United Slates
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Wasnington. DC 20460
SEPA
            Water
                                          June. 1985
            Environmental  Profi!
            and  Hazard indices
            for Constituents

-------
                                 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 	   x

1.  INTRODUCTION	  1-1

2.  PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	  2-1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  2-1

    Landf i 11 ing 	  2-2

    Incineration 	  2-2

    Ocean Disposal 	  2-2

3.  PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE	  3"1

    Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 	  3-1

         Effect on soil concentration of mercury (Index 1) 	  3-1
         Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
           (Indices 2-3) 	•	  3-2
         Effect on plants and plant tissue
           concentration (Indices 4-6) 	  3-4
         Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 	  3-9
         Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 	  3-12

    Landfilling 	  3-21

         Index of groundwater concentration increment resulting
           from landfilled sludge (Index 1) 	  3-21
         Index of human toxicity resulting from
           groundwater contamination (Index 2) 	  3-27

    Incineration 	  3-29

         Index of air concentration increment resulting
           from incinerator emissions (Index 1) 	  3-29
         Index of human toxicity resulting from
           inhalation of incinerator emissions (Index 2)  	  3-31

    Ocean Disposal 	  3-33

         Index of seawater concentration resulting  from
           initial mixing of  sludge (Index 1)  	  3-33
         Index of seawater concentration representing a
           24-hour dumping cycle (Index 2) 	  3-37
                                    11

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
                               (Continued)
                                                                     Page
         Index of toxicity to aquatic life (Index 3) ..............   3-38
         Index of human toxicity resulting from
           seafood consumption (Index 4) ..........................   3-39

4.  PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
      SLUDGE [[[   4-1
    Occurrence
         Sludge [[[   4-1
         Soil - Unpolluted ........................................   4-1
         Water - Unpolluted .......................................   4-2
         Air [[[   4-3
         Food [[[   4-4

    Human Effects .................................................   4-5

         Ingestion ................................................   4-5
         Inhalation ...............................................   4-5

    Plant Effects .................................................   4-6

         Phytotoxicity ............................................   4-6
         Uptake [[[   4-6

    Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects ..........................   4-7

         Toxicity .................................................   4-7
         Uptake [[[   4-7

    Aquatic Life Effects ..........................................   4-7

         Toxicity .................................................   4-7
         Uptake [[[   4-7

    Soil Biota Effects ............................................   4-8

         Toxicity .................................................   4-8

-------
                                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.    Mercury  (Hg)  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 determin-
ing whether  Hg 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_,t_,_ sludge •*  soil •*•  plant uptake •»•  animal uptake  -*•  human  toxicity).
The values and assumptions employed in  these calculations tend to repre-
sent  a  reasonable "worst case"; analysis  of  error  or  uncertainty has
been  conducted  to  a  limited degree.   The resulting  value  in most cases
is  indexed  to unity;  i.e.,  values >1  may  indicate  a  potential hazard,
depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
     The data used for  index calculation have been selected or estimated
based  on  information  presented   in  the  "preliminary  data  profile",
Section  4.   Information in  the profile  is based  on  a compilation of the
recent  literature.   An attempt  has  been made  to fill out  the profile
outline  to the  greatest extent possible.  However,  since  this  is a pre-
liminary analysis, the  literature has not been exhaustively perused.
     The  "preliminary   conclusions" drawn  from  each  .index  in  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 MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL  SEWAGE  SLUDGE
     The following  preliminary conclusions  have been  derived  from  Che
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 Mercury

          Landspreading of sludge may result  in  increased concentrations
          of  Ug  in  the   soil   except  possibly  when typical  sludge  is
          applied at a low rate (5  mt/ha) (see Index 1).

     B.   Effect on Soil  Biota and  Predators of Soil Biota

          Conclusions for  effects  on  soil  biota and predators  of  soil
          biota were not  drawn because  index values  were  not calculated
          due to lack of  data (see  Indices 2 and 3).

     C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

          Landspreading of  sludge  is not  expected  to  result  in concen-
          trations  of  Hg  in  soil  that  are  phytotoxic  (see Index  4).
          Land  application  of sludge  may  result   in  increased  plant
          tissue  concentration above background  levels  except  possibly
          when  typical  sludge  is  applied ac  a  low  rate  (5  mt/ha)  and
          when  high-Hg  sludge  is  applied at  a  low  rate  (5  mt/ha)  for
          crops consumed  by  humans (see  Index  5).   The  concentrations of
          Hg  in  plant  tissues  resulting  from  uptake of Hg  from sludge-
          amended  soils  are  not  expected  to  be  limited by  phytotoxic
          levels (see Index 6).

     D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

          Landspreading  of   sludge  is  not  expected  to  result  in  plant
          tissue  concentrations of  Hg that  pose  a dietary  toxic threat
          to herbivorous  animals (see  Index 7).  The inadvertent inges-
          tion of sludge-amended soil by  grazing  animals is  not  expected
          to  result  in dietary concentrations  of  Hg that are  toxic  to
          animals (see Index 8).

     E.   Effect on Humans

          The consumption  of crops  grown  on  sludge-amended  soil  is  not
          expected  to  pose  a  toxic  threat  to  humans  due to Hg except
          possibly for toddlers when high-Hg sludge is  applied at a high
          rate  (500  mt/ha)  (see  Index  9).   The  consumption of animal
          products  derived  from  animals   fed  crops grown  on  sludge-


                                   2-1

-------
          amended soil may  result  in a  toxic  threat to toddlers  due to
          Hg when sludge is applied  at  a high rate  (500 mt/ha)  and when
          high-Hg  sludge  is  applied  at  a moderate  rate  (SO  mt/ha).
          Also,  a  toxic threat  due  to  Hg  for  adults  may result  when
          high-Hg sludge  is applied at  a  high  rate  (500 mt/ha)  (see
          Index 10).    The  consumption  of  animal  products derived  from
          grazing  animals   that  have   inadvertently   ingested   sludge-
          amended soil may pose a toxic  threat to  humans  (see  Index 11).
          The  inadvertent   ingestion  of  sludge-amended  soil  or  pure
          sludge is not expected  to result  in a  toxic threat to  humans
          due to Hg except  possibly  for toddlers  when high-Hg sludge is
          landspread  at a high  rate  (500 mt/ha)  or  when  toddlers  ingest
          pure  sludge (see  Index  12).    Landspreading  of  sludge  may
          result in  an aggregate amount of Hg  in  che  human diet  that
          poses a toxic threat  (see  Index 13).

 II. LANDPILLING

     Landfilling of sludge may  result in increased  concentrations  of Hg
     in  the groundwater at  the  well  (see Index  1).   Landfilling  of
     sludge is  not expected  to  pose a  toxic threat  to humans due  to Hg
     in groundwater at  the  well except  possibly  at  landfills where  all
     worst-case parameters  exist (see Index 2).

III. INCINERATION

     Incineration of  sludge may result  in  increased  concentrations  of Hg
     in  air above background  levels  (see  Index  1).   Incineration  of
     sludge  is  not  expected to result  in  concentrations  of  Hg  in  air
     that  pose  a toxic  threat  to  humans  except  possibly when  high-Hg
     sludge  is  incinerated  at  a high feed  rate  (10,000 kg/hr  DW)  (see
     Index 2).

 IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

     Significant  increases   in   the   seawater  concentration   of  Hg  is
     apparent for all the scenarios  evaluated (see Inctex  1).   The  incre-
     mental increase  of Hg concentrations during a 24-hour  dumping cycle
     is significant,  especially for  sludge  containing  "worst"  concentra-
     tions dumped at  the worst  site  (see Index 2).   Increases  in  incre-
     mental hazard are evident  for worst  concentration  sludges dumped at
     the  worst   and  typical  sites.    Increase  is  also  evident  at  the
     worst-site  with  typical concentrations (see  Index 3).  No  increase
     in  risk to human  health   is  apparent  from  typical seafood  intake
     from organisms residing at  the  typical and  worst sites after  dump-
     ing  of   sludges  with  typical  concentrations  of   Hg.     Slight
     increases, however,  are seen when  site characteristics,  sludge con-
     centrations, and seafood intake  are all worst  case (see Index  4).
                                   2-2

-------
                              SECTION 3

               PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR MERCURY
                     IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

   A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Mercury

        1.   Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)

             a.   Explanation - Shows  degree  of  elevation of pollutant
                  concentration in  soil  to  which  sludge  is  applied.
                  Calculated  for   sludges  with  typical  (median  if
                  available) and  worst (95th  percentile  if available)
                  pollutant concentrations,  respectively,  for  each of
                  four sludge  loadings.   Applications  (as  dry matter)
                  are chosen and explained as follows:

                    0 mt/ha  No sludge applied.   Shown for all indices
                             for  purposes of comparison,   to  distin-
                             guish  hazard posed by  sludge from  pre-
                             existing   hazard   posed  by   background
                             levels or other sources of the  pollutant.

                    5 mt/ha  Sustainable  yearly  agronomic  application;
                             i.e.,  loading   typical   of   agricultural
                             practice,   supplying  «/*50   kg  available
                             nitrogen  per hectare.

                   50 mt/ha  Higher  application  as  may   be  used  on
                             public  lands,  reclaimed  areas  or  home
                             gardens.

                  500 mt/ha  Cumulative    loading   after   years   of
                             application.

             b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  pollutant  is dis-
                  tributed  and  retained  within the upper 15 cm of  soil
                  (i.e.,  the  plow layer),  which  has  an  approximate
                  mass (dry matter) of 2 x 103 mt/ha.

             c.   Data Used and Rationale

                    i. Sludge concentration of pollutant  (SC)

                       Typical    1.49 Ug/g  DW
                       Worst      5.84 yg/g  DW

                       The  typical  and worst sludge  concentrations  are
                       the  median  and 95th  percentile  values  statis-
                       tically  derived  from  sludge concentration  data
                       from a  survey of  40  publicly-owned  treatment
                                  3-1

-------
                   works  (POTWs)  (U.S.  EPA, 1982).   In this docu-
                   ment,  it is  assumed that  inorganic Hg  is  the
                   prevalent form for  incineration  and alkyl mer-
                   cury  is the  form for  Landspreading,  landfill-
                   ing,   and   ocean   disposal.      However,    the
                   possibility  of conversion  of alkyl  mercury  to
                   inorganic  Hg  does  exist.    (See  Section   4,
                   p. 4-1.)

                ii. Background concentration of pollutant in  soil
                   (BS) =  0.10  pg/g  DW

                   Cappon   (1984),   Erdman  et   al.  (1976),   and
                   Fleischer  (1970)  report  Hg   concentrations   of
                   specific  soils.   U.S.  Geological Survey  (1970)
                   and  Ratsch  (1974)   report  that  Hg  content   of
                   U.S.  soils  average  100 ng/g.   (See Section  4,
                   p. 4-2.)

          d.    Index  1 Values

                                  Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
                   Sludge
               Concentration        0       5         50        500
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
2.4
3.8
12
          e.    Value Interpretation - Value  equals factor by  which
               expected  soil concentration  exceeds background  when
               sludge  is applied.   (A  value  of 2  indicates  concen-
               tration  is  doubled;  a   value  of  0.5   indicates
               reduction by one-half.)

          f.    Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading of  sludge may
               result  in increased concentrations  of Hg  in  the soil
               except  possibly when  typical  sludge is applied  at  a
               low rate  (5 mt/ha).

B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators  of Soil Biota

     1.   Index of Soil  Biota Toxicity (Index 2)

          a.    Explanation  -  Compares  pollutant   concentrations  in
               sludge-amended soil with soil  concentration  shown to
               be toxic  for some organism.

          b.    Assumptions/Limitations -  Assumes   pollutant  form in
               sludge-amended  soil  is   equally   bioavailable  and
               toxic as  form used  in study where  toxic  effects were
               demonstrated.
                              3-2

-------
     c.   Data Used and Rationale

            i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

           ii. Background  concentration of  pollutant  in  soil
               (BS) = 0.10 Ug/g DW

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

          iii. 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  tox-
          icity 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. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

           ii. Background  concentration of  pollutant  in  soil
               (BS) = 0.10 Ug/g DW

               See Section 3, p'. 3-2.

          iii. Uptake slope of  pollutant  in soil  biota (UB)  =
               0.34 yg/g tissue DW (ug/g  soil  DW)'1

               Bull  et  al. (1977)  reported  the  Hg concentra-
               tion  in  earthworms  and in  soil.    The  Hg  was
                         3-3

-------
                    atmospherically  deposited  from  an  industrial
                    emission source.   This  is the  only source  of
                    data  in the   profile  for  soil  biota.    (See
                    Section 4,  p.  4-13.)

                iv. Background  concentration  in  soil  biota  (BB)  =
                    0.041 ug/g DW

                    Bull et al. (1977) reported the  background con-
                    centration   of  Hg  in  earthworms.    (See  Sec-
                    tion 4, p.  4-13.)

                 v. Peed  concentration  toxic  to  predator  (TR) -
                    Data not immediately  available.

          d.   Index 3  Values  - Values  were  not   calculated  due  to
               lack of  data.

          e.   Value Interpretation  -  Value  equals  factor  by which
               expected  concentration  in  soil biota  exceeds  that
               which is  toxic  to  predator.   Value >  1  indicates  a
               toxic hazard may exist for predators of soil  biota.

          f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Conclusion was  not  drawn
               because  index values could not be calculated.

C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

     1.   Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)

          a.   Explanation  -  Compares pollutant   concentrations  in
               sludge-amended   soil   with    the    Lowest    soil
               concentration shown to be  toxic for some plant.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Assumes   pollutant  form  in
               sludge-amended  soil  is   equally   bioavailable  and
               toxic as  form used  in study where  toxic effects were
               demonstrated.

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

                 i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)

                    See Section 3, p. 3-2.

                ii. Background  concentration  of  pollutant   in  soil
                    (BS) =0.10 Ug/g DW

                    See Section 3, p. 3-2.
                              3-4

-------
          iii.  Soil   concentration  toxic  to  plants   (TP)   =
               8.0 Ug/g DW

               Reduced plant  growth was  observed  for  Bermuda
               grass/leaf  grown  on Weswood  soil  amended  with
               8.0 mg/kg Hg (Weaver  et  al.,  1984).  8.0  mg/kg
               is  the  lowest  concentration of Hg-amended  soil
               which  resulted  in  a toxic  effect.   Lower  con-
               centrations  of  Hg  produced  toxic  effects  in
               tests   with  plants  growing  in  nutrient  solu-
               tions.    The  uptake  rates  of  contaminants  by
               plants  in nutrient  solutions are not  considered
               to  be  analogous  to the  uptake  rates of  plants
               in  sludge-amended soils.  Therefore,  the  phyto-
               toxic  concentrations  in  plants  grown in  nutri-
               ent  solutions are also not  comparable to  phyto-
               toxic  concentrations in Hg-amended  soils.   (See
               Section 4,  p. 4-9.)

     d.    Index 4 Values

                             Sludge Application Rate  (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0         5        50       500
Typical
Worst
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.017
0.030
0.047
0.16
     e.   Value Interpretation -  Value  equals factor by  which
          soil  concentration exceeds  phytotoxic  concentration.
          Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.

    •f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Landspreading of  sludge  is
          not  expected  to  result  in concentrations  of  Hg  in
          soil  that are phytotoxic.

2.   Index of  Plant Concentration  Increment  Caused  by  Uptake
     (Index 5)      „

     a.   Explanation -  Calculates  expected  tissue  concentra-
          tion   increment  in  plants  grown  in  sludge-amended
          soil,  using   uptake  data   for  the  most  responsive
          plant  species  in the  following  categories:     (1)
          plants  included  in  the  U.S.   human  diet;  and  (2)
          plants  serving as animal  feed.    Plants  used  vary
          according to  availability  of data.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Assumes  a  linear  uptake
          slope.   Neglects  the effect of time;   i.e., cumula-
          tive   loading  over several  years  is treated equiva-
          lently  to single  application   of  the  same amount.
          The  uptake   factor  chosen  for  the animal  diet  is
          assumed  to  be  representative   of  all   crops  in  the
                         3-5

-------
animal diet.   See also Index 6  for consideration of
phytotoxicity.

