration factor of pollutant (BCP) =
130 L/kg
The value chosen is the weighted average BCF of DEHP
for the edible portion of all freshwater and estua-
rine aquatic organisms consumed by U.S. citizens
(U.S. EPA, 1980). The weighted average BCF is
derived as part of the water quality criteria devel-
oped by the U.S. EPA to protect human health from
the potential carcinogenic effects of DEHP induced
by ingestion of contaminated water and. aquatic
organisms. The weighted average BCF is calculated
by adjusting the measured steady-state BCF based on
7.6 percent lipid content 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, no such data are presently available.
e. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant (DI)
= 0.0 Ug/day
Although no data were available on DI, a value of
0 ug/day was assumed so that index values could be
calculated. This assumption is considered in the
interpretation of the index values.
f. Cancer potency = 1.41 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)"1
See Section 3, p. 3-9.
g. Cancer risk—specific intake (RSI) = 4.97 Ug/day
See Section 3, p. 3-10.
3-36
-------
Index 4 Values
Disposal
Conditions and Sludge
Site Charac- "Concen- Seafood
teristics tration3 Intake***3 0
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/dav)
825
1650
Typical
Worst
Typical Typical 0.0 4.02xlO~7 8.0xlO~7
Worst Worst 0.0 0.030 0.060
Typical Typical 0.0 0.0016 0.0032
Worst Worst 0.0 0.096 0.19
a All possible combinations of these values are not
presented. Additional combinations may be calculated
using the formulae in the Appendix.
b Refers to both the dietary consumption of seafood (QF)
and the fraction of consumed seafood originating from
the disposal site (FS). "Typical" indicates the use of
the typical-case values for both of 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
preexisting dietary sources.
Preliminary Conclusion - Only slight incremental
increases occur in the scenarios evaluated, except for
the case of worst site and sludge concentration at the
highest disposal rate which posed a moderate potential
increase in risks.
3-37
-------
TABLE 3-1. INDEX OP GROUNDUATER CONCENTRATION RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND
INDEX OF HUMAN CANCER RISK RESULTING FROM CROUNDUATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
oo
Site Characteristics
Sludge concentration
Unsaturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters6
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac-
teristics^
Site parameters^
Index 1 Value (pg/L)
Index 2 Value
1
T
T
T
T
T
2.6
1.0
Condition of
234
W T T
T W NA
T T W
T T T
T T T
12 2.6 2.6
5.0 1.0 1.0
Analysisa»bfc
5
T
T
T
W
T
14
5.5
6
T
T
T
T
W
100
40
7
W
MA
W
U
u
2700
1100
8
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
aT = Typical values used; W = worst-case values used; N = null condition, where no landfill exists, used as
basis for comparison; NA = not applicable for this condition.
"Index values for combinations other than those shown may be calculated using the formulae in the Appendix.
cSee Table A-l in Appendix for parameter values used.
dDry bulk density (?dry^» volumetric water content (6), and fraction of organic carbon (foc).
eLeachate generation rate (Q), depth to groundwater (h), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
*Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).
^Hydraulic gradient (i), distance from well to landfill (AH), and dispersivity coefficient (a).
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR BIS-2-ETHYLHETYL PHTHALATE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
Combined sludge from 13 plants:
DEHP - 13/13
ButylbenzyL phthalate - 11/13
Di-n-butyl phthalate - 12/13
Phthalate esters in 40 publicly-owned
treatment works (POTWs):
DEHP, 415/437 (952)
Di-n-butyl phthalate, 195/437 (45Z)
Butylbenzyl phthalate, 187/437 (43Z)
Di-n-octyl phthalate, 45/437 (102)
Diethyl phthalate, 39/437 (9Z)
Dimethyl phthalate, 20/437 (52)
Phthalate esters in 10 POTWs:
DEHP, 42/42 (1002)
Di-n-butyl phthalate, 17/42 (40Z)
Butylbenzyl phthalate, 7/42 (17Z)
Diethyl phthalate, 3/42 (7Z)
DEHP, 3/3 in Indiana
Dibutyl phthalate, 3/3 in Indiana
Butyl benzyl phthalate, 1/3 in Indiana
2. Concentration
50Z cumulative frequency of DEHP in
municipal sewage sludge =
94.276 ug/g DW.
95Z cumulative frequency of DEHP in
municipal sewage sludge =
459.250 ug/g DW.
DEHP:
Median - 3,860 yg/L (WW)
Range - 157 to 11,257 Mg/L
Median - 109 Ug/g (DW)
Range - 4.1 to 273 Ug/g
Naylor and
Loehr, 1982
(p. 20)
U.S. EPA, 1982a
(p. 41, 42)
U.S. EPA, 1982a
(p. 49, 50)
Strachan et al.,
1983 (p. 72)
Values derived
from data
presented in
U.S. EPA, 1982a
(p. 41, 42)
Naylor and
Loehr, 1982
(p. 20)
4-1
-------
Butylbenzyl phthalate:
Median - 577 yg/L (WW)
Range - 1 to 17,725 ug/L
Median - 15 yg/g (DW)
Range - 0.52 to 210 pg/g
Di-n-butyl phthalate:
Median - 184 yg/L (WW)
Range - 10 to 1,045 ug/L
Median - 3.5 yg/g (DW)
Range - 0.32 to 17 yg/g
40 POTWs: U.S. EPA, 1982a
DEHP, 2 to 47,000 yg/L (p. 41, 42)
Di-n-butyl phthalate, 1 to 6,900 yg/L
Butyl benzyl phthalate, 2 to 45,000 yg/L
Di-n-octyl phthalate, 4 to 1,024 yg/L
Diethyl phthalate, 1 to 786 yg/L
Dimethyl phthalate, 3 to 650 yg/L
10 POTWs: U.S. EPA, 1982a
DEHP, 440 to 47,000 yg/L (p. 49, 50)
Di-n-butyl phthalate, 40 to 3,066 yg/L
Butyl benzyl phthalate, 160 to 1,090 yg/L
Diethyl phthalate, 51 to 120 yg/L
DEHP, 30 to 130 yg/g (DW) Strachan et al.,
Dibutyl phthalate, 60 to 500 yg/g (DW) 1983 (p. 73)
Butyl benzyl phthalate, 40 yg/g (DW)
single sample
B. Soil - Unpolluted
Data not immediately available.
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Butyl benzyl phthalate, 35 of 57 Gledhill et al.,
samples 1980 (p. 303)
2. Concentration
a. Freshwater
Butyl benzyl phthalate, Gledhill et al.,
0.75 yg/L mean, 0.24 to 1980 (p. 304)
4.1 yg/L range, based on 57
samples from major rivers and
San Francisco Bay.
Charles River mixed phthalates, Hites, 1973
0.88 to 1.9 yg/L (p. 20)
4-2
-------
Lake Huron, MI, di-n-butyl phthalate
(DBF), 0.04 Ug/L
DEHP, 5 Ug/L
Missouri River, MO, DBF, 0.09 Ug/L
DEHP, 4.9 Ug/L
Lake Superior, One., DBF not
detected, DEHP, 300
Peakall, 1975
(p. 32)
Fourteen samples from the Mississippi Giam et al.,
Delta:
DBF, mean 95 ng/L, range 6.5 to
471 ng/L
DEHP, mean 70 ng/L, range 23 to
225 ng/L
b. Seawater
Ten samples from the Gulf Coast:
DBF, mean 74 ng/L, range 3.4 to
265 ng/L
DEHP, mean 130 ng/L, range 6 to
316 ng/L
Seven samples from the open Gulf:
DPB, mean 93 ng/L, range 3 to
133 ng/L
DEHP, mean SO ng/L, range 6 to
97 ng/L
Ten samples from the North Atlantic:
DBF, not detected
DEHP, mean 49 ng/L, range 0.1 to
6.3 ng/L
c. Drinking Water
Data not immediately available.
D. Air
1. Frequency of Detection
Di-butyl phthalate, 4 of 4 sample
locations New York urban/rural
di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, 4 of 4
sample locations
3 sample locations for each phthalate
were from different stations in New
York City, and the additional samples
were from a single rural New York
state location.
1978 (p. 420)
Giam et al.,
1978 (p. 420)
Bove et al.,
1978 (p. 191)
4-3
-------
Di-butyl phthalate, 10 of 10 samples
di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, 10 of 10
samples from Gulf of Mexico
2. Concentration
a. Urban
New York City:
Di-butyl phthalate, 3.28 to
5.69 ng/m3 range
di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, 10.20 to
16.79 ng/m3 range
b. Rural
Rural New York:
Di-butyl phthalate, 0.36 to
2.15 ng/m3 range
di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, 1.3 to
4.14 ng/m3 range
Di-butyl phthalate, 1.30 ng/m3
mean, 0.16 to 3.71 ng/m3 range
di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate,
1.16 ng/m3 mean, 0.53 to 1.92 ng/m3
range samples from Gulf of Mexico
Eight samples from the Gulf of
Mexico measured two phthalates:
DBF, mean 0.3 ng/m3, range
0.08 to 0.7 ng/m3
DEHP, mean 0»4 ng/m3, range
<0.04 to 2.3 ng/m3
Five samples from the North
Atlantic measured two phthalates:
DBF, mean 1 ng/m3, range 0.4 to
2.3 ng/m3
DEHP, mean 2.9 ng/m3, range
1.4 to 4.1 ng/m3
Clam et al.,
1980 (p. 67)
E. Food
1. Total Average Intake
Data not immediately available.