Data Used and Rationale

  i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)

     See Section  3, p. 3-2.

 ii. Background  concentration of  pollutant  in soil
     (BS) = 0.10  yg/g DU

     See Section  3, p. 3-2.

iii. Conversion   factor  between  soil  concentration
     and application rate (CO) = 2  kg/ha  (ug/g)"1

     Assumes  pollutant  is  distributed and  retained
     within  upper 15  cm  of  soil   (i.e.  plow  Layer)
     which  has  an approximate  mass  (dry  matter)  of
     2 x 103.

 iv. Uptake slope of pollutant in plant tissue  (UP)

     Animal diet:
     Bermuda grass/leaf
          0.064 ug/g tissue DW (kg/haT1

     Human diet:
     Radish
          0.017 yg/g tissue DW (kg/ha)"1

     Bull et al.  (1978),  Elfving et al. (1978), Hogg
     et  al.  (1978),  John  (1972),  Lindberg et  al.
     (1979),  MacLean  (1974),   and  Weaver  et  al.
     (1984)  examined  the  effects of  Hg compounds on
     plants.   All studied  except  that by  Haney and
     Lipsey  (1973) were conducted  on plants grown in
     soil.   The  plants studied  by  Haney  and  Lipsey
     were grown  in nutrient solutions.   The Hg val-
     ues  resulting  from  this  study  were  not used
     because .contaminant  uptake  by  plants  grown  in
     solution  is  not  analogous  to  pollutant  uptake
     by plants grown in sludge-amended  soils.

     In  the  studies  by  Bull  et   al.  (1977)  and
     Lindberg  et  al.  (1979),  plants  were  contami-
     nated  with  Hg  compounds  from  industrial  emis-
     sions.   The deposition of  these emissions  on
     the plants  being  studied  resulted in. abnormally
     high Hg  concentration  values  in the  plant tis-
     sues.   These concentrations are not  representa-
     tive  of the uptake  rates  exhibited  by  plants
     grown  in  sludge-amended soil.   As  such,  these
     values were  not used for this  study.

               3-6

-------
               John (1972)  and  Weaver  et  al.  (1984)  studied
               plants  grown  in  soils contaminated  with  HgC^.
               The resultant values were  used for  index  calcu-
               lations because  the effects  of  HgCl2  in  soils
               are the most  analogous  to the effects  of  Hg in
               sludge-amended   soils.      Bermuda   grass   and
               radishes were chosen  because the uptake  values
               were the highest and  were  therefore considered
               the worst  case.   (See  Section 4,  p.  4-10.)

            v. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)

               Animal  diet:
               Bermuda grass/leaf    0.01  Ug/g DW

               Human diet:
               Radish                 0.013 Ug/g DU

               The highest  background  concentrations  for  ber-
               muda grass and  radish are found in  John  (1972)
               and Weaver et al.  (1984).   The highest value is
               chosen   as  a  worst-case  value  from the  stand-
               point  of  effects  on  humans.    (See Section 4,
               p. 4-10.)

     d.   Index 5 Values

                                        Sludge Application
                                           Rate  (mt/ha)
                        Sludge
        Diet         Concentration   0     5     50      500
Animal
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.4
2.8
4.6
16
     Human             Typical      1.0   1.0    1.1      1.7
                       Worst        1.0   1.0    1.4      4.0

     e.   Value Interpretation  -  Value equals  factor  by which
          plant tissue  concentration  is  expected  to  increase
          above background when grown in sludge-amended soil.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion  - Land application  of  sludge
          may  result  in  increased plant  tissue  concentration
          above background  levels  except  possibly when typical
          sludge  is  applied  a  low  rate  (5  mt/ha)   and  when
          high-Hg  sludge  is  applied  at a  low rate  (5  mt/ha)
          for crops consumed by humans.

3.   Index  of  Plant   Concentration   Increment  Permitted  by
     Phytotoxicity (Index 6)

     a.   Explanation -  Compares  maximum  plant  tissue concen-
          tration  associated  with  phytotoxicity  with  back-
                         3-7

-------
     ground  concentration  in  same  plant  tissue.    The
     purpose is to determine whether the  plant concentra-
     tion  increments  calculated  in   Index  5  for  high
     applications  are  truly  realistic,  or  whether  such
     increases would be precluded by  phytotoxicity.

b.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Assumes  that   tissue  con-
     centration  will   be  a   consistent  indicator   of
     phytotoxicity.

c.   Data Used and Rationale

       i. Maximum  plant   tissue  concentration  associated
          with phytotoxicity (PP)

          Animal diet:
          Bermuda grass/leaf    0.2 ug/g DW

          •Human diet:
          Tomato seedling       1.5 Ug/g DW

          Specific  data  on  plant  tissue  concentration
          associated with phytotoxicity are  not available
          for  radish  plants.    The  Hg  content  in  plant
          tissues associated with  phytotoxicity of tomato
          seedlings, used as  a  proxy  for radishes,  and
          Bermuda  grass   are worst-case values.    The  Hg
          concentration in  the tomato  seedling is assumed
          to be  equal  to the concentration  in the tomato
          fruit.    Tomato  seedling  stem  elongation  and
          biomass  increase  were  significantly  inhibited
          by  Hg  concentrations  (in  nutrient  solution)
          equal  to,  or  greater  than  0.01  ppm  methyl  Hg
          hydroxide.   This  is  equivalent  to  1.5 ppm Hg in
          the  terminals   (Haney  and  Lipsey,  1973).   (See
          Section 4, p. 4-9.)

      ii. Background concentration in plant tissue (BP)

          Animal diet:
          Bermuda grass/leaf    0.01  ug/g DW

          Human diet:
          Tomato seedling       0.1  Ug/g DW

          The  highest   Hg  concentration   for   the  tomato
          seedling   was   reported  by   Haney  and  Lipsey
          (1973) to  be 0.1  ug/g  DW.   The  highest value is
          chosen as  a  worst-case  value.   (See Section 4,
          p. 4-9.)
                    3-8

-------
          d.   Index 6 Values

                   Plant              Index Value

               Bermuda grass/leaf        20
               Tomato seedling           15

          e.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value   gives   the  maximum
               factor  of  tissue   concentration  increment  (above
               background)  which  is  permitted  by  phytotoxicity.
               Value is compared with  values for the  same or simi-
               lar plant  tissues  given by  Index 5.   The  lowest  of
               the two indices indicates the maximal increase which
               can occur at any given application rate.

          f.   Preliminary Conclusion - The  concentrations of Hg  in
               plant  tissues  resulting  from  uptake  of  Hg  from
               sludge-amended soils  (see  Index  5)  are not expected
               to be limited by phytotoxic  levels.

D.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

     1.   Index of Animal  Toxicity  Resulting from Plant Consumption
          (Index 7)

          a.   Explanation   -   Compares   pollutant  concentrations
               expected  in  plant  tissues   grown in  sludge-amended
               soil  with  food concentration shown  to be  toxic  to
               wild or domestic herbivorous  animals.   Does not con-
               sider  direct   contamination  of   forage  by  adhering
               sludge.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -   Assumes   pollutant  form
               taken up by plants is equivalent  in  toxicity to form
               used to demonstrate .toxic effects in animal.  Uptake
               or  toxicity  in  specific plants  or  animals  may  be
               estimated from other species.

          c.   Data Used and Rationale

                 i. Index  of plant  concentration  increment  caused
                   • by uptake (Index S)

                    Index  5  values  used  are  those  for   an  animal
                    diet (see Section 3, p. 3-7).

                ii. Background concentration in  plant  tissue  (BP) =
                    0.01 Ug/g DW

                    The background  concentration value used  is  for
                    the  plant  chosen  for  the  animal  diet  (see
                    Section 3, p. 3-7).
                              3-9

-------
          iii. Feed concentration  toxic  to herbivorous  animal
               (TA) = 2  ug/g DW

               The National Academy of Science's  (NAS)  maximum
               tolerable dietary level for domestic  animals  is
               2 ppm  Hg for both  organic  and inorganic  forms
               (NAS,  1980).    (See Section  4, p.  4-7.)  Com-
               pounds of  Hg  do  not  always  reflect  toxicity
               analogous  to  animal  toxicity  resulting  from
               consumption  of  plants grown  on  sludge-amended
               soils.  Other elements (of  these compounds)  may
               contribute to the toxicity or may  be  toxic  only
               in combination  with Hg.    Also, the  concentra-
               tion  of  the  compounds used  in  these  studies
               (see  Section  4, p.  4-11)  is  much higher  than
               the  concentrations   normally  found  in  sludge.
               The  studies  either  used  higher  Hg  concentra-
               tions than NAS  maximum tolerable  dietary  level
               or  no  adverse  effects   were   observed.     The
               lethal concentration in feed for mink was  lower
               than  the NAS  value  (Auerlich  et  al.,  1974).
               Mink  is  a  carnivore and  its  diet  is  very  dif-
               ferent from  a  herbivore's.   The  data  from  the
               mink study are  not  considered  to  be  compatible
               with this index.

     d.   Index 7 Values

                             Sludge Application Rate  (mt/ha)
              Sludge
          Concentration        0         5        50        500

             Typical         0.0050    0.0052    0.0072   0.023
             Worst           0.0050    0.0059    0.014    0.078

     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  - Landspreading  of  sludge  is
          not  expected  to  result   in  plant  tissue  concentra-
          tions  of Hg  that  pose   a  dietary   toxic   threat  to
          herbivorous animals.

2.   Index of  Animal Toxicity Resulting from  Sludge Ingestion
     (Index 8)

     a.   Explanation -  Calculates  the  amount of pollutant  in
          a grazing  animal's  diet resulting from sludge  adhe-
          sion  to  forage  or  from  incidental  ingestion  of
          sludge-amended  soil  and   compares   this   with   the
          dietary  toxic  threshold  concentration for  a  grazing
          animal.
                        3-10

-------
b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  sludge  is
     applied over and  adheres  to growing forage,  or  chat
     sludge constitutes  5  percent  of  dry  matter in  the
     grazing animal's  diet, and that  pollutant  form  in
     sludge is  equally  bioavailable  and  toxic  as  form
     used to demonstrate  toxic effects.  Where  no sludge
     is applied  (i.e.,  0 mt/ha), assumes  diet  is 5  per-
     cent soil  as a basis for comparison.

c.   Data Used and Rationale

       i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

          Typical    1.49 ug/g DW
          Worst      5.84 ug/g DW

          See  Section 3, p. 3-1.

      ii. Background concentration  of  pollutant  in  soil
          (BS) = 0.10 ug/g  DW

          See  Section 3, p. 3-2.

     iii. Fraction of animal diet assumed  to be soil  (GS)
          = 5%

          Studies  of  sludge  adhesion  to   growing  forage
          following  applications of  liquid  or filter-cake
          sludge  show  chat 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
          forage  was only  2.14  and  4.75 percent,  respec-
          tively  (Bertrand  et  al.,  1981).   It seems  rea-
          sonable  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
                    3-11

-------
                    months  when  forage   is  reduced  (Thornton  and
                    Abrams,  1983).    If  the   soil   were  sludge-
                    amended, it is conceivable  that up  to 5 percent
                    sludge may  be  ingested in this manner as well.
                    Therefore,   this  value  accounts  for  either  of
                    these scenarios, whether forage is  harvested or
                    grazed in the field.

                iv. Peed  concentration  toxic to  herbivorous  animal
                    (TA) = 2 Ug/g DW

                    See Section 3, p. 3-10.

          d.   Index 8 Values

                                  Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
                   Sludge
               Concentration        0         5        50      -SQO-
Typical
Worst
0.0025
0.0025
0.037
0.15
0.037
0.15
0.037
0.15
          e.   Value Interpretation -  Value equals factor  by which
               expected dietary concentration  exceeds  toxic concen-
               tration.   Value  > 1  indicates a  toxic hazard  may
               exist for grazing animals.

          f.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  The  inadvertent  ingestion
               of  sludge-amended  soil  by  grazing animals   is  not
               expected to  result in  dietary  concentrations  of  Hg
               that are toxic to animals.

E.   Effect on Humans

     1.   Index of  Human  Toxicity Resulting from  Plant Consumption
          (Index 9)

          a.   Explanation  -  Calculates  dietary intake  expected  to
               result  from  consumption  of  crops  grown on  sludge-
               amended soil.   Compares dietary intake  with accept-
               able daily intake (ADI)  of the pollutant.

          b.   Assumptions/Limitations  - Assumes that  all  crops  are
               grown on sludge-amended soil  and that all those con-
               sidered to be  affected  take  up the  pollutant  at  the
               same rate as the most responsive plant(s) (as chosen
               in Index 5).   Divides possible  variations in dietary
               intake into  two  categories:   toddlers  (18  months  to
               3 years) and individuals over 3  years old.
                             3-12

-------
Data Used and Rationale

  i. Index  of plant  concentration  increment  caused
     by uptake (Index 5)

     Index S  values  used  are those  for  a human diet
     (see Section 3, p. 3-7).

 ii. Background concentration in  plant tissue (BP) =
     0.013 ug/g DW

     The  background  concentration value  used  is for
     the  plant  chosen   for the  human  diet  (see
     Section 3, p. 3-7).

iii. Daily  human dietary intake  of  affected  plant
     tissue (DT)

     Toddler     74.5 g/day
     Adult      205   g/day

     The  intake  value for adults is  based  on  daily
     intake of crop  foods (excluding fruit)  by vege-
     tarians  (Ryan  et  al.,  1982);  vegetarians  were
     chosen to represent  the worst  case.   The value
     for  toddlers  is  based on the  FDA Revised Total
     Diet  (Pennington,   1983)   and  food  groupings
     listed by the  U.S.  EPA (1984e).   Dry weights
     for  individual  food  groups  were  estimated from
     composition  data given  by   the  U.S. Department
     of  Agriculture  (USDA)   (1975).   These  values
     were   composited    to    estimated   dry-weight
     consumption of all non-fruit crops.

 iv. Average  daily human  dietary intake of pollutant
     (DI)

     Toddler    0.9 Ug/day
     Adult      5.0 Ug/day

     The  average U.S.  total  daily Hg intake for tod-
     dlers  and   adults   is   an   average  of  daily
     intakes.   Toddler  =  average  of Fiscal Year (FY)
     75,  FY  76,  and  FY 77  total daily  Hg intake of
     0.9,   0.8,    and  1.1   yg/day,   respectively.
     Adults =  average of  FY 75,  FY 76,  FY  77,  and
     FY 78  total  Hg daily intake of  3.7,  6.5,  6.3,
     and  3.4  yg/day,  respectively.  The toddler val-
     ues  do  not  fluctuate  much  from year  to  year.
     The  adult  values  appear  to  double and  halve
     from year  to year;  therefore,  an average value
     will  better represent  the   total  daily dietary
     intake.   Also,  meat, fish,  and poultry contri-
     buted 73.1  percent of the  daily Hg intake (FDA,
     1980b).  (See Section 4, p. 4-4.)

               3-13

-------
  v. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI)

     Toddler     3 Ug/day
     Adult      20 Ug/day

     The  World  Health Organization  (WHO,  1976) con-
     cluded  that  a long-term daily  intake  of methyl
     Hg  of  3 to  7 ug/kg  is  the level  at  which the
     earliest  effects  of  Hg  intoxication  appear  in
     the  most  sensitive  adults;  U.S.  EPA  (1980,
     1984b)  concurred  with that evaluation.   An ADI
     of  20 Ug/day  was  derived  assuming a 70 kg adult
     body weight  and applying  an  uncertainty factor
     of  10  (3 ug/kg/day x 70  kg *  10 «r 20  ug/day)
     (U.S.  EPA,  1980).   Prenatal  life is  the  most
     sensitive  life  stage  to  methyl  Hg  exposure
     (U.S.  EPA,  1984b).   Assuming  that  young chil-
     dren  may  also   be particularly   sensitive,  it
     seems  prudent to  derive  an intake  level based
     on  the  toddler  body  weight  as  well,  so  that
     exposure  is  continually   maintained   below  the
     above stated  effect level  (3 to  7 Ug/kg/day)  by
     a factor of  10.   Therefore,  for the purposes  of
     this document,  an  ADI of  3 ug/day (3  ug/kg/day
     x 10 kg t 10 = 3  Ug/day)  will  be used to eval-
     uate oral  exposure  of toddlers  to methyl  Hg.
     (See Section 4,  p. 4-5.)