Bove et al.,
1978 (p. 193)
Bove et al.,
1978 (p. 191)
Giam et al.,
1978 (p. 67)
Giam et al.,
1978 (p. 420)
Giam et al.,
1978 (p. 420)
4-4
-------
2. Concentration
A number of packaging materials and
tubings used in the production of foods
and beverages are polyvinyl chloride
contaminated with phthalic acid esters,
primarily DEHP. These esters migrate
from the packaging to the food stuffs.
DEHP in some foodstuffs packaged in
contaminated containers:
Instant cream soup, 0.04 to 3.01 Ug/g
Fried potato cake, 0.05 to 9.06 ug/g
Orange juice, 0.03 Ug/g
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenic! ty
a. Qualitative Assessment
Sufficient evidence in animals using
the IARC weight-of-evidence classi-
fication scheme.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-5)
U.S. EPA, 1982b
Hepatocellular carcinoma and adenoma U.S. EPA, 1982b
have been observed in mice given
oral doses of DEHP ranging from 390
to 780 pg/kg/day.
b. Potency
Cancer potency =
1.41 x 10~2 (mg/kg/day)'1
2. Chronic Tozicity
a. ADI
Not calculated since carcinogenic
potency is used to assess hazard.
b. Effects
Increased liver and kidney weights
in animals due to ingesting OEHP
(p. 17)
U.S. EPA, 1982b
(p. 17)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. 7)
4-5
-------
3. Absorption Factor
Phthalic acid esters and/or their
metabolites are readily absorbed
from the intestinal tract and the
peritoneal cavity.
Limited human studies indicate that
2 to 4.5 percent of orally administered
DEHP is recovered in the urine within
24 hours.
B Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
a. Qualitative Assessment
Based on mouse studies where car-
cinogenic effects were observed
following oral administration, DEHP
has been assumed to be a possible
human carcinogen so as to project a
conservative case.
b. Potency
Cancer potency = 1.41 x 10"^
(mg/kg/day)~l This potency, esti-
mate has been derived from that
for ingestion, assuming 100%
absorption for both ingestion and
inhalation routes.
c. Effects
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Tozicity
Data not assessed since evaluation con-
ducted based on carcinogenicity.
3. Absorption Factor
The phthalic acid esters and/or their
metabolites are readily absorbed in
the lungs.
4. Existing Regulations
American Conference of Governmental and
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have set
the threshold limit values for DEHP
at 5 mg/m^.
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. 3)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. 4)
EPA, 1982b
(p. 17)
Values derived
from data pre-
sented in U.S.
EPA, 1982b
(p. 17)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-12)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. C-53)
4-6
-------
III. PLANT EFFECTS
A. Phytotoxicity
See Table 4-1.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-2.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
See Table 4-3.
B. Uptake
See Table 4-4.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
1. .Freshwater
a. Acute
Acute toxicity due to DEHP was U.S. EPA, 1980
observed over a range of 1,000 to (p. B-17)
5,000 Mg/L for Daphnia magna
b. Chronic
Chronic toxicity due to DEHP was U.S. EPA, 1980
observed at 8.4 Ug/L for rainbow (p. B-3)
trout.
Daphnia magna displayed significant
reproductive impairment at a DEHP
* concentration of 3 Ug/L.
2. Saltwater
a. Acute
Acute toxicity to marine Crustacea U.S. EPA, 1980
occurs at concentrations of phthalate (p. B-7)
esters as low as 2,944 Ug/L.
b. Chronic
Chronic toxicity data not immediately
available.
4-7
-------
Toxicity to marine algal species U.S. EPA, 1980
occurred at concentrations as low • (p. B-4)
as 3.4 ug/L
B. Uptake
Freshwater bioconcentration factors (BCFs) U.S. EPA, 1980
of DEHP for fish and invertebrate species (p. B-4)
ranged from 54 to 2,680.
The weighted average BCF for the edible U.S. EPA, 1980
portion of all freshwater and estuarine (p. C-6)
aquatic organisms consumed by U.S. citizens
is 130.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
Phthalate esters in sludges (DEHP) are Saeger and
readily degraded by bacteria and, therefore, Tucker, 1973
do not bioaccumulate. (p. 46)
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
VII. PHYSICOGHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT
Chemical name: Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Office of Toxic
Alternate names: Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, Substances, 1981
DEHP
Molecular weight: 391
Melting point: -50°C
Boiling point: 384°C
Vapor pressure, torr: 1.21 (200"C)
Water solubility mg/L (25"C): 0.4
Log octanol/water partition
coefficient: 8.7
Specific gravity at 20°C: 0.985
Vapor density (air =1): 13.45
Organic carbon partition coefficient: 7,244 mL/g Lyman, 1982
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-1. PHYTOTOXICITY OF PHTHALATE ESTERS
Plant/Tissue
Chemical
Form
Applied
Control Tissue
Soil Concentration
Type (Ug/g DW)
Soil
Concentration
((ig/g DW)
Application
Rate
(kg/ha)
Experimental
Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
Effects
References
to
Corn/3-week-
old shoots
D8P*
Sand
200
2,000
20,000
NRb
MR
NR
0.32 None
1.24 Height reduced 17Z
Weight reduced 2SZ
chlorosis
13.80 Height reduced 45Z
Weight reduced 72Z
chlorosis
• DBF = Di-n-butyl phthalate.
b MR - Not reported.
Shea, 1982
(p. 155)
Corn/3-week-old DBF Sand
shoots grown in
Che soil used in
the above experi-
ment after removal
of the first corn
shoots
0
0
0
200
2,000
20,000
N8
NR
NR
MR
NR
NR
None
None
Height reduced 27Z
Weight reduced 37Z
chlorosis
Shea, 1982
(p. 156)
-------
TABLE 4-2. UPTAKE OP PHTUALATB ESTERS BY PLANTS
.p*
1 Plant Tissue Soil Type
o
Corn 2-ueek-old shoots Sand
Soil
Chemical Porn Concentration
Applied (pg/g)
DBPb 0-20,000
Range of
Tissue
Concentration Uptake
(ug/g) Factor* References
0-13.8 0.002 Shea, 1982
n Uptake factor * tissue concentration/soil concentration.
b DBF = Di-n-butyl phthalate.
-------
TABLE 4-3. TOXIClTIf OF PHTHALATE ESTERS TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)«
Ferret
Rat
R«t
Bat
Rat
Starling
Rat (30 per
group)
Chemical Form
Fed
Dieth/l he«yl
phthalate (DEHP)
DEHP
DBHP
dialkyl 79
phthalate
(DA 79P)
Phth.lic
anhydride
DEHP
DHP
di-n-hexyl
phthalate
DEP
1,2-Bencene-
Feed
Concentration
(M8/g>
10,000
20,000
NR
NR
NR
25
250
25
250
2,000
10,000
Water
Concentration
(mg/L)
NRb
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Daily Intake
(•6/kg)
1,200
NR
2,500
2,500
BOO- 1,600
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Duration
of Study
14 months
21 days
7 and 21 days
7 and 21 days
NR
30 days
30 days
30 days
30 days
16 weeks
16 weeks
Effects
Loss of body weight
175Z increase in liver
weight with biochemical
and morphological changes
Histalogical evidence of
teiticular damage
Hepatic peroxisome
proliferation and
increased liver size
Increased liver size,
reduced weight of testes
Increased liver size,
reduced weight of testes
LD50
Increased body weight
and 2 lipid w/o increase
in food consumption at
all levels
None
Reduced body weight ,
References
Lake et al., 1976
(p. 341)
Moody and Reddy,
1978 (p. 497)
Mangham et al.,
1981 (p. 205)
Mangham et al.,
1981 (p. 205)
Autian, 1973
(p. 6)
O'Shea and
Stafford, 1980
(p. 249)
Brown et al., 1978
(p. 416-17)
dicarboxylic acid
50,000
NR
NR
female
Reduced food consumption,
female
16 weeks Reduced body weight, male
and female
Reduced food consumption,
male and female
Increased relative organ
weights male and female
-------
TABLE 4-3. (continued)
Species (N)«
Rat
Dog
Mice (SO)
*>
1
M
N)
Peed Water
Chemical Porn Concentration Concentration Daily Intake Duration
Fed (Mg/g) (ng/L) (ing/kg) of Study
DEUP 1300 m MR 2 years
DEHP 1300 NR NR 1 year
DEHP 3000 NR 390 103 weeks
Effect*
None
None
Statistically
significant
increase in
incidence of
hepatocellular
carcinoma in
females
References
Krauskopf, 1973
(p. 66)
Krauskopf, 1973
(p. 66)
NTP, 1980 in U.S.
EPA, 1982b
(p. 15-17)
• N » Number of experimental animals when reported.
b NR = Not reported.