Index 9 Values

                             Sludge Application
                                Rate (mt/ha)
             Sludge
Group     Concentration    0      5      50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.33
0.42
0.53
1.3
Adult       Typical      0.25   0.25   0.26    0.35
            Worst        0.25   0.25   0.30    0.65

Value Interpretation  -  Value equals  factor  by which
expected  intake  exceeds ADI.   Value >1  indicates a
possible  human  health  threat.   Comparison  with  the
null  index  value at 0 mt/ha  indicates  the  degree to
which any hazard  is  due  to  sludge  application,  as
opposed to pre-existing dietary sources.

Preliminary  Conclusion  -  The  consumption   of  crops
grown on  sludge-amended soil  is  not  expected to pose
a toxic threat  to  humans  due to Hg,  except  possibly
for  toddlers  when  high-Hg  sludge  is  applied at  a
high rate (500 mt/ha).
              3-14

-------
2.   Index  of  Human  Toxicity  Resulting  from  Consumption  of
     Animal Products  Derived  from Animals  Feeding on  Plants
     (Index 10)

     a.   Explanation  -   Calculates   human  dietary   intake
          expected  to  result   from  consumption   of   animal
          products derived  from  domestic  animals  given  feed
          grown on sludge-amended  soil  (crop or  pasture  land)
          but   not  directly  contaminated  by adhering  sludge.
          Compares expected  intake with  ADI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  all  animal
          products are  from animals receiving  all  their  feed
          from  sludge-amended soil.  The uptake  slope of  pol-
          lutant  in animal  tissue (UA)  used is assumed to  be
          representative of  all animal tissue comprised  by the
          daily human dietary  intake  (DA) used.   Divides  pos-
          sible variations in dietary intake  into two  categor-
          ies:      toddlers   (18   months   to   3    years)   and
          individuals  over 3 years old.

     c.   Data  Used and Rationale

            i.  Index  of  plant  concentration increment  caused
               by uptake (Index 5)

               Index  5  values  used  are  those  for an  animal
               diet (see Section 3, p.  3-7).

           ii.  Background  concentration in  plant  tissue  (BP)  =
               0.01 pg/g DW

               The background concentration value used is  for
               the  plant  chosen  for   the  animal   diet   (see
               Section 3,  p.  3-7).

          iii.  Uptake slope  of  pollutant in animal tissue  (UA)

               Duck liver
                    12.1  yg/g tissue DW (pg/g feed DW)"1

               Duck muscle
                     2.33  ug/g tissue DW (ug/g feed DW)-1

               Uptake  values for duck liver  and muscle are  the
               most analogous to  uptake  values  for  beef  liver
               and muscle  (Finley and  Stendell,   1978).    The
               uptake  of contaminants by carnivores  (mink  in  a
               study by Auerlich  et  al.,  1974)  is  not compat-
               ible to  this  index.   Kidneys are  not  a major
               constituent of the U.S.  diet  and therefore  kid-
               ney data were not  used.    Highest values  were
               used  in  this  index,  assuming  a   worst  case.
               (See Section  4,  p.  4-12.)   Values presented  in
                        3-15

-------
e.

f.
          Section  4,  p.  4-12  in wet  weight  terms  have
          been converted  to  dry weight concentrations for
          this calculation.

      iv. Daily  human dietary  intake of  affected animal
          tissue (DA)
Liver
Toddler
Adult
0.97 g/day
5.76 g/day
Muscle
Toddler
Adult
51.1 g/day
133 g/day
          The  FDA Revised  Total  Diet  (Pennington,  1983)
          lists average daily  intake  of beef liver,  fresh
          weight, for  various  age-sex  classes.   The 95th
          percentile  of   liver   consumption  (chosen  in
          order  to  be conservative)  is  assumed   to  be
          approximately 3  times the mean values.  Conver-
          sion  to  dry weight  is  based on data  from U.S.
          Department of Agriculture (1975).

       v. Average daily human  dietary intake of pollutant
          (DI)

          Toddler    0.9 Ug/day
          Adult      5.0 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-13.

      vi. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI)

          Toddler     3 ug/day
          Adult      20 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p. 3-14.

     Index 10 Values
     Group
             Sludge
          Concentration
    Sludge Application
       Rate (mt/ha)

         5     50     500
Toddler
Typical
Worst
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.38
0.49
1.1
1.9
6.7
     Adult
            Typical
            Worst
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.28
0.33
0.59
0.93
3.0
Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
Preliminary  Conclusion  - The  consumption  of  animal
products  derived from  animals  fed  crops  grown  on
sludge-amended soil may  result in a  toxic  threat  to
toddlers due  to  Hg  when  sludge is applied  at  a high
                   3-16

-------
          race (500 mt/ha)  and when high-Hg  sludge  is applied
          at a moderate rate (50 mt/ha).   Also,  a toxic threat
          due to Hg for  adults may result when  high-Hg sludge
          is applied at a high rate (500 mt/ha).

3.   Index  of Human  Toxicity  Resulting  from Consumption  of
     Animal  Products  Derived   from   Animals  Ingesting  Soil
     (Index 11)

     a.   Explanation  -   Calculates   human  dietary   intake
          expected to  result  from consumption of  animal prod-
          ucts  derived   from  grazing   animals   incidentally
          ingesting  sludge-amended soil.    Compares  expected
          intake with ADI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  - Assumes  that  all  animal
          products  are  from  animals   grazing  sludge-amended
          soil, and that  aLL—animal products  consumed  take  up
          the  pollutant   at  the  highest  rate  observed  for
          muscle of  any  commonly  consumed  species  or  at  the
          rate  observed   for  beef  liver  or  dairy  products
          (whichever  is  higher).   Divides  possible  variations
          in  dietary   intake  into  two  categories:    toddlers
          (18 months  to  3  years)  and  individuals over three
          years old.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

            i. Animal tissue = Duck liver and muscle

               See Section 3, p. 3-15.

           ii. Background concentration of  pollutant  in  soil
               (BS) = 0.10 ug/g DW

               See Section 3, p. 3-2.

          iii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

               -Typical    1.49 Ug/g DW
               Worst      5.84 ug/g DW

               See Section 3, p. 3-1.

           iv. Fraction of animal  diet  assumed to be soil (GS)
               = 5%

               See Section 3, p. '3-11.
                         3-17

-------
       v.  Uptake slope of  pollutant  in  animal  tissue (DA)

          Duck liver
               12.1   Ug/g  tissue DW  (ug/g feed DW)'1

          Duck muscle
                2.33 Ug/g  tissue DW  (ug/g feed DW)'1

          See Section 3, p.  3-15.

      vi.  Daily human  dietary intake  of affected  animal
          tissue (DA)

          Liver                   Muscle
          Toddler    0.97  g/day    Toddler      51.1  g/day
          Adult      5.76  g/day    Adult       133    g/day

          See Section 3, p.  3-16.

     vii.  Average daily human dietary  intake  of pollutant
          (DI)

          Toddler    0.9 Ug/day
          Adult      5.0 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p.  3-16.

    viii.  Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI)

          Toddler    3 Ug/day
          Adult     20 Ug/day

          See Section 3, p.  3-14.

d.   Index 11 Values

                                  Sludge  Application
                                     Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.52
0.52
0.34
0.3*
5
3.5
13
1.7
5.8
50
3.5
13
1.7
5.8
500
3.5
13
1.7
5.8
e.   Value Interpretation - Same  as  for  Index 9.

f.   Preliminary Conclusion  - The  consumption  of  animal
     products  derived  from  grazing  animals  that  have
     inadvertently ingested  sludge-amended  soil may  pose
     a toxic threat to humans.
                   3-18

-------
4.   Index of Human Toxicity from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)

     a.   Explanation -  Calculates  the amount  of  pollutant in
          the diet  of a  child who  ingests  soil  (pica  child)
          amended with sludge.  Compares this amount with ADI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations  -   Assumes   that  the  pica
          child  consumes an  average  of  5  g/day of  sludge-
          amended soil.  If an ADI  specific  for a  child  is not
          available,  this  index  assumes  that  the  ADI  for  a
          10 kg child  is  the  same as  that for a  70  kg  adult.
          It is  thus  assumed  that uncertainty  factors used in
          deriving  the  ADI  provide  protection for  the  child,
          taking  into  account the  smaller  body  size and  any
          other differences  in sensitivity.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale

            i. Index of soil concentration increment (Index 1)

               See Section 3,  p. 3-2.

           ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

               Typical    1.49 Mg/g DW
               Worst      5.84 yg/g DW

               See Section 3,  p. 3-1.

          iii. Background concentration of  pollutant in  soil
               (BS) = 0.10 yg/g DW

               See Section 3,  p. 3-2.

           iv. Assumed amount  of soil in human diet (DS)

               Pica child   5     g/day
               Adult        0.02 g/day

               The  value of  5 g/day  for a pica  child is  a
               worst-case  estimate  employed   by   U.S.   EPA's
               Exposure  Assessment   Group  (U.S.   EPA,  1983a).
               The  value of  0.02  g/day  for  an  adult  is  an
               estimate from U.S.  EPA (1984e).

            v. Average daily  human dietary intake  of pollutant
               (DI)

               Toddler    0.9  Mg/day
               Adult      5.0  yg/day

               See Section 3,  p.  3-13.
                         3-19

-------
           vi.  Acceptable  daily intake of  pollutant (ADI)
     d.
     Toddler     3 ug/day
     Adult      20 Ug/day

     See Section 3, p. 3-14.

Index 12 Values
                                Sludge Application
                                   Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.47
0.47
0.25
0.25
5
0.47
0.49
0.25
0.25
50
0.52
0.70
0.25
0.25
500
0.93
2.4
0.25
0.25
Pure
Sludg
2.8
10
0.25
0.26
     e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

     f.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  The inadvertent  ingestion
          of  sludge-amended   soil   or  pure  sludge   is   not
          expected to result  in a  toxic  threat  to humans  due
          to  Hg  except  possibly   for  toddlers  when  high-Hg
          sludge  is  landspread at   a  high  rate (500  mc/ha)  or
          when toddlers  ingest pure sludge.

5.   Index of Aggregate  Human Toxicity (Index 13)

     a.   Explanation -  Calculates  the   aggregate  amount  of
          pollutant in the  human diet  resulting  from pathways
          described in Indices  9  to 12.   Compares  this amount
          with AOI.

     b.   Assumptions/Limitations - As  described  for  Indices 9
          to 12.

     c.   Data Used and Rationale  - As  described  for  Indices 9
          to 12.
     d.   Index 13 Values
                                       Sludge Application
                                          Rate (mt/ha)
Group
Toddler
Adult
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
0.68
0.68
0.35
0.35
5
3.7
13
1.7
5.8
50
4.0
14
1.8
6.2
500
6.0
22
2.4
9.0
                         3-20

-------
              e.   Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.

              £.   Preliminary Conclusion - Landspreading  of  sludge may
                   result  in  an  aggregate  amount  of Hg  in  the  human
                   diet that poses a toxic threat.

II. LAMDPILLIMC

    A.   Index  of  Groundwater  Concentration  Increment  Resulting  from
         Landfilled Sludge (Index 1)

         1.   Explanation -  Calculates groundwater  contamination  which
              could occur  in  a potable  aquifer  in  the  landfill  vicin-
              ity.     Uses   U.S.   EPA   Exposure  Assessment  Group  (EAG)
              model,  "Rapid Assessment of Potential  Groundwater Contam-
              ination  Under  Emergency Response  Conditions"  (U.S.  EPA,
              1983b).  Treats landfill leachate  as  a pulse input,  i.e.,
              the application of  a constant source  concentration  for a
              short time period relative to the  time frame of the  anal-
              ysis.   In order  to predict  pollutant movement  in  soils
              and groundwater, parameters regarding  transport and  fate,
              and boundary  or  source  conditions  are  evaluated.   Trans-
              port   parameters  include   the   interstitial  pore  water
              velocity  and  dispersion  coefficient.    Pollutant   fate
              parameters include  the  degradation/decay  coefficient and
              retardation factor.   Retardation is primarily  a  function
              of the  adsorption  process,  which   is  characterized   by a
              linear,  equilibrium  partition  coefficient  representing
              the  ratio  of adsorbed  and solution  pollutant  concentra-
              tions.    This  partition  coefficient, along with soil bulk
              density and  volumetric  water  content, are used to calcu-
              late  the  retardation  factor.   A  computer program  (in
              FORTRAN) was  developed   to  facilitate computation of the
              analytical solution.  The  program  predicts pollutant con-
              centration as a function of time and location in  both the
              unsaturated  and  saturated  zone.    Separate computations
              and parameter estimates  are required  for  each  zone.   The
              prediction  requires  evaluations  of  four  dimensionless
              input  values and   subsequent  evaluation  of the  result,
              through use of the computer program.

         2.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Conservatively assumes  that the
              pollutant  is  100 percent  mobilized  in the  leachate and
              that  all  leachate  leaks out  of  the landfill in  a finite
              period  and undiluted by precipitation.  Assumes  that all
              soil  and aquifer properties are  homogeneous  and isotropic
              throughout each zone; steady, uniform  flow occurs only in
              the  vertical  direction  throughout  the  unsaturated  zone,
              and  only in  the  horizontal  (longitudinal)  plane in the
              saturated zone;  pollutant  movement  is  considered  only in
              direction of groundwater flow for  the saturated zone; all
              pollutants exist  in concentrations  that  do  not  signifi-
              cantly affect  water movement;  the pollutant source  is a
              pulse input;  no  dilution of  the plume occurs by recharge
                                  3-21

-------
          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
                    Worst      Sandy loam

                    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.,  K
-------
     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 5 m  in the  typical
     case  and  10 m  in the worst  case.   Thus,  the
     initial depth  of  liquid   is  4  and  8 m,  and
     average yearly  leachate  generation  is 0.8  and
     1.6  m, respectively.

(c)  Depth to groundwater (h)

     Typical    5 m
     Worst      0 m

     Eight  landfills  were  monitored  throughout  the
     United  States  and depths  to  groundwater  below
     them  were  listed.   A  typical  depth of  ground-
     water  of   5 m was  observed  (U.S.  EPA,  1977).
     For   the worst  case,  a value  of  0 m is  used  to
     represent  the situation where  the  bottom of the
     landfill is occasionally  or regularly  below the
     water table.   The depth to groundwater  must  be
     estimated   in  order  to  evaluate the  likelihood
     that  pollutants  moving through the  unsaturated
     soil will  reach the groundwater.

(d)  Dispersivity coefficient (a)

     Typical    0.5 m
     Worst      Not applicable

     The   dispersion  process  is exceedingly  complex
     and   difficult  to  quantify, especially  for  the
     unsaturated zone.    It  is  sometimes  ignored  in
     the   unsaturated  zone, with the reasoning  that
     pore  water  velocities  are  usually  large enough
     so   that   pollutant   transport   by  convection,
     i.e., water movement,  is  paramount.    As  a rule
               3-23

-------
          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    1.49 mg/kg  DW
          Worst      5.84 mg/kg  DW

          See Section 3, p. 3-1.

     (b)  Degradation rate (jl) = 0 day'1

          The degradation rate in the  unsaturated  zone is
          assumed to  be zero for all  inorganic  chemicals

     (c)  Soil sorption coefficient  (Kj)

          Typical    580 mL/g
          Worst      322 mL/g

          K
-------
          Porosity is Chat 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).

ii.  Site parameters

     (a)  Average  hydraulic  gradient  between landfill  and
          well  (i)

          Typical     0.001  (unitless)
          Worst       0.02  (unit-less)

          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 deter-
          mine  the magnitude  and  direction  of  groundwater
          flow.    As  gradient  increases,   dispersion  is
          reduced.   Estimates of  typical  and high  grad-
          ient values were  provided by Donigian (1985).

     (b)  Distance from well  to landfill (A£)

          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
                   3-25

-------
          These  values  are   10  percent  of  the  distance
          from well  to  landfill  (AH),  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  pre-
          existing  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 (il) = 0  day'1

          Degradation  is  assumed   not   to  occur  in  the
          saturated zone.