-------
TABLE 4-4. UPTAKE OF PHTHALATE ESTERS BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AMD WILDLIFE
Species
Starling
Starling
Chemical
form Fed
DEHPb
DHPC
Range
of Feed
Concentrations
0-250
0-250
Tissue
Analyzed
whole carcass
whole carcass
Range of Tissue
Concentration
(Pg/g)
0
0
Bioconcentration
Factor"
approx. 0
approx. 0
References
O'Shea and Stafford,
1980 (p. 350)
O'Shea and Stafford,
1980 (p. 350)
a BCF = tissue concentration/feed concentration.
b DEHP = Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate.
c DHP = Di-n-hexyl phthalate.
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun. 1972. Handbook of Mathematical
Functions. Dover Publications. New York, NY.
Autian, J. 1973. Toxicity and Health Threats of Phthalate Esters:
Review of the Literature. Env. Health Fersp. June, 3-26.
Bertrand, J. E.t M. C. Lutrick, G. T. Edds, and R. L. West. 1981.
Metal Residues in Tissues, Animal Performance and Carcass Quality
with Beef Steers Grazing Pensacola Bahaigrass Pastures Treated with
Liquid Digested Sludge. J. Anim. Sci. 53:1.
Boswell, F. C. 1975. Municipal Sewage Sludge and Selected Element
Applications to Soil: Effect on Soil and Fescue. J. Environ.
Qual. 4(2)5267-273.
Bove, J., P. Dalvent, and V. P. Kukreja. 1978. Airborne Di-Butyl and
Di-(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate at Three New York City Air Sampling
Stations. Inten. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 5:189-194.
Brown, D., K. R. Butterworth, I. F. Gaunt, P. Crasso, and S. D.
Gangolli. 1978. Short-Term Oral Toxicity Study of Diethyl
Phthalate in the Rat. Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. 16:415-422.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984a. Development of Methodologies for
Evaluating Permissible Contaminant Levels in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. Draft.. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
EPA, Washington, D.C.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984b. Technical Review of the 106-Mile
Ocean Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA. January.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. 1984c. Technical Review of the 12-Mile
Sewage Sludge Disposal Site. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract Ho. 68-01-6403. Annandale, VA.
May.
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.
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.
Donigian, A. S. 1985. Personal Communication. Anderson-Nichols & Co.,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA. May.
5-1
-------
FarreLl, J. B. 1984. Personal Communication. Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. December.
Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gelhar, L. W., and C. J. Axness. 1981. Stochastic Analysis of
Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally Heterogeneous Aquifers. Report
No. H-8. Hydrologic Research Program, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Soccorro, NM.
Gerritse, R. G., R. Vriesema, J. W. Dalenberg, and H. P. DeRoos. 1982.
Effect of Sewage Sludge on Trace Element Mobility in Soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 2:359-363.
Giam, C. S., H. S. Chan, G. S. Neff, and E. L. Atlas. 1978. Phthalate
Ester Plasticizers: A New Class of Marine Pollutant. Science.
199:419-421.
Giam, C. S., E. L. Atlas, H. 5. Chan, and G. 5. Neff. 1980. Phthalate
Esters, PCB, and DDT Residues in the Gulf of Mexico Atmosphere.
Atmos. Environ. 14:65-69.
Gledhill, G. E., R. G. Haley, W. J. Adams, 0. Hicks, P. R. Michael, and
V. W. "Saeger. 1980. An Environmental Safety Assessment of Butyl
Benzyl Phthalate. Env. Sci. and Tech. 14(3):301-305.
Griffin, R. A. 1984. Personal Communication to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ECAO - Cincinnati, OH. Illinois State
Geological Survey.
Hites, R. 1973. Phthalates in the Charles and the Merrimack Rivers.
Env. Hlth. Perspectives. January, 17-21.
Krauskopf, L. 1973. Studies in the Toxicity of Phthalates Via
Ingestion. Env. Hlth. Persp. January, 61-72.
Lake, B. G., P. C. Bran tarn, S. D. Gangolli, K. R. Butterworth, and P.
Grasso. 1976. Studies on the Effects of Orally Administered Di-
(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate in the Ferret. Toxicology. 6:341-356.
Lyman, W. J. 1982. Adsorption Coefficients for Soils and Sediments.
Chapter 4. In: Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
Mangham, B., J. R. Foster, and B. G. Lake. 1981. Comparison of the
Hepatic and Testicular Effects of Orally Administered Di(2-
ethylhexyl) Phthalate and Dialkyl 79 Phthalate in the Rat. Tox.
Appl. Pharm. 61:205-214.
Moody, D., and J. Reddy. 1978. Hepatic Peroxisome (Microbody)
Proliferation in Rats Fed Plasticizers and Related Compounds. Tox.
Appl. Pharm. 45:497-504.
5-2
-------
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 Toxicology Program. 1980. Carcinogenesis Bioassay of Di(2-
Ethylhexyl) Phthalate. Draft. DHHS Publ. (NIH) No. 81-1773. (As
cited in U.S. EPA, 1982b.)
Naylor, L., and R. Loehr. 1982. Priority Pollutants in Municipal
Sewage Sludge. BioCycle. July/August:18-22.
Office of Toxic Substances. 1981. TSCA Section 4 Human Exposure
Assessment Alkyl Phthalates. Final Report.
O'Shea, T., and C. Stafford. 1980. Phthalate Plasticizers:
Accumulation and Effects on Weight and Food Consumption in Captive
Starlings. Bull. Env. Contam. Toxicol. 25:345-352.
Peakall, D. 197S. Phthalate Esters: Occurrence and Biological
Effects, Residue Reviews. 54:1-41.
Pennington, J. A. T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Pettyjohn, W. A., D. C. Kent, T. A. Prickett, H. E. LeGrand, and F. E.
Witz. 1982. Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume
Migration and Mixing. U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Ryan, J. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Food Chain: A Review and Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251-302.
Saeger, V. W., and E. S. Tucker. 1973. Phthalate Esters Undergo Ready
Biodegradation. Plastics Engineering. August, 46-49.
Shea, P. 1982. Uptake and Phytotoxicity of Di-n-Butyl Phthalate in
Corn (Zea Mays). Bull. Env. Contam. Toxicol. 29:153-158.
Sikora, L. J., W. D. Burge, and J. E. Jones. 1982. Monitoring of a
Municipal Sludge Entrenchment Site. J. Environ. Qual. 2(2):321-
325.
Stanford Research Institute International. 1980. Seafood Consumption
Data Analysis. Final Report. Task II. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-3887.
Menlo Park, CA. September.
Strachan, S., D. W. Nelson, and L. E. Sommers. 1983. Sewage Sludge
Components Extractable with Nonaqueous Solvents. J. Env. Qual.
12(l):69-74.
5-3
-------
Thornton, I., and P. Abrams. 1983. Soil Ingestion - A Major Pathway of
Heavy Metals into Livestock, Grazing Contaminated Land. Sci. Total
Environ. 28:287-294.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental Assessment
of Subsurface Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge. Interim
Report. EPA/530/SW-547. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Industrial Source Complex
(ISC) Dispersion Model User Guide. EPA 450/4-79-30. Vol. 1.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Phthalate Esters. .EPA 440/5-80-067. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982a. Fate of Priority Pollu-
tants in Publicly-Owned Treatment Works. EPA 440/1-82-303. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982b. Errata for Ambient Water
Quality Criteria Documents. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, Cincinnati, OH. February 23.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Assessment of Human
Exposure to Arsenic: Tacoma, Washington. Internal Document.
OHEA-E-075-U. Office of Health and Environment Assessment,
Washington, D.C. July 19.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983b. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Groundwater Contamination Under Emergency Response
Conditions. EPA 600/8-83-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. EPA 600/8-83-028B. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September.
5-4
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR BIS-2-BTHYLHEXYL PHTHALATE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Bia-2-Ethylhexyl PhthaLate
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Formula
(SC x AR) + (BS » MS)
CSs ~ AR + MS
CSr = CSg [1 •»• 0
where:
CSg = Soil concentration of pollutant after a
single year's application of sludge
(Ug/g DW)
CSr = Soil concentration of pollutant after the
yearly application of sludge has been
repeated for n + 1 years (ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (mt/ha)
MS = 2000 mt ha/DW - assumed mass of soil in
upper 15 cm
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
t-J. = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
n =99 years
b. Sample calculation
CSS is calculated for AR = 0, 5, and 50 mt/ha (and for
AR = 500 mt/ha when t± is not available, since CSr
cannot be calculated).
ft *«iii n./o na = (94*28 ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) * (0 ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
0.235112 Ug/g DW (5 mt/ha DW + 2000 mt/ha DW)
A-l
-------
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toricity (Index 2)
a. Formula
II
Index 2 = —
where:
1} = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (Ug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
. (Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
_ . , Jl x UB
Index 3 = —^
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (Ug/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 (pig/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
C. Effect gn Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (index 4)
a. Formula
Index 4 = T±
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil
-------
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Formula
Index 5 = Ij x UP
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge - amended soil (ug/g DW)
UP = Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue
(yg/g tissue DW [yg/g soil DW]'1)
b. Sample Calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
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.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
index 7 = §
where:
15 3 Index 5 • Concentration of pollutant, in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g OH)
TA * Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
A-3
-------
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a* Formula
If AR * 0; Index 8=0
If AR * 0; Index 8 = SC *°S
where*
AR = Sludge application rate (mt OU/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 (Ug/g
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
E. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
Formula
(I5 x DT) + DI
RSI -
where :
15 a Index 5 * Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
DT = Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI a Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
2. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Formula
(1 5 x UA x DA) •»• DI
Index 10 » RSI -
A-A
-------
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 DW]'1)
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 (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
3. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil (Index
11)
a. Formula
If AR = 0; Index 11 = (BS x GS x ^UA x DA) + DI
If AR + 0; Index 11 = (SC x GS x UA x DA) + DI
where :
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
UA = Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW]'1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products and
meat only)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
4. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Soil Inges.tion
(Index 12)
a. Formula
(I I x DS) + DI
Index 12
RSI
A-5
-------
where:
II = 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 (yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Formula .