     (b)  Background   concentration   of   pollutant   in
          groundvater (BC) =0.1  Ug/L

          With few  exceptions,  che Hg content of ground-
          water  samples  was  below  detection  (0.1  Ug/L)
          (U.S.  EPA,  1980).    Also,   Cassidy  and  Furr
          (1978)  state that  inland  groundwater has a con-
          centration  of   0.1  ppb  (0.1  Ug/L).     (See
          Section 4, p. 4-3.)

     (c)  Soil sorption coefficient (Kj) = 0 mL/g

          Adsorption  is   assumed   to    be   zero   in   the
          saturated zone.

Index Values - See Table  3-1.

Value  Interpretation  -   Value  equals  factor  by  which
expected groundwater  concentration  of  pollutant   at   well
exceeds  the  background   concentration   (a  value  of  2.0
indicates the  concentration  is  doubled, a  value of  1.0
indicates no change).
                   3-26

-------
     6.   Preliminary Conclusion - Landfill ing  of  sludge may result
          in increased  concentrations  of Hg  in the  groundwater at
          the well.

B.   Index   of   Human   Toxicity   Resulting    from   Groundwater
     Contamination (Index 2)

     1.   Explanation  -  Calculates  human   exposure  which  could
          result from groundwater contamination.   Compares exposure
          with acceptable daily intake  (ADI)  of  pollutant.

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations -  Assumes  long-term exposure  to
          maximum concentration at well  at a  rate of 2 L/day.

     3.   Data Used and Rationale

          a.   Index of groundwater concentration  increment result-
               ing from landfilled sludge (Index 1)

               See Section 3,  p. 3-2.

          b.   Background concentration of pollutant  in groundwater
               (BC) = 0.1 yg/L

               See Section 3,  p. 3-26.

          c.   Average human  consumption of  drinking water (AC)  =
               2 L/day

               The value  of 2  L/day  is  a  standard  value  used  by
               U.S. EPA in most risk assessment  studies.

          d.   Average daily human dietary intake  of  pollutant  (DI)
               =5.0 ug/day

               See Section 3,  p. 3-16.

          e.   Acceptable   daily   intake  of   pollutant   (ADI)   =
               20 Mg/day (Adult)

     4.   Index 2 Values - See Table 3-1.

     5.   Value Interpretation  -  Value  equals factor by  which  pol-
          lutant intake exceeds ADI.  Value >1  indicates  a possible
          human  health  threat.    Comparison  with the  null  index
          value indicates the  degree to  which any hazard  is due  to
          landfill  disposal,   as  opposed  to  pre-existing  dietary
          sources.

     6.   Preliminary Conclusion  - Landfilling of   sludge  is  not
          expected to pose  a   toxic threat  to humans  due to Hg  in
          groundwater at  the  well, except   possibly  at  landfills
          where all worst-case parameters  exist.
                             3-27

-------
        TABLE 3-1.   INDEX OF CROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION INCREMENT RESULTING FROM LANDFILLED SLUDGE (INDEX 1) AND

                     INDEX OF HUMAN TOXICITY RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (INDEX 2)
   Site  Characteristics
    Condition of

34
   Sludge  concentration



   Unsaturated  Zone
ro
oo
                                                W
N
Soil type and charac- T
teristicsd
Site parameters6 T
Saturated Zone
Soil type and charac- T
teristics^
Site parameters^ T
Index 1 Value 1.4
Index 2 Value 0.25
T W NA T T NA M

T T U T T W N

T T T W T W N

T T T T W W N
2.6 1.4 1.4 2.9 4.0 340 0
0.27 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.28 3.6 0.25
   aT = Typical  values used;  U =  worst-case  values  used;  N  =  null  condition, where no  landfill exists, used as

    basis for comparison;  NA  = not  applicable  for  this  condition.
          values for combinations  other than  those  shown  may  be  calculated  using  the  formulae  in  the Appendix.



   cSee Table A-l in Appendix for  parameter values  used.



   dDry bulk density (Pjry) and volumetric water content  (6).



   eLeachate generation rate (Q),  depth to groundwater (h), and  dispersivity  coefficient  (a).



   ^Aquifer porosity (0) and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (K).



   Ellydraulic gradient (i), distance from well  to landfill (AS.), and dispersivity coefficient (a).

-------
III. INCINERATION

     A.   Index   of   Air   Concentration   Increment   Resulting   from
          Incinerator Emissions (Index 1)

          1.   Explanation  -  Shows  the  degree  of  elevation  of  the
               pollutant concentration  in the air  due to  the  incinera-
               tion of  sludge.   An input sludge with thermal properties
               defined  by  the energy parameter  (EP) was  analyzed  using
               the BURN model (CDM, 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 (O =
                    2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg

               b.   Sludge feed rate (DS)

                      i. Typical = 2660 kg/hr (dry  solids input)

                         A  feedy rate  of  2660  kg/hr DW   represents  an
                         average  dewatered  sludge  feed   rate   into  the
                         furnace.   This feed rate  would serve  a commun-
                         ity of approximately 400,000 people.  This rate
                         was  incorporated into  the  U.S.  EPA-ISCLT model
                         based on the following input data:

                              EP = 360  Ib H20/mm BTU
                              Combustion zone temperature - 1400°F
                              Solids content  - 28%
                              Stack height -  20 m
                              Exit gas velocity - 20  m/s
                              Exit gas  temperature  -  356.9°K  (183°F)
                              Stack diameter  - 0.60 m
                                   3-29

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

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

               EP = 392 Ib H20/mm BTU
               Combustion zone temperature -  1400°F
               Solids content - 26.6%
               Stack height - 10 m
               Exit gas velocity - 10 m/s
               Exit gas temperature - 313.8°K (105°F)
               Stack diameter - 0.80 m

c.   Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)

     Typical    1.49 mg/kg DW
     Worst      5.84 mg/kg DW

     See Section 3, p. 3-1.

d.   Fraction of pollutant emitted through stack (FM)

     Typical    1 (unitless)
     Worst      1 (unitless)

     Emission  estimates  may  vary  considerably  between
     sources;  therefore,  the values used  are based on  a
     U.S.  EPA  10-city  incineration  study   (Farrell  and
     Wall, 1981).  Where  data were  not  available from  the
     EPA  study,  a  more  recent report  which  thoroughly
     researched heavy  metal emissions was  utilized  (COM,
     1983).

e.   Dispersion parameter for estimating maximum annual
     ground level concentration (DP)

     Typical    3.4 pg/'m3
     Worst     16.0 Ug/m3

     The  dispersion  parameter  is  derived  from the  U.S.
     EPA-ISCLT short-stack model.

f.   Background concentration  of pollutant  in  urban  air
     (BA) = 0.0010  ug/m3

     Cassidy and Furr (1978) report  a  worldwide  average
     Hg  concentration  of  0.02  ug/m3.   Fleischer  (1970)
     and  U.S.  EPA  (1984b)  report  background  levels  of
     0.001 to  0.002  ug/m3  Hg  in air.   U.S.  EPA  (1984c)
     reports an  average  value  of  0.010  pg/m3  occurs  in
     urban areas.   (See Section  4,  p.  4-3.)
                   3-30

-------
     4.   Index 1 Values

                                                   Sludge Feed
          Fraction of                             Rate  (kg/hr DW)a
Pollutant Emitted
Through Stack
Typical
Worst
Sludge
Concentration
Typical
Worst
Typical
Worst
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2660
1.4
2.5
1.4
2.5
10,000
7.6
27
7.6
27
          aThe typical (3.4 ug/m) and worst (16.0 Mg/m-)    disper-
           sion parameters will always correspond,  respectively,  to
           the typical (2660  kg/hr  DW)  and worst (10,000  kg/hr DW)
           sludge feed rates.

     5.   Value  Interpretation  -  Value  equals  factor  by  which
          expected air concentration  exceeds  background  levels due
          to incinerator  emissions.

     6.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Incineration   of   sludge  may
          result   in  increased  concentrations  of  Hg  in air  above
          background  levels.

B.   Index   of   Human   Toxicity   Resulting   from   Inhalation  of
     Incinerator  Emissions (Index 2)

     1.   Explanation - Shows the increase  in  human  intake  expected
          to result from the  incineration of sludge.   For noncarci-
          nogens,  Levels  typically  were derived from  the  American
          Conference   of   Governmental   and  Industrial  Hygienists
          (ACGIH) threshold Limit  values  (TLVs) for  the workplace.

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations   -  The   exposed   population  is
          assumed to  reside within  the  impacted area for  24 hours/
          day.  A respiratory volume of  20 m-Vday is assumed over  a
          70-year Lifetime.

     3.   Data Used and Rationale

          a.   Index  of  air  concentration  increment resulting from
               incinerator emissions (Index 1)

               See Section 3,  p.  3-31.

          b.   Background concentration  of pollutant  in urban air
               (BA) = 0.0010 Ug/m3

               See Section 3,  p.  3-30.
                             3-31

-------
     c.   Maximum   permissible   intake   of    pollutant   by
          inhalation (MPIH) =3.6 Ug/day

          The MPIH for inorganic Hg  is  3.6 Ug/day  based  on an
          adjustment  of  the  workplace  Threshold  Limit  Value
          (TLV)  (U.S.  EPA,  1984a)  of  0.05  mg/m3  as a  time-
          weighted   average   (TWA)   (ACGIU,    1983).      See
          Section 4, p.  4-6.)

     d.   Exposure criterion (EC) =0.18 Mg/m3

          The  exposure  criterion  is the  level at which  the
          inhalation  of  the  pollutant  is  expected to  exceed
          the  maximum   permissible  intake   for   inhalation
          (MPIH).   The  exposure  criterion is  calculated  using
          the following  formula:


               EC =     MPIH
                     20 m3/day

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
0.56
0.56
0.076
0.14
0.42
1.5
     Worst               Typical        0.56    0.076   0.42
                         Worst          0.56    0.14    1.5

     aThe typical (3.4 ug/m3) and worst (16.0 ug/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 intake exceeds MPIH.  Value  >1  indicates  a poss-
     ible human health threat.   Comparison with  the null index
     value  at  0 kg/hr  DW indicates  the  degree  to  which  any
     hazard  is  due  to   sludge  incineration,  as  opposed  to
     background urban air concentration.

6.   Preliminary Conclusion  -  Incineration of  sludge   is  not
     expected  to  result   in  concentrations of Hg in air  that
     pose a toxic threat  to  humans, except possibly when high-
     Hg   sludge  is   incinerated   at   a   high  feed   rate
     (10,000 kg/hr DW).
                         3-32

-------
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.

    A.   Index of  Seawater  Concentration Resulting from  Initial  Mixing
         of Sludge (Index 1)

         1.   Explanation    -    Calculates    relative    concentrations
              (compared  to   the  background  concentration  of   the  pol-
              lutant)  (unitless) of  pollutant  in  seawater  around  an
              ocean disposal site assuming initial mixing.

         2.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  Assumes  that  the  background
              seawater concentration  of pollutant is  finite and  known.
              The  index  also  assumes   that  disposal   is  by tanker  and
              'that  the   daily  amount  of sludge  disposed  is  uniformly
              distributed along  a  path  transversing  the  site  and  per-
              pendicular 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 width  defined  as  the
              width  of  the  plume  four hours  after  dumping.   The  sea-
              sonal 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
                              Rate (SS)    Sinele Tanker (ST)   Path (L)

                   Typical    825 mt DW/day    1600 mt WW         8000 m
                   Worst     1650 mt DW/day    3400 mt WW         4000 m


                   The   typical  value   for  the   sludge  disposal  rate
                   assumes that  7.5  x  10^  mt  WW/year  are available for
                   dumping  from  a  metropolitan  coastal   area.    The


                                 3-33

-------
     conversion Co dry weight assumes 4  percent  solids by
     weight.  The worst-case value  is an arbitrary doubl-
     ing  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 S3 minutes travel-
     ing at a minimum  speed of  5 nautical miles  (9260 m)
     per  hour.  Under  these conditions,  the  barge  would
     enter the  site, discharge  the  sludge over 8180 m and
     exit  the  site.   Sludge  barges with  capacities  of
     1600 mt WW would  be  required to discharge a  load in
     no less than 32 minutes traveling at a  minimum speed
     of  8  nautical  miles  (14,816 m)   per  hour.    Under
     these  conditions,  the  barge would  enter the  site,
     discharge  the  sludge  over  7902 m and exit  the site.
     The mean path length  for the large  and  small tankers
     is 8041 m  or  approximately  8000 m.   Path length is
     assumed to  lie  perpendicular  to   the  direction  of
     prevailing  current  flow.  For   the  typical  disposal
     rate (SS)  of 825  mt  DU/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  (SC)

     Typical    1.49 mg/kg DW
     Worst      5.84 mg/kg DW

     See Section 3,  p.  3-1.


                   3-34

-------
     c.   Disposal site characteristics

                                          Average
                                          current
                       Depth to           velocity
                   pycnocline  (D)       at  site  (V)

          Typical      20 m             9500 m/day
          Worst         5 m             4320 m/day

          Typical  site  values are  representative of  a  large,
          deep-water  site  with   an area   of  about  1500  km^
          located beyond  the  continental shelf in the New York
          Bight.   The pycnocline value of  20 m  chosen  is  the
          average  of the  10  to  30 m  pycnocline depth  range
          occurring  in  the  summer  and  fall; the winter  and
          spring disappearance of the  pycnocline  is  not  consi-
          dered  and  so  represents  a  conservative approach  in
          evaluating  annual  or—long-term  impact.  The current
          velocity of 11 cm/sec  (9500 m/day) chosen  is  based
          on the  average current velocity  in this  area  (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  m  depth  range  of the  surface
          mixed  layer and   is therefore  a worst-case  value.
          Current  velocities  in  this  area  vary  from  0  to
          30 cm/sec.    A value  of  5  cm/sec  (4320  m/day)  is
          arbitrarily chosen to   represent  a  worst-case  value
          (CDM, 1984c).

     d.   Ambient  water  concentration  of  pollutant  (CA)  =
          0.005 ug/L

          The  ambient water  concentration  of Hg ranges  from
          0.003 to 2.0 Mg/L  (Cassidy and  Furr,  1978;  U.S.  EPA,
          1984b).  The  conservative value  chosen  is  represen-
          tative of unpolluted or open  ocean  values  and  ampli-
          fies   the  relative impact of  sludge disposal.   (See
          Section 4,  p.  4-2.)

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.


                         3-35

-------
     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   National  Oceanic   and
     Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA),  1983).  The  resulting
     plume is  initially 10 m deep  by  40 m wide (O'Connor  and
     Park, 1982, as  cited  in  NOAA,  1983).   Subsequent  spread-
     ing  of  plume  band width  occurs   at  an  average rate  of
     approximately 1 cm/sec (Csanady et  al.,  1979,  as cited in
     NOAA, 1983).  Vertical mixing  is  limited by the depth of
     the  pycnocline  or ocean  floor,  whichever is  shallower.
     Four hours after disposal,  therefore, average  plume width
     (W) may be computed as follows:

     W = 40 m +  1 cm/sec x 4 hours  x 3600  sec/hour  x  0.01 m/cm
     = 184 m = approximately 200 m

     Thus  the  volume   of  initial  mixing  is defined  by  the
     tanker path,  a  200 m  width,   and  a depth appropriate to
     the site.   For  the typical (deep water)  site,  this depth
     is chosen as the pycnocline value  of  20 m.  For  the worst
     (shallow water)  site, a  value of  10 m  was  chosen.   At
     times the  pycnocline may  be as shallow  as 5 m,  but since
     the  barge  wake causes  initial mixing  to at   least  10 m,
     the greater value was used.

5.   Index 1 Values

          Disposal                         Sludge  Disposal
          Conditions and                   Rate (mt DW/day)
          Site Charac-     Sludge
          teristics    Concentration      0      825     1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.6
3.3
1.6
3.3
          Worst          Typical         1.0     6.1      6.1
                         Worst           1.0    21       21

6.   Value  Interpretation  - Value  equals  the  relative  pollu-
     tant concentration increase  in  seawater around a disposal
     site as a  result  of sludge  disposal  after initial  mixing
     compared  to  the  background  concentration  of  the  pollu-
     tant.  The null index value at 0 mt DW/day equals 1.