Index 13 - Ig + IIQ + In + Ii2 - (
where:
Ig = Index 9 - Index of human cancer risk
resulting from plant consumption (unitless)
IIQ = Index 10 « Index of human cancer risk
resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
111 = 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) - Values were not
•calculated due to lack of data.
II. LANDFILLIMG
A. Procedure
Using Equation 1, several values of C/C0 for the unsaturated
zone are calculated corresponding to increasing values of t
until equilibrium is reached. Assuming a S-year pulse input
from the landfill, Equation 3 is employed to estimate the con-
centration vs. time data at the water table. The concentration
vs. time curve is then transformed into a square pulse having a
constant concentration equal to the peak concentration, Cu,
from the unsaturated zone, and a duration, t0, chosen so that
the total areas under the curve and the pulse are equal, as
illustrated in Equation 3. This square pulse is then used as
A-6
-------
the input to the linkage assessment, Equation 2, which esti-
mates initial dilution in the aquifer to give the initial con-
centration, C0, for the saturated zone assessment. (Conditions
for B, minimum thickness of unsaturated zone, have been set
such that dilution is actually negligible.) The saturated zone
assessment procedure is nearly identical to that for the unsat-
urated zone except for the definition of certain parameters and
choice of parameter values. The maximum concentration at the
well, Cmax, is used to calculate the index values given in
Equations 4 and 5.
B. Equation 1* Transport Assessment
C(y.t) = i [exp(A^) erfc(A2) * exp(Bi) erfc(B2)] = P(x»t)
Requires evaluations of four dimensionless input values and
subsequent evaluation of. the result. Exp(A}> denotes the
exponential of A]_, e *•, where erfc(A2) denotes the
complimentary error function of A2. Erfc(A2) produces values
between 0.0 and 2.0 (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1972).
where:
Al 3 X_ [V* - (V*2 + 4D* x
Al 2D*
Y - t (y*2 +
A2 = (4D* x
R, _ X [V* + (V*2 + 4D* x
Bl ' 2D*
n _ Y * t (V*2 + 4D* x
(4D*
and where for the unsaturated zone:
C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration (ug/L)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
CF - 250 kg sludge solids/m3 leachate =
PS x 103
1 - PS
PS = Percent solids (by weight) of landfilled sludge
202
t = Time (years)
X * h * Depth-to groundwater (m)
D* - a x V* (m2/year)
a » Dispersivity coefficient (m)
(m/year)
6 x R
A-7
-------
Q = Leachate generation rate (in/year)
6 = Volumetric water content (unitless)
R = 1 + drv x KJ = Retardation factor (unitless)
9
pdry = Drv bu^k density (g/mL)
Kd = foc x Koc (mL/g)
foc = Fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
Koc = Organic carbon partition coefficient (roL/g)
. 365 x u f \-\
U* = — JT - t (years) L
U = Degradation rate (day"*)
and where for the saturated zone:
C0 = Initial concentration of pollutant in aquifer as
determined by Equation 2 (yg/L)
t = Time (years)
X = AZ = Distance from well to landfill (m)
D* = a x V* (m2/year)
o - Dispersivity coefficient (m)
v* = *f * * (m/year)
0 x R
K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
i = Average hydraulic gradient between landfill and well
(unitless)
0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
R = 1 + dr7 x K
-------
D. Equation 3. Pulse Assessment
C(x>t)
= P(X,O for 0 < t < t0
= P(X,t) - P(X,t - t0) for t > t
where :
t0 (for unsaturated zone) = LT = Landfill leaching time
(years)
t0 (for saturated zone) = Pulse duration at the water
table (x = h) as determined by the following equation:
t0 = [ 0/* C dt] * Cu
C( Y t )
P(Xft) = ' •i.1 as determined by Equation 1
co
E. Equation 4. Index of Groundwater Concentration Resulting
from Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)
1 . Formula
Index 1 = Cmax
where:
Cmax = Maximum concentration of pollutant at well =
maximum of C(Al,t) calculated in Equation 1
(Ug/L)
2. Sample Calculation
2.5642550 ug/L = 2.5642550 ug/L
P. Equation 5. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from
Groundwater Contamination (Index 2)
1 . Formula
(Ii x AC) + DI
Index2sB - _ -
where:
1} = Index 1 =, Index of groundwater concentration
resulting from landfilled sludge (ug/D
AC = Average human consumption of drinking water
(L/day)
A-9
-------
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake dig/day)
Sample Calculation (when DI is not known)
1.0318934 = (
07
4.97 Ug/day
III. INCINERATION
A. Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting from Incinerator