7.   Preliminary  Conclusion  -  Significant   increases  in  the
     seawater  concentration  of   Hg  is  apparent  for all  the
     scenarios evaluated.
                         3-36

-------
B.   Index of Seawater Concentration Representing  a 24-Hour Dumping
     Cycle (Index 2)

     1.   Explanation  -  Calculates  relative  effective  concentra-
          tions  (compared  to  the  background  concentration of  the
          pollutant) (unitless)  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 an 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 pycno-
          cline 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.  3-33 to 3-35.

     4.   Factors  Considered in  Determining Subsequent Additional
          Degree  of Mixing (Determination of TWA Concentrations)

          See Section 3,  p. 3-37.

     5.   Index 2 Values

               Disposal                         Sludge  Disposal
               Conditions and                   Rate  (mt DW/day)
               Site Charac-    Sludge
               teristics    Concentration      0       825      1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.3
2.3
               Worst          Typical         1.0    2.4       3.8
                              Worst           1.0    6.6       12

     6.   Value   Interpretation   -   Value   equals   the  relative
          effective  pollutant concentration  expressed  as a TWA con-
          centration  in  seawater  around a disposal site  experienced
          by  an  organism over  a 24-hour  period  compared  to   the
          background  concentration  of  the  pollutant.     The null
          index value at  0 mt DW/day equals  1.
                              3-37

-------
     7.   Preliminary Conclusion  - The  incremental  increase  of  Hg
          concentrations during a  24-hour  dumping  cycle is signifi-
          cant,   especially    for   sludge    containing    "worst"
          concentrations dumped at the worst site.

C.   Index of Tozicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)

     1.   Explanation -  Compares  the relative  effective  concentra-
          tion  (compared to  the  background  concentration  of  Che
          pollutant) of  pollutant in  seawater around  the disposal
          site  (Index  2) expressed as  a 24-hour  TWA  concentration
          with  the  marine ambient  water  quality  criterion of  the
          pollutant, or with  another  value  judged  protective  of
          marine aquatic life.  For Hg,  this  value is  the  criterion
          that  will protect   the marketability  of  edible  marine
          aquatic organisms against  a Hg  residue  in edible  tissue
          hazard.

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations -  In  addition to  the assumptions
          stated  for Indices  1  and  2,  assumes  that  all  of  the
          released  pollutant  is  available  in  the  water   column  to
          move through predicted  pathways  (i.e., sludge to seawater
          to aquatic organism  to  man).   The  possibility of  effects
          arising from  accumulation  in  the sediments  is  neglected
          since the U.S.  EPA  presently  lacks  a satisfactory  method
          for deriving  sediment criteria.

     3.   Data Used and Rationale

          a.   Concentration  of  pollutant  in  seawater   around  a
               disposal site (Index 2)

               See Section 3,  p. 3-37.

          b.   Ambient  water quality criterion (AWQC) =  0.025  Ug/L

               Water  quality   criteria  for  the  toxic  pollutants
               listed under  Section  307(a)(l)  of  the  Clean  Water
               Act  of  1977 were  developed  by the  U.S.   EPA  under
               Section  304(a)(l)  of  the  Act.   These criteria  were
               derived  by utilization of data  reflecting the  resul-
               tant 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 Hg.

               The 0.10  Ug/L  value chosen  as the  criterion to  pro-
               tect saltwater  organisms  is expressed as an  average
               concentration  (U.S.  EPA,  1980  as  revised  by  U.S.
               EPA,  1981).  This  concentration,  the  saltwater  final
               residue  value,  was derived   by  using  the FDA  action
               level for marketability  for human consumption of  Hg
                             3-38

-------
               in edible  fish  and shellfish  (1  mk/kg), and  a bio-
               concentration factor  (BCF)  value  of  10,000  for  an
               aquatic species  tested.

          c.   Ambient  water  concentration  of  pollutant  (CA)  =
               0.005 Ug/L

               See Section 3, p. 3-35.

          Index 3 Values

               Disposal                         Sludge Disposal
               Conditions and                   Rate (mt DW/day)
               Site Charac-    Sludge
               teristics    Concentration      0      825     1650
Typical
Typical
Worst
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.33
0.26
0.45
               Worst          Typical         0.20   0.48     0.77
                              Worst           0.20   1.3      2.4

     5.   Value Interpretation  -  Value equals  the factor  by  which
          the  relative  effective   seawater   concentration  of  Hg
          exceeds  the  marine  water quality criterion.   A  value  >1
          indicates   that  a  tissue  residue  hazard  may exist  for
          aquatic  life.  Even  for values  approaching 1, a  Hg  resi-
          due  in  tissue hazard  may  exist,  thus jeopardizing  the
          marketability of  edible  saltwater organisms.   The criter-
          ion value  of 0.10 Ug/L is probably  coo high because  on
          the average, the Hg  residue  in  50  percent of  the aquatic
          species  similar  to  chose  used  Co  derive  the AWQC  will
          exceed  the  FDA  action  level  for   Hg   (U.S.  EPA,  1980,
          p. 8-14).

     6.   Preliminary  Conclusion  - Increases  in  incremental  hazard
          are evident  for worst concentration sludges dumped  at the
          worst and typical sites.   Increase  is also evident  at the
          worst-site with typical  concentrations.

D.   Index  of  Human  Toxicity  Resulting   from  Seafood  Consumption
     (Index 4)

     1.   Explanation  -  Estimates the  expected  increase   in  human
          pollutant  intake associated  wich the consumpcion of  se'a-
          food, a  fraction of  which originates  from  the  disposal
          site  vicinity, and  compares  the total  expected  pollutant
          intake  with the  acceptable  daily   intake  (ADI)  of  the
          pollutant.

     2.   Assumptions/Limitations  -  In  addition  to the  assumptions
          listed  for   Indices  1  and  2,  assumes   that   the  seafood
          tissue concentration  will  increase  proportionally to  the
          water concentration increase.  It also  assumes chat,  over
                             3-39

-------
     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. 3-37.

          Since  bioconcentration  is a dynamic and  reversible
          process, it is  expected  that uptake  of  sludge pollu-
          tants  by marine organisms at the disposal  site will
          reflect  TWA  concentrations,   as  quantified by  Index
          2, rather than pulse concentrations.

     t>.   Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in  seafood
          (CP) = 0.147 ug/g WW

          The  background  concentration  of  Hg  is the  average
          concentration in  50 varieties  of seafood,  weighted
          according  to   mean  consumption  (Meaburn   et   al.,
          1981).

     c.   Dietary consumption of seafood (QF)

          Typical     14.3 g WW/day
          Worst       41.7 g WW/day

          Typical  and  worst-case  values are  the  mean  and  the
          95th  percentile,  respectively,  for  all  seafood con-
          sumption  in   the  United  States  (Stanford  Research
          Institute (SRI)  International, 1980).

     d.   Fraction of  consumed  seafood originating  from  the
          disposal site (FS)

          For  a typical  harvesting scenario,   it was  assumed
          that  the total  catch over a  wide region is mixed  by
          harvesting, marketing and consumption practices,  and
          that  exposure   is  thereby diluted.    Coastal  areas
          have  been  divided  by  the   National  Marine  Fishery
          Service (NMFS)  into reporting areas for reporting  on
          data on  seafood landings.   Therefore it was  conven-
          ient  to  express  the  total   area  affected  by  sludge
          disposal as  a  fraction  of   an  NMFS  reporting  area.
          The area used to  represent  the disposal impact  area
          should be  an  approximation  of  the  total ocean  area
          over  which  the  average  concentration  defined   by
          Index 2  is roughly  applicable.   The average  rate  of
          plume  spreading  of  1  cm/sec  referred  to   earlier
          amounts to approximately  0.9  km/day.  Therefore,  the
          combined  plume   of   all   sludge   dumped  during  one
                        3-40

-------
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  km')  at  each
disposal  site  will  be considered  to be  defined  by
the tanker  path  length  (L)   times  the   distance  of
current movement (V)  during 10 days,  and  is  computed
as follows:

     AI = 10 x L x V  x  10~6 km2/m2           (1)

To be consistent with a conservative" approach, plume
dilution  due   to   spreading   in  the  perpendicular
direction  to  current  flow  is  disregarded.   More
likely,  organisms  exposed to  the  plume  in  the  area
defined by  equation  1  would experience a  TWA concen-
tration  lower   than  the  concentration expressed  by
Index 2.

Next,   the  value  of   AI  must  be  expressed  as   a
fraction of an  NMFS  reporting area.   In   the  New York
Bight,  which  includes  NMFS  areas  612-616  and  621-
623,  deep-water area   623  has  an  area   of   approxi-
mately   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  approxi-
mately  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:
               3-41

-------
      For Che typical  (deep water)  site:

      _c    AI x 0.02Z =                                (2)
      FSt = 7200 km*

FID x 8000 m x  9500 m  x  IP"6  km2/m21  x 0.0002     .    .__5
                          *>                    — A • 1  X 1U
                   7200 km2

      For the worst (near shore)  site:

      FSt = AI x 24Z =                                  (3)
            4300 km2
  TIP x 4000 m  x 4320  m  x 10"6  km2/m21 x 0.24 = g>6  ^ 1(J_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:

      FSW = 	^—5- = 0.11                       (4)
            72QO km2

      For the worst (near shore) site:

      FSU = 	——=• = 0.040                       (3)
            4300 km2

 e.   Average daily human  dietary  intake  of pollutant (DI)
      = 5.0 ug/day

      See Section 3, p. 3-16.

 f.   Acceptable   daily    intake   of   pollutant  (ADI)   =
      20 yg/day

      See Section 3, p. 3-14.
                     3-42

-------
4.   Index 4 Values
Disposal
Conditions and
Site Charac-
teristics
Typical
Worst
Sludge Seafood
Concentration3 Intake3 »D
Typical Typical
Worst Worst
Typical Typical
Worst Worst
Sludge Disposal
Rate (mt DW/day)
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
825
0.25
0.27
0.25
0.32
1650
0.25
0.29
0.25
0.39
     3 All  possible  combinations  of  these  values  are  not
       presented.   Additional  combinations  may  be  calculated
       using the formulae in the Appendix.

     D Refers to  both the dietary consumption  of seafood (QF)
       and  the  fraction  of  consumed seafood  originating from
       the disposal site  (FS).   "Typical" indicates  the use of
       the  typical-case  values  for  both of  these parameters;
       "worst"  indicates  the  use of  the  worst-case  values for
       both.

5.   Value  Interpretation - Value  equals factor  by  which the
     expected pollutant  intake  exceeds  the ADI.   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.

6.   Preliminary  Conclusion -  No  increase  in  risk  to  human
     health  is  apparent  from  typical  seafood  intake  from
     organisms  residing  at the  typical and worst  sites  after
     dumping  of  sludges  with  typical  concentrations of  Hg.
     Slight increases,  however, are  seen when site character-
     istics, sludge concentrations,  and seafood intake are all
     worst case.
                         3-43

-------
                              SECTION 4

   PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE

   A.  Sludge
       1.  Frequency of Detection

           Detected in 267 of 435 samples (61%)
           from 40 POTWs

           Detected in 78 of 81 samples (96%)
           from 10 POTWs

       2.  Concentration

           1.49 and 5.84 mg/kg DW (median and
           95th percentile, respectively) in
           sludges from 39 POTWs.  Statistically
           derived from sludge concentrations
           from a survey of 50 POTWs

           110 to 690,000 ng/L from 39 POTWs
        600 to 860,000 ng/L in sludges from
        10 POTWs

        1.9 Ug/g (DW) median
        0.037 to 78 Ug/g (DW) range from
        13 municipal sludges

        3.4 to 18.0 Ug/g (DW) in sludges from
        16 U.S. cities

B.  Soil - Unpolluted

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        Hg in earth's crust ranges from 0.01 to
        20 Ug/g with less than 20% of rocks
        sampled having more than l.-O Ug/g

        Hg averages 0.05 Ug/g in earth's
        crust

        "Mercury is a rare element in the earth's
        crust comprising less than 30 of each
        billion of its parts.  There are only 15
        elements present in smaller amounts in
        the earth than mercury."
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)

U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 49)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)
U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 41)

U.S. EPA, 1982
(p. 49)

Naylor and
Loehr, 1982
(p. 20)

Furr et al.,
1976 (p. 684)
                                                      U.S. Geological
                                                      Survey, 1970
                                                      (p.  1)

                                                      Jenkins,  1980
                                                      (p.  30)

                                                      Cassidy and
                                                      Furr,  1978
                                                      (p.  317)
                                 4-1

-------
c.
    2.  Concentration

        0.156 ug/g (DW) garden soil
    0.045 Co 0.160 Ug/g (DW) Geometric means
    uncultivated soil

    Unmineralized soils in California
    0.02 to 0.06 Ug/g

    Mineralized soils in British Columbia
    0.05 to 25 Ug/g

    Hg content of soils averages 0.1 Ug/g



    Range 0.01 to 0.5 Ug/g, average 0.1 Ug/g


    Sludge-amended soil
    1st yr 0.230 Ug/g (DW)
    2nd yr 0.360 Ug/g (DW)

Water - Unpolluted

1.  Frequency of Detection

    Assumed 100% due to ubiquitous nature
    of Hg
    2.  Concentration

        a.  Freshwater
            0.2 Ug/L in rainwater
            0.1 Ug/L inland groundwater
            0.6 Ug/L northeast U.S. inland water

            Most natural water contains >2 ug/L
        b.  Seawater

            0.03 to 2.0 Ug/L
            3 ng/L open ocean
            5 to 10 ng/L coastal waters
Cappon, 1984
(p. 100)

Erdman et al.,
1976 (p. C15)

Fleischer,
1970 (p. 57)

Fleischer,
1970 (p. 57)

U.S. Geological
Survey, 1970
(p. 1)

Ratsch, 1974
(p. 7)

Cappon, 1984
(p. 100)
                                               Cassidy and
                                               Furr,  1978
                                               (p.  308)

                                               Fleischer,
                                               1970 (p. 6)
                                               Cassidy and
                                               Furr,  1978
                                               (p.  308)

                                               U.S. EPA,
                                               1984b
                                               (p.  3-13)
                              4-2

-------
        c.   Drinking Hater

            In 698 samples of 273 water
            supplies throughout the U.S.,  only
            11 samples exceeded 1 Ug/L in
            a range from 1.0 to 4.9 Ug/L

            2.5Z of 512 Hg analyses of
            finished water exceeded the pro-
            posed 1975 standard of 2 Ug/L

            10 to 50 ng/L
       .d.  Groundwater

            With few exceptions below detection
            (0.1 Ug/L)

            Inland groundwater 0.1 ppb
D.  Air

    1.  Frequency of Detection

        Data not immediately available.

    2.  Concentration

        World average:  20 ng/m3
        In non-mineralized areas:   3 to  9 ng/m-*
        Urban areas:   10 ng/m3
        Rural areas:  3 to 4 ng/m3

        Background levels of >1 to a few
        nanograms per cubic meter

        1 to 2 ng/m3 background levels
NAS, 1978
(p. 69)
NAS, 1978
(p. 69)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 3-13)
U.S. EPA, 1980
(p. A-l)

Cassidy and
Furr, 1978
(p. 308)
Cassidy and
Furr, 1978
(p. 307)

U.S. EPA, 1984c
(p. I-D

Fleischer, 1970
(p. 6)

U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 3-12)
                              4-3

-------
E.  Pood

    1.  Total Average Intake

        Daily intake of Hg - Adult

        Total Daily Intake (ug/day)

        FY75   FY76    FY77    FY78

        3.7    6.5     6.3    3.4

        Daily intake of Hg - Toddler

        Total Daily Intake (ue/day)
                                               FDA, 1980b
                                               FDA, 1980a
    FY75
                 FY76
FY77
    0.9
                 0.8
1.1
2.  Concentration
    1 to 123 ng/g range in vegetable samples
    from Texas; 4 to 282 ng/g range in fresh
    fruit samples from Texas

    >20 ng/g WW most food stuffs
    (non-fish food)

    Fiscal Year 1978 Daily Intake of Hg
                                                   Gerdes et al.,
                                                   1974 (pp. 16
                                                   and 17)

                                                   U.S. EPA, 1984b
                                                   (p. 3-15)

                                                   FDA, no date
                                                   (Attachment I)
Food Group
Dairy
Meat, fish, poultry
Grains and cereals
Potatoes
Leafy vegetables
Legume root vegetables
Root vegetable
Garden fruits
Fruits
Oils and fats
Sugars and adjuncts
Beverages
Total
Group
Daily
Intake
(Ug/day)
0.08
2.34
0.59
0.10
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.01
0.0
3.42
Intake
as % of
Daily
Intake
2.3
68.4
17.3
2.9
0.9
2.3
0.9
0.3
1.5
2.9
0.3
0.0
100.0
    1 to 27 ng/g of Hg range in total diet
    studies, 1978
                                                   FDA, No date
                                                   (Attachment F)
                          4-4

-------
II. HUMAN EFFECTS

    A.  Ingestion

        1.  Carcinogenicity

            Adequate data regarding carcinogenic
            effects of Hg could not be located in
            available literature.

        2.  Chronic Toxicity

            a.  ADI

                Alkyl Hg:  Adult 20 Ug/day



                Inorganic Hg:   Adult 3 Ug/day

            b.  Effects

                Micromercurialism and other central
                nervous disorders.

                No effects observed at drinking water
                levels of 15.8 ug/kg/day

        3.  Absorption Factor

            7% inorganic Hg (mercuric nitrate)


        4.  Existing Regulations

            Ambient Water Quality Criteria =
            144 ng/L

            U.S. EPA 2 Ug/L drinking water
            WHO 1 Ug/L drinking water

            Ingestion through  contaminated aquatic
            (freshwater and marine fish and shellfish)
            organisms alone ambient water =
            146 ng/L

    B.  Inhalation

        1.  Carcinogenicity

            No evidence of being carcinogenic
            to humans when inhaled.
                     U.S. EPA, 1984c
                     (p. VIII-12)
                     WHO, 1976 as
                     cited in U.S.
                     EPA, 1980

                     U.S. EPA, 1984a
                     U.S. EPA, 1984c
                     (p. 1-3)
                     U.S. EPA, 1984c
                     (p. III-l)
                     U.S. EPA, 1984c
                     (p. 1-3)'
                     U.S. EPA, 1980
                     (p. C-92)
4-5

-------
         2.  Chronic Toxicity

             a.  Inhalation Threshold or MPIH

                 The MPIH for inorganic Ug is
                 3.6 tig/day, based on an adjustment
                 of the workplace TLV (see below,
                 "Existing Regulations").

             b.  Effects

                 Micromercurialism and other central
                 nervous disorders

         3.  Absorption Factor

             vT80% through the lungs


         4.  Existing Regulations

             Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for
             inorganic Hg is 0.05 mg/m-* as a time-
             weighted average (TWA).

III. PLANT EFFECTS

     A.  Phytotoxicity

         See Table 4-1.

         Increased clay content reduces Hg toxicity


         Stem elongation and biomass  increase were
         significantly inhibited by concentrations
         equal to or greater than 0.01 ppm
         (tomato seedlings).

         Hg concentration in leaf at  treatment
         0.006 ppm methyl Hg hydroxide is
         1.5 ppm Hg wet weight  (WW)

     B.  Uptake

         See Table 4-2.

         12.2 Mg/g Hg found in tomato fruit grown
         on high Hg sludge
U.S. EPA, 1984a
U.S. EPA, 1984c
(p. 1-3)
U.S. EPA, 1984b
(p. 3)
ACGIH, 1983
Weaver et al.,
1984 (p. 137)

Haney and
Lipsey, 1973
(p.308)
CAST, 1976
(p. 29)
                                   4-6

-------
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS

    A.  Toxicity

        See Table 4-3.

        Suggested maximum tolerable dietary level      NAS, 1980
        for domestic animals is 2 ppm for both the     (p. 313)
        organic and inorganic forms.

    B.  Uptake

        See Table 4-4.

 V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS

    A.  Toxicity

        1.  Freshwater

            a.  Acute

                One-hour average concentration does    U.S. EPA, 1985
                not exceed 2.4 Ug/L more than once     (p. 23)
                every three years on average.

            b.  Chronic

                Four-day average concentration does    U.S. EPA, 1985
                not exceed 0.012 ug/L more  than        (p. 23)
                once  every three years on average.

        2.  Saltwater

            a«  Acute

                One-hour concentration does not        U.S. EPA, 1985
                exceed  2.1 Ug/L  more  than  once         (p. 24)
                every three years on average.

            b.  Chronic

                Four-day average concentration does    U.S. EPA, 1985
                not exceed 0.025 Ug/L more than        (p. 24)
                once  in every  three years  on average.

     B.  Uptake

        Methylmercuric  chloride  with  an  oyster         U.S. EPA,  1980
        BCF = 40,000.  Based on  FDA action  level
        1  mg/kg and BCF =  23,000.   The  Freshwater
        Final Residue Value  =  0.043
                                   4-7

-------
         Slow race of demethylation is responsible      U.S. EPA, 1980
         for biological half-life of J*2 to 3 years.

 VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS

     A.  Toxicity

         Data not immediately available.

     B.  Uptake

         See Table 4-5.

VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING FATE AND TRANSPORT

     Molecular weight:  200.59
     Density:  13.59
     Slightly volatile at room temperature
     Insoluble in water

     44 to 56% of total Hg added to turf grass was      Gilmour and
     lost in 57 days which was attributed to volatili-  Miller, 1973
     zation of metallic Hg formed in the turf grass-    (p. 145)
     soil system.
                                   4-8

-------
                                                        TABLE 4-1.  PIIYTOTOXIC1TY OF MERCURY
Plant/tissue
Bermuda grass/
leaf
Bermuda grass/
leaf
Tomato/seedling
Tomato/seedling
Tomato/seedling
Tomato/ seedling
Corn/seedling

Corn/seedling

Corn/seedling

Bean/ seedling

Bean/seedling

Chemical
Form
Applied
HgCl2 (Pot)c
HgCl2 (Pot)
MMIIa (Pot)
MMH (Pot)
MMH (Pot)
MMH (Pot)
MMH (Pot)

MMH (Pot)

MMH (Pot)

MMH (Pot)

HMH (Pot)

Control
Tissue
Soil Concentration
pH (M8/8 DW)
4.7
7.7
Nutrient
Solution
Nutrient
Sol ut ion
Nutrient
Solut ion
Nutrient
Sol ut ion
Nutrient
Sol ut l on

Nutrient
Solution

Nutrient
Solution

Nutrient
Solution

Nutrient
Solution

<1.0

-------
                                                       TABLE 4-2.  UPTAKE OP MERCURY BY PLANTS


Plant/tissue
Festuca/plant

Bean/edible
Cabbage/edible
Carrot/edible
Millet/edible
Onion/edible
Potato/edible
Tomato/edible
Bromegrass/stem
Bromegrass/root
Lettuce/edible
Spinach/edible
Broccoli/edible
Caul if lower/edible
Peas/edible
Oats/grain
Radishes/edible
Carrot/edible
Alfalfa/root

Lettuce/edible
Lettuce/edible
Bermuda grass/
leaf
Bermuda grass/
leaf
Tomato/seedling

a Uptake slope: * =

Chemical Form
Applied
Atmospheric
deposited llg (field)d
Hg fungicide (field)
llg fungicide (field)
Hg fungicide (field)
Hg fungicide (field)
Hg fungicide (field)
llg fungicide (field)
Hg fungicide (field)

Soil
pll
NRD

NR
NH
NR
NR
NK
NH
NR
PMAe (Pot)h (sewage/et fluent) NR
NMCf (Pot) (etfluent/sewage)
HgCl2 (Pot)
HgCI2 (Pot)
UgCl2 (Pot)
HgCl2 (Pot)
HgCl2 (Pot)
HgCl2 (Pot)
HgCl2 (Pot)
HgCl2 (Pot)
Atmospheric
deposited Ug (field)
llg fungicide (Pol)
Hg fungicide (Pot)
HgCl2 (Pot)

HgCl2 (Pot)

MMUC (Pot)

R/R tissue DU. e PHA
kg/ha DW f MMC
NR
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.1-5.3

5.9
7.1
7.6

4.7

Nutrient
Solution
= Hhcnyl
= Methyl
Range of
Application Rates
(kg/ha)
0.04-25.2

0.2- .0
0.2- .0
0.2- .0
0.2- .0
0.2- .0
0.2- .0
0.2- .0
0-20
0-20
0-40
0-40
0-40
0-40
0-40
0-40
0-40
0-40
2.3-184

0.012-14.26
NOB- 3. 28
0-99.9

0-99.9

0.002-0.118

mecuric acetate.
mercuric chloride.
Control Tissue
Concentration
(Mg/g DW)
0.07

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.095
0.11
0.031
0.094
0.063
0.079
0.001
0.009
0.013
0.044
0.56

0.033
0.023
0.01

0.01

0.1



Uptake*
Slope References
0.53 Bull et al., 1977 (p. 138)

Elfving et al., 1978 (p. 96)
—
—
—
--
—
—
0.039 Hogg et al., 1978 (p. 449)
2.12
0.001 John, 1972 (p. 79)
0.014
—
—
0.001
0.001
0.017
—
0.057 Lindberg ec al., 1979 (p. 575)

0.005 HacLean, 1974 (p. 289)
0.047
0.025 Weaver et al., 1984 (pp. 135 to
138)
0.064

24.7 Haney and Lipsey, 1973 (p. 305)


b NR = Not reported.
c MMII = Methylmercury hydroxide
d Field = Field test.
8 NO = Nul delected.
n Pot = Pot test.

-------
                                          TABLE 4-3.  TOXICITY OP MERCURY TO DOMESTIC ANIMALS  AND WILDLIFE
Speciea (N)a
Rat
Rat (54)
Rat (54)
Rac (54)
CaK
Calf
Cattle (10)
1 Sheep (12)
t-i
""* Pigs (5)
Pigs (7)
Mink
Mink
Mink

Mallard
(13 pairs)
Chemical
Form Fed
Hg2*
CII3Hg
CH3Hg
HgCl
Methylmercury
Nethylmercury
Nethylmercury
dicyandiamide
Phenylmercuric
chloride
Phenylmercuric
CH3llgCl
CH3HgCl
HgCl
Methyl llg
Methyl /mercury
dicyandiamide
Feed Con- Water Con- Daily
centration centracion Intake Duration
(pg/g) (mg/L) (mg/kg BU) of Study
8000 — ~ NRb
1 — Life-term
5 — Life-term
— ,5 — Life-term
0.1 90 days
0.2-0.4 75 days
0.225 40-60 days
0.19 90 days
0.38-0.76
2.28-4.56 90 days
0.1 ~ ~ 93 days
l.B ~ — 93 days
10 ~ — 150 days
5 — — 1 month
3 — ~ 28 weeks
Effects References
Lethal Cough et al., 1979 (p. 36)
Increased body weight Schroeder and Mitchner,
1975 (p. 452)
Decreased body weight,
highly toxic
No effect
"Tolerated" HAS, 1980 (p. 309)
Methylmercury toxicosis
Incoordination and
unsteady gait
No effect
accumulation
Kidney and colon
nercosis
No effect HAS, I960 (p. 310)
Lethal
No effect Auerlich et al., 1974
(p. 43)
Lethal
Reduced chick size, Finley and Stendell,
halchability, duckling 1978 (p. 51)
survival
  N = Number of animals per treatment group.
b NR = Nat reported.

-------
                                           TABLE 4-4.  UPTAKE OF MERCURY BY DOMESTIC ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE
Species (N)a
Duck
Duck
Duck
Duck
4S Mink (24)
ro Mink (24)
Mink (22)
Mink (10)
Mink (10)
Hink (8)
Chemical
Form Fed
HB
Hg
»8
Hg
Methyl Mercury
Methyl Mercury
Methyl Mercury
Methyl Mercury
Methyl Mercury
Methyl Mercury
Range (N)a
of Feed
Concentrations
(Mg/B DW)
<0. 05-3(2)
<0. 05-3(2)
<0. 05-3(2)
<0. 05-3(2)
0-5(2)
0-5(2)
0-5(2)
0-1(2)
0-1(2)
0-1(2)
Tissue
Analyzed
Egg
Liver
Kidney
Muscle
Liver
Kidney
Muscle
Liver
Kidney
Muscle
Control Tissue
Concentration
(pg/g UU)
0.07
0.13
0.06
<0.05
0.28
0.68
0.05
0.28
0.68
0.05
Uptakeb«c
Slope References
2.06 Finley and Stendell, 1978 (pp. 56 and 60)
12.1
7.04
2.33
11.1 Auerlich et al.. 1974 (p. 48)
7.4
5.0
0.29
3.21
0.01
a N = Number of experimental animals or feed concentrations when reported.
b Uptake slope:  y = animal tissue concentration; x = teed concentration.
c Uhen tissue values were reported as wet weight, unless otherwise indicated a moisture content  of 77Z was  assumed for kidney,  70Z for liver and  72Z
  for muscle.

-------
                                                          TABLE 4-5.  UPTAKE OF MERCURY BY SOIL BIOTA
u>

Species
Earthworm

Range (N)b
of Soil
Concentrations Tissue
Chemical Form (MB/6 W> Analyzed
Atmospherically 0.106-3.81(2) Whole
deposited llg
_^ — 	 	
Control Tissue
Concentration Uptake8
(ug/g DU) Slope References
0.0^1 0.34 Bull et al., 1977 (p. 137)
==================================^==
     8 Uptake slope = y/x:  y = tissue concentrations; x = soil concentrations.
     b M = Number of feed concentrations used.

-------
                                SECTION 5

                               REFERENCES
Abramowitz,  M.,  and  I.  A.  Stegun.    1972.    Handbook of  Mathematical
     Functions.  Dover Publications, New York, NY.

American  Conference  of Governmental  and Industrial  Hygienists.   1983.
     Threshold Limit  Values  for Chemical Substances  and  Physical Agents
     in   the  Work   Environment  with  Intended   Changes   for  1983-84.
     Cincinnati, OH.

Auerlich,  R.  J.,  R.  K.  Ringer,  and  S.  Iwamoto.   1974.    Effects  of
     Dietary  Mercury  on  Mink.    Arch.  Environ.  Contain,  and  Toxicol.
     2:43.

Bertrand,  J.  E., M.  C.  Lutrick,  G. T.  Edds, and  R. L.  West.   1981.
     Metal  Residues  in Tissues, Animal Performance   and  Carcass Quality
     with Beef Steers  Grazing  Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures  Treated with
     Liquid Digested Sludge.  J. Ani. Sci. 53:1.

Boswell,  F. C.   1975.   Municipal  Sewage  Sludge and Selected Element
     Applications  to  Soil:  Effect  on   Soil  and  Fescue.   J.  Environ.
     Qual. 4(2):267-273.

Bull,  K.  R.,  E.  D.   Roberts,  M.  J.  Inski,  and  G.   T.  Goodman.   1977.
     Mercury  Concentrations   in   Soil,   Grass,   Earthworms,   and  Small
     Mammals  Near  an  Industrial   Emission   Source.    Environ.  Pollut.
     12:135-4.

Camp  Dresser  and  McKee,  Inc.    1983.  New   York City  Special  Permit
     Application Ocean Disposal of  Sewage Sludge.  Prepared  for the City
     of New York Department of Environmental Protection.

Camp Dresser  and McKee, Inc.   1984a.   Development of  Methodologies  for
     Evaluating  Permissible  Contaminant  Levels  in Municipal  Wastewater
     Sludges.   Draft.   Office  of  Water Regulations   and  Standards,  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.

Camp Dresser  and McKee, Inc.   1984b.   Technical  Review  of  the 106-Mile
     Ocean  Disposal  Site.   Prepared for U.S.  EPA  under Contract No.  68-
     01-6403.  Annandale,  VA.