Emissions (Index 1)
1 . Formula
_ , , (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/ro3)
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in urban
air (ug/m3)
2. Sample Calculation
1.877932 = [(2.78 x 10"7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x
94.28 mg/kg DW x 0.05 x 3.4 ug/m3) + 0.0135 ug/m3] t
0.0135 ug/m3
B. Index of Human Cancer Risk Resulting from Inhalation of
Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)
1.- Formula
[(Ii - 1) x BA] + BA
Index 2 -- _ -
where :
Index 1 » Index of air concentration increment
resulting from incinerator emissions
(unitless}
A-10
-------
BA = Background concentration of pollutant in
urban air (vg/m3)
EC = Exposure criterion (ug/m3)
2. Sample Calculation
0 1Q2131 . [(1.877932 - 1) x 0.0135 ug/m3] + 0.0135 ue/m3
0.24823 ug/m3
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
A. Index of Seawater Concentration Resulting from Initial Nixing
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 18856 Ug/L = 94.28 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg WW x 103 Ug/mg
200 m x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/m3
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)
A-ll
-------
D = Depth to pycnocline or effective depth of
mixing for shallow water site (m)
L = Length of tanker path (m)
2. Sample Calculation
n „=,,-,, /T 825000 kg DW/day x 94.28 me/kg DW x Ip3 ug/mg
0.051171 yg/L = °. * - B — a - ^ - . 7 rr* — B
9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 103 L/ra3
C. Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)
1. Formula
IndSX 3 = AWQC"
where :
II = Index 1 = Index of seawater concentration
resulting from initial mixing after sludge
disposal (yg/L)
AWQC = Criterion or other value expressed as an average
concentration to protect marine organisms from
acute and chronic toxic effects (llg/L)
2. Sample Calculation
0.055458 =
3.4 yg/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:
12 s Index 2 = Index of seawater concentration
representing a 24-hour dumping cycle (yg/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 3 Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
RSI = Cancer risk-specific intake (yg/day)
A-12
-------
2. Sample Calculation
4.02 x 10~7 =
(0.051171 ug/L x 130 L/kg x 10~3 kg/g x 0.000021 x 14.3 g WW/dav) » 0.0 ue/dav
4.97 Ug/day
A-13
-------
TABLE A-l. INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOB BACH COMDITIOM
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (|ig/g DU)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristic*
Dry bulk density, Pdry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, 8 (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon, foc (unitless)
Site parameters
Leachate generation rate, Q (m/year)
Depth to groundwater, h (•)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (•)
Saturated tone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity,' t (unitless)
Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,
K (m/day)
Site parameters
Hydraulic gradient, i (unitless)
Distance from well to landfill, At (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (a)
1
94.28
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
2
459.25
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
3
94.28
1.925
0.133
0.0001
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.001
100
10
4 5
94.28 94.28
NAb 1.53
NA 0.195
NA 0.005
1.6 0.8
0 S
NA 0.5
0.44 0.389
0.86 4.04
0.001 0.001
100 100
10 10
6
94.28
1.53
0.195
0.005
0.8
5
0.5
0.44
0.86
0.02
50
5
7 B
459.25 N"
NA N
NA N
NA N
1.6 N
0 N
NA N
0.389 N
4.04 N
0.02 N
50 N
5 N
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Condition of Analysis
' Results
Unsaturated cone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, Co (|ig/L)
Peak concentration, Cu (Ug/L)
Pulse duration, to (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated cone, Co
(Ug/D
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Cggg (|ig/l<)
Index of groundwater concentration resulting
from landfilled sludge, Index 1 (|lg/L)
(Equation 4)
Index of human cancer risk resulting from
groundwater contamination, Index 2
(unitless) (Equation 5)
1 2 3
23600 115000 23600
378 1840 12400
312 312 9.47
126 126 126
378 1840 12400
2.56 12.5 2.56
2.56 12.5 2.56
1.03 5.03 1.03
4 5 678
23600 23600 23600 115000 N
23600 378 378 115000 N
5.00 312 312 5.00 N
253 23.8 6.32 2.38 N
23600 378 378 115000 N
2.56 13.6 100 2660 N
2.56 13.6 100 2660 0
1.03 5.49 40.2 1070 0
'N « Null condition, where no landfill exists; no value is used.
bMA * Not applicable for this condition.
------- |