Camp Dresser  and McKee,  Inc.   1984c.   Technical  Review of  the 12-Mile
     Sewage Sludge Disposal  Site.   Prepared for U.S.  EPA under Contract
     No. 68-01-6403.   Annandale, VA.

Cappon, C.  J.   1984.  Content and Chemical Form of Mercury  and Selenium
     in  Soil,  Sludge, and  Fertilizer Materials.   Water,  Air,  and  Soil
     Pollution, 1984.  22:95.
                                   5-1

-------
Cassidy,  D. M.,  and  A.  Purr.   1978.   Toxicity of  Inorganic  and Organic
     Mercury Compounds in Animals.   In;   F. W. Oehme  (ed.),  Toxicity of
     Heavy Metals in Che Environment.  Mercel  Dekker,  Inc.,  New York and
     Basel.

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.

Council  for Agricultural Science  and Technology.    1976.   Application of
     Sewage Sludge to  Cropland.  Appraisal  of Potential Hazards  of  the
     Heavy  Metals  to  Plants   and  Animals.    EPA 430/9-76-013.    U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.  163 pp.

Donigian,  A. S.   1985.   Personal  Communication.   Anderson-Nichols  &  Co.,
     Inc., Palo Alto, CA.  May.

Elfving,  D. C.,  W.  M. Haschek, R.  A.  Stehn et al.    1978.   Heavy Metal
     Residues  in Plants Cultivated on and in  Small  Mammals  Indigenous to
     Old  Orchard Soils.   Arch,  of  Environ.  Health.   March-April: 95-99.

Erdman,  J.  A.,  H.  T.  Shacklette,  and  J.   R.  Keith.   1976.   Elemental
     Composition  of  Selected  Native Plants  and   Associated  Soils  from
     Major  Vegetation-Type  Areas   in   Missouri.     Geological   Survey
     Professional Paper,  954-C.   Washington, D.C.

Farrell,  J. B., and H. Wall.  1981.   Air Pollutional  Discharges from Ten
     Sewage Sludge Incinerators.  Draft Review Copy.   U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Cincinnati,  OH.   February.

Food and   Drug  Administration.    1980a.    FY  77   Total  Diet  Studies -
  *  Infants  and  Toddlers  (7320.74).    Bureau of  Foods.   October  22.
     37  pp.

Food and Drug Administration.   1980b.   FY  77  Total Diet  Studies - Adult
     (7320.73).   Bureau of  Foods.   December  11.   33 pp.

Food and  Drug Administration.   (No  date.)   FY 78  Total  Diet  Studies -
     Adult (7305.003).   Bureau  of  Foods.

Finley,  M.  T.t  and  R.  C.   Stendell.   1978.   Survival and  Reproductive
     Success  of  Black   Ducks   Fed  Methyl  Mercury.    Environ.  PoLlut.
     16:51.

Fleischer,  M.    1970.    Summary  of the   Literature  on  the  Inorganic
     Geochemistry of Mercury.   In; Mercury  in  the  Environment.   Geologic
     Survey Professional  Paper  No.  17.   Washington, D.C.
                                   5-2

-------
Freeze, R.  A.,  and J.  A.  Cherry.   1979.   Groundwater.   Prentice-Hall,
     Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Purr, A.  K.,  A. W. Lawrence,  S.  S. long,  et al.   1976.   Multi-Element
     and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon  Analysis  of  Municipal Sewage Sludges of
     American Cities.   Env. Sci. & Technol.  10:683.

Gelhar,  L.  W.,  and  C.  J.  Axness.    1981.    Stochastic  Analysis  of
     Macrodispersion in 3-Dimensionally  Heterogeoenous Aquifers.  Report
     No.  H-8.    Hydrologic  Research Program,  New  Mexico  Institute  of
     Mining and Technology, Soccorro, NM.

Gerdes, R.  A.,  J.  E.  Hardcastle, and  K.  T.  Stabenow.    1974.   Mercury
     Content of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.  Chemosphere.  1:13.

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.

Gilmour, J. T., and M.  S.  Miller.   1973.   Fate of a Mercuric-Mercurious
     Chloride Fungicide Added to Turf Grass.  J. Environ. Qual.  2:145.

Gough,  L.  P.,  H.  T.  Shacklette,   and  A.  A.  Case.    1979.    Element
     Concentrations  Toxic   to   Plants,   Animals,   and  Man.    Geological
     Survey Bulletin 1466.   Washington,  D.C.

Haney, A., and  R.  L.  Lipsey.   1973.  Accumulation and Effects of Methyl
     Mercury  Hydroxide  in  a  Terrestrial   Food  Chain Under  Laboratory
     Conditions.  Environ.  Pollut.  5:305.

Hogg, T.  J.,  J.  R. Bettany,  and  J. W.  Stewart.   1978.   The  Uptake  of
     ^O^Hg-Labeled  Mercury  Compounds   by   Bromegrass   from  Irrigated
     Undisturbed Soil  Columns.   J. Environ. Qual.  7:445.

Jenkins,  D.  W.   1980.   Biological  Monitoring of  Toxic Trace  Metals.
     Vol. 1.  Biological Monitoring  and  Surveillance.   EPA 600/3-80-089,
     U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Las Vegas, NV.  215 pp.

John, M.  K.   1972.   Mercury Uptake  from Soil  by  Various  Plant Species.
     Bull.  Env. Cont. & Toxicol.   8:77.

Lindberg,  S.   E.,  D.  R.  Jackson,  J.   W.   Huckabee  et  al.    1979.
     Atmospheric Emission and  Plant  Uptake of  Mercury from  Agricultural
     Soils Near the Almaden Mercury Mine.  J.  Env. Qual.  8:572.

MacLean,  A.  J.    1974.   Mercury  in  Plants and Retention of  Mercury  by
     Soils in Relation to Properties and Added  Sulfur.   Am.  J.  Soil  Sci.
     54:287.

Meanburn, G.  M.,  K.  B.  Bolton,  H.  L.   Seagran,  T.  S.  Siewicki, S.  M.
     Bingham, and  P.  J.  Eldridge.   1981.   Application  of a  Computer
     Simulation Model  to Estimate Dietary  Intake  of  Cadmium  from Seafood
     by U.S.  Consomers.   NOAA  Tech.   Memorandum NMFS SEFC-74.  April.
                                   5-3

-------
National Academy  of  Sciences.   1978.   An  Assessment  of Mercury  in the
     Environment.   Panel on  Mercury of  the Coordinating  Committee for
     Scientific and  Technical Assessments  for  Environmental Pollutants.
     Washington, D.C.

National Academy  of  Sciences.    1980.    Mineral  Tolerances  of Domestic
     Animals.  Subcommittee on Mineral  Toxicity in Animals.  Washington,
     D.C.

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.

Naylor, L. M., and R. C.  Loehr.   1982.   Priority Pollutants in Municipal
     Sewage Sludge.  BioCycle.  July/August:18.

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  che  Prediction  of  Leachate  Plume
     Migration  and  Mixing.   U.S.  EPA Municipal  Environmental Research
     Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Ratsch,  H.  C.   1974.   Heavy Metal  Accumulation in Soil  and  Vegetation
     from Smelter Emissions.   EPA 660/3-74-012.  U.S.  Environmental Pro-
     tection  Agency  Office of  Research and  Development,  Corvallis, OR.
     23 pp.

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.

Schroeder, H.  A., and M.  Mitchner.   1975.  Life-Term Effects of Mercury,
     Methyl-Mercury,  and Nine  Other  Trace Mecals  on Mice.    J.  Nutr.
     105:452.

Sikora,  L.  J., W.  D.  Surge,  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 11.  Prepared  for U.S. EPA under
     Contract  No. 68-01-3887.  Menlo Park,  CA.  September.

Steel,  E.  W., and T. J.  McGhee.   1979.  In: Water  Supply and Sewerage,
     5th Ed.   McGraw-Hill Book Co.,  New York, NY.

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.
                                   5-4

-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture.   1975.   Composition of  Foods.   Agricul-
     tural 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  Mercury.    EPA  440/5-80-058.    U.S.   Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.     1982.     Fate   of   Priority
     Pollutants  in  Publicly-Owned  Treatment   Works.     Final   Report.
     Vol.  I.      EPA   440/1-82-303.      Effluent  Guidelines   Division,
     Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental   Protection Agency.    1983a.   Assessment  of  Human
     Exposure   to  Arsenic:     Tacoma,  Washington.    Internal  Document.
     OHEA-E-075-U.    Office  of   Health   and  Environmental  Assessment,
     Washington, D.C.  July 19.

U.S. Environmental   Protection Agency.    1983b.   Rapid  Assessment  of
     Potential   Groundwater  Contamination   Under  Emergency   Response
     Conditions.  EPA 600/8-83-030.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.  1984a.   Health  Effects  Assessment
     for Mercury.   Program  Office  Draft.   ECAO-CIN-H042.   Environmental
     Criteria  and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   1984b.   Mercury Health  Effects
     Update.    EPA 600/8-84-019F.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
     Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   1984c.    Drinking Water  Criteria
     Document  for Mercury.   ECAO-CIN-025.   U.S. Environmental  Protection
     Agency,  Cincinnati, OH.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.     1984d.    Technical   Resource
     Document   for  Public Comments:   Methods  for  Prediction of  Leachate
     Plume  Migration  and  Mixing.    Draft.    Municipal   Environmental
     Research  Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1984e.   Air Quality  Research
     Criteria   for Lead.    External  Review  Draft.    EPA  600/8-83-028B.
     Environmental  Criteria  and   Assessment  Office,  Research  Triangle
     Park, NC.  September.
                                   5-5

-------
U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1985.   Ambient  Water  Quality
     Criteria Document for Mercury.   Unpublished.

U.S. Geological Survey.   1970.   Mercury in the Environment.   Geological
     Survey Professional Paper 713.  U.S. Geological  Survey,  Washington,
     D.C.

Weaver, R. W., J. R.  Melton, W. DeShin, and R. L.  Duble.   1984.   Uptake
     of Arsenic and  Mercury from Soil  by  Bermuda Grass.   Environmental
     Pollution.  Series A.  33:133.

World  Health  Organization.    1976.    Environmental  Health  Criteria,
     Mercury.  Geneva.  (As cited in U.S. EPA,  1980.)
                                   5-6

-------
                              APPENDIX

          PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR MERCURY
                     IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING

   A.   Effect on Soil Concentration of Mercury

        1.   Index of Soil Concentration Increment (Index 1)

             a.   Formula

                  T .   .    (SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
                  Index 1 =     BS (AR * MS)

                  where:

                       SC = Sludge    concentration    of     pollutant
                            (Ug/g DW)
                       AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
                       BS = Background  concentration   of  pollutant  in
                            soil (ug/g DW)
                       MS = 2000 mt  DW/ha  =  Assumed   mass  of soil  in
                            upper 15 cm

             b.   Sample calculation

               (1.49 Ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (0.10 Ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
             =         0.10 ug'/g DW (5 mt/ha + 2000 mt/ha)

   B.   Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota

        1.   Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)

             a.   Formula

                            Ii  x BS
                  Index 2 = ——	


                  where:

                       II = Index  1  =  Index  of  soil   concentration
                            increment (unitless)
                       BS = Background  concentration   of  pollutant  in
                            soil (ug/g DW)
                       TB = Soil  concentration  toxic   to  soil   biota
                            (Ug/g DW)

             b.   Sample calculation  -  Values were not calculated  due
                  to lack of data.
                                 A-l

-------
     2.   Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)

        •  a.   Formula

                         Q! - 1)(BS x UB) + BB
               Index 3 = - ^ -

               where:

                    II = Index  1  =  Index  of  soil  concentration
                         increment (unitless)
                    BS = Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in
                         soil (yg/g DW)
                    UB = Uptake  slope  of  pollutant   in  soil  biota
                         (Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g soil  DW]'1)
                    BB = Background  concentration   in   soil   biota
                         (Ug/g DW)
                    TR = Feed concentration toxic to  predator  (ug/g
                         DW)

          b.   Sample calculation  -  Values were not  calculated  due
               to lack of data.

C.   Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration

     1.   Index of Phytotoxicity (Index 4)

          a.   Formula

                            x BS
               Index 4 =
               where :

                    II = Index  1   =  Index   of   soil   concentration
                         increment  (unitless)
                    BS = Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in
                         soil (Ug/g DW)
                    TP = Soil concentration  toxic  to  plants  (ug/g
                         DW)

          b.   Sample calculation

                       1.03 x 0.10  Ug/g DW
                           8.0 ug/g  DW
                              A-2

-------
2.   Index of  Plant Concentration  Increment Caused  by Uptake
     (Index 5)

     a.   Formula

                    (Ii - 1) x BS
          Index 5 = — = - x CO x UP  + 1
                         BP
          where :
               II = Index  1  =  Index  of  soil  concentration
                    increment (unitless)
               BS = Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in
                    soil (ug/g DW)
               CO = 2   kg/ha   (ug/g)~^  =   Conversion  factor
                    between soil  concentration and  application
                    rate
               UP = Uptake slope  of pollutant  in plant  tissue
                    (Ug/g tissue DW  [kg/ha]'1)
               BP = Background  concentration  in  plant  tissue
                    (Ug/g DW)

     b.   Sample calculation

                 (1.03  -  1)  x  0.10  ug/g DW    2 kg/ha
          i>UQ ~       0.01 ug/g DW          *Ug/g soil

            0.064 ug/g  tissue   .
          X      kg/ha          l

3.   Index  of   Plant   Concentration  Increment  Permitted  by
     Phytotoxicity (Index 6)

     a.   Formula

                    PP
          Index 6 = —
          where:
               PP = Maximum    plant    tissue    concentration
                    associated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
               BP = Background  concentration  in  plant  tissue
                    (Ug/g DW)
     b.   Sample calculation

           0 _  0.2  Ug/g  DW
                0.01 Ug/g DW
                         A-3

-------
C.   Effect on Herbivorous Animals

     1.   Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
          (Index 7)

          a.   Formula

                         I5 x  BP
               Index 7 » -=-=^	
               where:
                    15  = Index   5  =  Index  of  plant  concentration
                         increment caused  by uptake  (unitless)
                    BP  = Background  concentration  in plant  tissue
                         (Ug/g  DW)
                    TA  = Feed   concentration   coxic  to  herbivorous
                         animal (Mg/g  DW)
          b.   Sample calculation
     2.   Index of Animal  Toxicity  Resulting from Sludge  Ingestion
          (Index 8)

          a.   Formula

               if ii.o.    1-ssa
               if AR 4 a,    i8  » SCT*  cs

               where:

                    AR = Sludge application  rate  (mt DU/ha)
                    SC = Sludge    concentration     of    pollutant
                         (Ug/g  DW)
                    BS = Background  concentration  of   pollutant  in
                         soil (yg/g  DW)
                    CS = Fraction of animal  diet  assumed to be soil
                         (unitless)
                    TA = Feed   concentration  toxic  to  herbivorous
                         animal (pg/g  DW)

          b.   Sample calculation

               « AR . 0,   0.0025  -  "-'

               ««,..   ...37 - ^
                              A-4

-------
E.   Effect on Humans

     1.   Index of  Human Toxicity Resulting  from Plant Consumption
          (Index 9)

          a.   Formula

                          [(I5 - 1) BP x DT] + DI
               Index 9 = 	
                                 ADI

               where:

                    15 = Index  5  =  Index of  plant  concentration
                         increment caused by uptake (unicless)
                    BP = Background  concentration  in  plant  tissue
                         (Ug/g DW)
                    DT = Daily  human  dietary  intake  of  affected
                         plant tissue (g/day DW)
                    DI = Average  daily   human   dietary  intake  of
                         pollutant (ug/day)
                    ADI = Acceptable   daily   intake   of   pollutant
                          (Ug/day)

          b.   Sample calculation (toddler)

     n       f(1.009 - 1)  x 0.013 ue/g DW  x  74.5 g/dayl  *  0.9  Ug/day
     0>3° =                        3 ug/day

     2.   Index  of  Human Toxicity  Resulting  from  Consumption of
          Animal  Products Derived  from  Animals   Feeding  on Plants
          (Index  10)

          a.   Formula

                           [(I5  -  1)  BP  x  UADA]  +  DI
               Index  10  =


               where:

                   UADA = (UAL x DAL) +  (UAm x DA,,,)
                    UAL = UA  for liver
                    DAL = DA  for  liver
                    UA,,, = UA  for muscle
                    DAm = DA  for muscle
                     15 = Index  5  =  Index  of  plant  concentration
                          increment  caused by  uptake (unitless)
                     BP = Background  concentration in  plant  tissue
                          (Ug/g DW)
                     UA = Uptake  slope of pollutant in  animal  tissue
                          (Ug/g tissue DW fug/g feed DW]'1)
                     DA = Daily   human   dietary   intake  of   affected
                          animal  tissue  (g/day DW)
                               A-5

-------
                               DI = Average  daily  human  dietary   intake   of
                                    pollutant (ug/day)
                              ADI = Acceptable   daily  intake   of   pollutant
                                    (Ug/day)

                     b.   Sample calculation (toddler)

                          0.32 =

[(1.04  -  1)  x 0.01 ug/g DW x  130.8  ug/g  tissuefug/g feed]"1 (g/day)1 + 0.9 ue/dav
                                       3  Ug/day

                3.   Index of Human  Toxicity  Resulting   from  Consumption  of
                     Animal  Products  Derived   from  Animals   Ingesting   Soil
                     (Index 11)

                     a.   Formula
                          _,  AD   _    _  .    ..   (BS x GS x UADA) + DI
                          If  AR = 0,   Index  11  = 	r:r=	

                          T,  AD  , _    T   .    .,   (SC x GS x UADA) + DI
                          If  AR f 0,   Index  11 =


                          where:

                             UADA = (UAL  x DAL) + (UAm x
                              UAL = UA for liver
                              DAL = DA f°r liver
                              UAm = UA for muscle
                              DAm = DA for muscle
                               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
                                    (unitless)
                               UA = Uptake slope of pollutant in  animal  tissue
                                    (Ug/g tissue DW fug/g  feed  DW'1]
                               DA = Average  daily  human  dietary   intake   of
                                    affected animal  tissue (g/day  DW)
                               DI = Average  daily  human  dietary   intake   of
                                    pollutant (ug/day)
                              ADI - Acceptable   daily  intake   of   pollutant
                                    (Ug/day)

                b.   Sample calculation (toddler)

                     3.5 =

 (1.49 Ug/g DW x  0.05  x 130.8 Ug/g tissue [ug/g feed]"1 (g/day DW) + 0.9 Ug/day
                                       3  Ug/day
                                         A-6

-------
4.   Index  of  Human  Toxicity  Resulting  from Soil  Ingestion
     (Index 12)

     a.   Formula

                     (I  x BS x DS) + DI
                               ADI

                                              (SC x DS)  + DI
          Index 12
          Pure sludge ingestion:  Index  12  =


          where:

               II = Index  1  =  Index  of  soil  concentration
                    increment (unitless)
               SC = Sludge    concentration     of     pollutant
                    (Ug/g DW)
               BS = Background  concentration  of  pollutant  in
                    soil (ug/g DW)
               DS = Assumed  amount  of   soil   in   human  diet
                    (g/day)
               DI = Average daily  dietary intake of  pollutant
                    (Ug/day)
              ADI = Acceptable   daily   intake   of   pollutant
                    (Ug/day)

     b.   Sample calculation (toddler)

     0 47   (1.03 x 0.10 ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day) * 0.9 Ug/day
                          3 Ug/day

          Pure sludge:

          28 = (1.49 Ug/g DW x 5 g soil/day) + 0.9 Ug/day
                          3 ug/day

5.   Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (Index 13)

     a.   Formula


          Index 13 - I9 * I10 * In * 112

          where:

                 Ig = Index  9  =   Index  of   human   toxicity
                      resulting     from     plant    consumption
                      (unicless)
                IIQ = Index  10   =  Index  of   human   toxicity
                      resulting   from  consumption  of   animal-
                      products derived from animals feeding  on
                      plants (unicless)
                111 = Index  11   =  Index  of   human   toxicity
                      resulting   from  consumption  of   animal
                         A-7

-------
                               products derived  from animals  ingesting
                               soil  (unitless)
                             = Index  12  =   Index   of   human   toxicity
                               resulting from soil ingestion (unitless)
                          DI = Average   daily    dietary   intake    of
                               pollutant dig/day)
                         ADI = Acceptable  daily  intake   of   pollutant
                               (Vlg/day)
         b.   Sample calculation (toddler)

                                                  3 *
              3.7 = (0.30 * 0.32 * 3.5 + 0.47) - (


II. LANDFILLING

    A.  Procedure

         Using Equation  1,  several values  of C/C0 for  the  unsaturated
         zone  are  calculated corresponding  to  increasing  values of  t
         until equilibrium  is  reached.   Assuming a 5-year  pulse input
         from the landfill, Equation  3  is  employed  to  estimate  the con-
         centration   vs.   time   data  at   the  water   table.      The
         concentration vs. time curve  is  then transformed  into  a square
         pulse  having  a  constant  concentration  equal  to  the  peak
         concentration, Cu,  from  the  unsaturated zone,  and  a  duration,
         to,  chosen  so that  the  total  areas under the curve  and  the
         pulse are  equal, as  illustrated  in  Equation  3.    This square
         pulse is  then used  as  the  input  to the linkage  assessment,
         Equation 2, which estimates  initial  dilution  in the aquifer to
         give  the  initial  concentration,  C0, for  the saturated  zone
         assessment.   (Conditions  for  B,  thickness  of  unsaturated zone,
         have been set such  that  dilution  is  actually  negligible.)  The
         saturated  zone   assessment  procedure  is  nearly  identical  to
         that  for  the unsaturated zone  except  for  the definition  of
         certain parameters  and choice of parameter values.   The maxi-
         mum  concentration at  the well, Cmax, is used  to  calculate  the
         index values given in Equations 4 and 5.
        *              !
    B.  Equation 1:  Transport Assessment
     C(y.t) -i [exp(A!) erfc(A2) + exp^) erfc(B2)] = P(x»t>
      Co

         Requires  evaluations  of  four dimensionless  input values  and
         subsequent  evaluation  of  the  result.    Exp(A^)  denotes  the
         exponential   of   Aj,   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:
              A. - *_  [V*  - (V*2 +  AD* x  u
              Al   2D*
                                  A-8

-------
          V - t  (V*2 *  4D*  x
     A2 =        (4D* x  t)*
     Bl _ *__ [V*  +  (V*2 +  4D* x
      1   2D*
          y + t  (V*2 +  4D*  x
and where for the unsaturated zone:

     C0 = SC x CF = Initial leachate concentration  (yg/L)
     SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
     CP = 250 kg sludge solids/m3 leachate =

          PS x 103
          1 - PS

     PS = Percent  solids  (by  weight)  of  landfilled sludge  -
          20%
      t = Time (/ears)
     X  = h = Depth to groundwater (m)
     D* = a x V*  (m2/year)
      Ct = Dispersivity coefficient (m)

     V* = — 2 — (m/year)
          0 x R
      Q = Leachate generation rate (m/year)
      0 = Volumetric water content (unitless)

      R = 1 +  drv x KJ = Retardation factor (unitless)
                0
   ^dry = Dry bulk density (g/mL)
     K
-------
C.  Equation 2.  Linkage Assessment

          „  _ „          Q x W
          «o   "u - 365  [(K x  i)  t fl] x  B

     where:

          C0 = Initial concentration  of  pollutant in  the  saturated
               zone as determined by Equation 1 (ug/L)
          Cu = Maximum  pulse  concentration  from  the  unsaturated
               zone (ug/D
           Q = Leachate generation rate  (m/year)
           W = Width of landfill (m)
           K = Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer (m/day)
           i = Average hydraulic gradient between  landfill  and  well
               (unitless)
           0 = Aquifer porosity (unitless)
           B = Thickness of saturated zone  (m) where:

               B > 	 Q x W  x fl	    and  B  >  2
                 —    K  x  i x  365              —

D.  Equation 3.  Pulse Assessment

          C(x't) = P(X,C)  for  0  <  t  < t0
             co
                   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 Che following equation:

               t0 = [  Q/  °° C dt] t Cu

                        C( Y t )
               P(X,t) = — Jr — as determined by  Equation  1
                          co
E.   Equation  4.    Index  of  Ground water  Concentration    Increment
     Resulting  from Landfilled  Sludge (Index 1)

     1.   Formula

          T ,   ,     Cmax  * BC
          Index 1 =
          where:

               Cmax = Maximum concentration of  pollutant  at well  =
                      Maximum of C(A£,t)  calculated  in  Equation  1
                      (Ug/L)
                             A-10

-------
                     BC = Background   concentration  of   pollutant   in
                          groundwater  (yg/L)

         2.   Sample Calculation

              i ,n   0.0401  Ug/L  +  0.1 Ug/L
              l'40	o"l Ug/L	

    P.   Equation   5.     Index  of   Human  Toxicity   Resulting  from
         Groundwater Contamination  (Index 2)

         1.   Formula

                          [(I I - 1)  BC x AC]  +  PI
              Index 2 =


              where:

                   II = Index 1  =  Index  of  groundwater  concentration
                        increment resulting from landfilled sludge
                   BC = Background    concentration   of    pollutant    in
                        groundwater (ug/L)
                   AC = Average   human  consumption  of   drinking  water
                        (L/day)
                   DI = Average  daily human dietary intake  of  pollutant
                        (jig/day)
                   ADI = Acceptable  daily intake  of  pollutant (yg/day)

         2.   Sample  Calculation

              „  ...    f(1.40 - 1) x 0.1  ue/L  x  2 L/davl  + 5.0 ug/day
              °'254 = 	20
III. INCINERATION

     A.  Index of Air Concentration Increment Resulting  from Incinerator
         Emissions (Index 1)

         1.  Formula

             T _,   .    (C x PS x SC x FM x DP) * BA
             Index 1 = 	:-g7	


             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
                                  A-ll

-------
                 BA = Background  concentration  of  pollutant   in  urban
                      air (ug/m3)

         2.   Sample Calculation

              1.37 = [(2.78 x 10~7 hr/sec x g/mg x 2660 kg/hr DW x

                   1.49 mg/kg DW x 1 x 3.4 ug/m3) + 0.0010 ug/m3] t

                   0.0010 ug/m3

    B.  Index   of  Human   Toxicity   Resulting   from  Inhalation   of
        Incinerator Emissions (Index 2)

        1.  Formula

                      [(II - 1) x BA] + BA
            Index 2 = 	
                                EC

            where:

              II = Index 1 = Index of air concentration increment
                   resulting from incinerator emissions
                   (unitless)
              BA = Background concentration of pollutant in
                   urban air (ug/m3)
              EC = Exposure criterion (ug/m3)
        2.  Sample Calculation

                              .)  x  0.
                                     0.18  ug/m3
0 Q76 =  [(1.3-7 -  1)  x  0.010  ug/m3] + 0.0010 ug/m3
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL

    A.  Index of  Seawater Concentration  Resulting  from  Initial  Mixing
        of Sludge (Index 1)

        1.  Formula

            r j    i     SC x ST x PS     .
            Index 1. =	£	:	rr  + 1
                      W x D x L x CA

            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)
                CA =   Ambient water concentration of  pollutant (ug/L)
                                 A-12

-------
      2.   Sample Calculation

= 1.49 mg/kg DW x 1600000 kg WW x 0.04 kg DW/kg  WW  x  103  ue/me + l
           200 m x 20 m x 8000 m  x  0.005 Ug/L x 103  L/m3

 B.   Index of Seawater Concentration  Representing  a 24-Hour Dumping
      Cycle (Index 2)

      1 .   Formula

                        SS x SC       .
           T j   •>
           Index 2 =
                     V x D x L x CA

           where:

                SS = Daily sludge disposal rate (kg DW/day)
                SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (mg/kg DW)
                V  = Average current velocity at site (m/day)
                D  = Depth  to   pycnocline   or   effective   depth  of
                     mixing for shallow water site (m)
                L  = Length of tanker path (m)
                CA - Ambient water concentration of pollutant (lig/L)

      2.   Sample Calculation

      x 16      825000 kg DW/day x  1.49 mg/kg DW  x  1Q3  ug/mg    ^
              9500 m/day x 20 m x 8000 m x 0.005 ug/L x 103 L/m3

 C.   Index of Toxicity to Aquatic Life (Index 3)

      1.   Formula

                      1 2  x  CA
           IndSX 3 =    AWQC

           where:

             12 -  Index  2   =   Index   of   seawater   concentration
                   representing a 24-hour dumping cycle
           AWQC =  Criterion  expressed  as  an average  concentration
                   to  protect  the  marketability  of  edible  marine
                   organisms (ug/L)
             CA =  Ambient water concentration of pollutant (ug/L)

      2.   Sample Calculation

           n „ _ 1.16 Ug/L x 0.005 Ug/L
           °'2J "        0.025 Ug/L
                              A-13

-------
     D.    Index of  Human  Toxicity Resulting  from  Seafood  Consumption
          (Index 4)
          1.
Formula


Index 4
                          [(I 2-D x CF  x  FS  x QF]  + DI
                                        ADI
               where:

                    \2 ~  Index  2   =   Index   of   seawater   concentration
                          representing  a  24-hour  dumping  cycle
                    QF =  Dietary consumption  of  seafood  (g  WW/day)
                    FS =  Fraction  of  consumed  seafood originating  from
                          the disposal  site  (unitless)
                    CF =  Background   concentration   of   pollutant   in
                          seafood (ug/g)
                    DI =  Average   daily  human   dietary    intake   of
                          pollutant  (ug/day)
                    ADI = Acceptable daily intake of  pollutant  (ug/day)

          2.   Sample Calculation

       Kl.16 -1)  x 0.147 ug/g x 0.000021 x  14.3  g WW/day)  * 5.0 Ug/dav
""" "                     20 Ug/day
                                  A-14

-------
TABLE A-l.  INPUT DATA VARYING IN LANDFILL ANALYSIS AND RESULT FOR EACH CONDITION
Condition of Analysis
Input Data
Sludge concentration of pollutant, SC (|ig/g DU)
Unsaturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Dry bulk density, Pjry (g/mL)
Volumetric water content, B (unitless)
Soil sorption coefficient, Kj (mL/g)
Site parameters
i— Leachate generation rate, Q (in/year)
*"" Depth to groundwator, h (m)
Dispersivity coefficient, a (m)
Saturated zone
Soil type and characteristics
Aquifer porosity, 0 (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 (m)
1
1.49


1.925
0.133
580

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
2
5.84


1.925
0.133
580

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
3
1.49


1.53
0.195
322

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.001
100
10
4
1.49


NAD
NA
NA

1.6
0
NA


0.44
OJ. 86

0.001
100
10
5
1.49


1.925
0.133
580

0.8
5
0.5


0.389
4.04

0.001
100
10
6
1.49


1.925
0.133
322

0.8
5
0.5


0.44
0.86

0.02
50
5
7 8
5.84 Na


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)
Condi l ion of Analysis
Results
Unsaturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Initial leachate concentration, Co (pg/1.)
Peak concentration, Cu (|ig/L)
Pulse duration, t0 (years)
Linkage assessment (Equation 2)
Aquifer thickness, B (m)
Initial concentration in saturated zone, C0
(MB/U
Saturated zone assessment (Equations 1 and 3)
Maximum well concentration, Cma> (tig/D
Index of grounduater concentration increment
resulting from landfilled sludge,
Index I (unitless) (Equation 4)
Index of human toxicity resulting from
grounduater contamination, Index 2
(unitless) (Equation S)
1 2 3

373 1460 373
0.297 1.16 0.673
6270 6270 2770

126 126 126

0.297 1.16 0.673

0.0401 0.157 0.0405


1.40 2.57 1.41


0.254 0.266 0.254
4 S 6 7

373 373 373 1460
373 0.297 0.297 1460
5.00 6270 6270 5.00

253 23.8 6.32 2. 38

373 0.297 0.297 1460

0.0405 0.18S 0.297 33.8


1.41 2.85 3.97 339


0.254 0.269 0.280 3.63
8

N
M
N

N

N

N


0


0.250
BH  s Null condition, where no landfill  exists;  no value is used.
bHA = Not applicable for this condition.

-------